From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: The Syrian/Byzantine Text and the Johannean Comma [was: 1 John 5: 6-8]
Date: 20 Aug 92 05:54:08 GMT
Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA

eje@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com (Eric James Ewanco) writes:
>  [...]

In an earlier article I've specifically discussed the (lack of) textual
evidence behind Johannean Comma.  However, the following article contains
such a bewildering array of errors that it seemed worthwhile to attempt to
address some of this separately.

[Abbreviations and citations are explained at the bottom.]

>[Scott quotes NASB and NIV which omit the *Johannine comma*, "the Father, the
> 	  Word, and the Holy Ghost:  and these three are one."
>I can add to this post more compelling arguments.  It seems the Tertullian, a
>3rd-century theologian, quoted the Comma in his work Against Praxeas, circa 213
>A.D. (chap 25 v 1).  St. Cyprian of Carthage also quotes it in his work, "The
>Unity of the Catholic Church", A.D. 251/256.

There are even more compelling arguements against the inclusion.

While it may be true that Tertullian and Cyprian cited this passage (I've
not yet been able to check this), there is no evidence that they claimed
they were citing scripture.  In partiular, neither Tertullian nor Cyprian
included the passage in their (pre-Vulgate) Latin translations of the NT
[see TCGNT, pg 716].

>Both of these quotes, of course, are long before the supposed 4th century
>corruption. They also predate the Trinitarian controversy at the Council of
>Nicaea in 325 A.D.

On the other hand, the passage is quoted by _none_ of the Greek Fathers.
Given their interest in Trinitarian controversies (cf Savellian and Arian),
had they actually know this passage, this ommission would be most
surprising.

>This is the post I mentioned:
>Hank Dalelio "Longing to be at WDW"               89 lines   3-AUG-1992 08:57

>  If you turn in your non-KJV Bible to I John 5:7, [the Johannean Comma]
>     will be missing or in the margin, along with a note to the effect :
>             "not in the better manuscripts".
>  To be completely honest it should be:
>             "not in the Alexandrian Greek manuscripts"

This is incorrect.  Prior to the 14th cent. this passage occurs in _no_
[none, zero, nada, zip] Greek manuscripts, Alexandrian or otherwise.

After that time the passage occurs in only four manuscripts.  In two of
these, it is a marginal note.  The third is manuscript copy of a Greek Text
back-tranlated from the Latin.  The 4th manuscript shows every sign of
having been created expressly for the purpose of allowing the passage to be
included in Erasmus' edition of the Greek NT.  (For more evidence see my
earlier post).  There is no question that this passage has no place in the
Greek Manuscript tradition.

**** A NOTE BEFORE WE GO ON ****

What follows consists of a defense of the Textus Receptus or Syrian/
Byzantine family of Greek manuscripts as the authentic text of the NT.  As
we will see very nearly every statement made below is incorrect (sometimes
at the level of the basic facts of world history).

But be that as it may, it is important to note that this is completely
irrelevant to the discussion at hand: the Johannean Comma is not included
in the Syrian/Byzantine --or any other-- text.  (Or to take a completely
different tack, even if we were to accept the Syrian/Byzantine text as the
authentic text of the NT, that fact alone would compel us to reject the
Johannean Comma!)

Anyway, onward...

>  Generally there are two families of Greek manuscripts used in the
>  collation and reconstruction of the NT :  Byzantine and Alexandrian [...]

First, the standard model of NT textual family postulates at least five
major families: Byzantine (or as it is more commonly called today, Syrian),
Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean, and the so-called Neutral Text (closely
related to the Alexandrian).  Moreover these represent only the major
families; a large number of smaller groupings exist.  Furthermore, other
systems (e.g. that of Von Soden) specify other division (which agree, in
the broad, with this more standard terminology).

> ... the Byzantine texts come out of the Greek and Macedonian cultures; 

This is incorrect.  The Byzantine text is almost certainly from Syria
(hence the name by which this family is known more commonly today: the
Syrian).  The name "Byzantine" comes from the fact that it was dissemenated
widely during through the Byzantine Empire [see TNT pp 131ff].

> ... Greek is their native tongue. 

This is not really relevant, but the Greek of the NT is the Koine (or
"Common") Greek of the Hellenistic Empire.  I'm not sure what language the
residents of Macedonia spoke during this period, but I'd be somewhat
surprised if it were Koine.

>  ... the [Byzantine] greek scribes had a custom of burning the
>  source document after copying. This practise ended slowly between the
>  8th and 10th centuries.

Can you offer some (indeed, any) evidence that this was a common practice?

I grant you that it rather nicely explains the absense of early evidence
for the Syrian/Byzantine textual tradition, but, unfortunately, it doesn't
appear to have been what actually happened.

>  The Alexandrian manuscripts are from the shores
>  of North Africa, Greek was a secondary dialectical language there. 

Alexandrian was the second city (after Rome) in the Western World.  It was
the major center of Hellenistic learning.  Hellenistic Greek was a (if not
the) primary language of all peoples of the entire eastern Meditranean
region during this time.

In particular, the scribes and others responsible for the reproduction of
the manuscripts were well trained in Greek.

>  ... In
>  fact, many of the Alexandrian texts are translations from Koine to 
>  regional Greek.  [...] the Alexandrian christians did not speak Greek as 
> their native tongue [...]

Utter, absolute, nonsense.

>  ... Because these [Alexandrian] mms are older, most NT textual critics consider 
>  them "better".

Yes, their age is certainly a major argument for considering them "better",
as you say.  But more far more importantly, there is an enourmous amount of
"internal" data to support this claim.

To put the matter very briefly:  A number of variations in the text appear
when the Byzantine/Syrian text is compared with the text of the other
traditions.  It is simply far, far easier to explain these variations as
the Byzantine/Syrian text being a transformation of the other traditions
than the converse.  [For a more detailed discussion, see any introductory
level book on NT textual criticism, e.g. TNT.]

>  [...]  The Byzantine tradition claims that their manuscripts are
>  faithful transmissions of the original koine Greek documents as did, when
>  they existed) the Alexandrian.

Of course.  Most of those who transmitted the manuscripts made this claim.
Unfortunately in the case of those who created Byzantine/Syrian texts,
there is a good deal of evidence that they did not do this very well.

> [The Byzantine/Syrian texts were written on perishable materials while the
> Alexandrian texts were written on more durable media.]

There is no evidence (at all) that either class of text was preferentially
written on either of these types of media.  Plenty of counter-examples to
this claim exist [see any listing of the main manuscripts, e.g. that in
TNT, pp 36ff]

>  The Alexandrian mms differ among themselves in as much as an 80% divergence, 
>  while the Byzantine are 99+ % in agreement.

These numbers are the purest fantasy.  

To the extent that they have any relationship with reality they are most
closely the _opposite_ of the truth given the prediliction that the
Byzantine/Syrian text has for paraphrase and the conflation of readings.

It is worth pointing out at this point that to speak of _The_ Byzantine/
Syrian tradition is something of an oxymoron.  A comparison of the
(relatively) early Byzantine/Syrian manuscripts with those occuring later
demonstrate the manner in which this tradition was given to accruing
variant readings.

> ...  In addition the Alexandrian 
>  christians were driven by every wind of doctrine, their texts often 
>  mutilated where they had doctrinal disagreements among themselves and 
>  with other christians. If they didn't like the wording of a text they very
>  often changed, mutilated or deleted it. The Byzantine differences however 
>  are those of spelling, one word omissions and/or additions, homeoteleuton,
>  (scribes' eyes return to the wrong place in the source)...etc.

It is certainly true that examples of both of these classes of errors exist
in the manuscripts.  However, it is simply false to say that either type of
error was the exclusive province of either tradition.  In particular, to
pretend that the Byzantine/Syrian tradition was immune from this first sort
of tendentious rendering is absurd.

>  The modern texual critics problem : 
>  The Alexandrian "A" (I believe it is A or Aleph) Manuscript of the NT :

"A" and "Aleph" (or as it is otherwise signified "S") are two, quite
distinct manuscripts.  We will assume that the author means "A", as "S"
contains virtually no hint of Byzantine/Syrian readings.

>  One fly in this Alexandrian "better manuscript" ointment is the fact that
>  this Alexandrian NT dated from the 4th century has the book of Matthew 
>  (in the same scribal hand) in a very pure BYZANTINE tradition.

It would be difficult to know this in that in "A" Matthew is missing from
the beginning up to verse 25:6.

>  ... No NT
>  textual critic has ever dared tried to explain this (as far as I know) and 
>  stands as one witness that the Byzantine text pre-dates the Alexandrian.

The important phrase here is "as far as I know".  Every book and article on
Textual Criticism of the NT that I have at hand discusses this point.

Now, while it is true that the Gospels in "A" contain some Byzantine/Syrian
readings, it is worth making a couple of points:

 o These passages in "A" are the _earliest_ witness to the Byzantine/Syrian
   tradition.  To pick the two most obvious examples, the Codices "S" and
   "B", from at least a century earlier show no sign of Byzantine/Syrian 
   intrusions.
					  
 o It is interesting to note the logic in the above.  In particular we
   might ask the following question:  If several Byzantine/Syrian passages
   in the Gospels prove the primacy of the Byzantine/Syrian tradition, why
   does not the fact that the rest of the NT is almost purely Alexandrian
   in nature not prove the reverse?

>  Most "new" versions af the NT are based upon the Alexandrian texts.
>  (A translation of the Wescott and Hort NT collation).

???

No modern translator would even consider using the Wescott and Hort NT
collation as his underlying Greek text.

>  The KJV 1611 is based on a very ancient set of Byzantine (perhaps the root)
>  texts which existed then (1611) but not now (why? - later).

This is incorrect.  As was discussed here earlier the KJV was based on
Erasmus' edition of the Greek NT.  His version was based on manuscripts
from no earlier than the 10th cent. -- the majority coming from the 13th
and 14th cents.

>  These facts above warrant a serious look at just what is a "better" 
>  manuscript. [...]

(setq *mild-flame* t)

If there is interest in discussing these issues, I would be more than glad
to do so.  This is a subject that I enjoy immensely.

However, if people expect to seriously discuss these issues they should
expect to:

1] demonstrate some minimal understanding of the issues involved,

2] supply data or fact to support their claims and

3] drop this pretense of proof by simple assertion.  Despite claims made to
the contrary here, presuppositional apologetics have no place in textual
criticism.

(setq *mild-flame* nil)

N

TNT = _The Text of the New Testament_, Bruce Metzger, 3rd ed.
UBS3 = The Greek NT published by the United Bible Societies (in particular
       the critical apparatus of the relevent passages).
TCGNT = _A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament_ (a companion 
        volume to the above).