Romans 10:17 - Whose Word Is It Anyway?

Neither :of Christ" or "of God" on 010!

What should be read at the end of Romans 10:17” – “word of God” or word of Christ”?

You can usually tell what kind of base-text is used in English versions of the New Testament by looking at the end of Romans 10:17.  Byzantine-based versions (KJV, NKJV, EOB, MEV, MLV, WEB) end the verse with “word of God”.  Alexandrian-based versions (ESV, NIV, CSB, NASB, NET, NLT, NRSV) end Romans 10:17 with “word of Christ”   The rendering in the New Life Version seems to be based on a third reading that ends the verse without either “God” or “Christ.”

The diverse array of support for Θεοῦ is good, including À¹ Alexandrinus 06¹ K P Ψ 049 33 1175 1241 1881 2200 the Peshitta, the Georgian version, and Basil Chrysostom Jerome and Theodore. 

The support for Χριστοῦ less in quantity but greater in terms of diversity:  P46^vid À* B C^vid 06* 6 81 1506 1739 1853, the Sahidic, Bohairic, and Armenian versions, and Augustine (in On Nature and Grace ch. 2).

The difference come down to a single letter – Χῦ or Θῦ.  Among modern-day compilations, Nestle-Aland/UBS, SBLGNT, and Mitchell GNT4 favor Χριστοῦ; R-P Byz and Hodges-Pierpont both favor Θεοῦ.   

The reference to the “word of Christ” or “message of Christ,” if original, occurs only here in the New Testament.  This is a slight point in favor of Θεοῦ because “word of God” is a Pauline (though not uniquely Pauline) expression (ῥῆμα Θεοῦ in Eph. 6:17).

Θῦ  fits the context better in light of Paul’s preceding use of Isaiah 53:1 and his immediately following use of Psalm 19, which both can be naturally categorized as divine messages, but only one of which is particularly Messianic.

Neither "of Christ" or "of God" in 012!

The shorter reading should not be casually rejected.  It is supported by F G and Old Latin witnesses f (VL 10), g (VL 77) and o (PEL(B))  and by Hilary Ambrosiaster and Pelagius.  An argument could be made that the shorter reading plausibly accounts for the rise of both rival readings:  a hanging reference to hearing the message would be very tempting for scribes to expand. 

Χῦ appears to be an early substitution that began in the Western transmission-line (and passing from the Old Latin into the Vulgate) and which was adopted into the early Alexandrian line.  The scribal tendency to change a general reference to Θς (“God”) or Κς (“Lord”) into a reference specifically to Christ or to Jesus repeatedly impacted both the Western and early Alexandrian transmission-lines.

 

Mark 7:2 - Polishing in the Byzantine (and Western) Text

A variant in Mark 7:22 illustrates the weight of intrinsic evidence – when textual critics ask, “What did the scribe probably have in  front of him in his exemplar?” and “Which reading accounts for the rise of its rivals?”  It may also illlustrate how reasonable people can interpret the intrinsic evidence in opposite ways. 

This contest consists mainly of the presence or absence of ἐμέμψαντο, represented in the NKJV by the words “they found fault.”   The word is not in the NA28, the UBS GNT, or in Mitchell’s GNT.   Although Swanson listed the majority text as support for non-inclusion, the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform and Hodges-Farstad both include ἐμέμψαντο, as does the Solid Rock GNT. 

The base-texts of the ESV, NIV, NLT, NASB 1995 and EHV do not include ἐμέμψαντο.

To most proponents of the Alexandrian text, supported in non-inclusion by 01, 02, 03, 011, 019, 037, 0211, 0274, and 19 minuscules (including 713 892 1424 and 2200), it is obvious that a scribe added ἐμέμψαντο to ensure that the meaning of the sentence would be understood.  The alteration had to have been early to affect witnesses which include 032, the Greek Byzantine stream and family 1, the Peshitta, and the Vulgate (vituperaverunt).

But it may seem equally obvious to some advocates of Byzantine Priority that an early scribe excised ἐμέμψαντο on the grounds that the Pharisees only thought that they found fault with the activity that Jesus permitted, and did not want to risk having readers misunderstand as actual what merely an impression.

The Western text of Codex D (05) may help.  If the Byzantine text originated as a blend of the Alexandrian and Western texts, as Hort proposed, we would expect to find, instead of ἐμέμψαντο, D’s unique reading κατέγνωσαν.   This indicates that the Byzantine text’s earliest layer of expansion did not depend upon the existence of the Western text, and (assuming that the shorter reading is original) that in both streams a scribal tendency to polish sentences that could seem difficult was at work. 

Interestingly, the primary scribe of minuscule 2 did not include ἐμέμψαντο, ending the sentence with ἄρτον (agreeing with À!); a corrector has added ἐμέμψαντο αὐτοῖς.

Mark 5:21 - "In the Boat" - When Trusting the Science and Trusting the Church are Different Things

             Relying on the most up-to-date scholarship can have its drawbacks.  Case in point:  the scholarship that questioned the authenticity of the words “in the boat” in Mark 5:21.  Once, the words were universally accepted as part of the original text – affirmed in the Vulgate (Latin), the  Peshitta (Syriac) and in the Byzantine and Alexandrian transmission-lines of the Greek text of the Gospel of Mark.  

            By 1970, though, according to Bruce Metzger (in Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament) “a minority of the Committee regarded the phrase ἐν τῷ πλοιῳ [in the boat] as an early scribal insertion,” and so the decision to include the words was ranked as a “D” – meaning that “there is a very high degree of doubt concerning the reading selected for the text.”  The words were absent from UBS2 and were bracketed in UBS4 and NA27.  Translators using the most up-to-date authority in 1966 (UBS1) or 1968 (UBS2) would have omitted these words, and with a “B” difficulty-rating in the apparatus at the time, they would not have considered it controversial to do so.

            Do you remember the TEV, Today’s English Version, popularly issued as Good News for Modern Man?  It was a paraphrastic version made by Robert G. Bratcher (1920-2010) with line illustrations by Annie Vallotton published by the American Bible Society.   Bratcher is still remembered for his vigorous and vocal rejection of the doctrine of inerrancy.  In 2026, his version of the New Testament is still included in the list of English versions on Bible Gateway.  In Mark 5:21 it reads “Jesus went back across to the other side of the lake. There at the lakeside a large crowd gathered around him.”  It’s missing these words in Mark 5:21 that are in major English versions such as the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NIV, NLT, NRSV, WEB, EHV, etc.

            Bratcher probably thought in 1966 that he was safely following the science.  Advocates of the Byzantine Text, the Textus Receptus, and other more stable editions of the New Testament immune to the filter of the scholarly minds on the UBS compilation committee can only say in retrospect, “Told you so.”  Compilers and translators must be weighed, not counted.

 

Second Peter 1:10 - Grace By Faith - Confidence By Works

             A variant in Second Peter 1:10 – one that is undetectable in the SBL-GNT – shows that some scribes were not immune to contributing to the role of human effort in maintaining salvation.  During the Protestant Reformation, the Byzantine Greek text of this chapter was used to show that Peter, like Paul, affirmed that the salvation comes as a gift of God (1:2), and that nothing we do can ever add to what Christ has done, as the Spirit impels each faithful individual to diligently pursue virtue, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love.  But long before Martin Luther was born, a form of verse 10 existed which emphasized that good works contribute to the confidence of this soul.

Papyrus 72

             The Byzantine text of Second Peter and the modern text of NA/UBS read precisely the same.  In the Harklean Group – a small cluster of medieval manuscripts – there is a longer reading.  Before telling you what it is, the significance of the Harklean Group should be understood.  Why are these relative few, relatively late, manuscripts important?  Because they echo, in the General Epistles, a form of text that is virtually as early as our earliest surviving manuscripts of that category of books.  That is, although the manuscripts in the Harklean Group (GA 429 614 1505 1611 2138 2412 and 2495, with core members listed in boldprint) are medieval, they echo an ancient ancestor.  (The term “Harklean” is due to the close agreement between their text and a text used as an exemplar by Thomas of Harkle when he revised the Syriac Peshitta around the year 616 using Greek copies at the Enaton monastery that was near Alexandria, Egypt.)

          

Jude v. 3 in Sinaiticus

            How ancient?  Consider the text of Codex Sinaiticus (ﬡ, 01) in the third verse of the Epistle of Jude:  after the normal mention of the salvation common among believers, it adds “και ζωης” (“and life”).    The inclusion of σωτηρίας is established via its inclusion in P72, 02 (Alexandrinus), 03 (Vaticanus), 018 020 049 056 0142 and the overwhelming majority of minuscules including 1 6 18 69 81 323 630 1739 and the family 35 and Textus Receptus forms of the text.  However the Harklean Group members 1611 2138 1505 2495 uniquely do not include σωτηρίας and have (after κοινης ημων in 1611 2138, and after κοινης υμων in 1505 2495) ζωης.  This evidence implies that prior to the production of Sinaiticus in the mid-300s, a scribe had an exemplar with σωτηρίας and an exemplar with ζωης and, rather than choose between the two, embraced them both and created the longer reading, a conflation, displayed in Sinaiticus.

Second Peter 1:10 in Sinaiticus

          In Second Peter 1:10 the Harklean Group also supports, after σπουδάσατε, the words ἵνα διὰ τῶν καλῶν ἔργων βεβαίαν ὑμῶν τὴν κλῆσιν καὶ ἐκλογὴν ποιεῖσθε.  The words in bold print mean “through good works.”  The form of Second Peter 1:10 is supported by the Vulgate – Codex Amiatinus reads “Quapropter fratres magis agite ut per bona opera certam vestram vocationem et electionem faciatis:  haec enim facientes non peccabitis aliquando.”  Διὰ τῶν καλῶν ἔργων is also read by Sinaiticus and is supported by Lectionary 60 and the Sahidic, Armenian, and the Harklean Syriac versions.  

            Considering the diversity of witnesses for both readings this contest is much closer than the UBS Committee’s “A” rating would suggest.   I regard the shorter reading as original, and the early expansion as an example of the Western tendency to over-emphasize the meaning of the adequately clear original.  But if one were to prefer the longer reading as original – which, as far as I know, only Lachmann and diehard champions of the Vulgate have done – then we are looking at a reading which scribes in more than one transmission-line excised due to a desire to discourage the interpretation the idea that good works are necessary for assurance of salvation.

Second Peter 3:10 - A Step Backwards in NA28

 

            Has the church lost the original text of Second Peter 3:10?

            “Doubtless” was Hort’s answer in 1881.    His note is a bit torpid but his verdict is clear:

“iii.10 (†) εὑρεθήσεται] οὐχ εὐρεθήσεται syr.bod[= an obscure Syriac version of the three Catholic Epistles not in the Syriac canon] theb :  κατακαήσεται (? Alexandrian and) Constantinopolitan (Gr. Lat. Syr. Eg. Æth.) ; incl. A L₂ lat. vg. codd Cyr.al Aug:  ἀφανισθήσονται C: , ni: , the whole clause (καὶ γῆ … κατακ.) lat. vg pp^scr pp^lat.scr.  Text ﬡBK₂P₂27 29 66** syr.hl.mg. arm :  cf. bod the.  The great difficulty of text has evidently given rise to all these variations (Introd. § 365).  It is doubtless itself a corruption of ῾ρυήσεται (῾ρεήσεται) or of one of its compounds.”

Second Peter 3:10 in Codex Alexandrinus

            The Byzantine text of II Peter 3:10 is:   Ἥξει δὲ ἡ ἡμέρα κυ ὡς κλέπτης ἐν νυκτί ἐν ᾗ οἱ οὐρανοὶ ҅ροιζηδον παρελεύσονται στοιχεῖα δὲ καυσούμενα λυθήσονται καὶ γῆ καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ ἔργα κατακήσεται – diverging from the text of NA27 at five points, two of which are detectable in translation:  the simple presence or absence of ἐν νυκτί and the final word of the sentence.     

            While the shorter reading is explainable as a loss due to parablepsis from the ἐν before νυκτί to the ἐν after it, and its longer rival is supported by C K L 049 104 629 1751 Byz, the Byzantine reading was assumed so readily by the editors of UBS4 to be a harmonization to First Thessalonians 5:2 that it didn’t even receive a listing in the apparatus.  The array of external against it is indeed very impressive – P72 ﬡ A B P Ψ 048^vid 0156 33 323 945 1739 Vulgate Coptic. 

      
      It is the textual contest at the end of the verse that has attracted the most attention recently, because the editors of Novum Testamentum Graece decided to print in the text a reading which is not found in any Greek manuscript of Second Peter.   The textual contest in the last word of Second Peter 3:10 has been an issue for a long time.   Not only Westcott & Hort but also (according to NA27’s apparatus) Naber, Olivier, Mayor, and Eberhard Nestle each proposed different conjectural emendations here – swept away, conflagrated, removed, and judged, respectively).  Normal people might imagine that an “embarrassment of riches,” would naturally preclude such guesses, but, no, the NET’s annotator candidly admits that this is “one of the most difficult textual problems in the NT.” 

            The NET’s annotator firmly endorsed εὑρεθήσται as the original reading, arguing that the opacity of the meaning of εὑρεθήσται provoked scribes to substitute a word that seemed easier to understand.  This is perfectly lucid.  In addition, the meaning of the text in the smattering of non-Greek witnesses enlisted to support ουχ is accounted for as a harmonization to the meaning of Revelation 20:11 (οὐχ εὐρέθη in the majority text).  The conjectural emendation that currently is printed in NA28 cannot be recommended as superior – but it does serve as an interesting and obvious admission that the editors do not believe that the original text of Second Peter 3:10 has survived in any extant Greek witness.  Some onlookers have assumed that the C.B.G.M. had something to do with the editors’ decision, but that seems impossible, inasmuch as there is no coherence to consider.

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 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.

Lectionary 1043

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

(1)  MATTHEW 7

1.  Mt 7:19 – OUN

X.  Mt 10:37 – uncontracted UION

2.  Mt 10:41 – LHMPSETAI

3.  Mt 10:41 – LHMPSETAI

4.  Mt 10:42 – EAN 

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

(2)  MATTHEW 3

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

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

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

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

9.  Mt 3:11 - AUTOU after UPODHMATA 

10.  Mt 3:11 - includes KAI PURI

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

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

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

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

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

X.  Mt 3:17 - UION is not contracted

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

(3)  MATTHEW 4:23-5:12

18. - 4:23 – EN OLH TH GALILAIA

19. - 4:24 – includes KAI before DAIMONIZOMENOUS

20.  5:1 – PROSHLQON

21.  5:2 – E before TO STOMA

22.  5:2 – ENDIDASKEN (?)

23.  5:3 – AUTON

24.  5:6 – PINWNTES

X.  5:8 – uncontracted QEON

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

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

27.  5:11 – does not have RHMA

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

(5) MATTHEW 7 

29.  7:13 –DIERCHOMENOI

30.  7:14 – OTI [no DE]

31.  7:15 – DE

32.  7:16 – STAPHULAS

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

(6)  MARK 6

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

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

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

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

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

38.  6:23 – AN (not EAN) (with 05)

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

40.  6:24 –AITHSWMAI (with 01 03 019)

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

42.  6:25–EUQUS (with 01 03)

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

44.  :26 –SUNANAKEIMENOUS (with 05 Byz)

45.  6:27 –EUQUS (with 01 03 019)

46.  6:27 –KAIPHALHN

47.  6:28 –KAI (not O DE) (with 03)

48.  6:28–TW before KORASION

(8)  LUKE 11

49.  27 – FWNHN GUNH

50.  28 –MENOUN GE

51.  29 – ZHTEI

52.  29 – does not have TOU PROFHTOU

53.  30 –TOIS NINEUITAIS SHMEION

(9) LUKE 24

54.  36 – LOUNTWN (missing LA-)

55.  36 – does not include O IHSOUS

(10) JOHN 20

56.  6 – KAI after OUN

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

58.  11 – MNHMEIW (instead of MNHMEION)

59.  11 – EXW KLAIOUSA

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

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

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

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

This post is dedicated to the memory of James Roth.

 

How (And How Not) to Define a Text-type

 In the ninth lecture in my online introduction to New Testament textual criticism, I describe text-types.  There has been a recent wave of resistance in academia to affirm the reality of text-types, on the grounds that only the Byzantine text has an archetype capable of confident reconstruction.  This resistance is due to a failure to acknowledge the proper way to define a text-type.  Instead of profiling entire collections of readings in separate genres of the New Testament (Gospels, Acts, General Epistles, Pauline Epistles, Revelation) , a constellation of 50 or less distinct readings is all that is needed to separate manuscripts into the traditionally recognized text-types (Alexandrian, Byzantine, Western, Caesarean).  

Because of pervasive mixture and each manuscript's scribe's uniqueness, once each text-type's distinct variants - the stars in the constellation, so to speak - are identified, 45 out of 50 variants, rather than 50 out of 50, sufficiently shows the type of text a manuscript contains.

This approach is applicable to the full text across a genre; it does not apply to small fragmentary manuscripts, the classification of which should be made and which should also be considered provisional.   Why provisional?  Because block-mixture is real.  It was once proposed that a small sample is sufficient to show the text-type of a manuscript:  the text-type of the extant sample was extrapolated to apply hypothetically to the non-extant portion.   The logic seemed sound:  if you open a jar and stick a spoon inside and pull it out full of grape jelly, it's reasonable to conclude that the whole jar is full of grape jelly.

But sometimes there's a jar like Smucker's Goober-Grape.  One small spoon is an insufficient basis to ascertain the jar's contents.  Some manuscript are like that.  The textual character of Codex Washingtoniensis, 032, varies widely in different segments of text.  Codex Regius, 019, shifts from being predominantly Byzantine at the beginning of Matthew to being mainly Alexandrian by the end of John.  The large manuscripts that only survive as small fragments might have been like that too.  

When we have the text of a full genre preserved in a manuscript, its text can be validly assigned to a type.  Over a century ago, Edward Ardron Hutton, assisted by F. C. Burkitt,  helpfully wrote An Atlas of Textual Criticism in which he presented (or re-presented) a valid basis for dividing groups of manuscripts' text into families.  Hutton affirmed that "The test of antiquity is decidedly against the Syrian," i.e., against the Byzantine text.  Built into his statement is the assumption that we can identify what the Byzantine text is.

Hutton observed that the same kind of close relationship seen in family 13 (see the diagram here) can exists - at a lesser degree of magnification - between larger groups of manuscripts.  He proceeded to list "Triple readings" - variation-units which are so to speak a three-horse race and the three horses are Byzantine ("S"), Alexandrian ("A"), and Western (W").

The text of a non-fragmentary manuscript can easily be assigned to a text-type, or be recognized as mixed, on the basis of Hutton's Triple Readings.  There is no need to add comets and fireflies to the constellation while the stars are blazing bright.

Meet GA 0206

GA 0206 was found and catalogued by Grenfell and Hunt and was featured in Volume XI of their series  Oxyrhynchus Papyri.  Its text of from First Peter 5 has been assigned to the 300s, and when Don Barker re-read its page-number as 829 instead of 229 (the second digit is basically a toss-up between 10 and 20 (Ι and Κ), it became clear that 0206 is what remains of quite a hefty volume; possibly a pandect like Codex Sinaiticus.  

 
At Wikipedia one can read details about its text.  

 ● 5:8a – 0206 reads ο before διαβολος along with p72 and 33, disagreeing with NA27 and the Byzantine Text.

● 5:8b – after ζητων 0206 lacks τινα, agreeing with Codex Vaticanus, and disagreeing with the Byzantine Text.   NA 27 has τινα in brackets.

 ●5:9b – 0206 lacks τω, agreeing with the Byzantine text and disagreeing with Papyrus 72 and Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.  Again the NA27 uselessly resorted to brackets.

 ● 5:9c – 0206 reads επιτελεισθαι (to be experiencing) along with the majority,  disagreeing with Papyrus 72 (επειτελειται) and with Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus and  (επιτελεισθε) (you are experiencing).

● 5:10 – 0206 lacks τω agreeing with the Byzantine Text, disagreeing with Papyrus 72 and Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

 ● 5:10 – 0206 lacks the nomina sacra for “Jesus” agreeing with Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.  NA27 resorts to brackets.

 ● 5:10 – 0206 reads καταρτιει (an orthographic error, probably elicited by the scribe's line of sight drifting ahead in the text of his exemplar.  The word υμας is not included, disagreeing with the Byzantine text.

 ● 5:10 – the final word of the verse θεμελιώσει is absent, a parableptic error elicited by homoeoteleuton.  

 ● 5:11a – 0206 reads αυτω κρατος (to whom [is to be attributed] dominion), agreeing with NA27 and Papyrus 72 02 03, disagreeing with the longer Byzantine reading αυτω η δοξα και το κρατος.   (A liturgical flourish appears to be have been added to the Byzantine text here.)

 ● 5:11b – 0206 reads εις τους αιωνας των αιωνων αμην (to the ages of the ages, Amen), agreeing with the Byzantine text and disagreeing with the more economical Papyrus 72 and Vaticanus and NA27 (εις τους αιωνας αμην) (to the ages Amen).  Simple parablepsis accounts for the shorter reading.

 ● 5:12 – 0206 lacks the του after χαριν, agreeing with Papyrus and disagreeing with the Byzantine text and NA27.

Not only does this fragment excavated in Egypt show that Byzantine readings were floating around in Egypt in the 300s in a large multi-book manuscript, but this analysis shows that the editors of NA27 were, in this particular passage. seem to have been timidly averse to doing their job.

John 14:14 - Praying to the Son?

          In John 14:14 there is an interesting translation-impacting textual puzzle:  did Jesus tell his followers to pray to him?

ESV:   If you ask me^[a] anything in my name, I will do it. [footnote:  Some manuscripts omit me]

NIV:  You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
CSB:  If you ask me^[a] anything in my name, I will do it.^[b]  [footnotes:  Other mss omit me - Other mss omit all of v. 14
NASB:   If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.
NLT:  Yes, ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it!
EHV:  If you ask me^[a] for anything in my name, I will do it. [footnote:  Some witnesses to the text omit me.]

WEB:  If you will ask anything in my name, I will do it.

KJV:   If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

EOB:  “If you will ask anything in my name, I will accomplish it.”  [footnote:  Several ancient authorities (P66, ﬡ, B, W, D, Q read: “whatever you ask me in my Name”]

          The Byzantine Text is not uniform.  2005 Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform has με in the text and non-inclusion noted in the side-margin.  The Hodges-Farstad 1982 Majority Text does not have με in the text; inclusion is noted in the apparatus.  Antoniades’ 1904 compilation does not have με.

          What’s the external evidence say?  Did John write εάν τι αἰτήσητέ με ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου ἐγὼ ποιήσω, or  εάν τι αἰτήσητέ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου ἐγὼ ποιήσω?

          A, D, G, K, L, M, P, Ψ, 69, 157, 706 866 100 114 129 164 177 184 200 204 205 236 237 238 239 260 275 276 298 299 1071 1241 and 1424 and Coptic versions do not have με.

          In addition, X, L*, 0141, f¹, 565, pc, b, vg^ms, the Sinaitic Syriac and the  Palestinian Aramaic and Armenian versions omit the entire verse – which I regard as an effect of simple parablepsis.

Old Latin witnesses suporting non-inclusion:  a, aur, b, d, e, q, r1 vg^mss .

A smattering of witnesses replace με with a reference to the Father, mimicing John 16:23.  GA 167 uniquely reads, after μου, ἐγω ποιήσω ἵνα δοξάσθη ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ υίῷ.

After μου Codex M/021 (Campianus) has the conflate reading ἐγὼ τοῦτο.

P66c reads τοῦτο ἐγὼ (a different conflate reading).  

Witnesses supporting με include p⁶⁶ א B E H S U W Δ Θ 060 f¹³ 28 33 579 700 892 1006 1230^vid 1242 1342 1646 some lectionaries (including 64, 284, 329, 514, 547, 672, 813, 1231)  and it^c it^f vg syr^p syr^h and the Gothic version and Fulgentius.

          There is an issue regarding the testimony of P75.  A sizeable lacuna prevents the firm establishment of the testimony of P75 for either inclusion or non-inclusion.

          Considering that in John 15:16, Jesus says plainly “The Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name,” and the meaning of this passage is uniform in all transmission-streams, it is unlikely that John would represent Jesus saying both things – with the Father, and himself, as the person to whom the apostles were to address their prayers.  (John 16:23 affirms the same point.)   The possibility exists that με originated deliberately, due to a desire to enhance the deity of Christ – augmenting the Son’s role in answering prayer.  An alternative explanation is that με originated as an error of dittography – a careless repetition of the final syllable of αἰτήσητέ – and instead of correcting via the simple removal of the extra τέ, it was changed to με.  However this early error arose, it managed to affect Byzantine and Alexandrian witnesses.

          Some people may accuse those who use versions without “me” in John 14:14 of downplaying the Trinity.  However, historically both forms of the verse have been used by champions of orthodoxy.  Chrysostom, in Homily 74 on the Gospel of John, utilized a text without με.  

Revelation 20:9 - Concluding the Final Battle

 

          Revelation 20 related the culmination of rebellion against God – and a concise description of the consequences of such rebellion:  the final defeat of Satan and his demonic allies and the commencing of Judgment Day.  Today we shall consider a small variant in verse 9:  does the fire that destroys the forces of Satan fall explicitly come from God (ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ) or not?  The Byzantine text includes ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ.  Codex Alexandrinus and about 25 minuscules, as Metzger stated in his Textual Commentary on the GNT, do not; nor did a text read by Tyconius, Augustine, and Primasius.  The Vulgate as represented by Novum Testamentum Latine (1906 Stuttgart) includes “a Deo,” supporting ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Metzger granted that about 120 minuscules support ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ, as do Jerome, Aspringius and Beatus.  Codex Gigas also supports the inclusion of ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ although there is inconsistency about whether it should appear before or after ἐκ τοῦ ὸὐρανοῦ.  Augustine’s testimony is inconsistent; he apparently read “a Deo” on one occasion. 

          Versional evidence favoring the inclusion of ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ includes the Old Latin represented by Codex Gigas, the Sahidic version, Harklean Syriac, the Armenian version, and some Ethiopic copies.  

          The testimony of Codex Sinaiticus is somewhat diminished by the scribe’s initial omission of much of Revelation 20:9-10; in the margin a corrector has added the missing passage including ἀπὸ τοῦ Θῦ.

          Our modern English versions are not consistent.  The KJV, Living Oracles (1826), Living Bible, MEV, NKJV, WEB, and EHV include “from God.”  The 1881 Revised Version, ESV, CEV, CSB, NASB, NET, NIV, NLT, and NRSV do not include “from God.”

          Metzger argued for the non-inclusion of ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ on the grounds that it originated as an “imitation of 21.2 and 21.10.”  On the other hand, a scribe could consider it superfluous, or simply omit it accidentally when his line of sight drifted from the end of the contracted ουνου to the end of Θῦ.

           My view is that ἀπὸ τοῦ Θῦ should be retained after εκ τοῦ ουνου.  Readers who can provide additional thoughts are welcome to share them in the comments.