I.
Introduction
What is the CBGM? It is a new approach in text criticism,
which makes use of sophisticated computer technology and databases to provide
study and analysis of witnesses to the NT and their relationship to each other,
based on comparison of these witnesses and their variants. The method of was
developed by Gerd Mink and other scholars at the Institute for New Testament
Research at the University of Muenster, Germany. It has been used in the
ongoing publication of the Editio Critica
Maior (ECM, or “Greater Critical Edition”), a major revision of the modern
critical text, meant eventually to update and replace the text which now
underlies the text in the popular handbooks (the most recent editions of which
are the NA28 and the UBS Fifth editions). The Catholic Epistles of the ECM were
published in 1997 and revised in 2013. Volumes on Acts and John, the latter in
cooperation with the “International Greek New Testament Project”, are in
preparation and the entire ECM NT is projected to be completed by 2030.
The ECM text of the Catholic Epistles was used in the most
recent handbook editions: NA28 (2012) and UBS5 (2013). This is explained in
the introduction to each work (see NA28, pp. 48-51; UBS5, “Preface”).
We can point to at least three significant changes:
1.
The
text is altered in the Catholic Epistles in 33 (34?) places. They are listed in
the NA28 pp. 50-51.
Most of these changes are minor but
there are two significant changes, at Jude 5 (reading “Jesus” rather than
“Lord”) and 2 Peter 3:10 (inclusion of the conjecture “not”).
2.
Rather
than brackets, the text uses diamonds for disputed passages. Gurry on the
Reformed Forum podcast: “The editors formally refrain from any judgment on
which reading is original.” Gurry reports there are about 30 brackets in NA 27
and about 40 diamonds in NA28. So, there is “slightly more uncertainty” about
the text.
3.
Rather
than use the Gothic “M” for the Majority or Byzantine text, the ECM/NA28/UBS5
uses the designation “Byz” for Majority or Byzantine readings.
II.
Some Positive Developments
1.
The
CBGM rejects the traditional text-types
Gurry: “The most significant, and for that reason,
controversial [changes ushered in by the CBGM] is that it has convinced the
editors of NA28/UBS5 to abandon the longstanding notion of manuscript
text-types. This shift alone could be momentous for the discipline” (p. 685).
The abandonment of text-types comes from the CBGM method’s
emphasis on “texts” (the actual words) rather than “manuscripts” (physical
copies or artifacts that contain the words).
Why is this positive? It unravels the presumption, held since
Westcott and Hort, of the superiority of the so-called Alexandrian text.
2.
The
CBGM has resulted in “renewed appreciation for the Byzantine text” (Gurry, p.
685).
Up front: If text-types are rejected why are we even talking
about a “Byzantine text”? Gurry explains: “We should note that the editors make
an exception to their rejection of text-types with regard to the Byzantine
text” (p. 685, n. 24).
Gurry: The CBGM has resulted in “a renewed appreciation for the
so-called Byzantine text which dominates the Greek NT manuscripts from the
ninth century and beyond. The text form has generally been disparaged by NT
critics as being late and unreliable…. But the CBGM for the Catholic Epistles
shows that a number of Byzantine witnesses are, in fact, very close to the
editor’s own reconstructed text” (p. 685).
As a result, about a third of the changes in the NA28/UBS5 are
in support of Byzantine readings over readings in witnesses like p72, Alpeh, A,
B, and C (p. 685).
III.
Problems with the CBGM
1. The use of computer/digital technology to compare witnesses and variants
does not preclude human subjectivity in text criticism.
Klaus Wachtel: “The CBGM is a method that helps to control
the subjective element in text criticism, but it is clear that other scholars
starting from different premises will come to different conclusions” (Editing the Bible, p. 138).
Gurry: “One of the most frequent issues with the CBGM is
understanding exactly how much influence it has had on the editors’ text
critical judgments. Unfortunately, this question is not one that can be
answered by a simple description of the method itself. That is because the
results provided by the CBGM, like all text critical data, have to be weighed
and interpreted by a human” (p. 686).
2. The CBGM, like the rest of modern text criticism, is not exempt from the
charge of “circular reasoning.”
The problem is that scholars often tend to reach outcomes
based on their initial presuppositions. So, Westcott and Hort favored the
uncials Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as the basis of the “neutral text.” Thus, any
reading that agreed with these mss. they designated as authentic and original,
while any reading that deviated from them they designated as inauthentic and
spurious.
Though CBGM has abandoned the traditional text families, the
scholars using the method have presuppositions.
In his insightful booklet Logical
Criticisms of Textual Criticism, philosopher Gordon Clark points out some
of the problems and inconsistencies with the reasoning used in modern text
criticism, noting “much of textual criticism cannot claim immunity from logical
analysis” (p. 11).
3. The CBGM continues the “restorationist” approach to the text of the NT,
even though it has abandoned as untenable any possibility of recovering the
original text.
It seeks to go back as far as it can to the “Initial text”
and to trace the historical development of the text. The method results in
giving credence to conjectural emendation (cf. 2 Peter 3:10). It does not have
as its goal the achieving a fixed, standard or stable text, which can be used
as a firm basis for confessional Christianity.
This method, thus far, has only been applied to the catholic
epistles. How will it be applied to the rest of the NT? Will it include more
conjectural emendations like that in 2 Peter 3:10?
Will vernacular translation begin to adapt these reading?
Some translations, like the ESV and the CSB (Christian Standard Bible) have
already adopted “Jesus” rather than “Lord’ at Jude 5. Will the modern critical text
of 2 Peter 3:10 be adopted in future translations?
4. The esoteric CBGM method is being used by only a very small number of
scholars, primarily in one German academic institute.
The text of the Bible has been taken out of the hands of the
church and placed in the hands of the academy.
As Solomon said, “of making many books there is no end” (Ecc
12:12). We might paraphrase, “of making many editions of the new and improved
modern critical text” there is no end.
Resources:
