|
Jehovah's
Witnesses
objection:
Some Jehovah's Witnesses have argued that the
text of this verse as it appears in the two authoritative Greek New
Testaments (UBS4 and NA27) is not supported by the "earliest and
best" manuscript evidence. One Witness website
puts it this way:
In attempting to refute what is stated
here, many point to Rev 4:11, where, going from the NA27 text, we find
hO KURIOS KAI hO QEOS hHMWN (our Lord and God). This is an expression of
God, taken as a direct address and thus the nominative KURIOS for a
vocative.
There is significant evidence to consider
in examining this topic though, and here we will make a textual analysis
on the matter.
The NA27 reading comes from Codex
Alexandrinus, from the 5th century. Yet, going back to Codex Sinaticus,
which predates Alexandrinus by a century, we find the reading KURIE hO
KURIOS KAI QEOS. Thus, KURIE is in the vocative case, while hO KURIOS is
in apposition to this, and thus would be expected to be in the
nominative case with the article. This would directly conform to the
expected use of the vocative case with KURIE.
There are a number of texts dating from
the 4th century that render this verse with KURIE, which is also the
rendering found in the Textus Receptus.
Additionally, we find this to be the
normal usage in Revelation. This can be seen at Rev 7:14; 11:17; 15:3,
4; 16:7; 22:20. Without question this is the normal usage and also the
most likely within this book.
Other
Witnesses have stated that Herman Hoskier lists over 60 manuscripts with
the KURIE reading "dating from the 4th Century (Concerning the
Text of the Apocalypse, Collations of All Existing Available Greek
Documents with the Standard Text of Stephen's Third Edition, Together With
the Testimony of Versions, Commentaries and Fathers, A complete Conspectus
of All Authorities, Vol 2, p. 139).
The
Witnesses thus argue on the basis of external evidence (best manuscript
attestation) and internal evidence (parallels within Revelation itself)
that the vocative reading was most likely the original, and thus cannot be
used as a legitimate parallel to John 20:28.
Response:
I will address each line of evidence in turn:
External (Textual) Evidence
Both NA27 and UBS4
have ho kurios kai ho theos. Thus, the editorial committees
of both authoritative Greek New Testaments selected this text over the
vocatival variants. While claims can be made by online apologists,
the fact remains that those scholars who have spent their professional
lives evaluating various NT manuscripts with the goal of producing the
most accurate text possible believed the nominative variant to be the one
most likely representing what John actually wrote.
One of the members of the UBS committee was Bruce Metzger. His Textual
Commentary on the UBS3 text doesn't even comment on the kurie
variants, so they clearly were of little significance in the minds of the
UBS translators.
The website quoted above states: "There are a number of texts dating
from the 4th Century that render this verse with KURIE" (emphasis
added).
This is false. There are not "a
number" of texts dating from the 4th Century. There is
one. The textual apparatus in
NA27 list the variants of this verse as follows:
Codex Aleph: "KURIE hO KURIOS KAI hO QEOS" - 4th Century. Here's
what Kurt Aland, a member of both the UBS and NA committees has to say
about this Codex: "The text with numerous singular readings
(and careless errors) was highly overrated by Tischendorf, and is
distinctly inferior to B" (Aland, The Text of the New Testament,
p. 107). The fact that Aland (and the other members of the NA and
UBS committees) selected the nominative variant over the
vocative/nominative combination in Aleph makes it clear that Aland
regarded the general statements he made about Aleph to apply specifically
to this verse.
1854: KURIE - 11th Century. Revelation =
Category II ("Manuscripts of a special quality, but distinguished
from manuscripts of category I by the presence of alien influences" -
Aland). While it is true that Aland regards Category II manuscripts
valuable for determining the original reading, again it is clear that he
did not regard this variant significant in establishing the original text
of Revelation 4:11.
Majority Text MSS (tradition A): KURIE - post 6th-7th Centuries. Aland
says that the A tradition (supporting KURIE) and the K tradition
(supporting hO KURIOS) are about equal in number (op cit, p. 247).
He says that a reading attested by Codex A (not Aleph, but Codex 02) and
C, plus miniscules 2053, 2062, and 2344 "possess a textual value far
superior to Aleph and P47)" (ibid). None of these manuscripts
support the KURIE reading. Therefore, the 60-odd manuscripts listed in
Hoskier's text are not at all decisive, as there as just as many Majority
manuscripts that support the nominative as do the vocative, and the
"far superior" tradition supports the nominative.
Syraic (Harklensis): KURIE - 7th Century. A generally slavish translation
of the Majority K tradition, with some variations, such as Rev 4:11.
Only Codex Aleph dates from the 4th Century. It's early date does
not guarantee textual accuracy, as Aland and other textual critics point
out. The earliest manuscripts with the nominative reading date from
the 5th Century (A and C). The remaining 60 manuscripts referred to
by the website are from the Majority Text tradition, dating from the 6th
Centuries and later. The same is true of Hoskier (who, by the way,
lists over twice as many manuscripts supporting the nominative variant [op
cit, p. 138]). Thus, the claim that there is
"significant" evidence to support an original vocative is simply
not true. The external evidence supports the nominative reading, as
found in both NA27 and UBS4.
Internal Evidence
The website quoted above states:
"Additionally, we find this to be the normal
usage in Revelation. This can be seen at Rev 7:14; 11:17; 15:3, 4; 16:7;
22:20. Without question this is the normal usage and also the most likely
within this book."
This argument betrays a lack of
understanding about how textual critics assess internal evidence.
Let's consider some of the Kurt Aland's "Twelve Basic Rules for
Textual Criticism" (from Aland & Aland, The Text of the New
Testament, pp. 280-281):
2. Only the reading that best
satisfies the requirements of both external and internal criteria can be
original.
3. Criticism of the text must
always begin from the evidence of the manuscript tradition and only
afterward turn to a consideration of internal criteria.
Thus, if the Witnesses have not established
that the external evidence is so great as to overturn the two critical
Greek New Testaments (which they have not), they cannot legitimately claim
internal evidence should be decisive.
More importantly, textual critics consider
readings that harmonize with other texts as suspect. Why? Because
copyists were not in the habit of creating unique readings. When they
corrected a text, they did so in the direction of making it read more
smoothly or bringing it into conformity with other, similar texts.
As Aland puts it:
10. There is truth in the maxim:
lectio diffilicior lectio potior ("the more difficult reading is
the more probable reading"). But this principle must not be
taken too mechanically.
11. The venerable maxim lectio
brevior lectio potior ("the shorter reading is the more probable
reading") is certainly right in many instances. But here
again the principle cannot be applied mechanically....Neither should the
commonly accepted rule of thumb that variants agreeing with parallel
passages or with the Septuagint in Old Testament quotations are
secondary be applied in a purely mechanical way. A blind
consistency can be just as dangerous here as in Rule 10.
Keeping Aland's caveats in mind, we may
safely conclude that simply because the vocative kurie is the more
usual form of address in Revelation does not demand that it be so in
Revelation 4:11. In fact, its uniqueness is actually an argument in
favor of it being original. The variant in Aleph is also a longer
variant, and therefore less likely to be original.
Textual critics also consider how a
variant may have arisen (conscious correction or error) and try
logically to deduce which version was more likely the original. The compilers
of NA27 and UBS obviously took these criteria into consideration when they
chose the nominative over the vocative in Rev 4:11. Let's see if we can
reconstruct their reasoning:
1. Simple error would seem almost impossible. In the case of Aleph,
the word kurie is added to the nominative ho kurios kai ho theos.
It is difficult to see this being an accident. In the other
variants, two words (ho and kurios) are juxtaposed with one
(kurie). A simple scribal error would not account for both changes.
2. If a copyist removed kurie from Aleph (or in other manuscriptes,
changed kurie to ho kurios), he was changing a text
that was smoother and more in harmony with other verses to one that was
more distinctive and unusual.
3. If a copyist added kurie to Aleph (or in other manuscripts
changed ho kurios to kurie), he was changing a text that was
rougher and more distinctive into one that was smoother and more in
harmony with other verses.
Number 3 is by far the most logical. Again, copyists were not in the habit
of creating distinctive readings - instead, they corrected in the
direction of conformity.
The nominative is, thus, the most likely original, even on the basis of
internal evidence.
Finally,
we may note that regardless of whether the copyist changed from the
nominative to the vocative or vice
verse, the fact that one may be substituted for the other without
changing the meaning of the text simply strengthens the case that it
doesn't matter in which case the nouns occur, the direct address to God is
obvious - just as it is in John 20:28.
objection:
A Jehovah's Witness apologist who frequents a
number of discussion boards raised the following objection to Revelation
4:11 as a parallel to John 20:28:
In his article “Greek
Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit, Bulletin for Biblical
Research 13.1, page 98, footnote 6, Wallace states “Eliminated from
this list are the numerous examples in Revelation because it is hardly
representative of the literary level and style found in the rest of the
NT.”
Wallace acknowledges
that nominative for vocative is used of an address to an inferior unless
it is a Semitism. (GGBB 57-58) While scholarship is mixed as to the
severity of the solecisms found in the Greek of Revelation even Wallace
categorizes Revelation as the most Semitic of the books in the NT. He
even lists Mark ahead of John. (GGBB 30). Therefore it would be improper
to appeal to a Semitic construction in Revelation and export that into
the book of John.
Wallace only gives one
“test,” or as he says, the “key to determining” whether the
nominative for vocative is standard Koine usage or the Hebrew “noun of
address” -- that it is from a Semitic source. He then states that an
example of this would be a translation from Hebrew into Greek like the
LXX. I do not believe Wallace considers that the book of John, even in
this phrase, was translated from Hebrew or Aramaic into Greek. He
criticizes those who consider that this is the case for the book of
Revelation because there is no manuscript evidence to support this.
However he never exactly explains how John 20:28 could be from a Semitic
source otherwise.
Wallace appears to be taking some of his arguments from BDF §147 which
says “Attic used the nominative (with article) with simple
substantives only in addressing inferiors, who were, so to speak,
thereby addressed in the 3rd person. (Attic citation deleted) The NT (in
passages translated from a Semitic language) and the LXX do not conform
to these limitations.”
This is the only “test” BDF gives as well, but as you can see, they
do not allow for this construction in Greek unless there is a
translation from a Semitic language into Greek. Therefore if Wallace
does not believe that either John or Revelation is translation Greek
then he bears the burden of proof to show that this phenomena can result
from some sort of ambiguous and undefined “Semitic” influence.
Merely listing Ephesians 5:22 with one assertion about 5:25 is not
sufficient. I will comment more on this later.
There is something else
that Wallace does not mention here. He cites GKC §126f and gives 2Sam
14:4 (GGBB 57, footnote 71) to show that the Hebrew noun of address does
not need to be a superior to an inferior but never tells us that even in
Hebrew this is a very unusual form. Seow’s “A grammar for
Biblical Hebrew” on page 55 says “the definite article may also rarely
be used to indicate a vocative.”
Wallace is constructing an exegesis based upon exceptions. First he must
explain why the Koine articular nominative should not be understood in
it normative usage and then he appeals to a very rare form of Hebrew to
justify it!
He also dilutes what BDF says about this requiring a translation
from a Semitic source and tries to justify this with a brief comment on
a questionable example (Eph. 5:22).
Furthermore, in the example in his footnote on page 57, footnote 71, his
example of 2Sam 14:4 introduces another problem. “Basics of Biblical
Hebrew” section 5.11 says that this construction is to be translated
‘O King,’ ‘O Man,’ ‘O Lord,’ etc. Looking at the example in
the footnote and we do indeed find 2Sam 14:4 is translated ‘O King.’
A survey of the English versions will show that most if not all major
versions render it this way.
Even if one were to concede that the Hebrew “noun of address” is
used frequently enough to account for an occurrence in the NT, this
should only happen if there is a translation from a Semitic language
into Greek. However, even if this is the case, the example he cites does
not fit John 20:28. 2Sam 14:4 is an example of a simple noun of address,
not a noun modified in any way such as the possessive pronoun. There is
no English version that renders John 20:28 as a Hebrew “noun of
address”. No version puts the words “O My Lord and O My God” into
the mouth of Thomas.
As you can see I have been quoting Wallace as a hostile witness. Perhaps
you are as well. He provides valuable insights as to some of the issues
on these verses but in my opinion he is frequently overcome by his
theology. This is one example.
The category of “nominative of exclamation” better fits normal Koine
and does not require an exegesis that is based upon exceptions.
Wallace argues for a particular exegesis that is based upon exceptions,
but he does not fully explain how precarious his position is. Let’s
list the exceptions. Wallace:
1) Acknowledges a violation of normative usage in Koine.
2) Appeals to an exceptional usage in Hebrew.
3) Dilutes the necessity of translation Greek to validate the example.
4) Appeals to a questionable “parallel” (e.g Eph 5:22)
5) Ignores the common rendering of the Hebrew noun of address (e.g. O
King)
This is an argument riddled by cumulative exceptions.
Response:
This Witness apologist argues that because
Wallace says Revelation is "hardly representative of the literary
level and style found in the rest of the NT," we should reject Rev
4:11 as a parallel to John 20:28. He is arguing from the general
("The style of Revelation is not representative") to the
particular ("The style of Revelation is not representative of NT use
of nominative for vocative").
The particularized conclusion is not logically warranted by the general
premise. Simply because Revelation may not be representative NT style in
general, does not mean that a grammatically correct sentence in Revelation
may not be used as a valid parallel to another NT verse.
Wallace is dealing with a particular kind of grammatical anomaly - the
"apparent violation of the rules of gender" when a verb or
predicate follows natural gender rather than grammatical gender. The
location of the quoted footnote is following a list of examples from the
NT in which grammatical gender has not been followed. Wallace excludes
Revelation from his sample, because in that book there are numerous
examples of verbs and predicates not following grammatical number or
gender. For example, when the Father and the Lamb are referenced together,
they are often accompanied by a verb in the singular. Thus, Wallace is
simply being fair in excluding Revelation, because it does not follow
'normal' NT usage in gender agreement.
But Wallace himself has written several articles on Revelation in which he
argues various points on the basis of grammar, and on the basis of how
words or phrases are used in other NT books:
http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/rev310.htm
http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/twist4.htm
Clearly, he does not view the grammar of Revelation so appalling that we
cannot draw conclusions from it. In the article referenced by the Witness
apologist, Wallace is talking about examples in Revelation in which we
find exceptions to 'normal' grammatical rules. Rev 4:11 is not such an
example.
The nominative for vocative is a common NT form of address. There is
nothing unusual or ungrammatical about it. Wallace says it actually
outnumbers the simple vocative in the NT. Rev 4:11 is grammatically sound
Koine Greek. There is nothing about it that would lead us to conclude it
differs from standard NT usage.
The Witness writes:
"Therefore the test
for a Semitic source would be if the passage in the NT was translated from
a Semitic language or a quote from the LXX."
But he is reading too much into what Wallace says. An example (as
in one example) of determining a "Semitic source" is a
translation from Hebrew or a quote from the LXX. But an example
does not logically equate to the only example. It doesn't really
matter whether Wallace explains how John 20:28 could be from a Semitic
source - the fact is that he so regards it, and therefore the Witness's
argument is mute. Wallace obviously has other criteria for making this
determination - and it appears to be one held by a number of other
scholars.
The Witness apologist writes:
"This is the only
"test" BDF gives as well, but as you can see, they do not allow
for this construction in Greek unless there is a translation from a
Semitic language into Greek. Therefore if Wallace does not believe that
either John or Revelation is translation Greek then he bears the burden of
proof to show that this phenomena can result from some sort of ambiguous
and undefined "Semitic" influence."
The Witness apologist is stacking the deck. BDF §147 also has this to say
specifically about Jn 20:28 and Rev 4:11:
"With attributive: 'ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou' Jn 20:28
(cf. Rev 4:11), ho laos mou Rev 18:4...Lk 12:32; Mk 9:25."
The restrictive "test" the Witness argues for in BDF simply
isn't there, when we review their list of examples. Wallace felt
comfortable that BDF agreed with him that sufficient evidence exists apart
from direct translation to account for the Semitic influence in this
idiom.
The Witness apologist writes:
"There is something
else that Wallace does not mention here. He cites GKC §126f and gives
2Sam 14:4 (GGBB 57, footnote 71) to show that the Hebrew noun of address
does not need to be a superior to an inferior but never tells us that even
in Hebrew this is a very unusual form. Seow’s "A grammar for
Biblical Hebrew" on page 55 says 'the definite article may also
rarely be used to indicate a vocative.'"
Wallace says that Hebrew nouns of address "typically will have the
article," and he cites GKC §126f as his support. Instead of going to
GKC, however, the Witness quotes Seow - a source that nowhere appears in
Wallace's text. When we examine Wallace's source, we find the following:
The article is used "very often with the vocative." So, Wallace
and GKC agree: the article is typically - or "very often" - used
with the vocative. What of other Hebrew scholars? Let's see:
"The article is usually found when the reference is made to persons
who are present" (Jouon, Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §137.g).
"The article is used to mark a definite addressee, pointing out a
particular individual who is present to the speaker and who is addressed
in the vocative" (Waltke & O'Connor, Introduction to Biblical
Hebrew, §13.5.2).
"Vocative, regularly with the article" (Williams, Hebrew
Syntax, §34).
"The so-called vocative often has the Art." (Davidson, Hebrew
Syntax, §21.f).
"Vocative...It generally takes the article" (Green, A
Handbook of Old Testament Hebrew, §292).
"The addressee is usually designated by the ordinary form of the noun
with the article" (Merwe, Naude, Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew
Reference Grammar, §34.4).
These examples can be multiplied, but as these are generally regarded as
the most authoritative by other scholars, there's really no need to do so.
These scholars agree with Wallace: The Hebrew 'noun of address' typically
has the article.
So, what of Seow? The quote provided by the Witness apologist is all that
Seow says on the matter. It occurs in a short section in which he
discusses the various uses of the article. His statement is ambiguous. It
could be taken - as the Witness does - that when we're considering the
vocative, the articular use is rare. That would place Seow in opposition
to the scholars quoted above. Or, his statement may be taken to mean that
when we're considering the use of the article in general the
vocatival use is rare. On this view Seow is not dealing with the
percentage of vocatives with the article as opposed to without, but rather
the percentage of times the article is used in a vocative as opposed to
all other uses. This view would remove the contradiction between
what he says and the other scholars.
I take the latter to be by far the most likely, as Seow is unlikely to
contradict what appears to be a scholarly consensus. However, even
if Seow is a minority voice on this point, Wallace can hardly be faulted
for following the majority.
The Witness apologist writes:
"Furthermore, in the
example in his footnote on page 57, footnote 71, his example of 2Sam 14:4
introduces another problem. “Basics of Biblical Hebrew” section 5.11
says that this construction is to be translated ‘O King,’ ‘O Man,’
‘O Lord,’ etc. Looking at the example in the footnote and we do indeed
find 2Sam 14:4 is translated ‘O King.’ A survey of the English
versions will show that most if not all major versions render it this
way."
And he continues:
"Even if one were to concede that the Hebrew “noun of address” is
used frequently enough to account for an occurrence in the NT, this should
only happen if there is a translation from a Semitic language into Greek.
However, even if this is the case, the example he cites does not fit John
20:28. 2Sam 14:4 is an example of a simple noun of address, not a noun
modified in any way such as the possessive pronoun. There is no English
version that renders John 20:28 as a Hebrew “noun of address”. No
version puts the words “O My Lord and O My God” into the mouth of
Thomas."
There's not a Hebrew Grammar in the world that would suggest that all
vocatives should be woodenly rendered with a preceding
"O." A survey of English versions will show that few, if
any, render the Hebrew noun of address in 1 Sam 17:58 as: O, young
man."
The Witness apologist concludes with these comments about Dan Wallace:
"He provides
valuable insights as to some of the issues on these verses but in my
opinion he is frequently overcome by his theology. This is one
example."
Our apologist friend has been quoting Wallace and other scholars in a less
than accurate fashion. In my opinion, he (the apologist) is frequently
overcome by his theology. This reply reveals several examples.
|
