Coherence-Based Genealogical Method Research Articles

Direct Copying in a Group of Gospel Manuscripts with Catenae

AbstractFour of the witnesses selected for the Editio Critica Maior of Mark are witnesses to a unique combination of catena commentaries on the Gospels not found in any other manuscripts. An analysis of their text in the Gospel of Mark, using the tools of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method, shows that they also feature an almost identical form of the biblical text that frequently diverges from both the Majority Text and all other Greek New Testament manuscripts. These four manuscripts, GA 238, GA 377, GA 807 and GA 1160, therefore, constitute a group within the textual tradition of the Gospels. This article provides the evidence that GA 377 is a direct copy of GA 807. No other instances of direct copying can be proven within the group, but their agreement raises the possibility that they are siblings. The format of the catenae may explain the high degree of homogeneity in this group of Gospels manuscripts.

Three Direct Copies and Other Closely Related Manuscripts of the Pauline Epistles

Abstract As part of work towards the Editio Critica Maior of Galatians, the use of the tools of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method and the MrBayes phylogenetic software has led to the identification of three Greek New Testament manuscripts which are direct copies (Abschriften) of surviving documents. This article provides the evidence that GA 1930 is a copy of GA 1978, GA 1935 is a copy of GA 1987, and GA 1959 is a copy of GA 467. No conclusive proof has yet been identified to confirm whether or not GA 2423 is a copy of GA 1730, GA 506 is a copy of GA 203, GA 1837 is a copy of GA 326, GA 1988 is a copy of GA 1984, or GA 1753 is a copy of GA 2279. However, it appears that neither GA 254 and GA 1523 nor GA 0150 and GA 2110 are directly related. The conclusion offers further observations on the identification of Abschriften.

The Usefulness of Pre-Genealogical Coherence for Detecting Multiple Emergence and Coincidental Agreement: Matthew 16.2b–3 as a Test Case

Since other evidence strongly suggests that the omission of Matt 16:2b–3 is the result of multiple emergence, this variant unit serves as a helpful case study to evaluate the usefulness of pre-genealogical coherence for detecting multiple emergence of a reading, an important premise of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM). This article adapts the Wasserman–Gurry method of assessing pre-genealogical coherence in the Synoptic Gospels (for which full collation of the relevant witnesses is presently lacking) in several ways to approximate more closely the approach used in the CBGM. It also attempts to refine the data generated by the Parallel Pericopes: Manuscript Clusters tool of the INTF at certain points. The study confirms that the assessment of pre-genealogical coherence is useful in detecting multiple emergence, coincidental agreement and contamination even based on the limited data in the Parallel Pericopes volume of the Editio Critica Maior.

Die Editio Critica Maior des griechischen Neuen Testaments – Editionsprinzipien, Editionstechnik und Digital Humanities

Abstract After a brief introduction to the prehistory of the Editio Critica Maior of the Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Münster, the edition itself is presented. First, the path from the collection of material to the creation of the critical apparatus of the edition is traced. Then the presentation of material in the printed Editio Critica Maior is introduced and it is shown how to use it. Since the New Testament tradition is characterized by contamination, which makes the application of the classical “Lachmannian” stemmatology impossible, a new method had to be developed for the penetration of the New Testament manuscript tradition, the so-called Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM), which is explained as short and simple as possible. Finally, the study introduces the digital Editio Critica Maior and its use and gives an outlook to the future of the Editio Critica Maior as an interactive digital edition of the Greek New Testament.

A Bias at the Heart of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM)

The Greek text of the New Testament for the latest Nestle-Aland edition is being edited by the Institute for New Testament Research (INTF) in Münster using a novel technique called the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM). This study tests the CBGM against a hypothetical scenario inspired by 1 John 1:7 and concludes that the “potential-ancestor” criterion on which the method depends is biased against certain kinds of witnesses previously considered to be of utmost importance for reconstructing the text in 1 John, including Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus. This article also offers some suggestions for addressing or ameliorating the bias at the heart of the CBGM. Without such amelioration, the NA28 text in the Catholic Epistles and the new Editio Critica Maior volumes must be used with caution.

Studies in the History of the Greek Text of the Apocalypse: The Ancient Stems by Josef Schmid

Reviewed by: Studies in the History of the Greek Text of the Apocalypse: The Ancient Stems by Josef Schmid Russell Morton josef schmid, Studies in the History of the Greek Text of the Apocalypse: The Ancient Stems (Text-Critical Studies 11; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2018). Pp. xxxviii + 298. Paper $39.95. Since 1955, Schmid's two-volume Studien zur Geschichte des Griechischen Apokalypse-Textes has remained a valuable resource for textual criticism of Revelation. Its worth is confirmed by the fact that it has continued to be cited by commentators including David E. Aune (WBC, 1997–98), G. K. Beale (NIGTC, 1999), Craig R. Koester (AB, 2014), and Martin Karrer (EKKNT, 2017). Volume 2 of this classic resource, The Ancient Stems, has now been translated and edited by Juan Hernández, Garrick V. Allen, and Darius Müller. Schmid recognized that the text of the Apocalypse was "handled with little piety" (p. 157), resulting in a complex textual history. From the very early root, S. proposed that the textual tradition branched into four distinct "stems." The oldest of the stems is represented by the Codex Alexandrinus (A) and Ephraemi Rescriptus (C). Although each of these texts has its unique features, S. considered that their common "stem" was, perhaps, the one with the greatest agreement to a hypothetical Urtext, or original form. Nevertheless, even these manuscripts were not free from textual contamination. Thus, while S. highly regarded the A and C manuscripts, he rejected Westcott's and Hort's evaluation of them as representatives of a "neutral" text. Another early stem was represented by 𝔭47. At the time of S's research, this papyrus was the earliest known fragment of the Apocalypse. Nevertheless, S. understood 𝔭47's stem to reflect a development of Revelation's textual history subsequent to that represented by the A and C manuscripts. 𝔓47 is most helpful when its corrections are similar to those found in A, C. and Codex Sinaiticus. Although Sinaiticus shares common corrections with 𝔭47, the uncial, likewise, represents a distinct textual stem. S., however, considered Sinaiticus's text to be highly unreliable. Of all its unique readings, S. considered only one correction common to Sinaiticus and 𝔭47, found in Rev 9:20, to be representative of the Urtext (p. 120). The final stem was represented in the commentary by Andreas of Caesarea and the Koine (K) text. Although Wilhelm Bousset and Hermann von Soden thought these traditions were independent of one another, S. concluded that they shared a stem, which could be recognized by their common corrections (p. 155). In numerous places, K and Andreas's commentary provide better witnesses to the Urtext than the other stems, demonstrating that they are not simply dependent on earlier textual traditions. Schmid's Ancient Stems, while valuable, reflects the weaknesses one can expect in a pioneering work. First, S. never discussed his critical theory. Second, he "overrates agreement as evidence of a common lineage and underrates the possibility of coincidental agreement in errors" (p. xxxv). Finally, his language can be imprecise. For example, he never defined a hierarchy of textual forms. The last objection, however, is mitigated when we consider that S. did not think it was possible to recreate connections between the textual forms. In this regard, his understanding of textual development was clearly superior to Westcott's and Hort's hypothesis regarding the development of textual traditions. It is fortunate that the state of research has progressed since 1955. This fact is recognized both in the translators' introduction and the errata section at the end of the volume. The translators' introduction is helpful in various ways. First, it contextualizes S.'s contribution. The translators recognize that S.'s work was transitional. Also, they note that textual [End Page 720] criticism has advanced beyond his work. For example, the translators note that with digital tools and more adequate critical theory, such as the Coherence Based Genealogical Method (CBGM), the time has come for newer approaches to the textual history of the Apocalypse. The translators' introduction does, however, possess one major flaw. When references are made to S.'s Ancient Stems, the page numbers are to the German original, not to the translation. Thus, the incautious...

A Bias at the Heart of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM)

A Bias at the Heart of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM)

Direct Copies as Test Case for the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM)?

Direct Copies as Test Case for the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM)?

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

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...

A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method by Tommy Wasserman and Peter J. Gurry

Reviewed by: A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method by Tommy Wasserman and Peter J. Gurry Peter Malik tommy wasserman and peter j. gurry, A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (SBLRBS 80; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017). Pp. xvi + 146. Paper $19.95. There seems to be no shortage of introductions to textual criticism, with few of them having long-term value and utility. This book by Tommy Wasserman and Peter J. Gurry certainly belongs to the latter. The authors aim to introduce the theoretical foundations and practical workings of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM), a new computerized method developed by Gerd Mink at the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung (INTF) in Münster. Most importantly, the INTF has utilized the method as a central working tool in preparing the text of the Editio Critica Maior (ECM). Given the complexity of the method and the fact that it has been used almost exclusively by the ECM editors, there has been a good deal of misunderstanding and reservation on the part of "outsiders." Although there have been numerous specialized studies published on the subject (including G.'s recent monograph, A Critical Examination of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method in New Testament Textual Criticism [NTTSD 55; Leiden: Brill, 2017]), for a long time a plain introduction has been a desideratum. The New Approach is just such a text. In the space of six concise, clearly structured chapters, followed by an annotated bibliography and a glossary, W. and G. elucidate the CBGM in such a way that even a nonspecialist may be able to understand its basics. Each chapter retains a consistent structure, starting with a few sentences of a summary, followed by the main contents and conclusion, as well as a short list of key terms. In the introductory chapter, the authors outline the basic aspects of text-critical inquiry, especially as they relate to the changing landscape of the current state of discipline. Naturally, the CBGM lies at the very heart of this change, and the authors outline the most notable effects of its application to the study of the NT text. The rejection of text types and the renewed appreciation for the mainstream Byzantine text are, perhaps, the most striking ones. The next chapter provides a general overview of the method. Here G. and W. sketch out the method's historical development, as well as the key problems and concepts. Since the CBGM is a stemmatic method based on the analysis of two types of textual coherence, the concepts of "coherence" and "stemma" are foundational and hence are also the subject of the following three chapters. In chap. 3, W. and G. consider "pregenealogical coherence," which is basically the percentage of agreement between witnesses at all the variation units where they are compared. The example they use to illustrate its use is the famous variation at Mark 1:1, to which W. is known to have dedicated no small scholarly attention (T. Wasserman, "The 'Son of God' Was in the Beginning [Mark 1:1])," JTS 62 [2011] 20–50; idem, "Historical and Philological Correlations and the CBGM as Applied to Mark 1:1," TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 20 [2015] 1–11). Perhaps the most important end to which this evidence can be directed is to adjudge where the agreement between witnesses is more likely to be coincidental and where genetic. At the same time, the main limitation of pregenealogical coherence is that it does not tell us anything about the direction of change within a given variation unit (i.e., a "local stemma")—the editors must make up their own minds. This information is, at each point, fed into a database. The sum total of pregenealogical evidence and editorial judgment derived from all the local stemmata constitutes the second type of coherence, namely, "genealogical coherence." [End Page 564] The ins and outs of genealogical coherence are discussed in chap. 4 and illustrated by helpful examples from the Catholic Epistles and Acts. Next, chap. 5 concerns the "global stemma." The authors define it as "the simplest hypothesis about how the text of our...

Reading between the Lines: 1 Peter 4:16, MS 424, and Some Methodological Blind Spots in the CBGM

The reading of 1 Pet 4:16 was recently changed in NA28 on the basis of analyses relying on the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) of textual criticism. This article argues against the change, in the process identifying important omissions in the CBGM that have caused it to skew evaluations of this variation unit and indicating two key corresponding ways to develop the method: first, by accounting for corrected readings in manuscripts through the incorporation of reconstructed witnesses into the CBGM’s assessments and into its underlying computer database; and, second, by methodologically accounting for distinctions between the relative qualities of witnesses between individual books and possibly even between sections of a single book. Lacking these developments, the final results of the CBGM will likely include further distortions such as those found in the case of 1 Pet 4:16.

Fundamentals of New Testament Textual Criticism ed. by Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts

Reviewed by: Fundamentals of New Testament Textual Criticism ed. by Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts Scott Charlesworth stanley e. porter and andrew w. pitts, Fundamentals of New Testament Textual Criticism ( Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015). Pp. xvi + 202. Paper $22. Porter and Pitts have set out to fill a gap in the literature by writing a mid-level textbook for first- and second-year students of Greek. Their aim is to avoid both oversimplification and too much complexity by introducing NT textual criticism in enough detail to provide "exposure to major issues" (p. xiii). High expectations are dashed, however, when in chap. 1 they define the primary goal of textual criticism as "reconstruction of the original text of the NT" (p. 6). Omitted is any reference to theoretical discussions about the meaning of "original" and current preference for distinctions implied by use of the terms "authorial," "initial," and "archetype" (text). Is the rationale pragmatic, due to the limitations the authors have set themselves? If so, it cannot be justified. Moreover, the selected bibliography that follows this (and every other) chapter, which is designed to facilitate further study and make up for the paucity of footnotes, does not include any literature on the subject. In order to lay a foundation for exegesis, text-critical matters are "book-ended" by chaps. 2 and 13 on canon (the "domain of NT textual criticism") and English translations respectively. It is certainly right, as the authors explain, to get students thinking about all three areas before they come to exegesis, but the uncritical tone now becomes apologetic. The canon was established "as soon as the literature was written … and closed as soon as the last of the apostles died" (p. 30). The church did not then decide but discovered what was canonical (p. 30). The Canon 1 and 2 distinction is dismissed, and evidence to the contrary all but ignored, except as regards, for obvious reasons, the date of the Muratorian Fragment. Concerns about approach continue in chaps. 3 and 4 on materials, methods of classification, and major witnesses. There is apparent acceptance of Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett's consistently early dating of NT papyri (The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001] 58-59; cf. the endorsements [End Page 735] on pp. 46, 102), even though Comfort and Barrett's methodology has been roundly criticized by Pasquale Orsini and Willy Clarysse ("Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Date," ETL 88 [2012] 443-74), who describe it as "theological palaeography." Additional questions about accuracy also start to arise. The review copy came with an errata slip correcting the highly inaccurate numbers of papyri, majuscules, minuscules, and lectionaries given in the book (p. 50). The notion of text-types, let alone geographically based text-types (so chap. 5), is under increasing challenge. While scribes in copying the text did not have license to change its essential meaning, the low-level "improvements" that were allowable all but disallow the classification of the papyri according to text-types. Again, there is no reference to current scholarly discussion of text-types in the text or bibliography. Chapter 6, however, contains a helpful introduction to textual variants with some input from linguistics. But students are also denied even-handed treatment in the methodological chaps. 7‒10. The Coherence-Based Genealogical Method is dismissed in a footnote (p. 90 n. 2) and the authors are ambivalent about whether students should even use the latest critical edition of the Greek New Testament (NA28, UBSGNT5) since it contains the text of the Catholic letters from the Editio Critica Maior (p. 147 n. 1). The ECM, as a result, is not among the critical editions discussed in chaps. 11‒12. In addition, the authors' strong preference for external evidence along with their hope that Sinaiticus, as "an ancient eclectic text that likely reflects or closely resembles the original" (p. 101), might become the diplomatic or base text of a future critical edition, risks "canonizing" a new "standard text" and diminishing the role of textual criticism. Finally, devaluation of the papyri (p. 102) in favor of the majuscules passes over the very important...

Novum Testamentum Graecum, Editio Critica Maior

Novum Testamentum Graecum, Editio Critica Maior

The Harklean Syriac and the Development of the Byzantine Text

Abstract The Syriac translation of the New Testament produced by Thomas of Harkel in ad 616 provides a rich source for studying the transmission of the Greek New Testament. In this case, its relationship to the Byzantine text in the Catholic Epistles is used to test the results of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (cbgm), a new computerized tool being used to edit the standard editions of the Greek New Testament (NA28/UBS5). Against claims that the cbgm is not useful for understanding textual history, this study shows that, when used carefully, it can provide valuable clarity to our understanding. The results of this test have implications for the cbgm, for the textual worth of the Byzantine text, and for how all “texts” are related and evaluated.

A Critical Examination of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method in the Catholic Epistles

A dissertation providing the first sustained study and evaluation of the Coherence Based Genealogical Method in textual criticism.

Μόνον or μονῶν?: Reading 1 John 2:2c from the Editio Critica Maior

For 1 John 2:2 the eighth corrected printing of Nestle-Aland27 (1994) lists three variants of μονῶν in place of μόνον. Since then more manuscripts have been added to the list. The 2003 Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior (ECM and NA28 ) provides nineteen variants, plus lacunae, for μονῶν. Moreover, the presence of δέ and ϰαί occurs in some manuscripts but not in others. The difference between these variants has the potential to affect their theological interpretation: it questions the authorship or editorship of the text; it alters the syntax and/or grammar of (v. 2c) οὐ πeρὶ τῶν ἡμeτέρων δὲ μόνον (v. 2d) ἀλλὰ ϰαὶ πeρὶ ὅλου τοῦ ϰόσμου. The variants suggest a plurality of grammatical and theological interpretations of 1 John 2:2. Applying the criteria in the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) in the ECM, this paper evaluates the different readings of v. 2c in the textual tradition to see whether μόνον or μονῶν (with or without δέ–ϰαί) is likely to be the initial text.