Rising Star: What's Nelson Hsieh Think? (Part One)

Nelson Hsieh

"James, you handsome rogue," I wondered, "Regarding New Testament textual criticism, what school of thought is represented by the new guy, Nelson Hsieh, the Assistant Professor of New Testament at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary?"  I decided to find out, so here is the first part of an interview with Dr. Hsieh on an assortment of issues.

Q:  The foundational premise of Hort’s approach, and his motive for rejecting all distinctly Byzantine readings, was his theory of a Lucianic recension.  Peter Gurry insists that virtually nobody adheres to that theory anymore.  So, regarding the Gospels-text only, where and how did the Byzantine Text originate?

         

Hsieh:  I’m not fully convinced that the Lucianic recension theory has been 100% refuted. The testimony of Jerome certainly suggests that Lucian had some sort of editorial hand among Gospel manuscripts. And the Lucianic recension of the Septuagint is quite well-established and the characteristics of the Septuagint Lucianic recension certainly match many of the characteristics of the New Testament Byzantine text; see Bruce M. Metzger, “Lucian and the Lucianic Recension of the Greek Bible,” NTS 8 (1962): 189–203; Kurt Aland, “The Text of the Church?,” TJ 8 (1987): 131–44.

 Furthermore, we probably shouldn’t create a false dichotomy where, on one side, there is a recension in the strict sense (a large-scale editorial effort to edit a text according to predetermined principles) and, on the other side, there is no editing or revision at all. Maybe Lucian made some small revisions in the fourth century in just the Gospels (since Jerome speaks about Lucian in the context of the Gospels), and not necessarily a large-scale recension of the entire New Testament.

Certainly some Byzantine readings are early as shown by Harry Sturz with alignments between the papyri and later Byzantine readings; see Harry A. Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism (Nelson, 1984) and also David Alan Black, “A Sturzian Solution to the Problem of ‘Original Text’ as Illustrated by Eph 1:1, Matt 5:22, and John 3:13,” in Can We Recover the Original Text of the New Testament?, ed. Abidan Paul Shah and David Alan Black (Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2023), 67–86. 

The papyri were not available to Westcott & Hort, so they obviously couldn’t see examples of Byzantine-papyri agreements. And the church fathers often show us that Byzantine readings are early, even if we don’t possess any early Greek manuscript witnesses for a Byzantine reading (e.g. with the Long Ending of Mark being found in Irenaeus). But a few isolated early Byzantine readings do not mean that the Byzantine Text as a whole is early.

Maybe the answer about origin is a combination of several factors: Lucian’s revisions to the Gospels, early scribal interpolations (e.g. the Long Ending of Mark in the second century, and Pericope of the Adulteress in the third century), and later scribal revisions/smoothing out of the text — which eventually were supplemented by later editorial efforts (like the Harklean Syriac version and von Soden’s K^r group) leading to a fairly standardized late Byzantine Majority text in the 13th century onwards (as Klaus Wachtel argues for the Catholic Epistles). But we can’t be certain. And I don’t see why Lucian has to be tossed out entirely; he could have had a small part in the origin of the Byzantine Textform.

Q:  Considering the likelihood that users of Scripture in languages other than Greek would like to observe that the the text in their language was based on Greek, when a Greek text was used at a scriptorium as the basis for a version, did that particular form of the Greek text get locked into place?

Hsieh:  It is hard to see why a version must have been “locked into place” by an initial Greek exemplar. On subsequent copying, it would be unsurprising for scribes to check against whatever Greek manuscripts were available, which could have differed from the initial Greek exemplar. 

And we have clear examples where versions are corrected/updated against different Greek exemplars (Old Latin vs. Vulgate, and Old Syriac vs. Peshitta). Any “locking in” probably had more to do with liturgical use and/or ecclesiastical authority like with the Peshitta as liturgical standard for the Syriac church, and with the Vulgate for the Latin/Western church.

Q:  In Acts 27:37, 03 and an early layer of the Sahidic version both say that “about 76” souls were aboard the ship.  F. F. Bruce, and Dean John Burgon before him, surmised how this variant came into existence from the usual “276.” Considering how unlikely it is that two independent scribes made the same quirky mistake, was 03’s exemplar (or ancestor) the basis for the Sahidic version of Acts?

Hsieh:  To draw a connection between 03’s exemplar and the Sahidic version of Acts, we would need far more evidence than a single reading, so I wouldn’t make any claim until we could look at more instances of 03-Sahidic agreements that disagree with the rest of the tradition. This is not something I’ve researched before, so I can’t say anymore unless someone already has a list of such agreements.

Q:  In the book of Revelation, what reading do you consider the most unstable in the Nestle-Aland compilation? 

Hsieh:  Probably Revelation 5:9: “You redeemed to God by your blood,” which follows the singular reading in Codex Alexandrinus that omits the pronoun “us,” so there is no object for the verb

“redeem.” ECM Revelation rightly goes with the rest of the manuscript tradition in including the pronoun “us.” The variant occurs at the end of a column in Codex Alexandrinus, so it is easy to understand the scribe of Alexandrinus accidently omitting the pronoun.

Q:  There is a longstanding philosophical debate that overlaps with the text-critical contest between the Byzantine Textform and the Nestle-Aland compilation, orbiting the question, To what is the ordinary Christian obligated to submit to:  the text as issued by the initial producers of each book of the New Testament, or the text as approved and disseminated by the church?.  Which side do you favor?

Hsieh:  Of course, we don’t have the initial/original text regardless of whether one is a Byzantine Textform or critical text advocate, so it’s not possible for an ordinary Christian to submit to a text that we do not possess. We only have an approximation of the initial/original text (whether Byzantine Textform or critical text – both are approximations). I am an evangelical and a Baptist, so obviously I wouldn’t favor a Roman Catholic approach where the biblical text is approved and disseminated by the “church.”

I would say that the ordinary Christian submits to the Word of God that (in God’s providence) is available to them. So a tenth century monk who only has access to one Byzantine text manuscript submits to the biblical text available to him, while a Christian in the twenty-first century submits to the biblical text available – whether a translation, or a Greek critical text. 

But more important is how significant the differences are between the Nestle-Aland editions and the Byzantine Textform. I have looked at all the differences between Robinson & Pierpont’s Byzantine Textform and Nestle-Aland 27 (in RP’s lower apparatus), and I will say that there is not really any textual difference that would significantly affect doctrine or practice for the ordinary Christian. For example, the Byzantine text has four more references to fasting (1 Cor 7:5; Matt 17:21; Mark 9:29; Acts 10:30) than NA27, but I doubt that this would increase (or decrease) the practice of fasting among ordinary Christians. A person’s theological beliefs or denomination would probably have more influence on one’s practice of fasting than which biblical text was used. 

Johannes Karavidopoulos, the only Eastern Orthodox scholar on the UBS4/NA27 editorial committee, said during committee meetings: “I fought especially for New Testament verses which are very familiar to the Greek Orthodox audience because of their liturgical use (e.g., Mark 9:29) . . . But I did not succeed in many cases.” (see Peter J. Gurry, “ETC Interview with John Karavidopoulos,” Evangelical Textual Criticism (blog), September 22, 2015, http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2015/09/etc-interview-with-john-karavidopoulos.html). Karavidopoulos has passed away, but he would probably be pleased to see the THGNT and ECM Mark (and therefore NA29) adopting the Byzantine reading with fasting in Mark 9:29.

Other examples – the doctrine of the Trinity does not need the Johannine Comma to be supported and believed. Without the Pericope of the Adulteress, we do lose a beautiful story about Jesus’s mercy towards a marginalized woman and his critique of the religious leaders – but such themes are prevalent throughout the rest of the Gospels. Without Luke 23:34a (“Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing”), we do lose a magnificent saying of Jesus from the cross. But other passages in the New Testament teach about loving our enemies (Matt 5:44; Luke 6:35) and about the ignorance of the Jews in condemning Jesus to death (Acts 3:17; 13:27), so the essential teaching of Luke 23:34a is still found elsewhere in the New Testament, even if the text is judged to be a later interpolation.

Q:  The conjectural emendation in NA28 in Second Peter 3:10 that effectively reverses the meaning of the sentence printed in previous edition: do you support it?

Hsieh: No, I disagree with the NA28’s conjecture – although I suppose it hinges more on the meaning of εὑρεθήσεται (can it mean “exposed” in ESV or “laid bare” in NIV-1984?). Metzger and others cannot make sense of εὑρεθήσεται – how can the earth “be found” after the eschatological burning up of all things? 

But an intelligible meaning is possible: Jörg Frey suggests that in the context of apocalyptic literature, the verb can have the sense of “being brought to judgment,” so that there is no need for a conjecture (what Frey calls “an act of desperation” on the part of the ECM). See Jörg Frey, The Letter of Jude and the Second Letter of Peter, trans. Kathleen Ess (Baylor University Press, 2018), 409-11. 

And there is an additional argument in favor of viewing εὑρεθήσεται as judgment: it’s not only the physical earth (γῆ) being exposed, but the earth and its works (τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ ἔργα) being exposed, so that mankind is in view and not just the physical earth.

NA27 / THGNT’s reading εὑρεθήσεται seems to best represent the original text. The external evidence is early and good (01, 03, 025, 1739txt; P72 indirectly) and it’s easier to understand a change from εὑρεθήσεται to κατακαήσεται based on harmonization than the other way around. In other words, I think that the Byzantine reading κατακαήσεται (“be burned up”) is probably a harmonization to earlier in the verse: στοιχεῖα δὲ καυσούμενα λυθήσεται (“the elements being burned up will be dissolved”) and verse 12 also: στοιχεῖα καυσούμενα τήκεται (“the elements being burned up will melt”).

However, I do look forward to hearing Peter Gurry’s paper on this issue at SBL in November 2026, where he still insists that conjecture is still necessary. In his SBL paper abstract, he says: “a near consensus has developed among modern commentators and translators that the original text is εὑρεθήσεται (“will be found”). This shift relies on a lexical interpretation where the verb means “laid bare” (NIV) or “disclosed” (NRSVue). This paper challenges this consensus based on a survey of over 850 uses of the verb, demonstrating that it cannot sustain such a meaning in this context. Consequently, conjectural emendation remains a legitimate and even necessary solution.”

Q:  Michael Holmes’ benign conjectural emendation in the SBL-GNT in First Corinthians 6:5:  do you support it?

Hsieh: On principle, I am against conjectural emendations, but they are certainly interesting in revealing exegetical difficulties and attempts to solve such difficulties. Erasmus (in his Annotations on 1 Corinthians) noticed the grammatical difficulty in 1 Cor 6:5 (διακρῖναι ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ) – how is it possible to judge between one brother? We would either expect the plural ἀδελφῶν (“judge between brothers”), or an additional phrase like καὶ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ (“judge between a brother and a brother”), but no Greek manuscript attests to either possibility. According to the INTF’s Database of Conjectures, Theodore Beza conjectures the plural ἀδελφῶν, while Zuntz, Weiss, and Grotius conjecture various additional phrases that add a second individual. Also see Jan Krans, Beyond What Is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament, ed. Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, NTTS 35 (Brill, 2006), 180-81, and Jeffrey Kloha, “1 Corinthians 6:5: A Proposal,” NovT 46 (2004): 132-42.

The Latin Book of Armagh (Vetus Latina 61; Oxford Vulgate D) supports Beza’s conjecture of the plural “brothers.” [“Ad verecundiam vestram dico. Sic non est inter vos sapiens quisquam qui possit iudicare inter fratrem suum?” - JSJ]  The second type of conjecture adding an additional phrase is supported by the Syriac Peshitta and five Latin manuscripts – Codices Augiensis, Boernerianus, Sarisburiensis, a recent addition to Toletanus, and a correction to Ulmensis, but the evidence is not so easy to interpret; see the discussion of these Latin manuscripts in Gunther Zuntz, “The Critic Correcting the Author,” Philologus 99 (1955): 295-303. On patristic evidence for either the plural or a longer reading, see Kloha, 139-41.

Holmes and the SBLGNT’s conjecture at 1 Cor 6:5 are almost certainly dependent on Zuntz, who suggests that these versional witnesses do not go back to the original text of 1 Corinthians, but are conjectures/variants arising within the Syriac and Latin tradition, demonstrating attempts to make the text more clear and “correct.” Zuntz also suggests that the omission of an additional phrase (καὶ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ) arose in Paul’s autograph since no Greek manuscript attests to an addition, and the omission was not a scribal error in copying.

To avoid conjecture, one could also better explain the grammar of 1 Cor 6:5. Johannes Weiss (Der erste Korintherbrief [Ruprecht: 1910], 150) and BDAG, 57, provide some examples to alleviate the grammatical difficulty by suggesting Paul is using an abbreviated expression (Gen 16:5, ἀνὰμέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ σοῦ; Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (SEG) IX.8.64, ἀνὰμέσον Ἑλλήνων; JosAs 28:6, ἀνὰμέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ ὑμῶν; Sir 25:18). But only Sirach 25:18 is a true parallel to 1 Cor 6:5 with a singular object of the preposition: ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν (v.l. τοῦ) πλησίον αὐτοῦ, although there is a variant with the article τῶν. If τῶν is the original text (as adopted in the Göttingen Septuagint), then it is not a true parallel to 1 Cor 6:5. The other examples demonstrate that two objects are needed (Gen 16:5; JosAs 28:6), or a plural (SEG IX.8.64).

On the whole – I would agree with Zuntz that the Latin and Syriac readings were probably conjectures/variants that arose within those versions rather than witnesses to a Greek variant or to the original Greek text. It is especially revealing that Codices Boernerianus and Augiensis are both Greek-Latin diglots, yet the Greek sides do not match the additional text on the Latin sides in 1 Cor 6:5. However, I’m not so comfortable with Zuntz’s conjecture and explanation; perhaps additional grammatical study will yield more and better examples that can alleviate the grammatical difficulty in 1 Cor 6:5.

 

Continued soon in Part Two!

 

B. B. Warfield on New Testament Textual Criticism

B. B. Warfield

“I believe that Warfield is second only to Jonathan Edwards as America’s greatest theologian.” – R.C. Sproul

            Let’s look into B. B. Warfield’s 1886 An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament.       

            Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield (1851-1921) is usually remembered by his intellectual heirs (such as Daniel Wallace) on account of his defense of the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy.  Born in Kentucky, Warfield graduated from Princeton Seminary in 1876, studied briefly in Germany,  and served as pastor at First Presbyterian Church in Baltimore for two years.  He then taught New Testament at Western Theological Seminary for nine years.  In 1886 he left Allegheny and began his prolific career as Professor of Reformed Theology at Princeton, and served there until his death.   His writings include The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, The Significance of the Westminster Standards as a Creed,  Counterfeit Miracles, and  Revelation and Inspiration.

            What exactly is the New Testament text that Warfield considered inerrant?  He almost answered that question in the same year that he began his professorship at Princeton, at age 35, when he published An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament preparing students to engage the compilations made by Tischendorf (his eighth edition, which due to the impact of Codex Sinaiticus differs from his seventh edition at 3,572 points), Tregelles, and Westcott & Hort.  

            Warfield’s approach to New Testament textual criticism closely echoed Hort’s.  He had a direct and down-to-earth writing style, and presented the case for Hort’s ideas with practical candor in four chapter:  (1) The Matter of Criticism, (2) The Methods of Criticism, (3) The  Praxis of Criticism, and (4) The History of Criticism.

            After sampling Tischendorf’s textual apparatus in Mark 1:11, Warfield lists and briefly describes the major witnesses to the text of the New Testament – uncials, minuscules, lectionaries, versions, and patristic quotations.   He acknowledged the lack of papyri, observing that “No very early papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament have come down to us,” with trivial exceptions.    

            Like John Burgon, Warfield knew the shallowness of the research done on these materials.  He lamented that “A critical edition of even the Vulgate is, however, still a desideratum” and acknowledged that “the versions are not even critically edited.”  And he knew how relatively novel the foundational discoveries were on which Hort’s transmission-model depended, observing that “À was not published until 1862; no satisfactory  edition of B existed until 1868;  C, Q, D, D₂, N, P, R, Z, L, X, E₂, P₂, S, have all been issued since 1843.”   Unlike Burgon, though, Warfield embraced Hort’s approach enthusiastically.     

            Warfield believed that the Peshitta had existed in 250 and went through a standardization process that ended around 350, suggesting that a “late third or early fourth century revision” is likely because of its non-inclusion of Second Peter, Second John, Third John, Jude, and Revelation.   He was misinformed about the age of some Ethiopic manuscripts, stating that the Ethiopic version’s earliest extant MSS “appear to be as late as the fifteenth century.”  The first chapter closes with a consideration of the textual contest in John 7:8 between ουκ and ουπω.  But he declined to declare a winner, using the data to illustrate the precariousness of  simplistic reliance on the mere quantity of witnesses, and on the age of the witnesses, and moves on.

            In chapter 2, Warfield very openly dismisses traditionally accepted readings despite their appearance in a super-majority of manuscripts in Matthew 6:4, Matthew 6:13, Mark 9:29, and Luke 8:31.    He highlights the importance of internal evidence, both intrinsic and transcriptional, which he summarizes beautifully on page 84:  “We are making use of two separate methods of inquiry; one of which deals with the probability that the author wrote this reading, and the other with the probability that the scribe began with it.”

            Warfield’s  claims in the second chapter are initially startling, but he follows  up with reasonable qualifications.  He shows his willingness to reject the reading favored by a super-majority of Greek MSS in Matthew 6:1.  Intrinsic evidence is likewise decisive in Luke 15:21.  Additional examples are drawn from Acts 12:25 and 11:20.  He states although internal evidence “is very easy to abuse,” “no conclusion to which it does not give at least its consent can be accepted as final in any case of textual criticism.”   On one hand, this is normal caution; on the other it guarantees that his New Testament text is perpetually tenuous where reasonable critics reach opposite verdicts. 

            Although Warfield repeatedly expresses his admiration for Codex Vaticanus as the best manuscript of the New Testament, when investigating Matthew 27:49 he rules against ÀB.   

            In the course of illustrating transcriptional evidence, Warfield raises issues about “the famous  reading Θεος in I Tim iii. 16,” Romans 12:11, Acts 17:25, Acts 13:23, and even mentions that “Perhaps the form Ἀσάφ in Matt. i. 7 has so come into the text from the influence of the Ἰωσαφάτ which stands immediately beneath it.”  After touring various categories of transcriptional errors, following a list of errors drawn from Codex Sinaiticus’ text of Hebrews, he reminds readers (p. 107) that “All “canons of criticism” are only general averages.”  Within this frame of caution he proceeds to posit – as “general guides,” to which exceptions should be expected, three valuable rules:  (1)  “the more difficult reading is to be preferred” (2) “the shorter reading is to be preferred” and (3) “the more characteristic reading is to be preferred” and above all these, he dictates that “That reading is to be preferred from which the origin of all the others can most safely be derived.”  

            In his presentation of external evidence, Warfield repeatedly cautions against oversimplifications, such as assuming that preference should always be given to what is more ancient, or always to the reading with the most abundant pieces of independent evidence in its favor.  He opposes the notion that if a witness is late, its text must therefore be bad, and affirms candidly (like Burgon) that “There is reason to believe that the very grossest errors that have ever deformed the text had entered it already in the second century.”

            He leans heavily on Tregelles’ analysis of the variant-unit in Matthew 6:4 (the presence, or absence, of ἐν τῷ φανερω), and follow up with a less detailed rejection of the doxology in Matthew 6:13.  Then he revisits John 7:8 –and again declines to issue a verdict.

            Warfield observed (p. 126) that “The discovery of a single manuscript (À) revolutionized  Tischendorf’s text.”   Certainly:  according to Eberhard Nestle, Tischendorf’s eighth edition differed from his seventh edition at 3,572 points, due primarily to the impact of Codex Sinaiticus.  Nevertheless Warfield seems entirely undisturbed by the prospect of another major discover destabilizing the compilation he supports (the readings about which Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Hort agree). 

            On page 132-133 Warfield expresses his position very clearly:  he endorses Hort’s approach, stating that “his results may be safely accepted as sound,” and regards Vaticanus as “plainly the best single codex known.”  Little by little, he reveals his confident adherence to Hort’s transmission-model, including the Lucianic recension.   At the same time he rejects the reading of ÀBCLUΓ at Matthew 27:49.    

            His definition of internal evidence of groups is worth remembering:  “Internal evidence of  groups is, therefore, simply internal evidence of documents applied to lost documents, a list of the readings which has come down to us, and nothing more.”

            Another pithy statement emphasizing the importance of considering evidence in terms of groups, on p. 139:  “MSS agree together nor by accident but by inheritance.”  And then Warfield proceeds to consider, in more detail than Hort, genealogical evidence – concluding that Hort was justified to set aside all that is distinct in the Syriac (i.e., the Byzantine) text.  What Warfield writes on p. 157-170 is essentially a summary of what Hort’s introduction presented more verbosely.  Warfield helpfully offers diagrams to illustrate the how the text of the Gospels has been transmitted.  He even utilizes Hort’s slanted nomenclature without question.

            By the time he has finished summarizing Hort, Warfield says that “The proper procedure” for settling textual contests involves, as its first step, “Sift out all  Syrian evidence from the mass of witnesses.”  He states outright (p. 171) “Any reading supported only by the Syriac class is convicted of having originated after A.D. 250.”

            When facing Hort’s theory of “Western non-interpolations,” Warfield bypasses Luke 24, and merely treats the “Neutral and Alexandrian” reading in Matthew 27:49 as an error.  He moves on to small variant-units such as μᾶλλον in Second Corinthians 2:7 and διο in Second Corinthians 12:7 and the contest between ᾖλθεν versus ᾖλθον in Galatians 2:12.  A hint of frustration seems to peek out in his brief discussion of Hebrews 10:11 where he laments, “We long for B,” and he admits that as far as the text of Revelation is concerned, “genealogical evidence can as yet be scarcely employed at all, without the greatest doubt and difficulty.”   How the same mind could make such an admission, and expect his readers to confidently regard their newly printed compilations simultaneously as inerrant and tenuous, is mystifying.

            In his third chapter, The Praxis of Textual Criticism, Warfield focuses on Acts 20:28, John 1:18, First Timothy 3:16, John 7:53-8:11, and Mark 16:9-20, and in each case he rejects the Syrian reading, “sifting out the Syrian evidence.”  He favors Θεου in Acts 20:28 and fails to mention Hort’s conjecture that υιου has dropped out of the text.   Warfield does, however, briefly delve into the subject of conjectural emendation, stating that “The only test of a successful conjecture is that it shall approve itself as inevitable” and mentioning proposed emendations in Colossians 2:18:  Lightfoot’s ἐώρᾳ or αἰώρᾳ κενεμβατεύων and C. Taylor’s  ἀέρα κενεμβατεύων.  (In the same verse Hort proposed ἐθελοταπεινοφροσύνῃ where θέλων ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ.)

            Chapter Four is brief and Warfield’s history adds nothing that later authors such as Bruce Metzger have not presented other than to notice more prominently the work of Simon Colinaeus (1534) and Edward Wells (1709-1719) (whose annotated Paraphrase of the New Testament is available in Part One and Part Two).  Warfield recognized that he was in a generation of pioneers, not street-pavers; yet he was confidently optimistic enough to state, “We have at least attained the position of having evidence enough before us to render the sketching of the history of the text possible, and to certify us that new discoveries will only  enlighten dark places, and not overturn the whole fabric.”  He closes not by declaring that the text of the New Testament has been established, but by point to Tischendorf’s 8^th edition (1864-1872), Tregelles’ compilation (1857-1879) and Westcott & Hort’s compilation (1881) as “the high-water mark of modern criticism, and states that where they differ, “future criticism may find her especial task.”  It does not seem to have bothered him that he could never show exactly what was the New Testament text that he considered inerrant.         

 

 

 

A Halloween Special: Textual Diversity in the 300s

            A few days ago, a video by Jonathan A. Sheffield appeared on YouTube entitled, “A James White Halloween Special:  The Textual Frankenstein of Modern Critical Text Theory.”   Since this 21-minute animated video has a text-critical focus, I thought it might be a good idea to offer a few observations about it.  I recommend watching the video (which can be viewed here) but for those who would rather have it summarized, here is a summary:   

____________________ 

            After a few minutes of amusing cameos (by Bart Ehrman, Dan Wallace, and others) the stage is set for James White to go on a Halloween-themed time-traveling journey with Family Guy character Stewie, in a role comparable to Doc Brown (from Back to the Future, complete with a DeLorean time machine).  Stewie – Sheffield’s proxy throughout the video – tells White that past events have created “a mess” where the text of the New Testament is concerned. 
            Stewie points out that White, on his program Dividing Line, has tended to overlook the real problem with the modern critical text:  the weakness of Hort’s reasons for rejecting the Byzantine Text.  After the DeLorean time machine lands, Stewie summarizes Hort’s theory that Chrysostom used an essentially Byzantine text that had been created around A.D. 300 by an editor – perhaps Lucian of Antioch – who selected readings from older texts.    Hort, Stewie explains – as Hort is represented onscreen by a wizard – reduced the weight of all Byzantine manuscripts – “thousands of independent witnesses” – down to one.

            Stewie then says that Hort’s theory implies that for 1,500 years after Chrysostom, Greek, Syriac, and Latin-speaking churches throughout the Byzantine Empire used “the wrong type of text.”  White objects, stating that no bona fide textual scholar still subscribes to Hort’s theory – except maybe Dan Wallace.  Stewie replies that although White rejects Hort’s theory about the Lucianic Recension (called the “Lucan Recession” in the video), White still promotes Hort’s conclusion that the Byzantine text ought to be rejected. 

            About nine minutes into the video, Stewie explains that Hort, guided by principles of “German rationalism,” replaced the text of Antioch with a text “of unknown provenance.”  Earlier textual critics – Jerome, who produced the Latin Vulgate, Thomas of Harkel (who produced the Harklean Syriac version) and Ximenes (who oversaw the production of the Complutensian Polyglot) – used ecclesiastical texts, but Hort did not.  By preferring readings from manuscripts of unknown provenance, Hort created a “textual Frankenstein” which cannot be shown to have been used by any apostolic church before 1881. 

            Twelve minutes into the video, the subject turns to the Coherence Based Genealogical Method.  Dr. Peter Gurry confirms that there was no Lucan (i.e., Lucianic) recension.  A little later, after Stewie summarizes the concept of text-types (Alexandrian, Byzantine, Western, and Caesarean) and their importance in the argumentation of the late Bruce Metzger in his defense of the heavily Alexandrian UBS compilation, Gurry offers an important pronouncement:  the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method implies that “text-types are unhelpful for making textual decisions.” 

            This gives the impression of invalidating the basic text-critical approach that has guided the field of New Testament textual criticism for over a century, and Stewie runs with this statement; the basic premises that drove pro-Alexandrian textual criticism throughout the 1900s, Stewie says, have been a “phony baloney sandwich from the start.”

            Around 17 minutes into the video, James White is pictured on the floor with his arms curled around his legs, in a state of shock at how thoroughly the foundation of his position has been destroyed.   Then Stewie, Igor (Dr. Gurry’s assistant), and White undertake an examination of the “oldest and best manuscripts” upon which the Nestle-Aland text is based.  James White briefly takes on the persona of Gollum as he looks at Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, saying, “My precious.” 

            A little later, White objects to treating Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as if they have no provenance, stating that they were clearly used by the churches.   In response, Dr. Tommy Wasserman steps out of the background and affirms that the origins of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are “elusive.”  Stewie proceeds to contrast the elusiveness of the origins of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus with the known provenance of the text that was in use in apostolic churches in Antioch, North Africa, and Rome in the fourth century.  The Vulgate, Stewie explains, opposes the critical text promoted by James White. 

            Stewie then asks why the CBGM’s promoters and the editors of the Nestle-Aland text continue to use unprovenanced manuscripts as the primary basis for their compilations.  Onscreen, there is a picture of two individuals:  one has a hat on which “Nestle Aland” is written, sitting on a pile of money; the other one, holding money, wears a suit with a tag that says “UBS.”  Stewie then raises a question:  why do these editors continue to spread the Nestle-Aland/UBS compilation even though all the premises supporting it have been falsified?  He then says, “Is it because when you move off these mixed texts, and have to resolve the differences between the Vulgate,  the Byzantium, and the Peshitta, it leads us back to the TR?”

            James White finally speaks:  “That is heresy, Stewie!”  But Stewie resumes, and proposes that since the Textus Receptus is in the public domain, the primary reason why the scholars and publishers responsible for the NA/UBS text continue to make new editions is financial.  White protests that he does not want to hear this, but Stewie continues, mentioning that without new critical editions, White could not make new Halloween costumes modeled after the latest edition of the critical text.  White screams in frustration. 
____________________

            Stewie – that is, Sheffield – thus makes five proposals:

(1)    Preference for Alexandrian readings began with Hort and his German rationalism.

(2)    Since Hort’s theory that the Byzantine Text originated as a recension is incorrect, there is no reason to adopt non-Byzantine readings.

(3)    The very use of the Alexandrian Text is problematic because we don’t know where it came from, unlike the texts used by Jerome in the late 300s, by Thomas of Harkel in the early 600s, and by Ximenes in the early 1500s.

(4)    If researchers were to compile a text on the basis of the Byzantine Text, the Vulgate, and the Peshitta, the result would be the Textus Receptus.    

(5)    The researchers involved in the production of the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies’ Greek compilations are primarily motivated by financial gain.

            All five of Sheffield’s proposals are wrong, and his whole approach seems like an excuse for maintaining 100% of the Textus Receptus.  Let’s consider these points one by one.

DID DIVERGENCE FROM THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS BEGIN WITH HORT?

            No.  Researchers before Hort, such as Bengel, Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf (and, even earlier, Walton) saw the advantage of collecting readings from all areas where Christianity spread in its early centuries.

DOES THE REJECTION OF HORT’S THEORY OF A LUCIANIC RECENSION JUSTIFY THE REJECTION OF ALL READINGS THAT DIVERGE FROM THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS?

            No, for two reasons:  first, the Textus Receptus has hundreds of translatable differences from the Byzantine Text.  Even if we were to say, “Let’s just reconstruct the text that Chrysostom used,” this would generally yield something like the Byzantine Textform, rather than the Textus Receptus.  Second, Chrysostom’s text does not represent the only ecclesiastically utilized form of the text from the 300s.  (Nor is it a purely Byzantine text:  in Stephen Carlson’s edition of the text of Galatians (2015) he records non-Byzantine readings supported by Chrysostom in Galatians 1:3, 1:4, 1:11, 1:12, 2:6, 2:16, 3:7, 5:17, 6:13, and 6:17.  And – to give just one more example – according to UBS4, in John 20:23, Chrysostom supports ἀφέωνται where the Byzantine Text (and the TR), the Vulgate, and the Peshitta support ἀφίενται.)

            Other forms of the text were used in other places.  Eusebius’ text of Matthew, at Caesarea, for instance, was mainly Alexandrian; Augustine’s Latin text in North Africa contained many non-Byzantine readings.  The Old Latin translation(s) also contained many non-Byzantine readings.  It would be arbitrary to ignore these other ancient local texts.

            Without Hort’s Lucianic Recension in the picture, the Byzantine Text deserves to stand as an essentially independent local text, but that does not mean that its exact form is always correct, or that the effects of mixture (i.e., mixture with other local texts) and liturgically motivated adjustments cannot be detected in it. 

DOES THE PROVENANCE OF THE ALEXANDRIAN TEXT POSE A SPECIAL DIFFICULTY? 

            No.  We do not know the specific origins of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus but this is true of practically every single parchment codex of New Testament books that has survived from before the 500s, whether Greek or Latin or Syriac or whatever.  The area in which the Alexandrian Text was used is no mystery:  it was used in Egypt, as can be seen by the consistent similarly of Vaticanus’ text with the Sahidic version.  And many non-Byzantine readings were in the manuscripts utilized by patristic authors in Chrysostom’s time and earlier, in other locales.  Granting that we do not know the names and exact locations of the individuals who perpetuated the New Testament text in Egypt, this is also true of the individuals who made Athanasius’ manuscripts, and Jerome’s manuscripts, and Augustine’s manuscripts, and Ambrose’s manuscripts, and Chrysostom’s manuscripts.  Noticing where a manuscript was used is not the same as knowing where its readings originated.     

            Sheffield asserts that ancient scholars such as Jerome and Thomas of Harkel used only “ecclesiastical” texts.  But when we examine the actual contents of the Vulgate and the Harklean Syriac, we don’t see exclusively Byzantine readings; both the Vulgate and the Harklean Syriac have many non-Byzantine readings, as anyone can verify by comparing the Byzantine Text, the Vulgate, and the Harklean Syriac side-by-side-by-side in the General Epistles.  If one grants that the Vulgate and the Harklean Syriac were based exclusively on ecclesiastical sources, it follows irresistibly that the Byzantine Text was not the only ecclesiastical source available.   

WOULD A COMPILATION BASED ON THE BYZANTINE TEXT, THE VULGATE, AND THE PESHITTA PRODUCE THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS?

            No.  The Peshitta, as initially issued, did not contain the books of Second Peter, Second John, Third John, Jude, and Revelation, and at many points the Peshitta disagrees with the Textus Receptus (and with the Byzantine text).  The Vulgate also has many disagreements with the Textus Receptus (and with the Byzantine text).  And the Byzantine Text itself, as presented in the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform, has many disagreements with the Textus Receptus. 

            Certainly in many textual contests the Vulgate, the Peshitta, and the Byzantine Text all point in the same direction, uniformly disagreeing with the Alexandrian Text, as we see in Matthew 1:25 and Matthew 20:16 and Mark 15:28 and Mark 16:9-20 and Luke 22:43-44 and John 3:13, etc., etc.  But most of the minority-readings of the Textus Receptus would not be vindicated by such a compilation; in addition, the Byzantine reading is sometimes opposed by both the Vulgate and Peshitta (in Ephesians 5:9 and James 4:4, for example).  Sheffield’s picture of a world in the fourth century where there was one uniform text used in the churches is not realistic; even less realistic is the idea that this uniform ecclesiastical fourth-century text was the Textus Receptus.                

IS FINANCIAL GAIN THE MOTIVE FOR THE PUBLICATION OF NEW EDITIONS OF THE NESTLE-ALAND COMPILATION OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT? 

            Sheffield is not the first person to wonder about the motives of liberal scholars such as David Trobisch.  But if anyone wants to see the text of the 28th edition of the Nestle-Aland compilation, it is free online, as are many other editions of the critical text.  And not only is the 2005 Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform also free online, but it is a public domain text, prefaced by a statement that “Anyone is permitted to copy and distribute this text or any portion of this text.” 

            In short:  Sheffield’s criticism of researchers who reject the theory of the Lucianic recension, and yet continue to treat the Byzantine Text as if almost all of its distinct readings are secondary, is applauded.  However, if Sheffield’s assumptions about the text of Chrysostom were valid, they would tend to favor the Byzantine Text rather than the minority-readings embedded in the Textus Receptus.  An awareness of the variety of local texts in the fourth century renders Sheffield’s whole approach, undertaken to maintain the Textus Receptus, untenable at every turn.

Readers are invited to double-check the data in this post.

Short Western Readings in Mark 1-4

 

Codex Bezae, the main Greek manuscript
of the Western Text
of the Gospels and Acts.

           “The Western text is so inclined to addition that, if it omits any reading found elsewhere, the probability is that it does so because the omission is primitive.”  (emphasis added)  So claimed Kirsopp Lake.

            “Generally speaking, it [the Western Text] is characterized by harmonistic tendencies and additions.”  (emphasis added)  So said David Alan Black (in New Testament Textual Criticism:  A Concise Guide, page 33.)

            The Western Text “is usually considered to be the result of an undisciplined and ‘wild’ growth of manuscript tradition and translational activity.” (emphasis added)  So wrote Bruce Metzger.

           

            These statements, and others like them, do not give an accurate picture of the nature of the Western Text.  Some researchers seem to have assumed that because the Western text of Acts is about 8% longer than the Alexandrian text of Acts, the same tendency toward expansion typifies the Western Text throughout the Gospels.  However, this is not really the case.  Although the primary Greek manuscript representative of the Western Text, Codex Bezae, does have some interpolations (most famously at Matthew 20:28 and Luke 6:4), it regularly contains readings which are shorter than their Alexandrian and Byzantine rivals.

            To illustrate this, let’s look into some Western readings in the first four chapters of the Gospel of Mark, as found in Codex Bezae, that are shorter than their Alexandrian and Byzantine rivals.  To simplify things for non-specialists, I will present these readings in English.

CHAPTER 1  (14 Shorter Readings)

1:4 – D doesn’t have the word “river.”
1:6 – D doesn’t have the phrase “and a leather belt around his waist.” (probable h.t. error)

1:7 – D doesn’t say “he preached.”

1:10 – D doesn’t say “immediately.”

1:11 – D doesn’t say “came.”

1:15 – D doesn’t say “And.”

1:16 – D doesn’t use Simon’s name twice, only once.

1:18 – D says that Andrew and Simon left “all,” instead of “their nets.”

1:25 – D doesn’t use Jesus’ name.

1:27 – D doesn’t include the words “What is this?”

1:35 – D doesn’t say “having risen.”

1:44 – D doesn’t say “nothing.”

1:45 – D doesn’t say “freely” (or “much”).

1:45 – D doesn’t say “he” was no longer able to openly enter a city.

CHAPTER 2  (17 Shorter Readings)

2:2 – D doesn’t say “the” before “word.”

2:4 – D doesn’t say “Him” after “they could not come near.”

[2:4 – D includes Jesus’ name, so as to say “where Jesus was.”]

2:4 – D doesn’t say “uncovered” (or “dismantled”).

2:7 – D doesn’t say “alone.”

2:8 – D doesn’t say “immediately.”

2:13 – D doesn’t say “again.”

2:15 – D doesn’t say “that” (or “and”) after “house.”

2:17 – D doesn’t say “to them.”

2:19 – D doesn’t say “Jesus.”

2:20 – D doesn’t say “As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.” (probable h.t. error)

2:21 – D doesn’t say “from it” or “its” (not αφ’ αυτου, not απ’ αυτου, and not αυτου).

2:22 – D doesn’t say “But new wine for new wineskins.”

2:23 – D doesn’t say “his.”

2:23 – D doesn’t say “as they went.”

2:24 – D doesn’t say “to Him.”

2:26 – D doesn’t mention Abiathar the high priest.

2:27-28 – D doesn’t say “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.  Therefore.”

CHAPTER 3  (8 Shorter Readings)

3:2 – D doesn’t say “him” after “heal.”

3:6 – D doesn’t say “immediately.”

3:7 – D doesn’t say “followed” or “followed Him.”

3:11 – D doesn’t say “the” before “unclean spirits.”

[3:14 – D doesn’t say “whom He named apostles.”  (The Byzantine Text also does not have this phrase here.)]

[3:16 – D doesn’t say “And He appointed the twelve.”  (The Byzantine Text also does not have this phrase here.)]

3:20 – D doesn’t say “they.” 

[3:23 – D says “the Lord Jesus” said to them, etc.]

3:27 – D doesn’t describe the house as “his.”

3:29 – D doesn’t say “against.”

3:29 – D doesn’t say “never” (i.e., “does not” is there, but not “never”).

CHAPTER 4  (10 Shorter Readings)

4:1 – D doesn’t say “on the land.”

4:3 – D doesn’t say “to sow.”

[4:4 – D says “of heaven.”  This phrase, rendered as “of the air,” is in the Textus Receptus, though not in the Byzantine Text.]

[4:9 – D closes the verse with, “And the one with understanding, let him understand.”]

4:10 – D says “His disciples” instead of “those around Him with the twelve.”

4:16 – D doesn’t say “likewise.”

[4:17 – D says “and” instead of “or.”]

4:19 – D doesn’t say “and the desires for other things.”

4:24 – D doesn’t say “and more will be given to you” or “and to you who hear, more will be given.” (probable h.t. error)
4:32 – D doesn’t say “And when it has been sown, it grows up.” (probable h.a. error)   

4:33 – D doesn’t say “to them.”

4:38 – D doesn’t say “and” before “said to Him.”

4:41 – D doesn’t say “Him” after “obey.”

            That’s not all the short readings that Codex D has in these four chapters.  But it is abundantly enough to demonstrate a few things:

First:  The compilers of the Nestle-Aland text applied the (obsolete and wrong) principle of  lectio brevior potior (prefer the shorter reading) extremely selectively.  They did not adopt the shorter reading in any of the 49 instances I just listed.  “Prefer the shorter reading if it’s Alexandrian” is the real principle that was employed.

           

Second:  Footnotes that are limited to descriptions of the Byzantine/Majority Text, and the “NU” Text (the heavily Alexandrian Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies compilation) do not supply the whole story; there’s a whole text-type that is being pushed out of the picture.  The textual footnotes in the NKJV in Mark 1-4 cover only 15 variant-units (never mentioning the Western reading as such).  The apparatus of the UBS Greek New Testament in Mark 1-4 (in the fourth edition) covers a total of only 28 variant-units.  Clearly neither of these resources is sufficient to get more than a sketch of the history of the text’s transmission. 

 

Third:  Although it may be tempting to simplify pictures of the history of the New Testament text as a contest between the Byzantine and Alexandrian forms of the text, it should be emphasized that the Western Text is very early and merits the attention of researchers. 

Fourth:  The Byzantine Text, in defiance of the oversimplified theory that Hort proposed to account for its origin, frequently attests to readings which are neither Alexandrian nor Western.   Consider just the first chapter of Mark:  the Byzantine Text has readings in verses 2 (x2), 5 (x2), 7, 8 (x3), 10 (x2), 13, 14, 16 (x2), 18, 19, 21, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 (x2), 35 (x2), 36, 37 (x2), 39, 40 (x2), 41, 42, 43, and 45 which disagree with both Vaticanus and Bezae.  Does anyone, even at Dallas Theological Seminary, seriously think that these 40 non-Alexandrian, non-Western readings were the result of an editorial effort to create a compilation via the selection of readings from Alexandrian and Western exemplars?  (And yet as recently as 2015, Dan Wallace was still attempting to salvage the doomed and untenable Lucianic Recension theory as the explanation for the origin of the Byzantine Text.  And how can Moises Silva look at this data and still say he is “an unrepentant and unshaken Hortian”?)  

            This high number of distinct readings in the Byzantine Text should make one wonder what evidence Metzger and Ehrman were thinking of when they claimed that “Byzantine editors formed their text by taking over elements of the earlier extant traditions, choosing variant readings from among those already available rather than creating new ones that fit their sense of an improved text.”  (See The Text of the New Testament, fourth edition, page 279.)  For if the many non-Western, non-Alexandrian, non-conflate readings in the Byzantine Text are not the instant creations of editors, then they must echo an ancient non-Western and non-Alexandrian form of the text, and this is tantamount to an admission that a very Byzantine-like form of the text (distinct enough to contain 40 distinct readings in Mark 1’s 45 verses) existed in the 200s. 

(Readers are invited to check the data in this post.)