Determining the Correct Reading of the Original Text of the New Testament

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

$5.00

A Documentary-Based Approach to New Testament Textual Criticism

The goal of New Testament textual criticism is singular and critical: to ascertain the original text of the New Testament writings as they were penned by the apostles and their associates under divine inspiration. This process is rooted in a high view of Scripture, which holds that the autographic texts were inerrant and infallible. Given the absence of the original manuscripts (autographs), the task of textual criticism is the recovery of the exact words of the inspired authors using the vast and rich manuscript tradition preserved throughout the centuries.

Contrary to modern liberal scholarship, which often introduces uncertainty and conjecture through speculative methods like the historical-critical or reasoned eclectic approaches, this article adheres to the objective, historical-grammatical method. It emphasizes documentary (external) evidence, prioritizing the best and earliest manuscripts—particularly the Alexandrian text-type—while carefully considering internal consistency without allowing it to dominate.

This study will proceed through a systematic analysis of the methodology, sources of textual variants, major manuscript traditions, specific case studies of textual variants, and conclude with the implications of this method for the authority and trustworthiness of the New Testament text.

The Foundational Principles of New Testament Textual Criticism

The discipline of textual criticism involves the scientific comparison of available manuscripts to determine the most plausible original reading. The methodology followed herein is rooted in several foundational principles:

Verbal Plenary Inspiration: Every word of the original Greek text of the New Testament was inspired (2 Timothy 3:16). Therefore, it is essential to recover the exact words.
Documentary (External) Evidence Supremacy: The weight of the manuscript evidence—age, geographical distribution, and textual reliability—takes precedence over subjective internal considerations.
Rejection of Reasoned Eclecticism as Primary Method: While internal considerations may play a secondary, confirmatory role, they cannot override the authoritative testimony of early manuscript witnesses.
The Reliability of Early Alexandrian Manuscripts: Manuscripts such as P75, Codex Vaticanus (B), and Codex Sinaiticus (א) provide the strongest basis for recovering the original text due to their antiquity, quality, and textual agreement.

Causes and Nature of Textual Variants

Before evaluating specific readings, it is essential to understand how textual variants arose in the transmission process.

Unintentional Changes:
Scribes, though often highly trained, occasionally introduced errors through visual or auditory mistakes. These include:

Haplography: Omitting a word or phrase due to similar endings (e.g., skipping from one occurrence of a word to the next).
Dittography: Accidental repetition of letters, words, or phrases.
Homoeoteleuton: Skipping lines due to similar endings.
Transposition: Changing word order unintentionally.
Itacism: Confusion of similar-sounding vowels and diphthongs.

Intentional Changes:
Scribes sometimes altered texts intentionally to harmonize with parallel passages, improve perceived grammar or theology, or clarify difficult readings. These changes typically arise in later manuscripts and often reflect a theological or liturgical motive.

Understanding these causes allows us to approach the manuscript tradition with discernment, giving preference to the readings most likely to reflect the original text rather than scribal tampering.

The Documentary Evidence: Manuscript Families and Their Reliability

The New Testament textual tradition is preserved in over 5,800 Greek manuscripts, in addition to thousands of Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and other early versions. Among these, four major text-types have emerged in scholarly classification:

Alexandrian Text-Type:
This group of manuscripts, represented by P75, P66, Codex Vaticanus (B), Codex Sinaiticus (א), and Codex Alexandrinus (A), is widely regarded as the most reliable. These texts are characterized by brevity, lack of harmonization, and fidelity to older readings. The agreement between P75 and Codex B (83% in Luke and John) testifies to a stable transmission line extending back to the early second century C.E.

Western Text-Type:
Represented by Codex Bezae (D) and some Old Latin manuscripts, the Western text is known for paraphrastic and expanded readings. It is less consistent and often contains harmonizations and interpolations. It is not considered a reliable source for recovering the original wording but is still valuable for studying the history of the text.

Byzantine Text-Type:
Also known as the Majority Text, this tradition became dominant from the 9th century onward. Though representing the majority of extant manuscripts, it is not earlier than the Alexandrian and tends to reflect editorial smoothing, harmonization, and conflation. Its value lies in tracing the ecclesiastical text of the Greek-speaking church rather than the autographic text.

Caesarean Text-Type:
This smaller group, associated with Origen’s textual work in Caesarea, shows characteristics of both Alexandrian and Western traditions. While intriguing, it lacks sufficient manuscript support and antiquity to carry significant weight in determining the original text.

Early Papyri and Their Significance

The discovery of early papyrus manuscripts in Egypt—particularly from the Bodmer and Chester Beatty collections—revolutionized textual criticism. Chief among these are:

P75 (c. 175–225 C.E.): This papyrus contains significant portions of Luke and John and exhibits striking agreement with Codex Vaticanus (B). The textual affinity between these two shows that the so-called Alexandrian text was not a later recension but was already stable and authoritative by the late second century.

P66 (c. 175 C.E.): Another important witness to the Gospel of John. While it contains more scribal errors than P75, it still follows the Alexandrian tradition.

P46 (c. 175–225 C.E.): One of the earliest witnesses to Pauline epistles. It aligns closely with Vaticanus in several places and demonstrates the reliability of the Alexandrian textual stream for Paul’s writings.

These papyri provide powerful evidence against the claim that our New Testament text was fluid or poorly preserved in the early centuries.

The Reading Culture of Early Christianity

Representative Case Studies of Textual Variants

To further illustrate the method and its conclusions, we will examine several key textual variants that have generated substantial scholarly discussion.

John 1:18 – “the only begotten God” vs. “the only begotten Son”

The variant ὁ μονογενὴς θεός (“the only begotten God”) appears in P75, B, and א, while ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (“the only begotten Son”) is found in later Byzantine manuscripts and Codex A.

Given the early and geographically diverse support of P75 and Vaticanus, and the likelihood of scribes replacing the more difficult θεός with the more familiar υἱός, the reading “the only begotten God” is original. It reflects a high Christology and is consistent with Johannine theology.

Luke 22:43–44 – The Angel and Sweat Like Blood

This passage, describing Jesus’ agony and the appearance of an angel, is absent in early Alexandrian witnesses such as P75 and Codex B, but present in later manuscripts and some Western texts.

Its absence in early and reliable witnesses suggests that it is a secondary insertion, possibly to amplify Jesus’ suffering. The shorter reading is to be preferred.

Mark 16:9–20 – The Longer Ending of Mark

The longer ending of Mark (verses 9–20) is missing from Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus and is absent in early versions such as the Old Syriac and some Armenian texts.

Early patristic testimony, including that of Eusebius and Jerome, confirms its absence in many early copies. While later manuscripts added this ending, it reflects a secondary attempt to provide closure to the Gospel. The original text of Mark likely ended at 16:8.

1 John 5:7 – The Comma Johanneum

The Trinitarian formula (“For there are three that bear record in heaven…”) found in 1 John 5:7 in the KJV is a late Latin interpolation with no Greek manuscript support before the 14th century.

It is absent in all early Greek manuscripts, including א, A, and B, and has no place in the original text. It is a theological gloss introduced into the Latin tradition and mistakenly carried over into the Textus Receptus.

Evaluating Internal Evidence in Light of Documentary Priority

While internal considerations such as the author’s style, grammar, and theological coherence have value, they must never override strong manuscript evidence. For instance, some modern critics claim that more “difficult” readings are to be preferred (lectio difficilior potior). However, scribes sometimes intentionally introduced “difficult” readings to match theological expectations or to harmonize.

The documentary method offers a more grounded approach. If a reading is found in multiple early, independent, geographically widespread manuscripts—especially papyri and uncials like P75, B, and א—it should be given preference unless overwhelming contextual reasons dictate otherwise.

The Role of Patristic Citations and Versions

Church fathers frequently quoted Scripture in their writings. While their citations are often paraphrastic, they provide crucial corroborative evidence for early readings. For example, Irenaeus (c. 180 C.E.) quotes passages aligned with Alexandrian readings, demonstrating that such texts were in use well before the 3rd century.

Early translations, such as the Old Latin and Syriac versions, help confirm early Greek readings. They must be used with caution, as translation choices can obscure the underlying Greek. Nonetheless, when a reading is supported by both early manuscripts and versions, it gains weight.

The Preservation and Trustworthiness of the New Testament Text

The manuscript evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the text of the New Testament has been preserved with extraordinary accuracy. There is no doctrine or historical detail jeopardized by legitimate textual variants. Even the most vocal critics acknowledge that the New Testament stands apart from all other ancient literature in terms of textual certainty.

While variants exist, the vast majority are minor—matters of spelling, word order, or synonyms. Only a handful affect interpretation, and none affect doctrine. By relying on the earliest and best manuscripts, especially those of the Alexandrian tradition, we can have full confidence in the integrity of the Word of God.

You May Also Enjoy

The Displacement of the Textus Receptus by the Critical Text in New Testament Textual Criticism

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).