THE TRADITIONAL
NEW TESTAMENT TEXT
The King
James Version Defended, by Edward F. Hills
CHAPTER SEVEN
The Bible is the
Book of the Covenant. Its origin is eternal, its inspiration infallible, its
preservation providential and sure. In it God reveals Himself as the almighty
Creator God, the faithful Covenant God, and the triune Saviour God. In it Christ
reveals Himself to sinners as Prophet, Priest, and King. Hence the Bible is
unique! divine! No other book is like the Bible. And because this is so, we must
reject every type of naturalistic Bible study, every tendency to deal with the
Bible as other ancient books are dealt with. Above all we must be alert to the
dangers of naturalistic New Testament textual criticism. For this is
naturalistic Bible study of a most insidious sort. It begins by persuading an
unsuspecting Christian to ignore God's providential preservation of the
Scriptures and then leads him on to ignore other divine aspects of the Bible
until almost before he knows it he finds himself bereft of faith and almost
completely modernistic in outlook.
Therefore, as Bible-believing Christians, we reject all forms of naturalistic
New Testament textual criticism and adopt and advocate in their place a
consistently Christian method which derives all its principles from the Bible
itself and none from the textual criticism of other ancient books. And because
this consistently Christian approach leads us to accept the Traditional New
Testament Text, found in the vast majority of the manuscripts, as a trustworthy
reproduction of the divinely inspired Originals, we shall now endeavor to defend
this Traditional Text against the attacks of naturalistic critics and especially
of Westcott and Hort. Such a defense may possibly contribute to the beginning of
a new Reformation.
1. The Traditional Text Not The Invention Of Editors
Although naturalistic textual critics differ from one another in regard to many
matters, they all agree in regarding the Traditional Text, found in the vast
majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts, as a late invention. They
believe that there were editors who deliberately created the Traditional Text by
selecting readings (words, phrases, and sentences) from the various texts
already in existence and then recombining these readings in such a way as to
form an altogether new text. This naturalistic view, however, is contrary to the
evidence, as we shall endeavor to show in the following paragraphs.
(a) The Evidence of Codex W
In demonstrating the antiquity of the Traditional Text it is well to begin with
the evidence of Codex W, the Freer Manuscript of the Gospels, named after C. L.
Freer of Detroit, who purchased it in 1906 from an Arab dealer at Gizeh, near
Cairo. It is now housed in the Freer Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. In 1912
it was published under the editorship of H. A. Sanders. (1) It contains the Four
Gospels in the Western order, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. In John and the first
third of Luke the text is Alexandrian in character. In Mark the text is of the
Western type in the first five chapters and of a mixed "Caesarean" type in the
remaining chapters. The especial value of W, however, lies in Matthew and the
last two thirds of Luke. Here the text is Traditional (Byzantine) of a
remarkably pure type. According to Sanders, in Matthew the text of W is of the
Kappa 1 type, which van Soden (1906) regarded as the oldest and best form of the
Traditional (Byzantine) Text. (2)
The discovery of W tends to disprove the thesis of Westcott and Hort that the
Traditional Text is a fabricated text which was put together in the 4th century
by a group of scholars residing at Antioch. For Codex W is a very ancient
manuscript. B. P. Grenfell regarded it as "probably fourth century." (3) Other
scholars have dated it in the 5th century. Hence W is one of the oldest complete
manuscripts of the Gospels in existence, possibly of the same age as Aleph.
Moreover, W seems to have been written in Egypt, since during the first
centuries of its existence it seems to have been the property of the Monastery
of the Vinedresser, which was located near the third pyramid. (4) If the
Traditional Text had been invented at Antioch in the 4th century, how would it
have found its way into Egypt and thence into Codex W so soon thereafter? Why
would the scribe of W, writing in the 4th or early 5th century, have adopted
this newly fabricated text in Matthew and Luke in preference to other texts
which (according to Hort's hypothesis) were older and more familiar to him? Thus
the presence of the Traditional Text in W indicates that this text is a very
ancient text and that it was known in Egypt before the 4th century.
(b) The Evidence of Codex A
Another witness to the early existence of the Traditional Text is Codex A (Codex
Alexandrinus). This venerable manuscript which dates from the 5th century, has
played a very important role in the history of New Testament textual criticism.
It was given to the King of England in 1627 by Cyril Lucar, patriarch of
Constantinople, and for many years was regarded as the oldest extant New
Testament manuscript. In Acts and the Epistles Codex A agrees most closely with
the Alexandrian text of the B and Aleph type, but in the Gospels it agrees
generally with the Traditional Text. Thus in the Gospels Codex A testifies to
the antiquity of the Traditional Text. According to Gregory (1907) and Kenyon
(1937), Codex A was probably written in Egypt. If this is so, then A is also
another witness to the early presence of the Traditional Text upon the Egyptian
scene.
(c) The Evidence of the Papyri
When the Chester Beatty Papyri were published (1933-37), it was found that these
early 3rd century fragments agree surprisingly often with the Traditional
(Byzantine) Text against all other types of text. "A number of Byzantine
readings," Zuntz (1953) observes, "most of them genuine, which previously were
discarded as 'late', are anticipated by Pap. 46." And to this observation he
adds the following significant note, "The same is true of the sister-manuscript
Pap. 45; see, for example, Matt. 26:7 and Acts. 17:13." (5) And the same is true
also of the Bodmer Papyri (published 1956-62). Birdsall (1960) acknowledges that
"the Bodmer Papyrus of John (Papyrus 66) has not a few such Byzantine readings."
(6) And Metzger (1962) lists 23 instances of the agreements of Papyri 45, 46,
and 66 with the Traditional (Byzantine) Text against all other text-types. (7)
And at least a dozen more such agreements occur in Papyrus 75.
(d) Traditional (Byzantine) Readings in Origen
One of the arguments advanced by Westcott and Hort and other naturalistic
critics against the early existence and thus against the genuineness of the
Traditional (Byzantine) Text is the alleged fact that "distinctively"
Traditional readings are never found in the New Testament quotations of Origen
and other 2nd and 3rd-century Church Fathers. In other words, it is alleged that
these early Fathers never agree with the Traditional Text in places in which it
stands alone in opposition to both the Western and Alexandrian texts. For
example, in Matt. 27:34 the Traditional Text tells us that before the soldiers
crucified Jesus they gave Him vinegar mingled with gall, thus fulfilling the
prophecy of Psalm 69:21. Hort thought this to be a late reading suggested by the
Psalm. The true reading, he contended, is that found in Aleph B D etc., wine
mingled with gall. Burgon (1896), however, refuted Hort's argument by pointing
out that the Traditional reading vinegar was known not only to Origen but also
to the pagan philosopher Celsus (c. 180), who used the passage to ridicule
Jesus. (8) In his treatise Against Celsus Origen takes note of this blasphemy
and reproves it, but he never suggests that Celsus has adopted a false reading.
"Those that resist the word of truth," Origen declares, "do ever offer to Christ
the Son of God the gall of their own wickedness, and the vinegar of their evil
inclinations; but though He tastes of it, yet He will not drink it." (9)
Hence, contrary to the assertions of the naturalistic critics, the distinctive
readings of the Traditional (Byzantine) Text were known to Origen, who sometimes
adopted them, though perhaps not usually. Anyone can verify this by scanning the
apparatus of Tischendorf. For instance, in the first 14 chapters of the Gospel
of John (that is, in the area covered by Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75) out of 62
instances in which the Traditional Text stands alone Origen agrees with the
Traditional Text 20 times and disagrees with it 32 times. These results make the
position of the critics that Origen knew nothing of the Traditional Text
difficult indeed to maintain.
Naturalistic critics, it is true, have made a determined effort to explain away
the "distinctively" Traditional readings which appear in the New Testament
quotations of Origen (and other early Fathers). It is argued that these
Traditional readings are not really Origen's but represent alterations made by
scribes who copied Origen's works. These scribes, it is maintained, revised the
original quotations of Origen and made them conform to the Traditional Text. The
evidence of the Bodmer Papyri, however, indicates that this is not an adequate
explanation of the facts. Certainly it seems a very unsatisfactory way to
account for the phenomena which appear in the first 14 chapters of John. In
these chapters 7 out of 20 "distinctively" Traditional readings which occur in
Origen occur also in Papyrus 66 and/or in Papyrus 75. These 7 readings at least
must have been Origen's own readings, not those of the scribes who copied
Origen's works, and what is true of these 7 readings is probably true of the
other 13, or at least of most of them. Thus it can hardly be denied that the
Traditional Text was known to Origen and that it influenced the wording of his
New Testament quotations.
(e) The Evidence of the Peshitta Syriac Version
The Peshitta Syriac version, which is the historic Bible of the whole Syrian
Church, agrees closely with the Traditional Text found in the vast majority of
the Greek New Testament manuscripts. Until about one hundred years ago it was
almost universally believed that the Peshitta originated in the 2nd century and
hence was one of the oldest New Testament versions. Hence because of its
agreement with the Traditional Text the Peshitta was regarded as one of the most
important witnesses to the antiquity of the Traditional Text. In more recent
times, however, naturalistic critics have tried to nullify this testimony of the
Peshitta by denying that it is an ancient version. Burkitt (1904), for example,
insisted that the Peshitta did not exist before the 5th century but "was
prepared by Rabbula, bishop of Edessa (the capital city of Syria) from 411-435
A.D., and published by his authority." (10)
Burkitts's theory was once generally accepted, but now scholars are realizing
that the Peshitta must have been in existence before Rabbula's episcopate,
because it was the received text of both the two sects into which the Syrian
Church became divided. Since this division took place in Rabbula's time and
since Rabbula was the leader of one of these sects, it is impossible to suppose
that the Peshitta was his handiwork, for if it had been produced under his
auspices, his opponents would never have adopted it as their received New
Testament text. Indeed A. Voobus, in a series of special studies (1947-54), (11)
has argued not only that Rabbula was not the author of the Peshitta but even
that he did not use it, at least not in its present form.
If this is true and if Burkitt's contention is also true, namely, that the Syrian ecclesiastical
leaders who lived before Rabbula also did not use the Peshitta, then why was it
that the Peshitta was received by all the mutually opposing groups in the Syrian
Church as their common, authoritative Bible? It must have been that the Peshitta
was a very ancient version and that because it was so old the common people
within the Syrian Church continued to be loyal to it regardless of the factions
into which they came to be divided and the preferences of their leaders. It made
little difference to them whether these leaders quoted the Peshitta or not. They
persevered in their usage of it, and because of their steadfast devotion this
old translation retained its place as the received text of the Syriac-speaking
churches.
(f) Evidence of the Sinaitic Syriac Manuscript
The Sinaitic Syriac manuscript was discovered by two sisters, Mrs. Lewis and
Mrs. Gibson, in the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai, hence the name.
It contains a type of text which is very old, although not so old as the text of
the Peshitta. Critics assign an early 3rd-century date to the text of the
Sinaitic Syriac manuscript. If they are correct in this, then this manuscript is
remarkable for the unexpected support which it gives to the Traditional Text.
For Burkitt (1904) found that "not infrequently" this manuscript agreed with the
Traditional Text against the Western and Alexandrian texts. (12) One of these
Traditional readings thus supported by the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript is found
in the angelic song of Luke 2:14. Here the Traditional Text and the Sinaitic
Syriac read, good will among (toward) men, while the Western and Alexandrian
texts read, among men of good will.
(g) The Evidence of the Gothic Version
The Gothic version also indicates that the Traditional Text is not a late text.
This New Testament translation was made from the Greek into Gothic shortly after
350 A.D. by Ulfilas, missionary bishop to the Goths. "The type of text
represented in it," Kenyon (1912) tells us, "is for the most part that which is
found in the majority of Greek manuscripts." (13) The fact, therefore, that
Ulfilas in A.D. 350 produced a Gothic version based on the Traditional Text
proves that this text must have been in existence before that date. In other
words, there must have been many manuscripts of the Traditional type on hand in
the days of Ulfilas, manuscripts which since that time have perished.
(h) The "Conflate Readings"
Westcott and Hort found proof for their position that the Traditional Text was a
"work of attempted criticism performed deliberately by editors and not merely by
scribes" in eight passages in the Gospels in which the Western text contains one
half of the reading found in the Traditional Text and the Alexandrian text the
other half (14) These passages are Mark 6:33; 8:26; 9:38; 9:49; Luke 9:10;
11:54, 12:18, 24:53. Since Hort discusses the first of these passages at great
length, it may serve very well as a sample specimen.
Mark 6:33 And the people saw them departing, and many knew Him, and ran together
there on foot out of all the cities,
(Then follow three variant readings.)
(1) and came before them and came together to Him. Traditional Reading.
(2) and came together there. Western Reading.
(3) and came before them. Alexandrian Reading.
Hort argued that here the Traditional reading was deliberately created by
editors who produced this effect by adding the other two readings together. Hort
called the Traditional reading a "conflate reading," that is to say, a mixed
reading which was formed by combining the Western reading with the Alexandrian
reading. And Hort said the same thing in regard to his seven other specimen
passages. In each case he maintained that the Traditional reading had been made
by linking the Western reading with the Alexandrian. And this, he claimed,
indicated that the Traditional Text was the deliberate creation of an editor or
a group of editors.
Dean Burgon (1882) immediately registered one telling criticism of this
hypothesis of conflation in the Traditional Text. Why, he asked, if conflation
was one of the regular practices of the makers of the Traditional Text, could
Westcott and Hort find only eight instances of this phenomenon? "Their theory,"
Burgon exclaimed, "has at last forced them to make an appeal to Scripture and to
produce some actual specimens of their meaning. After ransacking the Gospels for
30 years, they have at last fastened upon eight.'' (15)
Westcott and Hort disdained to return any answer to Burgon's objection, but it
remains a valid one. If the Traditional Text was created by 4th-century
Antiochian editors, and if one of their habitual practices had been to conflate
(combine) Western and Alexandrian readings, then surely more examples of such
conflation ought to be discoverable in the Gospels than just Hort's eight. But
only a few more have since been found to add to Hort's small deposit. Kenyon
(1912) candidly admitted that he didn't think that there were very many more
(16) And this is all the more remarkable because not only the Greek manuscripts
but also the versions have been carefully canvassed by experts, such as Burkitt
and Souter and Lake, for readings which would reveal conflation in the
Traditional Text.
Moreover, even the eight alleged examples of conflation which Westcott and Hort
did bring forward are not at all convincing. At least they did not approve
themselves as such in the eyes of Bousset (1894). This radical German scholar
united with the conservatives in rejecting the conclusions of these two critics.
In only one of their eight instances did he agree with them. In four of the
other instances he regarded the Traditional reading as the original reading, and
in the three others he regarded the decision as doubtful. "Westcott and Hort's
chief proof," he observed, "has almost been turned into its opposite." (17)
In these eight passages, therefore, it is just as easy to believe that the
Traditional reading is the original and that the other texts have omitted parts
of it as to suppose that the Traditional reading represents a later combination
of the other two readings.
(i) Alleged Harmonizations in the Traditional Text
According to the naturalistic critics, the Traditional Text is characterized by
harmonizations, especially in the Gospel of Mark. In other words, the critics
accuse the Traditional Text of being altered in Mark and made to agree with
Matthew. Actually, however, the reverse is the case. The boldest harmonizations
occur not in the Traditional Text but in the Western and Alexandrian texts and
not in Mark but in Matthew. For example, after Matt. 27:49 the following reading
is found in Aleph B C L and a few other Alexandrian manuscripts: And another,
taking a spear, pierced His side, and there flowed out water and blood. Because
this reading occurs in B, Westcott and Hort were unwilling to reject it
completely, (18) but less prejudiced critics admit that it is a harmonization
taken from John 19:34.
A similar harmonization occurs in Matt. 24:36. Here Aleph B D Theta and a few
other manuscripts read: But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no not the
angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only. The Traditional text,
however, omits, neither the Son. Naturalistic critics say that this omission was
made by orthodox scribes who were loath to believe that Christ could be ignorant
of anything. But if this were so, why didn't these scribes omit this same
reading in Mark 13:32? Why would they omit this reading in Matthew and leave it
stand in Mark? Obviously, then, this is not a case of omission on the part of
the Traditional Text but of harmonization on the part of the Western and
Alexandrian texts, represented by Aleph B D Theta etc.
There is no evidence, therefore, to prove that the Traditional Text is
especially addicted to harmonization.
(j) Why the Traditional Text Could Not Have Been Created by Editors
Thus discoveries since the days of Westcott and Hort have continued steadily to
render less and less reasonable their hypothesis that the Traditional Text was
created by editors. For if it originated thus, then it must consist of readings
taken not only from the Western and Alexandrian texts but also many others,
including the "Caesarean," the Sinaitic Syriac, Papyrus 45, Papyrus 46, Papyrus
66, and even Papyrus 75. In short, if the Traditional Text was created by
editors, then we must agree with Hutton (1911) that it is a magpie's nest. The
Traditional Text, he asserted, "is in the true sense of the word eclectic,
drawing 'Various readings' of various value from various sources.
Often times it
picked up a diamond, and sometimes a bit of broken glass, sometimes it gives us
brass or lacquer without distinction from the nobler metal. It was for all the
world like a magpie, and the result is not unlike a magpie's nest." (19) But was
Hutton really reasonable in supposing that the Traditional Text was created by
editors who went about their work in the same irrational manner in which a
magpie goes about selecting materials for her nest? Surely the hypothesis that
the Traditional Text was created by editors breaks down if it is necessary to
assume that those who performed this task were as whimsical as that witless
bird.
And in the second place, to create the Traditional (Byzantine) Text by blending
three or four or five older texts into one would be an amazingly difficult feat.
It would be hard to do this even under modern conditions with a large desk on
which to spread out your documents and a chair to sit on. Modern scholars who
attempt this usually construct a critical apparatus by comparing all the
documents with one standard, printed text and noting the variant readings.
Ancient scribes, however, would be laboring under great disadvantages. They
would have no printed text to serve as a standard of comparison, no desks, and
not even any chairs! According to Metzger (1964), they sat on stools or on the
ground and held the manuscripts which they were writing on their knees. (20)
Under such conditions it would surely be difficult to be continually comparing
many documents while writing. It seems unlikely that ancient scribes would be
able to work with more than two documents at once. A scribe would compare his
manuscript with another manuscript and write in some of the variant readings,
usually in the margin. Another scribe would copy this corrected manuscript and
adopt some of the corrections. Hence the mixture would be sporadic and
unsystematic and not at all of the kind that would be required to produce the
Traditional (Byzantine) New Testament Text.
Thus the theory that the Traditional Text was created by editors breaks down
when carefully considered. No reason can be given why the supposed editors
should have gone about their tremendous task in the irrational manner that the
alleged evidence would require.
2. The Traditional Text Not An Official Text
Why is it that the Traditional (Byzantine) Text is found in the vast majority of
the Greek New Testament manuscripts rather than some other text, the Western
text, for example, or the Alexandrian? What was there about the Traditional
(Byzantine) Text which enabled it to conquer all its rivals and become the text
generally accepted by the Greek Church?
(a) Westcott and Hort's Theory of the Traditional (Byzantine) Text
The classic answer to this question was given by Westcott and Hort in their
celebrated Introduction (1881). They believed that from the very beginning the
Traditional (Byzantine) Text was an official text with official backing and that
this was the reason why it overcame all rival texts and ultimately reigned
supreme in the usage of the Greek Church. They regarded the Traditional Text as
the product of a thorough-going revision of the New Testament text which took
place at Antioch in two stages between 250 A.D. and 350 A.D. They believed that
this text was the deliberate creation of certain scholarly Christians at Antioch
and that the presbyter Lucian (d. 312) was probably the original leader in this
work.
According to Westcott and Hort, these Antiochian scholars produced the
Traditional Text by mixing together the Western, Alexandrian, and Neutral
(B-Aleph) texts. "Sometimes they transcribed unchanged the reading of one of the
earlier texts, now of this, now of that. Sometimes they in like manner adopted
exclusively one of the readings but modified its form. Sometimes they combined
the readings of more than one text in various ways, pruning or modifying them if
necessary. Lastly, they introduced many changes of their own where, so far as
appears, there was no previous variation.'' (21)
What would be the motive which would prompt these supposed editors to create the
Traditional New Testament Text? According to Westcott and Hort, the motive was
to eliminate hurtful competition between the Western, Alexandrian, and Neutral
(B-Aleph) texts by the creation of a compromise text made up of elements of all
three of these rival texts. "The guiding motives of their (the editors')
criticism are transparently displayed in its effects. It was probably initiated
by the distracting and inconvenient currency of at least three conflicting texts
in the same region. The alternate borrowing from all implies that no selection
of one was made, —indeed it is difficult to see how under the circumstances it
could have been made, — as entitled to supremacy by manifest superiority of
pedigree. Each text may perhaps have found a patron in some leading personage or
see, and thus have seemed to call for a conciliation of rival claims." (22)
In other words, Westcott and Hort's theory was that the Traditional Text was an
official text created by a council or conference of bishops and leading
churchmen meeting for the express purpose of constructing a New Testament text
on which all could agree, and in their discussion of the history of the
Traditional Text they continue to emphasize its official character. This text,
they alleged, was dominant at Antioch in the second half of the 4th century,
"probably by authority." (23) It was used by the three great Church Fathers of
Antioch, namely, Diodorus (d. 394), Chrysostom (345-407), and Theodore of
Mopsuestia (350-428). Soon this text was taken to Constantinople and became the
dominant text of that great, imperial city, perhaps even the official text.
Then, due to the prestige which it had obtained at Constantinople, it became the
dominant text of the whole Greek-speaking Church. "Now Antioch," Westcott and
Hort theorized, "is the true ecclesiastical parent of Constantinople; so that it
is no wonder that the traditional Constantinopolitan text, whether formally
official or not, was the Antiochian text of the fourth century. It was equally
natural that the text recognized at Constantinople should eventually become in
practice the standard New Testament of the East." (24)
(b) Westcott and Hort's Theory Disproved
Thus Westcott and Hort bore down heavily on the idea that the Traditional
(Byzantine) Text was an official text. It was through ecclesiastical authority,
they believed, that this text was created, and it was through ecclesiastical
authority that this text was imposed upon the Church, so that it became the text
found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts. This emphasis
on ecclesiastical authority, however, has been abandoned by most present-day
scholars. As Kenyon (1912) observed long ago, there is no historical evidence
that the Traditional Text was created by a council or conference of ancient
scholars. History is silent concerning any such gathering. "We know," he
remarks, "the names of several revisers of the Septuagint and the Vulgate, and
it would be strange if historians and Church writers had all omitted to record
or mention such an event as the deliberate revision of the New Testament in its
original Greek." (25)
Recent studies in the Traditional (Byzantine) Text indicate still more clearly
that this was not an official text imposed upon the Church by ecclesiastical
authority or by the influence of any outstanding leader. Westcott and Hort, for
example, regarded Chrysostom as one of the first to use this text and promote
its use in the Church. But studies by Geerlings and New (1931) (26) and by Dicks
(1948) (27) appear to indicate that Chrysostom could hardly have performed this
function, since he himself does not seem always to have used the Traditional
Text. Photius (815-897) also, patriarch of Constantinople, seems to have been no
patron of the Traditional Text, for according to studies by Birdsall (1956-58),
he customarily used a mixed type of text thought to be Caesarean. (28) The
lectionaries also indicate that the Traditional Text could not have been imposed
on the Church by ecclesiastical authority. These, as has been stated, are
manuscripts containing the New Testament Scripture lessons appointed to be read
at the various worship services of the ecclesiastical year. According to the
researches of Colwell (1933) and his associates, the oldest of these lessons are
not Traditional but "mixed" in text. (29) This would not be the case if Westcott
and Hort's theory were true that the Traditional Text from the very beginning
had enjoyed official status.
(c) The True Text Never an Official Text
Thus recent research has brought out more clearly the fact that the true New
Testament text has never been an official text. It has never been dependent on
the decisions of an official priesthood or convocation of scholars. All attempts
to deal with the New Testament text in this way are bound to fail, for this is a
return to Old Testament bondage. Nay, this is worse than Old Testament bondage!
For God appointed the priests of the Old Testament dispensation and gave them
authority to care for the Old Testament Scriptures, but who appointed the
priests and pundits of our modern ecclesiastical scene and gave them the right
to sit in judgment on the New Testament text? It was not in this way that the
New Testament text was preserved but rather through the testimony of the Holy
Spirit operating in the hearts of individual Christians and gradually leading
them, by common consent, to reject false readings and to preserve the true.
3. Have Modern Studies Disintegrated The Traditional Text?
In the more recent years certain scholars have been saying that modern studies
have disintegrated the Traditional (Byzantine) Text. Not only (so they say) has
its use by Chrysostom been disproved but also its uniformity. Birdsall (1956)
expresses himself on this head as follows: "Since the publication of Hort's
Introduction in 1881 it has been assumed in most quarters, as handbooks reflect,
that the text was uniform from the time of John Chrysostom and that this uniform
text (called by a variety of names, and here Byzantine) is to be found in his
quotations.... However, more recent investigation has questioned both the
uniformity of the Byzantine text and its occurrence in Chrysostom's citations."
(30) And earlier Colwell (1935) gave voice to the same opinion and appealed for
support to the investigations of von Soden and Kirsopp Lake. "This invaluable
pioneer work of von Soden greatly weakened the dogma of the dominance of a
homogeneous Syrian (Traditional) text. But the fallacy received its death blow
at the hands of Professor Lake. In an excursus published in his study of the
Caesarean text of Mark, he annihilated the theory that the middle ages were
ruled by a single recension which attained a high degree of uniformity.'' (31)
Have the studies of von Soden and Lake disintegrated the Traditional (Byzantine)
Text, or is this a misinterpretation of the researches of the two scholars? This
is the question, which we will consider in the following paragraphs.
(a) The Researches of von Soden
Von Soden (1906) made the most extensive study of the Traditional (Byzantine)
Text that has ever yet been undertaken. (32) He called the Traditional Text the
Kappa (Common) text, thereby indicating that it is the text most commonly found
in the New Testament manuscripts. He divided the Traditional manuscripts into
three classes, Kappa 1, Kappa x, and Kappa r. The manuscripts in the Kappa 1
class (as the numeral 1 implies) he regarded as containing the earliest form of
the Traditional (Byzantine) Text. Among the best representatives of this class
he placed Omega (8th century), V (9th century), and S (10th century). In 1912,
as has been stated, Sanders found that Codex W contained the Kappa 1 text in
Matthew.
Von Soden considered the Kappa r text to be a revision of the Traditional Text
(the letter r signifying revision). In between the Kappa 1 manuscripts and the
Kappa r manuscripts in respect to time van Soden located the great majority of
the Traditional (Byzantine) manuscripts. These he named Kappa x (the letter x
signifying unknown) to indicate that the small differences which distinguish
them from each other had not yet been thoroughly studied. And in addition von
Soden distinguished several other families of manuscripts the texts of which had
originated in the mixture of the Traditional and Western texts. One of the
earliest of these was the Kappa a family, the chief representatives of which are
Codex A (5th century) and K and Pi (both 9th century).
Thus von Soden divided the vast family of Traditional (Byzantine) manuscripts
(which he called the Kappa manuscripts) into three main varieties. Unlike
Colwell, however, he did not regard this variety as affecting the essential
agreement existing between the Traditional manuscripts, i.e., the uniformity of
their underlying text. "The substance of the text," he wrote, "remains intact
throughout the whole period of perhaps 1,200 years. Only very sporadically do
readings found in other text-types appear in one or another of the varieties."
(33)
(b) The Researches of Kirsopp Lake
Von Soden's conclusions have, in general, been confirmed by the researches of
Kirsopp Lake. In 1928 Lake and his associates published the results of a careful
examination which they had made in the 11th chapter of Mark of all the
manuscripts on Mt. Sinai, at Patmos, and in the Patriarchal Library and the
collection of St. Saba at Jerusalem. (34) On the basis of this examination Lake
was even more disposed than von Soden to stress the unity of the Traditional
(Byzantine) Text, going even so far as to deny that the Kappa 1 text and the
Kappa r text were really distinct from the Kappa x text (which Lake preferred to
call the Ecclesiastical text). "We cannot," he wrote, "at present distinguish
anything which can be identified with von Soden's Kappa r nor do we feel any
confidence in his Kappa 1 as a really distinct text." (35)
In a later study (1940), however, Lake agreed with von Soden that the Kappa I
and Kappa x manuscripts are distinguishable from each other even though they
differ from each other very little. "Kappa 1 and Kappa x," he reported, "each
show a certain amount of individual variation, by which they can be
identified—but it is surprisingly little. The scribes who were responsible for
the variations in the Byzantine text introduced remarkably few and unimportant
changes, they shunned all originality." (36)
Thus Lake came to the same conclusions as von Soden in regard to the uniformity
of text exhibited by the vast majority of the New Testament manuscripts. Both
these noted scholars discovered that in spite of the divisions which exist among
these manuscripts they all have the same fundamental text. This agreement,
however, is not so close as to indicate that these manuscripts have been copied
from each other. On this point Lake (1928) is very explicit. "Speaking
generally," he says, "the evidence in our collations for the grouping of the
codices which contain this text is singularly negative. There is extraordinarily
little evidence of close family relationship between the manuscripts even in the
same library. They have essentially the same text with a large amount of
sporadic variation." (37)
And the more recent studies of Aland (1964) have yielded the same result. He and
his associates collated 1,000 minuscule manuscripts of the Greek New Testament
in 1,000 different New Testament passages. According to him, 90% of these
minuscules contain the Traditional (Byzantine) text, which he calls, `'the
majority text." (38)
(c) The God-guided Usage of the Church
We see, then, that Birdsall and Colwell are quite mistaken in suggesting that
modern studies have "disintegrated" (so Birdsall) the Traditional (Byzantine)
Text. Certainly von Soden and Lake themselves entertained no such opinion of the
results of their work. On the contrary, the investigations of these latter two
scholars seem to have established the essential uniformity of the Traditional
(Byzantine) text on a firmer basis than ever. They have shown that the vast
majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts exhibit precisely that amount of
uniformity of text which one might expect the God-guided usage of the Church to
produce. They agree with one another closely enough to justify the contention
that they all contain essentially the same text, but not so closely as to give
any grounds for the belief that this uniformity of text was produced by the
labors of editors, or by the decrees of ecclesiastical leaders, or by mass
production on the part of scribes at any one time or place. It was not by any of
these means that the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts came
to agree with each other as closely as they do, but through the God-guided usage
of the Church, through the leading of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of
individual believers.
4. Why Did The Traditional Text Triumph?
In the eyes of many naturalistic critics the history of the Traditional
(Byzantine) New Testament Text has become a puzzling enigma that requires
further study. "It is evident," says Birdsall (1956), "that all presuppositions
concerning the Byzantine text— or texts—except its inferiority to other types,
must be doubted and investigated de novo." (39) One wonders, however, why
Birdsall makes this single exception. Every other presupposition concerning the
Traditional (Byzantine) Text must be doubted. But there is one presupposition,
Birdsall says, which must never be doubted, namely, the inferiority of the
Traditional (Byzantine) Text to all other texts. Yet it is just this
presupposition which makes the history of the Traditional Text so puzzling to
naturalistic textual critics. If the Traditional Text was late and inferior, how
could it have so completely displaced earlier and better texts in the usage of
the Church. Westcott and Hort said that this was because the Traditional Text
was an official text, put together by influential ecclesiastical leaders and
urged by them upon the Church, but this view has turned out to be contrary to
the evidence. Why, then, did the Traditional Text triumph?
Naturalistic textual critics will never be able to answer this question until
they are ready to think "unthinkable thoughts." They must be willing to lay
aside their prejudices and consider seriously the evidence which points to the
Traditional (Byzantine) Text as the True Text of the New Testament. This is the
position which the believing Bible student takes by faith and from which he is
able to provide a consistent explanation of all the phenomena of the New
Testament.
(a) The Early History of the True Text
If we accept the Traditional Text as the True New Testament Text, then the
following historical reconstruction suggests itself:
Beginning with the Western and Alexandrian texts, we see that they represent two
nearly simultaneous departures from the True Text which took place during the
2nd century. The making of these two texts proceeded, for the most part,
according to two entirely different plans. The scribes that produced the Western
text regarded themselves more as interpreters than as mere copyists. Therefore
they made bold alterations in the text and added many interpolations. The makers
of the Alexandrian text, on the other hand, conceived of themselves as
grammarians. Their chief aim was to improve the style of the sacred text. They
made few additions to it. Indeed, their fear of interpolation was so great that
they often went to the opposite extreme of wrongly removing genuine readings
from the text. Because of this the Western text is generally longer than the
True Text and the Alexandrian is generally shorter.
Other texts, such as the Caesarean and Sinaitic Syriac texts, are also best
explained as departures from the True, that is to say, the Traditional
(Byzantine) Text. This is why each of them in turn agrees at times with the
Traditional Text against all other texts. No doubt also much mixture of readings
has gone into the composition of these minor texts.
As all scholars agree, the Western text was the text of the Christian Church at
Rome and the Alexandrian text that of the Christian scribes and scholars of
Alexandria. For this reason these two texts were prestige-texts, much sought
after by the wealthier and more scholarly members of the Christian community.
The True Text, on the other hand, continued in use among the poorer and less
learned Christian brethren. These humble believers would be less sensitive to
matters of prestige and would no doubt prefer the familiar wording of the True
Text to the changes introduced by the new prestige-texts. Since they were
unskilled in the use of pen and ink, they would be little tempted to write the
variant readings of the prestige-texts into the margins of their own New
Testament manuscripts and would be even less inclined to make complete copies of
these prestige-texts. And since they were poor, they would be unable to buy new
manuscripts containing these prestige-texts.
For all these reasons, therefore the True Text would continue to circulate among
these lowly Christian folk virtually undisturbed by the influence of other
texts. Moreover, because it was difficult for these less prosperous Christians
to obtain new manuscripts, they put the ones they had to maximum use. Thus all
these early manuscripts of the True Text were eventually worn out. None of them
seems to be extant today. The papyri which do survive seem for the most part to
be prestige-texts which were preserved in the libraries of ancient Christian
schools. According to Aland (1963), (40) both the Chester Beatty and the Bodmer
Papyri may have been kept at such an institution. But the papyri with the True
Text were read to pieces by the believing Bible students of antiquity. In the
providence of God they were used by the Church. They survived long enough,
however, to preserve the True (Traditional) New Testament Text during this early
period and to bring it into the period of triumph that followed.
(b) The Triumph of the True New Testament Text (300-1000 A.D.)
The victorious march of the True New Testament Text toward ultimate triumph
began in the 4th century. The great 4th-century conflict with the Arian heresy
brought orthodox Christians to a theological maturity which enabled them, under
the leading of the Holy Spirit, to perceive the superior doctrinal soundness and
richness of the True Text. In ever increasing numbers Christians in the higher
social brackets abandoned the corrupt prestige-texts which they had been using
and turned to the well worn manuscripts of their poorer brethren, manuscripts
which, though meaner in appearance, were found in reality to be far more
precious, since they contained the True New Testament Text. No doubt they paid
handsome sums to have copies made of these ancient books, and this was done so
often that these venerable documents were worn out through much handling by the
scribes. But before these old manuscripts finally perished, they left behind
them a host of fresh copies made from them and bearing witness to the True Text.
Thus it was that the True (Traditional) Text became the standard text now found
in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts.
(c) Lost Manuscripts of the Traditional Text
During the march of the Traditional (Byzantine) Text toward supremacy many
manuscripts of the Traditional type must have perished The investigations of
Lake (1928) and his associates indicate that this was so. "Why," he asked, "are
there only a few fragments (even in the two oldest of the monastic collections,
Sinai and St. Saba) which come from a date earlier than the 10th century? There
must have been in existence many thousands of manuscripts of the gospels in the
great days of Byzantine prosperity, between the 4th and the 10th centuries.
There are now extant but a pitiably small number. Moreover, the amount of direct
genealogy which has been detected in extant codices is almost negligible. Nor
are many known manuscripts sister codices." (41)
As a result of these investigations, Lake found it "hard to resist the
conclusion that the scribes usually destroyed their exemplars when they copied
the sacred books." (42) If Lake's hypothesis is correct, then the manuscripts
most likely to be destroyed would be those containing the Traditional Text. For
these were the ones which were copied most during the period between the 4th and
the 10th centuries, as is proved by the fact that the vast majority of the later
Greek New Testament manuscripts are of the Traditional type. The Gothic version
moreover, was made about 350 A.D. from manuscripts of the Traditional type which
are no longer extant. Perhaps Lake's hypothesis can account for their
disappearance.
By the same token, the survival of old uncial manuscripts of the Alexandrian and
Western type, such as Aleph, B. and D, was due to the fact that they were
rejected by the Church and not read or copied but allowed to rest relatively
undisturbed on the library shelves of ancient monasteries. Burgon (1883) pointed
this out long ago, and it is most significant that his observation was confirmed
more than 40 years later by the researches of Lake.
(d) The Church as an Organism
When we say that the Holy Spirit guided the Church to preserve the True New
Testament Text, we are not speaking of the Church as an organization but of the
Church as an organism. We do not mean that in the latter part of the 4th century
the Holy Spirit guided the bishops to the True Text and that then the bishops
issued decrees for the guidance of the common people. This would have been a
return to Old Testament bondage and altogether out of accord with the New
Testament principle of the universal priesthood of believers. Investigations
indicate that the Holy Spirit's guidance worked in precisely the opposite
direction. The trend toward the True (Traditional) Text began with the common
people, the rank and file, and then rapidly built up such strength that the
bishops and other official leaders were carried along with it. Chrysostom, for
example, does not seem to have initiated this trend, for, as stated above,
studies by Geerlings and New and by Dicks indicate that Chrysostom did not
always use the Traditional Text.
There is evidence that the triumphal march of the Traditional (Byzantine) Text
met with resistance in certain quarters. There were some scribes and scholars
who were reluctant to renounce entirely their faulty Western, Alexandrian, and
Caesarean texts. And so they compromised by following sometimes their false
texts and sometimes the True (Traditional) Text. Thus arose those classes of
mixed manuscripts described by von Soden and other scholars. This would explain
also the non-Traditional readings which Colwell and his associates have found in
certain portions of the lectionary manuscripts. (43) And if Birdsall is right in
his contention that Photius (815-897), patriarch of Constantinople, customarily
used the Caesarean text, (44) this too must be regarded as a belated effort on
the part of this learned churchman to keep up the struggle against the
Traditional Text. But his endeavor was in vain. Even before his time the
God-guided preference of the common people for the True (Traditional) New
Testament Text had prevailed, causing it to be adopted generally throughout the
Greek-speaking Church.
5. The Ancient Versions And The Providence of God
It was the Greek-speaking Church especially which was the object of God's
providential guidance regarding the New Testament text because this was the
Church to which the keeping of the Greek New Testament had been committed. But
this divine guidance was by no means confined to those ancient Christians who
spoke Greek. On the contrary, indications can be found in the ancient New
Testament versions of this same God-guided movement of the Church away from
readings which were false and misleading and toward those which were true and
trustworthy. This evidence can be summarized as follows:
(a) The Providence of God in the Syrian Church
In the Syrian Church this God-guided trend away from false New Testament texts
and toward the True is clearly seen. According to all investigators from Burkitt
(1904) to Voobus (1954), (45) the Western text, represented by Tatian's
Diatessaron (Gospel Harmony) and the Curetonian and Sinaitic Syriac manuscripts
circulated widely in the Syrian Church until about the middle of the 4th
century. After this date, however, this intrusive Western text was finally
rejected, and the whole Syrian Church returned to the use of the ancient
Peshitta Syriac version, which is largely of the Traditional (Byzantine)
text-type. In other words, the Syrian Church as well as the Greek was led by
God's guiding hand back to the True Text.
(b) The Providence of God in the Latin Church
Among the Latin-speaking Christians of the West the substitution of Jerome's
Latin Vulgate for the Old Latin version may fairly be regarded as a movement
toward the Traditional (Byzantine) Text. The Vulgate New Testament is a revised
text which Jerome (384) says that he made by comparing the Old Latin version
with "old Greek" manuscripts. According to Hort, one of the Greek manuscripts
which Jerome used was closely related to Codex A, which is of the Traditional
text-type. "By a curious and apparently unnoticed coincidence the text of A in
several books agrees with the Latin Vulgate in so many peculiar readings devoid
of Old Latin attestation as to leave little doubt that a Greek manuscript
largely employed by Jerome in his revision of the Latin version must have had to
a great extent a common original with A." (46)
In this instance, Hort's judgment seems undoubtedly correct, for the agreement
of the Latin Vulgate with the Traditional Text is obvious, at least in the most
important passages, such as, Christ's agony (Luke 22:43-44), Father forgive them
(Luke 23:34), and the ascension (Luke 24:51). Kenyon (1937) (47) lists 24 such
passages in the Gospels in which the Western text ( represented by D, Old Latin)
and the Alexandrian text (represented by Aleph B) differ from each other. In
these 24 instances the Latin Vulgate agrees 11 times with the Western text, 11
times with the Alexandrian text, and 22 times with the Traditional Text
(represented by the Textus Receptus).
In fact, the only important readings in
regard to which the Latin Vulgate disagrees with the Traditional New Testament
Text are the conclusion of the Lord's Prayer (Matt. 6:13), certain clauses of
the Lord's Prayer (Luke 11:2-4), and the angel at the pool (John 5:4). In this
last passage, however, the official Roman Catholic Vulgate agrees with the
Traditional Text. Another telltale fact is the presence in the Latin Vulgate of
four of Hort's eight so-called "conflate readings." Although these readings are
not at all "conflate", nevertheless, they do seem to be one of the distinctive
characteristics of the Traditional Text, and the presence of four of them in the
Latin Vulgate is most easily explained by supposing that Jerome employed
Traditional (Byzantine) manuscripts in the making of the Latin Vulgate text.
There are also a few passages in which the Latin Vulgate has preserved the true
reading rather than the Greek Traditional New Testament Text. As we shall see in
the next chapter, these few true Latin Vulgate readings were later incorporated
into the Textus Receptus, the first printed Greek New Testament text, under the
guiding providence of God.
(c) The Providence of God in the Coptic (Egyptian) Church
Thus during the 4th and 5th centuries among the Syriac-speaking Christians of
the East, the Greek-speaking Christians of the Byzantine empire, and the
Latin-speaking Christians of the West the same tendency was at work, namely, a
God-guided trend away from the false Western and Alexandrian texts and toward
the True Traditional Text. At a somewhat later date, moreover, this tendency was
operative also among the Coptic Christians of Egypt. An examination of Kenyon's
24 passages, for example, discloses 12 instances in which come of the
manuscripts of the Bohairic (Coptic) version agree with the Textus Receptus
against Aleph B and the remaining Bohairic manuscripts. This indicates that in
these important passages the readings of the Traditional Text had been adopted
by some of the Coptic scribes.
(d) The Trend Toward the Orthodox Traditional Text — How to Explain It?
During the Middle Ages, therefore, in every land there appeared a trend toward
the orthodox Traditional (Byzantine) Text. Since the days of Griesbach
naturalistic textual critics have tried to explain this fact by attributing it
to the influence of "monastic piety." According to these critics, the monks in
the Greek monasteries invented the orthodox readings of the Traditional Text and
then multiplied copies of that text until it achieved supremacy. But if the
Traditional (Byzantine) Text had been the product of Greek monastic piety, it
would not have remained orthodox, for this piety included many errors such as
the worship of Mary, of the saints, and of images and pictures. If the Greek
monks had invented the Traditional Text, then surely they would have invented
readings favoring these errors and superstitions. But as a matter of fact no
such heretical readings occur in the Traditional Text.
Here, then, we have a truly astonishing fact which no naturalistic historian or
textual critic can explain. Not only in the Greek Church but also throughout all
Christendom the medieval period was one of spiritual decline and doctrinal
corruption. But in spite of this growth of error and superstition the New
Testament text most widely read and copied in the medieval Greek Church was the
orthodox, Traditional (Byzantine) Text. And not only so but also in the other
regions of Christendom there was a trend toward this same Traditional Text. How
shall we account for this unique circumstance? There is only one possible
explanation, and this is found in God's special, providential care over the New
Testament text. All during this corrupt medieval period God by His providence
kept alive in the Greek Church a priesthood of believers characterized by a
reverence for and an interest in the holy Scriptures.
It was by them that most
of the New Testament manuscripts were copied, and it was by them that the
Traditional New Testament Text was preserved. In this Traditional Text, found in
the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts, no readings occur
which favor Mary worship, saint-worship, or image-worship. On the contrary, the
Traditional Text was kept pure from these errors and gained ground everywhere.
Was this not a manifestation of God's singular care and providence operating
through the universal priesthood of believers?
(e) The Protestant Reformation—A Meeting of East and West
In spite of the corruption of the medieval Greek Church, the True Text of the
Greek New Testament was preserved in that Church through the God-guided
priesthood of believers. These were pious folk, often laymen, who though sharing
in many of the errors of their day, still had a saving faith in Christ and a
reverence for the holy Scriptures. But, someone may ask, if there were such a
group of believers in the Medieval Greek Church, why did not this group finally
produce the Protestant Reformation? Why did the Protestant Reformation take
place in Western Europe rather than in Eastern Europe in the territory of the
Roman Church rather than in that of the Greek Church?
This question can be answered, at least in part, linguistically. From the very
beginning the leaders of the Greek Church, being Greeks, were saturated with
Greek philosophy. Hence in presenting the Gospel to their fellow Greeks they
tended to emphasize those doctrines which seemed to them most important
philosophically and to neglect the doctrines of sin and grace, a neglect which
persisted throughout the medieval period. Hence, even if the Greek Church had
not been overrun by the Turks at the end of the Middle Ages it still could not
have produced the Protestant Reformation, since it lacked the theological
ingredients for such a mighty, spiritual explosion
In the Western Church the situation was different. Here the two theological
giants, Tertullian and Augustine, were Latin-speaking and not at home,
apparently, in the Greek language. Consequently they were less influenced by the
errors of Greek philosophy and left more free to expound the distinctive
doctrines of the Christian faith. Hence from these two great teachers there
entered into the doctrinal system of the Roman Church a slender flame of
evangelical truth which was never entirely quenched even by the worst errors of
the medieval period and which blazed forth eventually as the bright beacon of
the Protestant Reformation. (48) This occurred after the Greek New Testament
Text had finally been published in Western Europe. Hence the Protestant
Reformation may rightly be regarded as a meeting of the East and West.
(f) A New Reformation—Why the Ingredients Are Still Lacking
The length to which Hort would go in his rejection of the Traditional Text is
seen in his treatment of Mark 6:22. Here the Western manuscript D agrees with
the Alexandrian manuscripts B Aleph L Delta 238 565 in relating that the girl
who danced before Herod and demanded the Baptist's head as payment for her
shameful performance was not the daughter of Herodias, as the Traditional Text
(in agreement with all the other extant manuscripts and the ancient versions)
states, but Herod's own daughter named Herodias. Hort actually adopted this
reading, but subsequent scholars have not approved his choice. As M. R. Vincent
(1899) truly remarked concerning this strange reading, " . . . it is safe to say
that Mark could not have intended this. The statement directly contradicts
Josephus, who says that the name of the damsel was Salome, and that she was the
daughter of Herod Philip, by Herodias, who did not leave her husband until after
Salome's birth. It is, moreover, most improbable that even Herod the Tetrarch
would have allowed his own daughter thus to degrade herself." (49) And even
Goodspeed (1923), who usually follows Hort religiously, here reads with the
Traditional Text, "Herodias' own daughter."
Thus even Hort's disciples and admirers have admitted that here in Mark 6:22 he
by no means exhibits that "almost infallible judgment" which Souter (1912)
attributed to him. (50) Isn't it strange therefore that for almost one hundred
years so many conservative Christian scholars have followed the Westcott and
Hort text so slavishly and rejected and vilified the text of the Protestant
Reformation? Unless this attitude is changed, the ingredients of a new
Reformation will still be lacking.
THE TEXTUS
RECEPTUS AND THE KING JAMES VERSION
|