Conflations: What They Are and What They Mean

As a Bible translator and translation consultant, when the Greek text has variant readings, I need to recommend to my co-workers which reading should be followed in the translation. Until recently, I assumed that I could trust the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament to give a reliable evaluation of the relative merit of variant readings. Recently, however, my faith has been shaken by reading and discussing arguments in favour of the Byzantine text type as being closer to the original autographs than Alexandrian text type which is favoured by the editors of the eclectic text found in the UBS Greek New Testament. 1 As a way of clarifying my thinking on this topic, I have attempted to set out a number of arguments for and against the Byzantine and Alexandrian text types with regard to which one is closer to the original autographs. The primary audience of this paper is myself. It is a working paper intended to document my growing understanding of this issue. Because of this, I have not hesitated to include quotations from unpublished sources, including personal emails, if these represent the clearest expressions of certain arguments. Because my access to recent scholarship is somewhat limited, some of the sources cited are rather dated. As the writing processes continues, I hope to increase the citations of recent published sources relevant to the questions raised. 1. Competing text types Among the manuscripts of the Greek New Testament there are four major text types commonly recognized: the Byzantine, the Alexandrian, the Western, and the Caesarean. This paper focuses on the question as to which of the major text types is closer to autographs written by the authors of the New Testament. Each text type is represented by a group of manuscripts quite similar to each other, but significantly different from manuscripts of the other text types. Some of the differences between text types could well be due to an accumulation of accidental scribal errors as manuscripts were copied and recopied. However, the degree of difference between these text types is great enough that it cannot be explained by accidental errors only. There are numerous places where whole sentences are included in one text type and omitted from another. There are even whole passages included in one text type and omitted from another (e.g. the story of the woman caught in adultery). These sort of differences can best be accounted for by the hypothesis that there was a deliberate 1 Some of the arguments in favour of the Byzantine text are set out in an unpublished paper by Timothy Friberg entitled " A modest explanation for the layman of ideas related to determining the text of the Greek New Testament: a minority view. " That paper summarizes arguments found in Robinson (2001). I am also indebted to an unpublished paper by Robinson entitled " A brief reply to Dr. Deibler's questions. "

2020

This paper will discuss the significance of the Greek New Testament manuscript GA 800. GA 800 is a 12th-14th century manuscript of the four canonical Gospels. Since this manuscript has been classified as a member of the Byzantine text-type, others have not considered it worthy of further study. By examining its unique readings, agreements with other manuscripts against the Byzantine text, and wrap-around commentary, this paper will demonstrate that GA 800 has tremendous value for the history of the text of the Gospels and the pursuit of the initial text of the Gospels. This Paper was accepted for the regional meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in the Southwest Region in March 2020, but the event was cancelled due to COVID-19. Instead, this paper was presented on Zoom on May 7, 2020, and a part of TC Thursdays, put on by the IGNTP.

In this thesis, the author explores the deadlocked debate about the origin of the Byzantine text and presents some new perspectives that have the potention to bring this polarised debate to a more satisfactory conclusion. On the one hand, the debate is studied from a 1) historical, 2) theological, and 3) epistemological and sociological perspective. It is found that the different historical considerations have led to opposite conclusions about the origin of the Byzantine text. Next, it is found that the different theological perspectives not necessarily lead to opposite conclusions. Finally it is found that epistemological and sociological considerations are not persuasive to uphold this polarised debate. On the other hand, it is argued that many historical arguments need more investigation, before they can serve as real arguments. Moreover, it is argued that when the Byzantine text is studied from the perspective of language development and the possible influence of the lectionaries, alongside with the production of a comprehensive textual commentary by Byzantine text defenders, this debate can be brought to a more definite end. The leading question was: Why has the discussion about the origin of the Byzantine text got bogged down in a polarised debate, and what will be the best way to escape this impasse?

Church History, 2018

Jurnal Lektur Keagamaan

This article aims to apply intertextual reading in the science of herme­neutical exegesis, especially in the New Testament (NT) which are narrative in nature. The messages of the Bible are often misunderstood becau­se readers only rely on translations that are inadequate and lack the depth of meaning of the original text. Hebrew is one of three languages along with Aramaic, and Koine Greek in which God chose to communicate His Word. Reading the New Testament in its original text will reveal a deeper meaning than the translated version. This paper uses a descriptive qualitative method approach with literature study as the main method. The original text analyzed is the canonical text of the Byzantine NT. Through a hermeneutic approach, this text is read to understand and comprehend theological mes­sages in a comprehend­sive perspective. The results of this study conclude that reading the original text of the New Testament provides a more contextual and applicable theolo­gical understa...

Open Book Publishers, 2022

Institute of Languages and Cultures of the Mediterranean and the Near East (ILC-CSIC). Her research is focused on the textual transmission and the reception of the Hebrew Bible text attested in the rabbinic literature and the Masora, i.e., the marginal annotations placed in medieval Hebrew Bible manuscripts. She is also interested in annotation practices in medieval Hebrew Bibles, as well as Hebrew palaeography. She is author of several monographs and many articles, including Masora:

‘Spiritual Meadow’ (Pratum Spirituale or Λειμών) written by Byzantine monk John Moschos (c. 550–619/34) is a very interesting text from the linguistic point of view, but unfortunately it lacks a good edition. This text is available now in J. P. Migne’s edition (Migne, 1857–1866, T. 87.3 = PG). Migne didn’t personally work on the numerous manuscripts, but simply compiled two earlier versions. In this paper I analyze alternative readings noted by Cotelier and as a result I beleive a thorough linguistic analysis of the ‘Spiritual Meadow’ can be performed even before some new critical edition appears.

Novum Testamentum, 2018

The Syriac translation of the New Testament produced by Thomas of Harkel in AD 616 provides a rich source for studying the transmission of the Greek New Testament. In this case, its relationship to the Byzantine text in the Catholic Epistles is used to test the results of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM), a new computerized tool being used to edit the standard editions of the Greek New Testament (NA28/UBS5). Against claims that the CBGM is not useful for understanding textual history, this study shows that, when used carefully, it can provide valuable clarity to our understanding. The results of this test have implications for the CBGM, for the textual worth of the Byzantine text, and for how all “texts” are related and evaluated.

in B. Crostini & R. Ceulemans (eds.), Receptions of the Bible in Byzantium : Texts, Manuscripts, and their Readers. Uppsala (Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia 20): p. 259-275, 2021