Second Peter 3:10 - A Step Backwards in NA28

 

            Has the church lost the original text of Second Peter 3:10?

            “Doubtless” was Hort’s answer in 1881.    His note is a bit torpid but his verdict is clear:

“iii.10 (†) εὑρεθήσεται] οὐχ εὐρεθήσεται syr.bod[= an obscure Syriac version of the three Catholic Epistles not in the Syriac canon] theb :  κατακαήσεται (? Alexandrian and) Constantinopolitan (Gr. Lat. Syr. Eg. Æth.) ; incl. A L₂ lat. vg. codd Cyr.al Aug:  ἀφανισθήσονται C: , ni: , the whole clause (καὶ γῆ … κατακ.) lat. vg pp^scr pp^lat.scr.  Text ﬡBK₂P₂27 29 66** syr.hl.mg. arm :  cf. bod the.  The great difficulty of text has evidently given rise to all these variations (Introd. § 365).  It is doubtless itself a corruption of ῾ρυήσεται (῾ρεήσεται) or of one of its compounds.”

Second Peter 3:10 in Codex Alexandrinus

            The Byzantine text of II Peter 3:10 is:   Ἥξει δὲ ἡ ἡμέρα κυ ὡς κλέπτης ἐν νυκτί ἐν ᾗ οἱ οὐρανοὶ ҅ροιζηδον παρελεύσονται στοιχεῖα δὲ καυσούμενα λυθήσονται καὶ γῆ καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ ἔργα κατακήσεται – diverging from the text of NA27 at five points, two of which are detectable in translation:  the simple presence or absence of ἐν νυκτί and the final word of the sentence.     

            While the shorter reading is explainable as a loss due to parablepsis from the ἐν before νυκτί to the ἐν after it, and its longer rival is supported by C K L 049 104 629 1751 Byz, the Byzantine reading was assumed so readily by the editors of UBS4 to be a harmonization to First Thessalonians 5:2 that it didn’t even receive a listing in the apparatus.  The array of external against it is indeed very impressive – P72 ﬡ A B P Ψ 048^vid 0156 33 323 945 1739 Vulgate Coptic. 

      
      It is the textual contest at the end of the verse that has attracted the most attention recently, because the editors of Novum Testamentum Graece decided to print in the text a reading which is not found in any Greek manuscript of Second Peter.   The textual contest in the last word of Second Peter 3:10 has been an issue for a long time.   Not only Westcott & Hort but also (according to NA27’s apparatus) Naber, Olivier, Mayor, and Eberhard Nestle each proposed different conjectural emendations here – swept away, conflagrated, removed, and judged, respectively).  Normal people might imagine that an “embarrassment of riches,” would naturally preclude such guesses, but, no, the NET’s annotator candidly admits that this is “one of the most difficult textual problems in the NT.” 

            The NET’s annotator firmly endorsed εὑρεθήσται as the original reading, arguing that the opacity of the meaning of εὑρεθήσται provoked scribes to substitute a word that seemed easier to understand.  This is perfectly lucid.  In addition, the meaning of the text in the smattering of non-Greek witnesses enlisted to support ουχ is accounted for as a harmonization to the meaning of Revelation 20:11 (οὐχ εὐρέθη in the majority text).  The conjectural emendation that currently is printed in NA28 cannot be recommended as superior – but it does serve as an interesting and obvious admission that the editors do not believe that the original text of Second Peter 3:10 has survived in any extant Greek witness.  Some onlookers have assumed that the C.B.G.M. had something to do with the editors’ decision, but that seems impossible, inasmuch as there is no coherence to consider.

N-A in 2018 and W-H in 1881: How Similar?

Eldon Jay Epp

Eldon Jay Epp, in his 1974 essay, The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism (published in the Journal of Biblical Literature), mentioned the result of a comparison made by Kurt Aland between the compilation of the Greek New Testament that was produced by Westcott and Hort in 1881, and the compilation in the 25th edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece published in 1963:  Aland detected that the difference between the 1881 text and the 1963 text amounted to 558 variants.  Epp concluded from this that “None of the currently popular hand-editions of the Greek NT takes us beyond Westcott-Hort in any substantive way as far as textual character is concerned.”

Epp observed the differences between the materials used by Westcott and Hort and the materials that subsequently became available.  Westcott and Hort did not use any papyri when making their compilation; they utilized no more than 45 uncial manuscripts; they used only about 150 minuscules; they cited only a small number of lectionaries.  In comparison, the modern textual critic in 1974 had the ability to consult over 80 papyri and 270 uncials.  Almost 2,800 minuscules were catalogued, along with 2,100 lectionaries.  (These quantities have grown significantly since 1974.)  Versional evidence and patristic research has “advanced significantly” – particularly where Syriac, Old Latin, and Armenian studies are concerned.

Yet in 1980, Epp acknowledged – in a sort of sequel-article, A Continuing Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism? (in Harvard Theological Review) – that the multitude of discoveries made after 1881 have not had much impact on the text, even though they have not vindicated the model of the text’s transmission-history that was assumed by Hort:  “What have our vastly increased manuscript discoveries and analysis done for us?” Epp asked.  “Do they confirm the methods and theories that produced the text of a hundred years ago?  All of us would quickly answer ‘Certainly not!’”

The thing to see is that the text of 100 years ago (i.e., in 1980, the text of 1881, Hort’s compilation) is barely different from the text being published as the 28th edition of Novum Testamentum Graece.  To offer up-to-date evidence of this point, I have made a fresh comparison of the 1881 compilation and the current edition of the Nestle-Aland compilation, in the following way:  first, I noted the 34 changes that were introduced between the 27th and 28th editions in the General Epistles.  (These have already been individually listed and described.)  I then proceeded to sift through Wieland Willker’s online presentation of the Greek New Testament in which he denotes differences between the Nestle-Aland NTG and Hort’s 1881 text.  Throughout the comparison, I noted all disagreements, but also assigned a special category to points in the text where one compilation or the other compilation has bracketed readings – that is, points where the difference between the two compilations is either (a) a matter of adding or subtracting brackets around variants, or (b) a matter of adding a bracketed word or words.

Here are the results, book by book: 

[Book: Disagreements / Disagreements that involve brackets]

Matthew: 188 / 95.  Full disagreements = 93.
Mark: 145 / 86.  Full disagreements = 59.
Luke: 156 / 84.  Full disagreements = 72.
John: 202 / 115.  Full disagreements = 87.
Subtotal:  Gospels: 691 / 380. Full disagreements = 311.

Acts: 204 / 89. Full disagreements = 115.

Romans: 65 / 36. Full disagreements = 29.
First Corinthians: 62 / 33. Full disagreements = 29.
Second Corinthians: 34 / 16. Full disagreements = 18.
Galatians: 23 / 10. Full disagreements = 13.
Ephesians: 16 / 11. Full disagreements = 5.
Philippians: 14 / 6. Full disagreements = 8.
Colossians: 14 / 10. Full disagreements = 4.
First Thessalonians: 17 / 11. Full disagreements = 6.
Second Thessalonians: 7 / 4. Full disagreements = 3.
First Timothy: 6 / 5. Full disagreements = 1.
Second Timothy: 8 / 3. Full disagreements = 5.
Titus: 6 / 2. Full disagreements = 4.
Philemon: 3 / 2. Full disagreements = 1.
Hebrews: 34 / 18. Full disagreements = 16.
Subtotal: Pauline Epistles: 309 / 167. Full disagreements = 142.

Papyri?  Who needs 'em?

James: 20 / 4. Full disagreements: 16.
First Peter: 26 / 13. Full disagreements: 13.
Second Peter: 12 / 5. Full disagreements: 7.
First John: 18 / 11. Full disagreements: 7.
Second John: 2 / 0. Full disagreements: 2.
Third John: 1 / 0. Full disagreements: 1.
Jude: 8 / 4. Full disagreements: 4.
Subtotal:  General Epistles: 87 / 37. Full disagreements = 50.

Revelation: 81 / 38. Full disagreements = 43.

Total Disagreements:  1,372
Total Full Disagreements:  661.

            Adding to this the 34 new readings in NA28, the total number of full disagreements in the 28th edition of Novum Testamentum Graece against WH1881 is 695.

            This is particularly interesting when one turns to the Editionum Differentiae (Appendix III) in the 27th edition of NTG, which lists (among other things) the differences between NA27 and NA25.  (The text was essentially unchanged in the intervening 26th edition, which had essentially the same text as the third edition of the UBS Greek New Testament.)  There one can observe that between NA25 and NA27, there were 397 changes in the Gospels, 119 in Acts, 149 in the Pauline Epistles, 46 in the General Epistles, and 29 in Revelation, for a total of 740.  

            Thus, setting aside cases of bracketed words, it seems that if one were to start with WH1881 and change it until it matched up with NA28, one would need to make 695 changes, whereas using the same approach, if one were to start with the 1963 NA25, and change it until it matched up with NA28, one would need to make 774 changes.  It seems that the compilers of NA28 must think that the WH1881 compilation – made without the benefit of papyri, and based on a transmission-model which no serious textual critics still advocate (at least, none known to Dr. Peter Gurry, as he mentioned in a recent post at the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog) – was closer to the original text than the 1963 compilation was. 

(Readers are invited to double-check the statistics in this post.)

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.

Nestle-Aland 28: Much Ado About Even Less

          In the previous post, I concluded that although it has been claimed that the new edition of the Nestle-Aland compilation of the Greek text of the New Testament reflects the editors’ acknowledgement of “much greater value of the Byzantine manuscripts” than before, such a thing is practically indiscernible in the compilation in James, First Peter, and Second Peter – the first three books of the General Epistles, which is the only part of the New Testament in which NA28 introduces text-critically derived alterations to the text.  Previous, NA27 and the Byzantine Text disagreed in those three books 187 times; now NA28 and the Byzantine Text disagree 181 times.  That’s not much of a shift.

          But what about the Epistles of John, and the Epistle of Jude?  Does the 28th edition of the Nestle-Aland compilation have more agreements with the Byzantine Text in those four books?  Let’s find out, investigating all of the textual changes from NA26 (1979) to NA28 (2013) in First John, Second John, Third John, and Jude.  Red text signifies that NA28 rejects a Byzantine reading that was in NA26 and NA27.  A dot accompanies each adoption of a Byzantine reading.

FIRST JOHN

1:7:  δε is not included after εαν near the beginning of the verse, agreeing with 1739 but disagreeing with the Byzantine Text.

3:7:  Παιδια instead of Τεκνία at the beginning of the verse, agreeing with A and 1739 but disagreeing with the Byzantine Text.

● 5:10:  αυτω instead of εαυτω, agreeing with B, A, and the Byzantine Text.  Here NA28 reverts to the reading that was in NA25.

● 5:18:  εαυτον instead of αυτον, agreeing with À, 1739, and the Byzantine Text.

SECOND JOHN

● v. 5:  γράφων σοι καινην instead of καινην γράφων σοι, agreeing with B and the Byzantine Text, but disagreeing with a wide array of witnesses including À A 1505 and 1739.  Here NA28 reverts to the reading that was in NA25. 

● v. 12:  ᾐ πεπληρωμένη after υμων, instead of πεπληρωμένη ᾐ, agreeing with the Byzantine Text.

THIRD JOHN

● v. 4:  τη is not included before ἀληθεία, agreeing with À, 1739, and the Byzantine Text.

JUDE

v. 5:  ἅπαξ has been moved; ἅπαξ πάντα appears between υμας and οτι (NA27 read  πάντα οτι after υμας.  The new reading disagrees with the Byzantine Text, in which υμας is followed by ἅπαξ τουτο οτι.

v. 5:  Ιησους instead of [ο] κύριος, disagreeing with the Byzantine Text, but agreeing with the Vulgate.  Although it is sometimes claimed that textual variants have no impact on Christian doctrines, James White recently acknowledged, “That’s interesting:  Jesus delivered the people from Israel.  That’s got some pretty important theological ramifications to it.  There’s no question about that.”  (Of course he meant to refer to Egypt, not Israel.)  

v. 18:  οτι is not included before επ’ εσχάτου, agreeing with À and B but disagreeing with Papyrus 72, 1739, and the Byzantine Text.  The Byzantine Text here reads οτι εν εσχάτου.   

● v. 18:  του is not included after εσχάτου, agreeing with the Byzantine Text.   

           Added up, that comes to five new disagreements, and six new agreements.    

           In the 27^th edition of the Nestle-Aland compilation, there were 92 disagreements with the Byzantine Text in these four books.  But now, in the 28^th edition, the editors’ newfound appreciation for the Byzantine Text has caused that number to plummet to 91.  Combined with the results from James, First Peter, and Second Peter, this means that the number of times the Nestle-Aland compilation disagrees with the Byzantine Text in the General Epistles has dropped from 279 to 272. 

Nestle-Aland 28: Much Ado About Almost Nothing

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

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

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

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

JAMES

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

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

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

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

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

FIRST PETER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECOND PETER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nestle-Aland in Mark 11: Alexandrian or Eclectic?

          In the preceding three posts, I observed that even though the Nestle-Aland/UBS compilation of the Greek New Testament is often described as an eclectic edition, based on hundreds and hundreds of manuscripts, in three sample-chapters it is almost entirely Alexandrian, and it hardly contains any distinctive Byzantine readings which represent the vast majority of extant Greek manuscripts.  To be precise, in Galatians 1, NA is .3% distinctly Byzantine; in Luke 15, NA is 1% distinctly Byzantine, and in NA’s 2,812-letter compilation of John 20, there is only one letter (and a bracketed letter, at that) which is in the Byzantine Text and not in Vaticanus (B) or Sinaiticus (À).

          Let’s make another investigation; this time, we will look at the eleventh chapter of the Gospel of Mark, which describes Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the cleansing of the temple, and some other incidents that occurred during the final week of Jesus’ ministry.  In Reuben Swanson’s comparison of the readings of some major manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark, chapter 11 is divided into 59 text-lines.  In 45 of those text-lines, NA agrees precisely with B.  (One of those lines is repeated, however, due to a printing error, so the real total is 58 text-lines, of which B agrees precisely in 44.)   Out of the remaining 14 text-lines, three agree precisely with À (after nomina sacra contractions are taken into consideration).  This means that if we are to find distinctly Byzantine readings in Mark 11 in the Nestle-Aland compilation, they will be somewhere in the remaining 11 text-lines.  Here is what we find there:

● At the beginning of verse 1, NA adopts À’s spelling of Βηθφαγη (disagreeing with B’s Βηδφαγη and with the Byzantine Text’s Βηθσφαγη – though the Byzantine Text is divided at this point; RP2005 has Βηθφαγη in the margin) and then rejects À’s inclusion of εις (agreeing with B and with the Byzantine Text).  Thus, while the line as a whole agrees with relatively few manuscripts (such as W Δ f1), each component agrees with either B or À. 

● In the second half of verse 1, NA disagrees with B’s reading το (disagreeing with των which is read by À and the Byzantine Text), and then agrees with B’s reading of the next word, Ελαιων, disagreeing with À’s Ελεων.  The line as a whole thus agrees with the Byzantine Text; however, neither component agrees with the Byzantine Text distinctly; each component agrees with either B or À. 

● At the end of verse 3, NA adopts B’s spelling ευθυς (instead of the Byzantine reading ευθεως) but then adopts the word-order found in À (disagreeing with B).  NA also adopts the word παλιν near the end of verse 3; the word is not in the Byzantine Text.  Next, NA adopts και απηλθον (read by B and À) instead of απηλθον δε, which is read by the Byzantine Text.  NA also does not include τον before πωλον, although τον is read by À.  Thus, this text-line does not entirely agree with B, or with À, or the Byzantine Text.  Swanson lists only one manuscript – Codex L – that has the combination of readings selected in NA.  Yet, taken individually, each component agrees with either B or À.

● In a text-line which ends with the first three words of verse 6, NA rejected the spelling found in B, À, and in the Byzantine Text (ειπον), adopting instead ειπαν, which is read by a small but respectable cluster of manuscripts (including A, L, Δ, and Π).  This component stands as a non-Byzantine reading which disagrees with À and B.

● Midway through verse 7, NA reads επιβάλλουσιν (agreeing with B and À against the Byzantine Text’s reading επέβαλον) but after the word ιμάτια, NA reads αυτων (agreeing with the Byzantine Text and disagreeing with B’s reading εαυτων and À’s reading αυτω).  The text-line as a whole thus agrees with relatively few manuscripts (including Codices C and L) and its last featured reading (αυτων after ιμάτια) is a Byzantine reading not supported by B or À.

● In the next text-line (in which verse 8 begins), NA adopts εκάθισεν (agreeing with B and the Byzantine Text but disagreeing with À’s reading εκάθισαν), and then adopts και πολλοι (agreeing with B and À but disagreeing with the Byzantine Text’s πολλοι δε), and then, after ιμάτια, adopts αυτων (agreeing with À and the Byzantine Text but disagreeing with B’s reading εαυτων).  The line as a whole thus agrees with relatively few manuscripts (including Codices C, Δ, and 579).  However, each component agrees with either B or À.    

● In the second half of verse 11, NA disagrees with À’s reading οψε (reading οψιας instead, agreeing with B and with the Byzantine Text), and also disagrees with B’s non-inclusion of της ωρας (thus agreeing with À and with the Byzantine Text).  Thus, as a whole, this text-line agrees with the Byzantine Text.  Individually, however, each component agrees with either B or À.

● At the beginning of verse 21, NA rejects the spelling of Ραββει, adopting instead Ραββι and thus agreeing with the Byzantine Text.

● At the beginning of verse 25, NA adopts στήκετε as the third word in the verse, thus disagreeing with B and with the Byzantine Text (which read στήκητε)  and with À (which reads στητε).    

● At the beginning of verse 30, NA includes το after βαπτισμα (agreeing with B and À but disagreeing with the Byzantine Text) but does not adopt B’s spelling of John’s name (Ιωάνου), agreeing instead with À and the Byzantine Text, which read Ιωάννου.  Then NA disagrees with À’s inclusion of the word ποθεν.  As a whole, this text-line agrees with relatively few manuscripts (including Codices A, D, and L).  Individually, each component agrees with either À or B. 

● At the end of verse 33, NA adopts οχλον instead of λαόν, thus agreeing with B and À against the Byzantine Text.  But then NA rejects À’s reading παντες, adopting instead απαντες which agrees with B and with the Byzantine Text.  But then, NA rejects B’s spelling of John’s name (Ιωάνην), reading  Ιωάννην instead.  And next, NA includes the words οντως οτι, agreeing at this point with B but disagreeing with À (which has only οτι) and with the Byzantine text (which transposes these two words).   The text-line as a whole thus agrees with none of Swanson’s witnesses except for a corrector of À.  Taken individually, each component agrees with either B or À.

          Thus, when the variant-units are examined individually, the distinctly Byzantine readings in Mark 11 in the Nestle-Aland compilation consist of the following:

(1)  In verse 7, NA reads αυτων (agreeing with the Byzantine Text and disagreeing with B’s reading εαυτων and À’s reading αυτω), and  

(2)  In verse 21, NA rejects the spelling Ραββει, adopting instead Ραββι and thus agreeing with the Byzantine Text.

          Thus, in Mark 11, the impact of the Byzantine Text is felt by the absence of one letter (ε) in verse 7, and by the absence of one letter in verse 21.  Reckoning that the text of Mark 11 in NA consists of 563 words, and that the Byzantine Text’s contribution to the compilation is discernible in two words, this implies that .4% of the Nestle-Aland compilation of Mark 11 is distinctly Byzantine.  Or, calculating that the text of Mark 11 in NA consists of 2,752 letters, one could say that the Byzantine Text’s existence is manifest in less than .02% of the Nestle-Aland compilation.  The rest originates with other witnesses, primarily Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Codex L.

Postscript:  In the course of this series of posts, a point has been raised in the comments:  because the Byzantine Text and the Alexandrian Text agree so frequently, the Byzantine Text’s existence cannot be manifested in 100% of the compilation, but can only be expressed at those points where the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts disagree.  That is undoubtedly true, but how can one answer the question being asked – To what extent is the Nestle-Aland compilation an eclectic text rather than an Alexandrian text? – if not by identifying non-Alexandrian readings (especially Byzantine readings) and seeing how much of the compilation they constitute?  Nor does it affect the answer to the question:  whether one looks at the whole compilation, or only at the parts where the Alexandrian and Byzantine Texts disagree, it is obvious that the Nestle-Aland compilation contains hardly any readings that are found in the Byzantine Text and not in the Alexandrian Text.     

Nestle-Aland in John 20: Alexandrian or Eclectic?

          In the two preceding posts, I showed that the Nestle-Aland/UBS compilation is almost entirely Alexandrian in Galatians 1 and in Luke 15.  To be precise, the NA compilation adopts a Byzantine reading instead of an Alexandrian reading in .3% of Galatians 1, and in 1% of Luke 15.  Let’s take another sample from the Gospels – John 20 – and see what kind of results we get.

          Sifting through John 20 in Reuben Swanson’s presentation of the text in horizontal-line comparisons of the contents of many important manuscripts, I observe that out of 53 text-lines, NA agrees entirely with Vaticanus (B) in 39 of them.  In the remaining 14 text-lines, NA agrees entirely with Sinaiticus (À) in six.  This leaves eight lines that do not agree entirely with either B or À.  Let’s investigate those eight lines to see how non-Alexandrian the Nestle-Aland compilation is in this chapter:

          ● At the end of verse 4, NA adopts τάχιον (agreeing with À), and also adopts À’s reading ηλθεν, but then follows the word-order in B.  Thus, although this three-part series of readings, collectively, agrees with the Byzantine Text, each component agrees with either B or À.

          ● At the beginning of verse 13, NA has και at the very beginning of the verse (agreeing with B) and does not have και later in the verse before λέγει (agreeing with À).  Thus, in this case, each component of the text of NA agrees with either B or À.      

          ● At the beginning of verse 17, NA does not adopt ὁ before Ιησους (agreeing with B), and then adopts the word-order in À (μου απτου), and then does not adopt μου (agreeing with B and À).  Thus, taken as a series, this text-line agrees with D against B, À, and the Byzantine Text, but taken individually, each component is found in either B or À.

          ● In verse 22, NA adopts the variant αφέωνται, disagreeing with B (αφειονται) and À (αφεθήσεται) and the Byzantine Text (αφίενται), agreeing with a small minority of manuscripts including Codices A and D.

          ● At the beginning of verse 25, NA adopts ουν after ελεγον, and αλλοι before μαθηται (agreeing both times with B), but then adopts Εωράκαμεν, agreeing instead with À and the Byzantine Text.  Thus, taken individually, each component of this text-line is found in B or À. 

          ● At the end of verse 27 and the beginning of verse 28, NA reads γίμου, rejecting the itacism in B (γειμου) and agreeing with À.  Further along in the line, however, NA does not adopt ὁ before Ιησους (agreeing with B but not with À).  NA also rejects Και at the beginning of the verse.  Each component of this text-line is found in B or À or both. 

          ● At the beginning of verse 29, NA adopts λεγει, agreeing with B and the Byzantine Text against À (which reads ειπεν δε).  Then NA adopts ὁ before Ιησους (disagreeing with B and the Byzantine Text, but agreeing with À), and further along in the verse reads εωρακάς, disagreeing with the Byzantine Text (which reads εωρακάς) but agreeing with B and À.  NA also does not include και after με (thus agreeing with B and the Byzantine Text but disagreeing with À).  Thus, in this series of variant-units, NA collectively disagrees with B, with À, and with the Byzantine Text (agreeing instead with Codices A, C, D, N, and an assortment of other manuscripts).  Each component of this text-line, however, agrees with either B or À.          

          ● Near the beginning of verse 31, NA places the letter sigma in brackets, so as to read πιστεύ[σ]ητε which disagrees with B and À and agrees with the Byzantine Text.

          Thus, out of the eight text-lines which do not entirely agree with B or À, we see that in terms of their component-parts, they all agree with either B or À except at two points:  the adoption of αφέωνται in verse 22 (disagreeing with the Byzantine Text’s reading αφίενται), and the inclusion of the bracketed letter sigma in πιστεύ[σ]ητε in verse 31.   

          The existence of the Byzantine Text is thus manifested in the Nestle-Aland text of John 21 by one letter.  That is, a distinctly Byzantine reading (one that is not found in B or À) is preferred in one of John 20’s 615 words in the Nestle-Aland compilation.  Or, calculated by letters:  exactly one of  this chapter’s 2,812 letters in the Nestle-Aland compilation is found in the Byzantine Text and not in Vaticanus or Sinaiticus.  The letter is bracketed, however, so do not be surprised if the number of distinct Byzantine readings in John 20 is zero in the next edition.  (The New Living Translation is already based on the reading without the sigma.)

Nestle-Aland in Luke 15: Alexandrian or Eclectic?

          Is the Nestle-Aland compilation basically a slightly tweaked presentation of the Alexandrian Text, relying very heavily on Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus?  Or is it an eclectic text based on thousands of manuscripts?  In the previous post, I investigated Galatians chapter 1 and found that the text in NA27 can be almost completely derived from readings in Vaticanus and/or Sinaiticus.  The Byzantine Text’s unique contribution to Galatians 1 amounts to .3% of the text.  What about the text in the Gospels?  Let’s investigate, using Luke 15 as a sample-passage – a chapter known for its parables:  the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the prodigal son.

          Sifting through the horizontal-line comparison prepared by Reuben Swanson for the text of the Gospel of Luke, we find that out of 51 lines of text, Swanson reports that NA and B agree in 39 of them.  Out of the remaining 12 lines of text in which NA and B do not agree, the NA compilation agrees with Sinaiticus in six of them.  This leaves six text-lines in Luke 15 in which NA does not consist of the contents of either B or À.  Here are those six deviations:   

● In a line in which verse 10 begins, NA reads γίνεται χαρα, adopting the word-order found in B and À but not adopting their spelling. (They both read γεινεται χαρα.)  Apparently, only one manuscript used by Swanson (minuscule 579) has this reading; the Byzantine Text reads χαρα γίνεται instead. 

● At the beginning of verse 14, NA reads λιμος ισχυρα, adopting the second word in agreement with B and À but rejecting their spelling of the first word (λειμος).  The occurrence of λιμος and ισχυρα side-by-side here appears to be attested in only a few manuscripts, one of which is Codex L.  The Byzantine Text reads λιμος ισχυρος instead.    

● In the middle of verse 15, NA rejects the spelling of B and À (where both read πολειτων), adopting instead the spelling used in Codex L and in the Byzantine Text (πολιτων).

● Near the end of verse 17, NA rejects the reading found in Papyrus 75, B and À (λειμω ωδε) and the shorter reading found in the Byzantine Text (λιμω), and the transposition supported by other manuscripts (including Codices D, N, and Θ), adopting instead the reading found in Codex L (λιμω ωδε).  (The transposed reading, whether ωδε λειμω or ωδε λιμω, explains its rivals:  when ωδε was accidentally skipped after the preceding word δε, it was lost in the Byzantine Text, and in the Alexandrian Text, after the loss was detected, the word ωδε was moved, as a practical preventative measure, to the other side of λειμω or λιμω.)  

● At the end of verse 21, NA rejects the reading found in B and À (and in Codex D and a minority of minuscules including 700), ποίησόν με ως ενα των μισθίων σου (that is, “Make me as one of your hired servants,” the same phrase found in verse 19), adopting the shorter reading supported by almost all other Greek manuscripts, including Papyrus 75, Codex L, and the Byzantine Text.  (More Greek manuscripts support the variant in B and À here than support the non-inclusion of Mark 16:9-20; yet this variant does not even receive a footnote in translations such as the ESV, HCSB, NIV, and NASB.)

● At the beginning of verse 25, NA adopts the word-order in B (ουτος ο υιος μου), and then adopts the next variant from À (ανέζησεν, instead of B’s εζησεν) – a combination found in only a few manuscripts, including Papyrus 75 and Codex L.  NA also rejects the Byzantine Text’s inclusion of the word και.

          Thus, out of the six text-lines in Luke 16 that do not agree with either Vaticanus or Sinaiticus, Novum Testamentum Graece adopts a reading found in the Byzantine Text in two of them.  The effect of the Byzantine Text upon the text in Luke 16 thus amounts to the removal of one letter in the À-B text in verse 15, and the removal of seven words at the end of verse 21. 

          One could argue that the real impetus for these deviations was Codex L – a strongly Alexandrian witness in Luke – rather than the Byzantine Text, inasmuch as Codex L’s readings were adopted in both of these places and in verses 14 and 25.  Nevertheless, presuming the maximum discernible impact of the Byzantine Text, out of Luke 16’s 2,703 letters in the Nestle-Aland compilation, had the Byzantine Text not been consulted, the text in verse 15 would be one letter longer, and the text in verse 21 would be 27 letters (that is, seven words) longer, yielding a total of 2,731 letters.  Thus, the impact of the Byzantine Text upon the text of Luke 15 in the Nestle-Aland compilation may be said to be discernible in 1% of the text.