Philip W. ComfortReseñas
Autor de The Origin of the Bible
Reseñas
While Origin has an evangelical bent, it is nevertheless quite comprehensive, though falling short of more scholarly texts; there are few if any footnotes or specific references (aside from the very good general ones in the several bibliographies). The book is comprised of five sections: 1) The Authority and Inspiration of the Bible, 2) The Canon of the Bible, 3) the Bible as a Literary Text, 4) Bible Texts and Manuscripts, and 5) Bible Translation. It is a very good introduction and overview.
Most of the variants appear to be rather small and do not appear to change the meaning of a verse much, for instance some manuscripts saying 'Jesus Christ' in a certain variant and others reading simply "Christ", whichever reading a Bible translator chooses to use doesn't make a major difference as either way we know to Whom it refers. Comfort mentions a variant of Romans 8:28 which I found interesting, he translates the variant as, "God turns everything to good" which of course is different from "all things work together for good." He says that "this is the original wording according to three early MSS….It is God who turns everything to good; it is not just that everything works out for the good."* But I don't think that that concept is lost by using "all things work together for good" because God's being the One working all things together for good is evidenced by the verses that follow (and by realizing the sovereignty of God that is taught throughout the Bible). It is an interesting variant though.
Comfort's eschatological views are evidenced in his commentary on the number of the beast in Revelation, "A variant reading is 'his number is 616…Either reading could be original…whichever one John wrote, they both symbolize Caesar Nero…" I take it that Mr. Comfort is not premillennial. Also, I disagree with some of his commentary on the variants of 1 Cor. 14:33, " 'For God is not the author of discord but of harmony, as in all the gatherings of the saints.' This reflects the reading of the three earliest MSS…contra NA…which join this phrase with the beginning of 14:34. The difference in meaning is significant: harmony is the rule of God for all the gatherings of the believers…"…Paul was not saying that women should be silent in all the Christian gatherings, only in Corinth, which must have been experiencing problems with women speaking out of turn during the prophesying." But even if the statement, "as in all the gatherings of the saints" doesn't connect with vs. 34 that doesn't imply that the command about women not speaking in the assembly only applied to the Corinthians church. I don't see that implication at all. Paul says, "It is shameful for a woman to speak in the Church." That sounds like a very general statement that encompasses all church gatherings. Besides, what about Paul's telling Timothy that women shouldn't teach or hold authority over men but should remain quiet while learning (1 Tim 2:11-15)? Was he referring only to the women of the Corinthian church? I think not.
But, I do like the book overall, and really appreciate Mr. Comfort's work in putting this book together enabling one to learn about the different variants of the NT even if one doesn't agree with all of Mr. Comfort's comments on them.
Many thanks to Kregel Academic for sending me a free copy of this book to review!
*I omit certain parts of quotations as they are mostly symbols of various manuscripts referred to that I don't know how to replicate in type.
This book is partly a history of recent English translations, and that part is fine. But it is also a book about New Testament Textual Criticism -- that is, the art of trying to rediscover the original text of the New Testament by comparing the various manuscripts. (The original copies are long since lost.) And here, Comfort's simplistic view takes over.
We have many, many manuscripts of the New Testament, and they do not agree. Some are early, some are late. Somehow, we must decide which ones to trust for any given book, passage, reading. Obviously we would like to use the manuscripts most like the original text. How do we determine which those are? Comfort has a simple criterion: The earlier the manuscript, the better.
The problem is, this really doesn't work. Suppose we have two manuscripts, one copied in (let's say) 400 C.E. -- but which is a direct copy of one made in 150 C.E. Another was copied in 325 C.E. -- but it's a copy of one made in 300 C. E., which is a copy of one made in 275, which is a copy of one made in 250, and so forth, until we get back to the one made in 150 C. E. Which is better, the copy made in 400 or the copy made in 350? Odds are, the later one, because there are fewer generations of copies between it and the manuscript of 150.
The rule is that manuscripts are to be weighed and not counted. That means actually trying to figure out if they're good or bad, and taking that into account. But Comfort's only real criterion is age. It distorts the results.
If you don't care about the textual criticism part, go ahead and consult this book. But be aware that Comfort comes to it with something of a monomania -- and an incorrect monomania.
That's the only reasonable word for Philip Wesley Comfort's view of textual criticism -- the task of reconstructing an ancient document from later, corrupt copies. For the New Testament, those later copies are classified in three ways: papyri (written on papyrus in uncial, or upper-case letters), uncials (written on parchment, or animal skins, in uncials), and minuscules (written on parchment or, eventually, paper, using lower-case letters). Papyrus was the earliest form of copy, followed by uncials and then minuscules, but they overlap; many uncials are older than many papyri, and some minuscules are older than some uncials.
This should make it obvious: The importance of a manuscript depends not on what form it takes but on whether it is a good copy or not. Most papyri are good copies, but so are many uncials and a handful of the minuscules. A good textual critic takes all these good copies into account and determines the best text he can.
Comfort doesn't work that way. His enthusiasm for papyri knows few bounds. Since papyri do contain errors, and are few and fragmentary anyway, no ordinary critic would determine the text of the New Testament from the papyri alone. But Comfort tries. It is a simplistic and frankly a rather silly exercise.
Explaining textual criticism to a layperson is difficult, and there is no really outstanding introduction to the field. There are occasional good sections in Comfort. But, on the whole, it is far better to start with a book that takes a broader view.
Philip W. Comfort and Wendell C. Hawley have given us a unique blend of particularly helpful scholarly material and pastoral insight. In Opening John’s Gospel and Epistles one finds detailed textual and interpretive notes, sprinkled throughout a warm exultation of the main points being taught in the text. The result is a manual or guide for the active teacher, rather than an application book or a detailed exegetical analysis.
The book is laid out in a helpful format, with 6-12 page introductions to the books (2 & 3 John are treated together), followed by separate discussions of each unit of text. The discussions include an exposition and notes on pretty much each verse. The section on John also includes a key words and phrases section.
The expositions set the stage and serve to provide a big picture and background for one’s study and preparation. This is the place helpful application points and themes are raised. The notes explain the text and cover critical or textual matters in some detail (but those discussions stay brief and accessible).
Given Comfort’s expertise in textual critical matters, the work abounds with detailed textual notes explaining alternate readings and the manuscript evidence behind various readings. This can be a strong point, as when the publication and canonicity of the Gospel and epistles are explained, and when the leading papyrii witnesses to John’s writings are described. It can also be distracting to those less familiar or concerned about such matters. I think Comfort aims to make the wider church more aware of such discussions, and this work will make such points more accessible for sure. Of particular note, is the decision to set off the story of the woman caught in adultery (7:53-8:11) as an appendix to the section on John. The manuscript evidence argues against the inclusion of the story in the text of John’s Gospel, and Comfort and Hawley correspondingly treat the passage as less than fully inspired.
The commentary reflects a conservative evangelical approach to Scripture. Detailed theological points of controversy are generally avoided, however, in favor of the explication of the text. In John 6, for instance, the transubstantiation debate and the unconditional election question (6:44), are only referenced obliquely. In John 3:5 the various interpretations for “born of water and of the Spirit” are offered, and the preferred choice defended briefly. That discussion was quite helpful, and the discussion stayed very irenic.
I found the claim that John’s version of the Last Supper was not a Passover meal to be somewhat confusing. The introduction and also the discussion in chapter 19 assert that John asserted the Last Supper to be prior to the Passover meal. But the discussion in chapter 13 was referenced for more information, and there the commentary explained the Last Supper likely was a Passover meal.
The combination of two separate works into one presented some problems. Opening the Gospel of John was the original title. The work on the epistles was published as a separate work later in the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary series. Bringing the two works together is great, but I would have liked to see a greater attempt at standardizing the work as a whole. The Cornerstone Biblical Commentary Greek numbering system was used in the epistles of John for instance. Each Greek word is transliterated (as in the Gospel section), but it is a Strong’s number, as well as another number as well. This convention is not followed in the Gospel of John. What makes this even more confusing, is there is no mention of what the numbering system is or means in this book at all. I had to pick up a Cornerstone commentary to find that the numbers with a prefix “TG” refer to a Tyndale’s modified Strong’s Greek number, and “ZG” refers to a similar numbering system popularized by Zondervan. “TH” and “ZH” refer to the numbers for the Hebrew words in such a system. A similar matter is the absence of end notes in the epistles of John entirely, whereas every section of the book of John had several end notes. Also the NLT is emphasized in the work covering the epistles whereas the section on John (produced before the publication of the NLT Bible) ignores it.
Along these lines, I encountered a few editing errors. Following the appendix to the Gospel of John, a list of three papyrii is found with no explanation as to why it is there. At the very end of the book a list is given of all the papyrii and major manuscripts and there are a few obvious typos in that list as well. Furthermore in at least two places (pg. 335 and 351) a single Greek word is followed by a reference to a Greek and a Hebrew number (TG & ZH).
These minor quibbles aside, the notes and commentary provided in this work seem especially clear, straightforward and eminently helpful. It will be a volume that I’ll be keeping in arm’s reach, whenever I teach from John’s Gospel or his epistles. I recommend this book highly.
Disclaimer: This book was provided by Tyndale House Publishers for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.
An expanded version of this review is available at CrossFocusedReviews.com, where you can find book excerpts, giveaways, promotional offers, audio reviews and more.
Philip Comfort is one of these scholars, and he has provided a fabulous resource for Bible scholars, pastors, and others to study the textual data on all the 3,000 or so places in the New Testament where we find textual variants that may affect the Bible translations we have in our hands. Comfort focuses primarily on the variants which result in differences between the various English Bible versions in use today (KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, HCSB, NLT, TNIV, NRSV, etc.). He also highlights some of the intriguing variants and places where the Western family of manuscripts often expands the text. What makes Comfort’s work so especially valuable is that his discussion is all in English! He discusses the Greek and other languages, but is mindful of the non-technical, English speaking reader. This makes New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (NTTTC) very accessible, opening up the intricacies of textual critical studies to the average Bible student.
While Comfort may not include all the textual data accessible to scholars in the UBS4 or NA27 Greek texts and other scholarly resources, he does format his work and provide relevant information in a much more user-friendly format. In places where there are two or more variants that have affected the English Bibles, Comfort will first give each variant reading in Greek and English, then he lists the Greek manuscripts and other supports for each variant, and he also adds which English Bibles follow that variant in their text or margin. Following all of this, he offers a brief discussion of that particular variant, taking us step by step through how a conservative, evangelical scholar will assess this textual evidence to arrive at a conclusion concerning this particular reading.
This detailed analysis of each major variant in the Greek New Testament makes up the bulk of the book and provides an easy to look up reference for practically any passage where one might encounter a variant. Comfort also provides a brief overview of textual criticism and a very interesting assessment of the major textual witnesses for each section of the New Testament. He displays an extensive understanding of the papyri manuscripts in particular as well as the history of textual criticism and all the relevant data. A few appendices are also included for more specialized discussions.
NTTTC doesn’t stick to strictly textual critical matters. In Mk. 7:3 a discussion of manners and customs of Bible times is required to understand the Greek phrase “wash their hands with a fist”. Exegetical matters are also addressed, such as in the conservative and delicate handling of the variant at 1 Cor. 14:34-35. NTTTC’s format makes difficult and highly technical discussions much easier. When discussing the ending of Mark, he helpfully lays out all 5 variations of the ending providing a few pages of discussion. At Acts 20:28 he discusses two variants together, by first delineating all the various combinations of the two variants, and helpfully summarizing the options and discussing each option in light of exegetical matters as well.
The discussions in NTTTC prove enlightening. One learns the importance of understanding the patterns of particular scribes when discussing variants such as Luke 24:3 where Comfort explains why Wescott and Hort were wrong. The major passages like the ending of Mark and John 7:53-8:11 are covered in depth. Comfort is honest about some variants being driven by theological considerations, such as in Heb. 2:9. Interestingly, the theological bias in textual variants was almost always rejected by the church in days of old as well as today.
One excerpt of this work will serve to illustrate its value well. Regarding Jude 4, Comfort states:
"The reading in TR, poorly attested, is probably an attempt to avoid calling Jesus δεσποτήν (“Master”), when this title is usually ascribed to God (Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; Rev. 6:10). Hence, θεος (“God”) was appended to δεσποτήν. However, 2 Pet. 2:1, a parallel passage, identifies the redeemer, Jesus Christ, as the δεσποτήν. So here also the WH NU reading, which is extremely well documented, shows that Jude considered Jesus to be the absolute sovereign."
As one well attuned to the issues relating to King James Onlyism, I found this volume especially helpful. 26 times I found a KJV reading to be supported by no Greek manuscripts. Western additions such as “full of the Holy Spirit” at Acts 15:32 and “Jesus” at Acts 17:31 reveal that “omissions” are in the eye of the beholder. Does the TR omit these important phrases or the Western texts add them? It was through my KJV Onlyism debate lenses that I discovered a few minor errors in Comfort’s text. He wrongly claims the KJV followed Stephanus’ 1550 TR (along with the WH/ NU modern Greek Text) at Rev. 16:5 when in fact they followed Beza’s conjectural emendation “and shall be” instead of “holy one”. He also seems to state that a variant at Rom. 7:6 was introduced by Elzevirs’ TR and then later adopted by the KJV, however the KJV was translated 22 years prior to the Elzevirs’ work. The reading in question was introduced by Beza in one of his editions used by the KJV translators. Also at Luke 2:38 he lists the Vulgate as the sole support for the KJV reading, but Robinson-Pierpont’s Majority Text edition includes the KJV reading “Lord”.
I would have liked Comfort to address more passages relevant to the KJV Only debate. It would have been great if he had mentioned which variants the printed Greek Majority Text’s of Hodges-Farstad or Robinson-Pierpont adopted as well. But space constraints are totally understandable. I also wish he had somehow indicated if the manuscript listings given for a particular passage are complete or not. If more evidence is available (or not) for a given variant, it would be nice to know. Perhaps using an asterisk when all the known witnesses to a variant were listed would help.
All in all, I can’t recommend Comfort’s work more highly. This is an important volume and I will be referring to it often in years to come.
Disclaimer: This book was provided by Tyndale House Publishers for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.
An expanded version of this review is available at CrossFocusedReviews.com, where you can find book excerpts, giveaways, promotional offers, audio reviews and more.
Dr. Comfort's effort to make the finer points of modern textual criticism is a laudable effort, and will serve as a springboard to a more detailed investigatio of this topic. It is not, however, an introductory work, and many readers will have to consult other volumes to fully appreciate what Dr. Comfort states in this text.
Comfort does a good job at providing an overview of the major texts that comprise the critical text that most modern translations are derived from. He also presents a brief history of the 20th century translations, giving an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of each. The real value of this book, however, lies in its treatment of the so-called "missing verses" that KJV Only advocates contend have been "removed" from the modern versions. If more people on both sides of the debate were familiar with this material, there would be less misunderstanding and namecalling.
That said, the flag-waving for the New Living Translation is a little annoying. I am not as familiar with this translation as some of the others, but the continual preferance for this version over all other modern versions makes me suspect the author's motivations in writing this book.
Este sitio utiliza cookies para ofrecer nuestros servicios, mejorar el rendimiento, análisis y (si no estás registrado) publicidad. Al usar LibraryThing reconoces que has leído y comprendido nuestros términos de servicio y política de privacidad. El uso del sitio y de los servicios está sujeto a estas políticas y términos.
Chapter 8: A Comparative Study of Modern Translations was the most interesting, as it compares John 1:1-18 in several English versions, and describes the strengths and weaknesses the translators chose.
The book FROM SPOKEN WORDS TO SACRED TEXTS: Introduction-Intermediate New Testament Textual Studies by Edward D. Andrews had more useful information.