I would like to briefly comment on James' reference to Eusebus' and Jerome's alleged endorsement of Lucian. The reader should note that Eusebius was also sympathetic to the Arian view of Christ (a created being). Only after the Nicene Council condemned that view as heresy (AD325) did Eusebius rather begrudgingly adopt the "orthodox" view of the Trinity. So, his praise for Lucian (the father of this heresy) should come as no supprise. And it adds little if anything to the credibility of Lucian as a great defender of orthodoxy.

With regard to Jerome's alleged endorsement of Lucian, I think the reader should examine the entire preface to the Gospels penned by Jerome from which Metzger's quote (cited by James) was drawn.

Quote:

---

"You urge me to revise to old Latin version, and, as it were, to sit in judgment on the copies of the Scriptures which are not scattered throughout the whole world; and, inasmuch as they differ from one another, you would have me decide which of them agree with the Greek original. The labor is one of love, but at the same time both perilous and presumptuous; for in judging others I must be content to be judged by all; and how can I dare to change to language of the world in its hoary old age, and carry it back to the early days of its infancy? Is there a man, learned or unlearned, who will not, when he takes the volume into his hands, and perceives that what he reads does not suit his settled tastes, break out immediately into violent language, and call me a forger and a profane person for having the audacity to add anything to the ancient books, or to make any changes or corrections therein? Now there are two consoling reflections which enable me to bear the odiumin the first place, the command is given by you who are the supreme bishop; and secondly, even on the showing of those who revile us, readings at variance with the early copies cannot be right. For it was are to pin our faith to the Latin texts, it is for our opponents to tell us which; for there are almost as many forms of texts as there are copies. If, on the other hand, we are to glean the truth from a comparison of many, why not go back to the original Greek and correct the mistakes introduced by inaccurate translators, and the blundering alterations of confident but ignorant critics, and, further, all that has been inserted or changed by copyists more asleep than awake? I am not discussing the Old Testament, which was turned into Greek by the Seventy elders, and has reached us by a descent of three steps. I do not ask what Aquila and Symmachus think, or why Theodotion takes a middle course between the ancients and the moderns. I am willing to let that be the true translation which had apostolic approval. I am now speaking of the New Testament. This was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exception of the work of Matthew the Apostle, who was the first to commit to writing the Gospel of Christ, and who published his work in Judaea in Hebrew characters. We must confess that as we have it in our language it is marked by discrepancies, and now that the stream is distributed into different channels we must go back to the fountainhead. I pass over those manuscripts which are associated with the names of Lucian and Hesychius, and the authority of which is perversely maintained by a handful of disputatious persons. It is obvious that these writers could not amend anything in the Old Testament after the labors of the Seventy; and it was useless to correct the New, for versions of Scripture which already exist in the languages of many nations show that their additions are false. I therefore promise in this short Preface the four Gospels only, which are to be taken in the following order, Matthew, Mark Luke, and John, as they have been revised by a comparison of the Greek manuscripts. Only early ones have been used. But to avoid any great divergences from the Latin which we are accustomed to read, I have used my pen with some restraint, and while i have corrected only such passages as seemed to convey a different meaning, I have allowed the rest to remain as they are." (The Preface concludes with a description of lists of words made by Eusebius and translated by Jerome, designed to show what passages occur in two or more of the Gospels). (Jerome, Preface to the Four Gospels, AD383)

---

Note that according to Jerome, only a "handful of disputatious persons" gave any "authority" to the manuscript of Lucian, which Jerome viewed as "perverse." With that kind of support, it is impossible for such a manuscript to become the "Majority Text," and actually surpass the numerical superiority of the texts that had been actively multiplying for 300 years! It is not clear whether the reference to the "New" Jerome meant the New Testament of Lucian's manuscript, or whether he meant that Lucian's Old Testament was of any value in sheding light on the NT quotes of the OT. (Part of the reason there was a great dispute regarding Jerome's Latin Vulgate was his departure from the universally accepted Septuagint (LXX) to follow the Hebrew OT in his Latin translation. This created some very serious problems, where it is apparent that the Apostles OT citations of Scripture actually follow the LXX and not the Hebrew. It essentially made Jerome's version at conflict between the OT and NT where these OT quotes occur (particularly in Matthew). This question of sheding light on the true OT reading (whether Hebrew or LXX, or found in the other translations) was always a thorn for Jerome. It appears to me Jerome was indicating that Lucian's OT recension was useless for his purposes in translating the OT, AND that it was especially useless in resolving the issues related to these OT quotes in the NT. But, even if Jerome was referring to Lucian's New Testament text, note that he observed many "additions" not contained in the earlier Greek copies. This is proof that in Jerome's day, there were many extant ancient Greek copies with which to compare, and that Lucian's copy was basically dismissed. Remember, this is almost 100 years after Lucian made his copy.

Just to give a flavor of the distain many in the early Church had for Lucian and his heresy, here is one brief quote from Alexander of Alexandria. (Alexander was the bishop who excommunicated Arius, and who led the charges agaisnt him at the council of Nicea. The Nicene council was essentially a battle between Arius and Alexander).

Quote:

---

"And though I could say much more, brethren beloved, I purposely omit to do so, as deeming it to be burdensome at great length to call these things to the remembrance of teachers who are of the same mind with myself. For ye yourselves are taught of God, nor are ye ignorant that this doctrine, which hath lately raised its head against the piety of the Church, is that of Ebion and Artemas; nor is it aught else but an imitation of Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, who, by the judgment and counsel of all the bishops, and in every place, was separated from the Church. To whom Lucian succeeding, remained for many years separate from the communion of three bishops. And now lately having drained the dregs of their impiety, there have arisen amongst us those who teach this doctrine of a creation from things which are not, their hidden sprouts, Arius and Achilles, and the gathering of those who join in their wickedness. And three bishops in Syria, having been, in some manner, consecrated on account of their agreement with them, incite them to worse things. But let the judgment concerning these be reserved for your trial. For they, retaining in their memory the words which came to be used with respect to His saving Passion, and abasement, and examination, and what they call His poverty, and in short of all those things to which the Savior submitted for our sakes, bring them forward to refute His supreme and eternal Godhead. But of those words which signify His natural glory and nobility, and abiding with the Father, they have become unmindful. Such as this: I and My Father are one, which indeed the Lord says, not as proclaiming Himself to be the Father, nor to demonstrate that two persons are one; but that the Son of the Father most exactly preserves the expressed likeness of the Father, inasmuch as He has by nature impressed upon Him His similitude in every respect, and is the image of the Father in no way discrepant, and the expressed figure of the primitive exemplar. Whence, also, to Philip, who then was desirous to see Him, the Lord shows this abundantly. For when he said, Show us the Father, He answered: He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father, since the Father was Himself seen through the spotless and living mirror of the divine image. Similar to which is what the saints say in the Psalms: In Thy light shall we see light. Wherefore he that honoreth the Son, honoreth the Father also; and with reason, for every impious word which they dare to speak against the Son, has reference to the Father." (Alexander of Alex., To Alexander of Constantinople, 9).

---

James stated that when Lucian died, he had been restored to the church and was considered a respectable leader. But, as you can see in the above quote from Alexander (who championed the cause against the Arian heresy after Lucian's death), Lucian was no "saint." James' statement seems to imply that Lucian may have renounced his heresy on the person of Christ, and for that reason was restored. That is not the case. What James failed to mention is that Lucian was not separated from communion with the churches because of his views on the person of Christ, but because he followed in the footsteps of Paul of Samosata. Lucian did not quit the orthodox church when Paul of Samosata was excommunicated. Rather, Lucian insisted on following the orders of his deposed predecessor in defiance of the rest of the bishops. For this reason he remained outside communion with the orthodox churches. Lucian was eventually reconcilled with the orthodox churches, but died before the Arian heresy had gathered much notice, and long before it came to a head at the council of Nicea. So, while Lucian may have been seen as respectable at the time of his death, the real damage he had done by introducing his student Arius to heresy on the person of Christ had yet to bear real fruit. Alexander's assessment above is a much better indication of how the church would have viewed Lucian (and whatever transcription he might have done) after the Nicene Council had thrown Arianism to the garbage heap of official "heresy." While Lucian was reconcilled with the churches prior to his death, there is no indication that he ever renounced his view that Christ was a created being.

Tim

From the data presented earlier, it should be clear that Lucian of Antioch made a copy of the Old Testament and New Testament which was used as an exemplar by the church in Nicomedia. Tim seems to concede this point when stating that Jerome produced the Vulgate Gospels almost 100 years after Lucian made his copy.

The question that remains is the nature of Lucians contribution to the Byzantine Text: did he perpetuate an already-established local text, or did he originate a new local text? I submit that he did a bit of both: he thoughtfully made a copy -- with the intent that it would be used as a master-copy -- using several exemplars which he considered the best MSS he had available. But Lucian did not step out of a textual vacuum into a room filled with MSS from Antioch and Caesarea. Contra Hort, it is more reasonable to think that Lucians goal was to repair the local text that was already in use in Antioch, rather than build a new text-type from miscellaneous spare parts.

If Lucian thought that the text he normally used in Antioch needed a lot of repair, then he would have used imported MSS a lot. If, however, he thought that it only needed a little repair, then he would have used imported MSS only a little. But we have no way to read Lucians mind. Therefore, we should approach the Byzantine Text without any presumption about whether a particular variant that is non-Alexandrian and non-Western had its origin in Lucians mind, or in the MSS which Lucian possessed which contained the local text of Antioch. Hort thought they all originated in Lucians mind, but Sturzs evidence proved Hort wrong dozens of times.

The theory of the Lucianic recension, then, is properly not a basis for textual criticism. It is a deduction, a theory formulated to explain the textual evidence, similar to the theory that an individual MS which displays block-mixture was made by a copyist who used two MSS as exemplars (even though we dont have any historians report about it), except in the case of Lucians text, the main mixture-mechanism was editorial selection, and the resultant text ended up having a much greater influence than most MSS.

Having dealt with Tims claim that there is no shred of evidence for a Lucianic recension, I now turn to his claim that the Byzantine Text was specially favored and protected in the early church.

Tim stated that The sheer numbers of so called "Byzantine" manuscripts indicates that the early Church held this text stream in much higher regard than any other stream. I have already shown the speciousness of that claim via my comments about the numerical superiority of the Latin Vulgate, and about the numerical superiority of different text-types in different locales and different languages. There is no evidence that the Byzantine Text held a special status above any other local text until after the 300s.

(Note: Tims not arguing from number, per se. The thousands of minuscule Byzantine MSS that are not directly related to each other imply the earlier existence of hundreds of uncial Byzantine MSS that were not directly related to each other. However, as one works back through the manuscript-generations, all MSS within a text-type tend to become more and more closely related, like tree-branches that get closer together the nearer they are to the trunk. The relationship of Byzantine ancestor-MSS to one another prior to, say, 800 is impossible to reconstruct due to the paucity of MSS from the preceding centuries. One could posit that the Byzantine branch began in the first century, but that is not an evidence-driven statement; the evidence also allows that the first MS to agree with the Majority Text more frequently than with the text of Family Pi was not written until the fourth or fifth century.)

Lets consider the real history of the 300s-700s. In the 300s, the Byzantine Empire promoted the church. The local text of Constantinople easily won adoption for official use there, and spread from there throughout the Empire. The text used at that time in the region of Constantinople and Nicomedia was one which was greatly influenced by the contents of the exemplar Lucian had made. Churches in other locales did not suddenly stop producing their local texts, but while the production from Constantinople was constant, secure, and officially organized, other locales which had previously emanated distinct local Greek text-types stopped doing so for one reason or another, as I describe in the following paragraph.

Disruptions in various regions tended to leave vacuums for the Byzantine Text to fill. Rome was sacked by the Goths in 410. Vandals attacked Hippo in 430. Carthage was destroyed -- and I mean really, sincerely, destroyed -- by Belisarius forces. Jerusalem was sacked in 614, and not long after that, both Jerusalem and Caesarea were taken over by Muslims, who spread into Egypt and the northern coast of Africa, moving into Spain and then France until the forces led by Charles Martel defeated them at the Battle of Tours in 732. These events had a disruptive effect on local texts, and as a result the Byzantine Text either lost a competitor, or had a new opportunity to meet a demand for new MSS, or both. In other words, the reason why the Byzantine Text became dominant is not (contra Tims claims) that the church always recognized its strength; its mainly because between 400 and 650, the production-centers of its rival text-types were either shut down, became isolated, or began to produce mainly non-Greek rather than Greek MSS.

The mechanism which Tim has posited to account for the rise of the Byzantine Text is imaginary and is not only historically baseless but historically opposed. (Just take a look at Origen's and Jerome's descriptions of incompetently made MSS.) Tim has not stopped there. He asserts that The mutilation within the Alexandrian stream was not caused by normal scribal error. But look at the centerpieces of his case: John 1:18 and I Tim. 3:16 both involve nomina sacra. These two variants, and many others which detractors of non-Byzantine texts have identified as heretical corruptions, are plausibly accounted for as errors of accidental origin. Heretics promoted some of them, but it would be specious to argue that a variant must have been heretically motivated simply because it has been heretically abused. And would be inconsistent to reject the Alexandrian MSS for containing the same sort of errors which other MSS (including major Byzantine MSS) display.

Tim correctly stated that if Lucian was the first person to copy the N.T. with the Byzantine Text, the MS he produced would antedate all the Alexandrian uncials by at least several decades. Thats true. But Tim over-extrapolated when he said that all "the so called Byzantine readings" have earlier attestation than their Alexandrian counterparts. We usually cant tell if a uniquely Byzantine variant originated in Lucians mind, or if he got it from the Proto-Byzantine Text in Antioch. Also, we should not assume that every reading in the Majority Text echoes Lucians text (especially variants supported by A+K+Pi+Peshitta+Gothic (or 4 out of those 5) that disagree with the Majority Text). Those are two good reasons why it is necessary to proceed with a variant-by-variant examination, noticing which uniquely Byzantine variants are easily explicated by Alexandrian and/or Western readings, and which ones are not; readings which fall into the latter category should be considered possible components of the Proto-Byzantine Text.

Tim misreads the evidence again when he claims that The Traditional Text has better support from the patristic evidence than the Alexandrian readings. As I have already pointed out, the patristic writings, where they echo any text, tend to echo the writers local text (or texts). And we dont have many pre-300 patristic writings from Syria (except translations of the Diatessaron, which Tim considers corrupt). Where other local texts agree with a particular Byzantine reading, that is simply an agreement with the Byzantine Text at that particular spot in the text; that is not proof that the writer was using a MS with the Byzantine Text. (The same goes for all text-types; consistency is very important!)

Furthermore, when one takes a closer look at the patristic writings from before 300, the very same writers Tim used as witnesses for some Byzantine variants can be demonstrated to use non-Byzantine variants elsewhere. This attests to differences among local texts; it does not mean, or at least it does not necessarily mean, that the writer was using a Byzantine MS at 11:00 a.m. and a non-Byzantine MS at 3:00 p.m. (Tims theory that the Byzantine Text enjoyed a special status among church-leaders would tend to preclude the second scenario).

Tim said that considerable, widespread, very early evidence of a non-Byzantine reading must be considered, and that where such evidence is substantial, that reading should displace the majority reading. I basically agree. (I would also consider internal evidence, and the context in which readings are presented in the patristic writings, but those points will have to wait a while.) But Tim excludes many non-Byzantine readings (i.e., readings supported mainly by Alexandrian witnesses) from consideration! He attempts to justify this by claiming that the Alexandrian MSS have not been shown to be useful unless one assumes that the Byzantine Text is a later recension. But thats not the case at all. The Alexandrian Text is valuable, not because of the age of its extant witnesses, but because its extant witnesses attest to a separate early text-stream in which we may find original readings that are absent from other text-streams, and because the presence of variants in the Alexandrian text-stream tends to strengthen the case for individual readings that appear in other text-streams. (As Tim and I already agreed, the age of a papyrus or parchment does not determine the age or value of the text written upon it; thus the Alexandrian MSS value is not reduced just because they were produced after Lucian made his exemplar.)

Tim claimed that the Alexandrian MSS cant contribute significantly to textual criticism because they are so varied, and display so many unique readings. I say again that the statistics from Burgons research which Tim used as the basis for that statement are flawed, because Burgon counted Codex D (which is Western) and Codex A (which, in the Gospels, is a mixture of Byzantine and Proto-Byzantine) as if they are Alexandrian witnesses in the Gospels, and because Burgon did not adequately appreciate -- when formulating this particular statistic, at least -- the mixture in Codex C as being what it is (i.e., one could call Codex C Byzantine-Alexandrian as easily as mixed Alexandrian; this tells us about the ancestry of the text displayed in the MS, without impugning the Alexandrian Text or the Byzantine Text).

Finally, Tim noted that an important task remaining for NT textual critics is the establishment of the text of the ante-Nicean patristic writers. I would welcome such a projects completion. But since we do not have very many second- or third-century writings from Syria or Asia Minor, such a project would probably not be capable of showing that the Byzantine Text (or any text-type) was established there before the 300s. (Tim, which writers did you have in mind?)

However, it would probably show -- as patristic research has already shown -- that the Byzantine Text was not the dominant text-type in any locale from which substantial patristic writings have survived, until after 310. It would probably also show that the Byzantine Text was in competition with, and was being mixed with, the Proto-Byzantine Text, the Caesarean Text, and Western Text(s) until their production-centers were either shut down, became isolated, or turned their pursuits to the production of mainly non-Greek MSS.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

Regarding Tims presentation about what Eusebius, Jerome, and Alexander of Alexandria said about Lucian:

Eusebius of Caesarea was described by Tim as someone sympathetic to the Arian view of Christ. But earlier in the dialogue, Tim appealed to Eusebius for evidence that the orthodox Christians consistently guarded the NT text! Thus to whatever degree that theory relies on Eusebius, it should be withdrawn.

As Tim observed, Jerome stated in his Preface to the Vulgate Gospels that the authority of manuscripts associated with the names of Lucian and Hesychius was perversely maintained by a handful of disputatious persons. But lets establish a few things. First, as I observed, Jeromes opinion of Lucian, as expressed in later compositions, was not that Lucian was perverse or disputatious.

Second, Jerome mentioned that it was useless to correct the new using the MSS of Lucian and Hesychius because non-Greek versions of the NT books, when compared to those MSS, show that their additions are false. Tim claimed that it is not clear that Jerome meant, It is useless to use MSS associated with Lucian as master-copies, because they contain additions which are not attested in non-Greek evidence, or if Jerome meant, It is useless to consult those MSS associates with Lucian to help translate quotations from the OT that occur in the Gospels, because Lucians MSS contain additions which are not attested in non-Greek evidence. Such a meaning is inconceivable, as three pieces of evidence prove:

(a) If Jerome had been referring to Lucians OT Greek text, he would have included it along with the other OT revisions he mentioned: the revisions made by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion.
(b) After mentioning those OT Greek texts, Jerome explicitly stated, I am now speaking of the New Testament. It is after this remark, not before, that Jerome mentions the MSS associated with the names of Lucian and Hesychius.
(c) Jerome proceeds to cite versions of Scripture which already exist in the languages of many nations as evidence that their additions (i.e., additions in the MSS associated with Lucian and Hesychius) are false. But in 383, there were not many versions of the OT in the languages of many nations.

Tim proposed that in light of Jeromes statement that only a handful of disputatious persons considered Lucians text authoritative, It is impossible for such a manuscript to become the "Majority Text," and actually surpass the numerical superiority of the texts that had been actively multiplying for 300 years! That is not the case. For one thing, Jerome was not referring to how widely Lucians text had been distributed; he was only commenting about the claim of those who regarded it as specially authoritative. (Somewhat similarly, the KJV's distribution extends much farther than the KJV-Only movement.) And later on, Jerome stated his impression of how widely Lucians OT text was used: it was popular, he wrote (in the Introduction to the Books of Chronicles which I already cited), from Constantinople to Antioch.

As the production-centers of other text-types were either shut down, or became isolated, or stopped focusing on the production of Greek MSS, would it be possible for a Greek NT text that had been popular mainly in the area from Constantinople to Antioch to become the dominant Greek text-type? Would this even be possible for a Greek NT text that was only initially popular in the region around Constantinople? It would not only be possible, but almost inevitable.

Tim attempted to show that Jeromes statement about many additions in Lucians text proves that in 383 there were many extant ancient Greek copies with which to compare, and that Lucian's copy was basically dismissed. But Jeromes statement is considerably impacted when one considers that it is Jerome who made it. Just because the most outstanding textual scholar in Christendom in the late 300s and early 400s had studied and compared many MSS, and MSS in different languages, does not mean that most Christian leaders ever did so.

Now regarding the statement about Lucian by Alexander of Alexandria. Alexander does not condemn Lucian as a heretic; he only infers (correctly) that Lucian was guilty of impiety during the time when, after Paul of Samosatas expulsion, Lucian did not rejoin the church when Domnus was bishop, or when Timaeus was bishop, or until after Cyril had become bishop. This is more like a side-comment (to the effect that the heresy of Paul of Samosata is so dangerous that it even fooled Lucian, temporarily) than a direct assault on Lucian; Alexanders emphasis is clearly on his contemporaries who have based their teachings on the heresies of Ebion and Artemas and Paul of Samosata. As Tim says, Lucian was not particularly admired by Alexander of Antioch. But Alexanders statement (which is framed in the middle of a polemic against Arius) is not the only statement about Lucian that we have, as I have already shown from the statements by Eusebius, Jerome, and the Menaeon.

Tim denied that Lucian renounced Paul of Samosatas heresy and was restored for that reason. However, none of the points that Tim mentioned support that denial, and after presenting them, Tim himself stated, Lucian was eventually reconcilled with the orthodox churches. Does Tim think that the church-leaders in Antioch restored him to fellowship and leadership without receiving evidence that he had abandoned the teachings of Paul of Samosata?

Tim claimed that Alexander's statement is a good example of how the church as a whole would have viewed Lucian (and his copy of the Bible), but the positive descriptions about Lucian by Eusebius and Jerome (both writing after the Council of Nicea) prove him wrong, as does the observation that Lucian was accorded recognition as a martyr and his memory was accorded a day (Oct. 15) on the remembrance-calendar.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

Quote:

---

From the data presented earlier, it should be clear that Lucian of Antioch made a copy of the Old Testament and New Testament which was used as an exemplar by the church in Nicomedia. Tim seems to concede this point when stating that Jerome produced the Vulgate Gospels almost 100 years after Lucian made his copy.

---

I will not concede that Lucian's apparent NT copy was used as an exemplar by the church of Nicomedia. I have seen no evidence of this, only conjecture. Lucian may have made a copy of the NT to go along with his OT, according to Jerome. But, Lucian's work was rejected as corrupt by Jerome. That would not likely be the case had it been officially sanctioned by Constantine and the post-Nicene Church. Whether Jerome was referring to only the OT, or included the NT, is uncertain. Either way, I have yet to see any evidence of a recension of the NT by Lucian.

Quote:

---

The question that remains is the nature of Lucians contribution to the Byzantine Text: did he perpetuate an already-established local text, or did he originate a new local text? I submit that he did a bit of both: he thoughtfully made a copy -- with the intent that it would be used as a master-copy -- using several exemplars which he considered the best MSS he had available.

---

This is pure conjecture. His copy of the NT, if he made one, could easily have been just like any other, made from a single exemplar. James has not demonstrated any historical link to this supposed "recension" and the "Byzantine" text.

Quote:

---

But Lucian did not step out of a textual vacuum into a room filled with MSS from Antioch and Caesarea. Contra Hort, it is more reasonable to think that Lucians goal was to repair the local text that was already in use in Antioch, rather than build a new text-type from miscellaneous spare parts.

---

Why "repair?" Why not just copy, like everyone else, from already reliable copies in use by the churches?

Quote:

---

If Lucian thought that the text he normally used in Antioch needed a lot of repair, then he would have used imported MSS a lot. If, however, he thought that it only needed a little repair, then he would have used imported MSS only a little. But we have no way to read Lucians mind.

---

That is precisely the point! You cannot read his mind, and you cannot even evaluate his work, if it actually existed, because it is not extant. This is a lot of guesswork with no basis in historical, verifiable fact.

Quote:

---

Therefore, we should approach the Byzantine Text without any presumption about whether a particular variant that is non-Alexandrian and non-Western had its origin in Lucians mind, or in the MSS which Lucian possessed which contained the local text of Antioch.

---

It is bad enough that James has based his theory on a supposed recension that no one seems to have known about. Now James is taking a giant leap of logic. From one remark by Jerome he has constructed a "recension" of the NT, decided that it became the basis for all further copying in Nicomedia, and that the Traditional Text is the result. On what basis of historical facts, please?

Quote:

---

Hort thought they all originated in Lucians mind, but Sturzs evidence proved Hort wrong dozens of times.

---

Maybe the whole Lucian recension theory is nonsense. Have you ever considered that?

Quote:

---

The theory of the Lucianic recension, then, is properly not a basis for textual criticism. It is a deduction, a theory formulated to explain the textual evidence, similar to the theory that an individual MS which displays block-mixture was made by a copyist who used two MSS as exemplars (even though we dont have any historians report about it), except in the case of Lucians text, the main mixture-mechanism was editorial selection, and the resultant text ended up having a much greater influence than most MSS.

---

Pure conjecture. We do not know that Lucian made a recension as opposed to a simple copy from a single exemplar. We don't know that his copy had any impact whatsoever outside Nicomedia. In fact, Jerome seemed to think that Lucian's work was held in high regard by only a handful of persons. And this was nearly a century after Lucian's death!

Quote:

---

Having dealt with Tims claim that there is no shred of evidence for a Lucianic recension, I now turn to his claim that the Byzantine Text was specially favored and protected in the early church.

---

James, I don't mean to be a pest, but in what way have you "dealt" with my objection that you have no historical evidence for this theory? You claim that it explains the data. But only if you assume what you are trying to prove. There is no reason a manuscript copy of the NT made by Lucian should overtake and replace all the rest of the NT textual streams in existence centuries before Lucian! At best all you have is one vague remark from Jerome that possibly a copy of the NT was made by Lucian. Nothing further. (And of course Jerome's flat rejection of Lucian's work). IMO, You have constructed a house of cards. It seems you are arguing that because of Constantine's influence, and the proximity of Nicomedia to Constantinople, that perhaps the 50 copies of the Scriptures produced by Eusebius at the request of Constantine were based on this alleged Lucian recension. If so, then why would Jerome have such a low opinion of the "Authorized Version" text sanctioned by the Christian emperor? And why would it be considered to be held in high regard by only a handful of radicals if it had been the basis for the Constantine's copies commissioned from Eusebius?

Quote:

---

Tim stated that The sheer numbers of so called "Byzantine" manuscripts indicates that the early Church held this text stream in much higher regard than any other stream. I have already shown the speciousness of that claim via my comments about the numerical superiority of the Latin Vulgate, and about the numerical superiority of different text-types in different locales and different languages. There is no evidence that the Byzantine Text held a special status above any other local text until after the 300s.

---

But, the Vulgate has competed with the Greek Orthodox text. In order for a text type to gain a vast numerical advantage many exemplars of that type must be copied many times, and other older mss must not be copied anymore on any wide scale. The Roman church most definitely produced a "recension" (by Jerome) and that recension became the "official" Roman Catholic version in Latin. Not so with the Greek church. While there is plenty of historical proof (from the writings of Jerome and others of his contemporaries) that the Roman church produced a recension, there is no historical evidence that the Greek church ever did, or that they ever sanctioned a particular "version" of the Greek text. All we have is the fact that as far back as we can descern, the text used by the Greek Orthodox church has been the "Traditional Text," despite its occasional idosyncracies.

Quote:

---

(Note: Tims not arguing from number, per se. The thousands of minuscule Byzantine MSS that are not directly related to each other imply the earlier existence of hundreds of uncial Byzantine MSS that were not directly related to each other. However, as one works back through the manuscript-generations, all MSS within a text-type tend to become more and more closely related, like tree-branches that get closer together the nearer they are to the trunk. The relationship of Byzantine ancestor-MSS to one another prior to, say, 800 is impossible to reconstruct due to the paucity of MSS from the preceding centuries. One could posit that the Byzantine branch began in the first century, but that is not an evidence-driven statement; the evidence also allows that the first MS to agree with the Majority Text more frequently than with the text of Family Pi was not written until the fourth or fifth century.)

---

Granted, that the majority of Greek mss are of the "Traditional Text" type does not prove that this text goes all the way back to the Apostles. What it does imply, however, is that this text type goes back FARTHER than any other known text type. Notice I said "Implies" not "proves." I said this because some extraordinary circumstances COULD theoretically interfere with the natural transmission and multiplication of copies. But, something of that magnitide would surely be recorded in history.

Quote:

---

Lets consider the real history of the 300s-700s. In the 300s, the Byzantine Empire promoted the church. The local text of Constantinople easily won adoption for official use there, and spread from there throughout the Empire. The text used at that time in the region of Constantinople and Nicomedia was one which was greatly influenced by the contents of the exemplar Lucian had made.

---

You are overlooking the obvious, James. The Byzantine Empire was centered in Asia Minor, the very place where most of Paul's missionary activity took place. Not far from the heart of the Byzantine Empire were all the churches of Asia Minor, and all those to whom most of the NT Epistles were written. Those original autographs were no doubt kept by the churches to whom they were addressed. If a standard text type arose from the area around Constantinople, it was no doubt based on the earliest possible tradition from these churches, NOT from a recension made by Lucian. It would be impossible for a fabricated text (recension) to take root in this area where the Apostolic churches were well established, unless it was in harmony with the texts in these local churches. Otherwise, it would have been rejected outright by the bishops of such Apostolic churches, who could point to a succession of bishops in each church, and who had safeguarded the Apostolic text in that church.

Quote:

---

Churches in other locales did not suddenly stop producing their local texts, but while the production from Constantinople was constant, secure, and officially organized, other locales which had previously emanated distinct local Greek text-types stopped doing so for one reason or another, as I describe in the following paragraph.

Disruptions in various regions tended to leave vacuums for the Byzantine Text to fill. Rome was sacked by the Goths in 410. Vandals attacked Hippo in 430. Carthage was destroyed -- and I mean really, sincerely, destroyed -- by Belisarius forces. Jerusalem was sacked in 614, and not long after that, both Jerusalem and Caesarea were taken over by Muslims, who spread into Egypt and the northern coast of Africa, moving into Spain and then France until the forces led by Charles Martel defeated them at the Battle of Tours in 732. These events had a disruptive effect on local texts, and as a result the Byzantine Text either lost a competitor, or had a new opportunity to meet a demand for new MSS, or both. In other words, the reason why the Byzantine Text became dominant is not (contra Tims claims) that the church always recognized its strength; its mainly because between 400 and 650, the production-centers of its rival text-types were either shut down, became isolated, or began to produce mainly non-Greek rather than Greek MSS.

---

You are assuming that when a particular area had difficulties, that its manuscripts dissappeared, and no further copying of them continued. Why? Jesus said to his disciples, "when they persecute you in one city, flee to another." Faithful Christians would not kay down and die. They would continue, carry their manuscripts elsewhere, and keep on doing the Lord's work wherever they went. It is simply not typical of sincere Christians to just quit when trouble came their way. It was not typical under the Roman persecutions. And it is not typical today. When tribulations come, the Word of God goes forth allthe more strongly! That is how it has always been, and will always be.

Quote:

---

The mechanism which Tim has posited to account for the rise of the Byzantine Text is imaginary and is not only historically baseless but historically opposed.

---

I'm sorry, but I had to smile when I read this statement. James has constructed a theory out of thin air, and then tells you the reader that my theory is "imaginary." It is simply consistent with the historical facts as we know them, and how true Christians have always reacted under similar circumstances. James is trying to make this a lot more complex than it needs to be.

Quote:

---

(Just take a look at Origen's and Jerome's descriptions of incompetently made MSS.) Tim has not stopped there. He asserts that The mutilation within the Alexandrian stream was not caused by normal scribal error. But look at the centerpieces of his case: John 1:18 and I Tim. 3:16 both involve nomina sacra. These two variants, and many others which detractors of non-Byzantine texts have identified as heretical corruptions, are plausibly accounted for as errors of accidental origin. Heretics promoted some of them, but it would be specious to argue that a variant must have been heretically motivated simply because it has been heretically abused. And would be inconsistent to reject the Alexandrian MSS for containing the same sort of errors which other MSS (including major Byzantine MSS) display.

---

It is impossible to determine whether any particular variant has a heretical source unless that particular reading teaches something heretical (as does John 1:18 in the Alex. mss). James attempts to find accidental causes for most such cases. But, my claim is NOT based on any single instance of "corruption," but on the cummulitive evidence of wholesale corruption evident in the Alexandrian mss (but missing from the "Byzantine" mss.). The theory of intentional malicious corruption stems from these facts:
1. The early Fathers mentioned its occurrance very early, and described the characteristics of these kinds of corrupt mss. - widely varying copies. That is precisely the kinds of copies we have with the Alex. mss. all made within a very small timeframe and very small geographical area.
2. The Traditional Text comes from a wide geographical area, and from a much longer time span (over 10 centuries). No similar corruption of the text took place. If James' theory is correct, we would expect MORE variations, and a continuous degrading of the text over time. That this did NOT occur with the "Byzantine" text means that it is not NORMAL for this to occur with any text UNLESS there are other factors at work besides normal scribal errors. It is simply foolish to dismiss the testimonies of the early Fathers regarding wholesale corruption.
3. The KINDS of differences we find in the Alex. mss are consistent with many of the heresies of the Gnostic cults (and later Arians). In most cases, it is not a blatent inkection of Gnosticism into the text. Rather, it is the subtle removal of words or phrases that would make the text more problematic to Gnosticism or Arianism. As James pointed out, people with different theological persuasions would tend to choose whatever readings agreed with their theology when they had competing readings. So, where there were many competing readings (as in Alexandria), we can expect that this misuse of Scripture would be the greatest. Rather than seeking out the most ancient readings, which could be found in the Apostolic churches from Antioch to Rome, one would tend to choose from the extant mss within his community, and pick whatever reading he happened to be theologically inclined toward. It is human nature. We have already seen that Origen's theology was definitely this kind of hodge-podge of Greek philosophy and Christianity. Why then would his school have a different philosophy than its leader?

Quote:

---

Tim correctly stated that if Lucian was the first person to copy the N.T. with the Byzantine Text, the MS he produced would antedate all the Alexandrian uncials by at least several decades. Thats true. But Tim over-extrapolated when he said that all "the so called Byzantine readings" have earlier attestation than their Alexandrian counterparts. We usually cant tell if a uniquely Byzantine variant originated in Lucians mind, or if he got it from the Proto-Byzantine Text in Antioch.

---

Again, James is assuming what he is trying to prove, that the Traditional Text is the result of a recension, whether from Lucian's mind or elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Also, we should not assume that every reading in the Majority Text echoes Lucians text (especially variants supported by A+K+Pi+Peshitta+Gothic (or 4 out of those 5) that disagree with the Majority Text). Those are two good reasons why it is necessary to proceed with a variant-by-variant examination, noticing which uniquely Byzantine variants are easily explicated by Alexandrian and/or Western readings, and which ones are not; readings which fall into the latter category should be considered possible components of the Proto-Byzantine Text.

---

I agree that the early Versions should be consulted as independent witnesses to the text. I will add that the patristic evidence is even MORE weighty, particularly when it comes from varied sources. I am NOT suggesting that the TR or any other printed Greek edition is perfect. I am all in favor of examining all the evidence, not just the Greek mss. What I am against is the idea that the Alexandrian uncials can be given any more weight than a couple of goose feathers, for the reasons stated repeatedly.

Quote:

---

Tim misreads the evidence again when he claims that The Traditional Text has better support from the patristic evidence than the Alexandrian readings. As I have already pointed out, the patristic writings, where they echo any text, tend to echo the writers local text (or texts). And we dont have many pre-300 patristic writings from Syria (except translations of the Diatessaron, which Tim considers corrupt). Where other local texts agree with a particular Byzantine reading, that is simply an agreement with the Byzantine Text at that particular spot in the text; that is not proof that the writer was using a MS with the Byzantine Text. (The same goes for all text-types; consistency is very important!)

---

The problem here is that James is setting up a standard for the "Byzantine" text to which he is not willing to subject the "Alexandrian" text. In his jargon, the "Byzantine text" is a narrow KJV like text. And when any of the Fathers do not follow it closely everywhere, then suddenly their testimony to such a text is challenged. But, what he does not tell you is that none of the Fathers favor the Alex. text, because to do so would mean that their own citations of Scripture would be self-contradictory.

The reason none of the Fathers cite EXCLUSIVELY "Byzantine" readings is because in the early years the local texts had many problems. But, as I described earlier, manuscripts were gradually corrected through the public readings of Scripture in the churches. As I have stated earlier in this debate, John Burgon did his own collation of some 86,000 quotations of Scripture in the early Fathers. By his count, the "Byzantine" readings outnumber the "Alexandrian" readings about 2 to 1. I think this is ample evidence that the so called "Byzantine" readings have MORE right (as a group) to be considered original than any other type.

Quote:

---

Furthermore, when one takes a closer look at the patristic writings from before 300, the very same writers Tim used as witnesses for some Byzantine variants can be demonstrated to use non-Byzantine variants elsewhere. This attests to differences among local texts; it does not mean, or at least it does not necessarily mean, that the writer was using a Byzantine MS at 11:00 a.m. and a non-Byzantine MS at 3:00 p.m. (Tims theory that the Byzantine Text enjoyed a special status among church-leaders would tend to preclude the second scenario).

---

No, not necessarily. In my scenario, we would expect the purest texts to be found in the area of Asia Minor, where John ministered in person until his death at the end of the first century. Latin writers used translations, some of which were poorly made, some by people whose skill in Greek was a bit lacking. Some of the Fathers had connections to the churches of Asia Minor, but lived and worked a considerable distance away. Take Irenaeus for example. No dount he had some very old Greek mss from Asia Minor where he was from. But, upon moving to Lyons (France) he no doubt also had access to Latin translations from which he taught his parishoners. We would expect to find some mixing of his quotes under such circumstances. Few of the Fathers were themselves bishops of churches founded by an Apostle, and to whom an Epistle of Paul was addressed. So, most of the Fathers' did not have direct frequent access to the manuscripts within the Apostolic churches. But, they certainly were aware that the true Apostolic traditions were to be found in the Apostolic churches, and the succession of bishops within them who had safeguarded the Apostolic traditions. What the evidence proves from the Fathers is this: The passages where there are significant differences in the text that affect doctrine, usually the "Byzantine" reading finds ample testimony among the earliest of the Fathers. It cannot then be claimed as "late" and dismissed on this basis.

Quote:

---

Tim claimed that the Alexandrian MSS cant contribute significantly to textual criticism because they are so varied, and display so many unique readings. I say again that the statistics from Burgons research which Tim used as the basis for that statement are flawed, because Burgon counted Codex D (which is Western) and Codex A (which, in the Gospels, is a mixture of Byzantine and Proto-Byzantine) as if they are Alexandrian witnesses in the Gospels

---

Burgon made many collations, not only those I cited. He also compared Aleph and B (which I presume James will acknowledge as "Alexandrian"), to each other and to the TR. He counted only what he considered to be "serious" variant readings. In the Gospels alone Burgon counted the following: "The serious deflections of A from the Textus Receptus amount in all to only 842: whereas in C they amount to 1798: in B, to 2370: in Aleph, to 3392: in D, to 4697." He went on to say that within the Gospels of "B" there were 197 unique readings not found in any other mss. In Aleph, 443 such unique readings. (The Revision Revised, p. 14). The other literally thousands of important variants had support from at least one other mss. You can get a sense by comparing the supposedly two best Alexandrian mss, Aleph and B, to the TR, and find that they are widely at variance with each other as well as with the TR. It cannot be otherwise when B significantly departs from the TR in the Gospels some 2370 times, and Aleph does so 3392 times.

Most of Burgon's rebuttal of Hort's work centered around Aleph and B, because these two mss are were where Hort placed the bulk of his weight.

James can dump A and D if he wants. The problem remains, even if you take the TWO core mss of the Alexandrian uncials, Aleph and B. How is James going to decide which reading to follow when Aleph has one thing, B another, and the the Majority something else? Even if Aleph and B agree against the majority, who cares? What does that prove when both witnesses are from the same place and time? Even some of the handwriting in Aleph and B is identical. So, there was close contact between these two manuscripts. How can we assign any serious weight to this? The whole argument of Hort's came down to the supposed greated AGE of these two uncials. Yet, that theory has subsequently been shown to be hot air. What is left for these mss? How can they contribute? James says they can on a case by case basis? Really? How? On what basis should any reading in either or both outweigh the majority, or earlier patristic or version evidence?

Quote:

---

Finally, Tim noted that an important task remaining for NT textual critics is the establishment of the text of the ante-Nicean patristic writers. I would welcome such a projects completion. But since we do not have very many second- or third-century writings from Syria or Asia Minor, such a project would probably not be capable of showing that the Byzantine Text (or any text-type) was established there before the 300s. (Tim, which writers did you have in mind?)

---

Burgon hand collated some 86,000 quotations of the Fathers in the original languages over a 30 yr period. My suggestion is to do an exhaustive collation of ALL the Father's writings, not just those that have been translated and appear in our English editions of the Ante Nicene Fathers. Actually, ALL the manuscript evidence needs to be digitally photographed, including all extant copies of ancient versions, and all patristic quotations. All of it needs to be included in a single database, and available online for independent examination.

Quote:

---

However, it would probably show -- as patristic research has already shown -- that the Byzantine Text was not the dominant text-type in any locale from which substantial patristic writings have survived, until after 310.

---

I do not agree with that assessment. It is based on slanted criteria. It holds the so called "Byzantine" text to a much higher standard of proof than other texts. What is important when making such general statements is the percentage of agreement with various text types. That gives a general sense of which kinds of readings were predominant.

Quote:

---

It would probably also show that the Byzantine Text was in competition with, and was being mixed with, the Proto-Byzantine Text, the Caesarean Text, and Western Text(s) until their production-centers were either shut down, became isolated, or turned their pursuits to the production of mainly non-Greek MSS.

---

James is prejudging the evidence based on his own theory. As I stated earlier, on what basis should we suppose that "production centers" were shut down? We can expect that the local churches were the "production centers" or at least were connected with them. Production of mss occurred all over the empire, under a wide variety of circumstances. Manuscripts moved with their owners. Mss. were not always made in manuscript factories. Most were done by individuals, some professionals, some not. Many were done by monks or other clergy. The closer to the larger churches of Apostolic connection, the more pure we would expect the text to remain. The lectionary evidence is a good example of this, since these were produced for use IN the public readings of the churches. And surprise, surprise, they agree with the Traditional text.

Quote:

---

Eusebius of Caesarea was described by Tim as someone sympathetic to the Arian view of Christ. But earlier in the dialogue, Tim appealed to Eusebius for evidence that the orthodox Christians consistently guarded the NT text! Thus to whatever degree that theory relies on Eusebius, it should be withdrawn.

---

Eusebius was sympathetic to the Arian view of Christ as a created being. Are you disputing that? I used a quote from Eusebius who was quoting Caius. Caius claimed that certain heretics were corrupting the text centuries before Eusebius. Eusebius was a historian. I can base a statement of fact on a historian's quotation of another writer, just as I might do the sdame with Josephus (even though I may not think much of the man himself). Eusebius was stating something that was of historical record, and could be verified by appealing to the writings of Caius. However, you are using Eusebius' personal appraisal of Lucian, when itis clear that Eusebius shared Lucian's view of Chrsit as a created being. You have based your apprasial of Lucian himself on Eusebius' endorsement, when BOTH of these men entertained the same heresy! I don't find that very convincing.

Quote:

---

As Tim observed, Jerome stated in his Preface to the Vulgate Gospels that the authority of manuscripts associated with the names of Lucian and Hesychius was perversely maintained by a handful of disputatious persons. But lets establish a few things. First, as I observed, Jeromes opinion of Lucian, as expressed in later compositions, was not that Lucian was perverse or disputatious.

---

I don't think that can be established, at least not from the quotes you have provided so far. You claim that Jerome changed his opinion of Lucian in later years. I see no proof of that in the short quote you provided. Jerome could have a high opinion of the man's apparent righteous life, and still have a low opinion of whatever text he produced. Further, Lucian became a martyr BEFORE the whole Arian controversy really exploded on the scene. Even holding his opinions of Christ as a created being, Lucian was in fellowship with other churches. Many of the churches became "Arian" in their Christology before the Nicene Council of AD325. Martyrs were always held in high esteem for their bravery and supposed faithfulness, even when there was significant doctrinal problems. The Arian controversy came to a head only because Alexander excommunicated Arius from the Alexandrian church, and Arius set out to cause division over the issue.

Quote:

---

Second, Jerome mentioned that it was useless to correct the new using the MSS of Lucian and Hesychius because non-Greek versions of the NT books, when compared to those MSS, show that their additions are false....

---

Whatever Jerome meant, there is no evidence that the copy of Lucian's was a recension, rather than a manuscript made from a single exemplar.

Quote:

---

Tim proposed that in light of Jeromes statement that only a handful of disputatious persons considered Lucians text authoritative, It is impossible for such a manuscript to become the "Majority Text," and actually surpass the numerical superiority of the texts that had been actively multiplying for 300 years! That is not the case. For one thing, Jerome was not referring to how widely Lucians text had been distributed; he was only commenting about the claim of those who regarded it as specially authoritative.

---

But that is just the problem. The ONLY way that a supposed Lucian recension, deposited at Nicomedia, could suplant the majority is for it to receive sanction and special status by Constantine. As you are no doubt aware, Constantine ordered Eusebius to produce 50 copies of the Scriptures in Greek. These were no doubt considered "official" since they were commissioned by the new Christian Emperor. If these 50 copies were based on this alleged recension of Lucian's, then Jerome, living several decades later, would be well aware of this fact and would certainly NOT refer to Lucian's NT with the disparaging remarks that he did. Nor would he insist that it only had support by a few radicals. It would be the official "Authorized Version" by Constantine, just as the KJV was considered the "Authorized Version" of King James of England. Jerome's comments about Lucian's work (if he meant the NT) simply COULD NOT refer to a text that was being used as the basis for the "official" Greek Bible.

If it was not the basis for Constantine's 50 copies, then something else was. What? The standard text in use in Asia Minor, of course, where Constantine's power base was situated. Whatever text became predominant because of the "Chrsitianizing" of the Eastern Empire, became the text predominantly used in the Greek speaking churches. That text is the "Traditional Text." And as is obvious, it originalted in Asia Minor, amazingly the very locus of Paul's missionary activity, and the original autographs, and best copies made directly from them!

Quote:

---

Tim denied that Lucian renounced Paul of Samosatas heresy and was restored for that reason. However, none of the points that Tim mentioned support that denial, and after presenting them, Tim himself stated, Lucian was eventually reconcilled with the orthodox churches. Does Tim think that the church-leaders in Antioch restored him to fellowship and leadership without receiving evidence that he had abandoned the teachings of Paul of Samosata?

---

Lucian did not share Paul of Somosata's Christology at all. Paul was an "Adoptionist" (meaning that he viewed Jesus as a mere man, and that God "adopted" Jesus as His "Son," and then used him to cary out the work of redemption). Lucian's view of Jesus Christ was similar to the orthodox (that the "Word became flesh", etc). But, Lucian (and later Arius) thought that the Word (preincarnate Christ) was God's first creation, and then through Him everything else was created. Paul of Somosata's views were considered heretical by the Church. But, at the time, Lucian's view did not attract much attention.

Before and even after Lucian's martyrdom, several of the churches had adopted Lucian's view of Christ thanks primarily to his student Arius. When Lucian died, he was in good standing with the church because the churches had not yet made the issue of whether Christ was "created" or "begotten" a point of division. It was years after Lucian's martyrdom that the controversy came to a head, and Constantine called the Council of Nicea to resolve the issue once and for all. The council of Nicea decisively ruled in AD325 that Arianism was heresy. Prior to this ruling, both Arian and orthodox churches had fellowship with each other. So, Lucian, in his day, was not considered to be a heretic on this basis.

Quote:

---

Tim claimed that Alexander's statement is a good example of how the church as a whole would have viewed Lucian (and his copy of the Bible), but the positive descriptions about Lucian by Eusebius and Jerome (both writing after the Council of Nicea) prove him wrong, as does the observation that Lucian was accorded recognition as a martyr and his memory was accorded a day (Oct. 15) on the remembrance-calendar.

---

Here is Alexander's statement again. One must remember, this statement was made when Alexander's fight with Arius had reached the point of splitting churches over the issue of the person of Christ. "For ye yourselves are taught of God, nor are ye ignorant that this doctrine, which hath lately raised its head against the piety of the Church, is that of Ebion and Artemas; nor is it aught else but an imitation of Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, who, by the judgment and counsel of all the bishops, and in every place, was separated from the Church. To whom Lucian succeeding, remained for many years separate from the communion of three bishops. And now lately having drained the dregs of their impiety, there have arisen amongst us those who teach this doctrine of a creation from things which are not, their hidden sprouts, Arius and Achilles, and the gathering of those who join in their wickedness. And three bishops in Syria, having been, in some manner, consecrated on account of their agreement with them, incite them to worse things."

Alexander's opinion of Lucian was based on the fact that he had originated the heresy of Arius. Alexander wrote this opinion prior to the Council of Nicea. But, since the council sided with Alexander and against Arius (Lucian had been martyred before Nicea), Alexander's opinion of the Arian position (and its founder, Lucian) no doubt became the predominant view after Nicea.

However, martyrdom was a very big deal to the early church, much moreso than some doctrinal deviation. Lucian was honored for his apparently upright conduct, and his courage in martyrdom. One does NOT hold LATER church council rulings against the character of someone who died a martyr's death. To praise the man's character is NOT the same as accepting his scholarship, particularly when said scholarship would have a direct bearing on furthering his heresy within the post-Nicene church that had firmly rejected Lucian's view of Christ as a created being.

Tim

I was not disputing that Eusebius of Caesarea was sympathetic to Arianism. I was pointing out that because Tim affirms that Eusebius was sympathetic to Arianism, it is inconsistent of Tim to then turn around and attempt to use Eusebius as an example of those vigilant Byzantine-Text-guarding orthodox bishops he wants to exist. Tim has already corrected his earlier miscitation of Eusebius -- it was Caius of Rome, as preserved by Eusebius, that he was quoting, not Eusebius -- but it must be emphasized that we dont know the identity of the text-type which Caius used; therefore to use such statements as if they indicate that the Byzantine Text was widespread in the second and third centuries, and was protected by bishops at that time, finds no support in citations like that one.

Instead of molding the evidence, what Tim needs is to find a patristic writer who claims to use a vigilantly-protected text and who can be shown to be using the Byzantine Text. Unfortunately for Tims view, there are no such patristic writers in the second or third centuries. He has appealed to writers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian, but as soon as we actually examine the texts employed by those writers, we see significant non-Byzantine features! And so Tim has had to whittle down his theory in the course of defending it: now were not discussing a widespread Traditional Text; were discussing a text which was the Local Text of Asia Minor. But without substantial second- or third- century writings from Asia Minor, and without any similarly dated and located MSS, Tim has to rely on post-Lucian evidence as the earliest evidence of the Byzantine Text.

Tim is partly right: what we know as the Byzantine Text was, from about the late 300s onward, the local text of Constantinople and its environs. The question is, what was it before that point? Tim keeps on stating that it existed in the second and third centuries, but every piece of evidence that has been produced for that idea may be integrated with greater plausibility into a case for the existence of a Proto-Byzantine Text which resembled the text of Family Pi more than it resembled the Majority Text.

Tim did not grant my statement that Jeromes opinion of Lucian was not that Lucian was perverse or disputatious. But all one needs to do to establish this point is to look at what Jerome wrote in his Preface to the Vulgate Gospels, and see that Jerome did not call Lucian perverse or disputatious! He said that a handful of disputatious persons perversely maintain the authority of MSS associated with the names of Lucian and Hesychius. There should not be any question about this. A statement that disputatious and perverse persons A and B promote the work of C is not the same as a statement that C is disputatious or perverse.

Now, as Tim said, Jerome could have a high opinion of the mans apparently righteous life, and still have a low opinion of whatever text he produced. I agree; that was precisely the case at the time when Jerome produced the Vulgate Gospels. And for that very reason it would be absurd to posit that Jerome had a high opinion of Lucian as a person, and regarded him as perverse and disputatious, at the same time.

Having answered Tims objections to the point that Jerome, in the Preface to the Vulgate Gospels, refers to copies of a New Testament text associated with Lucian, I now turn to Tims contention that Whatever Jerome meant, there is no evidence that the copy of Lucians was a recension, rather than a manuscript made from a single exemplar. Granted, as far as tangible evidence goes. But it is equally true that there is no tangible evidence that Lucians copy was a MS made from a single exemplar, rather than that it was a recension. So we are left with probabilities: is it probable that Lucian, after completing his recension of the Greek Old Testament, proceeded to abandon the recension-techniques he had developed in his work on the Old Testament text, and instead selected a single exemplar and copied its contents? Or is it more likely that as a scholar with access to a substantial MSS-collection at a major hub of Christendom, he was aware, like Origen, of significant variations in the New Testament manuscripts, and that he aspired to sift through the variants, using multiple exemplars in the process, so as to create a corrected, definitive exemplar for his successors to use?

Tim proposed that The ONLY way that a supposed Lucian recension, deposited at Nicomedia, could supplant the majority is for it to receive sanction and special status by Constantine. But that is only one possible way it could have happened. Notice that Tim is assuming that there was a majority to supplant in the region around Constantinople, even though he does not know whether the MSS in Nicomedia and Constantinople in the early 300s were uniform or diverse.

Tim mentioned that Constantine ordered Eusebius to produce 50 Bibles for use in Constantinople. Some researchers strongly suspect that the text in Eusebius 50 copies closely resembled the text of Vaticanus and/or Sinaiticus; some have even proposed that Vaticanus or Sinaiticus IS one of the copies made under Eusebius supervision. Eusebius own writings strongly indicate that he did not use Byzantine MSS, and thus it is extremely unlikely that the 50 copies he sent to Constantinople contained the Byzantine Text.

The 50 copies made by Eusebius do not seem to have had much impact on the character of the local text of Nicomedia and Constantinople. The question Why not? is a good question for which there is no demonstrably verifiable answer. It could be that before they got a chance to have such an effect, the local text had already become entrenched in the lectionary and in scriptoria; then as the Arian controversy arose, the church-leaders perpetuated their local text and simply decided to avoid using Eusebius copies. But this is only one of several possibilities. Another one is the theory that Constantius, the Arian Emperor in 350-361, suppressed and replaced those 50 copies and their offspring, after which during the reign of Theodosius the churches reverted to what had been used before (i.e., the local text of Constantinople adopted from Nicomedia, which was influenced by Lucian's copy).

Since I dont grant that Eusebius 50 copies were Lucianic or Byzantine, Tims observation that Jerome would not refer to the Byzantine Text as something advocated by a few radicals if it had been sponsored by Constantine doesnt really affect my position.

Tim asked the next logical question: if the Byzantine Text was not the basis for Constantines 50 copies, what was? But the answer he gave was not logical. Tim said that the basis for Constantines 50 copies was The standard text in use in Asia Minor, of course, where Constantines power base was situated. But Eusebius was not in Asia Minor when he produced those 50 copies. He and his MSS were in Caesarea, in the library which Origen had used 100 years earlier.

Theodoret preserved the contents of the letter from Constantine to Eusebius about the 50 Bibles. Constantine had said that there was a population of new Christians in Constantinople, and that he had taken steps for new church buildings to be built there. Constantine wanted the 50 Bibles to be written by skilled calligraphers on fine parchment, and to be sent to Constantinople in a short space of time. Two things should be clear from this: (a) Constantinople was virtually a new city, without a long-established text-stream of its own. (b) Eusebius made the Bibles in Caesarea, not in Constantinople or Asia Minor.

So rather than supporting Tims theory that Eusebius 50 copies displayed a text that originated in Asia Minor, the historical evidence indicates, instead, that Eusebius 50 copies were non-Byzantine, and that their impact was, for the most part, succesfully resisted in Constantinople in the 400s by church-leaders who had already embraced the local text (which was previously promoted at Nicomedia, home of Lucians copy).

On a side-issue, when I asked if Tim thinks that the church-leaders in Antioch restored Lucian to fellowship and leadership without receiving evidence that he had abandoned the teachings of Paul of Samosata, Tim didnt give a direct answer. Thats okay, since we dont have a record of exactly what went on at Lucians reinstatement. But Tim is surely wrong when he states that the issue of whether Christ was created or begotten was not yet a point of division, since that is precisely the sort of thing that Paul of Samosata had previously been excommunicated over. It was not a universally debated issue, but it was certainly a major issue at Antioch. The fact that Lucian was reinstated when Cyril was bishop is not absolute proof that Cyril recognized that Lucian no longer was advocating the teachings of Paul of Samosata, but it is a very strong indication that Lucian had abandoned Paul of Samosatas teachings, because if Cyril had not received evidence of such cessation, he would not have let Lucian be reinstated.

So, Tim has no evidence, except the brief allusion by Alexander of Alexandria, to support the idea that Lucian was viewed with suspicion rather than admiration in the 300s and 400s. However quasi-Arian Eusebius may have been, as the author of Ecclesiastical History and the arranger of the Eusebian Canons, he had considerable influence, and his favorable opinion about Lucian cannot be expected to be unique. But to remove any lingering doubt about how Lucian was remembered in the 400s, here is his profile from Jeromes Lives of Illustrious Men, (which can be read online at www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPN...-03-27.htm ) chapter 77 - Lucianus, a man of great talent, presbyter of the church at Antioch, was so diligent in the study of the Scriptures, that even now certain copies of the Scriptures bear the name of Lucian. Works of his, 'On Faith,' and short 'Epistles' to various people, are extant. He was put to death at Nicomedia for his confession of Christ in the persecution of Maximinus, and was buried at Helenopolis in Bithynia. Notice that while Lucians martyrdom is noted, his scholarship is also noted (which tends to undermine Tims contention that Lucian was admired as a martyr but his scholarship was rejected). Also notice that Jerome gives no indication that Lucian ever taught questionable doctrine.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

Despite the historical evidence that Lucian made a copy of the OT and NT which was in the possession of the church at Nicomedia, and despite the obvious need which the church in Nicomedia would have for exemplars to use as the basis for making copies as the church grew in Nicomedia and at Constantinople, Tim has not granted that Lucians NT text was used as an exemplar by the church at Nicomedia. Apparently he thinks that they kept a complete codex sitting around -- and opened it frequently enough that future generations would recall that it had three columns per page -- but did not use it as an exemplar. I welcome the reader to consider which possibility is more probable.

Tim mentioned that Jerome would not have had the low regard for Lucians work that he expressed in the Preface to the Vulgate Gospels if Lucians work had been officially sanctioned by Constantine and the post-Nicene Church. But such an objection is built on the false premise that Constantine ever sanctioned or promoted the Byzantine Text.

Tim said that despite all the citation I have provided, he has yet to see any evidence of a recension of the NT by Lucian. He proposed, His copy of the NT, if he made one -- did you notice how Tim just ignores the inconvenient explicit statement in the Menaeon that Lucian did make such a copy?! -- could easily have been just like any other, made from a single exemplar. That is highly unlikely, considering that Lucians MS is described as containing the entire OT and NT. For one thing, if Lucian used his best available copies, these would have been copies of individual books and sub-collections (such as a Gospels-collection, a collection of the Pauline epistles, etc.), not copies of complete New Testaments. And for another thing, it would be unlikely that Lucian, or any unhurried copyist, would use only one good exemplar if he had two good exemplars; copyists figured that the use of supplemental exemplars lessened the likelihood of replicating any scribal errors in the text of the main exemplar. And for another thing, if Lucian had just wanted an ordinary copy, made in the ordinary way, he could have had someone else make it. The point that he personally made the manuscript indicates that its production was a particularly careful one.

Tim claims that I have not demonstrated any historical link between the exemplar made by Lucian and the Byzantine Text. Let me describe together that theoretical connection, and some of the evidence for it. The Menaeon states that Lucian of Antioch personally made a Bible which, after his death in 312, was possessed by the church in Nicomedia. This copy was esteemed by the Christians there and they used it as an authoritative exemplar. It seemed to them like an improvement over their own local text, since it was produced by a martyr who had used ancient MSS from Antioch during its production. For 20 years, Lucians text was a strong influence on the text in Nicomedia. Then, Constantine made Byzantium his new capital, renaming it Constantinople and greatly expanding it. The local text of Nicomedia, nearby, was adopted in Constantinople. Constantine ordered Eusebius of Caesarea to make 50 Bibles for the churches in Constantinople, but for some unknown reason Eusebius text was not permanently adopted there; whatever impact it had was undone by the end of the reign of Theodosius, during which the local text of Constantinople -- based on the earlier local text of Nicomedia, which was strongly influenced by Lucians exemplar -- became the officially disseminated text of the churches in Constantinople, and spread from there, becoming more and more dominant (among Greek MSS) as the influence of rival text-producing centers decreased.

I am not claiming that this theory is capable of empirical proof -- only that it is the best explanation of the evidence. Nor am I claiming that this theory implies that unique Byzantine readings are all the invention of Lucian; in any given case, unique Byzantine readings may be Proto-Byzantine (i.e., features of the local text of Antioch which Lucian adopted into his text). It only implies that the unique combination of variants of which the Byzantine Text consists is not older than Lucian.

Tim asked why Lucian would repair the text he found in his MSS in Antioch rather than simply take an exemplar and make a straightforward copy of its contents. The reason is that its much more probable that Lucian of Antioch had access to more than one respectable-looking copy, and to copies displaying more than one local text, than that he had only one copy of each book. And it is much more probable that, with those resources at his disposal, he used them in a cross-comparison, proof-reading one copy against another. The effect of such a cross-comparison was to mix readings according to the discernment of the copyist; to the extent that the copyist did this, he became a recensionist.

When I mentioned that we have no way to read Lucians mind to see the extent of his cross-comparison of exemplars, Tim answered, That is precisely the point! But Im not sure if he really sees my point, since what I am saying tends to augment the status of the Byzantine Text. I mean that it would be ill-advised to automatically consider all unique Byzantine readings to be the inventions of Lucian, and that textual critics should be open to the possibility that unique Byzantine readings echo Proto-Byzantine readings which Lucian adopted. Tim seems to think this is a giant leap of logic -- but it flows very logically from the premises that Lucian intended to de-contaminate the local text of Antioch and that Lucian did not create oodles of new readings. It is consistent with Sturzs data, too.

Tim asked, Maybe the whole Lucian recension theory is nonsense. Have you ever considered that?. Yes, I have. If the Byzantine Text does not stem from a recension from the time of Lucian, though, then it must be a local text earlier than Lucian (a local text, I emphasize, not attested to by any patristic writers of the second and third centuries). The only locales in which writers do not give evidence of non-Byzantine local texts in that period are Antioch and Asia Minor. The paucity of writings from there, from then, and the lack of MSS, can be explained in two words: bad weather. Theres nothing implausible about that so far. But just because such a theory can be managed does not mean that it is right. Nor does it address the question of how Family Pi originated. Nor does it make the Byzantine reading original in any particular case. Nor does it overcome internal evidence in favor of non-Byzantine readings. In other words, if the theory of the Lucianic recension is wrong, and the Byzantine Text is a local text which predates Lucian, that doesnt make the Byzantine Text right. Thats why, as I said before, the best approach is to consider the variants case-by-case.

Tim said, We do not know that Lucian made a recension as opposed to a simple copy from a single exemplar. Granted. Nor do we know that he made a simple copy from a single exemplar (of the entire NT?!) as opposed to cross-comparing several copies. But considering that he had a reputation as a scholar, and that he had access to the library at Antioch, and that he undertook the production of the manuscript personally, which scenario seems more likely?

Tim said, We don't know that his copy had any impact whatsoever outside Nicomedia. Granted. Nor do we know that the influence of his copy stayed within Nicomedia. But considering that Roman persecutions had depleted the churchs supply of copies of Scripture, and considering that the memory of the three-column format of Lucians copy has been preserved, and considering that there was an urgent need for copies of Scripture in Constantinople after Constantine make it his new capital, and that Nicomedia was nearby, which scenario seems more likely?

Tim asked how I have dealt with his claim that there is no shred of evidence for the theory of the Lucianic recension. I have dealt with his claim in the following ways: (1) I have shown that there is a historical record that Lucian of Antioch personally made a copy of the New Testament, and (b) I have shown that Lucian had the means to cross-compare copies at Antioch, and (c) I have shown that the production of a text via cross-comparison is more consistent with the approach which Lucian applied to the Old Testament text, when he revised it, than the alternative idea that he chose to use only one exemplar when copying the NT books. I have also described how Lucians copy was capable of influencing the text at Nicomedia, and how the local text of Nicomedia, in turn, was ideally situated to influence the text at Constantinople.

When I mentioned that it is specious to argue that the numerical superiority of Byzantine MSS implies that the Byzantine Text is ancient, on the grounds that there are more MSS of the Latin Vulgate than MSS of the Byzantine Text and yet the Vulgate did not exist until 383, Tim replied, In order for a text type to gain a vast numerical advantage many exemplars of that type must be copied many times, and other older mss must not be copied anymore on any wide scale. I agree -- and that is precisely what happened in the period from 364 to 732 (i.e., from the reign of Theodosius I to the end of the initial Islamic conquest).

Tim admitted that the fact that the majority of Greek MSS are of the Traditional Text type does not prove that this text goes all the way back to the apostles. But then he said that it implies that the Traditional Text goes back farther than any other known text-type. Actually, it does not do any such thing. Such an implication only works when textual disruption does not occur, and in the early church, there were plenty of textual disruptions, as I have already described.

Tim seems to grasp that point when he says that extraordinary circumstances COULD theoretically interfere with the natural transmission and multiplication of copies. But, something of that magnitude would surely be recorded in history. Such extraordinary circumstances -- the disruptions I have been describing -- are recorded in history. The rapid rise in the imperial promotion of Christianity during the reigns of Theodosius and his successors, the sudden decline of the main production-centers of other local texts (such as Carthage, Hippo, Jerusalem, and Alexandria), the shift from Greek to other languages in what had previously been centers for the production of Greek MSS -- these things are recorded in history.

Tim then claims that I am overlooking the obvious: Constantinople is close to Asia Minor, so the local text of Constantinople came from Asia Minor, where, no doubt, the churches kept the autographs safe and sound, and where, no doubt, the local text echoed the original text. But it is Tim who is overlooking the obvious: he is overlooking the obvious effects of waves of Roman persecution, especially those in the early 300s imposed by Diocletian, Galerius, and Maximinus Daza. He is overlooking Constantines statement to Constantine to the effect that Constantinople in 330 had a great demand for Bibles. And he is overlooking the geographical consideration that Nicomedia is much closer to Constantinople than any cities to which books of the NT were first sent.

Despite these historically verified factors which would normally induce manuscript-production where a respectable exemplar could be found, Tim insists the churches in Nicomedia would, no doubt, gaze at the pages of Lucians complete New Testament, known to be based on MSS in the library at Antioch, and that they would, no doubt, sensibly refrain from using that complete New Testament as an exemplar at a time when many MSS had recently been destroyed and when there was a high demand for Bibles in nearby Constantinople.

Tim said that I was assuming that When a particular area had difficulties, that its manuscripts disappeared, and no further copying of them continued. Faithful Christians who managed not to be killed during persecutions moved around, and took their MSS with them. But they usually did not take their MSS with them to places that did not already have a local text, and when their mobile MSS collided with the MSS already in place in new locales, the result tended to be either mixture, or the adoption in the new locale of the imported text, or the adoption, on the part of the immigrants, of the text already in use in their new surroundings. This sort of thing happened very often. (Also, let it be noted that contra Tims statement, a lot of faithful Christians would, and did, lay down and die during Roman persecutions.) Tim wants to maintain that the local text in Asia Minor was impervious to the effects of imported texts, that it was impervious to the effects of Roman persecutions, that it was vigilantly guarded by bishops, and that it is essentially the Byzantine Text. But there is no evidence from Asia Minor, from the second and third centuries, to support the claim that it was impervious to imported texts. There is no evidence from Asia Minor to support the claim that it was impervious to the effects of Roman persecutions. And there is no evidence to support the claim that the local text in Asia Minor in the second and third centuries was the Byzantine Text rather than a Proto-Byzantine Text or the Family Pi text. And even after Constantine, in periods where we DO have writings from church-leaders in Asia Minor, their writings have plenty of variations from the Byzantine Text.

Now we turn to Tims comments about the Alexandrian Text. He said that his claim isnt based on any single instance of corruption, but on the cumulative evidence of wholesale corruption that, according to him, is contained in the Alexandrian MSS but is absent from the Byzantine MSS. Earlier, Tim presented 30 variants which he considered heretically derived, and I took 17 examples from the Gospels in that list, and showed how they are capable of doctrinally benign explanations. The individual variants which Tim has listed, individually examined, cumulatively indicate that density, not heresy, was the mechanism that begat most of the errors in the Alexandrian Text which Tim categorizes as heretically produced.

Tim listed three foundational points of his theory of heretical contamination, and all three are flawed:

(1) Tim said that the early fathers describe heretical tampering which is consistent with what is observed in the Alexandrian MSS. Ive already pointed out that this doesnt help the case for the Byzantine Text, since those same writers display disagreements with the Byzantine Text. But do their statements hurt the Alexandrian Text? Certainly not in regard to Alexandrian variants which can be shown to have been used by the very same writers who accused heretics of corrupting the text! And not in regard to Alexandria variants which have no special doctrinal significance -- which is to say, not in regard to the vast majority of Alexandrian variants. It should also be observed that in many cases where patristic authors provide specific examples of corruptions made by heretics, that particular corruption is not found in Alexandrian MSS.

This still leaves a very small group of readings in the Alexandrian Text which look suspicious. But this group can be reduced farther yet when one considers special phenomenon in the transmission-process (such as copyists use of nomina sacra, graphic confusion (in which the text was unconsciously misread), and misinterpretations of margin-notes, and harmonizations) which were capable of producing, without heretical intent, variants which the heretics found useful. So the actual number of variants in the Alexandrian Text which can be justifiably identified as likely heretically-motivated corruptions is very small -- much, much smaller than the number of variations between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus. These readings do not destroy the usefulness or the value of the Alexandrian Text. (Also, Tim said that the Alexandrian MSS were all made within a very small timeframe and very small geographical area. Thats not right, since there are MSS such as 892, with strong Alexandrian tendencies, dated to the 800s.)

(2) Tim said that since the Traditional Text was copied for over ten centuries without being drastically altered, (well overlook the over 1,800 differences between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus) the degree of variation among Alexandrian MSS is not normal; there must be some other factor causing it besides normal scribal errors; that factor, he claimed, is heretical alteration. But Tim has set up a false comparison, based on false premises: the relative consistence of the Byzantine Text is due to a lack of competition from other text-types, and to the discipline of trained copyists.

The differences among the Alexandrian MSS which are not illusions conjured up by statistical sorcery (for instance, by counting Codex Bezae as an Alexandrian witness) are mostly due to mixture (i.e., the effect of a collision between an Alexandrian MS and a non-Alexandrian MS), and to factors such as itacisms and ordinary scribal errors. It is easy to toss around the accusation that heretical alterations are the source of variations, but it is quite difficult to maintain that when looking at the actual variations; where they occur, and they are not cases of itacism or harmonization or obvious scribal mistakes, one reading almost always agrees with the reading of a non-Alexandrian local text. The number of cases in which the Alexandrian Text is internally divided (i.e., displays two readings, neither of which is identifiable as the reading of a non-Alexandrian local text, is pretty small.

(3) Tim said that the kinds of differences we find in the Alexandrian MSS are consistent with many of the heresies of the Gnostic cults and later Arians. Its not easy to evaluate the validity of this claim without being able to consider what variants Tim has in mind. But one weakness to this objection resides in Tims contention that Where there were many competing readings (as in Alexandria), we can expect that this misuse of Scripture would be the greatest. Consistently applied, what would that approach say about the text of Asia Minor, the stomping-grounds of Marcion and Montanus? Or about Rome, where many a heretic taught? Or about Antioch -- home turf of Paul of Samosata? Or about Caesarea -- headquarters of Origen? Egypt did not have a monopoly on heresy, and Asia Minor did not have a monopoly on orthodoxy (Cyril of Alexandria, anyone?). Without any specifics to back it up, Tims contention looks like little more than an attempt to assign guilt-by-association to the Alexandrian text-stream.

Tim stated that Origens theology was a hodge-podge of Greek philosophy and Christianity, and asked Why then would his school have a different philosophy than its leader? The question is a fine-looking arrow, but poorly aimed, since Origens school -- where he developed his teachings the most, and where they found receptive minds -- was at Caesarea, not Egypt.

Tim said, I agree that the early Versions should be consulted as independent witnesses to the text. I will add that the patristic evidence is even MORE weighty, particularly when it comes from varied sources.

I think were making progress. But if youre willing to use the early versions, that will mean using MSS such as Codex Bobbiensis and the Sinaitic Syriac, both of which have some readings which make the Alexandrian Text look tame in comparison. And the earliest stratum of the Sahidic Version is strongly Alexandrian; in some passages it is more Alexandrian than Codex Sinaiticus is. So it seems kind of illogical to take readings from those MSS into consideration while disqualifying the Alexandrian MSS.

Tim also said, I am all in favor of examining all the evidence, not just the Greek mss. What I am against is the idea that the Alexandrian uncials can be given any more weight than a couple of goose feathers, for the reasons stated repeatedly.

However, none of Tims repeatedly-stated reasons are valid. When closely examined and set alongside historical data, they crumble.

Tim claimed that I am setting a standard for the Byzantine Text that I am not willing to apply to the Alexandrian Text. Not so. There are examples of patristic writers who used Western MSS -- copies which had lots of readings which disagree with both the Byzantine Text and the Alexandrian Text. There are also examples of patristic writers who used Alexandrian MSS -- copies which had lots of readings which disagree with both the Western Text(s) and the Byzantine Text. But there are not examples of patristic writers in the second and third centuries who used Byzantine MSS -- copies which had lots of readings which disagree with both the Western Text(s) and the Alexandrian Text (except Origen, who used the Caesarean Text which has a collection of unique readings and amalgamations all its own.) The lack of the third sort of patristic writings may be due to Asia Minors climate; it is not due to my approach to the evidence.

Tim mentioned that Burgon collated 86,000 patristic quotations of Scripture; Tim reports that Burgon concluded that Byzantine readings outnumber Alexandrian readings about 2 to 1. Lets think about that a moment. I dont doubt that Burgon oversimplified his categories, and called Byzantine anything that was not distinctly Alexandrian. By not including a separate category for Western readings, the Byzantine pile is made to look artificially large. But just to make a point, lets consider Burgons statistic, as cited by Tim, at face value: one out of three early patristic citations supports the Alexandrian Text. Yet Tim wants to exclude the Alexandrian MSS from consideration. Does a text-type supported by 1 out of every 3 patristic quotations deserve to be dismissed as goose-feathers?

Tim stated, Most of the fathers did not have direct frequent access to the manuscripts within the Apostolic churches. I agree.

Tim also stated that in passages where there are significant differences in the text that affect doctrine, usually the Byzantine reading finds ample testimony among the earliest of the fathers. It cannot then be claimed as late and dismissed on this basis. Again, I basically (but not entirely) agree (defining "usually" as more than 51% of the time). But Tims statement is a statement about particular readings within the Byzantine Text, not about the Byzantine Text itself. The same thing could be said about readings in Erasmus first edition.

Tim asked, How is James going to decide which reading to follow when Aleph has one thing, B another, and the Majority something else? By looking for allies, of course: if B agreed with the Sahidic Version, L, 569 and a quotation from Cyril of Alexandria, where Aleph agrees with, say, D, Theta, 565 and a quotation from Cyprian, then clearly Aleph has suffered contamination from a non-Alexandrian source. Meanwhile, if Aleph agrees with C, L, Psi, 083, 892 and 1241, while Bs reading is unsupported elsewhere, then its Aleph that has the Alexandrian Text, and B displays a copyist error.

Tim asked how we can assign any serious weight to readings in which Aleph and B agree. Agreements between Aleph and B tend to attest to a very ancient sub-archetype, not unlike the way in which the DNA of two distant cousins can show, where they are the same, what the DNA of a distant ancestor was. Papyrus-75 has shown that this sub-archetype is earlier than the year 200 (where Luke and John are concerned, at least). So, barring special factors (such as corrections in the manuscripts, replacement-pages, things like that), the value/weight of readings shared by Aleph and B is virtually the same as the value/weight of a second-century MS. Thats why these readings are particularly heavy. Plus, as Tims own statistic said, no less than one out of three patristic citations supports the Alexandrian Text. Tim asks, How can we assign any serious weight to this? I re-phrase: How can we assign serious weight to readings shown to be descended from a second-century ancestor-MS? How can we justify taking into consideration a text-type that is supported by one out of three patristic citations? It looks pretty easy to me.

Tim asked, On what basis should any reading in either or both outweigh the majority, or earlier patristic or version evidence? An agreement of Aleph and B can outweigh the reading of the Majority Text on internal considerations. But readings shared exclusively by Aleph and B are rare; theres almost always further support.

Tim asked, after I expressed my expectations about the likely results of an exhaustive collation of patristic writings, On what basis should we suppose that "production centers" were shut down? On the basis of the historical reports that the cities containing them were conquered, sacked, destroyed, or underwent shifts into non-Greek languages.

Tim said that MSS were not always made in manuscript factories. True, not always -- but the ones that were made in scriptoria after Theodosius took the throne tended to dominate their locales, simply because they could be used in the local liturgy, and they were produced in higher numbers than private copies. Increases in the efficiency of scriptoria -- such as the one that was embodied in the shift from uncial to cursive script -- were yet another factor that made the Byzantine Text the majority text among Greek MSS. But to argue that because the Byzantine Text became the majority text among Greek MSS, it must be original, is to overlook historical evidence that adequately accounts for both its numerical dominance and for the decline of its rival text-types among the Greek MSS.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

Quote:

---

Instead of molding the evidence, what Tim needs is to find a patristic writer who claims to use a vigilantly-protected text and who can be shown to be using the Byzantine Text. Unfortunately for Tims view, there are no such patristic writers in the second or third centuries. He has appealed to writers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian, but as soon as we actually examine the texts employed by those writers, we see significant non-Byzantine features! And so Tim has had to whittle down his theory in the course of defending it: now were not discussing a widespread Traditional Text; were discussing a text which was the Local Text of Asia Minor. But without substantial second- or third- century writings from Asia Minor, and without any similarly dated and located MSS, Tim has to rely on post-Lucian evidence as the earliest evidence of the Byzantine Text.

Tim is partly right: what we know as the Byzantine Text was, from about the late 300s onward, the local text of Constantinople and its environs. The question is, what was it before that point? Tim keeps on stating that it existed in the second and third centuries, but every piece of evidence that has been produced for that idea may be integrated with greater plausibility into a case for the existence of a Proto-Byzantine Text which resembled the text of Family Pi more than it resembled the Majority Text.

---

As you all know, the theory I have espoused here regarding the Traditional Text is that it best represents the original autographs. I have argued that the reason for the vast numerical superiority of this text type is that it was copied the MOST and copied over the LONGEST period of time. Essentially, this means it reaches back earlier than any other text type. This is essentially the "Majority Text" argument.

Further, I have argued that the original autographs were delivered to the churches within the area later known as the center of the Byzantine Empire. The Original Autographs, and the earliest copies, were essentially spread out from Rome in the west to perhaps as far as Antioch in the east (since Antioch was the sending church for Paul's missionary activity). It is logical to expect that the purest text would be found within this area (because local copies could be easily compared with the original autographs for quite a few generations, as long as the originals lasted). Whatever scribal errors occurred would be quickly discovered and corrected by the interaction of these manuscripts with the Apostolic churches, public readings, etc. Unless an enormous catastrophy universally interrupted the transmission of the text of the cradle of Apostolic missionary activity, we can conclude that very accurate copies of the Scriptures continued to multiply in this area in large numbers, and would from the very start greatly outnumber any other local text type. Mss carried to other areas, as the Gospel spread out from the Apostolic churches, would be copied years or decades later, and therefore we would expect fewer copies.

James must divise a series of universal catastrophies that allegedly greatly disturbed the natural multiplication of mansucripts. He must them provide a provable theory that can explan how a recension (which would be an extreme minority text in one small location) could overcome the continual multiplication of manuscripts every where else in the entire Empire. Stasticially, it is improbable in the extreme. Of course James has a handy theory, that of the so called "Lucian recension." But his theory is not plausable in my opinion. And it has certainly not been demonstrated to be true from any historical mention of it. The theory depends far too much on most of the church suddenly quitting copying their many manuscripts in favor of some new version that supposedly had official sanction. Yet, no record of any such controversy that would absolutely ensue under these conditions exists in the historical record. James' theory has no historical basis in fact. It is pure conjecture on his part. It is essentially a circular argument.

James has challenged me to provide early ECF evidence for a so called "Byzantine" text used by one of the early Fathers. He is not satisfied that the majority of quotations of Scripture by the early Fathers follow the "Byzantine" readings. He is not satisfied that that a "Byzantine" type texts existed unless I can produce a Father who used exclusively "Byzantine" readings in all his quotes.

Before I answer this challenge, let me point out the hypocrisy of this challenge. Suppose that I were to challenge James to produce ANY manuscript from ANY period that agrees 100% over even ONE BOOK in the NT with ANY modern eclectic (critical) Greek text. He cannot even produce one such manuscript that agrees in one chapter! Yet, his standard of proof for our side is much higher than he is willing to hold for his side.

As James pointed out, we have very little extant writings from the bishops and presbyters who lived and worked in the heart of this area where the Apostles' ministry was focussed, and where the purest texts and most copies necessarily resided in the first few centuries. But, James is simply wrong that there are NONE.

In fact, let me offer one of the very earliest Fathers, who was a companion and disciple of the Apostle John himself. I am referring to Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna. Polycarp's close association with John is not disputed. That he was bishop of one of the seven churches of Asia Minor in Revelation, to whom that book was addressed and which recieved a copy in John's own handwriting, is not in dispute. Polycarp is THE most important witness amongst the earliest fathers to the text of this area where we claim the purest NT mss existed during the period before the extant witnesses to the Traditional Text in Greek have been discovered.

The question is, what kind of text did Polycarp have before him? There is only one Epistle of Polycarp's extant, a short Epistle to the church at Philippi. In this epistle of 15 short chapters, Polycarp citied several NT passages. Very few of his citations are more than a single sentence from any passage of Scripture. Polycarp had a habit of intertwining quotations of Paul, Peter, or John, into his own sentences (as many writers do even today). But, what is evident from a check of each of his quotes, is that his New Testament agreed with the "Traditional Text" 100% of the time. Within all of Polycarps' quotes (and occasional paraphrases), there are only two places I could find which concern a significant variant reading in dispute between the Alexandrian text and Traditional (Byzantine) text. Those two places are as follows:

1. In ch. VII, Polycarp quoted part of 1 John 4:3. The variant readings for this passages are as follows:

The Alexandrian ms "Aleph" reads as follows: "...confessing Jesus Lord in flesh having come" ("Christ" is changed to "Lord").

The Alexandrian mss "B" and "A" read as follows: "...confessing Jesus" (omitting "Christ in flesh having come")

The Majority text & Polycarp read as follows: "...confessing Jesus Christ in flesh having come."

2. The second variant is in ch. XII. Here Polycarp quotes Eph. 4:26, as follows: "Be ye angry and sin not, and let not the sun go down upon your wrath."

This agrees with the Majority (Traditional) text. But, all of the Alexandrian uncials (Aleph, A, & B) omit the clause, "Be ye angry and sin not."

Let me also point out to the reader that the fact that Alexandrian mss do not agree with each other, and with the Traditional text suggests that this first example (1 Jn. 4:3) was being tampered with in Alexandria. Further, this passage is a KEY anti-Gnostic passage. It essentially labels all Gnostics as "antichrists." Is there a more tempting passage for Gnostics to mutilate? Hardly! Both readings in Aleph and B could be attempts by Gnostics to deflect the force of John's words against them. The reading in "Aleph" is the less severe, by removing "Christ" and replaceing it with "Lord." Why? Because in doing so, the text does not deny Gnostic belief. There was no problem calling Jesus "Lord" (master) for a Gnostic. What was impossible was that "Christ" (whom they viewed as purely a divine non-physical being) could not partake of flesh, which was seen as corrupt and evil. So, Aleph eliminates the problem for Gnostics in one way. "B" and "A" on the other hand take bolder measures, by removing the whole clause "Christ in the flesh having come." Of course, James will come up with some theory to show how both of these were pure accidents. I say, if you want to find a way to deny the obvious, no doubt you can come up with some elaborate scheme. But, ignoring the obvious, in the face of the many accusations of the early Fathers of this very kind of tampering, is inexcusable, IMO.

I realize that the evidence from Polycarp is a rather tiny sample of the "Byzantine" text from only one writer. But, we simply have no other writers from which to quote from Asia Minor in the early centuries. If our opponents can take a reading from a papyrus fragment, and call that evidence of the Alexandrian text type, we certainly can rely on Polycarp's several quotations with at least equal authority, as an example of a "Byzantine text" type from the earliest period of patristic evidence.

You will find that our opponents still deny that Polycarp quoted a "Byzantine" text NT, despite the fact that his citations of Scripture show 100% agreement with the "Byzantine" text. We must ask, how much agreement is necessary to prove a "Byzantine" text? How about 200%, or 300%? Pardon the sarcasm, but I am simply attempting to show that our opponents do not use a consistent or fair "balance" when weighing the evidence. They assume a priori that the "Byzantine" text does not represent the oldest text, and then place the burden of proof on Traditional Text advocates to prove beyond a doubt that it does. This heavy bias will no doubt be seen in James' reply, where he will claim that this data is too insignficant to draw any conclusions.

But, the reverse should be the case. Since the "Byzantine" textform is by far the majority, and comes from a wide geographical area, it alone can claim the mathematical probability of representing the original autographs best. It therefore should be assumed to be the most ancient until proven otherwise. The burden of proof should be on our opponents to demonstrate that it COULD NOT have been the predominant text type in the area from Rome to Antioch in the centuries before extant mss of this text have been found in this region.

I believe that the text of Polycarp is a very important early witness. His connection to John and Paul must not be underestimated here. Smyrna was in the midst of Asia Minor, known as Paul's sphere of ministry. It was not far from Ephesus, where the original copy of Ephesians was no doubt still extant when Polycarp wrote, and quoted the above significant variant from that Epistle. Similarly, his close personal association with John makes it highly likely that he had a very early copy of 1 John in his own possession, one authorized by John himself. I submit that Polycarp provides a significant testimonial to the so called "Byzantine" text from the very earliest possible date (late 1st or early 2nd cent., perhaps written while John was still at Ephesus just a few miles away).

Some might be wondering why I claim Polycarp's support for the "Byzantine" text and James claims the opposite. I'll tell you why. I have gone through Polycarp's epistle and compared each quote with the Greek text and critical apparatus of Hodges & Farstad's Greek NT. I suspect James is not doing similar independent investigation. Rather, he is repeating the "party line" from the critical text proponents, like Metzger. These folks frequently selectively deal with the evidence that favors their view, and omit what opposes it. Yes, I am charging them with heavy bias and unbalanced handling of the evidence.

Some might be wondering about the citations of Scripture by Clement of Rome, and Mathetes, both of which apparently also had Apostolic connections. From my examination of both epistles, I found NO cases where they disagreed with the "Byzantine" NT text. However, this information does not carry much weight, because neither quoted any NT passage where there is a significant variant reading in dispute between the Alexandrian and Byzantine textforms.

When I have time, I will attempt an examination of some of Ignatius' works. (Ignatius lived in Antioch, and was also a disciple of John). His epistles, however, will be more difficult to assess because the text has been rather extensively "adjusted" by later writers. There is a long and short version of his epistles. It will be interresting to see which supports which text type.

What we can say for sure is this: Of the earliest fathers who had direct Apostolic connections, NONE of them quoted texts that disagree with the Byzantine NT (unless Ignatius proves to be an exception).

Tim

Quote:

---

Tim is partly right: what we know as the Byzantine Text was, from about the late 300s onward, the local text of Constantinople and its environs. The question is, what was it before that point? Tim keeps on stating that it existed in the second and third centuries, but every piece of evidence that has been produced for that idea may be integrated with greater plausibility into a case for the existence of a Proto-Byzantine Text which resembled the text of Family Pi more than it resembled the Majority Text.

---

James, it would be helpful that instead of making sweeping statements like the above, that you would prove your point by providing the actual "evidence" you claim make your case. What "evidence?" "Greater plausibility" to whom, with what presuppositions?

Quote:

---

Tim did not grant my statement that Jeromes opinion of Lucian was not that Lucian was perverse or disputatious. But all one needs to do to establish this point is to look at what Jerome wrote in his Preface to the Vulgate Gospels, and see that Jerome did not call Lucian perverse or disputatious! He said that a handful of disputatious persons perversely maintain the authority of MSS associated with the names of Lucian and Hesychius. There should not be any question about this. A statement that disputatious and perverse persons A and B promote the work of C is not the same as a statement that C is disputatious or perverse.

---

I am not arguing that Jerome was referring to Lucian himself as "perverse" or "disputatious." He was referring to the HANDFUL of people that promoted Lucian's work in Jerome's day, decades after Lucian's death. The point is that in Jerome's day, LONG AFTER Constantine supposedly sanctioning certain copies of Eusebius', Lucian's work was NOT widely accepted by the time you claim that his supposed recension would have already been the basis for the supposed completed and already distributed "official version."

Quote:

---

Now, as Tim said, Jerome could have a high opinion of the mans apparently righteous life, and still have a low opinion of whatever text he produced. I agree; that was precisely the case at the time when Jerome produced the Vulgate Gospels. And for that very reason it would be absurd to posit that Jerome had a high opinion of Lucian as a person, and regarded him as perverse and disputatious, at the same time.

---

I am not making that claim.

Quote:

---

Having answered Tims objections to the point that Jerome, in the Preface to the Vulgate Gospels, refers to copies of a New Testament text associated with Lucian, I now turn to Tims contention that Whatever Jerome meant, there is no evidence that the copy of Lucians was a recension, rather than a manuscript made from a single exemplar. Granted, as far as tangible evidence goes. But it is equally true that there is no tangible evidence that Lucians copy was a MS made from a single exemplar, rather than that it was a recension.

---

Come on, James! This is the epitome of a circular argument. You are the one positing a theory that is supposed to answer the numerical superiority of the Traditional Text. OK. But, if you are going to advance a theory that flys in the face of the mathematical evidence, shouldn't you at least have to offer some evidence? I mean, saying that I have no evidnece to the contrary of your imaginary scenario is not evidence. I have no proof that the Alexandrian text isn't the result of Martians landing in Alexandria! If you are going to build a case against the mathematical majority, you need something more than a pie in the sky scenario that COULD have happened (even though there is no evidence that it actually did happen)!

Quote:

---

So we are left with probabilities: is it probable that Lucian, after completing his recension of the Greek Old Testament, proceeded to abandon the recension-techniques he had developed in his work on the Old Testament text, and instead selected a single exemplar and copied its contents?

---

No, these are "possibilities" not "probabilities." Let's talk about "probabilities." What is PROBABLE that the text in Asia Minor was copied the MOST because it was the EARLIEST. It is PROBABLE that because the multiplication of this text began years or decades BEFORE any other local texts came into existence, that it would always multiply at a faster rate than any other local text, and that it would always have superior numbers. It is PROBABLE that a text that has remained stable for 1100 years (from the 4th to the 15th cent.) would have been equally stable for the 200 years previously (from the original autographs to the 4th cent). It is PROBABLE that any significant variants that arose in this area would be quickly corrected by the continuous interaction with the local Apostolic churches, the original autographs and the earliest copies.

And you are arguing for "probabilities?" OK, let's grant your wish that Lucian made a NT recension in order to save precious time arguing over trivial matters. It matters not whether he did or not. There is no way that within the known history of the period that a single copy (recension or simple copy) made by Lucian at the beginning of the 3rd century, that by Jerome's was only advanced by a "few disputatious" individuals by Jerome's day (late 4th cent), could overtake ALL of the multiplication of manuscripts that had already occurred in the area for over 200 years! It is simply impossible! If it was not already the majority text in Jerome's day it could NOT become such afterward when the "Byzantine Text" was already known to exist BEFORE Jerome.

Quote:

---

Or is it more likely that as a scholar with access to a substantial MSS-collection at a major hub of Christendom, he was aware, like Origen, of significant variations in the New Testament manuscripts, and that he aspired to sift through the variants, using multiple exemplars in the process, so as to create a corrected, definitive exemplar for his successors to use?

---

You are assuming that all the manuscripts of Asia Minor evaporated into thin air. And all the copies of these that made it out to other locations also disappeared, or became so mixed that they no longer bore resemblance to their parents. You are assuming the WORST case scenario for the textual transmission WITH NO PROOF, and attempting to propose a theory of how Eusebius could "fix" the situation. You first need to show WHY the same text known to exist in Asia Minor from the 4th century on did not exist there prior to the fourth century.

Quote:

---

Tim proposed that The ONLY way that a supposed Lucian recension, deposited at Nicomedia, could supplant the majority is for it to receive sanction and special status by Constantine. But that is only one possible way it could have happened. Notice that Tim is assuming that there was a majority to supplant in the region around Constantinople, even though he does not know whether the MSS in Nicomedia and Constantinople in the early 300s were uniform or diverse.

---

I am making an assumption to be sure. But it is a LOGICAL deduction from the state of the evidence from the 4th to the 15th century, a 1100 year period! You, James, have the burden of proof to show WHY the churches that Paul founded in Asia Minor, and John shepherded after Paul's death until the close of the first century, who were entrusted with the original autographs and Apostolic teaching, were utter failures at keeping the text fairly pure for 2 centuries! While at the same time, the Greek Church has kept the text very stable for the 1100 years thereafter. I never ceases to amaze me that modern Christians have such a low opinion of the early Church, whether we are talking about their doctrinal positions, or their manuscripts of the sacred Scriptures. It seems that modern "scholars" think they are "all that" and can reconstruct the sacred text from scattered bits of data, while those who held the original autographs in their hands couldn't keep their own copies straight for just a few generations! It boggles the mind!

Quote:

---

Tim mentioned that Constantine ordered Eusebius to produce 50 Bibles for use in Constantinople. Some researchers strongly suspect that the text in Eusebius 50 copies closely resembled the text of Vaticanus and/or Sinaiticus; some have even proposed that Vaticanus or Sinaiticus IS one of the copies made under Eusebius supervision. Eusebius own writings strongly indicate that he did not use Byzantine MSS, and thus it is extremely unlikely that the 50 copies he sent to Constantinople contained the Byzantine Text.

---

Well, now we have little problem. If the Alexandrian Uncials are in fact some of the official copies made for Constantine, Eusebius would certainly get fired, possibly hung. Constantine's main goal was to UNITE the empire so he could consolidate his power. Yet, if Aleph and B are examples of solidarity, and they differ from each other violently, what kind of reaction would the churches of Constantinople have to such utter confusion? I can only imagine the condition of the other 48 if these two samples are any indication! Far from being a source for a "standard text," they would be the source of even more confusion. And they would certainly NOT be used as exemplars for further copying. Eusebius! You're fired!

Quote:

---

The 50 copies made by Eusebius do not seem to have had much impact on the character of the local text of Nicomedia and Constantinople. The question Why not? is a good question for which there is no demonstrably verifiable answer. It could be that before they got a chance to have such an effect, the local text had already become entrenched in the lectionary and in scriptoria; then as the Arian controversy arose, the church-leaders perpetuated their local text and simply decided to avoid using Eusebius copies. But this is only one of several possibilities. Another one is the theory that Constantius, the Arian Emperor in 350-361, suppressed and replaced those 50 copies and their offspring, after which during the reign of Theodosius the churches reverted to what had been used before (i.e., the local text of Constantinople adopted from Nicomedia, which was influenced by Lucian's copy).

---

Again, we are now reaching out for complicated explanations in order to overcome the obvious! The text of Asia Minor was NOT such a mess that you propose! It was kept faithfully intact by the bishops of the Apostolic churches for those 200 years between the original autographs and the time of Constantine. I know, it sound too simple. But, why not? I'll tell you why. Because of inherent bias against the Byzantine text.

Quote:

---

Since I dont grant that Eusebius 50 copies were Lucianic or Byzantine, Tims observation that Jerome would not refer to the Byzantine Text as something advocated by a few radicals if it had been sponsored by Constantine doesnt really affect my position.

---

No, but it sure narrows down your options for finding another way that a supposed single copy (recension or not) made over 200 years after the original autographs had been continuously multiplying, could have overtaken the already many thousands of copies in existence.

Quote:

---

Tim asked the next logical question: if the Byzantine Text was not the basis for Constantines 50 copies, what was? But the answer he gave was not logical. Tim said that the basis for Constantines 50 copies was The standard text in use in Asia Minor, of course, where Constantines power base was situated. But Eusebius was not in Asia Minor when he produced those 50 copies. He and his MSS were in Caesarea, in the library which Origen had used 100 years earlier.

---

It is true that Eusebius WORKED in Ceasarea. But, if he was to produce a standard set of copies for the Emperor in Constantinople (Northern Asia Minor), and he was well aware that many Apostolic churches surrounded the area, where the OLDEST copies would necessarily be housed, you can bet Eusebius would want to use examplars that would not conflict with the masses of copies already in use in the area. How embarrasing to produce 50 copies, only to find them all rejected because they differed widely from the local text!

Quote:

---

So rather than supporting Tims theory that Eusebius 50 copies displayed a text that originated in Asia Minor, the historical evidence indicates, instead, that Eusebius 50 copies were non-Byzantine, and that their impact was, for the most part, succesfully resisted in Constantinople in the 400s by church-leaders who had already embraced the local text (which was previously promoted at Nicomedia, home of Lucians copy).

---

Hold on there! You are assuming far too much here. You are assuming that Eusebius copies were far different from the "local text." And how about we define the "local text." The "local text" was whatever had been preserved by the Apostolic churches, and was in continuous use by them. In other words, the best and most reliable text in existence! If the "local text" was in fact "Byzantine" already, there was no need for any of this elaborate theory. Furthermore, your theory above still has the problem that in Jerome's day (after we know the "Byzantine text" was in existence in the area), Lucian's text was only held by a "few disputatious persons." Are you suggesting that the Bishops of Constantinople were these "disputatious persons" and they somehow shed that reputation and made Lucian's copy overtake the ancient copies already in use in the Apostolic churches in the area???

Quote:

---

On a side-issue, when I asked if Tim thinks that the church-leaders in Antioch restored Lucian to fellowship and leadership without receiving evidence that he had abandoned the teachings of Paul of Samosata, Tim didnt give a direct answer. Thats okay, since we dont have a record of exactly what went on at Lucians reinstatement. But Tim is surely wrong when he states that the issue of whether Christ was created or begotten was not yet a point of division, since that is precisely the sort of thing that Paul of Samosata had previously been excommunicated over.

---

You are mistaken, James. Paul of Somosata's view of Jesus was that he was purely "human" (not Divine), and that God "adopted" him as His "Son." Paul did NOT hold the view that Lucian did, that Jesus Christ preexisted before the incarnation, that all things were made by Him (all in accord with the orthodox). The ONLY real difference between the Orthodox and Arian views was regarding the "substance" of the preexisting Christ, whether he was "one substance" with the Father, or whether He was of a created substance. This is NOT at all what Paul of Somosata taught. Also, Paul was excommunicated for a variety of things, including his disgusting behavior in the congregations. He was accused of eliminating the songs in worship of Christ, and having songs sung in worship of himself. He had a throne constructed in the church for himself. He derided the members if they did not applaud him, etc. He was a disgusting and arrogant man. Lucain was nothing like that. But, Lucian made the mistake of remaining loyal to his deposed leader for a time.

Quote:

---

It was not a universally debated issue, but it was certainly a major issue at Antioch. The fact that Lucian was reinstated when Cyril was bishop is not absolute proof that Cyril recognized that Lucian no longer was advocating the teachings of Paul of Samosata, but it is a very strong indication that Lucian had abandoned Paul of Samosatas teachings, because if Cyril had not received evidence of such cessation, he would not have let Lucian be reinstated.

---

You are simply mistaken about this, James.

Quote:

---

So, Tim has no evidence, except the brief allusion by Alexander of Alexandria, to support the idea that Lucian was viewed with suspicion rather than admiration in the 300s and 400s.

---

You seem to forget that the controversy over Arianism was NOT resolved until years after Lucian's martyrdom. That the council of Nicea sided AGAINST Arias (and consequently his mentor Lucian), is evidence enough that the Church rejected Lucian's theology. Alexander's comments are just what one would expect as the controversy was in full swing. And after it was settled, there is no reason to suppose that the tide would swing in Lucian's favor, after his theology had been decisively condemned by the council.

Quote:

---

However quasi-Arian Eusebius may have been, as the author of Ecclesiastical History and the arranger of the Eusebian Canons, he had considerable influence, and his favorable opinion about Lucian cannot be expected to be unique. But to remove any lingering doubt about how Lucian was remembered in the 400s, here is his profile from Jeromes Lives of Illustrious Men, (which can be read online at www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPN...-03-27.htm ) chapter 77 - Lucianus, a man of great talent, presbyter of the church at Antioch, was so diligent in the study of the Scriptures, that even now certain copies of the Scriptures bear the name of Lucian. Works of his, 'On Faith,' and short 'Epistles' to various people, are extant. He was put to death at Nicomedia for his confession of Christ in the persecution of Maximinus, and was buried at Helenopolis in Bithynia. Notice that while Lucians martyrdom is noted, his scholarship is also noted (which tends to undermine Tims contention that Lucian was admired as a martyr but his scholarship was rejected). Also notice that Jerome gives no indication that Lucian ever taught questionable doctrine.

---

This is the same quote you provided earlier. And it does not support your case at all. It is the kind of comment one would expect from a historian regarding a martyr, whether or not he agreed with his theology, and whether or not the church later condemned his beliefs in an official council. I do not agree that this quote tends to undermine what I have said. While it certainly praises Lucian's character, it does NOT praise the results of his scholarship. The ONLY real "praise" here is that he was talented and a diligent student of the Scriptures. Had his work been held in such high regard in Constantinople or the surrounding area, one would expect Jerome to mention that. The silence on that is deafening here. In fact, Jerome's mention of the copies that bear his name seems to suggest that they were museum relics by this time, and not in wide circulation.

Tim

Tim said that the reason for the Byzantine Texts vast numerical superiority is that the Byzantine Text was copied the most, and over the longest period of time. I agree; that is obvious. But then he said that Essentially, this means that it reaches back earlier than any other text type. That assertion, however, does not proceed from the evidence, any more than the numerical superiority of the Vulgate means that the Vulgates text reaches back earlier than any other text.

I partly agree with Tims theory. Asia Minor and Antioch had their own local text, or texts, and to the extent that the text-stream went undisrupted between the initial reception of the text in those areas and the point at which the text of those areas was preserved, the preserved text may be reasonably expected to be a valuable and independent witness to the original text. A crucial question, though, is, To what extent did this text-stream undergo disruption?. Tims theory is that it underwent handly any disruption at all. But historically, Asia Minor and Antioch endured multiple persecutions and other disruptions. Tim admits that an enormous catastrophe which universally interrupted the transmission of the text of this area would pose a problem for his theory. But that is exactly what we see in persecutions and other disruptions, especially the persecutions in the reigns of Decius and Diocletian and his immediate successors.

Tim alleged that I must devise a series of universal catastrophies to discount his theory, but I am not devising the Roman persecutions, the natural disasters, immigrations, and other sources of disruption that occurred in the second and third centuries. Tim also said that I need a provable theory (???) to explain how the text used in one small location (Antioch, or Constantinople) could overcome the continual multiplication of manuscripts everywhere else, but imperial sponsorship, combined with the decline of the production-centers of rival text-types, explain that. Tim claims that this is statistically improbable, but it isnt improbable at all when one takes the historical factors into consideration.

Against the theory of the Lucianic Recension, Tim claimed that it depends far too much on most of the church suddenly quitting copying their many manuscripts in favor of some new version that supposedly had official sanction. However, there is nothing implausible in the two ideas that (a) intense persecution in the reign of Domitian and his immediate successors had the effect of interrupting the local text-stream, and (2) the use of Lucians Bible in Nicomedia influenced the contents of the local text which was adopted in Constantinople.

Tim objected that there is no record of any controversy about the adoption of Lucians Recension, like the disputes that followed the publication of the Vulgate. But this is easily explained when one considers that the text of Lucians Bible was never presented as a recension.

After I mentioned that there is no significant patristic evidence for the Byzantine Text in the second and third centuries, Tim claimed that it is hypocritical to ask for consistent Byzantine usage by a patristic writer since no patristic writers habitually use the Critical Text. But Tim is confusing consistent use with habitual use. We have examples of writings in which the author consistently uses the Alexandrian Text; we do not have examples of writings in which the author consistently uses the Byzantine Text.

Tim proposes one patristic composition that meets some of the criteria which valid evidence of the existence of the Byzantine Text in the second and third centuries would have: Polycarps Epistle to the Philippians. Tim noted only two places I could find which concern a significant variant reading in dispute between the Alexandrian text and Traditional (Byzantine) text First John 4:3 and Ephesians 4:26. In other words, Polycarps quotations support the Alexandrian Text as much as they support the Byzantine Text, except in two places. (Actually, theres at least one more ~ Romans 14:10 ~ but Ill just look at Tims two examples in the interest of brevity.)

Tim anticipated that I would come up with some theory to show how both of these were pure accidents. And hes right. In the case of Ephesians 4:26, Tim accidentally misread his data, or was misinformed by someone else who did so. His claim that All of the Alexandrian uncials (Aleph, A, & B) omit the clause, Be ye angry and sin not is not true. They have that phrase. There goes half of Tims evidence.

Regarding First John 4:3, the textual evidence is pretty complicated, and I will, alas, deny our readers the pleasure of meticulously sifting through it here. The reading IN XN en sarki elhluqota is correct, but this is one variant, in one book. The reading in Aleph (IN KN en sarki elhluqota) is a case of nomina-sacra substitution. The reading in A and B ~ also attested by our text-guarding friend Irenaeus ~ is probably a salvage-reading descended from an earlier MS which, instead of reading And any spirit which confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God, read, And any spirit which looses [i.e., divides, or separates] Jesus is not of God. Such a reading is attested by none other than our text-defending friend Irenaeus, and it is also in the Vulgate. A copyist receiving such a copy as an exemplar attempted to correct it, and successfully restored mh omologei but not the rest, probably because he was not sure about whether it belonged there or not, and since its meaning seemed implicit when read along with 4:2 (where B reads Every spirit which confesses Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God).

I note that the variant supported by Irenaeus (And any spirit which looses Jesus) is an interpretation of the verse, and that it probably replaced the text after first being written as a marginal note to indicate the texts meaning. As an interpretive note, it is an orthodox, ANTI-Gnostic statement. Its presence in the ancestry of Bs text indicates the exact opposite of what Tim has alleged.

Tim said, Both readings in Aleph and B could be attempts by Gnostics to deflect the force of John's words against them. Well, its not like that possibility never occurred to anyone. But how likely is it that (a) any Gnostic would adopt First John as Scripture in the first place, and (b) a Gnostic would alter 4:3, but not 4:2? Considerably less than that Bs reading is due to a cross-comparison that occurred somewhere in its ancestry and which involved an anti-Gnostic gloss that was introduced in the second century.

So, B is incorrect there, and the Alexandrian sub-archetype is incorrect there, too incorrect, but not heretical or malicious, sort of like Tims incorrect claim about what the MSS say at Ephesians 4:26.

Polycarps quotation of First John 4:3 should be on the table as evidence of an early text-stream earlier than the Alexandrian sub-archetype. But, as Tim observed, this is a rather tiny sample too small to really discern what the rest of Polycarps MSS contained. Tim stated that the text of Polycarp is a very important witness. I agree. But as the old saying goes, One swallow does not a summer make. The evidence from Polycarp shows the lateness of the Alexandrian Texts salvage-reading in I John 4:3 in particular, not the antiquity of the Byzantine Text in general.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

Quote:

---

I partly agree with Tims theory. Asia Minor and Antioch had their own local text, or texts, and to the extent that the text-stream went undisrupted between the initial reception of the text in those areas and the point at which the text of those areas was preserved, the preserved text may be reasonably expected to be a valuable and independent witness to the original text. A crucial question, though, is, To what extent did this text-stream undergo disruption?. Tims theory is that it underwent handly any disruption at all. But historically, Asia Minor and Antioch endured multiple persecutions and other disruptions. Tim admits that an enormous catastrophe which universally interrupted the transmission of the text of this area would pose a problem for his theory. But that is exactly what we see in persecutions and other disruptions, especially the persecutions in the reigns of Decius and Diocletian and his immediate successors.

---

I do not suppose that there were no hardships faced in the area from Rome to Antioch in the first two or three centuries. Ignatius was martyred. Polycarp was martyred. I do deny, however, that the persecutions and other hardships overcame the believers, disrupted the textual transmission in a significant way, or created a situation that would allow the text to decay significantly. James has not demonstrated why that would be the case, just decreed it so. It is a fact that many of the early Christians died protecting biblical manuscripts. They chose martyrdom rather than hand over the sacred texts to be burned. They held the Bible in such high regard. With that kind of zeal, we can rest assured that the text was indeed preserved in the Apostolic churches. And, that whatever shortage was caused in NT mss due to some copies being confiscated and burned, would be resupplied from older texts from the Apostolic churches once that particular persecution subsided. Much earlier in this debate I quoted a passage from Tertullian that said in effect that the Scriptures in the Apostolic churches are to be the arbiter of corrupt readings (speaking in particular about the intentional Gnostic corruptions introduced by Marcion). If Tertullian appealed to this concept around the beginning of the 3rd century, we can suppose that it would be easily possible to visit the Apostolic churches and make such comparison. Therefore, there was no apparent shortage at least at the beginning of the 3rd century, after waves of persecution had hit the Christians there very hard.

Furthermore, it is a principle supported by Scripture that persecution did NOT supress Christianity, but actually caused it to increase. (Acts 13:24, 11:19-21). There is abundant testimony to this fact in the ECF writings of the Ante Nicene period. As the demand for more mss grew, so did the supply. James' theory that the Roman persecutions created a situation which seriously disrupted the text stream is simply wishful thinking on his part. Copies would be hidden until the persecution subsided. Then, out they would come to be the basis for more copying. There would be absolutely NO disturbing of the readings because the same local manuscripts would still be copied in the same locations. The only effect the persecution would have is that the copying process would slow for a time.

Quote:

---

Tim alleged that I must devise a series of universal catastrophies to discount his theory, but I am not devising the Roman persecutions, the natural disasters, immigrations, and other sources of disruption that occurred in the second and third centuries.

---

What James is doing, IMO, is greatly exaggerating the effect of the persecutions without any basis in historical fact, or assumption about normal Christian behavior in such circumstances. He has produced NO evidence theoretical or historical that the textual transmission of any area was significantly disrupted by persecution or anything else. Granted, in times of persecution, much less copying was going on. But, the extant local mss were largely hidden and protected until that persecution passed. No doubt losts of copies were found by the Romans and burned. But, lots also remained, and once the persecution subsided they became the exemplars for further copying. Everything resumed as normal with NO degrading of the text.

Quote:

---

Tim also said that I need a provable theory (???) to explain how the text used in one small location (Antioch, or Constantinople) could overcome the continual multiplication of manuscripts everywhere else, but imperial sponsorship, combined with the decline of the production-centers of rival text-types, explain that. Tim claims that this is statistically improbable, but it isnt improbable at all when one takes the historical factors into consideration.

---

Where is the evidence for this "official" version? You have denied that Eusebius' 50 copies (which are the ONLY "official" copies recorded) became the predominant text, and therefore could not be the base for the "Byzantine" text. Where is there historical mention of another "official" Greek version, sanctioned by the emperor or government? There is none. You are pulling this out of thin air. Yes, it is a "theory." But it is an orphan theory, because it has no historical support!

It is IMPOBABLE when there is no mention of the key points ion your theory in history. As I have repeatedly stated, a recension that began to spread DEFINITELY WOULD produce a backlash, as is always the case. There is nothing of the kind recorded for James' alleged recension. There is no historical record of any kind of "official" version.

Quote:

---

Against the theory of the Lucianic Recension, Tim claimed that it depends far too much on most of the church suddenly quitting copying their many manuscripts in favor of some new version that supposedly had official sanction. However, there is nothing implausible in the two ideas that (a) intense persecution in the reign of Domitian and his immediate successors had the effect of interrupting the local text-stream, and (2) the use of Lucians Bible in Nicomedia influenced the contents of the local text which was adopted in Constantinople.

---

Again, this is a theory without a shred of historical support for its key points. Is it possible? I suppose. Is it probable? Absolutely not. The kinds of things that James requires for his theory would have been noted in the historical records. It is the height of subjectivity to DENY the simple and obvious explanation, and propose a much more complex one. If my theory were shown to be completely implausable, then an alternate theory should be proposed. But, so far, I have seen no good reason presented by James to abandon the simplistic theory I have presented here. Unlike James, I have provided historical support for my key points (such as Justin's remarks about the Scriptures being read publically in Christian meetings, such as Tertullian's remarks about the text in the Apostolic churches being the basis for settling disputed readings). That the original autographs were faithfully copied in the Apostolic churches (from Rome to Antioch), that the public readings of the Scriptures within the churches aided in correcting whatever scribal errors crept into the text, that this text survived quite well within this area, that it became the majority (Byzantine) text simply because of its close proximity to the center of the empire, and its numerical advantage from being copied for a longer period of time (since Apostolic times).

Even though James has proposed a theory in opposition to this very simple one, he has NOT produced any reason why we should abandon the simple theory. He attempted to claim that the ECF evidence does not support this text type. But that is nothing but a ruse. The ECF evidence does NOT support any OTHER text form from this area. Its all in your presuppositions. If the ECF evidence from this area regularly opposed the "Byzantine" text, then we would have something to consider. To my knowledge, there is NO historical evidence that should cause anyone to doubt this theory. It is the most simple theory, the most logical, agrees with historical record, and with what we know of hos the early Christians would act under such circumstances.

Quote:

---

Tim objected that there is no record of any controversy about the adoption of Lucians Recension, like the disputes that followed the publication of the Vulgate. But this is easily explained when one considers that the text of Lucians Bible was never presented as a recension.

---

What???? Are we to suppose that when Lucian's supposed recension was read publically in the churches, no one noticed how different it was from the texts they have been accustomed, and memorized, all their Christian lives??? Does James suppose that the early Christians received this new fangled recension in a total vacuum? Hardly! It is impossible for any NEW version not to overlap in usage with the older versions. And comparisons would absolutely take place immediately, followed by loud objections when it was quickly discovered that Lucian had supposedly inflated the text on nearly every page!

Quote:

---

After I mentioned that there is no significant patristic evidence for the Byzantine Text in the second and third centuries

---

This is the game played by the critical text proponents. Byzantine readings are in the majority in the patristic evidence, particularly in those passages where the variant is significant. What we should say is this: There is no "significant patristic evidence" for the Alexandrian text in the second and third centiuries outside Alexandria. Unique Alexandrian readings are in the minority, and are mostly localized (as is the Alexandrian text itself).

Quote:

---

Tim claimed that it is hypocritical to ask for consistent Byzantine usage by a patristic writer since no patristic writers habitually use the Critical Text. But Tim is confusing consistent use with habitual use. We have examples of writings in which the author consistently uses the Alexandrian Text; we do not have examples of writings in which the author consistently uses the Byzantine Text.

---

What James means is that there are a few Alexandrian writers who consistently use various Alexandrian readings (not one particular Alexandrian MSS readings). But, let's be clear to define the "Alexandrian Text." This text is NOT a unified text by a long shot. It is a jumbled mess of variant and unique readings. There are many times MORE different readings that a writer COULD use and still be considered by James to be citing an "Alexandrian" text. Conversely, since the Byzantine text is very uniform, to meet James' criteria, a patristic writer would have an extremely small number of variants he could use and still be considered to be quoting a purely "Byzantine" text consistently, according to James. The claims here do not fairly portray the real evidence. Rather than viewing the evidence in this slanted way, we should use a more objective standard. The total percentage of agreement between the ECF quotes and the MSS text types is a much better indicator. And, given that within the pool of possible variants for each text type, the "Byzantine" pool is MUCH smaller than the Alexandrian, yet the total percentage of agreement favors the Byzantine readings over the Alexandrian, the conclusion should really be that the Byzantine text should be considered to be the one that most closely resembles the early Church's text in the Ante Nicene period.

Rather than assuming a priori that the Byzantine type text did
not exist in this period, the opposite should be the case. Only when patristic citations of the text are shown to seriously disagree with the Byzantine should we conclude that a non Byzantine reading occurs there. Also, it is most likely that many writers, like Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others, had a variety of texts before them. Irenaeus no doubt had some very old copies from his early days under the instruction of Polycarp. But, having transplanted to the far west (Lyons) no doubt also was in contact with much later copies, as well as Latin translations. That he sometimes quoted from a very "Byzantine" type of text, and other times used a text much like the ealry Latin, should not suprise us under such circumstances. It is a falacy to suppose that ALL of one writer's quotes came from a single NT. No doubt he had in collection some very good scrolls of certain books, and perhaps some not so good ones. James' objections to the Byzantine quality of the ECFs is based on an assumption that the writer had only one source for all of his quotations. That is simply NOT the case. And it can be demonstrated in various ways. One such demonstration would be the places where Tertullian spoke of the differences between his Latin copy and the Greek copy.

Quote:

---

Tim proposes one patristic composition that meets some of the criteria which valid evidence of the existence of the Byzantine Text in the second and third centuries would have: Polycarps Epistle to the Philippians.

---

Some of the criteria? This is the problem here. If the criteria is not 100% agreement, what is it? What James fails to see is that Polycarp failed to quote anything other than the Byzantine text. But, to James, everywhere the "Byzantine" text agrees with some other text, the reading is not regarded as "Byzantine." In other words, like Hort, he is still considering Byzantine readings as secondary, because he is still assuming what he is trying to prove. His objection has no weight whatever UNTIL he can demonstrate that the writers from Rome to Antioch usually, or frequently, did NOT use a Byzantine text type. He as not done so. And I seriously doubt he can. Again, the burden of proof here should be on HIM to show that the early Fathers of this period and location did NOT have a Byzantine type text before them.

Quote:

---

Tim noted only two places I could find which concern a significant variant reading in dispute between the Alexandrian text and Traditional (Byzantine) text First John 4:3 and Ephesians 4:26. In other words, Polycarps quotations support the Alexandrian Text as much as they support the Byzantine Text, except in two places. (Actually, theres at least one more ~ Romans 14:10 ~ but Ill just look at Tims two examples in the interest of brevity.)

---

I stand corrected on one of my examples (Eph. 4:26). I misread the critical aparatus on the Greek NT I was using. James has found another example of my point which I missed. But, rather than pass over the example I missed, lets add that to the evidence, shall we? Polycarp quoted the "Byzantine" reading of Rom. 14:10, "we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." All the Alexandrian mss have "God" in place of Christ. The Byzantine (Majority) have "Christ," and this is what Polycarp quotes. While I wrongly included one example, I also missed another. IN effect, the totality of the evidence is inchanged, 100% in favor of the "Byzantine" text, and NO unique Alexandrian (or western) readings.

Quote:

---

Regarding First John 4:3, the textual evidence is pretty complicated, and I will, alas, deny our readers the pleasure of meticulously sifting through it here. The reading IN XN en sarki elhluqota is correct, but this is one variant, in one book. The reading in Aleph (IN KN en sarki elhluqota) is a case of nomina-sacra substitution.

---

Yes, and a convenient one at that. Especially if one has a personal bias against the "IN XN" (Jesus Christ) reading. BTW, James, are you sure that Aleph uses the abriviated form of "Lord" (KN)?

Quote:

---

The reading in A and B ~ also attested by our text-guarding friend Irenaeus ~ is probably a salvage-reading descended from an earlier MS which, instead of reading And any spirit which confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God, read, And any spirit which looses [i.e., divides, or separates] Jesus is not of God. Such a reading is attested by none other than our text-defending friend Irenaeus, and it is also in the Vulgate. A copyist receiving such a copy as an exemplar attempted to correct it, and successfully restored mh omologei but not the rest, probably because he was not sure about whether it belonged there or not, and since its meaning seemed implicit when read along with 4:2 (where B reads Every spirit which confesses Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God).

---

Isn't it amazing how that James can reconstruct all this for us? Of course, his conclusions are based on his presuppositions and in this case, faulty information from his sources.

It is not surprising that Irenaeus sometimes quotes readings found in some of the Latin copies, since he was moved to the far west of the empire when he became bishop of Lyons. But, James is mistaken that Ireaneus reads And any spirit which looses [i.e., divides, or separates] Jesus is not of God. What James omitted from Irenaeus' quote is the word "Christ." (Irenaeus, Bk. III, 16:8).

Quote:

---

I note that the variant supported by Irenaeus (And any spirit which looses Jesus) is an interpretation of the verse, and that it probably replaced the text after first being written as a marginal note to indicate the texts meaning. As an interpretive note, it is an orthodox, ANTI-Gnostic statement. Its presence in the ancestry of Bs text indicates the exact opposite of what Tim has alleged.

---

But that is not what B reads. "B" has "confessing" not "separating." I don't know of a single Greek mss that has "separates" in this text. Furthermore, Irenaeus' interpretation (if that is what it was) has "Christ" which James ommitted. Irenaeus wrote in effect, "any spirit that separates 'Jesus' from 'Christ' is not of God." B has no mention of Christ, nor the word for "separates." Therefore, the MEANING of B is completely different from Irenaeus. It is fanciful reasoning to suppose that a Latin reading in the west produced this Greek reading in Alexandria. The two are NOT similar either in meaning or wording. The only thing similar is the omission of the clause "having come in the flesh."

Quote:

---

Tim said, Both readings in Aleph and B could be attempts by Gnostics to deflect the force of John's words against them. Well, its not like that possibility never occurred to anyone. But how likely is it that (a) any Gnostic would adopt First John as Scripture in the first place...

---

The Valentinian Gnostics, who were numerous in Alexandria, adopted John's Gospel (As Marcion adopted Luke's). In fact, Ptolemy, a Valentinian Gnostic living in ALexandria, even produced a commentary on it.

Quote:

---

..., and (b) a Gnostic would alter 4:3, but not 4:2?

---

Your objection assumes that a Gnostic composed "B." No one is suggesting that, as I have repeatedly stated. What the Alexandrian mss appear to contain is attempts at recensions from widely varying exemplars. In other words, an Alexandrian "critical text." The scribe of B did not himself fabricate readings. Rather, he selected readings from an aray of mss in his possession. He even may have used fragments, or quotations from various writers, commentaries, or whatever.

Secondly, the intent may not have been to DENY the orthodox position as valid (which is what would occur if a similar change was made to verse 2), but to simply remove John's absolute condemnation of the dulaist position. In other words, if the composer of either Aleph or B thought that Christians should be more tollerant of the Neo-Platonic and dualistic ideas floating around Alexandria (which Origen himself shows signs of in his own theology), he might leave the orthodox affirmative statement alone in v. 2. "Every spirit confessing that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God." Yet, to keep the reader from condemning the Gnostic, dualist, or Neo-Platonist, he might follow a Gnostic text in verse 3. That the two most popular Alexandrian uncials both have a different problem here, and the effect of both readings is to eliviate the condemnation of the dualistic concept while at the same time not interferring with the orthodox concept, shoudl raise suspicions. Particularly since this is PRECISELY the kind of thinking that was common in Alexandria in General, iand in Origen's school in particular. Origen himself tried to maintain his connection to the "orthodox" Church while at the same time introducing a theology in his writings that was a blend of dualism and Neo-Platonism with Christianity. His denial of the bodily resurrection of the saints is a case in point.

Quote:

---

Considerably less than that Bs reading is due to a cross-comparison that occurred somewhere in its ancestry and which involved an anti-Gnostic gloss that was introduced in the second century.

---

I don't buy it. The reading in B is much too different than that quoted by Irenaeus. And Irenaeus was far from Alexandria, on the opposite end of the Roman empire. But more importantly, that Aleph's reading is quite different from B, yet it has PRECISELY the same theological effect as the reading in B. This is far too suspicious of a "coincidence," particularly when we know that there was some collusion between these two mss.

Quote:

---

So, B is incorrect there, and the Alexandrian sub-archetype is incorrect there, too incorrect, but not heretical or malicious, sort of like Tims incorrect claim about what the MSS say at Ephesians 4:26.

---

James is portraying his guess as a fact, in case you didn't notice. The substitution of sacred names is an area of concern, particularly in the Alexandrian mss. That is it EASY to make such a substitution with just a slight stroke or alteration does NOT argue for accidental corruption (as James suggests) more than intentional corruption. A scribe wishing to alter a mss could systematically make these very minor alterations which would be hardly noticable, yet theologically profound. In other words, the kind of change in Aleph is a very tempting target for someone with such motives. WHile James' theory for how Aleph was corrupted is probably correct with regard to the mechanics of it, James has NO IDEA what the motives were of the one who made the alteration. He assumes accident, because such an accident is easy to make. But, he should also include in his theory the fact that the same corruption is an easy target, and one that could be altered and go unnoticed by the reader of the altered text. The fact is, while James flatly denies that malicious motives are the source of these kinds of corruptions, he is arguing from a heavy bias, not giving credence to a possibility that is just as strong (if not stronger) than his accidental theory.

I would like to point out to our readers that precisely the kind of mater of fact decisions you just observed from James above, in determining how a variant supposedly occured, is exactly how the "critical text" is constructed. It is a mass of thousands of these kinds of decisions, all based on scraps of incomplete data and lots of "best guesses," and then all these decisions are strung together into a composite Greek text made from a hodge podge of variant readings. The result will NEVER closely resemble even ONE known Greek manuscript. And this is what we are supposed to have complete confindence in as the inspired Word of God! It is the word of man made theories and biased decisions. It eliminates God's providence (unless the critical text fabricators want to claim inspiration themselves). I hope the reader can see how much these individual decisions are based on pure conjecture. And when you string thousands of similar decisions together into a fabricated text, the certainty of the text if far from settled. It can never be so. No matter what product James would produce from this process, it would be soon overturned by the next generation, just as Westcott's and Hort's work has been pretty much abandoned today by the best scholars.

Quote:

---

Polycarps quotation of First John 4:3 should be on the table as evidence of an early text-stream earlier than the Alexandrian sub-archetype. But, as Tim observed, this is a rather tiny sample too small to really discern what the rest of Polycarps MSS contained. Tim stated that the text of Polycarp is a very important witness. I agree. But as the old saying goes, One swallow does not a summer make.

---

How about 2 swallows? You forgot about Rom. 14:10, another "Byzantine reading" in Polycarp. Polycarp is 100% Byzantine. And that his text is from Asia Minor and is extremely early (beginning of 2nd cent), witnesses to my overall theory as being true.

Quote:

---

The evidence from Polycarp shows the lateness of the
Alexandrian Texts salvage-reading in I John 4:3 in particular, not the antiquity of the Byzantine Text in general.

---

Again, James is assuming a priori that the Byzantine text is NOT what is contained in Polycarp's other quotations despite the fact that it agrees 100% of the time.

James is right in this regard. Polycarp's citations of Scripture do not PROVE that his Bible was exactly the same as the "Byzantine" text in every way. But, what it does show is that in EVERY place where Polycarp could have followed a variant, he followed the Byzantine text. Given that evidence from this period and this location (Asia Minor) is extremely rare, the importance of this evidence is all the more valuable. Until it can be shown that writers of this period and area did NOT use a Byzantine type text, we should give the benefit of the doubt to the Byzantine evidence, since that is all we have so far.

Tim