GREEK TEXT OF
NEW TESTAMENT. This Is Appendix 94 From The Companion Bible. PAGE 1
While modern critics are occupied
with the problem as to the origin
of the Four Gospels,
and with their so-called
we believe that
got their respective Gospels
where Luke got his,
see note there);
and that the
are the creation of
the Commentators and
The latter particularly;
for when they see two
they immediately assume
they are identical;
and when they read similar
discourses of our Lord,
they at once assume that
they are discordant
accounts of the same,
instead of seeing that
they are repetitions,
made at different times,
under different circumstances,
antecedents and consequents,
which necessitate the employment
of words and expressions so as to
accord with the several occasions.
These differences thus become
proofs of accuracy and perfection.
The Bible claims to be the Word of God, coming from Himself as His revelation to man. If these claims be not true, then the Bible cannot be even "a good book". In this respect "the living Word" is like the written Word; for, if the claims of the Lord Jesus to be God were not true, He could not be even "a good man". As to those claims, man can believe them, or leave them. In the former case, he goes to the Word of God, and is overwhelmed with evidences of its truth; in the latter case, he abandons Divine revelation for man's imagination. II. INSPIRATION. In Divine revelation "holy men spake from God as they were moved (or borne along) by the Holy Spirit" (2Peter 1:21). The wind, as it is borne along among the trees, causes each tree to give forth its own peculiar sound, so that the experienced ear of a woodman could tell, even in the dark, the name of the tree under which he might be standing, and distinguish the creaking elm from the rustling aspen. Even so, while each "holy man of God" is "moved" by One Spirit, the individuality of the inspired writers is preserved. Thus we may explain the medical words of "Luke the beloved physician" used in his Gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles (Colossians 4:14).
As to Inspiration itself, we have no need to resort to human theories, or definitions, as we have a Divine definition in Acts 1:16 which is all-sufficient. "This scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of David, spake before concerning Judas." The reference is to Psalm 41:9.
It is "by the mouth" and "by the hand" of holy men that God has spoken to us. Hence it was David's voice and David's pen, but the words were not David's words.
Nothing more is required to settle the faith of all believers; but it requires Divine operation to convince unbelievers; hence, it is vain to depend on human arguments. III. THE LANGUAGE. With regard to this, it is generally assumed that, because it comes to us in Greek, the New Testament ought to be in classical Greek, and is then condemned because it is not! Classical Greek was at its prime some centuries before; and in the time of our Lord there were several reasons why the New Testament was not written in classical Greek. 1. The writers were Hebrews; and thus, while the language is Greek, the thoughts and idioms are Hebrew. These idioms or Hebraisms are generally pointed out in the notes of The Companion Bible. If the Greek of the New Testament be regarded as an inspired translation from Hebrew or Aramaic originals, most of the various readings would be accounted for and understood. 2. Then we have to remember that in the time of our Lord there were no less than four languages in use in Palestine, and their mixture formed the "Yiddish" of those days.
(a) There was HEBREW, spoken by Hebrews;
(b) There was GREEK, which was spoken in Palestine by the educated classes generally;
(c) There was LATIN, the language of the Romans, who then held possession of the land;
(d) And there was ARAMAIC, the language of the common people.
Doubtless our Lord spoke all these (for we never read of His using an interpreter). In the synagogue He would necessarily use Hebrew; to Pilate He would naturally answer in Latin; while to the common people He would doubtless speak in Aramaic. 3. ARAMAIC was Hebrew, as it was developed during and after the Captivity in Babylon.¹
There were two branches, known roughly as Eastern (which is Chaldee), and Western (Mesopotamian, or Palestinian).
This latter was known also as Syriac; and the Greeks used "Syrian" as an abbreviation for Assyrian. This was perpetuated by the early Christians. Syriac flourished till the seventh century A.D. In the eighth and ninth it was overtaken by the Arabic; and by the thirteenth century it had disappeared. We have already noted that certain parts of the Old Testament are written in Chaldee (or Eastern
¹ It is so called because it was the language of Aram, or Mesopotamia, which is Greek for Aram Naharaim = Aram between the two rivers (Genesis 24:10. Deuteronomy 23:4. Judges 3:8. Psalm 60, title). It is still called "The Island". There were other Arams beside this: (2) Aram Dammasek (north-east of Palestine), or simply Aram, because best known to Israel (2Samuel 8:5. Isaiah 7:8; 17:3. Amos 1:5); (3) Aram Zobah (not far from Damascus and Hamath), under Saul and David (1Samuel 14:47. 2Samuel 8:3); (4) Aram Beth-rehob (N. Galilee, Appendix 169), 2Samuel 10:6; (5) Aram Maachah (1Chronicles 19:6, 7); (6) Aram Geshur (2Samuel 15:8).
Aramaic is of three
Of these, Jerusalem might be compared with High German, and the other two with Low German. There are many Aramaic words preserved in the Greek of the New Testament, and most of the commentators call attention to a few of them; but, from the books cited below, we are able to present a more or less complete list of the examples to which attention is called in the notes of The Companion Bible.¹
¹ Further information may be found in the following works:—
AD. NEUBAUER: On the dialects spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, in Studia Biblica . . . by members of the University of Oxford. Volume I, pages 39-74. Oxford, 1885.
F. W. J. DILLOO: De moedertaal vanonzen heere Jesus Christus en van zyne Apostelen, page 70. Amsterdam, 1886.
ARNOLD MEYER: Jesu Mutter-Sprache. Leipzig, 1896.
G. DALMAN: Die Worte Jesu, mit Berucksichtigung des nathkanonischen judischen Schrifttums und der aram. Sparche erortert. Volume I. Leipzig, 1898. Also Grammatik des judisch-palastinischen Aramaisch. 2. Auflage. Leipzig, 1905. In the Index of Greek words.
² The order of the words is that of the Greek alphabet.
|TOP PAGE 1 PAGE 2 PAGE 3 BOTTOM APPENDIX INDEX HOME|
|THE GREEK TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (cont.). PAGE 2|
Besides the Greek text mention
ought to be made of these,
although it concerns the
interpretation of the text
rather than the text itself.
We have only to think of the changes which have taken place in our own English language during the last 300 years, to understand the inexpressible usefulness of documents written on the material called papyrus, and on pieces of broken pottery called ostraca, recently discovered in Egypt and elsewhere. They are found in the ruins of ancient temples and houses, and in the rubbish heaps of towns and villages, and are of great importance.
They consist of business-letters, love-letters, contracts, estimates, certificates, agreements, accounts, bills-of-sale, mortgages, school-exercises, receipts, bribes, pawn-tickets, charms, litanies, tales, magical literature, and every sort of literary production.
These are of inestimable value in enabling us to arrive at the true meaning of many words (used in the time of Christ) which were heretofore inexplicable. Examples may be seen in the notes on "scrip" (Matthew 10:10. Mark 6:8. Luke 9:3); "have" (Matthew 6:2, 5, 16. Luke 6:24. Philemon 15); "officer" (Luke 12:58); "presseth" (Luke 16:16); "suffereth violence" (Matthew 11:12), etc.¹ V. THE MANUSCRIPTS of the Greek New Testament dating from the fourth century A.D. are more in number than those of any Greek or Roman author, for these latter are rare, and none are really ancient; while those of the New Testament have been set down by Dr. Scrivener at not less than 3,600, a few containing the whole, and the rest various parts, of the New Testament.
The study of these from a literary point of view has been called "Textual Criticism", and it necessarily proceeds altogether on documentary evidence; while "Modern Criticism" introduces the element of human opinion and hypothesis.
Man has never made a proper use of God's gifts. God gave men the sun, moon, and stars for signs, and for seasons, to govern the day, and the night, and the years. But no one to-day can tell us what year (Anno Mundi) we are actually living in! In like manner God gave us His Word, but man, compassed with infirmity, has failed to preserve and transmit it faithfully.
The worst part of this is that man charges God with the result, and throws the blame on Him for all the confusion due to his own want of care!
The Old Testament had from very early times official custodians of the Hebrew text. Its Guilds of Scribes, Nakdanim, Sopherim, and Massorites elaborated plans by which the original text has been preserved with the greatest possible care (see Appendix 93).² But though, in this respect, it had advantages which the Greek text of the New Testament never had, it nevertheless shows many signs of human failure and infirmity. Man has only to touch anything to leave his mark upon it.
Hence the Manuscripts of the Greek Testament are to be studied to-day with the utmost care. The materials are:—
i. The Manuscripts themselves in whole or in part.
ii. Ancient versions made from them in other languages.³
¹ The examples given in the notes are from Deissmann's Light from the Ancient East, 1910; New Light on the New Testament, 1901; Bible Studies, 1901. Milligan's Selections from the Greek Papyri, etc. Cambridge Press, 1910.
² Ancient copies of the Septuagint reveal two other orders: that of Diorthotes (or Corrector) and the Antiballon (or Comparer). But these attended chiefly to "clerical" and not textual errors.
³ Of these, the Aramaic (or Syriac), that is to say, the Peshitto, is the most important, ranking as superior in authority to the oldest Greek manuscripts, and dating from as early as A.D. 170.
Though the Syrian Church was divided by the Third and Fourth General Councils in the fifth century, into three, and eventually into yet more, hostile communions, which have lasted for 1,400 years with all their bitter controversies, yet the same version is read to-day in the rival churches. Their manuscripts have flowed into the libraries of the West, "yet they all exhibit a text in every important respect the same." Peshitto means a version simple and plain, without the addition of allegorical or mystical glosses.
Hence we have given this authority, where needed throughout our notes, as being of more value than the modern critical Greek texts; and have noted (for the most part) only those "various readings" with which the Syriac agrees. See § VII, below.
Citations made from them by
early Christian writers long before
the oldest Manuscripts we possess
iv. As to the Manuscripts themselves we must leave all paleographical matters aside (such as have to do with paper, ink, and calligraphy), and confine ourselves to what is material. 1. These Manuscripts consist of two great classes: (a) Those written in Uncial (or capital) letters; and (b) those written in "running hand", called Cursives.
The former are considered to be the more ancient, although it is obvious and undeniable that some cursives may be transcripts of uncial Manuscripts more ancient than any existing uncial Manuscript.
This will show that we cannot depend altogether upon textual criticism. 2. It is more to our point to note that what are called "breathings" (soft or hard) and accents are not found in any Manuscripts before the seventh century (unless they have been added by a later hand). 3. Punctuation also, as we have it to-day, is entirely absent. The earliest two Manuscripts (known as B, the Manuscript in the Vatican and the Sinaitic Manuscript, now at St. Petersburg) have only an occasional dot, and this on a level with the top of the letters.
The text reads on without any divisions between letters or words until Manuscripts of the ninth century, when (in Codex Augiensis, now in Cambridge) there is seen for the first time a single point which separates each word. This dot is placed in the middle of the line, but is often omitted. None of our modern marks of punctuation are found until the ninth century, and then only in Latin versions and some cursives.
From this it will be seen that the punctuation of all modern editions of the Greek text, and of all versions made from it, rests entirely on human authority, and has no weight whatever in determining or even influencing the interpretation of a single passage. This refers also to the employment of capital letters, and to all the modern literary refinements of the present day.¹ 4. Chapters also were alike unknown. The Vatican Manuscript makes a new section where there is an evident break in the sense. These are called titloi, or kephalaia.²
There are none in (Sinaitic), see above. They are not found till the fifth century in Codex A (British Museum), Codex C (Ephraemi, Paris), and in Codex R (Nitriensis, British Museum) of the sixth century.
They are quite foreign to the original texts. For a long time they were attributed to HUGUES DE ST. CHER (Huego de Sancto Caro), Provincial to the Dominicans in France, and afterwards a Cardinal in Spain, who died in 1263. But it is now generally believed that they were made by STEPHEN LANGTON, Archbishop of Canterbury, who died in 1227.
It follows therefore that our modern chapter divisions also are destitute of Manuscript authority. 5. As to verses. In the Hebrew Old Testament these were fixed and counted for each book by the Massorites; but they are unknown in any Manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. There are none in the first printed text in The Complutensian Polyglot (1437-1517), or in the first printed Greek text (Erasmus, in 1516), or in R. Stephens's first edition in 1550. Verses were first introduced in Stephens's smaller (16mo) edition, published in 1551 at Geneva. These also are therefore destitute of any authority.
¹ Such as are set forth in the Rules for Compositors and Readers at the University Press, Oxford.
² There are sixty-eight in Matthew; forty-eight in Mark; eighty-three in Luke; and eighteen in John.
|TOP PAGE 1 PAGE 2 PAGE 3 BOTTOM APPENDIX INDEX HOME|
|THE GREEK TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (cont.). PAGE 3|
|VI. THE PRINTED EDITIONS OF THE GREEK TEXT. Many printed editions followed the first efforts of ERASMUS. Omitting the Complutensian Polyglot mentioned above, the following is a list of all those of any importance:—||
It is only a theory,
but it has a foundation of truth,
and will always retain a value
peculiarly its own.
disregarding these Recensions,
professed to give the text based
only on the evidence of witnesses
up to the end of the fourth century.
All were taken into
account up to that date;
and all were discarded after it,
whether uncial Manuscripts,
or other documentary evidence.
He even adopted Readings
which were palpably errors,
on the simple ground that they
were the best attested Readings
up to the fourth century.
followed more or less the
principles laid down by Lachmann,
but not to the neglect of other
evidence as furnished by
Ancient Versions and Fathers.
In his eighth edition,
he approaches nearer to
produced his text on principles which
were substantially the same as Lachmann,
but he admits the evidence of uncial
manuscripts down to the seventh century,
and includes a careful testing of
a wide circle of other authorities.
The chief value of his text lies not only in this, but in its scrupulous fidelity and accuracy; and it is probably the best and most exact presentation of the original text ever published. ALFORD (A.) constructed his text, he says, "by following, in all ordinary cases, the united or preponderating evidence of the most ancient authorities."
When these disagree he takes later evidence into account, and to a very large extent.
Where this evidence is divided he endeavors to discover the cause of the variation, and gives great weight to internal probability; and, in some cases, relies on his own independent judgment. At any rate he is fearlessly honest. He says, "that Reading has be adopted which, on the whole, seemed most likely to have stood in the original text. Such judgments are, of course, open to be questioned."
This necessarily deprives his text of much of its weight; though where he is in agreement with the other editors, it adds to the weight of the evidence as a whole. WESTCOTT AND HORT (WH). In this text, the classification of Manuscripts into "families" is revived, with greater elaboration than that of Griesbach. It is prepared with the greatest care, and at present holds a place equal in estimation to that of Tregelles. Where all these authorities agree, and are supported by the Syriac Version, the text may be regarded as fairly settled, until further Manuscript evidence is forthcoming. But it must always be remembered that some cursive Manuscripts may be copies of uncial Manuscripts more ancient than any at present known. This fact will always lessen the value of the printed critical editions. The Revisers of the New Testament of 1881 "did not deem it within their province to construct a continuous and complete Greek text." They adopted, however, a large number of readings which deviated from the text presumed to underlie the Authorized Version. In 1896 an edition known as the Parallel New Testament Greek and English, was published by the Clarendon Press for both Universities. In the Cambridge edition the Textus Receptus is given, with the Revisers' alternative readings, in the margin. In the Oxford edition, the Revisers give their Greek with the readings of the Textus Receptus in the margin.
Erasmus (1st Edition) ·
· · ·
2. Stephens · · · · · · · · ·
3. Beza · · · · · · · · · ·
4. Elzevir · · · · · · · · ·
5. Griesbach · · · · · · · ·
6. Scholz · · · · · · · · · ·
7. Lachmann · · · · · · · ·
8. Tischendorf · · · · · · · ·
9. Tregelles · · · · · · · · ·
10. Alford · · · · · · · · · ·
11. Wordsworth · · · · · · ·
12. Revisers' Text · · · · · · ·
13. Westcott and Hort · · · · ·
14. Scrivener · · · · · · · · ·
15. Weymouth · · · · · · · ·
16. Nestle · · · · · · · · · ·
All the above are
and each editor has striven
to produce a text more accurate
than that of his predecessors.
Beza (Number 3 above) and Elzevir (Number 4) may be considered as being the so-called "Received Text" which the translators of the Authorized Version used in 1611. VII. THE MODERN CRITICAL TEXTS. In the notes of The Companion Bible we have not troubled the general English reader with the names or distinctive characters or value of the several MANUSCRIPTS. We have thought it more practical and useful to give the combined judgment of six of the above editors; namely, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, and the Greek Text as adopted by the Revisers of the English New Testament, 1881, noting the agreement or disagreement of the Syriac Version therewith. (See note 3, page 2, above.)
A vast number of various readings are merely different spellings of words, or a varying order of two or more words. These are not noticed in The Companion Bible, as they do not affect the sense.
There are many more, consisting of cases of nouns and inflections of verbs, etc., but these are noticed only when they are material to the interpretation. All are noted in cases where it really matters, but these are not numerous. A few are the subject of separate Appendixes. The number of these Appendixes may be found under the respective passages, such as Matthew 16:18. Mark 16:9-20. Acts 7:17. Romans 16:25. 1Peter 3:19. Revelation 1:10.
The six critical Greek texts are indicated in the notes by their initial letters (see below). Where the reading is placed within brackets by the respective editors, the initial letter itself is also placed within brackets, and it is followed by "m" where the reading is placed in the margin.
It will thus be seen which of the above editors retain, insert, or omit a particular reading; and which of these expresses his doubts by placing it within brackets or in the margin.
To enable the reader to form his own judgment as to the value of any particular reading, it remains only to give a brief statement of the principles on which the respective editors ¹ framed their texts. GRIESBACH ¹ based his text on the theory of Three Recensions of the Greek manuscripts, regarding the collective witness of each Recension as one; so that a Reading having the authority of all three was regarded by him as genuine.
¹ We include Griesbach's principles, though his edition is not included in the notes of The Companion Bible.
|TOP PAGE 1 PAGE 2 PAGE 3|