Editing the Bible - Assessing the Task Past and Present is a collection of insightful essays edited by John S. Kloppenborg and Judith H. Newman in 2012. Michael Holmes, Klaus Wachtel, Holger Strutwolf, David Trobisch, and Ryan Wettlaufer each contributed a chapter. Some thoughts on each one:
What Text is Being Edited (Michael Holmes)
In 22 pages, Holmes does an excellent job of not answering the question, "How
closely will the next printed compilation made in Muenster resemble the
original text?". After reviewing the approaches of Metzger and
the UBS Committee, and of Robinson and Pierpont, and of the editors of the
Editio Critica Maior (ECM) – not considering his own important SBLGNT
compilation – it is clear that the goal of CBGM-users is going to
be (unless they shift course) an approximation of the archetype - not the
original text as such, and that the points or instability that were seen in
NA27 will not be diminished but increased in NA29. The “Ausgangstext” is
now their target.
As he walks the reader through the steps that some scholars have taken away from the goal of pursuing the reconstruction of the original text, Holmes takes time to defend his own conjectural emendation in First Corinthians 6:5. He also points out the willingness of the current team of NTG editors to adopt a conjectural emendation in Second Peter 3:10. He then raises some additional issues, and while he emphatically disagrees with the confident skepticism of Koester and Petersen, he seems to lean sympathetically toward D.C. Parker’s skepticism regarding modern scholars’ ability to confidently reconstruct a New Testament text that existed before 200 A.D.
A footnote (p. 121) states an interesting admission about the pericope adulterae: “some form of it may have been known to second-century figures such as Papias.” Throughout the essay a generally conservative picture is taken regarding the composition-dates of New Testament books, which will hopefully serve as a reality check to seminary students who have been taught that there is a scholarly consensus that certain books were composed in the 100s.
The Coherence Based Genealogical Method (Klaus Wachtel)
In 15 pages with 10 diagrams, the history of the CBGM is reviewed and its application
to New Testament textual criticism are illustrated by one of its foremost
advocates. For all intents and purposes a new canon has been
created: “Prefer the reading that yields the maximum
parsimony.” Initially developed for evolutionary biology and applied
to part of The Canterbury Tales, CBGM did not have much impact on
the text of the Catholic Epistles in NA28. Wachtel illustrates its
usefulness by focusing on a variant-unit in James 2:3 - one which I described
in my
commentary on the Epistle of James as a “very difficult
contest.” After considering Wachtel’s analysis I still prefer the reading
ἐκεῖ ἢ κάθου ῶδε. (C.B.G.M., as I have insisted previously, is a
nothingburger that is going to make the text of compilations employing it more
unstable, not less.) The Revised local stemma diagram (p. 137) has
a degree of force but it does not take into account the possibility that
variant a (ἢ κάθου ἐκεῖ) arose due to
spontaneous whim of at least two historically unconnected scribes.
Insights on Scribal Practices Based on the CBGM (Holger Strutwolf)
In 21 pages (six of which are filled by full-page diagrams) the recently Festschrifted professor explains the tense complementary relationship between the application of the canons applies in the past and more modern methods, beginning with the assertion that the primary goal of textual criticism is to reconstruct the original text. After acknowledging Royse's research that demonstrated that the scribes of six papyri made omissions twice as frequently as they made additions, Strutwolf doggedly insists (p. 156) that "the traditional rule of lectio brevior is still functioning well." There is a persistent, almost dogmatic, assumption, that the text of the New Testament has grown rather than diminished - despite evidence such as what is acknowledged on p. 145, where GA 2186 is in view: "Nearly all of its singular readings consist of omissions."
Does the textual history as a whole show us,
as Strutwolf asserts, that “in fact the text grew over time”? I do not
grant that after the 300s there was much gradual growth other than minor
expansions made to render the text’s meaning more explicit.
That is, however, a subject for another time.
Strutwolf correctly points out the
importance of proof-readers - but the more the force of his argument weighs
against adopting singular readings, the more it also weighs against adopting
non-existent readings, which the Nestle-Aland NTG 28 did with Strutwolf’s leadership.
The plain picture that the author of this chapter needs to see is that the
Western text developed rapidly, and liturgically motivated accretions arose
only slightly less rapidly in the Byzantine line.
Somewhat frustratingly, Strutwolf seems to affirm
some untenable ideas such as the “tenacity of transmission” while chiming in
for the opposite as well. Some readers may find this balanced, to me it
is symptomatic of indecisiveness.
There appears to be a typographical glitch on p.144, line 2, where “Δ│ησους” appears instead of “Ἰησους.”
The New Testament in Light of Book Publishing in Antiquity (David
Trobisch)
The author of A User’s Guide to the Nestle-Aland 28 Greek New Testament provides nine pages of an informative review of the customs in play in the era when the books of the New Testament were released, and offers some thoughts on what the impact on the text of the New Testament might have been. In keeping with the custom of the Center for Iniquity, Trobisch uses “C.E.” rather than “A.D.” Among the five changes he proposes for future New Testament compilations, he notes the useful division of the New Testament into four units (Gospels, Acts/General Epistles, Pauline corpus, Revelation), endorses the precedent set in the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform of having the General Epistles immediately follow Acts, and recommends the use of nomina sacra contractions (already a feature of my yet-to-be-published Archetype of the Gospels).
Unseen Variants (Ryan Wettlaufer)
Should
conjectural emendations be in the printed text of the New Testament?
In New
Testament Textual Analysis I answered “No,” and the late J. K. Elliott
affirmed (as Wettlaufer acknowledges) that there is no need for it. But
Wettlaufer, agreeing with Holmes, does his best to make a case for doing
exactly that. The reader is certainly in no danger of being infected with
a “Trust the experts” attitude in this chapter since its author opposes Beza,
Greenlee, Elliott and Kilpatrick. Wettlaufer overplays his hand when he
lauds Bart Ehrman’s 1993 The Orthodox
Corruption of Scripture, apparently unaware of, or simply ignoring,
Burgon’s similarly titled chapter XIV in Causes of Corruption. Wettlaufer
is ridiculously and recklessly bold in his statement that “it would not be
irresponsible to assume that almost any reasonable conjecture of James could
deserve serious study.” This chapter serves as an exhibit of the influential
mindset that will keep the NTG unstable for at least its next few iterations.
P.S. That "Iniquity" was intentional. Do not emend it.
