WM 115: Review: Beza and Revelation 16:5

I have uploaded WM 115: Review: "Beza and Revelation 16:5" (Listen here). This episode has three parts: (1) Introduction; (2) A review of the online article "Beza and Revelation 16:5"; and (3) Three Final Thoughts/Reflections.

Introduction:

In WM 114 I offered ten observations on a recent lecture from apologist JW on “Text Criticism and the TR” which ended up being a review of a twitter exchange between JW and someone going under the name “Textus Receptus” regarding the text of Revelation 16:5, which is one of just a few places where there is significant divided reading in the printed editions of the TR. Beza’s 1598 TR reads “which art, and wast, and shalt be” (so rendered in the KJV), whereas earlier editions like Erasmus’ 1516 TR reads “which art, and wast,…and holy” (as in Tyndale, Geneva Bible, etc.).

Gathering from what I heard by email and text this was a much-discussed topic last week.

I discovered a couple things:

First: The twitter disputant with JW is a fellow from Australia named Nick Sayers.

Second: Nick has written an over 80-page booklet titled Revelation 16:5 and the Triadic Declaration in response to JW’s views on Revelation 16:5, which provides some background to the twitter exchange.

Third: One of Nick’s key sources for his booklet is an online article on the website kjvtoday.com titled “Beza and Revelation 16:5” (about 16 pages in length in a printer friendly version).

So, I thought it would be helpful to read this shorter article first and offer a review of and some reflections upon it.

This is a very well written and thoughtful article—hardly the mad ravings of the straw-man KJV Onlyist—though I do wish it had a name, date, and some better documentation, at points, of sources cited.

The article makes a generally reasonable and compelling argument as to why Beza’s reading at Revelation 16:5 should be taken seriously and not simply discarded or rejected without critical examination (and certainly not villainized, as JW does). There are also, however, some weaker and less compelling arguments within the article.

Review of online article: “Beza and Revelation 16:5”:

Here is a review of some of what I see as the stronger and weaker points made within the article:

First: Nice introductory statement:

“Since there is no existing manuscript with Beza's reading, critics dismiss Beza's reading as an unwarranted conjectural emendation.  However, an in-depth study of the issue will reveal enough evidence to validate Beza's conjectural emendation.”

Second: It provides an English translation of Beza’s footnote, but does not provide a transliteration of the original Latin note or identify the translator (the author? His credentials for making the translation?).

One of the things I would be most interested to know is whether Beza made a pure conjectural emendation or if he had some manuscript evidence to support this reading.

The article observes: “Although Beza is silent, he could have been influenced in making his change based on a minority Latin textual variant.  There are two Latin commentaries with readings of Revelation 16:5 which agree with Beza in referring to the future aspect of God.”

These are later identified as Beatus of Liebana (c. 8^th century) and Haimo Halberstadensis (9^th century).

Third: It provides references to two Church Fathers who made use of the Greek term ho esomenos in reference to God: Clement of Alexandria (third century), The Stromata, V.6; and Gregory of Nyssa (fourth century), On the Baptism of Christ (no reference notion given).

I agree that this information is by no means a “red herring.”

Fourth:  It rightly stresses the fact that the text of Revelation was perhaps the most corrupted of the NT books through the transmission process, and this has ramifications that would perhaps argue in favor of emendation [Though I’d still rather leave it as an open question as to whether Beza’s emendation was a “pure” conjecture].

 Opening statement here: “Conjectural emendations are justified if we know that the text we are dealing with has a history of extensive and early corruption. The book of Revelation is such a text… We trust that God was able to preserve the true reading of Revelation 16:5 until the advent of the printing press during the Reformation.”

Fifth: A good point was made related to a scribal error in p47 at Revelation 15:4 omitting the word “holy”: “If there is evidence of a scribal error involving "οσιος" at Revelation 15:4, it seems reasonable to suspect a scribal error involving the same word just one chapter later at Revelation 16:5.”

Sixth: Excellent point made about the parallel omission of kai ho erchomenos in the modern critical or Majority texts at Revelation 11:17, but, in this case, there is supporting Greek evidence for the TR reading.

Seventh: The article rightly points out the paucity of extant early mss. evidence for Revelation. It states that there are only 4 ms. of Rev 16:4 from before the tenth century and that p47 is the only papyrus ms. to include Rev 16:5.

I made a similar point in WM 114 in observation # 8 citing, Tobias Niklas, “The Early Text of Revelation” in Charles E. Hill & Michael J. Kruger, Eds., The Early Text of the New Testament (Oxford, 2012): 225-238.

I think the article errs, however, in suggesting a degenerating chain from

p47 kai hosios

to Sinaiticus ho hosios

to Alexandrinus hosios

This is speculative and assumes without proof a connection between these three mss. These changes are more likely to have evolved independently.

Eighth: The article provides four theories for how Revelation 16:5 might have become corrupted.

Theory 1: John wrote ho esomenos in nomen sacrum from.

Theory 2: Bad conditions gave rise to corruption.

Theory 3: A scribe harmonized 16:5 with 11:17.

Theory 4: A Hebraist imposed Hebraic style onto the text.

Of these I find Theories 2 and 3 to be credible, and Theories 1 and 4 to be suspect.

Theory 1 is highly speculative. Examples:

“Perhaps the Apostle John himself wrote the words that refer to God in "κυριε ει ο ων και ο ην και ο εσομενος" (O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be) in an abbreviated nomina sacra form.”

“In nomen sacrum form, ‘ο εσομενος’ might be abbreviated as OЄC.”

The problem: This seems highly speculative to me. Just note how many times the words “may” “perhaps” or “might” is used by the article’s author. This is not one of the usual nomina sacra and there are no extant examples of it (see James Snapp’s online article). The argument for this in Sinaiticus without overlining seems strained to me.

Theory 4 based on the suggestion that Jewish readers would have taken the future participle as superfluous to indicating the name of God also seems strained and speculative.

Three Final Thoughts/Reflections:

First: Revelation 16:5, the Textus Receptus, and the KJV

Interpretation of Revelation 16:5 raises the question of what the standard text of the TR should be.

I think there is room in the TR camp both for those who follow the Erasmus/Tyndale reading and those who follow the Beza/KJV reading here.

I think the best reasons to accept the Beza/KJV reading at Revelation 16:5 are the following:

-The text of Revelation was corrupted in its early transmission and it is admitted by all to be difficult to reconstruct.

-p47 at least provides evidence for the conjunction kai in the earliest extant mss.

-Internal evidence in Revelation argues for a three-fold description of God as present, past, future (see Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8; and 11:17).

-The reading ho esomenos, however, argues for originality, in part, based on its uniqueness. If invented for the purposes of harmonization why would it not have read ho erchomenos, as at Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8; and 11:17?

-We do not completely understand all the evidence and reasoning of Beza and the KJV translators in choosing this reading, but we might reasonably assume they had compelling reasons to adopt it, especially since it went against the tide of respected earlier editions of the TR and, especially, English translations of it.

-One can see the inclusion of this reading in the KJV as of providential importance without arguing for the KJV as a product of special revelation (a view which would be contrary to WCF 1:8).

Second: On the most difficult to defend TR readings and the propriety of conjectures:

I think that in general we would prefer to have TR readings supported by at least some extant Greek NT mss, even if they represent a minority of mss., which may also be late mss. In addition, we would prefer to have early versional and Patristic evidence. Thankfully, we usually have this.

We should recognize, however, that the NT books which were acknowledged the latest in the canonical recognition process will provide the least sufficient and reliable extant evidence. Our most difficult texts to defend will not most generally be with the Gospels or Pauline epistles but with Acts, the Catholic Epistles, and Revelation.

This admission goes against a standard conservative evangelical apologetic which has typically stressed the great number of existing NT mss. whatever their date, content, and condition.

Finally, this raises the question of the propriety of conjectures. As the author of the article noted, this was not a problem of Bruce Metzger (see the quote in the article from The Text of the NT, 182). It is not a problem for the modern editors of the NA28 using the CBGM (see the rendering of 2 Peter 3:10). So, it is affirmed in both modern and post-modern text criticism.

This brought to my mind the modern historical-critical study of the Synoptic Gospels and the conjecture of a hypothetical reconstructed sayings source Q. Such a view is embraced by evangelical scholars like Craig A Evans, who argued for the “two source” in the recent book The Synoptic Gospel: Four Views (Baker Academic, 2016). I find it ironic that Evans’s and others’s embrace of Q (an entire hypothetical book with no external support) does not raise an eyebrow, while Beza’s supposed conjecture of perhaps few words in Revelation 16:5 is pilloried as outrageous and absurd?

This is another reason I was puzzled by JW’s stated rejection of any conjectural emendations. Does this mean he rejects Metzger? The CBGM? The NA28, 29, 30…?

Third: On Method:

First, I think the historical study of the text of the Bible (textual criticism) is vital and a discipline from which we have nothing to fear. Second, I think defenders of the TR can and should make able use of historical evidence yielded by this field of study. Given this, however, I also think we should be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking we might simply use the modern reconstructionist method to defend the TR. This is perhaps the biggest problem I perceive with the article reviewed. It does not explicitly rely on a confessional method. If you try to fight the modern “methodists” only with their method, in their eyes you will always come up short.

I thought this comment from Maurice Robinson on the Evangelical Text Criticism blog related to the discussion of my review of the THGNT (here) was perceptive:

In terms of attempting to establish the original text (or the Ausgangstext if one is so inclined), a "TR-priority" position indeed is illogical, as Mr Spock would say. 

However, within the "Confessional Bibliology" or "Ecclesiastical Text" framework, holding such a position actually appears quite reasonable to its practitioners, much in the same way that the Greek Orthodox church remains quite content to use a form of the 1904/1912 Antoniades text for all their practical purposes, even though from a more scientific text-critical standpoint (including my own) their position is equally defective.

JTR

WM 240 (b): Is Confessional Bibliology KJVO?

 

Three problems with the CB is KJVO argument:

First: It does not offer a clear definition of terms, especially "KJVO."

Second: Confessional Christianity necessarily reject KJVO, especially of the Ruckman/Riplinger variety (see WCF 1:8).

Third: There are those who affirm the CB position but who do not make primary or exclusive use of the KJV.

Links:

Iron Sharpens Iron podcasts:

Mark Ward on the June 1, 2022 and June 8, 2022 shows under the titles, “KJVO & CB: Comparison and Contrast (& the Dangers of Both).”

James White in the second hour of the June 15, 2022 program, titled “Further Reflections on KJVO & CB.”

Mark Ward at 2022 DBTS Summer Series (July 26) in two lectures under the title: “Confessional Bibliology: A Growing Movement of Reformed KJV-Onlyists.”

To find Andrej's comment on WM 114.

My quote tweet on people "pushing" the Received Text.

JTR

Audio Posted of Preface to Scrivener's Greek New Testament (1881)

Related to discussion in WM 114 about Scrivener's Greek NT being based on Beza's printed TR of 1598, I have uploaded an audio version of Scrivener's Preface to The New Testament in Greek According to the Text Followed in the Authorized Version Together with the Variations Adopted in the Revised Version (Cambridge University Press, 1881, 1949): pp. v-vi. Listen to the audio here.

JTR

WM 114: James White, the TR, and Revelation 16:5

I have uploaded WM 114: James White, the TR, and Revelation 16:5 (listen here).

My notes for this episode are below:

Preface: Several folk contacted me last Friday, pointed me in the direction of apologist James White’s recent lecture at Covenant Baptist Seminary on “Textual Criticism and the TR,” and suggested I offer a rejoinder.

Yes, there is plenty in JW’s presentation with which those who affirm the “confessional text” will be less than pleased.

On the other hand, the very fact that JW was trying to address this issue on some level (even if he does not really seem to understand or appreciate the confessional defense of the TR as the standard Greek text of the NT) shows that it is an emerging perspective that he and other Calvinistic evangelicals who have embraced the modern critical text are having to face.

Though it is tempting to do a complete review of the session, I want to offer ten observations:

First: The title of JW’s lecture is misleading: “Textual Criticism and the TR.” This interesting topic title was never really addressed. JW might have taken the opportunity to describe the history of the printed TR beginning with Erasmus (1516), the various Protestant printed editions (and even differences among them), how the TR became the basis for the Protestant translations, how the TR was challenged and eventually toppled during the nineteenth century, and how there are those who still hold to the TR as the standard text.

Second: This lecture actually ended up being a review of a twitter exchange between JW and an unnamed person who happens to have a twitter handle that includes the words “text receptus.” For some reason, JW seems to take this unnamed person as representing the best of the pro-TR position. Better title: “JW reviews a twitter exchange he had with an unnamed person who attempted to defend the KJV rendering of Revelation 16:5, on the basis of some supporting textual and other evidence.”

A long-standing critique of JW’s tendency to confuse matters in this way was articulated by Theodore Letis in his review of the KJV Only Controversy, which appears as Appendix B in The Ecclesiastical Text, which begins with the caustic observation, “James White and Gail Riplinger are both cut from the same bolt of cloth….” This lecture shows that JW apparently has not yet profited from Letis’s critique.

Third: The lecture came to focus on a single controversial verse in the TR tradition: Revelation 16:5. No explanation or distinction was made between the TR, the modern text, and the Majority text (and all three have different readings here):

Modern (NA 28): dikaios ei, ho ōn kai ho hēn, ho hosios (“you are righteous, who is and who was, the Holy One”)

P47: dikaios ei, ho ōn kai ho hēn kai hosios (“you are righteous, who is and who was, and holy”)

Majority (Hodges/Farstad): dikaios ei, ho ōn kai ho hēn, hosios (“you are righteous, who is and who was, holy”)

TR (as in Scrivener and Beza, 1598): dikaios, Kurie, ei, ho ōn kai ho hēn kai ho esomenos (“righteous, Lord, are you, who is and who was and who will be”)

TR (as in Erasmus, 1516): dikaios Kurie ei ho ōn kai ho hēn kai ho hosios (“righteous, Lord, are you, who is and who was and who [is] holy”)

Fourth: JW repeated his disparagement of the TBS’ reprinting of the Scrivener Greek NT. He called it “a Greek text based on an English translation” (c. 3:15) and “the KJV NT in Greek” (c. 4:15). This is an outright misrepresentation of Scrivener’s work and might mislead a neophyte to think that Scrivener “backtranslated” the KJV into Greek!

In his preface to his original 1881 work (not the TBS reprint of it), Scrivener explains:

….Beza’s fifth and last text of 1598 was more likely than any other to be in the hands of King James’s revisers, and to be accepted by them as the best standard within their reach. It is moreover found on comparison to agree more closely with the Authorised Version than any other Greek text; and accordingly it has been adopted by the Cambridge Press as the primary authority….All variations from Beza’s text of 1598, in number about 190, are set down in an Appendix at the end of the volume, together with the authorities on which they respectively rest. (viii-ix).

Correction: In the podcast I gave the wrong date for this work (I said 1898, probably thinking of the 1598 Beza; verbal scribal error!). As best I can understand Scrivener published The New Testament in Greek According to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version Together with the Variations Adopted in the Revised Version in 1881 and it was reprinted numerous times (second printing in 1881, 1883, 1884, 1886, 1890, 1908, 1949). The preface cited above is from that edition. Another printing was apparently done of The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Text followed in the Authorised Version, that is, without the notes on the variations adopted in the Revised Version, in 1894 and 1902 (see preface to the TBS Greek NT). As far as I can understand, the text of the TBS Greek NT is, however, the same as that in this 1881 work (again without notes on the Revised Version) and so the information in the preface applies. Namely, it follows the 1598 Beza, except for c. 190 variations.

I would hope that JW would be more careful and accurate when he discusses this edition of the TR.

Fifth: Revelation 16:5 is admittedly a difficult text for TR advocates, as are all points where the TR varies from the Majority/Byzantine text (as with others, like the CJ). It illustrates the need for a critical edition of the TR. Please note: To say that it is difficult, however, does not mean that it is incomprehensible or indefensible.

Sixth: The difficulty is enhanced by the fact that Revelation 16:5 represents one of the few places where there is a significant variation in the printed TR editions of the Reformation era. The reading in Beza diverges other TR editions (e.g., Erasmus, Stephanus) and the reading in Beza is also followed in the KJV.

The KJV reading at Revelation 16:5 thus stands out in comparison to other Protestant versions:

Luther’s NT (1522; from Die Bibel nach der übersetzung Martin Luthers): “Gericht bist du, der du bist, und der du warst, du Heiliger”

Tyndale (from David Daniell’s modern spelling of 1534 ed.): “Lord, which art and wast, thou art righteous and holy”

Károlyi Gáspár Hungarian Bible (1590): “Igaz vagy Uram, a ki vagy és a ki valál, te Szint”

Geneva Bible (Tolle Lege reprint of the 1599 ed.): “Lord, thou art just, which art, and which wast: and Holy”

KJV (1611): “Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and which will be”

Edward F. Hills has a valuable discussion of Beza’s ten editions of the Greek NT in The King James Version Defended (pp. 206-208). He suggests that Beza’s humanism was restrained by “the common faith.” He notes two “conjectural emendations” from Beza that entered into the KJV at Romans 7:6 and Revelation 16:5.

Those who defend the TR as the foundational Greek NT text and respect the KJV as an English translation will necessarily have to examine these two texts, among others.

Seventh: Beza’s reading at Revelation 16:5 (and its usage in the KJV) requires thoughtful analysis.

Here is Eramus’s 1516 text of Revelation 16:5:

Here is Beza’s 1598 text of Revelation 16:5 with his commentary on the verse:

On what basis did Beza make the editorial decision to have the text read as it does? Was it a pure conjectural emendation or did he have some Greek or versional evidence? What does Beza mean when he writes, “Itaque ambigere non possum quin germana sit scriptura quam ex vetusto bonae fidei manuscripto codice restitui, nempe ‘ho esomenos.’”?

He calls attention to the parallels with Revelation 1:4, 8; 4:8; and 11:17 which speak of God as “the one who is, and was, and is to come.” If this verse was simply a harmonization to these others, however, why then does the final part not read ho erchomenos (“which is to come”), but ho esomenos (“which will be”)? Beza says the text is different because it speaks here of Christ (quoniam ibi de Christo).

We must also keep in mind that even if one adequately understood Beza’s decision here, this does not necessarily mean that we understand the decision of the KJV translators to follow Beza’s text here and not other TR readings or versions based upon them. What, for example, did it take for them to depart from Tyndale here? We simply have insufficient evidence to understand the editorial decisions made by Beza or the KJV translators at Revelation 16:5.

One thing is for certain, the Beza/KJV reading at Revelation 16:5 should not be discounted from the outset but given serious and reasonable consideration, while acknowledging that it has no extant Greek mss. support, making it one of the more difficult readings to defend, if one accepts it.

Eighth: JW at one point does at least acknowledge that the Greek text of Revelation is one of the most disputed in the NT, but this was not given enough emphasis. Most of the extant Greek mss. of Revelation are late and there are many disputed texts.

Here is some analysis from Tobias Niklas’s chapter, “The Early Text of Revelation” in Charles E. Hill & Michael J. Kruger, Eds., The Early Text of the New Testament (Oxford, 2012): 225-238:

“…compared to other New Testament writings—we have only a very few extant traces of an ‘early text’ of the book of Revelation” (225).

“Among the more than 300 manuscripts that contain Revelation only four can with some probability be dated earlier than (or at least around) the year 300 CE. None of these (p18, p47, p98, p115) contains the whole text of Revelation: p18 and p98 have only a few words or sentences” (226).

“…it is only poorly represented in the uncial manuscripts.” He cites J. K. Elliott’s overview that only eleven uncials contain Revelation, adding, “five of them from the eighty century or later” (226).

“No portions of Revelation can be found in extant Greek lectionaries” (227).

His conclusion: “All of these circumstances have long made research into the textual history of the book of Revelation an extremely complex task” (227).

We should not, therefore, be at all surprised that there are many passages in Revelation that are difficult for modern text critics to reconstruct.

Ninth: This leads to a general critique of the “reconstructionist” approach. Since the extant Greek ms. evidence only provides limited evidence as to the earliest text of the NT in general can we ever hope to have a reliable reconstructed text?

I found this statement intriguing from Wasserman and Gurry in their discussion of the “limitations” of the new CGBM:

As Richard Evans reminds us, our historical knowledge is always contingent on “the extent to which it is possible to reconstruct the past from the remains left behind.” What is left behind are fragments, chance survivals from the past—we are trying to piece together the puzzle with only some of the pieces. In the case of textual criticism, this means that we have only a selection of the manuscripts that once existed, and sometimes incomplete manuscripts. Although New Testament textual critics are used to straining under the number of manuscripts that we possess, there must be an even greater number that are forever lost (Wasserman & Gurry, A New Approach to Textual Criticism [SBL Press, 2017]: 112).

Tenth: Pointing to a single difficult verse in the TR where there is a question essentially of a couple of words by no means overthrows the confessional text position. There is no disagreement in the TR tradition on the ending of Mark, the PA, the CJ, etc. To embrace the modern critical text is to ensure constant epistemological uncertainty.

I found it interesting that JW in this lecture disavowed all conjectural emendations, including the NA 28 text of 2 Peter 3:10, no doubt attempting to anticipate the charge of “inconsistency” in criticizing the Scrivener TR reading at Revelation 16:5 while winking at a conjectural emendation in the NA 28 at 2 Peter 3:10. JW is fond of asking TR advocates, Which TR is authoritative? We need to ask him, “Which modern critical text is authoritative?”

Let me close with a quote I recently ran across in Grantley McDonald’s Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, 2016), regarding the CJ, another of the most disputed texts in the TR tradition:

…it marked a fork in the road. One path was followed by those who insisted on providential preservation or Scripture. The other taken by those who believe that Scripture, whatever its source, is subject to the same process of transmission as any other text. (Suffice it to say that these two positions have rather different claims to verifiability.) (12).

Reformed evangelicals stand at a fork in the road. Do you take the path of providential preservation or modern critical reconstruction?

JTR

WM 117: Conjectural Emendation, White, Beza, and Rev 16:5

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:

Itaque ambigere non possum quin germana sit scriptura quam ex vetusto bonae fidei manuscripto codice restitui, nempe ο εσομενος.

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).

That Beza made a conjecture here is also assumed by the KJV today article on Beza and Revelation 16:5, which translates this sentence:

“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