Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All
$5.00
EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 160 books. Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).
Major Critical Texts of the New Testament
Byz RP: 2005 Byzantine Greek New Testament, Robinson & Pierpont TR1550: 1550 Stephanus New Testament Maj: The Majority Text (thousands of minuscules which display a similar text) Gries: 1774-1775 Johann Jakob Griesbach Greek New Testament Treg: 1857-1879 Samuel Prideaux Tregelles Greek New Testament Tisch: 1872 Tischendorf’s Greek New Testament WH: 1881 Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament NA28: 2012 Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament UBS5: 2014 Greek New Testament NU: Both Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Society SBLGNT: 2010 Greek New Testament THGNT: 2017 The Greek New Testament by Tyndale House GENTI: 2020 Greek-English New Testament Interlinear
Philippians 2:30a Updated American Standard Version (UASV) 30 because he came close to death for the work of Christ, risking his life to complete what was lacking in your service to me.
TR NU τὸ ἔργον Χριστοῦ“the work of Christ” P46 B F G 0278 (D Maj add του before Χριστου)
Variant 1 το εργον “the work” C
Variant 2/WH το εργον κυριου “the work of the Lord” א A P Ψ 075 33 syr cop
The original word was the work of Christ, supported by the two earliest and weightiest manuscripts (P46 B), as well ad F G 0278 (D Maj add του before Χριστου) and TR NU. One variant readings is “the work” supported by C. A second reading is the work of the Lord supported by (א A P Ψ 075 33 syr cop). Looking at the internal evidence, we discover that it is only here that Paul uses the phrase the work of Christ, but he does “the work of the Lord” in 1 Cor 15:58; 16:10, which have no textual variants. Therefore, we can see how the copyists of variant 2 conforming the text. What WH were lacking was P46, which dates 110-150 C.E. and is a proto-Alexandrian text. The scribe who produce P46 was a professional who used a very early, excellent exemplar. Moreover, this reading is represented by more than one geographical area: (Alexandrian P46 B), (Western D F G it vg), and the Byzantine, making it the preferred reading.
Philippians 2:30b Updated American Standard Version (UASV) 30 because he came close to death for the work of Christ, risking his life to complete what was lacking in your service to me.
WH NU παραβολευσάμενος τῇ ψυχῆ “having risked his life” P46 א A B D F G copsa
Variant/TR παραβουλευσαμενος τη ψυχη “having no regard for his life” C Ψ 33 1739 Maj syr
The original word was “having risked his life” supported by the earliest and weightiest manuscripts (P46 א A B D F G copsa) WH NU. A variant reading is “having no regard for his life” supported by TR (C Ψ 33 1739 Maj syr). If we look at the Greek verb in the original reading παραβολευσάμενος “risking” and the variant παραβουλευσαμενος, there is but one letter difference in the words, “υ” upsilon. The internal evidence does not help because both readings make perfectly good sense in the context because Epaphroditus did risk his life for the work of Christ. In the original reading it is a simple, plain statement “for the work of Christ, risking his life.” In the variant, “for the work of Christ, having no regard for his life” simply means that he valued his life as less than the work for Christ. But one could never set aside the far more superior manuscript evidence for the original reading. However, J. B. Lightfoot offers an interesting take on “παραβολευσάμενος, [saying Epaphroditus] ‘having gambled with his life.’”[1] On the other hand, as we look at the variant, we see a case of self-sacrifice, which is commendable but not as interesting, lively, and exciting as ‘gambling with his life.”
[1] Joseph Barber Lightfoot, ed., Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, Classic Commentaries on the Greek New Testament (London: Macmillan and Co., ltd, 1913), 124.
TERMS AS TO HOW WE SHOULD OBJECTIVELY VIEW THE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY FOR THE READING ACCEPTED AS THE ORIGINAL
The modal verbs are might have been (30%), may have been (40%), could have been(55%), would have been (80%),must have been (95%), which are used to show that we believe the originality of a reading is certain, probable or possible.
The letter [WP] stands for Weak Possibility (30%), which indicates that this is a low-level proof that the reading might have been original in that it is enough evidence to accept that the variant might have been possible, but it is improbable. We can say the reading might have been original, as there is some evidence that is derived from manuscripts that carry very little weight, early versions, or patristic quotations.
The letter [P] stands for Plausible (40%), which indicates that this is a low-level proof that the reading may have been original in that it is enough to accept a variant to be original and we have enough evidence for our belief. The reading may have been original but it is not probably so.
The letter [PE] stands for Preponderance of Evidence (55%), which indicates that this is a higher-level proof that the reading could have been original in that it is enough to accept as such unless another reading emerges as more probable.
The letter [CE] stands for Convincing Evidence (80%), which indicates that the evidence is an even higher-level proof that the reading surely was the original in that the evidence is enough to accept it as substantially certainunless proven otherwise.
The letter [BRD] stands for Beyond Reasonable Doubt (95%), which indicates that this is the highest level of proof: the reading must have been original in that there is no reason to doubt it. It must be understood that feeling as though we have no reason to doubt is not the same as one hundred percent absolute certainty.
NOTE: This system is borrowed from the criminal just legal terms of the United States of America, the level of certainty involved in the use of modal verbs, and Bruce Metzger in his A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), who borrowed his system from Johann Albrecht Bengel in his edition of the Greek New Testament (Tübingen, 1734). In addition, the percentages are in no way attempting to be explicit, but rather they are nothing more than a tool to give the non-textual scholar a sense of the degree of certainty. However, this does not mean the percentages are not reflective of certainty.
B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek: Appendix (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1882)
Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Biblical Studies Press, 2006)
Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994),
Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, Nestle-Aland: NTG Apparatus Criticus, ed. Barbara Aland et al., 28. revidierte Auflage. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012).
Dirk Jongkind, ed., The Greek New Testament: Apparatus (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017).
Dirk Jongkind, ed., The Greek New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), Matt. 6:8.
Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. Barbara Aland et al., 28. revidierte Auflage. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012)
Philip Wesley Comfort, A COMMENTARY ON THE MANUSCRIPTS AND TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2015).
Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the Variant Readings of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the Major English Translations (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008).
Philip Wesley Comfort and David P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts: Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts, 2 Volume Set The (English and Greek Edition) (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2019)
Rick Brannan and Israel Loken, The Lexham Textual Notes on the Bible, Lexham Bible Reference Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014).
Roger L. Omanson and Bruce Manning Metzger, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament: An Adaptation of Bruce M. Metzger’s Textual Commentary for the Needs of Translators (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006).
Wallace B., Daniel (n.d.). Retrieved from The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts: http://csntm.org/
The letter [WP] stands for Weak Possibility (30%), which indicates that this is a low-level proof that the reading might have been original in that it is enough evidence to accept that the variant might have been possible, but it is improbable. We can say the reading might have been original, as there is some evidence that is derived from manuscripts that carry very little weight, early versions, or patristic quotations.
Leave a Reply