How We Got the New Testament (in 22 minutes)

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

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

Tyndale at the stake

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

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

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

    

Romans 12:11: “Lord,” or “Time”?

           Venturing outside the Gospels today, let’s look into Romans 12:11.  Nowadays there is virtually no debate about how the fourth phrase in this passage should be read:  τῷ κυρίῳ δουλεύοντες – “serving the Lord.”   A search through the NIV, KJV, ESV, NKJV, NASB, CSB, NLT, and NET shows no sign that there is a textual variant here.  Bruce Metzger, in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, used four and a half lines of text to dismiss the alternative reading τῷ καίρῳ δουλεύοντες – “serving the time” – assigning the usually-found κυρίῳ an “A” rating (which indicated, according to the preface of the UBS Greek New Testament, p. 3*, that “the text is certain.”)  In the SBL-GNT, there is no footnote about this phrase.  Likewise the Tyndale House GNT does not indicate a textual variant here.

          In the 1500s, this phrase was an epicenter of textual dispute.  The editions of the Greek New Testament released by Erasmus in 1519, 1522, 1527, and 1535, as well as Stephanus’ 1550 edition, read τῷ καίρῳ δουλεύοντες – “serving the time.”  (Erasmus’s first edition, in 1516, had a misprint, reading κυρίου, with the final -ου combined into a single character.)

          Consequently, William Tyndale’s 1534 New Testament read here, “Applye youre selves to ye tyme.”  The 1535 Coverdale New Testament likewise read, “Applye youre selues vnto the tyme,” and so did the 1537 Matthews Bible, echoing Tyndale’s rendering.  The 1539 Great Bible, issued with the endorsement of Henry VIII, also read “Applye youre selues to the tyme.”  Martin Luther, using Erasmus’ second edition, also translated the final phrase of Romans 12:11 as the German equivalent of “serving the time.”  John Calvin, in his commentary on Romans, used the reading “serving the time,” but Calvin also noted that he did not dare to altogether reject the reading “serving the Lord,” on the grounds that it was supported by many ancient copies.

          In the Preface of the 1582 Rheims New Testament, the Roman Catholic translators took to task some of their Protestant counterparts on account of their handling of this phrase, claiming, “They translate not according to the Greek text, Tempori servientes, serving the time, which Beza says must be a corruption, but according to the vulgar Latin, Domino servientes, serving our Lord.”

            The 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1568 Bishops’ Bible, however, had “seruing the Lord.”  And when the 1611 King James Version was issued, it also had “seruing the Lord.”   

          The reading “τῷ κυρίῳ δουλεύοντες” dominates both the Byzantine Text and manuscripts such as P46, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus, as well as versional evidence such as the Old Latin, Peshitta, and Coptic and Armenian versions.   

          In the Greek-Latin Codex Claromontanus (06, D), a majuscule manuscript from the 400s (or maybe the early 500s), the initial writing of the last line of Romans 12:11 reads τῷ καίρῳ δουλεύοντες.  (This was changed to the usual reading, and then was changed back.)  The majuscules F (010, Augiensis) and G (012, Boernerianus), both from the 800s, also read τῷ καίρῳ δουλεύοντες here, as does minuscule 5 (which was consulted by Stephanus).  It was once thought that minuscule 2400 contained this phrase, but it does not.  (2400 is a richly illustrated New Testament manuscript from the 1100s which is online as part of the Goodspeed Manuscript Collection at the University of Chicago, catalogued as MS 965 in the collection; this phrase in Romans 12 begins the first line on Image 321.) That’s it, as far as extant Greek manuscript-evidence for is concerned.

          An assortment of patristic evidence indicates that in the first several centuries of Christianity, “serving the time” in Romans 12:11 was much more widespread than it is today.  The Latin writer known as Ambrosiaster, writing the second half of the 300s, maintained that this was the correct reading.  Jerome, in his Epistle 27, To Marcella, energetically defended the Vulgate against some of its critics, calling them “two-legged asses.”  In the course of his lively defense he wrote that his critics “may say if they will, ‘Rejoicing in hope, serving the time,’ but we will say, ‘Rejoicing in hope, serving the Lord.”  Rufinus, a contemporary of Jerome, also favored “serving the Lord” but was aware that copies existed which supported “serving the time.” 

          Earlier, Cyprian, who wrote in Latin about halfway through the 200s, seems to allude to the phrase serving the time, in his Letter 5, although this reference is far from a direct quotation, and he does not use the wording of Romans 12:11 found in Codex Claromontanus.   

          In the first, second, and third editions of the UBS Greek New Testament, the writer Theophilus of Antioch (who lived in the 100s) is cited as if he supported κυρίῳ.  But as J. L. North ascertained in the course of research his thesis about this verse, this is erroneous; it is perhaps a result of an inattentive editor misreading an abbreviated reference to the medieval author Theophylact.  But only slightly later than Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria used Romans 12:11 with κυρίῳ. 

          Origen is cited in the fourth edition of the UBS Greek New Testament as if he was aware of manuscripts that supported καίρῳ.  The reference in question, however, is to Origen’s material as translated into Latin by Rufinus – who did not always strictly separate Origen’s comments from his own.  Origen accepted the reading “serving the Lord” but also – apparently – attested to the existence of Latin copies in the early 200s that read “serving the time.”   Κυρίῳ is also supported by John Chrysostom. 

          Athanasius, advising his contemporary Dracontius to embrace the office of bishop at Alexandria around 355, in the third paragraph of his Epistle 49, To Dracontius, wrote, “If you feared the times and acted as you did from timidity, your mind is not manly.  For in such a case you ought to manifest zeal for Christ, and rather meet circumstances boldly, and use the language of blessed Paul, ‘In all these things we are more than conquerors’ – and the more so, inasmuch as we ought to serve not the time, but the Lord.” [emphasis added]  Whether this is entirely coincidental, or is based on his awareness of the textual contest in Romans 12:11, is hard to say.

          The meaning and application of both readings are unobjectionable:  we are certainly instructed to serve the Lord, and we should also serve the time, in the sense that we should make the most of the opportunities we have – “redeeming the time,” as Paul wrote in Ephesians 5:16 and Colossians 4:5.

An unusual sacred-name contraction
in Codex Augiensis.

          If we grant that κυρίῳ, with its extremely broad support, is the original reading, how did the reading καίρῳ originate?  It probably had something to do with both the way the sacred name κυρίῳ (”Lord”) was contracted (normally, it was written in New Testament manuscripts as κω), and with the way the word και was sometimes abbreviated (as ϗ, the kai-compendium).  Rarely, the kai-compendium replaced the letters και when και was part of a larger word.  And it is possible that in a time and place where the nomina sacra were not entirely standardized, κυρίῳ could be contracted as κρω.  (See the very unusual contraction of κυριον as κρν in First Corinthians 9:1 in Codex Augiensis.)  A copyist who read κρω in his exemplar could, in theory, think that he was not looking at a nomina sacra, but at a kai-compendium embedded within a word, and decide to de-contract it, as καίρῳ.

          On the other hand, if we approach the question on the premise that καίρῳ was the original reading, it is conceivable that κυρίῳ originated after a copyist wrote καίρῳ as ϗρω, and a subsequent copyist, not recognizing the kai-compendium, thoughtfully expanded ϗρω into κυρίῳ.  But this is not likely to have influenced the majority of manuscripts, early or late. 

          Meanwhile, multiple transmission-streams support Κω.  Κυρίῳ was the original reading here.  But a text-critical footnote acknowledging the early existence of καίρῳ would not be out of the question, considering the historical impact of Tyndale and Erasmus.

          Readers wishing to investigate this textual contest further may wish to consult the mercilessly detailed and meticulous research found in J. L. North’s 1988 thesis “Romans 12.11: a Textual, Lexical and Ethical Study.” 

  

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.