by Joseph P. Farrell, Giza Death Star:
Quite a few people spotted and sent along this story, and I thought it was a very appropriate story to end this year’s blogs and appropriate to the holiday season. My thanks to all of you who spotted it and sent it along. The story concerns the recent discovery of some text, apparently part of the Gospel of St. Matthew’s 12th chapter, that has hitherto been unknown, and just recently rediscovered:
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
A New Chapter Of The Bible Was Found Hidden Inside 1,750-Year-Old Text
Note the following:
In a groundbreaking intersection of technology and ancient history, scholars have uncovered a hidden chapter of the Bible within a 1,750-year-old Syriac manuscript preserved in the Vatican Library. Using ultraviolet (UV) light, researchers revealed traces of erased writing—a palimpsest—buried beneath layers of overwritten text. This painstaking process illuminated an earlier version of scripture, lost to time but now reintroduced to the world.
The manuscript, part of the Syriac translations of the Bible, is more than just a relic. It represents a key moment in Christianity’s history, when scribes worked tirelessly to preserve scripture under challenging conditions. Early Christians relied on Syriac texts to disseminate their teachings across cultural and linguistic boundaries, making this find a window into their lived experiences.
…
The newly unveiled chapter offers an expanded version of Matthew 12, a passage where Jesus and his disciples are criticized for picking grain on the Sabbath. In this version, subtle textual variations bring fresh theological nuances to light, emphasizing compassion and mercy over rigid observance of religious laws. While the core message aligns with established teachings, these differences hint at the dynamic and adaptive nature of early Christian scripture.
One may predict what will inevitably cross people’s minds: is the newly discovered part of the text canonical, or not? That is to say, does it automatically belong in your copy of the Gospel of St. Matthew?
No doubt one may expect that at least some future modern versions will include it, at the minimum as a footnote. For scholars, the question goes much deeper, and with it, the question of canonicity: what is the text type that the newly discovered verses belong to? Do they, indeed, manifest readings types typical of the Syrian text type, as the article seems to suggest? Or do they manifest readings perhaps stemming from other text type that were simply translated or copied into Syriac? It is probably too early for any conclusive answers to be given, and one may rest assured that various articles will appear in arcane journals of biblical studies and textual criticism. Even then, agreement of scholars on this or that reading does not necessarily mean that the text is canonical automatically.
Indeed, for those familiar with the traditional teaching on canonicity, it is rather different from what most American Christians and scholars, particularly those of more “conservative” outlooks, believe, for that traditional teaching is not interested in the “original autographs” of the New Testament books, but rather, much more concerned with authentic copies, and therefore, authentic text types. Once one recognizes this, then the readings of traditional English translations of the New Testament, such as the Catholic Douay-Rheims, or the Authorized King James version, are much closer to that traditional text type than the reconstructed texts of other versions, for the simple reason that those reconstructed readings are based on assumptions of textual transmission and readings vastly at variance with the traditional view, and which readings are reconstructions of scholars based on manuscripts and types of readers that are, once again, vastly different than the standard traditional text. Accordingly, in terms of canonicity and the “micro-canon” (ie, what type of reading is canonical), just because a manuscript contains (or omits) certain verses, or has a different reading than the “normal” one, does not mean it is canonical. For example, in some manuscripts of passages of St. John, a familiar phrase – “only-begotten Son” – is in some manuscripts (not very many) rendered as “only-begotten God.” To a modern mind the difference may seem slight or trivial, but when viewed against the backdrop of ancient theological controversies, the difference of wording is hugely significant and indicative of the beliefs of the people authoring each reading. It is, of course, more complex than this short review can possibly indicate, but I think enough has been said for people to get the general idea.
