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

$5.00

The Reading Culture of Early Christianity

Dive deep into the world of textual criticism with “Echoes of Ancient Voices: Unpacking the Significance of the Corrupt Textus Receptus.” Understand the transformation of the Greek New Testament text from the Textus Receptus to modern critical editions. Explore how textual accuracy has been enhanced over centuries to reflect the original writings better.

Introduction to the Textus Receptus

The Textus Receptus (TR) is a term that describes the Byzantine form of the Greek New Testament text that was used for the majority of translations into modern languages until the 19th century (Wallace, 2018). Originating from the pioneering work of Desiderius Erasmus in the early 16th century, the TR played a crucial role in the Reformation era by providing the textual foundation for translations of the New Testament by figures such as Martin Luther and William Tyndale (Kostenberger, 2004). It became the standard Greek New Testament text through the influence of several publishers, particularly Bonaventura and Abraham Elzevir whose Latin phrase “Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum,” gave the text its now widely recognized name (Scrivener, 1881).

Limitations and Criticisms of the Textus Receptus

Although the TR had a widespread influence, it is important to acknowledge its limitations. Erasmus relied heavily on a few late Byzantine manuscripts, and these texts contained many scribal errors and alterations accumulated over centuries. One significant example is found in the book of Revelation where Erasmus reconstructed the final six verses from the Latin Vulgate due to the absence of these verses in his available Greek manuscripts (Metzger, 1994).

Furthermore, later editors, such as Theodore Beza and Stephanus, despite having access to older and potentially more accurate manuscripts, reproduced the same text type that was found in later Byzantine manuscripts (Scrivener, 1881). They, perhaps unconsciously, popularized and entrenched a Greek New Testament text that was not as close to the original autographs as possible.

Moving Beyond the Textus Receptus

Johann Jakob Griesbach: A Pioneer in New Testament Textual Criticism

Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745-1812) was a German biblical scholar and a pioneer in the field of New Testament textual criticism during the Enlightenment period. Griesbach’s work was influential, and he was among the first to systematically deviate from the Textus Receptus, laying essential groundwork for later scholars such as Lachmann, Westcott, and Hort.

Born in Butzbach, Hesse, Griesbach was educated at the University of Tübingen and later at Leipzig. He dedicated his career to biblical studies and was appointed a professor of philosophy at the University of Jena in 1775, followed by a professorship in theology in 1787 (Metzger & Ehrman, 2005).

Griesbach is particularly noted for his work in synoptic studies and the development of the “Griesbach Hypothesis.” This posited that the Gospel of Mark was not the first of the Synoptic Gospels but a condensed version of Matthew and Luke. Though this hypothesis has been largely replaced by the two-source theory, Griesbach’s work significantly contributed to the field of synoptic studies (Streeter, 1924).

Regarding textual criticism, Griesbach developed a new approach to evaluating manuscript evidence. He categorized New Testament manuscripts into three primary text types (recensions): Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine, and devised principles to determine which readings were most likely to be original (Metzger & Ehrman, 2005). This represented a shift away from simply following the Textus Receptus and towards a more critical and systematic evaluation of the available evidence.

Griesbach’s edition of the Greek New Testament, published in several parts from 1774 to 1777 and then in a critical edition from 1796 to 1806, incorporated his method of textual criticism. Although it did not entirely depart from the Textus Receptus, it contained numerous departures based on his analyses of manuscript evidence. Griesbach’s text provided the impetus for a more reasoned approach to reconstructing the New Testament text, paving the way for future scholarship (Royse, 2008).

Johann Jakob Griesbach was a significant figure in the history of textual criticism. He is particularly recognized for establishing key principles to guide the evaluation of variant readings found in the manuscript tradition. These principles, often referred to as “Griesbach’s Canons of Textual Criticism,” are foundational to his approach.

Here are the principles as Griesbach formulated them:

The Harder Reading: The more difficult or uncomfortable reading is preferable. The reasoning is that scribes were more likely to alter difficult readings to make them easier, rather than the reverse.
The Shorter Reading: The shorter reading is to be preferred. Griesbach suggested that scribes were more likely to add material for clarity or embellishment than to remove it.
That Reading Which Best Explains the Origin of the Others: If a certain reading could have given rise to all the others in the process of transmission, then that reading is more likely to be original. This is sometimes known as the principle of “transcriptional probability.”
The Reading That Reflects No Parallel Passage: A variant that does not reflect the wording of a parallel account in another Gospel is to be preferred. Scribes often harmonized passages among the Gospels.
The More Contextually Appropriate Reading: The reading that best fits the context, both immediate and wider, should be preferred. This includes consistency with the author’s style and vocabulary, as well as theological considerations.
The Non-Interpolated Reading: If a certain reading appears to be a gloss or explanatory note, it is likely not original. Scribes would sometimes add marginal notes into the text.

Griesbach’s principles were ground-breaking in his day, providing a methodical and systematic approach to textual criticism. However, it is important to remember that these principles are not infallible and sometimes contradict each other. Therefore, the application of these principles requires discernment, skill, and a deep understanding of the manuscript tradition.

Karl Lachmann (1793-1851)

It wasn’t until the 19th century that scholars truly began to systematically challenge the dominance of the TR, armed with a wealth of information from newly accessible Greek manuscripts and other ancient witnesses (Metzger, 1994). This shift was spearheaded by Karl Lachmann, who applied to the New Testament the same textual criticism principles he used for classical texts. This allowed for a more rigorous comparison and evaluation of variant readings and led to a more refined understanding of the Greek New Testament text (Wallace, 2018).

Subsequent scholars, such as Constantin von Tischendorf and the duo of B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, made significant contributions in this area. Westcott and Hort’s influential edition became the basis for the present United Bible Societies’ edition, which draws from several New Testament manuscripts much older than those available to Erasmus and his successors (Wallace, 2018).

The TR, despite its limitations, played an indispensable role in the transmission of the New Testament and its translation into modern languages. While recognizing the significant contributions of figures such as Erasmus, Beza, and Stephanus, it is crucial to acknowledge the developments in textual criticism since their time. With the aid of older manuscripts and more refined methodologies, scholars have been able to produce editions of the New Testament that, while not inerrant or infallible, do approximate more closely to the wording of the original documents, ensuring a more accurate rendering of the inspired Word of God.

The Journey of the Greek New Testament: From Westcott-Hort to United Bible Societies’ Fifth Edition

The Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament

Building upon the work of Lachmann, scholars B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort prepared an edition of the Greek New Testament, published in 1881, which revolutionized the field of textual criticism. Unlike their predecessors, Westcott and Hort gave priority to earlier manuscripts (Aleph and B), which dated from the 4th and 5th centuries C.E., instead of primarily relying on the later Byzantine texts (Wallace, 2006). Their work, founded on a rigorous methodology, posited that the earlier Alexandrian texts were closer to the originals than the Byzantine text type. This approach was groundbreaking at the time and paved the way for the editions that followed (Elliott, 2008).

Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort were two English scholars who made substantial contributions to the field of New Testament textual criticism in the late 19th century. In their pursuit of reconstructing the original text of the New Testament, they developed several principles to guide their work:

Quality over Quantity: Westcott and Hort were among the first to argue that the age and quality of a manuscript are more important than the sheer number of supporting manuscripts. This led them to give preference to the earliest manuscripts, primarily from the Alexandrian text type.
Internal Evidence over External Evidence: Westcott and Hort believed that the internal evidence of a text (its style, vocabulary, context, etc.) is often more reliable than external evidence (the manuscript in which it is found, the date of the manuscript, etc.) in determining its authenticity.
Prefer the Harder Reading: Consistent with Griesbach’s principle, Westcott and Hort held that the more difficult or awkward reading is to be preferred, as scribes were more likely to smooth out difficult readings than to create them.
Prefer the Shorter Reading: Also following Griesbach, they argued that the shorter reading is often the original, as scribes were more likely to add to a text for clarity or embellishment than to remove from it.
Western Non-Interpolations: Westcott and Hort identified certain passages in the Western text-type (particularly as found in Codex Bezae) that were absent from the Alexandrian text-type, arguing that these were likely later additions rather than original text.
The Principle of Independent Attestation: If a particular reading is attested in a variety of sources that are not directly related, it is more likely to be original.
The Principle of Least Discordance: A reading is more likely to be original if it does not conflict with the general tenor and tendencies of the text.
The Principle of Transcriptional Probability: The reading that best explains the origin of all other variants is more likely to be the original.

Westcott and Hort’s principles, like those of Griesbach, were ground-breaking for their time and have heavily influenced the field of New Testament textual criticism. However, they are not without their critics and limitations, and their application requires discernment and expertise.

Eberhard Nestle and the Birth of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament

German biblical scholar Eberhard Nestle developed a new Greek New Testament, first published in 1898, that drew from the work of Westcott-Hort, Tischendorf, and Weymouth. It was not a standalone text but rather a comparison of the aforementioned texts with divergences footnoted (Nestle, 1904). This resource was intended to be a convenient tool for scholars, and it became widely used. After several editions, the responsibility of revising the Nestle text was taken over by Kurt Aland and his wife Barbara in 1952, resulting in what is now known as the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (NA) (Aland & Aland, 1989).

The Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece

The NA, now in its 28th edition (2012), has become a cornerstone in the field of New Testament studies. It is based on a wider range of manuscript evidence, including papyri that were discovered after the publication of the Westcott-Hort text. The text includes a critical apparatus, showing variations from different manuscript traditions, including Byzantine, Western, and Alexandrian. It continues the tradition of prioritizing older manuscripts, and its revisions aim to refine and clarify the Greek text to better reflect the original writings (Aland & Aland, 1989).

The United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament

Simultaneously, the United Bible Societies (UBS) started publishing their own Greek New Testament in 1966, aimed more at translators than scholars. The UBS text, now in its fifth edition (2015), is essentially the same as the NA but presents the critical apparatus in a simplified manner. It provides a list of important manuscript variants and assigns each a rating based on how certain the editors are about the chosen reading (Metzger & Ehrman, 2005).

The Superiority of WH, NA, and UBS over the Textus Receptus

The Greek texts of WH, NA, and UBS are considered superior to the TR because they are based on a wider and older range of manuscript evidence, enabling a more reliable reconstruction of the original text. The TR was compiled from a small number of late Byzantine manuscripts, which are more prone to scribal errors and modifications (Aland & Aland, 1989). In contrast, the texts of WH, NA, and UBS draw from thousands of Greek manuscripts, including very early papyri, and employ rigorous methodologies to evaluate variant readings. This approach provides a Greek New Testament that better reflects the original writings, ensuring a more accurate rendering of the inspired Word of God (Metzger & Ehrman, 2005).

Bruce M. Metzger on the Textus Receptus (Metzger, 1994, xxii–xxiv)

The first published edition of the printed Greek Testament, issued at Basel in 1516, was prepared by Desiderius Erasmus, the Dutch humanist scholar. Since Erasmus could find no manuscript that contained the entire Greek Testament, he utilized several for the various divisions of the New Testament. For the greater part of his text he relied on two rather inferior manuscripts now in the university library at Basel, one of the Gospels and one of the Acts and Epistles, both dating from about the twelfth century. Erasmus compared them with two or three others, and entered occasional corrections in the margins or between the lines of the copy given to the printer. For the book of Revelation he had but one manuscript, dating from the twelfth century, which he had borrowed from his friend Reuchlin. As it happened, this copy lacked the final leaf, which had contained the last six verses of the book. For these verses Erasmus depended upon Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, translating this version into Greek. As would be expected from such a procedure, here and there in Erasmus’s reconstruction of these verses there are several readings that have never been found in any Greek manuscript—but which are still perpetuated today in printings of the so-called Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament (see the comment on Rev. 22.19). In other parts of the New Testament Erasmus also occasionally introduced into his Greek text material derived from the current form of the Latin Vulgate (see the comment on Acts 9.5–6).

So much in demand was Erasmus’s Greek Testament that the first edition was soon exhausted and a second was called for. It was this second edition of 1519, in which some (but not nearly all) of the many typographical blunders of the first edition had been corrected, that Martin Luther and William Tyndale used as the basis of their translations of the New Testament into German (1522) and into English (1525).

In the years following many other editors and printers issued a variety of editions of the Greek Testament, all of which reproduced more or less the same type of text, namely that preserved in the later Byzantine manuscripts. Even when it happened that an editor had access to older manuscripts—as when Theodore Beza, the friend and successor of Calvin at Geneva, acquired the fifth-century manuscript that goes under his name today, as well as the sixth-century codex Claromontanus—he made relatively little use of them, for they deviated too far from the form of text that had become standard in the later copies.

Noteworthy early editions of the Greek New Testament include two issued by Robert Etienne (commonly known under the Latin form of his name, Stephanus), the famous Parisian printer who later moved to Geneva and threw in his lot with the Protestants of that city. In 1550 Stephanus published at Paris his third edition, the editio Regia, a magnificent folio edition. It is the first printed Greek Testament to contain a critical apparatus; on the inner margins of its pages Stephanus entered variant readings from fourteen Greek manuscripts, as well as readings from another printed edition, the Complutensian Polyglot. Stephanus’s fourth edition (Geneva, 1551), which contains two Latin versions (the Vulgate and that of Erasmus), is noteworthy because in it for the first time the text of the New Testament was divided into numbered verses.

Theodore Beza published no fewer than nine editions of the Greek Testament between 1565 and 1604, and a tenth edition appeared posthumously in 1611. The importance of Beza’s work lies in the extent to which his editions tended to popularize and stereotype what came to be called the Textus Receptus. The translators of the Authorized or King James Bible of 1611 made large use of Beza’s editions of 1588–89 and 1598.

The term Textus Receptus, as applied to the text of the New Testament, originated in an expression used by Bonaventura and Abraham Elzevir (Elzevier), who were printers in Leiden. The preface to their second edition of the Greek Testament (1633) contains the sentence: Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum, in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus (“Therefore you [dear reader] have the text now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or corrupted”). In one sense this proud claim of the Elzevirs on behalf of their edition seemed to be justified, for their edition was, in most respects, not different from the approximately 160 other editions of the printed Greek Testament that had been issued since Erasmus’s first published edition of 1516. In a more precise sense, however, the Byzantine form of the Greek text, reproduced in all early printed editions, was disfigured, as was mentioned above, by the accumulation over the centuries of myriads of scribal alterations, many of minor significance but some of considerable consequence.

It was the corrupt Byzantine form of text that provided the basis for almost all translations of the New Testament into modern languages down to the nineteenth century. During the eighteenth century scholars assembled a great amount of information from many Greek manuscripts, as well as from versional and patristic witnesses. But, except for three or four editors who timidly corrected some of the more blatant errors of the Textus Receptus, this debased form of the New Testament text was reprinted in edition after edition. It was only in the first part of the nineteenth century (1831) that a German classical scholar, Karl Lachmann, ventured to apply to the New Testament the criteria that he had used in editing texts of the classics. Subsequently, other critical editions appeared, including those prepared by Constantin von Tischendorf, whose eighth edition (1869–72) remains a monumental thesaurus of variant readings, and the influential edition prepared by two Cambridge scholars, B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort (1881). It is the latter edition that was taken as the basis for the present United Bible Societies’ edition. During the twentieth century, with the discovery of several New Testament manuscripts much older than any that had hitherto been available, it has become possible to produce editions of the New Testament that approximate ever more closely to what is regarded as the wording of the original documents.

Bruce M. Metzger, a renowned biblical scholar and textual critic, greatly contributed to the field of New Testament textual criticism. While he did not establish a completely unique set of principles like Westcott, Hort, or Griesbach, Metzger did refine and develop the principles of textual criticism further in his work. He combined internal and external evidence to determine the most probable original reading.

Here are some principles that Metzger adhered to:

External Evidence: Metzger advocated for considering the date and reliability of the manuscripts, the geographical distribution of the manuscripts, and the citation of the reading by early Church Fathers. This type of evidence often provides insight into the historical transmission of the text.
Internal Evidence: This includes two types of evidence: transcriptional and intrinsic. Transcriptional evidence deals with the habits of scribes, such as their tendency to harmonize texts, smooth out difficult readings, or the probability of a certain reading giving rise to others. Intrinsic evidence involves the context and style of the book itself, such as the author’s habits of spelling, vocabulary, grammar, theology, and the immediate context of the passage.
Coherence Based Genealogical Method (CBGM): While this method was not developed by Metzger himself, but by the Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Münster, Germany, it was used by Metzger and his successors for editing the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies Greek texts. The CBGM compares the variants of each reading and considers the genealogical relationship between manuscripts, prioritizing readings that have the widest and earliest attestation and that best explain the origin of the variant readings.
Reasoned Eclecticism: This approach combines both rigorous examination of external evidence with careful consideration of internal evidence. It’s not about simply counting manuscripts, but evaluating their weight and worth.
Preference for the Shorter Reading: Like Griesbach, Westcott, and Hort, Metzger held the principle that the shorter reading is often to be preferred, with the understanding that scribes were more likely to add to the text than to take away from it.

These principles, although not exclusively developed by Metzger, were refined and utilized by him in his approach to textual criticism. Metzger’s contributions to the discipline, including his co-authorship of the “The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration,” have been foundational for many modern textual critics.

Comfort’s Documentary Approach

Philip W. Comfort, a biblical scholar, and textual critic, developed the Documentary Approach as a method for identifying the original readings of the New Testament text. This approach combines traditional textual criticism with a focus on analyzing distinct sources or “documents” that contribute to the manuscript tradition. Edward D. Andrews has the same approach in his pursuit of the original words of the original texts.

Comfort’s Documentary Approach involves the following steps:

Identification of Textual Families: Comfort identifies distinct groups of manuscripts that share similar characteristics, such as readings, errors, and patterns of variation. These groups are often referred to as “textual families” or “text-types.” By analyzing these families, Comfort seeks to trace their origins and understand the relationships between them.
Evaluation of Textual Witnesses: Comfort assesses the reliability and quality of individual manuscripts within each textual family. He considers factors such as their age, geographical origin, textual consistency, and alignment with other witnesses. By examining the variations among these manuscripts, he aims to determine the most likely original readings.
Weighting of Textual Witnesses: Based on his evaluation of the textual witnesses, Comfort assigns weights to each witness according to their perceived accuracy and credibility. This weighting process involves considering the consistency of a witness’s readings, the number of manuscripts within a textual family, and the potential influence of external factors, such as theological or scribal biases.
Comparative Analysis: Comfort compares the readings from different textual families and witnesses, examining their agreements and disagreements. He analyzes factors such as the degree of harmonization, interpolation, or omission present within the manuscripts. Through this analysis, Comfort aims to identify the readings that are most likely to reflect the original text.
Synthesis of the Original Text: Finally, Comfort synthesizes the evidence gathered from the textual families and witnesses to reconstruct the original text. He aims to identify the readings that are best supported by the documentary evidence and that align with the historical context, the author’s style, and other internal considerations.

Comfort’s Documentary Approach offers a unique perspective on textual criticism by focusing on the relationships between textual families and evaluating the individual witnesses within them. By combining traditional principles of textual criticism with an emphasis on analyzing distinct documents, Comfort provides a framework for determining the most probable original readings of the New Testament text.

Philip W. Comfort’s approach to textual criticism exhibits a preference for the Alexandrian text family, which includes manuscripts such as Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and the early papyri. This preference is based on several factors and considerations within his documentary approach.

Early and High-Quality Manuscripts: The Alexandrian manuscripts, including Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, are highly regarded for their early dates (4th century) and exceptional textual quality. These manuscripts are among the oldest extant copies of the New Testament, providing valuable insights into the text’s early transmission.

Geographical Distribution: The Alexandrian text-type, represented by Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and the early papyri, originated from Egypt, specifically Alexandria. Comfort recognizes the significance of this geographical location and the potential for the Alexandrian manuscripts to preserve an earlier form of the text due to their proximity to the time and place of the New Testament’s composition.

Internal Consistency: The Alexandrian manuscripts, including Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, demonstrate a high level of internal consistency within their own textual traditions. This consistency is seen in their avoidance of certain common scribal errors, their adherence to stricter textual habits, and their general agreement with the early papyri.

Agreement with Early Papyri: Comfort recognizes the importance of the early papyri, such as Papyrus 45 (P45), Papyrus 46 (P46), and Papyrus 66 (P66), which align closely with the Alexandrian text-type. These papyri, dating from the early 2nd to early 3rd centuries, provide glimpses into the text’s early stages and exhibit similarities with the Alexandrian manuscripts.

Papyrus 75 (P75): One particular manuscript that deserves special mention in relation to the Alexandrian text family and its proximity to Codex Vaticanus is Papyrus 75 (P75). P75 is an early and significant manuscript that contains substantial portions of the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John.

P75 is dated to 175-225 CE, making it one of the oldest extant New Testament manuscripts. It is considered a representative of the Alexandrian text-type and exhibits remarkable textual affinity to Codex Vaticanus, indicating a close relationship between the two (Metzger & Ehrman, 2005). The similarities between P75 and Codex Vaticanus provide valuable evidence for reconstructing the early text of the Gospels.

Notably, when scholars have compared the readings of P75 and Codex Vaticanus in the overlapping sections, they have found a high degree of agreement. This includes shared textual variants, word order, and other linguistic features. The consistency between P75 and Codex Vaticanus in these sections lends credibility to the Alexandrian text-type represented by both manuscripts.

The close alignment of P75 with Codex Vaticanus reinforces the significance of Codex Vaticanus as a key witness to the early Alexandrian text. The resemblance between the two manuscripts suggests a common ancestral text or a shared textual tradition that preserves an early form of the Gospels.

Overall, the inclusion of P75 alongside Codex Vaticanus highlights the strength and reliability of the Alexandrian text-type, particularly in the Gospels of Luke and John. Scholars have extensively studied P75 and Codex Vaticanus to discern the original wording of the New Testament, drawing upon their close agreement and historical proximity to the autographs.

Harmonization and Smooth Readings: Comfort notes that the Alexandrian manuscripts tend to exhibit fewer signs of harmonization or smoothing out of difficult readings. This characteristic aligns with the principle of preferring the harder reading, as scribes were more likely to modify difficult passages to make them smoother or more harmonious with parallel accounts.

Based on these considerations, Comfort’s preference for the Alexandrian text family, particularly Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and the early papyri, stems from their early dates, high quality, internal consistency, and geographical proximity to the New Testament’s origins. These factors contribute to his assessment of the reliability and authenticity of the Alexandrian text-type within the documentary approach to textual criticism.

References

Kostenberger, A. (2004). A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters: The Word, the Christ, the Son of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Metzger, B. M. (1994). The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Andrews Edward D. (2020) FROM SPOKEN WORDS TO SACRED TEXTS: Introduction-Intermediate New Testament Textual Studies. Cambridge, Ohio: Christian Publishing House.
Comfort, P. W. (2008). The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.
Comfort, P. W., & Barrett, D. P. (2019). The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts: A Corrected, Enlarged Edition of The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (2 Volumes). Wheaton, IL: Kregel Academic.
Scrivener, F. H. A. (1881). A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. London: George Bell & Sons.
Wallace, D. B. (2011). Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
Aland, K., & Aland, B. (1989). 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: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Elliott, J.K. (2008). “Westcott and Hort and the Nestle-Aland Editions: Do They Differ and How? Can We Speak of a ‘Standard’ Text?”. In: Parker, D.C. (ed.), Textual Variation: Theological and Social Tendencies? Papers from the Fifth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. Gorgias Press.
Metzger, B. M., & Ehrman, B. D. (2005). The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Nestle, E. (1904). Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament. Williams & Norgate.
Royse, J. R. (2008). Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri. Leiden: Brill.
Streeter, B. H. (1924). The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins. London: Macmillan and Co.
Epp, E. J. (1999). “Decision Points in New Testament Textual Criticism”. In: Ehrman, B. D., & Holmes, M. W. (eds.), The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Griesbach, J. J. (1796). Novum Testamentum Graece. Halle: Orphanotrophei.
Parker, D. C. (2008). An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and their Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).