Which version Is The Bible? Page 88

400, their quotations support the T.T. in 2,630 instances whereas 1,753 support the "Neologian".¹ Thus Miller found that in the Fathers' citations who died between 100 - 400 A.D., a span of 300 years, not only was the T.T. in existence from the first - it was predominant!²

Hort's statement that none of the church Fathers before 350 quoted the T.T. is simply not true. As mentioned, even Origen occasionally cited and adopted purely Syrian readings. For example, Dr. E.F. Hills states that in John 1-14 which is covered by Papyri 66 and 75, fifty-two times the Syrian reading stands alone as to the text and Origen agreed with twenty of them.³ This may be quickly verified by merely scanning Tischendorf's critical apparatus. Thus, the oft stated assertion of the critics that Origen knew nothing of the Byzantine text is simply untenable. On the contrary, these statistics demonstrate that Origen was not only familiar with the Byzantine text, he frequently adopted its readings in preference to those of the "Western" and "Alexandrian" texts. Hills goes on to report that seven of these same twenty occur in Papyri 66 and/or 75 (circa 200 A.D.).

Although Hort accused the Traditional Text as having late readings, hence it must be a "late text", his own research revealed otherwise. In his "Notes on Select Readings" which appears as an appendix in his Introduction, Hort discussed about 240 instances of variation among the manuscripts of the Gospels.⁴ In only about twenty of these was he willing to characterize the Byzantine reading as "late". Thus, by Hort's own admission, only around ten per cent of the Byzantine readings were supposedly late. Scholars today offer even less.

PAPYRI (c.200 A.D.) SUPPORTS THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS

The papyri (around 200 A.D.), which dates 150 years before Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, support the Textus Receptus readings. This may come as somewhat of a shock to those familiar with the problem of textual criticism, as most have been informed that the early papyri are listed as Alexandrian or Western. True, nevertheless the Chester Beatty and Bodmer Papyri, even though placed in those families, have many renderings which are strictly Syrian - strictly Textus Receptus. After a thorough study of P⁴⁶, Gunther Zuntz concluded: "A number of Byzantine readings, most of them genuine, which previously were discarded as 'late', are anticipated by P⁴⁶". ⁵Having several years earlier already acknowledged that with regard to the Byzantine New Testament "Most of its readings existed in the second century",⁶ Colwell noted Zuntz's remark and concurred.⁷ Many of these readings had been considered to be "late readings", but the papyri testify that they date back at least to the second century!

In his recent book, the late (d.1989) Harry A. Sturz surveyed "all the available papyri" to determine how many papyrus-supported "Byzantine" readings were extant. In deciding which readings were "distinctively Byzantine", Dr. Sturz states that he made a conscious effort to "err on the conservative side" and thus his list is shorter than it could have been. Sturz lists 150 Byzantine readings which, though not supported by the early Alexandrian and Western uncials, are present in

1 Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, op. cit., p. 74. Pickering is citing Edward Miller.

2 Burgon, The Traditional Text, op. cit., p. 116.

3 Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 172.

4 Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, 1st ed., op. cit., p. 73. The page of this reference has changed in Dr. Hills' later editions and to date I have not been able to locate it in his 1984 publication. All other references to this work of Hills within this publication except that on page 20 is to his 1984 4th edition.

5 Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, op. cit., p. 55.

6 Colwell, What is the Best New Testament?, op. cit., p. 70.

7 Colwell, "The Origin of Texttypes of New Testament Manuscripts", op. cit., p. 132.

continued...