John 7:46 - Neither Shortest Nor Longest

In his obsolete Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament, regarding the end of John 7:46 Bruce Metzger briefly stated, "The crisp brevity of the reading supported by p^{66c, 75} B L T W copt^bo al was expanded for the sake of greater explicitness in various ways, none of which, if original, would account for the rise of the others."  

Let's test that.

Following ἄνθρωπος, we see the following variety: 

ὡς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος - Byz K M N U Γ Δ Θ Λ Π Ψ  f¹ f¹³ 2 28 33 69 124 157 565 579 1071 1424 1505

ὡς οὗτος λαλει ὁ ἄνθρωπος  - P66* 01* (There is an itacism in 01 and P66*, and 01 has a singular reading at the beginning of the verse, pictured.)

ὡς οὗτος λαλει (after ἄνθρωπος ἐλάλησεν) - 05

That's not a lot of variety.   03 P66^c 019 T and 032 appear to be the only manuscripts which support the reading adopted in UBS4.

Meanwhile, support for a longer reading comes not only from all other Greek manuscripts (with GA 13 dissenting due to a scribal error, initially failing to include ἐλάλησεν earlier in the verse, and with a transposition - ἐλάλησεν οὗτως - in N Ψ 33 1071 1241) but also from the Sahidic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian, and Syriac (Sinaitic, Curetonian, Peshitta, and Harklean) versions, as well as the Palestinian Aramaic and the Vulgate.  A very impressive array.

While some commentators point out that the Byzantine text displays a tendency to clarify via embellishment, one should also be aware of the opposite tendency in the Alexandrian text to economize via abbreviation - i.e., to attempt to express the same idea using fewer words.  

If one were to treat the reading supported by the vast majority of manuscripts and versions as original here, the reading of 03 and allies is readily explained as either the result of a parableptic leap from the first ἄνθρωπος to the second ἄνθρωπος., or as an intentional attempt to eliminate superfluity.  

An early scribe could conceivably consider the Alexandrian reading in need of embellishment, and add "like this" or "like this man."  On the other hand, the addition of "like this" and "like this man" adds nothing that anyone could not figure out in a moment.  If John wrote ὡς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος, his reason for doing so would be obvious:  that is what he overheard the soldiers say.  In addition, the reading in P66* and 01 is accounted for as a conflation of the Byzantine reading and the reading in 05.

Instead of defending the Alexandrian reading by assigning to scribes a desire to make a frivolous embellishment, it is better in this case to regard the reading of 03 and allies as an accidental or intentional truncation of what John wrote.

One medieval scribe - the copyist of 2483(2866) - illustrated that a scribe in the Middle Ages could commit dittography while copying John 7:46-47.  And where dittography is possible, parablepsis tends to be possible too.

For those who may be interesting in how English versions treat this variant:  KJV NKJV MEV RSV Message NASB95 NET NIV EHV EOB all support the longer reading, demolishing any  assumption that those who reject Metzger’s premise here must harbor a pro-Byzantine prejudice.    

(Thanks to Ben Crawford for sharing this photo of GA 2483 from the Benjamin Crawford Collection, Alabama.)

0    

John 8:44 - An Anti-Marcionite Deletion in Family 13

 Family 13 is a small cluster of manuscripts notable (or notorious) for having unusual liturgically influenced readings such as the addition of Luke 22:43-44 within the text of Matthew after 26:39 and the pericope adulterae following Luke 21:38.  The archetype of manuscripts 13, 69, 124,174, 230, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828, 983, 1689 and (in John) 1709 was brought to the attention of scholars in 1877 in a posthumous study by William Hugh Ferrar edited by T. K. Abbott assisted by George Salmon - A Collation of Four Important Manuscripts of the Gospels.  Within the family there are three grouping:  a (13, 346, 543, 826, and 828), b (69, 124, and 788) and c (983).  

Ferrar assigned to family 13 a weight "second only to that of the three or four most ancient uncials."  This acknowledgment of the importance of 69 may be significant to those who advocate the Textus Receptus, for 69 was known to Erasmus.  Ferrar also asserted that many of the unusual readings in 69 "have arisen from Evangelistaria and Lectionaries."   There were at least three factors in play when the archetype of family 13 was made:  (1) the influence of an early lection-cycle (2) an early liturgy very similar to the Byzantine liturgy, and (3) a doctrinal agenda.

It is one specific reading illustrating this third factor- doctrinal motivations of a scribe - that I examine today.  In John 8:44, GA 13 is missing the words του πατρος.   The words are present in 01 03 and the Byzantine Text.  The non-inclusion is supported by K, the Sinaitic Syriac, and one Bohairic manuscript.  What would motivate an early scribe to skip these words?

A simple parableptic error cannot be ruled out entirely - the scribe's line of sight could have jumped from του to του.  But as J. Porter observed in 1848, a far stronger case can be argued that the omission was doctrinally driven and that the scribe(s) responsible wished to allow one fewer arrows to fill the quivers of the supporters of Marcion, who could argue from the presence of του πατρος that Jesus' words in John 8:44 vindicate the idea that Satan (or the Demiurge) was responsible for the existence of Jesus' religious opponents in Jerusalem.  This illustrates the great antiquity of readings in in relatively late manuscripts.

  

KJV Supporters Ask: Who Isn't Listening to Whom?

Although to my way of thinking, dogmatic KJV-Onlyism is more akin to a mental condition than a scientifically tenable Bibliological position.  It's important to keep the lines of communication open with KJV-Onlyists.  Following up on my critique of Mark Ward's approach to the KJV last year, let's listen to what KJV advocate Christopher Yetzer had to say back in August 2024, now that Mark Ward has pledged to turn his attention to topics other than the KJV.
     Christopher wrote the following (edited and condensed in the interest of brevity):

In a recent video Mark Ward complained that he wanted “to see a King James only defender listen hard to my viewpoint the way I’ve listened to theirs”. But who is the one who isn’t listening? Has Ward not been heard or is he just not listening to the response? Is it possible that it is Ward who is not listening? I will demonstrate that the opposite side has listened and responded. It is Ward who is not listening.

After I saw some of Nick Sayers’ review of Mark’s video titled “Is the NKJV Truly Based on the TR” I wrote to Mark on June 27, 2024 to let him know about an error he had made in the video. Doubting he would respond I made a Facebook post asking people to contact him to let him know of the error. Mark made a correction below that video as well as corrected himself in a video about two months later.

I sent him a list of several faults I see in the NKJV (that is for another post). None of my complaints were addressed in the new video. Ward acts as if the only difference between the NKJV and the KJV is the style of English. Just to be clear that there are other issues being discussed by the KJV side, here are some examples of people from different theological perspectives critiquing the NKJV: Bryan Ross - Jeff Riddle - Nick Sayers. Or consider Helge Evensen's article or many blog-posts by Robert Lee Vaughn or posts by Peter Van Kleeck .

Ward trampled on the Bibles and their editors which he promotes. The NKJV, for example, uses non-English words and archaic words. Leland Ryken, the literary stylist of the ESV, argued against Ward’s use of Tyndale, “The statement about the plowboy is not a comment about Tyndale’s preferred style for an English Bible. It is not a designation of teenage farm boys as a target audience for a niche Bible. Those misconceptions are the projections of modern partisans for a colloquial and simplified English Bible.”

I honestly must confess that I used to think that Ward would say things like “Nobody has answered me regarding my….” as a sort of self-flattering signal to his supporters that nobody could respond to his arguments. But now I really think he is just not listening. After I replied to his YouTube videos, Ward blocked me from commenting on his page in 2021. Last year I tried to post a critique of the many problems with the Parallel KJV website, only to be blocked by Ward from his Face Book page.

Did the two scholars featured on the site’s homepage evaluate its value and accuracy? Apparently not. However, when someone properly does, they get blocked for mentioning its faults. One of Ward’s video editors, Jonathan Burris, also blocked me from being able to leave any comment on his site. Does that sound like something someone would do who wants to listen to the other side? You would think I am some sort of vile expletive spilling troll, but instead Ward said, “I have blocked you from commenting on my videos. That doesn't erase past comments, as I understand it. I have enjoyed some of our exchanges, and I want them to be available to others in the future who look at my videos.”

I understand we are all busy but Ward expects that academic deans and chancellors will listen to his videos and change their language on the TR, all the while his own calling is limited to doing prep work while taking care of the yard.

Let’s be clear: we have heard your message, Mark. We just disagree. We disagree on the amount of difficulties that exist in the KJV. We disagree that "Edification Requires Intelligibility" gives a pass to difficulties in modern translations. We disagree that another attempt at updating the KJV would bring better unity and more authority to the text. We disagree that the only differences in the NKJV are the forms of English that were used. We disagree that the KJV was modern in 1611. We disagree that few differences is the same thing as minor differences. We disagree that oldest is best. We disagree that you have not been responded to. We disagree in your methods of interpreting KJV words. We have heard you and we respectfully disagree.

___________

John 13:2 - When's Suppertime?

“It’s a Frankentext.” That’s one of the objections made against the UBS/Nestle-Aland compilation:  in hundreds of verses, if the UBS compilation is correct, no scribe of any extant manuscript anywhere preserved the original contents.  The Tyndale House GNT’s form of John 13:2 agrees with 03 except for its minor orthographic reading δίπνου.  

 

John 13:2 is a case in point.  In Swanson’s volume on the Gospel of John the UBS compilation stands alone, the exact array of the 16 words in the UBS/N-A compilation is not found in any extant witness.  The Tyndale House GNT’s form of John 13:2 agrees with 03 except for its minor orthographic reading δίπνου.  Let’s walk through the verse just to get the lay of the land.

 

Byz : UBS

 

καὶ : καὶ

δείπνου : δείπνου

γενομένου : γινομένου

τοῦ : τοῦ

διαβόλου : διαβόλου

ηδη : ηδη

βεβληκότος : βεβληκότος

εἰς : εἰς

τὴν : τὴν

καρδίαν :  καρδίαν

Ἰούδα : Ἰούδα                         ἳνα                              

Σίμωνος : Σίμωνος                  παραδοι

Ἰσκαριώτου :                           αὐτὸν

ἳνα :                                         Ἰούδας

αὐτὸν :                                     Σίμωνος

παραδω :                                 Ἰσκαριώτης

 

Aside from the transposition at the end of the verse, γενομενου versus γινομενου near the beginning separates the Byzantine Text from the Alexandrian Text – did the footwashing occur while supper was taking place or when supper had ended?   The majority of popular English versions favors “during supper” –

 

KJV, NKJV:  “supper being ended”

MEV:  “supper being concluded.” 

ASV, AMP, EOB, ESV, NASB, NRSV, WEB:  “during supper”

NIV:  “The evening meal was in progress”

CSB:  “time for supper”

CEV:  “before the evening meal started”

Rheims:  “when supper was done”

EHV: “By the time the supper took place”

NLT: “It was time for supper”

It was not my goal today to settle this textual contest - Jordan Shollenbarger is looking into it, and may share his finding in a future post.  I just wanted to bring the variation, and the varying English echoes, to your attention.

Vaticanus and Sinaiticus: How Closely Connected?

Almost as soon as pages of the Gospels in Codex Sinaiticus were brought to the attention of European scholars, its textual affinities to the Gospel-text of Codex Vaticanus were recognized.  Aside from a seven-chapter portion of the Gospel of John, both codices represent the Alexandrian transmission stream, and do so better than any manuscripts produced in later periods.  The geographical origin of 01 and 03 has remained in dispute, although ever since the days of J. Rendel Harris a very strong cumulative case has existed for assigning 03 to Caesarea.

The similarity of the closing arabesque in 03 at the end of Deuteronomy, and thee arabesque in 01 at the end of Mark on a cancel-sheet in 01 may link both codices to either the same scriptorium or to the same scribe/diorthotes.  Shown here are these details.  The combination of vertically arranged dots, horizontal carets, and wavy horizontal lines is rather rare.  The chapter-numbering in the margins of Acts shared by both manuscripts links them together historically later on, as shown conclusively by Robinson in Euthaliana (1895). The decorative coronis drawn by a scribe involved in their production appears to connect them to either the same location, or to the same mobile scribe who served as a diorthotes during the production of both codices. 

Lectionary 1043

Lectionary 1043 is a fragment assigned to the 400s, making it among the earliest lectionaries in existence.  It resides in Vienna at the Austrian National Library (P.Vindob. G 2324).  It contains, in whole or in part, ten lections from the Gospels:  (1) from the end of Mt. 7:16-7:20  (2) Mt. 10:39  to the end of 10:43 (2) Mt 10:37-42 (3) from Mt. 3:7-3:12 (end of Sect 12) (4) Mt 3:13-17, (5) Mt 7:13 - (6) Mk. 6:(18)-6:29 (7) Lk. 2:1-20 (8) Lk. 11:27-32 (9) Lk. 24:36 - ??? (10) Jn. 20:2-13.

(1)  MATTHEW 7

1.  Mt 7:19 – OUN

X.  Mt 10:37 – uncontracted UION

2.  Mt 10:41 – LHMPSETAI

3.  Mt 10:41 – LHMPSETAI

4.  Mt 10:42 – EAN 

In this lection we see Alexandrian orthography in 10:41, an agreement with the Byzantine text (and 01 and 019) in 10:42, and an agreement with 019 in verse 19.

(2)  MATTHEW 3

5.  Mt. 3:7 - AUTOU is absent, as in 01 and 03.

6.  Mt. 3:10 - begins HDH DE KAI H as in the Byzantine Text, disagreeing with 01 03 05 032) 

7.  Mt 3:10 - the very rare reading TO before PUR

8.  Mt 3:11 - UMAS BAPTISMA, agreeing with 01 032 and family 1.

9.  Mt 3:11 - AUTOU after UPODHMATA 

10.  Mt 3:11 - includes KAI PURI

11.  Mt 3:14 - IWANNHS is absent after O DE, agreeing with 01 and 03. 

12.  Mt 3:16 - BAPTISQEIS DE, agreeing with 01 and 03 instead of the Byzantine KAI BAPTISQEIS

13.  Mt 3:16 - agrees with 01 and 03 in the word-order of EUTHUS ANEBH

14.  Mt 3:16 - HNEWCHQHSAN before OI OURANOI, agreeing with 03. 

15, 16.  Mt 3:16 - TO PNA TOU, agreeing with the Byzantine text in both the inclusion of TO and the inclusion of TOU

X.  Mt 3:17 - UION is not contracted

17. - Mt 3:17 - HUDOKHSA, agreeing with C L P W 118 and a correction in 01.

(3)  MATTHEW 4:23-5:12

18. - 4:23 – EN OLH TH GALILAIA

19. - 4:24 – includes KAI before DAIMONIZOMENOUS

20.  5:1 – PROSHLQON

21.  5:2 – E before TO STOMA

22.  5:2 – ENDIDASKEN (?)

23.  5:3 – AUTON

24.  5:6 – PINWNTES

X.  5:8 – uncontracted QEON

25.  5:9 – does not have AUTOI after OTI

26.  5:10 – has THS after ENEKEN (agreeing with Codex C)

27.  5:11 – does not have RHMA

28.  5:11 –only has PSEUDOMENOI after ENEKEN EMOU

(5) MATTHEW 7 

29.  7:13 –DIERCHOMENOI

30.  7:14 – OTI [no DE]

31.  7:15 – DE

32.  7:16 – STAPHULAS

Up to this point Lectionary 1043 is roughly twice as Alexandrian as it is Byzantine:  seven readings are Byzantine, eleven are Alexandrian, and thirteen favor neither the Alexandrian nor the Byzantine text.   But in Mark 6 we see a startling shift in favor of the Alexandrian text:

(6)  MARK 6

33.  6:20 – HPOREI (not EPOIEI) (with 01 03 019)

34.  6:21 – EPOIHSEN (not EPOIEI) (with 01 03 019)

35.  6:22 –AUTHS after QUGATROS (with 032)

36.  6:22 –HRESEN (P45 and Byz: αρεσάσης) (with 01 03 019)

37.  6:23 – AUTH (not POLLA) – (notice the conflation in UBS)

38.  6:23 – AN (not EAN) (with 05)

39.  6:23 – O DE BASILEUS EIPEN (Byz & P45: ειπεν ο βασιλευς) (with 01 03 019)

40.  6:24 –AITHSWMAI (with 01 03 019)

41.  6:24 –BAPTIZONTOS (with 01 03 019)

42.  6:25–EUQUS (with 01 03)

43.  6:25 –ECHAUTHS DWS MOI (with 01 03 019)

44.  :26 –SUNANAKEIMENOUS (with 05 Byz)

45.  6:27 –EUQUS (with 01 03 019)

46.  6:27 –KAIPHALHN

47.  6:28 –KAI (not O DE) (with 03)

48.  6:28–TW before KORASION

(8)  LUKE 11

49.  27 – FWNHN GUNH

50.  28 –MENOUN GE

51.  29 – ZHTEI

52.  29 – does not have TOU PROFHTOU

53.  30 –TOIS NINEUITAIS SHMEION

(9) LUKE 24

54.  36 – LOUNTWN (missing LA-)

55.  36 – does not include O IHSOUS

(10) JOHN 20

56.  6 – KAI after OUN

57.  10 – TOUS after PROS (instead of AUTOUS or EAUTOUS)

58.  11 – MNHMEIW (instead of MNHMEION)

59.  11 – EXW KLAIOUSA

Out of 59 notable readings, when the 18 miscellaneous readings that are not supported by the flagship MSS of any text-type are set aside, the remaining 41 variation-units produce these simple ratios: 29/41 Alexandrian (70.7%) and 8/41 (19.5%) Byzantine.

Alexandrian dominance is particularly stunning in Mark 6.  A future post zooming in on Mark Mk. 6:19-6:29 is planned.  In the meantime, the strong affinity of Lectionary 1043 with the Alexandrian text should be noted, as well as two remarkable readings:  AUTHS in Mark 6:22 and EUDOKIA in Luke 2:14 - diverging from 01 and 03!  

The non-contraction of UION and QEON in Lectionary 1043 suggests an extraordinarily ancient production-date for its exemplar.

Lectionary 1043 should be treated as a witness of the first order in future compilations of the text of the Gospels.

This post is dedicated to the memory of James Roth.

 

The Trebizond Time Capsule: What We Know So Far

 

As many Turkish news outlets already reported last week, a significant discovery was made in Trabzon, Turkey following a minor earthquake:  among the stonework in a collapsed wall in the non-reconstructed area of the Fatih Mosque (founded as the Panagia Chrysokephalos Church in the 900s) were several boxes, coated with plaster, which upon examination were found to contain assorted manuscripts, including a copy of the Gospels.  

Janbi P. Sahtekar

My guest today is J. P. Sahtekar, who was present when the first three boxes were opened.

Me: Thank you for taking time to share about this discovery, Dr. Sahtekar.

JPS:  Thank you for spreading the news. And please call me J.P.; the "doctor" is a nickname.  

Me:  As you wish, J.P.  What can you tell us about the contents of the discovery in the mosque?

JPS:  The plastered boxes and the entire wall of bricks they were in seem to have been put in place during the mid-1400s, after the fall of Istanbul.  So they serve as a sort of time capsule to show what the Christians wanted to preserve secretly in the church.  In the first box there was an icon of Theodore the Studite, and in the second there was a rather unique bilingual copy of the Gospels written in Greek and Georgian.

Me:  Can you divulge anything about the manuscript's text?

JPS:  A full transcript is already in preparation, to be done by scholars from the Museum of the Bible in Washington D.C.  I can say a few details:  it has well-preserved miniatures for all four evangelists, and its text is mixed, with Matthew, Mark, and Luke being typical Byzantine, but in John it shifts entirely to what is typical of the family-1 cluster, with the story of the adulteress absent in John 8, and added at the end of the Gospel.  There are also some strange omissions in John 11 - the  whole chapter is rewritten so as to remove Martha of Bethany entirely.

Me:  Why would anyone do such a thing?

JPS:  I decline to speculate about scribal motives - and there might not be one; my preliminary understanding is that the scribe appears to have simply accidentally skipped a large portion of text.  I can only say that the find creates a promising opportunity to re-examine what we know - or think we know - about Georgian-language scribes' interaction with Greek Gospels prior to the work of George the Hagiorite.  More details will be included once the manuscript is officially catalogued.

Me:  Thanks for the update - looking forward to learning more!

Footage of the discovery on the scene in Trebzon can be accessed HERE and HERE.