In this series of articles, we have looked at a number of possible scribal errors in the transmission of ancient documents. While there are many, we have looked at five main ones – homeoteleuton, homeoarchy, haplography, dittography, and contamination.

With a large number of variant readings for a given text, how do textual critics decide which one is the original? Preeminent biblical textual scholars Kurt and Barbara Aland distilled the process of textual criticism into 12 rules. It should be noted, however, that the rules are not to be applied mechanically. In fact, many of the rules include such clauses that indicate wooden application of the rule is not preferred.

I wish to highlight two of the rules. The first is lectio difficilior lectio potior (“the more difficult reading is the more probable reading”). This rule indicates that scribes, in general, tend to simplify the text and make the text more ‘smooth’. Hence, the variant that is more rough or more difficult to understand is more likely the original reading.

Second, lectio brevior lectio potior (“the shorter reading is the more probable reading”). This rule understands that scribes, in general, tend to amplify readings, adding their interpretations of the text, especially in the case of the texts with opaque meanings.

Consider Luke 11.2. The King James version reads:

And he said unto them, “When ye pray, say, ‘Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.‘”

However, the ESV, like most modern translations reads:

And he said to them, “When you pray, say: ‘Father, hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come.'”

The boldface text in the KJV is not in modern translations. This is because a number of earlier manuscripts do not have these words. Also, the extra words clearly harmonize Luke’s Gospel with Matthew’s Gospel. It would seem that some scribe, quite early on, was copying Luke’s Gospel, but either remembered Matthew’s version of the Lord’s Prayer or intentionally made Luke’s version read more like Matthew’s.

The version in the modern translations is both shorter and more difficult. Moreover, it is difficult to think how a scribe, who probably knew the Matthean version of the Lord’s Prayer in the context of worship, would exclude parts of it. But it is easy to think of how the same scribe would add the familiar words.

This gives just one example of how textual critics decide on the probable original reading. As can be seen, this is neither a hard science with mechanical rules, nor abstract art where anything goes. Rather, there is a lot of imagination and thought that goes into each decision. These decisions are made by experts in consultation with each other so that no particular person’s bias unduly affects the final decision.

While there are a large number of textual variants, the overwhelming majority of these do not change the meaning of the text to any significant extent. In a small fraction, the meaning does change. However, in all but a handful of instances, thanks to the work of textual critics, the text of the bible we have today is exactly as in the autograph (original) manuscripts.