The Juggling of Certainty vs. Science

Click to Enlarge

One obvious problem which has been a repeated barrier to both correction and progress in the field of Textual Criticism of the NT has been a basic ideological and fundamental conflict, not just between parties, but influencing individuals attempting to practice TC.

The conflict is this:

Fundamentally, the Scientific Method is tentative and agnostic.  In order to remain truly scientific, it must deal in probabilities, and ever hold the door open to new discoveries which can not only modify current ideas, but completely overthrow them.  Diagrammed as above, one can see that it forms an Endless Loop, without ever establishing any permanent, universal truth. 

Those engaged in Textual Criticism on the other hand, while desperately desiring to garner the support and also credibility of scientific method, nonetheless cling to ideas which at base are in fundamental opposition to science.  First, is the idea of a fundamental Objective Reality, a non-changing universal truth applicable to every situation, and second is the idea that science 'progresses' inevitably toward greater and greater accuracy and surety in regard to believed facts.

Neither of these ideas is really a part of Scientific Method, or a necessary ingredient of Scientific philosophy, even though both ideas have been around as long as science, and have been more often than not inextricably bound up with scientific investigation.

The growth of science in the 19th century, also saw advancing alongside it the field of mathematics.  In this field, especially the concepts of Convergence, developing from Calculus, led men to believe that almost any problem could be solved by honing and improving the appropriate method of approximation, which would naturally and result in more and more accurate statements about the world.

The New Testament Text was regarded no differently: It was believed to be only a matter of time before textual-critical methods would tighten up and produce a more and more accurate 'original text', finally as sharp and accurate as a photograph, or a scientific measurement of light-speed to 8 decimal places.



Eureka! - Hort's Innovation

Surprisingly, F.J.A. Hort was instrumental in forwarding this ideology.  Contrary to current historians and various opponents, Hort's real innovation in Textual Criticism was not "the genealogical method", or the advancement in the evaluation of various sources.  It was the innovation of what is now called in modern mathematics and computing as "iteration".

Iteration is the application of a set of instructions, a 'program' or algorithm,
 repeatedly, usually to refine or home in on a result.  Imagine for instance, a lathe that shapes table-legs.  It shapes the wood by repeated cutting away of waste, leaving the desired pattern behind. 

An Algorithm is usually fixed, but sometimes having optional paths or choices built in.  The flexibility comes through a testing, measurement or decision process (as in the flowchart above, where the 'diamond' shapes mark points in the flow where choices will be made).  

Some objects in mathematics are better and more efficiently expressed as algorithms - a group of ordered steps or instructions, meant to be applied like a recipe or prescription, and often actually acting as a description of a process or phenomenon.  Other objects can ONLY be described by algorithms.  Unfortunately, some objects cannot be expressed by algorithms at all.

When mathematicians began to notice algorithms, they discovered other sometimes disturbing properties of said 'objects', such as the fact that some mathematical objects and ideas have no algorithm at all.  (the calculation of PI or the search for Prime Numbers are examples of things that must be calculated by 'brute force' and crude testing rather than elegant formulas).

When mathematicians noticed that some problems and ideas cannot be expressed by algorithms, it became clear that some problems were by their very nature "unsolvable".

On a simpler level, it was clear that some  'formulas' simply did not and could not 'converge'; that is could not settle down and spit out one single numerical answer.   Likewise, algorithms simply did not always produce a useful or reliable result, nor could they even come to an end.  They were like run-away processes, and if left to themselves would get stuck in endless loops, or randomly wander the universe of numbers.

Hort's assumption was that by using the novel idea of "iteration", meaning the repeated application of textual-critical principles and techniques, to further and further refine the content and certainty of the text, one could arrive as close as possible to the original text as the extant data and the scientific process allowed.

Unfortunately, Hort was wrong on this entire idea:

(1)  There was nothing in the realm of science that indicated that discovering the 'original text' was even possible let alone probable.

(2)  There was nothing that suggested that text-critical methods could or should converge toward any fixed text, let alone the true original text.

(3)  Iteration itself had no magical power to force the textual variants to converge into a 'near certain' text, in spite of its allure and mathematical usefulness in certain situations.  If the applied method was flawed, or ill-defined, the opposite result was inevitable.

(4)  The success of iterative methods in other areas of science had no bearing on iteration as an intelligent or useful technique in textual criticism.   In order for iteratiion to work, the techniques to be iterated must first be sound.

Later, when men of religion attempted to apply mathematical and scientific concepts and techniques to the problem, they were inevitably biased and their work tainted by their own conviction that these methods would converge to an absolutely certain 'original text', and that this was the way God intended us to acquire this certainly established, authoritative, original text.

Nobody thought to inquire and investigate thoroughly what methods that God Himself chose to preserve and deliver the text, and what this meant for the credibility of textual criticism of the NT as a historical science.

As it turned out, God did not use the historical-critical techniques of NT Textual Criticism to preserve and supply the NT text.  God chose simpler, and quite apparently, more reliable methods than those proposed and used by modern Textual Critics to 'reconstruct' the NT text.

These facts strongly suggest that those who wish to establish, secure, or restore the NT text ought to imitate the methods used historically by God Himself for the last 2000 years.

Nazaroo

Lachmann (3) - The "Illiad Theory" and Acts

F.N. Peloubet, in The Teacher's commentary on the Acts (1903, Oxford) deals with Lachmann's multiple author theory in passing, in the context of the composition of Acts.
Peloubet (Introduction, xxxv fwd) states:

"VI. THE SOURCES OF ACTS.   As Luke expressly says in the preface to his Gospel that he derived his information from the records of eye-witnesses, with which he was perfectly familiar, the same is doubtless true of his treatise on the Acts of the Apostles. ...
...there is no reason for thinking, a priori, that the speeches cannot be historical. . . . The speeches of the leading apostles would impress themselves on the growing community, and would be remembered as the words of the Lord were remembered.
...
There are some interesting comparisons of the discussion of the composite nature of the Acts with other literature in  A. H. Strong's The Great Poets and their Theology. 

"The German Lachmann resolved the Iliad into sixteen distinct and clearly defined layers.  Paley has compared the Iliad and the Odyssey to pictures of stained glass made up by an artistic combination of handsome bits of older windows which fortune and time had shivered." 

The combatants [textual critics] are more and more arraying themselves on the side of the traditional view that both poems are by the same author, and that this author is Homer. But Homer himself may have taken many years for the elaboration of his poems, revising and improving them as he repeated them again and again, so that during those years versions of various degrees of perfection may have been set in circulation.  

Goethe in one of his letters to Schiller cites different versions of his own poems, in connection with the theory we have been considering. He had at various times amended and enlarged them; but he did not on that account prove that there was a second Goethe, or many Goethes. "

What all this tells us is that subsequent critics and investigators  cioming after Lachmann have found that all such naive theories of 'many detectable layers' and 'multiple authors' are at best precarious conjectures and near-worthless.   Even, and perhaps especially, reconstructed 'genealogies', based on the alleged identification of various 'interpolations' and layers are simply academic fantasies, their proliferation and variations providing the best evidence of their spuriousness.

Nazaroo

Lachmann - exaggerater of the "Genealogical Method"

Lachmann, Karl Konrad Friedrich Wilhelm,
(1973-1851) German philologist.


Educational Background and Training

Lachmann studied at Leipzig and Gottingen, mainly philological studies.

1816 - assistant master in the Friedrichswerder gymnasium (Berlin)
         - privatdozent at the University (of Berlin?)
         - principal master in Friedrichs-Gymnasium of Konigsberg
1818 - assisted Germanist Friedrich Karl Kopke
         - professor extraordinarius of classical philosophy (U. of Konigsberg)
1818 - 1825 - devoted to studying Old German Grammar & Middle High German poetry
1825 - leave of absence to search libraries for German materials
         - nom. Extraordinary Professor of German philology (Humboldt U., Berlin)
1827 - professor (Humbolt U., Berlin)
1830 - member of academy of sciences


Up until about 1827, Lachmann had hardly spent any time on New Testament studies or NT Greek, but had devoted all his effort toward German languages and literature, although he also translated the first volume of PE Müller's Sagabibliothek des skandinavischen Altertums (1816).   A look at his publications shows his interest and focus of study:

 Published Works and Area of Study

Early Work before engaging in Greek NT:

Lachmann edited Propertius (1816); Catullus (1829); Tibullus (1829);
He also translated Shakespeare's sonnets (1820) and Macbeth (1829).


Work published while working on Greek NT:

Genesius (1834); Terentianus Maurus (1836); Homer's Illiad (1837-41)
Babrius (1845); Avianus (1845); Gaius (1841-1842); the Agrimensores Romani (1848-1852);  Lucretius (1850).
Lachmann also apparently edited Lucilius (re--edited after his death by Vahlen, 1876).

Although this is a substantial body of work, very little of it bears upon the task of NT Textual Criticism.  Lachmann's own textual-critical skills were all based on classical works, which pose a much different and far simpler problem:  Most classical works were not the target of religious or political attack, and the NT was written and copied under unique and exceptional circumstances.


Lachmann's Greek New Testament


Between 1831 and 1850 Lachmann now turned to the Greek NT.

  The plan of Lachmann's edition, which he explained in his Studia Krit. of 1830, is a modification of the unaccomplished project of Richard Bentley. Lachmann was the first major editor to break from the Textus Receptus, seeking to restore the most ancient reading current in manuscripts of the Alexandrian text-type, using the agreement of the Western authorities (Old Latin and Greek Western Uncials) as the main proof of antiquity of a reading where the oldest Alexandrian authorities differ.

1831 - published his smaller edition of the New Testament
1842 - the larger second edition, in two volumes (1842-1850).
1846 -  the 3rd edition 


Lachmann's 'Crowning Achievement'

Lachmann then immediately went back to other classical interests.  According to Wikipedia, 

"Lachmann's edition of Lucretius (1850),  was the principal occupation of his life from 1845, and perhaps his greatest achievement of scholarship. 

 He demonstrated how the three main manuscripts all derived from one archetype, containing 302 pages of 26 lines to a page. Further, he was able to show that this archetype was a copy of a manuscript written in a minuscule hand, which in itself was a copy of a manuscript of the 4th or 5th centuries written in rustic capitals. To say his recreation of the text was accepted is anticlimactic..."

 However, this itself is some kind of fudging of the actual truth regarding Lachmann's work.  Qwiki tells a quite different story about the evaluation of Lachmann's work regarding Homer's Illiad (1837-1841):

"in it he sought to show that the Illiad consists of eighteen independent layers, variously enlarged and interpolated, had considerable influence on 19th century Homeric scholarship, although his views are no longer accepted."

The "Godly Men" - infamous boners and frauds of Textual Criticism

The following articles will aptly begin with the documentation of some of the most ridiculous and unscrupulous frauds to have taken place in the history of textual criticism:

Unitarian Dishonesty

A Review of Shameful Acts

The posthumous takeover of Wetstein's Greek NT by Semler may have been one of the first in a series of frauds and deceptions by the Unitarians, but it was not to be the last.
At this time, we can list at least four major deceptions perpetrated by the Unitarians in their zeal to destroy the Textus Receptus and with it mainstream Christian doctrine:

1. 1765: J. Semler's Takeover and Rewrite of Wetstein's Prolegomena.
2. 1808: T. Belsham's Takeover and edit of Bishop Newcome's English NT.
3. 1856: S. Tregelles' Takeover and rewrite of Horne's Introduction.
4. 1862: C. Gregory's Takeover and ghost-write of Tischendorf's Prolegomena.

The similarities of the fraud in each case are stunning: (1) in each case, the success and reputation of the original author is capitalized on. (2) in each case, permission was either not obtained, or fraudulently obtained. (3) in each case, the author was dead or dying when the Unitarians stepped in. (4) In each case, history was rewritten, and minds diverted from what was really happening. (5) In each case, the original authors are praised but at the same time dismissed as in significant 'error' for deviating from the Unitarian/Hortian party position on the NT text.

We'll carry on from here shortly.

Peace
Nazaroo

Different Versions of Christian Denominationalism

Obviously in the West, we get two basic views of the splintering of Christianity, that of the Protestants, and that of the Roman Catholics.

---

It might be refreshing to look alternately at the Greek Orthodox version of events, to assist us with some kind of consensus, at least as to what has exactly happened.

Here is the Greek Orthodox Diagram of the 'Great Schism' and subsequent events:

Greek Orthodox View:  Click to Enlarge / Backbutton

Greek Orthodox consider themselves to be true "Catholics", and other break-away groups essentially heretical and a result of apostacy.

Earlier branches of Christianity are also considered 'break-away' churches:

Greek Orthodox View: Early Years

Of course Greek Orthodox are in agreement with many of the basic historical facts, as shown on these timelines.    They would acknowledge for instance, the Sacking of Constantinople by the Latins (1204), and the Fall of Constantinople to the Muslims (1453):

Greek Orthodox View: Later Years

 Presumably these events are not interpreted as the 'hand of God' in judgement, but rather the consequences of the sin of others.  The main break for Greek Orthodox is between it and the Latin Roman Catholic Western half of Europe.  The Latins stand geographically between the Greek Orthodox East and the Protestant Reformation lands.   The split between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants is probably perceived as distant and less significant.

---

Not surprisingly, other smaller churches which branch off in the East see themselves as more central and emphasize details of their own dependence and distinctions:

Click to Enlarge

---

Roman Catholics unsurprisingly see themselves as the central and true branch of Christianity, with others splitting off:

Click to Enlarge

In this view, Roman Catholics happily garner support from Anglicans (Church of England), who have preserved much of the ritual of basic Catholicism, and also call themselves "catholic".   Rome nonetheless maintains its own doctrinal distinctions as central and authoritative, over and against Anglican traditions.

---

Protestant Groups naturally focus on their own origin and development, but the basic facts are usually not in serious dispute.  It is more a question of doctrine, practice, and authority which separates Protestants from 'Catholic' groups:

Click to Enlarge

The larger Protestant churches, founded in the British Empire, Northern Europe and the West, tend to make themselves central:

Click to Enlarge

Likewise we see Each Denomination providing their own idea of important events:

If self-centeredness were a contest, the United Church seems to have taken the cake in terms of Denomination-Centric presentations:

Click to enlarge

---

... more comments to follow...

Nazaroo

Venn Diagrams for Evolution of Textual Criticism

New Testament Textual Criticism has changed, in method, in scope, and in perceived goals.   This can be illustrated with a series of Venn-Diagrams as follows:

The 18th Century Period (Mill, Wetstein, Bengel, Griesbach)

The early naive period is characterized by narrow concentration on collation, consensus, apologetics, with only a very crude and basic understanding of scribal habits and transmission.   The materials were scarce,  undocumented, and difficult of access.  No scientific methodology was developed, and TC was done on the basis of 'common sense' and conjectural instincts; sometimes overpowered by emotion and suspicion (e.g. RC conspiracy theories).   The Unitarian Movement began a steady ascent and became a dominant political force.

Click to Enlarge

The 19th Century Period (Lachmann, Scholz, Hort, Scrivener, Lake, Kenyon, )

 By this time crude 'canons' were being applied, based on guesstimates or opinions of scribal habits and political/religious activity influencing the transmission of the text.  Now other political and social factors also made a big impact, such as the democratic movements, Marx, and Darwin, and the rise of scientific rationalism.  The accumulated data, reasoning, and outlook was well summarized and encapsulated by the Westcott/Hort theory.   The historical-critical viewpoint was embraced and became the defacto standard for academia as universities became secularized.

 The 20th Century Period (von Soden, Hoskier, Colwell, Souter, Brown, Metzger, Aland, Hodges, Ehrman)

With stunning new discoveries, such as hoards of earlier papyri, which required a complete re-evaluation of the history and usage of the Greek language, and with thorough efforts at systematic collation, both the achievements (e.g. the WH text) and the viewpoint had to be fundamentally changed.   It became apparent that the transmission history was quite different and the complexity of the problem was greater than previously assumed.
   Goals and interests were significantly modified and expanded.   The original NT text appeared to some as a retreating mirage.   Others found new reason to return to the traditional text.   The divide became deeper and entrenched as TC split into two different factions.
At the same time, newer more scientific study was leading to completely different conclusions about textual transmission and scribal habits.  The old paradigms of Westcott/Hort and the Alexandrian priority were falling apart.

 The 21st  Century Period (Royse, Fernandez, Hurtado, Head)

Now many previous political/religious issues begin fading into history, such as the Unitarian/Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox controversies.  The greatly relaxed environment of the late 20th century causes old goals and disciplinary boundaries to be abandoned.  New ideas are pursued, in a discipline now largely dominated by secular academia.  The approach has become far more holistic and inclusive, with extensive interaction and dialogue between related disciplines.

The basic problems concerning methodology and results however, remain unsolved, and the field remains deeply divided over the fundamental issues.

Nazaroo

Flaws in Critical GNT known 100 years ago

The Westcott/Hort theory and text, based as it was on earlier work beginning with the suggestions of Wetstein, Selmer, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tregelles, & Tischendorf, was criticized and rejected almost immediately by Christian conservatives, both Protestant and Catholic.  People such as Scholz, Scrivener, Burgon, Hoskier, von Soden, & Merk did not accept the arguments, methods or results of the new "naturalistic textual-criticism".

Hort, in a cranky mood

What is less well-known, is that within a decade, many among the liberal camps in scholarly and academic circles also roundly rejected the W/H text, especially in Germany, Britain, and America.   They saw plainly that Hort's theories and reconstructions were implausible and near-worthless on scientific and historical grounds.   A good example of this penetrating insight was William Benjamin Smith, who published a series of books and articles in both German and English from 1890 to 1911.

Wikipedia gives us the following backgrounder on Smith:

William Benjamin Smith

At around the same time William Benjamin Smith (1850–1934), a professor of mathematics at Tulane University in New Orleans, argued in a series of books that the earliest Christian sources, particularly the Pauline epistles, stress Christ's divinity at the expense of any human personality, and that this would have been implausible if there had been a human Jesus.   Smith believed that Christianity's origins lay in a pre-Christian Jesus cult—that is, in a Jewish sect that had worshipped a divine being named Jesus in the centuries before the human Jesus was supposedly born.   Smith argued that evidence for this cult was found in Hippolytus's mention of the Naassenes and Epiphanius's report of a Nazaraean or Nazorean sect that existed before Jesus. On this view, the seemingly historical details in the New Testament were built by the early Christian community around narratives of the pre-Christian Jesus.   Smith also argued against the historical value of non-Christian writers regarding Jesus, particularly Josephus and Tacitus.    

The following is taken from Smith's article "Status and Drift of NT Criticism" (1890-1911): 

  "The first inquiry ...of any document concerns the text itself. ...Has it suffered any corruption...? It will perhaps be necessary to reconstruct the original from the contradictory attestations of these witnesses [MSS].  Such is the text problem of NT Criticism, one of the most highly complex that ever challenged the efforts of human understanding. 

    The [textual evidence] ...is enormous in amount, and...The problem of sifting and evaluating such a mass of evidence and striking the golden mean of truth would seem too difficult for the human intellect, especially as there is no ... sure way of testing our results... and the whole case must be left undecided.  Under such circumstances the marvel would seem to be that there should be any agreement at all, that there  should not be as many minds as critics.  However, as numerous as the [differences] are, the agreements are still far greater, where critical opinions rest harmonious...

    Now it might be thought that this agreement would be extended and perfected by the discovery of new testimony [i.e., MSS], which of late years has proceeded apace, and by the deeper and minuter study of the long familiar evidence.  But the fact is exactly the reverse:  Accumulation of depositions and profounder investigations have confirmed some critical judgments, but have shaken many others and completely overthrown not a few. The problem is indeed becoming not less but more complicated with advancing knowledge, and the textual uncertainty was never before so great as it is now.

   True it is that the last generation has witnessed the most brilliant attempts yet made to construct the most highly probable text.  Those masterly scholars, bishop Westcott and Dr. Hort, thought they might, by a certain careful study of the genealogy of the various witnesses, attach a coefficient of value to each one singly and in combination, and thereby determine the original text in the overwhelming majority of cases with a close approach to certainty.  Plausible and seductive as was their argumentation, and thoroughly accepted even now in many high quarters, it was yet fatally defective at many points and for several reasons, and can no longer command scientific assent.  

(a)  The "neutral" text which they posited, as best represented by the great Vatican Codex B, is a figment of the imagination.
(b)  The deference paid to certain 'great uncials' was unwarranted.
(c)  The testimony of the Fathers, and versions was undervalued.
(d)  The depreciation of the so-called Western text was undeserved.
(e)  The rash assumption that Codex F awas a copy of G was unfortunate. 

Closer study has shown decisively that at crucial points the witnesses upon which Westcott & Hort relied most confidently might all be misleading, and the MSS most lightly esteemed might present the older reading.  Even as the sheperd boy of old laid low the giant, so at any time may some neglected cursive or version or citation overthrow the most venerated uncial  [e.g. with  early papyrus support]. 

Romans 1:7, 15
The word  here is attested by nearly all the best authorities; nonetheless it is an interpolation (Smith, JBL 1901, Part I, p 3ff, Harnack, 'Preuschen's Zeitschrift', 1902, I, p83 f).
Doxology
So too the doxology at the end of Rom. 16 is witnessed by Aleph B C D and the best versions;  nevertheless the position at the end of ch. 14 is certainly the older.
Epilogue
The Epilogue (ch. 14 and 16) is given by nearly every authority, but, in spite of all, it is proved to be a later addendum; the Amiatinian and Fuldensian capitulations clearly point to its earlier absence.

These examples also correct very usefully a prevalent notion that textual variations are after all mere trifles, ... On the contrary, they are sometimes blinding in their illumination, in their revelation of the primitive structure of our Scriptures.   Thus the textual facts just stated involve a complete reconstruction of our notions about Romans, which now seems to be no Epistle and not addressed originally to Romans, but to be a compilation of moral and theological essays...afterwards fitted with Prologue and Epilogue as it now stands. 

So too, the extremely important F and G variant in Rom 9:22, unnoticed even by the best commentators (as Godet, Sanday, Weiss, Lipsius, Hofmann), indicates clearly the pure Judaic original of this famous chapter... (see 'the Hibbert Journal' 1, 2 pp. 328, 329). 

Still another notion must be corrected.  Let no one imagine that all or nearly all of the variants are mistakes or due to mistakes;  very many are visibly intentional.  It was the ancient habit, particularly of the Oriental, to compile and recompile, to edit and re-edit again, and with sacred books this habit became an almost inviolable rule.  No one disputes this fact in the case of the O.T. and the Apocrypha and the extra-canonical early Christian Writings (ECW).  It would be well-nigh miraculous, if the NT Scriptures should offer exceptions.  Before the establishment of the Canon no sacred awe invested the canonics; there was no apparent reason why the favorite Scriptures should not be systematically modified to keep pace with the developing Christian consiciousness, very much as our creeds are altered nowadays. 

 Wetstein's great word holds good: 

"Various readings, almost all, are due to the zeal, ingenuity, and guesswork of transcribers." 

Tischendorf admits:

"It can not be doubted that in the very earliest days of Christianity there were multifarious departures from the pure Scripture of the Apostles, wherein to be sure there entered naught of dishonesty or guile." 

Under the deeper probing of von Soden and others the original "neutral" B-text of WH turns out to be only a very learned revision;  the fault of the Vatican [MS] is that it has considered too curiously. (As Holsten was led to observe - Holsten, the matchless master of exegesis, whose imposing reconstructions of Paulinism, by their very perfection, constitute the reductio ad absurdum of the premises and methods he employs.)

It is impossible to blink at the fact that all MSS of all parts of the NT abound in readings that are plainly second thoughts.  Our most ancient and revered codices reproduce only deformed, transformed, and highly elaborated originals.  ...

 The discovery of new MSS, the collation of a few hundred more, will not bring the chaos to order but will make confusion still worse confounded.  Witness the publication of the Sinaitic Syriac palimpsest, and the turning of attention to the famous Codex Bezae (D): they have merely raised new problems, not settled old.  ...Blass no longer quotes critical editions but quotes the MSS themselves, never presuming to say what is the "true text".  Such in theory at least is the position to which criticism must finally come.  The critic's text, no matter how ingeniously or plausibly manufactured, is only the critic's text, not the "true text" after all. 

..."

_______________________________________

Such a thorough shredding of Westcott-Hort a mere decade after his final edition (1896) by a modernist and scientist delivers the death-blow to the claim that the W-H theory and text is in any way adequate or definitive, even objective in its radical editing of the traditional Christian NT. 

Nazaroo

Critical Abbreviations in the Apparatus of NA27 etc.

Here are some handy 'cheat cards' you can cut out and use as bookmarks, for your used copies of Nestle/Aland, courtesy of Mr. Decker:

(Click to Enlarge)

Click to Enlarge

New Stories of Byzantine 'Recensions' from Bible.Org

An anonymous poster (identified as "Admin", i.e., 'administrator') who authoritatively answers questions at Bible.Org has begun propounding a whole new set of theories about the Byzantine Text.  In answer to a recent question about the problematic existence of thousands of discrepancies between the 'Alexandrian' manuscripts (Aleph, B,  C etc.).   Those who push the modern critical text, reconstructed mainly from Aleph/B are of course constrained to explain them.

The latest fantasy story from these parties is that there were two more definitive 'recensions' of the Byzantine text, one in the 9th and one in the 11th century!  To quote our anonymous 'expert':

"... Ironically, it is the Byzantine witnesses that, as time goes on, agree more and more. Two great periods of close agreement show strong evidence of a recension, one in the ninth century and one in the eleventh. By the time we get to the fifteenth century, the manuscripts are 98% in agreement with the printed Majority Text. The most likely explanation of this is that there was collusion—an intentional recension. It is in fact the only explanation that is based on evidence (Timothy Ralston’s doctoral dissertation at Dallas Seminary demonstrated this rather ably)." 

What evidence are we talking about?  Apparently "Timothy Ralston's doctoral dissertation", whatever that is.

Who is this anonymous 'expert'?

Well, elsewhere in the same post,  he says something else quite remarkable:

"when Aleph and B agree, their combined testimony must go back quite far. Westcott and Hort estimated that their agreement went back ten generations and must be located near the beginning of the second century."

Again in another 'expert answer':

"I would concur with Westcott and Hort that the common ancestor between these two MSS must be at least ten generations back. I hope this point is clear."

 Since Daniel Wallace personally responds to many of these inquiries with authored articles, we strongly suspect that "Admin" is simply Wallace incognito. 


Wallace himself doesn't apparently attach his name to such exact figures, for a good reason.  When his moniker is on the line, we find a much more subdued text, as in the recent book co-authored by Wallace,

"Many scholars believe that since both manuscripts belong to the same text-type yet have so many differences, their common ancestor must have been copied several generations before. ... Aleph and B are distant cousins from long after their common ancestor, which itself must go back several generations. Indeed, when they agree, their common reading usually is from the early 2nd century." (Wallace, Komoszewski, Sawyer, Reinventing Jesus (Kregel, 2006) p. 78.

Now to get to the early 2nd century, we only need an unspecified  "several generations". 

This kind of grandstanding is however extremely suspect.  TEN generations implies that someone has actually found evidence for TEN generations.  That is, they have found at least TEN identifiable layers among the differences collated between Aleph and B.  Of course if this were actually true, not only would it be published, but it would be front page textual-critical news.

The obvious elephant in the room is that this work has never been done, nobody has discovered "ten layers" or any other number of layers, in the conjectured and reconstructed line of ancestors between Aleph/B and their ancient common archetype.

Its another case of anonymous propaganda mascarading as  scientific and historical "fact". 

What about the "strong evidence of recension" claimed in the first post?  Don't hold your breath waiting for a demonstration of such an important, but so far unsubstantiated claim by the Hortian puppet-masters.

peace
Nazaroo

Emerging Technology for MS Analysis

I reproduce below a recent post on a new technology for detecting the difference between "grassroots" dissemination of information, and "orchestrated campaigns". It should be obvious that if this can be detected on the internet, the same techniques should be able to establish whether for instance the Byzantine text-type is a real "grassroots" type, or an "artificial" (formal) recension.

Truthy: Visualizing the Diffusion of Information on Twitter

"Truthy [indiana.edu] is a recently developed online system to analyze and visualize the diffusion of information on Twitter. It evaluates 1,000s of tweets an hour to identify new bursts of activity around specific topics and memes, to reveal when, where and how they emerged .

For instance, Truthy claims it can distinguish organically emerging grass-roots viral campaigns from those that [are] forged (i.e. 'astroturfing', which denotes political, advertising, or public relations campaigns that are formally planned by an organization, but are disguised as spontaneous, popular 'grassroots' behavior). It therefore uses a combination of text and data mining, social network analysis, and complex networks models, together with a training algorithm based on input from users who are invited to flag dubious injections.

Next to a network diagram that shows the relationships between Twitter members that retweet or mention a specific of meme, the interface also contains a meme activity timeline graph and various numerical statistics and mood-identifying semantic analysis results."

For more information, see also here. See also Tracking the Mood on Twitter.

peace,

Nazaroo

Ben Witherington on TC

Ben Witherington graciously put himself on the record in a video interview with Simon Smart (about 4 months ago) here: Witherington Interview.

Starting on minute 4, Ben begins to give us a sketch of his TC position:

"I agree with professor Metzger, when he says, that 'only about 2 to 5% of the textual variants are of any theological or ethical significance at all;' and, he goes on to say, 'and there are no major doctrines that are in any way compromised by these textual variants', - because, there are other texts where there is no doubt about what was the original text, or a very high degree of certainty about the original text where you find the same theological or ethical idea, - so no."

Dr. Witherington is obviously a Metzgerite, but is he a Hortian? Apparently so. He gives a description of textual criticism, which, however brief, plainly takes the standard Hortian view:

[5:55] "Well there's a whole scientific process of critical sifting that you go through to decide what the original reading is, I mean, we have a whole series of rules that we follow when you do textual criticism;

One of them which would be 'Our earliest witnesses, are likely to be our best witnesses:' the closer to the source, the more likely its going to be accurate.

Another rule would be, 'A multiply attested witness', a witness that we find in an Alexandrian text, and in the B manuscript [Vaticanus], and even in the Western text over here, in other words, geographical spread in where these manuscripts were copied: When we find the same reading in a variety of places, its more likely to be original than a 'one off' reading that came from Syria, okay?

[6:48] Or another good example would be, 'the reading that best explains the other readings' is more likely to be original because what you try to do is, you create a sort of stemma or tree, to get back to the root, and the root is going to be the one from which all these other readings could have come, - these other readings couldn't all be the root, you see, so that's another way of looking at it;

[7:14] And lastly, we have the rule of 'the more difficult reading is likely to be original', I'll give you a good example; In the vast majority of our manuscripts of Mark [Mk. 10:18] at this particular juncture, a young man comes to Jesus and says "Good teacher what must I do to inherit eternal life?" and Jesus just about bites his head off: - in our best text it reads "Why do you call me good? Nobody's good but God alone!" Wow! he he, you know now thats a difficult text, thats a hard reading; is Jesus denying that he's good? Is Jesus denying that he's God? The more difficult reading is likely to be original. Why? Because we know that devout pious Christian scribes were likely to wittle off the hard edges of the text.
[8:00] Some texts read: "Why do you ask me about the 'good'?" - not 'why do you call me good?', - 'why do you ask me the philosophical question about 'the good'?' Well that is definitely an ameliorating reading. Its this like "whew, we're glad Jesus wasn't denying He was good." So the scribe is sort of wiping his brow and saying 'okay I saved Jesus that faux paus.' Well yes, you do have some of that, its true that scribes were very concerned about a clear picture, uh, an orthodox picture of Jesus, and so there is some editing, ameliorating tendencies.

[8:40] That's why, um, to me one of the most exciting things I can tell you about NT studies in the past 150 years, is that we are closer now today to the original text of the Greek NT than at any time in human history since about the 2nd or 3rd century A.D.
[8:56] We now have over 5,000 whole or partial MSS of the GNT, we even have some bits of MSS from the 2nd century papyri, we are getting closer and closer to the original text. And the value textual study, textual criticism, is we are reconstructing the original text and we are becoming more and more certain about what it actually said so more and more of the variant textual readings are falling by the wayside, and uh, you know and probably not in my lifetime, but perhaps in the 21st century, we may well have a condition where we've got 99% of the original text of the Greek NT established with a high degree of certainty. Well that's exciting, you know, we're getting there but its a work in progress. "

Well, Witherington is wise enough to carefully skirt quoting the infamous canon: "prefer the shorter reading". He is well aware that this 'Canon' has been all but abandoned quietly by contemporary textual critics. See for instance Royse, here: Royse on Shorter Readings

But he has no qualms riffling off another four dubious 'canons' of NT Textual criticism, and claiming "scientific" status for the current state of the art.

- It is as if these four 'canons' simply and easily solved the majority of Variation Units, and there was no doubt or challenge to the textual emendations of the last 150 years by Unitarian and Rationalist critics.

But his handling of his four 'Canons' is itself suspect:

(1) Oldest reading: Of course the logic seems undeniable: purity increases as we get "closer to the source". But first, Witherington knows that the age of a manuscript does not coincide with the age of the text it contains, and these are often quite different. Manuscript Age is not a reliable indicator of the text. Second, there is a difference between physical distance in time and copy-generational difference. A manuscript could be 5th or 6th century (as with many Old Latin copies) but might only be a few copies away from their 2nd century source. Third,even the oldest manuscripts may be many generations away from the original text, while later copies might in fact be much closer. Codex Bezae (5th cent.) is an example, where many critics have assessed it to contain a very early (2nd cent. Western) text.

(2) Multiple Attestation: Witherington equates this to geographical spread. But the justification is weak. Copies traveled throughout the Roman Empire via traveling preachers like St. Paul and Luke. In his example, he only uses it to dismiss Syrian readings, even though the Old Syriac reaches into the 2nd century, and its a whole Version with multiple MS and Patristic support, not just a single manuscript. Why not use the same principle and argument to dismiss the peculiar readings of Aleph/B, and embrace the widely supported Traditional (Byzantine) text?

(3) The Reading that explains the others: This is in reality little more than a pipe-dream, part of the wish-list of textual critics. Most Variation Units simply don't cooperate by presenting features that account for variant readings. This would only work for accidental readings anyway, but many edits, as Witherington concedes, are deliberate. His quote of Metzger's "2-5%" is ridiculously unrealistic, and the real percentage is probably more in the 40-50% range for accidental/deliberate.

(4) The more 'difficult' reading: When originally proposed, Bengel, Griesbach etc. intended this to apply to theologically difficult, in the context of later controversies and scribal concerns. It cannot apply to accidental errors, which according to Witherington amount to some 95-97% of variants!!! What a useless rule, that can only deal with 2-5% of variants...

The rosey picture Witherington paints of "readings falling by the wayside" is in fact just a falsification of the true deplorable state of affairs.

In fact, what has been happening, is that publishers of modern critical Greek texts have been dumbing down the apparatus, and omitting hundreds of important variations, while secretly embracing the Westcott/Hort text. Its now a game of 'hide and seek', with textual critics pretending to have established the text, while covering their Hortian tracks. Textual critics have taken a cue from ethically immoral corporations, building layers of disinformation and isolation to push the consumer further and further away from discovery of the true quality of the product and their unethical standards.

His position is clear from his statement about being,
"closer...to the original text...than at any time...since about the 2nd or 3rd century"
- that is, Dr. Witherington is 90%+ Hortian, and believes the current crop of critical texts, all standing in about 90% agreement with Hort's text (against the Traditional, Byzantine, and/or TR) and based on the Aleph/B and Alexandrian papyri, are closest to the original text.

Is Textual Criticism Denominationally Affected?

In a recent exchange with Dr. Larry Hurtado (Edinb.U), I was corrected on some points regarding Roman Catholic involvement in textual criticism and potential bias.

Dr. Hurtado said:

"...your comment...contains a number of inaccuracies and could also be taken as gratuituously anti-Catholic in places. (I make no accusation; I only report likely impressions.)
Note for your information the following:
--The UBS/NA text is simply the successor edition to the Nestle text commenced over a century ago by a German Protestant, and still managed by the UBS and the NT text-critical institute in Muenster (a Protestant faculty). Martini was on the committee of an earlier edition but is no longer. When on the committee, he was a respected Catholic NT scholar, and he resigned when be was made a Cardinal. In any case, text-critical decisions are not denomination-based.
--The Lockam(Lockmann) Foundation is neither mysterious nor Catholic. I have no idea whether or why they might have been interested in other NT translations than the one they sponsored."


Of particular interest is Dr. Hurtado's assertion that "text-critical decisions are not denomination-based".

This is an interesting comment, because it appears that for at least a hundred years, active textual criticism, which promoted essentially the ideas of Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Hort, Nestle, Aland were indeed driven by ideology in part, and most of the early textual critics who "dethroned the Textus Receptus (Traditional Greek NT text)" were in fact loudly opinionated Unitarians.

Later on the Unitarian/Trinitarian controversy died down, and textual critics became less interested in this doctrine when it became apparent to both sides that the textual evidence could not support a purely Unitarian NT, any more than it could a Trinitarian one.

But critics didn't on the whole move back into Trinitarian churches. The damage was done, and the many new Protestant "denominations" and cults continued along.

In large measure, the next generation of textual critics remained Rationalists and carried on treating the Bible as "any other book", subject to ordinary circumstance of wear, error, and worldly decay. On the whole, the doctrine of Providential Preservation of the Traditional text, (i.e., the 'Reformation Bible') was abandoned. It was granted that the original autographs were "error free" and "inspired" by most, but these of course were lost.

Yet in spite of the coming and going of various theological "fads", the textual data stayed about the same as it was in the turn of the century (c. 1900-1920). The papyri had all been discovered, and the only new items of interest were extra-biblical books like Thomas, Judas, & Nag Hammadi (gnostic and heretical works).

So the text languished in the state that the original Unitarians of the 19th century left it in. Even the latest critical Greek NT (1982) is essentially 80-90% in agreement with the Westcott/Hort text (1882).

We have been saddled with the "Unitarian" NT, and no one has any way of really escaping it, other than return to the traditional Text (TR/Majority text).

What is holding things up now?

Again the answer appears to be ideological, if not "denominational" per se. Of course no particular (Protestant) denomination controls things. But the fact is, there is a strong reason to maintain the text as it is, and not go back to the Traditional text. Its essentially the Roman Catholic text as well.

If modern Protestants have their Westcott/Hort style text taken away, there will be very little to distinguish Protestants and Catholics, other than Biblical interpretation, and some church service practices.

I would say that to put it bluntly, Protestant authorities are afraid to embrace the "Catholic" Bibles of their own Reformer-Fathers, and will not relinquish their claim to being "scientifically superior" in regard to the NT text in comparison to Catholics.

peace
Nazaroo