(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

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 fatherwas 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 witnesseswhich "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 Matthewwas 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 onesided 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.

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.