Wordservice.org
 Home

MATTHEW 13:40 AND NESTLE-ALAND

    The Government
of God

Matthew 13:40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this age.

     The word "this" is without question in the Greek text of this sentence. It is in the ancient Byzantine texts that were used by all peoples in the Eastern and Western Roman Empire. These texts represent 90% of all ancient Greek Bible manuscripts and as such are the basis of the Majority text "master copies" made since the reformation in the 15th century. In the late 19th century two men named Westcott and Hort who were not only unbelievers but Darwinists and spiritualists approached Bible translation committee's about the usage of Egyptian manuscripts from Egypt that were older than the Byzantium Greek manuscripts to update "master copies" used  as the basis of Bible translations. These men and their idea were totally rejected by all scholars of the day who worked in this area. They however on their own went about making their own master copy based on these Alexandrian type Greek (Coptic) manuscripts that in total along with other variant Greek manuscripts only represent 10% of all ancient Greek Bible manuscripts. This Alexandrian Greek was only used in Egypt which was the epicenter of Gnosticism in the days they were written. The manuscripts, at the time of their discovery's were older than any other ancient manuscripts. The main reason for their age? Very simply they were so corrupt that no one had been using them to make other copies with. The Codex Vaticanus just sat around in the Vatican library never used as a basis for any of the Roman Catholic Bibles and the Codex Sinaiticus was found in a trash can of a middle eastern church. It was the same story, an ancient manuscript in great condition because of it's lack of use due to obvious corruption. If these and the other couple of ancient Coptic manuscripts had not been full of obvious errors they would have been worn out due to the many copyists using them to make additional copies down through the centuries. Hence, they would not have survived to be the "oldest" manuscripts available. These two men started the modern "progressive" "science" of textual criticism that in and of itself, if it was really scientific,  would have nothing wrong with it. However the methodology of what is rejected and accepted is anything but scientific and often looks more like an effort to use corrupt ancient manuscripts to discredit the scripture.

     As the story progressed into the 20th century these men and their work become totally discredited. So much so that those who build on it publically denounce Wescott\Hort and their work but privately admit that their new master copies are built on the work of Wescott\Hort. This is where Nestle\Aland come into the picture. They are the latest team to build on Wescott\Hort's original work. The strange twist to all of this is that the vast majority of modern Bibles use these groups of  Egyptian manuscripts and the work of these men and those who worked on those "master copies" in between Wescott\Hort- Nestle\Aland. They don't really dare to translate Bibles based on the Egyptian manuscripts because they are so different. They do however fill the footnotes with comments based on their suppositions' that sound ok to the uninformed but are in fact so unscientific and biased as to be ridiculous. "If this is true" some would rightly ask "then why is their work the basis for all the new Bibles like the NIV?" One word: Marketing. And what a campaign I might add. From Wikipedia to major denominational websites, all seem to tow the line. Come on, Zondervan is owned by News Corp.  One has to search hard and deep to find a fair account on either side of the debate about the other.

     Here is one more thing about the Egyptian manuscripts:  Most of the errors are omissions, meaning words and chapters are missing from them that are not missing in any of the Byzantine Greek manuscript that the entire Roman Empire outside of Egypt was using all of those years. Keeping in mind that the other large body of ancient manuscripts, the Latin ones kept and copied by the Roman Catholic church agree to the Byzantine Greek far more than to the Egyptian Greek. The most famous example of this that a majority of Bible reading Christians know about is of the last chapter of the book of Mark. Mark 16:9-20 As stated earlier none of these publishing houses have dared to remove it but add a note that verses 9-20  are not in the oldest available manuscripts and therefore probably added by some scribe at a later date. Lets put this in context though. Mark 16:9-20 is not in the Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus but it is in the other major Egyptian manuscript from the same time period the Alexandrian and it is in  99% of all Greek and Latin manuscripts. Further Mark 16: 9-20 is quoted by all but one of the early Christian writings from the 2nd century on that every scholar looks to in adding credibility to Bible manuscripts. The textual critics along the Wescott\Hort admit to all of this publically yet just believe based on their own feelings about those verses that they were not pend by Mark. There is no controversy surrounding these verses, it has been settled by science that they belong in the Bible. The only reason this author believes any publisher allow the footnotes of textual critics to remain concerning Mark 16:9-20 is because it suits the bias of a large segment of the evangelical and protestant communities. Namely Verses17 -18 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

     Well, that was quite a rabbit trail to get to the subject of the word "this" in Matthew 13:40. In short it is probably the exact same story as above. Two of the three main Egyptian manuscripts may not have the word "this" in that verse and the reason I say that is because the Apostolic Polyglot that used the Vaticanus as it's basis has it in there. Then we get to the thousands of the Byzantine texts and it's probably in 99% of those as witnessed by it's inclusion in the master copies of the Majority text; the same probably true for the Latin texts.  The reason Wescott\Hort and the newer Nestle\Aland master copies would leave the Greek word out? From this authors readings of the criticisms these types of people make about the Greek text my wild guess would be "because it is not in verse 39." The logical answer would then be well maybe if there was a copying error it  was that they didn't include the word "this" in verse 39!" Do you see the point? There is no science in what they are calling science. It's in the Greek texts and it adds specificity to what age Jesus was referring to but it would not be absolutely necessary for it to be there to determined the age in reference as we return to the main article.

© Daniel Martinovich 2013