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.
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.
