David Smith: Why GA 1411 Should Not be GA 1411: On Classifying Catenae Manuscripts

The following is a guest post from David C Smith. David and I worked together a few years ago in Athens with CSNTM. He is completing a ThM at Dallas Theological Seminary and is a Deacon in the Anglican Church in North America. His masters thesis, entitled “A Study of the Text and Paratext of the Catena on Luke in GA 1441,” should be completed this summer. Here is some of the fruit of that work.

---

Introduction

The question of Catenae Manuscript classification has been raised by some as the details and purpose for composition have been more clearly understood. I wish to contribute some data to the conversation that has come from my work on GA 1411, a relatively unexplored and unanalyzed MS from the National Library of Greece. I was fortunate enough to digitally preserve this artifact with my good friend Andrew Bobo as we worked for CSNTM in the summer of 2015.

The purpose and use of catenae manuscripts has been explained more fully in the NTTC world by scholars such as William Lamb, Hugh Houghton, and David Parker. Lamb in particular has argued that these manuscripts were not primarily written as witnesses to the New Testament, but were written as educational textbooks in the medieval Byzantine scholastic context. Much of his argument is based on situating these manuscripts in their historical context, and in turn showing how this understanding of the compositional purpose of catenae manuscripts explains the high amount of variance in not only their biblical text but in their patristic commentary. In addition, this explanation of their purpose calls into question their use as witnesses of the New Testament alongside other continuous-text manuscripts, which are clearly written to transmit the NT text.

For many reasons, not much work has been done on the Greek catenae manuscripts as artifacts to see if the actual details of the manuscripts support this conclusion from Lamb and others. That is, if we were to examine the textual and paratextual details of a given catenae manuscript, would the phenomena of the artifact be best explained by the theory that they are educational textbooks/anthologies?

My master’s thesis at Dallas Theological Seminary is a study of GA 1411 to attempt exactly this. I am trying to observe the details and phenomena of this manuscript to judge whether or not Lamb’s explanation best fits.

Mark Ward on Engaging KJV-Onlyists

We don’t normally talk KJV-Onlyism on this blog, the reason being that such discussions tend to be fruitless (a point I hope is not demonstrated in the comments).

But, today I read an article by Mark Ward who, I understand, used to be KJV-only himself but has moved away from that. The article is “3 Ways to Graciously Engage KJV-Only Believers” and it is indeed gracious. If you have friends or family who are KJV-only, you will want to read it.

I want to highlight Mark’s second point, which, though it surprised me, is probably right.

2. Don’t Talk about Textual Criticism

I suggest you take a step back: you must refuse to talk about textual criticism with KJV-only Christians.

I’m not saying it’s worthless to teach the truth on the topic; many writers have done so admirably. But now’s probably not the time.

God calls few Christians, KJV-only or not, to learn Koine Greek. This means comparatively few people on any side of the KJV debate have ever examined the evidence. Instead, most people in the church have formed their textual critical views secondhand from authorities they trust. This is natural and not necessarily bad: we all outsource complex judgments to people whose expertise we would have trouble proving exactly.

This means your disagreement with the average KJV defender is not actually about textual criticism, but about which authorities are worth trusting: Carson vs. Ruckman, White vs. Waite. You won’t get him to trust responsible authors by having him read their attacks on his viewpoint; you’ll do this by giving him other edifying books by those who’ve produced our modern evangelical Bible translations, hoping he’ll sense intuitively that they are not his enemies. This is your long game.

But your short game needs to give up on textual criticism. As Dan Wallace has labored to show, only a tiny percentage of textual differences are both meaningful and viable. The difference between “the star came to rest” over baby Jesus and “the star came and stood” over him is not worth a fight.

Graciously agree to disagree with a KJV devotee’s preference for the TR and move on.

I knew a guy in seminary who graciously pastored a KJV-only church. He was a doctoral student and was taking textual criticism with Dan Wallace at the same time as me. He was not himself KJV-only but he realized that pastoral wisdom meant playing what Mark calls the “long game.” He loved the people in his church and wanted to move them to maturity; but he also wanted to do it in the way that best served them and I always admired him for that.

What other strategies have folks used successfully in helping KJV-onlyists?

MSI for Codex Zacynthius

On the Twitter, Hugh Houghton gives the good news that Codex Zacynthius (Ξ or 040), not long ago sold to Cambridge, is getting some MSI treatment. This is great news.

Multispectral imaging of Codex #Zacynthius is in progress this week @theUL for the @ahrcpress project @itsee_bham @PTRBirmingham @CamDigLib to recover the #palimpsest #catena underwriting! pic.twitter.com/DiXplDbVfq

— Hugh Houghton (@HAGHoughton) July 24, 2018

Update: Video from CUL

New Articles in TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism

The first installation of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism volume 23 (2018) is complete with three articles and a number of reviews. Three or four additional articles will follow in the second installation in November. Notably, two of the articles are written by two PhD students, Jonathan Hong (ISBTF Kirchliche Hochschule Wuppertal/Bethel), who is working under Martin Karrer on the text of the Psalms in a German project concerned with the reconstruction of the oldest text form of the Septuagint (Old Greek) and its linguistic and theological characteristics; and Jesse R. Grenz (Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge), who is studying the scribal habits in Codex Vaticanus under supervision of our co-blogger Dirk Jongkind.

Volume 23 (2018)

Articles

Garrick V. Allen, “There Is No Glory and No Money in the Work”: H. C. Hoskier and New Testament Textual Criticism

Abstract: Focusing on the work and life of H. C. Hoskier, this article explores the broader intellectual context of late nineteenth and early twentieth century textual criticism. This examination illuminates the deep context of current trends in textual scholarship on the New Testament, arguing that the discipline has much to learn from the dark corners of the tradition. Though seemingly dry and laborious work (and of a truth it is the latter to a large extent) some of the most wonderful truths, some of the most interesting problems present themselves to his mind as letter by letter, line by line, and page by page the patient collator toils along slowly at his task.

Jonathan Hong, In Search of the “Old Greek” in the Septuagint Psalter: A Case Study of LXX Psalms 49 and 103

Abstract: Till today Rahlfs’s edition from 1931 is the standard text when it comes to the Greek Psalter. However, important discoveries were made after 1931, for example the Psalm scrolls from Qumran and early Greek manuscripts. This article includes the new material and argues that the original text of the Septuagint has been a freer translation than the text reconstructed by Rahlfs. It also shows that the new Greek manuscript findings of Papyrus Bodmer XXIV (Ra 2110) and Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 5101 (Ra 2227) attest to a particularly strongly Hebraized text-form.

Jesse R. Grenz, Textual Divisions in Codex Vaticanus: A Layered Approach to the Delimiters in B(03)

Abstract: In this article, I am concerned with the various delimitation markers found in Codex Vaticanus. While some scholars have assumed an overall coherence between these markers, I argue that they must first be examined on their own to determine their function and relation to one another. This is done first by understanding textual delimitation as a part of transmission and scribal habit. After examining the spacing, ektheses, paragraphoi, and Greek section numerals, I conclude: (1) only the spacing and ektheses are original to the work of the scribes; (2) the paragraphoi were later additions for the purpose of reading, and sometimes correct the original divisions of the scribes; and (3) finally, the later additions of Greek section numerals were for ease of reference and can both agree and disagree with previous division markers. The data presented below has implications for any further conclusions about the purpose and relationship of these divisions to the larger textual tradition.

Reviews

Marietheres Döhler, Acta Petri: Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar zu den Actus Vercellenses (Thomas J. Kraus, reviewer)

Liv Ingeborg Lied and Hugo Lundhaug, Snapshots of Evolving Traditions: Jewish and Christian Manuscript Culture, Textual Fluidity, and New Philology (Marcus Sigismund, reviewer)

Alan Mugridge, Copying Early Christian Texts: A Study of Scribal Practise (Michael Dormandy, reviewer)

Ernst Würthwein and Alexander Achilles Fischer, The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica (Andrew W. Dyck, reviewer)

Fragmentarium: Digital Laboratory for Medieval Manuscript Fragments

The Fragmentarium website seems like a great idea and one that could be useful for Biblical manuscripts as well. (Note Tommy’s post from a few years ago.)

Fragmentarium enables libraries, collectors, researchers and students to publish images of medieval manuscript fragments, allowing them to catalogue, describe, transcribe, assemble and re-use them.

On her blog, Lisa Fagin Davis gives more detail:

The recently-launched Fragmentarium project (based in Fribourg) combines IIIF with a powerful mySQL database to allow for the cataloguing of individual fragments and leaves and the virtual reconstruction of parent manuscripts in a shared canvas workspace. Brought to you by the incredible team behind e-codices, Fragmentarium uses a flexible and well-designed data model that is fragment-centric and follows international standards of authority and data modeling. It is the culmination of decades of development on the technical side and of metadata design on the scholarly side. Several institutions are already working on Fragmentarium case studies, uploading images (if they don’t already have IIIF purls), cataloguing them, and creating virtual reconstructions.

Besides the obvious examples of Codex Sinaiticus and P46, what examples come to mind that could use this in NT studies? 

The New Edition of Acts – Listing the Differences between ECM and NA28

At this year’s British New Testament Conference, the Acts group organises a panel discussion on the new Acts volumes in the Editio Critica Maior series (ECM). I thought I share some of my boring preparation so that others need not go through the same tedium (warning, nearly 1,500 words; mainly lists).

1. Differences

At first sight it ought not to be difficult to list the differences between the Editio Critica Maior of Acts and NA28, right? In fact, it is not a straightforward exercise. NA28 presents readings in square brackets, so what is the status of text presented there? And ECM has split text lines, in which two or three options are given, without clear preference for any of the splits; are these equal to the use of brackets? Still, when presenting a split guidance, ECM rejects any other variants not given in the splitted options, so something of a choice has been made, and therefore a split guidance is not identical to a ‘lacuna’. Things get even more complicated if we have a bracketed text in NA28 and ECM presents the two possibilities as a split guideline. Are NA28 and ECM equivalent in such cases or not? And what if ECM presents one of the options of NA28 as suggested by the brackets, but adds another not covered by NA28 (as actually happens)?

The best way of coping with all these complications is simply leave them as they are, without tying ourselves into knots trying to enforce the blanket category of differences. What we do below is present a layered approach, and leave it to you to accept what constitutes a difference, and what doesn’t.

2. ‘Pure’ changes

The first list constitutes the changes where the ECM has a different text from an unbracketed NA28. I count 34 of these, and these are all part of the table found on ECM I,34-35*. These break down into the following categories.

		Articles
		NA28		ECM
2:20b		-		τήν
14:10		-		τῇ
15:17		-		ὁ
15:37		τόν1		-
		Prepositions
		NA28		ECM
2:5		εἰς		ἐν
9:21		εἰς		ἐν
15:4		ἀπό		ὐπό
		Particles and Conjunctions
1:15		ὡσεί		ὡς
2:20a		-		ἥ
16:11		δέ		οὖν
20:6		ὅπου		οὗ
23:5		ὅτι		-
		Pronouns
1:26		αὐτοῖς		αὐτῶν
9:8		οὐδέν		οὐδένα
19:14		τινος		τινες
10:9[1]		ἐκείνων		αὐτῶν
		Nouns
1:10		ἐσθήσεσιν λευκαῖς		ἐσθήτι λευκῃ
18:7[2]		Τιτίου		Τίτου
25:18		πονηρῶν		πονηράν
20:21		-		Χριστόν
		Verbs
5:26		ἦγεν		ἤγαγεν
5:33		ἐβούλοντο		ἐβουλεύοντο
7:7		δουλεύσουσιν		δουλεύσωσιν
8:31		ὁδηγήσει		ὁδηγήση
13:11b		ἔπεσεν		ἐπέπεσεν
16:17		κατακολουθοῦσα		κατακολουθήσασα
20:5		προελθόντες		προσελθόντες
23:10		γινομένης		γενομένης
28:5		ἀποτινάξας		ἀποτιναξάμενος
		Word Order
16:28	μεγάλῃ φωνῇ		φωνῇ μεγάλῇ
23:1		ὁ Παῦλος τῷ συνεδρίῳ		τῷ συνεδρίῳ ὁ Παῦλος
27:8		πόλις ἧν		ἧν πόλις
		‘Complex’
2:3		καὶ ἐκάθισεν		ἐκάθισέν τε
16:13		ἐνομιζομεν προσευχήν		ἐνομιζετο προσευχή

In addition, there is a change where there is a bracket in NA28, but where the change in ECM is bigger than the constraints of the original brackets.

16:12

πρώτη[ς] μερίδος τῆς

πρώτη τῆς μερίδος

In 16:12 ECM has abandoned the conjecture of NA28 and moved to a reading better supported in the Greek tradition (note that ECM forgot the final τῆς of NA28 in its table). Compare the similar case of 17.3 below in the table where ECM has a split guidance at a place where NA28 has a bracketed text

Also, I have split up the variant unit of 16:28, which is in the Textual Changes table in ECM given as

16:28

μεγάλῃ φωνῇ [ὁ]

φωνῇ μεγάλῇ ὁ

Two things are going on. First the word order difference, and secondly the bracketed article before the name ‘Paul’. The change from a bracketed to unbracketed article appears further below.

Thus in this section we have 35 differences.

3. Bracketed Readings in NA28

NA28 has by my count 78 bracketed readings, though 16:12 is already dealt with above. There are four ways in which the ECM relates to these readings: 1) ECM equals NA28 but without the brackets, 2) ECM has the text of NA28 but omits the text in brackets,  3) ECM has a text different from the bracketed text of NA28 without a split guidance; 4) ECM has a split guidance that – at least in part – overlaps with the bracketed reading of NA28. I take it that each of these four categories constitutes a change from NA28 to ECM, since the ECM does not know the category of brackets.

3.1 ECM has the bracketed text of NA28

There are 36 cases where ECM presents the bracketed text of NA28 but now without any indication of indecisiveness. Again I have attempted to make the list less boring by grouping the variants into categories.

	NA28 – ECM without [ ]
	Articles
2.34	[ὁ] κύριος
4.4a	[ὁ] ἀριθμὸς
7.13	[τοῦ] Ἰωσήφ
9.22	[τοὺς] Ἰουδαίους
11.13	[τὸν] ἄγγελον
16.9	[τῆς] νυκτὸς
16.28	[ὁ] Παῦλος
16.29	[τῷ] Σιλᾷ
17.22	[ὁ] Παῦλος
	Articles (II)
11.23	[τὴν] τοῦ θεοῦ
19.8	[τὰ] περὶ
23.30	[τὰ] πρὸς
26.4a	[τὴν] ἐκ
	Prepositions
1.8	[ἐν] πάσῃ
7.3	[ἐκ] τῆς  (2)
	Prefixed Prepositions
1.11	[ἐμ]βλέποντες
3.25	[ἐν]ευλογηθήσονται
13.14	[εἰσ]ελθόντες
	Particles and Conjunctions
12.21	[καὶ]
13.31	[νῦν]
16.1	[καὶ]
19.40	[οὐ]
	Pronouns
4.30	[σου]
7.25	[αὐτοῦ]
7.43	[ὑμῶν]
10.36	[ὃν]
12.17	[αὐτοῖς]
16.36	[τούτους]
23.6	[ἐγὼ]

25.17	[αὐτῶν]
26.26	[τι] τούτων
26.31	[τι] πράσσει
	Nouns
18.26	[τοῦ θεοῦ]
27.41	[τῶν κυμάτων]
	Verbs
2.38	[φησίν,]
15.24	[ἐξελθόντες]

3.2 ECM leaves out the bracketed text of NA28

The second way in which ECM is different to NA28 is when it omits the bracketed text. This happens in the following 16 places.

	NA28	ECM
	Articles
9.12b	[τὰς] χεῖρας	Omit
12.11	[ὁ] κύριος	Omit
15.41	[τὴν] Κιλικίαν	Omit
16.27	[τὴν] μάχαιραν	Omit
	Articles (II)
5.31	[τοῦ] δοῦναι	Omit
	Prepositions
7.22	[ἐν] πασῇ	Omit
10.40	[ἐν] τῇ τριτῇ	Omit
14.3	[ἐπὶ] (2)	Omit
	Particles and Conjunctions
2.33	[καὶ]	Omit
19.15	[μὲν]	Omit
	Pronouns
13.33	[αὐτῶν]	Omit
27.23	[ἐγώ]	Omit
	Nouns (Noun phrases)
3.13(bis)	[ὁ θεὸς] Ἰσαὰκ καὶ  [ὁ θεὸς] Ἰακώβ	Omit
9.12a	[ἐν ὁράματι]	Omit
	Verbs
11.22	[διελθεῖν]	Omit

 3.3 ECM has a different text from the bracketed NA28

	NA28	ECM
4.4b	[ὡς]	ὡσει
23.23	[τινὰς] δύο	δύο τινὰς

At 4.4b the apparatus of NA28 is slightly ambiguous, as it is not perfectly clear whether the omission is preferred as the main alternative or the reading ὡσει. Looking at the evidence I think the omission is seen as the alternative.
The same is true for 23.23, where the brackets might indicate either the alternative word order or the omission.

3.4 ECM has a split guidance where NA28 has brackets

The fourth categoryBrackets and the split guidance are not identical categories of uncertainty. Whereas brackets still represent a choice on behalf of the editors, a split guidance presents full alternatives. Below is the list of these 23 ‘changes’

	NA28	ECM ♦
3.6	[ἔγειρε καὶ]	♦ ἔγειρε καὶ ♦ -
4.28	[σου]	♦ σου ♦ -
5.28	[οὐ]	♦ οὐ ♦ -
6.13	[τούτου]	♦ τούτου ♦
7.10	[ἐφ᾿]	♦ ἐφ᾿ ♦ -
7.18	[ἐπ᾿ Αἴγυπτον]	♦ ἐπ᾿ Αἴγυπτον ♦ -
7.19	[ἡμῶν]	♦ ἡμῶν ♦ -
7.35	[καὶ]	♦ καὶ ♦ -
8.5	[τὴν] πόλιν	♦ τὴν πόλιν ♦ πόλιν
8.33	[αὐτοῦ]	♦ αὐτοῦ ♦ -
9.37	ἔθηκαν [αὐτὴν]	♦ ἔθηκαν αὐτὴν ♦ αὐτὴν ἔθηκαν Two-way split between NA28-text and 3rd alternative
10.19	[αὐτῷ] τὸ πνεῦμα	♦ αὐτῷ τὸ πνεῦμα ♦ τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτῷ Two-way split between NA28-text and 3rd alternative. 3rd alternative not even mentioned in NA28.
10.39	[ἐν]	♦ ἐν ♦ -
12.3	[αἱ] ἡμέραι	♦ αἱ ἡμέραι ♦ ἡμέραι
13.10	[τοῦ] κυρίου	♦ τοῦ κυρίου ♦ κυρίου
13.20	[τοῦ] προφήτου	♦ τοῦ προφήτου ♦ προφήτου
13.38	[καὶ]	♦ καὶ ♦ -
17.3	ὁ χριστὸς [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς	♦ ὁ χριστὸς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ♦ ὁ χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς ♦ χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς
19.1	[κατ]ελθεῖν	♦ κατελθεῖν ♦ ἐλθεῖν
19.6	[τὰς] χεῖρας	♦ τὰς χεῖρας ♦ χεῖρας
26.4b	[οἱ] Ἰουδαῖοι	♦ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ♦ Ἰουδαῖοι
26.16	εἶδές [με]	♦ εἶδές με ♦ εἶδες
26.21	[ὄντα]	♦ ὄντα ♦ -

10.39 is not mentioned in the list in ECM I.35*-37* but is found in the print edition. In the online edition (accessed at time of writing) there is no split (no longer?). It is a bit puzzling that some information found in the print edition is missing in the online version. If we assume that the online version is the most up-to-date, the printed list of split readings is based on a later version of the printed text.

In all but three cases the split guidance of ECM reflects the two options suggested by the use of brackets in NA28, the bracketed text is present or absent.

However, in 9.37 and 10.19 ECM has opted for an alternative that is not indicated by the brackets in NA28. In both these cases the question of presence / absence that was posed by NA28 has become a choice between two word orders in ECM. In 10.19, NA28 does not even mention the second word order alternative of ECM (which shows the limitations of a pocket edition).

4. Split Readings in ECM without Corresponding Brackets in NA28

ECM gives a list of 155 split readings in ECM I.35*-37* (or should it be 156 if we include 10.39?). If we subtract the 23 passages dealt with in the previous section it follows that ECM has at 132 places a split guidance where NA28 presented an unbracketed text. The split readings are normally two-way splits, but there are a number of three-ways (in addition to 17.3 listed above under 3.4).

5. Summary

All this leads to the following numbers, taking the maximalist approach:

‘Pure’ differences	35
NA28 brackets; normal text in ECM	36
NA28 brackets; omitted in ECM	16
NA28 brackets; different, normal text in ECM	2
NA28 brackets; split guidance in ECM	23
NA28 normal text; split guidance in ECM	132
Total number of ‘differences’	244

[edited 19.vii.2018 to move 23.23 from section 3.1 to 3.3, HT Tony Pope]