The Editio Critica Maior of Mark (the Critical Text) and the Majority Text

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.

These CBGM tools are powerful and facilitate the comparison of any of the 209 manuscripts (referred to as witnesses) utilized in the edition and the examination of the readings in the whole of Mark. The methods and tools used for this edition have come a long way since Wescott and Hort's edition of 1881. Yet many interested in the textual history of the New Testament are unaware of these developments and trends, two of which are of great importance.

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.

Family Π, Codex Alexandrinus, and a 4th Century Text of Mark

When I first began wading into the deep waters of textual criticism, any study of the later Medieval Greek manuscripts of the New Testament (those that are generally aligned with the Byzantine or Majority text) appeared less interesting. The earlier papyrus fragments, or the large ornate codices such as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were certainly more glamorous and fascinating than the thousands of minuscule manuscripts that looked so similar to my untrained eye that they all blurred together. I think that I am not alone in my experience.

This view changed quickly after I was introduced to Amy Anderson’s research into Family 1. Here was a group of manuscripts, though late in date, which preserved a textual history that reached back into the early centuries of the Christian era. This is when I realized that there is a largely unexplored world of Byzantine manuscripts that have deep roots into the fertile soil of the transmission history of the New Testament.

As I began to learn more about the rich textual history imbedded in these Medieval Greek codices, I came across a group of related manuscripts that were discovered to have a unique textual character in a book from 1936; Silva Lake’s monograph "Family Π and the Codex Alexandrinus."According to Silva Lake, this group, Family Π, was first noticed by Wilhelm Bousset way back in 1894 in his work “Textkritische Studien zum Neuen Testament,” and was further examined by Hermann von Soden. 

Codex Π opened to Luke

The significance of this group of manuscripts are their apparent connection with Codex Alexandrinus and with an even older archetype. Silva wrote;

“[T]he reconstructed text of Family Π, therefore, represents a manuscript older than the Codex Alexandrinus and affords another witness to a text which must have existed in the early part of the fifth century, if not before. Moreover, both the text of Family Π and the Codex Alexandrinus were elements in the formation of the Ecclesiastical text,--since it differs from each about equally and to the same extent that Π differs from A.”

It has yet to be explored further (to my knowledge), but von Soden also noted that Family Π’s text in Mark showed great similarities with the text used by Victor of Antioch in his commentary on Mark. If this proves to be true, then it is further confirmation that this unique text has roots into the late fourth century.

Jacob Geerlings further explored the history of this family in his 1962 work, “Family Π in Luke.” After considering the provenance of each codex, Geerlings concluded that the group originated from Mt. Athos, most likely the Laura Monastery. He surmised that Codex Π could have been gifted to the Laura Monastery when it was founded in 963 CE. The provenance of Codex Π before its presence on Mt. Athos is not as clear. However, Geerlings postulated that, because Codex Alexandrinus was probably copied in Constantinople at the Studios Monastery, Codex Π was likely produced there as well.

Since the time of these studies more codices have been discovered that show some connection to Family Π. Therefore, I hope to begin a fresh study, using the tools available today of this very interesting Family of Greek Bibles from Mt. Athos.
________________

Bousset, Wilhelm. Textkritische Studien zum Neuen Testament. 1894.

Champlin, Russell. Family Π in Matthew. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1964

Geerlings, Jacob. Family Π in Luke. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1962.

Lake, Silva. Family II and the Codex Alexandrinus: The Text According to Mark. London: Christophers, 1936

von Soden, Hermann. Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments. Berlin, 1902-1913

[UPDATE: I completed my dissertation and graduated with my PhD in July of 2023. My dissertation and accompanying data is now available for download. For details see the following more recent post here.]