Monday, February 8, 2016

"Critical" Edition Complete

As part of my dissertation on the Complutense Greek New Testament, I've put together a sort of "critical" edition of the Gospel according to Matthew that walks through the variant readings of Vatican manuscripts (most, not all) for the Gospel of Matthew. It basically resembles a modern critical edition, like the Nestle-Aland. Why put this together? Well, the primary reason is collations have been historically difficult to utilize in research. The truth is they are sometimes more difficult to look at than just simply looking at a manuscript directly. This layout simply makes my collation of the Vatican manuscripts more user friendly. I finished all of Matthew this afternoon. I am making significant progress on the dissertation. The hard part–not really hard, but definitely tedious and time consuming–was reading through all of the manuscripts. Analyzing the data is not easy per se, but the rubber is finally meeting the road on the dissertation, for which I am very, very thankful. I'm scheduled to have the dissertation completed by July 2016. My defense at the Complutense University will most likely take place sometime in October. That's big news. I really think this research is going to be valuable beyond just studies on the Complutensian Greek New Testament, even though that is the focus of my own research. Anyone who's interested in textual criticism, I hope, will find this portion of my research beneficial, since it documents for the very first time what a large body of the Vatican corpus reads in the Gospel according to Matthew.


  1. Why is the Vatican corpus important for better understanding Matthew?

  2. Tom, it is not better for understanding Matthew per se, though we do want to know what all manuscripts read. The Vatican corpus is important for this research because Cisneros specifically attributes the first printed Greek New Testament to the manuscripts loaned from the Vatican. No one has ever identified which manuscripts were utilized, and I don't anticipate being the one who does. But no one has ever looked comprehensively at the corpus to make the most informed hypothesis possible. Beyond that, there are readings in the first printed GNT that are not found in the Vatican mss. That's interesting. Accidental or intentional?