My theory about variant Bible readings

[COPLAND_3]

Some variants are a result of translation: e.g. a word in Aramaic (the main language used by Jesus) has two possible meanings. In various Greek manuscripts, some have the one meaning and others have the other meaning (since Greek does not have the same one word with two meanings).

Some variants are due to fortuitous copyist errors: e.g. the copyist tends to err not randomly, but errors that make a coherent sentence. Sometimes such errors make the meaning of the text clearer, and so such errors are retained by subsequent copyist, where as errors that do not make sense are not retained.

John’s Gospel was written by John, but edited and added to by his disciples. In my view, this occurred when they translated it from Aramaic to Greek.

One theory on the ending of Mark was that Mark himself added it at a later date. But there is not much support for this theory. Mark went to northern Africa after he wrote his Gospel, and manuscripts from that area are the ones that lack the ending.

There does not seem to be much support for the idea that the sacred authors wrote repeated versions, with the variants (which altogether number in the high hundreds of thousands, if not more).

Good points. It is true that there is not much support but I think it is a possibility and is very likey that they did write more than once. There seems to be an unwritten rule by scholars that the authors where bound to write their accounts once, which I believe is not the most logical idea.

 

[adriancombe]

Thanks for your kind words!

This is not an original idea, but it is one that has not been taken anywhere by scholars, but I think it should be. I had first had it introduced to me by Sharon Pace Jeansonne in her book on the Old Greek Translation of Daniel 7-12. She said quote,

“Text-critics are not wont to consider the possiblity that an author or editor could have written more than one version of any individiual work. We suggest that this should be considered. The existence of more than one version of a work occurs in other fields of artisitic endeavor. George Fredrick Handel and Thomas Cole, for example, composed and painted 2 versions of their works very close in time. Their 2nd “copied” should not be considered revision; rather, they simply fulfilled the demand for another exemplar. Since the ability to write was such a prized skill, it is concievable that the authors of books of the Hebrew Bible themselves wrote more than one version. Thus, especially when variants do not preserve noteworthy alterations of meaning, 2 distinct readings could come from the same author, and both could be considered “original,” or with equal claims as “preferable.” In addition, if we think of the author as an editor or redactor of oral traditions, or of various written traditions, or a combination of these 2, or more than one version of the text, both with equal claim of being preferable, may indeed have come from the author’s hands.”

Of all the textual critics that I have study from over the years she is the only one that I have ever seen who actually thought that it was a fair possibility. She wrote that book in 1988, it is the first and last time I have ever had that idea thrown at me.

:extrahappy: :bowdown2:

I now need to take my awesometer to the shop for recalibration. THIS IS TOO COOL. Ice cubes are jealous. I hope to find more proponents of this concept. Thanks!

 

[adriancombe]

Thanks for your kind words!

This is not an original idea, but it is one that has not been taken anywhere by scholars, but I think it should be. I had first had it introduced to me by Sharon Pace Jeansonne in her book on the Old Greek Translation of Daniel 7-12. She said quote,

“Text-critics are not wont to consider the possiblity that an author or editor could have written more than one version of any individiual work. We suggest that this should be considered. The existence of more than one version of a work occurs in other fields of artisitic endeavor. George Fredrick Handel and Thomas Cole, for example, composed and painted 2 versions of their works very close in time. Their 2nd “copied” should not be considered revision; rather, they simply fulfilled the demand for another exemplar. Since the ability to write was such a prized skill, it is concievable that the authors of books of the Hebrew Bible themselves wrote more than one version. Thus, especially when variants do not preserve noteworthy alterations of meaning, 2 distinct readings could come from the same author, and both could be considered “original,” or with equal claims as “preferable.” In addition, if we think of the author as an editor or redactor of oral traditions, or of various written traditions, or a combination of these 2, or more than one version of the text, both with equal claim of being preferable, may indeed have come from the author’s hands.”

Of all the textual critics that I have study from over the years she is the only one that I have ever seen who actually thought that it was a fair possibility. She wrote that book in 1988, it is the first and last time I have ever had that idea thrown at me.

I don’t have this work obviously but if you do a search at books.google.com with the string “multiple autographs” Hyeon Woo Shin you will see a work that seems to endorse this.

 

[COPLAND_3]

I don’t have this work obviously but if you do a search at books.google.com with the string “multiple autographs” Hyeon Woo Shin you will see a work that seems to endorse this.

I love the name “Multiple Autographs”. I think the concept makes too much sense, and the idea that the authors only wrote their accounts 1 time no longer seems likely to me, and makes textual criticism more complex than it has to be. I can see some of the so-called Alexandrian text types which usually has what appears to be omissions, I can see those as almost being a rough draft and the “Byzantine” text types being an original work as well but simply expanded upon in parts. Not to mention that the authors probably wrote their accounts in Aramaic and in a few cases Hebrew (like Matthew), under their circumstances where everyone spoke more than one language it seems likely that they would have written in some of those languages in order to publish it more, I would have.

The concept that they only wrote one time seems to be painting oneself in a corner. I used to be a little threatened by all the variant readings, but not any more.

 

[patrick457]

I must say, very interesting theory you got here!
I totally think this one’s a good and valid hypothesis. Now if somebody else will pick this up…