A page from Codex Sinaiticus |
Seriously? Claims such as that one unrealistically
minimize the differences between the Alexandrian text and the Byzantine
Text, and downplay the mistakes made by copyists. Let’s test that claim, comparing the text that was written by the copyist of Sinaiticus (À) –
before anyone came along later and made corrections – and the Byzantine Text as found in the Robinson-Pierpont compilation. In the interest of brevity, I will limit this
comparison to the text of the Gospel of Matthew (and I will not make all the
comparisons that could be made). I will
add some comments, but for the most part I will let these comparisons speak for
themselves.
● 1. Was Asaph a
descendant of David? (see Matthew 1:8)
Byzantine
Text: no; Asa was a descendant of David.
Sinaiticus: yes.
To avoid
attributing a bad error to Matthew, the person who uses sound exegetical
methods will perceive that the Alexandrian Text actually refers to Asa but
resorts to a non-standard spelling that happens to produce the same name as the
name of a contemporary of David (Asaph) to whom several Psalms are attributed.
Byzantine
Text: no; Amon was a descendant of
David.
Sinaiticus: yes.
To avoid
attributing a bad error to Matthew, the person who uses sound exegetical
methods will perceive that the Alexandrian Text actually refers to Amon but
resorts to a non-standard spelling that happens to produce the same name as the
name of an Old Testament prophet (Amos).
● 3. In Matthew 5:22, did Jesus prohibit being angry with a
brother, unless there was a reason, or did Jesus prohibit being angry with a
brother, without qualification?
Byzantine
Text: Jesus prohibited being angry with
a brother without a cause
Sinaiticus:
Jesus prohibited being angry with a
brother, without qualification.
Inasmuch as
Jesus is plainly said to be angry in Mark 3:5, those who utilize both sound
exegetical methods and the Alexandrian Text are left with the task of defending
the premise that Jesus was consistent with His own teachings. Perhaps their sound exegetical methods will
involve considering the nuances of the Aramaic terms for “anger” that Jesus used.
● 4.. In Matthew 5:19,
did Jesus affirm that the person who does what the law says, and teaches others
to do so, shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no.
The text of
À
skips the second half of the verse, very likely because the scribe of À’s
line of sight drifted from the first occurrence of “in the kingdom of heaven”
in the verse to its second occurrence, skipping all the words in between.
● 5. Did Jesus
instruct His disciples to pray, “For Yours is the kingdom, and the power, and
the glory forever,” or not? (See Matthew 6:13)
Byzantine
Text: yes, Jesus did this.
Sinaiticus: no, Jesus did not do this.
● 6. In Matthew 7:27,
did Jesus mention that “the floods came”?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no
The scribe of À accidentally skipped the
phrase due to a parableptic error (when his line of sight shifted from the
letters -μοι at the end of ποταμοι to the same letters at the end of
ανεμοι).
● 7. In Matthew 8:3,
did Matthew mention that the leper was cleansed immediately when Jesus touched him?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no
● 8. Did Matthew
report in 8:13 that the centurion went to his house and found that the servant
had been healed?
Byzantine
Text: no
Sinaiticus: yes
● 9. Where did
Matthew say that the demoniacs were encountered in 8:28?
Byzantine
Text: the country of the Gergesenes
Sinaiticus: the country of the Gazarenes
The reading in the Byzantine Text
is supported by Origen in the 200s, before Sinaiticus was produced. “Gazarenes” (Γαζαρηνων) appears exclusively
in Codex Sinaiticus.
● 10. In Matthew 8:29, did the demoniacs address Jesus by name?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no
● 11. In Matthew 9:15, did Jesus say, “But days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away
from them”?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no.
The scribe of À carelessly skipped some text again, skipping from the
first occurrence of νυμφιος in this verse to the second occurrence of the same
word.
● 12. Did Matthew report
(in 9:24) that the people at the home of the young girl who had died knew that
she was dead?
Byzantine
Text: no
Sinaiticus: yes
● 13. Does Matthew 9:35 say that people followed Jesus after He healed them?
Byzantine
Text: no
Sinaiticus: yes
● 14. Does Matthew 10:3 affirm that Lebbaeus was also named Thaddeus?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus:
no
● 15. Did Jesus tell
the apostles not to provide themselves with silver as He sent them to preach in
Mathew 10:9?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no
● 16. Does Matthew 10:12 say that Jesus told the apostles, when entering a house, to greet those
within with the blessing, “Peace to this house”?
Byzantine
Text: no
Sinaiticus: yes
● 17. Did Matthew
record (in 10:39) that Jesus said, “He who finds his life will lose it”?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no
● 18. Did Jesus say,
in Matthew 11:29, “Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me,” or merely “Take My
yoke upon you, and learn”?
Byzantine
Text: “learn of Me.”
Sinaiticus: “Learn.”
● 19. In Matthew 12:13, when Matthew described how Jesus healed the man with the withered hand,
did he say that the hand that had been withered became as whole as the other?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no
● 20. Did Matthew say
that one of Jesus’ disciples told Him, as He was speaking to the crowds, that
His mother and brothers stood outside waiting to see Him? Or to put it another
way: does Matthew 12:47 belong in the
text?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no
● 21. Does Matthew 13:35 say that the prophet Isaiah wrote Psalm 72?
Byzantine
Text: no.
Sinaiticus: yes.
In Matthew
13:35, Sinaiticus’ text says that Isaiah the prophet is being quoted. The quotation that is given, however, is from
Psalm 78. Now, there is another passage
– Mark 1:2 – where Isaiah’s name appears in the Alexandrian Text where it does
not belong, and in that case, “sound exegetical methods” provide a sort of
loophole, so that even though the first part of the quotation is from Malachi
rather than Isaiah, eagle-eyed exegetes can perceive that Mark combined two
prophetic passages, and only named the more prominent of the two; Malachi’s
material being connected in a thematic way.
Here in
Matthew 13:35, however, there is no such loophole, for the Psalms are not the
domain of Isaiah, and are not bundled together with Isaiah’s book. The author of Psalm 78 is explicitly identified
as Asaph. Thus the person who applies
sound exegetical methods to the text faces an irreconcilable contradiction in
the text of Codex Sinaiticus, and down falls the doctrine of inerrancy. (I propose in a
series of detailed posts about Mark 1:2 that a better option is
to realize that some early copyists occasionally added Isaiah’s name where it
didn’t belong, and that Mark 1:2 and Matthew 13:35 are two of those places.)
● 22. Did Jesus
explain, in Matthew 13:39, that the harvest is the end of the age?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no
● 23. Did Matthew
record, in Matthew 13:41, that Jesus said that the angels are “His” angels?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no
This is an
interesting reading in À, because there is no readily obvious mechanism to
elicit it. Vaticanus and other
Alexandrian witnesses include “his” (αυτου).
● 24. Did Jesus immediately make His disciples get in
the boat after the feeding of the five thousand, according to Matthew 14:22?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no
Like the
preceding comparison, this one shows another passage in which the scribe of À
seems to have arbitrarily dropped a word that was not essential to the sense of
the sentence. Vaticanus and other
Alexandrian witnesses include “immediately” (ευθεως).
● 25. Did Jesus send
the crowds away before went up a mountain to pray in Matthew 14:23?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus; no
● 26. In Matthew 14:30, was Peter intimidated when he saw that the wind was boisterous, or
simply when he saw the wind?
Byzantine
Text: when he saw that the wind was
boisterous
Sinaiticus: when he saw the wind
The
Alexandrian Text’s core witnesses share a parableptic error; an early copyist’s
line of sight skipped from the letters -ον in ανεμον (“wind”) to the identical
letters at the end of the next word, ισχυρον (“boisterous”).
● 27. In Matthew 15:31, did the multitudes marvel when they saw that the maimed were made whole?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: there is no mention of this (another
parableptic error)
● 28. In Matthew 16:2-3, did Jesus rebuke the Pharisees and Sadducees because they could discern
the meaning of certain weather patterns, but could not discern the signs of the
times?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no
● 29. In Matthew 17:15, did the father of the boy with an unclean spirit address Jesus as
“Lord”?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no
● 30. In Matthew 17:21, did Jesus tell His disciples, “But this kind does not come out except by
prayer and fasting”?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus:
no; the entire verse is absent
● 31. In Matthew 18:11, did Jesus say, “For the Son of Man has come to save that which was
lost”?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus:
no; the entire verse is absent
● 32. In Matthew 18:12,
in the parable of the lost sheep, does Jesus mention that the shepherd leaves
the ninety-nine sheep upon the mountain
when he goes to search for the lost sheep?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no; there is no mention of “upon the mountain”
● 33. In Matthew 19:9, did Jesus say, “And whoever marries her who is divorced commits
adultery”?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no.
The final sentence of the verse is absent
● 34. In Matthew 19:18,
does Jesus include “Do not commit adultery, do not steal” among the
commandments that one should keep?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no
● 35. In Matthew 19:20, does the young man say that he has kept the commandments since his
youth?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no
● 36. In Matthew 20:7,
as Jesus told the parable of the laborers in the vineyard, did he repeat the
master’s statement, “And what is right, you shall receive”?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no
● 37. In Matthew 20:16, does Jesus say, “For many are called, but few are chosen”?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no
● 38. In Matthew 20:22, does Jesus ask James and John if they are able to be baptized with the
baptism with which He is baptized? And
does Jesus affirm in 20:23 that they will be baptized with the baptism with
which He is baptized?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no
● 40. In Matthew 21:12, does Matthew refer to the temple as “the temple of God ”
or simply as “the temple”?
Byzantine
Text: the temple of God
Sinaiticus: the temple
● 41. Does Matthew 22:15 mention that the Pharisees plotted how they might trap Jesus in His words?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no
● 42. In Matthew 23:4
did Jesus say that the scribes and Pharisees devised burdens that were “hard to
bear”?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no
● 43. In Matthew 23:8, did Jesus forbid His disciples to be called “Rabbi”?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no; the first part of the verse is absent.
● 44. In Matthew 23:35, is Zechariah identified as the son of Berechiah?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no
This
comparison is particularly interesting, because it catches the scribe of an old
witness (Sinaiticus) removing a difficulty, whereas the vast majority of
Byzantine scribes left it untouched.
● 45. In Matthew 24:7,
what does Jesus say will happen before the end of the world?
Byzantine
Text: famines, pestilences, and
earthquakes
Sinaiticus: earthquakes and famines
● 46. In Matthew 24:10, did Jesus say that in the last days, many will hate one another?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no.
Sinaiticus, rather uniquely, says that people will hand over one another
to tribulation and then verse 11 commences.
● 47. Did Jesus say
in Matthew 24:35, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no
means pass away”?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no; the verse is absent.
● 48. In Matthew 24:36, did Jesus specifically acknowledge that the Son does not know the day of
His return?
Byzantine
Text: no
Sinaiticus: yes
● 49. In Matthew 25:22, does the servant address his master as “Lord”?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no
● 50. In Matthew 25:42, does the King tell the goats, “I was naked, and you did not clothe Me”?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no (another parableptic error)
● 51. As Jesus
instituted the Lord’s Supper in Matthew 26:28, did He say, “This is My blood of
the new covenant,” or “this is My blood of the covenant”?
Byzantine
Text: new covenant
Sinaiticus: covenant
Although
the Byzantine Text’s reference to the “new covenant” can be accounted for as a
harmonization to First Corinthians 11:25, it is a very widespread and very
early reading. The Alexandrian reading
interlocks suspiciously well with Marcionite theology.
● 52. In Matthew 26:62, what does the high priest say to Jesus?
Byzantine
Text: “Do You answer nothing? What is it that these men testify against
You?”
Sinaiticus: nothing; the second half of the verse is
absent.
● 53. In Matthew 26:63, does Matthew say that Jesus was silent when questioned by the high
priest?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no; the first half of the verse is
absent. (This is the result of another
parableptic error; the copyist of À accidentally skipped from “said to Him” in 26:62 to the
identical phrase in 26:63, losing all the words in between).
● 54. Does Matthew 27:45 specify that there was darkness “over all the land”?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no
● 55. Does Matthew 27:49 state that Jesus was pierced with a spear before He died, and that water and
blood came forth from Jesus’ body before He died?
Byzantine
Text: no.
Sinaiticus: yes.
In Matthew
27:49 – when Jesus is on the cross, and has cried out, “My God, My God, why
have You forsaken Me?” – Codex Sinaiticus includes a passage which says that
one of the soldiers took a spear and pierced His side, and that water and blood
flowed from the wound. After this, in
Matthew 27:50, Jesus cries out again with a loud voice, and dies. This contradicts what is stated in John
19:30-34: John reports that Jesus died
(in 19:30), and that the soldiers pierced His side afterwards, confirming that
He was already dead. A person who
applies sound exegetical methods to the text of Codex Sinaiticus cannot
maintain the doctrine of inerrancy, whereas a person reading the Byzantine Text
can.
● 56. Does Matthew 27:52 report that when the earth quaked and the rocks were split, the graves
were opened?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no
● 57. Does Matthew 27:56 name Mary Magdalene as one of the women who witnessed Jesus’ crucifixion
from afar?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no
● 58. In Matthew 28:6, does the angel invite the women at the empty tomb to “Come, see the place
where He lay,” or, “Come, see the place where the Lord lay”?
Byzantine
Text: Come, see where the Lord lay.
Sinaiticus: Come, see where He lay.
● 59. Does Matthew 28:9 begin by mentioning that “As they went to tell His disciples,” Jesus met
the women?
Byzantine
Text: yes
Sinaiticus: no
● 60. Does Matthew 28:17 specify that when the disciples saw Jesus, they worshiped Him, or does it
simply say that they worshiped?
Byzantine
Text: they worshiped Him
Sinaiticus: they worshiped
Similarly,
a sermon preached by a preacher using Codex Sinaiticus would differ from a
sermon preached by a preacher using the Byzantine Text because the Byzantine
Text does not contain the harmonizations and expansions that corrupt the text
of Codex Sinaiticus in passages such as Matthew 8:13, 9:24, 9:35, 10:12, 13:35, and 27:49. The idea that anyone, however sound their
exegetical methods may be, will interpret nothing the same way he would interpret something, and draw the same conclusions, is absurd. This is particularly true when one reading
conveys an error and a rival reading does not (as is the case in Matthew 13:35
and 27:49).
It is not my intention today to defend in detail either the contents of Sinaiticus, or the contents of the Byzantine Text (although in most of the cases I have listed, the reading in Sinaiticus is an obvious scribal corruption, disagreeing not only with the Byzantine reading but also with the reading found in the manuscript’s Alexandrian allies). This comparison simply shows that the text of Matthew in Codex Sinaiticus and the text of Matthew in the Byzantine Text are so different from one another that they do not elicit the “very same conclusions” from their readers. Such a thing is not remotely possible.
Readers are invited to double-check the data in this post.
8 comments:
Good work James. I knew you'd have something great next time we heard from you. I appreciate it.
In your list there, just a note...it is Matthew 11:29 as there is no Matt 11:39.
Good to know all this, thanks. So far the Peshitta is batting a thousand.
Oracle,
Corrected accordingly; thanks.
James,
No one I have read that says what Dr. White said in the KJV Only means there are not variants between Aleph et al, and Byzantine Tex. The statement is speaking of the overall message of the Bible and even the overall message of Matthew’s Gospel Account. Are you actually denying that either text is the Word of God? Your caveat at the end doesn’t clarify anything,
Tim
Very interesting study, James. Thanks again for what you do.
James,
I agree with Tim above. The context of White's claim was comparing the TR (dogmatic/canonical/ecclesiastic/traditional) text to an eclectic one. The argument was that the message would come out the same and all basic doctrines would come out the same regardless of which compiled text one used. He was not comparing single manuscripts.
I am still getting my feet wet in all of this, so take any questions and comments I have as what they are: questions from a layman trying to figure this out.
Isn't it sort of throwing off the study a little to compare only one manuscript without qualification to another text that is a Majority Text compilation rather than just another single manuscript?
Thanks for your help. I am actually going through these one at a time right now to understand them better.
I cannot adjust my last comment, so I wanted to correct myself. I realized you were responding to a claim in White's book, not one of his recent claims on YouTube. My apologies for that oversight.
I do still wonder about comparing one manuscript to a collated Majority Text as opposed to a single Byzantine manuscript from 1,000 years later.
Timothy Joseph,
<< No one I have read that says what Dr. White said in the KJV Only means there are not variants between Aleph et al, and Byzantine Text. >>
You haven't read me say that either.
<< Are you actually denying that either text is the Word of God? >>
Where the difference in wording is merely a matter of restating the same thing, no. Where one variant means something different than the other, they can't both be the Word of God. And certainly in Matthew 13:35 and 27:49, the reading in Sinaiticus (attributing Psalm 78 to Isaiah, and stating that Jesus was pierced with a spear before His death) is not the Word of God. Furthermore, apply whatever exegetical method you will, and you will not reach the "very same conclusions" from Sinaiticus' text of Mt. 13:35 and 27:49 that you will from the Byzantine Text of Mt. 13:35 and 27:49.
Post a Comment