FOR THE NEW LITERAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION

  It seems self-evident that, if preserving everything possible of God’s word in a translation, a person must begin with absolutely the best manuscript copy of the original autograph that he can find to translate.

   The New Testament Writings were all written in Koine Greek, the trade language of the Mediterranean area in the first century.   The original books and letters of the Apostles have been preserved in more than 1,700 Greek manuscripts from the first thirteen centuries after the birth of Jesus.

   For roughly the first eighteen centuries after the birth of Jesus, most Christians in the world followed the streams of transmission that came from Asia Minor – the so-called ‘Byzantine’ line of transmission. 

  This makes perfect sense, because the Greek language continued to be used in this area long after it had been abandoned elsewhere in the Roman Empire – for example, in Egypt.  The use of Greek was already seriously deteriorating in Egypt in the first century A.D.

   John Wycliffe’s English Bible, later the King James English Bible, and Martin Luther’s German Bible were all based on manuscripts which flowed from the Byzantine tradition.  The Eastern Orthodox churches still use these Greek manuscripts as the basis for their study of the Bible.

   However, late in the 1800’s two Englishmen, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort convinced much of the Christian academic world in the West that the best manuscripts to follow were two, admittedly old manuscripts that had survived in the dry environment of Egypt – Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

  They insisted on this –

• even though one of these manuscripts was literally taken from a heap of trash that was destined to be burned,
• even though there is ample evidence that the copyists of these manuscripts did not seem to know Greek well,
• even though these manuscripts disagreed with each other just about as much as they disagreed with the Byzantine manuscripts and therefore one or the other of them must have been wrong on these points of disagreement between them,
• even though the use of these manuscripts introduces historical mistakes, geographical mistakes, faulty grammar, spelling errors, serious omissions, and doctrinal aberrations, and
• even though Egypt already in the first century A.D. had become infested with a perversion of the Christian Faith called Gnosticism, which oftentimes affected the wording in copies of the New Testament.

But, these concerns are brushed aside under the mantra ‘Oldest is best’.

   Sadly, the majority of modern scholars still follow the tradition of Westcott and Hort.

  Based on this tradition, the hybrid Greek text that has been used most in translation work in recent history is the NU Greek text.  The N refers to the Greek text developed by Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland; and the U refers to the Greek text produced by the United Bible Society. Most modern translations of the New Testament are based on the product of these two parties or one very similar.  Curiously,  these texts still bear a very strong resemblance to the critical text introduced by Westcott and Hort a century and a half ago, in spite of new discoveries which verify the veracity of the Byzantine text.

   Since the time of Westcott and Hort some western Christian scholars have been working to present the case that the manuscripts of the Byzantine are still the most reliable after all.

   One notable scholar among these is Dr. Wilbur Pickering.  He and others have been collating numerous Byzantine manuscripts and comparing them.  These men are finding that through normal transmission there are several streams of transmission that have slight distinctive characteristics, although showing a high degree of overall agreement. 

   Moreover, he has found abundant evidence that there is one particular stream of transmission that has distinctive, identifiable characteristics that are shared by the vast majority of the Byzantine manuscripts and that are plainly rooted in early copies that had a broad area of circulation across a;; the regions around the Mediterranean Sea.  Dr. Pickering strongly suspects that the wording of the manuscripts from this family of manuscripts is very nearly identical – if not, exactly identical – to the original writings of the Apostles! 

   Because a certain papyrus manuscript (P35) is a prime example of this family type, he identifies this line of transmission as Family 35 (f35).  You will see frequent footnotes regarding this family of manuscripts in the footnotes of the NLET.

   Demonstrating in more detail why f35 is superior to the two old Egyptian manuscripts requires at least another entire book.  Interested parties are welcome to research this matter for themselves.  Indeed, Dr. Pickering has written several books himself about it with copious documentation for his approach and conclusions.

  As you examine the footnotes in this translation, you will see that the NU disagrees on many points with the vast majority of Greek manuscripts and that this translation agrees in most points with the vast majority of manuscripts.  Many of these differences may seem trivial.  However, since we are dealing with a body of material that purports to be inspired by the Holy Spirit of the Triune God, we Christians ought to be concerned about every detail!   And, as you will see, some of these differences are quite serious.

  The following paragraphs come from the discussion of the manuscript evidence specifically for the Greek text of the Gospel of Mark at the end of that Gospel.  It will give you some idea of how this works out for a book of the New Testament.

  The citation of f35 (the family of manuscripts continuing the wording of an early example – namely, minuscule 35) in the footnotes of the Gospel of Mark is based on thirty-five Greek manuscripts – 18, 35, 141, 204, 510, 547, 586, 645, 689, 789, 824, 928, 1023, 1072, 1075, 1133, 1145, 1147, 1199, 1251, 1339, 1435, 1503, 1572, 1628, 1637, 1667, 1705, 2253, 2323, 2382, 2466, 2503, 2554, and 2765 – all of which Dr. Wilbur Pickering collated himself.

   None of them is a ‘perfect’ representative of f35 in Mark, as it stands (an unreasonable expectation, presumably, for a book of this size, besides being a Gospel).  But, 586 is off only by one letter!   And, its exemplar (that is, the manuscript from which the copyist was copying) and those of 35 and 2382, probably are perfect!  And, several other exemplars come close – that of 1628 was off by one variant, those of 510 and 2253 were off by two variants, those of 824, 1435, 1503, and 1637 were off by three, several by four, and so on!

   This refers ONLY to the manuscripts that Dr. Pickering has collated!  In fact, since Dr. Pickering has collated scarcely 10% of the family representatives for this book, there probably ARE better ones out there.  More collation work ought to be done!

   Nonetheless, the uniformity is already VERY impressive!

   Since these MSS come from all over the Mediterranean world (Sinai, Jerusalem, Cyprus, Patmos, Constantinople, Aegean, Tirana, Mt. Athos [six different monasteries!], Corinth, Athens, Grottaferrata, Vatican, etc.) they are certainly representative of the family, giving us the precise family profile.  It is reflected in the Text without exception!

   This family of manuscripts clearly has its roots early in the first centuries after Jesus’ ascension and demonstrates amazingly faithful transmission through to the Middle Ages and beyond!

   The uniformity of these manuscripts confirms our confidence that God has faithfully preserved the Gospel of Mark through the centuries!