B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort believed that they had established the original text with their New Testament in the Original Greek (1881). They write, “This edition is an attempt to present exactly the original words of the New Testament, so far as they can be determined from surviving documents.” We notice that Westcott and Hort qualified their goal with “as far as can be determined from surviving documents.” The producers of the 5th edition of the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies’ Corrected Edition (2014) and Kurt and Barbara Aland in their 28th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (2012) believe that these critical texts are the most anyone has achieved in establishing the original. However, it must be said that the NA28 has been shifted to the goal of establishing the “initial text.” Westcott and Hort looked to the earliest manuscripts of their day as their foundation for the original text; the Alands, while appreciating the early texts, did move away to the reasoned eclectic approach, an approach that focuses more heavily on internal evidence rather than external evidence. Nevertheless, their clearly stated goal was “an assurance of certainty in establishing the original text.” Sadly, as MacDonald stated above, many modern textual scholars have abandoned the hope of ever establishing the original text, or accepting that the above-mentioned critical texts might live up to that claim. I (Andrews) personally find it ironic that the idea of establishing the original text became less and less of concern to the textual scholar over the 20th century as liberal-progressive scholarship consumed conservative scholarship throughout that same century. The reader must determine his own view as to whether there is any correlation.
On the objective of getting back to the original, the authors of The Early Text of the New Testament write, “However, while the complexities in recovering the original text need to be acknowledged, that is a separate question from whether the concept of an original text is incoherent and should, therefore, be abandoned as a goal of the discipline. Unfortunately, these two questions are often mingled together without distinction. Although recovering the original text faces substantial obstacles (and therefore the results should be qualified), there is little to suggest that it is an illegitimate enterprise. If it were illegitimate, then we would expect the same would be true for Greek and Roman literature outside the New Testament. Are we to think that an attempt to reconstruct the original word of Tacitus, or Plato, or Thucydides is misguided? Or that it does not matter? Those who argue that we should abandon the concept of an original text for the New Testament often give very little (if any) attention to the implications of such an approach for classical literature.” (Hill and Kruger 2012, 4)
Westcott and Hort sought to establish the original text by choosing what they felt was the most faithful text or family of texts, the Alexandrian family (especially the Codex Vaticanus, designated B), and worked from there to establish their critical text. Again, modern scholarship has abandoned both the idea of establishing the original and of choosing a trusted text or family of texts as a foundation. Since the mid-19th century, they have been using “eclecticism,” now known as “reasoned eclecticism.” In this, all manuscripts are placed on equal footing. They simply look to all text-types and decide which variant gave rise to all others, assigning more weight to internal evidence than to the external evidence of manuscripts. The last few decades have seen the rise of the newest form of NTTC, The Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM).
Philip Comfort, the author of, Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography and Textual Criticism (2005), has abandoned the possibility of establishing the original text. Comfort finds this hope in the very earliest papyri and the Alexandrian text. He believes that the very early Alexandrian (Egyptian) text represents what the whole of the Christian writings must have looked like at that time. Writings of the early church fathers such as Irenaeus, Marcion, and Hippolytus reflect the Alexandrian form of the text. New Testament textual scholar Larry W. Hurtado holds this position as well. We will quote his position extensively.
All indications are that early Christians were very much given to what we today would call “networking” with one another, and that includes translocal efforts. Indeed, the Roman period generally was a time of impressive travel and translocal contacts, for trading, pilgrimages, and other purposes. Eldon Epp has marshaled evidence that the early Christian papyri, mainly from Egypt, reflect “extensive and lively interactions between Alexandria and the outlying areas, and also between the outlying areas [of Egypt] and other parts of the Roman world … and … the wide circulation of documents in this early period.” In another essay, Epp also demonstrated how readily people expected to send and receive letters all across the Roman Empire, reflecting more broadly a “brisk ‘intellectual commerce’ and dynamic interchanges of people, literature, books, and letters between Egypt and the vast Mediterranean region.”
An illustration of this, note that we have at least three copies of the Shepherd of Hermas that are dated to the late second/early third century, at most only a few decades later than the composition of this text. Thus, this Roman-provenance writing made its way to Egypt very quickly and was apparently received positively. Even more striking is the appearance of a copy of Irenaeus’s Against Heresies that has been dated to the late second or early third century. Again, within a very short time, we have a writing composed elsewhere (Gaul) finding its way to Christians in Oxyrhynchus (about 120 miles south of Cairo). We could also note the several early copies of the writings of Melito of Sardis (Roman Asia Minor). In short, the extant manuscript evidence fully supports the conclusion that the Oxyrhynchus material reflects a broad, translocal outlook.
… We shall explore the implications of the papyrus evidence, on the working assumption that though largely of Egyptian provenance, these early Christian papyri reflect attitudes, preferences, and usages of many Christians more broadly in the second and third centuries. We turn now to consider what we might infer from the list of textual witnesses provided to us in these papyri.
Distribution of Papyri Witnesses for Each New Testament Book
|NT Book||Total||Early||NT Book||Total||Early|
|1 Corinthians||8||3||1 Peter||3||1|
|2 Corinthians||4||2||2 Peter||2||1|
It appears that some of the answers to establishing the original text of the Christian Greek Scriptures lie within the Westcott and Hort approach. There are 13 papyrus manuscripts that date from about 125–200 C.E. (including seven new papyri about to be released, one of which is claimed to be from the first century), and there are another 65 papyrus manuscripts that date from the 4th century C.E. It is from these manuscripts, especially the earliest ones, that we are going to be aided in establishing the original text. Tregelles (1813-75), Tischendorf (1815-74), and Westcott (1825-1901) and Hort (1828-92) hung their textual hats on the two best manuscripts of their day, i.e., Sinaiticus (c. 360) and Vaticanus (c. 350), both of the Alexandrian text-type.
P75 (c.175–225) contains most of Luke and John and has vindicated Westcott and Hort for their choice of Vaticanus as the premium manuscript for establishing the original text. After careful study of P75 against the Vaticanus Codex, scholars have found that they are just short of being identical. In his introduction to the Greek text, Hort argues that the Vaticanus Codex is a “very pure line of very ancient text.”
Those who have abandoned all hope of such a venture would argue differently, saying “oldest is not necessarily best.” For these scholars, the original reading could be found in any manuscript, which is true to a degree. They continue with the approach that the reading that produced the other readings is likely the original. While on the surface this sounds great, it is not as solid a principle as one might think. On this issue, Comfort writes:
For example, two scholars, using this principle to examine the same variant, may not agree. One might argue that a copyist attempting to emulate the author’s style produced the variant; the other could claim the same variant has to be original because it accords with the author’s style. Or, one might argue that a variant was produced by an orthodox scribe attempting to rid the text of a reading that could be used to promote heterodoxy or heresy; another might claim that the same variant has to be original because it is orthodox and accords with Christian doctrine (thus a heterodoxical or heretical scribe must have changed it). Furthermore, this principle allows for the possibility that the reading selected for the text can be taken from any manuscript of any date. This can lead to subjective eclecticism.
When we look deeper into reasoned eclecticism and the local-genealogical method, we find that they lean more heavily on the side of the internal evidence as opposed to external evidence. It is the position of this author that the greater weight should be placed on the external evidence if we are to recover the original text. Westcott and Hort held this position as well. They wrote, “Documentary attestation has been in most cases allowed to confer the place of honour as against internal evidence.” (Westcott and Hort 1882, 17) Ernest Colwell, who was of the same mindset, suggested in 1968 that we needed to get back to the principles of Westcott and Hort. Sadly, textual scholarship has largely strayed from those principles.
With what we have already discussed as to the level of skilled copying of the early papyri, apparently, the scribal practices of Alexandria, Egypt, have played a significant role in this. As historical records have shown, Alexandria had an enormous Jewish population. We can imagine a large, predominately Jewish, Christian congregation early on as the gospel made its way throughout that land. This congregation would have maintained deep ties with their fellow Christians in Jerusalem and Antioch. Then, there was the Didaskelion catechetical school of Alexandria that had some of the most influential Church Fathers as head instructors. As has already been noted, Pantaenus took over and was in charge from about 160–180 C.E., Clement being his greatest student, and Origen, who brought this school to Caesarea in 231, establishing a second school and scriptorium.
As the Greek Septuagint originated from Alexandria, and the vast majority of the earliest New Testament papyri also had their origins in Egypt (Fayum and Oxyrhynchus), it is quite clear that the above-mentioned Church Fathers would have accessed the Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures in their writings and evangelistic work. Origen, who learned from both Clement and Pantaenus, wrote more than the earliest leaders of Christianity, and his writings are a reflection of the early New Testament papyri, as is true with Clement and his writings. Considering that Clement studied under Pantaenus, it is not difficult to surmise that his writings would also be a reflection of the early New Testament papyri. Therefore, it truly is not unreasonable to suggest that going in reverse chronologically: Origen, Clement, Pantaenus, and those who studied with Pantaenus and brought him into Christianity from Stoic philosophy, were using Alexandrian family texts-types that were mirror-like reflections of the original texts of the Christian Greek Scriptures. The church historian Eusebius helps us to appreciate just how early this school was; note how he expresses it:
About the same time, a man most distinguished for his learning, whose name was Pantaenus, governed the school of the faithful. There had been a school of sacred learning established there from ancient times [italics mine], which has continued down to our own times, and which we have understood was held by men able in eloquence and the study of divine things. The tradition is that this philosopher was then in great eminence, as he had been first disciplined in the philosophical principles of those called stoics.
What we have learned thus far is that in the second and third centuries C.E., the scholarship and scribal practices of Alexandria had a tremendous impact on all of Egypt and as far south as the Fayum and Oxyrhynchus. This means that the standard text of the Christian Greek Scriptures reflecting the originals came up out of Egypt during the second century. The Alexandrian Library had been a force for influencing rigorous scholarship and setting high standards from the third century B.C.E. onward. Is it mere coincidence that the four greatest libraries and learning centers were located in the very places that Christianity had its original growth: Alexandria, Pergamum near Ephesus, Rome, and Antioch? The congregations within these cities and nearby ones would be greatly influenced by their book production.
However, some improvements can be made to these critical texts, because the editors of the 26th to 28th editions of the Nestle-Aland text made revisions setting the text further apart from the Westcott and Hort text of 1881. Even so, the 2012 28th edition of the Nestle-Aland text is still 99.5% the same as the 1881 Westcott and Hort Greek NT. Think of this all of the papyrus manuscripts discovered in the 20th century and it has had little impact on the changes made to the Greek New Testament. Still, some of the changes Nestle-Aland has made is because their focus has been less balanced between internal evidence and external evidence. They now give more weight to internal evidence than external evidence. They have ignored the testimony of the earliest manuscripts and Codex Vaticanus and have rejected many readings by relegating them to the margin, or to the critical apparatus, leaving an inferior reading in the main text. It is as Comfort says in his New Testament Text and Translation Commentary:
…the resultant eclectic text exhibits too much dependence on internal evidence, emphasizing the ‘local’ aspect of the ‘local-genealogical’ method, to use Aland’s language. This means that the decision-making, on a variant-unit-by-variant-unit basis, produced a text with an uneven documentary presentation. Furthermore, the committee setting, with members voting on each significant textual variant cannot help but produce a text with uneven documentation. All eclectic texts reconstruct a text that no ancient Christian actually read, even though they approach a close replication of the original writings. However, the NU edition’s eclecticism extends even to following different manuscripts within the same sentence. (P. W. Comfort 2008, p. XV)
What Can We Do to Establish Faith In the
Restored Text of the New Testament?
We can grow in knowledge and understanding of how the Greek New Testament came down to us. If we cannot defend the Bible how can we defend the faith? It is not about winning arguments, it is about winning misguided souls that have been misinformed (1 Pet 3:15) and saving those who have begun to doubt. (Jude 1:22-23)
Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All
SCROLL THROUGH DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW
BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM
BIBLICAL STUDIES / INTERPRETATION
CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM
CHURCH ISSUES, GROWTH, AND HISTORY
 B. F. Westcott; F. J. A. Hort, The New Testament In the Original Greek, Cambridge/London, 1881.
 Referred to as UBS5
 Referred to as NA27. It should be noted that the Greek text of the NA27 and the UBS4 are exactly the same, but their apparatuses are different. The NA27 is more for the scholar, the pastor, and the Bible student and deals with far more variants and offers more evidence for each variant, while the UBS4 is more for the Bible translator and includes only variants deemed important to Bible translation.
 Aland and Aland in their book, The Text of the New Testament, make the clear statement that the text of the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies (UBS3) and the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (NA26) “comes closer to the original text of the New Testament than did Tischendorf or Westcott and Hort not to mention von Soden.” (Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament 1995, 24)
 This approach addresses textual criticism by looking to internal and external evidence. However, many who use this approach do lean too heavily on internal evidence. In addition, while they value early manuscripts, they choose the best reading from a consideration of all manuscripts, believing that any of them can carry the original, avoiding preferences.
 (Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament 1995, 291-2)
 Nonetheless, the oldest manuscripts, which are of the Alexandrian text-type, seem to be the favored, and text of the United Bible Society, 5th ed. and Nestle-Aland, 28th ed. has an Alexandrian disposition.
 See Lionel Casson, Travel in the Ancient World (London: Allen & Unwin, 1974); and Richard Bauckham’s discussion in his essay, “For Whom Were the Gospels Written?” in The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences, ed. Richard Bauckham (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 32 (9-48).
 Eldon Jay Epp, “The Significance of the Papyri for Determining the Nature of the New Testament Text in the Second Century: A Dynamic View of Textual Transmission,” in Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Text, and Transmission, ed. William L. Petersen (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), 81 (71-103).
 Eldon Jay Epp, “New Testament Papyrus Manuscripts and Letter Carrying in Greco-Roman Times,” in The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester, ed. Birger A. Pearson (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 55 (35-56). As another particular piece of evidence of Christian networking across imperial distances, Malcolm Choat pointed me to a third-century letter sent from an unknown individual Christian in Rome to fellow Christians in Egypt (P. Amherst 1.3), requesting certain financial transactions. For discussion see Charles Wessely, “Les plus ancients monuments du Christianisme ecrits sur papyrus,” Patrologia Orientalis, Tomas Quartus (Paris: Librairie de Paris, 19o8), 135-38.
 Larry W. Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2006), 26-27.
 As of 2014, there are 127 papyri.
 It should be noted that Andrews is not arguing for setting aside all manuscripts except the early papyri. Rather, he is merely suggesting that our best evidence lies within these early papyri.
 B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, Introduction [and] Appendix, Vol. 2 of New Testament in the Original Greek (London: Macmillan and Company, 1881), 251.
 P. W. Comfort (1992), 38–39.
 This method holds that a variant can be established as original and can come from any given manuscript(s).
 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5:10:1.