Dr. Maurice Robinson on Textual Variants

Recently, in discussions of a few key variants at the KJV Debate blog, Dr. Robinson has restated his position on the role of errors in the evolution of the textual variants:

" The further blanket claim that I “ascribe error and scribal slips to all the errors of Aleph & B” is simply incorrect. While I do maintain (on the basis of a careful examination of scribal habits) that scribal error is a primary cause of textual variation, I also clearly presume deliberate alteration and recensional activity to have occurred among the Alexandrian manuscripts (as per my 1993 article, “The Recensional Nature of the Alexandrian Texttype”). The leading principle in this regard is to presume scribal error as an initial factor so long as transcriptional probabilities suggest such, then to presume intentional change at whatever points transcriptional probabilities seem to be transcended for what appear to be stylistic or content-based “improvement” concepts in the eyes of particular scribes.

I trust this will clarify the matter." 

A .pdf version of Dr. Robinson's article can be found also here:  The Recensional Nature of the Alexandrian Texttype.

Houghton (2011) on Scribal Habits

Recently H.A.G. 
Houghton in his review, has noted some of the advances found in new literature on scribal habits and the papyri, which we excerpt below:

Houghton, H.A.G. (2011) Recent developments in New Testament textual criticism. Early Christianity, 2 (2). pp. 245-268.

'The study of scribal habits reflects ongoing interest in individual documents. Recent publications focus on P45, (50) P66, (51) Codex Sinaiticus, (52) the major manuscripts of Revelation, (53) and a detailed survey of six important New Testament papyri. (54) One resulting observation is that material is more commonly omitted than added in extant papyri, reinforcing the fact that the text-critical canon of lectio breuior potior must not be applied indiscriminately. (55)

Although the identification of scribal practice has traditionally proceeded on the basis of 'singular readings' peculiar to a manuscript, the number of genuinely unique readings (not taking into account nonsense forms) is being diminished as more manuscripts are transcribed in full. The current definition adopted for a singular reading as one "which has no Greek support in the critical apparatus of Tischendorf's 8th edition" (56) will have to be reviewed with the publication of the ECM.
A further methodological issue is that, given the gaps in our knowledge of the tradition, the presence of a particular form in the first-hand text of a given manuscript cannot necessarily be ascribed to the copyist's choosing but may have been inherited from the exemplar: the characteristics isolated by the study of singular and sub-singular readings apply not so much to the scribe as to the form of text found in the manuscript. Only the study of corrections and other annotations provides firm evidence for the intervention of individuals. This also poses problems for accounts of theologically-motivated alterations to the biblical text, made popular by Ehrman's The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.(57)

While certain variants may be interpreted theologically, only if a consistent pattern can be identified within a single manuscript are there grounds for identifying a particular bias – which was most probably not introduced by the copyist but by an editor during the preparation of the text for copying. The claim that "some scribes" modified the text by independently introducing identical variants is implausible (unless the separate emergence of the readings can be demonstrated) and fails to take account of the nature of the copying process.' (58)

---

50.  J.K. Elliott, "Singular Readings in the Gospel Text of P45," in The Earliest Gospels ed. Charles Horton (JSNTSupp 258, London: T&T Clark, 2004), 122–31.

51.  Peter M. Head, "Scribal Behaviour and Theological Tendencies in Singular Readings in P. Bodmer II (P66)," in Textual Variation ed. Houghton and Parker, 55–74.

52.  Dirk Jongkind, Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus (TS 3.5, Piscataway NJ: Gorgias, 2007).

53.  Juan Hernández Jr, Scribal Habits and Theological Influences in the Apocalypse. The Singular Readings of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi (WUNT 2.218. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006).

54.  James R. Royse, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri (NTTSD 36. Leiden: Brill, 2008).

55.  See also Peter M. Head, "The Habits of New Testament Copyists. Singular Readings in the Early Fragmentary Papyri of John," Bib 85.3 (2004): 399–408.

56.  E.C. Colwell, "Scribal Habits in Early Papyri: A Study in the Corruption of the Text," in The Bible in Modern Scholarship ed. J. Philip Hyatt (Nashville TN: Abingdon, 1965), 372–3.

57.  Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (New York & Oxford: OUP, 1993); see also Wayne C. Kannaday, Apologetic Discourse and the Scribal Tradition. (SBLTCS 5. Atlanta GA: SBL, 2004).

58.  On this, see especially Ulrich Schmid, "Scribes and Variants – Sociology and Typology" in Textual Variation ed. Houghton and Parker, 1–23, and other papers in the same volume; Michael W. Holmes, Text of P46: Evidence of the Earliest 'Commentary' on Romans?" in New Testament Manuscripts ed. Kraus and Nicklas, 189–206.

Certainly, Hernández (2006), Jongkind (2007), and Royse (2008) have gathered and analyzed a vast amount of detailed data from the papyri, and these three works stand out especially high above their contemporaries,  and must be considered highly recommended reading.    It is hard to see however, what value Bart Ehrman's work can be granted, given his crippling atheistic bias in regard to the Bible text,  - or what little there is remaining that can be milked out of Colwell's acknowledged pioneering (pre 1965), but now hopelessly out of date study.   

Better choices for new readers in this field would be probably be Zuntz' study on the Epistles, Sturz' foundational work on The Byzantine text-type, and Dr. Maurice Robinson's valuable article on the same topic.   In regard to key passages of the NT relevant to Textual Criticism, the work of James Snapp Jr. on The Ending of Mark must be considered essential reading to those wishing to avoid confusion and the inevitable disinformation now rampant in the current literature on T.C.

Houghton also notes the findings of Schmidt and Holmes, regarding the unlikelihood of coincidental but identical readings by independent copyists.  But this can be very misleading, as a large number of significant cases of homoeoteleuton involve extensive segments of duplicate strings of letters, allowing sometimes hundreds of different line alignments and 'situations' which would generate identical outcome-texts even though the scribes skipped at different places. (See many of our posts here illustrating this).

click to enlarge

Nazaroo

1st Jn 2:23 and 3:1 - early Byzantine h.t.?

We have been graced with a recent clarification of Dr. Maurice Robinson's position on two possible h.t. cases, due to some discussion on TC-Alt list.
 As a result of an initial communication, Mr. Scrivener had indicated Dr. Robinson's position as follows:

"Dr. Robinson has also rejected 'Byzantine homoeoteleuton errors' as an explanation for key shorter Byzantine readings. Collation data and
transmissional factors have convinced him for instance that longer non-Byzantine readings like 1st Jn 2:23 and 3:1 are certainly false."

In a second  communication with Mr. Scrivener, Dr. Robinson has stated thus:

"Without proper disclaimers, it becomes quite unwarranted to cite what might be only a previous exploratory hypothesis in a manner that confuses such with the more settled conclusions based on later research and published as such.
This particularly applies to ...the previously hypothesized possibility -- and it never was more than such that was being explored -- regarding the likelihood of presumed "primitive Byzantine error" (particularly supposedly caused by homoeoteleuton, as with 1st Jn 2:23 and 3:1). For reasons now considered transmissionally impossible (in view of collation-based data), such earlier speculations have been rendered invalid and the concept totally abandoned."

It seems then, that these two Variation Units have been disqualified as possible h.t. errors by the data found in the extant MSS.   Dr. Robinson is convinced that the variants could not have arisen due to an initial h.t. error, and suggests that a reconstruction of the textual history for these variants (and MSS) based on such an idea is impossible and/or would be extremely implausible.

Obviously if true, the claim would have important ramifications for other instances of possible h.t. error.  The first thing to examine then, is the textual data, to get a sense of why Dr. Robinson has taken his position:

1st John 2:22-24 including 2:23b, (TR, Scrivener's text):

                                                 22 τις εστιν ο ψευστης
ει μη ο αρνουμενος οτι ιησους ουκ εστιν
O Xριστοσ ουτος εστιν ο αντιχριστος ο αρ-
νουμενος  τον πατερα και τον υιον 23 πας ο
αρνουμενος τον υιον ουδε τον πατερα εχει

ο ομολογων τον υιον  και  τον πατερα εχει

24 υμεις ουν ο ηκουσατε απ αρχης εν υμιν
μενετω εαν εν υμιν μεινη ο απ αρχης ηκου-
σατε και υμεις εν τω υιω και εν τω πατρι 
μενειτε ...

Clearly the potential for h.t. errors here is incredibly strong, if the longer text were original.  The UBS2/4 apparatus here is non-existent, so we have to turn to Tischendorf's 8th  to pick up something of the MS spread:

---

ο ομολογων τ. υι. και τ. πατ. εχει according to אABC(4th-5th cent.) P(9th cent.) al35 fere cat vg (et.  harl ) cop (in sah lacuna est, adest verovox extrema τον πατερα) syr-utr arm aeth Or-1,301 and 4,281,282 Eus-ps22 Cyr-hr115  Cyr-ioh797 Thphyl; item ο (Melet Cyr-ose add δε)
ο ομολογων τ. υι. και τ. πατ. ομολογει (Cyr-bis ομολ και τ. πατ.) Melet ap Epiph-868 Cyr-ioh924 and ose57; item qui (m add autem) confitetur filium, et filium et patrem (Leif et pa. et. fil.) habet m6 Cyp-265,296 Leif-220 Hil-907 etc. ..
Stephen (= Gb Sz) omits according to K (9th cent.) L (9th cent.) al plu (9 ap Scri, 7 ap Mtthaei) Oec

---

Hodges/Farstad (Maj. text 2nd ed. 1985) simply list the omission as Ε vs. M, avoiding the full Gothic Siglum, and acknowledging that the Byzantine MSS are also split on this reading, although the majority of them appear to omit the verses.  They follow the omission however, since they are publishing the Majority text.

Here it looks like almost all the early Uncial support goes to the inclusion.  This is not a mere Aleph/B phenomenon then, but a problem that would seem to  require better early MS support if we are to take the omission itself as genuine.

(to be continued)