Readers who
keep track of recently made English New Testaments may recognize the name
of the author of Scribal
Skips: 1300 Words That Fell Out of the
Bible: Wayne A. Mitchell is
already known as the main developer of the New
Heart English Bible.
In a
three-page introduction, Mitchell summarizes a current problem in modern-day
textual criticism: the continued use of
the guideline lectio brevior potior,
that is, the shorter reading is stronger. This principle – the first guideline in Griesbach’s
list of guidelines, or canons, as stated back in 1796 (and, earlier, by Bengel) – was very
heavily qualified, but since then it has been applied in an oversimplified
manner, to the point that all that some
commentators have needed to say, when offering a case against a particular
reading, is that it is longer than its rival.
As David J.
Miller pointed out back in 2006 in the journal The Bible Translator in an article titled The
Long and Short of Lectio Brevior Potior, research in the past 40 years
has shown that measuring the length of rival textual variants is not a valid
way to decide which is original. James
Royse, for example, in a detailed examination of some early papyri (P45, P46,
P47, P66, P72, and P75, to be precise), determined that the copyists of those
papyri made more omissions (creating shorter readings) than they made additions
(creating longer readings), at a rate of 312 omissions and 127 additions – that
is, at a ratio of approximately 7:3.
Additional
research by Juan Hernández on the text of Revelation in
three uncial manuscripts, and by Peter Head, in a 1990 article Observations
on Early Papyri of the Synoptic Gospels, in the journal Biblica (supplemented and re-confirmed
in another article in 2004), supported Royse’s findings; Head concluded his
article with a statement that “If early scribes were more likely to omit words
and phrases (for whatever reasons) it follows that we should not prefer the
shorter reading, but rather prefer the longer reading (other factors being
equal).” Even with full consideration
given to the cautionary footnote that Head added to this sentence, to the
effect that “Each variant must be assessed on its merits,” at the end of the
day, the point seems irresistible that a variant’s brevity is not a merit.
And therein
lies a problem: in the creation of the
compilation of Westcott & Hort, published in 1881, the editors appear to have routinely thought that the copyists expanded the text; Hort described the tendency of copyists to expand their texts as an “almost universal tendency.” Similarly, Eberhard
Nestle, in his 1901 Introduction to the
Textual Criticism of the New Testament, on page 323, stated, “It is a fundamental principle of textual
criticism that the lectio brevio is
to be preferred.” And if one
consults the Preface to the First Edition of the UBS Greek New Testament (on page x of the UBS GNT, 4th ed.),
the editors acknowledge that Westcott & Hort’s edition was the initial
basis for the UBS Greek New Testament, and Nestle’s work is listed next. Metzger, in his handbook The Text of the New Testament, stated (4th ed., p. 303), “In general, the shorter reading is to be preferred, except where parablepsis arising from homoeoteleuton may have occurred or where the scribe may have omitted material that he deemed to be superfluous, harsh, or contrary to pious belief, liturgical usage, or ascetical practice.”
The first exception that Metzger mentioned – cases of possible parablepsis – does not appear to have been given adequate weight. Many shorter readings that can be explained as results of parableptic error continue to be favored over their longer rivals. This is one reason why the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece continues to confidently diverge from the 1881 text at fewer than 700 points.
The first exception that Metzger mentioned – cases of possible parablepsis – does not appear to have been given adequate weight. Many shorter readings that can be explained as results of parableptic error continue to be favored over their longer rivals. This is one reason why the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece continues to confidently diverge from the 1881 text at fewer than 700 points.
What would
the text of the New Testament look like if shorter readings that can be
accounted for as omissions caused by parablepsis – that is, simple scribal
errors that happened when a copyist’s line of sight drifted from one letter (or
letters) at one point to another point further along in the text where the same
or similar letter (or letters) recurred – were rejected in favor of rival longer
readings? That question may be answered
by a careful reading of the portion of Scribal
Slips that focuses on the New Testament – that is, everything after page
77.
In
the part of Scribal Slips that
pertains to the New Testament text, each page features a straightforward
presentation of two or three passages where there are (a) a shorter reading, and (b)
a longer reading which can be explained as the original reading on the grounds
that it was accidentally lost via scribal error. External evidence is thoroughly listed for
each reading. A series of cases in
Matthew helpfully exemplifies the kinds of readings that are covered:
● Omission
of a word: Matthew 19:11 – witnesses are
listed for the longer reading (τον λογον τουτον) and for the shorter reading
(τον λογον). Then the verse is presented
in English, with the omitted word within brackets: “But he said to them, “Not all men can
receive [this] saying, but those to whom it is given.” The idea is that an early copyist’s line of
sight drifted from the letters -ον at the end of λογον to the same letters at
the end of τουτον.
● Omission
of consecutive words: Matthew 19:29 – witnesses
are listed for the longer reading (οικιας η αδελφους η αδελφας η πατερα η
μητερα η γυναικα η τεκνα η αγρους) and for the shorter reading found mainly in
Codex Vaticanus (οικιας η αδελφους η αδελφας η πατερα η μητερα η τεκνα η
αγρους). Then the verse is presented in
English, with the omitted words in brackets:
“Everyone who has left houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or
mother, [or wife,] or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive one
hundred times, and will inherit eternal life.”
The idea is that a copyist’s line of sight drifted from η to η, accidentally
skipping η γυναικα.
● Omission
of a phrase: Matthew 20:16 – witnesses
are listed for the longer reading (ουτως εσονται οι εσχατοι πρωτοι και οι
πρωτοι εσχατοι πολλοι γαρ εισιν κλητοι ολιγοι δε εκλεκτοι) and for the shorter
reading (ουτως εσονται οι εσχατοι πρωτοι και οι πρωτοι εσχατοι). The idea is that a copyist’s line of sight
drifted from the letters at the end of εσχατοι to the same letters at the end of
εκλεκτοι.
Similarly
in Mark, Mitchell pin-points readings which are shorter in the NIV, ESV, and
NLT than in the KJV, NKJV, and MEV, and shows how simple scribal
inattentiveness – not some devious Gnostic agenda – caused the loss of some text. Examples:
● Mark
2:16 – Parablepsis accounts for the loss of the words “and drinks”
● Mark
10:24 – Parablepsis account for the loss of the words “for those who trust
in riches”
● Mark
11:26 – Parablepsis accounts for the loss of the entire verse
Even though
this may give readers an illuminating view at the possible impact of scribal
errors upon the text, the spotlight is not as bright as it could be. In just two chapters of Matthew (chapters 19
and 20), readers are not shown how parablepsis may be the cause of . . .
► the non-inclusion of οτι in 19:8 in Vaticanus and Bezae
► the non-inclusion of οτι in 19:8 in Vaticanus and Bezae
► the
non-inclusion of αγαθέ in 19:16 in ℵ B L D et
al
► the
non-inclusion of ει μη εις ο Θεος in 19:17 in ℵ B L D et al
► the
non-inclusion of ου μοιχεύσεις ου κλέψεις in 19:18 in ℵ*
► the cause
of the non-inclusion of εισελθειν in 19:24 in ℵ L f1 157 et al
► the
non-inclusion of παρα ανθρώποις in 19:26 in ℵ*
► the
non-inclusion of οτι in 20:12 in ℵ B D et
al
► the
non-inclusion of οι in C* and H in 20:12, and
► the
non-inclusion of 20:31 (the entire verse) in GA 2* and 157.
But if all such instances of possible parablepsis and haplography had been
included, this would be a much longer book.
The samples that Mitchell has recorded should be sufficient to cause
some readers to exclaim, “Leapin’ lizards; why on earth are we relying on the
Alexandrian Text; it’s full of holes?!” or similar expressions of dismay.
There is
not a lot of argumentation in this book, just straightforward presentations of
evidence which may or may not constitute a genuine case of a haplography-induced
scribal skip at any given point. For
instance, regarding Luke 4:5, Mitchell accurately reports that À* B L
1241 et al do not have the words ο
διαβολος εις ορος υψηλον, which appear in most manuscripts immediately after
the words και αναγαγων αυτον. The idea
is that a copyist’s line of sight drifted from the letters -ον at the end of
αυτον to the same letters at the end of υψηλον, but one could also argue that
the words have been inserted here as a harmonization to the parallel-scene in
Matthew 4:8.
Some
readers might initially suspect, as they observe over and over that the shorter
reading is found in the flagship
manuscripts of the Alexandrian text, and the longer reading is found in the Textus Receptus, that perhaps Mitchell’s
presentation is a surreptitious defense of the base-text of the King James
Version. However, the tendency for the
Alexandrian Text to have the shorter reading is only a tendency; the Alexandrian text is not always shorter. Mitchell
points out that the Textus Receptus
appears to be missing 39 words, in passages such as John 12:19 (where P66 À B
also do not include ολος after κοσμος), James 4:12 (where the Textus Receptus, like most manuscripts,
does not include και κριτης (“and Judge”) after νομοθέτης (“Lawgiver”), and
Jude verse 25 (where the Textus Receptus,
like most manuscripts, does not include the phrase, “through Jesus Christ our
Lord”).
In a six-page
conclusion, Mitchell maximizes the implications of the data he has
presented. The texts of the manuscripts
that are routinely referred to as “oldest and best” in some Bible-footnotes are
by no means safe from scribal skips; Mitchell indicts P44vid, P45,
P66, P75, and À
B D L et al as containing echoes of
an early parableptic error in John 10:13 in which ο δε μισθωτος φευγει was
accidentally skipped after σκορπίζει at the end of verse 12. Besides proposing that the Hebrew text of the
Old Testament (in the Masoretic Text) has lost 1,279 words due to haplography,
he also proposes that the Greek text of the New Testament (in the Nestle-Aland
compilation, 28th edition) has lost 327 words (in addition to which
100 words are bracketed), including four entire verses (Mt. 27:35, Mark 11:26,
Mark 15:28, and Luke 23:17), due to scribal skips.
Finally, in
an interesting appendix, Mitchell comments about some differences between the
form of some Old Testament passages and New Testament quotations of them. These include considerations of Genesis 11:13
(compared to Luke 3:36), Genesis 47:31 (compared to Hebrews 11:21), Exodus 2:14
(compared to Acts 7:28), Psalm 8:2 (compared to Matthew 21:16), Isaiah 28:16 (compared
to First Peter 2:6), Hosea 14:2 (compared to Hebrews 13:15), and more. Often the quotation in the New Testament is
identical or similar to the reading in the Septuagint.
Almost
certainly, Mitchell’s evidence-presentations will not be persuasive in every
case. (For example, it seems to me that
the longer form of Luke 11:2-4 is explained much more easily as a harmonization
to the Lord’s model prayer in Matthew 6:9-13, than the shorter form is
explained as due to a series of remarkable scribal skips.) But in many cases, Mitchell has supplied a
strong basis to reject “prefer the
shorter reading,” and to put in its place, “prefer the reading with the simplest explanation.” Very
often a shorter reading is explained by a scribal slip with more simplicity
than a longer ending is explained as the result of conscious scribal
effort.
It is not
as Mitchell provides only vague evidence for the textual losses that he
proposes have occurred. He (or his
sources) apparently sifted through the contents of 28 papyri, over 80 uncials, over
110 minuscules, at least 18 Old Latin manuscripts, four editions of the
Vulgate, seven Syriac (or Aramaic) texts, eight Coptic sources, five additional
versions (Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Gothic, Old Church Slavonic), and the
works of 62 patristic writers – all of which/whom are listed near the beginning
of the book, giving readers the tools to trace the losses. That’s far more materials than were cited in the apparatus of the Tyndale House Greek New Testament.
Mitchell acknowledged near the end of his book that it is not exhaustive. (A future edition could be re-titled with “1,500” or “1,600” in place of “1,300.”) First
Peter 2:2, for example, could be profitably added to the list of passages
where a difference among English translations may have its origin in an ancient
scribe’s inattentiveness. But Scribal Skips is already a resource
which investigators of the differences among modern English translations, and
their base-texts, will find highly informative and useful.
Scribal Skips: 1,300 Words That Fell Out of
the Bible is available
to purchase at Amazon as a Kindle e-book for $7.99, or as
a paperback for $14.99.
[Pages 1-77
of Scribal Skips cover Old Testament
passages, and are not covered in this review.
But Mitchell’s h.t.-implying comparisons,
which he lets speak for themselves, are often very interesting, and merit
consideration from investigators of the Old Testament text, whether regarding
large readings (at passages such as First Samuel 10:27-11:1 and First Samuel
14:41) or small ones (at passages such as Malachi 1:7 and 3:2).]
[P.S. Another man
named Mitchell, Jonathan
Mitchell, has also made an English New Testament, using a super-amplified
technique. Wayne A, Mitchell is not the
same person.]
