Peter Head will provide humor and a brief devotion. Peter Williams will play the piano as we sing a couple of hymns. Attendance is open to anyone interested in the languages and transmission of the biblical texts regardless of your faith.
RSVP through Eventbrite and pay through PayPal.In this post, I want to talk about another observation from my time at the conference last week. It concerns the way people think about the “missing verses” (e.g., John 5.4) in modern translations. I noticed, for instance, that Dave Black often turned to readings that aren’t in translations like the ESV to illustrate his own text-critical view. Later, at the end of the conference, I had a chance to talk to a couple people who seemed surprised when I pointed out that the Byzantine text (and hence the KJV) is also missing some important clauses relative to the ESV.
It was a fresh reminder of just how much psychological weight “missing verses” carry for some people new to the subject. I have never, for instance, had a concerned person ask me about the added verses in the KJV. Some of that is due to historical precedent, no doubt. Because the KJV reigned for so long as the only Bible of the English speaking world, it naturally serves as the reference point.
But it also seems to be something deeper at work because, in my experience, even non-KJV Bible readers are far more concerned about missing words in the Bible than they are about added ones. Again, this was on display at the conference. Dave Black put many at ease by explaining the problem of textual criticism as one of having too much of the NT text not too little. He said something to the effect that we don’t have 97% of the text, we have 104% and the question is whether the original is above or below the line. I’ve made the same point myself and I always find people receptive to it. Too much is okay. Too little is not.
But why do we find it more reassuring to think that our Bibles might have too many uninspired words than too few inspired ones? A text like Rev. 22.18–19 certainly gives us no reason to prefer one over the other. Instead, it puts both adding and removing words on equal par. Neither is presented as more acceptable than the other; both are bad. From that text, we ought to be just as anxious about having 104% of the NT text as we are of having 97%. What gives?
Last Saturday was the textual criticism conference at Clearview Church with myself, Maurice Robinson, Dave Black, and Abidan Shah. You can read Dave’s recap here. I can add my thanks to our hosts for taking such good care of us and to my fellow speakers for sharing with us.
I was grateful for the opportunity to explain why I’m a reasoned eclectic in a forum like this. I haven’t ever done that and it was a good exercise. What made it especially fun is that none of the other presenters agreed with my position! (Although, by my definition, Dave Black’s Sturzian approach is still a form of reasoned eclecticism; he just has a different approach to external evidence than mine but that’s for another day.) This meant that I not only got to hear how others perceived my view, but I also got to hear their reaction to my perception of their view. That is always a helpful diagnostic and, in this case, I learned something from Maurice that I want to explain here.
 |
| The speakers. Photo from Dave Black |
In my talk, I argued that the Byzantine Priority view could accurately be called Byzantine Exclusivism since there is never a place where the Byzantine prioritist thinks that the clear majority of manuscripts is flat wrong and the minority is right (e.g.). Even where the majority is split, their choice will always be within the split, never outside it. It is this consistent preference for one group of manuscripts over all others (where they disagree, of course) that sets it apart from all forms of eclecticism—reasoned or thoroughgoing or even Sturzian. This is where the clarification came in.
In his presentation, which followed mine, Maurice pointed out that the priority in “Byzantine Priority” does not mean the Byzantine reading gets priority at each point of variation, but rather that the Byzantine textform existed prior to the other textforms. This may seem like a trivial distinction, but I think it is important for two reasons.
First, it is a reminder that the Byzantine Priority position, as held by Maurice, is based fundamentally on a view of the text’s history not on some preconceived preference for pet readings. What that means is that, if the method is right, it’s right because of its view of history. If it’s wrong—as I think it is—it’s wrong for the same reason. I happen to think this is what all methods share in common, actually. But it was helpful to see it afresh.
Second, I think this should mean that there is no reason, in principle, why a Byzantine prioritist should be unwilling to reject Byzantine readings. The fact that this textform is earliest does not logically entail that it is always right anymore than thinking the Alexandrian text is earliest requires one to think it is always right. Now, I say it should mean this because in practice, as I noted, Byzantine prioritists are unwilling to accept any reading that is in the clear minority against the Byzantine majority. So, we are back to the question of whether or not it is really a method of prioritization or of exclusivism. I would be happy to be educated further on this and would love to hear from any Byzantine prioritists who think think the Byzantine textform is sometimes wrong even when it’s unified (in which case they would be akin to James Snapp’s view).
One final observation, this experience was a fresh reminder of the danger of misinterpreting other people’s views because we have unwittingly filtered them in some way through our own starting assumptions. In my case, I was hearing the term “priority” through the lenses of my own reasoned eclecticism. What I heard was something like “the Byzantine reading is always prior at every place of variation” when what is meant is “the Byzantine textform is historically prior to the other text forms.” The first does follow from the second, but the order is important. I should have been more careful.
And for anyone wondering, Maurice and I had a grand time together. We have sparred many times over these things at various conferences, over meals, and even at his Smokey Mountain chalet. I always appreciate our conversations and leave them thankful for his sharp mind and his careful work.
This Saturday, Abidan Shah is hosting a conference at his church in Henderson, NC on the text of the New Testament. Abidan is a former PhD student of Maurice Robinson and wrote on the quest for the original text. He will be speaking along with myself, Maurice Robinson, and David Alan Black. John Meade and I spoke at Abidan’s church a few years ago and had a great time. I’m looking forward to being back. Come by if you’re in the area.
Date: Saturday, Sept. 24, 2022
Time: 9:00am–5:00pm
Location: Clearview Church in Henderson, NC (about an hour from downtown Raleigh)Join us on Saturday, September 24, for this year’s apologetics conference at Clearview Church! This year will focus on New Testament Textual Criticism and will be led by Dr. Abidan Shah of Clearview Church, Dr. David Alan Black of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. Maurice Robinson of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Dr. Peter Gurry of Phoenix Seminary.
You can learn more and get tickets here.
Recently I had some reason to compare a number of manuscripts in Acts and was happy to be able to use the CBGM tools for this, in particular the ‘Comparison of Witnesses’. The reason for this post is to point out some issues that are perhaps at first sight less intuitive. This is not criticism of the way the data set is constructed, as the actual manuscripts are always messier than what can be captured in a database.
For example in Acts 1:6, we have ‘A’ and ‘01’ compared with ‘Show Agreements’ activated, and we see that the split reading at Acts 1:6/10 is simply not there.
As so often in scholarship, it is only by using a tool that we learn about its strengths and limitations. I am still impressed how much the data gathering and sharing by the INTF has enabled progress and deeper understanding of the textual tradition of the New Testament, yet data are never as hard as we want them to be.
If you’ve been having trouble commenting on the blog using your Google account, as I have, it may be because of your cookie settings. From Blogger’s help files:
Blogger uses third-party cookies so you can comment from your Google Account. If third-party cookies are disabled on your browser, you may not be able to comment on blog posts while you’re signed in. You can still comment anonymously, or with a name and URL.
In Chrome, which stats say most of you are using to read this, you can enable third-party cookies by going to Settings > Privacy and security and then select either Allow all cookies or Block third-party cookies in Incognito.
If you don’t want to allow any third-party cookies, you should still be able to comment by choosing Comment as Name/URL in the commenting dropdown.
Over at the TCI website, Richard Brash has a short argument about providence and textual preservation. Along with his careful distinctions between two methods and two modes of providence, I appreciated this part:
In the New Testament era, the picture is more complicated. The church is called to be “a pillar and buttress of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) and part of this calling is surely to take care of the text of the Bible. God’s providential preservation of his people is still tied closely to the providential preservation of his written word. It is therefore reasonable to identify the process of canonization as an instance of special providence. But just as it can be spiritually dangerous to attempt to define the precise contours of special providence in our own lives, or even with respect to the preservation of the church, it is unwise to tether our doctrine of providential preservation to a particular “approved” manuscript or manuscript tradition. The Bible does not give the church today the authority to do this.
My new book with John Meade comes out in October and should interest ETC readers. The subject—how we got the Bible—is intentionally broad and so is the audience. The goal is to introduce the subject to new readers. I’m not 100% sure, but it may be one of the only books in this category written by those with training in each testament.
Another feature I hope serves readers well is that we wrote the book following several years of field testing the material in churches through our conference of the same name. That taught us what works and what doesn’t in terms of examples, anecdotes, key figures, etc. While we tried to make the material accessible, I don’t think you’ll find it dumbed down. We also included lots of charts, sidebars, and pictures to make it more engaging to the youngins (and our parents). Until it releases, you can get it for 50% off + free US shipping via TCI.
Scribes and Scripture: The Amazing Story of How We Got the Bible
By John D. Meade, Peter J. GurryAnswers to Common Questions about the Writing, Copying, Canonizing, and Translating of the Bible
There are many common questions and misconceptions surrounding the formation and history of the Bible: Why is the Bible composed of the current 66 books instead of others? Why are there so many translations? How are we to understand both the human and divine elements of the Bible? In Scribes and Scripture, scholars John D. Meade and Peter J. Gurry answer these questions and give readers tools to interpret the evidence about God’s word.
Beginning with the history of the Bible—from the invention of the alphabet to the most recent English translations—the book focuses on three main areas: the writing and copying of the Bible, the canonization of the Bible, and the translation of the Bible. Using Old and New Testament scholarship, Meade and Gurry help God’s people better appreciate the story of the Bible as a way to better appreciate the stories in the Bible.
Introduction
Part 1: Text
Chapter 1: Writing the Bible
Chapter 2: Copying the Old Testament
Chapter 3: Copying the New Testament
Part 2: Canon
Chapter 4: Canonizing the Old Testament to the Reformation
Chapter 5: The Old Testament in the Reformation Period
Chapter 6: Canonizing the New Testament
Part 3: Translation
Chapter 7: Early and Medieval Bible Translation
Chapter 8: English Bible Translation to the King James
Chapter 9: The English Bible after the King James
Conclusion
Appendix 1: Modern Canons
Appendix 2: Early Christian Canon Lists
Glossary
“One of the striking features
of the book is its fairness and its reasonableness. No book, of course, is
written without a perspective, but Meade and Gurry aren’t trying to win a
debate or to demonize opponents. They carefully present and analyze the
evidence so that readers can make their own judgments. I can’t think of another
book that introduces in such a brief and illuminating way matters of text, canon,
and translation.”
—Thomas R. Schreiner, James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament
Interpretation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
“I don’t have time to read this.”
—Elijah Hixson, Research Fellow, Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, Forger of Sinaiticus (probably)
“The history of the Bible is complex: it involves multiple
languages (ancient and modern), and it divides into two very much distinct (but
also overlapping) branches we call the Old and New Testaments. Christians need
trusted guides to lead us through that history. This is why I am so grateful
for the work of Old Testament specialist John Meade, New Testament specialist
Peter Gurry, and their Text & Canon Institute. They represent the newest
generation of evangelical historians of the Bible, and they are both able and
eager to keep a foot in the academy and a foot in the church. There are many
threats to the orthodox viewpoint on text, canon, and translation. Scribes and
Scripture is their attempt to serve the church by guiding Christians toward an
accurate and faith-filled grasp of the Bible’s history.”
—Mark Ward, Editor, Bible Study Magazine; author, Authorized:
The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible
“Is your book finally done??”
—My Kids, Kindergarten through 6th grade
“Misconceptions and myths about the Bible’s origins lead many to reject it and continue to confuse sincere believers. Now, at last, we have a book that shatters these misconceptions. This impressively informative book is based on solid scholarship, yet it is accessible, easy to read, and profitable for any reader at any level. Not for a generation have we seen such a helpful book on this topic! I heartily recommend it to everyone.”
—Peter J. Gentry, Distinguished Visiting Professor of Old Testament and Senior Research Fellow of the Text & Canon Institute at Phoenix Seminary
“Please tell me this book gets royalties.”
—John’s Wife
Pierpont sent the first page of this short essay to Maurice Robinson on June 8th, 1990. The first page appears to have been written originally on April 14th, 1990. Later, on July 13th, Pierpont sent Robinson the second page. He writes: "The part page goes with and follows what I sent previously on "Dean Burgon and the TR". It is part of a further section, but Wilbur [Pickering] rightly suggested it be added here." I have added in links to the transcription to make checking the quotes easier.
DEAN BURGON AND THE RECEIVED TEXT
Here is another installment in the series of unpublished papers by Williams G. Pierpont, scanned from the Maurice Robinson Collection. This two-page essay is undated. I don't know when we'll be able to put it on CSNTM, so I am making it available here.
REQUISITES AND BASICS FOR TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT
[By William G. Pierpont, undated]
1. NECESSITY. Scarcely any two of the many hundreds of manuscripts of the Greek New Testament agree exactly with each other-- even after ignoring the obvious and easily corrected simple scribal errors. Nor is there any divinely established or humanly agreed-upon standard against which all others may be corrected. Therefore textual criticism is necessary to establish, where there are significant differences, which readings are to be considered those of the autographs.
Over on his blog, James Snapp has a new post on the double dots in Vaticanus. These dots have been of significant interest ever since Phil Payne first noticed them.
Following Niccum and Head, Snapp makes a good case, with some new suggestions, that the dots are from the 16th century. In particular, he suggests that Sepulveda’s letter to Erasmus, where he says he noted 365 variations in Vaticanus, should be reread as 765, changing just one roman numeral (CCCLXV → DCCLXV). In that case, the number matches exactly Payne’s estimate. I wonder if we have the original letter anywhere.
There’s more to the argument, but I won’t spoil it. Go read it and see what you think. I was already pretty convinced the dots were from Sepulveda, but this convinced me further. But I’d love to hear from others who have written or presented on this (Peter Head 👀).
 |
| Examples of dots in Vaticanus |
Brent Nongbri is back with another article redating a New Testament manuscript. This time, it’s Codex Sinaiticus and he suggests pushing the date range into the early fifth century. The article is in JTS and the pre-print version is open access here.
Abstract: Codex Sinaiticus is generally described as one of ‘the great fourth century majuscule Bibles’, and its construction is often assigned to a more precise date in the middle of the fourth century. This essay surveys the evidence for the date of production of the codex and concludes that it could have been produced at any point from the early fourth century to the early fifth century. This time span may seem uncomfortably wide, but this particular range of dates makes Codex Sinaiticus an ideal candidate for AMS radiocarbon analysis. The shape of the radiocarbon calibration curve during this period means that a well-executed radiocarbon analysis of the codex should have the potential to shed further light on the date the codex was produced.
Stephen Carlson drew my attention to this interesting blogpost, “Can We Trust Medieaval Copies of Ancient Books?” by the classicist Peter Gainsford “Kiwi Hellenist.” First he makes five statements which I just list here:
1. Copying, by definition, is a faithful process.
2. Copying includes error-correction.
3. Modern editors have the explicit goals of gauging manuscripts’ reliability and amending errors, and they have a powerful arsenal of techniques for doing so.
4. Where there are doubts over a text, modern editions give full documentation of those doubts.
5. Where it is possible to check the accuracy of the manuscript tradition, its accuracy is high.
Then, in order to prove this last point, he works through three ancient texts from the satirist Lucian, the poet Meleager, and the geographer Strabo, respectively, where new evidence have come to light in the form of ancient papyri, so that he can compare an old edition (based on medieval manuscript) with the new evidence. After working through is examples, he concludes:
Now, having said that, there are situations — or rather, literary genres — where we do expect much more discrepancies. Some ancient texts weren’t copied as such, but instead went through recensions and reworkings.
Note that Gainsford also added a postscript a day later with in which he expressed caution that his three examples were not representative of all ancient texts.
I do think his statements are applicable for the New Testament textual tradition and the first statement also made me associate to the basic assumption of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method that “a scribe wants to copy a manuscript with fidelity; primarily the scribe does not want to create new readings.”
Now, go read the full blogpost!
Last week I published a list of historic English Bibles to complement Pete Head’s list. Today, I want to illustrate one way to use it. In this case, I am interested in how the earliest printed English Bibles handle the famous variant in 1 John 5:7–8. (My interest was originally sparked by Hixson’s post.)
One thing you learn from studying these Bibles is that their translators often used whatever other major editions or translations they could to produce their Bibles. As one example, Coverdale used five “sundry translations” for his 1535 Bible and these probably included Luther, the Zurich Bible, Pagninus’s Latin, the Vulgate, and Erasmus (per David Norton). It’s worth looking at how these early English Bibles navigated the lack of uniformity on the Comma among their sources. So, here is a whistle-stop tour of the main English Bibles up to the King James.
Here’s a new development that looks really great. It’s a new organization called the Society of Bible Craftsmanship (SOBC) for the promotion of quality Bible production. From what I can tell, it’s being started by the Museum of the Bible (MOTB) and is maybe funded by it (it’s not clear). The announcement explains:
The Society of Bible Craftsmanship celebrates beauty, creativity, and innovation in the field of Bible publishing. The society’s mission is to nurture and highlight excellence in the industry and to help the general reader discover and appreciate all that goes into the finest examples of Bible craftsmanship—in all languages, in all media.
A central task of the society will be to periodically gather and exhibit new Bible publications from around the world. The society’s awards program will recognize the finest work in a broad range of categories, with winners exhibited at Museum of the Bible in Washington, DC.
The Bible is one of the most important books ever to be published and also one of the most challenging in terms of design and production. Today, the innovation displayed in meeting these challenges is at an all-time high. In partnership with publishers and industry professionals, the society will host events and virtual seminars though Museum of the Bible to explore every aspect of craftsmanship, illuminating the work of translators and editors, designers and typographers, printers and bookbinders, and many other contributors to the production process. The society’s e-newsletter will also showcase the best writing on Bible craftsmanship.
Museum of the Bible hopes, through the Society of Bible Craftsmanship, to promote the flourishing of contemporary Bible publishing and reading.
One of the people behind this is J. Mark Bertrand who we’ve had occasion to blog about in the past. For a long time he reviewed Bible design at the Bible Design blog (which now redirects to his new site lectio.org). He’s on the steering committee along with Jeff Kloha, chief curatorial officer at MOTB and Klaus Krogh, the CEO of the creative firm 2K/DENMARK that does a lot of Bible design.
 |
| J. Mark Bertrand |
The Society is hosting a conference on August 27 in D.C. and online to kick off the new society. There is also a new book out from 2K/DENMARK about seven new typefaces they’ve designed just for Bibles.
One of the pleasures of studying the earliest printed English Bibles the last year or so has been appreciating just how many design decisions these early printers had to make. Yes, they had some precedents they could follow from manuscripts as well as Bibles in other languages. But, in other ways, they were inventing the wheel, so to speak, making decisions that would set the course of Bible production for the next 500 years. Everything from the names of books to chapter titles, marginal notes, maps, introductions to the reader, indices, cross-references—you get the idea. And beyond this there are the myriad questions of format: typefaces, layout, columns, spacing, book size, and more.
I like what the new president of the society says about good design having a “gentle authority.” Whether we know it or not, the design of anything written is always communicating something additional to the words on the page. That design will either serve or hinder the meaning; it’s never neutral. Nowhere is that more important than the Bible.
The following is a guest post from Peter Montoro who is working on a PhD at the University of Birmingham on the NT text of Chrysostom.
Recently, as I was preaching through the Gospel of Matthew in our church, I came to Matthew 5:21–22, which reads as follows in the THGNT:
Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρήθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις· οὐ φονεύσεις· ὃς δ’ ἂν φονεύσῃ, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει· ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόμενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει· ὃς δ’ ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ· ῥακά, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῷ συνεδρίῳ· ὃς δ’ ἂν εἴπῃ· μωρέ, ἔνοχος ἔσται εἰς τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός.
 |
| This is not Peter Montoro |
Although the reading with εἰκῇ is widespread from the second century onwards, it is much more likely that the word was added by copyists in order to soften the rigor of the precept, than omitted as unnecessary.
However, based on patristic discussion of the variant in Origen and Jerome (as found in Amy Donaldson’s excellent dissertation), a motivated reading seems to have been far more likely in the other direction—it was the suggestion that some anger might be permissible that Origen and Jerome found to be problematic, not the reverse. See for example, this discussion by Origen:
Since some think that anger sometimes occurs with good reason because they improperly add to the Gospel the word ‘without cause’ in the saying, ‘Whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgement’ (Matt. 5:22)—for some have read, ‘Whoever is angry with his brother without cause’—let us convince them of their error from the statement under discussion which says, ‘Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamour and blasphemy be removed from you.’ For the term ‘all’ here clearly applies to all the nouns in common, so that no bitterness is allowed, no wrath is permitted, and no anger occurs with good reason. It is said in the thirty-sixth Psalm, since all anger is sin (and likewise also wrath), ‘Cease from anger, and leave wrath’ (Ps. 36:8). It is never possible, therefore, to be angry with someone with good reason. [Donaldson, 352, citing from Heine’s edition 205–206]
As can easily be seen in this discussion (and even more clearly in Jerome’s repeated discussions of this passage), while we moderns may assume that the early church would have wanted to soften Jesus’s teaching, the evidence points instead, in this and many other areas as well, rather toward a tendency to strengthen it, to remove exceptions, rather than to add them (this can be seen very clearly in the overall attitude toward remarriage, even after the death of a spouse).
I therefore decided to take a fresh look at the available textual evidence. A consideration of the Text und Textwert (TuT) data suggests another explanation for this textual variation altogether. No less than 21 of the manuscripts classed as Koinehandschriften, including some that agree at the 97 and 98% (e.g., 045) levels have exactly the same omission that is found in the early witnesses 01 and 03. Since there are 64 Teststellen in Matthew, a 98% agreement means that this is the only Teststelle where this manuscript differs from the majority.
As Holger Strutwolf explained in his recent paper at the CSNTM conference (though of course he was dealing with examples from Mark, not Matthew), this sort of pattern rather strongly suggests that a particular variant emerged multiple times, and is therefore best explained, not as a theologically motivated reading, but rather as a simple scribal mistake.
As it turns out, there is a rather simple explanation for the omission of εἰκῆ, one that fits perfectly with the sort of mistakes that scribes, early as well as late, are known to make. The sequence ἔνοχος ἔσται occurs no less than four times in Matt 5:21–22, both before and after the variation unit in question. Because this second instance (if εἰκῆ is indeed original) is the only one that breaks the pattern, it would have been a relatively simple mistake to unintentionally harmonize it to the repetitions of this same pattern found in the immediate context, the same sort of change we see over and over again in manuscripts from every period.
On the other hand, there does not seem to be a straightforward way to explain the addition of this word as a scribal mistake. Since the TuT evidence makes it very clear that the omission did in fact occur in late Byzantine manuscripts that are extremely unlikely to have experienced theologically motivated change, it makes much more sense to see the omission of this word in early manuscripts as resulting from the same sort of scribal mistake that we know to have taken place later.
Furthermore, as David Alan Black pointed out a number of years ago, this very same chapter of Matthew’s Gospel contains two other examples (ψευδόμενοι in 5:11 and παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας in 5:32) of very similar clarifying qualifiers.
While this is only a brief preliminary investigation, it seems to be at this point to be likely that the omission of εἰκῆ should be seen as an early scribal mistake rather than as an example of an “obvious” orthodox corruption.
 |
| Great Bible title page (1539) |
The first of seven videos is now up. Watch/read more here.
Dwayne Green is a pastor up in Canada who’s been putting out a steady stream of video interviews on textual criticism and Bible translation lately. As a pastor, he’s especially interested in theology and methodology and likes the KJV himself but isn’t KJV-only. He seems genuinely open to views he doesn’t hold and has a lighthearted style about his videos. He’s been nothing but a nice chap in all my interactions with him. So far he’s interviewed Hixson and myself, Dirk Jongkind, Maurice Robinson, Mark Ward, Timothy Berg, Jeff Riddle, James Snapp, and several others. Go check out his YouTube channel. I especially recommend the most recent one with Maurice Robinson if you’ve ever wondered who the Pierpont in Robinson-Pierpont was.
For a while now I have been casually on the lookout for an article in the Emory University Quarterly, and so far I haven’t had access. I searched this morning and found it online: Ernest Cadman Colwell, “An Ancient Text of the Gospel of Mark,” (Emory University Quarterly 1.2 [1945]: 65–75).
 |
| E.C. Colwell Credit: University of Chicago Photographic Archive, [apf1-01777] Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center University of Chicago Library. |
The script of the manuscript is more than unusual; it is unique, The scribe of the Chicago Mark had several habits to which we cannot find parallels anywhere, and others to which no parallel exists in Greek manuscripts. He divides his text into words and even puts periods after abbreviations. These actions seem entirely normal to the twentieth-century American, but were unknown in the Greek manuscript tradition. Out of seventy-seven manuscripts photographed by W. H. P. Hatch on Mount Sinai, only one has word division, and it has other elements which suggest that it may be copied from the Greek text of a bilingual. In the large collection at Jerusalem, two manuscripts have word division, and both were written in the eighteenth century. [p. 68; emphasis mine]
That being said, do enjoy the article if you have a few minutes and haven’t seen it before.
 |
| Hixson reading Burgon as a youth. Credit |
With the permission of Maurice Robinson, I am making available one of Pierpont’s unpublished papers, an evaluation of E.F. Hills’ defense of the textus receptus. Some formatting may have changed a bit, but I include here both text (to make it searchable) and images of the paper itself (for transparency).
a) the autographs of the NT were Divinely inspired, and therefore infallible, and thatb) because of this God must see that they were providentially preserved. (The logic for this step rests on Mt. 5:17+, 24:35, etc.)
1) The purpose of PP is to preserve the infallibility of the autographic text, and that God must have done so in a public way, i.e., so that all may know where and what it is-- not hidden somewhere among the MSS and requiring to be searched out.2) It is the Greek text which is thus preserved, not a translated version of it. (God never promised that a translation would be kept free of errors, great or small.) Further, there may not be competing authorities.3) During the long centuries of hand copying, PP operated through the Greek-speaking Christian community, who understood and used the language.4) PP operated through the testimony of the Holy Spirit: only through Bible-believing universal Christian preiesthood [sic], those who have taken a supernatural view of the text, applying to it standards of judgment directed by the Holy Spirit, and were thus enabled to distinguish the true from the false. This was not only through the Spirit’s testimony to the individual’s soul, but also in the collective priesthood of believers through the ages (continuing onward into the Protestant period). Thus errors entering were weeded out by Divine Providence and guidance.5) From the very first, PP supplied a multitude of trustworthy copies which were read and recopied, while faulty and untrustworthy ones fell out of use and passed into oblivion. Thus the genuine text was kept safe in the vast majority of MSS.6) Thus the consensus agreement of this vast majority of copies forms the Traditional Text (TT), which accurately represents the originals and is the Standard Text.
The other day I was looking at the textual variation in 1 Peter 5:7 between ἐπιρίψαντες an ἐπιρίψατε: “... casting/cast all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you.”
Now if one compares the
apparatus of NA28 to NA27, the likely attestation of επιριψατε – (the
imperative like in 1175 and Augustine) in 0206 has been removed from the apparatus. Apparently, in the ECM of 1 Peter, 0206 is cited for either επιριψατε/επιρριψατε.
I was very surprised to learn that 0206, a fourth-century uncial (which may be dated even earlier, as proposed by Don Barker who thinks that it may be as early as the late second century) is not included in NA28. As the apparatus stands now, minuscule 1175 is the only attesting Greek witness. In my opinion, it is significant that 0206 almost certainly support this reading (seventh line in the image below where you see -ΨΑΤΕΕΠΑΥ). I hope it will be reinstated in NA29!
