CSNTM Text & Manuscript Conference

“The Last Battle”: Competing Approaches to Punctuation and Textual Structure in ECM Revelation, UBS6/NA29, and the Earliest Greek NT Manuscripts

The Curious Case of Κυριος: Ειπεν κυριος as the Preferred Reading in the Citation of Psalm 110:1 in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts and Its Exegetical Significance

The Impact of the ECM on Theology: Some Notes from a Catholic Perspective

Two Ships Sailing Toward Byzantium: How Much do the ECM and THGNT Sail Towards the Byzantine Text?

The editors of the UBS3/4 and NA26/27 editions had a strong bias against the Byzantine text that stemmed from Westcott & Hort’s antipathy towards the Textus Receptus and what they called the ‘Syrian’ text. This anti-Byzantine bias is seen in Bruce Metzger who says: “readings that are supported by only Koine or Byzantine witnesses (Hort’s Syrian group) may be set aside as almost certainly secondary. The reason that one is justified in discarding the Koine is that it is a later text type, formed on the basis of earlier types” (Text of the New Testament, 4th ed., 306).

However, the first, second, and third editions of Metzger’s The Text of the New Testament gave a different rationale for discarding the Byzantine text: “The reason that justifies one in discarding the Koine type of text is that it is based on the recension prepared near the close of the third century by Lucian of Antioch, or some of his associates, who deliberately combined elements from earlier types of text” (p. 212 in all three editions). The so-called Lucianic recension was a prime reason that the UBS3/4 and NA26/27 editors strongly rejected the Byzantine text-type.

The editors of the Editio Critica Maior (ECM) have rejected the notion of a Lucianic recension in favor of Klaus Wachtel’s theory that the Byzantine text was a gradual development. Wachtel further critiques the earlier editors: “The text of NA26/UBS3 was the result of twentieth century textual criticism, which brought about an anti-Byzantine bias as a bi-product of Westcott/Hort’s great achievement of overcoming the Textus Receptus. The anti-Byzantine bias was enforced by the concomitant overrating of the so-called Alexandrian witnesses” (ECM Mark, vol. III, 1).

In contrast, the ECM editors are more open to adopting Byzantine readings: “In places where we suspect the anti-Byzantine bias was at work … we are able to improve the work of our predecessors by seriously assessing the quality of the majority reading” (ECM Mark, vol. III, 1).

The Tyndale House Greek New Testament (THGNT) published in 2017 also adopts a softer stance towards the Byzantine text. Jongkind and the THGNT editors reject the Byzantine priority approach but are not against the Byzantine text as a whole. Their rejection of the Byzantine priority approach “serves as an argument why variants need to be approached on a case-by-case basis, the eclectic method, rather than preferring a particular text wholesale. Within the eclectic method, the Byzantine text deserves a voice, but not a deciding one” (from feedback on my dissertation, emphasis added).

Thus, both the THGNT and ECM claim to adopt a softer approach towards the Byzantine text and a willingness to give the Byzantine text a fair hearing. But – how much does this theoretical softening towards the Byzantine text work itself out in practice?

My paper will answer this question both quantitatively (how many times do the THGNT and ECM move towards the Byzantine text, when compared to NA27?) and qualitatively (how significant are these changes?). What I will show is that – quantitatively, both the THGNT and ECM do move towards the Byzantine text in hundreds of instances. But when judged qualitatively, the THGNT adopts more significant Byzantine readings than the ECM does.

Exegetical Reflections on the ECM Text of Galatians

Apostolus Christinopolitanus Between Institutions and Cultures

Viewing the ECM text of Acts Through the Lens of the Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament Tradition

As with its predecessors, Hugh Houghton’s recently published Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament aims to “focus on the most important variants for translation and exegesis” (32*).  For Acts (along with Mark, the Catholic Epistles, and Revelation), the commentary focuses on the reconstructed “initial text” of the Editio Critica Maior (ECM), which is now published as part of the sixth edition of the UBS Greek text. The ECM text of Acts differs from the UBS5 in fifty-two passages (with an additional 155 variant units designated as “split readings”). Houghton’s new Textual Commentary, however, discusses only twelve of these fifty-two variants. One could account for these omissions by arguing that the other forty changes are not important for “translation and exegesis.” After all, Houghton and the committee omit from Metzger’s second edition nearly 300 variant units in Acts 1-14 alone, presumably based in part on the conclusion that they were not important for interpretation. Houghton’s Textual Commentary, however, also retains/adds variants that do not appear to be consequential for translation and/or exegesis (e.g. Acts 2:31 on pg. 283).

Klaus Wachtel’s ECM Textual Commentary is not readily accessible (by cost and distribution) to many of those who teach (or preach) the book of Acts. Thus, in our opinion, the readership of Houghton’s Textual Commentary would have been better served if the rationale for the other forty changes had been discussed in this more readily available format, especially in instances where the UBS6 committee apparently disagrees with the ECM’s proposed reading (e.g. Acts 13:33 on pg. 32*). In this paper, we examine some of the more significant changes in the ECM of Acts for translation and interpretation through the lens of the Textual Commentary tradition.

The CBGM: Were We Better off Without It?

The Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) serves as the methodological backbone of the Editio Critica Maior (ECM). It enables editors, through philological analysis, to assess genealogical relationships among variant readings and their witnesses, thereby providing a basis for reconstructing the initial text. Despite its increasing prominence, the CBGM has often been misunderstood. Critics have described it as unnecessarily convoluted, as replacing traditional criteria wholesale, as inherently biased, or as generating textual decisions without human input. Such perceptions have fostered skepticism regarding its merits and pessimism about its contribution to editorial decision-making in the ECM.

Taking these criticisms seriously, this presentation evaluates both the benefits and limitations of the CBGM, drawing on insights from the nearly thirty-year history of ECM publications. By highlighting examples from these editions, I will assess whether the CBGM—especially its core concept of genealogical coherence—constitutes a significant innovation within the field of New Testament textual criticism when compared with earlier approaches.

After a brief historical overview of how variant readings were evaluated prior to the CBGM, I will situate genealogical coherence within the larger tradition of text-critical criteria, clarifying its function as a criterion in practice. I will analyze passages in ECM volumes where genealogical coherence proved decisive, as well as cases where its impact was limited. The presentation ultimately aims to clarify the role of the CBGM in the production of the ECM volumes, address persistent misunderstandings, and provide greater transparency into the editorial process, inviting critical reflection on whether the method constitutes a genuine advancement to the field.

This paper examines pronominal variation in the manuscript tradition of 1 Peter as a test case for assessing how the Editio Critica Maior (ECM) reshapes the relationship between textual criticism, exegesis, and translation. Focusing on alternations between first- and second-person plural pronouns (e.g., ἡμεῖς/ὑμεῖς), the study addresses a longstanding debate: whether such variants arose primarily from accidental phonological confusion or from intentional scribal engagement with the text’s theological and ecclesial claims.

Drawing on the extensive witness data preserved in the ECM, the paper advances a mixed explanatory model. While acknowledging that some pronominal variants are best explained as mechanical copying errors—especially where changes result in grammatical or contextual incoherence—the study demonstrates that a significant subset of variants exhibits clear patterns inconsistent with random error. Through quantitative analysis of over 150,000 manuscript attestations across multiple New Testament corpora, the paper identifies statistically significant directionality (a preference for shifts from “you” to “we”), genre sensitivity (higher rates in epistolary literature), and clustering at passages of theological or soteriological importance. These features point toward scribal intervention shaped by communal identification and theological inclusivity.

Applied specifically to 1 Peter, the analysis shows that pronominal variation is neither widespread nor chaotic, but concentrated in rhetorically charged contexts such as Christ’s suffering, communal identity, and participation in salvation. These variants illuminate how early scribes negotiated the boundary between the letter’s original addressees and the ongoing life of the church. The paper argues that the ECM should therefore be read not only as a repository of textual decisions but as an analytical instrument that makes visible the interpretive history embedded in transmission itself. Such findings have direct implications for exegesis, translation, and theological reflection, encouraging interpreters to read 1 Peter—and the New Testament more broadly—with the scribes as active participants in the text’s reception history.

New Testament Graeco-Latin Manuscripts and the Editio Critica Maior: Challenges and Perspectives 

Greek–Latin bilingual manuscripts of the New Testament represent a still underexplored group within the broader textual tradition. Their inclusion in the ECM poses specific challenges for integrating these witnesses, as the classical selection criteria for Greek manuscripts do not account for their particular nature. For example, GA 629 and 79 retain texts shaped by Latin Vorlagen that cause several Greek unique readings. Another aspect worth considering is the textual character of these bilingual codices: scholars have long associated the so-called “Western” readings with GA 05 and 06. This paper offers a comprehensive overview of New Testament Greek-Latin bilingual manuscripts, focusing on those included in the ECM, highlighting their role in the reconstruction of the Greek New Testament text. By also exploring the context of production of these manuscripts, I will reflect on new methodological possibilities for their inclusion in New Testament critical editions.