I was up early this morning having some fun time in this amazing book:
I'm not a huge fan of the 4th edition. The editor did an okay job, but his additional chapter doesn't add much to the topic in my opinion. Not to mention the fact that the quality of the plates is much better in the previous editions. But that's neither here nor there.
As you all know, I am a HUGE fan of the Byzantine text. In fact, in every one of my journal articles dealing with textual variants in the New Testament, I ended up siding with the Byzantine text:
- Eph 1:1 (Grace Theological Journal)
- John 3:13 (Grace Theological Journal)
- Matt. 5:22 (Novum Testamentum)
- 1 John 2:20 (Filologia Neotestamentaria)
- Mark 6:20 (New Testament Studies)
(All of my journal articles are available here for no charge, by the way.) That said, I do think the Byzantine text can be wrong and in fact has been wrong. Not often, but it does happen. Case in point: 1 John 3:1.
By the way, I'm currently writing an endorsement for a forthcoming book on scribal habits in New Testament manuscripts. It will appear in this series. It's one of the most exciting works on textual criticism I've read in some time. This study confirms the findings of Royse (and others) that scribes generally tended to omit rather than add to the text. It's time, the author says, for the text-critical community to abandon its general acceptance of the canon "prefer the shorter reading." Cases of homoeoteleuton, he concludes, are especially common. This is, in fact, what I believe may very well have happened here in 1 John 3:1. To see this, it might be helpful to display the text using uncial script, following this guide:
Here now are the words in question.
It seems pretty clear to me that we're dealing with an instance of homoeoteleuton here. "What about the external evidence?" you ask. It seems to favor the longer reading, which is both early and widespread. Once again, I am being lured back to the old views of Harry Sturz: the Byzantine text is of very high quality, but when it stands alone its readings may not comport with the autographic text. Perhaps the same thing can be said for Mark 1:2 (these are my two "test cases").
Forgive me if all of this is old hat to you. Sometimes the pump doesn't need to be primed. As much as I love dabbling in textual questions, I'm sharing in the blessings of the gospel more than I have in my entire life. Sharing my faith with the people around me at the gym and elsewhere has become the most fun, exciting, and fulfilling adventure of my 65 years of following Jesus. Of course, living on mission doesn't mean we are less concerned about academics. Nothing could be further from the truth. God's word is our supreme motivation. But we do all this for the sake of the gospel. Honestly, the last thing we need is another translation controversy. A little refining? Sure. A little sanding off the rough edges? Absolutely. But a battle? I think you know me well enough to know I don't think that's very helpful.
Enjoy the Super Bowl!