Romans Study Overview, Part 3 - Which Greek Manuscripts?

The final major question we must ask is this: which Greek manuscript is being carefully translated like this, and how do we know it’s the oldest?

Thank you for asking!

Of course, the manuscript we want to translate should be the originals. Unfortunately, they are lost to time, so we want to find the oldest, as they are the closest to the original. In order to grasp this, we can perform some immediate proofs to assist us in finding the oldest manuscript to consider:

1)    The letters. First century Greek did not use lower case letters, but capital letters only. If the Concordant Literal Version (or CLV) considers a Greek manuscript in the lower case, then it fails because it is not translating the oldest manuscript.

2)    The iota subscript. Okay, okay, I get it. “What the hell is an iota subscript?” Well, in modern Greek, many writers put a tiny version of the Greek letter “iota” under specific vowels. There is evidence to the fact that this “iota” does not exist in koine Greek at the time the Greek Scriptures were penned, so we will not be considering any manuscript which includes this subscript.

3)    The spacing. Yes, because if things weren’t already dense enough, spacing is not present in the original manuscripts. Instead of words flowing normally, wehavewordssniffingeachothersasseslikethis. It makes this all the more entertaining. For clarifications’ sake, I will be spacing the words throughout this study, but keep in mind that this is not the case in the manuscript we are studying.

4)    The punctuation. Yup, that’s right, folks, no punctuation in the original manuscripts. Go figure!

In considering these options, it becomes apparent that the three oldest manuscripts available are Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Alexandrinus. I will give a brief (but detailed) description of these three codices in a moment, but first I would like to clarify that these three manuscripts are not in perfect agreement with each other. These are copies, not originals.

That may sound disappointing at the outset, but here’s the thing. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are the two oldest manuscripts. Alexandrinus is the youngest of the three, and exists to settle a matter when the two disagree. This is a divine principle established by God in the text (Deut. 19:15, John 8:16-17, 2 Cor. 13:1,) so it should come as no surprise that three ancient texts have reached our modern day. While I will be relying on Alexandrinus for the purpose of settling a conflict between its older siblings, I will very likely not lean on Alexandrinus as the foundation for something. Moreover, I will not make any attempt to prefer Sinaiticus over Vaticanus, or vice versa. To make the broad declaration that one of these three manuscripts deserves highest preference would not suit our desire to be informed.

How do we know which text says what? Obviously, we can study three different fac-similes of these texts, but it would be… inefficient, wouldn’t you say? Is there a tool that can provide us with a quick, easy method to study all three of these texts?

…Yes. And good riddance, because I’m lazy.

The “Concordant Text” is a compilation by the same group that translated the Concordant Literal Version. It combines the three texts (and considers a few other things, as we’ll note in a moment,) and has its own line to note when anything differs. This makes it easy for us, at a glance, to see if any of the passages disagree with each other. In compiling the text into one, A.E. Knoch writes:

“For all practical purposes the text is very pure – perhaps one in thousand letters is open to serious question – which cannot be said with equal truth of any other ancient writing which has come down to us. On all the great truths of Holy Writ there is ample evidence to assure certainty and confidence. The loss in translation has been hundred-fold more than in the transmission of the text.”

Using this method, we can study fact, not interpretation. Using this method, we need not worry about what man thinks of the text, but just… read the text itself. Now, for the sake of contrast, I will be presenting the major differences between what a properly-translated-letter-from-Paul says, as opposed to what the preacher on the pulpit says. That said, we will primarily be enjoying the text as-is. I do not have some deeply-rooted connection to some avenue of Christendom. You can “label” me if you’d like, and I won’t take offense to it, but I am primarily concerned with what the text says, in its context. Whether that aligns me with some broad perspective or not means nothing to me, as any claim I’m making will either a) be expressly stated as my taken-with-a-grain-of-salt opinion, or b) be backed up by these ancient manuscripts, properly translated. Otherwise, there is no reason for any of this to be written.

With that, let me tell you a tad bit about these manuscripts.

Codex Sinaiticus is the most “complete” manuscript we have. Sinaiticus carries the entire New Testament, missing only the end of the book of Mark. It was found in 1844 at a monastery on Mt. Sinai, where some old monks were using ancient (invaluable) manuscripts as fuel for fires. Constantin Tischendorf, an old linguist with a knack for translating and a desire to find the oldest Biblical texts, grabbed these manuscripts over the course of two trips, returning with Codex Sinaiticus and a copy of the Greek Old Testament (called “The Septuagint”) in 1859.

Concerning this Sinaiticus manuscript specifically, there were editors who noted differences between the Sinaiticus text and older readings that they held at that time. On this, Knoch writes in the Intro to the Concordant Greek Text (p. 21) –

“The readings of Sinaiticus are of two classes. First there are the corrections made at the time the manuscript was written or soon afterwards. These are sometimes called the ‘A’ or ‘B’ readings. They are shown in the Concordant Version as s*. The second class of corrections are editorial in nature and were made some centuries later. They are sometimes called the ‘C’ readings. The Concordant superlinear gives them as s², s³, s⁴, and s⁵. Very few alterations were made much later and are known as ‘F’ readings s⁶.”

This is a lot of different considerations to be making, but the only editor that Knoch truly takes into consideration is the s² editor, as this editor sought to conform the text to the oldest available evidence that he had at that time. Knoch explains a bit more about him, but I don’t think it’s necessary to recite all of the information he provides. Whenever a major “edit” is included in the Concordant version, brought about by the Sinaiticus editor, we will take it into consideration.

Codex Vaticanus, in contrast, is missing all of Paul’s personal epistles, the last fourth of Hebrews, and Revelation. In order to make up for the lack of Revelation, Knoch and co. utilized another codex, called “Codex Basilianus,” or “Vaticanus 2066,” which isn’t critical information for us now, but will be if we ever study Revelation.

Vaticanus is considered the oldest manuscript, and as such I tend to carry with me a bias toward this older version. I have forced myself to keep the other two manuscripts in consideration, though I generally prefer this manuscript (and yes, I know I stated earlier that it is unwise to consider any one of these manuscripts as the ‘preferred’ rendering. I am not perfect by any means.) In 1889-1890 a copy of this manuscript was made known to everyone, having been (and still) kept in the Vatican Library in Rome. This manuscript is greatly valuable in that the Sinaiticus editor unintentionally aligns most of his edits with the Vaticanus manuscript!

Codex Alexandrinus is the second-largest manuscript, missing most of Matthew, a tad bit of John, and the middle chunk of 2 Corinthians. Codex Alexandrinus is the most popular “ancient” manuscript in that it has always been copied and shared since its insemination, and has been the starting place for many of the newer manuscripts.

These are the three sources that make up the Concordant Version. These are the Scriptures, and the Concordant Version is our settled English version, then, carrying a methodology and a careful attention to detail from the oldest manuscripts, giving us an unmatched quality that no other version can detail. It is still a version, and will be treated as such, but there is so much evidence as to why the Concordant Version translates anything a certain way that we need not worry if we are “being bamboozled.” If we ever get that feeling in the rendering, we can scrutinize these ancient manuscripts to our satisfaction.          

*   *   *

I said earlier that I believe many members of today’s organized religions have faith. That is a fact. Faith in what, I suppose, will only be revealed on Judgment Day, but in the meantime I would like to shine a light on any inconsistencies that these modern doctrines contain, and how they impact the world today.

There is nothing tangible that I am getting out of this. These are going to be my composite notes on these critical, highly-debated documents – free to all. I am not receiving money from this, and in fact I could be working for a solid paycheck in the time I spend writing this, but I don’t. I’ve reached a point where this stuff is too important to ignore. My heart yearns for more members of the Body of Christ to reach their understanding and realization in Him.

I know that this is a big thesis statement, but I think I’m comfortable with such a large project. I don’t know how long it will take, and I plan on taking an entertaining journalistic approach to everything, but it must be made clear that this project has nothing but Christ in mind and is driven by faith the Lord has given me in His Grace. That being said, I hope you enjoy, and we all come to a better understanding of Paul’s original Greek Scripture.

- GerudoKing