Bible Manuscripts and Translations

 

Dear Professor Walter Veith

I appreciate your conversion experience, your ministry that has led many souls to Christ and to His remnant Church. I like your talented speech, your irony, most important your creationist and health messages, your prophetic focus, and your conservative stance.

But you’re probably guessing that my sincere appreciation leads up to a like sincere critique. I am indeed concerned about your passion for unprovable conspiration theories. Speculations have their own charm, and even EGW allowed us to speculate within some limits.[1]  However, when the mind is educated to entertain evil suspicions, to have preference for conspiracy theories, suspecting that the adversaries must always have always perverse intentions in anything they do, such state of mind cannot honor the truth.

I would not treat here your funny explanations about the underground ties between Jesuits, Free-Masons, Communist etc. I would simply advise anyone to follow solid academic research on historical or present religious/political movements. True, many things must have an underground life, before surfacing and surprising the whole world. But we would never have reliable information about what really happens behind the scenes.

My special interest in contacting you is related to your public speech and writing about the Bible manuscripts. Unfortunately, the late Benjamin Wilkinson created and circulated an unsound theory regarding the NT manuscripts. He was indeed the first Adventist to obtain a PhD (from George Washington University, 1908), but there is no proof that he was trained in Biblical Greek, and the exact domain of his doctoral studies is not known. I would definitely say that any person who has not a thorough knowledge in Biblical languages (Greek in this case) and in textual criticism, has no authority to express which manuscript or translation is better, let alone to concoct theories about manuscripts. His ideas are based on ultraconservative sources of 19^th century (ex. John Burgon, Dean, etc.).

I know a lot of Adventist theologians, but none of them would quote Wilkinson as an authority. About 25 years ago I received a book with his theory from Hartland Institute, and I now understand that this is another bone of contention between the mainstream Adventism (with its academic authorities) and the various critical and centrifugal Adventist groups. Wilkinson was honored after death; one can visit the Hall that bears his name at Washington Adventist University. However, as a theologian, he had no significant contribution besides his controversial book that became very influent in the fundamentalist Christian milieu of the Bible Belt. The first SDA Bible Conference (1919) was largely a failure because Wilkinson lead the opposition, encouraging a literalist – fundamentalist position regarding the inspiration of the Bible and EGW writings.  

I am aware that the controversy about inspiration that was opened in 1919 is not yet quenched. This is especially because people judge such things rather emotionally than critically – based strictly on the evidence. Ellen White revealed some unbelievable things regarding the inspiration of the Bible, certainly applicable also to her writings:

The Bible is not given to us in grand superhuman language. Jesus, in order to reach man where he is, took humanity. The Bible must be given in the language of men. Everything that is human is imperfect. Different meanings are expressed by the same word; there is not one word for each distinct idea. The Bible was given for practical purposes. [….]

The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God’s mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God’s penmen, not His pen.

It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man’s words or his expressions, but on the man himself, who under the influence of the Holy Ghost is imbued with thoughts. But the words and thoughts receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the Word of God. {Ms24-1886}

Unfortunately, this testimony was not published until 1950+ when the compilation Selected Messages was made (see 1SM 21). The minutes of the 1919 Bible Conference have been accidentally discovered in the GC Archives in 1975. Thus, we are still under the sign of fundamentalism in interpreting both the Bible and EGW writings. I refer to this issue of prophetic inspiration, because we need a good background to discuss any aspects of manuscripts and translations. If the prophetic inspiration were so strong related to some word or expression, then God Himself should have preserved better His Scripture in all the manuscripts – not only in those who are supposed to be the true, or in a supposed standard version. “Everything that is human is imperfect,” even when we deal with inspired writings. The message only is inspired, because the human author was inspired, ”for practical purposes”, not for perfect language, logic or mode of thought.  The prophetic inspiration has a purpose. Beyond that purpose, it is limited or absent.

 Ellen White’s example of using post-KJV Versions

E. G. White used first the traditional KJV, which in that time contained also some of the Apocrypha (that sometimes her husband used). However, she later quoted also from ERV, ARV 1901 / ASV. The last two were revisions based on Westcott și Hort Alexandrian text of the NT. E G White gave her literary helpers specific instructions that, whenever they must quote the Bible, to use the Bible version that reflected best her idea. In Ministry of Healing  (1905) there are Biblical quotations from many versions. When she wrote about Biblical inspiration, she said nothing against the new Bible translations. Moreover, she was shown that the Bible manuscripts may have been altered:

Some look to us gravely and say, “Don’t you think there might have been some mistake in the copyist or in the translators?” This is all probable, and the mind that is so narrow that it will hesitate and stumble over this possibility or probability would be just as ready to stumble over the mysteries of the Inspired Word, because their feeble minds cannot see through the purposes of God. Yes, they would just as easily stumble over plain facts that the common mind will accept, and discern the Divine, and to which God’s utterance is plain and beautiful, full of marrow and fatness. All the mistakes will not cause trouble to one soul, or cause any feet to stumble, that would not manufacture difficulties from the plainest revealed truth. {1SM 16.2}

I saw that God had especially guarded the Bible; yet when copies of it were few, learned men had in some instances changed the words, thinking that they were making it more plain, when in reality they were mystifying that which was plain, by causing it to lean to their established views, which were governed by tradition. But I saw that the Word of God, as a whole, is a perfect chain, one portion linking into and explaining another. True seekers for truth need not err; for not only is the Word of God plain and simple in declaring the way of life, but the Holy Spirit is given as a guide in understanding the way to life therein revealed. {EW 220.2}

Interestingly, Ellen White does not claim that she was revealed specific cases of human alteration. This was not her job. It is left to the scholars skilled in textual criticism to find and solve such problems, as well as possible.

In 1930, 1931 and 1954, the General Conference issued statements encouraging Adventists to use the Bible translations they like, not blaming the new translations, that have been made after different manuscripts. There are good reasons to appreciate every version / manuscript.

 Your concern with the Alexandrian text

I have decades of experience in Bible translation, Bible exegesis and textual criticism. While my first expertise is in the Hebrew Bible, I also taught NT Greek for years in the Seminary. For decades I was involved in projects of Bible translation at the Romanian Bible Society and I still work for this Society.

I noted that you are quite suspicious about those manuscripts, translations, methods etc., that have any relationship with the official Church of the Middle Ages. However, the false churches participated in the preservation of the Bible copies and translations until the Reformation and even after that. The Eastern “Orthodox” Church of Constantinople was not less Roman and Catholic than the Western Church, and both these imperial, priestly and apostate churches have been used by God to preserve His word. There is no evidence that the true (anti-Catholic) Christians in the Middle Ages used different manuscripts of the Bible.

Your crucial question (“Which ancient manuscripts are the representation of God’s Word?”) is not the true question, since all manuscripts are equally the word of God, even though some of them may be better preserved than others. You repeated Ellen White’s affirmation (probably borrowed from somewhere) that “the Latin text contained many errors”, but neither she, nor you specify some of those errors. I agree that Bible translations have errors. This is what all Bible translators know. But from my experience with Catholic Bible translations, I would not say that they are much different from the Protestant Versions. Some of the best ones are preferred by both Catholics and Protestants alike. The classical Vulgate of Jerome (c. 400 AD) was quite a faithful translation, and it became standard in the West.      

You wrote that “The Jesuits were assigned to write the Roman counter Bible which became known as the Douay Version. The Douay was based on Jerome’s Vulgate and the Vaticanus manuscript.” This is not true. While de Douay-Rheims Version was intended to be a Catholic and Counter-Reformation tool, it was not written by Jesuits and has nothing to do with Codex Vaticanus. It was translated by Gregory Martin, a former colleague of William Tyndale from Oxford, with some editorial and theological support from the Catholic priests William Allen, Richard Bristow, and Thomas Worthington that were exiled English Catholics. The translation was realized based exclusively on the Vulgate.  

But no matter what versions or manuscripts the Catholic scholars preferred in the past, today the Catholic Bible scholars are among the best, and they use the same sources as the Protestants. Biblical scholars are much more in agreement among them, because professionally they are more related to the Bible, despite their different church loyalties.  

You frown at Codex Vaticanus, because it was written in the age of Constantine. Is this a sound position? Biblical copies had to be made in each century. Why must the age of Constantine be excepted? Was the medieval Church purer than that of the fourth century? Was the Byzantine Church less corrupt? Most theological controversies and heresies began in the East. The Church of the East was so reluctant to receive the Book of Revelation in the NT Canon and she is still reserved and distant from that book. In addition, Eastern mysticism is even more disgusting until today.

Your evidence

You say that Codex Vaticanus “omits” some parts of the Bible. The manuscript is incomplete. But let’s consider some “omissions”:

a.       Romans 16:24 is absent indeed in Vaticanus – and in Sinaiticus, which is commonly used as a basic manuscript. This is very significant and a good evidence of authenticity in this case, because a lot of final “Amens” in the NT books are clearly additions by later copyists. Therefore, they are missing in Sinaiticus etc., but are present in the Byzantine/Receptus Mss (Mt 28:20; Mk 16:20; Lk 24:53; Jn 21:25; 1Cor 16:24; 2Cor 13:14; Eph 6:24; Phil 4:23; 1Thess 5:28; 2Thess 3:18; 1Tim 6:21; 2Tim 4:22; 2Pet 3:18; 1Jn 5:21; 2Jn 1:13; 3Jn 1:14; Rev 22:21). No wonder that a whole greeting in Rom 16:24 proves to be a late pious addition. This is the most simple explanation. Otherwise, one would say that apostate editors of the fourth century, with evil intentions or by carelessness, would delete an innocent blessing and a lot of Amens – though not all of them! No scholar will accept such reasoning, and I hope, neither you.

 

Vaticanus, by itself, is not used as a basic manuscript, because it is incomplete. Therefore, critical editions of the Greek New Testament use Codex Sinaiticus as basis, enriched with a critical apparatus made up from witnesses or variants of all other manuscripts and papyri. But if Vaticanus is incomplete, this is not necessarily evidence of false. Vaticanus is the only Greek Mss containing a good indication for the best understanding of Lk 23:43. Compare the following:

See also Wilson Paroschi, “The Significance of a Comma: An Analysis of Luke 23:43”, Ministry, June 2013.  The orthography in Vaticanus is thus supported by the Curetonian Syriac manuscript, where the Oriental Church preserved the original meaning, by adding the particle də- “that”, after the word yawmanaˀ (today). I would like to add here, that the best translation of this text in a modern translation is in the French Version TOB (Traduction Oecuménique de la Bible):

It is helpful to use this information in your evangelistic crusades, if you check it out and agree.

Thus, in spite of the incompleteness and other defects of this codex (Vaticanus) it proves to be not only older, but also better in many cases. Let’s compare a few verses from the Alexandrian codices with Textus Receptus:

 

I feel that you simply do not understand how textual criticism works or what is the true role of a critical edition (Nestle-Aland). Yes, any Biblical Society is “ecumenical”, as it is not a private or confessional institution. Scholars of various denominations contribute with their scholarship. But you suggest that this kind of work is “ecumenism”. As a religio-political unity and theological negotiation, ecumenism is not acceptable, because it condemns “proselytizing” and thus it is hostile to confessionalism. But as a movement that fosters interdenominational dialogue and cooperation in the common interest (religious freedom, Bible translation and spreading etc.), ecumenism is very good.

You say that Nestle-Aland “is dynamic (ever changing) text as the ecumenical climate dictates.” I would say that it is dynamic, like our statement of faith (the 28 articles), and as everything that is human. We have no divine manuscript, so we use the best human (imperfect) manuscripts that we know. Therefore we remain open to new discoveries and better evidence. You can't do science and be dogmatic at the same time. All manuscripts that we own today have been preserved by the apostate church. There is no autograph manuscript of a “safe” period of the Church, or an Adventist-like perfect manuscript preserved.

A unitary Greek text is also what Erasmus intended, and this ideal unitary text is not a theological unity, but a scientific, philological agreement. If a church or an individual wants to have his/her own standard manuscripts/version, it is possible. Do it! Why did Ellen White or our pioneers not promote an original, specific, Adventist, perfect translation? Why should we blame the translations made by others, and at the same time refusing both “ecumenical” involvement in translation, and any confessional endeavor. Most of our pioneers were satisfied with the old KJV, “the only inspired version”. But most Adventists in present speak Spanish or other languages and use modern “not inspired” translations.   

Further issues  

In the Special Issue (Bible Versions: Does it Really Matter Which?) published in FAITH ON THE LINE, Fall 2009, vol 14, issue 3, by Amazing Discoveries, you quoted from EGW (FE 308.1):

“The great error of the Romish Church is found in the fact that the Bible is interpreted in the light of the opinions of the fathers. Their opinions are regarded as infallible [….].  But the word of God is not thus to be interpreted [….].The will and voice of finite man are not to be interpreted as the voice of God”

My underlines show that EGW referred to the Biblical interpretation, not to the textual criticism. To do textual criticism is not necessary to be a Christian or a Jew. This is similar to the scientific research, peer reviewed. 

You wrote:

It is unthinkable that God would have led the Reformation to unearth truth by supplying them with the very worst manuscripts (as modern critics view the Received Text). It is unthinkable that He should leave His people groping in darkness for close to 2000 years before providing the manuscripts that would prove that Rome was right all along and make her the harborer of truth.

Who said that the Received Text is “the worst”? Even when a modern scholar would make such appreciation, it is not a judgment on the theological/spiritual content of the Mss, but only a reference to its state of textual preservation. Using Codex Vaticanus and other Alexandrian type Mss is not a doctrinal movement back to Rome, but a reasonable way to use all the available manuscripts, not avoiding the oldest.

We should not forget that in spite of Rome’s evil conduct in the past, she preserved some important Christian doctrines. I know you are Trinitarian, but most of our pioneers were a kind of semi-Arians or Binitarians, who rejected the personality of the Holy Spirit, and caricaturized the three-unity of God as a pagan or Catholic absurdity (“three persons in one person”!?). Meantime the apostate Roman Church, and the whole Babylon, inherited a Trinitarian Creed for 16 centuries closer to the Bible. To this day most Christians, including Adventists treasure the Chalcedonian doctrine of the divine-human nature of Christ. But this doctrine was formulated by pope Leo I the Great (5^th cent.).  

Today we are in a specific day and month and year. While the reckoning is approximate, it reminds us of our Lord’s incarnation, and we all use this conventional time. However, it was a Catholic monk (Dionysius Exiguus of Scythia Minor / Romanian Dobrudja, by the Black Sea) who invented and proposed it to pope John I (525 AD) and was pope Gregory XIII who promulgated the calendar reform through the bull Inter gravissimas (feb 24, 1582). Rome (pagan or papal) was of so tremendous importance for the history of humanity, for better or for worse, that she cannot be ignored. And I want to say that the whole beastly empires of Daniel 7, including Rome and its horns, have done also some good things for the people of God. They were not completely evil. I mean that God used every historical power towards the fulfilling of His purpose. We cannot demonize everything that the official / historical Church has done.     

You referred to a statement of Ellen White, that the Church in the Wilderness had “the truth unadulterated”, and you understood that they had the best NT manuscripts. However, when EGW uses the expression “truth unadulterated”, she refers to “the truth unadulterated with human opinions” (1SM 186.1; 2SM 23.1), that is the Bible truth, unmixed with human insidious traditions. It is not about more or less accurate manuscripts:

The Waldenses were among the first of the peoples of Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures. (See Appendix.) Hundreds of years before the Reformation they possessed the Bible in manuscript in their native tongue. They had the truth unadulterated, and this rendered them the special objects of hatred and persecution. (GC 65.2)

 EGW does not speak of pure manuscripts, but of a Biblical translation, no matter how successful it was, or which was the source they have used for this translation. To follow the Bible (as imperfect in its words as it is) and not following a mixed religion (Bible + Tradition), means to have the truth unadulterated. At the same time, I want to emphasize that, according to William White,

“Mother has never claimed to be authority on history. The things which she has written out, are descriptions of flashlight pictures and other representations given her regarding the actions of men, and the influence of these actions upon the work of God for the salvation of men, with views of past, present, and future history in its relation to this work. In connection with the writing out of these views, she has made use of good and clear historical statements to help make plain to the reader the things which she is endeavoring to present. When I was a mere boy, I heard her read D’Aubigne’s History of The Reformation to my father. She read to him a large part, if not the whole, of the five volumes. She has read other histories of the reformation. This has helped her to locate and describe many of the events and the movements presented to her in vision. This is somewhat similar to the way in which the study of the Bible helps her to locate and describe the many figurative representations given to her regarding the development of the great controversy in our day between truth and error. {3SM 437.2}

“Mother has never laid claim to verbal inspiration, and I do not find that my father, or Elder Bates, Andrews, Smith, or Waggoner, put forth this claim. If there were verbal inspiration in writing her manuscripts, why should there be on her part the work of addition or adaptation? It is a fact that Mother often takes one of her manuscripts, and goes over it thoughtfully, making additions that develop the thought still further. {3SM 437.3}

Even the quotation above from the Great Controversy it is the result of an editorial change she made in 1911. The first edition (1888) had said that “The Waldenses were the first of all the peoples of Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures” (GC88 65.1), which is simply not true. She was advised to change it, which she did in 1911: “The Waldenses were among the first of…” She knew nothing about this issue, but the general insight given her through a vision, and basic information borrowed from historical authorities, of which she made no secret.

Waldenses had no other Bible source at their disposal besides the Latin text (a pre-Tridentine version of the Vulgate), from which they made a few translations in their vernacular languages (Occitan, Piemontese, Provensal) for New Testament and Psalms. Probably by their endeavors appeared in Europe some German translations before Luther. There is no trace of information that Waldenses preserved special manuscripts of the Bible. EGW refers only to manuscripts ( = copies) in their languages, not Greek Mss. The Protestant translations have been made first from the Vulgate, then from the Received Text prepared by Erasmus, as regards the NT. As the Renaissance awakened the interest in Hebrew, the Reformers may have used also some Hebrew knowledge. It is true that Rome was furious against the Reformation. But her enmity was not raised because of some special Mss that Protestants would have used. Rome fought bitterly to avoid the free reading of the Bible by the common people, and they claimed that the popular translations are full of errors (!), and therefore only the authorized version of the Church should be used. Greek Mss were no issue at that time. Remember that Luther discovered the Gospel of justification in the Catholic Bible of the monastery, under the spiritual counsel of Father Staupitz. Vulgate is not a cursed version. Each Bible version can lead one to God and salvation.

As regards the tension between literal translations or dynamic translations, I would say from experience that there is no true literal translation, because each language has its specific idiomatic expressions and a specific order of the terms, a specific syntax, and there are no perfectly equivalent terms. Each language has its own style, which is good in the original language, but sounds odd and distasteful if it is rendered “accurately” in translation. Those who want to feel the original feeling of the text, should rather learn Biblical languages as well as possible. But let Bible translators render the Biblical text in the most beautiful English / Romanian language, wholly preserving the thought. Translators should not translate mechanically word by word and then strive to understand what the text means; but they must first understand what the original text means and only then translate it into the target language, choosing the wording that suits best the original idea. The Bible must be first literary attractive to be read.   

I agree that cultural relevance should not be stressed too much. If the length of the Noah‘s ark is measured in cubits, do not transform it in feet/yards/meters etc. Moreover, if God is “He”, do not try to make Him “She”. If the ancient author was naturally a flat-earther, do not try to make him appear a Copernican. The cultural mind should remain the same in translation, though in a good literary language. Footnotes or exegetes will interpret the cultural language. In any case, this issue has nothing to do with Rome or the doctrine.

You wrote that if one “say that a direct (literal) translation is no longer understandable to modern readers… this is academic arrogance of the highest order”. But from my experience, I know that there are many sentences in the Bible that cannot be literally translated. Some of them have been “translated” somehow, just because they must be translated, but nobody knows for sure what they originally meant. As they literally sound, they are strange in context. The translator must give an account to the context, not just to translate words. Ideally the translator must first understand before render what God really said. To translate just a sequence of words that cannot be understood is not a professional job. The translator is not infallible, and infallibility does not belong to the text/words, language, rhetoric etc., but to the message (“for practical purposes”).

Textual criticism and emendations

To produce “eclectic texts” means to use all the possible manuscripts and versions for Bible translation, to be informed by all of them; and use them critically, not according to some external doctrine. The scholars who are experienced in textual criticism and are acquainted with various kinds of mistakes that copyists used to make, may sometimes resort to conjectures. For example, in Isaiah 62:5, we read:  

As a young man marries a young woman,
so your sons* will marry you.
As a bridegroom rejoices over a bride,
so your God will rejoice over you.

This is a faithful translation, according to the Masoretic (Hebrew Standard) Text. But the metaphor of sons marrying their mother is unnacceptable, even though it may take a symbolic significance. Therefore, NRSV, followed by NIV and NJB etc. translated “your Builder”, instead of ”your sons”, though they had no variant Mss to attest their idea. This is called conjectural emendation of the text. (I totally agree with emendations, even conjectural, wherever it is necessary).

I “guessed” the same solution 45 years ago, after just a few years of Hebrew Bible reading, though I knew nothing about textual criticism and modern translations. I just felt that this unusual and incestuous metaphor cannot be the correct reading. You know that the Hebrew text was originally written in a strictly consonant alphabet, and the vocalization was added by the Masoretes (the Hebrew scholars who standardized the Hebrew text between the 5th-9th centuries AD). They added vowel signs to the consonant signs בניך bnyk to read  בָּנָיִךְ bānáyiḵ (your sons). But I suspected that the author’s intention was to say בֹּנָיִךְ bōnáyiḵ (your Builder) not  בָּנָיִךְ bānáyiḵ (your sons). See the minor difference: one vowel  (o / a). The consonant skeleton, inherited from Isaiah is the same in both cases: bnyk. By this conjecture, the embarassing metaphor disappeared, and the verses became perfectly parallel in their poetic ideas. the emendation “your Builder” makes sense in this case, because the author addresses the City of Jerusalem whose restoration and rebuilding was predicted.   

If the textual critic decides that it is a mistake in the text, he must explain also how that mistake could happen. In this case, I note that the expressions like bānáyiḵ or bānéyḵa  (your sons) are used in the Hebrew Bible more than 50 times, while the expression bōnáyiḵ / bōnéyḵa (your builder) is found elsewhere in Ezek 27:4 only. However, even in Ezekiel, some ancient Hebrew translators misunderstood the text, so that the Septuagint at Ezek 27:4 has υἱοί σου (your sons)!  

You refer to George Burnside who suspected Westcott and Hort “of being closet Jesuits.” I am fed up with such suspicions that I met among critical SDA groups that use to call those differing from them in theological opinions, “infiltrated Jesuits”. This attitude is worse than having real Jesuits among us. I am also suspected to be a Jesuit. (Some years ago, I asked our Hope Media Center in Bucharest to invite and interview a Jesuit, so as our people have some idea how these monsters look today. I did not know any Jesuit, but through a Catholic friend professor, I have finally found the general of the Jesuits in Romania and invited him for a broadcasted interview at Speranța TV / Hope TV.  He gave me two of his books, I gave him the Desire of Ages and a Romanian issue of Signs of the Times, which he appreciated. For a time, I maintained contact with him, but when pious hate, distortion and criticism by some noisy and misguided ultraconservatives spread out online, on account of that TV broadcast, I was ashamed to contact him anymore).

I did not study the life of Westcott and Hort, but their research is now outdated. Works of Kittel, Nestle and Aland are basic today. But anyway, we do not make first special research to get information of the life or convictions of some person, before buying something from him/her, or before asking professional help. 35 years ago, an old Jewish surgeon, operated on my eye because a severe glaucoma. He used to date many young women, was an atheist, and even was swearing during the operation; but thereafter any physician who saw the traces of the successful operation appreciated it as an excellent, professional job. As I said, textual criticism is a technical / scientific discipline and if the people involved are unbelievers, their work is not necessarily or completely compromised, though certainly a faithful and skillful Christian is to be preferred.

Your arguments against NIV or other modern Bibles that you accuse of ecumenism sadden me. You explain the etymology of the word ecumenism (from oikoumene  = inhabited world, thus: international, worldwide) and then blame the international scope of NIV, saying that it has ecumenist agenda. Even our Church has international purposes (presence, mission, message, etc.) and I imagine that Amazing Discoveries has also worldwide ambitions.

Also, the fact that Theosophists referred to the Alexandrian text-type has no relevance as regards the real value of these early manuscripts. If the evil spirit said that he knew Jesus and Paul, we do not reject the Divine word of Jesus and Paul, just because of this unfortunate association (AA 19:15).    

Your examples of manuscript  perversion

1.       The text of 1Tim 3:16 in most translations has “He was manifest in the flesh,” according to the oldest Mss. The change from ὃς to θεὸς (or vice-versa?) was possibly accidental, because often in Mss the word θεὸς was written abbreviated: ΘΣ very similar to OΣ (Who / He). I cannot believe that the original form was ΘEOΣ / ΘΣ, since it is easier to understand why a scribe would make OΣ as ΘΣ, emphasizing a good doctrine that was increasingly promoted by the official Church, than to explain how ΘΣ (Theos) became simply OΣ (or O, according to other Mss). To suspect that one scribe wanted to get rid of the divinity of Christ is not plausible. In fact, there is no place in the Bible to affirm that “God was shown in the body”, though this idea appears in other forms. The Alexandrian reading does not necessarily ”open the way for Jesus to be just a created being” as you have written.

2.       As regards the text of 1Timothy 6:14-15 it has no problem of textual criticism. All manuscripts are alike (except usual and insignificant variations of spelling). The only problem is in translation, and it is strictly a matter of “anaphora resolution”, quite difficult to take, in the light of the Greek syntax and Pauline theology.

The main problem is to determine the subject of verb δείξει (”he will show”, ”make known”), that seems ambiguous. The subject is “The blessed and only Sovereign, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords”; but Who is He in this case? Is He “Our Lord Jesus Christ”, or is God the Father? While Jesus is usually called “the King of Kings and Lord of Lords”, the expression that He (Jesus) will show His (Jesus’) coming is quite unusual and less probable. On the other hand, if one understands that God will show / manifest the coming of Christ, then the title “The blessed and only Sovereign” appears in a similar style in the same epistle (1 Tim. 1:17 “...the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God”).

Additional arguments: verb δείξει (He will show) is active (not passive/reflexive) – and thus it requires a distinct active subject. In NT, usually the Father is the One who sends or reveals His Son. Moreover, the subsequent description of this Lord of Lords in the following verse (1Tim 6:16) is enlightening: “Who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.” Such words are usually applied to God the Father (Jn 1:18; 4:12; 6:46; 1Jn 4:12). Therefore, no wonder that many of the best translators and exegetes understand the subject to be God the Father (NIV, NJB), while others will leave the text ambiguous, or maybe implying the subject Jesus (NRSV, NET, TOB, CJB, ESV, SBY, NAB, NAS, NAU, NOY, RSV, etc. including DRA / Douay-Rheims 1899).

You said that “the title King of kings uniquely belongs to Christ in the New Testament” and that NIV purposefully added twice the word God, to deprive Christ of His honor. But NIV was translated by Evangelical Conservative scholars, who are jealous of the full deity of Christ. It could not be their intention to lower the glory of Christ. I agree that the same titles could be borne by Christ (E.g. in Revelation, the Almighty God, The Beginning and the End, The First and the Last One, may be the Father 4:8; 21:6 or His Christ: 1:8, cf. 22:12-13; 19:6-7).  

3.       As regards 1 John 3:13 the expression “who is in heaven” is deleted, as you said, on the basis of a few witnesses (P66, P75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and eight further manuscripts). Few but so relevant. You are inclined toward the majority of witnesses, but imagine the following case: a traffic accident takes place on a freeway, and short time after that 2-3 witnesses stop. Tens or hundreds pass by or stop there after an hour. Which witnesses will be more relevant for the police? A majority? In the case of Bible manuscripts, we have no real witness (autograph manuscript, or contemporary copy), but the age is one of the most important criteria. I know, it is not the only criterion, and sometimes we can suppose that a late manuscript inherited some very early form whose old witnesses are lost. But such hypothetic cases are very infrequent.  Anyway, the expression “who is in heaven” in John 3:13 is a theological nonsense. Jesus simply told Nicodemus about Himself, the Son of Man, who was then on earth. How could He say that He was in heaven? How many times did He teach such thing, and what would He say by this unusual specification? Alternatively, if we interpret the expression as a late, pious interpolation, or more probably, a marginal note that accidentally slipped into the text, we can solve the problem. As an additional note, it is relevant. The person who wrote it knew that the Son of Man, at any time after His ascension “is in Heaven”. And it sounded good to him, as a wordplay about the “Son” and “heaven”. Naturally, late manuscripts are more numerous, but I would give priority to the oldest, and to the clarity of expression.     

4.       Regarding John 1:18, you say that the expression μονογενὴς θεὸς that you translated “only-begotten God” makes nonsense of the entire verse. First, μονογενὴς does not necessarily mean “only-begotten”, but “unique”, “one and only”, though usually it is used about a son or daughter. Now, if this expression exalts Christ as God, why do you interpret this to be “traced to early Gnostic attempts to create a discrepancy between the Logos of John 1:1 and the Son”. You will always have a heresy to suspect, whenever some aspect of Christ is emphasized in a text. In 1Tim 6:14-15 you suspect that translators would avoid the full deity of Christ, but here you suspect them of the opposite.

This is your main problem, I feel, you trust to much in your suspicions. PBible translators may make mistakes, but it is not necessary to suspect them of some perverse or biased agenda. The theological connection between Son and Logos is already made forever in John 1:14. Thus, the old copyists should not be blamed of evil intentions. Rather a visual scribal error can explain the difference between Mss in this case: the Greek words ΘΕΟΣ / ΥIΟΣ are quite similar in writing, usually in abbreviated form in Mss ( ΘC / YC ) and also in pronunciation (thea-OSS / huy-OSS). John loved paradoxical language. He wrote that “the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God” (v 1). Then he says that all believers are sons of God (v 13), but there is One, the Son by excellence, as an only-begotten (v 14). Saying that the One how is in the bosom of the Father (or at the Father’s side) is God, is a repetition of the great truth in the first verses. See Isaiah 9:6, where Christ is both our child and the Mighty God – a Son given to us, and the Eternal Father.  

5.       As regards Matt 1:18, you blame the “Gnostic writers who have changed just one letter in the Greek to make Christ a created being, whose origin started at his birth.” Probably you refer to the spelling variant γένεσις / γέννεσις. To clarify this issue, please check the following evidence:

a.       The Greek terms γένεσις (génesis), γέννεσις (génnesis) and γενετή (génetē) are synonyms, with the meaning birth. But like synonyms in general, they are not used always interchangeably:

● γένεσις (génesis) is used 7 times in NT (Matt. 1:1, 18) with the sense of birth (Matt 1:1 extended birth record; Matt 1:18 birth; Matt 14:6 birthday; Mk 6:21 birthday; Lk 1:14 birth), or nature,[4] what is owned from birth (Jas 1:23; 3:6). This term is also used in the LXX with meaning birth (Gen 40:20; Ex 28:10; Ruth 2:11; Ecc 7:1; Hos 2:3; Ezek 4:14; 16:3-4).

● γενετή (génetē) is used just once in NT (John 9:1, “blind from birth”).

● γέννεσις (génnesis), your favorite term in this case, is not used at all in the Greek Bible (LXX, Greek NT), except a few late manuscripts of Matt 1:18, and in the Byzantine manuscripts of Lk 1:14. It means birth, in a technical sense, as a physiological and medical process. It is rare in the Koine Greek,  but it appears twice in Modern Greek Bible / Katharevousa (Ezek 16:4; Lk 1:14).   

b.      It is true that γένεσις (génesis) is used sometimes in a figurative or derived meaning (origins, genealogy, lineage; existence, life). When γένεσις (génesis) refers to genealogy, it usually translates the Hebrew term tolədot (lit. births: generations, history, family saga). The context clarifies the exact meaning of the term, and in Matt 1:18, the context is about the miraculous conception and birth of Jesus, mentioning His virgin mother, His legal father and His divine Originator, Generator (the Holy Spirit).

c.       The use of γέννεσις (génnesis) in some Byzantine Mss in Matt 1:18 may reflect a late lexical update, by analogy with verb γεννάω (give birth).   

6.       In Mark 1:1 most, including some early mss, contain a plus (υἱοῦ θεοῦ Son of God). It is easier to explain it as a late enriching of the text, to emphasize some doctrinal, Biblical truth, than to suppose that the original text that would have contained the specification “Son of God” was removed by some heterodox editor. The title “Son of God” (cf Ps 2) is virtually synonymous of the title “Christ”. If some evil editor tried to obliterate the title Son of God, they would have completely removed the title from the Gospel of Mark (Mark 3:11; 15:39) or even from all other 31 occurrences in NT, including similar expressions (My Son, Your Son, His Son, Son of the Most High etc.).

The critical edition Nestle-Aland (28) recommends the preservation of the title [υἱοῦ θεοῦ] in square parenthesis. Some critics explain that this title may have been originally in place, but it would have been skipped accidentally, since the words Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ θεοῦ were usually abbreviated as ιυ χυ υυ θυ, all ended in υ. I see no problem with the presence or the absence with this title. The shorter version of Mark is to me more probably original, but theologically there is nothing at stake in this case.   

7.       In Acts 8:37, the case resembles to the additional ending of the Lord’s Prayer in Matt 6:13b. It is easier to explain and more probable that the longer forms are additional (especially when they are found exclusively in later mss), than to suppose some conspiration always prone to take out, and never to add in. Most manuscript additions are either explanations, specifications or pious inflations, not necessarily evidence of religious conspiracy. Reading continually verses 36 and 38 and skipping 37, you understand that the passage makes perfect sense. Verse 37 is evidence of the known baptismal practice of the old Church. Verse 37 is also missing even in the Byzantine manuscripts and the Vulgate. It is not fair to accuse scribes of the evil intention to remove the idea that Jesus was the Son of God. The same scribes wrote carefully in all mass of Act 9:26 that ”Jesus is the Son of God”.

8.       In John 6:69, the most and the earliest mss say “You are the Holy One of God”, while the later mss are inflated (“the Christ, the Holy One of God”), or divergent (“the Christ, the Son of the Living God”). All are paraphrases of the same truth, that Jesus of Nazareth was the true Messiah (The Anointed One / The Christ), that was also called the Son of God, or the Holy One of God (Mark 1:24; Lk 4:34). This last title, quite infrequent, is also Messianic, since Messiah is called Most Holy / The Holiest One in Dan 9:24g (cf. LXX, Vulgate, TOB, NEG, IEP, CAB, R95, VDC etc.).[5] It is obvious, that the later scribes have been influenced by the better-known statement of Peter in Mt 16:16. The variant “The Holy One of God” is less usual, so that it has the best chances to be original.

Again, here is no proof of bending the text with evil intention. And the statistics has no power against the earliness of a manuscript. When we judge people or facts, we should not “side with the majority so as to pervert justice” (Ex 23:2).

9.       In John 9:35 the oldest Mss have “the Son of Man”, and most mss, which are naturally later, have “the Son of God”. However, the title “Son of Man” was the usual reference of Jesus to Himself (92 times), while the title “Son of God” He seldom used it or suggested it (John 3:18; 5:25; 10:35-36; 11:4), though He was finally charged with this very guilt (John 19:7), after answering the Great Sanhedrin, under oath (Mt 26:63; Lk 22:70).

The title “Son of God” was used by the Jews and even Samaritans as synonymous to the title Messiah / The Christ (John 11:27, cf. Ps 2:6-7; 1Ch 17:13). Jesus avoided to be publicly called Christ or to encourage Messianic (political) rumors (Mt 16:20; Mark 1:34; 8:29-30; 9:9: Lk 4:41; 9:21). When Nathanael, as a Jew recognized Jesus to be the Son of God (= Messiah), Jesus did not reject the title, but He answered calling Himself “the Son of Man” (John 1:49, 51). Now in John 9:35 I think the earliest variant (Son of Man) is the most probably original, because when He spoke these words to the former blind, Jesus was not alone with the man but surrounded by Pharisees (John 9:40-41). And certainly, they would have been scandalized, if Jesus had used the Messianic title “Son of God”. But in their opposition, the Pharisees did not refer to that title.

As regards the textual problem of verse 38, if the man worshipped Christ, as most mss say, or if this is a later addition, like a few early mss suggest, is difficult to decide. But it is more difficult to admit that it was a purposeful removal of the idea of worshipping Christ. Why those early editors made no attempt to remove the idea from the Gospels of Mathew and Mark (Matt 2:11; 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 28:9, 17; Mark 5:6)? Luke and John do not refer to people worshipping Christ. Is this the only case in the Gospel of John, while Thomas, who recognized Him as his Lord and God, did not worship Him (John 20:28)?

10.   In Rev 1:8, most probably Jesus is speaking, since the context is about Him (cf. vv 7 and 11, and 22:12-13). But this is a matter of exegesis, not a simple translation. It is easier to err in this case, because v. 4 and 21:5-6 use this language about God the Father. Many mss in 1:8, including the oldest, lack the words “the beginning and the end”, that explain the title “Alpha and Omega”. Also the statement “I am Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last” was added to some late mss of v. 11, repeating the truth of v 8. But again, the unembellished versions are more probable to be original. No other explanation would be satisfactory in this case. The same scribes did not touch other occurrences of the same wording. Such additions, specifications just repeat some Biblical truth, to clarify the text, or to emphasize an idea. However, the words “says the Lord God (λέγει κύριος ὁ θεός)” in v. 8 are present in all mss and translations. I cannot understand why the KJV translators omitted the word “God” in this case  (at least in my digital version of KJV). Shall we suspect a KJV conspiration against the deity of Christ?    

11.   In John 7:8 there is not necessary to repeat the negation οὔπω (not yet), nor to suppose that the copyists of the early mss intended to diminish the character of Jesus. Even if that “yet” would be missing completely, the promise of Jesus can be understood like any other promise, to be conditional on His Father’s supreme will. Compare with John 2:4, where the hour of doing miracles had not yet come (!?). How do you explain the fact that after a few minutes it has come? Jesus was surely God in His divine nature, just like His Father. However, by incarnation He took not only human flesh, but also human consciousness, and lived His earthly life as a human mind in human flesh (Matt 24:36; Mark 13:32; Lk 2:40), not as a divine mind in human body. EGW says that God used to reveal His daily plans to Jesus, but probably not as a fixed agenda. Thus God could let Jesus occasions to face various surprises and manifest His continual faith.

12.   In 1 Cor 12:3, the early (Alexandrian) mss use the expressions Ἀνάθεμα Ἰησοῦς and Κύριος Ἰησοῦς in the Nominative case (as statements), while the late mss changed them into Accusative (as invocations): Ἀνάθεμα Ἰησοῦν and Κύριον Ἰησοῦν. However, in both cases, they are conditional, negated by the term οὐδεὶς (”no one”) so that the only difference is in literary style, caused by diachronic linguistic changes. The preference for the Accusative form over the Nominative one in such expressions developed in time, so that today, in the Modern Greek version (MGK) the expressions are in Accusative. This difference is to be explained by any language tendency to change throughout centuries. But you have seen in this case “a diabolic perversion” in the earliest mss (!).

13.   Turning again to 1 Tim 3:16 (which I discussed at page 10, § 1), I noted that you blame the Alexandrian scribes for the ”Gnostic” doctrine of the prelapsarian human nature of Christ. And you equate it with the Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception (of Mary and Jesus), and possibly with the SDA understanding of the sinless human nature of Christ between the years 1844-1888 and also after 1957 to this day. I met this opinion in the writings of Ron Spear, Ralph Larson, Collin and Russel Standish etc.

I also agree with the doctrine of Waggoner on this point, such as it was confirmed by EGW and the SDA theology between 1888-1957, and even by some officials of our Church (Robert Pierson, Herb Douglas, Jean Zurcher etc.). However the theological nuance, which I now believe, was never an official belief, voted in the GC session. I cannot blame anyone who understands it differently. There are many Adventist and non-Adventist believers or theologians who take the Protestant Orthodox attitude in this case, using also Biblical arguments. But whether one believes in the prelapsarian or the postlapsarian human nature of Christ, some questions remain unanswered.

We have no reason to blame the Alexandrian scribes for this. The form ΟС (hos = that which), different from the later form ΘC (Theos = God) is found in Codex Sinaiticus (א*) – 4^th cent.; Codex Alexandrinus (A) – 5^th cent.; Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) – 5^th cent.; Codex 33 –9^th cent. (appreciated for its quality); 1739 (10^th cent., in Egypt or a Greek monastery), 945 (11^th cent.). Thus, the Alexandrian early type was preserved also in medieval mss. The Mss with the ΘC (Theos = God) lecture are multiple, but late: Codex Porphyrianus (P) – 9^th cent; the majority of the Byzantine mss of the 9^th – 16^th cent. Some mss, such as Codex Claromontanus (D) has neither OC (that which), nor ΘC (God), but simply O (ho = that) a neuter relative pronoun, an anaphoric reference to the noun τὸ ... μυστήριον (mystery). In this case, the expression “the mystery of our religion” is a poetical reference to Christ, the revealed Mystery of God (Eph 3:4; Col 1:27; 2:2; 4:3).

This simplest version O may have been the original form; then it was altered into OC. to emphasize that that mystery is actually a Person; then in times of growing Orthodox emphasis or even by accident, OC was corrected into ΘC to specify that “the one who was manifested in flesh” was God. To reason vice versa means to suppose that in a strong Orthodox milieu, the earliest witness deliberately altered the text and destroyed most of the theologically correct mss. Otherwise it is no way to explain why no early ΘC manuscript exists.

14.   In 1 John 4: 3 a similar problem occurs. The late Byzantine mss have additions. In 1Jn 4:3, after Jesus, the late mss read: χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα (“Christ in the flesh is come”). However, the same supposedly perverse Alexandrian scribes / editors preserved exactly the same clause (Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα) in the preceding verse (1Jn 4:2), as in other places (Rom 8:3; 2Jn 1:7).

15.   In Acts 2:30, the late / Byzantine mss. add κατὰ σάρκα ἀναστήσειν τὸν χριστόν (“according to the flesh, He would raise up Christ”). It is much easier to explain this as a late (Orthodox) inflation of the text, than supposing that an originally “full” form was so early and deliberately and untraceably vitiated.      

16.   As regards Heb 2:16 there is no textual critical problem. Once we understand the repeated verb (predicate) ἐπιλαμβάνεται (indicative, present, middle, 3^rd person, to be found in any Greek lexicon in the first person: ἐπιλαμβάνομαι), lit. taking a firm hold, often with the hand: grasp, seize (Heb  8:9), catch, lay hold of, get, obtain, gain, take hold cf. Lk 23:26. Figuratively, this verb means: be concerned with, help, succor take hold of (1Tim 6:12), attempt, take an interest in, take up, undertake, overtake, attain to. The Greek lexicons indicate that in Heb 2:16 is a special meaning, like in the Greek translation of the apocryphon of Sira 4:11 (“Wisdom …gives help…”)[6], and that this meaning comes “from a metaphor drawn from laying hold of another to rescue him from peril, to help, to succor (cf. German sich eines annehmen).” After a normal linguistic grammatical and semantic analysis, the most probable meaning of the text is, “For of course, not in help of angels He steps in, but He steps in help of the seed of Abraham.” The literal meaning is however: “For of course, not angels He takes hold, but the seed of Abraham He takes hold.” The reference to the “seed of Abraham” and the verb “take hold / help” are reminiscent from Isaiah 41:8-9 (“... the seed of Abraham My friend; thou whom I have taken hold of from the ends of the earth”, JPS / Jewish Publication Society).[7] The best translations understand it this way:

NRS  “For it is clear that he did not come to help angels, but the descendants of Abraham.”
NIV  “For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants.”
NET  “For surely his concern is not for angels, but he is concerned for Abraham's descendants.”
TOB  “Car ce n'est pas à des anges qu'il vient en aide, mais c'est à la descendance d'Abraham.”

I also thought that this verse must refer directly and explicitly to the human nature that Jesus took hold by incarnation. And I began to study this verse to assure myself you are right, in this case at least. However, I am now convinced that the text is well translated. The old KJV translators rendered this text as it follows: “For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.” As we can see, the idea of the “nature” is an editorial addition by the KJV translators. It is not wrong, but strict linguistically speaking is not the best idea.

On the other hand, the common translations that I mentioned and others alike, using the metaphor of “stepping in to help” refers not only to the idea of taking the nature of His ”children” (flesh and blood), but also to His powerful help: to destroy the deadly accuser by His death (verse 14), and to deliver all those who were held in slavery for life, by their fear of death (verse 15). Thus it is not about Jesus not helping angels in general (your example of Daniel 10 proves that He helps His angels too), but here speaks about a special help, regarding the slavery of sin, hostage to Satan, fear of death.   

17.   As regards the expression “brothers and sisters” in NIV Heb 2:17, I see no problem, but a cultural specification. Biblical languages use often terms like men, sons, fathers, brothers etc., as generic masculine, including the females.  However, in modern English, this language sounds exclusivist. One must not be necessarily “feminist”, to update such language to a more inclusive speech. I am not a militant feminist, so in Bible translations I may not be politically correct. But in writing an article or a letter, it is usually necessary to update language.  

18.   As regards 1 Cor 15:47 you reason that the omission of the title “the Lord” in NIV “is once again in line with Gnostic thinking, as it was unthinkable to them that God would condescend to become one of us.” But NIV is a strongly Evangelical version, it cannot ever have any sympathy for Gnosticism. The only reason that they dropped the title “the Lord” extant in KJV, is the simple cat that the early mss do not contain “the Lord” in this case. This has no special significance beyond the fidelity to the best Biblical mss. The best mss are not the fattest. Inflation comes with time. Moreover, the title “the Lord” added later is a title of Jesus as Sovereign, and in tis case does not suggest His divinity, like in some few instances, where “the Lord” Jesus Christ is equated with Yahwé (the Sacred Name, usually replaced by “the Lord”). The deity of Christ is clearly shown in many Biblical lines, but not in each case where an author speaks of Jesus. In this case, Paul speaks of Christ the Man.

Now I will stop at this point, because the letter took more time than I supposed. If you think it was useful for you, and you are interested in the other issues, I will try to find another time someday.

God bless your mission and family,

Florin Lăiu   

---

NOTES

[1] ”God has permitted a flood of light to be poured upon the world, in both science and art; but when professedly scientific men treat upon these subjects from a merely human point of view, they will assuredly come to wrong conclusions. It may be innocent to speculate beyond what God’s word has revealed, if our theories do not contradict facts found in the Scriptures….”. {CE 193.2}

[2] Actually the text breaks the words irregularly, along the margines of the column:

[4] Nature comes from Latin natura (nature), natus, gnatus (born), related to nativity.  

[5] I have a special study on Daniel 9:24-27. If you are interested, just let me know.

[6] The complete Greek verse is: ἡ σοφία υἱοὺς αὐτῆς ἀνύψωσεν καὶ ἐπιλαμβάνεται τῶν ζητοῦντων αὐτήν (Wisdom exalts her sons and helps those who seek for her). The Lexicon of Danker (2570) gives the following information about this verb: ἐπιλαμβάνω [ἐπί, λαμβάνω; ‘take/get besides, receive’] in NT only in middle voice [ἐπιλαμβάνομαι]  – 1. take / lay hold of – a. with intention of helping Mt 14:31; Mk 8:23; Lk 9:47; Hb 8:9. Cp. Hb 2:16 (because of the fear of death vs. 15, Abraham’s seed requires assistance). – b. with intention of using for a specific purpose Lk 23:26; Ac 9:27; 17:19; 23:19. – c. with intention of making one’s own: in imagery, of eternal life 1 Ti 6:12; sim. vs. 19. – 2. ‘take hold forcefully’, catch, Lk 20:20, 26; seize Ac 16:19; 21:30; arrest 21:33. 

[7] The Hebrew text uses here the verb  הֶחֱזַקְתִּיךָ heḫezaq-tí-ḵa (I have taken hold of you), which is translated in Greek (Septuagint), by the verb ἀντιλαμβάνομαι (a). help, take the part of, come to the aid of cf. Acts 20:35; related to ἐπιλαμβάνομαι (just the prefixed preposition is different, like overtake, undertake, but they are sometimes synonyms).