This article may be somewhat controversial because many modern textual scholars are not certain (sure or confident) that we can get back to the original text. Recently, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, founder and executive director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, wrote in the Foreword of MYTHS AND MISTAKES In New Testament Textual Criticism, “The new generation of evangelical scholars is far more comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty than previous generations.”[1] (Bold mine) Modern-day scholarship and even the branch of textual studies should be deemed ‘the ambiguity and uncertainty of the modern Bible scholar.’ The uncertainty and ambiguity are of their own making by abandoning the objective documentary approach for a subjective reasoned eclecticism approach.

The most used and referred to is reasoned eclecticism, which is supposed to view all the evidence internal and external objectively. And maybe it mostly did up until about the 1990s. Now, reasoned eclecticism[2] is almost entirely looking at internal evidence, not paying too much attention to the external manuscripts. For the textual scholar, generally speaking, all manuscripts are considered 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.”[3]

This author’s approach and Philip W. Comfort, Dr. Don Wilkins of the NASB is the Documentary Approach. Earlier manuscripts usually have better readings by this standard. However, textual mixture or contamination is always assumed for modern-day textual scholars who have twisted reasoned eclecticism. 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 D. Andrews), and Wilkins and 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 it’s reading in a passage that 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.[4] (bold mine)

Refining the Documentary Approach All textual critics—including those working with the classics—implement both external and internal criticism in selecting the reading which is most likely original. And all textual critics must do this on a variant-unit by variant-unit basis. Some give priority of place to internal over external evidence; others do the opposite. The editors of NU demonstrate that they tried to do both; this can be seen in Metzger’s discussions in A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. However, it is my observation that the resultant eclectic text exhibits too much dependence on internal evidence, emphasizing the “local” aspect of the “local-genealogical” method, to use Aland’s language. This means that the decision making, on a variant-unit by variant-unit basis, produced a text with an uneven documentary presentation. Furthermore, the committee setting, with members voting on each significant textual variant, cannot help but produce a text with uneven documentation. All eclectic texts reconstruct a text that no ancient Christian actually read, even though they approach a close replication of the original writings. However, the NU edition’s eclecticism extends even to following different manuscripts within the same sentence. (See the future article The Practice of Textual Criticism to Determine the Original Reading, where Philip Comfort will expand on his preference for favoring documentary evidence.) In my view, an eclectic approach that gives greater weight to external (documentary) evidence is best. Such an approach labors to select a premier group of manuscripts as the primary witnesses for certain books and/or sections of the New Testament, not for the entire New Testament, since each book of the New Testament was, in its earliest form, a separate publication. Once the best manuscripts for each book or group of books in the New Testament are established, these manuscripts need to be pruned of obvious errors and singular variants. Then these should be the manuscripts used for determining the most likely original wording. The burden of proof on textual critics is to demonstrate that the best manuscripts, when challenged by the testimony of other witnesses, do not contain the original wording. The part of this process that corresponds to Aland’s “localness” (internal evidence) is that the text must be determined on a variant-unit basis. However, my view of the “genealogical” (external evidence) aspect is that it must be preestablished for an entire book and not re-created verse by verse, which results in a very uneven documentary presentation. Of course, internal criticism will have to come into play when documentary evidence is evenly divided, or when some feature of the text strongly calls for it. And, on occasion, it must be admitted that two (or more) readings are equally good candidates for being deemed the original wording.[5]

Some renowned NT textual scholars from the 1700s to the 21^st century who personally worked with the manuscripts would be 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), Bruce M. Metzger (1914 – 2007), to the Nestles and Alands of the Nestle Aland Text. These had methods of deciding the original reading and working with the manuscripts personally, making critical texts for 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, who says “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.”[6] 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.” (bold and underline mine) Now that we have established the lenses from which much of modern textual scholars focus let’s return to this chapter’s subject. Should we be interested in attempting to ascertain the original word of the original text or the words of the earliest text of the New Testament?

 Again, when we use the term “original” reading or “original” text in this publication, it is a reference to the exemplar manuscript by the New Testament author (e.g., Paul) and his secretary (e.g., Tertius)–if he used one–from which other copies were made for publication and distribution to the Christian communities. While this chapter focuses on the textual criticism process, its primary focus is the early text of the New Testament, namely, the first three centuries of Christianity. In other words, we will be considering the text of the New Testament from the middle of the first century up to the close of the fourth century C.E.

Whether in commentaries, the footnotes within our Bibles, or from the pastor on Sunday, we have all read or heard something like “the original Greek word …” For example, the original Greek word here is hagiazo, meaning “to set apart to a sacred use” (Matt. 6:9). The original Greek word here is kleros and is related to the word kleronomia, “inheritance” (Col. 1:12; 1 Pet. 5:3). Perhaps the author or pastor is trying to provide a little Bible background, such as pointing out that the cubit is the original Greek word pechus in Matthew 6:27, which literally means “forearm.” The publication or pastor may be emphasizing the nuances of different words for Christian services, such as the original Greek verb diakoneo (Matt. 20:26). One original Greek verb may emphasize the subjection that is involved in serving, such as a slave (douleuo; Col. 3:24), another could be the sacredness of service (latreuo; Matt. 4:10), while another might be focused on the public nature of the service provided (leitourgeo; Acts 13:2).

When incorporating a source, the author or pastor may mention Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words, for example. It will be used to explain the original Greek word, such as epikaleo, which means “to receive an appellation or surname … to call upon, invoke … to appeal to.”^[7] Paul used this same word when he declared, “I appeal to Caesar!” (Acts 25:11) A common way of expressing it is, “in the original Greek, this term basically “denotes” (the meaning, especially a specific or literal one) or “connotes (to imply or suggest something in addition to the literal or main meaning).” When Paul wrote about “the mind of the spirit,” he used an original Greek word that denotes ‘a way of thinking’ or ‘mindset.’ The original Greek word for our English transliteration “amen,” connotes ‘certainty,’ ‘truthfulness,’ ‘faithfulness,’ and ‘absence of doubt.’ We can see that getting back to the word in the original language can add considerable insight into the Scriptures. Therefore, our getting back to the actual words of the original language that the New Testament Bible author penned is, rightly so, the goal of some remaining textual scholars. We need the original words before we can translate or interpret the Scriptures. If scholars want to pursue insights into the sociohistorical approach to New Testament Textual Studies, to follow the scribal traditions and the transmission history of the Greek within each text-type of the family of manuscripts and where they grew up in order to have a better understanding of the social history of early Christianity, so be it. However, to do so, one must have the starting point of the original reading to evaluate the motivation behind the variants.

The importance of the actual words is consistently evident when we examine the text of the original. Let’s look at one example: a story that we all know. On the return trip home after the festivals in Jerusalem, Joseph and Mary thought that Jesus was somewhere with the family, so at first, his not being present was no cause for alarm. Three days later, when Mary and Joseph came back to Jerusalem to find Jesus, he was in the temple, “sitting amid the teachers and listening to them and questioning them” (Luke 2:44-46, UASV). Other translations read, “Listening to them and asking them questions” (RSV, NASB, ESV, LEB, and HCSB). However, that rendering does not capture the original language word.

Luke 2:46 English Standard Version (ESV) 46 After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions.

Luke 2:46 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 46 Then, after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions.

Luke 2:46 Updated American Standard Version (UASV) 46 Then, it occurred, after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers and listening to them and questioning them.

This was no 12-year-old boy asking questions out of curiosity. The Greek word erotao simply means to “ask,” “question,” and is a synonym of eperotao. The latter of the two was used by Luke and is much more demanding. It means “to ask a question, to question, interrogate someone, questioning as used in judicial examination” and, therefore, could include counter questioning. Therefore, at the age of twelve, Jesus did not ask childlike questions looking for corresponding answers but was likely challenging the thinking of these Jewish religious leaders. What was the response of those Jewish religious leaders? The account says, “And all those listening to him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. When they [the parents] saw him, they were astounded[8] …” – Luke 2:47.

What Is Meant by ‘Establishing the Original Text’?

Because the terms original and autograph are used interchangeably, it can cause confusion at times if not differentiated. As was explained in the introduction, the Autograph[9] (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 down dictation (Rom. 16:22; 1 Pet. 5:12), he might have done so in shorthand.[10] 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. The finished product would be the autograph if the inspired author wrote everything down as the Spirit moved him. This text is also often referred to as the Original. Hence, again, the terms autograph and original are often used to have the same meaning. 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. Once more, the term “original” reading or “original” text in this publication is a reference to the exemplar manuscript by the New Testament author (e.g., Paul) and his secretary (e.g., Tertius) from which other copies were made for publication and distribution of the Christian communities.

An original is what the author was inspired, moved along by the Holy Spirit to write either by himself or in conjunction with a scribe (Paul and Tertius; Peter and Silvanus). When they were done, it is possible that Tertius, who was not inspired, made a scribal error that Paul would fix, not years later but at once. Once it was what Paul was explicitly inspired to write, it was published, put out into the public, sent to the recipient. It is not an original if anyone copied it even a month later at the congregation it was sent to, whether that copyist made a mistake or did not make a mistake. It is a copy of the original. And if a year from then a congregation used that copy of an original to make a copy, this second copy is not a copy of the original. It is a copy of a copy of the original. There is only one original, the one published by the author.

Some readers may find it disconcerting that those ancient copies of the New Testament are not inspired, and thousands of variations crept into them over the first fourteen centuries. However, this is not the complete picture because we have the next five centuries of restoration work done by hundreds of renowned textual scholars worldwide. If asked, “Are our copies inspired, without error?” the short answer would have to be no. But what if we have the exact wording of the original by way of restoration?

If we can get back to the exact words written in the original 27 books that were first published, would we not have an exact copy of the inspired original? We know that 2 Timothy 3:16 informs us, “all Scripture is inspired by God,” meaning that the actual words in the autographs were a product of inspiration. Moreover, the inspired authors were, as 2 Peter 1:21 informs us, “men [who] spoke from God as the Holy Spirit carried them along.” Nevertheless, if dictation were the process of composition for some New Testament books, they would have still needed to be checked for scribal errors because the amanuensis, i.e., the author’s scribe (secretary), was not moved along by Holy Spirit in the same sense. Therefore, the author would review the dictated draft if he used a scribe, making corrections necessary. Depending on the length (e.g., 1 Peter (1,160 words) vs. Romans (7,000 words), the scribe would make a corrected copy or use the corrections within the original, which would become the officially published edition, which, if approved by the author, would have been signed by the author. Therefore, the original text that we are interested in duplicating is the one that was handed over by the author to be read in the churches and copied by others. In the final analysis, a textual committee, e.g., NA28/UBS5, has the potential to give us the exact wording of the original in the main text. In a few cases, maybe the original reading is in the textual apparatus (footnote) and would, in essence, be giving us the restored edition of the original. Even so, I would argue that between the Westcott and Hort 1881 critical text and the 2012 Nestle-Aland critical text, we have a 99.99% restoration. Most good literal translations will have readings of the alternative reading anyway, so the reader is not going to miss out on the actual original reading. It is highly improbable that it would alter what we already have if we discovered an original manuscript of any book.

Today we have a storehouse of external evidence: original language manuscripts, versions, apostolic quotations, and lectionaries that take us ever closer to the recovery of the original. Textual scholar Paul D. Wegner, author of A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible, has addressed this for both the Old and the New Testaments:

Careful examination of these manuscripts has served to strengthen our assurance that our Modern Greek and Hebrew texts are very close to the original autographs, even though we do not have those autographs. (2006, 301)^[11]

The traditional goal of scholars within textual criticism has been to get back to the original by applying the rules and principles of textual criticism. These rules and principles go back to the early textual scholars such as Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745-1812),[12] Friedrich Constantin von Tischendorf (1815-1874), Brook Foss Westcott (1825-1901, Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892), Frederick G. Kenyon (1863-1952), Kirsopp Lake (1872-1946), Eberhard Nestle (1851-1913),[13] and his son Erwin Nestle (1883-1972).  Kurt Aland (1915-1994) is the lynchpin between the older generation of textual scholars and modern textual scholarship. Bruce M. Metzger (1914-2007), Ernest Cadman Colwell (1901-1974), Jacob Harold Greenlee (1918-2015), Gordon D. Fee (1934- ), and Philip W. Comfort (1950- ) join Aland, among many, many others.

J. Harold Greenlee wrote, “Textual criticism is the study of copies of an ancient writing to try to determine the exact words of the text as the author originally wrote them.”[14] This is the fundamental thought found in almost all introductory-intermediate textbooks on textual criticism throughout the twentieth century. The traditional approach was to look at all of the evidence, internal (largely contextual) and external (e.g., dating and established trustworthiness). However, the priority or weight in determining the original reading was given to the oldest manuscripts, displaying the more challenging (harder) readings, contributing to their trustworthiness. Most modern critical texts were the product of this approach. However, the Alands and others have shifted the emphasis to internal evidence instead of external evidence.[15]

Hundreds of textual scholars realize that without knowing what the original words of the original text were; then, there is no way to accurately translate the Scriptures, interpret the Scriptures, or defend the Scriptures. As Hill and Kruger put it,

While the complexities in recovering the original text need to be acknowledged, that is a separate question from whether the concept of an original text is incoherent and should therefore be abandoned as a goal of the discipline. Unfortunately, these two questions are often mingled together without distinction. Although recovering the original text faces substantial obstacles (and therefore the results should be qualified), there is little to suggest that it is an illegitimate enterprise. If it were illegitimate, then we would expect the same would be true for Greek and Roman literature outside the New Testament. … Recognizing the historical value of such scribal variations need not be set in opposition to the goal of recovering the original text. These two aspects of textual criticism are complementary, not mutually exclusive. Indeed, it is only when we can have some degree of assurance regarding the original text that we are even able to recognize that later scribes occasionally changed it for their own theological purposes. Without the former we would not have the latter. – (Hill and Kruger 2012, Loc. 233-250 KDP)

Those Who Doubt the Recovery

Many scholars today believe that recovering the complete original Greek New Testament is outside the realm of possibility. Lee Martin MacDonald writes, “The traditional goal of textual criticism has been to establish the ‘original’ or earliest possible biblical text, but the overwhelming number of textual variants and the overlapping of several textual traditions make that goal a significant if not impossible challenge. Some scholars continue in the hope of recovering the originals and eliminating all ambiguities in the present texts, but they appear to be in the minority.”[16]

MacDonald’s comments are on point, and it is likely even graver than he has remarked. However, his comment about “the traditional goal of textual criticism” being “to establish the ‘original’ or [italics mine] the earliest possible biblical text” is not exactly the longstanding traditional objective. It was, in fact, “to establish the original”–not “the earliest possible biblical text.” There is a number who remain in that group of scholars who aim at establishing the original.[17] I again go to Daniel Wallace, in the Foreword of MYTHS AND MISTAKES, who writes, “The new generation of evangelical scholars is far more comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty than previous generations.”[18] (Page xii)

The traditional goal of the 19th century and early 20th-century textual scholars was to make the critical text a mirror image of the “original text.” This was their goal even if they were aware that it would never be a one-hundred-percent success. In fact, we can go back to Richard Bentley (1662-1742), who believed, in reality, that he could establish the original text in the majority of places where variants existed. The goal of the contemporary textual scholar is to get back to the “initial text.” In the Editio Critica Maior (ECM), a critical edition of the Greek New Testament, we find that the “initial text is the form of a text that stands at the beginning of a textual tradition.”[19] According to Gerd Mink, “the initial text preceded the textual tradition and has not survived in any manuscript.” He goes on to say, “We cannot know this text with certainty but can only reconstruct it hypothetically.”[20] He also says, “The initial text is not identical with the original, the text of the author. Between the autograph and the initial text, considerable changes may have taken place which may not have left a single trace in the surviving textual tradition.”[21] In short, the general, basic consensus is that the “initial text” is the earliest possible text for each of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament.

Early Christianity gave rise to what is known as “local texts.” Christian congregations in and near cities, such as Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Carthage, or Rome, were making copies of the Scriptures in the form that would become known as a text-type. In other words, manuscripts grew up in certain areas, just like a human family, becoming known as their text-type (family of manuscripts), having their own characteristics. The reality is not as simple as this because there are mixtures of text types within each text type. However, each text type resembles itself more than it does the others. It should also be remembered that most of our extant manuscripts are identical in more than seventy-five percent of their texts. Thus, the percentage of variant readings identifies a manuscript as a particular text type, i.e., “agreement in error” or variation from the original.

Therefore, for many years, the process of classifying manuscripts has been to classify them as a particular text type, such as Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean, or Byzantine. However, these days are fading because technology has allowed the textual scholar to carry out a more comprehensive comparison of all readings in all manuscripts, possibly making all previous classifications meaningless or nearly so. This new method is known as The Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM), which will be explained at great length in the forthcoming book by Dr. Don Wilkins in 2022.[22] In this method, an “initial text” is “relatively close to the form of the text from which the textual tradition of a New Testament book has originated.” (Stephen C. Carlson)[23] In addition, “D. C. Parker’s essay asserts the impossibility of the attempt to recover a single original text, and hence the editor or critic must be content with the text from which the readings in the extant manuscripts are genealogically descended (p. 21).”[24]

Believing that We Can Establish the Original

B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort believed that they had established the original text with their New Testament in the Original Greek (1881). They write, “This edition is an attempt to present exactly the original words of the New Testament, so far as they can be determined from surviving documents.”[25]  We notice that Westcott and Hort qualified their goal with “as far as can be determined from surviving documents.” The producers of the 5th edition of the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies’ Corrected Edition (2014)[26] , and Kurt and Barbara Aland in their 28th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (2012)[27] believe that these critical texts are the most anyone has achieved in establishing the original.[28] However, it must be said that the NA28 has been shifted to the goal of establishing the “initial text.” Westcott and Hort looked to the earliest manuscripts of their day as their foundation for the original text and considered internal evidence. The Alands, while appreciating the early texts, did move away to the reasoned eclectic approach, an approach that focuses more heavily on internal evidence rather than external evidence.[29] Nevertheless, their clearly stated goal was “an assurance of certainty in establishing the original text.”[30] Sadly, as MacDonald said above, many modern textual scholars have abandoned the hope of ever establishing the original text or accepting that the above-mentioned critical texts might live up to that claim. I personally find it ironic that the idea of establishing the original text became less and less of concern to the textual scholar over the 20th century as liberal-progressive scholarship consumed conservative scholarship throughout that same century. The reader must determine his own view as to whether there is any correlation.

On the objective of getting back to the original, the authors of The Early Text of the New Testament wrote, “However, while the complexities in recovering the original text need to be acknowledged, that is a separate question from whether the concept of an original text is incoherent and should, therefore, be abandoned as a goal of the discipline. Unfortunately, these two questions are often mingled together without distinction. Although recovering the original text faces substantial obstacles (and therefore, the results should be qualified), there is little to suggest that it is an illegitimate enterprise. If it were illegitimate, then we would expect the same would be true for Greek and Roman literature outside the New Testament. Are we to think that an attempt to reconstruct the original word of Tacitus, or Plato, or Thucydides is misguided? Or that it does not matter? Those who argue that we should abandon the concept of an original text for the New Testament often give very little (if any) attention to the implications of such an approach for classical literature.”[31]

Westcott and Hort sought to establish the original text by choosing what they felt was the most faithful text or family of texts, the Alexandrian family (especially the Codex Vaticanus, designated B), and worked from there to establish their critical text. Again, modern scholarship has abandoned both the idea of establishing the original and choosing a trusted text or family of texts as a foundation. Since the mid-19th century, they have been using “eclecticism,” now known as “reasoned eclecticism.”[32] In this, all manuscripts are placed on equal footing. They simply look to all text types and decide which variant gave rise to all others, assigning more weight to internal evidence than to the external evidence of manuscripts. The last couple of decades have seen the growth of the newest form of NTTC, The Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM).

Philip Comfort, the author of Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography and Textual Criticism (2005), has not abandoned the possibility of establishing the original text. Comfort finds this hope in the very earliest papyri and the Alexandrian text. He believes that the very early Alexandrian (Egyptian) text represents what the whole of the Christian writings must have looked like at that time. Writings of the early church fathers such as Irenaeus, Marcion, and Hippolytus reflect the Alexandrian form of the text. New Testament textual scholar Larry W. Hurtado holds this position as well. We will quote his position extensively.

All indications are that early Christians were very much given to what we today would call “networking” with one another, and that includes translocal efforts. Indeed, the Roman period generally was a time of impressive travel and translocal contacts, for trading, pilgrimages, and other purposes.^[33] Eldon Epp has marshaled evidence that the early Christian papyri, mainly from Egypt, reflect “extensive and lively interactions between Alexandria and the outlying areas, and also between the outlying areas [of Egypt] and other parts of the Roman world … and … the wide circulation of documents in this early period.”^[34] In another essay, Epp also demonstrated how readily people expected to send and receive letters all across the Roman Empire, reflecting more broadly a “brisk ‘intellectual commerce’ and dynamic interchanges of people, literature, books, and letters between Egypt and the vast Mediterranean region.”^[35]

In illustration of this, note that we have at least three copies of the Shepherd of Hermas that are dated to the late second/early third century, at most only a few decades later than the composition of this text. Thus, this Roman-provenance writing made its way to Egypt very quickly and was apparently received positively. Even more striking is the appearance of a copy of Irenaeus’s Against Heresies that has been dated to the late second or early third century. Again, within a very short time, we have a writing composed elsewhere (Gaul) finding its way to Christians in Oxyrhynchus (about 120 miles south of Cairo). We could also note the several early copies of writings of Melito of Sardis (Roman Asia Minor). In short, the extant manuscript evidence fully supports the conclusion that the Oxyrhynchus material reflects a broad, translocal outlook.

… We shall explore the implications of the papyrus evidence, on the working assumption that though largely of Egyptian provenance, these early Christian papyri reflect attitudes, preferences, and usages of many Christians more broadly in the second and third centuries. We turn now to consider what we might infer from the list of textual witnesses provided to us in these papyri.^[36]

Distribution of Papyri Witnesses for Each New Testament Book
NT Book	Total	Early	NT Book	Total	Early
Matthew	23	11	1 Timothy	0	0
Mark	3	2	2 Timothy	0	0
Luke	10	6	Titus	2	1
John	30	19	Philemon	2	1
Acts	14	7	Hebrews	8	4
Romans	10	5	James	6	4
1 Corinthians	8	3	1 Peter	3	1
2 Corinthians	4	2	2 Peter	2	1
Galatians	2	1	1 John	2	1
Ephesians	3	3	2 John	1	0
Philippians	3	2	3 John	1	0
Colossians	2	1	Jude	3	2
1 Thessalonians	4	3	Revelation	7	4
2 Thessalonians	2	2

It appears that some of the answers to establishing the original text of the Christian Greek Scriptures lie within the Westcott and Hort approach. Fifteen papyrus manuscripts date from about 100–200 C.E. As of 2021, a total of 141 NT papyri are known, although some of the numbers issued were later considered to be fragments of the same original manuscript (e.g., P^4/64/67 P^77/103 P^49/65). It is from these manuscripts, especially the earliest ones, that we are going to be aided in establishing the original text.[37] Tregelles (1813-75), Tischendorf (1815-74), and Westcott (1825-1901) and Hort (1828-92) hung their textual hats on the two best manuscripts of their day, i.e., Sinaiticus (c. 360) and Vaticanus (c. 350), both of the Alexandrian text-type.

P75 (c.175–225) contains most of Luke and John and has vindicated Westcott and Hort for their choice of Vaticanus as the premium manuscript for establishing the original text. After careful study of P75 against the Vaticanus Codex, scholars have found that they are just short of being identical. In his introduction to the Greek text, Hort argues that the Vaticanus Codex is a “very pure line of very ancient text.”[38]

Those who have abandoned all hope of such a venture would argue differently, saying, “oldest is not necessarily best.” For these scholars, the original reading could be found in any manuscript. This is true to a degree. They continue with the approach that the reading that produced the other readings is likely the original. While on the surface, this sounds great, it is not as reliable a principle as one might think. On this issue, Comfort writes:

For example, two scholars, using this principle to examine the same variant, may not agree. One might argue that a copyist attempting to emulate the author’s style produced the variant; the other could claim the same variant has to be original because it accords with the author’s style. Or, one might argue that a variant was produced by an orthodox scribe attempting to rid the text of a reading that could be used to promote heterodoxy or heresy; another might claim that the same variant has to be original because it is orthodox and accords with Christian doctrine (thus a heterodoxical or heretical scribe must have changed it). Furthermore, this principle allows for the possibility that the reading selected for the text can be taken from any manuscript of any date. This can lead to subjective eclecticism.[39]

When we look deeper into reasoned eclecticism and the local-genealogical method,[40] we find that they lean more heavily on the internal evidence side than external evidence. This author’s position is that the greater weight should be placed on the external evidence if we are to recover the original text. This is not to say that we do not consider internal evidence because we should. Westcott and Hort held this position as well. They wrote, “Documentary attestation has been in most cases allowed to confer the place of honour as against internal evidence.” (Westcott and Hort 1882, 17) Ernest Colwell, who was of the same mindset, suggested in 1968 that we needed to get back to Westcott and Hort’s principles. Sadly, textual scholarship has mostly strayed from those principles.

The Early Text of the New Testament

We have already discussed the level of skilled copying of the early papyri, Alexandria, Egypt’s scribal practices have played a significant role in this. As historical records have shown, Alexandria had an enormous Jewish population. We can imagine a large, predominately Jewish, Christian congregation early on as the gospel made its way throughout that land. This congregation would have maintained deep ties with their fellow Christians in Jerusalem and Antioch. Then, the Didaskelion catechetical school of Alexandria had some of the most influential Church Fathers as head instructors. As has already been noted, Pantaenus took over and was in charge from about 160–180 C.E., Clement being his greatest student, and Origen, who brought this school to Caesarea in 231, establishing a second school and scriptorium.

As the Greek Septuagint originated from Alexandria, and the vast majority of the earliest New Testament papyri also had their origins in Egypt (Fayum and Oxyrhynchus), it is quite clear that the above-mentioned Church Fathers would have accessed the Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures in their writings and evangelistic work. Origen, who learned from both Clement and Pantaenus, wrote more than any of the earliest Christian leaders, and his writings are a reflection of the early New Testament papyri, as is true with Clement and his writings. Considering that Clement studied under Pantaenus, it is not difficult to surmise that his writings would also reflect the early New Testament papyri. Therefore, it truly is not unreasonable to suggest that going in reverse chronologically: Origen, Clement, Pantaenus, and those who studied with Pantaenus and brought him into Christianity from Stoic philosophy, were using Alexandrian family texts-types that were mirror-like reflections of the original texts of the Christian Greek Scriptures. The church historian Eusebius helps us to appreciate just how early this school was; note how he expresses it:

About the same time, a man most distinguished for his learning, whose name was Pantaenus, governed the school of the faithful. There had been a school of sacred learning established there from ancient times [italics mine], which has continued down to our own times, and which we have understood was held by men able in eloquence and the study of divine things. The tradition is that this philosopher was then in great eminence, as he had been first disciplined in the philosophical principles of those called Stoics.^[41]

We have learned thus far that in the second and third centuries C.E., Alexandria’s scholarship and scribal practices had a tremendous impact on all of Egypt as far south as Fayum and Oxyrhynchus. This means that the standard text of the Christian Greek Scriptures reflecting the originals came up out of Egypt during the second century. The Alexandrian Library had been a force for influencing rigorous scholarship and setting high standards from the third century B.C.E. onward. Is it a mere coincidence that the four greatest libraries and learning centers were located in the very places that Christianity had its original growth: Alexandria, Pergamum near Ephesus, Rome, and Antioch? Their book production would greatly influence the congregations within these cities and nearby ones.

The Impact of the Early Papyri

Some improvements can be made to these critical texts because the editors of the 26th to 28th editions of the Nestle-Aland text made revisions setting the text further apart from the Westcott and Hort text of 1881. The 1881 WH Greek NT text is 99.5% the same as the 2012 NA Greek text. Yet, the committee for the NA28 NT Greek text has ignored the testimony of the earliest manuscripts and Codex Vaticanus and has rejected many readings by relegating them to the margin, or the critical apparatus, leaving an inferior reading in the main text. It is as Comfort says in his New Testament Text and Translation Commentary:

…the resultant eclectic text exhibits too much dependence on internal evidence, emphasizing the ‘local’ aspect of the ‘local-genealogical’ method, to use Aland’s language. This means that the decision-making, on a variant-unit-by-variant-unit basis, produced a text with an uneven documentary presentation. Furthermore, the committee setting, with members voting on each significant textual variant cannot help but produce a text with uneven documentation. All eclectic texts reconstruct a text that no ancient Christian actually read, even though they approach a close replication of the original writings. However, the NU edition’s eclecticism extends even to following different manuscripts within the same sentence.[42]

Comfort goes on to say,

In conclusion, my preference for emphasizing the documentary method in making text-critical choices is revealed in the fact that I decide against many choices made by the editors of the NU text. The reader may see these decisions in the following notes: Matthew 3:16; 4:24; 5:28; 8:21; 9:14, 26; 12:47; 13:35b; 14:16, 27, 30; 15:6b, 14; 17:9; 18:15; 19:22; 21:44; 25:6; 27:49 Mark 3:32; 6:51; 7:4; 15:12; 16:8 [ending to Mark] Luke 3:22a; 8:43; 14:17; 17:24; 20:9; 22:43–44 John 1:34; 3:31–32; 5:44; 6:14; 7:9; 7:53–8:11; 9:4, 38–39a; 10:8, 16, 18; 11:45–46; 13:2a, 2c, 32; 16:23; 20:31; 21:18 Acts 3:6; 7:13, 38; 9:12; 16:12 Romans 3:4; 7:17; 8:11a, 23; 11:17; 12:14; 15:33 [placement of doxology] 1 Corinthians 1:14; 3:13; 4:2; 7:7, 15; 8:3a, 3b; 9:9b; 10:2; 12:10 2 Corinthians 4:5b; 5:3, 12 Galatians 1:3, 6, 15a; 2:12a, 12b; 3:21a Ephesians 1:1b, 15, 18; 3:19; 4:24, 28; 5:2a, 20; 6:12a, 19 Philippians 3:3, 7, 10, 12a Colossians 2:7a, 10, 13, 23; 3:6, 22b, 23; 4:8, 12 1 Thessalonians 3:2, 13; 5:4, 9 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 3:6 2 Timothy 3:15 Philemon 25 Hebrews 1:8; 3:2; 4:3a; 7:4, 28; 9:1, 19; 11:4; 12:1, 3, 4; 13:15, 21c, 24, 25a James 1:17; 2:3; 4:14a; 5:4 1 Peter 1:12b; 2:21; 3:14, 18; 4:11; 5:8, 10b, 10c 2 Peter 1:3; 2:6a; 3:18b 1 John 3:23a; 5:20b 2 John 8 Jude 5 Revelation 1:6b; 9:12–13a, 13b; 11:8; 12:8a, 10; 13:18; 14:3a, 5; 15:3, 6; 16:5b; 18:2, 3; 19:11[43]

The Reliability of the Early Text

Even though many textual scholars credited Aland’s The Text of the New Testament with their description of the text as “free,” that was not the entire position of the Alands. They did describe different texts’ styles, such as “at least normal,” “normal,” “free,” and “strict,” seemingly to gauge or weigh the textual faithfulness of each manuscript. However, like Kenyon, they saw a need based on the evidence, which suggested a rethinking of how the evidence should be described,

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.^[44]

While we have said a couple of times now, it bears repeating, as some of the earliest manuscripts that we now have evidence that a professional scribe copied them. Many of the other papyri confirm that a semiprofessional 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 semiprofessional copyists did the vast majority of the early extant 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 shake when the enormous amount of evidence emerged that showed just the opposite.

After a detailed comparison of the papyri, Kurt and Barbara Aland concluded that these manuscripts from the second to the fourth centuries are of three kinds (at least normal, normal, free, and strict). “It is their collations which have changed the picture so completely.” (p. 93)

1. Normal Texts: The normal text is a relatively faithful tradition (e.g., P52, which departs from its exemplar only occasionally, as do New Testament manuscripts of every century. It is further represented in P4, P5, P12(?), P16, P18, P20, P28, P47, P72 (1, 2 Peter), and P87.[45]
2. Free Texts: This is a text dealing with the original text in a relatively free manner with no suggestion of a program of standardization (e.g., p45, p46, and p66), exhibiting the most diverse variants. It is further represented in P9 (?), P13(?), P29, P37, P40, P69, P72 (Jude), and P78.[46]
3. Strict Texts: These manuscripts transmit the text of the exemplar with meticulous care (e.g., P75) and depart from it only rarely. It is further represented in P1, P23, P27, P35, P36, P64+67, P65(?), and P70.[47]

Bruce M. Metzger (1914 – 2007) was an editor with Kurt and Barbara Aland of the United Bible Societies’ standard Greek New Testament and the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. In his A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (1971, 1994), and other works, we have his view of the Alexandrian text-type as follows.

The Alexandrian text, which Westcott and Hort called the Neutral text (a question-begging title), is usually considered to be the best text and the most faithful in preserving the original. Characteristics of the Alexandrian text are brevity and austerity. That is, it is generally shorter than the text of other forms, and it does not exhibit the degree of grammatical and stylistic polishing that is characteristic of the Byzantine type of text. Until recently, the two chief witnesses to the Alexandrian text were codex Vaticanus (B) and codex Sinaiticus (א), parchment manuscripts dating from about the middle of the fourth century. With the acquisition, however, of the Bodmer Papyri, particularly P⁶⁶ and P⁷⁵, both copied about the end of the second or the beginning of the third century, evidence is now available that the Alexandrian type of text goes back to an archetype that must be dated early in the second century. The Sahidic and Bohairic versions frequently contain typically Alexandrian readings.

It is best if textual scholars focus their attention on the categories the Alands set out instead of their over-generalization that the early period of copying was “uncontrolled” and “free.” The Alands’ rating system consisted of “at least normal,” “normal,” “strict,” and “free,” designed to evaluate the textual faithfulness of each manuscript. It seems that these terms were meant to gauge the level of control that the scribe showed in copying his exemplar. Manuscripts labeled “at least normal” referred to a copyist who at least gave some consideration to his task, namely, producing an accurate copy of the exemplar. “Normal,” on the other hand, referred to a copyist who permitted what was deemed a normal number of variants within copying of the exemplar. Therefore, “strict” referred to a scribe who allowed very few variants in his copy of the exemplar. Lastly, “free” refers to a copyist who showed almost no regard for being faithful to the exemplar he was copying.

It behooves the textual scholar to pay much attention to the study of scribal habits, which began with Ernest Colwell in 1969, who analyzed the scribal habits in P45, P66, and P75 examining their singular readings.[48] Singular readings are variant readings found only in the manuscript being examined, not in any other extant documents. By studying these singular readings of a particular manuscript, we see into the habits of that scribe, namely, his pattern of textual variations, his interactions with the text. Colwell’s investigation was followed by a much more extensive study of singular readings by James Royse of the same manuscripts some twelve years later.[49] Then, we had Philip Comfort in his doctoral dissertation in 1997.[50] Comfort explains that his objective was “to determine what it was in the text that prompted the scribes of P45, P66, and P75 to make individual readings.” Comfort suggests that we forgo the categories of the Alands and “that textual critics could use the categories “reliable,” “fairly reliable,” and “unreliable” to describe the textual fidelity of any given manuscript.” This author would agree. Moreover, he shows “that many of the early papyri are ‘reliable,’ several ‘fairly reliable,’ and a few ‘unreliable.’” Comfort then logically explains, “One of the ways of establishing reliability (or lack thereof) is to test a manuscript against one that is generally proven for its textual fidelity. For example, since many scholars have acclaimed the textual fidelity of P75 (both for intrinsic and extrinsic reasons), it is fair to compare other manuscripts against it in order to determine their textual reliability.”[51]

How do we know that the critical texts NA28 and the UBS5 are reliable? In 1989, Eldon J. Epp noted that the papyri had added virtually no new substantial variants to the variants already known from our later manuscripts.[52] Even with the discovery of many other papyri over the last 25 years, the situation has remained the same. It can be said that after 135 years of early manuscript discoveries since Westcott and Hort of 1881, the above critical editions of the Greek New Testament have gone virtually unchanged. Hill and Kruger go on to say, “It also means that the fourth-century ‘best texts,’ the ‘Alexandrian’ codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, have roots extending throughout the entire third century and even into the second.”[53]

The most reliable of the earliest texts are P1, P4, 64, 67, P23, P27, P30, P32, P35, P39, P49, 65, P70, P75, P86, P87, P90, P91, P100, P101, P106, P108, P111, P114, and P115. The copyists of these manuscripts allowed very few variants in their copies of the exemplars.[54] They had the ability to make accurate judgments as they went about their copying, resulting in superior texts. Whether their copying skills resulted from their belief that they were copying a sacred text or their training cannot be known. It could have been a combination of both. These papyri are of great importance when considering textual problems and are considered by many textual scholars to be a good representation of the original wording of the text that the biblical author first published. Still, “many of these manuscripts contain singular readings and some ‘Alexandrian’ polishing, which needs to be sifted out.” (P. Comfort 2005, 269) Nevertheless, again, they are the best texts and the most faithful in preserving the original. While it is true that some of the papyri are mere fragments, some contain substantial portions of text. We should note too that text types really did not exist per se in the second century, and it is a mere convention to refer to the papyri as Alexandrian, since the best Alexandrian manuscript, Vaticanus, did exist in the second century by way of P75.[55] It is not that the Alexandrian text existed, but rather P75/Vaticanus evidence that some very strict copying with great care was taking place.[56] Manuscripts that were not of this caliber of strict and careful copying were the result of scribal errors and scribes taking liberties with the text. Therefore, even though P5 may be categorized as a Western text type, it is more a matter of negligence in the copying process.

The Aland Classification of Papyri as of 2002

As Hill and Kruger put it, “if one accepts the Alands’ analyses, in 2002, forty out of fifty-five (or just under 73 percent) of the earliest NT manuscripts had Normal to Strict texts, and fifteen (or just over 27 percent) had Free to Like D texts. The single largest category, consisting of eighteen out of fifty-five (or nearly a third) of the earliest manuscripts, is the category of Strict text.”[57] Therefore, it would be difficult to follow in the footsteps of previous authors who cite the Alands as their source in describing the early period of copying the Greek New Testament as “free,” or “wild,” “in a state of flux,” “chaotic,” “a turbid textual morass,” and so on.

The Primary Task of a Textual Scholar

The long-held task of the textual scholar has been to recover the original reading. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (1813-1875) stated that the objective “of all textual criticism is to present an ancient work, as far as possible, in the very words and form in which it proceeded from the writer’s own hand. Thus, when applied to the Greek New Testament, the result proposed is to give a text of those writings, as near as can be done on existing evidence, such as they were when originally written in the first century.”[58] B. F. Westcott (1825-1901) and F. J. A. Hort (1828-1892) said it was their goal “to present exactly the original words of the New Testament, so far as they can now be determined from surviving documents.”[59] Throughout the twentieth century, leading textual scholars such as Bruce M. Metzger (1914-2007) and Kurt Aland (1915-1994) had the same goals for textual criticism. Griesbach (1745-1812), Tregelles, Tischendorf (1815-1874), Westcott and Hort, Metzger, Aland, and other prominent textual scholars since the days of Erasmus (1466-1536) all gave their lives to the restoration of the Greek New Testament.

However, sadly, “more dominant in text critics’ thinking now is the need to plot the changes in the history of the text.”[60] While Bart Ehrman, David Parker, and J. K. Elliot are correct that we could never restore or establish the authors’ original words of the twenty-seven Greek New Testament books beyond question, it should remain the goal, as opposed to the pessimistic attitude of late. If we sidestep the traditional goal of textual criticism, we are really abandoning textual criticism itself. While the textual scholar wants to track down the variants to the text through the centuries, this can only be done by realizing there was a beginning, i.e., the twenty-seven original texts. How does one identify an alteration in the text without knowing from what it was altered? While the NA28/UBS5 critical edition cannot be considered a 100% reproduction of the twenty-seven original books, textual scholarship should always work in that direction, or otherwise, what is the purpose? The author of this publication is in harmony with the words of Paul D. Wegner, who writes, “Textual criticism is foundational to exegesis and interpretation of the text: we need to know what the wording of the text is before we can know what it means.”[61]

The sad situation is that textual scholarship as a whole is unwittingly or knowingly moving the goalposts for some unknown reason. In textual criticism, it is now the earliest knowable text. In biblical hermeneutics, it is dissecting a text until you no longer have the Word of God but rather the word of man, and a jumbled word at that. Bible translation goes beyond what the Word of God is in the receptor language (e.g., English, Spanish, German) into what the translator thinks the original author meant. How is it possible for so few to see the danger of what is happening? What has happened right before our eyes are

• the goal of an early text, not the original,
• Bible books by unknown authors, not the ones bearing their name,
• with Jesus, not saying half of what the Gospels claim he said, in mini commentary,
• and interpretive translations by translators that are of the biblical criticism mindset.

SCROLL THROUGH DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHRISTIAN FICTION

[1] Elijah Hixon and Peter J. Gurry, MYTHS AND MISTAKES In New Testament Textual Criticism (Downer Groves, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2019), xii.

[2] Reasoned Eclecticism: the method of textual criticism that aims to give about equal weight to external and internal evidence (cf. “Eclecticism”). It is also called the local-genealogical method as developed by Kurt and Barbara Aland. Variant readings are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The extent to which external evidence, e.g. the age of important manuscripts, is taken into account can be difficult to judge.

[3] 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.

[4] 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), xv.

[5] 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), xv–xvi.

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

[7] William D. Mounce, Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 1152.

[8] Astounded: (ἐκπλήσσω ekplēssō) This is one who is extremely astounded or amazed, so much so that they lose their mental self-control, as they are overwhelmed emotionally. – Matt. 7:28; Mark 1:22; 7:37; Lu 2:48; 4:32; 9:43; Ac 13:12.

[9] 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.

[10] “The usual procedure for a dictated epistle was for the amanuensis to take down the speaker’s words (often in shorthand) and then produce a transcript, which the author could then review, edit, and sign in his own handwriting. Two New Testament epistles provide the name of the amanuensis: Tertius for (Romans 16:22) and Silvanus (another name for Silas) for 1 Peter 5:12” Philip Comfort, Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2005), 06.

However, the author of this book qualifies Comfort’s comments. Again, there is the slight possibility of Tertius or other Bible author’s scribes taking it down in shorthand and after that making out a full draft, which would have been reviewed by both Paul and Tertius. This is only the case if it is comparable to what a modern-day court reporter does. In some sense, they are taking down whoever is speaking down in shorthand. Imagine a courtroom where you have a witness talking fast, the prosecution interrupts, the defense jumps in with his rebuttal and the judge snaps his ruling, and the witness resumes his or her account of things. All of that is taken down explicitly word for word in shorthand, and if ever turned into longhand, it would be exactly what was said, down to the uh and um common in speech. So, if the shorthand of the day had that kind of capability; then, it is conceivable. We must remember these are the Bible author’s dictated words to the scribe based on their inspiration, not the word choice or writing style of the scribe.

[11] Paul D. Wegner, A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible (InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove 2006), 301.

[12] J. J. Griesbach is the one who really laid the foundation for the rules and principles for New Testament textual criticism.

[13] In 1898, Eberhard Nestle published a significant handbook of textual criticism, and in 1898 published the first edition of a Greek New Testament under the title Novum Testamentum Graece cum apparatu critico ex editionibus et libris manu scriptis collecto. The text of this Greek New Testament was a combination of the editions of Constantin von Tischendorf, The New Testament in the Original Greek of Westcott and Hort, and the edition of Richard Francis Weymouth. Wherever two of these three editions agree, this was the preferred reading by Nestle.

[14] Greenlee, J. Harold (2008). The Text of the New Testament, From Manuscript to Modern Edition (p. 2). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

[15] External evidence is manuscript evidence: its date, geographical location, and relationship to other known manuscripts. Textual scholars generally prefer the readings supported by the Alexandrian family of witnesses. The Byzantine family of manuscripts tends to be rejected because of its being less trustworthy, but most critics now grant that it should still be considered.

[16] L. M. McDonald, Forgotten Scriptures: The Selection and Rejection of Early Religious Writings (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, July 13, 2009), 184.

[17] Again, when we employ the term “original” reading or “original” text in this publication, it is a reference to the exemplar manuscript composed by the New Testament author (e.g., Paul) and recorded by his secretary (e.g., Tertius), if he used one, from which all other copies ultimately were derived for publication and distribution to the Christian communities.

[18] Elijah Hixon and Peter J. Gurry, MYTHS AND MISTAKES In New Testament Textual Criticism (Downer Groves, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2019), xii.

[19] ECM/1–2Peter, 23*n. 4

[20] This presentation is based on lectures given by the author at the Münster Colloquium on the Textual History of the Greek New Testament

Click to access Colloquium2008_programme.pdf

[21] Gerd Mink, “Problems of a Highly Contaminated Tradition, the New Testament: Stemmata of Variants as a Source of a Genealogy for Witnesses,” in Studies in Stemmatology, vol. 2 [ed. Pieter van Reenen, August den Hollander, and Margot van Mulken; Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004], 25).

[22] For now, read Dr. Wilkins’ 120+ page article here on CBGM: https://bit.ly/3sflrOM

[23] http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/RECON/Carlson-CBGM1.html

[24] The Textual History of the Greek New Testament: Changing Views in Contemporary Research (Peter Rodgers Review) …, http://peter-rodgers.com/#articles (accessed July 7, 2014).

[25] B. F. Westcott; F. J. A. Hort, The New Testament In the Original Greek, Cambridge/London, 1881.

[26] Referred to as UBS5

[27] Referred to as NA28. It should be noted that the Greek text of the NA28 and the UBS5 are exactly the same, but their apparatuses are different. The NA28 is more for the scholar, the pastor, and the Bible student and deals with far more variants and offers more evidence for each variant, while the UBS5 is more for the Bible translator and includes only variants deemed important to Bible translation.

[28] Aland and Aland in their book, The Text of the New Testament, make the clear statement that the text of the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies (UBS3) and the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (NA26) “comes closer to the original text of the New Testament than did Tischendorf or Westcott and Hort not to mention von Soden.” (Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament 1995, 24)

[29] This approach addresses textual criticism by looking to internal and external evidence. However, many who use this approach do lean too heavily on internal evidence. In addition, while they value early manuscripts, they choose the best reading from a consideration of all manuscripts, believing that any of them can carry the original, avoiding preferences.

[30] 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), 291-2.

[31] Charles E. Hill; Michael J. Kruger, THE EARLY TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2012), 4. 

[32] Nonetheless, the oldest manuscripts, which are of the Alexandrian text-type, seem to be the favored, and text of the United Bible Society, 5th ed. and Nestle-Aland, 28th ed. has an Alexandrian disposition.

[33] See Lionel Casson, Travel in the Ancient World (London: Allen & Unwin, 1974); and Richard Bauckham’s discussion in his essay, “For Whom Were the Gospels Written?” in The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences, ed. Richard Bauckham (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 32 (9-48).

[34] Eldon Jay Epp, “The Significance of the Papyri for Determining the Nature of the New Testament Text in the Second Century: A Dynamic View of Textual Transmission,” in Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Text, and Transmission, ed. William L. Petersen (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), 81 (71-103).

[35] Eldon Jay Epp, “New Testament Papyrus Manuscripts and Letter Carrying in Greco-Roman Times,” in The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester, ed. Birger A. Pearson (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 55 (35-56). As another particular piece of evidence of Christian networking across imperial distances, Malcolm Choat pointed me to a third-century letter sent from an unknown individual Christian in Rome to fellow Christians in Egypt (P. Amherst 1.3), requesting certain financial transactions. For discussion see Charles Wessely, “Les plus ancients monuments du Christianisme ecrits sur papyrus,” Patrologia Orientalis, Tomas Quartus (Paris: Librairie de Paris, 19o8), 135-38.

[36] Larry W. Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2006), 26-27.

[37] It should be noted that Andrews is not arguing for setting aside all manuscripts except the early papyri. Rather, he is merely suggesting that our best evidence lies within these early papyri.

[38] B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, Introduction [and] Appendix, Vol. 2 of New Testament in the Original Greek (London: Macmillan and Company, 1881), 251.

[39] Philip Wesley Comfort, The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker House, 1992), 29-39.

[40] This method holds that a variant can be established as original and can come from any given manuscript(s).

[41] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5:10:1.

[42] 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) XV.

^[43] 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), 883–884.

[44] 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.

[45] Ibid., 95

[46] Ibid., 59, 64, 93

[47] Ibid., 64, 95

[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).

[49] James Ronald Royse, “Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri” (Ph.D. diss., Graduate Theological Union, 1981). According to Royse, this investigation of singular readings does not apply to lectionaries, patristic sources, and versions, just New Testament papyri, uncials, and minuscules.

[50] Philip Comfort, “The Scribe as Interpreter: A New Look at New Testament Textual Criticism according to Reader Reception Theory,” D. Litt. et Phil, dissertation, University of South Africa (1997).

[51] Philip Comfort, Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2005), 268.

[52] E. J. Epp, ‘The Significance of the Papyri for Determining the Nature of the New Testament Text in the Second Century: A Dynamic View of Textual Transmission’, in W. L. Petersen, ed., The Gospel Traditions in the Second Century (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), 101.

[53] Charles E. Hill; Michael J. Kruger, THE EARLY TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2012), 5-6. 

[54] In 1988, the Alands, in the second edition of The Text of the New Testament (93-95), categorized thirty of the forty-four earliest manuscripts (40 papyri and 4 parchment) as “at least normal,” “normal,” and “strict,” with the other fourteen being categorized as “free” or “like Codex Bezae (D).” At that time, the Alands did not rate P⁹⁰ [2^nd], P⁹², [3^rd/4^th] and P⁹⁵ [3^rd], likely because they had only recently been discovered. However, we now have the Aland classification of “strict.”

[55] The Coherence Based Genealogical Method, which was developed by Gerd Mink and assists scholars in developing genealogical trees of manuscripts, will be discussed in far greater detail in the forthcoming release, An Essential Investigation of the Coherence-Based Geneological Method, in 2020 by Dr. Don. Wilkins: but we should note here that it has no relation to the traditional text-type model. It is for this reason that scholars such as Holger Strutwolf have suggested that we abandon any references to the manuscripts by the tradition text-types.

[56] “What we do know, from the manuscript evidence, is that several of the earliest Christian scribes were well-trained scribes who applied their training to making reliable texts, both of the Old Testamfent and the New Testament. We know that they were conscientious to make a reliable text in the process of transcription (as can been seen in manuscripts like P^4+64+67 and P⁷⁵), and we know that others worked to rid the manuscript of textual corruption. This is nowhere better manifested than in P⁶⁶, where the scribe himself and the diorthotes (official corrector) made over 450 corrections to the text of John. As is explained in the next chapter, the diorthotes of P⁶⁶ probably consulted other exemplars (one whose text was much like that of P⁷⁵) in making his corrections. This shows a standard Alexandrian scriptoral practice at work in the reproduction of a New Testament manuscript.” (P. Comfort, Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography and Textual Criticism 2005, 264)

[57] Charles E. Hill; Michael J. Kruger, THE EARLY TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2012), 5-6.

[58] Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, 174.

[59] Westcott and Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek, 1.

[60] J. K. Elliott, “The International Greek New Testament Project’s Volumes on the Gospel of Luke: Prehistory and Aftermath,” NTTRU 7, 17.

[61] Paul D. Wegner, A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods & Results (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 230.

gg