More videos: Anderson on Family 1, Hixson on the Tyndale Textual Commentary

Two more videos from my ThM class on textual criticism are now live. In the first, Dr. Amy Anderson gives an overview and update of her work on the textual history of Family 1 in the Gospels. She also gives a helpful overview of the state of the discipline at the start. In the second, Dr. Elijah Hixson introduces the textual commentary being written to accompany the Greek New Testament Produced at Tyndale House, Cambridge.

Amy Anderson

Elijah Hixson

Thanks to both my guests for joining my class. You can find all the videos in this series at the Text & Canon Institute YouTube channel. Be sure to subscribe if you’re into that sort of thing.

Collation of NA28 and THGNT

The introduction at the back of the THGNT teases us by noting a collation done with NA28, but gives little more detail. That’s why it’s very helpful that Hefin Jones has shared a computer collation of NA28 with THGNT on Facebook. He says, “Caveat emptor: It’s automatically generated. There will be some curious items in there.” From there, Nelson Hsieh, a doctoral student at Southern Seminary, expands:

Thanks for producing this. I’m using Accordance for my own collation as well, but adding a lot more. Some problems with the Accordance collation vs. what I’m producing:

1. Accordance can mark accentuation and punctuation differences, but you turned those features off since it would produce thousands of more differences. I’m not sure what font size you used, but when I created a collation that includes punctuation and accentuation, the collation came out to 522 pages vs. the 94 pages you collated. I can’t get mine to look just like yours, so it might be less than 522 pages, but it will still be much longer if you add accents and punctuation. I’ve looked at the accentuation differences and it does become significant, for example, with liquid verbs, where the difference between the present and future tense is just accentuation, an acute vs. a circumflex accent (see Rom 2:16; 8:34; 1 Cor 3:14). And punctuation differences become significant, for example, with questions (see Matt 6:31; Mark 7:18-19; 8:18; Rom 11:24; 1 Thess 2:19; Heb 2:2-3; 9:13-14; 2 Pet 3:11-12; 1 John 4:20). Or check out John 1:3b-4 as well on the placement of a period.
2. The Accordance collation does not do a good job handling word order differences. Take a look at what the collation produces at, for example, Matt 14:4; 15:30; 22:43; Eph 6:8; 2 Tim 1:10; Heb 3:13 vs. the textual differences themselves. Writing out the variant in context allows you to see that it is a word order difference. It’s hard to identify and compare word order differences in the Accordance collation.
3. The Accordance collation cannot compare paragraphing/macro-structural differences. See, for example, John 1:1-18, the so-called “Prologue” of John. Peter Williams, co-editor of the THGNT, wrote an article, “Not the Prologue of John,” JSNT 33, no. 4 (2011): 375-86, where he argues that 1:1-18 is not really a prologue based on how ancient MSS structured the text, which informed paragraphing choices for the THGNT in John 1:1-18. THGNT has a paragraph beginning at v. 18 (not v. 19 like in NA28) and that paragraph continues until v. 20.
4. The Accordance collation cannot compare certainty levels, esp. important in the Catholic letters with the 43 diamond readings from the ECM. My collation will compare certainty levels and include UBS ratings.
5. The Accordance collation cannot compare the apparatuses of the THGNT vs. NA28 and their use of vid. in the citation of MSS. This is one area where the THGNT apparatus is better than the NA28 apparatus. THGNT is more transparent and will use vid. and transcribe the variant in MSS where the NA28 does not use vid., which gives the impression that the reading in the MSS is clear (compare apparatuses in Matt 5:22; 10:2; 13:40; James 4:9; 1 Pet 3:1).
6. Somehow the Accordance collation completely misses the significant variant in John 1:18. It just notes that THGNT has the article and NA28 lacks it. But the real variant is: ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (THGNT) vs. μονογενὴς θεός (NA28). Although Dirk Jongkind told me at SBL that he regrets the textual decision here and would like to change it. But this example shows that Accordance can make mistakes and not display important variants in a meaningful way. I’ve linked to a PDF below to compare and contrast what kind of collation I am producing vs. what Accordance produces. Not every variant will be that detailed in my collation, but I will be listing witnesses (so you can evaluate quickly, for example, where 01, 03, and Majority Text stand) and I will describe the issues, so that you can search for every instance of differences in word order, verbal aspect, verbal voice, verbal mood, liquid verbs, adding the article, particle, conjunction, etc.
7. Overall, the Accordance collation can give you a big picture sense of differences, but you still need a human to categorize the differences, pick out the more significant differences, provide some context for each difference, and summarize the results. I’m presenting my paper comparing the THGNT vs. NA28 at SBL Midwest regional on Feb 7-9, so I’ll post a draft around that time. I’ve also attached a PDF of my collation for Hebrews to give you an example of what I’m working on. Bold Scripture references mean I think they are significant differences. 

On another post, Nelson says this:

I’m working on a full collation of textual differences, differences in certainty levels (esp. for the Catholic Letters), and differences in orthography for the SBL Midwest regional meeting. I’ve collated most of Paul, Hebrews, about 1/3 of the gospels, all the catholic letters. I’ve got 16 pages so far and expect the textual differences to reach maybe 35+ pages. I think the total number of textual differences (excluding orthography) could reach up to 500 differences or more. For example, I found 50 textual differences just in Matthew. But most differences will be minor. Here are 11 bullet points to summarize the differences between the THGNT and the NA28: (1) the most significant textual differences (from my perspective) are Matt 19:9; 27:16; John 1:18 (although Jongkind told me he regrets the textual decision here); Rom 5:1; Eph 5:22; 1 Pet 4:16; 2 Pet 3:10; Jude 22. Less significant (but still grammatically or theologically interesting) are Matt 17:9; 27:24; Rom 8:11; 1 Cor 2:1; Gal 5:21; Col 4:8; 1 Thess 2:7; 2 Thess 2:13; Heb 9:11; 11:11, 37; 1 John 2:20. (2) On different accentuation of liquid verbs (creating the present vs. the future tense), see Rom 2:16; 8:34; 1 Cor 3:14. (3) On different punctuation of questions, see Matt 6:31; Mark 7:18-19; 8:18; Rom 11:24; 1 Thess 2:19; Heb 2:2-3; 9:13-14; 2 Pet 3:11-12. 

And he continues with more detail from there.

Thanks to both for sharing these. They are both very helpful.

An example of how older editions mislead us about patristic citations

Earlier this week, I was speaking to Dirk Jongkind about Luke 1:50. The THGNT adopts the phrase “εἰς γενεὰς καὶ γενεάς“ as the viable reading that cannot be attributed to harmonisation. Some variants include a form of the phrase that uses singulars instead of plurals, “εἰς γενεὰν καὶ γενεάν“ (ℵ01 Ψ044 f¹ f¹³ [including 69] 892 1424) as well as the reading in the majority of manuscripts, “εἰς γενεὰς γενεῶν“ (A[^{nt; the odes have a different reading}] C² D¹ K Δ^c Θ 33 Byz).

One point of reference that Dirk mentioned is that the there might be patristic citations of the phrase that show that the phrase itself, “εἰς γενεὰς καὶ γενεάς“ is not inherently unusual. Sure enough, the TLG turns up two instances that I want to point out here.

The first instance is Origen’s commentary on Psalm 119(118):90. Origen makes an exegetical point that the text is singular, not plural: the two generations are Israel and the Church, so it is specifically “from generation to generation”.

Origen at the TLG

In the second instance, Chrysostom quotes part of Daniel 4:37 (LXX) in one of his Letters to Olympia (10.9), and he uses the exact same phrase:

Chrysostom in the TLG

So, here we have two patristic sources attesting the phrase that is adopted in the THGNT at Luke 1:50. Admittedly, neither of these phrases is a citation of Luke 1:50, but the question we are considering is whether the phrase itself is particularly unusual, and if so, would that mean that it could be subject to variation that would normalise the phrase into something more common. From the look of it, the phrase “εἰς γενεὰς καὶ γενεάς“ is common enough that Origen and Chrysostom use it, which would be a mark against the rationale that the phrase would be normalised and changed away from “εἰς γενεὰς καὶ γενεάς“ to either “εἰς γενεὰν καὶ γενεάν“ or “εἰς γενεὰς γενεῶν“, which are both more commonly attested.

Wait, not so fast.

Trying to do the responsible thing, I went to the CUL to pull the critical editions. Both are in the Sources chrétiennes series (henceforth, SC). The citation of Origen comes from a catena on Psalm 119(118). The edition is Harl, Marguerite, ed. La chaîne palestinienne sur le Psaume 118 (Origène, Eusèbe, Didyme, Apollinaire, Athanase, Théodoret): Tome I. Introduction, texte grec critique et traduction. Sources chrétiennes 189. Paris: Cerf, 1972. When I turned to the relevant pages, I did not find “εἰς γενεὰς καὶ γενεάς“ as the TLG reported for the text here. Instead, the author of the commentary attributed to Origen roughly quotes Psalm 119:90 in the form of the text attested by the Byzantine tradition at Luke 1:50 (there is an added οὖν, but otherwise it is the same):

Origen in the SC edition

Similarly, the TLG also disagrees with the edition of Chrysostom: Malingrey, Anne-Marie, ed. Jean Chrysostome: Lettres à Olympias. Sources chrétiennes 13. Paris: Cerf, 1947. Instead of the plural form of the phrase “εἰς γενεὰς καὶ γενεάς“ that the TLG says is Chrysostom’s text, we find the singular form “εἰς γενεὰν καὶ γενεάν“:

Chrysostom in the SC edition

But wait, there’s more!

This edition was primarily a revision of an older edition rather than being a genuinely new edition, but there is a second edition of this work in the SC series for that. This second edition of Chrysostom, which is the source of the TLG text, does in fact have “εἰς γενεὰς καὶ γενεάς“, and notes two manuscripts (a: Vatican Library, Palatinus gr. 228, and M: Paris, BnF, gr. 657) that have “εἰς γενεὰν καὶ γενεάν“. Malingrey does note that previous editions used these manuscripts for Chrysostom’s text (“a” in Savile, 1612, and “M” in Fronton du Duc, 1614 and Montfaucon, 1821—this is assuming my memory of the relevant page is correct; the Classics library wouldn’t let me borrow the book, so I had to read and take photos of the text itself with my phone):

Chrysostom in SE 2nd edition

_____

What then is the point of this rather pedantic post? There are two points.

1. Pedantic details matter, because [2].

2. When we rely on older editions, we can be misled about the form of the text that a church father quotes. There even appears to be an error in the first edition of the SC edition for Chrysostom that was carried over from previous editions, so sometimes even critical editions don’t quite get it right. And they differ at a phrase for which there are textual variants when it occurs in Luke 1:50. More than that, Origen (or the author of the comment attributed to him) specifically makes an exegetical point about the precise wording of the text, and even there, the SC edition and the TLG disagree on what that precise wording is. TLG’s text of Origen here is based on J.B. Pitra, Analecta sacra spicilegio Solesmensi parata, vols. 2 and 3 (Paris: Tusculum, 1882). This is also an example why it is appropriate to take older literature with a grain of salt when it claims that certain patristic authors supported one reading against another. They might not have.

For more on why we might have problems citing Chrysostom for particular readings, see Peter Montoro’s guest post, here.

Paulson Review of THGNT

I’m driving cross country today but, through the magic of Blogger, here is a review of the THGNT from Greg Paulson for you. Here’s the conclusion:

In spite of these lingering queries, there is no doubt that the THGNT possesses many quintessential hallmarks of a hand-sized critical edition. The edition, which boasts high quality collaboration among some of the discipline’s foremost text-critics and scholars, is a most welcome addition to the market. The apparatus cites pertinent manuscripts to elucidate the editors’ decision-making process and includes other editorial features that greatly assist the reading experience, such as paragraphing, accents, and breathing marks. In sum, the editors have achieved their goal of creating an edition that is easy to use. They have removed some of the cumbersome barriers of other critical editions and offered a stream-lined approach to delving into the text—even though users will have to get accustomed to the edition’s distinctive aspects like its orthography and an alternate order of books. The edition’s sleek page design, void of cross-references and other marginal features, containing a minimal apparatus and simple paragraphing, seem especially advantageous for those who want to read through the Greek text with as few distractions as possible—and for that purpose, it is heartily recommended

New Review of THGNT

In the latest Puritan Reformed Journal, Jeffrey Riddle has a review of the THGNT which he has uploaded to Academia. I believe Jeff is a proponent of either the Majority Text or the Received Text (not sure which exactly) and that pokes through at various points, notably in this latest sentence: “Despite all the scholarly erudition reflected in this work, however, the question remains as to whether modern text critical methodology will ever be able to offer a scholarly approximation of the text.” It’s pretty clear that Jeff’s answer to that question would be no. But the review is quite fair and evenhanded. For more on his view of the THGNT, he has a podcast episode on it here.

I’ll leave you with this snippet:

In the final analysis, the THGNT is a visually attractive printed edition of the Greek New Testament. It is inspired by the text-critical approach of Tregelles and focuses on the earliest extant Greek manuscripts of the New Testament (papyri and uncials). It reflects the modern “reconstructionist” method of text criticism, which emerged in the nineteenth century and eventually led to the toppling of the Textus Receptus as the standard text among most Protestants including evangelicals. It also departs at points, however, from the current trends manifest in the application of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) in the Editio Critica Maior and in the most recent critical handbooks produced by the Institute für Neutestamentliche Textforschung in Münster and the United Bible Societies. As noted, this reflects an effort “to constrain editorial choice” as “a check on editorial fallibility and eccentricity” (505) and appears to be in keeping with a long history of both Anglo adaptation and dissent from German higher criticism.

I don’t know if Dirk and the Petes saw themselves as dissenting from German higher criticism or not, but there we are.

The Text of Acts - Differences between Tyndale House Edition, ECM, and NA28

[warning: long post, you may want to skip to the conclusion at the end]

A little while ago I posted an analysis of all differencesbetween the NA28 and the Editio Critica Maior of Acts. I have now made a comparison between the Tyndale House Edition and the ECM, not knowing what I would find. Since the ECM and the Tyndale House Edition were prepared at the same time without knowledge of one another, it is also interesting to see how close they are to NA28.

I have kept things simple and will not comment on the 152 places where ECM-Acts gives a split guidance. Since the THGNT does not do split guidance (though it has diamonds in the apparatus), all these places can be counted as differences in a maximalist view. In each of the two and three-way splits the THGNT has one of the options of the ECM. This time I have also ignored brackets in the NA28 text, so as not to drown this overview with too many categories. I have noted brackets in NA28 and diamonds in the apparatus of the THGNT, though with no claim of being complete. I hope the tables are exhaustive, but improvements are always welcome.

1        THGNT and ECM Differ; NA28 Agrees with Neither

There is one place where each of the three versions has a different text:

Acts	THGNT	ECM	NA28
18:7	Omit  (with ♦ for Τίτου)	Τίτου	Τιτίου

This variant concerns the tricky business of the name of the man who owned the house next door to the synagogue. The ECM includes the singular omission by Alexandrinus of the preceding ονοματι in the variant unit, which, I think, distorts the way the external evidence is read. Together with D-05 this is the earliest evidence for just Justus, amply supported by the Byzantine tradition. The main transcriptional issue is whether the -τι  of ονοματι  was read as standing for the name ‘Titus’ or not (which in Latin would be abbreviated as ‘Ti.’).

2        THGNT and ECM Differ; NA28 Agrees with ECM

A much bigger group is formed by places where the THGNT (having started with Tregelles) disagrees with both ECM (which presumably started with NA28) and NA28. 

Some of the differences in the list are orthographic, yet they are ‘unusual’ orthographic variants—there are many other orthographic differences not listed here. I found the following 40 instances:

Acts	THGNT	ECM	NA28
1.11	βλέποντες	ἐμβλέποντες	[ἐμ]βλέποντες
2:31	ἅδου (with ♦)	ᾅδην	ᾅδην
4:9	σέσωσται	σέσωται	σέσωται
4:22	εγεγόνει	γεγόνει	γεγόνει
4:37	παρά	πρός	πρός
6:3	οὖν	δέ	δέ
7:11	εὕρισκον	ηὕρισκον	ηὕρισκον
7.13	Αὐτοῦ	Τοῦ Ἰωσήφ	[τοῦ] Ἰωσήφ
7:31	ἐθαύμασεν	ἐθαύμαζεν	ἐθαύμαζεν
7:43	Ῥεφάν	Ῥαιφάν	Ῥαιφάν
7:51	ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν	καρδίαις	καρδίαις
8:18	τὸ ἅγιον (with ♦)	omit	omit
10:11	δεδεμένον καί	omit	omit
10:19b	ζητοῦσιν (with ♦)	ζητοῦντες	ζητοῦντες
11.23	τοῦ θεοῦ	τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ	[τὴν] τοῦ θεοῦ
12:6	προσαγαγεῖν	προαγαγεῖν	προαγαγεῖν
13:6	βαρϊησοῦς	βαριησοῦ	βαριησοῦ
13.14	ἐλθόντες	εἰσελθόντες	[εἰσ]ελθόντες
13.31	Εἰσιν (with ♦)	Εἰσιν νῦν	Εἰσιν [νῦν]
14:8	ἐν Λύστροις ἀδύνατος	ἀδύνατος ἐν Λύστροις	ἀδύνατος ἐν Λύστροις
15:4	Ἱεροσόλυμα	Ἰερουσαλήμ	Ἰερουσαλήμ
15:25	ἐκλεξαμένους (with ♦)	ἐκλεξαμένοις	ἐκλεξαμένοις
16.28	Παῦλος	ὁ Παῦλος	[ὁ] Παῦλος
16:40	ἐκ (with ♦)	ἀπό	ἀπό
17.22	Παῦλος (with ♦)	Παῦλος	[ὁ] Παῦλος
20:4	ἄχρι τῆς Ἀσίας (with ♦)	Omit	Omit
20:28	κυρίου (with ♦)	θεοῦ	θεοῦ
20:30	ἑαυτῶν	αὐτῶν	αὐτῶν
21:5	ἐξαρτίσαι ἡμᾶς	ἡμᾶς ἐξαρτίσαι	ἡμᾶς ἐξαρτίσαι
21:6	ἐνέβημεν	ἀνέβημεν	ἀνέβημεν
22:8	πρὸς ἐμέ	πρός με	πρός με
22:13	πρὸς ἐμέ	πρός με	πρός με
22:26	ἑκατόνταρχος	ἑκατοντάρχης	ἑκατοντάρχης
23:20	μέλλων	μέλλον	μέλλον
23:22	πρὸς ἐμέ	πρός με	πρός με
25:10	ἠδίκηκα (with ♦)	ἠδίκησα	ἠδίκησα
26:1	ὑπέρ	περί	περί
26:29	κἀγώ	καὶ ἐγώ	καὶ ἐγώ
27:8	Λασέα	Λασαία	Λασαία
27:16	Κλαῦδα	Καῦδα	Καῦδα

A few remarks. Contrary to ECM, I do not think 15:4 is an orthographic variant. There is quite some literature on the differences between Ιερουσαλημ and Ιεροσολυμα and variation between these two is surprisingly rare.

Perhaps one of the bigger differences is 20:28. Hurtado has a study (Texts and Artefacts, chapter 4) showing that this is one of a string of variants between κυριος and θεος in Acts. It is only here that the THGNT and the ECM have a difference of opinion.

The only variant where a whole phrase is at stake is at 20:4. Normally I would be inclined to go with the earliest evidence and omit ἄχρι τῆς Ἀσίας. However, there is a narrative difficulty that puts pressure on this phrase, and that is that in 20:16 we learn that Paul had no intention of spending time in Asia. At this point in 20:4, the journey has not reached Troas yet. That makes the insertion of this phrase difficult to explain. In addition, with the phrase there are two references to Asia if we count the noun Ἀσιανοί further down. It is a tight call though.

3        THGNT and ECM Differ; NA28 Agrees with THGNT

The group of readings where ECM has changed NA28 but has not been followed by THGNT consists of the following 25 readings.

Acts	THGNT	ECM	NA28
1:10	ἐσθήσεσι λευκαῖς	ἐσθήτι λευκῃ	ἐσθήσεσιν λευκαῖς
1:26	αὐτοῖς	αὐτῶν	αὐτοῖς
2:3	καὶ ἐκάθισεν (with ♦)	ἐκάθισέν τε	καὶ ἐκάθισεν
2:20a	-	ἥ before ἐλθεῖν	-
2:20b	ἡμέραν	τὴν ἡμέραν	ἡμέραν
4:4	ὡς	ὡσεί	[ὡς]
5:26	ἦγεν	ἤγαγεν	ἦγεν
5:33	ἐβούλοντο	ἐβουλεύοντο	ἐβούλοντο
7:25	ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ (with ♦)	ἀδελφούς	ἀδελφοὺς [αὐτοῦ]
8:31	ὁδηγήσει	ὁδηγήση	ὁδηγήσει
9:8	οὐδέν	οὐδένα	οὐδέν
9:12a	ἐν ὁράματι	omit	[ἐν ὁράματι]
10:9	ἐκείνων	αὐτῶν	ἐκείνων
13:11b	ἔπεσεν	ἐπέπεσεν	ἔπεσεν
13:33	αὐτῶν	omit	[αὐτῶν]
14:10	Φωνῇ	τῇ φωνῇ	Φωνῇ
15:37	τόν Ἰωάννην	Ἰωάννην	τόν Ἰωάννην
16:13	ἐνομιζομεν προσευχήν	ἐνομιζετο προσευχή	ἐνομιζομεν προσευχήν
16:17	κατακολουθοῦσα	κατακολουθήσασα	κατακολουθοῦσα
19:14	τινος	τινες	τινος
20:21	Ἰησοῦν	Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν	Ἰησοῦν
23:5	ὅτι	omit	ὅτι
23:10	γινομένης	γενομένης	γινομένης
23.23	Τινὰς δύο	Δύο τινὰς	[τινὰς] δύο
28:5	ἀποτινάξας	ἀποτιναξάμενος	ἀποτινάξας

An interesting choice was made by ECM at 9:8 to prefer οὐδένα over οὐδέν. To me, οὐδένα before ἔβλεπεν shows clear influence of μηδένα θεωροῦντες in the previous verse, so that this is just a simple harmonisation to the immediate context.

Perhaps the most ‘controversial’ reading in this table is 13:33, where ECM has a ‘conjecture’ (according to the Commentary). Frankly, I am not sure if this is a true conjecture. It is only so if we accept the variation unit as given in ECM. However it may well be that the question of τέκνοις αὐτῶν and the presence/absence of ὑμῖν should be dealt with separately.

4        THGNT and NA28 Differ; THGNT and ECM Agree

There is one final list to produce so that we can make a three-way comparison between THGNT, ECM, and NA28, and that is the list where THGNT and ECM agree in their deviation from NA28. I have found 27 of these.

Acts	THGNT	ECM	NA28
1:15	ὡς	ὡς	ὡσεί
2:5	ἐν	ἐν	εἰς
2:33	-	-	[καί]
3:13a	-	-	[ὁ θεός]2
3:13b	-	-	[ὁ θεός]3
5:31	-	-	[τοῦ]
7:7	δουλεύσωσιν	δουλεύσωσιν	δουλεύσουσιν
7:22	-	-	[ἐν]
9:12b	-	-	[τάς]
9:21	ἐν	ἐν	εἰς
10:40	-	-	[ἐν]
11:22	-	-	[διελθεῖν]
12:11	-	-	[ὁ]
14:3	-	-	[ἐπί]
15:4	ὑπό	ὐπό	ἀπό
15:17	ὁ	ὁ	-
15:41	-	-	[τήν]
16:11	οὖν	οὖν	δέ
16:12[1]	πρώτη τῆς μερίδος	πρώτη τῆς μερίδος	πρώτη[ς] μερίδος τῆς
16:27	-	-	[τήν]
16:28	φωνῇ μεγάλῃ	φωνῇ μεγάλῇ	μεγάλῃ φωνῇ
19:15	-	-	[μέν]
20:5	προσελθόντες	προσελθόντες	προελθόντες
20:6	οὗ	οὗ	ὅπου
25:18	πονηράν	πονηράν	πονηρῶν
27:8	ἧν πόλις	ἧν πόλις	πόλις ἧν
27:23	-	-	[ἐγώ]

In the list of differences between ECM and NA28 the following is given as one variant, though I have split it up into a word order variant and the issue of the article before Paul, the latter is included above under section 2.

Acts	NA28	ECM	THGNT
16:28	μεγάλῃ φωνῇ [ὁ]	φωνῇ μεγάλῇ ὁ	φωνῇ μεγάλῃ

Interestingly, in over half of the differences between ECM and NA28 (27 out of 52) the THGNT agrees with the ECM.

5        Conclusion

[drum roll]

Time for one last table, the number of differences between THGNT, ECM, and NA28.

By ignoring all the brackets in NA28 and all the split readings in ECM, I have followed the same procedure as the list given in ECM-Acts I, 34*–35* where the differences between ECM-Acts and NA28 are found. That list gave 52 differences, besides the 152 split guidance readings. ECM-Acts and THGNT differ 76 times (section 1 + 2 + 3). And the total number of differences between THGNT and NA28 is 68 (section 1 + 2 + 4). There are orthographica included in the list, but the THGNT has many further differences as to iota subscript, -ει- for -ι-, and unassimilated prepositions that are not part of the comparison.

Number of differences	THGNT	ECM	NA28
THGNT		76	68
ECM	76		52
NA28	68	52

In terms of the percentages as used in the CBGM, the differences are fairly minimal. The text of Vaticanus, the witness most closely aligned with the ECM text, is recorded as agreeing in 6997 out of 7250 variant units, 96.51%. If we assume that 7250 is about the maximum number for any complete witness, then THGNT agrees with ECM in 7174 out of 7250, which is 98.95%.

Looking over the various lists quickly, it is surprising how few ‘big’ differences there are between the three editions. This is unlike some variants in the gospels. The tables above show that (unless one has a preference for the Textus Receptus, Codex Bezae, or the Byzantine text) there isn’t that much at stake in Acts.

---

[1] The reading of NA28 is given incorrectly in ECM, which omitted the final τῆς of NA28.