The Johannine Comma and the Catholic Church - the late 19th century through the mid-20th century

Back on January 13, 1897 the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition (now termed The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith) issued a response to the question of whether or not a Catholic could deny that the Comma Joanneum was genuine. Their decision—approved by Pope Leo XIII—definitively answered in the negative. Canon Mancini's—Notary of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition—English translation follows:

"Whether it may be safely denied, or at least called in doubt, that the text of St. John, in the first epistle, chap. 5, vs. 7, which reads as follows: 'For there are three that bear witness in heaven: Father, Word, and Holy Spirit, and these three are one' is genuine?"

After having weighed everything in a most diligent examination, and taking a vote of the Counselors, the said most Eminent Cardinals declared that the reply was to be given: Negatively. On Friday, the 15th day of the same month and year, in a regular audience granted to the Reverend Father the Assessor of the Holy Office, after an exact report on the above to Our Most Holy Master Leo XIII the Pope, His Holiness approved and confirmed the decision of the Most Eminent Fathers. (English provided in Gregory's article referenced below; Latin text here.)

Ten years after the above mentioned decree affirmed that the Johannine Comma was genuine, an article published by the American-German theologian Caspar René Gregory called into question the integrity of that decree. The article opens with the following bold assertion:

The discussion of this text, the spurious character of which is beyond doubt, has of late taken a new turn. (Bold emphasis mine.)

A bit later, Gregory provides the full decree of the ‘Roman Inquisition’ (Latin and English), and then wrote:

The untutored mind, whether Roman or not, would at once say that that was a clear settlement of the question. To the question whether the passage can safely be denied to be genuine, or at least be called doubtful, the congregation replied that the question was to be answered in the negative. It is pertinent, of course, to observe that the denial or the doubting referred to is not something that takes place in the open market every day, is not in the least a popular question. The congregation knew perfectly well that the passage was rejected or called doubtful only by textual critics, and the congregation settled that it could not with safety be rejected or called doubtful, and Pope Leo XIII confirmed their decision. I take it for granted, however, that this opinion of the Pope does not come within the series of cases in which he is regarded as infallible. We must pass on; but I cannot omit to call attention to the extraordinary conduct of the Congregation of the Inquisition, which has such learned men at its back, and which nevertheless in the year 1897, only eight years ago, permitted itself to be advised on a textual question by men ignorant of, or incapable of judging of, the text-critical work of the last fifty years. (Bold emphasis mine.) [PDF - link]

Clearly, Gregory is not open to the possibility that the Johannine Comma may be genuine; he adamantly made the decision the Comma is “spurious...beyond doubt.” He is so convinced of this assessment that he labels those who maintain that the Comma is genuine as “ignorant” or “incapable”!

His article goes on to attack the authenticity of the Comma, referencing Catholic and Protestant writers who agree with his view. However, I find is quite interesting that he has completely ignored one Catholic scholar who defends the authenticity of the Comma—Dr. Thomas Joseph Lamy.

Dr. Lamy—who was later appointed by Pius X to the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1903—wrote a detailed article on the decree under the title, "The Decision of the Holy Office on the 'Comma Joanneum'", that was published in November of the same year as the decree (1897). From that article we read:

The modern editions of the New Testament, styled critical editions, notably the octava critica major of C. Tischendorf, omit verse 7 and retain only the second part of the text. According to German and English critics, the Greek manuscripts and the ancient versions have not verse 7, and critical science demands that it be expunged from the editions of the Vulgate, as an interpolation the retention of which in the text cannot be justified .

Accordingly, verse 7 has been omitted from the new English version, called Revised, which a select body of English and American exegetes prepared some years ago. Since the verse in question clearly teaches the distinction of Three Persons together with the unity of Their nature in the Godhead,we can realize its importance from a theological point of view. However, the passage is not essential to a demonstration of the dogma of the Trinity; the Gospels contain sufficient texts and testimonies for that purpose. On the other hand it would be folly to reject so explicit a testimony in behalf of a Catholic doctrine, unless we have very grave reasons for doing so. This has caused Catholics to have recourse to the authority of the Apostolic See, and to submit to the Congregation of the Holy Office the question, whether we can with safe conscience reject verse 7, or call it into doubt. The Congregation has answered: No; and the Sovereign Pontiff has approved and confirmed the answer. (PDF - link)

The rest of the article goes on to provide a robust defense of the authenticity of the Johannine Comma; a defense that demonstrates—to an objective reader—that Gregory’s one-sided assessment is not as unassailable as he portrays.

Before ending this post, I would like to reference a post-1897 Catholic scholar who believes the Johannine Comma is authentic—Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P:

The second text of St. John referring to the three persons together is the famous Johannine comma: "And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one" (I John 5:7). A great controversy has arisen about the genuineness of this text. Those who attack the text argue from the fact that it is not found in any Greek codex of any authority, nor in many Latin codices and versions. From this they conclude that this "comma" was originally a marginal note which in the course of time was incorporated into the text. Consequently the text would enjoy only the force of tradition. The defenders of the text say that it was always in the Latin version, which is more ancient than the Greek codices, for it is found in many Latin codices and is cited by many of the Fathers, by Tertullian, St. Cyprian, and St. Augustine. The omission of this verse in the Greek codices is explained by the fact that the seventh and eighth verses begin and end in the same way and thus the scribes could easily have omitted the seventh verse. In the Latin version the seventh verse is: "And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one." The eighth verse is: "And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one." (Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., The Trinity and God the Creator, trans. Rev. Frederick C. Eckhoff, 1952, pp. 31-32; PDF - link)

 

Grace and peace,

David

The pseudo-Athanasian De Trinitate Libri XII and the Johannine Comma

Back on April 19, 2025 I published a new post under the title: Victor of Vita, the council of Carthage (484), the Book of the Catholic Faith, and the Johannine Comma (link). The thread delved into the history and controversy between two competing factions of professing Christians in North Africa—the homoians and homoousians—during the middle through late fifth century. This controversy between the homoians and homoousians began a full century earlier with promulgation of the Second Creed of Sirmium in 357 A.D.—also known as "The Blasphemy of Sirmium" (link).

Recently, my studies into the controversy between the homoians and homoousians has been renewed with my reading of Daniel H. Williams, Ambrose of Milan and the End of the Arian-Nicene Conflicts (link). Chapter 3, "Homoians and Anti Homoians: North Italy" (pages 69-103) is excellent; and in pages 96-103 Dr. Williams relates a fourth century apologetic work on the Trinity I had no memory of being mentioned in any my previous readings—De trinitate libri XII. From the pen of Dr. Williams we read:

Since the seventeenth century, the work commonly known as the De trinitate libri XII had been attributed to either Vigilius of Thapsus or Athanasius of Alexandria, since the latter's name appears as the author in the earliest and majority of manuscripts. Just before the turn of this century, careful manuscript studies by G. Ficker and G. Morin, showed that neither Vigilius nor Athanasius could have been the author, and that the most ancient and numerous manuscripts contain only seven books, not the twelve which Chifflet had compiled. While there does exist a longer recension which includes an eighth book, it is generally agreed that the first seven form a cohesive ensemble attributable to a single author. The latter five books are a comparatively recent agglomeration of treatises, noticeably different from the first seven in style and terminology. This consensus is reflected in the recent critical edition of the De trinitate (CCSL ix. 3-99), in which V. Bulhart treats books I-VII as a literary whole and prints the first (or shorter) and second recensions in parallel columns. But here the consensus ends. Regarding the questions of authorship and chronology for the De trinitate, scholarly opinion has been and continues to be sharply divided. With the publication of the CCSL edition (1957), Bulhart revived the view that Eusebius of Vercelli was the author of the first seven books (the first recension). [Pages 96-97]

He then writes:

Because of the imposing difficulties with the chronology and authorship of De trinitate, the contents of the treatise have been left virtually untreated by modern scholarship...As we shall see, the De trinitate provides one of the most informative glimpses into the evolution of Latin pro-Nicene literature, with the exception of those writings from Hilary and Ambrose. [Page 98]

After reading Dr. Williams book, I became somewhat obsessed with learning more about this "virtually untreated" work . I began with gathering information on the proposed authors of De trinitate libri XII: "Psuedo-Athanasius", "Vigilius of Thapsus", "Eusebius of Vercelli" and "Gregory of Elvira". Whilst engaged in some research on Vigilius of Thapsus, I discovered he is mentioned in one of the commentaries on 1 John that I own; note the following:

In PL 62, 237—334 there is a work De Trinitate consisting of twelve books. Formerly it was attributed to the North African bishop Vigilius of Thapsus who was present at the Carthage meeting; it has also been designated Pseudo-Athanasius; but other guesses credit it to a Spanish scholar such as Gregory of Elvira (d. 392) or Syagrius of Galicia (ca. 450). Recently the first seven books have been published (CC 9, 3—99) as the work of Eusebius of Vercelli (d. 371), but not without debate (see CPL #105). In any case, the work is probably of North African or Spanish origin; and its parts may have been composed at different times, e.g., Books 1—7 written just before 400, and 8—12 at a period within the next 150 years. In Books 1 and 10 (PL 62, 243D, 246B, 297B) the Comma is cited three times. (Raymond Brown, The Epistles of John, Appendix IV, 1982, p. 782)

Now, whoever actually wrote De trinitate libri XII—formerly attributed to Vigilius of Thapsus—the author(s), in defense of pro-Nicene Trinitarianism, cited the Johannine Comma. The following are the germane Latin texts from Migne’s Patralogia Latina, Volume 62 that were referenced by Brown (PDF):

Liber I 206 dirente Joanne evangelista in Epistola sua : Tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in cælo, Pater, et Verbum, et Spiritus, et in Christo Jesu unum sunt (I Joan. v, 7) [Migne PL 62, p. 243D; Bulhart CCSL 9, p. 15]

English: John the Evangelist in his Epistle asserts: Three are they who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and in Christ Jesus they are one

Liber I 209 Jam audisti superius evangel stam Joannem in Epistola sua tam absolute testantem : Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in cælo, Pater, Verbum et Spiritus sanctus : et in Christo Jesu unum sunt (I Joan. v, 7). [Migne PL 62, p. 246B; Bulhart CCSL 9, p. 19]

English: We have heard the superior gospel from John in his Epistle as absolute testimony: There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and in Christ Jesus they are one

Liber X 281 et Joannes in Epistola sua ait : Tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in cælo, Pater, Verbum et Spiritus : et in Christo Jesu unum sunt (I Joan. v, 7) [Migne PL 62, p.297B; Bulhart CCSL 9, p. 145]

English: and John in his Epistle says: There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit: and in Christ Jesus they are one

In addition to  the three citations referenced by Brown, I found a fourth citation of 1 John 5:7 in De trinitate libri XII:

Liber V 249 sicut Joannes evangelista in Epistola sua tam absolute testatur : Et tres unum sunt (I Joan. v, 7). [Migne PL 62, p.274C; Bulhart CCSL 9, p. 77]

English: just as John the Evangelist testifies so absolutely in his Epistle: And the three are one.

Now, most Patristic scholars are in agreement with Dr. Williams that only the first seven books of De trinitate libri XII were written by the same author, and that they were penned earlier than the other five. Following Bulhart’s assessment that it was Eusebius of Vercelli who wrote the first seven books, we have three clear citations of the Johannine Comma—in support of Nicene Trinitarianism—a full century before that of Victor of Vita.

Shall end this post with a Google AI Overview of Eusebius of Vercelli that I found useful:

Saint Eusebius of Vercelli (c. 300-371 AD) was a 4th-century Italian bishop, a staunch defender of orthodox Nicene Christianity against Arianism, known for establishing the first community of clergy living a monastic, communal life, and for enduring exile for his faith. Born in Sardinia, he became the first recorded bishop of Vercelli, unifying clerical and monastic ideals by having priests live together in piety, and bravely resisted Arian bishops at the Council of Milan, leading to his persecution and exile to the East. He returned after Emperor Julian's amnesty, working with St. Athanasius and Hilary of Poitiers to restore Catholic doctrine before his death in 371.

Addendum (12-23-25):

New Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, p. 455 (Second Edition - 2003)

EUSEBIUS OF VERCELLI, ST.

Bishop, monastic founder, and anti-Arian polemicist; b. Sardinia, Italy, early fourth century; d. Vercelli, August 1, 371. He became a member of the Roman clergy under Pope JULIUS. When consecrated first bishop of Vercelli c. 344, he established a community life for his clergy, and he is considered a founder of the CANONS REGULAR. He was also instrumental in the establishment of new dioceses near Vercelli, e.g., Turin and Embrun. Eusebius attended the Council of Milan in 355 as legate of Pope LIBERIUS and with Dionysius of Milan upheld the orthodoxy of St. ATHANASIUS against the politically intimidated Western episcopate. He was exiled in the East until the death of CONSTANTIUS II, was liberated under Julian, and in 362 attended the Council of Alexandria with Athanasius and approved its lenient decisions for the reconciliation of compromised bishops. Returned to Italy, he collaborated with HILARY OF POITIERS against the Arians; he died peaceably in his own diocese. Of his correspondence correspondence, three letters have been preserved, and the first seven books of a De Trinitate previously attributed to Athanasius or Vigilius of Thapsus are now ascribed to him by many patrologists. He also translated Commentaries on the Psalms by EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA (Jerome, Ep. 61.2), now lost, and may have authored the pre- Jerome version of the Gospels preserved in the Codex Vercellensis.

Feast: Aug. 2 (formerly Dec. 16, anniversary of his consecration). [V. C. DE CLERCQ] 

Grace and peace,

David

Current day Levites and a possible third Temple

Earlier this morning, I received via email David Cloud's 'Friday Church News Notes', which included the following entry:

>>LEVITES TUNE UP FOR THE THIRD TEMPLE (Friday Church News Notes, May 3, 2024, www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) - “Levites Tune up for the Third Temple” is the title of a report in Israel365News for May 3, 2024. Following is an excerpt: “On Thursday, the third intermediary day of Passover, Levites gathered in Jerusalem to reenact their musical role in the Temple. A group of about two dozen Levites gathered in the Old City to practice their singing while wearing garments designed for use by the Temple musicians in the Third Temple. ... The Gaon of Vilna (an 18th-century Torah sage) said that the Temple music would be the last secret to be revealed before the Messiah.” We know from Bible prophecy that the Third Temple will be built, and it will be occupied by the Antichrist, who will declare himself to be God and demand the worship of the entire world (2 Thessalonians 2:3-9; Revelation 13:4-8, 16-17). His entrance into the temple will mark the beginning of the great tribulation (Matthew 24:15-22). The preparations for the Third Temple is a major sign of the times. The hour is very, very late, and if the redeemed saints are going to serve Christ, we must do it now and not allow ourselves to be sidetracked to lesser things.>>[Link]

I knew that descendents of the tribe of Levi have survived to our day, but did not know that some of them were actually engaged in priestly duties. The following is from the Israel365News site mentioned by David Cloud:

Traditionally, Temple musicians were selected from the tribe of Levi. The Zohar explains that the Levites were selected to sing in the Temple because the name Levi means to accompany, and their music would cause others to come close to God. In the days that the Temples stood in Jerusalem, the Levites sang on the 15 steps— corresponding to the 15 Songs of Ascent in Psalms 15 —that led from the Ezrat Nashim (“Court of Women”) to the Ezrat Yisrael(“Court of Israelites”). The Mishna states that there were never less than 12 Levites standing on the platform, but their number could be increased indefinitely. While ordinarily, no minor was permitted to enter the Azarah (“Courtyard”) to take part in the service, the young Levites were permitted to join in the singing to “add sweetness to the sound” but were not permitted to stand on the same platform with the adult Levites (Talmud Erchin 2:6).

In the Bible, the tribe of Levi included Moses and Aaron. Kohanim (priests) are descendants of Aaron and his descendants became a subset of the tribe of Levi. The other members of the tribe were chosen by God to forfeit their portions of land in Israel and to serve in the Temple. The Levites performed various functions in the Temple including guarding and serving all the musical needs.

Jewish communities are scrupulous about perpetuating the status of the Levites, which is passed from father to son. Only Jewish men whose fathers were Levites are considered eligible. Comprising about 4% of the total Jewish population, they are recognized for conspicuous honors in religious services and their status as Levites is inscribed on their gravestones. [Link]

Levite priests, a third temple in Jerusalem, and the Antichrist  ???

Food for thought…

 

Grace and peace,

David

A 13th century (B.C.) Hebrew inscription on a lead tablet discovered at Mt. Ebal

On May 19^th, I received an email from the Biblical Archaeology Society that contained a link to a Bible History Daily post with the title, An Early Israelite Curse Inscription from Mt. Ebal? [LINK TO POST]

From the post we read:

In early 2022, a research team led by scholars from the Associates for Biblical Research (ABR) announced the discovery of a lead tablet from Mt. Ebal that they claim contains the oldest extant Hebrew inscription. Now, after more than a year, a peer-reviewed article presenting one part of the inscription has been published in the journal Heritage Science [LINK].

According to the team, the inscription, which they date to the Late Bronze Age II period (c. 1400–1200 BCE), is a legal text and curse that invokes the Israelite deity Yahweh. The team believes the tablet is one of the most important inscriptions ever found in Israel, predating the previously earliest known Hebrew inscription by several hundred years, and one that could drastically alter our reconstruction of ancient Israel’s earliest history…

As translated by the team, the tablet reads:

You are cursed by the god yhw, cursed.

You will die, cursed—cursed, you will surely die.

Cursed you are by yhw—cursed.

The team claims the inscription is written in an archaic script, similar in style to other early alphabetic inscriptions known from the southern Levant, which they term proto-Hebrew alphabetic. Furthermore, they suggest that the use of the name Yhw, a shortened version of the divine name Yahweh (YHWH), is clear evidence that the text is an early Hebrew inscription. If true, this would make the tablet hundreds of years older than previously known early Hebrew inscriptions.

According to the team, the Mt. Ebal tablet is a type of legal text, which threatens curses upon individuals who transgress a covenant. They connect it directly to the covenant renewal ceremony on Mt. Ebal, described in Deuteronomy 27 and Joshua 8. Moreover, the team claims the tablet is evidence that certain books of the Hebrew Bible could have been written down hundreds of years earlier than most biblical scholars previously thought. As stated by the ABR’s Director of Excavations, Scott Stripling, during the initial press conference, “One can no longer argue with a straight face that the biblical text was not written until the Persian period or the Hellenistic period, as many higher critics have done, when we clearly do have the ability to write the entire text [of the Bible] at a much, much earlier date.” One of the project’s epigraphers, Gershon Galil of the University of Haifa reiterated the point, saying, “The scribe that wrote this ancient text, believe me, he could write every chapter in the Bible.”

Skeptics and liberal Biblical scholars who have embraced the theories of higher criticism have wasted no time in attacking the paper, for the evidence and conclusions presented have raised some serious questions concerning a number of the theories promoted by higher critics of the Bible.

Now, the paper itself was published in the Heritage Science journal on May 12, 2023 under the title, “You are Cursed by the God YHW:” an early Hebrew inscription from Mt. Ebal. Six scholars contributed to this peer reviewed paper of 26 pages. The post published by the Biblical Archaeology Society provides an adequate summation of the paper, but the paper itself is a must read for all folk who have an interest in Biblical studies.

Once again, here is THE LINK.

Grace and peace,

David

The New Testament and textual criticism – “the shorter reading is preferred” (Part 2)

In my last post (link), I delved into the “venerable maxim lectio brevior lectio potior” (the shorter reading is the more probable reading); pointing out that, “many of the assumptions/criteria used support the lectio brevior potior canon/rule are problematic.” I then provided lengthy quotes from two scholars—Harry Sturz and George Kilpatrick—who maintained that scribes more often than not shortened the texts they were copying, rather than adding. In other words, it is the longer reading that ‘is the more probable’, not the shorter.

In this post, I will focus primarily on a New Testament textual critic who has spent decades comparing the oldest extant NT manuscripts—James R. Royse, Ph.D. (1969) in Philosophy, University of Chicago, Th.D. (1981) in Biblical Studies, Graduate Theological Union. The following quotes will be from his magnum opus, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri (Brill, 2007, pb. SBL, 2010 – entire book can be read online HERE). This massive tome (1,051 pages), “is based on a dissertation of the same title submitted to the faculty of the Graduate Theological Union in 1981 for the degree of Th.D.” (p. XIII). From the first chapter we read:

One of the crucial principles of Hort’s masterly survey of the materials methodology, and results of New Testament textual criticism is: “Knowledge of documents should precede final judgement upon readings.” As Hort’s own comments make clear, knowledge of the sorts of errors that a particular scribe tended to make, and of his overall method and accuracy of copying, is an essential portion of this “knowledge of documents.” Accordingly, one finds in Hort’s work and in the works of other critics various assertions concerning the copying habits of scribes of significant manuscripts. (p.1)

Concerning these “various assertions”, Royse then writes:

 … as we shall see in detail in chapters 4–9, numerous scholars have attempted to characterize the habits of the scribes of the most important of the papyri. Unfortunately, however, the comments found in the works of Hort, von Soden, and others, appear usually to be based upon data that are incomplete and that have not been selected by means of a carefully formulated and implemented methodology. One consequence is that critics differ ab initio on the value to be ascribed to the various manuscripts, and even where they agree it is not clear what the evidence supporting the common position really is.

This lack of evidence is seen most clearly when one moves to the next level of generalization, namely, from the habits of the scribes of particular manuscripts to the determination of the habits of scribes in general. These general habits are presumably discovered, of course, on the basis of a detailed knowledge of the specific habits attributed to the scribes of some sample of the extant manuscripts. The general habits serve, then, as the basis of our knowledge of transcriptional probability (and improbability): what sorts of alterations scribes are likely (or unlikely) to have made in the text. Finally, this knowledge permits us to formulate the several canons of internal evidence, which are found in various textbooks and prolegomena, and which are an essential tool in the critic’s task of reconstructing the history of the text of the New Testament.

Regrettably, though, most presentations of these canons are not—as far as one can tell from the exposition—based on the actual knowledge of documents of which Hort speaks, but rather appear to rest upon a priori reflections on how scribes behaved (or must have behaved). And when particular readings are cited—presumably as evidence—the evaluation of one reading as the original and another as arising by a scribal error is frequently suspect from a methodological point of view, and so one is left wondering why the direction of scribal error may not have been other than is stated. (pp. 3, 4 – bold emphasis mine)

Royse’s observation that the canons presented by many textual critics are not “based on the actual knowledge” of the documents under consideration, but rather, “rest upon a priori reflections on how scribes behaved” is telling. Further, when many textual critics actually cite “particular readings” their “evaluation of one reading as the original and another as arising by a scribal error is frequently suspect from a methodological point of view.”

Royse then adds:

It would, of course, be beyond the scope of the present study to deal with all the secondary literature that makes assertions, justified or not, concerning the habits of scribes. But a few references may indicate that the appropriate sort of evidence for such assertions is often lacking, and that various problems may arise as a consequence in the evaluation of particular variants.

For instance, one of the most detailed and influential statements of the canons of textual criticism has been that of Griesbach. If we look at, say, his first canon, that of lectio brevior potior (“the shorter reading is to be preferred”), we will gain the impression that Griesbach had the wideranging knowledge of documents necessary to delineate precisely when scribes were likely to add and when, as exceptions, they were likely to omit. We may, of course, be sure that Griesbach did have such knowledge, and may well regard his distillation of this knowledge into various rules as having sound authority. Nevertheless, it is significant that no specific reading of a manuscript is cited as a foundation for this first canon. And in fact, no specific reading of a manuscript is cited anywhere within Griesbach’s Prolegomena, Sectio III, which is titled: “Conspectus potiorum observationum criticarum et regularum, ad quas nostrum de discrepantibus lectionibus judicium conformavimus.”* The fact that Griesbach does not even attempt to present evidence for his statements about how scribes copied makes it difficult (if not impossible) for later students to know what exactly he would have considered as evidence, to check the evidence upon which his statements rest, or to revise his statements in the light of the new evidence provided by subsequent manuscript discoveries. (pp. 4, 5 – bold emphasis mine)

[*Novum Testamentum Graece 1:lxiii–lxxxii: “Survey of the more important critical observations and rules, by which we have formed our judgment about variant readings.”]

Royse moves from Griesbach to Metzger, writing the following:

As a result of the lack of clear evidence on scribal habits, many decisions about specific textual problems appear arbitrary and subjective. This judgment even applies to the Textual Commentary published by Metzger as the explanation and justification of the various decisions made in the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament. The fact that the editors have recorded their reasons for their decisions on the most important variations permits us to follow their views throughout the text, and to compare their arguments at one place with those at another. Although it is clear that the editors do have a wide knowledge of documents and have utilized this knowledge in a careful manner, the assertions made about scribal habits remain without explicit foundation. (pp. 5, 6 – bold emphasis mine)

Royse then drops the following ‘bombshell’:

It is remarkable that critics and editors seem often not even to appreciate that evidence is lacking in the matter of scribal habits.

Royse proceeds to remedy what Griesbach, Tischendorf, Hort, von Soden, Metzger and so many other textual critics have woefully neglected. In pages 103-704 he provides “explicit foundation[s]” for his assertions concerning the “scribal habits” of those folk who wrote six of the oldest and most extensive manuscripts of the extant papyri: P45, P46, P47, P66, P72, and P75.

I shall now move on to one of Royse’s major assessments: the scribal habits of the writers of P45, P46, P47, P66, P72, and P75 demonstrates that more often than not it is the longer reading that is to be preferred, rather than the shorter. In chapter 10 (Shorter Reading?), he shares some of his thoughts concerning the canon/rule lectio brevior potior. Note the following:

One of the most venerable canons of textual criticism is that the shorter reading is generally to be preferred. This principle and some possible applications of it have already been examined briefly in chapter 1, but the discovery that all six of the papyri analyzed here omit more often than they add makes it important to return to this principle, and to ask how earlier scholars could have formulated a rule that so clearly—as it turns out—goes against the scribal activity evidenced in our papyri. (p. 705)

After citing Griesbach’s first canon¹, he then writes:

The principle of preferring the shorter reading has been utilized most influentially within the field of New Testament textual criticism by Westcott and Hort…(p. 705)

In pages 706-708 he provides clear examples of Westcott and Hort’s almost slavish application of the “principle of preferring the shorter reading.” He moves on to examples from Metzger and the Alands², after which he concludes:

The frequency with which scholars such as Hort and Metzger appeal to the preference for the shorter reading is doubtless in part due to the ease and objectivity of its application. Whether a particular reading fits the style of the author, is grammatically smoother, follows Semitic idiom, or is theologically more acceptable, is usually very much a matter of debate, and reaching any decision on such issues would involve the weighing of a great deal of evidence. But deciding whether one reading is shorter than another is, at least usually, a perfectly straightforward task. It is therefore convenient to reduce textual questions to questions of length, and then to decide accordingly. (p. 711)

Though the canon/rule lectio brevior potior has been, and still is, embraced by the vast majority of NT textual critics, Royse in pages 714-717 provides excerpts from a few scholars who, prior to the publication of his book, found significant problems with the maxim—e.g. Scrivener, Kilpatrick, A.C. Clark, Elliott, and Colwell. He follows those selections with:

And, whatever may be the status of the specific theories put forward by Clark (and others), the fact is that the six papyri studied here all demonstrate a tendency to shorten the text. Often the omissions appear to be accidental, just as many of the additions may have arisen by accidental assimilation to the context, parallel passages, or similar constructions. Many of the accidental omissions involve scribal leaps, but many have no such cause. Sometimes the omission may have been deliberate. But in any case the direction is clearly from a longer text to a shorter text. (pp. 717, 718 – bold emphasis mine)

A bit later we read:

And, of course, these scribes differ greatly among themselves with respect to other patterns of error. Indeed, precisely because the six scribes differ in so many ways, are copying different portions of the New Testament, and are utilizing texts of different sorts, it would seem that their common habit of shortening the text is a general habit, and not an anomalous feature of one or two particular scribes. To be sure, one could contend that all six scribes are anomalous, but, given their many differences, such a view would seem highly implausible, and to be based on no evidence. Naturally, we might eventually discover other early papyri that would force us to revise these conclusions, but we have to work with the available evidence. And there seems in fact to be no reason to suppose that we just happened to have found manuscripts from the six scribes of antiquity who tended to shorten their text. On the contrary, it would seem that these six manuscripts should represent a fair sample (in so far as any sample of six could be fair) of the scribal activity involved in the copying of the New Testament in Egypt in the years from, say, 175 to 300. (pp. 719, 720 – bold emphasis mine)

Shall end here for now. Hope interested folk will take the time to explore Royse’s book for themselves..

Grace and peace,

David

Notes:

1.  Full canon provided in my previous post (link).

2.  Same examples provided in previous post

The New Testament and textual criticism – “the shorter reading is preferred” (Part 1)

What is the genuine Greek—what the true Text of the New Testament? Which are the very words which were written by the Evangelists and Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ under the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost?

The two above questions were posed by Edward Miller in his book, A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (1886, p.1 - link to PDF). The answer to these questions is the ultimate goal of New Testament textual criticism.

As the number of extant Greek manuscripts increased, the number of variants within those extant manuscripts also increased. Before the 16th century, all the GNT manuscripts were hand written, but in the year 1514 the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament was produced (volume V of the Complutensian Polygot, which was not published until 1520), and in 1516 Desiderius Erasmus’ Novum Instrumentum Omne was printed and published. Between 1519-1535, Erasmus created four more editions of the Greek New Testament that were also printed and published. Erasmus’ five editions were soon followed by four GNT editions printed by the Parisian Robert Estienne (Latin: Stephanos)—1546, 1549, 1550 and 1551. The 1550 edition was the first GNT to contain a critical apparatus of variant readings; readings that were compiled from fourteen GNT manuscripts and the GNT of the Comlputensian Polygot. The apparatus of Stephanos’ 1550 edition was principally the beginning of textual criticism of the GNT as a distinct discipline.

Following this somewhat humble beginning, the textual criticism of the GNT as a distinct discipline has grown into a massive field of study that includes the textual criticism of non-Greek New Testament translations (especially Latin), and the quotations of the NT by the Church Fathers. Interestingly enough, this field of study became dominated by liberal and nominal ‘Christians’, with one of the top GNT textual critics of our day—Bart Ehrman—becoming an agnostic, and repudiating any notion of the GNT as inspired Scripture from God.

In the 17th century, various methods, rules, and theories began to emerge within the field of GNT textual criticism in the attempt to identify which of the tens of thousands of variant readings found within the thousands of extant GNT manuscripts/texts are the purest representatives of the original texts penned by the apostles and disciples of Jesus Christ—texts that Christians have termed the New Testament.

One of the earliest theories to develop was the identification of manuscripts into groups/text types based primarily—but not exclusively so—on the geographical location where the manuscript was thought to be written. Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687-1752) classified the extant manuscripts he personally was cognizant of into two groups that he termed ‘Asiatic' and ‘African’. The ‘Asiatic' group contained those manuscripts thought to have been written in Constantinople and the surrounding Greek speaking environs. The ‘African’ group being represented by the extant Latin translations and Greek texts like the codex Alexandrinus. Johann Salmo Semler (1725-1791) further developed the theory of groups/text types by classifying the extant manuscripts into three recensions: the ‘Alexandrain', “Eastern/Byzantine' and 'Western'.

A student of Semler’s, Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745-1812), retained the three group distinctions with greater refinements and additions to each of the groups.

This identification of manuscripts into groups/types is classified as one of the 'external evidences' of text-critical methodology. Concerning the ‘evidences' utilized by textual critics, Dr. Epp wrote:

What had emerged in little more than a decade from Mill to Bentley [textual critics of the early 18th century] was a twofold set of criteria, external and internal, that, while partial and rudimentary, formed the foundation of text-critical methodology ever after. These criteria were more clearly defined over time, but basically external evidence assesses factors such as the age, quality, geographical distribution, and groupings of manuscripts and other witnesses, while internal evidence assesses what authors were most likely to write and what scribes were likely to transcribe. During the eighteenth century and through the nineteenth, virtually all notable editors stated a basic, general principle that the text should be formed from the most ancient textual witnesses, and (except for Lachmann) their editions also included a list of internal criteria. Bengel (1725 and 1742) offered twenty-seven canons, Wettstein (1730 and 1751–52) listed eighteen, Griesbach (1796–1806) fifteen, Tischendorf (1869–72, in the prolegomena by Caspar René Gregory)  five, Tregelles (1857–72) nine, and Westcott and Hort (1881–82) also offered some nine, though not in a formal list. (Eldon Jay Epp, “Traditional 'Canons' of New Testament Textual Criticism: Their Value, Validity, and Viability-or Lack Thereof”, in The Textual History of the Greek New Testament: Changing Views in Contemporary Research, 2011, pp. 83, 84)

One of the ‘canons’—i.e. rules, principles—of the ‘internal evidences’ of textual criticism found in the works of the majority of textual critics (one can add Bruce Meztger, Kurt and Barbara Aland to the above list by Epp), is lectio brevior potior—the shorter reading is preferred. A detailed description of lectio brevior potior was provided by Johann Jakob Griesbach. The following is Bruce Metzger’s English translation, with his brief introduction:

Among the 15 canons of textual criticism that Griesbach elaborated, the following (his first canon) may be given as a specimen:

The shorter reading (unless it lacks entirely the authority of the ancient and weighty witnesses) is to be preferred to the more verbose, for scribes were much more prone to add than to omit. They scarcely ever deliberately omitted anything, but they added many things; certainly they omitted some things by accident, but likewise not a few things have been added to the text by scribes through errors of the eye, ear, memory, imagination, and judgement. Particularly the shorter reading is to be preferred, even though according to the authority of the witnesses it may appear to be inferior to the other,—

a. if at the same time it is more difficult, more obscure, ambiguous, elliptical, hebraizing, or solecistic;

b. if the same thing is expressed with different phrases in various manuscripts;

c. if the order of words varies;

d. if at the beginning of pericopes;

e. if the longer reading savours of a gloss or interpretation, or agrees with the wording of parallel passages, or seems to have come from lectionaries.

But on the other hand the longer reading is to be preferred to the shorter (unless the latter appears in many good witnesses),—

a. if the occasion of the omission can be attributed to homoeoteleuton;

b. if that which was omitted could have seemed to the scribe to be obscure, harsh, superfluous, unusual, paradoxical, offensive to pious ears, erroneous, or in opposition to parallel passages;

c. if that which is lacking could be lacking without harming the sense or the structure of the sentence, as for example incidental, brief propositions, and other matter the absence of which would be scarcely noticed by the scribe when re-reading what he had written;

d. if the shorter reading is less in accord with the character, style, or scope of the author;

e. if the shorter reading utterly lacks sense;

f. if it is probable that the shorter reading has crept in from parallel passages or from lectionaries. (Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 2nd  ed., 1968, p. 120.)

Metzger himself was an advocate of lectio brevior potior; note the following:

In general, the shorter reading is to be preferred, except where parablepsis arising from homoeoteleuton may have occurred or where the scribe may have omitted material that he deemed to be superfluous, harsh, or contrary  to pious belief, liturgical usage, or ascetical practice. (Compare Griesbach's fuller statement of this criterion, p. 120 above.) [The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 2nd ed., 1968, pp. 209, 210.]

And from the ‘Introduction’ of Metzger’s, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, we read:

2. In general the shorter reading is to be preferred, except where

(a) Parablepsis arising from homoeoarcton or homoeoteleuton may have occurred (i.e., where the eye of the copyist may have inadvertently passed from one word to another having a similar sequence of letters); or where

(b) The scribe may have omitted material that was deemed to be (i) superfluous, (ii) harsh, or (iii) contrary to pious belief, liturgical usage, or ascetical practice. (1975, corrected edition, p. xxvii)

Metzger’s colleagues, Kurt and Barbara Aland, also accepted lectio brevior potior as one of their, “TWELVE BASIC RULES FOR TEXTUAL CRITICISM”:

11. The venerable maxim lectio brevior lectio potior ("the shorter reading is the more probable reading") is certainly right in many instances. But here again the principle cannot be applied mechanically. It is not valid for witnesses whose texts otherwise vary significantly from the characteristic patterns of the textual tradition, with frequent omissions or expansions reflecting editorial tendencies (e.g., D). Neither should the commonly accepted rule of thumb that variants agreeing with parallel passages or with the Septuagint in Old Testament quotations are secondary be applied in a purely mechanical way. A blind consistency can be just as dangerous here as in Rule 10 (lectio difficilior). [Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, trans. by Erroll F. Rhodes, second edition, 1989, p. 281]

Though Griesbach, Metzger and the Alands delineate criteria for exceptions to the  lectio brevior potior canon/rule, in the vast majority of cases when a textual reading has shorter and longer variants, the shorter reading is adopted the preferred one.

Now, what you will rarely hear from textual critics who have embraced the, “venerable maxim lectio brevior lectio potior (‘the shorter reading is the more probable reading’)”, is that many of the assumptions/criteria used support the lectio brevior potior canon/rule are problematic. The rest of the post will focus on one of those assumptions/criteria: scribes were much more prone to add than to omit.

If my memory serves me correctly, the first time I saw a challenge to the axiom that scribes were much more prone to add than to omit was in Dr. Harry Sturz’s book, The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism. From Dr. Sturz’s book we read:

Kilpatrick, in his evaluation of the text behind the TR, includes a discussion on conflation, in which he examines variant readings eclectically, and finds that in many instances the longer reading should be preferred as the original reading. He concludes the discussion on homoeoteluton with the following observations:

This list is ... sufficient to show both how prevalent this kind of mistake is and how frequently the Textus Receptus and its allies preserve the original reading. Westcott and Hort of course rejected their evidence and chose the shorter text even when it clearly impaired the meaning as at Mark x. 7.

lt is worth considering how this came about. One of the canons of  textual critics in modern times has been lectio brevior potior . ... On the other hand if we substitute the maxim, 'the longer text, other things being equal, is preferable', have we any reason for thinking that this is more mistaken than the conventional lectio brevior potior? We are used to this last but the fact that it is traditional is no argument for its being true. Nonetheless, Westcott and Hort do not seem to have thought of challenging it.

There are passages where reasons can be given for preferring the longer text and there are others where we can find reasons for preferring the shorter. There is a third category where there does not seem to be any reason for deciding one way or the other. How do we decide between longer and shorter texts in this third category? On reflection we do not seem able to find any reason for thinking that the maxim lectio brevior potior really holds good. We can only hope that a fuller acquaintance with the problems concerned will enable us increasingly to discern reasons in each instance why the longer or the shorter reading seems more probable.

Cited from Kilpatrick's essay: "The Greek New Testament Text of Today and the Textus Receptus," Chap. VIII in The New Testament in Historical and Contemporary Perspective, Essays in Memory of G. H. Macgregor, ed. by Anderson and Barclay (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965), p. 196. [Sturz, Harry A. The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 89]

After reading the above quote provided by Sturz, I wanted to get a broader context, as well as find out what was removed and replaced by the ellipses, so I ordered the referenced book.

Before getting to the greater context of Kilpatrick's essay (referenced above by Sturz), I will provide the full texts of those sections that contain the ellipses.

Sturz’s quote: This list is ... sufficient to show both how prevalent this kind of mistake is and how frequently the Textus Receptus and its allies preserve the original reading.

Full text: This list is far from exhaustive but is sufficient to show both how prevalent this kind of mistake is and how frequently the Textus Receptus and its allies preserve the original reading.

Sturz’s quote: lt is worth considering how this came about. One of the canons of  textual critics in modern times has been lectio brevior potior . ... On the other hand if we substitute the maxim, 'the longer text, other things being equal, is preferable', have we any reason for thinking that this is more mistaken than the conventional lectio brevior potior?

Full text: It is worth considering how this came about. One of the canons of textual critics in modern times has been lectio brevior potior. We may limit this to the form, 'the shorter text, other things being equal, is preferable', in deference to the investigations of A. C. Clark and others which have revealed how widespread has been the prevalence of ὁυ and other causes of omission. On the other hand if we substitute the maxim, 'the longer text, other things being equal, is preferable', have we any reason for thinking that this is more mistaken than the conventional lectio brevior potior?

Now, the broader context. The first paragraph of the essay presents two “basic contentions of Westcott and Hort” that Kilpatrick believes are seriously flawed. The following is the full paragraph:

One of the basic contentions of Westcott and Hort was that the Syrian text¹, the text that appears with variations in A², the Textus Receptus, and the vast majority of later witnesses, is a secondary text based on the older Neutral  and Western texts. A second basic contention was that the Western text was in general inferior to the Neutral text. The Neutral text alone preserved the Greek New Testament in something like its original purity and so served as the foundation of Westcott and Hort’s edition.

In the next paragraph, Kilpatrick provides valuable information on the “second basis contention" of Westcott and Hort:

Hort’s views on the Western text were soon challenged. Scholars like F. C. Burkitt and C. H. Turner showed that, if readings were examined on their merits, the Western text was often right and the Neutral or Egyptian text often wrong. Their contentions have been widely accepted and an increasing number of readings in D³ and its allies are recognized as probably original.

The third paragraph, sets the tone for the rest of the essay:

No such change has taken place in opinion about Syrian text. Few attempts have been made to show that any of its distinctive readings are original and Hort's account of its origins and characteristics have not been challenged by the majority of textual critics.

Kilpatrick then goes on to present substantive cases for three assessments: first, "the great majority of [N. T. textual] variants came into being before A. D. 200”; second, many of the Syrian/Byzantine text distinct readings are much older than what most textual critics have accepted as a truism (as per Westcott and Hort’s theory); and third, the lectio brevior potior canon/rule has serious flaws (see above quotes).

Kilpatrick’s first and second assessments are inextricably linked. Note the following:

Professor H. Vogels has suggested that, apart from errors [unaware copying vs. deliberate], the the great majority of [N. T. textual] variants came into being before A. D. 200. This seems reasonable. Many readings can be shown to be in existence before that date: few demonstrably came into being after it. On this hypothesis most readings distinctive of the Syrian text will be older than A. D. 200 even if the selection of these readings in that text appear later. Consequently we cannot condemn these variants a a product of the depravity of the fourth century. (p.190)

He then adds:

One of Hort’s complaints against the Syrian text was that it as characterized by conflate readings. In principle the presence of conflate readings in the New Testament need not surprise us. The evidence of the critical apparatus suggests that they are to be found up and down the Greek text. There are, however, two questions we must try to answer: (i) are conflate readings distinctive of the Syrian text? And (ii) are all readings that look like conflate readings really conflate? (p. 190)

Kilpatrick then provides examples of 'conflation' within Westcott and Hort’s so-called ‘Neutral' text by comparing certain readings from ℵB⁴ that are shorter than the same readings found within the Western and/or Syrian texts.

He then concludes the following:

From these examples we can see that not all apparent conflate readings are really conflate. Sometimes they present the original text and, when they do so and are peculiar to the Syrian text, then the Syrian text must have credit for preserving the correct reading. Likewise real conflations occur in other witnesses apart from the Syrian text and it would be mistaken to argue that conflate readings were characteristic of this text. Thus the argument from conflation does not serve to condemn the Syrian text in the way that Westcott and Hort had supposed. (pp. 192, 193)

On pages 194-196, Kilpatrick examines “some Syrian readings on their merits, seeing that we cannot dismiss the Syrian text as obviously secondary on grounds of conflation or harmonization” [when compared to the so-called ‘Neutral’ text]. In this section he argues that the Textus Receptus sometimes preserves Semitic expressions that are longer readings than those found in ℵB, suggesting that the ℵB readings were purposeful changes made to the texts to conform to Classical Greek, rather than Koine Greek used to retain the original Semitic expressions found in the New Testament.

He follows his examples with the following bold assessment:

These three instances of the superiority of A and the Textus Receptus justify us in looking afresh at readings that are characteristic of these witnesses and considering each on its merits. From the time of Westcott and Hort to Syrian or Byzantine or as proper to the Textus Receptus to condemn it outright. There have been exceptions to this practice such as those of van Soden, Vogels, and Bover, but there have been few formal attempts at a justification of them.

To contribute to any such justification it is necessary to show in the main categories of variants the Syrian text is sometimes right. (p. 195)

Kilpatrick then provides eight such examples (pp. 195, 196), which is followed by the quote from Sturz—cited earlier in this post—that started with, “This list is ... sufficient to show both how prevalent this kind of mistake is and how frequently the Textus Receptus and its allies preserve the original reading.”

Unfortunately, few textual scholars have adjusted their sacred canons/rules—maintaining the status quo as reflected in the quotes from Metzger and the Alands provided above—retaining the lectio brevior potior axiom as a weapon in their criticisms of the Syrian/Byzantine text type.

In my next post (the Lord willing) I will delve into the substantive critique of the lectio brevior potior canon/rule by one recent textual critic who has taken Kilpatrick’s assessments seriously.

Grace and peace,

David

Notes:

1. The ‘Syrian text’ (also know as the Antiochian, Byzantine, Constantinopolitan, Ecclesiastical, Majority, Traditional) is one of the four textual families/types identified by Westcott and Hort; the other three were termed the Alexandrian, Western, and Neutral.

2. A = Alexandrinus codex (5th century)

3. D = Bezae Cantabrigiensis codex (5th century)

4. ℵB = Sinaiticus codex and Vaticanus codex (both 4th century; most textual critics now include ℵB in the Alexandrian text-type)

Textus Receptus - a comprehensive and extraordinary website

Earlier this week, I discovered a website concerning the Textus Receptus that is nothing short of extraordinary:

Textus Receptus Bibles

This site includes a history of the Textus Receptus and a comprehensive Interlinear that displays at the same time six complete versions of the Greek Byzantine/Majority text-type with fourteen English translations based on the Greek Byzantine/Majority text-type, that is fully searchable.

It also has the complete Masoretic text of 1524 (also fully searchable), and an extensive library of books related to the Textus Receptus.

The site is easy to use, and the visual display of the web pages is exceptional.

I am sure that I will be spending many hours in the upcoming days exploring this marvelous site, and I suspect it will be one of my main resources for Bible study in the future.

Sincerely hope that folk who read this post will take the time to explore the site too.

Grace and peace,

David

Some insightful thoughts on the Word of God

The following quotation is from an address delivered by Benedict XVI back on October 6, 2008 that I found to be quite insightful and inspiring:

At the beginning of our Synod the Liturgy of the Hours presents a passage from Psalm 118 on the Word of God: a praise of his Word, an expression of the joy of Israel in learning it and, in it, to recognize his will and his Face. I would like to meditate on some verses of this Psalm with you.

It begins like this: "In aeternum, Domine, verbum tuum constitutum est in caelo... firmasti terram, et permanet". This refers to the solidity of the Word. It is solid, it is the true reality on which one must base one's life. Let us remember the words of Jesus who continues the words of this Psalm: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away". Humanly speaking, the word, my human word, is almost nothing in reality, a breath. As soon as it is pronounced it disappears. It seems to be nothing. But already the human word has incredible power. Words create history, words form thoughts, the thoughts that create the word. It is the word that forms history, reality.

Furthermore, the Word of God is the foundation of everything, it is the true reality. And to be realistic, we must rely upon this reality. We must change our idea that matter, solid things, things we can touch, are the more solid, the more certain reality. At the end of the Sermon on the Mount the Lord speaks to us about the two possible foundations for building the house of one's life: sand and rock. The one who builds on sand builds only on visible and tangible things, on success, on career, on money. Apparently these are the true realities. But all this one day will pass away. We can see this now with the fall of large banks: this money disappears, it is nothing. And thus all things, which seem to be the true realities we can count on, are only realities of a secondary order. The one who builds his life on these realities, on matter, on success, on appearances, builds upon sand. Only the Word of God is the foundation of all reality, it is as stable as the heavens and more than the heavens, it is reality. Therefore, we must change our concept of realism. The realist is the one who recognizes the Word of God, in this apparently weak reality, as the foundation of all things. Realist is the one who builds his life on this foundation, which is permanent. Thus the first verses of the Psalm invite us to discover what reality is and how to find the foundation of our life, how to build life.

The following verse says: "Omnia serviunt tibi". All things come from the Word, they are products of the Word. "In the beginning was the Word". In the beginning the heavens spoke. And thus reality was born of the Word, it is "creatura Verbi". All is created from the Word and all is called to serve the Word. This means that all of creation, in the end, is conceived of to create the place of encounter between God and his creature, a place where the history of love between God and his creature can develop. "Omnia serviunt tibi". The history of salvation is not a small event, on a poor planet, in the immensity of the universe. It is not a minimal thing which happens by chance on a lost planet. It is the motive for everything, the motive for creation. Everything is created so that this story can exist, the encounter between God and his creature. In this sense, salvation history, the Covenant, precedes creation. During the Hellenistic period, Judaism developed the idea that the Torah would have preceded the creation of the material world. This material world seems to have been created solely to make room for the Torah, for this Word of God that creates the answer and becomes the history of love. The mystery of Christ already is mysteriously revealed here. This is what we are told in the Letter to the Ephesians and to the Colossians: Christ is the protòtypos, the first-born of creation, the idea for which the universe was conceived. He welcomes all. We enter in the movement of the universe by uniting with Christ. One can say that, while material creation is the condition for the history of salvation, the history of the Covenant is the true cause of the cosmos. We reach the roots of being by reaching the mystery of Christ, his living word that is the aim of all creation.

"Omnia serviunt tibi". In serving the Lord we achieve the purpose of being, the purpose of our own existence. Let us take a leap forward: "Mandata tua exquisivi". We are always searching for the Word of God. It is not merely present in us. Just reading it does not mean necessarily that we have truly understood the Word of God. The danger is that we only see the human words and do not find the true actor within, the Holy Spirit. We do not find the Word in the words. [Bold emphasis mine - entire address HERE]

 

Grace and peace,

David

The Bible’s textual history: dubious theories and forgeries – part three (Codex Sinaiticus, Simonides and Tischendorf)

This third post in my series on the Bible’s textual history is somewhat of a departure from the first two in that the manuscript in question is not a possible ‘forgery’ in a strict sense, but rather it may be a 19th century production that was originally intended to be a gift, rather than a forgery meant to pass off as an actual ancient work.

The document in question is one that Constantine Tischendorf first laid eyes in 1844 in St. Catherine’s monastery “at the foot of Mount Sinai", which became known as the Codex Sinaiticus. Concerning this ‘discovery', Tischendorf wrote:

It was at the foot of Mount Sinai, in the Convent of St. Catherine, that I discovered the pearl of all my researches. In visiting the library of the monastery, in the month of May, 1844, I perceived in the middle of the great hall a large and wide basket full of old parchments; and the librarian, who was a man of information, told me that two heaps of papers like these, mouldered by time, had been already committed to the flames. What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers a considerable number of sheets of a copy of the Old Testament in Greek, which seemed to me to be one of the most ancient that I had ever seen. The authorities of the convent allowed me to possess myself of a third of these parchments, or about forty-three sheets, all the more readily as they were destined for the fire. But I could not get them to yield up possession of the remainder. The too lively satisfaction which I had displayed had aroused their suspicions as to the value of this manuscript. I transcribed a page of the text of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and enjoined on the monks to take religious care of all such remains which might fall in their way. (When Were the Gospels Written?,  Second Edition 1867, pp. 23, 24 – link)

Two important elements of the above story related by Tischendorf have been repeatedly denied by the monks at St. Catherine’s: first, that the manuscript now known as the Codex Sinaiticus was in a “wide basket full of old parchments"; and second, "that two heaps of papers like these, mouldered by time, had been already committed to the flames.”

Tischendorf returned to Saxony with the “forty-three sheets". He continued his narrative concerning the Codex Sinaiticus with the following:

On my return to Saxony there were men of learning who at once appreciated the value of the treasure which I brought back with me. I did not divulge the name of the place where I had found it, in the hopes of returning and recovering the rest of the manuscript. I handed up to the Saxon Government my rich collection of oriental manuscripts in return for the payment of all my travelling expenses, I deposited in the library of the University of Leipzig, in the shape of a collection, which bears my name, fifty manuscripts, some of which are very rare and interesting. I did the same with the Sinaitic fragments, to which I gave the name of Codex Frederick Augustus, in acknowledgment of the patronage given to me by the King of Saxony ; and I published them in Saxony in a sumptuous edition, in which each letter and stroke was exactly reproduced by the aid of lithography.

But these home labours upon the manuscripts which I had already safely garnered, did not allow me to forget the distant treasure which I had discovered. I made use of an influential friend, who then resided at the court of the Viceroy of Egypt, to carry on negotiations for procuring the rest of the manuscripts. But his attempts were, unfortunately, not successful. "The monks of the convent," he wrote to me to say, "have, since your departure, learned the value of these sheets of parchment, and will not part with them at any price."

I resolved, therefore, to return to the East to copy this priceless manuscript. (Ibid. pp. 24, 25).

Tischendorf returned to St. Catherine’s in 1853, but was unable to obtain the rest of “this priceless manuscript.” Six years later (1859), on his third visit to the monastery, he was able to obtain the rest of the manuscript he had first seen back in 1844. He convinced the monks to give him the manuscript under the pretense that it was only going to be a loan, and that when he had finished making a copy, it would be returned. As we now know, he did not keep his promise. (The manuscript now resides in the renowned British Museum/Library—it has been there since its purchase from the Soviet Union in 1933.)

Tischendorf’s version of the 'discovery’ of an ancient manuscript in the St. Catherine monastery at Mount Sinai is the one that most folk are familiar with.  However, there is another version that came to light three years after Tischendorf had obtained the Codex. On September 3, 1862 a letter by Constantine Simonides was published in The Guardian (a London newspaper), wherein he emphatically claimed that the Codex Sinaiticus manuscript was not produced in the 4th century as claimed by Tischendorf, but rather that it was written by Simonides himself.

The entire letter was republished the next month in The Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record (Volume II—New Series—October, 1862, pp. 248-250 – link), and is quoted in full below:

THE SINAI MS. OF THE GREEK BIBLE.

“ As you have, in your impression of August 13, published a letter from a correspondent, signing himself F. J. A. H., in which reference is made to me, I must ask you for permission to make a statement in reply. Your correspondent favours you with some extracts from a letter written by Dr. Tregelles, in which the following sentence occurs: ‘I believe that I need hardly say that the story of Simonides, that he wrote the M8., is as false and absurd as possible.’

“The MS. referred to is that called the Codex Sinaiticus, now being published under the editorship of Professor Tischendorf, at the expense of the Russian government. As what Dr. Tregelles calls my ‘story’ has never been published, and as that gentleman can only have heard of it through an indirect medium, it may interest both Dr. Tregelles and your readers to have the ‘story’ direct from myself. I will tell it as briefly as possible.

“ About the end of the yer 1839, the venerable Benedict, my uncle, spiritual head of the monastery of the holy martyr, Panteleemon, in Mount Athos, wished to present to the Emperor Nicholas I., of Russia, some gift from the sacred mountain, in grateful acknowledgment of the presents which had, from time to time, been offered to the monastery of the martyr. Not possessing anything which he deemed acceptable, he consulted with the herald Procopius and the Russian monk Paul, and they decided upon a copy of the Old and New Testaments, written according to the ancient form, in capital letters, and on parchment. This, together with the remains of the seven apostolic fathers,—Barnabas, Hermas, Clement bishop of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, and Dionysius the Areopagite,—they proposed should be bound in gold, and presented to the emperor by a common friend. Dionysius, the professional caligrapher of the monastery, was then begged to undertake the work, but he declined, saying that the task being exceedingly difficult, he would rather not do so. In consequence of this, I myself determined to begin the work, especially as my revered uncle seemed earnestly to wish it. Having then examined the principal copies of the Holy Scriptures preserved at Mount Athos, I began to practise the principles of caligraphy; and the learned Benedict, taking a copy of the Moscow  edition of both Testaments (published and presented to the Greeks by the illustrious brothers Zosimas), collated it with the ancient ones, and by this means cleared it of many errors, after which he gave it into my hands to transcribe. Having then received both the Testaments, freed from errors (the old spelling, however, remaining unaltered), being short of parchment, I selected from the library of the monastery, with Benedict’s permission, a very bulky volume, antiquely bound, and almost entirely blank, the parchment of which was remarkably clean, and beautifully finished. This had been prepared apparently many centuries ago—probably by the writer or by the principal of the monastery, as it bore the inscription, EΚΛΟΓΙΟΝ ΠΑΝΗΓΥΡΙΚΟΝ (a Collection of Panegyrics), and also a short discourse much injured by time.

“ I therefore took possession of this book, and prepared it by taking out the leaf containing the discourse, and by removing several others injured by time and moths, after which I began my task. First, I copied out the Old and New Testaments, then the Epistle of Barnabas, the first part of the pastoral writings of Hermas in capital letters (or uncial characters) in the style known in caligraphy as ἀμφιδέξιος (amphidexios). The transcription of the remaining apostolic writings, however, I declined, because the supply of parchment ran short, and the severe loss which I sustained in the death or Benedict induced me to hand the work over at once to the bookbinders of the monastery, for the purpose of replacing the original covers, made of wood and covered with leather, which I had removed for convenience—and when he had done so, I took it into my possession.

“ Some time after this, having removed to Constantinople, I shewed the work to the patriarchs Anthimus and Constantius, and communicated to them the reason of the transcription. Constantius took it, and, having thoroughly examined it, urged me to present it to the library of Sinai, which I accordingly promised to do. Constantius had previously been bishop of Sinai, and since his resignation of that office had again become perpetual bishop of that place.

“ Shortly after this I was placed under the protection of the illustrious Countess Etleng and her brother, A. 8. Stourtzas, by the co-operation of two patriarchs; but, before departing for Odessa, 1 went over to the island of Antigonus to visit Constantius, and to perform my promise of giving up the manuscript to the library of Mount Sinai. The patriarch was, however, absent from home, and I, consequently, left the packet for him with a letter. On his return, he wrote me the following answer:—

“ ’My dearly beloved son in the Holy Spirit, Simonides; Grace be with you and peace from God. I received with unfeigned satisfaction your  truly valuable transcript of the Holy Scriptures—namely, the Old and New Testaments, together with the epistle of St. Barnabas and the first part of the pastoral writings of Hermas, bound in one volume, which shall be placed in the library of Mount Sinai, according to your wish. But I exhort you earnestly (if ever by God's will you should return to the sacred Mount Athos) to finish the work as you originally designed it, and He will reward you. Be with me on the 3rd of next month, that I may give you letters to the illustrious A. 8. Stourtzas, to inform him of your talents and abilities, and to give you a few hints which may prove useful to the success of your plans. I sincerely trust that you were born for the honour of your country. Amen.

“’CONSTANTIUS, late of Constantinople, an earnest worshipper in Christ.

“ ’Island of Antigonus, 13^th August, 1841,’”

“ After I had received the above letter, I again went to visit the patriarch, who gave me the kindest and most paternal advice, with letters to Stourtzas, after which I returned to Constantinople, and from thence went to Odessa in November, 1841.

“ In 1846 I again returned to Constantinople, when I at once went over to the island of Antigonus to visit Constantius, and to place in his possession a large packet of MSS. He received me with the greatest kindness, and we conversed on many different subjects, amongst others upon my transcript, when he informed me that he had sent it some time previously to Mount Sinai.

“ In 1852 I saw it there myself, and begged the librarian to inform me how the monastery had acquired it; but he did not appear to know anything of the matter, and I, for my part, said nothing. However, I examined the MS. and found it much altered, having an older appearance than it ought to have. The dedication to the Emperor Nicholas, placed at the beginning of the book, had been removed. I then began my philological researches, for there were several valuable MSS. in the library, which I wished to examine. Amongst them, I found the pastoral writings of Hermas, the Holy Gospel according to St. Matthew, and the disputed Epistle of Aristeas to Philoctctes (all written on Egyptian papyrus of the first century), with others not unworthy of note. All this I communicated to Constantius, and afterwards to my spiritual father, Callistratus, at Alexandria.

“ You have thus a short and clear account of the Codex Simonideios, which Professor Tischendorf, when at Sinai, contrived, I know not how, to carry away; and, going to St. Petersburg, published his discovery there under the name of the Codex Sinaiticus. When, about two years ago, I saw the first facsimiles of Tischendorf, which were put into my hand at Liverpool, by Mr. Newton, a Friend of Dr. Tregelles, I at once recognized my own work, as I immediately told. him.

“ The above is a true statement of the origin and history of the famous Codex Sinaiticus, which Professor Tischendorf has foisted on the learned world as a MS. of the fourth century. I have now only one or two remarks to make. The name of the professional caligraphist to the monastery of St. Panteleemon was Dionysius; the name of the monk who was sent by the Patriarch Constantius to convey the volume from the island of Antigonus to Sinai was Germanus. The volume, whilst in my possession, was seen by many persons, and it was perused with attention by the Hadji John Prodromos, son of Pappa Prodromos, who was a minister of the Greek Church in Trebizond. John Prodromos kept a coffee house in Galatas, Conatantinople, and probably does so still. The note from the Patriarch Constantius, acknowledging the receipt of the MS., together with 25,000 piastres, sent to me by Constantius as a benediction, was brought to me by the Deacon Hilarion, All the persons thus named are, I believe, still alive, and could bear witness to the truth of my statement.

“ Of the internal evidence of the MS. I shall not now speak. Any person learned in palæography ought to be able to tell at once that it is a MS. of the present age. But I may just note that my uncle Benedict corrected the MS. in many places, and as it was intended to be re-copied, he marked many letters which he proposed to have illuminated. The corrections in the handwriting of my uncle I can, of course, point out; as also those of Dionysius the caligraphist. In various places I marked in the margin the initials of the different (SS. from which I had taken certain passages and readings. These initials appear to have greatly bewildered Professor Tischendorf, who has invented several highly ingenious methods of accounting for them. Lastly, I declare my ability to point to two distinct pages in the MS., though I have not seen it for years, in which is contained the most unquestionable proof of its being my writing.

“ In making this statement, I know perfectly well the consequences I shall bring upon myself; but I have so long been accustomed to calumny, that I have grown indifferent to it; and I now solemnly declare that my only motive for publishing this letter is to advance the cause of truth, and protect sacred letters from imposition.

“ In conclusion, you must permit me to express my sincere regret that, whilst the many valuable remains of antiquity in my possession are frequently attributed to my own hands, the one poor work of my youth is set down by a gentleman who enjoys a great reputation for learning, as the earliest copy of the Sacred Scriptures.

“ C. Simonides.”

[In addition to the two sources mentioned, the letter was also published in The Literary Churchman 16th December, 1862 and in J. K. Elliott’s book, Codex Sinaiticus and the Simonides Affair (1982) pp. 28-30.]

The above letter precipitated a voluminous exchange of letters that pitted  Tischendorf and his supporters, against Simonides and those who came to his defense—letters that were published from September 1862 through end of 1863. Tischendorf’s claims became the accepted version after this extended, controversial exchange. In fact, for nearly 150 years, it became somewhat of a rare occasion that Constantine Simonides' version was delved into when the Codex Sinaiticus was discussed—Elliott’s 1982 book was a notable exception.

However, shortly after the British Museum/Library published a digital version of the Codex Sinaiticus online in 2009, the long-standing neglect of Simonides' version came to an abrupt end…more later, the Lord willing.

Grace and peace,

David