The Definition of Corrupt and the KJVO Issue
–adjective
1. guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked: a corrupt judge.
2. debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil: a corrupt society.
3. made inferior by errors or alterations, as a text.
4. infected; tainted.
5. decayed; putrid. *
What do the above definitions have to do with the King James Only issue? Much, I think. You see, there is a difference between the definition that is in use by those who are KJVO and those who are not. (This is a blanket statement that is not representative of everyone involved.) The definition is applied to NT manuscripts.
Those who are not KJVO tend to use the definition of corrupt that is seen in number 3. Their view is that many texts have been tainted (thus a little of number 4 enters in) and made inferior. That means that there are some NT manuscripts which are better than others.
Those who are KJVO will tend to use the definition of corrupt that is seen in numbers 1,2,4, and 5. Their idea is that there are manuscripts that are dishonest, depraved, wicked, evil, tainted, and putrid. This means that there are some NT manuscripts that are hopelessly tainted and are to be totally rejected.
The problem with the KJVO stance on this issue is that it is a subtle move from defining corruption as something being made inferior by changes or alterations to defining corruption as something that is absolutely corrupt. It is a move from relative corruption to absolute corruption. It is a move from partial corruption to total corruption. Whether this subtle move is intentional or not, it clouds the issue at hand and makes the debate more difficult.
The other problem with this is that the KJVO believer tends to present the text which is not the Textus Receptus as being totally and hopelessly corrupt. This is a logical fallacy. It’s throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Finally, the KJVO believer must demonstrate, then, that those texts outside of the TR are totally and hopelessly corrupt in the sense that they are theologically deviant and depraved to the point that the Word of God is not there in any recognizable form. If not, then we must return to using the word corrupt in the sense of definition number three.
*It might be useful to note as well that when someone writing in Latin (like say Erasmus) would have used the word corruptus as meaning ‘broken into pieces’ rather than the Anglicized definition we now use. So there is a 6th definition as well – broken into pieces. (Erik D.)
Tags: corrupt, King James, King James Only, King James Version Only, KJV, KJVO, New Testament, New Testament text, textual corruption, textual issues
Bible, Bible Translations, Bible Versions, KJV-onlyism, KJVO, Manuscript Evidence, Miscellaneous, Textual Criticism, Weighing the Evidence
In the discipline of textual criticism (both of Old and New Testaments), we speak of textual corruption. All texts contain corruptions (misspellings are corruptions). The purpose of textual criticism is to remove as much of the corruption as possible in order to get to a feasible urtext. The TR has corruptions (my discipline is OT studies, and I would argue that in places the MT has corruptions and the LXX is correct). Aleph (Siniaticus) has corruptions. Vaticanus has corruptions. Beza has corruptions. Contra to Sorenson – there is no perfect mss extant today. And note my language – texts are not corrupt – they contain corruptions. They contain errors.
The GNT behind the KJV is no exception. What the TR/MT and KJO crowd must do is to demonstrate that their GNT does not contain corruption – that God miraculously preserved a few manuscripts in their original, infallible text if they desire to make an argument that the other texts (not TR) are indeed corrupt.
Even Greek mss that are theologically biased (such as Beza – see Epp’s book on the subject) are still useful for Textual Criticism.
Isn’t it Bezae? I am with you all the way here, C.
Bob,
Yes, it is Bezae. That is what happens after midnight! The mind isn’t so clear then.
Sorry, C, but I disagree with a statement you made:
What the TR/MT and KJO crowd must do is to demonstrate that their GNT does not contain corruption – that God miraculously preserved a few manuscripts in their original, infallible text if they desire to make an argument that the other texts (not TR) are indeed corrupt.
The TR position is not that a ‘few’ manuscripts were preserved or that they were each in their ‘original, infallible text’. The TR position is (or should be) that the vast majority of texts represent a core text, and that although that core text may be marred in places by scribal mistakes, the core text did not have to be discovered by modern scholarship.
I agree Erik. That is basically their position. They then use this text which has been around pretty much intact for hundreds of years and say deviations from it are corruptions. I think their faith leads them to the text they choose, so that is really the main issue in debating with them.
But I would say the TR itself has many weaknesses in comparison with the Byzantine Text, certain readings not widely attested or widely available. By faith they believe it was received by the churches and so in the areas where it has minority readings God must have providentially guided His Church.
Bob, can you provide a few of the readings in the TR that are not widely attested in the Byzantine text?
Just so you know, it is the opinion of many TR guys that the published Byzantine/Majority Text does not accurately represented the majority of the texts.
Bob, I’m going to play devil’s advocate with some of your statements.
Shouldn’t our faith lead us to the texts we choose?
If you argue that the text arose without faith, then doesn’t that prove my father’s point that modern critical texts are based on naturalistic views of evolution? That the text evolved?
Just saw your comments here Erik. It’s been a busy weekend.
Bob, can you provide a few of the readings in the TR that are not widely attested in the Byzantine text?
Luke 17:36, Acts 8:37, Acts 9:6a, 1 John 5:7 — these are not in the Byzantine Text
Rev. 16:5 “osias” / “holy one” vs. “esomenos” / “and shalt be”
Rev. 22:19 “Xulou” / “tree (of life)” vs. “Biblou” / “book (of life)”
A fuller list of differences can be found at the link below:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/hodges-farstad.html
and (in Greek)
http://www.bible-researcher.com/robinson-scrivener.html
Just so you know, it is the opinion of many TR guys that the published Byzantine/Majority Text does not accurately represented the majority of the texts.
They say that based on the Hodges/Farstad more than the Robinson/Pierpont, I believe. It is true that in many places the Byzantine witness is split (particulary Revelation), so a true majority is hard to come by, somewhat. But I don’t think they have seriously listened to MT advocates because their views on the KJV and the preservation of Scripture prevent them from doing that. (That is my opinion of course.)
Bob, I’m going to play devil’s advocate with some of your statements.
Shouldn’t our faith lead us to the texts we choose?
If you argue that the text arose without faith, then doesn’t that prove my father’s point that modern critical texts are based on naturalistic views of evolution? That the text evolved?
Our faith has to be bound by the explicit statements of Scripture, in my view. Nothing indicates we should expect a perfect miraculous by-passing of common human frailties and propensity to errors, when it comes to the transmission of the text.
That being said, we do by faith believe God would not let the Word He inspired pass out of existence. And He does promise to preserve it. The question is how and where, and by whom.
One final thought, God expects us to use the reason He also gave us. We can look to the texts we have preserved and be amazed at their tenacity, and widespread dispersion plus sheer numbers. We can truly be in awe of God’s preservation.
That’s how I’d reply here, just thinking off the cuff.
I think we are discussing about the dificiencies of the TR and manuscripts it was based upon and not the same with the modern so-called eclectic Greek editions aren’t we? It is a two-sided street. The UBS and NA editions have the same problems. Bias towards framentary papyri and over-reliance on manuscripts like Aleph and Vaticanus(B) which subject to errors as found in C. Watson’s category 3. It is being implied that only the KJV and the TR is subject to this category. This is quite wrong.
The fallacy being, only the TR and the KJV has errors, alterations making it an inferior text basis. If the TR does Aleph and Vaticanus surely do. Categories 1,2,4 & 5 that S. Watson listed also includes the types of variants Aleph and Vaticanus imposed into the text such as elimination of fasting and reduction of the divinity of Christ.
Arguing that the TR and KJV is replete with alteration just does not look at the other side of the street. If one does as I have you see the other side may not be so perfect as it sounds. Modern versions are based on these few old manuscripts but again, that does make them better.
Paul,
I think you’re misunderstanding the post. Jason Skipper wrote the post with the categories and all. C. Watson gave the first comment. It looked like he was attacking the TR by using the Beza descriptor, but he was referring to Codex Bezae (D) which is neither Alexandrian nor Byzantine.
I agree it’s a two way street, but TR Only advocates often claim the manuscripts are especially corrupt as opposed to the Byzantine, but that’s a false view of corrupt. Very few manuscripts can be said to be wholesale corrupted productions. At least that is my viewpoint.
Bob,
I was using Bezae as a description of a text that was theologically biased in its choice of readings, not to attack the TR, but simply to state that it still has value. A corrupted text could be wrong in 99 readings and correct in 1.
I heard that in your posts, C. I wasn’t sure where Paul was getting what he was, unless he might have been thinking by calling Bezae Beza you were actually referring to Beza’s version of the TR. That probably wasn’t where he got that. I was just hoping to help the exchange.
Thanks for you interaction too, by the way.
Hi Folks,
Any sensible discussion of corruption should include the following items.
Textual corruption and scribal corruption are separate and distinct types of corruption. Read Dean John Burgon on Codex Bezae for an excellent analysis that emphasizes the distinction and has a discussion of a manuscript that has both types of corruption, a fact about which most everybody would agree.
Corruption in a manuscript is the flip-side of quality. The claim of W-H (who described their text as pure) and behind any modern version NA-27 text is that Aleph and B are ancient and quality manuscripts, therefore due more consideration than any other combination of manuscripts and evidences. While the assertion of Reformation Bible proponents is that those two manuscripts are ancient and ultra-corrupt, scribally and textually, and due minimal consideration in textual analysis (as, e.g. occurred with Erasmus and Vaticanus, mostly disinterest and passing reference, perhaps helpful in a special case).
And note that textual corruption has multiple components, some are soft, interpretative, conceptual. Others are hard and agreed upon by all .. an example would be a geographical error like Sinaiticus placing Nazareth in Judea. When Tischendorf referred to “many obvious blunders” in Sinaiticus, such textual corruptions would be included, as well as scribal corruption. The Reformation Bible proponent would point to other dubious geographical references in the alexandrian manuscripts, like the swine marathon from Gerasa, and consider those also as textual corruptions, while the modern version proponent would disagree.
I’ll plan on placing a mini-essay post with more information on this on the TC-Alternate forum, and-or my own web-page since the discussion is often overlooked in textual lands.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Paul,
First of all, I did not list the categories of “corruption” above as Jason/Erik (I’m a bit confused about who actually wrote the article) did. I was using “corruption” in the technical text-critical sense as a synonym for “error.”
Second, I believe that you have misunderstood me. I did not proclaim that only the TR and the KJV has errors. I explicitly stated that Siniaticus, Vaticanus, Beza, the TR all have errors. What is demonstrable is that Siniaticus, Vaticanus, Beza, the papyri, are older texts with a broad geographical locale – various readings were widespread. Although there are many texts of the Byzantine text types, these were generally more eastern texts and of a later date. All texts contain corruption. Some texts contain more corruption than others.
What I would like to see is for someone who is KJO or TR only to lay out there canons of textual criticism.
By what I mean by canon – the rules by which you make a textual decision – i.e. usually those hold a critical text make a decision based on – best (subjective), oldest, broadest (geographically), shortest, like the author, explains other readings, difficult reading preferred (I strongly prefer external evidence to internal evidence).
Thanks to all of you who have replied to this point.
First of all, I, Jason wrote the post. Erik’s name is attached to the footnote because he suggested the example.
Second, the issue at hand is not which texts have corruptions, but what corruption is.
Stephen, there are two things that I wish for you to do:
1. Please consider your words. To state that a “sensible discussion” would include thus and such is to imply that this is not a sensible discussion. I don’t think that you intended to come across that way, but do ask that you consider your words.
2. You spoke of a response dealing with corruption. As one of the moderators here I shall make a one time exception to the rule against long, long comments and ask that you give us your reply here. The reason is this; this page is about discussion. This post is about discussing the meaning of corruption. It is not my intention that this particular post be a post that is pro/con TR or ET. It is solely for the purpose of discussing corruption.
Why discuss corruption alone in this manner? If you will consider how I stated my case in the post, I believe that many KJVO advocates seek to poison the well by being ambiguous about their terminology, thus hijacking the word corrupt and using it to mean what it does not.
Jason
Reply to CA. In response to your “Canons of TC” suggested at the end to avoid errors as found in the TR. The same can be applied for instance to the NA 27th edition as there are unsubstantiated readings in it with no manuscript support as brought out recently by Dr. Maurice Robinson. Some of your criteria within your “Canons for TC” are based on the same old flawed theories of Bengel, Wettstein and Greisbach. For instance, more difficult and shorter readings are not always better.
As for the geographical spread and locale for the non-Byzantine manuscripts, the same can be said for the papyri and older majuscules like Aleph and B. Furthermore, it is probable the same scribe that did Vaticanus also work on the decorative work in Aleph. It is also certain that readings within the Byzantine groupings are quite often as old as the papyri or older than in Vaticanus or Aleph for instance as demonstrated by Dr. Harry Sturz.
In addition, as for the dating of older manuscripts, older does not make them better manuscripts. Again, there is no Alexandrian grouping so we have to speak about individual manuscripts outside of the Byzantine groupings. In summary, it’s not just the TR that has explaining to do, it’s also in need on the other side of the debate as well.
Paul,
When stating the “canons,” I was simply stating what is commonly held. I also stated that I lean heavily towards the external evidences, rather than the internal evidences. Internal evidence, in my opinion, is extremely subjective and often comes from the imagination of one’s thumb.
I have also written for PhD level courses in Textual Criticism that the work for OTTC is impossible, and that NTTC has not been done – no one has done the complete collation of all of the mss – or traced the genetic lines from one mss to another. Few realize that the Masoretic Text is the result of a recension (well documented), and that the Byzantine text is possibly the result of a recension (not well documented – thus more doubtful).
What your post has done is to point out apparent weaknesses in the traditional canons of critical TC that I have listed. Your statement “same old flawed theories…” is not an argument, it is rhetoric. You also state that “more difficult and shorter readings are not always better.” I would agree. Some times they are, some times they aren’t. Evidences must be weighed.
You have also made my point by mentioning the geographical spread of the various mss. The Byz mss are not as widely spread (in origin) as the other readings. You state that “it is certain” in consideration of the dates of the Byz readings on the basis of Sturz’ book. Wallace would disagree (a student of Sturz). Which one is correct? It would take a doctoral dissertation to fact-check the debate between the two (I’m OT – it would be out of my discipline). I wouldn’t use that as evidence.
You have not made a case for your point. You have, however, made a weak case against my point. From the perspective of logic – an argument against a position is never an argument for a position.
CA, just to inform a little. I collate Greek manuscripts Byzantine and non-Byzantine and some of your argumentation needs updated. For instance, the Alexandrian text form per se is dead. I relayed to Bob that Dr. Holger Strutwolf (B. Aland’s successor at INTF) has said so at last year’s SBL-New Orleans. They also made clear their institute(INTF) has found the W-H theory of Byzantine recension essentially in error.
It is clear any that any debate between the positions of Sturz and Wallace would have to define which subgroup of the Byzantine text one is using as a basis for discussion. This is an essential point often lost. The term “Byzantine/Majority” when fine tuning the issue is useless.
Regarding your last point. I do not agrre that internal evidence is subjective. Our starting basis is different. Thanks for your comments though.
This is just a random thought, but… it’s interesting that this post was written by one author, yet specifically includes a contribution from another author. Even though that is specifically stated, it was still confusing at first glance.
I’ll bet that fact can be used somehow as an illustration in the discussion of textual criticism.
Paul,
Thanks for the heads up. Do you have any English articles that you could point to to demonstrate the non-existence of the Alexandrian form? I would be fascinated to read them. (I haven’t been mentioning families other than the Byz – because I’ve always thought that that was the only true family – and if you look above, I expressed my doubt about whether the Byz was a recension or not). I haven’t had the money to go to SBL or ETS yet to keep up with some of these things.
INTF also has the article on their website about the process of the formation of the byz. http://www.uni-muenster.de/INTF/ByzTextDownload/ByzEvvPDF.zip
CA,
Yes, I know Klaus Wachtel too and he is doing outstanding work on the subject. I disagree with small details in his paper due to my own work on the subject. Unfortunately, I do not have Holger’s paper on the Alexandrian text as he spoke in German on the subject. He expressed his conclusions in Q & A at the end of his paper at SBL. Also, I did give my own paper on Codex W at national ETS last year showing related manuscripts from internal evidence prove that the former so-called Alexandrian cursives are closer to Codex W than Vaticanus.
I don’t know where you are, but I may be giving a paper on the TR and its relation to the Byzantine groups at regional Atlantic SBL in March next year. Hope this helps. Thanks for your reply. Blessings.
Paul and CA Watson both,
If you guys ever had some material you wouldn’t mind us referencing or posting on the blog here, we’d love to do that. We want to be a resource for folks on these issues and are open to submissions (but can’t promise anything). We also don’t take a firm stance on Byzantine-preferred or Aleph/B-preferred. Some of us lean one way, some others.
Thanks for your interaction over here.
Paul,
I’m interested in hearing more. Send me an e-mail at xarisumin@yahoo.com (I’m an OT guy who has taken as many NT courses as OT courses).
CA,
I’d love to learn more about OT TC. What are some good introductory articles or papers to start with?
You can send me a line too via the Contact tab at the top.
In Christ,
Bob
Bob,
Begin with Beacham’s article in OBO (great man – he is my doctoral advisor). Then read Waltke’s article in the 1970s edition of the EBC series (Expositor’s Bible Commentary).
Then for books, from easiest to hardest (all three are listed under the title of “OT” and “textual criticism” easily found through an Amazon search) –
Brotzman (Old Testament Textual Criticism)
Wurtwein (text of the Old Testament)
Tov (Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible)
Thx, C. If you’re at Central we should meet up sometime. I’m in the Twin Cities….
Thx for the recommendations. And yes, Beacham’s article in One Bible Only was good.
At the tale end of this post, there was a statement about a 6th definition of corrupt:
In 1633, the Elzevir brothers wrote this concerning the Greek New Testament:
Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum, in quo nihil immulatum aut corruptum damus.
This is a perfect example of the way things get messed up because we have an English word that derives from a Latin word. Most translations of the Elzevir statement have it read:
“So you hold the text, now received by all, in which nothing corrupt.”
In point of fact, this is a great example of corrupt having that 6th definition. The Elzevir brothers were comparing their edition to the preceding ones which sometimes clearly reverse engineered passages (like Erasmus’ portions of Revelation). It should read:
“So you hold the text, now received by all, with nothing lost or missing.”
(People also often miss the word immulatum.)
They were not necessarily making a claim for the perfection of their TR nor were they saying that previous editions of the Greek New Testament were faulty. Rather, they were doing some nifty marketing, stating that they had brought all the missing pieces together.
Other editions were good, but all of them missed some of the core text. They were claiming their edition of the TR had what previous editions lacked.
Personally, I don’t even necessarily adhere to some of the positions I am presenting, but I’m presenting them because every side should be heard.
Hopefully, those who antagonize and foment arguments in the comments can see that it is possible to discuss things without being abrasive.
Good point.
Sorry for jumping in so late. I wasn’t well enough to respond to this, although I wished to.
Back to the original Post-Topic:
“corruption” as simple (neutral, accidental) degradation of a text through a transmission process, vs.
“corruption” as polluted, dangerous, infected with an evil influence, made unstable, unsafe, unusable, ‘vile’:
Whether flippant or not, it was Hort who brought the emotional ‘extras’ into the fray with his extremely unrealistic and inappropriate characterization of the TR as “that vile Textus Receptus”. Later on he toned down his language, but its clear that initial belief that drove him to his life’s work had not changed direction significantly from his Cambridge days.
It perhaps did not help that Burgon later over-applied his flowery and bombastic, acidic ‘wit’ in response to Hort’s fantasy-theories.
Because they both provided so many quotable soundbytes, the emotional edge to the topic of “corruption” was bound to stick around for another 100 years.
But lets get down to the nitty-gritty.
19th century amateur ‘science’ was wrong in the first place about the legitimacy of ‘emotional’ response to scientific questions. We are still shaking off the oversimplified attitudes of the early scientific era.
Being ‘emotionally unconcerned’ and ‘disinterested’ as scientists does NOT produce better science, more accurate science, or properly directed science.
The mechanical disinterest, justified by the idiotic German conception of ‘scientific ideals’ led to horrific experiments on human beings, euthanasia of sick, old, sub-perfect people, and of course genocides.
Good science requires ethical evaluation and emotional reaction to dangers, injustices, losses, etc.
Good science is *not* “detached”, “disinterested”, “arms-length”, or pursuit of ‘truth’ regardless of consequences.
Good science in Textual Criticism must be similarly responsible to our (Christian and world) Community and society, and fully aware of the consequences of its experiments and mistakes.
Textual Criticism in the last 200 years has had an extremely negative effect on Christian life in the West, and this was not inevitable, nor was it right. It was sin, sin which shipwrecked the faith of millions in the British Commonwealth.
Textual Critics must face their own sins, and must be held accountable for their disastrous experiments.
There is no ‘emotionally neutral’ road to recovery.
peace
Nazaroo
I think you speak far too much of TC to claim that it “shipwrecked the faith of millions in the British Commonwealth”. Higher criticism could be criticized so, but not TC. The modern version Bibles that are so prolific today, and which depend on TC, are in large part doctrinally sound to the point where they won’t shipwreck faith. The more aberrant and problematic translations are less utilized than the conservative ones.
Even the inclusion or exclusion of the Pericope de Adultarae while an important question, doesn’t impact our faith to such a degree.
Can you reference where Hort referred to the TR as vile? I’d like to read it in context.
thx
Hi Folks,
Hort was young, 23, he had not done any textual work, and had read very little Greek New Testament, Hort was simply making conclusions based on his cursory reading of Bagster-Scholz and Tischendorf, apparently as recommended by Westcott.
Note in the very same letter Hort talks about the start of the Ghostly Guild, so it is fair to consider whether he was getting input from forces unclean to come to such a strange conclusion on such scanty knowledge.
Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort
http://books.google.com/books?id=ubEw-n_nJqcC&pg=PA211
“I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Rtceptus. … Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS.; it is a blessing there are such early ones. . . .”
Incidentally, Hort continued to call the Byzantine manuscripts “corrupt” and the so-called “neutral text” and alexandrian manuscripts “pure”, so this dichotomy is basic to textual theory, only both sides can not be right.
Shalom,
Steven Avery
Yes, that would be useful.