The Longer Reading in Matthew 25:13

           A textual variant in Matthew 25:13 may shed some light on a mechanism that elicited some expansions in the Byzantine Text.  In the EOB-NT, Matthew 25:13 reads, “Watch, therefore, for you do not know the day or the hour that the Son of Man is coming.”  The words “that the Son of Man is coming” are framed by “<” and “>.”  The WEB, based on the Majority Text, says similarly, “Watch therefore, for you don’t know the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming.”  The KJV reads similarly, and the Textus Receptus agrees with the Byzantine Textform at this point.  In the EHV, Matthew 25:13 only says, “Therefore, keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.”  There is no footnote in the EHV to indicate the existence of the longer Byzantine reading. 

          The ESV, CSB, NIV, and NASB all end the verse at the word “hour.”  The NLT, apparently abandoning its base-text, continues with “of my return.”

          What’s going on here?  Did Matthew write the words ἐν ἧ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ερχεται or not?

          Short answer:  Not.

          The Byzantine/Majority Text supports the inclusion of “in which the Son of Man is coming,” but the Peshitta does not.  Codices A, D, L, W, Δ, and Σ end the verse with ὥραν (hour).  So do some minuscules, including 33, the first hand of 157, 892, and the first hand of 1424.   The Alexandrian codices À and B weigh in for the shorter reading, and so do P35 and Codex D, and patristic witnesses such as Chrysostom, Athanasius, and Augustine.  The Vulgate and the Old Latin also solidly support the shorter reading here.

          To perceive what has happened here, it is helpful to know that Matthew 25:1-13 was the lection assigned to the 17th Saturday after Pentecost in the Byzantine lectionary.  (It is also a lection in Lectionary 846, to be read in honor of female virgins and martyrs.)  When this segment is read separately from the rest of the chapter, the final sentence was expanded to tell listeners what day and hour were referred to (perhaps using Mt. 24:42 and 24:44 as a model). 

          This expansion can be seen happening in Byzantine manuscripts.  In Codex Y (034), the verse ends ὥραν in the text, but someone – apparently the same person who supplemented the manuscript for lection-reading – added in the margin, “εν η ὁ υς του ανου ερχεται.”  There’s the longer variant.

          Bruce Metzger’s dismissal of the longer reading is correct, but his explanation for its existence (as a “pedantic addition”) seems to show little appreciation for the influence of the lectionary on the Byzantine Text.  When Metzger wrote his Textual Commentary, he was all-in on Hort’s now-defunct theory of the Lucianic Recension.   A more mature Metzger would probably adjust his wording, acknowledging the longer reading as having been made under the influence of lectionary-usage.

          When was the longer reading introduced?  Probably sometime after Codex A (400s), and before 017 (Cyprius) (800s) and the marginalia in 034 (800s, if the marginalia is of the same date as the main text).  [Update:  Andy Vogan has observed that 07, assigned to the 700s, also has the longer reading.]  Someone influenced by a lectionary, wishing to benignly introduce an expansion at the end of Mt. 25:13 to wrap up a lection, created the longer reading, and it was so edifying that so many scribes adopted it that it eventually became the majority reading.  The removal of such intrusions into the text can be achieved relatively easily by filtering the majority text against the Alexandrian Text, the Western Text, and the text of family Π.

 

The EOB New Testament: Best English Translation Ever

             I am pleased to present and review a relatively new English New Testament:  the Eastern/Greek Orthodox New Testament, also known as the New Testament portion of the Eastern Orthodox Bible (abbreviated from here on as “EOB-NT”), which was initially published in 2013.

Laurent
Cleenewerck

         “The EOB New Testament,” says its online presentation at Amazon, “is a new translation of the official Greek Orthodox text called the Patriarchal Text of 1904.”  It goes on to say that the EOB-NT is “a fresh and accessible translation created within the Orthodox community.”   Its editor is identified as Laurent Cleenewerck.  Presbyter Cleenewerck currently serves as the rector of Saint Innocent Orthodox Christian Church in Eureka, CA.

            New English translations are not uncommon nowadays:  the past 50 years have seen the premiere of the NIV 1984 (now discontinued), NASB (updated in 1995), ESV (updated in 2016), HCSB, CSB (2017), CEB, CEV, NLT, TNIV (now discontinued), NIV 2011, NRSVue, and so forth.  Meanwhile, many advocates of the KJV have resisted these translations, arguing (among other things) that they either omit a significant number of verses and phrases, or relegate them to the footnotes.

            The EOB New Testament poses a challenge to such objections.  In its extensive introduction (p. viii),  one finds a statement that the purpose of its Greek base-text “is not to offer an always speculative reconstruction of the original autographs but to provide a uniform ecclesiastical text which is a reliable and accurate witness to the truth of the Christian faith.”

            Because it is based on the 1904 Patriarchal Text, the EOB-NT includes all these verses and phrases (with footnotes mentioning the reading of the CT – Critical Text – in each case):  Matthew 6:13b, Matthew 12:47, Matthew 13:14 “spoken of by Daniel the prophet,” Matthew 16:2b-3, Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11, Matthew 20:16b, Matthew 23:14 (as 23:13), Mark 6:11b, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:29 “and fasting,” Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 14:24 “new,” Mark 15:28, Mark 16:9-20, Luke 4:8, Luke 9:55-56, Luke 11:2b, Luke 11:4b, Luke 17:36, Luke 22:43-44, Luke 23:17, Luke 23:34a, Luke 24:12, Luke 24:40, Luke 24:42b, Luke 24:51b, John 3:13, “who is in heaven,” John 5:3-4, John 7:53-8:11, Acts 8:37, Acts 9:5-6, Acts 13:42, Acts 15:34, Acts 23:9b, Acts 24:6-8, Acts 28:29, Romans 1:16, “of Christ,” Romans 16:24, and First John 5:7-8.

            Although the EOB-NT contains the Johannine Comma in First John, its footnote states explicitly that this reading is supported by “a few recent Greek manuscripts,” and that “This passage is undoubtedly an interpolation or later theological comment seemingly of Spanish-Latin origin.”

            Unlike the NKJV and MEV, the EOB-NT rejects many of the readings in the Textus Receptus (and KJV) which are not supported by the Byzantine Text.  It is similar to the World English Bible (which makes sense considering that, as its introduction says, the EOB-NT “began as a revision of the WEB”).  Here are some examples of readings in the Gospel of Matthew in the EOB-NT that are different from the KJV due to different readings in their base-texts:

            3:8 – “fruit” (not “fruits”)

            5:47 – “friends (not “brethren)

            7:2 – does not have “again”

            8:15 – “him” (not “them”)

            9:36 – “weary” (not “fainted”)

            12:35 – does not have “of the heart”

            18:19 – “Again, amen” (not just “Again”)

            18:29 – does not have “all”

            20:22 – “or” (not “and”)

            20:26 – “shall be (not “let him be”)

            21:1 – “Bethsphage” (not “Bethphage”)

            26:26 – gave thanks for it” (not “blessed it”)

            27:35 – does not have “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots”

            27:41 – includes “and the Pharisees”

 

            The influence of a better and broader array of evidence manifests itself in many other passages.  Some samples: 

          ● Luke 7:31 does not begin with “And the Lord said,”

          ● John 1:28 refers to Bethany (not Bethabara),

          ● Acts 9:5 does not include “It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks,”

          ● Acts 9:6 does not include “And he trembling and astonished said, ‘Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?’ And the Lord said unto him,”

          ● Ephesians 3:9 reads “dispensation,”

          ● Philippians 4:3 begins with “Yes” (not “And”)

          ● Colossians 1:6 includes “and growing,”

          ● Colossians 1:14 does not include “through his blood,”

          ● James 4:12 includes “and judge,”

          ● First Peter 2:2 includes “in salvation.”

          ● Jude verse 4 refers to “our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ,”

          ● Revelation 6:12 refers to the “whole moon,”

          ● Revelation 8:13 refers to “an eagle,” and

          ● Revelation 22:20 refers to the “tree of life” (not “book of life” as in the KJV).

            At all these points (and many more) the EOB-NT’s base-text has preserved the original text better than the Textus Receptus.

            To illustrate the EOB-NT's translation-technique, here are three sample extracts from the EOB-NT:

            ● JOHN 1:12:  “But as many as received him, to them he gave the ability to become God’s children, to those who believe in his Name.”

            ● FIRST TIMOTHY 3:2:  “The overseer must be irreproachable, a husband of one wife, self-controlled, sensible, modest, hospitable and a good teacher.”

            ● TITUS 3:4-5:  “But when the kindness of God our Savior and his love toward mankind appeared (not by works of righteousness which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy), he saved us through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.”

            The translation-technique of the EOB-NT comes very close to Bruce Metzger’s ideal of “as literal as possible, as free as necessary.”  Monetary terms and ancient measurement-units are not converted into their modern equivalents; instead, footnotes explain the ancient terms via modern counterparts.  The most unusual rendering is perhaps found in Philippians 4:3, where the Greek word that is often rendered “yokefellow” or “fellow-worker” is rendered in the EOB-NT as a proper name, Syzygus – with a footnote conveying that this rendering is not airtight.    

            Extensive quotations from the Old Testament are italicized.

            Instead of resorting to headings that interrupt the text, all of the EOB-NT’s headings are in the side-margin, in italicized red print.

            The myriad footnotes in the EOB-NT mention very many textual variants in the Textus Receptus, the Majority Text, and the Critical Text – far more than the footnotes in the ESV and NIV and CSB – almost enough to give 100% validation to the introduction’s claim that “All significant variants between PT/MT/TR and CT have been studied and footnoted to provide variant readings.”  Even some of Codex Bezae’s very unusual readings have found a home in the EOB-NT’s footnotes, such as at Matthew 20:28, Luke 22:19, 24:3, etc. – but not in the book of Acts.

            Many footnotes point out passages where a New Testament author’s citation of an Old Testament passage agrees with the Septuagint.   Most of the footnotes are brief, but some come close to commentary-summarizations; for instance, the footnotes for John 1:1-2, John 8:58, and Second Thessalonians 2:7 seem too prolix.

            Footnote-readers will encounter occasional Greek words.  And, unlike the writers of the footnotes in other English New Testaments, the EOB-NT’s footnote-writer was not afraid to mention patristic writers such as Irenaeus, Clement, Hippolytus, Origen, Epiphanius, Jerome, Basil, Hilary, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, and Theodoret.  It is highly recommended that readers carefully absorb the Introduction to the EOB-NT and the prefatory Abbreviations and Codes (which identifies, among other things, the abbreviations for several English translations and 21 witnesses (mainly Greek manuscripts).  However, that will not help the typical American reader to whom patristic authors are, sadly, a complete mystery.  Such readers will just have to learn!                   

        I suspect that the EOB-NT embodies the kind of revision of the traditional New Testament text that John Burgon wished for in the late 1800s – avoiding the Egypt-centric compilation that is currently presented as the text of “reasonable eclecticism” (in real life, it is 99% Alexandrian), and which is the basis of the New Testament in the ESV, NIV, CSB, NASB, NRSV, and NLT.  The EOB-NT stands apart from these versions and is superior to them all.

            This is not to say that the EOB-NT is flawless.  Some of the readings in its base-text are not original.  For instance, Matthew 25:13 in the EOB-NT concludes with “that the Son of Man is coming,” which surely originated in the Byzantine Text for the purpose of wrapping up a lection.  But as far as I can tell, these accretions are, one and all, quite benign, and they tend to clarify the meaning of the passage in which they occur, just as the NIV routinely inserts a proper name where there is no proper name in its base-text.

         I have only physically met the EOB-NT in the form of its Portable Edition, which was published by New Rome Press in 2019 (and can be purchased for $40 at their website).  The features of the EOB-NT Portable Edition are notable: 

            Its burgundy leather cover has two ribbons, yellow and red.  A zipper protects the pages (but also prevents them from laying flat).  The print is small; some readers may need a magnifying-glass.  There are two columns of text on each page.

            The text is formatted into logical paragraphs.

            An unfortunate formatting-error has survived in Matthew 27:31:  the words “Simon of Cyrene–The way to Golgotha– The crucifixion of the Lord” were intended to be in the margin in red print, but somehow they have been presented as if they are part of the text.  (Hopefully this will be remedied in future editions.)

            As one handles the EOB-NT Portable Edition, one may feel as if a New Testament manuscript is being held.  Each Gospel is preceded by a full-page illustration, and illustrations – more like icons – also appear before First Corinthians, and after Revelation.   Each book of the New Testament, large or small, is introduced with an artistic, uncomplicated red headpiece, and the book-title in artistic red lettering. Chapter-numbers and superscripted verse-numbers are red.  Footnote-numbers, in black, are also superscripted.

            The text is supplemented by useful colorful maps that deserve special mention.  They depict the Roman Empire, Jesus’ Ministry in Galilee, Jesus’ Journeys to Jerusalem, The Jewish Diaspora at Pentecost, Paul’s Early Travels, Paul’s Third Missionary Journey, Paul’s Trip to Rome, The Ministry of Peter and Philip, the Spread of Christianity During the 1^st and 2^nd Centuries A.D., and Early Christian Communities, followed by an icon of the Harrowing of Hell with Romans 8:31-34.  

            More information about the EOB-NT Portable Edition can be found in the video-reviews by Orthodox Review and R. Grant Jones and Biblical Studies and Reviews.

         

           

Interview with Maurice Robinson, Part 1

Dr. Maurice Robinson

        This week at The Text of the Gospels, Dr. Maurice Robinson of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (in Wake Forest, NC) joins us for an interview about the Byzantine Text.  He is known to many as one of the compilers of The New Testament in the Original Greek – Byzantine Textform.   Thanks for accepting my invitation, Dr. Robinson.

Robinson:  I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to various questions.

Q:  Let’s jump right in.  The Robinson-Pierpont text, the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text, and Wilbur Pickering’s family-35 text are all presented as representations of the Byzantine text.  How different from one another are these compilations?

Robinson:  All three differ approximately 6 to 7 percent from what appears in the Nestle-Aland/UBS critical text, and represent forms of the Byzantine text that vary due to differing theoretical and methodological approaches.  Were I to estimate the degree of difference between any of these basically Byzantine editions, it would probably be only about one-half percent in any paired comparison, given that these all agree in relation to the vast bulk of the NT where the Byzantine Textform basically remains undivided.
          I would not label these other editions “Byzantine-priority,” however, since their underlying methodology allows for some minority group (i.e., far from dominant) Byzantine readings at various points of Byzantine division, whether based on stemmatic preferences (H-F) or by following a minority subgroup within the Byzantine mass (Family 35).  These alternative theories and methods might reflect a general “Byzantine preference,” but they do not in all instances reflect the prevailing agreement reflective of a basic consensus of all Byzantine manuscripts.

Q:  Can you provide a few differences between RP2005 and the BGNT that have an impact on translation?

Robinson:  I really haven’t had any need to compare RP2005 against the Family 35/Kr type of text since no individual Byzantine minority subgroup is determinative in establishing a general consensus text within a Byzantine-priority approach.  While the BGNT does not directly note the differences between the two editions, Pickering’s closely related Family 35/Kr edition does footnote differences between his text and RP2005 (along with various other editions).  I have also seen an English-based list of “clearly translatable differences” that exist “between Kx and Kr/f35” that likely covers most of these variations — but even then, almost all of these are extremely minor in nature, especially when involving word order, synonym substitution, or inclusion/exclusion of short words.

Q:  What is the single biggest difference, outside the pericope adulterae, in the Gospels?

Robinson:  Among the more meaningful instances of inclusion/exclusion between the two texts, consider Luke 22:47, where RP2005 ends the verse with “and he drew near to Jesus to kiss him,” but where Kr/Family 35 adds the harmonization (from Matthew 26:48 and Mark 14:44), “For he had given them this sign, ‘Whomever I should kiss, he it is’” — a reading that according to von Soden is supported among the primary bulk of Byzantine manuscripts (Kx) only in the proportion 1:12, even though thoroughly present among the much later and revisionary Kr group of manuscripts.
          I would suggest such an expansion to be secondary, and not only on external but on transmissional grounds:  had such a lengthy phrase originally been present, no good reason would exist for its omission among the bulk of remaining Byzantine manuscripts (including many much earlier than those comprising Family 35/Kr); further, an original lack of such a phrase readily could impel later revisers to insert such in order to harmonize with the remaining synoptic gospels.

Q:  Several English translations based on the Byzantine Text have been made.  Do you have a favorite?

Robinson:  Most of these translations you speak of are electronic in nature, and readily available on the internet. Of these, the English Majority Text Version (EMTV), based on the Hodges-Farstad Interlinear, and the World English Bible (WEB), based on an updated and textually adjusted form of the 1901 ASV, probably are among the better renderings, although I often might differ regarding the translation of certain words and phrases (just as with most published English translations).

Q:  Do you think there is a potential market in the near future for an English translation based on the Byzantine Text?

Robinson:  Indeed I long have held that there is a significant market for a Byzantine-based formal-equivalence English translation, and I would strongly support publishers who might see fit to develop and market such, who might even be willing to adapt existing translations such as the NASV, NKJV, or ESV to an alternate Byzantine edition that could be marketed alongside their current holdings based on the critical text or TR.  Even beyond that, I would strongly support a new, committee-based, formal equivalence translation from the Byzantine Textform that could be published and marketed in hard copy, and thereby fulfill the original desire of Hodges and Farstad regarding both the NKJV and HCSB — intentionally sidetracked along the way by their respective publishers.
          As an aside, I suggest that the ESV committee severely errs in now declaring their current translational form to be a “permanent text edition.”  That procedure guarantees an eventual extinction or readership departure from the ESV as (1) the English language or syntactical understanding might change, and (2) particularly where the ESV critical text base might require alteration due to new textual theories or discoveries (one need only consider what changes CBGM might require in future NA/UBS editions — changes which all other translations based on the critical text will accept and follow, but apparently not the ESV).

Q: How do you resolve variant-units where there is no strong majority?

Robinson:  The easiest answer is this:  where the Byzantine Textform is sharply divided, one obviously cannot appeal solely to external testimony in order to establish the most plausible original reading. Resolution of intra-Byzantine division requires consideration of internal evidence as such might relate to the various readings found among the Byzantine witnesses at those points (several such internal evidence principles are mentioned in “The Case for Byzantine Priority”).

Q: Are the rest of us putting the books of the New Testament in the wrong order?

Robinson:  Based on what appears among the earlier manuscripts, this most definitely is the case. The RP2005 text reflects that early order, where Acts is immediately followed by the General Epistles, then the Pauline Epistles (in which Hebrews divides the church letters from those to individuals), and then Revelation.
          The RP2005 arrangement of the NT books is not new; the same order appears in Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott-Hort, and von Soden, and remains far more historically based and thematically logical than the familiar but later ordering that derives more from Latin and TR traditions than anything else.

Q:  In “The Case for Byzantine Priority” you state, “Whenever possible, the raw number of MSS should be intelligently reduced.” How would you reply to a proposal to boil down the weight of the copies of Theophylact’s Gospels-text to the weight of their archetype, seeing that the various Byzantine subtypes can be grouped “according to their hypothetical archetypes”

Robinson:  Regarding the Theophylact manuscripts, my PA collation data suggests that the Theophylact commentary along with its quoted biblical text jointly derive from a common archetype.  That base tends to prevail among nearly all Theophylact manuscripts, and thus the multiplicity of Theophylact manuscripts (approximately 125) really says little or nothing beyond the text of its original archetype.

Q:  Do you mean that just as we tend not to count individual copies of the Vulgate, we should not count individual copies of clearly identifiable Byzantine sub-groups?

Robinson:  Regarding the various Byzantine subtypes, those with relatively limited support almost certainly derive from their own separate sub-archetypes characterized by their differences from the primary majority bulk of Byzantine documents. This is not to say that their existence is of no value, but that whatever presence a particular Byzantine subgroup might have would represent only the limited degree of popularity that specific line of transmission represents (this in terms of copying frequency and historical preservation).

Q:  If someone were to compile the text via a mathematical formula, adopting whatever reading was favored by a majority of archetypes (not just text-types, but also Byzantine sub-groups) and base-texts of early versions rather than by a majority of manuscripts, wouldn’t the resultant compilation differ at some points from the Byzantine Textform?

Robinson:  Obviously, the RP text offers no “mathematical formula,” but only a basic transmissional consensus approach. Thus I would not recommend a “majority of archetypes” methodology to replace the general consensus found amid the mass of Byzantine manuscripts.  Indeed, were some “majority of archetypes” method to be followed (whether limiting the sub-archetypes to Byzantine or otherwise), the resultant text necessarily would differ at various points from the prevailing consensus that represents the dominant line of Byzantine transmission.

Q: Even though you state in “The Case for Byzantine Priority” that “Manuscripts still need to be weighed and not merely counted,” it has been claimed that the Byzantine Priority view seeks to establish the text by “counting manuscripts.” What do you say in response?

Robinson:  By its very nature, the Byzantine Textform in its aggregate does represent the vast numerical majority of manuscripts; therefore “number” is one component within Byzantine-priority theory, but hardly the sole element (even Burgon suggested seven different data categories to be necessary for establishing the text). Within Byzantine-priority theory, transmissional factors are far more significant than mere number, as even Scrivener had suggested.
          Compare a parallel example: were one to advocate a theory of “Alexandrian-priority” or “Western-priority,” intending to establish a putative archetype of those forms of text from its extant representatives, “number” alone would not be the primary factor. The published research of Heimerdinger and Rius-Camps in relation to their view of “Western priority” demonstrates the point.  Similarly, claims of mere “nose-counting” reflect a gross over-simplification and offer little more than a misleading caricature of the more thorough and reasonable case being advocated.

Q: Can internal evidence ever overrule the external evidence when over 95% of the manuscript-evidence is in agreement? Is there any reading in the Byzantine Textform that you can identify as a case where this has happened?

Robinson:  The short answer is no, and that specifically because of the nature of Byzantine-priority. Put simply, one cannot be consistent in advocating a valid form of Byzantine-priority (or even Alexandrian-priority) while rejecting the dominant consensus of that text-type. While some might prefer a more general “Byzantine-preferred” position and thereby feel free to depart the Byzantine at various points on the basis of external or internal considerations (e.g., united versional or patristic testimony differing from the Byzantine, or internal criteria considered strong enough to override any external consensus), the resultant theory and praxis no longer would be “Byzantine-priority,” but a less-than-exclusive “Byzantine-preference” or even some sort of “Equitable Eclecticism.”
          I do not suggest, however, that internal criteria are invoked only where the Byzantine Textform is sharply divided and they are neglected where the mass of Byzantine manuscripts agree. Rather, internal criteria can and should be utilized in every instance of variant reading, either to confirm and defend the external data (when basically united) or to assist in determining the best reading where the Byzantine manuscripts are seriously divided). This is specifically what Dan Wallace has suggested Byzantine or majority text supporters should do, and is the intent of the Textual Commentary I currently am working on (two years in, with many more to go given that more than 3000 variant units need to be discussed).

(To be continued)

END OF PART ONE