Brigham Young University Brigham Young University

BYU ScholarsArchive BYU ScholarsArchive

Student Works

2007

Comparison of Scribal Variants between New Testament Comparison of Scribal Variants between New Testament

Manuscripts and Apocryphal Manuscripts Manuscripts and Apocryphal Manuscripts

Seth Kohrman

[email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/studentpub

Kohrman, Seth, "Comparison of Scribal Variants between New Testament Manuscripts and Apocryphal

Manuscripts" (2007).

Student Works

. 71.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/studentpub/71

This Report is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion

in Student Works by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact

[email protected], [email protected].

1

Comparison of Scribal Variants between New Testament Manuscripts and

2

prominent biblical scholars will be drawn upon in order to establish and support this thesis.

However, the greatest difficulty and challenge of this topic is that there is an abundance of

information, but currently no definitive secondary sources exist. No scholar to date has actually

posed the question as to whether or not early Christians understood a difference between

canonical and apocryphal literature.

This is a case study and is not meant to be comprehensive. The parameters of the

discussion will include intensive reference to Greek New Testament and apocryphal manuscripts

and fragments from the 1

Greek New Testament manuscripts P. 46, P. 66, and P. 75. Because of the ongoing project of

texts. First, the codex majority of Christian texts as compared to scrolls; and the most common

3

form (scroll or codex) of apocryphal texts. Larry Hurtado has already compiled excellent work

on these subjects and his work will be critical.

1

The early Christian preference for the codex over

the scroll may shed light as to how the early Christians viewed apocryphal writings as compared

to how they viewed canonical writings. Christians may have preferred the codex form for their

scriptures because they considered them to be sacred and desired to have a format which would

distinguish them from others. In contrast to this, new research suggests that the early Christians

did not use the codex form as frequently for apocryphal writings which they did not consider to

The second area of discussion is the frequency individual apocryphal writing found

together in codex form with canonical texts. Hurtado has addressed this topic albeit not as in

Lastly, the main point and focus of the discussion are the reasons for scribal variances in

texts, specifically between Christian canonical and apocryphal texts. Intentional and accidental

4

seem to have been more precise and clear when copying what they considered to be canon. On

the other hand, they seem to have been much less painstaking in their work when it came to

Hurtado explains that most biblical scholars are familiar with and generally accept the

5

Hurtado provides statistics from the Leuven Database of Ancient Books (LDAB) for his

conclusions of the early Christian preference for the codex over the scroll.

6

He reports that at the

time of his investigations, LDAB held over ten thousand manuscripts (not including items

deemed to be sheets or fragments).

5

through the 4

8

1.9% of the 2

nd

century AD manuscripts are identified as Christian

9

,

while that rises to 10.3% of the total manuscripts in the 3

century AD

10

. Then it takes a large

leap to 38% in the 4

th

century AD.

codices.

these codices are dated to the 2

century AD and twenty nine (27.9%) have been identified as

Christian.

In the 3

century AD, there are three hundred ninety-seven codices of which one

On the other hand, Hurtado explains that the scroll was much more frequently used in this

period by non-Christians.

The scroll was made by connecting one papyrus sheet to the end of

another which created an ongoing flow of writing material; this was then rolled up to keep safe.

6

identified as sheets and fragments belonged to scrolls originally based on the clear scholarly

acceptance of the scroll as the preference in antiquity as a whole.

18

as compared to apocryphal texts in codex and/or scroll form. Alongside this question, one must

wonder what the overall number of surviving canonical texts is as compared to the surviving

apocryphal texts. Finally, one should ask as well as to which, if any, of the canonical and

apocryphal writings are found together. Data for these questions is available for the New

Testament and apocryphal texts.

The Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece contains a comprehensive list of Greek

New Testament manuscripts.

Testament manuscripts.

21

eight (26%) of these six hundred Greek New Testament manuscripts are dated from the 2

7

century AD to the 5

th

century AD.

However,

four are listed as from the 2

nd

century AD while three more are listed as from the 2

nd

/3

centuries

24

Then the number jumps to forty-two in the 3

century AD and twelve more in the 3

centuries AD.

th

for the 4

centuries AD.

Finally, it lists another forty-two Greek New Testament

Thirty-four of the one hundred fifty-eight Greek New Testament manuscripts which

Novum Testamentum Graece lists are papyrus fragments that have not been identified as codices

(22%).

Keeping to Hurtado’s thesis, this means that these thirty-four fragments should be

counted as scrolls.

Happily, the other hundred twenty-four manuscripts have been indentified

8

clearly as codices.

This equals an overwhelming majority of Greek New Testament

manuscripts in codex form – 78%.

Christians did, indeed, prefer the codex for their canonical writings.

15

Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Ehrman challenges that despite not mention of it in the

other Gospels, the following somehow appears in numerous manuscripts: “and an angel from

heaven appeared to him, strengthening him. And being in agony he began to pray yet more

fervently, and his sweat became like drops of blood falling to the ground.”

Regarding the

bloody sweat, Ehrman contends that this was a later orthodox addition to demonstrate that Christ

Finally, Ehrman lists the patripassianists as the fourth group.

The patripassianists

believed the Christ was actually God the Father who came down in the flesh to suffer the passion

for his children.

Although Ehrman seems somewhat doubtful of the claim, he lists Sabellius as

the main figure among the patripassianists early on.

Ehrman argues that Orthodox Christians

Other manuscripts read “the church of the Lord, which he purchased with his own blood.”

16

Changing the word “God” (which may refer to God the Father) to “Lord” leaves out the

possibility that God the Father suffered for his children; the use of the word “Lord” demands that

one understand that as Christ.

inking the pen would have required the scribe to focus solely on that very action (of re-inking).

He continues to expound that this would have obviously required the scribe to take his eyes and

concentration off of the text for a moment; sufficient time to lose one’s place.

several different possibilities as to how this may have caused errors to creep into the text:

texts, especially while the scribe focuses on re-inking instead of copying.

77

Head’s representation

of one reason for unintentional errors in a text is a good quality one.

17

text to be of value. This meant that the person deemed the texts worthwhile enough to have a

professional scribe actually copy the text. On the other hand, the absence of stichometry may

Nomina sacra is a Latin term which means “sacred names.” Hurtado explains that the

nomina sacra are abbreviations of Greek words in Christian texts.

abbreviations of words comprised by the first and last letters of the word, although sometimes

18

be Israel or Jerusalem.

84

There are various nomina sacra for the same words such as Christ or

Lord.

85

New Testament manuscripts:

86

Nomina sacra are another evidence to examine the differences and similarities between

Christian canonical and apocryphal texts. Christians and their scribes used the nomina sacra for

texts which they considered to be sacred. This idea would surely match up nicely with that of the

nomina sacra themselves, namely that they are sacred names. The absence of nomina sacra in

19

apocryphal works may suggest again that the scribes were not paid for their work. It may also be

the case that these words, as contained in the list above, are not to be found in apocryphal texts

as frequently or at all. Without doubt, the Christians would have preferred their canonical texts to

Ornamentation is the decoration of the papyrus. It comes in a variety of forms. Several of

the more common types include symbols and drawings to the sides of the text itself, the first

letter of the text large and beautiful, and all letters of the text immaculately done. Ornamentation

finds the text to be important and thus desires to have it be as beautiful as possible. Early

Christians would have wanted such a thing for their canonical texts. However, as before, texts

without ornamentation may have been seen by the early Christians as less important, if

Grammar may be a further demonstration of the difference through which early

20

markers, and breathing marks would infer a conscience effort to make the text presentable and

more beautiful. The absence of such finer grammatical implementations would infer a lack of

importance for the text.

homoioteleuton.

in letter and/or words, thus possibly rendering the two lines to seem to be the same.

88

Consequently, the first, dittography, occurs when the scribe copies one line two times instead of

just the one time that it appears.

Haplography is essentially the opposite of dittography. It

90

copies the first of two similar lines, but then misses much of the second line.

orthographical errors are all omissions; that is, they leave out letters, words, phrases, and even

entire sentences. Omissions are the most recurrent grammatical errors in ancient texts.

92

They are

a manifestation of how careful the scribe was in copying the text. A text which is paid for and/or

is considered to be sacred will probably contain fewer omissions and grammatical errors overall.

21

“singular reading.”

97

for the interest of this discussion suffice it to say that singular readings are attestations of specific

words, terms, phrases, sentences, or otherwise which occur in one manuscript, but are not

attested in any other surviving text.

22

stichometry, nomina sacra, and grammar all fall under the umbrella term “singular reading”

because each of these addresses in some way how and or why singular readings occur.

been established throughout this discussion. Royse dates P. 46 to the beginning of the 3

Royse records four hundred fifty-two significant singular readings in P. 46.

However,

he reports that one hundred eighty-three of these are corrections by the scribe or by a later

scribe.

orthographic singulars, specifically one hundred twenty-four.

104

These include nonsense (words

23

provides an extensive list of what he considers to be harmonization for various reasons including

for theology.

106

and elegance.”

breaks between sentences when there was a break in the topic of the text; he suggests that this is

evidence for the scribe’s comprehension of what he was writing.

In other words, the scribe

seems to have understood that what he was writing/copying was scripture, or at least important.

111

of John.

24

readings.

Once more he reports additions and omissions as orthographic reasons for an amount

of these singular readings.

two things – first of all, it confirms that P. 66 is a codex. Secondly, it shows that, like all the

P. 75 also dates to the 3

century AD and is a codex containing the Gospel of Luke and

the Gospel of John.