{"id":9485,"date":"2023-09-15T16:48:06","date_gmt":"2023-09-15T21:48:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/?p=9485"},"modified":"2023-09-15T16:48:07","modified_gmt":"2023-09-15T21:48:07","slug":"text-of-the-gospels","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/abudinen.com\/blog\/2023\/09\/15\/text-of-the-gospels\/","title":{"rendered":"Text of the gospels"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Saturday, April 13, 2019 Tares Among the Wheat – A Review<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

            A series of movies available on Amazon Prime Video includes New Testament textual criticism among the subjects it covers \u2013 but not in a good way.  Rather than introduce viewers to valid aspects of the field, Christian Pinto and Adullam Films<\/a> promote the conspiracy theory that Codex Sinaiticus was created in 1840 by Constantine Simonides, particularly in the segment of the movie Tares Among the Wheat<\/em> that is introduced (about an hour and 50 minutes after the movie starts<\/a>) by the heading \u201cThe Simonides Affair.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Those who want proof that Codex Sinaiticus<\/a> is indeed an ancient document are welcome to consult four earlier posts on the subject:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u25cf Sinaiticus is Not a Forgery:  Setting the Stage<\/a> \u2013 in which I provide some background about Constantine  Simonides and his career as a criminal forger, and explain why no one should believe James White\u2019s account of how Tischendorf first encountered pages from Codex Sinaiticus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u25cf Ten Reasons Why Sinaiticus Was Not Made by Simonides<\/a> \u2013 in which I summarize 10 observations which weight in against Simonides\u2019 claim to have written the text in Codex Sinaiticus \u2013 including the observations that different copyists (with different handwriting and different standards of spelling) produced the manuscript, and that the manuscript includes in its margin an Arabic note that alludes to an Arab invasion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u25cf Ten More Reasons Why Sinaiticus Was Not Made by Simonides<\/a> \u2013 in which I summarize 10 more reasons why Simonides\u2019 claim should be rejected \u2013 including some details of Simonides\u2019 earlier attempt to use a forgery to defraud the Academy of Berlin.  Constantine Tischendorf played a key role in exposing Simonides\u2019 forgery, after which Simonides was arrested. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u25cf What Darkened Sinaiticus?<\/a> \u2013 in which an explanation is provided, with input from Jacob Peterson, of the differing tints of different sets of photographs of pages of Codex Sinaiticus. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Chris Pinto\u2019s movie Tares Among the Wheat<\/em> (the second in the trilogy) strangely avoids sharing the details about how Constantine Simonides tried to defraud the Academy<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 of Berlin<\/p>\n\n\n\n

, and does not go into detail about his other attempts to sell forgeries to various individuals and institutions in Europe<\/p>\n\n\n\n

.  The movie avoids giving a detailed account of Tischendorf\u2019s role in the events in 1856 that led to the arrest of Simonides<\/a>, and thus viewers are not shown that Simonides had a strong motive to attempt to cause trouble for Tischendorf.     <\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Tares Among the Wheat<\/em> also does viewers a disservice via its minimal description of items in the collection of Joseph Mayer<\/a>, who was an antiquities-collector in Liverpool, England<\/p>\n\n\n\n

.  Mayer had obtained a variety of ancient materials from Egypt<\/p>\n\n\n\n

, including some papyrus scrolls which were so tightly rolled up that he was reluctant to open them himself, and so he had Simonides inspect them.  Along with examining some of Mayer\u2019s genuinely ancient materials<\/a> (which included a very ancient Egyptian papyrus<\/a>), and claiming to have discovered a fragment of Hegesippus\u2019 Ecclesiastical History<\/em><\/a>, Simonides spent some time studying the papyrus scrolls, and when he was done preparing them, he declared that they contained ancient New Testament texts, including<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
Some of the forgeries made by Simonides still exist,
at the World Museum in Liverpool, England<\/a>.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

            (1)<\/strong>  Five fragments with text from the Gospel of Matthew, including one which included, after the end of chapter 28, a note stating that it had been written by the hand of Nicolaus the Deacon, at the dictation of Matthew, the apostle of Jesus Christ, in the fifteenth year after the ascension of our Lord, and distributed to the believing Jews and Greeks in Palestine,\u201d and<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            (2)<\/strong> two fragments of the Epistle of James, and<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            (3)<\/strong> a fragment of the Epistle of Jude.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Furthermore, Simonides claimed that the text in all three fragments deviated from the normal text.  For instance, he claimed that in the newly discovered text of Matthew 27:19, Pilate\u2019s wife\u2019s message is much longer; in the newly discovered text of Matthew 27:20, the word \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd is present (so as to convey \u201ctheir<\/strong> multitudes\u201d);  in the newly discovered text of Matthew 28:6, the angel describes Jesus as the Lord of death<\/strong>; in James 1:2, the twelve tribes are called the twelve tribes of Israel<\/strong>; in verse 19 of Jude in the newly discovered text, the word \u201cactually\u201d (\u03bf\u03bb\u03c9\u03c2) is present (so as to convey that the false teachers \u201cdo not actually have the Spirit\u201d), and verse 22 is phrased so as to say, \u201cOn some have compassion in the fear of the Lord<\/strong>.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

            If anyone involved in the production of Tares Among the Wheat<\/em> thinks that Constantine Simonides was not<\/strong> a swindler and a con artist who wrote forged texts on the blank reverse-pages of ancient papyri, then they should be clamoring for the items described by Simonides<\/a> in Mayer\u2019s personal museum (now part of the World Museum<\/a> in Liverpool) to be brought to public attention and scrutinized.  But if, instead, they think (as members of the Royal Society of Literature concluded in 1863) that Simonides was<\/strong> an educated huckster who tried to defraud German academics by doctoring ancient manuscripts, so as to make them appear to be palimpsests that contained yet more ancient writing, then they should realize that Simonides had a strong motive to try to impugn Tischendorf\u2019s reputation \u2013 for it was Tischendorf who had stepped in and prevented the Academy of Berlin from purchasing such a forgery from Simonides.   
                         <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
Christian J. Pinto<\/a><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

            Not only did the producers of Tares Among the Wheat<\/em> promote and encourage the conspiracy theory about Sinaiticus and Simonides, but they even tried to draw the genuineness of Codex Vaticanus<\/a> into doubt.  Following an interview in which Scot McKendrick<\/a> stated that the decorative book-titles in Codex Vaticanus were added by \u201ca fifteenth-century scribe,\u201d the narrator asks, \u201cIs it possible that the reason Codex Vaticanus has a strange and even newer appearance is that it may not be a truly ancient manuscript?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            It should be noted that McKendrick\u2019s statement is contestable; the exact point at which those book-titles were spruced up is not known; it makes sense to reckon that the letter-reinforcement throughout the manuscript, and the title-enhancements, were undertaken to make the codex look more presentable just prior to being placed in the Vatican Library, but that theory is, well, theoretical.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            McKendrick may also be subject to mild criticism because of his claim that Codex Sinaiticus is \u201cThe ancestor of all the Bibles that everybody else has in the world.\u201d  For those who use the King James Version or some other version based on the Textus Receptus<\/em>, or based on the Byzantine Text, such a claim is entirely false.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Tares Among the Wheat<\/em> is three hours of anti-Jesuit propaganda, blended with KJV-Onlyist versions of selective details in the history of New Testament textual criticism.  Even if the producers of this movie possessed the purest theology on earth, the fact remains that no theology is well-served by obscuring evidence and making stuff up.  We should not serve it that way; we should not want to serve it that way.  This movie\u2019s conspiracy theory about Codex Sinaiticus should not be taken seriously.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Those who want to see the kind of texts that Simonides produced, and which he vigorously defended as ancient documents, should consult the following links.  (Needless to say, the handwriting of Simonides is very different from the handwriting in Codex Sinaiticus):
            Simonides\u2019 forgery of Matthew 28:6ff. (Fragment M111690.5 at the World Museum, in Liverpool)<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Simonides\u2019 forgery of other parts of the Gospel of Matthew (Fragment 11169T at the World Museum, in Liverpool)<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Simonides\u2019 forgery of the \u201cVoyage of Hanno\u201d (Fragment M11169G at the World Museum, in Liverpool)<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Readers are invited to double-check the data in this post.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.thetextofthegospels.com\/2019\/04\/tares-among-wheat-review.html<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Saturday, April 14, 2018<\/strong> Five Palimpsests<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
Mark 16:14-20 in Codex C,
with later Greek text
written over it.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

            Today, let\u2019s take a look at some palimpsests among the New Testament manuscripts.  What is a palimpsest?  A palimpsest \u2013 so-called because the parchment has been scraped twice; once in the course of the manuscripts\u2019s initial production<\/a>, and again when it was recycled; the term is derived from the Greek words \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd (again<\/em>) and \u03c8\u03ac\u03c9 (scrape) \u2013 is a manuscript that has been recycled.  After the manuscript was initially produced, someone came along, took it apart, and removed the writing by washing and\/or scraping it off the parchment, so that the parchment could then be used as writing-material for another composition (sometimes even another copy of part of the New Testament). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This happened especially (but not exclusively) in places where writers did not know Greek and\/or did not have the means to buy (or to easily buy) new parchment.  We are able to read palimpsests because the recyclers\u2019 efforts to scrape away the ink were frequently only partly successful; ink embedded in the parchment-material was not so easy to erase completely.  Sometimes the lower writing (the older writing) is in the same format as the upper writing (the more recent writing that covers the older writing), but in other cases, it is upside down or sideways compared to the upper writing \u2013 and this can vary in the same palimpsest.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Over 50 palimpsests are continuous-text uncial manuscripts with text from the New Testament.  Here are five of them: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
Even without multi-spectral
imaging, much of the text of
Codex C can be recovered.
It is online at Gallica (BnF).<\/a><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

\u25cf Codex Ephraimi Rescriptus<\/a><\/strong> (C<\/a>, 04) is an important manuscript made in the 400s.  In the 1100s, someone recycled its pages, and used them as writing-material for a Greek translation of some of the writings of Ephraem the Syrian, written in Greek minuscule script.  That is how the manuscript obtained its name.  For many years, European scholars attempted to read the lower writing, but with limited success.  Finally in 1843-1845, Constantine von Tischendorf<\/a> (who is perhaps best-known for his acquisition of Codex Sinaiticus<\/a>) carefully transcribed the text of Codex C<\/a>, representing part of the Old Testament<\/a> in the Greek Septuagint version (Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and the apocryphal book Wisdom of Solomon) and almost every book of the New Testament<\/a> (except Second Thessalonians and Second John).  Tischendorf also noticed the corrections in the text, introduced by three distinct persons in the 500s, 900s, and (probably) the 1200s. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Tischendorf\u2019s work, while excellent, could be improved or at least double-checked (as R. W. Lyon attempted<\/a> in 1958) by the use of multi-spectral imaging<\/a>.  Hopefully this will be done before the manuscript\u2019s Greek text<\/a> becomes completely illegible as result of the harmful chemicals that were used upon it in the 1830s in attempts to make its lower writing easier to read.    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u25cf Codex Nitriensis<\/a> <\/strong>(R, 027):  In the 700s, a monk named Simeon needed parchment to make a copy of the Syriac composition Against the Impious John the Grammarian<\/em>, by Severus of Antioch.  To obtain the parchment, a few old Greek manuscripts were recycled:  a manuscript of Homer\u2019s Iliad<\/em> from the 400s, a manuscript of Euclid<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2019s Elements<\/em> from the 600s, and a manuscript of the Gospel of Luke from the 600s.  This manuscript was once in the impressive library of the monastery of St. Mary Deipara, which was located in the NitrianDesert<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 in Egypt<\/p>\n\n\n\n

; this is why it is called Codex Nitriensis<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
This digitally enhanced
image shows text from
Luke 16 in Codex R (027).<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

            After this manuscript was purchased, William Cureton<\/a> (the same researcher who discovered and published the Curetonian Syriac manuscript) published its text of part of the Iliad<\/em> in 1851.  Its text of Luke was studied by both Samuel Tregelles and Constantine Tischendorf; the latter published it in 1857 in his series Monumenta Sacra Inedita, volume 2<\/a> <\/em>(beginning on page 56 of the downloadable file), and each page\u2019s contents are identified in his transcription. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now housed at the British Library (and catalogued as Add. MS 17211<\/a>), Codex R has been rebound so that the opening pages contain the portion which has text from the Gospel of Luke in the lower writing.  Tischendorf managed to not only transcribe the text but also the Eusebian Section-numbers and the marginal note seen here (which accompanies text from Luke 16 but relates to the parable of the Prodigal Son which was on the preceding page).  On some pages, quite a bit of the Greek text, written in two columns per page, is in the margins and is not obscured by the Syriac upper writing; on other pages practically all of the Greek text is thoroughly eclipsed.  Some of the British Library\u2019s digital images of pages of Luke have been helpfully indexed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A study of the text of R by Robert Waltz<\/a> indicated that there is considerable mixture in R\u2019s essentially Byzantine text, especially in chapters 13, 14, and 15.  It is one of the relatively few manuscripts which do not include Luke 22:43-44.  Despite the importance of Codex R, the compilers of the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece<\/em> deliberately stopped citing it, as stated in the Introduction of that edition.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u25cf Codex Guelpherbytanus A<\/a><\/strong> (024, Pe<\/sup>) and 026 Codex Guelferbytanus B<\/a><\/strong> (026, Q) are two early Greek witnesses to the Byzantine text of the Gospels.  They are often consulted together, because each one was recycled when someone in the 700s used their pages for writing-material with which to make a copy of the Latin text of Isidore of Seville\u2019s Etymologies<\/em>, a.k.a. Origins<\/em>, a highly significant work in its own right.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

            The person who prepared this palimpsest also recycled pages from a Latin-Gothic copy of Romans (this text is known as Codex Carolinus<\/a>, a.k.a. Beuron 79) and the lower writing dates to the 500s or 600s), a Vulgate copy of the book of Judges, a Vulgate copy of Job, a copy of Ambrosiaster\u2019s Commentary on Romans<\/em>, and a copy of the Roman author Galen\u2019s composition On the Properties of Foods<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tischendorf gave 024 and 026 his attention and transcribed then both:  024\u2019s text of portions of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is recorded in Monumenta Sacra Inedita, Volume 6<\/a><\/em>, published in 1869, following the title-page on digital page 276.  Tischendorf\u2019s transcript of 026\u2019s text of portions of Luke and John (especially Luke) follows digital page 310 in Monumenta Sacra Inedita, Volume 3<\/a><\/em>, published in 1860. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Unfortunately, few individuals other than readers of Tischendorf\u2019s publications (in which most of the introductions and notes were written in Latin) seem to have paid much attention to Codices 024 and 026.  Bruce Metzger did not mention them in the chapter Important Witnesses to the Text of the New Testament<\/em> in his textbook The Text of the New Testament<\/em>.  026, but not 024, was consulted for the Tyndale House edition of the Greek New Testament<\/a>.  Hopefully this neglect will not last long.  A complete index of 024 and 026 (facilitating comparisons between the online digital images of the manuscript<\/a>, and Tischendorf\u2019s page-by-page transcript) is available as a free download among the files stored at the NT Textual Criticism group on Facebook.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            (Those who page through the digital page-views may also notice Isidore\u2019s comments and diagrams about the spherical shape of the earth, the moon\u2019s rotation around the earth, etc.)  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
On this page from Codex Zacynthius (040)<\/a>,
an excerpt from the writings of Cyril of Alexandria
stands in the upper and lower margins. 
The text of Luke is written in different lettering. 
The old parchment was reused to make a medieval lectionary, written in black and ink.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

\u25cf Codex Zacynthius<\/a><\/strong> (040, \u039e) is two New Testament manuscripts in one:  the upper writing is Lectionary 299<\/a>, produced in the 1200s or 1300s.  The lower writing contains, in uncial script, text from the first half of the Gospel of Luke, and was probably written in the 700s, although some researchers have proposed that it was made in the 600s or even the 500s.  The text of Luke is framed by a  catena-commentary in the margins; the excerpts from patristic writings are also written in uncials, but the letters are smaller and vertically elongated so as to avoid confusion between the Scripture-text and the patristic excerpts. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Included among the patristic writers cited in the catena \u2013 Chrysostom, Origen, Isidore of Pelusium, Titus of Bostra<\/a>, Cyril of Alexandria<\/a> (especially) and more \u2013 is Severus of Antioch, who wrote in the 500s (the same person whose composition constitutes the upper writing in Codex Nitriensis); this may seem to weigh in against the idea that the catena in \u039e was made during or very shortly after his lifetime; on the other hand, Severus\u2019 name was erased, which suggests that the manuscript was read and used by someone who was apparently not altogether willing to attribute helpful comments to Severus on account of his problematic Christological views.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

            One of the notable features of Codex 040<\/a> was noticed by Samuel Tregelles in his 1861 publication of its contents:  chapter-divisions, accompanied by the letter \u03a8, are the same as those found in Codex Vaticanus.  This suggested to Tregelles what a detailed study of its text confirmed:  it often agrees with the Alexandran uncials.  At Luke 4:8, for example, \u039e is allied with Vaticanus and Sinaiticus by not including the phrase \u201cGet behind Me, Satan\u201d (\u03a5\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b5 \u03bf\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c9 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1).    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tregelles avoided using chemicals to restore the text, preferring instead to use \u201cevery clear day for about four months\u201d \u2013 by which I deduce that he held the pages up to sunlight (or else used a mirror to catch the sunlight and project it onto the pages) to see the lower writing.  Modern-day researchers<\/a> are using new methods, including multi-spectral imaging, to continue to investigate the text of this palimpsest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Readers are encouraged to use the embedded links in this post to explore additional resources.]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Posted by James Snapp Jr <\/a>at 12:30\u202fPM<\/abbr><\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.thetextofthegospels.com\/2018\/04\/five-palimpsests.html<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Friday, March 25, 2022<\/strong> John 6:15 – An Interesting Little Detail<\/p>\n\n\n\n

           Near the end of John 6:15 \u2013 following John\u2019s account of the feeding of the 5,000 \u2013 there is an interesting variant-unit:  did John write that Jesus withdrew again (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd) to the mountain by himself, or that Jesus withdrew (\u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd) (without \u201cagain\u201d) to the mountain by himself, or that Jesus \u201cfled again\u201d \u03c6\u03b5\u03cd\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd) to the mountain by himself?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          John does not use \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd anywhere else, so perhaps there is something to be said in favor of \u03c6\u03b5\u03cd\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9:  the idea is that copyists changed the wording of Jesus\u2019 movement to avoid giving the impression that Jesus was running away like Brave Sir Robin.  On the other hand, John does not use \u03c6\u03b5\u03cd\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 anywhere else, either. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Constantine von Tischendorf was willing to let Codex Sinaiticus overrule all other Greek manuscripts in existence in John 6:15, in his eighth edition of the Greek New Testament.  Scholars less entranced with \u00c0 have not concurred, arguing (as Metzger reports in his Textual Commentary<\/em>) that \u03c6\u03b5\u03cd\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 originated as a Western reading.  It had to be introduced as a sort of paraphrase fairly early, inasmuch as it is supported by Tertullian, De Rebaptismate<\/em>, Ambrose, Jerome (who placed fugit<\/em> in the Vulgate, agreeing with several Old Latin copies) and Augustine<\/a>.  (Tertullian\u2019s reference is not airtight, however:  in On Idolatry XVIII<\/a>, he simply says that Christ \u201cshrank back from being made a king,\u201d without explicitly quoting John 6:15.)     <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"\/<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

          \u1f08\u03bd\u03b5\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd is read in all text-types:  Alexandrian (P75, B, L), Western (D), Byzantine (A, K, \u039b, \u03a0, N) and Caesarean (f<\/em>1<\/sup>).   But did John write only \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd or \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd?  Manuscripts without \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd here include W, \u0394, \u03a8, and most Byzantine copies.  The Peshitta<\/a>, likewise, does not support \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd.  The word could perhaps have been skipped accidentally, if a copyist\u2019s line of sight slid from the \u03bd at the end of \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd to the \u03bd at the end of \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd.  Or, having just read John 6:3\u2019s account of Jesus going up into the mountain, early copyists couldn\u2019t resist harmlessly adding \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd \u2013 but one would have to believe this happened at least twice for \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd to drift into A, D, \u03a0, N, and Y.    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

          The Curetonian Syriac, interestingly, supports a conflate reading:  fled and withdrew again. <\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>          Readers of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece<\/em> compilation would never detect that the reading found in the Byzantine Text, W, and the Peshitta exists:  the N-A apparatus mentions the reading in \u00c0 but not the reading of most manuscripts \u2013 an omission that is difficult to explain except as an effect of the editors\u2019 pro-Alexandrian bias.  The UBS apparatus doesn\u2019t mention the non-inclusion of \u03c0\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03bd either; nor does they Tyndale House GNT\u2019s apparatus.    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

          The non-original reading \u03c6\u03b5\u03cd\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9 is more interesting than it looks \u2013 not only because it was temporarily favored by a leading textual critic in the 1800s, but because it reveals that retro-translation sporadically affected the Greek text in the exemplar of the opening chapters of John in Sinaiticus \u2013 the same sort of Western phenomenon that has unfortunately affected the NIV 2011\u2019s base-text of Mark 1:41<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Posted by James Snapp Jr <\/a>at 2:13\u202fPM<\/abbr><\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.thetextofthegospels.com\/2022\/03\/john-615-interesting-little-detail.html<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tuesday, June 14, 2022<\/strong> Do Any Textual Variants Impact Doctrine?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

           Do any textual variants in the New Testament have the potential to make a significant doctrinal impact?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          In the past, major champions of the traditional text answered that question with a simple \u201cNo.\u201d  Robert L. Dabney<\/a> wrote in 1871, that the received text \u2013 the Textus Receptus<\/em>, the base-text of the KJV, while \u201cnot asserted to be above emendation,\u201d \u201ccontains undoubtedly all the essential facts and doctrines intended to be set down by the inspired writers,\u201d and \u201cIf it were corrected with the severest hand, by the light of the most divergent various readings found in any ancient MS or version, not a single doctrine of Christianity, nor a single cardinal fact, would be thereby expunged.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          More recent writers have expressed similar sentiments.   D.A. Carson, for example, has written that the Westminster Confession\u2019s affirmation that the Biblical text has been kept pure in all ages ought to be understood to mean that \u201cnothing we believe to be doctrinally true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants.\u201d (from p. 56 of The KJV-Only Controversy \u2013 A Plea for Realism<\/a><\/em>.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

          The view of Dan Wallace<\/a>, however, is better-informed and more nuanced.  It amounts to this:  no viable and meaningful variant jeopardizes any cardinal doctrine.  The adjectives in that sentence are important, so let\u2019s look into what they mean.  A viable<\/em> variant is one which textual critics regard as potentially original; it is favored by weighty (though not necessarily decisive) evidence.  A meaningful <\/em>variant is one which affects the meaning of the passage in which it occurs.  And a cardinal<\/em> doctrine is one that expresses a fundamental point of the Christian faith.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Using this nuanced approach, a question immediately arises:  which doctrines are cardinal?  Is inerrancy a cardinal doctrine?<\/strong>  Looking at the website of Dallas Theological Seminary<\/a> (where Dr. Wallace has taught), a statement can be seen that requires students to agree with seven beliefs; the seventh is \u201cthe authority and inerrancy of Scripture.\u201d  And looking at the requisite Statement of Faith<\/a> \u2013 \u201crequisite\u201d in the sense that faculty members at DTS are required to affirm it annually \u2013 one sees a statement that \u201cWe believe that the whole Bible in the originals is therefore without error.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Michael Kruger argued at the Ligonier website<\/a> (in 2015) that the doctrine of inerrancy is essential, and that it supplies \u201cthe foundation for why we can trust and obey God\u2019s Word.\u201d   Don Stewart<\/a> has also proposed that \u201cinerrancy is an essential, foundational concept and its importance should not be minimized.\u201d  Dan Wallace, meanwhile, has downplayed the centrality of inerrancy, stating in 2006 (in a post that is still online<\/a>) that \u201cinerrancy and verbal inspiration are more peripheral than core doctrines.\u201d  In other words \u2013 if I understand him correctly \u2013 Dr. Wallace does not, and has not, for some time, regarded inerrancy as a cardinal<\/em> doctrine \u2013 and so his statement to the effect that no viable and meaningful variant significantly affects cardinal doctrines should not be interpreted to mean that no viable and meaningful variants affect the doctrine of inerrancy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Some apologists have followed the example of Wallace\u2019s nuanced approach very closely; for example, in an article at Stand To Reason\u2019s <\/em>website<\/a>, <\/em>Tim Barnett wrote in 2016 that \u201cNo major doctrines depend on any meaningful and viable variants.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

          However, I can think of at least two variants that jeopardize the doctrine of inerrancy, both of which occur in the first book of the New Testament:  in Matthew 13:35 and Matthew 27:49.  Only the one in Matthew 13:35 is acknowledged by a footnote in the NLT, NASB, and ESV.  (At least, this is the case in the copies that I have.  So many editions of modern versions are in circulation that it would be burdensome to keep track of them all \u2013 which might make one wonder how seriously the \u201cStandard\u201d part of their names should be taken.)  Neither of these variants is given a footnote in the CSB, nor in the NKJV, nor in the hyper-paraphrase known as The Message<\/em>.  And the Tyndale House Greek New Testament<\/em> does not have a footnote at Matthew 13:35 or at Matthew 27:49. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Most of the English versions I have named so far are currently ranked among the ten most-popular versions of the Bible in America<\/a>.  So much for the idea that no one is hiding these variants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Let\u2019s see what those variants in Matthew 13:35 and 27:49 say.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

          In Matthew 13:35, the scribe of Codex Sinaiticus, rather than writing that a prophecy was spoken by \u201cthe prophet,\u201d wrote that it was spoken by \u201cIsaiah the prophet<\/strong>.\u201d  This reading collides with reality:  the referred-to prophecy is from Psalm 78:2 \u2013 a composition by Asaph, and not from Isaiah.  In addition to the scribe of Codex Sinaiticus, witnesses that support \u201cIsaiah the prophet\u201d in Mt. 13:35 include (according to the textual apparatus of UBS4) Q, f<\/em>1<\/sup>, f<\/em>13<\/sup>, 33, and the reading was known to Jerome; Jerome wrote (in Homily 11 on Psalm 77<\/em>) that \u201cin all the ancient copies,\u201d the prophecy is explicitly attributed to Asaph, and Jerome offers the theory that scribes who were unfamiliar with Asaph replaced his name with Isaiah\u2019s name.  The editors of UBS4 assigned this reading a ranking of \u201cC,\u201d which, as they explain in their Introduction, \u201cindicates that the Committee had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text.\u201d                   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

          In an earlier generation, F. J. A. Hort \u2013 who edited, with Westcott, the primary ancestor of the base-text of the New Testament used for the NIV, ESV, NLT, CSB, NASB and NRSV \u2013 argued for including \u201cin Isaiah the prophet\u201d<\/em> in the text.  His argument ran as follows:  \u201cIt is difficult not to think \u1f28\u03c3\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 genuine.  There was a strong tendency to omit it (cf. xxvii 9; Mc 1 2); and, though its insertion might be accounted for by an impulse to supply the name of the best known prophet, the evidence of the actual operation of such an impulse is much more trifling than might have been anticipated.  Out of the 5 (6) other places where the true text has simply \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, in two (Mt ii 15 [Hosea]; Acts vii 48 [Isaiah]) , besides the early interpolation in Mt xxvii 35 [Psalms], no name is inserted; in two a name is inserted on trivial evidence (Mt ii 5, Micah<\/em> rightly, and Isaiah<\/em> [by a] wrongly ; xxi 4, Isaiah<\/em> and Zechariah<\/em> both rightly [Zech by lat.vt]) ; and once (Mt i 22) Isaiah is rightly inserted on various Western evidence.  Also for the perplexing \u1f38\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03bc\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 of xxvii 9, omitted by many documents, rhe<\/em> has \u1f28\u03c3\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5.  Thus the erroneous introduction of Isaiah\u2019s name is limited to two passages, and in each case to a single Latin MS.  On the other hand the authority of rushw<\/em> and aeth is lessened by the (right) insertion of \u1f28\u03c3\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 by one in Mt i 22, and by both in xxi 4.  The adverse testimony of B is not decisive, as it has a few widely spread wrong readings in this Gospel.\u201d   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Constantine von Tischendorf included \u1f28\u03c3\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 in Matthew 13:35 in the 8th edition of his compilation of the Greek New Testament.  And in 1901, Eberhard Nestle wrote (on p. 251 of his Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament<\/a><\/em>) that \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u1f28\u03c3\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u201cis certainly, therefore, original.\u201d  Anyone using a Greek New Testament compiled by Tischendorf or Nestle today would be rather challenged if he were to attempt to maintain the doctrine of inerrancy, inasmuch as if Matthew attributed Psalm 78:2 to Isaiah, then Matthew erred.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
Mt. 27:49 in Codex L.<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

         In Matthew 27:49, major Alexandrian witnesses (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Codex C, Codex L), some important versional witnesses (Mae1<\/sup>, Mae2<\/sup>, the Ethiopic version, and assorted witnesses (listed by Willker as U, \u0393, 5, 26, 48, 67, 115, 127, 160, 175, 364, 782, 871, 1010, 1057, 1300, 1392, 1416, 1448, 1555, 1566, 1701, 1780, 2117, 2126, 2139, 2283, 2328, 2437*, 2585, 2586, 2622, 2680, 2766, and 2787) support the reading, at the end of the verse, \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bb\u03b1\u03b2\u03ce\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c7\u03b7\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd\u03c5\u03be\u03b5\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03ae\u03bd \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u1f10\u03be\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03b1.  (In the underlined witnesses the final words are \u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 instead of \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03b1\u1f37\u03bc\u03b1.)  This means:  And another [person], taking a spear, pierced his side, and out came water and blood<\/em>.   Then, in Matthew 27:50, Jesus dies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          The adoption of this reading into the text would be fatal to the doctrine of inerrancy, because the Gospel of John candidly states (in 19:34) that Jesus was pierced in His side with a spear, resulting in a flow of blood and water, after He died<\/strong>, and this contradicts the text of Matthew if this reading \u2013 supported by the two early manuscripts (\u00c0 and B) that are the primary basis for the heading and footnote that draw into question Mark 16:9-20 in the ESV, CSB, NRSV, etc. \u2013 is adopted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          In 2018, in a post at Evangelical Textual Criticism<\/a>, Tyndale House GNT editor Dirk Jongkind acknowledged that this variant probably should have been mentioned in the apparatus of the Tyndale House GNT.  He also acknowledged that \u201cOn external evidence, the addition has definitely a very good shout\u201d \u2013 which  \u2013 I think \u2013 is tantamount to granting that the reading is viable.  But Jongkind rejects the reading, admitting that \u201cThe \u2018best and earliest manuscripts\u2019 do not always present us with the \u2018best and earliest readings.\u2019\u201d   Perhaps this statement should be printed in large letters alongside the ESV\u2019s bracketed heading between Mark 16:8 and 16:9 (which reads, \u201cSome of the earliest manuscripts do no include 16:9-20.\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          But this reading in the most significant manuscripts representative of the Alexandrian Text certainly was treated as viable by Westcott and Hort, who included the variant, within double brackets, in their compilation.  In Westcott & Hort\u2019s Notes on Select Readings<\/em>, after analyzing the evidence pertaining to this variant, they concluded as follows:  \u201cTwo suppositions alone are compatible  with the whole evidence.  First, the words  \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb. [\u201c\u03ba.\u03c4.\u03bb.\u201d meaning \u201cetc.<\/em>\u201d] may belong to the genuine text of the extant form of Mt, and have been early omitted (originally by the Western text) on account of the obvious difficulty.  Or, secondly, they may be a very early interpolation, absent in the first instance from the Western text only, and thus resembling the Non-Western interpolations in Luke xxii xxiv except in its failure to obtain admission into the prevalent texts of the third and fourth centuries.  The prima facie<\/em> difficulty of the second supposition is lightened by the absence of the words from all the earlier versions, though the defectiveness of African Latin, Old Syriac, and Thebaic evidence somewhat weakens the force of this consideration. We have thought it on the whole right to give expression to this view by including the words within double brackets, though we did not feel justified in removing them from the text, and are not prepared to reject altogether the alternative supposition.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Competent textual critics \u2013 including some who laid the foundation for the compilations of the ESV, CSB, NLT, and NRSV \u2013 have treated one or two readings that convey erroneous statements as if they are viable and meaningful.  Therefore, the notion that there are no viable and meaningful textual variants in the New Testament that jeopardize any cardinal doctrine can only be maintained by those who do not consider the doctrine of inerrancy to be a \u201ccardinal doctrine.\u201d    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

           So:  do any textual variants in the New Testament have the potential to make a significant doctrinal impact?  If you consider the doctrine of inerrancy a significant doctrine (which most evangelical Christians do), the answer is yes<\/strong>.        <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Posted by James Snapp Jr <\/a>at 12:03\u202fAM<\/abbr><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.thetextofthegospels.com\/2022\/06\/do-any-textual-variants-impact-doctrine.html<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Saturday, April 13, 2019 Tares Among the Wheat – A Review             A series of movies available on Amazon Prime Video includes New Testament textual criticism among the subjects it covers \u2013 but … Leer m\u00e1s<\/a><\/p>\n