2. What is a Critical Edition?

A critical text or edition is based on the best scholarly estimates of the original text as best reconstructed from the manuscript witnesses. A critical edition is a publication of a text designed to present the most accurate and authoritative version of that text. It is based on exhaustive research involving the collation of various manuscripts, fragments, and other primary sources. The edition typically includes a base text, considered the most reliable representation of the original, along with a critical apparatus that annotates textual variants.

In addition to offering a text as close as possible to the original, critical editions can serve to provide much insight into the history of textual transmission. These editions are essential tools in biblical scholarship. There have been numerous critical texts over the last 200 years. Many have been revised and updated as additional manuscript evidence has been discovered. Some differ in methodology or criteria for selecting between textual variants.

The critical apparatus of critical editions is an organized system of notations to represent, in a single text, the complex history of that text in a concise form. The apparatus typically includes footnotes with standardized abbreviations for the source manuscripts that indicate what manuscripts attest to specific readings. Differences with respect to the base text are referred to as textual variants.

For a further primer on textual criticism and how modern critical texts are determined, see Dirk Jongkind's Introduction to the Greek New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019).

For a more detailed introduction to critical editions and the theory and practice of modern textual criticism, recommended books include:

• 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, translated by Erroll F. Rhodes, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989).
• Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).
• D. C. Parker, An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and their Texts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008).

3. Braces and Brackets

In the AICNT we have endeavored to document all significant differences between the text of the early manuscripts, the current critical editions, and the later text-types. Text considered by the critical editions to be later improvements and additions is distinguished from the undisputed text with brackets.

Braces {}, brackets [ ], and double brackets [[ ]] are used within the body of the text to distinguish textual variants as follows:

• {} Braces, called curly brackets, indicate where textual variants occur with alternate wording. The variant is selected for the text that is most likely the original reading based on the critical editions. The variant reading is noted in the footnotes.
• [ ] Single square brackets pertain to text included in at least one of the critical editions but absent in one or more early manuscripts. Since the text in single brackets is not unanimously attested by all the early manuscript witnesses, this indicates some uncertainty about the text being in the original autographs.
• [[ ]] Double square brackets indicate words or series of words deemed later additions and interpolations by the Benchmark Critical editions. This material is either indicated with double brackets in the critical editions or only included in the notes of the critical editions, indicating that critical editions do not consider the text original. Double brackets separate supplementary or secondary content (later additions) from primary content (earliest text).

Brackets also indicate varying levels of certainty concerning the text's original wording. By using this formatting in the English translation, readers are given a clear indication of the extent of significant textual variants exhibited through centuries of reproduction. Readers can easily distinguish the critical text from manuscript changes that prevailed later in development.

4. Types of Variant Footnotes

There are several types of footnotes used for documenting variants. The following summaries are provided to clarify how to understand particular footnotes.

• Some manuscripts read “x” – This statement pertains to text in braces { } and indicates a variant of a different word or combination of words between manuscripts. The best-attested reading is the wording in the base text, and the alternative reading (considered a later variant) is provided in the footnotes. Usually, it is evident that the alternate reading is that of later manuscripts, but occasionally, there is also early manuscript support for the alternate reading. Sometimes more than one alternate reading is noted.
• Some manuscripts include – This statement pertains to text in double brackets [[ ]], which lacks support from any early witnesses. Often, but not always, the only support for the double-bracketed reading is BYZ and TR. Although there may be some support in early manuscripts, none of the benchmark critical editions accept it as original.
• Absent from some manuscripts – This statement pertains to text in single brackets [ ] absent in one or more early manuscripts. Although critical editions have incorporated the text based on significant early attestation, there remains some uncertainty about whether the text is original.
• ‖ - When the footnote includes witnesses supporting the base text and those pertaining to a variant, the contrasting statements and their corresponding witnesses are separated with ‖.

Footnotes serve as a valuable tool for further providing additional information about variant readings, including which particular manuscripts and additions affirm them. The variant footnotes include notations indicating the frequently cited witnesses that support the reading.

Typically, a statement is made, followed by notations indicating the textual witnesses that support the particular statement. Witnesses cited are listed in the section entitled “Frequently Cited Witnesses.” Later and less relevant manuscripts are typically not noted so as not to overwhelm the general reader. When the word “manuscripts” is used in the footnotes, it typically refers to multiple manuscripts, even when only one witness is cited. In many cases, there may be a single manuscript that the note pertains to.

5. Exclusions to Documented Variants

The aim of the footnotes in this translation is not to document every minor variation. Instead, the focus is on documenting those variants that result in a significantly different English rendering. Variants that are generally not noted in the AICNT critical apparatus are as follows:

• Orthographic variations: Differences in the spelling of a Greek word that result in an identical rendering are generally not noted.
• Abbreviations: In various manuscripts, words are sometimes abbreviated, including some common, frequent words (e.g., man/human) and, more often, Nomina Sacra (sacred names or titles such as “God” or “Lord”). Variants pertaining to the use of abbreviations are not noted.
• Transpositions: Differences in word order where the different word order results in the same or equivalent rendering are generally not noted. (An exception to this is the noting variants of “Christ Jesus” and “Jesus Christ.”)
• Articular variations: Differences where some manuscripts include the definite article “the” and some exclude it are generally not noted unless it may have a significant interpretative implication.
• Conjuctional variations: Differences in the use of conjunctions “and,” “but,” or “for,” are not always noted.
• Tense variations: Differences in verb tenses in cases where the different tenses of the same word result in an identical or nearly equivalent rendering are generally not noted.
• Word substitution: When synonyms or near-synonyms are used in place of certain words, these differences are not noted unless they result in a different rendering.
• Verse divisions: Differences resulting from dividing text in verses are generally not noted. An example is when the text at the end of a verse in one edition is transposed to the beginning of the following verse in another. Verse divisions are more a matter of textual presentation and organization than textual integrity. The AICNT follows the verse divisions of the critical editions used as a benchmark.

Documenting the exclusions mentioned above would add tens of thousands of variants to the footnotes without adding much value to the general reader.

6. Manuscript Text-Types

The terms “Alexandrian,” “Western,” and “Byzantine” refer to the three primary text-types or families of manuscripts of the New Testament exhibited in the period up to the 6th century. These text-types are named after the regions where they were most commonly found or associated with and exhibit distinct textual characteristics. The following is an outline of these three major text-types.[fn]

• Alexandrian Text-Type
  • Initially associated with Alexandria, Egypt
  • Generally dated to an earlier period, from the 2nd to 5th centuries
  • Known for a more concise and grammatically rigorous text. It is generally considered by many scholars to be closer to the original autographs. Alexandrian texts are often favored by scholars for their early dating and for exhibiting a shorter, more primitive text.
• Western Text-Type
  • In early textual criticism, this text-type was associated with the Western part of the Roman Empire, particularly centers like Rome and Carthage. It is now established that this text was found in the East as well as in the West, with correlation to Old Syriac manuscripts and quotes from Eastern church fathers.
  • Extends from the 2nd to the 9th centuries, although most manuscripts are from later periods
  • Known for significant paraphrasing, expansion, and omissions. It often includes additional explanatory material. It is generally not favored for establishing the original text by modern critical editions.
• Byzantine Text-Type (BYZ)
  • Associated with the Byzantine Empire, centered around Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul, Turkey)
  • Mostly dated to the 5th century and later, although some may exist from earlier periods
  • Known for a smoother, more polished text that sometimes includes explanatory phrases. It is the most numerous among the manuscript families. This text became the prevailing ecclesiastical form of the New Testament and eventually constituted the basis of the Textus Receptus.
  • Generally considered less reliable for critical text reconstruction due to its later dating and tendency toward textual expansion.
  • By the 6th century, the Byzantine (BYZ) text type became dominant and is commonly referred to in some critical editions as the Majority Text (MT)

Other minor subtypes, including the so-called “Caesarean” text-type and text families such as f1 and f13, exhibit distinctive characteristics. However, the three major text-types outlined above are the most significant when considering the textual history and transmission of the New Testament.

7. Categories of New Testament Manuscripts

Aland and Aland developed a system for categorizing the degree to which various text-types are exhibited in New Testament manuscripts.[fn] The five categories are as follows:

• Category I: “Manuscripts of a very special quality which should always be considered in establishing the original text.” These manuscripts have almost no Byzantine influence. Although most texts in Category I agree with the Alexandrian text-type, they are not necessarily Alexandrian.
• Category II: “Manuscripts of a special quality but distinguished from manuscripts of Category I by the presence of alien influences.” These are generally Alexandrian texts with some Byzantine intrusion.
• Category III: “Manuscripts of a distinctive character with an independent text, usually important for establishing the original text, but particularly important for the history of the text.” These are manuscripts with a large Byzantine component and many non-Byzantine readings.”
• Category IV: “Manuscripts of the D text.” The D text is the principal witness of the “Western” text-type and stands apart from the Alexandrian and Byzantine text-types.
• Category V: “Manuscripts with a purely or predominantly Byzantine text.” This is often associated with the majority text-type, more developed than the texts of other categories.

8. Frequently Cited Witnesses

Frequently cited witnesses are noted in the critical apparatus footnotes when applicable to indicate support for various types of textual variants shown in the footnotes. The frequently cited witnesses fall into three categories: (a) early manuscripts, (b) text-types of later tradition, and (c) benchmark critical editions.

9. “Western Non-Interpolations”

The Old Latin (a b d e ff2 it) and Old Syriac versions (sys, syc) before 500 CE often agree with the “Western” text of D(05) Codex Bezae. Because these are translations, they are not always accurate witnesses for the exact wording of the original Greek but are especially significant when they exhibit an absence of text as compared to other manuscripts, which may call into question whether the absent words, phrases, or even entire verses were part of the original text (autographs).

Some scholars have suggested that the combination of Old Latin and Old Syriac with D(05), in many cases, indicates the original New Testament text, especially when the text is shorter than other forms of the tradition.[fn] That is, when the absence in Old Latin and Old Syriac text corresponds with D(05), the text of other manuscripts is not original but rather later interpolations (additions). Thus, the omissions in the “Western” text-type have been called “Western non-interpolations.”

F. J. A. Hort affirmed that in many places, the Western text-type D's omissions were original, and that the absence of text attested by the combination of witnesses indicates a more primitive second-century text. Based on the tendency of the text to be expanded over time, he assumed that any significant omissions must represent the original form of the text. Prior generations of textual critics were trained in this perspective.”[fn]

Recent scholars, including Aland,[fn] Metzger,[fn] and Fitzmyer,[fn] have maintained that new findings such as 𝔓75 have refuted Hort’s hypothesis regarding text absent from D(05), the Old Latin, and Old Syriac manuscripts. Aland expressed the opinion that Hort’s line of thinking “can only be regarded today as a relic of the past.”[fn] Scholars have based this view on the reasoning that the papyri discovered over the last century, such as 𝔓75, have not lent additional support to the omissions of D(05).

In response to scholars who rejected Hort’s views, Ehrman rebuts in his “Excursus on Western Non-Interpolations” and concludes that new findings such as 𝔓75 are consistent with what Hort expected. [fn]

In this edition, we have enclosed “Western Non-Interpolations” in single brackets (except when NA28 uses double brackets). Single brackets indicate that the early manuscripts do not unanimously attest to the text. Based on the manuscript evidence and the nature of the omissions, we leave it to the reader to form their own opinion on whether they regard bracketed text as original.

10. Benchmark Critical Editions

The leading critical editions consulted for this translation as the authorities for the base text include the following:

• SBLGNT, SBL Greek New Testament, (Society of Biblical Literature & Logos Bible Software, 2010).
• NA27, Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th Edition, (German Bible Society, 1993).
• NA28, Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th Edition, (German Bible Society, 2012).
• UBS5, United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, 5th Edition, (German Bible Society, 2014).
• THGNT, Tyndale House Greek New Testament, (Tyndale House Cambridge & Crossways, 2017).

The NA27, NA28, and UBS5 are published by the German Bible Society, which claims “the scholarly editions from the German Bible Society are the basis for almost all modern translations of the Bible.”

NA26-NA28 are reflective of the leading critical editions used for modern Bible translations. For approximately 33 years, between 1979 and 2012, the NA26/27 text was the dominant critical edition. Only the apparatus (notation of variants) was changed in the publication of NA27 in 1993. With the publication of the NA28 in 2012, the text and the apparatus were revised in the catholic epistles with the implementation of a revised methodology as a first point of departure from NA26/27.

In these revised sections, the NA28 text is characterized as having more of a pro-Byzantine bias than the NA26/27, and it is not always clear how the selection of readings can be justified. Additional sections of NA29 and beyond will be updated according to the revised methodology in future publications. Future editions of the AICNT will compare NA27 and other critical editions with the latest edition of the Nestle-Aland text.

Scholars such as Dirk Jongkind have noted, “It was only the 26th Edition, published in the [19] 70s, that really marked a sort of independent look at all the variants. So then we have 26 and 27, which are identical, and then we are now at the 28th edition and have started a new method, highly dependent on statistics, and the text is sort of reflecting a slightly different approach in sections.”[fn] Others, such as Daniel Wallace, have noted that the NA28 has “actually taken a step backward in cooperative effort across ‘denominational’ lines (in a broad sense).”[fn]

NA27 is only noted when it disagrees with NA28 (in the Catholic Epistles); otherwise, it is assumed that NA27 is consistent with NA28. The notation of NA28 also indicates UBS5, which is also noted separately.

The UBS5 critical text is identical to NA28. The difference between the two is the apparatus and some minor punctuation differences. The Open Greek New Testament (OpenGNT, opengnt.com) features an open license and differs from the NA28/UBS5 only in the spelling of 61 words and in the word order for three verses.

SBLGNT (SBL Greek New Testament) is edited by Michael W. Holmes, who did his Ph.D. work under Bruce Metzger. It uses a modern text-critical methodology and guidance from the most recently available articles, monographs, and technical commentaries to establish the text of the Greek New Testament. The SBLGNT differs from the wording of NA28 in about 540 variant units. Often, SBLGNT omits text bracketed in NA28, noting the questionable text in the footnotes.

THGNT (Tyndale House Greek New Testament) is a recent critical text developed by Dirk Jongkind and Peter Williams with a team of scholars from Tyndale House. They “have taken a rigorously philological approach to re-evaluating the standard text.” This includes re-examining paragraph decisions and allowing more recent discoveries related to scribal habits to inform editorial decisions. A notable feature the AICNT shares with THGNT is more frequent paragraphing.

11. Deciding Between Critical Editions

All the noted critical editions agree in the vast majority of cases. In the relatively few instances where the critical editions don’t agree, we follow these two additional principles for choosing between variants:

(1) A manuscript that exhibits a shorter and less embellished text is likely more primitive than one that is lengthier and more expressive. Usually, the more concise text is rendered as the base text, with the lengthier variant(s) documented in the footnotes.

(2) In the cases where variants have a significant theological implication consistent with developing orthodoxy, the text is selected that reflects the most neutral (less theologically charged) rendering. Theologically neutral readings are more likely original than those with more pronounced theological connotations. Variants bearing heightened theological significance are documented in the footnotes in such instances.

In significant places where critical editions differ, the variants are noted in the footnotes along with the respective critical editions (for example, SBLGNT, NA28, THGNT) that attest to each reading.

12. Software Resources

Various Bible software tools and resources were used. These include:

• Logos Bible Software
  • Comparison of Greek texts side by side with Text Comparison Tool:
  • NA28
  • SBLGNT
  • THGNT
  • BYZ (RP)
  • TR (TR1550MR)
  • Codex Sinaiticus
  • Codex Bezae
  • The Critical Apparatus for NA28, SBLGNT and THGNT
  • A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament: An Adaptation of Bruce M. Metzger’s Textual Commentary for the Needs of Translators.
• Accordance Bible Software
  • Greek Pro Collection
  • CNTTS Apparatus (3rd ed., 2021)
  • The Comprehensive New Testament
  • Comprehensive NT Notes
• Olive Tree Bible software
  • ESV Greek-English Interlinear
  • BDAG: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd ed.)
  • UBS Handbooks for New Testament

13. Methodology for Identifying Textual Variants

The method of identifying textual variants involved three primary steps as follows:

15. AI Rendering Methodology

To ensure the highest level of consistency and accuracy in the translated text, the parameters of the AI model were fine-tuned to minimize randomness. GPT-4 and later LLMs were used to render all the translated text.

Rather than use the web interface for ChatGPT, the API for Chat Completion, featuring additional controls, was utilized with custom Python code that defined specific parameters to yield a more deterministic and consistent output.

One such parameter is the Temperature variable. Higher values result in more random outputs, whereas lower values yield a more focused and deterministic result. For this translation, the minimum value 0 was utilized to generate the most deterministic output possible.

The custom API script developed for interacting with OpenAI GPT models included a system message to ensure the best quality output. The system message contained the instructions for translating the Koine Greek text provided. This had the instructions only to use the BDAG lexicon and to give a theologically neutral rendering to minimize interpretive bias.

It is well known that AI could give varying results if not prompted correctly with tight controls and specific instructions. For this reason, the previously described measures were taken to maintain tight parameters for the LLM to function. With such rules, the output was optimized for neutrality and repeatability. Once the program was developed, the only user input was the raw Greek text for generating the output rendering.

16. BDAG Lexicon

The system instructions was to use of the BDAG lexicon as the basis of the translation, BDAG is an acronym pertaining to A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., edited by W. Bauer and based on previous contributions from F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001).

This comprehensive reference work lists thousands of references to classical, intertestamental, and early Christian literature. It is considered the most authoritative and widely used lexicon of the New Testament in the English-speaking world. BDAG contains a thorough and detailed analysis of the meanings and uses of every word in the Greek New Testament and other classical literature. The entries provide a range of information, including etymology, usage in various contexts, historical and cultural background, and cross-references to related words and concepts.

17. Rendered Word Equivalents

When rendering an English translation from the raw Greek text using the controls mentioned above, the GPT Language Model (LLM) output sometimes fluctuated between two equivalent English words (highly equivalent synonyms) when translating particular Greek words provided within a sentence or phrase. This was the primary variation observed when using GPT as a translation tool.

Some examples of these pairs in the output, with the word that is less frequently used in parentheses, are heavens (heaven), Gehenna (hell), beginning (start), taught (instructed), wealth (mammon), purchased (ransomed), gain (acquire), follow (go after), disturbances (insurrections), expectation (foreboding), and disciplined (punished).

In places where the output fluctuated between two equivalent words, it was observed that both word choices were always reasonable options, and those words with more familiarity to the general reader were usually selected. In cases where a less widely understood word choice is used for improved accuracy (for example, Gehenna), a clarifying footnote is added to give the reader a fuller understanding of the word's meaning.

18. Quality Assurance

When evaluating the output differences in providing GPT LLMs with entire chapters compared to a single paragraph or verse, we observed that the number of verses translated simultaneously influenced the output. In general, rendering more text at a time improved readability but reduced accuracy. Rendering a paragraph or sentence at a time typically resulted in the best combination of high accuracy and excellent readability. In instances when the Greek text is more complex or abstract, processing a single verse, phrase, or word at a time was employed to achieve an even more accurate output. Inaccuracies were generally resolved by translating smaller bits of Greek text at a time.

Dustin Smith, Ph.D., biblical scholar of Early Christianity at Spartanburg Methodist College (Spartanburg, SC), reviewed the translation for accuracy and readability. Professor Smith conducted a complete review of the rendered text but did not edit the translation. When an issue was identified, shorter lengths of Greek text were rendered to resolve the inaccuracy. In most cases, this resolved the issue without the need for a footnote. In some cases, a footnote was added to provide clarification.

The translated text was configured in a format suitable for use with various software applications, including those used by translators, to ensure the quality of translations. Such software features several quality checks to check punctuation, capitalization, and grammatical issues, among other things. The process of checking for consistency of translated words between Gospel parallels and re-rendering shorter text lengths with GPT LLMs to improve consistency resulted in an additional layer of quality assurance.

The accuracy was further improved during the process of meticulously reviewing every textual variant in constructing and examining the critical apparatus.

19. Clarifying Footnotes

In addition to the textual variants described in the footnotes, other types of footnotes were added to give clarification and greater transparency, as follows:

• Some added footnotes provide Scriptural references for the verses that quote the Old Testament and other texts. “LXX” in the footnote indicates references particular to the Greek Septuagint.
• Some added footnotes provide the abridged BDAG definition in places where the translated Greek word may have a wide range of meanings or may not be fully expressed by the English word rendered.
• Some added footnotes provide an alternative reading of a specific word or phrase. This applies in cases where the rendered word or phrase may pose difficulty in comprehension, such as idiomatic or cryptic expressions, or where the word or phrase can be expressed or understood differently.
• Some added footnotes provide an alternate rendering in those few cases where the AI output fluctuated between two significantly different renderings due to syntactical or textual ambiguity of the source text.
• Some added footnotes provide a clarifying explanation about the theological neutrality of how particular verses are translated.

20. Formatting

The AICNT does not use capital letters for pronouns that refer to God, as that would amount to an interpretive bias. However, words such as God, Lord, and Holy Spirit are capitalized as is customary in English translation. It should be noted that Hebrew does not differentiate between upper-case and lower-case letters. Additionally, the initial Greek manuscripts were composed entirely in capital letters. Capitalization (or lack thereof) in the AICNT is not intended to convey a particular theological position or bias.

The AICNT abstains from formatting conventions of modern translations used to distinguish and classify types of text, such as quotations, poetry, or red-lettered words attributed to Jesus. Italicized words are only used in cases where the AI model indicated that it added helper words in English that are not in the Greek text.

The early Greek manuscripts did not exhibit the suggestive formatting in most English Bible translations. Especially regarding explanatory section headings, the formatting exhibited in many popular translations adds a layer of subjectivity and editorial bias that is avoided here. Since section headings are not used, this translation relies on more frequent paragraphing (like the Tyndale House Greek New Testament) to help the reader navigate and search through chapters more efficiently.

Structuring the text in smaller, more frequent paragraphs also serves to enrich the reading experience. The paragraphing of the AICNT exhibits a balance between the conventional paragraph layout of Bible translations (exhibiting large paragraphs) and those translations that provide a verse-by-verse layout (placing each verse on a new line). Smaller groupings of text are also valuable for aiding in readability and comprehension by causing the reader to pause more often and digest a shorter length of text before proceeding.

21. Punctuation

The earliest manuscripts were written in uncial, essentially all capital script without punctuation or word separation. These features, including punctuation, were introduced into minuscule manuscripts (having text with both upper-case and lower-case characters), which began to appear in the 9th century. The earliest dated minuscule manuscript with lower-case Greek characters is the Gospel minuscule 461 from the year 835.[fn]

The punctuation of this edition is generally consistent with one or more of the critical editions in the section entitled “Benchmark Critical Editions.” In some cases, the punctuation is slightly modified to facilitate documenting multiple variants and incorporating the bracketed text of the critical apparatus.

Having provided an overview of the basis and methodology pertaining to the translation of its extensive critical apparatus, we are now pleased to present to you the AI Critical New Testament.