No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.
Luke 5.39

A scholarly article introducing the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) is titled ‘How Your Greek NT Is Changing’.² Indeed, the emergence of the CBGM at the start of the twenty-first century promises to be as groundbreaking for modern text criticism as was Wescott and Hort’s precursor to ‘reasoned eclecticism’ in the nineteenth century. This stands in contrast to the Received Text position and a Scripture ‘kept pure in all ages’. CBGM is the newest ‘new’ method to be applied in the scholarly reconstruction of the text of the Greek New Testament.

The Old ‘New’ Method

Before describing the CBGM, we should note two distinctives of the old method. First, the old method focused on the grouping of manuscripts into text-types. Four text-types were identified: the Alexandrian (including the influential Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts), the Western, the Byzantine, and the Caesarean. Of these, the Alexandrian was assumed to be ‘the oldest and most reliable’ or the ‘neutral text’.³ On the other hand, the Byzantine manuscripts, which undergirded the traditional text, were considered late, inferior, secondary, and marred by harmonization.

Second, the old method was based on the goal of reconstructing the original autographs. This reconstruction method was, in fact, a departure from the doctrine of the divine preservation of Scripture.⁴ This new goal was articulated by Marvin R. Vincent in 1899.

Textual Criticism is that process by which it is sought to determine the original text of a document or of a collection of documents, and to exhibit it, freed from all errors, corruptions, and variations which it may have accumulated in the course of its transmission by successive copyings.⁵

This goal was pursued with confidence by scholars of the nineteenth century. Thus as Westcott and Hort introduced their influential 1881 Greek text, ‘This edition is an attempt to present exactly the words of the New Testament, so far as they can now be determined from surviving documents’. ⁶

It was this old ‘new’ method, with its text-types and autographic reconstruction, which attempted to undermine the credibility of the Textus Receptus (TR) and then to topple it. Eldon Jay Epp used military imagery to describe the scholarly assault on the TR.⁷ He considered Karl Lachmann’s Greek New Testament of 1831 a ‘beachhead’ for a ‘D-Day’ attack. If ‘D-Day’ belonged to Lachmann, then ‘V-Day’ belonged to the undisputed ‘general of the army’ F. J. A. Hort and his ‘first officer’ B. F. Westcott.

The Printed Editions of the Modern Text

The old method also produced a series of printed scholarly editions of the Greek New Testament. Two major handbook editions have eventually come to predominate. First, there is the German Bible Society’s Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (known by its familiar blue cover) now in its 28th edition (NA28, 2012). Second, there is the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (known by its familiar brick red cover), now in its Fifth Revised Edition (UBS5, 2014). These now serve as the standard scholarly text of the Greek New Testament:⁸ the two editions having been brought into agreement under a common committee when the UBS3 (1983) adopted the same text as NA26 (1979).⁹ Most persons who study the Greek New Testament in universities, seminaries, and Bible colleges across the world use one or both of these editions.

With the NA28/UBS5, significant changes were introduced, especially in the Catholic Epistles (James to Jude). The title page of the NA28 text acknowledges that it has been produced under new editorial leadership: ‘Edited by the Institute for New Testament Textual Research Münster/ Westphalia under the direction of Holger Strutwolf’.¹⁰ In the Foreword, Strutwolf states:

… the new edition presents a fundamentally new conception, at least with respect to the Catholic Letters, because for this part of the New Testament the Editio Critica Maior (ECM) is already available [since 1997]. The ECM represents a new level of scientific research on the text of the Greek New Testament and offers a text newly established on this basis.¹¹

The editors later continue, ‘The Catholic Letters were revised according to a fundamentally new concept which in the long run will be adopted for the entire edition’.¹² They then explain that this new concept is the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) as developed by German scholar Gerd Mink. This method examines ‘percentages of agreement between witnesses compared’ in order ‘to arrange the potential ancestors of a witness in a ranking order, according to their degree of relationship’, adding, ‘The method can also be applied to a comparison with the reconstructed initial text’.¹³

The modern text is indeed changing. A new method is replacing the old method. It has been applied to the Catholic Epistles, and it will eventually be applied to the rest of the New Testament. In the end, it will also make its way into modern translations based on this text.

What is the CBGM?

The CBGM is a new approach to textual criticism, which makes use of computer technology to compare and analyze witnesses to readings (not just physical manuscripts containing those readings) from the Greek New Testament. In their introduction to the CBGM, Wasserman and Gurry define the CBGM as,

… a method that (1) uses a set of computer tools (2) based in a new way of relating manuscript texts that is (3) designed to help us understand the origin and history of the New Testament text.¹⁴

David C. Parker offers this brief explanation of the ‘Münster Method’.

It is in essence very simple. It has as its foundation a full list of variants made by comparing complete transcriptions of witnesses. Where there are many manuscripts (as in the case of the New Testament works), these witnesses are scientifically selected by analyzing all known copies in a set of test passages, but where the size of the task is practicable, the inclusion of all witnesses is desirable. The editor studies each unit of variation and where possible produces a stemma showing how the readings developed from one another. This relationship is recorded in a database, in which the relationship between the manuscripts is also recorded and calculated, in particular which is the most likely ancestor of each manuscript. The editor can then ask the database to disclose how all the manuscripts relate to each other. The resulting diagram is described as the textual flow.¹⁵

Despite Parker’s assurance that the method is ‘in essence very simple’, it has thus far proven to be perplexing to many. Peter J. Gurry has observed, ‘One of the most common reactions to the method is neither acceptance nor rejection but rather defeated resignation about ever understanding it’.¹⁶

The CBGM is being applied in the Editio Critica Maior (ECM), a major scholarly revision of the modern critical Greek text, being underwritten by the Union of the German Academies of Science and Humanities. The ECM of the Catholic Epistles was published in 1997 (revised in 2013), and of Acts in 2017. The entire ECM is projected to be completed by 2030.¹⁷

What is ‘New’ about the CBGM?

There are at least two ways in which the CBGM represents a significant shift in method.

First, the CBGM rejects traditional text-types.

The CBGM no longer attempts to reconstruct the text on the basis of categorizing manuscripts according to text-types. Gurry notes, ‘This shift alone could be momentous for the discipline’.¹⁸ David C. Parker observes, ‘There are so few manuscripts from the first seven centuries, so few survivors from the thousands that must have once existed, that they cannot be classified into groups’.¹⁹ Interestingly enough, the only ‘text-type’ to which reference continues to be made in the CBGM is the Byzantine. Gurry notes that the CBGM has even resulted in ‘a renewed appreciation for the so-called Byzantine text’.²⁰

The abandonment of the traditional text-types has accompanied a reassessment of Westcott and Hort. Parker notes that they reached their conclusions ‘with a totally inadequate amount of evidence’ and even suggests that their textual ‘theory does not deserve the reverence which has been accorded it’.²¹ Interestingly enough, those who attempted to topple the TR in the nineteenth century have been toppled by the CBGM in the twenty-first century!

Second, the CBGM does not seek to restore the autographic text but the ‘initial text’.

The old method confidently asserted its goal to remove corruption and reconstruct the original autograph. By the mid-twentieth century, however, Robert Grant would describe this task as a veritable ‘impossible possibility’.²² Postmodern voices began to be raised against the very concept of an authoritative ‘original text’. David Parker observed, ‘Generally debate has centered on the meaning of a single authoritative text. But it will soon become plain that such a text does not exist today, and never has existed, and that therefore the theological arguments built on such a text are castles in the air’.²³

The CBGM no longer articulates its goal to be the reconstruction of the original autographic text. Instead, its advocates speak of reconstructing the Ausgangs text or ‘initial text’. Parker defines the initial text as ‘the editor’s reconstruction of the oldest knowable form’ of the text. He adds that the initial text ‘was never the text of an actual manuscript’ and ‘has to be regarded as an ideal rather than a real text’. ²⁴ Some evangelicals have continued to insist that the ‘initial text’ is at least a close approximation of the authorial text, but they too have largely abandoned the goal of restoring the ‘autograph’.²⁵

How Has the CBGM Changed the Modern Text Thus Far?

As noted, the CBGM has only been applied thus far to the Catholic Epistles in the handbooks. The text has been altered there in at least thirty-three places. A list of these is provided on pages 50*–51* in the NA28. Two very significant changes appear at 2 Peter 3.10 and Jude 5.

First, the closing words at 2 Peter 3.10 in the KJV (a translation based on the traditional Greek text of the NT) say that on the day of the Lord, ‘the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up’. Previous editions of the modern critical text had challenged the verb ‘shall be burned up’, suggesting it should read ‘will be exposed’ (as in the English Standard Version). The CBGM version of 2 Peter 3.10, however, adds a new twist in that it suggests that the Greek negative particle,ouch, should be inserted before the verb, so that the passage would potentially read that the earth ‘will not be exposed’. What is more, this reading is not supported by any extant Greek witness, but it appears in only a few late Syriac and Coptic manuscripts. Thus, the CBGM of 2 Peter 3.10 introduces a conjectural emendation based on no extant Greek evidence. This insertion significantly alters the eschatological perspective of the verse. At the day of the Lord, did Peter say the earth would be burned up, or that it would ‘not be exposed’? This is a significant theological difference.

Second, Jude 5 in the KJV states, ‘that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not’. The reader will notice that the title ‘Lord’ (Greek: kurios) is used in reference to God as the one who delivered Israel from Egypt. The new CBGM text, however, uses ‘Jesus’ here, rather than ‘Lord’. ‘Jesus’ appears in Alexandrinus and Vaticanus, but ‘Lord’ is supported by the vast majority of Greek manuscripts and is the reading of the TR. The abbreviated nomina sacra²⁶ for the two words would have been very similar and easily confused by scribes. One might think it right to approve of ‘Jesus’ here as reflecting a high Christology, but this usage would produce a theological difficulty, since it would make reference to Jesus, the incarnate Son of God, at a time in history (at the Exodus) before the incarnation had yet occurred. The traditional text is, therefore, to be preferred.

Evaluation of the CBGM

Here are six critiques of the CBGM.

First: The CBGM’s use of computer/ digital technology does not eliminate human subjectivity in its application.

The CBGM is not free from human subjectivity. Klaus Wachtel concedes that the data produced by CBGM must, in the end, be subjectively interpreted and that ‘other scholars starting from different premises will come to different conclusions’.²⁷ Peter Gurry likewise notes that ‘the results provided by the CBGM, like all text critical data, have to be weighed and interpreted by a human’.²⁸

Second: The CBGM is not exempt from the charge of ‘circular reasoning’.

Scholars tend to reach outcomes based on their initial presuppositions (circular reasoning). Though the CBGM has ostensibly abandoned the traditional text-types, the scholars using the method still appear to presuppose that the Alexandrian readings are generally superior and take this as their ‘initial text’.

Third: The CBGM abandons any hope of ever recovering the original autograph.

The CBGM claims only to recover the ‘initial text’ and makes clear that this ‘initial text’ must not necessarily be equated with the ‘authorial text’ (i.e., the autograph). Recovery of the autograph is seen as both untenable and undesirable. Bart Ehrman was among the first to suggest the need to move beyond the ‘narrow concern for the autographs’ and instead focus on the history of the transmission of the text, ‘a history that can serve as a window into the social world of early Christianity’.²⁹Most modern text critics no longer speak of recovering the autograph but of tracing the ‘reception history’ of a disputed passage. There is no concern to establish a standard and stable text to serve as a firm basis for confessional Christianity.

Fourth: The CBGM does not make use of patristic or versional evidence.

The CBGM does not generally incorporate into its textual flow-diagrams evidence from patristic writings (the Church Fathers) or early translations (like Old Latin, Syriac, etc.). In some cases, however, this data may be crucial. The Traditional Ending of Mark (Mark 16.9–20), for example, is cited by Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyon in the second century. To exclude this evidence weakens a strong argument in favour of Mark’s ending.

Fifth: The CBGM allows for conjectural emendation, the incorporation of readings supported by no extant Greek manuscripts.

We have noted the conjectural emendation at 2 Peter 3.10. What will be the result when the CBGM is applied to the entire NT? How many more conjectures will be made? What doctrines will be affected?

Sixth: The CBGM is being used by only a very small number of scholars, primarily in one German academic institute.

It has been observed that modern text criticism has attempted to take the text of the Bible out of the hands of the church and to place it into the hands of the academy. Now, it appears that the modern text has been taken out of the hands of the larger academy and placed into the hands of an even smaller circle in Münster.

What’s on the Horizon?

The CBGM’s influence has only just begun. Holger Strutwolf has apparently suggested that NA29 will appear in 2022, with UBS6 to follow soon after.30 The new edition will expand the CBGM application to Acts and at least one other book, probably Mark. The CBGM hopes to be applied to the entire New Testament by the 2030s.

CBGM: The End of Modern Text Criticism?

The CBGM’s emergence as the ‘newest’ new method has been both consequential and controversial. When the Editio Critica Maior process is complete and the CBGM has been applied to the entire Greek New Testament will this be the end of modern text criticism? Absolutely not. We can be sure that an even ‘newer’ new method will eventually arise. The proponents of modern textual criticism now declare that the goal of ever reconstructing a definitive autograph is only a chimera, a thing hoped or wished for, but which always remains illusory or impossible to achieve. Many evangelicals have surrendered assurance of ever knowing with full confidence what the text of the Word of God is. Daniel B. Wallace has written, ‘We do not have now—in our critical Greek texts or any translations—exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it’.³¹ Such a perspective completely undermines the epistemological³²foundations of the Christian faith. If we do not know what the Bible is, we cannot know what the Bible says.

There is an alternative to the CBGM and to the ever-changing methods and texts of modern criticism. It is to hold fast to the Received Text, faithfully preserved by God and kept pure in all ages. As the ‘new’ methods rise and fall, we can look to an ‘old’ text that is solid, stable, and unchanging. The old is indeed better.

First published in Quarterly Record 635. Last edited 8 July 2024.

Endnotes:

1. From a speech given by Dr Nestle as recorded in Salz and Licht (Salt and Light) no. 8, p. 20; quoted in Trinitarian Bible Society, Quarterly Record no. 187, October 1906, page 2.

2. Peter J. Gurry, ‘How Your Greek NT is Changing: A Simple Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM)’, JETS, 59/4 (2016): 675–689. See also Peter J. Gurry, A Critical Examination of the CBGM in New Testament Textual Criticism(Boston, MA, USA: Brill, 2017); and Tommy Wasserman and Peter J. Gurry, A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (Atlanta, GA, USA: Society of Biblical Literature/Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2017).

3. B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek (1882; reprint by Hendrickson (Peabody, MA, USA: 1988): 126–130.

4. Westminster Confession of Faith 1:8.

5. Marvin R. Vincent, A History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (New York, NY, USA: MacMillan, 1899): 1.

6. Westcott and Hort, Introduction, 3.

7. Eldon Jay Epp, ‘Textual Criticism’, in Eldon Jay Epp and George W. MacRae, eds, The New Testament and Its Modern Interpreters (Atlanta, GA, USA: Scholars Press, 1989): 75–126.

8. For a history of these two editions see Rolf Shäfer and Florian Voss, Textual Research on the Bible: An Introduction to the Scholarly Editions of the German Bible Society (Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2008); Stanley E. Porter, How We Got the New Testament: Text, Transmission, Translation (Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Baker Academic, 2013): 48–50. 9. The committee originally consisted of Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren.

10. Holger Strutwolf, et al., Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th Revised Edition (Stuttgart Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012).

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid., 48*.

13. Ibid., 52*.

14. Wasserman and Gurry, A New Approach to Textual Criticism, 3.

15. David C. Parker, Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2012): 84–85.

16. Peter J. Gurry, ‘How Your Greek NT is Changing’, 675.

17. Information about the ECM can be found here online: www.academic-bible.com/en/bible-societyand-biblical-studies/current-projects/editio-criticamaior-ecm.

18. Peter J. Gurry, ‘How Your Greek NT is Changing’, 685. 19. David C. Parker, Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament: 161, n. 29. 20. Peter J. Gurry, ‘How Your Greek NT is Changing’, 685.

21. David C. Parker, Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament, 82–83.

22. Robert M. Grant, Historical Introduction to the New Testament (New York, NY, USA: Harper & Row, 1963): 51.

23. David C. Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1997): 76.

24. David C. Parker, Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament, 103.

25. See Abidan Paul Shah, Changing the Goalposts of New Testament Textual Criticism (Eugene, OR, USA: Wipf & Stock, 2020): 9–27, 127–168.

26. Sacred names: abbreviations of sacred names or titles consisting of two or more letters from the original word, spanned by a line over the top of the letters. These are common in early Greek manuscripts.

27. Klaus Wachtel, ‘The Coherence-Based Genealogical Method: A New Way to Reconstruct the Text of the Greek New Testament’, John S. Kloppenborg and Judith H. Newman, Eds., Editing the Bible: Assessing the Task Past and Present (Atlanta, GA, USA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012): 138.

28. Peter J. Gurry, ‘How Your Greek NT is Changing’, 686.

29. Bart D. Ehrman, ‘The Text as a Window: New Testament Manuscripts and the Social History of Early Christianity’, Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, eds., The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis (Grand Rapids, MI, USA: Eerdmans, 1995): 375.

30. Peter Gurry, ‘Plans for the NA29 and the UBS6’, 4 April 2019, evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com: evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2019/04/ plans-for-na29-and-ubs6.html.

31. Daniel B. Wallace, ‘Foreword’, Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry, Eds., Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism(Downers Grove, IL, USA: InterVarsity Press, 2019): xii.

32. Epistemology deals with the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge. Not being able to determine what God has said removes what we can validly know about the foundations of Christianity.