Image: Beza Street, Geneva, Switzerland
I just posted WM 117: Conjectural Emendation, White, Beza, and Rev 16:5 (listen here). My notes are below:
Introduction:
I wanted to do a follow up to recent discussion in WMs
114
and 115 spurred by
comments made by JW in his “lecture” on the
TR, aka twitter exchange review on Revelation 16:5 and the supposed
conjecture made there by T. Beza in his 1598 Greek text.
I noted I was struck by JW’s statement that he
rejected any conjectural emendations in the NT. Around the 52:34 mark he says:
I
reject all conjectural emendations. I do not believer there is any need for
conjectural emendations whatsoever…. CBGM has introduced conjectural
emendations. I reject it.
This seemed to me to be inconsistent, since it is
essential and foundational to the methodological approach of modern text
criticism, based as it is on the assumption that the text of Scripture has been
hopelessly corrupted in the course of its transmission and now must be
reconstructed by modern scholars. See the classic subtitle of Metzger’s classic
The Text of the New Testament: Its
Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (first edition, 1968).
Part
One: Survey of comments on conjectural emendation in modern text critical works:
B.
F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, Introduction
to the New Testament Greek in the Original (1882; Hendricksen reprint,
1988):
From
Part II The Methods of Textual Criticism (pp. 19-72); ,Section VI Criticism as
Dealing with Errors Antecedent to Existing Texts (pp. 66-72; paragraphs 85-95):
Section VI is broken into
two Parts: Part A 85-92 Primitive errors; Part B 93-95 Removal of primitive
errors by conjecture:
“The utmost result that
can be obtained under this condition [i.e., given the existence of textual
variants] is the discovery of what is relatively original: whether the readings
thus relatively original were also the readings of the autograph is another
question which can never be answered in the affirmative with absolute decision
except where the autograph itself is extant, but which admits of approximate
answers varying enormously in certainty according to the nature of the
documentary evidence for the text generally” (p. 66, par. 85).
“In discussing the
corruption of texts antecedent to extant documents, the forms in which it
presents itself, and the nature of the critical process by which it is
affirmed, we have reserved till last a brief notice of the critical process
which endeavors to remedy it, that is, Conjectural Emendation…. The evidence of
corruption is often irresistible, imposing on an editor the duty of indicating
the presumed unsoundness of the text, although he may be wholly unable to
propose any endurable way of correcting it, or have to offer only suggestions
in which he can place full confidence” (p. 71, par. 93).
“The place of Conjectural
Emendation in the textual criticism of the New Testament is however so
inconsiderable that we should have hesitated to say even this much about it…..”
(p. 72, par. 95).
From
Part III Application of Principles of Criticism to the Text of the New
Testament (pp. 73-287); Chapter IV Substantial Integrity of the Purest
Transmitted Text (pp. 271-287, paragraphs 356-374):
“The way has now been
cleared for the final question,—Is it or is it not reasonable to expect that in
any considerable number of cases the true reading has now perished? Have we a
right to assume that the true reading always exists somewhere among existing
documents? The question is often foreclosed on one or both of two grounds which
in our judgment are quite irrelevant. First, some think it incredible that any
true words of Scripture have perished. In reply it is a sufficient argumentum ad
hominem to point to the existence of various readings, forming part of the
various texts accepted for long ages, and the frequent difficulty of deciding
between them, even though we say nothing of difficulties of interpretation: on
any view many important churches for long ages have had only an approximately
pure New Testament, so that we have no right to treat it as antecedently
incredible that only an approximately pure New Testament should be attainable
now, or even in all future time. For ourselves we dare not introduce
considerations which could not reasonably be applied to other ancient texts,
supposing them to have documentary attestation of equal amount, variety, and
antiquity. Secondly, the folly and frivolity of once popular conjectures have
led to a wholesome reaction against looking beyond documentary tradition….”
(pp. 276-277; par. 361).
“It will not be out of
place to add here a distinct expression of our belief that even among the
numerous unquestionably spurious readings of the New Testament there are no
signs of deliberate falsification of the text for dogmatic purposes” (p. 282;
par. 369).
“The text of this edition
of course makes no pretension to be more than an approximation of the purest
text that might be formed from existing materials.” (p. 284; par. 371).
“There is no royal road
to the ascertainment of the true texts of ancient writings” (p. 286; par. 373).
Benjamin
B. Warfield, An Introduction to the Textual
Criticism of the New Testament, Third Edition (New York: Thomas Whittaker,
1886):
From
Chapter Three: The Praxis of Criticism (pp. 182-201):
“Before we close our
discussion of the praxis of criticism, therefore, we must explicitly recognize
the legitimacy and duty of examining the text of the whole New Testament with
the most scrupulous care, with a view to discovering whether its transmission
has been perfect; and of appealing to internal evidence to suggest and settle
for us the true text in all cases of variation where the evidence is hopelessly
in conflict, and in all cases where, the absence of variation, an examination
of the text has resulted in leading us to suspect corruption…. The technical name given to this extension of
criticism is ‘conjectural emendation,’ which is meant to describe it as a
process which suggests the emendation which the text is shown either by the
presence of irreconcilable variations or by internal considerations to need,
from the conjecture of the mind, working on internal hints… (p. 207; see pp.
207-210).
Bruce
Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of
the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Fourth
Edition (Oxford University Press, 1964, 1968, 1992, 2005):
From
Chapter Six “Modern Methods of Textual Criticism” (205-249):
“The method of textual
criticism that has been generally practiced by editors of classical Greek and
Latin texts involves two main processes, recension and emendation. Recension is the selection, after
examination of all available material, of the most trustworthy evidence on
which to base a text. Emendation is
the attempt to eliminate the errors that are found even in the best manuscripts”
(205).
An
extended discussion of “Conjectural Emendation” is found on pp. 226-231:
“The classical method of
textual criticism regularly involves, as was mentioned at the beginning of this
chapter, the exercise of conjectural emendation. If the only reading, or each
of several variant readings, that the document supply is impossible or incomprehensible,
the editor’s only remaining resource is to conjecture what the original reading
must have been” (226-227).
“In their edition of the
Greek New Testament, Westcott and Hort marked with obeli about 60 passages that
they (or one of them) suspected involve a “primitive error,” that is an error
older than the extant witnesses, for the removal of which one is confined to
conjectural emendation” (229).
“One must admit the
theoretical legitimacy of applying to the New Testament a process that has so
often been found essential in the restoration of the right text in classical
authors. But the amount of evidence for the text of the New Testament, whether
derived from manuscripts, early versions, or patristic quotations, is so much
greater than that available for any ancient classical author that the necessity
of resorting to emendation is reduced to the smallest dimensions” (230).
Howard
Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament
Textual Criticism, Revised Edition (1964, 1995):
“If examining the
available MSS (manuscripts) fails to indicate satisfactorily the original text
of a certain word or phrase, a scholar may resort to an ‘educated guess’ known
as a conjectural emendation. In the case of literature where there are only a
few extant MSS this procedure may sometimes be necessary. When a larger number
of MSS are available, as in the case of the New Testament, conjecture is less
often, if ever, necessary, and tends to become what Kenyon called, ‘a process
precarious in the extreme, and seldom allowing anyone but the guesser to feel
confidence in the truth of its results’” (5).
Part
Two: Historical questions about pre-modern use of conjectural emendations:
Clearly, conjectural
emendation is a standard aspect of modern text criticism as it has been
typically practiced.
My question, however, is
when the making of conjectural emendations, as practiced, by modern text
critics, became an accepted part of text criticism. Was this something that
would have been done in pre-modern era? I recently ran across a possible example
of a conjecture in Calvin’s commentary on John 18:1 where he questions what the
proper article should be for the noun kedrōn.
Would Beza have ventured to make a pure conjecture?
What
does Erasmus tell us?
To get a sense of the
importance of having a Greek manuscript to support a reading, and thus not
having to rely on a bare conjecture, recall the controversy over Erasmus’s
omission of the CJ in the first two editions of his TR (1516, 1519). Erasmus
(1466-1536) was criticized for this omission by the Protestant Edward Lee of
England and the RC Jacobus Stunica of Spain. Why had Erasmus not included it in
those early edition? Because it did not appear in the Greek manuscripts he
consulted in preparing them. Grantley McDonald observes, “Had he found one
Greek manuscript with the comma, he certainly would have added the missing
phrase from that one textual witness, but since that had not happened, he had
no choice, but to indicate that the comma was absent from the Greek manuscripts
available to him” (Biblical Criticism in
Early Modern Europe, 19). NB: This is not to affirm the legendary “rash
wager” anecdote! The point is to say that Erasmus wanted to base his text on an
extant Greek manuscript, and he eventually restored the CJ in the third edition
of his TR (1522) when he was satisfied that he had found it.
What
did Beza really say about Revelation 16:5?
The question now is what
would have been the scholarly approach of Theodore Beza (1519-1605)? Would he
have held a position closer to Erasmus (Greek ms. needed to support text) or
Westcott & Hort (pure conjectural emendation justified in rare and extreme
cases)?
Modern writers seem to
assume that Beza made a pure conjectural emendation at Revelation 16:5 in
preferring the reading ho esomenos,
rather than ho hosios. It is so
identified by Hills in The King James Version Defended (208).
Let’s return, however, to
his Latin notes on Revelation 16:5 in his 1598 NT, and to this key sentence:
How is it be translated? What did Beza mean?
James White, like Hills, takes the reference
as referring to a conjectural emendation. He quotes part of the sentence
untranslated:
“So why does the KJV read ‘and shalt be’?
Because John Calvin’s successor at Geneva, Theodore Beza, conjectured that
[sic] the original reading differently. To use his words, ‘ex vetusto bonae fidei
manuscripto codice restitui.’ Beza believed that there was sufficient
similarity between the Greek terms hosios and esomenos (the future form, ‘shall
be’) to allow him to make the change to harmonize the text with other such
language in Revelation. But he had no manuscript evidence in support of his
conjecture” (The King James Only Controversy, 2009: 237).
“And so without doubting the genuine writing
in this ancient manuscript, I faithfully restored in the good book what was
certainly there, ‘ο εσομενος.”
Is this translation correct? It does not
appear so to me. Here again is the sentence and a breakdown of the words:
Itaque ambigere non possum quin germana sit scriptura quam ex vetusto
bonae fidei manuscripto codice restitui, nempe ο εσομενος.
Translation notes:
Itaque: adverb: therefore
Ambigere: verb, present active infinitive,
from ambigo: to doubt
Non possum: negative particle + verb, present
active indicative, first person, singular, possum: I am not able
Quin: combination of the pronoun qui and the
negative suffix ne: quine; in subordinate clauses with subjunctive verb and
after negative verbs of doubting: “but that”
Germana: adjective, nominative feminine
singular, modifying scriptura
Sit: verb, present active subjunctive, third
person singular, from esse: It should be
Scriptura: noun, nominative feminine
singular, from scriptura: writing, piece of writing, or “reading”
Quam: comparative adverb: as
Ex: preposition: out of, takes object in the ablative
case
Vetusto: adj., masculine ablative singular,
vetustus, -a, -um, here modifying codice: ancient
Bonae: adjective, genitive feminine singular,
bonus, -a, -um, here modifying fidei: good
Fidei: noun, genitive feminine singular,
fides, fidei: trust
Manuscripto: adjective, masculine ablative singular,
manuscriptus, -a, -um, modifying codice: manuscript or hand-written
Codice: noun, masculine ablative singular,
object of the preposition ex: codex or book
Restitui: Verb, Perfect Active Indicative,
first person singular, from restituo: I restore
Nempe: adverb: truly, certainly, to be sure
So, here is the Latin again and a
translation:
Itaque ambigere non possum quin germana sit scriptura quam ex vetusto
bonae fidei manuscripto codice restitui, nempe ο εσομενος.
“Therefore, I am not able to doubt but that the
true reading should be as I have restored it from an ancient manuscript
[hand-written] codex of good faith, truly ο εσομενος.”
The implication: Beza did not simply make a pure
conjecture, but he had taken this reading ex vetusto bonae fidei manuscripto
codice, “from an ancient manuscript [hand-written Greek] codex.” What was
this codex? We do not know, but this challenges the whole notion that Beza’s
text at Revelation 16:5 was merely a hypothetical conjecture.
Conclusion:
First, conjectural emendation is a necessary
aspect of the reconstructionist modern historical critical method. It is based
on the notion that the “true text” is irretrievably lost and can, therefore, at
points, only be hypothetically approximated. To affirm the use of that method
and then to reject the use of such conjectures is inconsistent.
Second, based on Beza’s notes, a question
might be raised as to whether his reading at Revelation 16:5 was, in fact, a
true conjectural emendation.
JTR
