Dr. J. D. “Doc” Watson

As is known by anyone even remotely familiar with textual issues of the New Testament and Greek manuscripts, “uncials” (also called “majuscules”) are manuscripts written in all capital letters with no accent marks, punctuation marks, or spaces between letters. For example, “grace and peace” (charis kai eirēnē) is ΧΑΡΙΣΚΑΙΕΙΡΗΝΗ. “Cursives” (also called “miniscules”) were written in normal longhand (“cursive”) and would be similar to this: χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη.

A third source of Greek witness of the New Testament is found in the “Lectionaries.” “Lection” (also called “Lesson”) comes from a Latin root (lēctiō) that means “to read” and refers to a reading from Scripture. One way to describe Lectionaries is “church service books.” They were copies of portions of Scripture that were read in the churches, most of which were uncials (6^th–9^th century) while others were cursives (roughly 9^th century onward). The majority of the Lectionaries are taken from the Gospels (dubbed Evangelistaria, “Evangelists”) and the rest from Acts and the Epistles (Praxapostolos, “Practice of the Apostles”).

It is significant that for a long time Lectionaries were undervalued as witnesses of the New Testament text. After all, they are only copies of the text, not the text itself, right? This devaluation, however, is not at all surprising since they are predominantly Byzantine and support the Traditional Text, not the Critical Text of Westcott and Hort, the “sacred cow” of modern text criticism.

It is also very telling when we observe that one of today’s so-called “experts” on the textual/translation issue never even mentions the Lectionaries in his 2009 book, a book that is lauded by many endorsers as being “thoroughly researched” and “balanced” (despite several glaring errors and obvious bias). [1] We concur with David Otis Fuller’s rebuke of such neglect: “In view of the great antiquity and peculiar nature of the lectionary system such neglect and ignorance are inexcusable.” [2] Is such strong reproof justifiable? It is, indeed, because, in contrast, a truly classic scholarly work, A General Introduction to the Bible by Norman Geisler and William Nix—which has been around since 1968 and expanded in 1986—states that “it is generally recognized that the discovery of the nonbiblical papyri [including Lectionaries] has cast a flood of light on the understanding of the New Testament.” [3]

That statement is important for several reasons. First, the more than 2,400 Lectionaries that exist cover every verse of the New Testament many times over, with the exception of Revelation and parts of Acts. Yes, they are only copies, but their sheer mass attests to an earlier text on which they are based. Second, as mentioned above, they are predominantly Byzantine, which lends great support to a text-type critics have maligned for decades by demonstrating that Byzantine readings are older than previously thought. Third, as we will see, they also strongly support Scripture passages that have been denied as authentic, such as the much-attacked passages Mark 6:9–20 and John 7:53—8:11. Fourth, that statement comes from scholars who, while viewing the Critical Text as superior because the “Alexandrian text is the better family because of age and absence of harmonization of readings” [4] (although we disagree), are still honest enough to admit the data concerning Lectionaries.

Now, it should be noted for the sake of honesty, that the same authors want to make it known “that the lectionaries are only of secondary value in establishing the New Testament text.” [5] While that is certainly true, we will see nonetheless that “secondary” does not mean irrelevant, insignificant, or ineffectual. They do, in fact, “constitute a most valuable source of true information and evidence.” [6]

That brings us to a key figure in the historic debate, John William Burgon (1813–88). A contemporary of Westcott and Hort, Burgon was a brilliant scholar who did more to expose and refute their Critical Text than anyone since. Much of his writings still remain unanswered (and unanswerable) today by Critical Text supporters. In fact, Burgon’s contemporaries themselves made no attempt to answer him—is that honest scholarship? As Edward Freer Hills (1912–81), also a brilliant scholar with a PhD in text criticism from Harvard, wrote, “Because of his learned defense of the Traditional New Testament Text [Burgon] has been held up to ridicule in most of the handbooks on New Testament textual criticism; but his arguments have never been refuted.” [7] Hills himself has been similarly ridiculed and marginalized. We ask again, Is that honest scholarship, or even Christian charity?

We introduce Burgon here because of what he wrote about the Lectionaries. In the second of his two masterpieces, The Revision Revised, he wrote:

The security which the Text of the New Testament enjoys is altogether unique and extraordinary. To specify one single consideration, which has never yet attracted nearly the amount of attention it deserves,—“Lectionaries” abound, which establish the Text which has been publicly read in the churches of the East, from at least A.D. 400 until the time of the invention of printing. [8]

That, too, is an important statement. While the two most revered manuscripts in the Critical Text Theory, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (which, by the way, disagree with each other thousands of times) are considered the best because they are “the oldest” (4^th century), many Lectionaries are from the same era and some even before. In his first masterwork, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark, Burgon writes still another extremely important, even monumental, statement by emphasizing the historical neglect of this study and pointing out that when “rightly understood” the Lectionaries are:

altogether decisive of the question at issue. And why? Because it is not the testimony rendered by a solitary Father or by a solitary MS [manuscript]; no, nor even the testimony yielded by a single Church, or by a single family of MSS [manuscripts]. But it is the united testimony of all the Churches. And so, it comes to us like the voice of many waters.  . . . That lessons from the New Testament were publicly read in the assemblies of the faithful according to a definite scheme, and on an established system, at least as early as the fourth century,—has been shown to be a plain historical fact. [9]

Did you note the statement “the united testimony of all the Churches”? Here is the true strength of the Lectionaries. They reflect the text always recognized by the Church as the true text, “The Traditional Text,” which is perhaps, I would submit, even better referred to as “The Ecclesiastical Text.” [10]

Where, then, did this practice originate? Was the Lectionary System something new and novel? Not at all. As Burgon recounts, the Church simply carried over the practice of public Scripture reading from the Synagogue. As he put it, it was “the faithful handing on to the Christian community of the Lectionary practice of the Synagogue.” [11] First Timothy 4:13 clearly refers to this: “give attendance to [public] reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.” We are still doing this today as we read Scripture passages in our worship services.

If I may interject a sidebar here, public reading should entail the most beautiful of translations, namely, a Bible of the Renaissance and the Reformation, not one couched in the flat, careless, sometimes even sloppy, vernacular of the day. If I may further submit, how can there be unity in such public reading when there are multiple translations among the worshipers? Is that really doing “all things . . . decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40).

Let us turn now to a few representative examples of the considerable contribution of the Lectionaries.

First, consider a long-debated phrase in 1 Timothy 3:16: God was manifest in the flesh (1526 Tyndale Bible, 1587 Geneva Bible, 1611 KJV), which in virtually all modern translations reads, “who” or “He” instead of God, following the Critical Text. While I have written a much more detailed article on this debate, I must be brief here. Because of the labor involved in copying uncials, a common practice was to abbreviate the name of God using only the first and last letter and a line above them to indicate such a contraction. Therefore:

In contrast, without the line above the uncial letters, the meaning is changed to “who.” The reason for this is that in lowercase, “who” is ὃς (hos)—the little apostrophe makes a big difference, adding the aspirate “h.” This was not written in the uncial form, however, and so would just be ΟΣ. The little line inside the letter and the line above the two letters was the only way to differentiate God from “who.” This is made even worse in some manuscripts that read “which,” the Greek ὃ (ho). Here then is the phrase (Theos ephanērōthe en sarki) in both uncial versions:

While I cover the grammar problems and other issues in the full article, all that is needed here is a summary of the manuscript evidence. Only six manuscripts in all read hos, not one of which is a cursive, and only three Lectionaries. So why is this reading retained? Because of the popular (though illogical) myth that “the oldest manuscripts are the best.” In fact, it is utterly shocking to read commentators who say, “The word ‘God’ is not in most manuscripts,” because that is demonstrably false! The undeniable fact is that most manuscripts read Theos (God). There are three uncials (including the disputed Alexandrinus), 252 out of 254 cursives, and 29 out of 32 Lectionaries. [12] We can also mention in passing that while hos (“who”) is attested to “not for certain by a single Greek Father,” [13] some 20 Greek fathers confirm Theos. So, as Burgon notes, “The universal consent of the Lectionaries proves that [Theos] has been read in all the assemblies of the faithful from the IVth or Vth century of our era.” [14] There is absolutely no ambiguity here—modern translations are patently wrong because their Greek text is wrong.

Second, Mark 16:9–20 has been a battleground for centuries, even though it never should have been. While I have also written at more length on this (both the internal and external evidence), a summary is again all that is needed for our purposes here. It is beyond any doubt whatsoever that this passage stood through the centuries as being unquestionably genuine until rationalistic text criticism (“the logic of unbelief,” as Hills put it [15]) raised its ugly head. Not only does the vast majority of Greek manuscripts include it (about 1,800), but many ancient versions of the Bible (e.g., Peshitto Syriac) and 19 early church fathers (AD 100–500) support it. As for the Lectionaries, Burgon wrote what needs to be shouted from the rooftops nowadays: “[Their witness] to the genuineness of these Verses, though it has been generally overlooked, is the most important of any.” [16] Why? As he closes his lengthy chapter on this, he writes:

With even a deepened conviction that in its essential structure, the Lectionary of the Eastern Church must be of truly primitive antiquity: indeed that many of its leading provisions must date back almost,—nay  quite,—to the Apostolic age. . . . Into this Lectionary then,—so universal in its extent, so consistent in its witness, so Apostolic in its antiquity,—“the  Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark” from the very first are found to have won for themselves not only an entrance, a lodgment, an established place; but, the place of highest honour,—an audience on two of the Church’s chiefest Festivals. . . . All the Twelve Verses in dispute are found in every known copy of the venerable Lectionary of the East. . . . To suppose that a portion of Scripture singled out for such extraordinary honour by the Church universal is a spurious addition to the Gospel, is purely irrational; is simply monstrous. [17]

There is again no ambiguity; modern translations are clearly wrong because their Greek text is wrong—period.

Third, John 7:53—8:11 (dubbed the pericope de adultera; i.e., the woman taken in adultery) has been another needless battleground. I have also addressed this in more detail elsewhere, but to cut to the real heart of this issue, the historical record leaves little doubt that this passage was actually deliberately removed from various manuscripts (not inserted, as critics insist) simply because it offended many Christians. It was felt that the incident would foster immorality because of Jesus’ seeming tolerance of sin. Augustine (354–430) himself, in fact, testified that among the manuscripts known to him, this story had been removed on the moral grounds that adultery should be dealt with severely, forgiven only (if at all) after harsh penance. Does it make sense that if adultery was such a heinous sin that a story so contrary to that idea was actually inserted from some non-canonical source, such as the conjecture that it was oral tradition? Does it not make far more sense that this story was deleted, not inserted?

Turning to the manuscript evidence, there is once again no doubt of its authenticity (regardless of the footnotes in today’s Study Bibles). The passage appears first in Codex D (Bezae, 5^th century), in several other uncials and cursives throughout the 8^th, 9^th, and 10^th centuries, many of the ancient versions (4^th and 5^th century), the Didascalia (Teaching of the Twelve, 3^rd century), and Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (4^th century) based on the Greek evidence. [18] As for the Lectionaries, Burgon reports:

That by the very construction of her Lectionary, the Church in her corporate capacity and official character has solemnly recognized the narrative in question as an integral part of St. John’s Gospel, and as standing in its traditional place, from an exceedingly remote time. [19]

Fourth, we see the same Lectionary evidence for many other verses. In Matthew 6:13, modern translations arrogantly omit, or place in brackets, the very words of our Lord Himself, For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. But not only are they found in several uncials and many cursives, but also in the Didache (2^nd century) and again in the majority of Lectionaries. Minus the Didache, the same is true of: As it is written in the prophets (Mk. 1:2); who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit (Rom. 8:1); and Why callest thou me good? not the modern “Why do you ask me about what is good?” (Matt. 19:16).

We could go deeper into the fray, but this should sufficiently demonstrate the importance of the neglected Lectionaries, which again reflect “the united testimony of all the Churches,” The Ecclesiastical Text, the true text recognized by the Church through the ages. Despite such unimpeachable evidence, however, modern Bibles are “rich in omissions,” [20] which compels us to ask what few are asking nowadays about these issues: How has all this confusion furthered God’s Word, and how have God’s people been edified by it? It is tragic indeed that rationalism has won out over revelation, that “the logic of unbelief” has trumped “the logic of faith,” [21] that man’s partisan preference has nullified God’s providential preservation. [22]

NOTES

[1] James White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Bethany House Publishers, 2009).

[2] David Otis Fuller, True or False? The Westcott-Hort Textual Theory Examined (Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1972, 1983; Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, 1990), 264.

[3] Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix A General Introduction to the Bible, Revised and Expanded (Moody Press, 1986), 418.

[4] Geisler and Nix, 480.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Edward Miller, A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: George Bell and Sons, 1886), 111.

[7] Edward F. Hills, Text and Time: The Providential Preservation of Holy Scripture (Reedsburg, WI: Kept Pure Press, 2024), 244. Originally published as The King James Version Defended (Des Moines, IA: Christian Research Press, 1956, 1984), 139.

[8] John William Burgon, The Revision Revised (Paradise, PA: Conservative Classic, reprint of the original 1883 edition), 11.

[9] John William Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark (London: James Parker and Company 1871), 191, 207 (Burgon’s emphasis). Burgon’s work is also masterfully condensed in David Otis Fuller (Ed.), Counterfeit or Genuine: Mark 16? John 8? (Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975, 1990).

[10] “The Ecclesiastical Text” was the preferred term of the late Dr. Theodore P. Letis (1951–2005), who earned his PhD in Ecclesiastical History at the University of Edinburgh. See his book, The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority, and the Popular Mind (Ithaca, NY: Just and Sinner Publishers, 2018; originally published by The Institute for Renaissance and Reformation Biblical Studies, 1997).

[11] Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses, 192 (Burgon’s emphasis).

[12] Burgon, The Revision Revised, 495.

[13] Burgon, The Revision Revised, 496 (emphasis his).

[14] Burgon, The Revision Revised, 101.

[15] Hills, Text and Time, 372–73 (see also 158–59, 201–02). Original King James Version Defended, 224–25 (see also 86, 113–14). See also Hill’s Believing Bible Study (Des Moines: The Christian Resource Press, 1967, 1991), 55–56.

[16] Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, 211.

[17] Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, 209–210 (Burgon’s emphasis)..

[18] John Burgon, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (London: George Bell and Sons, 1896), 247–49. This material is also reprinted in Counterfeit of Genuine: Mark 16? John 8? (see note 9).

[19] Ibid, 253.

[20] Cited by Hills, Text and Time, 253. Original King James Version Defended, 146.

[21] See note 15.

[22] See Hills’ work on this as noted in note 7.

About the Author: Dr. J. D. “Doc” Watson has been in ministry for 52 years and a student of textual and translation issues for 30 of those. He has served on the board of the Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, authored 18 books, edits the bi-monthly publication Truth On Tough Tests since 2005, and has pastored Grace Bible Church in Meeker, Colorado since 1986, where he resides with his help meet of 52 years.