Moore History of Bible NB 2

How_We_Got_the_Bible_----_59-103.pdf

Home >Human Resource Management homework help >Moore History of Bible NB 2

( 59 )

Other New Testament Manuscripts

some think that they will be heard for their many words. But when you pray . . .” Although this is almost a verbatim quote from Matthew 6:7, Bezae is the only manuscript that has it in Luke. Similarly, Bezae’s reference to the stone “which twenty men could scarcely roll” in Luke 23:53 has no other textual support, except from one Old Latin manuscript and the Sahidic (an Egyptian) Version.

So as one examines a large number of Western variants, one comes to suspect that they are secondary and do not belong to the text as originally written. On the other hand, this does not mean Bezae should be simply cast aside. It is a very valuable manuscript, but it must be used wisely. It dates back to about the fifth century; and though it includes such variants as those already mentioned, in large measure it preserves the Gospels and Acts as they always have been known. In other words, we should not forget that Bezae has far more agreements with the Vatican and Sinaitic Manuscripts than disagreements. These numerous agreements, especially when confirmed by other types of witnesses, make the text as certain as it can be.

Other Uncials

Having made reference to a “Western” kind of text in Codex Bezae, we should pause here to give further explanation. New Testament manuscripts, depending on their similarities, are generally divided into three groups or types of text: Alexan- drian, Western, and Byzantine. The latter, associated with the Byzantine world of the Middle Ages, is the type of text found in the vast majority of the later manuscripts. The Alexandrian text, connected with Alexandria in Egypt and represented especially by the Vatican and the Sinaitic Manuscripts, is very early and is regarded as the best form of the text.

Other uncials can be treated more briefly. Altogether about 280 uncials are now listed.4

Codex Claromontanus (Dp or D 2 ), so designated because it

came from Clermont, France, is a sixth-century manuscript of Paul’s letters (including Hebrews). It is a small volume of

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 59 3/18/03, 7:52:50 AM

Lightfoot, Neil R.. How We Got the Bible, Baker Books, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/amridge/detail.action?docID=3117196. Created from amridge on 2021-09-13 15:12:48.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 60 )

How We Got the Bible

533 leaves, written on thin vellum. In certain respects it is similar to Codex Bezae. It once belonged to Theodore Beza, it is written in both Greek and Latin, and its text type is Western. Edited by Tischendorf, it is located at the National Library of Paris.

Codex Laudianus (Ea) takes its name from Archbishop Laud, who presented it to the Bodleian Library at Oxford in 1636. Dated at the end of the sixth century, written in Greek and Latin, it contains the Book of Acts (with omissions at the end). Although it has Western characteristics, its Greek text is mostly in agreement with the Byzantine form of text. It is the earliest manuscript that includes the eunuch’s confession in Acts 8:37.

Codex Regius (L) is an eighth-century codex of the Gospels, now in the National Library in Paris. It preserves a good, Alex- andrian type of text, often agreeing with the Vatican Manu- script. At the end of Mark, it includes the traditional ending (Mark 16:9–20) and also a shorter ending. But the shorter end- ing is supported by only three other Greek manuscripts and a few witnesses among the versions, all of which (except one) include the longer ending as well.

The Freer Washington Manuscripts were obtained in 1906 by Mr. Charles L. Freer of Detroit. One manuscript (Codex I) con- tains a collection of Paul’s letters from 1 Corinthians through Hebrews, with Hebrews being placed after 2 Thessalonians. The text is Alexandrian in type, dating back to the fifth cen- tury; but, unfortunately, less than half of the manuscript has survived. The other manuscript (Codex W) is a copy of the Four Gospels, dating from the fourth or fifth century. Its type of text may be best described as a mixture, probably indicating that it was copied from portions of several manuscripts. Both Freer manuscripts are located in the Freer Gallery of Art, the Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C.

Minuscule Manuscripts

Brief notice should be made concerning the minuscules. They date from the ninth century and comprise the vast

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 60 3/18/03, 7:52:51 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 61 )

Other New Testament Manuscripts

majority of the manuscripts that exist today. While the list of known manuscripts is still growing, at present there are about 2,800 minuscules. By and large, they represent, along with many later uncials, a later form of the text (Byzantine).

Listed below are a few of the small-letter manuscripts that are important either from a textual or historical standpoint.

Minuscules 1 and 2 are Gospels manuscripts of the twelfth century which are now located in Basle, Switzerland. These minuscules head the list because they were used by Erasmus, who edited the first Greek New Testament. Erasmus mainly used minuscule 2, which is a Byzantine-type manuscript.5

Minuscule 13 is a twelfth- or thirteenth-century manuscript in Paris. It is one of about a dozen manuscripts that comprise “Family 13,” especially unique for its location of the adulterous woman passage not in John 7:53–8:11 but after Luke 21:38.

Minuscule 33, of the ninth century and in Paris, contains the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles. Because of its good text, it has long been called “the Queen of the Cursives.”

Minuscule 61, of the fifteenth or sixteenth century and in Dublin, Ireland, was the first manuscript found in support of the Three Heavenly Witnesses passage in 1 John 5:7–8. On the authority of this manuscript alone, Erasmus added 1 John 5:7 to the third edition of his Greek text.

Minuscule 565 is a copy of the Gospels from the ninth cen- tury, located in St. Petersburg, Russia. It is a beautiful codex, an outstanding example of a number of manuscripts written in gold or silver letters on purple vellum.

Minuscule 1739 is a tenth-century manuscript of Acts and the Epistles, located in one of the many monasteries on Mount Athos in Greece. It is a significant manuscript because its ancestor apparently goes back to the fourth century, having a text similar to the Vatican Manuscript.

The above lists of uncials and minuscules are necessarily short, but perhaps they are enough to quicken the reader’s interest in the many manuscripts that have conveyed the New Testament message down through the centuries.

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 61 3/18/03, 7:52:51 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 62 )

How We Got the Bible

A typical late minuscule manuscript of the New Testament.

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 62 3/18/03, 7:52:51 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 63 )

Other New Testament Manuscripts

The Lectionaries

One further word needs to be added concerning New Tes- tament manuscripts. Included in their number is a group of materials known as “lectionaries.” The term “lection” refers to a selected passage of Scripture designed to be read in public wor- ship services, and thus a lectionary is a manuscript especially arranged in sections for this purpose. Most lectionaries are of the Gospels, but some are of Acts and the Epistles. Lectionaries cannot be classified as uncials or minuscules because there are extant copies of both types. Studies have shown that lectionar- ies, being intended especially for public worship, were copied a little more carefully than ordinary manuscripts. But much work yet needs to be done on the lectionary texts. More than 2,200 lectionaries have been enumerated.6

There is still another group of manuscripts that did not become known until recent times. These manuscripts are those that were written on papyrus—our earliest copies of the text of the New Testament. We will postpone until later an account of their discoveries and their significance for the Biblical text.

Summary

In this chapter two other manuscripts have been added to the list of the outstanding uncials. Altogether this makes five vellum uncials that are dated in the fourth and fifth centuries: the Vatican, the Sinaitic, the Alexandrian, the Ephraem palimp- sest manuscript, and Codex Bezae. Of these, the first two in particular, the Vatican and the Sinaitic, with the help of other witnesses, supply the textual foundation for the New Testa- ment. But other uncials and the minuscule manuscripts add much support. On the basis of common characteristics, New Testament manuscripts may be classified generally in three groups or types of text: Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine. The Western text, because of its suspicious variations, and the Byzantine text, because of its later date, cannot measure

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 63 3/18/03, 7:52:52 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 64 )

How We Got the Bible

up to the superior quality of the Alexandrian type of text. The Alexandrian is regarded as the best form of the text.

For Discussion

1. What are the two fifth-century manuscripts added in this chapter to the list of important uncials? Which of these is a palimpsest manuscript? What is a palimpsest?

2. Why is one manuscript called the Codex of Ephraem? How is the name of Tischendorf associated with it?

3. Why is the other manuscript known as the Codex Bezae? How is it different from many other manuscripts?

4. What is a lectionary? What are the approximate dates for (1) the uncial manuscripts and (2) the minuscules?

5. What are the three groups into which New Testament manuscripts can be divided? Which of these is regarded as being the best form of the text?

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 64 3/18/03, 7:52:52 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 65 )

Ancient Versions: The New Testament

U p to this point we have been examining the primary sources for the New Testament text. We come now to consider the early versions or translations. As we proceed, however, we should keep in mind that the

versions, because they are translations, are necessarily second- ary in rank as witnesses to the text. Something is always lost by way of translation.

The gospel that needed proclamation in different tongues on the day of Pentecost was the same gospel which, when written, demanded translation into other languages. After the apostolic messages began to circulate in Greek among early Christians, the next step was to circulate these same messages in other tongues. Wherever Greek was unknown or unnatural, transla- tions from Greek into the native languages began to spring up. Of these, three were very early and are of chief importance: the Syriac, the Latin, and the Coptic (Egyptian). The Syriac and the Latin versions date certainly back into the second century, and the Coptic probably goes back almost as far. Of course, we do not possess Latin or Syriac copies that early, but it is possible with our existing manuscripts to trace the kind of text in use at that time. Thus the ancient versions open to us an entirely independent line of evidence on the New Testament text.

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 65 3/18/03, 7:52:52 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 66 )

How We Got the Bible

The Syriac Versions

Syriac was the main language spoken in the regions of Syria and Mesopotamia and is almost identical to Aramaic. It was undoubtedly one of the earliest translations to be made; it could be used not only by the Jews who did not know Greek but also by the natives of Mesopotamia, where the gospel may have entered in the last part of the first century.

1. The Diatessaron. Perhaps the earliest form of the Syriac version is what is known as the Diatessaron. The Greek term means “through four,” meaning “through the Four Gospels,” and refers to a harmony arrangement of the Gospels. Tatian, a native of Mesopotamia, lived in Rome for many years, where he was converted to Christianity by reading the Bible. He became a pupil of Justin Martyr; after the martyrdom of Justin, Tatian returned to his home near the year A.D. 170. At about this time he compiled his harmony by merging the Four Gospels into one continuous account of the life of Christ. Whether this was done at Rome or in Syria is not known, nor is it known whether Tatian composed his harmony in Greek or Syriac. But it is known that Tatian’s harmony circulated widely and was so popular that special measures had to be taken in the fifth century to remove it from use in Syrian churches.

The Diatessaron then fell into oblivion. No copy of it remains, and its text must be imperfectly constructed on the basis of secondary sources.1 Yet one or two sidelights on the Diates- saron may be of interest.

In the middle of the nineteenth century, much controversy was being stirred up by certain German scholars who main- tained that the Gospels could not have been written earlier than about A.D. 140. In support of this view some even questioned whether there was ever such a thing as the Diatessaron. On the other hand, its existence would show that the Four Gospels were generally accepted no later than the third quarter of the second century, and thus must have been written much earlier. If the disputants in the controversy had only known! Already

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 66 3/18/03, 7:52:53 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 67 )

Ancient Versions: The New Testament

in print was an Armenian translation of the commentary of Ephraem, written in the fourth century, which was based on the Diatessaron. This in itself would have put an end to the controversy about the existence of the Diatessaron. Clearly, there can be no question about its existence and that it was constructed out of our four canonical Gospels.

Of interest also is another bit of information on the Diates- saron. On the banks of the Euphrates, at Dura-Europas, the Romans had built a fortress which was captured by the Per- sians in A.D. 256. Excavations there uncovered a number of papyrus and vellum fragments. One of the vellum fragments, identified in 1933, contains a few lines of the Diatessaron in Greek. The remarkable discovery did not prove that Tatian originally wrote his harmony in Greek, but it does demonstrate that a Greek Diatessaron was in use even in this remote corner of Syria not many years after its composition.

2. The Old Syriac. Only in the nineteenth century did it become known that there was such an early translation as the Old Syriac. It may be that it predates the Diatessaron, but this is not the general consensus.

There are two chief manuscripts of the Old Syriac: the Cure- tonian Syriac and the Sinaitic Syriac. The Curetonian Syriac is a fifth-century copy of the Gospels, consisting of over eighty leaves. It is so called because of the labors of Dr. William Cure- ton. In 1842 the British Museum obtained a large number of Syriac manuscripts that had come from one of the monasteries in the desert west of Cairo. In 1848 Dr. Cureton, a keeper of manuscripts in the museum, demonstrated that the text of this manuscript is of an earlier type than the common Syriac.

The Sinaitic Manuscript was discovered in 1892 by widowed twin sisters, Mrs. Agnes Smith Lewis and Mrs. Margaret Dun- lop Gibson. These Cambridge ladies—wealthy, eccentric, and intellectual—came to St. Catherine’s Monastery at Sinai in quest of rare Biblical manuscripts.2 Here Tischendorf made his astounding discovery, and here other important manuscripts were to be uncovered. In pursuit of their goal, the twins exam- ined a number of manuscripts, one of which was an old palimp- sest document. The layer underneath was identified by Mrs.

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 67 3/18/03, 7:52:53 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 68 )

How We Got the Bible

Lewis as a Syriac copy of the Gospels, and subsequent studies have shown it to be a representative of the Old Syriac transla- tion. In fact, it is the earliest known copy of the Old Syriac, reaching back to the fifth or possibly to the fourth century.

The form of text found in the Old Syriac is mixed in charac- ter, containing Alexandrian type readings but more often those that are “Western.” Interestingly, the Curetonian Syriac includes Mark 16:9–20, but the Sinaitic Syriac does not have it.

3. The Peshitta. The word Peshitta means “simple” and refers to the standard Syriac translation which has been in use since the fifth century. It is a revision of the Old Syriac, based on Greek manuscripts that attest to an early form of the Byzan- tine-type text. There are more than 350 manuscripts of the Peshitta, but the testimony of these is not as fundamental as that of the Old Syriac.

The Coptic Versions

Coptic was the latest phase of development of the ancient Egyptian language, which eventually came to be written in Greek characters. A number of Coptic dialects exist, but two are especially noteworthy.

The Sahidic Version is written in the dialect of Upper (South- ern) Egypt, whose main city was Thebes. The Sahidic formerly was known primarily from fragments; but in the twentieth century extensive manuscripts have come to light, dating to the third and fourth centuries.

The Bohairic Version refers to the dialect in Lower (North- ern) Egypt, in areas near Alexandria and in the delta region. The Sahidic seems to be earlier than the Bohairic; the latter, however, has some manuscripts that go back to the fourth and fifth centuries.

But why single out these two versions in particular? The answer lies in the good quality of their texts. The gospel of Christ made quick inroads into Egypt, and fortunately Egypt has preserved an early form of the text. The Sahidic and Bohairic

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 68 3/18/03, 7:52:54 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 69 )

Ancient Versions: The New Testament

often confirm this type of text—the same type of text found in such as the Vatican and Sinaitic Manuscripts.

The Latin Versions

The remainder of this chapter will be given to the Latin versions. These versions should hold special interest for all English-speaking people because the first translation of the English Bible was made from the Latin.

The Old Latin

In A.D. 180 persecution broke out against the church in Numidia of North Africa. There, in a small town named Scil- lium, Christians were arrested, put on trial, and then decapi- tated in nearby Carthage. The record of their court trial sur- vives. Speratus, one of the Christians, was asked what he had in the chest he carried with him. He replied, “Books and letters of Paul a just man.”3

The books to which Speratus referred were undoubtedly translations in Latin, for it is not likely that the people in Scil- lium knew Greek. So by this time the Epistles of Paul existed in Latin; and if Paul’s letters were in Latin, surely the Gospels had been translated into Latin as well.

The Latin of these translations is what we now know as Old Latin. Why, where, and when did it have its origin?

You will recall that the various books of the New Testament were all written in Greek. When in the A.D. 50s Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, he wrote in Greek. Other writers either writing to or from Rome likewise used Greek as late as the mid–second century and beyond.

In time, however, Rome would need its Bible in Latin as well; this may have happened about the same time Latin versions appeared in Africa. The time was as early as A.D. 160 or before, and perhaps earlier for books of the Old Testament.

In a similar way, Latin translations came into use in other areas of the Empire. At first they were probably made

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 69 3/18/03, 7:52:54 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 70 )

How We Got the Bible

informally by missionaries or by local Christians to assist congregations in their worship. So it seems that the first Latin translations arose independently, differing from one another. More and more copies were made, and the eventual result was a number of variant readings among the Latin manuscripts.

The Latin Vulgate

These differences in the Latin texts set the stage for a series of events that would culminate in the translation of the Latin Vulgate. If we are to understand more about the Vulgate, we must learn more about the person who produced it.

1. Jerome. Eusebius Hieronymus, known as Jerome, was born about the year 345 at Strido(n) in Dalmatia (an area north- west of modern Greece). When he was about twelve, his well- to-do parents sent him to Rome, where he studied advanced Latin grammar, Greek, and the Latin classics. Later, his higher education concentrated on rhetoric, designed for the career of a lawyer or civil servant.4

During these years Jerome had been only nominally Chris- tian; after leaving Rome, he committed himself to the life of an ascetic. Yet one thing he could not give up: his love of classical (pagan) literature.

At Antioch, he was attacked with a severe fever and was near death. One of his letters relates what happened.5 In a dream he was caught up before “the Judge’s judgment seat” and was asked to state his condition. He replied that he was a Christian. But the divine response was, “You lie; you are a Ciceronian, not a Christian.”

For Jerome, the dream was a shattering experience. He resolved to devote the rest of his life to the study of the Scrip- tures. Following the dream, he was off to the sun-drenched desert to live among the Syrian hermits. In the desert for four or five years, he had much time for study. Here, under the guid- ance of a converted Jew, he began to learn Hebrew.

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 70 3/18/03, 7:52:54 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 71 )

Ancient Versions: The New Testament

When, therefore, in 382–83, Bishop Damasus of Rome saw the need of drawing together the various Old Latin translations into one official edition, who was more qualified for the task than Jerome? By now Jerome had returned to Rome and was serving Damasus as his secretary and translator.

Damasus’ commission to revise the Old Latin must have given Jerome joy mixed with pain. On one hand he recognized the importance of his task, on the other he could foresee how unfavorably it might be received. In 384 Jerome finished his revision of the Four Gospels. Dedicating his preface to Dama- sus, he writes:

You urge me to revise the Old Latin version. . . . The labor is one of love, but at the same time both perilous and presump- tuous. . . . Is there a man, learned or unlearned, who will not, when he takes the volume in his hands, and perceives that what he reads does not suit his settled tastes, break out immediately into violent language and call me a forger and a profane person for having had the audacity to add anything to the ancient books, or to make any changes or corrections therein.6

We are not sure whether Jerome revised the rest of the New Testament.7 At any rate, his stay in Rome was cut short. Dama- sus died in 384, which left Jerome without the prestige he once enjoyed. Besides, many Roman Christians were opposed to the ascetic ideal that Jerome defended. So much resistance had built up against him, he was forced to leave Rome.

In the company of his friends, Jerome journeyed to the Holy Land and took up residence in Bethlehem. Here he was able to continue his work on the Latin Bible and complete the Old Testament.

How was his work on the New Testament received? Shortly after he finished his revision of the Gospels, he had to defend himself. He did not suppose that “any of the Lord’s words [were] . . . in need of correction” or that any of them were less than “divinely inspired.” His only purpose was to restore the Latin manuscripts to conform to the original Greek. Of his

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 71 3/18/03, 7:52:55 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 72 )

How We Got the Bible

detractors he said, with characteristic sarcasm, “If they dis- like water drawn from the clear spring, let them drink of the muddy streamlet.”8

Following his work on the Old Testament, he spent his last years writing Biblical commentaries, pamphlets, and letters. Always he was in the center of controversy, as a churchman intent on devouring heretics, as a monk arguing for and over- stating the Scriptures on marriage and virginity, or as a scholar contending ardently for his views. In all he was a man of great strengths and of great weaknesses.

But Jerome is remembered today for his labor on the Latin Vulgate. It was to remain his crowning achievement.

2. After Jerome. Thus far we have referred several times to the Latin Vulgate. The Latin term vulgata means “common” or “commonly accepted.” In Jerome’s time vulgata applied either to the Old Latin Version or to the Septuagint (the Greek transla- tion of the Old Testament)—both were “commonly accepted.” In other words, until Jerome’s revision successfully displaced the Old Latin, it would not be known as the Vulgate.

It was not until 1546 at the Council of Trent that Jerome’s version officially received the title “Vulgate.” But it had been generally received long before this. The process began slowly, but by the sixth and seventh centuries Jerome’s version had mostly won the victory over the Old Latin.

Of course, as time passed and the number of copies increased, Jerome’s Vulgate itself went through various revisions. One of these revisions is of particular interest. In the thirteenth cen- tury in Paris, the need arose for a Bible that could be more easily used. Probably at this time Stephen Langton, a leading theologian at the University of Paris, arranged the Vulgate into the modern chapter divisions still in use today.

Value of the Latin Versions

As we conclude, we should state in summary form the value of these translations.

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 72 3/18/03, 7:52:55 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 73 )

Ancient Versions: The New Testament

1. The Old Latin was the first to be made in the Latin tongue, important for Latin-speaking Christians and important wher- ever they carried the gospel. As for its kind of text, the Old Latin is typically “Western.”

2. The Vulgate now numbers 10,000 or more manuscripts. It has been copied more than any other book in the Christian era. Historically speaking, it ranks next to the Septuagint as the most important translation ever made.

3. The Vulgate New Testament was not based on the Greek. It was Jerome’s assignment to revise the existing Old Latin, but thankfully he did check the Greek manuscripts. We do not know what these manuscripts were, but in the Gospels, for example, he seems to rely mainly on a text similar to that of the Vatican and Sinaitic Manuscripts.

4. The Vulgate reigned as the Bible of Western Europe for a thousand years. When at the end of the Middle Ages demand for the knowledge of Scripture increased dramatically, it was the Vulgate that was first translated into the languages of the people.

5. The Vulgate was the first book of importance to be printed. About 1450 Johann Gutenberg of Mainz, Germany, perfected the use of movable type. In 1456 the “Gutenberg Bible” was issued. It was a beautiful Latin Bible, whose appearance marked a new epoch.

6. The Vulgate for English-speaking people remains of spe- cial interest. Many words used in English translations are due to the Latin Vulgate. A short list of such terms includes “congregation,” “consecration,” “conversion,” “exhortation,” “justification,” “ministry,” “sanctification,” “testament,” even “Olivet” and “Calvary.”

7. Eventually the Vulgate was made the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church, and so it remains today. The result is that the Roman Catholic Bible in English is a translation of a translation and is not a translation from the original languages.

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 73 3/18/03, 7:52:56 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 74 )

How We Got the Bible

Summary

In addition to the Greek manuscripts, much information is available to us from the ancient translations. Three of these are especially important: the Syriac, the Latin, and the Coptic. The Coptic versions, in particular the Sahidic and Bohairic, exhibit a good quality type of text that was current in Egypt early in the Christian era. Tatian’s harmony of the Gospels, known as the Diatessaron, may be the earliest form of the text in Syriac, but no manuscript of it has survived. Otherwise, the main Syriac versions are the Old Syriac and the Peshitta, the latter being represented in more manuscripts while the former is the more important as a witness to the text. It was Jerome who gave us the Latin Vulgate, which has had an incalculable influence on Western civilization. In the West the Latin Vulgate was the standard Bible for a thousand years.

For Discussion

1. Why is the evidence of the ancient versions important? Is their witness to the New Testament primary or second- ary? Why?

2. In connection with the Syriac versions, identify the fol- lowing: (1) Diatessaron, (2) Agnes Smith Lewis, and (3) Peshitta.

3. What are the Coptic versions? What bearing do they have on the New Testament text?

4. What are some of the highlights of Jerome’s life? What was his commission from Damasus?

5. Why is Jerome’s translation called “the Latin Vulgate”? Why should we learn about it? What is the Vulgate’s sig- nificance for English-speaking people?

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 74 3/18/03, 7:52:56 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 75 )

Manuscripts of Special Interest

T he previous chapter surveyed the earliest and most important versions of the New Testament: the Syriac, the Coptic, and the Latin. Of these, the Latin versions, and especially Jerome’s Vulgate, have had a pervasive

influence on all of Western civilization. In the East the Scrip- tures circulated in Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, and other languages; in the West they were copied in Latin alone. During the Middle Ages most books were written in Latin. Latin was the language of communication among nations. Latin was the language of monasteries, the centers of learning for much of Europe. Latin was the language of the educated man, whether he lived in Italy, France, Spain, or England. This explains why so many copies of the Vulgate exist today and also why so many of the vernacular translations owe their origins to the Latin.

This chapter directs attention to several manuscripts that are of unique interest. Here, as throughout our study, we have to be selective. Some of these manuscripts may not be familiar to many people, but they are illustrious and must be included in any catalog of great manuscripts.

Aids to Readers

In order to appreciate these wonderful manuscripts, we will need to learn more about some of the special features typically found in medieval manuscripts.

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 75 3/18/03, 7:52:56 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 76 )

How We Got the Bible

A reader of a medieval manuscript could avail himself of many kinds of helps. A New Testament manuscript would include traditional titles for each book and often notes at the end of the book. These endnotes usually state where a book was written or by whom it was written or sent. The King James Ver- sion includes these notes at the end of each of Paul’s letters. It should be emphasized, however, that these are only traditional notes and often cannot be relied upon.

Likewise, each book of the New Testament was divided into chapters but not verses. Yet the chapters were entirely different from those in our modern Bibles. The system found in most of the manuscripts had many chapters: sixty-eight in Matthew, forty-eight in Mark, eighty-three in Luke, and so on. Each chap- ter was given a title, such as “About the Blind Man.” A list of the chapters was drawn up and placed before the book.

Other material often included introductions to the various books, accounts of the lives of the Four Evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), of the life of Paul, and so forth. Notes or comments on the meaning of the text are in the margins, just as we might write notes in our Bibles today. In the past extensive commentaries by churchmen were handed down; these commentaries fill the margins and surround the text in many manuscripts.

Of special interest are the “Eusebian Canons.” Eusebius, known as “the Father of Church History,” who lived in Palestine in the fourth century, was somehow responsible for a system of locating parallel passages in the Gospels. In addition to the pre- viously mentioned chapter divisions, the Gospels were further divided into smaller sections. These sections were numbered, and the number for each section was written in the margin. All the sections were listed to show which section was parallel to which in Ten Tables, or Ten Canons, which were placed before the Book of Matthew.

The Eusebian Canons represented an ingenious tool by which similar material in the Gospels could be consulted and studied. They became nearly indispensable for a Gospels manu- script, and in the Middle Ages they were a beautiful, decorative feature of manuscripts.

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 76 3/18/03, 7:52:57 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 77 )

Manuscripts of Special Interest

Illuminated Manuscripts

The subject of beautifully adorned canons leads to that of illuminated manuscripts.1 “Illumination” is a term applied to the decoration of books or manuscripts with colors or gold or silver. “Miniature” is the word for a picture in an illuminated manuscript. Derived from a term meaning “red paint” (Latin, minium), “miniature” did not come to its current meaning until modern times.

The earliest Biblical texts are plain in appearance. Gradually, however, touches of decoration were added to the manuscripts, at first to mark the separation of the several books that were copied in one volume. Then came the addition of color for headings and large initials embellished with nearly every form of bird, animal, fish, monster, human being, and angel.

Portraits of the Evangelists are the chief decoration found in many manuscripts. Each portrait covers a full page and may be found at the beginning of each Gospel or joined all together at the beginning of the codex. The Evangelists are usually pictured as seated, copying their Gospels, with writing instruments on a table close at hand. In Greek manuscripts the Apostles Mat- thew and John are represented as old men with gray hair and beards, while Mark and Luke are rendered as younger.

In Latin manuscripts, however, there are marked differences. The Evangelists may be represented as old or young, with or without beards. But one feature in Latin manuscripts stands out especially: the symbols of the Evangelists. The symbols are characteristic of Latin art, for no Greek manuscript employs them unless it is extremely late.

From early times Christians had associated the Four Evange- lists with the “four living creatures” of Ezekiel and Revelation (Ezek. 1:5–10; Rev. 4:6–7). Ezekiel describes the four living creatures as having the form of men, each with four faces and each with four wings. The four faces are those of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle. For some unknown reason, the forms of these faces, in the order presented by Ezekiel, came to stand for the Four Evangelists: a man for Matthew, a lion for Mark,

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 77 3/18/03, 7:52:57 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 78 )

How We Got the Bible

an ox or calf for Luke, and an eagle for John, each represented with wings.2

Special Manuscripts

Sumptuous, deluxe editions of the Scriptures were pro- duced. These were inscribed in gold or silver on vellum dyed a brilliant purple, the special color of the imperial rank. Roman emperors possessed such splendid manuscripts of classical texts. In Constantinople—“new Rome,” as it was called—the art of writing on purple leaves continued and from there extended to other areas. A number of these sumptuous manuscripts have survived, at least in part.

Extraordinarily beautiful copies of other manuscripts have likewise survived. Three of these are Latin manuscripts of par- ticular interest. One is the most valuable witness on the text of the Vulgate. The other two are grand, indeed, often described as the most beautiful books in the world. It so happens that all three originated in the British Isles.

In the last years of the sixth century, Augustine and his fellow monks came to southeast England as missionaries, using the visual aids of a silver cross and a painting of Christ on a wooden board. Within a few years the mission was well established in Can- terbury and had received from Rome a number of books. Some of the books presumably included illuminated manuscripts, whose pictures could be used by missionaries in their evangelism.

In addition to those received in Canterbury, large numbers of books came to northern England. This brings us to the story of the famous Codex Amiatinus. It is the earliest complete Vulgate copy of the Bible known, and it is also the best manuscript of the Vulgate.

Benedict Biscop, who by about 680 had founded twin mon- asteries at Wearmouth and Jarrow in northeast England, made frequent trips to Italy. On these journeys he brought back books of all kinds, which he deposited in the monasteries. These, along with other additions, provided a rich supply from which the monks could copy their own books.

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 78 3/18/03, 7:52:58 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 79 )

Manuscripts of Special Interest

Amiatinus was copied at Wearmouth/Jarrow. It was one of three large Latin Bibles made under the direction of Ceolfrid, a monk who had succeeded Benedict at his death. Of the three Bibles, Amiatinus is the only one that has survived.

Ceolfrid had intended it to be a gift for the pope, sent, as reads the note inside, “from the farthest ends of England.” In 715 Ceolfrid and his companions set out on their journey to carry the manuscript to Rome, but Ceolfrid died on the way. Whether the Bible reached Rome is not known; but what is known is that for centuries it belonged to the monastery of Monte Amiata, thus the name Codex Amiatinus.

Amiatinus is a huge volume and weighs about seventy-five pounds. It has 1,040 leaves, accurately copied in a beautiful hand. Today it is located in the grand Laurentian Library at Florence.

The two other manuscripts to be considered here are the Lindisfarne Gospels and the Book of Kells. Incomparable in their colors and designs, they are truly masterpieces of art in manuscript.

More than 150 years before Augustine’s arrival in England, Patrick and others brought the message of Christ to Ireland. There the monks were able to master the craft of ornamental design in manuscripts. From Ireland the art of manuscript illumination was exported to the island of Iona, off the west coast of Scotland. As an offshoot of Iona, a monastery was established at Lindisfarne, a small island near the coast of northeast England. Here the Lindisfarne Gospels were writ- ten, as a later note in the manuscript says, “for God and St. Cuthbert.”3

Cuthbert had joined the community of Lindisfarne and gained in his lifetime a reputation for saintliness. In 698, eleven years after his death, his bones were dug up and rev- erently buried. It is almost certain that during this time the beautiful Lindisfarne Gospels was copied, illuminated, and put on display.

The adversities of this manuscript illustrate the chance sur- vival of many manuscripts. In 793 Lindisfarne was sacked by Viking pirates. After successive raids on other monasteries, in

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 79 3/18/03, 7:52:58 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 80 )

How We Got the Bible

875 the remnant of monks fled Lindisfarne, taking with them Cuthbert’s body and their Gospels manuscript. During an attempt to cross over to Ireland, a storm arose and swept the manuscript overboard. Shortly afterward the monks, walking along the shore, joyfully found their manuscript unharmed. Subsequently, Sir Robert Cotton acquired the manuscript for his superb book collection, which eventually passed on to the British Museum.

Examination of the Lindisfarne Gospels reveals its extraordi- nary worth. Its main text is a good quality copy of the Latin Vul- gate. Its subordinate text, made two and a half centuries later, is an Anglo-Saxon translation made word-for-word between the lines of the Latin. The translation is of special interest to English-speaking people because it represents the oldest extant version of the Four Gospels in any form of English.

The illuminations in the Lindisfarne Gospels are a marvel. They include fifteen full-page decorations, sixteen pages of arcades for the Eusebian Canons (see page 81), and numer- ous decorated initials throughout the codex. But what is striking about the illuminations is their endless details— multiple geometric patterns, spiral and trumpet forms, bird and animal shapes and more—all executed in a variety of colors.

Two illustrations may be chosen to demonstrate the wonder of the manuscript. In one of these the Evangelist Matthew appears with a halo and his book in hand (see page 82). Above him is his symbol, blowing a trumpet. To the right is a haloed figure with a book, partially visible behind a curtain. This may represent Christ (cf. Heb. 6:19–20), perhaps indicating the ultimate source of Matthew’s Gospel.

Another illustration is of the large initial page that begins Luke’s Gospel (see page 83). On the left is a Q, the first letter of the Latin text, filled in with an amazing combination of patterns. On the right is a catlike figure, stretched out to form a border. The illuminator used red dots for backgrounds and designs. On this one sheet more than ten thousand red dots have been counted!

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 80 3/18/03, 7:52:59 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 81 )

Manuscripts of Special Interest

C o

u rt

es y o

f th

e B

ri ti

sh L

ib ra

ry , L

o n

d o

n , E

n g la

n d

The Lindisfarne Gospels, the last page of arcades for the Eusebian Canons.

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 81 3/18/03, 1:45:07 PM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 82 )

How We Got the Bible

The Lindisfarne Gospels, full-page representation of Matthew.

C o

u rt

es y o

f th

e B

ri ti

sh L

ib ra

ry , L

o n

d o

n , E

n g la

n d

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 82 3/18/03, 7:53:06 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 83 )

Manuscripts of Special Interest

The Lindisfarne Gospels, initial page of the Gospel of Luke.

C o

u rt

es y o

f th

e B

ri ti

sh L

ib ra

ry , L

o n

d o

n , E

n g la

n d

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 83 3/18/03, 7:53:14 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 84 )

How We Got the Bible

One other manuscript must be mentioned—the famous Book of Kells. In the world of books, many scholars rank it as the greatest wonder of the world.

Both the date and place of origin of this celebrated manu- script remain uncertain. Its date is probably about A.D. 800 or earlier. As for its origin, the best guess is that it was produced in Iona by Irish monks who escaped to Ireland in 806 after Viking raids had killed most of them. The survivors settled at Kells, near Dublin, bringing with them their precious manuscript.

It is generally acknowledged that in variety and complexity of design, the Book of Kells towers above all manuscripts of its class. A traveler to Ireland tells of a wonderful manuscript which he saw about the year of 1185.

This book contains the harmony of the four Evangelists accord- ing to Jerome. . . . Fine craftsmanship is all about you, but you might not notice it. Look more keenly at it, and you will pen- e trate to the very shrine of art. You will make out intricacies, so delicate and subtle, so exact and compact, so full of knots and links, with colours so fresh and vivid, that you might say that all of this was the work of an angel, and not of a man.4

This may indeed be a description of the Book of Kells. Kells was known to be the home of the manuscript from the eleventh or twelfth century and perhaps much earlier.

Today the Book of Kells is proudly exhibited in the library of Trinity College, Dublin, where it has been since the seven- teenth century. It is a large manuscript of the Four Gospels, written in a beautiful Latin script. The manuscript contains 680 pages and is now bound in four volumes. Trinity College displays two volumes at a time, the volumes and pages being changed regularly.

Although its text is important, what astonishes visitors as they crowd around the famous manuscript is the lavish deco- ration of the text. Full-page illuminations abound. A full page is devoted to each of the Four Evangelists, to each of their symbols, to Christ and scenes of his life, to the beginning of each Gospel, and so forth.

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 84 3/19/03, 11:11:21 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 85 )

Manuscripts of Special Interest

Every page of the manuscript is decorated, except two. Ini- tial letters are ornamented in a vast assortment of colors and shapes. Men, dragons, lions, cats, or birds may fill the shape of an initial or be seen walking between the lines of the text. The variety of the patterns is immense, made by use of com- passes. Indeed, the whole work is so complex that it must have been executed by a master group of scribes and artists. One can scarcely imagine the patient labor and excellent eyesight required for such an accomplishment.

What conclusions can be reached about such dazzling deco- rations of manuscripts? First, they supplied the reader with visual helps for a large manuscript that did not have modern chapter and verse divisions. Second, they offered the reader graphic illustrations of the text and the gospel in pictures to the person who was unable to read. Third, by magnificent adornment of the text, they bestowed honor on the revealed Word of God.5

In spite of our interest in the artistic appearance of these manuscripts, the most important thing about them is their beautifully written text of Scripture. Of course, Codex Amia- tinus, the Lindisfarne Gospels, and the Book of Kells are only samples of what was being produced in the early medieval period. Extend these kinds of works through the centuries, to the East and to the West, and one can begin to envision the great number of manuscripts made in many languages during the thousand years of the Middle Ages. Even though a host of these manuscripts are irrecoverably lost, we are fortunate that thousands remain.

Summary

Long before the use of modern chapters and verses, medieval manuscripts included many helps for readers. Divisions of the text into small units, traditional titles for each book, endnotes, the Eusebian Canons, comments on the text—such material is typically found in manuscripts of the Middle Ages. An “illu- minated” manuscript refers to a manuscript lit up with color

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 85 3/19/03, 11:11:59 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 86 )

How We Got the Bible

decorations. Portraits of the Four Evangelists frequently adorn the pages of medieval manuscripts. The Latin manuscripts in particular often include the Four Evangelists with their sym- bols. Codex Amiatinus, the Lindisfarne Gospels, and the Book of Kells are examples of magnificent manuscripts that have survived. Amiatinus is a complete Latin Bible with an excellent text of the Vulgate. The Lindisfarne Gospels and the Book of Kells are wonderful manuscripts that may well deserve to be known as the most beautiful books in the world.

For Discussion

1. What aids were available for the reader of a medieval manuscript? What advantages did they offer? What were some of their disadvantages?

2. What is an “illuminated” manuscript? What is a “min- iature”? Describe the miniatures of the Four Evangelists and their symbols.

3. What is the origin of Codex Amiatinus? Why is it impor- tant to learn about this manuscript?

4. Why is the Lindisfarne Gospels so named? Where is it located today? Beyond its artistic beauty, why should it be especially interesting for English-speaking people?

5. Why is the Book of Kells so named? Where is it located today? Why do you think it continues to attract many visitors?

6. Jerome was one among many who condemned the mak- ing of luxuriant manuscripts. Would you agree or disagree with Jerome? Why?

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 86 3/18/03, 7:53:20 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 87 )

The Text of the New Testament

W e have learned that the original autographs of the New Testament are no longer in existence. We may wonder why the Supreme Governor of the world would allow this to happen. We may be tempted

to ask why God did not in some way collect all of the original books of the inspired writers and store them up through the years for safekeeping. Final answers to these questions cannot be given by humans. Nevertheless, we can see that if the writ- ten record was to be spread, some copies had to be made from the originals. We also can see that as more and more copies were made, it was but natural for new copies to replace the timeworn originals.

Yet problems arise and persist in the making of books. In modern books it is not unusual to see glaring mistakes. Some of the greatest mistakes in the history of the Bible have occurred since the invention of printing. More than four hun- dred errors in the first edition of the King James Bible were corrected in a subsequent edition two years later.1 In our own time, despite all concentrated efforts to the contrary, trans- lations such as the Revised Standard Version and the New International Version have not been exempt from the plague of misprints.

If in modern times errors somehow appear in printed cop- ies of the Bible, it is not difficult to see how mistakes slipped

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 87 3/18/03, 7:53:20 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 88 )

How We Got the Bible

unnoticed into the New Testament manuscripts long ago. All ancient books had to be produced by hand, and no human hand is so exact or eye so sharp as to preclude the possibility of error. So errors were made, errors were copied, and errors were mixed in with the pure text.

Textual Criticism

The presence of these errors in the text of the Bible has given rise to a highly advanced science known as textual criticism. This science is also referred to as lower criticism, in contrast to higher criticism. While higher criticism devotes itself to such things as the study of authorship, date of composition, and historical value of a given Biblical document, lower criticism is concerned only with the form of words—the text.

The function of the textual critic is plain. He seeks by com- parison and study of the available evidence to recover the exact words of the author’s original composition. The New Testament text critic seeks, in short, to weed out the chaff of bad readings from the genuine Greek text. He realizes that his task is as important as the message which is borne in the text. He also realizes that if the Greek text is faulty, all translations from the Greek will likewise be at fault.

Mistakes of Copyists

It is possible to look back over existing manuscripts and classify the types of mistakes made by the ancient scribe. Manuscript faults come about in two ways. Either the altera- tions made by the scribe are unintentional slips or else the alterations are made deliberately.

1. Unintentional errors. Mistakes of the hand, eye, and ear are of frequent occurrence in manuscripts but usually pose no problem because they are so easy to pick out. Often a scribe with a copy before him mistakes one word for another and so by chance writes down the wrong word. Sometimes a scribe

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 88 3/18/03, 7:53:21 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 89 )

The Text of the New Testament

confuses words of similar sound, as in English we often inter- change “affect” and “effect.”

A few New Testament passages may serve as illustrations. In Romans 5:1, is it “let us have peace with God” or “we have peace with God”? The difference is simply whether the o in Greek is long or short (echommen or echomen). In 1 Thessalonians 2: 7, is it “we were babes among you” or “we were gentle among you”? The difference is one letter (nepioi or epioi). In 1 John 1: 4, is it “that your joy may be full” or “that our joy may be full”? The difference between “your” (hymomn) and “our” (he mmomn) is one letter and the two words sound alike. In Revelation 1:5, is it “washed us from our sins” or “freed us from our sins”? The difference is one letter and the words sound the same (lousanti or lusanti). It is not difficult to see how these scribal mistakes could take place. Generally, if they are important enough, our recent translations will footnote such differences to ensure the reader is well informed.

Errors of omission and addition are common in all the manuscripts. Words sometimes are omitted by a copyist for no apparent reason, simply an unintentional omission. More often, however, omissions are due to the similar appearance of words at a corresponding point several lines above or below in the manuscript. The scribe’s eye might skip, for example, from the end of line 6 to a similar word at the end of line 10. A scribe might add to his copy in the same way. He may inad- vertently transcribe a word twice in succession, or repeat a letter twice, or write a letter once when it should be written twice. Not a few times the scribe may misunderstand the pas- sage due to improper division of the words, especially if the scribe is unskilled in the language. When this happens, we can sympathize with the scribe, remembering that during most of the uncial period the style of writing was to crowd the letters together in such a way as to leave the words without interven- ing spaces between them. But in all matters of this kind, the textual critic, by comparison of the many manuscripts, can detect and explain these errors without hesitation.

Another form of error, more difficult to solve, grows out of the practice of writing explanatory notes in the margin. These

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 89 3/18/03, 7:53:21 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 90 )

How We Got the Bible

marginal notes are somehow incorporated in the main body of material and thus become a part of the text. But it should be stressed that the New Testament manuscripts rarely exhibit this kind of error, and that when it does occur, our many textual witnesses keep us on the right course.

2. Intentional errors. Unintentional alterations in the manu- scripts are many, but the vast majority of them are of little consequence. What presents a more serious problem to the textual critic are the variant readings that have been purpose- fully inserted by the scribe. We ought not think these insertions were made by dishonest scribes who simply wanted to tamper with the text. Almost always the intention of the scribe is good and he wants only to “correct” what appears to be an error in the text. So if a word seems improperly spelled, or a Greek verb does not have the proper ending, or a form does not correspond with the classical idiom, then the scribe feels it is his duty to improve the text he is copying.

Again, citing one or two examples may illustrate the point. In John 7:39 the text literally reads, “for not yet was the Spirit.” Because this could be taken to mean that the Spirit was not in existence at that time, some manuscripts and versions add the word “given” for the phrase to read, “the Spirit was not yet given.” To further clarify, a large number of manuscripts supply “holy,” that is, “Holy Spirit.” In a similar way, the word “church” (ekklesia) is added in Acts 2:47 in the later manuscripts to clarify a rather obscure Greek expression (epi to auto). In these cases the scribes, with all good intentions, mistakenly thought that their additions were necessary in order to bring about a better understanding of the text.

A scribe especially might try to remove any difficulty in the texts of the Gospels. If he found a statement of Jesus in one Gospel similar to a statement in another, he might modify one to make it in perfect agreement with the other. This may explain a variant found in two verses of Matthew and Luke. The King James Version of Matthew 11:19 reads, “But wisdom is justified of her children,” an exact parallel of Luke 7:25. However, the more recent translations of Matthew have “works” instead of “children” in agreement with our earliest manuscript authori-

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 90 3/18/03, 7:53:22 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 91 )

The Text of the New Testament

ties. We surmise that at some early date “works” was changed to “children” by a copyist to bring the phrase in harmony with Luke’s Gospel. Thus we are practically certain that originally the two records of Jesus’ sayings were not the same. This, to be sure, is what one frequently finds in the Gospels, for in quoting Jesus, the Gospel writers often do not give his words verbatim.

Basic Rules of Textual Criticism

The above textual variation (“children” or “works”) can be explained in other ways as well. Over a period of several cen- turies, textual criticism has formulated a number of funda- mental rules, called “canons of criticism,” which have proved to be inestimably valuable in deciding between variations in manuscripts. These rules are not hard and fast but only serve as general principles to guide and stabilize the textual critic.

With the above problem in mind, it is interesting to see what happens when some of the leading principles of textual criticism are followed. One basic rule is that the more difficult reading is to be preferred. At face value, without further expla- nation, this rule may be misleading. Obviously, some scribal errors of omission or addition scramble up the text to the extent of nonsense. When this is the case, if the more difficult read- ing is to be preferred, the text would be meaningless. Ruling out blunders of this kind, practically always the more difficult reading will prove to be the better reading. This is true because it was a natural tendency for the scribe to simplify the text that he was copying.

Keeping this principle in mind, which reading is to be pre- ferred in Matthew 11:19—“children” or “works”? Which of the two is the more difficult reading? Undoubtedly the more difficult reading is “works,” which leaves a difference of one word between Matthew and Luke.

Solving this question of one word in Matthew also serves to illustrate other important textual principles. In any given prob- lem the quality of witnesses to the text is much more important

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 91 3/18/03, 7:53:22 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 92 )

How We Got the Bible

than the quantity. Or, as it is often put, textual authorities must be weighed rather than counted. Thousands of manuscripts and versions may support a certain reading; but if they are of late date and stand opposed to the early uncials, their witness should be rejected. In the case of Matthew 11:19, what is the evidence from the manuscripts and versions? And where shall we go to find such information?

We shall attempt to answer the latter question briefly and then proceed to our original inquiry. If you are reading Mat- thew 11:19 in the Revised Standard Version, you will see a footnote that reads, “Many ancient authorities read children: as in Luke 7:35.” (The New Revised Standard Version has the same note but omits the reference in Luke.) This note is suf- ficient for most people; but if you are interested in reading exactly how the ancient authorities read, you will need to go to a recent edition of the Greek New Testament. Here you will find at the bottom of the page a series of abbreviations, gener- ally referred to as an “apparatus,” which indicates the textual authorities for and against “works” in Matthew 11:19.2

What is the textual evidence on “children” and “works”? In favor of “children” are the Ephraem Manuscript and Codex Bezae (both from the fifth century) and almost all of the other later manuscripts as well as the Old Syriac and the Latin ver- sions. Against “children” and in support of “works” are the Vatican and Sinaitic Manuscripts (both from the fourth cen- tury) and a few other witnesses. This means there are literally thousands of copies of manuscripts and versions that read “children” and only a handful that read “works.” Nevertheless, the quality is in support of “works,” as found in the Vatican and Sinaitic Manuscripts. Because of the agreement of these two early uncials, along with other factors, all of the recent transla- tions read “works” in Matthew 11:19. Very often, as here, if the Vatican and Sinaitic Manuscripts support a particular reading, this is sufficient authority for the reading. This well illustrates the unchallenged supremacy that these two uncials sustain as witnesses on the New Testament text.

Still another important rule enters in here. In parallel texts, as we find in the Gospels, different readings are usually pre-

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 92 3/18/03, 7:53:23 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 93 )

The Text of the New Testament

ferred. All of the Gospels present but one view of Jesus, that he is the Son of God. Yet in presenting this view their individual descriptions of him and his sayings often employ different words. Through the years, these verbal distinctions, either intentionally or unintentionally, tended to be “harmonized” by the scribes. Thus it is a sound conclusion that in parallel accounts the text which preserves minute verbal differences is generally the better text. In our example of Matthew 11:19, the earliest manuscripts retain a verbal distinction between the two accounts. This is an added reason for believing that “works” is the preferable reading.

Of course, textual criticism has many other rules, some of which are much more technical in character. Hopefully these few examples provide something of an insight into the mind of the textual critic. What an unexperienced person might consider a maze of bewildering information on a given text, a trained specialist will regard as a wealth of material in which has been preserved the original reading.3

Summary

The New Testament books have been handed down to us by means of thousands of copies. Although God inspired the New Testament writers, he did not miraculously guide the hands of the copyists. Textual criticism seeks to counteract inevitable scribal errors and recover the true form of the text. Many mistakes in the manuscripts crept into the text unintention- ally and are not difficult to detect. Other textual modifications were made intentionally, usually by well-meaning scribes, and these do not stand out so clearly. Yet even in these cases a tex- tual critic is equipped with a multitude of aids to overcome the problem. In a case like Matthew 11:19, “works” is a better reading than “children” because (1) the quality of witnesses is more important than the quantity, (2) the more difficult reading is to be preferred, and (3) the different reading in parallel passages is usually the more reliable one. These are a few illustrations of the many sound principles upon which

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 93 3/18/03, 7:53:23 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 94 )

How We Got the Bible

textual criticism is based. Because textual criticism is a sound science, our text is secure and the textual foundation of our faith remains unshakable.

For Discussion

1. What is the task of textual criticism? Is it to be identi- fied with lower or higher criticism?

2. What are some ways in which unintentional mistakes may be made in manuscripts? What are some examples of intentional variations? Of the two groups, which presents the more difficult problem for the textual critic?

3. What are some of the basic rules of textual criticism? 4. How is it possible that the authority of a few manuscripts

can outweigh the testimony of many witnesses? What could be the result if this rule were not followed?

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 94 3/18/03, 7:53:24 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 95 )

Significance of Textual Variations

I t is a fact that the New Testament text has been trans- mitted to us through the hands of copyists. It is also a fact that, since these hands were human, they were susceptible to the slips and faults of all human hands.

It is not true, therefore, that God has guided the many differ- ent scribes in their tasks of copying the Sacred Scriptures. The Scriptures, although divine, have been handed down through the centuries by means of copies, just like any other ancient book. A failure to recognize this would mean that God would have to perform a miracle every time a scribe picked up pen and ink. And this assumption is almost inconceivable!

Number of Variations

Suppose someone were to say there are 200,000 errors in the New Testament text. What would be our response? And if 200,000 errors are in the text, how can we be sure that we have the original New Testament message?

From one point of view it may be said there are 200,000 scribal errors in the manuscripts. Indeed, the number may well considerably exceed this and obviously will grow as more and more manuscripts become known.1 But it is wholly mis- leading and untrue to say that there are 200,000 errors in

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 95 3/18/03, 7:53:24 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 96 )

How We Got the Bible

the text of the New Testament. (Actually, the word “error” is consciously avoided by textual critics; they prefer to speak of “textual variants.”) This large number is gained by counting all the variations in all of the manuscripts (above 5,300). For example, if one slight variant were to occur in 4,000 different manuscripts, this would amount to 4,000 “errors.” But this is how one can arrive at the large number of 200,000 “errors.” A person is either unlearned or of a skeptical mind who tries to take this large number of variations and use it in such a way as to undermine one’s faith in the Word of God.

In this connection one fact especially needs to be empha- sized. This large number of variations exists in exact propor- tion to the number of manuscripts that we possess. There are far more copies of the New Testament than of any other book from the ancient world. Because we have more New Testament manuscripts, we have more variations. Suppose we had only ten manuscripts of the New Testament. In so few manuscripts the total number of variations would be small. But if we had only ten manuscripts, the New Testament text would not stand on as sound a ground as it otherwise does. If the large number of manuscripts increases the total of variations, at the same time it supplies the means of checking them.

Consequences of Variations

What about the significance of these variations? Are these variations immaterial or are they important? What bearing do they have on the New Testament message and on faith? To respond to these questions, it will be helpful to introduce three types of textual variations, classified in relation to their significance for our present New Testament text.

1. Trivial variations which are of no consequence to the text. The great majority of variant readings in the manuscripts have to do with trivial matters, many of them so minute that they cannot be represented in translation.

Perhaps the best way to demonstrate this is to open at ran- dom a page of the Greek text. Let us take the same page that

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 96 3/18/03, 7:53:25 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 97 )

Significance of Textual Variations

was consulted previously in order to learn the evidence pro and con for the reading “works” in Matthew 11:19. On this small page fourteen verses (Matt. 11:10–23) appear. A quick look at the bottom of the page shows that nine variant readings are listed.2 At first glance nine variants out of fourteen verses seem alarming. Yet every other variant on the page, besides “chil- dren” or “works,” is trivial in nature. Several of the variants concern the omission or addition of such words as “for,” “and,” and “the”; others have to do simply with different forms of the same or similar Greek words. In one case the variant concerns the omission or addition of the verb “to hear” (whether to read “the one who has ears” or “the one who has ears to hear”). At no point is there a real problem of the text, except with the alternative of “children” or “works,” which as we have seen is rather easily resolved.

This page of variants is typical of the mistakes found in our copies. Very often words in the Greek copies are spelled slightly differently over a period of years. This becomes especially noticeable with vowels that sound alike, the interchange of e and i, ei and i, ai and e, and so forth. Of course, such adjust- ments are not surprising, especially when we recall how much English words have changed their spelling during the last few centuries. One has only to take in hand a copy of the first edi- tion of the King James Bible of 1611, and one will quickly see what a great change a few centuries have made on the form of English words. These changes have occurred since the print- ing press supposedly standardized the English language. In a similar way the Greek language was undergoing change, and the natural thing for the scribe to do was to alter his copy in keeping with the accepted standards of his day. Variations in grammar and even vocabulary are to be explained on the same basis.

Other examples may be cited. Proper names often pre- sented problems to the scribes. In Acts 18:24, is it “Apollos” or “Apelles” or “Apollonios”?3 In John 1:28, is it “Bethabara beyond the Jordan” or “Bethany beyond the Jordan”? In John 5:2, is the name of the pool “Bethzatha” or “Bethesda” or “Beth- saida”? Likewise, a variation may be no more than a change

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 97 3/18/03, 7:53:25 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 98 )

How We Got the Bible

in the order of words. In Matthew 1:18, is it “the birth of Jesus Christ” or “the birth of Christ Jesus”? (Other manuscripts have “the birth of Jesus,” while others read “the birth of Christ.”) In all of the above cases, the manuscripts read differently; but the variants are so minor that they are scarcely referred to in the footnotes of our translations.

Examples like these can be found numerous times. Yet in all these cases we have an abundance of information that enables us, even in trivial matters, to make a concrete decision as to the likely reading of the original text. And even if we did not have this information, if we were left completely in the dark with reference to such things as spelling, word order, and other comparative minutia, still we would not be in danger of losing the Divine Revelation.

2. Substantial variations which are of no consequence to the text. We do not wish to leave the impression that all textual variants can be lightly dismissed. Some variations involve not only a word or two but a whole verse or even several verses. Certainly variations of this kind are more than trivial. It should be hastily added, however, that these variations of a substantial character do not affect our present text. They do not affect our text today because they are not supported by the most authori- tative textual witnesses.

A few examples will clarify what we mean. Codex Bezae of the fifth century has already been discussed in chapter 5. This manuscript often has peculiar readings, one of which is found after Luke 6:4. Here it transfers verse 5 after verse 10 and inserts the following: “On the same day, seeing one working on the sab- bath day, he said to him, ‘Man, if you know what you are doing, you are blessed; but if you do not know, you are accursed and a transgressor of the law.’” This curious incident is recorded in no other manuscript or version. It is beyond doubt a substan- tial variation, but we are sure that it was not a part of Luke’s original Gospel. It in no way changes our text because modern textual criticism has unhesitatingly rejected it.

A more familiar passage found in our early English transla- tions illustrates the same principle. The story of the adulter- ous woman (John 7:53–8:11) involves a number of verses and

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 98 3/18/03, 7:53:26 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 99 )

Significance of Textual Variations

clearly represents a substantial variation. Almost all recent translations by varying devices mark this account as textually uncertain. The American Standard Version, the Revised Stan- dard Version, the New Revised Standard Version, and the New International Version either separate it from the text or include it in brackets. The New English Bible and the Revised English Bible place it at the close of John’s Gospel. The translations briefly explain to their readers the reasons for their actions.

Why have these later translations looked with suspicion on these verses? The answer is simple: no early manuscript, except one, and practically none of the early versions have the story of the adulterous woman in them. The one early manuscript which contains the story is the very one (Codex Bezae) that is known for its peculiar readings, as we have seen above in the case of Luke 6:5. Otherwise, it is necessary to come down to manuscripts of the eighth century and later before the story is found again. In addition, some of the manuscripts that have it also have notes of doubt in the margin concerning it; others put it at the end of the Gospel of John; and still others insert it in the Gospel of Luke, after Luke 21:38. Certainly, there were grave doubts all along concerning this passage.

But do these past doubts place our text in a questionable atmosphere? Certainly they do not. Just as we accept the read- ing “works” instead of “children” (Matt. 11:19) on the evidence of the early manuscripts, so here on the basis of the early manu- scripts we do not include the adulterous woman story in our text. Where did the story come from? No one knows, but it was probably a tradition handed down from the primitive church. Our early manuscripts do not deny the truthfulness of the story but attest that it was not an original part of John’s Gospel. Nor do the vast majority of scholars question the authenticity of the incident. The statement of the respected F. J. A. Hort may be taken as typical: “the story itself has justly seemed to vouch for its own substantial truth . . .”4

Another passage of interest is found in Acts 8:37. The King James translation of this verse reads, “And Philip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” These words

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 99 3/18/03, 7:53:26 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 100 )

How We Got the Bible

are represented as part of a conversation between Philip the Evangelist and the eunuch at the time of the eunuch’s baptism. These are familiar words, stressing the importance of faith in Jesus Christ. Yet the words are not found in the American Standard Version or the Revised Standard Version. These and other recent translations, on the basis of the evidence, are com- pelled to omit this verse from the Book of Acts. It is true that a sixth-century uncial, some good minuscule manuscripts, and the Old Latin Version support the verse, but practically all the other manuscripts and versions stand opposed to it. Because no Greek manuscript earlier than the sixth century knows of this reading, beyond doubt it could not have formed a part of the original account of Acts.

The case of 1 John 5:7 is less complex. The King James Ver- sion reads, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” An interesting circumstance led to the introduction of this verse in the English Bible. After the invention of printing, the first person to publish an edition of the printed Greek text was a Dutch scholar by the name of Erasmus. His first edition came out in the year 1516. But the first and second editions of Erasmus did not include 1 John 5:7. A mild controversy was stirred up because the verse was indisputably in the late Latin copies. Erasmus insisted that his text was right and was so sure of himself that he rashly promised to include the verse in his text if one single Greek copy could be found in support of it. At length a copy turned up, and Erasmus, true to his word, included the verse in the third edition of his Greek Testament. William Tyndale was the first man to translate the New Testa- ment into English based on a Greek text (instead of Latin); and it was Erasmus’ third edition that he employed in making his translation. So from Tyndale down to the King James Bible, 1 John 5:7 has been a part of English Scripture.

The textual evidence is against 1 John 5:7. Of all the Greek manuscripts, only two contain it. These two manuscripts are of very late dates, one from the fourteenth or fifteenth century and the other from the sixteenth century. Two other manuscripts have the verse written in the margin. All four manuscripts show

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 100 3/18/03, 7:53:26 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 101 )

Significance of Textual Variations

evidence that this verse was apparently translated from a late form of the Latin Vulgate.

These are examples of significant variations, but actually they do not have a bearing on our text today. They do not affect our text simply because there is not enough evidence for them to have an effect. Thus the American Standard Version, which habitually makes explanations when its text varies from the King James, does not so much as note 1 John 5:7 in its margin and instead rearranges the verse structure. First John 5:7, Acts 8:37, and John 7:53–8:11 reflect substantial variations in some manuscripts; but since they are unknown in the early uncials, they cannot cast doubt on our improved text today.

3. Substantial variations that have bearing on the text. It remains now to consider a group of textual readings which at some points raises questions about our text. It would be a simple task to ignore these things. But facts are facts, and our ignorance of them solves no problems.

Of interest to all, and a passage that well illustrates textual variations which affect our text, are the twelve verses at the end of Mark’s Gospel. In practically all recent English translations, these last verses are separated from the main body of the text. Some translations also give an alternative “shorter ending” of Mark. But since this ending is supported by only a few manu- scripts and versions and certainly seems to have been written several centuries after the time of Mark, one wonders why it should be included at all.

The problem of Mark 16 is rather unique. In the cases of 1 John 5:7, Acts 8:37, and John 7:53–8:11, there really is no problem because all the authoritative evidence looks in one direction. But this is not the case with Mark 16—the evidence apparently looks in two directions. The evidence against Mark 16:9–20 mostly rests on the Vatican and Sinaitic Manuscripts. These two uncials of the fourth century are our very best manu- scripts and as textual witnesses are acknowledged as being in a class by themselves. We are thus confronted with the problem that the two manuscripts which we rely upon most do not have these closing verses of Mark. Additional significant evidence is against Mark 16:9–20, including the witness of the earli-

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 101 3/18/03, 7:53:27 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 102 )

How We Got the Bible

est known manuscript of the Old Syriac, the earliest known manuscript of the Latin Vulgate, a large number of Armenian manuscripts, and so forth.5

Other factors are against the acceptance of Mark 16:9–20. Although it is difficult to argue on the basis of vocabulary, nevertheless about twenty terms and expressions do not fit in with Mark’s style of writing. Some of these expressions never occur (1) in the rest of Mark or (2) elsewhere in the Four Gos- pels or (3) anywhere else in the entire New Testament. Further, verses 8 and 9 do not seem to connect well, changing from the subject of the women disciples (v. 8) to Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances (v. 9). And is it not strange that Mary Magdalene is “introduced” to the reader in verse 9 even though she has been present from verse 1?

But in favor of Mark 16:9–20 are a host of witnesses: the Alexandrian Manuscript, the Ephraem Manuscript, Codex Bezae, other early uncials, all late uncials and minuscules, a number of Old Latin authorities plus the Vulgate, one old Syriac manuscript, the Syriac Peshitta version, and many other versions. Besides, there is a plain statement from Irenaeus, an early Christian writer, which clearly shows the existence of Mark 16:9–20 in the second century and the belief that Mark was its author.

In brief, this is the negative and positive data on the question. On one hand is the unparalleled reliability of the Vatican and the Sinaitic Manuscripts; on the other hand is almost all of the other manuscript evidence. J. W. McGarvey wrote a capable defense of Mark 16:9–20 in his Commentary on Matthew and Mark. It was published, however, in 1875, before the great work of Westcott and Hort on the Greek text was completed. Yet McGarvey’s position, with a few minor modifications, can stand with credit today. But the problem persists: What about the negative evidence of the Vatican and Sinaitic Manuscripts? Is it best to say simply that the last leaf of Mark’s Gospel may have been accidentally torn away?

Whatever the correct view, it is important to note that the truthfulness of this passage is not in dispute. The main events of Mark 16:9–20 are recorded elsewhere, so at any rate we

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 102 3/18/03, 7:53:27 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

( 103 )

Significance of Textual Variations

are not in danger of forfeiting heavenly treasure. The variant readings in the manuscripts are not of such a nature that they threaten to overthrow our faith. Except for a few instances, we have an unquestioned text; and even then not one principle of faith or command of the Lord is involved. Further assurances concerning our text will follow.

Summary

A large number of variations do exist in the manuscripts, but this number is ascertained by counting all the variants in all the manuscripts. When this is understood, the large figure of textual differences does not seem frightening. Most variations are made up of minute details, either obvious scribal blunders or slight changes in spelling, grammar, and word order. These are of no consequence to our text. Other variations might have considerable weight on our text, but they are not supported by the early textual authorities. A few variations present problems for our text, but they are not impossible to solve. Even if they were, since the number of them is so few, these should not be stumbling blocks to our faith.

For Discussion

1. How would you explain a large number (200,000) of varia- tions in the New Testament manuscripts? How is this large number derived?

2. What are some examples of trivial variations? 3. Why do recent translations of the Bible not include (1)

the story of the adulterous woman, (2) Acts 8:37, and (3) 1 John 5:7?

4. What is the textual problem of Mark 16? Should the end- ing of Mark be a hindrance to our faith?

Lightfoot_Bible_Ca_BB 103 3/18/03, 7:53:28 AM

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0

1 0 . B

a ke

r B

o o ks

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .