Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.