New King James and Hebrews 3:16

In a footnote in The New King James Version: In the Great Tradition (chapter 10, no. 9), Arthur Farstad, the general editor of the New King James translation, stated:

“Earlier, it was planned to use the majority text as the translation base for the NKJV New Testament. But deeper reflection led us to adhere to the traditional King James text and to reflect the majority text (M) in the notes along with the critical text (NU).”

However, Hebrews 3:16 appears to be a place where the New King James translation followed the majority text rather than the traditional King James text. In that place, the NKJV translation meaning follows the majority text placement of an accent mark and changes a statement to a question. Notice Hebrews 3:16 in these two translations.

• AKJV: For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.
• NKJV: For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came out of Egypt, led by Moses?

Notice the Greek text in the Textus Receptus tradition. The accent mark is over the epsilon in the last half of the word τινες (some).

• 1519: τινὲς γὰρ ἀκούσαντες παρεπίκραναν, ἀλλ’ οὐ πάντες οἱ ἐξελθόντες ἐξ Αἰγύπτου διὰ μωσεως
• 1550: τινὲς γὰρ ἀκούσαντες παρεπίκραναν, ἀλλ’ οὐ πάντες οἱ ἐξελθόντες ἐξ Αἰγύπτου διὰ Μωσέως.
• 1894: τινὲς γὰρ ἀκούσαντες παρεπίκραναν, ἀλλ’ οὐ πάντες οἱ ἐξελθόντες ἐξ Αἰγύπτου διὰ μωσεως

Now notice the Greek text in the majority and critical texts. The accent mark is over the iota in the first half of the word τινες (who).

• NUBS: τίνες γὰρ ἀκούσαντες παρεπίκραναν; ἀλλ' οὐ πάντες οἱ ἐξελθόντες ἐξ Αἰγύπτου διὰ Μωϋσέως;
• SBLG: τίνες γὰρ ἀκούσαντες παρεπίκραναν; ἀλλ’ οὐ πάντες οἱ ἐξελθόντες ἐξ Αἰγύπτου διὰ Μωϋσέως;
• HFMT: Τίνες γὰρ ἀκούσαντες παρεπίκραναν? ’Αλλ’ οὐ πάντες οἱ ἐξελθόντες ἐξ Αἰγύπτου διὰ Μωϋσέως?

Notice the Hodges-Farstad Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text has the accent that matches the way the NKJV is translated. The TR editions do not.

Hodges-Farstad, Second Edition

Sample TR Editions

1519 Erasmus

1520 Complutensian Polyglot

1550 Stephanus

Scrivener (1877) 1550 Stephanus

[Notice Scrivener changed the accent from what originally appeared in the 1550 Stephanus]

1598 Beza

1633 Elzivir

1707 John Mill

1881/1894 Scrivener

τίνες = who

τινὲς = some

James D. Price, a member of the New King James translation group, explains it this way, admitting that the NKJV does not here follow the Textus Receptus.

“With the accent on the first syllable, the word is the interrogative pronoun ‘who?’ as in the NKJV; with it on the last syllable, the word is the indefinite pronoun ‘some’ as in the KJV. Madden knows that the accent marks were not part of the autographic text nor of the earlier copies of the Greek Bible, including the early copies of the Bibles in the Byzantine tradition. Thus the accent mark on this word is an interpretive addition to the text that is not part of the original. Madden should also know that most of the Bibles in the Byzantine tradition have the accent on the first syllable, not the last. That is the case in the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text, and also in the Robinson-Pierpont text. This is also true in F. H. A. Scrivener’s edition of Stephen’s 1550 text. This means that the majority of Greek speaking churches understood the text the way the NKJV translated it.” James D. Price’s undated “Book Review” of Remarks on the New King James Version by D. K. Madden (Tasmania: D. K. Madden, 1989), p. 6

“However, this seems to be a rare exception, perhaps the only place, where the NKJV translators chose not to follow the minority reading of the Textus Receptus (TR). To the best of my knowledge, in all the other places the NKJV translators followed the TR, even when the TR reading was not supported by the majority of copies, sometimes by a very small number, or by no Greek authority at all. I can’t give the reason for this exception, unless they understood the KJV rendering to be inconsistent with the author’s line of reasoning.” James D. Price’s undated “Book Review” of Remarks on the New King James Version by D. K. Madden (Tasmania: D. K. Madden, 1989), p. 7

Price’s statement is that the NKJV translators usually followed the TR even in cases where the TR reading was the minority reading. (That seems a bit like a “duh” statement – since that’s what they claimed they were going to do.) Nevertheless this is an important admission – even though Price says it might be the only place where they didn’t follow the TR. When some of us KJV defenders make a similar claim, we get pushback like we are quacks and quirks. However, at least on this “rare exception,” James Price, a non-KJVO who worked on the NKJV project (albeit on the OT) agrees with us.

The NKJV Greek-English Interlinear with the Majority Greek text (Edited by Farstad and others, and published by Thomas Nelson, the publisher of the NKJV) shows the NKJV translation matching the Majority Text.

NKJV Greek-English Interlinear New Testament

“The enemies of the NKJV have repeated this false charge seemingly without end, but they have failed to produce any legitimate examples of where the NKJV did not accurately follow the reading of the Textus Receptus. If such discrepancies are found, the NKJV would be corrected in the very next edition.” (The False Witness of G. A. Riplinger’s Death Certificate for the New King James Version, p. 18) 

Yet in James D. Price’s undated “Book Review” of Remarks on the New King James Version by D. K. Madden he admits to a place where there is a discrepancy (and it have never been corrected).

Tertullian, John 5:3-4

John 5:3b-4 ...waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

Though the above text is in the majority of Greek manuscripts, the critical text and many modern translations omit it because it is not in early manuscripts such as א. However, notice that Tertullian, who lived circa AD 155 to 220 (before א), had this text in his Bible, and addressed it in his writing on baptism.

If it seems a novelty for an angel to be present in waters, an example of what was to come to pass has forerun. An angel, by his intervention, was wont to stir the pool at Bethsaida. They who were complaining of ill-health used to watch for him; for whoever had been the first to descend into them, after his washing, ceased to complain.

Tertullian, in De Baptismo (On Baptism, chapter 5)

Quoting another text critic

In the past I have presented quotes that reveal the thinking of modern textual critics. Today’s quote if from Jan Krans (or, Jan Krans-Plaisier). Krans is a text critic and Fellow at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Previously we have noticed Krans’s statement “In practice New Testament textual critics today tend to be Christians themselves, but not always. It does not matter, for the quality of their work does not depend on their faith but on their adherence to academic standards.” This longer quote is an excerpt from the same source of writing, “Why the Textus Receptus Cannot Be Accepted.”

The second position regards the establishment of the correct text of the Greek New Testament—the text closest to what the authors wrote and published—as a purely scholarly endeavour. Textual criticism of the New Testament does not fundamentally differ from that of any other text from Antiquity. The basic task is always clear-cut: charting the entire transmission—everything preserved as manuscripts and other sources—and finding out by means of the best text-critical method available what is oldest and most original. Needless to say the transmission of each text may have had special characteristics which scholars will have to take into account.

An immediate consequence of this position is that in principle the text-critical task is never finished. Methods can be refined and fresh manuscript finds can be made. Readers of the New Testament—just as for instance readers of Plato’s works—will have to live with a degree of uncertainty, even more so since there are cases that the available evidence does not allow for firm conclusions. Regrettably Bible translations and even source text editions more often than not hide even this relatively small degree of doubt from their readers.

Krans here is clear on what some text critics and critical texts defenders hem-haw about. He is adamant that textual criticism is “a purely scholarly endeavour,” and that “the text-critical task is never finished.” He tries to make readers feel good that “a degree of uncertainty” in inherent their process. If you are satisfied with a purely scholarly endeavour that is ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the text, you go for it. It’s not for me. 

Farewell, farewell to all who doubt;
My Savior calls us to come out;
The truth, the truth, shall set me free —
Their scheme is not the thing for me.
(Adapted from words in the song Arkansas by S. P. Barnett)

“neither be ye of doubtful mind.”  Luke 12:29

The order of Philippians 1:16-17

King James Bible:
15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: 16 the one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: 17 but the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. 18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

English Standard Version:
15 Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. 16 The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.

Q. Why does the English Standard Version (ESV) reverse the order of verses 16 and 17 in Philippians chapter 1?

A. The ESV (as well as most modern translations) is following the NA-UBS (CT) texts, which flip-flop the order of verses 16-17 from what is found in the Received Text. The CT follows Codex Vaticanus, while the RT order agrees with the majority of extant texts. 

15 τινὲς μὲν καὶ διὰ φθόνον καὶ ἔριν, τινὲς δὲ καὶ δι᾽ εὐδοκίαν τὸν χριστὸν κηρύσσουσιν

16 οἱ μὲν ἐξ ἐριθείας τὸν χριστὸν καταγγέλλουσιν οὐχ ἁγνῶς οἰόμενοι θλῖψιν ἐγείρειν τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου

17 οἱ δε ἐξ ἀγάπης εἰδότες ὅτι εἰς ἀπολογίαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου κεῖμαι 

↑ Received Text

versus

↓ Critical Text

15 τινὲς μὲν καὶ διὰ φθόνον καὶ ἔριν, τινὲς δὲ καὶ δι᾽ εὐδοκίαν τὸν χριστὸν κηρύσσουσιν.

16 οἱ μὲν ἐξ ἀγάπης, εἰδότες ὅτι εἰς ἀπολογίαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου κεῖμαι,

17 οἱ δὲ ἐξ ἐριθείας τὸν Χριστὸν καταγγέλλουσιν, οὐχ ἁγνῶς, οἰόμενοι θλῖψιν ἐγείρειν τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου.

Here is an example of a defense of the CT/Vaticanus reading from the Contending for the Faith commentary (Charles Baily, editor). “The King James Version follows the Received Text in reversing the order of verses 16 and 17. This change seems to have been made to conform the text to the order of the two classes of preachers mentioned in verse 15; but the change is not supported by the best textual witness, and it is not followed in most translations. The authentic text has a chiastic (crisscross) order; that is, verse 16 discusses what is mentioned in verse 15b, and verse 17 refers to the content of verse 15a (Loh and Nida 23-24).”

How it appears in Vaticanus

In contrast, the Received Text makes more sense. It follows through with the same order of sense and argument in verse 15, then verses 16-17, and then verse 18. Some indeed preach Christ even of (a) envy and strife; and some also of (b) good will: the one preach Christ of (a) contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: but the other of (b) love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in (a) pretence, or (b) in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

The Contending for the Faith commentary’s argument rests on accepting the Vaticanus reading, and making an argument to explain it. My argument is based on accepting the majority reading as found in the Received Text, and making an argument based on that. While I believe the TR/KJV reading is correct, I don’t, however, suppose that Paul’s sentence order alone makes so strong of a case to prefer one reading over the other. Other factors should be included, such as the majority of textual evidence, and faith in God’s providential preservation of his word (versus the modern reconstruction of it from variant choices of corrupted manuscripts).

Dan Wallace on his NKJV work

The following is my transcription of Daniel Wallace’s comments on the New King James Bible in his lecture “Which Translation is Best” (comments on the NKJV start about 18 minutes and 14 seconds in).

“The New King James Version, done in 1982, is a curiosity. Now, I’m going to say some things that are negative about it. But the reason I’m saying this is because I worked on it. I was Arthur Farstad’s assistant for quite some time. He was the senior editor of the New King James Bible, and I did a lot of proofreading and a little bit of editing. And basically, the New King James takes exactly the same Greek and Hebrew texts as the King James Bible took, and gives them a modern translation. The kind of translation (they had a lot of scholars, a lot of these scholars worked on some of these other translations), the basic kind of translation that the New King James Version has is along the lines of the New American Standard. It’s not as elegant as the ESV; it’s not quite as rigid as the New American Standard Bible. The problem with it is its textual basis is so bad. Now, it’s not that it is heretical, it’s just -- why use a Bible that in 5000 places isn’t the word of God, when you can use one that is the word of God in those 5000 places? It just makes no sense to me, and yet Christian after Christian loves the New King James Bible and say – ‘Oh, but I just love this translation I know it’s inferior in terms of textual basis, but wherever it’s translated it’s really good.’ Then use an ESV and you have a much better textual basis and you’ve got great notes. It just troubles me that we want these things just because of how it sounds rather than because of the textual basis, on which it’s based. Again, I worked on the New King James Version. In fact, I was kind of the watchdog to make sure the translators were translating from the Textus Receptus. In one or two places they weren’t, they used a modern Greek text and I really nailed these guys. I said, ‘No, that’s not right. You’ve got to do the TR.’ So, not a single one of the translators, not a single one of the editors of the New King James Bible thinks that the Greek text that they translated is the best one available today. Not one of them. And over 100 scholars worked on this. They just wanted to do it so it was in line with the old King James, so, it’s a throwback, it’s a nostalgia thing that I just think we need to get past.” [18:14-20:24]

Next is the transcript provided by BiblicalTraining.org to go with the lesson. From that you can see that the above transcription is a spoken and expanded version of this:

“The New King James version of 1982 is a curiosity. I am going to say some negative things about it and I can say this because I worked on it. This Bible takes the same Greek and Hebrew text as the King James Bible and gives it a modern translation. The basic kind of translation that the New King James Version has is similar to the New American Standard. It isn’t as elegant as the ESV or as rigid as the NASB. The problem with it; its textual basis is so bad. Interestingly, none of the translators involved with the NKJV thought the manuscripts which they used were the best manuscripts to use and over a hundred scholars worked on this translation. They wanted it done in line with the old King James Version. It was a nostalgia thing that we need to get past.”

This material is worth considering because Daniel Wallace, who at the time worked on the NKJV as an assistant to the senior editor Arthur Farstad, relates some of its history and work-in-progress, even pointing out that none of the NKJV translators believed the Greek text basis they were using was really what they should use – and some even tried to use something other than what they were instructed to use. I have previously pointed out that the NKJV and NIV has several translators in common. Wallace indicates that some NKJV translators worked on more than just that one modern translation.

Dan Wallace is obviously very biased against the NKJV, and some of what he says needs to be seasoned with a few grains of salt. The (then) young whippersnapper’s assessment that “I really nailed these guys” trying to use the CT must be judged in light of the product – there are several places where the NKJV translation better matches other modern translations based on the Critical Text than the King James Version based on the Textus Receptus. Some of his “nails” apparently did not hold.

Spirit or Light? Ephesians 5:9

It is to be expected that when we write polemically, we try to put our own position in the best light. Some Bible translations write their text-critical notes to put their position in the best light. While I expect them to believe what they produce, nevertheless it seems that text-critical notes should be aimed more at education than disputation. What am I talking about?

This is often seen in comments on Mark 16:9-20, where it is pointed out that this text is “not in the oldest and best manuscripts.” They most often do not clarify they are only talking about two manuscripts, both of which have quirks at the end of Mark. See, for example, Odd Features at the Ending of Mark in Codex Sinaiticus.

This type of diversion can be seen in the text-critical note on Ephesians 5:9 in the New English Translation (NET) by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. The traditional reading is “Spirit,” while most modern translations have “light” instead

• NET: for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness, and truth—
• KJV: for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;

The Textus Receptus and Critical Texts differ in one word.

• CT: ὁ γὰρ καρπὸς τοῦ φωτὸς ἐν πάσῃ ἀγαθωσύνῃ καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ
• TR: ὁ γὰρ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματος ἐν πάσῃ ἀγαθωσύνῃ καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ

Excerpted from the NET Bible®:

Ephesians 5:9 tc Several mss (P⁴⁶ D² Ψ 1175* 1505 M) have πνεύματος (pneumatos, “Spirit”) instead of φωτός (phōtos, “light”) ... Further, the external evidence for φωτός is quite compelling (P⁴⁹ א A B D* F G P 33 81 1175^c 1739 1881 2464 latt co).

Notice how that, according to the NET, “Several mss” have “Spirit” (6 are listed), but the “external evidence for φωτός is quite compelling” – and over twice as many MSS are listed in support of that reading. This could impress the uninitiated that the majority of manuscripts support the reading φωτός/light. Nevertheless, the majority of extant manuscripts actually support the traditional reading – πνεύματος/Spirit. See, for example, the Majority Text of Robinson-Pierpont, which agrees with the Textus Receptus:

ὁ γὰρ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματος ἐν πάσῃ ἀγαθωσύνῃ καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ —

In my opinion, Critical Text advocates often find their tales in cracks and try to skew the evidence polemically toward their viewpoint rather than educationally pointing out the facts for readers to consider and make a choice. Again, I am not opposed to disputation in polemical fields of discussion. Nevertheless, text-critical notes in Bibles are not the place for such sleight-of-hand magic tricks!

I must work

Q. “Why do modern Bible versions use ‘We’ rather than ‘I’ in John 9:4?”

• KJV: I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
• ESV: We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work.

A. The short answer is because most modern translations are translating based on the NA-UBS Critical Text, which has the third person plural (ημας) instead of the first person singular (εμε) which is in the Textus Receptus. Most modern translations translate that way (we). Generically all do not, such as MEV, NKJV, and WEB, since they are consulting the TR tradition. This is not a TR issue only. The Majority Text also has εμε, and any Majority Text English translation will have the translation “I” as well.

This variant in John 9:4 (I/εμε vs. we/ημας) demonstrates the problem of exempting text criticism from the light of biblical theology. Who is this “we” that “must work the works of him who sent me”? My first inclination, were I thinking “we” is correct, would be that “we” means the Divine Trinity (i.e., Father, Son, and Holy Ghost). However, that interpretation does not fit how Jesus ties that statement together – with “the works of him that sent me.” Also, the singular nominative “I” better matches the singular predicate “me” (though I don’t consider that conclusive in itself). Using the “we” text as his base, Everett F. Harrison says Jesus was “linking the disciples with himself.” (So, to Harrison, “we” is Jesus and his disciples. The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1093) Jesus has just said that the works of God will be displayed in this blind man. The “we” of “Jesus and the disciples” together did not work the work, but rather the “I” of Jesus alone. 

• v. 4 “I must work”
• v. 5 “I am in the world”
• v. 5 “I am the light of the world”
• v. 6 “he had thus spoken”
• v. 6 “he spat on the ground” 
• v. 6 “and [he] made clay of the spittle
• v. 6 “he anointed the eyes of the blind man
• v. 7 “and [he] said”
• v. 11 “A man that is called Jesus…”
• vs. 35-37 “the Son of God…Jesus said…Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.”
• v. 39 “I am come into this world, that they which see not might see”

These disciples, after asking Jesus the question recorded in verse 2, do not again come in sight in this chapter. Jesus is the light of the world who gives this blind man light (sight). “I” represents the theological and contextual fit. “We” does not.

The Tyranny of the Experts

Trust but verify.

(Somewhat related to yesterday’s “Genesis 5, Genesis 11: Primeval Chronology.”) In a recent online discussion, an internet acquaintance argued against the reading of Cainan in Luke 3:36. He emphasized Bodmer papyrus P75 as the best support for his position, writing:

“P75 of the Bodmer Papyri collection is the earliest copy of the Book of Luke, dating from 175AD to 225AD. It has virtually the entire book of Luke and is the oldest copy of the book of Luke on record. It does NOT have Cainan as mentioned in the KJV of Luke 3:36.”

In doing so, the writer fell prey to the tyranny of the experts. He trusted, but did not verify. Since I was aware that the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts has scans of Greek manuscripts online, I decided to look for P75. I found it there.

A bit of history.

𝔓⁷⁵ (according to the Gregory-Aland numbering)[i] was discovered in the 1950s and was published in 1961 by Victor Martin and Rodolphe Kasser.[ii] Martin and Kasser thought they identified a fragment that contained a few letters of Luke 3:36. They “reconstructed” Luke 3:35-36, conjecturing this would have had “σαλα του αρφαξαδ” (Sala [the son] of Arphaxad) – without the intervening “του καιναν” ([the son] of Cainan).[iii]

The claim of Martin and Kasser made its way into the critical apparatus of the Nestle-Aland Greek Text. Probably from that foundation – which many scholars, researchers, translators, and commentators have and use (Martin and Kasser, not so much) – “Cainan is not in P75” has evolved into a veritable “Christian urban myth.”

“Proving” and promoting an error.

This P75 factoid led Edward D. Andrews, chief translator of the Updated American Standard Version (2022), to bracket the words [the son of Cainan,] in Luke 3:36. This footnote excerpt explains the reasoning.

P⁷⁵ and D do not contain “son of Cainan,” in agreement with Gen. 10:24; Gen. 11:12, 15; 1Ch 1:18. Some manuscripts contain a second “Cainan,” between Arphaxad and Shelah. (Lu 3:35-36; compare Gen 10:24; 11:12; 1Ch 1:18, 24.) Most scholars take this to be a copyist’s error. “Cainan” is not found in this same position in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Samaritan texts, nor the Targums, but it is found in the Greek Septuagint (Alexandrine Manuscript of the fifth century C.E.)...P⁷⁵ is the absolute best Greek NT manuscript, the weightiest of them all. It is for this reason that the Updated American Standard Version has placed [the son of Cainan] in square brackets, which indicates that there is some doubt as to its originality.

The New English Translation (2017) Bible contains this note:

“Luke 3:36 tc It is possible that the name Καϊνάμ (Kainam) should be omitted, since two key mss, P^75vid and D, lack it. But the omission may be a motivated reading: This name is not found in the editions of the Hebrew OT, though it is in the LXX, at Gen 11:12 and 10:24. But the witnesses with this reading (or a variation of it) are substantial: א B L ƒ1 33 (Καϊνάμ), A Θ Ψ 0102 ƒ13 M (Καϊνάν, Kainan). The translation above has adopted the more common spelling ‘Cainan,’ although it is based on the reading Καϊνάμ.” [That is, the NA has Καϊνάμ. The TR has Καϊνὰν. rlv]

In his commentary on the Gospel of Luke (1994), Darrell L. Bock writes,

Καϊνάμ (Cainan)—This name lacks a Hebrew equivalent in the MT. It is, however, present as Καϊνάν in the LXX of Gen. 11:12 and 10:24 and in manuscript A of 1 Chron. 1:18. Most take this as evidence that Luke is using the LXX (Marshall 1978: 165; Schürmann 1969: 201 n. 101). More difficult is the order of names in the LXX, for there Cainan appears as the father of Sala, not his son, as here (Plummer 1896: 104). Plummer regards the name in the LXX text as possibly a late insertion, since it is not attested independently until Augustine. However, he is clear that the LXX addition cannot find its source in Luke, since the order differs. The possibility that Luke had access to a different source containing this name in a different order cannot be excluded. There is good possibility that the name should be omitted in Luke, since 𝔓⁷⁵ and D omit the name here and it reappears in 3:37. If it is omitted, then the eleven groups of seven noted in the translation include Joseph. Again, there is too little evidence to make a clear decision.[iv]

I have read a number of scholars claim Cainan in Luke 3:36 inauthentic based on, primarily, P75. General descriptions of P75 often state concerning Luke that it contains most of the Gospel of Luke 3:18–24:53. However, when I looked at the scan of P75 at Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts site, the actual picture makes the story clearer. In its present state, it provides no witness on verse 36. Even the description of the text at CSNTM is – “Text: Luke 3.18, Luke 3.19, Luke 3.20, Luke 3.21, Luke 3.22, Luke 4.4.”

Two links to P75.

Take a look for yourself:

• Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts
• DVL, Digital Vatican Library

Making sense of it.

The note about P75 placed in Nestle-Aland apparatus really should not even be there, in my opinion. Nevertheless, it should give pause. P^75vid (i.e., videtur) in this context means “it seems to be but is uncertain.” Good reason not to propose this “variant” as certain proof! Some academics, if they took the time to look at P75, must not have wanted to question “the experts.” Maybe they were like me. (And realize, P75 was not readily available for inspection until recent years.) Initially I thought I must be wrong about something. The more I looked, however, I thought “no” mine eyes deceive me not. I felt better when I found that others more knowledgeable than I had concluded the same. Recently Kris Udd, Associate Professor of Biblical Languages and Archaeology of Grace University, has provided a new look at this fragment in “Luke 3:36 in P75 -A Misidentified Fragment?” His conclusion, better attested than that of Martin and Kasser, is that P75 does not preserve any portion of Luke 3:36. Therefore, it cannot be used to prove either the absence or presence of “Cainan” in that verse. Moreover, he shows that more likely the fragment in question comes from the first chapter of Luke instead of the third.

Interestingly, every single English Bible translation at Bible Gateway (about 60) has Cainan in Luke 3:36 (most with the traditional spelling, but a few otherwise, such as Ca-i′nan, Kainan, Keinan). See Luke 3:36 on Bible Gateway. The fact of the matter is that most Bible translations keep “Cainan” in Luke 3:36 because it is in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts. Truth be told, once P75 is removed from equation, contra Cainan, only D (GA 05, Codex Bezae) remains of those I have seen mentioned.

Codex Bezae, in Greek and Latin, does not have “Cainan”

Images,: P75 and Bezae: Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.
Used in accordance with federal fair use doctrine.

In whatsoever manner the “problem” of Cainan in Luke 3:36 is to be resolved, the resolution is not to try to harmonize that verse with Genesis 10:24, Genesis 11:12, 15, and 1 Chronicles 1:18 by removing the name from Luke 3. It belongs there.

Trust but verify.

---

[i] Other names used for identifying this manuscript are Papyrus Bodmer XIV–XV and Hanna Papyrus 1. Currently this manuscript is in the Vatican Library in Vatican City, Rome, Italy.
[ii] Victor Martin and Rodolphe Kasser, Papyrus Bodmer XIV. Évangile de Luc, chap. 3-24, Cologny-Genève: Bibliotheca Bodmeriana, 1961. See, for example “The Bodmer Papyri: An Inventory of ‘P.Bodmer’ Items ,” by Brent Nongbri.
[iii] Martin dated P75 to the early third century, and possibly most often we will see the claim of AD 175 to AD 250. In “Reconsidering the Place of Papyrus Bodmer XIV-XV (𝔓75) in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament” (Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 135, Issue 2, June 2016, pp. 405–437), Brent Nongbri has argued that both “paleographically and codicologically” P75 fits in the fourth-century.
[iv] Darrell L. Bock, Luke: 1:1–9:50, Volume 1, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1994, pp. 358–359.

Heels and Horns and Horses

In October of 2020, James White and Jeff Riddle engaged in a Textus Receptus vs. Critical Text Debate – especially in reference to Mark 16:9-20 and Ephesians 3:9. In the debate White made an admission that keeps coming back to haunt him. Here is a question from Riddle and the answer by White.

Jeff Riddle: “Based on your method, if there were a discovery of ancient documents that most scholars agreed that this makes this the earliest reading, you would be willing to change your position on any text in the New Testament, based on evidence that might be uncovered? Is that correct?”

James White: “Yes!” (listen approximately 1:06:30 to 1:06:52)

When Peter Van Kleeck debated White on September 24, 2022, Van Kleeck pursued this line of questioning. White avoided the implications of the “Yes” answer he gave to Jeff Riddle. He simply refused to answer Peter Van Kleeck. He claimed “facts not in evidence,” asserted “asked and answered,” and otherwise danced around hoping no one would notice his unwillingness and inability to answer. Even in the debate with Riddle, after emphatically answering “Yes,” White later back-pedaled to try to avoid the implications of his answer. 

A short video created by Jeff Riddle – “James White and the Achilles’ Heel of Modern Textual Criticism” – highlights White’s willingness to use the “hypothetical” or “theoretical” implications of new manuscript discoveries when trying to use that argument against Riddle. However, he wants to avoid the implications of new manuscript discoveries when impaled on the horns of his own dilemma – both against Riddle and Van Kleeck. The problem for White is this. The “hypothetical” (or actual) discoveries do not touch the theological position of a settled text. Nevertheless, they (discoveries, whether hypothetical or actual) really throw a monkey wrench in White’s evidentiary position. “Yes,” White said to Riddle, “I would be willing to change my position on any text in the New Testament.” He is hoised with his own petard, whether he realizes it or not. (I think he realizes it, but tries to avoid it with sufficient obfuscating rhetoric.)

A theological bibliology based on what the Bible says about itself is not tossed to and fro by every wind of new discoveries. The evidential bibliology based on manuscript discoveries is necessarily so.

Unfortunately, the “Achilles’ Heel” of modern textual criticism has become the “Trojan Horse” of modern evangelical Christianity. May God expose it for what it is.