30th Anniversary Birmingham Colloquium!

Hugh Houghton has announced the call-for-papers for the 15th Birmingham Colloquium which will include a new format. 

Here is the announcement:

The Fifteenth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament is scheduled to take place in Birmingham from Tuesday 20th to Friday 23rd April 2027.

As this biennial event was first held in 1997, next year marks thirty years of this international gathering. Accordingly, the 2027 Colloquium will offer up to thirty slots of thirty minutes (30x30) for scholars to share new research findings on the transmission and history of the New Testament text.

Researchers from postgraduate students to established scholars are invited to submit presentation proposals for consideration by the programme committee. This is an open call, with no specific theme: offers may consider individual manuscripts, early translations, specific variation units or anything else which falls within the domain of New Testament textual scholarship.

Applicants should send a title and short abstract of their paper by email to colloquium@contacts.bham.ac.uk before the deadline of Monday 30th November 2026.

The full timetable and selection of papers will be released in January 2027, when booking for the colloquium will also open. Further information will be posted here and on the Colloquium homepage.

It is expected that next year's colloquium will again be a partly hybrid event, enabling those unable to attend in person to watch the presentations online. The videos of the recent colloquia continue to be available on the IGNTP YouTube channel. A selection of papers from the Fourteenth Colloquium will soon be published by Gorgias Press.

For any questions, please contact Professor Hugh Houghton, convenor of the colloquium, or email the address above.

Five More Likely Copies of Printed Editions in the Liste

I’ve recently been doing some work on the ending of Romans that necessitated re-examining the data from the Teststellen in Romans. In doing so, I’ve identified five additional manuscripts that most likely derive, in whole or in part, from an early printed edition of the Greek New Testament, but that I had missed in my previous survey. Each of them has the doxology as found in Erasmus, with the Byzantine verse 24 followed by 16:25–27. 

While this is (apart from the presence of verse 24) the placement found in the earliest manuscripts, these manuscripts contain no other early non-majority text readings, making it very unlikely that their doxology placement is the result of influence from early manuscripts. It should be noted that the combination of 16:24 and the doxology at 16:25–27 is exceptionally rare in the tradition. All other manuscripts that have this combination have a large number of other distinctive readings elsewhere in Romans. 

GA 1931—XVI century

Contains the Pauline Corpus only. As in printed editions (but unlike the majority of Byzantine manuscripts), it has Hebrews at the end, after Philemon. More importantly, the manuscript contains no nomina sacra, and also uses the (Western) chapter divisions contained in printed editions. Apart from the doxology placement, the only non 1 or 1/2 reading in the Teststellen for Romans is εχομεν at TT_3/5:1, which is the reading of Erasmus. I would say this is almost certainly a copy of a printed edition. 

GA 1882—Liste XV, Omont XVI Century 

Contains the Pauline Corpus, with Hebrews after Philemon, followed by the Catholic Letters (as in early printed editions). While the *Liste* dates to the XV century, Omont, who catalogued the ms, dated it to the XVI century. It contains no nomina sacra. Although it does not have chapter divisions and does use ekthesis, the paragraph breaks (at least for the first few chapters of Romans) follow precisely those of Erasmus. The use of empty lines to mark the end of paragraphs is also typical of printed editions rather than Greek manuscripts. Apart from the doxology placement, there are only two readings in the Teststellen for Romans that are neither 1 or 1/2: 

TT_3/5:1 εχομεν (as above) 

TT_19/10:15 non-addition of των ευαγγελιζομενων ειρηνην

This latter could easily be accounted for by a simple copying error, though it is possible that an early edition also was lacking this phrase—we really do need a collation of early editions! It does not contain the Comma Johanneum (henceforth CJ) at 1 John 5:7, but then again, neither did Erasmus’s first two editions. I would say this is almost certainly copied, in whole or in part, from a printed edition. 

While the situation for the next three manuscripts is more complex, I still think it is more probable than not that they are in some way dependent on a printed edition. As all three of them come from Athos, it is likely that there is a relationship between them. 

GA 1104—1702

Acts, Paul (with Hebrews after Philemon), Catholic Letters. Contains nomina sacra. Minimal text divisions of any kind, but no obvious printed features. No CJ. However, it does contain the long Erasmian retroversion from the Latin at Acts 9:5. According the ECM, this addition is otherwise only found in very late marginal additions to GA 69 and 808. The reading in GA 69 is in a hand that is known to have compared the text to that of a printed edition of the Textus Receptus.

Apart from the doxology placement, the only non 1 or 1/2 reading in the *Teststellen* for Romans is εχομεν at TT_3/5:1, which is the reading of Erasmus. While this manuscript was clearly copied by a scribe more familiar with Greek ms conventions than those responsible for GA 1931 and 1882, the evidence still seems sufficient to conclude that this manuscript goes back, in whole or in part, to a printed edition. 

GA 1869—1688

Acts, Paul (with Hebrews after Philemon), Catholic Letters. No CJ, but with Erasmus’s addition at Acts 9:5. Apart from the doxology placement, the only non 1 or 1/2 reading in the Teststellen for Romans is εχομεν at TT_3/5:1, which is the reading of Erasmus. The situation for this manuscript is very similar to that of GA 1104 above. 

GA 1903—1636

Acts, Paul (Heb after Philemon), Catholics + Revelation. According to Text und Textwert for Revelation, this manuscript was “either partially copied from the TR or heavily influenced by it.” As it has ξυλου της ζωης in Rev 22.19, it is not simply a copy of the Textus Receptus. No CJ, but it does have Erasmus’s addition at Acts 9:5. Apart from the doxology placement, the only non 1 or 1/2 reading in the *Teststellen* for Romans is εχομεν at TT_3/5:1, which is the reading of Erasmus.  The situation for this manuscript is again very similar to the two preceding manuscripts.

On the Possibility that GA 1506 May Not Have Omitted Romans 16:1–24 after All

The placement of the Romans doxology in GA 1506 has long created a good deal of confusion. This manuscript is a copy of John of Damascus’s edited collection of extracts from John Chrysostom’s Homilies on Romans. The biblical text is written in red ink, often very faint, especially in the microfilm images, while the commentary text is written in a darker ink that is much easier to read. 

The NA28 apparatus (in the variation unit on the doxology) tells us: “add p. 14,23 et p. 15,33 (sed om. 16,1–24) 1506.” This is also the reading provided in the IGNTP transcription, in Text und Textwert, and in the literature more generally. Some sources (e.g. Aland’s 1979 article “Der Schluß und die ursprüngliche Gestalt des Römerbriefs”) also point out that a blank space of half a page has been left for 16:1–24. 

Today, however, as I took another look at this “blank space,” I noticed something odd. Most of the text visible on the page is the result of ink bleedthrough from the other side of the folio. As such, the text is reversed. Yet in the margin, outside the block of transfer, a marginal note was visible, one in which the letters were facing the right direction and which therefore cannot be the result of ink bleedthrough or transfer: 

In examining other manuscripts of John of Damascus’s commentary (GA 2110 and GA 0150, identified by David Flood as members of the same family as GA 1506), I discovered that not only did they contain a form of this same marginal note but that this note was a gloss on the name Ἑρμᾶν in 16:14. 

Proportional to the overall length of 16:1–24, the placement of the marginal note in GA 1506 is about where it should be as a comment on this name, as it is in the other manuscripts. In other words, while it may be difficult (or even impossible) to identify any of the biblical text under the heavy ink transfer and ink bleed through with the microfilm images currently available, it is very likely that GA 1506, as originally copied, contained 16:1–24, just as do the other manuscripts of this commentary tradition. 

Therefore, rather than categorizing this as an omission, it is likely better classified as a lacuna due to illegibility (as Swanson already did). In any case, the presence of this marginal note at the correct place and in the same red ink used elsewhere for the lemmata makes it unlikely either that the exemplar of this manuscript was missing these verses or that the red ink used for the lemmata had run out (possibilities suggested by David Flood, “New Readings in GA 1506: A Fresh Analysis of Old Microfilm Scans”). 

The simplest explanation seems to be that the scribe did indeed copy these verses, but that the ink has now faded beyond recovery without better images. It may also be relevant that the page in question (330v) seems to be the final page of its quire, which could have resulted in more severe fading, either before the initial binding or at some subsequent rebinding.  

We really do need better images of the Athos manuscripts! 

Longacre on the larger differences between the Great Isaiah Scroll and the MT

Thanks to the still-humming ETC blogroll, I noticed that Drew Longacre just posted a short blog post at his OTTC site on the similarity of the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa-a) and the MT. This question became something of the flashpoint over the last year after the now famous Wes Huff interview on Joe Rogan’s podcast where he said it was word-for-word the same. 

Many counter-apologists jumped on this as misleading and it went round and round on the interweb (Wes later clarified in a video with John Meade). Apparently the issue is not dead since Bart Ehrman jumped into the fray this week. (I do not recommend you go down the YouTube rabbit hole on this one if you value your time). 

Drew gives some of this backstory in his post. But I want to ignore all that and higlight instead Drew’s 2013 DSD article that deserves much more attention. It addresses some of the largest differences between the Great Isaiah Scroll and the MT. Here is what he says about that:

Third, I would point out a series of difficult passages in the second half of the scroll that differ considerably from the Masoretic text, often with 1QIsa-a missing entire verses of the MT. Eugene Ulrich has argued that 1QIsa-a reflects an earlier version of Isaiah in these passages and that the MT has grown with additional verses being added. I have argued in an article that most of these passages were actually missing in the exemplar from which 1QIsa-a was copied, because it was damaged along the bottom edge. Thus, every column was physically damaged and missing one or more lines. You can see this, e.g., in how the scribe originally left blank lines for the missing verses. If correct, and I’m quite convinced it is, it means that most of the biggest differences between the Great Isaiah Scroll and the MT are easily explained as copying problems in the former.

I don’t think we’ve blogged about Drew’s DSD article here before. The full title is “Developmental Stage, Scribal Lapse, or Physical Defect? 1QIsaa’s Damaged Exemplar for Isaiah Chapters 34-66” and is online here (or in free pre-pub here). Here is the abstract:

The Great Isaiah Scroll from Qumran (1QIsaa) does not generally reflect a text form earlier than the Masoretic text. Instead, the convergence in 1QIsaa of patterns of spacing irregularities, literary and textual problems, and secondary supplementations, as well as a consistent pattern of distribution, are best explained on the basis of the hypothesis of an exemplar for chapters 34–66 with a damaged bottom edge. Upon reaching the defective edge in each column of his exemplar, the scribe dealt with any lacunose or illegible text in one of two ways before continuing with the unaffected text at the top of the subsequent exemplar column. Sometimes he left blank spaces in his new copy to be filled in with the correct text from other manuscripts at a later time. At other times he attempted full or partial reconstructions of the text based on whatever text remained legible in the damaged exemplar, memory, and contextual clues.

P.S. The fact that anyone is counting spelling differences between these two texts as somehow important is hilarious to me as a NT text critic. 

F.F. Bruce on 'Kept Pure in All Ages'

Yesterday, I was looking for one of F.F. Bruce's more obscure writings, and thankfully, I found that Rob Bradshaw had digitized it. While I was there, I stumbled across something more interesting though. In 1953, Bruce wrote a short overview-type article on textual criticism for The Christian Graduate [6.4 (Dec. 1953): 135-139].

The general thrust of the article is about what you would expect from Bruce: a careful overview of why we can have confidence in the text of the Scriptures.

What was interesting to me was his conclusion, which I share here:

According to F.F. Bruce (and a lot of us who are little more than dust in the shadow of F.F. Bruce), textual criticism is one of the means by which God's providential preservation of Scripture works.

You can read the whole article here.

Unrelated, if you've ever wondered what Bruce sounded like, you can hear his glorious Scottish accent in this lecture from 1977.

Jude 24: The Byzantine Text vs. the KJV

My interest is always piqued when a reading in the Byzantine text is not what’s translated in the KJV. Famous examples where the former lacks text the latter includes are Acts 8.37 and 1 John 5.7-8. In these cases, the bulk of Greek MSS is decidedly on the side of the Byz text against the KJV. But there are other, less notable cases, that go the other direction. In these cases, the KJV abandons the Byz text in favor of the less dominant reading.

Today I came across one in the best known section of Jude, the doxology (vv. 24-25). There we find a difference in our manuscripts as to who God is said to be able to “keep/protect blameless” (φυλάξαι ... ἀπταίστους) in v. 24. The NA28 prints the direct object as ὑμᾶς and gives, in a negative apparatus, the following alternates: ημας A vg-ms sy-ph ¦ αυτους P Byz. According to Tommy’s work on Jude and Klaus Wachtel’s on the Catholic Letters, the NA reading is attested in over 100 Greek MSS; ἡμᾶς is found in less than 10; and αὐτούς in over 300.

Jude 24 in 1611 KJV

The NA reading provides the smoother reading since the previous verses are addressed to the readers who have been warned against “the garment stained by flesh.” In light of this danger, it comes as a relief to be told that there is one who is able to “protect you from stumbling.” The Byz reading, which Wachtel includes in his list of “atypical majority readings,” is less obvious. Who could “they” be and why would Jude switch to address them? The answer comes from the Byz text of v. 23 where it is those who the readers are called on to save by snatching from the fire. God is able to keep them from stumbling. You could certainly argue that this is the lectio difficilior and some have (e.g., Tommy and A. J. Brown).

But, as I said, this is not the reading of the KJV even though it is the reading found in all of Erasmus’s editions. It is also not the reading of Tyndale’s editions, the Matthew Bible, the Geneva Bible or Luther’s 1522 Septembertestament for that matter. Luther and Tyndale particularly stand out here since both used Erasmus as their source and Erasmus has “they” in both his Greek and Latin columns. One waits until Stephanus 1550 to see ὑμᾶς in the margin where it is said to be supported by 5, 6, 2298, and a now lost MS (δ, ε, ι, ια). For his part, Beza has “you” (vos / ὑμᾶς) in his first and last editions which he explains as follows (in his first edition):

Vos ὑμᾶς. Ita lego ex Veteris interpretis and quatuor veterum codicum authoritate. Quod si malimus legere ἀυτοὺς dicemus pro ἑαυτοὺς positum, ita ut eodem recidat sententia. Neque enim videtur satis commode accipi posse pro ipsos vel eos, ut convertit Erasmus.

Which can roughly be translated as

Vos ὑμᾶς. Thus I read from the authority of the Old Interpreter [Jerome, I assume] and the four old codices. But if we prefer to read ἀυτοὺς, we will say that it is placed instead of ἑαυτοὺς, so that the sentence falls back on the same thing. For it does not seem like it can be taken quite conveniently for ipsos or eos, as Erasmus translates. 

Beza, of course, could not be the source for Luther and Tyndale. Neither could Stephanus. More likely is that they have here decided to follow the Vulgate instead of their main source in Erasmus. They were then followed by others who, in time, could point to Stephanus and Beza as further support.

One final note. Given the number of minuscules that support ὑμᾶς, the Byz edition of Robinson-Pierpont has listed it as an alternate in the margin as it does whenever the Byz text is split like this. Since the expressed method in that edition is to use internal evidence when the Byz reading is split, one must assume that the editors felt αὐτούς was finally preferable on those grounds rather than on external ones. Would that we had a commentary on such a decision!

In any case, this is an interesting example where the old KJV has the same text as our modern eclectic editions over and against the dominant Byzantine text.