Codex Vaticanus Says What?!

Matt 27:49b contains an unusual textual variant that is found in manuscripts 01, 03, 04, 019, 67, 1780, 2586, 2680, 2766.  In at least two of these (1780 and 2766) a later corrector tried to remove the variant reading.  The variant reading is the addition of the following: "αλλος δε λαβων λογχην ενυξεν αυτου την πλευραν και εξηλθεν υδωρ και αιμα"  (67, 1780, 2586, and 2680 have αιμα και υδωρ rather than the reverse). The literal meaning of the Greek is "another took a spear and pierced his side, and out came water and blood" (or blood and water, if you change the order of the words).

We know that Jesus' side was pierced with spear from John 19:34, which states:

ἀλλ᾽ εἷς τῶν στρατιωτῶν λόγχῃ αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν ἔνυξεν καὶ εὐθὺς ἐξῆλθεν αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ

But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

The issue that arises is that in John's account, this takes place after Jesus was already dead, whereas at Matthew 27:49b, the event appears to come right before Jesus dies.  This would create a synoptic problem.

Unfortunately, some King James Version advocates have started to make claims like this (link to start of quotation): "There are really hard readings in Vaticanus, where Jesus didn't die on the cross. He died from a spear in Vaticanus."

It's hard to take this kind of claim seriously.  Even assuming that the variant reading of Matthew 27:49b were original, the text would only seem to imply that Jesus was killed by the spear thrust while on the cross.  Moreover, the blood and water (or water and blood) was an indication that Jesus was already dead when he speared.

Moreover, each of 01, 03, 019, 2680, and 2766 (namely all of the manuscripts that have the variant at Matthew 27:49b and have John 19:34 transcribed in INTF in any form) have "αλλ εις των στρατιωτων λογχη αυτου την πλευραν ενυξεν και εξηλθεν ευθυς αιμα και υδωρ" (or something very similar) at John 19:34.

So, while Vaticanus (aka 01) has an unusual variant at Matthew 27:49b, Vaticanus in John 19:34 affirms that the spear thrust was after Jesus' death.  Indeed, none of the witnesses to this unusual variant alter John 19:34.  Manuscript 04 (Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus) lacks John 18:36–20:25.  Manuscript 67 lacks John 6:65 to 21:25).  I have not determined why 1780 and 2586 are not transcribed at John 19:34.  Both manuscripts are available online. 

Other KJV advocates have made similar claims.  Peter S. Ruckman, "The Scholarship Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Professional Liars?" p. 275 (endnote at p. 438 - caps and italics are Ruckman's): 

Who really "slew" Christ? Com'on? Never mind what some deceived dunce thinks is a "problem" in the AV  text. Who killed Jesus Christ? His death is attributed (by Stephen) to the Jews (Acts 7:52). Simon Peter blames it on the Jews (Acts 3:15). On some level they must have slain him, for Paul says the same thing in 1 Thessalonians 2:15; but fact it, I mean like a full-grown, adult male, the Romans tried Him, the Romans whipped Him, the Romans nailed him, and the Romans stuck the spear in his side after he was dead--INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT SINAITICUS (א) AND VATICANUS (B) have the Roman soldier piercing Christ's side WHILE HE IS STILL ALIVE?[EN12]

(There are those two "great" uncials that White says are "vilified." Go sit on a tack, kid).

[12. Burgon, The Revision Revised, pp. 33-34 and The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, p. 80.]

Rather than address Ruckman's assertions, better to go to his source for this particular matter, Burgon.

Burgon writes (The Revision Revised ..., pp. 33-34):

We shall perhaps be told that, scandalously corrupt as the text of א B C D hereabouts may be, no reason has been shown as yet for suspecting that heretical depravation ever had anything to do with such phenomena. That (we answer) is only because the writings of the early depravers and fabricators of Gospels have universally perished. From the slender relics of their iniquitous performances which have survived to our time, we are sometimes able to lay our finger on a foul blot and to say, 'This came from Tatian's Diatessaron ; and that from Marcion's mutilated recension of the Gospel according to S. Luke.' The piercing of our Saviour's side, transplanted by codices א B C from S. John xix. 34 into S. Matt, xxvii. 49, is an instance of the former, — which it may reasonably create astonishment to find that Drs. Westcott and Hort (alone among Editors) have nevertheless admitted into their text, as equally trustworthy with the last 12 verses of S. Mark's Gospel. But it occasions a stronger sentiment than surprise to discover that this, ' the gravest interpolation yet laid to the charge of B,' — this 'sentence which neither they nor any other competent scholar can possibly believe that the Evangelist ever wrote,' [fn1] — has been actually foisted into the margin of the Revised Version of S. Matthew xxvii. 49. Were not the Revisionists aware that such a disfigurement must prove fatal to their work ? For whose benefit is the information volunteered that ' many ancient authorities ' are thus grossly interpolated ?

[FN1 Scrivener, Plain Introd. p. 472.]

Burgon further writes (The Last Twelve Verses ..., p. 80:

2. To the foregoing must be added the many places where the text of B or of א, or of both, has clearly been interpolated. There does not exist in the whole compass of the New Testament a more monstrous instance of this than is furnished by the transfer of the incident of the piercing of our Redeemer’s side from S. John xix. 24 to S. Matth. xxvii., in Cod. B and Cod. א, where it is introduced at the end of  ver. 49,— in defiance of reason as well as of authority [fn t] “This interpolation” (remarks Mr. Scrivener) “which would represent the Saviour as pierced while yet living, is a good example of the fact that some of our highest authorities may combine in attesting a reading unquestionably false [fn u].”

[FN t "αλλος δε λαβων λογχην ενυξεν αυτου την πλευραν, και εξηλθεν υδωρ και αιμα. Yet B, C, L and א contain this!]

[FN u Coll. of the Cod. Sin., p. xlvii.]

The characterization of the text appearing in Matthew being "transfer" or being "transplanted" is an erroneous characterization, when the same manuscripts maintain John's reading in John.  On the other hand, one can understand why Burgon, agreeing with Scrivener that the reading is "unquestionably false," would be upset that it would be listed in the margin.

Likewise, James Snapp, Jr. wrote:

When Snapp says, "In real life, if the Alexandrian variant in Matthew 27:49 were adopted, you can kiss the doctrine of inerrancy good-bye," one wonders what Snapp is thinking.  Even if it were original, one could easily resolve the apparent conflict without discarding the doctrine of inerrancy.  There are more challenging synoptic problems than this.  

Burgon goes on to write at length on the variant in The Last Twelve Verses... at Appendix (H)(p. 313-18).  I won't reproduce the entirety of the Appendix, but suffice to say that Burgon goes on to mention that Matthaei explains this as possibly an interpolation based on Lectionary practice (TLTV, p. 313). However, Burgon goes on to explain that based on finding a manuscript that has the variant reading in a marginal reading and ascribes it to Tatian, Burgon is convinced and suggests that Tatian's Diatessaron is the source of this parallel corruption.

If Burgon were correct in assigning this corruption to Tatian's harmony of the gospels, known as the Diatessaron, then this is a Syrian reading.  I'm not convinced it was Tatian's harmony that is the source of this issue, but it does seem to be a kind of parallel corruption caused by a lectionary, harmony, or similar source that combined Matthew and John's material and led an early scribe to insert the material, presumably from memory. Metzger's Textual Commentary, p. 59, concurs that it is likely an insertion from memory. On the other hand, Philip W. Comfort's NT Text and Translation Commentary p. 87 thinks the omission in later manuscripts is the result of tampering with the text and suggests that the text should be included, at most with single brackets rather than the double brackets proposed by WH.

It is certainly difficult to explain the reading as being a memory of John 19:34 for reasons that Comfort identifies.  However, that does not rule out the reading as a memory of a gospel harmony or summary for catechetical or liturgical purposes.

*** 

Updated January 19, 2025:

Nick Sayers was kind of enough to send comments regarding this blog post:

Nick wrote: 

I was mentioning that he did die on the cross but not from the effects of the cross but from a stab wound, but I didn't mention that in every place. 

Nick then provided a link to his recent video: (Final) Examining: Cultish - Part 2: Answering KJVO With Wes Huff‬ by Nick Sayers Are We Cultists? 

I offer the following cleaned-up transcription:

1:52:05-43

sometimes it's just these scribes were just bad: having Jesus die from being stabbed in Codex Vaticanus and not dying on the cross -- not dying from you know the crucifixion but dying from being stabbed -- is -- it's bizarre -- it's strange but I don't actually think that the devil was there behind the Scribe. I think the Scribe just made an error, inserted something in there that made that so, and then you're just left with this dumb manuscript that has this dumb reading in it. That's all.

While I appreciate the nuance that Nick is offering here, he's still wrong because Codex Vaticanus does not say that the spear thrust was the cause of death, nor that it was the cause of death to the exclusion of being crucified.  Moreover, even if something accelerated death on the cross, the person was still considered to have been crucified (recall that the thieves' legs were broken to hasten their death).  And we know that Jesus died unusually quickly for a crucified person, even if the variant reading is not original. 

Even if the variant were original, and even assuming that the variant were to be understood as recording an event chronologically in order, Jesus still cries and gives up the ghost in verse 50, thereby surviving for at least a short while.

Recall:

Matthew 27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

Mark 15:37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.

Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Notice that there are some differences amongst these accounts, but they are not contradictions.

More specifically:

Matthew

• Co-crucified Thieves mock (vs. 44)
• Three hours of darkness (vs. 45)
• Jesus quotes Psalm 22 after the darkness (vss. 46-47)
• Vinegar given to Jesus (vs. 48)
• Jesus cries and gives up the ghost (vs. 50)
• Centurion sees Jesus die and the earthquake (vs. 54)
• Joseph requests Jesus' body from Pilate and Pilate commands it (vs. 58)
• (No test of death or request for confirmation of death)

Mark

• Co-crucified Thieves mock (vs. 32) 
• Three hours of darkness (vs. 33)
• Jesus quotes Psalm 22 after the darkness ( vs. 34)
• Vinegar given to Jesus (vs. 36)
• Jesus cries and gives up the ghost (vs. 37)
• Centurion sees Jesus die, no mention of earthquake (vs. 39)
• Joseph requests Jesus' body from Pilate (vs. 43)
• Pilate questions whether Jesus is dead so soon (vs. 44)
• Centurion confirms (vs. 45)

Luke

• Co-crucified malefactors mentioned (vs. 33)
• Vinegar given to Jesus (vs. 36)
• One malefactor mocks, the other believes (vss. 39-43)
• Three hours of darkness (vs. 44)
• Jesus cries "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" and gives up the ghost (vs. 46)
• Centurion sees Jesus die, no mention of earthquake (vs. 46)
• Joseph requests Jesus' body from Pilate (vs. 52) (Pilate's response is not provided, but impliedly request is granted)

John

• Malefactors mentioned (vs. 18)
• Vinegar given to Jesus (vs. 28-30)
• Jesus says "It is finished" and gives up the ghost (vs. 30)
• Pilate orders legs to be broken to make the crucifixion faster (vs. 31)
• Soldier sees Jesus is already dead (vs. 33)
• Soldier pierces Jesus' side (vs. 34)
• Joseph requests Jesus' body from Pilate and Pilate grants (vs. 38)

As you can see, these are not four photocopies of one another.  Was Jesus given/offered vinegar before the darkness or after the darkness?  Pilate's involvement is also differently described in each.  What was the last sound from Jesus' lips? 

I certainly concur with those who say that including the variant at Matthew 27:49b creates a synoptic challenge, but it is no greater than the challenge of the vinegar or of Pilate's involvement.  There are two resolutions:

• Matthew was not recording the spear thrust in chronological order of the overall narrative, but rather as a section on the soldiers' actions (i.e. one soldier offered Jesus vinegar, another speared him).
• John is not implying that spearing took place when the soldiers came to Jesus to break His legs, but instead that the effects of the previous spearing were visible, both water and blood having exuded from the wound.

Likewise, Matthew's account does not mention any posthumous test of death, just that the centurion saw it (link).  Mark mentions that Pilate asked the centurion whether Jesus was already dead and that the centurion confirmed it, but does not describe any further test (link). 

Nick also linked to a second point in the same video.  My cleaned-up transcript of that section reads:

3:06:06-22

If you've got a reading like in Vaticanus that says Jesus died from being stabbed, not that he died from the effects of being on the cross like all the other Bibles say, then that's just wrong.

I reiterate my points above.  Additionally, Vaticanus is not all alone in this reading, as also set forth above.

Nick also pointed to his first video in the response to Cultish:

16:20-43

Now for me, I see Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as just as bad as this. They're old documents but they're very corrupted. Say with Vaticanus, Jesus doesn't die on the cross. He dies by getting a spear in his side: that's how he dies. So - but they don't put that in the modern Bibles do they!

And a second place in the same video:

3:47:32-49

When Vaticanus says that Jesus didn't die on the cross, he died from a spear wound, or he didn't die from the cross, he died from a spear wound, couldn't that be someone putting some sort of bizarre weird thing into the text 

A couple of thoughts:

First, I think Nick is right that no major English translations have adopted the reading in this variant as the main text.  On the other hand, I believe the quotations above demonstrate that the RV mentioned the variant in the margin.  It was something that definitely angered Burgon.

Second, Vaticanus does not say that Jesus didn't die from the cross.

Third, the text itself of the variant is not some "bizarre weird thing" - it is quite similar to what is found in John's gospel.

Nick added: "Burgon would have been annoyed at the footnote because he was saying unnecessary marginal notes in the RV like 616 were causing doubt and not faith."  I think I've addressed this above. 

Nick also raised the good point that Codex Alexandrinus is Byzantine in the gospels, which has led me to remove a sentence from the post above. 

Thanks to Nick for his interaction with the post.

Dust in the Eyes or a Central Issue?

In a recent video (link to video) Pastor Christian McShaffrey quoted Dean Burgon.  McShaffrey suggested that the question "which Textus Receptus," is a distraction from the real issue.

Dean Burgon wrote (link to text of his book): 

Let no one at all events obscure the one question at issue, by asking,—Whether we consider the Textus Receptus infallible? The merit or demerit of the Received Text has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the question. We care nothing about it. Any Text would equally suit our present purpose. Any Text would show the old uncials perpetually at discord among themselves. To raise an irrelevant discussion, at the outset, concerning the Textus Receptus:—to describe the haste with which Erasmus produced the first published edition of the N. T.:—to make sport about the copies which he employed:—all this kind of thing is the proceeding of one who seeks to mislead his readers:—to throw dust into their eyes:—to divert their attention from the problem actually before them:—not—(as we confidently expect when we have to do with such writers as these)—the method of a sincere lover of Truth. To proceed, however.

Dean Burgon says that the unrevisability of the textus receptus is a distraction.  It is a distraction from Dean Burgon's position.  It is not a distraction from a "TR Only" position.  It would only be fair for McShaffrey to piggyback on Burgon's statement if his position was like Burgon's, but is it?  Is McShaffrey open to revisions to the Textus Receptus?  

On top of that the question of "which TR" is not the same as the question "whether we consider the Textus Receptus infallible."  

Dean Burgon was open to revisions to the Textus Receptus.  In fact the next paragraphs of the same work state:

We deem it even axiomatic, that, in every case of doubt or difficulty—supposed or real—our critical method must be the same: namely, after patiently collecting all the available evidence, then, without partiality or prejudice, to adjudicate between the conflicting authorities, and loyally to accept that verdict for which there is clearly the preponderating evidence. The best supported Reading, in other words, must always be held to be the true Reading: and nothing may be rejected from the commonly received Text, except on evidence which shall clearly outweigh the evidence for retaining it. We are glad to know that, so far at least, we once had Bp. Ellicott with us. He announced (in 1870) that the best way of proceeding with the work of Revision is, to make the Textus Receptus the standard,—departing from it only when critical or grammatical considerations show that it is clearly necessary. We ourselves mean no more. Whenever the evidence is about evenly balanced, few it is hoped will deny that the Text which has been in possession for three centuries and a half, and which rests on infinitely better manuscript evidence than that of any ancient work which can be named,—should, for every reason, be let alone.

Burgon had a presumption in favor of the TR, but it was not a conclusive presumption.  A "TR Only" position that has no room for revisions to the textus receptus must identify "which TR" and cannot piggyback on Burgon's claim of distraction.

I am not clear on whether McShaffrey's position is in alignment with Burgon's or not.  He is clearly vexed by the "KJV only" label as evidenced by his article on the topic (link).  Moreover, that same article specifically disavows the idea that the textus receptus was the result of a second work of inspiration (“I suppose that every protestant minister believes his preferred edition of the Greek NT is inspired. If you are asking if I believe in some kind of “second work” of inspiration like the Ruckmanites, I do not.”).  On the other hand, when discussing the categories provided by my friend, James White, in his book "The King James Only Controversy," McShaffrey edited the Group #3 description with a parenthetical in this way: "Group #3: “Textus Receptus Only” – This group believes that the underlying Greek text of the KJV has been supernaturally (note: I would use the word “providentially”) preserved over time." 

If that's McShaffrey's position, it's unclear how he could possibly be able to agree with Burgon that the textus receptus can and should be revised when critical considerations shows that it is clearly necessary. 

Where is the revision work by the "Kept Pure in All Ages Conference" crowd?  Maybe they have been doing some of this work.  It looks more like they are just circling the wagons around what has become (in their minds) an unassailable text.  I hope I'm mistaken about that.

*** Updated August 22, 2022
The question, "which TR," is literally the starting place of any discussion about TR revisions/improvements. I understand that it's popular in TR circles to just dismiss the question as disingenuous - as a mere debate tactic or the like. I recall that such an answer was given to Mark Ward's posing of the question, particularly given his follow up asserting that he had not received an answer.

As for which TR, certainly some TR folks do give an answer. Doug Wilson has argued for the Stephanus 1550. Robert Vaughn seems to prefer Scrivener's 1894, and I seem to recall Truelove sharing Vaugh's preference. I would say that DW is an outlier of TR defenders. Riddle seems to endorse Vaughn's response to the question, which essentially says the answer is Scrivener's 1894.

I would point out that Vaugh states, at fn 15: "For example, I believe there could be changes introduced, but do not believe they can be profitably agreed upon by the aggregate of King James Bible readers. Therefore, leave it alone. "

http://www.jeffriddle.net/.../article-r-l-vaughn-why...

That idea that if changes can't be agreed upon by the aggregate of King James Bible readers then we should "leave it alone," is something I trust Pastor McShaffrey would distance himself from.

Moreover, it seems like that comment that changes could but shouldn't be made is contradictory to the version of providential preservation that I've heard advocated by Truelove and others of the group.

I can appreciate a reluctance to answer the question (from those who are reluctant to answer it), if the answer is going to be "Scrivener's 1894 with minor further revisions," because that answer has no way in principle of distinguishing itself from the NA28, as the NA28 can be considered the TR with minor further revisions (not minor relative to the differences between the TR and DW's TR, but still minor). On the other hand, if the answer is that it must rigidly be Scrivener's 1894 (without any differences), there's simply no way to defend the merits of that position. Likewise, to say that the differences from Scrivener's 1894 must be less than some threshold size or importance is plainly to set up an arbitrary standard for what is minor and what is major.

I also appreciate that there is a gut intuition to say, "the lond ending of Mark is not minor" or "the woman caught in adultery is not minor" or the "Johannine Comma is not minor," or again "the doxology of the Lord's prayer is not minor." On the other hand, considering the length of the New Testament, those truly are minor differences. They may be differences that are important to a particular TR fan, but they are minor differences. Moreover, we would reject (and I hope, dear reader, you are part of the "we" here) the idea that the text we use should simply be whatever the aggregate of KJV readers can agree to. Instead, we ought to do as the Reformers tried to do and seek out and follow the original reading of the text, even if it means making minor revisions to the text we have been using.

Dean John William Burgon vs. Alan Kurschner

Where are the Manuscripts?

In a recent article, Mr. Kurschner challenged Dean Burgon's view of the manuscript ancestry of the so-called Byzantine text. Mr. Kurschner's article appears simply to adopt modern methodologies and claims of the mainstream textual critical movement, and does not significantly interact with Dean Burgon's position.

Mr. Kurschner justifies this lack of substantial interaction by descibing Dean Burgon's views as not having been significantly advanced by "KJVO advocates." This author notes that the world is not divided into KJVO advocates and those who uncritically accept the tenets of modern textual criticism. Others, like the present author, believe that modern textual criticism is fundamentally flawed in certain respects at a presuppositional level, and thus reject many of the claims of modern textual critics.

Mr. Kurschner notes one argument that is advanced to explain why copies of Byzantine text-type manuscripts are not available prior to the earliest known Byzantine text-type manuscript (which is at least a couple of centuries separated from the autographs). The argument that Mr. Kurschner notes is the "worn out" argument.

The "worn out" argument has the following rational basis. It supposes that most scribes would have been able to identify high quality manuscripts and would have selected those manuscripts from which to make copies. The frequent use of these manuscripts would have led to their deterioration, decay, and eventually destruction. Hence, this argument reasons, one would not expect to find very old, very high quality manuscripts - but would instead expect to find mostly old, unused manuscripts.

Mr. Kurschner, doubting this explanation, refers to such manuscripts as "phantom manuscripts." This author will refer to those manuscripts as "valued second generation manuscripts" (VSGM).

Mr. Kurschner raises several questions:

1) Why didn't the church father's quote from the VSGM?

2) How could it be that ALL of the VSGM could perish?

3) If the VSGM wore out through use made by copying, where are all the copies?

Mr. Kurshner supposes that these questions settle the matter contrary to the KJVO position, and, accordingly, concludes that KJVO advocates are forced to retreat to the use of prooftexts to support their position.

Before continuing, this author wishes to make clear that what is being advocated by Thoughts of Francis Turretin is not a KJVO position. Furthermore, this author notes that the issues raised above would pose no obstacle for a presuppositional KVO-ist. If one presupposes that the KJV is uniquely inspired, then one does not need evidentiary support and one will not be swayed by arguments that purport to be evidentiary in nature.

Mr. Kurschner's analysis of the alleged proof texts would be far more value to the Reformed community than the three issues that Mr. Kurshner raised in the article above. The reason why is simple: the issues raised by Mr. Kurschner have reasonable, logical answers.

0) There is more than one explanation for the absence of VSGM. In addition to overuse, climate is one explanation and another is persecution.

1) Mr. Kurshner's argument states that the early Christian writers did not quote from the Byzantine text-type. There are several problems with this assertion.

First, it is hard enough to determine "text-type" from a fragment. It is harder still to determine text-type from reading an epistle or even commentary that may quote Scripture without rigid punctuation rules, or may paraphrase Scripture.

Second, of course, the patristics are not autographs and have their own textual critical associated issues. Determining whether certain patristic writings are authentic is sometimes a prerequisite to determine whether they are accurate, which - in turn - would be a prerequisite to determining the effect of their testimony as to the correct reading.

Third, it's puzzling why Mr. Kurshner emphasizes text-type but overlooks readings. While there may not be Byzantine text-type documents, there are certainly many areas of agreement as to the Byzantine readings.

Fourth, it is unclear whether Mr. Kurshner is asserting that the patristic writers were simply all over the place, or whether Mr. Kurshner supposes that the patristic writers had access to truly superior Greek manuscripts, and quoted from them.

Fifth, viewed narrowly as to the "worn-out" claim, those would be the manuscripts possessed by expert, professional scribes, not bishops who happened to be persuasive writers.

2) As to how all the VGSM could perish: well, very few manuscripts at all have survived from before 5th century. Generally those that do are those that are not documents kept in daily constant use but are documents stored in a relatively arid climate, such as the Nag Hammadi collection or the Dead Sea Scrolls.

3) The third argument is the strongest argument, but the answer is that they are represented in the Byzantine text-form. The argument is not that the copies were all made before the 5th century.

Counter-Argument

We have reason to believe that at least a modicum of textual criticism was practiced among the ancients. We can also reasonably suppose that the Byzantine church had manuscripts that have been lost over time. Those manuscripts may be those from which many Byzantine copies were made, and they may have been selected as models for copying based on their quality in that day.

IF that is so, there is no reason to downplay a fifth century Byzantine text, simply because it is younger than Vaticanus.