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.)

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 26^th/27^th edition of Nestle-Aland

● = An adopted reading not read by B or ﬡ.

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.

_______________