hes plain sense should make sense, that is line one of the first manual of interpretation for any theologian. So if you are changing words for clarity sake, the meaning has changed.
So you agree that the majority text is not the original text but has later additions and changes?
sir we don't have any originals, they are all copies.
What early centuries "non-coptic" copies suporting the Byzantine text do you have in mind?
I posted early church support for in a previous post that I didn't see a reply to. Here it is again:
Hort, in order to get rid of the Byzantine text, sought to show it was dated after the middle of the third century by claiming no Church Father used it before John Chrysostom (345-407), a native of Antioch and later bishop of Constantinople. If this is true, it would be important evidence against the Byzantine text.
Before we discuss the Early Church Fathers' witness to the Greek text, let us first comment about the use of their writings. There is a long list of problems associated with this. These involve first, the author's use of the New Testament Scripture and, second, the transmission of the Father's texts to us.
When we read in the Fathers, we are not sure if they are quoting a passage directly from the New Testament, or by memory, or paraphrasing it, or if it is just an allusion. If the quote is from a gospel, we are often uncertain which gospel is being quoted if parallel passages exist.
These problems do not exist if the Church Father's work is a commentary with the Scripture text at the top of the page. This at least eliminates the uncertainty of the text being a quote, which gospel is being quoted, etc. But we cannot be certain that the text we have was written by the author. It may have been changed during translation; scribes may have updated it to the text they use. The uncertainty of transmission can create problems even if, for instance, the text is an exact match to the Vaticanus. Did the author quote from the Vaticanus or did a scribe correct the text to it? We know scribal revision of the text may be done unevenly since there is a large amount of mixture in these texts.
The care involved in the transmission of the Fathers' quotes generally would be much less than that given to the Greek text. The Church Fathers' writings were not considered Scripture and thus were not as carefully copied, so the Scripture citations may have been updated to the local text, etc. When we consider the variation existing in some scriptural manuscripts, we recognize we cannot have high confidence in the Church Fathers' writings. We should therefore be very careful in drawing textual conclusions from their works.
Let us now look at what we can learn about the Greek text from Chrysostom's writings. Before we begin, we should recognize that Westcott and Hort had no critical edition of his writings; therefore we should carefully examine the weighty conclusion they place on Chrysostom's writings.
As Kenyon writes about the text-types, "The crux of the controversy lay in the testimony of the ancient Fathers. . . . Before [a.d. 350] we find characteristically 'Neutral' and 'Western' readings, but never 'Syrian.' This argument is in fact decisive; and no subsequent discovery of new witness, and no further examination of the old, has invalidated it."[109] This was written in 1932, and before this date Kenyon writes, "Little has been done to rectify this by the critical study of the best manuscripts of the Fathers." Hort's argument was decisively answered the same year Kenyon wrote.
Geerlings and New's study of "Chrysostom's Text of the Gospel of Mark" concludes, "The number of variants from the Textus Receptus is not appreciably smaller than the number of variants from Westcott and Hort's text. This proves that it [Chrysostom's text] is no more a typical representative of the late text (von Soden's K [Byzantine]) than it is of the Neutral text. . . . With reference to the subdivisions of K-text, there is no evidence for either von Soden's Kx-text (EFGH etc.) or his K1-text (W V etc.), nor are there any readings peculiar to the Ka-text."[110]
Birdsall also writes about Chrysostom:
More recent examination of [Chrysostom's] quotations from Mark and Matthew has revealed a complex text-form in these gospels, which cannot be identified with any type specifically Byzantine or other, and a like state of affairs seems to exist in the Pauline epistles used by him. The notorious uncertainly of the text of Chrysostom's works only increases the difficulties attendant upon the establishing of the New Testament text known to him and used by him."[112]
Let us give a proof from early Church Fathers showing the Byzantine text-type is very old. The Byzantine text of Matthew 27:34 uses the Greek term oxo, translated
vinegar: "They gave him
vinegar to drink mingled with
gall: and when he had tasted
thereof, he would not drink." The Alexandrian text uses the term oinon translated
wine, in this passage. The parallel passage found in Mark 15:23 uses oivnon and the near v. 36 passage uses o[xoV ; Luke uses oxoV in the near 23:36 passage; and John uses oxouV in the near 19:29 passage. Because of these uses some critics claim the Church Father quotations using oxouV (vinegar) may not come from Matthew but one of the other Gospels. But as Pickering and Robinson have pointed out, the term
gall makes it possible to identify the Church Fathers' quotations as coming from Matthew 27:34 since
gall is used in only one other New Testament Scripture (Acts 8:23).[113] Therefore we can have confidence these Church Father quotations come from Matthew, even though the Fathers made no statement to this affect. Following is a list of Church Fathers who use
vinegar and
gall in these same "quotation."
Barnabas,
Barnabas, 100 a.d.: "had given him to drink vinegar and gall" ( 7:5).
Irenaeus,
Against Heresies, c. 130-202: "He should have vinegar and gall given Him to drink" (Book IV:XXXIII:12; cf. XXXV:3).
Revelation of Esdras: "Vinegar and gall did they give me to drink."
Apostolic Constitutions, late 200s: "they gave him vinegar to drink, mingled with gall" (V:3:14).
Tertullian,
Reply to Marcion, d. 220: "and gall is mixed with vinegar" (
Appendix, V:232).
Gospel of Nicodemus, 4th century: "and gave him also to drink gall with vinegar" (Part II, 4).
Gregory of Nyssa, d. 394: "coln tekai oxei dixbrox" (
Orat. X:989:6).
Gregory Nazianzus, d. 396, "Taste gall for the taste's sake; drink vinegar" (
Oratio XXXVIII:18).
The above shows the Byzantine text of the Gospel of Matthew existed very early, even in the first century.
There is another factor to consider about the Hort claim. Sturz writes that those making such a claim "customarily neglect to mention that there are no earlier Antiochian Fathers than Chrysostom whose literature remains are extensive enough so that their New Testament quotations may be analyzed as to the type of text they support."[114]
The lack of Byzantine quotation before Chrysostom may also be in part due to the northern, damp climate causing decomposition of early northern Church Fathers' writings. Most early Church Fathers' writings are from areas outside the Byzantine and other northern areas. Souter wrote,
The nature of papyrus being such that a damp climate reduces it to pulp, the vast quantity of papyrus which must have existed in other countries of the Roman world has all perished, and it is . . . the dry climate of Egypt . . . that we are indebted for the paprus rolls that survive.[115]
Aland sheds further light on this climate, writing,
Asia Minor and Greece, the centers of early Christianity, undoubtedly exercised a substantive if not critical influence on the development of the New Testament text, but it is impossible to demonstrate because the climate in these regions has been unfavorable to the preservation of any papyri from the early period.[116]
The change from uncial (writings only in capital letters) to minuscule (a flowing cursive handwriting dating after the 10th century) writing is another factor that caused the loss of early Byzantine manuscripts. As readers became accustom to the minuscule they put aside the uncial manuscripts and they were discarded. The latter factor not only accounts for the few early Byzantine manuscripts, but also for the few Byzantine ones that exist today dating before the ninth century.
Early Church Fathers' quotations do not support Westcott-Hort's text either. This is even recognized by those who do not support the TR. Price, who does not support the TR, when writing about recent progress in textual criticism, said, "The Westcott-Hort 'Neutral' text was found to be practically without support in the earliest fathers."[117] The Coptic versions (the Egyptian versions) and Clement and Origen (early Alexandrian church leaders), as can be expected, do support the Alexandrian texts.
In summary, Hort's often repeated statement about no Byzantine text-type being found in Church Fathers' writings before Chrysostom proves nothing except that support for the Alexandrian text comes from dry climate areas.
Revisiting the Text-Types Issue
As we have seen, Westcott and Hort thought the descending order of value of the text-types were the Neutral, the Alexandrian, the Western, and the Syrian (now known as the Byzantine). They believed the Neutral text was the oldest and best text and the Byzantine a later edited text. But as we have seen, neither genealogy or conflation show the Byzantine text to be younger that the Alexandrian, and the Byzantine does have some early Church Father support.
We should respect Westcott and Hort's desire to find the best text. It is a worthy goal, but we need not accept their conclusion that they found the "Neutral" text. And as Scrivener wrote, "let us be so illogical as to conclude, because א and B are sometimes right, that therefore they never are in the wrong."[118]
Fifty years after Westcott and Hort's new Greek text, Kenyon wrote three important observations about their work:
The criticism of the last fifty years has, however, greatly blurred the edges of these clear-cut [i.e., "Codex Vaticanus (B) stands out pre-eminently, containing a text which has the internal marks of purity and originality."] results. The absolute authority of B (though not its general excellence) has been questioned, and the authority of its principle supporter, א , has been still more challenged. It has been shown that texts circulated extensively in Egypt which did not conform to the "Neutral" pattern.[119]
It is clear that some abatement must be made from Hort's claims. Although this type of text is obviously Egyptian in origin and home, it is not possible to maintain that Egypt had preserved an uncorrupted form of text, of which B is a characteristic example. The papyri of earlier date than B, fragmentary as they are, suffice to show that the B text did not prevail universally in Egypt; and the Sahidic version, though it has strong affinities with B, tells the same story. It is evident that in Egypt, as in other parts of the world, texts existed in the third century which were not of the B type.[120]
Egypt, like other countries, had a variety of texts; and if the text of B is the result of faithful transmission alone, its ancestors must have lived a singularly sheltered life. It is not as if Egypt were the original home of the New Testament books, so that the pure uncorrupted fount was found there.[121]
Aland writes:
Codex Vaticanus was [Westcott and Hort's] touchstone. They believed that they had discovered in it a representation of the "Neutral text" which came far closer to the original text than the three forms recognized as Alexandrian, Byzantine, and Western, especially when it stood in agreement with א . Acturally there is no such thing as a "neutral" text of the New Testament. Even P75,[122] which is textually so close to Codex Vaticanus . . . cannot be called "neutral," although it is more than a hundred and fifty years older. . . . Again, the fact that Codex Vaticanus (like Codex Sinaiticus) is from the second half of the fourth century raises the question how Westcott and Hort could describe their edition so confidently as the New Testament "in the original Greek."[123]
Metzger also states that "most scholars have abandoned Hort's optimistic view that Vaticanus (B) contains the original text almost unchanged except for slips of the pen."[124] Thus today the "neutual" is rejected, and, as we will see, apparently this is the second time this has happened.
Apparently the "neutral" text was rejected by early Christians because it existed mainly in Egypt from around 350 to 500. It did not received wide circulation; if it had, it would have become the majority text. The early Christians treated the New Testament books as Scripture and would have naturally copied and passed on the purest copies; they would have gotten rid of poor copies. As Pickering pointed out, "Many of the first believers had been devout Jews who had an ingrained reverence and care for the Old Testament Scriptures which extended to the very jots and tittles. This reverence and care would naturally be extended to the New Testament Scriptures."[125] The early believers who lived in Asia Minor (the region where the Byzantine text existed), and were thus close to many of the original manuscripts, surely would have been careful to make good copies of the New Testament books. Thus the lack of transmission of the Alexandrian text shows lack of respect for it through the whole church.
Some hold such high opinion of these two texts that they believe they are two of the fifty Bibles Emperor Constantine authorized Eusebius to produce. There is no evidence to support this view, and their inclusion of non-biblical books suggests otherwise. It makes more sense to believe these fifty Bibles had a Byzantine text-type since Constantinople was the capital the Byzantine Empire, and the Byzantine text became the dominant text of the area. Bruce's "guess" supports this conclusion. He writes, "If a guess may be hazarded, it is more likely that the fifty copies exhibited the text of the . . .[126] Byzantine or 'majority' text. If they did, this would help to explain the popularity of this form of the text in Constantinople."[127]
Although many hold a high view of the Alexandrian text, it should be mentioned that the quality of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus codices is far from perfect. These two texts are similar, but Hoskier points out they do differ in well over 3,000 places just in the Gospels (not including spelling and synonym differences).[128] Since these two manuscripts do not give a united witness, and since many of their differences are serious, they are not as good witnesses to the Greek New Testament as was once claimed.
Only a few Alexandrian manuscripts survived, and they are older than the Byzantine manuscripts. As mentioned earlier, their survival is due to (1) the Egyptian dry desert climate, which slowed their decomposition, (2) the Egyptian church dropping the Greek language and therefore not wearing out these manuscripts, and (3) the Muslims wiping out much of Christianity in Egypt, causing these Greek manuscripts to be set aside. The early Byzantine manuscripts probably wore out quicker because of more use, and the Byzantine region's damper climate no doubt speeded up their decomposition. And, as mentioned earlier, it is impossible to demonstrate Asia Minor and Greece influence on the New Testament text "because the climate in these regions has been unfavorable to the preservation of any papyri from the early period."[129]
The question that should be asked is, Does the chance preservation of these manuscripts caused by their being located in Egypt make them the best texts? Although we have followed the current name practice and used the "Alexandrian" term, there is no evidence the great Uncials or papyrus were ever associated with the learning center and libraries at Alexandria. Since they were found in dry desert areas located in the upper Niles, far from this city, it is more likely they were copies used by individuals or in smaller churches.
Pickering asked, "But what are Egypt's claims upon our confidence? And how wise is it to follow the witness of only one locale?"[130] We should also remember as Van Bruggen writes, "Egypt was not the most flouishing part of the Church at that time [2nd-3rd centuries]. Centers like Syria, Asia-Minor, Greece, Italy have left us no Greek manuscripts from these centuries."[131]
In writing about Egypt and papyri, Epp also asks several questions:
Can we really be satisfied with so limited a view of that early history? Can we really be content with Egypt as the exclusive locale for this glimpse into the earliest textual history? Was any NT book written there, and does not Egypt therefore clearly represent only a secondary and derivative stage in textual history? Is the accident of circumstance--that papyrus survives almost exclusively in the hot climate and dry sands of Egypt--to dominate and determine how we ultimately write our textual history? Can we proceed with any assurance that these forty randomly surviving earliest MSS are in any real sense representative of the entire earliest history of the text?
