Review: New Testament Textual Criticism for the 21st Century

Charles L. Quarles

The Director of the Caskey Center for Biblical Text and Translation, in Wake Forest, South Carolina USA, has given the public a new resource that promises to shine a bright light on a field that is often overlooked and minimized in modern Christian academia.  Resisting the temptation to treat the field as a mere branch of apologetics, Dr. Charles L. Quarles efficiently presents in 161 pages the purposes, materials, and methods used in the field of New Testament textual criticism, and gives readers examples of his own detailed analysis in three specific textual contests (Matthew 16:2b-3, John 1:18, and Colossians 1:12) and invited consideration of many more (without gauging importance according to their length) such as those in Matthew 19:4, Mark 7:2, Luke 7:31, John 8:20, Romans 14:19, Hebrews 10:38, and James 1:12.  No variants from the Petrine Epistles, Jude, or Revelation are covered.

Quarles’ volume has much less well-masked propaganda that Metzger & Ehrman’s obsolete The Text of the New Testament:  Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration.  Whereas Metzger adhered to the untenable theory of the Lucianic recension for his entire academic career, Quarles appears up-to-date and does not suffers from an excess of Hort-echoing like his predecessor.  Rather than badger his readers with reminders of how awful the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine Text are supposed to be, Quarles reports that Western Christian academia in general has treated the case for Byzantine Priority with relative disinterest so far. 

Unfortunately he seems to have assumed, in the course of Part One, some points that he himself acknowledges as tentative by the end of the book.  For example he asserts that “no satisfactory explanation for this disappearance [ i.e., the disappearance of predominantly Byzantine manuscripts prior to Chrysostom] has been offered,” but this is not true:  the simple historicity of the enforcement of Roman policies under Decius, and again under Diocletian, resulted in the destruction of Christian writings of all kinds.  This, and the effects of humidity upon papyrus everywhere, except in Egypt’s exceptionally dry conditions, explains the lack of early Byzantine manuscripts outside Egypt.  

In addition, while patristic evidence is lacking for sustained strings of distinct Byzantine readings in patristic writings, that is due to (1) the tendency of the Byzantine, Alexandrian, and Western transmission-lines to agree, and (2) the absence of patristic ante-Nicene evidence from many locales where the Byzantine Text dominated soon afterward.  Are we so fixated on the Egyptian text, merely because the writing-materials have endured thanks to the dry weather of Egypt, that  in the middle of the doctrinal disputes of the second half of the 300s the Gothic version and the Peshitta arose brimming with novel readings and that the churches, rather than protest and riot,  welcomed the novelties and tossed aside the texts handed down to them by their persecuted predecessors?  Liturgical adjustments aside, such a wholesale replacement seems unlikely.

Back to the book though:  the last section of Part 1 superbly reviews the tools for New Testament textual criticism, sampling the best parts of the author’s earlier 40 Questions About the Text and Canon co-written with L. Scott Kellum.  New features in the Nestle-Aland compilation such as the blank diamond (♦) are included.  Online tools are also described and links are given to the Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Muenster, Germany, the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts in Texas, the International Greek New Testament Project, and the Center for New Testament Textual Studies at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, and more.

The second part is a delightfully balanced presentation about how to evaluate external and internal evidence, blended with an investigation into Matthew 18:15.  Quarles is a strong advocate for Hort’s dictum that “Knowledge of documents should precede final judgment upon readings,” and he appeals to it repeatedly.  He very candidly acknowledges however that the foundation of Hort’s transmission-model – that the Byzantine text emerged as a combination of the Alexandrian and Western text-types – was incorrect:  “Text critics have recognized that the old text-type approach is problematic and must be abandoned.”    Without the acceptance of text-types Hort’s model cannot exist.

Instead of shifting the text-critical train into reverse and shouting a loud apology to Western Christendom for leading to public down the wrong path by a phantom theory for generations, though, Quarles proceeds to make a case for retaining the popular “reasoned eclectic” approach which happens to produce the same results as Hort’s approach 99% of the time.  Nevertheless he affirms that “The testimony of multiple witnesses is usually more trustworthy than the testimony of a single witness” – and (with the Tyndale House GNT and the SBLGNT) recommends ἀμάρτήσῃ εἰς σέ in Matthew 18:15.  

Over and over the reader is shown that it is crucial to engage one’s intelligence when weighing internal considerations against each other.  Nevertheless, while Quarles’ most detailed analysis is made to three small contests in Part Three, he expresses his position about many others as if they are fully settled, content to leave some details vague and some assertions unbalanced in the interest of brevity.  For instance regarding the contest between ΘΣ and ΟΣ  in First Timothy 3:16 he states, “The reference to Jesus’ incarnation in the verse understandably prompted a Christian scribe to mistakenly read the Ο as a Θ.”  It is equally understandable however that any scribe could in a moment of carelessness fail to add the crossbar, just as people writing by hand have  occasionally failed to cross the lowercase “t” and thus wrote about limes instead of times.

An interesting development in the evaluation of internal evidence is that conflations are downplayed; consideration of scribal subvocalization is given as much emphasis.  A degree of subjectivity is likely to be unavoidable when readers attempt to apply Quarles’ cogent-sounding statement (p. 89), “Textual critics should prefer readings that initially seem difficult but make better sense after further study.”   How difficult does a reading need to be before it merits being rejected as a palpable mistake?  The reading τῆς Ἰουδαίας in Luke 4:44 is used as an example of a superficially difficult reading – but not a very persuasive one inasmuch as the longevity of the writing-materials seems to have been given too much weight (i.e., the age of the ancestor shared by Α D Byz 700 Vulgate Peshitta it^a it^e it^aur Syriac Harklean^margin  Armenian Georgian Ethiopic was not necessarily later than the shared ancestor of P75 01 03 019 032 892 Sahidic).    A reading may be intelligently salvageable without this becoming commendable.  I wonder what Quarles does with the readings of 01 in Matthew 13:35 and Luke 1:26.

Without telling Quarles’ conclusions about Matthew 16:2b-3 and John 1:18 and Colossians 1:12 in Part Three, I am confident that there is plenty to both dismay and delight readers whether they favor the readings of supermajorities or tiny minorities of witnesses. 

$22.75 on Amazon

Repeatedly I was confronted by a candid regret that more research needs to be done in specific areas of research – the same sort of plea that John Burgon made over 120 years ago.  The dating of the supplemental pages of 032 is particularly significant, and Quarles’ observations should be considered through the lens of what Ulrich Schmid wrote in his chapter “Reassessing the Palaeography and Codicology of the Freer Gospel Manuscript” on pp. 227-249 of The Freer Biblical Manuscripts (2006 ed. Larry W. Hurtado).

The Appendices must not be overlooked, especially III (Problems with the Text-type Approach) – which tends to show that the problem is by no means fatal to the apparoach but comes down to an over-reliance on statistics, but that is something to explore elsewhere) and IV (Thoroughgoing Eclecticism, eulogizing the great J. K. Elliott).  The glossary, though, is too short. 

In conclusion, Quarles has provided an helpful and intriguing and up-to-date introduction to the field of New Testament textual criticism that raises as many little questions as it resolves – and that is not a bad thing. 

A few closing points:

On p. 79 the reinforcement of 03’s text is attributed to a “10^th- or 11^th- century scribe” but the basis for this date is not given; I suggest that a date several centuries later is plausible.

On page 31 in a footnote, “305” should read instead “304.”

On p. 65 all mention of the forgery 2427 should be removed.

Mark 5:22 - Who's That Guy? (How to Spell "Jairus")

             The character known as Jairus appears on one occasion in the Gospels, in an episode described in Matthew 9:18-26, Mark 5:22-43, and Luke 8:40-56.  Matthew did not provide his name, but both Mark and Luke do so – except in Codex 05 the name is not included in the Gospel of Mark.  Usually the name “Jairus” appears as  ̓Ιάειρος.  That was the spelling in Mark 5:22 in the Textus Receptus, in the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform,  in the solid Rock Greek New Testament, in the Hodges-Farstad GNT According to the Majority Text, and in earlier printed Greek Gospels such as those issued by Tregelles, Westcott & Hort, and Baljon.  The Tyndale House GNT echoes Tregelles.  The UBS GNT has always printed ̓Ιάιρος in Mark 5:22, and so do Michael Holmes’ SBL GNT and Wayne A. Mitchell’s Greek New Testament (4^th edition).

            But why the change?   Swanson’s list of witnesses for Ιάιρος consists of merely 01 and 33, while Ιάειρος is supported by 02 03 019 032 038  and all other Greek witnesses except C (which reads Ιάερος) and 28 (which reads Ιάιαρος).  032 and 038 and 565 and 700 together support  ᾧ ὀνόμα ̓Ιάειρος, harmonizing with Luke 8:41.  Considering what a notoriously bad speller the main scribe of Sinaiticus was, the decision to print ̓Ιάιρος instead of Ιάειρος seems incredibly tenuous and arbitrary.  Future editions should adopt Ιάειρος, both in Mark 5:22 and in Luke 8:41 (a verse for which the UBS compilation has zero support, exposing its “frankentext” nature).

            Finally, a more subtle question:  was Jairus’ name originally in Mark 5:22?   It’s missing in 05 and in some Old Latin copies – specifically, a (Codex Vercellensis) e (Codex Palatinus )  ff² (Codex Corbeiensis secundus) and i (Codex Vindobonensis).  Bruce Metzger spent nearly two pages on this question in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, and both Vincent Taylor and J. K. Elliott suspected that non-inclusion is original here.  No major English version has failed to include Jairus’ name in Mark 5:22 – a sign of ecclesiastical resistance to the idea that the mere shortness of shorter Western readings commends them as original.  Mysteries they may be, but arbitrary brevity is no more of a sign of authenticity than arbitrary verbosity.  

Notice the absence of "named Jairus" 

Nestle-Aland 28: Much Ado About Almost Nothing

          It has been almost four years since the release of the 28th edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, the first revision of the critical text of the Greek New Testament since 1979.  Its text in the Gospels, Acts, the Epistles of Paul, and in Revelation is unchanged from what was printed in 1979.  The apparatus (the list of variants and the witnesses that support them) is much improved, but still has room for improvement.  

          Aside from the introduction of a new font, new orthographic standardization, and new formatting, the only place where NA28 reflects new text-critical decisions is in the General Epistles (James-Jude), where 36 alterations of the text in the previous edition have been introduced.  (Officially, the count is 34, but in First Peter 1:16, two variant-units occur close together, and in Jude verse 5, two variant-units overlap.)    

          One persistent claim about NA28 is that it expresses a new appreciation for the Byzantine Text.  Dan Wallace, for example, reported that Klaus Wachtel conveyed that as the editors worked through the General Epistles, “They came to see much greater value of the Byzantine manuscripts than they had previously.”  James Leonard has similarly stated than an “interesting result” of the use of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method is that “it is finding more and more individual Byzantine readings to be more plausible.”

          However, an examination of the new readings in NA28 indicates that the Byzantine Text was valued primarily in the role of a merely confirmatory witness, reinforcing the readings found in the important minuscule 1739.  As evidence of this, let’s investigate all of the textual changes from NA26 (1979) to NA28 (2013) in James, First Peter, and Second Peter.  Red text signifies that NA28 rejects a Byzantine reading that was in NA26 and NA27.  A black circle accompanies each adoption of a Byzantine reading.

JAMES

● 1:20:  κατεργάζεται instead of εργάζεται, agreeing with 1739 and the Byzantine Text.

2:3:  η κάθου εκει instead of εκει η κάθου, rejecting the word-order found in the Byzantine Text, and which was followed in NA27. 

● 2:4:  Και is adopted before ου at the beginning of the verse, agreeing with the Byzantine Text.

● 2:15:  ωσιν is included after λειπομενοι, agreeing with 1739 and the Byzantine Text.

● 4:10:  του is included before κυριου, agreeing with 1739 and the Byzantine Text.

FIRST PETER

1:6: λυπηθέντας instead of λυπηθέντες, rejecting a Byzantine reading that was in NA27.

● 1:16:  οτι is not included after γέγραπται.  The non-inclusion of οτι is supported by P72, À, 1739, and the Byzantine Text.

1:16: ειμι is not included at the end of the verse, rejecting a reading which is supported by the Byzantine Text, P72, and 1739.  At this point, the compilers of NA28 returned to a reading found in NA25. 

2:5:  τω is not included before θεω, rejecting a Byzantine reading that was in NA27 in brackets.  (Papyrus 72 supports the inclusion of τω here.)

● 2:25:  αλλ’ instead of αλλα.  This orthographic shift in NA28 constitutes the adoption of a Byzantine reading that is also supported by À.

● 4:16:  μέρει instead of ονόματι, agreeing with a Byzantine reading that is opposed by a widespread array of witnesses, including P72, À, B, 1739 and 1505.

● 5:1:  τους after Πρεσβυτέρους, agreeing with 1739 and the Byzantine Text.  Rival variants are ουν (supported by P72, A, and B), no word at all (supported by 1505), and ουν τους (supported by À).  This is an interesting variant-unit, not least because the reading in Codex Sinaiticus looks like a conflation, made by a copyist using two exemplars, one of which had ουν and the other of which had τους.  

● 5:9:  τω is not included before κόσμω, agreeing with 1739 and the Byzantine Text.

5:10:  Ιησου is not included after Χριστω, rejecting a reading that is supported by P72, A, 1739, and the Byzantine Text.  The non-inclusion of Ιησου is supported by À, B, and 1505.

SECOND PETER

● 2:6:  ασεβειν instead of ασεβέσιν, agreeing with À, 1739, and the Byzantine Text.  Ασεβειν was also the reading of NA25. 

● 2:11:  παρα κυρίω instead of παρα κυρίου, agreeing with À, B, 1739, and the Byzantine Text.  Παρα κυρίω was also the reading of NA25. 

● 2:15:  καταλιπόντες instead of καταλείποντες, agreeing with P72, 1739, and the Byzantine Text.

● 2:18:  όντως instead of ολίγως, agreeing with 1739 and the Byzantine Text.  The recent history of this variant-unit is interesting:  in the first edition (1966) of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, the compilers adopted ολίγως and ranked it at level “C,” signifying a “considerable degree of doubt” about it.  In the fourth edition (2001), the compilers still adopted ολίγως but ranked it at level “A,” signifying that “the text is certain.”  Obviously it was not so certain after all. 

● 2:20:  ημων is not included after κυρίου, thus agreeing with B and the Byzantine Text but disagreeing with a wide array of witnesses.   

3:6:  δι’ ον instead of δι’ ων at the beginning of the verse, rejecting a reading with very widespread support that includes the Byzantine Text, in favor of a reading with negligible support:  according to J. K. Elliott, the Greek witnesses for this reading consist of 025, eight minuscules, and one lectionary.  One of those minuscules was 1175 (from the 900’s), which was given special weight in the CBGM.  Nevertheless it is difficult to see what drove, or could ever drive, the conclusion that all Greek manuscripts are incorrect at this point except for that small group. 

3:10:  ουχ ευρεθήσεται instead of ευρεθήσεται, rejecting the Byzantine Text and rejecting all Greek manuscripts.  The Greek reading in NA28 is not supported by any Greek manuscripts.  As a Greek word, it is a conjectural emendation, based on the assumption that a reading in the Sahidic text of Second Peter was translated from an exemplar that had this reading. 

●3:16:  ταις after πάσαις, agreeing with À, 1739, and the Byzantine Text. 

3:16:  στρεβλώσουσιν instead of στρεβλουσιν, rejecting the Byzantine reading and adopting the reading of P72 and 1739.

3:18:  αμήν is not included at the end of the verse, rejecting the reading of P72, A, and the Byzantine Text and adopting the reading shared by B and 1739.

          From this review of the newly adopted readings in James, First Peter, and Second Peter in NA28, a few conclusion can be drawn:

(1)  The Byzantine Text’s readings are hardly ever adopted unless they agree with 1739.  Exceptions are at James 2:4, First Peter 2:25, 4:16, and Second Peter 2:20.  

(2)  NA28 agrees with the Byzantine Text at 15 places where NA27 disagreed.

(3)  NA28 disagrees with the Byzantine Text at 9 places where NA27 agreed. 

(4)  Calculating that the net number of agreements between the Nestle-Aland compilation and the Byzantine Text has thus increased by six, and observing that there are 187 disagreements between NA27 and RP2005, it follows that the total number of disagreements between the Nestle-Aland compilation and the Byzantine Text in these three books has decreased from 187 (in NA27) to 181 (in NA28).

         How exactly does a net gain of six agreements in James, First Peter, and Second Peter express a significant new appreciation for the Byzantine Text when the compilers of Novum Testamentum Graece continue to reject the Byzantine readings in 181 other places in these three books?  The answer is simple:  it doesn’t.