External Evidence
Wallace
began his consideration of what external evidence implies about the Byzantine
Text with a simple misrepresentation. He
stated that the primary premise in the Byzantine Priority view is, “Any reading
overwhelmingly attested by the manuscript tradition is more likely to be
original than its rivals,” he added, “In other words when the majority of
manuscripts agree, that is the original.”
But somewhere in those other words, the word “overwhelmingly” was
murdered – sacrificed for the sake of caricature-drawing. A majority might be 50.1%. The overwhelming support for Byzantine
readings that Wallace routinely vetoes in favor of Alexandrian readings include
majorities of 85%, 98% and 99% and higher proportions of the manuscript-evidence.
Wallace
says, “In historical investigation, presumption is only presumption.” But when facing textual variants in which 99%
of the Greek manuscripts disagree with the Alexandrian reading, we do not face
mere presumptions; we face implications:
either a corruption permeated 99% of all Greek manuscripts, or else a
corruption was adopted in 1% of them. In
general, which is more likely: that many
copyists in many places created or adopted a non-original reading, or that few
copyists in few places did so? The
original text is the text with the head start, so to speak, and if one is to
posit that a non-original reading overtook it so as to become more popular, one
must explain how that happened – and this is not easy to do without making some
assumptions, or presumptions. So let the
axiom, “Presumption is only presumption,” be aimed at all presumptions, not just those that maintain Byzantine Priority.
Moving
along. Wallace claimed that if the
Byzantine Text were the original text, then one would expect to find it “in the
earliest Greek manuscripts, in the earliest versions, and in the earliest
church fathers,” and “One would expect it to be in a majority of manuscripts,
versions, and fathers.”
“But,” he
continues, “that is not what is found.” However,
by definition, the majority text is
what is found in the majority of manuscripts (at least in passages where a
majority exists, rather than a split-decision among three or more rival
variants). Wallace attempts to
circumvent this obvious fact by redefining the majority as the majority of long-lived manuscripts. “As far as the extant witnesses reveal,” he
claims, “the majority text did not exist in the first four centuries.”
Considering that it comes from someone
attempting to avoid presumptions, that is an extremely presumptive claim. Other than the papyri from Egypt,
there is not much New Testament manuscript-evidence to indicate what texts were
being used throughout the Roman Empire before the year
400. The available manuscript-evidence
is not remotely close to being extensive enough to justify statements about
what the majority of manuscripts read in the second or third centuries, at
points where the testimony of the extant evidence is diverse. To presume that the manuscript-evidence from Egypt
depicts the text that was used in other locales is a huge presumption. By the
year 235 or so, Origen stated that the manuscripts were in disagreement with
each other.13 That is difficult to reconcile with the idea
that a uniform Alexandrian Text, or any
text-type, was an established standard text at that time in a multitude of
non-Egyptian locales.
When
Wallace appeals to the papyri as vindication for his idea that the Byzantine
Text did not exist in the first three centuries of Christendom, he states, “More
than fifty of these came from before the middle of the fourth century. Yet not
one belongs to the majority text.” That
is not quite true. Papyrus 104, which
currently contends with Papyrus 52 for the claim of
earliest-known-New-Testament-manuscript, is a fragment of text from Matthew 21
that agrees with the Byzantine Text as much as it agrees with the text of Codex
Vaticanus.14 In addition, large portions of Codex W (from
the late 300’s or early 400’s) display the Byzantine Text.15
Papyrus 98, a fragment from the late 100’s or
early 200’s which contains text from Revelation 1:13-2:1, disagrees twice with
the Byzantine Text (though in one of these two instances, the Byzantine Text is
divided), and disagrees once with the Nestle-Aland text – so it is rather
presumptive to say that the fragment favors one text-type significantly more
than the other, especially since P98 disagrees with Codex Sinaiticus
five times. Papyrus 16, a fragment from the 300’s with
text from Philippians, diverges from the Byzantine Text eleven times, but it
also disagrees with Codex Vaticanus nine times.
The much-mutilated Papyrus 45, which is currently the earliest known manuscript
of the Gospel of Mark, from the early 200’s, agrees much more closely with the
text of Mark in Codex W than with the text of Mark in Codex Vaticanus, and in
Mark 7, P45 agrees repeatedly with the Byzantine Text. Papyrus 46 also frequently disagrees with the
Nestle-Aland text.16
Wallace
can’t have it both ways: if the mere existence of a non-Byzantine local text displayed in the early papyri constitutes strong evidence that the
Byzantine Text did not exist, then the existence of a non-Alexandrian text in the early papyri
(such as what is seen in P45) constitutes strong evidence that the Alexandrian Text
didn’t exist. Obviously this sort of reasoning is an overextrapolation, since witnesses such as P75
show that the parts of the Alexandrian Text that they contain did
exist in the 200’s. The non-existence of
Byzantine papyri in Egypt
does not imply the non-existence of Byzantine papyri in other locales, just as
non-Alexandrian readings in some Egyptian papyri do not imply the non-existence
of Alexandrian readings in other Egyptian papyri.
Wallace stated,
“Many hypotheses can be put forth as to why there are no early Byzantine
manuscripts. But once again an ounce of
evidence is worth a pound of presumption.”
As if there is some mystery about it!
Until the 300’s, New Testament manuscripts were made of papyrus, which
decomposes in virtually every climate except for the low-humidity climate of Egypt. This is not a presumption; it is a scientific
fact. High humidity was even more
systematic and thorough than the Roman persecutors who destroyed Christian
manuscripts during the Diocletian persecution.
This is a
perfectly reasonable explanation why we have New Testament manuscripts – and
fragments of the works of Homer, and Greek poetry, and tax-receipts, etc. –
from Egypt, and not from very many other locales, from the 200’s and
300’s. It’s not as if Christians in
other locales were not reading the Gospels, or reading the Iliad, or writing receipts and letters. The unique climate of Egypt
is the factor that has resulted in the preservation of papyrus documents
there. And they provide a fairly good sample
of the texts that were used in Egypt
(especially at Oxyrhynchus). But they
cannot do the impossible; they do not tell us what sort of New Testament text
was in use elsewhere.
Wallace
moves on to consider the early versions.
He correctly points out that the Old Latin evidence is consistently Western
(where its witnesses are not barnacled by Vulgate readings, at least). However, some Old Latin witnesses habitually
collide with other Old Latin witnesses; there was not one monolithic Old Latin
tradition; there were, instead, numerous independent Latin versions, as Jerome
indicated in his preface to the Vulgate Gospels. The extant Old Latin manuscripts are samples
from that collection. And while the Old
Latin texts are not Byzantine, they agree with the Byzantine Text much more
than they agree with the Alexandrian Text.
This is no more proof of the non-existence of the Byzantine Text than it
is proof of the non-existence of the Alexandrian Text.
The Coptic
version, Wallace states, “goes back to an early date, probably the second
century.” There was not just one Coptic
version. What we have are New Testaments
(or at least portions of the New Testament) in several Egyptian dialects,
displaying several different forms of the text from different areas and
different eras: Sahidic, Bohairic, Achmimic,
Sub-Achmimic, Middle Egyptian, and Fayyumic.
Part of the Sahidic version is strongly Alexandrian, but the collective
testimony of the Coptic versions is very far from a uniform endorsement of the
Alexandrian Text; the Coptic Glazier Codex (CopG67), for example,
displays a thoroughly Western text of
Acts. In addition, one should consider
that the second-century origin of the Sahidic version is a calculated
guess. Due to the uniformity of Coptic
lettering across centuries, the production-dates of Coptic manuscripts are
notoriously difficult to specify on a paleographical basis.
Wallace
next turns his attention to the Gothic version, which he, in agreement with
Metzger, affirms to be the earliest representative of the Byzantine Text. However, he blurs its production-date,
stating that it was produced “at the end of the fourth century,” i.e., the late
300’s. The Gothic version was produced
by Wulfilas, who was appointed to be a bishop in 341; he undertook his
translation-work shortly after that, in the mid-300’s, that is, at about the
same time Codex Sinaiticus was produced.
What does
the existence of these early versions imply about the Byzantine Text? Wallace proposes two implications. First, he proposes that “If the majority text
view is right, then each one of these versions was based on polluted Greek
manuscripts.” As far as the Old Latin
versions are concerned, that sword cuts both ways: advocates of the Alexandrian Text consider
the Old Latin versions’ texts to be thoroughly corrupt. Wallace has no right to treat this as a
problem, since he believes it too.
Second, he
proposes that the early versions represent the texts used in a wide variety of
locales: “the Coptic, Ethiopic, Latin,
and Syriac versions came from all over the Mediterranean region. In none of
these locales was the Byzantine text apparently used.” (Did you see how he just threw the Ethiopic
version in there, as if it existed before the 300’s?) I challenge Wallace to name a single
Byzantine reading anywhere in the Gospels that does not have some support from
one or more of these versions. The
Syriac Peshitta version, in particular, exhibits strong alignment with the
Byzantine Text. And neither the Sinaitic
Syriac nor the Curetonian Syriac displays an Alexandrian Text; put either one
alongside the text of Vaticanus or Sinaiticus and you will observe a plethora
of disagreements. So when Wallace’s
sentence is filtered by reality, and only versions from before the 300’s are in
view, this is what survives: “The Sahidic, Latin, and Syriac versions
came from all over the Mediterranean region.
Only in the Sahidic version was the Alexandrian Text apparently
used.”
The early Sahidic
version did not come from all over the Mediterranean region. It was a local text.
Rather than
constituting “strong evidence that the Byzantine text simply did not exist in
the first three centuries—anywhere,” the Old Latin evidence that Wallace has
called to the stand testifies that diverse forms of the Western Text were used
as the basis for Latin translations.
They are no more anti-Byzantine than they are anti-Alexandrian. And, I note in passing, that in many cases,
the Old Latin aligns with the Byzantine Text and not with the Alexandrian Text. (This alignment provides pro-Alexandrian
critics with an excuse to see only a few early Byzantine readings: when a Byzantine reading agrees with a
Western witness, the reading is categorized as Western.)
Again: the only early version with a strongly Alexandrian
Text is the Sahidic made-in-Egypt version.
Thus, what Wallace has in the early versions – even when the Gothic
version and the Peshitta are set aside – is not evidence that the Byzantine Text did not exist anywhere. The evidence does not come remotely close to
warranting such a sweeping conclusion.
It implies, rather, that by the time the Old Latin versions were made,
the Western Text had already developed, and that by the time the earliest
strata of the Sahidic version was made, the Alexandrian Text had developed in Egypt. It does not, and cannot, inform us about the
text that was being used in other locales.
What about
the early patristic writers? Wallace affirms
that “Many of them lived much earlier than the date of any Greek manuscripts
now extant for a particular book.” His
readers could easily get the impression that many patristic authors before the year 300 wrote so extensively
that researchers can confidently observe what text-type they used in their
utilizations of the New Testament.
However, in 1881, Hort wrote,
“The
only extant patristic writings which to any considerable extent support
Pre-Syrian readings at variance with Western
readings are connected with Alexandria, that is, the remains of Clement and Origen, as
mentioned above (§ 159), together with the fragments of Dionysius and Peter of Alexandria
from the second half of the third century, and in a certain measure the works of
Eusebius of Caesarea, who was deeply versed in the theological literature of Alexandria.”17
In other
words, if one searches through all the known patristic literature produced
before 300, the only places one finds substantial agreement with non-Byzantine,
non-Western forms of the New Testament are in the writings of a few individuals
who were linked to Egypt either geographically (Clement of Alexandria
lived in Alexandria, of course, and
Origen worked there prior to moving to Caesarea around
230) or in terms of training (Eusebius of Caesarea was a fan and defender of
Origen).
Even in
some of the writings of individuals who were either in, or from, Egypt
– where one would naturally expect the local Alexandrian Text to exert the most
influence – there is as much evidence for the Byzantine Text as for the
Alexandrian Text. In Carl Cosaert’s
analysis of the Gospels-text used by Clement of Alexandria, Cosaert listed 125
utilizations of the text of the Gospel of Luke in which Clement’s text agrees
with either one or two members of a group consisting of Codex Vaticanus, Codex
Bezae, and the Textus Receptus. Clement’s
text, according to Cosaert, agrees with D 62 times (49.6%), with B 65 times
(52%), and with the Byzantine Text 68 times (54.4%).18 This is not evidence that Clement used a
manuscript of Luke that closely resembled the Byzantine Text – but it is evidence
(contrary to what Wallace is trying to show) that Clement’s support for the
idea that the Byzantine Text of Luke was non-existent when he wrote is not any
greater than Clement’s support for the idea that the Alexandrian Text of Luke
was non-existent when he wrote.
None of the
patristic research conducted in the last 80 years has shown that any writers
outside Egypt and
Caesarea prior to the year 300 used the Alexandrian
Text. There simply are not “many”
patristic writers before 300 who wrote enough, and cited the New Testament
enough, to clearly show that they favored the Alexandrian Text.
Wallace’s
claim that “The early fathers had a text that keeps looking more like modern
critical editions” does not accurately describe a single early patristic writer
outside the borders of Egypt
and Caesarea. It
does not even accurately describe the text used by Clement of Alexandria. In some cases, the texts used by early
patristic writers look more Byzantine than Alexandrian. For example, the Alexandrian Text does not
contain Mark 16:9-20, but utilizations of Mark 16:9-20 are found in the
writings of Justin Martyr (160), Tatian (172), Irenaeus (180’s), Hippolytus
(220’s), and the pagan author Hierocles (305), who was very likely recycling
material composed by Porphyry in the 270’s.
Matthew 17:21 is another
example of a non-Alexandrian reading supported by a patristic author who is
supposed to have an Alexandrian text: this
verse was cited by Origen, but the entire verse is absent in the Alexandrian Text.19
Wallace presents
the Greek manuscripts, the early versions, and early patristic quotations as “a
threefold cord” of testimony. But in
reality those three things do not come together: the early Egyptian papyri display the texts
used in Egypt. The texts in the Old Latin versions and the
Sinaitic Syriac and Curetonian Syriac are not Byzantine, but they are certainly
not Alexandrian either. Early patristic
evidence from outside Egypt-and-Caesarea does not support the Alexandrian Text,
and even some writers in Egypt
and Caesarea support readings that are in the Byzantine
Text, against the Alexandrian
Text.
Everything
we see in these three forms of evidence – manuscripts, versions, and patristic
utilizations of the New Testament – indicates that the New Testament text was
disseminated in localized forms. And a
local text, while capable of showing us what text was used in a specific
locale, does not show us what text was being used in another locale hundreds of
miles away. We don’t look at an early
Old Latin manuscript such as Codex Vercellensis and conclude that it reveals
the local text of Alexandria. Nor do we look at the Sinaitic Syriac and
conclude that it reveals the local text of southern Italy. But Wallace apparently wants us to look at a
local Greek text of Egypt,
and very different local Latin texts from who-knows-where – possibly also from Egypt,
in some cases20 – and conclude that they reveal the local
texts of Antioch, Asia,
Cyprus, Edessa,
Nicomedia, and the cities of Greece.
What text
of the New Testament was being used by Christians in that vast territory before
the year 300? We do not know: manuscripts, versions, and substantial patristic
writings from that area, in the ante-Nicene era, are not extant. But in the 400’s, the Byzantine Text was the
Greek text that was in use in the Greek-speaking churches in these areas, and
the Peshitta was the Syriac text that was in use in the Syriac-speaking
churches. In addition, we observe that
● the
Gospels-text in Codex Alexandrinus (from around 400) is mainly Byzantine,
● portions
of the Gospels in Codex W (from the late 300’s or 400’s) are Byzantine,
● Basil of
Caesarea (330-379) used a text of Matthew that was primarily Byzantine,21
● The texts
of John and the Pauline Epistles used by Gregory of Nyssa (335-395) agree more
with the Byzantine Text than with any other text-type.22
Before
moving on to address Wallace’s comments about internal evidence, there is one
more of his claims about external evidence that invites a response: he stated that some patristic statements show
that what is the majority-reading now was not the majority-reading when those
statements were made. Wallace provided
only two specific examples of this: (1)
Jerome’s statement (in Ad Hedibiam)
that Mark 16:9-20 “is met with in only a few copies of the Gospel – almost all
the codices of Greece being without this passage,” and (2) Jerome’s statement that at Matthew 5:22 “most of the ancient
copies” do not contain εικη. Regarding
the first example, I believe that anyone who takes the time to compare Jerome’s
comments in Ad Hedibiam to Eusebius’
comments in Ad Marinum will conclude
that the part of Jerome’s composition in which this statement is found is
essentially a loose recycling of Eusebius’ material; in the course of answering
Hedibia’s broad question about how to reconcile the Gospels’ accounts of events
after Christ’s resurrection, Jerome utilized three of Marinus’ specific
questions on the subject, as well as three of Eusebius’ answers, in the same
order in which they appear in Ad Marinum.
This should
provide some instruction about the high degree of caution that should accompany
patristic references to quantities of manuscripts. In some cases, such as we see in Ad Hedibiam, the claim may have been borrowed
second-hand from a source who was describing manuscripts in a different time
and place. In other cases, it may indeed
reflect what the author has encountered, but it would be quite a leap to
conclude that what the author encountered is what one would encounter when
surveying all manuscripts everywhere that were contemporary to him. In other words, there is no justification for
the assumption that a reading found in the majority of manuscripts known to a specific author would also be
found in the majority of manuscript that were not known to that author. When we approach a statement about
manuscripts that an author knows about, that is what we should understand it to
be – not a statement about manuscripts about which the author knows
nothing. There is no necessary correlation
between the contents of majorities of manuscripts known to Origen, or to
Eusebius, or to Jerome, and the contents of actual majorities of manuscripts at
the time of Origen, or Eusebius, or Jerome.
This point seems to have completely eluded Wallace.
- Continued in Part Three -
_______________
FOOTNOTES
13 – See
Metzger’s quotation of Origen on page 88 of New
Testament Tools & Studies – Historical and Literary Studies, Vol. 8
(1968), at the outset of his article, Explicit
References in the Works of Origen to Variant Readings in New Testament
Manuscripts: “The differences among
the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some
copyist or through the perverse audacity of others,” etc.
14 – A thorough description
of P104 is among the files of the NT Textual Criticism group on
Facebook.
15 –
Specifically, Codex W is essentially Byzantine in Matthew and in Luke
8:13-24:53. In Mark 5-12, it seems to be
loosely, and uniquely, aligned with the text found in P45. The text of Luke 1:1-8:12 and John 5:12-21:25
is essentially Alexandrian. This
block-mixture shows that it was possible for rival text-types to exist
side-by-side in the same locale.
16 – See the
comments by Dennis Kenaga regarding P
46 on page of
Skeptical Trends in New Testament TextualCriticism: “T
he oldest
witness, P46, was rejected 303 times, 30% of the time, in 1 Corinthians.” (The wording of this sentence could be
improved, but the basic point is correct.)
17 – See page 127
of Hort’s Introduction to the New
Testament in the Original Greek.
19 – It is feasible
that Origen was quoting from Mark 9:29, but he tended to quote from Matthew
much more frequently than from Mark.
Even if one were to grant that Origen was quoting Mark 9:29, the
quotation is clearly not based on the Alexandrian Text, because Origen includes
the words “and fasting,” which are not in the Alexandrian Text of Mark 9:29.
20 – See
Metzger’s comment on page 37 of The Bible
in Translation: The Coptic versions
of the Old Testament frequently show a relationship with the Old Latin version .
. . . This is not surprising, because the Old Latin version is regarded as
having been of preeminent importance for the African
Church.”
21 – See
Jean-Francoise Racine’s 2004 book, The
Text of Matthew in the Writings of Basil of Caesarea.
22 – See James
A. Brooks’ 1991 book, The New Testament
Text of Gregory of Nyssa.
