Unintentional

Introduction to Scribal Corruption

The transmission of the New Testament text over the centuries has inevitably involved human copying activity, and with it, the introduction of both unintentional and intentional corruptions. From an evangelical, conservative standpoint, understanding unintentional scribal errors is essential to defending the inerrancy of Scripture and retrieving the autographic text inspired by the Holy Spirit. The divine message remains uncorrupted in essence, preserved providentially through the vast manuscript tradition, particularly among the earliest and most reliable witnesses, such as the Alexandrian text-type, including Codex Vaticanus and Papyrus 75.

The large volume of New Testament manuscripts, surpassing 5,800 in Greek alone, provides the means to detect and classify these unintentional errors. When these variants are cataloged and compared, they enable textual critics to recover the original reading by identifying which variants best explain the origin of others. Most unintentional corruptions are recognizable, often obvious, and arise from natural limitations of human perception, memory, hearing, and fatigue. These errors are distinguishable from intentional changes that reflect theological or harmonizing motives.

Understanding Types of Corruptions

Corruptions are typically grouped under two umbrella categories: unintentional and intentional. In conservative textual critical studies, unintentional errors are of particular interest because they are generally easy to identify and reverse-engineer. Variants can also be classified by their effect: viable vs. non-viable and meaningful vs. non-meaningful. While some variants may alter the meaning of the passage, many do not. Others may change the grammar without affecting the doctrine or narrative.

Textual critics must exercise skill and knowledge of Greek, paleography, and scribal habits to determine whether a variant is the result of an error or a deliberate modification. In many cases, the distinction is subtle. A scribe might miscopy due to faulty eyesight, and another may replicate the same variant with intentional theological purpose. Recognizing these patterns requires consultation of external manuscript evidence and an understanding of internal transcriptional probability.

The Six Classifications of Unintentional Errors

Scholars have long grouped unintentional scribal errors into six main categories:

1. Errors of Sight

Errors of sight arise when the scribe misreads a letter, word, or phrase in the exemplar. Early Greek manuscripts written in uncial script—all uppercase letters without spaces—made certain letters easily confusable. Examples include:

• Omicron (Ο) vs. Theta (Θ)

• Lambda (Λ) vs. Alpha (Α)

• Sigma (Σ) vs. Epsilon (Ε)

One of the most discussed examples of this is found in 1 Timothy 3:16, where some manuscripts read “God was manifested in the flesh” (Θς), while others read “who was manifested in the flesh” (ὁς). The confusion arises from the visual similarity between omicron-sigma (hos) and theta-sigma (theos) when written in uncial script. Additionally, the sacred name abbreviations (nomina sacra) complicate this further by reducing “God” to Θς with a horizontal bar, which could easily be mistaken for ὁς.

Another example is Romans 6:5, where letters such as mu and lambda can be mistaken when written in similar forms. The precise reading affects whether the text emphasizes unity with Christ in His death and resurrection.

2. Homoioteleuton and Related Errors

Homoioteleuton (“similar ending”) is a phenomenon where the scribe’s eye skips from one word or phrase to another with a similar ending. This produces either:

• Haplography – writing once what should be written twice.

• Dittography – writing twice what should be written once.

A well-known haplographic omission is found in 1 John 2:23, where the Byzantine tradition omits: “whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.” The scribe likely jumped from the first occurrence of “has the Father” to the second, resulting in a doctrinally significant loss. This omission undermines the requirement of confessing the Son to have a relationship with the Father.

In contrast, an example of dittography occurs in 1 Thessalonians 2:13-14 in Codex Sinaiticus, where the scribe accidentally repeated a portion of verse 13 in verse 14. This was likely caused by homoioarcton (“similar beginning”), where two lines start similarly, and the eye returns to the wrong location.

3. Metathesis (Transposition Errors)

Metathesis involves switching the order of letters, syllables, or words. Though the meaning is not always affected, it can produce nonsensical or misleading readings.

For instance, Mark 14:65 contains a variant where ελαβον (elabon, “they received”) is confused with εβαλον (ebalon, “they struck”). The transposition of lambda and beta changes the meaning from receiving blows to striking with them. This type of error was more likely in careless or hurried copying conditions.

Codex Bezae (D), a 5th-century Western manuscript, is infamous for excessive transpositions, often recasting sentence structure in a more colloquial or paraphrased form. In contrast, P75, a late 2nd-century Alexandrian papyrus, exhibits minimal transpositions, attesting to the precision of its scribe.

4. Errors of Hearing

In scriptorium settings, scribes might copy from dictation. Even outside these settings, readers frequently read aloud for better retention. Hearing errors occur when a scribe mishears a dictated word.

Romans 5:1 again serves as a key example. The difference between εχομεν (indicative: “we have”) and εχωμεν (subjunctive: “let us have”) is purely a vowel shift between omicron and omega. Both would have been pronounced identically in Koine Greek, allowing for such errors. Yet the indicative is supported by both early manuscripts and contextual coherence.

Another illustration is 1 Thessalonians 2:7, where Ἐπιοι (epioi, “gentle”) is confused with Νηπιοι (nēpioi, “infants” or “little children”). The context and the preceding word ending in nu (ν) may have contributed to the confusion.

5. Errors of Memory

Errors of memory include synonym substitution, reordering of words, or harmonization to similar passages. These errors arise when scribes rely on mental recollection rather than carefully copying the exemplar.

One frequent area where memory errors surface is the Synoptic Gospels. For example, scribes sometimes altered Luke’s version of the Lord’s Prayer (Luke 11:2-4) to more closely resemble the longer and more familiar version in Matthew 6:9-13. This harmonization often reflects unintentional adaptation rather than deliberate revision.

6. Errors of Judgment

Scribes sometimes misjudged whether marginal annotations were meant to be integrated into the text. This often resulted in textual expansions that were not original.

A classic example is found in John 5:3b-4, which describes an angel stirring the water of the pool. These verses are absent in early Alexandrian manuscripts (P66, P75, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus) but appear in later Byzantine witnesses. The addition appears to be a theological gloss meant to explain verse 7.

Another example includes John 3:13, where the phrase “who is in heaven” is absent in early Alexandrian texts. Later manuscripts include it, raising the question of whether this was a commentary inserted into the text to affirm Christ’s divine omnipresence.

Errors of Fatigue and Carelessness

Scribes working for hours under poor lighting and difficult conditions naturally suffered fatigue, leading to increased frequency of errors toward the end of a manuscript.

Codex L provides examples of both fatigue and carelessness. In John 1:30, the Greek ἄνηρ (aner, “man”) is mistakenly copied as “air” due to omission of the letter nu (ν). Such nonsense readings betray the scribe’s exhaustion.

In John 1:1, Codex L adds the article ἡ (“the”) before Θεός (Theos), rendering the verse, “and the God was the Word,” rather than the original, “and the Word was God.” This violates the syntactical rules of Greek and disrupts the theological structure of the verse.

Such fatigue-driven errors do not reflect theological intent but rather physical limitations of the scribe. They are among the easiest to identify and correct.

Recognizing unintentional scribal errors is indispensable in the task of recovering the original Greek New Testament. These errors occur in discernible patterns and are well-documented across the manuscript tradition. When approached through the lens of external evidence—particularly early Alexandrian manuscripts—and with careful application of transcriptional probability, textual critics can accurately reconstruct the autographic text.

The work of the scribes, though imperfect, has not thwarted the preservation of the Word of God. Instead, the abundance of textual evidence, the consistency of early witnesses like P75 and Codex Vaticanus, and the providential oversight of God ensure that the original message of the New Testament is both accessible and trustworthy. The study of these unintentional errors only strengthens our confidence in the Scriptures as the inspired Word of Jehovah.

Illustration of Scribal Corruptions – Intentional Changes

Introduction to Intentional Scribal Alterations

While the majority of textual variants in the New Testament manuscript tradition are unintentional, a significant number represent deliberate modifications made by scribes. These intentional changes were often well-intentioned, though nonetheless misguided from the standpoint of textual preservation. As Bruce Metzger noted, “Odd though it may seem, scribes who thought they were correcting the text may have posed greater danger than those who copied it faithfully.”

From a conservative evangelical standpoint, it is essential to approach these intentional changes with discernment. Most were driven not by malice or doctrinal subversion, but by reverence, piety, or a desire to improve the text’s readability or doctrinal clarity. Recognizing the categories and causes of these changes helps us to evaluate textual variants and to prefer the reading that best explains the rise of the others—a foundational principle in New Testament textual criticism.

Reasons Scribes Made Intentional Changes

Intentional alterations usually stemmed from a scribe’s belief that the manuscript before him contained a mistake, ambiguity, or lack of clarity. These changes fall into seven broad categories:

1. Spelling and Grammar Corrections

Some scribes altered grammatical constructions or spelling to conform the New Testament text to the rules of classical Greek. The Byzantine scribes were especially prone to making such adjustments, attempting to elevate the stylistic quality of the Koine Greek text to match the standards of earlier Greek literature.

A notable example involves the use of the Greek conjunction ἱνα (hina) followed by a future indicative rather than the expected aorist subjunctive. In Revelation 6:4, the phrase “so that men would slay one another” should grammatically use the subjunctive. Some scribes changed this to conform to their expectations of grammatical propriety. These changes, though minor in scope, demonstrate a misunderstanding of the New Testament’s colloquial register.

2. Harmonization to Gospel Parallels or Old Testament Quotations

Harmonization is one of the most pervasive intentional changes, especially evident in Gospel parallels. Scribes often adjusted a passage to more closely align with its Synoptic counterpart.

An example is found in Luke 5:30 compared with Mark 2:16. Luke reads, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” while Mark says, “Why does He eat with tax collectors and sinners?” Some Byzantine manuscripts of Mark add “and drink” to harmonize with Luke.

Another example appears in John 4:16-17, where Jesus tells the Samaritan woman to “go and call your husband.” Her reply differs slightly in wording across manuscripts. Scribes sometimes modified her response to align with Jesus’ words, reflecting a rigid concern for verbal symmetry.

3. Correction of Apparent Discrepancies

Scribes occasionally altered texts to resolve what they perceived as contradictions. In Mark 1:2-3, the citation begins with “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,” but includes a quotation from Malachi 3:1 followed by Isaiah 40:3. To resolve this, later manuscripts altered “Isaiah the prophet” to “the prophets” to reflect the composite nature of the citation.

This variant likely arose from a scribe’s discomfort with attributing a dual-source quotation solely to Isaiah. Though done in piety, such emendations obscure the original authorial intent and diminish the precision of the original inspired text.

4. Conflation of Readings

Conflation occurs when a scribe encounters two variant readings and combines them into one composite reading. This is particularly characteristic of Byzantine manuscripts.

For example, in Luke 24:53, some manuscripts read “blessing God,” others read “praising God,” while Byzantine texts combine both into “blessing and praising God.” This likely represents a later synthesis of two earlier traditions and is thus a secondary reading. As Westcott and Hort argued, conflated readings indicate a derivative textual form.

5. Explanatory Glosses

Scribes sometimes inserted explanatory words or phrases to clarify ambiguous passages. In Mark 6-8, 89 consecutive verses omit the name “Jesus.” Later manuscripts add His name in several verses to clarify the subject.

Similarly, Ephesians 4:9 speaks of Christ descending “to the lower parts of the earth.” Some manuscripts add the word “first” to read “He first descended,” to ensure the chronological order of descent before ascent. While the intention may have been clarity, the addition introduces a theological ambiguity about the meaning of the descent (whether to the earth or to Hades).

6. Doctrinally Motivated Changes

While rare and generally minor, some variants reflect attempts to reinforce orthodox doctrine. In Romans 8:1, early manuscripts read, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Later manuscripts add, “who do not walk according to the flesh,” and still later, “but according to the Spirit.”

This expansion introduces a conditional element not present in the original. Such scribal expansions reflect a tendency to reinforce moral exhortation or doctrinal affirmation, though they do not alter any core doctrine.

7. Addition of Enriching Material

The Western text of Acts contains approximately 8.5% more material than the Alexandrian text, adding up to the equivalent of nearly three additional chapters. These additions often reflect personal recollections or liturgical expansions rather than doctrinal corruption.

Titles of New Testament books also expanded over time. The original title of Revelation was likely “The Revelation of John,” but later manuscripts such as Codex 1775 expand it to an elaborate honorific: “The Revelation of the All Glorious Evangelist, Bosom Friend of Jesus, Virgin, Beloved of Christ…”

Other additions include the insertion of “Amen” at the end of New Testament books. Some early manuscripts omit it, while others add it uniformly. These expansions reflect scribal piety rather than intentional doctrinal alteration.

Summary of Intentional Changes

Scribes occasionally made intentional changes out of a desire to improve grammar, resolve apparent contradictions, harmonize parallel texts, clarify theology, or enhance reverence. These changes, while not corrupt in motive, are nonetheless corruptions of the inspired text.

A foundational principle of textual criticism is to prefer the more difficult reading—on the assumption that scribes would not create a harder or less harmonious text. In nearly all cases, intentional changes make the text smoother, more orthodox, or more polished. Therefore, readings that are shorter, rougher, or more challenging are generally closer to the autographs.

From an evangelical standpoint, the low doctrinal impact of these changes affirms the Holy Spirit’s providential preservation of the Scriptures. While these intentional errors do require careful evaluation, they do not undermine the truth, clarity, or authority of the New Testament.

You May Also Enjoy

What Are Textual Variants, and How Many Are There?

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS