Luke 9:55-56 - What a Knot!

           Having seen that a scribal note at the end of Luke 9:54 became extremely popular and eventually dominated over 99.5% of extant manuscripts, let’s move along to the fascinating cluster of variants in verses 55-56 – one of the most difficult variant-units in the New Testament.   Metzger’s six-line dismissal of the longer readings has been augmented in online studies by several researchers including Robert Clifton Robinson and the NET’s annotator.  Zooming in on verse 55 first, we see that the Textus Receptus, the Byzantine Textform, and the Majority Text and quite a few MSS read (after αὐτοἷς) καὶ εἶπεν οὐκ οἴδατε οίου πνεύματός ἐστε ὑμεις” and verse 56 begins with ὁ γὰρ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ῆλθεν ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων ἀπολέσαι άλλὰ σῶσαι. – that is (in the EOB New Testament) “You do not know of what kind of spirit you are.  The Son of Man did not come to destroy people’s  lives but to save them.”

          Weighing in for non-inclusion are P45 P75 À A B C E G H L S V W D X Y Ω and about 430 minuscules including 28 33 157 565 892 1424 etc.   The Sinaitic Syriac and the Sahidic version do not include the material.  Cyprian supports the inclusion of "the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them" (in Letter 58:2 - thanks to Demian Moscofian for this reference).  Chrysostom supports the inclusion of εἶπεν οὐκ οἴδατε οίου πνεύματός ἐστε ὑμεις and non-inclusion of ὁ γὰρ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ῆλθεν ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων ἀπολέσαι άλλὰ σῶσαι.  Epiphanius supports inclusion.  Basil weighs in for non-inclusion.

Majuscules that support inclusion (with minor variations) include D (although D does not include ὑμεις at the end of v. 55 and 56a) Y M K U Γ Θ Λ Π,  and the 1,300 minuscules that include the longer reading include f¹ f¹³ 124 180 205 597 700 1006 1243 1292 1505.  Willker noticed that 240 minuscules read ποίου instead of οίου (agreeing with D), and that 33 minuscules have the first segment of verse 56 before the last segment of verse 55.  Latin support for non-inclusion includes a, aur, b, c, e, f, q, r¹ and the Clementine and Wordsworth’s edition of the Vulgate. Nestle’s Novum Testamentum Latine reads “Et conversus increpavit illos, dicens :  Nescitis euius spiritus estis.  Filius hominis non venit animas perdere, sed salvare.”   I have not verified the claim that Codex Fuldensis supports non-inclusion.  The Curetonian Syriac, the Peshitta, and Harklean Syriac support inclusion and so do the Armenian and Gothic versions.  Ambrose and Ambrosiaster both support the longer reading.

            (GA 579 has a unique expansion which I will ignore here.)

            Early readers might have wondered know what Jesus said when he rebuked James and John.  But would they be willing to invent a response from Jesus and present it as if it originated with Jesus?  Is it likely that a scribe would add this sentence knowing that it was not originally part of Luke’s Gospel?

            On the other hand, if Luke wrote καὶ εἶπεν οὐκ οἴδατε οίου πνεύματός ἐστε ὑμεις  ὁ γὰρ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ῆλθεν ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων ἀπολέσαι άλλὰ σῶσαι, what possible motive would any scribe have to remove these words?  Luke preserved Jesus’ saying (in 19:10) that the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost – so why add a similar statement here?

            A very bad case of parablepsis could account for the loss of καὶ εἶπεν οὐκ οἴδατε οίου πνεύματός ἐστε ὑμεις  ὁ γὰρ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ῆλθεν ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων ἀπολέσαι άλλὰ σῶσαι if a scribe’s line of sight drifted from the καὶ after αὐτοῖς to the καὶ before ἐπορεύθησαν.  However this seems unlikely for several reasons.  First, due to the large amount of lost material.  Second, because a proof-reader would almost certainly correct the omission.  Third, because the attestation for non-inclusion are from Alexandrian (P75 À B Sahidic), Western (Old Latin a b c r¹ ), and Byzantine (A S Ω 1424) transmission-lines.  

            Let’s take a closer look at a few of Chrysostom’s utilizations of Luke 9:55-56.   Near the end of Homily on Matthew 29 he cited 9:55b plainly.  Ini his 51^st Homily on John he utilized 9:55b again.  And he did so again in Homily on First Corinthians 33 when commenting on I Cor. 13:5, writing, “Wherefore also when the disciples besought that fire might come down, even as in the case of Elijah, ‘You know not,’ says Christ, ‘what manner of spirit you are of.’” 

            We are looking at two variants here, not just one:  (1) the addition of καὶ εἶπεν οὐκ οἴδατε οίου πνεύματός ἐστε ὑμεις and (2) the inclusion of ὁ γὰρ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ῆλθεν ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων ἀπολέσαι άλλὰ σῶσαι.  We are also looking at several strata in the transmission of the text.

           I suspect we are dealing with a phenomenon involving marginalia in the autograph.  Whether the marginalia was added by Luke, or by a later scribe, is very difficult to determine.  Imagine the main text of verses 55-56 looking like it does in Codex S (028).  Then picture καὶ εἶπεν οὐκ οἴδατε οίου πνεύματός ἐστε ὑμεις in the margin to the left, and ὁ γὰρ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ῆλθεν ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων ἀπολέσαι άλλὰ σῶσαι in the margin to the right.  Scribes coming to this could interpret it in different ways.  To encapusulate the hypothetical history of the text at this point, I will name alphabetically the scribes who treated it differently:

          Alex and Bill perpetuate only the main text, thinking that the marginalia is all secondary and non-Lukan.
          Cecil perpetuates the main text and includes all the marginalia as the text in the copy he produces.

           Dexter perpetuates the main text and includes 55b in the main text of the copy he produces.

          Later, using exemplar based on the ones made by Bill and Cecil, Edward made a copy resembling most Byzantine MSS, with 55b and 56a indiscernible from the rest of the text.

          Fred similarly made a copy including 55b and 56a, but in a different order.

           How should modern English versions handle this?  I would be content with what we see in the New American Standard Bible (1995), but with brackets only around 56b:  “But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of [for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.”] And they went on to another village.”  Let’s see an array of different treatments:

            Modern English versions have handled this variants in a variety of ways:

          NIV:  But Jesus turned and rebuked them. Then he and his disciples went to another village. (no footnote)

          NLT:  But Jesus turned and rebuked them.^a  The footnote reads:  “Some manuscripts add an expanded conclusion to verse 55 and an additional sentence in verse 56: And he said, “You don’t realize what your hearts are like. ⁵⁶ For the Son of Man has not come to destroy people’s lives, but to save them.””
          ESV:  But he turned and rebuked them.^a  The footnote reads:  “Luke 9:55 Some manuscripts add And he said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of; ⁵⁶for the Son of Man came not to destroy people's lives but to save them.”

          WEB:  But he turned and rebuked them, “You don’t know of what kind of spirit you are.  For the Son of Man didn’t come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.”

          EHV:  But he turned and rebuked them. “You don’t know what kind of spirit is influencing you.  For the Son of Man did not come to destroy people’s souls, but to save them.”^a  Then they went to another village.  The footnote reads “Luke 9:56 Some witnesses to the text omit this quotation.”

          The Message hyper-paraphrase:  “Jesus turned on them: “Of course not!” And they traveled on to another village.”

          Christian Standard Bible:  “and they went to another village.” (Footnote:  Other mss add and said, “You don’t know what kind of spirit you belong to. 56 For the Son of Man did not come to destroy people’s lives but to save them,”)

In conclusion, with the present state of evidence, the best option is to include καὶ εἶπεν οὐκ οἴδατε οίου πνεύματός ἐστε ὑμεις in the text and ὁ γὰρ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ῆλθεν ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων ἀπολέσαι άλλὰ σῶσαι in a footnote.

John 4:1 - "Jesus" or "The Lord"?

Papyrus 75

           At the beginning of the fourth chapter of the Gospel of John readers of modern Bibles encounter a minor deviation from the usual text:  The Byzantine text reads “When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John.”  Agreeing with the Byzantine text are versions such as the KJV, MEV, NKJV, and RSV.   The Tyndale House GNT, echoing Tregelles, also has “ὁ κύριος,” as did Scholz’s 1836 compilation, Nestle’s Greek New Testament in 1899, and Nestle’s 1948 Novum Testamentum Graece.  The 1881 compilation by Westcott and Hort also read ὁ κύριος.   

          In the Evangelical Heritage Version, the English Standard Version, the Christian Standard Bible, the Contemporary English Version, the Holman Christian Standard Bible, the Legacy Standard Bible, the NET, New International Version, the NRSV, and the New Living Translation, “Jesus” fills the place where “the Lord” appears near the beginning of the verse.

Codex 032 (W supplement)

          Have the ESV, NIV, NRSV, and NLT rejected the reading in the majority of manuscripts in order to conform to the earliest manuscripts?  No! Although Papyrus 66* and Codex Sinaiticus, 05, 038, 039, 086 (a Greek-Coptic fragment that contains  John 1:23-26, 3:5-4:18, 4:23-35, and 4:45-49, assigned to the 500s) and f¹ support Ἰησοῦς, Papyrus 66^c, Papyrus 75, and Vaticanus support ὁ κύριος, as do A C L W^supp 044 083 0141 33 700 892 etc.  You read that right:  the reading in the Byzantine text has earlier manuscript support than its rival.

          Versional evidence is quite divided.  The Vulgate, the Peshitta, the Harklean Syriac, the Bohairic, the Fayummic, and most Old Latin copies support Ἰησοῦς.  The Armenian and Georgian versions diverge:  the Armenian version supports Ἰησοῦς but the Georgian version supports ὁ κύριος.  The Sinaitic Syriac supports ὁ κύριος and the Curetonian Syriac supports Ἰησοῦς – and so does the Sahidic version, the margin of the Harklean Syriac, and one Bohairic copy. 

Codex Regius (L, 019)

          Ἰησους is read by Epiphanius and Chrysostom, whereas Cyril supports ὁ κύριος.  Augustine is inconsistent, supporting Ἰησους in three out of four cases but ὁ κύριος once. 

          The NET has a relatively long note arguing for Ἰησοῦς, but the annotator’s argument is somewhat presumptive:  the “immediate context” is simply asserted to outweigh John’s style, and Ἰησοῦς is simply asserted to be “the harder reading.”  There really is no reason to regard either Ἰησοῦς or ὁ κύριος as the harder reading expect the observation that Ἰησοῦς occurs later in the verse – so the adoption of Ἰησοῦς yields a slightly odd-sounding verse:  “Therefore when Jesus knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John.”

          The scribe of Codex 039 (Λ) may have felt that the second occurrence of Ἰησοῦς seemed jarring; he left out the second Ἰησοῦς from the text.  Likewise in modern times only one occurrence of “Jesus” is in John 4:1 in the English versions CSB, CEV, EHV, HCSB, NET, NIV, NLT, although in the Greek base-text of these versions Ἰησοῦς appears twice.  In my opinion this shows the translators’ reluctance to have the word “Jesus” appear twice in close proximity – although that was done in the Rheims version, ESV, LSB, and NRSV.        

          Bruce Terry, in defense of the reading Ἰησοῦς, has offered the theory that “Since “Jesus” occurs twice in the following clauses, copyists were more likely to change “Jesus” to “the Lord” to improve the style than visa versa.”  The UBS committee was divided (favoring Ἰησους with a C grade) but Metzger stated that Ἰησοῦς was preferred on the grounds that “it is unlikely that a scribe would have displaced it [ὁ κύριος] with Ἰησοῦς.”   That is more of an assertion than an argument.  

          A better explanation is that early scribes in the Western transmission-line  anticipated that readers would be confused by the vagueness of “ὁ κύριος” – which could refer to the Father as well as to the Son – and decided to make the text more specific.  This was adopted in part of the Alexandrian transmission-line.  Considering that support for ὁ κύριος comes not only from the vast majority of witnesses but also from multiple transmission-lines and from very early witnesses, and that Ἰησοῦς is supported by early Western witnesses in which exchanges from less specificity to more specificity is typical, the reading Ἰησοῦς should be rejected in favor of the less specific reading.

 

The Longer Reading in Matthew 25:13

           A textual variant in Matthew 25:13 may shed some light on a mechanism that elicited some expansions in the Byzantine Text.  In the EOB-NT, Matthew 25:13 reads, “Watch, therefore, for you do not know the day or the hour that the Son of Man is coming.”  The words “that the Son of Man is coming” are framed by “<” and “>.”  The WEB, based on the Majority Text, says similarly, “Watch therefore, for you don’t know the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming.”  The KJV reads similarly, and the Textus Receptus agrees with the Byzantine Textform at this point.  In the EHV, Matthew 25:13 only says, “Therefore, keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.”  There is no footnote in the EHV to indicate the existence of the longer Byzantine reading. 

          The ESV, CSB, NIV, and NASB all end the verse at the word “hour.”  The NLT, apparently abandoning its base-text, continues with “of my return.”

          What’s going on here?  Did Matthew write the words ἐν ἧ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ερχεται or not?

          Short answer:  Not.

          The Byzantine/Majority Text supports the inclusion of “in which the Son of Man is coming,” but the Peshitta does not.  Codices A, D, L, W, Δ, and Σ end the verse with ὥραν (hour).  So do some minuscules, including 33, the first hand of 157, 892, and the first hand of 1424.   The Alexandrian codices À and B weigh in for the shorter reading, and so do P35 and Codex D, and patristic witnesses such as Chrysostom, Athanasius, and Augustine.  The Vulgate and the Old Latin also solidly support the shorter reading here.

          To perceive what has happened here, it is helpful to know that Matthew 25:1-13 was the lection assigned to the 17th Saturday after Pentecost in the Byzantine lectionary.  (It is also a lection in Lectionary 846, to be read in honor of female virgins and martyrs.)  When this segment is read separately from the rest of the chapter, the final sentence was expanded to tell listeners what day and hour were referred to (perhaps using Mt. 24:42 and 24:44 as a model). 

          This expansion can be seen happening in Byzantine manuscripts.  In Codex Y (034), the verse ends ὥραν in the text, but someone – apparently the same person who supplemented the manuscript for lection-reading – added in the margin, “εν η ὁ υς του ανου ερχεται.”  There’s the longer variant.

          Bruce Metzger’s dismissal of the longer reading is correct, but his explanation for its existence (as a “pedantic addition”) seems to show little appreciation for the influence of the lectionary on the Byzantine Text.  When Metzger wrote his Textual Commentary, he was all-in on Hort’s now-defunct theory of the Lucianic Recension.   A more mature Metzger would probably adjust his wording, acknowledging the longer reading as having been made under the influence of lectionary-usage.

          When was the longer reading introduced?  Probably sometime after Codex A (400s), and before 017 (Cyprius) (800s) and the marginalia in 034 (800s, if the marginalia is of the same date as the main text).  [Update:  Andy Vogan has observed that 07, assigned to the 700s, also has the longer reading.]  Someone influenced by a lectionary, wishing to benignly introduce an expansion at the end of Mt. 25:13 to wrap up a lection, created the longer reading, and it was so edifying that so many scribes adopted it that it eventually became the majority reading.  The removal of such intrusions into the text can be achieved relatively easily by filtering the majority text against the Alexandrian Text, the Western Text, and the text of family Π.

 

Video Lecture 22: The New Testament in the Marketplace

            Lecture 22 in the series Introduction to NT Textual Criticism, "The New Testament in the Marketplace," is online at Bitchute and YouTube.  In this 22-minute lecture, I offer a critique of some methods used to market the NIV and other versions, especially the claim that the KJV's base text is late and minimally attested. I review the basis for the KJV's readings in Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11, Matthew 20:16, Matthew 23:14, Mark 6:11, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Luke 17:36, Luke 23:17, and John 5:3-4, and draw attention to some non-Alexandrian English versions of the New Testament such as the EOB (Eastern Orthodox New Testament).

Here is an extract:

In 1971, the preface to the RSV was very candid in its criticism of the KJV.  It stated, “The King James Version has grave defects.”   It also stated that the Greek base-text of the New Testament in the KJV was “marred by mistakes containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying.”  It stated that the King James Version’s base-text was essentially the text as edited by Beza in the late 1500s, and that Beza’s text closely followed the work of Erasmus, “which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts.”

             This was technically true, but it is not the whole truth.  This incomplete caricature is still used in the promotion of several translations of the New Testament.  The King James Version is very frequently misrepresented, as if it is only supported by a smattering of late medieval manuscripts.  People are told that scholars today “Now possess many more ancient manuscripts of the New Testament” than were known in the 1500s.

            There are some minority readings in the Textus Receptus.  At Acts 9:5-6, the Textus Receptus has a harmonization that, as far as I can tell, is not supported by any Greek manuscripts.  In Ephesians 3:9 and Philippians 4:3, readings in the Textus Receptus look like the effects of  spelling-mistakes in the manuscripts used in the 1500s.  In First John 5:7-8, the Textus Receptus has a reading that originated in a branch of the Old Latin text, and which only appears in a few late manuscripts as far as Greek copies are concerned.  But these readings do not drastically alter the character of the text:  fewer than 700 readings in the Gospels in the Textus Receptus are not supported by a majority of Greek manuscripts.

            Materials written to promote new versions routinely avoid drawing attention to the strong level of agreement between the Textus Receptus and the majority of Greek New Testament manuscripts.  It is not the Byzantine Text, but the Alexandrian Text, that routinely disagrees with over 90% of the Greek manuscripts.

            But you would never realize this if you relied upon the marketing of modern Bible versions such as the New International Version.  Marketers of modern versions routinely describe the Nestle-Aland base-text as if it is based on very many ancient manuscripts.

            Instead of focusing on the agreements of the Textus Receptus with the majority of manuscripts in the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, attention is given to the most recent layers of corruption in the Textus Receptus:  as Eberhard Nestle pointed out in 1898:  do we really want to offer readers a text of Revelation that was based on a single manuscript?  Do we really need to go on distributing a text in which the last six verses of Revelation were based on Latin?  Is the Textus Receptus really the best compilation that can be produced?

            Clearly the answer is no.   I have no doubt that Erasmus and Stephanus would agree.  But I am not convinced that they would agree that the need to refine their work justifies throwing out the Byzantine Text and replacing it with the Alexandrian Text, which is what is done by the NIV.  Misrepresentation of the quality and age of the Byzantine Text is a tactic that has been used in many attempts to get people to embrace the Alexandrian Text.  This was done in the 1800s, and it is still attempted today.

            For example, Biblica, formerly known as the International Bible Society, has produced a video called “Is the NIV Bible Missing Verses,” which asks the question, “How did the KJV and other earlier Bibles end up having more words than ours do today?”.  Biblica’s presentation conveys that differences between English versions exist because the Biblical researchers in the 1500s only had a few manuscripts, which were not very early – but researchers today use many more manuscripts that are much more ancient.     

            Specifically, Biblica tells viewers that the main manuscripts used by the producers of the Textus Receptus were just a few hundred years old, only going back to the twelfth century.  In comparison, today’s scholars have “almost 6,000” manuscripts.  In addition, the manuscripts Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus provide a “much earlier” text.

            But viewers are not told that the text in the vast majority of those thousands of manuscripts is Byzantine, which means that in most textual contests where the Alexandrian and Byzantine forms disagree, they support the Byzantine reading, and disagree with the Alexandrian form.  In other words, they tend to oppose the base-text upon which the New International Version is based. 

            In addition, viewers are not told how soon the Byzantine readings are supported.  Instead, they are given the impression that their choice is between readings from the 300s, and readings from the 1100s, so, of course they will tend to prefer what they are led to believe is the reading with much earlier support.

             Let’s take a close look at some readings in the Gospels that are included in the King James Version, but are not included in the New International Version – not to delve into the intricacies of each textual contest, but to test how honest, or how dishonest, it is to tell people that when we look at these readings, we are looking at a text from the 300s as the basis for the NIV, versus a text from the 1100s as the basis for the KJV. 

(1) Matthew 17:21 is not in the text of the NIV.  It is supported by over 99% of the Greek manuscripts of Matthew, including Codex D and Codex W.  It is also supported by most of the Old Latin copies of Matthew including Codex Vercellensis.  It is supported by the Vulgate, and was cited by Origen, who died in the mid-200s – before Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.  Other patristic writers who used this verse include Hilary, Basil, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Augustine, representing five different locales.

(2)  Matthew 18:11 is not in the text of the NIV.  It is supported by the vast majority of manuscripts, including Codex D.  It is also supported by the Vulgate, and by the Peshitta.  It was in the text used by Chrysostom.

(3)  The second part of Matthew 20:16, “For many are called, but few are chosen,” is not in the text of the NIV.  It is supported by most Greek manuscripts of Matthew, including Codex D, and by the Vulgate, and the Peshitta, and it was used by Chrysostom.  An additional consideration is that the final letters of the final word in this phrase are the same as the final letters in the word that comes before this phrase, which could make the whole phrase vulnerable to accidental loss via periblepsis.

(4)  Matthew 23:14 is not in the text of the NIV.  It is supported by the majority of Greek manuscripts of Matthew, including Codex W.  It was quoted by Chrysostom, and is included in the Peshitta.  Another point to consider is the potential of this reading to be accidentally lost via periblepsis, because it begins with the same opening word as the verse before it, and the verse after it. 

(5)  The last part of Mark 6:11 is not in the text of the NIV or the ESV.  It is supported by the vast majority of Greek manuscripts of Mark, including Codex Alexandrinus.  It is also supported by the Gothic version and the Peshitta.

 . . . 

(11)  Luke 23:17 is not in the text of the NIV.  It is included in most Greek manuscripts of Luke, including Codex Sinaiticus and Codex W.  It is supported by the Old Latin text, the Vulgate, and the Peshitta. 

(12)  John 5:3-4 is not in the text of the NIV or the ESV.  It is included in most Greek manuscripts of John, including Codex Alexandrinus.  Tertullian, writing in about the year 200, seems to have used a text of John that has this reference to an angel at the pool of Bethesda.  It inclusion is also supported by the Peshitta, and by Chrysostom in his Homily 36 on John.

             More than nine times out of ten in the Gospels, where a verse or phrase is included in the King James Version but is not in the NIV, its inclusion is supported by the majority of Greek manuscripts, and support for the KJV’s reading can be seen in evidence from the 300s, the same century when Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus were made.

            It is simply not true that the verses and phrases that are supported by the Byzantine Text typically only appear in late medieval manuscripts.  Claims that promote the idea that the KJV’s readings typically originate in the 1100s or later should be regarded as propaganda.

            In addition, it should be pointed out that when marketers of the NIV refer to the high number of Greek New Testament manuscripts as an “embarrassment of riches,” they are strangely celebrating the abundance of evidence against the text that they promote, since the vast majority of Greek manuscripts support the readings that are not in the text of English versions such as the NIV, the ESV, the NLT and the NET.     

            The base-text of the NIV is often described as an “eclectic” text.  By definition, an “eclectic” compilation takes all transmission-branches into consideration.  But in terms of its content, at points where the Alexandrian Text and the Byzantine Text disagree, the Nestle-Aland compilation adopts the Byzantine reading less than 1% of the time.

            The Nestle-Aland text represents the local text of Egypt, especially as represented by Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, from the fourth century.  Support for many Byzantine readings is just as old, or only slightly later.  For some Byzantine readings, it is earlier. 

           What about papyrus manuscripts?  Papyrus manuscripts from the 200s confirm the earlier use of the Alexandrian Text in Egypt.  We do not have papyrus evidence from other locations.  But, unless one wants to propose that Christians in the 300s spontaneously threw out the copies of Scripture that their predecessors had endured persecution to protect and preserve, the alternative is to reckon that there were papyrus manuscripts in Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, and Syria in the 200s, and that they were the ancestors of manuscripts used in the 300s and 400s which contained many Byzantine readings.    

            The humidity-level in Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, and Syria is not conducive to the preservation of papyrus – but it is not equitable or reasonable to ignore the text from this area because of the weather.  The early stratum of the Byzantine Text deserves attention, especially the readings preserved in writings by individuals such as John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and others.

            This does not mean that future investigation of the text that was used in the northeastern Roman Empire in the 300s and 400s will vindicate every reading found in the majority of Greek manuscripts.  It won’t.  But the earliest discernible stratum of the Byzantine Text deserves much more attention than it has received in the so-called “eclectic” compilation upon which the NIV is based.

            There are alternatives to English translations that are based on the 99% Alexandrian Nestle-Aland compilation.  Some Bible-readers, particularly in the United States, have reacted to the challenge posed by new versions by answering all text-critical questions with one response:  “The King James Version is always right.”  That response is not scientifically sustainable, and in many cases it is fueled by a tendency to stick to the New Testament translation one is used to, whether it really is based on the original Greek text or not.    

            Other Bible-readers, acknowledging non-original elements in the Textus Receptus but regarding them as fairly benign, have decided to stick with the King James Version, on the grounds that although its base-text is far from perfect, it has been shown to be sufficiently accurate as an English representation of the meaning of the original text.  

             For Bible-readers who desire their English translation to conform to the original text as closely as possible, rather than be inordinately limited to the local text of Egypt, the challenge posed by the rise of versions based on a pseudo-eclectic base-text should be met by the application of a more equitable eclectic method of textual criticism – an approach that is not biased against the idea that the original text may be found in the Byzantine Text.  With that in mind, I refer you to the following four English translations.

            The base-text of the New Testament in the Evangelical Heritage Version, released in 2017, is far from consistently Byzantine, but its editors have taken the Byzantine Text seriously.  Of the 12 readings reviewed in this lecture, the EHV includes seven of them in the text.  The text of the EHV also includes Mark 16:9-20, Luke 22:43-44, all of Luke 23:34, and John 7:53-8:11.  More information about the Evangelical Heritage Version can be found at  wartburgproject.org – that’s W-a-r-t-b-u-r-g-project.org, all one word.    

            The Eastern Orthodox New Testament reflects an awareness of the critical text in its footnotes, but consistently favors the Byzantine Text.  It can be purchased from New Rome Press, and it can be read online, for instance at the website yorkorthodox.org/bible .  The text of the EOB includes all of the readings reviewed in this lecture, and also includes Mark 16:9-20, Luke 22:43-44, all of Luke 23:34, and John 7:53-8:11.

            The World English Bible is a copyright-free translation of the Old Testament and New Testament.  Its New Testament was intended to be based on the Majority Text.  It is available as a free PDF download at https://worldenglish.bible/ and is also available in print.

            In addition, if you read the New King James Version and pay special attention to its textual footnotes, especially where readings in the Majority Text are mentioned, it will be similar to reading a version based on the Byzantine Text.

             Thank you.  

The Evangelical Heritage Version New Testament - A Review

            In 2017, the Evangelical Heritage Translation of the New Testament and Psalms was published.  Let’s take a look at this new translation (focusing on the New Testament portion)!   

            The EHV is mercifully free of arbitrary paraphrase.  An Introduction explains that the EHV is intended to be “an all-purpose Bible for the church,” and this has elicited a balanced approach.  Terms such as “justify,” “flesh,” “mammon,” and “saints” have not been shunned.  Conveyance of the meaning of the original text was, according to the EHV’s Introduction, a higher priority than elegant English style.  The issue of gender-inclusivity was specifically addressed:  “In the use of so-called “gender-accurate language,” the translator will strive to be inclusive where the original is inclusive and exclusive where the original is exclusive.”  Other principles of translation that were engaged in the production of the EHV can be found at the Wartburg Project website.

            The New Testament base-text of the EHV is somewhat unique; the editors attempted to avoid a bias toward any single textual tradition, whether Alexandrian or Byzantine.  Their approach is described at the website:

            “In general, as we examine significant variants, the reading in a set of variants that has the earliest and widest support in the witnesses is the one included in the text. The other readings in a set of variants are dealt with in one of three ways:

            ● A reading that has very little early or widespread support in the witnesses is not footnoted in order to avoid an overabundance of textual notes.

            ● A reading with significant early and/or widespread support but not as much early or widespread evidence as the other reading is reflected in a footnote that says, “Some witnesses to the text read/add/omit: . . . .”

            ● A familiar or notable reading from the King James tradition (e.g. the addition or omission of a whole verse) whose support is not nearly as early or widespread as the other reading can be reflected in a footnote that says, “A few witnesses to the text read/add/omit: . . . .”

            In short, readings and verses that are omitted from UBS/Nestle-based versions of the New Testament, which have textual support that is ancient and widespread are included in our translation.”

            That is a generalization, and readers of the EHV should not expect to see it applied evenly.  For instance, in Acts 9:5, the KJV’s phrase, “It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks,” for which the manuscript-support is lightweight, is neither in the EHV’s text nor in a footnote.  Similarly, there is (thankfully) no footnote drawing Matthew 12:47 into question, although the ESV omitted it from the text on the basis of relatively few manuscripts. 

            A few sample-readings from each Gospel may give readers a sense of the EHV’s eclectic nature:

► Matthew 1:25 – “until she gave birth to her firstborn son” (A footnotes states, “Some witnesses to the text omit firstborn and simply read she gave birth to a son.”)

►Matthew 6:13 – “but deliver us from evil.”  (“For yours is the kingdom,” etc. is in a footnote, not in the text, attributed to “Some witnesses.”)

► Matthew 17:21 – included in the text.  A footnote says that “A few witnesses” omit the verse.

► Mark 1:2 – “This is how it is written in the prophet Isaiah” (The reading “in the prophets” is attributed to “Some witnesses” in a footnote.)

►  Mark 1:14 – “the gospel of the kingdom of God” (A footnote attributes the non-inclusion of “of the kingdom” to “A few witnesses.”)

► Mark 1:41 – “Moved with compassion” is in the text; there is no footnote.

► Mark 3:5 – “as whole as the other” is not in the text; there is no footnote.

► Mark 6:22 – “When the daughter of Herodias came in” is in the text; there is no footnote.

► Mark 9:29 – “except by prayer and fasting” is in the text; a footnote states that a few witnesses omit “and fasting.”

► Mark 10:24 – “for those who trust in their riches” is in the text; there is no footnote.

► Mark 11:26 is in the text; a footnote states that a few witnesses do not include the verse.

► Mark 15:28 is not in the text; it is in a footnote, attributed to “Some witnesses.”

► Luke 2:14 – “and on earth peace, good will toward mankind” is in the text; a footnote states that a few witnesses read “among people of his good will.”

► Luke 9:55-56 include the portion that is not included in the ESV’s text; a footnote states that some witnesses omit this quotation.

► Luke 22:43-44 is included in the text; a footnote states that a few witnesses omit these verses.

► Luke 23:34 is all in the text; there is no footnote.

► Luke 24:12 is in the text; there is no footnote.

► Luke 24:51 is all in the text; there is no footnote.  (Yet there is a footnote for the phrase about the honeycomb in 24:42.)

► John 1:18 – “The only-begotten Son” is in the text; a footnote states that some witnesses read The only-begotten God.

► John 3:13 – “who is in heaven” is in the text; a footnotes states that a few witnesses omit these words.

► John 5:3-4 is all in the text; a footnote states that some witnesses omit the passage.

► John 7:8 – “I am not going up to this festival yet” is in the text; a footnote states that some witnesses omit “yet.”  (This ought to be changed, inasmuch as the support for “yet” is both more ancient and more widespread than the evidence for the alternative reading.)

► John 9:35 – “Son of God” is in the text; a footnote states that some witnesses read “Son of Man.”

            In the epistles, quite a few readings found in the majority of manuscripts go unmentioned:  “of Christ” does not appear in Romans 1:16 (no footnote); “adultery” does not appear in Galatians 5:19 (no footnote); Galatians 5:24 reads “to Christ Jesus” (no footnote); “through Jesus Christ” does not appear in Ephesians 3:9 (no footnote); Ephesians 5:9 reads “of the light” (no footnote), James 4:12 includes “and judge” (no footnote); First Peter 1:23 does not have “forever” (no footnote), etc.  Yet there are also plenty of Alexandrian readings which have been quietly rejected; Matthew 16:2-3, for example, is all included in the text with no footnote, and Philippians 4:13 says, “through Christ, who strengthens me” with no footnote. 

            Occasionally a reading that is found in the majority of manuscripts is described in a footnote as if it supported by “A few manuscripts.” Hopefully this will be corrected in the future, so as to differentiate between minority readings found in the Textus Receptus and the readings of the Byzantine Text.  (Perhaps the footnotes could be improved by simply referring to the Byzantine Text and Alexandrian Text, so as to avoid describing two different groups of manuscripts in the same terms.)

           

            No doubt readers want to know how the EHV treats Mark 16:9-20.  I am pleased to report that the EHV fully includes these 12 verses in the text with no brackets.  The EHV’s footnote should be read with attention:  “This translation includes verses 9-20 because they are included in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts that have been handed down to us.  Evidence for the existence of this long ending extends back to the 2^nd century.  In the early centuries of the church, these verses were read in worship services on Easter and Ascension Day.   However, a few early manuscripts and early translations omit verses 9-20, and a few manuscripts have a different ending.”  One might wish that this note were improved (we have only two early Greek manuscripts that stop Mark’s text at 16:8, for one thing) but it is far better than the misleading treatment found in some other versions. 

            John7:53-8:11 is also fully included in the text.  A note for John 7:53 states, “Some witnesses to the text omit 7:53-8:11 or include these verses in other places within John’s Gospel, The witnesses that include these verses are early and widespread throughout most of the early church.”  This is a welcome clarification – one might even say correction – of the unhelpful vagueness that characterizes the treatment of this passage in some other versions.  (Instead of “in other places” the note could say “before or after the Pentecost-lection, or at the end of the book with a note stating that it was previously found after 7:52,” but this might be too much to hope for.)

            In First John 5:7, the EHV does not have the Comma Johanneum in the text.  A footnote states, “Only a very few late witnesses to the text read testify in heaven:  the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. ⁸And there are three that testify on earth”.”  This could be improved by referring to “Very few late Greek manuscripts,” inasmuch the Latin evidence for this interpolation is plentiful.

                       

            Now about the formatting of the EHV’s text:  it is arranged in paragraph-form, and simple headings, set off from the main text via the use of a different font, regularly separate blocks of text, filling the same role as the ancient kephalaia (chapter-titles) fill in our Greek manuscripts.  In the Gospels, the headings are supplemented in smaller print by mention of parallel-passages.  Extensive poetic passages and extensive quotations are indented.  Luke 1:46-55 (the Magnificat) is all indented; Luke 1:68-79 (Zechariah’s Song) is all indented; Luke 2:29-32 (the Nunc Dimittis) is all indented.  Likewise First Corinthians 3b-5 and the last six lines of First Timothy 3:16 (beginning with “He was revealed in the flesh”) are indented.  Philippians 2:5ff., however, has no special indentation.

            Old Testament quotations, whether extensive or not, are identified in footnotes.  Footnotes also serve to occasionally supply or define terms for which there is no exact modern equivalent, such as monetary units and measurements of weight and volume. 

            The formatting is, in a word, excellent.  Some sections are much longer than others, but this is perhaps an unavoidable effect of following the natural structure of the text. 

            As a translation – setting aside questions about the base-text – the EHV New Testament is a model of skillful, accurate work.  The translators have generally taken a conservative approach, avoiding needless imprecision while recognizing the need to treat idioms with reasonable freedom.  Its treatment of passages which, in some recent translations, have been adulterated in the service of egalitarian theology or feminism, is above reproach.  The EHV is remarkably clear and candid in First Corinthians 14:34-35, First Timothy 2:12, First Timothy 3:1-7, and Titus 1:5-9.  Likewise the EHV’s renderings of passages about homosexual acts are unlikely to be welcomed by those who want to advance an ungodly agenda. 

            Only occasionally does the EHV resort to unconventional renderings:  “Gentlemen,” for instance, appears repeatedly at the beginnings of speeches in the book of Acts; yet this is not necessarily a bad thing; this modern English term is, I think, a perfect proxy for the Greek word which several modern translations fail to translate altogether.  Another fresh and admirable rendering is found in the EHV in Christ’s words in John 21:5 – “Boys, don’t you have any fish?”.  More debatable:  the decision to present what are, in other versions, some references to the Spirit, as references to the spirit (meaning, according to a footnote attached to Galatians 5:16, “the new nature in contrast with the sinful flesh”), and the decision to translate what has traditionally been rendered as “born again” as, instead, “born from above.”

            Much more information about the Evangelical Heritage Version can be found at the Wartburg Project website, which features, among other things, an expanded Introduction, 49 Frequently Asked Questions and their answers, and a comparison of the Christmas story in the EHV and some other translations.  It should not be overlooked that while the EHV is not the official version of any denomination, it is, by design, a translation made by individuals professing to be spiritually invested in the church.  Members of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod have overseen its production.  Brian R. Keller served as the New Testament Editor.   

            While I would prefer a version based on a Greek text with more Byzantine readings, the EHV New Testament’s base-text avoids the extreme dependence upon poorly attested Alexandrian readings which characterizes the base-text of the ESV, NIV, NLT, etc.; as I have stated in the past, given the choice, I would rather sail in a ship with harmless barnacles on its hull than in a ship with holes in its hull.  All in all, the EHV New Testament is a superb translation which deserves to be warmly welcomed by evangelical Christians.  It merits the consideration, especially, of ministers and congregations who favored the (discontinued) New International Version of 1984, but who recognize that the 2011 edition of the New International Version, post-TNIV, is significantly flawed.  It is available to purchase online at the Wartburg Project, at Amazon (where the entire Gospel of Matthew can be previewed), and (with bulk discounts) at the website of its publisher, Northwestern Publishing House.

            The EHV Bible is scheduled to be available in summer of 2019.