First Corinthians 10:9 - "the Lord" or "Christ"?

             Leaving the Gospels momentarily, today we explore a textual variant in the Pauline Epistles:  in First Corinthians 10:9, did the text originally say “Nor let us tempt Christ” (Χριστόν) or “Nor let us tempt the Lord” (Κύριον) or “Nor let us tempt God” (Θεόν)?  All three readings are nomina sacra (sacred names, usually written in contracted form), and thus, with the nomina sacra in play, amount to the difference between ΧΝ, ΚΝ, and ΘΝ.

Erasmus' text of I Cor. 10:9 (1522)

            The treatment of this variant by editors, publishers and printers of the (mainly) Byzantine Text has been consistent:  Erasmus (all editions), Gerbel (1521), Stephanus (1550), Melchoir Sessa (Venice) 1538, John Fell (1675), Bengel (1734), and Scholz (1836) all have favored “Χριστόν”; Griesbach also had Χριστόν in the text.  Χριστόν is read in Hodges & Farstad’s Majority Text (1982), and in the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform (2005), and in the Solid Rock Greek New Testament. 

            English Bibles in use today with “Christ” in First Corinthians 10:9 include the KJV, NKJV, EOB (Eastern Orthodox Bible), WEB, EHV, and also the CSB, ESV, NET, NIV 2011, NLT, NCV (New Century Version), and NRSV.

I Cor. 10:9 (Nicolaus Gerbel, 1521)

            Κύριον was consistently adopted by most editors of the critical text, other than Griesbach, until about 1970:  “Lord” was the reading adopted by Lachmann (1831), Buttmann (1862), Tregelles (1869), Tischendorf (8^th edition, 1872), Westcott & Hort (1881), Eberhard Nestle (1904), Alexander Souter (1920), and the Nestle-Aland compilation up to and including the 25^th edition.  The first and second editions of the United Bible Society’s Greek New Testament also read Κύριον.      

I Cor. 10:9 (Fell, 1675)

            Consequently, “Lord” has appeared in First Corinthians 10:9 in several English Bibles of the past 150 years, including the Revised Version (1881), the American Standard Version (1901), the Revised Standard Version, the Living Bible, the New Life Version, the New American Standard Bible (1960 & 1995), the New International Version 1984, and the Tree of Life Version (2011).  Meanwhile, the Tyndale House GNT reads “κύριον” and the SBLGNT reads “Χριστόν.”

            Now let’s look at some text-critical data: 

Fell's footnote (1675)

             In 1982, in New Testament Textual Criticism:  Its Significance for Exegesis:  Essays in Honor of Bruce M. Metzger, a chapter by Carroll D. Osburn focused on this variant.  Osburn’s data is far more detailed than any other apparatus:  in support of Χριστόν, Osburn listed P46, D, E, F, G, K, L, Ψ 056 0142 0151 and 489 minuscules (including 1 6 18 35 69 88 131 205 209 323 330 424 440 451 489 517 547 614 618 629 630 796 910 945 999 1241 1242 1243 1245 1270 1315 1353 1424 1448 1505 1611 1646 1734 1738 1739 1827 1852 1854 1881 1891 1912 1982  1984 2125 2200 2400 2412 2492 2495), numerous Old Latin witnesses including it^ar, ^b, ^d, ^dem, ^e, ^f, ^g, ^o, ^x, ^z and the Vulgate, the Peshitta, the main text of the Harklean Syriac, the Sahidic version, and the Bohairic version.   

I Cor. 10:9 in Codex Sinaiticus     

           Κύριον, meanwhile, is supported by À B C P 0150 33 43 104 181 255^vid 256 263 326 365 436 1175 2110 2127 2464 and 22 other minuscules, and the margin of the Harklean Syriac, the Armenian version and the Ethiopic version.

            Osburn’s thorough list extends to two other readings:

            Codex A, 2 81 1127 1595 and 14 other minuscules (and 2815 which Osburn did not list, but Swanson does) read Θεόν.

            Nothing appears between ἐκπειράζωμεν and καθως in 97 1729* 1985 and 2659.

             Settings aside Θεόν and the complete absence of any nomina sacra, Osburn focuses on the contest between Κύριον and Χριστόν.  Things get very interesting in the patristic evidence: 

            The earliest support for Χριστόν is Marcion (the arch-heretic from Pontus who worked for a while in Rome c. 140); Epiphanius, in the late 300s, claimed that Marcion changed the text from Κύριον to Χριστόν.  But, as Osburn argues, it is reasonable to understand Epiphanius’ claim as a presumption – i.e., that Epiphanius’ text read Κύριον and he assumed that Marcion had changed it – rather than as an observation.  Slightly later is Irenaeus (in Against Heresies, Book 4, ch. 27), and slightly later than Irenaeus are Clement of Alexandria, Origen (in a statement preserved in the margin of GA 1739), and Theotecnus (bishop of Caesarea-in-Palestine, and an associate of Origen), writing against Paul of Samosata for the Council of Antioch (268).  

            The bishops involved in the Council of Antioch in 268 also produced the Letter of Hymenaeus, of which Osburn provided a relevant extract, which implies that “neither Paul of Samosata nor his opponents were aware of a biblical text which read other than Χριστόν in v. 9.”  (Osburn mentioned in a footnote, however, that the text of the Letter of Hymenaeus printed by M.J. Routh in 1846, and by E.Schwartz in 1927, has Κύριον.) 

            Also in support of Χριστόν are Ambrosiaster, Ephraem Syrus, Pelagius, Augustine, Pseudo-Oecumenius, and Theophylact.  Chrysostom also cites I Cor. 10:9 with Χριστόν three times.

            Κύριον is supported by Epiphanius, Theodoret of Cyrrhus (in a substantial quotation in his commentary on the Pauline Epistles), Cassiodorus, John of Damascus, and Sedulius Scotus.  Chrysostom is cited as using κύριον once.  

           Now let’s analyze this evidence and reach a conclusion. 

I Cor. 10:9 in Tregelles' text.

            The case for κύριον is not lightweight:  agreements of À and B were considered practically decisive by Westcott & Hort, and their judgment held sway for over a century, though as early as 1899 Theodor Zahn, as Carroll noted, firmly opposed it.              

            Χριστόν has in its favor the support of very early and geographically diverse patristic witnesses.  The discovery of P46 with Χριστόν (written as ΧΡΝ - see BP II f.49 in the online Chester Beatty Papyrus Collection on the fourth line from the bottom) probably should have instantly elicited a change in the critical text here, inasmuch as with its discovery, Χριστόν scores high on multiple metrics:  it is the reading of the oldest manuscript; it is the reading of the most manuscripts (by far); it is the reading of the most diverse array of manuscripts; it is the reading favored by a strong combination of early patristic writers.  About the only counter-argument that favors Κύριον is the internal consideration that Paul would be unlikely to have written that the Hebrews in the wilderness tempted Christ – but as indicated in a note in the NET, Osburn built an effective cumulative argument that the case against Χριστόν driven by this internal evidence is weak.  I cannot think of any reason but haste, and perhaps over-reliance on the work of Tregelles (who had no access to P46) to elicit the Tyndale House GNT’s adoption of κύριον.  It was due to over-reliance upon À and B that κύριον was ever adopted in printed Greek New Testaments; hopefully the days of such over-reliance, repeatedly shown to be merely a disguised bias, are behind us. 

              Χριστόν merits confident inclusion in the text.                     

        

 

Video Lecture 06: Some Important Manuscripts

Now at YouTube:

Lecture 06 - Some Important Manuscripts - in the series Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism. (24 minutes, but viewers are expected to explore the links and thus take longer)

Subtitles provide a basic outline and links to supplemental materials.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SqzPnVlvWY

An excerpt:

            We are about to meet some manuscripts.  Some of these, you might encounter very often in the apparatus of the Greek New Testament.  Others are relatively small, but they are among the earliest witnesses to the readings they support.  

            In the course of this lecture, I will mention links to supplemental materials as we go. I hope that you will pause this video when a link appears, explore each resource, and then return to the lecture.   These resources include images of manuscripts that can be viewed in fine detail.

            Today I am going to refer to the Alexandrian Text, the Western Text, and the Byzantine Text.  Hopefully in a future lecture I will go into more detail about these terms.  For now, you can generally picture them as three forms of the text:  the Alexandrian Text was used in Egypt, and influenced the Sahidic version there.  The Western Text was used mainly but not exclusively in the Western part of the Roman Empire, and influenced the Old Latin text.  The Byzantine Text  was used in the vicinity of Constantinople, and is generally supported by the majority of Greek manuscripts.

 ● We begin with Papyrus 52.  This is perhaps the oldest manuscript that contains text from the New Testament.  It is small, about the size of a playing card.  It contains text from John 18:31-33 on one side, and on the other side it contains text from John 18:37-38.  Which is not a lot of text.  It was brought to light by Colin H. Roberts in 1935.  

The importance of Papyrus 52, which is at the John Rylands Library in Manchester, England, is its age:  it is probably from about the first half of the 100s.   There is a nice description of Papyrus 52 (and other papyri fragments) by Robert Waltz at the Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism. In addition, Dirk Jongkind has a brief video about P52 on YouTube. 

● Papyrus 104 is another early papyrus fragment that is a top contender for the title “earliest New Testament manuscript.”  It was excavated at Oxyrhynchus, Egypt by Grenfell and Hunt, and was brought to light in 1997 by J. D. Thomas.  If Papyrus 52 is the earliest manuscript of John, Papyrus 104 is the earliest manuscript of Matthew.  The handwriting used for P104 was executed in a fancier style than what is seen in most other manuscripts; similar handwriting appears in some non-Biblical manuscripts excavated at Oxyrhynchus, including one in which a specific date, from the year 204 or 211, has survived. 

            Papyrus 104 contains text from Matthew 21:34-37 on one side.  The text on the other side is very extremely badly damaged.  But the surviving damaged text there probably contains text from Matthew 21:43 and 45.  This would mean that Papyrus 104 is both the earliest manuscript of Matthew 21 and also the earliest witness for the non-inclusion of Matthew 21:44. 

            Greg Lanier’s detailed analysis of Papyrus 104 can be found online in Volume 21 of the TC-Journal, for 2016.

● Papyrus 23 is a fragment of the Epistle of James, probably made in the early 200s.  It contains text from part of James chapter 1. 

            You can get a very good look at Papyrus 23 by visiting the website of its present home, the Spurlock Museum in Urbana, Illinois.

 ● Papyrus 137 received some fame, before its official publication, by being heralded as if it was from the first century; it was called “First Century Mark.”  It turned out to be not from the first century.  However, this manuscript – a very small fragment containing text from Mark 1:7-9 and Mark 1:16-18 – is the oldest copy of the text it preserves.  Like several other early fragments, it has made no impact on the compilation of the text of the New Testament.

● Papyrus 45 is much more substantial – but it is still very fragmentary.  When it was made in the first half of the 200s, Papyrus 45 contained the four Gospels and Acts.  The order of books, when the manuscript was made, is unknown.  Its surviving pages at the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin contain text from Matthew 20 and 21,  Mark 4-9, Mark 11-12, Luke 6-7, Luke 9-14, John 4-5, John 10-11, and Acts 4-17.  A leaf in Vienna contains text from Matthew 25-26.  This is the earliest known manuscript that contains text from all four Gospels.

            Papyrus 45 has several readings that are especially interesting due to the impact they have on Hort’s Theory of the Lucianic Recension.  Hopefully we will take a closer look at this in a future lecture, but for now, we can just sum it up as the theory that the Byzantine Text – the text in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts – originated as the result of an editorial effort by someone in the late 200s – possibly Lucian of Antioch – who was combining readings from two earlier forms of the text:  the Alexandrian Text, and the Western Text.  Based on this theory, Hort rejected readings in the Byzantine Text that were neither Alexandrian nor Western, reckoning that they did not exist before the Byzantine Text was made.

But in Papyrus 45, which is assigned to the early 200s, there are some readings that are not supported by the flagship manuscripts of the Alexandrian Text or the Western Text.  Readings in Mark 7:35, Acts 15:40, and many other passages show that it is hazardous to assume that non-Alexandrian, non-Western readings should be rejected.

             The text of Papyrus 45 does not agree particularly strongly with Codex Vaticanus, and it does not agree particularly strongly with Codex Bezae either.  In the parts of Mark where Papyrus 45 is extant, its closest textual relative is Codex W – but Codex W’s text in those parts of Mark is not particularly Alexandrian or Western either.

            When Papyrus 45 was first studied, after it was brought to light in the 1930s, there was a tendency to call its text Caesarean, like the text of family-1.  But the late Larry Hurtado showed that whatever Papyrus 45’s text is, it is not closely related to the Caesarean Text.  And while it repeatedly agrees with the Byzantine Text, it is not consistently Byzantine either.

● Papyrus 46 is the earliest substantial copy of most of the Epistles of Paul, basically arranged in order according to their length, with Hebrews between Romans and First Corinthians.  There is some uncertainty about how many epistles the copyist intended to include in the codex.  Part of this manuscript is at the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin, and part of it is at the University of Michigan.  Its most likely production-date is around 200, give or take 50 years.  The text of Papyrus 46 tends to agree with Codex Vaticanus, but not as strictly as one might expect. For example, in Ephesians 5:9, Papyrus 46 agrees with the Byzantine Text, reading “the fruit of the Spirit” instead of “the fruit of the light.”

● Papyrus 66 contains most of the Gospel of John, with some gaps due to incidental damage.  It was found in Egypt in the early 1950s, and was published in 1956.  Its production-date was initially assigned to around 200, but a wider range is possible.  The copyist who wrote the text in Papyrus 66 made over 400 corrections of what he had initially written. 

● Papyrus 75 is also assigned to around 200.  It is a damaged but substantial codex that contains text from Luke and John.  Its surviving text of Luke begins in chapter 3; its surviving text of John ends in chapter 15.  The text of Papyrus 75 is close to the text found in Codex Vaticanus, but the two manuscripts are not related in a grandfather-and-grandson kind of relationship.  Page-views of Papyrus 75 can be found online at the website of the Vatican Library.

Each of the next three manuscripts was designed as a pandect, that is, a large one-volume collection of the entire Bible.  We tend to assume that it is not unusual to have a single volume that contains all of the books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament.  But that is because we are part of a post-printing-press generation.   In the world of manuscripts, Greek pandects of the Bible are rare.

● Codex Vaticanus is a very important manuscript of the Bible, housed, along with many other manuscripts, at the Vatican Library in Rome.  Its New Testament portion was not the subject of scholarly study until the early 1800s, and since then its reputation has grown.  Today it is generally regarded as the most important manuscript of the New Testament.

 Textually, Codex Vaticanus is the paramount representative of the Alexandrian Text.

Vaticanus was produced in the early 300s.  Its text, in the New Testament, is formatted in three columns per page.  This is usually its format in the Old Testament books too, although in the books of poetry the format is two columns per page.  Codex Vaticanus does not contain the entire New Testament; it has no text from First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus, Philemon, or the book of Revelation; a text of Revelation is in the codex, written in minuscule lettering, but it is not really the same codex. 

Vaticanus also does not contain the text of the book of Hebrews after Hebrews 9:14.     

            The lettering in Codex Vaticanus has been extensively reinforced; that is, someone, long after the codex was made, traced over the lettering, except where, rightly or wrongly, he thought that the text was inaccurate.  The exact date when this was done is a matter of debate.  I suspect that Codex Vaticanus, before it ended up at the Vatican Library, was previously in the hands of an important character in the 1400s named Bessarion, and scribes working for Bessarion may have been responsible for sprucing it up a bit.  This did not materially affect its text.

The entire manuscript can be viewed page by page at the website of the Vatican Library.

● Codex Sinaiticus is the wingman of Codex Vaticanus.  Its text is not as good, but it is more complete.  The New Testament text of Codex Sinaiticus has survived in more or less the same form in which it left its scriptorium in the mid-300s.  “More or less,” that is, because a few centuries after its production, someone attempted to adjust many of its readings, but those attempts can be detected.  In addition to containing the text of every book of the New Testament, Codex Sinaiticus also contains the Epistle of Barnabas and part of the Shepherd of Hermas.

Most of the text of Codex Sinaiticus is Alexandrian.  However, in the first eight chapters of John, more or less, its text tends to be more like the Western Text.  It is as if the copyists were working from an exemplar of the Gospels that was Alexandrian, but in these opening chapters of John, their main exemplar was damaged, and so they used a drastically different exemplar as their back-up.

That would be consistent with a historical scenario that is mentioned by Jerome, who states that Acacius and Euzoius, at Caesarea in the mid-300s, labored to replace texts written on decaying papyrus in the library there with more durable parchment copies.  Whereas Codex Vaticanus does not have the Eusebian Section-numbers in its margins in the Gospels, Codex Sinaiticus does – but in a somewhat mangled form. 

            This indicates that Eusebius of Caesarea was not involved in the production of Codex Sinaiticus, because it is extremely unlikely that he would have allowed his own cross-reference system to be presented so carelessly.  At the same time, as the place where Eusebius was bishop until his death, Caesarea was one of the first places where the Eusebian Canons were used.

In addition, there are several clues embedded in the text of Codex Sinaiticus that suggest that it was made at Caesarea, during the time when Acacius, an Arian, was bishop there.  I think it is very probable that this is when and where it was made.

Details about the origin of Codex Sinaiticus, and the quality of its text, have tended to be overshadowed by stories about its discovery in the 1800s by Constantine Tischendorf at Saint Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai.  In this lecture I will not go into detail about all that, except to say, first, that the most generous interpretation of Tischendorf’s account of his first encounter with pages from Codex Sinaiticus is that he did not understand what he was being shown and what he was being told, and, second, all of the pages that Tischendorf took should be returned to the monastery from which they came.   

Codex Sinaiticus has a secondary set of section-numbers in its margin in Acts that is, for the most part, shared by Codex Vaticanus.  This indicates that when these numbers were added, probably in the 600s, these two manuscripts were at the same place.

Codex Sinaiticus has its own website, CodexSinaiticus.org , and there one can find not only good photographs of the manuscript but also some interesting information about its background and how it was made.

● Next is Codex Alexandrinus.  This codex, from the early 400s, has undergone significant damage:  it is missing the first 24 chapters of Matthew.  The surviving Gospels-text of Alexandrinus is particularly important because it tends to support the Byzantine Text, unlike Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.  In Acts and the Epistles, its text agrees much more often with the two flagship Alexandrian codices, but this is a tendency, definitely not a two-peas-in-a-pod level of agreement.  For Revelation, Codex A is the best manuscript we have. The entire New Testament portion of Codex Alexandrinus can be viewed page by page at the British Library’s website.     

● The worst Greek manuscript we have is Codex Bezae, a diglot manuscript, with alternating pages in Latin, which was produced in the 400s.  It has undergone some damage, but it still contains most of the four Gospels, in the order Matthew – John – Luke – Mark, part of Third John in Latin, and most of the book of Acts.

More important than its production-date is the date of the readings that it supports:  many of them are supported by Old Latin witnesses, and by early patristic writers who used what is called the Western Text. 

 The high level of textual corruption in Codex Bezae makes the text found in relatively young manuscripts look excellent in comparison.  Codex D’s text demonstrates that what really matters is not the age of a manuscript, as much as how well the copyists in the transmission-line of a manuscript did their job. 

Once one comes to terms with the awful quality of Codex Bezae’s text, though, many of its readings are awfully interesting.  It echoes a time in the text’s history when copyists prioritized conveying the meaning of the text – or what they thought was its meaning – above the form of the text found in their exemplars.

 Codex Bezae can be viewed online page by page at the University of Cambridge’s Digital Library.

● Also from the 400s, and probably earlier than Codex Bezae, is Codex Washingtonianus.  Codex W was acquired by the American businessman Charles Freer in 1906.  It is the most important Greek Gospels-manuscript in the United States.  Part of what makes Codex W important is not only its age, but its attestation to different forms of the text collected in a single volume:  its text in Matthew is strongly Byzantine.  Its text in Mark 1:1 to Mark 1-5 is similar to Western Text.  Its text in the rest of Mark tends to agree with the surviving text of Papyrus 45, at least in the parts where P45 is extant.   In Luke, up to chapter 8, its text is Alexandrian, but the rest of Luke tends to agree with the Byzantine Text.  In the first four chapters of John, Codex W has supplemental pages, copied from a different exemplar than the rest.  In the rest of John, it tends to agree with the Alexandrian Text.

This has led some researchers to suspect that although most of Codex W appears to have been made in the 400s, it may be a copy of an earlier codex that was based on exemplars that had been partly destroyed in the Diocletian persecution, in the very early 300s, just before Codex Vaticanus was made.  Page-views of Codex W can be accessed at the website of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.

● Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus, also known as Codex C, is a palimpsest.  Its surviving pages contain text from almost every book of the New Testament, as well as pages from some of the books of Poetry in the Old Testament, and two apocryphal books.  It was made some time in the 400s.  Its text is somewhat Alexandrian, with significant Byzantine mixture.  It is one of the few Greek manuscripts that support the reading “six hundred and sixteen” as the number of the beast in Revelation 13:18.

The parchment of Codex C was recycled to provide material on which some of the works of Ephraem the Syrian were written; this accounts for the name of the manuscript.  Its Biblical text was established in the 1840s, after much effort, by Constantine Tischendorf, the same individual who brought Codex Sinaiticus to the attention of European scholars.   The text has undergone extensive correction.

● 0176 is a fragment, probably produced in the 400s, that contains text from Galatians 3:16-24.  This manuscript was excavated from Oxyrhynchus, Egypt, which is somewhat intriguing, because the text of this fragment is thoroughly Byzantine, not Alexandrian.

● The Purple Triplets is my pet name for three uncial manuscripts from the mid-500s:  Codex N, Codex O, and Codex Σ.      Codex N is also known as 022, Codex Petropolitanus Purpureus.  Codex O is also known as 023, Codex Sinopensis.  It contains text from the Gospel of Matthew.  And Codex Σ is also known as 042, Codex Purpureus Rossanensis, or the Rossano Gospels.  It contains text from Matthew and Mark.

            These are not the only Greek uncial manuscripts written on purple parchment.  What is especially interesting about these three is that they are related to each other like siblings, copies of the same master-copy.  Codex Σ is known not only for its mainly Byzantine text, but also for its illustrations, which can be viewed at http://www.codexrossanensis.it .

● Codex Regius, also known as Codex L, contains most of the text of the four Gospels.  It was probably made in the 700s, probably by an Egyptian copyist.  Codex L is one of six Greek manuscripts that attest to both the Shorter Ending and the Longer Ending of Mark.  Codex L also has a large distinct blank space in the Gospel of John where most manuscripts have John 7:53-8:11, the story of the adulteress.    

● Codex Pi, also known as Codex Petropolitanus, is a Gospels-manuscript assigned to the 800s.  Its text is a very early form of the Byzantine Text.

● Codex K, also known as Codex Cyprius, is another Gospels-manuscript that was also probably produced in the 800s.  In the first 20 verses of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5, compared to the text in Codex Sinaiticus, the text of Codex Cyprius is much closer to the original text.

● Minuscule 2474, the Elfleda Bond Goodspeed Gospels, from the 900s, contains an example of the text of the Gospels that dominated Greek manuscript-production in the Byzantine Empire.  This manuscript can be viewed page by page at the website of the Goodspeed Manuscript Library of the University of Chicago.

            There are also several clusters, or groups, of manuscripts, that share readings that indicate that they share the same general line of descent: 

            In the Gospels, the text of some members of a group of manuscripts that display a note called the Jerusalem Colophon is above average importance.

            Readings shared by the main members of Family 1 in the Gospels, best represented by minuscule manuscripts 1, 1582, and 2193, probably echo an ancestor-manuscript from the 400s.

            Members of Family 13 in the Gospels tend to echo an ancestor-manuscript with many reading that diverge from the Byzantine standard.

            Also, in the General Epistles, members of the Harklean Group echo a form of the text that has some unusual readings that are earlier than Codex Sinaiticus.

            Some other minuscules, such as minuscules 6, 157, 700, 892, and 1739, are as important as some of the uncials.  Their existence should remind us that when we ask how much weight ought to be given to a particular manuscript, the primary consideration should not be “How old is it”, but “How well did the copyists in its transmission-stream do their job?”. 

            No manuscript sprang into being out of nothing, and any manuscript, early or late, if it is independent from another known manuscript, has the potential to contribute something to a reconstruction of the text of the New Testament.

             To get some idea of the appearance of New Testament manuscripts, I encourage you to explore the online presentations of manuscripts at the following institutions:

            Saint Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai, the Vatican Library, the British Library, the National Library of France, the Walters Art Museum, the Goodspeed Manuscript Collection at the University of Chicago, the Kenneth W. Clark Collection at Duke University, and the  Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.

    

Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions

            Gail Riplinger’s book, New Age Bible Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation Exposing the Message, Men and Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist’s One World Religion, covers a very wide variety of subjects which are important but tangential to textual criticism in its first four sections.  Finally at page 464, something like a sustained focus upon New Testament textual criticism begins to materialize.  I intend via this post to test the accuracy of this book’s contents beginning at that point; I have no intention of adding anything here to the author’s critiques of some modern versions, or her warnings against the heresies of Helena P. Blavatsky, the New Age Movement, etc., which can be found in the earlier segment of the book.

            In section 34, “The Majority Text,” the author used quotations from Wilbur Pickering and John Burgon (both of whom, while opposing the 1881 Westcott-Hort compilation, reject some readings in the Textus Receptus, the New Testament base-text of the KJV).  She seems to believe that the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus are the same thing, and readers might be forgiven for drawing such a conclusion in light of sentences such as the one found on page 471:  referring to the Byzantine Text, Riplinger states, “This text type is available today in English in the Authorized Version, or as it is called in the United States, the King James Version.”  That is not 100% true:  when the Byzantine Text (as printed in the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform 2005 ed.), representing the contents of most Greek manuscripts, is compared to the Textus Receptus, there are some translatable differences.  With apologies for veering away from my main subject, here are some examples:
            ● Matthew 8:15:  most manuscripts end the verse by stating that Peter’s mother-in-law served “Him” (αὐτω) rather than “them” (αὐτοις), the TR reading.

            ● Matthew 18:19:  after πάλιν, most manuscripts have ἀμὴν, so as to read “Verily” or “Assuredly.”

            ● Mark 4:4:  most manuscripts do not have “of the air” (τοῦ οὐρανοῦ).

            ● Mark 4:9:  most manuscripts do not have “to them” (αὐτοῖς).

            ● Luke 6:10:  most manuscripts say αὐτῷ (“him”) rather than τῷ ἀνθρώπῷ (“the man”).

            ● Luke 7:31:  most manuscripts do not have the phrase “And the Lord said” (Ειπεν δε ὁ Κύριος) at the beginning of this verse.

            ● Luke 8:3:  most manuscripts say that the women ministered “to them” (αὐτοις) instead of “to Him” (αὐτω). 

            ● Luke 23:25:  most manuscripts do not say that Barabbas was released “to them” (αὐτοις).

            ● John 2:22:  most manuscripts do not say “to them” (αὐτοῖς).

            ● John 7:33:  most manuscripts do not say “to them” (αὐτοῖς).

            ● John 20:29:  most manuscripts do not have Thomas’ name (Θωμᾶ) in this verse.

            ● Acts 7:37:  most manuscripts do not have the words “him you shall hear” (αὐτοῦ ἀκούσεσθε).

            ● Acts 9:5-6:  in most manuscripts, there is no base-text for the words, “It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.’   And he trembling and astonished said, ‘Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?’  And the Lord said unto him.”  (These words in the KJV appear to have been based on a harmonization to the similar passage in Acts 26:14-16.)

            ● Acts 10:6:  most manuscripts provide no base-text for the KJV’s phrase “He shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.”

            ● Acts 15:11:  most manuscripts do not include the word Χριστου (“Christ”).

            ● Acts 15:34:  most manuscripts provide no base-text for this entire verse.

            ● Ephesians 3:9:  most manuscripts read οἰκονομία (“dispensation”) instead of κοινωνια (“fellowship”).

            ● Philippians 4:3:  most manuscripts read Ναι (“Yes”) instead of Και (“And”) at the beginning of this verse.

            ● Colossians 1:6:  most manuscripts include the words καὶ αὐξανόμενον (“and growing”), a phrase which would be vulnerable to accidental loss due to its occurrence between the words καρποφορούμενον and καθως.

            ● Second Timothy 1:18:  most manuscripts do not include μοι (unto me).

            ● Second Timothy 2:19:  most manuscripts read Κυρίου (“the Lord”) instead of Χριστου (“Christ”) at the end of this verse.

            ● Titus 2:8:  most manuscripts refer to things said about “us” (ἡμῶν) instead of “you” (ὑμῶν). 

            ● Hebrews 2:7:  most manuscripts have no base-text for the final phrase, “And did set him over the works of Your hands.”

            ● Revelation 1:11:  most manuscripts do not include the phrase ταις ἐν Ἀσία (“which are in Asia”).         

            ● Revelation 2:22:  most manuscripts read αυτης instead of αυτων, so as to refer to repentance from “her” works, rather than “their” works.

            ● Revelation 4:11:  in most manuscripts, the twenty-four refer to “our Lord and our God” (ὁ Κύριος καὶ ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν), instead of referring to Him as “O Lord” (Κύριε).

            ● Revelation 6:1:  most manuscripts include the word “seven” (ἑπτα) before “seals.”

            ● Revelation 6:12:  most manuscripts refer to the “whole moon” (σελήνη ὅλη), not just to “the moon.”

            ● Revelation 8:13:  most manuscripts refer to an eagle (ἀετου) rather than to an angel (ἀγγέλου) here.

            ● Revelation 15:3:  most manuscripts end the verse with a reference to the King “of the nations” (ἑθνῶν) instead of “of the saints” (ἀγιων).

            (More (but far from all) differences between the Textus Receptus and the majority of manuscripts may be noticed via a consultation of the textual footnotes in the NKJV.)

            Riplinger states (p. 475) that “The variations among the Majority Text are minor.”  However, many such variations, such as the ones I just listed, are translatable, whether interpreters consider them “minor” or not.  The Nestle-Aland compilation disagrees with the Byzantine Text much more, and this tends to justify Riplinger’s description of the Nestle-Aland compilation as a text based on 1% of the extant manuscripts.  But the Textus Receptus still has some readings of its own that have only a small percentage of manuscripts in their favor.

            On page 478-479, Riplinger is almost simultaneously on and off target:  she notes that, as D. A. mentioned, “95% of the manuscripts belong to the Byzantine tradition,” but just one page later, she claims, “the KJV readings represent the earliest known manuscripts (i.e., P66 A.D. 175).”  This latter statement is true of a relatively small number of readings in P66, but it is not true in general; P66 agrees much more frequently with the Alexandrian Text than with the Byzantine Text.

            In section 35, “The Earliest Manuscripts,” Riplinger presents data drawn from the work of Wilbur Pickering, as well as quotations from as assortment of text-critical researchers (including Zuntz, Metzger, and Colwell) in which it is acknowledged that early papyri contain some distinct Byzantine readings – a fact which practically dismantles Hort’s foundational basis for rejecting the Byzantine Text.  There can be no serious denial of the veracity of the simple charts that Riplinger presents on pages 484-485, in which papyrus support is listed for 23 Byzantine readings.

            After critiquing the NASB due to its tendency to favor shorter readings in Luke 24 (an effect of Hort’s theory about “Western Non-interpolations”) – making several strong points in the process – Riplinger oversimplifies the testimony of a few important early versions when she says that the Sinaitic Syriac, the Gothic version, and the Peshitta “agree with the KJV.”  The Gothic version and the Peshitta tend to agree with the Byzantine Text, but this tendency is by no means total; meanwhile the Sinaitic Syriac is certainly not a consistent ally of the Byzantine Text, let alone of the Textus Receptus.  Similarly, Riplinger describes Codex A and Codex W as if they both support the KJV, but while this is true of portions of each manuscript, it is also untrue of other portions of each manuscript.

            Riplinger makes a serious error on page 489.  Small spelling errors – such as referring to Diognetus as “Diognelus” and referring to Macarius Magnes as “Macarius Magnus” – might be overlooked, but the claim, “P66 has predominantly KJV readings” is simply ridiculous; P66 has some readings that agree with the Textus Receptus but this is certainly not a “predominant” characteristic of the text of P66.   

           

            In section 36, Riplinger describes the Nestle-Aland compilation (Novum Testamentum Graece) and the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament as if they contain a consistently truncated, shortened form of the text.  Riplinger thus seems to assume that the Textus Receptus ought to be the standard of comparison, as if, when we come to a short reading in the Nestle-Aland compilation where there is a longer reading in the Textus Receptus, we ought to assume that something is missing in the Nestle-Aland compilation, rather than that something has been added to the Textus Receptus.  Hort, Nestle, and most textual critics of the 1900s tended to work from the opposite assumption, generally using “prefer the shorter reading” as a major guideline.  Recent research has shown that copyists tended to make more omissions than additions (thus nullifying what was for generations a common assumption among textual critics) – but it remains precarious to settle contests on the basis of generalizations; there are some cases (for instance, in James 4:12 and Jude v. 25) in which the Alexandrian Text has a reading longer than what is in the TR and the Byzantine Text.

            In her description of the UBS edition, Riplinger makes a strong case for the idea that the UBS Greek New Testament as it is currently printed is largely a Roman Catholic project carried out with an ecumenical agenda.  However, a tint of propaganda blots her point when she refers to the editors’ use of “their Gnostic Vatican manuscript.”  Vaticanus’ text perpetuates a few readings that may reflect the influence of early heretics such as the Gnostics, but their Gnostic-ness is contestable and they are quite rare.

            Next, Riplinger presents 23 passages – all from the Epistles of Paul – which, she proposes, show that in the base-text of the NIV and NASB the compilers have “used random minority text type readings when an opportunity arose to present New Age philosophy or demote God or Christ.”  Here on pages 499-502 we meet something to support the book’s title that is potentially more substantial than stories about a textual critic being bitten by Helena P. Blavatsky’s friend’s daughter’s dog; there is textual evidence to consider.  So let’s consider it.  My purpose here is not to settle every textual contest in the list, but to test Riplinger’s charge that the base-text of the NIV, NASB, etc., promote doctrines of the New Age movement in these verses.

            ● (1)  I Cor. 7:15:   NA reads ὑμᾶς where the TR, Byz, P46 and B read ἡμᾶς.  What difference has this made in English translations?  KJV:  “God hath called us to peace.”  NASB:  “God has called us to peace.”  NIV:  “God has called us to live in peace.”  CSB:  “God has called you to live in peace.” ESV:  “God has called you to peace.”  NASB:  “God has called us to peace,” with a note that means the reading “you.”  Obviously one reading is original and the other one is not, but where is the New Age philosophy in either one? 

            ● (2)  I Cor. 8:3:  NA and the TR both include τὸν θεόν, which is not included in P46.  What difference has this made in English translations?  KJV:  “But if any man love God.”  NASB:  “But if anyone loves God.”  NIV:  “But whoever loves God.”  ESV:  “But if anyone loves God.”  NASB:  “But if anyone loves God.”  Where is the New Age philosophy supposed to be?     

            ● (3)  I Cor. 10:9:  NA reads Χριστόν with the TR, Byz, and P46 where the previous edition of NA read Κυριον, with ℵ B C.  This interchange of sacred names causes a difference in meaning in English:  KJV:  “Neither let us tempt Christ.”  NASB:  “Nor let us try the Lord.”  NIV:  “We should not test Christ.”  ESV:  “We must not put Christ to the test.”  As in the first example, there is an obvious difference, but where is the exchange of a true statement for one which promotes a doctrine of the New Age movement?  It is not as if some papyrus says, “Let us not tempt Zarathustra.”   

            ● (4)  I Cor. 11:24:  NA does not have the words λάβετε φάγετε (“Take, eat”) and the word κλώμενον (“broken”), which are read in TR and Byz.  The NASB, NIV, CSB, ESV follow the NA and thus do not include “Tale, eat” and “broken” in this verse.  This may echo a difference in local liturgical practice, or (some would argue) incomplete harmonization to Matthew 26:25.  But what New Age doctrine is thus promoted?        

            ● (5)  I Cor. 13:3:  NA reads κἂν where TR and Byz read καὶ ἐὰν, but that makes no translatable difference; Riplinger must be referring to the textual contest further along in the verse:  TR and Byz read καυθήσωμαι (“to be burned”) where NA, with P46 ℵ B,  reads καυχήσωμαι (“that I may boast”).  Again, there is a difference – CSB:  “in order to boast.” NIV:  “that I may boast” – ESV:  “to be burned” – NASB:  “to be burned” – but does this look like anything other than the effect of an early scribal mistake involving a single letter?     
            ● (6)  I Cor. 14:38:   Where the TR and Byz read ἀγνοέιτω (“let him be ignorant”), NA reads ἀγνοέιται, and as a result of this one-syllable difference, the NIV reads “they will themselves be ignored,” the NASB reads, “he is not recognized.” The CSB reads “he will be ignored,” and the ESV reads “he is not recognized.”  Again, there is no question that there is a difference in the meaning – but where is the evidence of a devious doctrinal agenda, rather than scribal sloppiness?

            ● (7) I Cor. 15:49:  TR (Stephanus 1550) reads φορέσομεν, Byz reads φορέσωμεν, Pickering’s f³⁵ text reads φορέσωμεν, and NA reads φορέσομεν.  Here the NA and TR agree with each other while disagreeing with the majority of manuscripts!  The resultant difference in translations:  KJV:  “We shall also bear.”  CSB:  “we will also bear.”     NIV:  “so shall we bear.” ESV:  “we shall also bear.”  NASB:  “we will also bear,” with a footnote that mentions the alternative, “let us also bear.”  That alleged New Age conspiracy is starting to look extremely subtle.           

            ● (8) I Cor. 15:54:  TR, Byz, and NA all read the same; they all read νικος at the end of the verse, rejecting the reading in P46 and Vaticanus, νεικος.  (This reading νεικος was mentioned in the Preface to the 1582 Rheims version, as if it was a reading which Beza was inclined to adopt.)   The KJV, ESV, NIV, CSB, and NASB thus refer to “victory.”

            ● (9) 2 Cor. 1:10:   The TR and Byz read ῥύεται (“does deliver”) where NA reads ῥύσεται (“will deliver”).  This is why the KJV says “doth deliver” where the CSB, NIV, ESV, and NASB say “will deliver.”   

            ● (10) 2 Cor. 1:11:  The TR, Byz, and NA all read ἡμῶν at the end of the verse; thus the KJV and other versions refer to “on our behalf.”  Had the reading in P46 (ὑμῶν) been adopted instead, the phrase would say “on your behalf.”  

            ● (11) 2 Cor. 1:12:  The TR, Byz, and NA all read ἁπλότητι, which means “simplicity” or (in the NIV) “integrity.”  The NASB reflects the alternative reading supported by P46 ℵ* B, ἁγιότητι (adopted in NA previously), which means “holiness.”  Again I find myself asking, “Where is the insidious introduction of New Age philosophy??”       

            ● (12) 2 Cor. 2:1:  Where TR and Byz read δε, NA reads γαρ; the resultant difference in translations is the difference between “But” and “For” at the beginning of the verse. 

            ● (13) 2 Cor. 2:17:  TR and Byz and NA read πολλοὶ (“many”), and P46 reads λοιποί (“the rest”).  The CSB, ESV, KJV, NIV, NASB, and NIV read “many.”

            ● (14) 2 Cor. 3:2:  ℵ reads ὑμῶν where P46, TR, Byz, and NA read ἡμῶν.  This is the same sort of variant seen in 2 Cor. 1:11.   A few English versions had adopted ὑμῶν; this is why the RSV and the Living Bible refer to “your” hearts rather than “our” hearts.     

            ● (15) 2 Cor. 3:9:  Where the TR, Byz and B read ἡ διακονία, NA, with P46, reads τῇ διακονίᾳ.  This difference seems to have had no effect on English translations.

            ● (16) 2 Cor. 8:7:  Where the TR and Byz read ὑμῶν ἐν ἡμῖν, NA, with P46 and B, reads ἡμῶν ἐν ὑμῖν.  Thus while the KJV refers to “your love for us,” the ESV refers to “our love for you,” and so does the NRSV.  The CSB’s base-text agrees with Byz, reading “your love for us.” (I suspect that the CBGM, plus common sense, may elicit the adoption of ὑμῶν ἐν ἡμῖν in the future.)  As in other examples of this kind of exchange of pronouns, the difference in the readings looks much more like an effect of scribal sloppiness than an effect of a doctrinal agenda to smuggle New Age doctrines into the text.

            ● (17) Gal. 1:3:  Where the KJV’s base-text, along with the text in most manuscripts, means “God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ,” translations of NA say, instead, “God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”  In other words, the substance of this textual difference is a matter of where the word “our” (ἡμῶν) belongs.  Where is the New Age doctrine in either reading?

            ● (18) Gal. 1:8:   TR and Byz include the word ὑμῖν, and thus the KJV reads “to you” in the first reference to preaching, as well as the second reference.  The NA only has this word within brackets.  The NIV lacks the first reference to preaching “to you,” whereas the ESV, NASB, and CSB has it.          

            ● (19) Gal. 1:15:  the TR and Byz include ὁ θεὀς (“God”), which NA included within brackets; ὁ θεὀς is not there in P46 B Pesh, and an earlier edition of NA did not adopt it.  (Bruce Metzger added a special note in his Textual Commentary emphasizing his view that ὁ θεὀς is secondary here.)  The difference, when the verse is translated into English, is a difference between Paul referring to God directly (as in, “But when it pleased God, who separated me,” in the KJV) or implicitly (as in, “But when he who had set me apart . . .  was pleased” in the ESV).      

            ● (20) Gal. 4:25:  Where TR and Byz read τὸ γὰρ before Ἅγαρ Σινᾶ, NA reads τὸ δε.  The translation effect of this difference consists of whether or not the sentence begins with “For.”  What New Age teaching is supposed to be supported by this?    

            ● (21) Gal. 4:28:  Where TR and Byz (and ℵ A C) read ἡμεῖς at the beginning of the verse and ἐσμέν at the end, NA (with P46 and B) read ὑμεῖς and ἐστέ.  Thus while the KJV says “Now you,” most modern translations say, “Now we.”      

            ● (22) Gal. 6:2:  The one-letter difference between ἀναπληρώσατε in the TR and Byz (and ℵ A C), and ἀναπληρώσετε results in a slightly different meaning; this is why the KJV reads, “fulfil” while the NIV reads, “you will fulfill.” (Interestingly, the ESV and NASB agree with Byz here.)

            ● (23) Gal. 6:13:   Where Byz reads περιτετμημένοι αὐτοὶ (“those who are submitting to be circumcised,”) TR and NA read περιτεμνόμενοι αὐτοὶ (“Those who are themselves circumcised”).  Either way, the reference is to the same group of people. 

            Not a single one of these textual contests involves a reading which presents New Age philosophy. Not a single one of these textual contests involves a reading which demotes God or Christ.  The tone of Riplinger’s argument in sections 34-36 of her book, to the effect that the NIV and NASB are “New Age Bible versions,” hits a wall when the actual evidence is considered:  the presentation of New Age philosophy is simply absent from the 23 passages she has presented.  This is not to say that the Alexandrian readings in these 23 passages are all correct and original; it is to say that they are doctrinally benign.

            My general impression of New Age Bible Versions – from cover to cover – is that it was written by an author who has taken a valid concern – namely, concern about the many doctrinal errors that were promoted in the late 1800s by Blavatsky and various spiritualists – and transferred it to the text-critical work of B. F. Westcott (an Anglican bishop, and a different person from William Wynn Westcott) and F. J. A. Hort, as if their revision of the Greek New Testament, coming from the same place, and at around the same time, as Theosophy and Spiritualism, must be linked to those heresies in some way.    

            It is easy to claim an association between the New-Age-ism of the era in which Westcott and Hort worked, and their text-critical work itself.  And Hort did himself no favor by attending a séance on one occasion, by insisting on the inclusion of a Unitarian on the committee in charge of producing the Revised Version, or by joining a group of scholars who wished to put spiritualism under the microscope of scientific investigation.  But the strengths and weaknesses of Hort’s text-critical evidence and arguments are strong or weak on their own, and do not depend at all upon the theological integrity of Hort or of their other advocates.  In addition, many renderings which Riplinger finds objectionable are translation-related, and emanate from translators, not from the base-text being translated.   

            Riplinger would have done well to consider Hanlon’s Razor:  do not rush to attribute to malicious motives what can be explained by simple incompetence.  When we set aside Riplinger’s transferred alarm about Blavatsky & Co., and take the time to examine the textual centerpiece of her case – the 23 textual contests she has listed in which Alexandrian readings are supposed to present New Age philosophy – it becomes spectacularly clear that they do nothing of the sort. 

Readers are invited to double-check the data in this post.