Major Critical Texts of the New Testament
Byz RP: 2005 Byzantine Greek New Testament, Robinson & Pierpont
TR1550: 1550 Stephanus New Testament
Maj: The Majority Text (thousands of minuscules which display a similar text)
Gries: 1774-1775 Johann Jakob Griesbach Greek New Testament
Treg: 1857-1879 Samuel Prideaux Tregelles Greek New Testament
Tisch: 1872 Tischendorf’s Greek New Testament
WH: 1881 Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament
NA28: 2012 Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament
UBS5: 2014 Greek New Testament
NU: Both Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Society
SBLGNT: 2010 Greek New Testament
THGNT: 2017 The Greek New Testament by Tyndale House
GENTI: 2020 Greek-English New Testament Interlinear
ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 1:10 Westcott-Hort New Testament (WHNU)
1:10 Ἑζεκίας δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Μανασσῆ, Μανασσῆς δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν ᾿Αμώς, ᾿Αμὼς δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσείαν,
Matthew 1:10 English Standard Version (ESV)
10 and Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh the father of Amos, and Amos the father of Josiah,
WH/NA/UBS: Ἀμώς, Ἀμώς
“Manasseh the father of Amos, and Amos the father of Josiah” – א B C (D) f1
Matthew 1:10 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
10 and Hezekiah became the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh became the father of Amon, and Amon became the father of Josiah,
[BRD] TR: Ἀμών, Ἀμών
“Manasseh the father of Amon, and Amon the father of Josiah” – L W f13 Maj
Amon was the king of Judah and son of wicked King Manasseh. Amos was a relatively important minor prophet of Jehovah and the author of the book bearing his name.
It is Deja Vu all over again. Matthew 1:10 is almost an exact repeat of Matthew 1:7-8. There the earliest and best Greek manuscripts (𝔓1 א B C (D) f1 f13 it cop) read Asaph. However, most of the English translations chose to stay with the correct spelling Asa, with the English Standard Version being the major exception, choosing instead to retain erroneous spelling of what has to have been an early scribal error, Asaph. Here again, in Matthew 1:10, the earliest and best Greek manuscripts (א B C (D) f1) read Amos but many of the English translations again chose the Old Testament form of the name here, Amon. (cf. 2 Kings 21:18) Again, the English Standard Version being the exception with Amos. Scholarship argues that Amon is the correct name at this point in the genealogy (this is true) and Matthew’s use Amos is an Error (this is false).
Scholarship argues that Amos was a famous, relatively prominent, minor prophet, so Matthew confused him with King Amon, or he copied a spelling error from a genealogy list aside from the Old Testament, or he chose to use the name of the Prophet for theological purposes, making Jesus not only a descendant of kings but also from the line of prophets as well. On this Comfort writes, “Because of superior external testimony, we have to assume that the original text of Matthew also read Αμος (‘Amos’).” Metzger and the United Bible Society committee argue, “the Committee was impressed by the weight of the external evidence that attests Ἀμώς,” saying that the original reading was almost certainly Amos.
Just as was the case in Matthew 1:7-8, what we can say as textual scholars who believe in absolute inerrancy is this, Matthew was moved along by Holy Spirit, so he did not make a spelling error, nor did he copy a spelling error from a genealogy list aside from the Old Testament. To even suggest such an idea is to suggest limited inerrancy or that the Holy Spirit is capable of errors.
The reading that appears in the Textus Receptus is the norm of spelling because Amon was the father of Josiah, according to 1 Chronicles 3:14. We boldly start with the position that Matthew wrote Ἀμών. Thereafter, very early on, some scribes introduced an error when they wrote Ἀμώς. Then, later, scribes changed it back to “Ἀμών.” Therefore, in short, Matthew under inspiration moved along by Holy Spirit penned the correct spelling of Ἀμών, and scribes shortly thereafter introduced a scribal error when they wrote Ἀμώς, with later scribes changing it back to Ἀμών.
Variant Reading(s): differing versions of a word or phrase found in two or more manuscripts within a variation unit (see below). Variant readings are also called alternate readings.
Variation Unit: any portion of text that exhibits variations in its reading between two or more different manuscripts. It is important to distinguish variation units from variant readings. Variation units are the places in the text where manuscripts disagree, and each variation unit has at least two variant readings. Setting the limits and range of a variation unit is sometimes difficult or even controversial because some variant readings affect others nearby. Such variations may be considered individually, or as elements of a single reading. One should also note that the terms “manuscript” and “witness” may appear to be used interchangeably in this context. Strictly speaking, “witness” (see below) will only refer to the content of a given manuscript or fragment, which it predates to a greater or lesser extent. However, the only way to reference the “witness” is by referring to the manuscript or fragment that contains it. In this book, we have sometimes used the terminology “witness of x or y manuscript” to distinguish the content in this way.
TERMS AS TO HOW WE SHOULD OBJECTIVELY VIEW THE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY FOR THE READING ACCEPTED AS THE ORIGINAL
The modal verbs are might have been (30%), may have been (40%), could have been (55%), would have been (80%), must have been (95%), which are used to show that we believe the originality of a reading is certain, probable or possible.
The letter [WP] stands for Weak Possibility (30%), which indicates that this is a low-level proof that the reading might have been original in that it is enough evidence to accept that the variant might have been possible, but it is improbable. We can say the reading might have been original, as there is some evidence that is derived from manuscripts that carry very little weight, early versions, or patristic quotations.
The letter [P] stands for Plausible (40%), which indicates that this is a low-level proof that the reading may have been original in that it is enough to accept a variant to be original, and we have enough evidence for our belief. The reading may have been original, but it is not probably so.
The letter [PE] stands for Preponderance of Evidence (55%), which indicates that this is a higher-level proof that the reading could have been original in that it is enough to accept as such unless another reading emerges as more probable.
The letter [CE] stands for Convincing Evidence (80%), which indicates that the evidence is an even higher-level proof that the reading surely was the original in that the evidence is enough to accept it as substantially certain unless proven otherwise.
The letter [BRD] stands for Beyond Reasonable Doubt (95%), which indicates that this is the highest level of proof: the reading must have been original in that there is no reason to doubt it. It must be understood that feeling as though we have no reason to doubt is not the same as one hundred percent absolute certainty.
NOTE: This system is borrowed from the criminal just legal terms of the United States of America, the level of certainty involved in the use of modal verbs, and Bruce Metzger in his A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), who borrowed his system from Johann Albrecht Bengel in his edition of the Greek New Testament (Tübingen, 1734). In addition, the percentages are in no way attempting to be explicit but rather they are nothing more than a tool to give the non-textual scholar a sense of the degree of certainty. However, this does not mean the percentages are not reflective of certainty.
- Edward D. Andrews, FROM SPOKEN WORDS TO SACRED TEXTS: Introduction-Intermediate New Testament Textual Studies (Cambridge, Ohio), 2021.
- B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek: Appendix (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1882)
- Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Biblical Studies Press, 2006)
- Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994),
- Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, Nestle-Aland: NTG Apparatus Criticus, ed. Barbara Aland et al., 28. revidierte Auflage. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012).
- Dirk Jongkind, ed., The Greek New Testament: Apparatus (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017).
- Dirk Jongkind, ed., The Greek New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), Matt. 6:8.
- Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. Barbara Aland et al., 28. revidierte Auflage. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012)
- Philip Wesley Comfort, A COMMENTARY ON THE MANUSCRIPTS AND TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2015).
- Philip W. Comfort, 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 (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008).
- Philip Wesley Comfort and David P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts: Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts, 2 Volume Set The (English and Greek Edition) (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2019)
- Rick Brannan and Israel Loken, The Lexham Textual Notes on the Bible, Lexham Bible Reference Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014).
- Roger L. Omanson and Bruce Manning Metzger, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament: An Adaptation of Bruce M. Metzger’s Textual Commentary for the Needs of Translators (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006).
- Wallace B., Daniel (n.d.). Retrieved from The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts: http://csntm.org/
- Wilker, Wieland (n.d.). Retrieved from An Online Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels: http://www.willker.de/wie/TCG/index.html
 Philip W. Comfort, 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 (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008), 2.
 Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 2.