Greek New Testament
Robert Stewart
noticed that certain verses appear to be missing (or in dispute)
indicated by the introduction of a hyphen or brackets at such places
as Matt 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44,46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke
17:36; 23:17; 24:12; 40; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; Rom 16:24; etc.
Then again there are those strange comments casting doubt over the
readings of Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53 - 8:11 and talk of "ancient"
and "late" manuscripts. For most Christians, this is all a bit above
their heads, and we tend to leave it all in the more than capable
hands of those who know about such things.
Before my conversion to Christianity, I was engaged in a study of the
Bible with a man who used the Authorised Version (AV) and I used the
New International Version (NIV). As we studied various doctrines, we
discovered that the readings of the AV were often contradicted by the
NIV, sometimes to an alarming degree. This encouraged me into some
serious critical study of the Greek New Testament and modern Bible
translations.
In approaching the NIV, I read in the Preface that the Greek text used
was "an eclectic one". The word "eclectic" had me looking for my
Dictionary. I found that the word "eclectic" means "chosen from
various sources". That reminds me. In the local shop we had a "Pick
'n' Mix" counter where the children could pick their various favourite
sweets, toffees, and candies from a wide selection. They put them all
in one bag and were weighed together as one purchase. The word
"eclectic" means "Pick 'n' Mix".
I wrote to the International Bible Society to enquire about the
"eclectic" text of the NIV. Ralph Earle advised me that the Greek
text of the NIV was basically that found in the United Bible
Societies/Nestle-Aland printed Greek New Testament text. I
subsequently discovered that this modern UBS/Nestle-Aland "eclectic"
text forms the basis for most of the modern translations of the New
Testament.
My investigations revealed that the joint UBS/Nestle-Aland Editorial
Committee was presided over by the renowned Jesuit named Carlo Maria
Martini, Cardinal Archbishop of Milan (the largest Roman Catholic
diocese in the world), President of the Council of European Bishops,
former Rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, "Rector
Magnificus" of the Gregorian University, and regarded by many as "the
Pope in Waiting".
To cut a long story short, and to leapfrog several years, I delved
further and further into the labyrinth of this fascinating subject.
As I did, it slowly dawned on me that, working on a theory first
propounded by Westcott and Hort in 1881, the translators of most of
the modern Bibles had deserted the traditional New Testament text of
the Greek speaking churches and had, instead, introduced rare and
peculiar readings of a handful of obscure manuscripts, primarily (but
not exclusively) Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.
These minority readings, chosen from various sources, had been
introduced into the modern UBS/Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament text
under the supervision of the most prominent Roman Catholic Greek
Scholar in the world.
Got your attention? Good. So let us start this story at the
beginning ... ...
Antioch in Syria (modern day Antakya in Turkey), on the navigable
Orontes River twenty miles from the Mediterranean Sea, was founded in
301 BC by Seleucus I, one of the generals and successors of Alexander
the Great. In New Testament times it was the eastern capital of the
Roman Empire, famous for its magnificent architecture rivalled only by
Rome and Alexandria.
Following the outbreak of persecution of Christians in Jerusalem, and
after the death of Stephen the martyr, many disciples fled to Antioch
(Acts 11:19) where "great numbers believed". After his conversion to
Christianity, Paul taught the church in Antioch for a whole year and
it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called "Christians"
(Acts 11:25-26).
Paul made his missionary base in Antioch and it was from Antioch that
Paul made his missionary tours to establish churches in Galatia,
Philippi, Thessalonica, Corinth, Ephesus, and other cities and towns
throughout Asia Minor and Greece. History records that it was to
Antioch (not Jerusalem or Rome) that these Greek speaking churches
naturally gravitated. No wonder Antioch was called the "Mother of all
the Gentile churches".
Not surprisingly, with the desolation of Jerusalem by Titus, son of
the Roman emperor Vespasian, in AD 70, it was Antioch which became the
natural successor as the world centre of Christianity.
According to the church historian Eusebius, the apostle John was an
elder in the church at Ephesus, Asia Minor, and John was personally
involved in collecting and forming the writings of the New Testament.
It can be safely said that the original hand written autographs of
John, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians,
Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 & 2
Peter, 1 & 2 & 3 John, and the Revelation were held in Asia Minor and
Greece.
The Christians who fled Jerusalem before its desolation took their
precious manuscripts with them. Scholars estimate that at least
twenty, and possibly as many as twenty-four, of the original
autographs of the twenty-seven New Testament books were held in the
region of Asia Minor and Greece.
That the church jealously guarded over these writings is easily
confirmed. For example Irenaeus (AD 140 - 202, who had moved out from
Asia Minor to Lyons, France, by AD 177) records that a disputed
reading of Revelation 13:18 had been settled by examining "all the
most approved and ancient copies" and by consulting men who had
personally spoken about the disputed reading with the apostle John in
Ephesus. Likewise Tertullian (about AD 208) is on record challenging
heretics to examine the original writings of the apostles and
specifically states that they were still available for examination in
such places as Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, and Ephesus, etc.
With the need for accurate copies of the New Testament to be made, and
with the advent of the Christian "school of Antioch" (and affiliated
scriptoria), the early Greek speaking church went to great lengths to
ensure that reliable copies of the original autographs were made. The
New Testament of the Greek speaking churches, in the eastern portion
of the Roman Empire, was known as the Greek Vulgate.
The eastern Greek speaking portion of the Roman Empire later became
known as the Byzantine Empire (AD 330 - 1453). Its political capital
was the ancient city of Byzantium (renamed Constantinople; now
Istanbul, Turkey). For this reason, the traditional New Testament
text of the Greek speaking churches is often referred to by scholars
as the Byzantine text.
The eastern Greek speaking churches were often at loggerheads with the
Church of Rome and were finally alienated from the Latin speaking West
by a formal schism (AD 1054) between the Greek Orthodox Church and the
Roman Catholic Church. In the east, the Greek churches preserved the
Byzantine text, the traditional text of the Greek speaking churches.
In the west, the Roman Catholic Latin speaking churches had the Latin
Vulgate compiled by Jerome (AD 345 - 419).
In 1453, the Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople (Byzantium),
bringing the Byzantine Empire to an end. Greek Orthodox Christians
fled to western Europe, some of them bringing their Greek New
Testament manuscripts with them. Interestingly, these events
coincided with the invention of the printing press by Johann
Gutenberg, of the German city of Mainz. In 1516 a Dutch Roman
Catholic priest, named Desiderius Erasmus, printed his first edition
of the Greek New Testament, based on a handful of Byzantine
manuscripts, alongside a new Latin translation.
It was not long before sharp-eyed scholars noticed that the text of
the printed Greek New Testament of Erasmus, and his Latin translation,
were substantially different from the text of the Roman Catholic
Bible, the Latin Vulgate.
A controversy raged. The Protestant Reformation began.
The controversy regarding the traditional New Testament text of the
Greek speaking churches is still with us today. Which brings me to a
book entitled "The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the
Modern Translations?" by James R White.
In 1993, A V Publications released a book entitled "New Age Bible
Versions", by Gail Riplinger, a book which attacked modern versions of
the Bible. The book was quickly adopted by members of what is known
as the "King James Only" movement, sometimes referred to as Ruckmanism
(after Dr Peter Ruckman of the Pensacola Bible Institute). The Winter
1996 issue of the Christian Research Journal contained an article
entitled "Is Your Modern Translation Corrupt?" written by James R
White. The article was written following the publication of a book
entitled "The King James Only Controversy" by the same author. The
article and book were written primarily to answer those, like
Riplinger and Ruckman, who claim that the King James Version is the
one and only inspired and inerrant Word of God.
It is not my purpose, here, to defend or attack the King James Only
movement. It is my purpose, however, to challenge the assertion of
James R White that the rare and peculiar readings of a handful of
obscure manuscripts, introduced into the new UBS/Nestle-Aland Greek
text at the behest of the Vatican, have priority over, and are
superior to, the readings of the traditional text of the Greek
speaking churches.
On 21 January 1998 I asked James R White if he would answer the points
that I raise here but, on 23 January, he replied that he did not have
any interest in the matter and that there were many others who were
far more capable in dealing with my arguments than himself.
That is a great pity.
In Chapter Five of his book, James R White spends some time denouncing
a few of Dr Peter Ruckman's declarations, including the claim that
Gnostics corrupted the Scriptures in Alexandria.
James R White states: "We note that Dr Ruckman provides no evidence
that 'Gnostics' had anything to do with the production of manuscripts
associated with Alexandria. This is a mere assertion without
historical facts to back it up." (p 120)
That statement gives me a major problem.
I am not here to defend Dr Ruckman, he is more than capable of doing
that himself, but to say that there are no historical facts and no
evidence to support the assertion that Gnostics produced corrupt
manuscripts associated with Alexandria - is simply not true.
The early church had to face several perversions of the Christian
Gospel, but one of the most dangerous of those perversions was (and
is) Gnosticism. An early promoter of Gnosticism was Basilides who
taught in Alexandria about AD 125 - 150. He fabricated his own
corrupt version of the Gospel (and composed apocryphal psalms), and
founded his own School of Gnosticism in Alexandria.
Many consider the founder of the pseudo-Christian cult of Gnosticism
to be Valentinus, who was born in Egypt and educated in Alexandria.
Valentinus then went to Rome about AD 136, professing Christianity but
cultivating his own Gnostic followers, until he left in AD 165,
returning to Alexandria via Cyprus. He founded two Schools of
Gnosticism, one in Rome and the other in Alexandria. He also
fabricated his own corrupt version of the Gospel, known as the Gospel
of Truth.
Valentinus taught that a long succession of divine spirits emanated
out of an original divine being. The divine spirit "Sophia" (Greek,
"wisdom") produced an evil divine spirit, or demiurge (Yahweh), who
created the essentially evil material universe in which human souls
from the spiritual realm are imprisoned. The divine spirit "Christ"
possessed the man Jesus at his baptism to bring redeeming knowledge
(gnosis) of the divine realm to humanity. Only the most spiritual
human beings, the Gnostics themselves, are fully able to receive this
revelation and thereby return after death to the spiritual realm.
Naturally, they needed "holy scripture" to back this teaching.
Contemporaries of Valentinus, in Rome, were Marcion and Tatian. The
Gnostic Marcion was expelled from the church in Rome in AD 144. One
of the Christian "Church Fathers", Irenaeus, wrote: "Marcion and his
followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not
acknowledging some books at all, and curtailing the gospel according
to Luke and the Epistles of Paul, they assert that these alone are
authentic which they themselves have shortened." (Ante-Nicene Fathers;
Vol. I; pp 434-435)
Tatian is notorious for fabricating his Diatessaron in which he
introduced corrupt readings to a harmonisation of the four Gospels in
support of Gnosticism. Bruce M Metzger writes: "Tatian's Harmony of
the Gospels contained several textual alterations which lent support
to ascetic or encratite views." (The Text of the New Testament; Bruce
M Metzger; Oxford University Press; 1964; p 201)
Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215) attempted to fuse Gnosticism with
Christianity in a more skilful way than Basilides and Valentinus.
Clement was a follower of Tatian and succeeded Pantaenus as Principal
at the theological School of Alexandria in AD 190.
Clement freely quoted from, and promulgated, the corrupted Gnostic
Scriptures of Marcion and Tatian in Alexandria.
Clement of Alexandria's influence in the adulteration of Christianity
by Gnosticism was immense. His most famous pupil was Origen the
Gnostic who succeeded Clement as Principal at the School of Alexandria
in AD 202. Origen of Alexandria is likewise documented as taking
liberty with the Scriptures to suit his purpose. (See: Kilpatrick,
"Atticism and the Text of the Greek New Testament," 1963, pp 129-130;
and Origenes Werke; Berlin; Vol. 10; pp 385-388)
There is abundant historical evidence that Gnostics produced corrupt
manuscripts in Alexandria. In 1945/46 no less than thirteen Gnostic
bound volumes were discovered at Nag Hammadi, near Chenoboskion, in
Egypt, which contained more than fifty Gnostic sacred writings and
scriptures including, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Thomas, the
Gospel of Philip, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Gospel
according to the Egyptians, the Apocalypse of Peter, etc. Both
Clement and Origen refer to, and quote from, these apocryphal and
corrupt Gnostic scriptures in their own writings.
To quote but one example, the book "The Beginnings of Christianity"
(Floris Books, 1991, ISBN 0-86315-209-0), by Andrew Welburn,
highlights a letter written by Clement of Alexandria which refers to
the secret Gnostic Gospel of Mark which, it is claimed, was the
original Gnostic edition of the Gospel written by Mark in Alexandria
(they claimed Mark was a Gnostic). To quote from the letter: "Mark
came over to Alexandria ... he composed a more spiritual Gospel for
the use of those who were being initiated ... when he died, he left
his composition to the church in Alexandria, where it is even yet most
carefully guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated
into the great Mysteries." (p 98)
I am left scratching my head as to why James R White should have made
such an erroneous and misleading statement in saying that there is "no
evidence that 'Gnostics' had anything to do with the production of
manuscripts associated with Alexandria. This is a mere assertion
without historical facts to back it up."
Can such an educated man really be so ignorant as to the truth of the
matter?
But there are more misleading statements ... ...
Earlier, I pointed out that the eastern Greek speaking churches were
often at loggerheads with the Church of Rome, which led to the formal
split between East and West in AD 1054. In the east, the Greek
churches remained loyal to their traditional text and in the west, the
Roman Catholic Church had the Latin Vulgate compiled by Jerome (AD 345
- 419).
This brings me to some quotations from James R White on the Latin
Vulgate (AD 384-404) written by Sophronius Eusebius Hieronymus (known
to you and me as Jerome). James R White says:
"Over the 1,100 years following Jerome's publication of his Latin
translation of the Bible, which became known as the Vulgate, his work
became the most popular translation in Europe." (p 13) "Within a few
centuries after the writing of the New Testament, Latin superseded
Greek as the 'language of the people' in the West." (p 44)
In context, James R White is trying to establish that Jerome's Latin
Vulgate was the "standard" Bible, or the "norm", of the day throughout
Europe. By those who know no better, his words could be (wrongly)
misconstrued as implying that the Greek language fell into disuse in
the world as it was known at that time. But it is important to note
that Jerome's Latin Vulgate was universally rejected (east and west)
until the eighth century and, even so, was only "popular" in the Latin
speaking western half of Europe (controlled by the Bishop of Rome)
when all other translations in his domain were ordered to be burnt!
On the other hand, in the Greek speaking eastern half of Europe (the
area of the Greek Orthodox Church), Christians remained faithful to
the traditional text of the Greek speaking churches (the Greek Vulgate
or Byzantine text). For James R White to say that the Latin Vulgate
"became the most popular translation in Europe" is not true. It
never, ever, was. He might be nearer the truth to say that, on the
orders of the Pope, and after a 300 year struggle, it became "the most
popular translation in the western half of Europe".
It is an irrefutable fact of history that the Byzantine text was the
most popular edition of the New Testament throughout all Europe at the
time of Jerome. Even F J A Hort (of Westcott & Hort) admits: "The
fundamental text of late extant mss generally is beyond all question
identical with the dominant Antiochan or Graeco-Syrian text of the
second half of the 4th century" (by which he means the traditional
text of the Greek speaking churches, the Greek Vulgate, or Byzantine
text).
James R White makes a passing comment that "... Jerome's work had
received criticism for being 'new' or 'radical' back in the fifth
century" (pp 16/17). It surely was. There was an outcry from the
Greek speaking churches in the East, because of the textual
divergences from the traditional text of the Greek speaking churches,
and there was just as much criticism from Latin speaking Christians in
the West, particularly Britain, Ireland, France, and Spain (who used
the "Vetus Latina", the Old Latin Bible). Jerome's Latin Vulgate was
not generally accepted anywhere for 300 years. Augustine feared its
introduction would cause a split in the Church, and that is exactly
what happened.
The questions James R White declines to address are these:
(1) If there were already old versions of the Scriptures in Latin
(which there were, and had been around since the second century), why
was Jerome commissioned by Pope Damasus to produce a new Latin
version?
(2) If the early Church rated Codex Vaticanus and/or Sinaiticus as the
purest Greek editions of Scripture in AD 350, why did Jerome not just
translate them from Greek into Latin in AD 384?
The truth is that the whole Church, East and West, rejected Codices
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Nobody wanted them.
But the Pope's problem was that, in general, the Old Latin versions in
the West had got into a bit of a mess. Some versions were based on
individual books of the New Testament translated from the traditional
text of the Greek speaking churches (the Greek Vulgate or Byzantine
text), but other versions were based on manuscripts from Alexandria,
and yet others were such varying mixtures of both text-types that
Jerome complained that there were "almost as many versions as
manuscripts" (this ad hoc mixture produced the so-called "Western"
text-type). Pope Damasus decided that the problem of the conflicting
Old Latin versions in the west had to be resolved, and commissioned
Jerome to do the job.
It is obvious that, unlike Westcott and Hort, Jerome had no confidence
in Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as the pure and unadulterated Word
of God. How do we know that? Because although he was aware of them,
he did not single either of them out as the basis for his new Latin
version. What did he use? Greek scholar F Crawford Burkitt has
suggested that it is "likely that he [Jerome] had at least two MSS
[manuscripts], one of which was mainly H [Hesychian or Alexandrian]
and the other (or others) mainly K [Koine or Greek Vulgate], and that
in important cases ... he made an eclectic choice between them"
(Journal of Theological Studies, xxx, 1929, p 412) [Square brackets
mine].
In other words, Jerome reduced a vast number of random Latin mixtures
of Greek Vulgate and Alexandrian to one rigid Latin mixture of Greek
Vulgate and Alexandrian. Your actual "eclectic" (pick 'n' mix) text!
There are copies of what are known as the "Celtic Gospels" available
for inspection in the Libraries of Britain and Ireland. These are
copies of the four gospels written in Latin, dating from c AD 500, as
used in the ancient Celtic Church (established in the second century),
which successfully resisted the authority of the Roman Church in parts
of the British Isles until about AD 1200. The Latin of the Celtic
Gospels is the "Vetus Latina" ("Old Latin") and is thought to be a
translation of the Greek Scriptures brought by Irenaeus from Antioch
to Gaul (France) c AD 177. History records that the independent
Celtic Church was strongly opposed to Jerome's new "Latin Vulgate",
and refused completely to accept it. They never did accept it.
I have before me a volume entitled "Languages, Literature and Art", in
which the author debates why two Celtic Christians, Patrick and
Gildas, did not quote from Jerome's Latin Vulgate in their writings.
The following quote is from page 81:
"Where Patrick and his Bible are concerned, analysis would support the
conclusion that the Old and New Testaments were known in late Roman
Britain; and that quotation, either from memory or a written text, in
the work of both Patrick and the later Gildas show that it was in the
form called the 'Vetus Latina' or 'Old Latin' Bible. Roman Britain
shared the particular textual version which, from the third century,
had been used in Gaul (as opposed, say, to the 'African
[Alexandrian]Old Latin' versions used in the north African
provinces)." [Square brackets mine.]
I have examined the Celtic Gospels myself, at specific disputed
passages, and can confirm that the Old Latin text is different than
the Latin Vulgate. It is my duty to report that the Celtic Gospels
have the Byzantine readings. Most certainly there were vast areas in
Europe, including Britain and Ireland, where Jerome's Latin Vulgate
was not the "standard" Bible of the day.
The truth is that Jerome examined both Byzantine and Alexandrian types
of text and attempted a compromise between the traditional New
Testament text of the Greek speaking churches and the likes of
Vaticanus/Sinaiticus, producing a hybrid eclectic ("pick 'n' mix")
Roman Catholic Bible.
The new UBS/Nestle-Aland eclectic "pick 'n' mix" text of the modern
versions has been authorised by the Vatican and is an attempted
compromise between the traditional New Testament text of the Greek
speaking churches and the likes of Vaticanus/Sinaiticus.
It is important to note that the modern UBS/Nestle-Aland eclectic
text, which forms the basis for most of the modern translations of the
New Testament, is also identical to the readings of the New Latin
Vulgate authorised by the Pope and issued by the Vatican in 1979.
The arch-Jesuit, Carlo Maria Martini, Cardinal Archbishop of Milan, is
attempting to succeed where Jerome failed.
History has repeated itself.
In challenging the assertion of James R White that the new eclectic
UBS/Nestle-Aland Greek text has priority over, and is superior to, the
traditional Byzantine text of the Greek speaking churches - I would
now like to focus on the area in the book where James R White makes
that very assertion.
First of all let me reproduce James R White's own words:
"Most believe the Byzantine represents a later period in which
readings from other text-types were put together ("conflated") into
the reading in the Byzantine text. This is not to say the Byzantine
does not contain some distinctive readings that are quite ancient, but
that the readings that are unique to that text-type are generally
secondary or later readings." (p 43)
"The Alexandrian, Western, and Caesarean "text-types" that we
described in chapter 3 were already in existence [pre 4th century].
They arose in those first few generations of the Christian church.
The Byzantine text-type, however, arose later." (p 152) [Square
brackets mine]
"If we were to transport ourselves to the year AD 200 and look at the
text of the New Testament at that time, ignoring for the moment what
was to come later, what would we find? The evidence right now
indicates that the text that existed at that time looked most like the
Alexandrian text-type. How do we know this? Every one of the papyrus
manuscripts we have discovered has been representative of the
Alexandrian, not the Byzantine, text-type. The early Fathers who
wrote at this time did not use the Byzantine text-type. In fact, the
Byzantine text-type is not found in full form until the fourth
century, and does not become the "majority" until the ninth century."
(p 152)
"An examination of the early translations of the New Testament reveals
that they were done on the basis of Alexandrian type manuscripts, not
Byzantine type manuscripts. And the early church fathers who wrote
during the early centuries give no evidence in their citations of a
familiarity with the Byzantine text-type." (p 153)
I will now try and pull these thoughts together and summarise the
position he appears to be taking:
In my opinion, James R White is propagating the theory that the
original New Testament text was essentially the Alexandrian [Egyptian]
text-type. If I understand him correctly (and I am open to
correction) his theory is that the purest New Testament manuscripts
were being preserved and faithfully copied in Egypt but, by the
beginning of the fourth century, the corrupted Western and Caesarean
text-types had appeared and the Byzantine text of the Greek Church
came even later.
Reading between the lines, the conclusion of James R White's theory is
that the Greek speaking churches (founded by Paul) fabricated their
own Bible by merging the pure readings of the Alexandrian [Egyptian]
text with the impure readings of the Western [Roman] and Caesarean
[School of Origen] text-types.
James R White argues that this theory is proved by the [alleged] facts
that:
(a) all the papyrus manuscripts discovered so far (pre 4th century)
exhibit the Alexandrian, not the Byzantine, text-type; that
(b) the early Church Fathers did not use the Byzantine text-type; and
that
(c) the early translations of the New Testament into other languages
were done on the basis of the Alexandrian text-type, not the Byzantine
text-type.
Let us take his first point first - the assertion that all the papyrus
manuscripts (pre 4th century) discovered so far exhibit the
Alexandrian [Egyptian], not the Byzantine, text-type.
But before analysing the readings of the papyri themselves, it is
essential to grasp the fact that all these papyri were found in Egypt,
where Greek was a secondary language. They can not be held forward,
therefore, as representative of the text which was current in the
churches of Greece and Asia Minor, where Greek was the primary
language.
Keep in mind, too, that whereas the arid desert sand of Egypt is ideal
for preserving papyrus manuscripts, such would definitely not be the
case in Greece or Asia Minor (the home of the Byzantine text) where
the delicate papyrus leaves would soon decompose in the moist soil.
Had climatic conditions favourable for the preservation of early
papyri been present in Greece and Asia Minor, the situation doubtless
would have been far different. Consequently, the early papyri reflect
but a localised portion of antiquity, and not antiquity itself.
Once we start to examine the actual readings of the papyri, it becomes
apparent that Byzantine readings are far more prevalent than some
scholars would have us believe.
As of 1989 there had been 96 papyri catalogued (of which the most
important collections are those acquired by Sir Chester Beatty and M
Martin Bodmer). The following ancient papyri are particularly
significant to our discussion:
p45 Chester Beatty 1; c AD 250; Portions of thirty leaves from what
was originally about 220 measuring 10" x 8", containing four Gospels
and Acts. Six leaves of Mark, seven of Luke, and thirteen of Acts
remain.
p46 Chester Beatty 2; c AD 200; Eighty-six leaves from what was
originally about 104 measuring 11" x 6.5", containing Rom; Heb; 1/2
Cor; Eph; Gal; Phil; Col; 1/2 Thess. Portions of Romans and 1 Thess,
and all 2 Thess now missing.
p47 Chester Beatty 3; c AD 250-275; Ten leaves from what was
originally about 32 measuring 9.5" x 5.5", containing Revelation.
Only chapters 9:10-17:2 remain.
p52 Rylands 457; c AD 125; A fragment measuring 2.5" x 3.5" containing
John 18:31-33, 37,38.
p66 Bodmer 2; c AD 200; 104 leaves from what was originally six quires
measuring 6" x 5.5", containing John 1:1-6,11; 6:35-14:15, plus
fragments of forty-six other pages containing John 14-21
p72 Bodmer 7,8; 3rd century; A miscellaneous assortment of apocryphal
documents, measuring 6" x 5.75", which also includes Jude and 1/2
Peter.
p75 Bodmer 14,15; c AD 200; 102 leaves from what was originally about
144 measuring 10.25" x 5.125", containing Luke 3:18-18:18; 22:4-John
15:8 (with gaps).
Greek scholars A F J Klijn and Wilbur N Pickering have compared the
papyri p45, p66, and p75 with Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and
the Byzantine text, in the passages where they are all extant (John
10:7-25; 10:32-11:10; 11:19-33, and 11:43-56), and where Sinaiticus
and Vaticanus disagree. The results were as follows:
p45 agrees with Sinaiticus 19 times, with Vaticanus 24 times, and with
the Byzantine text 32 times.
p66 agrees with Sinaiticus 14 times, with Vaticanus 29 times, and with
the Byzantine text 33 times.
p75 agrees with Sinaiticus 9 times; with Vaticanus 33 times, and with
the Byzantine text 29 times.
p45,66,75 agree with Sinaiticus 4 times, with Vaticanus 18 times, and
with the Byzantine text 20 times.
As one Greek scholar puts it: "In these third-century manuscripts,
whose evidence takes us back into the mid-second century at least, we
find no pristine purity, no unsullied ancestors of Vaticanus, but
marred and fallen representatives of the original text. Features of
all the main texts [including Byzantine] isolated by Hort or von Soden
are here found - very differently 'mingled' in p66 and p45." (The
Bodmer Papyrus of the Gospel of John; J N Birdsall; London; 1960; p
17) [Square brackets mine]
Rather than proving James R White's position to be true, the ancient
papyri prove the early existence of unique and distinctive Byzantine
readings. As E F Hills puts it: "Thirteen percent of the Byzantine
readings which most critics have regarded as late have now been proved
by Papyrus Bodmer II (p66) to be early readings." As Wilbur N
Pickering puts it: "p66 moves the 'Syrian' [Byzantine] readings back
to 200 AD". [Square brackets mine]
Greek scholar H A Sturz has taken it further and studied "all the
available papyri" (up to the third century) and lists 885
"distinctively Byzantine" readings. (The Byzantine Text-Type and New
Testament Criticism; H A Sturz; 1972; pp 106-164)
The statement, therefore, by James R White, namely: "Every one of the
papyrus manuscripts we have discovered has been representative of the
Alexandrian, not the Byzantine, text-type", is seen to be misleading.
These papyri originate in Alexandria, yes, but they nevertheless
display unique Byzantine readings.
In reality, the combined witness of the papyrus manuscripts found in
Egypt testify to only one indisputable truth, and that is concerning
the negligence and incompetence of the Alexandrian copyists.
We will now look at James R White's assertions that the early Church
Fathers did not use the Byzantine text-type; and that the early
translations of the New Testament into other languages were done on
the basis of the Alexandrian text-type, not the Byzantine text-type.
Take his statement that "the early church fathers who wrote during the
early centuries give no evidence in their citations of a familiarity
with the Byzantine text-type." (p 153) [Note. By "early centuries" he
means pre 4th century]
Is that true?
Greek scholar Wilbur N Pickering has researched this claim and reveals
that: "Byzantine readings are recognised (most notably) by the
Didache, Diognetus, and Justin Martyr in the first half of the second
century [AD 100-150]; by the Gospel of Peter, Athenagorus, Hegesippus,
and Irenaeus (heavily) in the second half [AD 150-199]; by Clement of
Alexandria, Tertullian, Clementines, Hippolytus, and Origen (all
heavily) in the first half of the third century [AD 200-250]; by
Gregory of Thaumaturgus, Novatian, Cyprian (heavily), Dionysius of
Alexandria, and Archelaus in the second half [AD 250-299]". ("The
Identity of the New Testament Text"; Wilbur N Pickering; Nelson; 1980;
p 75)
Greek scholar John W Burgon made an exhaustive examination of the
quotations of seventy-six early Christian writers (pre 4th century)
and found them to be 66% in support of Byzantine readings. He
concluded: "Do they witness to the traditional [Byzantine] text as
existing from the first or do they not? The results of the evidence,
both as regards the quantity and the quality of the testimony, enable
us to reply not only that the traditional [Byzantine] text was in
existence, but that it was predominant during the period under
review." (The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels; John Williams
Burgon; Bell; 1896; p 116)
James R White's statement that: "the early church fathers who wrote
during the early centuries give no evidence in their citations of a
familiarity with the Byzantine text-type," is again very misleading.
We now move on to James R White's allegation that: "An examination of
the early translations of the New Testament reveals that they were
done on the basis of Alexandrian type manuscripts, not Byzantine type
manuscripts." (p 153)
Unfortunately, James R White does not specify the translations he has
in mind, which does not make my job any easier, but if he is referring
to the "Vetus Latina", the Old Latin Bible of the second century, I
would remind you (as highlighted above) that some Old Latin versions
were based on the Greek Vulgate (the Byzantine text) whilst other
versions were based on manuscripts from Alexandria, and yet others
were varying mixtures of both text-types to the degree that Jerome
complained that there were "almost as many versions as manuscripts".
I would remind you of the quotation from "Languages, Literature and
Art", which states that "Roman Britain shared the particular textual
version which, from the third century, had been used in Gaul (as
opposed, say, to the 'African [Alexandrian] Old Latin' versions used
in the north African provinces)," and that I have examined the Old
Latin used in Britain and Ireland myself, at specific disputed
passages, and can confirm that the Celtic Old Latin text has Byzantine
readings.
In truth, James R White can not hold forward the Old Latin as evidence
of translations "done on the basis of Alexandrian type manuscripts,
not Byzantine type manuscripts."
There again, he might have in mind the "oldest and one of the most
excellent of the versions" (to quote Scrivener) which is the
translation of the Greek into Syriac called the Peshitta. Paul's
missionary base was at Antioch, in Syria, and the Syriac-speaking
Christians had the Scriptures translated into their own language. It
is universally acknowledged that the Peshitta is a translation of the
Byzantine text and, according to church historians (Eusebius and
others), the Peshitta dates from c AD 150. Terence H Brown confirms
that "the Syriac version was older by two centuries than the Nestorian
heresy (AD 431)".
Naturally, Westcott and Hort were not happy with the ancient church
tradition that the Peshitta dated from the second century, and so they
maintained, without any evidence whatsoever, that the Peshitta dated
from c AD 425. Whether James R White accepts the second or fifth
century origins of the Peshitta is academic. Which ever date he goes
for, he can not hold forward the Peshitta as evidence of translations
"done on the basis of Alexandrian type manuscripts, not Byzantine type
manuscripts."
In truth, I am not aware of any evidence at all to support James R
White's statement on early translations. The onus is on him to prove
his assertion.
James R White reluctantly admits that there are uniquely Byzantine
readings found in the third century papyri manuscripts (p 153) and
quotes Wallace who confirms that "isolated Byzantine readings are
found before the fourth century" (p 187). As shown in my previous
posting, they are actually found in papyri dating from c AD 200.
So what does he mean by: "The Byzantine text-type is not found in full
form until the fourth century"?
By "full form", perhaps he means in full manuscript form, and this
compels us to address the question as to why there are no complete
second or third century manuscripts known to be in existence which
display the Greek Vulgate (the Byzantine text).
Firstly, as mentioned previously, although the arid desert sand of
Egypt is ideal for preserving papyrus manuscripts, such would
definitely not be the case in the Aegean area (Greece and Asia Minor)
where the delicate papyrus leaves would soon decompose in the moist
soil. Any preservation of ancient papyri manuscripts would have had
to be done intentionally in a controlled environment (such as in a
scriptorium or monastery).
Secondly, during that period, there were several campaigns by the
Roman authorities to persecute Christians, which involved the
requisitioning and destruction of their manuscripts. These reached
their height in the reign of Emperor Diocletian (AD 284-305) whose
first edict ordered that "the churches should be levelled with the
ground and the scriptures destroyed with fire". Between AD 296 and
311 Diocletian and Galerius issued four edicts against Christians with
escalating penalties of loss of property, slavery, imprisonment,
torture, and death. It was hoped that, if there were no churches and
no copies of the Scriptures, Christianity would die out. (A History
of the Early Church to AD 500; J W C Wand; Methuen & Co; 1937; ISBN
0-416-18110-4; p 125)
When we bear in mind that such wholesale destruction of the Greek
manuscripts centred on Greece and Asia Minor (the home of the Greek
Vulgate), is it surprising that there is a "lack of ancient examples
of the Byzantine text-type" (White; p 44) and that "the Byzantine
text-type is not found in full form until the fourth century"? (p
152)
Add to this the fact that Byzantine churches and treasures were
plundered and destroyed by the Roman Catholic Church during the fourth
"crusade" (AD 1202-1204), and yet again by moslem Turks in AD 1453, is
it anything but a wonder that any Byzantine manuscripts have survived
at all?
In summing up, I find no evidence to accept the assertion of James R
White that the rare and peculiar readings of a handful of obscure
Alexandrian manuscripts, introduced into the new UBS/Nestle-Aland
Greek text, at the behest of the Vatican, have priority over, and are
superior to, the readings of the traditional Byzantine text of the
Greek speaking churches.
I find no evidence to convince me that the original New Testament text
was Alexandrian and that the Byzantine text-type was a fabrication of
the fourth century.
The truth is that the earliest papyri manuscripts contain Alexandrian
and Byzantine readings to the extent that Greek scholars can say that
"most of [Byzantine] readings existed in the second century" (What is
the best New Testament; E C Colwell; Chicago; 1952; p 70).
Having examined all the evidence available so far, I am of the opinion
that the most reasonable conclusion is that taken by Greek scholar
Wilbur N Pickering when he states:
"I know of no reason to doubt that the Byzantine text is in fact the
form of text that was known and transmitted in the Aegean area [Asia
Minor and Greece] from the beginning". ("The Identity of the New
Testament Text"; Wilbur N Pickering; Nelson; 1980; p 229. ISBN
0-8407-5744-1)
Robert Stewart
----
[In this context the term "eclectic" means that the translators did
not follow any specific published Greek text, but made their own
decisions on what Greek text to translate. Almost all current
translations are eclectic. It's true that they tended to follow
Nestle-Aland, but they departed from it where they felt it was
appropriate. --clh]