ECM of Mark: Thirty-three Changes to the Initial Text

The Novum Testamentum Graecum. Editio Critica Maior (ECM) of the Gospel of Mark has just arrived in Sweden in a shoebox size 43. First of all I want to warmly congratulate the team of the INTF in Münster for this splendid achievement, in particular for doing the finish during a long pandemic.

 There are of course many things to say, but here below I simply list the thirty-three changes to the initial text from NA28 to the ECM of Mark, indicating where how the Byzantine text aligns where it is not split itself (ECM Mark I:2,1, p. 20*). Apparently, in twenty twenty-five places the initial text moves towards the Byzantine text, and in six five places it moves away from it. In this context, however, it should be noted that there are thousands and thousands of variation-units (I have not checked how many).

A pdf of the list of changes as it appears printed in vol. 1 can be downloaded from the INTF, here. 

Further, there are 126 places where the editors print a split guiding line, i.e., where the decision between two competing variants is left open. This list can be downloaded from here. 

As for the accompanying digital tools, I wrote some years ago: “A desideratum for the future is an interactive interface that will enable users to pursue the complete critical process: to create their own local steammata of variants, build up a genalogical database, and successively evaluate the consequences of their textual choices” (Tommy Wasserman, “Criteria for Evaluating Readings in NT Textual Criticism,” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research, ed. Ehrman and Holmes [Brill, 2013], p. 607).  Well, the future is now here; to cite Klaus Wachtel, “Every user may now install the CBGM locally, make textual decisions, construct local stemmata, and make these the basis for their own genealogical evaluation” (ECM Mark I:2,3, p. 6). 

Thus, the CBGM toolbox (formerly called “Genealogical Queries”) for Mark is found here.

If you want to know more about how you can use the tools on your own, go here.

Again, congratulations to the editors and all contributors to this milestone in New Testament textual criticism! Now we look forward to the next volume.

Changes to the Initial Text of Mark

ECM / NA28 

• 1:1/12-16
  υιου του θεου Byz / [υιου θεου] 
• 1:2/18
  εγω Byz / om.  
• 1:4/5
  om. Byz / [ο] 
• 2:12/18
  εναντιον Byz / εμπροσθεν
• 3:11/18-26
  προσεπιπτον αυτω και εκραζον λεγοντα / προσεπιπτον αυτω και εκραζον λεγοντες 
• 3:14/6-14
  δωδεκα ινα ωσιν μετ αυτου Byz / δωδεκα [ους και αποστολους ωνομασεν] ινα ωσιν μετ αυτου
• 3:16/1
  om. Byz / [και εποιησεν τους δωδεκα] 
• 3:20/12-16
  συνερχεται παλιν οχλος Byz / συνερχεται παλιν [ο] οχλος 
• 3:32/34-40
  om. / [και αι αδελφαι σου] Byz
• 4:15/50-52
  εν αυτοις / εις αυτους 
• 4:16/2-6
  και ουτοι εισιν ομοιως Byz / και ουτοι εισιν 
• 4:31/4
  κοκκον Byz / κοκκω 
• 6:22/30-40
  ο δε βασιλευς ειπεν τω κορασιω / ειπεν ο βασιλευς τω κορασιω Byz
• 6:23/6
  αυτη Byz / αυτη [πολλα] 
• 6:40/10-16
  ανα εκατον και ανα Byz / κατα εκατον και κατα 
• 7:6/24-26
  ως γεγραπται Byz / ως γεγραπται [οτι] 
• 7:9/28
  τηρησητε Byz / στησητε 
• 7:12/2-10
  και ουκετι αφιετε αυτον ουδεν ποιησαι Byz / ουκετι αφιετε αυτον ουδεν ποιησαι 
• 7:35/3
  om. / [ευθεως] Byz 
• 7:37/22-30
  ποιει ακουειν και αλαλους λαλειν / ποιει ακουειν και [τους] αλαλους λαλειν Byz 
• 8:35/28
  απολεση Byz / απολεσει 
• 9:1/20-24
  των ωδε εστηκοτων Byz / ωδε των εστηκοτων 
• 10:25/18
  εισελθειν Byz / διελθειν 
• 10:28/22
  ηκολουθησαμεν / ηκολουθηκαμεν 
• 11:3/20
  οτι Byz / om. 
• 11:23/4
  γαρ Byz / om. 
• 11:32/12-14
  τον λαον Byz / τον οχλον 
• 12:36/20
  ο Byz / om. 
• 14:31/12-18
  με δεη συναποθανειν σοι Byz / δεη με συναποθανειν σοι 
• 14:44/34
  απαγαγετε Byz / απαγετε 
• 15:12/19
  om. / [θελετε] Byz 
• 16:14/4 
  om. Byz / [δε] 
• 16:19/8
  κυριος Byz / κυριος ιησους 

Update: After I published this blogpost, Maurice Robinson asked me why the Byz was not indicated in a few additional passages, and in one case (16:19/8) it was indicated in the wrong place. When I looked at these passages I realized that the Byz had been dropped from the passages because the sign is not indicated where there is only a negative apparatus, but it certainly ought to be in the list on p. 20*. Greg Paulson of the INTF confirms that this is the case and will add them in the online PDF of textual changes (see link above). (I will ask him to check also the list with split guiding line.) In the last passage there was a printing error (the Byz sign was placed before κυριος ιησους too far to the right which created confusion; this has also been rectified).

Greg Lanier: Locating the Inspired ‘Original’ Amid Textual Complexity

Greg Lanier is an assistant professor and dean of students at Reformed Theological Seminary and a good friend of mine from Cambridge. Recently, he published a long article in JETS about a particularly knotty textual problem that spans both OT and NT. It also raises questions for Evangelicals about the goal of textual criticism and its relationship to our bibliology. I would like to see more discussion about these issues and so I asked Greg if he would introduce us to his article and pose some of the issues it raises. So, here is Greg.

---

The most recent volume of JETS (61.1) includes my analysis of the textual tradition of the murder (M), adultery (A), and steal (S) commandments of the Decalogue—traditionally 6th–8th in the Protestant numbering. The full article can be downloaded here.

The bulk of the article is an inventory of the various sequences found in extant sources (including the versions) for both OT and NT occurrences of these commandments. For instance, the order M-A-S is read in the MT for both Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5; A-M-S in the Nash Papyrus and B-Deuteronomy; A-S-M in B-Exodus; and a variety of sequences appear in the NT references to these commandments (and the resulting textual traditions). The full set of results can, of course, be found in the article.

While tracing the minutiae of these passages as far as possible was interesting in its own right, I eventually realized that the project served as a well-contained case study that surfaces and helps crystallize a bigger-picture issue of significance in the study of the textual tradition of Scripture. Namely, what does it mean to speak of an authorial/original/initial form of a Scriptural writing when faced with tremendous complexity in the actual data itself?

In conversations with various OT and NT peers—particularly those who have a “high” doctrine of Scripture (of the American or British varieties)—I’ve found that this topic has struck a chord, as others have been thinking on it as well.

First Use of the Term Ausgangstext

So far as I know, no one has written more trying to tease out the term Ausgangstext (translated as “initial text”) than Eldon Epp in his essay for J.K. Elliott’s Festschrift.

There (p. 54) he suggests that the earliest official definition is found in the second fascicle of the ECM1 in 2000. (The term is not used in the first fascicle on James published in 1997.) Later in the essay (p. 61 n. 61) Epp notes that J.K. Elliott reports having heard Barbara Aland use the term in a 1999 German broadcast they were part of together. If so, that would be the first recorded use (yes, we text critics can be pedantic).

What I was doing in 1993.

So for the two people who care, I can report that Gerd Mink defined the term way back when I was still watching cartoons. It’s in his 1993 NTS essay (p. 482):

The Ausgangstext is the text which the entire tradition originates from and which directly precedes the first relationship in various branches of the tradition. When textual criticism speaks about the original text, it typically means this Ausgangstext. It is only with this text that genuine text critical methods are dealing. Textual stages that may have been situated between the autograph and the Ausgangstext, are not accessible to text critical means. We would then be dealing with a linear path between the autograph and the Ausgangstext, which had left no trace in the manuscript tradition. (my rough translation)

After that, the next use I’ve found is in Klaus Wachtel’s 1995 dissertation (p. 45). There may be other early uses which I haven’t found.

I know you’ll all be able to sleep better this weekend knowing that.

Conjecturing the Initial Text Where the Original Text Is Extant

While pondering the relationship of the initial text and the original text (as one does), a thought experiment occurred to me. I shared it with a friend who was asking about the difference between the initial text and the original text. This caused my friend to groan—whether at my scenario or the distinction itself I’m not sure. See what you think.

First, definitions: (1) the “initial text” is that text which is the starting point for the extant textual tradition; and (2) the “original text” is that text which was written by the author. Given these definitions, it is possible that the initial text may need conjectural emendation at a point where the original text itself is extant.*

Let’s give a concrete example. It is possible that at 2 Peter 3.10, the conjecture† οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται is the best candidate for explaining the witnesses of the extant readings and that εὑρεθήσεται is the original text. This would require something like the following scenario, where O = the original text and A = the initial text:

Filled circles = extant witnesses; hollow circles = non-extant witnesses.

Now I readily admit that I can’t imagine how to convincingly argue for such a scenario. But I also can’t imagine any way to argue against it. And this makes me wonder whether there is any sense in distinguishing the initial text from the original text, at least in places where the initial text is conjectured.

-----
*Perhaps one caveat is necessary here. The thought experiment may only work in the context of a method like the CBGM where the relationships of entire witnesses are used to help judge the relationships of particular readings in those same witnesses.

†For the sake of argument we’ll define a “conjecture” as a reading with no Greek support.

Poll: What’s the Goal of Textual Criticism?

“Original text”?

Not long ago I read the entry on New Testament textual criticism in a very good dictionary that claimed that the goal of textual criticism has shifted so that today the quest for the “original text” has been displaced by a quest for the “initial text.” The article left the impression that this was now a settled matter.

When I read this it struck me as an exaggeration. True, the most widely-used edition (Nestle-Aland) has shifted its stated aim to the initial text, but have any other editions or editors shifted with it? I wondered.

So I asked several editors who have edited or are editing a Greek New Testament (all reasoned eclectics for what it’s worth) and the answer back was basically no. They’ve aimed their editions at the earliest attainable text, a text which they thought was substantially identical to the original (no scare quotes).

But I’m curious what readers of the blog think. Hence the poll: What is your preferred term for the goal of textual criticism? Vote below and then define (and defend) your preferred term in the comments. We’ll see if there’s any substantial shift afoot among the blog readers. (Note: the question is not whether you think such a goal is always attainable.)

What is the goal of textual criticism?

Mark and Matthew I. Comparative Readings: Understanding the Earliest Gospels in their First Century Settings

Mark and Matthew I. Comparative Readings: Understanding the Earliest Gospels in their First Century Settings, edited by Eve-Marie Becker and Anders Runesson forthcoming in the WUNT series (Mohr-Siebeck) will be published in August. The volume of essays brings together the contributions to the first conference held in Århus, reported on here, here and here. Of particular interest to readers of this blog will be the essays on textual criticism by Barbara Aland, "Was heißt Abschreiben? Neue Entwicklungen in der Textkritik und ihre Konsequenzen für die Überlieferungsgeschichte der frühesten christlichen Verkündigung," and Tommy Wasserman, "The Implications of Textual Criticism for Understanding the ‘Original Text’."

Publisher's description:

The study of Mark and Matthew from a comparative perspective has a long history. Ever since the theory of Markan priority became firmly established in the 19th century however, many studies, especially commentaries on either Mark or Matthew, make observations related primarily to one of the Gospels only. Thus the most frequent result of studying Mark and Matthew is that one Gospel is overshadowed by the other. This collection of papers employs a sustained multiperspectival comparative approach which contributes simultaneously to the synoptic problem discourse and sheds light on the individual Gospels in their first century setting(s), a procedure that reveals new questions and discoveries. This highlights new aspects of the Gospels which are critical for our understanding of the rise and development of Gospel literature in the first century C.E.

Contributors:
Barbara Aland , David E. Aune , Wayne Baxter , Eve-Marie Becker, Cilliers Breytenbach , Warren Carter , Sean Freyne , Morten Hørning Jensen , John S. Kloppenborg , Stanley E. Porter , Anders Runesson , David C. Sim , Lorenzo Scornaienchi , Tommy Wasserman , Oda Wischmeyer , Adela Yarbro Collins , Linden Youngquist


Survey of contents:
Eve-Marie Becker and Anders Runesson : Introduction: Studying Mark and Matthew in Comparative Perspective
1. History of Research
Cilliers Breytenbach : Current Research on the Gospel according to Mark: A Report on Monographs Published from 2000-2009 - David C. Sim : Matthew: The Current State of Research

2. Reconstructing the Artifacts: Text-Critical and Linguistic Aspects of the Study of Mark and Matthew
Barbara Aland : Was heißt Abschreiben? Neue Entwicklungen in der Textkritik und ihre Konsequenzen für die Überlieferungsgeschichte der frühesten christlichen Verkündigung - Tommy Wasserman : The Implications of Textual Criticism for Understanding the ‘Original Text’ - Stanley E. Porter : Matthew and Mark: The Contribution of Recent Linguistic Thought

3. Date and Genre
Eve-Marie Becker : Dating Mark and Matthew as Ancient Literature - David E. Aune : Genre Theory and the Genre-Function of Mark and Matthew

4. Socio-Religious Location
Sean Freyne : Matthew and Mark: The Jewish Contexts - Morten Hørning Jensen : Conflicting Calls? Family and Discipleship in Mark & Matthew in the Light of First-Century Galilean Village Life - Linden Youngquist : Matthew, Mark and Q - Wayne Baxter : Matthew, Mark, and the Shepherd Metaphor: Similarities, Differences, and Implications

5. Conflict and Violence
Warren Carter : Matthew: Empire, Synagogues, and Horizontal Violence - Lorenzo Scornaienchi : The Controversy Dialogues and the Polemic in Mark and Matthew - John S. Kloppenborg : The Representation of Violence in Synoptic Parables

6. Building Community Using Text
Oda Wischmeyer : Forming Identity Through Literature: The Impact of Mark for the Building of Christ-Believing Communities in the Second Half of the First Century C. E. - Anders Runesson : Building Matthean Communities: The Politics of Textualization

7. Notes from the Conference: Further Discussion
Adela Yarbro Collins : Reflections on the Conference at the University of Aarhus, July 25-27, 2008

Link to publisher's description.