Scribal Harmonisation as clue to Religious Identity?

Back in 2008 I noted the following:

elsewhere in this conference we have debated the question as to whether the scribes of early Christian manuscripts were Christians or not. The singular readings and scribal habits could contribute to this debate. Royse, for example, argues that the scribe of P66 is certainly a Christian (J.R. Royse, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri (NTTSD 36; Leiden: Brill, 2008, 501); on the basis of the harmonisations to parallel passages elsewhere in the NT (as well as the use of nomina sacra and the staurogram). This could be extended similarly to the other papyri discussed here: P45 has harmonisations to parallels in other (canonical) gospels 8 times in the singular readings; P46 has harmonisations to the LXX (2X), and from 1 Cor 11.24a to the parallel gospel text of the words of institution (Matt 26.26); P47 has a harmonization to Luke 4.33 at Rev 14.15; P72 has 7 harmonisations to remote parallels (in Col, Heb, Rev etc.); P75 has 5 singular readings which harmonise the text to remote (NT) parallels. This data suggests that the scribes have a general awareness of other NT texts, which suggests they were probably active participants in the life of the church.

(From Juan Hernández Jr, Peter M. Head, Dirk Jongkind, and James R. Royse, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri: Papers from the 2008 SBL Panel Review Session)

Has anyone been thinking about this?

SBL Boston, Book Review of James Royse Scribal Habits in Early Greek NT Papyri, pt. 7

This is my last post of the series on the SBL 2008 book review session SBL24-129 in which James Royse's recent monograph Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri (NTTSD 36; Brill, 2008) was reviewed. The series concludes with Royse's response to Dirk Jongkind. For earlier posts in this series, see below.




Royse responds to Jongkind

Finally, Dirk Jongkind:

Jongkind has pointed to some specific features that could bear improvement. Some of his points are matters of style and presentation, and I am probably not the best judge of what is good or bad there. But I would like to respond briefly on a couple of points.

First, let me confess that I like footnotes. In the works of others, footnotes are often among my favorite parts. And, for what it is worth, some of my favorite parts of this book are in the footnotes. During the writing, as I pursued various paths of enquiry, I often thought of the comment of Herman Melville in Billy Budd (Chapter 4): “In this matter of writing, resolve as one may to keep to the main road, some bypaths have an enticement not readily to be withstood.” Of course, I may have given in too often to such enticement, and perhaps for the sake of clarity and explanation I should have cited Melville’s comment in a footnote.

Second, as already noted, Jongkind wonders about the value of the summaries. But let me say something about Jongkind’s particular example of a scribal habit: “that a transposition can be explained best by assuming that initially the scribe forgot a word, noticed this, and inserted it somewhat belatedly at the first possible opportunity.” This does seem to me to be an important point (although I would replace “forgot” by “omitted”), and I believe that one can often see this habit at work in various manuscripts. Perhaps I should have emphasized it more. But it does not seem to me to be “hidden in the commentary” (as Jongkind says). It is mentioned in the text in the discussion of the transpositions of each of the six papyri. And at each of those places there are—dare I say?—footnotes that will lead the reader down a bypath to find in Supplementary Note 9 (pp. 755–56) that this observation was made by Colwell and even earlier by Havet, Hoskier, and others. Of course, more could have been said. Perhaps some day I will say more on this topic, but in the meantime I encourage others to investigate this tendency in these six papyri and in other manuscripts. Many other tendencies deserve more extended treatment. After all, I attempted only a “partial fulfillment” (as I say on p. 101) of the goal of a commentary on the singular readings of these papyri.

Third, I appreciate Jongkind’s comments on my use (or lack thereof) of the interesting and important essay by Junack. And I will concede that more could have been done with this issue of whether a scribe is copying by letters, by syllables, by words, or by some larger units. I appealed to the distinction as made by Colwell on occasion, but did not collect systematic data or attempt to draw the data together into some overall perspective. I would encourage others to do so. However, I would say that (a) my chief interest was “about the type of errors we find,” and that (b) trying to say anything more seems to me to run the risk of attempting to gain insight into the psychology of the scribe. And this latter task is very difficult, to say the least. I believe that we can see that a scribe tends to omit syllables, let us say, and that that “type of error” can inform our evaluation of the scribe’s readings. I would hesitate to say much more. However, at least one could attempt to determine what general patterns there are with respect to letters, syllables, and so on, in a scribe’s errors. And my own attempts there were not systematic.

Fourth, with respect to Jongkind’s discussion of isolated textual traditions, let me say that, in my opinion, the primary purpose of studying the scribal habits of manuscripts is to sharpen or revise our analysis of readings. This happens on different levels. At the first level, we can hope to find that a particular manuscript displays specific tendencies in its errors, and we can then use those tendencies in our assessment of the value of that manuscript at some particular variation unit. For example, if we find (as I believe we do) that P46 tends to omit portions of the text by a leap from the same to the same, then P46’s support for a reading that can be so explained may be, to that extent, discounted. That is, we will find it more likely that P46 created that shorter reading, and thus less likely that that shorter reading goes back to the exemplar of P46. For such an inquiry the singular readings provide, I believe, the best evidence for the scribe’s tendencies. And then at the second level, we can hope to generalize on the tendencies found in specific witnesses. That is what happens in the canons of internal criticism. If we find (as I believe we do) that scribes in general tend to omit portions of the text by a leap from the same to the same, then we may reject readings that could have arisen in such a way. Now, my general point about isolated traditions was that, for such purposes, whether we have the work of one scribe or the combined work of several scribes is irrelevant for the assessment of readings.

However, I completely agree with Jongkind’s summary comment that it is much more likely that we do not have such “complex scribes” in the New Testament tradition. In fact, though, Jongkind’s work on Codex Sinaiticus (pp. 144–47) provides one apparent example in the Septuagint: we have there a passage from 1 Chronicles, namely 9:27–19:17, inserted into 2 Esdras. Jongkind notes that this insertion is unique to Codex Sinaiticus, but that there is no sign of correction. What he then (reasonably enough, as it seems to me) infers is that the exemplar of Codex Sinaiticus (i.e., the exemplar at this point of the Septuagint) had the same insertion, and was used for both the initial transcription and the earliest stage of correcting activity. If this is so, we can see a little isolated tradition, consisting of that exemplar and Codex Sinaiticus. But, as Jongkind notes, the textual evidence for 1 Chronicles is comparatively weak, as Brooke and McLean cite only 25 manuscripts. And certainly the breadth and complexity of the manuscript tradition of the New Testament make such isolated traditions much less likely.

Fifth, I turn to Jongkind’s discussion of the shorter reading. Here of course I did attempt to integrate the results for the six papyri, and to say something about the implications those results have for the canon of preferring the shorter reading. Jongkind is correct in reminding us that Griesbach’s first canon is a much more nuanced, and much more complicated, piece of advice than the principle of simply preferring the shorter reading. Indeed, I suspect that the nuances and the complications are precisely what have caused it to be replaced in many subsequent lists of canons by simpler and more direct principles. That is, perhaps everyone will agree with Hort that “scribes were moved by a much greater variety of impulse than is usually supposed” (cited in chapter 1, footnote 35). Nevertheless, having a canon of criticism that tells us that scribes do this, and also that, and then sometimes something else except when they are doing some other thing, true as it may be, may not really provide much guidance in choosing among readings.

Ultimately, editors of the text and most critics of the text want to make choices of some kind or other. And for that purpose simple, direct principles are the most useful. For example: “Prefer the reading of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.” “Prefer the reading that is not harmonized.” “Prefer the shorter reading.” Those are the sorts of principles that inform most modern texts. Indeed, we have on record in Metzger’s Textual Commentary the principles used to construct, or at least to justify, our current “standard” text in Nestle-Aland. And we see there nothing like Griesbach’s first canon. Moreover, it is not all that often that one sees even in the totality of discussion of a variation unit such disparate points that Griesbach combines. Of course, most variation units receive no discussion at all. But the ones that do often involve the conflict of two or three principles. The shorter reading is not supported by B and א and friends, or the reading of B and א agrees with a parallel. Under those circumstances the editors have to balance principles. But if one has to balance the sorts of things that Griesbach tries to balance in his first canon, one may give up in despair at ever reaching a decision. (Of course, such considerations do not show that Griesbach’s canon is false.)

Finally, I should note that Jongkind’s own study of Codex Sinaiticus has provided yet further evidence that early scribes tended to omit rather than to add. This adds to my conviction that the preference for the shorter reading is fundamentally mistaken. And I wonder if there is, or really ever was, any evidence at all that scribes tended to add. In any case, there is increasing evidence, from the work of Hernández on Revelation, of Head on the early less extensive papyri, and of Jongkind on Codex Sinaiticus, that omission was more common than addition, and thus that the scribal tendency underlying the preference for the shorter reading is illusory.

Of course, we have here an overall tendency. Within that tendency there may still be plenty of additions, as we see in these six papyri, which could account for Jongkind’s observation that “traditions tend to grow over the course of centuries” (p. 4). Also, the text may have been affected not only by the changes introduced by scribes but also, as Jongkind notes, by the efforts of revisers, redactors, and editors. As extreme examples, we may think of the ways that Matthew and Luke, at least on the two-document hypothesis, handled the text of Mark. Clearly, their overall tendency was to expand. But that tendency to expand did not prevent Matthew and Luke from omitting on occasion, as at Mark 1:32, where each adopts one clause of a redundancy in Mark, or Mark 4:26–29, the parable of the seed growing secretly, where each of Matthew and Luke chooses to omit the passage entirely. Now, I would not wish to define precisely the difference between copying activity and editorial activity, although, like other things, we usually know them when we see them. And thus we distinguish the scribe of P46 or P66 from Matthew or Luke or Origen. But within the transmission of the New Testament (or the Septuagint or the Masoretic Text) there are many factors at work, and surely we cannot expect to explain the complications that we find by appeal to anything other than complex, sometimes conflicting, tendencies. However, despite such qualifications, I believe the evidence strongly supports the view that early scribes of the New Testament tended to shorten the text. And that is, if not the entire story, at least an important part of the story.

Again, I thank all of the panelists for their insightful and stimulating remarks.

Earlier posts in this series:

Part 1: Juan Hernández' presentation

Part 2: Royse responds to Hernández

Parts 3-4: Haines-Eitzen's review and Royse's response

Part 5: Peter Head's review and Royse's response

Part 6: Dirk Jongkind's review

SBL Boston, Book Review of James Royse Scribal Habits in Early Greek NT Papyri, pt. 4-5

SBL24-129 New Testament Textual Criticism

The next reviewer was no other than Peter Head

First he explained why he had accepted the honour of an invitation to review the book:

(1) "I had interacted with James Royse’s ThD in my first academic publication (Head, 1990) as well as subsequently (Head, 2004, 2008) – and these are actually discussed on pp. 720ff" [I missed the first reason (Pete might fill in) - Pete just did]
(2) "I met Dr. Royse at SBL meetings;"
(3) "I saw the price of the book and saw the chance for a free copy."

Then Head excused for his own delay sending his review to Royse. But he noted to his comfort Royse's delay of 27 years between the dissertation and the monograph (see also the apology in the preface).

Head had done a "redactional study" of the two works. He concluded that there is three times as much material in the monograph. Where, then, have things stayed the same? – Most significantly, the summary conclusions are practically identical. The general conclusions stand. Especially the challenge to the traditional canon to prefer the shorter reading.

What has been expanded? Head notes that the papyri are treated a bit more like artefacts (not just like reservoir of readings), relating to Haines-Eitzen’s urge.

Royse has written a small monograph of each one of the papyri! Head focused the rest of his discussion on the study on P66. There are 129 singular readings indicated in the 1981 work. In the book 128 singular readings are listed. Hence, we lost one singular reading, which is found on p. 487 (John 12:12; the evidence of Codex Koridethi has been revised). On p. 408 Royse discusses John 18:47 which could potentially provide an additional singular, but after discussing the ink etc Royse decides to follow the editio princeps.

Colwell concluded that the scribe was careless (wildness in copying). By contrast Royse thinks the scribe was rather careful to render a literal version of his Vorlage (the scribe was responsible for the changes!). Head is not convinced that we must choose either to follow Colwell who studied P66* or Royse who based his characterization on P66c. It is a matter of who corrected, and against what Vorlage. [PMH: both phases are very important as illustrating scribal habits/behaviour.] Royse thinks the scribe has a tendency to omit.

Royse is rather critical of the treatment of corrections in the International Greek New Testament Project volume on the papyri of John. In no case does the IGNTP make clear what happened! The editors only offer their opinion of what was the original and what is the correction. Royse thinks it is certain that the scribe of P66 was Christian (harmonization to other parts of NT; curious use of nomina sacra and staurogram - this could be extended to other papyri as well; e.g., P45, P46, P47, P72 and P75 with harmonizations to other books).

[Head also noted an important general issue: "Royse is attempting to revise the traditional canons – developed on the basis of medieval manuscripts and generalizations about scribal habits from them – on the basis of singular readings in the early papyri; which by definition made no impact on the wider scribal and textual tradition – on this question I think we still need to do some more thinking. Scribal habits determined on the basis of singular readings do I think (cf. Jongkind) reveal something about scribal behaviour, but may be no so clearly about the general tendency of the textual tradition."]

Finally, Head appreciates the transparency, which is easy to follow, i.e., what exactly did the scribe do? The book has been produced on a PC. Head congratulated the author, the series editors and the publishers on such a splendid piece of book production. [TW: should we interpret this ironically; is Pete a Mac freak like me? PMH: not at all. I was commenting on the interesting fact that this beautifully produced book, produced using Nota Bene on a PC, was a revision of a dissertation written on an IBM Selectric typewriter]. Head made it his mission to find a typo, but could not detect one until 401 note 14 “P46” should have been “P66.” [I also noted "one moment of unclarity (page XVII para 2)"]

Royse responds

Next, Peter M. Head:
All of the speakers have remarked upon the history of this work, its first appearance as a dissertation, and then its second appearance in the present form. But Head has given most attention to the continuities and changes, and seems better able than I am to describe what has happened. Certainly, as I revised and expanded the dissertation I was well aware that there were some dangers in the expansion, and that perceptive readers (such as our panelists), trained to detect layers of textual accretion, would be able to see that the material from 1981 did not always flow smoothly into the material from 2006, as both Jongkind and Head on occasion note. I am honored that Head has given such careful attention to the development of this work.

Also, his decision to look at the work on P66 in more detail reflects my own understanding of the importance of that manuscript. Particularly the study of the some 465 corrections seems to me to shed much light on the nature of copying a New Testament book around the year 200. Although I devoted a great deal of time to an analysis of those corrections, crucially aided by the studies of Gordon Fee and Errol Rhodes and many other scholars, I suspect that there is yet much to be discovered. What is especially interesting is that in P66, as also in P46 and again some 150 years later in Codex Sinaiticus, the extensive corrections preserve in one manuscript several layers of textual change that can, at least in theory, reveal much about what was happening to the text during the early period. Of course, the challenge is to organize what lies in such layers in a perspicuous manner.

I mention a few points very briefly. In his note 5 Head wonders about my decision to confine attention to singulars in A occurring in the first two chapters in Revelation; I chose the first two chapters for examination simply in order not to digress too much, and my point there was a very limited one. Naturally, a wider and more thorough investigation, as we now have in Hernández’s work, Scribal Habits and Theological Influences in the Apocalypse: The Singular Readings of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi, is much to be welcomed.

With respect to Head’s finding “one moment of unclarity” at p. xvii, second paragraph, line 2: let me note that one should delete the phrase “and asterisked”— I honestly don’t know what happened there, but it is an unwarranted addition. And at p. 401 n. 14, line 2 from the end: yes, “P46” should be “P66.”

In addition to this, Royse actually ended his response to Peter with this off-the-record statement: "I did find another typo, but I will let you find it for yourself."

I can now proudly announce that I have found it on p. 453, n. 105, “a construction that indeeds [sic] makes perfectly good sense.” I can't believe Peter missed this one!

After this came the final review by a certain Dutch scholar. Don't forget to tune in!

Earlier posts in this series:

Part 1: Juan Hernández' presentation

Part 2: Royse responds to Hernández

Parts 3-4: Haines-Eitzen's review and Royse's response

SBL Boston, Book Review of James Royse Scribal Habits in Early Greek NT Papyri, pt. 3-4

The next reviewer was Kim Haines-Eitzen (KHE).

In 1991 first year in graduate school, KHE discovered Royse’s work. She was not alone in her fascination for Greek New Testament manuscripts! If you want to pay attention to Hort’s dictum that knowledge of documents should precede judgment on readings, you must study Royse’s work which focuses on the starting point of textual criticism. To many of us Royse’s book is widely cited. His list of singular readings indicates those that are supposed to have been introduced by the scribe we study.

Then KHE turned to some specific papyri. After examining P45 on over 90 pages, Royse arrives at the “basic features of the copying by the scribe” (p. 197) which are as follows (here abbreviated): The scribe is concerned to produce a readable text, and is successful in reading this goal with virtually no correction. Thus, there are few nonsense readings, few corrections, and few obvious errrors. Secondly, the scribe has a marked tendencey to omit portions of the text. Thirdly, harmonization is a frequent cause of error, with harmonization to the immediate context being the most important type. Fourthly, stylistic and grammatical improvements are sometimes attempted. Finally, the scribe is rather rarely subject to certain errors of sight, perhaps also of hearing, of influences of similar forms, and simply of oversight. KHE then continued with P46. However, she questioned whether these brief summaries “help us get a sense of a scribe.”

In any case, P72 is most interesting to KHE. This scribe stands out as is evident in the described main features of the scribe (614): “Alone among our papyri P72 gives evidence of some theological purpose in the scribe’s creation of singulars: two singular readings and one asterisked reading appear to reflect the scribe’s belief that Christ was fully God.” KHE adds that the handwriting of this scribe is easily worst. She adds that this is perhaps why she is most sympathetic to this scribe (laughter). Royse thinks that it is tempting to conclude that theological changes came about not until 300 C.E.

[Additional comments by TW: In his monograph, Royse refers to Barbara Aland who relates the changes in P72 to the fact that it is very late among the early papyri and that it is part of a manuscript containing a Christian’s personal collection of writings. He also refers to other studies, including my own, that have shown interesting connections with the non-New Testament writings contained in the whole Bodmer Codex of which P72 is a part.

In any case, he says, “the contrast between these three readings and what we find elsewhere in our six papyri is striking and indicates how unusual such alteration must have been in the early period.” Royse further refers to Min who found no theologically intentional readings in the early Matthean papyri. Finally, he points to Hernández who examined Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and Ephraemi Rescriptus in Revelation. He reports a few readings in the two former that are of Christological import, but no such readings in the latter. Interestingly, Hernandez himself told us in his presentation (now available for download in the sidebar) that his original plan was to write about this subject, before he found Royse’s dissertation!]

Anyway, KHE disagrees with Royse on this particular point, i.e., she thinks theological changes were introduced earlier on, but, as one of her concluding question (see below) implied, she thinks more research is necessary to bring clarity on this point. She did not develop this further but instead concluded by posing the following questions, as a kind of “where do we go from here”:

1) To what extent does the focus on singular readings push towards the text from the form, ie. the physical features. Could we not include the physical features (codicology, handwriting, etc) to situate the scribes.

2) Royse hints that the theological variants come in 300CE. but most of the textual variants in the tradition were already introduced. Where are we with theological variations?

3) Text-types: Royse refers to text-types, e.g., P72 is Alexandrian. KHE is disappointed with this terminology. How does it help us to understand the early papyri? [Here I may recommend reading the review of D.C. Parker’s book by Epp which focused on this issue].

Final conclusion: “We have still a lot to do.” See also Royse’s own suggestions for future research (737ff).

Royse responds:

Next, Kim Haines-Eitzen:

Both Haines-Eitzen and Jongkind draw attention to the brief summaries of scribal habits for each of the six papyri. Haines-Eitzen questions whether the summaries “help us get a sense of a scribe,” and Jongkind remarks that a one-page summary of scores of pages of analysis is not all that helpful. Of course, to provide extended “integrated reflection” (as Jongkind puts it) on the scribal habits would have been to risk expanding the book even more. But perhaps in such extended discussion I could have avoided some of the tensions (shall we say) in the summaries that Haines-Eitzen points out. Alternatively, perhaps it would have better simply to forego such summaries and let the analyses speak for themselves. At least that would have avoided the shortcomings, and omission is always so much more tempting than addition.

I turn to Haines-Eitzen’s concluding three points (or “questions”).

Point 1: I would concur that the physical features of manuscripts can be crucial. Haines-Eitzen, of course, has given much attention (in her provocative study, Guardians of Letters) to the peculiarities of P72 and of the codex of which it forms a part (or perhaps two parts, 1–2 Peter and Jude), giving careful attention to the curious features(scribal and otherwise) of the disparate texts joined there into this “third-century miscellany” (as she calls it), and arguing that it was the product of an early scribal network.

And Jongkind, in his recent work, The Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus, creatively combines many aspects of that very complex manuscript, such as the arrangement of the quires, the nature of the paragraphing, the use of nomina sacra, and the scribal tendencies to produce certain sorts of variations, all sorted out among the three scribes and the various correctors. Here again, I would not wish to be seen as in any way claiming completeness or finality in my analysis, and I would welcome further and more comprehensive discussions.

Especially the codex to which P72 belongs seems, as Haines-Eitzen well observes, to be a different sort of physical object than the usual New Testament manuscript, and it would be natural that its unique properties should have implications for our understanding of its text and for our evaluation of its readings for purposes of textual criticism. I might refer further to the fascinating analysis of the “Bodmer Miscellaneous Codex” by Tommy Wasserman in chapter two of his recent The Epistle of Jude: Its Text and Transmission, which integrates codicological and textual considerations of this compilation.

Point 2: I would not wish to appear at all certain on such a complex topic as the theological corruptions of the text. But I would observe that it is (I believe)perfectly consistent to hold that dogmatic changes began to occur around 300 and that the majority of textual variants arose during the first three Christian centuries (that is, before 300). We have to keep in mind that the vast majority of textual variants do not involve (as it seems) theological corruption. So, while most textual variants may have arisen early, the comparatively few theological corruptions could have been late on the scene. Of course, others have thought to find theologically motivated readings in, say, P46. I have not been inclined to agree, but in any case the numbers of such readings would be, I believe, comparatively small; but that doesn’t mean that they didn’t exist.

Point 3: I used the term “textual type” in connection with the papyri with some hesitation (see, e.g., p. 15 n. 52). Of course, in calling, for example, P72Alexandrian, I was simply repeating what others have said, and while such terminology may be anachronistic for the early papyri or otherwise problematic, it seems to me to be useful shorthand for describing the textual relations. But I would hope that my investigation does not depend to any great degree on such characterizations.

In his response to KHE, Royse also mentioned some related points that Jongkind had made. However, I have not yet posted Jonkind's presentation. On the other hand, Royse had a separate more lucid response to Jongkind, so therefore I hope our readers will have forbearance with this little anachronism.

Earlier posts in this series:

Part 1: Juan Hernández' presentation

Part 2: Royse responds to Hernández

SBL Boston, Book Review of James Royse Scribal Habits in Early Greek NT Papyri, pt. 2

In the first part of my report on this book review session, I summarized Juan Hernandez presentation. He kindly offered the full version, which is now available for download in the right sidebar (TC Files). In this second part I was initially going to post a summary of the next presenter, Kim Haines-Eitzen's response to Royse's monograph. However, earlier this week I received a message from James Royse himself who, in this spirit of sharing, offered his complete response, which he has re-edited since the meeting. I will therefore now post the first part of this response. After this series is complete, the full version (PDF) will be made available among the TC Files.


James Royse responds (pt. 1):

First, let me thank AnneMarie Luijendijk for organizing this session, and my fellow panelists for their perceptive and generous remarks. It is, of course, an honor for an author to have one’s work reviewed by such distinguished scholars of the text of the Bible. And I am pleased, and more than a little embarrassed, that my work, begun when we were all very much younger (if alive at all), has received such positive reception. Time does not permit a full discussion of all the points that they raise. Very generally I would wish to second the calls for further investigation of various issues; there is much to be done in the study of these six papyri and other important manuscripts, and in the study of scribal habits, and there are too few of us to give adequate attention to all the readings in all the manuscripts. Nevertheless, the panelists have raised some points to which I would like to reply, in the spirit, well illustrated by their remarks, of scholarly cooperation in advancing our common goal of shedding light on the process of the transmission of the text of the New Testament. I will basically follow the order of the speakers, but with some cross-references.

First, there is Juan Hernández:
I appreciate Hernández’s comments, and am pleased to have been associated in some small degree with his doctoral work. I confess that some of the details of my dissertation have faded from my mind with time, and have been overwritten with the revisions and expansions found in the current book. Indeed, hearing Hernández’s description was in some ways like hearing of someone else’s work. But I am very grateful for his kind words, and for his comments about the role that my dissertation played in his own study of the New Testament text. As a very small footnote to all this, the appendix in my dissertation on P46 and the Ethiopic, to which Hernández refers, was not included in the revised book. Rather it is cited as a forthcoming article. At some point I decided that separate publication would be more appropriate, and would save some space in the current book. However, I never seem to be able to put the finishing touches on the article. Perhaps the enthusiasm of the current session will enable me to conclude that little work as well, although for now it exists only as an appendix in the dissertation.

Juan Hernandez' Tribute to James Royse (In Search for a PhD. Project and Method)

Following up on yesterday's post on the SBL book review of Royse's monograph, Juan Hernandez contacted me and offered his full presentation to our readers. It may be particularly helpful for PhD. students in search for a project and method to learn more about Hernandez' struggle in this regard, before he found his "exemplar" in James Royse. Those same students may also want to read our post, "Where to do PhD".

Below is the introduction of Hernandez' presentation. If you want to read the whole paper you may request it from tomwas[at]spray[dot]se. In the future we may make this available on our related website (which has been "under construction" for the last years).

INTRODUCTION
It is an incredible privilege for me to be here tonight to honor Dr. James R. Royse and to offer a few reflections on what his work has meant to me. I will leave it to others on this panel and to history to confirm what I already know to be true: that this is a work of singular importance—extraordinary for its immense learning, comprehensive scope and painstaking detail. But perhaps more importantly, Royse’s work is an exemplar for all who aspire to do justice to the study of scribal habits. (Of course, the conclusions are also groundbreaking). I, on the other hand, hope to offer a glimpse of how one book made a difference to the scholarly trajectory and pursuits of a fledgling Ph.D. student, who was—essentially—at his wits end as to what to “write on.” I think it’s safe to say, that if it were not for Royse’s Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri, that my own academic interests, endeavors, and development over the course of the last few years would have been far different.

SBL Boston, Book Review of James Royse Scribal Habits in Early Greek NT Papyri, pt. 1

I will now try to finish my maraton report from the SBL in Boston – I still have some months to do this before the next meeting. You may think it comes a bit late, but it is too important to be passed over. It is time for the final, the review of James Royse, Scribal Habits. Again I want to state that this summary is in my own words, sometimes omitting, sometimes elucidating what was said in the session.


SBL24-129 New Testament Textual Criticism



Theme: Review of James Royse, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri (Brill)

AnneMarie Luijendijk, Princeton University, Presiding
Juan Hernandez, Bethel College, Panelist (25 min)
Kim Haines-Eitzen, Cornell University, Panelist (25 min)
Peter M Head, Tyndale House, Panelist (25 min)
Dirk Jongkind, Tyndale House, Panelist (25 min)
James Royse, San Francisco, CA, Respondent (25 min)
Discussion (25 min)

Juan Hernandez
The first reviewer was Juan Hernandez. He offered a personal reflection of what Royse’s work has meant for him. In his witty introduction he stated, “This is a work of ‘singular importance’. It is an exemplar for all who want to study scribal habits.” What then did Royse’s work mean for a Ph.D. student specifically? In 2003 Hernandez stood as a crossroads. He had to come up with a dissertation proposal. His interest was in textual criticism, but there was no text-critical scholar around. How was he to embark without specialists? He contacted a lot of scholars about what to do. He was interested in the Book of Revelation. The path eventually led to James R. Royse. The approach of Epp (The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae) and Ehrman (The Orthodox Corruption) on theological variation aroused his interest. Could this perspective be applied to Revelation? One problem was the fact that there is no Western text of Revelation. Could Ehrman’s method be applied? No. Christological controversies and their bearing upon the transmission seemed rather marginal. Then Hernandez found the work of Royse (i.e., his dissertation).

The undertext was: Scrutinize every claim!; Check everything for yourself! Even Royse’s 1981 dissertation was considered groundbreaking and remained a standard work for twenty-seven years (until it was superseded by the monograph). To put this work into perspective, E.C. Colwell had urged that someone someday would publish a commentary on singular readings (and he was talking about the three papyri he had studied). Royse came along, corrected and updated Colwell’s original work. Royse checked the readings against all available editions. His study was much more nuanced than an attempt to classify the text of these witnesses in broad terms, e.g., according to text-types. Royse goal was to cast light of each scribe’s habits. This was necessary to be able to arrive at canons of criticism applicable to papyri. Hernandez said he was “electrified” by the 1981 study. He was given “access.” It was a gigantic how-to-do manual. It was permeated of transparency. Everything was available for scrutiny. His prior interest was in theological variation. Royse, however, was not a friend of “theologizing.” Royse applied an extreme caution. He singled out only three variants that were theologically motivated (in P72). It was cristall clear for Hernandez that he would have to learn from Royse. He now had to put behind him notions of theological variation and start with the mundane, the facsimiles! Everything that he needed was there in Royse’s work, being the model.

Then Hernandez said some words about the monograph: The current publication superseeds the prior study in a number of ways. It has more chapters, more nuances in classification of singular readings, many new topics, and exhaustive appendices. The only missing thing was P46 in relation to the Ethiopic (a joke!). In the new work Royse has identified sixty-four additional singular readings (I think). The thesis stands concerning the implications for the canons of criticism. The burden of proof still rests with those who will prefer the short reading (in the early papyri). In sum, the monograph is a veritable encyclopedia of scribal habits (surpassing Colwell’s original urge for a commentary).

More to come.

Update: Juan Hernandez has kindly offered his full presentation to our readers. It can be requested from tomwas[at]spray[dot]se. (See also next post.)