The Editio Critica Maior of the Gospel of Mark was published in 2021 and with it an online toolset that allows the user to examine the data in more detail. This toolset is referred to as the Coherence Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) and is hosted on the INTF's University of Münster webpage.
First, the editors of the ECM of Mark have abandoned the theory of text types as unsupportable by the evidence (See Klaus Wachtel "On the Relationship of the "Western Text" and the Byzantine Tradition of Acts: A Plea Against the Text-Type Concept" in the "Studies" volume of the ECM ACTS). As a result, this frees up the editors to mine other manuscripts for older readings.
Second, readings found only in the Byzantine tradition are given greater weight than before (see Klaus Wachtel "Notes on the Text of Mark" in the "Studies" volume of the ECM Mark). In the Gospel of Mark Wachtel notes this trend.
"In the 33 passages where the ECM now differs from NA28/UBS5, the editors opted for the MT in 20 cases. In only six cases the decision was against the MT, mostly where the Byzantine reading is bracketed in NA28/UBS5. In 107 out of the 126 passages with a split guiding line, one of the alternative guiding lines is the MT reading. Only 15 of these 107 MT readings agree with the text of NA28/UBS5." (Wachtel "Notes on the Text of Mark," page 1).
These two developments, the abandonment of the theory of text types, and the greater weight given to the Byzantine tradition reveal how far modern reasoned eclecticism has left Wescott and Hort behind. Using the witness comparison tool helps to illustrate this trend of greater respect for the Byzantine tradition.
First, the initial text is designated by a capital A (for ausgangstext German for initial text) which is what the editors call the earliest attainable text closest to what the authors wrote. When an A is entered in the "Witness 1" box and MT (for Majority Text, i.e. basically the Byzantine tradition) is entered into the "Witness 2" box the CBGM indicates that they agree 88.71%, nearly 89%!
If the same comparison is made between 03 (Codex Vaticanus) and the MT, and between 01 (Codex Sinaiticus) and the MT the results reveal that 03 agrees with the MT only 84% and that 01 agrees with the MT at 83%. These results indicate that the editor's reconstructed A text, the text that they see as the oldest form of the text, does not look exactly like the text of 01 and 03 and where they differ, the difference moves the A text towards the Majority Text and away from the text of 01 and 03.
Another indication of the greater respect is the number of Majority Text readings that the editors mark as preceding the readings found in 01 and 03. This can be seen by using the same comparison tool. When 01 is compared with the MT, out of the 741 variants that the editors made a decision, at 254 variants (34%) the variant found in the Majority Text is seen as preceding (older than) the reading found in 01! The same phenomenon can be seen with regard to the text of 03. The comparison tool indicates that when 03 is compared with the MT, out of the 684 variants that the editors made a decision, at 138 variants (20%) the variant found in the Majority Text is seen as preceding (older than) the reading found in 03!
These simple queries using the CBGM of Mark witness comparison tool indicate that the editors of the leading critical editions of the Greek New Testament have come a long way from the theories utilized by Wescott and Hort and popular among reasoned eclectics in the 20th century. No longer do textual critics slavishly follow the text found in either 01 or 03 or any other witness traditionally attributed to the so-called Alexandrian Text. In fact at many variants the editors believe that the Majority Text preserves the older text over against the text found in 01 and 03.
Please don't tell me that the reading at 2 Peter 03:10 is the "assured result" of "scientific criticism"!
ReplyDeleteAlexander, this post is about the ECM of Mark.
DeleteI understand that; but it is the methodology of the system, which can produce such a reading, that I am (gently) questioning.
DeleteAlexander, I understand, but that decision has nothing to do with the validity of the CBGM or even of Reasoned Eclecticism. It has everything to do with the way in which one views conjectural emendation.
DeleteFair enough. But the editors should not be introducing conjectural emendation - it misleads us, and sullies their methodology. [but, I do note that the reading has some slight external evidence.]
DeleteYes, I understand. A LOT of Textual Critics in the reasoned eclecticism camp are very uncomfortable with Conjectural Emmendation (myself included). But it really needs to be argued on it's own grounds and is not endemic to that perspective.
DeleteHello Dr. Mitchell! Thank you for this well written post. How do you think reasoned eclectics should now talk about the two tenets of genealogical solidarity and geographical distribution in light of the abandonment of text types in the era of the CBGM?
ReplyDeleteThat is such a great question. I really don't know a good answer for it either to be honest. The death of text types is something I am still wrestling with myself!
DeleteDo you think the tenets of preferring the shorter and harder readings also are due for re-examination? Even date & character may need reimagined due to the CBGM. I know these topics have been touched on in various works, but do you know of a comprehensive reasoned eclecticism methodology-focused textbook that incorporates the ECM and CBGM?
ReplyDeleteI don't know of any book/article and that is a great question! It's not an intro, but Peter Gurry's monograph is the best place to gomin order to better understand New Testament Textual Criticism in light of the developments of the CBGM.
DeleteThank you! I’ve read the Gurry and Wasserman shorter work. I do really need to get into Gurry’s Brill volume. Let me know if you want to talk more about these tenets and reimagine them for the current state of the discipline.
ReplyDeleteI will, thanks Rex
DeleteIt is clear to some of us that the ‘experts’ at Muenster have replaced text-types with their own invention, the CBGM. It is this reliance on the multiple iterations of their own design that has ‘led’ them to reassess the value of the Byzantine Text, a text-type itself! Fortunately, their are still Text Critics who are willing to question the ‘new’ method and its results.
ReplyDeletethere goal is to get us to doubt our own Bible, and trust the Cathilic scholars and there religion, and eventually their one world Bible. I know this is deep to say at this point, But Id like to point out something I found there doing. In the book "The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts" renamed the majority of manuscripts," Byzantine, "instead of " the majority of manuscripts." or the Preserved Bible."They did this to make it sound like anything any time that agrees with the King James and disagrees with the Alexandrian Bible was only made after changes in 330 AD, and therefore you can't trust the KJV. According to them this knocked over 99% of the manuscripts out of the running for the coveted title of the Oldest and Best." If you look into Nestle 26th or 27th Greek New Testament like here in at James, 26th edition, Look at all the "M''s It stands for "Majority" as to the majority of manuscripts that agree with the King James most of the time. Here's how they"er doing it, right now. There is a new edition of the Greek New Testament being worked on with piles and piles of Text Crityical notes. Its called the ECM, the Editio Critica Maior"or Major Critical Edition."
ReplyDeleteRight now they only worked on one section, Section IV,(4) which is, James, first an 2nd Peter, first an, 2nd an 3rd John and Jude, called "the Catholic Letters." SO quietly carefully they are moving through the New Testament changing "M"for Majority to "Byz" for Byzantine. Then all the new Bible students won't see a massive,99% majority of texts. The symbol for Majority will be gone. Byz = Codices Byzantini)
So they"re introducing it one piece at a time, the 29th edition will have more and the 30th will probably be full of it. "parden the pun". No more Majority. In other words they'll be inoculated, in the next generation,against the preserved Bible namly the K.J.V. The next generation of pastors and teachers need to know this truth and understand it, That", the next generation of pastors and teacher is already being taught that the Greek behind the K.J.V and thus the King James Bible, is a horribly changed Byzantine text. They might not even mention that it is 99,182% of Greek texts copied and passed down all over the world. But the 8/10 of 1% of Greek manuscripts, the Alexandrian text, the Westscott and Horton text, the scholarly ECM Greek text"is what they pretend is,"oldest and best" But I believe it is not. and this is what needs to be shared with the next Generation so they to understand the Lies to there planed agenda, so they too can watch out for there next game of play. And remember: that Greek is based on the Greek of the 1840s hoax Codex Sinaiticus and 1457 Codex Vaticanus. And SURPRISE! (That 8/10 of 1% that don't even agree with each other) Critical Text is the exact one the Catholic Church and most Protestants and Baptists have now agreed upon as one- world Greek text! The one world Bible for a one world religion is almost here.
Thank you for commenting. Hopefully you actually read the post. In the CBGM online tools the vast majority of manuscripts are referred to as the Majority Text, with the abbreviation MT.
DeleteAlso, the Majority Text is far from monolithic. It has several groups and branches within the Majority Text that exhibit some significant differences.