An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and their Texts

The B-Greek mailing list yesterday contained a mention of David C. Parker’s forthcoming book on New Testament manuscripts:

David C. Parker, An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and their Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. 0521719895, 978-0521719896.

It looks interesting and provides me with an opportunity to point you to his inaugural lecture at the University of Birmingham: Inventing New Testaments. It is presented as a slide show with lots of pictures of manuscripts and some interesting details. The title could be taken the wrong way by those not familiar with NT textual criticism but don’t let it put you off. However, he does ascribe to the idea that the goal of textual criticism should not be the reconstruction of the original text. This is a troubling idea which is thoroughly responded to by Moises Silva at the end of Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism. Edited by David Alan Black. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2002. 0801022800, 978-0801022807. I am therefore curious to see whether Parker’s introductory book reflects his “postmodern” view or whether he is neutral on the purpose of the task.

I also came across another book on textual criticism recently which looks like it should be good so enjoy:

Scot McKendrick and Kathleen Doyle. Bible Manuscripts: 1400 Years of Scribes and Scripture. British Library, 2007. 0712349227, 978-0712349222.

Verbosity in English Bible Translations

Karen H. Jobes presented a paper at the Fall 2007 Evangelical Theological Society Annual Meeting entitled “Bible Translation as Bilingual Quotation.” It is now being promoted by Zondervan on their blog. They have not just posted it but are actively seeking out bloggers to comment on it by emailing them. I originally read about it on Ancient Hebrew Poetry and Michael Bird was also contacted and posted a link. I was not requested to respond but they are looking for everyone’s input according to Paul J. Caminiti, Vice President and Publisher at Zondervan.

My first impressions were not that favourable. I was immediately uneasy that Zondervan is using this discussion to promote the T/NIV. Jobes was a translator of the TNIV and has been a member of the Committee on Bible Translation since 1995. This certainly isn’t a problem in itself as I have personally studied under Gordon Fee and Bruce Waltke and know them to be top scholars. However, in this paper Jobes is obviously promoting the T/NIV and she singles out the ESV for comment “I do find it more than a little ironic that what is advertised as an ‘essentially literal’ translation is the most verbose of several popular English translations–and that the ESV has about 30,000 more words than the TNIV!” (16). She also singled out the ESV on page 14 even though it had exactly the same verbosity as the NASB. These comments do not inspire confidence that she is unbiased, especially in that Zondervan proudly displays her chart with the NIV and TNIV at the top.

I am also curious as to how this data allows her to make the following conclusion “As the very verbose ESV demonstrates, all good translations must be a mix of both formal and functional equivalence.” I do not see that she has demonstrated that verbosity is related to whether a translation is formal or functionally equivalent. I decided to compare Zondervan’s “Translation Continuum” to the verbosity results. In order to do so Jobes’ list must be expanded. I counted words using Logos Bible Software’s Speed Search feature except with those translations which include the Apocrypha in which case I used the regular search feature in order to limit the count to the 66 canonical books. I am unsure why the results are slightly different from what Jobes came up with using Accordance but the point still stands. I included the following translations: ASV, CEV, ESV²⁰⁰⁷, GNT, God’s Word, HCSB, KJV, The Message, NAB, NASB, NCV, NiRV, NIV, NJB, NKJV, NLT^2ed, NRSV, RSV, TNIV. For the interests of comparing oranges to oranges I am using Jobes’ counts for the MT (474,316) and NA27 (138,167) texts although they differ insignificantly from Logos’ results (475,525 / 138,103). Our base text therefore contains 612,483 words. All English translation counts are taken from Logos.

Before looking at the results I want to make a couple of preliminary points. Jobes is looking at bilingual quotation and, as she mentions in her paper, some languages are more verbose than others. With regard to the Bible the Hebrew text is significantly shorter by word count than the Greek text. The MT contains 474,316 words by Jobes’ count. The LXX of the 39 Hebrew books contains 502,795 words, an increase of 6%. When we look at a completely Hebrew Bible (MT+Hebrew NT) it contains 585,264 words as compared to 640,962 words for a completely Greek Bible (LXX+NA27) a difference of 9.52%. Obviously Greek is a more verbose language than Hebrew. On the other hand Latin seems to be a less verbose language as the Vulgate contains only 532,834 (even with the Apocrypha the Clementine Vulgate contains only 611,994) words and is thus 13% smaller than our base Hebrew/Greek text. This comparison therefore may say more about the English language than about which translation is best.

In the attached picture I have combined the results from the various translations with Zondervan’s continuum. Hopefully they don’t sue me for using their picture, as I am responding to their post at their request. As the picture shows there does not seem to be a direct correlation between Bible translation methodology and verbosity. The CEV is the closest in verbosity to the base text and is also far over toward the “thought for thought” end of the spectrum but the next two, NAB and HCSB, are both middle to left. At the other end of the spectrum is the NIrV with a whopping increase of 240,362 words (39.24%) over our base text but also very far over towards “thought for thought.”

I think the next task is to also complete this exercise in other languages with a multitude of Bible translations, e.g. German, French. The SESB module for Logos should provide enough data to extend the project to the European languages. I think we will discover that verbosity, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with whether or not the meaning has been conveyed adequately. Formal and functional equivalence debates will continue as long as more and more English translations are being produced.

Google books indices

Today I discovered that Mischa Hooker of Loyola University Chicago has created a set of link to books available through Google on the Bible, Judaism, and Christianity. It is quite well put together and includes hundreds of public domain works that Google has scanned. She has other lists for Greek and Latin literature and Classic scholarship. If you are interested in these fields it is worth browsing.

How much would you pay for Migne’s Patrologia Graeca?

Bob Pritchett of Logos Bible Software asked today in the Greek newsgroup for feedback on his desire to make PG available for Logos. He asks several questions:

Would you want PG in full text?

What would it be worth?

Is it only useful as the whole, or would you be interested in acquiring it in parts? (Century by century, starting with the earliest?)

It would be a tremendously expensive undertaking as there are 161 volumes. For a listing of contents see the Wikipedia article here. Bob estimates that the cost of inputing the text would be 5x that of ICC which was released as a prepub for $999. Personally I don’t have $5000 to drop on this but could probably scrounge up half that which works out to around $15 a volume, which doesn’t seem too bad. It would doubtless take years to produce so there would be plenty of time to save. If you love Greek and want to see PG in electronic format you might want to drop Bob a line. He is especially interested in getting seminary libraries to get on board, or anyone else with deeeeeeeeeep pockets.

Update: 12/12/07 Yesterday Phil Gons said that if this is successful Logos would perhaps do Patrologia Latina and then Patrologia Orientalis. He does work in their marketing department so I can understand his enthusiasm but I can’t see this happening in under a decade unfortunately.

Update 12/15/07 A friend has informed me that Migne’s PG is available from Reltech for the bargain price of $400: $300 for the material and $100 for the 200 CDs to provide the material! Thankfully they’ve switched to DVD but they are still charging $100. Libraries pay $3000. It is only page scans but they claim to be working on providing a full text edition in the future.

Romans 8:28 TC Conclusion

In my last post we looked at the internal evidence relevant to the textual difficulty in this verse. Today we will summarise the evidence and posit a conclusion. Finally, we will look at the implications this has for understanding this verse and Paul’s message.

Conclusion

The external evidence is divided but overall it seems to point to the shorter text as being original although the longer text is supported by the majority of primary Alexandrian witnesses. Clement and Origen are divided on the issue although we cannot be positive on either. Given the widespread geographical support of the “omission” it would appear that perhaps the addition is strictly an Alexandrian phenomenon. Internally, the evidence is also slightly in favour of the shorter text. Although the longer reading is more difficult it is not overly so. It would appear likely that a scribe in Alexandria added ο θεος in order to rule out “Holy Spirit” and “all things” as the subject of the verb. It also seems unlikely that a scribe would completely omit God when he could modify it to αυτος. I must conclude that the shorter reading is the original.

Implications

We must now look at the implications of this decision. The first thing we must do is to take παντα as an accusative of respect. We have already noted the difficulties with this but it seems to fit the context. Within the context of God being the subject of the following verses there is no reason to expect otherwise here. This is furthered by Genesis 50:20 in the Septuagint which Paul echoes. It reads, ο δε θεος εβουλευσατο περι εμου εις αγαθα, and as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good.[1] In this verse God is the subject and Paul is echoing this. As Douglas Moo points out, this leaves us with two options; either to take παντα as the direct object (NASB) or as an accusative of respect (NIV).[2] Verbs such as συνεργεω do not usually take a direct object. On a cautionary note, Moo points out that if you do not have ο θεος, “the sequence ‘for those who love God, God works’ is awkward; we would not expect the object of the participle to become the subject of the main verb” (528 n.113). We accept the first option given by Cranfield and render it “in all things” or “in all respects.”

Romans 8:28 is thus best rendered as in the UBS/NA text: οιδαμεν δε οτι τοις αγαπωσιν τον θεον παντα συνργει εις αγαθον τοις κατα προθεσιν κλητοις ουσιν or in all its accented glory (assuming you have Gentium): οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν τὸν θεὸν πάντα συνεργεῖ εἰς ἀγαθόν, τοῖς κατὰ πρόθεσιν κλητοῖς οὖσιν And we know that to the ones loving God, he works together in all things for good to those who are being called according to his purpose. This makes the best sense of the manuscript evidence, the grammatical structure, and the context. Failing to take God as the subject we are left with “all things work together for good” from which we still must supply the idea that God is behind these events; they do not just work themselves out in this way.[3]

In conclusion, we see that textual variation can create ambiguities in the meaning of the text. In Romans 8:28 a scribe added ο θεος as a way of helping the author by making explicit the subject of the verb. This eliminated the ambiguity that resulted in various subjects being assigned to the verb: “God,” “all things,” and “Holy Spirit.” We have seen through this study that God the Father is the most likely subject of the verb. It is God who is behind the scenes working in all events to ensure that good comes to those who love him and who have been called according to his purpose. In all of this we cannot lose sight of the fact that good does not come to us in a eudemonistic manner. It comes to those who love God, but they do not love him as a work but rather because they have been called according to his purpose. The emphasis in entirely on what God is doing and has done. The “good” is not necessarily what our culture would call good in the sense of pleasurable, but it is rather what furthers our calling and it may in fact be quite “bad” in our perception. In all of this he is bringing us closer to Christ to whom we are united in the Spirit. May we always remember that God is continually working toward this end among those who love him and are seeking to live the purpose to which they have been called.

---

 

[1] See Cranfield, 212; Rodgers, 549.

 

[2] The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. 528.

 

[3] Ibid.

Is Bible software a substitute for learning Greek and Hebrew?

On the Logos software blog today Dale Pritchett laments the lack of original language study taking place at seminaries and Bible colleges today. He suggests that this lack in learning the original languages can be solved “If the very best Greek, Hebrew and Hermeneutics professors adopted the best computer based reverse interlinear technology.” Obviously he is trying to sell Logos’ reverse interlinear Bibles, particularly their ESV. While I agree that reverse interlinears are convenient and would help those with little Greek or Hebrew to keep using what they do have they are no substitute for learning the languages. Over at Ancient Hebrew Poetry John F. Hobbins suggests that all Christians should train their children in Greek, Hebrew, Latin and any other languages that come to mind after they are finished with those three. This is because children have an easier time of learning languages than adults. I think that Hobbins’ suggestion is unrealistic (not least because I am well past the age of primary language learning).

Pritchett’s suggestion on the other hand is dangerous and demonstrates that he has never learned Greek and/or Hebrew. He uses an analogy of climbing a mountain concluding that “If we want every student to learn to use original languages we need to build a bridge that gets everybody to the destination.” However, in mountain climbing providing students with an elevator will get every student to the top of that mountain every time. However, they will not be able to climb any other mountains because they cannot get anywhere without an elevator. Similarly teaching someone to use a particular tool will help them reach the same conclusion every time but it will not help them in new areas. Only by teaching students to assail a mountain on their own will be allow them to climb any mountain. They may not climb every mountain perfectly every time but it is better than taking an elevator up and down the same mountain over and over. Reverse interlinears are particularly dangerous because the Greek follows the English word order and will leave the uninformed with the impression that Greek is structurally just like English but with different words.

On a related note, I know of one seminary that has tried this computer assisted approach with regard to Hebrew. ACTS seminaries in Langley, BC has a course, Computer Assisted Hebrew Tools. It is meant for those who will only study Greek and want a short cut to Hebrew. Unfortunately for Pritchett, the professor uses BibleWorks instead of Logos, although Logos is one of the programs recommended for students.

In conclusion, I agree that computer assisted biblical tools are very helpful, but I would recommend that only those who have been educated in actual Greek and/or Hebrew should use them. Anyone else can use them for their own interest but they should not draw any conclusions from their use. Generally speaking, they will be unable to draw any conclusions beyond the English translation that is being used, which is an inherent weakness in this plan.

Romans 8:28 TC Internal Evidence

I apologise for the length of time between my examination of the external evidence and the internal evidence of Romans 8:28. Feel free to go back and refresh your memory as to the previous post. I changed all the Greek to Times New Roman so it should show up fine but there are no accents. The original manuscripts had none and as we are doing TC I see no reason why we need them Let’s get to work!

The first thing we can do is to include P⁴⁶ with the others as a witness to τον θεον παντα συνεργει ο θεος εις αγαθον. Although the change from παν to παντα or vice versa may explain the variant it is likely an accidental scribal error. If ο θεος is original it would cause συνεργει to be transitive and παντα would be the accusative direct object.[1] If we do not have ο θεος, παντα possibly becomes an accusative of reference according to Wallace (203-4). He says that this is rare in Koine Greek and such identification should only be employed as a last resort. This type would be used to qualify a statement that would otherwise typically not be true. He notes that Cranfield dismisses the likelihood of παντα as an accusative of reference assuming the longer reading and agrees with him (204 n.93). He does use it as an example of a substantival use of the accusative (180). Wallace dismisses the longer reading and leaves us with two probable options: either ‘he works all things together for good’ or ‘all things work together for good.’ In the first instance the subject is embedded in the verb and ‘God’ is clearly implied (as in v29). In the second instance, παντα becomes the subject of an intransitive verb” (181). This discussion is needed because in order to get inside the head of the scribe we need to understand how he could have variously construed the original and changed it.

While it is obvious that ο θεος makes συνεργει transitive, it is unclear whether we should take God as the implied subject in those manuscripts where is missing. If the shorter text is original it is probable that a scribe added ο θεος in order to make this obvious. On the other hand because God immediately precedes παντα it may have seemed repetitious and a scribe dropped the second noun, leaving the subject to be supplied.[2] However, it is not immediately obvious that the subject is God and therefore a scribe could have added it. We have come full circle only to find that we cannot be conclusive. F. F. Bruce states that the addition “makes the construction excessively heavy.”[3] Therefore this would seem to be the more difficult reading.[4]

Bruce also prefers the NEB translation which saw the subject of ‘works’ as that of the preceding clause, ‘the Spirit.’ However, as William Hendrickson points out this would make Jesus the Son of Holy Spirit.[5] This would be a good time to note the eight possibilities that exist for this verse as noted by Cranfield:

1) To accept the longer reading and explain παντα as an accusative of respect (‘in all things’, ‘in all respects’).

2) To accept the longer reading and explain συνεργει as used transitively and παντα as its object (so for instance, Sanday and Headlam translate: ‘cause all things to work’; while the RV margin gives: ‘worketh all things with them’).

3) To accept the shorter reading and supply ο θεος, explaining παντα as in (1).

4) To accept the shorter reading and supply ο θεος, explaining συνεργει and παντα as in (2).

5) To accept the shorter reading and take παντα as the subject of συνεργει.

6) To accept the shorter reading and understand the subject of the verb to be the same as the subject of the last verb of verse 27, namely το πνευμα, explaining πνευμα as in (1).

7) As in (6), but explaining συνεργει and παντα as in (2).

8 ) To accept the shorter reading with the emendation of παντα to πνευμα or το πνευμα.

 

If we decide on the shorter reading we must first decide whether the referent of the verb is found within the sentence or whether it is to be supplied from context. If it is to be found within we accept the traditional translation: “all things” work together for good. Gordon Fee lists several reasons for rejecting this based on internal grounds. First, Paul never uses παντα as the subject of an active verb.[6] Secondly, παντα almost always precedes the verb when it appears as the object of a personal verb.[7] Thirdly, συνεργει appears twice more in Paul and in both instances the verb has a personal subject. I would then agree with Fee in rejecting the notion that “all things” is the subject of “works.” We thus reject option (5). We can readily reject option ( as being implausible as it would be hard for a scribe to eliminate the Spirit from a passage either accidentally or deliberately. If one does emend the text the resulting reading almost demands its emendation back to παντα.[8] We are then left with two longer and four shorter readings. In tackling the shorter readings we must deal with the identity of the supplied subject. Readings (3) and (4) take it to be God and (6) and (7) to be the Spirit. Fee argues for taking το πνευμα as the subject on the strength of the context. The Spirit has been the subject of the argument since 8:1 and he is clearly the grammatical subject of 8:27. The strength of this argument fails because the unexpressed subject of the following οτι clause has to be God, not the Spirit. The condition expressed in Romans 8:28 is such “in order that those he foreknew he foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers” (8:29). We must therefore question whether this transition did not occur previously beginning with the statement “according to God’s will.”

Fee also mentions the increase of συν- compounds in the argument beginning at 8:16. “The Spirit bears witness together with (συνμμαρτυρει) our spirits” and “the Spirit assists (συναντιλαμβανεται) us in our weaknesses” (8:26). He thus sees συνεργει as another instance in which Paul is referring to the joint working of the Spirit with us. BDAG here gives the meaning of συνεργει as “assist (or work with) someone to attain something or bring something about.” Theologically, God always works in us and with us through his Spirit and thus Holy Spirit has to be the subject of the verb. This argument only works if we restrain “all things” to the inner reality of the persons who love God. In other words, God makes their reality such that ‘all things’ external glorify him in their lives regardless of the ordinary understanding of good. It could not be used to argue that God uses events in themselves for that good.

I must reject the Spirit as being the subject based on context. The Spirit’s work is done in accordance with the will of God (8:27b) and as a consequence this is a beneficial thing because God works in all things to bring good to those who love him. It is the will of God that determines the Spirit’s actions and it is the will of God that causes all things to work. We thus reject options (6) and (7) and are left with deciding whether ο θεος was added in order to clarify the subject or whether it was removed from an already crowded sentence. If the longer reading was original it is hard to conceive of a scribe deliberately removing God from the sentence unless he thought the meaning was clear. It would be more logical for him to substitute autoß than to remove ο θεος. However, it is possible that a scribe removed ο θεος believing that συνεργει would supply the subject. Rodgers mentions one small precedent for this at Romans 1:28 where ο θεος is omitted by א^* A 0172^*.[9] I agree with Rodgers that this may not be an accidental omission but reflect a scribal tendency. However, the evidence does not appear strong enough to say that this was the case here especially given the fact that A includes ο θεος at 8:28. Furthermore, in 1:28, the removal of God did not create the same kind of ambiguity that is apparent here.

It seems most likely that the shorter reading was original and a scribe added ο θεος in order to make the subject clear. We are thus decided on the shorter reading and are left with options (3) and (4). The decision between these two will be left for the conclusion, as the decision is broader than internal textual evidence.

---

[1] Daniel B. Wallace. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. 180. This is echoed by BDF §148(1). A transitive verb takes a direct object (o qeoß) whereas intransitive verbs do not. Cf. James Hope Moulton. A Grammar of New Testament Greek Vol. 1 Prolegomena. 3^rd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988. 65.

[2] Peter Rodgers points out that another way to improve the style without creating this ambiguity would be to change θεον to αυτος. He reports that this reading is found in Origen de Oratione 39.19: ο θεος τοις αγαπωσιν αυτον παντα συνεργων εις αγαθον but I have been unable to confirm the quality of this quotation. If this is the case it is still inconclusive because we do not know if a scribe actually altered ο θεος or supplied the subject. In light of this, if the shorter text was original it does seem more likely that a scribe would add αυτος rather than θεος which, as noted by Bruce below, tends to overweight the construction. Peter R. Rodgers. “The Text of Romans 8:28.” Journal of Theological Studies. 46:2 (1995): 548.

[3] The Letter of Paul to the Romans. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985. 166.

[4] This is supported by James P. Wilson who states that “The phrase ο θεος in A B is awkwardly introduced. It reads very much like a marginal note wrongly incorporated in the text, having been originally placed in the margin to help the reader in construing the sentence.” Although I dispute his conclusions this is a definite possibility. “Romans viii. 28: Text and Interpretation.” Expository Times. 60 (1948-49): 111.

[5] Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980. 279-80. Quoted in D. Edmond Hiebert. “Romans 8:28-29 and the Assurance of the Believer.” Bibliotheca Sacra. 148:590 (1991): 175. Cf. Wilson (111) who argues for Holy Spirit but believes that we must emend παντα to το πνευμα which seems completely unwarranted.

[6] The exception that proves the rule is 1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23 where he quotes from his adversaries in rejecting their position, “all things are permitted…but not all things edify.” God’s Empowering Presence. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994. 588n.341.

[7] Fee lists: 1 Thes. 5:21; 1 Cor. 2:10; 9:12, 23, 25; 10:31; 11:2; 13:7 (4x); 14:16; 15:27; 16:14; 2 Cor. 6:10; 7:14; Eph 1:22; 6:21. Ibid., 588n.342.

[8] Far from being evidence of a difficult reading this only shows how unlikely the possibility is.

[9] This variant is listed in NA²⁷ but not in UBS⁴. There is no question of the subject in this context and the NIV follows this pattern by omitting God and substituting he.

Greek Bible Study

Today my friend Chris Chiu emailed me to recommend that I mention Greek Bible Study on my blog. It’s a website designed to help students learning Greek. It includes a number of helps such as mouse over parsing. You can also use it with Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek which would be really helpful for anyone using that textbook for learning Greek. I have not used the site myself but it looks tempting and as I find time over the next month I plan on checking it out and letting you know if it is as good as advertised.

Romans 8:28 TC External Evidence

            When dealing with the problem of determining which text is original there are two categories of evidence: external and internal. External evidence deals with the manuscripts in which the text appears. Internal evidence looks at the text and attempts to determine why the error was made and how the error relates to the text as a whole.

External Evidence regarding Romans 8:28

Although the external evidence numerically affirms the omission of ο θεος it becomes immediately apparent that some important evidence includes these words (P⁴⁶ A B 81 sa (eth) Origen^gr2/5). These are important witnesses, including Origen, and are not easily dismissed which is why this decision is such a difficult one. P⁴⁶ is the earliest manuscript of the Pauline letters and dates to about 200. It includes all his letters with the exception of 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, and the Pastorals. In Romans it includes 5:17-6:14; 8:15-15:9; 15:11-16:27. Traditionally it has been noted that P⁴⁶ contains a “free” text. In other words it predates the development of text types.[1] This categorisation is now questionable but the value of this papyrus is not. This is corroborated by Gordon Fee who quotes Gunther Zuntz at length:

The excellent quality of the text represented by our oldest manuscripts, P⁴⁶, stands out again. As so often before, we must be careful to distinguish between the very poor work of the scribe who penned it and the basic text which he so poorly rendered. P⁴⁶ abounds with scribal blunders, omissions, and also late additions. In some of these the scribe anticipated the errors of later copyists, and in some other instances he shares an older error; but the vast majority are his own uncontested property. Once they have been discarded, there remains a text of outstanding (though not absolute) purity.[2]

            Manuscripts A and B are also of value. The Alands make the statement that “in the gospel A transmits an exemplar with a rather poor text, but beginning with Acts its quality changes remarkably; in Acts it is comparable to B and א, while in Revelation it is superior toא  and even P⁴⁷” (303; 50). Codex Alexandrinus (A) is from the fifth century whereas Vaticanus (B) is from the fourth. The Alands rate B “by far the most significant of the uncials” (109). Both A and B are category I manuscripts (high proportion of early text). Minuscule 81 is also worth a mention as it rates at least category II (manuscript of a special quality; considerable proportion of early text, but which is marked by alien influences; Aland, 335). In this case there can be no question that the reading is an early one.

            The most important manuscript in support of the text isא  Codex Sinaiticus from the fourth century. It is rated category I, but was overrated by Tischendorf “and it is distinctly inferior to B, together with which (and P⁷⁵) it represents the Alexandrian text” (107). C is a category II manuscript from the fifth century. D^p Codex Claromontanus which dates to the sixth century omits Romans 1:1-7 and 1:27-30 has been added by a later hand. Ironically, D^p does not belong to category IV, the “D” text but rather to category II (D^p 06^*) and category III (D^p 06^c). F^p and G^p are both Greek-Latin diglots from the ninth century. F is category II and G is III. Ψ is a category III manuscript from the eighth/ninth century. The minuscules are a range of qualities with the majority of them included in category III. For the sake of space I will list them by category along with the uncials:

Category   I:א  33. 1175. 1739.

Category  II: C D F 256. 1506. 1881. 1962. 2127. 2464.

Category III: G Ψ 6. 104. 263. 424^c. 436. 459. 614. 1241. 1319. 1573. 1852. 1912. 2200.

Category  V: K L P 424^*.

 

            What is particularly interesting about all of this is that although the superior manuscripts include the text ο θεος the omission has widespread geographical and church support along with the versions. It should also be noted that the Alexandrian text type is not unanimous asא  Ψ 1739. 33 and 104 support the omission.[3] Clement of Alexandria (ca. 180 – ca. 215) also appears to have a text that exclude ο θεος.[4] The Western text type (DFG latt) also supports the omission as does the Byzantine, which might be expected given this. This makes it exceedingly difficult to come to a conclusion based on external consideration although overall it favours omission. In the next post we will turn our attention to internal evidence which will hopefully be more conclusive.

---

[1] Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland. The Text of the New Testament. 2^nd ed. Trans. Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989. 93.

[2] Gunther Zuntz. The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinum. Schweich Lectures, 1946. London: British Academy, 1953. 212-213. Quoted in Gordon Fee. “Rigorous or Reasoned Eclecticism – Which?” In Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism. Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. 128.

[3] א Ψ 1739 always represent a key expression of the Alexandrian text type.

[4] The Stromata 4.7. I have only found it in English translation but the quote appears in a block of quotations from Romans: 8:7-8,10,13,17-18,28-30 and reads And we know that all things work together for them that love God. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Vol. 2. Ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985. 417.

Romans 8:28 Textual Criticism

Today I begin a series looking at the Greek text of Romans 8:28. There are three possible readings for the original text. These are listed below along with their manuscript witness:

τον θεον παν συνεργει ο qeoß εις αγαθον ^P46
τον θεον παντα συνεργει ο qeoß εις αγαθον A B 81 sa (eth) Origen^gr2/5
τον θεον παντα συνεργει εις αγαθον א C D F G Ψ 6. 33. 104. 256. 263. 424. 436. 459.
614. 1175. 1241. 1319. 1506. 1573. 1739. 1852. 1881. 1912. 1962. 2127. 2200. 2464. Byz [KLP]
Lect. latt [ar, b, d, f, g, mon, o, vg] sy [p, h] bo arm geo slav; Cl

The text of Romans 8:28 in NA²⁷ and UBS⁴ reads: οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν τὸν θεὸν πάντα συνεργεῖ εἰς ἀγαθόν, τοῖς κατὰ πρόθεσιν κλητοῖς οὖσιν. It becomes immediately obvious that the current text which omits ο qeoß has overwhelming numerical manuscript support. Westcott and Hort included ο qeoß in their text but in brackets showing they were unsure of its authenticity. This was also the position of NA25. However, von Soden and Tischendorf both relegated the variant to the apparatus. English translations have taken a variety of positions on this verse. The NRSV translates this “We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.” It also includes a footnote which reads, “Other ancient authorities read ‘God makes all things work together for good, or in all things God works for good.’” These are the three possible English translations of this section.

Next time we will look at the external evidence for these variations.

P.S. I am using the Gentium font to display the Greek text. It was developed by SIL and is available for free download.