B. B. Warfield on New Testament Textual Criticism

B. B. Warfield

“I believe that Warfield is second only to Jonathan Edwards as America’s greatest theologian.” – R.C. Sproul

            Let’s look into B. B. Warfield’s 1886 An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament.       

            Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield (1851-1921) is usually remembered by his intellectual heirs (such as Daniel Wallace) on account of his defense of the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy.  Born in Kentucky, Warfield graduated from Princeton Seminary in 1876, studied briefly in Germany,  and served as pastor at First Presbyterian Church in Baltimore for two years.  He then taught New Testament at Western Theological Seminary for nine years.  In 1886 he left Allegheny and began his prolific career as Professor of Reformed Theology at Princeton, and served there until his death.   His writings include The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, The Significance of the Westminster Standards as a Creed,  Counterfeit Miracles, and  Revelation and Inspiration.

            What exactly is the New Testament text that Warfield considered inerrant?  He almost answered that question in the same year that he began his professorship at Princeton, at age 35, when he published An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament preparing students to engage the compilations made by Tischendorf (his eighth edition, which due to the impact of Codex Sinaiticus differs from his seventh edition at 3,572 points), Tregelles, and Westcott & Hort.  

            Warfield’s approach to New Testament textual criticism closely echoed Hort’s.  He had a direct and down-to-earth writing style, and presented the case for Hort’s ideas with practical candor in four chapter:  (1) The Matter of Criticism, (2) The Methods of Criticism, (3) The  Praxis of Criticism, and (4) The History of Criticism.

            After sampling Tischendorf’s textual apparatus in Mark 1:11, Warfield lists and briefly describes the major witnesses to the text of the New Testament – uncials, minuscules, lectionaries, versions, and patristic quotations.   He acknowledged the lack of papyri, observing that “No very early papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament have come down to us,” with trivial exceptions.    

            Like John Burgon, Warfield knew the shallowness of the research done on these materials.  He lamented that “A critical edition of even the Vulgate is, however, still a desideratum” and acknowledged that “the versions are not even critically edited.”  And he knew how relatively novel the foundational discoveries were on which Hort’s transmission-model depended, observing that “À was not published until 1862; no satisfactory  edition of B existed until 1868;  C, Q, D, D₂, N, P, R, Z, L, X, E₂, P₂, S, have all been issued since 1843.”   Unlike Burgon, though, Warfield embraced Hort’s approach enthusiastically.     

            Warfield believed that the Peshitta had existed in 250 and went through a standardization process that ended around 350, suggesting that a “late third or early fourth century revision” is likely because of its non-inclusion of Second Peter, Second John, Third John, Jude, and Revelation.   He was misinformed about the age of some Ethiopic manuscripts, stating that the Ethiopic version’s earliest extant MSS “appear to be as late as the fifteenth century.”  The first chapter closes with a consideration of the textual contest in John 7:8 between ουκ and ουπω.  But he declined to declare a winner, using the data to illustrate the precariousness of  simplistic reliance on the mere quantity of witnesses, and on the age of the witnesses, and moves on.

            In chapter 2, Warfield very openly dismisses traditionally accepted readings despite their appearance in a super-majority of manuscripts in Matthew 6:4, Matthew 6:13, Mark 9:29, and Luke 8:31.    He highlights the importance of internal evidence, both intrinsic and transcriptional, which he summarizes beautifully on page 84:  “We are making use of two separate methods of inquiry; one of which deals with the probability that the author wrote this reading, and the other with the probability that the scribe began with it.”

            Warfield’s  claims in the second chapter are initially startling, but he follows  up with reasonable qualifications.  He shows his willingness to reject the reading favored by a super-majority of Greek MSS in Matthew 6:1.  Intrinsic evidence is likewise decisive in Luke 15:21.  Additional examples are drawn from Acts 12:25 and 11:20.  He states although internal evidence “is very easy to abuse,” “no conclusion to which it does not give at least its consent can be accepted as final in any case of textual criticism.”   On one hand, this is normal caution; on the other it guarantees that his New Testament text is perpetually tenuous where reasonable critics reach opposite verdicts. 

            Although Warfield repeatedly expresses his admiration for Codex Vaticanus as the best manuscript of the New Testament, when investigating Matthew 27:49 he rules against ÀB.   

            In the course of illustrating transcriptional evidence, Warfield raises issues about “the famous  reading Θεος in I Tim iii. 16,” Romans 12:11, Acts 17:25, Acts 13:23, and even mentions that “Perhaps the form Ἀσάφ in Matt. i. 7 has so come into the text from the influence of the Ἰωσαφάτ which stands immediately beneath it.”  After touring various categories of transcriptional errors, following a list of errors drawn from Codex Sinaiticus’ text of Hebrews, he reminds readers (p. 107) that “All “canons of criticism” are only general averages.”  Within this frame of caution he proceeds to posit – as “general guides,” to which exceptions should be expected, three valuable rules:  (1)  “the more difficult reading is to be preferred” (2) “the shorter reading is to be preferred” and (3) “the more characteristic reading is to be preferred” and above all these, he dictates that “That reading is to be preferred from which the origin of all the others can most safely be derived.”  

            In his presentation of external evidence, Warfield repeatedly cautions against oversimplifications, such as assuming that preference should always be given to what is more ancient, or always to the reading with the most abundant pieces of independent evidence in its favor.  He opposes the notion that if a witness is late, its text must therefore be bad, and affirms candidly (like Burgon) that “There is reason to believe that the very grossest errors that have ever deformed the text had entered it already in the second century.”

            He leans heavily on Tregelles’ analysis of the variant-unit in Matthew 6:4 (the presence, or absence, of ἐν τῷ φανερω), and follow up with a less detailed rejection of the doxology in Matthew 6:13.  Then he revisits John 7:8 –and again declines to issue a verdict.

            Warfield observed (p. 126) that “The discovery of a single manuscript (À) revolutionized  Tischendorf’s text.”   Certainly:  according to Eberhard Nestle, Tischendorf’s eighth edition differed from his seventh edition at 3,572 points, due primarily to the impact of Codex Sinaiticus.  Nevertheless Warfield seems entirely undisturbed by the prospect of another major discover destabilizing the compilation he supports (the readings about which Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Hort agree). 

            On page 132-133 Warfield expresses his position very clearly:  he endorses Hort’s approach, stating that “his results may be safely accepted as sound,” and regards Vaticanus as “plainly the best single codex known.”  Little by little, he reveals his confident adherence to Hort’s transmission-model, including the Lucianic recension.   At the same time he rejects the reading of ÀBCLUΓ at Matthew 27:49.    

            His definition of internal evidence of groups is worth remembering:  “Internal evidence of  groups is, therefore, simply internal evidence of documents applied to lost documents, a list of the readings which has come down to us, and nothing more.”

            Another pithy statement emphasizing the importance of considering evidence in terms of groups, on p. 139:  “MSS agree together nor by accident but by inheritance.”  And then Warfield proceeds to consider, in more detail than Hort, genealogical evidence – concluding that Hort was justified to set aside all that is distinct in the Syriac (i.e., the Byzantine) text.  What Warfield writes on p. 157-170 is essentially a summary of what Hort’s introduction presented more verbosely.  Warfield helpfully offers diagrams to illustrate the how the text of the Gospels has been transmitted.  He even utilizes Hort’s slanted nomenclature without question.

            By the time he has finished summarizing Hort, Warfield says that “The proper procedure” for settling textual contests involves, as its first step, “Sift out all  Syrian evidence from the mass of witnesses.”  He states outright (p. 171) “Any reading supported only by the Syriac class is convicted of having originated after A.D. 250.”

            When facing Hort’s theory of “Western non-interpolations,” Warfield bypasses Luke 24, and merely treats the “Neutral and Alexandrian” reading in Matthew 27:49 as an error.  He moves on to small variant-units such as μᾶλλον in Second Corinthians 2:7 and διο in Second Corinthians 12:7 and the contest between ᾖλθεν versus ᾖλθον in Galatians 2:12.  A hint of frustration seems to peek out in his brief discussion of Hebrews 10:11 where he laments, “We long for B,” and he admits that as far as the text of Revelation is concerned, “genealogical evidence can as yet be scarcely employed at all, without the greatest doubt and difficulty.”   How the same mind could make such an admission, and expect his readers to confidently regard their newly printed compilations simultaneously as inerrant and tenuous, is mystifying.

            In his third chapter, The Praxis of Textual Criticism, Warfield focuses on Acts 20:28, John 1:18, First Timothy 3:16, John 7:53-8:11, and Mark 16:9-20, and in each case he rejects the Syrian reading, “sifting out the Syrian evidence.”  He favors Θεου in Acts 20:28 and fails to mention Hort’s conjecture that υιου has dropped out of the text.   Warfield does, however, briefly delve into the subject of conjectural emendation, stating that “The only test of a successful conjecture is that it shall approve itself as inevitable” and mentioning proposed emendations in Colossians 2:18:  Lightfoot’s ἐώρᾳ or αἰώρᾳ κενεμβατεύων and C. Taylor’s  ἀέρα κενεμβατεύων.  (In the same verse Hort proposed ἐθελοταπεινοφροσύνῃ where θέλων ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ.)

            Chapter Four is brief and Warfield’s history adds nothing that later authors such as Bruce Metzger have not presented other than to notice more prominently the work of Simon Colinaeus (1534) and Edward Wells (1709-1719) (whose annotated Paraphrase of the New Testament is available in Part One and Part Two).  Warfield recognized that he was in a generation of pioneers, not street-pavers; yet he was confidently optimistic enough to state, “We have at least attained the position of having evidence enough before us to render the sketching of the history of the text possible, and to certify us that new discoveries will only  enlighten dark places, and not overturn the whole fabric.”  He closes not by declaring that the text of the New Testament has been established, but by point to Tischendorf’s 8^th edition (1864-1872), Tregelles’ compilation (1857-1879) and Westcott & Hort’s compilation (1881) as “the high-water mark of modern criticism, and states that where they differ, “future criticism may find her especial task.”  It does not seem to have bothered him that he could never show exactly what was the New Testament text that he considered inerrant.         

 

 

 

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.

Hippolytus and Mark 16:9-20

 

Hippolytus (d. 235) was a leader of the church in the city of Rome in the early 200s.  He had an interesting career, challenging some decisions which he saw as indicators of laxity on the part of the bishop of Rome.  Hippolytus eloquently opposed the false doctrine of modalism no matter where it originated.  Near the end of his life, Hippolytus even let himself be considered an alternative to Urban I and Pontian I, and then Roman persecutors stepped in and sent Hippolytus and Pontian both to the mines on the island of Sardinia.  There Hippolytus died, but not before being recognized as a brother by his fellow-saints in Rome; his body was brought in peace to a Roman cemetery in 236.    

            Several compositions are attributed to Hippolytus, including Apostolic Tradition, Against Noetus, On Christ and Antichrist, Peri Charismaton (About the Gifts), Commentary on Daniel, and segments of some works better known by different titles, such as the composite Apostolic Constitutions.   Hippolytus is known for proposing December 25th as the day of Christ's birth.

Hippolytus    

            Hippolytus, like Irenaeus and Tatian, has been effectively ignored by Bible footnote-writers who refer to two manuscripts made in the 300s but fail to mention earlier patristic support for Mark 16:9-20.  What does Hippolytus say about Mark 16:9-20?  Several things.

            First, Hippolytus made a strong allusion to Mark 16:18 in Apostolic Tradition 32:1:  “Let every one of the believers be sure to partake of communion before he eats anything else. For if he partakes with faith, even if something deadly were given to him, after this it cannot hurt him.”

            The evidence for Apostolic Tradition 32:1 is not limited to works in which it has been absorbed and edited. This particular part of the composition is extant in four non-Greek transmission-lines of the text of Apostolic Tradition: in Latin, in Ethiopic, in Sahidic, and in Arabic. (When Hort formed his opinion of the authorship of this part of the text, he was not aware of this.)  Apostolic Tradition 32:1 is also preserved in Greek.  In the 1992 edition of Gregory Dix’s book on Apostolic Tradition, revised by Henry Chadwick, the reader is informed of the following:

            “Two new Greek fragments have to be reported here. The first is preserved in a dogmatic florilegium of patristic quotations contained in two manuscripts, cod. Ochrid.86 (saec. XIII) f.192 and Paris.gr.900 (saec. XV) f. 112. The discoverer, Professor Marcel Richard, printed the excerpt from the Apostolic Tradition in Symbolae Osloenses 38 (1963), page 79 . . . . This new fragment preserves the original Greek of chapter xxxii.1 (= Botte 36):

            ’Εκ των διατάξεων των αγίων αποστόλων∙ 

            πας δε πιστος πειράσθω, προ του τινος γεύσασθαι,

            ευχαριστίας μεταλαμβάνειν

            · ει γαρ πίστει μεταλάβοι [v. l.: μεταλάβη], ουδ’ αν θανάσιμόν τις

            δώη αυτω μετα τουτο, ου κατισχύσειαυτου (cf. Mark xvi. 18).”

            The term θανάσιμόν, which refers to a “deadly thing,” is the same word that is used in Mark 16:18.  It appears nowhere else in the New Testament.

            In the 1870s, John Burgon regarded a statement made by Hippolytus in On Christ and Antichrist, part 46, as if it includes a reference to Mark 16:19.  In Homily on Noetus, Hippolytus wrote, “This is the One who breathes upon the disciples, and gives them the Spirit, and comes in among them when the doors are shut, and is taken up by a cloud into the heavens while the disciples gaze at Him, and is set down on the right hand of the Father, and comes again as the Judge of the living and the dead.”  This looks like a simple credal statement, but Burgon claimed, “In the creeds, Christ is invariably spoken of as ανελθόντα: in the Scriptures, invariably as αναληφθέντα. So that when Hippolytus says of Him, αναλαμβάνεται εις ουρανους και εκ δεξιων Πατρος καθίζεται, the reference must needs be to St. Mark 16:19.”

            Hippolytus also quoted Mark 16:16-18 in material incorporated into the beginning of Book Eight of Apostolic Constitutions (which was put together mainly as an edited combination of already-existing materials in 380).: “With good reason did he say to all of us together, when we were perfected concerning those gifts which were given from him by the Spirit, ‘Now these signs shall follow those who have believed: in my name they shall cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they happen to drink any deadly thing, it shall by no means hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.’ These gifts were first bestowed on us the apostles when we were about to preach the gospel to every creature.”

            Samuel Tregelles commented about this: “Amongst the works of Hippolytus, enumerated as his on the ancient marble monument now in the Vatican, is the book περι χαρισμάτων αποστολικη παραδοκις [Peri Charismaton Apostolike Paradokis], in which this part of St. Mark’s Gospel is distinctly quoted: (apostoli loquuntur) ως αν τετελειωμένων ημων φησιν [ο κύριος] πασιν αμα περι των εξ αυτου δια του πνεύματος διδομένων χαρισμάτων,” followed by the Greek text of Mark 16:17 through 18 (with καιναις transposed before λαλησουσιν, and without και εν ταις χερσιν at the beginning of verse 18).

            Tregelles maintained that although a later writer, in the course of incorporating Hippolytus’ work into the fourth-century work known as Apostolic Constitutions so as to make it all appear to consist of words spoken by the apostles, “The introductory treatise is certainly, in the main, genuine,” and, “This citation is almost essential to introduce what follows,” and, “I see no occasion for supposing that the compiler made other changes in this treatise, except putting it into the first person plural, as if the apostles unitedly spoke.”

            Hort disagreed, stating, “Even on the precarious hypothesis that the early chapters of the Eighth Book were founded to some extent on the lost work, the quotation is untouched by it, being introduced in direct reference to the fictitious claim to apostolic authorship which pervades the Constitutions themselves (τούτων των χαρισμάτων προτέρον μεν ημιν δοθέντων τοις αποστόλοις μέλλουσι το ευαγγέλιον καταγγέλλειν πάση τη κτίσει κ.τ.λ.).”

            To allow a full understanding of this disagreement between Tregelles and Hort, the paragraph from Book Eight of Apostolic Constitutions which Tregelles and Hort quoted is provided here in English:

            “With good reason did he say to all of us together, when we were perfected concerning those gifts which were given from him by the Spirit, ‘Now these signs shall follow those who have believed: in my name they shall cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they happen to drink any deadly thing, it shall by no means hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.’ These gifts were first bestowed on us the apostles when we were about to preach the gospel to every creature, and afterwards were of necessity afforded to those who had by our means believed, not for the advantage of those who perform them, but for the conviction of unbelievers.”

            Tregelles’ point seems valid to me:  erase the features of this text which give it the appearance of being an address from the apostles, and the quotation of Mark 16:17-18 are still entirely appropriate in a treatise on spiritual gifts. Hort’s objection is not a strong one, because the second sentence is more plausible a reworked statement rather than an insertion. In other words, Hort’s objection does not stand in the way of the idea that Hippolytus cited Mark 16:17-18 and commented on it by saying something like, “These gifts were first bestowed to the apostles when they were about to preach the gospel to every creature,” etc., and that this was reworded in Apostolic Constitutions.

            Although it is currently impossible to separate the voice of Hippolytus from the mild  interference that has been introduced by those who altered his compositions, the evidence from On Christ and Antichrist, Homily on Noetus, the reworked opening paragraph of Apostolic Constitutions, and Apostolic Tradition 32:1 effectively shows that Hippolytus knew and used Mark 16:9-20.

            Hippolytus’ comment in Apostolic Tradition 32:1 may reflect a sentiment that is also found in the writings of Justin Martyr:  that for a Christian who is sincerely resolved in his heart and aware of his sanctification, no experience, not even suffering and death, can be ultimately harmful.

 

 

Matthew 21:31 - Who Did the Father's Will?

            “Overall this is a very difficult problem.”  Thus wrote Wieland Willker, in his Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels, about the variation-units in Matthew 21:29-31, to which he devoted eight pages of analysis before concluding that “a fully convincing solution is currently not available.”

            “Verses 29-31 involve a rather complex and difficult textual problem.”  Thus begins the NET’s note on the same subject – one of the longest notes in the NET.

            But you wouldn’t know that there is a very tough textual variant here from most of our English Bibles.  The CSB, ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, EHV, MEV, NRSV, and NKJV all say that the answer to Jesus’ question was “The first,” and they have no footnote here.  (The EOB-NT is a rare exception; the EOB-NT has “The first” in the text and a footnote says, “A few manuscripts, notably D, read “the second” which is unlikely but presents the Jews as spoiling the parable by giving (seemingly deliberately) the wrong answer.”  The EOB’s note could be improved, though, by replacing “the second” with “the last.”)   

            I think one has to go back to J.B. Phillips’ version to find, in English, anything other than “the first” (or, in the CEV, “the older one”) as the answer that was given to Jesus’ question in Matthew 21:31.  (In Phillips’ version, the answer is given as “The second one,” echoing the variant δευτερω.  A different reading, ὁ ὕστερος, was in the text of the 25^th edition of the Nestle-Aland compilation, and was also adopted by Westcott & Hort and Tregelles.  (The 1881 Revised Version reads “The first.”  Perhaps the Revision Committee was unimpressed with Westcott and Hort’s divided opinion.)     (The Tyndale House GNT deviates from Tregelles’ compilation, adopting the usual reading ὁ πρῶτος, with an exceptionally thorough apparatus-entry.)    

            Hort, in 1881, devoted over two full pages (in Notes on Select Readings) to Mt. 21:28-31, and mentioned the view of Lachmann that the Jews’ answer to Jesus in Mt. 21:31 is “an early interpolation” (along with the four words which follow it).  Westcott inserted a note of his own into Hort’s analysis, stating, “Considering the difficulty of the Western combination of readings it seems not unlikely that Lachmann is substantially right.”

            The array of readings in this passage is interesting:  first comes a contest in verse 29:  οὐ θέλω, ὔστερον δέ μεταμεληθεὶς ἀπῆλθεν is read by the Byzantine Text, and by C L M W Π 157 565 579; À* has almost the same reading but without the δέ).  Codex Vaticanus has, instead, ἐγώ κε καὶ οὐκ ἀπῆλθεν (“I go, lord, and did not go”).  Third, f¹³ and 700 (Hoskier’s 604) read ὕπαγω κύριε καὶ οὐκ ἀπῆλθεν.  Fourth, Θ (038) has ὕπαγω καὶ οὐκ ἀπῆλθεν.  Fifth, Codex Bezae (05) reads οὐ θέλω ὔστερον δέ μεταμεληθεὶς ἀπῆλθεν but adds εἰς τὸν ἀμπελωνα (repeating the words from v. 28).       

            There are other textual contests (Byzantine witnesses have και before προσελθὼν; Alexandrian witnesses tend to have προσελθὼν δε, and the scribe of À skipped ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς ειπεν in v. 30), but the main contest near the beginning of v. 30 is between ἑτέρω (another) and δευτέρω (second). 

          Δευτέρω (second) is supported by B L M S Ω and by most Greek manuscripts, and by 28 33 700 892 and 1424.  The Byzantine Textform is somewhat split here, though:  δευτέρω is in the text and ἑτέρω is in the margin.  

            Ἡτέρω (the other) is supported by À*, D, Q, K, Π, W, Y, Δ, 157, 565, 579, et al.  In Codex À, someone creatively changed ἑτέρω by putting δ in the left margin and υ between the first  ε and τ, thus producing the variant δευτέρω. 

            Those two textual contests must be kept in mind as we approach the main textual contest in verse 31, where we see (after another variation-unit in v. 31:  after λεγουσιν, most MSS have αυτω but not B À L D Θ 33 f¹³ 788) the answer that Jesus’ listeners gave:

            Codex B and some Ethiopic copies support ὁ ὕστερος (“the later [one]”).

            Almost all manuscripts support ὁ πρῶτος (“the first”).

           Codex D and Θ 700 f¹³ and several Old Latin copies (a, b, d, e, ff², h, l) and the Sinaitic Syriac and the Armenian version support ὁ ἔσχατος (“the last”).    

            Let’s remember one of the canons of textual criticism:  prefer the more difficult reading.  The reading of Codex Bezae is the more difficult reading here – but it also makes Jesus’ hearers appear idiotic; it is obvious that the son who told his father that he would go, but did not go, did not do what the father wanted him to do.

            Jerome’s Vulgate supports ὁ πρῶτος.  But in his Commentary on Matthew, Jerome said something about the variant in verse 31: “one should know that with respect to what follows: ‘Which of the two did the father’s will? And they said, ‘the last,’ the authentic copies do not have ‘the last’ but ‘the first.’”  Jerome proposed that “If we want to read ‘the last,’ the interpretation is plain.  We would say that the Jews indeed understood the truth, but they are evasive and do not want to say what they think.”  In other words, to Jerome, the reading ὁ ἔσχατος (“the last”) makes the Jews seem not stupid, but duplicitous. 

            Bruce Metzger, in his Textual Commentary, rejected the very difficult reading of Codex Bezae, stating that “it is not only difficult, it is nonsensical” – and explained that the UBS committee judged that D’s reading originated “due to copyists who either committed a transcriptional blunder or who were motivated by anti-Pharisaic bias.”  Whatever the mechanism was, the range of its effect must have extended not only to Codex D but to several Latin copies, to the Sinaitic Syriac, and to Jerome’s “authentic” Latin manuscripts – most of which are major representatives of the Western Text.

[But not the Curetonian Syriac.  As Willker notes, the Curetonian Syriac was erroneously cited in NA27 as if it supports ὁ ἔσχατος.  Willker supplies Peter Williams’ rendering of the Curetonian Syriac, which concludes with “The first/former”.] 

[Another oddity in the apparatus of NA27 is that Θ is assigned two readings in v. 31:   ἔσχατος and ὕστερος.] 

[A mistake might have been made by Kurt and Barbara Aland in their Text of the New Testament where they took a close look at this passage (beginning on p. 233), and they zoom in on Mt. 21:31 (beginning on page 235).  The Alands stated that ὁ ὕστερος is supported by Codex Vaticanus “and other Greek manuscripts as well as in some Sahidic manuscripts and the whole Bohairic tradition.”  What are the “other Greek manuscripts” here?  The apparatus of NA27 lists  B Θ f¹³ 700 al; however, this seems to refer to the reading ὕστερον near the end of v. 30; Swanson gives ὁ ἔσχατος as the reading of Θ f¹³ 700 in v. 31 before λέγει.  If there are any other Greek manuscripts that read ὁ ὕστερος other than Codex Vaticanus, I do not know what they are.  If anyone knows of any, please mention them in the comments.]      

            Now let’s apply another canon:  prefer the variant which accounts for its rivals better than they account for it.  The reading in Mt. 21:31 adopted in the UBS compilation – ὁ πρῶτος – does not explain ὁ ὕστερος.  And ὁ ὕστερος can account for ὁ πρῶτος and  ὁ ἔσχατος. 

            As as answer to Jesus’ question, ὁ ὕστερος is a somewhat fluid answer; to someone whose first language was Latin, ὁ ὕστερος might be misunderstood as if it means “the latter.”  And such a misunderstanding explains the origin of the Western reading; there is no need to suppose that an “anti-Pharisaic bias” was involved here.     

            Ὁ ὕστερος also explains ὁ πρῶτος:  The answer “The later one” refers to the first son, not initially (when he said that he would not go), but later (after he changed his mind).  An early scribe who perceived that ὁ ὕστερος could be misunderstood as a reference to the second son could easily avoid the misunderstanding that mars the Western Text by making the wording clearer, and he did so, creating the reading ὁ πρῶτος.

            This internal evidence – (1) ὁ ὕστερος is difficult but not nonsensical, and (2) ὁ ὕστερος accounts for ὁ πρῶτος better than ὁ πρῶτος accounts for ὁ ὕστερος, and (3)  ὁ ὕστερος accounts for ὁ ἔσχατος – compels the adoption of ὁ ὕστερος. 

NA 25

            Whatever other shortcomings Vaticanus’ Gospels-text has, here in Matthew 21:31, it preserves the original wording.   This was the verdict of Tregelles, and it should be the reading in future editions. 

            By the way, I adopted ὁ ὕστερος over a decade ago in my Equitable Eclectic English Edition of the Gospel of Matthew, rendered as “The later one.”   EEEE Matthew, as I call it, is available as a Kindle e-book on Amazon for $1.99.

             In closing, I recommend that that the Armenian and Ethiopic evidence in Matthew 21:31 should be double-checked.

How We Got the New Testament (in 22 minutes)

           A new video that I've prepared is at YouTube:  How We Got the New Testament.  It's  a slide-show presentation that covers the basics of the history of the transmission of the books of the New Testament from their initial distribution to the present day.  Viewers are introduced to papyrus copies, parchment copies, majuscule (uncial) script, and minuscule script.  They are also informed of a few developments the New Testament went through in the Middle Ages.   

          Pages of Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Bezae. and Codex Cyprius are shown, and early versions are also featured, such as the Vulgate and the Peshitta.   Viewers are then informed of a few developments the New Testament text went through in the Middle Ages, such as the recycling of parchment, and illumination.

Tyndale at the stake

         When a person asks, "How did we get the New Testament?" the identity of the "we" affects the answer.  After all, some people-groups still don't have the New Testament in their native language.  After the first nine minutes, the focus is on how the English-speaking church got the New Testament.  Viewers are briefly introduced to Lorenzo Valla, Desiderius Erasmus, William Tyndale, and other individuals from the Renaissance and Reformation era.   Early English versions are described, up to and including the King James Version, before the era of modern textual criticism is covered:  the contributions of Bengel, Griesbach, Scholz, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and Westcott and Hort are briefly described.

          The last five minutes focus on the spread of the New Testament in what is (for better or worse) English as it is spoken today. and developments subsequent to Westcott and Hort (such as the papyrus discoveries at Oxyrhynchus.  

        How We Got the New Testament is suitable for church-viewing and Bible-study groups.  

    

Do Any Textual Variants Impact Doctrine?

           Do any textual variants in the New Testament have the potential to make a significant doctrinal impact?

          In the past, major champions of the traditional text answered that question with a simple “No.”  Robert L. Dabney wrote in 1871, that the received text – the Textus Receptus, the base-text of the KJV, while “not asserted to be above emendation,” “contains undoubtedly all the essential facts and doctrines intended to be set down by the inspired writers,” and “If it were corrected with the severest hand, by the light of the most divergent various readings found in any ancient MS or version, not a single doctrine of Christianity, nor a single cardinal fact, would be thereby expunged.”

          More recent writers have expressed similar sentiments.   D.A. Carson, for example, has written that the Westminster Confession’s affirmation that the Biblical text has been kept pure in all ages ought to be understood to mean that “nothing we believe to be doctrinally true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants.” (from p. 56 of The KJV-Only Controversy – A Plea for Realism.) 

          The view of Dan Wallace, however, is better-informed and more nuanced.  It amounts to this:  no viable and meaningful variant jeopardizes any cardinal doctrine.  The adjectives in that sentence are important, so let’s look into what they mean.  A viable variant is one which textual critics regard as potentially original; it is favored by weighty (though not necessarily decisive) evidence.  A meaningful variant is one which affects the meaning of the passage in which it occurs.  And a cardinal doctrine is one that expresses a fundamental point of the Christian faith.  

          Using this nuanced approach, a question immediately arises:  which doctrines are cardinal?  Is inerrancy a cardinal doctrine?  Looking at the website of Dallas Theological Seminary (where Dr. Wallace has taught), a statement can be seen that requires students to agree with seven beliefs; the seventh is “the authority and inerrancy of Scripture.”  And looking at the requisite Statement of Faith – “requisite” in the sense that faculty members at DTS are required to affirm it annually – one sees a statement that “We believe that the whole Bible in the originals is therefore without error.”

          Michael Kruger argued at the Ligonier website (in 2015) that the doctrine of inerrancy is essential, and that it supplies “the foundation for why we can trust and obey God’s Word.”   Don Stewart has also proposed that “inerrancy is an essential, foundational concept and its importance should not be minimized.”  Dan Wallace, meanwhile, has downplayed the centrality of inerrancy, stating in 2006 (in a post that is still online) that “inerrancy and verbal inspiration are more peripheral than core doctrines.”  In other words – if I understand him correctly – Dr. Wallace does not, and has not, for some time, regarded inerrancy as a cardinal doctrine – and so his statement to the effect that no viable and meaningful variant significantly affects cardinal doctrines should not be interpreted to mean that no viable and meaningful variants affect the doctrine of inerrancy. 

          Some apologists have followed the example of Wallace’s nuanced approach very closely; for example, in an article at Stand To Reason’s website, Tim Barnett wrote in 2016 that “No major doctrines depend on any meaningful and viable variants.” 

          However, I can think of at least two variants that jeopardize the doctrine of inerrancy, both of which occur in the first book of the New Testament:  in Matthew 13:35 and Matthew 27:49.  Only the one in Matthew 13:35 is acknowledged by a footnote in the NLT, NASB, and ESV.  (At least, this is the case in the copies that I have.  So many editions of modern versions are in circulation that it would be burdensome to keep track of them all – which might make one wonder how seriously the “Standard” part of their names should be taken.)  Neither of these variants is given a footnote in the CSB, nor in the NKJV, nor in the hyper-paraphrase known as The Message.  And the Tyndale House Greek New Testament does not have a footnote at Matthew 13:35 or at Matthew 27:49. 

          Most of the English versions I have named so far are currently ranked among the ten most-popular versions of the Bible in America.  So much for the idea that no one is hiding these variants.

          Let’s see what those variants in Matthew 13:35 and 27:49 say.  

          In Matthew 13:35, the scribe of Codex Sinaiticus, rather than writing that a prophecy was spoken by “the prophet,” wrote that it was spoken by “Isaiah the prophet.”  This reading collides with reality:  the referred-to prophecy is from Psalm 78:2 – a composition by Asaph, and not from Isaiah.  In addition to the scribe of Codex Sinaiticus, witnesses that support “Isaiah the prophet” in Mt. 13:35 include (according to the textual apparatus of UBS4) Q, f¹, f¹³, 33, and the reading was known to Jerome; Jerome wrote (in Homily 11 on Psalm 77) that “in all the ancient copies,” the prophecy is explicitly attributed to Asaph, and Jerome offers the theory that scribes who were unfamiliar with Asaph replaced his name with Isaiah’s name.  The editors of UBS4 assigned this reading a ranking of “C,” which, as they explain in their Introduction, “indicates that the Committee had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text.”                   

          In an earlier generation, F. J. A. Hort – who edited, with Westcott, the primary ancestor of the base-text of the New Testament used for the NIV, ESV, NLT, CSB, NASB and NRSV – argued for including “in Isaiah the prophet” in the text.  His argument ran as follows:  “It is difficult not to think Ἠσαίου genuine.  There was a strong tendency to omit it (cf. xxvii 9; Mc 1 2); and, though its insertion might be accounted for by an impulse to supply the name of the best known prophet, the evidence of the actual operation of such an impulse is much more trifling than might have been anticipated.  Out of the 5 (6) other places where the true text has simply τοῦ προφήτου, in two (Mt ii 15 [Hosea]; Acts vii 48 [Isaiah]) , besides the early interpolation in Mt xxvii 35 [Psalms], no name is inserted; in two a name is inserted on trivial evidence (Mt ii 5, Micah rightly, and Isaiah [by a] wrongly ; xxi 4, Isaiah and Zechariah both rightly [Zech by lat.vt]) ; and once (Mt i 22) Isaiah is rightly inserted on various Western evidence.  Also for the perplexing Ἰερεμίου of xxvii 9, omitted by many documents, rhe has Ἠσαίου.  Thus the erroneous introduction of Isaiah’s name is limited to two passages, and in each case to a single Latin MS.  On the other hand the authority of rushw and aeth is lessened by the (right) insertion of Ἠσαίου by one in Mt i 22, and by both in xxi 4.  The adverse testimony of B is not decisive, as it has a few widely spread wrong readings in this Gospel.”   

          Constantine von Tischendorf included Ἠσαίου in Matthew 13:35 in the 8th edition of his compilation of the Greek New Testament.  And in 1901, Eberhard Nestle wrote (on p. 251 of his Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament) that διὰ Ἠσαίου τοῦ προφήτου “is certainly, therefore, original.”  Anyone using a Greek New Testament compiled by Tischendorf or Nestle today would be rather challenged if he were to attempt to maintain the doctrine of inerrancy, inasmuch as if Matthew attributed Psalm 78:2 to Isaiah, then Matthew erred.  

Mt. 27:49 in Codex L.

         In Matthew 27:49, major Alexandrian witnesses (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Codex C, Codex L), some important versional witnesses (Mae¹, Mae², the Ethiopic version, and assorted witnesses (listed by Willker as U, Γ, 5, 26, 48, 67, 115, 127, 160, 175, 364, 782, 871, 1010, 1057, 1300, 1392, 1416, 1448, 1555, 1566, 1701, 1780, 2117, 2126, 2139, 2283, 2328, 2437*, 2585, 2586, 2622, 2680, 2766, and 2787) support the reading, at the end of the verse, ἄλλος δὲ λαβών λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τήν πλευράν καί ἐξῆλθεν ὕδωρ καί αἷμα.  (In the underlined witnesses the final words are αἷμα καί ὕδωρ instead of ὕδωρ καί αἷμα.)  This means:  And another [person], taking a spear, pierced his side, and out came water and blood.   Then, in Matthew 27:50, Jesus dies.

          The adoption of this reading into the text would be fatal to the doctrine of inerrancy, because the Gospel of John candidly states (in 19:34) that Jesus was pierced in His side with a spear, resulting in a flow of blood and water, after He died, and this contradicts the text of Matthew if this reading – supported by the two early manuscripts (À and B) that are the primary basis for the heading and footnote that draw into question Mark 16:9-20 in the ESV, CSB, NRSV, etc. – is adopted.

          In 2018, in a post at Evangelical Textual Criticism, Tyndale House GNT editor Dirk Jongkind acknowledged that this variant probably should have been mentioned in the apparatus of the Tyndale House GNT.  He also acknowledged that “On external evidence, the addition has definitely a very good shout” – which  – I think – is tantamount to granting that the reading is viable.  But Jongkind rejects the reading, admitting that “The ‘best and earliest manuscripts’ do not always present us with the ‘best and earliest readings.’”   Perhaps this statement should be printed in large letters alongside the ESV’s bracketed heading between Mark 16:8 and 16:9 (which reads, “Some of the earliest manuscripts do no include 16:9-20.”).

          But this reading in the most significant manuscripts representative of the Alexandrian Text certainly was treated as viable by Westcott and Hort, who included the variant, within double brackets, in their compilation.  In Westcott & Hort’s Notes on Select Readings, after analyzing the evidence pertaining to this variant, they concluded as follows:  “Two suppositions alone are compatible  with the whole evidence.  First, the words  ἄλλος δὲ κ.τ.λ. [“κ.τ.λ.” meaning “etc.”] may belong to the genuine text of the extant form of Mt, and have been early omitted (originally by the Western text) on account of the obvious difficulty.  Or, secondly, they may be a very early interpolation, absent in the first instance from the Western text only, and thus resembling the Non-Western interpolations in Luke xxii xxiv except in its failure to obtain admission into the prevalent texts of the third and fourth centuries.  The prima facie difficulty of the second supposition is lightened by the absence of the words from all the earlier versions, though the defectiveness of African Latin, Old Syriac, and Thebaic evidence somewhat weakens the force of this consideration. We have thought it on the whole right to give expression to this view by including the words within double brackets, though we did not feel justified in removing them from the text, and are not prepared to reject altogether the alternative supposition.”

          Competent textual critics – including some who laid the foundation for the compilations of the ESV, CSB, NLT, and NRSV – have treated one or two readings that convey erroneous statements as if they are viable and meaningful.  Therefore, the notion that there are no viable and meaningful textual variants in the New Testament that jeopardize any cardinal doctrine can only be maintained by those who do not consider the doctrine of inerrancy to be a “cardinal doctrine.”    

           So:  do any textual variants in the New Testament have the potential to make a significant doctrinal impact?  If you consider the doctrine of inerrancy a significant doctrine (which most evangelical Christians do), the answer is yes.