https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQQr2DeeTl4
(At around the 5:43 mark, the slide that refers to letters should refer instead to numbers.)
A blog by James Snapp Jr. about New Testament textual criticism, especially involving variants in the Gospels.
Showing posts with label Reasoned Eclecticism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reasoned Eclecticism. Show all posts
Thursday, June 25, 2020
Video Lecture: How To Use the Nestle-Aland Apparatus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQQr2DeeTl4
(At around the 5:43 mark, the slide that refers to letters should refer instead to numbers.)
Saturday, October 28, 2017
Equitable Eclecticism - Part 2
(Continuing the presentation of a slightly updated version of my 2010 essay Equitable Eclecticism: The Future of New Testament Textual Criticism)
Competing Analytical
Approaches
In the Byzantine Priority view, Greek manuscripts which display the Byzantine Text are considered superior witnesses on the grounds that their text has a plausible transmission-history. Pick any series of readings in the Byzantine Text, and it can be shown to have considerable manuscript support. The Nestle-Aland compilation, meanwhile, is considered a “test-tube text,” because it often combines readings in a series that is unattested in any Greek manuscript. And although it has been argued that this is unavoidably what one gets when selecting variants from among different text-types, the point remains that a heavy burden of proof should be upon the compiler whose work implies a transmission-history in which no copyists have preserved the original combination of readings in hundreds of passages.
On the other end of the spectrum, the approach used by Hort may seem like something very different from Byzantine Priority, but in terms of methodology the two approaches are similar: Hort regarded a specific set of manuscripts as superior to all others (in this case, Codex Vaticanus and whatever allies Hort could find for it), and he built a transmission-model that vindicated its readings. Having established Vaticanus as the best overall witness in a relatively small series of contests, Hort gave it enormous weight, with the result that its text just kept getting better and better, as more and more contests were decided by “the weight of the witnesses” – to the point that long segments of Hort’s compilation resemble transcripts of Codex Vaticanus.
On the other end of the spectrum, the approach used by Hort may seem like something very different from Byzantine Priority, but in terms of methodology the two approaches are similar: Hort regarded a specific set of manuscripts as superior to all others (in this case, Codex Vaticanus and whatever allies Hort could find for it), and he built a transmission-model that vindicated its readings. Having established Vaticanus as the best overall witness in a relatively small series of contests, Hort gave it enormous weight, with the result that its text just kept getting better and better, as more and more contests were decided by “the weight of the witnesses” – to the point that long segments of Hort’s compilation resemble transcripts of Codex Vaticanus.
Two other approaches were developed
by textual critics in the 1900’s by scholars aspiring to produce an eclectic
text (that is, a text obtained via the utilization of a variety of
sources).
Thoroughgoing Eclecticism (also
known as Rigorous Eclecticism) values the relative intrinsic qualities of rival
variants as the best means to determine their relationships, effectively
rejecting Hort’s axiom. In this approach, even if a
reading appears exclusively in late witnesses, if its intrinsic qualities are
judged to be better than its rivals, it is adopted, on the premise that its
young supporters echo an older text – the autograph – at that point.
Building on the theory that text-types did not stabilize until the 200’s or later, thoroughgoing eclectics resort to the only sort of reconstruction which can be undertaken without appealing to the relationships of text-types: the relationships of rival variants. Advocates of this approach tend to be more willing to introduce conjectural emendations, if an emendation possesses superior intrinsic qualities to its rival extant variants.
Building on the theory that text-types did not stabilize until the 200’s or later, thoroughgoing eclectics resort to the only sort of reconstruction which can be undertaken without appealing to the relationships of text-types: the relationships of rival variants. Advocates of this approach tend to be more willing to introduce conjectural emendations, if an emendation possesses superior intrinsic qualities to its rival extant variants.
Reasoned Eclecticism (also known as Rational Eclecticism), in theory, considers the relative intrinsic qualities of
rival variants, but also considers the quality of each variant’s sources, their
date, and their scope. The text of the
United Bible Societies’ Greek New
Testament was compiled using a form of reasoned eclecticism. However, in its companion-volume, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New
Testament, Bruce Metzger’s comments show that the quality of sources tended
to be measured according to Hort’s model of transmission-history. In The
Text of the New Testament, Metzger wrote, “Theoretically it is possible
that the Koine text” – that is, the Byzantine Text – “may preserve an early
reading which was lost from the other types of text, but such instances are
extremely rare.” This anti-Byzantine bias is pervasive. It is no surprise, therefore, that the UBS
text varies only slightly from Hort’s text, even though more evidence in favor of Byzantine readings is available to researchers than ever before. (For more on this subject seem my four-part essay, The Text of Reasoned Eclecticism: Is it Reasonable and Eclectic?)
An alternative is Equitable Eclecticism, in which the
relative intrinsic qualities of rival variants are considered, and each
variant’s sources, their date, and their scope are also considered. Equitable Eclecticism begins by developing a
generalized model of transmission-history, and estimates of the relative values
of the readings of groups, through a five-step process:
● First,
the witnesses are organized into groups which share distinctive variants.
● Second,
variant-units involving variants distinct to each group are analyzed according
to text-critical principles, or canons.
● Third, a
tentative model of transmission-history is developed, cumulatively explaining
the relationships of the competing groups to one another by explaining the
relationships of their component-parts where distinctive variants are
involved. This model of
transmission-history utilizes the premise that the earliest stratum of the Byzantine
Text of the Gospels (echoed by Family Π, the Peshitta, Codex A, part of Codex
W, the Gothic version, and the Purple Codices N-O-Σ-Φ) arose without the
involvement of witnesses that contained the Alexandrian, Western, or Caesarean
texts. Even readings supported by a
higher stratum of the Byzantine Text and not by the lowest one are not rejected
automatically.
● Fourth,
values are assigned to groups rather than to individual witnesses. Less dependence by one group upon another
group, as implied cumulatively by the relationship of its variants to the rival
variants in other groups, yields a higher assigned value.
● Fifth,
all reasonably significant variant-units (those which make a translatable
difference) are analyzed according to text-critical canons, using all
potentially helpful materials, including readings that are not characteristic
of groups. When internal considerations
are finely balanced and a decision is difficult, special consideration is given
to readings attested by whatever group appears to be the least dependent upon
the others in the proximity of the difficult variant-unit.
This will yield the archetype of
all groups, albeit with some points of instability (at especially difficult
variant-units) and with a degree of instability in regard to orthography.
Additional Principles
Equitable Eclecticism, besides
rejecting the theory that the Byzantine Text was formed entirely via a
consultation of manuscripts containing Alexandrian and Western readings,
utilizes some additional principles which set it apart from the kinds of
textual criticism which produced the revised text and its modern-day
representatives:
1. Textual criticism is a science, not an art. It is an enterprise of reconstruction, not creation.
2. The text of the New Testament should be
reconstructed in its component-parts: the Gospels, and Acts, and the General Epistles, and the Pauline Epistles, and Revelation.
3. Relationships shown by patterns of readings
in one part of the New Testament should not be assumed to exist in the others.
4. The genealogical descent of a group of manuscripts
from an ancestor-manuscript other than the autograph is not assumed without
actual evidence that establishes links among specific manuscripts (such as
shared formats, shared marginalia, shared miniatures, or readings which conclusively
show a historical connection).
5.
Variants involving nomina sacra
are placed in a special class, and receive special attention.
6. The assumption of preference for the shorter
reading is rejected.
7. If a variant has very sporadic support from
witnesses greatly separated by age and textual character, this may indicate that the variant was liable to be spontaneously created by copyists,
rather than that it was transmitted by distant transmission-streams.
8. Exceptional intrinsic merit is required for
the adoption of variants attested exclusively or nearly exclusively by
bilingual manuscripts in which a Greek variant may have originated via
retro-translation.
9. Conjectural emendations are not to be placed
in the text.
Equitable Eclecticism also utilizes
principles shared by other approaches.
These principles are all superseded by Principle Zero: no principle should be applied mechanically.
1.
A variant which explains its rivals with greater elegance and force than
it is explained by any of them is more likely to be original.
2. A variant supported by witnesses representing two or more locales of early Christendom is more likely to be original than a variant supported by witnesses that represent only one locale.
3. A variant which can be shown to have had, in the course of the transmission of the text, the appearance of difficulty (either real or imagined), and which is rivaled by variants without such difficulty, is more likely than its rivals to be original.
4. A variant supported by early attestation is more likely to be original than a rival variant supported exclusively by late attestation.
5. A variant which conforms a statement to the form of a similar statement in a similar document, or in the same document, is less likely to be original than a rival variant that does not exhibit conformity.
6. A variant which involves a rare, obscure, or ambiguous term or expression is more likely to be original than a rival variant which involves an ordinary or specific term or expression.
7. A variant which is consistent with the author's discernible style and vocabulary is more likely to be original than a rival variant which deviates from the author's usual style and vocabulary and the vocabulary which he may naturally be expected to have been capable of using.
8. A variant which is fully explained as a liturgical adjustment is less likely to be original than a rival variant which cannot be thus explained.
2. A variant supported by witnesses representing two or more locales of early Christendom is more likely to be original than a variant supported by witnesses that represent only one locale.
3. A variant which can be shown to have had, in the course of the transmission of the text, the appearance of difficulty (either real or imagined), and which is rivaled by variants without such difficulty, is more likely than its rivals to be original.
4. A variant supported by early attestation is more likely to be original than a rival variant supported exclusively by late attestation.
5. A variant which conforms a statement to the form of a similar statement in a similar document, or in the same document, is less likely to be original than a rival variant that does not exhibit conformity.
6. A variant which involves a rare, obscure, or ambiguous term or expression is more likely to be original than a rival variant which involves an ordinary or specific term or expression.
7. A variant which is consistent with the author's discernible style and vocabulary is more likely to be original than a rival variant which deviates from the author's usual style and vocabulary and the vocabulary which he may naturally be expected to have been capable of using.
8. A variant which is fully explained as a liturgical adjustment is less likely to be original than a rival variant which cannot be thus explained.
9.
A variant which is capable of expressing anti-Judaic sentiment is less
likely to be original than a rival variant which is less capable of such
expression.
10.
A variant which can be explained as an easy transcriptional error is
less likely to be original than a rival variant which cannot be explained as an
easy transcriptional error or as one which would be less easily made.
11.
A variant which can be explained as a deliberate alteration is
less likely to be original than a rival variant which is less capable of
originating in the same way.
12.
Ceteris paribus, in the Synoptic Gospels, a variant
which does not result in a Minor Agreement is more likely to be original than a
rival variant which results in a Minor Agreement.
Closing Thoughts
Christian readers may feel intimidated or exasperated at
the realization that the original text of the New Testament can only be fully
reconstructed by a careful analysis of the witnesses – a massive and intricate
task which currently involves no less than 135 papyri, about 320 uncials, about
2,900 minuscules, and about 2,450 lectionaries, plus versional and
patristic materials. The feeling may be
increased when one also realizes that even the most erudite textual critics
have reached divergent conclusions, and that their conclusions must be subject to
the implications of future discoveries.
This may lead some readers to decline to investigate the
text, deciding instead to hopefully adhere to whatever text (or texts) they
already use. Such an expedient response
is understandable, especially in light of the often-repeated (but false) claim
that textual variants have no significant doctrinal impact. Nevertheless, for those few who are not
content to place their confidence in textual critics, or to posit providential
favor upon a particular set of variants on account of its popularity or for
other reasons, the best option is to become textual critics.
Becoming acquainted with the contents of the manuscripts and other witnesses gives additional responsibility, but also additional confidence, somewhat like the confidence of a traveler who knows his maps, as opposed to one who does not and must trust his guides.
Becoming acquainted with the contents of the manuscripts and other witnesses gives additional responsibility, but also additional confidence, somewhat like the confidence of a traveler who knows his maps, as opposed to one who does not and must trust his guides.
Knowing the message of the map that we have – and being aware of which parts are still questioned, and why, concerning how closely their form corresponds to the form of the original – makes one a confident traveler where one should be confident, and cautious where one should be cautious. But after we have done our best to conduct
research with scientific detachment, it will do us little good if we only possess the map. Let us walk in the path that the Holy Spirit reveals to us through the Word. With that thought I leave the reader to
consider the words of J. A. Bengel, one of the pioneers of New Testament
textual criticism:
Te totum applica ad
textum:
rem totam applica ad
te.
Apply all of yourself
to the text,
Apply it all to
yourself.
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
The Tors-Costa Debate, Part 1
 |
| The Tors-Costa Debate can be viewed at YouTube. |
Last week in Toronto ,
John Tors, an advocate for the Majority Text, won a debate against Tony Costa, who attempted
to defend the Nestle-Aland compilation.
The stated purpose of the debate was to examine the Greek texts behind
popular translations of the New Testament.
Today (and in the next two posts, God willing) I will summarize their
debate, and offer comments in italics at various points.
The moderator, Johnny Yao-Chung Chao, welcomed guests to the
Toronto Free Presbyterian Church, introduced the debaters, and offered an
opening prayer. The debate was designed
to consist of opening statements, followed by responses and a cross-examination period,
followed by a time of spontaneous questions from the listeners.
Dr. Costa began with a standard summary of the purpose and
materials of New Testament textual criticism, noting that the manuscripts
contain many variants – mostly trivial, but not all – and he asked, in light of those variants, “How can we be sure
and confident that we still have the New Testament today?” – “How do we get
back to the original?” Arguing for the
Alexandrian Text, Costa stated that “During the first millennium, the
Alexandrian manuscripts were actually in the majority. The Byzantine manuscripts did not become the
majority until the ninth century A.D.”
At this point, Costa used a graphic that resembles the graph that one can consult on page 153 of James White’s book The King James Only Controversy (first edition). (Costa’s
claim, similarly, is found on the opposite page; White wrote that the Byzantine
text “does not become the “majority” until the ninth century.” That is not a realistic appraisal of the
implications of the evidence; perhaps I will write more about this another day. White’s/Costa’s
chart shows how many manuscripts have survived from each century. That’s all.
One would think that those who object to the idea of “normal” transmission
would also object to the idea of “normal” survival, but apparently not when
attempting to bolster their case.)
As he concluded his opening remarks, Costa made a theological point
and a criticism of the Byzantine Priority view:
“God usually works with the small remnants sometimes.” (Gaffe:
which is it: usually, or sometimes?)
And, “The Majority Text does not approach a uniform text. Maurice Robinson openly admits this. The Majority Text suffers textual corruption
as well.”
Tors, in his opening statement, restated the basic question
on which the debate was intended to center:
Which method of textual
reconstruction should be used: “reasoned
eclecticism” or the Majority Reading Approach?
He began by addressing the much-repeated claim that it does not matter
which method is used: claims that the
differences are trivial, and that no doctrine is affected by textual
variants. And then the gauntlet was hurled
down: “But that is not true.”
Tors then reviewed some text-critical guidelines, or canons, utilized by supporters
of the Alexandrian Text. He emphasized
the premises behind them, such as:
(1) Scribes were more prone to add than to omit.
(2) Scribes were prone to correct errors.
(3) Scribes
were prone to harmonize.
Tors also
pointed out that the critical text depends very heavily on Vaticanus and
Sinaiticus, even though they disagree, on average, four times in every five
verses. (Gaffe: Vaticanus was not
discovered in the 1800’s; its New Testament text was reliably edited and made
available to researchers at that time; its existence had been known for
centuries.)
In addition, Tors protested that at the root of the critical
text is the genealogical method proposed by Hort back in 1881 – a theoretical
transmission-history that Hort never bothered to prove. (As
Colwell put it: “That Westcott and
Hort did not apply this method to the manuscripts of the New Testament is
obvious. Where are the charts which
start with the majority of late manuscripts and climb back through diminishing
generations of ancestors to the Neutral and Western Texts? The answer is that they are nowhere.”)
P66: agreed with Aleph 14 times, agreed with B 29
times, and agreed with TR 33 times.
P75: agreed with Aleph 9 times, agreed with B 33
times, and agreed with TR 29 times.
(In the debate, it did
not seem very clear at all what Tors’ comparison was comparing, so I will
explain: those numbers are not derived
from a consideration of the entire text of P66 and P75; they are part of an analysis (conducted by Klijn, and used by Pickering) of just the parts of John in which P45, P66, and P75 are all extant. These statistics shouldn’t be relied upon as
anything but a demonstration that P66’s text is significantly different from
P75 – which is still a significant point, since if P66 and P75, with this much
variation, are both Alexandrian, the term doesn’t mean much. But this evidence-bundle looks carefully picked. Nevertheless I
don’t think anyone will contest Tors’ basic point that some of the papyri have
texts that fail to display the patterns of readings displayed in the
flagship-manuscripts of any text-type.
Aland acknowledged this, as Tors mentioned.)
After mentioning that the early papyri (better: some of the early
papyri) are not strongly aligned with the Alexandrian Text, Tors pointed
out that 150 distinctly Byzantine readings have been found in the papyri. (This
finding by Harry Sturz is often belittled by defenders of the Alexandrian Text;
a typical response is that early Byzantine readings do not show the existence of
an early Byzantine Text. And that was
Costa’s response, almost verbatim. But such
a reaction overlooks the chief implication of Sturz’s research, which is that
wherever these readings came from, it was not from a simple amalgamation of
readings drawn from Western and Alexandrian exemplars, at least not as we know
them. If there was any such amalgamation-work,
it must have involved a third source of readings – in which case, Hort’s main
reason to categorically reject distinct Byzantine readings falls to pieces.)
Approaching his conclusion, Tors stated that in view of all this
– the research that has undermined the “prefer the shorter reading” canon, the
analyses that have shown that most scribes simply aspired to accurately reproduce
their exemplars’ contents, and the discoveries of early distinctly Byzantine
readings that weigh in against Hort’s theory of the origin of the Byzantine
Text – “Nestle-Aland is dead. They don’t
admit it, but it is.”
(However, what are the numbers based on? They are a hypothetical mathematical
construct, not a reflection of historically verified circumstances – a grid, not a map. Of course one can imagine a tree that grows
10 branches, with 10 twigs on each branch, and 10 fruits on each twig, but one
can also walk outside and observe trees with branches hacked away, twigs broken
off, widely different numbers of twigs on different branches, fruit plucked by birds and squirrels, and so forth. If a
reading’s status as part of a majority infallibly implied what Tors says it
implies, the Eusebian Sections and chapter-divisions would also be part of the
original text. Still, aside from this,
Tors presented some sound reasons why the Majority Reading Approach is more
trustworthy than the pro-Alexandrian approach.)
Thus ended the opening statements. Next: Part 2: The Debaters Respond.
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
A Conflation in John 16:4?
In John 16:4a, where Jesus warns His
disciples about difficult times ahead, there is an interesting textual
variant. In the Byzantine Text, the text
means, strictly translated into English:
“But these things I have told you, that when comes their hour, you may
remember those things of which I told you.”
The Alexandrian Text means something very slightly different: “But these things I have told you, that when
comes the hour, you may remember those things of which I told you.” The Western Text, as attested by Codex D, has its own variation: “These things I have told you, that when
comes the hour, you shall remember that I told you.” The Caesarean Text has its own reading
too: “But these things I have told you,
that when comes the hour, you may remember that I told you.”
These four renderings represent the following texts:
Western: Ταυτα λελάληκα υμιν ινα οταν ελθη η ωρα μνημονεύτε οτι εγω ειπον υμιν
Alexandrian: Αλλα
ταυτα λελάληκα υμιν ινα οταν ελθη η ωρα μνημονεύητε αυτων οτι εγω ειπον υμιν
Caesarean (f13): Αλλα ταυτα λελάληκα υμιν ινα οταν ελθη η ωρα
αυτων μνημονεύητε οτι εγω ειπον υμιν
Byzantine: Αλλα ταυτα λελάληκα υμιν ινα οταν ελθη η ωρα αυτων μνημονεύητε αυτων οτι εγω ειπον υμιν
I want to focus here on the variant in the middle of the
sentence, shown in bold print. The longer reading, αυτων μνημονεύητε αυτων, looks like a combination of the two shorter readings that are listed before it; that is, this variant appears to be a conflation.
Western (D): μνημονεύτε
(altered to μνημονευσητε via an addition above the line; see image, from the online presentation of Codex Bezae at the Cambridge Digital Library.)
Caesarean (f13): μνημονεύητε αυτων
Alexandrian (B): αυτων μνημονεύητε
Byzantine: αυτων μνημονεύητε αυτων
Alexandrian (B): αυτων μνημονεύητε
Byzantine: αυτων μνημονεύητε αυτων
 |
The citation of D* in UBS4 is incorrect. D* reads μνημονευτε, as shown here |
Although
Hort did not list this passage as a Western Non-Interpolation, he could
have. The Western reading is shorter
here, which might tempt some textual critics to propose that an early copyist,
seeking to augment the clarity of the sentence, added αυτων in the margin, and
some subsequent copyists placed it before μνημονεύητε, and some other copyists
placed it after μνημονεύητε, yielding the Alexandrian and Caesarean
readings.
The Alexandrian variant is longer than the Byzantine variant:
Codex B (supported,
according to Swanson, by 118 124 157 and 1071 and, according to UBS 4,
by P66vid À2
0233 205 Peshitta, Harklean Syriac, and the lemma of Cyril of Alexandria) reads αυτων μνημονεύητε αυτων.
Codex A
agrees with B but its orthography is not so good: αυτων μνημονεύηται αυτων.
Codex Θ
concurs, but again with a spelling-variation:
αυτων μνημονεύειτε αυτων.
Codex Π is
a little different, with μνημονεύσητε in the middle, but it still agrees with B
by having αυτων both before and after the word.
The Byzantine variant is shorter than the Alexandrian
variant:
Byz
(supported by K U Ψ 1582 2c 700 Lectpt tr) reads μνημονεύητε αυτων.
Ε Γ Δ Λ 565
and 1424 concur, albeit with an itacism:
μνημονεύετε αυτων. This is listed
in UBS 4 as a separate variant, with
additional support from 1006 1241 1243 1342 Lectpt (l1016
with αυτου).
Codex 1
stands alone, with a different itacism: μνημονεύειτε
αυτων.
Codex ﬡ*
likewise stands alone with an itacism (also seen in A): μνημονεύηται αυτων.
Additional
support for the Byzantine reading, according to UBS 4: 0141
180 597 (892supp l866 with αυτου) 1010 1292 1505 ff2
Palestinian Syriac Bohpt (arm) (eth) geo slav (Chrysostom).
Here is the
Alexandrian Text of John 16:2b-4, formatted to correspond to the array of
letters in P66, with sacred names contracted:
λατρείανπροσφέρειντωθωκαιταυ
ταποιήσουσινοτιουκεγνωσαντον
πραουδεεμεαλλαταυταλελάλη
καυμινιναοτανελθηηωρααυτων
μνημονεύητεαυτωνοτιεγωειπον
υμινταυταδευμινεξαρχηςουκ
ειπονοτιμεθ’υμωνημην.
Here is the Alexandrian Text of John 16:2b-4 again – this
time with a slightly different array, and without the contraction of patēra:
δόξηλατρείανπροσφέρειντωθωΚαι
ταυταποιήσουσινοτιουκεγνωσαντον
πατέραουδεεμεΑλλαταυταλελ
άληκαυμινιναοτανελθηηωρααυ
τωνμνημονεύητεαυτωνοτιεγωει
πονυμινταυταδευμινεξαρχηςουκ
ειπονοτιμεθ’υμωνημην.
Here is the Byzantine Text of John 16:2b-4, formatted to
correspond to the array of letters in P66, with all sacred names contracted:
δόξηλατρείανπροσφέρειντωθωκαι
ταυταποιήσουσινοτιουκεγνωσαν
τονπραουδεεμεαλλαταυταλελ
άληκαυμινιναοτανελθηηωρα
μνημονεύητεαυτωνοτιεγωειπον
υμινταυταδευμινεξαρχηςουκ
ειπονοτιμεθ’υμωνημην.
Here is the Byzantine Text of John 16:2b-4 again – this time
with a slightly different array, and without the contraction of patēra:
ξηλατρείανπροσφέρειντωθωκαιταυ
ταποιήσουσινοτιουκεγνωσαντονπα
τέραουδεεμεΑλλαταυταλελάλ
ηκαυμινιναοτανελθηηωρα
μνημονεύσητεαυτωνοτιεγωειπ
ονυμινταυταδευμινεξαρχηςουκ
ειπονοτιμεθ’υμωνημην.
Here is another configuration of the Byzantine Text, with patēra contracted:
λατρείανπροσφέρειντωθωκαιταυ
ταποιήσουσινοτιουκεγνωσαντον
πραουδεεμεαλλαταυταλελάλη
καυμινιναοτανελθηηωρα
μνημονεύητεαυτωνοτιεγωειπ
ονυμινταυταδευμινεξαρχηςουκ
ειπονοτιμεθ’υμωνημην.
In this array, the
Byzantine Text neatly corresponds to the remains of P66 – but αυτων would fit
neatly in the space after ωρα at the end of the fourth line.
It might also be a good idea to take a closer look at Codex Sinaiticus. No mystery here: it initially read μνημονευηται αυτων after ωρα, thus disagreeing with Codex Vaticanus and supporting the Byzantine reading. A later “corrector” has added αυτων in the
right margin, to be read immediately after ωρα, thus creating an agreement with
B.
Now let’s
get back to that four-way contest.
Setting aside the lightweights, here again are the heavyweight
contenders:
Western
(D): μνημονεύτε
Caesarean (f13): αυτων μνημονεύητε
Byzantine : μνημονεύητε αυτων
Alexandrian: αυτων μνημονεύητε αυτων
Byzantine : μνημονεύητε αυτων
Alexandrian: αυτων μνημονεύητε αυτων
Nothing
stands in the way of conclusion that the Caesarean reading + the Byzantine
reading = the Alexandrian reading. Nevertheless, instead of concluding that a conflation has been made in the Alexandrian Text, the advocates of “reasoned
eclecticism” resort to other hypotheses.
Metzger asserted (in A Textual
Commentary on the New Testament, page 247) that the Alexandrian reading
should be accepted “because of the strength of the external evidence (p66vid
A B Θ Π* 33) and because αυτων after ωρα was more likely to be removed as
superfluous than added by copyists.” But
obviously not all copyists thought along those lines: if the Caesarean reading was descended from
the Alexandrian reading, then some copyists must have chosen to retain the
αυτων after ωρα and remove the other one.
Before
forming a deduction about why copyists did what they did, we should consider
the matter of authorial style. In the
Gospel of John, ωρα is used 19 times, but never accompanied by αυτων except
here in John 16:4 in the Alexandrian Text.
This consideration thus weighs in against the Alexandrian reading. Why did this go unmentioned by Metzger?
In Matthew 3:12
the rival variants witnesses line up as follows:
Groucho: εις την αποθηκην ([the wheat] into the barn)
Zeppo: αυτου εις την αποθηκην (his [wheat] into the barn)
Harpo: αυτου εις την αποθηκην αυτου (his [wheat] into his barn)
Can you
guess which variant is attested by which text-type? According to the apparatus in UBS 2
and Swanson’s volume on Matthew, here are the witnesses’ testimonies (versional
witnesses are in blue):
εις την
αποθηκην: f13 ita itq geo1, A
Justin Clement Irenaeus
εις την
αποθηκην αυτου: E L U 157 892 1195 1253
1424 1646 itb itff1 itg1
Curetonian Syriac, Sinaitic Syriac, Peshitta, Harklean, Armenian,
Irenaeus Ambrose Cyril
αυτου εις
την αποθηκην: ﬡ C Dsupp K M S
Δ Ω f1 2 28 33 565 700 1009 1010
1230 1241 1365 2148 2174 Byz itaur itc itd itf
itl Vulgate, Sahidic, Bohairic, Hilary Augustine
αυτου εις
την αποθηκην αυτου: B W 1071 1216 ethro, pp (ethms? εις την αποθηκην)
geoB
Although this is the same kind of scenario that is confronted when Byzantine conflations are posited, I submit
that in Matthew 3:12 and John 16:4, the Alexandrian Text does not display a
true conflation. (Similarly I do not
grant that every Byzantine conflation identified by Hort is actually a
conflation, but that’s another subject.)
Instead, it displays the effects of a scribal phenomenon in which a copyist
anticipated an approaching word and wrote it twice instead of once – once where
it did not belong, and once where it appeared in his exemplar. In other words, the double-appearance of αυτων
in the Alexandrian Text of John 16:4, and the double-appearance of αυτου in the
Alexandrian Text of Matthew 3:12, did not originate thoughtfully, but are essentially
cases of dittography. The Alexandrian
reading in John 16:4 is not necessarily a conflation, but it is a corruption.
_______________
Postscript:
Why Is Today’s “Reasoned Eclectic” Base-text
for Bible Versions Becoming Less Eclectic?
The first
English version to reflect the Alexandrian Text of John 16:4a was, as far as I
can tell, Granville Penn’s The Book of the New Covenant, published in 1836: “but these things I have told
you, that when their time cometh, ye may remember that I told you of them.”
Penn did not have the resources that textual
critics have today; he did not even have the resources that Westcott and Hort
had when they compiled their revision in 1881. Instead,
as Penn explained in a supplemental volume, Annotations to the Book of the New Covenant, he used the text of Codex Vaticanus as the
basis for his revision-work: “I have
taken the continued and entire text of the most ancient surviving manuscript,
the “Codex Vaticanus” or Vatican MS., noted 1209 in the Vatican catalogue, and
marked B by Wetstein; making it the basis and substance of the revision.”
As far as
the text of the Gospels is concerned, Penn’s 1836 translation thus echoed
Vaticanus (or, the imperfect editions of its text that were available in 1836), except where its readings seemed beyond hope of salvaging. The compilation of Penn’s base-text was thus determined
by the most non-eclectic principle imaginable; he gave Codex B a virtual
monopoly of influence.
And yet, in
2015, when we examine the “reasoned eclectic” text as it currently exists, and
compare it to earlier compilations used in the 1900’s as the base-texts for
English translations, its degree of agreement with Penn’s base-text frequently seems
to increase rather than decrease.
Consider, for example the text of John 16:4a in the NIV as it existed in
1984 (and as it was still being printed in 2002):
“I have
told you this, so that when the time comes you will remember that I warned
you.” (Scripture taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version ®, Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International
Bible Society. Used by permission of
Zondervan. All rights reserved.)
The
compilers of the NIV’s base-text apparently adopted the Western reading of John
16:4a.
The
Contemporary English Version, likewise, seems to follow the Western reading:
“I am
saying this to you now, so that when the time comes, you will remember what I
have said.” (Contemporary English Version (CEV) Copyright © 1995 by American
Bible Society.)
The New Century
Version, likewise, conforms to the Western reading of John 16:4a:
“I have
told you these things now so that when the time comes you will remember that I
warned you.” (The Holy Bible, New Century Version ®, Copyright © 2005 by Thomas
Nelson, Inc.)
However, in
the TNIV and in the new editions of the NIV, the text of John 16:4a is
different:
“I have told you this, so that when their time comes you will remember that I warned you about them.” [Bold print
added for emphasis.] (Scripture taken
from the Holy Bible, New International Version ®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978,
1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc. ®. Used by
permission. All rights reserved
worldwide.)
Thus the base-text of John 16:4 in the
newly revised NIV has quietly become less eclectic than the NIV of
1984. The New Revised Standard Version
(NRSV), the English Standard Version (ESV ), and the Common English Bible (CEB)
reflect the same Alexandrian base-text of John 16:4.
It would seem, from this lone example, that although more text-critical
materials are available now than ever before (in the form of newly discovered manuscripts, new editions of patristic writings, etc.) “reasoned
eclecticism” is producing a text that very closely resembles what Penn produced
in 1836 by ignoring almost all evidence except Codex Vaticanus. In terms of results, it is almost
anti-eclectic.
Friday, January 30, 2015
The Text of Reasoned Eclecticism: Is It Reasonable and Eclectic? - Appendix
Differences in Matthew 1-10
Between Westcott & Hort’s 1881 Greek
text
and the 26th/27th edition of Nestle-Aland
Highlighted readings are adopted readings not read by B, ﬡ, or D, and which are not bracketed.
● 1:9 – NA
reads Αχαζ, agreeing with B, instead of Hort’s Αχας, which agrees with ﬡ.
● 1:18 – NA removes the brackets that Hort
placed around Ιησου, which is included by ﬡ. (B has a transposition.)
● 1:24 – NA removes the brackets that Hort
placed around ο (before Ιωσηφ), solidifying the reading of B.
● 1:25 – NA removes the brackets that Hort
placed around ου (before ετεκεν). The
word is absent in B but present in ﬡ.
● 3:2 – The opening word και, absent from B and ﬡ, has been adopted, in brackets.
● 3:7 – αυτου, after βαπτσμα, has been adopted,
although it is absent in B and À.
● 3:14 –
Ιωαννης has been added, although it is absent in B and ﬡ. Inclusion is supported by
P96.
● 3:15 – NA reads προς αυτον (with P64
and ﬡ) instead of αυτω (with P96
and B).
● 3:16 – NA
reads αυτω, in brackets, although the word is absent from B and ﬡ.
● 3:16 – NA
reads το, in brackets, before πνευμα, although the word is absent from B and ﬡ.
● 3:16 – NA
reads του, in brackets, after πνευμα, although the word is absent from B and ﬡ.
● 3:16 – NA
includes και, in brackets, before ερχόμενον, although the word is absent from B
and ﬡ.
● 4:1 – The
brackets that Hort placed around ο (before Ιησους) have been removed. The article is in ﬡ but not in B.
● 4:3 –
Where Hort had ειπον (after θεου), agreeing approximately with ﬡ (which reads ειποιν), NA reads ειπε,
agreeing with B.
● 4:16 – Instead of σκότια (supported by B), NA
reads σκότει (supported by ﬡ).
● 4:24 – NA includes και, in brackets, after
συνεχομένος. (The word is absent from B
but present in ﬡ.)
● 5:1 – NA
removes the brackets around αυτω, which is not in B but present in ﬡ.
● 5:9 – NA
removes the brackets around αυτοι, which is not in ﬡ but present in B.
● 5:11 – NA added brackets around ψευδόμενοι.
● 5:18 – NA removes the brackets around αν,
which is not in B but present in ﬡ.
● 5:28 – NA removes the brackets around αυτην,
which is not in ﬡ but present in B.
● 5:32 – NA removes the brackets around the
final phrase of the verse.
● 6:8 – NA
does not include ο θεος, which was bracketed by Hort. Inclusion is supported by B; non-inclusion is
supported by À.
● 6:15 – After ανθρώποις, Hort included τα
παραπτωματα αυτων in brackets, supported by B and Byz, but NA does not
include the phrase. (Non-inclusion is
supported by ﬡ.)
● 6:21 – NA removes the brackets around και,
which is not in B but present in ﬡ.
● 6:33 – NA
includes του θεου in brackets. ﬡ does
not have the phrase; B has, instead, των ουρανων.
● 7:9 – NA
includes εστιν, which is not in B but present in ﬡ.
● 7:13 – NA includes η πυλη, which is not in ﬡ but present in B.
● 7:14 – NA reads τι at the beginning of the
verse, instead of Hort’s οτι (supported by ﬡ)
or οτι δε (supported by B).
● 7:18 – NA adopts ποιειν, agreeing with B,
instead of Hort’s ενεγκειν, which agrees with ﬡ.
● 7:24 – NA removes the brackets around τούτους,
which is not in B but present in ﬡ.
● 8:7 – NA
includes και at the beginning of the verse; the word is not in B but present in
ﬡ.
● 8:8 – NA reads και αποκριθεις instead of αποκριθεις
δε, which is supported by B and ﬡ.
● 8:9 – NA does not include τασσομενος, which Hort
included in brackets. Inclusion is
supported by B and ﬡ.
● 8:13 – NA
includes αυτου, in brackets, after παις, although non-inclusion is supported by
B and ﬡ.
● 8:21 – NA
includes αυτου, in brackets, after μαθητων, although non-inclusion is supported
by B and ﬡ.
● 8:23 – NA includes το before πλοιον; inclusion
is supported by B; non-inclusion is supported by ﬡ.
● 9:4 – NA
adopts ιδων instead of Hort’s ειδως. B
reads ειδως; ﬡ reads ιδων.
● 9:6 – NA
adopts εγερθεις instead of Hort’s εγειρε.
B reads εγειρε; ﬡ reads
εγερθεις.
● 9:14 – NA
includes πολλα, in brackets; B and ﬡ
support non-inclusion.
● 9:18 – NA removes the brackets around εις,
which is not in ﬡ but is included in
B.
● 9:18 – NA
reads ελθων instead of Hort’s προσελθων, which is supported by B and ﬡ.
● 9:19 – NA reads ηκολούθησεν, agreeing with B,
instead of Hort’s ηκολούθει, which agrees with ﬡ.
● 9:27 – NA includes, in brackets, αυτω, agreeing
with ﬡ, instead of Hort’s
non-inclusion which agrees with B.
● 9:27 – NA reads υιος, agreeing with B, instead
of Hort’s υιε which agrees with ﬡ.
● 9:32 – NA
reads ανθρωπον, although non-inclusion is supported by B and ﬡ.
● 9:34 – NA removes the brackets around the
verse.
● 10:13 –
NA, after the second occurrence of ειρηνη υμων, reads προς instead of εφ. B and ﬡ
support εφ.
● 10:23 – NA, after πολεις, removes the brackets
around του, which is not included by B but is present in ﬡ.
● 10:23 –
NA includes αν, which B and ﬡ do not
include.
● 10:28 – NA reads, as the third word in the
verse, φοβεισθε, agreeing with ﬡ,
instead of Hort’s φοβεθητε which agrees
with B.
● 10:28 – NA reads αποκτεννοντων, agreeing with ﬡ, instead of Hort’s αποκτεινοντων, which
agrees with B.
● 10:32 – NA adds brackets around τοις, which is
included by B but not by ﬡ.
● 10:33 – NA adopts δ’ αν, agreeing with ﬡ, instead of Hort’s δε.
● 10:33 – As in the previous verse, NA adds
brackets around τοις, which is included by B but not by ﬡ.
_______________
The Text of Reasoned Eclecticism: Is It Reasonable and Eclectic? Part One of a Four-Part Response to Dan Wallace
Introduction
 |
| The 2005 edition of The New Testament in the Original Greek - Byzantine Textform |
In this article I will address some of the
inaccuracies, overstatements, and poor argumentation in Dr. Wallace’s article. My purpose here is not to endorse the
Byzantine Text in its entirety – I do not subscribe to Byzantine Priority – but
to show that Dr. Wallace’s reasons for rejecting it are insufficient (and to
clarify some peripheral misstatements in his article).
Wallace’s
very first paragraph echoes a common put-down of the Textus Receptus: “In
compiling the TR Erasmus simply used about a half dozen late manuscripts that
were available to him.” Although it is true that Erasmus, when preparing the first edition of his Greek text, only had immediate access to less than a dozen Greek manuscripts, during the 1500’s the Textus Receptus went through multiple editions and
comparisons involving consultations of patristic references (in which
patristic writers cited their manuscripts), Lorenzo Valla’s research (which
mentioned other manuscripts), the Complutensian Polyglot (the editors of which
claimed to have consulted their ancient manuscripts) and manuscripts that were used
in the exchanges between Erasmus and his critics, and by Stephanus and by Theodore
Beza.
A close examination of the
annotations of Erasmus and the textual notes of Beza give a much different
picture than Wallace's distant glance. The
editors of the texts that reached their standardized expression in the Textus Receptus tended to stick with the
Byzantine readings in their Byzantine manuscripts, but to say that they did not
use ancient manuscripts such as Codex
Bezae and Codex Claromontanus (and, judging from the contents of the Textus Receptus in Matthew 9:36, Codex
Regius4)
and a list of 365 readings from Codex Vaticanus is blurry reporting. One can use
a manuscript and still reject its readings, as Wallace shows when he says that
the Nestle-Aland text is based on over 5,000 manuscripts – over 4,000 of which persistently
display Byzantine readings which the editors persistently rejected.
Preservation and the Byzantine
Text
Wallace
targeted Wilbur Pickering’s view of inspiration and preservation as if Pickering ’s
doctrinal view was the foundation of Pickering ’s
case for the Byzantine Text (or for a sub-group of it; he currently endorses the f35
text). Wallace summarized Pickering ’s
doctrinal premise as follows: “The
doctrine of the preservation of Scripture requires that the early manuscripts
cannot point to the original text better than the later manuscripts can,
because these early manuscripts are in the minority.”
When
Pickering affirmed the superiority of the majority text over other text-types,
he was not really saying much more than what the Westminster Confession of Faith – a major creedal statement in the
history of Reformed Christendom, produced in 1646 – said in its first chapter,
part eight:
“The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.”
The
producers of the Westminster Confession thus enunciated the doctrine that the
New Testament text has been kept pure in all ages – and the text they knew was
an essentially Byzantine text. This
purity pertains to the message which was conveyed by manuscript after
manuscript, not to the exact form of the text, as if spelling-variations and
the quirky mistakes of individual scribes rendered the text impure. But when one text contains Mark 16:9-20, and
Luke 22:43-44, and Luke 23:34a, and John 7:53-8:11, and another text does not
contain any of them, but says in Mark 6:22 that Herod’s daughter danced, and
says in Matthew 27:49 that Jesus was pierced before He died, what would an impure text look like, if these are both
called pure? These differences
significantly shape the message that is being conveyed. Meanwhile, the differences between the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine Text
are not so immense that they significantly shape the message being
conveyed.
The doctrine
of the preservation of Scripture does not preclude the idea that early
manuscripts can preserve the form of
the text better than the later manuscripts.
Rather, the doctrinal statement that God has kept the text pure in all
ages implies that the message of the original text has been perpetuated in the
Greek text used by the church. And the
Greek text used by the church, as displayed in thousands of Greek manuscripts,
is the Byzantine Text or a sub-group of it.
Perhaps
Wallace feels that the Westminster Confession’s statement that God has providentially
kept the Biblical text “pure in all ages” is simply false. (Speaking for myself, I do not subscribe to
the Westminster Confession.) But the
thing to see is that Pickering is
not introducing anything novel into the doctrinal equation.
Wallace’s article suddenly jumped to a different topic:
Wallace did not contradict
Such a tu quoque retort misses the point, which is that Hort clearly had some idea, in
1851, of what sort of conclusions he was going to reach by 1881 – yet his
clearly expressed prejudice has not prevented very many textual critics from
regarding his conclusions as correct. So
why, if Pickering
was not the only researcher on earth with an entirely objective and detached
mind, should this be used as a basis to reject his conclusions? When Pickering
insists that the purity of the Hebrew and Greek texts of Scripture has been
providentially safeguarded for the church in all ages, he is not saying anything
that the Reformers who composed the Westminster Confession did not
say. If the mere possession of a
doctrinal view is sufficient to dictate
one’s conclusions, then we must all be mute, including Wallace.
There is no
evidence that Pickering pre-judged
the Alexandrian Text to be vile and villainous in the way that Hort pre-judged
the Textus Receptus. Even if Pickering
had done so, however, it would not make the Byzantine Priority view right or
wrong, any more than Hort’s initial bias against the Textus Receptus rendered any of his text-critical judgments right
or wrong.
Next,
Wallace expressed three “serious problems” with the doctrine of preservation as
expressed by Pickering . Please bear with me, reader, as I address
these three points in some detail.
(1)
● Wallace opposes the idea that God providentially preserved the purity
of the text in all ages in the majority of Greek manuscripts because it could
be that God providentially did so “in a small handful of witnesses.” Wallace has unfortunately overlooked the
phrase “in all ages” and as a result his idea does not make sense, because it
is obvious that the Greek text of the small handful of manuscripts that form
the primary basis for the Nestle-Aland text has not been used by the church in
all ages.
(2)
● Wallace opposes the idea that God providentially preserved the purity
of the Greek text in all ages in the majority of Greek manuscripts because, “assuming
that the majority text is the original, then this pure form of text has become
available only since 1982.” But it is
not as if the readings in the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text were created in 1982! Hodges and Farstad derived them from the
majority of manuscripts (which existed long before 1982) and those manuscripts
display the text that was in use in Greek-reading Christendom at the times they
were produced.
In the
course of elaborating on this strained objection, Wallace points out that the Textus Receptus differs from the
Hodges-Farstad Greek New Testament “in almost 2,000 places.” This merits some explanation, so let’s pause
a moment to consider some of those differences.
Let’s ask, “If a copyist were to make a manuscript that contained
exactly the same text that is in the Textus
Receptus, to what extent would it be a non-Byzantine manuscript?” Here is some data to answer that
question. I will list, for each Gospel, the number of differences between the Byzantine Text (where its testimony is not divided) and the Textus Receptus, followed by the number of differences which indicate an origin in a non-Byzantine source other than parableptic errors, itacisms and orthographic variations attributable to an individual copyist. This will provide some idea of how non-Byzantine the Textus Receptus is.
■ Matthew: out of 159 differences, 46 readings in the Textus Receptus are non-Byzantine.
■ John: out of 158 differences, 107 readings in the Textus Receptus are non-Byzantine.
Thus, in
the Gospels, there are 680 differences between the Byzantine Text and the Textus Receptus. Of those differences, 366 indicate an origin
outside the Byzantine transmission-line (i.e., these 366 readings do not look
like they began when a copyist was copying from an exemplar that contained
nothing but Byzantine readings). Many of
those 366 variants have no effect on the meaning of the text. (For example, out of the 107 distinctive
variants in John, 22 of them are instances where the untranslatable definite article (a single Greek letter) is put before Jesus’ name.)
These
statistics show that in the Gospels, if one considers Codex Vaticanus and Codex
Sinaiticus to both be good representatives of the Alexandrian Text, then the Textus Receptus must be considered a relatively close representative of the Byzantine
Text. Furthermore, a huge chunk of those
differences are found in the text of the book of Revelation. This is partly because of the unique transmission-history
of the text of Revelation, and partly because Erasmus relied heavily on a
manuscript of Revelation (2814) which has a text that frequently diverges from
the norm. (I have not counted all the
differences, but it looks like the average chapter of Revelation in the Textus Receptus disagrees 30 times with
the Byzantine Text.)
The
statistics may be crunched as follows:
out of 1,838 differences between the Textus
Receptus and the Byzantine Text,7 680 are in the Gospels, about 660 are in
Revelation, and about 500 are in Acts and the Epistles. That’s 1,199 fewer variants between the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine Text
in the entire New Testament than the 3,037 variants that exist between Codex
Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, the flagship manuscripts of the Nestle-Aland
text.
Regarding
disagreements between the Textus Receptus
and the Byzantine Text, Wallace claims, “Many of these passages are
theologically significant texts.”
However, he provides only two examples:
First John 5:7-8 and Revelation 22:19 – the first of which, albeit an
interpolation, is one that expresses a teaching found elsewhere in Scripture,
and the second of which conveys the same message no matter whether one refers
to the book of life (as in the Textus Receptus and KJV) or to the tree of life. Wallace scrapes the bottom of the barrel, so
to speak, in his search for examples of variants within the Byzantine textual
tradition that do not uniformly convey the same message.
Furthermore, via these comparisons,
Wallace has confused the printed text that was used by the church for several
centuries – the Textus Receptus –
with the text that was available to the church in the manuscripts. Perhaps Pickering ,
via some poor wording, left himself vulnerable to the charge that he believed that whatever printed Greek
text the church used must be the preserved, original text. For whatever reason, Wallace attempts to make
Pickering ’s arguments require an
endorsement of the Textus Receptus –
which Pickering clearly does not
endorse. This is a common tactic used by
those who wish to dismiss discussion of the value of the Byzantine Text: make it easy for those viewing the debate
from a distance to think that one’s opponents are KJV-Onlyists or advocates of
every iota of the Textus Receptus.
In the
course of pointing out that the Textus
Receptus includes minority readings, Wallace claimed that “Virtually no one
had access to any other text from 1516 to 1881, a period of over 350 years.” That is a rather inaccurate claim. The Complutensian Polyglot was not based on
the Textus Receptus. Anyone who possessed a Byzantine manuscript
had access to a Greek text other than the Textus
Receptus. The Orthodox churches
continued to use the (essentially Byzantine) text of their lectionaries. Griesbach’s text, in the 1770’s, was very
different from the Textus Receptus;
Abner Kneeland’s 1823 English version was very different; Granville Penn’s 1836 version was drastically unlike the Textus
Receptus.
(3) ● Wallace opposes the idea that God
providentially preserved the purity of the text in all ages in the majority of
Greek manuscripts because this would mean that such a text was available in Egypt
in the first four centuries. “But this
is demonstrably not true,” he claims. As
the sole support for his claim, Wallace cites Bart Ehrman’s dissertation on the
Gospels-text of Didymus the Blind (who lived in the mid-and late 300’s). As
Wallace mentioned, Ehrman concluded that his findings “indicate that no ‘proto-Byzantine’
text existed in Alexandria in
Didymus’ day or, at least if it did, it made no impact on the mainstream of the
textual tradition there.” (Yet, not long
after Didymus’ death, Codex W appeared, it would seem, in Egypt .)
However,
Ehrman’s data is capable of being interpreted to support a different
conclusion. I have systematically worked
through Ehrman’s data about Didymus’ utilizations of the Gospels, and here are
some observations:
► In
Matthew, Didymus agrees with either B or Byz (but not both) 49 times. Didymus agrees with B against Byz 24 times
(49%). Didymus agrees with Byz against B
25 times (51%).
► Ehrman
concedes that the data from Mark is too sparse to justify confidence that it
reflects the affinities of Didymus’ Gospels-text. In three of the four cases where Ehrman
concludes that Didymus supports a reading in B in Mark, the grounds seem
especially questionable. With these
qualifications in mind, in Mark, Didymus agrees with B against Byz 4 times
(80%) and with Byz against B 1 time (20%).
► In Luke,
Didymus agrees with either B or Byz
(but not both) 45 times. Didymus agrees
with B against Byz 28 times (62%). Didymus
agrees with Byz against B 17 times (38%).
► In John, Didymus agrees
with either B or Byz (but not both) 40 times.
Didymus agrees with Byz against B 23 times (57.5%). Didymus agrees with B against Byz 17 times
(42.5%).8
Thus,
rather than concluding that the evidence from Didymus shows that there was no
Byzantine or Proto-Byzantine Text available in Egypt (and keeping in mind that
we are talking about the Gospels-text used by a man who was blind from his
childhood – and also keeping in mind that the evidence from Didymus would never
lead us to conclude that a Gospels-text resembling what is found in P45 existed
in Egypt; nevertheless there it is), it shows the following: (1)
Didymus’ text of Matthew agreed with the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine
Text as much as it agreed with Codex Vaticanus; (2) We don’t have enough data to discern what
Didymus’ text of Mark was like; (3)
Didymus’ text of Luke frequently contained readings that are found in
the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Text but not in Codex Vaticanus, and (4) Didymus’ text of John agreed with the
Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Text more often than it agreed with the flagship
manuscript of the Alexandrian Text.
I conclude
that the evidence from Didymus’ Gospels-utilizations does not post a problem at
all for the idea that the Byzantine Text of the Gospels, or a text very similar
to it, was available in Egypt
in the 300’s.
After
firing blanks at the Byzantine Text, Wallace attempts to minimize the
differences between the Byzantine Text and the Alexandrian Text, arguing that
it does not make much doctrinal difference which text-type is used; both, he
claims, are doctrinally orthodox: “For
over 250 years, New Testament scholars have argued that no textual variant
affects any doctrine.”
He’s partly
right: many New Testament scholars (such
as D. A. Carson) have made such a claim.
But others, such as George Vance Smith, a Unitarian scholar who was on
the translation-committee of the 1881 Revised Version, have made different
assessments. Referring to the changes
(some translational, but mostly textual) introduced in the Revised Version, Smith
wrote,
“The changes just enumerated are
manifestly of great importance, and are they not wholly unfavourable to the popular
theology? Many persons will deny this,
but it is hard to see on what grounds they do so. Or, if it be true that the popular orthodoxy
remains unaffected by such changes, the inference is
unavoidable that popular orthodoxy must be very indifferent as to the nature of the foundation
on which it stands.”9
As a person
who is much more aware of doctrinally significant textual variants and their
implications, Wallace is much more careful than Carson
when attempting to reassure people that pro-Alexandrian textual criticism poses
no doctrinal challenges. But he still
seems willing to make it seem otherwise by holding up Carson ’s
fuzzy assurances when this subject comes up.
One must jump to footnote #25 in Wallace’s essay to see his actual
view: “No viable variant affects any
major doctrine.”
But what
constitutes a viable variant, and
what constitutes a major
doctrine? Is the Sinaitic Syriac’s reading
in Matthew 1:16 a viable
variant? Von Soden thought so.10 Is the belief that Mary was a virgin when Jesus
was conceived a major doctrine? And is
the inclusion of the name “Isaiah” in Matthew 13:35 a viable variant? Eberhard Nestle thought so, and regarded it
as the original reading.11 Is
the Alexandrian reading of Matthew 27:49 a viable variant? Hort thought so.12 Is the belief that the authors of Scripture
did not produce errors a major doctrine?
Or is it, as Wallace has described it, a more peripheral doctrine? Further examples of doctrinal subjects
impacted by textual variants could be listed, such as the importance of
fasting, standards for divorce and remarriage, and the bodily resurrection of Christ.
Wallace
attempted to minimize the differences between the Byzantine Text and the
Nestle-Aland text in terms of quantity:
they disagree, he states, “in only about 6,500 places,” most of which do
not affect translation or interpretation.
“The majority text and modern critical texts,” he continues, “are very
much alike, in both quality and quantity.”
But if the differences are clearly inconsequential, then why are
hundreds of thousands of dollars and countless hours of labor being spent to
collect and (someday) study digital photographs of New Testament manuscripts by
the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, of which Wallace is the
Executive Director?
He does not
seem to act as if all the differences are a matter of minutiae. And rightly so, because well over 2,000 variant-units
in the Gospels alone affect translation.
Their effects range from the inclusion/exclusion of two large 12-verse
passages (Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 )
to the inclusion/exclusion of entire verses, to the inclusion/exclusion of
phrases, to the inclusion/exclusion of words that are pivotal to the sense of
the sentences in which they occur (or do not occur). To speak of the importance of textual
variants in terms of quantity, as if
to say that no one should worry about a low percentage of variation, is a poor
way to state the problem. It’s like
telling people that there are only 6,500 stray cats in the city, and the vast
majority of them are harmless. If 65 of
them are rabid it is still a concern.
- Continued in Part Two -
_________________
FOOTNOTES
1 – Wallace’s
essay seems to have been written sometime
in the 1990’s. All quotations of Wallace
in this essay are from that article, unless otherwise noted.
2 – The
recently-produced English translations of the New Testament based on the
Byzantine Text are:
● World
English Version (at http://ebible.org/web/
),
● English
Majority Text Version (at http://majoritytext.com/ ),
●
Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament (at http://www.dtl.org/books/preview/alt.htm
), and
●
Eastern/Greek Orthodox New Testament (at http://www.orthodox-church.info/eob/
),
The second edition of The
New Testament in the Original Greek – Byzantine Textform, prepared by
Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont, was released in 2005, with a
generous copyright policy: “Anyone is
permitted to copy and distribute this text or any portion of this text,”
effectively placing it in the public domain.
RP-2005 is online, formatted as a PDF, with a collection of other free
resources, at https://sites.google.com/a/wmail.fi/greeknt/home/greeknt
.
Also worthy
of mention are The New Testament – The
Original Greek (Koine) Text, at
http://www.elpenor.org/books/new-testament/default-en.asp
and Wilbur Pickering’s compilation of the f35 text, at http://www.walkinhiscommandments.com/pickering2.htm
and his English translation of it, at http://www.walkinhiscommandments.com/pickering1.htm
, and the Byzantine Greek New Testament,
at http://www.bgnt.net/introduction.html
.
The
official website of the Modern English Version (with a Textus Receptus-based New Testament) is at http://modernenglishversion.com/ .
3 – As reported
on March 13, 2014, in Christianity Today
– see http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/march/most-popular-and-fastest-growing-bible-translation-niv-kjv.html
– the poll, carried out by the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI), found that 55% of Bible-readers in the United States read the KJV; the NIV was first runner-up, at 19%.
4 – See Wieland
Willker’s comment on Matthew 9:36 in A
Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels, Volume 1 – Matthew. Willker noticed that εκληλυμενοι is in
Erasmus’ text, and in Codex L, but not in codices 1 and 2.
5 – See pages
210-211 of Life and Letters of Fenton
John Anthony Hort, Volume 1, at https://books.google.com/books?id=Rxc3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA211
. According to the sub-headings in the book, Hort made these references to the Textus Receptus as “vile” and
“villainous” when he was 23 years old.
6 – Wilbur
Pickering, page 131, The Identity of the
New Testament Text, fourth edition.
7 – This sum of
1,838 differences was offered by Wallace in his article Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text, at https://bible.org/article/some-second-thoughts-majority-text
, published June 3, 2004 . It should be noted, however, that his tally
is based on a comparison of printed texts; if formatted in the format of
ancient uncial manuscripts, with contracted sacred names and no spaces between
the words, the sum would be somewhat lower.
8 – In this comparison, “Byz” is the
Robinson-Pierpont 2005 Byzantine text.
Ehrman’s research in 1996 used the Textus
Receptus as a major representative of the Byzantine Text, so to acquire a
more accurate picture of the actual implications of Didymus’ readings, it was
necessary to manually consult the RP-2005 text reading-by-reading.
9 – See page 47
of George Vance Smith’s short 1881 book, Textsand Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine BrieflyReviewed. Readers may also consult
page 140 of Volume 2 of Life and Lettersof Fenton John Anthony Hort to see Hort’s statement, in a letter written to Westcott in August of 1870,
about the “moral damage that would have been done to the acceptance of the
Revision by the laity if Unitarians had been outlawed as such.” The background of the comment is that there
had been objections against the inclusion of George Vance Smith on the Revision
Committee, but Westcott and Hort had insisted that he be included.
10 – See the
opening paragraphs of Bruce Metzger’ article The Text of Matthew 1.16 on page 105 of New Testament Tools & Studies – Philological, Versional, and Patristic,
Vol. 10 (1980).
11 – See page 251
of Eberhard Nestle’s 1901 Introduction tothe Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament: referring to the variant δια Ησαϊου του
προφήτου, Nestle wrote, “It is certainly, therefore, genuine.”
12 – Hort did not
fully adopt the Alexandrian reading of Matthew 27:49 into his text, but stated
on page 22 of Notes on Select Readings
that there were two possibilities:
either the phrase “may belong to the genuine text of the extant form of
Mt,” or “they may be a very early interpolation.” He concluded:
“We have thought it on the whole right to give expression to this view
[i.e., the view that the passage is an interpolation] by including the words
within double brackets, though we did not feel justified in removing them from the text, and are not prepared to reject
altogether the alternative position [i.e., the view that they are part of the
original text of Matthew].”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)