The History of the Alexandrian Manuscripts (Critical Text)

Many Christians believe that any version of the Bible is acceptable as long as it is a "good translation." Unfortunately, most do not have any idea which manuscripts are behind their Bible version. Modern Bibles are sold under the premise of being translated from the "oldest and best manuscripts." These general statements tell the reader nothing of which manuscripts were used or how reliable they were.

The reader should remember that there are really only two distinct types of Bibles in the world today. Those that are translated from the majority text manuscripts or the "Received Text", and those translated from the "Critical Text." Now that we have examined the reliability of the Received Text, we will begin our study of the Critical Text or Alexandrian manuscript family.

Early Textual Corruptions

Since the earliest days of the church there have existed people who have intentionally altered scribal copies of the Biblical texts. The apostle Paul spoke of such men who were altering the Bible even in his day. He said, "For we are not as many which corrupt the word of God:" (2 Corinthians 2:17a). This intentional corruption of God's Word was happening in Paul's day and continued to happen throughout the early days of church history. Textual expert John Burgon comments:

As soon as inaccuracy had done its baleful work, a spirit of infidelity and of hostility either to the essentials or the details of the new religion must have impelled such as were either imperfect Christians, or no Christians at all, to corrupt the sacred stories. Thus, it appears that errors crept in at the very first commencement of the life of the Church.[1]

Textual corruptions at times were a result of scribal error, but often it was intentional. Burgon quotes the ancient church father Caius, who spoke of the textual corruptions taking place during his time (around 175 AD). Caius is quoted in the following statement:

The Divine Scriptures, these heretics have audaciously corrupted...laying violent hands upon them under pretense of correcting them. That I bring no false accusation, anyone who is disposed may easily convince himself. He has but to collect the copies belonging to these people severally; then, to compare one with another; and he will discover that their discrepancy is extraordinary.

Caius goes on to name the men who were guilty of producing and propagating false copies of Scripture as Theodotus, Asclepiades, Hermophilus, and Apollonides.[2]

It is beyond doubt that textual corruptions occurred very early in church history. Today there are over 8,000 differences between the Received Text and the Critical Text. Over 2,800 words have been removed by the Critical Text.[3] That is more than the number of words found in the entire book of 1 John. Obviously, corruption has occurred in some biblical manuscripts. The important question therefore is "which manuscripts are corrupted?"

Evidence suggests that many of the manuscripts that were produced in Alexandria, Egypt suffered the most corruption. These manuscripts today are known as the Alexandrian family of manuscripts, and they are the textual basis of the modern Critical Text Bibles. These manuscripts use the form of text that originated in Alexandria, Egypt and was used by Origen. The Alexandrian family includes manuscripts like Papyri 46, 47, 66, 75, B, Aleph and around 25 other Greek New Testament manuscripts.

Many of these manuscripts are not in agreement with one another as we shall later see. The two most famous (and most used) Alexandrian family manuscripts are Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. These manuscripts will be studied in depth later in the book.

The Catechetical School of Alexandria

To understand the origins of these corrupt manuscripts, one must begin by understanding the corrupt influences in the city in which many of them were produced. The Catechetical School of Alexandria was established in the second century and was concerned with advanced teaching in theology. Some of its most famous heads and teachers were Pantaenus (190 AD), Clement (190–202 AD), and Origen (202–231 AD).[4]

The school was known for using arguments of the prevailing philosophies of that time and for using the allegorical method of interpreting Scripture.[5] While many liberal theologians will attempt to paint the school as a good influence on the ancient Christin world, even they will admit it was influenced by Gnosticism and heresy. For example, as Schaff defends the school he writes:

In its efforts to reconcile revelation and philosophy it took up, like Philo, many foreign elements, especially of the Platonic stamp, and wandered into speculative views which a later and more orthodox, but more narrow-minded and less productive age condemned as heresies.[6] The reader should note that even the school’s defenders admit that they taught heresy.

Schaff also admits that at least one of the heads of the school, Clement, was indeed a gnostic.[7] Gnosticism is defined in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary as "a heretical movement of the 2nd-century Christian Church, teaching that esoteric knowledge (gnosis) of the supreme divine being enabled the redemption of the human spirit."[8] The basic teaching of Gnosticism is that salvation is through knowledge. Many believe the apostle Paul was confronting Gnosticism in Colossians 2:8 when he said, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

The school at Alexandria was responsible not only for influencing Christianity with heretical teachings, but also for corrupting the Scriptures. The Alexandrian Christians seemed to have a reputation for rejecting New Testament readings which did not make sense to them. John Burgon presents evidence of this from Origen's own Commentary on Matthew:

In this Commentary, Origen, the leading Christian critic of antiquity, gives us an insight into the arbitrary and highly subjective manner in which New Testament textual criticism was carried on at Alexandria about 230 AD. In his comment on Matthew 19:17-21 (Jesus' reply to the rich young man) Origen reasons that Jesus could not have concluded his list of God's commandments with the comprehensive requirement, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." For the reply of the young man was, "All these things have I kept from my youth up," and Jesus evidently accepted this statement as true. But if the young man had loved his neighbor as himself, he would have been perfect, for Paul says that the whole law is summed up in this saying, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." But Jesus answered If thou wilt be perfect etc., implying, that the young man was not yet perfect. Therefore, Origen argued, the commandment, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," could not have been spoken by Jesus on this occasion and was not part of the original text of Matthew. The clause had been added, Origen concluded, by some tasteless scribe.[9]

Origen must have considered himself very important if he felt he could determine that something did not belong in Scripture because it didn't make sense to him. In speaking of the causes of early textual corruption Burgon notes:

Above all, it is to be inferred that licentious and rash editors of Scripture - among whom Origen may certainly be regarded as a prime offender - must have deliberately introduced into their recessions (translations) many an unauthorized and uninspired gloss, and so have given it an extended circulation.[10]

Although Origen is often lifted up as a great church father by many modern theologians, the truth is that he had a more corrupting influence on the church than probably anyone ever has. Origen was in truth, a heretic and is known for teaching many heretical doctrines. For example, Origen said in regards to the false doctrine of infant baptism, "In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants."[11] Origin also believed that baptism was the method by which our sins were redeemed.[12] He did not believe in the bodily resurrection and he believed in universal salvation (the teaching that all, including demons, will be saved).[13] The list of Origin's heretical teachings is long and extensive.

In the famous dispute that arose in Alexandria between Arius and Athanasius (4th century) over the deity of Christ, Origen was called the father of Arianism.[14] Arianism is defined as "A movement in the early church that distinguished the divinity of God the Father from the divinity of Christ by arguing that Jesus was a created being."[15] A modern day equivalent would be the Jehovah's Witness religion. The city of Alexandria is in fact, the cradle of this heretical doctrine.

Origen is also the father of many Catholic doctrines, including purgatory.[16] He also is most likely the reason that the Catholic church uses the Apocrypha. Dr. Moorman comments that, "the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the Catholic Bible may be traced back to Origen's inclusion of these books in his own doctored Greek manuscripts."[17]

One thing is certain: Origen is guilty of changing the Scriptures to suite his own doctrinal positions and opinions. His assertion that "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" should be removed, based on his opinion, is clear evidence of this. Origen also reportedly had a team of scribes whose purpose it was to "correct" the biblical manuscripts.[18]

Brooke Westcott, one of the creators of the modern Critical Text, referred to Origen's alteration of Mark 6:3.[19] There is evidence that Origin altered Luke 2:14 as well in order to rectify what he considered an inconsistency in the Bible.[20]

It cannot be denied that Origen exhibited a corrupting influence on the Scriptures. The Alexandrian family of manuscripts, which were produced under the supervision of Origen or his followers, are not reliable copies of the Word of God. As we shall see in the next chapter, these manuscripts even contradict each other, and are considered unreliable by many textual scholars. Even so, they are the basis of the modern Critical Text. As a result, many Bible translations contain these erroneous readings that attack fundamental Christian doctrine.

[1] John Burgon and Edward Miller, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, (London: MacMillan CO., 1897), 4.

[2] John Burgon, The Revision revised, 323.

[3] David H. Sorenson, Touch not the Unclean Thing, 100-101; quoting David Cloud, Myths about the Modern Bible Versions (Oak Harbor, Wash: Way of Life Literature 1999), 35.

[4] F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 301.

[5] Michael J. Anthony et al., Evangelical Dictionary of Christian Education, (Baker Reference Library, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 111.

[6] Philip Schaff and David Schley Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), 780–781.

[7] Ibid. 783.

[8] Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson, eds., Concise Oxford English Dictionary.

[9] Jack Moorman, Forever Settled: A Survey of the Documents and History of the Bible, 71.

[10] Dean John W. Burgon, The causes of corruption of the New Testament, (Collingswood, New Jersey, The Dean Burgon Society Press). 48.

[11] Origin of Alexandria, Homilies on Leviticus, 8:3.

[12] Ibid, homily 2, 47.

[13] David H. Sorenson, Touch not the Unclean Thing, 98.

[14] Jack Moorman, Forever Settled: A Survey of the Documents and History of the Bible, 91.

[15] John D. Barry et al., eds., “Arianism,” The Lexham Bible Dictionary.

[16] Origin of Alexandria, On First Principles, Book 2, Chapter 11, Sections 6-7 (2.11.6-7).

[17] Jack Moorman, Forever Settled: A Survey of the Documents and History of the Bible, 92.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Origen of Alexandria, Homilies on Luke.