Doing Internal Evidence First in Textual Criticism (Using Accordance)

For much of the history of the discipline of New Testament textual criticism, practitioners have overwhelmingly favored beginning with the external evidence before looking at the internal evidence. This has been largely a necessity because one could not determine by simply looking at the text the type of textual variant that would be found in the apparatus. Tischendorf’s magisterial Editio octava critica maior, with its extensive list of textual variants, nevertheless did not indicate in the text what kind of reading one would meet in the apparatus. Von Soden’s magnum opus also lacks any such pointers. The UBS text fares better in that it at least gives a footnote number after a word. But it still does not hint at what sort the variation is.

Perhaps this is why external evidence has been the first step in solving a textual problem: there was simply no other way to do it. Once someone glanced at the apparatus and saw their favored witnesses—whether they be א B, D F G, 𝔐, or any number after 𝔓—all too often the textual problem was considered solved. Second-year Greek students, regardless of instructions otherwise, tend to use internal evidence only as confirmation on the decision already arrived at on an external basis. Internal considerations are merely an afterthought, certainly not given equal weight with the external.

The Nestle tradition, however, gives sigla in the text to indicate what kind of variant one might expect to see in the apparatus, as follows:

⸆       insertion
⸀       substitution of one word
⸂ ⸃      substitution of more than one word between these two symbols
o       omission of one word
⸋ ⸌    omission of more than one word between symbols
⸉ ⸊   transposition between symbols
[ ]     word(s) in brackets omitted in witnesses listed in apparatus

At least the Nestle-Aland text gives some clues to the user as to the kind of variation one can expect to find. These symbols were not in the early editions of the Nestle but have been included for many decades.

This is fortuitous for the approach I take to solving textual problems. First, I ask the student to start with the Nestle-Aland text and refrain from looking at the apparatus. Second, I ask the student to come up with some guesses as to what the variant(s) might be. This is of course not necessary for omissions, simple transpositions, and bracketed words; the variants can be deduced from the sigla. But substitutions and insertions require some guesswork. And if the student can guess what the variant is, this reveals a predictable reading. If the modern student can come up with it, then scribes whose work has no genetic connection to each other’s could have come up with it on their own. But even when there is a genetic connection, working this way helps the student to create a more level playing field between external and internal evidence.

Take, for example, Phil 1.14. The Nestle text reads: καὶ τοὺς πλείονας τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἐν κυρίῳ πεποιθότας τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου περισσοτέρως τολμᾶν ἀφόβως τὸν λόγον ⸆ λαλεῖν. There is an addition after λόγον. Obviously, some adjunct, probably a genitive modifier. What is the ‘word’ that these Christ-followers might dare to speak? Typical student answers are the word ‘of God’ or the word ‘of the Lord.’ And this is exactly what we find in the apparatus: του θεου or κυριου.

This is where things get a bit muddled, however. Students notice immediately the pedigree of the longer readings: του θεου is found in major Alexandrian witnesses, along with several significant witnesses of other types (ℵ A B [⸉ D*] P Ψ 048vid. 075. 0278. 33. 81. 104. 326. 365. 629. 1175. 1241s. 2464 al lat syp.h** co; Cl); κυριου is found in F G, two leading Western MSS. The Nestle text reading is found in 𝔓46 D1739. 1881 𝔐 r vgms; McionT. Even with the papyrus and 1739 the evidence is not nearly as impressive as the ‘word of God’ reading. If students begin with the external evidence, as has been the customary practice, they may well be prejudiced against the shorter reading from the get-go because of its lack of credentials. This, in fact, seems to be the case with the third edition of the UBS text: the shorter reading garnered only a ‘D’ rating; the fourth and fifth editions elevated it to ‘B’ status.

What if students could look at the internal evidence without bias? What if they could ignore the witnesses in the apparatus and work out the problem before listening to the external voices? As we have noted, students can do this with certain kinds of variants with the Nestle-Aland text. But I did not know of any way to assist students in not letting their left hand know what their right hand was doing. Until now.

 

Feature in Accordance

During the spring semester of 2019, while teaching an elective on NT textual criticism at Dallas Seminary, I wrote to Helen and Roy Brown of Accordance to see if they could create a module that would enable students to do internal evidence first and without prejudice. As is typical with Accordance, I received a quick reply. They worked on this problem and soon realized that the software already could do just what I was asking for!

Here is what Helen wrote:

The illustration below shows a tab with the apparatus where the Witness field is apparently hidden, while the tab behind it has the regular display. Both are tied to the text so the user can consult whichever version he wants.

Screen Shot 2019-05-23 at 8.19.54 PM

You can do this in a separate tab (not a parallel pane), searching the Witness field for *? to highlight all the contents of that field. Then go to Set Tool Display.

[You go to Tool Display by clicking “command,”; this window will pop up:]

Screen Shot 2019-05-23 at 8.20.40 PM

You click the Customize button, and choose White as the Search Highlighting color (or whatever color your background is set to). This effectively hides all your hits. DO NOT click Use as Default as this will apply to all new views of the tool. You can however, save the workspace and the tab will retain its characteristics when it is reopened.

Screen Shot 2019-05-23 at 8.21.40 PM

Sincerely,
Helen

See what we have done For BibleWorks Users.

*********************************
Dr. Helen A. Brown
Chief Administrative Officer
Accordance/OakTree Software, Inc.
http://www.accordancebible.com/

 

I would also recommend saving the session so that you can return to it any time you’re working with the apparatus. I called mine “NO MSS.accord.” And here is what that shows for Phil 1.14:

Screen Shot 2019-05-23 at 8.22.11 PM

Conclusion

I wonder if textual critics have for a long time made a virtue out of a necessity. Of course, since the days of Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Hort, the emphasis in most schools of thought has been on the external evidence. But more and more, textual scholars are recognizing that internal evidence must have its say, and it needs to do so with blinders on (as much as is possible) about what the external evidence reveals. Perhaps now that day has come.

 

I wish to thank Helen Brown of Accordance for help in seeing yet another potential use of this outstanding Bible software program.

 

 

One-of-a-kind trip to Greece

The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts is offering a one-of-a-kind trip to Greece next spring. We’re calling it the “Insider’s Expedition.” The trip will take place on March 7–16, 2020. It will feature sites in Athens—including an insider’s look at the National Library of Greece, the other-worldly monasteries of Meteora, select islands, and ancient Corinth.

MeteoraMonastery

We can only take twenty couples for this unique adventure. Thanks to Rob Marcello for working hard the last several months to make this expedition come to fruition! Details are on CSNTM’s website. Tickets are going fast!

Christmas Letter

I feel like a student in the class of a proverbially unreasonable professor. The prof gave a final exam, with one question: “Define the universe. Use three examples.” So much has happened in the last year at the Center! Where to begin? I think I’ll just give three examples.

First, CSNTM is growing! Three new staff members have joined our team. Kelsey Hart is now our office manager. Stephen Clardy is our Development Coordinator, working closely with Andy Patton, our Development Manager. And Jacob Peterson is CSNTM’s Research Fellow. (You might recognize Jacob’s name; he worked for the Center before heading off to the University of Edinburgh for his PhD in New Testament textual criticism.) We are excited to see how Kelsey, Stephen, and Jacob will complement the team, enabling us to continue our mission of preserving ancient Scripture for a modern world.

Picture2.png
OLD AND NEW
IMAGES OF P40

Second, through a generous grant and magnificent gifts from you, our partners in preservation, we were able to purchase a multispectral imaging (MSI) camera. This camera, which came with a $100,000 price-tag, uses 15 points on the light spectra, including invisible bands on both ends. With it we can now see texts that disappeared over the centuries, were washed out in floods, became burnt in fires, or were scraped off by scribes who then penned something different over the erased text. And these ancient texts have been lost to the ages—until now. What natural disasters and man-made destruction did, with this equipment we can undo. With MSI, the age of rediscovery is born.

In May, four members of the CSNTM staff took an intensive course on using this new camera. We are now one of a handful of organizations in the world using a portable MSI camera. And this means that more doors are opening for us across the globe.

Picture1.png
PREPARING MANUSCRIPTS
IN TBILISI

And third, while the staff was learning the ropes with this game-changing camera, I was in Tbilisi (Republic of Georgia) with two former interns, Brit Burnette and Laura Peisker. We were on a ‘front trip’ to make contact with two libraries in Tbilisi and one in Mestia. A native of Georgia, Nino Fincher, translated for us as we built relationships, examined manuscripts, and wrote up our findings for the digitizing team that would follow. Then, as we were flying back home, Rob Marcello, CSNTM’s Assistant Executive Director, and Jacob Peterson flew to Tbilisi with the new camera.

I met up with Rob and Jacob in Greece where we did more photography. Finally, we traversed northern Europe, landing in Heidelberg. In these locales, words on ancient papyrus and parchment—words that time forgot—have come to life again!

So, where do we go from here? We are working out contracts for next year’s expeditions with institutes in Greece, Germany, and the U.S. Libraries, museums, and monasteries are seeking CSNTM’s help to digitally preserve these ancient artifacts, these irreplaceable treasures of the Church.

We have the opportunities. We have the staff. We have the equipment. But we don’t have all the funds needed to do this work. We are making aggressive plans for upcoming expeditions. This Christmas season, we hope to raise the first $150,000 needed to begin our work on these critical expeditions.

It is CSNTM’s mission both to protect the past and to ensure the future of these sacred Scriptures. As you ponder your end-of-the-year giving, please consider making a generous investment in this work. Our equipment and staff are opening doors across the globe, but it takes a team to make these expeditions possible.

Will you make an investment that ensures the handwritten text of the New Testament is preserved for the next generation? Together, we can accomplish our mission by having:

  • 2 people who give $25,000
  • 2 people who give $15,000
  • 2 people who give $10,000
  • 4 people who give $5,000
  • 15 people who give $1,000
  • 15 people who give $500
  • 15 people who give $250
  • 25 people who give $100
  • 10 people who give $50
  • 30 people who give $25

 

In His Grip,

Dan'sSignature.jpg

Daniel B. Wallace
Executive Director
Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts
www.csntm.org

 

25 DAYS OF CHRISTMAS

I want to tell you about a special giving opportunity through CSNTM that will make a substantial difference in our mission to preserve ancient New Testament manuscripts for the modern world.

It is called the 25 Days of Christmas. We are inviting 25 of you to give $25 monthly by December 25th. Together, your partnership will give $7,500 in year-round support for CSNTM’s mission to preserve, study, and share Greek New Testament manuscripts.

Monthly donations are a critical part of CSNTM’s planning for future expeditions and special projects. Your monthly donations could unlock the partnership between CSNTM and a library or monastery. You can preserve a unique manuscript before it experiences further deterioration. And you would give everyone worldwide access to the best images of some of the earliest texts of the New Testament.

Will you join our special team of 25 and make a monthly gift of $25?

Picture1

‘First-Century’ Mark Fragment: Second Update

A Note about Comments
I have been moderating the comments on my blogs and have been, up until now, responsible for approving all that are posted. On more than one occasion the comments take on a life of their own. They go down rabbit trails not related to the blog, or simply repeat the same comments over and over again. This distracts from the content of the blogs and has taken far too much time to moderate. So, for the foreseeable future, this site will not allow any comments on blogs.

Oxyrhynchus volume 83.jpg

Egypt Exploration Society Statement on P.Oxy 5345
On June 4, the Egypt Exploration Society (EES) posted a statement about the ‘First-Century’ Mark fragment (a.k.a. FCM, P.Oxy. 5345, P137). The statement offered some backstory on the manuscript and the controversy that has surrounded it. Inter alia, the EES claimed the following:

  1. The papyrus fragment was most likely dug up by Grenfell and Hunt in 1903.
  2. In the early 1980s, the fragment was provisionally dated ‘I/II’ by Dr. Revel A. Coles, though it was not at that time identified as from Mark’s Gospel.
  3. A researcher working for Professor Dirk Obbink of Oxford University identified it as from Mark in 2011; Obbink decided that he would be the one to edit and publish it.
  4. The EES noted that editors of its papyri are allowed at times to remove certain papyri from the collection for study or teaching purposes. The conditions for such a privilege were not mentioned.
  5. The EES claimed more than once in this statement that the manuscript was never for sale.
  6. “The EES has no knowledge of, and has never seen, the NDA which Professor Daniel Wallace says someone required him to sign about the unpublished Mark fragment. Professor Obbink too says he has no knowledge of it.

Response and Update
In light of the fact that I am named in this statement, some clarification and response is needed. A few of these points are simply giving more details on my previous blog and not necessarily related to the EES statement.

  1. It was news to me that this fragment had most likely been excavated over a century ago, not to mention that it was provisionally dated to the first or second century about 35 years ago. My previous (incorrect) understanding, which was also that of key individuals, was that Obbink was the one who dated it to the first century.
  2. It is true that I never signed an NDA with the EES. The NDA I signed was with Jerry Pattengale, who represented a major collection that was interested in purchasing the papyrus.
  3. Pattengale was not the representative of this collection whom I had met just prior to my debate with Bart Ehrman. That representative was the one who assured me that the fragment was definitely dated to the first century. Had I known that the first-century date was not certain, I never would have said that it was in the debate.
  4. That first representative indicated that Dirk Obbink was certain of the date. Further, the representative had credentials of their own regarding the dating of papyri. Had I known that it would take years to publish this papyrus, I never would have mentioned it in the debate. So, it wasn’t hearsay or merely the statement of an acquisitions person, but on the basis of good authority that the dating was right. The date of the fragment, the date of the publication, and the publishing house were represented as certain. All three turned out to be wrong. As I admitted in my first update on the FCM, I naïvely accepted as facts things that I needed to personally vet. This has been a hard lesson but one I’ve learned.
  5. I signed the NDA in early October 2012; I still possess my copy of it along with the email it was attached to—an email that explicitly speaks of the purchase as the reason for the NDA.
  6. So far as I know, the fragment was most certainly for sale in 2012. This was confirmed to me by several individuals, Dr. Pattengale included.
  7. Pattengale relayed to me that the reason for me signing the NDA was that it was requested by the seller before I could see the images of the manuscript.
  8. I was asked by the collection that Pattengale represented to assess the fragment for two things. First, was this a continuous text? Second, was it likely to be a first-century fragment? My assessment was directly related to the purchase of the manuscript. I confirmed that it was a continuous text, but I refrained from offering any date for the fragment. With just a few minutes to examine it, and without access to my standard tools on paleography, I was unable to say anything more than that it was early. I did not, so far as I remember, even suggest any date range.

Some Questions about the EES Statement
I have a few questions myself about the backstory on the FCM. Some things are not adding up. If I were an outsider, I would most certainly trust the statement of an established, revered, and significant organization such as the Egypt Exploration Society over that of an individual. Hence, the need for this blog. I have some questions for the EES, too.

  1. Why would I be asked to sign an NDA on the request of the seller if the document was never for sale?
  2. Why would I be asked by the potential purchaser to evaluate the content and date of the fragment if the document was never for sale?
  3. My understanding was that the fragment was for sale not only in 2012, but for some years afterward. Why would the fragment be presented as for sale—and over a lengthy period of time?
  4. I was told that the condition of the sale was that the seller of the manuscript would be free to choose who would edit it. How could this be the case if there was no seller?
  5. If the content of this fragment was known in 2011, why did it take nearly seven years to publish the papyrus? Although it certainly takes some time to properly edit such a fragment, why would it take this long to get it published if there’s a straight line between discovery and publication?
  6. If the EES, according to their own statement on June 4, 2018, knew in the spring of 2016 that they possessed the so-called First-Century Mark, why did they not tell the rest of us? Further, why did they not announce its publication, in light of the “social media debate” (their expression), when Oxyrhynchus Papyri volume LXXXIII was published? This publication was stumbled upon by Elijah Hixson. His announcement at the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog on May 23 says:

I have not yet seen the latest volume of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri. The Egypt Exploration Society’s website shows vol. LXXXII as the most current volume, at least as of today. However, Amazon informs me that volume LXXXIII was published last month. – Elijah Hixon

Why was the publication not widely announced for such a significant, newsworthy, highly-rumored, and mysterious find—especially if the “social media debate” is what prompted their review of their NT fragments? This papyrus already received more international attention than any other NT papyrus in decades, yet it gets published without even a tweet. Why was it significant enough for the EES to do a review of their collection, but not significant enough to announce its publication?

Some answers, some more questions. P137 still is mysterious, and the backstory still needs clarification. I must leave that to others who know the details to fill them in.