In the sixth iteration of the Textual Confidence Collective, the four TCC members discuss two early church fathers and happily insert both
Irenaeus and Chrysostom as proponents of their “Textual Confidence” view of Scripture (as opposed to the “Textual Absolutism” of those who support either the TR and/or KJV).[i] However, they seem to miss the fact
that these two men were “absolutists” on the variants they
mention. Yes, both Irenaeus and Chrysostom acknowledged a textual variant. So do we.
However, these men did not admit, in concert with the TCC and modern text critics,
that: (1) it is does not matter which reading you choose (Chrysostom, “it is
rather this latter [reading]”) or (2) it does not affect any doctrine
(Irenaeus, “it is loss to wander from the truth, and to imagine that as being
the case which is not”).
Initially, the collectors focused on Irenaeus’s looking
for the old and good copies – setting this up as the same method as the modern
text critics’ talking point about the “oldest and best manuscripts.” In my opinion,
“approved” is likely a better English translation than “best” (which gives a
little different flavor to the statement). Irenaeus writes that 666 is “found in all
the most approved and ancient copies.” This suggests the copies received by the
churches.
The collectors refer to the dissertation “Explicit References to New Testament Variant Readings among Greek and Latin Church Fathers,” by Amy M. Donaldson.[ii] Concerning Irenaeus, Donaldson writes:
Within a century of the composition of the NT, the writings had begun to be widely disseminated enough that discrepancies between the copies required commentary. In his work addressing heresies, Irenaeus makes note of the fact that in some copies of Revelation the number of the beast is 616 rather than 666 (Rev 13:18; §190).[iii] The latter he deems to be the correct reading, based on its presence in the best and oldest copies (ἐν πᾶσι δὲ τοῖς σπουδαίοις καὶ ἀρχαίοις ἀντιγράφοις), the witness of John’s contemporaries, and the logic that the number of the beast would contain three identical digits (since “six” represents apostasy, and three sixes shows the fullness of the beast’s apostasy). Here, we see Irenaeus use a combination of external and internal evidence. His first appeal is to the character of the MSS that read 666. Later in the passage, he follows this up with an explanation of how the variant could have occurred in the inferior copies: a scribe, either intentionally or unintentionally, replaced the character x (60) with i (10).[iv]
According to the TCC, the earliest known discussion of
a variant in the New Testament Greek is this of Irenaeus, which occurs in Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 30.[v] Regarding the text of
Revelation 13:18, Irenaeus argues for one reading (666) against another (616). He
calls 616 an “erroneous and spurious number.” The error causes readers “to
wander from the truth,” and it is “by no means trifling.” He believes it is
essential to have a proper understanding of this passage. He does not attribute
the variant to heretics, necessarily, but allows that it may have been an
honest mistake by the scribes. However, he warns there will be a harsher judgment
for those who may have altered the text intentionally. “[T]here shall be no
light punishment inflicted upon him who either adds or subtracts anything from
the Scripture.” Irenaeus believes the textual variant does matter, that it
affects doctrine, and that both readings cannot be right!
John Chrysostom, in his Homily 18 on Ephesians, mentions a variant in Ephesians 5:14, explaining, “By the sleeper and the dead, he means the man that is in
sin; for he both exhales noisome odors like the dead, and is inactive like one
that is asleep, and like him he sees nothing, but is dreaming, and forming
fancies and illusions. Some indeed read, And you shall touch Christ; but
others, And Christ shall shine upon you; and it is rather this latter. Depart
from sin, and you shall be able to behold Christ. For every one that does ill,
hates the light, and comes not to the light. John 3:20 He therefore that does
it not, comes to the light.”[vi] Notably, Chrysostom quickly dismisses the variant by saying one is the right reading – “you shall
touch Christ” is in some copies, but “And Christ shall shine upon you” is the
correct reading. As Irenaeus, Chrysostom believes the textual variant does
matter, that it affects doctrine, and that both readings cannot be right.
Concerning Chrysostom, Amy Donaldson writes:
At Eph 5:14 (§152), Chrysostom uses for the lemma and discussion the reading “Christ will shine upon you.” As he begins the discussion, he first notes the variant “you will touch Christ” as found in some copies, but then after repeating the lemma, he declares that the text is the latter reading (μᾶλλον δὲ τοῦτο ἐστε). Without further comment on the variant or the basis for his decision, he carries on with the exegesis and does not return to the variant. Similarly, at John 1:28 (§78), Chrysostom merely mentions a variant with limited comment and only in passing. The lemma reads “Bethany”; when coming to this part of the text, he cites this version but then adds that the more correct manuscripts (τῶν ἀντιγράφων ἀκριβέστερον ἔχει) read “Bethabara.” Here, he does include his criterion for determining the better reading: geography. For, Bethany is not beyond the Jordan, as John states, but closer to Jerusalem.
At John 1:28 Chrysostom also believes the textual
variant matters, and that both readings cannot be right.
[In the TCC discussion, Elijah Hixson brings up a third
person, Basil of Caesarea, regarding John 1:18. However, it appears to me that Basil did not discuss variants so much as use two different phrases when discussing John 1:18, “only begotten Son” and “only begotten God” in De Spiritu Sanctu.[vii] Amy Donaldson does not
include any mention of John 1:18 in her anthology of textual variants mentioned
by church fathers.[viii]
Bringing up Irenaeus and Chrysostom as witnesses, the TCC nevertheless avoids witnessing that these two discussed the variant as “absolutists”
– that is, they believed there was a right reading and a wrong reading, and that
they knew which was which!
Irenaeus shows charity toward those “who have done this in simplicity, and without evil intent” but that other “such persons shall
not come forth without loss, because they have led into error both themselves
and those who confided in them. Now, in the first place, it is loss to wander
from the truth, and to imagine that as being the case which is not; then again,
as there shall be no light punishment inflicted upon him who either adds or
subtracts anything from the Scripture, under that such a person must
necessarily fall.” He urges “these men…ought to go back to the true number of
the name, that they be not reckoned among false prophets.” Chrysostom
explicitly and without equivocation states of the two readings he mentions – “it
is rather this latter.” He is absolute. The approach of Irenaeus and Chrysostom blunts the barb and mutes the
message that the Textual Confidence Collective was trying to make.
The discussion of variants by early Christian writers provides an interesting historical resource. This, however, likely will not serve well as grand “proof texts” for whatever slant one has on textual variants.
[ii] Doctoral Dissertation, University of Notre Dame, 2009.
[iii] Revelation 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. (KJV) ωδε η σοφια εστιν ο εχων τον νουν ψηφισατω τον αριθμον του θηριου αριθμος γαρ ανθρωπου εστιν και ο αριθμος αυτου χξς (1894 Scrivener NT).
[iv] Is it not odd that in a dissertation submitted toward a Doctor of Philosophy degree that the author would never cite where in Against Heresies Irenaeus writes about this?
[v] The estimated range of dating of Against Heresies, Book V is AD 175-185.
[vi] Ephesians 5:14 Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. (KJV) διο λεγει εγειραι ο καθευδων και αναστα εκ των νεκρων και επιφαυσει σοι ο χριστος (1894 Scrivener NT).
[vii] The estimated range of dating of De Spiritu Sancto (On the Holy Spirit) is the mid-4th century AD.
[viii] Donaldson examines Basil in regard to Luke 22:36. In addition, she mentions others – such as Didymus, Diodore, Epiphanius, Eusebius, and Origen – regarding discussion of variants.
No comments:
Post a Comment