In addition to manuscripts (and lectionaries), discussed generally in the previous chapter, patristic quotations (quotations of the NT by the early church fathers) and early versions (translations) provide important data to aid in the task of reconstructing the text of the NT. This chapter surveys these major witnesses and the value that they have for textual criticism and understanding of the textual history and transmission of the text of the NT. Because of the voluminous data, this chapter is only intended to provide a brief introduction to a few of the more important witnesses (i.e., manuscripts that witness to the earliest form of the Greek text of the NT).
The manuscripts and other witnesses to the text of the NT are located at a wide variety of sites worldwide. These sites include major national libraries, university libraries, public and private museums, and private collections. As a result, with such a wealth of evidence, it is difficult to keep track of all of the available manuscript sources of the NT, with each piece of evidence having its own physical location and identification within that place, without reference to any of the other evidence.
As the abundance of new manuscript evidence for the Greek NT — including the papyri, majuscules, minuscules, and lectionaries, besides the evidence from the church fathers and versions — came to be known, there were a number of efforts to organize the materials. The problem became acute during the second half of the nineteenth century, when the manuscripts increased at a faster rate than ever before. This major organizing effort was orchestrated by Caspar René Gregory, an American who became a well-known German NT scholar who specialized in textual criticism. He authored a number of major scholarly books, including the Prolegomena to Constantine Tischendorf’s 8th edition of the Greek NT (which we will mention again below), a major work on textual criticism, and a major work on canon. He is also the one who inaugurated the consolidated list of NT manuscripts, which he first published in 1908. The volume contains sections on the majuscules (of which Gregory listed 161), papyri (with 14, several of them having earlier been classified as other types of documents, such as lectionaries, before there was a category for papyri), minuscules (with 2,292), and lectionaries (with 1,540, and a few incomplete ones). In this volume, Gregory established the categories and enumeration system used to this day: the Gothic 𝔓 for papyri followed by an Arabic numeral (e.g., 𝔓56), an Arabic numeral preceded by 0 and/or a capital letter up to Z and a capital Greek letter up to omega for majuscules (e.g., A 02, or 071), an Arabic number for minuscules (e.g., 1, 1924), and an Arabic number preceded by a small cursive l for lectionaries (e.g., l1043). One notices, however, that even though the categories are the same, not all of the numbers are used, and some manuscripts, even at this early stage, have been placed in various categories. These inconsistencies have continued in the list. After Gregory was killed in the First World War, the list was continued by Ernst von Dobschütz and then by Kurt Aland, whose Institute for New Testament Textual Research now maintains the list, even with its inconsistencies.1
The discovery and identification of NT manuscripts continues to this day, with numerous manuscripts being identified around the world. Many, if not most, of these manuscripts were discovered a long time ago and are now housed in various museums or libraries, especially church libraries of various sorts. Many of them have just recently been rediscovered and identified due to the changing political situation around the world, in which libraries that were previously inaccessible are now potentially open to scholars. Most of these manuscripts are of late date, and often are lectionaries or minuscules. A few are majuscules, and even fewer are of earlier date. A few papyri are still regularly published, some with fairly early dates.
Arguably the most important person to discover, identify, and publish NT manuscripts is the German scholar from Leipzig, Constantine Tischendorf. Living in the nineteenth century, Tischendorf devoted his career as a scholar to discovering and publishing as many Greek NT (as well as other biblical and other language) manuscripts as he could find, so that he could establish the early reliability of the NT text. He undertook this task in direct opposition to the rise of German higher criticism, which was increasingly skeptical of the reliability of the NT. In the course of his travels to various places around Europe and the Middle East, Tischendorf discovered, identified, and published more manuscripts than any other scholar in history before or since. Among his many textual exploits were the decipherment of a majuscule manuscript that had been written in the fifth century but that then had been erased so that selections from a later Syriac church father’s work could be written over it (Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus; C 04). This manuscript is a palimpsest, a document in which the original writing has been erased and written over. Many previous scholars had tried to decipher this manuscript, but Tischendorf accomplished the task and published an edition that is still highly reliable today. Tischendorf also published the first reliable edition of Codex Vaticanus (B 03), a very reliable early (fourth century) NT manuscript that had been in the Vatican Library since the fifteenth century and had been consulted by Erasmus for his edition of the Greek NT, published in 1516. These are just two of Tischendorf’s many accomplishments.
The most important of them all, however, was his discovery of Codex Sinaiticus (א 01), which he identified in St. Catherine’s Monastery at the base of Mount Sinai in the Sinai Peninsula. Tischendorf visited St. Catherine’s Monastery three times. On the first trip, in 1844, he found the monks burning what he identified as the earliest manuscript he had ever seen — apparently they were cold and needed fodder for their fire! He was able to save the manuscript and was given a number of pages of the OT in Greek, which he took back to Leipzig and published. After a second trip, in 1853, during which it appeared that the manuscript had been forgotten or had disappeared, Tischendorf revisited the monastery one last time in 1859, and was shown the remains of the manuscript first seen in 1844. Through a process of negotiation, Tischendorf was able to borrow the manuscript so that it could first be copied, and then published, in 1862 in a beautiful facsimile edition sponsored by the czar of Russia. For this beautiful edition, of which only three hundred twenty-seven copies of the four-volume edition were printed, Tischendorf found special paper and designed a unique font, which included several different types of various characters so as to capture the original as realistically as possible. There is some controversy over how the manuscript came to be given to the czar, but the evidence is that the monks at the time bequeathed the manuscript to the czar in return for a number of considerations. This manuscript was later sold by the Soviet government in 1933 to the British people for £100,000, and it can be viewed today in the British Library.2
The papyri today occupy pride of place in textual criticism, even though they are the most recent addition to the set of manuscripts available. Tischendorf was the first to refer to a NT papyrus (𝔓11) in 1855, and only 128 have been identified and published. There are some scholars who claim that much more use should be made of the papyri in establishing the text of the NT. However, they have entered into the establishment of the current eclectic text fairly minimally. The standard eclectic text is based upon the two major majuscule manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). There is some justification for this, as the two majuscule manuscripts are the earliest complete (or nearly complete) manuscripts we have. The papyri are all fragmentary, and only a few have more than a portion of a single book represented. Furthermore, there are also a number of majuscule manuscripts that are as old as some of the papyri.
The following chart organizes the papyri, not according to their Gregory/Aland number, which tends to reflect when they were entered into the list, but their estimated date of transcription. The list gives the Gregory/Aland number, the inventory number of the manuscript according to the collection to which it belongs, its proposed date (there are often differences of opinion regarding these dates, as the papyri are dated by handwriting), their NT content, and their textual character.
The two major majuscule manuscripts from the fourth century, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, are the basis of the modern Greek NT. As discussed elsewhere, Westcott and Hort described these two manuscripts as the Neutral text. Even though textual critics reject this label today, many of them still use these two majuscule codices as the basis of their text and judge variants against these two manuscripts. Besides its use in the edition of Westcott and Hort (1881), Tischendorf used Codex Sinaiticus as the basis of his 8th edition (1869-72; see ch. 11), as well as providing an exemplary critical apparatus that is still valuable for consultation today. The Nestle text of the NT was based upon comparison of three published editions, including the Westcott and Hort edition and Tischendorf’s 8th edition (see ch. 12).
The following chart provides a list of the major majuscule manuscripts that are commonly used in NT textual criticism.
Minuscules, for the most part, are late in date, usually contain one or more major portion of the NT, and reflect the Byzantine text, that is, the text that came to be widely used throughout the Byzantine world (from the sixth century A.D. onward). Minuscules formed the basis of the first printed Greek NTs (by Erasmus in 1516; see ch. 5) and the translational base for many early translations, such as the KJV. Minuscules are the most common Greek NT manuscripts in existence, and hence they reflect what is sometimes called the Majority text, because of their sheer numbers. Some believe that the Byzantine text, because of its history and significance and numerical superiority, or the Majority text, because of its sheer numbers (the two are not identical terms, but similar in many ways), should still constitute the basis of the Greek NT used today. Some even argue that the Byzantine text reflects a textual tradition more reliable than any other. Most textual critics of the NT do not hold to this view, arguing that the Byzantine text’s textual evidence tends to be significantly later (the majority of the texts are late, so they are not the majority at the earlier period), and that the earlier manuscripts such as the papyri and majuscules are more reliable.
Nevertheless, a number of minuscule manuscripts are important in textual criticism. Some of these are among the manuscripts that Erasmus used in establishing his Greek NT.
| Gregory-Aland Numbers | Publication Name/Numbers | Date | NT Books Contained | Textual Character |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
33 |
Colbertinus 2844 |
9th century |
Gospels, Acts, Paul, Catholic Epistles |
Alexandrian with Byzantine readings |
|
——— |
A.D. 1044 |
Acts, Paul, Catholic Epistles |
Typically agrees with Alexandrian, but with Byzantine readings |
|
|
1739 |
Goltz |
10th century, but may be a copy of a late-4th-century manuscript |
Acts, Paul, Catholic Epistles |
Alexandrian |
|
1 |
Basilensis |
12th-13th centuries |
Gospels |
Caesarean |
|
Family 1 (1) |
The Lake Group |
12th-14th centuries |
Gospels |
Caesarean. Note this group of manuscripts’ role in the discussion of the pericope adulterae (John 7:53–8:11) |
|
Family 13 (13) |
The Ferrar Group |
11th-15th centuries |
Gospels |
Caesarean. Note this group of manuscripts’ role in the discussion of the pericope adulterae (John 7:53–8:11) |
The definition of a NT manuscript is that it provides continuous text of the Greek NT. Lectionaries are manuscripts that provide not continuous text but excerpts of various types that were created for liturgical use. Most lectionaries are relatively late in date and reflect the period after the development of relatively fixed lectional readings for the various days of the week. These lectionaries then isolate and include this portion of text, often with a suitable, brief introduction. The notion of a lectionary is highly problematic, however, for two major reasons. One of these is that it is difficult to establish that many of the papyri, and a good number of the majuscule texts, were in fact continuous text and not themselves excerpts. The major example of the difficulty is that many papyri of John’s Gospel include a portion of text of the Gospel and then the word “interpretation” written under the text (ἑρμηνεία), under which are various nonscriptural statements, with language redolent of the Gospel text in some ways. These papyri are clearly not continuous text, but what they are has been highly debated. They appear to include some kind of biblical interpretation or inspired statement. In any case, they are not continuous text. In other cases, fragments of papyrus or parchment are so small that it is difficult to know how much text was included. Some of these appear to be miniature codices with a small excerpt of a biblical text upon them. Finally, some NT manuscripts were later provided with notation to indicate how they were to be read and intoned in church services. Because of their use, even though they are NT manuscripts, these seem to be lectionary texts in the truest sense of the word — manuscripts that were used as the readings for the day, complete with instructions on their use. As a result, it is surprising that, besides causing confusion for the listing of manuscripts, lectionaries have been neglected in NT criticism, even though some are early and do attest to the text of the NT, as well as its early liturgical use.
A few of the more important lectionaries are one from the fourth century (l1604), one from the fifth century (l1043), and a few from the sixth century (l1276, l1347, l1354) but the vast majority of these are later.
Another significant set of sources for reconstructing the NT text is ancient versions or translations of the NT. These translations are the result of the efforts of early Christian missionaries to bring the NT to those who spoke other languages. Bruce Metzger summarizes the importance of the early versions:
The church historian … can learn not a little from them concerning the spread of Christianity in the ancient world, and by identifying the parent text-type from which a given version was made it is possible to ascertain the headquarters and direction of missionary activity. Furthermore, since every translation is in some measure a commentary, one can trace the history of the exegesis of disputed passages as disclosed in successive modifications of a given version. Moreover, the additions and omissions in the transmitted text can tell us something about the doctrinal, liturgical, or ascetical interests of those who made and used such translations.3
The oldest and most significant versions for textual criticism are written in Syriac, Latin, and Coptic, but we also have Ethiopic and Armenian versions of the NT.
The oldest version of the NT is Tatian’s Diatessaron (most likely written ca. A.D. 172), from the Greek διὰ τεσσάρων, meaning “through four” (i.e., through the four Gospels). It is also the earliest widely used harmony of the Gospels. The Diatessaron, therefore, is an important source for textual criticism of the Gospels since it provides a window into the texts available to Tatian in the second century when he composed his harmony. This version — if it were to still be extant — actually predates most of the extant manuscripts of the NT that we have today. As William Petersen observes, “In raw chronological terms, the Diatessaron antedates all MSS [manuscripts] of the NT, save that tiny fragment of the Gospel of John known as 𝔓52.”4
There is some disagreement as to whether the Diatessaron was originally composed in Greek or Syriac, but the latter option is generally regarded to be more likely. In any case, the original is now lost. What we know of the Diatessaron is transmitted to us in a variety of languages (esp. Syriac) and quotations from the early fathers. The text we now have is reconstructed from these various witnesses (totaling over 170 readings, including various fragments and quotations). We know the Diatessaron, in other words, through its various translations. And since the Gospels were translated into Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Arabic, and (possibly) Latin in the form of the Diatessaron, its significance among the early versions cannot be minimized — at least for Gospels textual criticism.
A number of early Syriac versions are important for reconstructing the text of the NT. The most important of these are the Old Syriac Version, the Syriac Peshitta, and the Philoxenian and/or Harclean Version(s).
The Old Syriac Version of the four Gospels is preserved in only two manuscripts, whose texts may date from the end of the second or beginning of the third century — although the manuscripts themselves were probably copied in the fourth or fifth century. There was also an Old Syriac Version of Acts and the Pauline Letters, but we know of it only through citations from the church fathers.
The Syriac Peshitta or Peshitto (meaning “simple”) was translated in the fourth or early fifth century and includes the entire NT, with the exception of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation — these were not considered to be part of the canon (collection of books considered to be authoritative) in the Syriac church when the translation was created. The textual tradition for the Syriac Peshitta is both abundant and stable, meaning that we have over 350 manuscripts (many from the fifth and sixth centuries) with very little variation among them. This translation is still recognized and used today by the Syrian church.
A sixth/seventh-century Syriac translation that has been quite confusing for scholars is known as the Philoxenian and/or Harclean version(s), depending on whether one sees them as two different versions. The importance of this version(s) for our purposes, however, is that it provides an early Syriac translation of the Catholic Letters and Revelation, which were not translated in the Syriac Peshitta.
Latin became a major linguistic force in the Roman Empire, eventually replacing Greek as the lingua franca or common language in the ancient world. Latin influence was especially prominent in the western empire, including North Africa, Italy, and Gaul, where some of the first Latin versions are attested. There are two major traditions of Latin versions: various Old Latin versions and the Latin Vulgate.
The church father Tertullian (ca. 160-225) is sometimes said to show awareness of a Latin translation of (at least) some of Paul’s letters, various Catholic letters, and Acts that was available in the second century, but the oldest versions currently available from this tradition are from the fourth and fifth centuries. A distinction is typically made between African and European Old Latin versions. The African Old Latin Version (though some think it was produced in Italy) was probably translated around the early third century and is characterized by distinct (i.e., ancient) vocabulary that makes it recognizable.5 The European Old Latin Version is a revision of the African Old Latin Version, probably in the late third century, but only attested during and after the fourth century throughout Europe.
Although the OT Vulgate appears to be a new translation of the Hebrew text, the NT seems to be a revision of the European Old Latin version. The revision was probably done in the late fourth century. The Gospels are generally believed to have been revised by Jerome, but the person responsible for the revision of the rest of the NT is not known, although some have suggested Rufinus the Syrian and Pelagius. While the purpose of this new revision was to bring greater consistency among the Latin translations, it actually further complicated matters by causing more diversity among the Latin versions as the Latin Vulgate was copied throughout the history of the church and changes were introduced in the transmission process.
Although during the Hellenistic period (300 B.C.–A.D. 300) of Egypt Greek was the dominant language due to the large number of Greeks that had settled there, Copts or native Egyptian Christians (the term originally referred simply to Egyptian natives) spoke a form of Demotic Egyptian using Greek-type letters, beginning in the first century A.D. or so. Coptic was their first language, even though they probably also functioned in Greek. The dominant Greek influence in Hellenistic Egypt resulted in borrowed Greek vocabulary and syntax. Frederik Wisse calculates that “On the average about 15 percent of the words in early Coptic texts are Greek.”6 This Greek influence makes Coptic versions especially useful in ascertaining the Greek texts that were in use when the translation was made. We have no single continuous Coptic versions of the NT. They are unfortunately preserved only in fragmentary form. The significant Coptic versions include the Sahidic, Achmimic, Lycopolitan, Middle Egyptian, and Bohairic versions. These refer to various dialects of Coptic into which the NT was translated.
The Ethiopic (Geʿez) Version is restricted to a small portion of Africa and, although the oldest manuscript dates from around the tenth century, most come from during or after the fifteenth century. The prevailing opinion is that this version was translated book by book during the fourth and fifth centuries. There is some debate about whether the Ethiopic Version was translated from Greek or Syriac, but it may turn out that some portions were translated from a Greek text whereas others used a Syriac text. While this version is considerably late, it has been useful in particular areas of textual criticism, especially in assessing the disputed ending of Mark’s Gospel.
According to Joseph Alexanian, “The Bible was translated into Armenian in the early fifth century as part of an historic struggle to unify the Armenian people and preserve their religion and culture in the battles between the Persian Empire on the east and the Byzantine Empire on the west.”7 The Armenian Bible was then thoroughly revised later in the fifth century. All of the NT manuscripts we currently have of the Armenian Version come from this revision, but a few OT manuscripts reflect the earlier, initial translation. The Armenian Version provides an important Caesarean witness (see ch. 5) to the text of the NT.
We are fortunate to have such an abundance of versional evidence for the Greek NT, not all of which can be dealt with here. We have had to pass over a number of other versions, such as the Georgian and Gothic. However, when one deals with translations, one must always keep in mind that no two languages match up perfectly, as mirrors of each other; and as a result, there are difficulties in using one to reconstruct the other. For example, Latin does not have an article, whereas Greek has an article. Therefore it is difficult to use the Latin evidence to establish whether an article was used, for example, before an instance of a given noun. Thus caution is necessary when using the versions.
Quotations of the NT from the early church fathers — referred to as patristic quotations — also play an important role in reconstructing the NT text in that they give us insight into what text types (see ch. 5) were available and in use when and where they wrote. In some cases, this makes the church fathers a more certain source than Greek manuscripts since the date and geographical location of the church fathers are usually easy to ascertain. Despite their importance for textual criticism, the early church fathers remain one of the most understudied witnesses to the NT text.
A number of difficulties in using the church fathers in reconstructing the NT text are often noted, such as whether individual fathers cited the NT from memory or from a written source, whether the quotation was intended to be a paraphrase or a direct citation, and the occurrence of inconsistencies in the transmission of the patristic texts themselves. Other problems arise from the fact that in some instances a church father may attest to two or more versions of the same text, making it difficult to determine which is earlier or original. A further difficulty is that many of the church fathers do not have the same extant manuscript evidence and their writings have not been critically edited to the same standard as the NT text. Sometimes an additional stage of textual criticism must be performed upon the patristic source before its value for NT textual criticism can be determined. Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman have conveniently listed some of the more important church fathers who frequently cite the NT and whose names are sometimes found in the critical apparatus:8
Other important patristic writings that frequently cite the NT include the Didache (A.D. 50-160), an early Christian worship manual that relies heavily upon Gospel material; the writings of Polycarp (A.D. 59-155), the disciple of the apostle John; the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 35-107); and the Letter to Diognetus (A.D. 100-150).
The manuscript evidence of the Greek NT is abundant and falls into at least two categories. The first category comprises the manuscripts themselves, which are categorized as papyri, majuscules, minuscules, or lectionaries. Even though these are not clearly separated categories, they are useful starting points for distinguishing the major sources for the Greek NT, especially the papyri and majuscules, the latter of which constitute the basis of the contemporary Greek NT. The second category includes the early versions and church fathers. Although these are not primary sources, they can, with the proper handling, provide insights into the NT text.
Aland, Kurt, and Barbara Aland. The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. Trans. Erroll F. Rhodes. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.
Alexanian, Joseph M. “The Armenian Version of the New Testament.” Pages 157-72 in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis: A Volume in Honor of Bruce M. Metzger. Ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes. SD 46. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Askeland, Christian. “The Coptic Versions of the New Testament.” Pages 201-29 in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. 2nd ed. Ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes. NTTSD 42. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Baarda, Tjitze. “The Syriac Versions of the New Testament.” Pages 97-112 in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis: A Volume in Honor of Bruce M. Metzger. Ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes. SD 46. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Birdsall, J. Neville. “The Georgian Version of the New Testament.” Pages 173-87 in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis: A Volume in Honor of Bruce M. Metzger. Ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes. SD 46. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Burton, Philip. “The Latin Version of the New Testament.” Pages 167-200 in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. 2nd ed. Ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes. NTTSD 42. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Childers, Jeff W. “The Georgian Version of the New Testament.” Pages 293-327 in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. 2nd ed. Ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes. NTTSD 42. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Cowe, S. Peter. “The Armenian Version of the New Testament.” Pages 253-92 in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. 2nd ed. Ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes. NTTSD 42. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Ehrman, Bart D., and Michael W. Holmes, eds. The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. 2nd ed. NTTSD 42. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Fee, Gordon D., rev. Roderick L. Mullen. “The Greek Fathers for New Testament Textual Criticism.” Pages 1351-63 in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. 2nd ed. Ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes. NTTSD 42. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Metzger, Bruce M. The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations. Oxford: Clarendon, 1977.
Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 4th ed. Rev. Bart D. Ehrman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Porter, Stanley E. How We Got the New Testament: Text, Transmission, Translation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013.
Schmid, Ulrich B. “The Diatessaron of Tatian.” Pages 115-42 in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. 2nd ed. Ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes. NTTSD 42. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Williams, Peter J. “The Syriac Versions of the New Testament.” Pages 143-66 in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. 2nd ed. Ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes. NTTSD 42. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Wisse, Frederik. “The Coptic Versions of the New Testament.” Pages 131-41 in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis: A Volume in Honor of Bruce M. Metzger. Ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes. SD 46. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Zuurmond, Rochus, rev. Curt Niccum. “The Ethiopic Version of the New Testament.” Pages 231-42 in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. 2nd ed. Ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes. NTTSD 42. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
1. See Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism (trans. Erroll F. Rhodes; 2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 73-75.
2. On the history of this manuscript and Tischendorf himself, see Stanley E. Porter, Constantine Tischendorf: The Life and Work of a 19th Century Bible Hunter (London: Bloomsbury, 2015).
3. Bruce M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977), vii.
4. William L. Petersen, “The Diatessaron of Tatian,” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis: A Volume in Honor of Bruce M. Metzger (ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes; SD 46; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 77. This discussion is brought up to date in Ulrich Schmid, “The Diatessaron of Tatian,” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis (2nd ed.; ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes; NTTSD 42; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 115-42.
5. J. H. Petzer, “The Latin Version of the New Testament,” in Text of the New Testament, 2nd ed., ed. Ehrman and Holmes, 78.
6. Frederik Wisse, “The Coptic Versions of the New Testament,” in Text of the New Testament, 1st ed., ed. Ehrman and Holmes, 132. This discussion is brought up to date in Christian Askeland, “The Coptic Versions of the New Testament,” in Text of the New Testament, 2nd ed., ed. Ehrman and Holmes, 201-29.
7. Joseph M. Alexanian, “The Armenian Version of the New Testament,” in Text of the New Testament, 1st ed., ed. Ehrman and Holmes, 157. This discussion is brought up to date in S. Peter Cowe, “The Armenian Version of the New Testament,” in Text of the New Testament, 2nd ed., ed. Ehrman and Holmes, 253-92.
8. Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th ed. rev. Bart D. Ehrman; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 131.