Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
$5.00
 |
 |
 |
The Initial Dissemination: Apostolic Writings and Early Copying
The history of the transmission of the New Testament text is a multifaceted narrative involving both the physical copying of the Scriptures and the evolution of textual criticism as a discipline. From the beginning, the early church understood the necessity of disseminating the apostolic writings. As letters from apostles or Gospel accounts were written to address the needs of specific congregations or individuals, their influence soon extended beyond the initial recipients. Faithful believers made handwritten copies to circulate them among the growing Christian communities.
Questions to Consider on Who Was Inspired and Moved Along by the Holy Spirit
Because all manuscripts were handwritten until the advent of the printing press in the 15th century, no two copies were entirely free from textual variations. These variations—unintentional and intentional—are the foundation for textual criticism. In the earliest period, copies were produced under rudimentary conditions by both literate laymen and trained scribes, resulting in a variety of textual forms.
 |
 |
 |
Causes of Corruption: Unintentional and Intentional Variants
Copying errors fall into two categories: unintentional and intentional. Unintentional errors were far more common and often occurred due to issues of sight (e.g., skipping lines, duplicating letters or words), memory lapses during the copying process, fatigue, or distractions. Homoeoteleuton (skipping from one word to another with a similar ending) and dittography (accidental repetition of a word or phrase) were frequent. Codex Sinaiticus in 1 Thessalonians 2 reveals a classic case where the scribe copied eight lines of text twice, then attempted to correct his own error. In cases where scribes copied letter-by-letter, such as with Codex P75, transcription was generally more accurate, albeit slow and aesthetically poor. P75, dating to 175-225 C.E. is the manuscript that changed the thinking of textual scholars. Conversely, manuscripts like P66 show beautiful script but introduce textual errors, likely due to the scribe’s focus on form over fidelity. Even so, Papyrus 66 (P66), a near-complete Gospel of John, is considered crucial by scholars for restoring the original text of the New Testament due to its early origin and textual characteristics.
Philip W. Comfort emphasizes P66’s value as a key witness to the original text of John, belonging to the Alexandrian text-type, which he deems highly reliable. He highlights its professional scribal quality and the work of multiple correctors, which refined the text closer to the original. Comfort notes its omission of the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11), supporting the view that this passage was not part of the initial text, and sees P66’s agreement with other early manuscripts like P75 as evidence of its fidelity to the original.
Edward D. Andrews views P66 as a cornerstone for reconstructing the original text, given its Alexandrian affiliation and early production. He acknowledges the scribe’s interpretive additions, like harmonizations, but argues that the corrections by multiple hands enhance its reliability. Andrews believes P66’s text, with its minimal deviations, provides a strong basis for recovering John’s original wording.
Bruce M. Metzger regards P66 as a high-quality manuscript, classifying it within the Alexandrian text-type, which he considers the most disciplined and closest to the original. Despite some scribal variations, he values P66 for its early witness and its omission of the Pericope Adulterae, which bolsters the case for excluding this passage from the original text. Metzger sees P66 as a critical tool in textual criticism for its proximity to the autograph.
Other scholars similarly stress P66’s importance due to its early attestation and textual purity. Its professional script, minimal corruptions, and alignment with other early papyri make it a vital resource for restoring the original words of the Gospel of John, particularly in confirming the absence of later interpolations and preserving core readings.
The Number of Textual Variants in the Greek New Testament: Understanding the Reality Behind the Manuscripts
Intentional alterations, though less frequent, were often the result of theological or practical concerns. Some scribes harmonized Gospel accounts, particularly aligning the Synoptics to match Matthew—then the most circulated Gospel. Others clarified difficult passages or included marginal notes mistakenly thought to be part of the text. Texts with Old Testament citations were sometimes adjusted to conform to the Septuagint, reflecting scribes’ familiarity with the LXX over the original apostolic quotations.
While most changes were not malicious, they still introduced distortions. Yet, because so many manuscripts exist and because scribal habits can be detected and cataloged, these alterations are usually traceable and reversible.
 |
 |
 |
Canon Consciousness and the Effect on Transmission
An important factor affecting transmission was the gradual recognition of the New Testament as Scripture. Contrary to popular assumptions, the apostles may not have fully recognized that they were writing Scripture in the same sense as the Old Testament. The earliest external Christian writings, such as those of the Apostolic Fathers, are reticent to explicitly call the New Testament books “Scripture.” This canon consciousness began to develop in the 2nd century and culminated in the formal recognition of the canon by the 4th century, with figures like Eusebius (c. 325 C.E.), Augustine, and Jerome affirming the collection.
Before canon recognition solidified, textual freedom was greater. This is most evident in the Book of Acts, which displays significant textual variation. The Western text of Acts contains approximately 10% more material than the Alexandrian form. This expansion likely includes personal reminiscences or oral traditions later added by scribes. Once the New Testament was viewed as Scripture, changes shifted: instead of expansions, scribes sought to correct perceived errors or harmonize inconsistencies, often out of reverence for what they now considered inspired text.
 |
 |
 |
Local Text Types and Regional Variations
As Christianity spread, local text forms emerged in major ecclesiastical centers like Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, and Carthage. These “local texts” reflected the dominant text type preserved and copied within each region. Over time, a manuscript copied in one center and transported to another could influence the textual tradition in its new location. However, during the early centuries, the tendency was toward the preservation of distinct textual identities.
The primary text types that developed are as follows:
1. Alexandrian Text
The Alexandrian text type is recognized for its brevity and austerity. It avoids stylistic embellishments and conflations, preserving what is likely the earliest form of the text. Key witnesses include Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (א), both from the 4th century. The discovery of P66 and P75, dated to around 175–225 C.E., confirms that this text type existed at least by the early 2nd century. This early attestation supports the Alexandrian text as the most faithful to the original writings.
2. Western Text
This text type was widely used across the Latin-speaking West and in parts of Egypt. It is characterized by paraphrastic tendencies and expansions. Codex Bezae (D) and Codex Claromontanus are key witnesses. The Western text often includes additional explanatory material or alterations that reflect theological or liturgical concerns. Though less reliable for determining the original wording, the Western text offers insight into early Christian interpretation and application of Scripture.
3. Byzantine Text
The Byzantine text type, also called the Koine or Ecclesiastical text, is the most expansive. It exhibits a tendency toward conflation—merging variant readings into a single harmonized form. The text is smoother and more readable, making it ideal for public worship. Though it became the standard text form by the 6th century, it represents a later development and is not as close to the autographs as the Alexandrian tradition. It underlies the Textus Receptus and thus the King James Version, though its many interpolations render it less useful for original text reconstruction.
4. Caesarean and Eastern Texts
The Caesarean text, once thought to be a distinct family, is now seen more as a mixed text with both Alexandrian and Western features. It appears in manuscripts like Θ and in the Armenian and Georgian versions. The Old Syriac texts, including the Sinaitic and Curetonian manuscripts, preserve a separate Eastern tradition that bears witness to early textual diversity.
 |
 |
 |
The Printed Text and the Legacy of the Byzantine Tradition
The invention of the printing press allowed for mass production of the Greek New Testament, beginning with Erasmus’s 1516 edition. Although it was the first published Greek text, it was not based on the best manuscripts. Erasmus used late Byzantine manuscripts, including one Revelation manuscript that lacked the final six verses, which he translated from the Latin Vulgate into Greek. These unique renderings are still present in the Textus Receptus.
Subsequent editors—Robert Stephanus, Theodore Beza, and the Elzevir brothers—continued publishing Greek New Testaments based on the Byzantine tradition. The phrase Textus Receptus (“received text”) originated with the Elzevirs’ 1633 edition. Despite its textual flaws, this form became the basis for nearly all Reformation-era translations, including the Luther Bible and the King James Version.
The dominance of the Textus Receptus persisted into the 18th century. It was only with the rise of critical scholarship in the 19th century that efforts were made to return to earlier, purer forms of the text. Karl Lachmann, Constantin von Tischendorf, and Westcott and Hort each contributed significantly to this endeavor. The discovery of older manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, along with the papyri, allowed for more accurate reconstructions.
 |
 |
 |
Conclusion: Controlled and Uncontrolled Transmission
Two streams of transmission become evident in early church history: controlled and uncontrolled copying. The Western text represents a more uncontrolled, adaptive tradition often used in missionary contexts, reflected in its paraphrasing and expansions. The Alexandrian tradition, by contrast, represents a more careful and stable transmission process, more likely to preserve the original wording.
Modern critical editions, especially those of the United Bible Societies and the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, reflect the fruit of over a century of rigorous scholarship. By prioritizing the earliest and most reliable witnesses—particularly the Alexandrian manuscripts—these editions bring us closer than ever to the original autographs penned by the apostles and their associates. While the transmission of the text has involved countless human hands, the providential preservation of Scripture through history remains a testimony to its divine origin and enduring authority.
 |
 |
 |
You May Also Enjoy
Textual Criticism vs. Historical Criticism: Reconstructing the Original Biblical Text in OTTC and NTTC
About the Author
CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE
