The Text of the New Testament (Part 1 of 2)

     Since none of the original autographs of the New Testament is extant, and the thousands of ancient copies (manuscripts, fragments, versions, etc.) differ among themselves with regard to certain words or sentences, textual criticism seeks to reconstruct as closely as possible the original Greek text (see Changes in the Bible? Part 1 and Part 2). When the documentary evidence is thoroughly evaluated and copyist errors are identified and eliminated, an amended text is then available.
     The earliest printed (yet unpublished) edition of the Greek New Testament was the fifth volume of Francisco Ximenes de Cisneros’ Complutensian Polyglot Bible in 1514, but it was not circulated until 1522. The first Greek New Testament to be printed and published, of which nearly all other early editions were copies or adaptations, was that of Desiderius Erasmus in 1516. Erasmus made use of no more than six late Greek manuscripts, relying heavily on two twelfth-century texts and also readings from the Latin Vulgate. Robert Estienne (a.k.a. Stephanus) published four editions (1546-1551), based on fourteen or fifteen Greek manuscripts and readings from Erasmus and the Complutensian. Théodore de Bèze (Beza) published nine editions (1565-1604), which were practically the same as the third and fourth editions of Stephanus and the fourth and fifth editions of Erasmus.
     The Textus Receptus is a label applied to multiple Greek texts. In 1624 the brothers Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir published a Greek New Testament based largely on Beza’s first edition. The Elzevirs’ second edition (1633) contained these words in the preface: Textum ergo habes, nun cab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus, meaning "You have therefore the text now received by all: in which we give nothing altered or corrupt," i.e. the textus receptus ("received text") or standard text. Seeing that the works of Erasmus (1516), Stephanus (1550), Beza (1598), and Elzevir (1633) are essentially the same (with only slight variations), they have all been lumped together and labeled Textus Receptus. While this is the basic text that stands behind all English translations of the New Testament until 1881, the earliest and what many consider the better manuscripts had not yet been discovered.
     Over the past two centuries large numbers of manuscripts, many of which are much older than those previously available (and thus closer in time to the original writings), have been unearthed and utilized by text critics. In time more critical editions were produced by Lachmann (1831) and Tischendorf (1869-72), followed by Westcott and Hort (1881), paving the way for modern textual criticism. The critical approach classifies manuscripts into groups or families of texts that reflect agreement among themselves in a large number of variant readings, indicating that they stem from a common source. The available documentary evidence is generally grouped into at least three text-types,¹ designated according to the geographical region(?) where each tradition is believed to have originated.
     The Byzantine text-type (a.k.a. Syrian, Koine, Ecclesiastical, Antiochian, A-text) was largely preserved in the Eastern or Byzantine Empire and represents the vast majority of surviving manuscripts. It is generally found in later copies and is believed to have stemmed from Syrian Antioch and then taken to Constantinople where it spread throughout the Byzantine Empire.
     The Alexandrian text-type (a.k.a. B-text) was largely preserved in the regions of Alexandria, Egypt and generally represents the earlier extant manuscripts. While Westcott and Hort improperly labeled it the "neutral text," the Alexandrian text-type is actually much more diverse than the Byzantine text-type. It is typically shorter by comparison and characterized by a larger number of abrupt endings, more variations between parallel synoptic passages, and has a greater number of difficult readings.²
     The Western text-type (a.k.a. D-text) is a less-than-consistent text characterized by what is often viewed as careless and undisciplined scribal activity. Traced back to the second century, it was used by Marcion, Tatian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian. It is generally longer than other text-types, and its rough form is regarded by some as indicative of an earlier stage of transmission rather than a later, corrupted form. The challenge is determining which of the variant readings is the earliest, since the manuscripts differ from each other almost as much as they differ from the other text-types.
     An eclectic text is the result of analyzing each reading on its own merits without exclusively relying on a single text-type, i.e., the quest for quality over quantity. The value of this approach notwithstanding, how one evaluates "quality" is admittedly somewhat subjective, as evidenced by the ongoing debates among text critics. It seems that most modern eclectic texts (and critical scholars) show a significant bias toward the Alexandrian text-type due to its comparative antiquity.
–Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:
      ¹ While the Caesarean (a.k.a. Eastern or C-text) is a potential fourth, in recent years it is being questioned as a separate text-type and simply regarded as a mixture of other forms (see E. J. Epp, "Issues in NT Textual Criticism," in Rethinking NT Textual Criticism [ed. D. A. Black] 38-39; also B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary [2nd ed.] 6-7). 
      ² This raises the question of whether these distinctions evince the earliest form of the text that was later modified (the majority opinion among text critics) or a corrupted form of the text not replicated in other manuscripts in different areas (to be considered in the next post).

Related Posts: The Text of the NT (Part 2)

The Missing Letters of Paul

     If the total number of letters written by the apostle Paul exceeds the thirteen ascribed to him in the New Testament, should this be a cause of concern for Bible believers? Are the scriptures incomplete without these other writings? Does this legitimize the charges of Bible critics (Mormons and Muslims included) that the Christian canon is therefore corrupted and deficient? Is human negligence to be blamed, and would it then call into question the providential working of God in the preservation of his complete revelation?
     These missing letters pose a potential difficulty only if one begins with the following assumptions: (1) everything composed by an inspired author had to be preserved; (2) the absence of any apostolic document from the biblical canon is a mistake; and (3) vital information needed by Christians is unavailable without these writings. But if these assumptions and consequent concerns go beyond what the evidence demands, what other explanations should be considered?

A Lost Letter to the Corinthians:

     In 1 Corinthians 5:9 Paul reminds his readers, " I wrote to you in the letter not to associate with [the] sexually immoral" (author's own translation). Taken at face value, this seems to be referring to something written to these believers prior to the composition of what is now called 1 Corinthians. It has been suggested that the use here of egrapsa ("I wrote") may be an epistolary aorist that refers to what had just been stated in the first part of the chapter rather than to a previous writing. However, in v. 11 the employment of egrapsa is preceded by nun de ("but now"), showing an apparent difference between what the apostle is currently writing and what had been communicated in an earlier document. Moreover, the use of the article in the phrase en tē epistolē ("in the letter") indicates that the Corinthians had received a prior written message from Paul.¹
     Why, then, was this apostolic manuscript not kept and subsequently included with the rest of the Corinthian correspondence? First of all, in view of the fact that the contents of the former letter are summarized in 1 Corinthians, readers implicitly know what it was about. Second, the directives as they were initially conveyed had apparently been misunderstood by the Corinthians. Third, the apostle goes on to give further clarification and explanation. Therefore, nothing is lost and nothing would have been gained by preserving the first letter.

A Lost Letter to the Laodiceans:

     Another Pauline document not found in the New Testament is mentioned in Colossians 4:16. "And whenever this letter [Colossians] is read before you, make sure that it is also read in the church of [the] Laodiceans, and that you also read the [one] of Laodicea." Various attempts have been made to explain away this apparent allusion to a missing letter, but for the most part they are less than convincing.² While it has been suggested that Paul may be referring to correspondence from Laodicea, why would it be considered on the same level as an apostolic transcript and thus necessary for the saints at Colosse to read?
      Another proposal is that the letter has in fact been preserved in the form of canonical Philemon or Ephesians. Against the former conjecture is the simple fact that Philemon is a personal letter addressed to an individual rather than to a congregation: "to Philemon the beloved and our fellow worker" (v. 1). Granted, the opening address also includes "Apphia the sister," "Archippus our fellow-soldier," and "the assembly in your house" (v. 2), but the message is written almost entirely in the second person singular ("you") form of address, apparently directed to Philemon alone. Furthermore, Onesimus (Philemon’s slave) was a resident of Colosse, not Laodicea (Colossians 4:9).
     Equating the document in question with Ephesians is based on the absence of the phrase "in Ephesus" (1:1) from some manuscripts and the non-personal nature of Ephesians, which, according to some, is indicative of a general circular letter. While these issues will be more fully addressed in future posts <link>, Ephesians is clearly written in letter-form and thus requires the identification of the recipient in the prescript. Note that the participial expression tois ousin ("the ones being . . .") always has an appended place-name in the openings of Paul’s other letters, and no location other than Ephesus is mentioned in any of the surviving manuscripts containing the epistle.
     Just as Jesus taught the same lessons to different audiences on different occasions (e.g. Matthew 10:38; 16:24; Luke 14:27), it is reasonable to expect that the apostle Paul wrote similar (or even identical) letters to various congregations who needed the same teaching. If his instructions to the Laodiceans were essentially the same as one of his other letters (e.g. Ephesians), there would have been no reason for both documents to be placed in the New Testament canon. While Paul himself may have preselected which of his writings to include in a published collection (see Collection and Canonization Part 1), the exclusion of the Laodicean letter would have been intentional (not accidental) and for obvious reasons.

Paul’s "Severe" or "Tearful" Letter to Corinth:

     In 2 Corinthians, as Paul makes reference to a previous letter he had sent to the Corinth church (2:3-9; 7:8-12), he affirms: "for out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote to you through many tears . . ." (2:4a). A number of scholars argue that this "tearful letter" must no longer be extant because 1 Corinthians does not match its description. Others propose that instead of being lost it is to be equated with the 10th and 11th chapters of 2 Corinthians. However, seeing that 1 Corinthians is replete with stern rebukes, solemn warnings, passionate pleas, and corrective instructions, there is no convincing reason to presume that it must have been penned without heartfelt and tearful emotion. Nothing in Paul’s description of this "tearful letter" definitively rules out 1 Corinthians (particularly chapter 5), and even if 2 Corinthians 10–11 is in view, the information still survives.

     References in 2 Corinthians 10:10, 2 Thessalonians 2:2, 15, and 2 Peter 3:15-16 have also been submitted as possible allusions to non-extant Pauline epistles, but none of these precludes the canonical writings. Rather than viewing the thirteen New Testament letters of Paul as the sum total of documents ever produced by him, a more realistic perspective is to regard them as a careful selection of his writings that represents the entirety of his inspired teachings needed for future generations. Anything not included in the biblical canon is therefore of no spiritual or eternal consequence.
–Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:
    ¹ See A. T. Robertson, Grammar 757, 846; D. B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics 563.
    ² Marcion’s canon included a Pauline letter to the Laodiceans, but it is no longer extant. Some later Latin Bibles contained a brief Epistle to the Laodiceans (eventually finding its way into other versions), but there is no Greek manuscript support for it. Rather, it appears to be a collection of various readings from the canonical Pauline letters and is therefore not included in the New Testament (see Jerome, De viris ill. 5).

The Collection and Canonization of New Testament Writings (Part 2 of 2)

     By the mid-second century at the latest, all four canonical Gospels were circulating together in the form of Tatian’s Diatessaron (ca. 150-170). That they were collectively known much earlier is indicated by their respective titles: "According to Matthew," "According to Mark," "According to Luke," and "According to John." There is no evidence that the Gospels ever circulated without these designations, and book distribution in antiquity necessitated that any work to which any reference was made have a title for identification purposes. As soon as more than one Gospel was distributed, there had to be some way to distinguish between them (see Authorship of NT Gospels). Papias of Hierapolis (ca. 60-140) was familiar with all four Gospels, as was Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 125-200).

     Clement of Rome, in the final decade of the first century (ca. 95-96), in his letter to the Corinth church, refers to, quotes, and/or alludes to Matthew, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and James (perhaps also to 1 Timothy and Titus). Polycarp of Smyrna (ca. 69-155) incorporates into his letter to the Philippians numerous passages from the New Testament, especially from Paul’s writings and from 1 Peter. From Rome in the latter part of the second century (ca. 170), the Muratorian Canon presents a list in Latin (albeit fragmentary) of recognized books not very different from our current New Testament. While Matthew and Mark are missing, their original inclusion is presupposed by the fact that Luke and John are referred to as the "third" and "fourth" Gospels respectively. Also missing are James, one of John’s epistles, and 1-2 Peter.

Further Manuscript Evidence
     Allusions to a number of New Testament passages are found in the Epistle of Barnabas (ca. 80-120) and the Shepherd of Hermas (ca. 100-160). Justin Martyr (ca. 100-165) quotes from the Synoptic Gospels and mentions the Revelation of John. Besides his harmony of the four Gospels (mentioned above), Tatian also makes use of a number of Paul’s letters (cf. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 4.29.6). Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 125-200), in his treatise Adversus Haereses, quotes 1,075 passages from all the New Testament books except the brief epistles of Philemon, 2 Peter, 3 John, and Jude.
     The Chester Beatty Papyrus I or P45 (ca. 150) consists of the Gospels, Acts, Paul’s epistles, and Revelation. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (ca. 150) contain sayings of Jesus that have parallels in all four Gospels, and the Bodmer Papyrus XIV/XV or P75 (ca. 150-200) is comprised of Luke and John. P46 (ca. 200) contains Romans, Hebrews, 1-2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, and 2 Thessalonians(?), but only eighty-six of the 104 original leaves survive today.
     Origen (ca. 240) refers to all the books of the New Testament, although he simply alludes to Paul’s letters without listing them. Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 324) mentions the twenty-seven New Testament books, and though he notes the disputed nature of some of them (viz. James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2-3 John), he acknowledges their use in many churches at the time (Eccl. Hist. 3.25; cf. 2.23). Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. 350), in his Catechetical Lectures 4.33, lists all the New Testament books as canonical except Revelation, due to a general reaction against Revelation in the East after excessive use was made of it by the Montanist cults. In 367 Athanasius (Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter) lists all twenty-seven books as canonical. 

     The earliest extant copy of an entire New Testament text is Codex Sinaiticus, produced around 375. The twenty-seven-book New Testament was promoted by Jerome, Damascus, and the Roman synod of 382 and was formerly pronounced by the Council of Carthage in 397. Note, however, that this pronouncement was merely a public recognition of the books which Christians had already accepted as divinely inspired for three centuries.

Conclusion
     The New Testament canon was formed, not by any individual or congregation or council deciding which books belonged to it, but by a general recognition of the inspired documents. Just as the conveyance of the biblical writings entailed both divine and human involvement (see Biblical Inspiration in Perspective), their preservation surely included the same. The recognition, collection, and perpetuation of scripture were accomplished through the human process of critical thinking and reasonable faith, while the providential working of God has no doubt ensured that nothing essential has been omitted and nothing uninspired has been incorporated (cf. 2 Timothy 1:13; 2:2; 3:16-17; Jude 3; Revelation 22:18-19).
–Kevin L. Moore

Related Posts: Collection & Canonization NT Part 1

Related articles: D. Bryant's Four Truths About the NT, Justin Rogers'  Birth of the Book (Part 1)