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