The reading of 1 Pet 4:16 was recently changed in NA28 on the basis of analyses relying on the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) of textual criticism. This article argues against the change, in the process identifying important omissions in the CBGM that have caused it to skew evaluations of this variation unit and indicating two key corresponding ways to develop the method: first, by accounting for corrected readings in manuscripts through the incorporation of reconstructed witnesses into the CBGM's assessments and into its underlying computer database; and, second, by methodologically accounting for distinctions between the relative qualities of witnesses between individual books and possibly even between sections of a single book. Lacking these developments, the final results of the CBGM will likely include further distortions such as those found in the case of 1 Pet 4:16.


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 899-921
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.