Andrew Wilson, «Scribal Habits in Greek New Testament Manuscripts.», Vol. 24 (2011) 95-126
New Testament textual criticism lays considerable stress upon the ways that scribes altered the text. Singular readings provide the most objective and reliable guide to the sorts of errors scribes produced. This paper reports on a study of 4200 singular readings from 33 chapters of the New Testament, providing new insights into scribal habits and the history of the text.
Scribal Habits in Greek New Testament Manuscripts 115
Harmonizations Disharmonizations
Word
Parallel GU IC Total Total (HT, HA, Ditt.) Net
Length
2 29 5 16 50 52 (13) 39
3-4 19 6 10 35 38 (10) 28
5-8 9 0 4 13 20 (15) 5
9+ 10 0 0 10 24 (17) 7
Total 136 17 51 204 411 (110) 301
To get a clear comparison, we need to exclude harmonizations to
immediate context and general usage55 and just compare parallel harmo-
nizations in column 2 against net disharmonizations in the final column
(that is, excluding disharmonizations with mechanical explanations).
When we do so, we see that disharmonization tends to heavily predomi-
nate in shorter variation units while harmonization tends to predominate
the longer the variation unit.
When we analyse harmonizations and disharmonizations according
to the type of scribal variation, the results present as follows:
Harmonizations Disharmonizations
Additions 131 53
Omissions 46 265
Substitutions 26 75
Transpositions 1 18
Totals 204 411
This table is perhaps the most important in terms of understanding
the phenomenon of disharmonization. Harmonizations are usually addi-
tions to the text, while disharmonizations usually involve omissions from
the text. Or perhaps it is better to say that disharmonization is usually a
consequence of omission, for a manuscript that drops out words produ-
ces disharmony between originally near-parallel passages. Where we have
two passages with close parallels, the other two types of textual variation,
substitutions and transpositions, will usually introduce discord too. Scri-
bes, by the very nature of their task, tend to make mistakes and corrupt
the text, introducing disharmony. The principle is logical enough: there
are many ways to produce discord, but far fewer options that create har-
mony. Anyone who has had children and a piano will realise the common
sense here.
55
There was no attempt made in this study to try to define or count disharmonizations
to immediate context or general usage. This study primarily compared disharmonizations
against harmonizations in parallel passages.