Stephen Altrogge: If All The Bible Translations Had A Dinner Party

Note:  This conversation comes from this post by Stephen Altrogge on the Blazing Center blog, and I came across it here.

English Standard Version (ESV): Hey everybody, can I have your attention? Great, thanks. Look, I’m so glad that you’re all here for this reunion of sorts. It sure is great to have all of us translations together in one…

New International Version (NIV): Since when did you become the big cheese who gets to tell us what to do? Look, I know you’re the new kid on the block, and that a bunch of pastors are all like, “Rah, rah, ESV, our study Bible can beat up your study Bible.” But just because you’re new and polished doesn’t mean you’re better. Some of us have been around for a long time and have seen a lot of things.

King James Version (KJV): Hear, hear! Thou young Bibles have no sense of tradition or languages. Thou goest hither and yon, getting makeovers every three years.  NIV, in the last ten years thou hast gotten plastic surgery and thou hast begun dressing like a metrosexual. Thou hast lost thy manhood! I haven’t changed one jot or tittle in over 400 years! [Takes small sip of merlot from a goblet marked “Ebenezer”].

NIV: I am not dressing like a metrosexual! These are skinny jeans. They’re supposed to look…skinny. And in terms of my manhood, let me make something…

The Message (MSG): Dudes, why does Old Man James always talk like that? [Slurps on Redbull]. I mean, like, what’s the difference between “Thee” and “Thou”? And what are jots and tittles? Are they like “Mike & Ike’s”? Honestly, I feel like I’m talking to someone who speaks Mexican. Whatev’s. I totes don’t get it.

ESV: Okay, okay, listen. Yes, I have been getting a lot of attention lately, and I did have a snazzy marketing campaign, but that doesn’t mean I’m bet…

MSG: Dude, can you talk a little quieter. My son, The Message Remix, is competing in the X-Games, and I’m trying to watch on my phone. He’s totes shredding the half-pipe.

Amplified Bible (AMP) [nervously rubbing hands together, perspiration forming on mustache]: I just want to say that I’m really grateful, excited, thrilled, jazzed, stoked to be here. I talk a lot, say a lot of words, run my mouth when I get nervous, anxious, stressed, worried, so please ignore, deny, pay no attention to me. Did I say too much?

KJV [speaking very loudly]: Translations these days have no sense of history, no sense of tradition. I wast commissioned by King James himself. I am practically royalty. Back in my day, there was no New Living Message Voice Remix. There were no glow in the dark covers or Bible XTremes. There was only the king’s English, and we liked it that way. Message, who doth commissioned you? Was it a President or Prime Minister?

MSG: Uhh, a guy name Eugene. He’s from Montana, I think. Wears Birkenstocks. Totes awesome dude.

Scofield Reference Bible (SRB): Guys, I know that, technically, I’m not a translation, so I really appreciate you letting me be here. Gosh, it’s so exciting to be here with all of you. I don’t often get the chance to speak. I’ve prepared a detailed presentation I’d like to share with all of you.

ESV [muttering]: Oh boy. Here we go.

SRB: Anyway, I’ve got a lot of really neat charts and tables that I’d like to show you guys. I think that by the time this dinner is over, we can predict the return of Christ to within 24 hours.

NIV: Look, not to be a jerk, but I think all of us contain a verse in which Jesus says we can’t know the time or the hour.

ESV [snickering]: Are you sure you still have that verse?

NIV: Oh, is that how it’s going to be? Don’t even get me started. Old Man James over there has more errors than Derek Jeter, and The Message is practically having a rave. Then there’s Amp, who can’t stop talking, and Mr. Scofield who has managed to connect Israel, Michael Gorbachev, and Michael W. Smith. I’m the only sane one of the bunch!

AMP: I think you’re overreacting, being hyperbolic, exaggerating. Yes perhaps I do speak, pontificate, ramble on a bit, but it’s all for good. I think if you would just let me speak, talk, hold forth a bit more, you would see that I have wonderful, extravagant, delightful ideas.

NIV: And ESV, don’t get me started on your whole family. You’re brother, Study Bible, has a serious weight problem. I mean, he needs to go on Atkins or something. Your grandma, Mrs. Heirloom, likes to wrap herself in calfskin. Calfskin! Does she sleep on a bed of veal? And your little sister, Glo Bible, looks like she’s ready to hit the rave scene.

ESV [standing up]: You stay away from my family! We’re working on our problems. At least I didn’t have a vasectomy!

MSG: Woah…this just got intense. [cracks open another Red Bull]. What’s a vasectomy?

NIV: How dare you?!? Let’s make this clear. I was neutered. There is a big difference. It’s kind of like being a eunuch, but different.

[Awkward silence]

SRB: So like I was saying, I have these really neat color-coded charts that clearly show how the fall of the Berlin Wall was predicted in…

KJV: Oh just shut up, dear boy. Thou rants and rants when thou knowest nothing! I long for the good old days when a man protected his family with both the broadsword and the Bible.

SRB: Well then. I’ll be leaving.

Catholic Edition Revised Standard Version (CRSV): Guys, I know I haven’t said anything yet, but I really think I can solve this problem.

ESV: No, no. I know how you work. You think that because you have extra books, that somehow makes you special. Well it doesn’t!

MSG: Dudes! Dudes. It’s in these times that I like to quote that verse in Proverbs which says, “Can’t we all just get along?”

Why did the Romans rename Jersusalem "Aelia Capitolina" in 135 AD?

Image:  Jerusalem depicted in the sixth century Madaba mosaic map, on the floor of a Byzantine church in Madaba, Jordan.

One of the great things about teaching an introductory New Testament course to undergraduates semester after semester is getting the questions to which you do not know the answer.

This semester I was doing my standard lecture on Greco-Roman and Jewish backgrounds to the NT, including making mention of the disastrous Second Jewish War against Rome (132-135 AD) which ended with the Romans leveling Jerusalem a second time (after its total destruction in 70 AD), renaming it Aelia Capitolina, building a temple to Jupiter on the temple ruins, and forbidding Jews to enter the city.  This event obviously had huge ramifications for early Jews and Christians as it further contributed to their dispersion from Palestine.  A student asked:  "Why was Jerusalem re-named Aelia Capitolina?"  I had to tell him I did not know the answer, but on the class break I googled it and found this answer on the online Encyclopedia Brittanica:

Aelia Capitolina,  city founded in ad 135 by the Romans on the ruins of Jerusalem, which their forces, under Titus, had destroyed in ad 70. The name was given, after the Second Jewish Revolt (132–135), in honour of the emperor Hadrian (whose nomen, or clan name, was Aelius) as well as the deities of the Capitoline Triad (Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva). A sanctuary to Jupiter was built on the Temple Mount, and statues of Roman deities were erected in the city, in intentional violation of Old Testament law. The area was walled and a large foreign population imported; Jews were generally forbidden entrance to the city. The present walls of the Old City of Jerusalem follow the layout of the Roman walls. The name was used until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th century.

So, I now have an answer to the question.

JTR

The Vision (2.12.15): The Incomparability of God

Note:  Below is a brief excerpt from last Sunday morning’s sermon on David’s prayer in 2 Samuel 7:18-29.

“Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God: for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears” (2 Samuel 7:22).

Not only does David praise God here for his greatness, but he also praises God for his incomparability.  When realtors prepare a house for the market they search for comparable properties in order to assess the value of the house.  For God there are no comparables:  “for there is none like thee.”

Neither are there any gods to compare to the one true God.  Some secular scholars have wrongly argued that the earliest Old Testament authors were not monotheists (believing in one God) but henotheists (believing in a god who is superior to other gods).  They even cite the first commandment as part of their evidence for this (“Thou shalt have no other gods before me” [Exodus 20:3]).   David, however, knows no such henotheistic theory.  There is one God and there are no other gods beside him!  David is an atheist with respect to pagan gods.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle  

Rev.: A Cautionary Review

Image: The cast of the British television series "Rev."

Note:  I usually make it a practice to be very careful when I commend or even mention any films or television shows in my speaking or writing.  One reason is that I know that the entertainment and recreation one person might have liberty of conscience to partake of another might not allow, and vice versa.  We let our children play team sports, for example, namely baseball, but we have some friends who would not do this.   We rarely let our children play video games (other than a few Wii games), while other Christian families we know allow for more than we would.  Similar things might be said for various other forms of entertainment and recreation.

I am going to risk making an exception to my general rule by sharing a review or reaction to a television show which a friend [who wishes to remain anonymous] recently sent me.  I share this with his permission, realizing full well it would not be something I would generally commend but also understanding that there are some who might appreciate it.  JTR

…. As you know, I rarely watch much television, other than PBS.  I usually prefer to spend an evening at home either reading or writing.  I do, however, have a liking for some British television shows which I occasionally watch on Hulu, including “Doc Martin” and the old “Inspector Morse” series.

Last year I ran across a British situation comedy called “Rev.” that I started to watch.  The show tells the story of an inner city Church of England priest named Adam Smallbones, played by Tom Hollander, who is also the co-creator and an occasional writer for the show.  Smallbone’s church “St. Savior in the Marshes” is a dwindling congregation, nearly bankrupt, in a crumbling historic building, and in danger of having to close its doors.  Among the other key characters are Adam’s wife Alex (an attorney who’s not crazy about being the wife of a priest), a homeless alcoholic parishioner and Adam’s “mate” named Colin, an African lady named Adoha who is obsessed with Adam, the attractive school headmistress Ellie who is Alex’s friend and for whom Adam occasionally lusts, the lay assistant Nigel who wants to take Adam’s job, and the sarcastic and prissy archdeacon Robert who puts pressure on Adam to make the feeble church viable.

I must say that there is a lot to find offensive in this show, and I would by no means recommend it without reservation to just anyone.  It certainly is not for anyone who is immature and easily offended.

What fascinated me most about the show is its depiction of the state of the Church of England in “post-Christian” England.  Smallbones is a priest who thrives on social justice, counseling drug addicts, caring for the homeless, all the while smoking and drinking and swearing like a worldling.  He performs the “mass,” speaks to God in irreverent mental prayer (which the viewer overhears), but never mentions Christ or the gospel.

Despite the liberal tripe, every once in a while, I must admit, there is something in the writing that shows a deeper level of understanding about Christianity and ministry that is striking.  Take the episode when Adam joins with a “successful” young minister in a misguided effort to offer a “contemporary service” to help boost St. Savior’s dismal attendance (season 1; episode 2:  “Jesus is Awesome”); when Adam feels jealous over the success of a “celebrity” pastor (season 1; episode 4:  “The Rival”); or when Adam’s commitment to the church strains his marriage and alienates his wife (season 2; episodes 6-7).

The show’s first season ran in 2010 and its second in 2011.  I recently noticed that Hulu posted the six episodes of the third season, which ran in the Spring of 2014 in the UK, and I started watching them.  The third series seemed to start off with a complete capitulation to liberal propaganda.  In the first episode Adam works with a local Muslim imam to refurbish a community playground and the Muslims are (of course) presented as more generous and moral than the “Christians.”  Sadly, the second episode has Adam giving over his scruples to canon law and performing an unofficial gay wedding.   OK, I was more than ready at this point to write the show off and see it simply as a cautionary tale for what liberal theology does to the church and society.  Still, the binding hook was the curiosity as to what would happen to St. Savior.  Would the doors be closed or would Adam find a way to save the church? 

Then came series three episodes 5 and 6.  All I can say is that, despite myself, I found these episodes to be very moving.   After a moral failure that is blown out of all proportion through gossip and malice, Adam is unceremoniously removed from his church and St. Savior’s is eventually closed. Adam is spurned and abused by the people he had committed himself to serve and decides to get out of the ministry.  He finds, however, that he has no marketable skills for the secular world and crumbles into a ball of depression. Adam’s experience is presented at the end of these episodes as a kind of passion play with Ralph Feines playing the Bishop/Pilate who removes him from office, Colin as a Peter who denies him at his time of trial, and Liam Neeson as an angel who comforts him in his trouble.

It all concludes on Easter morning with only the slightest glimmer of hope at the makeshift baptism of Adam and Alex’s infant daughter.  It’s hard to say exactly what makes those final two episodes so powerful. I don’t think you will really feel the impact emotionally unless you first watch the episodes that come before and see the characters developed.  I say this with trepidation knowing one might watch some of the earlier episodes and ask, “How could this possibly be considered redemptive?” It’s only after you’ve seen how close these people have been to Adam and how he has prayed and sacrificed for them that their harsh, uncharitable, and shabby treatment of him hits home. Some of the viciousness of their words to each other is truly shocking.

This is far, far, far from being in any semblance of the word an “evangelical” or even “Christian” television show.    “Facing the Giants” it ain’t.  Most conservative Christians like us would probably (justifiably) denounce it as ungodly from the get-go.  But there is something profound in those last two episodes.  I think this is the case especially if you have ever been a minister and served in a local church and been shocked by the pettiness and nastiness that can come out in people you’ve loved and served.  As a friend once reminded me, “The ministry is about suffering.  Jesus suffered and so will we.”  For all its liberal, multi-cultural, gay marriage promoting messaging there is, nonetheless, an underlying theme in the ending of this series that is powerful and compelling.

The Vision (2.16.15): The Power of God to Keep His Promises Illustrated by Aeneas Sage

One of the commentaries I have been reading as I preach through 2 Samuel has been Dale Ralph Davis’ 2 Samuel: Out of Every Adversity (Christian Focus, 1999). In his exposition of David’s covenant in 2 Samuel 7, Davis notes how God’s promise to build a house [dynasty] for David, including the promise to raise up from David’s line one whose throne and kingdom would be forever [Christ], could not be frustrated.  The promise was inevitable.  To illustrate, Davis tells a story about Aeneas Sage, an eighteenth century minister in the Scottish Highlands:

Mr. Sage, a powerfully built man of the cloth, announced one Sabbath his intention to hold a meeting for catechizing the people in the house of a certain laird well-known for his evil living.  When Mr. Sage arrived at the laird’s door, the latter asked why he came.  Sage replied, ‘I come to discharge my duty to God, to your conscience and to my own’; which the laird met with, ‘I care nothing for any of the three; out of my house, or I’ll turn you out.’ The minister simply responded, ‘If you can.’  There followed a sort of catechism preparatory meeting with the laird, said to be a very powerful man.  Yet when the interchange was over the laird was lying on the floor with a rope around his hands and feet.  Since the laird ‘was now bound over to keep the peace,’ as Sage put it, the minister called in the people of the area and taught them the Shorter Catechism, no one—of course—refusing!

Davis proceeds to note that the Davidic covenant in 2 Samuel 7 has a bit of “that Aeneas Sage tone about bit.”  He explains:  “Yahweh’s kingdom plan is simply unstoppable; he will overwhelm death, sin, and time to bring it about.  And he has” (p. 80).

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle  

The Vision (1.29.15): David's Gladness in the LORD

Note:  The devotion below is taken from one of the closing applications in last Sunday morning’s sermon from 2 Samuel 6:12-23.

“So David went out and brought up the ark of God … with gladness” (2 Samuel 6:12b).

“And David danced before the Lord with all his might …” (v. 14).

“So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet” (v. 15).

We are to come before the Lord with gladness, with exuberance, and even with loud and clear voices.

Does this passage validate dancing, whether highly choreographed “interpretive movement,” so-called “liturgical dance,” or spontaneous dancing?  “It’s right there in the 2 Samuel 6,” someone might say, “David did it.”  But we must remember that the New Testament continues and completes God’s story, including God’s requirements in worship.  The New Testament nowhere commands dancing.  Notice too that this passage also describes sacrifices and religious objects (the ark itself), but we recognize that such physical things have passed away.  Now, we worship in Spirit and in Truth (John 4:24).

We must look to a principle here.  And the principle is coming with joy and gladness and exuberance before the Lord.

One commentator noted how in this single chapter with its description of Uzzah’s error and David’s dancing,  “fearfulness and gladness are held together.  In Yahweh’s presence you should shudder and dance!”  He adds, “a fearful sense of God’s holiness does not suppress joy but stimulates it” (Dale Ralph Davis, 2 Samuel:  Looking on the Heart, p. 66).

It has been noted before that there is one kind of joy expressed at a football game when your team scores the winning touchdown.  And there is another when you attend a formal graduation ceremony, a wedding, a monarch’s coronation, or a Presidential inauguration.  I want to suggest that the joy we express in new covenant worship is more like the second than the first, but it is no less deep and profound.  We are to have a deep and abiding gladness in God, so that our hearts dance before him.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle  

Text and Translation Note: Psalm 8:5

This week I’ve been reading Timothy Michael Law’s When God Spoke Greek:  The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible (Oxford Press, 2013).

In this work, Law makes reference to numerous text and translation issues relating to various Scriptural passages.  In general, he wants to challenge the privileged place of the Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament in the Christian tradition and to argue for the validity of the LXX.

One interesting passage he discusses is Psalm 8:5.  Law notes:

The Greek translator makes a theological decision that will later impact Christian interpretation, using “angels” instead of “God” in verse 6 (verse 6 in the Septuagint).  The Hebrew Bible, speaking of human beings, reads:  “Yet you have made them a little lower than God . . .”  The Septuagint translator was perhaps bothered by the suggestion that human beings were only “a little lower” than God, so he changed the passage to read:  “You diminished him a little in comparison with the angels” (pp. 55-56).

Though the passage was well known to me, I was not fully aware of the text and translation issues within it.

The Text:

A quick check of the text does indeed reveal that the Hebrew MT reads elohim, which is typically translated in the OT as “God,” though the form is technically a masculine plural, so it might be rendered “gods” or perhaps even “heavenly beings.”

The LXX does indeed read angeloi or “angels.”  The LXX is also clearly the version cited in the only NT passage—Hebrews 2:7— where the OT passage is directly quoted.

Reformation Era Translations:

The King James Version, which normally follows the Hebrew MT, does not render elohim as “God” but as “angels.”  Compare:

KJV Psalm 8:5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

What are we to make of this decision?  Did the KJV translators here act like many modern OT editors and translators and choose to follow the LXX rather than the Hebrew?

Such a choice was not unanimous among the Reformation era translations.  The Geneva Bible sticks with the Hebrew:

Geneva Bible Psalm 8:5:  For thou has made him a little lower than God, and crowned him with glory and worship.

Likewise, the 1590 Hungarian translation of Karoli Gaspar also follows the Hebrew:

Hiszen kevéssel tetted õt kisebbé az Istennél, és dicsõséggel és tisztességgel megkoronáztad õt!

Note its use of Isten (God) rather than angyalok (angels).

The question one might pose is why the KJV translators who are usually so careful to follow the Hebrew original seemingly depart from it here.

Modern Translations:

The NASB follows the Hebrew Masoretic text in translating “God”:

NASB Psalm 8:5 Yet Thou hast made him a little lower than God, And dost crown him with glory and majesty!

The NKJV follows the KJV’s lead in translating “angels”:

NKJV Psalm 8:5 For You have made him a little lower than the angels, And You have crowned him with glory and honor.

The NIV departs from both by translating “heavenly beings”:

NIV Psalm 8:5 You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.

The ESV follows the same route as the NIV by using “heavenly beings”:

ESV Psalm 8:5  Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.

The ESV also adds a note explaining:  “Psalm 8:5 Or than God; Septuagint than the angels.”

Back to the KJV translation choice:

I think the KJV translation choice at Psalm 8:5 can be understood as an attempt to produce an ecclesiastical translation which harmonizes the OT passage with its NT citation of this verse at Hebrews 2:7, which in Greek reads angeloi and is rendered in English as “angels.”

The Geneva Bible uses “angels” at Hebrews 2:7 and the Karoli angelok (angels). The modern English translations (NASB; NIV; ESV; NKJV) all use “angels” at Hebrews 2:7 also.

The KJV (and the NKJV which follows it) is the only translation that harmonizes the two passages (Psalm 8:5 and Hebrews 2:7) by making the reference identical.  Again, this would be a place where one might say that the KJV is driven more by an ecclesiastical concern than a purely academic one.  The point is not that the KJV translators were following the Septuagint at Psalm 8:5 but that they were following the Greek of Hebrews 2:7.  That is, they were guiding the reader to naturally understand the harmony between Psalm 8:5 and Hebrews 2:7 as part of the harmony of the Christian Scripture.

JTR

Word Magazine # 33: Recent Mark Fragment Papyrus Discovery

Image:  An Egyptian mummy mask like that in which the Mark papyrus fragment was reportedly found.

Note:  Yesterday I posted WM # 33:  Recent Mark Fragment Papyrus Discovery. The article below provides the information covered in this edition (the article can also be viewed here):

I had two persons this week contact me and ask about my response to a 1.20.15 Washington Post article which makes reference to a papyrus fragment of the Gospel of Mark that has recently been found in an Egyptian mummy mask.  The article cites an earlier one (dated 1.18.15) on a website named Live Science.  The article also includes a youtube video of Dr. Craig Evans, a well respected professor at Acadia Divinity School in Canada, discussing this find in a July 2014 Apologetics Conference (note:  the video was posted over six months ago).  Indeed, the announcement of this “discovery” is not exactly news.  Dan Wallace made reference to it in a debate with Bart Ehrman in 2012 (read Ehrman’s reaction here).

Aside:  My limited experience in reading Evans has shown him to be one of those evangelical scholars whose commitment to the academy often leads him to take uneven positions.  For examples:  On one hand, he contributed an excellent chapter to the book How God Became Jesus (Zondervan, 2014) proving the historicity of the burial of Jesus, contra the historical skepticism of Bart Ehrman.  On the other hand, he contributed an article to the book Bart D. Ehrman & Daniel B. Wallace in Dialogue:  The Reliability of the New Testament (Fortress Press, 2011) in which he conjectured that Matthew 27:51b-53 (the account of some dead being raised at the crucifixion of Jesus) was not authentic despite the fact that the text is completely undisputed in transmission!

The claim put forward by Evans here is that this yet unpublished fragment may date to 80 AD (a spoken claim Evans makes in the video) or 90 AD (a written claim made in the article).  If substantiated, what would be the significance of this?  It would prove the early existence of the Gospel of Mark (but most modern scholars, even skeptical ones like Bart Ehrman, already date Mark to the mid-60s AD).   Evans also claims that such a find gets scholars back to the original “autograph” of Scripture (at least of the Gospel of Mark).

I want:

(1) To offer some general background information on NT papyri;

(2) To clarify some confusion about the significance of the papyri;

(3) To offer some reasons why this find is probably not as significant as some might suppose.

First:  I want to offer some background on the papyri:

What is a papyrus (plural papyri)?  This term refers to writing material that was made from a plant which grows along the Nile in Egypt.  A NT papyrus is a piece of papyrus on which a part of the text of the NT is written.  The earliest NT texts and fragments of texts which we have are written on papyri.  The material itself dates the text as very ancient.  From about the fourth century AD till the fifteenth century AD, the NT was written on vellum (animal skins).  From then till now it has been written on paper.  And we are currently undergoing another technological revolution in which texts are being written digitally.  Cf.:

c. 50-350 AD	papyrus
c. 350-1500 AD	vellum
c. 1500-2000 AD	paper
c. 2000-present	paper/digital

According to Robert Hull, Jr. the first NT papyrus was discovered by Tischendorf in 1868, and four more were published by 1898 (The Story of the NT Text, p. 110).  We need to pause here to observe that the rise of the modern critical text in the nineteenth century did not come about because of papyri discoveries.  Lachman in 1831 and WH in 1881 did not base their modern critical Greek NTs on papyri finds.  The modern critical text was based on the uncials, not the papyri.  The notion that the modern critical text came about as the result of papyri finds is a misconception that apologist James White, among others, seems to perpetuate.

The major papyri finds came in the twentieth century, not the nineteenth century.  By 1930, 42 NT papyri had been published (Hull, p. 111).  Eldon Jay Epp has called 1930-1980 “the period of the papyri” (The NT and Its Modern Interpreters, p. 83).  The two most notable finds in this period were:

The Chester Beatty Papyri in the early 1930s [which included p46, the oldest copy of the Pauline writings, (dated to c. 200 AD).  The beginning pages are missing.  Its order:  Romans (from 5:17, opening is missing), Hebrews, 1-2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1 Thessalonians.  The final pages are missing and their content is uncertain].

And the Bodmer Papyri in the early 1950s [which included p66 (dated c. 200 AD), one of the oldest witnesses to John and the oldest not to contain the PA; p72 (dated to the third century), the oldest witness to 1-2 Peter and Jude; and p75 (dated c. 200), the oldest witness to Luke and one of the oldest to John—it was purchased by the Vatican in 2006].

Notice how the numbering goes up with time.  The name/numbers assigned come from a numbering system created by a scholar named Caspar R. Gregory (1846-1917).  These numbers are assigned once a discovery is made by the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung (Institute for NT Textual Research) in Münster, Germany.

How many papyri do we now have?  The Nestle-Aland 28^th edition of the Greek New Testament lists the papyri through p127 (including the date, library location, and content). The estimated dates for these works range from the second to the eighth centuries, with most dating to the third and fourth centuries.  Some contain only a single verse or fragment of a verse (e.g., p12 contains Hebrews 1:1).  More commonly, they consist of several verses (e.g., p98 has Revelation 1:13-20).  Others, however, more rarely, preserve the text of entire books (e.g., p72, as discussed below, has most of 1-2 Peter and Jude).  For comparison, the NA 27th edition (1993) listed papyri through p98 and the NA 26^th edition (1979) through p92.  Clearly, the number in the handbook has grown over time as further discoveries have been made.  Cf.:

By 1898	5 papyri
By 1930	42 papyri
By 1979 (NA 26)	92 papyri
By 1993 (NA 27)	98 papyri
By 2013 (NA 28)	127 papyri

Second, I want to clarify some confusion about the significance of the papyri:

I already noted that we must be clear that the modern critical Greek NT was based on uncials not papyri.  In fact, Eldon Jay Epp in a 1974 JBL article once famously called the twentieth century a mere “interlude” in NT textual criticism since so little had been changed or developed in the consensus regarding the modern critical text since WH in the nineteenth century.

More importantly, it is often falsely assumed that the papyri finds only reinforced WH and the modern critical text.  In fact, the opposite is true.  If WH were right one would have expected the papyri consistently to reflect the so-called “Neutral text” of Codex B.  Instead, scholars find that the papyri reflect a “mixed text.”  They include so-called Alexandrian, Western, and Caesarean readings, and, this is the shocking part, the papyri also include Byzantine readings!

The book to read here is one by Harry A. Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism (Thomas Nelson, 1984).  This book includes an Appendix which lists 150 papyri passages that reflect a Byzantine reading.  Sturz notes that WH’s claim that the Byzantine text could not be found earlier than the third century “vanished into thin air in the presence of the papyri” (p. 63).

Third, I want to offer some reasons why this find is probably not as significant as some might suppose:

First, we do not know anything about the length of this fragment or which part of Mark it comes from. It is probably only a verse or two at most. It would be great if it came from Mark 16:9-20!

Second, we do not know whether or not it comes from an orthodox source.  If it only consists of a verse or two (or maybe even part of a single verse), how do we know for sure that it comes from canonical Mark?  It could come from a Gnostic document that quotes Mark.  The orthodoxy and the canonical integrity of the papyri are suspect. P72, for example, includes 1-2 Peter and Jude but it also includes:  The Nativity of Mary, Apocryphal Correspondence of Paul and the Corinthians, the eleventh Ode of Solomon, Melito’s Homily on the Passover, a hymn fragment, the Apology of Phileas, and a Greek version of Pss 33 and 34.

Third, the dating of papyri is notoriously difficult and can be subjective.  Example:  For a long time, most scholars have argued that the oldest NT text is p52, the John Rylands Fragment, which contains a fragment from the Fourth Gospel [John 18:31-33, 37-38].  A 2005 article by Brent Nonglobri titled “The Use and Absue of p52:  Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel” [HTR 98 1 (2005):  23-48], however, pointedly challenges the early dating of p52.  A recent post on the Evangelical Text Criticism blog by Dirk Jongkind has suggested that the oldest NT papyri may, in fact, be p104’s fragment of Matthew 21:34-37, 43-45? (he also points out, coincidentally, that 104 is twice 52!).  Regarding the dating of this supposed Mark fragment, see this post by P. J. Williamson in which he states, contrary to claims by Evans and Dan Wallace, that this fragment could not possibly be precisely dated to 80 AD!  See also his comments about the ethics of destroying mummy masks!

Fourth, most importantly, this report illustrates the pitfalls of chasing manuscripts to attempt to prove or disprove the validity and historicity of Scripture.  The Lord did not allow the autographs to be preserved.  Finding scraps of papyri will not prove or disprove the authority or antiquity of the Bible to skeptics.  In 2012 Dan Wallace apparently claimed that this find could be as significant as the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery, to which Bart Ehrman responded:  “He is wrong about that.  In fact, if it is just a scrap, as it appears to be, then it probably will not change a single, solitary thing in the entire field of NT textual criticism.”  I have to agree here with Ehrman.  Confessional Christianity teaches that God providentially preserved his word in the faithful copies that were made and used by God’s people.  That is not to say there is not a place for scholarly study and for the collection of papyri for historical study, but let’s not make overstatements and false claims about what such finds can actually establish.  We know we have the word not because of papyri witnesses but because of the providentially preserved text’s own self-authenticating power.

JTR  

The Vision (1.22.15): CRBC: Looking Forward to 2015

Note:  Praise God for a unified and very encouraging Annual Church Conference last Sunday at CRBC (1.18.15)!  After looking back over the past year, we looked forward with anticipation to some of the following upcoming ministry goals and events in 2015:

·        To continue to conduct weekly Lord’s Day worship services.

·        To continue to broadcast worldwide on sermonaudio.com.

·        To continue mission giving to Andy and Beth Rice (Zambia) and Trinitarian Bible Society.

·        To offer prayer and financial support to Ethan McGonigal for short term mission service in Japan.

·        To appoint our second deacon.

·        To conduct our first church wedding.

·        To conduct another “Puritan” Vacation Bible School tentatively scheduled for June 22-25, 2015.

·        To host the 14^th Annual Keach Conference on Friday-Saturday, September 25-26.

Of course, we make these plans while also praying “If the Lord will” (cf. James 4:13-15).

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Philip Pullman: Modern Bibles are too dull

Image:  Philip Pullman

A friend sent me a link to this article in The Telegraph in which author Philip Pullman bemoans the fact that with the rise of modern translations children are no long brought under the literary influence of the venerable King James Version.  He also laments the loss of the old Book of Common Prayer.  The article is drawn from this BBC interview of Pullman with Michael Rosen.  Here’s an excerpt:

Speaking of the demise of the King James Bible and the Book of Common Prayer, the author said: “I do regret that children don’t have this experience of language which is grand and stately, and above their heads if you like.

“Because it gave me an immense amount of pleasure to hear the cadences and rhythms of these great prayers.

“I whisper along with them at times, just for the enjoyment of the words, and it’s something I wouldn’t be without. If it was cut out of me I’d miss it terribly.

“How can we give children that sense these days when they seldom see a King James Bible, they go to churches – if they go to church at all -where there’s a modern service book whose language is rather flat and dull?”

Pullman is President of an organization called the Society of Authors and he is best for the His Dark Materials trilogy of fantasy novels.  The interesting thing is that Pullman’s novels have been criticized as a negative presentation of religion in general and of Christianity in particular.  Why then does he laud the influence of the KJV?  He recognizes its literary superiority.

The interview reminded me of the chapter on “Acclaim for the King James Bible By the Literary Establishment” in Leland Ryken’s The Legacy of the King James Bible (see my review of this book here) in which Ryken notes:

It will come as no surprise that English and American authors as well as literary critics, prefer the King James Version. I suspect, though, that the vehemence with which they prefer the KJV will come as a mild shock. The problem that I faced in composing this chapter was avoiding overkill. I have accordingly kept the chapter brief. I will note in passing that I do not remember ever having encountered a member of the literary establishment who preferred any English Bible other than the KJV (p. 160).

It seems that that the KJV is praised as passionately in the English department as it is cried down in the Religion department.

Along these lines, see also the poet T. S. Eliot’s 1962 review of the New English Bible in the Sunday Telegraph in which he described that modern translation as “an active agent of decadence.”

JTR