 |
| 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. |
● 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 27th/28th 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.
