Verses With Zero-Support in the Modern Critical Text
By Jeffrey T. Riddle
A significant objection to the reconstructed modern Critical Text of the Greek New Testament has been posed by Dr. Maurice A. Robinson for over two decades now, and it has yet to be satisfactorily answered. Robinson is a retired professor from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary who spent over fifty years in New Testament textual criticism and is a well-known advocate for the position referred to as ‘Byzantine Priority’.
Robinson’s objection arose from his close examination of the text and notes of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition (referred to as NA27). He found numerous sequences, involving one or more verses in the modern Critical Text which have ‘zero-support’ overall in any extant manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, in ancient versions, or in Biblical quotations in the early Church Fathers.
This is because it uses a method called ‘reasoned eclecticism’ which involves making judgments about differing readings (variants) based on its analysis of available manuscripts and application of the empirical methods of modern textual criticism.
As a result, Robinson contended in a 2009 article that this method has, in various places, produced a ‘test-tube’ text which exists only in the ‘laboratory’ of textual critics without any historical evidence that such verses, as they appear in NA27, ever actually existed…
Source: Quarterly Record, Issue Number 649 (Oct-Dec 2024)
There is a contradiction between 1) the polemic that the critical editions have “zero” support and 2) the polemic that those same editions “slavishly” reproduce Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Both polemics are misleading. The critical editions follow the most ancient witnesses. When there are manuscript differences, scholars seek the reading most likely to have been underneath later changes. Scholars may have a prejudice in favor of “more difficult” readings and “shorter” readings (downplaying evidence for eyeskip). But the much-later late-Byzantine textforms do show unmistakable evidence of polishing. What is important is the 93 percent sameness in wording and virtually 100 percent sameness in doctrine. The Word of God (Christ) has truly preserved His divine revelations to mankind. But the process is not as simple as confessional bibliology asserts. Confessional bibliology ends up attacking great NT manuscripts and advocating disinformation about the Comma Johanneum being in all manuscripts or Latin not influencing the TR. It is more reverent toward God to admit — with full intellectual honesty— the truth on historical complexity. It is more pious to avoid exaggerated polemics.
Actually, both arguments are true, and neither are misleading. As for point one, Dr. Robinson has factually demonstrated that the modern text has multiple continuous verses supported by no extant Greek mss. Do you deny the clear data he presents? As for point two, it is a standard assessment of Westcott and Hort that the general readings of their 1881 text followed the two celebrated uncials published in the 19th century (Aleph and B). Succeeding editions of the modern text have followed in their wake. Scholars like S. E. Porter have pointed out that even the publications of the papyri in the early 20th century did not much alter the modern text dominated by the readings of the two uncials. You might want to take up your objection with Porter. The reconstruction method you are advocating has been a dead end. Modern academic scholars, like David C. Parker, confess that reconstruction of the original text is a pipe dream. You also wrongly downplay the doctrinal significance of textual changes in the modern text. Even Peter Gurry in his article in Myth & Mistakes says the “no major doctrines are affected” line is a “myth” of modern apologists. Confessional Bibliology is simply advocating for a plain sense understanding of preservation: by the singular care and providence of God kept pure in all ages. Sorry, but I don’t buy your assertion that the approach of the Westminster divines, Owen, Turretin, Van Mastricht, and Gerhard is less “reverent” and more “exaggerated” than that of modern secular and feministic scholars at Munster. We’ll stick with the old paths.
Dear Pastor Riddle: Thank you for responding. Forgive me for having to be concise at this time, especially about “Frankenstein” below, but you will see the logic. The Texti Recepti editions are each a synthesis of more than one manuscript available in Western Europe, 1516-1633. Latin influence is irrefutable, especially in 1 John and Revelation. The HF and RP editions are syntheses of the smoother and fuller variant readings that emerged as dominant in Constantinopolitan minuscules after the defeat of iconoclasm in AD 843. Studium monastery (by itself and in conjunction with other monasteries) played a huge role in the emergence of this late-Byzantine textform, with longer and more polished readings, and greater uniformity than ever before in the Greek NT manuscript tradition. The most uniform late-Byzantine textform family, von Soden’s K(r) and Pickering’s Family 35, is so uniform because it came from the rigid copying practices at a single monastery, probably Studium. Today’s best critical Greek NT editions are a synthesis mostly of the most ancient papyri and majuscules, but based on an attempt to acquire some awareness of the broad Greek and versional evidence, even Ethiopic, Gothic, and Old Church Slavonic (!!), not just Greek and Latin (like the TR). So, obviously, yes, I agree that there will be many wrongly-called “Frankenstein” pericopes in any edition that is a synthesis of more than one manuscript. But that also includes TR edition. There may be Scrivener pericopes that may not match a single manuscript. Obviously, there is more diversity in the second to eighth century manuscripts than in late Byzantium. For a simple hypothetical example, if we look at a verse in the most ancient papyri and majuscules and one group of witnesses has a copyist error in the first half of the verse and the other group has a copyist error in the second half, then the critical text will print a “Frankenstein” text without either mistake but not matching either group. But it will be the original verse’s wording without either of the two copyist errors. You are an extremely high-IQ man. Surely you can follow the logic! Robinson’s list does not necessarily undermine the method of focussing on the most ancient manuscripts and synthesizing them. Hugh Houghton’s commentary on UBS6 is very evidence-focussed, although I would agree with you more on several issues. The ECM is probably 92 percent identical to Scrivener’s two TRs, the series of editions based on Stephanus 1550 and the series of printings based on Beza 1598 and the AKJV. However, I am sure that you will be able to see that the later Greek manuscripts show polishing over the centuries. I believe that the ancient papyri and majuscules received by the original Church were kept pure of heresy in that age, even though their wording was subjected to less later editorial polishing. It is not a sin to seek the wording of the fishermen. It is not necessary, in order to defend Christian epistemology, to resort to the theory that Scrivener 1894 is the exact original down to the tittle. The CBGM will eventually prove beyond any doubt that the late-Byzantine textform evolved, through polishing, mostly from the original text as it can be found in the second and third century papyri, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus. If they have omissions due to eyeskip, then the words they missed can be found in a near-consensus of other ANCIENT witnesses. ECM has adopted more early-Byzantine readings than WH (so “slavish” is hyperbole). The critical texts do not undermine the dogmas taught by the TR. Both ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΗC ΥC and ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΗC ΘC were received by God’s people as orthodox doctrine. Ancient and Byzantine writers referred to the later phrase over 400 times according to a quick search at TLG (probably 25 times quoting John 1:18, and the other 375 tines because ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΗC ΘC was standard Christian belief about eternal generation and a testimony to Christ’s deity). God permitted the manuscript variation. Both phrases were pure doctrine passed down through the ages in doctrinally pure manuscripts, with variant wordings.
Part Two. WH occasionally departs from B and Alef. NA/UBS/ECM and TH occasionally depart from WH. The papyri confirmed many Alexandrian majuscule (and WH) readings and some later Byzantine readings. So, both “zero support in ancient manuscripts” and “slavishly following Alexandrian majuscules” are debate hyperbole and refute each other. The truth is neither extreme characterization. Parker does not represent TH, Hixson, Gurry, and many others, who believe original wording (and even personal spelling preferences) are within reach. Why in the world would you tell the world that the ancient witnesses God preserved are inadequate to print an edition of the ancient text? Why in the world would an objective potential convert to Christianity think Scrivener 1894 would be a better reconstruction of the initial text than TH, which is based on actual second century to fifth century readings? Invoking Münster left-wingers is invalid guilt by association because TH synthesizes the objective ancient remains God preserved, and ends with a text broadly similar to Münster. Asserting that Stephanus 1550 or Beza 1898 or Scrivener 1894 or some combo got the autographs perfect to the tittle, even though there is no exact manuscript support, will not convince. If you want to stem people from going to the Tiber, Constantinople, Moscow, or Mecca, it will be more effective to admit (1) the actual diversity in manuscript wording and (2) the fundamental unity in dogma taught by the Greek manuscripts of all ages.
Part 3: The dichotomy (or, better, the spectrum) is not Turretin versus Münster feminists. The big issue is the ability to soberly discern truth/reality on the specific issue being debated at any specific time and place. Turretin asserted falsely that the Comma Johanneum was in “all” the manuscripts. I believe he was sincerely ignorant, not intentionally lying. Münster, in contrast, asserts truthfully that the Comma Johanneum is in a few late Greek manuscripts due to Latin influence. So, in that specific debate, the Protestant believer advocated a falsehood, and the more worldly academics assert the truth. Conservative Christians should not be too quick to dismiss or even denigrate experts and factual knowledge of historical reality. We know from Erasmus’s voluminous writings that he had limited manuscripts, was under time pressure due to Alcala, was under pressure to include the Comma, and used the Latin at end verses. We should be able to see that there is a contradiction between the many minority readings in the TR and the assertion of rigid uniformity through the centuries down to the letter and part of letter. It is not pious to misrepresent reality and to advocate a historical uniformity that we known never existed. The TR is not dangerous. But animus against the most ancient NT copies is dangerous. False claims about manuscript history is dangerous. Jan Krans’s strong proofs that Erasmus back-translated the final verses of Revelation should be dealt with without prejudice. Christians should maintain their credibility by showing that they can deal with reality even if it is more complicated than they would prefer. Reality is complex, but it supports Christian truth. The obviously false (“cringe”) claims of some KJV and TR advocates should be dropped, such as the Comma being in all manuscripts and the final verses not being back-translated. It is the reverent and honorable thing to confess our mistakes and to admit that we have sometimes taken polemics too far into hyperbole, lack of balance, and inaccuracy.