TEXTUAL TRANSMISSION AND TRANSLATION
28. Conjectural Emendations in Modern Translations
E R R O L L F . R H O D E S
PR o FE ss o R Metzger’s manual on The Text of the New Testa- ment concludes with the acknowledgement that in spite of the exceptionally full attestation enjoyed by the NT text, the critic may on occasion find himself forced to reject all the forms in which a passage has been preserved in the MS tradition, and forced to resort to conjecture to supply a more nearly correct, or at least a less unsatisfactory, reading.1 In his more extended discussion of the role of conjectural emendation earlier in the manual,2 two tests are offered for evaluating a conjecture:
‘It must be intrinsically suitable, and it must be such as to account for the corrupt reading or readings in the transmitted text’.
It is further advised that ‘the only criterion of a successful conjecture is that it shall approve itself as inevitable. Lacking inevitability, it remains doubtful’.3 No instance, however, of a successful conjecture is advanced, and the one example adduced as having enjoyed the widest favour of all proposed emendations (i.e. the restoration of ‘Enoch’ in I Pet. 3 : Ig) is found unaccept- able : ‘since the introduction of a new subject (“Enoch”) into verse 19 disturbs an otherwise smooth context and breaks the continuity of the argument, the emendation cannot be accepted-for an emendation that introduces fresh difficulties stands self-condemned’.4
The preface of Nestle’s edition of the Greek NT has advised the reader since the 13th editions that its apparatus incorporates about 200 conjectural emendations ascribed to about ninety authors. This figure includes those examples where a difference of ‘accent, separation of words, capital or small type, comes into 1 B. M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (2nd edn. ; New York/Oxford: Oxford University, Ig68), 246.
2 Ibid., 182-5. 3 Ibid., 183. 4 Ibid., 185 n. I.
5 Eberhard Nestle, .Novum Testamenturn Graece (Stuttgart: Priviligierte Wiirt- tembergische Bibelanstalt, 1927).
362 ERROLL F. RHODES
consideration’, and is noted parenthetically in the apparatus, attributed to ‘comm(entatores)‘. If these instances are excepted, the number of proposed emendations recorded in the apparatus is reduced to about 165. The authors cited represent not only a cross-section of modern scholarship from Erasmus and Beza to Eberhard Nestle and Debrunner, but also include some earlier scholars such as Jerome and orthodoxi spud Epiphanium.
The emendations proposed by these authors range from im- provements in grammar and style to corrections of historical and theological significance. Although these examples only hint at the critical imagination’s fecundity in its efforts to determine the original text of the NT, they at least provide a representative sampling of passages which have aroused critical suspicion of early textual disturbance, and they suggest solutions which have been thought worthy of consideration by textual scholars over the years. And further, the remarkably wide acceptance of the Nestle edition among students of the NT has afforded these proposed emendations a ready access to the attention of modern scholars and translators. We shall observe how these emendations have fared in recent translations.
I. THE EVIDENCE
We have reviewed the treatment given Nestle’s selected emenda- tions in a score of NT translations representing a variety of ecclesiastical and scholarly traditions, and including examples of Protestant, Catholic, and ecumenical editions. English (E) is represented by the Authorized-Revised-Revised Standard tradi- tion (AV, 1 6 1 1 ; RV, I 881; RSV, I 946) ; the Jvew English Bible ( N E , 1961) ; the Jerusalem Bible (J, I 966) ; the fleru American Bible (NA, 1970) ; the 3vew International Version (NI, 1973) ; and the two Bible Society versions, the Good News Bible (GN, 1976) and the Translator’s 3vew Testament (T, 1973).
The French (F) is represented by the Segond (SlglO, Sgo2, S1975, and Sr978), the Jerusalem ( Jlgs6, Jlg’a), the Maredsous (Mlg48, Mlg68), and the PlCiade (P, I 97 I) versions, by the Traduction oxumknique de la Bible (0, ~gp), and by the common language Bonnes JVbuueZZes Aujourd’hui (BN, 197 I), and the German (G) by the Luther ( L15*5, L1g56, Llgv5) and Zurich (Z, I 954) versions, the Bishops’ version or Einheitsiibersetzung (E, I gp), the Jerusalem
Conjectural Emendations in Modern Translations 363 Bible (Oie Bibel) (J, 1 g68), and the ecumenical common language Die Gute Nachricht (GN, 1971).
First, we note that over three-quarters of the emendations recorded in the apparatus of Nestle’s edition appear in neither the text nor the marginal notes of any of the twenty versions reviewed. The remaining thirty-eight emendations are arranged below in groups, according to their concern with vocabulary and grammatical difficulties, the resolution of ambiguities in the Greek text, matters of contextual adaptation or interpretation in translation, of literary criticism, or of historical criticism.
The format observed for each example is ( I) the biblical reference, (2) the traditional reading of the text, and (3) its support among the twenty versions reviewed ; then (4) the proposed emendation, (5) its author, (6) any support it may have among MS, early versional, or patristic witnesses-given in parentheses-and (7) its support among the twenty versions reviewed, followed by (8) comments.
A. Vocabulary and grammatical di$cuZties
Matt. 2 : 6 r+j ‘IO& E RV NA, F rel, G Zmg J ; y;is ‘IOZ%U Drusius E rel, F BN, G L Z E GN. G Zmg observes that the whole MS tradition reads ‘Bethlehem, land of Judah’, but objects that ‘Bethlehem is not a land, and surely the sense is
“Bethlehem in the land of Judah” ‘. E AV implies the same by its use of italics : ‘Bethlehem in the land of Judah’. Note the occurrence of y4j ‘IO&~, however, in I Kgs. 19 : 3 LXX.
Matt. 7 : 25 ~p~&mw F P, G J; ~~OCT&TUKT~~ Lachmann E omn, F rel, G rel. A common itacism (e for UL) can make the difference between deriving the verb from ~poam~lo ‘strike against’
instead of from ~pomrlmw ‘fall against’ (cf. Matt. I I : 16 E(dpo~ /
2Tdp0~). Only F P ‘sont tomb& sur’ and G J ‘fielen iiber jenes Haus her’ include literal parallels to the Greek form of7rpoo&Tw.
But, although S. A. Naber (I 88 I) and Eberhard Nestle ( I 908) have defended the emendation (cf. BAG, S.U. ~pomulo), BDF $202 pronounces it doubtful; npoo&Tw is also versatile, quite capable of meaning ‘attack, assault’, and LSJ does not recognize
~rpoamlo as an independent lexeme (‘~poadw = npocmhm’).
Acts 7 : 38 & rfi EIKKA~c+ construed with E)v +j &jj,uy (see discussion) ; EIv r?j &nj,u(t) construed with T&V 77UT&JV Schmiedel G Zmg. The sentence order of the Greek text is followed by
364 ERROLL F. RHODES
G Z as in most versions, but with a footnote to indicate that the OT evidence supports the emendation proposed by Schmiedel.
Similar adaptations are found, however, in E J NI GN, F BN, where they are not considered as emendations, but well within the limits of direct translation. E NA condenses & 75 EIKKAY&
Zv rjj +jpy to ‘in that assembly’.
Acts 21: 2 I X+ov pj mp&w~w a&o& E AV, G L Z GN ;
Xywv ahoCs cL7j mpr+w~ Schmiedel E rel, F omn, G E J.
Most versions find it convenient to avoid a pedantic parallel to the accusative and infinitive construction, and show sym- pathy with Schmiedel’s emendation by making the object of A&W an infinitive rather than a clause. E NA avoids the problem by resetting the entire sentence.
I T i m . 4 : 3 ~cdudvmw yap% &&~da~ G Lr5*5; KW~~VTWV yap& K&&WV c.b&ecdaL Toup E omn, F rel, G rel ; KW~V~VTWV
yap&v Kal y&o0ac (or, 4 &T&as) Hort F P. The participle
Kwhb7~ governs two infinitives in a way that makes no ap- parent sense. Grammatically this is an example of zeugma, a form of ellipsis (cf. BDF $479, 2). It has been dealt with by translators in four different ways: (I) by retaining the ellipsis, smoothing only the syntax slightly, e.g. G L15*5 ; (2) by con- forming the second infinitive to the meaning required by its governing verb of prohibition, e.g. E GN, F J M BN (also P, following Hort), sometimes even repeating or rephrasing the governing verb, e.g. E T, F 0 ; (3) by conforming the governing verb and the first infinitive to the requirements implicit in the second infinitive, e.g. F S, G L1Q5~s1Q75 GN ; and (4) by supplying an appropriate and independent governing verb for the second infinitive, following Toup’s emendation, e.g. E AVitaliCs RVitaliCs rel, GZ E J.
H e b . 2 : g &ws xdpw~ 860~ hip navrds y&qraL 0avdrou E rel, F rel, G rel; transpose to follow 7jhamwpE;ov Schmiedel E NA GN, F BN, G Z”g. The sentence order of the Greek text is followed by G Z, but a footnote recommends the emenda- tion proposed by Schmiedel: ‘Die einzelnen Teile des Verses standen ursprtinglich vielleicht in dieser Reihenfolge : “den aber, der eine kurze Zeit unter die Engel erniedrigt worden war, damit er durch Gottes Gnade fur jeden den Tod Schmecken sollte, Jesus, sehen wir urn seines Todesleidens willen mit Herrlichkeit und Ehre
gekriint” ‘.
E GN, F BN, and also E NAConjectural Emendations in Modern Translations 365 in yet another way, rearrange the Greek sentence order i n translating, yet with no suggestion that they intend a departure .from the traditional order in their translation base.
Heb. I I : 4 ?rAdova E NE NA T, G L15*5 ; +iova Cobet E RSV.
Zuntz cites a comparable example from Plutarch of &COTOV / 9 unov.6 Only E RSV ‘more acceptable’ clearly adopts the emendation proposed by Cobet. The implicit analogy of quan- tity representing quality is made explicit (‘of greater value’) in F S1962,1978J, G J. It is uncertain which reading is represented by the contextual adaptations ‘better’ in E J NI GN, F P BN, G L1Q56s1Q75 GN, and ‘more excellent’ in E AV RV, F SlQlQJQ75 M, G Z.
I Pet. 3 : 7 OVyK~~pOVo'~ObS E rel, F rel, G rel ; 0V~KhpOVdp$~
Tregelles E J, F J, G J. The emendation evidently arises from attraction to the parallel singular form in the &s clause im- mediately preceding ; the plural form it displaces conforms to the parallel plural form in the preceding paragraph (v. I).’
B. Resolving ambiguities
Acts 20 : 28 TOUA Xov E rel, F rel, G rel; 706 Xov utoov^ Knapp E JmQ GN T, F J1Q55ma,1Q73 BN, G L1Q75 E GN, The traditional text may be construed as meaning either ‘by his own blood’, e.g. E rel (with GNmg Tmg), F J1Q55$1Q73mg M P, G L15*5*1Q5Q Z J ; or ‘by the blood of his Own’, e.g. E RSVmg NE”Q.8 The latter interpretation is made inevitable when the emendation proposed by Knapp is adopted.
I Cor. g : IO &TWS M~EL E AV RV NE, F S, G Z J ; TT~VTWS
06 A&yet Bois E rel, F rel, G rel. The traditional text leaves the question entirely open : ‘Or is the reference clearly to ourselves ?’
(E NE). Most translators, however, have preferred to anticipate the affirmative answer implied in the following 8~’ +.& y&p
<yp&b~, and translate with Bois : ‘Is there not an obvious reference to ourselves?’ (E J).
Col. I : 19 KaTotK+joab E rel, F SQlQ BN, G rel ; KaToLKiuaL Venema E NA NI, F rel, G Z J. The traditional text E&%K7)(TEV
6 G. Zuntz, 2-h Text of the E’istles (London: Oxford University, Ig53), 285.
7 B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek .h%w Testament (London/New York: United Bible Societies, 197x), 690-I.
* Cf. also U. Wilckens, Das Neue Testament iiberset& und kommentiert (Hamburg:
Furche, IgTo), footnote reading: ‘die er durch das Blut seines eigenen (Sohnes) erworben hat’.