The Top Ten Essential Books in NT Textual Criticism—According to AI

AI destroying the joy of human creativity, 
as drawn by AI

Tommy's list of top ten essential works in NT textual criticism has had a very good run on this website. It remains our most read blog post ever. It could probably use a minor update given that it's more than a decade old, but it's still useful. Until then, I thought I would see what AI says are the top ten books in our field. I asked two AI platforms, Google Gemini and Microsoft's Copilot. I have no real insight into how either of these work or what the LLMs are behind them. But here are their answers.

Copilot

Here are ten essential books in New Testament Textual Criticism that are highly recommended for anyone interested in the field:

1. The Text of the New Testament by Kurt and Barbara Aland - A comprehensive guide to the text of the New Testament.
2. The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research edited by Bart D. Ehrman, Michael W. Holmes, and Bruce M. Metzger - An overview of the current state of research in New Testament textual criticism.
3. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture by Bart D. Ehrman - Examines how early Christological controversies affected the text of the New Testament.
4. Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism by Eldon J. Epp and Gordon D. Fee - Focuses on the theory and methodology of textual criticism.
5. The Text of the New Testament by Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman - Discusses the transmission, corruption, and restoration of the New Testament text.
6. An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts by D. C. Parker - A technical guide to New Testament manuscripts.
7. The Living Text of the Gospels by D. C. Parker - Explores the text of the Gospels in detail.
8. Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek by B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort - A classic work laying the foundation for textual criticism.
9. The Story of the New Testament Text: Movers, Materials, Motives, Methods, and Models by Robert F. Hull - Covers the history and development of the New Testament text.
10. Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament by David C. Parker - Discusses the procedures and challenges of New Testament textual scholarship.

These books provide a solid foundation for understanding the principles and practices of New Testament textual criticism. Do any of these titles catch your interest?

Gemini

Here are ten essential books in New Testament Textual Criticism, presented in no particular order:

1. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration by Bruce M. Metzger: A classic and comprehensive overview of the field.
2. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart D. Ehrman: A popular and accessible introduction to textual variants.
3. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by Bruce M. Metzger: A detailed reference work examining variant readings for each verse of the Greek New Testament.
4. The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism by Kurt and Barbara Aland: A foundational work on the principles and methods of textual criticism.
5. A Student's Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods and Results by Paul D. Wegner: A user-friendly guide for students.
6. New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide by David Alan Black: A brief and accessible introduction.
7. Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism by Eldon J. Epp and Gordon D. Fee: A more advanced work exploring critical methodologies.
8. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament by Bart D. Ehrman: A controversial but influential work examining the impact of theological biases on the transmission of the text.
9. The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis edited by Bart D. Ehrman, Michael W. Holmes, and Bruce M. Metzger: A collection of essays by leading scholars.
10. A History of the Synoptic Problem by David L. Dungan: While focused on the Synoptic Gospels, this work delves into the complexities of textual transmission within the Gospels.

Note: This is not an exhaustive list, and the "best" books will depend on your individual needs and level of expertise.

I hope this helps!

What I take away from this exercise is that, in this case at least, AI is little more than repackaged search engine. Both results are basically just Tommy's post with maybe some rearrangement or rewording. For example, I suspect Gemini's description of Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption as "controversial" is coming straight from Tommy's post. The same can be said of Copilot's description of Westcott and Hort's introduction. Some of the descriptions are obviously just the book's subtitles. So, kudos to the authors for picking descriptive subtitles, but not exactly a win for AI. 

Only Gemini gives any sources but, alas, only one of them makes much sense. They are a random blog post on Isaiah, a Catalan Wikipedia entry on the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis, and a German theology faculty booklist. None of them are Tommy's blog post, which appears to be the main source. Positively, these lists are pretty good (thanks to Tommy!) and all the books listed are real books.

I did ask ChatGPT as well and its answers were similar except that it oddly included Raymond Brown's Introduction to the New Testament and Ehrman's edition of the Apostolic Fathers (which it recognizes was not directly about NTTC). Finally, one point of praise goes to ChatGPT for this introductory line which is spot on: "New Testament textual criticism (NTTC) is a fascinating and complex field."

1QIsaa and Shifting Categories

Sean McDowell and I recently had a conversation about 1QIsaa. You can access the conversation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90_Mpiz1ons&t=333s

I repeat some of my points here along with some pictures! I hope you enjoy. 

1QIsaa is the most popular Dead Sea Scroll. It was one of the initial six (or seven) manuscripts discovered (see Weston Fields’ Full History for a helpful overview of the discovery), and it is a copy of the book of Isaiah: a very important OT book. Additionally, the text is ancient. Although many antiquity dealers and scholars initially assessed it as medieval or a modern forgery, paleographic and radiocarbon dating have vindicated the impression of Mar Samuel (a Syriac Archbishop who purchased it from the Bedouin), the keen analysis of Eleazar Sukenik, and the conclusions of Brownlee, Burrows, and Trever at ASOR (now the Albright Institute of Archaeology). The scroll is ancient. The paleography is, more precisely, Hasmonean. Features of this script include non-uniform letter size, inconsistent use of final letters, and the often non-ligatured consonant combination of nun-yod/vav (see the end of this article for pictures illustrating some of these features).

Many of us are aware that this text’s fame has recently been revived because of Wes Huff’s thrilling and helpful interview with Joe Rogan. Unfortunately, that conversation has stirred some controversy regarding the description “word-for-word”. I aim to provide some background information on this discussion, hoping it will bring greater clarity to this important topic.

Past Assessment of 1QIsaa: Wes Huff’s point that 1QIsaa’s alignment with the MT shocked those who initially studied it is true. Kutscher makes this point on page 2 (see also footnote 6) of his monumental work The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa). These first scholars were not ignorant to the textual variants preserved in this text. They understood the text’s divergent linguistic profile and were also fully aware of the large-scale differences. Yet, the general assessment of the first generation of scholars who analyzed this text was that this text is a popular edition of a proto-Masoretic text.

Present Assessment of 1QIsaa: Although those initial scholars emphasized the text’s alignment with the medieval MT, modern scholars tend to emphasize the text’s differences. This change in attitudes is not the result of a new discovery or the realization of new textual variants. Rather, the change coincides with a shift in OT textual criticism away from analyzing the “quality” of the variant to stressing the “quantity” of the variants. In short, the grouping of OT manuscripts has become much more precise over the last thirty years.

When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, the local text theory of Albright was the dominant theory regarding the transmission of the OT text. This theory grouped manuscripts, all manuscripts into three broad categories. We could refer to these groups as text-types. The Dead Sea Scrolls were born into this framework, so initial scholars sought to take each text and put it into one of these three categories. Most non-textual critics may be unaware that textual critics have largely abandoned the local text theory now. Scholars have replaced the local text theory of Albright and Cross with a variety of frameworks that do not restrict a text into one of three categories based on its alignment to MT, SP, and LXX. Emanuel Tov’s framework is the most popular alternative to the local text theory (but there are others). Tov postulates four broad categories: proto-MT (and semi-MT), pre-Samaritan, texts close to the Vorlage of the LXX, and non-aligned texts. Three of these categories align closely with the categories of the local text theory. The non-aligned category is the additional category. In one sense, this category has freed scholars from grouping texts, including 1QIsaa, into one of the three categories of the local text theory.

This present confusion is, at least in part, the result of this shift in methodology.

Analysis of the Methodological Shift: Categorizing manuscripts has become more “quantitative” than “qualitative”. Whereas Leitfehler (i.e., indicative errors) used to be the rule in grouping manuscripts (that is a “qualitative” approach), now the entire text is considered including unique readings and minor differences of orthography and morphology (this is a “quantitative” approach). This latter approach to textual criticism has its benefits. For example, it clearly demonstrates that scribes of the Second Temple period possessed the freedom to update a text’s orthography, morphology, grammar, and syntax. Moreover, it helps scholars see that many of the Dead Sea Scrolls do not align with Codex Leningrad to the extent that the medieval manuscripts. These are two important benefits of the new methodology.

However, the modern approach to classifying texts can also be confusing as we are witnessing firsthand today. The main drawback of this new method is it does not depict or describe the “significance” of the variants. In other words, the new method does not weigh variants, but counts them. Although this has its benefits as just mentioned, it also skews the opinions of both non-specialists and the specialists. How significant are these variants? The new methodology largely cannot answer this question. Thus, we have confusion abounding. So, how should we understand the differences between 1QIsaa and the MT?

For a deep dive into this question, variants must be weighted, not merely counted. You can see my dissertation where I do both. Donald Parry’s book Exploring the Isaiah Scroll and Their Textual Variants is another fantastic resource that assesses the significance of the variants. In have grouped the variants into three categories:

1) Some variants (thousands!) merely represent a “facilitating” approach to copying. At times, the text’s spelling, morphology, grammar, and syntax have been updated to fit contemporary usage.

2) Many variants (about 900) between 1QIsaa and the MT represent a change in meaning. Most of these changes, however, are the result of common scribal tendencies. These variants include unintentional changes (i.e., scribal errors) and intentional ones that often result in an interpreted or harmonized text. When comparing the texts, the texts are not synonymous, but common sense often reveals that the two readings are genealogically connected. One derived from the other.

3) Finally, the text preserves about 30 variants that do not result in a synonymous form (the first set of variants) nor is there an immediate scribal explanation that accounts for their genesis (the second set of variants). This final fact should not alarm us. Copying an ancient manuscript is a difficult task. While we have the luxury of powerful tools such as word processors and internet search engines, ancient scribes did not. Before becoming too critical of the scribe of 1QIsaa, we should imagine the difficulty of his task. I’d rather write a text today in the comfort of my office on my powerful computer than in an ancient room with parchment and a reed pen.

Our present confusion, then, is in part the result of a shift in methodologies. As Wes Huff stated, it is also the result of a mistake on his part. 1QIsaa should not be described as “word-for-word” identical to Codex Leningrad. At the same time, we should not exaggerate the differences as Kutscher states 50 years ago.

I hope this provides some background on why conflicting categories for 1QIsaa have emerged while providing a more balanced assessment of 1QIsaa’s textual character.

For those who enjoy pictures, here are some pictures illustrating some of the above phenomena of the manuscript. See http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah for the digital image of the manuscript from which I took these pictures.

Notice the peculiar use of a final mem in non-final position and the inconsistent height of the letters in the image above. The kaph extends here closer to the baseline than the shin. (http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah).

See above the more common occurrence of a non-final mem appearing in final position.

Notice the plene spelling here, a very common feature of 1QIsaa. (http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah).

In this above image, there is a peculiar example of a nun formed by a scribe who did not lift his pen between the gimal and nun. This "cursive" feature causes the nun to appear as a gimal.

A major new article on the Distigmai in Codex Vaticanus

 Just in time for Christmas: 

Nehemia Gordon, Patrick Andrist, Oliver Hahn, Pavlos D. Vasileiadis, Nelson Calvillo, and

Ira Rabin, ‘Did the Original Scribes Write the Distigmai in Codex Vaticanus B of the Bible (Vat. gr. 1209)?’ the Vatican Library Review 3 (2024), 125–156. Click here.

Abstract: The fourth-century Greek Bible manuscript Codex Vaticanus B (Vat. gr. 1209) contains pairs of horizontally aligned marginal dots known as distigmai, which correspond to textual variants in other manuscripts. The production of the distigmai has been variously dated to the 4th or 16th centuries. A fourth-century date would prove the early existence of hundreds of textual variants, many of which are otherwise only witnessed by later manuscripts. Near infrared microscope reflectography combined with micro-X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy proved that the distigmai, both those categorized as “apricot” (which are visually similar to the ink of the original main text) and “chocolate” (which are visually similar to the reinking of the main text) were written with ink(s) made from chemically purified vitriol, a process that only became standard in the 16th century. As a result, there is no reasonable chance that the distigmai were written in the fourth century. Horizontal lines that have been hypothesized to function as text-critical obeloi were written in the same ink as the original main text, which differs completely from that of the distigmai. In other words, the distigmai and horizontal lines tested were not produced during the same writing session and are separated by more than 1,000 years, making it impossible for them to have functioned as conjoining text-critical symbols in the 4th century.

2024 Blog Dinner Tickets On Sale

I am pleased to announce that the 2024 ETC Blog Dinner is a go! Thanks to generous support from CSNTM it will also be much more affordable (hurray!). This year’s event will be Sunday night at 7:00pm at Casa Octavio in San Diego. It’s about a 15-minute walk from the convention center. 

Details

There doesn’t seem to be a NT text criticism session that night, but there is a Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (S24-344) as well as a Papyrology and Early Christian Backgrounds (S24-236). Both meet 4:30–6:30pm. I may be at one of the Paul sessions (forgive me!), but anyone attending those other sessions can walk over together. The rest of us will just plan to meet at the restaurant. Now the details...

• Cost: $35.00 (includes the appetizer, main course, non-alcoholic drinks, taxes and tip)
• Time: 7:00pm–10:00pm on Sunday, November 24th
• Place: Casa Octavio, 935 J Street San Diego, CA 92101
• Emcee: Dr. Peter M. Head

Caveat

One BIG caveat: the space only allows for about 40 people comfortably, 50 uncomfortably. So I am capping the tickets at 45 people and I am not offering refunds after this Sunday because I can’t risk losing my personal money. Do not wait if you want to come! I cannot promise you a space if you don’t buy your ticket ahead of time—even if you are the emcee.

Update: I’m happy to report that the restaurant has sent word that they can now accommodate a group of 80 and CSNTM is willing to extend their generosity to match. So I have added more available tickets accordingly. The refund does still close 7 days before. 

Buy Tickets

Menu

Thanks

Again, a huge thanks to the folks at CSNTM for making this event affordable. San Diego is pricey and, without their support, it would be twice the price.

2 Free Grad Student Tickets for the Blog Dinner

Being a grad student is tough. Money is often very tight and, if you can manage to get to SBL, there often isn't much in the coffer left for meals. But, thanks to a generous reader of the blog, I have two complimentary tickets to offer to grad students who want to come to the blog dinner at SBL. 

I will give them to the first two grad/PhD students who email me and tell me where they are a student and what they're studying. Many thanks to our donor!

New Volume of TC is Out

Volume 29 (2024) of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism has just been published. This volume contains five articles, four notes and one "pedagogical note" (a new feature). The volume is not yet complete. Some reviews and an extensive review article will be added soon.

 

Volume 29 (2024)

Articles

Martijn Beukenhorst, The Quedlinburg Itala: New Text-Critical Insights from an Almost Forgotten Manuscript (pp. 1–20)

Abstract: Recent research into the Old Latin of Samuel–Kings has shown the usefulness of this manuscript tradition for textual criticism, while also showing the complex nature of its individual witnesses. This article looks at the Quedlinburg Itala, La116, one of only two remaining manuscript witnesses of the Old Latin text of Samuel–Kings. Even though only six leaves are preserved, the Quedlinburg Itala represents an important and extremely valuable witness to the complexity of the textual history of the Old Latin. The aim of this article is to look at the text-critical value of the preserved textual segments by discussing important variants preserved in Quedlinburg, specifically 2 Sam 2:29, 2 Sam 2:31, 1 Kgs 5:30, and 1 Kgs 6:3. Quedlinburg is an unaligned document that has seen several changes in its transmission history. It nonetheless provides us with useful new insights in multiple text-critical issues.

Dionisio Candido, What Book of Esther Did Josephus Read? A Special Focus on the Old Latin (pp. 21–44)

Abstract: The biblical sources of Flavius Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities are still uncertain. Literary investigations have shown Josephus’s freedom in paraphrasing biblical accounts and omitting or adding sections, according to his own purposes. From a textual-critical point of view, the case of the Jewish Antiquities’s section on the book of Esther (11.184–296) is particularly complicated, since it is attested in three main variant editions: the Masoretic Text, the Old Greek, and the Alpha Text. This article will first offer an investigation of the readings that can be traced back to these three versions. It will also show how the Jewish Antiquities made different use of these versions in quantitative and qualitative terms. Second, the paper presents the alignments between the Jewish Antiquities and the Old Latin. The article will not only analyze the value of the alignments that have already been identified but also point to some new ones. The analysis provides a clearer view of the biblical sources Josephus employed in his rewrite of Esther.

C. E. Hill, The New Testament Citing the New Testament in (Copies of) the New Testament: Diples and Testimony Lists in Early Manuscripts (pp. 45–70)

Abstract: This essay considers two scribal projects from antiquity that record a belief that some New Testament authors at times cited the work of other New Testament writers. The scribes of the fourth- or fifth-century pandects, Sinaiticus (01 א), Alexandrinus (A 02), Vaticanus (B 03), and Ephraemi Rescriptus (C 04), sometimes placed diples (>) in left-hand margins to mark where a New Testament writer has cited an Old Testament book. This essay identifies three New Testament passages (Acts 13:25; 1 Tim 5:18b; 2 Pet 1:17) that receive diples in one or more of the pandects and suggests that these diples denote a belief that the authors, Luke, Paul, and Peter, were reliant upon one of the New Testament gospels. The second scribal project is the μαρτύρια lists within the Euthalian Apparatus for Acts, the Catholic Epistles, and the Pauline Epistles, which record testimonies each book is believed to have taken from other sources. Here the sources are named and so are not ambiguous. The lists indicate a view that some New Testament authors cited not only Old Testament but also pagan, apocryphal, and New Testament predecessors. Seven testimonia are identified as deriving from one of the gospels (Acts 1:4–5; 13:25; 2 Pet 1:17; 2:20; 1 John 1:5; 1 Cor 11:24–25; 1 Tim 5:18b), including all three passages that receive diples in one of the pandects, each of the three being attributed to Matthew. The findings of this essay also shed further light on the origins of the Euthalian Apparatus and on the applicability of the term diplae sacrae.

Juha Pakkala, Editorial Techniques in Light of Textual Variants between Ezra-Nehemiah and 1 Esdras (pp. 71–116)

Abstract: Textual variants between 1 Esdras and Ezra-Nehemiah show a consistent picture of editorial processes. Scribal changes were mostly small and isolated additions, which implies a shared scribal milieu where texts could be slightly expanded but where older textual segments were only rarely omitted. The revision that created 1 Esdras is an exception: omissions, replacements, transpositions, and large additions were much more widely used.

Kirsten M. Schäfers, Zur Eigenart der LXX-Manuskripte der b-Gruppe in der Genesis: Spezielle Lesarten, exegetische Textplus/-minus und Berührungen mit der samaritanischen Texttradition (pp. 117–146)

Abstract: In the Greek textual history of Genesis, the so-called b-group stands out with unique readings. These readings received little attention in the last thirty years after John W. Wevers had concluded that the Lucianic text of Genesis cannot be found in this group and most likely never existed at all. This pre-study does not intend to reopen the quest for the Lucianic text. Rather, it opens up new perspectives on the age and relevance of b’s textual tradition against the background of more recent text-historical research. The article argues that not all unique readings in the b-group should be rejected as late and text-historically worthless. First, the current state of research is summarized briefly. Second, the text-historical significance of the b-group is examined by starting from the notoriously difficult Hebrew and Greek text in Gen 21:14. The subsequent analysis focuses on exegetical text pluses as well as conspicuous text minuses and a significant agreement with the Samaritan text tradition. Significant evidence allows for the conclusion that the exegetical text pluses and some conspicuous text minuses of the group have characteristics similar to the early harmonization phenomena attested by SP, LXX and some Qumran-MSS, more broadly also to those attested in the Antiochene Text of other books. For at least one manuscript (Ra 108) there are indications of contact with a Samareitikon tradition. Based on this evidence, an ancient age of many special readings in the b-group can be assumed with good reason. Thus, the text-historical value of this group of manuscripts potentially increases and should be investigated further.

German/Deutsch Abstract: In der griechischen Textgeschichte der Genesis sticht die sogenannte b-Gruppe mit singulären Lesarten hervor. Diese Lesarten fanden in den letzten dreißig Jahren wenig Beachtung, nachdem John W. Wevers zu dem Schluss gekommen war, dass der Lukianische Text der Genesis in der b-Gruppe nicht zu finden ist und höchstwahrscheinlich nie existiert hat. Die hier präsentierte Vorstudie beabsichtigt nicht, die Suche nach dem Lukianischen Text wiederaufzunehmen. Vielmehr eröffnet sie neue Perspektiven auf das Alter und die Relevanz der in b bewahrten Texttradition vor dem Hintergrund der neueren textgeschichtlichen Forschung. Sie kommt zu dem Schluss, dass nicht alle singulären Lesarten in der b-Gruppe pauschal als spät und textgeschichtlich wertlos verworfen werden sollten. Zunächst wird der aktuelle Forschungsstand kurz zusammengefasst. Anschließend wird die textgeschichtliche Relevanz der b-Gruppe untersucht. Ausgangspunkt ist der notorisch schwierige hebräische und griechische Text in Gen 21:14. Die anschließende Analyse konzentriert sich auf exegetische Textplus sowie auffällige Textminus und eine signifikante Übereinstimmung mit der samaritanischen Texttradition. Im Ergebnis finden sich exegetischen Textplus und einige auffällige Textminus, die ähnliche Merkmale aufweisen wie die frühen Harmonisierungsphänomene in SP, LXX und einigen Qumran-MSS. Im weiteren Sinne ähneln sie auch Harmonisierungen im Antiochenischen Text anderer Bücher. Für mindestens ein Manuskript (Ra 108) ist der Kontakt mit einer samaritanischen Tradition wahrscheinlich. Ein antikes Alter vieler Sonderlesarten in der b-Gruppe kann daher mit guten Gründen angenommen werden. Der textgeschichtliche Wert dieser Manuskriptgruppe steigt somit potenziell und sollte weiter untersucht werden.

Notes

Michelle D. Hunt and Kyle A. Rouse, Significant Sigla? Reconsidering the Apostrophe in P45 (pp. 147–160)

Abstract: In P45, an apostrophe-like marking appears following certain indeclinable Hebraic nouns. Previous scholarship has variously suggested that this notation functions as an aid for pronunciation or word recognition or as a marker of elision. The contexts in which the apostrophe appears in P45, however, do not support the proposals of these previous treatments. Because of the lacunose nature of P45, we are only able to identify the occurrences of an apostrophe-like marking in P45, note its inconsistent appearance after indeclinable names, and confirm that previous suggestions about the apostrophe’s function do not fully explain the function of the apostrophe in P45.

Aļesja Lavrinoviča, Misreading Tertullian and Other Remarks on 1 Cor 14:34-35: A Response to Joseph Wilson (pp. 161–172)

Abstract: This note is a short response to the article published by Joseph Wilson entitled “Recasting Paul as a Chauvinist within the Western Text-Type Manuscript Tradition: Implications for the Authorship Debate on 1 Corinthians 14.34–35.” In his article, Wilson aims to strengthen the arguments used by advocates of the so-called Corinthian slogan theory or the quotation/refutation (abbreviated Q/R) hypothesis, which considers 1 Cor 14:34–35 to be a Corinthian slogan that Paul refutes by two strong questions contained in verse 36. In addition to restating a special reading of verse 36 due to the two disjunctive particles ἤ that introduce the questions of verse 36, Wilson intensifies the Q/R hypothesis by reading 1 Cor 14:34–35 in light of Tertullian’s Against Marcion. Wilson suspects that it was Tertullian who introduced a chauvinistic reading of 1 Cor 14:34–36. Here I argue that Wilson misreads Tertullian, and I demonstrate that the interpretation of the syntactical function of the disjunctive particles as argued by the defenders of the Q/R hypothesis is untenable.

Jacob W. Peterson, See With What Variable Letter Sizes I Write: Response to William Varner on Gal 6:11 in Papyrus 46 (pp. 173–182)

Abstract: It has recently been suggested that the scribe of Papyrus 46 (P46) began writing in a larger script for Gal 6:11 in a visual nod to Paul’s own mention of writing with larger letters and as indication of how the scribe personally interpreted the passage. In this short note, I refute the claimed variation in letter size with paleographical analysis of the scribe’s letter formation, sizing, and variation in the immediate context of Gal 6:11 and in wider use. I then address the difficulty of ascertaining a scribe’s beliefs from what and how the scribe copied.

W. Andrew Smith, Data Democratization and Biblical Manuscript Studies: A Caution for the Age of Access (pp. 183–204)

Abstract: As manuscript transcriptions, images, and metadata become more widely available to the public through digital media, (nearly) gone are the days when a Richard Bentley would have to send a Johann Wettstein to a far-off library to acquire collations for his research. The modern Bentley can sit at his or her laptop and immediately access much of what was unavailable prior to the 1990s. While this remains a remarkable boon to scholarship and draws back the veil for the nonexpert, this paper explores the problems attending data democratization at a time when authority and expertise are devalued.

Pedagogical Note

Zacharias Shoukry, Textkritisches Übersetzen: Variantensensitivität in der Übersetzung neutestamentlicher Texte (pp. 205–232)

Abstract: Text-critical translating is an exegetical method that displays the different variants of a text within the translation. It communicates the results of textual criticism to a wider public. There are many translations of the biblical text. However, they usually offer only one variant of the textual tradition. Readers of translations might get the impression that the text they are reading is the undisputed and only version, while they are, in fact, dependent on the text-critical decisions of the translators. People who do not learn ancient Greek have no way of accessing the majority of the different variants of New Testament texts. Therefore, it is necessary to add a translation that shows the diversity of the textual traditions. The footnotes in conventional translations are a good start; however, they only discuss a limited number of variation units. The goal of a text-critical translation is to make more deviations transparent. This article suggests a way of doing that. Doubtful text is marked with brackets: […] and [[…]]. Omissions, indicated by “om.” and the symbols –, ° and ⸋ ⸌ are marked with braces: {…}. Insertions, indicated by “add.” and the symbols ⸆ and +, are marked with arrow brackets: < … >. Variants, indicated by the symbols ⸀ and ⸂ ⸃, will be translated within two vertical bars, adding slashes in between them: |… / … / …|. Because there are no official names for the symbols of the textual-critical apparatus as of yet, a table will introduce technical terms for them. This article explains the necessity and principles of a text-critical translation and showcases it with some examples.