INTENTIONAL ERRORS: The necessity of Textual Criticism

A scribe is far more likely to omit a word or phrase mistakenly, as to intentionally adding. The reading that is deemed immediately at odds with the context is preferred if deemed intentional because a scribe is more likely to have smoothed the reading out. The harmonization of passages is likely an intentional change by a copyist, who is seeking to have a passage agree with a similar passage from another book. Examples: Doctrinal Corrections, Liturgical Corrections, Harmonistic Corrections, Historical Corrections, and Linguistic or Rhetorical Corrections.

UNINTENTIONAL ERRORS: The necessity of Textual Criticism

Textual criticism concerns itself with the problems suggested by various kinds of errors. textual evidence is so vast—exceeding that of any other literature, as has been seen—that two results follow: Since the copying by hand of any document of appreciable length almost inevitably involves change and error, many textual errors and variants will be found in this great quantity of MSS.


Many good Christian biblical apologists spend a lifetime defending the trustworthiness of God’s Word. Many modern-day textual scholars seem to be apologists of another sort. They seem to be apologists for uncertainty and ambiguity as Daniel Wallace in the Foreword of MYTHS AND MISTAKES in New Testament Textual Criticism (2019) writes, “The new generation of evangelical scholars is far more comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty than previous generations.” (Page xii)

1 2 3 9