Bible Query – Early Manuscripts of 2 Peter

November 15, 2009

 

Q: In 2 Pet, what are early New Testament manuscripts we have preserved today?

A: Here are many of them.

p72 Bodmer 7 & 8 Papyrii 1 Peter 1:1-5:14, 2 Peter 1:1-3:18 and Jude 1-25. c.300 A.D. A photograph of part of this manuscript (showing 2 Peter 1:16-2:2) is in The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts p.468. It says the handwriting is written “in a documentary hand.”

p74 (=Bodmer 17) Acts 1:2-5,7-11,13-15,18-19,22-25; 2:2-4; 2:6-3:26; 4:2-6,8-27; 4:29-27:25; 27:27-28:31; James 1:1-6,8-19,21-23,25,27; 2:1-3,5-15; 18-22, 25-26; 3:1,5-6,10-12,14,17-18; 4:8,11-14; 5:1-3,7-9,12-14,19-20; 1 Peter 1:1-2,7-8,13,19-20,25; 2:6-7,11-12,18,24; 3:4-5; 2 Peter 2:21; 3:4,11,16; 1 John 1:1,6; 2:1-2,7,13-14,18-19,25-26; 3:1-2,8,14,19-20; 4:1,6-7,12,16-17;5:3-4,9-10,17; 2 John 1,6-7,13; 3 John 6,12; Jude 3,7,12,18,24 (7th century)

7th century - 1968 - The Text of the New Testament has James 2:4 and 1 Peter 1:12

7th century - 1975 - Aland et al. Third Edition

6th century - 1998 - Aland et al. Fourth Revised Edition

Vaticanus (325-350 A.D.), Sinaiticus (340-350 A.D.), and Alexandrinus (c.450 A.D) have all of 2 Peter.

Bohairic Coptic 3rd/4th century

Sahidic Coptic 3rd/4rth century

Ephraemi Rescriptus 5th century

Palestinian Syriac [Syr Pal] from c.6th century

Peshitta Syriac [Syr P] 411-435 A.D... Over 350 manuscripts.

Philoxenian Syriac 507/508 A.D. Bishop Philoxenus of Mabug

Harclean Syriac [Syr H] 616.A.D Thomas of Harkel

Armenian [Arm] from 5th century

Georgian [Geo] from 5th century

Gothic 493-555 A.D.

 

Q: In 2 Pet, what are the manuscript variations with the Textus Receptus, the basis for the KJV?

A: Jay P. Green, Sr. in the Interlinear Bible records variations in approximately 20 words between the Textus Receptus and the majority text. These are in 15 places. He does not record any additional alternates.

 

Q: In 2 Pet, what are some of the manuscript variations?

A: The book of 2 Peter has a total of 1,099 Greek words in 61 verses. This is the count in both Aland et al. 3rd edition and Aland et al. 4th revised edition, including 5 words in brackets. You can see the text of the 3rd edition on-line at http://www.greekbible.com. 2 Peter has an estimated  word-for-word accuracy of 96.6%, with 37 words in question. These are in 17 verses (24 places). Of these, 19 are single word.

   Below are the variations with the primary choice and the top alternate choice. Aland et al 4th revised edition and 3rd edition), from which this primarily is based, also give a judgment of the degree of certainty per variation. The list below does not include many places where the the evidence for a particular reading is so strong that the alternatives are very unlikely. See the next question for which manuscripts support which variant.

2 Pet 1:1a “Simeon” (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Byzantine Lectionary, Armenian, Georgian) vs. “Simon” (p72, Vaticanus, Sahidic Coptic, Bohairic Coptic, Ethiopic) “Simeon” is the Aramaic form of “Simon”

2 Pet 1:1b “God and” vs. “Lord and” (Sinaiticus, Vulgate, Philoxenian Syriac, Sahidic Coptic) vs. “Lord”

2 Pet 1:2a “God and of our Lord Jesus Christ” vs. “God, our Lord Jesus Christ” (p72 and other manuscripts) (1 word)

2 Pet 1:2b “Jesus (Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Byzantine Lectionary) vs. “Jesus Christ (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Other Byzantine Lectionary, Bohairic Coptic, (Ethiopic), Armenian)

2 Pet 1:3 “through glory and goodness” vs. “via glory and virtue” (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Sahidic Coptic, Bohairic Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian) vs. “by his own glory and goodness” (p72, Vaticanus, Byzantine Lectionary) (4 words)

2 Pet 1:4 (the through/in the world through/in” (Alexandrinus, Vaticanus) vs. “the through/in world through/in” vs. “the through/in the world” (Byzantine Lectionary, Sinaiticus, Sahidic Coptic, Bohairic Coptic, (Ethiopic) ) (2 words)

2 Pet 1:5 “reason but” (p72, Vaticanus, original Ephraemi Rescriptus, Byzantine Lectionary) vs. “reason” (Sinaiticus, 2nd corrector of Ephraemi Rescriptus)

2 Pet 1:10 “be diligent sure” (p72, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Byzantine Lectionary) vs. “be diligent in order that via good works sure” (Sinaiticus, similar to Alexandrinus, Philoxenian Syriac, Sahidic Coptic, Bohairic Coptic, Armenian, (Ethiopic), Georgian) (5 words)

2 Pet 1:17 “my son, my beloved this is” (p72, Vaticanus) vs. “This is my son, the beloved” (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Byzantine Lectionary, Philoxenian Syriac, Bohairic Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian, Augustine, (Sahidic Coptic is unclear here but appears to be this) (5 words)

2 Pet 1:21 “from God” vs. “Holy of God” vs. “from God Holy” (2 words)

2 Pet 2:1 “among the people” (almost all manuscripts) vs. “in the world” (Syriac) so not counted in the totals

2 Pet 2:4 “chains” (p72, Byzantine Lectionary, Bohairic Coptic, Armenian) vs. “pit/cave” (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Sahidic Coptic)

2 Pet 2:6a “Gomorrah, covering with ashes by an overthrow condemned.” vs. “Gomorrah, covering with ashes condemned.”

2 Pet 2:6b “what is going to happen to the ungodly” vs. “intending to live ungodly”

2 Pet 2:11 “charge before [the] Lord.” vs. “charge [the] Lord.”

2 Pet 2:13 “wrong to receive wages” vs. “being about to receive wages”

2 Pet 2:13 “indulgence” (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus Byzantine Lectionary, Bohairic Coptic, Sahidic Coptic, Armenian) vs. “indulgences” (only in p72 and Georgian, so not counted in the totals)

2 Pet 2:13 “deceptions/deceits” vs. “love” vs. “love-feasts”

2 Pet 2:14 “an adulteress” vs. (1 one letter difference. This might be a spelling mistake, as this word is found nowhere else) (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus)

2 Pet 2:15 “son of Bosor” (p72, second corrector Sinaiticus, corrected Alexandrinus (original is illegible) Ephraemi Rescriptus) Byzantine Lectionary, Georgian) vs. “son of Beor” (Vaticanus, Sahidic Coptic, Armenian, Augustine) (Masoretic text and Septuagint both have “Beor” for Numbers 22:5) (Since it is almost certain this should be “Beor", this is not counted in the totals.)

2 Pet 2:18 “just escaping” (p72, 2nd corrector Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Sahidic Coptic, Bohairic Coptic, Ethiopic, Georgian) vs. “indeed escaping” (original Sinaiticus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Byzantine Lectionary, Armenian)

2 Pet 2:20a “our Lord and Savior” (p72, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bohairic Coptic, Sahidic Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian, Pelagius, Augustine) vs. “Lord and our Savior” (Vaticanus, Byzantine Lectionary)

2 Pet 2:20b “turn their back on” vs. “turn from”

2 Pet 3:9 “toward you” (p72, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bohairic Coptic, Armenian, Georgian) vs. “toward us” (Byzantine Lectionary)

2 Pet 3:10 “disappear/dissolved” (Ephraemi Rescriptus) vs. “be burned up” (Alexandrinus, 048, 33, 81(vid) 436 945 1067 Byzantine Lectionary, Bohairic Coptic, Ethiopic, Georgian, Slavonic, Augustine) vs. “discovered/laid bare” (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, K P 424, 1175, 1241, 1739 (txt) 1852, Syriac, Armenian, Origen) vs. “will be discovered/found dissolved” (p72), vs. “will not be found (Sahidic Coptic, Harclean Syriac) (last variant is unlikely)

Sinaiticus

2 Pet 3:11a “indeed” (Vaticanus) vs. “then” (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus 048 Byzantine Lectionary, Bohairic Coptic, Pelagius, Augustine)

2 Pet 3:11b “we” (corrected p72, corrected Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Byzantine Lectionary, Sahidic Coptic (Armenian), Georgian ) vs. “you” (plural) (original Sinaiticus) vs. absent (original p72, p74, Vaticanus)

2 Pet 3:18 “amen” (p72, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Byzantine Lectionary, Sahidic Coptic, Bohairic Coptic, Armenian, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Ethiopic, Slavonic) vs. absent (Vaticanus, Georgian, later manuscripts)

Bibliography for this question: The Greek New Testament Third Edition by Kurt Aland et al., The Greek New Testament Fourth Edition by Kurt Aland et al., Interlinear Greek-English New Testament by George Ricker Berry, the Interlinear Bible by Jay P. Green, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary volume 8, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2nd edition by Bruce M. Metzger, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture by Bart Ehrman, The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts edited by Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett, The Expositor’s Greek Testament edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, and footnotes in the NASB, NIV, NKJV, and NRSV Bible translations. Manuscripts of the Greek Bible : An Introduction to Paleography by Bruce M. Metzger also has interesting information on the characteristics and quality of the copying of each manuscript.

 

Q: In 2 Pet, how do the early manuscripts compare with each other?

A: The table below shows each of the places in question, and the number says which variant is in each manuscript.

 

There is no Lucifer of Cagliari, Italic b, or Italic d, Irenaeus, or Origen

Place

words

p72

Si

A

B

C

Sah

Boh

Vulgate family

Pelag.

Eth

Byz

Arm

Geo

Syr Pal

Syr P

Syr H

Syr Ph

2 Pet 1:1

1

2

1

1

2

-

2

2

 

-

2

1

1

1

-

-

-

-

2 Pet 1:2

1

2

3

3

1

1

-

3

 

-

3

1,3

3

-

4

-

6

6

2 Pet 1:3

4

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

 

-

1

2

1

-

1

-

1

1

2 Pet 1:4

2

5

4

1

1

3

4

4

 

-

(4)

2

3

31

1

-

1

-

2 Pet 1:5

1

1

3

4

1

1

-

-

 

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

3

2

2 Pet 1:10

5

1

2

~2

1

1

2

2

 

-

2

1

2

2

2

-

2

(2)

2 Pet 1:17

5

1

2

2

1

2

2?

2

 

-

2

2

2

2

-

-

2

2

2 Pet 1:21

2

1

3

~3

1

2

3?

(1)

 

-

2

3

1

3

-

-

1

3

2 Pet 2:4

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

1

 

-

-

1

1

1

-

-

1

1

2 Pet 2:6a

1

-

1

1

3

3

1

3

 

-

1

1

1

1

-

-

1

1

2 Pet 2:6b

1

1

2

2

1

2

1

1

 

-

1

2

1

1

-

-

1

1

2 Pet 2:11

1

1

2

4

2

2

4

4

 

-

4

2

-

-

-

-

1

1

2 Pet 2:13a

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

2

 

-

2

2

1

2

-

-

2

(1)

2 Pet 2:13

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

 

-

1

1

1

2

-

-

1

1

2 Pet 2:13b

1

1

1

1

2

1

1?

1

 

-

2

1

1

(2)

-

-

1

2

2 Pet 2:14

1

1

2

2

1

1

-

-

 

-

3

1

-

3

-

-

-

-

2 Pet 2:15

1

1

3

-.

2

1

2

1

 

-

1

1

2

1

-

-

1

2

2 Pet 2:18

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

 

-

1

2

2

1

-

-

1

1

2 Pet 2:20a

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

 

1

(1)

2

1

1

-

-

1

2

2 Pet 2:20b

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Pet 3:9

1

1

3

3

1

1

3

1

 

1

-

2

1

1

-

-

3

3

2 Pet 3:10

1

3

1

4

1

5

2

4

 

7

4

4

1

4

4

-

1/4

1

2 Pet 3:11a

1

2

3

3

1

5

4

3

 

2

-

3

(1)

-

2

-

1

2

2 Pet 3:11b

1

4

1

1

4

1

1

-

 

2

-

1/ 2

1

1

1

1

-

1

2 Pet 3:18

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

 

-

1

1

1

1

1

1

-

1

Place

words

p72

Si

A

B

C

Sah

Boh

Vulgate family

Pelag.

Eth

Byz

Arm

Geo

Syr Pal

Syr P

Syr H

Syr Ph

p72 and Vaticanus have the closest reading in 17 / 23 variants (74%), while p72 and Sinaiticus are only in 5 / 23 places (22%), which is farther than p72 and the Byzantine Lectionary, which agree in 9 / 22 places (41%). Vaticanus and Sinaiticus agree in only 4 / 24 variants (17%). Ignoring the three questionable parts, Sahidic and Bohairic Coptic agree in 10 / 17 variants. The Byzantine and Georgian agree in 9 / 17 places. The Armenian and Georgian agree in 11 / 17 places. The Byzantine and Armenian agree in 9 / 20 places.

   To put all this in perspective, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which have among the worst disagreement here, show disagreement on this variants on 31 words of out 937.