New Book: Building a Book of Books

My thanks to Michael Dormandy to alerting me that the published version of his Cambridge thesis will soon be out as vol. 54 in the ANTF series from de Gruyter.

Building a Book of Books: Textual Characteristics of the Early Greek Majuscule Pandects 

Michael Dormandy

This book analyses how the early Greek whole-Bible manuscripts (pandects) change and preserve the text. Dormandy refutes the method based on singular readings and so investigates all the ways in which each pandect differs from the initial text, both changes introduced by its own scribe and by the scribes of earlier manuscripts. He surveys sample chapters in John, Romans, Revelation, Sirach and Judges (including discussing the “new finds” of Sinaiticus). Dormandy’s observations of Codex Ephraemi challenge accepted transcriptions. Dormandy argues that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus may plausibly have been made in response to commissions by Constantine and Constans. Dormandy concludes that generally, across all the Biblical books considered, the pandects preserve the initial text well. Transcriptional and linguistic variations are more common than harmonisations or changes of content. The more precise profiles of each manuscript vary between Biblical books. The pandects thus create bibliographic unity from textual diversity. This shows their significance in the history of the Christian Bible: they reflect in bibliographic form the hermeneutical move to consider all the books of the Christian Bible as one corpus.

Some of you may remember Michael's 2018 article in TC on the question of canon and codex. Congrats to Dr. Dormandy!

Free Edition of 048

I recently found out that Dale Heath’s 1965 Michigan State University Ph.D. dissertation (“A transcription and description of Manuscript Vatican Greek 2061 [Gregory 048].”) is free online, here.

048 is a 5th-century palimpsest that contains text from Acts and the Epistles. When I’ve needed to work with 048, I’ve found Heath’s dissertation helpful. There is a physical copy at Tyndale House, which I used a good bit. That copy says “Taylor University” on it though. It turns out that Heath was a professor at Taylor, but his Ph.D. was from Michigan State. I guess Tyndale House simply had a copy made by (or for?) Taylor.

The signature is too faded for me to make out Heath’s supervisor (UPDATE: supervised by Richard E. Sullivan; thanks Hugh Houghton!), but in the preface, he wrote that it was “gratefully undertaken at the suggestion and under the guidance of Dr. J. Harold Greenlee of Asbury Theological Seminary.”

Enjoy!

Edmondson Thesis on CBGM Now Available Free Online

A recent email from Gerd Mink reminded me that Andrew Edmondson’s Birmingham doctoral thesis is now online here. Andrew and I exchanged some emails in the first year of my own PhD and I’ve been looking forward to the completion of his work ever since. I’m especially interested because he takes a different approach to the question and a different corpus than me. So, we now have the benefit of two (my own bias admitted) thorough examinations of the CBGM. I hope to read this soon. Congrats to Andrew!

An analysis of the coherence-based genealogical method using phylogenetics

The Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Maior is the first major critical edition of the New Testament for a century, aiming to document the New Testament’s textual history through its first millennium. To date, two of the six volumes have been published. As part of this project the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung in Münster has developed the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM), a computer-aided method designed to handle complete sets of textual evidence and to identify their initial text and textual history. The CBGM is widely held to be difficult to understand and its results are treated with scepticism.

Phylogenetics is the study of relationships between groups of organisms and their evolutionary history. Phylogenetics and the CBGM (and wider textual criticism) have many commonalities. This thesis provides a thorough examination of the CBGM using phylogenetics.

Part One documents the literature surrounding the CBGM and includes a worked example of the process. Part Two explores the ECM data for John’s Gospel and identifies appropriate methods for applying phylogenetics to it. Part Three compares the results of phylogenetics and the CBGM. It concludes that the CBGM is producing valid results from the data, but could be improved in a number of ways.

Newly Published Articles and Books in NTTC

I am certain that many of our readers are on holiday and to avoid idleness (when you do not watch the interesting FIFA World Cup), here are some recent publications of interest (apart from the NTS article on “Tertius in the Margins” mentioned in another blogpost):

H. A. G. Houghton, ed., Liturgy and the Living Text of the New Testament (Gorgias Press).
“The textual history of the New Testament is a dynamic tradition, reflecting differing readings, interpretations and uses of its canonical writings. These contributions represent original research by an international range of scholars, first presented at the Tenth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament.”

Tommy Wasserman, “Bringing Sisters Back Together: Another Look at Luke 10:41–42,” Journal of Biblical Literature 137, No. 2 (2018): 439-461. 

“Luke’s account of Martha and Mary of Bethany is present in the textual tradition in two versions. The majority of scholars and editors prefer the shorter reading, “only one thing is necessary.” This view is also taken up by the influential UBS Committee, which regards the long reading as a conflation. This preference for the shorter reading is mistaken on several grounds. First, it builds on a factual error presupposing a reading that does not exist in the extant Greek textual tradition. Second, it neglects the history of interpretation and specifically its significance for the textual problem. Third, it is motivated at least in part by positing a dichotomy between the two sisters. In this article, I argue that the long reading in the passage in Luke 10:41–42, where Jesus replies to Martha that “few things are necessary, or indeed only one” is the initial text and the lectio difficilior, as well as the text that is best suited to its narrative context in Luke’s Gospel.”

Garrick V. Allen, “There Is No Glory and No Money in the Work”: H. C. Hoskier and New Testament Textual Criticism, TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 23 (2018): 1–19.
“Focusing on the work and life of H. C. Hoskier, this article explores the broader intellectual context of late nineteenth and early twentieth century textual criticism. This examination illuminates the deep context of current trends in textual scholarship on the New Testament, arguing that the discipline has much to learn from the dark corners of the tradition. Though seemingly dry and laborious work (and of a truth it is the latter to a large extent) some of the most wonderful truths, some of the most interesting problems present themselves to his mind as letter by letter, line by line, and page by page the patient collator toils along slowly at his task.”

There are more articles to be published in this journal very soon. Also, check out the reviews in the new volume.

Alan Taylor Farnes, “Scribal Habits in Selected New Testament Manuscripts, Including Those with Surviving Exemplars,” Unpublished PhD dissertation,  University of Birmingham, 2018.
“In the first chapter of this work, I provide an introduction to the current discussion of scribal habits. In Chapter Two, I discuss Abschriften-or manuscripts with extant known exemplars-, their history in textual criticism, and how they can be used to elucidate the discussion of scribal habits. I also present a methodology for determining if a manuscript is an Abschrift. In Chapter Three, I analyze P127, which is not an Abschrift, in order that we may become familiar with determining scribal habits by singular readings. Chapters Four through Six present the scribal habits of selected proposed manuscript pairs: 0319 and 0320 as direct copies of 06 (with their Latin counterparts VL 76 and VL83 as direct copies of VL 75), 205 as a direct copy of 2886, and 821 as a direct copy of 0141. I discuss in Chapter Four the need to better understand the scribal habits of manuscripts written by scribes who wrote in their non-native language. Additionally, I conclude that 205 and 2886 are, in fact, not copies of one another. In the conclusion, I argue that there is no common scribal habit shared by all scribes except that this study has not found a scribe who adds more words than they lose. Additionally, textual critics should place greater emphasis on the roles played by patrons and readers of the text rather than on scribes alone.”

Happy holiday!

Alan Taylor Farnes on Scribal Habits in Copies with Extant Exemplars

We are delighted to feature the newly baked Dr. Alan Taylor Farnes in this guest blogpost where he summarizes his work on scribal habits in copies where the exemplar is preserved. Well done Dr. Farnes!

---

Scribal Habits in New Testament Copies with Extant Exemplars

As many of you may know, I have recently completed my dissertation at the University of Birmingham. The following is a summary with some conclusions, ramifications, and next steps to take.

In 2007, James R. Royse published his exceptional study on the scribal habits of six early New Testament papyri. In his work, Royse revolutionized text critics’ understanding of the text critical canon lectio brevior potior or, “the shorter reading is preferred”^[1] by demonstrating that the scribes he studied tended to omit more than they added. In its place he coined a new canon which he called lectio longior potior or, “the longer reading is preferred.”

One disadvantage of Royse’s method is, because the papyri he studies had no known exemplar. he was forced to reconstrcut what the hypothetical exemplar probably said and then determine how the scribe copied the hypothetical exemplar. This is obviously a completely normal procedure in textual criticism. Royse admitted that his method had flaws and called for an examination of another set of manuscripts—those with surviving exemplars. Royse wrote: “there has been (it seems) a failure to explore the problem of scribal habits for the text of the New Testament in the best possible case, namely where the Vorlage of an extant manuscript is also known to be extant. In such a situation we can virtually look over the scribe’s shoulder and compare the text he is copying with his result.”^[2]

My research has attempted to support or disprove Royse’s new text critical canon that, in fact, the longer reading is preferred. Rather than analyzing early papyri for which no exemplar remains, I chose to identify and analyze manuscripts which have a known exemplar.

I have therefore identified twenty-two New Testament manuscripts which have known extant exemplars (see Table here). Of these twenty-two I chose four manuscripts, which are italicized in the Table, and their copies to transcribe, collate, and analyze to determine how well the scribes copied the text of their exemplar.

Brice Jones' Thesis on NT Texts on Greek Amulets

In this post I want to draw the attention to Dr. Brice Jones’ fine PhD thesis submitted to Concordia University in July last year, “New Testament Texts on Greek Amulets from Late Antiquity.”

A revised version of the thesis will be published in 2016 (publication date 24 March) by T&T Clark/Bloomsbury in the LNTS series. Significantly, the published version will include high-resolution colour images of all the 24 amulets (except one).

The first chapter contains an introduction and survey of scholarship. In the second chapter, Jones discusses terminology and criteria. In both of these chapters I note that he has made good use of co-blogger Peter Head’s essay on “Additional Greek Witnesses to the New Testament (Ostraca, Amulets, Inscriptions, and Other Sources).” In chapter 3, he describes his method of textual analysis, and I note with gratitude that he has found my work in this area useful (as well as my publications on amulets no. 16 and 24 below). The fourth chapter is the core of the dissertation, where he analyzes 24 amulets on papyri or parchment from Egypt (dating from 3d-8th centuries). He excluded amulets on ostraca or wooden tablets, and those consisting only of Gospel titles or incipits, since this latter category has been treated extensively by Joseph E. Sanzo, Scriptural Incipits on Amulets from Late Antique Egypt: Text, Typology, and Theory (STAC 84; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014).

I have compiled a list of the 24 amulets treated in detail in the fourth chapter, 21 of which are not registered in the official list of Greek New Testament MSS:

1. MATT. 4:23-24
P.Oxy. 8.1077

2. MATT. 4:23 || INCIPITS || JOHN 1:1 || PS. 17:3, 90:1, 117:6-7 || TRINITARIAN FORMULA ||
PROTECTIVE INCANTATION
BKT 6.7.1

3. MATT. 4:23/9:35 || MATT. 8:15/MARK 1:31 || CREEDAL FORMULAE || PRAYER FOR HEALING
P.Turner 49

4. MATT. 6:9 || JOHN 1:23 || INCIPITS || PS. 90:1 || DOXOLOGY
PSI 6.7195

5. MATT. 6:9, 11 || PS. 90:1-2 || HEALING INCANTATION || SANCTUS
P.Princ. 2.107

6. MATT. 6:9-13 || LUKE 9:37?; 11:1b-2 || DOXOLOGY || PS. 90:13 || EXORCISM OF SOLOMON ||
PROTECTIVE INCANTATION
P.Iand. 1.6

7. MATT. 6:9-13 || DOXOLOGY || PS. 90 || PS. 91 HEADING
P.Duke inv. 778

8. MATT. 6:4-6, 8-12
P.Col. 11.293

9. MATT. 6:9-13
P.CtYBR inv. 4600

10. MATT. 6:9-13 || DOXOLOGY || INCIPITS || CREEDAL FORMULAE
|| PRAYER FOR DELIVERANCE
BGU 3.954

11. MATT. 6:9-13 || DOXOLOGY || 2 COR. 13:13? || PS. 90:1-13
P.Schøyen 1.16

12. MATT. 6:10-12
P.Ant. 2.54

13. MATT. 6:11-13
P.Köln 8.336

14. MATT. 6:12-13 || DOXOLOGY || SANCTUS
P.Köln 4.171

15. MATT 27:62-64; 28:2-5
P.Oxy. 64.4406 (GA P105)

16. MARK 1:1-2 || INSTRUCTION TO READER
P.Oxy. 76.50731

17. JOHN 1:1, 3 || INCANTATION || PRAYER FOR HEALING
P.Oxy. 8.1151

18. JOHN 1:1-11 || HEALING INCANTATION
P.Köln 8.340

19. JOHN 1:5-6 || PRAYER FOR PROTECTION
P.Vindob. G 29831

20. JOHN 1:29, 49 || DIALOGUE BETWEEN JESUS AND NATHANAEL
P.Berl. inv. 11710

21. JOHN 2:1a-2 || ROM. 12:1-2 || PS. 90:1-2
P.Vindob. G 2312

22. 2 COR. 10:4 || 1 THESS. 5:8/EPH. 6:16
P.Vindob. G 26034 + 30453

23. 1 TIM. 1:15-16
P.Berl. inv. 13977 (GA 0262)

24. JUDE 4-5, 7-8
P.Oxy. 34.2684328 (GA P78)

In the fifth and final chapter Jones draws conclusions and sums up the results. In relation to the textual character of the 24 amulets, described according to Alands’ categories, he concludes that 37% exhibit a “strict text;”  8% “at least normal;” 12% “normal;” 29% “free;” and, finally, 16% “uncertain.” This result suggests that, although three of them are areadly included in the official list of New Testament manuscripts (P78, P105, and 0262) and cited in the apparatus, many more are significant for New Testament textual criticism.

Abstract

New Testament Texts on Greek Amulets from Late Antiquity and Their Relevance for Textual Criticism

This dissertation examines New Testament citations on all Greek papyrus and parchment amulets from late antique Egypt. Since New Testament textual criticism does not allow for the inclusion of non-continuous manuscripts (of which amulets are a part) in the official catalogue of manuscripts, a large body of textual evidence has fallen outside the purview of scholars. This dissertation, which constitutes the first systematic treatment of non-continuous manuscripts, seeks to remedy the situation in part by determining the ways in which New Testament texts on amulets may be useful for textual criticism.

This dissertation has three main objectives. The first objective is to define more closely the categories of continuous and non-continuous by formulating criteria for the identification of the latter. The second objective is to propose a method for analyzing the texts of non-continuous artifacts in terms of their text-critical value. The third objective is to establish a comprehensive database of one category of non-continuous artifacts (amulets) and provide a detailed analysis of both their texts and containers (i.e., physical manuscripts).

By analyzing a largely untapped source of New Testament textual data, this project contributes to a methodological question in textual criticism concerning its categories and provides a wealth of source material for the study of the reception of the Bible in early Christianity. Thus, while the study is targeted at textual critics, it contributes to a conversation about early Christianity that is much larger than the project, as these texts demonstrate the various ways in which early Christians used scripture.

Open access to the dissertation from Concordia University Spectrum Research Repository here.

If you want to hear Brice’s own words about this academic journey you can listen to two interview episodes by Inquisitive minds podcast here and here.

At present, Brice is Assistant Director of Media Relations, at the University of Louisiana at Monroe. We can all hope that he will continue to do research in the future. His track record is indeed excellent, as reflected in the fact that he got fifteen articles, including many editions of papyri, published already as a PhD student.

Dr. Jac Perrin on Family 13

Jac Perrin has successfully defended his PhD thesis entitled “Family 13 in Saint John’s Gospel,” submitted to the University of Birmingham, and written under the supervision of Prof. D. C. Parker and examined by Profs. Ulrich Schmid and Paul Foster.

Abstract
To date, the single criterion of Family 13 constituency has been the relocation of the Pericope Adulterae from its traditional location in John 7:53. This dissertation demonstrates why this criterion is inadequate and proposes a new criteria.

After an overview of the history of research, potential Family 13 witnesses are classified by means of a methodology originated by Dr. David Parker’s use of Text und Textwert. This process identifies 8 witnesses inappropriately nominated as Family 13 members, thus establishing GA 13, 69, 124, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828, 983, and 1689 as valid members. Each of these 10 witnesses is then described palaeographically as a discrete artefact.

Phylogrammatic software, originally designed for DNA analysis, is then adapted to exhaustively study these Johannine Greek texts. The by-product of this novel process complements and validates the earlier Text und Textwert process. Also available as a result of this study are original witness transcriptions (available at http://www.iohannes.com/family13/), a Critical Apparatus of Family 13 in St. John’s Gospel, an exhaustive description of the contents of 18 potential witnesses, and a description of the computer analysis process used in the study.

As Perrin points out in his thesis, all the 10 valid members of Family 13 are of Calabrian provenance as Abbé Martin has asserted, despite the fact that his specific attempts to localise them are problematic.

Further, Perrin concludes that one of the family members has the Pericope Adulterae in its traditional location in John 7:53 (1689), and not in Luke as other family members, so this cannot be the single criterion for filiality.

Perrin traces three different subgroups of F13 (in concord with Lake’s study of F13 in Mark).  The image below (fig. 63), reproduced with permission, is one way to depict the final stemma (“splits tree cladogram”).

Congratulations to Dr. Jac Perrin!

Update: I have removed reference to a point Perrin makes which seems to be erroneous that “the PA of several other witnesses was in Luke, but their textual content was much closer to the TR than to any F13 member” (p. 277); I cannot find the data to back this up. Perrin’s main point, however, is valid, that the relocation of the PA to Luke (after 21:38) cannot be the single criterion of F13 membership.

Stephen Carlson's Duke Dissertation on the Text of Galatians

Over at Hypotyposeis, Stephen Carlson gives a synopsis of his Duke University Dissertation on the text of Galatians.

This dissertation investigates the text of Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians and its history, how it changed over time. This dissertation performs a stemmatic analysis of 92 witnesses to the text of Galatians, using cladistic methods developed by computational biologists, to construct an unoriented stemma of the textual tradition. The stemma is then oriented based on the internal evidence of textual variants. After the stemma is oriented, the textual variants near the base of the stemma are examined and the text of Galatians is established based on stemmatic and eclectic principles. In addition, two branches of the textual tradition, the Western and the Eastern-Byzantine, are studied to assess the nature of textual variation in their history. This study reaches the conclusion that a modified stemmatic approach is an effective way to study both the text of a New Testament book and its history.

Hopefully this will soon be available at DukeSpace.

Update (TW): We all congratulate Stepen on the successful defense of his PhD, and I take the opportunity to cite his supervisor Mark Goodacre who said:

His thesis title was "The Text of Galatians and Its History". Those of you who know Stephen's work will not be surprised to hear that his thesis was outstanding, and his defense of it exemplary. If we awarded "honors" here at Duke, or "graduation with distinction", this thesis would have received that award. Very many congratulations, Stephen, on a richly deserved PhD, and all the very best for your future!

Ending the Year on a High: The Euthalian Apparatus

It is quickly running to the end of this year, and it started to look like as if no exciting books were going to appear this year at all. However, when I came in Tyndale House this morning, I found an unexpected but most pleasant surprise waiting for me. Vemund Blomkvist had sent me his dissertation on the Euthalian apparatus.

Vemund Blomkvist,The Euthalian Apparatus: Text, Translation, Commentary Series of Dissertations Submitted to the Faculty of Theology, University of Oslo / Acta Theologica 39 (Oslo: Unipub, 2011).

So far I have had tremendous fun with this study, which does exactly what the title says (with the limitation that it concentrates on the chapter titles (κεφαλαια - τιτλοι), the introductions to the big divisions (προλογοι), and the υποθεσεις to the individual letters. Blomkvist's interest is not text-critical but that of reception history - which is totally legitimate, especially when one puts so much work into translating and bringing together all this material that is also of interest for people with different questions. Truly original work, and research that will spark off other research.

Just the translation of and commentary on Euthalius would have been tremendous, but Blomkvist also throws in the 'Marcionite' prologues (which I actually hold to be originally Marcionite - pace Dahl and Ulrich Schmid), the Priscillan edition (from the Latin), the υποθεσεις on Paul of Theodoret, and the same by Theophylact.

I hope to come back later with some further thoughts, but one of the fascinating gems is worth sharing straightaway. Since the author had worked with and has access to the notes of the late Nils Dahl, he mentions a discovery made by Dahl in four Latin mediaeval manuscripts of Monte Cassino where the Euthalian prologue to Paul is fused with the Muratorian canon. Harnack had discussed the Muratorian part back in 1898, but did not mention the importance of finding Euthalian material in Latin.

Congratulations to Vemund with this excellent dissertation!

Update: Blomqvist will defend his thesis publicly tomorrow (15 December). English summary is found here.[TW]

Codex Bezae Resources and Special Booksale

Today I would like to draw the attention to several Codex Bezae resources:

Firstly, the digital facsimile (in low resolution) published by Cambridge University Library can be found here.

We blogged about this project last year here. (High resolution images will be available in the future.)

Secondly, there is a transcription and translation (French and English) here.

Thirdly, there is a dissertation from Murdoch University for free download:

Kenneth Panten (1995). "A History of Research on Codex Bezae, with Special Reference to the Acts of the Apostles: Evaluation and Future Directions." PhD thesis, Murdoch University.

Fourthly, for users of Bibleworks there is a special Bezae module for free download here.

Finally, I have arranged a little booksale with Eisenbrauns on the paperback edition of David Parker's excellent study on Codex Bezae (thanks to Wieland Willker for reminding me of the paperback). During a few days you will get a 15% discount on the book here.

Readers are welcome to add to this list of resources in the comments.

Update: A better Bezae module for Bibleworks (divided in three files) is found here (Greek), here (Latin) and here (some missing pages).

Thoughts on Defending a Thesis

This is a guest-post in which Ryan Wettlaufer shares his personal thoughts about his recent thesis defence at the University of St. Michael’s College, University of Toronto, as described more formally in a previous post. Be sure to read related posts with advices for PhD students, "Where to do a PhD" and "Theses in Textual Criticism", and other thesis defences here and here.


Thoughts on Defending a Thesis

In December I successfully defended my doctoral thesis "Conjectural Emendation in New Testament Textual Criticism with the Epistle of James as a Case Study" at the University of St. Michael’s College, University of Toronto, and Tommy has very kindly invited me to guest blog about the experience.

The set-up of the defence was interesting. As a young student you get all these wild images in your head of what the defence will look like, and most of them look something like the imposing set-up of a supreme court hearing or perhaps something out of a Masonic temple. In reality, it consisted of a very normal looking boardroom with a long table, water glasses, and an overly optimistic number of copies of my abstract for any guests. There were six professors in total, including John Kloppenborg – my supervisor – and Michael Holmes – my external examiner (who participated by speaker phone). It was interesting that the examiners, while all New Testament scholars, each had different areas of focus, such as patristics, philosophy, etc.

They began by asking me to leave the room while they discussed the agenda. Once I returned, they began the formal questioning, with each examiner being allotted 15 minutes. For the second round, each examiner was given another 5 minutes. When that was done, they again asked me to leave while, I assume, they discussed their thoughts and voted on the outcome. Or possibly they just flipped a coin. Either way, as my supervisor invited me back in he smiled and said “Congratulations.” When the committee chair complained that he had tipped their hand, I wanted to joke that he was referring to me finally getting a hair cut, but alas, the wit is never quick enough.

So what were my reactions? The first was actually disappointment. I was disappointed because it really felt like I had done a very poor job. In my memory, I had been a babbling fool, stuttering away, barely able to make a sentence. Sometimes after accomplishing something people try to downplay it with false humility, but this was not that: I really believed I had done poorly! It wasn’t till I talked with a colleague whose own defence had been just a month prior that I discovered this is a relatively common reaction. “I felt the exact same way” he explained, “I was sure I had sounded like some imbecile who could barely talk!” Fortunately, some of his colleagues had attended his defence and were able to verify that, contrary to whatever feelings he had, he had actually done a very good job. Since then, I’ve heard of many doctoral students who had this same reaction. There must be some interesting psychological phenomenon at work there, but I’ll let someone else tackle that.

My second reaction was surprise. Before the defence I had prepared by drawing up a list of all the points I thought were most important about my thesis, and made notes of all the facts that I thought needed to be discussed. Looking over that list afterwards, I was surprised that we had ended up discussing not a single one of them! Similarly, I had collected from various doctoral advice websites all over the internet several pages of common defence questions. As I looked over that list – you guessed it – not a single one of them had been asked. The questions that were asked were very surprising. A lot of them had to do with how my thesis related to their own area of focus. Some other questions poked at points that I thought were rather minor or unimportant. Other questions pointed out to me areas of the thesis that really could be improved, and I was thankful for that.

The most surprising questions, however, were the ones that demonstrated how equivocal this language really is. More than once an examiner asked a question that left me shaking my head in confusion, wondering whose thesis they could be talking about. Each time it would turn out that they had interpreted something I had written in a way completely different than I had intended. As I would review the section of my thesis in question, however, I would realise that the problem wasn’t that I had written it incorrectly, but it also wasn’t that they had read it incorrectly: the problem was that the language in question could legitimately support more than one meaning. It makes me wonder how we can ever hope to communicate here online, where our writing is usually less thought out and certainly less supported by body language or voice tone. It also made me realise how important it is to give people – especially people we disagree with – a sympathetic reading.

Finally, I was (eventually) happy! Not right away, mind you. Right away it was rather anti-climactic. I walked out of the defence and instead of feeling like I’d just accomplished something, it really felt like I had just finished a meeting. You imagine going out and having some crazy celebration, whooping and hollering with all your friends, but all I actually did was drive home, pour a cup of tea, read the ETC blog, and go to bed. Not much whooping there (some on that ETC blog, but only when they’re re-launching a journal!). After a good number of days though you suddenly realise what has happened. I think that realisation comes the first time your long-honed instinct nags you to go finish editing that draft of chapter 1, and then it dawns on you: you never have to revise chapter 1 again!

In closing, what advice do I have for those preparing for their defence? First, don’t be nervous. Really, don’t be: there’s just no need for it. For the rest of your life, at dinner parties or receptions, people will ask you what you studied and when you begin excitedly telling them about your dissertation you’ll only get to about the 30 second mark when you’ll see their eyes glaze over and you’ll realise that they were only asking to be polite! Your defence, on the other hand, will be the first and last time in your life that you will have a room full of people who both know what you’re talking about and want to hear you talk about it – for several hours at that! Enjoy this chance while you have it! Second, don’t be afraid to direct the conversation. This will be one of your best chances to get really thoughtful and in-depth critique, especially if, like me, you have the benefit of a high calibre external examiner. Unfortunately, the structure of the defence – rules about who can speak when or for how long – can really limit that critical discussion. If there’s something you really want to bring up or draw attention to, therefore, don’t be afraid to speak up and direct the discussion that way. Finally, no matter how many people you’ve had edit your dissertation, you will still get a page long list of typos and corrections from the committee. I got 5 pages! (Most of them were just errors in accenting though, so that doesn’t matter, right? [Little joke for P.J. Williams there!]). Start getting ready to accept that now, and then it won’t seem so bad when it happens.

That’s my thoughts! And much thanks again to Tommy Wasserman for this invitation, and this venue.

Ryan Wettlaufer

"Conjectural Emendation in New Testament Textual Criticism with the Epistle of James as a Case Study"

In the end of December Ryan D. Wettlaufer successfully defended his thesis "Conjectural Emendation in New Testament Textual Criticism with the Epistle of James as a Case Study," submitted at the University of St.Michael’s College, University of Toronto. Six professors were present at the examination including supervisor John Kloppenborg and the external examiner Michael W. Holmes (via speaker phone). Below is the abstract. I have invited Ryan to share his thoughts about the occasion in a separate post which will follow tomorrow.

Congratulations Dr. Wettlaufer!

Abstract
This dissertation is a study of conjectural emendation as it relates to the text of the New Testament. Unlike many other ancient documents upon which textual criticism must be practiced, the New Testament has a rich and full textual history. Over the last two millennia it has inspired thousands of generations of copies, through which an astonishing amount of corruption has accumulated. Many counts suppose the total number of variants to be over 350,000. At most points it appears that the correct reading can be found in one of the close to 6000 manuscript copies that survive to this day. At a not-insignificant number of other points, however, none of the extant readings appears to be authentic. Such cases therefore call for resolution by conjecture, but in the history of New Testament scholarship the method has often been rejected, and modern printings of the text usually settle for the least inferior of the surviving readings. Why has this situation developed, and what should be done about it?

This dissertation will answer these questions by looking more closely at a number of different subjects. In chapter one it will engage in a more theoretical study of conjectural emendation. It will describe the nature and practice of the method in more detail, survey the history of its use and abuse within New Testament studies, and discuss its use by textual critics in other classical fields. It will then delve into three common reasons why New Testament critics have often rejected the method: 1) the hypothesis that the large number of surviving manuscript copies ensures that the correct reading necessarily survives somewhere among them; 2) the theological belief that God has providentially preserved the original text in one or more of the surviving manuscripts; 3) the philosophical position that textual critics should not privilege any one “original text,” by conjecture or otherwise, but should value instead the narrative revealed in the history of variation. It will then conclude with more practical instructions on when and how to make conjectures. The remaining chapters will move the discussion into concrete terms by engaging in several case studies from the epistle of James. In chapter two it will look at Jas 3:1 with its curious command that μὴ πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι γίνεσθε. and subsequently argue that the text should be emended to read μὴ πολύλαλοι διδάσκαλοι γίνεσθε. Chapter three will turn to the famous conjecture of Erasmus, who proposed that the text of 4:2 be emended to read φθονεῖτε instead of φονεύετε. Chapter four explores how a long lost scriptural quotation can be rediscovered by emending πρὸς φθόνον to πρὸς τὸν θεόν. Finally, chapter five will look at what not to do by examining a farreaching conjectural proposal that would omit as interpolations the references to Christ in 1:1 and 2:1. Through these case studies, many of the ideas and truths that were explained in chapter one only in abstract will be seen to flow naturally from the texts themselves. In the end, all of this should work to restore in New Testament studies the place of conjectural emendation, and in so doing work to restore the text of the New Testament itself.

Birmingham Thesis on Arabic Versions of the Gospels

The Center for New Testament Textual Studies (New Orleans) is pleased to have received Hikmat Kachouh's thesis entitled "The Arabic Versions of the Gospels: The Manuscripts and their Families."

The thesis was submitted to the University of Birmingham in fulfillment of the PhD, and was supervised by D.C. Parker.

At first glance, what impresses the reader is the sheer size of the thesis. In three volumes, it comes to 1012 pages.

• Vol. 1: Thesis
• Vol. 2: The Abridged List of the Arabic Gospel Manuscripts and the Collation of the Test Passages
• Vol. 3: Textual data and stemmas
  

"Jesus Did Not Die on Cross Says Scholar"

Gunnar Samuelsson is in the news again. This time in The Telegraph.

Samuelsson has frequently been misunderstood by media as saying that Jesus did not die on the cross (not in The Telegraph though), but that is not what he is saying ... Now, he told me, he only gives live interviews, so he is able to clarify his position to journalists. Hear him out, four example, on DRadio Wissen (German and English).

There is also a brief piece on Samuelsson's thesis in History of the Ancient World.

See earlier reports here and here.

Update: Here also in Croatian news.

Update 2: We are being cited by this Dutch newssite.

Update 3: Samuelsson in Pravda and AOL News.

"Crucifixion in Antiquity" – The Swedish Thesis in Its Third Printing

Was the cross a cross? For less than a month ago I reported on Gunnar Samuelsson's thesis, "Crucifixion in Antiquity" including a few glimpses of the examination, an abstract and a summary of some significant points.

Since then, the dissertation has caused quite a stir, at least here in Sweden, and there has been major coverage in the media. The dissertation has recently gone through a a second and even a third printing, which is soon sold out! The person handling orders at the institution is worried about her vaccation, so the author has asked me to instead refer international correspondance to him directly: gunnar[dot]samuelsson[at]telia[dot]com.

The monograph will be sent to Mohr Siebeck with the aim to be published in the WUNT Series.

"Crucifixion in Antiquity: An Inquiry into the Background of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion"
ISSN: 1102-9773
ISBN: 978-91-88348-35-7

Update: Chrys Caragounis has written the first review that I have seen. It is not positive. Read it here.

Theses in Textual Criticism

In this post I would like to collect information about doctoral theses in New Testament textual criticism. My plan is to continuously update the post to become a useful resource, to which there will be a link in the right sidebar under "advice and resources" (we will see if we can update the other resources there too). Therefore I invite collaboration in the comment section to this post (which will help me edit this post in the future).

So I am looking for information about (1) ongoing dissertation work; (2) completed theses in New Testament textual criticism (priority to more recent ones, e.g., from the 90's and onwards); (3) availability (preferably with links). If this is successful, we will end up with a "Virtual Thesis Room" for textual criticism.

In the first "release" of the post I would like to bring the attention to British theses online. It is important to bear in mind the specific character of this thesis system, where the subsequent publication of a thesis is usually in a vastly-improved version taking into account the comments and suggestions of various qualified readers and editors, correcting errors and making the thesis much more considered, readable and accurate. From this aspect, it is not desirable to go back to the original thesis. On the other hand, I can think of several advantages of accessing the original thesis:

1) It may be available online free of charge and so widen the access to research considerably (whereas the published version may be very expensive);

2) It may be identical to the published version (not so usual, but it happens);

3) It may contain much more material, not entirely necessary for the argument, but yet very valuable for other purposes;

4) It may take many years before the thesis is published (e.g., James Royse's work, where the very signficant thesis was published after 25 years).

EThOS – British Theses Online
Already last year ("Freebies Online") I mentioned EThOs, a service from the British Library providing access to British theses online. There are several interesting theses in New Testament textual criticism available for immediate download (after registration). These include:

"The contribution of discourse analysis to textual criticism : a study of the Bezan text of acts."
Author Heimerdinger, J G.
Awarding Institution
University of Wales.Bangor,
Year of Award 1994

"The New Testament Text of St. Cyril of Alexandria"
Author Cunningham, Arthur
Awarding Institution
The University of Manchester
Year of Award 1995

"Codex 1582 and Family 1 of the gospels : the Gospel of Matthew"
Author Anderson, Amy Sue.
Awarding Institution
University of Birmingham
Year of Award 1999

"Codex Sinaiticus, its correctors, and the Caesarean text of the Gospels"
Author Myshrall, Amy Catherine.
Awarding Institution
University of Birmingham
Year of Award 2005

"A textual commentary on Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians"
Author Kloha, Jeffrey John.
Awarding Institution
University of Leeds
Year of Award 2006

"Augustine's citations and text of the Gospel according to John"
Author Houghton, H. A. G.
Awarding Institution
University of Birmingham
Year of Award 2006

eTheses Birmingham
The theses from Birmingham are also available from the eTheses Repository of Birmingham University (e.g., Houghton's dissertation here, where the theses are introduced with a more elaborate title page than EThOS).

Edinburgh Research Archive
Theses from Edinburg University are available in Edinburgh Research Archive. For example:

"Jesus Began to Write: Literacy, the Pericope Adulterae, and the Gospel of John"
Author: Keith, Chris
Issue Date: 2008

In this archive you can also find several online articles and essays in New Testament textual criticism by Larry Hurtado.

Thanks to Hugh Houghton for valuable advice on this post.

New Dissertation in TC on the Pericope of the Adulteress

A new dissertation in New Testament textual criticism has seen the light at Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen written by John David Punch under the supervision of Jan G. van der Watt, and with the title "The Pericope Adulterae: Theories of Insertion and Omission."

The dissertation, over 400 pages, includes this summary:

While the majority of the scholarly world seems to be settled in accepting the fact that the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) is a non-Johannine interpolation, numerous questions remain unanswered in regards to the pericope, such as who penned these words, where the story originates from, and when was it inserted/omitted/re-inserted into the Fourth Gospel. In addition to this, there are mild debates that continue in regards to Greek manuscripts, the influence of lectionary practice, and the relevancy of the Patristic witnesses. Further, there is a minority who still argue for the inclusion of the Pericope Adulterae in the Fourth Gospel. Though there is a majority viewpoint, issues related to John 7:53-8:11 appear to be far from settled.

The present work does not argue for either side, but instead tests a hypothesis of several theories relating to the insertion or omission (and subsequent re-insertion) of the passage from the Gospel of John. Such theories are proposed in relation to collation of internal and external evidence both for and against the inclusion of the pericope. No particular theory is advocated for; instead each theory is evaluated based upon the evidence presented in this work and suggestions for further work are offered.

Chapter 1 presents an introduction to the Pericope Adulterae itself, along with a brief summary of the history of biblical interpretation and the history of such interpretation in relation to the Gospel of John in particular. Five theories of omission/insertion are then highlighted, setting the foundation for the work that will follow. These theories are categorized as Redactional Insertion, Ecclesiastical Insertion, Liturgical Omission, Accidental Omission, and Ecclesiastical Suppression.

Chapter 2 summarizes the history of research regarding John 7:53-8:11, beginning with the nineteenth century developments in textual criticism that broke away from Textus Receptus. This summary is not exhaustive, but rather highlights the major movements in the research of this passage up to the present day, detailing scholars who have either had a profound impact on textual criticism, written major works relating to the Pericope Adulterae, or written multiple works on the subject.

Chapter 3 presents a working translation and exegesis of the pericope. The translation is offered with comparison to the numerous variants associated with the passage; the exegesis is offered based upon the traditional location of John 7:53-8:11 immediately following John 7:52 and preceding 8:12.

Chapters 4 and 5 discuss the internal evidence of the literary context, style, and vocabulary of the Pericope Adulterae. In Chapter 4, comparison The Pericope Adulterae: Theories of Insertion & Omission is made between the pericope and the immediate context of John 7-8 as well as the larger context of the Gospel of John. This includes discussion of various themes common to the Tabernacles Discourse and to the Gospel of
John as a whole. Further, issues of transition between John 7:52 and 8:12 are evaluated. In Chapter 5, suggested “non-Johannine“ and “Johannine“ style and vocabulary are discussed, in addition to arguments relating to hapax legomena, Lukan and/or Synoptic influence, and the relationship between the Pericope Adulterae and Susanna.

Chapter 6 presents the external evidence of the Greek papyri/manuscripts, manuscripts in additional languages, and the Patristic Witnesses. Evaluation is made in regards to both the presence and absence of John 7:53-8:11 in numerous manuscripts and in the works of various Church Fathers. Further, several theories traditionally offered in response to the external evidence, such as Source Theories, Lectionary Text Theories,
Majority Text Theories, and Multiple Edition Theories, are discussed as well.

Chapter 7 discusses each of the theories presented in Chapter 1. The five theories presented include Redactional Insertion, suggesting that a later Johannine redactor or community inserted the pericope at a later date; Ecclesiastical Interpolation, suggesting that later scribes not related to the Johannine redactor or community inserted the pericope; Liturgical Omission, suggesting that due to lectionary practice and manuscripts the pericope was omitted; Accidental Omission, suggesting that multiple copies of the Gospel of John were released, one without the pericope and one with the pericope; and Ecclesiastical Suppression, suggesting that the Church omitted the pericope out of fears that it could be misinterpreted and/or misapplied. Each theory is treated individually, though at times theories overlap with one another. Further, each is evaluated based upon the evidence presented in Chapters 4-6. Following this evaluation, suggestions for further study of the Pericope Adulterae are offered.

Although the author said in the summary that "[n]o particular theory is advocated for" it is nevertheless clear that in the end he favors #5 Ecclesiastical Suppression, as he concludes his examination on p. 359, right before the final heading "Proposed further study":

Ultimately, theory #5 accounts for the internal and external evidence in a less complex fashion than the four other theories suggested. There are questions that remained unanswered and the theory is likely unproveable, but arguably there does not appear to be a better theory that has been suggested to date that accounts for all the evidence.

I have not read in any detail, but I assume it was suitable to treat this theory as the the concluding one, being able to account for all the evidence, after difficulties with the other theories had been laid out.

The dissertation is freely available here.

A presentation (in Dutch) of the author and the thesis is found here (on p. 6). This is my attempt to translate Dutch (updatethanks to Jan Krans who made some corrections in the comments):

"John David Punch has studied theology at the University of Pretoria, Literature and Biblical Studies at Birmingham Theological Seminary, and Science and Mechanical Engineering at the University of Alabama. Punch has been involved in church work and worked as youth pastor; he has been a member of the Briarwood Presbyterian Church Youth Ministry Staff and worked as Park Street Church Minister to Youth in Boston USA. The promotion [=research leading to the promotion] was supervised by the Research Institute for Religious Studies and Theology."

Congratulations to the new doctor!

Explicit References to New Testament Variant Readings Among Greek and Latin Church Fathers

In December, Mike Holmes reported here that Amy Donaldson had successfully defended her thesis “Explicit References to New Testament Variant Readings Among Greek and Latin Church Fathers,” in partial fulfillment of requirements for the Ph.D. degree at the University of Notre Dame.

Holmes expressed his hopes that the dissertation (the catalog, in particular) be published sooner than later. Apparently, the complete dissertation in two parts was made publicly available soon thereafter in the database University of Notre Dame Electronic Theses & Dissertations (HT Wieland Willker). We can be very thankful to Amy for sharing her significant work in this way. I hope the study will still be published in print. In any case I am sure that it will be widely cited in years to come.

Abstract
In his introduction to New Testament textual criticism, Eberhard Nestle stated a desideratum, later repeated by Bruce Metzger, for a collection, arranged according to time and locality, of all passages in which the church fathers appeal to New Testament manuscript evidence. Nestle began this project with a list of references; Metzger continued the work by examining the explicit references to variants by Origen and Jerome and expanding Nestle’s list. This dissertation picks up where Metzger left off, expanding and evaluating the list. The purpose is to contribute to patristics and New Testament textual criticism in two ways: first, by providing a helpful catalogue of patristic texts that refer to variant readings; and second, by analyzing the collected data with a focus on the text-critical criteria used by the fathers.

The dissertation begins by considering the social and historical backdrop of the early church, especially textual scholarship in antiquity and its patristic application to the Old Testament. The explicit references to variants are then examined, first by individual father (organized by Greek and Latin), then by variant (for the variants discussed by multiple authors). This information is then summarized in terms of literary genres in which the references occur and the criteria used to evaluate the variants. After a general assessment of New Testament textual scholarship by the early church (including recensional and scribal activity), patristic textual criticism is compared to modern practice to assess to what extent the church fathers engaged in textual criticism and what insights we can gain from them today.

The second volume contains the catalogue of explicit references to variants (each entry includes the variants and their textual evidence in modern critical editions, the Greek or Latin excerpt and English translation, and a brief discussion of the context). Passages that discuss textual problems but are not explicit references to variants are collected separately. In an appendix, the lists by Nestle and Metzger are compared alongside the list of texts in the catalogue, followed by another appendix on Bede, and a third appendix containing a brief biography and bibliography for each father cited in the catalogue.

Chris Jordan on Gospel Lectionaries

Chris Jordan recently defended his Birmingham PhD entitled:

The Textual Tradition of the Gospel of John in Greek Gospel Lectionaries from the Middle Byzantine Period (8th-11th century)

Here are details that he's sent to me:

'It has been over 50 years since the last doctoral dissertation on the Gospel of John in the Greek lectionary tradition. The writer of this dissertation on the pericopae of the Gospel of John in the Synaxarion section of the Greek Gospel lectionary hopes that it will ignite an interest in the lectionary tradition within the discipline of New Testament Textual Criticism. The pages of this dissertation are the groundwork for the lectionary phase of the International Greek New Testament Project and its major criticial edition of John.

During the Middle Byzantine period (8th-11th century) the Gospel lectionary emerges as a liturgical codex of the Byzantine Church. One hundred and twenty-six Greek Gospel lectionaries from this period are examined at forty-four carefully selected test passages in John. One places the manuscripts in their Byzantine context, studies the lectionary evidence as documents, highlights the textual and paratextual variation in the lectionary tradition, discusses genealogical issues, explores the method of lectionary construction, and investigates the relationship between the lectionary tradition and the continuous text manuscript tradition.'

It was a privilege to teach Chris for a brief period while he was at Aberdeen and to look at NT mss with him. Now many congratulations go to him on successful completion of the doctorate in this underexplored area. Individuals considering topics for doctorates in NT TC would do well to consider this as a potential area for exploration. If so, Birmingham, UK, would be a very good place to choose.

A New Reconstruction of the Text of Marcion's Gospel and a New Doctor

Congratulations to Dr. Dieter Roth, Edinburgh University, who has just been awarded a PhD!

Thesis Title: “Towards a New Reconstruction of the Text of Marcion’s Gospel: History of Research, Sources, Methodology, and the Testimony of Tertullian”

Examined By: Ulrich Schmid and Paul Parvis

Abstract:

This thesis provides the initial and foundational steps for a new reconstruction of the text of Marcion’s Gospel. Though Harnack’s 1924 magisterial work on Marcion remains valuable and important, shortcomings in his reconstructed text of the Marcionite scriptures, as well as advances in critical methodology, text criticism, and patristic studies have led to the recognition that new reconstructions of Marcion’s scriptures are a scholarly desideratum. With the text of Marcion’s Apostolikon examined and reconstructed in a 1995 work by Ulrich Schmid, this thesis provides the most important elements for a new examination and reconstruction of Marcion’s Euangelion.

Chapter 1 provides an extensive history of research, not only to provide the context and rationale for the present work, but also to provide the first in-depth scholarly survey of work on Marcion’s Gospel in 150 years. In addition, since several flaws in earlier studies arose out of a lack of an accurate understanding of the status quaestionis at various points in the history of research on Marcion’s Gospel, by considering and engaging with previous scholarship such errors can be avoided.

Chapter 2 begins with a consideration of the sources for Marcion’s Gospel and provides a comprehensive listing of verses attested as present in, verses attested as absent from, and unattested verses of this Gospel. The chapter concludes with a methodological discussion, highlighting the particular importance of understanding the citation customs of the witnesses to Marcion’s text and noting the significant citation customs of Tertullian demonstrated by Schmid’s and my own research.

Chapter 3 begins the analysis of the data found in Tertullian, the most extensive and important source for Marcion’s Gospel. This chapter examines all of the verses that Tertullian attests for Marcion’s Gospel that are also cited elsewhere in Tertullian’s corpus and focuses particularly on how these multiply-cited passages provide insight into Tertullian’s testimony to readings in Marcion’s text.

Chapter 4 continues the analysis of Tertullian’s testimony by examining the remaining verses, i.e., those attested for Marcion’s Gospel but not multiply-cited in Tertullian’s corpus.

Chapter 5 provides a reconstruction of the 328 verses in Marcion’s Gospel for which Tertullian is the only witness and offers not only readings for Marcion’s text, but also the relative certainty for those readings.

Chapter 6 summarizes and concludes the thesis, along with brief mention of avenues for future research.

Dieter is planning to continue the work with a complete reconstruction, which means that for the moment public access to the thesis is restricted. If anyone is interested in various issues related to reconstructing Marcion's Gospel a few recently published articles by Dieter address important aspects of working with Marcion's Gospel and the testimony for it:

“Matthean Readings and Tertullian’s Accusations in Adversus Marcionem,” The Journal of Theological Studies 59 (2008): 580–97;
“Marcion’s Gospel and Luke: The History of Research in Current Debate,” The Journal of Biblical Literature 127 (2008): 513–27; and
“Did Tertullian Possess a Greek Copy or Latin Translation of Marcion’s Gospel?,” Vigiliae Christianae 63 (2009): 429–67.

Read also about my first meeting with Dieter in Edinburgh earlier this year, as I was there for the Northern Scholar's Lecture, here. And last week I had the pleasure to meet Dieter again at the SBL, and he joined us for our record breaking ETC blogdinner.

And don't forget to look up Dieter's piece in the SBL Forum "American versus British Ph.D. Programs: Three Doctoral Students Reflect on Their Decisions. Why I Chose To Start in an American Ph.D. Program and Finish in a British One"