Gnostic Corruptions in the Critical Texts A Case Study of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 21st Edition By Timothy W. Dunkin © Timothy W. Dunkin, all rights reserved Table of Contents Introduction 3 The Alexandrian Manuscripts – Are They Reliable? 3 Is the Oldest the Best? 4 The Byzantine Text Set – Early Evidence 7 The Human Element 10 A More Common Sense Approach to Weighing the Evidences 11 Gnostic Influences on the Alexandrian Texts? 12 The Textual Comparisons Matthew 8:29 14 Matthew 19:17 15 Mark 1:1 17 Luke 4:4 19 Luke 22:43-44 20 John 1:18 22 John 3:13 24 John 9:35 26 John 10:14-15 27 Acts 2:30 28 I Corinthians 15:47 29 II Corinthians 4:6 31 Galatians 6:17 33 Ephesians 3:9 34 I Timothy 3:16 35 I John 4:3 36 2 Introduction There are a number of reasons for the informed Christian to be distrustful of the so-called "modern" versions of the Bible, such as the New International Version, the New American Standard Version, the Revised Version, the Revised Standard Version, and so on. Despite the claims to the contrary which are put forward by scholars such as Metzger and the Alands, there are indeed some very serious changes, doctrinal changes, which exist between the King James Version and these newer versions. It is often heard that "the differences are very minor" and that they "don't affect doctrine,” but this is simply untrue, as ought to be obvious to anyone who takes the time to actually sit down and compare the King James against the modern revisions. The reason for the differences, the changes one could say, has to do with the texts behind the translations. Often, when Christians think about the New Testament, they assume that the Greek manuscripts compiled in the editions used to translate various versions are all pretty much the same. This is not the case. The King James Version New Testament is translated from the Textus Receptus, a Greek textual edition which, except for a few notable exceptions (which are justified and supported from external evidences), is very close in form to the Majority text, which makes up roughly 90% of the total testimony of existing Greek manuscripts. The new versions of the New Testament are translated from a textual set which, while having primary representatives which are older than the majority of the texts, is comprised of manuscripts which are very disparate in individual readings and which show all the signs of corruption. The Alexandrian Manuscripts - Are They Reliable? It is common to see textual critics and other scholars make claims about the Alexandrian uncials which minimize, and often ignore, the scribal problems contained in these supposed "oldest and best" manuscripts. For instance, Ladd claims, "Codex Vaticanus contains both Testaments, with only three missing portions, and most of the Apocrypha. Its excellent text is very close to that of Codex Sinaiticus."1 The actual facts of the matter contradict this rather sanguine assessment. These manuscripts, which comprise the basis of all modern Greek editions, are indeed notorious for their unreliability and general poor quality of transmission. Hoskier noted over 3,000 points in the Gospels alone at which Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (the two primary Alexandrian witnesses) differ between themselves, not including spelling errors and variants between synonyms which could be attributed to "provincial exchange."2 Concerning Vaticanus (also known as Codex B), Scrivener stated, "One marked feature, characteristic of this copy, is the great number of its omissions...That no small portion of these are mere oversights of the scribe seems evident from the circumstance that this same scribe has repeatedly written words and clauses twice over, a                                                              1 G.E. Ladd, The New Testament and Criticism, p. 63 2 H.C. Hoskier, Codex B and Its Allies, Vol. 2, p.1  3 class of mistakes which Mai and the collators have seldom thought fit to notice...but which by no means enhances our estimate of the care employed in copying this venerable record of primitive Christianity."3 The other representatives of the Alexandrian exemplars used to critically challenge the Textus Receptus are not any better. Codex D (Bezae Cantabrigiensis) is well-known for its slipshod scribal errors and general unreliability, yet it still finds its weight used as a determiner when other preferred texts are found to differ at a point. Ephraemi Rescriptus (Codex C) likewise suffers from transmission issues, and is actually a palimpsest, having had a large portion of its original biblical text rubbed off and replaced with copies of sermons from the 5th century Syrian patristic Ephraem Syrus (which in and of itself ought to give an idea of the likely low esteem in which this text was held by 5th century Christians...). Pickering sums up the matter of reliability with the Alexandrian texts as follows, "The variation between two 'Byzantine' MSS will be found to differ both in number and severity from that between two 'Western' MSS or two 'Alexandrian' MSS -- the number and nature of the disagreements between two 'Byzantine' MSS throughout the Gospels will seem trivial compared to the number (over 3,000) and nature (many serious) of the disagreements between Aleph and B, the chief 'Alexandrian' MSS, in the same space."4 Why then, it may be asked, would modern Greek editions from world-renowned textual scholars be based upon such poor representatives of the text? The answer is two-fold. Is Oldest Best? First, there is the somewhat uncritical reliance by modern textual critics upon a text's antiquity above everything else. Weight (a term describing the relative esteem accorded to a manuscript or other evidence in determining the original text) is accorded to a text's age, with other evidence receiving a far inferior status. The arguments made by scholars for this approach sound plausible when they are not examined in any great detail. An older text, one would naturally assume, should be more closely approximate to the reading of the original autographs. Sounds logical, right? Unfortunately, this assumption is just that: an assumption. When this argument is tested against the facts, we see that it does not really hold up. The oldest representatives of the "purely" Alexandrian group of texts are the two "great" uncials, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (Aleph and B, respectively). Both of these manuscripts date to the 4th century, with Vaticanus proffered as from the latter quarter of the century, and Sinaiticus being from around the middle of the century. Several scholars have even suggested that these uncials are two of the original 50 copies of the New Testament text which were made by Eusebius for official Church use at the behest of Emperor Constantine.5 Thus, the oldest pure                                                              3 F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol. 1, p. 120  4 W.N. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, p.54 5 See A. Souter, The Text And Canon Of The New Testament, pp.22-23; Ladd, op. cit., p.63; etc. 4 Alexandrian manuscripts date to around 350 AD and after, nearly three centuries after the penning of the original autographs. The problem for the antiquity interpretation of the modern textual scholars which immediately arises is that corruption (both accidental and purposeful) in the New Testament text was greatest in the first two centuries after the revelation of the New Testament (roughly 80-200 AD). Scrivener argues that the worst corruption to strike the New Testament texts occurred within a century of their composition.6 Further, Colwell states that "The overwhelming majority of readings were created before the year 200..."7 It was during this period, while many books were still in the process of filtering out to Christian communities all across the Empire, that heretical texts would have been easiest to introduce and pass off as legitimate Scripture. Kilpatrick argues that with the advent of the 3rd century, it then became nearly impossible to change the text of the New Testament in a way which would have been either accepted or unnoticed by Christians at large, "Origen's treatment of Matt. 19:19 is significant in two other ways. First he was probably the most influential commentator of the Ancient Church and yet his conjecture at this point seems to have influenced only one manuscript of a local version of the New Testament. The Greek tradition is apparently unaffected by it. From the third century onward even an Origen could not effectively alter that text. "This brings us to the second significant point - his date. From the early third century onward the freedom to alter the text which had obtained earlier can no longer be practiced. Tatian is the last author to make deliberate changes in the text of whom we have explicit information. Between Tatian and Origen Christian opinion had so changed that it was no longer possible to make changes in the text whether they were harmless or not."8 Thus, even by the 3rd century, and definitely by the fourth, the Scriptures were more thoroughly distributed and Christians were better able to compare texts and reject heretical manuscripts. Once the faithfulness in transmission for the texts had solidified, the issue then becomes one of competing textual lines, between which Christians of that age had to choose. This is where the age of the Alexandrian exemplars actually works to the detriment of modern theories based upon antiquity. What needs to be understood about the ancient manuscripts is that there were basically two types of media for texts - vellum and papyrus. Neither of these media are especially durable. Vellum (dried skins of sheep or other animals) was more rugged and expensive, and was used in the copies of the Scriptures held for "official" use by the churches, and by more wealthy individuals. Both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are vellum manuscripts, and as such, were probably intended for use in Christian assemblies or liturgy. However, vellum scrolls will wear out over time through use and need to be replaced (just as a well-used Bible today will tend to do). Back in the day, they did not have rebinding services like we have for Bibles to give added years to the life of a scroll, so the scroll had to be transcribed into a new manuscript.                                                              6 Scrivener, A Plain Introduction, Vol. 2, p. 264 7 E.C. Colwell, "The Origin of Texttypes of New Testament Manuscripts," Early Christian Origins, Ed. A. Wikgren, p. 138  8 G.D. Kilpatrick, "Atticism and the Greek New Testament," Neutestamentliche Aufsatze, pp. 129-130 5 Reason suggests that the old scrolls were then "put to rest,” so to speak, through purposeful destruction as a means of giving reverence to them (the idea being that it would be a shame to just let a Biblical scroll fall to pieces through tatterage, almost a sign of carelessness and lack of concern).9 The obvious point to all this, then, is: "why are such old exemplars even still in existence and in the relatively good condition which they are, since they are over fifteen centuries old?" The answer suggested by numerous scholars such as Van Bruggen, Pickering, and others is that these scrolls are in good condition despite their age because they were never used. They did not endure the repetitious unrolling and rolling back up, the assault of sweaty hands and humid breath, the violence of tears and bends that come from constant use. Simply put, these exemplar manuscripts may have simply sat upon a shelf for most of their long lifetime. The next question becomes then: "Why?" The answer, logically, is that they were probably rejected from use by early Christians who understood them to be flawed, and refrained from relying upon them. Exactly this argument is presented by textual scholars including Van Bruggen.10 The case for the papyri, when viewed in this light, is even worse. Papyrus, basically having the consistency of low-grade paper, was even more fragile than vellum, though it was also much less expensive as it was relatively easy to make and was abundant (the Egyptians had been producing papyrus for at least two millennia before Christians came on the scene). Scholars believe that papyrus was used for personal copies of documents, which were less important than the corporately used manuscripts one would find in Christian meeting assemblies under the care of the pastor(s).11 The fact that there exist several papyri, some in relatively good condition, from as early as c. 200 AD, seems even more strongly to suggest that these papyri were disdained and little used. That modern textual critics often rely upon certain of these papyri which are in better condition (because of their age and partial Alexandrian readings) does little to increase confidence in their methodology. The papyri themselves are simply terrible witnesses, generally agreed by even staunch Westcott-Hortians to be full of scribal errors, additions, deletions, and many give evidence of having been transcribed by scribes who had little proficiency in Greek. Zuntz says about p46, "In spite of its neat appearance (it was written by a professional scribe and corrected - but very imperfectly - by an expert, P46 is by no means a good manuscript. The scribe committed very many blunders...My impression is that he was liable to fits of exhaustion."12                                                              9 See K. Lake, R.P. Blake, and S. New, "The Caesarean text of the Gospel of Mark," Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 21 (1928), p. 349 10 See J. Van Bruggen, The Ancient Text of the New Testament, pp. 26-27  11 Early Christian church copies were probably in the care of the pastor/bishops. One of the stigmas against Christian bishops in North Africa, who had recanted during the 3rd century persecutions, which caused so much disdain from the Donatists was the willingness of these bishops to turn over their copies of the Scriptures to Roman persecutors in exchange for relief from persecution. 12 G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, p. 18 6 He further says plainly that "p46 abounds with scribal blunders, omissions, and also additions."13 Hoskier also noted the large number of omissions made in this papyrus.14 Other papyri are similarly poor quality reproductions. Colwell says of several of them, "On these last and most important matters, our three scribes are widely divided. P75 and P45 seriously intend to produce a good copy, but it is hard to believe that this was the intention of P66. The nearly 200 nonsense readings and 400 itacistic spellings in P66 are evidence of something less than disciplined attention to the basic task. To this evidence of carelessness must be added those singular readings whose origin baffles speculation, readings that can be given no more exact label than carelessness leading to assorted variant readings. A hurried count shows P45 with 20, P75 with 57, and P66 with 216 purely careless readings. As we have seen, P66 has, in addition, more than twice as many 'leaps' from the same to the same as either of the others."15 When we consider these arguments, and note that the overwhelming majority of the extant Greek manuscripts available are of the "Byzantine" or "Syrian" text type (though they are generally much younger than the Alexandrians), it would seem to be apparent that this preponderance is due to a view among the ancients of the greater trustworthiness of the Byzantine text type. Just as a more successful human family will propagate itself and produce a far larger clan even within a few generations than a less successful family, the greater number of Byzantine texts suggest that this text type was the one which was initially preferred by very early Christians and which later grew into the preponderant mass of texts handed down to and multiplied by later generations. The Byzantine Textual Set - Early Evidence One argument presented by Critical Text supporters is the suggestion that the Byzantine text was a relatively late development (thus explaining its lack of very ancient exemplars) which was evolved through the conflation of earlier text types in Syria sometime in the 4th-5th centuries. This argument is supported by pointing out that the Greek patristic writer and orator John Chrysostom demonstrates a clear testimony to his reliance upon the Byzantine text type in his writings and sermons, and the claim then follows that John was the first to do so. This argument, however, ignores the fact that many patristic writers, some centuries before Chrysostom, also demonstrate a marked preference for the Byzantine readings, even if not always as purely as he. Pickering, citing the studies in patristic quotation carried out by Dean Burgon and Edward Miller, demonstrates that a number of patristic writers, some of them dating back to the 1st century, displayed not only a knowledge but also a preference for Byzantine readings.16 Strouse likewise catalogues a number of specific examples of signal Byzantine                                                              13 Ibid., p. 212 14 H.C. Hoskier, "A Study of the Chester-Beatty Codex of the Pauline Epistles," The Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 38 (1937), p. 162 15 E.C. Colwell, "Scribal Habits in Early Papyri: A Study in the Corruption of the Text,” The Bible in Modern Scholarship, Ed. J.P. Hyatt, pp. 378-9  16 See Pickering, op. cit., pp. 62-76 for more detail 7 readings which appear in pre-Chrysostom patristics as far back as Ignatius (c. 35-115 AD).17 Dean Burgon, the original compiler of the patristic study, which was posthumously edited and prepared by Miller, determined that from the citations of pre-Chrysostom patristics, the ratio of Byzantine citations versus all others was 3:2.18 Miller summarizes by asking, "As to the alleged absence of readings of the Traditional Text from the writings of the Ante- Nicene Fathers, Dr. Hort draws largely upon his imagination and his wishes. The persecution of Diocletian is here also the parent of much want of information. But is there really such a dearth of these readings in the works of the Early Fathers as is supposed?"19 Likewise, Byzantine readings can be found at many points in even the earliest papyri which are usually considered and catalogued as "Alexandrian.” Regarding the papyri, Zuntz states, "To sum up, a number of Byzantine readings, most of them genuine, which previously were discarded as 'late', are anticipated by P46....How then - so one is tempted to go on asking - where no Chester Beatty papyrus happens to vouch for the early existence of a Byzantine reading? Are all Byzantine readings ancient? In the cognate case of the Homeric tradition G. Pasquali answers the same question in the affirmative."20 Colwell likewise concurs with Zuntz, stating that most of the readings of the Byzantine text "existed in the second century,” according to his reckoning.21 Several of the other ancient papyri likewise demonstrate Byzantine readings. Colwell states concerning p66 (c. 200 AD), "The Bodmer John (P66) is also a witness to the early existence of many of the readings found in the Alpha-text type (Hort's "Syrian"). Strangely enough to our previous ideas, the contemporary corrections in that papyrus frequently change an Alpha-type reading to a Beta- type reading (Hort's "Neutral") [ed. note - our "Alexandrian"]. This indicates that at this early period readings of both kinds were known, and the Beta-type were supplanting the Alpha-type - at least as far as this witness is concerned."22 Thus, we see that the Byzantine textual type certainly existed for far longer than its critics claim. Further, Pickering has done an excellent job of addressing the charge of conflation, and demonstrates that those readings which are claimed as conflations in the Byzantine text set are not, and that many readings found in the various other sets (Alexandrian included) in fact are the conflations, through an examination of 110 examples.23 Pickering states elsewhere that in his                                                              17 T.M. Strouse, Forever Settled: A Survey of the Documents and History of the Bible, pp. 73-74, Ed. J. Moorman 18 J.W. Burgon, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established, pp. ix-x 19 E. Miller, A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p. 53  20 Zuntz, op. cit., p. 55 21 E.C. Colwell, What is the Best New Testament?, p. 70 22 E.C. Colwell, "The Origin of Texttypes of New Testament Manuscripts,” Early Christian Origins, Ed. A. Wikgren 23 Pickering, op. cit., Appendix D, pp. 171-202 8 quotation of I Corinthians 14:19, Marcion (in the 2nd century) actually conflates the "Byzantine" reading with the "Neutral-Western" reading.24 Another argument, forwarded by Scrivener, to explain the paucity of very early Byzantine exemplars rests on the destruction of large numbers of Biblical manuscripts at the hands of Imperial officials during the various persecutions which struck the churches in the first three and a half centuries of their existence.25 If this were a major factor, then the overwhelming preponderance of Byzantine daughter manuscripts argues even more strongly for preponderance of this text type among very early manuscripts, since they still predominate even through the winnowing of persecution. Perhaps the strongest argument against critical claims to a late Byzantine appearance is summed up through an analogy drawn by Van Bruggen, who speaking first of the Byzantine text type says, "The fact that this text-form is known to us via later manuscripts is as such no proof for a late text type, but it does seem to be proof when at the same time a different text is found in all older manuscripts. The combination of these two things seems to offer decisive proof for the late origin of the traditional text."26 However, he then follows by saying, "Let us make ourselves aware of what we have presupposed with this seemingly convincing argumentation. What conditions must be satisfied if we wish to award the prize to the older majuscules? While asking this question we assumed wittingly or unwittingly that we were capable of making a fair comparison between manuscripts in an earlier period and those in a later period. After all, we can only arrive at positive statements if this is the case. Imagine that someone said: in the Middle Ages mainly cathedrals were built, but in modern times many smaller and plainer churches are being built. This statement seems completely true when we today look around in the cities and villages. Yet we are mistaken. An understandable mistake: many small churches of the Middle Ages have disappeared, and usually only the cathedrals were restored. Thus, a great historical falsification of perspective with regard to the history of church-building arises. We are not able to make a general assertion about church-building in the Middle Ages on the basis of the surviving materials. If we would still dare to make such as assertion, then we wrongly assumed that the surviving materials enabled us to make a fair comparison. But how is the situation in the field of New Testament manuscripts? Only if that is the case, do we have the right to make conclusions and positive statements. Yet it is just at this point that difficulties arise. The situation is even such that we know with certainty that we do not possess a representative number of manuscripts from the first centuries."27                                                              24 Ibid., p. 60 25 F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction, Vol. I, pp. 265-266  26 Van Bruggen, op. cit., p. 24 27 Ibid., p. 25 9 We "do not" have enough manuscript evidence available to rule out the existence and preponderance of the Byzantine text type from around the time when the oldest Alexandrian exemplars were produced. Given the patristic evidence and the readings found in the papyri, the opposing suggestion that Byzantine texts were present in good numbers can be quite reasonably advanced. The Human Element The second reason why modern textual critics rely upon the antiquated Alexandrians at the expense of the rest of the evidence is more human. The trend in textual criticism since Westcott and Hort (who, it can be quite reasonably argued, won the day because of their personalities, not their correctness) has been strict adherence to the preference for Alexandrian textual readings above all. Much has been said about the hatred of those two men for "that vile Textus Receptus."28 Little more needs to be added onto this here, other than to note that this attitude has filtered down, in a somewhat less vitriolic form, into this century's textual scholarship. The original preference by Westcott and Hort for their exemplars lay in that their readings were more in line with the heretical leanings of these two men. They concluded, prejudicially, that these readings were the correct ones, and inextricably linked this view with the "oldest is best" argument dealt with above. The Westcott-Hortian textual critical theories are engineered to give the desired results, and are often supported with "bandwagon" arguments, even when these seem to be in opposition to common sense. This is done in much the same way in which evolutionists will buttress their faith in evolution with the argument that "most scientists believe in evolution,” even when some of the leading evolutionist explanations fly right in the face of experimentally determined facts which are taught in basic undergraduate science courses. Remember, not all the ancient texts can possibly be available to us. Due to destruction, wearing out, simply being lost, etc. we don't have the sum total of all the ancient Greek manuscripts that have been copied and existed. For critics to claim, on the basis of a few disused ancient texts, that we can overturn the vast majority of texts (which often have reasonably good age attestation themselves) is ludicrous. Further, Metzger and Co. do not know the history behind the various texts before they were discovered at each point by modern researchers. Simple reliance on "older" texts is not wise, considering that they may be older because they were unused, as was argued above. Because of the critical predisposition, and because of the intellectual, theological, and reputational capital which many textual critics have invested in promotion of the Critical Text sets, most Christians who enter into the realm of textual study are immediately presented with a one-sided view against the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine text set. This opposition is presented as the only "intellectual" position to take, and even can be viewed as "fashionable.” Support for the Byzantine textual line is quarantined, remanded to the care of a few backwards                                                              28 F.J.A. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. 1, p. 211  10