1.
Different Manuscripts — Textual Criticism (criticize means to “render a
judgment”)
a
The Science and Art of attempting to get back to the original
wording of the author in a given passage.
b
It exists because we have no autographs and variants are evident in
the copies we have. (perhaps God didn’t want Bible worshipped
and wanted our faith to be in Him and not in a book)
c
All scholarship recognizes it as legitimate. (evangelicals lead the
field ie. Metzinger)
d
Refers to Ancient Manuscripts, not differences in modern
translations.
e
The suggestion that no significant issues in regard to theology are
involved in the variants is inaccurate. (Better to say no theology is
changed)
f
There are two types of changes in the various manuscripts
i
Intentional Changes

Correcting Difficulties

Seeking Correspondence

(Mark 1:2 “prophets” KJV, other texts say
Isaiah. Scribe changes Isaiah to prophet b/c
he knows it is not just Isaiah quoted)

Mark 10:34 ‘on the 3rd day’ other passages
“after 3rd day”

Error is not in passage but in understanding
of it. Jewish amalgomym gives quote to
greatest prophet.

Correcting “Heresy”

Romans 4:19 “didn’t consider his body
dead” all other versions considered it dead

Mark 3:31—Jesus’ mothers and brothers
come to take Jesus because they think he is
crazy (settled even before textus receptus)

Theological Emphases

1 John 5:7-8 not in text until 15th century

Acts 8:37

Matt 6:13 “thine is the kingdom and power and
glory forever amen” Jesus ends w/ deliver us from
the evil one. Scribe adds doxology

Logical Flow

Abrupt Endings

Mark 16:8—three to four different endings
represented (KJV long ending)
ii
Unintentional Changes

Hearing mistakes—one reader; several copiers.
Places where a person may have misheard what was
g
said. Vowel combinations sometimes sound
identical

1 John 1:4 “that your joy may be full” all others
read “our joy may be full

Reading Mistakes

Skipping a word or line (Haplography—omitting a
second word or letter because a word or letter is
skipped 1 Thes. 2:7 “we were gentle among you”
“we were as children/infants/babes” same letter
next to each other Homoeoteleuton-skipping a
whole section because of similar words 1 Sam. 10
“now Nahash the ammonite” dead sea scrolls and
Josephus both mention this paragraph. Sept.
masoretic text no one else mention it. Matt 5:20
Kingdom of heaven 3 times in KJV. Several
manuscripts where this caused skips)

Mistaking similar letters

1 Tim. 3:16 “God was manifest in the flesh” –“he
was manifested” 

Mistaking Notes in margin for text

John 5:3-4 “angel troubling water”—added by a
scribe

Misdividing Words—

Mark 10:40 –for whom it is prepared. “it is
prepared for others”

Amos 6:12 “do horses run on rocks?” “do you plow
with oxen?” yes--. Two problems 1) get a yes
answer when it should be no. 2) oxens is not
correct. Take ending off and change vowel it
changes question to “does one plow the sea with
oxen”

Writing Mistakes

Misspellings

Dittography—

Jeremiah 51:3 “bend twice in a sentence” broke
Hebrew syntactical rules to do so

Switching order of letters—

Mark 14:65 “hitting w/ palms” or slapping the face

Inserting memorized text into material that is
similar.

Col. 1:14 “in whom we have redemption through
his blood, even the redemption of sins” through his
blood is prob. a scribe remembering Eph. 1:7
External Evidence
i
Manuscript Quality--
1 Original language versus translation—favor Greek
manuscript over latin, etc
h
i
2 Type of Manuscript (order of preferred)

Papyrus—doesn’t last long. Wouldn’t be used once
church gained wealth

Uncial—all words written in uppercase Greek
letters—favored b/c it takes time to produce

Minuscule—written in cursive. Lower and upper
case

Lectionary—book of worship which scripture
passages are written then commented on w/ church
calendar. Helpful bc you would be careful what
would be written but selective

Patristics—church fathers quoting. Why does he
not mention and probably working off of what he
remembers
ii
Earliest Attestation—earlier the better
iii
Widespread Geographically 100 “Jim ate raisins” all found
within a 10 mile radius of Athens 20 “jim ate grapes” 5 in
Europe 5 in Asia minor 5 in Africa 5 in Rome.
iv
Family Type (N.T. only)

Alexandrian—centered around upper Egypt
Palestine, etc

Early

Fairly conservative in alterations—they
don’t add things—almost always going to be
shorter reading

Byzantine

Most numerous

Later in Origin—middle ages

Western

Early

Tends to Expand
Internal Evidence
i
Shorter Reading is Preferred—more likely to add
something then take away
ii
More Difficult Reading is preferred—scribes are more
likely to make things clearer then confound them
iii
Less Harmonistic Reading is preferred
iv
View that best explains the others is preferred.—this is the
big one.
Example (Luke 22:17-21)
i
Reading 1:

And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks
he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves;
ii
iii
for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of
the fruit of the vine until the Kingdom of God
comes.” And he took bread and when he had given
thanks he broke it and gave it to them saying, “This
is my body which is given for you. Do this in
remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after
supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for
you is the new covenant of my blood. But behold
the hand of him . . .
Reading 2:

And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks
he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves;
for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of
the fruit of the vine until the Kingdom of God
comes.” And he took bread and when he had given
thanks he broke it and gave it to them saying, “This
is my body.” But behold the hand of him . . .
Factors

Both Readings are the same in age

Reading 1 has Alexandrian and Byzantine Support

Reading 2 is the Western text, but goes against
Western Tendencies
 Reading 2 is the shorter text.

Both have difficulties and are not harmonious

Reading 1 has two cups

Reading 2 has the cup first

j
Issue settled by which explains the other
best.

One can see how one might get from
reading 1 to reading 2

Hard to see how one gets from 2 to
1.

Text 2 is apparently an attempt to
move the second cup in Passover
meals for theological reasons. Text
1 explains the presence of text 2, but
text 2 cannot explain text 1.
Steps in the Process for “Non-Experts”
i
Look for annotations in an annotated edition.
ii
Identify the type of problem. (a category the change
would fit into)
iii
Consult a critical commentary. International critical
commentary. Word commentary
iv
List the evidence. (sometimes a wash sometimes not
even close)
v
Make a Choice.