Meet GA 200 - A Definitive Byzantine Gospels Manuscript

          GA 200 never gets cited individually in the Nestle-Aland apparatus, or any other modern textual apparatus as far as I know.  Housed at the Laurentian Library in Florence, Italy (Conv. Sopp. 159), the text of this fine thousand-year-old Gospels manuscript could practically serve as the definitive medieval text of the Gospels.  Its text is Byzantine – but it is not a member of family 35.

The beginning of Mark in GA 200

          Eusebius’ letter to Carpian precedes the five-page Canon-tables, with a pair of peacocks above the epistle in a quadrefoil frame.  The Gospels- text is written in dark brown ink; assorted comments in red occassionally frame the main text on up to three sides.

          Let’s take a closer look at 200’s text of Matthew.

 

Mt. 5:38 – σου σιαγόνα

Mt. 5:45 – includes τοις

Mt. 9:4 – reads ιδον before ο ις

Mt. 9:5 – σου after αφέωνται

Mt. 9:27 – υιε  

Mt. 10:28 – has την before ψυχην

Mt. 10:28 – has και before το σωμα

Mt. 11:16 – reads αγοραις

Mt. 11:16 – reads ετεροις

Mt. 11:21 – reads βεθσαιδα

Mt. 11:23 – reads υψωθεισα

Mt. 13:3 – reads σπειρειν

Mt. 13:15 – reads ιασομαι

Mt. 13:28 – reads συλλεξοεν

Mt. 13:33 – reads εκρυψεν

Mt. 15:39 – reads ανεβη

Mt. 17:2 – reads εγενετο

Mt. 17:27 – αναβαινοντα

Mt. 19:5 – does not have αυτου after ρπα

Mt. 19:5 – reads προσκολληθήσεται

Mt. 19:26 – does not have εστιν after δυνατα

Mt. 21:1 – reads βηθφαγη

Mt. 21:22 – reads εαν

Mt. 21:30 – reads ετέρω

Mt. 21:33 – reads τις after ανος

Mt. 22:9 – reads αν

Mt. 22:13 – reads χειρα και ποδας

Mt. 22:23 – does not read οι after σαδδουκαιοι

Mt. 22:32 – reads αυτῃ

Mt. 23:36 – reads ταυτα (no παντα)

Mt. 24:2 – reads ταυτα παντα  

Mt. 24:33 – reads ταυτα παντα  

Mt. 26:9 – has τοις before πτωχοις 

Mt. 26:11 – begins τουσ πτωχους γαρ παντοτε 

Mt.  26:15 – reads και εγω 

Mt. 26:17 – reads ετοιμάσομεν 

Mt. 26:33 – reads δε ουδέποτε   

Mt. 26:35 – reads απαρνήσομαι 

Mt. 28:11 – reads και εκει

 

In John, the pericope adulterae appears at the usual place after 7:52 and begins και απηλθεν εκαστος εις τον οικον αυτου.

Jn 8:2 – βαθεως

Jn 8:3 – includes προς αυτον

Jn 8:4 – αυτοφώρω

Jn 8:5 – μωσης

Jn 8:5 – does not read περι αυτης after λεγεις

Jn 8:9 –  after γυναι:  ουδεις σε κατέκρινεν

 

After the end of the text of John, the subscription reads τελος του ια εωθινου και του αποστολ[ου].   There follow five and a half pages of Gregory Nazianzus' composition Against the Arians, and then a long list of lectionary-related material.

 

The entire manuscript is very well executed and is in excellent condition.  GA 200 is fully indexed at the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.  

Another Misleading Footnote - First Nations Version

           This is not a review of the First Nations Version of the New Testament, the work of translators such as Terry Wildman and Gordon Campbell, Alvin Deer, Antonia Belindo, Bryan Jon Maciewski and others which was released in 2021.  Today I want to simply point out that despite being recommended by scholars such as Matthew Schlimm (University of Dubuque Theological Seminary) and  L. Daniel Hawk (Ashland Theological Seminary), the First Nations Version perpetuates false information in its footnote at the end of Mark 16:8.  

The footnote says, "Most ancient manuscripts end at this verse.  Some others include verses 9-20 as we have in this translation."

            The problem is that only two ancient Greek manuscripts end the text of Mark at the end of 16:8.  And the "some" is over 1,650 Greek manuscripts.  In addition, earlier witnesses such as Tatian's Diatessaron and Irenaeus (in about 180) support the inclusion of verses 9-20; Irenaeus explicitly cited Mark 16:19 in his third book of Against Heresies.

            I don't know why it seems so hard for some people to write an accurate footnote.  The possibility occurs to me that if they were accurate and let readers know how lopsided the external evidence is in favor of including Mark 16:9-20, readers would stop trusting the scholars who want to erase the passage from the Gospel of Mark.  I suspect that some people are rejecting Mark 16:9-20 not because of the evidence but because they don't like what this Scripture says - they don't like the idea that baptism normally is a step into salvation instead of a consequence of salvation; they want Jesus to say "He who believes and is saved shall be baptized" instead of "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved."  Or perhaps they don't like reading an endorsement of glossolalia from the lips of Jesus because they believe that sort of thing isn't for modern-day Christians.  Whatever the reason, the headings and footnotes in a lot of modern versions at Mark 16:9 are pitiful.  A half-truth is a whole lie.  FIX YOUR FOOTNOTES, Bible publishers.  Crossway and Holman and Zondervan, I'm talking to you.  You can do it if you want to.

Matthew 17:21 - What's the Early Evidence Say?

In the Evangelical Heritage Version, Matthew 17:21 says, "But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.”  The KJV, NKJV, EOB-NT, MEV, WEB, and 1995 NASB read similarly.  In the RV 1881, ASV, ESV, NIV, NLT, and NRSV, however, there is no such verse; the versification jumps from 20 to 22.  What has happened?

Bruce Manning Metzger

          Bruce Metzger did not spend many words explaining:  “Since there is no good reason why the passage, if originally present in Mathew, should have been omitted, and since copyists frequently inserted material derived from another Gospel, it appears that most manuscripts have been assimilated to the parallel in Mk. 9.29.”  (Textual Commentary on the GNT, p. 43)  His concise treatment is unsatisfactory for at least three reasons, first of which is the consideration that Matthew himself when using Mark’s Gospel (or something closely resembling it) had no discernible reason to skip over this statement of Jesus. 

          Second, the external evidence merits a closer look.  Neither the apparatus in the UBS GNT nor the Nestle-Aland NTG is sufficient.  We begin with their data, supplemented by Swanson:  verse 21 is absent in À* B Q 579 788 892* l253 it^e  ff¹ the Sinaitic Syriac, the Curetonian Syriac, Palestinian Aramaic, the Sahidic version, some Bohairic witnesses, an Ethiopic witness, and an early strata of the Old Georgian version.    Everything else favors the inclusion of τοῦτο δὲ τό γένος ούκ ἐκπορεύεται εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχῇ καὶ νηστείᾳ (À^c reads ἐκβάλλεται instead of ἐκπορεύεται, 118 reads ἐξέρχεται, and 205 1505 l1074 read εξέρχεται) – including C D F G H K L Y O W Y Δ Σ Φ 0281 f¹ f¹³ 28 157 180 565 597 678 700 892^c 1006 1010 1071 1241 1243 1292 1342 1424 Byz Lect it^a it^aur it^b it^c it^d itf it^ff2 it^g1 it¹ itⁿ it^q Vulgate Peshitta Harklean Syriac Armenian some Georgian, and the patristic evidence is lopsided in favor of inclusion:  Origen Asterius Basil-of-Caesarea Chrysostom Hilary Ambrose Jerome Augustine.  Hort noted that daemonii is sometimes added in Old Latin witnesses.  The writer of an article at NeverThirsty stated, “The verse is not included in the newer Bibles because the older and better manuscripts of Matthew do not include it” and “Apparently in the process of copying the manuscripts, someone at a much later date copied the verse from the Gospel of Mark and added it to the Matthew account. “

 

         Now let’s zoom in on some patristic witnesses. 

          In 2010 Jonathan C. Borland presented a paper titled “THE AUTHENTICITY AND INTERPRETATION OF MATTHEW 17:21” at a gathering of the Evangelical Theological Society in Atlanta, Georgia.  He noted that 1604 2680 should be added to the list of MSS favoring non-inclusion, and that the percentage of Greek MSS favoring inclusion is 99.4%.  He also took a close look at some patristic witnesses:

          ● The author known as Pseudo-Clement, in Letters on Virginity (1:12) did not specify which Gospel he was quoting but the wording looks more like Matthew 17:21 than  Mark 9:29 when he wrote against individuals who “do not act with true faith, according to the teaching of our Lord, who hath said: ‘This kind goeth not out but by fasting and prayer,' offered unceasingly and with earnest mind.’”

          ● Clement of Alexandria, c. 200, in Extracts from the Prophets, wrote, “The Savior plainly declared to the believing apostles that prayer was stronger than faith in the case of a certain demoniac, whom they could not cleanse, when he said, ‘Such things are accomplished successfully through prayer.’”

          ● Tertullian, in de Jejun 8:2-3, without specifying whether he was citing Matthew or Mark, wrote the following:  “After that, he prescribed that fasting should be carried out without sadness.  For why should what is beneficial be sad? He taught also to fight against the more fierce demons by means of fasting. For is it surprising that the Holy Spirit is lead in through the same means by which the sinful spirit is lead out?”

          ● Origen, in his Commentary on Matthew (13:6-7) wrote, “That those, then, who suffer from what is called lunacy sometimes fall into the water is evident, and that they also fall into the fire, less frequently indeed, yet it does happen; and it is evident that this disorder is very difficult to cure, so that those who have the power to cure demoniacs sometimes fail in respect of this, and sometimes with fastings and supplications and more toils, succeed.”  And, “But let us also attend to this, ‘This kind goeth not out save by prayer and fasting,’ in order that if at any time it is necessary that we should be engaged in the healing of one suffering from such a disorder, we may not adjure, nor put questions, nor speak to the impure spirit as if it heard, but devoting ourselves to prayer and fasting, may be successful as we pray for the sufferer, and by our own fasting may thrust out the unclean spirit from him.”

          ● The Latin writer Juvencus wrote in Book 3 of Libri evangeliorum quattuor, “For by means of limitless prayers it is faith and much fasting of determined soul that drive off this kind of illness.”

          Although defenders of modern versions have claimed that “The verse is not included in the newer Bibles because the older and better manuscripts of Matthew do not include it,” antiquity in this case favors inclusion:  the oldest witness for inclusion is older than the oldest witness for non-inclusion.

          The scope of attestation also favors inclusion at least as much as it favors non-inclusion:  Western witnesses for inclusion far outnumber the Western witnesses for non-inclusion, and they are geographically widespread.

          We are left with the appeal to the “best” manuscripts as the basis for rejecting the verse.  But this is circular reasoning; the real question is “What are the best witnesses at this specific point?”, and generalizations simply do not answer that question. It is like deciding which football team wins the ballgame when the score is tied by asking which kicker has made the most field goals, instead of by actually scoring more points than the other team.  

          Third, this supposed harmonization doesn’t yield a tight harmony.  Let’s compare the text of Matthew 17:21 to Mark 9:29.  Mark wrote, τοῦτο  τό γένος ἐν οὐδενὶ δύναται ἐξελθειν εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχῇ καὶ νηστείᾳ.  (Regarding the Alexandrian text’s non-inclusion of καὶ νηστείᾳ, see my earlier analysis.)  Metzger’s plea that Mark 9:29 was transplanted into Matthew 17 is complicated by the distinct lack of verbal similarity:

          Matthew:  τοῦτο δὲ τό γένος ούκ ἐκπορεύεται εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχῇ καὶ νηστείᾳ.

          Mark:  τοῦτο τό γένος ἐν οὐδενὶ δύναται ἐξελθειν εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχῇ καὶ νηστείᾳ.

          This is not a verbatim harmonization – out of 12 words (in Matthew 17:21), nine are identical – and Metzger’s comment that “copyists frequently inserted material derived from another Gospel” fails to explain why a scribe with Mark 9:29 in front of him would change 25% of its wording when inserting it into the text of the Gospel of Matthew.  It should also be noted that the kind of harmonization Metzger referred to usually involved harmonization to the text of Matthew in Mark and Luke, not the other way around (the harmonization of Matthew 9:13 and Mark 2:17 to Luke 5:32 being a notable exception).

          I propose that an early Western scribe intentionally omitted the material we know as Matthew 17:21 out of concern that readers might think that the ability of the Son of God was limited depending on whether he fasted or not.  (The same concern motivated the omission of καὶ νηστείᾳ in Mark 9:29.)  This exclusion was subsequently adopted by scribes in the Alexandrian transmission-line, which led to the reading (or non-reading) in À B Q et al.

          Matthew 17:21 should be regarded as an authentic part of the Gospel of Matthew.  The oldest evidence, the most geographically diverse evidence, and the vast majority of evidence all point in favor of its inclusion.  The NIV, ESV, etc. should be corrected accordingly.

Thanks to Jonathan Borland for sharing his insightful research.

John 4:1 - "Jesus" or "The Lord"?

Papyrus 75

           At the beginning of the fourth chapter of the Gospel of John readers of modern Bibles encounter a minor deviation from the usual text:  The Byzantine text reads “When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John.”  Agreeing with the Byzantine text are versions such as the KJV, MEV, NKJV, and RSV.   The Tyndale House GNT, echoing Tregelles, also has “ὁ κύριος,” as did Scholz’s 1836 compilation, Nestle’s Greek New Testament in 1899, and Nestle’s 1948 Novum Testamentum Graece.  The 1881 compilation by Westcott and Hort also read ὁ κύριος.   

          In the Evangelical Heritage Version, the English Standard Version, the Christian Standard Bible, the Contemporary English Version, the Holman Christian Standard Bible, the Legacy Standard Bible, the NET, New International Version, the NRSV, and the New Living Translation, “Jesus” fills the place where “the Lord” appears near the beginning of the verse.

Codex 032 (W supplement)

          Have the ESV, NIV, NRSV, and NLT rejected the reading in the majority of manuscripts in order to conform to the earliest manuscripts?  No! Although Papyrus 66* and Codex Sinaiticus, 05, 038, 039, 086 (a Greek-Coptic fragment that contains  John 1:23-26, 3:5-4:18, 4:23-35, and 4:45-49, assigned to the 500s) and f¹ support Ἰησοῦς, Papyrus 66^c, Papyrus 75, and Vaticanus support ὁ κύριος, as do A C L W^supp 044 083 0141 33 700 892 etc.  You read that right:  the reading in the Byzantine text has earlier manuscript support than its rival.

          Versional evidence is quite divided.  The Vulgate, the Peshitta, the Harklean Syriac, the Bohairic, the Fayummic, and most Old Latin copies support Ἰησοῦς.  The Armenian and Georgian versions diverge:  the Armenian version supports Ἰησοῦς but the Georgian version supports ὁ κύριος.  The Sinaitic Syriac supports ὁ κύριος and the Curetonian Syriac supports Ἰησοῦς – and so does the Sahidic version, the margin of the Harklean Syriac, and one Bohairic copy. 

Codex Regius (L, 019)

          Ἰησους is read by Epiphanius and Chrysostom, whereas Cyril supports ὁ κύριος.  Augustine is inconsistent, supporting Ἰησους in three out of four cases but ὁ κύριος once. 

          The NET has a relatively long note arguing for Ἰησοῦς, but the annotator’s argument is somewhat presumptive:  the “immediate context” is simply asserted to outweigh John’s style, and Ἰησοῦς is simply asserted to be “the harder reading.”  There really is no reason to regard either Ἰησοῦς or ὁ κύριος as the harder reading expect the observation that Ἰησοῦς occurs later in the verse – so the adoption of Ἰησοῦς yields a slightly odd-sounding verse:  “Therefore when Jesus knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John.”

          The scribe of Codex 039 (Λ) may have felt that the second occurrence of Ἰησοῦς seemed jarring; he left out the second Ἰησοῦς from the text.  Likewise in modern times only one occurrence of “Jesus” is in John 4:1 in the English versions CSB, CEV, EHV, HCSB, NET, NIV, NLT, although in the Greek base-text of these versions Ἰησοῦς appears twice.  In my opinion this shows the translators’ reluctance to have the word “Jesus” appear twice in close proximity – although that was done in the Rheims version, ESV, LSB, and NRSV.        

          Bruce Terry, in defense of the reading Ἰησοῦς, has offered the theory that “Since “Jesus” occurs twice in the following clauses, copyists were more likely to change “Jesus” to “the Lord” to improve the style than visa versa.”  The UBS committee was divided (favoring Ἰησους with a C grade) but Metzger stated that Ἰησοῦς was preferred on the grounds that “it is unlikely that a scribe would have displaced it [ὁ κύριος] with Ἰησοῦς.”   That is more of an assertion than an argument.  

          A better explanation is that early scribes in the Western transmission-line  anticipated that readers would be confused by the vagueness of “ὁ κύριος” – which could refer to the Father as well as to the Son – and decided to make the text more specific.  This was adopted in part of the Alexandrian transmission-line.  Considering that support for ὁ κύριος comes not only from the vast majority of witnesses but also from multiple transmission-lines and from very early witnesses, and that Ἰησοῦς is supported by early Western witnesses in which exchanges from less specificity to more specificity is typical, the reading Ἰησοῦς should be rejected in favor of the less specific reading.

 

Against Dogmatic KJV-Onlyism: Three Debates

The Hoffner/Ferrando-Snapp Debate:
Should the Interpolation Known as the
Comma Johanneum Be Regarded
As Scripture?

     Earlier this year I had the pleasure of participating in three cordial debates online.  In the first one, in which Mike Hollner and Mike Ferrando also participated (and for which Donny Budinsky served as moderator), I defended the idea that the Comma Johanneum in First John 5:7 is not a genuine part of the First John and should not be regarded as part of Scripture.  The data in my earlier research on this textual variant came in handy (i.e., my presentation of the Greek manuscripts that contain, or do not contain, the Comma, my analysis of Cyprian's apparent (but not actual) use of the Comma and legitimate patristic references to it, an explanation of how the Comma originated in the Western branch of the Old Latin, and additional Comma-centric resources.    

    In the second debate, - billed as "The Great King-James-Only Debate" - I defend the premise that there are imperfections in the King James Version, against brother Will Kinney who argued that the KJV is 100% perfect.  Donny Budinsky was our host on his channel Standing For Truth.  We investigated two shortcomings in the KJV in the Old Testament and then examined some flaws in the KJV New Testament.

The Kinney-Snapp Debate:
How To Repair Errors in the KJV

  In the third debate, moderated by Dwayne Green, I defend the premise that the KJV contains some non-original features (focusing on six specific passages in the New Testament) against brother Nick Sayers.  Those six passages were (1) Matthew 25:13, (2) Matthew 8:15, (3) Luke 2:22, (4) Eph 3:9, (5) Col 1:6, and (6) Acts 15:34.

    I am confident that viewers of all three debates will be educated and edified.  Each  debate can be accessed by clicking on the pictures.  

The Sayers-Snapp Debate:
Should We Usurp the Original Text?

Guest Christopher Yetzer: Is Mark Ward Listening?

Christopher Yetzer  

          Today I welcome a special guest to The Text of the Gospels:  KJV-defender Christopher Yetzer, who resides these days in Milan, Italy.  Now most of you know that I have never been, am not, and never will be a KJV-Onlyist, but while I am preparing a book review, I thought it worthwhile to give room for brother Christopher to share some thoughts regarding Mark Ward (Senior Editor for Digital Content at Logos Bible Study, host of the YouTube channel @markwardonwords, and author of Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible) - specifically regarding the impasse KJV-defenders have when discussing issues pertaining to the quality of some modern Bible versions and their underlying base-texts.
         Take it away, brother Christopher!
Yetzer:  Thanks James.  Readers of The Text of the Gospels, I have a question:  who isn’t listening to who?

In a recent video Mark Ward complained that he wanted “to see a King James only defender listen hard to my viewpoint the way I’ve listened to theirs”. But who is the one who isn’t listening? Has Ward not been heard or is he just not listening to the response? Is it possible that it is Ward who is not listening “without the twisted ears of ideology blocking” his ability to understand? I will demonstrate that the opposite side has listened and responded. It is Ward who is not listening.

After I saw some of Nick Sayers’ review of Mark’s video titled “Is the NKJV Truly Based on the TR” (a three-hour video critique of Mark Ward's 34-minute video) I wrote to Mark on June 27, 2024 to let him know about an error he had made in the video. Doubting he would respond, I made a FB post asking people to contact him to let him know of the error.

Thankfully Mark got the message from a Patreon supporter and he made a correction below that video as well as corrected himself in a video about two months later (possibly he could have removed the previous video, but I’m sure it still generates income). Since he seemed to be listening, I sent him a list of several faults I see in the NKJV (that is for another post). None of my complaints were addressed in the new video. Ward acts as if the only difference between the NKJV and the KJV is the style of English (which is still important) Just to be clear that there are other issues being discussed by the pro-KJV side. The following are some examples of people from different theological perspectives critiquing the NKJV:

Bryan Ross

Jeff Riddle Nick Sayers (Mark Ward has reviewed part of Nick's website)

Helge Evensen

Robert Lee Vaughn and Peter Van Kleeck. Is Ward listening, or are his ears blocked by his own ideology?

While Ward raises high the flag of his apostleship (with the slogan "Edification Requires Intelligibility") he tramples on the Bibles and their editors (though ostensibly commending them).

The NKJV, for example, uses some non-English words and archaic words.

The literary stylist of the ESV (Leland Ryken) has argued against Ward’s use of Tyndale, stating, “The statement about the plowboy is not a comment about Tyndale’s preferred style for an English Bible. It is not a designation of teenage farm boys as a target audience for a niche Bible. Those misconceptions are the projections of modern partisans for a colloquial and simplified English Bible.” Is Ward listening, or are his ears blocked by his own ideology?

In Mark’s recent Video “Going on Offense for the NKJV” he made the claim that the KJV translation at Revelation 16:5 was “a guess based on zero evidence.” However this is not the case, and neither is the discussion anything new. Nick Sayers has written an entire book on this verse in 2019. Sayers’ website freely and quickly demonstrates that it was not a conjectural emendation. Sayers' page on Revelation 16:5 has been accessed 56,090 times as of this writing and yet Ward apparently hasn't seen it.

On the website Sayers demonstrates that Beza claimed to have a manuscript. (The fact that we do not have all manuscripts which were present in the 1500s is evidenced in that we also do not have two of Stephanus’ manuscripts for which we know various readings). Again: is Ward listening, or are his ears blocked by his own ideology?

Ward has announced that he served as the editor of an upcoming book, “King James Words You Don’t Know You Don’t Know”. Most likely it will include words like “commendeth” and “miserable” etc. A KJV translator himself described “miserable” (at 1 Corinthians 15:19) as being the perfect happiness of the soul. Mark on the other hand has his responsible modern lexicon which tells him otherwise. This is one of Mark Ward’s main problems. It appears again and again in his videos. See his recent video on the NKJV. Mark finds it hard to think outside the covers of his modern lexicons. He forces on those of the past the same definitions which he looks to today. Thus he comes to different conclusions than what was actually intended.

With the Genesis 4:25 example, the KJV translators, the Greek Old Testament translators, Jerome, Diodati, Rav Dario Disegni, and Dr. James Price (former executive editor of the NKJV Old Testament) oppose Mark Ward's opinion. Are they all wrong because they disagree with Ward’s modern responsible lexicon? Over four years ago we discussed many of these issues in the comments on his YouTube channel and yet nothing has changed! Is Ward listening, or are his ears blocked by his own ideology?

I must confess that I used to think that Ward said things like “Nobody has answered me regarding my….” as a sort of self-flattering signal to his supporters that nobody could respond to his arguments. But now I really think he is just not listening. After I replied to his YouTube videos, Mark Ward blocked me from commenting on his page in 2021. Last year I tried to post a critique of the many problems with the Parallel KJV website, only to be blocked by Mark Ward from his Facebook page.

Did the two scholars featured on the site’s homepage evaluate its value and accuracy? Apparently not. When someone properly does, he gets blocked for mentioning its faults. One of Ward’s video editors, Jonathan Burris, also blocked me from being able to leave any comment on his site. Does that sound like something someone would do who wants to listen to the other side? Mark Ward told me, “I have blocked you from commenting on my videos. That doesn't erase past comments, as I understand it. I have enjoyed some of our exchanges, and I want them to be available to others in the future who look at my videos.” In a video where Ward set up a straw man against Bryan Ross, Ward admitted that he only listened to some of Ross’ points on triple speed while doing yard work. I understand we are all busy, but Ward expects that academic deans and chancellors will listen to his videos and change their language on the TR, all the while his own calling is limited to doing prep work while taking care of the yard. Again: is Mark Ward listening, or are his ears blocked by his own ideology?

Let’s be clear, we have heard your message. We just disagree. We disagree on the amount of difficulties that exist in the KJV. We disagree that 1 Corinthians 14 is contextually talking about Bible translating and that the KJV is a different language. We disagree with the notion that saying "Edification Requires Intelligibility" is an excuse to pretend that difficulties in modern translations don't exist. We disagree with the idea that another attempt to update the KJV would bring better unity and more authority to the text. We disagree with the claim that the only differences in the NKJV are the forms of English that were used. We disagree with the claim that the KJV was modern-sounding in 1611. We disagree with the idea that "a few differences" is the same thing as "minor differences." We disagree with the canon that dictates that the oldest extant reading is best. We disagree with Mark Ward's claim that his approach has not been engaged. We disagree with his methods of interpreting KJV words.

We have heard you, Mark Ward - and we respectfully disagree.

Hand to Hand Combat: GA 2414 versus Sinaiticus in John 10 - and a variant in John 10:12-13

GA 2414 is more interesting and important than the average New Testament manuscript.  It resides in Greece in the Public History Library in the village of Zagora - a place that has been occupied for quite a long time.   The manuscript is assigned to the 900s.  It is fully indexed on the CSNTM website.  

How does its (Byzantine) text compare to, say, the text of Sinaiticus in one of the most famous passages in the Gospels - verses 10-16 of Jesus' "Good Shepherd" discourse in John 10?  Let's find out, using the text of NA27 as the referee.  Trivial deviations from the compilation such as final nu and nomina sacra contractions will be noted but not counted as variants.

John 10:10-16 in GA 2414 

10 - has εχουσι instead of εχουσιν (-1)

11 – no variants

12 – has δε between μισθωτὸς and και [+2]

12 – has εισι instead of εστιν [+2, -3]

12 – has τὰ πρόβατα after σκορπίζει [+9]

13 – begins with Ὁ δὲ μισθωτὸς φεύγει [+17]

14 – has γινώσκομαι ὑπο τῶν ἐμῶν instead of γινώσκουσι με τὰ ἐμα [+11, -7]

15 – no variants

16 – transposes, reading με δει instead of δει με

16 – reads γενήσεται instead of γενήσονται [+1, -2]

2414 has 42 non-original letters added and 13 original letters missing, for a total of 55 letters’ worth of corruption.

Now let's compare Sinaiticus' text to NA27:

10 – has αιωνιον after ζωην [+7]

10 - has εχουσι instead of εχουσιν (-1)

11 – no variants

12 – has δε between μισθωτὸς and και [+2]

12 – has εισι instead of εστιν [+2, -3]

12 – has τὰ πρόβατα after σκορπίζει [+9]

13 – begins with Ὁ δὲ μισθωτὸς φεύγει [+17]

14 – has γινώσκομαι ὑπο τῶν ἐμῶν instead of γινώσκουσι με τὰ ἐμα [+11, -7]

15 – no variants

16 – transposes, reading με δει instead of δει με

16 – reads γενήσεται instead of γενήσονται [+1, -2]

That’s 18 non-original letters included, and 11 original letters omitted, for a total of 29 letters’ worth of corruption.  Codex Sinaiticus wins!  

Or so it seems.  Much depends on what happens at the end of verse 12 and the beginning of verse 13.  The NASB renders these two verses as follows:  "He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf snatches them and scatters the flock.  He flees because he is a hired hand and does not care about the sheep."  

            The italicized words salvage the problem:  without them, the antecedent of  the entity who flees is the wolf!  The shorter Alexandrian reading is clearly the more difficult reading - but it is so difficult that it is rather nonsensical. What, if the Byzantine reading is original, could have elicited the creation of the shorter reading?  Simple parablepsis:  If a copyist wrote, after a line ending in σκορπίζει, the words τα πρόβατα ὁ δε μισθωτός φευγει, inattentiveness could have cause a subsequent scribe to omit all six words, skipping from -ει to -ει.  Major Alexandrian witnesses - P66, P75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, 019, etc. - weigh in for the shorter text, as well as 05 032 and the Sinaitic Syriac and the Coptic version.       

            Byzantine witnesses are not entirely uniform.  Most MSS read τα πρόβατα ὁ δε μισθωτός φευγει but Swanson notes that Codex Π 565 and 1071 read ὁ δε μισθωτός φευγει (and the Peshitta and the Latin texts concur) - suggesting to me that an early exemplar written in narrow columns read 

        πρόβατα καὶ φευγει

        και ὁ λύκος ἁρπάζει

        αὐτὰ και σκορπίζει

        ὁ δε μισθωτός φευγει - 

four consecutive lines ending with -ει.

       This is an especially notable variation-unit - not only because the non-inclusion of the six or four words is accounted for so readily, but also because the shorter reading is supported by the primary witnesses in both the Alexandrian and Western transmission lines - so the Byzantine reading would be, in theory, a non-Western elaboration.  At the same time, the sentence without ὁ δε μισθωτός φευγει is jarring - Jesus' subject jumps from the role of the wolf to the role of the hireling without warning.  One could argue that the shorter reading is thus the more difficult reading - but it can also be argued that the shorter reading is so difficult that it is unlikely to be what John initially wrote.  

        I propose that the text of John 10:13 should be amended in the Nestle-Aland compilation to include ὁ δε μισθωτός φευγει.  If the calculation of letters' worth of corruption is altered accordingly, GA 2414 has 38 letters' worth of corruption, and Codex Sinaiticus has 47.  Yet again the outcome of the contest depends on the selection of the umpire.