Reply to Parker's Review of The Early Text(s) of the New Testament

I have recently read David Parker's review of The Early Text of the New Testament (eds. Hill and Kruger; OUP, 2012) with great interest, since I have contributed to that volume with an essay. The review has just published in the current Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 64/2 (October) 2013, pp. 642-45.

However, I became suprised with the generally negative critique, although Parker concludes with the reservation that, "These shortcomings in the conception of the volume should not deter anyone from reading and benefiting from individual contributions to which it has given rise."

Parker brings up three main critical points in his review, and I will attempt to give a response to each of them in this blogpost, in particular to the second and third points, as they relate to my own contribution (I assume the editors Hill and Kruger will respond somewhere else, and speak for the whole volume and for their introductory chapter):

First of all, Parker complains that the focus of the volume is difficult to discern.  Whereas the editors say it "intends to provide an inventory and some analysis of the evidence available for understanding
the pre-fourth-century period of the transmission of the NT materials, some MSS in Section II are dated after 300 and Section III lack reference to third-century writers, in particular Origen."

I think Parker is correct about a lack of focus, which probably reflects the freedom given to each author. As the editors point out in the introduction, "the editors have not asked the individual authors . . . to endorse one approach or method over another" (p. 18). Further, Parker is entirely correct in his latter observation – there is an omission in terms of patristic authors. However, I do not understand the problem with including manuscripts (papyri) dated after 300, first because the dates themselves are seldom exact. Let me take an example from my own chapter where I write in a footnote concerning the dating of P110: "The first editor W.E.H. Cockle dates P110 to the 4th cent. but at the same time notes the similarity of script to P45 (3rd cent.) and P. Flor. II 108 (ante c. 260). The evidence points to the first half of the 4th century" (p. 87, table 5.1, note j).

Further, I am certain that Parker is aware of the importance of tracing textual trajectories between the early papyri and later MSS. For example, it would be a serious omission to speak about the early text of Luke and John (chs. 7-8), while not mentioning Codex Vaticanus (B 03) because of its date after 300.

Parker's second point is as follows:

The book does not address methodology for comparing and analysing the witnesses, beyond adopting the terminology of the Aland handbook as updated in its second edition and by Barbara Aland in an article of 2002 (manuscripts are listed under the categories of ‘Strict’, ‘At Least Normal’, ‘Normal’, ‘Free’, and ‘like D’ on p. 11).

Parker then proposes that Hill and Kruger have confused this method with the Coherence Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) – "a serious misunderstanding" – when they refer to it as the "Münster approach" to classify early manuscripts "in three major groups" (although the editors are well aware of the CBGM to which they refer on p. 8 n. 38).

To this I would reply that one thing does not have to exclude the other.  The Alands' approach to analyzing early, in particular small, papyri and categorize them as "strict," "normal," or "free" should not be seen as a relic from the past now made redundant by the CBGM. In fact, Barbara Aland's last doctoral student, K. S. Min used the method to analyze over a dozen papyri in his excellent dissertation on the earliest transmission of the Gospel of Matthew, published in 2005 in the ANTF series (a series now edited by Parker). By that time the CBGM had been applied for many years. Arguably, this method of analysis, as described by Barbara Aland in the Festschrift for Delobel, New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis (Leuven, 2002), pp. 1-13, and elsewhere, can justifiably also be labeled a "Münster approach" (although I would personally avoid it).

To take this one step further, one could actually question whether the other Münster approach, now in vogue, the CBGM, is a suitable tool for analyzing the text of fragmentary papyri. As Gerd Mink, the inventor of the method himself states in a very helpful essay, "Problems of a Highly Contaminated Tradition: The New Testament. Stemmata of Variants As a Source of a Genealogy for Witnesses,” in Studies in Stemmatology II (ed. Pieter van Reenen, August den Hollander and Margot van Mulken; Amsterdam: John Benjamins 2004), 71:

Badly fragmented witnesses certainly present a very special risk. The genealogical relationship between a fragmentary witness and another witness is determined on the basis of its limited text supply. As the distribution of prior and posterior variants in a text can be very different it is possible that an entirely different picture would have resulted from the complete witness, if it had been preserved. 

It is perhaps not a coincident that it is possible to exclude fragmentary MSS when running the CBGM software. In an extensive presentation (downloadable here) of his method as applied to the Catholic Letters, Mink explains further how the method does not take fragmentary MSS into account, and it seems like many papyri actually fit the criterion he indicates:

The pre-genealogical and genealogical data used rests upon the entire corpus of the Catholic Letters (not upon single writings). When agreements with a given witness are checked or potential ancestors are searched for, smaller fragments are excluded. Smaller fragments are those which share less than 50% of the variant places in the given witness.

Hence, when Eldon J. Epp in his important essay "Textual Clusters: Their Past and Future," in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research (eds. B. Ehrman and M.W. Holmes; NTTSD 42; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 564, asks what is the appropriate method for identifying the D-cluster ("Western" text), he questions the usefulness of the CBGM, since it does not take into account fragments (the D-cluster contains the fragmentary P38 and P48).

On the other hand, Epp gives a rather positive evaluation of Alands' system of classification for the papyri in another essay in the same volume, "The Papyrus Manuscripts of the New Testament," in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research, 27, 

Yet, this classification system, with its considerable relativity, is not without value, for it reflects the general scribal process. For example, the close textual relationship between P75 and Codex B . . . does show a 'strict' connection with their respective exemplars–and with others along that line of transmission.

The final and probably most severe point of criticism in Parker's review concerns the second section of the volume, including my own essay:

I find it really remarkable, and a serious flaw, that none of the contributors to Section II seems to pay attention to, or in some cases even to be aware of, the Text und Textwert series (I except the chapter on the catholic epistles). These volumes make it possible to compare a witness with any other witness in a systematic manner, and to take an important step towards an overview of the textual history of a work. They are far more valuable, since they provide hard facts, than the Aland categories. The first volumes were published in 1987. How can what purport to be articles dealing with contemporary scholarship ignore them?

I have several objections to this harsh criticism, especially if it is applied to my own essay, "The Early Text of Matthew" (pp. 83-107). First of all, in my introduction, I explicitly point out that "numbers and percentages are more important than corresponding labels like "free," "normal," and "strict" and that "the validity of the results ultimately depends on the size of the sample and the specific nature and pattern of textual variation–variants should be weighed as well as counted" (p. 84). In my opinion, I use a proper method providing facts as hard as they can be in this business.

More importantly, I do not see how I could have used Text und Textwert in order to analyze most of these small papyri. When I wrote my chapter, I of course had to relate it to Min's recent and extensive examination of the Matthean papyri, and I felt that I could improve on some aspects, and in a few cases I came to slightly different conclusions regarding the classifications. But then I basically had to use the same method on the material.

In Min's case, Barbara Aland, director of the very institute that produced the Text und Textwert series, apparently did not see the need to use that tool either, because Min never refers to it in his monograph, as far as I can tell. Instead, as I have pointed out, Min uses the method of analysis which Aland continued to develop and describe (long after the development of the CBGM and the Textwerttool).

If we turn to one of the most significant examinations of NT papyri, that of James R. Royse in his magnus opus, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri (NTTSD 36; Leiden: Brill, 2008), he does not use the Text und Textwert tool either, as he analyses six of our most significant and extensive papyri. On the contrary, he is entirely occupied by examining how well the scribe copied the exemplar. In his introductory chapter on methodology, we may further note that he gives a rather positive evaluation of Barbara Aland's method of analysis (pp.60ff), although he chooses to analyze the singular readings only (which is particularly useful when dealing with larger papyri).

In Parker's recent essay, “Understanding How Manuscripts are Related” in Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament. The Lyell Lectures, Oxford, Trinity Term 2011 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 65-100, in which he describes ways of understanding relationships between MSS, he does not explicitly mention the Text und Textwert tool (although the index claims so), albeit there is a brief reference to "comparison of textual data in test passages in the Gospels." Instead, he rightly focuses on the CBGM, referred to as the "Münster Method."

Apparently, Parker concentrates on the method he thinks is most useful to apply to the material in order to solve the research question. In my own essay in the volume under review, I have tried to do the same thing. I did not mention (nor used) the Text und Textwert tool because I preferred to use a different "Münster method" which I find more suitable for analyzing early (and mostly fragmentary) papyri.

I sum, I think Parker is correct when he identifies a general lack of focus in the volume under review; this is because the individual authors were given great freedom in terms of method and approach. Further, Parker has rightly identified the omission of references to third-century writers (e.g., Origen), but I object to the other points of criticism.

Review of Clivaz' Published Dissertation on Luke 22:43-44

Andrew Gregory's review of Claire Clivaz' published dissertation, L'ange et la sueur de sang (Lc 22,43-44): Ou comment on pourrait bien encore écrire l'histoire (Biblical Tools and Studies 7; Leuven: Peeters, 2010) has been published in Review of Biblical Literature.

Clivaz' take on Luke 22:44 can be found in her 2004 SBL seminar paper “'A Sweat like Drops of Blood' (Luke 22:44): at the Crossing of Intertextual Reading and Textual Criticism" available on-line at the SBL site, here.

See also my related post from last year on P69 and theological concerns with further links.

Two Reviews in Novum Testamentum

Two new reviews appear in the latest Novum Testamentum:
Roger Bagnall, Early Christian Books in Egypt by me (Peter Rodgers) and
Roger Bagnall (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Papyrology by J Keith Elliott

SBL Boston, Book Review of James Royse Scribal Habits in Early Greek NT Papyri, pt. 7

This is my last post of the series on the SBL 2008 book review session SBL24-129 in which James Royse's recent monograph Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri (NTTSD 36; Brill, 2008) was reviewed. The series concludes with Royse's response to Dirk Jongkind. For earlier posts in this series, see below.




Royse responds to Jongkind

Finally, Dirk Jongkind:

Jongkind has pointed to some specific features that could bear improvement. Some of his points are matters of style and presentation, and I am probably not the best judge of what is good or bad there. But I would like to respond briefly on a couple of points.

First, let me confess that I like footnotes. In the works of others, footnotes are often among my favorite parts. And, for what it is worth, some of my favorite parts of this book are in the footnotes. During the writing, as I pursued various paths of enquiry, I often thought of the comment of Herman Melville in Billy Budd (Chapter 4): “In this matter of writing, resolve as one may to keep to the main road, some bypaths have an enticement not readily to be withstood.” Of course, I may have given in too often to such enticement, and perhaps for the sake of clarity and explanation I should have cited Melville’s comment in a footnote.

Second, as already noted, Jongkind wonders about the value of the summaries. But let me say something about Jongkind’s particular example of a scribal habit: “that a transposition can be explained best by assuming that initially the scribe forgot a word, noticed this, and inserted it somewhat belatedly at the first possible opportunity.” This does seem to me to be an important point (although I would replace “forgot” by “omitted”), and I believe that one can often see this habit at work in various manuscripts. Perhaps I should have emphasized it more. But it does not seem to me to be “hidden in the commentary” (as Jongkind says). It is mentioned in the text in the discussion of the transpositions of each of the six papyri. And at each of those places there are—dare I say?—footnotes that will lead the reader down a bypath to find in Supplementary Note 9 (pp. 755–56) that this observation was made by Colwell and even earlier by Havet, Hoskier, and others. Of course, more could have been said. Perhaps some day I will say more on this topic, but in the meantime I encourage others to investigate this tendency in these six papyri and in other manuscripts. Many other tendencies deserve more extended treatment. After all, I attempted only a “partial fulfillment” (as I say on p. 101) of the goal of a commentary on the singular readings of these papyri.

Third, I appreciate Jongkind’s comments on my use (or lack thereof) of the interesting and important essay by Junack. And I will concede that more could have been done with this issue of whether a scribe is copying by letters, by syllables, by words, or by some larger units. I appealed to the distinction as made by Colwell on occasion, but did not collect systematic data or attempt to draw the data together into some overall perspective. I would encourage others to do so. However, I would say that (a) my chief interest was “about the type of errors we find,” and that (b) trying to say anything more seems to me to run the risk of attempting to gain insight into the psychology of the scribe. And this latter task is very difficult, to say the least. I believe that we can see that a scribe tends to omit syllables, let us say, and that that “type of error” can inform our evaluation of the scribe’s readings. I would hesitate to say much more. However, at least one could attempt to determine what general patterns there are with respect to letters, syllables, and so on, in a scribe’s errors. And my own attempts there were not systematic.

Fourth, with respect to Jongkind’s discussion of isolated textual traditions, let me say that, in my opinion, the primary purpose of studying the scribal habits of manuscripts is to sharpen or revise our analysis of readings. This happens on different levels. At the first level, we can hope to find that a particular manuscript displays specific tendencies in its errors, and we can then use those tendencies in our assessment of the value of that manuscript at some particular variation unit. For example, if we find (as I believe we do) that P46 tends to omit portions of the text by a leap from the same to the same, then P46’s support for a reading that can be so explained may be, to that extent, discounted. That is, we will find it more likely that P46 created that shorter reading, and thus less likely that that shorter reading goes back to the exemplar of P46. For such an inquiry the singular readings provide, I believe, the best evidence for the scribe’s tendencies. And then at the second level, we can hope to generalize on the tendencies found in specific witnesses. That is what happens in the canons of internal criticism. If we find (as I believe we do) that scribes in general tend to omit portions of the text by a leap from the same to the same, then we may reject readings that could have arisen in such a way. Now, my general point about isolated traditions was that, for such purposes, whether we have the work of one scribe or the combined work of several scribes is irrelevant for the assessment of readings.

However, I completely agree with Jongkind’s summary comment that it is much more likely that we do not have such “complex scribes” in the New Testament tradition. In fact, though, Jongkind’s work on Codex Sinaiticus (pp. 144–47) provides one apparent example in the Septuagint: we have there a passage from 1 Chronicles, namely 9:27–19:17, inserted into 2 Esdras. Jongkind notes that this insertion is unique to Codex Sinaiticus, but that there is no sign of correction. What he then (reasonably enough, as it seems to me) infers is that the exemplar of Codex Sinaiticus (i.e., the exemplar at this point of the Septuagint) had the same insertion, and was used for both the initial transcription and the earliest stage of correcting activity. If this is so, we can see a little isolated tradition, consisting of that exemplar and Codex Sinaiticus. But, as Jongkind notes, the textual evidence for 1 Chronicles is comparatively weak, as Brooke and McLean cite only 25 manuscripts. And certainly the breadth and complexity of the manuscript tradition of the New Testament make such isolated traditions much less likely.

Fifth, I turn to Jongkind’s discussion of the shorter reading. Here of course I did attempt to integrate the results for the six papyri, and to say something about the implications those results have for the canon of preferring the shorter reading. Jongkind is correct in reminding us that Griesbach’s first canon is a much more nuanced, and much more complicated, piece of advice than the principle of simply preferring the shorter reading. Indeed, I suspect that the nuances and the complications are precisely what have caused it to be replaced in many subsequent lists of canons by simpler and more direct principles. That is, perhaps everyone will agree with Hort that “scribes were moved by a much greater variety of impulse than is usually supposed” (cited in chapter 1, footnote 35). Nevertheless, having a canon of criticism that tells us that scribes do this, and also that, and then sometimes something else except when they are doing some other thing, true as it may be, may not really provide much guidance in choosing among readings.

Ultimately, editors of the text and most critics of the text want to make choices of some kind or other. And for that purpose simple, direct principles are the most useful. For example: “Prefer the reading of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.” “Prefer the reading that is not harmonized.” “Prefer the shorter reading.” Those are the sorts of principles that inform most modern texts. Indeed, we have on record in Metzger’s Textual Commentary the principles used to construct, or at least to justify, our current “standard” text in Nestle-Aland. And we see there nothing like Griesbach’s first canon. Moreover, it is not all that often that one sees even in the totality of discussion of a variation unit such disparate points that Griesbach combines. Of course, most variation units receive no discussion at all. But the ones that do often involve the conflict of two or three principles. The shorter reading is not supported by B and א and friends, or the reading of B and א agrees with a parallel. Under those circumstances the editors have to balance principles. But if one has to balance the sorts of things that Griesbach tries to balance in his first canon, one may give up in despair at ever reaching a decision. (Of course, such considerations do not show that Griesbach’s canon is false.)

Finally, I should note that Jongkind’s own study of Codex Sinaiticus has provided yet further evidence that early scribes tended to omit rather than to add. This adds to my conviction that the preference for the shorter reading is fundamentally mistaken. And I wonder if there is, or really ever was, any evidence at all that scribes tended to add. In any case, there is increasing evidence, from the work of Hernández on Revelation, of Head on the early less extensive papyri, and of Jongkind on Codex Sinaiticus, that omission was more common than addition, and thus that the scribal tendency underlying the preference for the shorter reading is illusory.

Of course, we have here an overall tendency. Within that tendency there may still be plenty of additions, as we see in these six papyri, which could account for Jongkind’s observation that “traditions tend to grow over the course of centuries” (p. 4). Also, the text may have been affected not only by the changes introduced by scribes but also, as Jongkind notes, by the efforts of revisers, redactors, and editors. As extreme examples, we may think of the ways that Matthew and Luke, at least on the two-document hypothesis, handled the text of Mark. Clearly, their overall tendency was to expand. But that tendency to expand did not prevent Matthew and Luke from omitting on occasion, as at Mark 1:32, where each adopts one clause of a redundancy in Mark, or Mark 4:26–29, the parable of the seed growing secretly, where each of Matthew and Luke chooses to omit the passage entirely. Now, I would not wish to define precisely the difference between copying activity and editorial activity, although, like other things, we usually know them when we see them. And thus we distinguish the scribe of P46 or P66 from Matthew or Luke or Origen. But within the transmission of the New Testament (or the Septuagint or the Masoretic Text) there are many factors at work, and surely we cannot expect to explain the complications that we find by appeal to anything other than complex, sometimes conflicting, tendencies. However, despite such qualifications, I believe the evidence strongly supports the view that early scribes of the New Testament tended to shorten the text. And that is, if not the entire story, at least an important part of the story.

Again, I thank all of the panelists for their insightful and stimulating remarks.

Earlier posts in this series:

Part 1: Juan Hernández' presentation

Part 2: Royse responds to Hernández

Parts 3-4: Haines-Eitzen's review and Royse's response

Part 5: Peter Head's review and Royse's response

Part 6: Dirk Jongkind's review

SBL Boston, Book Review of James Royse Scribal Habits in Early Greek NT Papyri, pt. 6

Dirk Jongkind
SBL24-129 New Testament Textual Criticism



In the series of summaries from SBL in Boston, we have arrived at the last reviewer who is our co-blogger, Dirk Jongkind.

The dutch people are known for their cheese, tulips and chocolates, but I have also read somewhere that they are known for being direct, open and honest. This is of course a cliché, but, in this case, the description (save the cheese, tulips and chocolates) did fit well with Jongkind’s presentation.

J. started with an apology for maybe being too harsh (I didn't think he was; and the friendly tone characterized all of the four presentations as well as responses). Then he proeceeded, first, with the many good things to be said of this book. After briefly mentioning a number of positive aspects, from which he has benefitted a lot he proceeded with the criticism. “Royse’s book,” he said, “is easy to criticize not because it has errors, but because, given its sheer volume it must contain some inconsistencies.” Examples of negative features that J. mentioned include the rather prolonged genesis of the book; too many footnotes commenting on too much, using too heavy prose. Too extended discussions and too many references to modern authors. After all these footnotes and the extensive treatment, the conclusions of a chapter amount to a single page. At the same time, many good observations are hidden in the footnotes. Royse could have provided better access to these observations.

Then J. turned to an example on p. 51ff where Royse defends Colwell’s approach to study singular readings. J asked a critical question whether we study the scribe or the manuscript? What does Royse say of those who study a group of readings that include non-singulars too, as Barbara Aland does? [Royse reviews her method on p. 60ff]. J. said that if studying the scribe, then it is warranted to study the singular readings, but if we study the tendency of the manuscript, there is no need to exclude non-singular (one studies the accumulated errors). Even when studying non-singular readings, one can often discern that a reading derives from a scribe’s mistake (regardless whether it is an earlier scribe or not).

Junack’s Abschreibspraktiken also appeared in 1981, and is an extremely important essay. There are nine references to this study in Royse. In none of the nine places is there a reference to Junack’s point where he attacks some of Colwell’s conclusions about how the scribes of P45, P66 and P75 had copied. Junack completely disagrees with Colwell and J. thinks rightly so, whereas Royse repeats Colwell’s conclusions. Scribal habits, J. said, is also about how the scribe copies and Royse fails here.

[Colwell had concluded that “In general, P75 copies letters one by one; P66 copies syllables, usually two letters in length. P45 copies phrases and clauses” (Colwell, “Scribal Habits,” 380). Junack pointed out that this position, that the scribes of P66 and P75 were copying text without attention to the mening, is untenable. Junack thought it more plausible to ascribe the particular features and errors of these scribes, not to the way they copied the letters, but to the action of the hands; cf. D. Jongkind, “Singular Readings in Sinaiticus” in Textual Variation: Theological and Social Tendencies? (eds. H.A.G. Houghton & D.C. Parker; Gorgias Press, 2008), 48-49.]

The next point that J. brought up concerned Griesbach’s canon of preferring the shorter reading. Royse does not gives attention to Griesbach’s several exceptions to the rule. Most of the omissions fall under Griesbach’s exceptions. Griesbach was talking about the substantial readings.

J. pointed out that in a correction phase much more is added than removed, so in Sinaiticus.

[TW: One must not forget the “additional reading”-aspect; perhaps some corrections in Sinaiticus, for example, are to be seen not as alternative readings but additional readings...]

James Royse´s reponse will follow...

Review of Wasserman's Epistle of Jude

The Review of Biblical Literature has published the following review online: Tommy Wasserman
The Epistle of Jude: Its Text and Transmission, http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=5824. Reviewed by Stephen D. Patton

The review is appreciative of Wasserman's work. Ironically, Patton's Greek accents are incorrect in three places.

Review of the Digital Textual Commentary of Metzger

Introduction
As announced on this blog here, Bruce Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed. United Bible Societies/Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994) has been digitalized and released by a number of software companies. This review treats the version available from Accordance, which has been tagged so as to allow a number of valuable search capabilities (for details and orders, see here).

Now, if one has the printed version, why bother about the digital? The first reason is obvious: If you regularly use a digital UBS GNT, why not integrate it digitally with its companion volume, in order to facilitate your study and work? The digital version opens up a whole world of search possibilities that can enhance the use of this valuable resource. Thus, apart from general text-critical guidance, equivalent to the printed version, the search capacity of the digital version allows for more detailed exploration of various aspects relating to the extensive work of the committee. In addition, I think the digital version will be particularly useful when scholars want to find representative examples of various textual phenomena – examples, since the commentary contains a very limited selection of variants in the first place – to the extent that one agrees with the explanations and definitions of the committee.

In the Accordance search fields for this module one can search in the following categories: “Reference” (the passages discussed), “Titles” (words in the titles), “English Content,” “Scripture,” “Greek Content,” “Hebrew Content,” “Transliteration,” “Manuscripts,”” Syriac,” “Certainty,” “Uncial Greek.” These can be combined in advanced searches (with “AND,” “OR,” “NOT” commands). In the following, I will briefly go through some of these categories with selected examples of possible searches.

1. Reference
I start in the category “Reference,” in order to identify all the passages discussed in the commentary, as distributed book by book. Below I have counted only the main references (in a few cases a discussion of a certain passage extends to another passage):

Matthew 181
Mark 150
Luke 191
John 184
Acts 545 (!)
Romans 97
1 Corinthians 91
2 Corinthians 50
Galatians 38
Ephesians 43
Phillipians 29
Colossians 33
1 Thessalonians 19
2 Thessalonians 11
1 Timothy 25
2 Timothy 15
Titus 10
Philemon 7
Hebrews 49
James 26
1 Peter 46
2 Peter 26
1 John 39
2 John 9
3 John 3
Jude 15
Revelation 92
Total: 2028 passages

The very large number of passages in Acts (over 1/4 of the passages) is of course due to the significantly different “Western” text of Acts as represented by Codex Bezae.

2. English Content

2.1 Theological Motivation behind Textual Alteration
As is well-known, the committee frequently refers to possible theological motivation behind textual variants. The digital version facilitates a closer look at such places in the commentary. In order to identify them, I used some relevant keywords like “Christological,” “theological,” etc within the English content search field. I have only included references that are relevant in relation to scribes (i.e., not a reference to e.g., an author’s theology or the like). In a few cases the keywords overlap or occur more than once in the same passage. Apparently, in one case theological motivation is explicitly rejected, e.g., in Phil 2:7 where the variation is described as “non–doctrinal.”

a) keyword “theological” renders 12 hits concerning the following ten passages Luke 2:38; 11:4; 16:12; 24:51; 24:53; Acts 2:41: 5:32; 9:22; Rom 9:4; 1 Pet 1:22.

In Acts 2:41, for example: “The substitution in D of πιστεύσαντες for ἀποδεξάμενοι was doubtless motivated by theological concern that faith in, and not merely reception of, the word preached by Peter is prerequisite to receiving baptism.”

Of the ten passages four receive A-rating, two B-rating and four are unrated.

b) keyword “pious” [copyists/scribes/glosses, etc] renders 11 hits in Luke 23:43; John 8:8; Acts 15:29; 28:31; 1 Cor 6:11; 2 Cor 4:6, 14; Phil 3:12; 2 Thess 2:8; 1 Tim 6:5; Rev 22:21.

In John 8:8, for example: “In order to satisfy pious curiosity concerning what it was that Jesus wrote upon the ground, after γῆν several witnesses (U Π 73 331 364 700 782 1592 armmss) add the words ἕνος ἑκάστου αὐτῶν τὰς ἁμαρτίας (“the sins of every one of them”).” See my article on the subject here. Codex Π, by the way, does not contain John 8:8, so this is an error both in digital and printed version of the commentary.

Four of the eleven passages receive A-rating, one B-rating, two C-rating and four are unrated.

c) keyword “piety” renders two hits in Gal 1:3 and 2 Pet 1:2. The comment on the latter passage says: “Other readings incorporate various amplifications reflecting the piety of copyists.”

One passage received A-rating, and the other B-rating.

d) keyword “doctrine” renders 3 hits in Luke 2:33, 41 and 43, all relating to the doctrine of the virgin birth.

For example, the comment on Luke 2:33 reads: “In order to safeguard the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus, ὁ πατήρ was replaced by Ἰωσήφ in a variety of witnesses . . .”

One passage receives B-rating, two are unrated.

e) keyword “doctrinal” renders 9 hits in eight passages: Matt 24:36; 28:20 (footnote 6); Luke 1:46; 24:53 (in footnote 21); Acts 1:2; 9:20; Phil 2:7 (“non-doctrinal”); 1 John 5:20.

In Matt 24:36, for example, the comment reads: “The omission of the words [οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός] because of the doctrinal difficulty they present is more probable than their addition by assimilation to Mk 13.32.”

Out of the eight passages, four have A-rating, one has B-rating, three are unrated.

f) keyword “Christological” renders 2 hits in Luke 24:53 and John 3:13.

In both cases the members of the committee were split in their opinion. For example, in Luke 24:53 θεόν {A}: “During the discussions a sharp difference of opinion emerged. According to the view of a minority of the Committee, apart from other arguments there is discernible in these passages a Christological–theological motivation that accounts for their having been added . . . On the other hand, the majority of the Committee, having evaluated the weight of the evidence differently, regarded the longer readings as part of the original text.”

One passage receives A-rating, the other B-rating. This is of course strange considering the “sharp difference of opinion.”

g) keyword “Christo-centric” renders 1 hit in Luke 8.3: “The plural [αὐτοῖς] is supported by good representatives of the Alexandrian and the Western text–types; the singular (compare Mt 27.55; Mk 15.41) appears to be a Christocentric correction, due perhaps to Marcion.”

The passage receives a B-rating.

h) keyword “reverence” renders 3 hits in Luke 24:53; John 11:33; Acts 4:24.

For example, the comment on Acts 4:24 says: “The shortest form of text appears to be the oldest; the additions were doubtless made in the interest of heightening the apostles’ reverence in prayer.”

Two of the passages have B-rating, one is unrated.

i) keywords “in the interest” (followed by reference to theological motive) occur in Luke 2:41 (see above); 23:42; Acts 1:14; 4:1, 19, 24 (see above), 32; 6:10-11; 9:31; 12:2; 15:32; 1 Cor 7:5; Gal 1:3.

For example, in Gal 1:3 the comment says: “The apostle’s stereotyped formula was altered by copyists who, apparently in the interest of Christian piety, transferred the possessive pronoun so it would be more closely associated with ‘Lord Jesus Christ.’”

Two of the passages receive A-rating, four B-rating, whereas seven are unrated.

I think these preliminary search results cover this aspect of the commentary rather well, broadly speaking, at least for this brief review (the passages in question would need more analysis and detailed categorization). I am sure there are more examples and, in fact, it is very difficult in many cases to define and identify “theological motivation.” Nevertheless, the impression is that these passages, where the committee is rather explicit on the matter, are very few in number as compared to the total of over two thousand passages contained in the commentary.

In addition, we find that passages in Luke and Acts are overrepresented, and this is clearly due to the many references to the “Western” text of Codex Bezae (D05) in Luke and Acts with its “theological tendency.”

To conclude this section, I noted, to my surprise, that the keywords “intentional” rendered only two hits, and “consciously” one hit, neither having anything to do with theologically motivated alteration.

2.2 Different Opinion among Committee Members

The next brief survey in the English Content search category relates to places where the committee members were in disagreement. First I looked at those specific places where individual members expressed their minority opinion explicitly by indicating their initials (when, as explained in the preface, they felt that “the majority had seriously gone astray”).

Since the possibility to search is limited to a list of individual search words, probably due to some technical reason, this type of search (for initials) demanded special search strings like “B * M” (for Bruce M. Metzger), where * in this case stands for the period.

The search gave the following results:

Bruce Metzger (B.M.M.) twenty-six passages, two of which were A-rated; five B-rated; twelve C-rated; two D-rated; and five unrated

Allen Wikgren (A.W.) twelve passages, five of which were B-rated; five C-rated: one D-rated; and one unrated

Kurt Aland (K.A.) three passages, two of which were C-rated; and one D-rated

Carlo M. Martini (C.M.M.) one passage, which was B-rated

Matthew Black (M.B.) none

As I had suspected (but not verified) from my experience with the printed version, Bruce Metzger most often expressed his different views (more than the other members in total). As a side note, I came to understand in the Metzger memorial session at the recent SBL Meeting in San Diego that C. M. Martini frequently would act as the mediator when there was disagreement among the members, so that a decision could finally be reached in spite of heated discussions. (Aside from an irenic nature, one can suspect that Martini’s pastoral experience and good command of German and English helped in this regard.)

Secondly I looked for the keywords “majority” and “minority” wherever they refer to the majority or minority of the committee. When there is explicit reference to an alternative view of a “minority,” this generally indicates a stronger disagreement between members than the simple reference to the “majority” view/decision (which of course always supports the printed reading).

a) keyword “minority” occurs in the following twenty-two passages: Matt 6:33 (C-rating); Mark 5:21 (C); Luke 10:32 (unrated, but square brackets); 22:17-20 (B); 24:3 (B); 24:6 (B); 24:40 (B); 24:51 (B); 24:52 (B); 24:53 (A); John 3:13 (B); 5:2 (C); 8:16 (A); 10:26 (B); 13:2 (B); 13:22 (B); 1 Cor 1:2 (unrated); 2 Cor 7:8 (C); Col 1:20 (C); 2:23 (C); 1 John 5:10 (B); Rev 12:10 (unrated).

I think it is remarkable that two of these passages receive an A-rating.

b) keyword “majority” occurs roughly 400 times referring to a majority of the committee. We can infer that in the other approximately 1600 passages, the committee was unanimous in their decision.

3. Manuscripts
In this category, it is possible to search for all textual witnesses (MSS, versional and patristic evidence) cited in the commentary, which extend well beyond the GNT apparatus itself (a list of all cited evidence is available). It should be noted, however, that this function is not suitable for any general statistics of textual affiliation because of the selective nature of incuded passages and manuscript citation. Nevertheless, this search function might aid in the search for particular examples.

A search for some examples of single witnesses renders the following results:

P45 is cited 61 times in the commentary (in somewhat less passages, since it may occur more than once in a discussion – the same goes for most examples below)
P46: 269 times
P66:75 times
P72:68 times
P75: 71 times
ℵ: 1114 times
A: 778 times
B: 926 times
C: 621 times
D: 1103 times (both D05 and D06)
1739: 344 times
Ambrose: 12 times
bo mss: 37 times

The search for particular papyrus witnesses requires a spacing between the P-symbol and the number. The reason for this is because the special papyrus symbol is a different font (MSS), and is thus treated as a separate word from the number following, since Accordance does not support multiple font types for the same word.

It is possible to find combinations of MSS supporting a reading, e.g., ℵ A B C D occurs in 23 passages. It is more difficult when first hand/correctors are involved, or when one wants to find other “non-successive” manuscript combinations (e.g., all passages where B agrees with 1739). Then one can use a search string like B 1739, but it requires a lot of extra work, since the list may include passages where B and 1739 have competing readings.

4. Certainty
In this category one can search for the letter-ratings A, B, C or D. As scholars know (and often regret), there is a related but distinct system with square brackets for uncertain words in the printed text. Thus, it would have been useful if the software had allowed searches for square brackets in this category. However, it is still possible to find those places (ca. 250 passages) by searching for “square brackets” in the English Content category.

The result of the search for letter-rating is:

A: 507 passages
B: 538 passages
C: 368 passages
D: 9 passages (Matt 23:26; Mark 7:9; John 10:29; Acts 16:12; Rom 14:9; 1 Cor 7:34; 2 Peter 3:10; Jude 5; Rev 18:3)

These figures differ slightly from those indicated by Kent D. Clarke in his “Textual Certainty in the UBS’ Greek NT”, Novum Testamentum 113 (2002): 113, but, on the other hand, Clarke indicates the ratings in the edition, and not the commentary, and these figures are A: 514; B: 541; C: 367 and D: 9. If I look at a specific book and combine a search for “Certainty” with “Reference” I see that the software indicates 32 A-ratings in Matthew, whereas Clarke indicates 34.

In order to explain the discrepancy, I compared the printed commentary with the printed edition, and saw that in Matt 5:44 there are two A-letter ratings whereas there is one comment on the verse which is marked with “bis” (twice). On the other hand, I spotted an error in Matt 28:6 in the printed commentary, where an A-letter rating, present in the edition is missing (ἔκειτο). The digital version, of course, is most likely to contain all such errors and typos (eg. “Origin” for Origen in Rom 12:2) in the printed version, which is fine with me, since I think it could create more problems if the digital version attempted to correct the printed version.

Since we know that there are about 2030 passages discussed (see above), we may assume that approximately 600 passages were unrated (and these are not cited in the apparatus of GNT4). Maybe it would have been good for completeness sake to be able to search for “unrated” in the Certainty-category.

Conclusion
The digital version of Metzger’s Textual Commentary will not only save time for many students and scholars, but it is also likely to lead to new ways of using this standard reference work. The search capacity of the digital version does not allow any detailed studies of the textual affiliation of the witnesses since the commentary due to its nature is highly selective. Nevertheless, it does allow a more detailed exploration of various aspects relating to the work of the committee. Moreover, the digital version will be particularly useful when scholars want to find representative examples of various textual phenomena. We can be grateful to the United Bible Society and the software companies that they have made this fine resource available to us.

Larry Hurtado in RBL

The last RBL includes:

Larry W. Hurtado, ed.
The Freer Biblical Manuscripts: Fresh Studies of an American Treasure Trove
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=5716
Reviewed by Juan Hernández Jr.