Philip W. Comfort (1950–2022)

Occam's Razor says to prefer simple explanations, not simplistic explanations.

This book is partly a history of recent English translations, and that part is fine. But it is also a book about New Testament Textual Criticism -- that is, the art of trying to rediscover the original text of the New Testament by comparing the various manuscripts. (The original copies are long since lost.) And here, Comfort's simplistic view takes over.

We have many, many manuscripts of the New Testament, and they show more do not agree. Some are early, some are late. Somehow, we must decide which ones to trust for any given book, passage, reading. Obviously we would like to use the manuscripts most like the original text. How do we determine which those are? Comfort has a simple criterion: The earlier the manuscript, the better.

The problem is, this really doesn't work. Suppose we have two manuscripts, one copied in (let's say) 400 C.E. -- but which is a direct copy of one made in 150 C.E. Another was copied in 325 C.E. -- but it's a copy of one made in 300 C. E., which is a copy of one made in 275, which is a copy of one made in 250, and so forth, until we get back to the one made in 150 C. E. Which is better, the copy made in 400 or the copy made in 350? Odds are, the later one, because there are fewer generations of copies between it and the manuscript of 150.

The rule is that manuscripts are to be weighed and not counted. That means actually trying to figure out if they're good or bad, and taking that into account. But Comfort's only real criterion is age. It distorts the results.

If you don't care about the textual criticism part, go ahead and consult this book. But be aware that Comfort comes to it with something of a monomania -- and an incorrect monomania. show less

Papyriolatreia.

That's the only reasonable word for Philip Wesley Comfort's view of textual criticism -- the task of reconstructing an ancient document from later, corrupt copies. For the New Testament, those later copies are classified in three ways: papyri (written on papyrus in uncial, or upper-case letters), uncials (written on parchment, or animal skins, in uncials), and minuscules (written on parchment or, eventually, paper, using lower-case letters). Papyrus was the earliest form of show more copy, followed by uncials and then minuscules, but they overlap; many uncials are older than many papyri, and some minuscules are older than some uncials.

This should make it obvious: The importance of a manuscript depends not on what form it takes but on whether it is a good copy or not. Most papyri are good copies, but so are many uncials and a handful of the minuscules. A good textual critic takes all these good copies into account and determines the best text he can.

Comfort doesn't work that way. His enthusiasm for papyri knows few bounds. Since papyri do contain errors, and are few and fragmentary anyway, no ordinary critic would determine the text of the New Testament from the papyri alone. But Comfort tries. It is a simplistic and frankly a rather silly exercise.

Explaining textual criticism to a layperson is difficult, and there is no really outstanding introduction to the field. There are occasional good sections in Comfort. But, on the whole, it is far better to start with a book that takes a broader view. show less

I have always been intrigued by textual criticism and the study of how we got our Bible. The Bibles we have today are the descendants of hand written manuscripts, written on papyri, vellum or paper, and in either large (uncial) or small (miniscule) letters. Those manuscripts were written originally in Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic, and later translated into Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, and other languages. Today we have English Bibles finely produced from the magic of printing presses and show more publishing houses. But how can we know that these Bibles accurately represent what was originally written? This is where textual criticism comes in – a highly disputed field, especially in today’s skeptical age. Textual scholars referred to as critics, take the time to compare all the hand written manuscripts that have been preserved down to our day. Using various methods of comparing, contrasting and evaluating the readings of numerous manuscripts (over 5700 for the NT!), they help guide today’s church in deciding which textual variants are the likely original readings.

Philip Comfort is one of these scholars, and he has provided a fabulous resource for Bible scholars, pastors, and others to study the textual data on all the 3,000 or so places in the New Testament where we find textual variants that may affect the Bible translations we have in our hands. Comfort focuses primarily on the variants which result in differences between the various English Bible versions in use today (KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, HCSB, NLT, TNIV, NRSV, etc.). He also highlights some of the intriguing variants and places where the Western family of manuscripts often expands the text. What makes Comfort’s work so especially valuable is that his discussion is all in English! He discusses the Greek and other languages, but is mindful of the non-technical, English speaking reader. This makes New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (NTTTC) very accessible, opening up the intricacies of textual critical studies to the average Bible student.

While Comfort may not include all the textual data accessible to scholars in the UBS4 or NA27 Greek texts and other scholarly resources, he does format his work and provide relevant information in a much more user-friendly format. In places where there are two or more variants that have affected the English Bibles, Comfort will first give each variant reading in Greek and English, then he lists the Greek manuscripts and other supports for each variant, and he also adds which English Bibles follow that variant in their text or margin. Following all of this, he offers a brief discussion of that particular variant, taking us step by step through how a conservative, evangelical scholar will assess this textual evidence to arrive at a conclusion concerning this particular reading.

This detailed analysis of each major variant in the Greek New Testament makes up the bulk of the book and provides an easy to look up reference for practically any passage where one might encounter a variant. Comfort also provides a brief overview of textual criticism and a very interesting assessment of the major textual witnesses for each section of the New Testament. He displays an extensive understanding of the papyri manuscripts in particular as well as the history of textual criticism and all the relevant data. A few appendices are also included for more specialized discussions.

NTTTC doesn’t stick to strictly textual critical matters. In Mk. 7:3 a discussion of manners and customs of Bible times is required to understand the Greek phrase “wash their hands with a fist”. Exegetical matters are also addressed, such as in the conservative and delicate handling of the variant at 1 Cor. 14:34-35. NTTTC’s format makes difficult and highly technical discussions much easier. When discussing the ending of Mark, he helpfully lays out all 5 variations of the ending providing a few pages of discussion. At Acts 20:28 he discusses two variants together, by first delineating all the various combinations of the two variants, and helpfully summarizing the options and discussing each option in light of exegetical matters as well.

The discussions in NTTTC prove enlightening. One learns the importance of understanding the patterns of particular scribes when discussing variants such as Luke 24:3 where Comfort explains why Wescott and Hort were wrong. The major passages like the ending of Mark and John 7:53-8:11 are covered in depth. Comfort is honest about some variants being driven by theological considerations, such as in Heb. 2:9. Interestingly, the theological bias in textual variants was almost always rejected by the church in days of old as well as today.

One excerpt of this work will serve to illustrate its value well. Regarding Jude 4, Comfort states:

"The reading in TR, poorly attested, is probably an attempt to avoid calling Jesus δεσποτήν (“Master”), when this title is usually ascribed to God (Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; Rev. 6:10). Hence, θεος (“God”) was appended to δεσποτήν. However, 2 Pet. 2:1, a parallel passage, identifies the redeemer, Jesus Christ, as the δεσποτήν. So here also the WH NU reading, which is extremely well documented, shows that Jude considered Jesus to be the absolute sovereign."

As one well attuned to the issues relating to King James Onlyism, I found this volume especially helpful. 26 times I found a KJV reading to be supported by no Greek manuscripts. Western additions such as “full of the Holy Spirit” at Acts 15:32 and “Jesus” at Acts 17:31 reveal that “omissions” are in the eye of the beholder. Does the TR omit these important phrases or the Western texts add them? It was through my KJV Onlyism debate lenses that I discovered a few minor errors in Comfort’s text. He wrongly claims the KJV followed Stephanus’ 1550 TR (along with the WH/ NU modern Greek Text) at Rev. 16:5 when in fact they followed Beza’s conjectural emendation “and shall be” instead of “holy one”. He also seems to state that a variant at Rom. 7:6 was introduced by Elzevirs’ TR and then later adopted by the KJV, however the KJV was translated 22 years prior to the Elzevirs’ work. The reading in question was introduced by Beza in one of his editions used by the KJV translators. Also at Luke 2:38 he lists the Vulgate as the sole support for the KJV reading, but Robinson-Pierpont’s Majority Text edition includes the KJV reading “Lord”.

I would have liked Comfort to address more passages relevant to the KJV Only debate. It would have been great if he had mentioned which variants the printed Greek Majority Text’s of Hodges-Farstad or Robinson-Pierpont adopted as well. But space constraints are totally understandable. I also wish he had somehow indicated if the manuscript listings given for a particular passage are complete or not. If more evidence is available (or not) for a given variant, it would be nice to know. Perhaps using an asterisk when all the known witnesses to a variant were listed would help.

All in all, I can’t recommend Comfort’s work more highly. This is an important volume and I will be referring to it often in years to come.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Tyndale House Publishers for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

An expanded version of this review is available at CrossFocusedReviews.com, where you can find book excerpts, giveaways, promotional offers, audio reviews and more. show less

A Commentary on the Manuscripts and Text of the New Testament, by Philip Wesley Comfort is an interesting and a potentially helpful resource in studying the NT. I appreciate that summaries are given about the various manuscripts that are referred to in the commentary, including their symbols, which are what Comfort uses to refer to the different manuscripts as he comments on the different readings of any particular verse.

Most of the variants appear to be rather small and do not appear to show more change the meaning of a verse much, for instance some manuscripts saying 'Jesus Christ' in a certain variant and others reading simply "Christ", whichever reading a Bible translator chooses to use doesn't make a major difference as either way we know to Whom it refers. Comfort mentions a variant of Romans 8:28 which I found interesting, he translates the variant as, "God turns everything to good" which of course is different from "all things work together for good." He says that "this is the original wording according to three early MSS….It is God who turns everything to good; it is not just that everything works out for the good."* But I don't think that that concept is lost by using "all things work together for good" because God's being the One working all things together for good is evidenced by the verses that follow (and by realizing the sovereignty of God that is taught throughout the Bible). It is an interesting variant though.

Comfort's eschatological views are evidenced in his commentary on the number of the beast in Revelation, "A variant reading is 'his number is 616…Either reading could be original…whichever one John wrote, they both symbolize Caesar Nero…" I take it that Mr. Comfort is not premillennial. Also, I disagree with some of his commentary on the variants of 1 Cor. 14:33, " 'For God is not the author of discord but of harmony, as in all the gatherings of the saints.' This reflects the reading of the three earliest MSS…contra NA…which join this phrase with the beginning of 14:34. The difference in meaning is significant: harmony is the rule of God for all the gatherings of the believers…"…Paul was not saying that women should be silent in all the Christian gatherings, only in Corinth, which must have been experiencing problems with women speaking out of turn during the prophesying." But even if the statement, "as in all the gatherings of the saints" doesn't connect with vs. 34 that doesn't imply that the command about women not speaking in the assembly only applied to the Corinthians church. I don't see that implication at all. Paul says, "It is shameful for a woman to speak in the Church." That sounds like a very general statement that encompasses all church gatherings. Besides, what about Paul's telling Timothy that women shouldn't teach or hold authority over men but should remain quiet while learning (1 Tim 2:11-15)? Was he referring only to the women of the Corinthian church? I think not.

But, I do like the book overall, and really appreciate Mr. Comfort's work in putting this book together enabling one to learn about the different variants of the NT even if one doesn't agree with all of Mr. Comfort's comments on them.

Many thanks to Kregel Academic for sending me a free copy of this book to review!

*I omit certain parts of quotations as they are mostly symbols of various manuscripts referred to that I don't know how to replicate in type. show less