{"id":2970,"date":"2021-03-26T13:49:55","date_gmt":"2021-03-26T11:49:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/?p=2970"},"modified":"2021-03-26T13:49:55","modified_gmt":"2021-03-26T11:49:55","slug":"a-preserved-new-testament","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/?p=2970","title":{"rendered":"A Preserved New Testament?"},"content":{"rendered":"

A Preserved New Testament?<\/strong><\/h2>\n

By : Sami Ameri<\/h2>\n

2013<\/h2>\n

<\/h2>\n

\n– What is the \u201coriginal text\u201d?<\/span><\/strong>
\n-What is the \u201cobscure Zone\u201d?<\/span><\/strong>
\n– Can we talk about a systematic preservation of the <\/span><\/strong>New Testament?<\/span><\/strong>
\n-Can the three witnesses lead us to the original text?<\/span><\/strong>
\n– Did the recovered text harm the Christians\u2019 claims?<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n

Restoration of the Original Text:
\nA Mere Deceptive Claim
\nAs to the New Testament, in nine hundred and ninety-nine cases out of every
\nthousand, we have the very word of the original.
\n\u2014 Emery H. Bancroft, Christian Theology, pp. 39-40
\nt may not be appropriate for an author to begin a book with the
\nconclusion, or to jump to the terminus of the journey right from the start,
\nbut our subject matter here may call for an exception to this convention.
\nChristian apologists, in their generous optimism, are claiming that the
\nrestoration of the original text of the New Testament is now a fact.
\n1<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

As aresult, prevalent Church rhetoric refers to the printed text of the Holy Book
\nas the exact word of God; there is an absolute certitude that every text in the
\ntraditional King James Version or the New International Version (the
\ntranslation most widely used by Americans), or in any other old or modern
\nBible, is the true word of the authors of the New Testament. So, let us start
\nour journey from the end.
\nBacked up by solid evidence, the author can declare firmly and
\nconfidently that there is no guarantee that what we read now in the printed
\nNew Testament has indeed come from the pens of Matthew, Mark, Luke,
\nJohn, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude, who are nevertheless nearly always cited
\nas the authors of the New Testament books.
\nThe Arrogance of Textual Criticism
\nThere is no doubt that the discipline of textual criticism has offered
\nresearchers many benefits, clarified many mysteries, and cleared the
\nmurkiness of many issues related to the text of the New Testament.
\nHowever, these developments themselves have resulted in what I choose to
\ncall an inflated arrogance within those who practice this discipline\u2014just as
\nhas occurred in every branch of science once it has achieved some noticeable
\nadvancement. This is a human trait whose origin is human beings\u2019 pride in
\ntheir own achievements and their tendency to rid themselves of the
\nconstraints of reality in their desire to reach far-off or impossible ends.
\n1 See Norman L. Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam: The Crescent In The Light of the
\nCross, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2002, pp.237-41
\nI
\nHUNTING FOR THE WORD OF GOD
\n10
\nThe discovery of many manuscripts and the evolution of research
\nmethods related to the origin of manuscripts, versions, and the Church
\nFathers\u2019 citations have led textual critics to believe that textual criticism is
\ncapable of actually deriving the original text of the New Testament. They
\nhave extended this belief to allow the assertion that the classical goal of
\ntextual criticism, \u201cto restore the original text,\u201d has actually been achieved. In
\nfact, this is a simplistic view that fails to grasp the difficulties of the issue,
\nand a purely emotional one, although it attempts to cloak itself in science.
\nTextual criticism is a discipline that is directly dependent on whatever
\nwritten texts of the New Testament are available, in order to extract from
\nthem a (better) text. Therefore, abstract study is not its forte, because it is a
\ndiscipline intimately linked to direct physical details that govern its course
\nand its deductions. (Textual criticism is not the same as higher criticism, a
\nscience that aims to discover the literary form of the text, its author, the date
\nand place of its composition, the method of its composition, its integrity, and
\nthe later editing of it. Higher criticism moves in a larger circle and deals with
\nbroader data, and although its results are less precise and less specific, it
\ntends to provide more general inferences and offer conclusions within wide
\ntemporal and spatial margins.)
\nTextual criticism today has come to the conclusion that the simplistic
\nstudy previously practiced in analyzing problems and demanding solutions
\nneeds radical revision. Today the whole discipline appears to be slipping
\naway from its classical goal and is in need of rediscovering its substantial
\nessence. In a summary of the current situation regarding the classical goal of
\ntextual criticism as being the restoration of the original text of the New
\nTestament, Michael W. Holmes declared that the target of traditional textual
\ncriticism should be reconsidered because of its inadequacy or deficiency in at
\nleast two major respects: First, many scholars consider that the study of the
\nhistory of the transmission of the text should be shifted from being a mere
\nmeans to reach the original text, to a legitimate goal in its own right.
\nConsequently, the variants of the text as they appear through the living
\nhistory of the scripture should be taken seriously as a window to the
\nindividuals and communities that transmitted them. Second, the term
\n\u201coriginal text\u201d as a goal of New Testament textual criticism is inherently
\nambiguous and therefore subject to the serious question of whether it can or ought
\nto be a goal.2
\n2 See Michael W. Holmes, \u201cFrom \u2018Original Text\u2019 to \u2018Initial Text\u2019: the Traditional Goal of New
\nRESTORATION OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT: A MERE DECEPTIVE CLAIM
\nEldon Epp, the most influential scholar in the most recent decades of
\nNew Testament textual criticism, elucidates in his sound article, \u201cThe
\nMultivalence of the Term \u2018Original Text,\u201d how na\u00efve our understanding of
\nthe term \u201coriginal text\u201d3
\nhas been, and how complex and hard to grasp is its
\nmeaning. He skillfully deconstructs the notion of \u201coriginal text,\u201d showing
\nhow deep and tangled is this seemingly simple term. He makes us confront
\nthis multi-faceted problem by delving deeply into the near-geological history
\nof decades and centuries of scholarly works and attempts to solve the textual
\nproblems of the New Testament. He states that the issue of \u201coriginal text\u201d is
\nmore complex than the issue of canon, because the former includes questions
\nof both canon and authority. It is more complex than possessing Greek
\ngospels when Jesus spoke primarily Aramaic, because the transmission of
\ntraditions in different languages and their translation from one to another are
\nrelevant factors in what is \u201coriginal.\u201d It is more complex than matters of oral
\ntradition and form criticism, because \u201coriginal text\u201d encompasses aspects of
\nTestament Textual Criticism in Contemporary Discussion.\u201d
\nhttp:\/\/blog.lib.umn.edu\/cnes\/news\/Holmes%20From%20Original%20Text%20to%20Initial%20Te
\nxt%20U%20of%20M%20version%201%20Feb%202011-1.pdf, (3\/6\/2011)
\n3 Ironically, the passe-partout apologist James R. White, who immersed himself in \u201cscholarly\u201d (!)
\ndebates with almost everybody, writes, \u201cOver the past fifteen years or so a movement has come into
\nprominence, championed by scholars like D. C. Parker, Bart Ehrman, and even Eldon Epp, that questions
\nthe wisdom of even speaking about the \u2018original text\u2019 and attempts to shift focus from the classical goal of
\nall textual critical study (the restoration and verification of original readings) to an exegesis of the variants
\nthemselves. These scholars insist that \u2018every manuscript has a story to tell\u2019 and that they can determine
\nthis story by discerning a pattern of purposeful scribal emendation. This represents a radical departure
\nfrom long-held standards and is deeply troubling.\u201d (White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You
\nTrust the Modern Translations?, second edition, Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2009, pp.193-94). This is a
\nbad r\u00e9sum\u00e9 of (1) the state of this movement, (2) its message, (3) goal, and (4) leaders.
\nIt is really bizarre to include Ehrman in the list of the leaders of this movement. While we know
\nthat he does not have a clear opinion about this matter, he just alludes to the problem in few paragraphs
\nscattered in his books and articles. Even some scholars have accused him of holding a position and its
\nopposite in this subject, and we all did read that he said in his misquoting (p.210): \u201cA number of scholars
\n[\u2026] have even given up thinking that it makes sense to talk about the \u2018original\u2019 text. I personally think
\nthat opinion may be going too far [\u2026]. So at least it is not \u2018non\u2019-sense to talk about an original text.\u201d I
\nthink it is a type of \u201cEhrmanophobia\u201d that has spread in the apologist circles! (It is only while the book
\nyou are reading is being edited that we finally had a clear vision about Ehrman\u2019s view, in his debate with
\nDaniel B. Wallace, whose topic is \u201cIs the original New Testament lost?\u201d Ehrman denied in it the possible
\nfidelity to the original text.) But what is worse is the phrase \u201cand even Eldon Epp,\u201d when actually Epp is
\nthe head of this movement!
\n11
\nHUNTING FOR THE WORD OF GOD
\n12
\nthe formation and transmission of pre-literary New Testament tradition. It is
\nmore complex than the Synoptic problem and other questions of
\ncompositional stages within and behind the New Testament, because such
\nmatters affect definitions of authorship, and of the origin and unity of
\nwritings. More directly, it is more complex than making a textual decision in
\na variation unit containing multiple readings when no \u201coriginal\u201d is readily
\ndiscernible, because the issue is broader and richer than merely choosing a
\nsingle \u201coriginal\u201d and even allows making no choice at all. Finally, what
\n\u201coriginal text\u201d signifies is more complex than Hermann von Soden’s, or
\nWestcott-Hort’s, or any other system of text types, or B. H. Streeter’s theory
\nof local texts, or various current text-critical methodologies, including the
\ncriteria for originality of readings, or \u201crigorous\u201d versus \u201creasoned\u201d
\neclecticisms, or claims of theological tendencies or ideological alterations of
\nreadings and manuscripts, because the question of \u201coriginal text\u201d encompasses
\nall of these and much more. 4
\nEpp takes us on a whirlwind tour of the stories of our failure to provide
\nreasonable answers for the New Testament puzzles, and then makes an
\nurgent call for us to be painstakingly realistic and to explore just how deep
\nthe riddle of the concept of an \u201coriginal text\u201d is. He has meticulously
\ndisassociated the discipline from the immature, enthusiastic, and theological
\nmotives of its pioneers.
\nScholars in earlier centuries dealt with the concept of original text with
\nan indefensible simplicity, a rather artless way of perceiving and analyzing
\nsophisticated entities. The concept of original text when studied in early
\nChristian history should be seen as a long-term goal that cannot be achieved
\nunless all of the taxing questions surrounding it have been cogently
\nanswered. The realistic view of the emerging of the canonical texts and their
\nearly transmission should make us acknowledge that the concrete tools we
\npossess are not sufficient or effective enough to surpass the obstacles of the
\nfirst centuries that block the path to the text in its initial state. We should
\nlearn from the scholars\u2019 failure to solve the subsidiary difficulties that there
\nis no chance today to succeed in unraveling the awkward problem.
\nWe need to realize that we are facing problems that are complex and
\ndeep-seated within the discipline, and that the bridge between textual
\n4 Eldon J. Epp, \u201cThe Multivalence of the Term \u2018Original Text\u2019 in New Testament Textual
\nCriticism,\u201d in Harvard Theological Review, 1999, Volume 92, No. 3, pp.246-47
\nRESTORATION OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT: A MERE DECEPTIVE CLAIM
\n13
\ncriticism and its classical goal has been severed. Such an appalling fact
\nshould help us to better realize how lengthy and tiresome our journey is, and
\nhow weak and cloudy our vision has been. Accurately scrutinizing the
\nproblem will help not only in reframing the goal of our textual studies, but
\nwill also serve to establish a new starting point. Epp concludes his article by
\nurging a break with the past and the shedding of whatever remains of the
\ninnocence of New Testament textual criticism. Reality and maturity, as he
\nsays, should make us see how the term \u201coriginal\u201d has exploded into a
\ncomplex and highly unmanageable multivalent entity.5
\nUltimately, in this
\npost-modern age, we need to face the real dilemma of the subject and
\nmethod. This same idea, although less maturely framed, was put forth a
\ncentury ago by Conybeare at the beginning of the twentieth century, \u201cthe
\nultimate (New Testament) text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so
\ncalled, is for ever irrecoverable.\u201d
\n6
\nThis statement did not make an impression at that point in time; it was
\novershadowed by the enthusiasm and momentum which resulted from the
\nrecovery and scholarly study of numerous old manuscripts (papyri, early
\nSyriac manuscripts\u2026) and the early beginnings of what was becoming a
\nfoundation of more elaborate textual methods. Robert M. Grant was clearer
\nand more precise on the aim of restoring the original text of the New
\nTestament when he said, \u201cTo achieve this goal is well-nigh impossible.
\nTherefore we must be content with what Reinhold Niebuhr and others have
\ncalled, in other contexts, an \u201cimpossible possibility,\u201d
\n7
\nand he clarified his
\npoint by commenting that we now live in \u201ca time when it is generally
\nrecognized that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered, unless by
\nsome lucky chance a New Testament autograph might come from the sands
\nof Egypt.\u201d
\n8
\nThe term \u201coriginal text\u201d is transformed in the light of the newest
\nmethodological evolution from a goal to a seductive mirage that disappears
\nwhen we get close to it. Carl P. Cosaert admits that this term is complex and
\n5 Ibid., p. 280
\n6 Fredrick C. Conybeare, History of New Testament Criticism, London; New York: G. P.
\nPutnam,1910, p.168 [italics mine].
\n7 Robert Grant, A Historical Introduction to the New Testament, New York: Harper & Row, 1963,
\np.51
\n8 Robert Grant, \u201cThe Bible of Theophilus of Antioch,\u201d in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol.66,
\nNo. 2 (Jun., 1947), p.173 [italics mine].
\nHUNTING FOR THE WORD OF GOD
\n14
\nphantomlike in essence, which is why he proclaimed that \u201cthe meaning of the
\nphrase \u2018original text\u2019 has become problematic, so its use here deserves some
\nqualification. [\u2026] the term refers to the reading that is most likely
\nrepresentative of the oldest reading available from the extant evidence\u2014
\nregardless of whether it dates back to a single \u2018original\u2019 autograph or an
\nearly correction that became dominant.\u201d
\n9
\nThe discipline of textual criticism is reaching the first phases of its
\nmaturity in our era, and it starts\u2014under the leadership of pragmatic scholars
\nand with more developed methods\u2014to differentiate between mere pleasant
\nwishes and attainable goals. Therefore, we can read at present about
\nconstructing a new goal after deconstructing the old one.
\nIt is again Eldon Epp who fashioned the cornerstone of the discipline
\ninto its new shape by stating in a revolutionary article that the unitary goal of
\ntextual criticism is \u201cestablishing the earliest attainable text.\u201d10 The same
\ndetermination was made by another important scholar, Reuben Swanson,
\nwho declared firmly that the old fixed goal is a delusion, fictional, mythical,
\nand impossible. He based his conclusion on two facts: \u201c(1) we possess only
\nfragments of copies of the autographs from any period earlier than 350 A.D.,
\nnone of which may preserve \u201cthe original pure text\u201d and (2) any \u201cfinal
\njudgment\u201d between readings \u201ccan only be subjective,\u201d inasmuch as \u201ceach of
\nus comes to the task with our own agenda conditioned by our background,
\ntraining, and theological bent.\u201d11 (I think, that we have to agree with the
\nstatement made by Eldon Jay Epp, in his essay \u201cThe Eclectic Method in New
\nTestament Textual Criticism: Solution or Symptom?\u201d that the most accepted
\ntextual critic method, that is eclecticism, is in fact symptomatic of the deep
\ndeficiency of the discipline, which is the lack of objective criteria to reach
\nthe \u201coriginal\u201d readings.) Those two reasons drove Swanson to reject textual
\ncriticism itself, with critical judgment to be replaced by reportage.
\n12
\n9 Carl P. Cosaert, The Text of the Gospels in Clement of Alexandria, Atlanta: Society of Biblical
\nLiterature, 2008, pp.278-79 [italics mine].
\n10 Eldon J. Epp, \u201cIt\u2019s All about Variants: A Variant-Conscious Approach to New Testament
\nTextual Criticism,\u201d in Harvard Theological Review 100 (2007), p.308
\n11 Reuben J. Swanson, ed., New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Variant Readings Arranged in
\nHorizontal Lines against Codex Vaticanus: Romans, Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House; and Pasadena, CA:
\nWilliam Carey International University Press, 2001, p.xxvi
\n12 See Michael W. Holmes, \u201cFrom \u2018Original Text\u2019 to \u2018Initial Text.\u2019\u201d
\nRESTORATION OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT: A MERE DECEPTIVE CLAIM
\n15
\nThe Obscure Zone and the Failure of Textual Criticism
\nChristian apologists intentionally skip over a crucial truth that
\nundermines their whole work, which is that, as Colwell stated, \u201cWithout a
\nknowledge of the history of the text, the original reading cannot be
\nestablished.\u201d13 We should review the history of the text which can lead us
\nback to its starting point and thus to the autograph.14
\nToday, we are in absolute ignorance about the early history of the text:
\nthe authors, the date of composition, the early receivers, and the early
\ncirculation. We have no certitude about the exact details of the emergence of
\nthe early translations, e.g. the Old Latin15, the Old Syriac16, and this
\nignorance is the stumbling block that keeps us away from the original text.
\nThe problem of finding the autographs of the New Testament books is
\nthat much more grave and disheartening when we know that the
\ndisappearance of the originals \u201cis readily understood when we consider that
\nthe greater portion of the New Testament, viz. the Epistles, are occasional
\nwritings never intended for publication, while others were meant to have
\nonly a limited circulation.\u201d
\n17 These attributes may rule out any chance to get
\nto the autographs, or the very early copies before their contamination by the
\nscribes\u2019 own ideas and views. The preserved copies cannot reflect the virgin
\nstatus of the text.
\n13 Ernest C. Colwell, \u201cThe Greek New Testament with a Limited Critical Apparatus: Its Nature
\nand Uses,\u201d in Allen Paul Wikgren and David Edward Aune, eds., Studies in New Testament and Early
\nChristian, Netherlands: Brill Archive, 1972, p.37
\n14 For the purpose of clarification, the problematic terms \u201coriginal text\u201d and \u201cautograph\u201d will be
\nused in this book as synonyms, meaning the text written by the author.
\n15 See Robert Casey, \u201cThe Patristic Evidence for the Text of the New Testament,\u201d in Merril M.
\nParvis and Allen Paul Wikgren, eds. New Testament Manuscripts Studies, the materials and the making of
\na critical apparatus, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1950, p.76
\n16 See Sebastian Brock, \u201cThe Use of the Syriac Fathers for New Testament Textual Criticism,\u201d in
\nBart Ehrman and Michael Holmes, eds. The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research,
\nEssays on the Status Quaestionis, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1995, p.230
\n17 Eberhard Nestle, Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament, tr. William
\nEdie. Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1901, p. 29 [italics mine]. Daniel B. Wallace alluded to
\n2Thessalonians 3:17, where Paul refers to \u201cevery letter\u201d that he has written to churches. Yet, only
\nGalatians (assuming the South Galatian theory) and 1Thessalonians are prior to 2Thessalonians in the
\ncorpus Paulinum! This indicates that many of Paul\u2019s letters disappeared. (Wallace, Did the Original New
\nTestament Manuscripts Still Exist in the Second Century? http:\/\/bible.org\/article\/did-original-newtestament-manuscripts-still-exist-second-century-0 (12\/4\/2011))
\nHUNTING FOR THE WORD OF GOD
\n16
\nChristian apologists did not lose hope in giving a simple version of the
\nhistory of the text. Robert Price summed up their methodology, breaking up
\nthe history of the text block, by saying, \u201cone posits some scenario that would
\nmake accurate transmission of gospel materials possible and then adopts it as
\nif its convenience for apologetic made it true.\u201d18 It is as simple and na\u00efve as
\nthat. We can detect nothing in the apologists\u2019 literature that can offer any
\npositive argument for a fixed status of the text starting from its day of
\ncomposition. There are only flimsy theories and very general and fuzzy
\nideas, with no details or precise factual proofs.
\nThe earliest and little-known phases of the text (starting from the end of
\nthe second century) reflect clearly the larger absence of the original text.
\nWilliam L. Petersen asks if \u201cthe original text\u201d of the Gospel of Mark is what
\nis found in our fourth century and later manuscripts, or if it is, rather, the
\n\u201cMark\u201d recovered from the so-called \u201cminor agreements\u201d between Matthew
\nand Luke. He answered by stating, \u201cIt is clear that, without even having to
\nconsider individual variants, determining which \u201cMark\u201d is \u201coriginal\u201d is a
\ndifficult- and perhaps even impossible – task.\u201d
\n19
\nHe added that among other problems that made the \u201coriginal text\u201d out of
\nour reach is the large number of diverse witnesses (Greek manuscripts,
\nversions, and Church Fathers\u2019 citations), which poses a problem well-known
\nfor centuries. This drove Richard Bentley in 1720 to suggest abandoning the
\nsearch for a text that was \u201cas close as possible to the original,\u201d and instead to
\nbe content with an edition of the Greek New Testament exactly as it was in
\nthe best exemplar at the time of the Council of Nicaea.
\n20
\nPetersen affirmed that the modern critical editions, which are based on a
\nlarge number of witnesses, are still far from the \u201cAutograph . . . To be
\nbrutally frank, we know next to nothing about the shape of the \u2018autograph\u2019
\ngospels; indeed, it is questionable if one can even speak of such a thing. […]
\nthe text in our critical editions today is actually a text which dates from no
\n18 Robert M. Price, Review: J. Ed. Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace,
\nReinventing Jesus: What The Da Vinci Code and other Novel Speculations Don\u2019t Tell You, Grand Rapids:
\nKregel Publications, 2006
\nhttp:\/\/www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com\/reviews\/reinventing_jesus.htm (3\/26\/2011)
\n19 William L. Petersen, \u201cWhat Text Can New Testament Textual Criticism Ultimately Reach,\u201d in
\nBarbara Aland and Joel Delobel, eds., New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis, and Early Church
\nHistory, A Discussion of Methods, Netherlands: Peeters Publishers, 1994, p. 137 [italics mine].
\n20 Ibid., p. 137
\nRESTORATION OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT: A MERE DECEPTIVE CLAIM
\n17
\nearlier tha[n] about 180 CE, at the earliest. Our critical editions do not
\npresent us with the text that was current in 150, 120 or 100\u2014much less in 80
\nCE.\u201d
\n21<\/p>\n

I think it would be more accurate to say that scholars have not yet
\nreached that late text; they are still only working on it. This tragic darkness
\nof the early decades of the history of the text made the well-known scholar
\nHelmut Koester propose, concerning the second Gospel, that \u201cone can be
\nfairly certain that only its revised text has achieved canonical status.\u201d22
\nAll the preceding developments in the field of textual criticism have
\ntaken many scholars away from the myopic concern of getting to the
\nautograph, and made that aim a religious concern for the people of the
\nchurch, who do not accept anything less than surety.
\nEscaping the Obscure Zone
\nThe Christian apologists counteract the utter obscurity surrounding the
\nfirst phase of the promulgation of the New Testament, which includes the
\nfactors of (1) authorship, (2) revision, (3) distribution, (4) and proliferation,
\nwith an argument that they wish would appear historically valid. And yet it
\nis, in fact, just an emotional plea, disconnected from the real objections and
\ndisregarding the reality of the religious movement of that period, stating
\nthat we have manuscripts of the second, third, and fourth centuries that are
\nin agreement in validating the core of the text and that negate the
\npossibility of any radical change of the original form of these books. The
\nresponse to the apologists is that they ignore a number of important,
\nobtrusive facts:
\n1. The issue here is not radical change, but change\/distortion in and of
\nitself, which would deny the text its stability, its robustness, and its
\nfreedom from change.
\n2. There are no traces of the most important Church doctrines in the
\nGospels\u2014such as the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, and Original
\nSin\u2014so these Gospels, to start with, are not arguments in favor of the
\ntheological structure of the Church, as its defenders would argue.
\n21 See William. L. Petersen, \u201cThe Genesis of the Gospels,\u201d in A. Denaux, ed. New Testament
\nTextual Criticism and Exegesis, BETL 161, Leuven: Peeters and University of Leuven Press, 2002, p.62
\n[italics mine].
\n22 Helmut Koester, From Jesus to the Gospels: interpreting the New Testament in its context,
\nMinneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007, p.52 [italics mine].
\nHUNTING FOR THE WORD OF GOD
\n18
\n3. We have only two papyri (manuscripts made of the papyrus plant)
\ndating back to the second century. The very tiny texts they cover do
\nnot constitute an argument for a unique, stable form of the New
\nTestament.
\n4. Most of the so-called \u201cChristian heretics\u201d stemmed from the first
\ncentury or the beginning of the second century, as doctrines, not
\nnecessarily religious groups (Unitarianism, Docetism, adoptionism), and
\nthat historical fact proves that the radical divergences in viewing Jesus
\nand interpreting his message coexisted with the emergence of the four
\nGospels.
\nThe apologist allegation is based on the claim that, since the text of
\nthe New Testament was not radically changed in the first centuries after
\nChrist, starting from the second half of the second century, we have to infer
\nthat the stability of the text was the rule in the century before that. The
\nproblem with this claim is that, first, it is not based on direct fact or
\nimpressive early evidence. Second, it ignores the drastic differences between
\nthe transmission of a text not yet canonized, circulating among small group
\nof believers, and the distribution of a canonized text in an era where the
\ncommunities of the believers are growing faster. Third, it ignores the
\nexistence of different text-types from the earliest known phase of the
\ntransmission of the New Testament text. Therefore, we know that the
\nobscure zone of the history of the text was not as elaborate as the apologists\u2019
\nclaims make it out to be.
\nSpotlights in the Obscure Zone
\nWhen Christian apologists are forced to face the dilemma of the obscure
\nzone, they tend to run away from this challenge by asking their counterpart
\nfor positive arguments that prove the corruptions of the scriptures in that
\nperiod.
\nWhat these apologists offer is not an effective answer, because the
\nobscure zone prevents them from making a positive argument for the
\npreservation of the scriptures, so if they claim that a positive argument for
\nthe corruption of the New testament has not been offered, it is easy to
\nconclude that they do not have the positive argument for the preservation of
\nthe New Testament in that gloomy period. Unlike the Christian apologists,
\nwe have positive proof that in the obscure zone, the New Testament was
\naltered. The major signs of a huge wave of corruptions occurring in the
\nobscure zone are as follows:
\nRESTORATION OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT: A MERE DECEPTIVE CLAIM
\n19
\n1. The Text Itself as a Witness
\nPhilip W. Comfort, the most famous Christian23 scholar, in claiming
\nthat we can restore the original text of the New Testament, stated that we can
\ntalk of two categories of texts in the New Testament. The first category
\nconsists of the texts that kept the same shape from their initial time (the
\nautograph), and the second consists of texts that passed two phases: 1) the
\ncomposition, the edition, then the distribution, and 2) the re-edition, then the
\ndistribution. And he cited as examples for the second category the twentyfirst chapter of the fourth Gospel, the Acts of Apostles that was published in
\ntwo different versions, one by Luke and another longer version edited by
\nanother editor, and the Pauline Epistles (minus the Pastoral Epistles.)24
\nComfort did not use extant scriptures to prove his classification, but he
\nused inclusively the philological studies which proved that, for some of the
\nbooks of the New Testament, it is impossible to speak of a sole author, and it
\nis very well known that it is almost unanimously agreed that the last chapter
\nof John was added by another author(s). 25 Parker proclaimed that \u201cthe final
\nchapter has every sign of being a later addition to the Gospel. That its
\ntwentieth chapter is enough on its own, and that 20.30-1 provide an excellent
\nconclusion, has long been widely agreed.\u201d26<\/p>\n

What Comfort declared is the same thing we want to prove: the New
\nTestament was corrupted in the obscure zone by unknown authors who
\nadded verses or chapters and extended or abridged the text. We do not have
\n23 He is a devoted Christian who believes sincerely that the Bible, the Old and the New
\nTestaments, is the word of God. He said in his book \u201cThe Complete Guide to Bible Versions\u201d (Wheaton, I:
\nLiving Book, 1991, p.3): \u201cOf all the millions of books there are in the world, there is only one that was
\nauthored by God. And there is only one book that reveals God\u2019s plan for man. It is an amazing book
\nbecause it has a divine author and because it tells the wonderful story of God\u2019s love for us.\u201d
\n24 See Philip W. Comfort, The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament, Grand Rapids:
\nBaker Book House, 1992, pp.19-20
\n25 Father Raymond Brown started his comment on the twenty-first chapter by saying, \u201cFrom
\ntextual evidence, including that of such early witnesses as P66 and Tertullian, the Gospel was never
\ncirculated without ch. 21. (A fifth-or sixth-century Syriac ms. [British Museum cat. add. no. 14453] that
\nends with John 20\/25 has apparently lost the final folios.) This still leaves us with two basic questions.
\nFirst, was ch. 21 part of the original plan of the Gospel? Second, if not, was it added before \u201cpublication\u201d
\nby the evangelist or by a redactor? With Lagrange and Hoskyns as notable exceptions, few modern
\nscholars give an affirmative answer to the first question. (Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to
\nJohn (XIII-XXI): Introduction, Translation, and Notes, New York: Doubleday, 1970, 1077-78).
\n26 David C. Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997, p.177
\nHUNTING FOR THE WORD OF GOD
\n20
\nscriptural proof, but we have clear philological proofs coming from the text
\nitself.
\nAny serious study about the books of the New Testament will lead to the
\nconclusion that many of these books were the result of the work of more than
\none author. We can notice inconsistent ideas in the same book, or apparent
\nnon-justified shifts that broke the flow of the narration, that is, different signs
\nfor later additions or changes in the text. Here are some examples.
\nThe Gospel of Matthew. The attempt to clarify the attitude of the first
\nGospel towards the Law of Moses will reveal two sharply contradictory
\nviews. The first insists that Jesus\u2019 mission did not break with Mosaic Law;
\nbut rather held tightly to its commandments. The second view portrays the
\nmission of Jesus as a revocation of the Law of Moses.27<\/p>\n

Pro-Law:
\n\u2022 The fundamental affirmation of the Law (cf. Matthew 5:17-20; 23:3a,
\n23b).
\n\u2022 The sustained reference to the Old Testament and the emphatic
\napplication of the idea of fulfillment of the law (cf. e.g. Matthew 1:22-
\n23; 2:5-6, 15:17-18; 3:3; 4:4-16; 8:17 and others).
\n\u2022 The fundamental limitation of Jesus\u2019 mission to Israel (cf. Matthew 10:5-
\n6; 15:24).
\n\u2022 The Matthean community still keeps the Sabbath (cf. Matthew 24:20).
\n\u2022 The Matthean community still lives within the jurisdiction of Judaism
\n(cf. Matthew 17:24-27; 23:1-3).
\n\u2022 The Moses typology in Matthew 2:13ff.; 4:1-2; 5:1 and the five great
\ndiscourses in the Gospel present Jesus as having an affinity to Moses.
\n\u2022 The language, structure, reception of the Scripture, argumentation, and
\nhistory of the influence of the Gospel of Matthew point to a Jewish
\nChristian as its author.
\nAgainst the Law:
\n\u2022 The Gospel\u2019s offer of salvation to all clearly points to a Gentile mission
\nthat has been underway for some time (cf. Matthew 28:18-20; 8:11-12;
\n10:18; 12:18, 21; 13:38a; 21:43-45; 22:1-14; 24:14; 25:32; 26:13).
\n\u2022 The nullification of ritual laws (cf. Matthew 15:11, 20b; 23:25-26).
\n27 The coming points are taken from Udo Schnelle, The History and Theology of the New
\nTestament Writings, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998, p. 220-1
\nRESTORATION OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT: A MERE DECEPTIVE CLAIM
\n21
\n\u2022 The Matthean critique of the Law. Especially in the Antitheses of the
\nSermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:21-48), Jesus places his own authority
\nhigher than that of Moses, for which there is no parallel in ancient
\nJudaism.
\n\u2022 Matthew presents a thoroughgoing polemic against Pharisaic casuistry
\n(cf. Matt 5.20; 6:1ff.; 9:9ff.; 12:1ff., 9ff.; 15:1ff.; 19:1ff.; 23:1ff.)
\n\u2022 Matthew avoids Aramaisms (cf. Mark 1:13\/ Matthew 4:2; Mark 5:41\/
\nMatt 9:25; Mark 7:34\/ Matthew 15:30; Mark 7:11\/ Matthew 15:5).
\n\u2022 The Matthean community understands its life to be at some distance
\nfrom that of the synagogue (cf. Matthew 23.34b \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2
\n\u1f51\u00b5\u1ff6\u03bd [in your synagogues]; Matt 7.29b \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u00b5\u00b5\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd
\n[and not as their scribes]).
\n\u2022 Ritual prescriptions for the Sabbath have lost their significance (cf.
\nMatthew 12.1-8).
\n\u2022 The rejection of Israel, i.e. that Israel has lost its distinct place in the
\nhistory of salvation, has been accepted by Matthew as reality for some
\ntime (cf. Matthew 21:43; 22:9; 8:11-12; 21:39ff.; 27.25; 28:15).
\nIt is really hard to believe that these two opposite views about a central
\nChristian tenet were written down by the pen of a single author. And on what
\nbasis do we make a choice about the background of the author, gentile or
\nJew, though many scholars do?28 It is more plausible to argue that the
\ntheological aspect of a primitive text was melded with paradoxical views at
\nthe hand of a later scribe(s) or community who held totally different views
\nabout the inherited Jewish Law.
\nThe Gospel of John. The text of the Fourth Gospel bears fingerprints
\nof varying, non-homogenous ideas and numerous indications of rupture in
\nthe narratives and discourses.29 Father Raymond E. Brown, a worldwide
\nauthority on the Johannine literature, posits five stages in the composition of
\nthe Gospel. Stage 1: The existence of a body of oral tradition independent of
\nthe Synoptic tradition. Stage 2: Over a period lasting perhaps several
\n28 For a Jewish Christian author, see for example Luz, Matthew 1-7, Minneapolis: Augsburg,
\n1989, pp.79-80; Roloff, \u201cDas Kirchenverst\u00e4ndnis des Matth\u00e4us im Spiegel seiner Gleichnisse,\u201d in NTS 38
\n(1992), p.339. For a Gentile author, see for example John P. Meier, Law and History in Matthew\u2019s
\nGospel: A Redactional Study of Matt. 5:17\u201348, Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1976, pp.14-21.
\n29 See E. Schwartz, \u201cAporien im vierten Evangelium,\u201d in Nachrichten von K\u00f6niglichen
\nGesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu G\u00f6ttingen (1907), pp.342-72; (1908), pp.115-88; 497-560.
\nHUNTING FOR THE WORD OF GOD
\n22
\ndecades, the traditional material was sifted, selected, thought over, and
\nmolded into the form and style of the individual stories and discourses that
\nbecame part of the Fourth Gospel. Stage 3: The evangelist organized the
\ncollected material and published it as a distinct work. Stage 4: The
\nevangelist re-edited his Gospel to answer the objections or difficulties of
\nseveral groups. Stage 5: A final editing or redaction by someone other than
\nthe evangelist, and whom we shall call the redactor.30
\n2Corinthians. Even though the second letter to the Corinthians is one
\nof the letters attributed to Paul that is considered to contain authentic Pauline
\nmaterial,31 many scholars are convinced it does not represent a solitary letter,
\nbut a combination of two different letters.32 Edgar J. Goodspeed observed
\nthat from the beginning of 2Corinthians through Chapter 9, one senses
\nharmony and reconciliation, whereas, abruptly, in Chapter 10, the mood
\nchanges to one of \u201cpersonal misunderstanding and bitterness.\u201d He opines,
\ntherefore, that \u201cThis undeniable incongruity between the two parts of II
\nCorinthians naturally suggests that we have in it two letters instead of oneone conciliatory and gratified, the other injured and incensed.\u201d33
\nWhat did these two letters look like before being joined together?
\nWhat did the scribe who joined them do to fuse them together? More
\nprobably, the primitive shape of the two letters differs from the canonical
\nletter, because we can see that the scribe who promulgated them did try to
\nhide his action of combining the two letters together.
\nWe could enumerate more examples from the list of the books of the
\nNew Testament, and all of them would indicate that the body of each of these
\nbooks sends signs of multi-authors or redactors.
\n2. The Earliest Extant Manuscripts
\nHelmut Koester gives us the big picture of the second century state of
\nthe text when he declares, \u201cthe second century was completely a period of
\n30 Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (I-XII), pp. xxxiv- xxxvi
\n31 The letters of Paul considered by the majority of scholars today as genuine are Romans, 1and
\n2Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1Thessalonians, and Philemon. See John Dominic Crossan and
\nJonathan L Reed, In Search of Paul: How Jesus’s Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s Kingdom,
\nNew York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2004, p.105
\n32 Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings,
\nNew York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997, p.280
\n33 Edgar J. Goodspeed, An Introduction to the New Testament, Chicago: The University of
\nChicago Press, 1937, pp.58-9
\nRESTORATION OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT: A MERE DECEPTIVE CLAIM
\n23
\nwild variation.\u201d34 He put his finger on the malady that explains our failure to
\nkeep faith with the originality of the text known from the third century: \u201cThe
\ntext of the Synoptic Gospels was very unstable during the first and second
\ncenturies [. . .] there is no guarantee that the archetypes of the manuscript
\ntradition are identical with the original text of each Gospel. . . . New
\nTestament textual critics have been deluded by the hypothesis that the
\narchetypes of the textual tradition which were fixed ca. 200 CE [. . .] are
\n(almost) identical with the autographs. This cannot be affirmed by any
\nevidence. On the contrary, whatever evidence there is indicates that not only
\nminor, but also substantial revisions of the original texts have occurred
\nduring the first hundred years of the transmission.\u201d
\n35
\nD. Parker contends that the most substantial alterations in the text of the
\nGospels happened in the first hundred and fifty years, describing it as an
\n\u201cinitial fluidity followed by stability.\u201d 36 He studied the sayings of Jesus on
\nmarriage and divorce and the Lord’s Prayer in the Gospels, then concluded,
\n\u201cThe main result of this survey is to show that the recovery of a single
\noriginal saying of Jesus is impossible [. . .] What we have is a collection of
\ninterpretive rewritings of a tradition.\u201d37 The six main forms of the Lord\u2019s
\nPrayer, and the enormous mass of variants in just forty verses in Luke
\nencountered by Parker, enabled a shattering of the text into a set of multifaceted traditions created by the early communities. We can conclude from
\nParker\u2019s painstaking study that the earliest available manuscripts sprouted in
\na time where the canonical text had lost its original form due to its flexibility
\nafter being detached from the vanished autograph. So, the earliest decades of
\nthe enlightened zone reveal a blurry text that had lost its original form and its
\nunity in that obscure zone.
\n3. The Harmonization Tendency
\nOne of the most conspicuous characteristics of the early transmission of
\nthe text of the four gospels is the heavy tendency in the scribal tradition to
\ndeliberately remove the discrepancies in the four gospels and to harmonize
\n34 Helmut Koester, \u201cThe Text of the Synoptic Gospels in the Second Century,\u201d in William L.
\nPetersen, ed. Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Text, and Transmission,
\nNotre Dame, London: University of Notre Dame, 1989, pp.19-37 [italics mine].
\n35 Ibid., p.37 [italics mine].
\n36 David C. Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels, p.70
\n37 Ibid., p.92-93
\nHUNTING FOR THE WORD OF GOD
\n24
\ntheir conflicting accounts. D. C. Parker concluded his interesting book \u201cThe
\nliving text of the Gospels\u201d by declaring that \u201cThe reconstruction which has
\nemerged from the present study is that the text and with it the traditions
\nremained fluid for centuries, and that the work of the evangelists did not end
\nwhen they laid down their pens. This may be demonstrated most clearly from
\nthe phenomenon of harmonisation [\u2026]. That such harmonisations are found
\ncenturies after the compilation of the Gospels is incontrovertible evidence
\nthat the traditions continued to live, that is, to grow.\u201d38
\nNow, if the text from the earliest known phase of the New Testament\u2019s
\ntransmission shows clear signs of a flexible content that pruned to fit the
\northodox creed of the inerrancy; we have a compelling reason to believe that
\nthe obscure zone was the stage of a more insidious scribal attempt to make
\nthe four distinct gospels conform more and more to each other, and to
\neliminate the disturbing discrepancies.
\nTo counter our argument, Christian apologists are challenged to bring up
\na valid reason to break up the history of the scribal history into a neutral
\nharmonization era in the obscure zone and a buoyant action era from the dawn
\nof the enlightened zone. Tracing that history in such a way counters the
\ncommon logic of the transmission of the Holy Scriptures and lacks positive
\nevidence as well.
\n4. The Location of the Earliest Extant Manuscripts
\nThe earliest manuscripts were found in one geographical area far from
\nthe place of composition of the autographs, which is Egypt. It is hard to
\nbelieve that the Egyptian text is a faithful copy of the originals, which were
\nbrought from different areas, some from Europe. The Egyptian manuscripts
\nare an Egyptian version of the text in the first centuries.
\nIt has been argued that finding these manuscripts in Egypt does not mean
\nthat they came from Egypt, and that they may have been produced in other areas.
\nI hold that a manuscript found in Egypt is an Egyptian manuscript until the
\nopposite is proven. The burden of proof is on those who give such an unusual
\nexplanation. Moreover, Finney demonstrates that various early papyri and
\nuncials (P13 P46 \u05d0 A B D I) have similar orthography, and on the hypothesis that
\nshared orthography implies shared provenance, Finney suggests that these
\nwitnesses were copied in the same region, possibly Egypt.39
\n38 Ibid., p.205
\n39 Timothy J. Finney, \u201cThe Ancient Witnesses of the Epistle to the Hebrews: A Computer-Assisted
\nRESTORATION OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT: A MERE DECEPTIVE CLAIM
\n25
\nIt should be noted here that these Egyptian manuscripts differ from
\nthe text used by most of the Church Fathers of the same period in which the
\nmanuscripts were copied. The earliest extant manuscripts belong to the
\nAlexandrian text-type. (Text-type: A major grouping of biblical manuscripts
\nbased on textual affinity in a large number of passages. The different texttype names\u2014Alexandrian, Byzantine, Western\u2014were coined based on the
\nsupposed origin of the manuscripts40), while the manuscripts of the earliest
\nFathers belong to the Western text-type as we will see it later.
\n5. The Patristic Citations
\nThe available Church Fathers\u2019 citations coming from the second century
\ngive us evidence of the alteration of the New Testament. L. W. Hurtado
\nreported that only a few explicit citations of New Testament writings were
\nfound in the writings of the second-century Christian authors, and even in
\nthese few cases, the citation \u201coften exhibits curious differences from the text
\nof the writing that is dominant in the extant manuscripts.\u201d41
\nThe manuscripts used by the Church of the second century provide us
\nvaluable evidence that should not be overlooked, which is the disturbing
\ndissimilarities between them and the manuscripts of subsequent centuries.
\nThis highlights the historical fact that whenever the circulation of the
\nmanuscripts is meager, the chances for corruption are larger. What is striking
\nin this testimony is that it is based on the data provided by the Church
\nFathers of the second century, which is much more extensive than that which
\nwe can get from the manuscripts of the second century.
\nIn a very interesting essay, William P. Petersen concluded his study of the
\nuse of the New Testament in the second century, as it appears in the extant
\nwritings of that time, with some striking observations.
\n\u2022 Harmonization of the quotations from the Gospels seems to be
\nomnipresent and prominent.<\/p>\n

Analysis of the Papyrus and Uncial Manuscripts of PROS EBRAIOUS\u201d (PhD Diss., Murdoch University,
\n1999), pp.194-211. (See Maurice A. Robinson, \u201cThe Case for Byzantine Priority,\u201d in Maurice A.
\nRobinson and William G. Pierpont, The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform,
\nSouthborough, MA: Chilton Book Pub., 2005, p. 570)
\n40 M. S. DeMoss, Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek, Downers Grove, IL:
\nInterVarsity Press, 2001, p.121
\n41 L. W. Hurtado, \u201cThe New Testament in the Second Century: Text, Collections and Canon,\u201d in J.
\nW. Childers and D. C. Parker, eds., Transmission and Reception: New Testament Text-Critical and
\nExegetical Studies, Piscataway, NJ: Georgias Press, 2006, pp.14-5 [italics mine].
\nHUNTING FOR THE WORD OF GOD
\n26
\n\u2022 Extra-canonical material is prominent, and mingled with the canonical
\ntexts. There seems to have been no clear demarcation between traditions
\nthat were \u201cproto-canonical\u201d and those that were \u201cproto-extra-canonical.\u201d
\n\u2022 The passages that have a parallel in the canonical Gospels are usually
\nriddled with variants.
\n\u2022 Even where we can recognize a passage as having a parallel in what we
\nnow call the canonical Gospels, the sequence of the recognizable
\nmaterial has often been altered.
\n\u2022 The earlier we go in the second century, the more the parallels with our
\ncanonical Gospels fall off, and the citations grow vaguer and vaguer.
\n\u2022 The earlier we go, the less emphasis is placed on the words and life of
\nJesus.42
\nThen he concludes that these six characteristics which were indisputably
\npresent in the second century should make us believe strongly that more
\nevidence pointing to the same historical phenomenon was existent in the first
\ncentury, especially when we know that the standards of the notion of
\n\u201corthodoxism\u201d and its derivative were not clear nor fully developed. 43<\/p>\n

6. The Western Text-type
\nThe Western text-type was the text-type used by almost all the
\nChristian Fathers of the early centuries. This text-type is not actually a
\nhomogeneous group of texts; its entities are so dissimilar that Metzger said,
\n\u201cso diverse are the textual phenomena that von Soden was compelled to posit
\nseventeen sub-groups of witnesses which are more or less closely related to
\nthis text.\u201d44 Holmes notes, \u201cThis Type of Texts represents a tradition of
\nuncontrolled copying, editing, and translation: it exhibits harmonistic
\ntendencies, paraphrasing and substitution of synonyms, additions (sometimes
\nquite long).\u201d45 These characteristics tell us clearly that modifying the Holy
\nText was an early Christian habit.
\nThe peaceful coexistence of the Western text-type\u2014which is already a
\nblend of readings\u2014with the Alexandrian text-type informs us that the early
\n42 See William. L. Petersen, \u201cThe Genesis of the Gospels,\u201d pp.54-5
\n43 Ibid., p.45
\n44 Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament, Its Transmission, Corruption
\nand Restoration, fourth edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 2005, p.187
\n45 Michael W. Holmes, \u201cReconstructing the Text of the New Testament,\u201d in David E. Aune, The
\nBlackwell Companion to the New Testament, Chichester, U.K.; Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010,
\np.82
\nRESTORATION OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT: A MERE DECEPTIVE CLAIM
\n27
\n\u201corthodox\u201d Christians knew that the annoying mass of divergent readings
\nwas not an easy problem to resolve, and they confessed that they had deep
\nroots in the history of the texts.
\n7. The Use of Mark by Matthew and Luke
\nDue to the compelling arguments for the use of Mark by Matthew and
\nLuke, which is a hypothesis accepted by the majority of scholars today,
\nHelmut Koester worked on the agreements between Matthew and Luke
\nagainst Mark (called \u201cthe minor agreements\u201d) to find out the reason for this
\nodd disagreement. He finished by concluding that the authors of Matthew
\nand Luke did use a copy of Mark (Proto-Mark) different from ours, so the
\ndisagreement noticed today between Mark and the other two Gospels was not
\nthere in the first century when these three Gospels were written. Koester\u2019s
\nsuggestion is not just a plausible explanation for the enigmatic disagreement
\nbetween Matthew and Luke against their shared source, which is the only
\nserious apparent defect46 in the \u201ctwo source-hypothesis\u201d to explain the interrelationship between the synoptic Gospels, but it is also a successful attempt
\nto throw light on the obscure zone.
\nThe oldest47 discoverable text of the Gospel of Mark differs from ours
\nin many instances; it includes \u201ccases in which Matthew and Luke agree in
\nthe wording of a phrase or sentence that is different from Mark\u2019s text; and
\ncases in which Markan words, sentences, or entire pericopes are absent from
\nboth Matthew and Luke.\u201d48
\nDaniel B. Wallace goes on to say that the differences between Matthew
\nand Luke against Mark (in the parallel passages) are hints that \u201cthe copies of
\nMark that Matthew and Luke used were not identical to Mark\u2019s original.\u201d49
\nWallace opts for the opposite inference to Koester\u2019s hypothesis by claiming
\n46 See R. M. Wilson, \u201cFarrer and Streeter on the Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke against
\nMark,\u201d in Studia Evangelica 1 (1959) 254-7; E. W. Burrows, \u201cThe use of textual theories to explain
\nagreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark,\u201d in J. K. Elliott, Studies in New Testament Language ad
\nText, Leiden, 1976; R. B. Vinson, \u201cThe Significance of the Minor Agreements as an argument against the
\nTwo-Document Hypothesis,\u201d unpublished PhD dissertation.
\n47 We are still not talking about the \u201coriginal text,\u201d because a copy used in the first century (by two
\nevangelists) needs to show real positive proof for its faithfulness to the lost autograph.
\n48 Helmut Koester, \u201cThe Text of the Synoptic Gospels in the Second century,\u201d p.21
\n49 Daniel B. Wallace, Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and
\nApocryphal Evidence, Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2011, p.50
\nHUNTING FOR THE WORD OF GOD
\n28
\nthat the text of Mark\u2019s Gospel used by the two other evangelists is not the
\nearliest version of Mark. Wallace makes the case worse for the quest for the
\noriginal text of the earliest canonical Gospel, because he is proving that the
\ncorruption of Mark\u2019s Gospel started from the very early years, before even
\nthe use of the text by the two holy authors in the golden era of the inscription
\nof the Word of God.
\n8. The Hereticals\u2019 Text
\nEberhard Nestle pointed at a very crucial fact when he said, \u201cNearly all
\nthe heretics were in turn accused of falsifying the scriptures.\u201d50 For instance,
\nEpiphanius accused Marcion of altering some of the Gospels\u2019 passages
\n51
\n,
\nand Irenaeus claimed that Marcion \u201cdismembered the epistles of Paul,
\nremoving all that is said by the apostle respecting that God who made the
\nworld, to the effect that He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and also
\nthose passages from the prophetical writings which the apostle quotes, in
\norder to teach us that they announced beforehand the coming of the Lord.\u201d52
\nNow we know that the \u201cheresy\u201d is not \u201ca deforming of the truth\u201d; it is
\nrather a mere disagreement with the Christians who had the upper hand
\npolitically, starting from the fourth century. And because of a general lack of
\nproof in the charge made by the \u201corthodox\u201d Church Fathers, we have the
\nright to doubt the trustworthiness of the accusation, and to ask if the Nicaean
\nChurch is the one which tempered the New Testament to make the \u201cheretics\u201d
\nlose their proof-texts.
\nBart Ehrman turned our doubt into a conviction when he stated that
\n\u201crecent studies have shown that the evidence of our surviving manuscripts
\npoints the finger in the opposite direction. Scribes who were associated with
\nthe orthodox tradition not infrequently changed their texts, sometimes in
\norder to eliminate the possibility of their \u201cmisuse\u201d by Christians affirming
\nheretical beliefs and sometimes to make them more amenable to the
\ndoctrines being espoused by Christians of their own persuasion.\u201d53 More
\nrecent scholars are defending the view that Marcion did not alter the
\nmanuscripts he received from the previous generation, but rather, he largely
\npreserved readings already available in his days.54<\/p>\n

50 Eberhard Nestle, Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament, p.197
\n51 See Epiphanius, Panarion 42. 10. 4-5
\n52 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.27.2
\n53 Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, New York: HarperCollins, 2005, p.53
\n54 See G. Quispel, \u201cMarcion and the Text of the New Testament,\u201d in Vigiliae Christianae 52,
\nRESTORATION OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT: A MERE DECEPTIVE CLAIM
\n29
\nOn the other hand, Celsus, a Greek philosopher and opponent of
\nChristianity who lived in the second century (the obscure zone) declared, as
\nquoted by Origen, that some Christian believers \u201calter the original text of the
\nGospel three or four or several times over, and they change its character to
\nenable them to deny difficulties in face of criticism.\u201d55 This accusation has a
\nlot of credibility because it is confirmed by the core of recent studies.
\n9. The Non-canonical Gospels
\nThe mass of the early non-canonical Gospels reveal that there have
\nbeen other of Jesus\u2019 traditions circulating in the first century, 56 and that may
\nbe a good reason, if connected with the early theological controversies, to
\nreflect upon existing relationships between the canonical traditions and the
\nnon-canonical ones in the early stages of the shaping of the four Gospels
\nafter writing the autographs. The extra-canonical texts quoted by the early
\nChurch Fathers, such as Tatian57 and Clement of Alexandria58, prove that at
\nleast a century after the writing of the Gospels, many sayings of Jesus were
\ncirculating as authoritative words even though they are not included in the
\nlater copies of the New Testament.<\/p>\n

1998, 349-60; cf. U. Schmid, Marcion und sein Apostolos: Rekonstruktion und historische Einordnung
\nder marcionitischen Paulusbriefausgabe, New York: de Gruyter, 1995; and J. J. Clabeaux, A Lost Edition
\nof the Letters of Paul: A Reassessment of the Text of the Pauline Corpus Attested by Marcion, CBQMS
\n21; Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1989, as mentioned by Amy Donaldson,
\n\u201cExplicit References to New Testament Variant Readings Among Greek and Latin Church Fathers,\u201d
\n1\/289, unpublished manuscript. Graduate Program in Theology, Notre Dame, Indiana, December 2009.
\nRetrieved from: http:\/\/etd.nd.edu\/ETD-db\/theses\/available\/etd-12112009-
\n152813\/unrestricted\/DonaldsonA122009_Vol_I.pdf
\n55 Origen, Against Celsus 2.27
\n56 See Paul Foster, \u201cIs it possible to dispense with Q?,\u201d in Novum Testamentum, Oct 2003, Vol.
\n45 Issue 4, p. 316
\n57 For instance,
\n(1) At Jesus\u2019 baptism in the Jordan River (Matthew 3\/15-16), a \u201clight\u201d is reported to have shone in
\nthe water.
\n(2) At Matthew 8\/4, Jesus apparently instructs the healed leper to \u201cGo, fulfill the Law.\u201d
\n(3) At Luke 4\/29-30, Jesus is apparently thrown from the hilltop by the mob, but flies away
\nunhurt, eventually landing in Capernaum.
\n(4) At Luke 23\/48, the Jews apparently say something like, \u201cWoe to us, what has befallen us? The
\ndestruction of Jerusalem is nigh!\u201d (William. L. Petersen, \u201cThe Genesis of the Gospels,\u201d p.42)
\n58 See M. Mees, Die Zitate aus dem Neuen Testament bei Clemens von Alexandrien, Bari: Istituto
\ndi Letteratura Cristiana Antica, 1970
\nHUNTING FOR THE WORD OF GOD
\n30
\nWilliam L. Petersen finds the extra-canonical clauses in the Diatessaron
\nto be \u201cevidence that, by 172 or so, there appears to have been neither an
\nestablished text of the Gospels nor a reverential attitude towards their text;
\nrather, the traditional we now regard as parts of the canonical Gospels were
\nmalleable, rearrangeable, and subject to the whims of any writer, editor, or
\nharmonist.\u201d59
\n10. The New Critical Texts
\nThe current critical editions, as a whole, are not found in any extant
\nmanuscript, version, or Father citation. Textual critic scholars are crea-ting a
\ntext from variants dispersed in a huge mass of witnesses. These artificial
\nentities are concrete evidence for early waves of corruptions that start from a
\ntime earlier than the date of the copying of our earliest witnesses. Thinking
\nthat the obscure zone was an era of a perfect and faithful transmission of the
\nautograph must be far from true, because that would mean that a sharp,
\nabrupt shift had occurred at the earliest years of the enlightened zone, from a
\nstrict copying of the exact words of the authors to the loss of any copy that
\nheld the exact original text.
\n***
\nWhat can we conclude? As a matter of fact, we are, on the one hand,
\nmissing arguments for a genealogical map that proves a safe transmission of
\nthe autograph throughout the first two centuries, and we possess, on the other
\nhand, clear signs for a live text throughout the same period.
\nShow Me the Way?
\nThe witnesses of the New Testament text that we possess are, in one
\nway or another, an unpleasant burden, because they are the main reason for
\nthe emergence of the conflicting textual methods which all have one claim:
\nthe restoration of the original\/best attainable text from the available
\nwitnesses (manuscripts, versions, and patristic citations). Today, these
\nconflicting methods demonstrate that the path to the oldest text is not straight
\nand, sadly, they do not give us assurance that they would lead us to the exact
\ndestination. These methods strive to restore the original\/best attainable text,
\nbut the fact that we are far away from the desired text cannot be hidden. Our
\nsearch shows how hard it is to derive the best reading from the medley of
\nfabricated readings. The main actual methods are as follows:
\n59 William. L. Petersen, \u201cThe Genesis of the Gospels,\u201d p. 43
\nRESTORATION OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT: A MERE DECEPTIVE CLAIM
\n31
\nTextus Receptus. This is the Greek text prepared by the Dutch
\nscholar Erasmus in the sixteenth century. The basis of this text is six old
\nmanuscripts with a Byzantine type of text. It became standard in the
\nsixteenth and seventeenth centuries. This text has been almost universally
\nabandoned by scholars since the end of the nineteenth century.
\nMajority Text. Some scholars embrace the theory that the original
\ntext is preserved in the majority of manuscripts. It is a statistical construct of
\nthe text that focuses on the number of times the variant reading (a different
\nwording or reading of a biblical text that is found in a manuscript)60 is
\nrepeated in the manuscript. So, according to this theory, recovering the
\noriginal text needs only that one collect the most repeated readings.61
\nTraditional Critical Method. This method was prevalent in the
\nnineteenth century, and it was used by famous scholars like Lachmann,
\nTischendorf, Westcott, and Hort. It consists of choosing a good manuscript
\nto be the base of the new constructed text, and evaluating its reading when
\ncompared with other manuscripts.
\nEclectic Method. This method states that the best readings are not
\nfound in a sole manuscript; rather, they are scattered in the mass of
\nmanuscripts. A scholar has to select the best reading based on the rules that
\nhe has pre-adopted, and he is supposed to deal solely with each variant
\nreading. This method is usually classified according to the use of the internal
\nand external criteria. We have two main categories, general eclecticism and
\nradical eclecticism.
\n1. General Eclecticism: The majority of scholars today adopt the general
\neclecticism method. It is based on concern for the internal (the contents
\nof the text and the peculiarities and habits of scribes) and the external
\nevidences (the manuscripts) when weighting the different variant
\nreadings. Moreover, it is characterized by its preference for the
\nAlexandrian text-type. Within the general eclecticism method, we can
\nmake a distinction between a reasoned eclectic method and a localgenealogical method.
\no Reasoned eclecticism is the widely accepted textual technique,
\nthe main characteristic of which is that it first clearly
\n60 M. S. DeMoss, Pocket dictionary for the study of New Testament Greek, p.127
\n61 See John William Burgon, The Revision Revised, London: John Murray, 1883, Wilbur
\nPickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1977
\nHUNTING FOR THE WORD OF GOD
\n32
\ndistinguishes between internal and external evidence, so it is
\npossible to consider the two kinds of evidence apart from each
\nother. The same, too, is applicable to the scribal customs and the
\nauthor customs. Secondly, this technique focuses more on the
\nexternal evidence than the internal kinds.62
\no The local-genealogical method was formulated or at least named
\nand promulgated by Kurt Aland. It is based on drawing a
\nstemma for each variant reading, not the entire book63. This
\nmethod works on a number of broad general principles, rather
\nthan detailed formulated criteria, and emphasizes more the
\nexternal evidence, while refusing partly the Hortian model of the
\nhistory and the classification of the text-types.64
\n2. Radical Eclecticism: Advocated in many articles and books by G. D.
\nKilpatrick and J. K. Elliott, this method focuses almost solely on the
\ninternal aspects of the text, by choosing the reading that explains the first
\ncentury language and the style of the author and his theological
\nbackground.65 This textual approach starts from a conviction that all the
\nvariant readings arose prior to the time of the earliest surviving
\nmanuscripts, so these manuscripts cannot be the decisive factor in
\nreaching the original or the most satisfactory reading.
\nWe can conclude the following from these diverse textual critic
\nmethods:
\n\u2022 How deceptive is the certainty of the Church that our copies
\ncontain the same words written by the so-called inspired authors,
\nand that the original text was transmitted from one generation to
\nanother all the way through the history of the Christian nation.
\n\u2022 Even though it is accepted by the overwhelming majority of
\nscholars, reasoned eclecticism cannot lead us to the first text. A.
\nF. J. Klijn, a proponent of this method, declared that \u201cthose who,
\nby the way of the eclectic method, try to restore the original text
\n62See J. H. Petzer, \u201cEclecticism and the Text of the New Testament,\u201d in Patrick J. Hartin and J. H.
\nPetzer, eds., Text and Interpretation: New Approaches in the Criticism of the New Testament, Leiden:
\nBrill, 1991, p.51
\n63 See Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece (26th ed.), p.43*
\n64 See J. H. Petzer, \u201cEclecticism and the Text of the New Testament,\u201d pp.52-4
\n65 See J. K. Elliott and Ian Moir, Manuscripts and the Text of the New Testament: An Introduction
\nfor English Readers, Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1995, pp.34-5
\nRESTORATION OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT: A MERE DECEPTIVE CLAIM
\n33
\nhave reached markedly disparate results. The eclectic method
\nseems to be the only adequate method to regain the original text,
\nbut it also appears to lead us into complete chaos.\u201d
\n66
\nWhen Textual Criticism Is Confusing
\nThe pop culture that the Church tries hard to imitate in the public
\ndomain tends to simplify what is complex and to ignore its problems; so the
\nmessage being conveyed will be easy to accept and be absorbed. One of
\nthese problems is the search for the original reading.
\nIt is very well known in academic studies that choosing the original or
\nthe best reading is an immeasurably hard and intricate task, and that the
\ndifferences between the choices of the variant readings reflect the differences
\nbetween the textual criticism methods. We can notice different results even
\nin the same school, and that shows how delicate a matter it is to opt for a
\npreferred reading. The actual situation appears to be even worse than this,
\ngiven the fact that scholars often change some of their preferences when they
\nreprint their own critical texts.
\nWe can see most of the preceding assertions exemplified in the editions
\nof the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament (abbreviated: UBS), from
\nthe first edition to the fourth one. K. D. Clark revealed the unexpected
\nshifting of the UBS4
\nwith the help of detailed charts and lengthy statistics
\nand calculations.67 Although the teams which worked on it were
\nhomogenous, we can detect changes in the preferred readings. The UBS
\ncommittee, which follows one textual criticism school, introduced more than
\nfive hundred changes68 in the third edition after only seven years of the
\npublishing of the second one, in a period of time that did not know any
\nsignificant discovery.69 Silva, evaluating the rating\u2019s change for Romans to
\n66 A. F. J. Klijn, \u201cIn Search of the Original Text of Acts,\u201d in L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn, Studies
\nin Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert, Nashville: Abingdon, 1966, p.104 [italics
\nmine].
\n67 K. D. Clarke, Textual Optimism: A Critique of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament,
\nSheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997
\n68 Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren, eds., The
\nGreek New Testament, New York: United Bible Societies, 1975, p. viii
\n69 K. D. Clark, Textual Optimism, p.129: \u201cThe addition of these various witnesses has not
\nnecessarily brought new insight or fresh proof into the evaluation of variants, and hence the determining
\nof a more likely reading\u201d (even though what Clark said is about the difference between UBS3 and the
\nUBS4, his statement is a fortiori applicable to the difference between UBS2 and UBS3.)
\nHUNTING FOR THE WORD OF GOD
\n34
\nGalatians as recorded in the UBS3
\nand UBS4
\n, writes, \u201cHow radically
\ndifferent is the resulting complexion of the material can be seen by
\ncomparing the totals from the third and fourth editions: Third Fourth A 20 93
\nB 62 64 C99 55 D 25 2…\u201d70
\nThe way that scholars weigh the readings makes it clear that the original
\ntext is not yet close to being derived. For instance, the UBS4
\ncommittee did
\nnot treat the variants as \u201coriginal reading\u201d versus \u201cfabricated reading.\u201d The
\ncommittee acknowledged that there are different degrees of determination,
\nand it is not just \u201cright\u201d or \u201cwrong,\u201d which is the reason that the critical
\nApparatus (the data presented in footnotes at the bottom of the page in a
\ncritical biblical text in which the witnesses for the variant readings are
\ncited)71 used variant letter-ratings:
\n\u2022 The letter A indicates that the text is certain.
\n\u2022 The letter B indicates that the text is almost certain.
\n\u2022 The letter C indicates that the committee had difficulty in deciding which
\nvariant to place in the text.
\n\u2022 The letter D indicates that the committee had great difficulty in arriving
\nat a decision.72
\nIt is noteworthy that the UBS4
\nchanged the definition of the A, B, C,
\nand D ratings made in the UBS3
\n, and in so doing, elaborated them to include
\nthe degrees of certainty of its ratings73. The fourth edition\u2019s preface
\ndeclared, \u201cThe Committee also redefined the various levels in the evaluation
\nof evidence on the basis of their relative degrees of certainty. Thus the
\nevaluation of all the 1437 sets of variants cited in the apparatus have been
\ncompletely reconsidered.\u201d74
\nWhen we reflect on the details of the UBS apparatus, we are shocked to
\ndiscover that the ratings of the choices of the committee of the UBS3 , for
\ninstance, are as follows:75
\n70 Silva, \u201cSymposium,\u201d p.352 (Quoted by K. D. Clark, op. cit., p.120)
\n71 M. S. DeMoss, Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek, p.40
\n72 See The Greek New Testament, fourth revision edition, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft,
\n1994 , p.3*
\n73 See K. D. Clarke and K. Bales, \u201cThe Construction of Biblical Certainty: Textual Optimism and
\nthe United Bible Society’s Greek New Testament,\u201d in D. G. K. Taylor, ed., Studies in the Early Text of the
\nGospels and Acts, Texts and Studies, third Series, 1, Birmingham: University of Birmingham Press, 1999,
\npp.86-93
\n74 The Greek New Testament, p.v
\n75 E. J. Edwards, \u201cOn Using the Textual Apparatus of the UBS Greek New Testament,\u201d in The
\nRESTORATION OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT: A MERE DECEPTIVE CLAIM
\n35
\n\u2022 A-Ratings: 8.7%
\n\u2022 B-Ratings: 32. 3%
\n\u2022 C-Ratings: 48.6 %
\n\u2022 D-Ratings: 10.4%
\nAs J. H. Petzer writes, \u201cIf one distinguishes between the A and the B
\nratings on the one hand, assigning the broad classification \u2018certain\u2019 to them,
\nand the C and the D ratings on the other, assigning the broad classification
\n\u2018uncertain\u2019 to them, the decision of the committee is still uncertain in more
\nthan 59% of the more or less 1,440 variation-units included in the text.\u201d76
\nThe Mercy Bullet
\nWhat text do we have? Is it the text written by the authors, or the text(s)
\nused by the readers? There is no clear answer to the first question, and there
\nis no reason to reject the second one. So, we are forced to admit that we do
\nnot have the exact words of the autograph.
\nWhen Bart Ehrman said, \u201cWhat is remarkable is that throughout this
\nhistory, virtually no one has read them in their original form,\u201d77 he simply
\nshoots the Mercy Bullet into the dream of the \u201cbelievers,\u201d who think that
\nthey do hear the message of God throughout the New Testament text. This is
\nnot God\u2019s voice, if we accept the claim that the original text was an inspired
\nword; rather, it is a m\u00e9lange of the authors\u2019 texts and of later scribes\u2019
\nadditions.
\nFinally, if no one (known to us) has been able to read the original text,
\nthen no one will ever succeed in reading it, because they would be trying to
\ngrasp a vanished text that lost its original form in its first years or maybe
\neven in its first days.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A Preserved New Testament? By : Sami Ameri 2013 – What is the \u201coriginal text\u201d? -What is the \u201cobscure Zone\u201d? – Can we talk about a systematic preservation of the New Testament? -Can the...<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2971,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[119,1,225,153],"tags":[130],"class_list":["post-2970","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-comparative-religion","category-general-topics","category-library","category-religious-studies-and-research","tag-new-testament"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2970","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2970"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2970\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2972,"href":"https:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2970\/revisions\/2972"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/2971"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2970"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2970"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/investigate-islam.com\/web\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2970"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}