Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

$5.00

The Reading Culture of Early Christianity

New Testament Textual Criticism (sometimes called lower criticism) is the study of copies of New Testament documents whose original no longer survives. It is the process of attempting to ascertain the original wording of a text. Its primary focus is studying the textual variants in the New Testament.

Christian Bible students need to be familiar with Old and New Testament textual criticism as essential foundational studies. Why? If we fail to establish what was originally authored with reasonable certainty, how can we do a translation or even interpret what we think is the actual Word of God? We are fortunate that there are far more existing New Testament manuscripts today than any other book from ancient history. This gives New Testament textual scholars vastly more to work within establishing the original words of the text. Some ancient Greek and Latin classics are based on one existing manuscript, while with others, there are just a handful and a few exceptions that have a few hundred available. However, for the New Testament, over 5,898^[1] Greek New Testament manuscripts have been cataloged,^[2] 10,000 Latin manuscripts, and an additional 9,300 other manuscripts in such languages as Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic, and Armenian.

The Complete Guide to Bible Translation-2

The New Testament Compared to Classical Literature

Author	Work	Writing Completed	Earliest MSS	Years Removed	Number of MSS
Homer	Iliad	800 B.C.E.	3rd century B.C.E.^[3]	500	1,757
Herodotus	History	480–425 B.C.E.	10th cent. C.E.	1,350	109
Sophocles	Plays	496–406 B.C.E.	3rd cent. B.C.E.^[4]	100-200	193
Thucydides	History	460–400 B.C.E.	3rd cent. B.C.E.^[5]	200	96
Plato	Tetralogies	400 B.C.E.	895 C.E.	1,300	210
Demosthenes	Speeches	300 B.C.E.	Fragments from 1st cent. B.C.E.	200	340
Caesar	Gallic Wars	51-46 B.C.E.	9th cent. C.E.	950	251
Livy	History of Rome	59 B.C.E.–17 C.E.	5th cent. C.E.	400	150
Tacitus	Annals	100 C.E.	9th-11th cent. C.E.	750–950	33
Pliny, the Elder	Natural History	49–79 C.E.	5th cent. C.E. fragment	400	200
Eight Greek NT Authors	27 Books	50 – 98 C.E.	110-150 C.E.	12-52	5,898

The other difference between the New Testament manuscripts and those of the classics is that the existing copies of the New Testament date much closer to the originals. In the Greek classics, some of the manuscripts are dated to about a thousand years after the author had penned the book. Some of the Latin classics are dated from three to seven hundred years after the time the author wrote the book. When we look at the Greek copies of the New Testament books, some portions are within decades of the original author’s book. One hundred and thirty-nine Greek NT papyri and five majuscules^[6] date from 110 C.E. to 390 C.E.

Variant Reading(s): differing versions of a word or phrase found in two or more manuscripts within a variation unit (see below). Variant readings are also called alternate readings.

Variation Unit: any portion of text that exhibits variations in its reading between two or more different manuscripts. It is important to distinguish variation units from variant readings. Variation units are the places in the text where manuscripts disagree, and each variation unit has at least two variant readings. Setting the limits and range of a variation unit is sometimes difficult or even controversial because some variant readings affect others nearby. Such variations may be considered individually, or as elements of a single reading. One should also note that the terms “manuscript” and “witness” may appear to be used interchangeably in this context. Strictly speaking “witness” (see below) will only refer to the content of a given manuscript or fragment, which it predates to a greater or lesser extent. However, the only way to reference the “witness” is by referring to the manuscript or fragment that contains it. In this book, we have sometimes used the terminology “witness of x or y manuscript” to distinguish the content in this way.

Critical Edition or Critical Text: any biblical text in the original language that includes a legitimate apparatus of variant readings linked to the text. To be legitimate, the readings must consistent mainly of alternatives found in ancient manuscripts, which usually include ancient versions (translations) and citations in the church fathers. This format, which is a collation (q.v.), is the most practical way to provide the user a convenient source providing a great deal of textual information for making textual decisions. The text itself represents all the choices of its editors for every variation unit (q.v.) in the text.

Major Critical Texts of the New Testament

Byz RP: 2005 Byzantine Greek New Testament, Robinson & Pierpont
TR1550: 1550 Stephanus New Testament
Maj: The Majority Text (thousands of minuscules which display a similar text)
Gries: 1774-1775 Johann Jakob Griesbach Greek New Testament
Treg: 1857-1879 Samuel Prideaux Tregelles Greek New Testament
Tisch: 1872 Tischendorf’s Greek New Testament
WH: 1881 Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament
NA28: 2012 Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament
UBS5: 2014 Greek New Testament
NU: Both Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Society
TGNT: 2017 The Greek New Testament by Tyndale House
GENTI: 2021 Greek-English New Testament Interlinear^[7]

After declaring that their 1881 critical edition was ‘an attempt to present exactly the original words of the New Testament, so far as they can now be determined from surviving documents,’ F. J. A. Hort (1882) wrote the following on the purpose of textual criticism:

Again, textual criticism is always negative because its final aim is virtually nothing more than the detection and rejection of error. Its progress consists not in the growing perfection of an ideal in the future, but in approximation towards complete ascertainment of definite facts of the past, that is, towards recovering an exact copy of what was actually written on parchment or papyrus by the author of the book or his amanuensis. Had all intervening transcriptions been perfectly accurate, there could be no error and no variation in existing documents. Where there is variation, there must be error in at least all variants but one; and the primary work of textual criticism is merely to discriminate the erroneous variants from the true.[8]

Text-Types (Families)

The enormous number of witnesses (i.e., manuscripts) can seem to present unique challenges, chiefly in that it makes analyzing the relationship of surviving variant versions of a text to each other, especially so as to reconstruct a lost original in many cases very difficult because many copyists used two or more different manuscripts as sources. Consequently, many New Testament textual critics have adopted eclecticism[9] after sorting the witnesses into four major groups, called text-types. This author, a textual scholar, rejects eclecticism and uses the documentary approach. More on this later. The most common division today is as follows:

Alexandrian text-type

In textual criticism of the New Testament, the Alexandrian text-type is one of the main text types. It is the text type favored by the majority of modern textual scholars and it is the basis for most modern (after 1900) Bible translations. Almost all of these manuscripts date 2^nd–4^th centuries C.E. This family constitutes a group of early and well-regarded texts, including Codex Vaticanus (Date: 200-325 C.E.) and Codex Sinaiticus (Date: 330-360 C.E.). Most representatives of this tradition appear to come from around Alexandria, Egypt and from the Alexandrian Church, more specifically Fayyum and Oxyrhynchus Egypt. It contains readings that are often terse, shorter, somewhat rough, less harmonized, and generally more difficult. The family was once[when?] thought[by whom?] to result from a very carefully edited 3rd-century recension, but now is believed to be merely the result of a carefully controlled and supervised process of copying and transmission. It underlies most translations of the New Testament produced since 1900.

Western text-type

In textual criticism of the New Testament, the Western text-type is one of the main text types. It is the predominant form of the New Testament text witnessed in the Old Latin and Syriac Peshitta translations from the Greek, and also in quotations from certain 2nd and 3rd-century Christian writers, including Cyprian, Tertullian and Irenaeus. Manuscripts dating to 3^rd–9^th centuries C.E. Also a very early tradition, which comes from a wide geographical area stretching from North Africa to Italy and from Gaul to Syria. It occurs in Greek manuscripts and in the Latin translations used by the Western church. It is much less controlled than the Alexandrian family and its witnesses are seen to be more prone to paraphrase and other corruptions. It is sometimes called the Caesarean text-type. Some New Testament scholars would argue that the Caesarean constitutes a distinct text-type of its own.

Byzantine text-type – also, Koinē text-type (also called “Majority Text”)

In textual criticism of the New Testament, the Byzantine text-type (also called Majority Text, Traditional Text, Ecclesiastical Text, Constantinopolitan Text, Antiochian Text, or Syrian Text) is one of the main text types. These manuscripts date to 5th–16th centuries C.E. It is the form found in the largest number of surviving manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. This group comprises around 95% of all the manuscripts, the majority of which are comparatively very late in the tradition. It had become dominant at Constantinople from the 5^th century on and was used throughout the Eastern Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire. It contains the most harmonistic readings, paraphrasing and significant additions, most of which are believed to be secondary readings. It underlies the Textus Receptus used for most Reformation-era translations of the New Testament. Roger L. Omanson and Bruce Manning Metzger wrote, ““Byzantine Text: Other names which scholars have given to this form of the text include “the Syrian text,” “the Koine text,” “the Ecclesiastical text,” “the Antiochian text,” and “the Majority text.” This text is sometimes called the “A-text” because Codex Alexandrinus (in the Gospels only) is the oldest representative of this text, and sometimes, the “K-text” (Koine). On the whole, this is the latest of the several distinctive types of text of the NT, and it is characterized by stylistic clarity and completeness. The editors of this text sought to smooth away any harshness of language, to combine two or more variant readings into one expanded reading (called conflation), and to make the wording of different parallel passages agree (called harmonization). It is best represented today by Codex Alexandrinus (A 02, in the Gospels; not in Acts, the Epistles, or Revelation), the later uncial manuscripts, and the great mass of minuscule manuscripts. These minuscule manuscripts are cited together under the symbol Byz in the critical apparatus. This form of the text, produced perhaps at Antioch in Syria, was taken to Constantinople, from where it was distributed widely throughout the Byzantine Empire. About eighty percent of the minuscule manuscripts and nearly all lectionary manuscripts contain the Byzantine text-type. So, except for an occasional manuscript that happened to preserve an earlier form of the text, during the period from about the sixth or seventh century down to the invention of printing with moveable type (A. D. 1450–1456), the Byzantine form of text was generally regarded as the authoritative form of text and was the one most widely circulated and accepted.”^[10]

Caesarean text-type

The Caesarean text-type is the term proposed by certain scholars to denote a consistent pattern of variant readings that is claimed to be apparent in certain Koine Greek manuscripts of the four Gospels, but which is not found in any of the other commonly recognized New Testament text-types: the Byzantine text-type, the Western text-type, and the Alexandrian text-type. Roger L. Omanson and Bruce M. Metzger wrote, “An Eastern Form of Text: This form of text was formerly called the Caesarean text and is preserved to a greater or lesser degree in several Greek manuscripts (including Θ, 565, 700) and in the Armenian and Georgian versions (cited in the critical apparatus by the group symbols arm and geo). This form of the text is sometimes called the “C-text.” The text of these witnesses is characterized by a mixture of Western and Alexandrian readings. Although recent research has tended to question the existence of a specifically Caesarean text-type, the individual manuscripts formerly considered to be members of the group remain important witnesses in their own right. Another Eastern type of text, current in and near Antioch, is preserved today chiefly in Old Syriac witnesses, namely the Sinaitic and the Curetonian manuscripts of the Gospels (cited in the critical apparatus as syr^s and syr^c) and in the quotations of Scripture contained in the works of the Syriac Church leaders Aphraates and Ephraem in the fourth century.^[11]

Development of Critical Texts (1831–1881)

Karl Lachmann[12] became the first scholar to publish a critical edition of the Greek New Testament (1831) that was not simply based on the Textus Receptus anymore but sought to reconstruct the original biblical text following scientific principles. Starting with Lachmann, manuscripts of the Alexandrian text-type have been the most influential in modern critical editions. In the decades thereafter, important contributions were made by Constantin von Tischendorf,[13] who discovered numerous manuscripts including the Codex Sinaiticus (1844), published several critical editions that he updated several times, culminating in the 8th: Editio Octava Critica Maior (11 volumes, 1864–1894).[14] The 1872 edition provided a critical apparatus listing all the known textual variants in uncials, minuscules, versions, and commentaries of the Church Fathers.

The critical method achieved widespread acceptance up until in the Westcott and Hort[15] text (1881), a landmark publication that sparked a new era of New Testament textual criticism and translations. Hort rejected the primacy of the Byzantine text-type (which he called “Syrian”) with three arguments:

The Byzantine text-type contains readings combining elements found in earlier text-types.
The variants unique to the Byzantine manuscripts are not found in Christian writings before the 4th century.
When Byzantine and non-Byzantine readings are compared, the Byzantine can be demonstrated not to represent the original text.

Having diligently studied the early text-types and variants, Westcott and Hort concluded that the Egyptian texts (including Sinaiticus (א) and Vaticanus (B), which they called “Neutral”) were the most reliable, since they seemed to preserve the original text with the least changes. Therefore, the Greek text of their critical edition was based on this “Neutral” text-type, unless internal evidence clearly rejected the reliability of particular verses of it.

Until the publication of the Introduction and Appendix of Westcott and Hort in 1882, scholarly opinion remained that the Alexandrian text was represented by the codices Vaticanus (B), Ephraemi Rescriptus (C), and Regius/Angelus (L). The Alexandrian text is one of the three ante-Nicene texts of the New Testament (Neutral and Western). The text of the Codex Vaticanus stays in the closest affinity to the Neutral Text.[16]

NT Textual Scholarship (1881 Forward)

The Novum Testamentum Graece,[17] first published in 1898 by Eberhard Nestle,[18] later continued by his son Erwin Nestle[19] and since 1952 co-edited by Kurt Aland,[20] became the internationally leading critical text standard amongst scholars, and for translations produced by the United Bible Societies (UBS, formed in 1946). This series of critical editions, including extensive critical apparatuses, is therefore colloquially known as “Nestle-Aland,” with particular editions abbreviated as “NA” with the number attached; for example, the 2012 update was the 28^th edition, and is thus known as “NA28” (or “UBS5,” namely, the 5^th United Bible Societies edition based on the 28^th Nestle-Aland edition). Puskas & Robbins (2012) noted that, despite significant advancements since 1881, the text of the NA27 differs much more from the Textus Receptus than from Westcott and Hort, stating that ‘the contribution of these Cambridge scholars appears to be enduring.” This can be taken even further, as the 1881 Westcott and Hort Greek text and the 2012 Nestle-Aland 28^th edition are 99.5% in agreement, and tis is after the discovery of 140 NT Greek papyri manuscripts, a good number dating within decades, most dating from the 2nd–4th centuries C.E. After discovering the manuscripts P⁶⁶ (1952, Date: 110-150 C.E.) and P⁷⁵ (1950s, Date: 175-225 C.E.), the Neutral text and Alexandrian text were unified.[21]

Evaluations of Text-Types

Most textual critics of the New Testament favor the Alexandrian text-type as the closest representative of the autographs for many reasons. One reason is that Alexandrian manuscripts are the oldest found; some of the earliest Church Fathers[22] used readings found in the Alexandrian text. Another is that the Alexandrian readings are adjudged more often to be the ones that can best explain the origin of all the variant readings found in other text-types.

Nevertheless, there are some dissenting voices to this consensus. A few textual critics, especially those in France, argue that the Western text-type, an old text from which the Vetus Latina or Old Latin versions of the New Testament are derived, is closer to the originals.

In the United States, some critics have a dissenting view that prefers the Byzantine text-type, such as Maurice A. Robinson[23] and William Grover Pierpont. They assert that Egypt, almost alone, offers optimal climatic conditions favoring preservation of ancient manuscripts while, on the other hand, the papyri used in the east (Asia Minor and Greece) would not have survived due to the unfavorable climatic conditions. Thus, it is not surprising that ancient Biblical manuscripts that are found would come mostly from the Alexandrian geographical area and not from the Byzantine geographical area.

The argument for the authoritative nature of the latter is that the much greater number of Byzantine manuscripts copied in later centuries, in detriment to the Alexandrian manuscripts, indicates a superior understanding by scribes of those being closer to the autographs.[24] Eldon Jay Epp argued that the manuscripts circulated in the Roman world and many documents from other parts of the Roman Empire were found in Egypt since the late 19th century.[25]

The Trustworthiness of Early Copyists

In his Methods in Establishing the Nature of Text-Types, E. C. Colwell notes: “the overwhelming majority of readings were created before the year 200. But very few, if any, text-types were established by that time.” (p. 55) In The Bodmer and Mississippi Collection, G. D. Kilpatrick says, “Apart from errors which can occur anywhere as long as books are copied by hand, almost all variants can be presumed to have been created by A.D. 200.” (p. 42) And Kurt and Barbara Aland say, “practically all the substantive variants in the text of the New Testament are from the second century …” – The Text of the New Testament, 295.

Lee McDonald states,

“Many mistakes in the manuscripts were made and subsequently transmitted in the churches. This suggests that these documents were not generally recognized as Scripture until the end of the second century C.E. Scribal attempts at improvements in the text occurred regularly, and apparently, no attempts were made to stop this activity until the fourth century, when more stability in the text of the NT began to take place.”^[26]

Throughout much of the twentieth century, it was common to form three conclusions about the earliest copyists and their work:

The first three centuries saw copyists who were semiliterate and unskilled in the work of making copies.
Copyistsin these early centuries felt as though the end was nigh, so they took liberties with the text in an attempt to strengthen orthodoxy.
In the early centuries, manuscripts could be described as “free,” “wild,” “in a state of flux,” “chaotic,” “a turbid textual morass,” i.e., a “free text” (so the Alands).

Number (1) in the above would undoubtedly lead to many unintentional changes, while number (2) would escalate intentional changes. J. Harold Greenlee had this to say:

In the very early period, the NT writings were more nearly “private” writings than the classics . . . the classics were commonly, although not always, copied by professional scribes, the NT books were probably usually copied in the early period by Christians who were not professionally trained for the task, and no corrector was employed to check the copyist’s work against his exemplar (the MS from which the copy was made) …. It appears that a copyist sometimes even took liberty to add or change minor details in the narrative books on the basis of personal knowledge, alternative tradition, or a parallel account in another book of the Bible …. At the same time, the importance of these factors in affecting the purity of the NT text must not be exaggerated. The NT books doubtless came to be considered as “literature” soon after they began to be circulated, with attention to the precise wording required when copies were made.^[27] (Bold and underline mine)

Greenlee had not changed his position 14 years later when he wrote the following:

The New Testament, on the other hand, was probably copied during the earliest period mostly by ordinary Christians who were not professional scribes but who wanted a copy of the New Testament book or books for themselves or for other Christians.^[28] (Bold mine)

The Alands in their Text of the New Testament saw the New Testament books as not being canonical, i.e., not viewed as Scripture in the first few centuries, so the books were subject to changes. They wrote, “not only every church but each individual Christian felt ‘a direct relationship to God.’ Well into the second century, Christians still regarded themselves as possessing inspiration equal to that of the New Testament writings which they read in their worship service.” Earlier the Alands had written, “That was all the more true of the early period when the text had not attained canonical status, especially in the early period when Christians considered themselves filled with the Spirit.” They claimed that “until the beginning of the fourth century the text of the New Testament developed freely.”^[29]

Generally, once an established concept is set within the world of textual scholars, it is not easily displaced. During the start of the 20^th century (1900–1940), there was a handful of papyri discovered that obviously represented the work of a copyist who had no training. It is during this time that Sir Frederic Kenyon, director, and principal librarian of the British Museum for many years, said,

The early Christians, a poor, scattered, often illiterate body, looking for the return of the Lord at no distant date, were not likely to care sedulously for minute accuracy of transcription or to preserve their books religiously for the benefit of posterity.^[30]

The first papyri discovered (P⁴⁵, P⁴⁶, P⁶⁶) showed this possibly could be the case. Professional scribes copied P⁴⁶ and P⁶⁶. P⁴⁵ contains much of the Gospels and Acts, and it varies with each biblical book. Comfort informs us that “P⁴⁵ (Gospels and Acts) may have also been done by professionals—at least, they display the reformed documentary hand.”^[31] However, Barbara Aland says that “P⁴⁵ has a great number of singular readings.”^[32] On the origin of these singular readings, E. C. Colwell comments:

As an editor the scribe of P⁴⁵ wielded a sharp axe. The most striking aspect of his style is its conciseness. The dispensable word is dispensed with. He omits adverbs, adjectives, nouns, participles, verbs, personal pronouns—without any compensating habit of addition. He frequently omits phrases and clauses. He prefers the simple to the compound word. In short, he favors brevity. He shortens the text in at least fifty places in singular readings alone. But he does not drop syllables or letters. His shortened text is readable.^[33]

So, it would seem that P⁴⁵, which came to light when it was purchased from some dealer in 1930-31, was the predominant factor for the negative view of the copyist in early Christianity. However, as more papyri became known, especially after the discovery of P⁷⁵ in the 1950s in Pabau, Egypt, it proved to be just the opposite. P⁷⁵ is generally described as “the most significant”^[34] papyrus of the Greek New Testament to be discovered. These new discoveries prompted Sir Frederic Kenyon to write,

We must be content to know that the general authenticity of the New Testament text has been remarkably supported by the modern discoveries which have so greatly reduced the interval between the original autographs and our earliest extant manuscripts, and that the differences of reading, interesting as they are, do not affect the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith.^[35]

Even though many textual scholars were crediting the Alands’ The Text of the New Testament with their description of the text as “free,” that was not the entire position of the Alands. True, they spoke of the different text styles such as the “normal,” “free,” “strict,” and the “paraphrastic.” However, like Kenyon, they saw a need based on the evidence, which suggested a rethinking of how the evidence should be described:

Our research on the early papyri has yielded unexpected results that require a change in the traditional views of the early text. We have inherited from the past generation the view that the early text was a “free” text, and the discovery of the Chester Beatty papyri seemed to confirm this view. When P⁴⁵ and P⁴⁶ were joined by P⁶⁶ sharing the same characteristics, this position seemed to be definitely established. P⁷⁵ appeared in contrast to be a loner with its “strict” text anticipating Codex Vaticanus. Meanwhile the other witnesses of the early period had been ignored. It is their collations which have changed the picture so completely.^[36]

While we have said this previously, it bears repeating once again that some of the earliest manuscripts we now have indicate that a professional scribe copied them.^[37] Many of the other papyri confirm that a semi-professional scribe copied them, while most of these early papyri give evidence of being produced by a copyist who was literate and experienced. Therefore, either literate or semi-professional copyists did the vast majority of our early papyri, with some being done by professionals. As it happened, the few poorly copied manuscripts became known first, establishing a precedent that was difficult for some to discard when the enormous amount of evidence came forth that showed just the opposite.

Distribution of Papyri by Century and Type
DATE	ALEX	WEST	CAES	BYZ
100-150/175 C.E.	7Q4? 7Q5? P^4/64/67 P³² P⁴⁶ P⁵² P⁶⁶⁺ P⁷⁵⁺ P^77/103 P¹⁰¹ P⁸⁷ P⁹⁰ P⁹⁸ (bad shape, differences) P¹⁰⁹ (too small) P¹¹⁸ (too small) P¹³⁷ 0189 P. Oxyrhynchus 405 P. Egerton 2	P¹⁰⁴	0	0
175-250 C.E.	P¹ P⁵ P¹³ P²⁰ P²³ P²⁷ P³⁰ P³⁵ P³⁹ P⁴⁰ P⁴⁵ P⁴⁷ P^49/65 P⁷¹ P⁷² P⁸² P⁸⁵ P⁹⁵ P¹⁰⁰ P¹⁰⁶ P¹⁰⁸ P¹¹⁰P¹¹¹ P¹¹³ P¹¹⁵ P¹²¹ (too small) P¹²⁵ P¹²⁶ (too small) P¹³³ P¹³⁶ 0220 0232 P. Oxyrhynchus 406 P. Egerton 3	P²⁹ (Metzger Western & Aland Free; too small to be certain) P³⁸ P⁴⁸ P⁶⁹ 0171 0212 (mixed) P¹⁰⁷ (Independent)	0	0
250-300 C.E.	P⁸ P⁹ P¹² P¹⁵ P¹⁶ P¹⁷ P¹⁸ P¹⁹ P²⁴ P²⁸ P⁵⁰ P⁵¹ P⁵³ P⁷⁰ P⁷⁸ P⁸⁰ P⁸⁶ P⁸⁸ P⁸⁹ (too small) P⁹¹ P⁹² P¹¹⁴ P¹¹⁹ P¹²⁰ P¹²⁹ (too small) P¹³¹ P¹³² too small) P¹³⁴ 0162 0207 0231 P. Antinoopolis 54	P³⁷ (Free, mostly Western)	0	0
290-390 C.E.	P³ P⁶ P⁷ P¹⁰ P²¹ P⁵⁴ P⁶² P⁸¹ P⁹³ P⁹⁴ P¹⁰² (too small) P¹¹⁷ (too small) P¹²² (too small) P¹²³ P¹²⁷ P¹³⁰ (too small) P¹³⁹ (too small) 057 058 059 / 0215 071 0160 0163 0165 0169 0172 0173 0175 0176 0181 0182 0185 0188 0206 0214 0217 0218 0219 0221 0226 0227 0228 0230 0242 0264 0308 0312 P. Oxyrhynchus 4010 P. Oxyrhynchus 5073	P²¹ (mixed) P²⁵ (independent) P¹¹² (independent) P¹²⁷ (independent; like no other)	0	0
4^th / 5^th Century C.E.	P¹¹ P¹⁴ P^33/P58 P⁵⁶ P⁵⁷ P⁶³ P¹⁰⁵ (too small) P¹²⁴ 0254			069 P. Oxyrhynchus 1077?

Also, as we noted earlier, textual scholars such as Comfort^[38] and others believe that the very early Alexandrian manuscripts that we now possess are a reflection of what would have been found throughout the whole of the Greco-Roman Empire from about 85–275 C.E. So these early papyri can play a major role in our establishing the original readings. While this is true, it might not be in the way that one might think. Have the early papyri made a difference in the critical text of the New Testament? Maurice A. Robinson has estimated that the current Nestle-Aland 28^th edition of 2012 is 99.5 percent the same as the 1881 Westcott and Hort’s edition of the Greek New Testament. From the Westcott and Hort Greek text of 1881 to the 25^th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament Text of 1963, the critical texts were essentially based on the accumulated evidence from the days of Desiderius Erasmus in 1516, 1522 up unto the 19^th/early 20^th century. In other words, the codices manuscripts, with Codex Vaticanus (c. 300–325 C.E.) and Codex Sinaiticus (c. 330–360) were leading the way. Again, there were no significant changes from 1881 to the 2012 28^th edition of the Nestle-Aland Text. However, that is, in fact, what makes the early papyri majorly important, extremely significant, very consequential, considerable evidence for establishing the original Greek New Testament. It simply gives validity to those who had placed much trust in the great majuscules.

However, Epp asks, “If Westcott-Hort did not utilize papyri in constructing their NT text, and if our own modern critical texts, in fact, are not significantly different from that of Westcott-Hort, then why are the papyri important after all?”^[39] From there, Epp goes on to strongly advise that the papyri should play an essential role in three areas: (1) “to isolate the earliest discernable text-types, (2) assisting “to trace out the very early history of the NT text,” and, (3) “Finally, the papyri can aid in refining the canons of criticism―the principles by which we judge variant readings―for they open to us a window for viewing the earliest stages of textual transmission, providing instances of how scribes worked in their copying of manuscripts.”^[40] We should add that the early papyri have changed textual scholars’ and committees’ decisions so that they have not retained Westcott and Hort’s readings at times. Again, there has been little change between the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament of 1881 and the 2012 28^th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. The early papyri (1) have reinforced what we already knew to be original and (2) helped us improve the critical text ever slightly.

To offer just one example, both Metzger and Comfort inform us that the papyri’s external evidence resulted in the change in the NU text, adopting the reading that was also in the Textus Receptus, as opposed to what was in the Westcott and Hort text.

Matthew 26:20 (WH)

²⁰ μετα των δωδεκα μαθητων

With the twelve disciples

Matthew 26:20 (TRNU)

²⁰ μετα των δωδεκα

With the twelve

Metzger writes, “As is the case in 20:17,^[41] the reading μαθηταί after οἱ δώδεκα is doubtful. In the present verse [26:20] the weight of the external evidence seems to favor the shorter reading.” (B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 1994, 53) Comfort in his New Testament Text and Translation writes, “Even though both P³⁷ and P⁴⁵ are listed as ‘vid,’ it is certain that both did not include the word μαθητων because line spacing would not accommodate it. P³⁷ has the typical abbreviation for ‘twelve,’ as ̅ιβ; and P⁴⁵ has it written out as [δω]δεκα. P⁶⁴⁺⁶⁷ is less certain, but line lengths of the manuscript suggest that it reads ̅ιβ (see Texts of Earliest MSS, 69).” Comfort more explicitly explains what Metzger hinted at; “The testimony of the papyri (with B and D) created a change in the NU text. Prior to NA26, the NU text included the word μαθητων (“disciples”). But the early evidence shows that this must have been a later addition.” Comfort continues, “Such an addition is not necessary in light of the fact that Jesus’ closest followers were often designated by the gospel writers as simply “the twelve.” (P. W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary 2008, 77)

Again, many textual scholars before 1961 believed that the early copyists of the New Testament papyri were among the untrained in making documents (P⁴⁵, P⁴⁶, P⁴⁷; P⁶⁶ and P⁷² in 2 Peter and Jude) and that the papyri were texts in flux.^[42] It was not until the discovery of P⁷⁵ and other papyri that textual scholars began to think differently. Nevertheless, the attitude of the 1930s through the 1950s is explained well by Kurt and Barbara Aland:

Of special importance are the early papyri, i.e., of the period of the third/fourth century. As we have said, these have an inherent significance for the New Testament textual studies because they witness to a situation before the text was channeled into major text types in the fourth century. Our research on the early papyri has yielded unexpected results that require a change in the traditional views of the early text. We have inherited from the past generation the view that the early text was a “free” text,^[43] and the discovery of the Chester Beatty papyri seemed to confirm this view. When P⁴⁵ and P⁴⁶ were joined by P⁶⁶ sharing the same characteristics, this position seemed to be definitely established. (Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament 1995, 93)

Before P⁷⁵ and other early papyri, scholars were under the impression that scribes must have used untrained copyists’ manuscripts to make a recension (critical revision, i.e., revised text); and this, according to scholars prior to 1961, was how Codex Vaticanus (B) came about. In 1940, Kenyon inferred the following:

During the second and third centuries, a great variety of readings came into existence throughout the Christian world. In some quarters, considerable license was shown in dealing with the sacred text; in others, more respect was shown to the tradition. In Egypt, this variety of texts existed, as elsewhere; but Egypt (and especially Alexandria) was a country of strong scholarship and with a knowledge of textual criticism. Here, therefore, a relatively faithful tradition was preserved. About the beginning of the fourth century, a scholar may well have set himself to compare the best accessible representatives of this tradition, and so have produced a text of which B [Codex Vaticanus] is an early descendant.^[44]

While Kenyon was correct about the manuscripts coming up out of Egypt being a reasonably pure text, he was certainly mistaken when he suggested that Codex Vaticanus was the result of a critical revision by early scribes. P⁷⁵ put this theory to rest. The Agreement between P⁷⁵ and codex B is 92% in John and 94% in Luke. However, Porter has it at about 85% agreement. Zuntz, on the other hand, went a little further than Kenyon did. Kenyon believed that the critical text had been made in the early part of the fourth century, leading to Codex Vaticanus. Zuntz believed similarly but felt that the recension began back in the mid-second century and was a process that ran up into the fourth-century. Zuntz wrote:

The Alexander correctors strove, in ever repeated efforts, to keep the text current in their sphere free from the many faults that had infected it in the previous period, and which tended to crop up again even after they had been obelized [i.e., marked as spurious]. These labors must time and again have been checked by persecutions and the confiscation of Christian books, and counteracted by the continuing currency of manuscripts of the older type. Nonetheless they resulted in the emergence of a type of text (as distinct from a definite edition) which served as a norm for the correctors in provincial Egyptian scriptoria. The final result was the survival of a text far superior to that of the second century, even though the revisers, being fallible human beings, rejected some of its own correct readings and introduced some faults of their own.^[45]

P⁷⁵ and other early papyri, as we can see from the above, influenced the thinking of Kurt Aland. While he said, “We have inherited from the past generation the view that the early text was a ‘free’ text,” he was one of those saying that very thing. However, as he would later say, “Our research on the early papyri has yielded unexpected results that require a change in the traditional views of the early text.” P⁷⁵ greatly affected the Alands: “P⁷⁵ shows such a close affinity with the Codex Vaticanus that the supposition of a recension of the text at Alexandria, in the fourth century, can no longer be held.”^[46] Gordon Fee clearly states that there was no Alexandrian recension before P⁷⁵ (175-225 C.E.) and the time of Codex Vaticanus (350 C.E.), as he commented that P⁷⁵ and Vaticanus “seem to represent a ‘relatively pure’ form of preservation of a ‘relatively pure’ line of descent from the original text.”^[47] For many decades now, New Testament textual scholarship has been aware that P⁷⁵ is an extremely accurate copy. Of the copyist behind P⁷⁵, Colwell said, “his impulse to improve style is for the most part defeated by the obligation to make an exact copy.”^[48] Colwell went on to comment on the work of that scribe:

In P⁷⁵ the text that is produced can be explained in all its variants as the result of a single force, namely the disciplined scribe who writes with the intention of being careful and accurate. There is no evidence of revision of his work by anyone else, or in fact of any real revision, or check.… The control had been drilled into the scribe before he started writing.^[49]

We do not want to leave the reader with the impression that P⁷⁵ is perfect, as it is not. On this Comfort says,

The scribe had to make several corrections (116 in Luke and John), but there was no attempt ‘to revise the text by a second exemplar, and indeed no systematic correction at all.’^[50] The scribe of P⁷⁵ shows a clear tendency to make grammatical and stylistic improvements in keeping with the Alexandrian scriptorial tradition, and the scribe had a tendency to shorten his text, particularly by dropping pronouns. However, his omissions of text hardly ever extend beyond a word or two, probably because he copied letter by letter and syllable by syllable.^[51]

As the early Nestle Greek critical text moved from edition to edition, the influence of the New Testament papyri increased. It was the son of Eberhard Nestle, Erwin, who added a full critical apparatus in the thirteenth edition of the 1927 Nestle Edition. It was not until 1950 that Kurt Aland began to work on the text that would eventually become known as the Nestle-Aland text. He would begin to add even more evidence from papyri to the critical apparatus of the twenty-first edition. At Erwin Nestle’s request, he looked over and lengthened the critical apparatus, adding far more manuscripts. This ultimately led to the 25^th edition of 1963. The most significant papyri and recently discovered majuscules (i.e., 0189), a few minuscules (33, 614, 2814), and rarely also lectionaries were also considered. However, while the critical apparatus was being added to and even altered, the text of the Nestle-Aland was not changed until the 26^th edition (1979). Many of these changes to the text were a direct result of the papyri. In the 2012 28^th edition of the Nestle Aland Greek Text, there were only 34 changes to the text, all of which were in the General Epistles (James-Jude). The 27^th edition of the NA was the same as the 26^th edition of 1979, which would mean that in 33 years up unto 2012, with many new manuscript discoveries and much research, very little has needed to be changed, even very little change with the 1881 WH Greek New Testament text. It bears repeating that Robinson^[52] has estimated that the 27^th edition of the NA Greek New Testament text is 99.5% the same as the 1881 WH Greek New Testament text. There were only 34 changes between the 27^th edition and the 2012 28^th NA Greek New Testament text. The NA is still 99.5% the same as the 1881 WH Greek New Testament text.

Evaluation Principles

Collecting the manuscript evidence is a laborious process, but it is a little more straightforward than the evaluation process. In the collection process, the goal is to gather as much evidence as possible concerning various readings of a specific text. In the evaluation process, the aim is to determine which reading has the best evidence for being the original reading. The evaluation process is complicated by the fact that not all scholars agree on which evaluation principles are to be used or the relative importance of each of them.^[53]

There can only be one reading, which is the original reading.
Manuscripts are to be weighed not counted. Certain families of manuscripts are more trustworthy (e.g., Alexandrian over Byzantine, Western, or Caesarean). In addition, certain manuscripts within a family are more faithful than others (e.g. P⁶⁶ P⁷⁵ 01 03)
Generally, the reading that is weighty from both internal and external evidence is preferred.^[54]
The external evidence of the manuscript witnesses is to be evaluated first; thereafter, will the internal evidence be considered.
The primary weight of external evidence goes to the original language manuscripts. If the weight is so evenly distributed, it is difficult to make a decision; the versions and Church Fathers may serve to tip the scales.
Probability is determined based on paleographical details and the habits of scribes.

The Internal Textual Criticism Process

The reading that the other reading(s) most likely came from is likely the original. This is the fundamental principle of textual criticism.
The more difficult or awkward reading is often preferable. The reading at first will seem to be more difficult or awkward to understand, but after further investigation, it will be discovered that a scribe deliberately or mistakenly changed the text to an easier reading.
The shorter reading is generally preferred if the change is intended. This is a reflection of scribal tendency, as a scribe is far more likely in his efforts at clarification, willfully to make an addition to a text. Very rarely will a scribe intentionally add to his text by mistake.
The longer reading is generally preferred if the change is unintended. This again is a reflection of scribal activity, in that a scribe is far more likely to omit a word or phrase mistakenly, as to intentionally adding.
The longer reading is preferred if there is clear reason(s) internally as to why the scribe omitted a word or phrase, like difficulties (perceived contradictions) or awkwardness. For example, a scribe may willfully remove or alter a verse that is repeating one of the previous verses.
Within the synoptic gospels especially, a less identical reading is preferred as scribes had a tendency to harmonize readings.
An author-style reading is preferred. If a reading matches the style of the author, it is preferred, and the variants that are foreign to that style are questionable.
An author-vocabulary reading is preferred. If a reading matches the vocabulary of the author, it is preferred, and the variants that are foreign to that vocabulary are questionable.
An author-doctrine reading is preferred. If a reading matches the doctrine of the author, it is preferred, and the variants that are foreign to that doctrine are questionable, especially if they are of a later period in Christian history, anachronistic.
The reading that is deemed immediately at odds with the context is preferred if deemed intentional because a scribe is more likely to have smoothed the reading out.

The External Textual Criticism Process

The Alexandrian text-type is generally preferred (especially P⁶⁶ P⁷⁵ 01 03), unless it appears to be a “learned” correction.
A represented reading from more than one geographical area may be preferred to even an Alexandrian text-type reading. The reason is that the odds are increased greatly against a reading being changed from the original in such a wide geographical and family spectrum.
An overwhelming Alexandrian representation (P⁶⁶ P⁷⁵ 01 03), numerous Alexandrian manuscripts of great quality and trustworthiness can overrule a widely represented reading from all geographical areas and families.
The Byzantine reading is always questionable until proven otherwise.
The most faithful to a text-type is preferred if they are divided in support.

Different Approaches to New Testament Textual Criticism

Thoroughgoing Eclecticism (G. D. Kilpatrick, J. K. Elliott)

Under this method, the evidence is one-sided, coming primarily from internal evidence. Those who side with this method tend to view the textual evidence as being unreliable, giving no preference to any text type. These textual scholars will argue that any variant could be original because no manuscript in their eyes is “best” or “better” than another. Therefore, the reading that fits the internal context, such as the style or thought of the author is deemed original. This is a minority view, and this position is criticized for not recognizing the value of the textual evidence.

Reasoned Eclecticism (B. M. Metzger, K. Aland, B. Ehrman)

Under this method, both internal and external evidence is allegedly given equal weight. Allegedly because many of those who profess this method tend to lean toward the internal evidence of what a copyist would most likely have done, as opposed to consistently trusting manuscripts, which are considered reliable. Eclecticism means to pick and choose. It refers to those textual scholars who lean toward selecting elements from both internal and external evidence. This is the method of those on the committees of the Nestle-Aland 28th edition and United Bible Societies 4th edition of the Greek New Testament. These scholars also prefer the manuscripts of the Alexandrian family of texts as being the best and most faithful in preserving the original reading. They view the Western family of texts, while early, as paraphrases, adding and removing words, clauses, and whole sentences. The Byzantine family is later than the Alexandrian and Western families and is known for its smoothing out rough readings, the combining of two or more readings, and the harmonization of parallel passages. Finally, there is the Caesarean family that is known for its mixture of Western and Alexandrian readings.

Reasoned Conservatism (H. A. Sturz)

Under this method, each of the four text types, Alexandria, Western, Byzantine, and Caesarean, are considered as early as the second century. The scholars that prefer this method also consider both internal and external evidence. However, they differ in that they give all four-manuscript families equal weight as to evidence toward the original reading, emphasizing the geographical distribution of the manuscripts.

Byzantine Priority (M. Robinson, Z. Hodges, A. Farstad)

Under this method, the Byzantine text family is given priority over the other three and is considered the best and most faithful in preserving the original reading. The textual scholars that prefer this method favor the reading from the majority of the manuscripts, which happens to be the Byzantine text.^[55] Several of the scholars that worked on the New King James Version committee, which is based on the Textus Receptus (i.e., Byzantine), are of this position. Of course, this method violates one of the pinnacle rules of textual criticism; manuscripts are to be weighed not counted. In other words, the majority does not equal that you have an original reading; it is the weight of the manuscripts involved. “For example, if ten manuscripts are copies of a single parent manuscript, then an error appearing in the parent will appear ten times in ten copies. But these ten copies are equal to a single authority, not to ten.”^[56]

The Documentary Approach (F. J. A Hort, E. C. Colwell, P. Comfort, E. D. Andrews, D. Wilkins)

The approach of this author to New Testament Textual Studies is almost identical to Philip W. Comfort. I started my research and studies in NTTC in 1996. Metzger’s TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT was the book to read. I have much respect for the textual scholars from the 1700s to the 21^st century, some being J. J. Griesbach (1745–1812), Karl Lachmann (1793-1851), to Samuel Tregelles (1813–1875), to Constantin von Tischendorf (1815–1874), to Westcott (1825 – 1901) and Hort (1828 – 1892), to the Nestles and Alands of the Nestle Aland Text.

These had methods of deciding the original reading and literally worked with the manuscripts personally, making critical texts that make up our modern-day Bible translations.

Philip Comfort has maintained decades of consistency with his approach to New Testament Textual Criticism. The difference between him and most other textual scholars today is stated by Dr. Stanley E. Porter, “that Comfort is one of few that I know of who has actually examined and published a major work in which he contends that he has examined the entire range of early New Testament manuscripts.”^[57] Many modern-day textual scholars have the mental disposition described by Dr. Daniel Wallace in the Foreword of Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, modern evangelical scholars are “far more comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty than previous generations.” (Page xii). (Bold and underline mine) Let’s look at one paragraph from Comfort, notice his tone and view,

For my own part, my work with the significant textual variants leads me to conclude, with some degree of certainty, that for any given passage of scripture, the original text usually stands somewhere either in the critical edition produced by Westcott and Hort or that produced by Nestle, Aland, et al. Many of the papyri discoveries in the twentieth century affirm readings in Westcott and Hort, but these readings were not always accepted by Aland and the UBS committee. On the other hand, several of the readings in the early papyri show that the text of Westcott and Hort needed to be revised, and this was done in the Nestle-Aland/UBS edition. And there are still other readings (relatively few in number) which, in my estimation, are likely original but were not adopted by either edition. Finally, I must admit that there are several instances where one or more variant readings have equal qualifications to claim the right as being “the original wording.” Many textual critics would say the same—though probably about different textual-variant units than the ones I consider. But there is, by no means, a large number of such textual variants. And these few recalcitrant cases should not cause us to abandon the task of recovering the original wording of the Greek New Testament. New insights have come and will keep coming, in the form of actual documents, new methodologies, and new understandings. These will help us continue the valid and necessary task of seeking to reconstruct the original with a high degree of accuracy.^[58] (Bold mine)

The most used and referred to is reasoned eclecticism, which is supposed to objectively view all the evidence internal and external. And maybe it mostly did up until about the 1990s. Now, reasoned eclecticism is almost entirely looking at internal evidence, not paying too much attention to the external manuscripts as for them, they are all equal. Comfort writes about textual methods after the days of Westcott and Hort, “Left without a solid methodology for making external judgments, textual critics turned more and more to internal evidence.”^[59]

This author’s approach and that of Comfort, Dr. Don Wilkins of the NASB is the Documentary Approach. Earlier manuscripts usually have better readings by this standard. However, for the modern-day textual scholars who have twisted reason eclecticism, textual mixture or contamination is always assumed, so in the minds of many or most textual critics, internal evidence should prevail over documentary when the two are in opposition. For Tregelles, Hort, Colwell, Comfort, myself (Edward Andrews), and Don Wilkins, as well as some others, we maintain that superior documentary evidence should prevail over internal unless internal evidence is extremely significant in overruling it. We believe in looking at both internal and external evidence but give a slight weightiness to the manuscripts that have earned it. When a manuscript is consistently presenting superior readings elsewhere, it should be preferred when its reading in a passage seems in some way inferior to that of lesser manuscripts.

Those who practice textual criticism know this all too well. The situation then becomes one of emphasis. Does one give more weight to documentary evidence or to internal consideration? Scholars such as Tregelles, Hort, and Colwell (see comments below) place more emphasis on the documents. I tend to follow their lead. Other scholars, such as Kilpatrick, Boismard, and Elliott, place more emphasis on internal criticism, such that they advocate “thorough-going eclecticism” (see a good article on this by Elliott 2002, 101–124). Other scholars practice reasoned eclecticism, as explained by Holmes. Among those are Aland and Metzger, though each has his own emphasis.^[60] (Bold mine)

This method has given us the critical text of Westcott and Hort of 1881 that is still 95% reflective in our NA28 and UBS5 critical texts.

Under this method, greater weight is given to the documentary evidence. As was stated in the above, the Reasoned Eclecticism method attempts to depend on both internal and external evidence equally in their determination as to what is the original reading. However, this has proven not to be the case. A textual scholar must make these determinations on a variant-by-variant basis. The NU has tended to favor the internal evidence at times, resulting in a critical text that is out of balance in their documentary evidence.

The Documentary Approach is to select a manuscript(s) that is deemed the best for each book of the New Testament. It must be remembered that for hundreds of years in the early manuscript copying, books and sections (e.g., Gospels and Paul’s letters) were produced, not the whole New Testament. For example, for the Gospel of Luke, we would use P⁴, P^45,and P⁷⁵, as well as B.^[61] P⁴and P⁷⁵ are preferred and make up the B text. Thus, the original text of the Gospel of Luke is retained in P⁴, P^75,and B while we get further support from P⁴⁵.

Now that we have established the best manuscripts for establishing the original for the Gospel of Luke, they need to be scrutinized, removing any clear errors or variants. When we have established a semi-critical text for the Gospel of Luke from this process, it would then be used as our standard text from which we establish the original wording, making certain by standing it up against other witnesses. If there were any places where the other witnesses seem to compete with this standard text, internal evidence would then be considered.

In the above, we have given the reader, a brief outline of the rules and principles for carrying out the practice of New Testament textual criticism, as well as different approaches of implementing those rules and principles. Below, we will consider a few selected examples that will enable us to put these rules into practice.

If we are to be able to evaluate the readings of the manuscripts that we have, we must be familiar with the manuscripts themselves. Moreover, we must understand how they are connected by their likenesses and differences. Westcott and Hort wrote in relation to internal manuscript evidence, “The first step toward obtaining a sure foundation is a consistent application of the principle that KNOWLEDGE OF DOCUMENTS SHOULD PRECEDE FINAL JUDGMENT UPON READINGS.”^[62]

TERMS AS TO HOW WE SHOULD OBJECTIVELY VIEW THE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY FOR
THE READING ACCEPTED AS THE ORIGINAL

The modal verbs are might have been (30%), may have been (40%), could have been (55%), would have been (80%), must have been (95%), which are used to show that we believe the originality of a reading is certain, probable or possible.

The letter [WP] stands for Weak Possibility (30%), which indicates that this is a low-level proof that the reading might have been original in that it is enough evidence to accept that the variant might have been possible, but it is improbable. We can say the reading might have been original, as there is some evidence that is derived from manuscripts that carry very little weight, early versions, or patristic quotations.

The letter [P] stands for Plausible (40%), which indicates that this is a low-level proof that the reading may have been original in that it is enough to accept a variant to be original and we have enough evidence for our belief. The reading may have been original but is not probably so.

The letter [PE] stands for Preponderance of Evidence (55%), which indicates that this is a higher-level proof that the reading could have been original in that it is enough to accept as such unless another reading emerges as more probable.

The letter [CE] stands for Convincing Evidence (80%), which indicates that the evidence is an even higher-level proof that the reading surely was the original in that the evidence is enough to accept it as substantially certain unless proven otherwise.

The letter [BRD] stands for Beyond Reasonable Doubt (95%), which indicates that this is the highest level of proof: the reading must have been original in that there is no reason to doubt it. It must be understood that feeling as though we have no reason to doubt is not the same as one hundred percent absolute certainty.

NOTE: This system is borrowed from the criminal just legal terms of the United States of America, the level of certainty involved in the use of modal verbs, and Bruce Metzger in his A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), who borrowed his system from Johann Albrecht Bengel in his edition of the Greek New Testament (Tübingen, 1734). In addition, the percentages are in no way attempting to be explicit but rather they are nothing more than a tool to give the non-textual scholar a sense of the degree of certainty. However, this does not mean the percentages are not reflective of the certainty.

Examples of New Testament Textual Criticism

NOTE: When there is a superscript א* This siglum refers to the original before it has been corrected. The superscript א¹ This siglum refers to the corrector who worked on the manuscript before it left the scriptorium. The superscript א² refers to correctors in the 6th and 7th century C.E., who altered the text to conform more with the Byzantine text.

JOHN 14:14 “whatever you ask me in my name” [BRD]

John 14:14 The Greek-English New Testament Interlinear (GENTI)

14 ἐάν (if ever) τι (anything) αἰτήσητέ (you should ask) με (me) ἐν (in) τῷ (the) ὀνόματί (name) μου (of me) τοῦτο (this) ποιήσω. (I shall do.)

WH NU GENTI ἐάν τι αἰτήσητε με ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι μου

“whatever you ask me in my name”

P⁶⁶ P⁷⁵ א B W Δ Θ 060 f¹³ 33

variant/TR εαν τι αιτησητε εν τω ονοματι μου

“whatever you ask in my name”

A D L Q Ψ

John 14:14: “If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.”

The “if you ask me anything” has the support of the earliest manuscripts. Scribes likely omitted με (“me”) so as to bring 14:14 into harmony with 14:13, as well as 15:16 and 16:23. In Codex Veronensis (it^b), the entire verse of John 14:14 is omitted along with manuscripts X f¹ 565 1009 ℓ 76 ℓ 253 vg^mss syr^{s, pal} arm geo Diatessaron. Ancient versions were known to omit repetitive material. The omission could have been accidental or intentional. Below is an image of where John 14:14 would be in P⁷⁵. There is a lacuna there, which is a gap where something is missing in the manuscript. The vid in P^75vid (Latin videtur, “it seems so”) is an indication that the reading is in the witness, but there is no absolute certainty because of a lacuna. Nevertheless, there is space for the με (“me”) in the reading that would be there.

Papyrus 66 P⁶⁶ (c. 150 C.E.)

¹⁴εαν τι αιτηση ται μαι εν τω ονοματι μου› τουτο εγω ποιησω·^[63]

Papyrus 75 P⁷⁵ (c. 175-225 C.E.)

¹⁴εαν τι αιτ̣[ησητ]ε̣ [με εν τω ο]ν̣ομα τι μου τουτο ποιησ[ω·^[64]

If one is wondering why ego (“I”) is missing, it may be that the scribe or some previous scribe left it out, because it is redundant in the verse. Because the personal ending on the verb poieso (“I will do”), has the “I” and there is no real need for ego.

TC Principle/Rule: The reading that the other rose from is likely the original. Was it more likely that “me” was omitted or added? It is more likely that “me” was omitted, to be in agreement with 14:13, 15:16 and 16:23.

TC Principle/Rule: The more difficult or awkward reading is often preferable. Which is the harder reading? “Me” is at odds with verses 14:13; 15:16 and 16:23, and the rest of the Gospel of John.

TC Principle/Rule: The reading that is deemed immediately at odds with the context is preferred if deemed intentional because a scribe is more likely to have smoothed the reading out. The scribe likely omitted “me” to bring verse 14 in harmony with verses 14:13, 15:16 and 16:23, as well as the rest of John. In addition, “me” seems logical when we consider it with the “I” at the end of the sentence.

“If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.”

If you ask anything in my name, I will do it.”

TC Principle/Rule: Within the synoptic gospels especially, a less identical reading is preferred, as scribes had a tendency to harmonize readings. Even though John is not one of the synoptic gospels, it seems the copyists were trying to harmonize by omitting “me.”

TC Principle/Rule: The Alexandrian text-type is generally preferred (especially P⁶⁶ P⁷⁵ 01 and 03) There is no doubt that we have the best Alexandrian support.

Rule: A represented reading from more than one geographical area may be preferred to even an Alexandrian text-type reading. “Me” has Alexandrian and Western family support.

Rule: An author-doctrine reading is preferred. If a reading matches the doctrine of the author, it is preferred, and the variants that are foreign to that doctrine are questionable. This is the only principle that stands against “me.”

The με (“me”) in “If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it,” must be considered almost certain because of the excellent weighty external evidence P⁶⁶ P⁷⁵ א A B D L W Θ it cop.

MARK 1:2 “Isaiah the Prophet” [BRD]

Mark 1:2 The Greek-English New Testament Interlinear (GENTI)

2 Καθὼς (According as) γέγραπται (it has been written) ἐν (in) τῷ (the) Ἠσαίᾳ (Isaiah) τῷ (the) προφήτῃ (prophet)

Mark 1:2 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

As it is written in Isaiah the prophet;
“Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way,

WH NU GENTI γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἠσαίᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ
“it has been written in Isaiah the prophet”
א B L Δ 33 565 cop

Mark 1:2 Stephanus New Testament Interlinear (TR1550)

2 Ὡς (As) γέγραπται (it has been written) ἐν (in) τοῖς (the) τῷ (the) προφήτῃ (prophet)

Mark 1:2 King James Version (KJV)

² As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

Variant/TR γεγραπται εν τοις προφηταις
“it has been written in the prophets”
A W f13 Maj

The King James Version, “the prophets,” is based on the Textus Receptus (Byzantine text), while the Updated American Standard Version’s, “Isaiah the prophet,” and other modern translations are based on WH and NU critical texts (Alexandrian text). The decision as to which is the original reading is pretty straightforward. “Isaiah the prophet” is the original reading for several reasons. (1) It has the best early manuscript evidence, (01, B, D, L, 038, 33, Old Latin, Vulgate), (2) which is widespread as well. On the other hand, (3) “the prophets,” is limited to the Byzantine manuscripts (A, K, P, W, Byz). In addition, (4) the reading that the other likely rose from is “Isaiah the prophet,” because the quote is actually from both Isaiah and Malachi. Therefore, it would be far more likely that a scribe would take note of this, and alter “Isaiah the prophet,’ to “the prophets.” Therefore, both external and internal evidence supports “Isaiah the prophet” as the original reading.

MATTHEW 5:22: “angry with his brother” [BRD]

Matthew 5:22 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
²²But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever says to his brother, ‘You fool,’ will be brought before the Sanhedrin; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the fire of Gehenna.

Matthew 5:22 The Greek-English New Testament Interlinear (GENTI)

22 πᾶς (everyone) ὁ (the) ὀργιζόμενος (being wrathful) τῷ (to the) ἀδελφῷ (brother) αὐτοῦ (of him)

WH NU GENTI πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόμενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ
“everyone being angry with his brother”
P64+67 א* B 1424 Origen MSS^{according to Apollinaris}, Augustine, Jerome

Matthew 5:22 King James Version (KJV)

²²But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Matthew 5:22 Stephanus New Testament Interlinear (TR1550)

22 πᾶς (everyone) ὁ (the) ὀργιζόμενος (being wrathful) τῷ (to the) ἀδελφῷ (brother) αὐτοῦ (of him) εἰκῆ (without cause)

Variant/TR πας ο οργιζομενους τω αδελφω αυτου εικη
“everyone being angry with his brother without cause”
א2 D L W Θ 0233 f1, 33 Maj Diatessaron it syr cop MSS^{according to Origen, Apollinaris, Jerome}

The King James Version, “whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause,” is based on the Textus Receptus (Byzantine text), while the English Standard Version’s, “everyone who is angry with his brother,” and other modern translations are based on WH and NU critical texts (Alexandrian text). This example is resolvable, but it is not as easy as Mark 1:2. Was Jesus forbidding all anger with one’s brother or just anger “without cause”?

The internal evidence would suggest that the original reading was without the addition of “without cause.” It seems more likely that a scribe was attempting to soften Jesus daring statement that no anger with one’s brother was justifiable. The scribe wanted to qualify Jesus’ statement by suggesting that there may be a “cause” to justify some incidents of anger with one’s brother. Bruce Metzger and the committee that edited the Greek New Testament were of this same view.^[65]

Although the reading with [“without cause”] is widespread from the second century onwards, it is much more likely that the word was added by copyists in order to soften the rigor of the precept, than omitted as unnecessary.^[66]

Therefore, the internal evidence points to the addition “without cause” being an interpolation (insertion). The external evidence is strongly in favor of this decision as well. The shorter reading has strong textual support (p⁶⁷, 01, B, Vulgate). However, the reading “without cause” has the Western (D, Old Latin) and Byzantine (K, W, and many others) text types, as well as Alexandrian witnesses (L, Coptic). Thus, the longer reading has a little weight to it with the extensive geographical distribution, with it also being early as well. To sum up, both readings are equally early, the geographical external evidence argues for the longer reading, as the more widespread reading; however, it is not to be preferred over the shorter reading with its strong manuscripts and internal evidence, which makes it almost certain.

EPHESIANS 1:1 “of Christ Jesus” [BRD]

Ephesians 1:1 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, To the holy ones who are at Ephesus and faithful in Christ Jesus:

Ephesians 1:1 The Greek-English New Testament Interlinear (GENTI)

1 Παῦλος (Paul,) ἀπόστολος (apostle) Χριστοῦ (of Christ) Ἰησοῦ (Jesus) διὰ (through)

WH NU GENTI ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ
“apostle of Christ Jesus”
P⁴⁶ B D P 33 syr^h

Ephesians 1:1 King James Version (KJV)

¹ Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

Ephesians 1:1 Stephanus New Testament Interlinear (TR1550)

1 Παῦλος (Paul,) ἀπόστολος (apostle) Ἰησοῦ (of Jesus) Χριστοῦ (Christ) διὰ (through)

Variant/TR αποστολος Ιησου Χριστου
“apostle of Jesus Christ”
א A F G Ψ 1739 Maj it syr^p

The King James Version, “apostle of Jesus Christ,” is based on the Textus Receptus (Byzantine text), while the Updated American Standard Version’s, “apostle of Christ Jesus,” and other modern translations are based on WH and NU critical texts (Alexandrian text). The internal evidence points us toward “Christ Jesus,” which is more characteristic of the Apostle Paul. (See 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal 1:1; Col 1:1; 1 Tim 1:1; 2 Tim 1:1 and Titus 1:1) The external evidence of two stronger early witnesses goes to the rendering “Christ Jesus” as well. This is the preferred reading, which is Beyond Reasonable Doubt [BRD].

JAMES 5:20a “let him know that” [CE]

The Greek-English New Testament Interlinear (GENTI)

20 γινώσκετω (let know) ὅτι (that) ὁ (the (one) ἐπιστρέψας (having returned) ἁμαρτωλὸν (sinner) ἐκ (from) πλάνης (error) ὁδοῦ (of way) αὐτοῦ (of him) σώσει (will save) ψυχὴν (soul) αὐτοῦ (of him) ἐκ (from) θανάτου (death) καὶ (and) καλύψει (will cover) πλῆθος (multitude) ἁμαρτιῶν. ( of sins.)

The 1550 Stephanus New Testament (TR1550)

20 γινώσκετω (let him know) ὅτι (that) ὁ (he who) ἐπιστρέψας (brings back) ἁμαρτωλὸν (a sinner) ἐκ (from) πλάνης ([the] error) ὁδοῦ (of his way) αὐτοῦ (of him) σώσει (shall save) ψυχὴν (a soul) ἐκ (from) θανάτου(death) καὶ (and) καλύψει (shall cover) πλῆθος (multitude ) ἁμαρτιῶν. (of sins.)

The Wescott-Hort New Testament Interlinear (WH)

20 γινώσκετε (you know) ὅτι (that) ὁ (the (one) ἐπιστρέψας (having returned) ἁμαρτωλὸν (sinner) ἐκ (from) πλάνης (error) ὁδοῦ (of way) αὐτοῦ (of him) σώσει (will save) ψυχὴν (soul) αὐτοῦ (of him) ἐκ (from) θανάτου καὶ (and) καλύψει (will cover) πλῆθος (multitude) ἁμαρτιῶν.

James 5:20 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
²⁰let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

TR NU GENTI γινωσκέτω ὅτι
“let him know that”
א A P 1739 Maj it syr^p

Variant 1/WH γινωσκετε οτι
“you know that”
B 69 1505 syr

Variant 2 οτι
“that”
Ψ

Variant 3 omit
P⁷⁴ cop^sa

The first two words of 5:20, the third-person imperative and the demonstrative pronoun (γινωσκέτω ὅτι ginōsketō hoti) would seem to be the original reading and were altered to the second-person plural imperative (γινώσκετε ginōskete). This reading then (“let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins”) is referring to the person who would bring back a sinner from his wandering, saving his soul [the sinner’s soul] from death, covering a multitude of sins. It would seem that the scribal change (Variant 1/WH) was trying to bring the second-person plural, “you know that” in agreement with the plural address (ἀδελφοί μου adelphoi mou) “my brothers and sisters,” in the previous verse, James 5:19. Other scribes went even further in variants 2 and 3, shortening the reading so that it would fit with 5:19. Roger L. Omanson and Bruce Manning Metzger also observe, “Or γινωσκέτω may have been changed to γινώσκετε in order to avoid the ambiguity of whether the subject of the verb is the person who converts someone or the person who is converted.”[67] Many translations KJV NKJV RSV NRSV ESV NASB NIV NEB NJB NAB HCSB NET, and the UASV follow the reading TR NU GENTI “let him know that.” Others follow variant 1/WH, such as TNIV REB NJBmg NLT.

JAMES 5:20b “his soul” [CE]

The Greek-English New Testament Interlinear (GENTI)

The 1550 Stephanus New Testament (TR1550)

20 γινώσκετω (let him know) ὅτι (that) ὁ (he who) ἐπιστρέψας (brings back) ἁμαρτωλὸν (a sinner) ἐκ (from) πλάνης ([the] error) ὁδοῦ (of his way) αὐτοῦ (of him) σώσει (shall save) ψυχὴν (a soul) ἐκ (from) θανάτου (death) καὶ (and) καλύψει (shall cover) πλῆθος (multitude) ἁμαρτιῶν.

James 5:20 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

²⁰let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

WH NU GENTI σώσει ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἐκ θανάτου
“he will save his soul from death”
א A P 048 33 1739 syr

Variant 1 σωσει ψυχην εκ θανατου αυτου
“he will save a soul from death itself” (or, “he will save his soul from death”)
𝔓74 B

Variant 2/TR σωσει ψυχην εκ θανατου
“he will save a soul from death”
Ψ Maj copsa

It is likely that the WH NU GENTI reading (σώσει ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἐκ θανάτου) “he will save his soul from death” was the original reading (PE), and so Variant 2/TR (σωσει ψυχην εκ θανατου) “he will save a soul from death” was an attempt by the scribe to remove the confusion as to who was being spoken of here, the one converting or the person being converted. So, we have scribes simply removing the problem by removing αυτου (“his”). This became the predominant reading, which we then find in the majority of the manuscripts, which we find in the KJV and is still retained in the NKJV. However, we find other copyists moving the pronoun αὐτοῦ so that it comes after ἐκ θανάτου (“from death itself”). There is the slight possibility that Variant 1 could have been the original reading as well, with some scribes choosing to delete it and others transferring it.

JAMES 5:20c “Amen” [BRD]

The Greek-English New Testament Interlinear (GENTI)

All four of the main critical editions (TR WH NU GENTI) that we use do not have αμην (“Amen”) closing out verse 20 of chapter 5. This has the following manuscript support of A B C 048 33 Maj cop, and it is what we find in all English versions. Nonetheless, as would be expected by some scribes, they refused to accept such an idea and, therefore, added αμην (“Amen”) at the end of James’ epistle (so 614 1505 1852 syr^h). We only have three epistles (Romans, Galatians, Jude) that have a genuine “amen” as the last word of their book. In the other letters of the New Testament, it looks evident that scribes added an “amen” for conventional designs. When we consider the weighty textual evidence, it is utterly undeniable that “amen” was a scribal interpolation (addition) at the end of James.

The Documentary Approach

This author’s approach and that of Comfort, Dr. Don Wilkins of the NASB is the Documentary Approach. Earlier manuscripts usually have better readings by this standard. However, for the modern-day textual scholars who have twisted reason eclecticism, textual mixture or contamination is always assumed, so in the minds of many or most textual critics, internal evidence should prevail over documentary when the two are in opposition. For Tregelles, Hort, Colwell, Comfort, myself (Edward Andrews), and Wilkins, as well as some others, we maintain that superior documentary evidence should prevail over internal unless internal evidence is extremely significant in overruling it. We believe in looking at both internal and external evidence but give a slight weightiness to the manuscripts that have earned it. When a manuscript is consistently presenting superior readings elsewhere, it should be preferred when its reading in a passage seems in some way inferior to that of lesser manuscripts.

This method has given us the critical text of Westcott and Hort of 1881 that is still 99.5% reflective in our NA28 and UBS5 critical texts.

The preferred method of getting at the original words of the original text is the documentary method, which considers internal and external evidence, as well as all manuscripts, yet giving the greater weight to the trusted documents (dates of the manuscripts supporting a reading, the geographical distribution of the manuscripts, and the overall quality both of the individual manuscripts and textual “families.”), and so, it is Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus that are the deciding factor in going against the NU text.

Worksheet for New Testament Textual Criticism^[70]

PASSAGE: _______________________

Various Readings
Variant 1	Variant 2	Variant 3
Internal Evidence:	Internal Evidence:	Internal Evidence:
External Evidence:	External Evidence:	External Evidence:
What is the weight of the external evidence?
What textual principles apply?
Conclusion:

Attribution: This article incorporates a very small portion of text from the public domain: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SCROLL THROUGH DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

Explaining the Doctrine of the Last Things

CHILDREN’S BOOKS

PRAYER

TEENS-YOUTH-ADOLESCENCE-JUVENILE

CHRISTIAN LIVING

CHRISTIAN COMMENTARIES

CHRISTIAN DEVOTIONALS

CHURCH ISSUES, GROWTH, AND HISTORY

Apocalyptic-Eschatology [End Times]

CHRISTIAN FICTION

[1] While at present here in 2020, there are 5,898 manuscripts. There are 140 listed Papyrus manuscripts, 323 Majuscule manuscripts, 2,951 Minuscule manuscripts, and 2,484 Lectionary manuscripts, bringing the total cataloged manuscripts to 5,898 manuscripts. However, you cannot simply total the number of cataloged manuscripts because, for example, P^11/14 are the same manuscript but with different catalog numbers. The same is true of P^33/5, P^4/64/67, P^49/65 and P^77/103. Now this alone would bring our 140 listed papyrus manuscripts down to 134. ‘Then, we turn to one example from our majuscule manuscripts where clear 0110, 0124, 0178, 0179, 0180, 0190, 0191, 0193, 0194, and 0202 are said to be part of 070. A minuscule manuscript was listed with five separate catalog numbers for 2306, which then have the letters a through e. Thus, we have the following GA numbers: 2306 for 2306a, and 2831- 2834 for 2306b-2306e.’ – (Hixon 2019, 53-4) The problem is much worse when we consider that there are 323 Majuscule manuscripts and then far worse still with a listed 2,951 Minuscule and 2,484 Lectionaries. Nevertheless, those who estimate a total of 5,300 (Jacob W. Peterson, Myths and Mistakes, p. 63) 5,500 manuscripts (Dr. Ed Gravely / ehrmanproject.com/), 5,800 manuscripts (Porter 2013, 23), it is still a truckload of evidence far and above the dismal number of ancient secular author books.

[2] As of January 2016

[3] There are a number of fragments that date to the second century B.C.E. and one to the third century B.C.E., with the rest dating to the ninth century C.E. or later.

[4] Most of the 193 MSS date to the tenth century C.E., with a few fragments dating to the third century B.C.E.

[5] Some papyri fragments date to the third century B.C.E.

[6] Large lettering, often called “capital” or uncial, in which all the letters are usually the same height.

[7] https://christianpublishinghouse.co/greek-english-interlinear/

[8] Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in the original Greek, second edition with Introduction and Appendix (1882), p. 1–3.

[9] Eclecticism: within the discipline of textual criticism, eclecticism can be viewed as a preference for internal criteria in deciding variant readings in opposition to external criteria. The degree to which this is done has led to two recognized types of eclecticism, most often called “thoroughgoing” and “reasoned” (see pp. 248 ff.). The former ignores external criteria while the latter accords value to it. In practice, internal and external criteria usually point to the same readings. When they conflict, however, thoroughgoing eclecticism prefers the choice of internal criteria, while reasoned eclecticism may allow external evidence priority over internal.

^[10] Roger L. Omanson and Bruce Manning Metzger, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament: An Adaptation of Bruce M. Metzger’s Textual Commentary for the Needs of Translators (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006), xxiii.

^[11] Roger L. Omanson and Bruce Manning Metzger, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament: An Adaptation of Bruce M. Metzger’s Textual Commentary for the Needs of Translators (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006), xxii–xxiii.

[12] Karl Lachmann: Karl Konrad Friedrich Wilhelm Lachmann (German: [ˈlaxman]; 1793 – 1851) was a German philologist and critic. He is particularly noted for his foundational contributions to the field of textual criticism.

[13] Constantin von Tischendorf: Lobegott Friedrich Constantin (von) Tischendorf (1815 – 1874) was a German biblical scholar. In 1844, he discovered the world’s oldest and most complete Bible, dated to around the mid-4th century and called Codex Sinaiticus, after the St.

[14] Editio Octava Critica Maior: Editio Octava Critica Maior is a critical edition of the Greek New Testament produced by Constantin von Tischendorf. It was Tischendorf’s eighth edition of the Greek Testament, and the most important, published between 1864 and 1894.

[15] Westcott and Hort: The New Testament in the Original Greek is a Greek-language version of the New Testament published in 1881. It is also known as the Westcott and Hort text, after its editors Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828–1892).

[16] Puskas, Charles B; Robbins, C Michael (2012). An Introduction to the New Testament. ISD LLC. p. 70–73.

[17] Novum Testamentum Graece: Novum Testamentum Graece (The New Testament in Greek) is a critical edition of the New Testament in its original Koine Greek, forming the basis of most modern Bible translations and biblical criticism. It is also known as the Nestle-Aland edition after its most influential editors, Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland.

[18] Eberhard Nestle: Eberhard Nestle (1851 – 1913, Stuttgart) was a German biblical scholar, textual critic, orientalist, editor of the Novum Testamentum Graece, and the father of Erwin Nestle.

[19] Erwin Nestle: Erwin Nestle (1883 – 1972), son of Eberhard Nestle, was a German scholar who continued editing his father’s “Nestle Edition” of the New Testament in Greek, adding a full critical apparatus in the thirteenth edition.

[20] Kurt Aland: Kurt Aland (1915 – 1994) was a German theologian and biblical scholar who specialized in New Testament textual criticism. He founded the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung (Institute for New Testament Textual Research) in Münster and served as its first director from 1959 to 1983.

[21] Gordon D. Fee, P⁷⁵, P⁶⁶, and Origen: THe Myth of Early Textual Recension in Alexandria, in: E. J. Epp & G. D. Fee, Studies in the Theory & Method of NT Textual Criticism, Wm. Eerdmans (1993), pp. 247-273.

[22] Church Fathers: The Church Fathers, Early Church Fathers, Christian Fathers, or Fathers of the Church were ancient and influential Christian theologians and writers who established the intellectual and doctrinal foundations of Christianity. The historical period in which they worked became known as the Patristic Era and spans approximately from the late 1^st to mid-8^th centuries, flourishing in particular during the 4th and 5th centuries, when Christianity was in the process of establishing itself as the state church of the Roman Empire.

[23] Maurice A. Robinson: Maurice Arthur Robinson (born October 13, 1947) is an American professor of New Testament and Greek (retired) and a proponent of the Byzantine-priority method of New Testament textual criticism.

[24] Autograph: The autograph (self-written) was the text actually written by a New Testament author, or the author and scribe as the author dictated to him. If the scribe was taking it down in dictation (Rom: 16:22; 1 Pet: 5:12), he might have done so in shorthand. Whether by shorthand or longhand, we can assume that both the scribe and the author would check the scribe’s work. The author would have authority over all corrections since the Holy Spirit did not move the scribe. If the inspired author wrote everything down himself as the Spirit moved him, the finished product would be the autograph. This text is also often referred to as the original. Hence, the terms autograph and original are often used interchangeably. Sometimes textual critics prefer to make a distinction, using “original” as a reference to the text that is correctly attributed to a biblical author. This is a looser distinction, one that does not focus on the process of how a book or letter was written.

[25] Eldon Jay Epp, A Dynamic View of Testual Transmission, in: Studies & Documents 1993, p. 280

[26] L. M. McDonald, The Biblical Canon (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007), 359. A similar argument is made by G. M. Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1992), 96; D. W. Riddle, ‘Textual Criticism as a Historical Discipline’, ATR 18 (1936): 227; and Parker, The Living Text, 202–5.

[27] J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism (Revised Edition, 1995), 51–52.

[28] J. Harold Greenlee, The Text of the New Testament: From Manuscript to Modern Edition (2008), 37.

[29] Kurt and Barbara Aland, THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 295, 69.

[30] F. Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (1895), 157.

^[31] Philip Wesley Comfort and David P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 2001), 159. See also Kenyon, The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, fasc. 2.1, Gospels and Acts, Text, 13–14.

[32] Barbara Aland, The Significance of the Chester Beatty in Early Church History, in: The Earliest Gospels ed. Charles Horton, London 2004, p. 110.

[33] Ernest Cadman Colwell, “Scribal Habits in the Early Papyri: A Study in the Corruption of the Text,” in: “The Bible in Modern Scholarship” ed. J. P. Hyatt, New York: Abingdon Press 1965, p.383.

[34] Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament (1989), p. 244

[35] F. Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (1962), 249.

[36] Kurt and Barbara Aland, THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 93-95.

[37] Some may argue that we can only be confident that we have good manuscripts of an “early” form of the text but not necessarily of the originally published text. This hypothesis cannot be disproven. However, I think it is highly doubtful for four reasons: (1) The intervening time between the publication date of various New Testament books (from AD 60–90) and the date of several of our extant manuscripts (from AD 100–200) is narrow, thereby giving us manuscripts that are probably only three to five “manuscript generations” removed from the originally published texts. (2) We have no knowledge that any of these manuscripts go back to an early “form” that postdates the original publications. (3) We are certain that there was no major Alexandrian recension in the second century. (4) Text critics have been able to detect any other second-century textual aberrations, such as the D-text, which was probably created near the end of the second century, not the beginning. Thus, it stands to reason that these “reliable” manuscripts are excellent copies of the authorized published texts.” (P. Comfort, Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography and Textual Criticism 2005, 269)

[38] Philip W. Comfort, The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1992).

[39] The New Testament Papyrus Manuscripts in Historical Perspective, in To Touch the Text: Biblical and Related Studies in Honour of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S. J. (ed. Maurya P. Horgan and Paul J. Kobelski; New York: Crossroad, 1989), 285 (there italicized) repr. in Epp, Perspectives, 338.

[40] Ibid., 288

[41] 20:17 τοὺς δώδεκα [μαθητάς] {C}

Although copyists often add the word μαθηταίto the more primitive expression οἱ δώδεκα (see Tischendorf’s note in loc. and 26.20 below), a majority of the Committee judged that the present passage was assimilated to the text of Mark (10:32) or Luke (18:31). In order to represent both possibilities it was decided to employ square brackets. (B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 1994, 42)

On 20:17, Comfort writes, “Either reading could be original because they both have good support and because the gospel writers alternated between the nomenclature ‘the twelve disciples’ and ‘the twelve.’” (P. W. Comfort 2008, 60)

[42] Kurt and Barbara Aland write, “By the 1930s the number of known papyri had grown to more than forty without any of them arousing any special attention, despite the fact that many of them were of a quite early date. (Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament 1995, 84)

[43] Early manuscripts (from before the fourth century) are classified by the Alands as “strict,” “normal,” or “free.” The “normal” text “transmitted the original text with the limited amount of variation.” Then, there is the “free” text, “characterized by a greater degree of variation than the ‘normal’ text.” Finally, there was the “strict” text, “which reproduced the text of its exemplar with greater fidelity (although still with certain characteristic liberties), exhibiting far less variation than the ‘normal’ text.” (Aland 1987, 93)

[44] F. Kenyon, “Hesychius and the Text of the New Testament,” in Memorial Lagrange (1940), 250.

[45] G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles (1953), 271–272.

[46] Kurt Aland, “The Significance of the Papyri for New Testament Research” in The Bible in Modern Scholarship (1965), 336.

[47] Gordon Fee, “P75, P66, and Origen: The Myth of Early Textual Recension in Alexandria” in New Dimensions in New Testament Study (1974), 19–43.

[48] Ernest C. Colwell, “Method in Evaluating Scribal Habits: A Study of P45, P66, P75,” in Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament, New Testament Tools and Studies 9 (Leiden: Brill, 1969), 121.

[49] Ibid., 117

[50] James Ronald Royse, “Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri” (Ph.D. diss., Graduate Theological Union, 1981), 538–39.

[51] (Comfort and Barret, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts 2001, 506)

[52] Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont, The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform, 2005 (Southborough, MA: Chilton, 2005), 551.

[53] Paul D. Wegner, A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible : Its History, Methods & Results (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 239.

[54] However, the Documentary Approach gives great weight to the external evidence of the documents.

[55] Do not confuse the fact of majority, with the idea that they were the preferred, because it was simply a case of their becoming the standard text for the most centuries, and thus copied far more over a much longer period. As Constantinople [or Byzantium] became the center of the Greek-speaking church, the local text there was to become the dominant text for the whole of the whole empire.

[56] David Alan Black, New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide (Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Books, 1994), 39.

[57] Stanley E. Porter, (2013) “Recent efforts to Reconstruct Early Christianity on the Basis of its Papyrological Evidence” in Christian Origins and Graeco-Roman Culture, Eds Stanley Porter and Andrew Pitts, Leiden, Brill, pp 76.

[58] Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the Variant Readings of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the Major English Translations (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008), xi.

[59] Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the Variant Readings of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the Major English Translations (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008), xiii.

[60] IBID, xv.

[61] Philip Wesley Comfort and David P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts, A corrected, enlarged ed. of The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 2001)

[62] B.F. Westcott and F.J.A Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek, Vol. II, (New York, Harper and Brothers, 1882), 31.

^[63] Philip Wesley Comfort and David P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 2001), Jn 14:14.

^[64] IBID, Jn 14:14. The square brackets […] Indicate conjectural reconstruction of the beginning or ending of a manuscript, or, within the transcriptions, letters, or words most likely to have been in the original manuscript.

[65] Philip Comfort in his 2008 New Testament Text and Translation Commentary also stated, “Clearly, this addition was an attempt to soften Jesus’ bold assertion and to thereby justify anger if it is for a good reason. But this insertion must be rejected on internal grounds (had it originally been in the text, why would it have been deleted?) and on documentary grounds.” P. 11.

[66] Bruce Manning Metzger and United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 11.

[67] Roger L. Omanson and Bruce Manning Metzger, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament: An Adaptation of Bruce M. Metzger’s Textual Commentary for the Needs of Translators (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006), 479.

[68] Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the Variant Readings of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the Major English Translations (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008), xiii.

[69] IBID, xv.

^[70] Paul D. Wegner, A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods & Results (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 228.

The New Testament Compared to Classical Literature

Major Critical Texts of the New Testament

Text-Types (Families)

Development of Critical Texts (1831–1881)

NT Textual Scholarship (1881 Forward)

Evaluations of Text-Types

The Trustworthiness of Early Copyists

Evaluation Principles

Different Approaches to New Testament Textual Criticism

Examples of New Testament Textual Criticism

JOHN 14:14 “whatever you ask me in my name” [BRD]

MARK 1:2 “Isaiah the Prophet” [BRD]

MATTHEW 5:22: “angry with his brother” [BRD]

EPHESIANS 1:1 “of Christ Jesus” [BRD]

JAMES 5:20a “let him know that” [CE]

The Greek-English New Testament Interlinear (GENTI)

The 1550 Stephanus New Testament (TR1550)

The Wescott-Hort New Testament Interlinear (WH)

JAMES 5:20b “his soul” [CE]

The Greek-English New Testament Interlinear (GENTI)

The 1550 Stephanus New Testament (TR1550)

JAMES 5:20c “Amen” [BRD]

The Greek-English New Testament Interlinear (GENTI)

The Documentary Approach

SCROLL THROUGH DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHILDREN’S BOOKS

PRAYER

TEENS-YOUTH-ADOLESCENCE-JUVENILE

CHRISTIAN LIVING

CHRISTIAN COMMENTARIES

CHURCH ISSUES, GROWTH, AND HISTORY

Apocalyptic-Eschatology [End Times]

CHRISTIAN FICTION

Share this:

Like this:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply