The Great Uncials
A REVIEW
By way of
review, I remind you that the Old Testament was originally written primarily in
Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek. Further, it must be remember that there
are no original autographs of either the Hebrew Old Testament or the Greek New
Testament. Yet, the Old and New Testaments have been preserved in apographs
(exemplars or copies) of the originals. Since the focus in this paper is the
New Testament it is important to know that there are at least 5309 surviving
Greek manuscripts that contain all or parts of the New Testament. In addition
there are more than 19,000 ancient New Testament manuscripts in Latin, Syriac,
Armenian, and other language versions. The oldest copies of the New Testament
know to exist are NOT Greek copies but the Syriac and the Old Latin versions
(pre-Jeromes Latin Vulgate). The Old Syriac "is a good translation from
the Greek, and exists practically complete in about 46 manuscripts." (General
Biblical Introduction by Herbert Miller, 1937; 240-41). The oldest of those
manuscripts is from the 4th or 5th century but the form of text they preserved
dates from the close of the second or the beginning of the third century. "The
Old Latin version was likely translated from the Greek in roughly 157 AD."
Finally, there are more than 24,000 handwritten copies of the New Testament
have survived.
MANUSCRIPT COPIES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
There are
some important facts that relating to the 5309 manuscripts that need to be
considered at this point.
The Four Kinds of Greek Manuscripts There are
four kinds of Greek manuscripts that we have in our possession today:
1)
papyri,
2) uncials,
3) cursives, and
4) lectionaries.
The Greek
manuscripts of the New Testament, so far as known, were written on papyrus,
parchment, or paper. The autographs, both of the historical and epistolary
writers, are supposed to have been written on papyrus. The great uncials copies
and the most valued of the minuscules and lectionaries were written on
parchment, while paper was employed largely in the making of the later
lectionaries and the printed texts of the New Testament."
Papyri
Manuscripts
Papyrus is a brittle kind of paper made out of the papyrus
plant, which grows in Egypt. To my knowledge there are about 97 papyrus
fragment manuscripts of the New Testament. Most of those surviving early texts
only have a few verses on them. The most ancient example is the John Ryland
papyrus fragment, seen at the left, which includes portions of John 18:31-33
& 37-38. It is housed in John Rylands Library, Manchester, England. The
fragment is believed to have been written some time between 98 and 138 AD.
There are six papyri that I am aware of, which record large portions of the
New Testament. P45, dated around 200 AD, contains portions of all four Gospels
and Acts. P46, from the second century, has almost all the Paul's epistles and
Hebrews. also from the second century, contains Revelation 9-17. These are from
what is called the Beatty Papyri housed in Dublin Castle in Dublin Ireland.
Then there are three lengthy papyri from the Bodmer Papyri. P66 is a second
century papyrus that contains almost all of John. A third or fourth century
papyrus, contains all of 1 and 2 Peter and Jude. Finally, P75, dated between
175-200 AD, contains the most of Luke through John 15.
The Uncials or
Majuscules
Uncial comes from the Latin word uncialis, which means
inch-high. It is used to delineate a type of Greek and Latin writing which
features capital letters. There are few, if any, divisions between words in
uncial manuscripts and no punctuation to speak of. The word majuscule, meaning
large or capital letter, is a synonym for uncial. There are some 267 uncials.
Three of the most famous uncial New Testament manuscripts are the fourth
century manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and the fifth century Codex
Alexandrius.
Cursives or Minuscules
Cursives or minuscules are
Greek manuscripts written in lower case letters, more like handwriting. The
letters flow together, much like writing of today. There are spaces between
words and some degree of punctuation. There are at least 2,764 cursive New
Testament manuscripts known today.
Lectionary Manuscripts
The
word lection comes from a Latin root word meaning "to read." Lectionaries are
portions of Scriptures in Greek (or Latin) Bibles that were read in the church
services during the year. There are at least 2,143 known lectionaries in
existence. New discoveries are regularly coming to light and so it is difficult
to have exact, up to date figures.
TEXT STREAMS OR TEXT FAMILIES
J. J. Griesbach identified three New Testament text-types calling them
the Alexandrian, Western and Byzantine. He first published his findings in
1775. H. B. Sweete writes that there are basically three types of manuscripts,
the Constantinoplian or Textus Receptus; the Eusebio-Origen or Palestinain; the
Hysychian or Egyptian text type. More recently men like Lightfoot, in his book
How We Got the Bible, and Metzger in his book The Text of the New
Testament, have broken down the divisions further and identify four text
streams or text families; Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean, and Byzantine. While
I agree that it is possible to divide and subdivide and micro-divide text
types, depending upon the criteria you use, I have decided to look at the text
streams issue simply and follow the path of Benjamine G. Wilkinson.
He
wrote, "anyone who is interested enough to read the vast volume of literature
on this subject, will agree that down through the centuries there were only two
streams of manuscripts. The Traditional, Byzantine or Eastern Text Group of The
Reformation-Protestant Bibles The first stream which carried the Received Text
in Hebrew and Greek, began with the apostolic churches, and reappearing at
intervals down the Christian Era among enlightened believers, was protected by
the wisdom and scholarship of the pure church in her different phases: precious
manuscripts were preserved by such as the church at Pella in Palestine where
Christians fled, when in 70 A.D. the Romans destroyed Jerusalem; by the Syrian
Church of Antioch which produced eminent scholarship; by the Italic Church in
northern Italy; and also at the same time by the Gallic Church in southern
France and by the Celtic Church in Great Britain; by the pre-Waldensian, the
Waldensian, and the churches of the Reformation.
Here is why this is
important. Nearly all ancient English Bibles (except the Wycliffe &
Douay-Rhimes Catholic Bible), and in fact all the Reformation English Bibles
follow the same text family. That family is the Received Text, also called the
Textus Receptus. It must be noted that Elzevir first gave the title, Textus
Receptus, to the Traditional Text in 1633. This text type has been called by
various names by Bible scholars
the Constantinoplian text, Antiochian
text, Byzantine text, Traditional text, Apostolic text, the Majority text and
the Textus Receptus (Latin for Received Text). The Textus Receptus belongs to
the stream of early apostolic manuscripts that were brought from Judea.
The
Textus Receptus was the Bible of early Eastern Christianity. Dr. Hort admits
this when he says, "It is no wonder that the traditional Constantinopolitan
text, whether formally official or not, was the Antiochian text of the fourth
century. It was equally natural that the text recognized at Constantinople
should eventually become in practice the standard New Testament of the East."
(Revision Revised, John Burgon, p. 134.) Regardless of where you stand on the
"textual debate," this is the fact; the foundational text of all English Bible
New Testament translations from 1525 to 1880 was from the Byzantine,
Traditional or Majority Text group. The sole exception was the Jesuit Rheimes
New Testament of 1582.
I have used the term "Majority Text" several times
now, therefore I want to point out just how large this majority is. "This first
stream appears, with very little change, in the Protestant Bibles of many
languages, and in English, in that Bible known as the King James Version, the
one which has been in use for three hundred years in the English-speaking
world. These manuscripts have in agreement with them, by far the vast majority
of copies of the original text. So vast is this majority that even the enemies
of the Received Text admit that nineteen-twentieths of all Greek manuscripts
are of this class.
Indeed, the enormous majority of all Greek New
Testament manuscripts in existence are from the so-called Byzantine,
Traditional text group. When I began my study several years back, there were
5,255 known manuscripts and portions. Of that number, the large majority, 5,210
of them, more closely matched the Traditional Text group. Only 45 of them
followed the minority or Westcott and Hort type text group. So, more than 99%
of all the manuscripts that exist are of the Byzantine text family or
Traditional text family.
"The remainder, representing the Western stream of
manuscripts, are clearly defective. Yet it is these defective copies upon which
almost all modern translators place their trust. But the Reformers of the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries made no such error." (Modern Bible
Translations Unmasked by Russell & Colin Standish; p.37).
In fact,
there is enormous support for the Majority Text found in Armenian, Ethiopic,
Gothic, Latin, and Syriac translations, some predating the earliest Greek
manuscripts we possess. But despite this fact, in the nineteenth century,
following the texts of the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, many
passages of the New Testament have been altered. Yet more recently discovered
papyrus fragments have confirmed the Majority Text. "Nineteenth-century
biblical scholars claimed that much of the first fourteen chapters of the
Gospel of John was corrupted by scribes in the later Byzantine Era. This claim
was shown to be utterly false by the discovery of Papyrus Bodmer II. Dated
about A.D. 200, prior to the commencement of the Byzantine Era, this Papyrus
verified many of the disputed passages attributed to late Byzantine copyists
and demonstrated that these passages were present in very early manuscripts."
(Modern Bible Translations Unmasked by Russell & Colin
Standish;p.37-38).
The Minority, Western or Alexandrian Text Group of The
Roman Catholic Bibles The second stream is a small one of a very few
manuscripts. Less the 1% of all Greek New Testament manuscripts fit into this
group. Here is a brief overview of the three manuscripts considered to be the
most important within this group.
1. Codex Alexandrinus (A)
This codex was the first of the so-called "great uncials" to become known to
western paleographers. "Walton, in his polyglot Bible, indicated it by the
letter A and thus set the fashion of designating Biblical manuscripts by such
symbols." (The Catholic Encyclopedia online; Codex Alexandrinus; http://www.
newadvent.org/cathen/04080c.htm). The codex came to the knowledge of the
western world when Cyril Lucar, the Patriarch of the Greek Catholic (Greek
Orthodox) Church in Alexandria was transferred in 1621 AD to become the new
Patriarch of Constantinople. He sent the codex as a gift to King James I of
England, but James I died before the gift was presented. Finally, in 1627 AD
Charles I accepted it in James I's stead. It seems probable that Cyril Lucar
had brought it with him from Alexandria. Concerning the provenance of the
volume, there is a note by Cyril Lucar stating that it was written by Thecla, a
noble lady of Egypt, but this is probably merely his interpretation of an
Arabic note from the 14th century which states the MS was written by Thecla,
the martyr (shortly after the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD). The article goes on
to say that "another Arabic note by Athanasius (probably Athanasius III.,
patriarch c. 1308 AD) states that it was given to the patriarchate of
Alexandria, and a Latin note of a later period dates the presentation in 1098."
Upon careful examination, scholars say it is clear that more than one
person worked on the volume. Actually, at some time in its history the work was
bound into four volumes, three Old Testament Volumes and one containing the New
Testament and 1 and 2 Clement. The Catholic Encyclopedia says, "two hands are
discerned in the New Testament by Woide, three by Sir E. Maunde Thompson and
Kenyon" and, "the greater part of Volume III (last volume of the Old Testament)
is ascribed by Gregory to a different hand from that of the others." (The
Catholic Encyclopedia online; Codex Alexandrinus). The text of Alexandrinus is
in double columns of 49 to 51 lines. It is the first codex to contain the major
chapters with their titles. A new paragraph is indicated by a large capital.
But, there are some paleographers that believe that the principal scribe who
prepared this codex could not even read Greek, because spaces sometimes appear
in the middle of a word. The Old Testament of Alexandrinus I have often read
that Alexandrinus contains a complete Old Testament. But that is not an
accurate statement. There are about 30 Psalms missing, Psalm 49:19 to 79:10,
because along the line some place ten leaves of the Old Testament were lost.
There are various other lacunas (gaps) in the Old Testament as well. "Genesis
14:14-17; 15:1-5, 16-19; 16:6-9; I Kings 12:20-14:9" are missing as well. (The
Catholic Encyclopedia online; Codex Alexandrinus).
The order of the Old
Testament books is peculiar. Not only are there Old Testament deletions, but
there are numerous Old Testament additions as well. It contains
deuterocanonical books and in addition to 1 and 2 Machabees it adds 3 and 4
Machabees which are apocryphal books of a very late origin. I find it
interesting that The Epistle to Marcellius, which is attributed to Athanasius,
is inserted as a preface to the Psalter, together with Eusebius's summary of
the Psalms. It contains Psalm 151 as well as 14 Odes or Liturgical Canticles.
The New Testament of Alexandrinus
The New Testament has lost
from 19 to 25 leaves of the Gospel of Matthew, as far as Matthew 25:6.
Strangely there are two leaves missing from the Gospel of John (John 6:50 to
8:52) which cover the much disputed passage about the adulterous woman. But,
what is amazing is that the Gospels follow the so-called Syrian type text, the
ancestor of the Textus Receptus, which is evidence that the traditional text
type did have an early origin! There are three leaves missing in 2 Corinthians
containing 4:13 to 12:6. This manuscript ends with Mark 16:8, therefore leaving
out 9-20. It omits John 5:4 (For an angel went down at a certain season into
the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of
the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.) and 1 John
5:7 (For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and
the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.). There are additions to the New
Testament as well. According to the table of contents the New Testament once
contained the Psalms of Solomon, though it is now missing. Also added to the
New Testament are the Epistle of St. Clement of Rome and the II Epistle of
Clement. In these two letters "Clement of Alexandria teaches that: [1] Men are
saved by works (2 Clement 2:12,15); [2] Christians are in danger of going to
Hell (2 Clement 3:8); [3]Christians don't get new bodies at the resurrection (2
Clement 4:2); [4] He was a prophet who wrote Scripture (2 Clement 4:11); [5]
The male and female in 1 Corinthians 11:9 9 were anger and concupiscence (when
they were speaking of Christ's being the head, then the husband, followed by
the wife in order or chain of authority). Not believing the Bible literally,
Clement both fantasized and spiritualized the Scriptures."
In conclusion, I
have to wonder why Codex A is considered so valuable textually when it has so
many problems? Copyist's errors are frequent. I remind you that numerous
paleographers believe that whoever prepared the text could not even read Greek.
Likewise it is agreed that two or three different people worked on the
manuscript. One author says it "is considered one of the most valuable
witnesses to the Septuagint." But, "it is found, however, to bear a great
affinity to the text embodied in Origen's Hexapla and to have been corrected in
numberless passages according to the Hebrew." And in fact, "the text of the
Septuagint codices is in too chaotic a condition
to permit of a sure
judgment on the textual value of the great manuscript." (Codex Alexandrinus;
The Catholic Encyclopedia; On line edition). The New Testament is not much
better because of its mixed origin, not to mention the extra biblical material
included in the volume. This early 5th century copy of the Bible (with some
mutilations) is in the British Library in London. Many scholars consider it to
be 3rd of importance only to the next two...
2. Codex Vaticanus (B)
This codex is an uncial manuscript thought to be from mid-4th century.
It is made up of 759 leaves written in three columns and has 42 lines to the
column, except for the poetical books where there are two columns per page. "It
was written by three scribes" according to the Encyclopedia Britannica which
goes on to state that later and then much later changes were made by two other
scribes (Encyclopedia Britannica - 11th Edition; vol.3; p879). It went
unnoticed in the Vatican library for many years until it became known to
textual scholars in 1475. However, it was used by Rome. "Pope Sixtus V made it
the basis of an edition of the Greek Old Testament in 1580" (The New
Archeological Discoveries and Their Bearing Upon the New Testament by Camden M.
Cobern; published by Funk and Wagnalls 1922; p.136). It was not published to
scholars until it was issued in different volumes between 1828 to 1838 in 5
volumes. This set proved to be very inaccurate. In fact, the Vatican kept the
manuscript sequestered and took great pains to be sure it was not readily
available to outsiders for about another 400 years! From 1843-1866, leading
scholars Constantine von Tischendorf and S.P. Tregelles were allowed to look at
it for a few hours, but not allowed to copy the MS. How is this manuscript
viewed?
Though I cannot figure out why, many consider this to be the
greatest of Codex witnesses to the New Testament. In fact, this parchment
manuscript "was reckoned as the chief authority among MSS. for the Greek
Testament of Westcott and Hort." (The New Archeological Discoveries and
Their Bearing Upon the New Testament by Camden M. Cobern; published by Funk
and Wagnalls 1922; p.136). But there are those who have questioned this
evaluation and with good reason! In 1860, while a temporary chaplain of an
English congregation at Rome, John Burgon made a personal examination of it and
found some major problems with in the manuscript. This has been confirmed by
many others. Here are just a few of the problems. "The entire manuscript has
had the text mutilated, every letter has been run over with a pen, making exact
identification of many of the characters impossible." (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus
- Wayne Jackson. ). Dr. W. Eugene Scott, who owns a large collection of ancient
Bible manuscripts and Bibles says, "the manuscript is faded in places; scholars
think it was overwritten letter by letter in the 10th or 11th century, with
accents and breathing [marks] added along with corrections from the 8th, 10th
and 15th centuries. All this activity makes precise paleographic analysis
impossible.
Missing portions were supplied in the 15th century by copying
other Greek manuscripts." (Codex Vaticanus by Dr. W. Eugene Scott,
1996). I question the "great witness" value of any manuscript has been
overwritten, doctored, changed and added to for more than 10 centuries. Let me
tell you more.
The Old Testament of Vaticanus
The first 46
chapters of Genesis are missing through Genesis 46:28. 2 Kings 2,5-7,10-13 are
missing as well. Psalm 105:27 to Psalm 137:6 are omitted as well. "The order of
the books of the Old Testament is as follows: Genesis to Second Paralipomenon,
First and second Esdras, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticle of Canticles,
Job, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, Tobias, the Minor Prophets from
Osee to Malachi, Isaias, Jeremias, Baruch, Lamentations and Epistle of
Jeremias, Ezechiel, Daniel; the Vatican Codex does not contain the Prayer of
Manasses or the Books of Machabees." (The Catholic Encyclopedia On-line; Codex
Vaticanus) The New Testament of Vaticanus Coming to the New Testament, Barry
Burtons writes in his book Let's Weigh the Evidence -- "it omits
Matthew
3, the Pauline Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon), Hebrews
9:14 to 13:25, and all of Revelation... in the gospels alone it leaves out 237
words, 452 clauses and 748 whole sentences, which hundreds of later copies
agree together as having the same words in the same places, the same clauses in
the same places and the same sentences in the same places." Floyd Jones further
notes that Matthew 16:2-3 and Romans 16:24 are missing.
There is yet
another strange thing about Vaticanus that John Burgon tells us about relating
to the last twelve verses of Mark. "To say that in the Vatican Codex (B), which
is unquestionably the oldest we posses, St. Mark's Gospel ends abruptly at the
eight verse of the sixteenth chapter, and that the customary subscription (Kata
Mapkon) follows, is true; but it is far from being the whole truth. It requires
to be stated in addition that the scribe, whose plan is found to have been to
begin every fresh book of the Bible at the top of the next ensuing column to
that which contained the concluding words of the preceding book, has at the
close of St. Mark's Gospel deviated from his else invariable practice. He has
left in this place one column entirely vacant. It is the only vacant column in
the whole manuscript - a blank space abundantly sufficient to contain the
twelve verses which he nevertheless withheld. Why did he leave that column
vacant? What can have induced the scribe on this solitary occasion to depart
from his established rule? The phenomenon (I believe I was the first to call
distinct attention to it) is in the highest degree significant, and admits only
one interpretation. The older manuscript from which Codex B was copied must
have infallibly contained the twelve verses in dispute. The copyist was
instructed to leave them out - and he obeyed; but he prudently left a blank
space in memoriam rei. Never was a blank more intelligible! Never was silence
more eloquent! By this simple expedient, strange to relate, the Vatican Codex
is made to refute itself even while it seems to be bearing testimony against
the concluding verses of St. Mark's Gospel, by withholding them; for it forbids
the inference which, under ordinary circumstances, must have been drawn from
that omission. It does more. By leaving room for the verses it omits, it brings
into prominent notice at the end of fifteen senturies and a half, a more
ancient witness than itself." (Revision Revised: The Last Twelve Verses
of the Gospel of St. Mark by Dean John William Burgon; p. 86-87)
That's not all. I turn your attention to John 1:18 - "No man hath seen God
at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he
hath declared him." Notice the phrase I have underlined, "the only begotten
Son." Both Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (Aleph) read "the only begotten God"
instead of "the only begotten Son." That clearly reflects the Arian heresy! In
fact, many textual authorities have identified Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, the
manuscripts so revered by modern textual critics, as two of the copies of the
Greek New Testament made by Eusebius. Frederick Nolan and other authorities
have charged Eusebius with making many changes in the Scripture. Nolan wrotes,
"As it is thus apparent that Eusebius was not wanting in power, so it may be
shown that he wanted not the will, to make those alterations in the sacred
text, with which I have ventured to accuse him." (An Inquiry into the Integrity
of the Greek Vulgate by Frederick Nolan; p. 35). I bring this to your attention
because, "it is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst
corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated
within a hundred years after it was composed; that Irenaeus (A.D. 150), and the
African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church,
used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or
Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus."
(Scrivener, Introduction to New Testament Criticism, 3rd Edition, 511, quoted
in Wilkinson, p.18.).
Here is another interesting fact. "It contains
the Epistle of Barnabas
which teaches that water baptism saves the soul."
(Which Version is The Bible? by Floyd Jones; published by Global Evangelism of
Goodyear Arizona; p. 68). Finally, there are two important points that I want
to make before moving on. "Erasmus knew about Vaticanus B and its variant
readings in 1515 AD while preparing the New Testament the New Testament Greek
text. Because they read so differently from the fast majority of mss which he
had seen, Erasmus considered such readings spurious." (Which Version is The
Bible? by Floyd Jones; published by Global Evangelism of Goodyear Arizona; p.
68). Further, as I understand it, Vaticanus was available to the translators of
the King James Bible, but they did not use it because they knew it is
unreliable..." It wasn't until 1889-1890 that a complete facsimile was made.
The manuscript remains in Vatican City to this day.
3. Codex
Sinaiticus a (a or ALEPH) This codex (also mid-4th century) was
discovered by Tischendorf at St. Catharine's Monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai
on his third visit there in 1859. Today, most of this codex is housed in the
National British Library. "The original provenance of the codex is debatable,
but the two likeliest contenders seem to be Egypt and Caesarea. It was
certainly present in the library at Caesarea sometime between the fifth and
seventh centuries, where it was corrected at one point against a manuscript
that had been corrected against the original Hexapla of Origen by the martyr
Pamphilius. Although it has frequently been suggested, it is unlikely that
Sinaiticus (or Codex Vaticanus, a very similar manuscript) was one of the fifty
parchment books ordered by the Emperor Constantine.
The text of the OT
reflects the Old Greek (where it has been determined), though it is inferior to
Vaticanus in most books. In the NT, Sinaiticus is frequently cited as an
Alexandrian witness. However, in John 1-8, at least, it contains a text more
closely related to the Western tradition." (Codex Sinaiticus by James R. Adair,
Jr. - Expanded by the author from his article in Eerdmans Dictionary of the
Bible) This manuscript is written on thin vellum. The portion of the manuscript
that resides at the British Library contains 346½ leaves of that number
199 are Old Testament leaves. There are another 43 leaves at the University
Library at Leipzig and yet another 3 partial leaves at Leningrad. In 1975 the
monks at St. Catherine's monastery discovered several leaves from Genesis
believed to be from Sinaiticus in a room whose ceiling had collapsed centuries
ago. The leaves measure 13 X 15½ inches and are written in uncial
characters, without accents or breathings, and with no punctuation except, at
times, the apostrophe and the single point for a period. It is written in four
columns to the page, except in the poetical books, which are written in two
wide columns. There are 48 lines per column except in the Catholic Epistles,
which have 47 lines per column. Originally it must have contained the whole Old
Testament, but is "has suffered severely from mutilation, especially in the
historical books from Genesis to Esdras (Ezra) inclusive.
A curious
oddity that occur is that Esdras (Ezra) 9:9 follows 1 Parlipomen (1 Chronicles)
19:17 without any break." (The Catholic Encyclopedia On-line; Codex
Sinaiticus). The article goes on to say that one of the many later correctors
has added a note that states that the seven leaves of 1 Parlipomen (1
Chronicles) copied into the Book of Esdras (Ezra) because the manuscript from
which Sinaiticus was copied was incorrect as well. One has to wonder about the
scribe(s) doing the copying. Either he (or they) did not know the Bible or he
did not know the language or he was careless. Perhaps it was a combination of
all of these.
But, I must say that errors like this lead me to doubt that
statement of the "scholars" who claim that this is one of the "best"
manuscripts. Speaking of scribes, Konstantin Von Tischendorf identified the
handwriting of four different scribes in the writing of the original text. But
that is not the end of the scribe problem! "He recognized seven correctors of
the text
" (The Catholic Encyclopedia On-line; Codex Sinaiticus). Others
say there were as many as ten scribes who altered the text. James R. Adair,
Jr., author of the article on Sinaiticus in the Eerdmans Dictionary of the
Bible says at one point the codex was "corrected against the original Hexpala
of Origen by the martyr Pamphilius." He arrived at this conclusion because of a
note that is the manuscript. It reads -- "This codes was compared with a very
ancient exemplar which had been corrected by the hand of the holy martyr
Pamphilus [died 309 AD]; which exemplar contained at the end of the
subscription in his own hand: 'Taken and corrected according to the hexapla of
Origen: Antonius compared it: I, Pamphilus, corrected it.'" The problem is that
Origen was a Bible corrupter, who "was moving away from the pure text of
Scripture which had come from the Apostles hands." (Rome and The Bible;
by David Cloud; published by Way of Life Literature, 1996; p. 22).
And
there is good reason to come to this conclusion. Origin "cited the versions of
Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, on the former part of the Canon, he appealed
to the authority of Valentinus and Heracleon on the latter. While he thus
raised the credit of those revisals, which had been made by heretics, he
detracted from the authority of that text which had been received by the
orthodox. Some of the difficulties which he found himself unable to solve in
the Evangelsits, he undertook to remove
" (Inquiry into the Integrity
of the Greek Vulgate by Frederick Nolan; published 1815; p.432). My point
is simply this. The early corrections of the manuscript are made from Origen's
corrupt source. But that was just the beginning of the tampering! As many as
nine other scribes tampered with the codex. Consider the observations of
Tischendorf once again. He "counted 14,800 corrections in Sinaiticus."
(Codes Sinaiticus by Navida Shahid; )
Alterations, and more
alterations and more alterations were made, and in fact, most of them are
believed to be made in the 6th and 7th centuries. "On nearly every page of the
manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people."
(Which Is The Right Version of the Bible; ). He goes on to say, "
the New
Testament
is extremely unreliable
on many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40,
words are dropped
letters, words even whole sentences are frequently
written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled; while that gross
blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same word
as the clause preceding occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament."
There is one particular omission that made a real impact upon my mind,
that I believe is important to beings into the picture at this point. Several
years back I went to the British Museum, specifically to take a look at
Sinaiticus. To my surprise I discovered that, while Mark 16:9-20 indeed was
missing, it was clear to see that it had originally been there, but had
been pumiced (erased) out. The space was still evident in the codex and the
letters could faintly be seen. My point is, it was there originally. I could
see it with my own eyes! It was at that point that I realized that the note in
my New International Version - "The two most reliable early manuscripts do not
have Mark 16:9-20", was not telling the whole story! In reality, the verses
were originally there!
It should be noted that the New Testament omits
Matthew 16:2-3; John 5:5, John 8:1-11; Acts 8:37; Romans 16:24; 1 John 5:7 and
about a dozen other entire verses. "The most significant fact regarding these
MSS it that in both Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus Aleph, John 1:18 reads that
Jesus was the only begotten "God" instead of the only begotten "Son." God was
not begotten at the incarnation! God begat his "only begotten son who, insofar
as his deity is concerned, is eternal as we read in Micah 5:2. That is the
original Arian heresy. The Arian heresy is believed by many to have resulted
"from Origen's editing the Greek manuscripts encountered in his travels and
appears in Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus a which were derived from copying his
work. (The Septuagint: A Critical Analysis by Floyd Jones; published by
Global Evangelism 1998; p. 10). There are numerous other problems with this
codex as well. For instance, it includes two uninspired books in the New
Testament. The entire Epistle of Barnabas (which teaches baptizmal
regeneration), except six leaves, and the Shepherd of Hermas, which is
incomplete.
Finally, I must point out something ironic about these two
alleged "oldest and best" manuscripts. They do not agree with each other!
"There are 3036 differences between the readings in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in
the Gospels alone" (Codex B and Its Allies by Herman Hoskier; volume 2,
p.1). John Burgon points out that it is easier to find two consecutive verses
in which the two manuscripts differ, than two consecutive verses in which they
entirely agree. We should find that very disturbing. My research has led me to
conclude that the three "Great Uncials" are at best unreliable. I am thankful
that the Bibles of the Reformation were based on what came to be called the
Traditional text or the Textus Receptus.
Back To
FAQs?