An Introduction to
New Testament Textual Criticism

Adam scriveyn, if ever it thee bifalle
Boece or Troylus for to wryten newe,
Under thy long lokkes thou most have the scalle,
But after my makyng thow wryte more trewe;
So ofte adaye I mot thy werk renewe,
It to correcte and eke to rubbe and scrape,
And al is thorough thy negligence and rape.
          -- Chaucer

Contents: Introduction * Types of Manuscripts * Printed Versions of the New Testament * The Practice of Textual Criticism * List of New Testament Manuscripts * Final Examples * Final Notes: Critical Editions, Science, and Faith * Appendix: The Text of Chaucer's Address to his Scribe *

Introduction

Chances are that you've played the game "Telephone" some timein your life. "Telephone" is the game in which a group of peoplegather around in a circle. One person thinks up a message, and whispersit to the next person, who whispers it to the next person, and so on aroundthe circle, until you reach the end and the final person repeats the messagealoud. The first person then states the original message.

The two sentences often cannot be recognized as related.

Even if you haven't played "Telephone," you must have read abook or a magazine which was filled with typographical errors. And that'sin a case where the typesetter has the author's original manuscript beforehim, and professional proofreaders were engaged to correct errors.

Now imagine what happens when a document is copied, by hand, tens ofthousands of times, long after the original manuscript has been destroyed.Imagine it being copied by barely literate scribes standing (not sitting,standing) at cold desks in bad light for hours on end, trying toread some other scribe's barely legible handwriting.

Imagine trying to do that when the words are written in all upper-caseletters, with no spaces between words, and you're writing on poor-qualitypaper with a scratchy reed pen using ink you made yourself.

Because that's what happened with all ancient books, and with the NewTestament in particular. Not all scribes were as bad as the secretaryChaucer poked such fun at in the quote above, but none were perfect -- andfew had the New Testament authors looking over their shoulders to makecorrections.

After a few centuries of that, it's easy to imagine that the text of theNew Testament would no longer bear any relationship to the original. Humanbeings just aren't equipped to be exact copyists. And the more human beingsinvolved in the process, the worse the situation becomes.

Types of Manuscripts

If the task of reconstructing the text of the New Testament may becompared to a detective story, then our "witnesses" are theancient manuscripts. Manuscripts fall into three basic categories:Greek manuscripts, ancient translations (generally called"versions"), and quotations in ancient authors.

The analogy to witnesses in court is apt. Some of our witnessesare fragmentary; they preserve only small parts of the story (thoughoften important parts). Others are fairly complete, but are notvery reliable. Each witness has its own peculiarities, which must betaken into account as we decide between readings. As one scholar putit, to be a successful textual critic, you must "know thepersonality of your witnesses."

Of the three classes of witnesses mentioned -- Greek manuscripts,versions, and quotations -- the most important are the manuscripts, since they preservethe wording in the original language and in the original order. (Exception:the lectionary manuscripts, of course, do not preserve the order.) Theoldest Greek manuscripts date from the second century; from that timeon, the number of manuscripts grows ever greater until the thirteenthcentury, then comes to a fairly abrupt halt at the end of the fifteenthcentury (when first the fall of Constantinople in 1453 and then theprinting of the first Greek Testament in 1516 reduced the need formanuscript copies). Unlike modern books, which are relatively standardized,manuscripts take various forms, and the formof the manuscript (arrangement of columns and lines, style of script used,etc.) can sometimes influence the sorts of readings wefind in it.

The books of the New Testament were almost certainly originally writtenon scrolls. We see evidence of this in the texts of Matthew and Luke, both ofwhich drastically compressed the material in Mark in order to maketheir books fit on the largest possible scroll. These scrolls wereprobably of papyrus, which was the cheapest and most important writingmaterial in the ancient world.

But the urge to collect the writings that eventually made up theNew Testament must have been very strong. It is generally believedthat collections of Paul's writings were in existence by 100 C.E.if not earlier. This posed a problem: A collection containing thewritings of Paul, or the four gospels, was far too long for a singlescroll. A complete New Testament would have been even more impossible.

The solution was the form of book known as thecodex. This is, in fact, what modernsthink of as a "book." Instead of sheets being placed sideto side to produce a immensely long single "page," they werefolded over each other, permitting books of any length --and, not insignificantly, saving expensive writing material (since codicescould be written on both sides). The Christian church seems to haveadopted codices with great enthusiasm; over 99% of known New Testamentmanuscripts are in codex form, and the few minor exceptions were already-writtenscrolls that Christians salvaged and reused.

The earliest manuscripts rarely if ever contained complete New Testaments(for one thing, the canon of the New Testament was not finally settled untilabout the fourth century). Most manuscripts contained only one section --Gospels, Paul, Acts and Catholic Epistles, Revelation. In addition, earlymanuscripts are often incomplete -- pages have been lost, or parts of pageshave become decayed or torn or simply illegible.

Part of the problem is the writing material. Our earliest survivingmanuscripts are written on papyrus, which grows brittle with age and canbe ruined by damp. Only in Egypt has the dry climate allowed a few papyrusmanuscripts to endure, and even these are often damaged. (A few papyri buried, e.g.,in the eruption of Mount Vesuvius are only a minor exception; these were notChristian writings. These papyri were in fact numerous, but badly damaged,very difficult to read -- very many were destroyed in the attempt to openthem -- and not very valuable) With the exceptionof the papyrus known as P72(which contains the books of 1 and 2 Peter andJude in their entirety, along with non-scriptural writings), not one papyruscontains the complete text of any book. Papyrus was not the only writing material used in the ancient world,however. Parchment -- the carefully prepared skins of animals -- wasalso available. It was, in fact, a better material, at once stronger,smoother (which made attractive writing easier), and more durable. But itwas also generally much more expensive. Papyrus is a plant, which growsquickly in Egypt. (There are some reports of papyrus being grown in Italy,but these are uncertain. It is likely that some papyrus sheets were finishedin Rome, but this was probably based on imported materials. David Diringer,in The Book Before Printing, notes that the Latin papyri at Herculaneumwere more brittle than those written in Greek, and speculates that this isdue to the use of remanufactured papyri. Another possibility is that Italianpapyrus, if it actually existed, was inferior.)

A papyrus manuscript: a portion of one section ofP13, containing part ofHebrews. Note the uncial (all-uppercase) letters and the lack ofspaces between words, as well as the damage to the 1700-year-old material.

The early church was poor, and needed many books. Parchment was probablygenerally beyond its means. It was not until the church became legalin the reign of Constantine that parchment came to be widely used forchurch writings. Parchment and papyrus continued to be used side by side for manycenturies. The heyday of papyrus manuscripts was the third and fourthcenturies, but we have papyri from as late as the eighth century (by whichtime the Islamic conquest had largely suppressed Greek-speaking Christianityin Egypt). Parchment manuscripts first appear in the third century, andbecome common in the fourth; they remained dominant until the early partof the second millennium, when paper began to be used.

Both the papyri and the early parchments were written in a style ofwriting known as "uncial" (also sometimes called "majuscule").This is, more or less, what we wouldcall "upper-case letters." The letters were large, and thevarious letterforms were not connected. For the most part, theletters fall between two lines. In the earliest manuscripts,there were no accents, no breathings, no punctuation, and no spacesbetween words. (This doubtless led to certain errors, as scribesmisread undivided words and sentences. So, for example, in uncialscript it would be easy to confuse ΑΛΛΑand ΑΜΑ.)

As the centuries passed, uncials grew more elaborate, with the letterssprouting serifs and other slow-to-write forms (the reader isinvited to examine the chart of uncial letterforms).Manuscripts grew easier to read as scribesgradually started to add breathings, punctuation, etc., but these were slowto write and took up a great deal of writing material. What was needed was a cursivehand -- but it was not until the ninth century that an appropriate scriptwas developed (there were earlier Greek cursive hands, but they were notused for Biblical manuscripts, probably because they were not consideredelegant enough). With the developmentof this script began the "age of the minuscule" -- "minuscule"being the name given to both this cursive style and the manuscripts writtenin the style. The first minuscules were written in the ninth century, andby the end of the tenth century they had essentially driven the uncials outof use (uncials continued to be used in lectionaries for a few more years,but from the thirteenth century on we have no examples of the type exceptin a few marginal notes).

One of the best-known minuscule manuscripts: 1739, of the tenthcentury, with the run of the text in minuscule script and a colophonat the bottom in an uncial hand.

(It is interesting to note that other languages followed a similar history.Early Latin manuscripts are written in Latin uncials, but as time passed,minuscules came into use. Unlike Greek minuscules, however, where the unityof the Byzantine Empire meant that the same general style was adopted throughout,different centers seem to have developed different minuscule styles; we seegreat variety in eighth and ninth century Latin manuscripts, until the CarolingianMinuscule became dominant. Though the later history of the types does diverge;modern Greek print and handwriting bear almost no similarity to late Greekminuscules. I've seen it claimed that modern print -- which gave rise to modernRoman-letter handwriting -- is a form of Carolingian minuscule. This isn't exactly true --most moderns would have real trouble reading Carolingian minuscule -- but they arerelated and fairly similar.)

All told, there are somewhat more than 3000 continuous-text Greek manuscriptsof the New Testament. Between 85% and 90% of these are in minuscule script;the remaining 10-15% (uncials and papyri) are in uncial script.

It will be evident that some system is needed to keep track of all theseassorted manuscripts. The present system, although somewhat imperfect, wasadopted after centuries of trial and error and, frankly, confusion. In it,continuous-text manuscripts are divided into three classes: Papyri, Uncials,and Minuscules.

Papyri are written on (guess what) papyrus, in uncial script.As noted, the earliest papyri date from the second century, and the lastdate from the eighth. Papyri are designated by the letter P (often ina blackletter script) and a superscript letter. ThusP¹³,P⁴⁵,P⁴⁶,P⁴⁷, P⁶⁶, P⁷²,P⁷⁴,and P⁷⁵are among the most important papyri. As new papyri continueto be discovered, new numbers are added to the series (thus the lower the number,the earlier a papyrus was probably found). As of this writing, the number ofknown papyri is about one hundred. (Note that some papyri have more than onenumber, as different portions came to light at different times. So theactual number of manuscripts in a class will generally be slightlyless than the nominal number.)

The second class of Greek manuscripts are the uncials. In a way, it isunfortunate that uncials are distinguished from papyri, since they arewritten in the same script and there is no great difference in age -- theoldest uncials date from the third century; they continued to be writtenuntil the tenth/eleventh century. The difference lies only in the writingmaterial: Uncials are written on parchment, papyri on papyrus. (It is truethat most papyri are older than most uncials -- the bulk of survivingpapyri are from the third and fourth centuries, while uncials do notbecome common until the fourth century and the bulk of the survivingcopies date from the sixth through ninth centuries. But it is importantto remember that some of the best uncials are as old as or older thanmany of the papyri.)

Uncials were originally designated by letters, i.e. A, B, C, D. As thenumber of known uncials increased (the nominal number now stands at slightly overthree hundred, but -- as with the papyri -- the same manuscript sometimes has multipledesignations, meaning that the actual number is on the order of 270),it became necessary to use Greek letters, then Hebrew letters. Eventually scholarsgave up and took to using a numbering scheme, with each uncial's number precededby a zero. Thus the manuscript A is now also called 02, B is 03, etc. However,most of the best-known manuscripts are still known by the letter designation theyonce had.

Beyond these are the minuscules, recognized by the script in which theyare written (since they can be on either parchment or paper). The earliestminuscules date from the ninth century (overlapping the last uncials), andcontinued to be written up to, and even after, the appearance of the firstprinted New Testament in 1516. For the most part, minuscules are markednot only by their script but by the presence of accents, breathings, wordspacing, paragraphs, punctuation -- all the things whose absencemade the early uncials so hard to read. Minuscules are given simple numbers,from 1 on up to the current total of about 2850.

There is a fourth class of Greek manuscripts, thelectionaries, whichof course contain the lessons read in the Greek church in the order theyare read. Lectionaries are quite numerous (about 2300 are now known), butmost of them are late and fairly standardized. They may be written onparchment or paper, in uncial or minuscule script. Lectionaries aredesignated by a script letter followed by a number(e.g. ⁵⁴⁷is the relatively well-known "Ferrar Lectionary," so-calledbecause its text resembles that found in the group of manuscriptscalled Family 13 or the "Ferrar Group"). To this point, thelectionaries have not been very carefully studied, and they are rarely used intextual criticism. Since this article is intended to be short, we will sayno more about them.

A list of some of the more important New Testamentmanuscripts is found elsewhere in this document.

In addition to the Greek manuscripts, we have the testimony of the"versions" -- the ancient translationsof the Greek New Testament. These are highly valuable in some ways --they are usually early (the oldest Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versionsdate from the second to fourth centuries, and the Armenian probably tothe fifth), and we know what part of the world they come from. But theyalso have drawbacks: No translation, even if precise and literal (andnot all these translations are) can exactly render the wording of theGreek original. Also, the versions have a textual history of their own,which means we have to reconstruct their readings. Finally, it isworth remembering that, although a version may exist in thousands ofcopies, it is usually translated from no more than a handful of Greekoriginals. Thus the versions are very important for determining thehistory of a variant reading, but sometimes less useful for determiningthe original text.

The final class of witnesses normally mentioned is the testimony of quotations in theChurch Fathers. This is an amazingly richresource -- many, many authors quoted the New Testament over thecenturies. And we usually know with fair precision both the date of the quotation andthe place where the author wrote. Unfortunately,the authors often cited loosely, adding, paraphrasing, or omittingas they saw fit; they did not cite in order, they rarely citedlong passages; and in any case, their works, just like the manuscriptsthemselves, have been subject to copying and corruption over theyears. Hence the Fathers, like the versions, are best used toestablish the history of the text.

A fourth class of witnesses, not normally mentioned in New Testamentcriticism because they have so small a role, areimitations.

Printed Versions of the New Testament

The first complete New Testament to be published was the edition ofDesiderius Erasmus,now known as the Textus Receptus ("Thetext received [by all]" -- a phrase derived from an advertising blurbin a later edition!). This was published, with great haste and on the basisof only a handful of late manuscripts, in 1516 (the printer wanted to beata rival edition onto the market, and so hurried Erasmus and then pushedthe edition through the press without proper oversight). Yet it formed the basisfor all Greek editions for over three centuries; Luther's German translationand the English King James Version (as well as most of the English editionspreceding the KJV) were translated from editions of the Textus Receptus.

The Textus Receptus had a text that was fairly typical of the manuscriptsof its time, and for the first century or so of its existence no one worriedmuch about its text. But in the early seventeenth century the Codex Alexandrinusarrived in England from the Middle East. This produced a sensation, since itwas a very old (fifth century) manuscript which often disagreed violentlywith the Textus Receptus. Suddenly scholars began to realize that therewere different forms of the New Testament text.

It was not until 1831, however, thatKarl Lachmann (1793-1851)published the first Greek testament not based on the Textus Receptus.Lachmann's edition differed from the Textus Receptus at thousandsof points, some of them significant. His text came under immediateand intense attack. Yet almost every Greek edition since Lachmann'stime has been closer to his text than the Textus Receptus. Thereason was that textual criticism was beginning to come into itsown, and the Textus Receptus no longer appeared adequate.

The Practice of Textual Criticism

But why was the Textus Receptus inadequate? Although it wasbased on late manuscripts, and Lachmann's text on early manuscripts,both are based on actual readings. They simply adopted differentreadings at points of variations. So why is Lachmann rightand Erasmus wrong? How do we decide which reading is original?

Scholars have given many names to their answers, and they applythem in different ways. But fundamentally they use two tools:"Internal Evidence"and "External Evidence."

Internal evidence (sometimes called "TranscriptionalProbability" or the like) is based on logic: "Whichreading best explains the others?" It asks questions like,"Is there an easy way for this reading to have been convertedinto that one?"

External evidence is based on the manuscripts. It looks for thereading based on the "best," earliest, or most manuscripts.

Let's show what we mean by looking not at the Bible but at afamous passage from Shakespeare -- Hamlet, I.ii.129 (approximately;in my Yale Shakespeare, it's I.ii.133). This is one ofthe key soliloquies. You've probably heard the first line as

O that this too too solid flesh would melt

It so happens that there are three early witnesses to this passage,and none of them read it in the above form. The first quarto, theearliest published form of the passage, gives it as

Oh that this too much grieu'd and sallied flesh
Would melt to nothing....

The second quarto, the next form to appear, reads

O that this too too sallied flesh would melt

The First Folio of 1623, the only source to contain (almost) all of Shakespeare'splays, reads

O that this too too sollid flesh would melt

It is believed that the "sallied" of the second quarto isto be understood as "sullied." The folio reading is a divergentspelling of the common reading "solid."

So which is it? Solid flesh? Sullied flesh? Grieved and salliedflesh (which might in this case mean something like "battered")?

The first quarto reading can be ignored; it comes from a "badquarto," imperfectly remembered by one of the actors of the play. Butthe second quarto and the first folio are both fairly good texts. And bothreadings make good sense. If it is "solid flesh," it is naturalto ask that it would melt. But "sullied flesh" has its ownaptness, as Hamlet would have inherited it from his mother, who in herweakness has turned to Claudius. In choosing between them, a critic mustdecide which one best explains the other.

There is no definitive answer to this one. The Yale Shakespeare, which strikesme as rather casually edited, reads "solid."The revised Pelican has "sullied."The Riverside Shakespeare, in both the first and second editions, dodges theissue and prints "sallied." I personally think "sullied"the slightly better reading; it's in the second quarto, now considered thebest witness, and the first quarto reading seems to presuppose it; even thefolio reading uses a similar spelling. But we can't be certain; there isno guaranteed way to choose between the texts. This is the general problemof textual criticism, of which New Testament TC is a (somewhat exceptional,and certainly very important) example.

Rather than dwell on non-Biblical examples, let's take a handful of Biblical examples.By seeing how an actual apparatus criticus (table of informationabout variations) is constructed, we can probably make things a lotclearer.

For our first example, take part of 1 John 2:23. The KingJames version renders its Greek text "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hathnot the Father." After this, however, they add, in italics (meaningthat it is not a correct part of their text) "[but] he that acknowledgeththe Son hath the Father also." Almost all modern version accept this longerreading as original -- that is, as part of the correct and original text.

In the Greek, this variation involves only eight words. The tablebelow shows the various words used here, along with the manuscriptssupporting them (it is customary in such apparati to leave out accentsand breathings. We list witnesses in the order papyri, uncials,minuscules, versions, church fathers). The name"ℵ" in thethird item refers to an important uncial manuscript known by that symbol.If a manuscript's symbol appears in parenthesis, it means that it generallysupports a particular reading but with some minor variation. If a manuscript'ssymbol is followed by an asterisk (e.g. 1739*), it means that this was the readingwritten by the original scribe of the manuscript, which some later owneraltered. The "corrected" reading (we put "corrected" inquotes because such corrections often replace a good early reading with a bad late one)is noted with a superscript c (e.g. 1739^c) or sometimes,in older manuals, with two asterisks (e.g. 1739**). If a manuscript is marked^vid, it means that the manuscript is incomplete or damaged, butthe surviving portion seems to support the reading in question. Obviously we cite onlya handful of the three-thousand-plus known manuscripts (many of which have not even beencollated yet, so we couldn't cite them even if we wanted to).A very brief description of most of the manuscripts cited here, including age, contents,and how various scholars have classified them, is found in theDescription of Manuscripts of the Catholic Epistles.

• ο ομολογων τον υιον και τον πατερα εχει -- "the one who confesses the son has the father also" ℵ A B C P Ψ 5 33 206 223 323 614 623 630 1243 1505 1611 1739 1799 2138 2412 2495 vg pesh hark sa bo^mss arm
• omit phrase -- K L 049 6 38 42 69 88 97 177 181 201 216 226 319 330 356 398 424 436 440 462 479 483 489 547 582 635 642 704 876 917 920 927 999 1175 1240 1241 1248 1311 1315 1319 1424 1518? 1522 1597 1610 1738 1827 1829 1835 1845 1854 1872 1873 1874 1876 1888 1889 1891 1898 2143 2423 z bo^ms Hilary(?)

These are by no means all the manuscripts supporting either reading, but they give the general impression. Much the larger share of manuscripts support the short reading, though they are mostly minuscules, while the early uncials without exception have the longer reading (K, L, and 049 are uncials, but of late date -- ninth century or so).

The crucial matter, though, is the form of the reading. Note that both long and short readings end with the same set of letters: τον πατερα εχει. It would be very easy for a scribe's eyes to skip from the first occurrence to the second. This is the error known as homoioteleuton ("same ending"), and it is incredibly common. Almost all manuscripts display at least a few instances of it. We don't as often see it affecting whole classes of manuscripts, but that is clearly the case here. The longer reading, despite being absent from the majority of manuscripts, is surely original.

A different sort of problem is illustrated by Matthew 19:20. Jesus istalking to the rich young man, and has just told him to keep the commandments.Does the young man say "I have kept all these" or "I have keptall these from my youth"? The evidence is as follows (f¹and f¹³ are small groups of closely related manuscripts; you canlook up the manuscripts in the Description of Manuscriptsof the Gospels):

• εκ νεοτητος μου -- "from my youth" (ℵ^c) C (D omits "my") E F G H O W Γ Δ Σ f¹³ 28 33 157 565 892 1006 1010 1071 1241 1243 1342 1424 1505 1506 a b c (d) e f ff² h n q sy sa bo arm eth geo slav
• omit ℵ* B L Θ f¹ 22 579 700* aur ff¹ g¹ l Cyprian

It is clear that the bulk of the manuscripts include the longer reading "from myyouth." On theother hand, the text without "from my youth" is supported by the twooldest manuscripts (ℵ* and B),and by several other manuscripts with what weshall learn are good or interesting texts. Most scholars would conclude, simplyon the basis of the manuscripts, that the shorter reading is better.

But we have more evidence. This reading, of course, has parallels in Mark (10:20)and Luke (18:21). Both of the other gospels have the words "from my youth."Now suppose you're a scribe. You've heard the phrase "I have kept all thesefrom my youth" a few zillion times in your life. Unless this is your first copyof the gospels, you've written it a few times in your life. If you encountera copy without the words, wouldn't you be tempted to add them? Certainly, if theywere present already, you would have no tendency to delete them.

This process is known as "assimilation of parallels." Scribes havea tendency to make texts read alike. If a text sounds familiar, the scribe tendedto conform it exactly to the familiar form. (You may have done it yourself. Tryreading this phrase: "To be, or not be, that is the question...."Did you notice the omission of the word "to" after "not"?)

So in all likelihood the original reading here is the one which omits "frommy youth."

You may have noticed that in both cases here we went against the readingsupported by the majority of manuscripts. Does this mean that we are undemocratic?

In a word, yes. One of the great rules of textual criticism is that "manuscriptsare to be weighed and not counted." Some manuscripts are good, some are lessgood. (Though all are at least occasionally questionable; as Michael Holmesputs it, "none are perfect, not even one; all have flaws, and fall short of theglory of the autograph" -- Michael Holmes in "A Case forReasoned Eclecticism," not yet published at the time of this writing.)So how do we decide?

This is a matter that scholars have been working on for centuries. When they began,the number of manuscripts known was much smaller than today, and old manuscripts wereespecially rare. Still, at about the turn of the nineteenth century a scholar namedGriesbach (following the lead ofSemler) discovered that the manuscripts known to himseemed to fall into threedistinct groups. The largest of these groups, by far, he called the "Byzantine,"because most of the manuscripts it included were written in the late Byzantine period.The two smaller groups he labelled "Alexandrian" (because it agreed withthe readings of such Alexandrian fathers as Origen and Cyril) and "Western"(because it was associated with the Latin versions used in the western Roman Empire).Thus arose the concept of "Text-types" --groups of manuscripts related at a stage more recent than the original.

This concept was refined in the second half of the nineteenth century byFenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892),who did most of his work in collaboration withBrooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901).Westcott and Hort adopted Griesbach'sWestern and Byzantine types as given (although they called the Byzantinetext "Syrian"); the Alexandrian text they split into two groupswhich they called "Neutral" and "Alexandrian." (Thislatter distinction has been rejected by most scholars, who believe thatthe Neutral and Alexandrian text-types are just earlier and later forms of thesame sort of text; they generally call it by the name "Alexandrian.")

But Hort didn't just affirm the identity of these types. The discovery thatmade Hort famous was that the Byzantine text was (in his view) late. Hortbased this argument on a number of points (I have amplified some of these):

• That none of the fathers before the fourth century preserve a characteristically Byzantine text (some have occasional Byzantine readings, but not on a consistent basis).
• That there are no early Byzantine manuscripts (in the Gospels, the earliest witness to the Byzantine text is A of the fifth century, and even it is not fully Byzantine; outside the gospels, there are no fully Byzantine witnesses prior to the ninth century)
• That the Byzantine text is a consistently full, smooth text. Any difficult or disharmonious readings have been wiped away. This implies a gradual process of improvement over the years. Even if it came about suddenly (as a result of editing), the smooth readings must somehow have been before the editor.
• That the Byzantine text shows many conflations -- places where two earlier readings have been combined.

All of these points have problems. The first two remain true, but theyare an argument from silence. The fourth point is weakened by the fact thatconflations are not as common as Hort would imply, and occur in all types of manuscripts.The third point is the strongest by far, but has never been so fully tested as tosatisfy everyone.(See the article on Byzantine priority.)Still, the overall thrust of Hort's logichas convinced the majority of scholars. The Byzantinetext-type -- even though it contains nearly90% of the witnesses, and has influenced most of the others -- isregarded as a secondary product, derived from earlier text-types.

This left the field open to the earlier text-types, the Westernand Alexandrian.

The Western text in the Gospels consisted of only one Greek witness (CodexBezae, D/05, a well-known fifth or sixth century uncial), but it is supportedby most of the Old Latin versions, andby quotations from many early writers such as Irenæus and Tertullian.The Old Syriac versions also seem to belonghere, although they are not as pure and may have elements of other types.In the Acts, Bezae and the Old Latins are still the key elements of thetype, although 614, themargin of the Harklean Syriac, andthe other manuscripts of Family 2138 are believed by many to belong here.In Paul, the Old Latin still supports the type, as do the uncialsD (here D is 06, Codex Claromontanus, of the sixth century, not CodexBezae) and the closely-related ninth century pair F G. There are noknown witnesses to the type in the Catholic Epistles or the Apocalypse.

The Alexandrian text, which includes the majority of the non-Byzantinewitnesses, is more amorphous. It consists of both uncials and minuscules, as wellas versions. In Hort's time, the most important and basic witness to the typewas the famous Codex Vaticanus, B/03,which contains the Gospels, Acts, andCatholic Epistles complete as well as most of the Pauline Epistles. It was alsothe earliest representative of the type, dating from the fourth century. Alsofrom the fourth century, and nearly as important, is Codex Sinaiticus,ℵ /01,the only uncial to contain the entire New Testament. They are supported by theCoptic versions. In addition, they are supported inpart by manuscripts such as the uncialsCand L in the gospels and the uncialsA andCin the Acts and Epistles, as well as by minuscules such as335798921241 inthe gospels and33811175 in the Acts and Epistles.

Most of these latter manuscripts, however, display a phenomenon known as"mixture." This means that they contain readings from more thanone text-type. Typically they will have some Alexandrian and some Byzantinereadings, although there may be a few "Western" readings thrown in as well.

The reason for this is not hard to imagine. Unlike today, when books arecheap enough to simply be purchased and referred to only intermittently, old bookswere used. So the users were always writing notes, commentaries, andcorrections in the margin. It was not unusual for a later copyist to assumethese marginal remarks belonged in the text (or at least might belongin the text), and insert them into the manuscript he was writing.

Then, too, manuscripts were copied in a scriptorium, and corrected. A corrector (διορθωτῄς)would carefully read over the new copy, comparing it to some official,reputable copy. Often this reputable copy would not be of the same typeas the manuscript used to make the original copy, meaning that the correctorwould add readings of a second text-type to the once-pure text of themanuscript. We can actually see this happening in some manuscripts;424 has a Byzantine text thathas been corrected toward the readings of1739, while many famous manuscripts(including ℵand both Ds) have been corrected toward the Byzantinetext. When new copies are made from these manuscripts, of course, thecorrections go straight into the text of the copy, producing mixedmanuscripts.

Mixture makes the task of textual criticism much harder. Since mostmanuscripts have more than one "parent," it means that wecannot trace a simple genealogy. Although P⁷⁵, B, and L areall related, L is not a child of B, which isnot a child of P⁷⁵. This means that we cannot simply goback up the generations to find the original reading of a text-type,let alone of the original text.

Still, by careful use of both internaland external evidence, it is usuallypossible to determine the readings of text-types. Hort, for instance,found that B preserved the readings of the Alexandrian/Neutral text in thelarge majority of cases.

But at this point Hort faced a problem. Both the Alexandrian and "Western"types were early, and went directly back to the original. How, then, didone decide between the two in cases where they disagreed?

Here Hort turned to internal evidence. The "Western" text, he found,was marked by paraphrase, expansion, and stylistic "improvements"of all sorts. The Alexandrian text, by contrast, was concise -- evenabrupt -- and had more than its share of infelicitous readings.

On this basis, Hort concluded, the Neutral (Alexandrian) text was best and mostreliable. Unlike the Western text, it was not rewritten; unlike the Byzantinetext, it was not a mixture of older elements. The text printed byWestcott & Hort was largely thatof the Alexandrian text, and of B in particular. And it was widely feltthat the Westcott & Hort text was the best New Testament edition ofthe nineteenth century. Even today, our printed texts are strongly"Hortian."

But the twentieth century has seen changes. New manuscripts -- includingall the papyri and many early uncial fragments -- have been discovered. Ourknowledge of the versions is much greater.

This has had many consequences. A new text-type -- the"Cæsarean" -- has beenproposed (though its existence is not so widely accepted today as in theearly part of the twentieth century). The various substantial papyri --particularly P⁴⁶and P⁷⁵ -- have altered ourunderstanding of the early history of the text. Discoveries of newand better manuscripts of the Fathers have helped us understand allstages of that history. And new tools, some computer-aided, haveallowed us to assess many manuscripts (especially minuscules) that hadnever previously been studied. We know of many manuscript groupingswe had not previously been aware of. We have also learned that eventhe Byzantine text is not one great monolith; although it is themost coherent of the text-types, even it has phases and has undergonea certain amount of evolution.

List of New Testament Manuscripts

In the light of the complexity we now see in the relationshipsbetween manuscripts, we cannot do as Hort did and generallyjust follow the text of B. We need to be aware of all the non-Byzantinemanuscripts, and keep their peculiarities in mind. We also must knowand understand the Byzantine text. If we believe, with Sturz andothers, that it is early, we must take its readings into account. Evenif we accept the opinion of Hort in its entirety, and consider theByzantine text late, we still must know its readings so thatwe can see how they have influenced other manuscripts.

The following list briefly describes some of the more important (generally non-Byzantine) NewTestament manuscripts and their characteristics.

• P⁴⁵.Chester Beatty Papyrus I. Third century papyrus of theGospels and Acts, now very defective. Thought for a time to have a"Cæsarean" text, but Hurtado has given strong evidenceagainst this, and Colwell has shown that the text has been extensivelyrewritten and often shortened. The text as it stood before this editingmay have been Alexandrian.
• P⁴⁶.Chester Beatty Papyrus II. Papyrus of the PaulineEpistles (with assorted lacunae; missing the beginning of Romans andall of 2 Thessalonians; includes Hebrews, but probably never containedthe Pastoral Epistles). Usually dated c. 200, although muchearlier dates have been suggested. The text is rather free, especiallyin Romans, and contains very many singular readings (that is, readingsnot found in any other source). It stands closerto B than any other manuscript, however, and the two probably formtheir own text-type or sub-text-type.
• P⁴⁷. Chester Beatty Papyrus III. Third century papyrusof the Apocalypse, containing (with lacunae) 9:10-17:2. The text isclosest to ℵ; it isconsidered to be more "wild" and less valuable than themainstream Alexandrian witnesses A C.
• P⁶⁶. Bodmer Papyrus II. Second or third century papyruscontaining most of the gospel of John. The manuscript was written ina beautiful hand, probably that of a professional scribe, but verycarelessly; there are literally hundreds of casual errors correctedby the scribe himself, and in all likelihood many more that he didnot catch. The resultant text is mostly Alexandrian, and closest toP⁷⁵ and B, but with very many singular readings and readingsassociated with other types.
• P⁷². Bodmer Papyri VII, VIII. Third or fourth centurypapyrus containing, along with assorted non-Biblical works, 1 and 2 Peterand Jude. As mentioned above, P⁷² is the only papyrus to containbiblical books without lacunae. In the Petrine Epistles its text appears goodand early, being closest to B. In Jude the text has been regarded as"wild" -- not unusual for manuscripts of Jude, which was not highlyesteemed in the early church.
• P⁷⁵.Bodmer Papyri XIV, XV. Early third century papyrusof Luke and John, containing the majority of Luke 3-John 15. The textis regarded as extraordinarily good and carefully written. It is veryclose kin to B, although not a direct ancestor.
• ℵ /01.Codex Sinaiticus. Uncial of the fourth century, and uniquein many ways. It is the only uncial to contain the complete New Testament(along with large portions of the LXX and certain apocryphal books). It isthe only New Testament manuscript written with four columns per page. Thestory of its "discovery" and transportation from Sinai to Europeis also unique and involved, and cannot be detailed here; although romantic, it'snot really significant for textual criticism.
  ℵ/01is textually very good (although only one of the three scribes wasan accurate speller, and this one wrote only a handful of leaves in theNew Testament). In the Gospels it is generally Alexandrian (although thetext is something else -- perhaps "Western" -- in the first thirdof John). It is considered second only to P⁷⁵ and B as arepresentative of the Alexandrian type. The same is true in Acts and theCatholic Epistles. In Paul, wherethe textual character of B changes somewhat,ℵ is actually the bestAlexandrian witness. In the Apocalypse it is somewhat different; it belongswith P⁴⁷, with a text considered inferior to A C.
• A/02.Codex Alexandrinus. Uncial of the fifth century. The first of thegreat uncials to come to the attention of European scholars. It once containedthe entire Old and New Testaments; in its current state, most of Matthew andsmaller portions of John and 2 Corinthians are missing. In the Gospels themanuscript goes primarily with the Byzantine text, although it has a number ofnon-Byzantine readings, most of which are also found in good manuscriptssuch as B. In the Acts and Epistles the text is much better, mostly Alexandrianwith only a few Byzantine and mixed readings. In the Apocalypse it (along withC) is considered the best surviving witness.
• B/03.Codex Vaticanus. Uncial of the fourth century, and widely regardedas the most important surviving Biblical manuscript. Originally probablycontained the entire Greek Bible (except the books of Maccabees). However,the final pages of the manuscript have been lost, taking with themHebrews 9:14-end, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and probablythe Apocalypse (although it is possible that the latter was never partof the manuscript).
  In the gospels in particular, B is considered almost to define theAlexandrian text, and -- since the Alexandrian is considered the besttext-type -- by implication the original text. Both the Westcott & Hortand United Bible Societies editions are strongly dependent on it.
  B retains its high quality in the Acts and Catholic Epistles.Its nature in Paul is more uncertain. Hort viewed it as mostlyAlexandrian with some Western mixture. However, it appears that itactually belongs in its own group with P⁴⁶. (Interestingly,B is the closest uncial to all the substantial early papyri -- toP⁶⁶ and especially P⁷⁵ in the Gospels, toP⁴⁶ in Paul, and to P⁷² in the Catholics.)
• C/04.Uncial of the fifth century, and the most importantNew Testament palimpsest. Itoriginally contained the whole Greek Bible; about three-fifthsof the New Testament, and fragments of the Old, survive. The upperwriting is a series of sermons by Ephraem.
  The text-type of C varies. In the Gospels it is a mixture ofAlexandrian and Byzantine elements, though some parts are moreByzantine than others. In Acts it is somewhat more Alexandrian. In Paulit is almost purely Alexandrian, being very nearly as good as Aalthough perhaps not quite as pure asℵ or 33. In the Catholicsit seems to show a mixture of Alexandrian and Family 1739 readings,with more of the latter than the former. In the Apocalypse it standsclose to A, and is one of the best manuscripts of the book.
• D/05.Codex Bezae. The most controversial of all New Testamentmanuscripts. It is a Greek/Latin diglot, with the versions onfacing pages. The manuscript is usually dated to the fifth or sixthcentury. It now contains most of the Gospels and Acts, but many pageshave been lost. The lost pages contained the Johannine Epistles, butthere were probably other writings as well, and it is not certainwhat they were.
  On the above scholars agree. On all other things there is debate.For instance, the Greek and Latin sides of D (denoted D and d respectively) are verysimilar, and have obviously been edited so as to agree. But wasD conformed to d, or d to D, or both? There is no consensus. Nor isthere agreement about the peculiar nature of D's text. It clearlyfalls closest to the so-called "Western" witnesses suchas the Old Latin versions and fathers such as Irenæus. But italso has important differences -- e.g. D is the only manuscriptto transfer Matthew's genealogy of Jesus into Luke 3:23f. Thistransfer is obviously the result of rewriting. Is the rest of D's textrewritten, or is this an aberration? Again, scholars do not agree.
  This is a particularly serious problem in that D is the onlysubstantial Greek witness to the "Western" text of thegospels. Assessing its readings is a perennial problem of textualcriticism. All we can say here is that its readings should be usedwith caution, especially when they do not have support from a largenumber of Latin witnesses.
• D/06.Codex Claromontanus. Uncial of the sixth century, containingalmost all of the Pauline Epistles (the first few verses of Romans aremissing). Like Codex Bezae, it is a Greek/Latin diglot, with thetwo texts on facing pages. Also like Bezae, it is "Western."The "Western" text of Paul, however, does not diverge as farfrom the Alexandrian text as does the text in the Gospels. Also, inPaul there are other Greek witnesses to the type, F and G.
• E/07.Uncial of the eighth or ninth century, containing the gospels withminor defects. Noteworthy only as the earliest full-blown witnessto the Byzantine text (other Byzantine witnesses will not be listed;see the entry on the Byzantine Text).
• E/08.Codex Laudianus. Sixth century uncial of Acts. Greek/Latindiglot, with the two languages in very narrow parallel columns on thesame page. This manuscript was almost certainly consulted by Bedein his commentary on Acts. It is largely Byzantine, but also hasmany "Western" readings (some perhaps from the Latin, butnot all) and some Alexandrian readings.
• F/010 andG/012. Ninth century uncials of Paul. Both are Latindiglots; F has the Latin (a mixed Old Latin/Vulgate text) in a facingcolumn; G has a Latin interlinear that appears based on an Old Latintext but which has been conformed to the Greek. The Greek texts of the twoappear to derivefrom a common ancestor at a distance of no more than two generations.This common ancestor lacked Hebrews and probably had some othergaps that appear in both manuscripts. The text of the two sisteruncials is "Western," with perhaps more minor alterationsin the text than even D/06. Of the two, F is the more attractive and legible, butG is more complete and seems to have preserved the ancestral textbetter.
• L/019.Codex Regius. Eighth century uncial of the Gospels, withsome slight gaps. The most Alexandrian of the late uncials, fallingcloser to B than to ℵ.The combination B L was considered very strongby Hort. L is mostly Byzantine in the early parts of Matthew, butByzantine readings are rare in Mark through John.
• P/025.Ninth century uncial palimpsestof the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse. P is more noteworthy for its relativecompleteness than its text; it is everywhere more Byzantine than anythingelse. P is almost purely Byzantine in Acts, and has the "Andreas"text in the Apocalypse; in Paul and the Catholic Epistles, however, it hasmany Alexandrian readings among the Byzantine.
• W/032.Fifth century uncial of the Gospels, with some slight lacunae.W is unusual in that its text is heavily "block mixed":Byzantine in Matthew, "Western" and/or "Cæsarean" in Mark;Byzantine and Alexandrian in Luke, mostly Alexandrian in John. Its earlydate makes it important, but the student should always be sure to knowwhat to expect from it in any particular passage.
• Θ/038.The Koridethi codex.Uncial of the gospels, missing parts of the first five chaptersof Matthew. Its date is uncertain (there are no other manuscriptswhich use the same writing style; it seems to have been writtenby a scribe who had very little Greek), but the ninth centuryis often suggested. The earliest and most important witness to theso-called "Cæsarean" text, although in fact ithas many Byzantine readings as well.
• 1. Minuscule of the twelfth century, containing the entire NewTestament except the Apocalypse. In the Acts and Epistles the textis mostly Byzantine, but in the Gospels it is the head of the familyknown as the Lake Group (usually symbolizedλ or f¹),which also contains 118, 131, 205 (a probable descendent of 209), 209,and 1582 (the closest relative of 1). The Lake Group is usuallylisted as "Cæsarean," although the group seems slightlycloser to the Alexandrian text than the other witnesses to this type.
• 13. Minuscule of the thirteenth century,containing the Gospelswith some lacunae. It is the best-known (though not the best) member of the familyknown as the Ferrar Group (usually symbolizedφ or f¹³),which also contains 69, 124, 174, 230, 346, 543, 788, 826, 828, 983, 1689, and1709. Like the Lake Group, the Ferrar Group islisted as "Cæsarean," though it has more Byzantine readingsthan the Koridethi Codex or Family 1.
• 33. Minuscule of the ninth century,containing the entire New Testamentexcept the Apocalypse (with some small gaps in the gospels and many placeswhere damp has made the manuscript difficult to read). Called "theQueen of the Minuscules," and generally worthy of the title. In theGospels it is Alexandrian, though with much Byzantine mixture. TheByzantine mixture is less in the rest of the New Testament; in Paulit is second only to ℵas an Alexandrian witness (except in Romans,which has a Byzantine text written by another hand).
• 81. Minuscule of the year1044, containing the Acts (with lacunae) and Epistles. Often, and withsome justice, regarded as having the best text of Acts among theminuscules. It agrees generally with the Alexandrian text, althoughwith somewhat more Byzantine mixture and a few more late readingsthan the Alexandrian uncials.
• 579.Minuscule of the thirteenth century, containing the Gospelswith lacunae. One of the more strongly Alexandrian minuscule witnessesin the Gospels, although it also has many Byzantine readings (especiallyin Matthew, where the Byzantine element is stronger than the Alexandrian).
• 892. Minuscule of the ninthcentury, containing the Gospels with some insertions from a later hand.Although 892 is a minuscule, it was copied from an uncial, and stilldisplays some of the characteristics of its parent (e.g. the samepage breaks). 892 is probably the most Alexandrian of all the minusculesof the Gospels, although there is (as always in later gospel texts)a significant Byzantineelement. The supplements (which occupy most of the second half ofJohn) are almost purely Byzantine.
• 1175. Minuscule of theeleventh century, containing the Acts and Epistles (with significantlacunae in the final part of Paul). Considered one of the best andmost Alexandrian minuscules, but with a curiously mixed text. Romansand the Johannine Epistles are Byzantine. The rest of the Epistlesare Alexandrian with some Byzantine readings. Acts is mostlypre-Byzantine, but the amount of "Western" influence seemsto vary through the book from insignificant in some places to ratherlarge in others.
• 1241. Minuscule ofthe twelfth century, containing the entire New Testament except theApocalypse, but with some lacunae and assorted supplements. Carelesslycopied and with many peculiar readings as a result. Acuriously mixed text, mostly Byzantine though with some Alexandrianreadings in Matthew and Mark; perhaps the most Alexandrian minuscule witnessto Luke; Alexandrian and Byzantine mixed in John; mostly Byzantinein Acts; mostly Byzantine in Paul, but with supplements containingsome earlier readings; highly valuable in the Catholics, where itgoes with 1739.
• 1506. Minuscule ofthe year 1320, now containing only the gospels (with some lacunae)plus the beginning of Paul (Romans and the first three and a fractionchapters of 1 Corinthians). It is of no value at all in the Gospels,but in Paul its text is strongly Alexandrian. 1506 is most noteworthyin that, alone among New Testament manuscripts, it omits Chapter 16of Romans.
• 1739. Tenth centuryminuscule of the Acts and Epistles, complete except that the firstchapter and a fraction of Acts come from a later hand. The singlemost important minuscule known. Space does not permit us to describeit in detail here; see the link. Suffice it to say that 1739 and itsallies contain a very old text -- which, however, is not part of theAlexandrian text and so has great value in its own right.
• 2138. Minuscule of theyear 1072, containing the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse. 2138 is ofvalue only in the Acts and Catholic Epistles. It is, however, the earliestmember of a fairly large group of manuscripts (e.g.614 in the Acts and Catholics,630 in the Catholics,and 1505 in the Acts,Paul, and Catholics) which contain a text neither Alexandrian norByzantine (some have called it "Western"; this is open todebate. For more on the matter, follow the link to 2138).

The above list shows that we know quite a bit about certainmanuscripts. Even so, the matter of manuscript classification remains highlyuncertain. The reader interested in a discussion of contemporaryissues is referred to the article onText-Types and Textual Kinship.

Perhaps as a result of this uncertainty, textual criticism in thetwentieth century has placed increased emphasis on internal evidence.All textual critics balance internal and external evidence to somedegree, but the twentieth century has seen a new class of critics.Often called "Radical" or "Thoroughgoing Eclectics,"they decide readings almost entirely on the basis of internal evidence;manuscripts are simply the sources of the readings to be examined.Foremost among these scholars are G. D. Kilpatrick and J. Keith Elliot.

The "documentary" methods of Hort, meanwhile, have beenalmost completely abandoned. The most common method today is"Reasoned Eclecticism," which attempts to give bothinternal and external evidence full voice. The interested reader istherefore advised to study the list of Canonsof Criticism, examining both the rules for internal and externalevidence.

Final Examples

Let us conclude this far-too-brief survey with a handful of additionexamples that demonstrate both internal and external rules. A handful ofadditional Examples are available in theEncyclopedia, but many of these stress the use of text-types andexternal evidence, and so are perhaps not ideal for beginning students.

In the examples below, where the "lemma" (the Greek text tobe examined) contains the notation [add], it means that some manuscriptsadd words, to be specified in the list of variants which follows the maintext.

James 5:7

ο γεωργος... λαβη[add]προιμον καιοψιμον: the farmer... receives... early and late [add]

• add υετον, "rain," i.e. read the farmer receives early and late rain A K L P Ψ 049 056 0142 33 81 88 104 181 322 323 330 (436) 451 614 629 1243 1505 1611 1735 1852 2138 2344 2412 2464 2492 2495 Byz pesh hark^text geo^ms slav
• add καρπον, "fruit" ℵ(*) 398 1175 ff hark^marg (bo) Faustus Cassiodorus
• [no addition] P⁷⁴ B 048 (69) 945 1241 1739 2298 vg^{am,colb,dem,dubl,ful,(harl)} sa arm geo^mss

This reading can be resolved using either internal or external evidence.Internally, it is clear that the original reading is the short one. If thetext originally said "the farmer waits to receive early and late,"this could easily have confused scribes, who would feel that the verb needsan object. A forerunner of the Byzantine text added "rain," whilea few scribes added "fruit" instead. Thus the reading without either nouneasily explains the others. Whereas if either "rain" or "fruit"were original, there would be no reason to omit it, and even less reason to changethe one to the other.

The manuscript evidence is also clear. "Fruit" is simplyinadequately supported. The support for "rain" is somewhatbetter, consisting of the Byzantine text, Family 2138, and an assortmentof late Alexandrian manuscripts. The omission, however, has the supportof Family 1739, of the earliest Alexandrian witness (B, supported byP⁷⁴ and the Sahidic), and a wide variety of versions. While thisis not as decisive as the internal evidence, it is strong. Combined, theinternal and external evidence make it all but certain that the shortreading is original.

Matthew 13:9

ωτα [add]ακουετω:with ears [add] let that one hear

• add ακουειν, "to hear" ℵ^c C D E F G K N O W X Z Γ Δ Θ Π Σ f¹ f¹³ 28 33 157 565 579 700 892 1010 1071 1241 1243 1342 1424 1505 Byz aur b c d f ff² g¹ h l q vg cur pesh hark sa bo arm eth geo slav
• [no addition] ℵ* B L a e ff¹ k sin

This reading will usually be decided based on internal evidence, since the externalevidence is somewhat spilt. The earliest Alexandrians omit "to hear," as doseveral of the best Old Latins. On the other hand, the majority of both Alexandrianand "Western" witnesses, along with the entire "Cæsarean" andByzantine families, add the infinitive. On the basis of the external evidence, mostscholars would probably prefer the short reading, but would be open to counter-suggestion.

The internal evidence is quite decisive, however. In Mark we find the phrase"ears to hear" three times (4:9, 23, 7:16), supported in two instancesby Luke. In Matthew, however, all three instances of the phrase are marked byvariation. In each case, the Byzantine text reads "ears to hear," andat least some early witnesses omit "to hear." Now we know that Matthewabbreviated Mark wherever possible, and we know that scribes were always harmonizingone gospel to another (that is, making both gospels sound alike -- usually by graftingthe longer reading of one gospel onto the shorter reading of another). Therefore thereis every likelihood that the reading without "to hear" is original (here andin 11:15, 13:43), and the longer readings are assimilations to Mark.

Several Final notes....

First, critical editions use many different formats to present data.The system above is by no means typical. A good critical edition will explainhow it is to be read, but you can also find information in the article onCritical Editions -- which also briefly describesthe nature and history of several of the major editions.

Second, it should be stressed that textual criticism, unlike any other Biblicaldiscipline, should not be faith-based. The goal must always be the highestpossible degree of scientific objectivity. This is simply a logical necessity.The Bible is one of the basic pillars of Christian theology (most Protestantsects would say the basic pillar). Therefore it follows that we want toreconstruct it as accurately as possible. But as soon as one allows personalpreference (whether it be called that or "the voice of the Holy Spirit"or the like) to determine the text, where does one stop? I will offer myself asan example. I personally find the doctrine of predestination to be simply abhorrent.It's boring for God and utterly unfair for humans. If I were to allow myown opinions (which feel just as much like the voice of the Holy Spirit asthe next person's opinion) to control me, I would always be tempted to delete or softenpro-predestination references. We will all have such prejudices. The only possiblesolution is to follow objective rules. Your rules may differ from mine, andso may produce different results -- but at least the result will not sufferfrom theological bias. Treat textual criticism as a science (using logicin the application of internal evidence and text-types and mathematicaldata in the evaluation of the external), and you should do well.

Some textual manuals, such as Ellis R. Brotzman's Old Testament Textual Criticism:A Practical Introduction (p. 129) suggest that every time one makes a textual decision, the textual critic should explain its importance for exegesis.I would strongly urge textual critics not to do this, as it muddies thethinking. Readings must be chosen solely on the basis of the evidence, not thecritic's faith. If a textual critic can't perform his or her task objectively, heor she shouldn't be doing textual criticism; if an exegete can't figure out what thevariant readings mean, the exegete should go out and get a real job. It is one thingto mark which readings are most uncertain, as several editions do; it is another forthe textual critic to do the exegete's job.

Third, I've had people come to me saying, in effect, "Help! Thistextual criticism stuff is undermining my faith." I would stress thatthis is no concern of the textual critic, who has a job to perform. (Yet anotheradvantage of textual critics with no religious axe to grind.) But I suppose weshould speak to this point.

For starters, it should be noted that every ancient writing extant inmultiple copies shows variations -- often much more significant variationsthan we find in the New Testament text. If 6,000 New Testament manuscriptsshowed no variation at all, it would be clear and direct evidence ofsupernatural influence (note that such influence need not have been God's;it could theoretically be the work of a being opposed to God). But Godpresents no other such explicit evidence; why offer it only in a strangeand obscure form that no one could appreciate until recently when we haveat last been able to study enough manuscripts to prove the point? Evenif you have some sort of inerrantist belief, it makes no sense. And thereis a faith issue the other way, too: What sort of God would keep the Bibleinviolate but allow wars and rape and murder and child abuse? A God whosimply takes a "hands off" attitude is one thing, a capriciousGod is another.

As to how the textual critic can answer the doubts of laypeople confrontedwith the alleged issue of textual criticism, I would suggest simply havingthe doubter consult one of the modern English translations. The New RevisedStandard Version, for instance, records textual variations with the words"other ancient authorities read...." Have the person read some ofthese footnotes. Do any of them really affect the person's beliefs? Does itreally matter if the Greek transliteration of the name of the Hebrew King Amonwas "Amon" or "Amos"? Does it matter if people in Alexandriaspelled their verbs in a way modern writers consider uncouth?Variation in the text is real andis widespread. Few if any scholars believe that we have recovered the originaltext with absolute certainty -- but I know of none who regard the differenceas so substantial as to be actually capable of producing heresy. Scholars suchas Burgon and Pickering have been intemperate (and, in the latter case atleast, demonstrably inaccurate) in their attacks on other scholars' methods. But eventhey have not shown any instance of modern (as opposed to ancient) editorsproducing any readings which affect Christian doctrine; doctrine is a unityand does not rest on a particular passage.

Though I would strongly argue, personally, that if such a reading doesexist, it is still the textual critic's duty to adopt that reading if theevidence supports it."καιγνωσεσθε τηναληθειαν και ηαληθειαελευθερωσειυμας" (John 8:32, a verse with nosignificant variants).

Good textual critics will not go too far. As P. Kyle McCarter once commentedas regards the canon of criticism regarding the harder reading, "The moredifficult reading is not to be preferred when it is garbage."

There is an interesting analogy in Karen H. Jobes and Moisés Silva'sIntroduction to the Septuagint (page 124): Consider purifying our watersupplies (or anything else involving sanitation, e.g. washing hands orpasteurizing milk): No matter how hard you try, none of these activities willeliminate all contamination. Does that mean that it's not worth purifying water --that we should drink dirty water and assume it's clean? Only if you like typhoidfever. We can't reconstruct the original text perfectly, because we are humanand it is a text copied by humans. But we can produce better and purer text.We can -- but only if we're willing to concede the need. Textual criticism doesnot threaten the Bible. Refusing to engage in TC is the threat.

Good luck!

Appendix: The Text of Chaucer's Address to his Scribe

The poem which opens this article is Chaucer's own comment on theaccuracy of his secretary's work. A non-poetic paraphrase into modernEnglish will show that inaccurate copying was just as much a problem forChaucer as for Biblical copyists:

Adam the scrivener, if ever it befalls you
To write Boethius or Troilus anew,
Under your long hair you must have scales
Unless you copy what I write more truly!
So often I must redo your work:
To correct it, and rub and scrape,
And all because of your negligence and rape.

There are only two extant pre-critical texts of this poem:Cambridge MS. Trinity College R.3.20 and the text of Stowe's 1561edition, seemingly from a lost manuscript. There are no variantsin the text listed by Benson in the third edition of TheRiverside Chaucer (text on p. 250, textual notes on p. 1188;the second edition of this work, by Robinson, notes some variantspellings and several conjectures by other editors),but the titles are different: The Cambridgems. calls the poem "Chaucer's Wordes Unto Adam, His OwneScriveyn," while Stowe's edition uses the title "ChaucersWoordes vnto his own Scriuener." Nonetheless there are differencesbetween modern authorities. The text at the top of this article,reprinted below with line numbers added, is from Benson.There follows a collation showingthe variants (mostly trivial, real variants shown in bold)in James J. Wilhelm's Medieval Song.

1 -- Adam scriveyn, if ever it thee bifalle
2 -- Boece or Troylus for to wryten newe,
3 -- Under thy long lokkes thou most have the scalle,
4 -- But after my makyng thow wryte more trewe;
5 -- So ofte adaye I mot thy werk renewe,
6 -- It to correcte and eke to rubbe and scrape,
7 -- And al is thorough thy negligence and haste.

1: scriveyn ] scrivain
2: Troylus ] Troilus; for to ] to; wryten ] writen
3: lokkes ] lockes; most ] moste
4: makyng ] making; thow ] thou; wryte ] write; trewe ] true
5: adaye ] a-day; mot ] moot
6: eke ] eek; rubbe ] rub
7: al ] all; thorugh ] thourgh