A Fourth-Century Witness Excluded from NA28

The other day I was looking at the textual variation in 1 Peter 5:7 between ἐπιρίψαντες an ἐπιρίψατε: “... casting/cast all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you.”

Now if one compares the apparatus of NA28 to NA27, the likely attestation of επιριψατε – (the imperative like in 1175 and Augustine) in 0206 has been removed from the apparatus. Apparently, in the ECM of 1 Peter, 0206 is cited for either επιριψατε/επιρριψατε. 

 

I was very surprised to learn that 0206, a fourth-century uncial (which may be dated even earlier, as proposed by Don Barker who thinks that it may be as early as the late second century) is not included in NA28. As the apparatus stands now, minuscule 1175 is the only attesting Greek witness. In my opinion, it is significant that 0206 almost certainly support this reading (seventh line in the image below where you see -ΨΑΤΕΕΠΑΥ). I hope it will be reinstated in NA29!

 

 

A Myth/Mistake about the ESV

The ESV was not translated from the NA28, and the reading at Jude 5 is not an example of the ESV adopting the reading of the NA28.

(That’s the correct version, not the myth—just to be clear.)

I’ve seen this one several times before and was once even accused of bearing false witness against the ESV Translation Committee for saying that they did not translate the ESV from the NA28. The text-critical question is who saved the people out of Egypt? The UBS5/NA28/ECM/THGNT have “Jesus” (Ἰησοῦς), and the UBS4/NA27/Tommy Wasserman have “Lord” (κύριος). There is more to the variation unit than just that substitution, but that is the part I want to focus on here.

Before I get to why that is a myth, I’d like to acknowledge why I think I’ve seen it so much.

If you check the preface to the ESV, the “Textual Basis and Resources” section says the following:

The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (5th ed., 1997), and on the Greek text in the 2014 editions of the Greek New Testament (5th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (28th ed., 2012), edited by Nestle and Aland. ... Similarly, in a few difficult cases in the New Testament, the ESV has followed a Greek text different from the text given preference in the UBS/Nestle-Aland 28th edition. Throughout, the translation team has benefited greatly from the massive textual resources that have become readily available recently, from new insights into biblical laws and culture, and from current advances in Hebrew and Greek lexicography and grammatical understanding.

That is both in the online version and in recent (at least since 2016) print versions.

Furthermore, if you check Jude 5 in the ESV, we see that it translates the reading adopted in the NA28 and the Tyndale House GNT:

Source: https://www.esv.org/Jude/

Those two things are enough to make someone think that the ESV is simply following the NA28 here.

However, there is more to the story.

I attach below images from my own copy of the 2001 ESV, which I’ve had since college. Here are pictures of the copyright page (to show that it is the 2001 edition), the “Textual Basis” section from the preface, the text of Jude 5 and the text-critical footnote for Jude 5.

ESV 2001 Copyright page

ESV 2001 Textual Basis

ESV 2001 Jude 5

ESV 2001 Jude 5 text-critical footnote

Now, assuming I’m not bearing false witness with these photos (I promise I am not, but of course, that’s exactly what someone who was bearing false witness would say, so please do find an ESV 2001 and check it yourself rather than take my word for it), here we have the reading adopted by the NA28, Ἰησοῦς (against κύριος in the NA27 and in Tommy Wasserman’s Epistle of Jude: Its Text and Transmission).

The thing to remember here is that Ἰησοῦς was adopted by the ESV Committee eleven years before the NA28 was published. The 2001 ESV was also published four years before the publication of Installment 4 of the text (2–3 John, Jude) of the ECM1 Catholic Epistles (2005), which also adopted Ἰησοῦς before the NA28 (2012) or the ECM2 of the Catholic Epistles (2013). Unless Wayne Grudem is a Time Lord, this demonstrates that the ESV did not get the Ἰησοῦς reading from the NA28. Instead, the ESV Committee broke from the NA27’s main text at Jude 5 and adopted the Ἰησοῦς reading from the NA27 apparatus—just like they said they occasionally did in the preface—and coincidentally Ἰησοῦς was also adopted (a few years later) as the main text in the ECM/NA28.

That leaves one important question though: Why does the current ESV say that it was translated from the NA28/UBS5? From here, I can only speculate. I did ask this question to someone who is on the ESV translation committee (back when I was accused of bearing false witness—I do try to check myself believe it or not, because I’ve been wrong before), and unfortunately he said he was not on the committee in the beginning when it was first translated. If I remember his answer correctly, he said the process was something like “ok we’re going to meet to translate” and everyone brought whichever editions of the original languages he used. My suspicion is that when the ESV was updated, someone simply updated the ‘editions used’ to whatever was current—which became the NA28 and the UBS5. The textual difference is not huge, and given that the ESV never stuck slavishly to the NA27/UBS4 in the first place, it probably seemed reasonable at the time. Indeed, I imagine when the committee has met since, committee members probably brought their copies of the NA28/UBS5.

Update for clarification (29 Sept. 2021): I did not, nor have I ever suggested that the translators of the ESV lied about which editions they use. Lying is intentionally saying something false. As I said above, changing the preface from NA27 to NA28 "probably seemed reasonable at the time," because I suspect the translators simply brought the editions they typically used when they met, and since they admitted that they were not bound to follow those editions at every point of variation anyway, it was sufficiently accurate for their purposes to say they used the NA edition, the most recent of which became the NA28.

As a final thought: there is something to the notion that fundamentally textual critics are not in control of what’s in people’s Bibles—translation committees are. We can rave about/rail against the CBGM all day long, but the only way it will ever change the text of a Bible translation is if a translation committee follows the textual decisions that the CBGM was used to make.

Collation of NA28 and THGNT

The introduction at the back of the THGNT teases us by noting a collation done with NA28, but gives little more detail. That’s why it’s very helpful that Hefin Jones has shared a computer collation of NA28 with THGNT on Facebook. He says, “Caveat emptor: It’s automatically generated. There will be some curious items in there.” From there, Nelson Hsieh, a doctoral student at Southern Seminary, expands:

Thanks for producing this. I’m using Accordance for my own collation as well, but adding a lot more. Some problems with the Accordance collation vs. what I’m producing:

1. Accordance can mark accentuation and punctuation differences, but you turned those features off since it would produce thousands of more differences. I’m not sure what font size you used, but when I created a collation that includes punctuation and accentuation, the collation came out to 522 pages vs. the 94 pages you collated. I can’t get mine to look just like yours, so it might be less than 522 pages, but it will still be much longer if you add accents and punctuation. I’ve looked at the accentuation differences and it does become significant, for example, with liquid verbs, where the difference between the present and future tense is just accentuation, an acute vs. a circumflex accent (see Rom 2:16; 8:34; 1 Cor 3:14). And punctuation differences become significant, for example, with questions (see Matt 6:31; Mark 7:18-19; 8:18; Rom 11:24; 1 Thess 2:19; Heb 2:2-3; 9:13-14; 2 Pet 3:11-12; 1 John 4:20). Or check out John 1:3b-4 as well on the placement of a period.
2. The Accordance collation does not do a good job handling word order differences. Take a look at what the collation produces at, for example, Matt 14:4; 15:30; 22:43; Eph 6:8; 2 Tim 1:10; Heb 3:13 vs. the textual differences themselves. Writing out the variant in context allows you to see that it is a word order difference. It’s hard to identify and compare word order differences in the Accordance collation.
3. The Accordance collation cannot compare paragraphing/macro-structural differences. See, for example, John 1:1-18, the so-called “Prologue” of John. Peter Williams, co-editor of the THGNT, wrote an article, “Not the Prologue of John,” JSNT 33, no. 4 (2011): 375-86, where he argues that 1:1-18 is not really a prologue based on how ancient MSS structured the text, which informed paragraphing choices for the THGNT in John 1:1-18. THGNT has a paragraph beginning at v. 18 (not v. 19 like in NA28) and that paragraph continues until v. 20.
4. The Accordance collation cannot compare certainty levels, esp. important in the Catholic letters with the 43 diamond readings from the ECM. My collation will compare certainty levels and include UBS ratings.
5. The Accordance collation cannot compare the apparatuses of the THGNT vs. NA28 and their use of vid. in the citation of MSS. This is one area where the THGNT apparatus is better than the NA28 apparatus. THGNT is more transparent and will use vid. and transcribe the variant in MSS where the NA28 does not use vid., which gives the impression that the reading in the MSS is clear (compare apparatuses in Matt 5:22; 10:2; 13:40; James 4:9; 1 Pet 3:1).
6. Somehow the Accordance collation completely misses the significant variant in John 1:18. It just notes that THGNT has the article and NA28 lacks it. But the real variant is: ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (THGNT) vs. μονογενὴς θεός (NA28). Although Dirk Jongkind told me at SBL that he regrets the textual decision here and would like to change it. But this example shows that Accordance can make mistakes and not display important variants in a meaningful way. I’ve linked to a PDF below to compare and contrast what kind of collation I am producing vs. what Accordance produces. Not every variant will be that detailed in my collation, but I will be listing witnesses (so you can evaluate quickly, for example, where 01, 03, and Majority Text stand) and I will describe the issues, so that you can search for every instance of differences in word order, verbal aspect, verbal voice, verbal mood, liquid verbs, adding the article, particle, conjunction, etc.
7. Overall, the Accordance collation can give you a big picture sense of differences, but you still need a human to categorize the differences, pick out the more significant differences, provide some context for each difference, and summarize the results. I’m presenting my paper comparing the THGNT vs. NA28 at SBL Midwest regional on Feb 7-9, so I’ll post a draft around that time. I’ve also attached a PDF of my collation for Hebrews to give you an example of what I’m working on. Bold Scripture references mean I think they are significant differences. 

On another post, Nelson says this:

I’m working on a full collation of textual differences, differences in certainty levels (esp. for the Catholic Letters), and differences in orthography for the SBL Midwest regional meeting. I’ve collated most of Paul, Hebrews, about 1/3 of the gospels, all the catholic letters. I’ve got 16 pages so far and expect the textual differences to reach maybe 35+ pages. I think the total number of textual differences (excluding orthography) could reach up to 500 differences or more. For example, I found 50 textual differences just in Matthew. But most differences will be minor. Here are 11 bullet points to summarize the differences between the THGNT and the NA28: (1) the most significant textual differences (from my perspective) are Matt 19:9; 27:16; John 1:18 (although Jongkind told me he regrets the textual decision here); Rom 5:1; Eph 5:22; 1 Pet 4:16; 2 Pet 3:10; Jude 22. Less significant (but still grammatically or theologically interesting) are Matt 17:9; 27:24; Rom 8:11; 1 Cor 2:1; Gal 5:21; Col 4:8; 1 Thess 2:7; 2 Thess 2:13; Heb 9:11; 11:11, 37; 1 John 2:20. (2) On different accentuation of liquid verbs (creating the present vs. the future tense), see Rom 2:16; 8:34; 1 Cor 3:14. (3) On different punctuation of questions, see Matt 6:31; Mark 7:18-19; 8:18; Rom 11:24; 1 Thess 2:19; Heb 2:2-3; 9:13-14; 2 Pet 3:11-12. 

And he continues with more detail from there.

Thanks to both for sharing these. They are both very helpful.

The Text of Acts - Differences between Tyndale House Edition, ECM, and NA28

[warning: long post, you may want to skip to the conclusion at the end]

A little while ago I posted an analysis of all differencesbetween the NA28 and the Editio Critica Maior of Acts. I have now made a comparison between the Tyndale House Edition and the ECM, not knowing what I would find. Since the ECM and the Tyndale House Edition were prepared at the same time without knowledge of one another, it is also interesting to see how close they are to NA28.

I have kept things simple and will not comment on the 152 places where ECM-Acts gives a split guidance. Since the THGNT does not do split guidance (though it has diamonds in the apparatus), all these places can be counted as differences in a maximalist view. In each of the two and three-way splits the THGNT has one of the options of the ECM. This time I have also ignored brackets in the NA28 text, so as not to drown this overview with too many categories. I have noted brackets in NA28 and diamonds in the apparatus of the THGNT, though with no claim of being complete. I hope the tables are exhaustive, but improvements are always welcome.

1        THGNT and ECM Differ; NA28 Agrees with Neither

There is one place where each of the three versions has a different text:

Acts	THGNT	ECM	NA28
18:7	Omit  (with ♦ for Τίτου)	Τίτου	Τιτίου

This variant concerns the tricky business of the name of the man who owned the house next door to the synagogue. The ECM includes the singular omission by Alexandrinus of the preceding ονοματι in the variant unit, which, I think, distorts the way the external evidence is read. Together with D-05 this is the earliest evidence for just Justus, amply supported by the Byzantine tradition. The main transcriptional issue is whether the -τι  of ονοματι  was read as standing for the name ‘Titus’ or not (which in Latin would be abbreviated as ‘Ti.’).

2        THGNT and ECM Differ; NA28 Agrees with ECM

A much bigger group is formed by places where the THGNT (having started with Tregelles) disagrees with both ECM (which presumably started with NA28) and NA28. 

Some of the differences in the list are orthographic, yet they are ‘unusual’ orthographic variants—there are many other orthographic differences not listed here. I found the following 40 instances:

Acts	THGNT	ECM	NA28
1.11	βλέποντες	ἐμβλέποντες	[ἐμ]βλέποντες
2:31	ἅδου (with ♦)	ᾅδην	ᾅδην
4:9	σέσωσται	σέσωται	σέσωται
4:22	εγεγόνει	γεγόνει	γεγόνει
4:37	παρά	πρός	πρός
6:3	οὖν	δέ	δέ
7:11	εὕρισκον	ηὕρισκον	ηὕρισκον
7.13	Αὐτοῦ	Τοῦ Ἰωσήφ	[τοῦ] Ἰωσήφ
7:31	ἐθαύμασεν	ἐθαύμαζεν	ἐθαύμαζεν
7:43	Ῥεφάν	Ῥαιφάν	Ῥαιφάν
7:51	ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν	καρδίαις	καρδίαις
8:18	τὸ ἅγιον (with ♦)	omit	omit
10:11	δεδεμένον καί	omit	omit
10:19b	ζητοῦσιν (with ♦)	ζητοῦντες	ζητοῦντες
11.23	τοῦ θεοῦ	τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ	[τὴν] τοῦ θεοῦ
12:6	προσαγαγεῖν	προαγαγεῖν	προαγαγεῖν
13:6	βαρϊησοῦς	βαριησοῦ	βαριησοῦ
13.14	ἐλθόντες	εἰσελθόντες	[εἰσ]ελθόντες
13.31	Εἰσιν (with ♦)	Εἰσιν νῦν	Εἰσιν [νῦν]
14:8	ἐν Λύστροις ἀδύνατος	ἀδύνατος ἐν Λύστροις	ἀδύνατος ἐν Λύστροις
15:4	Ἱεροσόλυμα	Ἰερουσαλήμ	Ἰερουσαλήμ
15:25	ἐκλεξαμένους (with ♦)	ἐκλεξαμένοις	ἐκλεξαμένοις
16.28	Παῦλος	ὁ Παῦλος	[ὁ] Παῦλος
16:40	ἐκ (with ♦)	ἀπό	ἀπό
17.22	Παῦλος (with ♦)	Παῦλος	[ὁ] Παῦλος
20:4	ἄχρι τῆς Ἀσίας (with ♦)	Omit	Omit
20:28	κυρίου (with ♦)	θεοῦ	θεοῦ
20:30	ἑαυτῶν	αὐτῶν	αὐτῶν
21:5	ἐξαρτίσαι ἡμᾶς	ἡμᾶς ἐξαρτίσαι	ἡμᾶς ἐξαρτίσαι
21:6	ἐνέβημεν	ἀνέβημεν	ἀνέβημεν
22:8	πρὸς ἐμέ	πρός με	πρός με
22:13	πρὸς ἐμέ	πρός με	πρός με
22:26	ἑκατόνταρχος	ἑκατοντάρχης	ἑκατοντάρχης
23:20	μέλλων	μέλλον	μέλλον
23:22	πρὸς ἐμέ	πρός με	πρός με
25:10	ἠδίκηκα (with ♦)	ἠδίκησα	ἠδίκησα
26:1	ὑπέρ	περί	περί
26:29	κἀγώ	καὶ ἐγώ	καὶ ἐγώ
27:8	Λασέα	Λασαία	Λασαία
27:16	Κλαῦδα	Καῦδα	Καῦδα

A few remarks. Contrary to ECM, I do not think 15:4 is an orthographic variant. There is quite some literature on the differences between Ιερουσαλημ and Ιεροσολυμα and variation between these two is surprisingly rare.

Perhaps one of the bigger differences is 20:28. Hurtado has a study (Texts and Artefacts, chapter 4) showing that this is one of a string of variants between κυριος and θεος in Acts. It is only here that the THGNT and the ECM have a difference of opinion.

The only variant where a whole phrase is at stake is at 20:4. Normally I would be inclined to go with the earliest evidence and omit ἄχρι τῆς Ἀσίας. However, there is a narrative difficulty that puts pressure on this phrase, and that is that in 20:16 we learn that Paul had no intention of spending time in Asia. At this point in 20:4, the journey has not reached Troas yet. That makes the insertion of this phrase difficult to explain. In addition, with the phrase there are two references to Asia if we count the noun Ἀσιανοί further down. It is a tight call though.

3        THGNT and ECM Differ; NA28 Agrees with THGNT

The group of readings where ECM has changed NA28 but has not been followed by THGNT consists of the following 25 readings.

Acts	THGNT	ECM	NA28
1:10	ἐσθήσεσι λευκαῖς	ἐσθήτι λευκῃ	ἐσθήσεσιν λευκαῖς
1:26	αὐτοῖς	αὐτῶν	αὐτοῖς
2:3	καὶ ἐκάθισεν (with ♦)	ἐκάθισέν τε	καὶ ἐκάθισεν
2:20a	-	ἥ before ἐλθεῖν	-
2:20b	ἡμέραν	τὴν ἡμέραν	ἡμέραν
4:4	ὡς	ὡσεί	[ὡς]
5:26	ἦγεν	ἤγαγεν	ἦγεν
5:33	ἐβούλοντο	ἐβουλεύοντο	ἐβούλοντο
7:25	ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ (with ♦)	ἀδελφούς	ἀδελφοὺς [αὐτοῦ]
8:31	ὁδηγήσει	ὁδηγήση	ὁδηγήσει
9:8	οὐδέν	οὐδένα	οὐδέν
9:12a	ἐν ὁράματι	omit	[ἐν ὁράματι]
10:9	ἐκείνων	αὐτῶν	ἐκείνων
13:11b	ἔπεσεν	ἐπέπεσεν	ἔπεσεν
13:33	αὐτῶν	omit	[αὐτῶν]
14:10	Φωνῇ	τῇ φωνῇ	Φωνῇ
15:37	τόν Ἰωάννην	Ἰωάννην	τόν Ἰωάννην
16:13	ἐνομιζομεν προσευχήν	ἐνομιζετο προσευχή	ἐνομιζομεν προσευχήν
16:17	κατακολουθοῦσα	κατακολουθήσασα	κατακολουθοῦσα
19:14	τινος	τινες	τινος
20:21	Ἰησοῦν	Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν	Ἰησοῦν
23:5	ὅτι	omit	ὅτι
23:10	γινομένης	γενομένης	γινομένης
23.23	Τινὰς δύο	Δύο τινὰς	[τινὰς] δύο
28:5	ἀποτινάξας	ἀποτιναξάμενος	ἀποτινάξας

An interesting choice was made by ECM at 9:8 to prefer οὐδένα over οὐδέν. To me, οὐδένα before ἔβλεπεν shows clear influence of μηδένα θεωροῦντες in the previous verse, so that this is just a simple harmonisation to the immediate context.

Perhaps the most ‘controversial’ reading in this table is 13:33, where ECM has a ‘conjecture’ (according to the Commentary). Frankly, I am not sure if this is a true conjecture. It is only so if we accept the variation unit as given in ECM. However it may well be that the question of τέκνοις αὐτῶν and the presence/absence of ὑμῖν should be dealt with separately.

4        THGNT and NA28 Differ; THGNT and ECM Agree

There is one final list to produce so that we can make a three-way comparison between THGNT, ECM, and NA28, and that is the list where THGNT and ECM agree in their deviation from NA28. I have found 27 of these.

Acts	THGNT	ECM	NA28
1:15	ὡς	ὡς	ὡσεί
2:5	ἐν	ἐν	εἰς
2:33	-	-	[καί]
3:13a	-	-	[ὁ θεός]2
3:13b	-	-	[ὁ θεός]3
5:31	-	-	[τοῦ]
7:7	δουλεύσωσιν	δουλεύσωσιν	δουλεύσουσιν
7:22	-	-	[ἐν]
9:12b	-	-	[τάς]
9:21	ἐν	ἐν	εἰς
10:40	-	-	[ἐν]
11:22	-	-	[διελθεῖν]
12:11	-	-	[ὁ]
14:3	-	-	[ἐπί]
15:4	ὑπό	ὐπό	ἀπό
15:17	ὁ	ὁ	-
15:41	-	-	[τήν]
16:11	οὖν	οὖν	δέ
16:12[1]	πρώτη τῆς μερίδος	πρώτη τῆς μερίδος	πρώτη[ς] μερίδος τῆς
16:27	-	-	[τήν]
16:28	φωνῇ μεγάλῃ	φωνῇ μεγάλῇ	μεγάλῃ φωνῇ
19:15	-	-	[μέν]
20:5	προσελθόντες	προσελθόντες	προελθόντες
20:6	οὗ	οὗ	ὅπου
25:18	πονηράν	πονηράν	πονηρῶν
27:8	ἧν πόλις	ἧν πόλις	πόλις ἧν
27:23	-	-	[ἐγώ]

In the list of differences between ECM and NA28 the following is given as one variant, though I have split it up into a word order variant and the issue of the article before Paul, the latter is included above under section 2.

Acts	NA28	ECM	THGNT
16:28	μεγάλῃ φωνῇ [ὁ]	φωνῇ μεγάλῇ ὁ	φωνῇ μεγάλῃ

Interestingly, in over half of the differences between ECM and NA28 (27 out of 52) the THGNT agrees with the ECM.

5        Conclusion

[drum roll]

Time for one last table, the number of differences between THGNT, ECM, and NA28.

By ignoring all the brackets in NA28 and all the split readings in ECM, I have followed the same procedure as the list given in ECM-Acts I, 34*–35* where the differences between ECM-Acts and NA28 are found. That list gave 52 differences, besides the 152 split guidance readings. ECM-Acts and THGNT differ 76 times (section 1 + 2 + 3). And the total number of differences between THGNT and NA28 is 68 (section 1 + 2 + 4). There are orthographica included in the list, but the THGNT has many further differences as to iota subscript, -ει- for -ι-, and unassimilated prepositions that are not part of the comparison.

Number of differences	THGNT	ECM	NA28
THGNT		76	68
ECM	76		52
NA28	68	52

In terms of the percentages as used in the CBGM, the differences are fairly minimal. The text of Vaticanus, the witness most closely aligned with the ECM text, is recorded as agreeing in 6997 out of 7250 variant units, 96.51%. If we assume that 7250 is about the maximum number for any complete witness, then THGNT agrees with ECM in 7174 out of 7250, which is 98.95%.

Looking over the various lists quickly, it is surprising how few ‘big’ differences there are between the three editions. This is unlike some variants in the gospels. The tables above show that (unless one has a preference for the Textus Receptus, Codex Bezae, or the Byzantine text) there isn’t that much at stake in Acts.

---

[1] The reading of NA28 is given incorrectly in ECM, which omitted the final τῆς of NA28.