GRE 4221 BEGINNING GREEK II Class XI Intro
GRE 4221 BEGINNING GREEK II Class XI: Intro to Textual Criticism and Greek Manuscripts © Dr. Esa Autero
Textual Criticism and Manuscripts 1. 1 Introduction q What are the current GNT editions? Ø q What are the major witnesses to GNT? Ø q Their history Four major manuscript groups How to use the GNT?
Textual Criticism and Manuscripts 2. 1 GNT – its history and manuscripts Introduction q Most recent editions of GNT Same text, Ø Ø q NA 28 (NA 27/26, NA 25…) different critical UBS 5 th ed. (4 th ed. , 3 rd ed. 2 nd …) apparatus SBL GNT (Holmes) Majority Text edition (=MT)* (from Textus Receptus [=TR]) Precedents Ø Ø Ø Westcott & Hort (The NT in the Original Greek, 1881) von Tischendorf (1872) Majority Text/Textus Receptus
Textual Criticism and Manuscripts q Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466 -1536) Novum Instrumentum (1516) – very poorly edited* Ø Novum Testamentum (1519) + subsequent eds. 1522, 1527, 1536 Ø Ø 2 nd Ø ed. (1519) corrected in 400+ places Erasmus used only 7 late mss. (11 th to 15 th century) Ø Used q to translate Geneva Bible and AV (KJV 1611) Complutensian polyglot ** (1514 – published 1522***) q Parallel q OT (Hb. , Vulgate, LXX) & NT (Vulgate, Greek) Origen the first text critic Ø Hexapla – six parallel editions (mostly lost)
Textual Criticism and Manuscripts q Critical text tradition OR KJV only? Critical Editions (CT): - NA 28 (and earlier eds. ) - UBS 5 th ed. (and earlier) - SBL GNT Majority Text (MT)*: - NT acc. to Byzantine/Majority Text - GNT acc. to Majority Text Emphasis on early Papyri and codices (Westcott and Hort) Most modern translations (NASB, NIV, ESV, NRSV) Emphasis on Byzantine text type** (Majority Text) KJV and others in KJV tradition
Textual Criticism and Manuscripts From GNT to Manuscripts and Back q What text we have in the modern GNT (e. g. NA 28)? A reconstructed Greek text Ø Main text & apparatus w/ textual variants Ø q How did GNT NA 28 come about? History of GNT editions (see previous slides) Ø Establishing the most probable text – closest to the original Ø
Textual Criticism and Manuscripts q From Paul to textual critic to GNT Ø Ø Autographs do not exist E. g. 1 Cor copied to church in Antioch etc. Original copy of copies… reconstructed GNT Ø Ø Ø Today’s manuscripts – thousands of variant readings Scribal errors – unintentional & intentional* Finding the most reliable manuscripts [and groups] ü Date and character ü Geographical distribution ü Genealogical relationship of texts and families ü Weight not count of witnesses
Textual Criticism and Manuscripts The Major Manuscript Families q The four manuscript families 1. ) The Alexandrian text – best and most faithful q Characterized by brevity and austerity Ø q Generally shorter than other readings Most important witnesses Codex Vaticanus (B) – 4 th century Ø Codex Sinaiticus ( – )א 4 th century Ø P 66, P 75 [Bodmer papyri late 2 nd century] Archetype early 2 nd century Ø
Textual Criticism and Manuscripts 2. ) The Western Text – puzzling features q Italy, Gaul, North Africa Ø q Fondness for paraphrase Ø Ø q Known by Marcion, Tatian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian Words, clauses & sentences changed, omitted, inserted due to harmonization, enrichment & apocryphal traditions Acts is 10% longer than the [reconstructed] original Most important witnesses Ø Ø Codex Bezae (D) – 5 th cent. Codex Claromontanus (D) – 6 th cent. Codex Washingtonianus (D) – 5 th cent. P 38 (AD 300) & P 48 (end of 4 th cent. )
Textual Criticism and Manuscripts 3. ) The Eastern (Caesarean) Text q Mixture of Alexandrian and western readings Ø q Question of category Most important witnesses Ψ- 9 th cent. Ø 565 (9 th cent. ) Ø 700 (11 th cent. ) Ø
Textual Criticism and Manuscripts 4. ) The Byzantine (Koine) text – least reliable & most abundant q Most recent & least reliable q Characterized by lucidity and completeness Ø Ø q q Smoothing out “rough” parts & harmonization 2 -3 divergent readings combined into new reading From Antioch to Constantinopole to Byzantine empire Codex Alexandrinus (A), 5 th century* Ø Ø Later uncials Later minuscules
Textual Criticism and Manuscripts q Most numerous of all manuscript families From 6/7 th to Reformation and as the authoritative text Ø Used by Erasmus for NI (1516) Ø Textus Receptus (Bonaventura & Elzevir 1633) Ø Authoritative text until modern textual findings q Basis for all translations up to 19 th century q First corrections of Textus Receptus German classicist K. Lachmann (1831) Ø von Tischendorf (1872) Ø Westcott & Hort (1881) – used for UBS Ø
Textual Criticism and Manuscripts 5824 Greek mss. and counting. . . (Wallace 2013) Criteria for choosing the original reading q Appx. 5000+ Greek manuscripts (mss. )* q No one manuscript is identical How many variants? [GNT app. 140, 000 words**] q Greek NT mss. : - Gospels: app. 2000 - Paul: app. 850 q c. 400, 000 variants (Wallace 2010) - Acts & Gen Ep: 650 - Revelation: 325 q Lots of variants because lots of manuscripts
Textual Criticism and Manuscripts q What is a “textual variant”? q Any type of variant – single letter, transposition of words q Any deviant wording/letter from autograph = variant Which ones are significant variants? q Examples of textual variants and types q 70% of variants grammatical – vast majority q E. g. movable “nu” q “John” [+other proper names] – spelling and use of article etc. q Word order (transposition)
Textual Criticism and Manuscripts q Conclusion about textual variants: q Max. of 1% of the actual text in doubt [1400 words] q Vast q What majority of the 400, 00 variants are of no significance matters is the nature of variants q Mostly unintentional scribal errors q Which are meaningful and viable – see later q “No cardinal doctrine [i. e. about salvation] is jeopardized by any viable variant” (Wallace 2010) q How to decide the original reading? q Generally accepted criteria q Probability
Textual Criticism and Manuscripts (a) External Criteria i. ) The Date and character of the witnesses Ø The earlier the better [generally] Ø Character of the type of text it embodies ii) Geographical distribution of witnesses Ø Concurrence of witnesses from various locales Ø E. g. Alexandrian, Caesarean, western etc.
Textual Criticism and Manuscripts iii. ) The genealogical relationship of texts & families Ø Compare the following Ø Two 11 th century mss can be traced to a 4 th century ms Ø 35 9 th century mss traced to a 7 th ms iv. ) Witnesses are weighted rather than counted Ø See the above example
Textual Criticism and Manuscripts (b) Internal Criteria – probabilities i. ) The habits of the scribes & paleographical features Ø More difficult reading preferred Ø Shorter reading preferred Ø Verbal dissidence over harmony [tendency to harmonize] ii. ) What the author would likely have written Ø Style and vocabulary Ø Context – immediate and wider Ø Harmony and usage elsewhere by the author
Textual Criticism and Manuscripts 3. 1 How to use modern GNT versions? The Versions q NA 28 (2012) (NA 27, NA 26…) Ø q UBS 5 th Ed. (2014) (4 th, 3 rd, 2 nd…) Ø q Scholars, professors, pastors Bible translators [identical text w/ NA 28; tiny apparatus] SBL GNT (Holmes, 2010 1 st ed. ) Ø Ø Ø Free and widely available “alternative” to NA & UBS – small apparatus Based on 4 earlier GNT editions (WH, Byz, NIV, Tregelles)
Textual Criticism and Manuscripts Novum Testamentum Graece q 1 st Novum Testamentum Graece (NTG) 1898 by E. Nestle Ø Ø q 13 th Edition (1927) w/ first critical apparatus Ø q Apparatus from secondary sources (esp. von Soden) 25 th ed. (1963) – primary sources from Church Fathers Ø q Used three leading editions of the time Rudimentary apparatus (only Codex Bezae) Followed majority text largely NTG 26 th ed. (1979) & UBS 3 rd ed. (1975) Ø First editions to reflect textual criticism of 20 th century
Textual Criticism and Manuscripts q q NA 25 th and 26 th ed. – identical text but revision of apparatus in 26 th ed. NA 28 th ed. & Editio Critica Maior (ECM) Ø Revised apparatus throughout NT (also digital format) Ø 1 st and 2 nd order distinction removed Ø Conjectures (cj) removed from apparatus etc. Ø Revised text to catholic epistles Ø E. g. Ø Jam 1: 20, 2: 3, 2: 4, 2: 15 etc. Largely similar critical signs (some exceptions) Ø◊ to indicate “undecided”
Textual Criticism and Manuscripts q Most commonly acknowledged textual problems Ø Mark 16: 9 -20 (5 different endings) Ø 12 Ø verses (“long ending” – most common) John 7: 53 -8: 11 Ø 12 verses Only two lengthy sections that are textually suspect Ø 1 John 5: 7 -8 (Comma Johanneum) Ø Not in Erasmus’ 1516 or 1519 versions – only in 3 rd ed. (1522)
Textual Criticism and Manuscripts 3. 2 Practical example Digging into the use of NA 28 q Sections of NA 28 q Critical signs, symbols Ø q Critical apparatus Three types of Greek ms witnesses based on quality & frequency of citation in the apparatus (pp. 62 -67) Ø Ø Ø Consistently cited [esp. papyri, uncials & some minuscules] Frequently cited [minuscules etc. ] Occasionally cited (only Appendix I)
UBS 5 th Edition Tiny critical apparatus
Cross references to OT, NT, Apocrypha NA 28 th Edition Detailed critical apparatus Text-critical symbols in text
Any theological difference? Textual Examples q Rom 5: 1 q ἔχομεν OR εχωμεν? q Original reading? q The difference? q Grammar? q Ind. Or subj. q Meaning? q q “We have peace” “Let us have peace”
Textual Criticism and Manuscripts Further Textual Examples q Mark 1: 2 q Acts 20: 28
Textual Criticism and Manuscripts Useful websites for textual criticism ü http: //www. csntm. org/ - evangelical website by D. Wallace ü http: //egora. uni-muenster. de/intf/index_en. shtml – “grandfather” of textual research ü http: //evangelicaltextualcriticism. blogspot. com/ evangelical textual criticism website ü http: //ntresources. com/blog/? page_id=2476 – Further links
- Slides: 29