\subsection{The Underlying Text}
In keeping with the principle of presenting the English reader more detail of the meaning of the Original, the \textit{Faithful New Testmament} 
also tries to present the English reader with the details of the underlying textual tradition that forms the basis of the Greek New Testament. Instead of saying ``Other ancient manuscripts say..."', the \textit{Faithful New Testament} actually lists the manuscripts, so readers
can make up their own minds. 

Since we are not in possession of any manuscripts of the New Testament books 
old enough to be the very original copies (that is, in Matthew's or Paul's 
handwriting), it has been necessary to rely on copies of copies that \textit{have} 
survived. Considering that there are 3000 partial or complete copies of the 
New Testament, not including quotes from the New Testament by the early 
Christian writers (whose quotations from the New Testament are so extensive 
that the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from them alone), and 
not including early translations of the New Testament into Old Latin, 
Syriac, etc., it is surprising that there is as little disagreement among 
these ``copies of copies'' as there is.

Most of these disagreements, or ``variant readings,'' involve different 
spellings of proper names and such --- not enough difference to be translatable, really. Those variant readings of the Greek wording that 
change the meaning to an extent that can be translated and which are 
supported by a significant manuscript or group of manuscripts have been 
recorded in footnotes. The \textit{Faithful New Testament }also gives some indication of which manuscripts have which wording. 

\begin{center}
* * *
\end{center}

The number of pre-300 manuscripts in existence is small (50?). With the 
legalization of Christianity by Constantine (who became Emperor in 311), the 
number of New Testament documents exploded. At the same time, the Roman 
Empire was splitting into three political/economic entities: the West (the 
Holy Roman Empire), Byzantium (with Constantinople as its capital), and 
Egypt (with Alexandria as its capital).

Before 300, in the height of Christian missionary activity, manuscripts of 
the New Testament found their way throughout the Mediterranean region; after 
300, as a result of the political and economic barriers, variant readings 
began to group themselves geographically into the ``Western,'' ``Alexandrian,'' 
and ``Byzantine'' types of text. That is, manuscripts prepared in the same 
locale tended to read the same way.

In the footnotes, therefore, is an indication of that portion of the text 
which is in dispute, and the alternative reading(s), each followed by 
symbols which indicate which manuscripts support them (these symbols are 
familiar to any New Testament textual scholar):

\koine{} (from the Greek word ``koine'' (``koy-NAY'') which means ``common'') means 
that the Byzantine textual tradition as a whole supports this reading. Since 
the Byzantine Empire survived until 1453, copying of the New Testament 
continued undisturbed in the Byzantine area up to modern times. The 
overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts that have survived are Byzantine 
in character, though most Byzantine manuscripts are not old enough to be 
very helpful in determining the original wording. The Byzantine is that type 
of Greek text primarily used by the King James translators. 

\hesychian{} (from ``Hesychios'' which means ``of Egypt'') means that the Alexandrian 
textual tradition as a whole supports this reading. There are not nearly as 
many Alexandrian type manuscripts since copying the New Testament was not 
exactly encouraged by the Moslems who conquered this region. The Alexandrian 
is that type of Greek text primarily used by the Revised Standard Version 
translators.

The Western tradition --- the West being the region of the Holy Roman 
Empire, is represented by very few Greek manuscripts since Latin was the 
official language of the Catholic Church, and is mostly represented by early 
Western Christian writers and by the Latin translations. Since there really 
is no Western Greek manuscript tradition (in the same way that there is a 
Byzantine and Alexandrian), the \textit{Faithful New Testament }includes instead:

\vulgate{} (``vulgate'') a translation of the Bible into Latin made around 700 by 
Jerome (Western in character).

The Western is that type of Greek (and Latin) text underlying the Catholic 
translations, such as the Confraternity.

Also cited in the footnotes are some of the most important individual New 
Testament manuscripts:

\sinaiticus{} ``Codex Sinaiticus'' (4th century) Discovered in a monastery in 1844 
by the preeminent 19th century textual scholar Constantinus Tishendorf. 
\sinaiticus{} is ``aleph,'' the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet.

A ``Codex Alexandrinus'' (5$^{th}$ century)

B ``Codex Vaticanus'' (4th century) regarded as Alexandrian

D ``Codex Bezae'' (4th, 5th century) Western in character

W ``Codex Washingtoniensus'' (4th, 5th century) mixed in character.

\papyrus{45}, \papyrus{66} etc. Early Papyri, generally 3rd century. The papyri, 
although mostly found in Egypt (the dry desert air preserves them), do not 
side with any of the text types in particular.

Thus, for example: 

\begin{verse}
(Matt 5:) 
\VS{22} But I say to you that everyone [being] angry with his 
brother\footnote{insert ``without cause'' DW\koine\ most; text: \sinaiticus{} B few 
\vulgate\ \papyrus{67}} will be liable for judgment. 
\end{verse}



(See the footnote at the bottom of the page.) 
This means that Codex Bezae, Codex Washingtoniensus, the Koine (Byzantine) 
tradtion, and most manuscripts read ``angry without cause'', but that Codex 
Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, a few other manuscripts, and papyrus 67 read 
as translated in the ``text'' (that is, they don't include ``without 
cause'').

The most commonly held view today is that the Alexandrian tradition as a whole is the most reliable, because it has the oldest manuscripts. Within this body of opinion there are disagreements as to which particular Alexandrian manuscripts are the most reliable, etc. But overall this is the prevailing view today.

Regarding which text I incorporate into the text (and consequently which readings I relegate to the footnotes): I subscribe to the view that the best choice of text is that supported by the broadest base of early sources. Thus, if a reading appears in, say, the West and in early papyri, this means (to me) that the reading had to have a much earlier common source. I don't subscribe to the view of simply going with the reading supported by the single oldest manuscript (maybe that one copyist was particularly careless), or even manuscript tradition (namely the Alexandrian).

There are readings that are only supported by the Byzantine tradition and the earliest papyri (with the Alexandrian tradition reading differently), as well as lists of readings only supported by the Alexandrian tradition and the earliest papyri (with the Byzantine tradition reading differently). Thus the blind acceptance of the Alexandrian tradition is a weak position, in my opinion. 

Another view holds that the Byzantine textual tradition is 'the best' because it has the greatest sheer number of manuscripts (alas, most of which are relatively late) and a relatively unbroken tradition up to the Renaissance (alas, more opportunity for scribal error).

Significant variants (differences sufficient to alter the English translation) are in the footnotes, so you can assess them for yourself.
