A Critical Examination of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method in New Testament Textual Criticism by Peter J. Gurry

Abstract

Reviewed by: A Critical Examination of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method in New Testament Textual Criticism by Peter J. Gurry Peter R. Rodgers peter j. gurry, A Critical Examination of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method in New Testament Textual Criticism (NTTSD 55; Leiden: Brill, 2017). Pp. xiv + 254. €110/$127. Most NT scholars consider textual criticism arcane. With the advent of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) the discipline just got more inscrutable and inaccessible. The great value of Peter Gurry's book, the substance of his Cambridge Ph.D. thesis (2017, supervised by Peter M. Head), is that it explains this new method and gives a positive and critical evaluation. G. begins by outlining the history and reception of the CBGM (chap. 1) and explains how it works in theory and practice (chap. 2). This method, made possible by advanced computer technology, tracks the pre-genealogical coherence at any given variation unit, and the genealogical coherence (indicating the direction of textual change). These findings are used to construct local and ultimately global stemma. G. offers thirtyeight figures to illustrate his discussion and evaluation. There follow chapters on establishing the "initial text" (chap. 3) tracking scribal tendencies in James (chap. 4), a test case related to the Harklean Syriac group of manuscripts in the CBGM (chap. 5), and the selection of variants to be treated by the CBGM (chap. 6). A final chapter includes G.'s own assessment of the method's limitations and his suggestions for improvements (chap. 7). In his conclusion, G. states that the CBGM "is a valuable tool for reconstructing the text of the New Testament and for studying its textual history" (p. 221). To appreciate the CBGM and G.'s analysis the reader must keep in mind several distinctions. The first is the initial text as contrasted with the original text. Traditionally, the goal of the discipline has been to establish the original text, that is, what the authors wrote. The initial text (German Ausgangstext) is the text that can be obtained as far back as the surviving manuscript tradition will take us. This is the focus of the CBGM. Another distinction is between manuscripts and their texts. The focus of the CBGM on texts (as distinct from manuscripts) highlights the finding of the method that a late manuscript may contain a text of a much earlier date. Minuscule 1739 had been known to contain readings that are much older than this tenth-century manuscript. CBGM has shown how widely this is the case across the tradition, and in the process has called for a higher regard for the Byzantine textual tradition. At some places, the CBGM and the resultant Editio Critica Maior (ECM) have favored a reading that is not found in [End Page 731] the earliest manuscripts. One example is 1 Pet 4:16, where the CBGM and, consequently, the editors of NA28 and UBS5 have chosen the reading μέρει, which has only late support, rather than ὀνόματι, which is found in all the earliest manuscripts. The reason for this change is that the manuscripts supporting μέρει demonstrate stronger coherence than the oldest witnesses (p72 01 03 etc.; see G., pp. 76-79). This concept of coherence is fundamental to the method. It refers to the close genealogical relationship among manuscripts. Manuscripts that demonstrate a 97% similarity are said to have "strong coherence." Those with 70% similarity in their texts demonstrate a weaker coherence. G. explains this concept at the outset, together with other terms, but a glossary of terms fundamental to the CBGM would have added to the value of the book. G.'s chapter on scribal habits engages the earlier work of James R. Royse (Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri [NTTSD 36; Leiden: Brill, 2006]), who demonstrated that the early scribes omitted far more than they added. New data from the CBGM shows that omissions and additions in the manuscripts of James are about even. The manuscripts that Royse was examining, however, were all pre-Constantinian. The CBGM included only manuscripts of the fourth century and later. Could the difference stem partly from a changed situation after Christianity became legal and then official? Chapter 5 features work that...