The Broader Context of Scribes and Their Role in Biblical Transmission

The early congregations greatly prized what they believed to be the inspired testimony of the apostles and evangelists. They diligently copied these sacred writings for private reading and public reading in worship. The apostle Paul’s words at Colossians 4:16 call for one congregation to read his letter publicly and then pass it on, implying that Christian communities swiftly created copies to share. Over time, local scribes—sometimes professionals, sometimes devout volunteers—bore the critical responsibility of reproducing the text. They strove not to distort the message, recalling the principle at Deuteronomy 4:2 about not adding or taking away from the words. Yet, in the course of repeatedly copying many pages by hand, scribal slips, expansions, omissions, and other alterations unavoidably arose. John’s statement at Revelation 22:18–19 warns sternly against tampering with the text, but history shows that not all scribes stayed meticulously consistent.

These divergences appeared for many reasons. Scribes might have been distracted, leading to omissions by skipping from one repeated phrase to another or to expansions by conflation. Others might have tried to clarify perceived grammatical or doctrinal ambiguities, thus introducing new forms of wording. And in some contexts, certain scribes might have harmonized or altered a passage to align it with liturgical usage or to match a parallel text in another Gospel. Over the course of centuries, these scribal tendencies coalesced into patterns that textual critics later recognized and categorized. By correlating these patterns with the earliest Greek manuscripts, versions, and patristic citations, modern scholars can weigh how heavily each variation might plausibly go back to the original autographs.

The question arises, then, as to which typical scribal behaviors deserve special attention. Did scribes systematically expand or systematically omit? Did they frequently replace one form of a pronoun with another or rectify perceived grammatical anomalies? Were some scribes more prone to incorporate parallel passages, a phenomenon sometimes referred to as “harmonization”? Comprehending these general scribal tendencies offers valuable perspective. If a certain variation can be explained easily as a standard scribal slip, that variation might not be original. Alternatively, if the variant is unlikely to be the product of an ordinary scribal process, it may be worth closer consideration as possibly authentic. Thus, investigating scribal habits is indispensable to the discipline of New Testament textual criticism.

Identifying Common Scribes’ Errors and Accidental Changes

A large share of textual changes presumably occurred unintentionally. Scribes, devout but also human, sometimes mistook letters or sounds. They might have read a word incorrectly or momentarily looked away from the exemplar, losing their place. Scripture reveals that not all who do a noble work do it flawlessly. James 3:2 states that “we all stumble many times,” reflecting the universal principle that even well-intentioned attempts can stray into error. In a culture where reading and writing existed amid shifting dialects, scribes could produce a wide array of unplanned divergences.

Among these unintentional errors, the following patterns are common:

1. Confusions of letters, especially if two letters sounded alike in late Roman times. For instance, the name of the letter upsilon (Υ\UpsilonΥ) might have been pronounced similarly to that of the letter eta (H\EtaH), or certain diphthongs might have collapsed phonetically. This sometimes generated minimal textual changes that had no direct effect on meaning. But in other places, such confusions led to divergences such as Rom 5:1’s “we have peace” (ἔχομεν) turning into “let us have peace” (ἔχωμεν) if the scribes conflated omicron and omega.
2. Parablepsis (eye-skipping errors). Scribes often missed lines or phrases when they saw a matching sequence of letters at two different points in the exemplar. Termed homoeoteleuton if the repeated letters were at the end of lines, or homoeoarcton if they were at the beginning, this phenomenon is well attested in early codices. Mark 10:7–8 sometimes sees the omission of “and will cling to his wife, and the two will be one flesh,” because the scribe’s eye skipped from “and will cling” to “and the two,” missing the intervening text.
3. Dittography (accidental repetition). The scribal process could move backward in confusion, re-copying lines or phrases. While less frequent than omissions, such duplications emphasize that scribal copying demanded intense concentration. A scribe might easily lose track of where he was in a line, momentarily re-check the exemplar, see the same phrase just copied, and inadvertently recopy it. The effect is an expansion in that local reading.
4. Harmonization, especially to immediate context. A scribe might unconsciously import a phrase from a preceding line or from a parallel passage. In the Gospels, some expansions echo a parallel account: a Mark reading might borrow from Matthew, or a scribe might recall how Luke phrased the same event. Alternatively, if Mark 10:46 mentions Jesus entering Jericho, the scribe might be drawn to the Lukan mention of a blind man, creating a short alignment of details. While this might not always indicate doctrinal tampering, it still changes the wording from what was originally penned.
5. Spelling expansions or contractions. Greek scribes occasionally replaced an unrecognized word with something more standard, or they might have spelled a name with more typical morphological forms. Because the Greek language had shifting conventions in later centuries—vowels merging, diphthongs losing distinctiveness—some scribes might consistently produce a certain type of orthographic slip. Often these changes are small enough not to affect meaning but can occasionally produce genuine variant readings with interpretive consequences.

These unintentional shifts rarely represent theological manipulation but still affect textual readings. Recognizing them helps textual critics to identify which variant might more plausibly represent the original. The general principle at 2 Corinthians 13:1 that multiple lines of evidence confirm a statement is mirrored in textual work: if a suspected omission can be explained by parablepsis, and multiple manuscripts support that explanation, the textual critic can fairly suspect that the shorter reading is an accidental omission. Another variant that cannot be so easily explained remains a stronger candidate for authenticity.

Intentional Alterations and Theological or Stylistic Motivations

While many scribal mistakes were unintentional, others appear more purposeful. Philippians 1:9 reminds believers that knowledge must accompany love, and some scribes evidently intended to “improve” the text or clarify doctrines. Over centuries, scribes or revisers might have:

1. Enhanced the text’s style by smoothing harsh grammar, aligning it with classical or Attic standards. Greek words or phrases considered awkward might be replaced with simpler forms. This phenomenon is described as Atticism, a move to refine Koine Greek, possibly resulting in changes in verb endings or pronouns.
2. Harmonized to liturgical tradition. Scribes in monastic scriptoria might incorporate expansions known from lectionaries, adding doxologies or transitional statements for public reading. This might especially appear in the Gospels, where a scribe recognized a key liturgical excerpt and introduced a small clarifying word.
3. Inserted clarifications or expansions to avoid theological confusion. Some scribes or even local copyists might have reworked a phrase to diminish perceived doctrinal issues. For example, scribes might add “who is in heaven” at John 3:13 to clarify Jesus’ authority, or transform Mark 1:2 (“in Isaiah the prophet”) to “in the prophets” so as not to trouble readers about the combined citations from Malachi and Isaiah. Scholars note that these changes rarely reflect large conspiracies or radical theology but do reveal scribes responding to perceived textual or doctrinal stumbling blocks.
4. Deleted or toned down passages that seemed to contradict a theological stance. Although earlier research (notably Westcott and Hort’s) contended that scribes rarely altered the text for doctrinal reasons, later studies have found small but significant examples. For instance, in certain manuscripts of Luke 2:33, Joseph and Mary are referred to by scribes in more cautious terms (“his father” replaced by “Joseph”) to preserve a notion of the virgin birth.

Hence, the principle that scribes rarely introduced major doctrinal changes remains largely intact, but not absolutely so. Occasional dogmatic influences appear, albeit in smaller alterations rather than large rewrites. The textual critic must be alert to how a reading might reflect or mitigate a known theological dispute. If a variant strongly supports a later dogmatic viewpoint absent from earlier centuries, it might well be an intentional scribal modification.

The Emergence of Standard Canons of Criticism and Their Limitations

Over centuries, textual scholars formulated succinct guidelines—“canons”—to systematize how to judge variants. Among them:

1. Prefer the shorter reading (lectio brevior potior). This principle emerges from the notion that scribes often add phrases or expansions, rarely removing them. Yet caution is needed: scribes often omit material inadvertently through parablepsis. So while the shorter reading can be favored when expansion is likely, if the omission can be explained by skipping from line to line, the longer reading might be original.
2. Prefer the harder reading (lectio difficilior potior). The logic is that scribes prefer to fix or simplify confusing grammar or phrasing. The reading that remains awkward or ambiguous might have a higher claim to primitivity. However, if the text is grammatically nonsensical or contradictory, the possibility arises that a scribe introduced an error, so caution is again essential.
3. Evaluate expansions and conflations. If a reading merges two synonyms or merges parallel accounts, it is often suspect as a scribal creation. Similarly, if a reading is a unique combination of words found in separate contexts of the Gospels or Epistles, the impetus might well be a scribal attempt at harmonization. The “original” is more likely a simpler form that does not unify the parallels artificially.
4. Watch for known scribal patterns. If a certain scribe or tradition frequently updates pronouns or modifies word order, any new variant consistent with that pattern might also be a scribal introduction. On the other hand, a variant that defies usual scribal habits might be original.

Such canons, however, remain broad. They must be qualified by each scribal pattern. If a local tradition or a certain scribe is known to shorten the text more frequently than expanding it, the short reading cannot be automatically presumed original. Meanwhile, knowledge of the earliest papyri shows that they mostly omit words or lines rather than add them, so a new principle might be “the scribe typically lost text” in the earliest centuries, reversing the older assumption that expansions dominated. Such reconstructions must avoid dogmatism, staying mindful that each scribe or local tradition might deviate.

Empirical Studies: Singular Readings and Scribes’ Profiles

A fundamental approach in modern textual scholarship is to examine “singular readings,” i.e., variants found in only one known manuscript. By definition, these variants are unique to that copying event or chain of events, so they strongly reflect that scribe’s habits. Studying them reveals whether a scribe frequently introduced synonyms, omitted small words, or conflated adjacent lines. Once a profile emerges, it can be used to interpret the scribe’s involvement in other variants. If a scribe is known to create expansions in parallel narratives, a variant with that pattern is suspect. Conversely, if the scribe is known to prefer omissions, an unexpected addition might not be attributed to him but to an earlier stage in the textual line.

The pioneering work of Ernest C. Colwell on P45, P66, and P75 confirmed the varied personalities of scribes, while also noting some uniformities. P75 stands out for careful fidelity; P45 merges freely; P66 is somewhat intermediate, a scribe who had a second review stage. The general conclusion is that scribal approaches spanned a range from “controlled copying” to “loose paraphrasing.” Meanwhile, all three papyri collectively exhibit more omissions than additions, a pattern also found in subsequent analyses of other papyri. The synergy is straightforward: knowledge of these scribal leanings helps textual critics weigh a variation. If it is an addition that might reflect the freedom seen in P45, but P66 or P75 also attests it, the scenario shifts. Alternatively, if it is a short reading that might have come from parablepsis, the presence of many parableptic errors in that papyrus or tradition supports that possibility.

Since these initial forays, further research has examined the smaller papyri and select codices, including B (Vaticanus) and D (Bezae). Tying each codex to a distinctive scribal or editorial approach aids in sorting out which expansions or omissions might reflect the scribes themselves, and which might be older. By extension, it reveals how the entire manuscript tradition gained different readings over time. The expansions in the D (Bezae) text of Acts appear to reflect a tradition that might incorporate a theological or cultural slant. A scribe or scriptorium behind that codex might have valued certain rhetorical clarity or story details. Meanwhile, a manuscript like B stands out for its relative consistency and minimal expansions.

Reassessing the “Uncontrolled Tradition” Versus the “Controlled Tradition”

In the earliest centuries, some scholars have argued, the tradition was relatively uncontrolled. Scribes, whether professionals or devout amateurs, might produce significant changes. Over the centuries, especially once large scriptoria in major urban centers (like Antioch, Alexandria, or Constantinople) gained influence, the text stabilized. The ratio of variants introduced dropped. The question remains: does this shift from “wild” to “stable” accurately reflect the reality, or is it an oversimplification?

Certainly, the distribution of textual families hints that by the ninth century a more standardized Byzantine text had largely replaced local recensions. Meanwhile, the older recensions that were “loose” or “Western” or “Alexandrian” left fewer descendants. That standardization can be seen in scribes’ diminishing freedom to paraphrase or alter readings, presumably because ecclesiastical authorities or major scriptoria demanded faithful duplication. Revelation 1:11 includes instructions to “write in a scroll” and deliver it, and in the Middle Ages, that writing was done under stricter scrutiny to ensure continuity in worship usage. That said, even in the later centuries, scribes still occasionally omitted lines or integrated marginal notes, so no period ever guaranteed perfect accuracy.

Hence the canons of textual criticism do not vanish in the later centuries. Even though omissions or expansions might appear less frequently, they still occur. The shift might be more in scale than in kind. The local scribes, now possibly better trained in official scriptoria, might produce fewer whimsical changes, but might still conform parallels or align a reading with a known liturgical formula. The principle that a scribe is more likely to omit than to add might be weaker in a later era where scribes might consistently add marginal glosses. Each scenario underscores that general statements about scribal tendencies must be validated by empirical data—one or more manuscripts thoroughly studied, a set of singular readings collected, and a comprehensive analysis performed.

Evaluating the Utility of These Observations for the Original Text

One might ask: how precisely do we apply these insights to actual variant units? Suppose a given verse in Mark has two plausible variants: one longer by a phrase, the other shorter. The principle that scribes commonly omit might sway us to favor the longer reading. But the principle that scribes might add expansions from the parallel in Matthew could indicate we should suspect the longer reading. If the external evidence is split, the internal evidence might be inconclusive. The textual critic must then assess more carefully which phenomenon is more likely: an accidental omission because of parablepsis or a typical harmonizing addition. In practice, the discussion returns to the sum of external evidence, the known scribal patterns in the witnesses, and the immediate context (whether the omission or addition is consistent with the scribe’s known habits or region’s textual history).

Another dimension is that each principle is seldom used in isolation. The textual critic tries to see if multiple lines of reasoning converge. If the father’s commentary implies an older reading was already known in the second century, if the variant can be explained plausibly as a scribal slip typical of a certain tradition, if the external evidence also weighs in, then that reading gains advantage. John 8:32 says that by knowledge of truth one gains freedom. In textual terms, the “truth” is not always obvious, but a thorough grasp of scribal tendencies is part of the search.

Ultimately, scribal tendencies are not deterministic. They do not always produce uniform results or unify a textual tradition under a single pattern. As illustrated by P45, some scribes introduced expansions, while P75’s scribe was more cautious. Variation among scribes suggests that while certain patterns (like skipping lines) are common, each scribe might also produce unique variants. The discipline’s challenge is to weigh each variant not by a single rule but by the cumulative evidence of known scribal practices, context, and external attestation.

The Path Ahead and the Need for Further Empirical Studies

As centuries have passed, the textual critic’s ability to comprehensively analyze scribal patterns has improved thanks to the discovery of early papyri and the evolution of digital collation tools. But a great deal remains to be done. A systematic approach that analyzes all singular readings in each major manuscript would yield more robust data about each scribe’s or scriptorium’s habits. This might allow textual critics to refine canons further. If the data show that 65% of expansions in a certain era are due to conflation of parallels, we might be more suspicious of expansions in that era. Or if a tradition is known for consistent assimilation to the majority text, that tradition’s unique expansions might be suspect.

Another area demanding attention is the interplay of scribal tendencies with versions and patristic references. For instance, if a scribe was copying a Greek text and cross-checking with a local version, that might produce bilingual conflations. The significance of these bilingual phenomena emerges in manuscripts like D (Bezae), which is Greek-Latin, or in certain Old Church Slavonic-Greek parallels. Scribes in a bilingual environment might correct or modify text to bring it in line with the other language column. Understanding these bilingual scribes’ typical behaviors could further clarify the genesis of certain expansions or omissions.

Finally, ongoing research might delve deeper into how theological controversies shaped scribal changes. If scribes near certain councils or in certain Christological debates consistently replaced or reworded a phrase about Christ’s nature or about the Holy Spirit, that might indicate a historically motivated textual shift. Although large-scale changes are rare, subtle ones can exist. A more granular approach, focusing on particular textual passages with high theological stakes, might reveal whether scribes from certain doctrinal stances systematically avoided a reading to align with their beliefs.

Summary Reflections on Scribal Tendencies and Textual Criticism

Scribal tendencies remain integral to the textual critic’s craft. A scribal slip or intentional alteration might lie behind a small fraction of textual variants, but the cumulative effect across centuries has shaped the present textual tradition. Without understanding how scribes typically introduced expansions or omissions, harmonizations or improvements, the textual critic would be at a loss to propose rational reconstructions of the New Testament’s original wording. Recognizing the significance of scribal leaps (homoeoteleuton, homoeoarcton), vowel mergers, morphological shifts, grammatical smoothing, parallel assimilation, and dogmatic corrections shapes the approach to every contested verse.

At the same time, the discipline remains aware that scribes varied greatly. A general statement that scribes “nearly always expand” or “almost always omit” can be misleading, because different scribes might do the opposite. Investigations of singular readings in the earliest papyri have shown that, on balance, more text is omitted than added. But this pattern is not universal, particularly if a scribe merges parallel accounts or introduces expansions. Meanwhile, older canons like lectio brevior potior or lectio difficilior potior must be applied with nuance, mindful of context, scribe, era, and tradition.

As textual critics progress, building comprehensive profiles for major manuscripts, scribal lines, and historical contexts, they can refine the canons. The synergy of empirical data from papyri and codices, combined with patristic usage and versional alignments, yields a more accurate sense of what scribal behaviors shaped each tradition. This knowledge, in turn, fortifies the textual critic’s capacity to evaluate individual variants. The quest to see how scribes navigated the text is not mere curiosity. It is a fundamental building block that ensures that when critics propose an original reading for a verse in Matthew, Romans, or Revelation, the argument stands on the robust foundation of how scribes typically wrote and erred. That meticulous approach resonates with the exhortation at 2 Timothy 2:15 to “do your utmost to present yourself approved to God, a workman with nothing to be ashamed of, handling the word of truth aright.”

You May Also Enjoy

What Does the Manuscript Evidence Tell Us About the Text of the New Testament?

About the Author

Online Guided Bible Study Courses

SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / BIBLE BACKGROUND / HISTORY OF THE BIBLE/ INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY AND THE CHRISTIAN

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHRISTIAN DEVOTIONALS

CHRISTIAN FICTION