RP Byzantine Text in Free Digital Formats

This may be old news to some of you but I pass the info along anyway. Norman Simón Rodríguez maintains the public domain repository for the Robinson-Pierpont Greek Byzantine text. The following info is from him.

The repository includes the following resources:

• The beta code files of the Robinson-Pierpont 2018 text, including Byzantine variants and the Byz vs. critical text apparatuses. There are both accented and unaccented versions, and one version has grammatical parsing data. These files are the official source files created by professor Robinson for his edition.
• Converted Unicode files in CSV (Excel) format.
• TEI-XML files of the Unicode text. This format is especially convenient for creating collations against the transcriptions made by the INTF, as those transcriptions also follow the TEI-XML standard.
• The code used to convert the beta files into Unicode and XML. The code is written in the Python programming language and is open source.
• Plain-text versions of the 'The case for Byzantine priority' essay in both English and Spanish.

The repository can be found at https://github.com/byztxt/byzantine-majority-text. More information about the Byzantine text can be consulted at https://byzantinetext.com/study/editions/robinson-pierpont/

Where the Priority Lies in Byzantine Priority

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 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.

Pierpont’s unpublished papers

Thanks to the generosity of Maurice Robinson, one of my recent projects at CSNTM (where I have been a full-time Research Fellow since August 2020) has been scanning the unpublished papers of William G. Pierpont (1915–2003; see his obituary by Robinson in the TC Journal, here). Robinson is now the custodian of the papers, which include many short studies, remarks, letters, etc. It is a fascinating group of papers, and it seems like there’s a little bit of everything in there (there is even a very interesting one-pager in which Pierpont [who knew something like 20+ languages] analyzes a 13-second recording of an instance of glossolalia, transcribing it, breaking it down into syllables, making observations on frequency of sounds, etc. It’s remarkable!).

William G. Pierpont (photo c. 1980)

Eventually, I hope to put much of the material online at CSNTM. We’re working on adding a section to our website for materials relevant to the text and textual history of the New Testament that aren’t Greek manuscripts or printed editions (e.g. the manuscript of Legg’s unpublished edition of Luke’s Gospel, which J.K. Elliott allowed us to digitize a couple months ago).

While I am not a Byzantine prioritist myself, I have the greatest respect for both Robinson and Pierpont and have deeply enjoyed reading much of the material. The reverence for God’s Word these men had while preparing their edition (2018 edition available here) is both convicting and encouraging. In his unpublished papers, Pierpont is thoroughly Christian in everything he writes, and I can’t express how much I appreciate that.

With Robinson’s permission, I am preparing a “guest post” by Pierpont (assuming they don’t kick me off the blog first for stirring the pot too much!). In the next few days, I’ll post here one of Pierpont’s unpublished papers. They are almost all very short—this one is one of the longer ones at about 4 pages long. I hope Pierpont's writings are as edifying to you as they have been to me.

Reprint of Sturz’s The Byzantine Text-Type

I have good news to report today. For years I’ve looked in vain for an affordable used copy of Harry Sturz’s The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism. It looks like that will not be a problem anymore as Energion Publishers is producing a reprint of the original with a new preface by David Alan Black. 

I first learned about Sturz’s book from my course on NTTC with Dan Wallace at Dallas Seminary and then again in reading through Klaus Wachtel’s work on the Byzantine text in the Catholic Letters. Here’s some sense of the book’s argument from the new publisher:

Should the Byzantine text-type be considered valuable in determining the original text of the New Testament? Does it bear independent witness to ancient readings? Dr. Harry Sturz, in a book published in 1984, maintained that it should be valued and that it could help with finding older readings and thus contribute to our knowledge of and confidence in the text of the Greek New Testament. His position, that the Byzantine text-type should be weighed along with other witnesses to the ancient text, differs from those who dismiss Byzantine manuscripts, which were largely copied later, but also from those who hold that the Byzantine text has priority or even is determinative of what the final reading should be. He uses carefully laid out arguments and numerous specific examples in making his case. This book is divided into two parts. The first outlines the positions both for relying on the Byzantine text and for largely ignoring it. Part two examines the evidence and outlines an argument that neither side of this debate should win the field, but rather that the Byzantine text should be valued, but not made exclusive.

This is an especially good time to reprint the book given the renewed interested in and esteem for the Byzantine text from the folks producing the ECM. My advice? Go get the book.

ECM of Mark: Thirty-three Changes to the Initial Text

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 

Update: After I published this blogpost, Maurice Robinson asked me why the Byz was not indicated in a few additional passages, and in one case (16:19/8) it was indicated in the wrong place. When I looked at these passages I realized that the Byz had been dropped from the passages because the sign is not indicated where there is only a negative apparatus, but it certainly ought to be in the list on p. 20*. Greg Paulson of the INTF confirms that this is the case and will add them in the online PDF of textual changes (see link above). (I will ask him to check also the list with split guiding line.) In the last passage there was a printing error (the Byz sign was placed before κυριος ιησους too far to the right which created confusion; this has also been rectified).

Erasmus, the KJV, and the Order of Matt 23.13–14

If you are dutifully reading your Robinson-Pierpont (RP) Byzantine Greek NT alongside your Nestle-Aland or THGNT (as you should be), you will notice that they diverge at Matt 23.13–14. The Byzantine text here reads

13. Οὐαὶ δέ ὑμῖν, γραμματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι, ὑποκριταί, ὅτι κατεσθίετε τὰς οἰκίας τῶν χηρῶν, καὶ προφάσει μακρὰ προσευχόμενοι· διὰ τοῦτο λήψεσθε περισσότερον κρίμα. 14. Οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, γραμματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι, ὑποκριταί, ὅτι κλείετε τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων· ὑμεῖς γὰρ οὐκ εἰσέρχεσθε, οὐδὲ τοὺς εἰσερχομένους ἀφίετε εἰσελθεῖν.

13. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive the greater condemnation. 14. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven before men. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.

Matt 23 in the 1611 KJV

The NA27 omits the first woe and numbers the second as v. 13. The KJV has both verses but inverts the order (and the versification) of the RP. (I’ll follow the RP versification rather than the KJV in the rest of this post.)

Normally, I expect the KJV to match the Byzantine textform, so what’s the deal here? It turns out the RP is indeed following the order of most manuscripts whereas the KJV is following most printed editions, editions that go back to Stephanus and before him to Erasmus. For a full list, see Abbot here). Erasmus’s first edition of 1516 has the KJV order. The Complutensian, however, has the reverse. Both orders are found in the two most important editions of Stephanus. In his beautiful 1550 edition, he has the RP order. But, in his 1551 edition, he reverses course, giving the Erasmian order and adds the versification followed by most since then.

A shorter Byzantine reading in the parable of the Prodigal Son

Rembrandt’s Return of the Prodigal

I’ve written before on some shorter (not necessarily shortest) Byzantine readings and their significance for the Byzantine priority position held by my esteemed co-blogger, MAR. (See here, here, and here.) Well, I’ve just come across another such unexpected Byzantine shorter reading. This one occurs in Luke 15.21, in the parable of the two lost sons (aka the prodigal son), the younger son realizes his mistake and says:

18 ἀναστὰς πορεύσομαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μου καὶ ἐρῶ αὐτῷ· πάτερ, ἥμαρτον εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ ἐνώπιόν σου, 19 οὐκέτι εἰμὶ ἄξιος κληθῆναι υἱός σου· ποίησόν με ὡς ἕνα τῶν μισθίων σου.
18 I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants.” ’

Then, when he does see his father, he gives this slightly truncated form of his speech:

21 εἶπεν δὲ ὁ υἱὸς αὐτῷ· πάτερ, ἥμαρτον εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ ἐνώπιόν σου, οὐκέτι εἰμὶ ἄξιος κληθῆναι υἱός σου.
21 And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’

This is verbatim from vv. 18–19, except for the last bit which is left off. Not surprisingly, some manuscripts include it. Also not surprisingly, most editions reject the last bit, no doubt, as a harmonization to v. 19 (see Tregelles, Souter, RP, SBLGNT, NA28/UBS5, THGNT). Here is the evidence from NA28:

ποιησον με ως ενα των μισθιων σου ℵ B D 33. 700. 1241. ℓ 844 vg^mss sy^h
omit 𝔓75 A K L N P Q W Γ Δ Θ Ψ ƒ^1.13 565. 579. 892. 1424. 2542. ℓ 2211 𝔐 lat sy^s.c.p co

This variant is also one of many in Luke that had its grade inflated (B to A) from UBS3 to UBS4. The one exception to the strong consensus noted above is WH who have the longer reading in brackets—not so surprising given their affinity for ℵ B. What is striking is that, not only is the shorter reading  attested by Byz, but the longer reading is also attested by such important witnesses as ℵ, B, D, 33.

In addition to its good external evidence, the shorter reading has a very obvious transcriptional explanation in parablepsis. All it takes is a scribe’s eyes skipping  from σου to σου and the result is the omission of the last phrase (cf. Matt 19.9). Intrinsically, since Luke has already repeated so much of the son’s speech, we might expect him to repeat the whole of it. This kind of verbatim repetition of speech is quite common in the Bible, especially in the OT, which Luke is known for imitating stylistically.

I imagine many will reject parablepsis as less likely than harmonization (so Metzger’s Commentary). But why should such an intentional change be more likely than the equally obvious but unintentional one? Certainly, scribes harmonize to the context. But, from my experience, they accidentally omit by parablepsis even more. Any look at a large apparatus bears this out on page after page.

To make the point, we need go no further than these three verses themselves. We just need to do so in a much larger apparatus than NA. In the IGNTP Luke, I see six cases of omission in just these three verses all of which are easily explained by simple parablepsis.

1. 71 omits αυτω in 15.18
2. 903* omits εις τον in 15.18
3. 1, 118, 205, 209 omit και ... σου in 15.19
4. R* omits υιος ... κληθηναι from 15.19–21 thus omitting all of v. 20
5. W, 713 omit ποιησον ... σου in 15.19
6. ℓ 890 omits και ... σου² in 15.21

The clearest parallels to our variant are 5 and 6 which are also omissions due to the repetition of σου. The omission in R* is instructive because it shows that omissions could be lengthy. 

So, my question: if these shorter readings are clearly accidental omissions, why shouldn’t we see the same in v. 21? Yes, the majority of witnesses have the shorter form, but does that in itself make it more likely? Not for me. Instead, the shorter reading has the simpler scribal explanation, one found multiple times in this same context, and is also attested by the best witnesses. Therefore, it seems to me that it should be preferred as original. 

Another Shorter Reading Preserved in the Byzantine Text

Here’s another interesting shorter reading preserved for us in the Byzantine text, this one from 1 Cor 9.20:

τοῖς ὑπὸ νόμον ὡς ὑπὸ νόμον, μὴ ὢν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόμον, ἵνα τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον κερδήσω
To those under the law I became as one under the law (not that I was myself under the law) in order that I might gain those under the law.

Byz along with D2 (L) Ψ 1881 and the Peshitta (per NA27) don’t have the phrase μὴ ὢν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόμον. It’s a case of parablepsis and so another place where the Byzantine text unexpectedly preserves a shorter, secondary reading.

Another Important, Shorter Reading in the Byzantine Text

Earlier this year, I wrote about two important, shorter readings in the Byzantine text in 1 John 2.23; 3.1. I suggested that they were important because they both look to be simple omissions by parablepsis and so secondary readings. That said, I find it impossible to believe that the majority of manuscripts all independently agree in these omissions, which led me to conclude that

... in some cases, the Byzantine text goes back to a single exemplar that is not the autograph and not in agreement with our earliest extant Greek witnesses. These two cases also illustrate well the reality that no single text-type or manuscript has a corner on the original text all the time. In other words, why I’m a reasoned eclectic.

This past week I came across a similar case in John 19.3. Here is the text of vv. 2–3 in NA28

2 καὶ οἱ στρατιῶται πλέξαντες στέφανον ἐξ ἀκανθῶν ἐπέθηκαν αὐτοῦ τῇ κεφαλῇ καὶ ἱμάτιον πορφυροῦν περιέβαλον αὐτὸν 3 καὶ ἤρχοντο πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ ἔλεγον· χαῖρε ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων· καὶ ἐδίδοσαν αὐτῷ ῥαπίσματα.

2 And the soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head and clothed him in a purple robe. 3 And they were coming to him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!” and struck him with their hands.

The evidence from the NA28 apparatus is:

1. — A D^s K Γ Δ Ψ ƒ¹ 892^s. 1241. 1424 𝔐 f q sy^p
2. καὶ ἤρχοντο πρὸς αὐτὸν 𝔓^66.90 ℵ B L N W Θ ƒ¹³ 33. 565. 579. 700. ℓ 844 lat sy^h co

Unlike in the 1 John examples, here there is early support for the majority reading (A f q sy^p). But like those cases, the obvious explanation for the shorter reading is still omission caused by parablepsis (involving αὐτόν). The significance, again, is that we have here a shorter reading in the majority of manuscripts that goes back earlier but is still not likely to be original. And so, with apologies to MAR, it is yet one more reason why I am not a Byzantine prioritist.

Where did the Byzantine text come from?

In my occasional interactions with Byzantine-text-preferring folks, I have been puzzled by how many of them are unaware of modern research on the Byzantine text and its development. Some of these folks sincerely seem to think that Westcott and Hort’s views of the matter are still what modern textual critics believe. This is not the case. I know of no text critic today who would argue that the Byzantine text as we find it promulgated in the minuscules is the result of a concerted fourth-century recension.  

So, what do scholars think? The most serious work on the Byzantine text’s development has been done by Klaus Wachtel, especially in his 1995 dissertation. But few Byzantine advocates seem aware of it, probably because it remains untranslated into English (sadly).

Fortunately, a number of Wachtel’s papers from over the years are easily accessible online—and in English. So, I thought I would point out just one of the places where he has explained his view. This is in the hope that those who hold to a Byzantine priority position, a Majority text position, or an Ecclesiastical text position (I realize there are differences in these views) will see that modern eclecticism has developed since 1881 on the question of the Byzantine text. In fact, Wachtel’s animating goal in his dissertation was refuting the view of a fourth-century recension.

In any case, here is Wachtel talking about the Gospels:

The term “text-type”, however, still carries along relics of the old division of the New Testament manuscript tradition into three or four “recensions”. If we take the whole evidence into account, a picture emerges that is far more complex. The external criteria applied when variants are assessed have to be re-defined accordingly. To this end we have to focus on individual manuscripts and explore their relationships with other manuscripts. Assigning them to text-types has become obsolete.

You may ask, why then I am still referring to the “Byzantine text” myself. I am doing so, because the term aptly denominates the mainstream text form in the Byzantine empire. This mainstream has its headwaters in pre-Byzantine times, in fact in the very first phase of our manuscript tradition, and it underwent a long process of development and standardization. The final phase began with the introduction of the minuscule script in the 9th century and ended up in a largely uniform text characterized by readings attested by the majority of all Greek manuscripts from the 13th - 15th centuries counted by hundreds and thousands.

Standardization means editorial activity, and in fact, a text form so similar to the late majority text as represented by Codex Alexandrinus cannot have emerged from a linear copying process without conscious editing. It is indeed likely that the text in Codex Alexandrinus is the result of editorial activity which may have been carried out in one or, more likely, several steps. Likewise, the text of the 6th century purple codices N 022 and Σ 042 certainly was not just copied from some manuscript picked at random. Diorthosis, correction, was an integral part of the copying process. Yet the assumption that a recension stood at the beginning of the formation of the Byzantine text and then penetrated the whole manuscript tradition reflects a categorically different view of the transmission history. I am going to focus on the differences between five manuscript texts to show that despite intense editorial activity the Byzantine majority text is the result of a process of reconciliation between different strands of transmission.*

I myself have found this view persuasive at least as far as the Catholic Letters are concerned (though I have tweaked it just slightly). You, of course, may or may not agree with this view, but it is the most detailed and substantiated view of the Byzantine text’s origin on offer. And it is now cited as such in both the major introductions to the field (Metzger-Ehrman’s, and Parker’s).

Kirsopp Lake’s diagram of WH’s view of textual history. He rejected this too.

No major textual critic, to my knowledge, holds to Westcott and Hort’s fourth-century revision view anymore though it may well linger among those in the wider NT guild. My point here is only to say that Byzantine prioritists (of whatever stripe) need to address Wachtel’s arguments not Westcott and Hort’s.

Here ends my public service announcement.

———
* Klaus Wachtel, “The Byzantine Text of the Gospels: Recension or Process?” paper delivered at SBL in 2009, online here.

Two important, shorter Byzantine readings in 1 John

In reading through 1 John with my Greek students this semester, I noticed two unexpected variants. They are both places where the Byzantine majority preserves a shorter reading that is easily explained as an accidental omission.

The full list of Greek data for 1 John 2.23 is in Text und Textwert, but the evidence from ECM is:

1. πᾶς ὁ ἀρνούμενος τὸν υἱὸν οὐδὲ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει, ὁ ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει.
   01. 02. 03. 04. 025. 044. 5. 33. 61. 94. 104. 206. 218. 252. 254. 307. 321. 323. 326. 378C. 398. 429. 436. 442. 453. 459. 467C. 468. 522. 614. 621. 623. 630. 720. 808. 918. 996. 1067. 1127. 1243. 1292. 1359. 1409. 1448. 1490. 1505. 1523. 1524. 1563. 1611. 1661. 1678. 1718. 1735. 1739. 1751. 1799. 1831. 18372. 18382. 1842. 1844f. 1852. 1881. 2138. 2147. 2200. 2298. 2344. 2374. 2412. 2464. 2541. 2544. 2652. 2805. 2818. L596. L1281. Ath. Cyr. CyrH. Or. K:S>BV>. S:P>H. A. G:A1. Sl.Si. Ä
2. πᾶς ὁ ἀρνούμενος τὸν υἱὸν οὐδὲ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει.
   6. 81. 88. 181. 378*. 467*. 629. 642. 915. 945. 1241. 1875. 2186. 2243. 2492. Byz [424*. 424C2]. PsOec. K:Bms. Sl:ChMS

While the minuscules are not unified here, there is still a clear Byz text identified by the ECM. Because of this unity, you will not find this variant in Robinson-Pierpont as a Byzantine variant though it is in the apparatus as an NA27 reading. The obvious explanation for the second reading is, of course, homoiteleuton (ἔχει ... ἔχει).

By way of illustration, here is the correction of the text in 424 adding the text back in followed by a second correction expunging it.

The double correction in 424. See in VMR

The second such omission is just a few verses later in 1 John 3.1. There the main evidence is

1. Ἴδετε ποταπὴν ἀγάπην δέδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ πατήρ, ἵνα τέκνα θεοῦ κληθῶμεν, καὶ ἐσμέν.
   01. 02. 03. 04. 025. 044. 5. 6. 33. 81. 94. 104. 206. 307. 321. 323. 378. 398. 4242. 429. 436. 442. 453. 459. 467. 522. 614. 621. 623. 629. 630. 918. 945. 996. 1067. 1127. 1243. 1292. 1409. 1490. 1505. 1523. 1524. 1611. 1735. 1739. 1799. 1831. 1838. 1842. 1844. 1852. 1881. 2138. 2147. 2200. 2298. 2344. 2374. 2412. 2464. 2541. 2652. 2805. 2818. L596. L:VT. A. G:A1. Sl:ChMSi
2. Ἴδετε ποταπὴν ἀγάπην δέδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ πατήρ, ἵνα τέκνα θεοῦ κληθῶμεν.
   61. 88. 181 . 218. 254. 326. 642. 808. 915. 1359. 1448. 1563. 1718. 1837. 1875. 2186. 2243. 2492. Byz [424T]. PSOeC. L:Vms. K:Sms>. Sl:S

Once again, we have the earliest evidence, several dozen minuscules, and most of the versions in favor of the longer reading and the Byzantine manuscripts in favor of the shorter. This variant won’t show up in the RP as an intra-Byzantine variant either. Again, the simplest explanation for the Byzantine reading is homoioteleuton, the eye skipping from -μεν to -μεν.

Klaus Wachtel (Der Bzyantinische Text, 302–303) also suggests that the shorter reading would be preferable because it removes the abrupt shift from subjunctive (κληθῶμεν) to indicative (ἐσμέν) following ἵνα. Confirming this as a possible motive is the fact that we find the subjunctive ὦμεν in 2544 and this appears to be what is translated by the Harklean Syriac and some Coptic witnesses. 

Here is this variant again in 424 showing another correction.

1 John 3.1 in 424. See in VMR

Both variants are pretty easy to deal with for reasoned and thoroughgoing eclectics and pretty difficult for Byzantine prioritists. It may be surprising to see the Byzantine tradition preserve such obvious mistakes, but in this, it also shows how careful the Byzantine scribes often were. It also suggests that, in some cases, the Byzantine text goes back to a single exemplar that is not the autograph and not in agreement with our earliest extant Greek witnesses. These two cases also illustrate well the reality that no single text-type or manuscript has a corner on the original text all the time. In other words, why I’m a reasoned eclectic.

Update (11/29/18): here is further info on the interesting way that the 1611 KJV handled 1 John 2.23.

Dan Wallace Responds on the ‘Embarrassment of Riches’

Last week, I wrote about the charge made against some reasoned eclectics that they are guilty of praising the large number of NT manuscripts in their apologetic but then not actually using them in their text-critical work. For the details, see here.

I had hoped the post would spark some discussion and it certainly did! It’s now at almost 100 comments. Clearly, it touched a nerve. One of the people I mentioned in my original post was Dan Wallace and I am happy that he responded on the original post. I thought his response deserved its own separate post and so I present it here, only lightly edited by Dan.

---

This has been an interesting discussion (which I just learned about from a friend) on the quantitative argument that I have used in public debates and lectures. I’ve read through the comments as of yesterday (and noticed, but did not read, a mass of comments posted just in the last 24 hours) and noted the objections to this argument. I think the thread can be grouped as follows:

1. Peter Gurry calls me an apologist. 
2. Gurry mentions that both Ehrman and Robinson have argued against the quantitative argument for various reasons.
3. The quantitative argument in isolation is weak and misleading. It’s not 5000+ MSS in any given place, and only 424 (Greek) MSS are from the eighth century or earlier. 
4. I am apparently speaking hypocritically when I invoke the numbers because most of these are Byzantine MSS and I presumably think the Byzantine text isn’t worth much. A good analogy would be that I consider the Byzantine witnesses to be counterfeit in thousands of places.

I’m sure I’ve overlooked some of the arguments. But these are the major ones from what I can tell. My response:

Vaticanus’s ‘least doubtful’ Byzantine impurity

The familiar text of Rom 11.6 as read in NA/UBS is found in P46 01* A C D F G P 1739 1881 lat co as follows:

εἰ δὲ χάριτι, οὐκέτι ἐξ ἔργων, ἐπεὶ ἡ χάρις οὐκέτι γίνεται χάρις
and if by grace, then it [election] is no longer of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace

However, 01c (B) 33vid Byz vg(ms) (sy) add the corollary to Paul’s axiom which is

ει δε εξ εργων, ουκετι εστιν χαρις, επει το εργον ουκετι εστιν εργον
and if it is from works, then it is no longer grace, otherwise the work is no longer work

Sanday and Hedlam say of this longer reading that “there need be no doubt that it is a gloss” (Romans, p. 313). I think they are right in this.

Rom 11.6 in Vaticanus (photo link).
Note the marginal dots.

What is surprising is to see B line up with Byz here against P46 01* etc. The agreement is not perfect, however, because B lacks the first εστιν and has χαρις instead of the final εργον. It would be worthwhile to consider whether Byz preserves a reading earlier than B here. B’s text could explain the shorter reading as a case of parablepsis (χαρις ... χαρις), but B’s reading doesn’t make much sense in the context.

Either way, B shows a striking agreement with Byz and one that receives a special mention from Westcott and Hort. They refer to this reading on p. 150 of their Introduction where they admit that it may be the one exception to B’s consistent purity from “Syrian” (= Byz) influence. They write:

...B is found to hold a unique position. Its text is throughout Pre-Syrian, perhaps purely Pre-Syrian, at all events with hardly any, if any, quite clear exceptions, of which the least doubtful is the curious interpolation in Rom. xi.6.

Did you notice the tortured circumlocution there? They don’t say that Rom 11.6 is a possible case of B’s Syrian corruption. Instead, they say it is “the least doubtful” of possibly clear exceptions to B’s pre-Syrian purity. It’s as if they can’t quite bring themselves to say that B might, even in this one case, be corrupted by the Syrian text-type. So a “possible impurity” becomes “the least doubtful exception to B’s purity.” I suppose this is akin to their infamous phrase “Western non-interpolations” which are just as easily termed “Alexandrian additions.” Which, of course, brings us back to the importance of rhetoric in textual criticism.

Variants on Forgiveness: Matt 18, Mark 11, and the Longer Reading

One of the positives of reading a Greek New Testament that lists variants but not the manuscripts that attest them is that it makes you pay more attention to internal evidence. I’ve been reading Scrivener’s edition of Stephanus (1550) which lists differences with a number of other editions including Lachmman, Tregelles, and Westcott-Hort.

‘The Unmerciful Servant’ by Willem Drost

One of the things I’m reading for are places where the traditional text has a longer reading and the shorter reading is easily explained by parablepsis. We looked at one in Eph 5.30 not long ago and there is another lengthy example at Matt 23.14. Two that caught my attention recently are in the parable of the unforgiving servant in Matt 18. Here is Matt 18.29:

πεσὼν οὖν ὁ σύνδουλος αὐτοῦ εἰς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ παρεκάλει αὐτὸν λέγων· μακροθύμησον ἐπʼ ἐμοί, καὶ ἀποδώσω σοι.

The highlighted phrase “at his feet” is found in C2 W f13 33 Byz f q syp.h mae whereas the shorter reading is found in א B C* D L Θ 058 f1 579 1424 al lat sys.c sa bo.

Scrivener’s 4th edition

Then at the end of the parable, we have another longer/shorter reading involving almost the same witnesses on each side. This is Matt 18.35:

οὕτως καὶ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ οὐράνιος ποιήσει ὑμῖν, ἐὰν μὴ ἀφῆτε ἕκαστος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν καρδιῶν ὑμῶν τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν.

The longer reading is again found in C W f13 33 Byz f h sy(p).h and the shorter in א B D L Θ f1 700 892* pc lat sys.c co.

Finally, a third text that is relevant here is the parallel in Mark 11.25–26 which reads:

25 Καὶ ὅταν στήκητε προσευχόμενοι, ἀφίετε εἴ τι ἔχετε κατά τινος· ἵνα καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ἀφῇ ὑμῖν τὰ παραπτώματα ὑμῶν. 26 Εἰ δὲ ὑμεῖς οὖκ ἀφίετε, οὐδὲ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ἀφήσει τὰ παραπτώματα ὑμῶν.

In this case, all of verse 26 is read by A (C, D) Θ (f1.13 33) Byz lat syp.h bo(pt); Cyp and omitted by א B L W Δ Ψ 565 700 pc k l sys sa bo(pt).

Besides being about forgiveness, what all these have in common is that the shorter reading is easily explained by parablepsis, homeoteleuton in particular. In Matt 18.29 the culprit could be αὐτοῦ, in Matt 18.35, -ῶν, and in Mark 18.26, τὰ παραπτώματα ὑμῶν.

What about the evidence in favor of the shorter readings? In the first case, there is no simple parallel in the context to easily explain the origin of the longer reading. In the second case, however, the longer reading could be influenced by Matt 6.14–15. Note especially the additional τὰ παραπτώματα in Byz in Matt 6.15. Although it doesn’t explain the somewhat awkward shift from singular ἀδελφῷ to plural αὐτῶν. Finally, Matt 6 could also explain the longer reading in Mark 11.25–26, but here too, as W. Willker points out in his online commentary, the harmonization would not be word-for-word. Compare:

Matt 6.15 ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἀφῆτε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, οὐδὲ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ἀφήσει τὰ παραπτώματα ὑμῶν.

Mark 11.26 εἰ δὲ ὑμεῖς οὖκ ἀφίετε, οὐδὲ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ἀφήσει τὰ παραπτώματα ὑμῶν.

None of the differences is radical. The ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖ is found in the preceding verse and maybe τοῖς ἀνθρώποις was left out because Mark 11.25 uses τις for the generic reference. But the change in mood is a bit harder to explain unless this is only a rough harmonization. As it is, the differences make parablepsis—and the longer reading with it—appealing.

If not for the strong, early manuscript evidence in favor of the shorter reading in all three cases, the longer readings would be easy choices on transcriptional grounds. But the external evidence being what it is, I am torn.

So my question: with the shift in opinion about the value of the Byzantine text, will future NA editions follow the transcriptional evidence here against the earliest witnesses like they have in, say, 1 Pet 4.16? More importantly, should they? Should Byz be set on par with the earliest evidence, thereby letting the transcriptional evidence tip the scales in these cases?

A Case for the Longer Reading at Ephesians 5.30?

The 5–7th century correction (“Ca”) in Sinaiticus

Last night while reading Ephesians, I came across a variant I don’t remember seeing before. I was surprised that it wasn’t adopted as the main text since it seemed like the obvious choice. I should say that I was reading an edition that gives no manuscript evidence so I could only consider internal evidence.

Here is the context from Eph 5.29–31 (KJV):

29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

The variant in question is the addition of the phrase “of his flesh and of his bones” in verse 30. The main choice is

1. ὅτι μέλη ἐσμὲν τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ, ἐκ τῆς σαρκός αὐτοῦ καί ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ
2. ὅτι μέλη ἐσμὲν τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ

The longer reading can be explained as an addition from Gen 2.23. We might expect as much given that the next verse quotes Gen 2.24. The only hitch is that the longer reading in Eph 5.30 reverses the order of flesh and bone from Adam’s little poem which has “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” The influence is still there, but it’s not as close as we might expect. The real problem with this explanation, however, is that I can’t see a reason to think that a scribe is more likely to refer to Gen 2.23 than the author himself.

Now, if we didn’t have an explanation for the shorter reading, then a scribal harmonization to Gen 2.23 would have some force here. But we do have a ready explanation. A skip from αὐτοῦ … αὐτοῦ explains the shorter reading nicely. If it weren’t for the combined support of 01* 02 03 P46 for the shorter reading, I suspect more reasoned eclectics would adopt the longer reading. The longer reading is attested by Irenaeus and D F G and there is versional support from vg and syr. Notice too the evidence cited by Tregelles of some Armenian witnesses which attest the same basic mistake except that, instead of omitting the whole phrase, they only omit ἐκ τῆς σαρκός αὐτοῦ.

Apparatus from Tregelles

In fact, it would be hard to imagine that some scribes didn’t make the larger omission. The real question is whether this was also the original mistake that first created the variation. As it is, I like the simpler explanation of parablepsis and would prefer the longer reading.

The Overall Quality of Byzantine Manuscripts

Following up on my follow up on the Byzantine text, it’s instructive to see just how close the text found in the majority of our manuscripts is to the initial text in the Catholic Epistles. From the ECM supplement, here are the number of readings where the “undivided witnesses of the Byzantine text” differs from the ECM/NA28 initial text.*

Book	Differences	Var. Units
James	61	761
1 Peter	46	700
2 Peter	23	417
1 John	43	765
2-3 John, Jude	33	403
TOTAL	206	3,046

To put the matter positively, the Byzantine text as defined by the ECM agrees with the editors’ reconstructed text in over 93% of variant passages in the Catholic Epistles.

GA 35, a key representative
of the Byz text in the ECM

That’s quite a lot. You could even say that your NA28 is 93% Byzantine in the Catholic Epistles if you were so inclined. In any case, this high level of agreement is what led the editors to conclude that the Byzantine text is “an important witness to the early text.” Hence the re-evaluation for the ECM2 of all places where the Byzantine reading differed from the initial text of ECM1 (see ECM2, p. 34*).

*The stats are from the ECM2 supplement, pp. 10, 13, 15, 17 and Gerd Mink, “Contamination, Coherence, and Coincidence,” p. 147 n. 15.

Defining the Byzantine Text

As a follow-up to my post about text-types from last week, here is an example of how our definitions of texts can influence our thinking about textual criticism. It matters particularly when it comes to comparing one “text” to another.

In their new book on NT textual criticism, Stanley Porter and Andrew Pitts make a common argument against the Majority Text position which could apply to the Byzantine Priority position as well. Porter and Pitts write:

Several other questions are left unanswered by the Majority text approach as well. Statistical probability of documents simply cannot explain why no distinctively Byzantine readings are identifiable in the Greek manuscripts, church fathers, or version from the first several centuries—certainly some remains would have been left, even if the manuscripts were in constant use. If the Majority text most accurately reflects the original, we would expect some traces of it chronologically close to the original. These significant obstacles to the Majority text approach still have not been convincingly overcome by its adherents (pp. 91–92 n. 3).

Now I admit that I find a form of the chronological argument against the Majority Text and the Byzantine text persuasive. But what I want to point out here is that this particular form of the argument hinges entirely on something that Porter and Pitts do not provide us with, namely, a definition of “distinctively Byzantine readings.”

To illuminate the problem, let’s consider how the Editio Critica Maior (ECM) defines the “Byzantine text.” You have to read it very carefully, but the ECM actually has two definitions. In the introduction (§3.1) we read that “the term Byzantine or Koine text refers to the form of text defined by those readings which are attested by the majority of the manuscripts and differ from the established text” (emphasis original). The supplementary volume gives complete lists of just these readings for each book of the Catholic Epistles (pp. 10ff).

But the ECM also has a second, more implicit definition. On the same page (p. 10) of the supplementary volume we read about “the undivided (ungespaltene) Byzantine text” which differs from the initial text in only 61 of about 700 places in James. In the editors’ words, this undivided Byzantine text is, “apart from these 61 passages, an important witness to the early text” (p. 10; emphasis mine).

So we have two definitions: (1) the Byzantine text as all the shared readings found in the majority of Greek witnesses; and (2) the Byzantine text as that set of readings found in these same witnesses which differ from the initial text. The first entity is an important witness to the early text whereas the second is defined in distinction from essentially that same early text.

Now the problem should be obvious. An argument like that of Porter and Pitts risks circularity on this second definition and it is simply false on the first. There are hundreds of readings found in Byzantine manuscripts that are also found “chronologically close to the original.” In fact, according to the ECM, there are over 630 readings just in James that are the original or at least very close to it (depending on how you identify the initial text).

Now, perhaps Porter and Pitts have a definition of “distinctively Byzantine reading” that isn’t circular. From what they’ve written we simply don’t know because they don’t define their key term.

And that’s just the problem. Good arguments about the history of the text can only be made where we have clarity about what constitutes the textual entities—whether text-types or otherwise—that we are trying to relate to one another. Porter and Pitts have two texts they relate (“original” and “Majority/Byzantine”), but since they don’t define them, the relationship they propose is meaningless.

This isn’t to pick on Porter and Pitts. They just provide a good illustration of the problem of not defining the texts we claim to relate to one another.

ETC Interview with Maurice Robinson: Part 2

Posted below is the second part of my interview with Maurice Robinson. You can read part one here.

[PG] In a previous interview you said that, within a normal transmission process, we should expect to find the autographic text preserved “within a single dominant branch of the transmissional tradition.” What makes a branch “dominant” in your view and does this risk counting what should be weighed?

[MAR] Probably no greater conceptual misuse exists concerning the phrase “manuscripts should be weighed rather than counted” than when applied repeatedly to critique a presumed “majority text” type position, the obvious intent being to disparage such by a reductionist caricature of mere “nose-counting”. In reality, one first must define what constitutes “weight” and then determine the procedure for measurement and evaluation of such in the accompanying “weighing process”. Only then can one inquire as to what extent the constituent elements of such determined weight have actually been applied to each of the various MSS under consideration.

ETC Interview with Maurice Robinson: Part 1

If you’re still wondering, the answer to my quiz of last week is none other than that Byzantine Beatle, Maurice A. Robinson. Maurice also happens to be the first participant in what I hope will be an ongoing series of interviews with text critics. In the past, we have interviewed Bart Ehrman, Dan Wallace, and Stanley Porter and these were well received. So I thought we should continue the tradition. I don’t have any detailed criteria by which to pick our interviewees (suggestions welcome), but I can say I am quite pleased with those who have already agreed to be interviewed. There are many familiar names on the list, but also some lesser-known or younger scholars that I am excited to introduce to our readers. So without further ado, I present our first interview.

---

As a regular commentator and sometime contributor at the ETC blog, Maurice Robinson is no stranger to regular readers. But despite the blog’s great fame, he is most well-known for his work editing and defending the Byzantine textform. He teaches at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, NC where he was recently named research professor of New Testament studies. He’s been interviewed a number of times before, but I thought there were a few things those interviews didn’t cover, especially the final question of part 2. Enjoy!

Peter Gurry: Many readers might be surprised to learn that you worked with Kenneth W. Clark during your master’s work. Can you tell us how that relationship has (or hasn’t) influenced your own view of textual criticism?

[Maurice A. Robinson] I began studying with Clark (1898–1979) in 1971 during my MDiv program at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (where I currently serve as Research Professor); this was arranged by the then text-critical professor here, since he said I already knew more about the subject from previous self-study than did he. Clark at that time was already emeritus from Duke, having retired from teaching in 1967, but he genuinely was excited about my interest in the field, since at that time very few students anywhere were becoming interested or involved in the subject. As a result, Clark and I began and maintained a very good relationship from 1971–1977 (when I moved to Texas for my PhD studies), despite our evangelical versus liberal theological differences.

My position at that time was one of reasoned eclecticism, basically following the Metzger-style theory and praxis; Clark, however, in various of his publications had already raised serious questions as to whether that or any type of eclectic method really represented a solution rather than a symptom (a theme later discussed by Epp in 1976). Clark therefore strongly encouraged me to study, heavily read, and critically examine various alternative views, including those favoring a primarily external and transmissional approach to the text as opposed to those theories that placed a more subjective emphasis on internal criteria (including both thoroughgoing and reasoned eclecticism). In essence, what Clark strongly suggested was a return back to primarily external principles such as espoused by Westcott and Hort, but without their unsupported speculative historical baggage regarding a “Syrian recension” being the creative cause of the Byzantine Textform.

Falluomini on The Gothic Version of the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles

I have just received Carla Falluomini’s fine monograph on The Gothic Version of the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles: Cultural Background, Transmission and Character published by De Gruyter in the ANTF series (vol. 46), edited by D. C. Parker and Holger Strutwolf.

In the first chapter, “Wulfila and his context,” Falluomini re-examines the historical and cultural context of the Gothic version. She concludes that “the territories in which Wulfila lived, north and south of the Lower Danube, were characterised by the coexistence of several cultures and languages” which is reflected in “Wulfila’s triangual education, in his alphabet devised on the basis of Greek and Latin letters and runes, and in the vocabulary of his version, which includes Greek and Latin terms.” The Behind his translation lay both a missionary purpose, as well as an attempt to elevate Gothic to the rank of other languages, which in extension would reinforce the ethnic and religious identity of his people from the mid-fourth century and later.

The second chapter deals with the witnesses to the version. For the Gospels: Codex Argenteus, the Ambrosianus C, the Gissensis; For the Pauline Epistles (excl. Hebrews): Codex Carolinus, Ambrosianus A+ and Ambrosianus B. In addition, a few other witnesses testify to the circulation and usage of the version:  the tablet of Hács-Béndekpuszta (now lost), the recently discovered Codex Bononiensis (see our earlier reports here and here), the Gotica Vindobonensia in Gothic script and the Gotica Parisina in Latin script.

Falluomini concludes that Codex Argenteus is an example of a high class of book production (indeed, Sweden’s foremost book treasure). The elegant bilingual Carolinus and Gissensis are less accurate in their writing, but, nevertheless, are also the products of well organized scriptoria. Argenteus, Carolinus and Ambrosianus A+ share a number of paleographical innovations. Falluomini thinks Ravenna is the most probable place for their production.

The codicological analysis in chapter three shows, among other things, that the Gothic MSS were used in liturgy. On the other hand, the existence of glossed MSS (Argenteus and Ambrosianus A+) indicates that the biblical text was also read and used outside of liturgical contexts (this is mentioned in ch. 2). Further, Falluomini identifies a close relationship between Gothic and Latin scribes, suggesting that there were scriptoria “where Goths and Romans worked side by side.”

The fourth chapter deals with linguistic and stylistic features. First of all, the Gothic version is very literal, following a Greek (lost) Vorlage. Thus, it is often possible to determine the underlying Greek text; a good thing for textual criticism. At the same time, Wulfila tried to be intelligible to his audience. However, some of his loan words or creations may have been difficult to understand for the Goths, but they “may have found a kind of justification in the aura of mystery surrounding the new cult.” It is also possible, Falluomini adds, that the translation formed a Sondersprache which was different lexically and syntactically from the common Gothic language. The presence of glosses in Gothic MSS may reflect that some words were obsolete. On the other hand, the sixth century Codex Bononiensis, probably part of a sermon or liturgical prayer, contains citations from the Gothic version suggesting that the Wulfilian Gothic was understood and in use.

In the fifth chapter, the author discusses the Greek Vorlage and the Gothic textual transmission. A large part of this chapter reviews the history of research in this area. The Gothic text agrees primarily with the Byzantine text type. Some readings, however, agree with the “Western” or Alexandrian texts. The “Western” readings may either have been present in Wulfila’s Greek Vorlage, or, as the dominant theory suggests, they entered into the version during its transmission through a revision on the basis of the Latin version(s). The role of the Latin version(s) in the Gothic transmission is a complex problem. Falluomini discusses three possibilities: (1) Wulfila used a Latin model in addition to a Greek Vorlage; (2) the Gothic text underwent a double process of Latinisation (first at the time of translation, and subsequently in the west during the copying of Gothic MSS; (3) the original translation was subject to Latin influence only in the western milieu.

Falluomini rejects the hypothesis that all the non-Byzantine readings are post-Wulfilian. However, some changes did occur in the subsequent transmission, typical to scribal activity (rather than redaction): additions/omissions of words, insertion of marginal annotations and harmonisation to parallel passages. Further, she concludes that there is nothing that contradicts the possibility that Wulfila used a Latin exemplar in addition to the Greek Vorlage, “as an aid to render some difficult expressions of the Greek text, particularly in the Epistles.”

In the sixth chapter, the author goes on to discuss the readings of the Gothic version in relation to the Byzantine text and offers her own textual analysis . If the Byzantine text is seen as a slowly developing tradition (faster in the Gospels than in the Pauline Epistles), then the non-Byzantine readings of the Gothic versions may be interpreted as conservative elements “reflecting a mid-fourth century Greek text in which the process of standardization was still far away.” This is an important conclusion which has implications for the future study of the Byzantine text.

Among other things, Falluomini’s textual analysis lists 44/116 (38%) non-Byzantine readings in Matthew and 147/335 (44%) non-Byzantine readings in John. The greatest part of these readings are shared with “Western” witnesses. On the other hand, only 8/116 (7%) of the readings in Matthew and 19/335 (6%) of the readings in John are supported exlusively by “Western” witnesses. In Romans there are 63/120 (53%) non-Byzantine readings and 40/82 (49%) in Galatians. Further, there are 14/120 (12%) readings in Romans attested only by “Western” witnesses, and 17/82 (21%) in Galatians.

Falluomini suggests that the following readings can be attributed to Wulfila: (1) readings supported by Byzantine MSS; (2) non-Byzantine readings which are not “Western” (and therefore not suspected to reflect Latinisation); (3) non-Byzantine readings supported not only by “Western” witnesses. Thus, doubts remain when Gothic readings agree only with Latin witnesses, with or without the support of Greek “Western” witnesses (D F G). Further, she concludes that, since the Gothic version is so literal, it is particularly valuable for tracing the history of the oldest stage of the Byzantine text.

There are two appendices. Appendix I lists all significant readings of the Gothic Gospels of Matthew and John, and in Romans and Galatians. Appendix II contains a table of the main codicological features of the Gothic MSS; information about the Long Ending of Mark; and a transcription of the so-called praefatio to the Codex Brixianus.

The author is to be congratulated for this fine work!