Index of Variants Discussed in Relation to the CBGM

Local stemma for 2 Peter 3.10/48-50

Following a question on Facebook regarding whether the CBGM had influenced the conjecture at 2 Peter 3.10 (οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται), I thought it would be good to have an index of all the places where there has been discussion of the CBGM in relation to particular variants. At the moment, this is as close as we can get to having any kind of textual commentary on the Catholic Epistles. Reading through the examples from the editors really is the best way to get a sense for how the CBGM is influencing their textual decisions. So having them all in one list is handy.

I’ve split the list into discussions (a) published by those working on the Nestle/ECM text and (b) those who aren’t. The format here is pretty straightforward. After each verse reference I give the source number followed by the page number. Some of these are more illustrations than discussions, so I’ve tried to mark with an asterisk (*) those places where the source is most explicit about how the CBGM has influenced a particular decision. Most of them are, however, still very brief. Let me know if I missed any.

Update (3/2016)

the best single source for discussions is now Klaus Wachtel’s article on Acts published in the TC journal (2015). It’s #11 under Discussions by the Editors.

Update 2/2019

This list can also be found at the end of Peter J. Gurry, “How Your Greek NT Is Changing: A Simple Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM),” JETS 59, no. 4 (2016): 675–689.

---

A. Discussions by the Editors

Passages:

• Acts 4.27 (11:12-13), Acts 5.37 (11:13), Acts 9.3 (11:10), Acts 9.15 (11:11), Acts 10.30, 31, 43 (11:2), Acts 10.37 (11:7-8), Acts 11.8 (11:4-6*), Acts 11.13, 26 (11:3-4*), Acts 12.20 (11:8-9), Acts 13.1 (11:6-7), Acts 13.14 (1:2-4*), Acts 13.33 (11:9*), Acts 16.7 (11:14-15), Acts 18.17 (1:4-12*)
• James 1.12 (2:178-179; 5:381-428*), James 1.19 (5:430-474*), James 1.25 (5:326-379*), James 2.3 (7:131-136*), James 2.4 (4:61-62*) James 2.13 (2:179-181; 9:149-156), James 2.16 (2:179), James 2.18 (2:196), James 2.23 (2:152, 153, 154), James 2:25 (2:176-178), James 3.8 (3:495), James 4.9 (3:495), James 4.12 (10:3-8), James 5.4 (3:495), James 5.14 (3:495)
• 1 Peter 1.6 (4:41-43*; 6:59-60*), 1 Peter 1:17 (2:197), 1 Peter 1.24 (2:197), 1 Peter 2.1 (5:306-325*), 1 Peter 2.18 (9:148-149), 1 Peter 2.21 (8:118-121*), 1 Peter 3:16 (2:174-175), 1 Peter 3.21 (2:197), 1 Peter 4.16 (4:43-46*; 5:205-228*; 6:60-62*), 1 Peter 5.1 (9:156-159), 1 Peter 5.9 (2:197)
• 2 Peter 1.4 (2:198), 2 Peter 2.12 (2:198-199), 2 Peter 2.20 (9:156), 2 Peter 3.10 (4:27; 7:129)
• 3 John 9 (2:199), 3 John 12 (2:199)
• Jude 1 (8:113-118*), Jude 5 (8:121-126), Jude 15 (2:181-189*)

Sources:

1. Hüffmeier, Annette. “The CBGM Applied to Variants from Acts.” TC (2015): 1-12.
2. Mink, Gerd. “Contamination, Coherence, and Coincidence in Textual Transmission: The Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) as a Complement and Corrective to Existing Approaches.” Pages 141–216 in The Textual History of the Greek New Testament: Changing Views in Contemporary Research. Edited by Klaus Wachtel and Michael W. Holmes. Text-Critical Studies. Atlanta: SBL, 2011.
3. ———. “Eine umfassende Genealogie der neutestamentlichen Überlieferung.” NTS 39 (1993): 481–499.
4. ———. “Problems of a Highly Contaminated Tradition: The New Testament: Stemmata of Variants as a Source of a Genealogy for Witnesses.” Pages 13–85 in Studies in Stemmatology II. Edited by Pieter van Reenen, August den Hollander, and Margot van Mulken. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2004.
5. ———. “The Coherence-Based Genealogical Method, CBGM: Introductory Presentation,” 2009. [There is a PDF index for this presentation which lists 30+ places of variation mentioned in the presentation]
6. ———. “Was verändert sich in der Textkritik durch die Beachtung genealogischer Kohärenz?” Pages 39–68 in Recent Developments in Textual Criticism: New Testament, Other Early Christian and Jewish Literature: Papers Read at a Noster Conference in Münster, January 4–6, 2001. Edited by Wim Weren and Dietrich-Alex Koch. Studies in Theology and Religion. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2003.
7. Wachtel, Klaus. “The Coherence-Based Genealogical Method: A New Way to Reconstruct the Text of the Greek New Testament.” Pages 123–38 in Editing the Bible: Assessing the Task Past and Present. Edited by John S. Kloppenborg and Judith H. Newman. Resources for Biblical Study. Atlanta: SBL, 2012.
8. ———. “Towards a Redefinition of External Criteria: The Role of Coherence in Assessing the Origin of Variants.” Pages 109–27 in Textual Variation: Theological and Social Tendencies? Papers from the Fifth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. Texts and Studies: Third Series. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2008.
9. Strutwolf, Holger. “Scribal Practices and the Transmission of Biblical Texts: New Insights from the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method.” Pages 139–60 in Editing the Bible: Assessing the Task Past and Present. Edited by John S. Kloppenborg and Judith H. Newman. Resources for Biblical Study. Atlanta: SBL, 2012.
10. Wachtel, Klaus, and David C. Parker. “The Joint IGNTP/INTF Editio Critica Maior of the Gospel of John: Its Goals and Their Significance for New Testament Scholarship.” Paper presented at the SNTS meeting, Halle, 2005.
11. Wachtel, Klaus. “Constructing Local Stemmata for the ECM of Acts: Examples.” TC (2015): 1-15. [This needs to be read in conjunction with “The CBGM Applied to Variants from Acts: Methodological Background” which gives a key for “editorial guidelines” referenced in the examples.]

B. Discussions by Non-Editors

Passages: 

• Mark 1:1 (1:1-11)
• James 1.12 (6:102-103), James 2.4 (6:77), James 2.13 (6:108), James 2.16 (6:78), James 2.18 (6:110), James 2.23 (6:85), James 2.25 (6:101-102), James 3.6 (6:76), James 4.2 (6:77), James 4.17 (6:84), James 5.7 (6:108)
• 1 Peter 1.6 (6:98-99), 1 Peter 1.17 (6:111), 1 Peter 3.16 (6:100), 1 Peter 3.21 (6:109, 111), 1 Peter 4.16 (2:599-603; 6:93, 99-100), 1 Peter 5.2 (6:107-108), 1 Peter 5.9 (6:111), 1 Peter 5.10 (6:110)
• 2 Peter 1.4 (6:111), 2 Peter 2.12 (6:111)
• 1 John 2.2 (4:603-625), 1 John 5.6 (2:603-604; 3:210-213*)
• 3 John 9 (6:112), 3 John 12 (6:112)
• Jude 4 (3:213-218*), Jude 5 (5:99; 6:100), Jude 13 (5:111-112), Jude 15 (5:114-115; 6:103-105), Jude 19 (6:110)

Sources:

1. Wasserman, Tommy. “Historical and Philological Correlations and the CBGM as Applied to Mark 1:1.” TC (2015): 1-11.
2. ———. “Criteria for Evaluating Readings in New Testament Textual Criticism.” Pages 579–612 in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. Edited by Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
3. ———. “The Coherence Based Genealogical Method as a Tool for Explaining Textual Changes in the Greek New Testament.” NovT 57 (2015): 206–18.
4. Do, Toan. “Mόνον or Μονῶν? Reading 1 John 2:2c from the Editio Critica Maior.” JBL 133, no. 3 (2014): 603–25.
5. Flink, Timo. Textual Dilemma: Studies in the Second-Century Text of the New Testament. University of Joensuu Publications in Theology. Joensuu: University of Joensuu, 2009.
6. Alexanderson, Bengt. Problems in the New Testament: Old Manuscripts and Papyri, the New Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) and the Editio Critica Maior (ECM). Acta Regiae Societatis Scientiarum et Litterarum Gothoburgensis, Humaniora. Göteborg: Göteborg, 2014.

Last updated 3.29.2016