Review: Jongkind's Intro to the Tyndale House GNT

            Today, let’s take a look at An Introduction to the Greek New Testament, by Dirk Jongkind, a researcher at Cambridge (Ph.D. 2005, Cambridge).  The Greek New Testament that is referred to the Tyndale House edition of the Greek New Testament.  Very little is said about any other edition of the GNT.

            This volume measures just 7¾” inches tall and 5¼” wide – approximately the same dimensions as the Tyndale House edition of the Greek New Testament.  It is not long:  only 124 pages, including (at the back) acknowledgements, a glossary, and indices, and (at the front) several brief reviews, front matter, the table of contents, an analytical outline, and an illustrations-list.  The actual book, from the first page of the first chapter to the last page of the last chapter, is just 93 pages long, but considering that  pages 40, 86, and 92 are blank, and that illustrations fill parts of several pages, and that each of the book’s eight chapters begins halfway down the page, the actual amount of used pages is something like 80.  This is a short book.    

            Jongkind presents the Tyndale House edition of the GNT as a compilation which the editors consider “the most accurate edition of the Greek New Testament published so far.”  He also states (p. 35), “we do see it as our task to reflect the earliest manuscript tradition.”  Readers of the Tyndale House GNT may reasonably expect, therefore, to find a filtered form of the Alexandrian text in the pages of the Tyndale House GNT.  

            A chapter-list may shine some light on what Jongkind covers (and does not cover):

            1.  Your Greek New Testament and the Manuscripts

            2.  Practicalities [i.e., how to read the GNT apparatus]

            3.  Manuscripts

            4.  How Decisions Are Made (and Some Important Variants)
            5.  Why Not the Textus Receptus?
            6.  Why Not the Byzantine Text?

            7.  Biblical Theology and the Transmission of the Text

            8.  Where Do We Go From Here?

            As a user’s guide to the Tyndale House GNT, Jongkind’s book is an adequate manual, but as an introduction to the issues involved in the study of the text of the New Testament, it is very uneven, and Jongkind’s treatments of specific passages are so thin as to be superficial.  His presentations of evidence regarding Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 are terribly one-sided; there is no mention of Irenaeus’ use of Mark 16:19 in Against Heresies, and there is no mention of Jerome’s declaration that he had seen the story of the adulteress in may manuscripts, both Greek and Latin.  Jongkind’s treatment of the evidence pertaining to Luke 22:43-44 is even worse; he informs his readers that the passage is found “as early as the fourth century,” as if the abundant patristic support for Luke 22:43-44 does not exist.

            Conscious avoidance of the use of patristic testimony repeatedly mars Jongkind’s comments, just as it mars the apparatus of the Tyndale House GNT.  As Jongkind describes the apparatus of the Tyndale House GNT, one might sense that he is not so much explaining its frugality as apologizing for it.  On page 48, Jongkind acknowledges that the Tyndale GNT does not cite any lectionaries.  On the following page, he states that there is also no versional evidence mentioned in the apparatus.  And there is no patristic evidence in the apparatus either.  Thus three of the four forms of evidence for the text of the New Testament – patristic works, versions, and lectionaries – are withheld from readers of the Tyndale House GNT’s apparatus.  After explaining (on p. 66) that is is useful to detect how evidence is distributed, Jongkind offers an apparatus which is so lightweight that it guarantees that this is impossible for its readers to do.

            In the segment “Some Important Variants,” Jongkind mentions evidence from lectionaries, and evidence from patristic writings, and evidence from versions.  One should pause and wonder, if these forms of evidence do not matter, why are they factors in these arguments, and if they matter, why aren’t they in the apparatus?

            For two chapters, Jongkind detours from his main goal in order to explain why the Tyndale House edition of the GNT is not identical to the Textus Receptus or the Byzantine Text. Regarding the Textus Receptus, his reasoning will persuade the already-persuaded, but it offers very little against the argumentation of what has come to be known as a “Confessional” approach to the subject.  Regarding the Byzantine Text, Jongkind does his readers a disservice when he makes it seem as if “There are two big differences between the Byzantine Text and the Textus Receptus,” minimizing all the differences outside of Acts 8:37 and First John 5:7-8.  In real life, there are oodles of differences.   

            In addition, on pages 98-99, Jongkind seems to contradict himself regarding the date of the earliest evidence for the Byzantine Text:  at first he asserts that in the fourth century (i.e., the 300s), “none of the individual pieces of evidence suggest the existence of anything like the Byzantine Text.”  Yet in the very next paragraph he says, “It is only from the late fourth century onward that the Byzantine Text appears in citations from the church fathers, and from the fifth century onward, we see the first real manuscripts, though limited to the Gospels at first.”  Which is it:  is there “nothing like the Byzantine Text” in the 300s, or does the Byzantine Text appear in patristic writings in the 300s?
            Those familiar with the textual affinities of the text used by Gregory of Nyssa (335-395) need not wonder.  “Virtually all of the evidence,” wrote James Brooks in 1991, “indicates that Gregory’s quotations from the NT have their greatest affinity with the Byzantine type of text” (p. 264, The New Testament Text of Gregory of Nyssa).  Bruce Metzger stated that Wulfilas, in the mid-300s, translated the Gothic version from “the early Koine [i.e., Byzantine] type of text” (p. 82, The Text of the New Testament).  How can this be harmonized with Jongkind’s claim that there is nothing in the 300s to suggest the existence of anything like the Byzantine Text?  

            In addition, while Jongkind’s question about why the Byzantine Text does not appear in second-century and third-century manuscripts is a valid question, there is a valid answer:  papyrus rots.  The manuscripts that circulated throughout Greece, Turkey, and Syria in the 100s and 200s cannot be reasonably expected to do impossible things such as survive in high-humidity locales.  But when patristic writings and copies of Scripture in that territory began to be preserved on parchment (in the mid-late 300s), we see an essentially Byzantine form of the Gospels dominating the landscape there – not because the Byzantine text was new, but because, thanks to the use of parchment codices, the materials on which it was written were suddenly much more durable.       

            Another shortcoming:  the Byzantine Text is not consistently cited in the apparatus.  The expansions and harmonizations in the Byzantine Text that Jongkind briefly describes may justify avoiding the adoption of the Byzantine Text in toto, but the same kind of expansions and harmonizations can be identified in Alexandrian manuscripts (see the post Challenging the Expansion of Piety Theory).   Yet the Alexandrian manuscripts, despite the steady stream of non-original readings they contain, appear in the apparatus constantly.  The Byzantine Text is frequently not mentioned, and this prevents readers from easily discerning how Byzantine or non-Byzantine the text in the Tyndale House GNT tends to be.  Why was the testimony of the Byzantine Text hidden? 

            Also, Jongkind did not adequately impress readers with the minimalistic nature of the apparatus in the Tyndale House GNT.  The apparatus not only avoids telling readers about lectionary evidence and patristic evidence and versional evidence, but very frequently has no entry whatsoever where significant textual variants exist in Greek manuscripts.  Consider Luke 17:36:  this verse is not in the text and there is no entry about it in the apparatus.  Consider Luke 24:53:  instead of addressing the “blessing and praising” variant, famous as one of Hort’s proposed conflations, the apparatus only covers the question of whether “Amen” should be included.  Consider John 7:39:  only part of the textual evidence is covered; the apparatus avoids mentioning B’s testimony.  Consider Acts 13:33:  no textual variant is mentioned.  Many more examples could be supplied in which major translatable variants receive no attention whatsoever in the Tyndale House GNT’s apparatus.    

            When one turns to the Introduction to the Tyndale House GNT that appears as an appendix in the GNT itself, one finds a statement that “the limited apparatus is designed primarily to illustrate the decision-making process.”  Jongkind should have emphasized this point more often and more adamantly than he did, perhaps via repeated statements such as “It should constantly be kept in mind that the apparatus, besides saying absolutely nothing about patristic evidence, versional evidence, and lectionary evidence, is extremely incomplete,” or, “Readers should keep in mind that most textual contests in which the majority of manuscripts disagree with a relatively small cluster of manuscripts are not mentioned at all in the apparatus.”

            Perhaps someday this fault will be repaired by the emergence of a textual commentary which, instead of only covering a sparse representative sample of variant-units, will provide more adequate treatment.  Until then, what one has in Jongkind’s Introduction and the Tyndale House GNT, compared to past Introductions and GNTs, is less, not more.

           

Points of note:

● On p. 18, Jongkind states that the Greek New Testament has been published “since the invention of the printing press.”  However, inasmuch as the printing press was invented in the 1450s and the first GNT to be printed appeared over 50 years later, this is not quite right.

● Jongkind repeatedly states (p. 20, p. 24) that modern chapter and verse-numbers originated in the sixteenth century; however, while this is true of verse-numbers, the chapter-numbers originated in the early 1200s with Stephen Langton.

● A table (2.2, on page 34) states that replacement-pages are given a special sigla:  “Such sections are indicated as coming from a supplement.  However, in Jongkind’s discussion of Mark 16:9-20, when ℵ is mentioned, there is no indication of the fact that its pages containing Mark 15:54-Luke 1:76 are replacement-pages.  Possibly the editors did not consider replacement-pages added in the initial production-process to be truly replacement-pages; if so, however, this should have been mentioned.

● A footnote on page 68 says that “about nine other late manuscripts” have the extra Alexandrian material in Matthew 27:49 (which inexplicably and somewhat shockingly is not mentioned in the apparatus!); a simple consultation of Willker’s Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels would have shown that the number of late Greek manuscripts that support this reading is closer to 34.

Dr. Dirk Jongkind

● Jongkind seems sympathetic to the redating of three important manuscripts: P66 may be as late as the early 300s; P75 may be as late as the early 300s, and Codex W might have been produced in the 500s.  However, as recently as 2017, Jongkind described P66 and P75 as third-century manuscripts.  What is the basis for this shift?  The only evidence or argumentation that Jongkind mentions:  “voices have argued” for the later dates.  That’s all:  voices.  Footnotes should have been provided in order to give readers the means to test the bases for the new proposals.

You can find more materials from Dr. Jongkind online:

A lecture on the GNT delivered by Dr. Jongkind (55 minutes)

Greg Pritchard interviews Dirk Jongkind on New Testament textual criticism (45 minutes)

Dirk Jongkind describes the Tyndale House GNT (under 5 minutes)

Dirk Jongkind describes the earliest evidence for the NT text (21 minutes)

Dirk Jongkind reviews some of the major uncial manuscripts of the NT (23 minutes)

Production Notes for the Tyndale House GNT
Errata List for the Tyndale House GNT

Hand-to-Hand Combat: Sinaiticus vs. Textus Receptus in Rev. 22

            It is often claimed that the text in older manuscripts is more accurate than the text in younger manuscripts.  At first glance, this makes sense:  fewer years implies fewer opportunities for copyists to corrupt the text.  But upon more careful consideration, it does not make sense, except as a general consideration:  what matters is not whether scribes had those opportunities for corruption, but whether they used them. 

            Confirmation that the text of an early manuscript can be more corrupt than the text in a later manuscript has already been provided here in the Hand-to-Hand Combat series of posts.  In each of those twelve posts, the text of an older manuscript was compared to the text of a younger manuscript, using the NA27 compilation as the standard of comparision. 

● In Matthew 24:23-30, minuscule 2474’s text is more accurate than the text in Codex Sinaiticus.  Sinaiticus has 59 letters’ worth of corruption; 25 letters’ worth when itacisms and trivial variants are removed from consideration.  2474 has 14 letters’ worth of corruption; 5 letters’ worth when itacisms and trivial variants are removed from consideration.           

● In Luke 2:1-12, Vaticanus’ text is more accurate than the text in minuscule 1295, but the text in 1295 is more accurate than the text in Sinaiticus.  When itacisms and trivial variants are set aside, B has 18 letters’ worth of corruption, 1295 has 28 letters’ worth of corruption, and À has 44 letters’ worth of corruption.  

● In Colossians 3:1-11, the text of minuscule 6 is more accurate than the texts in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.    The text of minuscule 2401 is more accurate than the text in B.  When itacisms and trivial variants are set aside, B has 25 letters’ worth of corruption; 2401 has 24; Sinaiticus has 31, and minuscule 6 has 15.

● In First Corinthians 15:1-11, the text of minuscule 384 is more accurate than the text of Papyrus 46.  When itacisms and trivial variants are set aside, 384 has 9 letters’ worth of difference from the NA text, the text in P46 has 14 or 15 letters’ worth of corruption.   

● In Luke 8:19-25, the text of Codex Alexandrinus is more accurate than the text of Papyrus 75.  When itacisms and trivial variants are set aside, P75’s text has 29 letters’ worth of corruption; Codex A’s text has 18 letters’ worth of corruption.

● In Luke 8:19-25, the text of minuscule 1324 is far more accurate than the text of Codex Bezae.  When itacisms and trivial variants are set aside, Codex Bezae has 83 letters’ worth of corruption, while the text of 1324 has 39.   

● In Jude, the text of minuscule 6 is more accurate than the text of Papyrus 72.  Minuscule 6 has 157 letters’ worth of corruption, but the text of Papyrus 72 has 399 letters’ worth of corruption.

● In Acts 18:27-19:6, the text of minuscule 2401 is more accurate than the text of Papyrus 38.  2401 has 29 letters’ worth of corruption; Papyrus 38 has 152 letters’ worth of corruption.

● In Mark 4:1-9, the text of minuscule 545 is more accurate than the text of Codex W.    The text in minuscule 545 has 88 letters’ worth of corruption, but Codex W’s text has 258 letters’ worth of corruption.

● In John 15:1-9, the text of minuscule 2222 is more accurate than the text of Codex A.    Both of these manuscripts are very accurate in this passage, but when minor variants are taken into consideration 2222 has 11 letters’ worth of corruption, and Codex A has 30 letters’ worth of corruption.

● In John 6:65-7:16, the text of minuscule 4 is more accurate than the text of Codex Sinaiticus.  Minuscule 4’s text has 106 letters’ worth of corruption, but the text in Sinaiticus has 122 letters’ worth of corruption.   

● In First Peter 5, the text of minuscule 496 is more accurate than the text of Codex Vaticanus.  Minuscule 496 has 75 letters’ worth of corruption, but the text in Vaticanus has 110 letters’ worth of corruption.   

            Today, let’s add one more comparison to those twelve, by comparing the text of Revelation 22:10-21 in the oldest manuscript of this passage – Codex Sinaiticus – to the text of Revelation 22:10-21 in the Textus Receptus.   This particular part of the Textus Receptus is somewhat notorious, because when Erasmus produced the Textus Receptus, he had only one Greek manuscript of Revelation on hand, and it was missing the final six verses of the book.  With nothing to go on except his memory, a revised Vulgate text, and the notes of Lorenzo Valla, Erasmus resorted to retro-translating the text from Latin into Greek, so as to finish the compilation. 

            It ought to be a foregone conclusion, then, that Sinaiticus has a better text of Revelation 22:10-21 than the Textus Receptus has.  But just to make sure, here’s a comparison of both texts to the contents of Revelation 22:10-21 as printed in the Tyndale House edition of the Greek New Testament:

Codex Sinaiticus’ text of Revelation 22:10-21 differs from the text in THEGNT at the following points:

10 - ℵ reads τουτους after λογους (+7)

11 – no variation

12 - ℵ reads αποδοθηναι instead of αποδουναι (+2, -1)

13 – no variation

14 – ℵ reads ως δε η εξουσια before επι το ζυλον (+12)

15 – ℵ transposes so as to read, in the final phrase, ποιων και φιλων ψευδος.

16 – no variation

17 – ℵ reads π before the sacred-name contraction for πνευμα (+1)

17 - ℵ does not read η before νυμφη (-1)

18 – ℵ reads η at the beginning of the verse (+1)

18 – ℵ does not include επιθησει επ’ αυτον (-15)

19 – ℵ reads αν instead of εαν (-1)

19 – ℵ reads τουτων after λόγων (+6)

19 – ℵ reads προφητιας instead of προφητειας (-1)

19 – ℵ reads αφελι instead of αφελει after ταυτης (-1)

20 – ℵ reads λεγι instead of λεγει at the beginning of the verse (-1)

20 – ℵ reads ειναι after ταυτα (+5)

20 – ℵ does not have αμήν after ταχυ (-4)

21 – no variation

            This yields a total of 33 non-original letters present, and 25 original letters absent, for a total of 58 letters’ worth of corruption.

            When itacisms and similar inconsequential corruptions are set aside, the amount of non-trivial corruption in Sinaiticus in Rev. 22:10-21 consists of 32 non-original letters present, and 21 original letters absent, for a total of 53 letters’ worth of corruption.

Now let’s see how the Textus Receptus does (using Scrivener’s edition):

10 – TR reads οτι after τουτου (+3)

10 – TR does not have γαρ after καιρος (-3)

11 – TR reads ρυπων instead of ρυπαρος (+2, -4)

11 – TR reads δικαιωθητω instead of δικαιοσύνην ποιησάτω (+5, -14)

12 – TR reads και at the beginning of the verse (+3)

12 – TR does not have εστιν after εργον (-5)

12 – TR has εσται after αυτου (+5)

13 – TR has ειμι after εγω (+4)

13 – TR has the letter α rather than the word αλφα

13 – TR does not have η before αρχη (-1)

13 – TR transposes the final two phrases

14 – TR reads ποιουντες τας εντολας αυτου instead of πλυνοντες τας στολας αυτων (+9, -8)

15 – TR has δε after εξω (+2)

15 – TR has ο before φιλων (+1)

16 – TR has του after γενος (+3)

16 – TR has Δαβιδ instead of Δαυιδ (+1, -1)

16 – TR has και after λαμπρος (+3)

16 – TR has ορθρινος instead of πρωϊνος (+4, -3)

17 – TR has ελθε instead of ερχου after λεγουσιν (+3, -4)

17 – TR has ελθε instead of ερχου after ειπατω (+3, -4)

17 – TR has ελθε instead of ερχέσθω (+3, -6)

17 – TR has και before ο θελων (+3)

17 – TR has λαμβανετω instead of λαβέτω (+3)

17 = TR has το before υδωρ (+2)

18 – TR has συμμαρτυρουμαι γαρ instead of μαρτυρω εγω (+11, -4)

18 – TR does not have τω after παντι (-2)

18 – TR has επιτιθη instead of επιθη (+2)

18 – TR has προς ταυτα instead of επ’ αυτα (+5, -2)

18 – TR transposes so as to read ο θεος επ αυτον

18 – TR does not have τω before βιβλιω (-2)

19 – TR does not include τις (-3)

19 – TR reads αφαιρη instead of αφέλη (+3, -2)

19 – TR does not include του (-3) before βιβλίου (-3)

19 – TR reads βιβλου instead of βιβλίου (-1)

19 – TR reads αφαιρησει instead of αφελει (+5, -2)

19 – TR reads βιβλου instead of του ξυλου (+4, -6)

19 – TR reads και after αγιας (+3)

19 – TR does not have τω before βιβλιω (-2)

20 – TR reads ναι after αμην (+3)

21 – TR reads ημων after κυριου (+4)

21 – TR reads χριστου after ιησου (+7)

21 – TR reads παντων υμων instead of των αγίων (+10, -8)

            This yields a total of 110 non-original letters present, and 83 original letters absent, for a total of 193 letters’ worth of corruption in the Textus Receptus in Revelation 22:10-21.  Finally, Codex Sinaiticus wins a round of hand-to-hand combat, by the overwhelming score of 58 to 193!

            But Sinaiticus was not really going up against another manuscript in verses 16-21; its opponent was Erasmus’ Greek reconstruction.  What happens when we look at Rev. 22:10-21 in an intact medieval minuscule?  Perhaps we might do exactly that in a future round of hand-to-hand combat.

Readers are invited to double-check the data in the post.

The stewards of the Codex Sinaiticus website are also invited to fix their website.

Minuscule 1424 and the Pericope Adulterae

  

MS 1187's text of John 7:53-8:11
is similar to the text in the margin of 1424.
And they share a large annotation.

          In the super-sparse apparatus of the Tyndale House edition of the Greek New Testament, a note mentions that although the pericope adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) is absent in the text, the passage is present in the margin.  Unfortunately, that is about as close as readers get to a close examination of the testimony of 1424 and its annotator regarding this passage.

            Similarly in D.A. Carson’s volume on the Gospel of John in the Pillar NT Commentary series, after acknowledging that John 7:53-8:11 is present “in most of the medieval Greek miniscule [sic] manuscripts,” the author states that these verses “are absent from virtually all early Greek manuscripts that have come down to us.”  Displaying a degree of one-sidedness, Carson does not discuss the Old Latin capitula at all, and he states – erroneously – “All the early church fathers omit this narrative.”  It is a challenge to imagine how any scholar can make such a claim, for one would have to ignore well-known references to the pericope adulterae in the writings of Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome, among many others.  Carson – clearly echoing Metzger as he keeps readers in the dark about the reasons for the dislocation of the passage in some manuscripts – is guilty of several other one-sided statements that cumulatively mold the evidence and give readers a false impression.  

            But rather than dwell on such mistreatments of the evidence, let’s focus today specifically on the testimony of minuscule 1424.  This manuscript was housed at the Gruber Rare Books Collection at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago until it was recently returned to Greece.  The entire manuscript has been digitally photographed by CSNTM, and the page-views can be viewed at the CSNTM website.

            When we examine the relevant page of minuscule 1424, we see that at the end of 7:52, above the line, there is a symbol that looks vaguely like the letters O and C connected by a horizontal line.  In the text, 8:12 begins at the beginning of the next line.  The O––C symbol also appears in the outer margin of the page (although the horizontal line is broken), accompanied by the text of the pericope adulterae in a form that is very similar to the text of the pericope adulterae in Codex Λ, which resembles the text that is presented in the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform in italics, beginning with Καὶ ἀπῆλθον ἕκαστος εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ, without πειράζοντες in verse 4, and without τω δακτύλω in verse 6, and when the page ends, the pericope adulterae has been presented up to a point halfway through verse 9.  Alongside the pericope adulterae in the outer (left) margin is a stack of asterisks; three are clear and there appear to be two more beneath then, albeit unclear.

            On the following page, verse 9 resumes, not at the top of the page, but in the lower margin.  A ⁒ symbol appears in the far left inner margin, above a stack of two asterisks (※) alongside the margin-text.  In 1424’s margin-text, in verse 9, ὁ Ις appears after κατελείφθη and μόνος does not appear.   In verse 11, the text does not have the words οἱ κατήγοροί σου.

            And now for the interesting part.  After 8:11 ends, there is a note (very faintly written at some points, and with lots of contraction, so this transcription is tentative):  ταυτα εν τισιν αντιγράφοις ου κειται ουδε [’Απολιναρίου·  Εν δε τοις] αρχαιοις όλα κειται·  Μνημονευουσι της περικοπης ταυτης και οι αποστολοι εν αις εξεθεντο διαταξεσιν εις οικοδομην της εκκλησίας.   

            This is essential the same note that is found in Codex Λ (039) which accompanied John 7:53-8:11 there.  It means:  “This is not in some copies, nor in those [copies] of Apollinarius.  In the ancient [copies] it is all present.  And this pericope was recollected by the apostles, which affirms that it is for the edification of the church.”
            That last sentence refers to Apostolic Constitutions 2:24, which was produced around 380.    This portion of Apostolic Constitutions, designed to prove the premise that “Our Lord Came to Save Sinners by Repentance,” includes the following statement, after mentioning Jesus’ statement in Luke 7:47:

 “And when the elders had set another woman which had sinned before Him, and had left the sentence to Him, and had gone out, our Lord, the Searcher of the hearts, inquiring of her whether the elders had condemned her, and being told, ‘No,’ said unto her, ‘Go your way therefore, for neither do I condemn you.’  This Jesus, O you bishops, our Savior, our King, and our God, ought to be set before you as your pattern.” 

This portion of Apostolic Constitutions can be traced to an earlier source:  the Syriac Didascalia.  In its seventh chapter (or in some formats, near the end of the sixth chapter), following a discussion on the Prayer of Manasseh, the author of the Syriac Didascalia states:

            “For if thou receive not him who repents, because thou art merciless, thou sinnest against the Lord God, because thou dost not obey our Lord and God in acting as He acted; for even He to that woman who had sinned, her whom the elders placed before him and left it to judgment at His hands, and went away; He them who searcheth the hearts, asked her and said to her, ‘Have the Elders condemned thee, my daughter?’  She saith to Him, ‘No, Lord.’  And our Saviour said,  ‘Go, and return no more to do this, neither do I condemn thee.”  In this therefore let our Saviour and King and God be to you a sign, O Bishops!” (Gibson’s translation)

            The Syriac Didascalia is generally assigned to the first half of the 200s, which makes this reference pretty much as old as the oldest witnesses for non-inclusion of the pericope adulterae.

The note that appears in 1424, confirming that the entire passage is not in some copies but is all present in ancient copies, and so forth, is not only shared by Codex Λ but also in minuscule 1282 (on Image 0214b at CSNTM, at the foot of the page).  In MS 1282, on this page and the one that follows, a stack of obeli accompanies the text of John 8:3-11 (but not 7:53-8:2) in the outer margin.  (In the upper margin, the chapter-title “#10 – About the Adulteress” appears in red ink.)  Minuscule 1443 has a similar format – John 7:53-8:11 is included in the text, and 8:3-11 is accompanied by a stack of obeli in the margin – but does not appear to have the note.  Minuscule 1187 also has a similar format – John 7:53-8:11 is included in the text, and 8:3-11 is accompanied by a stack of obeli in the margin, and in the lower margin of 1187 5, there is the note.

The note also appears (with minor differences) in minuscules 20 (which has the pericope adulterae after John 21), 215, 262, and 1118.  This points to a common source, for these manuscripts, along with Codex Λ, feature the Jerusalem Colophon.  (Tommy Wasserman, using information from Maurice Robinson and other resources, has confirmed this in a detailed essay.)

The presence of the both the Apollinarius Colophon  and the Jerusalem Colophon in the same manuscript indicates that the “ancient copies” referred to in the Apollinarius Colophon – in which the entire pericope adulterae is stated to be present – are the same manuscripts referred to in the Jerusalem Colophon (or, the prevalent form of it) “the ancient exemplars from Jerusalem preserved on the holy mountain.”

In addition, the close similarity of the text of the pericope adulterae in Codex Λ and in the margin of 1424 and in the text of 1187 suggests that the possibility of a historical link between these three manuscripts should be explored.  Both Λ and 1424’s margin do not have τω δακτύλω in verse 6, and in 1187, τω δακτύλω is not in the main text of verse 6 either; it is added as a correction in the side-margin.  (This variant-unit is not covered in NA27.)

           So, the next time you see 1424 listed as a witness for non-inclusion of John 7:53-8:11, remember that while that is true, it is also true that a marginal note in 1424 (shared by five other manuscripts) affirms the use of the passage in Apostolic Constitutions (c. 380, echoing a source from the early 200s) and also affirms that in ancient manuscripts, the whole passage is present, and that the ancient manuscripts being referred to were (or were thought to be) cherished copies at a holy mountain.

            

Bill Mounce versus Reality

 

Dr. Bill Mounce

           In the course of a recent review of the Tyndale House Greek New Testament, Dr. Bill Mounce stated the following:

            “The number one thing that they’re doing that I really like is that they’re giving primary weight to the ancient, the oldest manuscripts – Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus, and some of those older manuscripts.  We all know, in text-critical circles, that those manuscripts are by default more accurate.  They’re closer to the event; there’s been less time for them to be changed; the editors showed less of a propensity to change.  And when I’m reading this, I feel like I’m one step closer to those oldest and most reliable manuscripts.”

            A clearer expression of the axiom, “Older is better” could scarcely be found.

            But is that true?  Today, let’s take a passage from the Gospels – John 2:1-11, which records Jesus’ miracle of water to wine at the wedding-feast in Cana of Galilee – and see whether or not an ancient manuscript is more accurate than a younger manuscript.  Since the Tyndale House GNT happens to be in view, I shall use its text as the basis of comparison.  We let’s compare this passage as it is reconstructed in the Tyndale House edition of the Greek New Testament, and Codex Sinaiticus, and a medieval lectionary – specifically, Lectionary 1963 (the Symeon Stylites Lectionary), which is about 1000 years old.

            As we look at John 2:1-11, keep in mind the difference in the ages of these two manuscripts:  reckoning that the Gospel of John was written around A.D. 90, the copyists in the transmission-line of Codex Sinaiticus had only about 260 years in which mistakes could be made, accretions could be added, lines or phrases could be carelessly dropped, and so forth.  Whereas if Lectionary 1963 was produced around 1100, the copyists in its transmission-stream had about 1000 years in which the same sort of thing could occur.

            By Mounce’s logic, we should expect Codex Sinaiticus to have a far superior form of the text.  We all know this . . . right?  The copyists of Sinaiticus had “less of a propensity to change” – right?  And compared to Lectionary 1963, the copyists in the transmission-stream of Codex Sinaiticus only had a third as much time for changes to occur.  Plus, the copyists of Lectionary 1963 were producing a form of the text deliberately altered and adjusted for medieval church-services.  Surely there is no need to wonder which one contains the more accurate text . . . right?

            Nevertheless let us proceed with the comparison.  The usual ground rules for “Hand to Hand Combat” (used in some earlier posts) will be in play here:  all textual differences will be initially noted.  First-hand readings in the text are the focus.  Variants are “scored” in simple mathematical terms:  one point (+) shall be given for each non-original letter, and one point (-) shall be given for the absence of each original letter.  Movable-nu variants are noted.  Contractions of sacred names, and similar abbreviations, will not be counted as variants.  Transpositions will be mentioned but not counted as variants if there is no other difference.  Also, because one of the witnesses being compared is a lectionary, we shall only begin the comparison after the introductory phrase in verse 1.  After an initial score is tallied, each text will be rescored with itacisms and movable-nu readings removed from consideration. 

Now let’s consider Lectionary 1963’s text of John 2:1-11: 

2:1 – no variations

2:2 – no variations

2:3 – no variations

2:4 – no variations

2:5 – Lect 1963 has legei instead of legh (+2, -1)

2:6 – Lect 1963 transposes to udriai liqinai

2:6 – Lect 1963 transposes (after ex) to keimenai kata ton kaqarismon twn Ioudaiwn

2:6 – Lect 1963 has metritas instead of metrhtas (+1, -1)

2:7 – Lect 1963 has gemhsate instead of gemisate (+1, -1)

2:7 – Lect 1963 has egemhsan instead of egemisan (+1, -1)

2:8 – Lect 1963 has arcitriklinw instead of arcitrikleinw (-1)

2:8 – Lect 1963 has kai instead of oi de (+3, -4)

2:9 – Lect 1963 has arcitriklinos instead of arcitrikleinos (+1, -1)

2:9 – Lect 1963 has eidh instead of hdei (+3, -3)

2:9 – Lect 1963 has fwnh instead of fwnei (+1, -2)

2:9 – Lect 1963 has arcitriklinos instead of arcitrikleinos (+1, -1)

2:10 – Lect 1963 has tote after mequsqwsin (+4)

2:11 – Lect 1963 has epoihse instead of epoihsen (-1)

2:11 – Lect 1963 has thn before archn (+3)

2:11 – Lect 1963 has efanerwse instead of efanerwsen (-1)

            Thus in John 2:1-12, Lect 1963 has a rough score of +21 and -18, yielding a total of 39 letters’ worth of deviation from the original text as represented in the THEGNT.  Most of these differences are trivial.  When itacisms and movable-nu variants are removed from the equation, three deviations remain:

2:8 – Lect 1963 has kai instead of oi de (+3, -4)

2:10 – Lect 1963 has tote after mequsqwsin (+4)

2:11 – Lect 1963 has thn before archn (+3)

            The amount of non-trivial variation in John 2:1-11 in Lectionary 1963 consists of a total of 14 letters’ worth of deviation (i.e., 10 non-original letters are present, and four original letters are absent) compared to THEGNT.  Not one of these readings is a medieval novelty.  Codex A (from the 400s) also has kai instead of oi de in 2:8, and Codex A also has tote in 2:10. (Both of those readings are found in the majority of Greek manuscripts.)  Meanwhile Codex Sinaiticus (À) shares thn before archn in 2:11.  (This, too, is the reading of the majority of Greek manuscripts.)   

            Now let’s look at John 2:1-11 in Codex Sinaiticus.  This famous manuscript is one which Dr. Mounce described as “by default more accurate” and as one of the “oldest and most reliable manuscripts.”   In his view, Codex Sinaiticus is a “wonderful, wonderful manuscript – the most important copy of the Bible that we have.”

2:1 – no variations

2:2 – no variations

2:2 – À has oinon ouk eicon, oti cunetelesqh o oinos tou gamou eita instead of usterhsantos oinou (+41, -13)

2:3 – À has oinos instead of oinon (+1, -1)

2:3 – À has estin instead of exousin (+2, -4)

2:4 – no variations

2:5 – no variations

2:6 – À does not have keimenai (-8) (The word is added above the line)

2:7 – À has kai at the beginning of the verse (+3)

2:8 – À has arcitriklinw instead of arcitrikleinw (-1)

2:9 – À has arcitliklinos instead of arcitrikleinos (+2, -2)

2:9 – À has arcitriklinos instead of arcitrikleinos (+1, -1)

2:10 – À does not have autw (-4)

2:10 – À has de after su (+2)

2:10 – À has thn before archn (+3)

2:11 – À has prwthn after Galilaias (+6)

2:11 – À does not have autou after docan (-5)

2:11 – À transposes to oi maqhtai autou eis auton

            Thus in John 2:1-11, Codex Sinaiticus has a rough score of +61 (i.e., 60 non-original letters are in the text) and -39 (i.e., 39 original letters are not in the text), for a total of 100 letters’ worth of deviation compared to the THEGNT.  When itacisms and transpositions are removed from the equation, ten variants remain:

2:2 – Sinaiticus has oinon ouk eicon, oti cunetelesqh o oinos tou gamou eita instead of usterhsantos oinou (+41, -13)

2:3 – Sinaiticus has oinos instead of oinon (+1, -1)

2:3 – Sinaiticus has estin instead of exousin (+2, -4)

2:6 – Sinaiticus does not have keimenai (-8) (The word is added above the line)

2:7 – Sinaiticus has kai at the beginning of the verse (+3)

2:10 – Sinaiticus does not have autw (-4)

2:10 – Sinaiticus has de after su (+2)

2:10 – Sinaiticus has thn before archn (+3)

2:11 – Sinaiticus has prwthn after Galilaias (+6)

2:11 – Sinaiticus does not have autou after docan (-5)

            Thus the amount of non-trivial variation in John 2:1-11 in À consists of a total of 93 letters’ worth of deviation (i.e., 58 non-original letters are present, and 35 original letters are absent) compared to the THEGNT. 

            To restate:  when we consider all variants, even trivial ones, Lectionary 1963 has 39 letters’ worth of deviation from the THEGNT.  With trivial variants set aside, Lectionary 1963 has 14 letters’ worth of deviation compared to the THEGNT.  Meanwhile, the text from the copyist of Codex Sinaiticus has 100 letters’ worth of deviation compared to the THEGNT if trivial variants are considered, and if trivial variants are set aside, Codex Sinaiticus has 93 letters’ worth of deviation from the THEGNT. 

            An additional consideration:  tote in verse 10 is widely attested, and could easily be skipped by accident if a copyist’s line of sight shifted to the following to- in the next word, ton.  If tote is regarded as original, then the amount of non-trivial deviation in Lectionary 1963 drops to 10 letters, and the amount of non-trivial deviation in Sinaiticus rises to 97 letters.  No matter how you slice it, John 2:1-11 in Codex Sinaiticus has more than five times as much corruption than Lectionary 1963.

            Dr. Mounce’s notion that the age of a manuscript is a sure measure of the accuracy of its text, however reasonable it sounds, is manifestly untrue. 

            Readers who rely on the Tyndale House edition of the Greek New Testament for their knowledge of textual variants, however, will be blissfully unaware of the embarrassing plethora of scribal corruptions in the “earliest and most reliable” manuscripts.  In John 2:1-11, the textual apparatus of the THEGNT has exactly zero variant-units.  The apparatus of the THEGNT quotes no patristic writings, no ancient versions, and no lectionaries.  (Based on the list of witnesses in the introduction to the THEGNT, it appears that lectionaries were not even consulted during its compilation.)

            A more detailed apparatus could make difficult for Dr. Mounce to maintain his claim.  Specifically, a more detailed apparatus could include enough information to challenge the claim that the text of John 2:1-11 in Sinaiticus is “most reliable,” and “wonderful,” and accurate by default, and demonstrate instead that in John 2:1-11, the copyists in its transmission-stream had introduced five times the amount of corruptions, in a third of the time, compared to the text in an ordinary medieval lectionary. 

Readers are invited to double-check the data in this post.