GA 804 Looked Like a Gospels-Manuscript - Except For This!

            In October 2014, I wrote about GA 804, a small Gospels-manuscript from the 1000s with a text that often agrees with K and Π.  This manuscript, housed in Athens at the Hellenic Parliament Library, was digitized by a research-team from the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.

            Today, I want to zoom in on the contents of the ten pages in GA 804 that appear after its Eusebian Canon-tables and chapter-list and immediately before the text of Matthew.  These pages (viewable at the CSNTM website) were once part of a different manuscript – a lectionary, containing assorted extracts from various New Testament books.  They contain Galatians 4:4-7 (a Christmastime reading), First Corinthians 9:19-22, First Corinthians 10:1-3 (part of a lection for the ceremonial Blessing of the Water on January 5), Titus 2:11-14, Titus 3:5-7 (these two segments from Titus form part of a lection for January 6, Epiphany), Hebrews 7:7-17 (a lection for February 2), and Hebrews 2:11-18 (a lection for Good Friday).  The last page of the lectionary (on which the last part of Hebrews 2:18, after περασθείς, can still be read) was reused to contain an illustration (now badly faded) of the apostle Matthew. 

            Let’s briefly sift through the text, ignoring most of the many itacisms, and looking at its readings especially at points where the Byzantine Textform has a reading different from NA27.  A few other readings are also recorded:

Gal. 4:6 – 804 does not have ὁ Θς before το πνα

Gal. 4:6 – 804 has ημων instead of υμων, agreeing with P46 À A B C

Gal. 4:7 – 804 has αλλ’ instead of αλλα, agreeing with Byz

Gal. 4:7 – 804 has θυ δια χυ, agreeing with Byz

I Cor. 9:20 – 804 has ως υπο νομον, agreeing with Byz

I Cor. 9:21 – 804 has θω, agreeing with Byz

I Cor. 9:21 – 804 has Χω, agreeing with Byz

I Cor. 9:22 – 804 has Και at the beginning of the verse

I Cor. 9:22 – 804 has ως, agreeing with Byz

I Cor. 9:22 – 804 has τα, agreeing with Byz

I Cor. 9:23 – 804 has Τουτο, agreeing with Byz

I Cor. 9:24 – 804 has Η before ουκ

I Cor. 9:26 – 804 has δε after Εγω

I Cor. 9:26 – 804 has πϊκτευω instead of πυκτευω

I Cor. 9:27 – 804 has αλλ’ instead of αλλα, agreeing with Byz

I Cor. 10:1 – 804 has δε, agreeing with Byz

I Cor. 10:1 – 804 has ηλθον instead of διηλθον, agreeing with 1241^s

I Cor. 10:2 – 804 has εβαπτισθησαν, agreeing with NA. 

I Cor. 10:3 – 804 has an h.t. error:  the scribe’s line of sight went from the first occurrence of το αυτο to the second occurrence, skipping the intervening words.  (This indirectly supports the Byzantine reading)

Titus 2:11 – 804 has η σριος, agreeing with Byz

Titus 2:13 – 804 has πρς instead of σωτηρος

Titus 2:13 – 804 has Ιυ Χυ, agreeing with Byz

Titus 2:14 – 804 has εαυτον before λαον, instead of εαυτω

Titus 2:14 – 804 has καλλων instead of καλων

Titus 3:4 – 804 has φιλανια 

Titus 3:5 – 804 has ελειον, agreeing (with itacism) with Byz

Titus 3:5 – 804 has ανακενησεως instead of ανακινώσεως

Titus 3:6 – 804 has γενώμεθα instead of γενηθωμεν

Titus 3:7 (lection-segment concludes at the end of the verse)

Heb. 7:9 – 804 has επως (itacism)

Heb. 7:10 – 804 includes ὁ before Μελχισεδέκ, agreeing with Byz

Heb. 7:11 – 804 has αυτην ενομοθετήτο (agreeing with Byz, sort of)

Heb. 7:11 – 804 has χρειαν instead of χρεια

Heb. 7:11 – 804 has μη instead of ου

Heb. 7:14 – 804 has ουδεν περι ερωσυνης, agreeing (essentially) with Byz

Heb. 7:17 – 804 has μαρτυρειται, agreeing with NA

Heb. 7:17 – 804 does not have οτι

Heb. 7:17 – 804 has ει before ιερευς

Heb. 2:14 – 804 has σαρκός και αιματος, agreeing with Byz

            Thus, we have here the remains of a mostly Byzantine lectionary – with a few readings that stand out:  

● The absence of ὁ Θς in Galatians 4:6 would make this reference to God less explicit.  This shorter reading is supported by B and 1739.

● φιλανια in Titus 3:4 is not exactly a textual variant; it is a seldom-seen sacred name contraction; uncontracted, the word is φιλανθρωπία.  (It is featured in the Kacmarcik Codex in a section about nomina sacra contractions.  (Dr. David Calabro tells a little more about the Kacmarcik Codex in this brief video.))

● εβαπτισθησαν in I Cor. 10:2 is supported by the formidable array of À A C D (i.e., Claromontanus, not Bezae), Ψ 33 1611 1505.  Yet the usual Byzantine reading, ἐβαπτίσαντο, is supported (with a slight spelling difference) by Papyrus 46 B K et al.  The Tyndale House GNT adopts ἐβαπτίσαντο here, in agreement with a note added by Bruce Metzger in his Textual Commentary, which would mean that those who crossed the Red Sea baptized themselves.

● ημων in Galatians 4:6 causes the sentence to refer to our hearts, rather than your hearts.  

● The sacred-name contraction πρς in Titus 2:13 is weird:  uncontracted, this would be Πατρος, “Father” – which does not work very well with Granville Sharp’s Rule in play; a reader of such a sentence might conclude that Paul mean that our God and Father = Jesus Christ.  But this would not be the only instance of a copyist writing the wrong sacred-name contraction.   

● μαρτυρειται in Hebrews 7;17 – The Byzantine reading μαρτυρει might have originated in a parableptic error in which the final syllable -ται was accidentally skipped.

● ει before ιερευς is not adopted in Hebrews 7:17 in the Nestle-Aland compilation, the Byzantine Text, the Textus Receptus, Pickering’s f35 archetype, or the Tyndale House GNT.  Yet a case could be made for its genuineness:  scribes might naturally insert the equivalent of “are” here, but scribes might just as naturally conform the quotation to the Greek text of Psalm 110 (Psalm 109:4 in the Septuagint) that is being quoted – or omit it accidentally.  The inclusion of ει has early and diverse support from Papyrus 46, K, 1175, and 1739.  

This data should augment and clarify the Informational Document for GA 804 at CSNTM which was drawn up by Daniel B. Wallace.  In addition, the statement “238b–239b: PA; πν is written vertically in red letters between 7.52 and 7.53” should be corrected:  those red letters are not πν; they are υπ, and they are part of the lectionary marginalia instructing the lector to jump (υπερβαλε) ahead to 8:12, where one sees in the margin the instructions for the lector to resume (αρξου).

I do not know if this lectionary has received its own official identification-number.  Perhaps such a step should be delayed until a careful investigation can be made to see if these pages are part of a lectionary which already has an identification-number.

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

I also invite you to read and contemplate some of the Scriptures in these pages – First Corinthians 10:1-3, Galatians 4:4-7, Titus 2:11-14, Titus 3:5-7, Hebrews 2:11-18 – as you celebrate the coming new year 2020!

The Myth of Tenacity

            On page 78 of The King James Only Controversy, author James White states:   “Once a variant reading appears in a manuscript, it doesn’t simply go away.  It gets copied and ends up in other manuscripts.”  To support this statement, White appealed to Kurt & Barbara Aland’s similar statement:  “Once a variant or a new reading enters the tradition it refuses to disappear, persisting (if only in a few manuscripts) and perpetuating itself through the centuries.  One of the most striking traits of the New Testament textual tradition is its tenacity.” – Aland & Aland, The Text of the New Testament, p. 56.

            Aland & Aland, however, only provided three examples of this “tenacity” – and two of the three are very poorly attested among later Greek manuscripts.  Their first example is the abrupt ending of the Gospel of Mark (i.e., the ending at 16:8); among extant Greek manuscripts, it is supported by exactly one later copy (304).  In addition, 304’s text of Mark is 90% Byzantine; there is a very real possibility that 304’s exemplar contained Mark 16:9-20; like 2386 and 1420 (both of which used to be cited – erroneously – as support for the abrupt ending), 304’s support for the abrupt ending of Mark may turn out to be merely a quirk. 

            What about Aland & Aland’s other two demonstrations of tenacity?  They are found in Matthew 13:57 and Mark 1:16:

            Regarding Matthew 13:57:  Aland and Aland point out that whereas some manuscripts (B D Θ 33 700) simply present Jesus saying that a prophet is without honor in [his] homeland (πατριδι), and some manuscripts (À f¹³) present Jesus saying that a prophet is without honor in his own homeland (ἰδία πατριδι), and some manuscripts (L Byz K N W) present Jesus saying that a prophet is without honor in his homeland (πατριδι αὐτοῦ), the scribe of Codex C conflated two readings, so as to write ἰδία πατριδι αὐτοῦ.  “This is typical,” Aland and Aland say – “a scribe familiar with both readings will combine them, reasoning that by preserving both texts the right text will be preserved.”

            The obvious problem with the Alands’ proposal is that Codex C’s reading in this passage is anything but “typical;” C’s reading is singular – that is, it is the only Greek manuscript that has this reading!  Far from being “tenacious,” this reading burst into existence with the scribe of C, and then went extinct.  We may have here a tenacious page of parchment, but not a tenacious reading.

            The example in Mark 1:16 is better, where it can be argued that the majority reading is a combination, or conflation, of the reading in Codex A (του Σίμωνος) and the reading in Codex D G W Θ and the Textus Receptus (αὐτου), producing the longer reading αὐτου του Σίμωνος.  Although a counter-argument can be made, let’s step back at this point and survey the evidence that has been collected to illustrate the proposal that once a reading (whether part of the original text, or the creation of a scribe) appears in a manuscript, it does not go away:

            ● The presence of the abrupt ending of Mark in minuscule 304.

            ● The reading ἰδία πατριδι αὐτοῦ in Codex C (a singular reading), and

            ● The reading αὐτου του Σίμωνος in the Byzantine Text of Mark 1:16.  

            Now consider the mass of evidence against the concept of tenacity:  the hundreds of singular readings that appears in ancient manuscripts, but of which there is no trace in later manuscripts.  How many such readings are there?  Greg Paulson wrote his 2013 thesis on singular readings in the codices Vaticanus (B), Sinaiticus (À), Bezae (D), Ephraemi Rescriptus (C), and Washingtonianus (W) in the Gospel of Matthew, and he mentioned how many singular readings – i.e., readings that do not recur in any other Greek manuscript – each one of these codices has in its text of Matthew.  Paulson’s data:
            Vaticanus:  97.

            Sinaiticus:  Scribe A:  163. 

            Bezae:  259.

            Ephraemi Rescriptus:  75

            Washingtonianus:  112.

            I emphasize that these numbers – showing that five important early manuscripts combine to produce a total of 706 singular readings – only take the text of Matthew into consideration.  If one were to extrapolate, so as to maintain a proportion of 25 singular readings per chapter of the Gospels, then we could reasonably expect that a study of all the singular readings in these five manuscripts throughout the four Gospels would total about 2,225.  Well, there we would have 1,500 non-tenacious readings – never seen before or after the one time they appear – versus the three submitted by Aland & Aland.  Suppose that two-thirds of these were nonsense-readings which scribes could reasonably be expected to regard as mistakes.  That would leave 500 non-tenacious, non-nonsense readings, just in the Gospels, just in these five manuscripts.

            And what if we consider some earlier manuscripts?   A single quotation from James Royse (from p. 246 of Scribal Tendencies in the Transmission of the Text of the New Testament, chapter 15 of The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research, © 1995 Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Ehrman and Holmes, editors) may serve to tell us:  Royse provides a chart which conveys that Papyrus 45 has 222 significant singular readings; Papyrus 46 has 471 significant singular readings; Papyrus 47 has 51 significant singular readings; Papyrus 66 has 107 significant singular readings; Papyrus 72 has 98 significant singular readings; Papyrus 75 has 119 significant singular readings.  (In a footnote, Royse helpfully defines “significant singular readings” as “those singular readings that remain after exclusion of nonsense-readings and orthographic variants.”)  

            Hundreds of readings refute the Alands’ claim about tenacity.  (Over a thousand in just six papyri.)  There is no evidence that these readings were ever perpetuated after they entered the transmission-stream precisely once.  Here the case might rest, Q.E.D. 

  

            But let’s also consider a few peripheral pieces of evidence.             

            ● Origen and Luke 1:46.  Bruce Metzger pointed out (in his essay References in Origen to Variant Readings) that Origen, in his commentary on Matthew, mentioned that in some copies, the Magnificat is said to be sung by Mary, while according to other copies, Elizabeth is the singer.  Presently, no Greek manuscripts say that Elizabeth was the singer. 

            ● Tertullian and John 1:13.  All Greek manuscripts of John 1 support the use of a plural in this verse, so as to understand it as a generalization about all genuine believers.  Tertullian, however, seems to have been convinced that the original reading here was singular, and that Valentinian heretics were responsible for changing it to a plural form.  (Denis S. Kulandaisamy has written a 300-page book on this little subject.)   

            ● Epiphanius and Matthew 2:11.  The apologist Epiphanius of Salamis, in the late 300s, mentioned that the wise men opened their “wallets” (πήρας), and noted that some manuscripts – like all Greek manuscripts extant today – referred instead to their “treasures” (θησαυροὺς).  No known manuscript today has the reading πήρας.  

            ● Jerome, Isidore, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Ephesians 5:14.  Several significant patristic writers drew attention to a textual variant in Ephesians 5:14, where instead of “And Christ will shine on you,” some manuscripts in their day read “And Christ will touch you.”  John Chrysostom seems to have alluded to this variant, too, although he did not go into detail about it.  If it is extant in any Greek manuscripts, there is no mention of them in the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece. 

            ● Origen and Matthew 4:17.  Origen says plainly that some manuscripts do not have the word “Repent” in this verse.  All of our Greek manuscripts, however, presently support the inclusion of “Repent” in this verse; only in the Old Syriac copies and in the Old Latin Codex Bobbiensis is it missing.     

            ● Jerome and Matthew 13:35.  Jerome firmly asserts that all of the ancient copies state that these things were done to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Asaph.  No manuscripts of Matthew today have this reading, and Jerome mentions that by his own time, the text had been altered; one alteration had yielded the erroneous reading “Isaiah the prophet.” 

            If you take in hand Amy Donaldson’s two-part dissertation Explicit References to New Testament Variant Readings Among Greek and Latin Church Fathers, you will find details about these readings, and others, which were cited by early patristic writers but which now are never or only rarely found.

            Finally, the myth of tenacity is not only refuted by empirical evidence; it is rendered superfluous by logic.  For if a reading were to enter the transmission-stream, and then fall into oblivion, and the manuscript containing it did not survive, and no one referred to it in patristic writings, how would we know?  Even if we did not have the empirical evidence that thoroughly refutes the theory of tenacity, the theory could only ever be an assumption, not a verifiable thing.

                         

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

Hand to Hand Combat: P46 versus GA 384

Let’s have some hand-to-hand combat!  Today’s arena is the first eleven verses of chapter 15 of First Corinthians, in which Paul describes some of the historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ.  Our competitors are Papyrus 46 (the earliest substantial Greek manuscript of Paul’s epistles – estimated to have been made around the year 200) and medieval minuscule 384, made (as far as can be deduced from the script) in the 1200’s. 

Papyrus 46 is also known as P. Chester Beatty II and P. Michigan Inv. 6238; the two names are an effect of having two parts of the manuscript residing in two collections (one at the Chester Beatty Library, and one at the University of Michigan).  

Let’s see which one has the better-preserved text, using the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece as the standard of comparison.

To those who are new to the hand-to-hand contests (the hands in view being the hands of copyists), here’s what they involve:  two manuscripts are compared to see which one has the more accurate text, on the basis of a simple count of non-original letters that are present, and of original letters that are absent; these quantities are combined to yield a total of how much corruption is present in the passage in each manuscript.  Transpositions, if there are any, are mentioned, but a simple transposition is not considered a gain or loss of text.  Abbreviations and sacred-name contractions are not considered variants.  Readings in the text of Nestle-Aland are used as the standard of comparison even if they are bracketed.

Here are the readings of Papyrus 46 in I Cor. 15:1-11 that disagree with NA27:  

1 – P46 has υμειν instead of υμιν (after ευηγγελισαμην) (+1)

2 – P46 has υμειν instead of υμιν (after ευηγγελισαμην) (+1)

2 – P46 has κατέχειν immediately following υμειν (+8)

3 – P46 has υμειν instead of υμιν (after γαρ) (+1)

[The text of part of verses 5 and 6 are unrecoverable in P46; part of the page is badly damaged.]

7 – P46 has επειτα (after Ιακωβω) instead of ειτα (+2)

8 – no variation

9 – P46 does not include του (-3)

10 – P46 reads κενη ουκ instead of ου κενη (+1)
10 – P46 reads αλ’ instead of αλλα (-2)  [Thanks, Daniel Buck, for catching this one!] (-2)

10 – P46 reads εις εμε instead of συν εμοι (+4, -5)

11 – no variation.

Thus, in First Corinthians 15:1-11, Papyrus 46 has 18 non-original letters, and is missing 10 original letters, yielding a total of 28 letters’ worth of corruption.  In three cases, however, the difference is only itacistic (in all three cases involving the vowels in υμειν/υμιν), and in one case (αλ’ instead of αλλα in v. 10) essentially the same word is represented.  With those orthographic cases set aside, Papyrus 46 has 23 letters’ worth of corruption in this passage.  Also, someone has put a line of dots above the word κατέχειν in verse 8, thus conveying that it is a scribal mistake and should not be read. If we assume that the copyist himself did this, then the total amount of non-orthographic corruption in this passage is only 15 letters’ worth.   

Now let’s look at minuscule 384.  This entire manuscript can be viewed at the British Library’s website; it is Harley MS 5588.  It contains 264 pages, and contains the Greek text of Acts, the General Epistles, and the Epistles of Paul, written in black ink with red initials regular appearing at chapter-breaks. Quotations from the Old Testament are indicated by diple-marks in the margin, usually in black.  Some corrections have been added in the margin (at Acts 2:17, for example), in red.  Occasionally in the margin, Latin notes appear (cf. fol. 24r, for example, and 51v, near First John 5:7).  In the margin of 24v, a note is written vertically in the margin of the page in what appears to be Armenian.

 Here are the readings in 384 in First Corinthians 15:1-11 that disagree with NA27:

1 – 384 transposes Αδελφοι to the beginning of the verse.

2 – no variation.

3 – no variation.

4 – 384 has τη τριτη ημερα instead of τη ημερα τη τριτη (-2)

5 – no variation.

6 – 384 reads πλειους instead of πλεινες (+2, -2)

6 – 384 reads και before εκοιμηθησαν (+3)  

7 – no variation.

8 – 384 has an extra, larger letter tau in τω before εκτρωματι (+1)

9 – no variation.

10 – 384 reads αλλ’ instead of αλλα (-1)

11 – no variation.

(It may be noted that 384’s readings in verse four (τη τριτη ημερα) and verse six (πλειους and και) are the typical Byzantine readings; if we had used the RP2005 Byzantine Textform as the standard of comparison, minuscule 384 would differ from it only due to the transposition in verse 1, and a couple of spelling-differences.) 

Compared to NA27, minuscule 384 has six non-original letters in First Corinthians 15:1-11, and is missing five original letters, yielding a total of 11 letters’ worth of corruption.  The absence of the final α in αλλα is a minor orthographic variant, as is the extra tau in verse 8; if these two very minor variants are set aside, 384 has nine letters’ worth of difference from the Nestle-Aland compilation of First Corinthians 15:1-11. 

This means that if we do not assume that the removal of κατέχειν  in verse 8 in Papyrus 46 was made before the manuscript was released, then the transmission-line of minuscule 384 perpetuated these eleven verses with fewer than half as much corruption as the transmission-line of Papyrus 46.  This is even more impressive on the part of the copyists of minuscule 384’s text (or, unimpressive on the part of the copyists of Papyrus 46’s text) when one considers that minuscule 384’s text was handed down for over 1,100 years; in comparison, Papyrus 46’s text was only handed down for about 170 years. 

In this particular passage, then, in minuscule 384’s transmission-line (within the Byzantine text-stream), scribes added about one letter’s worth of corruption to these eleven verses every century, on average.  Meanwhile, if P46 is assigned to the year 225, and if we assume that the copyist corrected verse 8 before finishing the manuscript, and also assume that he made no mistakes in the non-extant part of verses five and six, then in the transmission-stream of P46 (within the Alexandrian text-stream), scribes added about one letter’s worth of corruption to these eleven verses about every 12 years.

For those who might like to take a closer look at the winner of this contest, here is a basic index of minuscule 384:

1r – Summary of the book of Acts of the Apostles

2r – Prologue to the Acts of the Apostles

4r – Acts, with a red headpiece.  Chapter-numbers appear in the margin (in red, enclosed at the top and bottom by red lines).  Lectionary-notes appear at the ends of chapters, in red.

40v – After the end of Acts 28, there is a brief composition describing the martyrdom of Paul.

42r – James

45r – First Peter

48v – Hypothesis (summary and introduction) of Second Peter

49r – Second Peter

51v – First John

55r – Second John

55v – Hypothesis of Third John, and Third John

56r – Hypothesis of Jude

56v – Jude

57v – Prologue to the Pauline Epistles

61r – Romans, with a red headpiece.

74v – First Corinthians

82r – There’s a lot of material in the outer margin; it seems to be a quotation from Basil, added before the manuscript was trimmed.

87r – Second Corinthians

95r – Note with stichometry for Second Corinthians.  Galatians

99r – Note with stichometry for Galatians

99v – Ephesians (Decorative red line for headpiece)

103v – Note with stichometry for Ephesians (312)

104r – Philippians

106v – Note with stichometry for Philippians (208)

107r – Colossians

110r – First Thessalonians

112v – Second Thessalonians (Latin marginalia on 113r)

114r – First Timothy

117v – Note with stichometry for First Timothy (230).  Second Timothy.

120r – Note with stichometry for Second Timothy (172).  Titus.

121v – Note with stichometry for Titus (97).  Philemon.

122r – Note with stichometry for Philemon (37).  Hebrews.

[Readers are welcome to explore the embedded links for additional resources.]

Museums of the Bible

The Museum of the Bible

            The countdown is on for the opening of the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C., scheduled for November 17, 2017.  Perhaps then we will finally see if there is anything to the rumors of a first-century manuscript-fragment of the Gospel of Mark or not.  In the meantime, let’s not overlook the various museums and research-centers in the United States that already have Bible-related materials on exhibit or in their archives.  Here is a brief look at some of them.

         

             The Freer-Sackler Gallery at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. includes several Biblical manuscripts, including the Freer Gospels, also known as Codex Washingtoniensis.    

            The Goodspeed Manuscript Collection at the University of Chicago features 68 New Testament manuscripts, most of which are available to view online.  They include the infamous “Gangsters’ Bible” and a fifth-century fragment of the Gospel of Mark found at Oxyrhynchus, Egypt. 

            At Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, the David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library includes the Kenneth Willis Clark Collection of Greek Manuscripts.  Minuscule 2613 (Manuscript 6 in the Clark Collection) is among the more notable manuscripts in the collection; in 2613, the story of the adulteress is included after the end of the Gospel of John.

The Holy Land Experience

                In Orlando, Florida, The Scriptorium:  Center for Biblical Antiquities  at The Holy Land Experience houses the Van Kampen Collection, which includes several Greek New Testament manuscripts, a Coptic manuscript from the 300’s with text from Jeremiah and the apocryphal book of Baruch, and the Syriac Yonan Codex, and several respectably old Latin manuscripts, as well as later copies of the Vulgate and the books which constituted the personal research-library of Eberhard Nestle.  The Holy Land Experience theme park also offers dramas and other interactive events that teach about the Bible and its message.  (Also in Orlando:  the Wycliffe Discovery Center.)

       

             The archives of the Walters Art Museum, in Baltimore, Maryland, though not specially designated as a Bible museum, contain numerous Biblical manuscripts in Greek, Latin, Armenian, and Ethiopic.  Many of them can be viewed page-by-page online.  Occasionally exhibits at the museum focus on Biblical subjects.   

      

            The University of Michigan has very many ancient manuscripts in its collections, some of which contain New Testament material.  By far the most significant and most ancient is a 30-leaf portion of Papyrus 46.  Also of historical importance are a 1536 copy of Tyndale’s English New Testament and a 1611 Authorized (King James) Version.

            The Hill Museum & Manuscript Library in Collegeville, Minnesota has a huge collection of Biblical manuscripts in a variety of early versions, including Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, and Ethiopic.

             The Morgan Library & Museum in New York, New York has a vast collection of medieval volumes, notable especially for their artistic content, including The Lindau Gospels and The Crusader Bible.

            The Harry Ransom Center at the University of Texas at Austin has an impressive collection of medieval manuscripts which include some Biblical volumes.  One example is the Terrell Gospels, (minuscule 2322).  In 2012, the HRC has a special exhibition about the KJV and its history; some resources related to that exhibition are still online.  The center also has a permanent exhibition about the Gutenburg Bible.

            The Bible Museum at the Great Passion Play in Eureka Springs, Arkansas has a collection of printed Bibles, including Erasmus’ 1516 Novum Instrumentum.  Inspired in part by a visit to Eureka Springs, Terry Snelling recently opened The Bible Museum in Houston, Missouri (not Texas) with a small but interesting collection.

            The Dunham Bible Museum at Houston Baptist University houses a variety of manuscripts, artifacts, Bible translations into Native American languages, Bible-era coins, and high-quality replicas.  

            The Museum of Biblical History in Collierville, Tennessee features kid-friendly programs and archaeology camps, and hosts lectures about the Bible. 

            Outside the United States, there are other museums which focus on the Bible and Bible-related objects.  One that seems to get a lot of online attention (possibly because of the similarity between its name and that of the Museum of the Bible) is St. Arnaud, Australia’s Bible Museum, which has in its collection unique tapestries based on famous Bible pages.

            Many Christian colleges and universities have small antiquities-museums; one notable example in Indiana is Anderson University’s Jeeninga Museum.  On the same campus, one can find a gallery than includes what is probably the most famous religious iconic image in the world, Warner Sallman’s Head of Christ.  

Hebrews 1:1-6, Papyrus 46, and the Byzantine Text

Heb. 1:1-7a in Papyrus 46.

            Which contains the more accurate text of Hebrews 1:1-6:  the Byzantine Text (which some pro-Alexandrian scholars say emerged as late as the 800’s), or Papyrus 46, the earliest substantial Greek manuscript of the book of Hebrews? 

            Using the text of the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece as the basis of comparison, here are the disagreements in the Byzantine Text:

2 – Byz has a transposition (τοὺς αιωνας ἐποίησεν instead of ἐποίησεν τοὺς αιωνας).

3 – Byz has δι’ εαυτου before καθαρισμὸν but NTG does not.

3 – Byz has a transposition and the word ημων after ἁμαρτιων in the middle of the verse. 

            That’s it:  the addition of 12 letters, and two transpositions.  For the rest of Hebrews 1:1-6, the Byzantine Text and Novum Testamentum Graece are identical. 

            Here are the disagreements between Papyrus 46 and Novum Testamentum Graece:  

1 – P46 has ημων added above the text-line after πατράσιν.  (+4, but since this is a correction, and may have been added after the initial production of the manuscript, it will not be counted in the total.)

2 – P46 has ημειν instead of ημιν. (+1)

2 – P46 does not have και. (-3)

3 – P46 does not have αὐτου after δυνάμεως.  (-5)

3 – P46 has δι’ αυτου before καθαρισμὸν.  (+7)

4 – P46 has τοσούτων instead of τοσούτω.  (+1)

4 – P46 has κριττων instead of κρειττων.  (-1)

4 – P6 does not have των before ἀγγέλων.  (-3)

            When numerical values are assigned to the variants – nothing for benign transpositions, +1 for the presence of a non-original letter, and -1 for the absence of an original letter – this data yields the following results:  in Hebrews 1:1-6, the Byzantine Text deviates from the original text by two transpositions and 12 letters’ worth of corruption (all additions).  Papyrus 46’ text, meanwhile, deviates from the original text by 21 letters’ worth of corruption (9 non-original letters added; 12 original letters omitted).

            What does this tell us? 

            First, it demonstrates that the Nestle-Aland compilers did not adopt the reading with the oldest manuscript-support several times in this passage, particularly in verse 3, where P46 has δι’ αυτου and the Byzantine Text virtually concurs by reading δι’ εαυτου.  The KJV, MEV, and NKJV read “by Himself” in this verse – following the sense given by the oldest manuscript and by the majority of manuscripts – and the CSB, NIV, NASB, and ESV do not.  Readers of the ESV and NASB are not given a footnote at Hebrews 1:3 to inform them that their English translation disagrees with the oldest and most widely attested reading there – succinctly refuting the idea that their footnotes always point out where manuscript-differences affect translation. 

            Thus they have no reason to look into the variant and see that the Alexandrian reading – the lack of δι’ εαυτου (or δι’ αυτου) – is easily explained as a parableptic error, caused when an early copyist’s line of sight wandered from the end of αυτου or εαυτου to the identical letters in the next phrase.  Notably, Michael Holmes, the compiler of the SBL-GNT, did look into this variant-unit, and included δι’ αυτου in the text.  He has not been accused of holding an idiosyncratic view because of this – so far.

            Second, it tells us that if the Byzantine text of Hebrews 1:1-6 did not achieve a stable form until the 800’s, then the scribes who perpetuated it before then exercised a remarkably high level of precision and discipline:  in 736 years (assigning the production of the book of Hebrews to the year 64), collectively they introduced 12 letters’ worth of corruption – or, if δι’ αυτου is the original reading in verse 3, only five letters’ worth of corruption – plus two benign transpositions.  Meanwhile in the Alexandrian transmission-stream, it took 161 years (putting the production of P45 at 225) before a professional copyist produced a manuscript in which Hebrews 1:1-6 contained 21 (or 14, if δι’ αυτου is accepted as original) letters’ worth of corruption. 

            If, like the editors of the New Living Translation, one rejects δι’ αυτου, and, like the NLT’s Coordinating Editor for the New Testament (Philip Wesley Comfort), one accepts a very early production-date for Papyrus 46 – during the reign of Hadrian (117-138) – then it follows that the scribes in the transmission-stream of P46 required 74 years to introduce 21 letters’ worth of corruption into the text of Hebrews 1:1-6.  (Let’s express this as an annual corruption ratio:  74:21, or .284 letters’ worth of corruption per year.) 

            If one were to assume that the Byzantine Text did not emerge until 800, this would imply that the scribes in its transmission-stream up to that point (with a corruption-ratio in Hebrews 1:1-6 of 736:12, or .0163 letters’ worth of corruption per year) were more than seventeen times as accurate, year for year, as the scribes in the transmission-stream of Papyrus 46. 

            On the other hand, if one theorizes that the Byzantine Text of Hebrews 1:1-6 achieved a relatively stable form no later than A.D. 400, then – still using the NTG as the basis for the comparison – the Byzantine copyists would have a theoretical corruption-ratio of 336:12, or .0357, in Hebrews 1:1-6.  This would mean that the Byzantine copyists were eight times as careful as the ones in Papyrus 46’s transmission-stream, but at least this is not as implausible as the first theoretical scenario.

And now, a statistical excursion. 

If one were to posit

            (a) the NTG’s text of Hebrews 1:1-6 as the original text, and

            (b) the existence of the Byzantine Text of Hebrews 1:1-6 in a manuscript made in 225, and

            (c) the existence of Papyrus 46 in the same year, then one could estimate that Byzantine copyists produced .0533 letters’ worth of corruption annually in Hebrews 1:1-6, and that the copyists in Papyrus 46’ transmission-line meanwhile produced approximately .093 letters’ worth of corruption annually in Hebrews 1:1-6.  If one were to picture copyists with the annual corruption-rate displayed in the transmission-stream of Papyrus 46, but producing instead the Byzantine text of Hebrews 1:1-6, then at a rate of .093 letters’ worth of corruption in this passage annually, beginning in A.D. 64 and working for 129 years, they would produce the Byzantine Text of Hebrews 1:1-6 by the year 194. 

            If the first premise in this hypothetical scenario were slightly adjusted, so that δι’ αυτου is accepted as part of the original text in verse 3, then if the copyists who produced the Byzantine Text of Hebrews 1:1-6 introduced corruption at the same rate as the scribes in the transmission-stream of Papyrus 46, then the Byzantine scribes would require 53 years to produce the Byzantine Text of Hebrews 1:1-6, and their work would be identical to the Byzantine Text of Hebrews 1:1-6 by the year 117.  Toss on another 20 years – a decade for each transposition – and the Byzantine Text of Hebrews 1:1-6 emerges, not by 800, but before 150. 

            If one were to ignore P46’s three itacistic corruptions, and assign its production to 225, then its corruption-rate would be 18 letters over 161 years; that is, .112 letters’ worth of corruption annually – or, if δι’ αυτου is accepted as part of the original text in verse 3, then the rate is 11 letters over 161 years, that is, .068 letters’ worth of corruption annually.  Byzantine scribes working at the same rate would produce the Byzantine text of Hebrews 1:1-6 (with 12 letters’ worth of corruption) by the year 240 (working over 176 years) – or, if δι’ αυτου is accepted as part of the original text in verse 3, then if they had the same corruption-rate as the scribes in the transmission-line of P46, they would create five letters’ worth of corruption in 74 years, and the Byzantine Text of Hebrews 1:1-6 would thus emerge around the year 140, or, with two decades for the two transpositions, around 160.  I build nothing on this statistical comparison, but I find it interesting.

Philippians 1:6-14, Papyrus 46, and the Byzantine Text

Papyrus 46 (c. 225) - Philippians 1:5b-15a
(verse-numbers digitally added)

            Let’s run a little experiment to find out the answer to a simple question:  which is more accurate in Philippians 1:6-14:  the text of Papyrus 46 – the earliest known Greek manuscript of this passage – or the Byzantine Text?  We will run this experiment twice, using two modern compilations as the basis of comparison. 

First, we shall use the Society of Biblical Literature’s Greek New Testament, compiled by Michael Holmes, as the standard for comparison.  For convenience, the following symbols will accompany a list of variants:

            ● means the SBLGNT agrees with P46.

            ■ means the SBLGNT agrees with the Byzantine Text.

             

Here are all the differences between the text of Papyrus 46 and the Byzantine Text in Philippians 1:6-14, accompanied by symbols to show which reading is adopted in the SBLGNT. 

6 – Byz has υμιν where P46 has υμειν.  ■ 

6 – Byz has Χριστου Ιησου where P46 has Ιησου Χριστου (contracted).  ■

7 – Byz has συγκοινωνους where P46 has και κοινωνους.  ■

8 – Byz has μου after γαρ.  ■

8 – Byz has εστιν before ο Θεος.  ●

8 – Byz has ως instead of ω before επιποθω.  ■

8 – Byz has Ιησου Χριστου where P46 has Χριστου Ιησου (contracted).  ● 

9 – no disagreements.

10 – Byz does not have την before ημεραν.  ■

10 – Byz has καρπων instead of καρπον.  ●

10 – Byz  has των instead of τον.  ●

11 – Byz has Ιησου Χριστου where P46 has Χριστου Ιησου (contracted).  ■

11 – Byz does not have Θυ after δοξαν.  ■

12 – Byz has Θεου where P46 has εμοι.  ■

12 – Byz has Γινωσκειν where P46 has Γεινωσκειν.  ■

13 – Byz has φανερους where P46 has [φα]νερουςθαι.  ■

13 – Byz has πασιν where P46 has πασι.  ■ 

14 – no disagreements.

Out of 16 variant-units between the Byzantine Text and Papyrus 46, the Byzantine Text has the original reading (if one accepts Michael Holmes’ text-critical decisions) in 12 of them.

Philippians 1:10b-14 in MS 2401.

What if one uses the text of Philippians 1:6-14 in the most recent edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece as the basis for comparison?  Let’s see.  This time we will count the numbers of gains of non-original letters, and of losses of original letters, that occur.  

● means NTG agrees with P46.

■ means NTG agrees with the Byzantine Text.

6 – Byz has υμιν where P46 has υμειν.  ■  (P46:  +1)

6 – Byz has Χριστου Ιησου where P46 has Ιησου Χριστου (contracted).  ■

7 – Byz has συγκοινωνους where P46 has και κοινωνους.  ■   (P46:  +3, -3)

8 – Byz has μου after γαρ.  ■   (P46:  -3)

8 – Byz has εστιν before ο Θεος.  ●   (Byz:  +5)

8 – Byz has ως instead of ω before επιποθω.  ■  (P46:  -1)

8 – Byz has Ιησου Χριστου where P46 has Χριστου Ιησου (contracted).  ●     

9 – no disagreements.

10 – Byz does not have την before ημεραν.  ■    (P46:  +3)

10 – Byz has καρπων instead of καρπον.  ●  (Byz:  +1, -1)

10 – Byz  has των instead of τον.  ●  (Byz:  +1, -1)

11 – Byz has Ιησου Χριστου where P46 has Χριστου Ιησου (contracted)  ■

11 – Byz does not have Θυ after δοξαν.  ■   (P46:  +2)

12 – Byz has Θεου where P46 has εμοι.  ■   (P46:  +3, -3)

12 – Byz has Γινωσκειν where P46 has Γεινωσκειν.   ■  (P46:  +1)

13 – Byz has φανερους where P46 has [φα]νερουςθαι.  ■  (P46:  +3)

13 – Byz has πασιν where P46 has πασι.  ■    (P46:  -1)

14 – no disagreements.     

Using the 27^th/28^th edition of Novum Testamentum Graece as one’s standard of comparison, one gets the same results that are acquired using the SBGGNT:  the Byzantine Text deviates from the original text four times, and the text in Papyrus 46 deviates from the original text 12 times.  If we count the amount of variation by letters (not considering benign transpositions which do not involve a loss of any letters), the Byzantine scribes added 7 non-original letters, and lost 2 original letters, for a total of nine letters’ worth of deviation from the original text; meanwhile, the Alexandrian scribes added 16 non-original letters, and lost eight original letters, for a total of twenty-four letters’ worth of deviation from the original text.   

This is, granted, a very small sample.  Nevertheless it vividly illustrates three points:

            First:  the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece compilation does not always follow the oldest manuscript. 

            Second:  the term “Alexandrian” has been thrown around somewhat loosely:  it is used to describe the text of Vaticanus, and the text of Papyrus 46.  Yet the Byzantine Text of Philippians 1:6-14 resembles the text of Vaticanus more closely than the text of Papyrus 46 does.    

            Third:  the scribal transmission-line that produced the Byzantine Text of Philippians 1:6-14 yielded a more accurate text of this passage than the transmission-line that produced Papyrus 46. 

            In conclusion, let’s explore that third point.  Some advocates of the Alexandrian Text have proposed that the Byzantine Text did not reach a final form until the 800’s.  In that case, this little experiment in Philippians 1:6-14 indicates that the Byzantine scribes who perpetuated the text of this passage must have been a team composed of some remarkably disciplined and precise copyists:  if one assigns the year 61 as the production-date of Paul’s letter to the Philippians, and 225 as the production-date of Papyrus 46, then in the course of 164 years, Alexandrian scribes introduced twelve corruptions into the text of Philippians 1:6-14.  Meanwhile, if one assigns the year 800 as the point when the Byzantine Text of Philippians came into existence, then after 739 years of transmission, the Byzantine scribes introduced only four corruptions into the text of Philippians 1:6-14.

            Another possibility:  in 400, the Byzantine Text of Philippians already existed, and was transmitted from then on very accurately when on its home-turf.  This would imply that its copyists introduced half as many corruptions into the text of Philippians 1:6-14 in twice the time as the scribes in the Alexandrian transmission-line of Papyrus 46. 

James Leonard and the Byzantine Text

The Byzantine Text
of Philippians 1.

            Recently Dr. James Leonard, an administrator of a discussion-group on Facebook that occasionally looks into questions about the text of the New Testament, asserted there that many or most readings from the Byzantine Text which differ from the Nestle-Aland compilation are often unattested by the Greek manuscript tradition prior to the ninth century.  That assertion was met with an invitation from a member of the discussion-group:  list all of the Byzantine readings in Matthew and Mark that are unattested before the ninth century.

            Dr. Leonard’s response was twofold:  first, he quickly ejected the invitation-maker from the discussion-group.  And second, responding to the invitation, he presented a list of Byzantine readings from Philippians chapter 1.

           Such a response is insufficient – not only because it restricts legitimate discussion, and does not involve the text of Matthew and Mark, but also, as it turns out, because Leonard’s data from Philippians 1 does not come remotely close to vindicating the idea that many or most readings in the Byzantine Text are unsupported before the 800’s.  

           As a convenient (but problematic) method of data-collection, Leonard consulted the Nestle-Aland apparatus, and after finding 31 variant-units in that chapter, he promptly acknowledged that in 19 of those 31 variant-units, the Byzantine Text and the Alexandrian Text agree.  That left him with only 12 variants capable of being examples of Byzantine readings that have no support before the year 800.  Six of them, however, he admits to be attested before then. 

            To show the amount of text involved in this analysis, here are three pictures.  The first one shows the Byzantine Text of Philippians chapter 1.  The second one shows the six Byzantine readings which fit Leonard’s description; they differ from modern critical editions of the Greek New Testament and are not attested in Greek manuscripts prior to the ninth century.  (The variant that is highlighted in yellow is a transposition-variant; the variant concerns the order in which the verses appear.)  The third picture shows the Byzantine readings in Philippians 1 which a cursory investigation indicates are unattested in witnesses from earlier than the 800’s. 

Byzantine readings
in Philippians 1
not supported in
Greek MSS
made before 800.

            Here are the six non-Alexandrian Byzantine variants in Philippians 1 which Leonard affirmed to be supported in Greek manuscripts before the 800’s:  [bold print added] 

● (1)  1:5 – Byz does not have της after απο.  Leonard:  “The earliest attestation for the Majority Reading comes from the 6^th century D-Text witness 06.” 

● (2)  1:8 – Byz has εστιν after μου.  Leonard:  “The earliest attestation for the Maj Reading comes from the 5^th century B-Text witness 02.”

● (3)  1:18 – Byz does not have οτι after Πλην.  Leonard:  “The earliest attestation for the Majority Reading is the 6^th century D-Text witness 06.” 

● (4)  1:23 – Byz does not have γαρ after πολλω.  Leonard:  “The earliest attestation for the Majority Reading is the 4^th century B-text witness 01.”

● (5)  1:24 – Byz has εν after επιμενειν.  Leonard:  “The earliest attestation for the Majority Reading are from 4^th and 5^th century B-Text witnesses.”  However, Leonard is mistaken.  Papyrus 46 (from the late 100’s or early 200’s) also supports the Byzantine reading here.  The text of Philippians 1:24 in Papyrus 46 agrees 100% with the Byzantine Text, while disagreeing with Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.  I have supplied here a picture of this part of Papyrus 46, with the words of Philippians 1:24 individually underlined.  

● (6)  1:27 – Byz reads ακουσω instead of ακουω.  Leonard:  “The earliest attestation for the Majority Reading are from 4^th and 5^th century B-Text readings.”

            Thus, after listing 12 readings as examples of Byzantine readings that show that Byzantine readings do not have manuscript-support until the 800’s, Leonard acknowledged that half of his examples have manuscript-support before the 800’s. 

Philippians 1:24 in Papyrus 46.

            Now let’s take a closer look at the six readings in Philippians 1 which, Leonard maintained, have no manuscript-support before the 800’s: 

● (1) 1:11 – Byz has καρπων δικαιοσύνης των (“fruits of righteousness”) instead of καρπον δικαιοσύνης τον (fruit of righteousness). 

● (2) 1:16-17 – Byz has these two verses in the opposite order.

● (3) 1:17 – Byz has επιφερειν instead of εγείρειν.

● (4) 1:25 – Byz has συμπαραμενω instead of παραμενω. 

● (5) 1:28 – Byz has αυτοις μεν εστιν instead of εστιν αυτοις.

● (6) 1:28 – Byz has υμιν instead of υμων.

 

Byzantine readings
in Philippians 1
not supported
by any witnesses
before 800.

           Let’s look for pre-800 attestation of these readings from all sources, not only Greek manuscripts.  Leonard himself, after all, has stated that if all existing Greek manuscripts suddenly disappeared, “We could reconstruct the New Testament from the early versions with considerable confidence.”  What do we see about the text of Philippians 1 in the versional evidence, when we look?  We see that the Peshitta supports the Byzantine reading in 1:11; the Harklean Syriac supports the Byzantine order of verses 16 and 17 (and so does Chrysostom;  see his Homily 2 on Philippians); the Peshitta supports επιφερειν in verse 17, and the Byzantine reading υμιν in verse 28 is supported by the Vulgate, as well as by Coptic, Gothic, and Ethiopic witnesses, carrying its support back to the 300’s.        

            The idea that Byzantine readings in Philippians 1 typically lack attestation before the 800’s dies a quick death in every case except two:  the Byzantine readings συμπαραμενω in verse 25 and αυτοις μεν εστιν in Philippians 1:28 (where NA reads εστιν αυτοις) appear to have no support from witnesses earlier than the 800’s.    

            None of this analysis shows that any of these Byzantine readings in Philippians 1 are original.  Nor does it show that readings that lack early support should automatically be rejected.  What this analysis shows is that the idea that Byzantine readings in Philippians 1 have no support before the 800’s is opposed by 29 out of 31 readings.  

            And this was in a passage selected by Leonard!  Will he continue to promote the idea that Byzantine readings typically or frequently lack attestation from before the 800’s, after being shown that 93.5% of his own Exhibit A refutes that assertion?  Probably.

(P.S.  My conclusion that  the Byzantine readings συμπαραμενω in verse 25 and αυτοις μεν εστιν in Philippians 1:28 lack support before 800 is provisional; I did not investigate this further after it was clear that the evidence opposed Leonard’s claim so thoroughly.  If anyone wishes to add more data about this, feel free to do so in the comments.)