The Greek Text
of the
New Testament.
This
Is Appendix 94 From The Companion Bible.
I. INTRODUCTION.
While modern critics are occupied with the
problem
as to the origin of the Four Gospels, and with their socalled
"discrepancies", we
believe that MATTHEW, MARK
and
JOHN
got their respective Gospels where Luke got
his
Videlicet,
anothen = "from above"
(Luke 1:3, see note there);
and
that the "discrepancies"
so called, are the creation of the
Commentators
and Harmonists themselves. The latter
particularly;
for when they see two similar
events, 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,
with different 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" (2
Peter
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 Aramaic); videlicet, Ezra 4:8-
6:18; 7:12-26; Daniel 2:4- 7:28.
Compare also 2 Kings
18:26.
Aramaic
is of three kinds : 1. Jerusalem. 2.
Samaritan.
3. Galilean.
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 2.
1. Abba 3. Mark 14:36. Romans 8:15. Galatians 4:6.
2. Ainias. Acts 9:33,34.
3. Akeldama. Acts 1:19. Akeldamach (LA).
Acheldamach (T Tr). Hacheldamach
(WH). See
Appendix
161. I. Aramaic Hakal d
e
ma, or Hakal
d
e
mah.
4. Alphaios. Matthew 10:3. Mark 2:14; 3:18. Luke 6:15.
Acts
1:13.
5. Annas. Luke 3:2. John
18:13, 24. Acts
4:6.
6. Bar-abbas. Matthew 27:16, 17, 20, 21, 26. Mark 15:7, 11,
15. Luke 23:18. John
18:40, 40.
7. Bartholomaios. Matthew 10:3. Mark 3:18. Luke
6:14.
Acts
1:13.
8. Bar-iesous. Acts 13:6.
9. Bar-iona. Matthew 16:12. See Number 27, below.
10. Bar-nabas. Acts 4:36, etc. 1 Corinthians 9:6. Galatians
2:1, 9, 13. Colossians 4:10.
11. Bar-sabas. Acts 1:23; 15:22 (Barsabbas
all the texts).
12. Bar-timaios. Mark 10:46.
13. Beel-zeboul. Matthew 10:25; 12:24, 27. Mark
3:22. Luke
11:15, 18, 19.
14. Bethesda. John 5:2. (Bethzatha, T WH; Bethsaida, or
Bethzather L WH Rm.)
15. Bethsaida. Matthew 11:21. Mark 6:45; 8:22. Luke 9:10;
10:13. John 1:44; 12:21.
16. Bethphage. Matthew 21:1. Mark 11:1. Luke
19:29.
17. Boanerges. Mark 3:17. (Boanerges. L T Tr. A WH.)
18. Gethsemanei. Matthew 26:36. Mark 14:32.
19. Golgotha. Matthew 27:33. Mark 15:22. John
19:17.
20. Eloi. Mark 15:34.
21. Ephphatha. Mark 7:34.
22. Zakchaios. Luke 19:2, 5, 8.
23. Zebedaios. Matthew 4:21, 21; 10:2; 20:20; 26:37; 27:56.
Mark
1:19, 20; 3:17; 10:35. Luke 5:10. John
21:2.
24. Eli. Matthew 27:46. (Elei (voc.), T WH m. Eloi, WH.)
25. Thaddaios. Matthew 10:3. Mark 3:18.
26. Thomas. Matthew 10:3. Mark 3:18. Luke
6:15. John
11:16; 14:5; 20:24, 26, 27, 28, 29; 21:2. Acts
1:13.
27. Ioannes. John 1:42; 21:15, 16, 17. (Ioanes, Tr.
WH.) See
Bar-iona. (Iona being a contraction of Ioana.
28. Kephas. John 1:42. 1 Corinthians 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:5.
Galatians
2:9.
29. Kleopas. Luke 24:18.
30. Klopas. John 19:25.
31. Lama. Matthew 27:46. Mark 15:34. (Lema, L. Lema, T
Tr.
A WH).
32. Mammonas. Matthew 6:24. Luke 16:9, 11, 13.
(Mamonas, L T Tr. A WH.)
33. Maran-atha. 1 Corinthians
16:22. (=
Our Lord, come!).
Aramaic
Marana' tha.
34. Martha. Luke 10:38, 40, 41.
John 11:1, etc.
35. Matthaios. Matthew 9:9; 10:3. Mark
3:18. Luke
6:15.
Acts
1:13, 26. (All
the critics spell Math-thaios.)
36. Nazareth (-et). Matthew 2:23; 4:13 (Nazara, T Tr. A
WH);
21:11. Mark
1:9. Luke
1:26; 2:4, 39, 51; 4:16
(Nazara. Omit the Art. L T Tr. A WH and R.) John
1:45, 46. Acts 10:38.
37. Pascha. Matthew 26:2, 17, 18, 19. Mark 14:1, 12, 12, 14,
16. Luke 2:41; 22:1, 7 8, 11, 13, 15. John
2:13, 23; 6:4;
11:55, 55; 12:1; 13:1; 18:28, 39; 19:14. Acts 12:4. 1
Corinthians
5:7.
Hebrews 11:28. The
Hebrew is pesak.
38. Rabboni, Rabbouni (Rabbonei, WH). Mark 10:51.
John
20:16.
39. Raka. Matthew 5:22. (Reyka is an abbreviation of
Reykan.)
40. Sabachthani. Matthew 27:46. Mark 15:34.
(Sabachthanei, T Tr. WH.)
41. Sabbata. (Aramaic sabbata'). Hebrew shabbath.
Matthew
12:1, 5, 10, 11, 12, etc.
42. Tabitha. Acts 9:36, 40.
43. Talitha kumi. Mark 5:41. (In
Galilaean Aramaic it was
talitha' kumi.)
44. Hosanna. (in Aramaic = Save us; in Hebrew = Help
us).
Matthew 21:9, 9, 15. Mark
11:9, 10. John
12:13.
IV. The PAPYRI and OSTRACA.
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.4
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 confusuion 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).5 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 languages6.
iii. Citations made from them by early Christian writers
long
before the oldest Manuscripts we possess (see
Appendix
168).
i. As
to the Manuscripts themselves we must leave all
palaeo-graphical
matters aside (such as have to do with
paper,
ink, and caligraphy), and confine ourselves to
what
is material.
1. These
Manuscripts consist of two 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 Cod. 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 7.
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 8.
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.
VI. THE PRINTED
EDITIONS OF THE GREEK TEXT. Many printed
edtions
followed the first efforts of ERASMUS.
Omitting the
Complutensian
Polyglot mentioned above, the following is a
list
of all those of any importance :-
1.
Erasmus (1st
Edition)
1516
2.
Stephens 1546 - 9
3.
Beza 1624
4.
Elzevir 1624
5.
Griesbach 1774 - 5
6.
Scholz 1830 - 6
7.
Lachmann 1831 -
50
8.
Tischendorf 1841 -
72
9.
Tregelles 1856 -
72
10.
Alford 1862 -
71
11.
Wordsworth 1870
12.
Revisers' Text 1881
13.
Westcott and
Hort
1881
-
1903
14.
Scrivener 1886
15.
Weymouth 1886
16.
Nestle 1904
All
the above are "Critical Texts", 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
; videlicet, 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 6.
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
inflexions
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 seperate 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. 1
Peter
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 9
framed
their texts.
GRIESBACH
9 based
his text on the theroy 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. It is
only
a theory, but it has a foundation of truth, and will always
retain
a value peculiarly its own.
LACHMANN
(L.) 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 cursives, or other documentary evidence. He
even
adopted Readings which palpably errors, on the simple
ground
that they were the best attested Readings up to the
fourth
century.
TISCHENDORF
(T.) 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,
however, he approaches nearer to Lachmann's
principles.
TREGELLES
(Tr.) 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 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 endeavours 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
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 Reviser's
alternative
readings, in the margin. In the Oxford edition, the
Revisers
give their Greek with the readings of the Textus
Receptus in the margin.
NOTES
1
It is so called because of 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 (2 Samuel 8:5.
Isaiah 7:8; 17:3.
Amos
1:5); (3) Aram Zobah (not far from Damascus and Hamath),
under
Saul and David (1 Samuel
14:47. 2 Samuel 8:3); (4) Aram
Bethrehob
(N.
Galilee, Appendix 169), 2 Samuel
10:6; (5) Aram
Maachah (1 Chronicles
19:6,7); (6) Aram Geshur (2 Samuel
15:8).
2
Further information may be found in the
following works:-
A.D. NEUBAUER: On
the dialects spoken in Palestine in the time of
Christ,
in Studia Biblica... by members of the University of Oxford
Volume
1, 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 1. Leipzig 1898. Also Grammatik des nidisch -
palastinischen Aramaisch. 2. Auflage. Leipzig, 1905. In the index of
Greek
words.
3
The order of the words is that of the Greek
Alphabet.
4
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.
5
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.
6
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 ready 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, above.
7
Such as are set forth in the Rules for Compositors and
Readers at
the
University Press, Oxford.
8
There are sixty-eight in Matthew;
forty-eight in Mark; eightythree
in
Luke; and eighteen in John.
9
We include Griesbach's principles, though his edition is not
included in the notes of The Companion Bible.