Important Changes in ECM Revelation

The ECM Revelation came out last year and its changes will be included in the new UBS6/NA29. It’s the newest ECM volume to affect these hand editions. Having now spent some time with the edition, and having gone through all the listed changes, I thought I would give a brief report on them for the benefit of those who don’t have access to the print edition.

In all, the edition made 84 changes to the text of NA28 and now has 106 places with a split guiding line. These are places where the editors couldn’t decide between two readings (it is always two) and they are further marked by a diamond in the ECM and in the UBS/NA editions. 

You could roughly compare this to the 35 places in NA28 that used square brackets to mark text the editors weren’t completely convinced was original. In 9 places, the ECM has a split line that matches bracketed text from NA28. In 8 places they adopted the text in brackets (now without brackets) while in 15 places, they now prefer the omission of the bracketed text. (NB: the ECM list of textual changes misses the bracket in Rev 12.12/5.) 

All this means that there is quite a bit more editorial uncertainty in the ECM Revelation than there is in the NA28. Most of the split lines are not of great exegetical import. Sometimes you look at the two readings and wonder why the decision was so hard. It could be something about Revelation or could it be a result of the Rev editorial board being split between two institutions. I don’t know.

One thing that is certainly more robust in this volume is the textual commentary. It runs to over 170 pages! (All in German.) Some discussions span four or five pages. One new feature is that the comments are given labels to mark whether the variation is important for the printed history of Revelation, for the style of Revelation, its textual history, etc. The “SEM” label marks 48 variants of “semantic relevance.” Here are their addresses and the readings in question per the commentary:

1. 1,3/4-12 a/b
2. 1,5/48-52 a/d
3. 1,13/12-16 a/b
4. 1,15/20 a/c
5. 2,7/52-54 a/b
6. 2,9/34-38 a, f
7. 2,13/48 a/d
8. 2,20/17 a/b
9. 3,14/44 a/b
10. 4,3/22 a/b
11. 4,3/30—1,4/2 a/g
12. 4,11/55 a/b
13. 5,10/22 a/b
14. 6,8/40-42 a/c
15. 6,9/47 a/b
16. 6,11/32 a/b
17. 6,14/14 a/b
18. 6,17/18 a/b
19. 9,4/38-40 a/an
20. 11,4/10 a/b
21. 11,12/4 a/b
22. 11,16/12-20 a/b
23. 12,2/9 a/b
24. 12,18/4 a/b
25. 13,3/38-44 a/b/e
26. 13,7/2-22 a/g
27. 13,8/6 a/b
28. 13,10/6-10 a/c/f
29. 13,10/20-30 a/c
30. 13,18/44—48 a bis h
31. 14,4/48 a/b
32. 14,13/32 a/b
33. 14,14/22-28 a/c
34. 14,19/44-54 a
35. 15,3/72 a/b
36. 15,6/30-32
37. 16,5/18-32 a/c/g
38. 17,5/30 a/b
39. 18,2/32-54 a/b/o
40. 19,6/48 a/b
41. 19,13/8 a/b
42. 20,5/1 a/c
43. 20,8/26-32 a/b
44. 21,3/46 a/b
45. 21,6/8-10 a/e
46. 22,14/6-12 a/b
47. 22,21/14-18 a/f
48. 22,21/20 a/c

To give a point of comparison, I counted 44 Revelation variants discussed in Hugh Houghton’s excellent new Textual Commentary for the UBS6. (The two lists overlap, but only a little.)

In addition to the list above, the introduction to the ECM’s textual commentary gives a sample list of changes that are said to be especially relevant to the content of Revelation. I list those here with my summary [followed by my comments]. Text with an asterisk is in the RP2005.

Ref.	Change	Reading(s)	Comments
Rev 1.5	Split line	λύσαντι / λούσαντι*	λούσαντι may reflect early baptismal theology
Rev 1.13	New reading	ὅμοιον ὑιῷ ἀνθρώπου*	Relevant to Christology [I’m not sure I get this one]
Rev 2.13	Split line	ἀντίπας* / ἀντεῖπας	Is it a personal name (Antipas) or a verb? The former has dominated translations in the past. (NB: ECM Mark and Rev do not capitalize proper names.)
Rev 6.17	New reading	αὐτοῦ*	Relevant to Christology since it transfers the day of wrath to Jesus [seems like it does that with the old reading too though]
Rev 12.2	New Reading	Omit καί*	May impact the interpretation of the woman who gives birth [not sure I understand this]
Rev 12.18	Split line	ἐστάθη / ἐστάθην*	Changes who is standing on the shore, John or the dragon
Rev 13.10	New reading	εἴ τις εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν ὑπάγει, εἴ τις ἐν μαχαίρᾳ ἀποκτενεῖ, δεῖ αὐτὸν ἐν μαχαίρᾳ ἀποκτανθῆναι,	A number of options are possible with this new reading. [I think this one is pretty noteworthy.]
Rev 18.3	New reading	πεπτώκασιν*	People have “fallen” rather than “drunk”
Rev 20.5	New reading	Omit οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔζησαν ἄχρι τελεσθῇ τὰ χίλια ἔτη.	A key line about the millennium is omitted [This may be the most significant change to my mind as it removes what has proven to be a very difficult phrase for Amillennialism]
Rev 21.3	Split line	λαοί / λαός*	How many people groups does God dwell with in the New Jerusalem? One, or more?
Rev 21.6	New reading	γέγονα ἐγώ	Introduces an element of “becoming” into God’s self-description [part of the commentary on this change is quite loaded theologically, and I’m a bit more cautious on its significance]
Rev 22.21	New reading	πάντων τῶν ἁγίων. Ἀμήν.*	The request for grace is more strongly related to the church than in NA28 which just reads πάντων here [I agree]

To my mind, the most important change overall is the significant reduction in solecisms and grammatical oddities. I don’t think I saw a single change that resulted in a more difficult grammatial construction. This has real significance for how we think about the Greek of Revelation. But that topic deserves a post in itself. I’ll leave it here for now.

Some Light COVID-19 Reading from Wuppertal

Few texts are more pertinent during a time when paracetamol, hand sanitisers, toilet paper, pasta, and yeast are hopelessly sold out (perhaps never to be seen again on this side of eternity) than the Apocalypse of John.

In this vein, I'd like to bring to everyone's attention a recently published collection of essays Studien zum Text der Apokalypse III (ANTF 51), edited by Marcus Sigismund and Darius Müller, in collaboration with Matthias Geigenfeind. This is the third instalment in a series of studies primarily by internal and external collaborators on the ECM Revelation project housed at the Institut für Septuaginta- und biblische Textforschung at Kirchliche Hochschule Wupperal. In keeping with the previous two volumes, the vol. 3 too is broad in scope and might have just something to lighten up your pandemic-laden days.

Here's the TOC:

TEIL I: ARBEITSBERICHT
Aus der laufenden Arbeit an der ECM der Apokalypse, by Marcus Sigismund

TEIL II: GRIECHISCHE ÜBERLIEFERUNG
Kollation und Auswertung neu zugänglicher Minuskeln der Apokalypse, by Markus Lembke and Darius Müller

Apk-Zitate bei Gregorios Palamas, by Marcus Sigismund

Form und Funktion der Apk-Zitate bei Theodoros Studites, by Marcus Sigismund

TEIL III: VERSIONELLE ÜBERLIEFERUNG
Die Vetus Latina Apocalypsis Iohannis, by Matthias Geigenfeind

The Earliest Attainable Text of Ethiopic Revelation, by Curt Niccum

Die georgische Überlieferung der Johannesapokalypse, by Nino Sakvarelidze

Ein früher Textzeuge der arabischen Johannesoffenbarung, by Martin Heide

Ein Apk-Zitat des Hypatios von Ephesos, by Marcus Sigismund

TEIL IV: PARATEXT
Marginalglossen in GA 2323: Edition und Übersetzung, by Peter Malik and Edmund Gerke

The last essay is, as you may have noticed, co-authored by yours truly, and presents the first fruits of my continuous work on this tradition of scholia. On this particular occasion,  I was happy to team up with Edmund Gerke who concocted a German translation of the scholia and rigorously checked each gloss.

Hernández: 2020 Alexander Thompson Memorial Lecture

Before the coronavirus madness, Juan Hernández Jr. delivered this year’s Rev. Alexander Thompson Memorial Lecture at Princeton Theological Seminary. The lecture is titled “Recovering Revelation’s Forgotten Textual History: Josef Schmid’s Magnum Opus for the Twenty-First Century.” If you’ve already finished Tiger King, you now have something to watch.

Juan also sent this photo and says, “Also, with B.B. Warfield above my left shoulder and a sneering Josef Schmid directly to my right, I had to walk a fine line in talking about the value of historical perspective in the textual criticism of the book of Revelation!”

New Critical Edition of the Harklean Syriac of Revelation

Because it appears in a volume of essays, it might have gone unnoticed that Martin Heide has published his critical edition of Revelation in the Harklean Syriac. I haven’t had time to work through it, but I thought I should at least note it here for others. I did look it over in pre-pub form several years ago and I remember being impressed. It should go along nicely with Ian Beacham’s Birmingham PhD on the Harklean Syriac version of Revelation. As I’ve written before, the Harklean Syriac is fertile soil for understanding the transmission history of the New Testament text.

By my reckoning, it’s about time we put together all the work that’s been done on the Harklean Syriac into a complete Harklean New Testament. It would employ the materials from Barbara Aland and Andreas Juckel on Paul and the large Catholic Letters, the material collated for Acts and the small Catholics for the ECM, Kiraz’s work on the Comparative edition of the Syriac Gospels (with an assist from Yohanna’s edition in Mark), and now Heide’s work on Revelation. Who wants to make this happen?

New Article on Revelation Papyri

P.Oxy. LXVI 4500 (GA 0308) 

By now, many of you will have been tired (or worse) of my yappings about Revelation manuscripts. I’m sorry, I can’t help it and, what doesn’t help matters, the text of Revelation also happens to be the main focus of my day job. Anyway, one of the disadvantages of working extensively on a single manuscript is that it’s easy to lose the sense of wider context—socio-historical, textual, material, etc. I certainly felt this way during my PhD and so, while working through my analyses of P.Beatty I did my best to get acquainted with the wider manuscript tradition, particularly its earliest strata. An off-shoot of these ancillary investigations was an extended seminar paper I gave at the Kirchliche Hochschule Wuppertal in 2016, followed by a much more condensed SBL paper last year. Especially in the latter, I tried to address some socio-historical claims that have been made concerning the papyri* of Revelation (individually and as a group). My main purpose, however, was to bring the evidence under fresh scrutiny and provide a general overview.

I’m happy to report that a revised version of the paper has just been published and I’m told it works magic if you have problems with insomnia: ‘The Greek Text of Revelation in Late Antique Egypt: Materials, Texts, and Social History’, ZAC 22 (2019) 400–21.

*Note that ‘papyri’ here is taken in the broader sense as used by papyrologists, thus including texts written on other materials as well. 

Was P18 a Roll or a Codex? A New Article with Pictures in It!

It’s a well-known feature of the early Christian textual transmission that the vast majority of manuscripts are in codex format. There are a few odd-balls in the mix, one of which is P18 (P.Oxy. VIII 1079; BL Pap. 2053 verso; LDAB 2786), a fragment containing portions of Rev 1.4–7. On the opposite side of the fragment (→), there’s the ending of the book of Exodus, published separately as P.Oxy. VIII 1075 (Rahlfs 909; LDAB 3477).

The presence of an ending of a different work on → led Arthur S. Hunt, the fragment’s principal editor, to conclude that P18 is a re-used roll. And this conclusion had been widely accepted until Brent Nongbri disturbed the status quo with his 2013 article. There, Brent posits that, instead, our fragment is likely to have been once part of a composite codex.

In the course of my investigation into the papyri of Revelation, I ended up revisiting this problem and wrote a little piece, which has been published in the latest issue of NTS (it’s in fact the first issue of the 2019 volume, so perhaps we’re dealing with a bit of realised eschatology, pace Rev 1.19).

For the article, see now ‘P.Oxy. VIII 1079 (P18): Closing on a “Curious” Codex?’, NTS 65 (2019) 94–102.

SNTS Athens Response

Recenty I blogged about the three sessions in the text-critical seminar at the SNTS meeting in Athens which I chaired with Claire Clivaz. On the last day I responded to Juan Hernandez, who has subsequently urged me to post my Powerpoint. I have now uploaded a PDF of my powerpoint for download here if anyone is interested.

Worshipping Weird Things in Rev 14:9

One of the treats of working on the ECM is the sheer exposure to a wide array of manuscripts from a variety of periods. Normally, you’re simply assigned manuscripts you’d be working on, not necessarily on the basis of your preference. Coming from more of a papyrological background myself, I don’t think I would have looked at most manuscripts that I’ve had to deal with over the past 8 months or so. But in most cases it’s been fun and very enriching.

Most recently, I enjoyed working through GA 69, a 15th-century minuscule manuscript housed, of all places, in Leicestershire Record Office, Leicester. (But let us not be derailed by a reference to the city of Sir David Attenborough.) GA 69 is a rare instance of a Greek manuscript that contains the entire New Testament, though with a few lacunae. In Revelation, its text may be broadly classified as belonging to the ‘Koine’ group (siglum 𝔐K) in NA28). As such, then, 69 will yield few surprises if you’re acquainted with this type of text. Until, that is, you get to Rev 14:9.

In this passage, the third angel flying in midheaven pronounces the promise of a bitter drink of the ‘wine of God’s wrath’ to the worshippers of the beast. At least that’s what one would expect based on the their Nestle-Aland text, which (rightly) follows the majority of witnesses in reading το θηριον.
The only variant reading cited NA28 apparatus is offered by Codex Alexandrinus, which, oddly, reads θυσιαστηριον. Thus, the angel pronounces God’s wrath on all the worshippers of the ‘tabernacle and its image’ and those who receives the mark on their foreheads or hands. The reading θυσιαστηριον, as Weiss suggested, is most likely to be a ‘pure scribal error’, possibly occasioned by the phonetic and/or visual similarity (Die Johannes-Apokalypse [TU 7.1; Leipzig, 1891], 60). The closest occurrence of the word is at Rev 14:18, which might be a bit too far to have triggered a harmonisation to the immediate context. Incidentally, Hernández classifies this reading as ‘nonsense in context’ (Scribal Habits [WUNT II.218; Tübingen, 2006], 106), which I could see on exegetical grounds, even though it wouldn’t fly with the ECM where nonsense readings are defined rather more strictly.

But Alexandrinus is not the only manuscript where weird things receive divine honours. In the aforementioned GA 69, we read that the cup of God’s wrath is to be drunk by anyone who worships the ‘cup (ποτηριον) and its image’:

(Note that this reading is not to be found in the apparatus critics of NA28, because 69 is not one of the relatively few ‘consistently cited witnesses’.) Interestingly, 69 slightly re-structures the flow of the sentence too, such that there is a minor break, signified by a raised dot, between the ending of v. 9 and v. 10: ει τις προσκυνει το ποτηριον και την εικονα αυτου, λαμβανει χαραγμα επι του μετωπου, η επι την χειρα αυτου· (punctuation original). Thus, v. 9b outlines the first consequence of worshipping the cup and its image, namely receipt of the mark on the worshipper’s forehead or his hand. V. 10 then adds the unwelcome drink of the wine of the divine wrath.

What may have occasioned this variant reading? Unlike with Alexandrinus, I think here we have really good grounds for a  (probably inadvertent) harmonisation to the immediate context. The closes occurrence of ποτηριον is in v. 10; and I wonder, too, whether the idea of ‘drinking’ in v. 10 couldn’t have reinforced this confusion in the moment of copying. That this is an error and not some sort of clever exegesis or allusion to pagan libations seems clear from the fact that the manuscript has the standard reading θηριον in v. 11.

The ultimate sense of the passage, despite these little oddities in transmission, remains the same, however: whatever the object—be it the beast, the tabernacle, or the cup (which is, by analogy, pertinent during the Olympic season)—it ain’t worth worshipping it!

Book Note: Apocalypse Illuminated

A new book is out which may be of interest to our readers, Apocalypse Illuminated: The Visual Exegesis of Revelation in Medieval Illustrated Manuscripts by Richard K. Emmerson published by Penn State University Press.

A description and preview is available here.

Jim Spinti at PSU Press offers ETC-blog readers a 30% discount with the code RKE18.

Text und Textwert for Revelation

Darius Müller announced the latest (and last) volume of the Text und Textwert a few months back. As users of the ECM know, the TuT volumes are used to determine the most important witnesses cited in the ECM and these are then further reduced for citation in the NA. So for this and other reasons these are important volumes.

Here is Darius’s announcement:

The “Text and Textwert” volume of Revelation is on the way to the printing presses by De Gruyter (ANTF 49).

It will be edited by Markus Lembke, Darius Müller, and Ulrich B. Schmid in connection with Martin Karrer (head of the ECM project of Revelation housed at ISBTF, KiHo Wuppertal/Bethel).

The volume contains both the collation results of the 123 selected test passages of Revelation and the evaluation list of all available Greek manuscripts. Facilities also include a comprehensive introduction in German and Englisch (English translation was done by Garrick V. Allen) as well as six appendices which offer useful additional information to the material.

Details from de Grutyer are here.

Congrats to the team in Wuppertal for reaching this milestone.

Three Interesting Variants at Rev. 2.13 Not in Nestle

While doing some sermon prep last week I came across some interesting variants in Rev. 2.13. The NA28 reads:

οἶδα ποῦ κατοικεῖς, ὅπου ὁ θρόνος τοῦ σατανᾶ, καὶ κρατεῖς τὸ ὄνομά μου καὶ οὐκ ἠρνήσω τὴν πίστιν μου καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἀντιπᾶς ὁ μάρτυς μου ὁ πιστός μου, ὃς ἀπεκτάνθη παρʼ ὑμῖν, ὅπου ὁ σατανᾶς κατοικεῖ. 

I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is. Yet you hold fast my name, and you did not deny my faith even in the days of Antipas my faithful witness, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells. (ESV)

The trickiest part here is grammatical—what should we do with the nominative after ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις when we expect genitives? The commentators will tell you that scribes tried to smooth this by adding αἷς before Ἀντιπᾶς and that’s what we find in the Byzantine text. The syntax still isn’t great since we’re left with a verbless clause, but some have suggested that it is implied.

Others have followed Lachmann’s conjecture of Ἀντιπᾶ (the “proper” genitive of the name) suggesting that the sigma arose from dittography involving the article: αντιπα ο μαρτυϲ → αντιπαο ο μαρτυϲ → αντιπαϲ ο μαρτυϲ. That is one too many steps for my liking though.

Where things get more interesting is in the Syriac. Here is what we find in the British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS) edition which is also the basis for the recent Gorgias edition. I’ve highlighted the main differences with the Greek:

ܝܳܕ݂ܰܥ ܐ̱ܢܳܐ ܐܱܝܟܴ݁ܐ ܥܳܡܰܪܬ݁ ܂ ܐܱܬ݂ܱܪ ܕ݁ܟ݂ܽܘܪܣܝܶܗ ܕ݁ܣܳܛܴܢܳܐ ܂ ܘܰܐܚܺܝܕ݂ ܐܱܢ̄ܬ݁ ܒ݁ܫܶܡܝ ܂ ܘܰܒ݂ܗܰܝܡܳܢܽܘܬ݂ܝ ܠܴܐ ܟ݁ܦ݂ܰܪܬ݁ ܂ ܘܰܒ݂ܝܱ̈ܘܡܳܬ݂ܴܐ ܐܷܬ݂ܚܪܻܝܬ݁ ܘܣܳܗܕܴ݁ܐ ܕܻ݁ܝܠܝ ܂ ܡܗܰܝܡܢܳܐ ܂ ܡܶܛܾܠ ܕ݁ܟ݂ܽܠ ܣܳܗܕܴ݁ܐ ܕܻ݁ܝܠܝ ܡܗܰܝܡܢܳܐ ܂ ܐܱܝܢܳܐ ܕ݁ܡܶܢܟ݂ܽܘܢ ܐܷܬ݂ܩܛܷܠ ܂

I know where you dwell, the place of Satan’s throne, and you hold fast my name, and you did not deny my faith even in the days when you contended, even my faithful witness, because every witness of mine is faithful, the one who was killed among you [omit].

So we have (1) the verb “you contended” substituted for the name “Antipas,” (2) the long addition of the phrase “because every witness of mine is faithful,” and (3) the omission of the final clause “where Satan dwells”—none of which you will find in the NA/UBS editions. You have to go all the way to Hoskier (or at least a footnote in Beale) to find the addition.

The first variant has a good explanation in that Ἀντιπᾶς is sometimes spelled αντειπας and this could be read as an Aorist form of ἀντιλέγω. Hence we get ܚܪܐ in Syriac which means “resist, dispute, contend,” etc. in the ethpeal. Tischendorf tries to explain the Syriac as a translator’s failed attempt to render the name. But explaining it as a different way to read the Greek is much more viable especially because Hoskier lists several Greek minuscules that seem to accent it as the verb (ἀντεἶπας rather than ἀντειπᾶς).

The third variant, the omission of the last phrase, is a bit easier to explain in Syriac than in Greek. In Syriac, it looks like a case of homoioteleuton involving ܐܠܐ at the beginning of v. 14. The phrase is included in the Harklean Syriac manuscripts, so, apparently, it didn’t last long. It’s only attested by two minuscules in Greek perhaps just by accident.

The second variant, the addition, is the most surprising of the three. It is also not unique to the Syriac, being found in over a dozen Greek minuscules. This suggests that the Syriac is not innovating but rather reflecting its Greek Vorlage. In his edition, Gwynn argues the same but still calls the longer reading an “interpolation.” What he doesn’t mention but should have is that its omission has an obvious explanation by way of homoioteleution, the scribe’s eye jumping from πιστός to πιστός (cf. GA 2028).

Rev 2.13 in GA 2028 (15th cent.) showing the longer reading.

What’s important is that the Syriac shows that this reading has much earlier support than the Greek evidence alone would suggest. It goes back at least to AD 616 when the Harklean Syriac was completed and probably earlier since the Crawford MS (the basis for the BFBS and Gorgias editions) likely predates the Harklean. This is thus a good example of late Greek manuscripts preserving much earlier readings. It also illustrates the benefit of keeping an eye on the versions.

None of this made it into the sermon, you’ll be relieved to know. But I wonder if some of these readings shouldn’t make it into the Nestle apparatus. The longer reading in particular belongs there not only for its exegetical significance, but because, at least transcriptionally, it can explain the shorter reading.

Text Critical Papers at BNTC 2015

The Annual Meeting of the British New Testament Society (BNTC) is being held this year at the University of Edinburgh from 3–5 September and there are a number of text critical papers on offer. There are enough, in fact, to make you wonder why there isn’t a dedicated textual criticism section.

Edinburgh always looks like this, right? (photo credit)

I’ve heard that BNTC is much more personable than the circus that can be SBL, so I’m looking forward to attending this year. Perhaps I’ll report on some of these paper if I get a chance. Here’s what’s on offer:

Theological Orthography, Numerical Symbolism, and “Numeri Sacri” in Early New Testament Manuscripts

Zachary Cole (University of Edinburgh)

Abstract: Although much scholarly attention has focused on the Christian scribal practice of the nomina sacra, the reverential abbreviation of divine names, this study explores an analogous phenomenon within early NT manuscripts with respect to theologically significant numbers. In the same way that sacred names could be distinguished by abbreviation, Greek numbers could be and were written in two distinct forms (as longhand words or alphabetic numerals). The aim of this study is to identify patterns and/or examples that suggest numerical symbols ever served a theological, devotional, or mystical function comparable to the nomina sacra. For instance, were alphabetic numerals ever reserved by copyists for special referents? Do any numerical symbols bear a special visual significance over against the longhand words? Recent studies have shown that numerals were indeed used in such ways in Christian documentary papyri from Egypt, especially in private correspondence between churches (such as the cryptic use of 99 to be mean “amen”), but no similar investigation of Christian literary texts has been conducted.
Several examples of possible “numeri sacri” in manuscripts such as P45, P75, and Codex Sinaiticus are examined with support from external testimony of numerological exegesis (patristic and documentary), suggesting that the term “numeri sacri” might be a helpful category. While a handful of numbers might qualify as such, it will be shown that they were never developed into a coherent scribal system in the way that the divine names were. This allows a remarkable comparison between early Christian conceptions of divine names/titles and theologically significant numbers, at least as they were represented in early scribal conventions.

Using the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) to Detect Scribal Habits in the Book of James

Peter Gurry (University of Cambridge)

Abstract: The proper consideration of the types of errors scribes make has been a longstanding aspect of New Testament textual criticism. Designated “transcriptional evidence” by F. J. A. Hort, such evidence is generally taught as a key part of internal evidence. Since the pioneering work of E. C. Colwell and followed recently by James R. Royse and others, the study of such scribal habits has been steadily advanced by careful attention to so-called “singular readings,” that is, readings unique to a single manuscript. One of the conclusions of such study has been a proposed reversal of the principle lectio brevior potior (prefer the shorter reading) since such singular readings show that early scribes tended to omit text more often than they added it. But the use of singular readings has not gone without criticism. In particular, questions have been raised about how representative singular readings are of a scribe’s work and, more importantly, of the tendencies of the textual tradition at large. More recently, the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) has been suggested as an appropriate corrective to the use of singular readings for understanding scribal practices because it identifies possible ancestors for each textual witness. But no concerted effort to apply the CBGM in this way has yet appeared. After offering a short summary of prior research, this study will apply the CBGM to the book of James using the data from the Editio Critica Maior to see what it reveals about the habits of scribes during the first millennium of transmission. The results will be compared with previous conclusions gained from the study of singular readings. In conclusion, I offer some thoughts on the strengths and weaknesses of each method and their implications for the canons of internal criticism.

The Greek Text of Revelation and the Editio Critica Maior

Garrick V. Allen (University of St Andrews)
Darius Müller (Kirchliche Hochschule Wuppertal/Bethel)

Abstract: The Institut für Septuaginta und biblische Textforschung at the Kirchliche Hochschule Wuppertal/Bethel is currently in the process of constructing a new Greek critical edition of the book of Revelation, with the hope that the edition will be available in 2023. The main text of the new edition and a condensed version of its apparatus will eventually become the text printed in the Nestle-Aland edition. This paper serves as a progress report, describing the various stages of the project, demystifying the process of editing an edition, and presenting an overview of the manuscript tradition of Revelation and its various text types. Additionally, we highlight the importance of this long-term project for numerous areas of critical concern in Apocalypse studies, including textual history, exegesis and interpretation, reception history, Byzantine art history, and scribal practices. The Editio Critica Maior project is an almost exclusively German enterprise and we hope to raise awareness of continental Apocalypse research in the Anglophone world.

The Chester Beatty Papyrus of Revelation and its Egyptian Friend: Preliminary Remarks on the Affinities of P47 and the Sahidic

Peter Malik (University of Cambridge)

Abstract: In his seminal work on the textual history of Revelation, Josef Schmid focused primarily on the Greek witnesses, amongst which he identified four distinct textual groupings: A C, P47 ℵ, Andreas and Koine. Versional support was cited only sporadically, and only to the extent it appeared in then available critical editions. Even so, Schmid remarked that, among other witnesses, the P47 ℵ group is followed by both Coptic versions. This relationship, however, has never been analysed or even confirmed. Recent research into P47 has identified various peculiar agreements with the Sahidic version, agreements which necessitated further investigation. The present paper aims to outline basic methodological issues as well as preliminary results of such investigation.

The Apocalypse Project (Wuppertal)

I am pleased to announce the latest major inquiry into the text of the Greek New Testament. At the beginning of this month, a team based at the Kirchliche Hochschule Wuppertal-Bethel has started work on an Editio Critica Major of the book of Revelation in partnership with the INTF-directed Editio Critica Maior series. The Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Fund) has funded the initiative. Martin Karrer is the primary investigator. Ulrich Schmid is playing a leading role in deploying the latest relevant technological innovations. The project will progress in three phases with a completed edition hopefully after approximately ten years.
At least two from our blogroll will be active in the project. For the next two and a half years, I will be editing the Sahidic text of the Apocalypse. In a year, Martin Heide will begin creating an edition of the Syriac. I am fortunate to be able to conduct my research in Münster, which is a world center for Coptology as well as New Testament textual criticism. My colleagues at the INTF have repeatedly surpassed my expectations with their kindness and Gastfreundschaft! ...not to mention patience for my rudimentary German.
In coming months, I will say a bit more about the project. I am excited that Alin Suciu has discover a new fragment of the Sahidic Apocalypse which he has also identified as deriving from the same codex as other already-known leaves.

Sinaiticus as a Commentary on John's Apocalyse?

Sinaiticus as a Commentary on John's Apocalyse?

That's the issue raised at the Sinaiticus conference by Juan Hernández Jr. (Bethel University, St. Paul). Juan has been educating us about the text of John's Revelation for 3 or 4 years now. In this paper, he writes, "[The Apocalypse in Codex Sinaiticus] exhibits dozens of differences at key points, reflecting the concerns...of its earliest copyists and readers. Taken as a whole, Sinaiticus' text of Revelation may constitute one of our earliest Christian commentaries on the book..., anticipating the later concerns of Oecumenius and Andrew of Caesarea." He qualifies this claim to an extent, but reinforces it by concluding "[W]e can discern a concerted effort to elucidate the Apocalypse's message by scores of changes throughout."

Juan states that Sinaiticus differs substantially from modern critical editions. It is difficult to evaluate this claim without seeing the differences relative to other manuscripts. Could we say the same about any witness to Revelation? Which mss come closer to NA27? Compared with NA27, Juan cites Sinaiticus as having 182 additions and 389 omissions, with 207 word losses. Juxtaposing this data with the same data of other mss would help ascertain how substantially different Sinaiticus is from NA27, and whether the scribe of Sinaiticus really did make a concerted effort to alter the text.

As part of his thesis that the scribe of Sinaiticus deliberately altered the text, Juan argues that there is a number of theologically motivated variants: Jesus is the beginning of the church, not the beginning of creation (Rev 3:14); Jesus does not vomit (avoidance of base bodily functions, 3:16); both God and the Lamb are ascribed the blessings, honor and "glory of the Almighty" (instead of "and the power," 5:13); Jesus summons Jezebel, rather than throwing her (2:22); Jesus himself opens the door rather than any man (3:20).

Someone remarked that it might be significant that the corrector fixed all these variants (except the last one, involving the mere change of an eta to an omega.). If the corrector corrected these before it left the scriptorium or some time while the Christological issues were raging, then perhaps the charge that scribes deliberately altered texts for theological reasons is somewhat mitigated.

One also must ask if theological motivation really is the cause of alteration; perhaps, as might be the case with 3:20, the change was accidental, rather than arising from "intelligent design" (P.J. Williams' terminology). Moreover, as Tommy Wasserman argued in his SBL Rome paper in regard to theologically motivated alteration, one should ask if a given scribe was consistent in altering texts before ascribing motivation; Tommy demonstrated that this was not the case with many of Bart Ehrman's passages, and one wonders the same for Sinaiticus in Revelation.

Less spectactorily, Juan gave a helpful list of orthographical variations, nonsense readings, grammatical and contextual alterations, dittographic and haplographic reeadings, singular readings, etc. There was also an interesting list of alterations, possibly from liturgical interference.

Lacking expertise in many of these issues, I withhold judgment, except to say that it is a rather spectacular claim that the text of Sinaiticus reflects a "concerted effort" in its transmission history to improve "the Apocalypse's message" by incorporating "scores of changes throughout."

The Prologue of Revelation in the Syriac Text

In reading the latest issue of JETS the article by John Noe includes a reference (derived from James M. MacDonald) to the “Syriac version of the Bible” which apparently entitles Revelation as “The Revelation which was made by God to John the evangelist on the island of Patmos, into which he was thrown by Nero Caesar.” Is this peculiar to one particular ms or is it widespread? It would provide evidence that some in the Syriac church dated Revelation to the 60s.

The prologue to Revelation includes up to 60 different wordings (cited by H.C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse: Collations of All Existing GreekDocuments [1929], 25-27). I think the TR includes a reference to “John the Theologian” and 1775 includes the longest description: “The Revelation of the all-glorious Evangelist, bosom-friend [of Jesus], virgin, beloved to Christ, John the theologian, son of Salome and Zebedee, but adopted son of Mary the Mother of God, and Son of Thunder” -- that’s quite an introduction!

Interesting stuff!