Alexandrian text-type

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In textual criticism of the New Testament, the Alexandrian text-type is one of the main text types. It is the text type favored by the majority of modern textual critics and it is the basis for most modern (after 1900) Bible translations. Over 5,800 New Testament manuscripts have been classified into four groups by text type. Besides the Alexandrian, the other types are the Western, Caesarean, and Byzantine. Compared to these later text types, Alexandrian readings tend to be abrupt, use fewer words, show greater variation among the Synoptic Gospels, and have readings that are considered difficult. That is to say, later scribes tended to polish scripture and improve its literary style. Glosses would occasionally be added as verses during the process of copying a Bible by hand. From the ninth century onward, most surviving manuscripts are of the Byzantine type.[1]

The King James Version and other Reformation-era Bibles are translated from the Textus Receptus, a Greek text created by Erasmus and based on various manuscripts of the Byzantine type. In 1721, Richard Bentley outlined a project to create a revised Greek text based on the Codex Alexandrinus.[2] This project was completed by Karl Lachmann in 1850.[3] Brooke Foss Westcott and F. J. A. Hort of Cambridge published a text based on Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus in 1881. Novum Testamentum Graece by Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland, now in its 28th edition, generally follows the text of Westcott and Hort.


Up until the ninth century, Greek texts were written entirely in upper-case letters, referred to as uncials. During the ninth and tenth centuries, minuscules came to replace the older style. Most Greek uncial manuscripts were recopied in this period and their parchment leaves typically scraped clean for re-use. Consequently, surviving Greek New Testament manuscripts from before the ninth century are relatively rare, but nine (over half of the total that survive) witness a more-or-less pure Alexandrian text. These include the oldest near-complete manuscripts of the New Testament: Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209 and Codex Sinaiticus (both believed to date from the early fourth century).

A number of substantial papyrus manuscripts of portions of the New Testament survive from earlier still, and those that can be ascribed a text-type, such as 𝔓66 and 𝔓75 from the second to the third century, also tend to witness to the Alexandrian text.

The earliest Coptic versions of the Bible (into a Sahidic variety of the late second century) use the Alexandrian text as a Greek base, while other second and third century translations (into Latin and Syriac) tend rather to conform to the Western text-type. Although the overwhelming majority of later minuscule manuscripts conform to the Byzantine text-type, detailed study has, from time to time, identified individual minuscules that transmit the alternative Alexandrian text. Around 17 such manuscripts have been discovered so far and so the Alexandrian text-type is witnessed by around 30 surviving manuscripts, by no means all of which are associated with Egypt although in that area, Alexandrian witnesses are the most prevalent.

According to Robert Boyd, the Arabic manuscripts of the New Testament appear to have an origin within the Alexandrian text-type.[4]

The Alexandrian text-type is witnessed to in the writings of Origen (185 – c. 253), Athanasius (296–298 – 373), Didymus (313 – 398) and Cyril of Alexandria (376 – 444).[5] The quotations of Clement of Alexandria also often agree with the Alexandrian text-type, although sometimes they contain readings which are instead common in the Byzantine text-type. [6]

List of notable manuscripts representing Alexandrian text-type[edit]

Sign Name Date Content Discovery
𝔓45 Chester Beatty I 3rd fragments of Gospels, Acts 1931
𝔓46 Chester Beatty II c. 200 Pauline epistles 1931
𝔓47 Chester Beatty III 3rd fragments of Revelation 1931
𝔓66 Bodmer II c. 200 Gospel of John 1952
𝔓72 Bodmer VII/VIII 3rd/4th Jude; 1-2 Peter 1952
𝔓75 Bodmer XIV-XV 3rd Gospels of Luke and John 1952
א Codex Sinaiticus 330-360 NT 1844
B Codex Vaticanus 325-350 Matt. — Hbr 9, 14 16th century?
A Codex Alexandrinus c. 400 (except Gospels) 17th century
C Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus 5th (except Gospels) 17th century?
Q Codex Guelferbytanus B 5th fragments Luke — John 18th century
T Codex Borgianus 5th fragments Luke — John 18th century
I Codex Freerianus 5th Pauline epistles 1906
Z Codex Dublinensis 6th fragments of Matt. 1787
L Codex Regius 8th Gospels 18th century?
W Codex Washingtonianus 5th Luke 1:1–8:12; J 5:12–21:25 1906
057 Uncial 057 4/5th Acts 3:5–6,10-12 20th century?
0220 Uncial 0220 6th NT (except Rev.) 1950
33 Minuscule 33 9th Romans 18th century?
81 Minuscule 81 1044 Acts, Paul 1853
892 Minuscule 892 9th Gospels 1877

Other manuscripts[edit]

Papyri: 𝔓1, 𝔓4, 𝔓5, 𝔓6, 𝔓8, 𝔓9, 𝔓10, 𝔓11, 𝔓12, 𝔓13, 𝔓14, 𝔓15, 𝔓16, 𝔓17, 𝔓18, 𝔓19, 𝔓20, 𝔓22, 𝔓23, 𝔓24, 𝔓26, 𝔓27, 𝔓28, 𝔓29, 𝔓30, 𝔓31, 𝔓32, 𝔓33, 𝔓34, 𝔓35, 𝔓37, 𝔓39, 𝔓40, 𝔓43, 𝔓44, 𝔓49, 𝔓51, 𝔓53, 𝔓55, 𝔓56, 𝔓57, 𝔓61, 𝔓62, 𝔓63, 𝔓64, 𝔓65, 𝔓70, 𝔓71, 𝔓74, 𝔓77, 𝔓78, 𝔓79, 𝔓80 (?), 𝔓81, 𝔓82, 𝔓85 (?), 𝔓86, 𝔓87, 𝔓90, 𝔓91, 𝔓92, 𝔓95, 𝔓100, 𝔓104, 𝔓106, 𝔓107, 𝔓108, 𝔓110, 𝔓111, 𝔓115, 𝔓122.

Uncials: Codex Coislinianus, Porphyrianus (except Acts, Rev), Dublinensis, Sangallensis (only in Mark), Zacynthius, Athous Lavrensis (in Mark and Cath. epistles), Vaticanus 2061, 059, 068, 070, 071, 073, 076, 077, 081, 083, 085, 087, 088, 089, 091, 093 (except Acts), 094, 096, 098, 0101, 0102, 0108, 0111, 0114, 0129, 0142, 0155, 0156, 0162, 0167, 0172, 0173, 0175, 0181, 0183, 0184, 0185, 0189, 0201, 0204, 0205, 0207, 0223, 0225, 0232, 0234, 0240, 0243, 0244, 0245, 0247, 0254, 0270, 0271, 0274.

Minuscules: 20, 94, 104 (Epistles), 157, 164, 215, 241, 254, 256 (Paul), 322, 323, 326, 376, 383, 442, 579 (except Matthew), 614, 718, 850, 1006, 1175, 1241 (except Acts), 1243, 1292 (Cath.), 1342 (Mark), 1506 (Paul), 1611, 1739, 1841, 1852, 1908, 2040, 2053, 2062, 2298, 2344 (CE, Rev), 2351, 2427, 2464.[7]

According to the present critics codices 𝔓75 and B are the best Alexandrian witnesses, which present the pure Alexandrian text. All other witnesses are classified according to whether they preserve the excellent 𝔓75-B line of text. With the primary Alexandrian witnesses are included 𝔓66 and citations of Origen. With the secondary witnesses are included manuscripts C, L, 33, and the writings of Didymus the Blind.[8]


All extant manuscripts of all text-types are at least 85% identical and most of the variations are not translatable into English, such as word order or spelling. When compared to witnesses of the Western text-type, Alexandrian readings tend to be shorter and are commonly regarded as having a lower tendency to expand or paraphrase. Some of the manuscripts representing the Alexandrian text-type have the Byzantine corrections made by later hands (Papyrus 66, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Ephraemi, Codex Regius, and Codex Sangallensis).[9] When compared to witnesses of the Byzantine text type, Alexandrian manuscripts tend:

  • to have a larger number of abrupt readings, such as the shorter ending of the Gospel of Mark, which finishes in the Alexandrian text at Mark 16:8 (".. for they were afraid.") omitting verses Mark 16:9-20; Matthew 16:2b–3, John 5:4; John 7:53-8:11;
  • Omitted verses: Matt 12:47; 17:21; 18:11; Mark 9:44.46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29.[10]
  • In Matthew 15:6 omitted η την μητερα (αυτου) (or (his) mother): א B D copsa;[11]
  • In Mark 10:7 omitted phrase και προσκολληθησεται προς την γυναικα αυτου (and be joined to his wife), in codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Athous Lavrensis, 892, 48, syrs, goth.[12]
  • Mark 10:37 αριστερων (left) instead of ευωνυμων (left), in phrase εξ αριστερων (B Δ 892v.l.) or σου εξ αριστερων (L Ψ 892*);[13]
  • In Luke 11:4 phrase αλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου (but deliver us from evil) omitted. Omission is supported by the manuscripts: Sinaiticus, B, L, f1, 700, vg, syrs, copsa, bo, arm, geo.[14]
  • In Luke 9:55-56 it has only στραφεις δε επετιμησεν αυτοις (but He turned and rebuked them): 𝔓45 𝔓75 א B C L W X Δ Ξ Ψ 28 33 565 892 1009 1010 1071 Byzpt Lect
  • to display more variations between parallel synoptic passages, as in the Lukan version of the Lord's Prayer (Luke 11:2), which in the Alexandrian text opens "Father.. ", whereas the Byzantine text reads (as in the parallel Matthew 6:9) "Our Father in heaven.. ";
  • to have a higher proportion of "difficult" readings, as in Matthew 24:36, which reads in the Alexandrian text "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only"; whereas the Byzantine text omits the phrase "nor the Son", thereby avoiding the implication that Jesus lacked full divine foreknowledge. Another difficult reading is Luke 4:44.

The above comparisons are tendencies, rather than consistent differences. There are a number of passages in the Gospel of Luke in which the Western text-type witnesses a shorter text, the Western non-interpolations. Also, there are a number of readings where the Byzantine text displays variation between synoptic passages, that is not found in either the Western or Alexandrian texts, as in the rendering into Greek of the Aramaic last words of Jesus, which are reported in the Byzantine text as "Eloi, Eloi.." in Mark 15:34, but as "Eli, Eli.." in Matthew 27:46.

See also[edit]


  1. ^ Anderson, Gerry, Ancient New Testament Manuscripts Understanding Text-Types Archived 2017-04-01 at the Wayback Machine"
  2. ^ Bentley, Richard, Dr. Richard Bentley's proposals for printing a new edition of the Greek Testament and St. Hierom's Latin version, London, 1721.
  3. ^ Lachmann, Karl, Novum testamentum graece et latine, Cambridge Univ Press, 2010. Originally published in two volumes in 1842 and 1850.
  4. ^ Metzger, Bruce Manning (1977). The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission and Limitations. New York; Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 61. ISBN 0-19-826170-5.
  5. ^ Hill, Charles E.; Kruger, Michael J. (2012-06-14). The Early Text of the New Testament. OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-956636-5.
  6. ^ P. M. Barnard, The Quotations of Clement of Alexandria from the Four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, Texts & Studies, vol. 5, no. 4 (Cambridge, 1899).
  7. ^ David Alan Black, New Testament Textual Criticism, Baker Books, 2006, p. 64.
  8. ^ Bruce M. Metzger, Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 278.
  9. ^ E. A. Button, An Atlas of Textual Criticism, Cambridge, 1911, p. 13.
  10. ^ Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart 2001), pp. 315, 388, 434, 444.
  11. ^ NA26, p. 41.
  12. ^ UBS3, p. 164.
  13. ^ NA26, p. 124.
  14. ^ UBS3, p. 256.

Further reading[edit]