The New Testament, as a collection of divinely inspired writings, has been meticulously preserved through centuries of scribal activity. However, the process of hand-copying texts, even by well-trained scribes, inevitably introduced errors. These transmissional errors, both unintentional and intentional, have left their mark on the manuscript tradition. With 5,898 Greek New Testament manuscripts, many dating within decades of the originals, textual scholars can reconstruct the original text with 99.99% accuracy. This article examines the types of errors that occurred during the transmission of the New Testament, focusing on their causes, examples, and implications for textual criticism. By prioritizing the documentary evidence of early manuscripts, such as the second-century papyrus P75 and Codex Vaticanus, and employing the historical-grammatical method, this study upholds the inerrancy of the original texts while addressing the challenges posed by scribal variants.

Unintentional Errors in New Testament Manuscripts

Unintentional errors arose from the limitations of human scribes working with ancient writing materials and conventions. Greek texts were written in scriptio continua, without spaces between words or consistent punctuation, increasing the likelihood of mistakes. The rough surfaces of papyrus and parchment could obscure letter details, and the absence of modern editing tools compounded these challenges. Below are the primary categories of unintentional errors, each illustrated with New Testament examples.

Mistaken Letters

Scribes often confused letters that appeared similar in Greek uncial script, the block-letter style used in early New Testament manuscripts. For instance, the letters C (sigma), O (omicron), and Θ (theta) could be mistaken due to their rounded shapes, especially in faded or poorly written texts. In 1 Timothy 3:16, some manuscripts read OC (“the one who is”; found in א*, A*) while others read ΘC (“God”; found in א2, Ac). This variant likely stems from a scribe misreading the similar-looking letters, impacting the theological weight of the verse, which some later copyists interpreted as affirming Christ’s divinity. The documentary evidence, particularly from early Alexandrian manuscripts like P75 and Codex Vaticanus, supports OC as the more likely original reading, given its attestation in earlier sources.

Homophony

Homophony occurs when scribes substituted words or letters that sound alike. In Greek, letters like α (alpha) and ο (omicron), or ο (omicron) and ω (omega), could be confused during copying, especially if texts were dictated aloud or copied from oral reading. A notable example appears in Romans 5:1, where manuscripts divide between ἔχομεν (“we have”; א1, B2, F) and ἔχωμεν (“we shall have”; א*, A, B*, C). The difference hinges on a single letter (ο versus ω), altering the tense from present to subjunctive. Early manuscripts like P46 and Codex Vaticanus favor ἔχομεν, suggesting it as the original, with the subjunctive possibly introduced through auditory confusion during transcription.

Haplography

Haplography involves the accidental omission of a letter or word due to similarity with nearby text, often when a scribe’s eye skipped ahead. In scriptio continua, where words ran together, this error was particularly common. In John 1:13, some manuscripts read ἐγεννήθησαν (“were born”; P66, א, B2) while others have ἐγεννήθη (itb, Irenaeuslat, Tertullian, Origenlat½). The singular form may result from a scribe skipping from one similar ending to another, omitting the plural suffix. The plural reading, supported by early papyri like P66 and P75, aligns with the context of believers’ spiritual birth and is likely original.

Dittography

Dittography, the opposite of haplography, occurs when a scribe inadvertently repeats a letter or word. This error was frequent when copying sequences of similar letters or words. In Mark 3:16, the phrase ἐποίησεν τοὺς δώδεκα (“and he appointed the twelve”) appears to be repeated from verse 14 in some manuscripts. This repetition likely resulted from a scribe’s eye returning to the earlier phrase, duplicating it. Early manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus omit the repetition in verse 16, suggesting it was not part of the original text.

Metathesis

Metathesis involves the reversal of letters or words, often due to a scribe’s momentary lapse in attention. In John 1:42, the name Ἰωάννου (“of John”; P66, P75, א) is read as Ἰωνᾶ (“of Jonah”; A, B2) in some manuscripts. This variant suggests both metathesis (reordering of letters) and possible letter omission, transforming “John” into “Jonah.” The reading Ἰωάννου, attested by early papyri like P75, is more consistent with the context, as Peter’s father is identified as John elsewhere (Matthew 16:17).

Fusion

Fusion occurs when two words are incorrectly combined into one, often due to the lack of word breaks in scriptio continua. In Mark 10:40, the phrase ἀλλʼ οἷς (“but for whom”; A, B2) is read as ἄλλοις (“for others”; א, B*, D) in some manuscripts. The fused form ἄλλοις alters the meaning, suggesting a different group rather than those for whom the places were prepared. Early Alexandrian manuscripts support ἀλλʼ οἷς, which fits the theological context of divine appointment.

Fission

Fission, the opposite of fusion, involves splitting a single word into two. In Romans 7:14, the word οἴδαμεν (“we know”; B2, D2) is divided into οἶδα μὲν (“on the one hand I know”; 33, l 833) in some manuscripts. This error likely arose from a scribe misinterpreting the word boundary in scriptio continua. The unified reading, supported by Codex Vaticanus, aligns with Paul’s rhetorical style and is likely original.

Homoioteleuton and Homoioarkton

Homoioteleuton (similar endings) and homoioarkton (similar beginnings) caused scribes to omit text when their eyes skipped between similar phrases. In 1 John 2:23, the phrase τὸν πατέρα ἔχει (“has the Father”; א, B, C) appears twice, leading some manuscripts (vgms, boms) to omit the intervening words ὁ ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱόν καὶ (“the one who confesses the Son also”). This omission, likely due to homoioteleuton, disrupts the theological connection between confessing the Son and having the Father. Early manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus preserve the full text, supporting its originality.

Other Omissions or Additions

Some errors defy clear categorization, possibly resulting from misread abbreviations, faded texts, or scribe fatigue. In Ephesians 1:1, the phrase ἐν Ἐφέσῳ (“in Ephesus”) is absent in early manuscripts like P46, א*, and B*. Its inclusion in later manuscripts may reflect a scribal addition to clarify the epistle’s destination, as Ephesus was a prominent church. The omission in early papyri suggests the phrase was not original, possibly added to align with the epistle’s circulation.

Intentional Errors in New Testament Manuscripts

While unintentional errors stemmed from human limitations, intentional changes reflect scribes’ efforts to clarify, harmonize, or theologically enhance the text. Until the first century C.E., the Hebrew text exhibited some flexibility, and while New Testament scribes generally revered the text, they occasionally modified it to improve readability or address perceived issues. These changes, though rare, require careful analysis to distinguish from the original wording.

Changes in Spelling or Grammar

Scribes sometimes updated archaic spellings or grammatical forms to make the text more accessible. In Matthew 1:7–8, the name Asaph (Ἀσάφ; P1vid, א, B) appears in early manuscripts, but later ones read Asa (Ἀσά; L, W, Δ), likely a correction to align with the Old Testament king (1 Kings 15:9–24). The reading Asaph, supported by early Alexandrian manuscripts, may reflect the original, with Asa introduced to avoid confusion with the psalmist Asaph.

Clearing Up Difficulties

To enhance clarity, scribes occasionally modified rare or ambiguous terms. In Mark 1:2–3, a composite quotation from Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 is attributed to “Isaiah the prophet” in early manuscripts (א, B), but later ones read “in the prophets” (A, W). The change likely clarifies that the quotation draws from multiple sources, avoiding the appearance of error. The earlier reading, supported by P75, is likely original, as scribes were less likely to introduce a specific attribution like “Isaiah.”

Harmonization

Harmonization aligned parallel passages, especially in the Gospels, to ensure consistency. In Luke 23:38, some manuscripts (C3, W, Δ) add the phrase ἦν γεγραμμένον Ἑβραϊστί, Ῥωμαιστί, Ἑλληνιστί (“it was written in Hebrew, in Latin, in Greek”), borrowed from John 19:20. This addition harmonizes Luke’s account of the crucifixion inscription with John’s. Early manuscripts like P75 and Codex Sinaiticus omit the phrase in Luke, suggesting it was a later insertion.

Euphemistic Changes

Scribes sometimes softened harsh phrases or smoothed grammar for aesthetic or theological reasons. In Matthew 6:4, 6, the phrase “your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you” is expanded in some manuscripts (L, W, Δ) to include ἐν τῷ φανερῷ (“in the open”). This addition emphasizes the public reward, possibly to enhance the passage’s appeal. Similarly, in Matthew 27:41, “scribes” is expanded to “scribes and Pharisees” (D, W), reflecting a common pairing. Early manuscripts like Codex Vaticanus omit these additions, supporting their secondary nature.

Theological Changes

Theological concerns occasionally prompted changes to avoid irreverence or clarify doctrine. In Luke 2:41, 43, “his parents” (οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ) is altered to “Joseph and Mary” (1012, It) or “Joseph and his mother” (A, C, Ψ) in some manuscripts, likely to safeguard the virgin birth by avoiding the implication that Joseph was Jesus’ biological father. The reading “his parents,” found in P75 and Codex Sinaiticus, is contextually appropriate and likely original, as it reflects standard familial language.

Additions and Glosses

Scribes sometimes incorporated marginal notes, glosses, or explanatory phrases into the text. In Luke 24:53, some manuscripts (A2, Δ, Θ) add ἀμήν (“amen”) at the end, possibly to align with liturgical practice or mimic the ending of Matthew 28:20. Similarly, in 1 Peter 5:14, ἀμήν is added in manuscripts like א and K, likely for consistency with 2 Peter’s ending. Early manuscripts like P72 omit these additions, suggesting they were later embellishments.

Challenges in Identifying Intentional Errors

Unintentional errors are often easier to detect due to their predictable patterns, such as letter confusion or skipping similar phrases. Intentional changes, however, are more elusive, as they reflect a scribe’s deliberate intervention, often with unclear motives. Bruce Metzger notes that “scribes who thought were more dangerous than those who wished merely to be faithful in copying what lay before them.” A striking example appears in Codex Vaticanus at Hebrews 1:3, where a later scribe indignantly restored the original reading φανερῶν (“manifesting”) against a corrector’s φέρων (“sustaining”), writing, “Fool and knave, can’t you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!” This illustrates the tension between preserving the text and correcting perceived errors, sometimes reintroducing variants.

Intentional changes often arose when scribes believed a word was misspelled, theologically problematic, or inconsistent with another passage. For instance, the addition of “and Pharisees” in Matthew 27:41 may reflect a scribe’s assumption that the text should include both groups, given their frequent pairing. Such changes require textual critics to weigh documentary evidence carefully, prioritizing early manuscripts like P75, P66, and Codex Vaticanus, which are closer to the originals.

Correction of Romans 15:30 in Papyrus P46

The above image depicts a portion of Papyrus P46, a significant early manuscript of the New Testament dated to approximately 100–150 C.E., containing parts of Paul’s epistles. The text shown includes Romans 15:30, where a later scribe made a correction to the original writing. The arrow points to an adjustment in the Greek text, indicating where the initial copyist’s error was addressed. In this verse, Paul urges believers to join him in prayer, writing, “I appeal to you, brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God on my behalf.” The correction likely addresses a minor variant, such as a letter confusion or omission common in scriptio continua, where Greek was written without word breaks. The presence of this correction highlights the diligence of later scribes in refining the text, aligning with the documentary evidence that supports the restoration of the original wording with 99.99% accuracy through manuscripts like P46 and Codex Vaticanus.

The Role of Textual Criticism in Restoring the Original Text

Textual criticism, particularly through the documentary method, seeks to recover the original New Testament text by evaluating manuscript evidence. The abundance of early manuscripts, such as P46 (c. 100–150 C.E.), P66 (c. 125–150 C.E.), and P75 (c. 175–225 C.E.), allows scholars to trace variants back to their origins. The Alexandrian text-type, represented by Codex Vaticanus and P75, is generally preferred due to its early attestation and careful transmission. However, Western, Byzantine, and Caesarean manuscripts are also considered to ensure a comprehensive analysis.

The historical-grammatical method guides this process, interpreting variants in their linguistic and historical context while upholding the inerrancy of the original texts. For example, in Romans 5:1, the choice between ἔχομεν and ἔχωμεν hinges on both external evidence (manuscript attestation) and internal evidence (Paul’s theological intent). The present tense ἔχομεν, supported by P46, aligns with Paul’s emphasis on present justification, making it the more likely original.

Despite the presence of variants, the critical texts of the Greek New Testament, such as the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies editions, reflect the original wording with near-perfect accuracy. The Masoretic precision of Old Testament scribes finds a parallel in the careful work of early Christian copyists, whose errors, though numerous, do not obscure the divine message. As Metzger emphasizes, the wealth of manuscripts ensures that “the original text is never lost, only temporarily misplaced.”

Implications for Biblical Inerrancy

The presence of transmissional errors does not undermine the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, which applies to the original autographs. The variants, while numerous, are largely minor, affecting spelling, word order, or non-essential phrases. Major doctrines, such as the deity of Christ or salvation by faith, remain untouched. The example of 1 Timothy 3:16, where OC versus ΘC alters the explicit reference to Christ’s divinity, is resolved by the overwhelming documentary evidence for OC, with parallel passages (e.g., John 1:1) affirming the doctrine elsewhere.

The scribal process, though imperfect, reflects a deep reverence for the text. Scribes’ reluctance to omit material, even marginal notes, ensured that little was lost. The early papyri, such as P52 (c. 125–150 C.E.), demonstrate remarkable stability in the text within a generation of the originals. This stability, combined with rigorous textual criticism, affirms the trustworthiness of the New Testament as the inspired Word of God.

Conclusion of Analysis

The transmissional errors in the New Testament, both unintentional and intentional, are a natural outcome of hand-copying texts over centuries. Unintentional errors, such as mistaken letters, haplography, and homoioteleuton, arose from the challenges of scriptio continua and human fallibility. Intentional changes, including harmonizations and theological clarifications, reflect scribes’ efforts to enhance the text’s clarity or orthodoxy. Through the documentary method and historical-grammatical interpretation, textual critics have restored the original text with 99.99% accuracy, leveraging early manuscripts like P75 and Codex Vaticanus. These variants, far from undermining the Bible’s authority, highlight the meticulous care of scribes and the providence of God in preserving His Word. The New Testament remains a reliable witness to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, fulfilling its purpose as the infallible guide for faith and practice.

You May Also Enjoy

Illustration of Scribal Corruptions – Unintentional Errors and Intentional Changes

About the author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS