I have often said that the Ketuvim Netzarim (the “Writings of the Nazarenes” commonly known as the so-called “New Testament”) was originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic and then translated into other languages such as Greek and Latin. When we study these books, it is with the descendants of the original Hebrew and Aramaic with which we must work, and this is expressed to us best by the earliest versions. The purpose of this article is to elucidate the history of the transmission of these ancient texts. First I will discuss the three major text types, then I will discuss the earliest language versions.
The Development of Three Types of Texts
Before the invention of the printing press, all books had to be copied and recopied by hand. This resulted in occasional human errors in copying known as scribal errors. Manuscripts and versions of NT books are classed according to these variant readings, they are the DNA of a given text. Based upon the occurrences of these variants scholars have established the existence of three general classes of NT manuscripts and versions known as “Text Types”: The Western, the Alexandrian and the Byzantine. Let use briefly examine each of these.
The Western Text Type
The “Western” text type is called “Western” because it was first believed to be used in the west, but later research has revealed that it was used throughout the known world. It was once sometimes called the “Syro-Latin” text, because it was the type of Greek text which best agreed with the Old Latin and Old Syriac versions. When we examine the quotations of the “New Testament” which appear in the so-called “Church Fathers” of the Second Century, we see that this is the type of text that was used universally used in the second century. In the third century also, Greek, Latin and Syriac writers all used the Western type of Text. But by the fourth century, while Latin and Syriac writers continued to use the Western text, it had fallen out of use by most Greek writers. The oldest versions of the “New Testament” are the Greek Western Type Text, the Old Syriac and the Old Latin all three of which are of which are of the Western Text type.
The Western text is characterized, not only by its great antiquity, and near universal use in the early centuries, but most importantly for its many Semitisms. Matthew Black states, that “Semitisms” are “a special feature of the text of [Codex] D”. In fact in an extensive study of the occurrence of Semitisms in the Book of Acts, Max Wilcox found something very amazing, something which he viewed as a “textual problem”. He found that Codex D (and the Greek Western text in general) was far more replete with Semitisms than any of the other Greek texts:
…there is the textual problem of Acts. In this connection we may recall that in no inconsiderable number of places, where the evidence indicated or suggested Semitism, that evidence was not found in all the manuscripts, but was confined to one manuscript or group of manuscripts, frequently D (and its allies).
(Semitisms of the Book of Acts; Max Wilcox; 1965; p. 185)
Some of the primary Greek witnesses for this text type in the Gospels are D, W and 0171, in Acts P29, P38, P48, D, 383 and 614 and in the Epistles D(p), E(p), F(p), G(p), and the Greek “Church Fathers” up until the early third century.
The Alexandrian Text
By the end of the second century a competing Greek version of the New Testament had surfaced, which scholars call the “Alexandrian” text. . This second text type surfaced amongst the Helenist population of Alexandria which is why it is known today as the Alexandrian type of text. It continued to be used in Alexandria and Egypt up to the time of the Arab conquest of Egypt.
When we examine the writings of Clement of Alexandria, who died in 215 CE, we find that he used a Western type of text, but with a few revised Alexandrian readings. The Alexandrian text was a much smoother Greek which smoothed the Aramaic grammar and sentence structure into much better Greek grammar. The Alexandrian version was also somewhat abridged, especially in Acts which is almost 10% shorter in the Alexandrian Version than in the Western Version.
Many scholars believe that the Alexandrian text, or an ancestor of this text which they call the “Neutral” text, was the oldest, most original Greek text. For this reason it is the version favored in most critical editions and in most modern English translations. Supporters of this text hold this belief despite all of the evidence to the contrary because many of the ancient papyri fragments are of this text type (though some important ones contain Western readings). However this may well be due to the fact that such Papyri fragments tended to be preserved in Egypt, where hot, dry, arid conditions allowed such fragments to be preserved, and the Alexandrian text was popular in Egypt.
The Byzantine Text
As time progressed the early Greek church began to reconcile these two Greek versions. This later text type is known as the Byzantine text type. This version smoothed out the Greek even more and sought to reconcile the conflicting readings of the Western and Alexandrian Versions. Since the vast majority of Greek manuscripts are later rather than earlier, the Byzantine text type is the text type of the majority of manuscripts and thus the “Majority Text” (it is also the text type of the Textus Receptus, which served as the basis for the King James Version). The first “Church Father” to consistently quote from a Byzantine type of text was John Chrysostom who died in 407 CE.
OK, having covered the development of the three major text types in the Greek, we will now look at the early Latin and Syriac (Aramaic) versions.
The Latin Versions
The most primitive version of the Latin text is the Old Latin version. This text is an example of the Western type of text and like all texts of this type, it is filled with Semitisms which serve as evidence of its Hebrew or Aramaic origin. To begin with in the Old Latin pronoun suffixes are often affixed to substantives. In Latin this is very peculiar, could not have come from the Greek text and could only have been derived from the Aramaic text. Secondly the Old Latin verbal forms are at odds with those of the Greek while in harmony with the Aramaic. For example the Old Latin often has a perfect verb form where the Greek has the present tense. Also the Old Latin often has the present tense where the Greek has the aorist form. These inconsistencies can only be explained if the Greek and Old Latin were independently translated from an unpointed Aramaic original.
There are other internal evidences of the Aramaic origin of the Old Latin as well (Perhaps I will discuss some of these in a future blog).
This Old Latin version continued to be the common Latin version until 382 CE when Pope Damasas commissioned Jerome to create a new Latin version, the Latin Vulgate. In fact the Old Latin was still being copied into the 12th century CE.
The Latin Vulgate was an attempt to bring the Old Latin text into greater agreement with the standard Greek texts of the late fourth century, by which time the Western Text had fallen out of use in the Greek church. The Greek language dominated philosophical and theological studies of the educated populace of the Roman Empire, and so there was a need to bring the standard Latin text into greater conformity with the Greek text of the time. Thus the Latin Vulgate is Western at its core yet contains many Alexandrian and Byzantine readings as well.
The Syriac (Aramaic) Versions
The Old Syriac is an ancient Aramaic version of the four Gospels, which was widely used until it was eclipsed by the Peshitta version of the Gospels in the late fifth or early sixth century. So complete was this eclipse that the version was totally lost until its recovery in the nineteenth century. Even now this version is only represented by two manuscripts, one from the fourth century, and one from the fifth century.
The first manuscript obtained from the monastery of St. Mary Deipara in the valley of the Natron Lakes in Egypt in 1842. It was not until 1858 that Dr. William Cureton identified and published the text. This manuscript is called the Curetonian or Codex Syrus Curetonianus and is catalogued as British Museum Add. No. 14451. It is generally dated to the fifth century.
The second manuscript was discovered by Agnes Smith Lewis at the St. Cathrine’s Monastery on traditional Mt. Sinai in 1892. This manuscript is called the Syriac Siniatic or Codex Syrus Sinaiticus and is catalogued as Mt. Sinai Syriac Ms. No. 30. It is generally dated to the fourth century.
The two manuscripts contain many variances from each other. Each occasionally agrees with the Peshitta against the other, however this is far more common with the Curetonian manuscript. Neither manuscript is complete but between the two of them we do have 95% of the text of the four Gospels in this version.
When we examine the writings of the Syriac “Church Fathers” who used the Old Syriac version of the Gospels, we find that there also existed Old Syriac texts for Acts and the Epistles, but this text today has survived only in the form of quotations in the Syriac “Church Fathers”. The recovery of this text could take many years, and is today only in the opening stages.
The Old Syriac version agrees with many of the Semitisms generally reflected in the Western version. Moreover the Old Syriac contains many readings which are characteristic, not of the Syriac Aramaic dialect in which the Old Syriac is written, but are instead characteristics of Judaic dialects of Aramaic. (I will cover this in more detail in a future blog) This points to the Jewish Aramaic origin of this text.
Just as in the Latin church, there was a move to conform the Old Latin text with the Greek text of the time, in the middle of the third century there began a process of revision of the Old Syriac text toward greater agreement with the Greek text of the time period. This version became known as the Peshitta. The Peshitta is a mixed text. The revision of the Gospels was more complete than the revision of Acts, so that the Peshitta text of the Gospels tends to follow the Byzantine text type, while the Peshitta text of Acts tends to be much more Western. I will write about this in more detain in a future blog).
In 508 Philoxenus, bishop of Mabbog, commissioned a translation of the Greek New Testament into Syriac, the Philoxenian version. Little of this version has survived, only the books of 2Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, Jude and Revelation. These books survived only because they do not appear in the Peshitta canon, and became used to supplement the Peshitta version.
Thomas of Harkel created yet another, more literal Syriac translation . His version contained marginal notes that appear to reference alternate Western readings which appear to be from the Old Syriac version.
Yet another Aramaic version, often termed “Syriac” but not truly in the Syriac Dialect is the so-called “Syro-Palestenian” version, also known as CPA or “Christian Palestinian Aramaic” which is written in a western dialect of Aramaic rather than an Eastern Syriac dialect. This version survives only in fragments, and is clearly a translation from the Greek, but in some readings follows the Old Syriac and Western type readings. An example of this is given in book The Hebrew and Aramaic Origin of the New Testament.
The Hebrew Versions
Two important old Hebrew versions of Matthew have come down to us, the DuTillet-Munster version and the Shem Tob version. Both of these versions have come down to us from the middle ages, but internal evidence testifies that they are rooted in ancient times. These Hebrew versions have many unique agreements with the Western text in general and with the Old Syriac Version in particular. (See my blog The Old Syriac as Key to Most Original Hebrew Matthew: DuTillet vs. Shem Tob).
The Western Greek as a Translation from the Old Syriac
Charles Cutler Torrey refers to “…the Aramaic which (as I believe) underlies the Bezan Grk….” (Our Translated Gospels p. 4 n. 19) and later refers to “…the Aramaic retro-version which lies back of the Bezae Greek…” (ibid p. 134) while Fredric Henry Chase stated:
The Syriac text of the Acts, on which large portions of the Bezan text are based, is not that of the Syriac Vulgate [the Peshitta]. It is that of an old Syriac version,… The conclusion that it is an Old Syriac text which lies behind that of Codex D is founded on the consideration of two lines of evidence-external and internal.
(The Old Syriac Element in the Text of Codex Bezae; by Fredric Henry Chase B.D.; 1893 p. 1)
However, rather than come to the obvious conclusion that the Greek Western text of D represents a translation from the Aramaic Old Syriac text, Chase instead theorizes:
The Bezan text of the Acts is the result of an assimilation of a Greek text to a Syriac text.
(ibid)
It is the conclusion of this author that Torrey and Chase were each close to the truth. Torrey was correct that the Greek Western text was a translation from an Aramaic original but was blind to the fact that the Aramaic original which lies behind the Western Greek text was the Old Syriac. On the other hand Chase recognized that the Old Syriac underlies the Greek Western text, but failed to acknowledge that the Greek Western text was a translation from an Aramaic original.
Many of the oldest Papyri fragments of the New Testament agree with
the Western text Type. Among these are:
P29 – This is a 3rd century fragment in the Oxford Bodl. Library
containing Acts 26:7-8, 20
P38 – This is a 3rd century fragment at the University of Michigan containing Acts 18:27-19:6, 12-16
P45 – This is the well known 3rd century “Chester Beatty I” Papyri containing several fragments from the Four Gospels and Acts.
P48 – This 3rd century fragment contains Acts 23:11-17, 25-29.
P69 – This is a 3rd century fragment containing Luke 22:41, 45-48, 58-61
P52 – This is the famous “John Rylands’ Fragment” containing John 18:31-33, 37-38. This fragment dates to about 130 C.E. and is the oldest known fragment of any portion of the New Testament. This fragment follows the Western Text against the traditional Greek text as shown below:
Jn. 18:33a
P52 follows the word order: “entered then again into the praetorium Pilate” In agreement with the Western type text of Codex D, the Old Latin and the Latin Vulgate. However the Alexandrian and Byzantine types (such as Codex א Codex A, and the Majority Text) read with the word order:
“entered then into the praetorium again Pilate” – א, A, C2, Mj.
Also some of our oldest Codices contain the Western type of text. These include:
Codex Bezae (Codex D) (450 CE) Contains the Four Gospels and Acts in Greek and Latin. It is currently located at the Cambridge Library.
Codex Claromontanus (Codex D(p)) (500’s) Contains the Pauline
Epistles. It is currently located at the Biblioteque Nationale in Paris,
France.
Codex 0171 (around 300 C.E.) containing Mt. 10:17-23, 25-32; Lk. 22:44-56, 61-64
Thus many of the oldest fragments of any New Testament books are of the Western Text type.
Whenever the earliest “Church Fathers” quoted the New Testament books, their quotations agreed with the Western Text type. This is true of Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Hippolytus. Also, when Tatian compiled his Gospel Harmony (known as the Diataseron) he also used a Western type of text. Moreover the Syriac “Church Fathers” such as Aphraates and Ephraim also quoted a Western type of text.
However the Greek “Church Fathers” of Alexandria: Clement of Alexandria and Origen, did often quote from the Alexandrian type of text. Both of these men resided in Alexandria.
The earliest “Church Father” to consistently quote from a Byzantine type of text was John Chrysostom who died in 407 C.E..
The earliest versions of the New Testament also reflect the Western text type. The oldest known versions of the New Testament are of the Western Text type. These include the Old Syriac, Old Latin, Armenian and Georgian versions.
There are two major ancient Latin versions of the New Testament: the Old Latin and the Latin Vulgate. The Latin Vulgate was produced in the fourth century C.E. by the “Church Father” Jerome. It is generally accepted that Jerome’s Latin Vulgate is actually a revision and standardization of the Old Latin version.
The Old Latin version is clearly a Western Type Text with a close relationship to the Greek of Codex D and the Old Syriac. For this reason the Western Type text is also known as the Syro-Latin text type.
There is a close relationship between the original Hebrew and Aramaic NT sources and the Western type texts including the Old Latin and its revision the Latin Vulgate.
One especially long and unique reading found in Mt. 20:8 in Old Syriac (c) reads:
“When you are invited to a dinner party do not sit down in an honorable place, because there may come more honorable than you, and the lord of the dinner might say to you ‘Bring yourself down,’ and you be embarrassed in the eyes of the guests. But if you sit down in a lesser place, and there come one less than you, and the lord of the supper says ‘bring yourself and come up and sit’ then you shall have more honor in the eyes of the guests.”
This lengthy additional text appears also in the Old Latin Codex Vercellensis (codex a) (also codices b, c, e, ff(1,2), h, n) and parts of it occur in many other Old Latin codices. The first portion is also found in Old Latin Codices m and g(1) while the second part is found in Old Latin codex g(2). It is also found in some mss. of the Latin Vulgate.
The immersion account in the Gospel according to the Hebrews as cited by Epiphanius also included the words “in the form of [a dove]” (as in Luke’s account) and the phrase “I have this day begotten you” (as in Luke’s account in the Greek Western type text of Codex D).
Moreover, the account of the immersion in Epiphanius’s quotation from the Gospel according to the Hebrews includes the phrase “And immediately a great light shone round about the place” which agrees closely with certain Old Latin manuscripts of Matthew 3:16 which have “a great light shone round about the water” (Matt. 3:16 Codex Latin Vercellensis) And “a great light shown from the water” (Matt. 3:16 Codex Sangermanensis I).
There are a number of very obvious grammatical qualities to the Old Latin which point to its Aramaic rather than Greek Origin. To begin with in the Old Latin pronoun suffixes are often affixed to substantives. In Latin this is very peculiar, could not have come from the Greek text and could only have been derived from the Aramaic text.
Secondly the Old Latin verbal forms are at odds with those of the Greek while in harmony with the Aramaic. For example the Old Latin often has a perfect verb form where the Greek has the present tense. Also the Old Latin often has the present tense where the Greek has the aorist form. These inconsistencies can only be explained if the Greek and Old Latin were independently translated from an unpointed Aramaic original.
There are other internal evidences of the Aramaic origin of the Old
Latin as well. For example:
Luke 7:28
Old Syriac: יוחנן
Greek: Ἰωάννου
Old Latin: Johannen
If the Greek had served as the source text for the Old Latin in this passage we should expect to see Johannes but instead we see the Aramaic form transliterated with Johannen.
Luke 18:14
…one went down to his house justified more than (literally “from”) that one…
Old Syriac: דנחת לביתה הנא מזדק יתיר מן הו
Greek: κατέβη οὗτος δεδικαιωμένος εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ παρ’ ἐκεῖνον
Old Latin (Codex Vercellensis):
descendit hic iustificatus in domum suam ab illo
The Old Latin ab illo is clearly derived from the Aramaic מן הו and not from the Greek παρ’ ἐκεῖνον. The Old Latin is very literally translated from the very idiomatic Aramaic phrase rather from the Greek which uses a comparative phrase “παρ’ ἐκεῖνον”. Since Latin shares the comparative form with the Greek, the Old Latin could only read here with ab illo if it were a translation from the idiomatic Aramaic מן הו and not the Greek παρ’ ἐκεῖνον.
Luke 24:21
“And we were hoping…”
Old Syriac: ואנחנן סברין
Greek: ἡμεῖς δὲ ἠλπίζομεν
Old Latin: Nos autem putabamus
The Old Latin verb putabamus could only have been translated from the ambiguous Aramaic verb סברין for if it had been translated from the Greek verb ἠλπίζομεν then certainly the Latin verb would have been sperare.
John 1:13
“The one… was born”
Old Syriac: אילין אתילד
Greek: ἐγεννήθησαν
Old Latin: Qui… natus est.
The singular relative in the Latin is almost certainly a result of the singular verb in the Old Syriac (c).
The Old Latin Version of the Gospels has its source in an Aramaic source closely related to the Old Syriac (perhaps a representative of the Old Syriac version) though the various surviving witnesses all show signs of revision toward the Greek. The Latin Vulgate is a revision of the Old Latin Version toward better agreement with the Greek text.
The Ancient Armenian version was also clearly translated from an Aramaic Western type source text as well. In Matthew 19:24 the Aramaic word GAMLA is ambiguous and can mean either “large rope” or “camel”. In this case it makes much more sense that GAMLA is intended to mean “large rope” (a large rope cannot go through the eye of a needle) than a “camel” as it is understood in the Greek and Latin versions. However the Armenian version translates this word with an Armenian word which can only mean “rope”. Also in Luke 24:32 the Armenian version has “were not our hearts heavy” in agreement with the Aramaic (Old Syriac and Peshitta versions)
against the Greek.
Another fact which points to the originality of the Western type of text in general is its early, widespread distribution. The Western type of text was used in the earliest centuries in Europe and Africa (the Old Latin), in Egypt, Syria and Assyria (Old Syriac), in Eastern Europe (The Armenian and Georgian Versions). In these early centuries the only other version was the Alexandrian Version which existed only in Greek and which was restricted to the area of Alexandria.
Matthew Black states, that “Semitisms” are “a special feature of the text of [Codex] D”. In fact in an extensive study of the occurrence of Semitisms in the Book of Acts, Max Wilcox found something very amazing, something which he viewed as a “textual problem”. He found that Codex D (and the Greek Western text in general) was far more replete with Semitisms than any of the other Greek texts:
…there is the textual problem of Acts. In this connection we may recall that in no inconsiderable number of places, where the evidence indicated or suggested Semitism, that evidence was not found in all the manuscripts, but was confined to one manuscript or group of manuscripts, frequently D (and its allies).
(Semitisms of the Book of Acts; Max Wilcox; 1965; p. 185)
We have seen above that the Old Latin and Armenian versions show signs of having been translated from an Aramaic source text of the Western text type. I can give many more examples to demonstrate that this is also true of the Greek Western Text.
The various witnesses to the Western Type of text are a major clue for the Scripture Restoration Project and the Restoration of the original text of the Scriptures.