1

Father Pijimi St. Moses

St. Mary and St. Moses Abbey

101 S Vista Dr,

Sandia, TX 78383

pijimi@outlook.com

Saint Athanasius Boarding Seminary

Saint Mary and Saint Moses Abbey, Texas

New Testament Course

Research Paper

Subject

Textual Criticism

and the Book of Acts

November 5th, 2015 25 Babah 1732

The departure of St. Abib, the friend of St. Apollo

2

Introduction

In this paper we will explain what is textual criticism, and why does it affect the text of our Bible.

We will study the book of Acts as an example. The purpose of this study is acquiring certain

knowledge of textual criticism that will help us to realize how the Holy Spirit at various times

and in various ways,1 preserved the Scripture throughout the ages so that we can live by it

today and immerse our lives in its teaching.2

Modern English readers to the Bible often become puzzled when they encounter the notes on

the margins which indicate a different reading for the same verse in another translation. They

may wonder why the same verse may have a different rendering in a different Bible translation.

While Modern Bible editors find it necessary to indicate major Critical and Majority Text

variant readings in the footnotes.3 Variant readings are currently present in the many of bibles.

It is remarkable that each of the modern English versions usually has at least 500 such notes for

the New Testament; some (such as the New King James Version and the New Jerusalem Bible)

have as many as 1,0004 (see the following illustrating diagram).

Sometimes these different readings need explanation and to be studied in light of our Orthodox

understanding of the Scriptures, this will be our task in this paper.

1 Heb. 1:1 2 Biblical citations in this paper are from NKJV translation. I am also using the Greek text of UBS4 and its apparatus2, along with Metzgers and Comforts textual commentary for explicatory notes on the same apparatus. 3 NKJV Notes (1st, Accordance electronic ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), n.p. 4 Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (Accordance electronic ed. Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 2008), vii.

3

Diagram 1- displays the number of verses in NKJV notes that have NU-Text variant reading in the books of NT5

What is Textual criticism?

Textual criticism is the art of rendering ancient texts as close as possible to their original form as

written intended by their authors. Merriam-Webster defines it as, the study of a literary work

that aims to establish the original text.6 The Oxford Classical Dictionary defines textual

criticism as the technique and art of restoring a text to its original state, as far as possible, in

the editing of Greek and Latin authors (1970, 1048). Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, editors

of the Jewish Study Bible, wrote It cannot be emphasized sufficiently that textual criticism is as

much an art as a science.7

Textual criticism for the Greek New Testament.

Textual criticism is necessary to reconstruct a missing original text out of multiple manuscripts.

The discipline of textual criticism is necessary for all ancient works, such as Homers Iliad,

5 Diagram courtesy of NKJV Notes (1st, Accordance electronic ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), n.p 6 Merriam-Webster 11th Collegiate Thesaurus, 2008 7 Adele Berlin, Marc Zvi Brettler, and Michael A. Fishbane, eds., The Jewish Study Bible (Accordance electronic ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), n.p.

4

Virgils Aeneid, and the Greek New Testament. In order to accomplish this task, textual critics

need manuscriptsthe more the better and (usually) the earlier the better.

Why is there a need to edit the text Greek New testament? Why not just reprint the existing

manuscripts?

There is no complete agreement between these manuscripts. Thats why textual-critics8 must

sort through their variant9 readings to reconstruct the original wording of the Greek New

Testament.

What are the main text-critical materials for the New Testament?

New Testament textual critics have many early and reliable manuscripts. The time gap between

the autographs and the earliest extant copies is quite closeno more than 100 years for most of

the books of the New Testament. Thus, we are in a good position to recover most of the original

wording of the Greek New Testament. The following are the main categories of sources for the

New Testaments textual criticism.

a) Greek manuscripts: From the second to the fifteenth century, some 5000 manuscripts exist

now that contain the entire text of the New Testament or parts of it.

b) Syriac, Coptic10, Latin, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, and other languages

c) Citations in early Christian writers. A comparative study of this material enables scholars

to get behind the Byzantine type of text

d) the more recent discovery of manuscripts (mainly on papyrus) of the 3rd and even 2nd

centuries, which cannot be neatly assigned to one or another of the previous types, makes

the earlier history of the text more problematic. Some English translations such as the

8 the persons who study manuscripts and their transmission and makes decisions about which reading among the

variants is most likely original. 9 A textual variant is one of several different ancient readings for the same text in Scripture. 10 The Coptic translation of the New Testament based on the Greek text, antedate the earliest known manuscripts

from the end of the 3rd and beginning of the 4th centuries CE (Encyclopdia Britannica, 2012.)

5

Revised Standard Version and the New English Bible are based on an eclectic text (in

which, where the witnesses show variant readings, the reading preferred is that which

best suits the context and the author's known style).

The four types of sources listed above are used together to restore the text as close as possible to

the original document. In the case of variants in the verse, the reading that conveys the authors

known style and is most suited to the context is chosen.

The main families (groups) of Manuscripts

Because there are so many individual manuscripts, textual critics are hard-pressed to know the

individual characteristics of each manuscript. Consequently, many textual critics categorize the

manuscripts into text-types, which they then use in their evaluation of textual variants. One of

the foremost textual critics of our era, Bruce Metzger, exhibits this kind of evaluation. He placed

the extant manuscripts into one of four text-types, usually called Alexandrian, Western,

Caesarean, and Byzantine. For the scope of this paper we will consider the first two families of

manuscripts.

First The Alexandrian Manuscripts:

The Alexandrian text is found in manuscripts produced by scribes trained in the Alexandrian

scriptoral tradition, the best of its kind in Greco-Roman times. Such scribes were schooled in

producing well-crafted, accurate copies. Among the New Testament manuscripts, it can be seen

that there are several early Alexandrian manuscripts (sometimes called proto-Alexandrian) and

later Alexandrian manuscripts.

The earlier manuscripts are usually purer than the later ones in that the earlier are less polished

and closer to the ruggedness of the original writings. In short, these manuscripts display the

work of scribes who had the least creative interaction with the text; they were produced by

6

scribes who stayed with their task of making faithful copies. Quite significantly, the text of

several of the earlier or proto-Alexandrian manuscripts was transmitted quite faithfully.

The Alexandrian text is exemplified in the high percentage of textual agreement between P75

and B, thereby affirming Horts theory that Codex Vaticanus traces back to an early, pure text.

The following are known examples as an illustration for Proto-Alexandrian Type Manuscripts:

P45 (in Acts) P46 P66 P75 B Sahidic (in part), Clement of Alexandria, Origen (in part),

and most of the papyrus fragments with Pauline text.

Second The Western Manuscripts

This family of Manuscripts in this category were produced in mid-to late second century mainly

in the west, hence the name western manuscripts. They are represented, wrote Comfort, in

the Old Latin manuscripts, Syriac manuscripts, and in the D-text.11 They are also used in the

writings of Marcion, Tatian, Irenaeus, and Tertullian.

They display a common trend of textual expansions in comparison to the Alexandrian texts. This

will be important when studying the textual variants in the book of Acts.

11 Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (Accordance electronic ed. Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 2008), 878.

7

Textual criticism and the Book of Acts

In this section we will deal in particular with the book of Acts from a point of view of Textual

criticism. These are the two main families of Manuscripts witnesses for the Book of Acts,

Alexandrian and Western. Their Alexandrian text is one tenth shorter in length than the text

found in the Western Manuscripts.12 The Western text, wrote Comfort in his commentary, is

more colorful and filled with added circumstantial details.13 It should be noted here that nine

tenth of the text is common between the two families of manuscripts. As for the additions that

exist only in the Western manuscripts they are also found in early Western witness and in Codex

Bezae (D) as well as other witnesses such as Marcion, Tatian, and Irenaeus, who are not

considered Western. Scholars debate different theories about which form of text existed first,

the shorter Alexandrian or the longer text in the Western witnesses and whether Luke or one of

his disciples made the additions. For details see Metzgers textual commentary.

The Alexandrian texts for the book of Acts are represented by the following Manuscripts

according to Comforts classification:

Primary Manuscripts (with substantial extant14 text): P45 B

Primary Manuscripts Dated After 400: P74 A C (in part) Y 33 81 104 326 1739

Secondary Manuscripts (with smaller portions of text): P8 P41 P50 P53 P91 0189

While Western Manuscripts are represented by the following Manuscripts according to his

classification as well:

Primary Manuscripts: D itd 15

12 Ibid. 13 Ibid, xix. 14 extant : is a manuscript or reading that exists and is known today. 15 Old Latin (Itala) version. Superscript letters identify individual manuscripts.

8

Secondary Manuscripts: P29 P38 P48 P112; also ith syrhmg syrh Cyprian

Augustine16

In deciding which text to choose, the United Bible Societies Committee chose the eclectic

method: comparing point by point and in each case select the reading that commends itself in

the light of transcriptional and intrinsic probabilities.17 Nevertheless, more often than not the

shorter, Alexandrian text was preferred.18 Even though the committee acknowledged that the

expansions in the Western texts may well be factually accurate, they judged that they are not

deriving from the original author of Acts.

Differences in the texts of the Book of Acts.

Metzger in his explanation, lists three different types or levels or variants in the text between the

Alexandrian and Western texts as identified by Ernst Haenchen in his commentary on the Acts

of the Apostles19: first a great number of minor variants that seek to clarify and explain the text

and make it smooth.20 This level of variants, he observed, should not be regarded as recension

since they were widely used in the early church and by early Christian writers e.g. Marcion,

Tatian, Irenaeus. The second type of variants are particularly found in the Western text of Acts.

They consist of many additions, long and short, of a substantive nature that reveal the hand of

a reviser.21 These revisions he suggests were done at an early date, before the text of Acts had

come to be generally regarded as a sacred text that must be preserved inviolate.22 Thirdly, the

variants that particularly belong to codex Bezae (a.d. 500) This codex, according to Haenchen,

16 Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (Accordance electronic ed. Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 2008), xviii. 17 Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2d, Accordance electronic ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 235. 18 Ibid. 19 Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles; A Commentary (Philadelphia, 1971), pp. 5060. As quoted from ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid.

9

exhibits a variety of scribal idiosyncrasies, some of which, though suggesting Aramaisms, are

nothing more than errors of a scribe, or possibly two successive scribes.23 Haenchen concluded

that in none of the three cases does the Western text of Acts preserve for us the original text

of that book; this is the lesson that we are gradually beginning to learn.24

The following is a diagram that illustrates the quotations from NU in NKJV which shows the

difference in reading between the two texts.

NU citations in the Book of Acts25

Out of the 1006 verses in the Book of Acts, NKJVs notes indicate 84 variants from NU-Text and

M-Text in the margins classified as follows; 42 different wording (marked by the words reads),

39 omissions (marked by the word omits), and only 3 are additions that were not included in the

NKJV text but were listed in the margins as variant reading.26

23 Ibid, 233-234. 24 Ibid. 25 Courtesy of Accordance Bible software 26 Numbers courtesy of Accordance Bible search tools.

10

Few illustrations of textual variances from the book of acts

The cases illustrated in this section are displayed in the marginal notes the NKJV. They are

presented to shed some light on them and be able to respond to questions for these and similar

cases which may arise in bible studies or Sunday school classes.

The following list represents some of the variants in the Book of Acts as written in NKJV

margins, it is not an inclusive list nevertheless it is listed here as a reference and to demonstrate

that none of them are doctrinal and that they have no effect on the context and message of the

book of Acts.

Acts 7:14 Or seventy (compare Exodus 1:5)

Acts 7:37 Deuteronomy 18:15 NU-Text and M-Text omit Him you shall hear.

Acts 8:37 NU-Text and M-Text omit this verse. It is found in Western texts, including the Latin

tradition.

922

42 393

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

same text NU-Text reads NU-Text omits NU-Text adds

Nu

mb

er o

f v

erse

s

Textual variations in

NKJV text from NU-Text and M-Text

11

Acts 9:5 NU-Text and M-Text omit the last sentence of verse 5 and begin verse 6 with But arise

and go.

Acts 15:18 NU-Text (combining with verse Acts 15:17) reads Says the Lord, who makes these

things known from eternity (of old).

Acts 15:24 NU-Text omits saying, You must be circumcised and keep the law.

Acts 15:34 NU-Text and M-Text omit this verse.

Acts 17:26 NU-Text omits blood.

Acts 20:8 NU-Text and M-Text read we.

Acts 20:24 NU-Text reads But I do not count my life of any value or dear to myself.

Acts 21:22 NU-Text reads What then is to be done? They will certainly.

Acts 21:25 NU-Text omits that they should observe no such thing, except.

Acts 22:9 NU-Text omits and were afraid.

Acts 22:20 NU-Text omits to his death.

Acts 23:9 NU-Text omits last clause and reads what if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?

Acts 23:15 NU-Text omits tomorrow.

Acts 23:30 NU-Text reads there would be a plot against the man.

Acts 24:6 NU-Text ends the sentence here and omits the rest of verse 6, all of verse 7, and the

first clause of verse 8.

Acts 24:26 NU-Text omits that he might release him.

Acts 25:2 NU-Text reads chief priests.

Acts 27:14 NU-Text reads Euraquilon.

Acts 27:16 NU-Text reads Cauda.

Acts 28:25 WH NU to your fathers

Acts 28:29 NU-Text omits this verse.

First example Acts 15:24

12

Acts 15:24 NKJV: Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you

with words, unsettling your souls, saying, You must be circumcised and keep the lawto

whom we gave no such commandment, NKJVs editors mark the difference in reading in the

margins; NU-Text omits saying, You must be circumcised and keep the law.27 Arabic SVD28 reads:

. , compared

to ESVs shorter verse, Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and

troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions. (Acts

15:24 ESV)

WH and NU used the words: unsettling your souls which

are found in the following MSS: P33 P45vid P74 A B D 33 cop. This shorter text was adopted by

the following translations: NKJVmg29 RSV NRSV ESV NASB NIV TNIV NEB REB NJB NAB

NLT HCSB NET and used also in both Coptic versions: Sahidic and Bohairic.

While the other variant used in TR is

, unsettling your souls by saying [it is necessary] to be

circumcised and to keep the law is found in the MSS: C E 1739 Maj syr and was adopted in

the following English translations: KJV NKJV HCSBmg30

Comfort comments on this verse,

The expanded reading, assimilating 15:5, provides an explanation for the readers of Acts

(in later generations) as to why the Gentiles were unsettled. But the Gentile readers of the

27 NKJV Notes (1st, Accordance electronic ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), n.p. 28 The Smith & Van Dyke Arabic Bible (1865) uses TR as its NT text as NKJV. 29 NKJV marginal notes 30 Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (Accordance electronic ed. Wheato: Tyndale House Publishers, 2008), 392.

13

letter would have already known why they were unsettled. Thus, this is but another

example of unnecessary gap-filling, which found its way into TR and KJV.31

The Coptic version of this verse is in agreement with the shorter Alexandrian text adopted by

NU/UBS, the Bohairiric reads: Acts 15:24 epid/ ancwtem je hanouon ebol nq/tou etaui ebol

ausyerter y/nou euvwnh nneten'u,/ qen hancaji nai ete mpenjotou

Screen picture of UBS4 apparatus for Acts 15:2432

Conclusion: KJV text which follows the TR and includes the addition to the verse is described

clearly diverges from the Alexandrian and Coptic text. Even though the Western text is

supported by other Manuscripts the argument for using the shorter text seemed stronger to

NU/UBS editors. In my view the shorter reading does not affect or change in any significant way

the text since the longer reading is recounting the first verse in the same chapter; Unless you

are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved. (Acts 15:1 NKJV).

31 Ibid. 32 Barbara Aland et al., eds., The Greek New Testament (4th Rev.; Accordance electronic ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche

Bibelgesellschaft, 2001), n.p.

14

A case for textual agreement from the book of Acts

The two accounts of the story of the apparition which St. Paul saw on the road to Damascus,

pose the question regarding the participation of those who were accompanying the apostle

during his journey, whether they heard the voice talking to St. Paul according to Acts 9:7 or they

did not according to Acts 22:9.

The texts are as follows: hearing a voice but seeing no one (Acts 9:7) versus, (Acts 22:9) they did

not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me. These two verses in Greek are:

. (Acts 9:7 UBS4-T) vs.

. (Acts 22:9 UBS4-T)

Explanation:

Despite the apparent disagreement between the two texts describing accounts of the story of the

apparition to St. Paul in the Road to Damascus, from the point of view of textual criticism, there

is an agreement on the Greek text between the different manuscripts. This can be considered

one of the proofs that the text of the Bible was not altered, since even in such a point of a

seemingly conflict, there has never been made an attempt to match both texts and coincide them

together.

About the apparent contradiction between the two accounts of the same story, Adam Clarks

commented on Acts 9:7 in agreement with Girgis Boshras explanation33 that they heard the voice

but were unable to distinguish the words which St. Paul was hearing. This is shown in the Greek

text by the use of the word sound in the Genitive case in Acts 9:7 while the same word was used

in the Accusative case in v. 22:9.

33 5 ,)2005 , ( , .

15

Conclusion

In many ways we are considered blessed since the word of God came to us in the present time,

in many ways that were not available before. With the recent discoveries of old manuscripts, we

were able to confirm the authenticity of the text we have in hand and in some cases able to see

different variants in the same text. And how these variants even though they diverge in many

cases from the original text, in another way they confirm its authenticity in that they never

contradict in Theology or church tradition.

An important conclusion from this study is that we should profit from the contemporary study

of Textual criticism use it to enrich and deepen our Bible study in order to be able to give a

defense to everyone (1 Pet 3:15) This paper does not advocate for or against certain text or

translation, but rather advocates for deeper understanding of the Spirit of the Scripture, not of

its letters, for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (2 Cor 3:6)

The current debates among bible scholars should be seen in a constructive way. In their sincere

effort and well documented work, shown in their notes and commentaries, they attempt in

different ways to reconstruct the original text of the New Testament. As we have seen from the

illustrations above.

During this study I was impressed by the amount of dedication and effort the bible scholars are

giving to each word and accent in the Scripture, documenting every variant in text and carefully

weighing different options based on different criteria they adopted and finally leaving us

comments on the decision they took and why they think its the best rendition of the text. Indeed,

this shows the divine providence kept the Holy Scripture intact in various ways and in various

times until it came to us so that we learn it and be nourished by the word of God.

16

In my view the art of Textual criticism seems very close to gold refining; the gold is the text, and

the refiners are the bible scholars, who diligently seek to provide us with the most original and

accurate text according to the best of the knowledge available to them. By their careful

examination to different manuscripts, the modern bible scholars are paying close attention to

every different variant in word, letter, punctuation, side notes, etc. and they provide all this

information in a way that enrich our bible reading in an unprecedented way. The fact is that

despite the existence of textual variants among the Greek manuscripts, eightyfive percent of

the New Testament text is the same in the Textus-Receptus, the Alexandrian Text, and the

Majority Text,34 and most often these differences do not significantly impact the meaning of

the text.35

The richness, depth, and beauty of the Holy Scripture is because its powerful words by which

we live. They are not mere characters but the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and

life. (John 6:63 ESV).

34 NKJV Notes (1st, Accordance electronic ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), n.p. 35 Barbara Aland, et al., ed., The Greek New Testament, a Readers Edition, Fifth Revised Edition (Deutsche

Bibelgesellschaft, 2014), 11*.

17

Appendix A - List of Manuscripts that appear in this paper

The following tables display the list of manuscripts that appear in this paper, their content, location, and

date. This list is not inclusive. A more complete list is found in the introduction and appendixes of UBS4

and NA27. These tables36 use the following abbreviation code:

e indicates that a manuscript contains all or part of the Gospels.

a indicates that a text manuscript contains the Acts of the Apostles; or that a lectionary

manuscript contains lessons from Acts and the Epistles.

c indicates that a manuscript contains all or part of the Catholic or General Epistles.

p indicates that a manuscript contains all or part of the Epistles of Paul.

r indicates that a manuscript contains all or part of the text of Revelation.

Papyri

Manuscript Content Location Date

P8 a Berlin IV

P29 a Oxford III

P33 a Vienna VI

P38 a Ann Arbor, Mich. About 300

P41 a Vienna VIII

P45 ea Dublin; Vienna III

P46 p Dublin; Ann

Arbor, Mich.

About 200

36 Barbara Aland et al., eds., The Greek New Testament (4th Rev.; Accordance electronic ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001), 7*.

18

P48 a Florence Late III

P50 a New Haven,

Conn.

IV/V

P53 ea Ann Arbor, Mich. III

P66 e Cologny; Dublin;

Cologne

About 200

P74 ac Cologny VII

P75 e Cologny Early III

P91 a Sydney, Australia III

P112 a Oxford V

Uncials

Manuscript Content Location Date

eacpr London:

Sinaiticus

IV

A eacpr London:

Alexandrinus

V

B eacp Citt del

Vaticano:

Vaticanus

IV

C eacpr Paris: Ephraemi

Rescriptus

V

D 05 ea Cambridge: Bezae

Cantabrigiensis

V

19

Minuscules

Manuscript Content Date

33 eacp IX

81 acp 1044

104 p 1087

Appendix B The different Eclectical Greek NT texts.

In this appendix we will introduce the different Critical Editions of the Greek New Testament.

1. Textus Receptus.

2. Westcott and Horts The New Testament in the Original Greek.

3. United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, 4th edition

4. Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th edition

1. Textus Receptus37 and how it evolved:

Erasmus, the Dutch Humanist, prepared the Greek text for the first printed edition (1516) of the

New Testament, he depended on a few manuscripts of the type that had dominated the church's

manuscripts for centuries and that had had its origin in Constantinople.

37 Textus Receptus: the received standard text

20

The Greek New Testament was volume 5 of this work, and the text tradition behind it cannot be

determined with any accuracy. During the next decades new editions of Erasmus' text profited

from more and better manuscript evidence and the printer Robert Estienne of Paris produced in

1550 the first text with a critical apparatus (variant readings in various manuscripts). This

edition became influential as a chief witness for the Textus-Receptus (the received standard text)

that came to dominate New Testament studies for more than 300 years. This Textus Receptus

is the basis for all the translations in the churches of the Reformation, including the King

James Version.

The Textus Receptus has its roots in the early fourth century, when Lucian of Antioch produced

a major recension of the New Testament. This text is sometimes called Syrian, because of its

association with Antioch in Syria. Lucians work was a definite recension (i.e., a purposely

created edition), in contrast to the Alexandrian text-type. The Alexandrian scribes did some

minimal editing, such as we would call copy editing. By contrast, the Syrian text is the result of

a much larger endeavor; it is characterized by smoothness of language, which is achieved by the

removal of obscurities and awkward grammatical constructions, and by the conflation of variant

readings.38

2. The Majority Text:

The Majority Text is nearly the same as the Textus Receptus, yet they are not completely

identical. The Majority Text attempted to reproduce the reading found in statistical majority of

witnesses.

38 Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (Accordance electronic ed. Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 2008), xxiii.

21

TR & Majority Text include the following passages that are not present in earlier manuscripts.

This fact caused bible scholars to suggest they contain additions to the original text. Matthew

5:44b; 6:13b; 16:2b-3; 17:21; 18:11; 20:16b, 22-23; 23:14; 27:35b; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28;

16:8-20; Luke 4:4b; 9:54c-56; 11:2; 17:36; 22:43-44; 23:17, 34; John 5:3b-4; 7:538:11; Acts 8:37; 15:34;

24:6b-8a; 28:16b, 29; Romans 16:24; 1 John 5:6b-8a.

3. Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (WH)

This text was produced in 1881-1882 by two British scholars and was entitled The New

Testament in the Original Greek (2 volumes). They reproduced the text of the New Testament

based on Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus along with other early manuscripts.

4. The Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (presently at the 28th edition) and The

United Bible Societies Greek New Testament (at the 4th edition) (NU)

The abbreviation NU is used for both of the editions. Both NA and UBS use the same text but

different punctuation and different critical apparatus. Nestle-Aland editor claim their text comes

nearest to the original Greek.

This text is now recognized as the standard text by most of the academic community. NU editors

took into consideration the newly discovered documents in their attempt to produce a more

accurate text, thus reaching a more accurate text than Westcott and Hort.

Significant English Versions of the New Testament.

In this time of rich and unprecedented scholarly bible research, we are fortunate to be able to

access multiple English translations of the bible. Our task in this section will be to present briefly

the following significant English Versions and to show why do they have textual difference, not

just different translations, and which translations share common origin.

KJV King James Version, 1611

22

NKJV New King James Version, 1982

RSV Revised Standard Version, 1901

NRSV New Revised Standard Version, 1990

ESV English Standard Version, 2001

NASB New American Standard Bible, 1964, 1995

NIV New International Version, 1978

TNIV Todays New International Version, 2005

NEB New English Bible, 1961

REB Revised English Bible, 1989

NJB New Jerusalem Bible, 1986

NAB New American Bible, 1984 (revised NT)

NLT New Living Translation (second edition), 2004

HCSB Holman Christian Standard Bible, 2004

NET The NET Bible (New English Translation), 1996

KJV and NKJV have the closest textual affinity of any two translations and appear together; they

are followed by RSV, NRSV, ESV, and NASB, each revisions of the Authorized Version. After

the standard versions, various independent translations are listed: NIV and its revision, TNIV;

NEB and its revision, REB. NJB and NAB are independent of one another but appear together

because they are both Catholic versions. Finally, the three most recent independent translations

are listed, NLT, HCSB, and NET. The differences in the text among English translations is not

only due to different words choice but is also due to the Greek NT texts they translate from. This

can be seen from the following table.

23

Different Greek New Testament Text

Textus-Receptus

Westcot-Hort

Nestle-

Aland/UBS

Different Greek

texts.

The Greek

Manuscripts

Majority of MSS

Codex Vaticanus

Codex Sinaiticus

And other early

MSS

Eclectic text

based on a

criteria they

developed to

reach the original

text.

N/A

English

translations

KJV/NKJV

NASB

NLT

RSV/NRSV

ESV (Didnt

completely

followed NU)

NIV (diverges

from NU in 350

significant places

in agreement

with TR)

NAB

NEB/REB

NJB

NET

24

References

Holy Bible Multiple English translations

Novum Testamentum Graece Nestle-Aland 27

The Greek New testament, Fourth revised Edition UBS4

Barbara Aland, et al., ed., The Greek New Testament, a Readers Edition, Fifth Revised Edition

(Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2014).

Encyclopdia Britannica.

Philip Comfort, Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography &

Textual Criticism, First (B&H Academic, 2005).

Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical

Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, 2 Revised edition (Wm. B.

Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995).

Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barret, eds., The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek

Manuscripts (Tyndale House Publishers, 2001).

For Old Testament Textual Criticism read article Textual Criticism of the Bible from Adele Berlin,

Marc Zvi Brettler, and Michael A. Fishbane, eds., The Jewish Study Bible (Accordance electronic

ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), n.p.

Comfort Text Commentary New Testament Text and Translation Commentary. Commentary

on the variant readings of the ancient New Testament Manuscripts and how they relate to the

major English Translations by Philip W. Comfort 2008. Used by permission of Tyndale House

Publisher, Inc. All rights reserved. Electronic text hypertexted and prepared by OakTree

Software, Inc. Version 1.2

25

Metzger Text Commentary. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Second

Edition) Bruce M. Metzger M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament Second

Edition, 1994 Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart. Used by permission. Electronic text

hypertexted and prepared by OakTree Software, Inc. Version 2.1

, , vol. 5, ,1997 .

1 , , vol. 4,

,1997 .

For further reading on the Textual criticism for the book of Acts.39

Appendix A, Scribal Gap-Filling, Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation

Commentary (Accordance electronic ed. Wheato: Tyndale House Publishers, 2008), 873f.

D. C. Parker, Codex Bezae; An Early Christian Manuscript and Its Text (Cambridge University

Press, 1992).

Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles; A Commentary (Philadelphia, 1971), pp. 5060.

Les Deux Actes des Aptres (Paris, 1986).

The Text of the Greek Bible [London, 1937], pp. 235 f.)

The Origin of the Western Text, in Documents of the Primitive Church (New York, 1941), pp.

112148.

39 These references were taken from the notes found in Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2d, Accordance electronic ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 233.

26

The Acts of the Apostles, a Critical Edition with Introduction and Notes on Selected Passages (Oxford,

1933; reprinted, 1970), pp. xlvff.

The Problem of the Text of Acts (Cambridge University Press, 1992).

The New Testament in the Original Greek, [vol. ii,] Introduction [and] Appendix (London, 1881; 2nd

ed. 1896), pp. 120126.

The Western Text of the Gospels (Evanston, 1937). For further reading on Textual criticism

Holmes, The Case for Reasoned Eclecticism (2002, 77-100)

Websites:

www.csntm.org for information on Bible manuscripts.

www.codexsinaiticus.org where the Manuscript Codex Sinaiticus can be viewed online

accompanied with transcription and English translation.