Comments that aged poorly

Digging through some of Maurice Robinson's writings for a doctoral independent study on the Byzantine Priority position this Spring, I came across a reference to a 1908 work of Kirsopp Lake entitled "Professor H. von Soden's Treatment of the Text of the Gospels." I did some digging and was able to find that it was a two-part review/article in the "Review of Theology & Philosophy Edited by Professor Allan Menzies, D.D., vol. IV (July 1908–June 1909)." In this wonderful age of digital availability, Google Books has it here. Lake's review is on pp. 201–217 and pp. 277–295. I haven't read that part yet, because I was distracted by something else by Kirsopp Lake in this volume.

Lake also has reviews of Harnack's Die Apostelgeschichte (pp. 500–503) and—relevant to my purpose here—Gregory's Die griechischen Handschriften des neuen Testaments. For those who don't know, Gregory's work is the precursor to the Kurzgefasste Liste and the reason manuscripts have Gregory-Aland numbers and not just Aland numbers. It is Gregory in this book who devised the system for majuscules to be listed with numbers starting with zero (e.g. 01, 02, etc.), and before Gregory, a manuscript might be one number in the Gospels and a different number elsewhere. For example, if you read Tregelles' account of his collation of the "Queen of the Cursives," he notes "This MS., in cursive letters, is noted 33 in the Gospels, 13 Acts and Cath. Epp., and 17 in St. Paul's Epistles." Of course, now that manuscript is just 33, wherever it is cited—this is thanks to Gregory.

After describing Gregory's system (which we all now take for granted), Lake makes a remark that, in hindsight, is almost laughable: "In spite of the formidable list of names of those who approve of Prof. Gregory's scheme, I do not believe that there is any great probability that his new notation will be widely u[se]d."

It gets better:

Excuse me, what? Lake does admit that von Soden's edition is still not published at the time of his writing, but he optimistically looks forward to von Soden's manuscript numbering system. Lake gives a summary of the three competing systems of numbering in his day:

Lake does admit that Gregory's system could be useful if it were adopted by a major edition (in his assessment, that Gregory himself would publish an edition), and over a century later, we can see now how things have shaken out. I don't think it is the only time Lake has been wrong, but it's still a sobering reminder that even the most brilliant people can be completely wrong about something significant.

The Most Common Misconception about the CBGM

The CBGM, invented by Gerd Mink, is not the easiest method to understand. I think we would all agree on that. Various attempts have been made to explain it including mine and Tommy's. Given the learning curve it takes to understand it, misunderstandings are inevitable. I addressed some of these in my PhD thesis. But what is the most common one? And what does the inventor think is the most common misunderstanding of his own method? Here is Mink's answer from the recent Festschrift for Holger Strutwolf:

The most common misconception when using the CBGM is that the role of potential ancestors in constructing stemmata is not understood, and the connections in textual flow diagrams are read like connections in a stemma. However, one must resist the suggestiveness of these graphs. The textual flow diagram is not a stemma. (p. 579)

I would agree with Mink on this. I found this to be the case in my dissertation. Here is what I say there in my chapter on the Harklean text:

textual flow diagrams should not be used for the purpose of studying the text’s overall development. Their simplicity can have a mesmerizing effect. But their clarity can become a hindrance to their proper use when it tempts one to make more of the distinct relationships than is appropriate. Most importantly, they should not be treated as stemmata. (p. 88)

In our intro to the CBGM, Tommy and I have a subsection in ch. 4 devoted just to this point. There we say this:

The fact that there is always far more genealogical data than is shown in the textual flow diagrams brings us to our second caution: a textual flow diagram is not a stemma. Textual flow diagrams reduce and simplify the total genealogical picture, somewhat like a map of the London Underground. They are very good for studying coherence at a point of variation, but they are not good for studying the history of the text on a larger scale. Because a textual flow diagram usually connects each witness with one potential ancestor and does so by agreement whenever possible, we need to resist the temptation to interpret it as a traditional stemma, giving us a map of the text’s historical development. (p. 92)

So, heed the warning: Do not use textual flow diagrams as if they were stemmas. They are neither designed nor intended for use in making simple historical judgments about manuscript relationships. Along with that, do not use them to try to critique the CBGM as being non-historical. In short, do not use them for historical judgments in a box with a fox or in a house with a mouse, do not use them Sam I am!

Call for Papers: 2026 CSNTM Conference

The next CSNTM Text & Manuscript Conference is scheduled for May 28-29, 2026 in Plano, TX (just north of Dallas). I went to the inaugural conference and really enjoyed it. This year's theme is on the ECM and the call for papers has just gone out. Here are the details:

New Article on Textual Criticism in the Reformation

A few years ago I presented a paper at ETS on textual criticism in the Reformation. The session was well attended and the feedback I received was positive. So I’m pleased to say that a revised version has just been published in my seminary’s journal, the Midwestern Journal of Theology. 

This article is not meant to be a comprehensive study by any means: it’s more of a potted history. But for those new to the subject, I think it provides needed historical and theological context for understanding how the Reformation debates influenced and encouraged textual criticism. 

You can read it on my Academia page or at the journal’s website. The entire issue is open access. (Sorry in advance for the typos.)

40% Conference Discount on The Oxford Handbook of Textual Criticism of the Bible

At the SBL in Boston I met my co-editor Sidnie White Crawford at the OUP booth to take a picture with our “baby” – The Oxford Handbook of Textual Criticism of the Bible which has just been published (see here for more details). 

There is an SBL/AAR promocode, EXAAR25, which is valid thru 9 December (three more days) which gives 40% discount! (which means $136 in US and only £69 in UK/Europe).

You will find the whole conference promotion list here. 

New article by Peter Rodgers On P75 and P4

New article by Peter Rodgers in Filologia Neotestamentaria, XXXVIII, 2025

P75 and P4 Reconsidered

Peter R. Rodgers

In recent years the dating of some early Christian papyri has been challenged. Brent Nongbri especially has questioned the value of paleographic dating, noting that several papyri, chiefly P75, could be placed as confidently in the fourth century as in the second/third. This essay seeks a new criterion for assessing the dates of early Christian manuscripts: Nomina Sacra. The abbreviation/suspension of sacred names began with only the four or five, and gradually expanded to include other words treated in this way. Those papyri with fewer Nomina Sacra should be dated early, whereas those that include an expanded list should be deemed to be later. The staurogram is also important in this calculation. On this reckoning, P4 may be placed in the second century, P75 in the third. 

Keywords: Papyri, dating, paleography, Nongbri, Nomina Sacra, Staurogram.

Full text found on Academia.edu