How Reliable is Our New Testament Text?

How is it possible, then, to evaluate textual variants in terms of its quality rather than quantity? If quantity alone is not an adequate criterion, what other criteria should be taken into consideration? Textual critics customarily distinguish two sets of evidence in their evaluation of textual variants:

• External evidence, involving consideration of factors such as the date and geographical distribution of textual witnesses supporting a particular variant. Obviously, the older the manuscripts, the closer they are to the autographs. A variant may be supported by a vast majority of manuscripts, but it is not necessarily the best reading, because the manuscripts in support of a variant may belong to a common ancestor. Textual witnesses of different geographical origins carry more weight than those originating from one location only.
• Internal evidence, involving consideration of factors such as the habits of scribes, the style and vocabulary of the author, as well as the immediate context. It is a well-known fact that scribes tend to smooth out difficulties in the manuscripts they copied, so the more difficult readings are to be preferred to the easier ones. Similarly, scribes tend to add words rather than omit them. Although this principle cannot be applied in a mechanical fashion, the shorter readings are usually to be preferred to the longer ones. The readings that fit the writer’s vocabulary and style, or the immediate context better is to be preferred than otherwise.