NewTestament Introduction is to be distinguished from (1) NT Survey, which givesan overview of the content of the NT; and from (2) Special Introduction to theNT, which looks at such matters as the authorship, date, style, criticalproblems and so forth for each of the individual NT books. We cover the first of these in ourcourse NT Survey, and the material of (2) is distributed through ourcourses Synoptic Gospels, Acts and Pauline Epistles, and Johannine Literatureand General Epistles.
Thiscourse will cover three broad areas relating to the New Testament as a whole,namely (1) the language of the NT; (2) the text of the NT; and (3) the canon ofthe NT. We will cover the firstand third of these rather briefly, but the second (because of its complexity)in more detail.
I. The Language of the New Testament
TheNT was originally written in Koine Greek (with the possible exception of theGospel of Matthew, which matter is discussed in Synoptic Gospels). Koine Greek is the name given to theform of the Greek language which was popular at the time of Jesus' ministrythroughout the eastern part of the Roman Empire.
Beforewe examine this form of the Greek language in more detail, consider its contextamong the other languages of the world and among other forms of Greek atdifferent times in its history.
A.Linguistic context of the Greek Language
Greekis one language in the Indo-European Family. The assignment of languagefamilies is based on similarities of vocabulary and syntax, and is thought toindicate that the languages of a family are descended from a commonancestor. Consider the followingexamples of vocabulary similarity:
Indo-EuropeanLanguages: look at very basicwords
| English German Latin Greek | father Vater pater ¹ατήρ | mother Mutter mater μήτηρ | son Sohn filius υæός | daughter Tochter filia θυγάτηρ |
Afro-Asiatic Languages: by contrast, look at the same words inthese:
| Hebrew Aramaic Arabic | ab abba abu | em imma um | ben bar iben | bat bara bint |
Linguists have identified a number ofmajor language families, plus many others with far fewer speakers.
1. Major language families:
Indo‑European. Greek and W. European languages
Afro‑Asiatic. W. Asia and N. African (inclSemitic)
Niger‑Congo. Central African
Dravidian. S. Indiansub‑continent
Malayo‑Polynesian. South sea islands & S. Pacific
Sino‑Tibetan. Chinese, related languages
There are others, but they have no clearrelationship to these main families. Language diversity fits pretty well the Babel model ‑ linguistsare not able to explain diversity as common descendents of one language.
Each of these families can be subdividedinto specific languages or, for some of the larger groups, into sub-families:
2. Indo‑European sub‑families:
Germanic => English, Dutch, Scandinavian, German
Celtic => Wales, Scotland, Ireland, some of France (Gaelic, Breton, Scot)
Romance => (having to do with Rome) Latin, Italian, Spanish, French,Rumanian
Greek => Not closely linked to other sub‑families
Slavic => Russian, Polish, Czech, Slovene
Iranian => Old Persian, Modern Iran (some Arabic influence, but Arabic is notI‑E)
Indic => Sanskrit, some of India and others
These subdivisions show us something ofhow early languages diverged, partly within historical periods where we havewritten evidence, partly in times and places where the culture was illiterateor writing has not survived.
Sanskrit and Greek are the oldest Indo‑Europeanlanguages with known extant writing back into the 2nd millenium BC (before 1000BC).
B. Sketch History of Greek Language:
Though language is defined by linguistsas the spoken form of the language, this is not accessible for ancientlanguages, for which all of our evidence is written.
Writing Systems: human languages have used 3 types
1)Ideographic. Symbol represents awhole word. Symbol gives no hintof pronounciation; e.g., Chinese, with typically 1000's of symbols.
2)Syllabic. One symbol for eachsyllable. Directly linked topronounciation; e.g., Babylonian cuneiform, with typically 100's of symbols.
3)Alphabetic. Symbol per component sound;e.g., English, with typically only 10's of symbols.
HISTORYOF GREEK
|‑ 1500 BC
Mycenean‑Minoan |
EARLY |
Homeric |‑ 1000 BC
|
c600 BC ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ |
CLASSICAL | ‑ 500 BC
c300 BC ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ |
|
|‑ 0 BC
HELLENISTIC |
|
|‑ 500 AD
c600 AD ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ |
|
BYZANTINE |‑ 1000 AD
|
|
c1500 AD ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ | ‑ 1500 AD
|
MODERN |
|‑ 2000 AD
1. EARLYPERIOD ‑ fromearliest known examples of Greek through Greek dark ages (before 600 BC). 2 sub‑periods:
a.Mycenean (about time of Moses). Had writing: Used a syllabary (deciphered in 1950's)
‑Volcano explosion weakened Minoan civ. on Crete
‑Culture dies around 1100 BC with Dorian invasions
‑Knowledge of writing lost [Dark age]
b. Homericperiod (1100 ‑ 600 BC)
‑pickedup alphabet, apparently from Phoenicians
‑writingredeveloped after Dark Ages
2. CLASSICAL PERIOD ‑ 600 to 300 BC
Sonamed because it was the golden age of Greek language and literature.
Startedin W. end of Asia Minor (Ionia), peaked in Athens: oratory, drama, philosophy,history writing.
Severaldialects now show up; probably around before but no written evidence known:
a.Ionic - spoken in W Asia Minor and Greece proper; most important subdialect isAttic, that of Athens
b.Aeolic - spoken in some areas of Asia Minor where first lyric poets were. Became traditional dialect forlyric poetry.
c.Doric - from Dorians (more barbaric Greeks) who invaded about 1100 BC; inAthens, this viewed as "lower class" dialect, used in plays forchorus of bystanders.
3. HELLENISTIC PERIOD ‑ 300 BC to 600 AD
So named from verb"hellenizein," to live like a Greek.
Startswith Alexander the Great spreading Greek into the Middle East when he conquersall that area.
Greekdialects first mixed among army members from different regions and cities.These men then settled in various Middle Eastern cities.
Greekbecomes the second language for many locals, so dialects mixed andsimplified from the styles used by playwrights. Second-language people tend to use simpler syntax andfamiliar parallels from their native language.
TheRomans left Greek intact when they conquered the east. Greek was finally pushed back by Muslimand Barbarian invasions of Persia, Africa and Asia Minor, and Arabic became thedominant language in much of this area.
The term"Koine" (Gk for "common") is used for this dominant Greekdialect used in the Hellenistic period.
Writersof the period often imitated the classical Greek style (somewhat as we pray inKJV English). Neither we nor theydid very well from a linguistic perspective!
N.T.Greek is one variety of the Koine Hellenistic Greek. It was influenced by Hebrew via the Septuagint translationof the OT and by the second language problem.
4. BYZANTINE PERIOD ‑ 600 to 1500 AD
Namedfor the Byzantine Empire and its capital Byzantium (Constantinople).
Greekis pushed back with Byzantine Empire except for isolated pockets(monasteries, etc.).
Constantinoplefalls in 1453 AD.
5. MODERN PERIOD ‑ 1500 to present
In 1830's, Greeks were freed from the Turks.
C. Changes in Greek over its history.
1. Changes from Classical to Koine Greek.
Thelanguage tends to simplify as we go from Classical to Hellenistic dialects:
a.Dual number disappears.
Originallyhad singular, dual, and plural endings for both nouns and verbs.
e.g.,τω ëφθαλμω
Dualwas used for "pairs" (eyes, arms, etc.)
Wasnot common in Classical, is never seen in Koine.
b.Optative mood much decreased use.
Usedin NT mainly in stereotyped phrase:
μÂγέvoιτo - "May it never be!"
AlsoI & II Peter, Jude: "Be multiplied" used in greetings:¹ληθυvθείη
Occursonly 67 times in NT, mostly Paul's "May it never be!"
c.Fewer μι verbs.
μιverbs have a different set of endings from ω verbs, so more forms tolearn.
Whenlearning a second language, tend to choose the familiar, more common ωverbs.
d.More compound verbs.
Addingprepositions to verbs multiplies vocabulary easily, e.g., ¦ξ-,ε®σ-,κατέρχoμαι for go out, in, down.
[contrastHebrew verbs hlk, ytsa, boa, yrd;go, -out, -in, -down]
Compoundverbs not so common in earlier Greek, but when it became a popular 2nd languagethis simpler route was taken.
e.Simpler Syntax.
Thismay be an artifact of the surviving literary works:
dramaand history for Classical vs.
privateletters and receipts for Koine.
Spokenclassical Greek might not have had the difficult syntax (less info on whatspoken Classical was like), but the classical literature did.
2. Changes from Hellenistic (NT) toModern Greek.
a.Disappearance of Dative.
Replacedby preposition plus accusative (like English "to" w/ accusative).
b.Disappearance of Infinitive.
Replacedwith participle (a verbal adjective used substantively as a noun).
c.Increasing use of Helping Verbs and Verbal Particles.
AncientGreek added augments and endings to verbs.
ModernEnglish uses helping verbs: "He has walked."
ModernGreek for continuous action uses ε®μαι "to be".
" " for perfect tense uses ¤χω "to have".
" " for future tense uses particleθα plus the present tense.
" " for subjunctive mood uses particle vα plus thepresent tense.
d.Some inflectional changes.
Someverb endings have changed. e.g., Present Active Indicative: -ω, -εις,-ει, -oμε(v), -ετε, -oυv
e.Simpler Syntax.
Allmoved in the direction of simpler style.
Notsure why, as in modern times there are fewer speakers of Greek.
PerhapsTurkish control meant that there were few who were well educated, so languageis simplified by "rural" non‑literary use (same thing happenedto English between William the Conquerer and Chaucer).
Inmodern Greek there are two written "dialects":
1)Puristic (more Classical, formal use),
2)Spoken (more colloquial, used on the street).
D. Influences on N.T. Greek.
How does NTGreek differ from the Koine Greek of the time?
Theyare very similar, but some slightly different influences.
1.The Greek of the NT was that being spoken at the time.
NTwritten to communicate to the man on the street.
Fewexamples of "classicizing" in NT: sections like the intro. of Lukeare probably in the literary Greek of the time.
2. Classicalbackground.
Althoughno one was speaking Classical Greek, it was still being read and heard in play performances, etc.
LikeOld English influence into 20th century through Shakespeare and KJV.
3. Semiticbackground.
a.Most of the NT writers are Jewish in background (Luke is surely a Gentile).
EitherHebrew or Aramaic is their native language, or the Greek they spoke was aJewish Greek.
Lukeis traditionally Syrian => some Semitic influence.
b.Even Luke would read the OT Scriptures in the Hebraistic Greek of theSeptuagint.
Structuredifferences: Somewhat Hebraistic syntax
Vocabularydifferences: Words used in LXX slowly picked up a spiritual rather than a paganmeaning (from Septuagint usage for about 3 centuries).
Grammarand meanings of Greek words in NT were often influenced by the Septuagint.
E. Application of this language historyto N.T. exegesis.
N.T.Greek differs grammatically and lexically from both Classic and Moderndialects:
Manywords have different meanings,
Afew similiar problems with grammatical forms
Sowe need to study Koine Greek plus Hebrew.
Tounderstand N.T. Greek, we need as a helpful background:
ClassicalGreek
Papyri(Hellenistic)
Septuagint
Modern Greek(some)
Hebrew
Thankfully,most of this work is done for us by the available lexicons and grammars,if we will consult them.
1. Lexical Matters.
Having todo with word meanings, compare "lexicon," meaning dictionary, moreremotely "lecture."
a. ReferenceLexicons.
1)Classical Greek.
Liddelland Scott: 3 different sized eds., big, middle and little.
Iftranslating from Septuagint need largest ed.
2)Papyri. Not much studied beforeabout 1900.
Moulton& Milligan, Vocab. of Gk. Testament
M& M updated Thayer, but not easy to use.
Thankfully,it information was incorporated into BAGD, below.
3)Septuagint. No separate Lexicon(use Liddell)
Theologicallexicons (below) helpful.
4)Theological Lexicons [Dictionaries of NT Theology]
Lookat words that have theological significance
Kittel/Bromiley,Theol Dict NT 10 vol.(liberalish).
ColinBrown, New Intl Dict NT Theol3 vol. (better).
Bothsets suffer from problem of tending to transfer whole range of word'smeaning into each particular context (called Òillegitime totality transferÓ).
5)Best All Around Lexicon for NT.
Bauer,Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, Gk-Engl Lex of NT and Other Early Xn Lit
BAGDincludes words for early church fathers also.
Extensivebibliography for discussions of word meanings and occurrences of words outsideNT.
6)New Dictionary putting synonyms, etc., together.
Louwand Nida, Gk-Engl Lex Based on Semantic Domains
Veryhelpful discussion of ranges of meaning and of uncertainties regarding nuances.
b.Example of etymology and change of meaning through usage:
Considernoun ¦κκλησία,usually translated "church."
Etymologically,from ¦κ + καλέω =call out (from).
Butusage, not etymology, determines meaning.
E.g.,in English, word "church" means (1) building, (2) denomination, (3) localcongregation, (4) universal church.
InNT Greek, ¦κκλησίαdoes not mean (1) or (2) above.
1)In Classical Greek, ¦κκλησίαmeant "a meeting," usually a particular type, "a calledmeeting."
Wasused for governmental assemblies or informal gatherings to decide something(cf. Homer, Herodotus, Josephus).
NThas an example of this secular usage:
Acts19:39 and 41 ‑ the riot in Ephesus
v.39"it should be settled in a lawful assembly."
v.41refering to this irregular assembly.
2)In Septuagint (made around 250 BC), ¦κκλησίαoccurs over 75 times, and is often a translation of qhl meaning "all the people gathered atone time."
Usedfor the gathering of all Israel for festivals and/or to hear God's word (not agovernmental assembly).
Appliedto the assembly of Israel in the wilderness.
NThas example of this too; Stephen in Acts 7:38).
Someeschatological meaning also, when all gather before God at the end.
Sothe word has picked up a religious meaning by NT times.
3)In NT usage, we see a blending:
Wordretains "assembly" and "local" idea from Classical Greek.
Wordretains "religious assembly" and "universal" idea fromSeptuagint.
Addsa new specific idea: a collective term for those who accept Christ as Savior.
Pauloften adds a phrase to the word (e.g., "Church of Jesus Christ") toindicate this non‑pagan and non‑Septuagint usage.
Sothe word has some changes and some continuity.
Therefore,must determine word meanings from usage and context.
cp.English word "manufacture":
etymologically(from Latin) means "make by hand"
butcurrent usage is exactly the opposite!
2. Grammatical Matters (having to do withsyntax).
a. Grammars
Allgrammars today have tried to assimilate the results for NT from ClassicalGreek, LXX, Papyri, etc.
Machen,NT Gk for Beginners,is a beginning Grammar; so is Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek, which we plan to begin using.
Brooksand Winberry, Syntax of NT Greek,is intermediate level (as is Zerwick).
Advanced grammars:
A.T. Robertson (prob best for seminary students, pastors).
Blass,DeBrunner, and Funk (more recent and technical, but smaller, harder touse).
Moulton,Howard, and Turner (multi-volume; expensive but good).
b. An Exampleof Hebraism in NT Greek.
Considerthe use of "ε®" in Heb 3:11, a quotation from Ps95:11:
Ps. 95:11 Heb. 3:11
.! im ε®
0&!"* yavoŸn ε®σελεύσovται
--! el ε®ς
*<(&1/ manuhoti τÂvκατά¹αυσιv μoυ
Twopossiblities:
LiteralGk: "If they will enter into my rest"
Hebraism:"They will not enter into my rest"
Turnson word translated "if"
.! ‑ also used to mark a strongnegative in an oath.
ε®‑ only 'if,' never a negative in "gentile" Greek.
Somethink that this is a mis‑translation. I think this is a Hebraism carried over into Greek via aHebraistic dialect.
Anotherexample of same construction (with no LXX background) is found in Mark8:12:
ε® δoθήσεταιτ± γεvε’ταύτ¨σημεÌov.
"Thisgeneration will not be given a sign."
ε®is clearly used as a negative here in context.
II. The Text of the New Testament.
A real concern throughout church historyhas been the text of the NT. Heretics have regularly tried to add additional books to canon (we willdiscuss canon under III). Occasionally they have tampered with its text (Marcion and some modernliberals). Atheists and Muslims(and sometimes Mormons) have argued the text is unreliable. Some Fundamental Christians have pushedstrongly for KJV only.
Here we will consider the text of the NewTestament under three topics:
(1)sources of the text,
(2)history of the text, and
(3)the practice of text criticism.
A. Sources of the Text.
1. Modern printed editions of the GreekNT.
We start here,rather than with the ancient manuscripts, as this is what we personally haveaccess to.
a. Greek Textscurrently (or recently) in print.
1)Most recent editions:
a)Modern Critical Editions: (Madefrom scratch using manuscripts of Alexandrian family as most reliable).
Nestle‑Aland,Novum Testamentum Graece,27th ed., (1994). Significantchanges between eds. 1-25 and 26-27.
UnitedBible Society, Greek NT,4rd ed., (1993). Big changes invariants displayed since 3rd ed.
Bothhave identical texts (as planned) but format and method of noting textual variationsdiffers.
b)Majority Text Edition:
Hodges/Farstad,Gk NT acc to Majority Text(1982). Prints text having largest number of manuscripts in support(Byzantine family), lists alternatives in footnotes.
2)Older editions, based mostly on 19th century work (Alexandrian emphasis).
EarlierNestle‑Aland editions (1‑25).
Textwas chosen by very mechanical method:
Usedmajority vote of texts by:
Westcottand Hort,
Tischendorf8th ed,
BernardWeiss.
If2 or more of these texts agreed, then that is what was printed.
Britishand Foreign Bible Society.
Took5th Nestle ed, used more readable Greek type and English (rather than Latin)notes.
Souter'sGreek NT (1905).
Somewhatcloser to Byzantine than N-A editions.
SeveralRoman Catholic eds: Vogels, Bover,Merk.
3)Pre‑19th century editions (Byzantine emphasis).
Severalforms of the Textus Receptus are still being printed today; e.g.:
TrinitarianBible Society (1976).
FollowsTheodore Beza (1598 ed); modified to match KJV where KJV followed other Greekmanuscripts instead of Beza.
b. TextualApparatus of UBS and Nestle.
1) UBS Apparatus applies to 4th ed.only.
Type:pretty clear (UBS started a new trend in clarity, but 4th ed. not as nice as1-3).
Quotationsfrom OT: bold type.
Section‑headings:English.
Brackets:Probably not original reading, but
important enough to note.
Footnotes:
Bottom(small print): Cross references toOT and NT texts which are quoted or similar.
Middle(small): Discourse segmentationvariations in printed texts and major modern language translations.
Top(large print): Textual variants.
TextualVariants:
UBSdoes not include as many places of variation as Nestle, but UBS gives moreextensive info on each. Onlyprovides variants which committee felt might make a difference intranslation. Committee for 4th ed.made numerous changes on which passages to cite variants for.
Orderof variants listed is typically best to worst.
Orderof support cited: papyri, uncials (code: numbers which start with zero),miniscules, ancient translations, quotes from church fathers (names spelledout).
Variantusually given in original Greek; sometimes in English where variant notpreserved in Greek (e.g., Latin, Coptic).
Certaintyof the text (according to the committee) is shown in brackets { }:
A= text is certain;
B= almost certain;
C= Committee had trouble deciding;
D= Comm had great difficulty.
ASSIGNMENT: Read introductory material of UBS GkNT. For mid-term test; will give asample of a variation and ask if papyri, uncials, etc. support each alternative,etc., and what various other abbreviations mean.
2)Nestle's 26th edition.
Type:much improved over eds. 1-25, but not quite as nice as UBS (smaller size type).
OTquotations: italics instead of bold.
Nosection‑headings.
Brackets:same as UBS.
Variantsin text: Superscript symbolsindicate kind of variant
This code also used inall earlier editions:
┌ = variant at this word.
┌ ┐ = variant at these words.
┬ = something inserted in othermanuscript(s).
" = some texts omit this word.
Q\ = some texts omit these words.
s = change of word order.
s s =change of word order between symbols.
: = different punctuation.
Outermargins: Cross‑reference to OT and NT parallels. Much more extensive than UBS."!" marks very important parallels.
Innermargins: Ancient divisions of text, intermediate in size between modernchapters and verses; Symbols of Eusebius: made it easy to find parallelpassages in Gospels.
Footnotes:Textual variants.
TextualVariants:
Verycompressed cp to UBS.
Notesmany more variants than UBS (perhaps 5x as many), all known variants except fortrivial spellings.
Veryabbreviated, harder to figure out which texts support which variants. 26th ed. improved over earliereditions.
Notmuch on church fathers.
2. Ancient Greek Manuscripts.
These are copies (complete or damaged)made by hand (before the invention of printing or shortly thereafter) of partor all of the NT in the Greek language. They are traditionally subdivided by the type of material on which theyare written and the type of handwriting used into three groups:
(1)papyri,
(2)uncials, and
(3)miniscules.
a. Papyri(plural; singular is papyrus).
Name givento manuscripts written on a type of "paper" made from a suitable typeof reed. (More on this under"book production" later).
Particularpapyrus mss of the NT are abbreviated by a p followed by a superscript number.
As of1981, we have 86 different manuscripts of papyri. 88 catalog numbers were used,but some of these were later discovered to be parts of another ms.
Papyrionce listed in order of age p1, p2 ..., but many more found after firstcatalogued; renumbering would produce incredible confusion.
Mostup-to-date information on manuscripts is in Aland and Aland, The Text of theNT (Eerdmans, 1987).
1)p52 is the oldest. Called "John Rylands Papyrus."
Smallfragment of Gospel of John, chapter 18, about the size of a silver dollar.
Writtenon both sides, implying bound in book style rather than as scroll.
Datedearly 2nd century (100‑135 AD). Dating of mss is somewhat fuzzy as based on handwriting style. Not till medieval period do manuscriptshave dates put on by scribes.
Locatedat John Rylands Library, Univ of Manchester, England.
2)A group of papyri from about 200 AD:
p32‑ Fragment of Titus.
Justa few verses
Alsoat John Rylands Library
p46- Chester Beatty papyrus of Pauline Epistles.
Largeand therefore important.
ContainsPauline epistles, incl Hebrews
InChester Beatty Library in Dublin, Ireland.
p64,67‑ Now recognized as from the same manuscript.
Fragmentsof Gospel of Matthew.
AtBarcelona and at Magdalen College, Oxford
p66‑ Most of Gospel of John.
InBodmer papyri collection in Switzerland,
plusfragments at Chester Beatty Lib, Dublin
p77‑ Fragments of Matthew (perhaps as early as 175 AD). One of theOxyrhynchus papyri, at Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.
3)Early 3rd century:
p23‑ Fragments of James, chapter 1.
AtUniversity of Illinois
p45- Chester Beatty Gospels & Acts.
Originallycontained all 4 Gospels and Acts, now very fragmented.
p75‑ Bodmer Luke and John.
TwoGospels in one volume.
4)Distribution of Known Papyri (85 as of August 1980):
Century | Number
________ |___________________________
|
1 | 0(Possibly Mark at Qumran)
2 |* 1
3 |******************************* 31
4 |******************** 20
Later |********************************* 33
|
No papyrihave survived virtually complete; all are fragmented. Their value is rather in their early date than in theircomplete text.
No papyriof whole NT; weakness of papyrus did not allow binding all in one volume. Typically bound as 1 or 2 Gospels;Paul's letters; Acts and/or Catholic Epistles; Revelation (when in multivolumesets).
b. Uncials.
This is not a very good name("uncial" is term for hand‑written capital letters), sincepapyri are written in uncial handwriting also. Name was chosen before papyri were discovered.
Uncial manuscripts were written onparchment, a type of "paper" made from animal skins. Very expensive but also very durable.
Uncials are abbreviated by capital Latin(English) letters. After these ranout, the different-looking Greek letters were used. Then used numbers that always start with '0' (zero; todifferentiate from miniscules, which are marked by numbers without leadingzero).
1)3rd century.
0212- Dura Diatessaron ‑ Harmonyof the 4 Gospels. Must datebefore 256 AD as found under the wall foundation of city (Dura) destroyed in256. At Yale University.
O220‑ Romans (fragment).
0171- Gospel (frags of Matt, Luke), about 300 AD.
O162‑ John (fragment), 3rd or 4th cen.
0189- Acts (fragment), 3rd or 4th.
2)4th century.
! (01) ‑ Codex Sinaiticus.
Discoveredin St. Catherine's Monastery, Sinai (built c600 AD).
Possone of the mss drawn up at Constantine's request (4th century), later brought to monastery.
Containsthe complete NT & OT (but parts of OT lost in damage to ms)
Nowin British Museum, London.
In1850's Tischendorf got the Monastery to donate manuscript to the Czar ofRussia.
Communistssold to British Museum in 1933.
Somemore frags found recently at St. Cath. Monastery.
B(03) ‑ Codex Vaticanius. InVatican library.
Earlyhistory unknown, first Vatican catalog in 1475 listed it.
ContainsOT, Apocrypha, and NT (end missing).
Booksare in different order than our Bible.
MissingHeb 9:15‑, 1‑2 Tim., Titus, Phm. and Rev.
Severalfragments also from this century.
3)Later (5th century).
A(02) ‑ Codex Alexandrinus.
WholeNT, missing some of Matt. & 2 Cor.
Knownearliest in Alexandria.
Patriarchof Constantinople had it, was friendly to west, so in 1627 he donated it toCharles I of England.
Nowin British Museum.
C(04) ‑ Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus.
About5/8 of NT.
Sermonsof Ephraim are written over NT text.
Nowin Paris National library.
D(05) ‑ Codex Bezae.
Containsthe Gospels and Acts.
HasGreek and Latin on facing pages.
Nowin Cambridge U. Lib., gift of Theodore Beza.
Locationand history prior to Beza unknown.
W(032) ‑ Codex Washingtonensis.
Completemanuscript of the Gospels.
Foundafter 1900 in Egypt. Purchased by Freer in 1905.
Donatedto Smithsonian (now in Freer Gallery of Art).
5)Distribution of Known Uncials (245 in Aug 1980).
Century | Number
_________ |______________________________________________
|
1 | 0
2 | 0
3 |*** 3
4 |**************** 16
5 |******************************************** 44
Later |********************************/ /*** 182
Uncialtype of handwriting continues until 11th cen., but begins to be replaced byminiscules in 9th.
c. Miniscules.
Name "miniscule" refers to thesmaller cursive handwriting style in which these manuscripts written. Forapproximate comparison, uncials look like our printed Gk capitals, minisculeslike our printed Gk small letters.
Miniscules span 9th to 16th century untilprinting starts. Most are writtenon parchment, except for a few on paper towards the end of this period.
Asof 1980, 2650 miniscules known.
Miniscules areabbreviated/labelled by normal numbers: 1, 85, etc.
Miniscules are generally considered oflesser value for determining the NT texts, as they are much further removed intime from the originals:
Papyriremoved 40-700 years,
Uncialsremoved 200-900 years,
Miniscules800-1800 years.
However, some miniscules are probablyjust one or two copies removed from important uncials which no longer exist.
1)Important Miniscules:
Group1: contains miniscule number 1
Calledthe "Lake group" after the man who studied them.
Probablyall have common ancestor.
Includesmss 1, 118, 131, etc.
HaveCaesarian type text.
Group13: contains ms 13
Calledthe "Ferrar group."
Includesmss 13, 69, 124, etc.
AlsoCaesarian family.
Miniscule33
9thcen., one of earliest miniscules.
Apparentlya copy of an early uncial.
Oncecalled "Queen of the cursives"
GoodAlexandrian family text.
2)Distribution of Known Miniscules (2650 as of Aug 1980)
Century | Number (+ represents 10 mss)
_________ |______________________________________________
|
9 |+ 13
10 |++++++++++++ 125
11 |+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 436
12 |++++++++++++++++/ /+++ 586
13 |++++++++++++++++/ /+ 569
Later |++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++/ /+++ 921
d.Summary: Papyri, Uncials,Miniscules.
Bestsources of NT text.
Fragmentarybefore 4th century.
Giveno direct information on their date, copier, where copied, from whatmanuscript(s), except for a few medieval mss. This information can sometimes bededuced.
3. Other Ancient Sources.
a.Lectionaries (Greek).
Could have put these under previousheading "Ancient Greek Manuscripts," as they are old, Greek and handwritten,but lectionaries have reorganized the text for reading in church on particularSundays. Some lectionariesare based on the calendar year, some on the movable church year (3rd Sun ofLent, etc.).
Early church practice was just to have alist to look up text in Bible. Later, readings were compiled into separate books called lectionaries.
Wehave lectionaries from the 4th century on.
As of 1980, 1995 lectionaries known:
271uncial lects (4th-13th cen),
1724miniscule lects (9th-16th cen).
UBS will sometimes list them infootnotes, either as a whole ('Lect' = Reading of the majority of lectionaries)or individually l76,150
Nestledoes not usually note lectionary readings, giving only five lect mss in theirmss list.
Lectionaries have not been studied asthoroughly as papyri, miniscules and uncials, but they appear to have littlevalue for the original text or its early history.
b. Versions(i.e., Ancient Translations)
The NT has now been translated into manyhundreds of languages. Several ofthese translations were made before the fall of the Roman Empire (475) or atleast before the rise of Islam (650). We list these ancient translations below:
Century: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Latin: Old Vulgate
Syriac: Old Peshitta
Palestinan
Harclean
Coptic: Sahidic
Bohairic
Century: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Other: Gothic
Armenian
Georgian
Ethiopic
Nubian
WhenChristians first spread the Gospel, it was in two languages: Greek and Aramaic (for Jews). Most agree that the NT was written inGreek, except possibly for Matthew.
Need forAramaic disappeared after Jews largely rejected Christianity (70‑150AD), and Messianic Jews died off. Some argument on connection of Syriac with Aramaic.
Asthe Gospel spread, it encountered people who did not know Greek.
1)Latin Versions of NT.
a)Old Latin (probably 2nd century).
Wasin existence by the time of Tertullian.
Firstmade in Europe or Africa (not Rome, too many people there knew Greek).
Don'tknow who did it; There is much variation, possibly several versions,or people correcting one translation.
CalledItala, abbrev. in UBS and Nestle as 'it.'
By4th century there were so many variations that bishop of Rome called for anew translation.
b)Vulgate (late 4th and early 5th century).
Thatnew translation was Jerome's vulgate, not strictly a new translation but arevision of the Old Latin (Western family) in light of the bestmanuscripts available at the time (Alexandrian).
Manyold readings crept in as it was later copied, since people were still familiarwith the Itala.
Wasblasted at first (as was KJV!), but gradually accepted as the standard.
Bythe Reformation, people were correcting the Gk and Heb texts by theVulgate (supposedly inspired!).
UBSand Nestle abbreviate as 'vg'.
2)Syriac Versions.
Syriac was a dialect of Aramaicspoken by Gentiles in Syria. The main difference between Jewish Aram. and Syr. is handwritingstyle (same alphabet but very different script).
Syriac versions have apparently picked upsome influence from the Diatessaron, which was early in Syriac, perhapsbefore the four Gospels.
a)Old Syriac version (by 2nd or 3rd century).
Onlytwo manuscripts survive, contain the Gospels.
Textof two mss are significantly different.
Sinaitic(syrs in UBS, Nestle sys) 4th ‑ 5th cen.
Curetonian(syrc in UBS, Nestle syc) 5th cen.
b)Peshitta (syrp in UBS, Nestle syp).
Namemeans 'simple', sometimes called the "Syriac Vulgate," is thecommon Syriac version.
Wasmade around or before 400 AD (late 4th, early 5th), because in 431 AD theSyriac church split into two factions, and both use the Peshitta. Tradition connects it with Rabbula, bpof Edessa (411-435).
Stillused in the Syriac church today.
Mostthink that Syr was translated from the Greek, tho Lamsa thinks Syr is original.
OtherSyriac versions:
c)Palestinian (syrpal in UBS, Nestle doesn't cite).
A6th century revision of the Peshitta.
d)Harclean (syrh in UBS, Nestle syh)
A7th century revision of the Peshitta.
3)Coptic Versions.
Copticis the name of the Egyptian language at NT times.
Writingstyle had changed with coming of Greeks to Egypt. Got rid of ideograms and syllabary of Hieroglyphic &Demotic, replacing with Greek alphabet (plus a couple of new letters).
Themajor No. Egyptian cities spoke Greek, but as Xianity spread up the Nile, Copticversions were needed.
HaveNT in several dialects but two important ones were:
a)Sahidic (copsa in UBS, Nestle sa).
Thebesand south (Upper Egypt).
Madein 3rd or 4th century.
Stillused by Coptic church today.
b)Bohairic (copbo in UBS, Nestle bo).
Deltaand north (Lower Egypt).
Madein 4th century.
4)Other Ancient Versions.
Other language groups with which Xianitycame in contact after it had become legal and established.
a)Gothic (goth in UBS, Nestle got).
Indo‑European language spoken by Goths (sort ofGermanic). No groups speak thistoday.
Madein the 4th century.
b)Armenian (arm in UBS, Nestle doesn't use).
Eastern part of Turkey, Soviet Union, N. part of Iran andIraq.
Made in 4th or 5th century, still used in Armenian churchestoday (scattered around world).
c)Georgian (geo in UBS and Nestle).
Areanorth of the Black Sea (home of Stalin).
Madein the 5th century.
d)Ethiopic (eth in UBS, Nestle aeth).
Not the same area as today. Was a bit further north (just south of Egypt).
Madein 6th century.
e)Nubian (nub in UBS, Nestle doesn't use).
Areaaround Nile in southern part of Egypt.
Madein 6th century.
These are all of the versions up to timeof Muslim conquest (early 7th century). Once Rome fell (400's) there were few more Western versions until theReformation.
We have more manuscripts of Latinversions (>8000) than of the Greek. Also several thousand Armenian manuscripts.
Whatis the value of these versions?
Someversions were made about as early as the earliest surviving manuscripts whichwe have of the NT.
Thismeans they may help us get closer to the originals.
Themost valuble early versions are:
OldLatin Old Syriac
Sahidic Bohairic
sincethey predate the 4th century (when we start to get reasonably complete Greekmanuscripts).
Notas good as the Gk. manuscripts for determining the best text for two reasons:
1.Translation tends to obscure some details.
Evenbest translations do not show everything (e.g., Latin does not have a definitearticle, but can give good help on verb tenses or on the existence ofa phrase).
Thesewere not the best translations. Not done by linguists, etc.
2.The versions themselves have errors from copying.
Eachversion has its own unique collection of copyists' errors to decipher.
Cansometimes tell if the copy error was in the Gk or the Latin by the translation.
e.g.,Rev 22:19 libro/ligno
vsβιβλίoυ/ξύλoυ
The versions do tell us what kind ofreadings existed at the place where the translation was made, given the abovequalifications.
Can get some locality and dateinformation from versions, knowing where the particular language was spoken,when version made. This helps withdate and localities for Greek manuscripts, which otherwise have no such info.
c. ChurchFathers.
Another important source for study of thetext of the NT is its quotation in early writings. We call these writers the "church fathers" sincemost of them were leaders or teachers in the church. Some, however, were not orthodox, e.g., Marcion.
Thesewritings include letters, sermons, polemics: anything in which a NT quotationappears.
Thismaterial helpful because we usually know their locality and time of writingmore accurately than for versions or Greek manuscripts.
Belowwe give a list and three maps showing the time and place of the major churchfathers.
Church Fathers Significant for TextStudies:
Name Language Location Comment
‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑SECOND CENTURY ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑
Justin Greek [140 AD] Ephesus
Marcion Greek [150 AD] Rome Gnostic
Irenaeus Greek [180 AD] Lyon, Histeacher studied under Apostle John
France
Tatian Syriac [180 AD] Syria Diatessaron
Clement Greek [200- AD] Alexandria,
Egypt
‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑THIRD CENTURY ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑
Tertullian Latin [200+ AD] Carthage,N. Africa
Hippolytus Greek [225 AD] Rome First'anti‑pope'
Origen Greek [225 AD] Alexandria, Egypt
Cyprian Latin [250 AD] Carthage, N. Africa
‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑FOURTH CENTURY ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑
Xianity now legal: Biggest century in Scriptural study sinceapostles and until Reformation.
Ephraem Syriac Syria
Hilary Latin Poitiers,France
Ambrose Latin Milan,N. Italy
Augustine Latin Hippo(near Carthage)
Jerome Latin Bethlehem,Palestine
Chrysostom Greek Constantinople
Gregory Greek Cappadocia,Asia Minor
of Nyssa
Basil Greek Cappadocia,Asia Minor
Gregory Greek Cappadocia,Asia Minor
Nazianzus
Eusebius Greek Caesarea,Palestine Ch History
Athanasius Greek Alexandria,Egypt
SOURCESOF THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT
LOCATIONOF CHURCH FATHERS BY CENTURIES
KEY:
Diagrams are sketch maps of Mediterranean
Typestyle for name indicates languagefather used:
Greek,LATIN, Syriac
SECOND CENTURY:
Irenaeus
___________ __ / __________
/ \ \ \ / |Justin
__/ Marcion \ \ \ / |_________
/_/\\ \__\ | Tatian
______________ |
| __________|
|______________| Clement
THIRD CENTURY:
___________ __ / __________
/ \ \ \ / |
__/ Hippolytus\ \ \ / |_________
/_/\\ \_ \ |
______________ |
CYPRIAN| __________|
TERTULLIAN |______________| Origen
FOURTH CENTURY:
HILARY
AMBROSE Chrysostom
___________ __ / __________
/ \ \ \ / | Basil, Gregories
__/ \ \ \ / | _________ Ephraem
/_/\ \ \_ \ |
______________ | Eusebius
AUGUSTINE | __________|JEROME
|______________| Athanasius
Whatis the advantage for NT text for knowing the church fathers?
Havebetter information for their locations and dates than we do for versions ormanuscripts. (We generally knowtheir dates of death and where they were active.)
Theircitations of Scripture or comments on variant readings tell us the date andlocation of these readings.
BUTchurch fathers are not the best source for determining the Greek text ofthe NT.
Why? Several problems using church fathers:
1.We must do textual criticism on the text of writings of church fathers to getoriginal Scripture reading.
Thiscan be difficult as scribes have often corrected the father's Scripturequotations to agree with the Scripture texts which the scribe was used to.
2.We do not always know what the father was doing:
Washe quoting from memory, or did he look it up?
Washe making an exact citation or only an allusion?
Ifit is from memory, slight rewordings or combinations of parallel accountsmay have occurred.
Evenlong passages still do not prove that he copied, as memorizing more commonbefore invention of printing.
3.Ephraem, Hilary and others were not writing in Greek and we do not know whatkind of NT manuscript they may have been using (Greek, Latin, Syriac?).
B. History of the Text.
1. Before Printing.
| 
2 |
a. Palaeography
Studyof ancient writing styles and techniques
1) Materialsfor receiving writing.
Three main types: papyrus, parchment, paper
a) Papyrus.
Dominantwriting material in the Roman Empire.
Usedfrom before 2500 BC in Egypt up to c300 AD.
Popularworks continued on in papyrus but reference works like the Bible (whichwere used daily) were thereafter made on parchment, as more durable.
Production of papyrus:
Papyrusreed is sliced vertically into thin strips, laid crosswise (#), thenpressed together. Its sap (thinnedwith Nile water) was the glue.
Reedgrew naturally in Egypt and a few other marshy places.
Papyrus"paper" kept fairly well, better than most grades of modern paper, particularly modernacid paper (100's of years possible if conditions right).
Bytoday, however, most have disintegrated.
Insome very dry areas (Egyptian deserts) fragments of papyri are found.
b) Parchment.
Usedfor the Bible from 300 to around 1300 AD.
Speciallytreated animal skins
Production:made suitable for writing by being scraped thin, treated with lime, etc.
Namedfor city Pergamum which was an early major producer. Story has it that king of Pergamum and EgyptianKing Ptolemy were in competition for the biggest library. Ptolemyembargoed Pergamum's papyrus so they developed this instead.
Muchsuperior to Papyrus in durability but harder to write on as it was not asporous (letters could be rubbed off rather easily).
Wasmore expensive and difficult to prepare, but the supply was not geographicallylimited.
c) Paper.
Similarto papyrus in that it is a sheet of vegetable fibers, but fibers weretaken apart and reassembled for paper.
Production:took cloth or wood fibers and cooked them down, then glued together with glueor starch.
Inventedby Chinese who used it by 2nd cen AD.
Muslimconquests of the East brought paper to Middle East about 750. Sold in Europe by 1100s
Crusadersmay have brought back production secrets.
Finallybegan to be used in Europe in 14th ‑ 15th c.
Itsdevelopment was aided by printing, as both were cheaper than competingprocesses.
2) Writingequipment used in antiquity.
a) Pens.
Reed pen:for papyrus; used something like our felt‑tip pens: Took a piece of reed,mushed up the end to form a tiny brush and dipped this in the ink (everyletter or two).
Quillpen: for parchment; used points like our fountain pens have. These hard points would dig holes inthe softer papyrus. The sharp pen points for parchment were featherquills (from chicken, duck, goose, etc.) sharpened at the tip. These were slit to hold a small amountof ink (dip every few letters).
b) Inks.
Black:was made from lamp black (carbon soot) mixed with gum arabic and water. This was the most common ink in NT times.
Brown:was obtained from the galls from certain nut trees. Codex B (Vaticanus) and D (Bezae) were written with thisink.
OtherColors: for deluxe editions, various ink colors like red, purple, gold, andsilver could be made.
c) Pen knife.
Usedto sharpen or to make new quill pens.
d) Pumice.
Avolcanic stone with texture like sandpaper. Used to smooth out writing surfaceand to fine-tune the pen sharpening.
e) Sponge.
Usedfor erasing paper and for cleaning pen point.
3) Book forms.
Howwere books constructed? Two ways:scroll, codex
a) Scroll.
Onecontinuous horizontal roll, of sheets glued or sewn together edge to edge. Thiswas the standard book technique until c100 AD. Use continued long after for pagan literature, but not forNT.
Problemswith the scroll format:
Thescroll cannot be very long as it becomes hard to handle; 20 feet is about thelongest, c40 pages. Usual lengthswere on the order of 10 to 20 feet. Thus most books were short and longer writings were made on many scrolls,sometimes 100 for one work!
Randomaccess problem: cannot find the passage you want without a lot of work (like cassettetapes, video tapes).
Wastedwriting material: cannot conveniently write on the back side as it is handledon that side (so too much wear on a written side).
b) Codex[plural, codices].
Sheetsare linked together along only one edge (like 3-ring binders) instead of bothedges (like scroll).
Ideaprobably came from wax‑coated wooden sheets bound with rings in thismanner, then adapted for papyrus.
Ouroldest NT manuscript fragments are codices (only 4 of our 85 cataloged papyriare scrolls).
Mostscholars guess that the earliest NT manuscripts were written on scrolls, butthe scrolls that survive are not the earliest mss.
c) Palimpsest.
Nota different book form, but a manuscript which has been erased and written over.
Erasingusually done in medieval period when good writing material was scarce.
Parchmentwas only real choice for erasure as it was durable to start with and could beerased easily.
Codex C(Ephraemi Rescriptus) is an example of this. About 5/8 of NT was erased (probably the binding had fallenapart first so this was 'scrap') and used for sermons of Ephraem the Syrian.
Sometimes(as with codex C) possible to read the underlying text in the parchmentwith infra‑red photography.
4) Handwriting Styles.
a) Uncial.
FromLatin Uncialus ="inch high" (some exaggeration).
Lookslike a simplified form of the capital letters used for engraving on stone monuments.
Unlikeengraving, no serifs or variations in line thickness.
Similarto modern Greek printed capital letters.
TheUncial Alphabet: see cover page of these notes
Differencesfrom modern printed capitals:
Noteepsilon, xi, sigma
Notedevelopment of omega: two o'smerged
Thiswas the common script from before the time of Christ to the 10th century AD.
Butit takes up a lot of space.
Wordswere run together, perhaps to save space.
Didput a space between clauses and sentences like we would use commas or periods.
Beingrun together was not too bad since ancients typically read the text aloudinstead of silently when reading to self. (Augustine was surprised that Ambrosedid not read out loud when he studied.)
Acursive handwriting style was used for personal or informal notes, but notfor making books.
b) Miniscules.
Inthe 9th century, the informal cursive script was modified to be more readableand was used in 10-15th cens. in making books.
Advantages:
Fasterto write => cheaper.
Morewords per page => cheaper.
Minisculesbrought the price of books down considerably so they became much morecommon.
Asa result, 90% of the extant Greek manuscripts are in the miniscule style.
Theminiscule alphabet: (note more variety)
![]()
Differencesfrom modern printed small letters:
Notebeta (sometimes closer to modern beta), zeta, mu, nu, xi, pi especially.
5)Abbreviations. Several types occurin NT manuscripts.
a)Contraction.
Contractionin English: cannot => can't; Iam => I'm.
Commonlymarked with the apostrophe.
Contractioncommon in Greek NT, especially with sacred names.
Called'Nomina Sacra' = sacred names ‑ Letters were dropped out of the middleand the contraction marked with a bar above the letters.
Didnot save that much space; apparently used to mark sacredness, somewhat likeHebrew tetragrammaton.
TwoLetter Contractions: NOTE the case dependence:
Nom. Sing. Acc.Dat.Gen.
__ __ __ __
ΘC = θεoς ΘN Θω ΘY
__ |
KC= κυριoς \ Note uncial does not
__ useiota subscript
YC= υæoς
__
IC= zIησoυς
__
XC= Χριστoς
Three Letter:
___ ___
ΠNA= ¹vευμα CHP= σωτηρ
___ ___
CTC= σταυρoς ΔAΔ= Δαυιδ
___ ___
MHP= μητηρ IHΛ= zIσραηλ
___
ΠHP= ¹ατηρ
LongerForms:
_____
ANOC= •vθρω¹oς
______
OYNOC= oóραvoς
_____
IΛHM= {Iερυσαλημ
b) Suspension.
InEnglish, we will sometimes only write out the first few letters of a word for an abbreviation.
Greeksuspension is somewhat similar, yet not exactly the same.
Ifthere was not enough room at the end of a line and the writer did not want tocarry over a letter or two, he put a line out past the right margin whichmeant, "You supply the ending which the context requires here."
|__
ΔOYΛO|
|margin
c) Ligature.
Ligatureis two letters drawn together to form one letter.
Ligatureused to be rather common in English printing when type was hand set.
ae => ¾ oe => Ï fi => Þ
InGreek, rare in Uncial, more common in miniscules.
Examplesfrom miniscules:
![]()
Theoυ form is also found in some uncial script.
Wasapparently done for convenience and faster writing.
d) Symbol.
Symbolsare arbitrary figures/designs used to represent a word.
InEnglish:
$ => dollar ; , => pound ; 4 => cent ;
% => percent, math signs.
SomeEnglish symbols appear to be former ligatures:
&=> et [and] in Latin. 4 prob ct ligature
![]()
Inminiscules:
b. Types of Errors found in NTManuscripts.
1) Accidentalvariants (unintentional).
The vast majority of errors found in aparticular manuscript appear to be totally unintentional, rather like typos interm papers, etc. We attempt toclassify these on the basis of how they appear to have arisen: (1) errors ofsight or writing; (2) errors of hearing; (3) errors of memory; (4) errors ofjudgment.
a) Errors ofsight or writing.
Severalpossibilities here: Scribe saw right, but wrote wrong. Scribe wrote what he thought hesaw. Previous scribe's workwas sloppy or smudged.
(1)Wrong word division.
Uncials did not divide their words, butminiscules do. Thus every scribe who makes a minisculecopy from an uncial must make thousands of decisions on where to divide theletters to form the words. Someexamples:
Mark10:40 (noted in UBS and Nestle)
AΛΛOICHTOMIMACTAIin uncial
Dowe divide as
•λλoις or •λλzoêς
"for others" "but forthose"
1 Timothy 3:16 (Not in UBS, in Nestle)
OMOΛOΓOYMENΩCMEΓAin uncial
ñμoλoγoυμεv–ς μεγα ñμoλoγoυμεvωςμεγα
"we confess how great" or: "confessedly great"
(adverbialparticiple)
(2)Confusion of letters.
Someletters were very similar, though not the same ones in uncial or miniscule.
Uncial:
![]()
Problemswith bottom line.
Papyrusgrain is horizontal
(=)on preferred side. Ink
canrun/smear along grain.
Ifwriting fast, can get an
intermediateslant line.
Combinations are ambiguous,
whetherone letter or two.
Miniscule:
![]()
(3)Homoioteleuton and Homoioarchton. (similar endings and similar beginnings)
Errors occur because similarity of endingor beginning of two words in a passage results in the copyist looking back atthe wrong place; hence a section (either a word, sentence, or letters) is omittedin the copy. On rare occasions, asection is repeated! Someexamples:
1John 2:23 A number ofmanuscripts skip the section between the two occurrences of "he who hasthe father".
Matthew5:19‑20 τωvoυραvωv occurs 3 times and the sections in between areoccasionally missed.
(4)Haplography or Dittography.
H= writing something once when it really occurred twice.
D= writing something twice when it really occurred once.
1Thess. 2:7
EΓENHΘHMENHΠIOIor EΓENHΘHMENNHΠIOI
εγεvηθημεvη¹ιoι or vη¹ιoι
Wasthe v added or dropped? Does itmean: "we became gentle" or "we became infants"?
Thiscould be an error of hearing also; it is not always possible to specify theexact mechanism of error.
(5)Metathesis.
Accidentalinterchange of lettersor words.
Wordorder shifts can happen extremely easily since it often makes little differencein Greek.
Letterorder changes are more serious. Commonly see:
Mark14:65 ελαβovor εβαλov "take" or "put"
Acts13:23 is perhaps partially metathesis and partially a word-division problem:
'salvation' σωτηριαv
'SaviorJesus' σωτηρα Iησoυv
Probablya mixup in the abbreviations:
and
(6)Illegibility.
Sometimesthe text (due to damage) was just plain hard to read. Any type of error can happen.
b) Errors ofHearing.
There is good evidence that sometimes onescribe would read the text aloud from the exemplar (master copy) while otherscribes would make multiple copies. Perhaps this was done when a number of copies were neededquickly. This will produce adifferent type of error than those when the scribe has both his exemplar andthe copy he is making in front of him where he can read both.
(1)Itacism
Whenthe text was read aloud the copyist might not spell it right because he couldnot always tell from the pronunciation how to spell the word.
Particularproblems in Greek are vowels, dipthongs (plus iota-subscripted vowels, notshown) which are pronounced the same:
"eh"=> αι ε
"oh"=> o ω
"ee"=> ι υ η ει oι υι
UBSand Nestle do not normally indicate this sort; it is usually a trivialerror. Some more serious examples:
Distinctionsbetween indicative and subjunctive can be tricky, cf. Romans 5:1
εχoμεv or εχωμεv
¼μειςand §μεις sounded thesame.
See 1 John 1:4
Oftenboth possibilities make sense. Usually they do not make much difference.
Manyspelling variations do not imply a difference in understanding, as spellings were not standardizedin Hellenistic Greek (no Dictionaries).
(2)Inaudibility.
Thereader mispronounces, someone coughs, etc. Hard to categorize.
c) Errors ofMemory.
Probably no copyist ever copied entirelyfrom memory, but they would constantly look back and forth from the original tothe copy; not every letter, but every few words (contrast good typists, who cancontinually look at the original). Errors occurred in these 'few word' batches of memorization.
(1)Synonym.
Notan intentional change in the meaning, but a synonym of the original word might accidentally be substituted.
Matthew20:34 oμματωv ‑A rare word for 'eyes'.
oφθαλμωv ‑ The common word, so this
is probably the substitute.
(2)Word order.
Easyto change the order and it does not make much difference in Greek. Same result as for metathesis ofwords, but different cause.
Matthew7:17 'do good things'
¹oιεικαλoυς or καλoυς ¹oιει
(3)Influence of a Parallel Passage.
This is normally attributed tointentional harmonization, but it could also be an error of memory. Sometimes the wording from one gospelmight slip into the other when it is copied.
d) Errors ofJudgment.
Occurs more often if you do not have agood original to work with, so you have to decide what was meant. Similar to problem of illegibility, butmay involve other problems as well.
(1)Overlooking an Abbreviation.
Thecopyist misses the line over the word, or the previous copyist left it off.
Example:1 Timothy 3:16 is probably a confusion of letters, plus overlooking an abbreviation.
θεoςor ñς -‑> "God/He who wasmanifested..."
(2)Including a Marginal Note.
Corrector at a scriptorum would sometimesgo through a copy marking places where errors had been made. This is true today when preparing abook for a new edition: See copy ofBerkeley version of Bible in BTS library wih editor Frank Gaebelein's notes forrevision.
Beforeprinting, was hard to tell why marginal notes put in. Was it the proofreader at the scriptorium correcting a realmistake? Or was it a commentby a reader?
Copyistmay mistakenly assume that the manuscript note is a valid correction of themanuscript, so he now puts it into text.
John5:3‑4 Angel troubling the water of the pool. Western and Alexandriantexts omit this. Was it a notemade by a person who traveled to Palestine and asked for public opinion ofthe natives of Jerusalem as to why people were waiting for troubling ofwater at this pool?
(3)Excluding a Marginal Correction.
Avalid marginal correction of the text is left out by the later copyist whothinks that it is only a personal note or who disagrees with judgmentof corrector.
(4)More Familiar Word Substituted for a Similar-Looking One.
Thecopyist thinks the word was mis‑spelled but it was not; it was just arare unfamiliar word.
Luke6:42 καρ¹oς (fruit) for καρφoς(speck).
Thisexample could be due to a error of hearing instead.
2) IntentionalVariants.
Rarecompared with unintentional as best we can tell (i.e., from study of types oferrors in a particular ms). Butharder to repair because both variants will make sense.
Fromantiquity we know that there were men who tried to make changes in the texts inorder to teach their own doctrines.
Gnostics: Marcion threw out many NT books whichhe did not like (were too Jewish) and he made some changes in the ones hekept. We have no manuscripts whichare known to show this influence. The orthodox would not knowingly copygnostic stuff. When the gnosticsdied out, no one was interested in copying their modified texts.
Hereticsin general have not found it profitable to change the Bible, as the reallyimportant doctrines can not bemodified easily (due to diffuse, repetitive mode of teaching). Heretics typically find it easier to maketheir own Scriptures. Contrast JWswith Mormons.
Thevariants that we have today show little that could be reasonably construed asevidence of heretical corruption.
Mostintentional changes seem to be attempts to "repair" the text onthe theory that it had been miscopied.
a)Grammatical and linguistic changes.
AsChristianity spread into wealthier circles, there arose concern over theBible's non-classical style. (However, God wrote to communicate tothe people of the Koine period). Thus a tendency to classicize the text. Examples:
Changesin grammar: In Classical Gk, 3rdpl aorist ending was always µλθov (same as imperfect). As this was ambiguous (same as 1stsing), Koine writers often used the 1st Aorist ending to have µλθαvfor the 3rd pl. The classicistschanged this α back to an o. The α is typically older, hence theoriginal.
Changesin syntax: The copyist sometimesmisunderstood the syntax so he modified it. In Romans 3:29 we find the variants:
μovov / μovoς / μovωv
Thecopyists apparently thought they were correcting previous copyingerrors, i.e., "Some guy copied this wrong!" In reality they did not understandthe original syntax.
b)Liturgical.
Thetext was modified for use in the liturgy. As in lectionaries, the modifications make the contextclearer. e.g., "And hesaid" ‑‑> "And Jesus said".
Thismay also explain why the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6:13 has added a doxology(from OT material) to an otherwise abrupt ending. People eventually put into theircopies what they knew from the liturgy.
c)Elimination of Apparent Discrepancies.
Seenespecially in later manuscripts. Example:
Mark1:2 Is it "The prophets"or "Isaiah the prophet"? Since both Isaiah and Malachi are quoted here, some person probablythought this should say "the prophets."
Butthe original style apparently was to cite the major prophet in a multi‑passagequotation (all the minor prophets were on one scroll).
d)Harmonization of Parallel Passages.
Luke11:2‑4 Lord's Prayer in Lukefilled out from Matthew. Ingeneral, Matthew was more popular (as seen from relative number of mss, etc.). Its wording later begins showing up inLuke and Mark.
e)Conflation (combination of variants).
Thisproblem arises when the scribe has two or more variants, usually one in thetext and another in a marginal or interlinear note. He has several choices:
(1)Throw away the marginal note. Danger: If it is a validcorrection from the proofreader, you lose true text from ms.
(2)Throw out the text and substitute the margin. Danger: Marginal note was invalid correction or only someone's comment; alsolose the original text.
(3)Leave it in the margin. Notsatisfactory. Want ms to lookgood when finished, and not confuse the next copyist.
(4)Put both into the text (conflation). Do not lose anything, so the safest, most common practice. Danger: it does introduce a new,combination reading.
f)Attempted Corrections.
Achange has occurred which appears to be more than just a grammatical orlinguistic correction. Examples:
Romans8:2 σε (you) ‑‑> με (me)
Rev1:5 λυσαvτι (loosed) ‑‑>λoυσαvτι (washed)
Latterexample might well be itacism instead.
g)Doctrinal Changes.
Noneed to be toward 'orthodoxy', but in actuality these do tend toward'orthodoxy' (if we define 'orthodoxy' as whatever was commonly accepted inchurch at that time).
Reasonfor this: Christians have gottentheir Scriptures from orthodox Christians, not from heretics. Examples:
1John 5:7-8 The Trinitarian verse:
"Thereare three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the HolySpirit, and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth..."
Occursin only 3‑4 out of 100's of Greek manuscripts. This passage was not used in theTrinitarian controversies of the fourth century, implying it was not in theGreek text. Possibly in Latin textat time.
Mark9:29 "... prayer 'andfasting'."
Fastingbecame a major part of monastic piety, which became popular in the churchonly after about 300 AD.
Textcriticism C whether done on biblical texts or otherChristian authors or any other texts from before the age of printing Cseeks to detect these sorts of copying errors and, if possible, restore thetext to the form it originally had when it came from the author.
c. Transmission of the Text by Hand.
We turn now to consider what we knowabout the specific history of the NT text, beginning with the autographs andcoming down to the time when the NT began to be copied by mechanical printingprocesses shortly after 1500 AD.
This period subdivides into two: (1) aperiod during which the Xn church is illegal, and is subject to sporadic persecution(during which time the text of the mss is characterized by growingdivergence), and (2) the following period in which Xy is legal and (at leastnominally) widely accepted (during which time the mss tend to converge intext).
1) Period ofPersecution (divergence of manuscripts).
The church was considered illegal fromc65 to c325 AD in the Roman Empire. In God's providence, this persecution ended before the collapse ofthe empire in the West. Otherwise(humanly speaking), the NT text might have been far more divergent than it is.
Therewere two main influences in this period, a) tradition & b) persecution.
a)Influence of Oral Tradition.
Some apostles were still alive until c100AD, and others who had seen and heard Jesus for some years more. People who had heard the apostles speakwere prob around beyond 150 AD (e.g., Polycarp, etc.).
Thus there was a source independent ofthe written Gospels for what Jesus and the apostles did and taught; e.g., see Papias'remarks in his Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord.
Such extra information might occasionallybe written in the margin of a ms as a note, and later get into the text.
These oral traditions were circulatinguntil c150 AD, and whatever got written down for long afterward. After this, oral traditions were nottrusted.
TheWestern family of mss seems most influenced by this.
b)Influence of Persecution.
Roman persecution was not continuous, butcould break out at any time so long as Xy was illegal in Empire.
(1)In a persecution, the best copies were those most likely to be destroyed,i.e., those belonging to a large, notable congregation or a major leader. Church leaders and meeting places weremost sought; these would also tend to have the most official copies ofScripture.
SinceChristianity was illegal, it was hard to travel openly, hard to have openmeetings (during persecution). There were no large councils of church leaders (as far as we know)between Jerusalem Council (AD 50) and Nicea (AD 325).
Therefore:
(2)It was hard to compare manuscripts from across the Empire.
(3)Manuscripts were often copied by amateurs without proper checking, since it wasdangerous to take them to professionals.
c)Results for this period:
(1)Most of the variants we have appear in this period, especially in the firsthalf (before c200 AD). Some ofthese variants are hard to resolve since they occur in the earliestmanuscripts which we have.
(2)Manuscripts continue to diverge, so that "Local texts"arise:
Local Text [Versions based on texts] RegionInvolved
Alexandrian [Coptic, Nubian, Ethiopic] Alexandria andsouthward into Egypt
Caesarean [Georgian,Armenian] Caesarea;versions northward into S. Russia
Byzantine [Gothic,Peshitta] Antioch,then Constantinople, spreads from there
Western [OldLatin, Old Syriac] Nowthought to have origin in East
Westernshows up first in N. Africa, then Europe. However, we now have evidence it started in the East, and was spread to the West bymissionaries.
Locations(above) are derived from where the church fathers who quoted these readingswere located, and regions where languages of versions spoken. Locations cannot be derived directlyfrom mss since early mss don't give such information.
2) Period ofAcceptance (convergence of manuscripts).
After c325 AD, Christianity is no longerillegal in Roman Empire. Thisperiod continues in Europe until c1500 AD (when printing takes over), althoughthe rise of Islam in the East complicates things.
a)Influence of the End of Persecution.
Around310‑325 (depending on the area) the church could once again operateopenly as before 65 (although Xy doesn't become the state religion untilabout 400).
(1)Now Xns can use professional scribes. The amount of new error drops off substantially (cp. difference betweenamateur and professional secretary). It thus becomes worthwhile to study variants and try to correcttexts, since errors will no longer be cropping up as fast as corrected.
(2)Can now openly travel and compare texts. Xn leaders quickly see the need for standardization of the text andbegin to do so. However, mostpeople (and leaders) prefer their own local versions. (Sound familiar?)
b)Influence of Changes in the Greek-Speaking World.
100to 200 AD had been the great golden age of the Roman Empire, with good rulers,peace, economic prosperity. After 200 AD, the Roman Empire weakens, with economic decline, badagricultural practices, growing welfare state, education weakening.
Inareas where Greek not native language, it begins to recede (esp. in ruralareas) in favor of local languages: Coptic, Syriac, Armenian.
Latinalso loses as Barbarians come into West after 250 AD.
Therise of Islam in the 600's causes a major change in language and muchmore. Arabic becomes the languageof culture and commerce in Palestine, Egypt, N. Africa, Spain.
ThusGreek usage shrinks back with Byzantine Empire to Asia Minor and Greece,plus a few isolated patches elsewhere. This is the area where the Byzantine text was local version.
ThusByzantine text becomes dominant, since Byzantine Empire survives Arabconquests and Greek is still spoken there. Alexandria, Caesarea, etc. fall to Islam and Greek usageends there.
c)Results from this later period:
(1)Few furthervariants occur other than ones which result from standardization (conflation,smoothing, etc.).
(2)Various mss families tend to grow more like each other as marginal notes fromcomparison are incorporated into the text.
(3)Constantinople becomes the center of the Greek-speaking church (Rome of Latin-speaking), soits text becomes dominant as other areas are taken over. During the 4th‑8thcenturies the percentage of mss which are Byzantine greatly increase,from virtually none in 4th cen to dominance in 8th cen.
Hence95% of our extant miniscules are Byzantine, as Byzantine family was dominantwhen they were first made. Findmainly Byzantine corrections in the other text families.
2. History of the Text since Printing.
With the importation of printing into theWest and its technological development into a massive industry, 1000sof copies of a text can be printed which are textually identical. It is still possible to make copyingerrors (and some are whoppers!), but since every copy will no longer be uniqueit is far more feasible economically to check a text carefully before it goesto the printer.
a. The Rise of Textual Criticism (16th‑20thcenturies).
The enormous reduction of textual copyingerror printing makes possible leads to systematic attempts to find and restorethe best possible text of ancient documents, of which the most widely printedwill be the Bible. We will dividethis period of the history of the text since printing into three periods: (1)the Textus Receptus becomes dominant (16-17th cen); (2) textual studyprogresses (18th); (3) the abandonment of the TR (19th-20th).
1) The TextusReceptus Becomes Dominant (16th‑17th cens.).
a)The Printed Greek New Testament.
Printing existed in China & Japan by800 AD, but only reaches the west in the late 1300's. Movable metal type and the printing press were developedto make it practical about 1450. The first books were printed in Latin, the international language ofscholars in the West.
When Constantinople fell to the Turks in1453, many Greeks fled west as refugees. This brought a great spurt in interest in Greek, which had not been veryaccessible previously as RC and GO churches were enemies.
(1)First Printed Greek NT.
CardinalXimenes in Spain made the first plans for a Greek printed Bible, as part of amultilingual OT-NT. It wasdesigned as a scholarly rather than popular edition. It had the OT in Hebrew, Greek, andLatin, and the NT in Greek and Latin.
Cameto be called the "Complutensian Polyglot" after the Latin nameof the city in Spain where published (Alcala = Complutum).
Thiswas the first Greek NT ever printed (1514), but it was not published (distributed)until 1522 because papal beauracracy held it up (had to have permission topublish Bibles).
(2)First Published Greek NT.
WhileXimenes was working on this, a printer in Basle named Froben found out anddecided to publish a much cheaper Greek edition of the NT before Ximenes.
Frobengot help from Erasmus, the best Greek scholar in Europe at the time. But Froben forced him to work fast, soErasmus could only use locally available manuscripts.
Erasmus'Gk ms of Revelation lacked the last page, so Erasmus translated the LatinVulgate back into Greek for this part.
Editionwas printed and published in 1516 (dedicated to the Pope, so permission topublish came quickly).
Sinceit was smaller and cheaper than Complutensian Polyglot it had a much largercirculation.
TheFroben text is basically Byzantine.
LaterGreek NT's for several centuries follow Erasmus's text (rather thanPolyglot or Greek manuscripts) even though it has wordings which are not usedin any Greek manuscript.
e.g.,the last 6 verses of Revelation continue to follow Erasmus rather thanGreek. "Book of life" inLatin and TR (and KJV) should be "tree of life" acc to Gk. manuscripts.
Yetboth the Polyglot and Erasmus' text were based on relatively few manuscripts(those which were easily accessible).
(3)Later Printed Editions of 1500s.
Thesealso depended on a few late manuscripts as there was no textual criticism yet.
Thetendency was to use Erasmus' version (occasionally corrected against amanuscript) rather than to print a text of the Comp Polyglot or somemanuscript.
Nocopyright laws yet, so easy to do. Over the next century, only Froben'stypographical errors are changed in the various printed Gk texts.
b) The "Textus Receptus."
Theterm "Textus Receptus" is used in three distinct (but somewhatoverlapping) senses:
(1)Narrowest sense: Elzevir brothers'2nd edition of Greek NT (1633). Comment in the preface, "this is the text received by all." From this was coined the phrase, "TextusReceptus." So refers to thisedition.
(2)Broader sense: All early printededitions of Gk NT, i.e., the printing up of the sort of text which we find inthe miniscules, especially those copied in the last centuries before the timeof printing, which is basically a late form of the Byzantine family as it haddeveloped by the 15th century.
(3)Broadest sense: The form of thetext of any work written before printing as it was transmitted to thetime printing begins. Applies toall ancient literature (the "TR" of Homer, etc.)
TheKJV does not follow the "TR" in the narrowest sense, but does in theother two senses.
c)Beginning of Textual Studies.
Witha fairly fixed printed ed. of the Greek NT, much more elaborate textual studycan be done than anyone in antiquity (Origen, Jerome, etc.) everattempted. We discuss some of thisunder the headings (1) the publication of critical apparatuses, (2) theuse of uncial mss, and (3) the collection of variant readings.
(1)Publication of Critical Apparatuses.
Withthe coming of printed editions, it was much easier to compare mss (and so begintextual studies) because there are many identical copies of one"standard" text (even tho itself somewhat variant) to compare msswith. Comparing actual mss withouta standard is much harder as one worker can't tell what another is doing.But now deviations can be compared with a common printed edition.
StephanusÕ(Latin name of Robert Estienne) edition of 1550 includes textual apparatus (hadenough mss to do this) listing variant readings. KJV is translated from this (and a Beza edition).
Fromthis time on, some editions will give critical apparatus and some willnot.
Stephanused. of 1551 was first to have verse divisions.
(2)The Use of Uncial Manuscripts.
(a)Theodore Beza, successor to Calvin at Geneva. All early editions were based on miniscules, butBeza had two uncial mss which are still important today: codex D (Bezae) and codex D2or Dp (Claromontanus), the two major Greek representatives of theWestern family. Though Beza made10 eds. of Gk NT in his life, didn't use these uncials much. Their textdiverges greatly from the miniscules and he did not know how to handlethis.
(b)Brian Walton. Published a Polyglotin 1657, still used today because it contains Ethiopic, Syriac, Persianversions which have not been much worked on. Walton used uncial CodexAlexandrinus as one source for his Greek NT in the Polyglot. Alex. is our earliestBzyantine text in the gospels (the rest of it is Alex.), so it did not look sodivergent from TR.
(3)The Collection of Variants.
Begantrying to find as many variant readings as possible. This work is not completely done yet.It is hard to find all variants in hand‑written manuscripts (and thereare 1000's of manuscripts!). Hasbeen done carefully for all uncials, many miniscules, a few lectionaries.
(a)Brian Walton was the first to do systematic work. Compared manuscripts in differentlibraries.
(b)John Fell's Greek NT (1675 ed). Lists variants from over 100 mss and someversions. The first printed ed. to cite Codex Vaticanus (B). Does not always tell reader which manuscriptsupports which reading. Does tellyou what he looked at and what the variants are.
RCCwas not happy about Protestants using Vaticanus, so not available toscholars until the mid‑19th cen. Somehow Fell got to use it.
2) Textual Study Progresses (18thcentury)
a)Continued Dominance of TR. Thiswas the normal printed text, with some minor exceptions.
b)Collection of variants continues, as does location and survey of newmanuscripts.
JohnMill's Greek NT (1707) contains 30,000 variant readings (cp UBS c5,000).But the text he prints only varies from the TR in 210 places.
c)Development of Critical Principles.
Withthe collection of all these variants, the question naturally arises: How do youdecide which variant is more likely than its competitors to be original? Some attempts in this century to develop"rules" for making decisions.
(1)John Albert Bengel [conservative; commentary Gnomon NT]. In Prologue to 1734 ed. of Greek NT,states two principles:
(a)"Manuscripts are to be weighed, not counted." Obviously metaphorical, not suggestingphysical weighing! The numberof mss which support a reading may just be an indication of which manuscriptwas copied the most, and not insure a better reading.
Example:Story of Geo. Washington's vision at Valley Forge. Vision gave history of the U.S., foretold 3 great wars. Tracts today say the 3rd war (invasion)will be the most dangerous, but cite as their source of vision story anewspaper version which says the 2nd war (Civil war) was to be theworst! Most exciting reading wasmost copied rather than the oldest.
(b)"Within limits, the more difficult reading is to be preferred to theeasier." Limits:unless it makes no sense or is "too hard." This principle corrects the tendency of a scribe to use aneasier wording to simplify or "correct" a passage. Like paraphrased Bibles removingambiguities today.
(c)Bengel began to see that manuscripts fell into large groups (he saw 2 andcalled them 'nations').
Asiatic: What we call the Byzantine. Since it centered around Constantinoplehe called it Asiatic.
African: He put Alexandrinus and the Old Latin(Western) together in this, not differentiating between the Western andAlexandrian.
(2)J. J. Griesbach [not conservative]. Worked on several editions from 1775‑1807. Had an elaboratescheme of 15 rules for textual criticism. Saw that Bengel's families needed to be further divided: Byzantine, Alexandrian, and Western.
About early (and modern) principles oftextual criticism: No onefelt that these principles could be applied mechanically, i.e. by computerrather than human. They recognizedthat certain aspects of textual criticism are a science, but that the laststep, deciding which variant is most likely original, is an art. Requiredboth probabilitiy and value judgments.
d)Development of Notation (1751‑1752).
J.J. Wettstein was responsible fordeveloping modern notation, which is also used in non‑Biblical textstoday. Used letters and numbers toindicate manuscripts, with the lowest value => most important.
Capitalletters stood for uncials.
Numbersstood for miniscules.
Papyrihad not been discovered yet.
Thissort of ordering becomes a problem when additional mss are laterdiscovered which are more important; e.g., Washingtonensis (W) and Sinaiticus(!) were not known at this time.
3) The Abandonment of the TR (19th‑20th centuries).
a)Some Earlier Preparations.
Bengel(1732) had printed the TR and added critical footnotes. But had also indicated how certainhe felt the text was, and in the footnotes indicated a number of variantsas more certain than the TR text.
Othersbefore Bengel sometimes felt the TR was not correct, but the TR wastraditional...
RichardBentley (1720) proposed reconstructing the text as it stood in the 4th centuryAD. His approach: Forget TR; take old mss, versions,and church fathers from the 4th century, and use text they favor, makingdecisions only among their variants. But died in 1742 before more than a sample was done.
b)Period of Further Manuscript Discoveries.
Thesediscoveries were an important factor in the abandonment of the TR.
(1)Constantin von Tischendorf (1815‑1874). Independently wealthynobleman, with 'hobby' to locate NT mss. Published and found more manuscripts than anyone else so far. His most important find was CodexSinaiticus (!) from the St. Catherine monasteryon Mt. Sinai. Was also first to decipherthe NT text of Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C; palimpsest). Had the patience, dedication andeyesight to do this. Published 8editions of the Greek NT, of which last has not been surpassed in some respects.
(2)Discovery of the Papyri. Westerners found out about papyri just before 1800 when Napoleon invadedEgypt, bringing scholars who studied monuments, inscriptions, andfound papyri. Was a while before any NT manuscripts were found in thepapyri though. And then awhile more before they figured out how old and valuable these were. Thus nearly 1900 before significance ofthe papyri was realized. Byc1900, many non‑Biblical papyrus mss known and people realized that theywere written in the common language of NT times and were valuable forunderstanding Greek. Many of themost valuable NT papyri were discovered in the 20th century.
c)Emergence of the Critical Text.
(1)Karl Lachmann (1831) finally does what Bentley wanted to do. He tries to reconstruct the text of NTas it stood in 380 AD. Used churchfathers, Sinaiticus, Old Latin, Peshitta. His text is good and contains only variant readings which existedat 380 AD. Unfortuniately, as wesaw above, by that time there was not just one NT text, but all four major textfamilies were in existence. Asthere was not just one text, Lachmann's attempt to boil each variant down toone reading was unsuccessful.
(2)S.P. Tregelles, English (1813‑1875), Plymouth Brethren. Worked independently of others, developingprinciples for textual criticism. Reconstructed what he thought was the best text, which was notTR. Printed several editions ofhis own. Encouraged the move away from TR to earlier materials.
(3)C. von Tischendorf made 8 editions of the NT, last completed in 1872. The 8thed. still contains the most complete apparatus, for whole NT, of any edition sofar. Even with all the discoveriessince, money and people have not been available to do this detail work for wholeNT (only Matthew and Luke so far).
(4)Westcott and Hort (1881). The "real emergence of the criticaltext" is in 1881, a NT Greek text based totally on the oldmanuscripts. Their NT wasaccompanied with a volume explaining their principles, the texts, and thereadings which they chose. Theyidentified 4 text families:
1.Syrian (our Byzantine) ‑ thelatest.
2.Alexandrian
3.Western
4.Neutral ‑ the best (incl Vaticanus, Sinaiticus)
Neutralis the best because it is not influenced as much by the things that the otherfamilies were. Neutral is today called "Proto‑Alexandrian."
W&Hare not followed by everyone, but in general their views are thought to be a real improvement overfollowing the traditional late Byzantine text that dominated theminiscules. General feeling thattheir choice of early materials is good; their preference for Proto‑Alexandrianover the others is also good. Somefeel that they are too carried away in their respect for this family,however. More later.
WhileW&H were working on this, they were also on the committee for revision ofthe KJV. In 1881 the comm came out with the English Revised Version. W&H's suggestions on the text weregenerally followed as they (and one other) were the text specialistson the comm. The English RevisedVersion is the first modern language translation to use a critical textrather than the TR. Was widelyused in England; the American Standard Version of 1901 was a revision of thisin American idiom. The NASB issort of a revision of the ASV.
(5)Bernard Weiss. German NTexegete. Attempted toconstruct the Greek NT by looking at all available variant readingsindependent of the ms support (source, age, family, etc.). Based his choice on internalconsiderations only (context, style of author, mistakes scribes typicallymake).
Weisspublished a series of texts from 1894‑1905. These in close agreement withWestcott and Hort's results. Hadsome overlap in the selection principles used, though he did workindependently. Suggests bothinternal and external evidence are favorable to a high estimate of Proto-Alexfamily.
TheCritical text, however, did not arise without opposition. Main opponent was:
(6)John W. Burgon. British, High Church Anglican, specialist in patristics (thechurch fathers). Found a majorityof these early church fathers used the Byzantine text. To him this proved that the Byzantinetext was earlier than Westcott and Hort claimed.
Burgon'sresults were based on the available manuscripts of the church fathers(medieval miniscules). Diedin 1888. Wrote several books: The Revision Revised.Last 12 Verses of Mark. An assistant named Miller finished hiswork.
Morerecently, evidence has turned up from mss of the church fathers earlier thanthose Burgon had. These mss show that earlier mss are less Byzantinethan later ones, implying that biblical quotations in patristic mss wereassimilated to the NT text which later copyists were familiar with.
Bythe end of the 19th cen, Westcott and Hort's views were being rapidly accepted.
b. The Text Argument Today, Especially inFundamental Circles.
Currently, there are four basicapproaches to evaluating variants among NT textual scholars. David Alan Black, in his NT TextualCriticism: A Concise Guide(Baker, 1994) characterizes these as:
1)Radical Eclecticism (G.D. Kilpatrick, J.K. Elliot)
a)text chosen on internal evidence only
b)no ms or mss to be preferred
c)result: purely "eclectic" text
2)Reasoned Eclecticism (B.M. Metzger, K. Aland)
a)text chosen on both internal & external evid
b)reading of "best" mss is to be preferred
c)result: "critical" text
3)Reasoned Conservatism (H.A. Sturz, D.A. Black)
a)text chosen on both internal & external evid
b)reading of majority of text types preferred
c)result: "widespread" text
4)Radical Conservatism (Z. Hodges, A. Farstad)
a)text chosen on external evid alone
b)reading of majority of mss preferred
c)result: "majority" text
Position 2) tends to dominate. Both UBS and Nestle text constructedon its principles. 4) or even moreradical versions (KJV better than Greek!) have considerable grassrootsinfluence in Fundamental circles today. It appears that 2) or 3) have the better evidence for their position.
Position 4) is a revival of Burgon'sposition, started in America in 1956 with the publishing of: E.F. Hills, The King James VersionDefended! TR/KJV position continued all along inEngland (& Canada) via Trinitarian Bible Society.
1) The Issuesas Raised by Textus Receptus People (view 4):
a)Which text is the original: The'TR' or W&H?
Within'TR' position, varieties of view 4) we find 3 alternative sub-views presented:
--Byzantine family superior
--TR Greek is superior
--KJV translation is superior
Allin 4) oppose the W&H model and views 1)-3) and say the Alexandrian familyis not the best.
Noone in views 1)-3) defends W‑H on every point, but most believe thatthe Alexandrian family is more reliable than Byzantine.
b)Would God allow the church to be wrong until recently?
Wordingof issue comes from TR camp. Amajor concern of TR people, but also (rightly) of any real Christian.
c)Would God allow the best text to be lost for so long?
TRpeople generally see modern critical text as a liberal attempt to undermine theBible, and feel that they should not let the liberals get away with it.
DifferentGospel argument: Alexandrian (orcritical) text teaches different Gospel. Only found in extreme stuff (like Chick comic Sabotage?).
2) The Proponents of Textus Receptus (KJVor Byzantine).
a)John W. Burgon. Was a High ChurchAnglican in England, the last major defender of TR in 19th century. Argued for the TR because it is thetraditional text, so should be followed (HC Anglicans emphasizetradition like RCs do). His material has been recently reprinted.
b)Edward F. Hills. Revived thecontroversy in 1950s. A graduatefrom Westminster TS, has doctorate from Harvard in textual studies. Uses presuppositional approach(book dedicated to Van Til; doubt VT appreciated this!). Example: Although 1 John 5:7‑8 is not in most Greekmanuscripts, it was providentially preserved in the Latin and brought backinto the TR. The TR is providentiallybetter even than the Byzantine family, far better than Alexandrian/criticaltext.
c)Zane Hodges. Formerly professor atDallas TS. Has the best arguments and the most moderate positionof major TR writers. Avoids theproblem of church being in error for so long by arguing that we should take thereading supported by the majority of texts, which is generallyByzantine. He intended theNew KJV to be done this way, but was not followed (prob overruled bypublisher). GNT acc to Maj Text was done this way.
d)Wilbur H. Pickering. Studied underHodges. Wrote Identity of the N.T. Text (1978). Wonders if the family groupings are not misleading,i.e., if you go back far enough, they merge. Argues basically for a majority text.
Besidesmore scholarly proponents, numerous popularizers:
e)Trinitarian Bible Society. Started in the early 1800's because dissatisfiedwith the British and Foreign Bible Society. Picked up this issue in time. Not much influence in America (some via Canada) as this is aBritish group. Recently twoadditional groups have formed, the Dean Burgon Society and the Majority TextSociety.
f)David O. Fuller. Retired GARBpastor who became a full‑time advocate of TR. Had not specialized in textual studies. Has edited 3 books: Which Bible? True or False? Counterfeit or Genuine?
g)Thomas Baker. Head of the BibleTruth Institute in Sunbury PA. Distinctives include KJV only with TRemphasis.
h)Peter Ruckman. Head of PensacolaBible Institute in Florida. Argues that the KJV is better than the Greek TR! God has so used the KJV in revivals over the lastcenturies, it must be the best. God providentially optimized the KJV wording.
NOTE: Septuagint and Vulgate each had thissame type of support in their own era. Any version used for a long period of time produces this sort ofargument.
3) Proponentsof the Critical Text (basically view 2).
a)Tregelles. Plymouth Brethren.
b)Westcott and Hort. As orthodox asErasmus.
BothTregelles and W‑H were influential in getting the Alexandrian-type textaccepted.
c)B.B. Warfield. Was in NT textualstudies before going into systematic theology.
d)A.T. Robertson. Southern Baptist.NT man, but not specialized in textual studies.
e)B.M. Metzger. Most conservativeman at Princeton Sem. One ofmajor world figures in textual studies. Does not hold inerrancy, but is pretty orthodox otherwise.
f)J. Harold Greenlee. At Asbury TSin textual studies.
g)Gordon Fee. Formerly at Gordon-Conwell in textual studies. Several articles in ETS Journal.
Nearlyall evangelical seminaries are dominated by men who favor the Alexandrianposition (views 2 or 3). Dallas(despite Hodges) is not TR. BobJones is not TR although they prefer the KJV.
4) Argumentsfor the TR/Byz/KJV, against the Alex/Crit Text.
a)God would have providentially kept the text pure.
Ana prioriargument, based on the nature of God: He is always true. His intention is to communicatewith man, so he would have kept the majority of manuscripts pure. This majority is claimed to beByzantine.
b)Other text families were tampered with by heretics.
Usuallyrefer to Marcion, whom we know (from the church fathers) did tamper with themanuscripts. Allege that heand other Gnostics were source of Alexandrian family, since Gnosticism was aparticular problem in Alexandria. Later, Constantine was behind Vaticanus & Sinaiticus, not reallya Christian. (Arguments aboutConstantine were more important in Burgon's time; now we have NT manuscriptswhich pre‑date him.)
c)The critical text came to dominance in the 19th cen when unbelief was attackingthe Bible.
d)The Syriac Peshitta (with Byzantine text) was translated in the 2ndcentury, so the Byzantine is as old as any other family.
e)Many important ancient readings are not in the Alexandrian Family andare obviously very early.
f)There is no evidence that the Byzantine text is a result of editing, asproponents of critical text claim. (Some argue that the Byzantine text is an edition made by Lucian inAntioch about 300 AD.)
g)A majority of manuscripts are normally assumed to give us the best text.
5)Arguments for the Alexandrian or critical text, against TR/KJV/Byz. [itemsa)- i) are responses to above]
a)There is little difference doctrinally between the Alexandrian family and theTR (Byzantine family, KJV). Response to pro-TR a). Long before this debate started, scholars notedthat if you took even the worst readings from all the extant mss you would stillhave an orthodox Bible. It israre for a variant reading to teach something unique which cannot besupported from other passages (e.g., snake handling is based on Mark16:9-20, but snake-handlers could still use the example of Paul inActs). So God has providentially protectedthe manuscripts to the extent that they are alike doctrinally, however TRdispute comes out.
b)God's providential oversight did not keep doctrine pure in the majority ofprofessing churches. Also response to pro-TR a). This limits the extent of providential arguments, asGod does tolerate evil in this world for a limited time and for his purposes. God has not providentially chosen to insurethat what He wants to reveal can get perfectly into all men's minds. The question is where one puts the"inerrancy" cut‑off:
Pre‑inspiration Liberals
Post‑inspiration Conservatives
Transmission TRproponents
KingJames Version KJVproponents
Godhas limited the changes which have occurred in the mss. We find that nothing significant hascrept into text, no matter how TR dispute solved. e.g., find no manuscripts like the Jefferson Bible, with all miracles excluded, etc.
c)No doubt heretics messed with the Scriptures, but we have no evidence that theywere Involved with any copies which we now have. Response to pro-TR b). No doctrinal differences betweenAlex. and Byz. families. Few cultshave done well with a weakly modified Bible; most have to make their own Scriptures(JWs an exception). Early Gnosticsfound it necessary to write their own Gospels (allegedly kept"secret" since apostolic period). No mss show any doctrinal modification at any level we couldcertainly call heresy.
RCand GO churches are principally responsible for the manuscripts which we havetoday (RC for Latin; Gk Orth for Gk). While neither one holds to salvation by faith alone, the doctrinestill comes through clearly in their Bibles => providentiallyprotected. Today have old enoughmanuscripts to know that the text was not changed by RCC or GO.
d)The TR (or KJV) readings do not always represent the majority of the NT manuscriptsanyway. Response to pro-TR a)and g). This separates themajority text argument from TR/KJV arguments. Both TR and KJV are Byzantine in general, but not in all details. Note textual footnotes in Gk NT MajText. According toWallace (1993) there are 1838 differences in text between MT and TR. Thus many who claim 'majority text' donot want to use it when it disagrees with KJV (e.g., 1 John 5:7‑8 not inmajority of the Greek manuscripts). This seems to have been an issue in deciding what to put in the New KingJames version. If we include Latinmss in majority count (to get in 1 John 5:7‑8), get a much moreAlexandrian text. [Recall that Vulgate is combination of Old Latin version(Western) and Gk mss at time of Jerome (Alexandrian). In fact, with 8000 Vulgate mss, that text becomes the newmajority. Are TR people beingconsistent by using majority arguments only when they support KJV?
e)The Byzantine family apparently was not in the majority until about the9th cen AD. See p. 69.
f)Many opinions arose in the last century (some wrong, some right); manyimportant men in textual criticism were (and are) conservatives. Responseto pro-TR c) about liberals. Should look at the evidence. Seeing who supports an idea (liberal, conservative, etc.) is not abad test for initial reaction, but eventually must look at evidence. Can't just react against others, oryou'll always go to the other extreme, which will serve Satan just as well. [MacRae's tug-of-war analogy.] Many of the men who developed textualcriticism were orthodox Christians. So ad hominemargument (some liberals hold view, so bad), doesn't always work.
g)There is no evidence that the Syriac Peshitta version existed before about400 AD, thus its (Byzantine) text is no guarantee that Byz family as oldas Alex or West. Response topro-TR d). No one doubts theByzantine nature of the Peshitta. Question is the date of translation. Earliest Syrian manuscripts wehave are not Peshitta, nor are earliest commentaries. Old Syriac manuscripts are not Peshitta, Ephraim theSyrian (important commentator) does not refer to the Peshitta (dies in 373AD). So no evidence for Peshittabefore 400, tho probably in common use by 431 AD (when Syriac churchsplit). By 431, as Alexandrianadvocates would agree, the Byzantine family certainly existed (probformed around 300 AD).
h)Many of the major readings not in the Alexandrian family are Western andadmittedly quite early; Alexandrian proponents also do not claim that allreadings surviving only in Byz. are late. Response to pro-TR e). Early non‑Alexandrian variants are usually Western. Both Alexandrian and Western familiesare in existence by 150 AD. No one is claiming that the Byz. may not rarelyhave some unique reading from autographs. The question is one of general reliability.
i)There is evidence that Lucian of Antioch (died 312 AD) may have produced theByzantine text. Response topro-TR f). Not conclusive orexplicit evidence. See Metzger'sbook Chapters in the History of NT Textual Criticism.
Evidencelooks like this: Know that Lucian of Antioch was involved in editorial work onthe Bible text. Most references tothis concern the Septuagint OT. Have two references with respect to NT: Jerome hints that he may have worked with the NT. Martyr list in the Greek church (6thcen) is explicit that Lucian revised the Greek NT text.
Lucian'swork on the OT has been definitely identified thru several OT manuscriptswhich have indicators in margins where a reading is Lucian's. By studying the character of thesereadings we find the same characteristics that distinguish the Byz. from Alex.and West. families: e.g., conflation, and tendency to smooth, clarifysyntax, and to classicize the grammar.
Itis a reasonable guess that Lucian of Antioch was involved in editing theNT Byz. text around 300 AD.
j)Where we can test it, the majority of mss to a work usually do not give as gooda text as certain early mss. (Recall comment on page 52 re/ Washington's Vision at ValleyForge.)
Nowwe move to the hard data arguments: What kind of text do we find in earlymaterials?
k)No Papyri before 600 AD have a Byz. text, although each of the 3 other families are represented (Western,Caesarean, Alex.). TR proponents,however, argue that it just did not get into Egypt, from which papyricame. (Actually, Egypt is where these papyri were found, not necessarily where theywere written.)
l)No Church Father before Chrysostom (died 407 AD) uses a distinctively Byzantinetext. This argument is notdependent on an alleged theological situation in Egypt, as church fathers arefrom all over Mediterranean. As wehave discovered earlier manuscripts of the early church fathers, we find thesemss are less Byzantine than later mss of same fathers. A tendency developed to conform the NTtext quotations in the father to the text current at the time of thecopyist. Even Chrysostom'sByz. text not the medieval Byz. text of the MT, TR and KJV. Before Chrysostom, only find a fewscattered Byz. readings; otherwise texts are Alex. or West.
m)Early versions, like Old Syriac, Coptic, Old Latin, are not Byz. texts. Are either West. or Alex. Only when youget to the Gothic (made in the 400's from Constantinople) do you see a clearlyByz. version. Jerome's Vulgateversion is not Byz. but a mixture of Western and Alexandrian due to hiscorrecting Old Latin (West) with Gk mss of his time (Alex).
n)Later Manuscript finds have supported the general position of Westcott& Hort. Shows that 'predictability'is with W‑H theory. Westcottand Hort knew of virually no papyri. Their results were based on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
Theirarguments for Sinai. and Vatic. as preferred text: These were earliest extant texts. Their readings appear better, based on internal evidence. They have not been modified fromdistinctive style of each author towards a more generic style. Their readings tend to be shorter.
SinceW&H, have found no earlier Byzantine manuscripts than Alexandrinus,but have found many earlier West. and Alex. manuscripts than Sinaiticusand Vaticanus.
Wenow use the term "Proto‑Alexandrian" instead of"Neutral," but still wide agreement that Proto‑Alex.is the most reliable text.
Stilloccasionally see the pro-TR argument that Origen or the Arians were responsiblefor the Alexandrian version. Nogood in view of discovery of p66 and p75, with texts likeSin. and Vat., and copied a century before Arius and probably before Origenbegan his work.
o)The Byzantine family shows clear signs of conflation; other familiesdo not. Conflation: Two variant readings which arecombinable have app been added together to form a third variant. This is evidence that themanuscript is further down the line of transmission than others with singlereading. Commonly find that Byz.looks like a combination of the Alex. and West., but not other way around. Seems that Byz. was constructed bysomeone who had both Alex. and West. before him and tried to make a nicecompromise between them. Occasionally did this by combining them.
p)The Byzantine family shows other signs of secondary nature of a text: smoothingof style and classicism.
q)Studies in the text of the Iliadand Mahabharatasuggest that sacred texts tend to grow longer rather than shorter. See Metzger, Chapters in theHistory of NT Textual Criticism. Copyists who view a text as sacred donot wish to add or subtract anything, but if there is a choice, they tendto add (for fear of leaving something out).
6) Conclusions re/ Textus ReceptusControversy:
a)At present the burden of proof rests on Byz. proponents. To come up with some goodevidence. Arguments appear tobe heavily based on presupposition rather than manuscript data. Until early manuscripts appearwhich have Byz. texts, the proto-Alex. opinion will likely stand. Can concoct strange theories, like:'the Bibles that get used get worn out' and since these bad ones were not used,they survived. No evidence forthis. Our evidence is that theByz. was not the majority text until the medieval period. Origen and Jerome commenting on thevariant readings around in their time in general do not mention anything Byzantine. The same picture is given by counts ofextant Gk NT mss:
Distributionof Greek Mss
Century Alex= a; West = w; Byz = b
9 aaaa bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
8 aaaaaaa bbbb
7 aaaaaaaaaaaaaa bbbb
6 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa bbbbbbbbbbbbbb
5 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ww bbb
4 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ww
3 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa www
2 aaaaaaa
(afterWallace (1993), arbitrary units)
b)Relative order of family reliability looks something like this: Alex, West, (Caes), Byz., according toproponents of standard view 2)
Earliestevidence for each family:
Byz. text ‑> in the late 300's
Caes.text ‑> in the mid‑200's.
Alex.text ‑> in the mid‑100's.
West.text ‑> in the mid‑100's.
Thusthe choice is between Alex. and West. families. Decisions between the Alex. and West. families arebased on internal evidence.
Westernis the longest, Byz. and Caes. are intermediate and Alex. is the shortesttext.
Thusfew claim that the West. is the original family, is viewed as one which took upsome oral tradition in the early period.
Bystudying the variants internal to the texts, the reliability of the variousfamilies appears to be:
Alexandrian,generally most reliable.
Western,next most reliable except where app interpolation from oral tradition
Caesarean,next.
Byzantine,last.
Proponentsof approach 1) ("radical eclecticism," p. 55) ignore where variantscome from, just use (more subjective) internal evidence.
Proponentsof approach 3) use similar approach to 2), but feel if other families gang upon Alex., this can shift balance.
Allfamilies have some bad readings. All appear to preserve some original readings that the others do not.
c)The real problem with some modern Bible versions is the influence ofliberal presuppositions and theology in translation, not a bad text. e.g.,RSV and NEB show liberal theological influence in OT Messianic prophecies, someNT deity passages.
C. The Practice of Textual Criticism.
We come now toconsider how to make an attempt at determining what was the original textof the NT at any particular point where there are variations. As mentioned on pages 56-57, there arefour basic approaches in use today:
(1)Radical Eclectic: text chosen by using only internal evidence.
(2)Reasoned Eclectic: text chosen by using both internal and externalevidence, with the reading of the "best" mss preferred.
(3)Reasoned Conservatism: text chosen by using both internal and externalevidence, with reading of majority of text-types preferred.
(4)Radical Conservatism: text chosen by using external evidence alone, withreading of majority of mss preferred.
None of uswere back there to see what the text originally looked like. We have the evidence of surviving mss,versions and quotations, plus the evidence of comments by church fatherson the state of mss at their time. My own understanding of this evidence is that it favors an approachsomewhere in the vicinity of (2) or (3).
Below wediscuss the criteria used by the UBS Greek NT Committee in making theirdecisions on which readings they list as preferred. We will call their rules M-x and my comments on them N-xwith the x replaced by Roman numerals and capital letters as appropriate.
1. The Rules(Canons) of Textual Criticism used by the UBS Greek NT Committee (fromMetzger, A Textual Commentaryon the Greek NT, pp.xxvi‑xxviii)
M‑I.External Evidence, involving the following considerations:
An evaluationof a particular variant reading based on the nature of the manuscript in which the variant occurs, rather thanlooking at context.
M‑A.Date and Character of the Witnesses.
Ingeneral, earlier mss are more likely to be free from those errors that arisefrom repeated copying. Also anearlier date implies that fewer copies between it and the autograph.'Character' is the degree of care taken by the copyist.
M‑B. Geographical Distribution of theWitnesses that Support a Variant.
The morewidespread a reading is, the more likely it is to be a good reading. This assumes relativelyindependent sources (but people from Asia Minor evangelized France, so nottotally independent). Some agreementsbetween the Old Latin mss and Old Syriac are due to common influence byTatian's Diatessaron.
M‑C. Genealogical Relationship of Texts andFamilies of Witnesses.
The mssnaturally group into families and sub‑families, based on having the samepeculiar variants. The number ofmanuscripts surviving in a group from a particular point in historydoes not tell us how accurate the group is, but just how common it wasthen.
M‑D. Witnesses are to be Weighed rather thanCounted.
Ifa manuscript is generally more reliable, give it the benefit of doubt even ifit is in the minority.
Newman's Criteria and Comments:
More ObjectiveFeatures (of external evidence): Critique of Metzger's M‑A and M‑B above.
N‑A.Date and Age of reading.
M-Ais correct, but realize that there are different 'ages' to consider.
Three'ages' in Greek manuscripts:
[1]Age of the autograph (NT books).
[2]Age of the family which the manuscript represents (can at least set upperlimits).
[3]Actual age of the manuscript (dated directly or by handwriting style).
Three'ages' in ancient versions:
[1]Age of the Greek manuscripts used by the translators.
[2]Age of the translation (from Greek).
[3]Actual age of the version manuscript (dated directly or by handwriting style).
Three'ages' with respect to the church fathers:
[1]Age of the NT manuscript used by the father.
[2]Date at which he wrote.
[3]Date of the surviving manuscript of father's work.
Actualmanuscripts (of Greek NT, of version, or of father) are the only 'hard'evidence.
N‑B. Geographical Distribution of theWitnesses.
Manuscriptsare not too helpful because we know where they were found but not where theywere written. We know the papyriwere abandoned in Egypt but that does not say where they were made. Similarly, we don't know where thecopies found in monasteries were made.
Learnlocations of variants mostly from fathers and versions. If a father cites or comments on acertain reading, then we know which family he is working with.
Conclusions onM-A and M-B:
Areading is at least as early as its earliest known occurrence.
Areading is at least as widespread as its known geographical occurrence.
Less objectivefeatures: Metzger's M‑C andM‑D above.
N‑C. Genealogical criteria.
Assigninga manuscript to a family is often easy, but sometimes have the problem ofmixture, where ms has ancestors from more than one family.
Some msswere mixed as a patchwork, as if someone were copying from a damaged manuscriptof one family and was 'patching'it with readings from another family. Example: Codex W inthe gospels.
Othersmixed locally, the worst problem. Someone goes through a ms correcting it with a ms fromanother family. This is easy tospot in the actual ms corrected, but once it has been copied, itsdescendants are mixed. Thisgenerates a real blend. Example:Vulgate as mixture of Alex. and Western.
Itappears that the earliest texts predated the formation of families. Aland, Text of the NT has begun working in thisdirection. Pickering in Identityof the N.T. Textsupports this idea.
Summary: General feelings concerning manuscripts and families. We give conclusions of Metzger, etal, i.e., view (2), Reasoned Eclecticism. View (3) supports this with reservations; views (1) and (4) reject.
Therelative merit of a particular manuscript or family is finally evaluatedinternally. This has been done foreach major manuscript and family (a big job):
TheAlexandrian family is the best. Itis characterized as old, brief, with relatively little evidence ofediting (no conflation, retains distinctive style of the writers, roughtransitions in text).
TheWestern family is comparably old. Obviously one or neither is original, but evidence for each equallyold. Both Alex. and West. go backto at least 150 AD. Western hasmore freedom in the text due to the influence of oral tradition. Contains long additional details whichare not found in others.
TheCaesarean family can be traced back to Origen. c225 AD. It is intermediate in length andsmooth. It can only be identifiedin the Gospels, and some deny its existence altogether. Since in early centuries they didnot bind the whole NT in one volume, we need not have an equal number of localtexts in each part of the NT.
TheByzantine family is known to exist by 400 AD, could have been earlier. Thought to be edited around 300 AD (Lucianquestion). Chrysostom and Peshittaare the earliest certain users. Ithas smoothing and conflation, intermediate length.
Whymight Alexandrian family have been so good? Alexandria had a good reputation for careful copying& for concern for best text with Classical literature; perhaps thepeople making the NT copies were so trained. Origen, however, was not trained in this.
N‑D. Weighing Witnesses.
Usinginternal criteria to evaluate large numbers of readings, and then summarizing,the best manuscripts appear to be these below, given by part of the NT.
Thepapyri are too fragmentary to qualify for this category; none covers the wholeNT. Papyri p66 and p75 have a text very close to B andare c150 yrs older. p45is the largest in respect to original volume; when complete, it containedall four Gospels and the Acts. Comfort (1992) tries to categorize the papyri re/ closeness to theautographs in each NT book.
N‑1.In the Gospels and Acts:
Thebest singlemanuscript is Vaticanus (B).
Notright everywhere, but the odds are good. Done in the 300's for someone who had money to spend. May have been one of Constantine's50 Bibles.
Thebest pair isVaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (!).
Whenthese agree, it is significantly stronger evidence.
Thebest group isVaticanus, Sinaiticus and Bezae (D).
Thisis much stronger than the best pair, since Bezae is the earliest (long) Greekms of the Western family, so we are picking up cross-family testimony betweenthe two earliest families.
N‑2.In the Pauline Epistles.
Vaticanus(B) is weaker, but still the best single manuscript.
N‑3.In Revelation.
Vaticanus(B) does not have Revelation (last part of manuscript has been lost). Sinaiticus (!)in Revelation is not very good.
Thebest pair inRev is Alexandrinus (A) and Ephraemi Rescriptus (C).
Back to Metzger:
M‑II.Internal Evidence, involving two kinds of probabilities:
Internalevidence (as opposed to external) involves studying the variants withoutreference to what ms they are found in, but considering only scribes' habitsand authors' styles.
M‑A.Transcriptional Probabilities.
What the scribes tended to do when making a trascript(copy), rather than what the author tended to do. Involves analysis of the types of errors discussed earlierin class. Must try to imagineproblems due to uncial and miniscule transmission.
M‑1.The More Difficult Reading is to be Preferred.
Ifthe more difficult reading makes sense when given some thought. The scribe was copying it on the flyand may have hastily 'corrected' the problem. Sometimes reading is so difficult that it is impossible orhighly unlikely. Don't be too cleverat rationalizing to make sense! As with all internal criteria, there is asubjective judgment at this level.
M‑2.Generally the Shorter Reading is to be Preferred.
Scribesare more likely to lengthen than shorten, unless:
a.Parablepsis arising from homoearchton or homoeoteleuton may haveoccurred. ['Looking back at thewrong spot' arising from 'similar beginnings' or 'similar endings'has occurred.] This can result in the omission or addition of a word, section,or phrase.
b.The scribe may have omitted material which he considered to be superfluous,harsh, contrary to pious belief, liturgical usage, or ascetical practice.
M‑3.The Reading which Involves Verbal Dissidence is usually preferred to one whichis verbally concordant (parallel passages tend to be brought intoharmony).
Scribesdid not tend to introduce divergence, but did tend to harmonize passages.
Parallelpassages occur especially in the Synoptic Gospels, but also in Acts(Paul's conversion told 3x, Cornelius and Peter told twice) and in some ofPaul's Epistles (elder qualifications in 1 Timothy & Titus; Colossians andEphesians, etc.).
M‑4.Scribes would also sometimes:
a.Replace an unfamiliar word with a more familiar synonym;
b.Alter the grammar in an attempt to 'classicize' it (i.e., put it into the Atticstyle); or
c.Add pronouns, nouns, conjunctions, and expletives to make the textsmoother (cf. 'he' => 'Jesus').
M‑B.Intrinsic Probabilities, depend upon consideration of what the author was more likely to have written.
Theseinvolve analysis of the author's style.
M‑1.In general [anywhere in NT]
a.The style and vocabulary of the author.
Theseusually involve statistical studies with a concordance to determine which ismore characteristic of the writer.
b.The immediate context.
Whichvariant seems to fit better into what is going on in the passage?
c.Harmony with author's usage in other works.
Notethat c. is affected by a person's view of who the author was (e.g., liberalsfeel that the Pastoral Epistles were not written by Paul, etc.).
M‑2.In the Gospels one should take into account:
a.The Aramaic background of the teaching of Jesus.
Shouldnot press this too far. Jesusprobably spoke Greek and Hebrew also, since Galilee region had a lotof Greek people in it, and Hebrew was used in the Synagogue. Have no indications that Jesus used aninterpreter in speaking withPilate (either Greek or Latin) or the Syrophoenican woman (called aGreek). Jesus could have arguedwith Pharisees in Hebrew and spoken to people in Greek or Aramaicdepending on the audience.
Lettersfrom the Bar Kochba Caves show usage of Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew in Palestine(early 2nd cen). Synagogue inCapernaum has inscriptions in Greek and Aramaic (date uncertain, thoprobably 4th cen or later). Tryphothe Jew (cf. Justin Martyr, Dialogue) does not know Hebrew (uses Septuagint) although he isfrom Palestine (early 2nd cen).
b.The Priority of the Gospel of Mark.
Thisis basied on an unproved theory that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark incomposing their Gospels. Ithink is wrong (cf. my article in Westminster Theological Journal, Fall, 1980).
c.The Influence of the Christian Community upon the Formulation and Transmissionof the Passage in Question.
By"formulation" UBS means "invention". Here they are claiming that later Xnviews were incorporated in the original Gospel text.
Yetin the N.T. there is a great concern to distinguish Jesus' words from others: cf. Paul "from the Lord" or not (1 Cor.7:10,12)
Thewriters made selections from a vast quantity of material, and this wasmodulated by its applicability to the Christian community. Yet the community is not the 'source'of the passage.
Ingeneral these UBS rules are good principles. There are, unfortunately, problems with M‑II, B 2, a,b, c.
2. Examples of how to do TextualCriticism:
a. Luke 24:53 - apparently a conflation (footnote 17in UBS4).
Will followformat of assignment sheet "Solving Textual Problems."
I. Read over the context carefully, andcheck what the variant does to the text. We will label readings A-D in the order they occur in UBS 3rd ed (4th edhas only A-C).
A:εóλoγo¯vτες
B:α®vo¯vτες
C:α®vo¯vτες καåεóλoγo¯vτες
D:εóλoγo¯vτεςκαå α®vo¯vτες
No realproblems. Text question is whether to read "blessing" or"praising" or both together in either order.
II. Examine the Internal Evidence foreach reading:
(1) Which is the shortest reading? The next shortest, etc.? [check here for possiblehomoioteleuton, etc.].
Have 2 short(A & B) and 2 long (C & D) readings.
'A' or 'B'could arise by parablepsis/homoioteleuton because both participles have asimilar ending. 'C' or 'D' areeach possible sources, but one of them could not explain both 'A' and 'B' as homoioteleuton.
(2) Which readings are divergent fromparallel passages?
Have noparallels. The beginning of Acts overlapsbut not closely enough to help.
(3) Which reading is the hardest to makesense of? Next hardest? Are any too hard?
No problemswith meaning or style. Double orsingle constructions are both common in NT.
(4) Which reading best explains the originof the others? Which one allowsthe others to be explained with the smallest number of independent or unlikelyerrors? Assume each original inturn, see how hard to get others by various errors:
If 'A' εóλoγo¯vτεςassumed original:
--[errorof memory gives synonym]‑‑> α®vo¯vτες'B.'
From this point on, conflation frommargins can easily produce both 'C' and 'D'.
If 'B' α®vo¯vτες original:
‑‑[errorof memory gives synonym]‑‑> εóλoγo¯vτες'A.'
From this point,conflation from margins can easily produce both 'C' and 'D'. 'B' is a rarerword than 'A,' and this might slightly favor it over 'A.'
If 'C' α®vo¯vτες καåεóλoγo¯vτεςoriginal:
‑‑[homoioteleuton]‑‑>α®vo¯vτες gotten easily, buthard to get others without independent additional errors as though startingwith 'B' above.
If 'D' εóλoγo¯vτεςκαå α®vo¯vτες original:
‑‑[homoioteleuton]‑‑>εóλoγo¯vτεςgotten easily, but hard to get others without independent additional errors asthough starting from 'A.'
Thus 'C' and'D' being original require several independent errors to get rest ofreadings; 'A' or 'B' can generate whole set quite easily.
(5) Style of the author?
Verb α®vέωoccurs 8 times in NT, 6x in Luke'swritings.
Verb εóλoγέωoccurs 43 times in NT, 14x by Luke.
We check thissort of thing in Englishman's Greek Concordance, or Young's.
Have aconflict in tendencies here: α®vέω is more characteristicof Luke relative to the rest of the NT, but εóλoγέωis still more common. Nosubstantial difference in usage.
(6) Summary of internal evidence.
'A' or 'B'look better as original than 'C' or 'D.' Little evidence one way or other for 'A' versus 'B.' Possible slightfavoring for 'B' as rarer.
III. Examine the External Evidence.
| Luke 24:53 Variants | Alexandrian | Caesarean | Western | Byzantine |
| A: εóλoγo¯vτες | p75 ! B C* L copsa,bo | geo | syrs | |
| B: α®vo¯vτες | | | D itmost | |
| C: α®v καå εóλ | X 33 892 1241 | f1 f13 arm Θ | Diates. itpart | A K W Π Byz Lect |
| D: εóλ καå α®v | | | | eth |
Note: Θ is the major Greek CaesareanUncial. The Diatessaron istypically based on late translations (see UBS 3rd ed., p. xl; 4th ed., p. 38*).
(1,2) Note the families:
'A' ‑‑>Alexandrian, 'B' ‑‑> Western, 'C' ‑‑> Caesareanand Byzantine, 'D' ‑‑> just Ethiopian.
(3) Broadest geographical attestation?
Need toalso check the church fathers, but 'C' looks the best here, tho support ratherlate. Then 'A', 'B', 'D'.
Earliest attestation?
'A' hasp75, Coptic (2nd‑3rd century); also syrs, but manuscript(5th century) is later than version.
'B'looks to be as old as the Western family.
'C' theCaesarean family is not too early, so Uncial A is earliest direct document,from 5th century. We cannot pressthe Diatess. back to the 2nd century because we don't have earlymanuscripts. This has goodevidence, but not as good as 'A'.
'D' is6th century.
(4) Summary of external evidence:
'A' and'C' are the broadest; 'A' and 'B' earliest.
'A'looks best in the external evidence.
IV. Compare Internal and External andConclude:
Probably'A' was the original. 'B' was anerror of memory which arose in the West, which was conflated in the Caesareanand Byzantine manuscripts as 'C'.
b. John 1:18 - example of harder reading
I. Readover the context carefully, and check what each variant does to the text. We will label readings A-D in the orderthey occur in UBS 4th ed
.
A:μovoγεvÂς θεός(including variant with def article)
B:ñ μovoγεvÂςυæός
C:μovoγεvÂς υæόςθεo¯
D:ñ μovoγεvής
Whoreveals the Father? A: (the) onlybegotten God, B: the only begotten son, C: the only begotten son of God, or D:the only begotten (son)?
II. Examine the Internal Evidence foreach reading:
(1) Which is the shortest reading? The next shortest, etc? [check here for possiblehomoioteleuton, etc.].
'D' isshortest, 'A' and 'B' next, 'C' longest. Difference of definite articledoesn't amount to much, so really looking at 1-, 2- or 3-wordvariants. No evidence of homoioteleuton.
(2) Which readings are divergent fromparallel passages?
No realparallel passages, but interesting to look at parallel constructions withμovoγεvής elsewhere in Johannine literature: [coulddiscuss here as parallels or at (5) as Johannine style]
Jn1:14: μovoγεvής alone, something like 'D'
3:16:τëv υæëvτëv μov., something like 'B'
(Nestlehas variant here, like 1 Jn 4:9, below)
3:18:μov. υæëvτo¯ θεo¯,something like 'C'
1Jn 4:9: τëv υæëvαóτo¯ τëv μov., like 'B' or 'C'?
Nostrict parallel constructions with any, but 'A'is most divergent. Does this argue in favor or against?
(3) Which reading is the hardest to makesense of? Next hardest? Are any too hard?
Ifμovoγεvής is understood as "only begotten,"then 'A' is very difficult, perhaps too hard (heretical?) or perhaps apposition (with one wordref to humanity, other to deity?); but (see BAGD)μovoγεvής may mean "unique" or "one andonly." Other variants notdifficult, as no variants occur when they are used elsewhere in NT.
(4) Which reading best explains theorigin of the others?
'A'best explains others as independent attempts to smooth by using parallelconstructions found elsewhere in Johannine literature. If any of others assumed original, haveto have several unrelated explanations to get rest.
(5) Style of the author?
Too fewexamples for statistics.
(6) Summary of internal evidence.
'A'strongly favored if author intended μovoγεvής as"unique" or was putting two words in apposition (the only begottenone, namely God); otherwise, too hard.
III. Examine the External Evidence.
| John 1:18 Variants | Alex. | Caesarean | Western | Byzantine | Other |
| A: [ñ] μov. θεός | p66 a* B C* L [p75 33 copbo] | | Diaa | syrp ethro | many fathers & gnostics |
| B: ñ μov. υæός | 892 1241 | Θ f1 f13 arm geo | itmost syrc | A K Byz Lect ethpp | vg Wsupp many fathers |
| C: μov. υæός θεo¯ | copsa | Origen | itq | | |
| D: ñ μovoγεvής | | Origen | Diatess | | vgmss fathers |
(1,2) Families?
'A'obviously Alex; 'B' is Caes, West, Byz; 'C' and 'D' are weak, scattered.
(3) Broadest geographical attestation?
'B' isbroadest, 'A' next, rest far behind
Earliest attestation?
'A'slightly ahead of 'B' (prob 150 vs. 180); rest in existence by about 250.
(4) Relative external strength?
'A' hasbest family, best singlet, best pair (triplet not available here), but"ganged up on" by families supporting 'B.' Here, the solution favored by those holding views (2) and(3) will likely diverge.
IV. Compare Internal and External andConclude:
Atricky passage; several possibilities
(1)'B' original and 'A' a gnostic change; but how explain 'D'?
(2)'B' original and 'A' an accidental variant seized upon by gnostics. Still problem with 'D.'
(3)'A' original, seized upon by gnostics; 'B, C, D' various orthodoxreactions, perhaps seizing upon existing variants.
c. Mark 16:9-20 - authenticity of long passage
I. Read over the context carefully, and checkwhat the variant does to the text. We will label readings A-E in the order they occur in UBS 4th ed.
A:omit 9-20
B:add shorter ending only
C:add shorter ending and 9-20
D:add 9-20 with critical note or sign
E:add 9-20
Questionof ending Mark at verse 8: "they said nothing to anyone for they wereafraid," or including the (now) traditional ending and/or the"short ending": "But they reported briefly to Peter andthose with him all they had been told. And after this Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east towest, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation."(Metzger, Text of NT,226).
II. Examine the Internal Evidence foreach reading:
(1) Which is the shortest reading? The next shortest, etc? [check here for possiblehomoioteleuton, etc.].
Obviously'A' is shortest, but will need to account for extra text of 9-20 if 'A' isoriginal.
(2) Parallel passages?
None,though some parallels to other post-resurrection narratives in Matt, Luke,John.
(3) Hardest reading?
'C'hardest, surely too hard. 'A' nexthardest, abrupt ending to Mark. Some think it is too hard, as sentence rarely ends withγάρ, much less book (though note Jn 13:13). Was it so hard that someone felt it hadto be completed by adding a longer ending? Yes, since we have two longer endings! ('B' and 'E')
(4) Best explains others?
Eitherthe abrupt ending 'A' or the loss of 'E' (or some other original ending) couldexplain all variants. If 'E'original, its loss in mss supporting 'A' was at a very convenient spot!
(5) Most characteristic?
SeeMetzger (either TNTor Text Comm) onstyle: he claims neither 'B' nor'E' is Mark's style. Also contextis a problem for 'E,' both re/ sudden change in subject and unnecessaryrecapitulation.
(6) Summary on Internal Evidence:
If 'A'original, have to explain origin of 'B' and 'E.' The short ending 'B' looks very much like it was speciallycomposed to give Mark a smooth ending, but 'E' certainly doesn't. Perhaps borrowed from existing account? If 'E' original, must explain origin of'B' as from someone who knew nothing of 'E' but only of 'A.'
III. Examine the External Evidence foreach reading:
(1,2) Families?
'A'characteristically Alexandrian.
'E'is char Western & Byz, stronger than 'A' in Caes.
(3) Broadest attestation?
Both'A' and 'E' apparently have support from all families.
'E'stronger in Caes, West, Byz.
'A'stronger in Alex.
| Mk 16:9-20 Variants | Alex. | Caes. | West. | Byz. | Other |
| A: omit 9-20 | ! B copsams | geo1,A armmss Eusebius | syrs | | almost all mss* |
| B: short ending | | | itk | | |
| C: short + 9-20 | L Ψ copsamss copbomss | | | ethmss 274mg | 083 099 |
| D: 9-20 w/ note | | f1 | | some mins. | |
| E: 9-20 w/o note | C Δ 33 copbo, fay | Θ f13 565 700 geoB armmss | D it syrc | A Byz syrp,h | vg Lect |
*according to Eusebius and Jerome
Earliest attestation?
Bothreadings 'A' and 'E' seem to predate 200.
(4) Summary of External Evidence:
'A' hassupport of best pair; best triplet split. 'E' has strongest support in other families. Close call.
IV. Overall summary:
Verydifficult, three possibilities:
(1)'E' original, but loss of 'E' very widespread. Troubles here with internal evidence.
(2)'A' original, adoption of 'E' very widespread.
Favoredby wide circulation of Byz later.
(3)Original reading completely lost, leaving fragmentary text 'A' whichwas repaired twice independently. A rather speculative suggestion, would not go with thismyself.
Suggest(2) more likely than others.
III. The Canon of the New Testament.
A. The Canon Controversy.
1. TheTerm "Canon."
a.Etymology.
Theterm "canon" in English is derived from the Greekκαvώv, the early meaning of which was "measuringrod," something like a ruler with marks on it used for measuring lengthand drawing straight lines. Theterm came to be used metaphorically for "standard", a norm forcomparison. Also usedmetaphorically for a "list", probably from the series of marks on therod.
b. Technical/theological use of"canon".
1) Scriptures functioningas our norm or standard, i.e., as our ultimate rule of faith.
2) The list of booksbelonging to the Scripture.
3) A list of rules ordecisions made by a church council (combines "list" and"standard").
Our interest here is use b. 2): What books properly belong in theBible?
2.Divergent views on the EXTENT of the canon.
An important reason for studying this subject isthe disagreement which exists in the world and even the professing churchof the extent of the canon.
a. Traditional Protestant View.
The 66 books (the number is not strict,but their content is):
OT = 39, matching the traditionalJewish view.
NT = 27, matching the traditionalChristian view.
b. Larger canons.
1) Roman Catholic and GreekOrthodox add the Apocrypha as a part of the OT. (They agree with Protestants on the extent of the NT canon.)
The Apocrypha is some 8additional books (plus additions to some other books): 1-2 Maccabees,Judith, Tobit, Prayer of Manasseh, 3[-4] Ezra, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom ofSolomon; plus additions to Daniel (Song of the 3 Holy Children, Susanna,Bel & Dragon), Esther (don't have separate titles), Jeremiah(Letter of Jeremiah, Baruch).
2) Mormons accept the Protestant Bible,and add:
Book of Mormon. \
Doctrine and Covenants. "Triple Combination"
Pearl of Great Price. / when bound in 1 vol
c. Smaller canons.
1) Marcion (c150 AD)
Felt that the God of the OTreally existed, but was different (inferior) being than the God of the NT. Accepted one gospel (Luke) in analtered form, plus 10 epistles of Paul, also altered. We do not have any copies of Marcion's text.
2) Swedenborgians (Church of the NewJerusalem).
Follow Emanuel Swedenborg(1688-1772).
NT: accept only the 4Gospels and Revelation (sort of mirror image of Marcion's canon). No epistles accepted.
Only 29 books accepted inthe OT: not Ruth, 1-2 Chron, Ezr, Neh, Est, Job, Prov, Eccl, SS
3) Theological liberalism.
There is a range of views amongliberals. Some say nothing isGod's revelation, as there is no real revelation (so no canon). Others find a "canon" withinthe canon: would say that some parts of the Bible are from God. Both groups would recognize an"ecclesiastical" canon (books traditionally recognized by thechurch). Often do not mindincluding the Apocyrpha as they do not think the true canon is inerrant or moreinspired.
3.Divergent Views on the BASIS of Canonicity.
Not only is there disagreement on what books (ifany) belong in the canon, there is disagreement on what constitutes canonicity.
a. Recognition by a church council (very commonview).
Liberals argue that the church decidedwhich books should be in the Bible (and tend to deny or minimize inspiration).
RC and GO also say that the churchchose the Bible. Argue that thechurch existed first, thus the church has the greater authority. Say that God worked through the churchto make the canon. They tend tosupport inspiration (but the church also inspired).
There are serious problems with thisview (see below). But it should beadmitted that the action of a council is typically the means by which aparticular institutional church formalizes its submission to the Bible.
b. Other views attempt to define howthe canon came about without dependence on councils.
History shows that councils came at theend rather than at the beginning of canonization discussions (cf. Nicea,Jamnia), therefore one must ask, how did something of a consensus arisebefore the councils met?
Liberals and rationalists denyinspiration, so they must find another mechanism for this origin of the canonwhich is independent of God and revelation.
1) The "old books" wereaccepted as canonical.
People had reverence for, andascribed authority to, ancient writings.
Problem: The Bible mentions otherold books which are not inScripture. E.g., Jasher, Book ofthe Wars of the LORD already existed when the canonical book which refersto it was being written. Liberals will typically claim these had been lostbefore canonical decisions made.
Problem: Age was not a necessarycriterion. New books wererecognized as authoritative immediately. E.g., the book of the Covenant which was placed beside theark. Liberals who hold this theorymust deny the historicity of such passages.
2) Books of Great Religious Valuewere recognized as Canonical.
Obviously they must have beenthought to have had religious value, but this is not a sufficient condition. Christians (and Jews) have always feltthat many non-canonical books were of great religious value, yet thesewere not included.
Biblical view: Authority is what counts, not"value".
3) New Books which agreed withPrevious Revelation were taken in.
This is a necessary condition anda good test, but not a sufficient reason. Does not explain origin of the initial books either.
c. The Necessary and SufficientCondition (Basis) for Canonicity is Inspiration.
The Bible claims this. "Canonical" is (or ought tobe) parallel to "inspiration." That is, non‑canonical books are not inspired and canonical booksare.
Exception: God may have inspired somewritings which are not preserved (e.g., Paul's other letters to Corinth).
Basic Idea: God is the origin of theBible.
But: when we move from the objective(what makes something canonical?) to the subjective (how do we determinewhat is canonical?) we have to look to testable criteria.
Metaphysical question: What makes a bookcanonical? Answer: God's inspiration.
Epistemological question: How do werecognize an inspired book when we see one?
B. TheRecognition of Canonicity [Inspiration].
1. TheImportance of the Time‑Perspective.
a. Loss of informationwith the passage of time.
The further removed we are from anincident, the less information (typically) we have about it. We say "typically" because: lost information maybe recovered; the level of information we have may stagnate as some minimumlevel.
Example: Activities of Alexander theGreat. Eyewitnesseswrite and tell incidents about him. The next generation remembers some stories. Several generations later: no reliable stories havesurvived. Only the writtenmaterial is of value. If somewritten material was lost, perhaps it can be recovered, perhaps not. Also, some tight‑knit group maypreserve oral traditions.
Thus we quickly lose information aboutan event unless it was written down. Historical information levels off rather quickly (2 or 3 generations) toa very low percentage of what was initially known.
Therefore, determining the canonicityof a book which was written 100's or 1000's of years ago is a big problem. Important information available to thegeneration in which the book was written has been lost.
b. An Important Distinction existsbetween recognition soon after writing and long after writing.
The tests are rather different. Initially, could ask the author ordirect recipients of the writing who wrote it, how they got it, etc.
Since the OT and NT are not "justwritten," we must see if the contemporary people applied reasonable principlesin their time to check for canonicity. How were the "just written" principles applied back when theOT and NT were themselves "just written"?
However, we can test modern claimsdirectly ourselves.
Example: The Book of Mormon (c1830). We are getting near the time-limit, since no people are nowalive from then. However, inupstate NY there is still a courthouse where old papers were recentlyfound in the basement with record of court costs for the trial of Joseph Smithas a "glass-looker." Information agrees with that from other documents now lost which reportedthat J.S. was a "glass‑looker" [cf. copy of earlier transcriptin Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge].
For Jeanne Dixon, Wilkerson's Vision,Moon's Divine Principle we can apply such tests as below.
2.Recognition of a Work Recently Written.
How do we recognize an inspired book recentlywritten? We could use arbitraryprinciples by inventing our own, but this is dangerous if they were not God'sprinciples! E.g, the Phariseeswanted a sign "from heaven". Jesus pointed out to them that in judging the weather, they looked carefullyat what signs were available. Wetoo should look at what signs are available, the signs which God gave, and notset up our own, which He might or might not meet.
God gave tests to His people because false prophetswere around. The people wereresponsible to apply the tests.
The tests:
1) Connection with supernaturalphenomena, including revelation.
2) Connection with earlier inspiredbooks or revelation. Important: the connection should be made both ways,i.e., the successor should have been predicted. There should be specific indications of what he will belike.
3) Agreement with earlier inspiredbooks or revelation. That is, thenew stuff (1) cannot contradict; but (2) can explain and clarify.
These tests were all used by the people of God inOT and NT times. We will trace this below in 4 periods ofbiblical revelation:
Mosaic Prophetic Christ Apostles
Law Prophets Gospels Epistles
Old Covenant --------- New Covenant---------
Establishment Development Establishment Development
a. Connected with supernaturalphenomena, including revelation.
God chose to have revelation beattested by great supernatural power to limit the number of candidates. Fakes would at least have to give some"miraculous" signs.
1) Moses gives signs to Pharoah andIsrael.
Rod/snake, leprous hand, variousplagues. Eventually escalatesbeyond the magicians' powers. After crossing the Red Sea and coming to Sinai, then we get therevelation which forms the basis for the whole covenant. Thus the covenant is well‑attestedby miracles of Egypt and desert.
2) The Prophets.
Their messages are attested bymiracles and short-term prophecy.
Deut. 18 contrasts pagan forms ofdivination with God's means. Notethe different purpose: pagan divination arises from men seeking to get specificinformation, God's prophets reveal God's choice of information. Human agenda vs. God's.
Israelits were to put to deaththe prophet "if the prediction does not come to pass." No mistakes allowed!
If test propely applied, it tendsto discourage attempts to set up a lucrative business. Note that Deut. 13 ("gives a signor wonder") implies that the burden of proof is on the prophet.
Some examples of both short andlong range predictions:
1 Kings 13:
Jeroboam becomes king ofIsrael (Ephraim) and does not want the people to go to Jerusalem to worship(weakens his kingdom), so he sets up altars and calves at Bethel and Dan.
Prophet comes w/message: "Josiah will desecratethe altar" (long-range) and "the altar will split in two"(short-range). Also withersJeroboam's arm.
1 Kings 22:
Ahab and Jehoshaphat goingup to Ramoth‑Gilead to fight Syrians. Micaiah contradicts Ahab's prophets by predicting Israelwill be scattered and Ahab will die.
Zedekiah (false prophet)gets mad at him; statement probably means "I know I am a prophet,what about you?" Michiah'sanswer: "You will find out when you hide yourself... "If you return safely,the LORD has not spoken through me"
Thus supernatural events back upand often are related to prophetic messages. By this means, Israel was to test her prophets and notfollow false ones.
Implies God's prophets will givegood evidence.
3) Jesus.
Worked many miracles, gave manyshort‑term prophecies about His death, resurrection, fall of Jerusalem,etc.
4) Apostles.
See many references tosupernatural powers in Acts. Paul in 2 Cor. 12:12 "the signs of a trueapostle were performed among you." Hebrews 2:3‑4 "God bearing witness [to His apostles] by signs and wonders."
Summary: Evidence from these 4 periods show that inspired books areconnected with supernatural signs.
This is not a sufficient conditionbecause God is not the only one who can do miracles (Deut. 13), or at leastsomething we cannot distinguish from miracles.
But if there is no attestation given,then we have no reason to believe alleged spokesman has the divine word.
Not able to test this for everyBiblical book as we were not there (loss of information with time).
But we can apply this criterion toalleged prophets today and to some long range OT prophecies. We give some examples of latter in ourapologetics course.
b. Connection with earlier inspired books orrevelation.
This tie should be in both directions(esp forward), otherwise anyone can claim to be a new prophet in yourreligion.
Consider the forward and backwardconnections in each period:
Start-up: General revelation has beencontinuous from all generations and there appear to have been believers inall generations. Probably alsospecial revelation, at least in form of tradition from patriarchs. So Abraham has to decide if he isgetting direct revelation. Note that he is an individual, not a group.
1) Moses.
Is sent by the God of Abraham,Isaac, and Jacob.
His way was prepared byrevelation in Gen. 15:13f where God tells Abraham about 400 years of oppressionto come in foreign land, after which his descendants will bedelivered by God with many possessions. This makes the connection forward.
Moses says the God of Abr, Is andJac has sent him to deliver them from slavery, so he makes the connectionbackward.
Perhaps this prediction fakedlater? This is not a test we canapply to Moses, due to the time-perspective we have been talking about. We are here only trying to show thebiblical standards.
The Israelite slaves in Egyptknew if their family tradition contained such a prediction.
Moses then makes provision forthe prophets who will come. Peopleknow what to expect and how to test them when they begin to show up, since thetests in Deut 18 and 13 had been provided.
2) The Prophets.
Using Moses' criteria, Israelwithin the generation of the prophet could tell if he was a true prophet:i.e., Jeremiah vs. Hananiah (Jer 28; w/in 2 yrs H. died). This provides the basis for the bookswhich we have.
Within a generation it was clearwho was a false and who true prophet. True prophet's works were preserved.
The true prophets also made amajor connection back to Moses'law in their teaching, vs. some false prophetswho led them into Baal worship or encouraged setting up golden calves again.
The key thing here is the advanceprediction about the prophets.
The prophets tell about adeliverer to come, the Messiah. This is the next forward connection. The Jews did not know how to fitall these prophecies together, but they did know he was coming.
3) Jesus.
Jesus makes many back references.Note Matthew and Hebrews for forward connections via fulfilled prophecy(including typology). This was amajor apologetic of the early church, that Jesus fulfilled the messianicprophecies.
4) Apostles.
The apostles have an immediateconnection with Jesus, which was public knowledge. The people recognized them as having been with Him (see Acts4 before the Sanhedrin).
Jesus predicts theirfunctions: John 14:26 ‑>commission for teaching and organizing the church.John 15:27 ‑> power to make and cancel regulations with respect tochurch practice (cf. 'binding and loosing' in rabbinical usage).
The Apostles look forward to:primarily the second coming of Christ; secondarily, the 2 witnesses whoare specifically described in Rev 11.
5) Situation Today: It is very difficult to establisha claim to be one of the 2 witnesses. Need to do what they are described as doing: working miracles,including fire from heaven on opponents.
Thus Moon, Swedenborg and otherfalse prophets more often claim to be the second coming of Christ. Swedenborg says his teaching isthe second coming. Moon saysthat Christ failed the first time and he is now doing Christ's job (havingdivine children).
But the Bible says that you willnot need to be told when Christ returns, it will be obvious (lightning andvulture analogies in Matt 24).
Bible indicates that the eschatonis next. Any new guy on the scenemust be one of the following:
a) A false prophet or falsemessiah.
b) The Antichrist or his FalseProphet.
c) One of the two witnesses.
d) Christ (in His second coming).
The Mormons have tried to getaround this limitation on future by interpreting Ezekiel's prophecy of thetwo sticks as referring to their revelation, where the Bible and the Bookof Mormon are the two sticks. This view ignores the interpretation whichfollows immediately, that the sticks are the two kingdoms. Does shows that J.Smith was aware ofthe need for forward attestation.
Only Reorganized Mormons acceptJ.Smith's amplified Bible with its prophecy at end of Genesis about"another Joseph".
Unfortuniate some Charismaticsreally muddy the water here by saying that (charismatic) error in predictionshows that "your gifts are not perfected yet". This departs from the Biblicalstandard.
c. Agreement with earlier inspired books orrevelation.
1) Cannot contradict.
This is derived from Deut. 13:1‑3. Not every time that a false prophetprophesies will he be wrong. Evennormal people can guess the future occasionally, and this one mayhave demonic help. Thus we mustalso test the message.
He should not teach somethingwhich contradicts those things which were previously proven to be canonical.
Note that this test shoots downMormonism, as they say there are many other gods. Also liberalism and other heresies which have a differentgod than the one pictured in the Bible.
Also note that this is also atest of our faith (Deut.13:3). God is sneding a test to see if we love Him or if we only follow themost glamorous, exciting religion.
Acts 17:11 shows theresponsibility of the people to test teaching against Scripture. Should always be doing this with ourteachers, but especially with those who claim "My connection with Godovercomes my failures, so I am infallabile and you have no right to testme."
This test implies that we havethe 'right' to demand evidence (signs) from a new prophet.
What about Jesus refusing signsto Pharisees? Jesus had alreadybeen giving sufficient evidence.
Paul says (Gal 1:8‑9) thateven if another gospel comes froman angel, do not accept it.
Isolation mentality amongChristians today is not good (i.e., shield your people from heresy, ratherthan teach them so that they will be strong enough to handle it).
2) Can explain and clarify.
We should not press the aboveprinciple to the point where a prophet can never add new revelation. We may (correctly) think God has completedBible, but how would this have worked for the Pharisees? And how help persons not convinced byour "day of revelation over" exegesis?
Otherwise why would God send moreprophets after Moses?
Revelation probably stopped withthe apostles because they explained all that was necessary.
Jesus clarifies who the Father is(John 1:17‑18), and how can we go beyond that? The theme of the gospel is to reveal the Father. Also see this in 1 Peter 1:10‑12,where Peter comments that the OT prophets did not always understand what theywere writing. The NT clarifiestheir writings.
We must also leave room for thetwo witnesses.
Note: All three of the above criteria[a), b), c)] are needed to have an air‑tight test. Remember that these tests can often only be effectivelyapplied to works recently written.
3.Recognition for a Work Written Long Ago.
The biblical prophets and apostles presentedthemselves to the people of God of their times as having really come from Godwith important messages that we ignore only at our peril. We cannot properly do or redo what wasdone at that time. We do find inthe Christian materials evidence of supernatural activity inScripture: fulfilled prophecy, miracles, changed lives.
Instead we suggest the following as a check thatthe Bible really is what it claims to be:
a. Christian evidences point to Christand salvation through Him.
This is the first step. Acceptance of Scripture's historicaltrustworthiness via supernatural evidence leads to accepting Christ. We do not base our beliefs re/inerrancy or limits of canon on this level of understanding.
b. Christ as Lord explicitly endorsesthe OT and implicitly the NT.
Christ explicitly endorses the block ofmaterial called "Scripture" by the Jews (see J. Wenham, Christ andthe Scriptures).
He implicitly endorses the NT by:
1) Selecting apostles and lookingforward to their ministry.
2) Approving the providentialprocess that led to the canonization of the OT, and which would also lead tocanonization of the NT.
c. Canonicity then reduces to historical questions:
We must depend on the people thenliving to apply the tests for an inspired book recently written for us.
We can then ask:
1) What writings had PalestinianJews come to recognize by the time of Christ as Scripture?
Answer: Orthodox Jewish [=Protestant] Old Testament (this covered in OT Intro course).
2) What Christian writings didChristians come to recognize in the few centuries after Christ, when substantial information was stillavailable?
Answer: Orthodox Christian NT(same for Prot, RCs, GO).
We cover question 2) here below.
C.Historical Information Recognizing the N.T.
1. Stimulito Recognition.
There were several driving forces which requiredthe early church to think through the canon question. Some of these were active even in the days of theapostles. All were at work longbefore councils' canon decisions (after 325 AD).
a. The Need for Revelation.
The church has enough problems today,but would be in much worse shape without revelation as a standard andauthority. Already see this needin AD 60's, late in the Apostles' life.
1 Timothy 3:14‑15 ‑> You need to know somethings so I am writing you now in case I never get to talk to you again.
Interesting for charismatics thatTimothy needs to be told these things rather then receiving them by directrevelation. And he did havespiritual gifts!
The details in context reslate tochurch function. Also applies to knowledge about Christ's ministryand the content of the gospel.
See a parallel idea in 2 Peter 1where he writes in order to "bring to remembrance".
In 1 John we find the phrase"I am writing these things for ... [some good reason]" over 20 times.
1 Timothy 4:13 ‑>"Give attention to reading" (see also Revelation 1:3).
2 Timothy 3:16‑17 ‑>Good passage on the value of Scripture. Note the areas of value: teaching ‑ theoretical; training ‑practical; correction and restoration ‑ church function.
b. The Problem of Persecution.
This starts with Jewish persecution inJerusalem soon after Pentecost. Local Gentile persecution occurs off and on during the apostolicperiod. Official persecutionby the Roman Empire begins in 64 AD with Nero and the fire in Rome.
Persecution raises the question:"What books should I protect with my life because they are God's word, andwhich ones are merely human productions and so not worth it?"
c. The Priorities of Translation.
Soon after Christianity begins tospread the need for translation arises (there may have been some initial need to translateinto or out of Aramaic).
By the 2nd century there is a need forLatin versions in the West.
Raises the question: "What shouldhave the highest priority among the Christian literature?"
The answer has always beenScripture. Not even good bookslike "Pilgrim's Progess" are translated before the Bible.
Obviously there are priorities withinthe biblical books on which to translate first.
d. The Threat of Heresy.
This was a problem from earlytimes. Note the problems withJudiazers in Acts and Pauline epistles, with antinomians in Paul andJames.
See reference to an apparent attempt toforge a Pauline letter to the Thessalonians in the 50's AD. The hint in 2 Thess 2:2 is the earliestknown.
The "Gospel of Thomas"(gnostic) is the earliest extant fake gospel. Of interestthat it claims to be by Thomas but that it had been kept secret, implying somesort of canon existed at that time.
2. NT Evidence of Preparation and Recognition ofInspired Writings.
The NT provides our earliest evidence that theconcept of "Scripture" was understood to apply to Xn writings, andthat the preparation and recognition of such was already underway in theapostolic period.
a. Selection of materials for inclusion.
The NT shows an awareness that writingwas going on. We see that theApostles themselves are involved in the selection process.
The Apostles made the decisions aboutwhat elements of the ministry of Christ were important to preserve.
John 20:30 "Many other signs which are notwritten", but enough is given so that we can recognize who Jesus is and trust in Him.
John 21:25 "Many other things which Jesusdid..." Can't writedown everything which he did.
Luke 1:1‑4 See evidence of careful investigation,selection, and concern for accuracy.
b. Protection from Error.
Luke did a careful investigation asthere were apparently amateurs who had not.
John claims to be an eyewitness, andcorrects a popular interpretive error in what Jesus said (John 21) about John"not dying."
2 Timothy 1:13‑14 Paul is concerned that people guard thetreasure entrusted to them.
2 Timothy 2:2 "The things which you heard fromme in the presence of many witnesses..." Paul did not just make up this stuff, these witnesses backedup Paul's message. Implies therewere still many witnesses alive.
2 Timothy 2:14 "Remind them of these things anddo not wrangle about words." Concerned to protect the message from word games.
2 Timothy 3:16‑17 Says that Scripture is from God, andimplies that we should study it.
2 Thess. 2:2 apparently refers toan early attempt to forge a letter from Paul. "Spirit" is someone standing up and speaking, andclaiming to be a prophet. "Message" is someone who had traveled and claimed to havetalked to Paul. "Letter as iffrom us" is obvious. Thisverse is very general about the actual situation: one (or more) of the three?
2 Thess. 2:15 seems to narrow itdown to either a message or letter.
2 Thess. 3:17 strongly impliesthat it was a forged letter, as Paul makes clear here that he signs eachof his letters.
All this at least shows an awareness ofand safeguarding against the problem. People who knew his handwriting and who had theautograph could use this test. Wecannot.
There are private letters on papyrusfrom Egypt which are "autographs," as only one copy was made. Many of these have a nice professionalpenmanship for the body of the letter (the paid scribe), but the greetings atthe end are in amateurish script (the real sender).
This is similar to our use ofsignatures on typed business letters today.
c. Public reading in the churches.
See public reading commanded in severalplaces: 1 Thess 5:27, Col 4:16, Rev 1:3. This in an important criterion as a test, because when the churchesgot together across the Empire after the persecution ended, this was one oftheir questions: do we know thatit was read in the "old" churches?
d. Circulation Among the Churches.
Copies of NT writings were alsocirculated from church to church, rather than the recipient church keepingtheir letters, etc. a secret. Rev1:3 shows the apocalypse was sent to 7 churches. In Col.4:16 Paul commands Colossians to be read inLaodicea & vice versa (Laodicean letter probably = Eph or Phm).
Even before this, we see this done inActs with the decisionletter from the Jerusalem Council (c50 AD). In Acts 16:4, see that Paul circulates it in the regionsof Galatia, to churches beyond those to which it was oringinally addressed.
Thus the theory that Paul's letterswere local and forgotten after his death to be revived 30 years later and thenpopularized (view of E.J. Goodspeed) is not true. They were circulated widely from the beginning.
e. Collection.
The NT was not bound into one volumeinitially, as papyrus was not strong enough to work well with thickbooks. The biggest papyrus codexthat survives (p45) contains the Gospels and Acts, and it apparently hasno close competitors for size. Usually one volume would contain Paul's Epistles; 1 or 2 Gospels;Acts (or Acts & General Eps); Revelation, so that the whole NT would takeup several volumes. With use ofparchment we start getting whole Bible in one volume, but doubtless rare eventhen, due to expense.
Some early evidence of collection:
2 Peter 3:15‑16 "The things which Paul wrote toyou". Peter is apparentlyaddressing scattered churches in Galatia and elsewhere in Asia Minor. Peter refers to a group of Paul'sletters which he himself knew about and audience knew of. This indicates that Paul's letterswere already collected, circulating, and generally known. Liberals do not like this passage;claim the whole book of 2 Peter is a late forgery (c130 AD), as this evidenceof collection is "too early".
f. Quotation as Authoritative.
Even in the NT, some other parts of theNT are cited as Scripture:
2 Peter 3:15‑16 "Distort Paul's letters as they dothe rest of Scripture..." implies Paul's letters are Scripture.
Have 2 quotations in NT which showauthority:
1 Timothy 5:18 refers to OT andNT (Luke 10:7) under the heading, "Scripture says...," i.e., Paul isciting Luke 10:7 as Scripture. SoGospel of Luke was in existence by this time.
Jude's parallels to 2 Peter 2 and3. The bulk of Jude is like 2Peter chapters 2 and 3. Liberalssay that 2 Peter must be late as it quotes Jude (which is known to belate). But situation is actuallythe other way around: 2 Peter is so early that Jude quotes it!
Note: Jude says "The falseteachers have arrived!" 2Peter says "The false teachers are going to come!" Note which way the tense changes. Also Jude 17‑18 cites"mockers" by noting that "the apostles said this". He is quoting from 2 Peter 3:3. Thus Jude quotes Peter to warn that thefalse teachers the apostles predicted are now here. Liberals claim that 2 Peter is a fraud,and one which is cleverly disguised to make it look like Jude is quotingit!
Summary: Already in the NT there is the recognition that more thanthe OT is Scripture.
3. Indications of recognition as Scripture inApostolic Fathers (95 to 130 AD).
Four of these works come from known church leaders:
1 Clement - c95 AD - Bishop of Rome;
Ignatius - c105‑115 - Bishop ofAntioch;
Polycarp - c105‑115 - Bishop ofSmyrna;
Papias - c130 - Bishop of Hierapolis.
Other literature in this group:
Shepherd of Hermas (c110‑130AD) ‑‑ Written by a Roman Christian whose brother Pius was bishopof Rome.
Pseudo‑Barnabas (c130) --author unknown, not likely to have been Barnabas.
Didache (c110) ‑‑ Church manual writtenand revised over a long period of time.
In this literature we find many allusions to theNT, and 3 explicit references to the NT as Scripture:
a. 1 Clement 47: "Take up theepistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle. What wrote he first unto you in the beginning of the Gospel? Of a truth he charged in theSpirit concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos, because that eventhen you made factions."
Letter to the Corinthians duringDomitian persecution. Church having similar problems as when Paul wrote. Had a schism and booted out theirelders without charges. Clement obviously cites 1 Cor, saying, "as Paulcharged you in the spirit." implying it is inspired Scripture. Clement also assumes Paul's letter is widely known.
b. Polycarp to Philippians 12:"For I am persuaded that you are well‑trained in the sacredwritings, and nothing is hidden from you. But to myself this is not granted, only, as it is said in thesescriptures, 'Be ye angry and sin not,' and 'Let not the sun set on yourwrath'."
Cites Ephesians 4:26 as "sacredwriting" and "these Scriptures".
c. Pseudo‑Barnabas 4:
Very allegorical. In an exhortation, quotes Matthew 22:14under the heading, "As it is written."
d. Allusions to the NT.
Find many allusions citing the NT asauthoritative. These form aspectrum of citations, ranging from direct quotes to similar ideas; the cutoffbetween allusion and similar views is hard to locate. There is some dispute over how many NT books are alluded toin the Apostolic Fathers:
Various Views on number of NT booksalluded to in Apostolic Fathers: NT: OT:
1) Ante‑Nicene Fathers 25/27 28/39
[Roberts and Donaldson ed] Not 2,3 John
2) Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers 23/27 22/39
Not 2,3 John; 1 Thess, Phm
3) Oxford Committee [study on NT 20‑22/27 ‑‑‑‑‑
citations by Apostolic Fathers]
Not 2,3 John; Philm;Jude; 2 Peter;
Col?; 1 Thess?
We can use their citation of OT booksas a control, since we know all of them were in existence by the time theApostolic Fathers were writing. OTbooks not cited are irrelevant historical books [Judges, Nehemiah, Ezra], andseveral small books [Eccles., Amos, Micah, Obadiah] of little application tothe early church.
Thus the lack of citation does not meanthat the book did not exist or was not yet recognized as Scripture, but onlythat it was short and contained no "relevant" material for the apostolicfathers.
e. Summary.
The concept of "Scripture" isnot limited to OT material along either by apostles or early Xnleaders. By c130 AD, all but thefew shortest books are definitely mentioned as authoritative.
4.Recognition in Early Heretical Writers.
Heretics of the evangelizing sort tend toconcentrate on turning aside professing Xns from the Xn faith to their own,rather than trying to win pure pagans. Apparently Satan has little interest in evangelizing those who aresafely in his camp. Thus we canoften learn from them what Scriptures are accepted by the orthodox, since theyuse these to attract them rather than their own particular heretical works.
When we look for allusions in writings of thegnostic heretics, we find they too, make use of many NT works.
a. Basilides(c120‑140 AD) quotes from 1 Corinthians as Scripture. He alludes toseveral others (Mt, Lk, Jn, 2 Cor, Eph, Col, possibly 1 Tim, 1 Pet) asauthoritative.
b. The Ophites(c.120‑140) were a gnostic sect which thought the snake in Eden was thegood guy. Their writings refer toMatthew, Luke, John, Romans, 1 & 2 Cor, Eph, Gal, and probablyHeb, Rev.
c. Marcion(c140) taught that the OT God who created matter was a real but lesser god thanthe God of the NT. Marcionprepared the earliest known competing NT canon, which includedonly an edited forms of Luke and 10 Pauline Epistles. According to Tertullian, he removed NTreferences which would clearly identify the God of the NT with the God of theOT.
d. Valentinus(c140) authored the "Gospel of Truth," recently recoveredamong the Nag Hammadi papyri after being lost in ancient times. This work (among others in this group)shows that the church fathers really were pretty accurate in quoting andexplaining the views of the various gnostic teachers. Valentinus cites Ephesians as Scripture and makes otherreferences to Mt, Lk, Jn, Rom, 1 Cor, and perhaps Heb, 1 John.
e. Summary on Early Heretics
1) They too applied the concept ofScripture to the NT.
2) We see clear evidence amongthem for all Gospels but Mark (which, ironically, liberals like to say was theearliest), and for all the Pauline epistles but the pastorals (whichheretics would not like as they were explicitly directed against them. See remarks by Irenaeus, AgainstHeresies, 3.11.7).
5.Recognition in the Late 2nd Century.
By the end of the 2nd century, we have even moreexplicit Christian evidence. Irenaeus' Against Heresies is as large as the gospels and is fullof direct quotes, naming books, citing as "Scripture", etc.
We do not see the idea that the canon grew slowlyover time. It appears rather to berecognized as soon as received, then circulated widely. The idea of Scripture extending beyondthe OT canon is very clear.
Some problem books:
Hebrews was extensively citedearly, then doubted as the authorship was not known.
Revelation was also usedextensively early, but later doubted because of the millennial problems.
a. Justin Martyr (130‑160 AD) in his two apologies and his dialogue with theJewish scholar Trypho refers to the "Gospels" called"memoirs of the apostles & those who followed." He uses thecanonical four and no others. Justin also uses Rom, 1-2 Cor, Col, 2 Th, Heb, amd Rev, speaking of thelast as by the apostle John.
b. Irenaeus(b 125‑40, d c200), wrote Against Heresies, the extensive writingmentioned above. He quotes fromall the NT but Phm, 3 Jn, and poss 2 Pt and Jude. He does cite Hermas with "Scripture says." He argues against heretical scriptureson basis of the history of the churches founded by apostles.
c. Muratorian Canon (c180) is the oldest canonical list preserved from orthodox side, probfrom Rome (certainly Italy). It is fragmentary at beginning and end, poss also in middle, survivingonly in a poor Latin translation of the 8th cen. It starts with Luke as 3rd Gospel. Its present form lacksHeb, Jas, 1-2 Pt, poss 3 Jn. Itdefinitely rejects Hermas as a recent work. It rejects works by Gnostics and Montanists, speakingof forged Pauline letters to Laodiceans and Alexandrians.
d. Tertullian(c200) converted to Xy as an adult, was trained as a lawyer andrhetorician. His voluminous writingsguote from all the NT but Phm, Jas, 2-3 Jn. He definitely accepts Jude as authoritative. He mentions origin of Acts of Paul& Thecla (de Bapt 17).
e. Clement of Alexandria (c200) uses some of the non-canonical Gospels,but distinguishes these from those "that have been handed down." Eusebius says Clem commented on all theCath Eps, but work has not survived. Clement comments on Ps-Barn, Apoc Peter,and respected Hermas and the Preaching of Peter.
6. TowardsFormal Recognition: 200‑400 AD.
a. Origen(c230) gives us some insight into the status of the canon question at histime. He notes that 2 categorieswere commonly observed by the orthodox:
1) Books acknowledged by all Christians(21/27):
4 Gospels, Acts, 13Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, Rev.
2) Books disputed by someChristians (6/27 + 4 outside): Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James,Jude; plus Ps‑Barnabas, Hermas, Didache, Gospel of Hebrews
b. Eusebius(c325) about a century later, notes a more refined 4 categories:
(1) Acknowledged (21‑22/27):Gospels, Acts, Paul (+ Heb), 1 John, 1 Peter, Rev.[?]
(2) Disputed but familiar to most(5/27): James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude
(3) Spurious but orthodox (0‑1/27):Acts of Paul, Hermas, Apoc. of Peter, Ps‑Barnabas, Didache, Rev.[?],Gospel of Hebrews
(4) Heretical: Gospels of Peter,Thomas, Matthaias, etc.; Acts of Andrew, John, others.
c. Athanasiusthe great opponent of the Arians, later becomes bishop of Alexandria. In his Festal Letter of 369 AD, all 27 NT books are listedas canonical. He is supportedby Jerome, Augustine, Greg of Nazianzus and Cyril (except the latter lacksRev).
d. Decisions of Church Councils. Several decisions by regional church councils bring the discussionof canon to a close. Theseinclude:
(1) Synod of Laodicea (365). Allbut Revelation, with some doubt about authenticity of list.
(2) Synod of Rome (382).
(3) Synod of Hippo (393).
(4) Synod of Carthage (397).
7. Summaryon Canon.
The final details of the NT canon decision seem tohave been providential rather than revelatory. This is the same situation we have for the OT canon, exceptthat we have Jesus' (implicit) stamp of approval on the OT results.
The councils and scholars who considered thematter after Xy became legal about 325 AD appear to have made good use of thehistorical information avaiable to them (mainly continuity ofuse in the oldest churches). Givena view of Scripture as revelatory and inspired, no one has suggestedany other good candidates for admission.
Questions were raised about some of the shortest NTbooks and about Hebrews and Revelation. Though we would not want to do without any of these, no major doctrinesof Xy depend on them alone.
What is clear is that the category of Scripture wasapplied to NT writings already in the apostolic age, and that nearly allof the NT canon was recognized as authoritative in the writings of churchleaders from the early second century.
With this we must be satisfied. We have neither time machines norall the information we would like on how these books came to be recognized asScripture, but it is clear that they did. God has retained in his hands the direction of history, howevermuch we want to be able to control it or pass judgment on whateverhappens. God has promised that hewill carry out his word whether we believe it or not. So we might as well trust him and do our best to be on hisside rather than the other.
