Bill Mounce versus Reality

 

Dr. Bill Mounce

           In the course of a recent review of the Tyndale House Greek New Testament, Dr. Bill Mounce stated the following:

            “The number one thing that they’re doing that I really like is that they’re giving primary weight to the ancient, the oldest manuscripts – Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus, and some of those older manuscripts.  We all know, in text-critical circles, that those manuscripts are by default more accurate.  They’re closer to the event; there’s been less time for them to be changed; the editors showed less of a propensity to change.  And when I’m reading this, I feel like I’m one step closer to those oldest and most reliable manuscripts.”

            A clearer expression of the axiom, “Older is better” could scarcely be found.

            But is that true?  Today, let’s take a passage from the Gospels – John 2:1-11, which records Jesus’ miracle of water to wine at the wedding-feast in Cana of Galilee – and see whether or not an ancient manuscript is more accurate than a younger manuscript.  Since the Tyndale House GNT happens to be in view, I shall use its text as the basis of comparison.  We let’s compare this passage as it is reconstructed in the Tyndale House edition of the Greek New Testament, and Codex Sinaiticus, and a medieval lectionary – specifically, Lectionary 1963 (the Symeon Stylites Lectionary), which is about 1000 years old.

            As we look at John 2:1-11, keep in mind the difference in the ages of these two manuscripts:  reckoning that the Gospel of John was written around A.D. 90, the copyists in the transmission-line of Codex Sinaiticus had only about 260 years in which mistakes could be made, accretions could be added, lines or phrases could be carelessly dropped, and so forth.  Whereas if Lectionary 1963 was produced around 1100, the copyists in its transmission-stream had about 1000 years in which the same sort of thing could occur.

            By Mounce’s logic, we should expect Codex Sinaiticus to have a far superior form of the text.  We all know this . . . right?  The copyists of Sinaiticus had “less of a propensity to change” – right?  And compared to Lectionary 1963, the copyists in the transmission-stream of Codex Sinaiticus only had a third as much time for changes to occur.  Plus, the copyists of Lectionary 1963 were producing a form of the text deliberately altered and adjusted for medieval church-services.  Surely there is no need to wonder which one contains the more accurate text . . . right?

            Nevertheless let us proceed with the comparison.  The usual ground rules for “Hand to Hand Combat” (used in some earlier posts) will be in play here:  all textual differences will be initially noted.  First-hand readings in the text are the focus.  Variants are “scored” in simple mathematical terms:  one point (+) shall be given for each non-original letter, and one point (-) shall be given for the absence of each original letter.  Movable-nu variants are noted.  Contractions of sacred names, and similar abbreviations, will not be counted as variants.  Transpositions will be mentioned but not counted as variants if there is no other difference.  Also, because one of the witnesses being compared is a lectionary, we shall only begin the comparison after the introductory phrase in verse 1.  After an initial score is tallied, each text will be rescored with itacisms and movable-nu readings removed from consideration. 

Now let’s consider Lectionary 1963’s text of John 2:1-11: 

2:1 – no variations

2:2 – no variations

2:3 – no variations

2:4 – no variations

2:5 – Lect 1963 has legei instead of legh (+2, -1)

2:6 – Lect 1963 transposes to udriai liqinai

2:6 – Lect 1963 transposes (after ex) to keimenai kata ton kaqarismon twn Ioudaiwn

2:6 – Lect 1963 has metritas instead of metrhtas (+1, -1)

2:7 – Lect 1963 has gemhsate instead of gemisate (+1, -1)

2:7 – Lect 1963 has egemhsan instead of egemisan (+1, -1)

2:8 – Lect 1963 has arcitriklinw instead of arcitrikleinw (-1)

2:8 – Lect 1963 has kai instead of oi de (+3, -4)

2:9 – Lect 1963 has arcitriklinos instead of arcitrikleinos (+1, -1)

2:9 – Lect 1963 has eidh instead of hdei (+3, -3)

2:9 – Lect 1963 has fwnh instead of fwnei (+1, -2)

2:9 – Lect 1963 has arcitriklinos instead of arcitrikleinos (+1, -1)

2:10 – Lect 1963 has tote after mequsqwsin (+4)

2:11 – Lect 1963 has epoihse instead of epoihsen (-1)

2:11 – Lect 1963 has thn before archn (+3)

2:11 – Lect 1963 has efanerwse instead of efanerwsen (-1)

            Thus in John 2:1-12, Lect 1963 has a rough score of +21 and -18, yielding a total of 39 letters’ worth of deviation from the original text as represented in the THEGNT.  Most of these differences are trivial.  When itacisms and movable-nu variants are removed from the equation, three deviations remain:

2:8 – Lect 1963 has kai instead of oi de (+3, -4)

2:10 – Lect 1963 has tote after mequsqwsin (+4)

2:11 – Lect 1963 has thn before archn (+3)

            The amount of non-trivial variation in John 2:1-11 in Lectionary 1963 consists of a total of 14 letters’ worth of deviation (i.e., 10 non-original letters are present, and four original letters are absent) compared to THEGNT.  Not one of these readings is a medieval novelty.  Codex A (from the 400s) also has kai instead of oi de in 2:8, and Codex A also has tote in 2:10. (Both of those readings are found in the majority of Greek manuscripts.)  Meanwhile Codex Sinaiticus (À) shares thn before archn in 2:11.  (This, too, is the reading of the majority of Greek manuscripts.)   

            Now let’s look at John 2:1-11 in Codex Sinaiticus.  This famous manuscript is one which Dr. Mounce described as “by default more accurate” and as one of the “oldest and most reliable manuscripts.”   In his view, Codex Sinaiticus is a “wonderful, wonderful manuscript – the most important copy of the Bible that we have.”

2:1 – no variations

2:2 – no variations

2:2 – À has oinon ouk eicon, oti cunetelesqh o oinos tou gamou eita instead of usterhsantos oinou (+41, -13)

2:3 – À has oinos instead of oinon (+1, -1)

2:3 – À has estin instead of exousin (+2, -4)

2:4 – no variations

2:5 – no variations

2:6 – À does not have keimenai (-8) (The word is added above the line)

2:7 – À has kai at the beginning of the verse (+3)

2:8 – À has arcitriklinw instead of arcitrikleinw (-1)

2:9 – À has arcitliklinos instead of arcitrikleinos (+2, -2)

2:9 – À has arcitriklinos instead of arcitrikleinos (+1, -1)

2:10 – À does not have autw (-4)

2:10 – À has de after su (+2)

2:10 – À has thn before archn (+3)

2:11 – À has prwthn after Galilaias (+6)

2:11 – À does not have autou after docan (-5)

2:11 – À transposes to oi maqhtai autou eis auton

            Thus in John 2:1-11, Codex Sinaiticus has a rough score of +61 (i.e., 60 non-original letters are in the text) and -39 (i.e., 39 original letters are not in the text), for a total of 100 letters’ worth of deviation compared to the THEGNT.  When itacisms and transpositions are removed from the equation, ten variants remain:

2:2 – Sinaiticus has oinon ouk eicon, oti cunetelesqh o oinos tou gamou eita instead of usterhsantos oinou (+41, -13)

2:3 – Sinaiticus has oinos instead of oinon (+1, -1)

2:3 – Sinaiticus has estin instead of exousin (+2, -4)

2:6 – Sinaiticus does not have keimenai (-8) (The word is added above the line)

2:7 – Sinaiticus has kai at the beginning of the verse (+3)

2:10 – Sinaiticus does not have autw (-4)

2:10 – Sinaiticus has de after su (+2)

2:10 – Sinaiticus has thn before archn (+3)

2:11 – Sinaiticus has prwthn after Galilaias (+6)

2:11 – Sinaiticus does not have autou after docan (-5)

            Thus the amount of non-trivial variation in John 2:1-11 in À consists of a total of 93 letters’ worth of deviation (i.e., 58 non-original letters are present, and 35 original letters are absent) compared to the THEGNT. 

            To restate:  when we consider all variants, even trivial ones, Lectionary 1963 has 39 letters’ worth of deviation from the THEGNT.  With trivial variants set aside, Lectionary 1963 has 14 letters’ worth of deviation compared to the THEGNT.  Meanwhile, the text from the copyist of Codex Sinaiticus has 100 letters’ worth of deviation compared to the THEGNT if trivial variants are considered, and if trivial variants are set aside, Codex Sinaiticus has 93 letters’ worth of deviation from the THEGNT. 

            An additional consideration:  tote in verse 10 is widely attested, and could easily be skipped by accident if a copyist’s line of sight shifted to the following to- in the next word, ton.  If tote is regarded as original, then the amount of non-trivial deviation in Lectionary 1963 drops to 10 letters, and the amount of non-trivial deviation in Sinaiticus rises to 97 letters.  No matter how you slice it, John 2:1-11 in Codex Sinaiticus has more than five times as much corruption than Lectionary 1963.

            Dr. Mounce’s notion that the age of a manuscript is a sure measure of the accuracy of its text, however reasonable it sounds, is manifestly untrue. 

            Readers who rely on the Tyndale House edition of the Greek New Testament for their knowledge of textual variants, however, will be blissfully unaware of the embarrassing plethora of scribal corruptions in the “earliest and most reliable” manuscripts.  In John 2:1-11, the textual apparatus of the THEGNT has exactly zero variant-units.  The apparatus of the THEGNT quotes no patristic writings, no ancient versions, and no lectionaries.  (Based on the list of witnesses in the introduction to the THEGNT, it appears that lectionaries were not even consulted during its compilation.)

            A more detailed apparatus could make difficult for Dr. Mounce to maintain his claim.  Specifically, a more detailed apparatus could include enough information to challenge the claim that the text of John 2:1-11 in Sinaiticus is “most reliable,” and “wonderful,” and accurate by default, and demonstrate instead that in John 2:1-11, the copyists in its transmission-stream had introduced five times the amount of corruptions, in a third of the time, compared to the text in an ordinary medieval lectionary. 

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

Hand-to-Hand Combat: P72 vs 6 - The Final Fight

          Minuscule 6 has beaten Papyrus 72 twice in hand-to-hand combat, showing that a manuscript produced in the 1200’s can contain a text that is more accurate from a manuscript produced in the late 200’s or early 300’s.  The second contest, though, was closer than the first one – and if one were to set aside textual variants that involve vowel-exchanges (itacisms), it was virtually a tie.  Today, Papyrus 72 and minuscule 6 meet one last time:  we will compare their texts in Jude verses 17-25.  Will Papyrus 72 finally prevail?

17 – 6 reads προειρημενον ρηματων after the first των (transposition)

17 – 6 does not have the second των (-3)

18 – 6 reads των χρονων instead of του χρονου (+4, -4)

18 – 6 reads ελευσονται instead of εσονται (+3)

19 – 6 reads εαυτους after αποδιοριζοντες (+7)

20 – 6 reads τη αγιωτατη ημων πιστει εποικοδομουντες εαυτους instead of εποικοδομουντες εαυτους τη αγιωτατη υμων πιστει (transposition) (+1, -1) [The microfilm is not clear.]

21 – no differences

22 – 6 reads ελεγχετε instead of ελεατε (+4 -3)

23 – 6 reads εσπιλομενον instead of εσπιλωμενον (+1, -1) [The microfilm is not clear; this letter is at the end of a line.  It probably reads εσπιλωμενον but I made the call against it just to be strict.] 

24 – 6 reads ασπιλους και after απταιστους και (+11)

24 – 6 reads γαλλιασει instead of αγαλλιασει (-1) [Again, the microfilm is not clear; the letter is probably present but since I could not see it, I made the call against it.]

25 – 6 reads και  after Θω (+3)

25 – 6 does not have του after παντος (-3)

25 – 6 does not have Αμην (-4)

          Thus, in Jude verses 17-25, minuscule 6 has 34 non-original letters, and is missing 20 original letters, for a total of 54 letters’ worth of corruption.  (This may be reduced to 33 non-original letters present and 17 or 18 original letters absent, for a total of 50 or 51 letters’ worth of corruption, if, as I suspect, the original letters in question are present in the manuscript but obscured in the microfilm-image.)

          Now we turn to Papyrus 72.

17 – no differences

18 – P72 does not have του after εσχατου (-3)  

18 – P72 reads εμπεκτε instead of εμπαικται (+2, -4)

18 – P72 reads επειθυμιας instead of επειθυμιας (+1)

18 – P72 reads ασεβιων instead of ασεβειων (-1)

19 – no differences

20 – P72 reads Υμις instead of Υμεις (-1)

20 – P72 reads τη εαυτων αγιοτητι πειστι ανυκοδομεισθαι instead of εποικοδομουντες εαυτους τη αγιωτατη υμων πιστει (transposition) (+15, -20)

20 – P72 reads εαυτοις at the end of the verse (+7)

21 – P72 reads τηρησωμεν instead of τηρησατε (+4, -3)

21 – P72 reads εις ζοην ημων Ιηυ Χρυ instead of ημων Ιυ Χυ εις ζωην (transposition) (+1, -1)

22 – P72 does not have Και (-3)

22/23 – P72 reads εκ πυρος αρπαζατε διακρινομενους instead of ελεατε διακρινομενους ους δε σωζετε εκ πυροσ αρπαζοντες (transposition) (+3, -20)

23 – P72 reads ελεειτε after δε instead of ελεατε (+2, -1)

23 – P72 reads μεισουντες instead of μισουντες (+1)

23 – P72 reads εσπειλωμενοι instead of εσπιλωμενον (+2, -1)

24 – P72 reads στηριξαι ασπειλους αμωμους αγνευομενους απεναντι της δοξης αυτου instead of

φυλαξαι υμας απταιτους και στησαι κατενωπιον της δοξης αυτου αμωμους (transposition) (+29, -25)

24 – P72 reads αγαλλιασι instead of αγαλλιασει (-1)

25 – P72 does not have σωτηρι (-6)  

25 – P72 reads αυτω after ημων (+4)

25 – P72 reads δοξα κρατος τιμη before δια (+8) [κρατος appears further along in the text so I considered its presence at this point a transposition.  Δοξα is repeated further along in the text.] 

25 – P72 reads αυτω δοξα και instead of δοξα (+7)

25 – P72 reads μεγαλοσυνη instead of μεγαλωσυνη (+1, -1)

25 – P72 does not have και εξουσια προ παντος του αιωνος (-28)   

25 – P72 reads τους παντας εωνας instead of παντας τους αιωνας (transposition) (+1, -2)

          Thus, in Jude verses 17-25, the text of Papyrus 72 includes 87 non-original letters, and 121 original letters are absent.  This yields a total of 208 letters’ worth of corruption in Papyrus 72’s text of Jude verses 17-25.  If NA28 is used as the standard of comparison, the text of P72 does not improve:  in verse 18, P72’s score decreases by three due to the non-inclusion of οτι and increases by three via the non-inclusion of του.    

          In this particular contest, minuscule 6 does not merely win.  It crushes and humiliates.  Its 54 letters’ worth of corruption (at most), acquired in a transmission-stream 1,100 years long, amount to only 26% of the amount of corruption acquired in Papyrus 72’s transmission-stream in the course of about 230 years.  The text of the younger manuscript, in this case, is not just better than the text in the much more ancient manuscript.  The text of minuscule 6 in Jude verses 17-25 is four times better than the text of Jude verses 17-25 in Papyrus 72.

        Now let’s consider these results together with the previous two contests between minuscule 6 and Papyrus 72, to see how the texts of these two manuscripts compare in the entire Epistle of Jude:

In verses 1-10, minuscule 6 has 15 non-original letters, and 26 original letters are absent.  41.

In verses 11-16, minuscule 6 has 31 non-original letters, and 31 original letters are absent.  62.

In verses 17-25, minuscule 6 has 34 non-original letters, and 20 original letters are absent.  54.

Totals for minuscule 6:  80 non-original letters present; 77 original letters absent.  Total:  157.

In verses 1-10, Papyrus 72 has 38 non-original letters, and 50 original letters are absent. 

In verses 11-16, Papyrus 72 has 24 non-original letters, and 79 original letters are absent.   

In verses 17-25, Papyrus 72 has 87 non-original letters, and 121 original letters are absent.

Totals for Papyrus 72:  149 non-original letters present; 250 original letters absent.  Total:  399.

          Thus, minuscule 6 has only 39% as much corruption in the Epistle of Jude as Papyrus 72 has.  Or to put it another way:  the ratio of corruption in minuscule 6 compared to Papyrus 72 is almost exactly 150:400, or 15:40, or 3:8.  If anyone still imagines that a simple appeal to “the oldest manuscripts” is decisive and persuasive, let that person carefully consider this data.

(Readers are invited to check the data and math in this post.)