Byzantine-friendly New Testaments in the Marketplace

Over a decade ago I noted the rise of four English New Testaments based on the Byzantine Text, and I decided to see how things stand now in 2025.

The World English Bible continues to be offered in multiple editions.

Gary Zeolla's Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament remains available. 

 
Paul Esposito's English Majority Text Version is still available.

G. Allen Walker's Modern Literal Version is offered at mlvbible.info.

Laurent Cleenewerck's Eastern Orthodox New Testament (my personal favorite) is on the market in a nice portable edition at New Rome Press and on Amazon.  

Adam Boyd has released The Text-Critical English New Testament: Byzantine Text Version.

The New Tyndale Version is also available in a variety of editions, including the military-themed Leader's Bible.

A cornucopia of resources about the Byzantine Text, including links to PDFs of the 2005 Robinson-Pierpont compilation of the Byzantine Text and Robinson's essay, The Case for Byzantine Priority, is still available at https://sites.google.com/a/wmail.fi/greeknt/home/greeknt .

I do not subscribe to Byzantine Priority, but I applaud these English versions which help bring the church out of the shadow of Lucianic Recension advocacy and closer to the text God inspired and to the message he intended (and continues to intend) to convey to his people.

P52 - The Faintest and Brightest Papyrus Star (with guest Dwayne Green)

The tiny fragment Papyrus 52 has gotten an inordinate amount of attention by being perhaps the earliest written copy of any text from a book of the New Testament (from John 18:31-33 and 18:37-38).   Catalogued as Papyrus Rylands Greek 457 and brought to to public attention by Colin H. Roberts in 1935, perhaps more facsimiles have been made of it than any other New Testament papyrus (one is offered at Credo Courses for example).  Roberts' analysis placed P52 in he first half of the 100s.

There is not enough to P52 to confidently proclaim its text Alexandrian but what is extant points in that direction.  Let's take a look at its text  (bold  = extant) 

Recto: from 18:31-33)

ΟΙ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΟΙ ΗΜΕ]ΙΝ ΟΥΚ ΕΞΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΠΟΚΤΕΙΝΑΙ

ΟΥΔΕΝΑ ΙΝΑ Ο Λ]ΟΓΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΙΗΣΟΥ ΠΛΗΡΩΘΗ ΟΝ ΕΙ-
ΠΕΝ ΣΗΜΑΙΝΩ]Ν ΠΟΙΩ ΘΑΝΑΤΩ ΗΜΕΛΛΕΝ ΑΠΟ-
ΘΝΗΣΚΕΙΝ ΙΣ]ΗΛΘΕΝ ΟΥΝ ΠΑΛΙΝ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΠΡΑΙΤΩ-
ΡΙΟΝ Ο Π]ΙΛΑΤΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΦΩΝΗΣΕΝ ΤΟΝ ΙΗΣΟΥΝ
ΚΑΙ ΕΙΠ]ΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ ΣΥ ΕΙ O ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥ-
ΔΑΙΩ]N

Verso:  (18:37-38)

ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΕΙΜΙ ΕΓΩ ΕΙΣ TO[ΥΤΟ ΓΕΓΕΝΝΗΜΑΙ
ΚΑΙ ΕΛΗΛΥΘΑ ΕΙΣ ΤΟΝ ΚΟ[ΣΜΟΝ ΙΝΑ ΜΑΡΤΥ-
ΡΗΣΩ ΤΗ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ ΠΑΣ Ο ΩΝ [ΕΚ ΤΗΣ ΑΛΗΘΕI-
ΑΣ ΑΚΟΥΕΙ ΜΟΥ ΤΗΣ ΦΩΝΗΣ [ΛΕΓΕΙ ΑΥΤΩ
Ο ΠΙΛΑΤΟΣ ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ Κ[ΑΙ ΤΟΥΤΟ
ΕΙΠΩΝ ΠΑΛΙΝ ΕΞΗΛΘΕΝ ΠΡΟΣ [ΤΟΥΣ Ι]ΟΥ-
ΔΑΙΟΥΣ ΚΑΙ ΛΕΓΕΙ ΑΥΤΟΙΣ ΕΓΩ ΟΥΔ[ΕΜ]ΙΑΝ
ΕΥΡΙΣΚΩ ΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ ΑΙΤΙΑΝ

As P52's Wikipedia listing says, "There appears insufficient room for the repeated phrase (ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΤΟ) in the second line of the verso, and it is suggested that these words were inadvertently dropped through haplography."

Deviations from the Byzantine Text:

v. 31 - ημειν instead of ημιν

v. 32 - ισηλθεν instead of εισηλθεν

v. 33 - the word-order is Alexandria; παλιν preceding εις το πραιτώριον

The abundance of online material about P52 makes P104 seem neglected in comparison.  A few samples:

David Litwa Profiles P52 

Michael Marlowe Presents P52 

BiblicalTours - P52 with Dan Wallace

Recently P52 was mentioned on the Joe Rogan podcast in an interview with Wesley Huff of Apologetics Canada.  and Brent Nongbri has provided some helpful clarifications about some statements Wes made  which need improvement.  Nongbri has continued to profitably research P52.

P52 is notable for  being from a codex which was very probably a codex of only the Gospel of John. Robert's analysis supporting this is accessible online.

P52 has been featured on YouTube in simple profiles and in a 2024 lecture Steven Combs claimed that it supports the Textus Receptus.  Dwayne Green has offered some pushback in a video that can be viewed here.

TTotG:  Welcome, Dwayne Green!   Tell us:  does P52 support the Textus Receptus?

Dwayne Green

Dwayne Green:   No.   P52 does not support the Textus Receptus.  A couple weeks ago, Dr. Steven Combs under the banner of the King James Bible Research Council (KJBRC) had released a short video entitled “Textus Receptus Found in the Papyrus?”. Evidently this was clipped from a larger lecture on the Textus Receptus (TR) that was given at the KJBRC Regional Conference in 2023. Within the first 45 seconds of the short video Dr. Combs made a rather curious claim that P52, our oldest extant manuscript of the New Testament, actually supports the Received Text. In the words of Dr. Combs:

“Papyrus 52 . . . has one spelling difference and one place that I consider to be a scribal error. Because it was an omicron . . . that was misplaced and put in front of the word instead of behind it. Besides that it is a perfect match to the Textus Receptus.”

Curious indeed. It’s worth asking the questions: What spelling error is he talking about and what does he mean by ‘scribal error’ and is this really a simple mishap that would have otherwise left us with a perfect representative of the TR in our earliest papyri?

First, it’s worth noting that the TR in John 18:31-33 shares the same form alongside the Byzantine Textform, HF Majority, Antoniades, and Family 35. Though family 35 contains the textual variant εμελλεν instead of ημελλεν, however P52 is lacunose at this word and so from the perspective of this analysis, they are essentially the same. For the most part, the NA28 matches with the WH text and differs from the former group in one important way. In John 18:33, the critical editions read “Εισηλθεν ουν παλιν εις το πραιτωριον ο Πιλατος” whereas the former editions read “Εισηλθεν ουν εις το πραιτωριον παλιν ο Πιλατος”. Make a mental note of where παλιν and ο Πιλατος are in relation to each other as this will be very important later on in this analysis. Admittedly, from the perspective of our English translations, this is hardly discernible and regardless of where παλιν appears in the phrase, it has little consequence to our English understanding of how this verse is to be understood.

TTotG:  So the difference in meaning is zero - but there is an orthographic difference.  What are your thoughts about that?

Dwayne Green:  Dr. Combs claimed that P52 “has one spelling difference”. If you take a look at the image, I was able to find two spelling variants that are visible on the manuscripts itself. The first line likely reads “ΟΙΙΟΥΔΑΙΟΙΗΜΕ”. The final epsilon is not expected, rather what is expected is the third person pronoun in the dative form ΗΜΙΝ, it should be an iota instead. According to Swanson’s collations, there are no textual variants that match the final epsilon in this passage. So what’s the deal? I offer two possible explanations. 1) This is a simple case of itacism and it’s possible that the scribe had written down ΗΜΕΙΝ. This has occurred in at least one place in P66 (see John 17:21). Whether the scribe had copied what was in front of him or inserted his own unintentional variation would be impossible to determine. 2) This could be a case of a grammatical error if the scribe had written ΗΜΕΙΣ, however there are no variants elsewhere in the manuscript tradition that support this. Given these two options, itacism seems far more plausible than the grammatical error. We shall give Dr. Combs the benefit of the doubt in this case and suggest that itacism is the culprit and this is a simple spelling variation rather than a spelling error.

The second spelling error is found on the fourth line which reads ΘΝΗΣΚΕΙΝΙΣ (image 2). Though the text is faded, you can still make out the iota and the sigma. The expected word here is “Εισηλθεν” and the astute viewer will notice that the epsilon is missing. This is indeed true. Evidently, the dipthong ΕΙ may have sounded the same or similar as a single iota and this may have confused the scribe creating a spelling error. This is of course is assuming that the scribe did not correctly copy the exemplar before him and produced the error rather than copied it. So we’ll give this one to Dr. Combs as it is likely the ‘spelling error’ that he had referred to in the short video.

I therefore take no issues with his claim of a single spelling error.

TTotG:   What about the scribal error?

Dwayne Green:  To understand how Dr. Combs came to the ‘scribal error’ conclusion we must first realize that he is looking at P52 from a TR perspective. If you take a look at the the following image, the line being shown reads ΡΙΟΝΟΠ. Dr. Combs understands the Π at the end of this line to be the first letter of the word ΠΑΛΙΝ. This is the underlying assumption that allows him to conclude that the omicron “was misplaced and put in front of the word instead of behind it”. Remember, the way the TR renders this passage is: “Εισηλθεν ουν εις το πραιτωριον παλιν ο Πιλατος”. So in order for Dr. Combs to justify the TR reading in P52 he must move the article Ο in front of ΠΑΛΙΝ in order to call it a scribal error. For Dr. combs P52 in the lacunose area should read ΡΙΟΝΟΠΑΛΙΝΠΙΛΑΤΟΣ (the red text represents a reconstruction of the lacunose area), but is this reconstruction plausible? Below I have provided three hurdles for Dr. Combs theory.

Hurdle 1: Grammar

Proper nouns such as ΠΙΛΑΤΟΣ are more often then not preceded by the article. However the word ΠΑΛΙΝ being an adverb virtually never has the article before it. A quick search in Logos Bible software results in 142 instance of ΠΑΛΙΝ in the Textus Receptus (presumably Scriveners edition) so I spot checked about 30 random instances and in no case does the article precede ΠΑΛΙΝ. Now Dr. Combs may understand this which is why he called it a ‘scribal error’, but the contention here is that the article Ο followed by Πιλατος would not only be the natural reading, but statistically based on the grammar, would be the more certain reading. Especially when we do not have a conclusion in search of the evidence.

Hurdle 2: Extant Textual Variants

Coming back to Dr. Combs' statement, his explanation is that P52 places the Ο before ΠΑΛΙΝ rather than ΠΙΛΑΤΟΣ resulting in the reading εις το πραιτωριον ο παλιν Πιλατος. This results in a textual variant that does not exist in any of the major collations. There’s plenty of support for the rendering of John 18:33 as found in the TR, such as Aleph, A, C², B, and P60 among others; the complete omission of ΠΑΛΙΝ both before εις το πραιτωριον and after is witnessed by at least two manuscripts according to Swanson: C^c and 33. Codex N and Codex Ψ comes the closest to Dr. Combs' suggestion with the reading ο Πιλατος Παλιν, but even in its closeness, it leaves his ‘scribal error’ theory wanting.

Given the current textual variants among our extant manuscripts it appears that the reading that Dr. Combs wants P52 to be DOES NOT EXIST. Put another way, in order for his theory to fit he must invent a brand new, never before seen textual variant.

Hurdle 3: A Perfect Match to the Critical Editions.

When you compare a reconstruction of the text of P52 with the Critical editions of the Greek New Testament, we find that it is essentially (minus the 2 spelling variants mentioned above) a match with the extant areas of the manuscript. Consider the image below, the highlighted characters represent where the critical editions match with P52. It is essentially Identical. We do not need to come up with convoluted reasons to make something else work. It just fits.

TTotG:  Any other observations about P52?

Dwayne Green:  There is one more matter that is worthy of our attention, although we do not consider it  a ‘hurdle’. That is the question of weather a reconstruction based on character counts per line can give us any helpful details to Dr. Combs claim. Can it make room for ΠΑΛΙΝ on the same line as ΠΙΛΑΤΟΣ or does it favor ΠΑΛΙΝ on the previous line. The short answer is that this methodology is inconclusive. There is tremendous debate surrounding the question of nomina sacra. Does the reconstruction of the name Ιησου in the second line and Ιησουν at the end of the fifth line appear in full form, or in nomina sacra? If we assume for the sake of Dr. Combs argument that the nomina sacra is employed here, it merely allows for the possibility that ΠΑΛΙΝ could fit, but its not decisive as it could still also fit in the line above it where the Critical texts presumes it would fit.

If on the other hand, it turns out that “Jesus” is written out in full form this would further demonstrate that ΠΑΛΙΝ could not be moved and share the same line as ΠΙΛΑΤΟΣ because removing it from its current place would drop the character count for that line far below the other lines represented by the manuscript. Of course, this makes a number of assumptions that must be made in the reconstruction to make sense of it and not everyone is convinced that this is a worthwhile endeavor.

So essentially, as far as Dr. Combs theory is concerned and the application of reconstructing the lacunose area based on character counts, is dead in the water. It does not help us either way.

Conclusion

It is indeed a weird flex to invent a never before seen textual variant in order to substantiate the claim that P52 supports the TR; especially when all signs point to an exact match of the WH and the NA28 text. Add in the fact that grammatically speaking, the article often precedes proper nouns and not usually adverbs which only piles on to the arguments against this wishful thinking.

At the end of Dr. Combs brief analysis of P52 he states rather emphatically “Besides that, it is a perfect match to the Textus Receptus”. I can’t help but hear “Besides the differences from the TR, its a perfect match to the TR”. As a Byzantine Prioritist myself, it would be exceptionally welcomed to see a byzantine reading among the earliest manuscript, but we should also be careful not to make manuscripts say more than they do in an effort to impose our own conclusions on the evidence. We are not part of the “Oldest is best” club, and fortunately our New Testament text rests on much more than a small scrap of papyrus found in the Egyptian desert.

TTotG:  Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Dwayne.

 

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.