Will the real Greek New Testament please stand up?
When reading your Bible, you may have noticed that certain verses appear to be missing (or in dispute) indicated by the introduction of a hyphen, or brackets, or a footnote 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 of us, this is all a bit above our heads, and we tend to leave it all in the more than capable hands of those who know about such things.
Many years ago when I was “pioneering” for Jehovah’s Witnesses and, before my conversion to Christianity, I was once challenged on the doorstep to a “proper” Bible study by a man who used the Authorised Version (AV). I was fully confident in accepting the challenge and we met on a weekly basis. In addition to my New World Translation, I also made use of 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 eventually led 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 guided 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 once 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 so, 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, including the New World Translation, had deserted the traditional New Testament text of the Greek speaking churches and had, instead, introduced rare and obscure readings from a handful of peculiar 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 watchful eye 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".
With the desolation of Jerusalem by Titus, son of the Roman emperor Vespasian, in AD 70, it was Antioch which became the first alternative centre for Christians.
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 obscure readings of a handful of peculiar 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)
To quote just one example, in the book entitled "Against Heresies" written by Irenaeus (c AD 140-202), there is this passage in Book 3, Chapter 10, Section 5 [square brackets mine]:
When reading your Bible, you may have noticed that certain verses appear to be missing (or in dispute) indicated by the introduction of a hyphen, or brackets, or a footnote 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 of us, this is all a bit above our heads, and we tend to leave it all in the more than capable hands of those who know about such things.
Many years ago when I was “pioneering” for Jehovah’s Witnesses and, before my conversion to Christianity, I was once challenged on the doorstep to a “proper” Bible study by a man who used the Authorised Version (AV). I was fully confident in accepting the challenge and we met on a weekly basis. In addition to my New World Translation, I also made use of 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 eventually led 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 guided 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 once 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 so, 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, including the New World Translation, had deserted the traditional New Testament text of the Greek speaking churches and had, instead, introduced rare and obscure readings from a handful of peculiar 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 watchful eye 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".
With the desolation of Jerusalem by Titus, son of the Roman emperor Vespasian, in AD 70, it was Antioch which became the first alternative centre for Christians.
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 obscure readings of a handful of peculiar 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)
To quote just one example, in the book entitled "Against Heresies" written by Irenaeus (c AD 140-202), there is this passage in Book 3, Chapter 10, Section 5 [square brackets mine]:
Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God;" [Mark 16:19] confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The LORD said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool." [Psalm 110:1] Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein.
If you pick up modern translations of the New Testament, you will find footnotes on Mark 16:9-20 which read something like this:
"Verses 9-20 are bracketed in NU [the UBS/Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament] as not in the original text. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other manuscripts of Mark contain them." (footnote: NKJV)
It is universally agreed that Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, displaying the Alexandrian text, were written in the fourth century, and yet Irenaeus quotes from Mark 16:19 at the end of the second century from the Byzantine text-type.
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 obscure readings of a handful of peculiar 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)
Stanley R Walker
August 2005
posted by Stanley Walker | 12:22 pm
|
2 comments
