By: Sarah Chapell, Guest Contributor
CSNTM owns and digitized New Testament Greek manuscript GA 2882. Written on parchment, the manuscript contains all but one leaf of the book of Luke and an introduction to the book of John. It dates back to the 10th–11th century.
The term “singular readings” refers to those words or phrases that appear in only one manuscript copy. GA 2882 contains quite a few interesting readings that appear only on its pages (29 to be exact), but we find a particularly interesting one in Luke 6:22.
The scribe omits the phrase ????? ??? ???? ??? ???????? (“on account of the Son of Man”) from the end of the verse.[1] Biblical scholars commonly refer to this section of scripture as Jesus’ Sermon on the Plains. Should we consider this anomaly a scribal error or a purposeful deviation from the Majority Text?
Why This Question Is Complex
Categories drawn from Metzger and Ehrman’s The Text of the New Testament with additions from later scholars.
Scholars utilize a wide variety of language and terminology to describe the phenomenon of scribal anomalies in the manuscripts, and this variant highlights the problem: how do we categorize an unexplained variant when many possible explanations for it exist?
Those who have attempted to write more general works on the habits of scribes add particular confusion into the mix. With each new work on the matter,[2] it appears scholars have attempted to coin their own categories to describe these types of variants. In so doing, much confusion and inaccurate/inappropriate overlapping has occurred within the field,[3] thereby making interactions with existing research difficult.
Studying scribal habits and their changes to the text is certainly not a new endeavor. E. C. Colwell expanded the brief discussions of Westcott and Hort in his Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament.[4] Others, like James Royse, Peter Head, and Dirk Jongkind, have since contributed expanded studies using collations of individual manuscripts to study the habits of their respective scribes.
For most introductory writers, inexplicable variants seem a rather pointless category to waste precious book real estate on. But the existence of the category has large implications for how students new to the field of text criticism understand the scribes and the manuscripts in a general sense. Without a good grasp on the category, one may misunderstand, and therefore misinterpret, the findings of a collation or textual problem.
Metzger and Ehrman provide one of the standard introductions for many New Testament students learning the basics of textual criticism. They outline the causes of error in New
Testament transmission and provide an outline for unintentional versus intentional changes to the text. The unintentional category only includes explainable errors: ones arising from faulty eyesight, faulty hearing, errors of the mind, and errors of judgment.[5] Readers may realize that Metzger and Ehrman’s “errors of judgement” sometimes share similar qualities with “errors arising from faulty eyesight.” They also have similar characteristics to certain types of “intentional changes” mentioned later in the book. Students new to the field may already find themselves lost in muddy terminology. Rest assured, you aren’t alone!
In his own chapters on such variants, Colwell includes “the nonsense reading” as those errors clearly “objectively demonstrable.” He says they do “not make sense, and/or cannot be found in the lexicon, and/or [are] not Greek grammar.”[6]
Royse calls them “nonsense readings” but makes sure to distinguish between “nonsense in context,” and “strictly nonsense.” Hernandez and Paulson follow suit, adding separate categories such as “no explanation” and “inexplicable” (respectively). Bell calls them “unique.” Wasserman refers to them as “peculiar.” On and on the list goes for terms used to try to communicate the same basic idea: there are variants found in the manuscripts that do not make sense. Obviously, the variety of terms to describe the same phenomenon gets confusing quickly.
So What About Luke 6:22 in 2882?
Several of the singular readings in 2882 appear to show signs of possible errors in hearing. Therefore, the variant could potentially help point scholars to establish hearing errors as a pattern of the scribe, which may give text critics information about the copying of 2882 that assists in other text critical interpretations and translation decisions.
If we look at the columns containing the same verse in manuscript 01, we see the majority of the missing phrase contained to one line of text. Therefore, another possibility besides error of hearing may involve an error of sight. Perhaps the exemplar text of 2882 followed a similar column-like layout to that of 01 on which ????? ??? ???? ??? ???????? appeared on the same line. This would mean that the omission has no significance other than telling us that the scribe needed a break away from his copying—or perhaps a good nap!
However, a third option remains. Perhaps the scribe of 2882 omitted the phrase on purpose. Perhaps he made the theological decision to refuse the hatred, insults, and rejection referenced in the passage to Jesus himself. Or perhaps the issue is a Christological one – whether or not the scribe (or 2882’s exemplar) wanted to reference Jesus using the title “Son of Man.” The phrase seems too perfectly cut to chalk up its omission to an error of sight or hearing. Within the context of the entire passage, these options would not seem to cause significant change to the gospel’s theological stance on Jesus. But without full analysis on the collation of 2882 including a comparison to other manuscripts of its time, the scribe’s general tendencies toward similar passages of Christology remain a mystery.
Suggestions for Scholars
Greg Paulson’s dissertation on the book of Matthew on Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi, Bezae, and Washingtonianus offers an expansion of categories to address those variants not so certainly or easily explained. His approach borrows from earlier contributors like Colwell and Royse, but expands their terminology in a more streamlined way which proves (better than most) particularly helpful in identifying the habits of a scribe within a specific manuscript. This allows for very clear direction for future scholars to build off of his research. For instance, through categorizing the singular readings into Paulson’s clearly labeled categories, the scholar may quickly distinguish between tendencies of an entire manuscript, an entire book, or in some cases, of two different scribes who may have worked on the same manuscript.[7]
While Paulson’s dissertation seems more helpful in addressing the problematic variants than some scholars who came before him, confusion continues (specifically between the category of “nonsense in context” and “inexplicable changes”). Paulson has organized his list of variant causes (without directly saying it) by their source—mind, sound, eyes, choice, etc.
A solution to the inconsistent treatment and terminology within such an ever-evolving niche of the field may elude us. However, perhaps rather than organizing the discussion of singular readings by their potential cause, we could categorize variants based on the happenings within the text. Has omission caused a perplexing textual pickle? Addition of a phrase or word? Unexpected word order? Perhaps labelling the result in the text (which is known) rather than the cause (which is unknown) would help make sifting through large masses of data more user-friendly. Hypotheses of cause will continue adding to the conversation of scribal anomalies—but unified organization of the date can make the conversation more consistent among scholars whose hypotheses widely vary.
A Call for Unified Terminology
A variant only remains inexplicable until someone comes along and offers a suggestion for how it may have occurred. Then, all of a sudden, it becomes explicable. Because of this, the term “inexplicable” only muddies the conversation on scribal tendencies because it has an expiration date. Likewise, “nonsense” puts an automatic negative connotation on a variant that may have only made the list due to its perplexing nature. When a variant does not meet the criteria for what a text critic expects at a given place within a manuscript, I recommend referring to the variant as a “scribal anomaly.” After all, how a variant showed up in the manuscript is at best only an educated guess.
————
[1] This example is currently an unpublished variant brought to light through personal conversation with Daniel B. Wallace based on CSNTM’s collation of GA 2882.
[2] See the works of Greg Paulson, James Royse, Juan Hernandez, and Peter Head. These newer works come after earlier authors who tackled the beginning stages of the discussion such as Ernest C. Colwell. Gregory Paulson, Scribal Habits and Singular Readings in Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi, Bezae, and Washingtonianus in the Gospel of Matthew, Glossahouse Dissertation Series, volume 5 (Wilmore, KY: GlossaHouse, 2018). James Ronald Royse, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri, New Testament Tools, Studies and Documents, v. 36 (Leiden: Brill, 2008). Juan Herna?ndez, Scribal Habits and Theological Influences in the Apocalypse: The Singular Readings of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament, 2, Reihe, 218, (Tu?bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006). Peter Head, “The Habits of New Testament Copyists Singular Readings in the Early Fragmentary Papyri of John,” Biblica, vol. 85, no. 3 (Peeters: 2004), 399–408.
[3] Bart Ehrman’s work, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, addresses common scribal habits throughout and is another good example of a more general study that has influenced the way common New Testament students and scholars view the tendencies of scribes. Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture : The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, updated and with a new afterword ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).
[4] Ernest Cadman Colwell, Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament, New Testament Tools and Studies, v. 9 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969).
[5] Bruce M Metzger and Bart D Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament : Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. Fourth ed, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), viii.
[6] Ernest Cadman Colwell, Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament, New Testament Tools and Studies, v. 9 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969), 101.
[7] Take as an example scribes A and D of 01. Paulson notes that scribe A has many itacistic differences, while scribe D has almost none. This disparity is difficult to account for if the scribes both copied from a singular manuscript by eye, giving more weight to the possibility of the existence of a scriptorium where the words of the text may have been read aloud. On the other hand, it could also be evidence for a lack of standardization of the time, allowing different scribes to practice varying orthography practices. Gregory S. Paulson, Scribal Habits and Singular Readings in Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi, Bezae, and Washingtonianus in the Gospel of Matthew, Glossahouse Dissertation Series, volume 5 (Wilmore, KY: GlossaHouse, 2018), 41.
————
Sarah Chapellserved as an intern for CSNTM from 2019–2020. Her research term paper “Scribal Anomalies and Blunders: A Call for Unified Terminology” calls for an adjustment in terminology for inexplicable or unique variant readings in New Testament manuscript studies. She provides an overview of interesting singular readings found throughout the manuscript tradition in order to prove that differences among manuscripts exist—even early on—and that unified terminology would highly benefit the continued study of scribal habits and translation decisions. Sarah is a current Th.M. student at Dallas Theological Seminary pursuing an emphasis in New Testament Studies. She lives in Arlington, Texas with her husband Josh and their two daughters, Hannah and Addie.Help PreserveNew Testament Manuscripts
Some of the missing content was supplemented in the fifteenth-century. Possibly of Alexandrian origin, Codex Vaticanus belonged to the famous Cardinal Basilius Bessarion (1400–1472), Latin Patriarch of Constantinople. Shortly after Bessarion’s death, the manuscript appears in the catalog of the Vatican Library in 1475. In 1797, it was taken to Paris, then returned to the Vatican after Napoleon’s fall in 1815.
Another influential scholar was Johann Jakob Wettstein (1693–1754). He began to organize the evidence of the Greek manuscripts and developed numerous guidelines to help scholars decide which reading is the original. One of his principles was that the Textus Receptus should have no authority. However, he still printed the Textus Receptus in his edition of the Greek New Testament published in 1751–1752. The influence of Wettstein on the discipline was diminished because he was accused of promoting heretical views that denied the deity of Jesus Christ.
Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, scholars continued to refine the discipline of New Testament Textual Criticism. Most of them, convinced that the Received Text was inadequate, sought to recover the original text of the New Testament. After many attempts to dethrone the Received Text, scholars B.F. Wescott (1825–1901) and F.J.A. Hort (1828–1892) published their edition of the Greek New Testament in 1881. This edition constitutes a turning point in the belief that the Received Text represents the original text.
In the following decade, Eberhard Nestle (1851–1913) published his first edition of the Greek New Testament. This is the beginning of today’s Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (NA). Upon Nestle’s death, the publication was handed over to his son, Erwin Nestle (1883–1972). The edition is known as “Nestle-Aland” because in 1952, it was produced in cooperation with Kurt Aland (1915–1994). This is the standard edition of the Greek New Testament used by scholars, Bible translators, seminary professors, and pastors who interact with the New Testament in Greek. Currently, the Nestle-Aland text is in its twenty-eighth edition (NA28).
Besides editing the edition, Kurt Aland also founded in 1959 the Institute for New Testament Textual Research (INTF) in Münster, Germany. One of the initial tasks of the institute was to create microfilms of numerous manuscripts. INTF also carries out ongoing research into the Greek New Testament, maintains the official catalog of New Testament Greek manuscripts, and edits and publishes the standard critical editions of the Greek New Testament.
In 2002, Daniel B. Wallace founds the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM) to digitize all surviving Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. The microfilm images are helpful, but many times they are unclear. For this reason, CSNTM has been producing high-resolution photographs of these documents. Since 2002, the team has visited hundreds of institutions in more than 50 countries, digitally preserving their manuscripts. They have also discovered almost 60 previously unknown manuscripts that can now be found in the official catalog. Images are available online on the Digital Manuscript Collection website. Scholars visit the website to study manuscript images as they edit the text that stands behind English translations of the New Testament. Through this work, CSNTM helps ensure that readers of the New Testament today hold in their hands the most accurate text possible.
Since other publishers in Italy and Spain were producing similar editions, Froben pressured Erasmus to conclude the project in record time. Thus, in 1516, the first edition of the Greek New Testament was published. Unfortunately, however, because of the pressure from the publisher Froben, the text of this first edition was especially deficient: Erasmus was able to use only eight manuscripts available to him in Basel, and all manuscripts were late—most dated to the twelfth and fifteenth century.
It was in this first edition that Erasmus famously left out from the Greek the Trinitarian Formula in 1 John 5:7–8. He argued that the Formula was absent from the Greek manuscripts he consulted, even though it was present in the Latin Vulgate, the version authorized by the Roman Catholic Church.
As expected, Erasmus produced other editions of the Greek New Testament (1519, 1522, 1527, 1535), making few changes to the text. In his third edition, he added the Trinitarian Formula back in the Greek text because someone introduced him to a Greek manuscript that had the Formula. This manuscript was produced around 1510 and 1520 by a scribe named Roy. Some believe the document was crafted to provide Erasmus precisely with the missing Greek evidence for the Formula. The editions of Erasmus circulated widely and thus became the standard text of the Greek New Testament.
Other editions of the Greek New Testament appeared in the sixteenth century. In 1524, Wolfius Cephaleus edited a Greek New Testament. The most significant aspect of this edition is that Wolfius removed the Trinitarian Formula from the Greek text. By doing so, he contradicted the edition Erasmus produced in 1522.
In the middle of the century, Robert Estienne or Stephanus (1503–1559), son of a Parisian publisher, produced four editions of the Greek New Testament: 1546, 1549, 1550, and 1551. The text printed in these editions rarely deviates from the text edited by Erasmus. However, Stephanus added some innovations. The main one appears in the fourth edition: for the first time, verse numbers accompany the biblical text.
In the first half of the 1600s, the Dutch brothers Bonaventure (1583–1652) and Abraham (1592–1652) Elzevir continued the legacy of Erasmus. They produced three editions of the Greek New Testament: 1624, 1633, and 1641. Like Stephanus, the Elzevirs printed the text of Erasmus. This time, however, the text acquires an elevated status because the Elzevirs write in the preface to the 1633 edition that they are presenting to the reader “the text received by all.” For the first time, therefore, the text of Erasmus becomes known as the Textus Receptus or the Received Text (a.k.a. TR).
Several editions of the Greek New Testament appeared from 1516 to 1641. Nonetheless, the text being perpetuated was the same one Erasmus produced based on eight late manuscripts. And from now on, this unsatisfactory text is perpetuated with the canonized status of Received Text.
Arguments have been advanced to support the theory that Sinaiticus was produced in Caesarea, then taken to St. Catherine’s Monastery in Sinai, Egypt, in the sixth century, when the monastery was founded under Byzantine Emperor Justinian I. The codex remained at St. Catherine’s Monastery until the mid-nineteenth century, when Constantin von Tischendorf managed to arrange the donation of the codex to the library in St. Petersburg, Russia. Then in 1933, Codex Sinaiticus was sold to the British Library for £100,000.
has eighteen leaves with text from 1 Peter 1:1–5:14, and 2 Peter 1:1–3:18. Another part is housed at the Martin Bodmer Foundation and has four leaves with the epistle of Jude. Before being separated, the two parts were bound with other papyrus gatherings in one codex known as the “Composite” or “Miscellaneous” codex. Besides the New Testament content, this “Miscellaneous Codex” contained various non-canonical documents, such as the Protoevangelium of James, the pseudo-Pauline letter of 3 Corinthians, the 11th Ode of Solomon, Peri Pascha by Melito of Sardis, and a hymn. The document was part of a finding of papyrus manuscripts in the 1950s in the proximity of Dishna between Nag Hammadi and Dendera, Egypt.
one leaf is housed at the Chester Beatty Museum in Dublin (Ireland), and other leaves are housed at the Institut für Altertumskunde in Cologne (Germany). P66 is an early manuscript that omits John 7:53–8:11, or the passage of the woman caught in adultery (a.k.a. PA). P66 is part of the cache of papyrus manuscripts found in the region of Dishna, Egypt, in the 1950s.
This is the only known Greek manuscript in which Ephesians precedes Galatians. P45 and P46 are rather significant because they indicate that already in the third century and at least in some locations, some New Testament writings were compiled into one book. In the case of P45, a fourfold Gospel collection circulated as a single book with Acts. P46 attests to the existence of a Pauline collection. Finally, P47 is one of the oldest manuscripts of Revelation with only ten leaves. In Revelation 13:18, P47 transmits “666” as the “number of the beast.” CSNTM photographed the images of the three manuscripts and produced this facsimile in partnership with the holding institutions and the publisher, Hendrickson.
Testament transmission and provide an outline for unintentional versus intentional changes to the text. The unintentional category only includes explainable errors: ones arising from faulty eyesight, faulty hearing, errors of the mind, and errors of judgment.[5] Readers may realize that Metzger and Ehrman’s “errors of judgement”
sometimes share similar qualities with “errors arising from faulty eyesight.” They also have similar characteristics to certain types of “intentional changes” mentioned later in the book. Students new to the field may already find themselves lost in muddy terminology. Rest assured, you aren’t alone!
In his own chapters on such variants, Colwell includes “the nonsense reading” as those errors clearly “objectively demonstrable.” He says they do “not make sense, and/or cannot be found in the lexicon, and/or [are] not Greek grammar.”[6]
Royse calls them “nonsense readings” but makes sure to distinguish between “nonsense in context,” and “strictly nonsense.” Hernandez and Paulson follow suit, adding separate categories such as “no explanation” and “inexplicable” (respectively). Bell calls them “unique.” Wasserman refers to them as “peculiar.” On and on the list goes for terms used to try to communicate the same basic idea: there are variants found in the manuscripts that do not make sense. Obviously, the variety of terms to describe the same phenomenon gets confusing quickly.
If we look at the columns containing the same verse in manuscript 01, we see the majority of the missing phrase contained to one line of text. Therefore, another possibility besides error of hearing may involve an error of sight. Perhaps the exemplar text of 2882 followed a similar column-like layout to that of 01 on which ????? ??? ???? ??? ???????? appeared on the same line. This would mean that the omission has no significance other than telling us that the scribe needed a break away from his copying—or perhaps a good nap!
However, a third option remains. Perhaps the scribe of 2882 omitted the phrase on purpose. Perhaps he made the theological decision to refuse the hatred, insults, and rejection referenced in the passage to Jesus himself. Or perhaps the issue is a Christological one – whether or not the scribe (or 2882’s exemplar) wanted to reference Jesus using the title “Son of Man.” The phrase seems too perfectly cut to chalk up its omission to an error of sight or hearing. Within the context of the entire passage, these options would not seem to cause significant change to the gospel’s theological stance on Jesus. But without full analysis on the collation of 2882 including a comparison to other manuscripts of its time, the scribe’s general tendencies toward similar passages of Christology remain a mystery.
A variant only remains inexplicable until someone comes along and offers a suggestion for how it may have occurred. Then, all of a sudden, it becomes explicable. Because of this, the term “inexplicable” only muddies the conversation on scribal tendencies because it has an expiration date. Likewise, “nonsense” puts an automatic negative connotation on a variant that may have only made the list due to its perplexing nature. When a variant does not meet the criteria for what a text critic expects at a given place within a manuscript, I recommend referring to the variant as a “scribal anomaly.” After all, how a variant showed up in the manuscript is at best only an educated guess.
————
[1] This example is currently an unpublished variant brought to light through personal conversation with Daniel B. Wallace based on CSNTM’s collation of GA 2882.
[2] See the works of Greg Paulson, James Royse, Juan Hernandez, and Peter Head. These newer works come after earlier authors who tackled the beginning stages of the discussion such as Ernest C. Colwell. Gregory Paulson, Scribal Habits and Singular Readings in Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi, Bezae, and Washingtonianus in the Gospel of Matthew, Glossahouse Dissertation Series, volume 5 (Wilmore, KY: GlossaHouse, 2018). James Ronald Royse, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri, New Testament Tools, Studies and Documents, v. 36 (Leiden: Brill, 2008). Juan Herna?ndez, Scribal Habits and Theological Influences in the Apocalypse: The Singular Readings of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament, 2, Reihe, 218, (Tu?bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006). Peter Head, “The Habits of New Testament Copyists Singular Readings in the Early Fragmentary Papyri of John,” Biblica, vol. 85, no. 3 (Peeters: 2004), 399–408.
[3] Bart Ehrman’s work, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, addresses common scribal habits throughout and is another good example of a more general study that has influenced the way common New Testament students and scholars view the tendencies of scribes. Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture : The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, updated and with a new afterword ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).
[4] Ernest Cadman Colwell, Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament, New Testament Tools and Studies, v. 9 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969).
[5] Bruce M Metzger and Bart D Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament : Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. Fourth ed, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), viii.
[6] Ernest Cadman Colwell, Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament, New Testament Tools and Studies, v. 9 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969), 101.
[7] Take as an example scribes A and D of 01. Paulson notes that scribe A has many itacistic differences, while scribe D has almost none. This disparity is difficult to account for if the scribes both copied from a singular manuscript by eye, giving more weight to the possibility of the existence of a scriptorium where the words of the text may have been read aloud. On the other hand, it could also be evidence for a lack of standardization of the time, allowing different scribes to practice varying orthography practices. Gregory S. Paulson, Scribal Habits and Singular Readings in Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi, Bezae, and Washingtonianus in the Gospel of Matthew, Glossahouse Dissertation Series, volume 5 (Wilmore, KY: GlossaHouse, 2018), 41.
————
Sarah Chapell served as an intern for CSNTM from 2019–2020. Her research term paper “Scribal Anomalies and Blunders: A Call for Unified Terminology” calls for an adjustment in terminology for inexplicable or unique variant readings in New Testament manuscript studies. She provides an overview of interesting singular readings found throughout the manuscript tradition in order to prove that differences among manuscripts exist—even early on—and that unified terminology would highly benefit the continued study of scribal habits and translation decisions. Sarah is a current Th.M. student at Dallas Theological Seminary pursuing an emphasis in New Testament Studies. She lives in Arlington, Texas with her husband Josh and their two daughters, Hannah and Addie.
Help PreserveNew Testament Manuscripts