Another manuscript to strike from the Liste? Greg. 724

Because we have been discussing the difficulty of counting manuscripts lately, I decided to jump in with my own way of making things worse minor contribution: It might be the case that Gregory 724 should be removed from the Liste.

Gregory 724—the note in the front

Details:

Gregory 724 is a Greek manuscript of the Gospels on paper+parchment and dated 1520. A note in the front of the manuscript even claims that it was copied from an edition of the New Testament ("scriptus fuit ex aeditione noui testamenti"). We know the copyist from this note, Levinus Ammonius, a Carthusian monk. There's an entry for him on pp. 50–51 of Bietenholz, ed., Contemporaries of Erasmus: A Biographical Register of the Renaissance and Reformation, vol. 1. A–E. According to Bietenholz, Ammonius lived from 13 April 1488–19 March 1557, and "...joined the Carthusian order, making his profession on 18 August 1506 in the monastery of St Maartensbos near Geraardsbergen, 30 kilometers west of Brussels."

Ammonius also had a bit of correspondence with Erasmus, and some of those letters have been published. Their first interaction (to my knowledge) occurred when Ammonius wrote to Erasmus on 4 July 1525 (Ep 1463, available in CWE 10), which the editor describes as "his first attempt to open a continuing correspondence with Erasmus." The editor continues: "His second attempt was successful (Epp 2016, 2062), and five of the letters in their subsequent correspondence survive (Epp 2082, 2197, 2258, 2483, 2817). The beginning of Ep 1463 shows the respect he had for Erasmus (my second-favorite Dutch scholar to live in Cambridge and edit a Greek New Testament): "For a long time I was full of misgivings, Erasmus most incorruptible of theologians, whether my action would be inexcusable if I were to interrupt you with a letter, I being a monk living obscurely in solitude and you the most distinguished of our whole generation for your outstanding gifts, and if I who enjoy the blessings of leisure were to inflict this tedium on a man who labours for the common good of Christendom."

In Ep 2016 (available in CWE 14), Ammonius mentions that he had once copied out a Greek Psalter that Erasmus had even seen. Gamillscheg and Harlfinger (1981; Repertorium I a no. 10; p. 28) identify him as the copyist of Cambridge, Corpus Christi College ms 448, though the data at the Parker Library on the Web suggests that the copyist may have been Johannes Olivarius. This alternative identification seems to go back at least to K.A. de Meyier in 1964. That is all to say that by his own testimony, we can conclude that he copied at least one other Greek manuscript (and a Biblical text at that), and there may be at least one other manuscript copied by him that is now in the Parker Library at Corpus Christi, Cambridge. Here are samples of each below. I am not familiar enough with handwriting in this era to say anything about them worth taking too seriously, but I do see a lot of similarities. One thing that jumps out to me is that in the color images of CCC ms 248, the capital letters seem to have yellow 'around' them (or something that has faded to yellow), and I see the exact same pattern of 'discoloration' (for lack of a better word) in the microfilm of Greg. 724.

Writing sample from Greg. 724

Writing sample from Cambridge, CCC ms 248.

Checks:

Pinakes mentions a few references for Greg. 724 that I haven't been able to check. 

The first and second editions of the Liste are identical, save that it's on p. 100 in the 1st ed. and on p. 90 in the 2nd ed. (and the line break is at a different place in the location section). Here it is in the 2nd ed.:

 

724 is ε530 in von Soden's edition; here is his entry on vol. 1, p. 208:

So far, despite the obvious note in the beginning, almost nobody seems to have noticed that it's most likely a copy of a printed edition. Obviously, I could be missing something, but I don't see any indications that it's been stricken from the Liste as a copy of a printed work. Since it's not a manuscript of Revelation, it wouldn't appear in Darius Müller's "Abscriften des Erasmischen Textes im Handschriftenmaterial der Johannesapokalypse."

Notice, however, that I mentioned that almost nobody seems to have noticed that it was probably copied from a printed text. Once again, the Wizard of Byz comes to the rescue. In his (still!) unpublished collation data for the pericope adulterae, Maurice Robinson observed (though I have inserted my own transcription of the Latin for his, so if there are mistakes there, it's my fault not his):

"GA 724 has a Latin colophon that suggests it may have been copied from a printed edition in 1520: [[Libellus hic quatuor Euangeliorum scriptus fuit ex aeditione noui testamenti pr[ ... ] & postea ad tertiam eiusdem  etc.]] In fact, except for not reproducing the spelling error 8:6 κατηγωρειν, the text agrees exactly with that of Erasmus 1516 (even Ιησους is written plene throughout; although my collation fails to note such for 8:1, this is almost certainly the case). The top margins appear like a printed book as well: ¶ ευαγγελιον || κατα ιωαννην. At 8:1 the margin has ¢ 8 sic. At 7:52 a corrector changed one form of abbreviation for και into another, without otherwise affecting the text."

How I found it:

I was reading an article about Erasmus and chased a rabbit trail. There's more to the story, but in short, the only manuscript I could find (at first) with the lives of the four evangelists by Dorotheus of Tyre (which Erasmus included in his 1516 edition, and only the 1516 edition) is 724. So obviously I looked into 724. I did end up finding the content elsewhere, so I can be confident that it's not another patristic forgery by Erasmus.

Conclusions:

1. Getting curious and chasing rabbits can lead to interesting things.

2. Robinson's collation data needs to be published! Where else do we get to see the work of someone who examined ~3,000 manuscripts and made notes about them.

3. Jacob Peterson might not have been wrong to extrapolate a level of error in counting manuscripts back into the minuscules and lectionaries. I wasn't looking for mistakes and, unless I am making one myself (which is certainly possible), I seemed to have happened upon one.

4. Even if 724 should be removed from the Liste, it could still be very interesting. Are there changes from Erasmus' 1516 edition? Do any changes represent textual decisions (or, dare we say it, conjectures?) of Levinus Ammonius? It may be just a boring copy of Erasmus 1516 with the usual sorts of scribal errors, but if we don't look, we won't know.

Martin Heide on Erasmus

Some of our readers may know that Martin Heide, one of our blog members, has written on Erasmus. His book Der einzig wahre Bibeltext? Erasmus von Rotterdam und die Frage nach dem Urtext (The Only True Bible Text? Erasmus of Rotterdam and the Quest for the Original Text) is now in its fifth edition. Martin has worked extensively in the languages over the years, contributing to and producing numerous critical editions of the versions. 

For those who don’t read German, you can sample his work on Erasmus in his new article at the Text & Canon Institute website: “Erasmus and the Search for the Original Text of the New Testament.” Here’s a taste:

The Novum Instrumentum was the only printed and published Greek text available at the onset of the Reformation and it has done the church a great service. The success and deep impact of the Reformation and its aftermath would be unthinkable without this new spiritual and intellectual basis of the New Testament text. Moreover, no cardinal doctrine is jeopardized by its obvious shortcomings. However, the Greek of the Novum Instrumentum, or the “Received Text,” as it was later called, “soon became, as it were, stereotyped in men’s minds; so that the readings originally edited on most insufficient manuscript authority, were supposed to possess some prescriptive right, just as if … an apostle had been the compositor” (Tregelles).

When a marginal note becomes the text

Towards the end of his Apology against Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples (English translation in Collected Works of Erasmus vol. 83; here if you have institutional access), Erasmus criticizes his friend for not understanding the need of doing textual criticism. What struck me more than anything is the example Erasmus gave for why textual criticism is necessary. Here is the relevant paragraph:

Another thing which is constant in your examinations is that whatever your Greek manuscript had in it, you ascribe unhesitatingly to Paul, as though Greek manuscripts do not sometimes vary, or are never corrupt, when I myself discovered in a particularly fine manuscript copy the following words written in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians: δεόμενοι ἡμῶν τὴν Χάριν καὶ τὴν κοινωνίαν τῆς διακονίας τῆς εἰς τοὺς ἁγίους δέξασθαι ἡμᾶς· ἐν πολλοῖς τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὕτως εὕρηται, καὶ οὐ καθὼς ἠλπίσαμεν. What we have here, of course, is a case of several words being transferred by an illiterate scribe from the margin to the body of the text. In order to make this clearer to those who do not know Greek, I shall translate as follows: 'Asking that we receive the gift and the fellowship of the ministering to the saints; in many manuscript copies appears the following: "and not as we hoped"' It is clear that the words 'in many manuscript copies appears the following' represent someone's marginal annotation. It is risky, therefore, to place immediate trust in your manuscript and to make pronouncements before examining all the manuscripts. (trans. Howard Jones; CWE 83, p. 105)

[Note: there's something there to be said about trusting God's Word as it is, ontologically, as opposed to trusting our access to it through our copies and translations (or trusting that our access is always and in every place equal to what it is, ontologically) but that's another discussion.]

I wondered if this manuscript was still known. A footnote (the annotations for this Apology were written by Guy Bedouelle) says that this manuscript is "MS Greek suppl 2 of the National Library in Vienna, loaned to Erasmus by the monastery of Corsendonck, near Turnhout," and it refers the reader to ASD IX-3 193:2567n. That refers to ordo 9 (=IX), tome 3 of the Amsterdam edition of Erasmus' works, page 193, and specifically, the note that corresponds to line 2567. Conveniently, that volume is available through open access, here. A little lower on p. 193 for the note corresponding to lines 2569-2572 (continuing on to p. 195) of ASD IX-3, we read:

The Greek manuscript to which Erasmus is referring is minuscule 3 of the Greek New Testament, now in Vienna, National Library, Gr. supp1. 52. It contains the four Gospels, Acts, the Catholic Epistles and Paul's Epistles. It belonged once to a convent at Corsendonck near Turnhout and was lent to Erasmus for his second edition in 1519, as he testifies on the first leaf; see F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Cambridge 1883, p. 179; C.R. Gregory, Textkritik des Neuen Testaments, Leipzig, 1900, p. 128. Cf. J.J. Wetstenius, ed., Nouum Testamentum Graecum, Amsterdam, 1751-2, II, p. 197 and H.J. de Jonge, ASD IX, 2, p. 191, n.l. 461.

It still exists! It's minuscule 3, dated to the 12th cent. The note is at 2 Cor. 8:5. The variant seems to be the presence or absence of δέξασθαι ἡμᾶς (I checked the NA28 and Swanson), which occurs before the words ἐν πολλοῖς τῶν ἀντιγράφων οὕτως εὕρηται. Let's have a look:

https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/community/modules/papyri/?site=INTF&image=30003/449299/8110/10/5673

Someone (Erasmus?) has underlined the words in the manuscript, but there it is: the marginal note that became the text. The Comma Johanneum (at 1 John 5:7–8) almost certainly came into the text this way, and it's always good to find specific examples of this type of thing happening. The more we know, the better equipped we are to catch scribal error.

For more on reader's notes, see:

Erasmus’ Letter to Maarten van Dorp (1515)

I’ve been reading Erasmus lately.

Erasmus, according to Wikipedia

In 1514, Erasmus’ friend Maarten van Dorp in Leuven had written a public letter to Erasmus (published as Ep. 304 in the Collected Works of Erasmus, vol. 3) which touched on In Praise of Folly, Erasmus’ edition of Jerome, and his work on the New Testament. Erasmus responded with a public letter back to Dorp (Ep. 337), which he wrote from Antwerp in 1515. I wanted to quote some of the parts of their correspondence about Erasmus’ New Testament here, but bear in mind that at this point, it was still a work in progress. Still, word gets around, and Dorp had some concerns.

Dorp suggests that it might be dangerous for Erasmus to presume to mess with the received text of the Vulgate:

DORP: “For it is not reasonable that the whole church, which has always used this edition and still both approves and uses it, should for all these centuries have been wrong. Nor is it probable that all those holy Fathers should have been deceived, and all those saintly men who relied on this version when deciding the most difficult questions in general councils, defending and expounding the faith, and publishing canons to which even kings submitted their civil power.” (CWE 3, p. 21)

It interested me as well to see that Dorp touched on the idea of certainty when it came to Erasmus’ work:

DORP: “And how can you be sure you have lighted on correct copies, assuming that in fact you have found several, however readily I may grant that the Greeks may possess some copies which are correct?” (CWE 3, p. 21, emphasis mine)

Looking back, we can see that Erasmus was not deterred by these questions; he would go on to publish his New Testament in five editions.

Erasmus also distinguishes between what is Scripture ontologically and what are the copies of Scripture that we receive, even ‘we’ on a broad scale (i.e. the church):

ERASMUS: “You think it wrong to weaken in any way the hold of something accepted by the agreement of so many centuries and so many synods. ... For no one asserts that there is any falsehood in Holy Scripture (which you also suggested), nor has the whole question on which Jerome came to grips with Augustine anything at all to do with the matter. But one thing the facts cry out, and it can be clear, as they say, even to a blind man, that often through the translator’s clumsiness or inattention the Greek has been wrongly rendered; often the true and genuine reading has been corrupted by ignorant scribes, which we see happen every day, or altered by scribes who are half-taught and half-asleep. Which man encourages falsehood more, he who corrects and restores these passages, or he who would rather see an error added than removed?” (CWE 3, pp. 133, 134, emphasis mine)

Erasmus then talks about his critics. He doesn’t name names, but he does poke at what he thinks are likely motives for some of the criticism of his work on the New Testament text:

ERASMUS: “These are the men who do not like to see a text corrected, for it may look as though there were something they did not know. It is they who try to stop me with the authority of imaginary synods; they who build up this great threat to the Christian faith; they who cry ‘the Church is in danger’ (and no doubt support her with their own shoulders, which would be better employed in propping a dung-cart) and spread suchlike rumours among the ignorant and superstitious mob; for the said mob takes them for great divines, and they wish to lose none of this reputation. ... St Augustine, that very great man and a bishop as well, had no objection to learning from a year-old child. But the kind of people we are dealing with would rather produce utter confusion than risk appearing to be ignorant of any detail that forms part of perfect knowledge, though I see nothing here that much affects the genuineness of our Christian faith. If it were essential to the faith, that would be all the more reason for working hard at it.” (CWE 3, p. 136)

Erasmus goes on, but I will stop here. He’s worth reading if you have the time and want to know more about the history of the New Testament text.

[Note: I wrote this post on Sept. 30th but scheduled it to post on Oct. 6th in order to space out the content here.]

Melchior Sessa’s 1538 Greek New Testament online

It was once extremely rare; in 1941, Hatch knew of only 7 copies in the world.

I found one online yesterday at Google Books. Maybe this is old news to you, but it's new to me, and I was excited to find it.

According to Grantley McDonald, “The Basel printer Johannes Bebelius produced three editions (1524, 1531, 1535), based largely on Erasmus’ third edition … Bebelius’ third edition formed the basis of Johannes Valderus’ edition (Basel, 1536), which in turn served as parent for that of Melchior Sessa (Venice, 1538).” (Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe, pp. 56–57)

It’s also fun that this edition of the Greek NT has a cat on the title page. That should make some people happy.

Enjoy!

Luther’s Marginalia on Erasmus’s NT Annotationes

For those interested in such things, the University of Groningen has a very nice digital version of Martin Luther’s personal copy of Erasmus’s Annotationes. Elsewhere, Luther says, “At first it was a good book, although he [Erasmus] is often devious in it.” That gives you a flavor for the marginalia too. The online edition nicely catalogues the marginal comments and gives transcriptions by Arnoud Visser. For helpful context, see Visser’s chapter in the FS for Anthony Grafton.

Luther’s marginal response to Erasmus’s hope that his reader is kind to him: “I am not a kind reader and you are a not a kind writer”

A claim that Jesus was a woman(!) and other things I’ve read about recently

Now that I’ve got your attention with my shamelessly clickbaity title, I mention below some observations from my recent reading. But the titular claim is not the only thing I could have used as clickbait! Below are discussions on a manuscript that contains the Comma Johanneum, facsimiles of the Chester Beatty papyri, and even a romance novel inspired by a manuscript!

1. Andrew J. Brown on Codex 61

Part of my job at CSNTM has been purchasing books for our physical library. One group of books that I have been eager to acquire is the four volumes of Andrew J. Brown’s edition of Erasmus’ text in the Amsterdam series, Opera Omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami (ASD VI-1 through ASD VI-4). ASD VI-1 has not been published yet, but I was especially excited to get ASD VI-4 for CSNTM. This volume covers Erasmus’ editions of 1 Timothy–Hebrew, the Catholic Epistles, and Revelation. Brown’s editions are really remarkable. Take ASD VI-4, for example: Opening the 698-page book at random, you’ll see on average about 1/4 of the two-page opening given to Erasmus’ Greek and Latin texts and 3/4 to Brown’s notes. These notes cover textual variations among Erasmus’s editions, textual variants in the manuscripts he would have had access to and even Brown’s own text-critical observations. I even updated my post about textual commentaries to include Brown’s editions there.

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.

The Greek Manuscripts of the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7–8)

Warning: long post because there’s a lot of detail here.

Although it is one of the easiest text-critical decisions, a lot of attention often goes to the Comma Johanneum (henceforth, CJ), the addition at 1 John 5:7–8 (addition in italics): “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:7-8 KJV).” A lot of people who take a textus receptus position vigorously defend the CJ because of its theological value. This was actually one of my first tastes of the implications of textual criticism—I was doing evangelism with my John MacArthur NKJV Study Bible back when I was much younger and found this amazing verse that ‘proves’ the Trinity, until my friend told me I couldn’t use it because it wasn’t original to 1 John but not to worry because there was ample proof of the Trinity elsewhere in Scripture. As it turns out, a mere appeal to 1 John 5:7–8 without also having a Trinitarian interpretation of the passage does not automatically ‘prove’ the Trinity, because Oneness Pentecostals (=a branch of Pentecostalism that denies the Trinity) who use the KJV also appeal to this passage as a proof of their anti-Trinitarian doctrine—they claim that the phrase “and these three are one” teaches their “oneness” doctrine (a great example here).

The Tyndale House Greek New Testament gives special treatment to the CJ by breaking its normal pattern of citing very few witnesses, and in the last few days, I decided to examine each of the Greek manuscripts that contain some form of the CJ to learn a bit more about each of them. The following are some of my findings. There are 10 Greek manuscripts that have the CJ, but only three of them have it in the same form as in Stephanus’ 1550 edition and Scrivener’s edition reprinted by the TBS—these three are 221marg, 2318 and 2473. All ten of these manuscripts are indexed for 1 John 5:7–8 at the INTF’s VMR, so you are free to verify them yourself. Regarding scribes and manuscript acquisition histories/provenance, I got all of that information from a combination of catalogues of manuscripts in those libraries (see the short bibliography at the end of this post) and shelfmarks/information given at the online Liste.

Before I get there, I want to mention that sometimes an eleventh Greek manuscript is cited. GA 635 is sometimes cited as having the CJ in the margin, but it does not.

GA 635 

I can’t make out all the words, but I’m seeing το πν(ευμ)α το αγιο(ν) και ο π(ατ)ηρ (και)...the rest is more difficult. αιματος? It’s probably an obvious solution, and I’m happy to update the post if someone has a better image or can make more sense of it. There are a number of notes like this in the margins of 635, and there isn’t room for the whole CJ here anyway, so I didn’t want to spend too much time on it.

More on Erasmus and Codex Montfortianus

Matthew in Montfortianus (per Wikipedia)

Last week I posted about the myth that Codex Montfortianus (GA 61) was made-to-order in response to a challenge by Erasmus to include it if even a single Greek manuscript could be found that had it. However, our excellent ETC commenters noted that, while it is true that Erasmus did not throw down such a gauntlet, it may still be true the Codex Montfortianus was made in response to his omission of the Comma Johanneum in his first two editions. Others, such as Tregelles, have indeed thought so.

In response, I quoted the opinion of Grantley McDonald, whose recent book on the Comma is extremely well executed (see my review).

Given the incomplete evidence, it is impossible to know why the scribe of Montfortianus altered his Greek text in so many places to conform to the Latin Vulgate. At several points throughout the manuscript, this scribe added variant readings from Erasmus’ 1516 New Testament in the margins. These variant readings are written in a slightly different ink and with different pens from that used for the body text, which may suggest that they were added later, perhaps days, perhaps years. It is clear that the scribe had access to Erasmus’ 1516 edition before relinquishing possession of the manuscript. It is less certain whether he copied it in direct reaction to Erasmus’ work. (pp. 32–33)

He goes on to cite Tregelles’s opinion. But McDonald thinks Tregelles is too confident since we might expect more readings in it that support Lee’s criticisms of Erasmus’ edition if it really was made to order.

Yesterday, however, I realized that in the thesis version of McDonald’s work, he seems a little more confident than in the published version that it was made for Erasmus. Here is what he says there, at the beginning of a detailed section on Montfortianius that is not included in the published book:

Further evidence allows us to date the manuscript quite firmly to the early sixteenth century. An examination of the textual variants in Codex Montfortianus has revealed that it was copied largely from manuscripts written in the second half of the fifteenth century, most of which were only gathered in one place after 1502; these data provide a terminus post quem for the copying of Montfortianus. It seems that Montfortianus also contains readings taken from Erasmus’ 1516 New Testament. The notion that Montfortianus was copied specifically to strong-arm Erasmus into including the comma—a suspicion hitherto based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence—thus becomes more plausible. (p. 315)

In the published version, he is less confident, but still open to the suggestion, writing, in a section not in his thesis:

Until the manuscript can be dated more precisely than the current estimate (c. 1500–1520), it is difficult to know for certain whether the scribe intended to influence Erasmus’ editorial choices. But that a recent Greek manuscript containing the comma—one of only two in the world—should have appeared in the homeland of Erasmus’ critic Lee, and should have been presented to Erasmus at the moment when it might make a difference, can certainly be described as a remarkable coincidence. (p. 33)

For my take, it still seems like a bit much to copy an entire NT manuscript just to influence Erasmus on one verse. But I certainly can’t say that this couldn’t have been part of the motivation. We may never know, but I thought I should give a bit more of McDonald’s own view given his expertise.

As a final note, any aspiring PhDs out there should note not only the quality of the content of McDonald’s thesis but also its typography and formatting. Something to aspire to.

Putting to Rest an Old Canard about Erasmus

Among text critics, it’s fairly well known that no Greek manuscript was ever produced to order for Erasmus that included the long form of 1 John 5.7. But given that the story is still found in the standard textbook and that it works as such a great illustration, it continues to be perpetuated among students of the New Testament. Here is the text of Metzger-Ehrman (p. 146):

In an unguarded moment, Erasmus may have promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length, such a copy was found—or was made to order! As it now appears, the Greek manuscript had probably been written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate. 

Thankfully, Metzger and Ehrman do cite the work of Henk J. de Jonge who found no such promise from Erasmus but did find a text that seems to have been misread as such. The story of the Comma from the time of the printing press is now told in a remarkably detailed account by one of de Jonge’s students. It’s worth thinking about why this particular canard appeals to us so much. Why are we so easily taken by it? In any case, here is a letter from de Jonge to Michael Maynard on the matter:
From Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate over 1 John 5,7–8: A Tracing of the Longevity of the Comma Johanneum, with Evalutations of Arguments Against Its Authenticity. Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995.

Articles on Textual Criticism

It’s hard to keep up with everything that’s published even in one’s own discipline these days. At any rate, here are a few articles I’ve read recently. Feel free to let us know in the comments what I’ve missed or what you’re reading (or writing).

Jonge, Hank Jan de. “Erasmus’ Novum Testamentum of 1519.” NovT 61, no. 1 (2019): 1–25.

Abstract. Erasmus’ Novum Testamentum of 1519 is an improved and enlarged edition of his Novum Instrumentum of 1516. The chief component remained his new version of the NT in more cultivated Latin than that of the Vulgate. But the 1519 edition also includes several Greek paratexts not yet printed in 1516. This article discusses the Greek witnesses which were used for the new edition and points out Greek and Latin readings in which it differs from 1516. The importance of the 1519 Novum Testamentum is that it constitutes the consolidation of Erasmus’ humanistic programme for promoting the study of the NT as an essentially philological discipline. The work is Erasmus’ self-confident vindication of this programme against advocates of the Vulgate and scholastic theology.

As to be expected from de Jonge, this is a well-informed look at Erasmus’s second edition with plenty of good info on the first edition and how the second differed.

Miller, Jeff. “Breaking the Rules: Lectio Brevior Potior and New Testament Textual Criticism.” BT 70, no. 1 (2019): 82–93.

Abstract. Though the principle regarding a preference for the shorter reading is often still included in descriptions of text-critical method, it has fallen out of use. The maxim lectio brevior potior (“prefer the shorter reading”) should not be, and in fact is not, a factor in the modern practice of New Testament textual criticism. This article briefly states reasons for the maxim’s inapplicability and then surveys a large amount of contemporary text-critical and exegetical literature to demonstrate the maxim’s demise.

I’m not convinced that lectio brevior is actually dead, but I am convinced that it should be.

Johnson, Nathan C. “Living, Active, Elusive: Toward a Theology of Textual Criticism.” Journal of Reformed Theology 12, no. 2 (2018): 83–102.

Abstract. Although the doctrine of scripture is central to systematic theology, one aspect of Christian scripture is rarely engaged, namely, the ongoing presence of textual variants. And although the reconstruction of the earliest form of Christian scripture is the primary object of textual criticism, text critics have rarely given a theological rationale for their discipline. Across the disciplinary divide, this essay attempts a rapprochement. For systematic theology, the essay underscores the challenges of the variable, fluid text that is Christian scripture. For textual criticism, it calls attention to two useful theological concepts and retrieves the bivalent reading strategies of two premodern scholars, Origen and Augustine, who artfully blended theology and nascent textual criticism.

This one isn’t as recent as the others, but, having mentioned my excitement about Dirk’s chapter on theology in his new book, I was reminded of this article from Nathan Johnson that I read last year. In the end, I’m not convinced that “bivalence” is the way forward but it’s refreshing to see serious theological reflection on TC happening at this level. This article probably deserves its own blog post really.

Text Critical Papers at HBU’s 2016 Theology Conference

Mentioned earlier on the blog, HBU’s annual theology conference is happening next weekend. There are lots of text critical papers given this year’s theme of “Erasmus’ Bible and the Impact of Scripture.” If you’re in the area, don’t miss it. What could be better than textual criticism and Texas BBQ?

Here are some of the papers on offer:

• Timothy George “Erasmus and the Search for the Christian Life”
• Craig A. Evans “Erasmus and the Beginnings of Textual Fundamentalism”
• Gregory Barnhill and Natalie Webb – “Tolle Lege: Reader’s Aids and Nomina Sacra in Early Christian Manuscripts”
• Stanley Helton – “Origen and the Endings of Mark’s Gospel”
• Jeff Cate – “Martin Luther and the Reliability of the NT Manuscript Tradition”
• Jeffrey T. Riddle – “John Calvin and Text Criticism”
• Michael Whiting – “‘A Boy that Driveth the plough Shall Know More of the Scriptures than Thou’: The Perspicuity of Scripture and the Role of Prologues and Marginal Glosses in the Translations of Martin Luther and William Tyndale”
• Laura Manzo – “The Septuagint’s Function in the Formation of Biblical Canons”
• John O. Soden – “In Defense of Biblical Humanism for Bible Translation: Erasmus and the Greek”
• Daniel J. Pfeiffer – “Narrative in the Textual Tradition: An Assessment of Scribal Changes”
• Stratton L. Ladewig – “New Images Bring Greater Clarity: Examples of Improved Textual Identity CSNTM’s P45 images”
• Daniel B. Wallace “Erasmus and the Publication of the First Greek New Testament”
• Herman Selderhuis “The Impact of Erasmus’ Biblical Work on the Reformation”
• David S. Ritsema – “The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel (John 20:30-31): A Fresh Look at the Implications for Grammatical, Syntactical, and Textual Critical Problems”
• Robert D. Marcello – “Significant Contributions to the Text of the New Testament and Early Church from the National Library of Greece”

Full schedule here. (HT: DBW)

Ad Fontes, Ad Futura: Erasmus’ Bible and the Impact of Scripture

The weather probably isn’t too bad in February.

Another conference ETC readers might be interested in.

February 25-27, 2016
Houston Baptist University

In celebration of upcoming 500th anniversary of Erasmus’ Greek text and the Reformation, the Department of Theology at HBU, in conjunction with the Dunham Bible Museum, is pleased to host the conference Ad Fontes, Ad Futura: Erasmus’ Bible and the Impact of Scripture. The conference will consider the textual and historical issues surrounding the development of the Bible, the Bible’s impact on human society across the centuries, and the future of Biblical translation and interpretation in the future. Our keynote speakers include Craig Evans (Houston Baptist University), Timothy George (Beeson Divinity School, Samford University), Herman Selderhuis (Theological University Apeldoorn) and Daniel Wallace (Dallas Theological Seminary). The plenary talks are free and open to the public.

We also invite proposals for short papers from scholars and graduate students from a wide array of disciplines and topics, including:

• The historical context, and textual tradition, of the Biblical canon;
• The history of the Greek text of the Bible;
• The social and/or cultural impact of the Bible in any historical period or location;
• The Bible and the history of the book;
• Modern Bible translations and translation practice;
• Textual and cultural issues concerning the Bible in the Digital Age.

Anyone who is interested should submit a 300 word abstract on any relevant topic. Papers should be 20 minutes long, and decisions will be announced before January 8, 2016. Send proposals to Jason Maston at jmaston@hbu.edu. [I can’t find a submission deadline. Submissions are due by Dec. 9.]

HT: Jason Maston

New articles

Brice C. Jones, ‘The Bodmer ‘Miscellaneous’ Codex and the Crosby-Schøyen Codex MS 193: A New Proposal’ JGRChJ 8 (2011).
Generally useful survey. The new proposal would seem to be that we should think of these as composite codices, lacking any thematic coherence.

Don Barker, ‘The Dating of New Testament Papyri’ NTS 57 (2011), 571-582.
This looks like the publication of Don’s paper from last year’s SBL conference. Abstract:

The narrow dating of some of the early New Testament papyri and the methodological approach that is used must be brought into question in the light of the acknowledged difficulties with palaeographical dating and especially the use of assigned dated literary papyri. The thesis of this paper is that the way forward in dating New Testament papyri, or for that matter any undated literary papyri, is first to locate the manuscript in its graphic stream and using, on the whole, dated documentary papyri belonging to the same stream, come to an approximate understanding of where in the history of the stream the manuscript lies. The following New Testament Papyri will be so treated: P⁵², P⁶⁷+ and P⁴⁶.

Some interesting new articles and reviews over at TC journal:
Deena E. Grant, Reinterpretation of Scripture in Hymn to the Creator
Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman, Isaiah 44:5: Textual Criticism and Other Arguments
Jan Krans, Erasmus and the Text of Revelation 22:19: A Critique of Thomas Holland’s Crowned With Glory

A. J. Brown on 2879 and L2436 in NovT: The Gospel Commentary of Theophylact and a Neglected Manuscript in Oxford

Among the articles in the new issue of Novum Testamentum, Andrew J. Brown’s piece on “The Gospel Commentary of Theophylact and a Neglected Manuscript in Oxford” attracts our attention. The abstract reads:

“A notable manuscript of Theophylact’s commentary on the Gospels, formerly owned by William Grocyn and Thomas Linacre, has belonged to Corpus Christi College, Oxford, for 470 years. The same volume also contains two leaves from a Gospel lectionary. Long overlooked by textual critics, this codex has at last attained its place as Greek New Testament minuscule 2879 and lectionary 2436. In editing the Greek New Testament text from 1514 onwards, Erasmus made considerable use of Theophylact manuscripts at Basle, whereby the work of Theophylact became a major ingredient in the formation of the Textus Receptus. There remains a need for a reliable critical edition of Theophylact’s commentaries.”

Heide's 5th edition

The 5th edition of Martin Heide's Der einzig wahre Bibeltext? Erasmus von Rotterdam und die Frage nach dem Urtext (VTR: Hamburg, 2006) has appeared. Martin is probably the most linguistically competent of our bloggers. In this book he treats the origin of the textus receptus and writes extensively on a whole range of textual issues. Further details are available here.