My devotion today - Billy Graham's Peace for Each Day - is titled "Timeless Truth" and is anchored on 2 Timothy 3:16, which I share now because it relates to your devotion today also. Thanks Jason.
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17
In Luke 23:34, Jesus, on the cross, said: “ Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” For centuries, this was considered to be part of the Bible without question. But now that verse is questioned.
I heard a preacher declare from the pulpit that Jesus did not say those words, because they are not contained in the best and earliest manuscripts. One of those best and earliest manuscripts is Codex Sinaiticus. One author refers to that manuscript “one of our best preserved and one of the top two manuscripts in the world,” and then goes on to explain that it contains the phrase, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,” but explains that “it looks like a later scribe erased it and then reinserted it again. This is the evidence cited against this saying of Jesus in Luke 23:34.” https://biblicalexegete.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/reasons-i-think-that-jesus-saying-in-luke-2334-is-original/
So, because of this manuscript, and a very few others, and because of modern principles of textual criticism, people are now doubting if Christ really said those words on the cross.
Codex Sinaticus has also contributed (along with other MSS) to doubts about the ending of Mark, the passage about the woman taken in adultery, and many other shorter phrases, including the second half of Romans 8:1.
Many people in the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries had strong faith in the full authenticity and reliability of the Word of God because of the illumination of God’s Holy Spirit, without the help of textual critics (many of whom do not even believe the Bible is inspired and so treat it as if it like any other old manuscript).
Moreover, you yourself say in your Substack post above, that “The manuscript showed evidence of multiple corrections made over several centuries.” Codex Sinaticus was heavily edited and corrected, meaning that even the people of that time did not have confidence in it. They were constantly editing it because they thought it was inaccurate and unsatisfactory.
I have seen a reproduced page of that MS full of editorial corrections. Moreover, there are many careless errors in the manuscript – entire lines skipped, other lines repeated twice. It is a very unreliable manuscript. Tischendorf estimated that there were 14,000 corrections in the manuscript.
At the time of the Protestant Reformation, and for the next three centuries after, all of the Greek texts were based on Greek manuscripts from the Byzantine Empire – the very areas where most of the originals were first written and authentic copies would hence be most accessible for copying. Those were the manuscripts God provided in his providence. Whatever manuscripts were hidden in the Vatican library or buried in a monastery in the Sinai at that time are not useful today.
Finally, you said “European universities, particularly in Germany, had established themselves as centers of biblical and textual criticism. These institutions trained scholars like Tischendorf to apply rigorous academic methods to biblical research, marking a significant shift from purely theological approaches to more historical and archaeological methodologies.”
That was also where modern theological liberalism originated, and the “shift from purely theological approaches to more historical and archaeological ones” included the belief that the Bible was not divinely inspired, and should be treated like any other book.
Joe, you’ve brought up some really thoughtful points, so let me try to unpack a few of them.
First, about Luke 23:34 and passages like the ending of Mark or the woman caught in adultery. It’s true that some verses are questioned because they don’t appear in certain early manuscripts, including Codex Sinaiticus. But that doesn’t mean they’re rejected outright. Scholars compare a range of manuscripts, like early ones such as Sinaiticus, Byzantine texts, and others, to figure out what’s most likely original. For Luke 23:34, a lot of scholars still believe it’s authentic. It fits with Jesus’ character and teaching and shows up in the majority of manuscripts, even if some of the earliest copies leave it out.
On the edits and corrections in Codex Sinaiticus, you’re right, there are thousands of them. But that wasn’t unusual for ancient manuscripts. Scribes often corrected texts to keep what they thought was the original meaning or to fix mistakes. These edits don’t necessarily mean the manuscript is unreliable. They show that people cared deeply about preserving the text. And yes, errors like skipped or repeated lines happen, but when scholars compare manuscripts, they can usually spot and fix those issues.
Your point about God’s providence in preserving the Byzantine manuscripts is a strong one. Those texts, often called the Textus Receptus, were critical for the Reformation and shaped translations like the KJV. But those manuscripts were also copied and edited over time. The Reformers themselves recognized this and understood that older manuscripts could sometimes help clarify things.
About modern textual criticism, you’re right that it came up during a time when theological liberalism was on the rise. But not all textual critics reject the Bible’s inspiration. Many evangelical scholars, like Daniel Wallace or F.F. Bruce, are fully committed to the Bible’s authority. Their goal is to understand what God’s Word originally said, even with the human errors that show up in copying. Codex Sinaiticus and other manuscripts are not perfect, but they’re still valuable for piecing together the history of the text.
At the end of the day, the Bible’s trustworthiness doesn’t hang on just one manuscript or method. It’s grounded in the belief that God has preserved His Word through His Spirit. Manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus remind us how God has worked through history to ensure we have access to His truth. And even with all the complexities, the big picture of Scripture has been remarkably consistent over the centuries.
Hello Jason, Sorry about the delay, I have been involved with other things and did not want to dash off a hasty response. These are important questions and merit discussion.
I will work through your comments in order and try not to omit anything. Since my comment is too long for the comment format I will have to divide it into two parts.
I do not see this as a debate or an argument. I see this as an attempt to clarify some common questions on the authority of the Word of God, which – as you will agree – is a vital part of our Christian life.
Also, these questions are not essential to salvation, but they are essential to strength of faith in these troubled times.
You agree that “some verses are questioned because they don’t appear in certain early manuscripts, including Codex Sinaiticus.” That is a vital point. There is now more doubt and uncertainty than there used to be, before the advent of modern textual criticisms. One does not have to be a theologian to see the difference between the older belief [A] That the Bible we have is the true and complete Word of God and the newer belief [B] that there are many verses in the Bible that were included by mistake, but you can have more confidence in your Bible now that scholars have removed those mistakes and will remove more as they find them.
True, it doesn’t mean disputed verses are “rejected outright.” But they are doubted, and are rejected by some, which unbelievers notice.
I gave the example of the man who said from the pulpit that a saying of Christ on the cross was not authentic. Also, new Christians or unbelievers who have no knowledge of these things see in the notes that “Some manuscripts omit this verse,” or “The best and earliest manuscripts omit this verse,” and that sows doubt and uncertainty.
About “scholars compare a range of manuscripts, like early ones such as Sinaiticus, Byzantine texts, and others, to figure out what’s most likely original,” I don’t mean we have to cover up any honest doubts or evidence, and “just believe” contrary to reason, logic, evidence and fact. But, I think that reason, logic, evidence and fact point to serious flaws in modern scholarship.
First, this is not scientific, but we cannot leave out divine providence. If we believe God has given us his Word, we must include his preservation of the word once given. Thus, I (and others) claim that the manuscripts available at the time of the Reformation were those providentially made available by God. Now, this providence allows for much work, scholarship and comparison of various available manuscripts, which was done for years after the Reformation.
The text of the Reformation does not rest on a hasty first edition put out by Erasmus, but was continued and elaborated on by others – Stephanus, Beza, the Elzivir brothers, and Erasmus himself, who brought out other editions more carefully worked on than the first.
Those scholars studied various MSS and chose between variant readings, coming up with a number of basic versions of the so called “Textus Receptus,” which the translators of the KJV had to study also, and select various readings.
However, all of that scholarship was done within the boundaries of a single family of manuscripts, the Byzantine or Syrian manuscripts that came from the very area where the originals would have been most freely available for copying.
I believe their final result, the Greek text behind the TR, is the text God provided for us in his wisdom, and at that point the work on the MSS could have stopped, with minor possible variations. There is a comparable situation in Exodus 36, where the people brought more than enough than was necessary for the construction of the tabernacle:
"And they spake unto Moses, saying, The people bring much more than enough for the service of the work, which the LORD commanded to make.
"And Moses gave commandment, and they caused it to be proclaimed throughout the camp, saying, Let neither man nor woman make any more work for the offering of the sanctuary. So the people were restrained from bringing.
"For the stuff they had was sufficient for all the work to make it, and too much."
The basic scholarly work was finished and done, and the introduction of new MSS, especially Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, contributed nothing toward the advancement of biblical scholarship and knowledge, in my view.
(1) It does not follow that the oldest manuscripts are the closest to the original and hence the most accurate. The Dead Sea Scrolls revealed a MS of the book of Isaiah that was 1,000 years older than the oldest previously known manuscript of Isaiah in the Leningrad Codex. Yet, though written maybe 1700 after the prophet Isaiah, and hence a very recent manuscript, that newer MS was accurate and reliable. Thus, a reverently and carefully copied NT manuscript from the 7th, 8th or 9th centuries is more useful and reliable than a sloppily, carelessly and hastily copied MS from the 4th century.
(2) It is impossible to explain how the most authentic MSS came to buried in a Vatican library or a monastery in the Sinai while erroneous versions were circulating in the very areas where access to the originals would have been most likely.
Hort and Westcott tried to get around this difficulty by imagining that there had been some kind of editorial work to improve the text, a “recension” they called it, but this has been abandoned even by supporters of the new bibles as there is no trace whatsoever of such activity, and there is a huge amount of information available about the church in those days. So there is no explanation at all for this highly unlikely scenario.
(3) Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are full of contradictions and do not even always support each other. And Sinaiticus at least (and maybe Vaticanus as well, I don’t know) is full of editorial corrections. Tischendorf estimated 14,000, meaning that even the people of those times did not have faith in it, and saw many of the readings as being wrong.
I contend that such MSS are of no value whatsoever in determining the text of the New Testament, which we have in the Greek texts behind the KJV – which Bible, I might add, was used by God in mighty revivals such as have never been seen and never will be seen (in my opinion) with the new Bibles.
Moving on, you say “For Luke 23:34, a lot of scholars still believe it’s authentic. It fits with Jesus’ character and teaching and shows up in the majority of manuscripts, even if some of the earliest copies leave it out.” I believed that passage was authentic the first time I read it, being convinced by faith and by the revelation of the Spirit that the Bible was the true word of God. This was the common experience of many Christians back in the old days, when people believed in the veracity of the Bible by faith, and not because of the words of “scholars” – and many “scholars,” by the way, are not even orthodox and do not see the Bible as the divinely inspired Word of God.
About “the edits and corrections in Codex Sinaiticus, you’re right, there are thousands of them. But that wasn’t unusual for ancient manuscripts,” I think they do show the text is unreliable, since many places were changed as having inferior and inaccurate writings – and then changed again. I have seen a copy of an original page of Sinaticus which is so full of corrections and additions that it looks like a work in progress – and I don’t think that many of the Byzantine MSS are so poorly done. And Skeat, whom I mentioned in my previous note, wrote that many of the errors showed sheer carelessness and sloppiness.
The scribes who worked on Sinaticus may have “cared deeply about preserving the text,” but they were working with inferior material. And as you say, “when scholars compare manuscripts, they can usually spot and fix those issues” – unless an exaggerated amount of reverence is given to a text, in which case instead of being discounted as corrupted and unreliable, it is elevated to an unrealistically high status because of its age.
Tischendorf said in his own words how ecstatic he was over his discovery solely because of its age, even before he had read it. There is no way he could have made any kind of objective analysis, he was so enchanted with his precious find.
The scholars who worked on the TR had a much more constrained field to work within which I believe was due to the providence of God.
As you pointed out, those Byzantine MSS “were also copied and edited over time. The Reformers themselves recognized this and understood that older manuscripts could sometimes help clarify things.” A lot of scholarly work was done over many decades on those MSS, and a very strong consensus was reached. But, I believe if they had been told that certain passages were really not part of the word of God at all, but were included by mistake and hence not divinely inspired, they would have rejected such a claim.
Are Daniel Wallace or FF Bruce “fully committed to the Bible’s authority”? I am not so sure. To say that many words, phrases, sentences and even passages were not authentic means that they were included by mistake, and in fact were mistakes – this making the Bible full of mistakes and errors that need to be corrected by human scholarship.
I did read one of Bruce’s books one time, and thought his textual analysis was full of mistaken assumptions.
“Codex Sinaiticus and other manuscripts are not perfect, but they’re still valuable for piecing together the history of the text.” I believe that we had a full text provided for us in the Reformation TR (there being various versions of it). I believe that Codex Sinaiticus is of no value whatsoever in determining the original text, and is so unreliable as to be completely useless.
I will go farther and say that one of the many reasons for the decline of the modern church is the new versions, which debase the word of God. This has nothing to do with the KJVs English being out of date, which it is, and it has nothing to do with different wordings. Translating is difficult, and it is possible to translate the same thing in different ways.
But the textual deletions are I believe a serious mistake and dishonor the Word of God, and rob it of its integrity and power.
I agree, that “At the end of the day, the Bible’s trustworthiness doesn’t hang on just one manuscript or method. It’s grounded in the belief that God has preserved His Word through His Spirit.” However, is the word that we have one full of mistakes and errors that need to be corrected for us by “scholars,” or has it been given to us whole, compete and entire in the family of the Byzantine manuscripts that formed the foundation of the Bible of the Protestant Reformation? I believe the latter.
And, as you say “even with all the complexities, the big picture of Scripture has been remarkably consistent over the centuries.” However, as I see it, the constant changes and removals and revisions based on the shifting sands of modern textual criticism have not altered the essential doctrines, but they have undermined confidence in the Bible itself.
Here endeth [!] my response to your comments. I would like to add a few more points on my own.
You can see why I did not dash off a quick response. These are deep waters requiring thought, prayer and study.
Wilbur Pickering’s book The Identity of the New Testament Text is I think an excellent work. To mention only one point, he gives numerous examples with full citations showing where Hort dismissed readings in the TR as “late, Byzantine readings.” Later, such late, Byzantine readings were found in new discoveries in the Egyptian papyri, meaning that not only are some readings in the TR older than once thought, but also that Hort was completely wrong when he dismissed them as being late – and that just by his own feeling, his sense of what the text should be. This calls all of his judgments into question.
And how could Hort and Westcott, who did not even speak Koine Greek as a living language, pronounce so authoritatively on which readings were “smooth” or “rough,” “harmonious” or “inharmonious”? They had no way of knowing what might or might not have sounded “smooth” or “rough” to a native speaker of a language in the 1st century AD, and many of their critical theories and judgments are purely subjective, and by no means “scientific.”
PS – The divine inspiration and authority of Scripture – on which we both agree - is such an important subject that I want to try and address it in my next two Substack essays. The first part will deal with the Bible in general, the second part will deal with these textual issues. I think I will use these comments for that second part, editing them slightly so as not to refer to you as if this were a personal debate.
Thanks for your time and interest in these important questions!
Yes, that's right. The Codex Sinaiticus has been dated to around 330-360 AD through paleographic analysis, which means scholars study things like the writing style, formatting, materials, and text layout to determine its age. They compare these features to other manuscripts we know are from that time period.
Carbon dating isn't typically used on rare manuscripts like this since it would damage the document.
The fourth-century dating is widely accepted by scholars based on all the physical and textual evidence that matches other manuscripts from that era.
And yet, if the copyists in a monastery continued copying methods unchanged for centuries, as they continued other aspects of their lifestyles unchanged for centuries, that could easily throw the calculations off significantly.
That's a fair point. Monastic traditions often preserved practices over long periods, including writing styles and materials. However, paleographic analysis considers more than just handwriting. Scholars examine a variety of factors, such as the materials used (like parchment preparation), ink composition, and even specific details in text formatting and decoration. These elements can vary over time. When combined with other historical evidence, they provide a relatively reliable framework for dating manuscripts.
It's also worth noting that while some features may have persisted, the broader context, like historical events or regional trends, often influenced subtle changes. The dating of Codex Sinaiticus aligns with other fourth-century manuscripts in ways that are hard to attribute to mere tradition. Scholars are aware of potential pitfalls, and they corroborate findings with as many pieces of evidence as possible to ensure the dating is as accurate as it can be.
The age of the manuscript is a minor point, though I still think there is a great deal of guestimation involving numerous intangible factors. If monastic scribes maintained archaic methods of manuscript preparation and manufacturing, modern estimates could easily be off by a couple of centuries. But, I only mentioned that in passing. If the Codex is as old as they say it is, that would say nothing about its value or authenticity.
Tischendorf pointed to thousands of corrections by various editors. This shows that the scribes of that time did not have confidence in it. It contains many errors due to sloppiness and carelessness. Some of the errors, including entire lines repeated twice, or entire lines skipped show the scribes to have been unreliable. There is some detailed information on this in H.J.M. Milne and T.C. Skeat, Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus (London: British Museum, 1938), pp. 52-55.
The mere fact of its being the oldest is no proof of its being an authority.
A faithfully, reverently and accurately copied manuscript from the 6th or 7th century or even later is of more use in determining the text that a sloppily and inaccurately, even in places carelessly copied MS like the Codex Sinaiticus.
To say that because it is the oldest, therefore it is the most reliable, does not follow.
Moreover, there is no plausible theory to explain how the most accurate MS of the New Testament could come to be buried in an Egyptian monastery while the vast majority of MSS in the areas where the New Testament was first written would be in error on disputed points.
Yeah, I know. I couldn't find anything that definitively said why they were throwing it away. One account said it was likely paper they would use to start fires. I'm not sure why they thought it was worthless.
There is a website dedicated to Codex Sinaiticus, though I found it rather lacking. There are some links to translations of some of the text found in the codex. The website itself does tell a fair bit about the actual manuscript.
This is a remarkable story (that I had never before heard) and a wonderful message. In John 17:17, is Jesus referring to the Scriptures or to himself as the Word (John 1:1, 17:14)?
In John 17:17, I believe Jesus is referring to God's revealed truth through Scripture, not to Himself as the Word. While Jesus is called "the Word" (logos) in John 1:1 and embodies truth as God incarnate, in John 17:17 He is asking the Father to sanctify believers through the truth of God's revealed Word (the Scriptures).
This is shown by the parallel use of "word" (logos) in verse 14 of the same prayer, where Jesus says "I have given them your word."
While Jesus is the Word made flesh (John 1:1), in this prayer He is asking the Father to sanctify believers through the truth of Scripture.
Praise God for Greek Monasteries whose continuity does not - like Wycliffe’s Middle English translation - include the Jerome Vulgate filter of original Greek. Praise God for Tyndale’s work from Greek & Hebrew…of which the KJV “borrowed” 86%.
To this essay, I say, yes, please grant millions of believers to recognize that our time is short. Now is the time to study apologetics and be ready to defend the reliability of the Bible. Now is the time for boldness with accuracy. Not with oversimplification or casual claims, but the substantive facts as you have briefly written. Well done!
Fascinating! God's word will never fail. Good research, Jason!
My devotion today - Billy Graham's Peace for Each Day - is titled "Timeless Truth" and is anchored on 2 Timothy 3:16, which I share now because it relates to your devotion today also. Thanks Jason.
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17
In Luke 23:34, Jesus, on the cross, said: “ Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” For centuries, this was considered to be part of the Bible without question. But now that verse is questioned.
I heard a preacher declare from the pulpit that Jesus did not say those words, because they are not contained in the best and earliest manuscripts. One of those best and earliest manuscripts is Codex Sinaiticus. One author refers to that manuscript “one of our best preserved and one of the top two manuscripts in the world,” and then goes on to explain that it contains the phrase, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,” but explains that “it looks like a later scribe erased it and then reinserted it again. This is the evidence cited against this saying of Jesus in Luke 23:34.” https://biblicalexegete.wordpress.com/2015/08/21/reasons-i-think-that-jesus-saying-in-luke-2334-is-original/
So, because of this manuscript, and a very few others, and because of modern principles of textual criticism, people are now doubting if Christ really said those words on the cross.
Codex Sinaticus has also contributed (along with other MSS) to doubts about the ending of Mark, the passage about the woman taken in adultery, and many other shorter phrases, including the second half of Romans 8:1.
Many people in the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries had strong faith in the full authenticity and reliability of the Word of God because of the illumination of God’s Holy Spirit, without the help of textual critics (many of whom do not even believe the Bible is inspired and so treat it as if it like any other old manuscript).
Moreover, you yourself say in your Substack post above, that “The manuscript showed evidence of multiple corrections made over several centuries.” Codex Sinaticus was heavily edited and corrected, meaning that even the people of that time did not have confidence in it. They were constantly editing it because they thought it was inaccurate and unsatisfactory.
I have seen a reproduced page of that MS full of editorial corrections. Moreover, there are many careless errors in the manuscript – entire lines skipped, other lines repeated twice. It is a very unreliable manuscript. Tischendorf estimated that there were 14,000 corrections in the manuscript.
At the time of the Protestant Reformation, and for the next three centuries after, all of the Greek texts were based on Greek manuscripts from the Byzantine Empire – the very areas where most of the originals were first written and authentic copies would hence be most accessible for copying. Those were the manuscripts God provided in his providence. Whatever manuscripts were hidden in the Vatican library or buried in a monastery in the Sinai at that time are not useful today.
Finally, you said “European universities, particularly in Germany, had established themselves as centers of biblical and textual criticism. These institutions trained scholars like Tischendorf to apply rigorous academic methods to biblical research, marking a significant shift from purely theological approaches to more historical and archaeological methodologies.”
That was also where modern theological liberalism originated, and the “shift from purely theological approaches to more historical and archaeological ones” included the belief that the Bible was not divinely inspired, and should be treated like any other book.
Joe, you’ve brought up some really thoughtful points, so let me try to unpack a few of them.
First, about Luke 23:34 and passages like the ending of Mark or the woman caught in adultery. It’s true that some verses are questioned because they don’t appear in certain early manuscripts, including Codex Sinaiticus. But that doesn’t mean they’re rejected outright. Scholars compare a range of manuscripts, like early ones such as Sinaiticus, Byzantine texts, and others, to figure out what’s most likely original. For Luke 23:34, a lot of scholars still believe it’s authentic. It fits with Jesus’ character and teaching and shows up in the majority of manuscripts, even if some of the earliest copies leave it out.
On the edits and corrections in Codex Sinaiticus, you’re right, there are thousands of them. But that wasn’t unusual for ancient manuscripts. Scribes often corrected texts to keep what they thought was the original meaning or to fix mistakes. These edits don’t necessarily mean the manuscript is unreliable. They show that people cared deeply about preserving the text. And yes, errors like skipped or repeated lines happen, but when scholars compare manuscripts, they can usually spot and fix those issues.
Your point about God’s providence in preserving the Byzantine manuscripts is a strong one. Those texts, often called the Textus Receptus, were critical for the Reformation and shaped translations like the KJV. But those manuscripts were also copied and edited over time. The Reformers themselves recognized this and understood that older manuscripts could sometimes help clarify things.
About modern textual criticism, you’re right that it came up during a time when theological liberalism was on the rise. But not all textual critics reject the Bible’s inspiration. Many evangelical scholars, like Daniel Wallace or F.F. Bruce, are fully committed to the Bible’s authority. Their goal is to understand what God’s Word originally said, even with the human errors that show up in copying. Codex Sinaiticus and other manuscripts are not perfect, but they’re still valuable for piecing together the history of the text.
At the end of the day, the Bible’s trustworthiness doesn’t hang on just one manuscript or method. It’s grounded in the belief that God has preserved His Word through His Spirit. Manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus remind us how God has worked through history to ensure we have access to His truth. And even with all the complexities, the big picture of Scripture has been remarkably consistent over the centuries.
1/2
Hello Jason, Sorry about the delay, I have been involved with other things and did not want to dash off a hasty response. These are important questions and merit discussion.
I will work through your comments in order and try not to omit anything. Since my comment is too long for the comment format I will have to divide it into two parts.
I do not see this as a debate or an argument. I see this as an attempt to clarify some common questions on the authority of the Word of God, which – as you will agree – is a vital part of our Christian life.
Also, these questions are not essential to salvation, but they are essential to strength of faith in these troubled times.
You agree that “some verses are questioned because they don’t appear in certain early manuscripts, including Codex Sinaiticus.” That is a vital point. There is now more doubt and uncertainty than there used to be, before the advent of modern textual criticisms. One does not have to be a theologian to see the difference between the older belief [A] That the Bible we have is the true and complete Word of God and the newer belief [B] that there are many verses in the Bible that were included by mistake, but you can have more confidence in your Bible now that scholars have removed those mistakes and will remove more as they find them.
True, it doesn’t mean disputed verses are “rejected outright.” But they are doubted, and are rejected by some, which unbelievers notice.
I gave the example of the man who said from the pulpit that a saying of Christ on the cross was not authentic. Also, new Christians or unbelievers who have no knowledge of these things see in the notes that “Some manuscripts omit this verse,” or “The best and earliest manuscripts omit this verse,” and that sows doubt and uncertainty.
About “scholars compare a range of manuscripts, like early ones such as Sinaiticus, Byzantine texts, and others, to figure out what’s most likely original,” I don’t mean we have to cover up any honest doubts or evidence, and “just believe” contrary to reason, logic, evidence and fact. But, I think that reason, logic, evidence and fact point to serious flaws in modern scholarship.
First, this is not scientific, but we cannot leave out divine providence. If we believe God has given us his Word, we must include his preservation of the word once given. Thus, I (and others) claim that the manuscripts available at the time of the Reformation were those providentially made available by God. Now, this providence allows for much work, scholarship and comparison of various available manuscripts, which was done for years after the Reformation.
The text of the Reformation does not rest on a hasty first edition put out by Erasmus, but was continued and elaborated on by others – Stephanus, Beza, the Elzivir brothers, and Erasmus himself, who brought out other editions more carefully worked on than the first.
Those scholars studied various MSS and chose between variant readings, coming up with a number of basic versions of the so called “Textus Receptus,” which the translators of the KJV had to study also, and select various readings.
However, all of that scholarship was done within the boundaries of a single family of manuscripts, the Byzantine or Syrian manuscripts that came from the very area where the originals would have been most freely available for copying.
I believe their final result, the Greek text behind the TR, is the text God provided for us in his wisdom, and at that point the work on the MSS could have stopped, with minor possible variations. There is a comparable situation in Exodus 36, where the people brought more than enough than was necessary for the construction of the tabernacle:
"And they spake unto Moses, saying, The people bring much more than enough for the service of the work, which the LORD commanded to make.
"And Moses gave commandment, and they caused it to be proclaimed throughout the camp, saying, Let neither man nor woman make any more work for the offering of the sanctuary. So the people were restrained from bringing.
"For the stuff they had was sufficient for all the work to make it, and too much."
The basic scholarly work was finished and done, and the introduction of new MSS, especially Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, contributed nothing toward the advancement of biblical scholarship and knowledge, in my view.
(1) It does not follow that the oldest manuscripts are the closest to the original and hence the most accurate. The Dead Sea Scrolls revealed a MS of the book of Isaiah that was 1,000 years older than the oldest previously known manuscript of Isaiah in the Leningrad Codex. Yet, though written maybe 1700 after the prophet Isaiah, and hence a very recent manuscript, that newer MS was accurate and reliable. Thus, a reverently and carefully copied NT manuscript from the 7th, 8th or 9th centuries is more useful and reliable than a sloppily, carelessly and hastily copied MS from the 4th century.
(2) It is impossible to explain how the most authentic MSS came to buried in a Vatican library or a monastery in the Sinai while erroneous versions were circulating in the very areas where access to the originals would have been most likely.
Hort and Westcott tried to get around this difficulty by imagining that there had been some kind of editorial work to improve the text, a “recension” they called it, but this has been abandoned even by supporters of the new bibles as there is no trace whatsoever of such activity, and there is a huge amount of information available about the church in those days. So there is no explanation at all for this highly unlikely scenario.
(3) Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are full of contradictions and do not even always support each other. And Sinaiticus at least (and maybe Vaticanus as well, I don’t know) is full of editorial corrections. Tischendorf estimated 14,000, meaning that even the people of those times did not have faith in it, and saw many of the readings as being wrong.
I contend that such MSS are of no value whatsoever in determining the text of the New Testament, which we have in the Greek texts behind the KJV – which Bible, I might add, was used by God in mighty revivals such as have never been seen and never will be seen (in my opinion) with the new Bibles.
2/2
Moving on, you say “For Luke 23:34, a lot of scholars still believe it’s authentic. It fits with Jesus’ character and teaching and shows up in the majority of manuscripts, even if some of the earliest copies leave it out.” I believed that passage was authentic the first time I read it, being convinced by faith and by the revelation of the Spirit that the Bible was the true word of God. This was the common experience of many Christians back in the old days, when people believed in the veracity of the Bible by faith, and not because of the words of “scholars” – and many “scholars,” by the way, are not even orthodox and do not see the Bible as the divinely inspired Word of God.
About “the edits and corrections in Codex Sinaiticus, you’re right, there are thousands of them. But that wasn’t unusual for ancient manuscripts,” I think they do show the text is unreliable, since many places were changed as having inferior and inaccurate writings – and then changed again. I have seen a copy of an original page of Sinaticus which is so full of corrections and additions that it looks like a work in progress – and I don’t think that many of the Byzantine MSS are so poorly done. And Skeat, whom I mentioned in my previous note, wrote that many of the errors showed sheer carelessness and sloppiness.
The scribes who worked on Sinaticus may have “cared deeply about preserving the text,” but they were working with inferior material. And as you say, “when scholars compare manuscripts, they can usually spot and fix those issues” – unless an exaggerated amount of reverence is given to a text, in which case instead of being discounted as corrupted and unreliable, it is elevated to an unrealistically high status because of its age.
Tischendorf said in his own words how ecstatic he was over his discovery solely because of its age, even before he had read it. There is no way he could have made any kind of objective analysis, he was so enchanted with his precious find.
The scholars who worked on the TR had a much more constrained field to work within which I believe was due to the providence of God.
As you pointed out, those Byzantine MSS “were also copied and edited over time. The Reformers themselves recognized this and understood that older manuscripts could sometimes help clarify things.” A lot of scholarly work was done over many decades on those MSS, and a very strong consensus was reached. But, I believe if they had been told that certain passages were really not part of the word of God at all, but were included by mistake and hence not divinely inspired, they would have rejected such a claim.
Are Daniel Wallace or FF Bruce “fully committed to the Bible’s authority”? I am not so sure. To say that many words, phrases, sentences and even passages were not authentic means that they were included by mistake, and in fact were mistakes – this making the Bible full of mistakes and errors that need to be corrected by human scholarship.
I did read one of Bruce’s books one time, and thought his textual analysis was full of mistaken assumptions.
“Codex Sinaiticus and other manuscripts are not perfect, but they’re still valuable for piecing together the history of the text.” I believe that we had a full text provided for us in the Reformation TR (there being various versions of it). I believe that Codex Sinaiticus is of no value whatsoever in determining the original text, and is so unreliable as to be completely useless.
I will go farther and say that one of the many reasons for the decline of the modern church is the new versions, which debase the word of God. This has nothing to do with the KJVs English being out of date, which it is, and it has nothing to do with different wordings. Translating is difficult, and it is possible to translate the same thing in different ways.
But the textual deletions are I believe a serious mistake and dishonor the Word of God, and rob it of its integrity and power.
I agree, that “At the end of the day, the Bible’s trustworthiness doesn’t hang on just one manuscript or method. It’s grounded in the belief that God has preserved His Word through His Spirit.” However, is the word that we have one full of mistakes and errors that need to be corrected for us by “scholars,” or has it been given to us whole, compete and entire in the family of the Byzantine manuscripts that formed the foundation of the Bible of the Protestant Reformation? I believe the latter.
And, as you say “even with all the complexities, the big picture of Scripture has been remarkably consistent over the centuries.” However, as I see it, the constant changes and removals and revisions based on the shifting sands of modern textual criticism have not altered the essential doctrines, but they have undermined confidence in the Bible itself.
Here endeth [!] my response to your comments. I would like to add a few more points on my own.
You can see why I did not dash off a quick response. These are deep waters requiring thought, prayer and study.
Wilbur Pickering’s book The Identity of the New Testament Text is I think an excellent work. To mention only one point, he gives numerous examples with full citations showing where Hort dismissed readings in the TR as “late, Byzantine readings.” Later, such late, Byzantine readings were found in new discoveries in the Egyptian papyri, meaning that not only are some readings in the TR older than once thought, but also that Hort was completely wrong when he dismissed them as being late – and that just by his own feeling, his sense of what the text should be. This calls all of his judgments into question.
And how could Hort and Westcott, who did not even speak Koine Greek as a living language, pronounce so authoritatively on which readings were “smooth” or “rough,” “harmonious” or “inharmonious”? They had no way of knowing what might or might not have sounded “smooth” or “rough” to a native speaker of a language in the 1st century AD, and many of their critical theories and judgments are purely subjective, and by no means “scientific.”
PS – The divine inspiration and authority of Scripture – on which we both agree - is such an important subject that I want to try and address it in my next two Substack essays. The first part will deal with the Bible in general, the second part will deal with these textual issues. I think I will use these comments for that second part, editing them slightly so as not to refer to you as if this were a personal debate.
Thanks for your time and interest in these important questions!
It's articles like this that put me so far behind in reading emails. What a great story and the picture of the monastery transported me through time.
Thank you.
My understanding is that the Codex Sinaiticus has never been scientifically dated, but only through textual analysis, is that correct?
Thank you. Since von Tischendorf was kind of a character some have questioned the authenticity of the document which is magnificent no matter its age.
Yes, that's right. The Codex Sinaiticus has been dated to around 330-360 AD through paleographic analysis, which means scholars study things like the writing style, formatting, materials, and text layout to determine its age. They compare these features to other manuscripts we know are from that time period.
Carbon dating isn't typically used on rare manuscripts like this since it would damage the document.
The fourth-century dating is widely accepted by scholars based on all the physical and textual evidence that matches other manuscripts from that era.
And yet, if the copyists in a monastery continued copying methods unchanged for centuries, as they continued other aspects of their lifestyles unchanged for centuries, that could easily throw the calculations off significantly.
That's a fair point. Monastic traditions often preserved practices over long periods, including writing styles and materials. However, paleographic analysis considers more than just handwriting. Scholars examine a variety of factors, such as the materials used (like parchment preparation), ink composition, and even specific details in text formatting and decoration. These elements can vary over time. When combined with other historical evidence, they provide a relatively reliable framework for dating manuscripts.
It's also worth noting that while some features may have persisted, the broader context, like historical events or regional trends, often influenced subtle changes. The dating of Codex Sinaiticus aligns with other fourth-century manuscripts in ways that are hard to attribute to mere tradition. Scholars are aware of potential pitfalls, and they corroborate findings with as many pieces of evidence as possible to ensure the dating is as accurate as it can be.
The age of the manuscript is a minor point, though I still think there is a great deal of guestimation involving numerous intangible factors. If monastic scribes maintained archaic methods of manuscript preparation and manufacturing, modern estimates could easily be off by a couple of centuries. But, I only mentioned that in passing. If the Codex is as old as they say it is, that would say nothing about its value or authenticity.
Tischendorf pointed to thousands of corrections by various editors. This shows that the scribes of that time did not have confidence in it. It contains many errors due to sloppiness and carelessness. Some of the errors, including entire lines repeated twice, or entire lines skipped show the scribes to have been unreliable. There is some detailed information on this in H.J.M. Milne and T.C. Skeat, Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus (London: British Museum, 1938), pp. 52-55.
The mere fact of its being the oldest is no proof of its being an authority.
A faithfully, reverently and accurately copied manuscript from the 6th or 7th century or even later is of more use in determining the text that a sloppily and inaccurately, even in places carelessly copied MS like the Codex Sinaiticus.
To say that because it is the oldest, therefore it is the most reliable, does not follow.
Moreover, there is no plausible theory to explain how the most accurate MS of the New Testament could come to be buried in an Egyptian monastery while the vast majority of MSS in the areas where the New Testament was first written would be in error on disputed points.
So, the age is not the issue.
In the wastebasket?
Yeah, I know. I couldn't find anything that definitively said why they were throwing it away. One account said it was likely paper they would use to start fires. I'm not sure why they thought it was worthless.
Jason, would you have any recommendation on a specific edition of the Codex to read? I am so very interested in learning more about this document.
There is a website dedicated to Codex Sinaiticus, though I found it rather lacking. There are some links to translations of some of the text found in the codex. The website itself does tell a fair bit about the actual manuscript.
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/
There is also some translation work at https://biblestudentarchives.com/documents/SinaiticRevelation.pdf. I cannot vouch for the accuracy or content, but it is organized well and easily readable.
Academia.edu has what they claim is the New Testament translated from the original document - https://www.academia.edu/42846336/Codex_Sinaiticus_The_New_Testament_in_English
These are the best I found.
Thank you.
This is a remarkable story (that I had never before heard) and a wonderful message. In John 17:17, is Jesus referring to the Scriptures or to himself as the Word (John 1:1, 17:14)?
In John 17:17, I believe Jesus is referring to God's revealed truth through Scripture, not to Himself as the Word. While Jesus is called "the Word" (logos) in John 1:1 and embodies truth as God incarnate, in John 17:17 He is asking the Father to sanctify believers through the truth of God's revealed Word (the Scriptures).
This is shown by the parallel use of "word" (logos) in verse 14 of the same prayer, where Jesus says "I have given them your word."
While Jesus is the Word made flesh (John 1:1), in this prayer He is asking the Father to sanctify believers through the truth of Scripture.
Praise God for Greek Monasteries whose continuity does not - like Wycliffe’s Middle English translation - include the Jerome Vulgate filter of original Greek. Praise God for Tyndale’s work from Greek & Hebrew…of which the KJV “borrowed” 86%.
To this essay, I say, yes, please grant millions of believers to recognize that our time is short. Now is the time to study apologetics and be ready to defend the reliability of the Bible. Now is the time for boldness with accuracy. Not with oversimplification or casual claims, but the substantive facts as you have briefly written. Well done!