The earliest translated versions of the Greek New Testament form one of the major pillars of textual criticism. The inspired New Testament writings were originally composed in Koine Greek between about 50 and 96 C.E. As the Gospel spread, congregations of believers increasingly lived in regions where Greek was not the primary spoken language. Pastors and teachers still read the Greek text and preached from it, but ordinary worshipers needed Scripture in their own tongues. From that historical and pastoral need, a series of early translations arose in Syriac, Latin, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Sogdian, Old Church Slavonic, and Nubian.

These versions are secondary in relation to the Greek text. Inspiration applied to the original writings of the apostles and their associates, not to later translations. At the same time, these translations are a crucial part of Jehovah’s providential preservation of the New Testament. Each version reflects a Greek Vorlage, that is, the Greek manuscripts that translators had in front of them. When we study these versions carefully and relate them to the Greek manuscript tradition, we gain additional data about which readings were known, accepted, and transmitted in different regions of the ancient world.

From the standpoint of the documentary method in textual criticism, versions are external witnesses. Greek papyri and majuscules remain central; P75 and Codex Vaticanus (B), for example, carry enormous weight because of their age and textual quality. Early versions cannot override such witnesses. They can, however, confirm that the type of text represented in early Alexandrian manuscripts was already widespread, or they can reveal that a particular secondary reading had a broad regional influence. The versions show that there never was a time when a radically different, “lost” New Testament existed; rather, the same basic text circulated in multiple languages, with variations that textual criticism can evaluate and resolve.

Methodological Considerations in Using Versions

Because versions are translations, they require a distinct kind of analysis. The textual critic must ask several questions. The first question concerns date. The earlier a version arises, the closer its Greek Vorlage stands to the time of the original autographs. The second question concerns the quality and character of that Greek Vorlage. Some versions were translated from Greek texts that were largely Alexandrian in character, others from Western, Caesarean, or Byzantine forms, and some from mixed texts.

A third key question concerns translation technique. A very literal translation, which follows Greek word order, reproduces Greek particles, and tries to render Greek morphology as transparently as possible into the receptor language, allows more confident retroversion into Greek. A freer, idiomatic, or paraphrastic translation may still give strong testimony to major variants but offers less certainty about finer details. A fourth question concerns later revision. Several versions underwent systematic revision toward a different Greek standard. That process must be factored in, so that the critic distinguishes earlier layers from later ecclesiastical adjustments.

Because of these factors, the versions do not stand on the same level as Greek manuscripts. They do not occupy a higher authority, and they never silence strong Alexandrian evidence. Yet they are far from marginal. When the Old Latin, the Sahidic Coptic, and the Peshitta Syriac all attest a given reading that also appears in P75 and B, the external case for that reading becomes extremely strong. By contrast, when a reading is confined to a narrow stream of one version, unsupported by independent early Greek witnesses, that reading must usually yield to the more widely attested form.

With these methodological principles in place, it is possible to survey the major early versions and explain how each contributes to the restoration of the original Greek text.

The Syriac Versions

Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic that became the chief literary and ecclesiastical language of Christians in Edessa and the wider Mesopotamian region. Because the earliest Christians in this area were bilingual or even trilingual, Greek Scripture and Syriac preaching coexisted for some time. As congregations matured and more people knew Syriac far better than Greek, the need for Syriac Scripture became urgent. The result was a layered Syriac tradition: Old Syriac, Peshitta, and later Philoxenian and Harklean revisions.

The Old Syriac represents the earliest stage of Gospel translation into Syriac. It is preserved chiefly in two manuscripts: the Curetonian Gospels and the Syriac Sinaiticus. These manuscripts date from about the fourth to fifth centuries, but their underlying translation reflects work that already existed by the late second or third century. The Old Syriac Gospels present a freer, more idiomatic translation style. The translators aimed at making the narrative flow naturally in Syriac, sometimes reshaping word order, smoothing roughness, or harmonizing parallel accounts. Textually, the Old Syriac often reflects a Western type of text. Its agreements with Codex Bezae (D) are numerous, especially in the Gospels. It shares the Western tendency toward expansions, paraphrases, and harmonizations, yet it also preserves shorter or more difficult readings that agree with early Alexandrian witnesses.

For the textual critic, the Old Syriac is valuable but must be handled carefully. Because of its idiomatic character, retroversion into Greek demands familiarity with both Greek and Syriac syntax. When Old Syriac supports a reading that also appears in P75 and B, particularly where that reading is shorter and more difficult, the combined testimony of Alexandrian Greek and Old Syriac strongly points toward originality. When Old Syriac stands alone in supporting an expansion or harmonized reading, its Western character indicates that such readings are secondary, even if they had some early circulation.

The Peshitta Syriac became the standard Bible of the Syriac-speaking churches. Its New Testament, in its early form, lacked 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. These books were added from the sixth century onward. The Peshitta New Testament arose in its core form by about the late fourth or early fifth century, probably as the result of a deliberate revision and standardization process. Its translation style is more literal than that of the Old Syriac, often following Greek word order and preserving Greek particles. Yet it still reads naturally as Syriac and shows sensitivity to Syriac idiom.

Textually, the Peshitta presents a relatively conservative text. In the Gospels and Acts it frequently aligns with the later Byzantine tradition, though not in a slavish way. In the Pauline and Catholic Epistles, its text sometimes agrees with Alexandrian witnesses against Byzantine expansions. This mixed character makes sense historically. By the time the Peshitta emerged as a standard, Greek texts in the East were already moving toward a more unified form that would eventually dominate in the Byzantine Empire. The Peshitta, therefore, often reflects readings that had already gained broad acceptance. It is extremely helpful for tracing which readings had achieved “ecclesiastical” status by the early fifth century.

Later Syriac revisions illustrate a different kind of value. The Philoxenian version, associated with Bishop Philoxenus of Mabbug in the early sixth century, and especially the Harklean version, completed by Thomas of Harkel in 616 C.E., pursued a more exact equivalence to Greek. The Harklean translator worked from a predominantly Byzantine Greek text, but he accompanied his main text with a rich marginal apparatus. In those margins he recorded alternative readings from other Greek manuscripts. In practice, the Harklean New Testament functions like a mini critical edition.

For textual criticism, the Harklean apparatus is extremely significant. Where the main Harklean text is purely Byzantine, its value for earliest text reconstruction is limited. However, the marginal readings sometimes preserve evidence of non-Byzantine readings, including Alexandrian or Western forms, that had not entirely disappeared by the seventh century. Because Thomas of Harkel copied these readings from Greek manuscripts he had in front of him, they effectively extend our knowledge of the Greek tradition that was still accessible in his day.

Taken together, the Syriac versions offer a chronological and textual cross-section of the Greek text’s reception in the Syriac-speaking East. Old Syriac points to an early Western flavor; Peshitta reflects a more stable ecclesiastical text with significant Byzantine influence; and Harklean documents in its margins the diversity still present in Greek manuscripts of the early seventh century.

The Latin Versions

In the western half of the Roman Empire, Latin increasingly displaced Greek as the language of law, administration, and everyday life. Congregations in North Africa, Italy, and Gaul quickly reached a point where Greek preaching alone no longer met pastoral needs. From at least the late second century, portions of the New Testament were circulating in Latin, forming what is now called the Vetus Latina, or Old Latin.

The Old Latin is not a single, unified version but a family of related translations. Different communities produced translations at different times, in different regions, and from Greek exemplars that were not identical. As a result, Old Latin manuscripts exhibit a wide spectrum of readings and translation styles. Some witnesses show a very literal rendering of the Greek, while others paraphrase freely. Textually, the Old Latin often reflects a Western type of text. It shares many features with Codex Bezae, including expanded readings, harmonizations, and narrative embellishments in the Gospels and Acts.

Despite these secondary features, the Old Latin tradition provides evidence of immense value. Its very existence in the second and third centuries shows how early the New Testament was already functioning as Scripture in the Latin West. For textual criticism, the Old Latin is especially useful where it preserves a reading that is shorter and more difficult, aligns with early Alexandrian witnesses, and stands against later Byzantine expansions. In those instances, the agreement of Old Latin and Alexandrian Greek demonstrates that the original reading was accepted across widely separated regions.

The Latin tradition entered a new phase with Jerome’s work in the late fourth century. Commissioned by Bishop Damasus of Rome, Jerome undertook a revision of the Latin Gospels, and later other parts of the Bible, aiming to correct the text in line with Greek manuscripts available to him. This revision, together with later work, produced what became known as the Vulgate. Jerome’s Greek base was not purely Alexandrian, yet he deliberately moved away from the more expansive Western readings. Where Old Latin had harmonized or embellished, Jerome tended to prune back to a more restrained text in closer accord with the Greek exemplars he trusted.

Over the following centuries, the Vulgate itself underwent copying, local revision, and partial assimilation to Byzantine readings. Careful study of the earliest Vulgate witnesses, however, allows textual critics to distinguish Jerome’s initial work from later medieval adjustments. As a witness to the state of the Greek text used in Rome and the Latin West around 400 C.E., the earliest Vulgate carries considerable weight. When its readings coincide with Alexandrian manuscripts against Western or Byzantine alternatives, that agreement further anchors the original text.

The Latin versions also play an important role in demonstrating how deeply the New Testament text had penetrated the life of the church. By the time of Augustine, Latin Scripture was already central in preaching, catechesis, and doctrinal controversy. The text could not be radically altered without immediate notice. Even where Old Latin and Vulgate preserve secondary readings, their very stability shows that copyists worked with a high degree of respect for the text they had received. The Latin evidence thus complements the Greek manuscript tradition and confirms that the New Testament text was not subject to uncontrolled, creative rewriting over the centuries.

The Coptic Versions

Coptic is the last stage of the Egyptian language, written using a largely Greek alphabet with additional characters to represent native Egyptian sounds. In Roman and Byzantine Egypt, Greek remained the language of administration and of much theological writing, especially in Alexandria. Yet large portions of the population spoke Egyptian dialects as their primary language. From the third century onward, as Christianity gained deep roots in Egypt, believers needed Scripture in Egyptian, and this need gave rise to the Coptic versions.

The most important Coptic dialects, from a textual perspective, are Sahidic and Bohairic. Sahidic was spoken in Upper Egypt and seems to be the earliest dialect into which the New Testament was translated. Fragments of Sahidic New Testament manuscripts date from the third and fourth centuries. Bohairic, associated with Lower Egypt and especially the Nile Delta, became the dominant liturgical dialect of the Coptic church in the medieval period. Other dialects, such as Fayyumic, Middle Egyptian, and Akhmimic, are also attested, though more fragmentarily.

The Sahidic Coptic version holds a central place in textual criticism. Its translation technique is generally quite literal. Translators tended to follow Greek word order, preserve conjunctions and particles, and mirror Greek clause structure as much as Egyptian grammar allowed. This literal character often permits a relatively precise retroversion into Greek, especially for major variants. Textually, Sahidic agrees most frequently with the Alexandrian text-type. Its agreements with P66, P75, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus, especially where the Alexandrian text stands against a fuller Byzantine form, confirm the antiquity and widespread use of the Alexandrian text in Egypt.

At the same time, Sahidic sometimes reflects Western or unique readings. These show that Egyptian Christianity did not live in a textual vacuum. The presence of some Western forms demonstrates that the circulation of Western readings extended even into regions where Alexandrian manuscripts ultimately prevailed. In those cases, the Coptic evidence helps map the degree of textual diversity within Egypt itself.

The Bohairic Coptic tradition is later in its origin and more complicated in its transmission. The earliest Bohairic witnesses date from about the fourth to fifth centuries, but the majority of surviving manuscripts are medieval. Textually, Bohairic shows more influence from the Byzantine tradition than Sahidic does, especially in the Gospels. Nevertheless, its base text remains closer to an Alexandrian form in many books, and the translation is still predominantly literal. For the textual critic, Bohairic often confirms readings that are already well supported by Alexandrian Greek witnesses.

Other Coptic dialects, though more fragmentary, supply important corroborative data. For example, certain Fayyumic manuscripts of Acts reflect a text with strong Western affinities, demonstrating that Western readings had a real foothold in some Egyptian communities. Middle Egyptian and Akhmimic fragments likewise point to pockets of textual diversity. Collectively, these Coptic witnesses show that the Greek text in Egypt was not monolithic, but it was anchored by a strong Alexandrian core that matches the text recovered from early papyri and major codices.

The Coptic versions demonstrate that the Alexandrian text did not arise as a late scholarly revision, but was already widely used among ordinary believers. The convergence of Sahidic and Bohairic with P75 and Vaticanus testifies that the core Alexandrian text lies very close to the original, and the Coptic versions preserve that text in a vernacular dress that can still be traced back to its Greek source.

The Gothic Version

The Gothic version introduces an entirely different linguistic and missionary context. Gothic is an East Germanic language spoken by the Goths, who, during the fourth century, came into significant contact with the Roman Empire. Christian missionaries, some influenced by Arian theology, evangelized the Goths and saw the need for Scripture in their own tongue.

According to strong early tradition, Ulfilas (or Wulfila), a Gothic bishop active in the mid-fourth century, created a Gothic alphabet and translated much of the Bible into Gothic. While not every detail of this tradition can be verified in full, the extant Gothic manuscripts reflect a translation project of considerable scope and care. Portions of all four Gospels survive, along with parts of Paul’s letters.

The Gothic translation is notably literal. Ulfilas and his associates often rendered Greek words with consistent Gothic equivalents and maintained Greek word order more than many later vernacular translations would. This literal approach supports relatively secure retroversion into Greek. For example, if a Gothic verse shows a word order that matches one Greek reading and conflicts with another, the Gothic evidence helps decide between the Greek options.

Textually, the Gothic New Testament reflects a form of the text that stands closer to the early Byzantine tradition, though it is not identical with the later Majority Text. In many places it agrees with the text of fourth- and fifth-century Byzantine Greek manuscripts and with the text that later influenced the Greek Received Text. In other places, however, Gothic agrees with Alexandrian or other non-Byzantine witnesses, suggesting that the Greek exemplars available on the empire’s northern frontier preserved a mix of readings.

Because the surviving Gothic manuscripts are later copies of Ulfilas’ original work, some level of revision or assimilation may have taken place. Even so, the Gothic version demonstrates that by the fourth century a Greek text very similar to what would become the Byzantine tradition was already in use among mission churches outside the empire’s linguistic centers. This confirms that the Byzantine form did not arise suddenly in the medieval period, but that its core had taken shape much earlier, even if it underwent further smoothing and harmonization in later centuries.

The Armenian Version

Armenia’s conversion to Christianity early in the fourth century led naturally to the desire for Scripture in the Armenian language. A crucial step was the creation of the Armenian alphabet, traditionally associated with Mesrop Mashtots around 405 C.E. Once a distinct alphabet and literary language were in place, church leaders undertook the translation of the Bible.

The Armenian New Testament has a complex history. The earliest phase of translation was probably made from Syriac exemplars, since Armenia had close ecclesiastical ties with Syriac-speaking regions. Some evidence of this survives in a limited number of readings and stylistic features. However, very soon after this initial stage, Armenian church leaders supervised a thorough revision based on Greek. The goal was to align the Armenian Bible more closely with the Greek text used in the broader church.

Textually, the Armenian New Testament exhibits a mixed character. In the Gospels, many Armenian manuscripts reflect a text that is broadly Byzantine. They share many readings with the Byzantine Greek tradition and with later Greek minuscules. At the same time, certain Armenian Gospel manuscripts, and specific readings within them, align with what has been called the Caesarean text-type, a group of witnesses that share features of both Alexandrian and Western texts, especially in the Gospels. In Acts and the Epistles, Armenian sometimes supports Alexandrian readings against Byzantine expansions, particularly in passages where the Alexandrian text is more concise or rugged.

The translation style of Armenian is moderately literal. Translators often followed Greek word order and strove for lexical consistency, yet they also adapted idioms and sentence structures to Armenian norms. This balance means that retroversion into Greek for major variants is normally secure. For more subtle variants that depend on word order or particles, caution is required, but the version remains highly useful.

From a documentary standpoint, Armenian evidence is especially important when it converges with early Greek witnesses that are geographically distant. For example, when Armenian supports a reading also found in Vaticanus or in an early papyrus, against a broadly attested Byzantine alternative, that agreement carries considerable weight. It indicates that such a reading was carried not only in Greek manuscripts but also into the Armenian-speaking world during the early centuries of Christian Armenia.

The Georgian Version

The Georgian churches of the Caucasus region also pursued Scripture translation early in their Christian history. Christianity reached Iberia (eastern Georgia) in the fourth century, and over time a distinctive Georgian script and literary culture developed. As in Armenia, the formation of a written language and the translation of Scripture were closely linked.

The Georgian New Testament appears to have gone through several stages. Early translations seem to have been influenced by Armenian and possibly Syriac models, which the translators used alongside Greek. Later, there was a conscious effort to revise the Georgian text more directly on the basis of Greek manuscripts. As a result, different Georgian manuscripts reflect different stages of this process, and the textual critic must distinguish older from younger layers.

In the Gospels, early Georgian witnesses often show affinities with the so-called Caesarean text. They share distinctive readings with a circle of Greek manuscripts associated with Caesarea and with certain Armenian witnesses that also carry Caesarean features. These readings sometimes stand between the pure Alexandrian and the full Byzantine forms, preserving an intermediate text that reflects a different line of descent. In Acts and the Epistles, Georgian sometimes follows a more Alexandrian pattern, while in later revisions the text moves toward a clearer Byzantine profile.

The translation technique in Georgian is more idiomatic than that of Syriac Harklean or Coptic Sahidic, yet it still respects the Greek base. Narratives in particular read smoothly as Georgian, with natural word order and vocabulary. For textual criticism, this idiomatic character means that major variants are often clearly reflected, but the exact shape of more subtle Greek features is not always recoverable.

Even so, Georgian plays an important corroborative role. When Georgian preserves a distinctive reading that also appears in Armenian and in a certain group of Greek manuscripts, this threefold alignment shows that the reading had a real historical existence and was not a late scribal innovation in a single language. Conversely, when Georgian joins the Byzantine tradition against an isolated reading in one or two Greek manuscripts, the weight of evidence favors the Byzantine form. In either case, Georgian helps to map the spread of textual forms into the Caucasus and indicates which Greek readings were accepted in that region by the early medieval period.

The Ethiopic Version

The Ethiopic (Ge’ez) version of the New Testament reflects the spread of Christianity to the kingdom of Aksum and surrounding regions in the Horn of Africa. Ge’ez is a Semitic language, written with its own distinctive script. Christian influence in Aksum dates to the fourth century, and by the fifth or sixth century significant portions of the Bible had been translated into Ge’ez.

The transmission history of the Ethiopic New Testament is complex. The earliest translations probably drew on Greek, possibly through intermediary languages such as Syriac or Coptic in some books. Over time, the text underwent local revision and expansion, and later manuscripts often differ among themselves. The majority of extant Ethiopic manuscripts are medieval or later, but the underlying version goes back much earlier.

Textually, the Ethiopic New Testament displays a strongly mixed character. Some books show clear affinities with the Alexandrian text-type. In such passages, Ethiopic aligns with early Egyptian Greek witnesses and with Sahidic Coptic, especially where the Alexandrian text is shorter or more difficult. Other portions of the Ethiopic New Testament reflect a Byzantine influence, especially where later revisions harmonized the text with readings widely used in other churches. In still other places, Ethiopic agrees with Western readings or preserves distinctive forms not easily classified.

The translation style of the Ethiopic version is more idiomatic and expansive than that of the hyper-literal versions. Translators often rendered the sense rather than the precise form of the Greek, choosing Ge’ez expressions that conveyed the meaning to local hearers. Narrative expansions and stylistic elaborations appear in some sections, making it harder to reconstruct a precise Greek Vorlage for every verse.

Because of these features, Ethiopic evidence is most valuable when it supports readings already found in early Alexandrian or other strong Greek witnesses. In such cases, Ethiopic demonstrates that these readings had spread as far as Ethiopia by the early medieval period. It shows that the same core text known in Greek and Coptic circles was also accepted in African churches outside Egypt. On the other hand, distinctive Ethiopic expansions or paraphrastic renderings, especially where unsupported by Greek manuscripts, must be treated as later developments within that version’s transmission.

Even in its more secondary aspects, the Ethiopic version remains an important witness to the reception of the New Testament text in yet another linguistic and cultural setting. It displays both the stability of the core text and the variety of local adaptations that arose as Scripture was translated into new languages.

The Arabic Versions

Arabic versions of the New Testament emerged when Christian communities in the Near East, North Africa, and parts of the Mediterranean shifted to Arabic as their primary spoken language. After Arabic became dominant in public life, Christians who had long used Greek, Coptic, or Syriac required Scripture in Arabic for preaching and catechesis.

The Arabic New Testament is not a single unitary version. Rather, several translation streams developed. Some Arabic New Testaments were translated directly from Greek, especially in regions where Greek churches continued to function. Others were translated from the Syriac Peshitta, from the Coptic versions, or from the Latin Vulgate. In some cases, translators combined more than one source, using Syriac for the Epistles and Coptic for the Gospels, for example.

As a result, the textual character of Arabic New Testament manuscripts varies considerably. Where the underlying source is Byzantine Greek, the Arabic text typically reflects the Byzantine tradition. Where the source is Peshitta Syriac, the Arabic aligns with the Peshitta’s blend of Byzantine and non-Byzantine readings. Where Coptic serves as a base, Arabic inherits the Alexandrian tendencies of the Coptic text, particularly in Sahidic-influenced traditions.

Translation style in Arabic ranges from quite literal to markedly paraphrastic. Some translators tried to mirror the earlier language closely, reproducing word order and vocabulary, while others focused on clarity and theological explanation for Arabic-speaking congregations. Because most Arabic versions are relatively late and because of the layered nature of their sources, their direct value for reconstructing the earliest form of the Greek text is more limited than that of Syriac or Coptic.

Nevertheless, Arabic versions remain important for at least two reasons. First, they map the later reception of the New Testament in the Arabic-speaking world, showing which Greek or Syriac readings were accepted and disseminated after the rise of Islam. Second, when an Arabic manuscript can be tied clearly to a particular Greek or Syriac exemplar that no longer survives, it can indirectly extend the textual evidence for that exemplar. For example, if an Arabic translation demonstrably depends on a specific form of the Harklean Syriac text, it may preserve details of that form in places where surviving Harklean manuscripts are damaged or scarce.

In short, Arabic versions primarily illuminate the later stages of the text’s transmission and the adaptation of Scripture to an Arabic-speaking Christian environment. They belong more to the history of interpretation and reception, but they occasionally provide meaningful support for earlier versions and Greek witnesses.

The Sogdian Version

The Sogdian version represents the expansion of the New Testament text into Central Asia. Sogdian was an Eastern Iranian language spoken along key trade routes of the Silk Road. Christian communities, often associated with the Church of the East, established themselves in Sogdian-speaking regions. These believers required Scripture in their own language, and so portions of the New Testament were translated into Sogdian.

The surviving Sogdian New Testament is fragmentary. Manuscripts discovered in Central Asia preserve portions of the Gospels and some other books, often in a damaged state. Despite this, these fragments give valuable insight into how Scripture functioned on the eastern fringes of the Christian world.

Textually, the Sogdian New Testament was translated from Syriac. The Peshitta stands behind much of the text, and in some instances other Syriac recensions may also have influenced the translation. This dependence on Syriac means that Sogdian is at least two steps removed from the Greek originals. The Greek text shaped the Syriac, and the Syriac text then shaped the Sogdian. The translation style tends to be reasonably literal with respect to Syriac, maintaining the structure of Syriac clauses and preserving key terms.

From a textual-critical perspective, the Sogdian version has a derivative but still useful role. When Sogdian agrees with the Peshitta against other Syriac witnesses, it confirms that the Peshitta reading had been carried along the Silk Road and embraced by Central Asian Christians. When Sogdian appears to preserve a reading that diverges from the Peshitta, one must ask whether that reading reflects a different Syriac Vorlage or a translational adjustment into Sogdian. In either case, Sogdian evidence remains subordinate to the Syriac and Greek manuscripts themselves, yet it enriches our view of the geographical reach of certain readings.

Most importantly, the Sogdian fragments demonstrate that by the early medieval period the New Testament text had reached far beyond the Mediterranean world, translated for traders and settlers in distant lands. The same basic text, transmitted in Syriac and then rendered into Sogdian, accompanied believers who lived thousands of kilometers from the regions where the New Testament was first penned.

The Old Church Slavonic Version

The Old Church Slavonic version stands at the beginning of Slavic Christian literature. In the ninth century, Byzantine missionaries Cyril and Methodius undertook work among Slavic peoples in Central Europe. They created a script suitable for writing the Slavic language and produced translations of the Scriptures and liturgical texts. This work laid the foundation for later Slavic Christian cultures, including those using the Cyrillic script.

The Old Church Slavonic New Testament was translated from Greek. Cyril and Methodius and their associates worked from the Greek text that circulated in the Byzantine Empire of their time. By the ninth century, this Greek text was thoroughly Byzantine in character, though not yet in the fully standardized medieval form that appears in late minuscules.

Textually, Old Church Slavonic gives powerful testimony to the dominance of the Byzantine text in the Greek-speaking church by that stage. In the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, the Slavonic version aligns closely with the Byzantine readings later found in the Majority Text and in the Greek text underlying many traditional printed editions. The presence of such a text in the early Slavic missions shows that the Byzantine form was already the standard ecclesiastical text for missionary work sent out from Constantinople.

The translation style in Old Church Slavonic is relatively literal. Greek syntactic structures and vocabulary often shine through the Slavic rendering. The translators intended their work to be used in liturgical reading and doctrinal teaching, so they preserved theological terminology with care. Because of this literalism, retroversion from Old Church Slavonic back into Greek is usually straightforward for major variants.

For textual criticism, the primary importance of Old Church Slavonic lies in confirming the stability and wide diffusion of the Byzantine text in the later first millennium. When Old Church Slavonic supports a Byzantine reading that is also well attested in Greek minuscules, this alignment confirms that the reading was not a late local innovation but a broadly accepted form across Greek and Slavic churches. When Old Church Slavonic diverges from the Byzantine Greek tradition in isolated instances, those divergences invite closer examination of both the Greek and the Slavic transmission histories.

The Slavonic tradition thus illustrates how a particular form of the Greek text gained liturgical dominance and was carried into new linguistic fields as the Gospel reached the Slavs. It shows that the Byzantine text, while later than the Alexandrian, was nevertheless deeply rooted and consistent over large areas of the Christian world.

The Nubian Version

The Nubian version reflects the spread of Christianity into the Nile Valley south of Egypt, in the region of modern northern Sudan and southern Egypt. From about the sixth century onward, Christian kingdoms in Nubia received strong influence from both the Coptic church of Egypt and the Byzantine world. In this context, Scripture came to be translated into local Nubian languages written in a script derived largely from Greek, with additional characters from Coptic and other sources.

Our knowledge of the Nubian New Testament comes from scattered Old Nubian manuscripts and fragments discovered in archaeological excavations. These manuscripts contain portions of the Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and possibly other books, but the evidence is far from complete. Even so, they demonstrate that Nubian Christians had access to the New Testament in their own tongue and used it in worship and teaching.

Textually, the Nubian New Testament depends on Greek exemplars and, in some cases, on Coptic intermediaries. Because Nubian Christianity stood in close contact with the Coptic church, it is not surprising that its New Testament reflects a strongly Byzantine text, similar to the text used in Egypt during the medieval period. The readings in Nubian fragments generally align with the Byzantine tradition in the Gospels and Epistles.

The translation style is moderately literal but adjusted to Old Nubian grammar and idiom. Translators preserved key terms and doctrinal vocabulary but expressed them in ways that fit Nubian sentence structure. As with Ethiopic, retroversion into Greek is more secure for major variants than for minor ones.

In terms of textual criticism, Nubian evidence occupies a supporting role. It does not reach back close to the time of the autographs, nor does it typically preserve readings independent of the Byzantine stream. However, it is an important witness to the later geographic spread and stability of the New Testament text, showing that the same basic Byzantine form found in Greek and Coptic manuscripts was also translated and used in Nubian churches. The Nubian version confirms that the Greek New Testament had become a stable, widely recognized text across diverse African cultures, long before the advent of modern printing.

The Nubian fragments also remind textual critics that the New Testament was not the property of one linguistic group. Greek, Coptic, Nubian, and other languages all shared in transmitting the same message. Although the Nubian data do not usually decide between rival readings, they contribute to the overall picture of a New Testament text that remained remarkably consistent as it crossed linguistic and cultural boundaries.

Comparative Value of the Early Versions

When viewed together, the earliest translated versions of the Greek New Testament offer a rich, multi-layered picture of the text’s history. Syriac, Latin, and Coptic give direct windows into the first few centuries after the autographs, each reflecting a different geographical context: the Syriac-speaking East, the Latin West, and Greek-speaking Egypt with its Egyptian vernaculars. Gothic, Armenian, and Georgian show how the text functioned on the northern and eastern frontiers of the Christian world, while Ethiopic, Arabic, Sogdian, Old Church Slavonic, and Nubian trace its expansion into Africa, Central Asia, the Slavic lands, and the Nile south of Egypt.

Some versions, such as the Sahidic Coptic and the Old Latin, often align with the Alexandrian text-type and help confirm that the Alexandrian form reflects the original wording. Others, such as the Peshitta and the Gothic, reveal how the text crystallized into more standardized forms without losing its essential content. Still others, such as Sogdian and Nubian, primarily illustrate the geographical reach and ecclesiastical stability of the text by the early medieval period.

From the perspective of the documentary method, the versions never displace the primary Greek witnesses, especially the early papyri and the great Alexandrian codices. Instead, they stand alongside them as additional lines of documentary evidence. Where strong Greek evidence exists, versions tend to confirm it. Where Greek evidence is sparse or divided, versions sometimes tip the scales by showing which readings gained real traction beyond the Greek-speaking churches.

Taken as a whole, the earliest translations of the Greek New Testament demonstrate that the text Jehovah inspired through the apostles was not lost, nor radically corrupted, nor re-created in later centuries. Rather, it was faithfully copied, translated, and transmitted across languages and continents. The versions reveal some secondary accretions, expansions, and harmonizations, especially in Western and later Byzantine traditions, but these are identifiable precisely because the documentary evidence is so abundant and diverse. Through careful, disciplined textual criticism that prioritizes the best Greek evidence and uses the versions in a responsible way, the modern reader gains access to a Greek New Testament that stands in overwhelmingly close agreement with the original writings.

g

You May Also Enjoy

The Impact of Scribal Training on Textual Accuracy

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS