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.

Dan Wallace's Credo Course: More Problems

Asterisks (within yellow circles)
in the lectionary-apparatus of Codex M.

Today we continue to test the accuracy of some statements in Daniel Wallace’s Credo Course lecture on John 7:53-8:11. 

● About eight minutes into the lecture, Dr. Wallace brought up the subject of asterisks.  He stated, “What an asterisk indicates – this goes back to Alexandrian scribal habits – is, ‘I have doubts about whether this passage is authentic.’”  In some cases, that is true.  However, asterisks in Byzantine manuscripts are also capable of serving as all-purpose symbols to catch the eye of the reader.  They can also be incorporated into the lectionary-apparatus, as Maurice Robinson has described, and as I mentioned in my research-book. (Pictured here are a few examples of asterisks used in the lectionary-apparatus of Codex M.)    

            If Dr. Wallace believes that asterisks are never used in the lectionary-apparatus, then he needs to explain why, in 130 manuscripts (not just “several”), asterisks or special marks of some sort accompany John 8:3-11, and not John 7:53-8:2.  Robinson’s model explains that:  in the Byzantine lectionary, John 8:3-11 constituted a distinct lection (namely, the reading for Saint Pelagia’s Day, October 8), embedded within the lection for Pentecost.  Wallace’s approach, meanwhile, seems to require that the scribes of these manuscripts accepted John 7:53-8:2, but rejected John 8:3-11.   

 

● In the ninth minute of the lecture, Wallace asserts that the pericope adulterae is a “floating text.”  This is somewhat surprising, because elsewhere in the lecture he mentions the work of Dr. Chris Keith which shows that the pericope adulterae’s location (following John 7:52) was secure long before the production of the Greek witnesses which have it elsewhere.  Equally surprising is Wallace’s omission of some important details in his descriptions of the manuscripts that have the story of the adulteress displaced from its usual location.  And even more surprising is how effectively these details smash up the theory that the pericope adulterae was ever a “floating text.”

            Wallace stated, “In some manuscripts, it appears as a separate pericope at the end of all four Gospels, just tacked on at the very end.”  The important detail that Wallace fails to mention here involves a note that accompanies the pericope adulterae in the flagship-manuscripts of the group of manuscripts that have it after the end of John 21 (minuscules 1 and 1582).  The note specifies that the passage was moved from where it had been found in the text, after the words “a prophet does not arise” in 7:52.  To restate:  the note specifically says that the transplantation of the passage was subsequent to its location after 7:52.  Only by avoiding this detail can Wallace use this dislocation to sustain the idea that the pericope adulterae was a “floating text.” 

            Wallace also stated:  “In some manuscripts, it stands as an independent pericope between Luke and John.”  That is just not true.  Only one manuscript comes close to fitting that description:  minuscule 1333, which does not have the entire passage between Luke and John – only John 8:3-11.  Furthermore, 1333 features a rubric that identifies the passage as an excerpt from the Gospel of John.  Only when these details go unmentioned can listeners get the impression that John 7:53-8:11 floated its way into this location as a previously freestanding text.  When the details are known, it is obvious that all that has happened in minuscule 1333 is that after this manuscript was written (without the story of the adulteress), someone wrote the lection for Saint Pelagia’s Day on what had previously been a blank page between Luke and John. 

● In the tenth minute of the lecture, Wallace mentioned manuscript 115, describing it as “the only manuscript I know of” in which the pericope adulterae appears after 8:12, and is also followed by 8:12.  Wallace then proposed that the scribe of 115, after writing John 8:12, noticed that his exemplar was missing the story about the adulteress, found a different exemplar that contained it, and then added it after 8:12.    

            Digital images of 115 are online.  (By the way, 115 is not the only manuscript like this; the text is rearranged the same way in minuscules 1050, 1349, 2620, and 2751.)  A close examination of the manuscript shows that a scribe (probably the scribe of 115’s exemplar) merely simplified the lector’s job on Pentecost, so that he would not have to jump from 7:52 to 8:12 in order to find the final portion of the Pentecost-lection.  Small horizontal lines in 115 at the beginning of John 7:37 and at the end of 7:52 represent the beginning, and the end, of the main part of the lection.  In other words, what we have in 115 is not the movement of the PA, but the repetition of 8:12; the verse appears after 7:52 to complete the Pentecost-lection.    

            Regarding the other evidence that Wallace misinterprets as if it implies that the story of the adulteress was a “floating text,” see my video from last year.    

● In the fourteenth minute of the lecture, Wallace mentions manuscript 1424, which has the PA in the margin.  Wallace states that asterisks which accompany the PA in 1424 were meant by scribes to convey that the PA is “not actually authentic, or that they have doubts about it.”  He restates the same idea:  the asterisks “are the scribe telling us he has doubts about the authenticity.”         

            Viewers of the Credo Course are left uninformed about the note that accompanies the pericope adulterae in the lower margin of 1424.  The note (essentially the same as a note that is also found in Codex Λ and in minuscule 262) says:  “This is not in certain copies, and it was not in those used by Apollinaris.  In the old ones, it is all there.  And this pericope was referenced by the apostles, affirming that it is for the edification of the church.”  (The last sentence is referring to the use of material from the pericope in the composition known as Apostolic Constitutions, Book 2, chapter 24, which is sort of echoing an older work, the Didascalia, at this point.)  

            It does not do justice to the evidence when one mentions only the asterisks that accompany the PA in the margin of 1424, and describes them as if they must convey scribal doubt about the passage, while failing to mention the note that states that the passage was found in ancient copies, and which expresses confidence in the legitimacy of the passage.  (Another factor worth noticing is the use of an asterisk-like mark in 1424 alongside John 20:19.) 

Are its materials
reliable?

            Several other features in the second half of Wallace’s lecture on John7:53-8:11 could be analyzed and shown to be problematic in one way or another.  For example, at one point, he refers to Dura-Europos, a site in eastern Syria, when I think he meant Tura, a site in Egypt.  At another point, Wallace commends an article by Kyle Hughes, although Hughes appears to weigh in against Wallace’s assertion that the pericope adulterae was a floating text:  Hughes affirms that the dislocations to the end of the Gospel of John, and to a position after Luke 21:38, “can then be explained by the influence of the lectionary system in combination with the confusion resulting from the many early manuscripts of John’s Gospel that did not have PA.”  And at another point, Wallace says that 20% of our Greek manuscripts of John don’t have the story of the adulteress; the actual percentage is more like 15%.
       
            In conclusion:  the Credo Course lecture about John 7:53-8:11 contains a problematically high amount of inaccuracies, half-truths, and misinformation, and should not be considered a reliable resource.  

Interview with Maurice Robinson - Part 3

RP2005

          Today we conclude our interview with Dr. Maurice Robinson, one of the compilers of the Byzantine Textform.

Q:  Dr. Robinson, what would you say to someone who said, “I want to follow the Majority Text, but I want to follow the majority text in manuscripts up to the year 900, and set aside the late manuscripts, most of which are Byzantine”?

Robinson:  Should others desire to adopt a different type of Byzantine preference theory, they certainly are welcome to do so. Clearly, a theory for the Gospels based on a Byzantine uncial consensus (e.g., that of A E F G H K M S U V Ω, and parts of W) would approximate closely the results obtained when the wider minuscule consensus is included.
          The problem would be more severe, however, in the Acts and Epistles, where the available uncial manuscripts are fewer, particularly those of Byzantine type that predate the 9th century.  The consensus base for those New Testament books would seem to require inclusion of later minuscule testimony, else the resultant text of those New Testament books will be less Byzantine than what the similar process might produce among the Gospels.  Further, the situation in Revelation would be far worse, since the competing Byzantine groups there primarily depend upon minuscules made after the 800’s (generally representing the Majority-Andreas and Majority-Koine forms of the text) — leave these out of consideration, and it would be difficult to say what the resultant text might become (most likely quite non-Byzantine in nature).

          For the Gospels, a pre-9th century Byzantine consensus would be as strong and even more viable than portions of the Hodges-Farstad theory where they appealed to less-than-Byzantine minority groups to settle instances of textual division; certainly such a method also would be far more reasonable than adopting a recensional form of text found only among late manuscripts (such as the Family 35 subgroup).  Other possible approaches that would result in a basically Byzantine form of text could include following the archetype of Family Π/Ka or (perhaps with less likelihood of success) von Soden’s K1 group. From my perspective, however, none of these alternatives appear superior to the present Byzantine-priority hypothesis, methodology, and obtainable results.

Q:  Any comments on Nestle-Aland 28?

Robinson:  Particularly I am disappointed with one aspect of the new format, namely the editors’ decision to eliminate mention of fluctuating degrees of minority Greek manuscript support for variant readings (the “pc” and “al” designations). This move leaves users of the NA28 apparatus unclear as to the relative amount of support a given variant reading might have, and – even worse – readers might presume that only the manuscripts cited for a particular NA28 reading actually support such – and this even though the editors explicitly claim the new format supposedly should prevent such.

          Although the editors claim that “pc and al cannot be used in a precisely defined way, because full collation of all the manuscripts would yield more witnesses for known variants,” such special pleading appears peculiar, particularly when the full collation data of Text und Textwert are compared against readings designated pc or al in the former NA27 apparatus.  The Text und Textwert data regularly validate the propriety of the pc and al designations within a concise, more limited apparatus. From my perspective, those designations ought to be reinstated in future NA editions, along with re-inclusion of at least some of the previous consistently cited witnesses from NA26/27 that no longer appear in NA28.

        On a positive note, the new typeface is nice, and the NA28 regularization of some orthographic forms was long overdue. Similarly, I consider the elimination of conjectural suggestions from the apparatus beneficial, although an appendix listing the more important of these could be informative in terms of understanding scholarly views on the matter.

Q:  In the approach you describe in “The Case for Byzantine Priority,” a prohibition on conjectural emendation is Rule #1. What do you think of NA28’s introduction of a conjectural emendation into the text of Second Peter 3:10?

Robinson:  Given that the UBS/NA editions long have had a conjecture at Acts 16:12, the inclusion of a new conjecture at Second Peter 3:10 (dating from at least the time of Tischendorf — see his 8th edition’s apparatus) is unsurprising, particularly since the basic Alexandrian reading in that location — found in the main text of previous critical editions dating back to Tregelles and W-H — simply makes no good sense (kai ta en auth erga eureqhsetai, literally “and the works in her shall be found”). The point is well illustrated in the translational circumlocutions that appear among those English versions based on the critical text.  Consider the following, grouped according to how they render eureqhsetai:

Lexham:     “and the deeds done on it will be disclosed.”

HCSB:       “and the works on it will be disclosed.”

NRSV:       “and everything that is done on it will be disclosed.”

NIV:          “and everything done in it will be laid bare.”

NET:          “and every deed done on it will be laid bare.”

CEB:          “and all the works done on it will be exposed.”

ESV:          “and the works that are done on it will be exposed.”

GW:           “and everything that people have done on it will be exposed.”

ISV:           “and everything done on it will be exposed.”

NCV:         “and everything in it will be exposed.”

TEV:          “with everything in it will vanish.”

NIrV:         “God will judge the earth and everything done in it.”

Mess:         “and all its works exposed to the scrutiny of Judgment.”

NLT:          “everything on it will be found to deserve judgment.”

Voice:        “and all the works done on it will be seen as they truly are.”

NAB:         “and everything done on it will be found out.”

         Of these, only the Roman Catholic New American Bible comes close to the base meaning of the problematic construction. So certainly, the NA28 conjectural inclusion of ouk before eureqhsetai makes far better sense without requiring alteration of the proper meaning of the word in the process (thus NA28 in conjecture: “shall [not] be found”). The proposed conjecture, therefore, is quite good, and similar in quality to what Rendel Harris suggested for First Peter 3:19, where the main text en w kai should be supplemented by the conjectural addition of Enwc (thereby reading, “in which also Enoch”) — a brilliant conjecture; yet equally without manuscript evidence, and equally recognized by most scholars as non-original, just as they ought to regard the current NA28 conjecture at Second Peter 3:10.

          Put simply, researchers — particularly those involved in the study and use of actual manuscript testimony — should not invent or prefer readings that have no known existence among the Greek manuscript base merely because such might “make better sense” than an otherwise problematic preferred reading (not that I consider eureqhsetai to be original over against the Byzantine katakahsetai, but obviously the critical text editors do so presume). As I recently commented on the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog,

The problem I have with conjectural readings is not restricted to a priori concerns related to a Byzantine Priority or majority text position, but rather as ultimately involving transmissional considerations; i.e., any conjectured reading — assuming such supposedly to be more reasonable than what appears among the existing witnesses — would have to explain transmissionally how and why such would utterly disappear from our known transmissional history. Were such conjectures actually superior to all extant alternatives, I would consider their lack of perpetuation to be inexplicable.

Q:  Could you briefly explain how the NA28 has many conjectural emendations if one considers short series of variant-units instead of just single variant-units?

Robinson:  I have already written extensively on the so-called “zero-support” verses in the Nestle-Aland editions, both in a published essay in Translating the New Testament: Text, Translation, Theology and in a subsequent ETS presentation in 2012. 

          To summarize: if individual variant support in NA27 is considered in a linear manner (i.e., the stated documentary support for an entire verse containing at least two variant units, when reduced to its combined joint agreement), at least 105 whole verses exist in the critical text that apparently lack any actual existence in the form published, whether from any Greek manuscript, ancient version, or patristic source. In those instances, the result obviously becomes de facto conjecture.
          In my follow-up paper, I examined two-verse segments in NA27 using the same criteria, and found an additional 210 similar portions of text that again as published lack attestation from any known witness (suffice it to say that among the manuscripts comprising the Byzantine Textform, such never occurs in relation to passages of similar length). Note that the same findings apply to the NA28 edition as well, since its main text and apparatus support basically remain the same.

The Greek New Testament
for Beginning Readers

Q:  Could you explain again why Revelation is so different in the Hodges-Farstad compilation?

Robinson:  Although more differences appear between H-F and RP in Revelation than elsewhere in the New Testament, they are not that extensive as when either text is compared against the Old Uncial form of the critical editions. Rather, the primary differences between the Byzantine form of text in H-F and RP mainly involve H-F utilizing a particular stemmatic approach that prefers a minority Byzantine subgroup that they considered original – a group that at times represents less than 30% of the Byzantine manuscripts of that book. In contrast, RP2005 presents a non-stemmatic model representing a general consensus among the two primary Byzantine groups within that book.

          Where these two groups divide, RP generally follow the Majority-Koine group except where a significant number of its manuscripts align with the Majority-Andreas group – this because the Majority-Andreas group appears to reflect a single archetype derived from the Andreas commentary that usually accompanies those particular manuscripts.

Q:  It was recently acknowledged by a textual critic from Dallas Theological Seminary that “many” people subscribe to the Byzantine Priority school.  Besides you, who are these people?

Robinson:  What Dallas critic might have suggested such (I speak as a fool)?  I would prefer to say that many have a preference for a text similar to the Byzantine who might claim to be majority or Byzantine supporters, but who speedily dissent from such whenever the Byzantine Textform departs from their favored Textus Receptus/KJV type of reading.

            Beyond Pierpont and myself, among those who are not TR/KJV partisans but who favor some form of the Byzantine text (not necessarily agreeing with our specific theory or methodology nor resultant form of the text) would include Hodges and Farstad, John Wenham, Jakob van Bruggen, Peter Johnston, Harry Sturz, Wilbur Pickering, Paul Anderson, Thomas Edgar, James Davis, Donald Brake, Timothy Friberg (not all still living) and others, including several more Europeans along with many of my own students.  Not all of these have published in relation to textual matters, and thus some names may be unfamiliar; yet in general they remain pro-Byzantine to some degree.  There also are numerous laypeople that have communicated with me or these others over the years who hold to some sort of Byzantine or majority text position, but I only mention here a few who have published within academia.

Q:  Finally:  in NA28, in Second Peter 2:18, the editors rejected oligws and adopted ontws, even though the adoption of oligws had previously been given an “A” ranking (as if the editors were certain that it was correct).  Any idea how that happened?

Robinson:  The answer apparently is the “wag the dog” influence of CBGM and little else; this particularly in view of Metzger’s previous strong defense of oligws in his Textual Commentary. I also note that in the process UBS5 lowered the rating from “A” to “C” – again without providing any particular reason or justification for such.  Nice that they here adopted a Byzantine reading, but clearly not for the same reason that I would do so.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

 — end of interview — 

Links:  Part One.  Part Two.

Interview with Maurice Robinson, Part 2

          Today as we continue the interview with Dr. Maurice Robinson, we investigate how the Byzantine Priority position deals with one specific textual variant-unit.

Q: Could you provide an example of your text-critical approach by walking me through why you favor the Byzantine reading of Luke 6:1, instead of the Alexandrian reading?

Robinson:  I addressed this particular unit in a 1993 article (in Faith and Mission 11), and somewhat repeat myself here.

          I regard the shorter Alexandrian reading as possibly due to homoioteleuton in the Alexandrian archetype, even while suggesting other proximate causes of variation also to exist.  A primary principle of internal evidence should be to presume accidental error as more likely than intentional alteration, especially where omission might result from transcriptional failure and yet still produce a “sensible” reading — one that then would be less likely to receive correction in subsequent copies within its particular transmissional line.

          As for a short walk-through, the external evidence is basically clear:  the dominant united Byzantine Textform reads en sabbatw deuteroprwtw diaporeuesqai, while a small minority made up of predominantly Alexandrian-type manuscripts, along with several versional witnesses, omits deuteroprwtw.  Assuming the originality of the more dominant Byzantine reading, the presence of deuteroprwtw appears best to explain the alternative than vice versa, and that on two grounds:

1. Accidental omission.  The transcriptional factor is fairly obvious: the shorter reading lacks deuteroprwtw; this easily could have occurred — particularly in a small number of manuscripts — due to haplography, skipping from -tw d- to -tw d- in the phrase sabbatw deuteroprwtw diap-.  Such readily could have been the proximate cause of the Alexandrian archetypal reading underlying its omitting manuscripts at this point, and also for those otherwise unrelated minuscules that likely reflect independent error.  But this is not the only possible factor, since intentional removal of a difficulty cannot be ruled out.

2. Intentional omission.  Due to the problematic nature of the longer reading (i.e., what does deuteroprwtw actually mean?), intentional excision of a questionable word equally may have occurred in the Alexandrian archetype or otherwise unrelated witnesses.  Certainly, whatever significance deuteroprwtw may have had to first-century readers remains unclear (I suggest “second chief sabbath” — but even this is open to interpretation).

          Interestingly, similar problematic designations appear in the Septuagint: Psalm 23’s title speaks of “the first of the sabbaths” (ths mias sabbatwn).  Psalm 47’s title mentions “the second sabbath” (deutera sabbatou); and Psalm 93’s title reads “the fourth of the sabbaths” (tetradi sabbatwn) — even though today we have no knowledge of what these designations might mean, despite their unquestioned presence in the Septuagint.  Also, Meyer (In Vol. 2, pages 47-50 of his Handbook to the Gospels of Mark and Luke) notes the similar deuteroescatos (penultimate, next to last) and deuterodekath (“the second tenth”; Jerome, ad Ez. 45).  There thus is no reason why sabbatw deuteroprwtw may not have been understood by the original first-century recipients of the Lukan narrative, even if we today are uncertain.

          In contrast, Metzger (in his Textual Commentary) claims to defend the Alexandrian omission of deuteroprwtw by suggesting “transcriptional blunder” to have caused the rise of the Byzantine deuteroprwtw reading. Yet Metzger’s convoluted explanation of such (taken from Westcott & Hort and Meyer) is highly problematic:

● Step 1: “Perhaps some copyist introduced prwtw as a correlative of en eterw sabbatw in ver. 6, and”

● Step 2:  “a second copyist, in view of [Lk] 4.31, wrote deuterw, deleting prwtw by using dots over the letters — which was the customary way of cancelling a word.”

● Step 3:  “A subsequent transcriber, not noticing the dots, mistakenly combined the two words into one, which he [then] introduced into the text.”

● Step 4 (required, but not mentioned by Metzger): further adjusting the orthography from the two-word form deuterw prwtw into the single-word form deuteroprwtw; 

● Step 5 (also required but not mentioned by Metzger):  this highly problematic reading then would not only be accepted as valid, but also perpetuated without removal or correction among nearly all remaining manuscripts over the centuries of manual transmission.

In addition to the above, the second edition of Metzger’s Textual Commentary offers an alternative but even more convoluted explanation, “as Skeat has suggested” in his “Final Solution” article:

● Step 1:  “by dittography the letters batw were added to sabbatw.”

● Step 2:  “A later copyist interpreted the b as deuterw and the a as prwtw, and”

● Step 3:  “took tw as an indication that the adjective was to agree with sabbatw.”

Step 4 (not stated, but obviously required): In a resultant copy the presumably abbreviated b and a would have to be written in full form as deuterw and prwtw;

● Step 5: (also not stated but required): the extraneous tw would have to be removed;

● Step 6: (similarly): the two words then would be combined into one, with the orthography corrected (as noted above in Metzger’s Step 4); and then

● Step 7 (Metzger’s Step 5): almost all remaining manuscripts then would accept this highly problematic reading and perpetuate it without removal or correction over the centuries of manual transmission].

(Notice that Skeat’s third step simply makes no sense, since the result would have been en sabbatw deuterw prwtw tw diaporeuesqai auton — a construction occurring nowhere else in the New Testament or Septuagint (the usual expression requires en tw [or 2x in the LXX ama tw] + infinitive + accusative subject of the infinitive).  Yet Skeat boldly claims that “Once it has been accepted that deuteroprwtw is a feasible expansion of BATW” everything else will follow without complication.”)

          Metzger’s explanation represents a noble attempt to explain the rise of the more difficult deuteroprwtw by means of compounded transcriptional errors — yet according to his or even Skeat’s hypotheses all initial steps somehow would have to occur in a single exemplar manuscript, with a resultant copy then containing a “clean” form of that “more difficult” reading. That manuscript then becomes the progenitor of that which appears among almost all other manuscripts throughout copying history without subsequent correction.  

          As I stated in 1993, “the logic simply does not follow.”  Unless there were some sort of formal revision process based upon that one particular resultant manuscript, the odds against the massive perpetuation of presumably a “nonsense” reading would be utterly overwhelming — especially since under normal transmissional circumstances such a supposedly egregious error should have been systematically and speedily corrected by the usual scribal diligence, and thus lack perpetuation among most subsequent copies.

          In essence, the Metzger/Hort/Meyer explanations offer a perfect example for Occam’s Razor:  is it easier to accept a highly convoluted 5- or 7-step process that requires a complex and problematic transmissional history?  Or is an assumption of either accidental haplography (skipping from -tw d- to -tw d-) or deliberate removal of a single problematic word the simpler solution?  The answer would seem obvious to anyone not overly enthralled with the Alexandrian text-type.

(More of this interview coming soon!)

Interview with Maurice Robinson, Part 1

Dr. Maurice Robinson

        This week at The Text of the Gospels, Dr. Maurice Robinson of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (in Wake Forest, NC) joins us for an interview about the Byzantine Text.  He is known to many as one of the compilers of The New Testament in the Original Greek – Byzantine Textform.   Thanks for accepting my invitation, Dr. Robinson.

Robinson:  I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to various questions.

Q:  Let’s jump right in.  The Robinson-Pierpont text, the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text, and Wilbur Pickering’s family-35 text are all presented as representations of the Byzantine text.  How different from one another are these compilations?

Robinson:  All three differ approximately 6 to 7 percent from what appears in the Nestle-Aland/UBS critical text, and represent forms of the Byzantine text that vary due to differing theoretical and methodological approaches.  Were I to estimate the degree of difference between any of these basically Byzantine editions, it would probably be only about one-half percent in any paired comparison, given that these all agree in relation to the vast bulk of the NT where the Byzantine Textform basically remains undivided.
          I would not label these other editions “Byzantine-priority,” however, since their underlying methodology allows for some minority group (i.e., far from dominant) Byzantine readings at various points of Byzantine division, whether based on stemmatic preferences (H-F) or by following a minority subgroup within the Byzantine mass (Family 35).  These alternative theories and methods might reflect a general “Byzantine preference,” but they do not in all instances reflect the prevailing agreement reflective of a basic consensus of all Byzantine manuscripts.

Q:  Can you provide a few differences between RP2005 and the BGNT that have an impact on translation?

Robinson:  I really haven’t had any need to compare RP2005 against the Family 35/Kr type of text since no individual Byzantine minority subgroup is determinative in establishing a general consensus text within a Byzantine-priority approach.  While the BGNT does not directly note the differences between the two editions, Pickering’s closely related Family 35/Kr edition does footnote differences between his text and RP2005 (along with various other editions).  I have also seen an English-based list of “clearly translatable differences” that exist “between Kx and Kr/f35” that likely covers most of these variations — but even then, almost all of these are extremely minor in nature, especially when involving word order, synonym substitution, or inclusion/exclusion of short words.

Q:  What is the single biggest difference, outside the pericope adulterae, in the Gospels?

Robinson:  Among the more meaningful instances of inclusion/exclusion between the two texts, consider Luke 22:47, where RP2005 ends the verse with “and he drew near to Jesus to kiss him,” but where Kr/Family 35 adds the harmonization (from Matthew 26:48 and Mark 14:44), “For he had given them this sign, ‘Whomever I should kiss, he it is’” — a reading that according to von Soden is supported among the primary bulk of Byzantine manuscripts (Kx) only in the proportion 1:12, even though thoroughly present among the much later and revisionary Kr group of manuscripts.
          I would suggest such an expansion to be secondary, and not only on external but on transmissional grounds:  had such a lengthy phrase originally been present, no good reason would exist for its omission among the bulk of remaining Byzantine manuscripts (including many much earlier than those comprising Family 35/Kr); further, an original lack of such a phrase readily could impel later revisers to insert such in order to harmonize with the remaining synoptic gospels.

Q:  Several English translations based on the Byzantine Text have been made.  Do you have a favorite?

Robinson:  Most of these translations you speak of are electronic in nature, and readily available on the internet. Of these, the English Majority Text Version (EMTV), based on the Hodges-Farstad Interlinear, and the World English Bible (WEB), based on an updated and textually adjusted form of the 1901 ASV, probably are among the better renderings, although I often might differ regarding the translation of certain words and phrases (just as with most published English translations).

Q:  Do you think there is a potential market in the near future for an English translation based on the Byzantine Text?

Robinson:  Indeed I long have held that there is a significant market for a Byzantine-based formal-equivalence English translation, and I would strongly support publishers who might see fit to develop and market such, who might even be willing to adapt existing translations such as the NASV, NKJV, or ESV to an alternate Byzantine edition that could be marketed alongside their current holdings based on the critical text or TR.  Even beyond that, I would strongly support a new, committee-based, formal equivalence translation from the Byzantine Textform that could be published and marketed in hard copy, and thereby fulfill the original desire of Hodges and Farstad regarding both the NKJV and HCSB — intentionally sidetracked along the way by their respective publishers.
          As an aside, I suggest that the ESV committee severely errs in now declaring their current translational form to be a “permanent text edition.”  That procedure guarantees an eventual extinction or readership departure from the ESV as (1) the English language or syntactical understanding might change, and (2) particularly where the ESV critical text base might require alteration due to new textual theories or discoveries (one need only consider what changes CBGM might require in future NA/UBS editions — changes which all other translations based on the critical text will accept and follow, but apparently not the ESV).

Q: How do you resolve variant-units where there is no strong majority?

Robinson:  The easiest answer is this:  where the Byzantine Textform is sharply divided, one obviously cannot appeal solely to external testimony in order to establish the most plausible original reading. Resolution of intra-Byzantine division requires consideration of internal evidence as such might relate to the various readings found among the Byzantine witnesses at those points (several such internal evidence principles are mentioned in “The Case for Byzantine Priority”).

Q: Are the rest of us putting the books of the New Testament in the wrong order?

Robinson:  Based on what appears among the earlier manuscripts, this most definitely is the case. The RP2005 text reflects that early order, where Acts is immediately followed by the General Epistles, then the Pauline Epistles (in which Hebrews divides the church letters from those to individuals), and then Revelation.
          The RP2005 arrangement of the NT books is not new; the same order appears in Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott-Hort, and von Soden, and remains far more historically based and thematically logical than the familiar but later ordering that derives more from Latin and TR traditions than anything else.

Q:  In “The Case for Byzantine Priority” you state, “Whenever possible, the raw number of MSS should be intelligently reduced.” How would you reply to a proposal to boil down the weight of the copies of Theophylact’s Gospels-text to the weight of their archetype, seeing that the various Byzantine subtypes can be grouped “according to their hypothetical archetypes”

Robinson:  Regarding the Theophylact manuscripts, my PA collation data suggests that the Theophylact commentary along with its quoted biblical text jointly derive from a common archetype.  That base tends to prevail among nearly all Theophylact manuscripts, and thus the multiplicity of Theophylact manuscripts (approximately 125) really says little or nothing beyond the text of its original archetype.

Q:  Do you mean that just as we tend not to count individual copies of the Vulgate, we should not count individual copies of clearly identifiable Byzantine sub-groups?

Robinson:  Regarding the various Byzantine subtypes, those with relatively limited support almost certainly derive from their own separate sub-archetypes characterized by their differences from the primary majority bulk of Byzantine documents. This is not to say that their existence is of no value, but that whatever presence a particular Byzantine subgroup might have would represent only the limited degree of popularity that specific line of transmission represents (this in terms of copying frequency and historical preservation).

Q:  If someone were to compile the text via a mathematical formula, adopting whatever reading was favored by a majority of archetypes (not just text-types, but also Byzantine sub-groups) and base-texts of early versions rather than by a majority of manuscripts, wouldn’t the resultant compilation differ at some points from the Byzantine Textform?

Robinson:  Obviously, the RP text offers no “mathematical formula,” but only a basic transmissional consensus approach. Thus I would not recommend a “majority of archetypes” methodology to replace the general consensus found amid the mass of Byzantine manuscripts.  Indeed, were some “majority of archetypes” method to be followed (whether limiting the sub-archetypes to Byzantine or otherwise), the resultant text necessarily would differ at various points from the prevailing consensus that represents the dominant line of Byzantine transmission.

Q: Even though you state in “The Case for Byzantine Priority” that “Manuscripts still need to be weighed and not merely counted,” it has been claimed that the Byzantine Priority view seeks to establish the text by “counting manuscripts.” What do you say in response?

Robinson:  By its very nature, the Byzantine Textform in its aggregate does represent the vast numerical majority of manuscripts; therefore “number” is one component within Byzantine-priority theory, but hardly the sole element (even Burgon suggested seven different data categories to be necessary for establishing the text). Within Byzantine-priority theory, transmissional factors are far more significant than mere number, as even Scrivener had suggested.
          Compare a parallel example: were one to advocate a theory of “Alexandrian-priority” or “Western-priority,” intending to establish a putative archetype of those forms of text from its extant representatives, “number” alone would not be the primary factor. The published research of Heimerdinger and Rius-Camps in relation to their view of “Western priority” demonstrates the point.  Similarly, claims of mere “nose-counting” reflect a gross over-simplification and offer little more than a misleading caricature of the more thorough and reasonable case being advocated.

Q: Can internal evidence ever overrule the external evidence when over 95% of the manuscript-evidence is in agreement? Is there any reading in the Byzantine Textform that you can identify as a case where this has happened?

Robinson:  The short answer is no, and that specifically because of the nature of Byzantine-priority. Put simply, one cannot be consistent in advocating a valid form of Byzantine-priority (or even Alexandrian-priority) while rejecting the dominant consensus of that text-type. While some might prefer a more general “Byzantine-preferred” position and thereby feel free to depart the Byzantine at various points on the basis of external or internal considerations (e.g., united versional or patristic testimony differing from the Byzantine, or internal criteria considered strong enough to override any external consensus), the resultant theory and praxis no longer would be “Byzantine-priority,” but a less-than-exclusive “Byzantine-preference” or even some sort of “Equitable Eclecticism.”
          I do not suggest, however, that internal criteria are invoked only where the Byzantine Textform is sharply divided and they are neglected where the mass of Byzantine manuscripts agree. Rather, internal criteria can and should be utilized in every instance of variant reading, either to confirm and defend the external data (when basically united) or to assist in determining the best reading where the Byzantine manuscripts are seriously divided). This is specifically what Dan Wallace has suggested Byzantine or majority text supporters should do, and is the intent of the Textual Commentary I currently am working on (two years in, with many more to go given that more than 3000 variant units need to be discussed).

(To be continued)

END OF PART ONE