The Myth of Tenacity

            On page 78 of The King James Only Controversy, author James White states:   “Once a variant reading appears in a manuscript, it doesn’t simply go away.  It gets copied and ends up in other manuscripts.”  To support this statement, White appealed to Kurt & Barbara Aland’s similar statement:  “Once a variant or a new reading enters the tradition it refuses to disappear, persisting (if only in a few manuscripts) and perpetuating itself through the centuries.  One of the most striking traits of the New Testament textual tradition is its tenacity.” – Aland & Aland, The Text of the New Testament, p. 56.

            Aland & Aland, however, only provided three examples of this “tenacity” – and two of the three are very poorly attested among later Greek manuscripts.  Their first example is the abrupt ending of the Gospel of Mark (i.e., the ending at 16:8); among extant Greek manuscripts, it is supported by exactly one later copy (304).  In addition, 304’s text of Mark is 90% Byzantine; there is a very real possibility that 304’s exemplar contained Mark 16:9-20; like 2386 and 1420 (both of which used to be cited – erroneously – as support for the abrupt ending), 304’s support for the abrupt ending of Mark may turn out to be merely a quirk. 

            What about Aland & Aland’s other two demonstrations of tenacity?  They are found in Matthew 13:57 and Mark 1:16:

            Regarding Matthew 13:57:  Aland and Aland point out that whereas some manuscripts (B D Θ 33 700) simply present Jesus saying that a prophet is without honor in [his] homeland (πατριδι), and some manuscripts (À f¹³) present Jesus saying that a prophet is without honor in his own homeland (ἰδία πατριδι), and some manuscripts (L Byz K N W) present Jesus saying that a prophet is without honor in his homeland (πατριδι αὐτοῦ), the scribe of Codex C conflated two readings, so as to write ἰδία πατριδι αὐτοῦ.  “This is typical,” Aland and Aland say – “a scribe familiar with both readings will combine them, reasoning that by preserving both texts the right text will be preserved.”

            The obvious problem with the Alands’ proposal is that Codex C’s reading in this passage is anything but “typical;” C’s reading is singular – that is, it is the only Greek manuscript that has this reading!  Far from being “tenacious,” this reading burst into existence with the scribe of C, and then went extinct.  We may have here a tenacious page of parchment, but not a tenacious reading.

            The example in Mark 1:16 is better, where it can be argued that the majority reading is a combination, or conflation, of the reading in Codex A (του Σίμωνος) and the reading in Codex D G W Θ and the Textus Receptus (αὐτου), producing the longer reading αὐτου του Σίμωνος.  Although a counter-argument can be made, let’s step back at this point and survey the evidence that has been collected to illustrate the proposal that once a reading (whether part of the original text, or the creation of a scribe) appears in a manuscript, it does not go away:

            ● The presence of the abrupt ending of Mark in minuscule 304.

            ● The reading ἰδία πατριδι αὐτοῦ in Codex C (a singular reading), and

            ● The reading αὐτου του Σίμωνος in the Byzantine Text of Mark 1:16.  

            Now consider the mass of evidence against the concept of tenacity:  the hundreds of singular readings that appears in ancient manuscripts, but of which there is no trace in later manuscripts.  How many such readings are there?  Greg Paulson wrote his 2013 thesis on singular readings in the codices Vaticanus (B), Sinaiticus (À), Bezae (D), Ephraemi Rescriptus (C), and Washingtonianus (W) in the Gospel of Matthew, and he mentioned how many singular readings – i.e., readings that do not recur in any other Greek manuscript – each one of these codices has in its text of Matthew.  Paulson’s data:
            Vaticanus:  97.

            Sinaiticus:  Scribe A:  163. 

            Bezae:  259.

            Ephraemi Rescriptus:  75

            Washingtonianus:  112.

            I emphasize that these numbers – showing that five important early manuscripts combine to produce a total of 706 singular readings – only take the text of Matthew into consideration.  If one were to extrapolate, so as to maintain a proportion of 25 singular readings per chapter of the Gospels, then we could reasonably expect that a study of all the singular readings in these five manuscripts throughout the four Gospels would total about 2,225.  Well, there we would have 1,500 non-tenacious readings – never seen before or after the one time they appear – versus the three submitted by Aland & Aland.  Suppose that two-thirds of these were nonsense-readings which scribes could reasonably be expected to regard as mistakes.  That would leave 500 non-tenacious, non-nonsense readings, just in the Gospels, just in these five manuscripts.

            And what if we consider some earlier manuscripts?   A single quotation from James Royse (from p. 246 of Scribal Tendencies in the Transmission of the Text of the New Testament, chapter 15 of The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research, © 1995 Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Ehrman and Holmes, editors) may serve to tell us:  Royse provides a chart which conveys that Papyrus 45 has 222 significant singular readings; Papyrus 46 has 471 significant singular readings; Papyrus 47 has 51 significant singular readings; Papyrus 66 has 107 significant singular readings; Papyrus 72 has 98 significant singular readings; Papyrus 75 has 119 significant singular readings.  (In a footnote, Royse helpfully defines “significant singular readings” as “those singular readings that remain after exclusion of nonsense-readings and orthographic variants.”)  

            Hundreds of readings refute the Alands’ claim about tenacity.  (Over a thousand in just six papyri.)  There is no evidence that these readings were ever perpetuated after they entered the transmission-stream precisely once.  Here the case might rest, Q.E.D. 

  

            But let’s also consider a few peripheral pieces of evidence.             

            ● Origen and Luke 1:46.  Bruce Metzger pointed out (in his essay References in Origen to Variant Readings) that Origen, in his commentary on Matthew, mentioned that in some copies, the Magnificat is said to be sung by Mary, while according to other copies, Elizabeth is the singer.  Presently, no Greek manuscripts say that Elizabeth was the singer. 

            ● Tertullian and John 1:13.  All Greek manuscripts of John 1 support the use of a plural in this verse, so as to understand it as a generalization about all genuine believers.  Tertullian, however, seems to have been convinced that the original reading here was singular, and that Valentinian heretics were responsible for changing it to a plural form.  (Denis S. Kulandaisamy has written a 300-page book on this little subject.)   

            ● Epiphanius and Matthew 2:11.  The apologist Epiphanius of Salamis, in the late 300s, mentioned that the wise men opened their “wallets” (πήρας), and noted that some manuscripts – like all Greek manuscripts extant today – referred instead to their “treasures” (θησαυροὺς).  No known manuscript today has the reading πήρας.  

            ● Jerome, Isidore, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Ephesians 5:14.  Several significant patristic writers drew attention to a textual variant in Ephesians 5:14, where instead of “And Christ will shine on you,” some manuscripts in their day read “And Christ will touch you.”  John Chrysostom seems to have alluded to this variant, too, although he did not go into detail about it.  If it is extant in any Greek manuscripts, there is no mention of them in the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece. 

            ● Origen and Matthew 4:17.  Origen says plainly that some manuscripts do not have the word “Repent” in this verse.  All of our Greek manuscripts, however, presently support the inclusion of “Repent” in this verse; only in the Old Syriac copies and in the Old Latin Codex Bobbiensis is it missing.     

            ● Jerome and Matthew 13:35.  Jerome firmly asserts that all of the ancient copies state that these things were done to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Asaph.  No manuscripts of Matthew today have this reading, and Jerome mentions that by his own time, the text had been altered; one alteration had yielded the erroneous reading “Isaiah the prophet.” 

            If you take in hand Amy Donaldson’s two-part dissertation Explicit References to New Testament Variant Readings Among Greek and Latin Church Fathers, you will find details about these readings, and others, which were cited by early patristic writers but which now are never or only rarely found.

            Finally, the myth of tenacity is not only refuted by empirical evidence; it is rendered superfluous by logic.  For if a reading were to enter the transmission-stream, and then fall into oblivion, and the manuscript containing it did not survive, and no one referred to it in patristic writings, how would we know?  Even if we did not have the empirical evidence that thoroughly refutes the theory of tenacity, the theory could only ever be an assumption, not a verifiable thing.

                         

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

EES Moves to Publish More New Testament Papyri

            News! the Egypt Exploration Society has announced that it expects to publish 20 or so New Testament papyri in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri series within a few years.  This is the same organization that released the “First Century Mark” fragment that turned out not to be from the first century (but at least it was real, not some publicity stunt), a fragment with text from Luke (Papyrus 138), and an early fragment from the book of Philemon.  

            Along with New Testament documents, the EES expects to publish about ten patristic compositions, as well as dozens of fragment of the Septuagint.

            The official announcement can be found at the EES website.

HT:  Brent Nongbri

Non-Alexandrian Papyri and Early Versions

            In The King James Only Controversy, author James White made two claims on pages 195-197 that invite clarification.  First, he stated on page 195, “Every papyrus manuscript we have discovered has been a representative of the Alexandrian text-type.” Second, on page 197, he wrote, “An examination of the early New Testament translations reveals they were done on the basis of Alexandrian type manuscripts.”

            Is it true that all of the papyrus manuscripts that have been discovered represent the Alexandrian text-type? No.  The low-humidity climate in parts of Egypt allowed papyrus to survive longer there than in other places, so it would not be particularly surprising if all of the papyri that were found in Egypt contained Egyptian forms of the text.    

            In other locales, papyrus was much more vulnerable to natural decay, which is why we don’t find a lot of New Testament papyri in, say, Ephesus and Athens, for the same reason that we don’t find a lot of ancient Greek sales-receipts there. 

            And yet some New Testament papyri with distinctly non-Alexandrian contents have survived.  Papyrus 45, for example – a heavily damaged manuscript that contains text from the four Gospels and Acts – is the substantial manuscript of (part of) the Gospel of Mark (the surviving portion is from Mark 4-12).  While there is general agreement that P45’s text of Acts is Alexandrian, this is not the case regarding its text of Mark.  Researcher Larry W. Hurtado, in the 2004 paper P45 and the Textual History of the Gospel of Mark, affirmed that P45’s text of Mark was neither Byzantine nor Western nor Alexandrian nor Caesarean.  Hurtado also stated that “This third-century manuscript had numerous readings that previously had been thought to be “Byzantine.””

            Here are some examples of non-Alexandrian readings in Mark in Papyrus 45:
            ● 6:16 – Byz and P45 include οτι (not included in B À).

            ● 6:22 – Byz and P45 read αρεσάσης (B À:  ηρεσεν).

            ● 6:22 –Byz and P45 (here P45 is corrected; the scribe first wrote Herod’s name instead of “the king”) have the word-order ειπεν ο βασιλευς (B À read ο δε βασιλευς ειπεν)    
            ● 6:38 – Byz and P45 have the word-order αρτους εχετε (B L:  εχετε αρτους)  
            ● 6:41 – Byz and P45 have αυτου (not in B À L)

            ● 6:41 – Byz and P45 have παραθωσιν (B À* L have παρατιθωσιν)

            ● 6:45 – Byz and P45 have απολύση (B À L D have απολυει)

            ● 6:48 – Byz and P45 have ειδεν (B À L D have ιδων) [The letters ιδε in P45 here are tentatively reconstructed]

            ● 6:50 – Byz and P45 have -ον so as to read ειδον (B À read ειδαν; D omits)   

            ● 7:5 – Byz and P45 have the word-order οι μαθηται σου ου περιπατουσιν (B À L have a different word-order)

            ● 7:6 – Byz and P45 have αποκριθεις (B À L do not have the word)

            ● 7:6 – Byz and P45 have οτι (B À L do not have the word) 

            ● 7:10 – Byz and P45 have τιμα (B D have τειμα)

            ● 7:14 – Byz and P45 have ελεγεν (B has λέγει)

            ● 7:15 – P45 has -ν κοιν-, supporting inclusion of κοινωσαι (which B does not include)

            ● 7:29 – Byz and P45 have the word-order το δαιμονιον εκ της θυγατρός σου (B À L have a different word-order)

            ● 7:30 – Byz and P45 share the same word-order (B À L have a different word-order; so does D)

            ● 7:31 – Byz and P45 share the word-order, with ηλθεν after the reference to Tyre and Sidon.  B À L D have ηλθεν after Τύρου and before δια Σιδωνος (in B, δια Σειδωνος)

            ● 7:35– Byz and P45 include ευθέως (not included in B À)

            ● 7:35 – P45 is difficult to read but it ends the word with –χθησαν, supporting the Byzantine reading διηνοιχθησαν (B À D have ηνοιγησαν)

            ● 7:36 – P45 is difficult to read but appears to support the inclusion of αυτος (agreeing with Byz and disagreeing with B À L D.

            ● 8:13 – P45 has εις το πλοιον, agreeing with D; Byz has εις πλοιον; B À L do not have the phrase)

            ● 8:15 – P45 ends the verse with Ηρωδιανων, agreeing with the Caesarean text (W Θ 565 f¹  f¹³)

            ● 8:19 – P45 and Byz share the word-order πληρεις κλασματων ηρατε (B À L have κλασματων πληρεις ηρατε; D has κλασματων ηρατε πληρεις

            ● 8:20 – P45 and Byz have ειπον (B L have λεγουσιν αυτω; À has λεγουσιν)  

            ● 8:34 – P45 and Byz have ακολουθειν (B À L have ελθειν)

            ● 8:35 – P45 and Byz share the word-order αυτου σωσαι (B has εαυτου before ψυχην σωσαι) 

            ● 8:36 – P45 and Byz have εαν (B À L do not have the word)

            ● 8:36 – P45 and Byz have κερδηση (B À have κερδησαι)

            ● 8:37 – P45 and Byz have δωσαι (B À* have δοι; À^c has ιδω)

            ● 8:37 – P45 and Byz have αυτου (B has εαυτου)

            ● 9:2 – P45 and Byz have μεθ’ (B À L D have μετα)          

            ● 9:6 – P45 and Byz have ησαν (B À D have κφοββοι)

            ● 9:20 – P45 and Byz share the word-order ευθεως το πνευμα (B À L have το πνευμα ευθυς; D has το πνευμα.

             

            Thus, while P45 is far from a strong ally of the Byzantine Text, it is certainly not an Alexandrian manuscript in Mark chapters 8 and 9.  In addition, notice the eleven readings introduced by red dots; these readings shared by P45 and the Byzantine Text are not shared by the flagship manuscripts of the Alexandrian and Western forms of the text.  (How seriously should we take Dan Wallace’s claim – repeated by James White – that there are no more than eight uniquely Byzantine readings to be found among the papyri?  A question of methodology occurs to me:  if Dan Wallace were to take in hand the text of Mark 6-9 in the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform, would he ever find the Byzantine Text?  How many readings in Mark 6-9 are uniquely Byzantine?)    

           Papyrus 38, a single damaged leaf from a codex of the book of Acts, has been assigned to the early 200s – about the same period when P45 was made – and its text is definitely Western, not Alexandrian.  Papyrus 29 was also identified by Bruce Metger as an ally of the Western Text.

            Papyrus 48, despite being small and difficult to read, is generally regarded as having a text that is more closely allied with the Western Text than with the Alexandrian Text.    

            Papyrus 41, from the 700s, is Greek-Coptic manuscript containing a form of the Western Text of Acts (chapters 17-22).                                                     

            In addition, although the text of uncial 0176 is written on parchment rather than papyrus, that is not a valid reason to ignore it.  Here we have a miniature codex from Oxyrhynchus, made in the late 300s or 400s, with a text that is practically indistinguishable from the Byzantine Text.   

            Also, analysis of the text of several other papyri is inconclusive as far as the task of categorizing the text’s type is concerned, usually because the papyrus is a small fragment, or because its text is hard to read, or because its contents are limited mainly to a passage where there are not a lot of textual contests.  These include Papyrus 17, Papyrus 19, Papyrus 69, Papyrus 70, Papyrus 98, Papyrus 107, Papyrus 108, Papyrus 109, Papyrus 110, Papyrus 111, Papyrus 113, Papyrus 114, Papyrus 115, Papyrus 116, Papyrus 118, Papyrus 121, Papyrus 122, and Papyrus 126.

            Papyrus 37, containing text from Matthew 26, has a non-Alexandrian text.    

            Papyrus 72 is basically Alexandrian in First Peter and Second Peter, but in Jude its text is definitely not Alexandrian.

            Papyrus 2 is probably not a continuous-text manuscript; assigned to the 600s, it contains text from Luke 7 and John 12, in a Western form. 

            Papyrus 3 is also probably the remains of a lectionary; it is assigned to the 500s or 600s and contains a non-Alexandrian form of Luke 7:36-45 and Luke 10:38-42.

            Papyrus 104, though very small, betrays non-Alexandrian influence via the non-inclusion of Matthew 21:44.

                         
            And that, I think, is sufficient to demonstrate that the claim that all of the papyri support the Alexandrian Text is false. 

           

            Is the claim that the early New Testament translations were done on the basis of Alexandrian type manuscripts any better?  No.  Certainly the affinities of the Old Latin version(s) favor the Western Text far more than the Alexandrian Text.  The Gothic version has long been regarded as a strong ally of the Byzantine Text, and although research by Roger Gryson may yield a slight adjustment of that assessment, it is not a drastic reappraisal.  The Sinaitic Syriac and the Curetonian Syriac are both characterized as Western, and the Peshitta agrees with the Byzantine Text about 80% of the time.  The Gospels-text of the Armenian version, and the Old Georgian version which echoes an early form of it, are Caesarean rather than Alexandrian.

            Only in Egypt is there clear evidence that early translators were aware of the existence of the Alexandrian Text.  To different degrees, the Egyptian languages (or dialects) of Sahidic, Bohairic, Achmimic, and Middle Egyptian reflect a primarily Alexandrian base-text.  The earliest strata of the Sahidic version is aligned closely with the text of Codex Vaticanus.  This relationship is demonstrated succinctly and effectively by evidence from their texts of Acts 27:37, where Luke mentions (in the Nestle-Aland compilation) that there were 276 souls aboard the ship.  In both Codex Vaticanus and in the Sahidic version, the text says that “about 76” souls were on board.

            F. F. Bruce, in his commentary on Acts, offered a compelling explanation for the reading in B and the Sahidic version – an explanation that had already been offered by John Burgon in his book The Revision Revised.  It may be worthwhile to present a full extract from Burgon:

            “Whereas the Church has hitherto supposed that S. Paul’s company ‘were in all in the ship two hundred threescore and sixteen souls’ (Acts xxvii. 37), Drs. Westcott and Hort (relying on the authority of B and the Sahidic version) insist that what S. Luke actually wrote was ‘about seventy-six.’  In other words, instead of διακόσιαι ἑβδομηκονταέξ, we are invited to read ὩΣ ἑβδομηκονταέξ.  What can have given rise to so formidable a discrepancy?  Mere accident, we answer.  First, whereas S. Luke certainly wrote ἧμεν δέ ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ αἱ πᾶσαι ψυχαί, his last six words at some very early period underwent the familiar process of Transposition, and became, αἱ πᾶσαι ψυχαί ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ ; whereby the word πλοίῳ and the numbers διακόσιαι ἑβδομηκονταέξ were brought into close proximity.   (It is thus that Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, &c., wrongly exhibit the place.)  But since “276” when represented in Greek numerals is СΟϛ, the inevitable consequence was that the words (written in uncials) ran thus:  ΨΥΧΑΙΕΝΤΩΠΛΟΙΩϹΟϛ.  Behold, the secret is out!  Who sees not what has happened?  There has been no intentional falsification of the text.  There has been no critical disinclination to believe that ‘a corn-ship, presumably heavily laden, would contain so many souls,’ – as an excellent judge supposes.  The discrepancy has been the result of sheer accident:  is the merest blunder.  Some IInd-century copyist connected the last letter of ΠΛΟΙΩ with the next ensuing numeral, which stands for 200 (viz. Ϲ); and made an independent word of it, viz. ὡς – i.e., ‘about.’  But when Ϲ (i.e., 200) has been taken away from ϹΟϛ (i.e., 276), 76 is perforce all that remains.”

James White, February 19, 2019

            This faulty reading in the text of B and the Sahidic version requires such a special set of circumstances to come into existence that it suggests that the Sahidic version not only is related to the Alexandrian Text in general but also to Codex Vaticanus specifically.                       

            In conclusion:  the claims that have been tested here are not just wrong; they are horribly, catastrophically wrong.  One might say that they are laughably wrong, but considering that they continue to mislead readers of The King James Only Controversy (published by Bethany House), this is no laughing matter. 



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

Challenging the "Expansion of Piety" Theory

            Today, let’s take a look at readings in manuscripts of the Gospels which are said to be the effects of the piety of scribes.  Where the original text refers to Jesus via a pronoun, scribes sometimes inserted Jesus’ proper name; where the original text says “Jesus,” a slight expansion was made – “the Lord Jesus,” or “Jesus Christ” – as an expression of scribal piety.  Or so it has been claimed.  Here are some examples of this phenomenon, taken from the Synoptic Gospels:

Matthew

● 8:6 – In the original text, the centurion makes his request to Jesus without any introductory word.  The later manuscripts add “Lord” so as to convey a higher level of respect for Jesus.

● 8:22 – The original text does not have Jesus’ name in this verse.  Scribes inserted Jesus’ name to emphasis the focus of His call to “Follow Me.”

● 9:22 – The original text does not have Jesus’ name in this verse.  Scribes added Jesus’ name to increase the narrative’s clarity. 
● 14:16 – The original text did not have Jesus’ name in this verse.  Scribes added Jesus’ name to increase the narrative’s clarity.

● 14:27 – The original text did not have Jesus’ name in this verse.  Scribes added Jesus’ name to increase the narrative’s clarity.

● 15:1 – The original text did not have Jesus’ name in this verse.  Scribes added Jesus’ name as a way of introducing a new episode or scene.

● 15:28 – The original text did not have Jesus’ name at the beginning of the verse.  Scribes added Jesus’ name to increase the narrative’s clarity.

● 16:21 – Whereas Vaticanus and Sinaiticus simply refer to “Jesus” here, later manuscripts read “Jesus Christ.”

● 17:15 – The later manuscripts add “Lord” to introduce the man’s request, so as to convey a higher level of respect for Jesus.

● 19:8 – Some later manuscripts add Jesus’ name, increasing the clarity of the passage.

● 19:18 – Some of the oldest manuscripts do not have Jesus’ name in this verse, indicating that His name was added by scribes to increase the clarity of the passage.

● 20:23 – Byzantine scribes added Jesus’ name to the passage, perhaps to augment its usefulness as an isolated saying when memorized.

● 20:30 – Later scribes added “Lord” to introduce the man’s request, so as to convey a higher level of respect for Jesus.

● 26:50a – Later scribes added Jesus’ name at the beginning of this verse to increase the clarity of the passage. 

Mark

● 1:40 – The later manuscripts add “Lord” to introduce the man’s request, so as to convey a higher level of respect for Jesus.

● 2:4 – Some later minuscules add Jesus’ name to increase the clarity of the passage.

● 2:19 – The original text did not include Jesus’ name; it was added to increase the clarity of the passage.

● 5:13 – One very late manuscript piously expands the text so as to refer to “the Lord Jesus.” 

● 9:39 – The oldest manuscripts do not have Jesus’ name in this verse.

● 10 21 – A small group of uncials adds Jesus’ name to this verse, increasing its clarity.

● 10:42 – A small group of minuscules which appear to have been strongly influenced by lectionaries adds Jesus’ name in this verse, introducing a new episode or scene.
● 10:51 – Two ancient manuscripts do not have Jesus’ name in this verse, indicating that it was added by scribes to increase the clarity of the passage. 

● 12:29 – A small group of minuscules which appear to have been strongly influenced by lectionaries adds Jesus’ name in this verse, introducing a new episode or scene.
● 14:62 – A small group of manuscripts influenced by lectionaries adds Jesus’ name to this verse to increase clarity.

Luke

● 2:39 – A small group of minuscules (and a few other manuscripts) which appear to have been strongly influenced by lectionaries adds Jesus’ name in this verse.

● 5:8 – The original text does not have Jesus’ name; it (or “the Lord”) is added in later manuscripts.

● 5:8 – The original text does not have “O Lord” at the end of this verse; it is added in later manuscripts (probably as a harmonization). 

● 5:19 – Minuscule 1424 substitutes Jesus’ name in place of “Him” at the end of the verse.
● 5:26 – A small group of manuscripts (including Codices D and W, and f¹³) inserts “and glorified God,” a formulaic augmentation.

● 7:6 – The scribe of 579 added “Lord” to preface the request, so as to convey a higher level of respect for Jesus.

● 8:46 – Codex Bezae (D) inserts Jesus’ name near the beginning of the verse.

● 9:59 – Although Vaticanus and D have the word “Lord,” P45 and P75 display the earlier form of the verse, without it.

● 10:1 – Minuscule 1424 adds “the Lord” to introduce a new episode or scene.

● 14:2 – A small group of minuscules which appear to have been strongly influenced by lectionaries adds Jesus’ name in this verse.

● 14:22 – D adds “Lord” to preface the servant’s statement.

● 16:15 – One relatively recent manuscript has “in the sight of the Lord,” a slightly more formal wording than “in the sight of God.”

● 18:19 – D adds Jesus’ name to increase the clarity of the passage.

● 18:38 – A small group of uncials adds Jesus’ name to this verse.

● 18:42 – D adds Jesus’ name near the beginning of this verse, increasing the clarity of the passage.
● 20:34 – D adds Jesus’ name near the beginning of this verse, increasing the clarity of the passage.

● 22:52 – D and a small group of minuscules which appear to have been strongly influenced by lectionaries insert Jesus’ name in this verse.

● 23:20 –A small group of minuscules which appear to have been strongly influenced by lectionaries adds Jesus’ name in this verse.

● 23:26 – A small group of manuscripts influenced by lectionaries adds Jesus’ name to these two verses to increase clarity.

            You can see how, over the years, copyists consistently added to the text . . . .

            Wait a second . . . something’s wrong here.  O silly me! Somehow I stated the opposite of what I should have written down in that list!  My bad.  Let’s look at the data again – this time, correctly, and in a little more detail:

Matthew

8:6 – À* doesn’t have “Lord” but Vaticanus (B) and the Byzantine Text (“Byz”) (and NA27) do.

8:22 – Although À and 33 do not include “Jesus,” B and Byz (and NA27) do.

9:22 – Although À and D do not include “Jesus,” B and Byz (and NA27) do.

14:16 – À and D do not include “Jesus,” but B and Byz (and NA27) do.

14:27 – À and D do not include “Jesus,” but B and Byz (and NA27) do. 

15:1 – D and f¹ say “to Him” instead of “to Jesus,” but B and Byz (and NA27) support “to Jesus.”

15:28 – D does not include “Jesus” but B and Byz (and NA27) do.

16:21 – B and À have “Jesus Christ.”  Byz (and NA27) only has “Jesus.”

17:15 – À does not include “Lord,” but B and Byz (and NA27) do.

19:8 – À has “Jesus” but B and Byz (and NA27) do not.  

19:18 – B and Byz (and NA27) include “Jesus” but some much younger manuscripts (such as 1424, 788, and f¹³) do not. 

20:23 – D, Δ and f¹³ have “Jesus” but B and Byz (and NA27) do not.

20:30 – D, 118, and 157, and 565 do not have “Lord,” but B and Byz (and NA27) do.

26:50a – P37 and À do not support “”Jesus,” but B and Byz (and NA27) do.

Mark

● 1:40 – B says “Lord,” but Byz and À A D K Δ Π 33 f¹ (and NA27) do not.

● 2:4 – D inserts “Jesus,” but B and Byz  (and NA27) do not.

● 2:19 – D and W do not include “Jesus” but B and Byz (and NA27) do.

● 5:13 – D has “Lord Jesus,” but Byz and A Κ Π only have “Jesus.”  B À W (and NA27) have neither.

● 9:39 – D W f¹ f¹³ 28 565 do not include “Jesus” but B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

● 10:21 –A Y K Π do not include “Jesus” but B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

● 10:42 – W and f¹ do not include “Jesus” but B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

● 10:51 – Θ and 565 do not include “Jesus” but B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

● 12:29 – W and f¹ do not include “Jesus” but B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

● 14:62 – f¹³ and 579 do not include “Jesus” but B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

Luke

2:39 – Γ 700 f¹ 788 do not have “of the Lord” (Κυ) but B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

5:8 – D does not include “Jesus” but B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

5:8 – À does not have “Lord” at the end of the verse, but B and Byz (and NA27) do..

5:19 – B has “before them all” and 1424 has “to Him,” but À and Byz (and NA27) support “before Jesus.”

5:26 – D* M Ψ W S 124 579 118 157 f¹³ omit “and they glorified God.” (h.a. error)  The phrase is included by B À and Byz (and NA27).

7:6 – 579 does not have “Lord,” but B À A D L W and Byz (and NA27) do.

8:46 – D does not have “Jesus” but B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

9:59 – B* and D do not have “Lord,” but P45 P75 À and Byz do.  NA27 has it in the text within brackets.

10:1 – D and 1424 do not have “the Lord,” but P45 P75 A B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

14:2 – f¹ does not have “Jesus,” but P45 P75 A B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

14:22 – D 1071 do not have “Lord,” but P75 A B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

16:15 – B has “the Lord,” but P75 A À D K W and Byz (and NA27) support “God.”

18:19 – D and G do not have “Jesus,” but B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

18:38 – A E K Π 579 do not have “Jesus,” but B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

18:42 – D does not include “Jesus,” but B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

20:34 – D does not include “Jesus,” but B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

22:52 – D and f¹ do not include “Jesus,” but B À and Byz (and NA27) do.

23:20 – f¹ has “Him” at the end of the verse, but P75 A B À and Byz (and NA27) support “Jesus.”

23:26 – f¹ has “Him” at the end of the verse, but P75 A B À and Byz (and NA27) support “Jesus.”

            Here we have more than 40 example of passages in which the river of scribal piety appears to run backwards:  the Byzantine reading is shorter than a rival reading, or a later manuscript’s reference to deity is shorter than the reference in much older manuscripts.  (Many more examples could be added.)  This evidence starkly defies the theory – advanced by Dan Wallace and others – that scribes operated on the principle of “When in doubt, don’t throw it out,” as if when copyists encountered readings that seemed possibly original, they kept them in the text, causing the text to grow with each generation of recopying.  If scribes had really operated that way, the medieval Greek text would have many more conflations, and many more Western readings, than it does. 

            Instead, in the real world, we see over and over that although the scribes who transmitted the Byzantine Text were not impervious to the temptation to augment or clarify the sense of a passage, especially at the beginnings of lections (via the introduction of a proper name where a pronoun had stood in the exemplar), we do not see in the Gospels a distinct tendency to expand divine names or titles.  In addition, there was something going on – especially in manuscripts such as À and 28 and 1424 – that caused some scribes to omit some proper names.

            It is simply inadequate to list (as James White does on page 75 of The King James Only Controversy) five readings from the Gospels (or a dozen), and proceed as if the case is thus proven that Byzantine copyists typically expanded divine names and titles out of a sense of piety.  As far as the text of the Gospels is concerned, it is extremely difficult to verify such a thing; to the extent that the Byzantine Text substitutes Jesus’ name where the original text has a pronoun, this was done for clarity’s sake, rather than for piety’s sake.

            Consider the New International Version:  in Matthew chapters 1-14, the NIV reads “Jesus” 31 times where the word Ιησους is not in the NIV’s Greek base-text.  Using the yardstick that has been used to judge the Byzantine Text, shall we say that all those occurrences of Jesus’ name are “expansions of piety”?  No; the NIV’s translators simply wanted to increase the clarity of the translation.  Look at Matthew 4:18, Matthew 12:25, Mark 2:15, Mark 10:52, and Luke 24:36) in the NIV (based on the Nestle-Aland text), and you will see that the NIV has “Jesus” in English in all five verses. 


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

                                      

James White and the Ending of Mark

            In The King James Only Controversy (second edition 2006), James White discussed some external evidence about Mark 16:9-20, on pages 316-318.  He concluded that “Given the external evidence, we believe every translation should provide the passage.  However, we also believe that every translation should note that there is good reason to doubt the passage’s authenticity.”  This effectively erases the passage’s doctrinal force, as if to tell the reader, “Maybe it’s inspired and authoritative, but maybe not.” 

            Some aspects of White’s description of the external evidence need adjustment – not least of which is what White doesn’t say:  he does not mention the testimony of the second century writers Justin, Tatian, and Irenaeus.  Irenaeus specifically quoted Mark 16:19 in Against Heresies Book III, Chapter 10, paragraph 5, in about 180, over a century before the production of the two fourth-century manuscripts in which the text of Mark ends at 16:8.  White only mentions one patristic writer, Jerome – and instead of mentioning that Jerome included Mark 16:9-20 in the Vulgate, White only says, “Jerome was aware of manuscripts lacking the passage.”   Other patristic writers – Aphrahat, Ambrose, Apostolic Constitutions, and Augustine, for example – are not called to the witness stand, and the jury – White’s readers – never hears their testimony.         

            White stated that 16:9-20 is not in “some manuscripts of the Sahadic Coptic version,” by which the Sahidic version is meant.  Perhaps someone somewhere has confirmed that more than one manuscript of the Sahidic version lacks Mark 16:9-20, but as far as I know, the Sahidic codex P. Palau-Ribes Inv. Nr. 182 is the only Sahidic manuscript that fits such a description.  It is one of the three non-Greek manuscripts of Mark 16 made before the 700s in which there is no text from verses 9-20.  (The other two are the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript and the Old Latin Codex Bobbiensis – both of which White mentions by name, with no mention of the Curetonian Syriac, the Syriac Peshitta, the Gothic version, and the Old Latin manuscripts that include Mark 16:9-20.) 

            There is a detectable correlation here:  statements from patristic writers, and individual versional manuscripts, that do not support Mark 16:9-20 are mentioned; statements from patristic writers, and individual versional manuscripts, that support Mark 16:9-20 are not mentioned.  For someone who says, “The reader should be given all the information available,” White has done a remarkably poor job of presenting the evidence that supports Mark 16:9-20. 

My defense of Mark 16:9-20
is available as an e-book
at Amazon.

            White also perpetuated a common error about asterisks or obeli, stating, “f¹, 205 and others” include Mark 16:9-20 “along with critical marks (such as asterisks or obeli) indicating that the scribe knew of its questionable nature.”   Regarding this claim (which was spread by Bruce Metzger), see Points #3 and #4 in my 2016 post Mark 16:9-20 – Sorting Out Some Common Mistakes, and for additional details see my book, Authentic:  The Case for Mark 16:9-20.  

            White referred to “l, 1602,” among the witnesses for the double-ending (i.e., witnesses that attest to both the Shorter Ending and 16:9-20).  This is an editorial or typographical mistake.  The italicized letter “l” when standing by itself should be used to refer to the Old Latin manuscript Codex Rehdigeranus.  However, the intended reference here is not to Codex Rehdigeranus:  it should be an abbreviation for the word “lectionary,” and “1602” should be combined with it, so as to refer to just one witness:  the Greek-Sahidic fragment l1602.  For details about the unusual annotations which l1602 shares with 099, L, and 083 (indicating that their combined testimony echoes a rather narrow line of transmission), see my book.  (White’s reference to “l, 153” in his discussion of Mark 1:2 should likewise be corrected to refer to lectionary 153.)

            White also states that “Some Old Church Slavonic manuscripts (from as far along as the tenth century) include only verses 9-11 of the longer ending.”  The fourth edition of the UBS Greek New Testament only lists one Old Slavonic manuscript that fits such a description.  But, whether one Old Slavonic manuscript or a dozen, how can this be construed as evidence against Mark 16:9-20?  Suppose someone falls into a pit full of hungry lions, and afterwards, only an arm is taken out of the pit.  Should we conclude that only an arm fell into the pit?  No, and likewise this Old Slavonic evidence is evidence of a damaged exemplar which, when made, contained the entire passage.

            White also attempted to use the inclusion of the Freer Logion in Codex W as evidence against the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20, but surely this is backwards:  Codex W supports the inclusion of Mark 16:9-20, and if Metzger’s estimate of the date of the Freer Logion’s creation is accepted, then it shows that 16:9-20 was in the copy used by the creator of the Freer Logion in the 100s or 200s (i.e., prior to the production of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) – as well as in the Greek codices to which Jerome referred when (in 417, in Against the Pelagians) he mentioned the Freer Logion and said that he found it “In certain exemplars, and especially in Greek codices, near the end of the Gospel of Mark.”

            White employs a somewhat problematic approach when he states, “It is the multiplicity of readings that causes so many experts to reject the longer ending’s originality.”  Textual critics routinely encounter variant-units that involve a multiplicity of readings, without concluding that they must all be scribal corruptions.  White says, “There simply would be no need for all these different endings if verses 9 through 20 were a part of the originally written gospel.”  This is both an exaggeration and an oversimplification.

            In over 1,600 Greek manuscripts of Mark, the text flows straight from 16:8 to 16:9.  In three manuscripts (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and the medieval minuscule 304), the text stops at the end of 16:8.  The Shorter Ending is in a total of six Greek manuscripts (albeit just in the margin in the case of the medieval minuscule 274).  And that is all the distinct endings of Mark that exist in Greek manuscripts.  Codex W does not give us a different ending; it presents 16:9-20 with an interpolation between v. 14 and v. 15.  White’s phrase “all these different endings” is just tricky rhetoric. 

            When phrased realistically, the question “Why these three endings?” is not difficult:  though present in the autograph in Rome, Mark 16:9-20 was absent from an exemplar used in Egypt; this accounts for the form of the text in B and À.  The Shorter Ending was then composed there to compensate for the otherwise abrupt conclusion to Mark’s narrative; this accounts for the form of the Latin text in Codex Bobbiensis (k); then the usual ending began to circulate in Egypt again, and it eclipsed the Shorter Ending, sometimes being grafted to 16:8 and sometimes to the Shorter Ending; this accounts for the double-ending in Egyptian and Ethiopic sources.             

            A focused and thorough study of the evidence in this case is conducive to a conclusion in favor of Mark 16:9-20.  However, when evidence is misrepresented, and when it is hidden and silenced, it is easy to convince readers that Mark 16:9-20 should only be given a “maybe, maybe not” status.  In White’s world, to take away the authority of a reading found in 99% of the Greek manuscripts, one does not have to prove that it is spurious.  Simply (1) point out that it has a rival, and (2) inflate the importance of that rival, and voila:  the task of eroding the authority of the passage is complete; it is doomed to a bracketed existence in the land of  “Maybe, Maybe Not.”

            Now let’s briefly take a broader look at how James White misrepresents the evidence in other passages.  He has avoided sharing important evidence in the course of rejecting readings in the following passages:  Matthew 1:25, Matthew 17:21, Matthew 21:12, Matthew 23:14, Mark 1:2, Mark 10:24, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Mark 16:9-20, Luke 2:14, Luke 23:17, Luke 23:34, John 1:18, John 3:13, John 5:4, and John 7:53-8:11. 

            One example may suffice.  In his list of evidence against Luke 23:34a, White lists “sy” instead of “sy^s).  This little difference is the difference between saying (a) the Peshitta, the Curetonian Syriac, the Harklean Syriac, the margin of the Harklean Syriac, the Sinaitic Syriac, and the Palestinian Aramaic  version omit this passage, or (b) the Sinaitic Syriac omits this passage.  The latter is the actual case.  Of course White does not bother to mention the Syriac evidence that supports the passage anywhere in his discussion of this textual contest.  He also avoids letting his readers know that Justin Martyr refers to this passage in the middle of the 100s. 

            Such evidence-molding is widespread in White’s descriptions of textual contests:  Irenaeus is not mentioned in his discussion of Mark 16:9-20.   The early Old Latin chapter-summaries, and Jerome’s testimony that he found the pericope adulterae in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, go unmentioned in White’s discussion of John 7:53-8:11.  Minuscule 1424 is listed as a witness for the non-inclusion of the pericope adulterae but White does not mention its margin-note which affirms the legitimacy of the passage.  The forgery 2427 is still listed by White (in a discussion of Mark 1:2) as if it is a legitimate witness.  And so forth.              

            Also, White argues repeatedly that modern translations present a stronger case for the deity of Christ than the KJV does.  This proposal, however, collides with White’s other proposal:  the idea that passages which are considered dubious should not be relied upon (i.e., treated as Scripture) as the basis for a doctrine.  All arguments that a version such as the NIV presents a strong case for the deity of Christ in Mark 1:1, John 1:18, John 14:14, Acts 16:7, Acts 20:28, Romans 9:5, First Timothy 3:16 (regarding which White states on page 261 that he prefers the usual reading, “God was manifest in the flesh”), First Peter 3:14-15, Jude v. 5, et al, are undermined by White’s maxim to the effect that when you have a serious textual variant, you should not built theology upon it.                          

            In conclusion, while I have no objection to The King James Only Controversy’s protests against Ruckmanism and similar varieties of KJV-Onlyism, White has consistently molded the evidence in such a lop-sided way in his discussions about textual variants that this book really should not be considered a text-critical resource even as a last resort.  White’s approach has not only misled many readers about the evidence relevant to many textual variant-units, but it has also encouraged them to exile many passages of genuine Scripture to the land of Maybe, Maybe Not – and will continue to do so as long as it is sold.  The publisher is Bethany House, a division of the Baker Publishing Group.