Draft Apparatus Part 8

Galatians is now done. This is a fairly short letter, just six chapters none of which exceed 30 verses.

There are numerous variants in this book, but none are particularly significant. One of the most common types are moveable nus where a final ν is dropped from a word under certain circumstances such as a vowel starting a new word. Another common type is the moveable sigma (ς) which is dropped under similar circumstances. Also common variant is crasis forms such as αλλ΄ for αλλα and καγω for και εγω.

Apart from these fairly common variants there are no significant variants. It appears few changes were made to Galatians over time. Spelling errors, some word order changes, crasis, and the occasional omission make up the majority of variants in the Letter to the Galatians.

Draft Apparatus Part 7

2 Corinthians is checked and up with the other (so far) completed books.

This book had an interesting and extremely messy set of variants in the very first chapter. Verse 6 has at least seven different versions and verse 7 has at least three. Unlike many variants this is not family versus family but edition versus edition.

Here's verse 6 in with the Editions collected by variant type:

1. TreL/Treg/TNT1/TNT2/RP:εἴτε δὲ θλιβόμεθα, ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν παρακλήσεως καὶ σωτηρίας, τῆς ἐνεργουμένης ἐν ὑπομονῇ τῶν αὐτῶν παθημάτων ὧν καὶ ἡμεῖς πάσχομεν, καὶ ἡ ἐλπὶς ἡμῶν βεβαία ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν· εἴτε παρακαλούμεθα, ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν παρακλήσεως καὶ σωτηρίας,
2. Stp/Elz: ειτε δε ... ειτε παρακαλουμεθα υπερ της υμων παραλκησεως και σωτηριας και η ελπις ημων βεβαια υπερ υμων
3. Bez: ειτε δε ... ειτε παρακαλουμεθα της ενεργουμενης εν υπομονη των αυτων παθημαθων ων και ημεις πασχομεν και η ελπις βεβαια υπερ υμων
4. Scr: ειτε δε ... πασχομεν ειτε παρακαλουμεθα υπερ της υμων παρακλησεως και σωτηριας
5. F35/HF/TH: και η ελπις ημων βεβαια υπερ υμων ειτε παρακαλουμεθα υπερ της υμων παρακλησεως και σωτηριας Omit 
6. WH/N04/NA/SBL: ειτε δε ... ειτε παρακαλουμεθα υπερ της υμων παρακλησεως της ενεργουμενης εν υπομονη των αυτων παθηματων ων και ημεις πασχομεν
7. Tisc: ειτε δε ... ειτε παρακαλουμεθα υπερ της υμων παρακλησεως της ενεργουμενης εν υπομενη των αυτων παθηματων ων και ημεις πασχομεν και η ελπις ημων βεβαια υπερ υμων
   

Number one in the list is the four versions of Tregelles' GNT I have included. As you can see Robinson-Pierpont agrees 100% with them.

Second is Stephanus and Elzevir. It isn't surprising they agree, they are very close in many ways. Despite being published in between the two, Beza (3) goes its own way, as does the much later Scrivener (4).

Number five includes the other two Byzantine texts (F35 and Hodges Farstad) and the Tyndale House GNT. These three seem to omit a lengthy portion of verse 6, but in reality they all simply shift it to the beginning of verse 7. Likewise, Scrivener, Wescott Hort, Nestle 1904/13, NA28 and SBLGNT all do a similar thing by moving και η ελπις ημων βεβαια υπερ υμων to the beginning of verse 7. This is despite the fact that Scrivener varies significantly from the other four in verse 6 as you can see below:

Scr εἴτε δὲ θλιβόμεθα, ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν παρακλήσεως καὶ σωτηρίας, τῆς ἐνεργουμένης ἐν ὑπομονῇ τῶν αὐτῶν παθημάτων ὧν καὶ ἡμεῖς πάσχομεν· εἴτε παρακαλούμεθα, ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν παρακλήσεως καὶ σωτηρίας:
WH/N04/NA/SBL εἴτε δὲ θλιβόμεθα, ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν παρακλήσεως καὶ σωτηρίας· εἴτε παρακαλούμεθα, ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑμῶν παρακλήσεως τῆς ἐνεργουμένης ἐν ὑπομονῇ τῶν αὐτῶν παθημάτων ὧν καὶ ἡμεῖς πάσχομεν,

A fairly significant difference in verse 6 but agreement in verse 7.

Now, as with many of these variants and despite the messiness of it, there is little of theological importance in this collection of variants. These verses are part of Paul's greetings to the congregation at Corinth before he gets into the meat of the letter itself.

We can see how this affects the English by the following:

Darby (Tregelles): 6  But whether we are in tribulation, it is for your encouragement and salvation, wrought in the endurance of the same sufferings which we also suffer, 7 (and our hope for you is sure;) or whether we are encouraged, it is for your encouragement and salvation: knowing that as ye are partakers of the sufferings, so also of the encouragement.

Majority Text Translation (RP GNT) 6 Now if we are afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is effective for enduring the same sufferings which we also suffer. 7 (And our hope for you is steadfast); if we are comforted, it is for your consolation and salvation, knowing that as you are partakers of the sufferings, thus also you will partake of the consolation.

KJV (TR) 6 And whether we be afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is effectual in the enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer: or whether we be comforted, it is for your consolation and salvation. 7 And our hope of you is stedfast, knowing, that as ye are partakers of the sufferings, so shall ye be also of the consolation.

LSB (NA) 6 But whether we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; or whether we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which is working in your perseverance in the same sufferings which we also suffer. 7 And our hope for you is firmly grounded, knowing that as you are sharers of our sufferings, so also you are sharers of our comfort.

I find it interesting how this became so varied. We aren't talking about simple word order or a couple of words misspelled or different grammatical forms. No, entire phrases are gone or moved either within the verse or to the next. So it's unlikely there was a theological battle over Paul's words, yet somehow we have ended up with so many different versions of these verses in the printed editions. It will be interesting to see how other editions deal with this when I begin to add them to the apparatus.

Draft Apparatus Part 6

It has been a rather productive week, though checking is faster than finding the variants and adding them since most of the work is already done and only corrections and a few additions need to be made.

So now 1 Corinthians is complete and added to the list. I did find a somewhat quirky variant in this book, once again in the Beza edition. Beza has the same subscript as Stephanus but here it wasn't added as an extra verse as in Romans, it stands by itself as is usual with these.

Probably one of the more baffling yet minor variants in this book is found in chapter 15 verse 55 where the Alexandrian texts read:

Ποῦ σου, θάνατε, τὸ νῖκος; ποῦ σου, θάνατε, τὸ κέντρον;

 Most of the TR and Byzantine texts read:

Ποῦ σου, θάνατε, τὸ κέντρον; ποῦ σου, ᾅδη, τὸ νῖκος;

The text is essentially the same, but with κέντρον and νῖκος swapped and ᾅδη (Ἅιδη in the Byzantine) for θάνατε.

Here Beza reads:

Ποῦ σου, θάνατε, τὸ νῖκος; ποῦ σου, ᾅδη, τὸ κέντρον;

Why this is so, I cannot say, but for whatever reason Beza went with that reading. The word order is the same as the Alexandrian texts, but he chose ᾅδη instead of θάνατε. I do not know which manuscripts he relied on for his choices apart from the 6 used by Erasmus in addition to the 18 or so used by Stephanus for his 1550 Editio Regia. He did have access to Codex Bezae Cantabrigensis and Codex Claromontanus. The latter contains the letters of Paul, but the text at this point is:

Ποῦ σου θάνατε το κέντρον, ποῦ σου θάνατε το νεικος

Apart from the spelling of νεικος and θάνατε, it has the same word order as the TR and Byzantine texts, so that's not it. Whatever the origin, it's a relatively minor change - death versus Hades (the place of the dead) and the word order doesn't alter the meaning. But, even so, it is interesting to find Beza standing apart from the other three families here with one foot in the TR/Byzantine camp and one in the Alexandrian.

Put together you can see the variants a little more clearly:

Alex	Ποῦ σου, θάνατε, τὸ νῖκος; ποῦ σου, θάνατε, τὸ κέντρον;
Beza	Ποῦ σου, θάνατε, τὸ νῖκος; ποῦ σου, ᾅδη, τὸ κέντρον;
TR/Byz	Ποῦ σου, θάνατε, τὸ κέντρον; ποῦ σου, ᾅδη, τὸ νῖκος;
Claromontanus	Ποῦ σου θάνατε το κέντρον, ποῦ σου θάνατε το νεικος

It's an interesting, but minor change.

Draft Apparatus Part 5

The editing of the Letter to the Romans is now complete and the PDF is located with the other draft documents so far completed.

While there are many significant variants in Romans, there's an interesting but very minor variant in the Beza GNT at the end of the book. Here Beza adds a 28th verse to chapter 16. There's nothing particularly important about the text, as it is one of the 20 versions of the subscript, in this case the wording is identical to that of Stephanus' 1550 subscript and is found in Codex 1244 an 11th century Byzantine manuscript (St Catherine's Monastery, Egypt) and included in some other Textus Receptus editions.

Πρὸς 'Ρωμαίους ἐγραφη ἀπὸ Κορίνθου, διὰ Φοίβης τῆς διακόνου τῆς ἐν Κεγχρεαῖς ἐκκλησίας

Where other Greek New Testaments might add this subscript as a separate text at the end of the book, Beza chose to add it as a new verse. He also added it to his new Latin translation in the middle column and to the Vulgate text in column 3. I'm not sure if any other Vulgate edition had this subscript, I've checked a few, including Codex Amiatinus, the oldest complete Latin Vulgate (c.7th century AD), and they do not.

This text is in small print (see screenshot above) so it seems that it's not intended to be read as a new verse of Scripture but rather a stylistic choice for the layout of his edition. This variant does not change the text of Scripture and is therefore of little importance, but I thought it interesting to see that the versification still appeared to be fluid half a century after Stephanus added it to his 1551 edition and that Beza saw it as a way to mark the subscript.

Draft Apparatus Part 4

I've found a couple of errors in the draft of Matthew and uploaded a fixed version. The main difference is the variant in Matt 10:8 which had the TR listed as omitting νεκρους εγειρετε when it should have Byz.

Acts has also now been added to the list and I'm now working on Romans (chapters 1-7 checked so far).

Enjoy!

Biblical Textual Criticism Part 1

Since this blog's purpose is to highlight an apparatus that I am working on, an apparatus being an important part of a critical text, I thought it might be worthwhile talking about the subject.

I am not a trained textual critic, so the research I will do for future posts on the subject will be as much a learning experience for me as for anyone who might read them. Also, nothing I say about any position on textual criticism in this or future posts should be taken as an endorsement or condemnation of any given position. I do have a position, but I am trying to make this as neutral as possible and to keep out bias as far as it is possible.

What Exactly is Textual Criticism?

Textual criticism seeks to uncover the original wording of a given text. This is not limited to the Bible but some of the earliest text critical efforts were of the Bible. A textual critic will examine copies of a text and attempt to determine if a reading is authentic or if it has been altered (known as a variant), whether deliberately or accidentally and if so, find what may be the original reading. A number of different methodologies have been used in the process of textual criticism. But more on those in a future post.

Why Do We Need Textual Criticism?

Prior to the invention of the printing press texts were copied entirely by hand. The limitations of humans led to errors creeping in as new manuscripts were made. Many of these were minor, such as spelling errors or differences in word order, while others are more serious such as addition or omission of words to entire passages (e.g. John 7:53-8:12 aka the Pericope Adulterae and the ending of Mark).

An example I have recently encountered while editing my work in Acts 14 is very minor, but like all variants we can ask which is correct? The Greek text reads as follows (1 = 'Alexandrian' and 2  'TR/Byzantine'):

1. διέτριβον δὲ χρόνον οὐκ ὀλίγον σὺν τοῖς μαθηταῖς.
2. διέτριβον δὲ ἐκεῖ χρόνον οὐκ ὀλίγον σὺν τοῖς μαθηταῖς.

In English this reads:

1. They stayed with the disciples for a long time.
2. They stayed there with the disciples for a long time.

This variant is minor and does not change the meaning of the text, it merely makes it more specific in stating they stayed in Antioch (see Acts 14:26). But which version is the one Luke actually wrote? That is what textual criticism seeks to determine.

Many variants are untranslatable. For example we see variants such as Δαβιδ, Δαυιδ, and Δαυειδ or Πιλατος versus Πειλατος. In English these will all translate to David and Pilate respectively.

A common cause of variants is iotacism (or itacism). This is generally caused by the process of certain vowels in the Greek language merging in sound as the language evolved. This is seen in modern Greek with η, υ, ει, οι, and occasionally υι all being pronounced as ι. It seems that this process began in different places and in different regions prior to the 1st century AD. It may be that the different spellings of Δαυιδ/Δαυειδ or Πιλατος/Πειλατος were caused by iotacism and the names were pronounced in an identical manner. Where this change to the language had taken hold it is likely that someone reading words such as υμων (hymōn) and ημων (hēmōn) would pronounce both himōn leading to the copyists confusing words.

In most cases the changes were accidental, but in some cases they were possibly deliberate. It is hard to determine exactly which variants are deliberate and which are accidental. Apart from the variants listed above we have a number of verses that were either added or removed from the text. But which way it was is debated with proponents of one side arguing they were added perhaps by well meaning scribes seeking to harmonise readings of one Gospel with those of another while another side will argue they have been removed and are genuine and therefore should be restored to the text.

The purpose of the textual critic is not to determine if what they say is true, but rather they ask, are the words we read the words that the original author penned or have they changed over time and if they have changed, what might the original reading be?

Next Time

 In future posts I hope (God willing) to talk about topics such as:

• Does textual criticism undermine trust in the Bible?
• A short history of textual criticism
• Methods used
• Textual critics and their works (e.g. Erasmus, Tregelles, Scrivener, Westcott & Hort, Robinson and so on)
• Any other important topics connected to textual criticism.

This may not be a week by week project, but I do hope to do a couple of posts a month on it.

I will possibly edit these posts as I study further and find more/better information for the posts. I will flag them as Edited if I do this.

Draft Apparatus Part 3

I have finished checking the Gospels of Luke and John and added them to the list. Luke has been finished for a couple of weeks but I haven't had time to upload it until now thanks to a conjunction of events including the Christmas/New Year break, work, and my mother suffering a mild stroke (she has survived and is doing reasonably well all things considered).