XII. Key Epochs in the Preservation History Of the New Testament Text
Given that God has promised to preserve His Words, we would expect these Words that were inspired by the Holy Spirit and inscripturated through the Apostles will be the subject of a number of key epochs during the manuscript period and leading up to the time of printing. Among important events that played a providential role, we mention several:
1.The Early Lectionary Period.
Most do not realise the pivotal role this kind of manuscript played in the preservation of the Scriptures. Lectionary manuscripts are those that were divided into sections for readings throughout the year in services of the Greek churches. Some lectionaries have readings (lessons) for only Saturday and Sunday, others for each day of the week. Many have readings from the Gospels, others from the Apostolos (the rest of the NT excluding Revelation), and others contain both. A complete lectionary would contain two parts: the synaxarion - following the religious year and beginning with the variable date for Easter; and the menologion - covering the civil year and beginning on September 1.
At a time when most would not have their own copies of Scripture, this system allowed for a substantial amount of the NT along with readings from the OT to be read systematically throughout the year. Some 2343 lectionary manuscripts are known to exist (about 270 are in the uncial script), and virtually all support the kind of text underlying the AV. It is for this reason they are all but ignored in the Nestle-Aland apparatus. Current textual studies are only interested in the very few lectionaries showing some minor departure from the Received Text.
While the oldest extant lectionaries go back to about the 9th century, their formatting system is very old. The implications this has for the kind of early text the lectionaries had, as the following quotations shows, is a subject which modern textual criticism would prefer to avoid.
Carroll D. Osburn seems to be wrestling with the issue when he writes:
Precisely when and where these lections became fixed remains unsettled. Gregory theorized that the Saturday and Sunday lessons probably originated in the first half of the second century.
How early then are traces of lections detectable? It is evident, possibly from the time of Origen, but certainly from the time of Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria, and John Chrysostom, among others, that having specific Scripture lessons for specific days was customary in their localities. Chrysostom indicates frequently that he is commenting on the “lesson” for the day. Consequently, Metzger is of the opinion that “the lectionary system current today in the Orthodox Church had its origin sometime during the fourth century.”
The question, however, is not settled. For his own reasons, Burgon saw the matter as settled by A.D. 348. For other reasons, some would not like to admit the origin of the lectionary system prior to A.D. 300, for it then could be said to represent the text of the early period. (“The Greek Lectionaries of the NT”, The Text of the N.T. in Contemporary Research, pp. 63,64. emphasis mine).
The implication is clear, and Osburn plainly says so in his last sentence. If the formatting is early so also is the text, and both are the same that we see in the Greek church today. There is every likelihood that the lectionary system placed a kind of preservative fence around the original words of the New Testament. It became a formal means by which early Greek speaking churches kept the words of Scripture pure and untainted. We see the Lord’s hand in this.
2. The Changeover from Uncial to Minuscule Script
While there may be earlier minuscules, the earliest to be dated is MS 461 of the year 835. The actual change of script began in the 7th century, and became developed in the 8th. The kind of text which was now being copied into the new script was almost in every instance that which we see in the Received Text.
Barbara Aland and Klaus Wachtel are at a loss to explain this:
Although transferring other ancient Greek literature into the new script involved “en meme temps un travail critique,” (at the same time, a work of criticism), this was not the case for the NT, at least in the sense that no attempt was made to base the newer manuscripts on the oldest available form of the text…. (“The Greek Minuscule Manuscripts of the NT”, The Text of the N.T. in Contemporary Research, p. 44).
This is a key period in manuscript history. The scribes who undertook this laborious and meticulous work were obviously convinced as to what constituted the True
Text. If one is spending so much time on a project they would want to be certain. To them the text to copy was certainly not the Aleph-B kind. Would not their vantage point into the previous textual history more likely give them a clearer view than ours 1200 years later? They knew to avoid the kind of manuscript preferred by Aland and Wachtel. We see God’s hand in this.
3. The Printing and Spread of the Received Text
During the 1500s it does not seem to have occurred to any of those so involved to set type for anything other than Greek editions based upon the Traditional Text. No Greek editions approaching an Aleph- B kind of text got within sight of Europe’s publishing houses. There was no debate, no doubt. They knew of manuscripts with aberrant readings and they left them where they lay. The Received Text and the great Reformation Bibles spread across Europe and then to the ends of the earth. Debate, dissent and opposition would come later, but first the pure and full Scriptures were allowed to do their work. With the invention of printing it was this kind of Greek text that would be the first to speak. We see the hand of God in this.
4. The Refining of Printed Editions of the Received Text
The different editions of the Received Text represent the vast majority of Greek and versional manuscripts. Therefore whether it was the editions of the Elzevir brothers (1624,33,41) which were popular on the Continent, or those of Robert Stephenaus (1546,49,50,51), accepted as the standard in English speaking countries, the Received Text was the Text received by common consent around the world, and represents the Traditional Text of the New Testament. The different editions of the Received Text are not carbon copies; they have slight differences. These differences demonstrate that they are to a certain extent independent witnesses to the Traditional Text.
The Traditional Text in its printed form began with the five editions of Erasmus (1516,19,22,27,35). This paved the way for nearly a century of textual preparation leading to the publication of the King James Bible.
Below are some of the key editions leading up to the translation of the King James Version.
1. Erasmus’ 1519 edition provided the basis for Luther’s German translation. William Tyndale followed Erasmus’ 1519 and 1522 editions.
2. Erasmus’ 1527,35 editions contained some changes from the Complutensian Polyglot (1514). The Complutensian contained the Received Text and the Latin Vulgate in parallel columns. Though prepared by the Catholic Cardinal, Ximenes,
its Received Text was very close to the other editions. Rome’s Vaticanus manuscript had no effect on its preparation.
3. Simon Colinaeus (1534) published an edition based on Erasmus and the Complutensian.
4. Robert Stephanus, the stepson of Colinaeus, published four editions (1546,49,50,51). His edition of 1550, known as the “Royal Edition” followed the text of Erasmus’ 1527 and 1535 editions. The 1550 also contained marginal readings from the Complutensian. Stephanus’ 1551 Geneva edition reprinted the 1550 text and inserted for the first time the current verse divisions.
5. In Geneva, Theodore Beza published a total of ten folio (large page) and octavo (small page) editions. After a Latin translation (1556), his four folio editions (1565,82,88,98) became especially influential. These were based on the Stephanus 1550,51 with some changes and notes. Beza’s last two octavo editions were published in 1590 and 1604, and his 1565 edition was the primary base for the later editions of the Elzevir brothers.
Of Beza’s 1598 edition, F.H.A.Scrivener says:
Between 1598 and 1611 no important editions appeared; so that Beza’s fifth and last text of 1598 was more likely than any other to be in the hands of the King James revisers, and to be accepted by them as the best standard within their reach. It is moreover found on comparison to agree more closely with the Authorised Version than any other Greek text. (Scrivener’s Annotated Greek New Testament, The Bible for Today, pp. vii-viii).
Regarding places where the AV does not follow Beza, Scrivener further reports:
All variations from Beza’s text of 1598, in number about 190, are set down in an Appendix at the end of the volume, together with the authorities on which they respectively rest. (p. ix).
These 190 differences for the entire New Testament, many of which are very small, are a striking demonstration of the narrow limits of variation within the Received Text tradition. There is, in fact, just enough variation to show the independence of the witnesses. Their work reflects a refining process in the providential preservation of the Word of God. Compare this with the many thousands of differences among manuscripts used to support the Nestle-Aland Text.
Scrivener revised Beza’s edition of 1598 to the Authorised Version. It was first published in 1881 as The New Testament in Greek According to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version, and is the edition most in use today.
The God-consciousness and reverence for the Scriptures of these early Received Text editors is in contrast to the unbelief and rationalism, which characterises nearly all the editors of the critical text.
Edward F. Hills explains how a belief in the Bible’s preservation marked the labours of Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza:
But in their actual editing and printing of the New Testament they were guided by the common faith in the Received Text. For in their appeal to the New Testament against the errors of the papacy and the Roman Catholic doctrinal system these Reformers were not introducing a novelty but were falling back on a principle which long before the Reformation had been acknowledged by everyone. For centuries it had been commonly believed that the currently received New Testament text, primarily the Greek text and secondarily the Latin text, was the True New Testament Text which had been preserved by God’s special providence. It was out of this common faith, therefore, that the printed Textus Receptus was born through the editorial labours of Erasmus and his successors under the guiding hand of God. (The King James Version Defended, pp. 62,63).
We see the hand of God in the refinement of the printed editions of the Traditional Text.
5. Seven Great “Preparatory” English Bibles
The Authorised Version was the culmination of nearly 100 years of preparation. There was intensive study of the Greek and Hebrew Text. The five Greek editions of Erasmus, the four of Stephanus, the nine of Beza provided the translators with a refined representative of the Traditional Text which was in the majority of manuscripts, and had been acknowledged (John 16:13) by God's people through the centuries. There were no fewer than seven "preparatory" English translations: Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthews, Great, Taverners, Geneva, and Bishops. The fifty or so AV translators were men of unparalleled scholarship, representing the combined intellectual might of Oxford and Cambridge. But far more importantly, they were marked by a holy awe and deep reverence for the Word of God. It is this latter, and an insight into which we will see shortly, that places them poles apart from the translating teams of today.
6. The King James Version: A Four Hundred Year Standard
In the translation of the Authorised Version we have one of the great epochs in the history of Scripture preservation. God’s Words, which had been providentially watched over, were now to be brought into a primary and standard translation (“one principle good one, not justly to be excepted against”, The Translators to the Reader, XV:2). And, in a language that would be a world language. The fifty greatest scholars of the time, who sought Him that hath the key of David ( XV:8) knew where to find the Words which in the beginning holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. They knew which manuscripts, which versions, which Fathers preserved these inspired Words. They knew to avoid the corrupted texts, which according to II Corinthians 2:17 were many.
In their scholarly diligence, and above all, their devotion to the Scriptures, they knew how to translate these Words. An insight as to the nature of how they approached their work can be seen below in the key extracts from The Translators to the Reader. Relying upon God, and with the greatest care, these sacred Words were placed in the bosom of the English language at a time when that language was best able to receive them.
No labour was spared, as they brought back to the anvil that which they had hammered (XV:20). The translation was fully accurate and intact. It was word for word expressive of the original inspired Words: reverent, exhortative, convicting, meditative, comforting, timeless. Though now in English, “the King’s speech remained the King’s speech”.
7. The Traditional Text Kept Separate from the Modern Versions !
This may at first seem like a strange argument for the preservation of the New Testament Text. But God, it would seem, has prevented His Inspired, Preserved and Uncorrupted Words from being the base of an endless succession of inferior translations. The Traditional Text had been and should remain, the domain of those translators who honour Him. Let today’s liberal, new evangelical, “dynamic equivalence” kind of translator have their Nestle-Aland Text. The Received Text belongs solely to Godly translators who do not lessen, weaken and corrupt the Scriptures.
This raises a question concerning the New King James Version, which appears to be an exception to the above as it purports to be based on the Received Text. It is based on the Received Text, but the story does not end there. Nine of the translators who were involved with the NIV took part in the translation of the NKJV. Thus a common philosophy will in part extend to both translations. It is based on the Received Text, but also departs from it in a number of places. Its introduction, while saying some good things, seeks to minimize the differences between the different types of manuscripts; including the large omissions in Mark 16 and John 8.
The NKJV undermines faith in the Received Text by continual footnotes referring the reader to the alternatives of the Nestle-Aland Text, and also another edition that has misleadingly been called the Majority Text. (See the authors When the KJV Departs From the So-Called Majority Text). While it claims to be a revision of the KJV, it is in reality a new translation, and as research has shown, an inferior one. It is more difficult to memorize, and does not appear to be memorized any more than the other modern versions. It does not have the cadence, the declarative force, the devotional quality of the KJV. Without formal notice literally thousands of changes have been made to the NKJV over the years since its inception in 1979. The NKJV is a door opener to the other modern Bibles and their corrupted text. It is not a safe Bible for the Christian.
Coming back to our point, the issue is much clearer when we realise that nearly every modern version is based on the Nestle-Aland Text. They were meant for each other, and they can have each other! This has kept the Traditional Text separate and apart from inferior and unworthy translating practices. We can see the hand of God in this.