The nine critical texts selected for use herein are dated as long ago as 1550 and as recent as 2005. Their underlying theories and supporting manuscript evidence are equally diverse as briefly outlined above. It is precisely this diversity which led to their inclusion in the Common Text. While other critical texts could have been selected, and others are cited in apparatus, the following nine were deemed sufficient to accomplish the stated goals of the Common Text. The text is constructed by comparing these critical texts with one another. Generally, where a majority share the same reading it is adopted here. In the absence of a majority reading the reading attested by the most witnesses is adopted. Two texts are viewed as primary texts, the Nestle-Aland and the Majority Text. These represent the highest expression of the two competing contemporary approaches to textual criticism. The reading of these two is usually adopted against the testimony of the remaining texts. The style of the text, such as, spelling of proper names, punctuation and so forth are generally taken from the Nestle-Aland text.
Alexander Souter (AS)
The Souter text is the Greek text underlying the Revised Version of 1881. Alexander Souter (1873-1949) authored the critical apparatus. This text represents the state of British scholarship in the late 19th century. One of the goals of the revision committee, under the leadership of Archdeacon Edwin Palmer, was to make as few changes as possible to the text of the King James Version. They were to make such changes as necessary to conform the English text more closely to the original Greek and Hebrew. It would seem that the committee did not made use of a specific Greek text. What Palmer did was to use his notes from the committee’s work to construct a text. The underlying text used by Palmer was the third edition of Stephanus (Stephens), also known as the Textus Receptus of 1550.9 Using this text and his notes, he constructed a unified text reflecting the textual decisions of the committee. When the English text correctly represented more than one competing Greek reading, Palmer typically retained the reading of the Textus Receptus.
The method for selecting the changes to be made in the English text is somewhat curious. Serving on the committee were F.J.A. Hort (1828-1892), who had a preference for the older Alexandrian text, and F.H.A. Scrivener (1813-1891), who had a preference for the later Byzantine text. Each were permitted to present their arguments for adopting their particular reading and the committee would then vote. The result of this procedure and Palmer’s method in reconstructing the underlying Greek text, the Souter text in the main continues the tradition of the Textus Receptus but clearly moves in the direction of the Alexandrian text of Westcott and Hort.
While the text is a reflection of New Testament British scholarship the apparatus prepared by Souter is a major contribution to field of textual criticism. A selected apparatus to go with the text was published in 1910 and later revised and expanded in 1947. While overall it is not as full the Nestle-Aland apparatus it is much easier to use. What sets this apparatus apart is its wealth of evidence from the church fathers, the Latin fathers in particular. The 1947 revision included readings from the Chester Beatty collection and other evidence made available following 1910.
Bernhard Weiss (BW)
The life of the German scholar Bernhard Weiss (1827-1918) was both long and productive. He served as professor of New Testament exegesis at Kiel from 1863 to 1877 and Berlin from 1877 to 1908. His approach to the text of the New Testament differed from others in that he approached the text from the stand point of an exegete. Having studied and written widely on the New Testament and theology he had a keen understanding of the text as literature. The traditional method, for both those who take the Byzantine/Majority and the Eclectic/Alexandrian approach, is to group variant readings according to their manuscript evidence. In doing so the manuscripts are evaluated in an attempt to explain how each reading came about.10 Weiss would instead deal with textual variants by evaluating them according to the context of the text, giving primary attention to what Westcott and Hort called intrinsic probabilities. For him the problem revolved around the question of, what was the author trying to say? and not, what mistake would a scribe make?
What should be rather obvious about Weiss’ method is that it is the most subjective method one could employ. Rather than relying on the hard evidence of the manuscripts he relied on his own analysis what a given author would or would not write. While this criticism may be justified it must be tempered with the fact that Weiss was simply applying to the text principles similar to the ones applied by any expositor. Thus, the validity of this method will rise or fall with the degree to which the expositor or textual critic has an intimate knowledge of the text. Certainly it could not be argued that Weiss was lacking in this area. So while one may find reason to disagree with his conclusions one cannot simply dismiss them out of hand.
He published the results of his work in three volumes from 1894 to 1900. A smaller edition, also in three volumes, was published from 1902 to 1905. The text of Weiss is an eclectic one that is strongly Alexandrian in character. The importance of the Weiss text should not be underestimated. Not only is it the mature results of a fine textual scholar devoted to discerning the meaning of the text, it also to some degree confirms the results of those who have taken much more objective approaches to the same problem.11 It is the very fact that his approach is qualitatively different that lead to the inclusion of his text here. The Weiss readings for the Common Text were taken from the apparatus of the twenty-fifth edition of Nestle-Aland text.
Constantin von Tischendorf (CT)
Constantin von Tischendorf (1815-1874) was professor of theology at Leipzing. He stands as one of the giants of textual criticism. This is due to his many contributions to field. Among these three stand out. First, he made available to New Testament scholars manuscript evidence which previously was out of reach. He accomplished this by visiting libraries across Europe and the Near East in search of ancient manuscripts. To say he was successful in this venture would be an understatement. Not only would he find unknown manuscripts but he was also able to have known manuscripts carefully printed to allow scholars to access them without having to visit the libraries where they were housed. He discovered codex Sinaiticus while visiting St. Catherine’s monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai and arranged for the printing of codex Ephraemi, codex Amiatinus, codex Claromontanus and others.
A second contribution made by Tischendorf was that he published eight major editions of his Greek text in his lifetime, between 1841 and 1872. Making use of the materials he acquired through his many travels he was able to produce a text supported by more manuscript evidence than that of any of his predecessors. The text that resulted from his labors is an eclectic text, though it seems that Tischendorf did not have a detailed textual theory to guide him. He followed the accepted principles of textual criticism of the day, known as canons, rather rigidly.12 But on the other hand, when confronted with difficulties not covered by these rules he tended to be rather arbitrary. In the final analysis what he seems to have done is give priority to the readings he himself discovered. Particular attention was given to codex Bezae and codex Sinaiticus. The result is a text that is generally Alexandrian but with many similarities to the Western text.
The third, and perhaps Tischendorf’s greatest contribution to study of New Testament criticism, is his critical apparatus published with the eighth edition. It was published in two volumes between 1869 and 1872. This apparatus stands as the most comprehensive ever produced up until that time and still stands today among the most useful and comprehensive. In it he cites all the major readings of all the major manuscripts, evidence from almost all the known uncials, significant readings from the minuscules, the versions, and the Fathers. It is the eighth edition is used here for constructing the Common Text.
Johann J. Griesbach (GR)
The study of textual criticism reached a milestone with the work of Johann J. Griesbach (1745-1812). In many ways he is the father of contemporary critical study. Like Tischendorf, who would come after him, he traveled throughout Europe in search of manuscripts. In addition, he was able to make use of the manuscripts collected by those who came before him but had generally gone unnoticed by his predecessors. In collating his textual evidence he also incorporated quotations from the Greek Fathers and several early versions which had also previously received little attention. At first he grouped these materials into five groups but then he consolidated them into the familiar three textual families, Western, Alexandrian and Byzantine. He proposed fifteen canons for textual criticism, most of which have stood the test of time and are still used by scholars today. In many ways Griesbach was a pioneer. He was the first German scholar to give serious consideration to textual evidence outside the tradition of the Textus Receptus. But he was by no means a revolutionary.13 In general, his approach could best be described as both cautious and candid.
His first edition was published in two volumes from 1775 to 1777. Shortly after the publication of his first edition there appeared in print the collations of several other scholars which greatly increased the available evidence. He was able to make extensive use these in subsequent editions. His last edition was published in 1806 and was based primarily on codex Vaticanus but included a great many readings from other sources. Even so, this text could hardly be classified as Alexandrian in character. Rather, it is much closer to the Textus Receptus than to the Westcott and Hort text. He achieved this by creating an essentially Byzantine text and then indicating in the apparatus where the text differs from Vaticanus. The edition used here is the one that is contained in the Emphatic Diaglott edited by Benjamin Wilson.
Heinrich J. Vogels (HV)
In the twentieth century there have been a number of Catholic scholars who produced editions of the Greek New Testament. Among them is Heinrich Joseph Vogels (1880-1972). He produced a polyglot edition with both Greek and Latin texts. The first edition of the Greek text appeared in 1920 and the Latin in 1922. The forth edition was published in 1955. The text used here is the third edition published in 1949. Of the other two major Catholic editions, Joseph Maria Bover and Augustinus Merk, the Vogels text is most like the Textus Receptus.14 His aparatus is largely given to the evidence from the Latin and Syriac versions.
Majority Text (MT)
Among those who have constructed a Byzantine/Majority text are Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont. Their work is based primarily on the textual apparatus’ of Hermann von Soden (1852-1914) and Herman C. Hoskier. The origin of this text goes back to 1933 when Pierpont began collating a list of readings which isolate the non-Byzantine readings in the Stephanus 1550 text. This work was completed in 1975. From 1972 to 1975 Robinson began his work in compiling Byzantine readings from the textual apparatus’ of several critical texts. In 1975, as Robinson was beginning his examination of the von Soden apparatus, he became aware of Pierpont’s work which led to the two working together. By working together they not only avoided duplication of efforts but developed a fast friendship and appreciation for each others contribution to their mutual goal.
By 1978 they had completed their research. Their notes where first published in 1979 as an appendix to the fourth volume of The Interlinear Bible. The text was published in 1991 under the title The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine/Majority Textform. The editors purposely selected a title similar to title of Westcott and Hort’s work.15 This reflects their conviction that the Byzantine texttype is the closest to original autographs. The title also reflects their belief that their text stands at one end of the continuum and Westcott and Hort’s stand at the other. Following the canons of John W. Burgon (1813-1888) they have constructed what they believe to an authentic Byzantine text in contrast to Westcott and Hort who produced the most "pure" Alexandrian text.
Their text is printed in manuscript style without breathing marks, accents and punctuation in a manner similar to how the text appears in the manuscripts. They do provide chapter and verse numberings for ease of use. No critical apparatus is supplied. Instead, significant Byzantine variants are marked in the text by placing those words brackets. While their text is a Majority text it does contain some non-majority readings. In those places the editors are of the opinion that a minority reading from the Byzantine manuscripts is the authentic Byzantine reading. These determinations were made using Burgon’s canons of Antiquity, Continuity, Variety, Catholicity, and Internal Reasonableness.16 At any rate, while there are no non-Byzantine readings in their text there are readings which are not truly majority.
Another Byzantine/Majority text is the one edited by Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad (1935-1998). Farstad has served as president of the Majority Text Society and on the committee which translated the New King James Version (NKJV). Like Robinson and Pierpont, Hodges and Farstad used as their source material the textual apparatus’ of von Soden and Hoskier. The first edition appeared in 1982 and the second in 1985. The results of their work does not differ radically from Robinson and Pierpont. They did, however, interpreted the information differently making use of a Stemmatic approach which emphasizes the relationship between the manuscripts by grouping them together in a family tree format.
What sets the Hodges and Farstad edition apart from Robinson and Pierpont is that it has an apparatus. It contains Byzantine readings which is quite useful for those want to examine the Byzantine tradition and its complexity. While this texttype is more unified than other texttypes it is hardly monolithic. It also lists variants between their text the text of the United Bible Societies. The text use for the Common Text is the edition by Robinson and Pierpont with the Hodges and Farstad differences noted in the apparatus.
Nestle-Aland (NA)
The first edition of the Nestle text was prepared in 1898 by Eberhard Nestle (1851_1913). Like the present text, it was not a critical text resulting from the examination of the extant Greek manuscripts. Nestle’s approach was to compare the current editions of Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf, and Richard F. Weymouth (1822-1902). The Weymouth text was published in 1862 and itself was also the Resultant Text collated from eleven critical texts published since 1550. The reading of Wescott & Hort and Tischendorf was chosen for the text. If these two did not agree then the one that agreed with Weymouth was used. If no two agreed then the middle reading was adopted. In this way Nestle hoped to avoid creating a text based simply upon his own subjective evaluations but one that reflected the best critical editions of the day. The apparatus contained variant readings from the three source texts and a few readings from codex Bezae. The text under went a modest revision with the third edition in 1901 when the Bernhard Weiss (1827-1918) text was substituted for Weymouth.
In 1904 the British and Foreign Bible Society adopted the Nestle’s text in place of the Textus Receptus. While the Nestle’s text was widely accepted as perhaps the best available text of its day, Nestle himself realized it had a certain one-sidedness.17 This was due to the fact that three critical editions he used to collate his text where all primarily based upon the Alexandrian manuscripts. Westcott and Hort, and Weiss had a preference for codex Vaticanus and Tischendorf a preference for codex Sinaiticus. Thus, in 1927, under the direction of Erwin Nestle, Eberhard’s son, the thirteenth edition included for the first time a critical apparatus containing manuscript evidence. The purpose for this apparatus was make available to the reader the manuscript evidence for both the reading found in the text and the alternate readings listed in the apparatus. In the decades that followed the apparatus gradually increased and the text was checked against the actual manuscript evidence. The bulk of this work was done by Kurt Aland. The twenty_sixth edition, published in 1979, was the first to be produced entirely under the supervision of Kurt Aland. The twenty-seventh edition, used for the present text, is essentially the same as the United Bible Societies fourth edition, of which Kurt Aland was one of the editors. In fact, in the Nestle-Aland editions the Nestle’s text has been replaced with the UBS text and thus these editions only continue the Nestle-Aland apparatus. The apparatus is to be commended for both its scope and compact size. Even though it was simplified with the twenty-seventh edition the primary disadvantage of the apparatus is that it can be difficult to read. The changes made in the text from the twenty-fifth to the twenty-sixth edition are noted in the Appendix III of the twenty-seventh edition. These readings are also indicated in the apparatus of the Common Text.
The first edition of the UBS text was published in 1966. It came about in a manner similar to that of the original Nestle’s text. Several critical texts, including Westcott & Hort, Nestle, Joseph Maria Bover, Augustinus Merk, Heinrich Joseph Vogels, and others where compared to ascertain which readings required further study. This approached differed from Nestle in one important respect, that is, rather than simply select the reading opted for by a majority of the critical texts consulted, the committee of editors evaluated the manuscript evidence for themselves and came to their own conclusions. The UBS editions are designed primarily for translators.18 Thus, the apparatus is limited to readings deemed significant for that purpose. Readings are graded A, B, C, or D, according to weight of manuscript evidence for each as determined by the editors. For those readings considered to be insignificant the reading of Westcott and Hort was retained.
The second edition was published in 1968 with few changes to the text and 62 other changes, mostly dealing with the apparatus.19 The New International Version is based in part on UBS2 but not exclusively. The third edition under went an extensive revision and this text was also adopted for the Nestle-Aland 26th edition. Thus, UBS3 and NA26 share a common text.20 Variants for all three UBS editions are listed in the apparatus. The Nestle-Aland text remained virtually unchanged from the twenty-sixth (UBS3) to the twenty-seventh (UBS4) editions.21 The apparatus, however, was revised and expanded to include more evidence from the Greek manuscripts, ancient versions and Church Fathers. The Nestle-Aland editions are intended to be research tools and to that end it also provides a number of useful appendices.
Textus Receptus (TR)
The Textus Receptus has a long and noble history. Its origins go back to Desiderius Erasmus (1496-1536) who produced the first Greek text to be printed on moveable type and made available for public distribution in 1516. The resulting text was indeed a poor one with thousands of typographical errors. The multitude of printing errors was due to the hast with which it was produced. The reason for the hast was that Cardinal Francisco Ximenes de Cisneros of Spain was preparing his Greek text for publication, the Computensian Polyglot.22 The Polyglot was printed in 1514 but not published until 1520. The delay was due in part to the fact that the Polyglot had official church sanction was awaiting final final approval from the church hierarchy. This delay provided Erasmus and publisher Johann Froben with the opportunity to publish their edition first. But it also created a problem for Erasmus, a catholic priest, in that he did not have official sanction to publish his work. Consequently, Erasmus dedicated the first edition to Pope Leo X in the hopes that this would appease any who would take offense at his actions.
Erasmus was in such hast that he did not even prepare new copies of the text for the printer. Instead, he used actual manuscripts and wrote his notes and corrections in the margins. His hast also resulted in limiting the number and quality of the manuscripts he was able to obtain. There was no time to do an exhaustive search for manuscripts thus he had to make do with what was at hand. In all, he only made use of seven Greek manuscripts, the earliest of which dated to the twelfth century and none of them contained all the New Testament.23 This forced him to rely on the Latin Vulgate in many places which resulted in things going into his text that have little to no support from the Greek manuscripts. In the later editions Erasmus corrected most of the typographical errors and improved the quality of the text by consulting additional manuscripts. What is most remarkable about his text is its relative high quality given the materials and circumstances he had to work with.24
Others followed Erasmus, building upon and refining his text. Probably the most significant edition of the Textus Receptus was published by Robert Stephanus (1503-1559) in 1550. Stephanus published two previous editions which were collations of Erasmus and the text edited by Francisco Ximenes de Cisneros. The third edition comes more closely to Erasmus’ fourth and fifth editions. In the English speaking world it is Stephanus’ third edition of 1550 which is generally regarded as the Textus Receptus. Up until 1904 it was the text of the British and Foreign Bible Societies. Beginning with the Geneva Bible in 1560, the Stephanus text has been the source text for nearly every major English translation prior to 1900.
On the European continent another edition is viewed as the Textus Receptus. In 1624, two Dutch brothers, Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir, published an edition based primarily on Theodore Beza’s (1519-1605) text. Beza was a Protestant reformer and the successor to John Calvin (1509-1564) in Geneva. It is this edition which has given the designation, Textus Receptus, to this texttype. In the preface the Elzevir’s claimed their’s is "the text which is now received by all."25 The two, Stephanus 1550 and Elzevir 1624, are essentially the same varying from each other in fewer than three hundred places, which give the overall size of the New Testament, is statistically zero. The source for Textus Receptus used here is the edition edited by George Ricker Berry (1865-1945) and first published in 1897. The main text is the Stephanus 1550 text and the apparatus contains readings from seven other texts, including Elzevir 1624. The Stephanus text is used in composing the Common Text and Elzevir readings are gleaned from Berry and noted in the apparatus.
Readings for a third Textus Receptus are also noted in the apparatus. The text of F.H.A. Scrivener as it appears in H KAINH DIAQHKH, The New Testament, The Greek Text Underlying the English Authorized Version of 1611 and printed by the Trinitarian Bible Society in 1976. This edition is an unedited reprint of Scrivener’s original work, The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text followed in the Authorized Version printed in 1894 and reprinted in 1902. The text is a reconstruction of the Greek text underlying the King James Version of 1611 which generally follows the text of Beza 1598. However, sometimes the KJV translators followed no particular Greek text or manuscript whatsoever. In these instances Scrivener constructs his text by consulting the actual manuscript evidence. This is also the text used by the translators of the NKJV.
Westcott & Hort (WH)
The Westcott and Hort text is the resulting work of Brooke Foss Westcott (1825_1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828_1892). Westcott was educated in Birmingham at King Edward VI’s school. He was ordained as a priest in the Anglican Church in 1851 and was appointed professor of Divinity at Cambridge in 1870. Throughout his teaching career Westcott was active in recruiting students for the missions field. In 1890 he was selected to serve as the Bishop of Durham. Hort was educated at Trinity College in Cambridge, where like Westcott, he eventually became a teacher.
The two began collaborating on a new edition of the Greek New Testament in 1853. In 1881, after twenty-eight years of research, they published their results in two volumes. Volume one contained the text and was entitled, The New Testament in the Original Greek. Volume two contained the Introduction and Appendix. Their worked differed from previous editors in that they did not provide a critical apparatus of manuscript evidence. In some respects the second volume has proven to be more valuable than the text for in it they provide a detailed description of their theory and discussions of certain difficult passages illustration the application of their theory. Their theory was heavily based on the work of Greisbach and others. While they did not originate the methodology they employed, they did refine it and applied it consistently.26 A key feature of their theory was that they evaluated manuscripts according to their apparent relationship to each other. From this they developed a family tree into which they arranged the manuscripts. In this way the text could be recovered by studying the history and relationship of the manuscripts to each other.27
The results of this approach is that the reading a majority of the manuscripts may not be regarded as reflecting the original text. If the nine manuscripts with the same reading and they are judged to have come from a common ancestor of similar date as the one with a different reading, then their testimony is equal to, not greater than the testimony of the one. The nine are not nine independent witnesses to the original text, but nine witness to a single copy of an exemplar created about the same time as the remaining one with the different reading.28 In this way Westcott and Hort were able to justify giving equal or greater weight to older manuscripts, particularly codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus, with special attention given to Vaticanus.
The text of Westcott and Hort is an eclectic text with a strong Alexandrian influence owing to the priority given Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. In fact, Westcott and Hort have been accused of constructing their text by simply following codex Vaticanus. However, such claims are oversimplications. What they did was develop a theory of textual families that favored the Alexandrian text but they were more than willing follow other witnesses if the principles of their theory called for doing so.
____________________
9 Metzger, Ibid., p. 138.
10 Kirsopp Lake, The Text of the New Testament, (London: Rivingtons, 1949), p. 1.
11 Metzger, Ibid., p. 137.
12 J. W. McGarvey, Evidences of Christianity, Part I (Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing, 1886), p. 48.
13 Westcott & Hort, Ibid., p. 13.
14 Metzger, Ibid., p. 143.
15 Robinson & Pierpont, Ibid., p. xxxv.
16 Ibid.
17 Eberhard Nestle, Novum Testamentum Graece, 25th ed. (American Bible Society: NY, 1963), p. 60*.
18 Kurt Aland et al. The Greek New Testament, 3rd ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1975), p. v.
19 Kurt Aland et al. The Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1968), p. viii.
20 Kurt Aland et al. The Greek New Testament, 3rd ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1975), p. viii
21 Kurt Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed. (New York: American Bible Society, 1993), p. 46*.
22 Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, (Windber, PA: Pilkington and Sons, 1984), p. 203.
23 Metzger, Ibid., p. 99.
24 Westcott & Hort, Ibid., p. 11.
25 Hills, Ibid., p. 208.
26 Metzger, Ibid., p. 129.
27 Westcott & Hort, Ibid., p. 40.
28 Ibid., p. 41.