Some Shortcomings of the Nestle-Aland Apparatus

          “It is certain that the original wording is found either in the text or in the apparatus” – the apparatus being the collection of rejected variants found at the foot of the page in the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece.  So wrote Daniel Wallace in 2004.

          The creators of what Wallace has called “the new standard in critical texts of the Greek New Testament” seem to disagree. 

          The textual apparatus in the 27th edition of Novum Testamentum Graece fails to mention the reading that is found in the vast majority of manuscripts on many occasions.  Maurice Robinson, in an essay published as chapter six of Getting Into the Text – New Testament Essays in Honor of David Alan Black , demonstrates the shortcomings of the Nestle-Aland apparatus by listing its non-inclusions of Byzantine readings in sample chapters of the New Testament.  Robinson showed (among other things) that the Nestle-Aland apparatus fails to mention the reading found in the majority of manuscripts four times in Matthew 3, fourteen times in Mark 3, eleven times Luke 3, eight times in Acts 3, and, incredibly, thirty-three times in Mark chapter 9.  Some of the neglected Byzantine readings are mere transpositions, but this does not explain their non-inclusion, for many of the variants included in the Nestle-Aland apparatus are also transpositions.    

          Allow me to offer a few examples of the non-trivial readings in the Byzantine Text which might as well be non-existent to readers who depend solely on the Nestle-Aland compilation.  Why did the same editors who included all sorts of trivial and untranslatable readings leave readers unaware of the following Byzantine readings?

● Matthew 3:11 – the Byzantine text’s non-inclusion of και πυρι (“and fire”)

● Mark 3:5 – the Byzantine Text’s inclusion of ὑγιὴς ὡς ἡ ἄλλη (“as whole as the other”), supported by Codices L, Y, M, et al.

● Mark 3:31 – φωνοῦντες (instead of καλοῦντες), supported by Codices D, K, Π, M, et al.

● Mark 9:3 – the Byzantine Text’s inclusion of ὡς χιὼν (“like snow”), supported by Codices A, D, M, N, et al, and secondarily (as ὡςεί χιὼν) by Codices K, Π, Y, et al.  

● Mark 9:16 – the Byzantine Text’s inclusion of τοὺς γραμματεις (“the scribes,” instead of αὐτους, “them”), supported by Codices A, G, C, N, K, U, Π, M, et al.   

● Mark 9:18 – the Byzantine Text’s inclusion of αὐτου (“his,” instead of non-inclusion) after ὀδόντας, supported by Codices A, K, M, N, U, Θ, Π, et al. 

● Mark 9:24 – the Byzantine Text’s inclusion of Κύριε (“Lord,” instead of non-inclusion), supported by Codices Δ, K, M, N, Π, et al.

● Mark 9:33 – the Byzantine Text’s inclusion of πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς (“among yourselves,” instead of non-inclusion), supported by Codices A, W, K, Π, M, N, Θ, et al.  

● Luke 3:4 – The Byzantine Text’s inclusion of λέγοντος (“saying,” versus non-inclusion), supported by Codices A, C, K, M, N, U, Θ, Λ, Π, Ψ, et al.  

● Luke 3:22 – The Byzantine Text’s inclusion of λέγουσαν (“saying,” versus non-inclusion), supported by Codices A, E, F, H, Γ, Δ, Ψ, Y, K, M, N, S, U, Θ, Π, Λ, et al. 

● Acts 3:26 – The Byzantine Text’s inclusion of Ἰησοῦν (“Jesus,” versus non-inclusion).

● Second Timothy 4:1 – The Byzantine Text’s inclusion of τοῦ Κυρίου (“the Lord,” versus non-inclusion).

          It is bad enough that the Nestle-Aland apparatus routinely hides the testimony of multitudes of manuscripts beneath a single reference-symbol, or siglum (essentially treating all those Greek manuscripts as the equivalents of copies of an early version), while listing Alexandrian and Western witnesses individually.  It is bad enough that the Nestle-Aland apparatus uses some witnesses selectively, citing them when they bolster the testimony of Vaticanus but ignoring them if they disagree with Vaticanus.  So when it is clear that the Nestle-Aland editors’ pro-Alexandrian bias is so severe that they frequently fail to even mention Byzantine readings, who can be blamed if readers conclude that they must look elsewhere if they want an equitable treatment of the evidence?

Wrong.

          In light of the absence of any mention of these Byzantine readings in the Nestle-Aland compilation, how should we regard claims such as James White’s assertion that “Anyone who has these critical texts has all the readings of the manuscripts right there in front of him” and  his claim that “Any reading that is in any of the tradition is found either in the text, or in the footnote”?  As nothing but misinformation spread by the misinformed. 

          This flaw in the Nestle-Aland compilation stands out all the more clearly when one notices that not only does the Nestle-Aland compilation repeatedly completely fail to mention the reading attested by the majority of Greek manuscripts, but its text, in the 28th edition, includes readings that are not found in any Greek manuscripts.  In Acts 16:12, the editors retained the reading that was in the preceding edition:  πρώτη[ς] μερίδος τῆς, which (as Bruce Metzger explained in his Textual Commentary) is not found in any manuscript; a majority of the UBS compilation-committee decided to “adopt the conjecture” made by earlier scholars. 

          The 28th edition of the Nestle-Aland compilation has another conjectural emendation in Second Peter 3:10; the last two words of the verse in NA-28 are οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται (“shall not be found”).  However, while the last word – εὑρεθήσεται – is supported by ﬡ B K P 1739 et al, there is no Greek manuscript support for οὐχ.  Daniel Wallace has argued against this conjectural emendation, and Aaron K. Tresham has written a brief paper against it.  Nevertheless, there it is.

          It may be difficult for some readers to understand the reasoning that simultaneously removes conjectural emendations from the apparatus while adopting them in the text.  Nevertheless, that is the approach that one may fairly expect to influence the Nestle-Aland compilation for decades to come:  a dismissal of the contents of the majority of manuscripts (to the extent that their contents are not even covered in the textual apparatus), in favor of the imaginations of textual critics as a source of Greek readings to be included in the text.

          Daniel Wallace has assured us that “There is no place for conjectural emendation for the NT because of the great wealth, diversity, and age of the materials that we have to work with.”  The Nestle-Aland compilers (secularist David Trobisch among them) obviously disagree (but this does not seem to matter to Wallace, who welcomed NA28 in 2012, calling it “a new standard”), ignoring readings found in the majority of Greek manuscripts while accepting readings that are not found in any Greek manuscripts.  So, what might a future edition of the Greek New Testament look like if such an approach were fully engaged?  I hope to consider that question in more detail in the near future.

Who's Making Your Bible?

David Trobisch

          When the 28th edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece was published in 2012, it was soon followed by A User’s Guide to the Nestle-Aland 28 Greek New Testament, released in September of 2013.  The author of this introduction to NA28 is David Trobisch, who in 2011 became a member of the editorial committee entrusted with the preparation of future editions of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece.  

          Trobisch’s User’s Guide to NA28 has been met with some concerns among evangelicals; Dan Wallace, for example, noted that Trobisch “got some facts wrong,” and recommended the removal of an entire chapter.  I too have some concerns.  

          One might expect all of the compilers of Novum Testamentum Graece to be Christians, since future compilations of this text will likely be the basis for future translations of the New Testament used in Christian congregations.  However, Trobisch is a fellow of The Jesus Project, an undertaking of a group called the Center for Inquiry.  His fellow-members include Frank Zindler (an atheist who is also a Jesus Mythicist, that is, he denies that Jesus ever existed), Paul Kurtz (President of the International Academy of Humanism), James Crossley (an atheist), James Tabor (perhaps best-known for his theory that the Talpiot Tomb is the tomb of Jesus), Robert M. Price (Jesus Seminar member, and also a Jesus Mythicist), and Richard Carrier (another Jesus Mythicist).    

          At the website of the Center for Inquiry, the organization is defined:  “A world-wide movement of humanists, skeptics, freethinkers, and atheists.”  And its members’ mission is plainly stated:  “To foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values.”  The website also states that it is a priority of the Center for Inquiry “to oppose and supplant the mythological narratives of the past, and the dogmas of the present.”  

          Somehow I suspect that the phrase “dogmas of the present” encompasses the historical doctrines of the Christian church.  One of the research-programs of the Center for Inquiry mentioned at the website is the Council for Secular Humanism.  It is rather surprising to learn that a member of that organization, which is clearly dedicated to erode and marginalize the cultural influence of Christianity, is also an advisor for the American Bible Society, and the curator of the Museum of the Bible which is scheduled to open in Washington, D.C. in late 2017.

          An article by David Trobisch appeared in Volume 28 of the secular humanist magazine Free Inquiry (from Dec 2007/Jan 2008).  His article is mentioned on the cover and it is accessible online (via this link).  In that article, Trobisch expresses some unusual interpretations of some parts of the New Testament.  He proposes, for example, that John 21:24 was written with all four Gospels in mind:  “This sentence does not refer to only one author and one manuscript; instead, it talks about “books” in the plural. The reader of John will have just finished reading the fourth account of “things that Jesus did.”  A modern rendition of this sentence may sound like:  “If everything Jesus did was written down, I suppose that the world could not contain all the books that would have to be published.  Four books are plenty!” The last sentence of John does not refer only to the Gospel according to John; it refers to the Gospel collection as a whole.”

           Trobisch also states, “The New Testament was published by Polycarp of Smyrna between 166 and 168 C. E.”  As corroborating evidence, he points to Second Timothy 4:9-20 and proposes that this passage “may contain the names of the publisher and forger of this letter.”  He focuses on the two names in these verses (without mentioning the four names in verse 21) that do not appear elsewhere in the New Testament:  Crescens and Carpus.  The name “Carpus,” Trobisch proposes, “could easily be interpreted as referring to Bishop Polycarp.”  

          He then goes on to propose that the reference to Crescens in Second Timothy 4:9 was added as an acknowledgement of the role of Polycarp’s secretary (mentioned in Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians which introduced the Letters of Ignatius).  “Although this argument cannot carry the burden of proof,” Trobisch concludes, “it is a nice example of corroborating evidence.”

          That theory is not merely weak.  It’s quackery.  And it is not the only highly dubious theory of the origins of New Testament books that Trobisch has promoted.  In a speech delivered in 2015, he referred to the text about Jesus promoted by the second-century heretic Marcion as “the oldest Gospel,” and began his speech with the claim that “Scholars now know of a Gospel-book that is probably older than the Gospels that are part of the New Testament.”  Trobisch also claimed that the author of the Gospel of Luke used Josephus as a source.        

          One can harbor all kinds of unusual beliefs and still be a competent textual critic.  However, Trobisch apparently believes that the Gospel of Luke post-dates the works of Josephus, and that the earliest text of the four canonical Gospels descends from the 150’s-160’s.  That position, it seems to me, is very likely to have an impact on some text-critical decisions, just as different solutions to the Synoptic Problem yield different implications about some textual variants in the Gospels. 

          Trobisch has also written that the opening sentences of Acts refer, not to the closing verses of Luke, but instead to the closing verses of John – implying that the composition of Acts post-dates the collection of the four canonical Gospels.  He has also written, “Historically speaking Paul probably did not heal.”  Trobisch’s doubts about Paul’s healing-miracles might not affect Trobisch’s text-critical work.  But does anyone think that if a textual critic believes, as Trobisch seems to, that Acts was written in the middle of the second century, this will have no impact on his text-critical decisions pertaining to the text of Acts?

          And does anyone think that it does not matter that Trobisch believes (as he has recently written) that “scribes and editors felt free to revise the Greek text during the fourteen centuries of its manuscript transmission,” rather than the normal view that a scribes’ primary ambition was to make an accurate copy of the text of his exemplar?  Do any specialists besides Trobisch believe that a typical copyist “felt free” to revise the text of the Gospels?  There were indeed some reckless copyists, but to present them as if they were typical is like saying that human beings have six digits on each hand.

          In addition to the objection that Trobisch brings some strange ideas to the compilation-committee’s table, there is a pastoral concern here.  I have never met David Trobisch but from what I have read and watched, the religion to which he subscribes is very different from the Christianity which is taught in the New Testament.  It seems to be a baptized “social gospel” philosophy which does not remotely affirm – and which directly opposes – the statement of faith of the National Association of Evangelicals, which, among other things, affirms the infallibility of the Bible, Christ’s virgin birth, His bodily resurrection, His deity, His future return, the final judgment, and salvation through the work of the Holy Spirit in personal spiritual rebirth.  

          Yet very many evangelical leaders who consider those things to be essentials of the faith – people such as D. A. Carson, James White, Craig Evans, Bill Mounce, and Steve Green – seem perfectly fine when the task of compiling the text of the Greek New Testament is entrusted to someone who denies every one of those tenets of Christianity.  At least, I have not heard much protest from them so far.  Most evangelical preachers probably would not share their pulpits with hyper-liberals and atheists.  Why, then, do they seem perfectly content to have a hyper-liberal edit the book on the pulpit?  

          It may be that our wise evangelical leaders have reckoned that just because a fox is a fox, that is no reason why a fox cannot be a skillful guardian of the chicken coop.  Nothing but bias, they might insist, would elicit a suspicion that an unbeliever might – whether purposefully or unconsciously – render the base-text of the New Testament unstable, or introduce readings into the text which have very little manuscript-support (or even none).  “It would be a gross employment of the genetic fallacy,” someone might insist, “if Christian translators deliberately avoided using a base-text compiled by someone ideologically opposed to Bible-believing Christianity.” 

          Against such politically correct wisdom I protest in the name of common sense.  The gold of the king of Sodom was as solid as the next man’s; yet Abraham (in Genesis 14:21-24) refused to receive any of it.  There is a principle being illustrated there that should not be ignored. 

          Second Corinthians 6:14 says, “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers.  For what partnership does righteousness have with lawlessness?  And what fellowship does light have with darkness?”  Paul stresses this theme emphatically for several verses:  “What agreement has the temple of God with idols?” and so forth.  He utilizes two stirring passages from the Old Testament in his call to the church:  “Come out from among them.”  And what co-operation can there be between Christ-centered churches, and members of the Center for Inquiry?  No one can serve two masters.  Paul’s warning against being yoked together with unbelievers is often unheeded in today’s society.  Still, one might think that in the enterprise of compiling the text of the Greek New Testament, this principle should not be ignored when alternatives are readily available.