IX. Manuscript Evidence for the Traditional Text
1. The Greek Manuscripts: Their Current Number
The liberal Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Munster, Germany, is the home of the Nestle-Aland Text. It also maintains the international recording list for Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. All manuscripts found anew anywhere in the world are recorded and examined by them. Though they list all manuscripts, their only real interest lies with those that depart to some extent from the Traditional Text and give at least partial support to the Aleph and B base of their text. With well over 90% of manuscripts giving strong and consistent support to the Traditional Text, and with most of the rest, though mixed, still giving it greater overall support, the vast majority of manuscripts numbered below are ignored in the Nestle-Aland Text.
As of August 2009, the Institute gave what they called the “nominal” figures for the total number of known manuscripts. Previously, their figures for February 2008 were for some reason higher. Perhaps a number of manuscripts have since been combined.
| Papyri |
124 |
| Uncials |
280 |
| Minuscules |
2808 |
| Lectionaries |
2343 |
| Total |
5555 |
The One Percent Text
We have already shown that among the above manuscripts of reasonable length, the most that can be claimed in giving a fair amount of partial support to the Aleph-B text would be about 40 manuscripts. That is well under 1% of the total. But, if we were to press further and discover how many among these forty give greater overall support than the Traditional Text when tested against the 8000+ differences, we would find that many and likely most give more support to text underlying the KJV. This would give the modern version text overall support from a great deal under 1% of the 5555 manuscripts.
However, the editors of the modern version text, like the evolutionist, are very adept at making a lot out of this little.
“The Consistently Cited Witnesses”: Making a Lot out of a Little
The Introduction to the Nestle-Aland Greek NT presents three lists of manuscripts. Their first and best list is what they call “The Consistently Cited Witnesses of the First Order”. Each of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament is given its own list of “first order” manuscripts. Therefore, the same manuscript may be “consistently cited” and of the “first order” in one book, but not in another. For example they may cite a manuscript in Matthew but not in Acts. If in Matthew it departs from the Traditional Text (perhaps 10% or more) but it does not depart so much in Acts, then it will not be cited in Acts. Each NT book has its own list! A manuscript is only allowed to speak in those books where it falls more into line with Aleph and B. This is how they get a lot out of a little.
The Nestle-Aland cites more of these “first order” manuscripts for Matthew than any other NT book. Notice the numbers of “first order” manuscripts in the Matthew list:
| Papyri |
(18) |
| Uncials |
42 |
| Minuscules |
19 |
| Lectionaries |
0 |
The 42 uncials and 19 minuscules are selected by the Nestle-Aland editors because they show clear departure from the Traditional text. How much? The Institute seems to have set guidelines for inclusion in this favoured group, if in a given NT book a manuscript shows at least 10% departure in a set of selected test passages. (Barbara Aland, Klaus Wachtel, “The Greek Minuscule Manuscripts of the New Testament”, The Text of the N.T. in Contemporary Research, p.54).
This of course means that a number of these “first order” manuscripts could still show as much as 90% agreement with the Traditional Text. In our Early Manuscripts, Church Fathers, and the Authorized Version most of these same 42 uncials and 19 minuscules are tested against 356 doctrinal passages unique to the Traditional Text.
The Papyri (2nd -6th Centuries)
Unlike the uncials and minuscules where a selection is made from the mass of manuscripts for inclusion among “first order” manuscripts, the Nestle-Aland cites every available papyri for each NT book, regardless of age or the kind of text. Eighteen papyri have portions containing Matthew. Eight of these Egyptian papyri had fewer than 10 verses. Six had 10-20 verses. Three had 21-32 verses. The verses are frequently not connected. Only one papyri of more extensive length contained Matthew, P45. While many of the papyri are too fragmentary to give an adequate picture as to how they would vote on the 356 doctrinal passages, the few instances that they are able, is generally on the side of the Aleph-B text. The more extensive P45 contained 22 of these doctrinal passages and voted 13-9 against the Traditional Text.
All, though, is not lost for the papyri. Harry A. Sturz in his The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism lists 320 Received Text readings that oppose the early Alexandrian manuscripts, that are read by the mass of later manuscripts, and that are supported by the early papyri. Sturz demonstrates papyri support for a total of 839 readings that in varying degrees would be classed as “distinctly Byzantine” (his term for the Traditional Text). As the papyri is available for only 30% of the New Testament, existing evidence allows us to reasonably project that the results would be the same for the rest of the New Testament.
For statistics on the other papyri fragments see Early Manuscripts, Church Fathers, and the Authorised Version.
The Uncials (4th -10th Centuries)
In Early Manuscripts the uncials were also tested against their alignments with Vaticanus as opposed to the Traditional text. Here: Manuscripts A, C, D-05 and D-06 gave greater support to the Traditional Text; while Aleph gave more to Vaticanus. Aleph’s scribal corrections on the other hand favoured the Traditional Text by 473-181. When the 42 “first order” uncials containing Matthew are tested against the 356 doctrinal passages over the entire NT, only 13 were found to give greater support to the Nestle-Aland Text.
This, I think, gives a reasonable picture regarding overall uncial support for their side. It is not likely that they could claim many more than 13 manuscripts from among the 280 uncials. We concluded that the uncials strongly support the AV Text.
The Minuscules (9th -16th Centuries)
With a total of 2808 minuscules, Nestle-Aland’s 19 “first order” minuscules fare badly for their side. Eighteen are combined in two groups that have long been prized by critical editors as showing some departure from the Traditional Text. They are known as Family 1 and Family 13. Tested against the 356 doctrinal passages, the five manuscripts of Family 1 supports the Traditional Text by 100 – 61, and the thirteen of Family 13 by 151 – 21. The one additional manuscript, their “most prized” minuscule is number 33, called the “Queen of the Cursives”. In the Gospels it moves closer to Vaticanus, something entirely unique for a minuscules. In the rest of the NT “it looses its crown” and moves back toward the Traditional Text. The 2808 minuscules therefore give nearly unanimous support to the AV Text.
The Lectionaries (9th -16th Centuries)
Though four are mentioned of the “second order” no lectionary manuscripts of the “first order” are listed in the Nestle-Aland Introduction. The 2343 lectionaries give unanimous support to the AV Text. We will see shortly that in a remarkable way they demonstrate the early age of the Traditional Text.
When these details of the Greek manuscripts are analyzed and digested it can readily be seen that the Nestle-Aland Text of the modern versions is indeed the 1% Text.
2. The Early Versions
The early versions, i.e. where Greek was translated into another language, strongly support the Received Text, both before and after 350 AD. The three primary versions are the Old Latin, Syriac Peshitta, and Egyptian Coptic. The two former were translated about 150 A.D. and the Coptic about 200 AD. As might be expected existing manuscripts of the Coptic lean toward the Alexandrian-shorter text. Yet, in a significant number of places the Coptic is found to agree with the Received Text against Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
The Old Latin
We believe the correct view of the origin of the Old Latin is that missionaries to the Western Roman Empire had translated it in Antioch, Syria. Support for this view is demonstrated by the strong Syrian and Aramaic tendencies in the existing manuscripts. If this is the case then the Old Latin is associated with that city which was not only the missionary center in the Book of Acts, but also the place that history accords as the fountainhead of the Received Text.
The 67 or so existing manuscripts often disagree among themselves and are probably not very good reflections of the original Old Latin text. Those associated with North Africa show some strange additions as well as subtractions. Whereas, the manuscripts connected with Europe are generally favourable to the Received text. The African strain of the old Latin is has been termed "the Western text type." One thing is certain; the Old Latin whether European or African does not give much support to the Alexandrian-modern version text!
It is the branch of the Old Latin used in northern Italy that attracts our interest most, and establishes one of the crucial chapters in Bible transmission history. This version, known as the Itala, is associated with the Christians of the Vaudois - the valleys of northern Italy and southern France. These noble believers withstood every attempt of Rome to “bring them into the fold.” From the days of Pope Sylvester (early 300's) unto the massacres of 1655, they were slaughtered, their name slandered, and their records destroyed; yet they remained true to the Scriptures. They are known by a number of names, but chiefly as the Waldensians. Research into the text and history of the Waldensian Bible has shown that it is a lineal descendant of the Old Latin Itala. In other words, the Itala has come down to us in the Waldensian form, and is firmly in the Received Text tradition. The same can be said of other Bibles belonging to those groups who remained separate from Rome. Thus, in the Received Text we have the convergence of the Greek-speaking East and the non Catholic Latin-speaking West.
The Syriac Peshitta
Coming now to the third primary version, the Syriac Peshitta, we have a clear case of textual history being rewritten. From the days of Westcott and Hort and the establishing of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as the basis of the new Bibles, every attempt has been made to discredit all pre 350 AD evidence for the Traditional Text. This is nowhere more apparent than with the famous Syriac Peshitta.
The importance of this version and the church it came from cannot be overstated. The virtual center of First Century Christianity was Antioch in Syria. “The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch” (Acts 11:20). Paul's great church planting ministries had their base in Antioch. Syrian Christianity had a close proximity and linkage with many of the churches that had received the inspired New Testament letters. The Syrian church had direct contact with the Apostles and writers of the Scriptures, therefore, the Syrian version may have been written with direct access to the original autographs. Indeed, Bishop Ellicott in 1870 wrote, “It is no stretch of imagination to suppose that portions of the Peshitta might have been in the hands of St. John.”
During the years following 1870 the good bishop must have bit his tongue for so openly stating this commonly held view concerning the Peshitta’s near apostolic age. For in the movement to bring out a revised Bible, in which he himself played a leading role, the Peshitta posed a major stumbling block. Its manuscripts (numbering about 300) are in line with the Received Text! Thus, practically by itself, the Peshitta could undermine the entire Westcott and Hort superstructure.
Their answer was to take two other Syriac manuscripts (one discovered in 1842, the other in 1892), which differed from the Peshitta, and call them the “Old Syriac.” The Peshitta was then made to be a revision of this so-called Old Syriac. To complete the rewriting of the history, the Peshitta's date was moved from 150 to about 425 AD, with its “revision” being performed by a certain Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa in Syria.
There is not a trace in Syrian ecclesiastical history of such a thing happening! As Arthur Voobus writes “this kind of reconstruction of textual history is pure fiction without a shred of evidence to support it” (Early Versions of the New Testament, pp. 90-97). Further, the view is contrary to the established facts of history. In Rabbula's day a massive split occurred in the Syrian Church. The two opposing sides were known as the Nestorians and the Monophysites (led by Rabbula). Yet, both sides regarded the Peshitta as their authoritative Bible. It is impossible to believe that the side bitterly opposed to Rabbula should at the same time embrace unanimously his "revision" of the Scriptures. Further, such a unanimous acceptance by both parties in the early 400's argues powerfully for the Peshitta's early origin.
Regarding the two sole manuscripts of the so-called Old Syrian text. They are not all that close to each other. One denies the virgin birth of Christ in Matthew 1:16. Nor do they lend particularly convincing support to the Alexandrian Text. In fact, they contain a significant number of Received Text readings. They are merely corrupted copies, all but ignored by the Syrian church, yet with the Received Text base still discernible.
The other European versions-the Gothic (350 AD), Armenian (early 400's), and Georgian (mid-400's) follow the Received Text. Even the Ethiopic (400), despite its proximity to Egypt, is basically Received Text. Therefore, in the early versional history, support for the Received Text, in contrast with the Alexandrian Text, is overwhelming. How the entire range of versions vote with regard to the 356 doctrinal test passages can be seen in Early Manuscripts, Church Fathers, and the Authorized Version.
In Early Manuscripts an investigation is made of five categories of Greek manuscripts and eighteen categories of early versions. A decisive preponderance of evidence is shown for the Traditional Text.
3. The Scripture Quotations of the Early Church Fathers
Westcott and Hort confidently declared that ecclesiastical writers before 350 AD did not quote from the longer type of text. Their confidence rested in part on what is an immediate disadvantage for the Traditional Text. Most early writers (or at least those whose writings exist now) were located near the areas where the shorter text was prevalent (Alexandria), and where most divergences have been noted in the manuscripts - (North Africa and the West).
Here, and in this entire inquiry it cannot be overstated that in early textual history the Traditional Text is most directly associated with those places that were either the senders or recipients of the original New Testament autographs, i.e. Antioch, Asia Minor, Greece, Macedonia. While volumes of theological literature poured out of Alexandria, North Africa and Italy in the west, very little is available for us prior to 350 from the eastern areas. Yet even with this disadvantage, the Received Text can be shown to prevail in the Alexandrian and Western writings of the Fathers.
Toward the end of the 19th Century John Burgon compiled an extensive index of Scripture quotations from the early Church Fathers. In mentioning Burgon we come to the man who so powerfully and eloquently fought against moves in England to replace the Received Text. Attempts have been made to discredit this good man's massive labours. It certainly cannot be done on the basis of his scholarship. After matriculating at Oxford with honours and taking his B.A. and M.A. there, he was to spend most of his adult life at that famous university. Burgon was Fellow of Oriel College, vicar of St. Mary's (the University Church) and Gresham Professor of Divinity. During his last twelve years he was Dean of Chichester. Unlike many of his contemporaries his was a “scholarship on fire.” He believed and loved the Bible, and had a great zeal to defend it. While we cannot go along with his high churchmanship, we acknowledge him as a worthy champion of the Faith, and strongly urge the reading of his books (available from The Bible for Today).
Coming now to the index, Burgon cited 4,383 Scripture quotations from 76 writers who died before the year 400 AD. Edward Miller carried on the work after Burgon's death and put the material in a tabulated form showing the times a Church Father witnesses for and against the Received Text. He found the Received Text had the greater support by 2,630 to 1,753 or 3 to 2. Keeping in mind the Alexandrian and Western localities of these 76 Fathers, we have here quite a strong majority for the Received Text. Had the quotations of the Eastern Fathers been available, all indications are that the support would have been quite overwhelming. But the above evidence shows clearly also that while there was a struggle over the text of Scripture in those early centuries, there was a clear winner!
Miller concluded his research with the following challenge:
As far as the Fathers who died before 400 AD are concerned, the question may now be put and answered. Do they witness to the Traditional Text as existing from the first, or do they not? The results of the evidence, both as regards the quantity and the quality of the testimony, enable us to reply, not only that the Traditional Text was in existence, but that it was predominant during the period under review. Let any one who disputes this conclusion make out for the Western text, or the Alexandrian, or for the Text of B and Aleph (i.e. Vaticanus, Sinaiticus), a case from the evidence of the Fathers which can equal or surpass that which has been now placed before our reader. (The Traditional Text, p. 116).
Regarding the attempt to discredit Burgon's work by saying that later editors “adapted” the Church Father's quotations to the Traditional Text, Edward Hills writes:
In regard to my references to the Church Fathers, I am sure that if you examine the notes to my King James Defended and my Believing Bible Study, you will see that I have taken care to look up all the Burgon's references in the most modern editions available. During the years 1950-55, I spent many weeks at this task. In fact, the newer German editions of the Church Fathers differ little from those of the 17th and 18th centuries. Certainly not enough to affect Burgon's arguments (Letter from Edward F Hills to Theodore P Letis, February 15, 1980, as quoted in Theodore P Letis, "Edward Freer Hills Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical text," unpublished M.T.S. Thesis, Emory University, 1987).
In Early Manuscripts, Church Fathers, and the Authorised Version the Scripture quotations of the early Fathers were tested against the 356 doctrinal passages unique to the Traditional Text. Here there was a 2.3 to 1 advantage to the Traditional Text against that of Nestle-Aland.