Sinaiticus may really be a forgery after all...

  The following has been excerpted from Dr. E. K. Best's blog,

 The Jews, The Shoah, & Modern Bible Translations

 ______________________________

Constantine Simonides: KJV Fact of the Day

Doctored quote of the day: "Do you mind if I take that rubbish with me?" Tischendorf ________________________________________ 

Around the time of Tischendorf, another paleographer was on the scene who at the time was widely known in Bible text and Antiquities circles, but today, is hardly known at all. The man was Constantine Simonides (1805 - 1867). He was described by a colleague as brooding , dark, sporting a unkempt beard and while academically very active, kept to himself, making his living off the sales of old documents and manuscripts, but never interested in great wealth. What makes him unique and of interest in the KJV Controversy is that at the time of Tischendorf's 'discovery' after many visits to the Monastery of St. Katherine at Sinai  (and later Mt. Athos), Simonides claimed that the Sinaiticus, one of the three main pillars of modern Bible translations was a forgery, and he should know, as he claimed the deed to have been done by himself. For the past 130 years, this rumor drifted around odd corners of christendom, mostly among Bible Historians and those in textual criticism but was never given more than a mere mention because it was always followed with a statement to the effect that later the manuscript was found to be legitimate. Recently though, more information about this infamous fellow has come to light giving more credibility to his claim.

"Tischendorf was only the senior of Simonides by 5 years, and in the science of Paleography had neither his knowledge nor his experience."--Farrar, 1907 Forgeries

The man who discounted his finds was Henry Bradshaw, a great influence on the future Eugenicist, Karl Pearson. However, another paleographer, Henry Octavius Coxe, detected a forgery of Simonides. When I first began to read about Simonides the few finds remarked that he was somewhat of a scoundrel, but early books from around that time up to the turn of the century portray him more as an ardent scholar, more interested in authentic texts than forgery. What some called 'forgery' may have been his admitted attempts, which may have been for scholarship sake, or may have been 'repairs' or 'palimpsests', where ancient unreadable texts were inked over or documents which had first one set of writings which were scraped or otherwise erased for a second set. What Simonides' motivations were is unclear, but at least one possibility is that for whatever reason, he did not respect Tischendorf or his 'scholarship' in detecting authentic antiquities, and could have been trying to prove his point. This has not yet been proved, but can be added to speculation. A few facts about Simonides are essential:

1. He lived on Mt. Athos at the abbeys near and around where several Codices Tischendorf and Tregelles used showed up, right before and during the time Tischendorf was there.

2. He claimed to be there because of a 'guardianship' of his Uncle Benedict, a monk, because his father had passed away, but years later, letters between him and his father were found dated as late as 1862.

3. Issues of forgeries came up involving a student he employed who reported his suspicions named Lycurgurs, who became a scholar in his own right in the Greek church, who reported his concern to the well respected Dindorf, although Dindorf shook off the allegations as unfounded.

4. The charge of forgery was better known at the time than most know: there was a newspaper quarrel regarding the charge of the Sinaiticus and the Uranius forgery between Tischendorf and Lepsius.  A letter appeared in the "Guardian" claiming that the  Sinaiticus find was forged by himself, Simonides in 1839.  Bradshaw immediately disputed the claim in the press, but Simonides did not back down.  (Note an important fact which has caused some confusion:  Mt. Athos which produced several manuscripts for Tischendorf,  has an abbey called St. Katherine, which is different than the abbey of St. Katherine at Sinai.  A curious historical note, is that St. Gregory in the 1200s is noted as bringing some texts from Sinai to Mt. Athos.  However most of the codices from Athos were found in the abbey of Laura.  (See Sinaiticus online)

5. Simonides had no real reason to lie about the forgery because it hurt his reputation ultimately. He had the skills using old parchments to accurately produce hard to detect forgeries.

6. Simonides died very soon after the allegation in 1867.

Constantine Simonides: Papers Relating to the Codex Sinaiticus, ca. 1856-1863 One formidable resource for documents on Simonides: (other viable resources are books on Paleography, manuscript evidence, Tischendorf, "Uranius", Dindorf, Lycurgus, and Mt. Athos for direct and indirect evidence. Two texts on Forgeries of the time particularly helpful including one by Ferrar listed in quote at the beginning. " RLIN ID No. NYGG01-A18 Creator Simonides, Constantine, 1820-1867. Title Papers relating to the Codex Sinaiticus, probably forged by Constantine Simonides, ca. 1856-1863. Physical Description 1 box (.25 linear ft.) Historical/Biographical Note Constantine Simonides was an exceptionally skillful calligrapher who is alleged to have sold spurious documents (as well as possibly some that were genuine) in England in the 1850s and 1860s. Among his clients were Sir Frederick Madden at the British Museum and Sir Thomas Phillipps. Simonides resided in the monasteries on Mount Athos between 1839 and 1841 and again in 1852, during which time he may have acquired or sold some of the manuscripts that he later sold. He was in England between 1853 and 1855 and then in France and Germany. In 1862 Simonides published in English journals his claim to have written the Codex Sinaiticus, which the scholar Constantine von Tischendorf had discovered at Mount Sinai some years earlier and maintained had been be written during the 4th century C.E. Scope and Contents Papers relating to Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides’ assertion that he had forged it. Includes manuscript letters dated 1856-1863. Facsimile (?) of manuscript. Letter to A.N.L. Munby from Andreas Mayor at Sothebys regarding the Codex. Includes offprints about Simonides and the manuscript. Names Mayor, Andreas. Correspondence. Munby, A. N. L. (Alan Noel Latimer), 1913-1974. Correspondence. Subjects Simonides, Constantine, 1820-1867. Bible. Greek. Codex sinaiticus. Forgeries. Forgery of manuscripts. Location Grolier Club, 47 East 60th Street, New York, N.Y. 10022-1098. Text/Archive info from http://www.grolierclub.org/LibraryAMC.Simonides.htm

Posted by Elizabeth K. Best, PhD

2. Clark (1914) contra Griesbach

Here is A. C. Clark's original (1914) preface to The Primitive Text of the Gospels and Acts (1914):

'The chief result of my investigation has been to show the falsity of the principle brevior lectio potior ['prefer the shorter reading']. This was laid down by Griesbach as a canon of criticism in the words :

'Brevior lectio, nisi testium vetustorum et gravium auctoritate penitus destituatur, praeferenda est verbosiori. Librarii enim multo proniores ad addendum fuerunt quam ad omittendum.'  ["A shorter reading, unless the authority of the witnesses completely lacks weight and antiquity, is preferable to a verbose one.  For a copyist is much more prone to further additions than to make omissions."]

Unless my method is based upon a delusion, this statement has no foundation in facts. I may also observe that it is not so easy to invent as it is to omit.
It will be understood that my work has been almost exclusively confined to the text of Cicero. It was only recently, after I had gained confidence in the use of my method, that, in a spirit of curiosity, I happened to apply it to the text of the Gospels. The results were so surprising that I gave up, for the present, my work upon Cicero, which can only interest a small circle, and devoted myself to this more important inquiry.
I must here state that when I began my investigation, I had not made any study of New Testament criticism. I had been brought up to look on the Revised Text [1881] as final, to smile at persons who maintained the authenticity of St. Mark 16:9-20, or St. John 7:53-8:11, and to suppose that the 'vagaries' of the 'Western' text were due to wholesale interpolation. The object which I had in view was merely to study the mutual relations of the oldest Greek Uncials, notably, the Vaticanus (B), the Sinaiticus (א), and the Alexandrinus (A). I was, however, soon dislodged from this arrogant attitude, and irresistibly driven to very different conclusions.  These I can only briefly indicate here, and must refer the reader to my subsequent discussion for the evidence. 

Nowhere is the falsity of the maxim brevior lectio potior more evident than in the New Testament. The process has been one of contraction, not of expansion. The primitive text is the longest, not the shortest. It is to be found not in B/א, or in the majority of Greek MSS., but in the 'Western' family, i. e. in the ancient versions and the Codex Bezae (D). If my analysis is sound, we are brought back to an archetype of the four Gospels in book-form, which cannot be later than the middle of the 2nd century. This archetype appears to have contained the passages which have been most seriously suspected by recent critics, e.g. the End of St. Mark and St. John 7:53-8:11.  

This statement concerning St. Mark 16:9-20 will appear so startling that I must insert a caveat. I do not pretend to go one step further than I am led by the method which I have followed. The ultimate problems of New Testament autographs do not concern me. I only deal with one set of phenomena, and my starting-point is the text current in the second century. I have made no attempt to acquaint myself with the Synoptic problem, and do not venture to encroach upon the domain of the Higher Criticism. Also, I do not regard my method as a panacea. I am sensible that much must be due to accident and to mere coincidence. It is for the reader to determine, whether the cumulative evidence which I adduce is so great as, in certain cases, to transcend the limits of coincidence.
The results at which I have arrived in the case of the Acts are even more striking. It is here that the problem of the 'Western' recension has been felt most strongly. Thus a recent writer says   : 

'It is the correct method to study the Western readings in Acts first of all, and to form some kind of judgement on them, and after this to turn to the Gospels and apply to them the conclusions derived from the study of the Acts.'  (Lake, The Text of the New Testament, p. 91.)

This was not the process which I followed, but the conclusions arrived at in the case of the Acts greatly confirm the results furnished by the study of the Gospels.
It is briefly this, that all our MSS., including D, are descended from an ancestor written not in lines of equal length, as in the case of the Gospels, but in cola and commata, i. e. sense-lines of varying length, such as those found in D. The ordinary text has been developed from this by the frequent omission of lines, followed by modifications in the text. For proof of this statement I must refer the reader to the chapter upon the Acts.
I have not extended my inquiry to other parts of the New Testament, since I found that the Gospels and Acts provided more material than I could deal with in the time at my disposal. It appeared to me from some preliminary observations that the Pauline Epistles must be studied together. It is unnecessary to point out that the Apocalypse is a unique document which must be considered separately.'

(1) Clark contra Ropes

A. C. Clark, in his preface to his critical edition of the Greek text of  Acts of the Apostles (1933), comments on the unique problem of the Western (& Byz.) versus the Alexandrian (Aleph/B) text:

PREFACE  

'THE Acts of the Apostles furnish the most interesting chapter in the story of what is generally called the ' Western text '. In the Introduction to this volume (para. 1), to which I refer the reader, I show that this term is a misnomer and conveys a false suggestion when employed of a text which was current in the East, as well as in the West, in the second century A.D. : which formed the basis of the oldest versions, Syriac as well as Latin, and was used by the most ancient Fathers. These facts are allowed by the most thoroughgoing opponents of the text in question, even by Dr. Hort, and no one has stated them with greater candour than the latest editor, Prof. Ropes, as may be seen from the passage which I quote from him (p. xviii).
I therefore venture to substitute the noncommittal symbol Z [W] for this question-begging term, and denote the agreement of the oldest Greek Uncials אABC by Γ [B] (= Graeci).
I now proceed to say a few words about the special problem of Acts. This is that in Acts [W] and [B] differ conspicuously in length. [W] has a longer and [B] a shorter text. The passages which appear in [W], but are absent from [B], are very numerous ; some of them are of considerable  length, e.g. xi. 2, xvi. 39, xxv. 24-5. The question therefore in Acts which dwarfs all others is whether this extra matter is genuine or not.
Various solutions of this problem have been suggested. I will not here repeat what I have said in the Introduction (pp. xx f.), but will state quite briefly that I agree with Ropes when he says that only two solutions are possible. Either [W] is derived from [B], or [B] from [W]. He adopts the first alternative, I adopt the second. He considers that [W] was developed from [B] by expansion, I consider that [B] is an abridgement of [W]. I may remark that the solution adopted by Ropes is intrinsically less probable than that which he rejects, since it is easier to abridge than to invent fresh matter. 

A further objection is that patristic evidence for [B] is lacking before the time of Origen, while the existence of [W] in the second century A.D. is proved by the evidence of the versions and the quotations of the early Fathers. It is an act of faith to suppose that [B] was prior to [W]. The probability is that it was a revision, made not very long before the time when it begins to be quoted. These, however, are a priori arguments upon which I do not wish to insist. There is other evidence which is yielded by codex. Bezae (D), the chief Greek authority for the [W] text in the Gospels and Acts.
 This famous MS. has a peculiar feature, viz. that it is written in lines of irregular length (not, as is usual, in lines of equal length). It is usual to speak of them as ' sense-lines ', and this description fits fairly well the lines in Mt., Mk., and Acts, but it is inapplicable to those in Lk. and Jn. A description of these στιχοι as they are generally termed, will be found in the special article upon D (pp. 178-81). It is agreed that this system of division did not begin with D, but was inherited from an ancestor or a series of ancestors. The analysis which I have made, both of the Greek side of the MS. (D) and of the Latin side (Lat. d ), discloses a large number of corruptions, chiefly omissions of στιχοι, transpositions of στιχοι, and corruptions due to adjacent στιχοι(pp. 181-91), which testify to a number of intervening copies between D and a distant archetype. It is therefore quite possible that this peculiar method of line division goes back to remote antiquity.
After this prelude I proceed to state my own view, viz. that in Acts (not in the Gospels) [B] represents the work of an abbreviator who, having before him a MS. written in στιχοι similar to those found in D, frequently (not, of course, always) adopted the rough and ready method of striking out lines in his model, botching from time to time to produce a construction.
This solution did not come to me at once. The relation of [B] to [W] was first suggested to me by the observation that passages present in D, but absent from [B], very frequently occupy a line or lines in [W] , and that in many cases [B] appears to have been botched in order to provide a construction  after an omission. The evidence given by botching is of especial importance. Instances will be found on pp. xxv-vi. The only explanation which I could at first suggest was that [B] was formed from [W] by a series of accidental omissions.  

New light came from a palimpsest leaf which contains Cic. ad Fam. vi. 9. i 10. 6 in an abridged form (pp. xxviii-ix). This palimpsest omits a number of passages found in the minuscule MSS., and is on occasions impudently botched by the abbreviator in order to disguise the omissions. As the method which he followed was not apparent, I happened to apply an arithmetical test, which I have often found very illuminating when dealing with omissions. The method of application and the results of this test will be found on p. xxix. A clue was furnished by the first passages which I examined, and it soon became obvious that the abbreviator had cut out lines of his copy, botching when necessary. In my work The Descent of MSS., pp. 151-3, I have reconstituted the copy, showing the lines which were deleted and those which were retained. The same arithmetical unit is present in both.
The same test throws unexpected light upon a series of mysterious obels affixed in some MSS. to a number of passages in the speech of Demosthenes against Meidias (pp. xxx-xxxi). The results in this case are even more startling, since the evidence is spread over a larger area. I cannot see any other solution except that the obels were first affixed by an ancient critic who wished to abridge the speech and obelized passages which generally coincided with lines in his text.
I pass by some examples of minor importance, and will state briefly that I stake my case in the first place upon the evidence provided by the palimpsest of Cic. ad Fam.  

My work The Descent of MSS. appeared fourteen years ago and has been widely circulated. During this period no critic, so far as I know, has pointed out any flaw in these calculations. I venture therefore to hope that they are sound. If so, they show that some ancient abbreviators - I insert the word ' some ' to prevent misapprehension or misrepresentation - when making an abridgement, sometimes resorted to the simple device of striking out lines in their text.
In view of this evidence I now ascribe the excisions in the [B] text of Acts to an abbreviator who very frequently struck out lines in his copy. The hypothesis of deliberate abbreviation clears up a number of difficulties which were left unexplained by the theory of accidental omission (p. xxxii).  

The methods of the abbreviator are discussed on pp. xlv-lii. His most noticeable trait is his contempt for minute details. He was not interested in the ' seven steps ' which led up to the prison at Jerusalem (xii. ro) ; the hours of the day during which Paul preached at Ephesus (xix. 9) ; the statement that the rioters at Ephesus 'ran out into the street' (xix. 28); the information that Paul when sailing from Samos to Miletus broke his journey at Trogylia (xx. 15), or that on his journey from Caesarea to Jerusalem he spent a night in a village on the way (xxi. 16); that the ship carrying Paul drifted 'for fifteen days' after leaving Cyprus (xxvii. 5), or that, after Paul's arrival in Rome, ' the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard ' (A.V.) and that Paul was allowed to reside 'outside the camp' (xxviii. 16). His interest was in edification, not in topographical or chronological details. Hence his excisions are comparatively rare in the speeches and most common in the accounts of Paul's journeys. This dislike for detail caused him to substitute tame and colourless summaries for passages instinct with life and vigour, e.g. x. 25 (p. xxiii), xvi. 39, xxv. 24-5. A frequent result of his excisions is to produce obscurity. A typical example occurs in xv. 33 sq. (p. xlvii), where T omits v. 34, which explains how it was that Silas was still in Antioch (v. 40) after having previously received permission to go to Jerusalem ( v - 33)' Some writers consider this obscurity to be a laudable characteristic of Luke's style. Thus Ramsay remarks 'Luke expects much of his readers'. I cannot look on obscurity as a merit, but regard it as a fault which betrays the hand of an abbreviator.
Sometimes the cuts change the sense. Thus in xviii. 27, according to [W], Paul is invited by Corinthians residing in Ephesus to go with them to Corinth : according to [B], he went of his own will. In xix. i, according to [W], Paul wishes of his own accord to go to Jerusalem, but is told by the Spirit to return to Ephesus ; [B] merely states that he went to Ephesus, without any mention of his first plan or of the intervention of the Spirit. In xxiv. 8, according to [W], παρ'ου refers to Claudius Lysias ; according to [B], it refers to Paul. (For the absurdity of this reading cf. p. xlvii.) A more complicated case occurs in xv. i sq. (p. xlix).
Apart from these differences due to abridgement, there are irreconcilable variants. The most remarkable of these occurs in xx. 4, taken in conjunction
 with xix. 29. In xix. 29 Gaius and Aristarchus are both Macedonians : in xx. 4 Aristarchus is said to be a native of Thessalonica, but Gaius, according to [B], is Δερβαιος, i.e. a native of Derbe in Asia Minor. The [W] reading is Δοβηριος, i.e. a native of Doberus (in Macedonia). For a full discussion of this striking passage, the importance of which has hitherto escaped the notice of scholars, I refer to pp. xlix-1 and note ad loc.
There are also cases in which the reading of [B] is absurd. A striking example is in ch. xiii, where, according to [B], a sorcerer is called Barjesus in v. 6, and this name is translated by Elymas in v. 8. Barjesus, however, can mean nothing but 'son of Jesus'. For a full discussion of this passage I refer to the notes.
It seems strange that so inferior a production as the abridged text should have been accepted by the Church. It must have suited the taste of the age in which it appeared and may have been made by someone who enjoyed a reputation in his own generation. It is not always the best text that gains immediate recognition. I venture to refer to a person of no particular importance, the African Father, Primasius. Two editiones principes of his works appeared in the same year (1544), one of which was printed at Paris and the other at Bale. The Paris edition was taken from a corrupt and mutilated MS. which disguises long omissions by unskilful botching. The Bale edition was founded on a good and fairly complete MS. It was, however, the Paris edition that was several times reproduced, while the Bale edition found no successor. (Descent of MSS., p. 104.)

If the considerations which have been advanced are sound, it follows that the supremacy of what are frequently called the 'Great Uncials ' (i.e. א and B) can no longer be maintained. The chief duty of an editor  is to collect and combine the scattered evidence given by the various witnesses to the [W] text. This was done in masterly fashion by Blass in his reconstitution of what he considers to be the 'Roman form' of Acts (= [W]) as contrasted with a second edition by the same writer (= [B]). My own text is not indeed founded upon that of Blass, since I have considered all points independently and very frequently differ from him. It is, however, more like his text than that of any other editor, and I gladly acknowledge my great debt to him. On many occasions when my original view of a passage differed from that of Blass I finally became convinced that he was right. I cannot, however, accept his attribution of both [W] and [B]] to the same author (p. xxi).' 

- A.C. Clark, Acts of the Apostles, (1933) p. vii-xi

The Sabotage of the Christian O.T.: (1550-1700) The Hebrew text

We noted that the sabotage of the Christian O.T. began with Martin Luther, adopting the medieval Hebrew text taken from European Jews, in a misguided and botched attempt to convert them to Christianity.

This competition between the Greek O.T. used by the early Christians (later to be translated into Latin) and the Hebrew texts preferred by Jews really began in the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D., when Christians (many of whom were Jews) were actively engaged in debating with Jews and establishing their own legitimacy.   But that initial confrontation went nowhere, and Christians and Jews each went their own way, with the Jews rejecting as "cursed" the ancient (pre-Christian)  translation into Greek which was originally viewed as "blessed".   At first, several Jewish scholars tried to publish new Greek translations, but this also went nowhere, as the early Church stuck to the now traditional Greek O.T. text of the Septuagint (LXX).

The Reformation however, offered a new opportunity for Jews to 'correct' the Christian text, and they lost no time in providing help with both the Hebrew text and its translation.

Medieval Hebrew Scroll

Jews suffering from persecution by the Roman Catholic Church and previous European governments were initially open to assisting the Reformers like Luther in securing their own independent O.T., more in conformity with their own texts (and interpretations).   So in Protestant jurisdictions, many Jewish scholars began to help the Reformers translate directly from Jewish copies into their local languages.

The naive position the Reformers put themselves in became rather apparent by the end of the 19th century, and many Protestants wanted to see some correction of this undesirable alliance.   The situation as to the English O.T. was described succinctly in the Dictionary of the Bible, (Ezra Abbot, Hackett, Smith, NY, 1872) vol. 4, p. 3441:

"Still less had been done at the commencement of the 17th century for the text of the O.T.  The Jewish teachers, from whom Protestant divines derived their knowledge, had given currency to the belief that in the Massoretic text were contained the ipisisima verba, of Revelation, free from all risks of error, from all casualties of transcription.   The conventional phrases, "the authentic Hebrew", "the Hebrew verity", were the expression of this undiscerning reverence. ¹  They refused to apply the same rules of judgement here which they applied to the text of the N.T.   They assumed that the Masoretes were infallible, and were reluctant to acknowledge that there had been any variations since.  Even Walton did not escape being attacked as unsound by the great Puritan divine, Dr. John Owen, for having called attention to the fact of discrepancies (Proleg. cap vi.).   The materials for a revised text are, of course scantier than with the N.T.; but the labors of Kennicott, De Rossi, J H. Michaelis, and Davidson have not been fruitless, and here, as there, the older versions must be admitted as at least evidence of variations which once existed, but which were suppressed by the rigorous uniformity of the later Rabbis.  Conjectural emendations, suchas Newcombe, Lowth, and Ewald have so freely suggested, ought to be ventured on in such places only as are quite unintelligible without them."

---

1. The Judaizing spirit on this matter culminated in the Formula Helvetici Consensus, which pronounces the existing O.T. text to be "tum quoad consonas, tum quoad vocalia, sive puncta ipsa, sive punctorum potestatem, tum quoad rea, tum quoad verba, θεοπνευστος."

sincerely,
The Dean

List of Articles related to KJV and Modern Versions

P75:  Leaf 57 verso - Click to Enlarge

Papyri (Capital Script) Related Articles

• F. Kenyon (1948) on the Papyri - & dating John
  
• Four Earliest MSS - with guilty knowledge of PA
  
• The Egerton Fragment - 8:1-11 - Early Evidence
  
• P 75 & Jn 8:1-11 - more Dot Markings found...
  
• Clark (1962): the Papyri - their significance
  
• Nomina Sacra in the Papyri - sacred abbreviations new!
  
• P. Head (2000): Papyri Sources - Tyndale Bull. 51
  
• E.Tov (2002): Punctuation Marks - early MSS
  
• Hurtado (2006): the New Papyri - significance
  
• P75 & B: Agreement? - greatly exaggerated!
  
• P45 Readings - omissions of interest new!

Uncials:  Key Articles (on Uncials)

• E. Miller (1886) on א/B - date and origin
  
• Burgon (1871): Dating א/B - א 50-100 yrs later
  
• Ezra Abbot (1872):Dating א/B - reply to Burgon
  
• R.Harris (1890) א/B & PA accident
  
• K. Lake (1911) on א - origin, history new!
  
• Skeat (1997) on א - origin & Cod.B
  
• Myshrall (2005) on א - the scribes of א new!
  
• Edwin Abbott (1905) on B: readings Hort ignored!
  
• R. Harris (1891) on Codex D - Latinisms found
  
• E.Tov (2002): Punctuation Marks - early MSS new!
  
• Olley (2009) Dots & Spaces - Punctuation in Uncials

Miniscules & Lectionaries: (Cursive Script)

• Scholia - Marginal Notes
• Koehler (1953) Evangelistaries - backgnd
  
• Anderson (1992): Byz. Lectionary - good intro
  
• Wikgren (1934) Lectionary text - PA & talk

The Sabotage of the Christian O.T. in favor of 20th cent. Judaism

The following is a succinct explanation for the RSV O.T. fiasco: 

 "The RSV Old Testament was not well received outside of liberal circles, chiefly because the translators often deliberately rendered Old Testament passages in such a way that they were contrary to the interpretations given in the New Testament. This was done on the principle that the Old Testament ought to be interpreted only in reference to its own historical (Jewish) context. 

Christian interpretations, including those of the NT writers, are therefore deliberately excluded as "anachronistic." But this, as conservative critics perceived, practically amounted to a denial of the truth of the New Testament. As the conservative scholar R. Laird Harris wrote,

  "It is a curious study to check the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, a monument of higher critical scholarship, and note how every important Old Testament passage purporting to predict directly the coming of Christ has been altered so as to remove this possibility ... It is almost impossible to escape the conclusion that the admittedly higher critical bias of the translators has operated in all of these places. The translations given are by no means necessary from the Hebrew and in some cases ... are in clear violation of the Hebrew." (4)

The verse most often mentioned by conservatives was Isaiah 7:14, in which the RSV translators rendered the Hebrew word almah as "young woman" instead of "virgin." While this was not a case of a clear violation of the Hebrew (the word must be interpreted according to its context), it was by no means necessary. (5)
And there were many other instances of the same problem, which revealed a pattern of systematic contradiction of the New Testament interpretations of Old Testament passages. For example, in Genesis 22:18 the RSV renders an ambiguous sentence as "by your descendents shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves" contrary to the interpretation given by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 3:8 and 3:16.

The contradictions foisted into the Bible by the RSV translators included also some renderings which created blatant contradictions within individual books. For example, in Genesis 9:20, where the ASV had read, "And Noah began to be a husbandman" (i.e. a farmer) the RSV reads "Noah was the first tiller of the soil," thus generating a contradiction with the statements in Genesis 3:22 ("the LORD God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden to till the ground") and 4:2 ("Cain was a tiller of the ground"). It was the belief of the RSV translators that the Book of Genesis is composed of traditional stories that frequently contradict each other, cobbled together by editors who neglected to harmonize them in many places.

The objections of conservatives to the RSV were not merely captious criticisms concerning the meaning of a word here and there; the controversy was about whether or not a version of the Old Testament which ignores and contradicts the New Testament, as well as itself, in so many places, has any right to be received as the standard Bible of American churches."

-  Michael Marlowe, Bible Researcher.com.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/rsv.html

---

The 5th Columnists who had infiltrated the RSV OT committee essentially committed sabotage, and violently betrayed the Christian public.

James Moffatt (Union Theological Seminary) had died earlier in 1944, leaving

* Millar Burrows, Yale University. (joined 1938)
* Luther A. Weigle, Yale University, Chairman.
* Fleming James, University of the South, Executive Secretary.
* Julius A. Bewer, Union Theological Seminary.
* William R. Taylor, University of Toronto.
* George Dahl, Yale University.
* Willard L. Sperry, Harvard University.
* Leroy Waterman, University of Michigan.
* Kyle M. Yates, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
* William F. Albright, Johns Hopkins University.
* J. Philip Hyatt, Vanderbilt University.
* Herbert G. May, Oberlin Graduate School of Theology.
* Harry M. Orlinsky, Jewish Institute of Religion.

The RSV was repackaged and sold again by an Ecumenical group deeply involved with the Roman Catholics, in

1973 (with an awful, nearly unreadable translation of the Apocrypha), and again, as
1977 (by Metzger, Oxford U.P. as, "the New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: RSV, with 2nd ed. NT")
1990 (NRSV, Oxford U.P., removing all "sexist" language, and creating the 'unisex' version.)
the NRSV was quickly adopted as a replacement of the RSV in the liberal denominations associated with the National Council of Churches. It has also been favored by liberal university professors, for use as a text in "religion" courses.
1991 (re-edited by Metzger/Murphy), and again republished and disguised as a different version[!!!]:
1993 (re-edited by Wayne Meeks et. al, as "The Harper Collins Study Bible" in an attempt to avoid the reputation of the RSV)

This was really part of a larger Ecumenical plan to gut and dismember Reformation Protestantism, in favor of modern liberalism, a program which was apparently largely successful.

- The Dean

Modern Versions and Jewish Fables

Lets take a look at Leviticus 16:8 (KJV):

The Law commands two goats be offered, a yearly atonement for the people's sins.  One goat is sacrificed on the altar, but interestingly, the other is sent off eastward from the Temple as a scapegoat.  First the King James Version (KJV/AV):

'And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat.'

 Although the details of the complex offering are unknown to the average English-speaker, the idea of 'scapegoat', a substitute for sin or blame, is as familiar as apple-pie.  This is because naturally enough, of the powerful and near-endless influence of the King James, or Authorized Version,  on our very way of speaking.

The American KJV follows suit, with  scapegoat,  as does the  New American Standard (NASV - 1971, 1995),  World English Bible (WEB). 

The Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims edition varies but little, with "emissary goat", not a significant difference, if less popular.

Young's Literal Translation (YLT - 1898) and the Revised Young's Literal Translation (RYLT) give a clear idea, of the meaning of scapegoat, with "goat of departure", which certainly describes its function in the ritual.


Webster's Bible Translation (WBT - ) hyphenates the words, with "scape-goat", leaving the rendering essentially the same.

Even the New International Version (NIV - 1984) gets it right without a fuss: scapegoat.

What can go wrong?
________________________________________

Rather suddenly, with the Revised Version (RV, 1882), we have "Azazel".  A proper name of some kind, capitalized!  

We are told  by the Germans that it refers to some kind of Desert Demon, whom the Israelites sacrificed to under Moses or shortly after,  on an equal par with Jehovah the Exclusive and Jealous God.  One goat for Jehovah, and one for Azazel, just in case. This of course is 'modern scholarship'. 


A 'brilliant innovation' in translation based on the latest research in 1880.  ...

It matters not that the God of Israel, the Old Testament is a Jealous, Monotheistic God, who in His very first commandment banishes all other 'gods' to oblivion.

Because, according to the latest new 'scientific' techniques, context doesn't matter, even if it is an overwhelming doctrine permeating throughout the Torah and a thousand years of history. 


The new 'Canon' is of course, 

(1)    'Prefer the Harder Reading.'  

- Because obviously, (not even the 'scribe' this time, but) every translator and commentator for the last 2,000 years were confused, incompetent to translate the word, and naturally emended every translation to 'smooth over' the difficult text. [/sarcasm]

And so, we find, following suite, and not wishing to appear naive and out-of-date, the Darby Bible Translation (DBT), the American Standard Version (ASV), the Bible in Basic English (BBE), GOD'S WORD  (GWT, 1995), English Standard Version (ESV, 2001) and even the New Living Translation (NLT, 2007).


On what authority is this nonsense actually based?  The reader will be utterly shocked to learn it comes from late speculation by Jews in the Middle Ages, as found in the Book of Enoch:

"the main interpretations have been  (a) a local deity, a wilderness goat-demon:  Later Jewish literature, notably the Book of Enoch, understood Azazel as a demon, one of the fallen angels and brings him into its complex mythology of supernatural angels and demons."

Thats right:  The translators of a whole line of 'modern versions', from the RV , ASV, ESV, right up to the NLT, have introduced a damnable heresy and piece of obvious nonsense from the Ethiopic Book of Enoch, a work from the 1st century A.D. rejected by Jews and Christians alike for 2,000 years.  

Well, there is no denying that the Book of Enoch  is some kind of Jewish Apocalyptic literature from the 1st century.  Fragments of it were found at Qumran, with the Dead Sea Scrolls.   But it is notable that it is nowhere quoted by Jesus, the Apostles, or Paul, and only briefly does it appear to be mentioned by Jude, although this too is disputed.   Obviously Enoch is not in anyone's Canon of Holy Scripture, not the Jews, nor the Catholics, Greek Orthodox,  not even the Muslims, excepting the small Coptic Christian Church in Egypt.


Real scholars however identify Enoch as an obvious pseudonymous forgery, and not written by the Biblical Enoch.  So what were they thinking in the O.T. Committee room of the Revised Version in 1882?  Were they intending to embrace the Coptic Bible?   No one knows, except that this was no decision of scholarship, but rather a bizarre short-circuit of the brain, some kind of mass-hypnosis, with the culprit, an early Houdini-like character, perhaps Aleister Crowley himself, escaping in the confusion.

Does 'Prefer the Harder Reading' really lead inevitably to the Book of Enoch?

  Or are the majority of sensible translators, such as those behind the King James Version and even  the Jewish Talmud correct in rejecting such an assinine piece of foreign drivel?

Lets check the Rabbis:  They too speculated later about this early text:

" Rabbinic interpretation understood Azazel to be a cliff off which the goat was driven to its death.  The Rabbis, interpreting "Azazel" as "Azaz" (rugged), and "el" (strong), refer it to the rugged and rough mountain cliff from which the goat was cast down (Yoma 67b; Sifra, Ahare, ii. 2; Targ. Yer. Lev. xiv. 10, and most medieval commentators)."... (from the Jewish Encyclopedia).

 Whether or not the Rabbis were correct in their speculations about the etymology of this word (which after all is secondary to its actual usage in any case), they hardly embraced the 'modern' view.   Instead, we are told:

"...Most modern scholars, after having for some time indorsed the old view, have accepted the opinion mysteriously hinted at by Ibn Ezra and expressly stated by Nahmanides to Lev. xvi. 8, that Azazel belongs to the class of "se'irim," goat-like demons, jinn haunting the desert, to which the Israelites were wont to offer sacrifice (Lev. xvii. 7 [A. V. "devils"] (from the Jewish Encyclopedia).

Understand the real source here now.  Not the Rabbis.   Not the Talmud itself.  Not Jewish tradition.  But the opinion of the Spanish-born Jewish scholar Nahmanides (1194-1270 A.D.), writing in the Dark Ages at a time of near-illiteracy, even among Jews. 

Thus we have: (a) an apocryphal and pseudonymous work from the 1st century, using the word "Azaziel" or something like it as the name of a fallen angel (not a 'desert-demon',  and (b) we have the opinion of a 13th century Spanish philosopher that it meant 'desert-demon', something impossible to harmonize either with the Book of Enoch or Leviticus. 


And we have 'most modern scholars' (read "idiots") rejecting the context of the entire Bible, and all of Jewish and Christian tradition (including the Coptics who read Enoch as Scripture!), and embracing the opinion of Nahmanides, which turns out to be a Jewish fable. 

But don't blame the Jews.  They rejected this horse-poop 800 years ago, and prefer the ordinary and obvious meaning of 'azazel' as defined by the context of 3,000 years of Judaism without Nahmanides, or the book of Enoch.

Now it turns out that even more modern scholarship supports the KJV (who knew?):


_____________________________

"Of course, all of that may be for naught if this Hittite parallel is correct and the term is connected with a type of offering.

“In the Leviticus 16 ritual a crux has always been the term laʿ^azāʾzēl rendered in the Septuagint and Vulgate by “as a scapegoat” (followed by the English AV), but replaced in more recent English translations by “for Azazel,” sometimes thought to denote a wilderness demon. Appealing to scapegoat rites in the Hurrian language from the Hittite archives, Janowski and Wilhelm would derive the biblical term from a Hurrian offering term, azazḫiya. This is particularly appealing to me. There were two goats used in the Leviticus 16 ritual. One is designated for Yahweh as a “sin offering” (Heb. ḥaṭṭāʾṭ, LXX peri hamartias) (16:9), and the other is “for Azazel,” but is presented alive before Yahweh to make atonement, and is sent away into the wilderness “to/for Azazel.” The contrast is twofold: (1) Yahweh versus Azazel, and (2) sin offering versus Azazel. If one adopts the first, Azazel seems to be a divine being or demon, who must be appeased. But if one adopts the second as primary, the word ʿ^azāʾzēl represents the goal of the action. In the system of Hurrian offering terms to which Wilhelm’s azazḫiya belongs, the terms represent either a benefit that is sought by the offering (e.g., keldiya “for wellbeing,” cf. Heb. š^elāmîm), or the central element offered (e.g., zurgiya “blood”). If Janowski and Wilhelm’s theory is correct, the Hebrew term would not denote a demon as recipient of the goat, but some benefit desired (e.g., removal of the sins and impurities) or the primary method of the offering (e.g. the banishment of the goat).”^[1]

Similar rituals are widely attested in the ancient Near East with examples from Ebla and elsewhere. I'm sure much more could be said about the practice and its ancient parallels. Leviticus 16 and the term Azazel provide a fascinating example of how misunderstandings and speculation sometimes spin off into elaborate traditions that fall far from the likely original meaning of the biblical text.

---

Harry A. Hoffner, Jr., “Hittite-Israelite Cultural Parallels” in Hallo, W. W., & Younger, K. L. (2003). Context of Scripture, vol. 3 (xxxii). Leiden; Boston: Brill.

King James Version: 1.  
Modern Versions: 0.




The Dean

When the Exception doesn't prove Rule: Pt II

Interpolations and Scribal Glosses

What's the difference? Well, there are some differences, in the mechanisms, the intent of their creators, and the form and size of the phenomena.


I. Scribal Glosses

A Scribal Gloss begins life as a marginal note. It is not a textual correction, nor is it intended by its original author to be inserted in the text. It is usually meant to inform the examiner of the manuscript of some background or history of a reading, its interpretation, or perhaps a cross-reference. But whatever its educational purpose, it was meant to stay in the margin.

The problem is that textual corrections by a proof-reader are also often written as marginal notes, and so are actually meant to be incorporated into the text, and into any subsequent copies made from it. The two items often look very similar in size, format and content. As a result, all marginal notes are vulnerable to be taken as textual corrections, whether they were meant as such or not.

So then the true "Scribal Gloss" is neither a pure accident, nor is it intentional.

It is a two-step process:

1. an existing marginal note,
2. a misunderstanding of its purpose by a 2nd party.

As such, it cannot occur without a Scribe or copyist, attempting in good faith to correct the text as per standard practices. It is not then malicious or agenda-based, nor a result of any theological bias.

But it can be done by any copyist, and happen anytime there is a marginal note vulnerable to misreading in a master-copy. Unlike deliberate editing, such 'accidents' are likely to be more frequent, since the potential exists only when there is a marginal note in the master prone to misinterpretation. (Most copyists are just copyists, not editors, and limit their activities to basic corrections from a master). Scribal glosses are also limited by the skill and comprehension of the copyists, which work toward preventing same.

Finally, we must note that they are also very practically limited also in size and nature. John chapter 21, the Ending of Mark (16:9-20), and the Pericope Adultera (John 7:53-8:11) are most certainly not bumbling 'scribal glosses' (see below).

We have found only one absolutely certain case of a real 'scribal gloss', in the MS GA-3 (12th cent.) at 2nd Cor. 8:4, but we saw that certain textual critics had extrapolated from that flimsy basis the characterization of a whole text-type, and a resuling 'TC Canon'. (See our previous post here.)


II. Interpolations:

True Interpolations however are an entirely different animal. They arise, not randomly, or from the hand of simple copyists, but rather they come from editors with an agenda, concerned to promote an entrenched view or position, usually on a theological matter.

(We may ignore for our purposes here minor 'corrections' of spelling, synonyms, or geographical alterations based on the knowledge or mindset of bolder copyists, which will usually be very short.)

They may be added to support or strengthen a theological idea under debate in the era in which they are inserted into the text. They may be, like the more harmless marginal note, explanatory insertions. They often involve the addition of more than a keyword; usually a whole phrase or clause, meant to uphold or clarify a doctrine.

Most importantly, they are a one-step process, a bold hijacking of the text in one fell strike.

Such brazen actions were executed by rare and peculiar persons, not ordinary scribes. They would typically be heretics, like Marcion (c. 200 A.D.) with a significant following, or church leaders given significant powers, like Jerome (c. 400 A.D.).

To be effective, such alterations would have to be copied extensively and have a convincing appearance of genuineness. Fabrications by heretics would have to be crafted carefully, and variations adopted by church leaders would usually have to have some kind of prior support among previous older copies or traditions already existing.

Example: 1st John 5:7

One obviously famous suspected interpolation, believed even by many pious Christian leaders and scholars, is 1st John 5:7. Leaving aside the arguments pro and con (internal grammatical evidence, early references etc.), the most interesting thing about this 'interpolation' is that it is again, like the scribal gloss above (2nd Cor. 8:4), the only example of its kind.

1. It is difficult to imagine how it could have been dropped from the majority of MSS of nearly all ages, regardless of how it came to be omitted.
2. It is difficult to imagine it being added by a heretical faction, since its apparent intent is to support Trinitarian beliefs.
3. It is easy to see how this could have been added late in the game by zealous Trinitarians, with subsequent little impact on the main lines of transmission of the NT.

Thus it stands as perhaps the best of all possible examples of a real, deliberate, theological interpolation of the first kind.

But therein is the very problem. Like its cousin (2nd. Cor. 8:4 in GA-3), it stands so embarrassingly alone in its credibility and its features, that we must ask, how can the exception justify the rule? The same premise and "Canon" is at stake:

Premise: 'The Byzantine Text is heavily interpolated.'
Canon: 'Prefer the shorter reading.'

Textual critics have been telling us for over a century that the Traditional text (Byzantine, Majority, Syrian, or whatever name) is a heavily interpolated, glossed out, inflated text. But the only evidence of this is one paltry, late example of each main type of insertion.

(We will not here discuss the only other offering from Hort, the infamous "Western non-Interpolations". The name alone tells us of the artificiality of that imaginative construction!)

The Dean

When the Exception does not prove the Rule

,If we take a step back, and look at the history of this debate over the NT text, we see some outstanding and longstanding claims and assertions.

If we put the more controversial passages aside for the moment, we can catch our breath and ask a few pertinent questions about key planks in the various platforms being sold the public.

It is well known that the Traditional (Byzantine) text is fuller than the so-called 'critical' text ("Alexandrian"). There is a longstanding claim then, that the Traditional text is expanded, inflated, with many various insertions.

This isn't just a general or vague statement, it focuses intently and exactly on some 200 whole and half-verses which Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf and Hort expunged from the critical text(s) some 100 years ago, on the basis of Codices B and א.

These, it was argued, were mainly interpolations, some accidental, some deliberate. Some random and independent, some as part of a formal recension in the 2nd or 3rd century. Some early, some late, some under theological or apologetic influence, others via confusion, misunderstanding or ignorance.

It is fair to say that the large chunks of text involved are not all merely accidents, nor would they be wholly unknown or unnoticed by both defenders of the traditional text and innovators. Correctors and fusspots can be seen at work in the margins and upon the text of the very earliest papyri. That is, the text was watched by some, and actions were performed upon it by others, from the earliest times.

This view of the evidence has generated its own precepts, canons and corollaries. When the "Alexandrian" texts are viewed as holding the purest readings, the overriding Canon as finally developed (by Hort) becomes:

"Prefer the shortest text."

It becomes a shorthand statement about the Alexandrian text: "The Alexandrian reading (i.e., the shortest) is the best."


The corollary naturally follows from the acceptance of this premise:

"The Byzantine text is an inflated, interpolated text."

It is remarkable however, that this judgment comes from a procedure which rejects the entire Byzantine tradition from the start. That is, (and it cannot be stressed too much), the above Canon was based upon rejecting fully 95% of all the surviving manuscript evidence, and only thoroughly studying the tiny (Alexandrian) remainder.

In a very real sense, Hort 'found' the Alexandrian text, because he only looked at Alexandrian manuscripts. No doubt this procedure seemed perfectly reasonable and unassailable at the time: The Alexandrian manuscripts were the oldest, and the oldest manuscripts were assumed to be closest to the original and hence the best.

But Hort then looked at all counter-evidence and competing texts through the lens of his Alexandrian text, his "rose-coloured glasses". The observation of striking differences, mostly longer readings, only reinforced his original view. The Byzantine differed greatly from the "earliest and best" manuscripts, and so it must be in error. These errors were mostly additions to the text, and so the Byzantine text was an interpolated text.

Since that time, we have had over 100 years to examine the Byzantine text itself on its own terms, beginning with von Soden's work, and culminating in the Robinson/Pierpont Majority (Byzantine) text. The detailed examination of the Byzantine text should have established the basic truth about Hort's position one way or another.

What was expected was that we would find one of two things:

(1) Evidence of random interpolations and glosses peppered all over the manuscript streams, spread across time from the 4th to the 14th century, or:

(2) Evidence of a short but major catastrophic event, i.e., an official recension, rapidly replacing the varied streams with an authorized, standardized text bursting onto the scene and taking over.

In either case, the evidence should have been aplenty, and of a certain type, and most importantly of all, of a certain content.

We should have found hundreds, or at least dozens, of clear cases of 1st hand, 2nd hand, and 3rd hand interpolations, glosses, marginal insertions, in many Byzantine and 'proto-Byzantine' manuscripts.

But instead we have absolutely nothing, not a single case of any actual evidence of a single successful interpolation or insertion, involving the all-important 200 alleged insertions vis. the Byzantine/Alexandrian comparison.

Understand the "double-barrel" shotgun blast this represents:

Not only are there no examples showing evidence of insertion re: the 200 key-texts, but there are no examples AT ALL of any insertions, accidental or otherwise.

That is, except ONE:

The cute case of the late miniscule Codex Corsendoncensis (GA-3) in 2nd Cor. 8:4.

Here a scribe has obviously misunderstood a marginal note as a lost bit of text to be reinserted in his new copy. But this one single example, coming from the 12th century, "by an ignorant transcriber" ¹, cannot possibly characterize the bulk of even the late Byzantine copyists, let alone stand for the whole Byzantine tradition from the 3rd to the 13th centuries.

Thus we have the absurd but telling situation in which the exception (GA-3) simply does not prove the rule (i.e., "the Byzantine is an interpolated text").


JOHN W BURGON.
Deanery, Chichester,
All Saints Day, 1883

---

1. An introduction to the critical study and knowledge of the Holy Scriptures
, Volume 2, E. Littell, (1825) Sect.II, Para.4, p.107