Robertus Stephanus’ Greek New Testament editions online

The famous printer Robertus Stephanus (Robert Estienne) published four editions of the Greek New Testament. All of these can be found online, though quality and access differs. The list below is not exhaustive, and will be updated as more information comes to my attention.

1. 1546

Τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης ἅπαντα. Novum Testamentum. Ex bibliotheca regia (Paris: Robertus Stephanus).

– Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, 1.L.29: ÖNB | GB
– Regensburg, Staatliche Bibliothek, 999/Script.7: MDZ

2. 1549

Τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης ἅπαντα. Novum Testamentum. Ex bibliotheca regia (Paris: Robertus Stephanus).

– Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, 1.L.34: ÖNB
– Universiteitsbibliotheek Gent, BIB.TH.003654: GB

3. 1550

Τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης ἅπαντα. Novum Iesu Christi D. N. Testamentum. Ex bibliotheca regia (Paris: Robertus Stephanus, 1550).

– Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, 4.D.25: ÖNB
– WWU Münster, Bibelmuseum, H 1550: Bibelmuseum
– Regensburg, Staatliche Bibliothek, 999/2Script.67: MDZ
– [provenance unclear]: CSNTM (pages with biblical text only; good resolution; no navigation)

4. 1551

Ἅπαντα τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης. Novum Iesu Christi D. N. Testamentum. Cum duplici interpretatione, D. Erasmi, et Veteris interpretis: Harmonia item Euangelica, et copioso indice (Geneva: Robertus Stephanus, 1551).

– Universiteitsbibliotheek Gent, BIB.ACC.016001: GB (vol. 1); GB (vol. 2)
– Bibliothèque de Genève, Bb 2299: e-rara
– Assisi, Pro civitate museum, Cinquecentina 13-1 and 13-2: PCM (vol. 1); PCM (vol. 2)
– Augsburg, Staats- und Stadtbibliothek, Th B IV 17: MDZ (vol 1); MDZ (vol. 2)

The Amsterdam Database (again)

My two previous posts concerned release notes for instalments of the The Amsterdam Database of New Testament Conjectural Emendation (2017-4 and 2018-1).

You can henceforth find all release notes on the “About” page that is part of the database. Earlier release notes, from November 2016 onwards, have been included as well.

As always, we welcome suggestion for additions and improvements of the database.

Amsterdam Database of New Testament Conjectural Emendation – release 2018-1

Here are the release notes for the most recent instalment of the Amsterdam Database.

General

Compared to the previous release (2017-4), 36 conjecture records were added (cj16428 to cj16463), together with 344 history records (s28548 to s28791). The total number of true conjectures (not an editorial alternative; not misunderstood) is now 6064 (out of 6463 conjecture records). The total number of history records is 18791.

An interesting new conjecture is cj16456 by Constantine Simonides. It concerns a reading he included in several of his forgeries which in reality expresses his conviction on what the Greek text in Matt 19:24 should be.

Noteworthy corrections and additions

cj11261 on Matt 24:36 is now marked as "misunderstood," since its author, Owen, already appeals to manuscript attestation that he knows of.

For cj14068 on Rom 6:19 an earlier author than Moffatt has been identified, namely Wall (1730). This identification prevents the conjecture from being marked as misunderstood, which should have been done if Moffatt had remained the earliest author, since in his days the attestation of the omission in B03 was well known. Wall only refers to versional attestation (the Peshitta).

cj14070 on 1 Cor 14:33-36 was recorded incorrectly (though the citation makes clear what must be intended): the transposition is to after 1 Cor 14:40, not 1 Cor 13:40.

Acknowledgements

We express our thanks to colleagues who brought fresh information to our attention: Peter Gurry, Peter Head, Dora Panella, Marco Rotman, David Harold Warren, and Tommy Wasserman.

Amsterdam Database of New Testament Conjectural Emendation - release 2017-4

Here are the release notes for the most recent instalment of the Amsterdam Database.

General

Compared to the previous release (2017–3), 125 conjecture records were added (cj16303 to cj16427), together with 482 history records (s28066 to s28547). The total number of true conjectures (not an editorial alternative; not misunderstood) is now 6030 (out of 6428 conjecture records). The total number of history records is 18547.

Many fresh conjectures are by Blass, but also conjectures by Zuntz, Price, Mill, Bailey, J. Weiss, Scheidweiler, Völter and some others have been added. Noteworthy is also cj16367, as the most recent conjecture, published in 2017 by our colleague Peter-Ben Smit.

Noteworthy corrections and additions

For cj11309 on Matt 9:12, previously marked as misunderstood since the authors indicated by Bowyer (Heinsius and Grotius) could not be confirmed, the true author has now been identified, namely Samuel Clarke; hence the conjecture is no longer marked as misunderstood.

For cj13009 on Mark 9:12 a slightly earlier author than Pallis has been found, namely Bultmann (1931).

For cj11389 on Luke 8:9 the question of authorship has been resolved. It concerns a conditional conjecture (if λέγοντες is maintained, then the text should be emended) by Beza, repeated by Lucas Brugensis and Price.

For cj15288 on Luke 8:36 an earlier author than Griesbach has been found, namely Mill.

For cj12005 on John 21:12 an earlier author than Semler has been found, namely Mill.

For cj14497 on Acts 8:10 an earlier author than Michelsen has been found, namely Mill.

The conjecture by van de Sande Bakhuyzen on Acts 9:28 (cj12015) was previously listed as attested by min. 1837 (following information from CNTTS), but it transpires (from CNTTS as well as ECM) that it omits the entire verse and should therefore not be counted as attestation for this short omission only.

For cj10092 on Acts 13:33, which has been adopted in the recently published ECM volume, the reception history has been much expanded.

For cj15121 on Acts 19:40, Pervo’s opinion that the verse contains a primitive corruption, Pervo
himself indicates that Ropes already expressed the idea. Pervo’s opinion is now listed as “Pro.”

For cj14697 on Acts 28:1 an earlier author than Michelsen has been found, namely Mill.

For cj13390 on 1 Tim 6:5 an earlier author than Naber has been found, namely Price.
Price’s conjecture on Tt 2:5 (cj13402) should be listed as a substitution, not an addition.

For cj15284 on Jas 3:6 (an editorial alternative) an earlier author than Abresch has been found, namely Heinsius (as well as Grotius).

For cj11016 on Rev 1:7, the correct form of Price’s conjecture is ἐπ’ αὐτοῦ, not ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ, as incorrectly reported by Bowyer.

Symposium and Thesis Defence

19 June 2017 – Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam

The Many Lives of the New Testament Text

Liturgy, History, and Conjectural Emendation

12.45–15.00 Symposium

15.30–16.45 Thesis defence by Bart Kamphuis

12.45–15.00	Symposium – PThU-zaal (1E-24, PThU, VU-hoofdgebouw)
	Over the past six years at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam a research group funded by NWO studied the history of New Testament Conjectural Emendation. The scholars involved are: Silvia Castelli, Bart Kamphuis, Jan Krans, Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte, and Karin Neutel. On the 19th of June, Kamphuis will defend his doctoral dissertation on Jan Hendrik Holwerda, titled: Against All Authorities: The New Testament Conjectural Emendation of Jan Hendrik Holwerda (1805–1886).
	To commemorate the final stage of the project—the Amsterdam Database of New Testament Conjectural Emendation has been made available through the NT.VMR of INTF Münster, Kamphuis’ dissertation is finished, Castelli’s dissertation is soon to follow, Krans’ monograph will be sent to the publisher this fall, and Lietaert Peerbolte’s and Neutel’s publications are on their way— a symposium will be held preceding the PhD ceremony. The programme of this symposium is as follows:
12.45 hrs	Welcome and introduction – Prof. Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte (VU)
13.00 hrs	“Will Not Be Found”: The Previous History of the ECM Conjecture on 2 Pet 3:10 – Bart Kamphuis (VU)
13.20 hrs	“A Few More Things” (Luke 10:41–42) – Prof. Tommy Wasserman (Örebro Teologiska Högskola)
13.40 hrs	The Wondrous World of Critical Conjecture – Dr. Jan Krans (VU/PThU)
14.00 hrs	The Liturgical Annotations to Codex Bezae and the History of Textual Scholarship – Prof. Jennifer Knust (Boston University)
14.20 hrs	The New Testament in Modern Times – Prof. George Harinck (VU/TUA)
14.40 hrs	Discussion and closing remarks – Prof. Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte (VU)
15.00 hrs	End
15.30–16.45	Thesis defence by Bart Kamphuis – Hoofdgebouw Vrije Universiteit, Aula
	The PhD defence will be held in the Aula of the Vrije Universiteit, and begins at 15.45 hrs. Visitors are expected to gather in the Aula at around 15.30; members of the Doctoral Committee gather in the Forumzaal of the Vrije Universiteit at the same time.
	You are hereby kindly invited to attend both this symposium and the PhD defence ceremony.
	Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte Professor of New Testament Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam

.

For some background on the NWO project,

see two articles by Rianne Lindhout in VU Magazine:

Het levensverhaal van het Nieuwe Testament

Enfant terrible van de bijbelwetenschap: Jan Hendrik Holwerda

How far can a textbook go? The case of Metzger’s Text of the New Testament

This afternoon I was reading in Leonard Whibley, ed., A Companion to Greek Studies (Cambridge: University Press, ¹1905), and more in particular R. C. Jebb’s contribution, “Textual Criticism,” (pp. 610–623). When I came to p. 621, § 695, “Modern use of conjecture,” I was in for an unpleasant surprise, for parts of the text were already familiar to me.

It turns out that Metzger, in his The Text of the New Testament. Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (Oxford: Clarendon, ¹1964), pp. 182–183, took over key sentences from Jebb's section, as can be seen below (in blue and green). I do not think this practice was acceptable or common in 1964, so I suspect something went wrong here. The general question is how much borrowing can be expected and accepted in introductory texts.

Two further points are of interest as well: (1) in between stands a paragraph on Bentley, for which Metzger refers to another publication by the same Jebb; Jebb’s section itself is listed on p. 156 (n. 1); (2) in the example of conjectures on Shakespeare, a footnote does warn the reader that the “example is taken nearly verbatim” from another source (see the grey passages below for an impression of what verbatim means). Here at least is a disclaimer, and though I do not think we would like to accept such use of other sources, it demonstrates how problematic the use of Jebb’s words actually is.

Finally, the passages are still found in the same form in the fourth edition by Metzger and Ehrman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ⁴2005, pp. 226–228). I would suggest a revision for the fifth edition, and perhaps a more thorough check of various other passages as well.

Metzger, Text, 11964 (= Metzger & Ehrman, 42005)	Source: Jebb in Whibley, Companion, 11905, p. 621
182 Modern Methods of Textual Criticism VII. CONJECTURAL EMENDATION 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, which the documents of a text supply is impossible or incomprehensible, the editor’s only remaining resource is to conjecture what the original reading must have been. A typical emendation involves the removal of an anomaly. It must not be overlooked, however, that though some anomalies are the result of corruption in the transmission of the text, other anomalies may have been either intended or tolerated by the author himself.1 Before resorting to conjectural emendation, therefore, the critic must be so thoroughly acquainted with the style and thought of his author that he cannot but judge a certain anomaly to be foreign to the author’s intention. This aspect of criticism has at times been carried to absurd extremes. In his later work Richard Bentley, for example, largely disregarded the evidence of manuscripts in determining the correct readings, and depended chiefly upon his own instinctive feeling as to what an author must have written. He justified such a procedure in the magisterial phrase, nobis et ratio et res ipsa centum codicibus potiores sunt, which may be rendered ‘for me both reason and the subject-matter are worth more than a hundred manuscripts’. In following this bold principle he did much that was rash and indefensible as well as much that is brilliant and convincing. The reductio ad absurdum of such a subjective method is found in Bentley’s edition of Milton’s Paradise Lost, in which he offers more than 800 emendations, restoring what in his opinion Milton must have really said (or meant to say) while dictating the poem to his daughters.2	695. If the only reading, or each of several readings, which our documents supply is seen to be impossible, then the remaining resource is conjectural emendation.
Before a conjecture can be regarded as even probable, it must satisfy the two primary tests which are customarily applied in evaluating variant readings in manuscripts: (1) it must be intrinsically suitable, and (2) it must be such as to account for the corrupt reading or readings in the transmitted text. There 1 For a discussion of the paradoxical possibility of a textual critic’s ‘improving’ on the original, see G. Zuntz’s article on 1 Cor. vi. 5 entitled ‘The Critic Correcting the Author’, Philologus, xcix (1955), pp. 295–303. 2 See James Henry Monk, The Life of Richard Bentley, D.D. , 2nd ed., ii (London, 1833), pp. 309–23, and Richard C. Jebb, Bentley (London, 1889), pp. 18o–91.	Before a conjecture can be regarded as even probable, it must satisfy the two primary tests which we apply to doubtful readings of mss.: (1) it must be intrinsically suitable: (2) it must be such as to account for the corrupt reading or readings in the transmitted text. There
Modern Methods of Textual Criticism 183 is, however, an important difference between the method of applying these tests to a conjectural emendation, and that of applying them to variants in manuscripts. We accept the variant which best satisfies the tests; but we require of a successful conjecture that it shall satisfy them absolutely well. The conjecture does not rise from a certain level of probability (‘a happy guess’) to the level of certainty, or approximate certainty, unless its fitness is exact and perfect. The only criterion of a successful conjecture is that it shall approve itself as inevitable. Lacking inevitability, it remains doubtful.	is, however, one important difference between the method of applying these tests to a conjectural emendation, and that of applying them to variants in mss. We accept the variant which best satisfies the tests; but we require that the conjectural emendation shall satisfy them absolutely well. The conjecture does not rise from probability to certainty, or approximate certainty, unless its fitness is exact and perfect.
	Source: Gow, Companion, pp. 65–66
An example from English literature will illustrate the wide differences of merit among proposed conjectures.1 Since the early printers in England were often foreigners, who made quite as bad mistakes as their predecessors the scribes, the text of Shakespeare contains almost as many problem passages as that of Aeschylus. In the folio editions of Henry V, Act ii, scene iii, the hostess says of the dying Falstaff, ‘his nose was as sharp as a pen and a table of Green Fields’. The words ‘a table of Green Fields’, which appear with trifling variations of spelling in the folio editions but which are omitted in the quarto editions, have been the subject of numerous conjectural emendations. Pope suggested (perhaps ironically) that this was a stage direction to bring in one of Greenfield’s tables, Greenfield being supposed to be the furniture-dealer who supplied props for Shakespeare’s theatre. Collier proposed ‘on a table of green frieze’, and another critic suggested ‘or as stubble on shorn fields’. The conjecture which today is adopted by editors is ‘and a’ babbled of green fields’, being a modification by Theobald of a happy proposal made by an anonymous annotator who corrected ‘a table’ to ‘a’ talked’.2 The fault most often committed in the use of conjectural 1 This example is taken nearly verbatim from James Gow’s Companion to School Classics, 2nd ed. (London, 1889), pp. 65 f. 2 Several passages in Shakespeare are corrupt beyond the ingenuity of palaeographer and textual critic to propose a cure. Apart from lucky coincidence, what lay behind the hodgepodge of nonsense set by the compositor of the first quarto of King Lear in iii. iv. 118 ff. is probably unattainable: ‘swithald footed thrice the old a nellthu night more and her nine fold bid her, O light and her troth plight and arint thee, with arint thee.’ On the special problems involved in the textual criticism of Shakespeare’s works, see Madeleine Doran, ‘An Evaluation of Evidence in Shakespearean Textual Criticism', English Institute Annual, 1941 (New York, 1942), pp. 95-114, and F. P. Wilson, ‘Shakespeare and the “New Bibliography” ’, in The Bibliographical Society, 1892–1942, Studies in Retrospect (London, 1945), pp. 133–4.	In England also the early printers, who were mostly foreigners, made quite as bad mistakes as their predecessors the scribes, and the text of Shakspere contains almost as many hopeless difficulties as that of Aeschylus. One example will suffice to illustrate this fact and to show the wide difference of merit in conjectures. In Henry V., act ii. sc. 3, the hostess says of the dying Falstaff, ‘his nose was as sharp as a pen and a’ babbled of green fields.’ The words italicised are omitted in the quarto editions, but are printed in the folios (with trifling variations of spelling) ‘and a table of Green Fields.’ Pope suggested (perhaps ironically) that this was a stage direction to bring in one of Greenfield’s tables, Greenfield being supposed to be the furniture-dealer who supplied Shakspere’s theatre. Mr. Collier proposed “on a table of green frieze,” another critic suggested “or as stubble on shorn fields.” The reading “a’ babbled,” which is now universally adopted, is Theobald’s, but it was first suggested by an anonymous annotator, who corrected “a table” to “a’ talked.” The emendation is a very beautiful example of the critical art.

Update 20 September 2022

I found some further coincidences in one of the passages shown above, namely in Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1886).

Metzger, Text, 11964 (= Metzger & Ehrman, 42005)	Source 1: Jebb in Whibley, Companion, 11905, p. 621 Source 2: Warfield, Introduction, p. 209
182 Modern Methods of Textual Criticism Before a conjecture can be regarded as even probable, it must satisfy the two primary tests which are customarily applied in evaluating variant readings in manuscripts: (1) it must be intrinsically suitable, and (2) it must be such as to account for the corrupt reading or readings in the transmitted text. There 1 For a discussion of the paradoxical possibility of a textual critic’s ‘improving’ on the original, see G. Zuntz’s article on 1 Cor. vi. 5 entitled ‘The Critic Correcting the Author’, Philologus, xcix (1955), pp. 295–303. 2 See James Henry Monk, The Life of Richard Bentley, D.D. , 2nd ed., ii (London, 1833), pp. 309–23, and Richard C. Jebb, Bentley (London, 1889), pp. 180–91.	Before a conjecture can be regarded as even probable, it must satisfy the two primary tests which we apply to doubtful readings of mss.: (1) it must be intrinsically suitable: (2) it must be such as to account for the corrupt reading or readings in the transmitted text. There
Modern Methods of Textual Criticism 183 is, however, an important difference between the method of applying these tests to a conjectural emendation, and that of applying them to variants in manuscripts. We accept the variant which best satisfies the tests; but we require of a successful conjecture that it shall satisfy them absolutely well. The conjecture does not rise from a certain level of probability (‘a happy guess’) to the level of certainty, or approximate certainty, unless its fitness is exact and perfect. The only criterion of a successful conjecture is that it shall approve itself as inevitable. Lacking inevitability, it remains doubtful.	is, however, one important difference between the method of applying these tests to a conjectural emendation, and that of applying them to variants in mss. We accept the variant which best satisfies the tests; but we require that the conjectural emendation shall satisfy them absolutely well. The conjecture does not rise from probability to certainty, or approximate certainty, unless its fitness is exact and perfect.
	No conjecture can be accepted unless it perfectly fulfil all the requirements of the passage as they are interpreted by intrinsic evidence, and also perfectly fulfil all the requirements of transcriptional evidence in accounting for the actual reading, and if variants exist also for them (either directly or mediately through one of their number). The dangers of the process are so great that these rules are entirely reasonable, and indeed necessary. The only test of a successful conjecture is that it shall approve itself as inevitable. Lacking inevitableness, it remains doubtful.

Stendahl and the End of Romans 7

While preparing a course, I came across Stendahl’s complaint (in 1963) that the Nestle editions treat Rom 7:25b as belonging to Rom 8. Which made me wonder how that looks on the page, and whether all Nestle editions do so. Stendahl of course used NA25 (1963) or an earlier edition, not NA26 (1979) or later.

It turns out the subdivision was introduced in the 10th Nestle edition (1914), as the bottom of p. 405 may show:

For comparison the same portion in the 9th edition (1912):

Interestingly, NA26 and NA27 (1993) have a major division between 7:25 and 8:1, but still set 7:25b apart as a subparagraph.

In doing so, these two editions draw even more attention to the conjecture according to which 7:25b is an interpolation. This conjecture was first mentioned in the 16th edition (1936), and attributed to the Dutch pastor Michelsen (1879), but there happens to be an earlier author, namely Peter Aloys Gratz in 1814. It has found support among a good deal of Pauline scholars.

In NA28 (2012), the conjecture is no longer mentioned, and there is no subdivision any more between 7:25a and 7:25b. The only trace still left of these typographical wanderings is the capital letter of the first word of 25b, Ἄρα.

See Krister Stendahl, “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,” HTR 56 (1963): pp. 199–215, p. 213 n. 30 (= “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,” in Paul among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays [Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1976], pp. 78–96, p. 94 n. 20).