5
THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT
The logical place to start is with the
possibility that the process of transmission of the text was normal.
Under normal circumstances the older a text is than its rivals, the
greater are its chances to survive in a plurality or a majority of the texts
extant at any subsequent period. But the oldest text of all is the
autograph. Thus it ought to be taken for granted that, barring some radical
dislocation in the history of transmission, a majority of texts will be far
more likely to represent correctly the character of the original than a small
minority of texts. This is especially true when the ratio is an overwhelming
8:2. Under any reasonably normal transmissional conditions, it would be . . .
quite impossible for a later text-form to secure so one-sided a preponderance
of extant witnesses.[1]
But were the
transmissional conditions reasonably normal?
Were the N.T. Writings Recognized?
Naturalistic
critics like to assume that the New Testament writings were not recognized as
Scripture when they first appeared and thus through the consequent carelessness
in transcription the text was confused and the original wording
"lost" (in the sense that no one knew for sure what it was) at the
very start. Thus Colwell says: “Most of
the manuals and handbooks now in print (including mine!) will tell you that
these variations were the fruit of careless treatment which was possible
because the books of the New Testament had not yet attained a strong position
as ‘Bible’."[2]
And Hort had said:
Textual purity, as far as can be judged from the extant literature,
attracted hardly any interest. There is no evidence to show that care was
generally taken to choose out for transcription the exemplars having the
highest claims to be regarded as authentic, if indeed the requisite knowledge
and skill were forthcoming.[3]
Rather than take Hort's word for it,
prudence calls for a review of the premises. The place to start is at the
beginning, when the apostles were still penning the Autographs.
The apostolic
period
It is clear that the apostle Paul, at
least, considered his writings to be authoritative—see 1 Cor.14:37, Gal. 1:6-12, Col.
1:25-6, 1 Thess. 2:13, 2 Thess. 2:15 and 3:6-14. And it is reasonable to infer
from Col. 4:16 and 1 Thess. 5:27 that he expected his writings to have a wider
audience than just the particular church addressed. In fact, in Galatians 1:2
he addresses "the churches of Galatia." John also is plain enough—Rev. 1:1-3
and 21:5. Both Paul (Rom. 16:25-6, Eph. 3:4-5) and Peter (1 Pet. 1:12, 25; 2
Pet. 3:2) declare that a number of people are writing Scripture in their day,
presumably including themselves. I take it that in 1:3 Luke claims divine
authority—“having faithfully followed all things from above.”[4]
In l Tim. 5:18 Paul puts the Gospel of
Luke (10:7) on the same level as Deuteronomy (25:4), calling them both
"Scripture." Taking the traditional and conservative point of view, 1
Timothy is generally thought to have been written within five years after Luke.[5] Luke was recognized and declared by
apostolic authority to be Scripture as soon as it came off the press, so to
speak.
In 2 Pet. 3:15-16, Peter puts the Epistles
of Paul on the same level as "the other Scriptures." Although some
had been out for perhaps fifteen years, the ink was scarcely dry on others, and
perhaps 2 Timothy had not yet been penned when Peter wrote. Paul's writings
were recognized and declared by apostolic authority to be Scripture as soon as
they appeared.
Clement of Rome, whose first letter to the
Corinthians is usually dated about A.D. 96, made liberal use of Scripture,
appealing to its authority, and used New Testament material right alongside Old
Testament material. Clement quoted Ps. 118:18 and Heb. 12:6 side by side as
"the holy word" (56:3-4).[6] He ascribes 1 Corinthians to "the
blessed Paul the apostle" and says of it, "with true inspiration he
wrote to you" (47:1-3). He clearly quotes from Hebrews, 1 Corinthians and
Romans and possibly from Matthew, Acts, Titus, James and 1 Peter. Here is the
bishop of Rome, before the close of the first century, writing an official
letter to the church at Corinth wherein a selection of New Testament books are
recognized and declared by episcopal authority to be Scripture, including
Hebrews.
The Epistle of Barnabas, variously dated
from A.D. 70 to 135, says in 4:14, "let us be careful lest, as it is
written, it should be found with us that 'many are called but few chosen.'"
The reference seems to be to Matt. 22:14 (or 20:16) and the phrase "as it
is written" may fairly be taken as a technical expression referring to
Scripture. In 5:9 there is a quote from Matt. 9:13 (or Mark 2:17 or Luke 5:32).
In 13:7 there is a loose quote from Rom. 4:11-12, which words are put in God's
mouth. Similarly, in 15:4 we find: “Note, children, what ‘he ended in six days’
means. It means this: that the Lord will make an end of everything in six
thousand years, for a day with Him means a thousand years. And He Himself is my
witness, saying: ‘Behold, the day of the Lord shall be as a thousand
years’."[7]
The author, whoever he was, is clearly
claiming divine authorship for this quote which appears to be from 2 Pet. 3:8.[8] In other words, 2 Peter is here regarded
to be Scripture, as well as Matthew and Romans. Barnabas also has possible
allusions to 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy,
Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter.
The second
century
The seven letters of Ignatius (c. A.D.
110) contain probable allusions to Matthew, John, Romans, 1 Corinthians and
Ephesians (in his own letter to the Ephesians Ignatius says they are mentioned
in "all the epistles of Paul"—a bit of hyperbole, but he was clearly aware
of a Pauline corpus), and possible allusions to Luke, Acts, Galatians,
Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus, but very
few are clear quotations and even they are not identified as such.
Polycarp, writing to the Philippian church
(c. 115 A.D.?) weaves an almost continuous string of clear quotations and
allusions to New Testament writings. His heavy use of Scripture is reminiscent
of Clement of Rome; however, Clement used mostly the Old Testament while
Polycarp usually used the New. There are perhaps fifty clear quotations taken
from Matthew, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians,
Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1 John, and many
allusions including to Mark, Hebrews, James, and 2 and 3 John. (The only NT
writer not included is Jude!)
His attitude toward the New Testament
writings is clear from 12:1: “I am sure that you are well trained in the sacred
Scriptures, . . . Now, as it is said in these Scriptures: ‘Be angry and sin
not,' and ‘Let not the sun go down upon your wrath.' Blessed is he who
remembers this.”[9]
Both parts of the quotation could come
from Eph. 4:26 but since Polycarp split it up he may have been referring to Ps.
4:5 (LXX) in the first half. In either case he is declaring Ephesians to be
"sacred Scripture." A further insight into his attitude is found in
3:1-2.
Brethren,
I write you this concerning righteousness, not on my own initiative, but
because you first invited me. For neither I, nor anyone like me, is able to
rival the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who, when living among you,
carefully and steadfastly taught the word of truth face to face with his
contemporaries and, when he was absent, wrote you letters. By the careful
perusal of his letters you will be able to strengthen yourselves in the faith
given to you, "which is the mother of us all," . . .[10]
(This from one who was
perhaps the most respected bishop in Asia Minor, in his day. He was martyred in
A.D. 156.)
The so-called second letter of Clement of
Rome is usually dated before A.D. 150 and seems clearly to quote from Matthew,
Mark, Luke, Acts, l Corinthians, Ephesians, 1 Timothy, Hebrews, James, and 1
Peter, with possible allusions to 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation. After quoting
and discussing a passage from the Old Testament, the author goes on to say in
2:4, "Another Scripture says: 'I came not to call the just, but
sinners'" (Matt. 9:13; Mark 2:17; Luke 5:32). Here is another author who recognized
the New Testament writings to be Scripture.
Two other early works, the Didache and
the letter to Diognetus, employ New Testament writings as being authoritative
but without expressly calling them Scripture.
The Didache apparently quotes from
Matthew, Luke, 1 Corinthians, Hebrews, and 1 Peter and has possible allusions
to Acts, Romans, Ephesians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians and Revelation.
The letter to Diognetus quotes from Acts,
1 and 2 Corinthians while alluding to Mark, John, Romans, Ephesians, Philippians,
1 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter and 1 John.
Another early work—the Shepherd of
Hermas—widely used in the second and third centuries, has fairly clear
allusions to Matthew, Mark, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Hebrews, and especially
James.
From around the middle of the second
century fairly extensive works by Justin Martyr (martyred in 165) have come
down to us. His "Dialogue with Trypho" shows a masterful knowledge of
the Old Testament to which he assigns the highest possible authority, evidently
holding to a dictation view of inspiration—in Trypho 34 he says, "to
persuade you that you have not understood anything of the Scriptures, I will
remind you of another psalm, dictated to David by the Holy Spirit."[11] The whole point of Trypho is to prove that Jesus
is Christ and God and therefore what He said and commanded was of highest
authority.
In Apol. i.66 Justin says,
"For the apostles in the memoirs composed by them, which are called
Gospels, thus handed down what was commanded them. . . ."[12] And in Trypho 1l9 he says that just
as Abraham believed the voice of God, "in like manner we, having believed
God's voice spoken by the apostles of Christ. . . ."
It also seems clear from Trypho 120
that Justin considered New Testament writings to be Scripture. Of considerable
interest is an unequivocal reference to the book of Revelation in Trypho 81.
"And further, there was a certain man with us whose name was John, one of
the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him,
that those who believe in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in
Jerusalem."[13]
Justin goes right on to say, "Just as
our Lord also said," and quotes Luke 20:35, so evidently he considered
Revelation to be authoritative. (While on the subject of Revelation, in 165
Melito, Bishop of Sardis, wrote a commentary on the book.)
A most instructive passage occurs in Apol. i.67.
And on the day called Sunday there is a meeting in one place of those
who live in cities or the country, and the memoirs of the apostles or the
writings of the prophets are read as long as time permits. When the reader has
finished, the president in a discourse urges and invites us to the imitation of
these noble things.[14]
Whether or not the order suggests that the
Gospels were preferred to the Prophets, it is clear that they both were
considered to be authoritative and equally enjoined upon the hearers. Notice
further that each assembly must have had its own copy of the apostles' writings
to read from and that such reading took place every week.
Athenagorus, in his "Plea,"
written in early 177, quotes Matt. 5:28 as Scripture: ". . . we are not
even allowed to indulge in a lustful glance. For, says the Scripture, 'He who
looks at a woman lustfully, has already committed adultery in his heart'"
(32).[15] He similarly treats Matt. 19:9, or Mark
10:11, in 33.
Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, in his
treatise to Autolycus, quotes 1 Tim. 2:1 and Rom. 13:7 as "the Divine
Word" (iii.l4), quotes from the fourth Gospel, saying that John was
"inspired by the Spirit" (ii.22); Isaiah and "the Gospel"
are mentioned in one paragraph as Scripture (iii.l4), and he insists in several
passages that the writers never contradicted each other: "The statements
of the Prophets and of the Gospels are found to be consistent, because all were
inspired by the one Spirit of God" (ii.9; ii.35; iii.l7).[16]
The surviving writings of Irenaeus (died
in 202), his major work Against Heretics being written about 185, are about
equal in volume to those of all the
preceding Fathers put together.
His testimony to the authority and inspiration of Holy Scripture is
clear and unequivocal. It pervades the whole of his writings; and this
testimony is more than ordinarily valuable because it must be regarded as
directly representing three churches at least, those of Lyons, Asia Minor, and
Rome. The authoritative use of both Testaments is clearly laid down.[17]
Irenaeus stated that the apostles taught
that God is the Author of both Testaments (Against Heretics IV. 32.2) and
evidently considered the New Testament writings to form a second Canon. He
quoted from every chapter of Matthew, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians,
Colossians and Philippians, from all but one or two chapters of Luke, John,
Romans, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus, from most chapters of Mark
(including the last twelve verses), Acts, 2 Corinthians, and Revelation, and
from every other book except Philemon and 3 John. These two books are so short
that Irenaeus may not have had occasion to refer to them in his extant works—it
does not necessarily follow that he was ignorant of them or rejected them.
Evidently the dimensions of the New Testament Canon recognized by Irenaeus are
very close to what we hold today.
From the time of Irenaeus on there can be
no doubt concerning the attitude of the Church toward the New Testament
writings—they are Scripture. Tertullian (in 208) said of the church at Rome,
"the law and the prophets she unites in one volume with the writings of
evangelists and apostles" (Prescription against Heretics, 36).
Were Early Christians Careful?
It has been widely affirmed that the early
Christians were either unconcerned or unable to watch over the purity of the
text. (Recall Hort's words given above.) Again a review of the premises is
called for. Many of the first believers
had been devout Jews who had an ingrained reverence and care for the Old
Testament Scriptures which extended to the very jots and tittles. This
reverence and care would naturally be extended to the New Testament Scriptures.
Why should modern critics assume that the
early Christians, in particular the spiritual leaders among them, were inferior
in integrity or intelligence? A Father's quoting from memory or tailoring a
passage to suit his purpose in sermon or letter by no means implies that he
would take similar liberties when transcribing a book or corpus. Ordinary
honesty would require him to produce a faithful copy. Are we to assume that
everyone who made copies of New Testament books in those early years was a
knave, or a fool? Paul was certainly as intelligent a man as any of us. If
Hebrews was written by someone else, here was another man of high spiritual
insight and intellectual power. There was Barnabas and Apollos and Clement and
Polycarp, etc., etc. The Church has had men of reason and intelligence all down
through the years. Starting out with what they knew to be the pure text, the
earliest Fathers did not need to be textual critics. They had only to be
reasonably honest and careful. But is there not good reason to believe they
would be especially
watchful and careful?
The apostles
Not only did the apostles themselves
declare the New Testament writings to be Scripture, which would elicit
reverence and care in their treatment, they expressly warned the believers to
be on their guard against false teachers—see Acts 20:27-32, Gal. 1:6-12, 2 Tim.
3:1-4:4, 2 Pet. 2:1-2, 1 John 2:18-19, 2 John 7-11, Jude 3-4, 16-19. Peter's
statement concerning the "twisting" Paul's words were receiving (2
Pet. 3:16) suggests there was awareness and concern as to the text and the way
it was being handled. I recognize that the Apostles were focusing on the
interpretation rather than the copying of the text, and yet, since any
alteration of the text may result in a different interpretation we may
reasonably infer that their concern for the truth would include the faithful
transmission of the text. Indeed, we could scarcely ask for a clearer
expression of this concern than that given in Rev. 22:18-19. 2 Thess. 2:2 is evidently concerned with
authenticity.
The early Fathers
The early Fathers furnish a few helpful
clues as to the state of affairs. The letters of Ignatius contain several
references to a considerable traffic between the churches (of Asia Minor,
Greece, Rome) by way of messengers (often official), which seems to indicate a
deep sense of solidarity binding them together, and a wide circulation of news
and attitudes—a problem with a heretic in one place would soon be known all
over, etc. That there was strong feeling about the integrity of the Scriptures
is made clear by Polycarp (7:1), "Whoever perverts the sayings of the Lord
. . . that one is the firstborn of Satan." Present-day critics may not
like Polycarp’s terminology, but for him to use such strong language makes
clear that he was not merely aware and concerned; he was exercised.
Similarly, Justin Martyr says (Apol.
i.58), "the wicked demons have also put forward Marcion of Pontus."
And in Trypho
xxxv he says of heretics teaching doctrines of the spirits of error, that fact
"causes us who are disciples of the true and pure doctrine of Jesus Christ
to be more faithful and steadfast in the hope announced by Him."
It seems obvious that heretical activity
would have precisely the effect of putting the faithful on their guard and
forcing them to define in their own minds what they were going to defend. Thus
Marcion's truncated canon evidently stirred the faithful to define the true
canon. But Marcion also altered the wording of Luke and Paul's Epistles, and by
their bitter complaints it is clear that the faithful were both aware and
concerned. We may note in passing that the heretical activity also furnishes
backhanded evidence that the New Testament writings were regarded as
Scripture—why bother falsifying them if they had no authority?
Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth (168-176),
complained that his own letters had been tampered with, and worse yet the Holy
Scriptures also.
And they insisted that they had received a
pure tradition. Thus Irenaeus said that the doctrine of the apostles had been
handed down by the succession of bishops, being guarded and preserved, without
any forging of the Scriptures, allowing neither addition nor curtailment,
involving public reading without falsification (Against Heretics IV. 32:8).
Tertullian, also, says of his right to the
New Testament Scriptures, "I hold sure title-deeds from the original
owners themselves . . . I am the heir of the apostles. Just as they carefully
prepared their will and testament, and committed it to a trust . . . even so I
hold it."[18]
Irenaeus
In
order to ensure accuracy in transcription, authors would sometimes add at the
close of their literary works an adjuration directed to future copyists. So,
for example, Irenaeus attached to the close of his treatise On the Ogdoad the following
note: "I adjure you who shall copy out this book, by our Lord Jesus Christ
and by his glorious advent when he comes to judge the living and the dead, that
you compare what you transcribe, and correct it carefully against this
manuscript from which you copy; and also that you transcribe this adjuration
and insert it in the copy.”[19]
If Irenaeus took such extreme precautions
for the accurate transmission of his own work, how much more would he be
concerned for the accurate copying of the Word of God? In fact, he demonstrates
his concern for the accuracy of the text by defending the traditional reading
of a single letter.
The question is whether John the Apostle wrote cxV' (666) or ciV' (616) in Rev. 13:18. Irenaeus asserts that 666 is
found "in all the most approved and ancient copies" and that
"those men who saw John face to face" bear witness to it. And he
warns those who made the change (of a single letter) that "there shall be
no light punishment upon him who either adds or subtracts anything from the
Scripture" (xxx.1). Presumably Irenaeus is applying Rev. 22:18-19.
Considering Polycarp's intimacy with John,
his personal copy of Revelation would most probably have been taken from the
Autograph. And considering Irenaeus'
veneration for Polycarp his personal copy of Revelation was probably taken from
Polycarp's. Although Irenaeus evidently was no longer able to refer to the
Autograph (not ninety years after it was written!) he was clearly in a position
to identify a faithful copy and to declare with certainty the original
reading—this in 186 A.D. Which brings
us to Tertullian.
Tertullian
Around the year 208 he urged the heretics
to
run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the
apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic
writings (authenticae)
are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them
severally. Achaia is very near you, (in
which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have
Philippi; (and there too) you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to
cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you
have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority
(of the apostles themselves).[20]
Some have thought that Tertullian was
claiming that Paul's Autographs were still being read in his day (208), but at
the very least he must mean they were using faithful copies. Was anything else
to be expected? For example, when the Ephesian Christians saw the Autograph of
Paul's letter to them getting tattered, would they not carefully execute an
identical copy for their continued use? Would they let the Autograph perish
without making such a copy? (There must have been a constant stream of people
coming either to make copies of their letter or to verify the correct reading.)
I believe we are obliged to conclude that in the year 200 the Ephesian Church
was still in a position to attest the original wording of her letter (and so
for the others)—but this is coeval with P46, P66 and P75!
Both Justin Martyr and Irenaeus claimed
that the Church was spread throughout the whole earth, in their day—remember
that Irenaeus, in 177, became bishop of Lyons, in Gaul, and he was not the first
bishop in that area. Coupling this information with Justin's statement that the
memoirs of the apostles were read each Sunday in the assemblies, it becomes
clear that there must have been thousands of copies of the New Testament
writings in use by 200 A.D. Each assembly would need a copy to read from, and
there must have been private copies among those who could afford them.
We have objective historical evidence in
support of the following propositions:
·The true text was never "lost".
·In A.D. 200 the exact original wording of
the several books could still be verified and attested.
·There was therefore no need to practice
textual criticism and any such effort would be spurious.
However, presumably
some areas would be in a better position to protect and transmit the true text
than others.
Who Was Best Qualified?
What factors would be important for
guaranteeing, or at least facilitating, a faithful transmission of the text of
the N.T. writings? I submit that there are four controlling factors: access to
the Autographs, proficiency in the source language, the strength of the Church
and an appropriate attitude toward the Text.
Access to the Autographs
This criterion probably applied for less
than a hundred years (the Autographs were presumably worn to a frazzle in that
space of time) but it is highly significant to a proper understanding of the
history of the transmission of the Text. Already by the year 100 there must
have been many copies of the various books (some more than others) while it was
certainly still possible to check a copy against the original, should a question
arise. The point is that there was a swelling stream of faithfully executed
copies emanating from the holders of the Autographs to the rest of the
Christian world. In those early years the producers of copies would know that
the true wording could be verified, which would discourage them from taking
liberties with the text.
However, distance would presumably be a
factor—for someone in north Africa to consult the Autograph of Ephesians would
be an expensive proposition, in both time and money. I believe we may reasonably conclude that in general the quality
of copies would be highest in the area surrounding the Autograph and would
gradually deteriorate as the distance increased. Important geographical
barriers would accentuate the tendency.
So who held the Autographs? Speaking in terms of regions, Asia Minor may
be safely said to have had twelve (John, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1
and 2 Timothy, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 and 2 and 3 John, and Revelation), Greece
may be safely said to have had six (1 and 2 Corinthians, Philippians, 1 and 2
Thessalonians, and Titus in Crete), Rome may be safely said to have had two
(Mark and Romans)—as to the rest, Luke, Acts, and 2 Peter were probably held by
either Asia Minor or Rome; Matthew and James by either Asia Minor or Palestine;
Hebrews by Rome or Palestine; while it is hard to state even a probability for
Jude it was quite possibly held by Asia Minor. Taking Asia Minor and Greece
together, the Aegean area held the Autographs of at least eighteen (two-thirds
of the total) and possibly as many as twenty-four of the twenty-seven New
Testament books; Rome held at least two and possibly up to seven; Palestine may
have held up to three (but in A.D. 70 they would have been sent away for safe
keeping, quite possibly to Antioch); Alexandria (Egypt) held none. The Aegean region
clearly had the best start, and Alexandria the worst—the text in Egypt could
only be second hand, at best. On the face of it, we may reasonably assume that
in the earliest period of the transmission of the N.T. Text the most reliable
copies would be circulating in the region that held the Autographs. Recalling
the discussion of Tertullian above, I believe we may reasonably extend this
conclusion to A.D. 200 and beyond. So, in the year 200 someone looking for the
best text of the N.T. would presumably go to the Aegean area; certainly not to
Egypt.
Proficiency in the source language
As a linguist (PhD) and one who has
dabbled in the Bible translation process for some years, I affirm that a
'perfect' translation is impossible. (Indeed, a tolerably reasonable
approximation is often difficult enough to achieve.) It follows that any divine
solicitude for the precise form of the NT Text would have to be mediated
through the language of the Autographs—Greek. Evidently ancient Versions
(Syriac, Latin, Coptic) may cast a clear vote with reference to major variants,
but precision is possible only in Greek (in the case of the N.T.). That by way
of background, but our main concern here is with the copyists.
To copy a text by hand in a language you
do not understand is a tedious exercise—it is almost impossible to produce a
perfect copy (try it and see!). You virtually have to copy letter by letter and
constantly check your place. (It is even more difficult if there is no space
between words and no punctuation, as was the case with the N.T. Text in the
early centuries.) But if you cannot understand the text it is very difficult to
remain alert. Consider the case of P66. This papyrus manuscript is perhaps the
oldest (c. 200) extant N.T. manuscript of any size (it contains most of John).
It is one of the worst copies we have. It has an average of roughly two
mistakes per verse—many being obvious mistakes, stupid mistakes, nonsensical
mistakes. From the pattern of mistakes it is clear that the scribe copied
syllable by syllable. I have no qualms in affirming that the person who
produced P66 did not know Greek. Had he understood the
text he would not have made the number and sort of mistakes that he did.
Now consider the problem from God's point
of view. To whom should He entrust the primary responsibility for the faithful
transmission of the N.T. Text? If the Holy Spirit is going to take an active
part in the process, where should He concentrate His efforts? Presumably fluent
speakers of Greek would have the inside track, and areas where Greek would
continue in active use would be preferred. For a faithful transmission to occur
the copyists had to be proficient in Greek, and over the long haul. So where
was Greek predominant? Evidently in Greece and Asia Minor; Greek is the mother
tongue of Greece to this day (having changed considerably during the
intervening centuries, as any living language must). The dominance of Greek in the Aegean area was guaranteed by the
Byzantine Empire for many centuries; in fact, until the invention of printing.
Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453; the Gutenberg Bible (Latin)
was printed just three years later, while the first printed Greek New Testament
appeared in 1516. (For those who believe in Providence, I would suggest that
here we have a powerful case in point.)
How about Egypt? The use of Greek in Egypt
was already declining by the beginning of the Christian era. Bruce Metzger
observes that the Hellenized section of the population in Egypt "was only
a fraction in comparison with the number of native inhabitants who used only
the Egyptian languages."[21] By the third century the decline was
evidently well advanced. I have already argued that the copyist who did P66 (c. 200) did not know Greek. Now consider
the case of P75 (c. 220).
E.C. Colwell analyzed P75
and found about 145 itacisms plus 257 other singular readings, 25% of which are
nonsensical. From the pattern of mistakes it is clear that the copyist who did
P75 copied letter by letter![22] This means that he did not know
Greek—when transcribing in a language you know you copy phrase by phrase, or at
least word by word. K. Aland argues that before 200 the tide had begun to turn
against the use of Greek in the areas that spoke Latin, Syriac or Coptic, and
fifty years later the changeover to the local languages was well advanced.[23]
Again the Aegean Area is far and away the
best qualified to transmit the Text with confidence and integrity. Note that
even if Egypt had started out with a good text, already by the end of the 2nd
century its competence to transmit the text was steadily deteriorating. In fact
the early papyri (they come from Egypt) are demonstrably inferior in quality,
taken individually, as well as exhibiting rather different types of text (they
disagree among themselves).
The strength of the Church
This question is relevant to our
discussion for two reasons. First, the law of supply and demand operates in the
Church as well as elsewhere. Where there are many congregations and believers
there will be an increased demand for copies of the Scriptures. Second, a
strong, well established church will normally have a confident, experienced
leadership—just the sort that would take an interest in the quality of their
Scriptures and also be able to do something about it. So in what areas was the
early Church strongest?
Although the Church evidently began in
Jerusalem, the early persecutions and apostolic activity caused it to spread.
The main line of advance seems to have been north into Asia Minor and west into
Europe. If the selection of churches to receive the glorified Christ's
"letters" (Rev. 2 and 3) is any guide, the center of gravity of the
Church seems to have shifted from Palestine to Asia Minor by the end of the
first century. (The destruction of Jerusalem by Rome's armies in A.D. 70 would
presumably be a contributing factor.) Kurt Aland agrees with Adolf Harnack that
"about 180 the greatest concentration of churches was in Asia Minor and
along the Aegean coast of Greece." He continues: "The overall
impression is that the concentration of Christianity was in the East. . . .
Even around A.D. 325 the scene was still largely unchanged. Asia Minor continued to be the heartland of
the Church."[24] "The heartland of the
Church"—so who else would be in a better position to certify the correct
text of the New Testament?
What about Egypt? C.H. Roberts, in a
scholarly treatment of the Christian literary papyri of the first three
centuries, seems to favor the conclusion that the Alexandrian church was weak
and insignificant to the Greek Christian world in the second century.[25] Aland states: "Egypt was
distinguished from other provinces of the Church, so far as we can judge, by
the early dominance of gnosticism."[26] He further informs us that "at the
close of the 2nd century" the Egyptian church was "dominantly
gnostic" and then goes on to say: "The copies existing in the gnostic
communities could not be used, because they were under suspicion of being
corrupt."[27] Now this is all very instructive—what
Aland is telling us, in other words, is that up to A.D. 200 the textual
tradition in Egypt
could not be trusted. Aland's assessment here is most probably correct.
Notice what Bruce Metzger says about the early church in Egypt:
Among
the Christian documents which during the second century either originated in
Egypt or circulated there among both the orthodox and the Gnostics are numerous
apocryphal gospels, acts, epistles, and apocalypses. . . . There are also
fragments of exegetical and dogmatic works composed by Alexandrian Christians,
chiefly Gnostics, during the second century. . . . In fact, to judge by the
comments made by Clement of Alexandria, almost every deviant Christian sect was
represented in Egypt during the second century; Clement mentions the
Valentinians, the Basilidians, the Marcionites, the Peratae, the Encratites,
the Docetists, the Haimetites, the Cainites, the Ophites, the Simonians, and
the Eutychites. What proportion of Christians in Egypt during the second
century were orthodox is not known.[28]
It is almost enough to
make one wonder whether Isaiah 30:1-3 might not be a prophecy about N.T.
textual criticism!
But we need to pause to reflect on the
implications of Aland's statements. He is a champion of the Egyptian
("Alexandrian") text-type, and yet he himself informs us that up to
A.D. 200 the textual tradition in Egypt could not be trusted and that by 200
the use of Greek had virtually died out there. So on what basis can he argue
that the Egyptian text subsequently became the best? Aland also states that in
the 2nd century, 3rd century, and into the 4th century Asia Minor continued to
be "the heartland of the Church."
This means that the superior qualifications of the Aegean area to
protect, transmit and attest the N.T. Text carry over into the 4th century!
It happens that Hort, Metzger and Aland (along with many others) have linked
the "Byzantine" text-type to Lucian of Antioch, who died in 311. Now
really, wouldn't a text produced by a leader in "the heartland of the
Church" be better than whatever evolved in Egypt?
Attitude toward the Text
Where careful work is required, the
attitude of those to whom the task is entrusted is of the essence. Are they
aware? Do they agree? If they do not understand the nature of the task, the
quality will probably do down. If they understand but do not agree, they might
even resort to sabotage—a damaging eventuality. In the case of the N.T. books
we may begin with the question: "Why would copies be made?"
We have seen that the faithful recognized
the authority of the N.T. writings from the start, so the making of copies
would have begun at once. The authors clearly intended their writings to be
circulated, and the quality of the writings was so obvious that the word would
get around and each assembly would want a copy. That Clement and Barnabas quote
and allude to a variety of N.T. books by the turn of the 1st century makes
clear that copies were in circulation. A Pauline corpus was known to Peter
before A.D. 70. Polycarp (XIII) c. 115, in answer to a request from the
Philippian church, sent a collection of Ignatius' letters to them, possibly
within five years after Ignatius wrote them. Evidently it was normal procedure
to make copies and collections (of worthy writings) so each assembly could have
a set. Ignatius referred to the free travel and exchange between the churches
and Justin to the weekly practice of reading the Scriptures in the assemblies
(they had to have copies).
A second question would be: "What was
the attitude of the copyists toward their work?" We already have the
essence of the answer. Being followers of Christ, and believing that they were
dealing with Scripture, to a basic honesty would be added reverence in their
handling of the Text, from the start. And to these would be added vigilance,
since the Apostles had repeatedly and emphatically warned them against false
teachers. As the years went by, assuming that the faithful were persons of at
least average integrity and intelligence, they would produce careful copies of
the manuscripts they had received from the previous generation, persons whom they
trusted, being assured that they were transmitting the true text. There would
be accidental copying mistakes in their work, but no deliberate changes. It is
important to note that the earliest Christians did not need to be textual
critics. Starting out with what they knew to be the pure text, they had only to
be reasonably honest and careful. I submit that we have good reason for
understanding that they were especially watchful and careful—this especially in
the early decades.
As time went on regional attitudes
developed, not to mention regional politics. The rise of the so-called
"school of Antioch" is a relevant consideration. Beginning with
Theophilus, a bishop of Antioch who died around 185, the Antiochians began
insisting upon the literal interpretation of Scripture. The point is that a
literalist is obliged to be concerned about the precise wording of the text
since his interpretation or exegesis hinges upon it.
It is reasonable to assume that this
"literalist" mentality would have influenced the churches of Asia
Minor and Greece and encouraged them in the careful and faithful transmission
of the pure text that they had received. For example, the 1,000 MSS of the
Syriac Peshitta are unparalleled for their consistency. (By way of contrast,
the 8,000 MSS of the Latin Vulgate are remarkable for their extensive
discrepancies, and in this they follow the example of the Old Latin MSS.) It is
not unreasonable to suppose that the Antiochian antipathy toward the
Alexandrian allegorical interpretation of Scripture would rather indispose them
to view with favor any competing forms of the text coming out of Egypt.
Similarly the Quarto-deciman controversy with Rome would scarcely enhance the
appeal of any innovations coming from the West.
To the extent that the roots of the
allegorical approach that flourished in Alexandria during the third century
were already present, they would also be a negative factor. Since Philo of
Alexandria was at the height of his influence when the first Christians arrived
there, it may be that his allegorical interpretation of the O.T. began to rub
off on the young church already in the first century. Since an allegorist is
going to impose his own ideas on the text anyway, he would presumably have
fewer inhibitions about altering it—precise wording would not be a high
priority.
The school of literary criticism that
existed at Alexandria would also be a negative factor, if it influenced the
Church at all, and W.R. Farmer argues that it did. “But there is ample evidence
that by the time of Eusebius the Alexandrian text-critical practices were being
followed in at least some of the scriptoria where New Testament manuscripts
were being produced. Exactly when Alexandrian text-critical principles were
first used . . . is not known.”[29] He goes on to suggest that the Christian
school founded in Alexandria by Pantaenus, around 180, was bound to be
influenced by the scholars of the great library of that city. The point is, the
principles used in attempting to "restore" the works of Homer would
not be appropriate for the NT writings when appeal to the Autographs, or exact
copies made from them, was still possible.
Conclusion
What answer do the "four controlling
factors" give to our question? The four speak with united voice: "The
Aegean area was the best qualified to protect, transmit and attest the true
text of the N.T. writings." This was true in the 2nd century; it was true
in the 3rd century; it continued to be true in the 4th century. And now we are
ready to answer the question, "Was the transmission normal?", and to
attempt to trace the history of the text.
Was the Transmission Normal?
Was the transmission normal? Yes and no.
Assuming the faithful were persons of at least average integrity and
intelligence they would produce reasonable copies of the manuscripts they had
received from the previous generation, persons whom they trusted, being assured
that they were transmitting the true text. There would be accidental copying
mistakes in their work, but no deliberate changes. But there were others who
expressed an interest in the New Testament writings, persons lacking in
integrity, who made their own copies with malicious intent. There would be
accidental mistakes in their work too, but also deliberate alteration of the
text. I will trace first the normal transmission.
The normal transmission
We have seen that the faithful recognized
the authority of the New Testament writings from the start—had they not they
would have been rejecting the authority of the Apostles, and hence not been
among the faithful. To a basic honesty would be added reverence in their
handling of the text, from the start. And to these would be added vigilance,
since the Apostles had repeatedly and emphatically warned them against false
teachers.
With an ever-increasing demand and
consequent proliferation of copies throughout the Graeco-Roman world and with
the potential for verifying copies by having recourse to the centers still
possessing the Autographs, the early textual situation was presumably highly
favorable to the wide dissemination of MSS in close agreement with the original
text. By the early years of the second century the dissemination of such copies
can reasonably be expected to have been very widespread, with the logical
consequence that the form of text they embodied would early become entrenched
throughout the area of their influence.
The considerations just cited are crucial
to an adequate understanding of the history of the transmission of the text
because they indicate that a basic trend was established at the very
beginning—a trend that would continue inexorably until the advent of a printed
N.T. text. I say "inexorably" because, given a normal process of
transmission, the science of statistical probability demonstrates that a text
form in such circumstances could scarcely be dislodged from its dominant
position—the probabilities against a competing text form ever achieving a
majority attestation would be prohibitive no matter how many generations of MSS
there might be. (The demonstration vindicating my assertion is in Appendix C.)
It would take an extraordinary upheaval in the transmissional history to give
currency to an aberrant text form. We know of no place in history that will
accommodate such an upheaval.
The argument from probability would apply
to secular writings as well as the New Testament and does not take into account
any unusual concern for purity of text. I have argued, however, that the early
Christians did have a special concern for their Scriptures and that this
concern accompanied the spread of Christianity. Thus Irenaeus clearly took his
concern for textual purity (which extended to a single letter) to Gaul and
undoubtedly influenced the Christians in that area. The point is that the text
form of the N.T. Autographs had a big advantage over that of any secular
literature, so that its commanding position would become even greater than the
argument from probability would suggest. The rapid multiplication and spread of
good copies would raise to absolutely prohibitive levels the chances against an
opportunity for aberrant text forms to gain any kind of widespread acceptance
or use.[30]
It follows that within a relatively few
years after the writing of the N.T. books there came rapidly into existence a
"Majority" text whose form was essentially that of the Autographs
themselves. This text form would, in the natural course of things, continue to
multiply itself and in each succeeding generation of copying would continue to
be exhibited in the mass of extant manuscripts. In short, it would have a
"normal" transmission.
The use of such designations as
"Syrian," "Antiochian," and "Byzantine" for the
Majority Text reflects its general association with that region. I know of no
reason to doubt that the "Byzantine" text is in fact the form of the
text that was known and transmitted in the Aegean area from the beginning.
In sum, I believe that the evidence
clearly favors that interpretation of the history of the text which sees the
normal transmission of the text as centered in the Aegean region, the area that
was best qualified, from every point of view, to transmit the text, from the
very first. The result of that normal transmission is the "Byzantine"
text-type. In every age, including the second and third centuries, it has been
the traditional text.
So then, I claim that the N.T. text had a
normal transmission, namely the fully predictable spread and reproduction of
reliable copies of the Autographs from the earliest period down through the
history of transmission until the availability of printed texts brought copying
by hand to an end.
The abnormal transmission[31]
Turning now to the abnormal transmission,
it no doubt commenced right along with the normal. The apostolic writings
themselves contain strong complaints and warning against heretical and
malicious activity. As Christianity spread and began to make an impact on the
world, not everyone accepted it as "good news". Opposition of various
sorts arose. Also, there came to be divisions within the larger Christian
community—in the N.T. itself notice is taken of the beginnings of some of these
tangents. In some cases faithfulness to an ideological (theological) position
evidently became more important than faithfulness to the N.T. Text. Certain it
is that Church Fathers who wrote during the second century complained bitterly
about the deliberate alterations to the Text perpetrated by
"heretics". Large sections of the extant writings of the early
Fathers are precisely and exclusively concerned with combating the heretics. It
is clear that during the second century, and possibly already in the first,
such persons produced many copies of N.T. writings incorporating their
alterations.[32] Some apparently were quite widely
circulated, for a time. The result was a welter of variant readings, to confuse
the uninformed and mislead the unwary. Such a scenario was totally predictable.
If the N.T. is in fact God's Word then both God and Satan must have a lively
interest in its fortunes. To approach the textual criticism of the N.T. without
taking due account of that interest is to act irresponsibly.
1) Most damage done by 200 A.D.
It is generally agreed that most
significant variants existed by the end of the second century. "The
overwhelming majority of readings were created before the year 200,"
affirms Colwell.[33] "It is no less true to fact than
paradoxical in sound that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has
ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was
composed," said Scrivener decades before.[34]
Kilpatrick comments on the evidence of the earliest Papyri.
Let
us take our two manuscripts of about this date [A.D. 200] which contain parts
of John, the Chester Beatty Papyrus and the Bodmer Papyrus. They are together
extant for about seventy verses. Over these seventy verses they differ some
seventy-three times apart from mistakes.
Further
in the Bodmer Papyrus the original scribe has frequently corrected what he
first wrote. At some places he is correcting his own mistakes but at others he
substitutes one form of phrasing for another. At about seventy-five of these
substitutions both alternatives are known from other manuscripts independently.
The scribe is in fact replacing one variant reading by another at some seventy
places so that we may conclude that already in his day there was variation at
these points.[35]
Zuntz also recognized all of this.
"Modern criticism stops before the barrier of the second century; the age,
so it seems, of unbounded liberties with the text."[36]
Kilpatrick goes on to argue that the
creation of new variants ceased by about 200 A.D. because it became impossible
to "sell" them. He discusses some of Origen's attempts at introducing
a change into the text, and proceeds:
Origen's
treatment of Matt. 19:19 is significant in two other ways. First he was
probably the most influential commentator of the Ancient Church and yet his
conjecture at this point seems to have influenced only one manuscript of a
local version of the New Testament. The Greek tradition is apparently quite
unaffected by it. From the third century onward even an Origen could not
effectively alter the text.
This
brings us to the second significant point—his date. From the early third
century onward the freedom to alter the text which had obtained earlier can no
longer be practiced. Tatian is the last author to make deliberate changes in
the text of whom we have explicit information. Between Tatian and Origen
Christian opinion had so changed that it was no longer possible to make changes
in the text whether they were harmless or not.[37]
He feels this attitude was a reaction
against the rehandling of the text by the second-century heretics. Certainly
there had been a great hue and cry, and whatever the reason it does appear that
little further damage was done after A.D. 200.
2) The aberrant text forms
The extent of the textual difficulties of
the 2nd century can easily be exaggerated. Nevertheless, the evidence cited
does prove that aberrant forms of the N.T. text were produced. Naturally, some
of those text forms may have acquired a local and temporary currency, but they
could scarcely become more than eddies along the edge of the
"majority" river. Recall that the possibility of checking against the
Autographs must have served to inhibit the spread of such text forms.
For example, Gaius, an orthodox Father who
wrote near the end of the second century, named four heretics who not only
altered the text but had disciples who multiplied copies of their efforts. Of
special interest here is his charge that they could not deny their guilt
because they could not produce the originals from which they made their copies.[38] This would be a hollow accusation from
Gaius if he could not produce the Originals either. I have already argued that
the churches in Asia Minor, for instance, did still have either the Autographs
or exact copies that they themselves had made—thus they knew, absolutely, what the
true wording was and could repel the aberrant forms with confidence. A man like
Polycarp would still be able to affirm in 150 A.D., letter by letter if need
be, the original wording of the text for most of the New Testament books. And
presumably his MSS were not burned when he was.
Not only would there have been pressure
from the Autographs, but also the pressure exerted by the already-established
momentum of transmission enjoyed by the majority text form. As already
discussed, the statistical probabilities militating against any aberrant text
forms would be overwhelming. In short, although a bewildering array of variants
came into existence, judging from extant witnesses, and they were indeed a
perturbing influence in the stream of transmission, they would not succeed in
thwarting the progress of the normal transmission.
The Stream of Transmission
Now then, what sort of a picture may we
expect to find in the surviving witnesses on the assumption that the history of
the transmission of the New Testament Text was normal? We may expect a broad
spectrum of copies, showing minor differences due to copying mistakes but all
reflecting one common tradition. The simultaneous existence of abnormal
transmission in the earliest centuries would result in a sprinkling of copies,
helter-skelter, outside of that main stream. The picture would look something
like Figure C.
The MSS within the cone represent the
"normal" transmission. To the left I have plotted some possible
representatives of what we might style the "irresponsible"
transmission of the text—the copyists produced poor copies through incompetence
or carelessness but did not make deliberate changes. To the right I have
plotted some possible representatives of what we might style the
"fabricated" transmission of the text—the scribes made deliberate
changes in the text (for whatever reasons), producing fabricated copies, not
true copies. I am well aware that the MSS plotted on the figure above contain
both careless and deliberate errors, in different proportions (7Q5,4,8 and P52 are too fragmentary to permit the classification of
their errors as deliberate rather than careless), so that any classification
such as I attempt here must be relative and gives a distorted picture. Still, I
venture to insist that ignorance, carelessness, officiousness and malice all
left their mark upon the transmission of the New Testament text, and we must
take account of them in any attempt to reconstruct the history of that
transmission.
IRRESPONSIBLE NORMAL
FABRICATED
O
7Q5,4,8
AD 100 __________P52__P64_____________________
AD 200 ________P66,46,75________________________
AD 300 _______________________________P45____
Diocletian’s campaign
AD 400 __________________________W___B___À__
AD 500 _________________________A__C_______D_
AD 600 ______________________________________
AD 700 ______________________________________
AD 800 ______________________________________
AD 900 _____________________________________
Transliteration process
AD 1000 ______________________________________
Figure C
As the figure suggests, I argue that
Diocletian's campaign had a purifying effect upon the stream of transmission.
In order to withstand torture rather than give up your MS(S), you would have to
be a truly committed believer, the sort of person who would want good copies of
the Scriptures. Thus it was probably the more contaminated MSS that were
destroyed, in the main, leaving the purer MSS to replenish the earth (please
see the section, "Imperial repression of the N.T." in Chapter six).
Another consideration suggests itself—if,
as reported, the Diocletian campaign was most fierce and effective in the
Byzantine area, the numerical advantage of the "Byzantine" text-type
over the "Western" and "Alexandrian" would have been
reduced, giving the latter a chance to forge ahead. But it did not happen. The
Church, in the main, refused to propagate those forms of the Greek text.
What we find upon consulting the witnesses
is just such a picture. We have the Majority Text (Aland), or the Traditional
Text (Burgon), dominating the stream of transmission with a few individual
witnesses going their idiosyncratic ways. We have already seen that the notion
of "text-types" and recensions, as defined and used by Hort and his
followers, is gratuitous. Epp's notion of "streams" fares no better.
There is just one stream, with a number of small eddies along the edges.[39] When I say the Majority Text dominates
the stream, I mean it is represented in about 95% of the MSS.[40]
Actually, such a statement is not
altogether satisfactory because it does not allow for the mixture or shifting
affinities encountered within individual MSS. A better, though more cumbersome,
way to describe the situation would be something like this: 100% of the MSS
agree as to, say, 50% of the Text; 99% agree as to another 40%; over 95% agree
as to another 4%; over 90% agree as to another 2%; over 80% agree as to another
2%; only for 2% or so of the Text do less than 80% of the MSS agree, and most
of those cases occur in Revelation.[41] And the membership of the dissenting
group varies from reading to reading. (I will of course be reminded that
witnesses are to be weighed, not counted; I will come to that presently, so
please bear with me.) Still, with the above reservation, one may reasonably
speak of up to 95% of the extant MSS belonging to the Majority text-type.
I see no way of accounting for a 95% (or
90%) domination unless that text goes back to the Autographs. Hort saw the
problem and invented a revision. Sturz seems not to have seen the problem. He demonstrates that the "Byzantine
text-type" is early and independent of the "Western" and
"Alexandrian text-types," and like von Soden, wishes to treat them as
three equal witnesses.[42] But if the three "text-types"
were equal, how ever could the so-called "Byzantine" gain a 90-95%
preponderance?
The argument from statistical probability
enters here with a vengeance. Not only do the extant MSS present us with one
text form enjoying a 95% majority, but the remaining 5% do not represent a
single competing text form. The minority MSS disagree as much (or more) among
themselves as they do with the majority. For any two of them to agree so
closely as do P75 and B is an
oddity. We are not judging, therefore, between two text forms, one representing
95% of the MSS and the other 5%. Rather, we have to judge between 95% and a
fraction of 1% (comparing the Majority Text with the P75,B text form for example). Or to take a
specific case, in 1 Tim. 3:16 some 600 Greek MSS (besides the Lectionaries)
read "God" while only seven read something else. Of those seven,
three have private readings and four agree in reading "who."[43] So we have to judge between 99% and 0.6%,
"God" versus "who." It is hard to imagine any possible set
of circumstances in the transmissional history sufficient to produce the
cataclysmic overthrow in statistical probability required by the claim that
"who" is the original reading.
It really does seem that those scholars
who reject the Majority Text are faced with a serious problem. How is it to be
explained if it does not reflect the Original? Hort's notion of a Lucianic
revision has been abandoned by most scholars because of the total lack of
historical evidence. The eclecticists are not even trying. The
"process" view has not been articulated in sufficient detail to
permit refutation, but on the face of it that view is flatly contradicted by
the argument from statistical probability.[44] How could any amount of
"process" bridge the gap between B or Aleph and the TR?
But there is a more basic problem with the
process view. Hort saw clearly, and correctly, that the Majority Text must have
a common archetype. Recall that Hort's genealogical method was based on
community of error. On the hypothesis that the Majority Text is a late
and inferior text form, the large mass of common readings which distinguish it
from the so-called "Western" or "Alexandrian text-types"
must be errors (which was precisely Hort's contention) and such an
agreement in error would have to have a common source. The process view fails
completely to account for such an agreement in error (on that hypothesis).
Hort saw the need for a common source and posited a Lucianic revision. Scholars now generally recognize that the "Byzantine text-type" must date back at least into the second century. But what chance would the original "Byzantine" document, the archetype, have of gaining currency when appeal to the Autographs was still possible?
Candidly, there is only one reasonable explanation for the Majority Text that has so far been advanced—it is the result of an essentially normal process of transmission and the common source for its consensus is the Autographs. Down through the centuries of copying, the original text has always been reflected with a high degree of accuracy in the manuscript tradition as a whole. The history of the text presented in this chapter not only accounts nicely for the Majority Text, it also accounts for the inconsistent minority of MSS. They are remnants of the abnormal transmission of the text, reflecting ancient aberrant forms. It is a dependence upon such aberrant forms that distinguishes contemporary critical/eclectic editions of the Greek New Testament, and the modern translations based upon them.
What Is the Actual Evidence?
The Uncials
In The Text of the New Testament[45] K. Aland offers a summary of the results
of a "systematic test collation" for the more important uncials from
centuries IV-IX. He uses four headings: "Byzantine",
"original", "agreements" between the first two, and
"independent or distinctive" readings. Since by "original"
he seems to mean essentially "Egyptian" (or "Alexandrian")
I will use the following headings: Egyptian, Majority ("Byzantine"),
both ("agreements") and other ("independent"). I proceed to
chart each MS from the IV through IX centuries for which Aland offers a
summary:
By way of explanation: "cont."
stands for content, e = Gospels (but Aland's figures cover only the
Synoptics), a = Acts, p = Pauline Epistles (including Hebrews)
and c = Catholic Epistles; "Cat." refers to Aland's five categories
(The Text, pp. 105-6) and "class." stands for a classification
devised by me wherein E = Egyptian, M = Majority and O =
other. It has the following values,
which are illustrated with M:
M+++++ = 100%
M++++ = over 95% = 19:1 =
very strong
M+++ = over 90%
= 9:1 =
strong
M++
= over 80% =
4:1 = good
M+
= over 66% =
2:1 = fair
M
= over 50% =
1:1 = weak
M-
= plurality = = marginal
M/E
= a tie
I assume that Aland will agree with me
that E + M is certainly original, so the "both" column
needs to be disregarded as we try to evaluate the tendencies of the several
MSS. Accordingly I considered only the "Egyptian",
"Majority" and "other" columns in calculating percentages.
Codex
Date cont. Egyptian both Majority other total class. Cat.
B-03 IV e 196 54
9 72 331 E+ I
a 72
22 2 11 107 E++ I
p
144 31 8
27 210 E++ I
c 80
8 2 9 99 E++ I
À-01 IV e 170 80
23 95 368 E I
a 67
24 9 17 117 E+ I
p 174
38 76 52
340 E I
c 73
5 21 16 115 E I
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------400
W-032 V e
54 70 118 88
330 M- III
A-02 V e 18
84 151 15 268 M++ III
a 65
22 9 12 108 E+ I
p
149 28 31
37 245 E+ I
c 62
5 18 12 97 E+ I
C-04 V e
66 66 87
50 269 M- II
a 37
12 12 11 72 E II
p 104
23 31 15 173 E+ II
c 41
3 15 12 71 E II
D-05 V e
77 48 65 134 324 O- IV
a 16
7 21 33 77 O- IV
I-016 V p
15 1 2 6
24 E II
Q-026 V e
0 5 5 2
12 M+ V
048 V
p* 26 7 3
4 40 E+ II
0274 V e
19 6 0 2
27 E+++ II
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------500
D-06 VI p
112 29 137 83
361 M- II
E-08 VI
a 23
21 36 22 102 M- II
H-015 VI
p 11
0 5 1 17 E III
N-022 VI e 8 48
89 15 160 M+ V
O-023 VI e
0 4 9 3 16 M+ V
P-024 VI
e
3 16 24 0 43 M++ V
R-027 VI
e 0 4 11 5 20
M+ V
Z-035 VI e
11
5 3 2 21 E+ III
X-040 VI** e 8 2 2
3 15 E III
S-042 VI e 15
83 140 25
263 M+ V
F-043 VI
e 11 83 131
18 243 M++ V
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------600
0211 VII e
10
101 189 23 323 M++ V
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------700
E-07 VIII e 1
107 209 9 326
M++++ V
L-019 VIII e 125
75 52 64 316 E II
047 VIII e 6 96 175 21 298 M++ V
0233 VIII e 3 23 47 5
78 M++ III
Y-044 VIII e 52
21 40 19 132 E- III
a
22
25 43 15 105 M III
p
38 42
135 33 248 M III
c
54 8
21 14 97 E II
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------800
F-09 IX e
0 78 156 11
245 M+++ V
F-010 IX p
91 12
41 69 213 E- III
G-011 IX e 4
87 176 21 288 M++ V
G-012 IX p
91 12 43
66 212 E- III
H-013 IX
e
2 82 174 7
265 M++++ V
H-014 IX a
2 22
48 1 73 M+++ V
K-017 IX e
8 107 197 15
327 M++ V
K-018 IX p
8 32 154 8
202 M+++ V
c
4 9 77 6
96 M++ V
L-020 IX a 1 23 51
3 78 M+++ V
p
5 44 188 4
241 M++++ V
c
5 9 78 3
95 M+++ V
M-021 IX e 7 106 202 12 327 M+++ V
P-025 IX a 1
29 70
0 100 M++++ V
p 87
31 87 31 236 E/M III
c 26 6 46 9
87 M III
U-030 IX
e 1 38
105 11
155 M++ V
V-031 IX e 8 101
192 17 318 M++ V
Y-034 IX e 4 95 192 6 297
M++++ V
D-037 IX
e 69 88 120 47 324
M III
Q-038
IX e 75 59 89 95 318 O- II
L-039 IX
e 0 10 41 2
53 M++++ V
P-041 IX e
11 104
190 18
323 M++ V
W-045 IX
e 3
104 208
10 325 M+++
V
049 IX
a 3 29 69 3 104 M+++ V
p 0
34 113 3 150 M++++ V
c 1 9 82 4 96 M+++ V
063 IX p 0 3 15 0 18 M+++++ V
0150 IX
p 65 34 101 23
223 M III
0151
IX p 9 44 174 7 234 M+++ V
33 IX e 57
73 54 44 228 E- II
a
34
19 21 11
85 E I
p 129 35
47 36
247 E I
c
45 3 21 14 83 E I
461 835
e 3 102 219
5 329 M++++
V
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------900
(*Aland shows ap,
but gives no figures for a.
**UBS3 has VIII.)
So, what can we learn from this chart? Perhaps
a good place to begin is with a correlation between "Cat." and
"class." in terms of the values we have each given to specific MSS:
I II III IV V
E++ E+++
M- O- E+ M++ O-
M+++++
E+
E+ E M M++++
E E E- M- M+++
E- E/M M++
M+
Categories I, IV and V are reasonably
consistent, but how are we to interpret II and III? This is bothersome because
in Aland's book (pp. 156-59) a very great many MSS are listed under III and not
a few under II. It might be helpful to see how many MSS, or content segments,
fall at the intersections of the two parameters:
I II III IV V total
E+++ 1 1
E++ 3 3
E+ 5 2 1 8
E 6 5 2
13
E-
1 3 4
O-
1 2 3
E/M 1 1
M-
3 1 4
M 5 5
M+ 5 5
M++ 2 10 12
M+++ 10 10
M++++ 8 8
M+++++ 1
1
0274 and 063 are fragmentary, which
presumably accounts for their exceptional scores, E+++ and M+++++ respectively;
if they were more complete they would probably each come down a level. Out of
45 M segments 31 score above 80%, while 9 are over 95% 'pure'. It should be
possible to reconstruct a "Byzantine" archetype with tolerable
confidence. But one has to wonder how Aland arrived at the "Egyptian"
norm in the Gospels since the best Egyptian witness (except for the fragmentary
0274, which has less than 10% of the text but scores 90%), Codex B, barely passes
70%. (In The Text, p. 95, Aland gives a summary for P75 in Luke—it scores 77%.) Further, besides
B and 0274, P75 and Z (both
also fragmentary) are the only Greek MSS that score so much as an E+ in the
Gospels. One is reminded of E.C. Colwell's conclusion after attempting to
reconstruct an 'average' or mean Alexandrian text for the first chapter of
Mark. “These results show convincingly that any attempt to reconstruct an
archetype of the Beta [Alexandrian] Text-type on a quantitative basis is doomed
to failure. The text thus reconstructed is not reconstructed but constructed;
it is an artificial entity that never existed.”[46]
For the other content areas the situation
is not much better. Only P74
(86%), B (85%) and 81 (80%) rate an E++ in a; apart from them only A and
Aleph manage even an E+. Codex B is the only E++ (80%) in p, and only P46, A, C, 048 and 1739 manage an E+. Aside
from B's 88% in c, only P74, A and 1739 manage even an E+. How did Aland arrive at his
"Egyptian" norm in these areas? Might that "norm" be a
fiction, as Colwell affirmed?
Codex Ae is 82% Byzantine and must have been based on a
Byzantine exemplar, which presumably would belong to the IV century. Codex W in
Matthew is also clearly Byzantine and must have had a Byzantine exemplar. The
sprinkling of Byzantine readings in B is sufficiently slight that it could be
ascribed to chance, I suppose, but that explanation will hardly serve for Aleph.
At least in p, if not throughout, Aleph's copyist must have had access to a
Byzantine exemplar, which could have belonged to the III century. But Asterius
offers much stronger evidence: he died in 341, so presumably did his writing
somewhat earlier; it seems likely that his MSS would be from the III
century—since he shows a 90% preference for Byzantine readings those MSS must
have been Byzantine. (Using my classification, Asterius would be M++,
the Byzantine preference being 83%. On a percentage basis Asterius is as
strongly Byzantine as B is Egyptian.) Adamantius died in 300, so he did his
writing earlier. Might his MSS have been from the first half of the III
century? Since he shows a 52% preference for Byzantine readings (or 39%, using
my classification) at least some of his MSS were presumably Byzantine. For that
matter P66 has so many Byzantine readings that its copyist
must have had access to a Byzantine exemplar, which would necessarily belong to
the II century! The circumstance that some Byzantine readings in P66* were corrected to Egyptian readings,
while some Egyptian readings in P66* were corrected to Byzantine readings,
really seems to require that we posit exemplars of the two types—between them
the two hands furnish clear evidence that the Byzantine text, as such, existed
in their day. (For evidence from the early Fathers, Papyri and Versions please
see the section, "But There Is No Evidence of the Byzantine Text
in the Early Centuries", in Chapter six.)
Returning to the chart of the uncials
above, in the IV century E leads in all four areas, although in Aleph E is weak
and M is gaining. If W is IV century M has gained even more. I remind the
reader that I am referring only to the information in the chart given
above. In reality, I assume that the IV
century, like all others, was dominated by Byzantine MSS. Being good copies
they were used and worn out, thereby perishing. Copies like B and Aleph
survived because they were "different", and therefore not used. By
"used" I mean for ordinary purposes—I am well aware that Aleph
exercised the ingenuity of a number of correctors over the centuries, but it
left no descendants. In the V century M takes over the lead in e while E
retains apc (it may come as a
surprise to some that Ce is more M than anything else). In the VI
century M strengthens its hold on e and moves in on a (it may
come as a surprise to some that Dp is more M than anything else). After the
V century, with the sole exception of the fragmentary Z, all the
"Egyptian" witnesses are weak—even the "queen of the
cursives," 33, does not get up to an E+. Of X century uncials for which
Aland offers a summary, all are clearly Byzantine (028, 033, 036, 056, 075 and
0124) except for 0243, which scores an E.[47]
The Cursives
When we turn to the cursives, Aland offers
summaries for 150, chosen on the basis of their "independence" from
the Byzantine norm. He lists 900 MSS only by number because "these
minuscules exhibit a purely or predominantly Byzantine text," and
therefore he considers that "they are all irrelevant for textual
criticism" (The
Text, p. 155). To do for the 150 "independent" cursives
what I did for the uncials would take too much space, so I will summarize
Aland's statistics in chart form, using my classification:
cont. M+++++ M++++ M+++ M++
M+ M M- M/E E- E E+ E++
e 10 23 12 6 16 1
2
1
a 12 15
23 21 14 12 1 4 2 1
p 1 25 17 17 28 19 4 2 3 1
c 1 9 18 6 30 21
10 1 5 10 1
total 2
56 73 58 85 70 27
2 13 16 2 1
Even among these "independent" cursives
there are two content segments that actually score 100% Byzantine! (Just
imagine how many more there must be among the 900 that are so Byzantine that
Aland ignored them.) The best Egyptian representative is 81 in Acts, with an
even 80%. 1739 scores 70% (E+) in c and 68% (E+) in p. These are
the only three segments that I would call "clearly Egyptian". There
are sixteen segments that score between 50 and 66% (E). Pitting M through
M+++++ against E through E++ we get 344 to 19, and this from the
"independent" minuscules. If we add the 900 "predominantly
Byzantine" MSS, which will average over two content segments each, the
actual ratio is well over 100 to one. I assume that almost all of these 900 will
score at least M++, and most will doubtless score M+++ or higher. If we were to compute only segments that
score at least 80%, the Byzantine:Egyptian ratio would be more like 1,000
to one—the MSS that have been classified by Aland's "test collation",
as reported in his book, represent perhaps 40% of the total (excluding
Lectionaries), but we may reasonably assume that most of the
"independent" ones have already been identified and presented. It
follows that the remaining MSS, at least 1,600, can only increase the Byzantine
side of the ratio. If the Byzantine text is the "worst", then down
through the centuries of manuscript copying the Church was massively mistaken!
The MSS discussed in Aland's book (first
edition) reflect the collating done at his Institute as of 1981. Many more have
doubtless been collated since, but the general proportions will probably not
change significantly. Consider the study done by Frederik Wisse. He collated
and compared 1,386 MSS in Luke 1, 10 and 20, and found only four uncials
(out of 34) and four cursives (out of 1,352) that displayed the Egyptian
text-type, plus another two of each that were Egyptian in one of the three
chapters.[48]
Concluding Remarks
In his book Aland's discussion of the
transmission of the NT text is permeated with the assumption that the Byzantine
text was a secondary development that progressively contaminated the pure
Egyptian ("Alexandrian") text. But the chief "Alexandrian"
witnesses, B, A (except e) and À (The Text, p. 107), are in
constant and significant disagreement among themselves; so much so that there
is no objective way of reconstructing an archetype. 150 years earlier the picture
is the same; P45, P66 and P75 are quite dissimilar and do not reflect a
single tradition. In A.D. 200 "there was no king in [Egypt]; everyone did
what was right in his own eyes," or so it would seem. But what if we were
to entertain the hypothesis that the Byzantine tradition is the oldest and that
the "Western" and "Alexandrian" MSS represent varying
perturbations on the fringes of the main transmissional stream? Would this not make better sense of the
surviving evidence? Then there would have been no "Western" or
"Egyptian" archetypes, just various sources of contamination that
acted in such a random fashion that each extant "Western" or
"Egyptian" MS has a different 'mosaic'. In contrast, there would
indeed be a "Byzantine" archetype, which would reflect the original.
In fact, virtually perfect exemplars exist in our day, as illustrated by 1841
for the pauline corpus and 424 for the general epistles.
Aland seems to grant that down through the
centuries of church history the Byzantine text was regarded as "the text
of the church", and he traces the beginning of this state of affairs to
Lucian.[49] He makes repeated mention of a
"school of/at Antioch" and of Asia Minor. All of this is very
interesting, because in his book he agrees with Adolf Harnack that "about
180 the greatest concentration of churches was in Asia Minor and along the
Aegean coast of Greece".[50] This is the area where Greek was the
mother tongue and where Greek continued to be used. It is also the area that started out with most of the Autographs.
But Aland continues: "Even around A.D. 325 the scene was still largely
unchanged. Asia Minor continued to be
the heartland of the Church." "The heartland of the Church"—so
who else would be in a better position to identify the correct text of the New
Testament? Who could 'sell' a fabricated text in Asia Minor in the early fourth
century? I submit that the Byzantine text dominated the transmissional history
because the churches in Asia Minor vouched for it. And they did so, from the
very beginning, because they knew it was the true text, having received it from
the Apostles. The Majority Text is what it is just because it has always been the Text of the Church.