Which variant reading is the original one and why?
It must have been at least a year or so of reading the Bible consistently that I first made the observation that there were some peculiar footnotes placed in and at the end of certain Bible verses. Maybe it was due to the type of Bible I was reading or just plain out of my own ignorance. Nevertheless, as I inspected these footnotes I became aware that they were not always referring to a cross reference. Some footnotes made reference to the NU or the M. At the time I had no clue to what these letters meant. As I began to question some around me who were much older in the faith I was astonished at how little they knew. Therefore, researching this new phenomenon was the next step I had to take.
Many Christians today are ignorant to this fact that there are different readings of the Bible. These different readings are what are commonly referred to as variants. To properly describe what a variant is one must be reminded that the books of the Bible were originally written on scrolls. These scrolls were made of separate sheets of papyrus or parchment that were glued together. It was not until the second century that these scrolls were folded in the middle and sewed together to become a codex. Due to the rapid growth of Christianity and the desire for copies of the Holy Scriptures, it became common for scribes to simultaneously produce multiple copies in a scriptorium. Bruce Metzger elaborates on this:
It is easy to understand how in such a method of reproduction errors of transcription would almost inevitably occur. Sometimes the scribe would be momentarily inattentive or, because of a cough or other noise, would not clearly hear the lector. Furthermore, when the lector would read aloud a word which could be spelled in different ways (as in English, for example, the words ‘great; and ‘grate’, or ‘there’ and ‘their’), the scribe would have to determine which word belonged in that particular context-and sometimes he wrote down the wrong word.
Due to this phenomenon, there is more manuscript support for the New Testament than for any other piece of ancient literature. With over five thousand Greek manuscripts alone (not counting other languages or translations), the integrity of the New Testament far outweighs any other writing in ancient antiquity. Yet, there are variant readings that exist in the manuscripts. “Most of these errors are trivial, detectable, and correctable, and do not significantly affect the overall meaning of the larger passages in which they appear.” F.F. Bruce, former Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester is in agreement saying, “The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice.”
Therefore, Christians can be confident that despite variations in spelling, omissions, or additions of words there is overwhelming agreement as to the faithfulness of the documents. In this paper we are going to examine the variant readings in Acts 20:28 and the literary rules that will help us decide which variant is the original one.
What rules do we use to evaluate variant readings? When the manuscripts differ there are certain rules that scholars use to decide which words are closer to the original. These are referred to as rules of textual criticism. “By carefully comparing one manuscript with another, textual critics perform an invaluable service by providing us with a biblical text that closely approximates the original writings given to the Old and New Testament believers.”
Over the last three hundred years this field of scholarship has progressed greatly. Three hundred years ago Lutheran theologian and biblical scholar Johann Bengal (1687-1752) carefully prepared a Greek text of the New Testament with a critical apparatus that reshaped the rules of textual criticism. In the preface of his Gnomon Novi Testamenti, he specified 27 “suggestions” (monita) which may be taken as a summary of his critical principles. The New Testament critic J.J. Greisbach (1745-1812) in the Introduction to his second edition of The Greek New Testament set forth fifteen critical rules to weigh various readings of the manuscripts. In 1881 B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, published The New Testament in the Original Greek. Wescott and Hort also had modified these principles of textual criticism.
In sifting through these great scholars of textual criticism it would be safe to say that there are two categories of evidence one must look at when considering the different variants of a text. These categories are referred to as external and internal evidence. The external evidence usually involves questions concerning the date of the manuscript, or when it was allegedly written. Even if the text was written later, if it represents an earlier text this is an important fact to note. This evidence also takes in account the geographical distribution of the manuscripts that support that particular reading. The amount of the manuscripts for that reading and the relationship between the texts and families of those texts must also be considered.
Moreover, there is also the internal evidence that must be evaluated. This evidence consists of principles which consider the details and practice of the scribes themselves. First, it must be said in general that the shorter reading is to be preferred except in certain circumstances. This is said to be the case because scribes were more likely to add to the text than to omit. The first of J.J. Griesbach’s critical rules reflects this principle. He wrote,
The shorter reading, even if by the support of the witnesses it may be second best, is especially preferable– (a) if at the same time it is harder, more obscure, ambiguous, involves an ellipsis, reflects Hebrew idiom, or is ungrammatical; (b) if the same thing is read expressed with different phrases in different manuscripts; (c) if the order of words is inconsistent and unstable; (d) at the beginning of a section; (e) if the fuller reading gives the impression of incorporating a definition or interpretation, or verbally conforms to parallel passages, or seems to have come in from lectionaries.
In discussing why we would not prefer the shorter reading of the text, Griesbach continues:
But on the contrary we should set the fuller reading before the shorter (unless the latter is seen in many notable witnesses) — (a) if a “similarity of ending” might have provided an opportunity for an omission; (b) if that which was omitted could to the scribe have seemed obscure, harsh, superfluous, unusual, paradoxical, offensive to pious ears, erroneous, or opposed to parallel passages; (c) if that which is absent could be absent without harm to the sense or structure of the words, as for example prepositions which may be called incidental, especially brief ones, and so forth, the lack of which would not easily be noticed by a scribe in reading again what he had written; (d) if the shorter reading is by nature less characteristic of the style or outlook of the author; (e) if it wholly lacks sense; (f) if it is probable that it has crept in from parallel passages or from the lectionaries.
Bruce Metzger also discusses this important principle, in a much more concise fashion,
In general the shorter reading is to be preferred, except where (a) parablepsis arising from homoeoteleuton may have occurred; or where (b) the scribe may have omitted material which he deemed to be (i) superfluous, (ii) harsh, or (iii) contrary to pious belief, liturgical usage, or ascetical practice.
A second internal detail we ought to consider is that the more difficult reading is to be preferred. This principle goes back to Johann Bengal if not farther. Essentially because scribes sometimes wanted to correct what they thought were difficulties, readings considered “problem passages” are usually thought to be more trustworthy. Griesbach elaborates on this saying, “Because of their obscurity and difficulty chiefly unlearned scribes were vexed by those readings.”
Third, it was common for scribes to harmonize passages with each other. Therefore, Metzger suggests “that reading is to be preferred which stands in verbal dissidence with the other.” This principle is similar to our second principle above. Perhaps the most basic dictum in textual criticism (though not the easiest to deduce) is to choose the variant which best explains the origin of the others.
There are other internal considerations that one must keep in mind which appears to be obvious but nonetheless need to be mentioned. For example, one must recognize the immediate context of the passage. Does the author uses the word or words elsewhere? Does this reflect the style and vocabulary of the author? These are important in finding out if the author wrote the variant or not.
Metzger points out three other issues that ought to be looked at. He indicates the Aramaic background of the teaching of Jesus, the priority of the Gospel of Mark and the influence of the Christian community upon the transmission of the passage. He then comments, “Not all of these criteria are applicable in every case. The critic must know when it is appropriate to give primary consideration to one type of evidence and not to another.”
In general, textual critics agree that in evaluating differing readings of a text one must begin with the external evidence. “Reconstruction of the history of the transmission of the texts is an important element in evaluating variant readings” Therefore, as we look at these readings, the textual critic must seek to determine which is supported by the earliest manuscripts and by the earliest type of text. This is the process of evaluating variant readings.
In part 2 we will look at the seven different readings of Acts 20:28, which are:
1. The church of God (theou)
2. The church of the Lord (kuriou)
3. The church of the Lord and God (kuriou kai theou)
4. The church of God and the Lord (theou kai kuriou)
5. The church of the Lord God (kuriou theou)
6. The church of Christ (Xristou)
7. The church of Jesus Christ (Iesou Xristou)
See you next time!
