Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Hello Robert W.!
Before I answer regarding Lucian, just a brief note about 1 John 5:7. In the T.H.L. Parker translation (Torrance editors, Eerdmans) of Calvin’s commentary, the sentence reads,
And in his Institutes (the Westminster/Battles edition), 3:1:1, page 538, he writes,
I want to add an excerpt from Will Kinney’s article on the matter (http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/1John5-7.html):
I appreciate your posts in defense of this part of Scripture, Robert. Now to Lucian.
Schaff says concerning him,
Schaff here gives a footnote to Hort’s Introduction, and cites him to this effect:
So Schaff’s comment has no other basis than Hort’s view. Before I comment on Hort’s presumption – now shown to be groundless – of Lucian and his “revision,” let’s look at what Jerome actually said. In his Preface to The Four Gospels, discussing various manuscripts and writers, he says:
First, Hort merely conjectures without any historical basis his entire schema of Lucian and the fabulous “Syrian revision”! And Schaff is but parroting him (and quite a squawk of parrots ensued through the field in the century following!).
But it “worked” in Hort’s mind, apart from events in the real world—so historical research has shown—and evidently it works in many minds down to this day. It is a good thing we can appeal to facts of known history, and common sense can dispense with mere fabrications and wishful thinking.
Pickering, in his The Identity of the New Testament Text (INTT), remarks, “Lucian was an Arian, a vocal one. Does Metzger seriously invite us to believe that the victorious Athanansians embraced an Arian revision of the Greek New Testament?” (1980 edition, pp. 95, 96) We will cite Pickering on Metzger & co. shortly.
These “additions” mentioned by Jerome cannot be construed to indicate a massive and official recension such as Hort conjectured. According to Jerome, they were likely a few corruptions easily discerned and the manuscripts which contained them discarded by him.
For more about Lucian and the Hortian theory involving him, I would like to introduce those who do not know him to Jakob Van Bruggen, and his classic, The Ancient Text of the New Testament
http://web.archive.org/web/20030428225220/www.thescripturealone.com/VanBrug.html
This book is now out-of-print and is rare, and when it is available fetches quite a high price. Those of you interested in these textual issues should download the book and put it in a file, as a small treasure.
In chapter 2, The Value of the Number of Manuscripts, Bruggen states,
[For those wanting to see the footnotes, please access them via the online book, at the end of it.]
The first chapter of Bruggen’s book is titled, The Last Certainty of New Testament Textual Criticism, and the third (of five) is, The Age of the Byzantine Type. The entire work is only 40 pages long.
Next we will cite Pickering’s (updated) classic, The Identity of the New Testament Text II, which is also available online (http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/index.html). I’m citing from near the end of chapter 4, An Evaluation of the W-H Theory (pages 93, 94 in the book),
[Footnotes found at end of online chapter four: http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/id_4.html
To close this post, for those interested in learning of the Byzantine text, I introduce Maurice Robinson and Wm. Pierpont’s essay (that being their Introduction in THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK ACCORDING TO THE BYZANTINE / MAJORITY TEXTFORM), also available online: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/RobPier.html.
Robert, I hope this is sufficient to answer your questions, plus provide some research trails. In the next post I will give Burgon’s answer to Hort’s Lucianic fantasy.
Steve
Before I answer regarding Lucian, just a brief note about 1 John 5:7. In the T.H.L. Parker translation (Torrance editors, Eerdmans) of Calvin’s commentary, the sentence reads,
…and as I see that it is found in the best and most approved copies (codicibus), I also readily embrace it. [Bold emphasis mine –SMR]
And in his Institutes (the Westminster/Battles edition), 3:1:1, page 538, he writes,
For, as three witnesses in heaven are named—the Father, the Word, and the Spirit—so there are three on earth: the water, the blood, and the Spirit [1 John 5:7-8].
I want to add an excerpt from Will Kinney’s article on the matter (http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/1John5-7.html):
It is also important to note that most of the Greek copies that have existed throughout history are no longer with us today. Several well known Christians mention Greek texts that contained 1 John 5:7 that existed in their days centuries ago. Among these are Theodore Beza, John Calvin and Stephanus. Beza remarks that the reading of 1 John 5:7 is found in many of their manuscripts; Calvin likewise says it is found in "the most approved copies"; and Stephanus, who in 1550 printed the Greek text that bears his name, mentioned that of the 16 copies he had 9 of them contained 1 John 5:7. John Gill, who also believed in the inspiration of this verse, likewise mentions in his commentary that nine of Stephanus' sixteen manuscripts contained this verse. There was a time in history when over 50% of the providentially available Greek manuscripts contained the reading found in the King James Bible.
I appreciate your posts in defense of this part of Scripture, Robert. Now to Lucian.
Schaff says concerning him,
As to the New Testament , it is likely that he contributed much towards the Syrian recension (if we may so call it), which was used by Chrysostom and the later Greek fathers, and which lies at the basis of the textus receptus. [Bold emphasis mine –SMR] (Schaff, History, vol. 2, p. 815.)
Schaff here gives a footnote to Hort’s Introduction, and cites him to this effect:
“Of known names his [Lucian] has a better claim than any other to be associated with the early Syrian revision; and the conjecture derives some little support from a passage of Jerome…” (Ibid.) [Bold emphases mine-SMR]
So Schaff’s comment has no other basis than Hort’s view. Before I comment on Hort’s presumption – now shown to be groundless – of Lucian and his “revision,” let’s look at what Jerome actually said. In his Preface to The Four Gospels, discussing various manuscripts and writers, he says:
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 these writers could not amend anything in the Old Testament after the labours 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. (Nicene And Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 6, Schaff and Wace, Editors; Hendrickson Pub. MA 1994) p. 488.
First, Hort merely conjectures without any historical basis his entire schema of Lucian and the fabulous “Syrian revision”! And Schaff is but parroting him (and quite a squawk of parrots ensued through the field in the century following!).
But it “worked” in Hort’s mind, apart from events in the real world—so historical research has shown—and evidently it works in many minds down to this day. It is a good thing we can appeal to facts of known history, and common sense can dispense with mere fabrications and wishful thinking.
Pickering, in his The Identity of the New Testament Text (INTT), remarks, “Lucian was an Arian, a vocal one. Does Metzger seriously invite us to believe that the victorious Athanansians embraced an Arian revision of the Greek New Testament?” (1980 edition, pp. 95, 96) We will cite Pickering on Metzger & co. shortly.
These “additions” mentioned by Jerome cannot be construed to indicate a massive and official recension such as Hort conjectured. According to Jerome, they were likely a few corruptions easily discerned and the manuscripts which contained them discarded by him.
For more about Lucian and the Hortian theory involving him, I would like to introduce those who do not know him to Jakob Van Bruggen, and his classic, The Ancient Text of the New Testament
http://web.archive.org/web/20030428225220/www.thescripturealone.com/VanBrug.html
This book is now out-of-print and is rare, and when it is available fetches quite a high price. Those of you interested in these textual issues should download the book and put it in a file, as a small treasure.
In chapter 2, The Value of the Number of Manuscripts, Bruggen states,
The Byzantine textual tradition, which is at present rejected, is found in a large majority of manuscripts. Rightly so Aland introduces the new siglum M (Majority-text) for this text-type. When the team of textual scholars, that determined the Greek text for the United Bible Societies, could not come to an agreement, the opinion of the majority settled the matter. Seeing that there is still no certainty in the 20th century about the correct text of the New Testament, one could consider allowing the majority of manuscripts to decide the matter. Why does not this happen? Because, according to most people, this majority of manuscripts can be traced back to one recension: the many manuscripts would be nothing else than copies of only one manuscript. The large number is traced back to the one recension in the 4th century. The majority is reduced to a minority which receives only one vote and then also only a secondary vote because here we are thought to have a later revision of the original and not a faithful copy of it. In this way, the large number is reduced and disqualified. The counted majority appears to be a weighed minority. Two matters call for attention here. In the first place, the question whether historical proof can be given for the proposition that the text of the New Testament has undergone a revision in the fourth century. In the second place, the question whether the Byzantine textual tradition can be characterized as the result of such a recension.
The historical starting-point for this recension-idea is sought in the person of Lucianus of Antioch(30). That we, however, can not speak with great certainty here, appears from the fact that Hort did not do anything more than mention the possibility that Lucianus stands at the beginning of the Byzantine text(31). In the sixties of this century Metzger still refers to what he calls the decisive work of Lucianus(32), but it is striking that he does not repeat this name in his later Textual Commentary. Metzger then still speaks only about "the framers of this text"(33). It is also not possible to prove historically that Lucianus of Antioch offered a revised text of the New Testament. Even though for along time, since De Lagarde, people have anxiously searched for the assumed LXX-recension of Lucianus, some are at present even sceptical concerning Lucianus' revisionary work on the Old Testament(34). What Hieronymus says in mutual contradictory statements about the work of Lucianus, also gives little support(35). In any case there is no clear indication in Hieronymus' statements of influential work that Lucianus was thought to have done on the Greek New Testament(36). If he was busy with a revision of this text, his work remained of very limited value"(37). This also appears to be so from the fact that the later Decretum Gelasianum speaks with aversion about some Lucianic manuscripts(38). If the original Greek text is superseded by an inferior recension in the 4th and following centuries, then this process has left surprisingly few trails behind in the historiography. Does this point out that people were never aware of such a process? Or does this show that such a process did not take place? These questions can only be answered by going into the second point that calls for attention here: can the Byzantine text be characterized as a recension on the basis of its textual tradition?
Although the name of Lucianus is mentioned less and less as the historical starting-point, people in the 20th century maintain with undiminished certainty that there was a recension in the 4th century. This is striking. Closer examination of the Byzantine tradition has shown, in the period after Hort, that several tendencies can be pointed out in this tradition. Von Soden distinguished various layers in these Koine manuscripts(39). It proved to be impossible to describe the layers as a variation arising within a group of manuscripts, which in fact all go back to one archetype. That there is much agreement between all these manuscripts does not mean that they all come from one and the same source. The later research-work done by Lake and Colwell did change the picture given by Von Soden, but at the same time it has shown even more clearly that it is better to describe the Byzantine textual tradition as a collection of converging textual traditions than as a varying reproduction of one archetype(40). This fact now prevents us from thinking of one recension as the source for the text that is found in the majority of the manuscripts. No matter how one judges about the value of the growing consensus in the textual tradition, one can not simply reduce the large majority of manuscripts to one vote and then only a secondary vote. To say it differently and more technically: it is impossible to treat the majority of the manuscripts during the evaluation of them as though they textually formed one family (41).
The historical starting-point for this recension-idea is sought in the person of Lucianus of Antioch(30). That we, however, can not speak with great certainty here, appears from the fact that Hort did not do anything more than mention the possibility that Lucianus stands at the beginning of the Byzantine text(31). In the sixties of this century Metzger still refers to what he calls the decisive work of Lucianus(32), but it is striking that he does not repeat this name in his later Textual Commentary. Metzger then still speaks only about "the framers of this text"(33). It is also not possible to prove historically that Lucianus of Antioch offered a revised text of the New Testament. Even though for along time, since De Lagarde, people have anxiously searched for the assumed LXX-recension of Lucianus, some are at present even sceptical concerning Lucianus' revisionary work on the Old Testament(34). What Hieronymus says in mutual contradictory statements about the work of Lucianus, also gives little support(35). In any case there is no clear indication in Hieronymus' statements of influential work that Lucianus was thought to have done on the Greek New Testament(36). If he was busy with a revision of this text, his work remained of very limited value"(37). This also appears to be so from the fact that the later Decretum Gelasianum speaks with aversion about some Lucianic manuscripts(38). If the original Greek text is superseded by an inferior recension in the 4th and following centuries, then this process has left surprisingly few trails behind in the historiography. Does this point out that people were never aware of such a process? Or does this show that such a process did not take place? These questions can only be answered by going into the second point that calls for attention here: can the Byzantine text be characterized as a recension on the basis of its textual tradition?
Although the name of Lucianus is mentioned less and less as the historical starting-point, people in the 20th century maintain with undiminished certainty that there was a recension in the 4th century. This is striking. Closer examination of the Byzantine tradition has shown, in the period after Hort, that several tendencies can be pointed out in this tradition. Von Soden distinguished various layers in these Koine manuscripts(39). It proved to be impossible to describe the layers as a variation arising within a group of manuscripts, which in fact all go back to one archetype. That there is much agreement between all these manuscripts does not mean that they all come from one and the same source. The later research-work done by Lake and Colwell did change the picture given by Von Soden, but at the same time it has shown even more clearly that it is better to describe the Byzantine textual tradition as a collection of converging textual traditions than as a varying reproduction of one archetype(40). This fact now prevents us from thinking of one recension as the source for the text that is found in the majority of the manuscripts. No matter how one judges about the value of the growing consensus in the textual tradition, one can not simply reduce the large majority of manuscripts to one vote and then only a secondary vote. To say it differently and more technically: it is impossible to treat the majority of the manuscripts during the evaluation of them as though they textually formed one family (41).
[For those wanting to see the footnotes, please access them via the online book, at the end of it.]
The first chapter of Bruggen’s book is titled, The Last Certainty of New Testament Textual Criticism, and the third (of five) is, The Age of the Byzantine Type. The entire work is only 40 pages long.
Next we will cite Pickering’s (updated) classic, The Identity of the New Testament Text II, which is also available online (http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/index.html). I’m citing from near the end of chapter 4, An Evaluation of the W-H Theory (pages 93, 94 in the book),
The "Lucianic Recension" and the Pesh-itta
Burgon gave the sufficient answer to this invention.
It will not do for someone to say that the argument from silence proves nothing. In a matter of this "magnitude and interest" it is conclusive. Kenyon, also, found this part of Hort's theory to be gratuitous.
Colwell is blunt: "The Greek Vulgate—the Byzantine or Alpha text-type—had in its origin no such single focus as the Latin had in Jerome."[191] F.C. Grant is prepared to look into the second century for the origin of the "Byzantine" text-type.[192] Jacob Geerlings, who has done extensive work on certain branches of the "Byzantine" text-type, affirms concerning it: "Its origins as well as those of other so-called text-types probably go back to the autographs."[193]
In an effort to save Hort's conclusions, seemingly, Kenyon sought to attribute the "Byzantine" text to a "tendency."
But what if we choose not "to suppose" anything, but rather to insist upon evidence? We have already seen from Hutton's Atlas that for every instance that the "Syrian" text possibly combines divergent readings there are a hundred where it does not. What sort of a "tendency" is that? To insist that a variety of scribes separated by time and space and working independently, but all feeling a responsibility to apply their critical faculties to the text, should produce a uniformity of text such as is exhibited within the "Byzantine" text seems to be asking a bit much, both of them and of us. Hodges agrees.
An ordinary process of textual transmission results in divergence, not convergence. Uniformity of text is usually greatest near the source and diminishes in transmission.
The accumulating evidence seems not to bother Metzger. He still affirmed in 1968 that the "Byzantine" text is based on a recension prepared by Lucian.[196] There is an added problem with that view.
Lucian was an Arian, a vocal one. Does Metzger seriously invite us to believe that the victorious Athanasians embraced an Arian revision of the Greek New Testament?
Burgon gave the sufficient answer to this invention.
Apart however from the gross intrinsic improbability of the supposed Recension,—the utter absence of one particle of evidence, traditional or otherwise, that it ever did take place, must be held to be fatal to the hypothesis that it did. It is simply incredible that an incident of such magnitude and interest would leave no trace of itself in history.[189]
It will not do for someone to say that the argument from silence proves nothing. In a matter of this "magnitude and interest" it is conclusive. Kenyon, also, found this part of Hort's theory to be gratuitous.
The absence of evidence points the other way; for it would be very strange, if Lucian had really edited both Testaments, that only his work on the Old Testament should be mentioned in after times. The same argument tells against any theory of a deliberate revision at any definite moment. We know the names of several revisers of the Septuagint and the Vulgate, and it would be strange if historians and Church writers had all omitted to record or mention such an event as the deliberate revision of the New Testament in its original Greek.[190]
Colwell is blunt: "The Greek Vulgate—the Byzantine or Alpha text-type—had in its origin no such single focus as the Latin had in Jerome."[191] F.C. Grant is prepared to look into the second century for the origin of the "Byzantine" text-type.[192] Jacob Geerlings, who has done extensive work on certain branches of the "Byzantine" text-type, affirms concerning it: "Its origins as well as those of other so-called text-types probably go back to the autographs."[193]
In an effort to save Hort's conclusions, seemingly, Kenyon sought to attribute the "Byzantine" text to a "tendency."
It seems probable, therefore, that the Syrian revision was rather the result of a tendency spread over a considerable period of time than of a definite and authoritative revision or revisions, such as produced our English Authorised and Revised Versions. We have only to suppose the principle to be established in Christian circles in and about Antioch that in the case of divergent readings being found in the texts copied, it was better to combine both than to omit either, and that obscurities and roughnesses of diction should be smoothed away as much as possible.[194]
But what if we choose not "to suppose" anything, but rather to insist upon evidence? We have already seen from Hutton's Atlas that for every instance that the "Syrian" text possibly combines divergent readings there are a hundred where it does not. What sort of a "tendency" is that? To insist that a variety of scribes separated by time and space and working independently, but all feeling a responsibility to apply their critical faculties to the text, should produce a uniformity of text such as is exhibited within the "Byzantine" text seems to be asking a bit much, both of them and of us. Hodges agrees.
It will be noted in this discussion that in place of the former idea of a specific revision as the source-point for the Majority text, some critics now wish to posit the idea of a "process" drawn out over a long period of time. It may be confidently predicted, however, that this explanation of the Majority text must likewise eventually collapse. The Majority text, it must be remembered, is relatively uniform in its general character with comparatively low amounts of variation between its major representatives. No one has yet explained how a long, slow process spread out over many centuries as well as over a wide geographical area, and involving a multitude of copyists, who often knew nothing of the state of the text outside of their own monasteries or scriptoria, could achieve this widespread uniformity out of the diversity presented by the earlier forms of text. Even an official edition of the New Testament—promoted with ecclesiastical sanction throughout the known world—would have had great difficulty achieving this result as the history of Jerome's Vulgate amply demonstrates. But an unguided process achieving relative stability and uniformity in the diversified textual, historical, and cultural circumstances in which the New Testament was copied, imposes impossible strains on our imagination.[195]
An ordinary process of textual transmission results in divergence, not convergence. Uniformity of text is usually greatest near the source and diminishes in transmission.
The accumulating evidence seems not to bother Metzger. He still affirmed in 1968 that the "Byzantine" text is based on a recension prepared by Lucian.[196] There is an added problem with that view.
Lucian was an Arian, a vocal one. Does Metzger seriously invite us to believe that the victorious Athanasians embraced an Arian revision of the Greek New Testament?
[Footnotes found at end of online chapter four: http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/id_4.html
To close this post, for those interested in learning of the Byzantine text, I introduce Maurice Robinson and Wm. Pierpont’s essay (that being their Introduction in THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK ACCORDING TO THE BYZANTINE / MAJORITY TEXTFORM), also available online: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/RobPier.html.
Robert, I hope this is sufficient to answer your questions, plus provide some research trails. In the next post I will give Burgon’s answer to Hort’s Lucianic fantasy.
Steve
Last edited: