The New Testament in the Original Greek: Introduction, Appendix: Book Review — Part II

B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort. The New Testament in the Original Greek: Introduction, Appendix. Cambridge and London: Macmillan and Co., 1882, pp. xxxi + 324 +173.

Review of pp. 163–324 [Part II]

Pp. 1-162 deals with the necessity, methods, and application of textual criticism. The following pages 163-324 deal with the application of the principles of textual criticism and the nature and details of this edition [Volume I & II]. Page 163 begins with section V of chapter 2 of Part III with the title “Identification and estimation of readings as belonging to the chief ancient texts.” Genealogical evidence method is widely considered for the determination of the readings (p. 162.) Pre-Syrian readings are identified, and Syrian readings are rejected. Hort wrote “Readings having only characteristic Western and characteristic Syrian attestation must have belonged to the Western text: readings having only characteristic Alexandrian and characteristic Syrian attestation must have belonged to the Alexandrian text” (p. 167). Pre-Syrian readings which are neither Western nor Alexandrian are considered “Neutral” (p. 170). Hort commented that B is more neutral than other documents (p. 171). Omission of words in Alexandrian and Syrian are rare but not in the Western text (p. 175). Section VI is the review of previous criticisms with reference to the ancient texts. Textual Criticism gained momentum in 1707 with Mill’s collection of documentary evidence (p. 181), followed by the work of Bentley and Bengel. Griesbach further developed historical criticism in contrast with Hug’s theory of recensions (p. 182). However, Hort said that Griesbach was confused between the classification of ancient texts and the classification of documents derived from them (p. 183).

Chapter 3, Result of Internal Evidence of Groups and Documents (pp. 187–271), has two sections. The first section deals generally, and the second section deals specifically (B and א). The homogeneousness of the fundamental texts of all important groups may be safely trusted (p. 189). On page 191, Hort said that the Syrian text as a whole must be condemned. According to Hort, אBCDL 33 in the Gospels, אABCDE, I3 6I in Acts, אABC I3 in the Catholic Epistles, and אABCD₈G₈ I7 in the Pauline Epistle are uncontestably the primary documents (p. 192). Hort contended that the Versions are excluded from the primary category even if they were non-Western and pre-Syrian for they cannot outweigh “trustworthy attestation” (p. 198). The authors observed that one of the most common forms of paraphrase in the Versions is the change of word order (p. 200). Hort also considered patristic sources to be doubtful of their accuracy; and when they are accurate, he said it is nothing more than an accidental coincidence (p. 203-4).

Section 2 deals specifically with reference to B and א (p. 207–271). Westcott and Hort considered these documents to be more trustworthy (paragraph 285). Comparison of manuscripts against these documents must either be Alexandrian or Western and cannot be mixed of both to be trustworthy (p. 208). They reported their findings on page 210: “Every group containing both א and Β is found, where Internal Evidence is tolerably unambiguous, to have an apparently more original text than every opposed group containing neither; and every group containing B, with the exception of such Western groups as include Β in the Pauline Epistles, is found in a large preponderance of cases, though by no means universally, to have an apparently more original text than every opposed group containing א.”

They also compared B to א to seek its independent nature, and they stand alone in numerous readings (p. 213). They presumed that the scribe of B was a corrector of א (p. 214), but remarkable differences were observed in their divisions into sections and other externals. They also adopted the strategy to exclude any manuscript which has no other attestation (p. 216). They proposed that the readings of א B should be accepted until strong internal evidence is against its readings, and if it has no support from Versions or Fathers, it cannot be rejected absolutely but must be on an alternative footing (p. 225); examples are listed on paragraph 304. Regarding the reliability of scribes, Hort wrote that no scribe can make the text better than he found it, and his best is to not make it worse (p. 232). He also suggested that the manuscript which is closer to the original will have more omissions than the Textus Receptus (p. 235).

Westcott and Hort argued that that B preserved a very pure line of a very ancient text, and that there is a greater integrity of text in B than in א (p. 251), however, the book of Revelation is missing in B. Hort admitted that it is “by no means sure” but they are convinced that “such relative insecurity” are removed through examination of the genealogical relations of the documents (p. 262). The most reliable documents for the Book of Revelation are A and C (p. 272). Regarding the birthplace of א and B, Westcott and Hort suggested that it must be in the West (p. 266), probably at Rome; ancestors of B were wholly Western, and ancestors of א were Alexandrian in a geographical sense (p. 267).  On pages 270–1, Hort discussed briefly the nature of scribes and correctors with reference to א and B.

Chapter 4 attempts to present the transmitted text as trustworthy copies of the original text (pp. 271–287). Variations of text must have existed in the early centuries and were forgotten through eclectic texts (p. 274). Regarding the immunity of the New Testament, Hort wrote, “If among the very ancient evidence now extant, collected from various quarters, so little can be found that approves itself as true in opposition both to Β and א, there is good reason at the outset to doubt whether any better readings have perished with the multitudes of documents that have been lost” (p. 277–8). Hort believed one does not need to lose confidence just because there were some instances of tampering with the text by dogmatic theologians like Tatian (p. 283).

Part IV is about the nature and details of this edition [Volume I & II] (pp. 288–324). The aim of this edition is “to obtain the closest approximation to the apostolic text itself” (p. 288). Hort assured that the “text” was based on “direct ancient authority of the highest kind” (p.290); when they weren’t certain, alternate readings were supplied. Precedence of documentary authority over internal evidence was employed. Notations were used to express probabilities of variant readings, and they hope that future textual criticism will reduce them to very few. Different markings like ⸂ ⸃, [[ ]], [ ], etc. were employed in this edition [Volume I & II]. Hort also admitted that a considerable number of readings that deserved to be mentioned are excluded because of no sufficient claim (p. 298) but are catalogued in the Appendix.

Hort devoted a section on orthography expressing the importance of it, and attempting to present the spelling as nearly as to the autographs by means of documentary evidence (p. 303). To Hort, “orthography deals with elements of text transmitted uninterruptedly, with more or less of purity, from the autographs to the extant MSS” (p. 311). Careful attention was given to breathing, accents, and other accessories of printing (pp. 311–318). The last section of this book concludes with a discussion on Punctuation—Division of Text, and Titles of Books—and Acknowledgement (pp. 318–324).

The strength of this book lies in the detailed explanation of their methods of textual criticism with some examples. The book is properly outlined, and each paragraph is numbered making the reading easy to trace. There is even a change in font size when certain paragraph deals with specific issues. I wish some of the paragraphs were shorter. And I get lost in some of his continuous descriptions; it would have been better if they had included some more examples or illustrations of what they are writing about.  I am quite aware this was their first edition of (Volume II), perhaps, subsequent editions were much better and easier to read and comprehend.

Westcott Hort considered א and B to be the most reliable Manuscripts of the New Testament. Even among the two, they prefer א though the book of Revelation is missing. They appealed to manuscripts that are Pre-Syrian Non-Western Non-Alexandrian to be the reliable sources, calling “Neutral,” represented by א and B. They accused Textus Receptus of an eclectic text, however, their method of constructing the text is also eclectic. However, the way the book concluded with an attempt to make the readers feel confident of the retention of the original writings of the sacred writer is commendable (which Metzer and Ehrman failed to do in their book).

The New Testament in the Original Greek: Introduction, Appendix: Book Review — Part I

B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort. The New Testament in the Original Greek: Introduction, Appendix. Cambridge and London: Macmillan and Co., 1882, pp. xxxi + 324 +173.

Review of pp. 1-163 [Part I]

This book has been in different editions and prints over the years. It was the second volume that appeared in 1882, after the publication of the first Volume in 1881 which contained the Text of the New Testament and shorter introduction. It was perhaps the most significant work of textual criticism in the New Testament at the time of its publication and has a lasting influence even at present. It was known for differing from the Majority Text, especially the Textus Receptus. Wescott and Hort were professors at Cambridge, and this work was a result of their 28 years of partnership. This edition (Volume II) has 324 pages of introduction and 173 pages of Appendix. It was prepared mainly by J.J.A. Hort (p. 18) in the last two to three years of their 28 years of partnership. This book has versification for each paragraph, having 425 verses or paragraphs in the section Introduction (pp. 1–324).

The Introduction has four parts: 1. The need for criticism of the text of the New Testament (pp. 4–18), 2. The methods of textual criticism (pp. 19–72), 3. Application of principles of criticism to the text of the New Testament (pp. 73–287), 4. Nature and details of this edition [Volume I & II] (pp. 288–324). The title of the book “… in the original Greek” must mean that the original language is in Greek and should not be confused with the supposition that what Westcott-Hort had come up with was the original Greek the sacred writers employed. This can be seen from the acknowledgment they made regarding the doubts they had for some variant readings (p. 2), however “attempt to determine the original words of the Apostles and writers of the New Testament” (p. 16) seems to indicate otherwise. Hort presented textual criticism as the detection and rejection of error (p. 3).

Part 1 discusses transmission by writing and printed edition, and the history of this edition [Volume I & II] (4–18). Manuscripts [handwritten] were destroyed by various means even through war and invasions (p.9). No uncial manuscripts earlier than the time of Constantine were discovered (p.11). Ximenes’s polyglot version of the Greek New Testament was printed in 1514, and Erasmus’s version in 1516 (p. 11). The second Elzevir edition of 1633 (p. 12) became widely known as “Received Text” (which by the way is 22 years later than the 1611 King James Version Bible). Lachmann in 1831 attempted to carry out the wishes of Bentley in advancing textual criticism which was further developed by his successors Tischendorf and Trigelles (p. 13). Westcott-Hort considered Textus Receptus unworthy of trust and since there were no critical editions available other than those of Lachmann and Tischendorf, they decided to come up with this edition [Volume I & II] (p. 16). They worked independently and discussed their results with “free and full criticism” if they happened to have disagreements (p.18). 

Part 2 has six sections on methods of textual criticism. 1. Internal Evidence of Reading, which is determined by Intrinsic probability and Transcriptional probability. In p.25, Wescott and Hort wrote that scribes were “moved by different impulses” “of a much greater variety,” and could be accounted for the variant readings. 2. Internal Evidence of Documents. One of the consistent principles to employ is “Knowledge of documents should precede final judgment upon readings” (p.31). [I need more reading regarding Internal Evidence of documents. How scholars identify what document is more reliable than others is still puzzling to me. Paragraph 40 discusses it to some extent.] 3. Genealogical Evidence. The principle involved here is that “all trustworthy restoration of corrupted texts is founded on the study of their history” (p. 40). In this section, the theory of common ancestor which was lost is taken into consideration (p. 54). 4. Internal Evidence of Groups. This comes between internal evidence of documents and genealogical evidence (p. 60). Here, Hort explained that internal evidence of a document concerns a single document, whereas its method is applicable to groups of documents (p. 60).

Section 5 is a recapitulation of the four methods in relation to each other. Here, Hort explained that the Genealogy method is similar to the method of internal evidence of documents. It involves three processes: analysis and comparison for a succession of individual variations, investigation of genealogical relation between the documents and their ancestors, and application of these relations to the interpretation of documentary evidence for each variation (p. 62). Paragraph 82 states the preference of methods in various cases. Genealogical evidence is of higher value (p. 64). Section 6 is criticism as dealing with errors antecedent to existing texts. On p. 67, Intrinsic evidence is presented as dealing with absolute originality, whereas all other kinds of evidence deal with relative originality. Paragraphs 93–95 are about Conjectural Emendation; however, the scholars did not believe in its worth in textual criticism of the New Testament (p. 72).

Part 3 has four chapters. Chapter 1 is a preliminary chronological survey of documents. The Greek manuscripts: Only 4 Uncials New Testament copies are extant of which only Codex Sinaiticus has the entire books of the New Testament (p. 75). Paragraphs 98–106 provide a helpful reference. While manuscripts of earlier centuries are not many, the manuscripts of the ninth and the tenth centuries are numerous (p. 76). About 30 Cursive manuscripts of New Testament copies between the ninth to sixteenth centuries are extant (p. 76). Cursive manuscripts are largely ignored by most people (p.77). Other versions include Latin, Syriac, and the Egyptians: Latin versions were in circulation by the beginning of the third century (p. 78). Syriac has three versions, the most popular being Peshito (p. 84); it must be as old as the Latin version. Egyptian versions are also known as the Coptic versions, they must not be later than the second century (p. 85). The third class of documents are the writings of the Fathers (pp. 87–89). Hort acknowledged the fresh evidence they have was from the writing of the Fathers (p. 89). 

Chapter 2 is titled “Results of genealogical evidence proper.”  It has six sections. Section 1 deals with the determination of genealogical relations of the chief ancient texts. Some principles include— the priority of variation over conflated reading and the posteriority of Syrian reading to Western, Neutral, and Alexandrian readings. Examples of conflated reading are given on pp. 94–95, 99–104. Three matters of evidence show the posteriority of Syrian readings: Conflated reading, ante-Nicene Patristic evidence, and internal evidence of Syrian readings. On p. 116, Horts suggested that the authors of Syrian text must have had the knowledge of three earlier forms of text, which are Western, Alexandrian, and Neutral. On p. 118, Syrian text is presented as “a modified eclectic combination of earlier text” whose authority lies only in itself.

Section 2 deals with the characteristics of the chief ancient texts: Western readings love paraphrasing (p. 122); Neutral Text is non-western and pre-Syrian, and is generally Alexandrian (p. 129); Alexandrian readings are not corrupt like Western readings, they were the work of careful scribes (p. 131); and Syrian text, which must be the result of ‘recension’ (p. 133), and is known for lucidity and completeness (p. 134). Section 3 gives the sketch of post-Nicene textual history; it is about the Syrian text. Two stages of Syrian text are proposed (p. 137); followed by a mixture in the fourth century (p. 139), perhaps made possible by circumstances under the persecution of Diocletian; eventually leading to the multiplicity of Syrian text (p. 141). Horts observed that the text recognized at Constantinople became the standard New Testament of the East (p. 143).

Section 4 deals with the relation of the principal extant document to the chief ancient texts (pp. 146–162). The extant documents are those found in Greek MSS, Versions, and Greek Fathers. This comparison gave “moral certainty” to assign the documents to various groups (p. 147). B is found to be pre-Syrian and unique (p. 150). Codex Sinaiticus is free from Western and Alexandrian corruption and is also pre-Syrian (p. 151). Other MSS aren’t as good as B and Sinaiticus (paragraph 206). A is mixed with Syrian text in the Gospels (p. 152). Versions (Latin, Syriac, Egyptians, Armenians) were found to have Syrian readings as well especially those of the fourth century or later (p. 159). Quotations found in the Fathers are variously blended and need further examination (p. 159).

Wescott and Hort have a deplorable view of Syrian Text in comparison to other types of text. Many times, the basis of rejection is weighed upon the presence or influence of Syrian text. They argued that Syrian text is relatively younger and therefore is farther from the original. Other reasons include the presence of conflations and the attempts to make the text more lucid than the original.

I am not sure how they date the manuscripts, but much of the arguments will only stand or fall if the dating of the manuscripts is correct. I wonder why scholars aren’t paying much attention to the cursive (minuscules) and the quotations of the Fathers.

Short Reflection from Philemon

[Originally posted in a WhatsApp group (PG) as a daily reading update (reflection) from each chapter of the Bible]

ℙ𝕙𝕚𝕝𝕖𝕞𝕠𝕟 𝟙:𝟟

"For I have come to have much joy and comfort in your love, because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed through you, brother."

Good reports of Christian leaders are encouraging; sinful reports are discouraging. We don't live for ourselves; We affect others!

Short Reflection from Titus 1-3

[Originally posted in a WhatsApp group (PG) as a daily reading update (reflection) from each chapter of the Bible]

[10:49 pm, 01/06/2022] S.R:

𝕋𝕚𝕥𝕦𝕤 𝟙:𝟙𝟝

"To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled."

Liberty in Christ but it's to be rich in good works.

 

𝕋𝕚𝕥𝕦𝕤 𝟚:𝟙𝟙-𝟙𝟚

"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age,"

To renounce worldly desire!

 

𝕋𝕚𝕥𝕦𝕤 𝟛:𝟙𝟜

"Our people must also learn to engage in good deeds to meet pressing needs, so that they will not be unfruitful."

Necessity of abundance of good deeds in the Christian life!

 

Short Reflection from 2 Timothy 1-4

[Originally posted in a WhatsApp group (BRW-M) as a daily reading update (reflection) from each chapter of the Bible]

[23:04, 3/1/2021] S.R:

2 TIMOTHY 1:12

"For this reason I also suffer these things; nevertheless I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that Day."

There's a wonderful hymn written by El Nathan (alias D.W. Whittle) from this verse. The rich theology of this hymn makes us fall in love with it. It is a song of assurance and confidence.

Tonight, I realise that this verse is written in the context of suffering and shame. Paul made this statement so that Timothy will remember what Christian life looks like, and that he should be courageous, to suffer along with him even to death (verse 8).

 

𝟚 𝕋𝕚𝕞𝕠𝕥𝕙𝕪 𝟚:𝟚𝟜-𝟚𝟞

"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will."

Dealing with an opponent in a gentle manner is hard, very hard. I don't want to even deal with it sometimes!

 

𝟚 𝕋𝕚𝕞𝕠𝕥𝕙𝕪 𝟛:𝟜-𝟝

"treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these."

It has been foretold. Not to be surprised. But to endure faithfully!

 

𝟚 𝕋𝕚𝕞𝕠𝕥𝕙𝕪 𝟜:𝟙𝟞

"At my first defense no one supported me, but all deserted me; may it not be counted against them."

If there was none with Paul, let us not be surprised when people abandon this and that!

Short Reflection from 2 Thessalonians 1-3

[Originally posted in a WhatsApp group (PG) as a daily reading update (reflection) from each chapter of the Bible]

[1:18 pm, 23/05/2022] S.R:

𝟚 𝕋𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕤𝕒𝕝𝕠𝕟𝕚𝕒𝕟𝕤 𝟙:𝟙𝟚

"so that the name of our Lord Jesus will be glorified in you, and you in Him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ."

Two people will be glorified: Jesus in us and we in Jesus.

When we live for God's glory we are also living for our glory.

When I live for my glory, it dishonors God and brings destruction to myself.

 

𝟚 𝕋𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕤𝕒𝕝𝕠𝕟𝕚𝕒𝕟𝕤 𝟚:𝟙𝟙-𝟙𝟚

"For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness."

It's God's way or our way. And we don't want our way in reality because we know how to choose only evil way like Adam choosing the knowledge of bad by eating the fruit.

 

𝟚 𝕋𝕙𝕖𝕤𝕤𝕒𝕝𝕠𝕟𝕚𝕒𝕟𝕤 𝟛:𝟚

"and that we will be rescued from perverse and evil men; for not all have faith."

There are people like this. If Paul sought prayer from others to be rescued from such people, we would be a fool to be ignorant of the schemes of man.

Short Reflection from 1 Timothy 1-6

[Originally posted in a WhatsApp group (BRW-M) as a daily reading update (reflection) from each chapter of the Bible]

[7:22 am, 26/05/2022] S.R: 𝟙 𝕋𝕚𝕞𝕠𝕥𝕙𝕪 𝟙:𝟙𝟡

"keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith."

Paul used the word "conscience" at least two times in this chapter. God has given human beings a conscience to warn us of our waywardness. Oh! May it not be seared, suppressed, or ignored!

 

[0:53 pm, 16/03/2022] S.R: 𝟙 𝕋𝕚𝕞𝕠𝕥𝕙𝕪 𝟚:𝟙𝟚

"But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet."

If this is not what it means, what guarantees the rest of the scriptures to be what they say?

Even a child can read and understand, and the rebellious adults are jumping here and there to accommodate their ungodly self-centered feminism!

____ has no pastor. It's not even a church. I don't know why professing Christians keep going there @Cha_____.

 

𝟙 𝕋𝕚𝕞𝕠𝕥𝕙𝕪 𝟛:𝟚

"An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,"

One qualification criterion that separates deacons from pastors is "able to teach"

Ironically, in Baptist churches in Manipur, deacons preached, and also their character qualifications are not taken seriously.

 

𝟙 𝕋𝕚𝕞𝕠𝕥𝕙𝕪 𝟜:𝟙𝟞

"Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers."

Doctrine and Lifestyle.

I have seen that when a mentor fails, he collapses with his mentees.

 

𝟙 𝕋𝕚𝕞𝕠𝕥𝕙𝕪 𝟝:𝟙𝟞

'If any woman who is a believer has dependent widows, she must assist them and the church must not be burdened, so that it may assist those who are widows indeed."

A Christian widow without a relative is the burden of a church.

A widow with a relative should be taken care of by relatives.

A non-Christian widow without a relative should be reported to MLA and NGOs😃

 

𝟙 𝕋𝕚𝕞𝕠𝕥𝕙𝕪 𝟞:𝟠

"But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content."

I do have food and clothing, praise God! 🙏

The Text of the New Testament— Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration: Book Review — Part II

Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. Fourth Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. xvi +366.

Review of pp. 164–343 Part II

This book has three parts: Material for Textual Criticism (pp. 1–134); History of Textual Criticism (pp. 135–194); and Application of Textual Criticism (pp. 195–343). It has 9 chapters, and this review will cover the last 6 chapters (pp. 165–343). Chapter 3 deals with the precritical period of the history of New Testament Textual Criticism.

Chapter 4 is about the modern critical period ranging from Griesbach to the present (p. 137–194). Griesbach, a student of Semler developed 15 canons of textual criticism (p. 166-7). Johan Leonhard Hug (1765-1846) developed the theory of Western Text called a common edition (p. 169). Berlin Karl Lachmann (1793–1851) totally broke away totally from Textus Receptus, publishing the Greek New Testament, and without using minuscule manuscripts (p. 170); he also attracted a lot of criticism even from a liberal scholar. The authors estimated Tischendorf’s contribution to the field of Textual Criticism the most.

After him, came Trigelles, Henry Alford, Westcott, and Hort. Hort popularized the concept of “Internal Evidence of Readings” which is of two kinds: Intrinsic probability and Transcriptional probability (p. 175). Wescott and Hort distinguished four principal types of the text of the New Testament: Syrian, Western, Alexandrian, and Neutral. Western is known for paraphrasing (p. 178), Alexandrian for polished language, Neutral as the most free from corruption, and Syrian is farthest from original. Westcott and Hort rejected Textus Receptus totally (p. 181) drawing criticism from many other scholars and clergies.

Next, Weiss detected five types of error in the variant readings: harmonization, interchange, omissions and additions, alteration of order, and orthographical variation (p. 184).  Von Soden came up with his classification of text into three groups: Koine, Hesychian, and Jerusalem recension. Then, Metzer and Ehrman write briefly about the editions of Nestle-Aland and UBS versions of the Greek New Testament.

Chapter 5 is about the origin of textual criticism as a scholarly discipline (p. 197–204). Textual criticism originated with the Greeks before the time of the New Testament (p. 197). Origen suggested that all the manuscripts existing may have become corrupt (p. 201). Geneva Bible of 1560 became the first English Bible to have variant readings (p. 203). Francis Lucas is identified as the first scholar to use the three important witnesses for the text of the New Testament (p. 204). Richard Simon’s four publications regarding textual criticism ushered in a new level in its field (p. 204).

Chapter 6 is about the modern methods of textual criticism (p. 205–249). Recension and Emendation methods are practiced. Joseph Bedier developed his method rejecting the genealogical method (p. 210). Clark developed the theory of accidental scribal omission by challenging the classical view: “shorter reading of two is probably original” (p. 212). By the end of the twentieth century Byzantine Text regained popularity again through the scholarship of Robinson, Pierpoint, Farstad, and Zane Hodges (p. 218).

Other methods of textual criticism include Thoroughgoing Eclecticism, and         Conjectural Emendation. The authors noted the observation of Schmiedel that Trigelles, Tischendorf, and Weiss contained only one conjecture each, while the 24th edition of Nestle’s Greek New Testament had 200 conjectures (p. 230). Colwell and Parvis employed the method of multiple reading for the classification and identification of text family (p. 233). Three other methods have been developed by the scholars: Claremont Profile Method, Testellen, and Comprehensive Profile Method. The use of computers has taken textual criticism to another level since the 1950s (p. 240), especially in the areas of Collection of Data, Presentation of Data, Statistical Analyses, and Hypertext Possibilities. Then the authors mention the ongoing project taken up by INTF and IGNTP towards furher scholarship.

Chapter 7 is about the cause of error in the transmission (p. 250–271). Metzer and Ehrman present two types of errors: unintentional and intentional errors. Unintentional Changes include those that arise from eyesight, hearing, mind, and judgment. Intentional Changes involve grammar, spelling, harmonization, addition, conflation, doctrinal, and omission. They document how scribes were led to error by faulty eyesight on p. 251-4. The similar sounds of first- and second-person plural pronouns in Greek would be sometimes confused (p.255). In p. 260 n13, the complaint of Jerome concerning scribal intentional errors is recorded. An account of Bishop Spyridon’s zeal for textual accuracy is recorded in p. 261. Several more examples are documented for each type of unintentional change and intentional change.

Chapter 8 is about the history of transmission (p. 271–299). This chapter contains fewer facts and documentation than the previous chapters. Four sections under this chapter are—complications in establishing the original text, the dissemination of early Christian literature, the rise and development of text types, and the use of textual data for the social history of early Christianity. The author(s) present the history of transmission to be difficult to ascertain because of the existing theories concerning the original autograph of each book of the New Testament: oral, dictation, collection, etc. (p. 272-4). A few other topics in this chapter under the section on social history are—Doctrinal disputations, Jewish-Christian relations, Oppression of women, Christian apologia, Christian asceticism, and Magic and Fortune-telling. In p. 282, the book claims that the early churches had competing views, and the victorious orthodoxy rewrote the history of the church.

Chapter 9 is about the practice of New Testament Textual Criticism (p. 300–343). The basic criterion for evaluating the variant reading is to “choose the reading that best explains the origin of the others” (p. 300). External Evidence (date, geography, genealogy of the witnesses) and Internal Evidence (Transcriptional probability and Intrinsic probability) are employed to determine the original reading (p. 302-4). Priority of the Gospel of Mark is noted under intrinsic probability (p. 304). Three groups of Witnesses are discussed briefly—Koine or Byzantine, Western, and Alexandrian (p. 306-313). Western text is considered by some scholars to have been the result of retranslation from Latin or Syriac into Greek (p. 309).

Helpful demonstrations of Textual analysis of some selected passages (Acts 6:8; John 7:37-9; 1 Thess. 2:7; Mark 14:25; Acts 20:28; Col. 2:2; Luke 20:1; 1 Thess. 3:2; Acts 12:25; Luke 10:1, 17, last 12 verse of Mark, and many more) are given at the end of the book from page 316 to 343. The book concludes with the practical fact that there is no mechanical way for a textual critic to follow based on one manuscript or family of manuscripts. Textual critics must acknowledge not only what can be ascertained but also what “cannot be known” (p. 343).

The authors consider rejection of Textus Receptus as a victorious thing with negative descriptions like “overthrow” (pp. 170, 232) “debased form of Greek” (p.149) “abandoned” (p. 156) “supplant” (p. 157) “departed” (pp. 162, 190) “deserted” (p. 163) reject (p. 171) “was most successful in drawing . . . away” (p. 173). The strength of this section (chapters 4-9) lies in the several examples of textual analysis given in the last chapter, and the documentation of various scribal errors in chapter 7. The weakness of this book is the inadequate discussion of the modern method of textual criticism in chapter 6. Claremont Profile Method and Comprehensive Profile Method deserve to be treated much longer than how they have been presented in this book. Also, chapter 8 looks more subjective and speculative than any chapter of this book.

The Text of the New Testament— Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration: Book Review — Part I

Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. Fourth Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. xvi +366.

Review of pp. 3–164: Part I

          The first 3 editions of this book appeared in 1964, 1968, 1992 (p. iv) and were authored by Bruce M. Metzer of Princeton Theological Seminary, one of the leading Textual Criticism scholars of his time. This is the fourth edition co-authored by Bart D. Ehrman, a mentee of Bruce Metzer, to add “more important bibliographical items along with expanded information” concerning the art and science of Textual Criticism of the New Testament (pp. xiii, xv). For the last 41 years then, and 59 years now, this book has been a standard textbook of introduction to Textual Criticism of the New Testament.

In the preface, Metzer wrote that Textual Criticism is necessary because the autographs of the New Testament are non-extant and the copies available to us have variations (p. xv). He also acknowledged that the theories and practices of evaluating textual evidence varied over the years, thus, producing this book under three parts: Material for Textual Criticism (pp. 1–134); History of Textual Criticism (pp. 135–194); and Application of Textual Criticism (pp. 195–343). (Pp. 345-9 contains the bibliography). It has 9 chapters, and this review will cover the first 3 chapters (pp. 1-164) without any reference or comparison to the previous editions.

Chapter 1 is about the Making of Ancients Books (pp. 1–51). A brief description of how papyrus, parchment, and ink are gathered to make the New Testament scroll with illustrations is documented. The common size of the papyrus sheet was 15 by 9 inches, which is slightly bigger than A4 size paper (p. 7). The scroll is about 35 feet long, and books like the Gospel of Luke and Acts must be issued separately as each would take up around 31-32 feet of papyrus roll (p. 12). Scrolls would be usually written only on one (smooth) side but sometimes on both sides too. The book form “codex” became popular by the second century, especially among the Christians (p. 13), however, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are made up of parchment, not papyrus (p. 15).

Manuscripts were written in majuscules and minuscules, but minuscules became more convenient and outnumbered the majuscule manuscripts by more than ten to one (p. 21). Sometimes, parchments were re-scraped and reused called palimpsest (p. 21), unfortunately, biblical parchments were also found to be used for other purpose (p.  22). Scriptures were written without spaces between the words, but it was not difficult for the native readers especially when they read out aloud as they normally were (p. 23). Scribes also employed a system of contraction for some frequently occurring words like Jesus, God, Christ, etc. Randel Harris estimated that it could cost 30,000 denarii to produce a Bible, which only millionaires of our times can afford (p. 26).

Metzer (or Ehrman?) described the practice of production to be lenient by the fourth century that a group of both Christians and non-Christians were employed—perhaps, 6 hours a day for several months (p. 29)— to write a copy while somebody read out aloud making more opportunity for wrong words to be written (p. 25). However, in the proceeding sections, on p. 30, the strict requirement of monks to write accurately is documented. Some irrelevant remarks in the Irish language were observed in ninth-century Latin manuscripts (p. 32) perhaps by the scribes according to the author(s).

Over the years, the scribes or theologians had developed “Help for readers,” in the form of sections, divisions, or chapters as seen in Codex Vaticanus, the earliest one (p. 34). Archbishop Andrew of the sixth century observed 72 chapters in the book of Revelation. Eusebius attempted to harmonize the Gospel by locating a parallel passage after making several divisions in each book, which is helpful even for the present time (p. 39). Some manuscripts have images, illustrations, and portraits. The author(s) documented the adaptation of punctuation, cola and commata, neumes, and lectionary equipment in the paragraphs later. This chapter is concluded by a section on Statistics of Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament (p. 47 onwards): 310 majuscules and 2877 minuscules; 2432 lectionaries; including 6 portions of New Testament on broken pieces of pottery; and 116 papyri, a total of 5735 (p. 50).

Chapter 2 is about the three Important Witnesses to the text of the New Testament (pp. 52–134): Greek manuscripts, ancient translations into another language, and quotations from church fathers. p⁶⁷ shows that text division was done even by the time of the second century (p. 53).  p⁵² proves the existence of the Gospel of John long before the fourth century contrary to the claims of some critics (p. 56). Some important manuscript like p⁷⁵ has many lacunae and is in poor preservation (p. 58), However, Codex Sinaiticus has the entire New Testament in it in a majuscule manuscript (p. 62).

Metzer and Ehrman also noted the textual variations of some words in the manuscripts like the 666 of Revelation that p¹¹⁵ has it as 616 (p.61). Codex Bezae has so many “remarkable variations”; one of them is the addition of “twenty men could scarcely roll” the stone before the tomb of Jesus in Luke 23:25 (p. 71). Acts is also one-tenth longer in it. Some bilingual manuscripts (of Greek and Latin) like D^p underwent correction (around 9 correctors) (p. 73). MS. 61 has “the three heavenly witnesses” of 1Jn.5:7-8 (p. 88).

Augustine and Jerome complained that some people were quick to translate the Greek manuscript into Latin (p. 95 n76, p. 101). There are five different Syriac versions: Old Syriac, Peshitta, Philoxenia/ Harclean, Palestinian Syriac. A brief account of other versions of New Testament manuscripts such as the Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Old Slavonic, and other less-known various versions are also noted. Most of the Gothic manuscripts are palimpsest (p. 115). Armenian Version has more manuscripts than any other early version except for the Latin Vulgate (p. 117). Metzer observed that at least 30 Ethiopic manuscripts have the longer ending of Gospel Mark (p. 120). Nubians had their Bible version but later, embraced Islam (p. 123).

Regarding the importance of patristic quotations, they suggested that when manuscripts differ, the one that differs from the Vulgate or the Byzantine text must be more original (p. 127). In footnote 123 (p. 127), the importance of memorizing scriptures in the early churches is noted. The authors expressed the lack of studies in the patristic sources by the scholars over the years (p. 130)

Chapter 3 is about the Precritical period: the origin and dominance of Textus Receptus (pp. 137–164). Numbers of copies of the Vulgate were printed before the printing of the first polyglot Greek New Testament in 1514 though Greek Grammars were in print since 1476 (p. 137, p. 138 n2). Erasmus’ version was hastily readied by 1516 drawing the criticism of Scrivener, “most faulty book” (p. 143). His second edition was used by Luther for German translation (p. 145). The authors briefly discussed the issue of Comma Johanneum associating with Erasmus till the present time. Stephanus’ fourth edition of 1551 became the first Greek Text that had numbered verse, while the third edition had become the standard text for several years (p. 150).

Edward Wells is recognized as the first person to abandon Textus Receptus in publishing the Greek Text between 1709-19 (p. 155). John Owen is presented as an opponent of Textual Criticism in pp. 153 n38 and 154. Bengel, Wettstein, and Semler developed further the art and science of Textual Criticism (p. 161).

The strength of this book lies in the fact that it has been the standard textbook for textual criticism of the New Testament for decades, also authored by none other than Bruce Metzer, however, this edition being co-authored by Barth Ehrman, a skeptic and critic of Christianity makes one suspicious. This book treats the text of the New Testament as any ancient manuscript; they do not present it to be sacred or divine at all— neither in the text nor in the preface or the footnotes. The authors disdain Textus Receptus and its adherents. Sometimes, the method of transcription is put in a bad light by emphasizing the carelessness or the mistakes of the scribes.