The English Hexapla - You Should Get This!

            Usually when the term “Hexapla” is used, it refers to a project of the third-century theologian Origen in which the text of the Old Testament books was arranged in six columns, presenting (1) the Hebrew text, (2) a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew text, (3) the Greek version prepared by Aquila, (4) the Greek version prepared by Symmachus, (5) the Septuagint version, and (6) the Greek version prepared by Theodotion. 

            The English Hexapha (1841) is different:  instead containing six Old Testament texts, it presents six English translations of the New Testament:  (1) Wycliffe’s version (based mainly on a manuscript from 1388), (2) Tyndale’s version of 1534, (3) Cranmer’s version, also known as The Great Bible, of 1539 (4) the Geneva version of 1557 (5) the Rheims version of 1582, and (6) the King James Version of 1611.  

            Thus, in a single volume, readers are equipped with the means to consult most of the major English versions of the Reformation period.  Some differences in different versions are thus detectable even without knowledge of the base-texts used by the translators.

            The English Hexapla also includes a valuable and informative review of the history of the Bible in English up to the publication of the King James Version in 1611.  This review is divided into three parts. 

            Part 1 concisely reviews Caedmon, Bede, Aelfric, Alfred the Great, and Richard Rolle and their contributions to the spread of the written Bible in English, in a single chapter.   The next five chapters pertain in one way or another to the Wycliffe (or Wycliffite) Bible; chapter 3 features some interesting data about the Comma Johanneum. 

            Part 2 describes the work of Tyndale, and the ecclesiastical and political milieu in which his translation made its debut.  There are some interesting and moving accounts about people who were martyred in England for the crime of possessing and reading the New Testament, as well as an account of Tyndale’s own martyrdom. 

            Part 3 describes the sequel of Tyndale’s work, especially the determined efforts of Myles Coverdale, whose efforts to spread the English text of the Bible involved not only studiousness and erudition but also exploits of the most dangerous sort.  Coverdale studied the translations that had preceded his work, and stated “Sure I am, that there commeth more knowledge and understandinge of the scripture by theyr sondrie translacyons, than by all the gloses of our sophisticall doctors.”  The English Hexapla also reports the reasons – some clear historical facts, some likely deductions – for Henry VIII’s change of heart on the subject of whether the Bible should be circulated in English.   The rise of translators’ freedom in England during the reign of Henry VIII, the influence of Oliver Cromwell, the dangerous reign of Mary Queen of Scots, amd the more peaceful reign of Elizabeth, is documented, and the backgrounds of the English versions presented in The English Hexapla are all described.

            Besides details about the background of the work of Tyndale, Cranmer, and Coverdale, there is an interesting section on the significance of the mysterious initials that accompanied portions of the Bishops’ Bible published in 1568:  the authors believes them all to be initials of the scholars who prepared the text, and in addition to their names he provides brief biographies.             

            The Rheims version of 1582 is then described, although perhaps roasted would be a better term.  The author mentions a composition which appeared the same year, in which Gregory Martin objected to various features of the earlier Protestant English versions; Dr. Willian Fulke promptly composed a response; this exchange may account for some of the differences between the KJV and the English Protestant versions which preceded it.     

            The King James Version is the focus of the last chapter of the review of the history of the English Bible before the Hexapla itself begins.  If you are unfamiliar with what the Millenary Petition was, or if you would like to know a few specific readings that Dr. John Reynolds found objectionable in previous English versions, or if you want to learn which marginal notes in the Geneva Bible were especially opposed by King James, and similar details that led to the launch of the great translation-project in 1604, this chapter must surely be a priority.  And if you want to read the fourteen rules that the translators were instructed to follow, this, to, can be learned in this chapter.  The names of the members of each company of translators are also provided, with some brief biographical details.

           

            Two brief and helpful supplements appear before the sixfold comparison itself commences:  a description of the format in which the six versions are presented, and a collation of the Greek compilation prepared by J. M. A. Scholz (published in 1830-1836)– which accompanies the English translations’ text on every page – and the collation made by Griesbach in 1805.  Although Scholz’s compilation was denigrated by Metzger (cf. The Text of the New Testament, p. 124), and Scholz himself later assigned greater value to some Alexandrian readings, it is not drastically different from Griesbach’s compilation:  all of the differences between Scholz’s compilation (proof-read and revised especially for The English Hexapla) and Griesbach’s compilation are listed (even trivial differences in the spelling of the word “Moses”) in just four two-column pages.  (Although modern editions tend to agree with Griesbach more often than with Scholz, this is only a tendency.)  If you want an example of the results of textual criticism before Westcott and Hort introduced a transmission-model that drastically favored the Alexandrian Text (and before the discovery of the papyrus copies used in Egypt), you have come to the right place. 

            Those who possess a copy of The English Hexapla not only have a detailed account of the development of the English Bible, but also accurate transcriptions of the New Testament books as they appear in six of the most important English Bibles of the Reformation period, and a generally excellent Greek New Testament.   

            Those who must obtain a hefty three-inch thick paper copy of The English Hexapla can obtain a facsimile from the GreatSite website, where they are advertised with the purchase-price of $95.00.  If you prefer to obtain The English Hexapla for free, in digital form – as a 101,097 KB file – then you can download it from Google Books (use the little gear-like icon in the upper right corner of the page and in the sub-menu select “Download PDF”), or use this Google Books copy.  Readers may also want to obtain a review of The English Hexapla which also appeared in 1841, in the journal The Eclectic Review, and which challenges and supplements some of the claims made in its account of early English versions.  The English Hexapla can also be downloaded from the Internet Archive site, which presents a copy held at the University of Toronto, and which can be obtained not only as a PDF but in other formats (such as EPUB) as well.

Envy and Murder in James 4:2

Desiderius Erasmus,
1466-1536.

      Previously, we saw that a copyist’s mistake – accidentally skipping forward from one set of letters to an identical, or similar, set of letters – appears to have caused the loss of the word “murders” in Galatians 5:21:  in the course of a list in which several words end with the same letters, φόνοι (murders) was lost in an early transmission-line, having appeared immediately after φθόνοι (envyings). 

          Elsewhere in the New Testament text, the visual similarity between φθόνοι and φόνοι raised a question for a scholar in the early 1500’s – the famous Desiderius Erasmus.  Others have already described the remarkable career of this Roman Catholic scholar and author, whose research fueled the Protestant Reformation.  Let’s look at what he wrote about the second verse of the fourth chapter of the Epistle of James, in the notes he wrote about his printed compilation of the Greek text of the New Testament. 

          Before we do that, though, let’s get to know this verse.  James – not James the son of Zebedee, but James who was called one of the brothers of Jesus; the James who presided at the church council in Acts 15 – wrote to this effect in 4:2, addressing the problem of covetousness and conflict in the church: 

          “Ye lust, and have not:  ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain:  ye fight and war; yet ye have not, because ye ask not.” – KJV (Authorized)

          Here is the verse in more modern terms (from the 1973 New International Version):

           “You want something but don’t get it.  You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want.  You quarrel and fight.  You do not have, because you do not ask God.”

          Some folks might consider the 1973 NIV to be an antique, so let’s also consult the text of the new Christian Standard Bible (CSB):

          “You desire and do not have.  You murder and covet and cannot obtain.  You fight and wage war.  You do not have because you do not ask.”

          That is, however, not quite the same meaning that we find in the latest edition of the English Standard Version (ESV), which gives a cause-and-effect structure to the verse’s clauses:

          “You desire and do not have, so you commit murder.  You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel.  You do not have because you do not ask.”

          The NIV, CSB, and ESV are all translating the same Greek text of verse 2, which is, without punctuation:  Ἐπιθυμεῖτε καὶ οὐκ ἔχετε φονεύετε καὶ ζηλοῦτε καὶ οὐ δύνασθε ἐπιτυχεῖν μάχεσθε καὶ πολεμεῖτε οὐκ ἔχετε διὰ τὸ μὴ αἰτεῖσθαι ὑμᾶς.

          That is also how the words appear in the Byzantine Text, in the NA/UBS text, and in the family-35 text compiled by Wilbur Pickering.  The Textus Receptus, the KJV’s base-text, has a minority reading:  it includes δέ in the last part of the verse, between ἔχετε and διὰ; this is represented by “yet” in the KJV.  

Erasmus' Annotations on James 4:1-4

        The text that Erasmus preferred, however, diverged from that in a far more significant way.  Erasmus was hesitant to accept the word φονεύετε (“You kill”, or “You commit murder”).  Although that was the reading in the Greek manuscripts he had encountered, in his annotations on the General Epistles, he wrote, “I do not see how this word ‘you kill’ makes sense here.  Perhaps there was written φθονεῖτε and ζηλοῦτε, that is, ‘you are jealous and you seek, and cannot obtain’, and so [I conclude that] a sleeping scribe wrote φονεύετε instead of φθονεῖτε; especially since there follows ‘the spirit desires jealously’ [verse 5].”

          Jan Krans described and translated that statement from Erasmus, and provided Erasmus’ Latin text of it, in his interesting book, Beyond What Is Written:  Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics ofthe New Testament (© 2006 Kononklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands).  Dr. Krans also reported that during the Reformation-period, Erasmus’ theory was very widely accepted.  Although the first edition of Erasmus’ Greek New Testament, the 1516 Novum Instrumentum, read φονεύετε (you kill), in the second edition (1519), Erasmus placed φθονεῖτε (you are envious) in the text.

James 4:1ff., from a 1558
edition of Erasmus'
Greek and Latin text.

          Because Martin Luther used the second edition of Erasmus’ compilation as the basis for his 1522 German translation, Luther’s translation of James 4:2a accordingly says, “Ihr seid begierig, und erlanget’s damit nicht; ihr hasset und neidet, und gewinnet damit nichts; ihr streitet und krieget.” 

          For the third edition, and thereafter, Erasmus re-adopted the extant text, and φονεύετε was printed.  Nevertheless, in his own Latin translation that was printed alongside the Greek text, the word “invidetis” (“You are envious”) was retained instead of the Vulgate’s term “occiditis.”

          John Calvin accepted Erasmus’ idea; Krans reports that Calvin wrote as follows:  “While some manuscripts have φονεύετε, I do not doubt that φθονεῖτε must be read, as I have rendered, for the verb ‘to kill’ can in no way be applied to the context.”  (The statement, in Latin, is in Ioannis Calvino Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia, Volume 33, part 415, edited by Baum, Cunitz, and Reuss.)           

          Thus it is no surprise to find that in the 1557 Geneva Bible, James 4:2 read as follows:  “Ye luste, and haue not :  ye enuie, and have indignation, and can not obtayne :  ye fight and warre, and gayne not, because ye aske not.”  [Emphasis added.  Bear in mind that “v” and “u” were fairly interchangeable in the old font; “ye envy” is what is meant.]           

 

James 3:18-4:2 in
Tyndale's 1534 version.

        Before the Geneva Bible, William Tyndale made his English translation of the New Testament in 1526, based on the second edition of Erasmus’ compilation.  Tyndale’s English text thus reflected Erasmus’ theory about the wording in James 4:2:  “Ye lust and have not / ye enuie and haue indignation / and cannot come by yt.”

          In 1582, a group of Roman Catholic scholars translated the Rheims New Testament (named after the city in France where it was made), based on the Vulgate.  They used part of the introduction to their work to explain why it was based on the Vulgate instead of on a Greek base-text.  In the course of that introduction, one of the things they pointed out was that the Vulgate generally agreed with the Greek manuscripts, and that at this particular point – James 4:2 – it did so better than the Greek compilations used by their Protestant adversaries.  “Beza,” they stated (referring to the Protestant scholar Theodore Beza, who issued multiple editions of Greek and Latin compilations in the second half of the 1500’s), “correcteth the Greeke text also as false.”  Beza’s Greek text retained φονεύετε but his Latin text, like Erasmus’ Latin version, read “invidetis” instead of “occiditis.”

 

Erasmus' conjecture, noted in
the apparatus of Eberhard Nestle's
1901 Novum Testamentum Graece.

        Did the translators of the KJV adopt φονεύετε due to a desire to maintain strict adherence to the Greek text?  Could the introduction to the Rheims New Testament have spurred them in some way to reject Erasmus’ conjecture?  It is pointless to speculate.  The KJV’s English text in James 4:2 clearly corresponds to φονεύετε, and so has every major English translation since then.  The dismay that elicited Erasmus’ theory – the idea that the Christians to whom James wrote were killing each other – has tended to lose ground to an understanding that James, at this point, did not intend to be taken altogether literally.  

          All Greek manuscripts of James that have been discovered since Erasmus’ time have supported φονεύετε (except for a note in the margin of minuscule 918; this note was probably made by someone in the 1500’s who read Erasmus’ second edition and jotted down the variant from the printed text).  Nevertheless, for many years, Novum Testamentum Graece, the compilation-series begun by Eberhard Nestle, included a note mentioning Erasmus’ proposal that James 4:2 might have originally read φθονεῖτε instead of φονεύετε.  In the recent 28th edition, however, this longstanding custom was abandoned; no  conjectural emendations were included in the new apparatus.  (This is rather ironic, since the editors of the 28th edition demonstrated their willingness to put a theoretical Greek variant into the text, doing so at Second Peter 3:10.)  However, if an ancient Greek manuscript of the Epistle of James should ever happen to be discovered that read φθονεῖτε in 4:2, some translators might consider putting it in the text, or at least adding a footnote to mention it.  

          A closing note:  all this should remind us that φθόνοι and φόνοι are similar not only in their letters but in their essence; envy is close to murder.  Let each believer desire to receive whatever it is that God desires for him to receive, and no more nor less than that.  With that resolve to trust the wisdom of God, each of us may find joy in the gifts God has prepared for him, and each will rejoice with those who rejoice in what God has prepared for them.   

__________

Scripture quotations marked “ESV” are from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

The 1973 NIV is Copyright © 1973 by New York Bible Society International, published by The Zondervan Corporation.

Scripture quotations marked CSB have been taken from the Christian Standard Bible®, Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers.  Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible® and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers.

Hand-to-Hand Combat: Codex B vs. Minuscule 496

          One of the combatants in today’s hand-to-hand combat is Codex Vaticanus.  There are thousands of codices – handmade books – in the Vatican Library, and in the library’s catalog, this one is Greek Codex #1,209.  It is so important for New Testament textual research that it has become known as the Codex Vaticanus (B, 03).  Its production-date has been assigned to the early 300’s.  Wieland Willker has prepared a webpage which describes Codex Vaticanus and analyzes its contents.

          Codex B was first catalogued at the Vatican Library in 1475.  (It may have been transferred to the Vatican Library as part of the estate of Cardinal Bessarion, who died in 1472.)  Some of its readings were known to Erasmus, the compiler of the first published Greek New Testament in the 1500’s.  It was cited (from John 7:39) in the preface to the 1582 Rheims New Testament.  Hort considered Codex B to be the most important manuscript in existence when he and Westcott produced the Revised Text which challenged the Textus Receptus as the base-text of English versions of the New Testament.  Many textual critics still agree with that assessment.

          Besides containing (despite considerable damage) most of the Greek Old Testament (including most of the apocryphal books), Codex B also contains text from every New Testament book except First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation.  The Gospels are arranged in the familiar order, Matthew-Mark-Luke-John.  Then Acts appears, followed by the General Epistles.  After the Epistle of Jude, the Epistles of Paul begin, but First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus, and Philemon are not present; Hebrews follows immediately after Second Thessalonians.  The last extant page of Hebrews ends midway through 9:14.  This is followed by supplemental pages (which have their own identification-number, GA 1957), added long after the initial production of the codex, in minuscule script, containing the rest of Hebrews and the book of Revelation.  

          The chapter-divisions in the Gospels in Codex Vaticanus are almost unique (it does not have the Eusebian Canons and Sections).  The chapter-divisions in the Pauline Epistles are also interesting, inasmuch as they are interrupted in such a way as to show that in the exemplar of the manuscript, the book of Hebrews followed the Epistle to the Galatians.

          The production of Codex Vaticanus was undertaken by a team of two copyists, both of whom worked economically, writing three columns per page (except in the Books of Poetry, which are formatted in two columns per page), without adding grandiose ornamentation, and without deliberately placing a blank column between books – except at the end of the Gospel of Mark.  (Incidental factors in the production of the codex led to three blank spaces in the Old Testament portion; for details about those factors see this earlier post clarifying some inaccurate claims by Daniel Wallace on this subject.)

          Pages and pages could be written about the contents of this manuscript – the flagship manuscript of the Alexandrian Text.    But today, we are focusing on a single chapter:  First Peter chapter five – the battleground of today’s manuscript-duel.  This passage can be found in Codex Vaticanus on page-view 1424 at the Vatican Library’s website.

First Peter 5:6ff. in MS 496

          The intimidating task of challenging Codex Vaticanus has been accorded to minuscule 496.  496 was produced in the 1200’s or early 1300’s.  It contains all of the New Testament books except Revelation.  It was among the artifacts brought to Britain in the 1840’s by Major Charles Kerr MacDonald, who had conducted some explorations (including a visit to Saint Catherine’s monastery) in Egypt when he wasn’t busy searching for turquoise-mines.  496 is housed at the British Library as Additional MS 16184.  Digital page-views of the manuscript are online; First Peter chapter five begins on fol. 191r.

       

          It may go without saying that 496 is the underdog in this contest.  Without further introductions, let’s get this fight underway.  Instead of presenting each manuscript’s contents separately, I will present them side-by-side, one verse at a time, as they engage in a contest lasting fourteen rounds (or, rather, fourteen verses).  Once again the Nestle-Aland compilation will be the standard of comparison.  Nomina sacra contractions, as such ( and other normal abbreviations), will not be considered variants, and bracketed text in the Nestle-Aland compilation will be treated as part of the text.  

1 – B has ουν instead of τους.  496 has ουν τους.   B’s reading was in the text in NA27, but NA28 has

τους, in agreement with Papyrus 72 and Codex A. [B: +3, -4]  [496: +3]  

1 – 496 has ως instead of ο.  [496:  +2, -1]

2 – B does not have επισκοπουντες.  496 has this word, which is bracketed in NA.  [B:  -13]  

2 – 496 has αλλ instead of αλλα.  [496: -1]

2 – 496 has και before κατα θεον.  [496: +3]

2 – B does not have κατα θεον.  Papyrus 72 agrees with 496.  [B: -8]

3 – 496 has τον κληρον instead of των κληρων.  [496:  +2, -2]

3 – 496 has γενομενοι instead of γινομενοι.  [496: +1, -1] 

3 – B does not have μηδ’ ως κατακυριεύοντες των κληρων αλλα τύποι γινόμενοι του ποιμνίου.  [B: -58]

4 – Both B and 496 agree with NA in this verse.  

5 – 496 has δε οι after Ομοιως.  [496: +4]

5 – 496 has υποτασσομενοι.  [496: +13]

5 – B does not have ο before θεος.  This letter is bracketed in NA27.  [B: -1]

5 – 496 has διδωσι instead of διδωσιν.  [496: -1]

6 – 496 has επισκοπης after καιρω.  [496: +9]

7 – 496 has επιρριψαντες instead of επιριψαντες.  B has επιρειψαντες.  [496: +1]  [B: +1]

7 – 496 has μελλει instead of μελει.  [496: +1]

8 – 496 has καταπιει instead of καταπιειν.  B does not have τινα, which is bracketed in NA27.  [496: -1]  [B: -4] 

9 – B has τω before κοσμω.  This word was bracketed in the text of NA27 but is not in the text of NA28.  [B: +2]

9 – B has επιτελεισθε but it is corrected to επιτελεισθαι.  This might be a first-hand correction so I have not included it in this comparison. 

10 – 496 has στειριξει instead of στηριξει.  [496: +2, -1]

10 – B has τω after εν, before Χριστω.  496 has Ιησου after Χριστω.  [B: +2]  [496: +5]  NA27 had Ιησου in the text in brackets, but NA28 removes this word from the text entirely. 

10 – B does not have θεμελιωσει.  [B: -10]

11 – 496 has η δοξα και before το κρατος.  [496: +8]

11 – 496 has των αιωνων before αμην.  [496: +9]

12 – B has Σιλβανου instead of Σιλουανου.  [B: +1, -2]

12 – 496 has εστηκατε instead of στητε.  [496: +3]

13 – Both B and 496 agree with NA in this verse.   

14 – 496 and B both have πασι instead of πασιν.  [B: -1]  [496: -1]

14 – 496 has Ιησου αμην after Χριστω.  [496: +9]  NA27 had Ιησου in the text in brackets, but it is not in the text of NA28.

          When we consider the corruptions in First Peter chapter 5 in Codex Vaticanus, we see that B contains 9 non-original letters, and is missing 101 original letters.  The net total of the corruptions in First Peter 5 in B amounts to 110 letters’ worth of corruptions.

          When we consider the corruptions in First Peter chapter 5 in 496, we see that it contains 66 non-original letters, and is missing 9 original letters.  The net total of the corruptions in First Peter 5 in 496 amounts to 75 letters’ worth of corruptions.

          Final score:  B’s corruptions:  110 letters.  496’s corruptions:  75 letters.  Winner:  minuscule 496!

          Yes, as unlikely as it may seem, in this particular chapter, a medieval minuscule with a transmission-stream about a thousand years longer than the transmission-stream of Codex B has the more accurate text, when NA28 is used as the basis of comparison.  This victory of 496 is a stunning reminder that despite the fame of Codex Vaticanus, it does not run very far ahead of the Byzantine pack, even when the Nestle-Aland compilation is the standard of comparison.  And in some passages, Codex B’s text falls behind.  Even great champions don’t win them all.

          [Readers are invited to double-check the comparison and the arithmetic.]