The Novum Testamentum Graecum. Editio Critica Maior (ECM) of the Gospel of Mark has just arrived in Sweden in a shoebox size 43. First of all I want to warmly congratulate the team of the INTF in Münster for this splendid achievement, in particular for doing the finish during a long pandemic.
There are of course many things to say, but here below I simply list the thirty-three changes to the initial text from NA28 to the ECM of Mark, indicating where how the Byzantine text aligns where it is not split itself (ECM Mark I:2,1, p. 20*). Apparently, in twenty twenty-five places the initial text moves towards the Byzantine text, and in six five places it moves away from it. In this context, however, it should be noted that there are thousands and thousands of variation-units (I have not checked how many).
A pdf of the list of changes as it appears printed in vol. 1 can be downloaded from the INTF, here.
Further, there are 126 places where the editors print a split guiding line, i.e., where the decision between two competing variants is left open. This list can be downloaded from here.
As for the accompanying digital tools, I wrote some years ago: “A desideratum for the future is an interactive interface that will enable users to pursue the complete critical process: to create their own local steammata of variants, build up a genalogical database, and successively evaluate the consequences of their textual choices” (Tommy Wasserman, “Criteria for Evaluating Readings in NT Textual Criticism,” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research, ed. Ehrman and Holmes [Brill, 2013], p. 607). Well, the future is now here; to cite Klaus Wachtel, “Every user may now install the CBGM locally, make textual decisions, construct local stemmata, and make these the basis for their own genealogical evaluation” (ECM Mark I:2,3, p. 6).
Thus, the CBGM toolbox (formerly called “Genealogical Queries”) for Mark is found here.
If you want to know more about how you can use the tools on your own, go here.
Again, congratulations to the editors and all contributors to this milestone in New Testament textual criticism! Now we look forward to the next volume.
Changes to the Initial Text of Mark
ECM / NA28
- 1:1/12-16
υιου του θεου Byz / [υιου θεου] - 1:2/18
εγω Byz / om. - 1:4/5
om. Byz / [ο] - 2:12/18
εναντιον Byz / εμπροσθεν - 3:11/18-26
προσεπιπτον αυτω και εκραζον λεγοντα / προσεπιπτον αυτω και εκραζον λεγοντες - 3:14/6-14
δωδεκα ινα ωσιν μετ αυτου Byz / δωδεκα [ους και αποστολους ωνομασεν] ινα ωσιν μετ αυτου - 3:16/1
om. Byz / [και εποιησεν τους δωδεκα] - 3:20/12-16
συνερχεται παλιν οχλος Byz / συνερχεται παλιν [ο] οχλος - 3:32/34-40
om. / [και αι αδελφαι σου] Byz - 4:15/50-52
εν αυτοις / εις αυτους - 4:16/2-6
και ουτοι εισιν ομοιως Byz / και ουτοι εισιν - 4:31/4
κοκκον Byz / κοκκω - 6:22/30-40
ο δε βασιλευς ειπεν τω κορασιω / ειπεν ο βασιλευς τω κορασιω Byz - 6:23/6
αυτη Byz / αυτη [πολλα] - 6:40/10-16
ανα εκατον και ανα Byz / κατα εκατον και κατα - 7:6/24-26
ως γεγραπται Byz / ως γεγραπται [οτι] - 7:9/28
τηρησητε Byz / στησητε - 7:12/2-10
και ουκετι αφιετε αυτον ουδεν ποιησαι Byz / ουκετι αφιετε αυτον ουδεν ποιησαι - 7:35/3
om. / [ευθεως] Byz - 7:37/22-30
ποιει ακουειν και αλαλους λαλειν / ποιει ακουειν και [τους] αλαλους λαλειν Byz - 8:35/28
απολεση Byz / απολεσει - 9:1/20-24
των ωδε εστηκοτων Byz / ωδε των εστηκοτων - 10:25/18
εισελθειν Byz / διελθειν - 10:28/22
ηκολουθησαμεν / ηκολουθηκαμεν - 11:3/20
οτι Byz / om. - 11:23/4
γαρ Byz / om. - 11:32/12-14
τον λαον Byz / τον οχλον - 12:36/20
ο Byz / om. - 14:31/12-18
με δεη συναποθανειν σοι Byz / δεη με συναποθανειν σοι - 14:44/34
απαγαγετε Byz / απαγετε - 15:12/19
om. / [θελετε] Byz - 16:14/4
om. Byz / [δε] - 16:19/8
κυριος Byz / κυριος ιησους
Got my copy on order. More interested in the 2nd and 3rd volumes (all the textual notes of the first volume are already up on INTF, so a print copy is more of a bonus).
ReplyDeleteI'm very interested to see if there's any discussion on the Syriac manuscripts which apparently agree with 𝔓45 in omitting ἀνὰ ἑκατὸν καὶ ἀνὰ πεντήκοντα in Mark 6:40 (cited as VFHms on the online INTF). Only manuscript I knew of which agreed with 𝔓45 was the Harklean Syriac manuscript Vat. Syr. 267 which originally omitted the words, but then added them interlinearly (ܡܢ ܡܐܐ ܘܡܢ ܚܡܫܝܢ - see https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.sir.267/0126 (55v), left hand column lines 15-16 ).
So yes, very exciting times!
I dont speak German, are there editions in English?
ReplyDeleteThe first and second Parts have combined English/German pages (similar to Nestle-Aland GNT's etc); only the third Part - Studies - has some German-only sections.
DeleteDoes ECM put Mark 16:9-20 in double brackets like the Nestle-Aland editions?
ReplyDeleteYes. The double brackets are present on the online text for the CBGM, which has utilized the ECM text of Mark.
DeleteIs 10:28 a place that should be marked with "Byz"? I'm basing that on the fact that (according to the SBLGNT apparatus) WH, Treg, & NA28 have the kappa while RP has the sigma. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteFictitious citations from codex 0184 in the “Editio Critica Maior” (ECM) of the Greek text of the Gospel of Mark, printed in 2021.
ReplyDeleteThose who consult the printed apparatus of the “Editio Critica Maior” at Mark chapter 15 will find, among much other information, an unexpectedly long series of citations from codex 0184. In the standard lists of Greek New Testament manuscripts, 0184 is described as a sixth-century bilingual majuscule fragment (currently located in Vienna), containing part of Mark chapter 15, verses 36-37 and 40-41. Similar details of the contents of this manuscript are given near the beginning of the second ECM volume on Mark (“Supplementary Material”, page 6). On the website of the Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung (INTF), there is also a photograph of this fragment, accompanied by a transcription of the Greek words and letters which are legible in those four verses.
It was therefore surprising to see, in the printed ECM apparatus of manuscript readings, more than eighty citations from codex 0184 in the earlier part of Mark 15, from verse 1 through to verse 35. These readings initially made it seem that an important discovery had been made of a new portion of 0184, and that its contents were being published in the ECM for the first time. Even more remarkable was the fact that, when these new citations from 0184 are examined in detail, they show a 100% agreement with the “A-text” (the editors’ preferred text), apart from the curious “omission” of verse 14. According to the printed ECM apparatus, codex 0184 (without the slightest deviation of spelling, or any missing words or letters, and without any hesitation over its decipherment) is thus a perfect replica of the main ECM text in Mark 15, verses 1-13 and 15-35. This was all the more astonishing, as not even the famed codex Vaticanus (one of the witnesses on which the ECM edited text chiefly depends) managed to achieve such a result. By contrast, in the previously-known portion of 0184, there are two places where this fragment disagrees with the ECM main text (in verses 36 and 40 of chapter 15), and some of its letters are wholly or partly illegible.
Users of the printed edition should be informed that no “new” fragment of codex 0184 has actually been found. It is possible that another piece of this manuscript might one day be discovered, but at present all the references to codex 0184 in verses 1-13 and 15-35 are simply mistaken, and should be deleted. The inclusion of these erroneous citations has the effect of artificially inflating the claimed degree of support for readings adopted in the main text of the ECM. It appears that a single human error in the treatment of the manuscript’s lacunae may have led, in turn, to the creation of more than eighty further errors by the ECM computer programme, which was responsible for this whole series of false citations from codex 0184.
Andrew J. Brown
(Fictitious citations from codex 0184, continued)
ReplyDeleteA potential clue to the origin of these errors is visible in the detailed list of lacunae, given on pages 17-21 of the second volume (“Supplementary Material”). It is noticeable, on page 19, that the lacunae for codex 0184 are said to include Mark chapter 10, verse 48, and chapter 15, verse 14. While the printed apparatus cites readings from 0184 in the verses which precede and follow this second “lacuna”, no readings seem to be cited from 0184 in chapter 10. If the manuscript contains no part of chapter 10, it cannot rightly be said to suffer only from a one-verse lacuna in that chapter. Leaving aside this anomaly, a reader who looks across to the next column of page 19 will observe that an identical pair of lacunae is attributed to codex 184, a thirteenth-century minuscule. There would thus seem to be a distinct possibility that someone who was momentarily confused by the similarity between the numerals 0184 and 184 might, with a few keystrokes, have caused the lacunae of the later manuscript to be incorrectly combined with the lacunae of the other manuscript that was 700 years older. Since a genuine fragment of codex 0184 contains most of verse 36 of chapter 15, any misleading information about the existence of a lacuna at verse 14 might have caused the computer programme or database to conclude (wrongly) that other verses of this chapter, from 1 to 13 and from 15 to 35, were present in the manuscript.
In this long passage, the only divergence between codex 0184 and the main text consists of the single fact that all these verses are missing from the manuscript. Once that essential piece of information had been removed or obscured, the computer programme or database proceeded to the logical (but incorrect) conclusion that the manuscript agreed with the main edited text at every reading shown in the apparatus, since no other divergences had been recorded. This would account for the apparent 100% agreement between codex 0184 and the so-called “A-text” in the printed apparatus for these verses. The editors of the ECM will no doubt be able to confirm in due course whether this explanation is correct, or whether there was some other reason for the error.
It would be unfair to blame a particular individual for such a mistake. However, would it not be advisable for the editors of ECM to make use of a simple computer programme which cross-checks between the list of lacunae and the list of chapters and verses which a manuscript is already known to contain? Such a programme could also cross-check with the verse numbers recorded in the textual transcriptions which have been made from each manuscript into the database. In this way, irrelevant lacunae would be detected and discarded, and the ECM would be better protected against the risk of introducing a significant quantity of false citations into the apparatus. The much-heralded “Coherence Based Genealogical Method” was probably not designed to detect this kind of error. The set of readings which was attributed to codex 0184 should have been immediately identified as being “too coherent to be true”.
A related problem is that the “Text-Critical Commentary”, provided in the third ECM volume on Mark (“Studies”, page 31), appears to rely on these “new” readings of codex 0184 in calculating the small number of “A-related witnesses”: at Mark 15, verses 24, 29 and 34. The reliability of the statistics is undermined by the incorrect inclusion of 0184. The degree of manuscript support for those readings was already relatively weak, and is weakened still further by the removal of codex 0184 from the argument.
Andrew J. Brown
(Fictitious citations from codex 0184, conclusion)
ReplyDeleteToday perhaps a computer can be pardoned for innocently inventing more than eighty readings in a non-existent manuscript fragment. Nevertheless it demonstrates once again how the use of computerised technology, despite all its benefits, is capable of producing new kinds of error that were not previously dreamed of.
Until quite recently this series of erroneous readings was also to be found in the version of the “Editio Critica Maior” that is displayed on the INTF website. Although most of them have now been expunged from the online edition, a remnant of these errors can still (at the time of writing) be seen online at Mark 15: 35, where codex 0184 is explicitly cited for three readings, despite not being extant in that verse. Unfortunately, whatever changes are made to the online edition, the errors cannot so easily be deleted from the printed edition that has already been circulated widely to libraries and researchers.
[Most of the above points were communicated on 13 July 2022 to the ECM editors, who hope to make the necessary corrections relating to this manuscript in a revision of the printed volume]
Andrew J. Brown