Production-Dates: How Do We Get Them?

           Sometimes when first-time observers read about the production-dates of New Testament manuscripts, one of the first things they notice is that most of the dates are not very precise.  Several factors contribute to establishing the approximate production-date of a manuscript.  Let’s look at some of them today:   colophons, script, content, material, special factors, and radiocarbon dating.

          COLOPHONS.  Notes written by a scribe, or scribes, involved in the production of the manuscript – sometimes state when the manuscript was made.  Such notes, or colophons, immediately simplify the task of assigning a production-date.  Medieval scribes who wrote colophons with dates typically used calendars in which the first year of the earth was 5509.  Sometimes the production-date was given in terms of the reign of a particular Byzantine Emperor.  Robert Waltz has provided a detailed explanation of how production-dates mentioned in colophons should be interpreted.  Rarely, dates are given in terms of the number of years A.D. (Anno Domini, “the year of the Lord”).  

          SCRIPT.  Usually, there is no colophon, so analysts attempting to determine a manuscript’s production-date must resort to a study of the handwriting displayed in the manuscript.  This involves the field of paleography (or “palæography”), the study of ancient writing.   The method of Greek handwriting changed over time – from the majuscule, or uncial, lettering of the early copies (and formal and informal variations), to the minuscule lettering of later copies (with variations such as Perlschrift, Bouletée, and “Ace of Spades” minuscule).

Bernard de Montfaucon
(1655-1741)

The first systematic study of Greek palaeography was made by Bernard de Montfaucon, a Benedictine monk, in 1708.   Almost instantly, paleography grew into a scientific field of study.  In 1912, Edward Maunde Thompson published An Introduction to Greek and Latin Palaeography, a book which remains useful today.  American scholar Bruce Metzger focused on Biblical writings in his 1981 book Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Palaeography.  Recently, Timothy Janz has written Greek Paleography From Antiquity to the Renaissance, which is available to read at the Vatican Library’s website.   With just a few hours of effort, readers of Janz’s introduction can gain plenty of information about palaeography (and view the specific scripts in manuscripts at the Vatican Library).

      Manuscripts’ production-dates assigned on the basis of paleography tend to have an unavoidable range of about 100 years, because we have no way of knowing whether an anonymous scribe was just beginning his (or her) career – in which, hopefully, he would continue for 50 years – or whether his career was approaching its end.  If a scribe continued using the script he possessed when he first learned to write, then that script could endure throughout his whole career.  (Theoretically a scribe could adjust his own handwriting over time, but there is not much to go on to suggest that such a thing was normal.)        

          CONTENT.  A manuscript cannot, of course, be written before the events that are recorded in the manuscript.  Some New Testament manuscripts – more than you might expect – mention  historical events (especially in lectionary-calendars accompanying the Biblical text) that provide a solid basis for discerning the limits of when a manuscript was made.  For example, if a lectionary calendar mentions the feast-day for Cosmas the Hymnographer, bishop of Maiuma, and Andrew of Crete, it must have been produced after the mid-700s.  If a lectionary-calendar mentions Lazarus the Wonder-worker, its production-date must be later than the period when Lazarus the Wonder-worker was active in the 900s.

          (The Latin term for the earliest possible production-date is the terminus a quo.   The Latin term for the latest possible production-date is the terminus ad quem.)

          MATERIAL.  All New Testament manuscripts are made of papyrus or parchment or paper.  (There is a small class of witnesses, which used to be represented by the letter “T” in a Fraktur-style font, which can include other material such as very small manuscripts, amulets, and inscriptions.)  Characteristics of these materials can influence the dating of a manuscript – especially when the paper features a watermark, which can narrow down not only the production-date of a manuscript but also its provenance (where it comes from).

          SPECIAL FACTORS.  Sometimes the provenance of a manuscript helps define the limits of its production-date.  For example, the manuscript known as GA 0212 (which technically should not be in the list of continuous-text New Testament manuscripts, because it is not a continuous-text New Testament manuscript) was found in the ruins of Dura-Europos, a place which was beseiged and destroyed by a Roman army in 257.  Thus 0212’s terminus ad quem cannot be later than 257.

          Even after taking all of the above into consideration, specialists sometimes get production-dates wrong.  One example is found in the 27^th edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, where the editors assigned GA 2427 a production-date of “XIV?” (p. 711), and ranked it as a “consistently cited witness of the first order” in Mark (See the Nestle-Aland Introduction, p. 47* and p. 58*).  GA 2427 is indeed cited very frequently throughout Mark in NA27’s textual apparatus. 

          But in NA28, GA 2427 is gone.  In 2006, Wieland Willker already described 2427 as a fake, and, as Willker reported, Stephen Carlson demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that 2427 is a forgery, based primarily on Philip Buttmann’s 1860 Greek New Testament (as he explains in an article at the SBL Forum Archive).  Tommy Wasserman gives additional details about the exposure of 2427 in a 2009 post at the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog.  Margaret Mitchell of the University of Chicago (now retired) gave a lecture in 2012 which will leave viewers with no reason to imagine that GA 2427 was made no earlier than 1860.             

          So, experts can be fooled, at least temporarily, by well-made forgeries – even with careful consideration of colophons, script, material, and special factors.  Which brings us to the last resort:
          RADIOCARBON ANALYSIS.   A small amount of parchment that undergoes carbon-14 tests can yield an approximate production-date for the material.  (The date when the material was used may be later.)  This is usually not done (because the carbon-14 tests involve the destruction of the things they test).  But sometimes it is.  For instance the Ethiopian Garima Gospels, initially assigned a production-date in the 1000s, was suspected by Jacques Mercier of being much earlier.  Mercier submitted small sample fragments of the manuscript to radiocarbon tests, which gave one fragment a date of  330-540, and another fragment a date of 430-650 (as reported in 2011 in the journal of Kenyon College).  And just like that, the Garima Gospels went from being a minor witness to the Ethiopic Version to being confirmed as a contender (with the Rabbula Gospels of 586) to be the oldest illustrated manuscript of the Gospels.  Perhaps what is presently a last resort should in the future be the first resort, where parchment is involved, and when the requisite amount of material can be spared, and the cost of radiocarbon analysis is not prohibitive.  Rare is the parchment New Testament manuscript that does not have a blank border that could be removed without appreciable loss.

                                              

First Corinthians 10:9 - "the Lord" or "Christ"?

             Leaving the Gospels momentarily, today we explore a textual variant in the Pauline Epistles:  in First Corinthians 10:9, did the text originally say “Nor let us tempt Christ” (Χριστόν) or “Nor let us tempt the Lord” (Κύριον) or “Nor let us tempt God” (Θεόν)?  All three readings are nomina sacra (sacred names, usually written in contracted form), and thus, with the nomina sacra in play, amount to the difference between ΧΝ, ΚΝ, and ΘΝ.

Erasmus' text of I Cor. 10:9 (1522)

            The treatment of this variant by editors, publishers and printers of the (mainly) Byzantine Text has been consistent:  Erasmus (all editions), Gerbel (1521), Stephanus (1550), Melchoir Sessa (Venice) 1538, John Fell (1675), Bengel (1734), and Scholz (1836) all have favored “Χριστόν”; Griesbach also had Χριστόν in the text.  Χριστόν is read in Hodges & Farstad’s Majority Text (1982), and in the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform (2005), and in the Solid Rock Greek New Testament. 

            English Bibles in use today with “Christ” in First Corinthians 10:9 include the KJV, NKJV, EOB (Eastern Orthodox Bible), WEB, EHV, and also the CSB, ESV, NET, NIV 2011, NLT, NCV (New Century Version), and NRSV.

I Cor. 10:9 (Nicolaus Gerbel, 1521)

            Κύριον was consistently adopted by most editors of the critical text, other than Griesbach, until about 1970:  “Lord” was the reading adopted by Lachmann (1831), Buttmann (1862), Tregelles (1869), Tischendorf (8^th edition, 1872), Westcott & Hort (1881), Eberhard Nestle (1904), Alexander Souter (1920), and the Nestle-Aland compilation up to and including the 25^th edition.  The first and second editions of the United Bible Society’s Greek New Testament also read Κύριον.      

I Cor. 10:9 (Fell, 1675)

            Consequently, “Lord” has appeared in First Corinthians 10:9 in several English Bibles of the past 150 years, including the Revised Version (1881), the American Standard Version (1901), the Revised Standard Version, the Living Bible, the New Life Version, the New American Standard Bible (1960 & 1995), the New International Version 1984, and the Tree of Life Version (2011).  Meanwhile, the Tyndale House GNT reads “κύριον” and the SBLGNT reads “Χριστόν.”

            Now let’s look at some text-critical data: 

Fell's footnote (1675)

             In 1982, in New Testament Textual Criticism:  Its Significance for Exegesis:  Essays in Honor of Bruce M. Metzger, a chapter by Carroll D. Osburn focused on this variant.  Osburn’s data is far more detailed than any other apparatus:  in support of Χριστόν, Osburn listed P46, D, E, F, G, K, L, Ψ 056 0142 0151 and 489 minuscules (including 1 6 18 35 69 88 131 205 209 323 330 424 440 451 489 517 547 614 618 629 630 796 910 945 999 1241 1242 1243 1245 1270 1315 1353 1424 1448 1505 1611 1646 1734 1738 1739 1827 1852 1854 1881 1891 1912 1982  1984 2125 2200 2400 2412 2492 2495), numerous Old Latin witnesses including it^ar, ^b, ^d, ^dem, ^e, ^f, ^g, ^o, ^x, ^z and the Vulgate, the Peshitta, the main text of the Harklean Syriac, the Sahidic version, and the Bohairic version.   

I Cor. 10:9 in Codex Sinaiticus     

           Κύριον, meanwhile, is supported by À B C P 0150 33 43 104 181 255^vid 256 263 326 365 436 1175 2110 2127 2464 and 22 other minuscules, and the margin of the Harklean Syriac, the Armenian version and the Ethiopic version.

            Osburn’s thorough list extends to two other readings:

            Codex A, 2 81 1127 1595 and 14 other minuscules (and 2815 which Osburn did not list, but Swanson does) read Θεόν.

            Nothing appears between ἐκπειράζωμεν and καθως in 97 1729* 1985 and 2659.

             Settings aside Θεόν and the complete absence of any nomina sacra, Osburn focuses on the contest between Κύριον and Χριστόν.  Things get very interesting in the patristic evidence: 

            The earliest support for Χριστόν is Marcion (the arch-heretic from Pontus who worked for a while in Rome c. 140); Epiphanius, in the late 300s, claimed that Marcion changed the text from Κύριον to Χριστόν.  But, as Osburn argues, it is reasonable to understand Epiphanius’ claim as a presumption – i.e., that Epiphanius’ text read Κύριον and he assumed that Marcion had changed it – rather than as an observation.  Slightly later is Irenaeus (in Against Heresies, Book 4, ch. 27), and slightly later than Irenaeus are Clement of Alexandria, Origen (in a statement preserved in the margin of GA 1739), and Theotecnus (bishop of Caesarea-in-Palestine, and an associate of Origen), writing against Paul of Samosata for the Council of Antioch (268).  

            The bishops involved in the Council of Antioch in 268 also produced the Letter of Hymenaeus, of which Osburn provided a relevant extract, which implies that “neither Paul of Samosata nor his opponents were aware of a biblical text which read other than Χριστόν in v. 9.”  (Osburn mentioned in a footnote, however, that the text of the Letter of Hymenaeus printed by M.J. Routh in 1846, and by E.Schwartz in 1927, has Κύριον.) 

            Also in support of Χριστόν are Ambrosiaster, Ephraem Syrus, Pelagius, Augustine, Pseudo-Oecumenius, and Theophylact.  Chrysostom also cites I Cor. 10:9 with Χριστόν three times.

            Κύριον is supported by Epiphanius, Theodoret of Cyrrhus (in a substantial quotation in his commentary on the Pauline Epistles), Cassiodorus, John of Damascus, and Sedulius Scotus.  Chrysostom is cited as using κύριον once.  

           Now let’s analyze this evidence and reach a conclusion. 

I Cor. 10:9 in Tregelles' text.

            The case for κύριον is not lightweight:  agreements of À and B were considered practically decisive by Westcott & Hort, and their judgment held sway for over a century, though as early as 1899 Theodor Zahn, as Carroll noted, firmly opposed it.              

            Χριστόν has in its favor the support of very early and geographically diverse patristic witnesses.  The discovery of P46 with Χριστόν (written as ΧΡΝ - see BP II f.49 in the online Chester Beatty Papyrus Collection on the fourth line from the bottom) probably should have instantly elicited a change in the critical text here, inasmuch as with its discovery, Χριστόν scores high on multiple metrics:  it is the reading of the oldest manuscript; it is the reading of the most manuscripts (by far); it is the reading of the most diverse array of manuscripts; it is the reading favored by a strong combination of early patristic writers.  About the only counter-argument that favors Κύριον is the internal consideration that Paul would be unlikely to have written that the Hebrews in the wilderness tempted Christ – but as indicated in a note in the NET, Osburn built an effective cumulative argument that the case against Χριστόν driven by this internal evidence is weak.  I cannot think of any reason but haste, and perhaps over-reliance on the work of Tregelles (who had no access to P46) to elicit the Tyndale House GNT’s adoption of κύριον.  It was due to over-reliance upon À and B that κύριον was ever adopted in printed Greek New Testaments; hopefully the days of such over-reliance, repeatedly shown to be merely a disguised bias, are behind us. 

              Χριστόν merits confident inclusion in the text.                     

        

 

Against KJV-Onlyism: Stop Usurping the Original Text

          In the second half of the 1800s, some textual critics were wary of the momentum that was building in England and the United States in favor of a revision of the English Bible.  (Some individuals had already made new English translations – such as Living Oracles and The Book of the New Covenant – but they had little impact.)   But the situation changed when the Revised Version was published in 1881.  Its New Testament base-text reflected, for the most part, an abandonment of the Byzantine Text (which generally has the support of most Greek manuscripts), and an almost complete embrace of the Alexandrian Text, especially at points where the Alexandrian Text is supported by two early manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

          Meanwhile in America, defenders of the traditional text – as reflected in the English King James Version – tended to be suspicious of textual revisions, mainly for three reasons.  I give them in no particular order:  (1)  Some of the individuals calling for revision were doctrinally aberrant (with Unitarian tendencies).  (2)  Much analysis still needed to be done upon both already-known and newly discovered materials.  (3)  Future discoveries of pertinent materials were likely to make revisions obsolete virtually before the ink dried.  (The short lifespan of revisions was illustrated in Tischendorf’s eighth edition of the Greek New Testament, following his encounter with Codex Sinaiticus, in which Tischendorf changed the text in 3,505 places, compared to the seventh edition.)

          But no one, generally speaking, was saying that text-critical endeavors were not worthwhile.  No one opposed the Revised Version with more vigor than John Burgon, but Burgon was not categorically opposed to revision.  Burgon wrote (in Revision Revised, 1883, the following, in a footnote on p. 21:

            “Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection for the Received Text.  We entertain no extravagant notions on this subject.  Again and again we shall have occasion to point out (e.g., at page 107) that the Textus Receptus needs correction.   We do but insist (1) That it is an incomparably better text than that which either Lachmann, or Tischendorf, or Tregelles has produced : infinitely preferable to the ‘New Greek Text’ of the Revisionists.  And, (2) That to be improved, the Textus Receptus will have to be revised on entirely different ‘principles’ from those which are just now in fashion.  Men must begin by unlearning the German prejudices of the last fifty years; and address themselves, instead, to the stern logic of facts.”

          Notice Burgon’s statement that “the Textus Receptus needs correction.”  Burgon argued, though, that much more work needed to be done on the text before such a revision could be successfully undertaken:  in paragraph 23 (p. xxix) of the Preface to Revision Revised, Burgon stated, “After many years it might be found practicable to put forth by authority a carefully considered Revision of the commonly received Greek text.” Burgon also wrote (Revision Revised, p. 20), “Nothing may be rejected from the commonly received Text, except on evidence which shall clearly outweigh the evidence for retaining it.”

          It is now 2022.  Much of the study and research that Burgon hoped would be undertaken – and more – has been undertaken.   The Byzantine Text has been published, and is available to the public in the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform and, with some differences, in Hodges & Farstad’s The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text.

          Yet congregations have arisen in which the King James Version’s base-text – the Textus Receptus – is regarded as perfect and incapable of correction.  The Textus Receptus has even been treated as if it is immutable and authoritative by “Confessional Bibliologists.”  At least, I have never seen a “Confessional Bibliologist” agree with Burgon that the Textus Receptus needs correction, or say forthrightly that any reading anywhere in the base-text of the KJV New Testament is not original.

          Progress has been made since Burgon’s time – but KJV-Onlyists have either not acknowledged it, or else regarded it as unpalatable when served up on the same plate as the heavy pro-Alexandrian bias that is on display in the Nestle-Aland and UBS compilations (the main base-text for the NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB, NLT, and NRSV).  Some textual changes which impacted English Bibles in 1881 and more recently (looking especially you, TNIV and NIV 2011) were steps backwards.  But today, let’s consider the points in the text of the Gospels where definite progress has been made, away from the compilations of the 1500s and early 1600s, toward the original text.

          Specifically:  look at these readings which are supported not only by the Westcott-Hort compilation, and by the Nestle-Aland compilation, but also by Hodges & Farstad’s Majority Text and by the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform.  In other words, look at all the places in the text of the Gospels where the basis for what is read in the KJV is NOT the majority reading, and where the Textus Receptus is not, and never has been, the “Antiochan line” that KJV-Onlyists routinely pretend that it is). 

          A very thorough list of readings in the Textus Receptus that are not in the Majority Text has been made available online by Michael Marlowe.  Marlowe has presented detailed lists of such readings found in Acts 1-14, Acts 15-28, Romans, First & Second Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, First & Second Thessalonians, First & Second Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, First & Second Peter, First, Second, & Third John, Jude, Revelation 1-11, and Revelation 12-22 (and he has also made a collection of variations found in different editions of the Textus Receptus that were published in the 1500s).

          Focusing on the Gospels, here are 100 readings which everyone should acknowledge as improvements on the King James Version.

MATTHEW

4:18 – do not include the proper name “Jesus.”

5:27 – do not include “”by them of old time”

6:18 – do not include “openly”

7:2 – do not include “again”

8:5 – do not include the proper name “Jesus”

8:15 – replace “unto them” with “unto him”

8:23 – replace “a boat” with “the boat”

9:4 – replace “knowing” with “seeing”

9:36 – replace “weary” with “were harassed”

11:16 – read “others” instead of “fellows”

12:8 – do not include “even” after “Lord”

12:35 – omit “of the heart” after “treasure”

14:22 – replace “his disciples” with “the disciples”

14:22 – replace “a ship” with “the ship”

18:28 – replace “that” with “what”

18:29 – remove the word “all” at the end of the verse

19:9 – replace “except it be for fornication” with “except for fornication”

20:21 – replace “the left” with “your left” 

20:26 – replace “let him be your servant” with “must be your servant”

24:17 – replace “any thing” with “things”

24:27 – remove the word “also”

25:44 – remove the word “him”

MARK

4:4 – remove “of the air”

4:9 – remove “unto them”

5:11 – replace “mountains” with “mountain”

6:15 – remove “or”

6:33 – replace “the people” with “they”

6:44 – remove “about”

7:3 – replace “oft” with “with the fist” or “ceremonially”

8:24 – add “I see them” between “I see men” and “as trees walking”

8:31 – include “of the” before “scribes”

9:7 – remove “saying”

10:2 – remove “the”

10:14 – remove “and” after “Me”

10:28 – remove “Then”

10:29 – include “sake” after “gospel’s” at the end of the verse

11:4 – replace “the” with “a”

12:20 – remove “Now” at the beginning of the verse

12:23 – remove “therefore”

12:32 – remove “God”

13:9 – replace “be brought” with “stand”

14:9 – include “And” at the beginning of the verse

15:3 – remove the words “but he answered nothing”

LUKE

2:21 – replace “the child” with “him”

2:22 – replace “her” with “their” (As far as I know, no Greek manuscript made before the time of Erasmus which reads “her”)

3:2 – replace “priests” with “priest”

3:19 – replace “his brother Philip’s” with “his brother’s”

4:8 – remove “for” before “it is written”

5:30 – include “the” before “publicans” (or “tax collectors”)

6:10 – replace “the man” with “him”

6:10 – remove “so”

6:26 – remove “unto you”

6:28 – remove “and” before “pray”

7:11 – replace “the day after” with “soon afterwards”

7:31 – remove “And the Lord said” at the beginning of the verse

8:3 – replace “him” with “them”

8:34 – remove “went and”

8:51 – replace “James and John” with “John and James”

10:6 – replace “the son” with “a son”

10:12 – remove “But”

10:20 – remove “rather”

11:54 – remove “and”

12:56 – replace “of the sky and of the earth” with “of the earth and of the sky”

13:15 – replacd “hypocrite” with “hypocrites’’

13:35 – remove “Verily”

16:25 – inclde “here” after “now”

17:6. Read “you have” instead of “you had”

17:9 – remove “him”

17:24 – remove “also”

19:23 – remove “the” before bank”

20:5 – remove “then” after “Why”

20:9 – remove “certain” before “man”

22:17 – remove “the” before “cup”

22:42 – . Read “willing to remove” instead of “willing, remove”

22:45 – replace “his” with “the”

23:25 – remove “to them”

23:55 – remove “also”

JOHN

1:28 – replace “Bethabara” with “Bethany”

1:29 – replace “John” with “he”

1:39 – remove “for”

1:43 – remove “Jesus”

1:43 – add “Jesus”

2:22 – remove “unto them”

3:2 – remove “Jesus”

4:30 – remove “Then”

4:31 – remove “his”

6:24 – remove “also”

7:16 – include “Therefore” after “Jesus”

7:29 – remove “But”

7:33 – remove “unto them”

7:50 – remove “Jesus”

9:36 – include “And” before “Who”

10:16 – replace one fold” with “one flock”

13:25 – include “thus” after “lying”

14:23 – replace “words” with “word”

14:30 – remove “this”

16:3 – remove “unto you”

17:20 - replace “shall believe” with “believe”

20:29 – remove “Thomas”

           Two non-original readings outside the Gospels may serve (as representatives of a much larger number of readings) as examples of inaccuracies in the Textus Receptus that impact translation.  (1)  In Philippians 4:3, most manuscripts read Ναι (“Yes”) instead of Και (“And”) at the beginning of this verse.  (2)  In Colossians 1:6:  most manuscripts include the words καὶ αὐξανόμενον (“and growing”), a phrase which would be vulnerable to accidental loss due to its occurrence between the words καρποφορούμενον and καθως.

         The original readings listed here all have one thing in common:  they are doctrinally benign.  Everyone interested in maintaining the actual traditional text, and not a compilation marred by non-original scribal inventions, should accept these God-given readings, and reject the readings in the Textus Receptus that were concocted by scribes.  Whatever rationale KJV-Onlyists have had to prefer the Textus Receptus – sentimentality, the influence of propaganda, stability for stability’s sake, or whatever – should be outweighed by the rationale that prefers God-given readings over readings (or absences) made by scribes.  A thief does not become king by sitting on the king’s throne, even if he sits there a long time.      

         

 

Interview: Jeff Kloha of Museum of the Bible

     Did you know that the Museum of the Bible has a podcast, and that it often orbits the subject of New Testament textual criticism?  Recent interviews at the podcast have featured Tommy Wasserman, Juan Hernandez, and Michael Holmes.  Joining us today is Dr. Jeffrey Kloha, who serves as Chief Curatorial Officer at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C., to tell us more about the MotB podcast, Today at Museum of the Bible.  Which can be heard on Spotify, Google Play, iTunes, and IHeartRadio.

 ● Dr. Kloha, when did MotB’s podcast officially begin? 

 JK:  When COVID shut down the museum, we started posting the audio from the lectures over the past several years so that people had access to museum content online.  In June 2021 we started the interview format, which we now try to post weekly.

 ● Over the course of about 90 episodes so far, the podcast has covered a pretty eclectic mixture of Bible-related topics.  Textual critics interviewed include Elijah Hixson, Peter Gurry, and more.  About how often do you expect to feature topics relevant to New Testament textual criticism?

 JK:  The theme, “Today at Museum of the Bible” reflects the wide variety of ways that people today are researching, teaching, and leading in areas related to the museum themes: the history, stories, and impact of the Bible.  The topics are eclectic because I interview people who visit them museum, or are there for a speaker series, or happen to be in Washington. We’ve had good response at the museum to topics related to manuscripts, translation, and archeology. And the museum’s Scholars Initiative sponsors two excavations in Israel and an imaging project at St. Catherine’s monastery at Mt. Sinai. So those topics do come up regularly in the podcast as well.

● Have you announced any new discoveries related to NT manuscripts on the podcast?  

 

JK:  No, we haven’t announced new discoveries on the podcast. In the interviews, I try to help convey to a general audience these interesting and sometimes esoteric topics. New discoveries would be announced first in a more formal setting, but we would certainly follow up with a podcast. One topic that we did discuss in a podcast is a revised transcription of the famous “Wyman Fragment” of Romans, which Daniel Stephens will be publishing in the next issue of New Testament Studies. We’ve been able to read more lines of text and individual letters after two rounds of multi-spectral imaging, and he also discusses the results of two C-14 tests. There aren’t any revolutionary findings in the article, but it is always helpful to refine the data and be more precise in what we know about the individual manuscripts.

 

● Repeatedly the podcast’s focus has been the Shroud of Turin.  Do you think the Shroud of Turin has been studied enough?

 

JK:  Many people, of course, will tell you that it has not.  There are some pretty intriguing unanswered questions. And as technology is refined and scientific testing becomes more precise, the right additional tests could answer some questions which currently do not have answers.  For example, the image on the Shroud has not been replicated at the same level of detail.  How was it produced?  Even if, somehow, it is connected to the resurrection of Jesus, how did that produce the image?  We’ve had a great response to that exhibit.  It is one of, if not the most, recognizable image of Jesus or any person from the Bible. So, people are familiar with it, familiar with the mystery of the object, and it gives an opportunity to point back to the ways that the Shroud reflects the descriptions of Jesus’ passion in the gospels.

 

● Is there one exhibit-item at MotB that gets more attention than all others? 

JK:  You mean other than Elvis’ Bible?  Individuals resonate with different items.  But some obvious highlights are the Washington Pentateuch, the P. Bodmer XXIV (Rahlfs 2110) Psalms papyrus, the beautiful, illuminated Hours and Psalter of Elizabeth de Bohun, and on the Impact of the Bible floor, a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1809 and the original manuscript draft of the “Battle Hymn of the Republic.”  The breadth of the museum’s collections is impressive, and in one place you can see pretty much the entire history of the Bible, from Ancient Near Eastern backgrounds to the ongoing work of translation that is still happening today.

 

Dr. Jeffrey Kloha

Our collections web database features over 500 objects with images and descriptions.   [These include P39, illuminated manuscripts, GA 0250 (Codex Climaci Rescriptus) and various highlights.]

 

● One of your most interesting episodes (to me) was an interview with Fr. Hovsep Karapetyan, about the history of Armenian Christians.  Will he return to the podcast when MotB opens the special Armenian exhibit next year?

 

JK:  Fr. Hovsep and the entire Armenian community has been wonderful to work with. In addition to Fr. Hovsep we featured Dr. Christina Maranci and Dr. Jesse Arlen on topics related to the Bible and the Armenian people. I’m sure we’ll talk with Fr. Hovsep again.

 

● Can you tell us what to expect from that upcoming exhibit?  

 

JK:  Armenians were the first nation to adopt Christianity as its official religion, and their beautiful alphabet was invented to create a written language for the Bible. Their liturgy, church architecture, and manuscripts are both familiar and also have a uniqueness to them. And the story of the history of Christianity among the Armenians is one of perseverance through many challenges: The Parthians, Islam, Mongols, Communism all attempted to stamp out Christian identity. And their resilience even through horrific events like the Armenian Genocide is inspiring. So, in way way, the exhibit will be a “history of the Bible” and “impact of the Bible” exhibition as expressed through the Armenian people.

 

● Will there be a new Armenian-exhibit-related book?    

 

JK:  We’re hoping to produce an exhibition guide for the project.  The exhibition will not feature any new finds or research projects.  The Matenadaran has an amazing collection and a very talented staff, and they are in the process of making their resources available more broadly. I really appreciate how the Matenadaran is on the highest hill in Yerevan, with the main boulevard leading up to it. It is a wonderful symbol of the centrality of the written word and the Scriptures to Armenian identity.

 

● When you interviewed Mark Gaither of CSNTM, he referred to four Greek manuscripts at MotB that a team from CSNTM has photographed.  Those are 0206, GA 1361, GA 2120, and Lect 2383.  Does MotB have more than those four?  What about minuscule 64? 

 

JK:  We have not imaged that manuscript because it is in fragile condition and will need extra care and time for imaging, more than the CSNTM team had time for.  The museum has received a grant to equip its own imaging lab, so we will make and release high-res images when that equipment is up and running.

 

● Is there a set of complete digital page-views of GA 1429 that could be made available online? 

 

JK:  Brian Hyland, one of our curators, has become quite expert at provenance research and tracing down tiny clues to complete a manuscript’s history. The page on our site gives a pretty detailed summary of Brian’s research, and our decision to return this manuscript to the monastery where it was used by the community prior to the terrible looting in 1917. We hope that other institutions with manuscripts from that monastery, including some in the U.S., also return the items in their holdings. 

            We believe that it is the right thing to do, and we were already in discussions with the Ecumenical Patriarchate for a collaboration. We are honored to display several manuscripts on loan from the Patriarchate as well as liturgical objects that show the connection between the biblical text and liturgical practices. So, it has blossomed into a great exhibition for our guests, and the monastery will have their manuscript back again. We will be returning the manuscript physically in late September during an event at the monastery.

 

● How much stuff does MotB have from the Schoyen Collection?  Will it be the focus on a future podcast-episode?

 

JK:  We have about a dozen objects that had been in the Schoyen collection previously, including the Wyman Fragment. On our collections database you can search the term “Schoyen” and see most of them. They were released by that collection, placed on the market, and have sufficiently documented ownership history that we can hold and display them.

 

● Dumbarton Oaks is only about a 15-minute drive from the Museum of the Bible.  Has MotB ever kicked around the idea of working out a co-operative venture with Dumbarton Oaks, displaying the manuscripts and other antiquities that are there?

 

JK:  One of the great things about Washington is the many museums, many of which have objects that are connected to the Bible and its impact. The National Gallery, of course, has a stunning collection of religious art.  The Walters Museum in Baltimore has a fantastic manuscript collection.  And Dumbarton Oaks has a surprisingly large and deep collection of Byzantine materials, including manuscripts.  Pre-COVID I talked with them about a few potential ideas. But whether those bear fruit or not, people can still head over there and see their collection (and gardens), which is worth a visit all on its own.

 

● Is there any chance of ever seeing Codex W at the MotB, or highlighted it at the podcast?

 

JK:   The Freer Gallery, unfortunately, does not display that manuscript.  They do have a full set of high-resolution images online.  But the manuscript is apparently in fragile condition and at this point they are not comfortable displaying it, let alone loaning it.

 

● Is MotB able to host special events or exhibits featuring items from American manuscript-collections, like the ones at Chicago and Duke?

 

JK:  Most of the loans are for special exhibitions.  So, if it makes sense for the content and goals of the exhibit, we reach out to institutions for potential loans.  One challenge that many people may not be aware of: almost all museums cap the length of manuscript loans at three months.  Parchment is a very durable material, of course, but travel and changes in relative humidity can cause parchment to buckle, which then may cause ink to flake off the surface.  So, loans for manuscripts are among the most difficult.  For the permanent galleries, we prefer to rely on items from our own collections.

 

● What subjects can we expect to be covered in 2022-2023 at the podcast?

 

JK:  In the fall we will have a special exhibition on the Samaritans, and for Christmas one on the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem – two very interesting topics and great exhibitions.  There will definitely be some conversations about those.  And, in January we will be opening a special “Scripture and Science” exhibition, so again that will be an ongoing topic. And we are also adding lectures featuring archeologists and researchers from the Israel Antiquities Authority—again, archeology is a popular and important topic. Beyond that, it will be pretty much whoever shows up at Museum of the Bible.

 

Thank you, Dr. Kloha, for sharing about Today at Museum of the Bible.

Do Any Textual Variants Impact Doctrine?

           Do any textual variants in the New Testament have the potential to make a significant doctrinal impact?

          In the past, major champions of the traditional text answered that question with a simple “No.”  Robert L. Dabney wrote in 1871, that the received text – the Textus Receptus, the base-text of the KJV, while “not asserted to be above emendation,” “contains undoubtedly all the essential facts and doctrines intended to be set down by the inspired writers,” and “If it were corrected with the severest hand, by the light of the most divergent various readings found in any ancient MS or version, not a single doctrine of Christianity, nor a single cardinal fact, would be thereby expunged.”

          More recent writers have expressed similar sentiments.   D.A. Carson, for example, has written that the Westminster Confession’s affirmation that the Biblical text has been kept pure in all ages ought to be understood to mean that “nothing we believe to be doctrinally true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants.” (from p. 56 of The KJV-Only Controversy – A Plea for Realism.) 

          The view of Dan Wallace, however, is better-informed and more nuanced.  It amounts to this:  no viable and meaningful variant jeopardizes any cardinal doctrine.  The adjectives in that sentence are important, so let’s look into what they mean.  A viable variant is one which textual critics regard as potentially original; it is favored by weighty (though not necessarily decisive) evidence.  A meaningful variant is one which affects the meaning of the passage in which it occurs.  And a cardinal doctrine is one that expresses a fundamental point of the Christian faith.  

          Using this nuanced approach, a question immediately arises:  which doctrines are cardinal?  Is inerrancy a cardinal doctrine?  Looking at the website of Dallas Theological Seminary (where Dr. Wallace has taught), a statement can be seen that requires students to agree with seven beliefs; the seventh is “the authority and inerrancy of Scripture.”  And looking at the requisite Statement of Faith – “requisite” in the sense that faculty members at DTS are required to affirm it annually – one sees a statement that “We believe that the whole Bible in the originals is therefore without error.”

          Michael Kruger argued at the Ligonier website (in 2015) that the doctrine of inerrancy is essential, and that it supplies “the foundation for why we can trust and obey God’s Word.”   Don Stewart has also proposed that “inerrancy is an essential, foundational concept and its importance should not be minimized.”  Dan Wallace, meanwhile, has downplayed the centrality of inerrancy, stating in 2006 (in a post that is still online) that “inerrancy and verbal inspiration are more peripheral than core doctrines.”  In other words – if I understand him correctly – Dr. Wallace does not, and has not, for some time, regarded inerrancy as a cardinal doctrine – and so his statement to the effect that no viable and meaningful variant significantly affects cardinal doctrines should not be interpreted to mean that no viable and meaningful variants affect the doctrine of inerrancy. 

          Some apologists have followed the example of Wallace’s nuanced approach very closely; for example, in an article at Stand To Reason’s website, Tim Barnett wrote in 2016 that “No major doctrines depend on any meaningful and viable variants.” 

          However, I can think of at least two variants that jeopardize the doctrine of inerrancy, both of which occur in the first book of the New Testament:  in Matthew 13:35 and Matthew 27:49.  Only the one in Matthew 13:35 is acknowledged by a footnote in the NLT, NASB, and ESV.  (At least, this is the case in the copies that I have.  So many editions of modern versions are in circulation that it would be burdensome to keep track of them all – which might make one wonder how seriously the “Standard” part of their names should be taken.)  Neither of these variants is given a footnote in the CSB, nor in the NKJV, nor in the hyper-paraphrase known as The Message.  And the Tyndale House Greek New Testament does not have a footnote at Matthew 13:35 or at Matthew 27:49. 

          Most of the English versions I have named so far are currently ranked among the ten most-popular versions of the Bible in America.  So much for the idea that no one is hiding these variants.

          Let’s see what those variants in Matthew 13:35 and 27:49 say.  

          In Matthew 13:35, the scribe of Codex Sinaiticus, rather than writing that a prophecy was spoken by “the prophet,” wrote that it was spoken by “Isaiah the prophet.”  This reading collides with reality:  the referred-to prophecy is from Psalm 78:2 – a composition by Asaph, and not from Isaiah.  In addition to the scribe of Codex Sinaiticus, witnesses that support “Isaiah the prophet” in Mt. 13:35 include (according to the textual apparatus of UBS4) Q, f¹, f¹³, 33, and the reading was known to Jerome; Jerome wrote (in Homily 11 on Psalm 77) that “in all the ancient copies,” the prophecy is explicitly attributed to Asaph, and Jerome offers the theory that scribes who were unfamiliar with Asaph replaced his name with Isaiah’s name.  The editors of UBS4 assigned this reading a ranking of “C,” which, as they explain in their Introduction, “indicates that the Committee had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text.”                   

          In an earlier generation, F. J. A. Hort – who edited, with Westcott, the primary ancestor of the base-text of the New Testament used for the NIV, ESV, NLT, CSB, NASB and NRSV – argued for including “in Isaiah the prophet” in the text.  His argument ran as follows:  “It is difficult not to think Ἠσαίου genuine.  There was a strong tendency to omit it (cf. xxvii 9; Mc 1 2); and, though its insertion might be accounted for by an impulse to supply the name of the best known prophet, the evidence of the actual operation of such an impulse is much more trifling than might have been anticipated.  Out of the 5 (6) other places where the true text has simply τοῦ προφήτου, in two (Mt ii 15 [Hosea]; Acts vii 48 [Isaiah]) , besides the early interpolation in Mt xxvii 35 [Psalms], no name is inserted; in two a name is inserted on trivial evidence (Mt ii 5, Micah rightly, and Isaiah [by a] wrongly ; xxi 4, Isaiah and Zechariah both rightly [Zech by lat.vt]) ; and once (Mt i 22) Isaiah is rightly inserted on various Western evidence.  Also for the perplexing Ἰερεμίου of xxvii 9, omitted by many documents, rhe has Ἠσαίου.  Thus the erroneous introduction of Isaiah’s name is limited to two passages, and in each case to a single Latin MS.  On the other hand the authority of rushw and aeth is lessened by the (right) insertion of Ἠσαίου by one in Mt i 22, and by both in xxi 4.  The adverse testimony of B is not decisive, as it has a few widely spread wrong readings in this Gospel.”   

          Constantine von Tischendorf included Ἠσαίου in Matthew 13:35 in the 8th edition of his compilation of the Greek New Testament.  And in 1901, Eberhard Nestle wrote (on p. 251 of his Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament) that διὰ Ἠσαίου τοῦ προφήτου “is certainly, therefore, original.”  Anyone using a Greek New Testament compiled by Tischendorf or Nestle today would be rather challenged if he were to attempt to maintain the doctrine of inerrancy, inasmuch as if Matthew attributed Psalm 78:2 to Isaiah, then Matthew erred.  

Mt. 27:49 in Codex L.

         In Matthew 27:49, major Alexandrian witnesses (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Codex C, Codex L), some important versional witnesses (Mae¹, Mae², the Ethiopic version, and assorted witnesses (listed by Willker as U, Γ, 5, 26, 48, 67, 115, 127, 160, 175, 364, 782, 871, 1010, 1057, 1300, 1392, 1416, 1448, 1555, 1566, 1701, 1780, 2117, 2126, 2139, 2283, 2328, 2437*, 2585, 2586, 2622, 2680, 2766, and 2787) support the reading, at the end of the verse, ἄλλος δὲ λαβών λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τήν πλευράν καί ἐξῆλθεν ὕδωρ καί αἷμα.  (In the underlined witnesses the final words are αἷμα καί ὕδωρ instead of ὕδωρ καί αἷμα.)  This means:  And another [person], taking a spear, pierced his side, and out came water and blood.   Then, in Matthew 27:50, Jesus dies.

          The adoption of this reading into the text would be fatal to the doctrine of inerrancy, because the Gospel of John candidly states (in 19:34) that Jesus was pierced in His side with a spear, resulting in a flow of blood and water, after He died, and this contradicts the text of Matthew if this reading – supported by the two early manuscripts (À and B) that are the primary basis for the heading and footnote that draw into question Mark 16:9-20 in the ESV, CSB, NRSV, etc. – is adopted.

          In 2018, in a post at Evangelical Textual Criticism, Tyndale House GNT editor Dirk Jongkind acknowledged that this variant probably should have been mentioned in the apparatus of the Tyndale House GNT.  He also acknowledged that “On external evidence, the addition has definitely a very good shout” – which  – I think – is tantamount to granting that the reading is viable.  But Jongkind rejects the reading, admitting that “The ‘best and earliest manuscripts’ do not always present us with the ‘best and earliest readings.’”   Perhaps this statement should be printed in large letters alongside the ESV’s bracketed heading between Mark 16:8 and 16:9 (which reads, “Some of the earliest manuscripts do no include 16:9-20.”).

          But this reading in the most significant manuscripts representative of the Alexandrian Text certainly was treated as viable by Westcott and Hort, who included the variant, within double brackets, in their compilation.  In Westcott & Hort’s Notes on Select Readings, after analyzing the evidence pertaining to this variant, they concluded as follows:  “Two suppositions alone are compatible  with the whole evidence.  First, the words  ἄλλος δὲ κ.τ.λ. [“κ.τ.λ.” meaning “etc.”] may belong to the genuine text of the extant form of Mt, and have been early omitted (originally by the Western text) on account of the obvious difficulty.  Or, secondly, they may be a very early interpolation, absent in the first instance from the Western text only, and thus resembling the Non-Western interpolations in Luke xxii xxiv except in its failure to obtain admission into the prevalent texts of the third and fourth centuries.  The prima facie difficulty of the second supposition is lightened by the absence of the words from all the earlier versions, though the defectiveness of African Latin, Old Syriac, and Thebaic evidence somewhat weakens the force of this consideration. We have thought it on the whole right to give expression to this view by including the words within double brackets, though we did not feel justified in removing them from the text, and are not prepared to reject altogether the alternative supposition.”

          Competent textual critics – including some who laid the foundation for the compilations of the ESV, CSB, NLT, and NRSV – have treated one or two readings that convey erroneous statements as if they are viable and meaningful.  Therefore, the notion that there are no viable and meaningful textual variants in the New Testament that jeopardize any cardinal doctrine can only be maintained by those who do not consider the doctrine of inerrancy to be a “cardinal doctrine.”    

           So:  do any textual variants in the New Testament have the potential to make a significant doctrinal impact?  If you consider the doctrine of inerrancy a significant doctrine (which most evangelical Christians do), the answer is yes.