The eclectic choices of accepted readings being the word of God.

The eclectic choices of accepted readings being the word of God is a real problem.

1 Corinthians 1:10, ". . . Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. . . ."

Question, what methodology or methodologies can most of us, if not all of us, agree on? There should be, I think, a common ground for all believers. Not merely some majority.

 

In the time when copies of Scripture had to be done by hand, each manuscript had small differences.
Whole communities of believers used these Scriptures over millennia.
The variants (and/or translational differences) did not effect the message God revealed to them.

There really wasn’t a problem in the community until the advent of the printing press. That was when a certain text became fixed/standardized and this “problem” came to be an issue.

The truth is that no matter what reading of Scripture one uses, the message of salvation still shines brightly. The transmission God’s word has been preserved throughout the generations.

All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man or woman of God may be fully capable, equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 NASB
​

Rob

 

That the science of textual criticism should recover the Original Text. The problem is our very first Printed Greek New Testaments up until even now are eclectic. The more eclectic, the more error seems to be. The more choices seem to be the wrong ones. The less eclectic, the more accurate. I believe the Majority Text, or Byzantine Text has existed from the 1st century AD up until now. Stick with the Greek Manuscripts themselves. Yes Language's and Early Church Fathers are important, but they certainly did not have perfect New Testaments either.

I believe the Majority/Byzantine Text is the most accurate.
The Textus Receptus would be the next most accurate, but eclecticism introduced some errors.
Then the Nestle/Aland Critical Texts. They are less accurate because of eclecticism.

 

All readings do to variants are not equal. In general there are two types. Accidental. And intentional.

There is an original reading and a said variant. The original is God's word. The caused variant is not God:s word.

Today we see two readings. The disagreement is which reading is the original.

There are specifics. As a result do to disagreement we have eclectic readings.

 

How would we identify the original text?
Those “beliefs” are preconceptional biases.

The best we can do is eliminate the obvious textual variations
and then identify and list the variants.

Rob

 

But they don't have to be.

Sounds correct. Eliminate the obvious ones will show how the errors were made. It will also show which manuscripts were more carefully copied, and which were not.

 

By the way, IMO using 1 Corinthians 1:10 in the context of textual variation is an abuse of the text.

Rob

 

We disagree. So if your understanding here is correct then mine is wrong.

So how am I abusing the instructions, ". . . that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment. . . ."?

 

Thankfully, there is no variation at 1 Corinthians 1:10.

 

@Conan
What do you understand about Family 35 Greek Text. It is intended to be the restored New Testament Text.

The differences between F35 and the Byzantine text (MT).

 

I have never compared them. Thank you for the list. My assumption is they are quite close. A quick look at your provided list seems to confirm it? Is that accurate?

 

They are, over all, close. 1 Peter 2:2 " into salvation" is generally considered a CT reading and omitted by what is called the Majority Text and the TR. It has been believed 80% mss of 1 Peter omits it. Where in fact only 35% omit and 65% have the reading.

https://www.prunch.com.br/wp-conten...ment-According-to-Family-35-Third-Edition.pdf

 

Thanks!

 

What is commonly accepted as God's written word is effectively eclectic because of the English translation as individuals we choose to use. And when it comes to a variant reading we disagree on, what the individual believes is taken as the very word and what other reading is to be wrong.

 

I often feel like I need a translator to decipher the meaning of your posts.
This is my translation of your post: let me know if I understood you correctly.

'Most people use translations derived from the Critical (Greek) Text which is an eclectic text.
When it comes to choosing a particular variant reading, there is only one correct choice.' ​

Definitions:

1. ECLECTIC : composed of elements drawn from various sources
2. CRITICAL TEXT : "Being a critical edition of the Greek New Testament, the Nestle-Aland provides an eclectic text reconstructed from the tradition by means of a combination of external and internal criteria. The internal criteria are based on the intrinsic coherence of the text, its grammatical structure and its stylistic, linguistic and theological features. These cannot be applied without giving full weight to exegetical insights and studies. The external criteria are related to the quality and reliability of the witnesses supporting a variant. They are derived from the text-historical place and the transcriptional character of single witnesses and groups of witnesses." Kurt Aland et al., Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th Edition. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012), 54.​

Rob

 

If we were all using an English translation without variant readings between them, it need not be eclectic at all. Even if the agree upon errors were all corrected and we had just two versions of our text, and readers were just divided between those two, both readings being used, again a much simpler, eclectic text. Unless it was mixture of the two sets, again being different versions.

The bottom line, two contrary readings cannot both be the original reading. The identify of God's word on some matter, essential or not, is at issue.

 

It is not a simple all or nothing. Each variant is a case by case.

 

That is the one thing everyone agrees on I think. As long as we don't create a text that never existed.

 

But apparently that's what had been done.
1 John 5:7 is a well known issue.

 

One of the many tasks a translator has to do in order to make a translation is:
(1) choose the text they are going to translate
(2) identity the variants
and (3) choose the variant they believe is correct.

Most of the modern translations today identify major variants with a footnote and provide alternative text (NKJV, NIV, NASV, ESV are a few, off the top of my head).

Translators have been choosing their variants since the very beginning of Bible translations; even the KJV translators performed this task. They chose their text from a limited number of Greek and Latin texts (and other sources) that were available at that time. So in every sense, translations are eclectic texts.

Most variants do not effect the meaning of a passage or any major doctrine, so whether a translator chooses one or another variant, God’s communication to mankind is preserved.

Arguing about variants being “God’s word” in the “original reading” is fruitless.
There will always be some uncertainty.
Identifying the possibilities and providing ‘best guesses’ is what the Nestle-Aland Critical Text is all about.

Rob