The New Testament and textual criticism – “the shorter reading is preferred” (Part 2)

In my last post (link), I delved into the “venerable maxim lectio brevior lectio potior” (the shorter reading is the more probable reading); pointing out that, “many of the assumptions/criteria used support the lectio brevior potior canon/rule are problematic.” I then provided lengthy quotes from two scholars—Harry Sturz and George Kilpatrick—who maintained that scribes more often than not shortened the texts they were copying, rather than adding. In other words, it is the longer reading that ‘is the more probable’, not the shorter.

In this post, I will focus primarily on a New Testament textual critic who has spent decades comparing the oldest extant NT manuscripts—James R. Royse, Ph.D. (1969) in Philosophy, University of Chicago, Th.D. (1981) in Biblical Studies, Graduate Theological Union. The following quotes will be from his magnum opus, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri (Brill, 2007, pb. SBL, 2010 – entire book can be read online HERE). This massive tome (1,051 pages), “is based on a dissertation of the same title submitted to the faculty of the Graduate Theological Union in 1981 for the degree of Th.D.” (p. XIII). From the first chapter we read:

One of the crucial principles of Hort’s masterly survey of the materials methodology, and results of New Testament textual criticism is: “Knowledge of documents should precede final judgement upon readings.” As Hort’s own comments make clear, knowledge of the sorts of errors that a particular scribe tended to make, and of his overall method and accuracy of copying, is an essential portion of this “knowledge of documents.” Accordingly, one finds in Hort’s work and in the works of other critics various assertions concerning the copying habits of scribes of significant manuscripts. (p.1)

Concerning these “various assertions”, Royse then writes:

 … as we shall see in detail in chapters 4–9, numerous scholars have attempted to characterize the habits of the scribes of the most important of the papyri. Unfortunately, however, the comments found in the works of Hort, von Soden, and others, appear usually to be based upon data that are incomplete and that have not been selected by means of a carefully formulated and implemented methodology. One consequence is that critics differ ab initio on the value to be ascribed to the various manuscripts, and even where they agree it is not clear what the evidence supporting the common position really is.

This lack of evidence is seen most clearly when one moves to the next level of generalization, namely, from the habits of the scribes of particular manuscripts to the determination of the habits of scribes in general. These general habits are presumably discovered, of course, on the basis of a detailed knowledge of the specific habits attributed to the scribes of some sample of the extant manuscripts. The general habits serve, then, as the basis of our knowledge of transcriptional probability (and improbability): what sorts of alterations scribes are likely (or unlikely) to have made in the text. Finally, this knowledge permits us to formulate the several canons of internal evidence, which are found in various textbooks and prolegomena, and which are an essential tool in the critic’s task of reconstructing the history of the text of the New Testament.

Regrettably, though, most presentations of these canons are not—as far as one can tell from the exposition—based on the actual knowledge of documents of which Hort speaks, but rather appear to rest upon a priori reflections on how scribes behaved (or must have behaved). And when particular readings are cited—presumably as evidence—the evaluation of one reading as the original and another as arising by a scribal error is frequently suspect from a methodological point of view, and so one is left wondering why the direction of scribal error may not have been other than is stated. (pp. 3, 4 – bold emphasis mine)

Royse’s observation that the canons presented by many textual critics are not “based on the actual knowledge” of the documents under consideration, but rather, “rest upon a priori reflections on how scribes behaved” is telling. Further, when many textual critics actually cite “particular readings” their “evaluation of one reading as the original and another as arising by a scribal error is frequently suspect from a methodological point of view.”

Royse then adds:

It would, of course, be beyond the scope of the present study to deal with all the secondary literature that makes assertions, justified or not, concerning the habits of scribes. But a few references may indicate that the appropriate sort of evidence for such assertions is often lacking, and that various problems may arise as a consequence in the evaluation of particular variants.

For instance, one of the most detailed and influential statements of the canons of textual criticism has been that of Griesbach. If we look at, say, his first canon, that of lectio brevior potior (“the shorter reading is to be preferred”), we will gain the impression that Griesbach had the wideranging knowledge of documents necessary to delineate precisely when scribes were likely to add and when, as exceptions, they were likely to omit. We may, of course, be sure that Griesbach did have such knowledge, and may well regard his distillation of this knowledge into various rules as having sound authority. Nevertheless, it is significant that no specific reading of a manuscript is cited as a foundation for this first canon. And in fact, no specific reading of a manuscript is cited anywhere within Griesbach’s Prolegomena, Sectio III, which is titled: “Conspectus potiorum observationum criticarum et regularum, ad quas nostrum de discrepantibus lectionibus judicium conformavimus.”* The fact that Griesbach does not even attempt to present evidence for his statements about how scribes copied makes it difficult (if not impossible) for later students to know what exactly he would have considered as evidence, to check the evidence upon which his statements rest, or to revise his statements in the light of the new evidence provided by subsequent manuscript discoveries. (pp. 4, 5 – bold emphasis mine)

[*Novum Testamentum Graece 1:lxiii–lxxxii: “Survey of the more important critical observations and rules, by which we have formed our judgment about variant readings.”]

Royse moves from Griesbach to Metzger, writing the following:

As a result of the lack of clear evidence on scribal habits, many decisions about specific textual problems appear arbitrary and subjective. This judgment even applies to the Textual Commentary published by Metzger as the explanation and justification of the various decisions made in the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament. The fact that the editors have recorded their reasons for their decisions on the most important variations permits us to follow their views throughout the text, and to compare their arguments at one place with those at another. Although it is clear that the editors do have a wide knowledge of documents and have utilized this knowledge in a careful manner, the assertions made about scribal habits remain without explicit foundation. (pp. 5, 6 – bold emphasis mine)

Royse then drops the following ‘bombshell’:

It is remarkable that critics and editors seem often not even to appreciate that evidence is lacking in the matter of scribal habits.

Royse proceeds to remedy what Griesbach, Tischendorf, Hort, von Soden, Metzger and so many other textual critics have woefully neglected. In pages 103-704 he provides “explicit foundation[s]” for his assertions concerning the “scribal habits” of those folk who wrote six of the oldest and most extensive manuscripts of the extant papyri: P45, P46, P47, P66, P72, and P75.

I shall now move on to one of Royse’s major assessments: the scribal habits of the writers of P45, P46, P47, P66, P72, and P75 demonstrates that more often than not it is the longer reading that is to be preferred, rather than the shorter. In chapter 10 (Shorter Reading?), he shares some of his thoughts concerning the canon/rule lectio brevior potior. Note the following:

One of the most venerable canons of textual criticism is that the shorter reading is generally to be preferred. This principle and some possible applications of it have already been examined briefly in chapter 1, but the discovery that all six of the papyri analyzed here omit more often than they add makes it important to return to this principle, and to ask how earlier scholars could have formulated a rule that so clearly—as it turns out—goes against the scribal activity evidenced in our papyri. (p. 705)

After citing Griesbach’s first canon¹, he then writes:

The principle of preferring the shorter reading has been utilized most influentially within the field of New Testament textual criticism by Westcott and Hort…(p. 705)

In pages 706-708 he provides clear examples of Westcott and Hort’s almost slavish application of the “principle of preferring the shorter reading.” He moves on to examples from Metzger and the Alands², after which he concludes:

The frequency with which scholars such as Hort and Metzger appeal to the preference for the shorter reading is doubtless in part due to the ease and objectivity of its application. Whether a particular reading fits the style of the author, is grammatically smoother, follows Semitic idiom, or is theologically more acceptable, is usually very much a matter of debate, and reaching any decision on such issues would involve the weighing of a great deal of evidence. But deciding whether one reading is shorter than another is, at least usually, a perfectly straightforward task. It is therefore convenient to reduce textual questions to questions of length, and then to decide accordingly. (p. 711)

Though the canon/rule lectio brevior potior has been, and still is, embraced by the vast majority of NT textual critics, Royse in pages 714-717 provides excerpts from a few scholars who, prior to the publication of his book, found significant problems with the maxim—e.g. Scrivener, Kilpatrick, A.C. Clark, Elliott, and Colwell. He follows those selections with:

And, whatever may be the status of the specific theories put forward by Clark (and others), the fact is that the six papyri studied here all demonstrate a tendency to shorten the text. Often the omissions appear to be accidental, just as many of the additions may have arisen by accidental assimilation to the context, parallel passages, or similar constructions. Many of the accidental omissions involve scribal leaps, but many have no such cause. Sometimes the omission may have been deliberate. But in any case the direction is clearly from a longer text to a shorter text. (pp. 717, 718 – bold emphasis mine)

A bit later we read:

And, of course, these scribes differ greatly among themselves with respect to other patterns of error. Indeed, precisely because the six scribes differ in so many ways, are copying different portions of the New Testament, and are utilizing texts of different sorts, it would seem that their common habit of shortening the text is a general habit, and not an anomalous feature of one or two particular scribes. To be sure, one could contend that all six scribes are anomalous, but, given their many differences, such a view would seem highly implausible, and to be based on no evidence. Naturally, we might eventually discover other early papyri that would force us to revise these conclusions, but we have to work with the available evidence. And there seems in fact to be no reason to suppose that we just happened to have found manuscripts from the six scribes of antiquity who tended to shorten their text. On the contrary, it would seem that these six manuscripts should represent a fair sample (in so far as any sample of six could be fair) of the scribal activity involved in the copying of the New Testament in Egypt in the years from, say, 175 to 300. (pp. 719, 720 – bold emphasis mine)

Shall end here for now. Hope interested folk will take the time to explore Royse’s book for themselves..

Grace and peace,

David

Notes:

1.  Full canon provided in my previous post (link).

2.  Same examples provided in previous post

The New Testament and textual criticism – “the shorter reading is preferred” (Part 1)

What is the genuine Greek—what the true Text of the New Testament? Which are the very words which were written by the Evangelists and Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ under the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost?

The two above questions were posed by Edward Miller in his book, A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (1886, p.1 - link to PDF). The answer to these questions is the ultimate goal of New Testament textual criticism.

As the number of extant Greek manuscripts increased, the number of variants within those extant manuscripts also increased. Before the 16th century, all the GNT manuscripts were hand written, but in the year 1514 the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament was produced (volume V of the Complutensian Polygot, which was not published until 1520), and in 1516 Desiderius Erasmus’ Novum Instrumentum Omne was printed and published. Between 1519-1535, Erasmus created four more editions of the Greek New Testament that were also printed and published. Erasmus’ five editions were soon followed by four GNT editions printed by the Parisian Robert Estienne (Latin: Stephanos)—1546, 1549, 1550 and 1551. The 1550 edition was the first GNT to contain a critical apparatus of variant readings; readings that were compiled from fourteen GNT manuscripts and the GNT of the Comlputensian Polygot. The apparatus of Stephanos’ 1550 edition was principally the beginning of textual criticism of the GNT as a distinct discipline.

Following this somewhat humble beginning, the textual criticism of the GNT as a distinct discipline has grown into a massive field of study that includes the textual criticism of non-Greek New Testament translations (especially Latin), and the quotations of the NT by the Church Fathers. Interestingly enough, this field of study became dominated by liberal and nominal ‘Christians’, with one of the top GNT textual critics of our day—Bart Ehrman—becoming an agnostic, and repudiating any notion of the GNT as inspired Scripture from God.

In the 17th century, various methods, rules, and theories began to emerge within the field of GNT textual criticism in the attempt to identify which of the tens of thousands of variant readings found within the thousands of extant GNT manuscripts/texts are the purest representatives of the original texts penned by the apostles and disciples of Jesus Christ—texts that Christians have termed the New Testament.

One of the earliest theories to develop was the identification of manuscripts into groups/text types based primarily—but not exclusively so—on the geographical location where the manuscript was thought to be written. Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687-1752) classified the extant manuscripts he personally was cognizant of into two groups that he termed ‘Asiatic' and ‘African’. The ‘Asiatic' group contained those manuscripts thought to have been written in Constantinople and the surrounding Greek speaking environs. The ‘African’ group being represented by the extant Latin translations and Greek texts like the codex Alexandrinus. Johann Salmo Semler (1725-1791) further developed the theory of groups/text types by classifying the extant manuscripts into three recensions: the ‘Alexandrain', “Eastern/Byzantine' and 'Western'.

A student of Semler’s, Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745-1812), retained the three group distinctions with greater refinements and additions to each of the groups.

This identification of manuscripts into groups/types is classified as one of the 'external evidences' of text-critical methodology. Concerning the ‘evidences' utilized by textual critics, Dr. Epp wrote:

What had emerged in little more than a decade from Mill to Bentley [textual critics of the early 18th century] was a twofold set of criteria, external and internal, that, while partial and rudimentary, formed the foundation of text-critical methodology ever after. These criteria were more clearly defined over time, but basically external evidence assesses factors such as the age, quality, geographical distribution, and groupings of manuscripts and other witnesses, while internal evidence assesses what authors were most likely to write and what scribes were likely to transcribe. During the eighteenth century and through the nineteenth, virtually all notable editors stated a basic, general principle that the text should be formed from the most ancient textual witnesses, and (except for Lachmann) their editions also included a list of internal criteria. Bengel (1725 and 1742) offered twenty-seven canons, Wettstein (1730 and 1751–52) listed eighteen, Griesbach (1796–1806) fifteen, Tischendorf (1869–72, in the prolegomena by Caspar René Gregory)  five, Tregelles (1857–72) nine, and Westcott and Hort (1881–82) also offered some nine, though not in a formal list. (Eldon Jay Epp, “Traditional 'Canons' of New Testament Textual Criticism: Their Value, Validity, and Viability-or Lack Thereof”, in The Textual History of the Greek New Testament: Changing Views in Contemporary Research, 2011, pp. 83, 84)

One of the ‘canons’—i.e. rules, principles—of the ‘internal evidences’ of textual criticism found in the works of the majority of textual critics (one can add Bruce Meztger, Kurt and Barbara Aland to the above list by Epp), is lectio brevior potior—the shorter reading is preferred. A detailed description of lectio brevior potior was provided by Johann Jakob Griesbach. The following is Bruce Metzger’s English translation, with his brief introduction:

Among the 15 canons of textual criticism that Griesbach elaborated, the following (his first canon) may be given as a specimen:

The shorter reading (unless it lacks entirely the authority of the ancient and weighty witnesses) is to be preferred to the more verbose, for scribes were much more prone to add than to omit. They scarcely ever deliberately omitted anything, but they added many things; certainly they omitted some things by accident, but likewise not a few things have been added to the text by scribes through errors of the eye, ear, memory, imagination, and judgement. Particularly the shorter reading is to be preferred, even though according to the authority of the witnesses it may appear to be inferior to the other,—

a. if at the same time it is more difficult, more obscure, ambiguous, elliptical, hebraizing, or solecistic;

b. if the same thing is expressed with different phrases in various manuscripts;

c. if the order of words varies;

d. if at the beginning of pericopes;

e. if the longer reading savours of a gloss or interpretation, or agrees with the wording of parallel passages, or seems to have come from lectionaries.

But on the other hand the longer reading is to be preferred to the shorter (unless the latter appears in many good witnesses),—

a. if the occasion of the omission can be attributed to homoeoteleuton;

b. if that which was omitted could have seemed to the scribe to be obscure, harsh, superfluous, unusual, paradoxical, offensive to pious ears, erroneous, or in opposition to parallel passages;

c. if that which is lacking could be lacking without harming the sense or the structure of the sentence, as for example incidental, brief propositions, and other matter the absence of which would be scarcely noticed by the scribe when re-reading what he had written;

d. if the shorter reading is less in accord with the character, style, or scope of the author;

e. if the shorter reading utterly lacks sense;

f. if it is probable that the shorter reading has crept in from parallel passages or from lectionaries. (Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 2nd  ed., 1968, p. 120.)

Metzger himself was an advocate of lectio brevior potior; note the following:

In general, the shorter reading is to be preferred, except where parablepsis arising from homoeoteleuton may have occurred or where the scribe may have omitted material that he deemed to be superfluous, harsh, or contrary  to pious belief, liturgical usage, or ascetical practice. (Compare Griesbach's fuller statement of this criterion, p. 120 above.) [The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 2nd ed., 1968, pp. 209, 210.]

And from the ‘Introduction’ of Metzger’s, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, we read:

2. In general the shorter reading is to be preferred, except where

(a) Parablepsis arising from homoeoarcton or homoeoteleuton may have occurred (i.e., where the eye of the copyist may have inadvertently passed from one word to another having a similar sequence of letters); or where

(b) The scribe may have omitted material that was deemed to be (i) superfluous, (ii) harsh, or (iii) contrary to pious belief, liturgical usage, or ascetical practice. (1975, corrected edition, p. xxvii)

Metzger’s colleagues, Kurt and Barbara Aland, also accepted lectio brevior potior as one of their, “TWELVE BASIC RULES FOR TEXTUAL CRITICISM”:

11. The venerable maxim lectio brevior lectio potior ("the shorter reading is the more probable reading") is certainly right in many instances. But here again the principle cannot be applied mechanically. It is not valid for witnesses whose texts otherwise vary significantly from the characteristic patterns of the textual tradition, with frequent omissions or expansions reflecting editorial tendencies (e.g., D). Neither should the commonly accepted rule of thumb that variants agreeing with parallel passages or with the Septuagint in Old Testament quotations are secondary be applied in a purely mechanical way. A blind consistency can be just as dangerous here as in Rule 10 (lectio difficilior). [Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, trans. by Erroll F. Rhodes, second edition, 1989, p. 281]

Though Griesbach, Metzger and the Alands delineate criteria for exceptions to the  lectio brevior potior canon/rule, in the vast majority of cases when a textual reading has shorter and longer variants, the shorter reading is adopted the preferred one.

Now, what you will rarely hear from textual critics who have embraced the, “venerable maxim lectio brevior lectio potior (‘the shorter reading is the more probable reading’)”, is that many of the assumptions/criteria used support the lectio brevior potior canon/rule are problematic. The rest of the post will focus on one of those assumptions/criteria: scribes were much more prone to add than to omit.

If my memory serves me correctly, the first time I saw a challenge to the axiom that scribes were much more prone to add than to omit was in Dr. Harry Sturz’s book, The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism. From Dr. Sturz’s book we read:

Kilpatrick, in his evaluation of the text behind the TR, includes a discussion on conflation, in which he examines variant readings eclectically, and finds that in many instances the longer reading should be preferred as the original reading. He concludes the discussion on homoeoteluton with the following observations:

This list is ... sufficient to show both how prevalent this kind of mistake is and how frequently the Textus Receptus and its allies preserve the original reading. Westcott and Hort of course rejected their evidence and chose the shorter text even when it clearly impaired the meaning as at Mark x. 7.

lt is worth considering how this came about. One of the canons of  textual critics in modern times has been lectio brevior potior . ... On the other hand if we substitute the maxim, 'the longer text, other things being equal, is preferable', have we any reason for thinking that this is more mistaken than the conventional lectio brevior potior? We are used to this last but the fact that it is traditional is no argument for its being true. Nonetheless, Westcott and Hort do not seem to have thought of challenging it.

There are passages where reasons can be given for preferring the longer text and there are others where we can find reasons for preferring the shorter. There is a third category where there does not seem to be any reason for deciding one way or the other. How do we decide between longer and shorter texts in this third category? On reflection we do not seem able to find any reason for thinking that the maxim lectio brevior potior really holds good. We can only hope that a fuller acquaintance with the problems concerned will enable us increasingly to discern reasons in each instance why the longer or the shorter reading seems more probable.

Cited from Kilpatrick's essay: "The Greek New Testament Text of Today and the Textus Receptus," Chap. VIII in The New Testament in Historical and Contemporary Perspective, Essays in Memory of G. H. Macgregor, ed. by Anderson and Barclay (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965), p. 196. [Sturz, Harry A. The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 89]

After reading the above quote provided by Sturz, I wanted to get a broader context, as well as find out what was removed and replaced by the ellipses, so I ordered the referenced book.

Before getting to the greater context of Kilpatrick's essay (referenced above by Sturz), I will provide the full texts of those sections that contain the ellipses.

Sturz’s quote: This list is ... sufficient to show both how prevalent this kind of mistake is and how frequently the Textus Receptus and its allies preserve the original reading.

Full text: This list is far from exhaustive but is sufficient to show both how prevalent this kind of mistake is and how frequently the Textus Receptus and its allies preserve the original reading.

Sturz’s quote: lt is worth considering how this came about. One of the canons of  textual critics in modern times has been lectio brevior potior . ... On the other hand if we substitute the maxim, 'the longer text, other things being equal, is preferable', have we any reason for thinking that this is more mistaken than the conventional lectio brevior potior?

Full text: It is worth considering how this came about. One of the canons of textual critics in modern times has been lectio brevior potior. We may limit this to the form, 'the shorter text, other things being equal, is preferable', in deference to the investigations of A. C. Clark and others which have revealed how widespread has been the prevalence of ὁυ and other causes of omission. On the other hand if we substitute the maxim, 'the longer text, other things being equal, is preferable', have we any reason for thinking that this is more mistaken than the conventional lectio brevior potior?

Now, the broader context. The first paragraph of the essay presents two “basic contentions of Westcott and Hort” that Kilpatrick believes are seriously flawed. The following is the full paragraph:

One of the basic contentions of Westcott and Hort was that the Syrian text¹, the text that appears with variations in A², the Textus Receptus, and the vast majority of later witnesses, is a secondary text based on the older Neutral  and Western texts. A second basic contention was that the Western text was in general inferior to the Neutral text. The Neutral text alone preserved the Greek New Testament in something like its original purity and so served as the foundation of Westcott and Hort’s edition.

In the next paragraph, Kilpatrick provides valuable information on the “second basis contention" of Westcott and Hort:

Hort’s views on the Western text were soon challenged. Scholars like F. C. Burkitt and C. H. Turner showed that, if readings were examined on their merits, the Western text was often right and the Neutral or Egyptian text often wrong. Their contentions have been widely accepted and an increasing number of readings in D³ and its allies are recognized as probably original.

The third paragraph, sets the tone for the rest of the essay:

No such change has taken place in opinion about Syrian text. Few attempts have been made to show that any of its distinctive readings are original and Hort's account of its origins and characteristics have not been challenged by the majority of textual critics.

Kilpatrick then goes on to present substantive cases for three assessments: first, "the great majority of [N. T. textual] variants came into being before A. D. 200”; second, many of the Syrian/Byzantine text distinct readings are much older than what most textual critics have accepted as a truism (as per Westcott and Hort’s theory); and third, the lectio brevior potior canon/rule has serious flaws (see above quotes).

Kilpatrick’s first and second assessments are inextricably linked. Note the following:

Professor H. Vogels has suggested that, apart from errors [unaware copying vs. deliberate], the the great majority of [N. T. textual] variants came into being before A. D. 200. This seems reasonable. Many readings can be shown to be in existence before that date: few demonstrably came into being after it. On this hypothesis most readings distinctive of the Syrian text will be older than A. D. 200 even if the selection of these readings in that text appear later. Consequently we cannot condemn these variants a a product of the depravity of the fourth century. (p.190)

He then adds:

One of Hort’s complaints against the Syrian text was that it as characterized by conflate readings. In principle the presence of conflate readings in the New Testament need not surprise us. The evidence of the critical apparatus suggests that they are to be found up and down the Greek text. There are, however, two questions we must try to answer: (i) are conflate readings distinctive of the Syrian text? And (ii) are all readings that look like conflate readings really conflate? (p. 190)

Kilpatrick then provides examples of 'conflation' within Westcott and Hort’s so-called ‘Neutral' text by comparing certain readings from ℵB⁴ that are shorter than the same readings found within the Western and/or Syrian texts.

He then concludes the following:

From these examples we can see that not all apparent conflate readings are really conflate. Sometimes they present the original text and, when they do so and are peculiar to the Syrian text, then the Syrian text must have credit for preserving the correct reading. Likewise real conflations occur in other witnesses apart from the Syrian text and it would be mistaken to argue that conflate readings were characteristic of this text. Thus the argument from conflation does not serve to condemn the Syrian text in the way that Westcott and Hort had supposed. (pp. 192, 193)

On pages 194-196, Kilpatrick examines “some Syrian readings on their merits, seeing that we cannot dismiss the Syrian text as obviously secondary on grounds of conflation or harmonization” [when compared to the so-called ‘Neutral’ text]. In this section he argues that the Textus Receptus sometimes preserves Semitic expressions that are longer readings than those found in ℵB, suggesting that the ℵB readings were purposeful changes made to the texts to conform to Classical Greek, rather than Koine Greek used to retain the original Semitic expressions found in the New Testament.

He follows his examples with the following bold assessment:

These three instances of the superiority of A and the Textus Receptus justify us in looking afresh at readings that are characteristic of these witnesses and considering each on its merits. From the time of Westcott and Hort to Syrian or Byzantine or as proper to the Textus Receptus to condemn it outright. There have been exceptions to this practice such as those of van Soden, Vogels, and Bover, but there have been few formal attempts at a justification of them.

To contribute to any such justification it is necessary to show in the main categories of variants the Syrian text is sometimes right. (p. 195)

Kilpatrick then provides eight such examples (pp. 195, 196), which is followed by the quote from Sturz—cited earlier in this post—that started with, “This list is ... sufficient to show both how prevalent this kind of mistake is and how frequently the Textus Receptus and its allies preserve the original reading.”

Unfortunately, few textual scholars have adjusted their sacred canons/rules—maintaining the status quo as reflected in the quotes from Metzger and the Alands provided above—retaining the lectio brevior potior axiom as a weapon in their criticisms of the Syrian/Byzantine text type.

In my next post (the Lord willing) I will delve into the substantive critique of the lectio brevior potior canon/rule by one recent textual critic who has taken Kilpatrick’s assessments seriously.

Grace and peace,

David

Notes:

1. The ‘Syrian text’ (also know as the Antiochian, Byzantine, Constantinopolitan, Ecclesiastical, Majority, Traditional) is one of the four textual families/types identified by Westcott and Hort; the other three were termed the Alexandrian, Western, and Neutral.

2. A = Alexandrinus codex (5th century)

3. D = Bezae Cantabrigiensis codex (5th century)

4. ℵB = Sinaiticus codex and Vaticanus codex (both 4th century; most textual critics now include ℵB in the Alexandrian text-type)

Textus Receptus - a comprehensive and extraordinary website

Earlier this week, I discovered a website concerning the Textus Receptus that is nothing short of extraordinary:

Textus Receptus Bibles

This site includes a history of the Textus Receptus and a comprehensive Interlinear that displays at the same time six complete versions of the Greek Byzantine/Majority text-type with fourteen English translations based on the Greek Byzantine/Majority text-type, that is fully searchable.

It also has the complete Masoretic text of 1524 (also fully searchable), and an extensive library of books related to the Textus Receptus.

The site is easy to use, and the visual display of the web pages is exceptional.

I am sure that I will be spending many hours in the upcoming days exploring this marvelous site, and I suspect it will be one of my main resources for Bible study in the future.

Sincerely hope that folk who read this post will take the time to explore the site too.

Grace and peace,

David

"God-breathed", theopneustos

I accepted B. B. Warfield's interpretation of theopneustos (θεόπνευστος) after my first reading (circa 1982) of his essay, "GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE" (The Works of Benjamin B.Warfield, 1927/1981, Vol. 1, pp. 229-280; The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, edited by Samuel G. Craig, 1948, pp. 245-296; original in The Presbyterian and Reformed Review, v. XI, pp. 89-130; online version HERE). Warfield's interpretation is repeated throughout this contribution, and concludes, with the following:

What is θεόπνευστος is "God-breathed," produced by the creative breath of the Almighty. (p.296)

Warfield reiterates this interpretation in, "Inspiration", an article which first appeared in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Vol. 3, pp. 1473-1483), and subsequently reprinted in The Works of Benjamin B.Warfield (1927/1981, Vol. 1, pp. 77-112), wherein we read:

For the Greek word in this passage [2 Tim.3:16] — θεόπνευστος, theópneustos — very distinctly does not mean "inspired of God."... What it says of Scripture is, not that it is “breathed into by God” or is the product of the Divine “inbreathing” into its human authors, but that it is breathed out by God, “God-breathed,” the product of the creative breath of God. (pp. 78, 79)

Now, before I introduce the online article/essay which prompted this thread, I would like to point out that in addition to Warfield's interpretation/understanding of the term theópneustos, I also adopted his view that this "'God-breathed'...product of the creative breath of God" was limited only to the originals autographs (i.e. sola autographa) and did not extend to any copies (i.e. apograha). I took it for granted that this was the 'classical' view of the conservative, Reformed paradigm. However, it seems that I was mistaken on this point, for Dr. Theodore P. Letis, in his scholarly essay, "B.B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism", argues that Warfield was the first conservative, Reformed scholar to adopt the notion that theópneustos pertains only to the autographa. Note the following:

Benjamin Brickinridge Warfield (1851-1921), Professor at Princeton Seminary from 1887-1921, was the most astute and critically aware N. T. scholar at Princeton during his tenure. While he also retained the old scholastic view of verbal inspiration, he did so, keenly aware of this "weapon" in New England.

A good deal of Warfield's early academic career, therefore, was spent mastering the discipline of N.T. criticism so as to tame and neutralize this threat. How he went about his  task helps to explain three developments at Princeton in his lifetime and his lasting influence on the current evangelical view of Scripture: 1) why he gave a distinctive emphasis to the autographic inerrancy theory; 2) how text criticism came to be viewed by evangelicals in the twentieth century as a safe, neutral realm that can only support the evangelical cause and never harm it; 3) how Warfield contributed to the climate that was more tolerable toward genuine biblical criticism at Princeton at a time when such criticism was perceived to be threatening in the extreme.

Warfield's first step in this process was to distance himself the Protestant scholastic approach to text critical matters, while retaining the scholastic view of verbal inspiration...in contrast to Charles Hodge's view, which we shall treat below, Warfield began by depreciating the established text (what was called the textus receptus—the "received text") which had hitherto been the locus of the verbal inspiration view. For Warfield, the scholastics had stumbled when their reverence for the Word of God, perversely but not unnaturally exercised, erected the standard or received text into the norm of a true text. [These are Warfield's own words; see note below.]

Warfield was the first from Princeton to break so decisively with the old text standard. He did so with the confidence that a far better text was then emerging.

Nevertheless, to abandon this standard meant he would be abandoning the text thought to be verbally inspired by the Divines who produced the Westminster Confession of Faith. In order to save, therefore, his verbal view of inspiration—the last vestige of Francis Turretin's influence—he was forced to now relegate inspiration to the inscrutable autographs of the biblical records...

The true test for determining if one is an heir of the Reformed scholastics is found in the role the Westminster Confession plays in locating final Scriptural authority. Archibald Alexander (1772-1851), Charles Hodge (1797-1878), and the Southern Presbyterian, Robert Dabney, (1820-1890) were genuine heirs of Turretin. They focused authority in present, extant, copies of the biblical texts (apographa), with all the accompanying textual phenomenon, as "providentially preserved" and sanctioned edition (Westminster Confession  Faith, 1:8).

Warfield, on the other hand, was the first professor at Princeton to allow his Common-Sense Philosophy the role of reconstructing the text according to the canons of German Criticism. (The Ecclesiastical Text, 1997, pp. 4, 5.)

[Note: "Reverence for the Word of God, perversely but not unnaturally exercised, erected the standard or received text into the norm of a true text;" (Warfield, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p. 216).]

The rest of Letis's essay builds a very strong case for the view that no conservative, Reformed scholar prior to Warfield questioned authoritative, normative status of the textus receptus as the "God-breathed" Word of God.

Though it seems that Warfield's view became the new 'standard' for most conservative, Reformed folk (and the Evangelical paradigm as a whole)—replacing the Reformed scholastic view—opposition to this theological novem has continued in Reformed circles (and, interestingly enough, many Independent Baptists) to our day.

With the above, somewhat lengthy, introduction in place, I would now like to move on to the online article/essay which prompted this post. Just yesterday, while engaged in some unrelated online research, I happened upon the treatment, " Thoughts On the Word Theopneustos, “given by inspiration of God” in 2 Timothy 3:16, and the Question of the Inspiration of the Authorized Version" (LINK), by Dr. Thomas D. Ross (A PDF version, which I recommend, is available HERE). Dr. Ross's contribution opens with the following:

Scripture teaches that the words of Scripture are inspired by God, and thus the entirety of the canonical Scriptures are inspired, 2 Timothy 3:16. God did not inspire people like Moses, Jeremiah, or Matthew; rather, the words that He gave to mankind through them are inspired. Since “inspired” means “God breathed,” and Matthew 4:4 states, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God,” believers are to live by inspired words. Since the present tense verb “proceedeth” in Matthew 4:4 represents continuing action, as is also found in other very closely related uses of the verb, the breath of God, that is, inspiration, remains in the words of the copies of the autographs, and men are to live by every word of those inspired copies. The fact is that neither 2 Timothy 3:16 nor Matthew 4:4 actually refer to inspiration as a process, rather than a product. (Page 1, PDF version.)

Dr. Ross immediately follows the above with five propositions:

1.) Accurate copies of the Greek and Hebrew words are inspired, since inspiration, in 2 Timothy 3:16, refers to a product. Paul instructs Timothy that the product of the written Scripture itself is both “inspired/God-breathed” and “profitable.” Neither “God-breathed” nor “profitable,” in 2 Timothy 3:16, refer to the process of the giving of the autographs. Both adjectives describe the noun “Scripture” and attribute a quality to it.

2.) Anything that we can properly call “God’s Word” is inspired, because, by definition, if God breathes out some words, He has inspired those words. “All Scripture is inspired,” 2 Timothy 3:16. The verse equates what is “Scripture” with what is “inspired.” The two categories are identical—if something is “Scripture,” then it is “inspired.” Had the verse referred to the process of revealing Scripture it would have stated, “All Scripture was given by inspiration of God.” Since 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the product of that process, inspired words, it states, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.” The breath of God is an inherent quality of all that is Scripture, all that is the Word of God.

3.) Scripture shows us that accurately translated words are still Scripture. 1 Timothy 5:18, for example, refers to both the untranslated gospel of Luke (10:7) and the translated book of Deuteronomy (25:4) as “Scripture.” Indeed, 1 Timothy 5:18 is the only other reference to Scripture (graphe) in Paul’s epistles to Timothy, so it is natural for one to consider 2 Timothy 3:16 in light of this previous reference. The same Paul who tells Timothy that everything that is Scripture is inspired calls both the untranslated and accurately translated Word of God Scripture.

4.) Therefore, accurate translations are Scripture.

5.) Since accurate translations are Scripture, they are inspired, since all Scripture is inspired. All Scripture has the breath of God upon it. (Ibid., pp. 1, 2.)

Dr. Ross concludes with:

Scripture teaches that inspiration is a quality that pertains to all that is appropriately called Scripture. Since original language copies are properly considered Scripture, they are properly termed inspired. Since, in a derived sense, the Bible, when accurately translated, is still properly termed Scripture, the Word accurately translated is, in a derived sense, properly termed inspired. Therefore, it is proper to call the King James Version inspired, because it is an accurate translation of the Greek and Hebrew autographs dictated once and for all by the Holy Ghost. (Ibid., p. 6)

Dr. Letis and Dr. Ross have given this beachbum some serious 'food -for-thought'. I would love to hear from those who may share my interest in this subject...

Grace and peace,

David