Codex Delta: Block-Mixed?

Mark 16:1b-17a
in Codex Sangallensis.
(verse-numbers added)

            Codex Δ (037, Sangallensis), which we described in the previous post, is possibly the most important Greek-Latin Gospels-manuscripts produced in medieval Europe.  Bruce Metzger, in his handbook The Text of the New Testament, concisely described its text in Matthew, Luke, and John as Byzantine, and its text in Mark as Alexandrian.   This would make it a “block-mixed” manuscript, that is, a manuscript in which at least one portion echoes an ancestry not shared by the rest.
            That is, however, a somewhat oversimplified description of Codex Δ’s text.  The easiest way to show this is to drag you, patient reader, through lists of some of the readings in the manuscript.  First, let’s take a look at some of Δ’s non-Byzantine readings in the first 10 chapters of Matthew, Luke, and John:

Matthew

2:9 – Δ reads αυτοις, agreeing with L. 

3:16 – Δ is missing the first two words of the verse.

4:18 – Δ includes ο Ις near the beginning of the verse.

5:34 – Δ does not have τω before Κω, agreeing with L.

6:10 – Δ reads ελθατω instead of ελθετω agreeing with À, D, and W)

7:29 – Δ includes αυτων at the end of the verse (agreeing with À Β Κ Π).

8:16 – Δ adds ακαθαρτος (so as to emphasize that Jesus cast out the unclean spirits).

9:23 – Δ omits τους before αυλητας.

10:5 – Δ reads εισελθητε instead of απελθητε, and then απελθητε instead of εισελθητε.  

10:9 – Δ reads χαλικον instead of χαλκον.

10:33 – Δ omits (via h.t.) this verse; it is added by a corrector.

Luke

1:17 – Δ reads Κυ instead of αυτου after ενωπιον.

1:28 – Δ moves ο αγγελος to a location between αυτην and ειπεν (agreeing with À 69 579 700).

1:70 – Δ does not include των after αγιων.

2:15 – Δ does not include και οι ανθρωποι (agreeing with À B L W)

2:21 – Δ reads αυτον instead of το παιδίον (agreeing with À B A K L W Π).

2:36 – Δ reads μετα ανδρος ετη επτα (agreeing with À B* L N W).

3:4 – Δ does not include λεγοντος (agreeing with À B D L W)

6:1 – Δ does not include των before σπορίμων (agreeing with À* B A L W).

6:10 – Δ does not include υγιης but includes ως η αλλη (agreeing with A K Π).

7:6 – Δ does not include ο εκατοντάρχος.

8:21 – Δ does not include αυτον after ποιουντες (agreeing with P75 B A D L W).

8:36 – Δ does not include και after αυτοις (agreeing with P75 À B L).

9:20 – Δ reads αυτους instead of αυτοις.

9:33 – Δ reads υπ’ instead of απ’ (agreeing with L).

9:50 – Δ reads υμων instead of ημων after καθ’ (agreeing with P75 B À* D K L).

10:22 – Δ reads επιγινωσκει instead of γινωσκει (agreeing with C 33 700).

John

1:20 – Δ reads Εγω ουκ ειμι instead of Ουκ ειμι εγω (agreeing with P66 P75 B À A L).

1:22 – Δ reads ειπαν instead of ειπον (agreeing with P66 P75 B).

1:34 – Δ reads εωρακα instead of εορακα (agreeing with P66 B À A C L M N).

2:3 – Δ inserts (but a corrector removes) τοις καθημενοις before του Ιυ. 

2:4 – Δ does not include ο Ις.

3:8 – Δ reads αλλα instead of αλλ’ (agreeing with B 579 700).

4:8 – Δ does not include την before πολιν.

4:14 – Δ reads διψει instead of διψήση (or διψήσει)

4:21 – Δ does not have μοι after πιστευσον.

4:31 – Δ does not include αυτον.

4:37 – Δ does not have ο before αληθινος (agreeing with B L N 33).

5:25 – Δ does not have υμιν after λεγω.

5:28 – Δ does not have ωρα after ερχεται.

5:28 – Δ reads ακουσωσιν instead of ακουσουσιν or ακουσονται (agreeing with P66c À L)

6:5 – Δ does not include τον before Φιλιππον (agreeing with P66 B À D L 33)

6:16 – Δ does not include το before πλοιον (agreeing with P75 B À L 33 700)

6:22 – Δ reads ειδον instead of ιδων (agreeing with P75 B A 33)

6:44 – Δ reads με instead of εμε after προς (agreeing with B E M Θ U)

6:55 – Δ does not include μου after αιμα.

8:14 – Δ does not include the last phrase (from after υμεις – via h.t.).

8:24 – Δ reads πιστευσηται instead of πιστευσητε (agreeing with P66 L W)

8:39 – Δ reads εποιειτε αν (agreeing with L K M N Π 33).

9:1 – Δ does not include ο Ις.

9:27 – Δ reads μαθηται αυτου instead of αυτου μαθηται (agreeing with P66 À L D 33 157). 

9:32 – Δc reads ηνεωξεν (agreeing with B N W), corrected from ενεωξεν.

9:39 – Δ reads κρισιν instead of κριμα.

10:26 – Δ reads αλλα instead of αλλ (agreeing with P66 P75 B À A L W 33).

10:30 – Δ reads μου after πατηρ (agreeing with W 700).

10:34 – Δ reads ειπον instead of ειπα (agreeing with A D M S U 33).

10:39 – Δ reads ουν after Εζητουν (agreeing with P66 À A K L W 33).

These samples show that when the text of Δ drifts away from the Byzantine Text in Matthew, Luke, and John, it is often in quirky ways that can be attributed to the copyist – and when this explanation fails, the departure is often toward the Alexandrian Text – but the detour is always brief.  Once itacisms, variations in names, and obvious blunders are filtered out, the real mixture in the text of Δ in Matthew, Luke, and John is minimal.  It would be misleading to describe this manuscript’s Greek text in these three books as anything but Byzantine.

           

Now let’s look at the text of Mark in Δ.  It is quite different!

In Mark, the text of Δ  is much more Alexandrian – it supports “in Isaiah the prophet” in Mark 1:2, for instance – but not as much as some concise descriptions of the manuscript have led readers to believe.  Its text agrees with the Byzantine text at the end of Mark 1:2 (including εμπροσθεν σου), at the end of 1:5, at the beginning of 1:8 (including μεν), at the end of 1:9, 1:10 (επ not εις), at the beginning of 1:13 (Δ includes εκει), at the beginning of 1:14 (Μετα δε, not Και μετα), at the beginning of 1:16 (Περιπατων δε, not Και παραγων), and near the beginning of 1:19 (Δ includes εκειθεν before ολιγον). 

By the time Mark 1:20 is reached, the reader of Codex Δ has also encountered several readings which are neither Alexandrian nor Byzantine.  So should Δ’s text in Mark be considered an poorly transcribed form of the Alexandrian Text, or is it a Mixed Text (combining Alexandrian and Byzantine readings)?  The only sure way to find out is to sift through the text itself.  Let’s investigate some sample-passages and see whether Δ is allied more closely with B (representing the Alexandrian Text – using the readings it displayed when it left the scriptorium) or with A (representing the Byzantine Text), setting aside variant-units where Δ agrees with neither B nor A.

● Mark 2:1-12: 

1 – Δ  reads εισηλθεν (agreeing with A, not with B)

1 – Δ reads Καφαρναουμ (agreeing with B, not with A)

1 – Δ includes και (agreeing with A, not with B)

1 – Δ reads εις οικον (agreeing with A, not with B)

2 – Δ includes ευθεως (agreeing with A, not with B)

3 – Δ’s word-order agrees with A, not with B)

4 – Δ reads προσεγγίσαι (agreeing with A, not with B)

4 – Δ reads εφ ω (agreeing with A, not with B)

5 – Δ reads Ιδων δε, agreeing with A, not with B)

5 – Δ does not include σου (agreeing with B, not with A)

7 – Δ reads βλασφημιας (agreeing with A, not with B)

8 – Δ reads ευθεως (agreeing with A, not with B)

8 – Δ includes ουτως αυτοι (agreeing with A, not with B)

8 – Δ includes αυτοις (agreeing with A, not with B)

9 – Δ reads αφίωνται (agreeing with A, not with B)

9 – Δ reads σοι (agreeing with A, not with B)

11 – Δ includes και (agreeing with A, not with B)

12 – Δ reads ευθεως και (agreeing with A, not with B)

12 - Δ reads εναντιον (agreeing with A, not with B)

12 – Δ includes λεγοντας (agreeing with A, not with B)

12 – Δ’s word-order agrees with A, not with B

 That’s a score of 19 agreements with A, and 2 agreements with B.  

● Mark 4:1-12

1 – Δ reads συνάγεται (agreeing with B, not with A)

1 – Δ reads πλειστος (agreeing with B, not with A)

2 – Δ reads ησαν (agreeing with B, not with A)

3 – Δ includes του (agreeing with A, not with B)

5 – Δ reads ευθυς (agreeing with B, not with A)

5 – Δ does not include της (agreeing with A, not with B)

6 – Δ begins the verse with και ότε (agreeing with B, not with A)

6 – Δ reads ο ηλιος (agreeing with B, not with A)

6 – Δ reads εκαυματίσθη (agreeing with A, not with B)

8 – Δ reads αλλο (agreeing with A, not with B)

8 – Δ reads αυξανόμενον (agreeing with A, not with B)

8 – Δ reads εις (before εφερεν) (agreeing with B, not with A)

9 – Δ reads Ος εχει (agreeing with B, not with A)

10 – Δ reads Και οτε (agreeing with B, not with A)

10 – Δ reads τας παραβολας (agreeing with B, not with A)

11 – Δ’s word-order agrees with A, not with B [although Δ has γνωναι]

12 – Δ reads γινεται (agreeing with B, not with A)

12 – Δ reads αφεθη (agreeing with B, not with A)

Codex Δ agrees with B against A twelve times, twice as much as it agrees with A against B.    

● Mark 6:14-29

14 – Δ reads ελεγεν (agreeing with A, not with B)

14 – Δ reads εγηγερται (agreeing with B, not with A)

14 – Δ reads Ιάννης (agreeing with A, not with B)

14 – Δ’s word-order agrees with B, not with A

15 – Δ reads Ηλιας, agreeing with A, not with B

15 – Δ does not include εστιν (agreeing with B, not with A)

16 – Δ reads ειπεν (agreeing with A, not with B)

16 – Δ reads οτι (agreeing with A, not with B)

16 – Δ does not include αυτος (agreeing with B, not with A)

16 – Δ does not include εκ νεκρων (agreeing with B, not with A)

17 – Δ reads γαρ (agreeing with B, not with A)

17 – Δ reads Ιάννης (agreeing with A, not with B)

17 – Δ’s word-order agrees with B, not with A 

18 – Δ reads Ιάννης (agreeing with A, not with B)

19 – Δ reads εδυνατο (agreeing with A, not with B)

20 – Δ reads Ιάννην (agreeing with A, not with B)

20 – Δ includes και (agreeing with A, not with B)

21 – Δ reads εποίησεν (agreeing with B, not with A)

21 – Δ reads Γαλιλαίας (agreeing with A, not with B)

22 – Δ reads αυτου (agreeing with B, not with A)

22 – Δ includes και (agreeing with A, not with B)

22 – Δ’s word-order agrees with A, not with B

23 – Δ does not include ο (after ο τι) (agreeing with B, not with A)

23 – Δ does not include με (agreeing with B, not with A)

24 – Δ reads και (agreeing with B, not with A)

24 – Δ reads Ιωάννου (agreeing with A, not with B)

24 – Δ reads βαπτιζοντος (agreeing with B, not with A)

25 – Δ reads ευθυς (agreeing with B, not with A)

25 – Δ’s word-order agrees with B, not with A

25 – Δ reads Ιωάννου (agreeing with A, not with B)

26 – Δ reads ανακειμένους (agreeing with B, not with A)

26 – Δ’s word-order agrees with B, not with A

27 – Δ reads ευθυς (agreeing with B, not with A)

27 – Δ reads ενεγκαι (agreeing with B, not with A)

27 – Δ reads και (agreeing with B, not with A)

29 – Δ reads ηλθον (agreeing with A, not with B)  

Thus in this section there are 16 agreements with A and 20 agreements with B.  Half of those agreements with A, however, involve the orthography of proper names, so if the effects of the unusual spelling employed by B’s copyist are withdrawn from the equation, it is clear that in this passage, Δ favors the Alexandrian Text about two-thirds of the time.  (Also, a reading of Δ in verse 19 that disagrees with B and A resembles the reading in B far more than the reading in A.)   

● Mark 8:1-10 

1 – Δ reads παλιν πολλου (agreeing with B, not with A)

2 – Δ reads τρεις (agreeing with A, not with B)

2 – Δ includes μοι (agreeing with A, not with B)

3 – Δ reads και τινες (agreeing with B, not with A)

3 – Δ reads εισιν (agreeing with B, not with A)

4 – Δ includes οτι (agreeing with B, not with A)

4 – Δ reads ερημίας (agreeing with B, not with A)

5 – Δ reads ηρωτα (agreeing with B, not with A)

6 – Δ reads παραγγέλλει (agreeing with B, not with A)

6 – Δ reads παρατιθωσιν (agreeing with B, not with A)

7 – Δ reads ειχαν (agreeing with B, not with A)

7 – Δ reads και ταυτα παρατιθέναι (agreeing with B, not with A)

9 – Δ reads και εφαγον (agreeing with B, not with A)

9 – Δ does not include οι φάγοντες (agreeing with B, not with A)

10 – Δ does not include αυτος (agreeing with A, not with B)

10 – Δ reads Δαλμανουθα (agreeing with A, not with B)

Thus in this section, Δ allies with B against A 12 times, while joining A against B only four times.  In all of those four places, B’s reading is also opposed by À L 33.  So, if we consider an agreement of À and L and 33 to represent the Alexandrian Text better than B at points where B sings a solo (or at least a solo among the uncials), then Codex Δ never agrees with A against the Alexandrian Text in this passage.  Here, Δ is solidly Alexandrian.      

Let’s take one more sample:

Mark 14:1-9.

2 – Δ reads δε (agreeing with A, not with B)

3 – Δ reads ελθεν (agreeing with A, not with B)

3 – Δ includes και (agreeing with A, not with B)

3 – Δ reads την (agreeing with B, not with A)

3 – Δ does not include κατα (agreeing with B, not with A)

4 – Δ includes και λέγοντες (agreeing with A, not with B)

5 – Δ reads ενεβριμωντο (agreeing with A, not with B)

6 – Δ reads ειργάσατο (agreeing with A, not with B)

7 – Δ reads αυτοις (agreeing with B, not with A)

7 – Δ does not include παντοτε (agreeing with A, not B)

8 – Δ includes αυτη (transposed) (agreeing with A, not with B)

8 – Δ’s word-order (μου το σωμα) agrees with A, not with B

9 – Δ includes δε (agreeing with B, not with A)

9 – Δ includes τουτο (agreeing with A, not with B)

In these nine verses, Δ agrees ten times with A against B, and only four times with B against A.  In verse 9, the Byzantine Text includes δε, thus disagreeing with A.  This passage is much more Byzantine than it is Alexandrian.       

Exactly how the text of Mark in Codex Δ obtained its unique mixture of Alexandrian and Byzantine readings is an unanswered question.  Perhaps the creator of Δ’s exemplar possessed two Greek copies of Mark – an early Byzantine Gospels-manuscript and a manuscript with a strongly Alexandrian text – and created an eclectic Greek text by selecting, from both manuscripts, whatever reading seemed to better confirm the copyist’s native Latin text.    

Adding to the mystery is the occasional appearance of readings with strange allies, such as Δ’s bare ειπεν in 6:25 (allied with family-1), and its non-inclusion of κλασμάτων in 8:8 (allied with W – see also their shared non-inclusion of και Σιδωνος in 7:24).  We do not have to solve this question, however, to notice the implications of the data:  Codex Δ does not simply have an Alexandrian Text in Mark; the text of Mark in Codex Δ is heavily mixed throughout, and at any given point its reading is almost as likely to be Byzantine as it is likely to be Alexandrian.       

Notably, Codex Δ includes Mark 16:9-20 (without any notes or asterisks, and with Eusebian section-number 234 given to the final section, beginning at 16:13) – and there, too, the text is mixed.  There are non-Byzantine readings in verses 11 (υπ’ αυτης εθεαθη, a transposition), 14 (Δ includes εκ νεκρων – cf. Justin Martyr’s First Apology chapter 50), 16 (Δ has ο before βαπτισθεις, agreeing with L), 17 (καιναις is omitted, agreeing with C* L Ψ), 18 (Και εν ταις χερσιν is included in Δ, agreeing with C L Ψ 1 1582 33 579), and 19 (Κς Ις, agreeing with Irenaeus’ quotation of the verse and with C* K L 33 579, rather than just Κς – and εν δεξια rather than εκ δεξιων).  

As one can see by a close examination of the text of Mark 16:17-18 in Codex Δ, the interlinear Latin text is not derived from the Greek text that it accompanies; in Mark 16:17-18, the Greek text lacks καιναις but the Latin text has novis; the Greek text has “And in their hands” (Και εν ταις χερσιν) but this is not reflected in the Latin text.  This might provoke a curious observer to look a little more closely into the Latin text.  Is it all a normal Vulgate text?  We shall look into that question in the next post.

           

            The entire manuscript is indexed page-by-page at the CSNTM website.

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

Meet Codex Delta (037, Sangallensis)

Codex Delta - Lk. 22:24-33a
(verse numbers superimposed)

            Hundreds of manuscripts reside in the Abbey Library of Saint Gallen in Switzerland; over 600 of them have been digitized and can be read online.  In today’s post (and the two posts after this one), we shall visit one that is of particular importance:  Codex Sangellensis, also known as 037 or Delta (Δ).  This nearly complete Greek-Latin manuscript of the Gospels (it is missing John 19:17-35) was made in the mid-800s.  Although it is known to New Testament textual critics as the Codex Sangellensis, there are so many other important manuscripts in the library that it might be better to just call it Δ (Delta).  

            (Many other important Biblical manuscripts are in the same collection, including the fifth-century Latin Codex Sangallensis 1395 – possibly the oldest manuscript with an essentially Vulgate text – and Codex Sangallensis 51 – a Latin copy of the Gospels with Celtic affinities and an unusual text of John – and 0130, a Greek palimpsest-fragment with text from Mark 1-2 and Luke 1-2.  In the manuscript-catalog of the collection, Δ is Sangallensis 48.)

            The parchment pages of Codex Δ are not particularly large:  they measure about 22.5 cm tall and 18.5 cm wide.  The letters are uncials, but the script looks like more like Latin lettering than the uncials found in older codices such as Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus.     

CODEX Δ’s EXEMPLAR’S FORMAT:  PER COLA ET COMMATA

            Codex Δ has an unusual format.  It is an interlinear manuscript; a Latin translation appears between the lines of Greek text.  In addition, whereas most manuscript of the Gospels put chapter-titles (kephalaia) in the upper margins, in Δ they generally appear (except in most of Mark) in the main text, interrupting the Gospels-text.  

In addition, as Heinrich C. M. Rettig reported in 1836 in his definitive study of the manuscript, the copyist(s) of Δ copied from an exemplar in which the text was formatted colometrically, that is, per cola et commata – that is, instead of seeking to fill approximately the same amount of space per line (so as to justify the margins), the scribe of Δ’s exemplar wrote so as to limit each line to a particular clause, phrase, or subject. 

In Δ the colometric format has been completely abandoned, but it is echoed:  enlarged letters (spruced up, not very artistically, with touches of red, yellow, or purple pigment) – which may appear at almost any point in a line in Codex Δ – signify where the lines began in Δ’s exemplar.  Colometric text-arrangement was used especially (but not exclusively) by Irish monks, so it is not surprising that it was used in a manuscript at St. Gallen; the city was founded (in A.D. 612) by monks from Ireland.

NEIGHBORING MATERIAL IN THE CODEX

            Codex Δ has some text besides the four Gospels:  it opens with the sole surviving text of the composition Carmen of the Gospel by Pseudo-Hilarius, written in a jagged script with black ink.  Following this, there is Jerome’s Prologue to the Vulgate Gospels – a feature that indicates the primarily Latin-speaking background of the copyists.  It is written in neat Latin characters.  Red ink is used at some points.  Frequent interlinear and marginal glosses (some of which are rather lengthy) express alternate forms of the text, in a script that is easily distinguishable from the main text.  On page 15 we encounter the Latin Argumentum Matthei, that is, a book-summary of Matthew (“Mattheus ex Iudaae sicut in ordine primis ponitur,” etc.), with a list of 28 Latin breves (chapter-summaries) on the next two pages.
            (Also, added in the otherwise empty leftover space below the end of the Gospel of Matthew, there is a list of scenes for Gospel-illustrations, though no such illustrations appear in the codex, nor is there room for them.)  

QUIRE-NUMBERS AND A BASIC INDEX

            Finally on page 19 the Greek text begins with the list of chapters for the Gospel of Matthew.  This is the actual beginning of the manuscript; the preceding portions have been bound together with it, but the quire-numbers at the tops of the pages reveal the original shape of the Gospels-manuscript. These quire-numbers indicate that the manuscript was made mostly in four-sheet quires (or, quaternions):  the quire-numbers show up at  regular intervals, more or less every 16 pages:  #2 on page 33, #3 on page 49, #4 on page 65, #5 on page 81, #6 on page 95, #7 on page 111 (this quire, containing the last part of Matthew, has an extra sheet), #8 on page 131 (where the kephalaia for Mark begin), #9 on page 147, #10 on page 163, #11 on page 179, #12 on page 195 (where the text of Luke begins), #12 on page 211, #14 on page 227, and so forth, all the way up to #24 on page 372.   (One would expect #25 to appear on page 388, but it’s not there.)
            On page 29 there is a good example of memorial space in the text of Matthew 4:23.
            On page 34 there is an interesting correction in the text of Matthew 6:22-23:  after the copyist’s line of sight jumped from the εσται at the end of verse 22 to the εσται in verse 23, he wrote part of verse 23 but then realized his mistake and went back to the beginning of verse 23.  Interestingly, not only the Greek text, but also the Latin, display this mistake, and both have been corrected via the addition of dots (a way of signifying that the words were not to be read).  Something similar occurs in the text of Matthew 7:4-5 on page 36.  Similarly on the last line of page 44, the copyist has left space at the end of Matthew 9:35.

            The text of Matthew concludes on page 129.  Below the large subscription, there is a list of scenes from the Gospels to be depicted in illustrations – although no such illustrations appear in the codex.

           The kephalaia-list for Mark begins on page 131, in two columns, all accompanied by interlinear Latin.  

            The text of Mark begins on page 133.  It should be pointed out that although the chapter-titles in Matthew are typically embedded in the text, in Mark the chapter-titles usually appear at the top and/or bottom of the page; chapter-numbers appear in the margin, and the first letter of the chapter is written slightly larger than other capitals.  However, this was not done with complete consistency; on page 163 a title appears within the text, and after page 176 titles are embedded in the text more often than they appear in the margins.

            On page 159, it appears that Mark 7:16 was not written by the main copyist, but he left significant space empty on the line after the end of 7:15.  An asterisk-like mark appears in the left margin.  Mark 7:16 has been added in the memorial-space in light brown ink.

              On page 167, it looks like the final words of Mark 9:29 were initially not included, but blank space was reserved for them – and they have been written in the blank space (in Greek and Latin) in a lighter ink (and the spelling was adjusted by a later corrector). 

            Memorial-space appears on the last line of page 170, where a blank space appears instead of “Do not defraud” (Μη αποστερήσης) in Mark 10:19; these words, however, have not been added; the blank space here has remained blank. 

            After the subscription of Mark’s Gospel, Luke’s kephalaia-list begins on page 191, in two columns. 

On page 195 the text of Luke begins.  On page 196, diple-marks appear in the margin alongside Luke 1:12-17, as if perhaps the scribe had seen this passage as an expansion of an Ode in a Psalter.  Zachariah’s song is also accompanied by emphatic diple-marks beginning in Luke 1:68.

            Throughout Luke, chapter-titles are embedded in the text; occasionally a title appears at the top of the page but this seems more by chance than design.

            The genealogy in chapter 3 is formatted in three columns.

             On page 263 there is a very thorough erasure in the text of Luke 13:25; probably a phrase was accidentally repeated (from και to και). 

            On page 298 (pictured) we find the remarkable unique reading on the last like:  Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his eyes in Luke 22:32.

            On page 300, Luke 22:43-44 is included in the text; asterisks accompany each line of the passage in the margin.

            The chapter-list for the Gospel of John is on page 316, in two columns. 

The Gospel of John begins on page 318.

On page 333, John 5:4 is included in the text, beginning with a reference to an angel of the Lord.   

The text of John ends on page 395.

CODEX Δ HAS A BROTHER:  CODEX BOERNERIANUS

Codex Δ probably has a very close historical relationship to Codex G (012), also known as Codex Boernerianus, a copy of the Pauline Epistles.  If they were not different parts of the same manuscript, then they were probably produced by copyists who intended for them to be volumes in the same multi-volume New Testament set.  Both manuscripts are the same size, and both are Greek-Latin, and both are written in basically the same script.  Both manuscripts feature notes in the margins that mention Gottschalk of Orbais, a religious figure who lived in the 800s.  
       

Pages 348 and 349 of Codex Delta.

MEMORIAL SPACE FOR JOHN 7:53-8:11

The copyists of Δ and G used memorial-space to signify their awareness of the existence of some passages that they did not find in their exemplars:  in Codex Δ, after the copyist wrote John 7:52, he began the next line with the first phrase from John 8:12 – but then left a prolonged blank space.  John 8:12 resumes (from the beginning of the verse) on the next page.  The blank space in Δ is not large enough to contain all of John 7:53-8:11 but its purpose – to signify that the copyist was aware of the absent verses – is unmistakable.  Similarly in Codex 012, the copyist did not write the contents of Romans 16:25-27 after 14:23 – but he left a gap after 14:23, conveying that he was used to seeing more text there than what was in his exemplar.

  In the next post, we shall explore the types of text that are in Codex Δ:  its text has been described as mainly Byzantine in Matthew, Luke, and John, and mainly Alexandrian in Mark. But there’s more to the story.    

News: New Translation from Crossway and Holman

The NOT -
deluxe leatherbound edition

            As Christians around the world celebrate the resurrection of Christ this weekend, two major publishing-houses have announced the end-result of an ongoing co-operative project:  the New Orthodox Translation.  This new Bible version was designed to combine the best features of Crossway’s English Standard Version and Holman’s Christian Standard Bible, while responding to Dan Wallace’s challenge to break free of a “tradition of timidity” in evangelical translation-work.

            In a press release prepared for this occasion, co-editors Wayne Grudem, Dane Ortlund, and Lane T. Dennis announced, “We are delighted to introduce a version designed for the changing needs of modern readers.  The New Orthodox Translation enhances the Bible-reading experience by presenting readers with a full range of textual options.  Over 20,000 translational and textual footnotes in the NOT New Testament maximize readers’ choices, making Bible-reading a deeply subjective and personal experience, like it was for readers in the first century.”

            Here is the publisher’s description of some of the special features of the New Orthodox Translation:

● Each printed copy comes with a code that allows the reader to download a digital file of the Bible to almost any electronic device.  The file will automatically update every time ten members of the NOT’s 100-member translation-team meet to adjust the text.  

● The 29th edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, whatever it turns out to be, will be adhered to in the updates.  Readings that the Nestle-Aland compilers have introduced without any Greek manuscript support are already in the text.  Some readings with only one Greek manuscript in their favor have also be adopted, following the precedent set by the TNIV and 2011 NIV.  In addition, in passages where the Complex Bias Generated Method suggests that all extant variants are not original, non-extant readings may be introduced.    

● Because the practice of giving preference to the shorter reading has been thoroughly validated in recent years, a bold new approach has been taken regarding contested passages such as Matthew 6:13b, Matthew 17:21, Mark 15:28, Luke 22:43-44, Luke 23:34a, and Acts 8:37.  These passages are excluded completely in the New Orthodox Translation, regardless of the high number of manuscripts that include them and the age of the patristic evidence that supports them.  Verse-numbering has been restructured accordingly.           

            ● Perforated pages at the end of Mark and near the beginning of John chapter 8 in the NOT give readers the option of removing two large passages which most of the NOT’s translators (such as Craig Blomberg and Andreas Köstenberger) consider spurious in light of Clement of Alexandria’s non-use of the passage in his commentary on Mark. 

● The NOT, like the ESV, boldly informs its readers that Amos and Asaph were ancestors of Jesus, confirming Bruce Metzger’s assessment that the original text of Matthew 1:7 and 1:10 contains an error.  In addition, as a display of scholarly transparency and non-timidity, errant readings in some passages are mentioned in footnotes (cf. Matthew 13:35 and Mark 6:22 in the CSB). 

● All footnotes that refer to manuscripts simply say “Some manuscripts,” in order to rectify the confusing excess of precision that has plagued footnotes in other versions.

The announcement of the release of the NOT mentioned that the editors, being vigilant against the mixture of authentic Scripture and uninspired material, are opposed to the inclusion of the books of the Apocrypha in future editions, diverging from the approach of the evangelicals in charge of the ESV and NET.  

The New Orthodox Translation’s joint publishers hope that this new translation will serve Bible-readers for years to come alongside other reliable frequently revised versions.  The NOT may also provide Bible publishers with the means to test how far they can take textual alterations without alienating their customers from the ESV and CSB, both of which will continue to be printed for the foreseeable future.    

Complimentary thumb-indexed review copies of the NOT New Testament are expected to be delivered to various preachers and seminary professors around the country this Easter, especially in Dallas, Texas and Wheaton, Illinois.  Online orders for the NOT can be made now.  Options for bindings include calfskin, bonded leather, baby harp sealskin, seared olivewood, brushed titanium-tungsten alloy, and a wide assortment of colors and patterns in Leatherish™ softcover.  More details can be found at the New Orthodox Translation’s website (click here). 

Review: A Commentary on Textual Additions

            Philip W. Comfort’s A Commentary on Textual Additions to the New Testament answers a question that many users of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece have asked:  where are the editors taking us?  Or to put it another way:  if translators consistently applied the principles that have resulted in the promotion of heavily Alexandrian compilations, what would the text of the New Testament look like?

            It would not include “thousands of extra words.”  If Philip Comfort – a senior editor at Tyndale House Publishers and the Coordinating Editor of the New Testament of the New Living Translation – has ever met a short reading he didn’t like, it is hard to tell from this book.  He rejects not only Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 but also many other words, phrases, and verses which are retained in the text of the Gospels in the Tyndale House edition of the Greek New Testament:

            ● Mt. 3:16 – “to Him”

            ● Mt. 6:15 – “their trespasses”

            ● Mt. 6:33 – “of God”

            ● Mt. 9:14 – “often”

            ● Mt. 12:15 – “crowds”

            ● Mt. 12:47 – entire verse

            ● Mt. 14:30 – “strong”

            ● Mt. 16:2-3 – entire passage

            ● Mt. 18:15 – ‘against you”

            ● Mt. 19:29 – “or wife”

            ● Mt. 21:44 – entire verse

            ● Mt. 27:24 – “righteous”

            ● Mk. 1:1 – “Son of God”

            ● Mk. 5:21 – “in the boat”

            ● Mk. 6:44 – “the loaves”

            ● Mk. 9:29 – “and fasting”

            ● Mk. 10:7 – “and will be joined to his wife”

            ● Mk. 14:68 – “and a rooster crowed”

            ● Lk. 8:25 – “and they obey him”

            ● Lk. 8:43 – “though she had spent all she had on physicians”

            ● Lk. 8:45 – “and those with him”

            ● Lk. 11:33 – “or puts it under a basket”

            ● Lk. 17:24 – “in His day”

            ● Lk. 22:43-44 – entire passage

            ● Lk. 23:34 – “And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’”

            ● Lk. 24:32 – “within us”

            ● Jn. 3:31 – “is above all”

            ● Jn. 7:39 – “Holy”

            ● Jn. 9:38 – entire verse

            ● Jn. 9:39 – “And Jesus said”

            ● Jn. 10:8 – “before Me”

            ● Jn. 18:40 – “again”

           

            In his comments on Acts, the Epistles, and Revelation, Comfort’s tendency to adopt the shortest reading continues, even if the reading he advocates is supported by only a very narrow array of witnesses.  However, Comfort seldom comments on passages in which the Byzantine reading is shorter than the Alexandrian reading (such as in James 4:12 and Jude verse 25).  In the General Epistles, Comfort’s treatment of the text is remarkably sparse, and in all of Revelation’s text, he comments on a mere eight passages.  More pages are devoted to Romans 16:23-27 than to the text of First Peter, Second Peter, and Jude combined.                

            Comfort’s adamant preference for the shorter reading – a preference which one study after another has drawn into question, if not overthrown, in the past 20 years – is chronically expressed in very confident terms, and often with the evidence presented in a one-sided and incomplete way.  Arguments that begin with qualified premises typically end up being expressed as flat assertions. 

            References to scribes’ “horizon of expectation” are everywhere in Comfort’s arguments.  He does not explain, however, why this “horizon of expectation” only affected some passages and not a host of others which, one would think, were also at risk of scribal assimilation and simplification.  For example, Comfort explains why some scribes erroneously added the name “Isaiah” to Matthew 13:35, but he declines to make the same argument at Mark 1:2, where the same scribal motivation – the desire to identify an unnamed prophet – accounts for the reading “in Isaiah the prophet” as opposed to the less specific “in the prophets.”  Many other examples could be listed – passages which have not been harmonized, even though it is just as easy to imagine in these cases a “horizon of expectation” inviting scribes to adjust the text. 

Comfort uses the “horizon of expectation” argument as a sort of panacea; it is the beginning and end of his case for dozens of shorter readings.  When discussing Mark 16:9-20, for example, he proposes that “the other gospels formed a horizon of expectation” – but what exactly is in the other Gospels’ endings that would elicit the expectation of a passage like Mark 16:17-18?  Nothing at all.  In the same discussion, Comfort exhibits his usual hurried carelessness, misinforming his readers by claiming that minuscule 1221 has a note that indicates that “the more ancient MSS” do not include verses 9-20. (In real life, 1221 has no such note, and in the manuscripts that do have an annotation about verses 9-20, such as MS 20, the notes tend to affirm that either the ancient manuscripts include the passage, or that the majority of manuscripts do so – contrary to the impression that writers such as Comfort have absorbed from Metzger’s comments).

            In addition, Comfort has failed to deliver much analysis of shorter Western readings – a serious shortcoming in a book on the subject of shorter readings.  Not a single “Western Non-Interpolation” is covered.  There is no mention of Codex D’s curious non-mention of Jairus’ name in Mark 5:22 – as if Comfort either was oblivious to the likelihood that some scribes deliberately shortened the text, or wanted his readers to avoid considering that possibility.                 

            The amount of confidence that Comfort expresses in his theories throughout A Commentary on Textual Additions to the New Testament is very high – so high as to be exasperating for anyone looking for a balanced and even-handed presentation of the evidence.  From the introductory chapter onward, Comfort maintains that “Any textual variant that appears to fill in a gap in the text is suspect as a scribal emendation” – and this idea is aimed almost exclusively at Byzantine readings. 

A strong bias in favor of shorter Alexandrian readings is maintained throughout the book; sometimes Comfort essentially declares the Alexandrian reading original, rather than offer evidence supporting it.  For example, in his discussion of Matthew 14:30, where a few manuscripts (including Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and 33) do not include ἰσχυρὸν, Comfort declares that it is “more likely” that non-Alexandrian scribes added the word “to intensify the narrative” than that Alexandrian scribes accidentally skipped it when their line of sight drifted from the final letters in ἄνεμον (the preceding word) to the identical final letters in ἰσχυρὸν.  What was the scientific method by which Comfort calculated that the probability that a copyist deliberately made an interpolation that adds only minimal detail to the narrative is higher than the probability that an early scribe briefly lost his line of sight?

            Although A Commentary on Textual Additions to the New Testament is thoroughly skewed, I recommend it as a nearly perfect specimen of the spin and evidence-molding that is commonly used by commentators to promote the Alexandrian Text and the theory that the original Greek text of a multitude of New Testament passages has survived in only a tiny handful of manuscripts.

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

The Passion Translation - Some Problems

What’s unique about The Passion Translation – a recent translation of the New Testament, Psalms, Proverbs, and the Song of Songs by Brian Simmons?  Three things, or, three kinds of things:  its origins, its doctrinal bias, and its highly unusual base-text.

Brian Simmons

            Those who have viewed a video of Brian Simmons’ appearance on the television program That’s Supernatural! will already be aware of Brian Simmons’ description of his call to translate the Bible.  He claimed the following:

            ● Jesus told him to translate the Bible,
            ● Jesus told him he would help Brian translate the Bible,
            ● Jesus promised to provide secrets about the Hebrew language, and
            ● Brian received downloads when Jesus breathed on him.

This sort of testimony is taken seriously by many members of the New Apostolic Reformation, a loose network of congregations characterized by charismatic doctrine.  (If you can recollect the “Toronto Blessing” and the “Brownsville Revival,” you may get some idea of the NAR’s theological roots.)  The NAR’s leaders affirm that the church today should be led, not by elders and deacons, but by people holding the offices of apostle and prophet (whether male or female).   The NAR also teaches that prophets receive new revelation from God which supplements the written Word of God.  They also put an emphasis on what they consider to be miraculous gifts, such as the reception of knowledge that is naturally unattainable, supernatural healings (including raising the dead – Simmons himself claims to been instrumental in the resurrection of a dead baby), speaking in tongues, and other phenomena (one example described by Simmons is the time he walked into a grocery store and everyone he met collapsed onto the floor). 

Charismatic doctrines are advocated throughout The Passion Translation, because it is not just a translation; it is more like a Charismatic Study Bible with its own running commentary in the form of Simmons’ abundant notes and book-introductions (which in some cases are longer than the books they accompany).  To an extent, TPT resembles some medieval manuscripts in which the Scripture-text is framed on every page by a lot of commentary – with the exception that whereas the medieval commentary-material tended to restate earlier patristic comments, The Passion Translation’s notes – often more lengthy than the books they accompany – consistently promote the teachings of the New Apostolic Reformation.

            One does not get far into the New Testament before it becomes apparent what one is facing in Simmons’ work.  In a note attached to Matthew 1:17, Simmons explains why, in Matthew’s genealogy, there are 41, rather than 42, generations.  Is Matthew simply counting the last unit of generations inclusively?  No; Simmons does not offer such mundane possibilities; the missing generation, he explains, is the church:  “Jesus gave birth to the forty-second generation when he died on the cross, for out of his side blood and water flowed.  Blood and water come forth at birth.  The first Adam “birthed” his wife out of his side, and so Jesus gave birth to his bride from his wounded side.” 

            This sort of thing is pervasive in the notes of The Passion Translation.  Some interpretations that Simmons offers are merely his own allegorical notions – for example, he comments on Mary’s words in John 2:2-3, “Interpreting Mary’s words for today we could say, “Religion has failed, it has run out of wine.””  Others are adamant endorsements of the teachings of the New Apostolic Reformation network. 

Perfectly ordinary and legitimate comments appear too – but some of Simmons’ notes only make sense if the reader really, really, wants them to make sense; for instance, in a note to John 2:20, where the Jewish leaders mention that it had taken 46 years to build the temple, Simmons comments, “Our bodies (temples) have forty-six chromosomes in every cell.” 

Another example:  Simmons’ note for Mark 1:9 – a straightforward statement that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee to be baptized by John in the Jordan river – is as follows:  “It is possible to translate the Aramaic as “Then one day Jesus came from victorious revelation” to be baptized by John.  The word Nazareth can mean “victorious one,” and the word Galilee can be translated “the place of revelation.”  Simmons’ ability to squeeze metaphorical meanings out of plain statements in this way knows no bounds.  Many of the notes are like this, offering spiritual lessons that, good or bad, were never in the minds of the New Testament authors. 

            If the doctrinal bias of the notes were the only problem with Simmons’ work, TPT would be no worse than a Charismatic Study Bible or commentary-set.  But in many passages, Simmons’ theological views have colored the translation.  In sync with the NAR’s custom of giving leadership roles to women (including the office of apostle), Simmons has taken inexcusable liberties with some passages that pertain to the role of women and wives:

● First Corinthians 14:34 has been mangled:

            “The woman should be respectfully silent during the evaluation of prophecy in the meetings.  They are not allowed to interrupt, but are to be in a support role, as in fact the law teaches.”  The italicized phrase “during the evaluation of prophecy in the meetings” is just something Simmons threw in there.  And a lengthy note attached to 14:35 begins as follows:  “One interpretation of this passage is that Paul is quoting from a letter written by the Corinthians to him.  They were the ones saying a woman should remain silent and Paul is responding to their questions.  In other words, they were imposing a rule in the church that Paul refutes in v. 36.”

            ● Ephesians 5:22 is also mangled.  Instead of saying, “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord,” Simmons translates the end of verse 21 as “be supportive of each other in love,” and then proceeds to rewrite verse 22 to say, “For wives, this means being devoted to your husbands like you are tenderly devoted to our Lord.”  This is quite politically correct, but it does not correspond to what Paul wrote.  

            ● First Timothy 2:11-12 is hopelessly adulterated in Simmons’ work:  “Let the women who are new converts be willing to learn with all submission to their leaders and not speak out of turn.  I don’t advocate that the newly converted women be the teachers in the church, assuming authority over the men, but to live in peace.”  Simmons attempts to excuse his additions by claiming, in prolonged notes, that he is merely making clear what was implicit in the early church, but this is pure subterfuge; Paul explains the basis for his position in the following verses.  Simmons has blended his commentary into the text of Scripture. 

The NAR believes that the office of apostle should be occupied in the present time.  Accordingly, in Matthew 10:2, Simmons has added the word “first” – “Now, these are the names of the first twelve apostles” – although there is nothing to support the word “first” in the Greek text.    

            So have no illusions about the nature of The Passion Translation:  it is not just a loose translation.  Its notes, which are many – the TPT New Testament is more annotation than translation – constitute a commentary designed to promote the doctrines of the NAR, and its text has been tweaked to decrease the extent to which a formal rendering of the text would challenge NAR beliefs. 

Brian Simmons may believe with full sincerity that the NAR’s doctrines are correct – but that does not excuse the many points in The Passion Translation where he has tampered with the text in such a way as to make it say things that the original text does not really say.

So far I have only described The Passion Translation’s origins and its doctrinal bias.  The remaining distinctive feature of Simmons’ work – its unusual New Testament base-text – is in some ways more concerning.   

Simmons draws his competence into question when he makes statements such as this one (from the book-introduction to Matthew):  “In AD 170 Eusebius quoted Irenaeus as saying, “Matthew published his gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul in Rome were preaching and founding the church” (Eusebius, Historia Eccesiastica III. 24:5-6 and V. 8, 2.).”  The problem is that Eusebius wrote in the early 300s; Irenaeus, not Eusebius, is the writer who wrote in the 170s.  

            Nor does it help Simmons’ credibility when one reads, in a note on John 3:13, his claim that “Most Greek manuscripts read “the Son of Man who came from heaven.””  This is completely false; most Greek manuscripts support the reading, “the Son of Man who is in heaven.”  Similarly Simmons claims, in a note on Mark 9:29, that “Many reliable Greek texts leave out “fasting,”” whereas in reallife only a few Greek manuscripts omit this word.

Some folks might conclude that such simple mistakes imply that Jesus was not helping Simmons write his notes, and that Simmons’ claim about receiving downloads from heaven is either a delusion or chicanery.  But in the NAR, just as prophets who make false predictions are still considered prophets, translators and commentators get to make elementary chronological errors and still be taken seriously.     

            Now let’s take a closer look at the New Testament base-text that Simmons used for TPT. 

            Simmons’ notes refer repeatedly to “Hebrew Matthew,” and this text is cited in his notes over a hundred times.  “Hebrew Matthew,” however, is nothing more than Shem-Tob (as Simmons himself affirms in his note on Matthew 2:6) – a late medieval text assembled by Judaic opponents of Christianity in the 1300s, mainly reworking the meaning of the Vulgate text of that time, with unusual readings shared by the earlier Liège Harmony (from the late 1200s), a harmonization of the four Gospels written in the Middle Dutch dialect, in which some Diatessaronic readings are embedded. 

            What Simmons treats as if it is the original Hebrew text of Matthew (and greater in authority than all Greek manuscripts) is actually a medieval text used by opponents of the gospel, and its unique features, other than echoes of the Diatessaron and a few stray Old Latin readings, are not ancient at all.  We are looking here at a text that post-dates Charlemagne.  Unfortunately, when Simmons made TPT, he was apparently convinced that Shem-Tob is a very ancient text.  That false assumption is in play throughout his work.

            Another false assumption seems to be in play as well:  the idea that the Peshitta – a Syriac translation, probably made in the late 300s – is from the first century rather than the fourth century.   The phrase “As translated from the Aramaic” appears in Simmons’ notes over 400 times.  Simmons has somehow convinced himself that the Peshitta is better than the Greek text in hundreds of passages.  A close study of Simmons’ notes indicates that he believes that the Gospel of Matthew was initially written in Aramaic (the sentence in which Simmons put Eusebius in the year 170 is part of Simmons’ defense of this belief).  This is the only plausible explanation for the following renderings in Simmons’ translation of Matthew:

            ● Matthew 5:4a – “What delight comes to you when you wait upon the Lord!” –   “As translated from the Hebrew Matthew,” Simmons explains in a note, defending his decision to set aside the Greek text, which means, “Blessed are those who mourn.”       

            ● Matthew 8:6, 8:9, 8:13 – “son” – This is, in the Aramaic sources Simmons has relied upon, an attempted harmonization to the similar account in John 4:47-53.  The Greek text, as Simmons admits in his notes, means “servant.”

            ● Matthew 12:12 – “it’s always proper to do miracles” – The Greek text, as Simmons admits in his notes, only refers to doing good; there is no reference to miracles.    

            ● Matthew 19:16a – “Then a teenager approached Jesus and bowed before him” – this harmonization based on Mark 10:17 is not based on Greek manuscripts, but was “translated from the Hebrew Matthew,” i.e., the medieval Shem-Tob text.

            ● Matthew 19:16b – “and bowed before him, saying, Wonderful teacher” – Simmons, rather than translate the Greek text, translated the word tawa “from the Aramaic.”

            ● Matthew 19:24 (and Mark 10:25 and Luke 18:25) – “In fact, it’s easier to stuff a heavy rope through the eye of a needle than it is for the wealthy to enter into God’s kingdom realm!”  Simmons explains why he had led away the camel:  “This could be an instance of the Aramaic text being misread by the Greek translators as “camel” instead of “rope.”” 

            ● Matthew 20:29 – “As Jesus approached Jericho” – The Greek text means just the opposite, “As Jesus left Jericho.”  Simmons’ note displays his openness to the idea that the Shem-Tob text existed in the first century.

            ● Matthew 21:37 – “Perhaps with my own son standing before them they will be ashamed of what they’ve done.” – This paraphrase has been allowed to usurp the Greek text, which simply means, “They will respect my son.”

            ● Matthew 27:9 – “This fulfilled the prophecy of Zechariah” – Simmons flatly rejects the Greek text which refers to the prophet Jeremiah, stating, “The Greek manuscripts incorrectly identify the prophecy as from Jeremiah.”  Rather than perceive a loose thematic parallel to passages in Jeremiah, Simmons has set aside the Greek text and translated from the medieval Shem-Tob.

            ● Matthew 27:43b – “let’s see if it’s true, and see if God really wants to rescue his ‘favorite son’!” – This is a drastic departure from the Greek text, in which Jesus’ detractors finish the verse by saying, “for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”

                       

This sort of thing is not limited to the text of Matthew.  Simmons departs from the Greek text  on many occasions, and in almost every book of the New Testament – even in Second Peter, Third John, Jude, and Revelation – books which were not even initially part of the Peshitta. 

For example, in Second Peter 1:4, Simmons has set aside the “us” found in the Greek text (ἡμῖν) and replaced it with “you.”  In Jude verse 9, Simmons rendered Michael the archangel’s words as “”The Lord Yahweh rebuke you,” although the Greek text (Κύριος) only justifies the word “Lord.”

            And in the book of Revelation, Simmons has replaced Jesus’ familiar words, “I am the Alpha and the Omega” with “I am the Aleph and the Tav” in 1:8, and again in 21:6, and again in 22:13.  Other departures from the Greek text occur in Revelation 6:9, 7:17, 11:7 (Simmons:  “the beast that comes up from the sea” – Greek text:  “the beast that comes up from the bottomless pit” (ἀβύσσου)), 11:15, 15:3, and 21:2.                           

            And there is a yet more disturbing aspect to Simmons’ work.  Contrary to the impression given at The Passion Translation’s website, which explicitly states that Simmons used the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland compilation, and which also explicitly states that The Passion Translation follows the practice of excluding passages such as Matthew 17:21, 18:11, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 15:28, and Acts 8:37, all of those verses are in the text of the copy of The Passion Translation that I received.  It is quite obvious that Simmons’ New Testament base-text diverges from the Nestle-Aland compilation at many points. 

It is equally obvious that Simmons did not consistently follow the Byzantine Text, for he turns Amos into an ancestor of Christ in Matthew 1:10, and does not describe Jesus as Mary’s firstborn son in Matthew 1:25, and in Mark 1:2 he attributes a prophecy to Isaiah (although in his annotation on Mark 1:2, Simmons states, “This line is a quotation from Ex. 23:20 and Mal. 3:1”).  What was the determining factor in his textual decisions? 

It appears that where the Nestle-Aland compilation and the Byzantine Text disagree, the Aramaic text often cast a deciding vote – and, as we have seen, in some cases, it was allowed to outweigh them both.  But what Aramaic, or Syriac, text was Simmons using?  For just as there are different compilations of the Greek text, there are different compilations of the Peshitta, and there are also the Harklean Syriac, the Philoxenian Syriac, and the Palestinian Aramaic to consider. 

            A modicum of online research into this question led me to the website of Andrew Chapman, who showed concisely but clearly that Simmons has utilized – among other resources – the work of Victor N. Alexander. 

 

Victor Alexander's
English translation of
the Aramaic text

           I will spare you, reader, the details of Andrew Chapman’s investigations, and cut to the chase.  (You can read about some of them at http://theriveroflife.com/2017/03/23/brian-simmons-claims-to-be-translating-from-the-aramaic-the-ten-cases-in-summary/ .)  It seems apparent that Simmons has been relying on English translations of the Peshitta, rather than directly consulting Aramaic sources.  This seems irrefutable when one looks at the anomalies in the translation made by Victor Alexander, and sees the same, or very similar, anomalies in Simmons’ work.  Here are a few:

            ● Galatians 1:4a – Simmons:  “He’s the Anointed Messiah who offered himself as the sacrifice for our sins!”  Alexander:  “He who sacrificed himself on behalf of our sins.”  (The Greek text simply says that he gave himself for our sins; the explicit reference to sacrifice-offering implies a link between Alexander’s translation and Simmons.)

            ● Galatians 2:10 – Simmons (in Letters from Heaven, as cited by Chapman):  “that I would be devoted to the poor and needy”  Alexander:  “That we may devote ourselves to the needy alone.”  (The Greek text refers to remembering the poor; the shared reference to being devoted to the poor implies a link between Alexander’s work and Simmons.  This passage has been altered and presently refers to remembering the poor and needy.) 

            ● Galatians 3:3b – Simmons (in Letters from Heaven, as cited by Chapman):  “Why then would you so foolishly turn from living in the Spirit to becoming slaves again to your flesh?”  Alexander:   “Did you become so foolish that while before, the Spirit abided in you, you have now become the slaves of the flesh?”  (The Greek text refers to finishing in the flesh; the shared reference to becoming slaves implies a link between Alexander’s work and Simmons.  This passage has been altered in TPT and presently loosely conforms to the Greek text.

            ● Galatians 3:19 – Simmons (in Letters from Heaven, as cited by Chapman):   “It remained in force until the Joyous Expectation was born to fulfill the promises given to Abraham.”  Simmons  included a note to explain the unusual rendering:  “The Joyous Expectation is translated literally from the Aramaic.”  Consulting Alexander’s translation, Chapman saw no such rendering, but in a footnote there is a reference to the phrase, “to whom were directed the joyous expectations.”  (Again, TPT has been improved in this passage.  What does this imply about the validity of that deleted note?)

(Dependence upon Victor Alexander’s work also explains Simmons’ mangling of Ephesians 5:22; inasmuch as Alexander put “be devoted to your husbands” in Ephesians 5:22.) 

            The thing to see here is Chapman’s data implies that Simmons’ “downloads” have required revision and correction due in part to his dependence, not upon supernatural revelation, but upon a flawed English translation of the Syriac New Testament.  On one hand, revision is a natural step in translation-work; on the other hand, these particular corrected renderings reveal that there has obviously been quite a heavy dependence upon English resources, which is a different impression than one is likely to get from The Passion Translation’s website and promotional materials.     

            Simmons’ use of Victor Alexander’s translation – particularly in light of the many passages in TPT where the Aramaic text usurps the Greek text of the New Testament – is extremely problematic.  This should be evident to anyone who is aware of who Victor N. Alexander is.  In addition to having translated parts of the Peshitta into English, Victor Alexander directed the film The Red Queen, which might motivate anyone to think twice about relying on his work for any sacred purpose. 

            In addition, Victor Alexander has expressed some anomalous views: 
            ● “The original language of the Scriptures was not Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek.”

            ● “My translation has produced the best version of the New Testament.”

            ● “All the articles on the Internet regarding the Original Scriptures are inaccurate.”

            ● “All the Western theological seminaries are a joke.”

            ● In his translation, “Thousands of passages have been clarified.”

            ● In his translation, “Major concepts have been restored for the first time.”
            ● And:  “It’s finally possible to interpret the Scriptures correctly and reconcile the tenets of the five major religions: Western Christianity, Modern Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. It's now possible to return to one conception of what the Scriptures are all about.”

Toxic syncretism could hardly make itself more obvious. 

Surely Simmons rejects Alexander’s opinions, and undoubtedly Simmons would be shocked if he ever were to watch even a snippet of Alexander’s surreal films – and yet it seems undeniable that he has relied on Alexander’s translation of the Peshitta while preparing The Passion Translation.  A complete repudiation of everything based on Alexander’s work, it seems to me, is necessary before the English Scripture-text in TPT can be considered in any way a legitimate translation.  All of the passages in which the Shem-Tob text and the Peshitta have usurped the Greek text need to be repaired.

I do not mean that without the bits that have no Greek support, the TPT New Testament would be a good translation; there are plenty of passages I have not mentioned in which Simmons has unnecessarily resorted to paraphrase.  But purging TPT of its deviations from the Greek text of the New Testament would be a good and necessary first step toward making its Scripture-text a legitimate translation. 

Here are some other reviews and critiques of The Passion Translation:

Ruslan KD - THIS Popular Bible Translation is DECEIVING Christian Celebrities (Added in 2024)

What's Wrong With The Passion "Translation" (by Andrew Wilson)

Endorsements for The Passion Translation

George Athas Reviews TPT Song of Songs

The Passion "Translation" of Romans:  Problems and Questions (by Lionel Windsor)

The Passion Translation:  the Bible of Bethel and NAR (by Sara Boyd)

A New Apostolic Reformation Bible:  The Passion Translation (from 2013, at The Berean Call)

Readers are encouraged to explore the embedded links in this post to find additional resources.

Quotations attributed in this review to The Passion Translation are from The Passion Translation®.  Copyright © 2017, 2018 by BroadStreet Publishing ® Group, LLC.  Used by permission.  All rights reserved.