The King James Version
Defended
By Dr.
Edward F. Hills
CHAPTER FIVE
THE FACTS OF NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL
CRITICISM
Facts are the
temporal truths which God, the eternal Truth,
establishes by His works of creation and providence. God
reveals facts to men through their thought processes,
and in and through the facts God reveals Himself. In the
facts of nature God reveals Himself as the almighty
Creator God, in the facts of Scripture God reveals
Himself as the faithful Covenant God, and in the facts
of the Gospel God reveals Himself as the triune Saviour
God. Certainty is our clear perception of the clearly
revealed facts. Probability is our dimmer perception of
the less clearly revealed facts. Error is the sinful
rejection of the facts, and especially of God's
revelation of Himself in and through the
facts.
In New Testament
textual criticism, therefore, we must start at the
highest point. We must begin with God, the supreme and
eternal Truth, and then descend to the lower, temporal
facts which He has established by His works of creation
and providence. We must take all our principles from the
Bible itself and borrow none from the textual criticism
of other ancient books. It is only by following this
rule that we will be able to distinguish facts from the
fictions of unbelievers.
1. An
Enumeration Of The New Testament
Documents
For information
concerning the vast fleet of documents which have
transported the New Testament text across the sea of
time under the direction of God's special providence let
us apply to two of the leading experts in this field,
namely, Kurt Aland (1968), (1) who currently assigns
official numbers to newly discovered manuscripts of the
Greek New Testament, and B. M. Metzger (1968), (2)
author of many books and articles concerning the New
Testament text.
(a) The
Greek New Testament
Manuscripts
How many New
Testament manuscripts are there? In order to answer this
question let us turn to the latest statistics as they
are presented by Kurt Aland. According to Aland, there
are 5,255 known manuscripts which contain all or part of
the Greek New Testament. (3)
The earliest of
these Greek New Testament manuscripts are the papyri.
They are given that name because they are written on
papyrus, an ancient type of writing material made from
the fibrous pith of the papyrus plant, which in ancient
times grew plentifully along the river Nile. Eighty-one
of these papyri have now been discovered, many of them
mere fragments. (4) The most important of these papyrus
manuscripts are the Chester Beatty Papyri and the Bodmer
Papyri. The Chester Beatty Papyri were published in
1933-37. They include Papyrus 45 ( Gospels and Acts, c.
225 A.D. ), Papyrus 46 (Pauline Epistles, c. 225 A.D.),
and Papyrus 47 (Revelation, c. 275 A.D. ). The Bodmer
Papyri were published in 1956-62. The most important of
these are Papyrus 66 (John, c. 200 A.D.) and Papyrus 75
( Luke and John 1: 15, c. 200 A.D.).
All the rest
of the Greek New Testament manuscripts are of velum (
leather), except for a few late ones in which paper was
used. The oldest of the velum manuscripts are written in
uncial
(capital) letters. These uncial manuscripts now number
267. (5) The three oldest complete (or nearly complete)
uncial manuscripts are B (Codex
Vaticanus), Aleph (Codex
Sinaiticus), and A (Codex
Alexandrinus). Codex B was written
about the middle of the 4th century. It is the property
of the Vatican Library at Rome. When it arrived there is
not known, but it must have been before 1475, since it
is mentioned in a catalogue of the library made in that
year. Codex
Aleph was discovered by Tischendorf in 1859 at the
Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. Tischendorf
persuaded the monks to give it as a present (requited
with money and favors) to the Czar of Russia. In 1933 it
was purchased from the Russian government by the
Trustees of the British Museum. It is generally
considered by scholars to have been written in the
second half of the 4th century. Codex A was for
many years regarded as the oldest extant New Testament
manuscript. It was given to the King of England in 1627
by Cyril Lucar, patriarch of Constantinople, and is now
kept in the British Museum. Scholars date it from the
first half of the 5th century. Other important uncial
manuscripts are W (Gospels, 4th
or 5th century), D (Gospels and
Acts, 5th or 6th century), and D2 (Pauline Epistles, 6th
century).
About the
beginning of the 9th century minuscule (small
letter) handwriting began to be used for the production
of books. Thus all the later New Testament manuscripts
are minuscules. According to Aland, 2,764 minuscules have been
catalogued. (6) These date from the 9th to the 16th
century.
Another
important class of Greek New Testament manuscripts are
the lectionaries.
These are service books which contain in proper sequence
the text of the passages of Scripture appointed to be
read at the worship services of the Church. These lectionaries are
of two kinds, the synaxaria, which
begin the year at Easter, and the menologia, which begin the year at September 1. Aland sets
the number of the lectionary manuscripts at 2,143.
(7)
(b)
Cataloguing the New Testament
Manuscripts
To discover
and catalogue all these manuscripts was the first task
of New Testament textual criticism. As early as 1550
Stephanus began to do this. This scholarly printer
placed in the margin of his 3rd edition of the Textus
Receptus variant readings taken from 15 manuscripts,
which he indicated by Greek numbers. One of these
manuscripts was D and another L, and most of the rest have been identified with
minuscule manuscripts in the Royal (National) Library at
Paris. Stephanus' pioneer efforts were continued 100
years later by the English scholar Brian Walton. In the
6th volume of his great Polyglot Bible (1657) he
included the variant readings of Stephanus and also
those of 15 other manuscripts. These were listed along
with the libraries in which they were kept. In 1707 John
Mill, another English scholar, published his monumental
edition of the New Testament in which almost all the
available evidence of the Greek manuscripts and the
early versions was presented. Scrivener (1883) gives a
list of the 82 Greek New Testament manuscripts which
Mill knew and catalogued in his epoch making work.
(8)
The modern system
of cataloguing the New Testament rnanuscripts was
introduced by J. J. Wettstein in his two volume edition
of the New Testament, published at Amsterdam in 1751-52.
He designated the uncial manuscripts by capital letters
and the minuscule manuscripts by Arabic numerals.
According to K. W. Clark (1950), Wettstein catalogued
about 125 Greek New Testament manuscripts.
(9)
After the
opening of the 19th century the process of cataloguing
New Testament manuscripts speeded up tremendously due to
the improved means of travel and communication. During
the years 1820-36 J. M. A. Scholz listed 616 manuscripts
which had not previously been known. In the four
editions of his Introduction to the
Criticism of the New Testament
(1861-94) F. H. A. Scrivener extended the catalogue to
almost 3,000 manuscripts. Between the years 1884 and
1912 C. R. Gregory enlarged this list to over 4,000
manuscripts. (10) After Gregory's death in World War I,
the task of registering newly discovered manuscripts was
taken over by von Dobschuetz, and then by Eltester, and
is at present the responsibility of K. Aland. As stated,
he lists the total number of Greek New Testament
manuscripts at 5,255. In view of these large numbers, it
may very well be that almost all the extant New
Testament manuscripts have now been discovered and
catalogued.
(c)
Collating the New Testament
Manuscripts
After a manuscript
is discovered and catalogued, it must be studied to find
out what it says, and its readings must be published.
Usually this is done by collating (comparing) the
manuscript with some well known printed text and noting
the readings in regard to which the manuscript varies
from this printed text. If the collation is perfectly
accurate, these variant readings, when again compared
with the printed text, will exhibit perfectly the text
of the manuscript which has been collated.
Unfortunately, however, the collations of the earlier
New Testament scholars were not very reliable. It was
not considered necessary to record every variant of the
manuscript that was being examined.
It was not until
the 19th century that scholars began to aim at perfect
accuracy and completeness in the collation of New
Testament manuscripts. The most famous of these 19th
century publishers and collators of New Testament
manuscripts was C. Tischendorf. The 8th edition of his
Greek New Testament (1869) is still a mine of
information concerning the readings of the New Testament
documents and indispensable to the student who desires
to examine these matters for himself. Other eminent 19th
century investigators of New Testament manuscripts were
S. P. Tregelles, F .H. A. Scrivener, and J. W.
Burgon.
During the 20th
century there have been many who have taken part in the
work of collating New Testament manuscripts. Included
among these are C. R. Gregory, K. Lake, H. C. Hoskier,
and many contemporary scholars. One of the goals, as yet
unattained, of 20th century scholarship has been to
produce a critical edition of the New Testament which
shall take the place of Tischendorf's 8th edition. Von
Soden attempted to supply this need in his monumental
edition (1902-10), but did not succeed, at least in the
judgment of most critics. In 1935 and 1940 S. C. Legg
published critical editions of Mark and Matthew
respectively, but inaccuracies have also been found in
his presentation of the evidence. In 1949 an
international committee was formed of British and
American scholars, and since that time work on a
critical edition of Luke has been in progress. Not long
ago (1966) a specimen of this committee's work was
rather severely criticized on various counts by K.
Aland, who is now working with other European scholars
in yet another attempt to produce a new critical edition
of the New Testament. (11)
Such then are the
impressive results of more than four centuries of New
Testament manuscript study. Thousands of manuscripts
have been catalogued and many of these manuscripts have
been collated and studied. Myriads of facts have been
gathered. As believing Bible students we should seek to
master these facts. We must remember, however, that
facts are never neutral. (12) All facts are temporal
truths which God establishes by His works of creation
and providence. Hence we must not attempt, as
unbelievers do, to force the facts into an allegedly
neutral framework but should interpret them in
accordance with the divine Truth, namely, God's
revelation of Himself in the pages of holy Scripture.
When we do this, the consistency of believing thought
and the inconsistency of unbelieving thought become
evident also in the realm of New Testament textual
criticism.
(d) The
Ancient New Testament
Versions
When and where the
New Testament was first translated into Latin has been
the subject of much dispute, but, according to Metzger,
most scholars now agree that the first Latin translation
of the Gospels was made in North Africa during the last
quarter of the 2nd century. Only about 50 manuscripts of
this Old Latin version survive. These manuscripts are
divided into the African Latin group and the European
Latin group according to the type of text which they
contain. In 382 A.D. Pope Damasus requested Jerome to
undertake a revision of the Old Latin version. Jerome
complied with this request and thus produced the Latin
Vulgate, the official Bible of the Roman Catholic
Church. There are more than 8,000 extant manuscripts of
the Vulgate. (13)
Of the Syriac
versions the most important is the Peshitta, the
historic Bible of the whole Syrian Church, of which 350
manuscripts are now extant. The Peshitta was long
regarded as one of the most ancient New Testament
versions, being accorded a 2nd-century date. In more
recent times, however, Burkitt (1904) and other
naturalistic critics have assigned a 5th-century date to
the Peshitta. (14) But Burkitt's hypothesis is contrary
to the evidence, and today it is being abandoned even by
naturalistic scholars. (15) All the sects into which the
Syrian Church is divided are loyal to the Peshitta. In
order to account for this it is necessary to believe
that the Peshitta was in existence long before the 5th
century, for it was in the 5th century that these
divisions occurred.
The Philoxenian
Syriac version was produced in 508 A.D. for Philaxenus,
bishop of Mabbug, by his assistant Polycarp. In 616 this
version was re-issued, or perhaps revised, by Thomas of
Harkel, who likewise was bishop of Mabbug. The
Philoxenian-Harclean version includes the five books
which the Peshitta omits, namely 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John,
Jude, and Revelation. (16)
The so-called "Old
Syriac" version is represented by only two manuscripts,
(17) the Curetonian Syriac manuscript, named after W.
Cureton who published it in 1858, and the Sinaitic
Syriac manuscript, which was discovered by Mrs. Lewis in
1892 at the same monastery on Mount Sinai in which
Tischendorf had discovered Codex Aleph almost fifty
years before. These manuscripts are called "Old Syriac"
because they are thought by critics to represent a
Syriac text which is older than the Peshitta. This
theory, however, rests on Burkitt's untenable hypothesis
that the Peshitta was produced in the 5th century by
Rabbula, bishop of Edessa.
The Egyptian New
Testament versions are called the Coptic versions
because they are written in Coptic, the latest form of
the ancient Egyptian language. The Coptic New Testament
is extant in two dialects, the Sahidic version of
Southern Egypt and the Bohairic version of Northern
Egypt. According to Metzger, the Sahidic version dates
from the beginning of the 3rd century. The oldest
Sahidic manuscript has been variously dated from the
mid-4th to the 6th century. The Bohairic version is
regarded as somewhat later than the Sahidic. It is
extant in many manuscripts, most of which are late. In
the 1950's however, M. Bodmer acquired a papyrus
Bohairic manuscript containing most of the Gospel of
John which was thought by its editor, R. Kasser, to date
from the mid-4th century. (18)
In addition to the
Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions, there are a number
of other versions which are important for textual
criticism. The Gothic version was translated from the
Greek in the middle of the 4th century by Ulfilas, the
renowned missionary to the Goths. Of this version six
manuscripts are still extant. Of the Armenian version,
1,244 manuscripts survive. This version seems to have
been made in the 5th century, but by whom is uncertain.
Whether it was made from the Greek or from a Syriac
version is also a matter of debate among scholars. The
Christians of Georgia, a mountainous district between
the Black and Caspian seas, also had a New Testament in
their own language, several copies of which are still
extant. (19)
(e) The
Quotations of the Church
Fathers
The New Testament
quotations found in the writings of the Church Fathers
constitute yet another source of information concerning
the history of the New Testament text. Some of the most
important Fathers, for the purposes of textual
criticism, are as follows: the three Western Fathers,
Irenaeus (c. 180), Tertullian (150-220), Cyprian
(200-258); the Alexandrian Fathers, Clement (c.
200)
Origen (182-251); the
Fathers who lived in Antioch and in Asia Minor,
especially Chrysostom (345-407). Another very important
early Christian writer was Tatian, who about 170 A.D.
composed a harmony of the Four Gospels called the
Diatessaron. This had wide circulation in Syria and has
been preserved in two Arabic manuscripts and various
other sources.
(f) Families
of New Testament
Documents
Since the
18th century the New Testament documents have been
divided into families according to the type of text
which they contain. There are three of these families,
namely, the Western family,
the Alexandrian
family, and the Traditional (Byzantine) family.
The Western family consists of those New Testament documents
which contain that form of text found in the writings of
the Western Church Fathers, especially Irenaeus,
Tertullian, and Cyprian. A number of Greek manuscripts
contain this text, of which the most important are D and
D2. Three other important witnesses to the Western text
are the Old Latin version, the Diatessaron of Tatian,
and the Curetonian and Sinaitic Syriac
manuscripts.
The Alexandrian
family consists of those New Testament documents which
contain that form of text which was used by Origen in
some of his writings and also by other Church Fathers
who, like Origen, lived at Alexandria. This family
includes Papyri 46, 47, 66, 75, B, Aleph., and
about 25 other Greek New Testament manuscripts. The
Coptic versions also belong to the Alexandrian
family of New Testament documents. Westcott and Hort
(1881) distinguished between the text of B and the text
of other Alexandrian documents. They called the B text Neutral, thus indicating their belief that it was a
remarkably pure text which had not been contaminated by
the errors of either the Western or Alexandrian texts.
Many subsequent scholars, however, have denied the
validity of this distinction.
The Traditional
(Byzantine) family includes all those New Testament
documents which contain the Traditional (Byzantine)
text. The vast majority of the Greek New Testament
manuscripts belong to this family, including A (in the
Gospels) and W (in Matthew and the last two thirds of Luke).
The Peshitta Syriac version and the Gothic version also
belong to the Traditional family of New Testament
documents. And the New Testament quotations of
Chrysostom and the other Fathers of Antioch and Asia
Minor seem generally to agree with the Traditional
text.
2. The Early
History Of The Western
Text
The Western text
may actually have originated in the East, as Ropes
(1926) (20) and other noted scholars have believed, but
if so it was probably taken to Rome almost immediately
and adopted by the Christian community of that great
city as its official text. Then from Rome the use of the
Western text spread to all parts of the civilized world,
the prestige of the Roman Church securing for it a
favorable reception everywhere. As Souter (1912)
observed, "The universal diffusion of the Western text
can best be explained by the view that it circulated
from Rome, the capital and centre of all things."
(21)
(a) Western
Additions to the New Testament
Text
The Western text
is singularly long in many places, containing readings
which are not found in the Alexandrian or Traditional
texts. Some of the most interesting of these Western
additions to the New Testament text are as
follows:
Matt.
3:15
To the account of Christ's baptism certain Old
Latin manuscripts add, and a great light
shone around.
Matt.
20:28
After the familiar words, The Son of Man came
not to be ministered unto but to minister and to give
His life a ransom for many, D and certain Old Latin
manuscripts add, But as for you, seek
to increase from that which is small, and from that
which is greater to be come less. And when ye come
in and are invited to dine, do not sit at the best
places; lest some one more honorable than thou approach,
and the host come and say to thee, Move farther down,
and thou be ashamed. But if thou sit down at the lower
place, and some one less than thou approach, the host
also will say to thee, Move farther up, and this shall
be profitable for
thee.
Luke 3:22
At Christ's baptism, according to D and certain Old
Latin manuscripts, the heavenly voice states, Thou art My Son.
This day have I begotten
Thee.
Luke 6:4
At the
end of this verse D adds this apochryphal saying of
Jesus. On the
same day, seeing a certain man working on the
sabbath, He said to him, Man, if thou knowest what thou
doest, thou art blessed, but if
thou
knowest not, thou art cursed and art a
transgressor of the
law.
Luke 23:53
After the words, wherein never man
before was laid, D c Sahidic add,
And when He was
laid there, he placed before the tomb a stone, which
twenty men could scarcely
roll.
John 6:56
After Christ's solemn statement, He that eateth My
flesh and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me and I in
him, D and the Old Latin add, according as the
Father is in Me and I in the Father. Verily, verily
I say unto you, except ye take the body of the Son of
Man as the bread of life, ye have not life in
Him.
Acts 15:20
To the apostolic decree D Sahidic Ethiopic
add these
words ( the Golden Rule in negative form ), And whatsoever they
do not wish to be done to themselves, not to do to
others.
Acts 23:24
Here the Old Latin and the Vulgate give an
interesting explanation why Claudius Lysias sent
Paul away by night to Felix the governor, For he feared lest the Jews should
seize him and kill him and he meanwhile should be
accused of having taken a
bribe.
These longer
Western readings have found few defenders and are one of
the many indications that the Western New Testament text
is a corrupt form of the divine
original.
(b) The
Westem Omissions
In the last
portion of Luke there are eight readings which The Revised Standard
Version (R.S.V.) and The New English
Bible (N.E.B.) remove from the text and consign to
the footnotes. These readings are usually called Western
omissions, because (with two exceptions) they are
omitted only by a few manuscripts of the Western group,
namely, D, certain Old Latin manuscripts, and one or two
Old Syriac manuscripts. These Western omissions are as
follows:
Luke
22:19-20
(the Lord's Supper) from which is given for
you to is
shed for you, omitted by D and the Old Latin
version.
Luke 24:3
(referring to Christ's body) of the Lord Jesus,
omitted by D
and the
Old Latin version.
Luke 24:6
(the angelic announcement) He is not here but
is risen, omitted by D, the Old Latin version, the Old Syriac version
(?), and certain manuscripts of
the
Armenian version.
Luke 24:12
(Peter's journey to the tomb) whole verse
omitted by D,
the Old
Latin
version, and the Old Syriac version
(?).
Luke 24:36
(salutation of the risen Christ) and saith unto them,
Peace be unto you, omitted by D,
the Old Latin version and the Old Syriac version
(?).
Luke
24:40
(proofs of Christ's resurrection) And when He had
thus spoken, He shewed them His hands and His feet,
omitted by D and the Old Latin
and Old Syriac versions.
Luke
24:51
(the ascension of Christ) and was carried up
into heaven, omitted by Aleph,
D, the Old Latin version and the Sinaitic Syriac
manuscript.
Luke
24:52
(recognition of Christ's deity) worshipped Him, and
omitted by D, the Old Latin
version and the Sinaitic Syriac
manuscript.
The omission of
these eight readings in the R.S.V. and the N.E.B. is
certainly not a matter that can be taken lightly, for it
means, as far as these two modern versions can make it
so, that all reference to the atoning work of Christ has
been eliminated from Luke's account of the Lord's Supper
(Luke 22:19-20) and that the ascension of Christ into
heaven (Luke 24:51) has been entirely removed from the
Gospels, Mark's account of the ascension having already
been rejected by the critics. Certainly no believing
Bible student can remain indifferent to this mutilation
of the Gospel record.
In their
Greek New Testament text (1881) Westcott and Hort placed
these Western omissions in double brackets, thus
indicating their opinion that these readings were
interpolations which had been added to the text of Luke
in all the New Testament manuscripts except D and those few others mentioned above. But the
fact that all eight of these readings have recently been
found to occur in Papyrus 75 is unfavorable to their
hypothesis that these readings are additions to the
text. For if this were so, it is hard to see how all
these readings could have made their way into so early a
witness as Papyrus 75. Surely some of them would have
failed to do so and thus would be absent from this
papyrus. Hort's answer to objections of this sort was
vague and scarcely satisfactory. He believed that these
readings were added to the text at a very early date
just after the Neutral text "had parted company from the
earliest special ancestry of the Western text," perhaps
"at the actual divergence," (22) but where or by whom
this was done he didn't say.
Thus
Westcott and Hort believed that in Luke's account of the
Lord's Supper, for example, all the extant New Testament
manuscripts are in error except D and a few Old Latin
manuscripts. According to these two scholars and also
Kilpatrick (1946) (23) and Chadwick (1957), (24) the
reading, which is
given for you: this do in remembrance of Me. Likewise
the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new
testament in My blood, which is shed for you, is an
interpolation which some very early scribe borrowed from
Paul's account of the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11:24-25).
The scribe's motive, these scholars claim, was to make
Luke agree with Matthew and Mark in having the cup come
after the bread. This interpolation, these scholars
believe, was so extraordinarily successful that it is
found today in all the extant New Testament manuscripts
except D and those few others.
The R.S.V. and the
N.E.B. are certainly to be condemned for using such
doubtful speculations as a basis for their alterations
of the Lucan account of the Lord's Supper. For this
theory is rejected even by many liberal scholars. As
Kenyon and Legg (1937) and Williams (1951) (25) have
pointed out, no scribe would have tried to harmonize
Luke's narrative with that of Matthew and Mark by
borrowing from 1 Cor. 11:24-25. For this would make the
supposed contradiction worse. There would then be two
cups where before there had been only
one.
The
ascension of Christ into heaven is another important
Western omission which the R.S.V. and the N.E.B. have
wrongly relegated to the footnotes. The words and was carried up
into heaven are found not in "some" documents or
"many" documents, as these two modernistic versions
misleadingly state in their footnotes, but in all the New
Testament documents except those few mentioned above.
Westcott and Hort believed that these words were not
originally a part of Luke's Gospel but were inserted by
a scribe who thought that the ascension was implied by
the preceding words, He was parted from
them.
According to Westcott and
Hort, Luke did not intend even to hint at the ascension
in his Gospel but was saving his account of it for the
first chapter of Acts. (26) But, as Zahn (1909) pointed
out, this theory is contradicted by the opening verses
of Acts, which make it clear that Luke thought that he
had already given an account of the ascension in the
last chapter of his Gospel.
(27)
It is much more
reasonable to suppose with Streeter (1924), (28)
Williams 1951), (29) and other scholars that the
ascension into heaven was omitted by some of the early
Christians in order to avoid a seeming conflict with the
first chapter of Acts. The account in Luke may have
seemed to them to imply that the ascension took place on
the very day of the resurrection, and this would seem to
be out of harmony with the narrative in Acts, which
plainly states that the ascension occurred forty days
after the resurrection. In order to eliminate this
difficulty they may have omitted the reference to the
ascension in Luke 24:51. This drastic remedy, however,
was in no wise necessary. For, contrary to the opinion
of Streeter and Williams, there is no real contradiction
between the Gospel of Luke and Acts in regard to the
ascension of Christ. The Gospel of Luke need not be
regarded as teaching that the resurrection and ascension
of Christ took place on the same
day.
Because these
eight omitted readings have been found to occur in
Papyrus 75, critics are now changing their minds about
them. Kurt Aland (1966), for example, has restored these
Western omissions to the text of the Nestle New
Testament. (30) Hence the R.S.V., the N.E.B., and the
other modern versions which omit them are already out of
date. And this rapid shifting of opinion shows us how
untrustworthy naturalistic textual criticism is.
Christians who rely upon it for their knowledge of the
New Testament text are to be pitied. Surely they are
building their house upon the sands.
(c) The
Westem and Caesarean Texts in
Egypt
The Western
text circulated not only in the East and in Italy and
North Africa but also in Egypt. This was first proved in
1899 by P. M. Barnard in a study entitled The Biblical Text of
Clement of Alexandria. (31) Barnard analyzed Clement's quotations from the
Four Gospels and Acts and found them to be of a
fundamentally Western character. Then in 1926 Papyrus
37, a 3rd-century fragment of Matthew, was shown by H.
A. Sanders to be Western in its text, (32) and again in
the following year Sanders showed the same thing to be
true of Papyrus 38, a 3rd or 4th-century fragment of
Acts. (33)
During the
1920's and 30's another type of New Testament text was
discovered to have circulated in Egypt, namely, the Caesarean text.
This text occurs in certain late manuscripts (e.g., Theta 1 13 28
565 700) in places in which these manuscripts do not
agree with the Traditional (Byzantine) text. In 1924
Streeter gave this newly discovered text the name
Caesarean because he believed that Origen used this type
of text in Caesarea after he had fled there from
Alexandria in 231 A.D. (34) In 1928, however, Kirsopp
Lake brought out the possibility that the Caesarean text
was an Egyptian text. According to Lake, when Origen
first moved to Caesarea, he used the Alexandrian text,
not switching to the Caesarean text until later. This
might mean that he found the Alexandrian text in
Caesarea and used it only temporarily until the
Caesarean text could be sent to him out of Egypt.
(35)
Then, finally, in 1933-37 F.
G. Kenyon published the newly discovered Chester
Beatty Papyri. In Acts, the Pauline Epistles and
Revelation he found them to possess an Alexandrian type
of text, but in the Gospels, and especially in Mark, he
discovered them to be Caesarean. (36) This discovery
provided one more link in the chain binding the
Caesarean text to Egypt.
Thus these
discoveries and these researches into the New Testament
text of ancient Egypt are unfavorable to the theory of
Westcott and Hort that the Alexandrian text, and
especially the text of B. represents the pure original
New Testament text. For, as Kenyon pointed out, the
evidence shows that the Alexandrian text was not
dominant even in Egypt. Clement never used it, and
Origen used it only some of the time. (37) Clearly it is
wrong to suppose that the Alexandrian text enjoyed an
official status that kept it pure.
3. The Early
History Of The Alexandrian
Text
Concerning the
relationship of the Alexandrian New Testament text to
the Western New Testament text there has been a
difference of opinion dating back to the early days of
New Testament textual criticism. Some critics have
believed that the Western text was the earlier and that
the Alexandrian text came into being as a refinement of
this primitive Western text. Among those who have
thought this are Griesbach (1796), Hug (1808), Burkitt
(1899), A. C. Clark (1914), Sanders (1926), Lake (1928),
Glaue (1944), and Black (1954) . Other critics have
regarded the Alexandrian text as prior and have looked
upon the Western Text as a corruption of this purer
Alexandrian text-form. Some of those who have held this
view are Tischendorf (1868), Westcott and Hort (1881),
B. Weiss (1899), Ropes (1926), Lagrange (1935), and
Metzger (1964). In the paragraphs that follow we shall
bring forth evidence to show that neither of these
positions is correct.
(a) Early
Alterations in the Alexandrian
Text
At a very early
date the Alexandrian text was altered in many places.
The following are some of these alterations occurring in
B. which Westcott and Hort (WH) regarded as the purest
of all extant manuscripts, and also in the Chester
Beatty Papyri and the Bodrner
Papyri.
Luke
10:41-42
One thing
is needful. Traditional Text,
Pap 45 (dated 225 A.D.) Pap 75 (dated 200 A.D.).
Few things
are needful, or one. B Aleph WH &
footnotes of R.V., A.S.V.,
R.S.V., N.E.B. This Alexandrian alteration makes Jesus
talk about food rather than spiritual
realities.
Luke
12:31
Seek ye
the kingdom of God. Traditional
Text, Pap 45.
Seek ye
the kingdom. Pap
75.
Seek ye
His kingdom. B Aleph, WH, R.V.,
A.S.V., R.S.V., N.E.B.
A similar Alexandrian
alteration is made in Matt. 6:33, where B alters the
text still further into, But seek ye first
His righteousness and His
kingdom.
Luke 15:21
B Aleph
D add Make me
as one of thy hired servants. As Hoskier observes,
(38) this tasteless Alexandrian
addition (accepted by WH and placed in the
footnotes of modern versions) spoils the narrative. In
the true text the prodigal never pronounces the words
which he had formulated in vs. 19. As soon as he beholds
his father's loving face, they die on his lips. This
addition is not found in Pap 75.
Luke 23:35
saying, He
saved others, let him save himself, if this is the
Christ, the chosen of God. Traditional Text. they said to Him,
Thou savedst others, save thyself, if thou art the Son
of God, if thou art Christ, the
chosen.
D c aeth.
saying, He saved
others, let him save himself, if this is the Christ, the
Son of God, the chosen. Pap
75.
saying, He saved others,
let him save himself, if he is the Son, the Christ of
God, the chosen.
B.
We see here
that the Traditional Text was altered by the Western
text at a very early date. Then this alteration was
adopted in part by Pap 75 and then in still a different
form by B.
Luke
23:45
And the
sun was darkened. Here Pap 75, Aleph B C L
Coptic, WH, R.V., A.S.V., R.S.V., N.E.B., read, the sun having
become eclipsed. This
rationalistic explanation of the supernatural darkness
at the crucifixion is ascribed to the Jews in the
Acts of Pilate and to a heathen historian Thallus by
Julius Africanus, but, as Julius noted, it is
impossible, because at Passover time the moon was full.
(39)
John
1:15
John bare
witness of Him and cried, saying, This was He of whom I
spake, He that cometh after me etc. Traditional
Text, Pap 66 (dated 200 A.D.), Pap 75. John bare witness of
Him and cried, saying (this was he that said) He that
cometh after me etc. B WH & footnotes of R.V.,
A.S.V. This Alexandrian alteration, this was he that
said, makes no sense. It had
already been stated that John was
speaking.
John
8:39
If ye were Abraham's
children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
Traditional Text. If ye are Abraham's
children, do the works of Abraham. Pap 66 B. WH, R.V., A.S.V., and footnotes of
N.E.B.
If ye are
Abraham's children, ye would do the works of
Abraham. Pap 75 Aleph
D.
Here we see that the Traditional Text has the
original reading. This was altered at a very early date
by Pap 66, who was followed by B and, in modern times,
by WH, R.V., A.S.V., and N.E.B. (footnotes). Then, also
at a very early date, the scribe of Pap 75 combined the
first two readings in an ungrammatical way, and he was
followed by Aleph and D.
John
10:29
My Father,
who gave them to Me, is greater than all.
Traditional Text, Pap 66, Pap
75.
That which
My Father hath given unto Me is greater than all. B
Aleph, WH & footnotes of
R.V., A.S.V., R.S.V., N.E.B.
This alteration is of great doctrinal
importance, since it makes the preservation of the
saints depend on the Church rather than on God. So
Westcott expounds it, "The faithful, regarded in their
unity, are stronger than every opposing power."
(40)
(b) The
Alexandrian Text Influenced by the Sahidic (Coptic)
Version
Coptic is the
latest form of the language of ancient Egypt. At first
it was written in native Egyptian characters, but after
the beginning of the Christian era Greek capital letters
were mainly employed. At least a half a dozen different
Coptic dialects were spoken in ancient Egypt, but the
most important of these were the Sahidic dialect spoken
in southern Egypt and the Bohairic dialect spoken in
northern Egypt. At a very early date the Greek New
Testament was translated into Sahidic, and some of the
distinctive readings of this Sahidic version are found
in Papyrus 75, thus supporting the contention of Hoskier
(1914) that the Alexandrian text was "tremendously
influenced" by the Sahidic version.
(41)
For example,
in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19)
Papyrus 75 says that the Rich Man's name was Neves. The
Sahidic version says that the Rich Man's name was Nineve. Why was
the Rich Man given this name? Metzger (1964) says that
it was because there was a wide-spread tradition among
the ancient catechists of the Coptic Church that the
name of the Rich Man was Nineveh a name
which had become the symbol of dissolute riches. (42)
Grobel (1964), on the other hand, argues that this name
was derived from an old Egyptian folk-tale and that the
name Nineve
in Sahidic means Nobody. (43) But, however this may be, it is obvious
that this reading was taken early into the text of
Papyrus 75 from the Sahidic
version.
Another
Sahidic reading that found its way into the text of
Papyrus 75 occurs in John 8:57. Here the majority of the
New Testament documents read, Hast thou seen
Abraham? But Papyrus 75, Aleph, T. Sahidic,
Sinaitic Syriac read Hath Abraham seen
thee?
In John 10:7
Papyrus 75 agrees with the Sahidic version in reading, I am the shepherd
of the sheep, instead of, I am the door of the
sheep.
In John
11:12 Papyrus 75 agrees with the Sahidic version against
all the rest of the New Testament documents. In the
other documents the disciples say (referring to
Lazarus), Lord,
if he hath fallen asleep, he will be saved. Papyrus
75 and the Sahidic version, however, read, he will be
raised.
(c) Have
True Readings Been Hiding for Centuries in the
Papyri?
In John
7:52, according to the Traditional Text, the chief
priests and Pharisees say to Nicodemus, Search and look: for out of
Galilee hath arisen no prophet. In the early 19th
century the rationalists Bretschneider and Baur insisted
that these Jewish rulers could not have said this
because they would have known that several prophets, e.
g., Elijah, Nahum, Hosea, Jonah, were of Galilean
origin. (44) More recently Bultmann (1941) and others
have suggested that the true reading is the Prophet,
referring to the great Prophet whose coming had been
foretold by Moses long ago (Deut. 18:18). (45) Still
more recently this suggested reading, the Prophet, has
been found to occur in Papyrus 66 and is regarded by J.
R. Michaels (1957) and others as "almost certainly"
correct. (46) For support appeal is made to Luke 7:39
where B
similarly adds the before prophet. But
this appeal cuts both ways, for this B reading is
accepted only by WH and the footnotes of R.V. and A.S.V.
Hence if B is wrong in Luke 7:39, it is reasonable to
suppose that Papyrus 66 is wrong in John 7:52. And as
Fee (1965) observes, (47) a correction appears in this
verse in Papyrus 66 which may indicate that even the
scribe who wrote it may not, on second thought, have
approved of the novelty which he had introduced into the
text. Certainly there is no need to change the text to
answer the criticism of Bretschneider and Baur. We need
only to suppose that the Jewish rulers were so angry
that they forgot their biblical
history.
There is no
compelling reason, therefore, to conclude that in John
7:52 the true reading has been hiding for centuries in
Papyrus 66 and has just now come to light. And such a
conclusion is contrary to the doctrine of the special
providential preservation of the Scriptures, since no
one knows where Papyrus 66 comes from. As its name
implies, this manuscript is the property of the Bodmer
Library in Geneva, Switzerland. According to Kurt Aland
(1957), it is part of a collection of more than fifty
papyrus documents which was purchased in 1954 by the
Bodmer Library from E. N. Adler of London. (48) And to
this information Mile. O. Bongard, secretary of the
Bodmer Library, adds little. "We can only tell you," she
writes (1957), "that it was purchased at Geneva by M.
Bodmer. The numerous intermediaries are themselves
ignorant of the exact source. And so we ourselves have
given up looking for it." (49)
The Chester Beatty
Papyri, which are housed in the Beatty Museum in Dublin,
are in no better position. According to the information
which Prof. Carl Schmidt obtained from the dealer, they
were found in a pot on the east bank of the Nile south
of Cairo. (50) Aland (1963) believes that there may be a
connection between the Chester Beatty Papyri and the
Bodmer Papyri. According to Aland, "the Bodmer Papyri
seem to have been found in one place and to have come
from an important Christian educational center, which
was very old and which flourished for a long time." (51)
Aland thinks it possible that the Chester Beatty Papyri
also came from this same place. The reason for supposing
this lies in the fact that a fragment of Bodmer Papyrus
66 (from chapter 19 of John) has been found among the
Chester Beatty Papyri in Dublin.
(52)
But however all
this may be, it is evident that as Bible-believing
Christians we cannot consistently maintain that there
are true readings of the New Testament text which have
been hiding in papyri for ages, enclosed in pots,
waiting for the light of day, and just now discovered.
If we thought this, our faith would be always wavering.
We could never be sure that a dealer would not soon
appear with something new from somewhere. Thank God that
He has not preserved the New Testament text in this
secret way but publicly in the usage of His Church and
in the Traditional Text and the Textus Receptus which
reflect this usage.
(d) Christ's
Agony and Bloody
Sweat
Luke 22:43-44
"And there appeared an angel unto Him from heaven
strengthening Him. And being in agony He prayed more
earnestly: and His sweat was as it were great drops of
blood falling down to the ground."
The evidence
for these precious verses may be briefly summed up as
follows: They are found in the vast majority of the New
Testament manuscripts, including Aleph, D, and L. They are also found in the Old Latin versions
and in the Curetonian Syriac. They occur also in the
Peshitta and Palestinian Syriac versions and in certain
manuscripts of the Armenian and Coptic
versions.
The evidence
against Luke 22:43-44 is as follows: These verses are
omitted by Papyrus 75, B. A, N. R, T.
W. and a group of later
manuscripts called Family 13, which contain the
Caesarean text. They are also omitted by one Old Latin
manuscript, the Sinaitic Syriac, and Harclean Syriac
margin, and the Coptic and Armenian
versions.
On the strength of
this negative evidence Westcott and Hort decided that
the account of Christ's agony and bloody sweat was not
part of the original Gospel of Luke but a bit of oral
tradition which was inserted into the sacred text
somewhere in the western part of the Roman empire.
"These verses," they concluded, "and the first sentence
of 23:34 (Christ's prayer for His murderers) may safely
be called the most precious among the remains of this
evangelic tradition which were rescued from oblivion by
the scribes of the second century."
(53)
In arguing for
this theory, however, Westcott and Hort ran into an
insoluble difficulty. They insisted that this alleged
interpolation was a distinctive feature of the Western
text. The early Fathers who cited this reading, they
maintained, were all Westerners. "The early patristic
evidence on its behalf is purely Western." (54) But if
this had been so, how did these verses find acceptance
in the 4th century among Eastern Fathers such as
Epiphanius, Didymus, Eusebius, and Gregory Nazianzus?
For then the Arian controversy was at its height and
orthodox Christians were on their guard against anything
which detracted from Christ's deity. The account of the
Saviour's bloody sweat and of the ministering angel
seems, at first sight, to do this, and therefore it
would never have been accepted as Scripture by
4th-century Christians if it had come to them as
something new and not previously a part of their Bible.
According to Epiphanius, precisely the opposite
development had taken place. Arius had used these verses
to support his low view of Christ, and for this reason
some of the orthodox Christians had removed them from
their Gospel manuscripts. (55)
In more recent
years the genuineness of Luke's account of Christ's
agony and bloody sweat has been defended by such well
known scholars as Streeter (1924), (56) Goguel, Williams
(1951), (57) and especially Harnack (1931). (58) Harnack
defended the Lucan authorship of these verses on
linguistic grounds. "In the first place," he wrote,
"this short passage bears the stamp of the Lucan
viewpoint and speech so distinctly that it is in the
highest degree mistaken to explain it as an
interpolation." Harnack gives two reasons why this
passage was offensive to orthodox Christians of the 2nd
century and therefore might have been omitted by some of
them. "In the first place, it was offensive that an
angel strengthened the Lord—especially offensive in the
earliest period, when, beginning with the epistles to
the Colossians and the Hebrews, it was necessary to
fight for the superiority of Jesus over the angels. In
the second place, the agony with its bloody consequences
was also offensive.... The more one emphasized against
the Jews and heathen that the Lord endured suffering of
His own free will (see Barnabas and Justin), so much the
more strange must this fearful soul-struggle have
appeared."
The fact that Luke
22:43-44 does not occur in Papyrus 75 indicates that
Harnack was right in supposing that it was during the
2nd century that these verses began to be omitted from
certain of the New Testament manuscripts. It is not
necessary to suppose, however, that this practice
originated among orthodox Christians. It may be that the
docetists were the first ones to take the decisive step
of omitting these verses. These heretics would be
anxious to eliminate the account of Christ's agony and
bloody sweat, since this passage refuted their
contention that Christ's human nature was merely an
appearance (phantom) and was one of the biblical texts
which Irenaeus (c. 180) (59) and other orthodox writers
were urging against them. The easiest way for the
docetists to meet this orthodox appeal to scripture was
to reject Luke 22:43-44 altogether. And when once this
omission was made, it would be accepted by some of the
orthodox Christians who for various reasons found these
verses hard to reconcile with Christ's
deity.
(e) Christ's
Prayer His
Murderers
Luke 23:34a
"Then said Jesus, Father forgive them, for they
know not what they do."
This
disputed reading is found in the vast majority of the
New Testament manuscripts, including Aleph, A, C, L, N.
and also in certain manuscripts of the Old Latin
version, in the Curetonian Syriac manuscript and in the
Peshitta, Harclean, and Philoxenian versions. It is also
cited or referred to by many of the Church Fathers,
including the following: in the 2nd century, Tatian (60)
Irenaeus; (61) in the 3rd century, Origen; in the 4th
century, Basil, Eusebius, and others. The reading is
omitted, on the other hand, by the following witnesses:
Papyrus 75, B. D,
W. Theta, 38, 435, certain
manuscripts of the Old Latin version, the Sinaitic
manuscript of the Old Syriac version, and the Coptic
versions (with the exception of certain manuscripts).
Cyril of Alexandria is also listed as omitting the
reading, but, as Hort admitted, this is only an
inference.
Not many orthodox
Christians have agreed with Westcott and Hort in their
rejection of this familiar reading which has become
hallowed by many centuries of tender association. But
these critics were nevertheless positive that this
petition ascribed to Christ was not part of the original
New Testament text but was interpolated into the Western
manuscripts early in the 2nd century. This prayer of our
Saviour for His murderers, they insisted, like the agony
and bloody sweat, was "a fragment from the traditions,
written or oral, which were, for a while at least,
locally current beside the canonical Gospels, and which
doubtless included matter of every degree of
authenticity and intrinsic value.... Few verses of the
Gospels," they continued, "bear in themselves a surer
witness to the truth of what they record than this first
of the Words from the Cross: but it need not therefore
have belonged originally to the book in which it is now
included. We cannot doubt that it comes from an
extraneous source." (62)
Westcott and
Hort's theory, however, is a most improbable one. This
prayer of Christ would be interpreted as referring to
the Jews and, thus interpreted, would not be something
likely to have been added to the Gospel narrative by
2nd-century Christian scribes. For by that time the
relationship between Jews and Christians had hardened
into one of permanent hostility, and the average
Christian would not have welcomed the thought that the
Jews ought to be forgiven or that the Saviour had so
prayed. Certainly the general tone of the 2nd-century
Christian writers is markedly anti-Jewish. The Epistle of
Barnabas, written about 130 A.D.
reveals this emphasis. "In no other writing of that
early time," Harnack tells us, "is the separation of the
Gentile Christians from the patriotic Jews so clearly
brought out. The Old Testament, he (Barnabas) maintains,
belongs only to the Christians. Circumcision and the
whole Old Testament sacrificial and ceremonial
institution are the devil's work."
(63)
For these reasons
Harnack (1931) was inclined to accept Luke 23:34a as
genuine and to believe that this prayer of Christ for
His murderers was omitted from some of the manuscripts
because of the offense which it occasioned many segments
of the early Christian Church. "The words," he observed,
"offered a strong offense to ancient Christendom as soon
as they were related to the Jews generally. Indeed the
connection, viewed accurately, shows that they apply
only to the soldiers; but this is not said directly, and
so, according to the far-sighted methods of the exegesis
of those days, these words were related to the enemies
of Jesus, the Jews generally. But then they conflicted
not only with Luke 23:28 but also with the anti-Judaism
of the ancient Church generally.... The verse ought in
no case to be stricken out of the text of Luke; at the
very most it must be left a question mark."
(64)
Streeter also and
Rendel Harris (65) were friendly to the supposition that
Christ's prayer for His murderers was purposely deleted
from Luke's Gospel by some of the scribes due to
anti-Jewish feeling. But again it is not necessary to
imagine that orthodox Christian scribes were the first
to make this omission. It may be that Marcion was
ultimately responsible for this mutilation of the sacred
text. For, as Williams observes, "Marcion was
anti-Jewish in all his sentiments." (66) It is true
that, according to Harnack's analysis, Marcion still
included this prayer of Christ in his edition of Luke's
Gospel (probably relating it to the Roman soldiers),
(67) but some of his followers may have referred it to
the Jews and thus come to feel that it ought to be
deleted from the Gospel record.
(f) The Only
Begotten Son Versus Only Begotten
God
John
1:18
"No man hath seen God at any time; the only
begotten Son, which is in
the bosom of the Father, He hath declared
Him."
This verse exhibits the following four-fold
variation:
(1) the only begotten
Son, Traditional Text, Latin
versions, Curetonian Syriac.
(2)
only begotten God, Pap 66, Aleph B C L,
WH.
(3)
the only begotten God, Pap
75.
(4) (the) only begotten,
read by one Latin
manuscript.
The first
reading is the genuine one. The other three are plainly
heretical. Burgon (1896) long ago traced these
corruptions of the sacred text to their source, namely
Valentinus. (68) Burgon pointed out that the first time
John 1:18 is quoted by any of the ancients a reference
is made to the doctrines of Valentinus. This quotation
is found in a fragment entitled Excerpts from
Theodotus, which dates from the
2nd century. R. P. Casey (1934) translates it as
follows:
The verse,
"in the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with
God and the Logos was God," the Valentinians understand
thus, for they say that "the beginning" is the "Only
Begotten" and that he is also called God, as also in the
verses which immediately follow it explains that he is
God, for it says, "The Only-Begotten God
who is in the bosom of the
Father, he has declared him."
(69)
This passage
is very obscure, but at least it is clear that the
reading favored by Valentinus was precisely that now
found in Papyrus 75, the only
begotten God. What could be more probable than Dean
Burgon's suggestion that Valentinus fabricated this
reading by changing the only begotten
Son to the
only begotten God? His motive for doing so would be
his apparent desire to distinguish between the Son and the Word (Logos).
According to the Traditional reading, the Word mentioned
in John 1:14 is identified with the only begotten
Son mentioned in John 1:18. Is it not likely that
Valentinus, denying such identification, sought to
reinforce his denial by the easy method of altering Son to God (a change of
only one letter in Greek) and using this word God in an
inferior sense to refer to the Word rather than
the Son? This
procedure would enable him to deny that in John 1:14 the
Word is identified with
the Son. He
could argue that in both these verses the reference is
to the Word
and that therefore the Word and the Son are two distinct
Beings.
Thus we see
that it is unwise in present-day translators to base the
texts of their modern versions on recent papyrus
discoveries or on B and Aleph. For all
these documents come from Egypt, and Egypt during the
early Christian centuries was a land in which heresies
were rampant. So much was this so that, as Bauer (1934)
(70) and van Unnik (1958) (71) have pointed out, later
Egyptian Christians seem to have been ashamed of the
heretical past of their country and to have drawn a veil
of silence across it. This seems to be why so little is
known of the history of early Egyptian Christianity. In
view, therefore, of the heretical character of the early
Egyptian Church, it is not surprising that the papyri,
B. Aleph,
and other manuscripts which hail
from Egypt are liberally sprinkled with heretical
readings.
(g) Son of
God Versus Holy One of
God
John 6:68-69
"Then Simon Peter answered Him, Lord, to whom
shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we
believe and are sure that Thou art the Christ, the Son
of the living
God."
This verse
exhibits the following four-fold
variations:
(1) the Christ, the Son
of the living God, Traditional
Text, Peshitta Syriac, Harclean Syriac, Old Latin (some
mss.).
(2) the Holy One of
God, Papyrus 75, Aleph B C D L W.
Sahidic, WH, R.V., A.S.V.,
R.S.V., N.E.B.
(3) the Christ, the
Holy One of God, Papyrus 66,
Sahidic (some mss) Bohairic.
(4) the Christ, the Son
of God, Theta, 1 33 565, Old
Latin, Vulgate, Sinaitic
Syriac.
According to
the critics, reading (2) the Holy One of God
was the original reading. This was changed to
reading (3)
and then to reading (4) and then
finally to reading (1). By these easy stages, the
critics maintain, John 6:69 was harmonized to Matt.
16:16, which reads, "And Simon Peter answered and said,
Thou art the
Christ, the Son of the living
God."
But internal
evidence forbids us to adopt this critical conclusion.
For if as Bible-believing Christians we regard
Matt.16:16 and John 6:69 as actually spoken by Peter,
then it is difficult to explain why on two similar
occasions he would make two entirely different
affirmations of his faith in Jesus, in one place
confessing Him as the Christ, the Son
of God and in the other as the Holy One of God.
For in the other Gospels only the demons address
Jesus as the Holy
One of God. (Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34). And even
if we should adopt a modernistic approach to John 6:69
and regard it as put in the mouth of Peter by the Gospel
writer, still it would be difficult to receive Holy One of God
as the true reading. For in John 20:31 the
evangelist states that his purpose in writing his Gospel
is that his readers may believe that Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of God. Such being his intention, he
surely would not have made Peter confess Jesus as the Holy One of God
rather than as the Christ the Son
of the living
God.
The external
evidence also is against the critical hypothesis that the Holy One of God
is the
original reading of John 6:69. For some of the documents
which favor this reading have quite evidently gone
astray in John 1:34. Here instead of the Son of God
(which is the reading of most of the New Testament
documents) Papyrus 5, Aleph 77 218,
Old Latin (some mss), Curetonian Syriac read the Chosen One of
God. This reading is accepted by N.E.B. and placed
in the margin by WH, but most critics reject it as
false. And if Chosen One of God is
a false reading in John 1:34, then it is surely
reasonable to conclude that Holy One of God is
a false reading in John 6:69. Both readings
are used as substitutes for the reading Son of God and
both seem to be supported by the same class of
documents. The Gnostic papyri discovered in 1945 at
Nag-Hammadi in Egypt seem to indicate that these
2nd-century heretics regarded the term Son of God as a
mystic name which should not be pronounced except by the
initiated, and so it may have been they who introduced
these substitutes Chosen One of God
and Holy One
of God into the text of John.
(72)
(h) Other
Heretical Readings in the Alexandrian
Text
Other examples of heretical readings in the
Alexandrian New Testament text are as
follows:
(1) In Mark
1:1 the Traditional Text reads with B and most other
manuscripts, The
beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Aleph, Theta, 28 and several other documents omit the Son of God.
This seems to be the work of
heretics unfriendly to Christ's
deity.
(2) In Luke
23:42, according to the Traditional Text and the Old
Latin and the Sinaitic Syriac, the prayer of the dying
thief was, Lord,
remember me when Thou comest in Thy kingdom. But
according to the Alexandrian text (represented by
Papyrus 75, Aleph
B C L, and the Sahidic), the thief said, Jesus, remember me
when Thou comest in Thy kingdom. Modern critics
insist that this latter reading is the original one, but
is this at all a reasonable hypothesis? The dying thief
recognizes Jesus as the messianic King; he is praying to
Him for pardon and mercy. Would it be at all natural for
the thief to address his new found King rudely and
familiarly as Jesus? Surely
not. Surely he must have commenced his dying prayer with
the vocative, Lord! In the
Alexandrian text this prayer has been tampered with by
the docetists, who believed that the divine "Christ"
returned to heaven just before the crucifixion, leaving
only the human Jesus to suffer and die. In accordance
with this belief they made the thief address the Saviour
not as Lord
but as Jesus.
(3) In John
3:13 the Traditional Text reads with the Old Latin and
the Sinaitic Syriac, No man hath ascended
up to heaven but He that came down from heaven, even the
Son of Man who is in heaven. But the Alexandrian
text (represented by Papyri 66 and 75, Aleph B etc.)
omits the clause who is in heaven.
This mutilation of the sacred
text ought also, no doubt, to be charged to heretics
hostile to the deity of
Christ.
(4) In John
9:35, according to the Traditional Text and the Old
Latin version, Jesus asks the blind man, Dost thou believe on
the Son of God? But according to the Western and
Alexandrian texts (represented by Papyri 66 and 75, Aleph B D, the
Sinaitic Syriac), Jesus' question is, Dost thou believe on
the Son of
Man? Tischendorf and von Soden
reject this Western-Alexandrian reading. Very probably
it represents an attempt on the part of heretics to
lower Christ's claim to
deity.
(5) John
9:38-39 And he
said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped Him. And Jesus
said . . . These words are omitted by Papyrus 75, Aleph W. Old
Latin manuscripts b 1,
and the 4th-century Coptic
manuscript Q. This confession of the blind man can
scarcely have been left out accidentally. Its absence
from these documents goes far toward proving that this
passage was tampered with in ancient times by
heretics.
(6) In John
19:5 Papyrus 66 omits the following famous sentence, And he saith unto
them, Behold the Man. Four Old
Latin manuscripts and the Coptic manuscript Q also omit
this reading. This omission seems to be a mutilation of
the sacred text at the hands of heretics, probably
Gnostics. They seem to have disliked the idea that
Christ, whom they regarded as exclusively a heavenly
Being, actually became a man and was
crucified.
(7) In Rom.
14:10 the Traditional Text speaks of the judgment seat of
Christ, implying that Christ is that Jehovah spoken
of in Isa. 45:23, to whom every knee shall bow. This
Traditional reading is also found in Polycarp,
Tertullian, and Marcion. But the Western and Alexandrian
texts (represented by Aleph B D2 etc.)
take away this testimony to Christ's deity by
substituting judgment seat of God
for judgment
seat of Christ. It is difficult
to believe that this substitution was not also made by
heretics.
(8) In 1
Tim. 3:16 the Traditional Text reads, God was manifest in
the flesh, with A (according to
Scrivener), C (according to the "almost supernaturally
accurate" (73) Hoskier), (Ignatius), (Barnabas),
(Hippolytus), Didymus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Chrysostom.
The Alexandrian text (represensed by Aleph) reads, who was manifest
in the flesh,
and the Western text (represented by D2 and the
Latin versions) reads, which was manifest
in the flesh.
Undoubtedly the Traditional reading, God was manifest in
the flesh,
was the original reading. This was altered by the
Gnostics into the Westem reading, which was manifest
in the flesh,
in order to emphasize their favorite idea of
mystery. Then this Western reading was later changed
into the meaningless Alexandrian reading, who was manifest in
the flesh.
Since
Westcott and Hort, critics have adopted the Alexandrian
reading and have translated the word who as He who insisting
that Paul is here quoting a fragment of an early
Christian hymn. But what could Paul have meant by this
quotation? Did he mean that the mystery of godliness was
the fact that Christ was manifest in the flesh? If he
did why then did he not make his meaning plain by
substituting the word Christ for the
word He who,
making the quotation read, Christ was manifest
in the flesh, etc.? Did he mean that Christ was the
mystery of godliness? Why then did he not place the word
Christ in
apposition to the word who, making the
quotation read, Christ, He who was
manifest in the flesh, etc.? But, according to the
critics, Paul did neither of these two things. Instead
he quoted an incomplete sentence, a subject without a
predicate, and left it dangling. The makers of the
R.S.V. adopt the Alexandrian reading and translate it,
He was manifested
in the flesh, etc., and then place under it a note,
Greek, who.
But if the Greek is who how can the
English be He?
This is not translation but the creation of an
entirely new reading. The change, therefore, that the
translators felt compelled to make from who to He comes as a
belated admission that the reading, who was manifest in
the flesh, cannot be interpreted satisfactorily. And
ought not unprejudiced students of the problem to regard
this as proof that Paul never wrote the verse in this
form but rather as it stands in the Traditional Text, God was manifest in the
flesh?
Two other
erroneous Alexandrian readings should also be
mentioned:
In Mark
9:29, Acts 10:30 and 1 Cor.7:5 Aleph B and
their allies omit fasting. These
omissions are probably due to the influence of Clement
of Alexandria and other Gnostics, who interpreted fasting
in a spiritual sense and were
opposed to literal fasting (Strom. 6:12,
7:12).
In 1
Cor.11:24 Aleph
B and their allies read, This is My body
which is for
you, omitting broken, either
for Gnostic reasons or to avoid a supposed contradiction
with John 19:33ff. Many denominations have adopted this
mutilated reading in their communion liturgies, but it
makes no sense. Even Moffatt and the R.S.V. editors
recognized this fact and so retained the traditional
reading, broken
for you.
