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
SBLGNT: 2010 Greek New Testament 
THGNT: 2017 The Greek New Testament by Tyndale House
GENTI: 2020 Greek-English New Testament Interlinear

Matthew 16:2-3 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
² But he answered and said to them, [“When it is evening you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’ ³ And in the morning, ‘It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to interpret the appearance[214] of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.][215] 

TR WH NU [ὀψίας γενομένης λέγετε· εὐδία, πυρράζει γὰρ ὁ οὐρανός·³ καὶ πρωΐ· σήμερον χειμών, πυρράζει γὰρ στυγνάζων ὁ οὐρανός. τὸ μὲν πρόσωπον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ γινώσκετε διακρίνειν, τὰ δὲ σημεῖα τῶν καιρῶν οὐ δύνασθε;]
“When it is evening you say, ‘It will be fair weather because the sky is red.’ ³ And in the morning, ‘It will be stormy today because the sky is red and overcast.’ You can read the signs of the weather, but you can’t read the signs of the time?”
C D L W Θ f 33 Maj syr^,p Eusebius (several late MSS add υποκριται [“hypocrites”] after ουρανος [“sky”])

Variant omit verses
א B X Γ f¹³ syr^c, cop Origen MSS^{according to Jerome}

Philip Comfort Writes,

Had the additional words been original, there is no good reason to explain why the scribes of א B would have intentionally deleted them, and there is no way to explain the omission as a transcriptional accident. Thus, it is far more likely that this portion, bracketed in NU and double-bracketed in WH, was inserted later by a scribe who either borrowed the concept from Luke 12:54–56 (as a metaphor for “the signs of the times”) or from an oral or other written tradition, thereby providing an actual example of what it meant for the ancients to interpret the appearance of the sky (see Westcott and Hort 1882, 13). Among the added words, there are several that are never used by Matthew or (in two instances) by any other writer in the NT: (1) ευδια (appears only here in the NT), (2) πυρραζει (appears only here in the NT and was used only by Byzantine writers; BDAG 899), (3) στυγναζω (appears only here and in Mark 10:22). This strongly suggests that a scribe added the words that appear in the TR WH NU reading (see Hirunuma 1981, 39–45).

But the question remains: Why was this addition made? A close look at the context supplies the answer. According to Matthew’s account, the Jewish leaders came to Jesus twice, each time asking him to give them a sign to prove that he was truly the Messiah sent from God. In Matt 12:38, the leaders simply asked for a sign. In response, Jesus said that no sign would be given to them except the sign of Jonah, who depicted Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection (12:39–40). Later, the Jewish leaders asked Jesus for a sign “from heaven” (Matt 16:1). Again, Jesus told them that no sign would be given them except the sign of Jonah (16:4)—according to the reading of the shorter version. But the query for “a sign from heaven” does not seem to be answered by Jesus pointing to Jonah. This created a disappointment for various readers—a gap in the text that called for some kind of filling. Therefore, a scribe decided to fill the gap and did so by borrowing from the thought of Luke 12:54–56 and some other unknown source (perhaps the scribe’s own knowledge). He added words about signs in the “sky” as complementing a request about a sign from “heaven.”

Luke 12:54–56 is an interesting passage, with a different setting than the Matthean account. In Luke 12 no one asks Jesus for a sign from heaven. Rather, Jesus is depicted as condemning that generation of Jews for not realizing what was happening in their lifetimes—the very Messiah, the Son of God, was among them, and they did not realize it. So he told them that they could discern the weather by watching for various signs in the sky and on the earth but they could not discern “the signs of the times.” The sign in the sky was western clouds signaling the coming of rain; the sign on the earth was a south wind signaling the coming of heat. The longer reading in Matthew speaks only of signs in the sky: red sky in the evening signals good weather for the next day; red sky in the morning signals bad weather for that day. In this regard, Matt 16:2b–3a and Luke 12:54–55 are different, but Matt 16:3b and Luke 12:56 are nearly identical, with the exception that the Matthean account refers only to the signs of the sky.

Whoever filled the gap in Matthew must have done so by the middle of the fourth century, because we know that around 380 Jerome saw manuscripts with and without the extra words. In fact, Jerome indicated that the extra words were not present in most of the manuscripts known to him. Nonetheless, he included them in his Latin translation. Most English translations do exactly what Jerome did: they include the words, knowing there is some significant doubt about their authenticity. The only modern English versions to exclude the passage are the NEB and REB. All others retain the words and append a footnote about their absence in various manuscripts.

Bruce Metzger,

16:2–3 [ὀψίας γενομένης … οὐ δύνασθε;] {C}

The external evidence for the absence of these words is impressive, including א B f  157 al syr^c,  cop^sa,   arm Origen and, according to Jerome, most manuscripts known to him (though he included the passage in the Vulgate). The question is how one ought to interpret this evidence. Most scholars regard the passage as a later insertion from a source similar to Lk 12:54–56, or from the Lukan passage itself, with an adjustment concerning the particular signs of the weather. On the other hand, it can be argued (as Scrivener and Lagrange do) that the words were omitted by copyists in climates (e. g. Egypt) where red sky in the morning does not announce rain.

In view of the balance of these considerations it was thought best to retain the passage enclosed within square brackets.

 

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.

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 it 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 certainty.

SOURCES

• Edward D. Andrews, FROM SPOKEN WORDS TO SACRED TEXTS: Introduction-Intermediate New Testament Textual Studies (Cambridge, Ohio), 2021.
• B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek: Appendix (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1882)
• Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Biblical Studies Press, 2006)
• Bruce Manning Metzger, 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),
• Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, Nestle-Aland: NTG Apparatus Criticus, ed. Barbara Aland et al., 28. revidierte Auflage. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012).
• Dirk Jongkind, ed., The Greek New Testament: Apparatus (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017).
• Dirk Jongkind, ed., The Greek New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), Matt. 6:8.
• Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. Barbara Aland et al., 28. revidierte Auflage. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012)
• Philip Wesley Comfort, A COMMENTARY ON THE MANUSCRIPTS AND TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2015).
• 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).
• Philip Wesley Comfort and David P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts: Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts, 2 Volume Set The (English and Greek Edition) (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2019)
• Rick Brannan and Israel Loken, The Lexham Textual Notes on the Bible, Lexham Bible Reference Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014).
• 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).
• Wallace B., Daniel (n.d.). Retrieved from The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts: http://csntm.org/
• Wilker, Wieland (n.d.). Retrieved from An Online Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels: http://www.willker.de/wie/TCG/index.html

SCROLL THROUGH DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHRISTIAN FICTION