Textual Criticism on the Cover of National Geographic

It’s not every day that the subject of our humble blog makes the cover of international magazines. But the December cover story of National Geographic is a well-written and apparently well-researched article on just that though. Okay, it’s not mostly about the textual criticism per se, but it is about attempts to discover and acquire new manuscripts of the Bible. And our own Peter Head gets quoted! Some of the pictures are fantastic as you would expect from NatGeo.

Apparently, outside the U.S. the story is titled “Bible Hunters.” The online version is “Inside the cloak-and-dagger search for sacred texts.” I don’t have time (or interest really) to engage this article in detail, but see Hurtado and Nongbri for their reactions.

One thing that struck me in this article was the accurate description of Teststellen by INTF. I don’t think I’ve ever seen this done well, but here it is. The Teststellen are discussed in response to the fact that most NT manuscripts haven’t been studied in detail.

The Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Münster, Germany, has sought to reduce the labor challenges by classifying biblical documents according to key passages, but such a system amounts to triage that wholly ignores numerous texts.

If we take “numerous texts” to mean numerous places in the text then this is a simple and accurate description. Calling it “triage” isn’t quite fair in my opinion, since it does seem to work pretty well in telling us which manuscripts are similar enough to leave out of an apparatus. But it does make the point that it’s not the ideal way to evaluate a manuscript’s text as a whole. Dan Wallace says he hopes OCR will make this approach unnecessary in the future. That would be great.

Other things that come up in the story are the fake DSS in the Museum of the Bible collection, CSNTM’s work, P52, and, of course, formerly-first-century Mark. The whole story is well told even if it pulls punches at a few points. Ehrman gets his say but so does Wallace in response. I’ll give the last word to Pete Head:

Many of Ehrman’s assertions are debatable (literally so: he and Wallace have squared off in three public debates), but some scholars agree that Christian scribes deliberately corrupted certain passages over time. The question is one of degree.

“Broadly, I support what Ehrman is saying about this,” says Peter Head, an Oxford scholar who studies Greek New Testament manuscripts. “But the manuscripts suggest a controlled fluidity. Variants emerge, but you can sort of figure out when and why. Now, it’s in the earlier period that we don’t have enough data. That’s the problem.”

The “earlier period” that Head refers to begins with the birth of Christianity in the first century A.D. and concludes in the early fourth century. And while it’s true that more than 5,500 Greek New Testament manuscripts have been found, close to 95 percent of those copies come from the ninth to the 16th centuries. Only about 125 date back to the second or third centuries, and none to the first.

Update: I should add that I haven’t seen the print magazine which apparently has additional material alongside the main article.

New Article and Reviews in TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism

One new article by John Granger Cook and a number of new reviews have appeared in the current issue of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 20 (2015).

More to come soon!

New article

John Granger Cook, Julian’s Contra Galilaeos and Cyril’s Contra Iulianum: Two Witnesses to the Short Ending of Mark

Abstract: A Syriac MS (British Museum Add. 17214, fol. 65a–65b) preserves an excerpt from Julian’s Contra Galilaeos and Cyril’s response (the Contra Iulianum), which indicates that both authors either did not know the longer ending of Mark (16:9–20) or regarded it as spurious. The evidence has apparently been overlooked in studies of the longer ending of Mark. If the argument is sound, then Julian should be added to the apparatus criticus of Mark as a witness to the short ending (16:8). Cyril should be reevaluated as a patristic father who probably knew MSS that omitted the longer ending, but, unlike Jerome and Eusebius, did not assert that fact about the MSS in the surviving text.

New reviews

W. Andrew Smith, A Study of the Gospels in Codex Alexandrinus: Codicology, Palaeography, and Scribal Habits (Thomas J. Kraus, reviewer)

Lincoln H. Blumell, Lettered Christians: Christians, Letters, and Late Antique Oxyrhynchus (Malcolm Choat, reviewer)

New article: Evans on Books, Autographs and NT Textual Criticism

Craig A. Evans, ‘How Long Were Late Antique Books in Use? Possible Implications for New Testament Textual Criticism’ Bulletin of Biblical Research 25 (2015), 23-37.

Abstract: Recent study of libraries and book collections from late antiquity has shown that literary works were read, studied, annotated, corrected, and copied for two or more centuries before being retired or discarded. Given that there is no evidence that early Christian scribal practices differed from pagan practices, we may rightly ask whether early Christian writings, such as the autographs and first copies of the books that eventually would be recognized as canonical Scripture, also remained in use for 100 years or more. The evidence suggests that this was in fact the case. This sort of longevity could mean that at the time our extant Greek NT papyri were written in the late second and early to mid-third centuries, some of the autographs and first copies were still in circulation and in a position to influence the form of the Greek text.

This is a very interesting article which raises some good questions. Essentially, basing himself on the work of Houston on Roman Libraries, Evans thinks that normal papyrus bookrolls in antiquity would have been in use for a long time (an average of 150 years, p. 26). This suggests to Evans that the NT autographs would probably have survived several hundred years (this he takes to be supported by Tertullian’s knowledge of autographs of Paul’s letters kept in the churches to which they were written). The implication for NT textual criticism is that ‘the longevity of these manuscripts [i.e. the autographs] in effect form a bridge linking the first-century autographs and first copies to the great codices, via the early papyrus copies that we possess.’ (p. 35) I’m not convinced by any of the steps in this argument, but it may be helpful to have a conversation about this in the coming days.

New Article: Batovici on Hermas in Sinaiticus

Dan Batovici, ‘Textual Revisions of the Shepherd of Hermas in Codex Sinaiticus’ ZAC 18 (2014), 443-470. [academia.edu]

Abstract: The last two books in what has survived of the fourth century biblical manuscript Codex Sinaiticus are the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. This article is an investigation of the correctors’ treatment of the text of the Shepherd of Hermas in this codex, and advances our knowledge at various points of both Codex Sinaiticus and its textual revisions of the Shepherd of Hermas. Furthermore, it attempts to assess the relevance of the corrections for the reception history of the Shepherd of Hermas.

This is an interesting article, taking account of the two (fragmentary) leaves of Hermas among the New Finds, and investigating the four strata of corrections to the text of Hermas in Sinaiticus (S1, ca & cc, d, corr). Well done Dan!

New article on CBGM

Tommy Wasserman, ‘The Coherence Based Genealogical Method as a Tool for Explaining Textual Changes in the Greek New Testament’ Novum Testamentum 57 (2015) 206-218.

Abstract: This article discusses the advantages of the the Coherence Based Genealogical Method (CBGM), not only as a tool for reconstructing the text of the New Testament, but also for surveying the history of readings and for explaining textual changes. The CBGM promises to detect readings, which have emerged several times independently in the textual tradition. The method is applied to selected examples in 1 John 5:6 and Jude 4, which are relevant to the issue of “orthodox corruption,” as raised by Bart D. Ehrman. The results speak against deliberate textual changes as effects of early Christological controversies in these particular passages. Rather the textual changes reflect other typical behaviour on the part of the scribes throughout the history of transmission.

Congratulations Tommy

Article on "Scribal Hermeneutics in the Longer Ending of Mark"

In the current issue of Journal of Theological Studies there is an article of interest,

"Discipleship after the Resurrection: Scribal Hermeneutics in the Longer Ending of Mark" by Suzanne Watts Henderson, Queens University of Charlotte, NC.

Abstract
Scholars typically maintain that the Longer Ending (LE) of Mark subverts Mark’s somber message about Jesus’ sacrificial death with a triumphant, concluding vision of the risen Lord seated at the right hand of God (Mark 16:19). This study takes a different tack, promoting a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between Mark and the LE by detecting important thematic elements—especially concerning discipleship—that the later passage both adopts and adapts from its host gospel. For the writer(s) of the LE, the resurrection serves less as a dividing-line between Jesus’ disciples and Mark’s community and more as the bridge that confirms emphatically the new age of God’s reign, evident both before and after the passion through those who trust the message of that good news.

Christmas Gift – Article on GNT MSS in Sweden / Jerusalem Colophon

Merry Christmas from me too!

And here is a little Christmas gift article about the Greek New Testament MSS in Sweden with a special excursus on the so-called Jerusalem Colophon:

Tommy Wasserman, "The Greek New Testament Manuscripts in Sweden with an Excursus on the Jerusalem Colophon," Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok75 (2010): 77-108.


Update: I have uploaded a new version since a table in the first version was in too low resolution

Clivaz on P126 in EC 1

You may have thought there were enough print journals in the world already (cf. our previous discussion here) - especially if you are a librarian with finite shelf space and a strict budget. But not everyone would agree with you, especially not the publishers and presumably the editors of a new journal called Early Christianity, which according to its editorial manifesto, focuses on the study of early Christianity as a historical phenomenon, and deals with both first and second century (and beyond that judging from the first issue). In the first issue (available as a sample free here, otherwise 199 Euros for four issues per annum) there are lots of interesting articles (mostly, it must be admitted, on Pauline theology [a subject which I believe is sometimes treated in other journals]), including a section on New Discoveries which contains:
Claire Clivaz, A New NT Papyrus: (PSI 1497), 158–162.


This includes photographs of P126 (which we have previously discussed here), and some further reflection on the two points of interested noted in our earlier post.

A New Rating System for UBS GNT

United Bible Societies are ahead of their time! The July issue of Bible Translator (Technical Papers) is already out, just in time for the TTW –Triennial Translation Workshop, which is being held in Bangkok right now.

In this issue I propose a new rating system for Greek New Testament editions. It is a revised version of a proposal that was included in my monograph on Jude.

Tommy Wasserman. "Proposal for a New Rating System in Greek New Testament Editions." Bible Translator 2009 60/3:140-157.

Summary:

Various rating systems have been employed in critical editions of the Greek New Testament ever since the eighteenth century. The current letter-rating systems in the UBS Greek New Testament editions have been subject to severe critique ever since they first appeared in the first edition of 1966. In my experience, however, there is still a need for this kind of basic guidance among Bible translators and students of the New Testament.

In this article, I present a new descriptive rating system based on the generally accepted principles of textual criticism that takes into account external and internal evidence. This, in itself, is a pedagogical advantage that may enhance the individual learning process and the increased engagement with the textual problem in question. The rating will show the state of the evidence from the perspective of the editor(s), and, at the same time, it will invite the users of the edition to struggle with this same evidence on their own.

Thus, the following symbols are used to describe the evidence:

{e + i}
External and internal evidence unequivocally support the adopted variant reading.

{e > i}
External evidence favors the adopted variant reading, whereas internal evidence is ambiguous.

{e < i}
External evidence is ambiguous, whereas internal evidence favors the adopted variant reading.

{e = i}
External and internal evidence are balanced or, alternatively, external evidence favors one variant reading, internal evidence another.

(The latter symbol is roughly equivalent to the bold dot in the ECM.)

In the article I provide several examples of these various ratings in variation-units in the Epistle of Jude. Scholars and editors can use this system when they make textual decisions in any given unit of variation, weighing external and internal evidence, however they are perceived. I propose it for the future editions of the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament.