(Metzger & Ehrman, “The Text of the new Testament its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration”)

Materials of Ancient books

1. Papyrus

2. Parchment: leather used for writing

3. Ink Making:

a. For papyrus: carbon based mixture of charcoal or lampblack and water with some

ground-up gum Arabic was used.

b. For Parchment: oak galls (tumors, size of a small marble) and ferrous sulfate (copperas)

Forms of Ancient books

Scrolls made of papyrus or parchment. Normally Greek literary rolls seldom exceeded 35 feet in length

because of convenience sake. The two longest books, the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts are in two

volumes. Ophistograph: when the scroll was written on both side.

From 2nd Century, CODEX (leaf form of book) came to be used in the church. Codex was made by folding

one or more sheets of papyrus in the middle and sewing them together.

Advantages of Codex over the scrolls:

1. Possibility of bounding all the gospels or all the epistles in one book,

2. It facilitates the consultation of proof text

3. Could be better written on both sides limiting the cost.

Greek was written in

1. Script: the book-hand (conservative or literary works) and cursive (for non-literary, everyday

documents)

2. two hands: Majuscule (comprise capital letters and early cursive) and Minuscule (with long

ascenders and descenders)

IMPORTANT TERMS

Palimpsest: meaning rescraped from ( and ). Used during economic depression when the

cost of vellum increased, older manuscripts would be used over again. One of the half-dozen or so most

important manuscript of the New Testament is such, it is called Codex Ephraemi rescriptus (5th century).

Scripto Continua: Greek writings without leaving spaces in between words or sentences (till 8th c vowels

were used only sporadically1).

Eg: GODISNOWHERE could be read by Christians as “God is now here” and by atheist as “God is no

where”)

Nomina Sacra (Nomen Sacrum): System of contraction for certain “sacred” words, by writing only the

first letter (for ) or the first two letters with the last letter ( for )or the first letter with

1 “happening only occasionally or at intervals that are not regular” (Oxford Dictionary)

the last two letter ( for ) or the first and the last letters were written ( for ).

Horizontal line will be written when Nomen Sacrum occurs.

The first scholar to make any use of all three classes of evidence for the text of the New Testament—

that is, Greek manuscripts, the early versions, and quotations from the father—was probably Francis

Lucas of Bruges (Brugensis) in his Nationes in sacra Biblia, quibus variantia . . . discutiuntur (Antwerp,

1580).

Two main process of classical Greek and Latin textual criticism that arose during and after the

Renaissance:

1. Recension is the selection, after examination of all available material, of the most trustworthy

evidence on which to ba.se a text. and emendation.

2. Emendation is the attempt to eliminate the errors that are found even in the best manuscripts.

Paleography : The science of classifying the manuscripts according to their age in the light of their

handwriting and other indications.

Stemma of manuscripts: The basic principle that underlies the process of constructing a stemma, or

family tree, of manuscripts is that, apart from accident, identity of reading implies identity of origin.

ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM

The Majority Text:

The end of the twentieth century saw a resurgence of interest in the Byzantine text type among those

who believe that the original text is best preserved in the vast majority of witnesses produced in the

Middle Ages. This preference for the "majority text" can be found among a small but vocal group of

critics.

Textus Receptus:

It insist that it is always most probable that the majority of witnesses—which "reflect a high degree of

textual uniformity"—will preserve the original form of the text.

Rational criticism: The use of the adjective rational in this connection is not intended to suggest that all

other methods of criticism are irrational, but that the critic is concerned primarily with finding plausible

reasons based on internal considerations to justify in each case the choice of one reading as original and

the others as secondary. More often, the method has been called "eclecticism."

In recent times, the method has been more frequently called "thoroughgoing eclecticism," to

differentiate it from the most common method of textual criticism ("reasoned eclecticism"), which

chooses the best reading by giving weight to both external and internal evidence.

Stylistic criteria by Kilpatrick: Of two or more variant readings, usually preferred that which accords

with what is deemed to be the author's style, irrespective of the date and nature of the external

evidence supporting the reading. In matters on which no firm decision can be made concerning the

author's style, he often appealed to the criterion of Atticism, which became one of the dominant

tendencies in literary circles during the second Christian century.

CONJECTURAL EMENDATION

The classical method of textual criticism regularly involves the exercise of conjectural emendation. If the

only reading, or each of several variant readings, that the documents supply is impossible or

incomprehensible, the editor's only remaining resource is to conjecture what the original reading must

have been. A typical emendation involves the removal of an anomaly. This aspect of criticism has at

times been carried to absurd extremes.

Two primary tests that are customarily applied in evaluating variant readings in manuscripts: (1) it must

be intrinsically suitable and (2) it must account for the corrupt reading or readings in the transmitted

text. The only criterion of a successful conjecture is that it shall approve itself as inevitable. Lacking

inevitability, it remains doubtful.

THE CAUSES OF ERROR IN THE TRANSMISSION OF THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

1. UNINTENTIONAL CHANGES

a. Errors Arising from Faulty Eyesight: The scribe who was afflicted with astigmatism found

it difficult to distinguish between Greek letters that resemble one another, particularly

when the previous copyist had not written with care.

i. For example, in Acts 20.35, three minuscule manuscripts (6l4, l6ll , and 2138)

read kopiwnta edei instead of kopiwnta dei, an error that goes back to a

majuscule ancestor written in scriptio continua.

ii. When two lines in the exemplar being copied happened to end with the same

word or words, or even sometimes with the same syllable, the scribe's eye

might wander from the first to the second, accidentally omitting the whole

passage lying between them.

After copying the first line, the scribe's eye returned, not to the beginning of line

2, but to the beginning of line 4. Such an error is called parablepsis (a looking by

the side)*' and is facilitated by homoeoteleuton (a .similar ending of lines).

Many other examples of omission, called haplography, occur in a wide variety

of manuscripts. Sometimes the eye of the scribe picked up the same word or

group of words a second time and, as a result, copied twice what should have

appeared only once (this kind of error is called dittography).

b. Errors Arising from Faulty Hearing: During the early centuries of the Christian era,

certain vowels and diphthongs of the Greek language lost their distinctive sounds and

came to be pronounced alike, as they are today in modern Greek.

i. The confusion between w and o was common, accounting for such variants as

ecwmen and ecomen in Rom. 5.1 and wde and ode in Luke 16.25.

ii. The diphthong ai and the vowel e came to be pronounced. As a result, the

second-person plural ending -sqe sounded the same as the ending of the middle

and passive infinitive –sqai. iii. In addition to confusion of vowels that sounded alike, certain consonants are

occasionally interchanged, as in Matt. 2.6 ek sou ("from you") becomes ex ou

("from whom") in ac (see also Matt. 21.19 and Mark 11.14).

iv. Confusion of the forms of verbs spelled with a single or double consonant are

included: e.g. , the present and the second aorist stems emellen and emelen in

John 12.6.

c. Errors of the Mind: The category of errors of the mind includes those variations that

seem to have arisen while the copyist was attempting to hold a clause or a sequence of

letters in a somewhat treacherous memory between glancing at the manuscript being

copied and writing down what had been .seen there. In this way, one must account for

the origin of a multitude of changes involving substitution of synonyms, variation in

word order, and transposition of letters.

i. Substitution of synonyms may be illustrated by the following examples: eipen for

efh, ek for apo and the reverse.

ii. Variation in the sequence of words is a common phenomenon: pantej kai ebaptizonto in Mark 1.5 also appear in the order kai ebaptizonto pantej as

well as kai pantej ebaptizonto.

iii. Transposition of letters within a word sometimes results in the formation of a

different word, as elabon in Mark 14.65 becomes ebalon in some manuscripts.

iv. Assimilation of the wording of one passage to the slightly different wording in a

parallel passage.

d. Errors of Judgment: This category might also be classified under the category of

deliberate changes introduced for doctrinal reasons, but it is possible to regard them as

unintentional errors committed by well-meaning but sometimes stupid or sleepy

scribes.

i. Words and notes standing in the margin of the older copy were occasionally

incorporated into the text of the new manuscript. Eg: It is probable that what

was originally a marginal comment explaining the moving of the water in the

pool at Bethesda (John 5.7) was incorporated into the text of John 5.3b-4 (see

the King James Version for the addition).

2. INTENTIONAL CHANGES : Scribes who thought were more dangerous than those who wished

merely to be faithful in copying what lay before them. Many of the alterations that may be

classified as intentional were no doubt introduced in good faith by copyists who believed that

they were correcting an error or infelicity of language that had previously crept into the sacred

text and needed to be rectified. It is apparent from even a casual examination of a critical

apparatus that scribes, offended by real or imagined errors of spelling, grammar, and historical

fact, deliberately introduced changes into what they were transcribing.

a. Changes Involving Spelling and Grammar: The Book of Revelation, with its frequent

Semitisms and solecisms, afforded many temptations to style-conscious scribes.

b. Harmonistic Corruptions: Some harmonistic alterations originated unintentionally while

others were made quite deliberately.

i. Since monks usually knew by heart extensive portions of the Scriptures (see p.

127), the temptation to harmonize discordant parallels or quotations would be

strong in proportion to the degree of the copyist's familiarity with other parts of

the Bible. The words that belong in John 19.20, "It was written in Hebrew, in

Ladn, and in Greek," have been introduced into the text of many manuscripts at

Luke 23.38.

ii. Frequently, Old Testament quotations are enlarged from the Old Testament

context or made to conform more closely to the Septuagint wording. For

example, the clause in the King James 'Version at Matt. 15.8, "[This people]

draweth nigh unto me with their mouth"— a clause that is not found in the

earlier manuscripts of Matthew—was introduced into later manuscripts by

conscientious scribes who compared the quotation with the fuller form in the

Septuagint of Isa. 29.13.

c. Addition of Natural Complements and Similar Adjuncts: The work of copyists in the

amplifying and rounding off of phrases is apparent in many passages.

i. Not a few scribes supposed that something is lacking in the statement in Matt.

9.13 "For I came not to call the righteous, but .sinners" and added the words

"unto repentance" (from Luke 5.32). So, too, many a copyist found it hard to let

"the chief priests" pass without adding "the scribes" (e.g. Matt. 26.3) or

"scribes" without "Pharisees" (e.g.. Matt. 27.41) or to copy out the phrase "Your

Father who sees in secret will reward you" (Matt. 6.4, 6) without adding

"openly."

ii. A good example of a growing text is found in Gal. 6.17, where the earliest form

of the text is that preserved in p46, B, A, C*, and f: “I bear on my body the marks

of Jesus." Pious scribes could not resist the temptation to embroider the simple

and unadorned Ihsou with various additions, producing kuriou Ihsou, as in C3,

D3, E, K, L, and many other witnesses.

d. Clearing Up Historical and Geographical Difficulties: The author of the Epistle to the

Hebrews places the golden altar of incense in the Holy of Holies (Heb. 9.4), which is

contrary to the Old Testament description of the Tabernacle (Exod. 30.1-6). The scribes

of Codex Vaticanus and of manuscripts of the Sahidic version correct the account by

transferring the words to 9.2, where the furniture of the Holy Place is itemized.

e. Conflation of Readings: What would a conscientious scribe do if the same passage was

given differently in two or more manuscripts that were available? Rather than make a

choice between them and copy only one of the two variant readings (with the attendant

possibility of omitting the genuine reading), many scribes incorporated both readings in

the new copy that they were transcribing. This produced what is called a conflation of

readings and is characteristic of the later, Byzantine type of text.

i. In some early manuscripts, the Gospel according to Luke closes with the

statement that the disciples "were continually in the temple blessing God,"

while others read "were continually in the temple praising God." Rather than

discriminate between the two, later .scribes decided that it was safest to put

the two together, so they invented the reading "were continually in the temple

praising and blessing God."

ii. Occasionally, conflate readings appear even in early manuscripts. For example.

Codex Vaticanus is alone in reading kalesanti kai ikanwsanti at Col. 1.12,

whereas all the other manuscripts have one or the other participle.

f. Alterations Made Because of Doctrinal Considerations: The manuscripts of the New

Testament preserve traces of two kinds of dogmatic alteration: those that involve the

elimination or alteration of what was regarded as doctrinally unacceptable or

inconvenient and those that introduce into the Scriptures "proof for a favorite

theological tenet or practice.

An interesting variant reading, reflecting a certain delicate perception of what

was deemed to be a more fitting expression, is found in one manuscript of the

Palestinian Syriac lectionary at Matt. 12.36; instead of the generally received logion of

Jesus, "I tell you, on the day of judgment you will have to give an account for every

careless word you utter," the scribe of Codex c wrote "people will render account for

every good word they do not utter."

g. Addition of Miscellaneous Details: eg- The threefold sanctus, agioj, agioj, agioj, sung

by the four living creatures before the throne of God (Rev. 4.8), is expanded in various

manuscripts; according to Hoskier's collations, one or more manuscripts have agioj four

times, six times, seven times, eight times (t**), nine times (B and 80 other manuscripts),

and even 13 times (MS. 2000).

THE PRACTICE OF NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM

Basic Criteria for the Evaluation of Variant Readings

Perhaps the most basic criterion for the evaluation of variant readings is the simple maxim

"choose the reading that best explains the origin of the others."

Another criterion that we instinctively recognize to be basic is that the reconstruction of the

history of a variant reading is prerequisite to forming a judgment about it.

The two criteria mentioned are capable of very wide application and include by implication a

great many other subsidiary criteria. It is usual to classify these criteria in terms of (1) external

evidence and (2) internal evidence.

1. External evidence, involving considerations bearing upon:

a. The date of the witness. (Of even greater importance than the age of the document

itself is the date of the type of text that it embodies. The evidence of some minuscule

manuscripts [e.g., 33, 81, and 17391 is of greater value than that of .some of the

later or secondary majuscules.)

b. The geographical distribution of the witnesses that agree in supporting a variant.

(One must be certain, however, that geographically remote witnesses are really

independent of one another. Agreements, for example, between Old Latin and Old

Syriac witnesses may be due to influence from Tatian's Diatessaron.)

c. The genealogical relationship of texts and families of witnesses. (Witnesses are to be

weighed rather than counted. Furthermore, since the relative weight of the several

kinds of evidence differs for different kinds of variant, there can be no merely

mechanical evaluation of the evidence.)

2. Internal evidence, involving two kinds of probability:

a. Transcriptional probabilities depend on considerations of paleographical details and

the habits of scribes. Thus:

i. In general , the more difficult reading is to be preferred, particularly when the

sense, on the surface, appears to be erroneous but, on more mature consideration,

proves to be correct. (Here, "more difficult" means "more difficult to the scribe,"

who would be tempted to make an emendation. The characteristic of most scribal

emendations is their superficiality, often combining "the appearance of

improvement with the absence of its reality." Obviously, the category "more difficult

reading" is relative, and a point is sometimes reached when a reading must be

judged to be so difficult that k can have arisen only by accident in transcription.)

ii. In general, the shorter reading is to be preferred, except where parablepsis arising

from homoeoteleuton may have occurred or where the scribe may have omitted

material that he deemed to be superfluous, harsh, or contrary to pious belief,

liturgical usage, or ascetical practice.

iii. Since scribes would frequently bring divergent passages into harmony with one

another, in parallel passages (whether involving quotations from the Old Testament

or different accounts of the same event or narrative) that reading is to be preferred

which stands in verbal dissidence with the other.

iv. Scribes would sometimes replace an unfamiliar word with a more familiar

synonym, alter a less refined grammatical form or less elegant lexical expression in

accordance with Atticizing preferences, or add pronouns , conjunctions, and

expletives to make a smooth text.

b. Intrinsic probabilities depend on considerations of what the author was more likely to

have written, taking into account :

i. The style, vocabulary, and theology of the author throughout the book,

ii. the immediate context ,

iii. harmony with the usage of the author elsewhere,

iv. the Aramaic background of the teaching of Jesus,

v. the priority of the Gospel according to Mark, and

vi. the influence of the Christian community upon the formulation and transmission of

the passage in question.

Since textual criticism is an art as well as a science, it is understandable that in some cases

different scholars will come to different evaluations of the significance of the evidence. One of

the perennial dangers that confront scholars in every discipline is the tendency to become one-

sided and to oversimplify the analysis and resolution of quite disparate questions.

THE PROCESS OF EVALUATING VARIANT READINGS

The fundamental principles and criteria can be set forth and certain processes described, but

the appropriate application of these in individual cases rests upon the student's own sagacity

and insight.

1. External Evidence: Readings that are early and supported by witnesses from a wide

geographical area have a certain initial presumption in their favor. To facilitate the

process of ascertaining which types of text support the several variant readings, the

student should become thoroughly familiar with the witnesses.

a. Koine or Byzantine Witnesses

i. Gospels: A, E, F, G, H, K, P, S, V, W (in Matthew and Luke 8.13-24.53),

P, Y (in Luke and John) , W, and most minuscules.

ii. Acts: Ha, Lap, Pp, 049, and most minuscules.

iii. Epistles: Lap, 049, and most minuscules.

iv. Revelation: 046, 051, 052, and many minuscules.

v. Pre-Koine Types of Text

The forms of text that antedate the Koine or Byzantine text include the

Western group, the so-called Caesarean, and the Alexandrian (Hort's

"Neutral").

b. THE WESTERN GROUP OF TEXTS: A type of text of the Greek New Testament

marked by a distinctive cluster of variant readings was named the "Western" text

because the chief witnesses to it were thought to be of Western provenance, that

is, some Greco-Latin manuscripts (e.g. . Codex Bezae), the Old Latin, and

quotations in the Latin fathers. It is more as a proper name than as a

geographical term because some of its variant readings appear also in Eastern

versions, such as the Sinaitic Old Syriac and the Coptic. Most scholars date the

emergence of the Western text to the mid-second century or shortly thereafter.

The most important witnesses of the Westen text are Codex Bezae and

the Old Latin manuscripts, all of which are characterized by longer or shorter

addkions and by certain striking omissions. So-called Western texts of the

Gospels, Acts, and Pauline Episdes circulated widely not only in North Africa,

Italy, and Gaul (which are geographically western) but also in Egypt and (in

somewhat different text forms) the East.

Western Witnesses:

Gospels: (in John 1.1-8.38), D, W (in Mark 1.1-5.30), 0171, the Old Latin, Syrs

Syrc (in part), early Greek and Ladn fathers, Tadan's Diates.saron.

Acts: P29, P38, P48, D, 383, 614, Syrh mg, early Greek and Latin fathers, and the

Commentary of Ephraem (preserved in Armenian).

Pauline Epistles: the Greek-Latin bilinguals Dp, Ep, Fp, and Gp ; Greek fathers to

the end of the third century; Old Latin and early Latin fathers; and Syrian fathers

to about A.D. 450.

THE CAESAREAN TEXT AND ITS WITNESSES

The special character of the Caesarean text is its distinctive mixture of Western

and Alexandrian readings.

c. Alexandrian Witnesses: It is widely agreed that the Alexandrian text was

prepared by skillful editors, trained in the scholarly traditions of Alexandria. Most

of the scholars are still inclined to regard the Alexandrian text as on the whole the

best ancient recension and the one most nearly approximating the original.

Primary Alexandrian: P45 (in Acts), P46, P66, P75, a (except for John 1.1-8.38), B,

Sah (in part), Clem, Orig, and most of the papyrus fragments with Pauline text.

Secondary Alexandrian: (C), L, T, W (in Luke 1.1-8.12 and John) , (X), Z, D (in

Mark), X, Y (in Mark, partially in Luke and John) , 33, 579, 892, 1241, Boh,

Didymus the Blind, and Athanasius

Acts: P50, A, (C), Y, 33, 81, 104, and 326.

Pauline Epistles: A, (C), Hp, I, Y, 33, 81, 104, 326, and 1739.

Catholic Epistles: P20, P23, A, (C), Y, 33, 81, 104, 326, and 1739.

Revelation: A, (C), 1006, l6ll , 1854, 2053, 2344, and (less good) P47and a.

After having ascertained the text types represented by the evidence supporting each of the

variant readings under examination, the student should draw a tentative conclusion as to the

preferred reading on the basis of considerations bearing on the age of the manuscripts, the

geographical spread of the witnesses that join in support of a given reading, and the textual type

to which k belongs.

2. Internal Evidence: The next step in the process of evaluating variant readings is to

appeal to internal evidence, beginning with transcriptional probabilities.

a. The reading that puzzled the scribe is most likely to be correct. But there is a

point at which what is relatively difficult becomes absolutely difficult and,

therefore, impossible to be regarded as original.

b. The textual critic will need to have the fullest knowledge of the development of

Christian doctrine and cult, as well as all the heretical aberrations in the early

Church.

c. Acquaintance with paleographical features of majuscule and minuscule hands,

along with a knowledge of dialectical variations in Greek orthography and syntax,

will often suggest the correct evaluation of a variant reading.

d. When dealing with a passage in the Synoptic Gospels, it is necessary to examine

the evidence of parallel passages. The supreme rule for editors of the text is to

give each Gospel its own proper character, then harmonization follows.

e. In quotations from the Old Testament, the text and apparatus of the Septuagint

must be consulted.

f. Finally, the student may appeal to intrinsic2 probability. The student will observe

that generally the reading that is supported by a combination of Alexandrian and

Western witnesses is superior to any other reading. The possibility must always

be kept open that the original reading has been preserved alone in any one

group of manuscripts, even, in extremely rare instances, in the Koine or

Byzantine text.

g. It remains now to put into practice these principles.

2 belonging to or part of the real nature of sth/sb: Oxford.

THE TEXTUAL ANALYSIS OF SELECTED PASSAGES

The following are critical apparatus abbreviations in general use:

pc (pauci) = a few other manuscripts

al (alii) = other manuscripts

pm (permulti) — very many other manuscripts

pl (plerique) = most other manuscripts

rell (reliqui) = the remaining witnesses

vid (videtur) = as it seems, apparently

omn (omnes) = all manuscripts

codd (codices) = manuscripts of a version or Church father as distinguished from the

edition

ap (apud) = in the writings of, on the authority of (e.g.,

Papias ap Eusebius)

pt (partim) = divided evidence (e.g., Origpt signifies that Origen is inconsistent in his

quotations of the same passage)

2/4 = divided evidence (e.g., Orig 2/4 signifies that in two cases out of four quotations of

the same passage Origen supports a given reading)

Of all these variant readings, the one that has been placed first is to be preferred on the

basis of both external and internal considerations. Externally, it is supported by the

earliest and best Greek manuscripts; internally, the difficulty of the expression tou musthriou tou qeou Cristou has led to a mukitude of scribal interpretations. An obviously

popular expedient was insertion of the word patroj; this addition appears in seven of the

variant readings (those grouped under B). Insertion of the article before Cristou

(readings 10-15) is plainly in the interest of making the expression parallel with tou qeou The reading placed last in the list (k lies behind the rendering of the King James Version,

"the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ), though supported by the largest

number of witnesses, is also the weakest , for it is a conflation of the two types of

amelioration represented in readings 11 and 12.

If reading 9 were original, then the rise of all eight readings grouped under A is

inexplicable, for why should patroj have fallen out? On the contrary, patroj was inserted

in order to clarify the syntactical relation between qeou and Cristou (for reading 1 could

mean "the knowledge of the mystery of God Christ," "the knowledge of the mystery of

God's Christ," or "the knowledge of God's mystery, of Christ"). Besides the insertion of

patroj (readings 9-15), several other attempts were made to explain the relationship of

Cristou to qeou (readings 4-8) . The scribes responsible for readings 2 and 3 sought to

relieve the difficulty by the elimination of one or the other of the two genitives, and in

suppor t of 3 the scribe could point to Eph. 3.4 as a precedent (tw musthriw tou qeou Cristou). Reading 4 gives what must be the right sense, suggesting that in reading 1 the

word Cristou is explanatory of tou musthriou tou qeou. Perhaps in dictating the epistle the

author separated the word Cristou from the preceding phrase by a slight pause for

breath, which can be represented in modern printing by a comma. Thus, it is possible to

explain the origin of all the other readings on the assumption that reading 1 is original,

but this reading cannot be described as derivative of any of them. Since the external

support of reading 1 is the best, regarding both age and character, one must conclude

that tou qeou Cristou is the earliest attainable form of text preserved among the extant

witnesses.