A Critique of New Age Bible Versions, Part 2

February 25, 2024 at 2:22 pm (Textual Criticism)

We will take as many of the passages in the table (that we started with) as we can in this post without drawing it out too long. But before we do that, we need to notice that even with this table, it becomes obvious that Riplinger does not distinguish between accidental and purposeful changes. 1 Timothy 3:16 is a very good example of this. As Dean Burgon notes, one of the most important manuscripts on the subject changed its own reading over time, because a single stroke faded. The difference between the relative pronoun hos and the abbreviation for God (theos) in the capital script is a single line. The “hos” is simply capital omicron, capital sigma. The abbreviation for theos is capital theta, capital sigma. The only different between capital omicron and capital theos is the horizontal line going through the circle for the theta. Burgon was discussing Codex Alexandrinus, and in his discussion, he mentioned a phenomenon that had never occurred to me: that a manuscripts might have certain parts fade over time, and that this might affect the meaning. Burgon notes what previous generations have said about the reading at this point, and fairly conclusively proves that the original reading of Alexandrinus was “theos.” While I believe Burgon’s book overstates many things and uses rhetoric that was not necessary, he did make some excellent points about 1 Timothy 3:16, which wound up convincing me that “theos” is actually the original reading. My point in raising this, however, is that it would have been quite easy to make an accidental change from theos to hos. If the Greek parent manuscript that read theos had been copied hurriedly, the crossbar on the theta might not have been very clear, and the copyist might easily have accidentally copied down “hos” instead of “theos.” But for Riplinger, this is a clear instance of theologically motivated change. Unfortunately for her position, if she is going to argue this way, then she has to argue that the conspiracy for one world government started in the 5th century (at least) with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. This strains credulity, to put it mildly. Why infer a motivation behind a change when an “accident” explanation is more than plausible? Are we not supposed to exercise charity in our reading of other people?

On Philippians 4:13, most manuscripts read “Christ” as the one who strengthens Paul. The NA 28th goes with the minus. Is the difference significant? On the one hand, internal evidence does favor the minus. If “Christ” was original in that verse, why did anyone omit it (this is the reason Metzger et al gives the minus an A rating). Riplinger, of course, believes that ancient people anticipated the one world government and removed an instance of “Christ” from the text. One could easily see, however, a scribe thinking that the text was a little vague as to who was doing the strengthening, and decided to add “Christ” to make it clear. However, it is clear from the preceding context (particularly the end of verse 5) that “the Lord” is a reference to Jesus Christ. The Lord is mentioned again in verse 10, and therefore must be the antecedent of the pronoun implied in the participle “one strengthening.” Ultimately, whether it is “he” who strengthens or “Christ” who strengthens, in the context, it is plain that the two texts mean the same thing. Here is another example of Riplinger exaggerating the difference between two translations, and not understanding them in context.

In Galatians 4:7, there are a multitude of varying but quite similar readings in the Greek manuscripts. The KJV and the NKJV read the same: “an heir of God through Christ.” She quotes the modern versions as saying “an heir of God” (which none of the modern translations I checked actually read with this exact wording). I am not sure which modern version she is quoting as putting it this way. Most of them say something like “an heir through God” thus translating the preposition “dia” as “through.” The main point Riplinger is trying to make is distinct from this inaccuracy, so we will simply note it and move on. There are 8 possible readings from the manuscripts. They are as follows: 1. “an heir of God”; 2. “an heir on account of (or through) God”; 3. “an heir through Christ”; 4. “an heir through Jesus Christ”; 5. “an heir of God through Christ” (this is the TR reading); 6. “an heir of God through Jesus Christ”; 7. “an heir of God in Christ Jesus”; 8. “An heir of God and fellow heir with Christ”. Again, in context, Galatians 4 is telling us that we are adopted sons in the Son. Union with Christ is of paramount important and is already in the context. Verse 5, in particular, connects our adoption to Christ’s own sonship. Our adoption is the purpose of Christ’s redemption. The various readings can therefore be read as more or less synonymous. All of them imply that we are heirs of God, and either implicitly or explicitly connect our inheritance to Jesus Christ. If anyone got the impression from, say, the ESV, that our adoption as sons came about in some other way than through Jesus Christ in this passage, we could justly accuse him of not having read the text nearly carefully enough!

Ephesians 3:9 has a text-critical issue. Most modern translations do indeed say “God who created all things,” or something equivalent. The KJV and NKJV are based on the TR, which reads “God, who created all things through (or by) Jesus Christ.” The last phrase “dia Jesou Christou” is not present in many early manuscripts and church fathers. The main point of the passage is that the same power at work in creation is now at work in us. Both before and after verse 9, we have references to the place of Jesus Christ within that plan. Verse 8 mentions the riches of Christ, and even more importantly, in verse 11, we have the eternal purpose that is realized in Christ Jesus. This would obviously include the purpose for creation. Verse 11 therefore (at the very least) implies what the phrase “dia Jesou Christou” says. Again the context proves that the two different readings do not ultimately mean anything different, and Riplinger has exaggerated the differences between the KJV and the modern versions.