|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,146
|
KJV analysis
Greetings, all,
The following comes from "The King James Version Defended", by Edward F. Hills. He's a conservative KJV defender, but, at least in this case, I agree with most of the things he says below.
The RSV and other "modern" translations follow the Egyptian Greek text of Matthew, and, as I've already mentioned before, it seems to have been influenced by Gnosticism. Indeed, it sure looks like a late and corrupt text, compared to the Byzantine/KJV version of Mt 19:16-17.
There are only a couple of provisos that I need to make for what Hills says. For one thing, Hills speaks about "Western and Alexandrian texts" together as if they were the same thing. But, actually, not all Western texts agree with the Alexandrian text in this passage. Some Western texts (like the citation from Aphrahat that I've already given) are quite different, and seem to preserve the earlier reading (which I believe omitted this whole distraction of Mt 19:16-17 and parallels).
Also, Hills mis-reports the reading of the Old Syriac Mt to some extent. The two OS versions are actually different here, but they don't quite say what Hills reports them to say...
In general, this particular passage is quite unusual in so far as the Old Syriac Aramaic gospels don't really seem to preserve the best texts here, IMHO. And neither is the Codex Bezae very early here. It's a very complex textual situation with this particular passage...
I agree with Hills that the earliest version of Mt 19:16-17 most likely read quite similarly to Mk and Lk. The patristic evidence that he cites is very important.
I also agree with Hills here,
Quote:
How could Jesus have reproved
the young man for inviting Him to such a discussion,
when it was clear that the youth had in no wise done
this but had come to Him concerning an entirely
different matter, namely, the obtaining of eternal
life?
|
In general, this seems to me like a very good analysis overall.
Quote:
CHAPTER SIX - The KJV Defended (Edward F. Hills)
http://www.biblebelievers.com/Hills_KJVD_Chapter6.htm
1. Christ's Reply To The Rich Young Man
(Matt. 19:16-17)
[NOTES can be found here,
http://www.comekjv.com/bible/hills-note.html ]
As Tregelles (1854) observed long ago, (4) we have
in Matt. 19:16-17 a test passage in which the
relative merits of the Traditional Text on the one
side and the Western and Alexandrian texts on the
other can be evaluated. Here, according to the
Traditional Text. Matthew agrees with Mark and
Luke in stating that Jesus answered the rich man's
question, What good thing shall I do that I may
have eternal life, with the counter-question, Why
callest thou Me good. But according to Western and
Alexandrian texts, Matthew disagrees here with
Mark and Luke, affirming that Jesus'
counter-question was, Why askest thou Me
concerning the good. It is this latter reading that is
found in Aleph B D and eight other Greek
manuscripts, in the Old Latin and Old Syriac
versions and in Origen, Eusebius, and Augustine.
The earliest extant evidence, however, favors the
Traditional reading, why callest thou Me good. It is
found in the following 2nd-century Fathers: Justin
Martyr (c. 150), He answered to one who
addressed Him as Good Master, Why callest thou
Me good? (5) Irenaeus (c. 180), And to the person
who said to Him Good Master, He confessed that
God who is truly good, saying, Why callest thou Me
good? (6) Hippolytus (c. 200), Why callest thou Me
good? One is good, My Father who is in heaven.
(7) Modern critics attempt to evade this ancient
evidence for the Traditional reading. Why callest
thou Me good, by claiming that these early Fathers
took this reading from Mark and Luke and not from
Matthew. But this is a very unnatural supposition. It
is very improbable that all three of these
2nd-century Fathers were quoting from Mark and
Luke rather than from Matthew, for Matthew was the
dominant Gospel and therefore much more likely to
be quoted from than the other two.
The internal evidence also clearly favors the
Traditional reading, Why callest thou Me good. The
Western and Alexandrian reading, Why askest thou
Me concerning the good, has a curiously unbiblical
ring. It does not savor of God but of men. It smacks
of the philosophy or pseudo-philosophy which was
common among the Hellenized gentiles but was
probably little known in the strictly Jewish circles in
which these words are represented as having been
spoken. In short, the Western and Alexandrian
reading, Why askest thou Me concerning the good,
reminds us strongly of the interminable discussions
of the philosophers concerning the summum bonum
(the highest good). How could Jesus have reproved
the young man for inviting Him to such a discussion,
when it was clear that the youth had in no wise done
this but had come to Him concerning an entirely
different matter, namely, the obtaining of eternal
life?
Modern critics agree that the Western and
Alexandrian reading, Why askest thou Me
concerning the good, does not fit the context and is
not what Jesus really said. What Jesus really said,
critics admit, was, Why callest thou Me good, the
reading recorded in Mark. Matthew altered this
reading, critics believe, to avoid theological
difficulties. W. C. Allen (1907), for example,
conjectures, "Matthew's changes are probably
intentional to avoid the rejection by Christ of the title
'good', and the apparent distinction made between
Himself and God." (8) B. C. Butler (1951), however,
has punctured this critical theory with the following
well placed objection. "If Matthew had wanted to
change the Marcan version, he could have found an
easier way of doing so (by simple omission of our
Lord's comment on the man's mode of speech)." (9)
This remark is very true, and to it we may add that if
Matthew had found difficulty with this word of Jesus
it would hardly have occurred to him to seek to
solve the problem by bringing in considerations
taken from Greek philosophy.
Rendel Harris (1891) had this comment to make on
the reading, Why askest thou Me concerning the
good. "A text of which we should certainly say a
priori that it was a Gnostic depravation. Most
assuredly this is a Western reading, for it is given
by D a b c e ff g h. But it will be said that we have
also to deal with Aleph B L and certain versions.
Well, according to Westcott and Hort, Aleph and B
were both written in the West, probably at Rome.
Did Roman texts never influence one another?" (10)
The unbiased student will agree with Harris'
diagnosis of the case. It is surely very likely that this
reading, redolent as it is of Greek wisdom,
originated among Gnostic heretics of a
pseudo-philosophic sort. The 2nd-century Gnostic
teacher Valentinus and his disciples Heracleon and
Ptolemaeus are known to have philosophized much
on Matt. 19:17, (11) and it could easily have been
one of these three who made this alteration in the
sacred text. Whoever it was, he no doubt devised
this reading in order to give the passage a more
philosophical appearance. Evidently he attempted to
model the conversation of Jesus with the rich young
man into a Socratic dialogue. The fact that this
change made Matthew disagree with Mark and Luke
did not bother him much, for, being a heretic, he was
not particularly interested in the harmony of the
Gospels with each other.
Orthodox Christians, we may well believe, would
scarcely have made so drastic a change in the text
of Matthew, but when once this new reading had
been invented by heretics, they would accept it very
readily, for theologically it would be quite agreeable
to them. Christ's question, Why callest thou Me
good, had troubled them, for it seemed to imply that
He was not perfectly good. (Not that it actually does
imply this when rightly interpreted, but it seemed to.)
What a relief to reject this reading and receive in its
place the easier one, Why askest thou Me
concerning the good. It is no wonder, therefore,
that this false reading had a wide circulation among
orthodox Christians of the 3rd century and later. But
the true reading, Why callest thou Me good,
continued to be read and copied. It is found today in
the Sahidic version, in the Peshitta, and in the vast
majority of the Greek manuscripts, including W.
which is probably the third oldest uncial manuscript
of the New Testament in existence.
Thus when the Traditional Text stands trial in a test
passage such as Matt. 19 17, it not only clears itself
of the charge of being spurious but even secures
the conviction of its Western and Alexandrian rivals.
The reading found in these latter two texts, Why
askest thou Me concerning the good, is seen to
possess all the earmarks of a "Gnostic
depravation." The R.V., A.S.V., R.S.V., N.E.B. and
other modern versions, therefore, are to be
censured for serving up to their readers this stale
crumb of Greek philosophy in place of the bread of
life.
In his comment on this passage Origen gives us a
specimen of the New Testament textual criticism
which was carried on at Alexandria about 225 A.D.
Origen reasons that Jesus could not have
concluded his list of God's commandments with the
comprehensive requirement, Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself. For the reply of the young man
was, All these things have I kept from my youth up,
and Jesus evidently accepted this statement as
true. But if the young man had loved his neighbor as
himself, he would have been perfect, for Paul says
that the whole law is summed up in this saying,
Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. But Jesus
answered, If thou wilt be perfect, etc., implying that
the young man was not yet perfect. Therefore,
Origen argued, the commandment, Thou shalt love
thy neighbor as thyself, could not have been
spoken by Jesus on this occasion and was not part
of the original text of Matthew. This clause, he
believed, was added by some tasteless scribe. (12)
Thus it is clear that this renowned Father was not
content to abide by the text which he had received
but freely engaged in the boldest sort of conjectural
emendation. And there were other critics at
Alexandria even less restrained than he who deleted
many readings of the original New Testament text
and thus produced the abbreviated text found in the
papyri and in the manuscripts Aleph and B.
|
All the best,
Yuri.
{edited by Toto to fix quote tags}
|
11-17-2003, 12:07 PM
