Does the resurrection
account of Jesus Christ belong
in the gospel of Mark? Did Jesus really save a
woman, caught in adultery, from
being stoned? Do these passages,
along with another, referring to the Trinity, belong in the text? According to many
modern textual critics,
these passages, among others, may not
be part of the original, extinct, autograph manuscripts, written
by the apostles. These critics are not liberal skeptics of the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible. They are conservative scholars who believe the earliest copies of
the Greek manuscripts,
known as the Alexandrian manuscripts, discovered
in the middle of the nineteenth century,
are more reliable than thousands
of other manuscripts, known as
the Byzantine manuscripts, already in possession. Since the discovery of the Alexandrian manuscripts, Greek scholars
have disagreed on what
the most reliable body of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament is for almost two centuries
(Williams 171); for this reason, a case will be
made that the solution is to return to the Byzantine text-type as the primary and more reliable source, making
the Alexandrian text-type the secondary source
in finding the original
text of the New Testament.
The Alexandrian
text-form is so named, as it was
discovered in that geographic region in an old monastery on Mt. Sinai, in 1844, by Constantin von Tischendorf, a German
Protestant student of the New Testament (Williams 171).
He saw
some monks preparing to toss old papyrus leaves, resembling this papyrus
pictured below of the Gospel of John, dating back to around
200 A.D., into bread
oven fires (White
32).
He discovered
the parchments contained ancient
Greek translations of the Old
Testament, known as the Septuagint. The monks perceived their
importance, from his excitement, and would not allow him to have them. He
would return to the monastery in 1853 with a recent copy of the
Septuagint (White
33). One of the monks mistakenly thought he had a copy of the Septuagint as well, so he returned with an ancient
book, clueless as to what
he held in his hands. It was
the Codex Sinaiticus. A 1,500-year-old Greek
New Testament.
He tried
to purchase it, after reading it all night long, but the monks denied his offers. It would take several years for him to purchase it, and he was
only
able to do so for the
czar of Russia (Williams
171). Later, Bolsheviks would sell
it for a quarter of a million dollars and it now sits on display in the British Museum (Williams 172).
The Byzantine
text-type, often referred
to as the Majority text, does
not have existent texts dating earlier
than the fourth century (Black 136). These
texts, of over five thousand, have other relational
supporting witnesses, among them,
the Syriac Peshitta, copied by Aramaic
Christians dating around 200
A.D. (Surrett 92) Jesus
and the first Christians spoke Aramaic, and many were by ethnicity. These diligent
scribes copied from the
Aramaic and translated Greek (Surrett 59).
Although no original Peshitta manuscript can be found, text style points to the Byzantine text form existing
prior to the Byzantine era and in proximity to the first church.
Scholars also
agree on the possibility portions
of the New Testament were originally written in Aramaic (White
48).
Because of the strong history of transmission as well as the
thousands of witnesses, the Byzantine
text-type is recognized as originating from Antioch, where
the first Christian
church came into existence (Zodhiates 433). These manuscripts were copied and worn
down through the course of
time, due to use in surrounding churches in this geographic region. Throughout
the middle ages, these manuscripts
were copied; therefore, it boasts a strong history
of transmission that the
Alexandrian texts lack (Black 127).
Picture of Codex Boreelianus
from the Byzantine
family of texts.
Supporters of the Byzantine text cite the Old Testament
verses found in Psalm 12:6-7, “The words
of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried
in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.” (Baker 1399). The words, “generation” and, “forever” are stressed
when pointing to the Byzantine texts passing from generation
to generation. This does not mean that the Alexandrian texts were not
preserved, but that the Byzantine texts passed through those generations while the Codex Sinaiticus sat in a monastery for generations. It
is a compelling reason to consider returning to the Byzantine-priority position, long held before the nineteenth century.
The chart below
illustrates the generational transmission of the
Byzantine texts verses the isolation
of the Alexandrian texts. The graph
is helpful for all manuscripts, supporting
the Byzantine text, but note particularly the
Peshitta, mentioned earlier,
with the key below.
Point of original copy ----------
Timeline at bottom of graph
This next graph brings clarity;
as it charts the entire
Christian church’s growth
it sheds more light on the historical transmission of the
Byzantine and supporting Aramaic texts, stemming from the
first church of Antioch.
Two textual scholars, from the University of Cambridge, Brooke Foss
Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort,
worked with Cambridge’s Bishop Lightfoot as a triumvirate representing Protestants (Salmon 9). As a result, a Greek New
Testament revision was completed in
1881: Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament. Dr.
George Salmon, theology
professor at Trinity
College in Dublin, Ireland
during the 19th century,
penned its impact in 1897, “Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament
has been described as an epoch-making book; and quite as correctly as
the same phrase has been applied to the work done by Darwin.” (Salmon
5).
Tischendorf vacillated between
opinions on texts in successive
editions of his books and students wanted a solid
guideline (Salmon 8).
Dean Burgon
Anglican theologian, Dean of Chichester,
John William Burgon, was
critical of the work all along the way (Salmon
16). Here were men, who believed
in the word of God, at odds with one another, for the
first time in history. One could
argue these critical theories had
more of an impact
on the modern church, in a subliminal way, than
Darwin’s theory of evolution. The seeds sown in the 19th century would harvest
in the later part of 20th century until this present millennium, a day where
King James Version pundits claim that
new Bibles are the result
of corrupt
texts, taking some facts and excessively abusing them, as illustrated
in this propaganda graph. The graph would almost be helpful were it not
for the KJV only propaganda.
In a chapter entitled, The History of the Textus Receptus, John E. Ashbrook writes, “Had you
spoken of the Textus Receptus in
a fundamentalist church fifty years ago, you
would have elicited puzzled glances
from the congregation. The pastor might
have given a nod of recognition to something that he had heard in student days, but the congregation
would have exhibited the blank stare of ignorance. In
more recent times, the Bible version debate has brought the Textus Receptus into common church conversation.” (Williams
99)
In 1492 Columbus set out to sea; meanwhile,
Desiderius Erasmus was ordained a priest. A student of literature and theology, he later became a
famous humanist and scholar, honorably received everywhere (Williams 101). Ironically,
he
would later teach Greek at Cambridge University from 1509-14, where Westcott
and Hort later presided, and where
the man responsible for all the idioms in our English translations,
William Tyndale, would attend in 1510 (Williams 102).
With only five,
9th-12th century manuscripts and an incomplete copy of Revelation, he completed a Greek New Testament, known as the Textus Receptus in 1516. He completed
lacking parts of
Revelation by transcribing Latin verses back into Greek (Williams 103) and parsing
through a commentary (White
55). With little at his disposal, he is responsible for putting the Greek
text into
William Tyndale’s hands, enabling the English-speaking world
to possess a Bible.
Westcott and
Hort had more at their disposal.
One can
argue their Greek revision is better
than Erasmus’ but sadly, this is where the
discourse always ends. Modern
textual criticism is in
a myopic
state, viewing the older manuscripts through the lens of men’s
revisions. The debate should view the Alexandrian and Byzantine manuscripts themselves.
Dr. Salmon felt that most laymen and Bible
scholars, who were not Greek scholars, had the
right to calculate the theories
of pro Alexandrian Greek Scholars who were at odds with pro Byzantine Greek scholars and see if there
was enough evidence to presume the Alexandrian texts were better.
Although persuaded
by Hort’s theory, he found there was not. (Salmon
38). The fundamental church
today is caught up in a Westcott and Hort vs. Textus Receptus
distraction. One focuses with a clearer lens by studying
about the ancient texts.
On April 6th of 2000, some of
the world’s leading scholars attended a symposium on New Testament studies at Southeastern
seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina (Black 14). The means of choosing which texts to prioritize
were discussed.
Of these
means discussed, is the case for,
“reasoned eclecticism”, a
methodological approach that gathers all external
evidence of Greek variants
and internal evidence of
scribe tendencies and habits
or proclivity toward mistakes.
This method takes all competing copies and prioritizes the text most conformed
to the theory (Black 79). This is good but it still misses the forest for the
trees. It focuses on the cleanest textual
variants but seeks no support from
other manuscript families (Black 125).
Another means,
is the case for, “thoroughgoing
eclecticism”, like, “reasoned eclecticism”, it examines both
the external evidence as well as
the internal evidence; however, it focuses
primarily on the external
evidence of the variants and only gives some consideration to the
quality of scribal work (Black 103).
This method does think outside of the box
some, but stops just short of the forest,
not wishing to give credence to the importance of historical transmission
and other text families that must
be considered. Both
eclectic theories focus on
scattered readings
that live on islands as
separate entities with scholars
calculating style or
purity (Black 127).
The final
means discussed, Byzantine-priority, takes these means into consideration but starts with
all supporting historically transmitted
texts, throughout church history,
in the Byzantine texts and supporting family
texts, with secondary eclectic
methods (Black 127). It starts by examining the forest
and finishes by examining the trees to see
what came from the forest.
The importance
of the Byzantine-priority method is seen
clearly in the end of the
Gospel of Mark. Mark 16:9-20 is the account
of Jesus revealing Himself to the disciples after His resurrection
(Zodhiates 183). The account
is missing in the Alexandrian texts but is found in the Byzantine
texts, along with all other supporting witnesses (White 255),
including records of the early church fathers
quoting from it (Salmon 16); however,
because of the external
and internal evidence alone,
the account is not considered to be part of the text by eclectic scholars
as they use the evidence
to reason away thousands of witnesses
that confirm the account (White 255).
Are these eclectic methods helpful? They are, but
only as a secondary means. For example,
the account of the woman being caught in adultery in John 8:1-11 (Zodhiates 336,337),
known as the Pericope De Adultera, is absent
in a diverse group of texts and witnesses including Latin
and Syriac translations (White 262). This is a time where these methods confirm an interruption
of flow between John 7:52-8:12 (Zodhiates
336,337) and when one examines this text, it becomes apparent
to a lay person when pointed out by Greek scholars. It can
almost be seen in the English language
alone; however, with the account
in the Byzantine text and by secondary means we can still see
that it is in harmony with Jesus’ teaching and that it may belong in another gospel altogether,
as one manuscript records
it in the Gospel of Luke (White 262). Therefore, with the
Byzantine-priority method we can
use the secondary means
of eclecticism
to find the clearest possibility.
Finally, there is a place where all
methods agree. There
are
verses in one of the apostle
John’s letters to the church, known as the
Comma Johanneum, a title for a short clause in his letter,
found in 1 John 5:7-8 (White 60-62). There is no known historical transmission among all manuscripts. It
is only found in the Latin Vulgate (White 60). In fact, Erasmus did not include it in
the first and second editions
of the Textus Receptus
and only later included
it as he was accused of “Arianism”
(non-Trinitarian beliefs),
and an Irish manuscript, containing the phrase, mysteriously appeared (White 61). While the verses speak to the truth of the Trinity,
most scholars believe a scribe later
entered them, defending the Trinity, but the verses are not necessary to defend
the Trinity. God’s Triune nature is
manifest throughout the whole
Bible, especially in the New Testament
where the Father spoke from heaven
as the Holy Spirit descended
on Jesus Christ like a dove. Luke 3:22 (Zodhiates 200).
The prevailing truth, is that no isolated text should override the historical transmission of the Byzantine texts and most supporting
witnesses. Ironically what the eclectic
scholars fail to realize
is that in their quest to prove that the Comma
Johanneum does not belong in
the text because of this inconsistency,
is the very reason why they should not use the inconsistencies
of the Alexandrian texts to eliminate other portions of
texts found in the Byzantine text-type.
At the Southeastern seminary symposium,
Dr. Maurice Robinson (pictured above) stated, “For the past century,
modern eclecticism has
functioned without an integrated history of textual transmission.
Its resultant text has no root in
any single document, group of documents, or text-type
and this is but an unfortunate
by-product of its self-imposed methodology.” (Black 139).
Just as in a court of
law, you must have witnesses
and evidence to eliminate any reasonable doubt; in like manner, the burden of proof lay on the eclectic
scholars to navigate us away from the Byzantine
text and supporting witnesses.
However, consider that in all this disagreement, it is estimated
to only make up a thousandth
part of the text. Hort estimated
that all the variants grouped together would only make up an entire page of the New
Testament (Williams 86). To place things into perspective, what if ten
scribes hand copied this research paper to be dispersed
throughout the then known world?
Suppose hand copies
were made for thousands of years,
on different continents, and they all came
back together and it was discovered
that all copies, throughout
the world,
were in 95% agreement? In
what seems impossible and despite
man’s proclivity toward
error, both Byzantine and
Alexandrian texts, which are copied
from written accounts of nominally educated, former fisherman
and tax collectors, are existing miracles.
Works Cited
Baker, Warren D.R.E. The Complete Word Study
Old
Testament. Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 1994. Print.
Black, David Alan.
Rethinking
New Testament Textual Criticism. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. Print.
Salmon, George. Some Thoughts on
the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. London:John Murray, 1897. Print.
Surrett, Charles
L. Which Greek Text?
Kings Mountain: Surrett
Family Publications, 1999. Print. White,
James R. The
King James Only Controversy. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1995. Print.
Williams, James B. From the Mind
of God to the Mind of Man:
A Layman's Guide to How We
Got Our Bible. Greenville: Ambassador-Emerald International, 1999. Print.
Zodhiates, Spiros. The Complete Word
Study New Testament. Grand
Rapids: World, 1991. Print.