Oldest is Best?

Q. Should we assume an older manuscript is a better text than a more recent one? Is there a biblical basis for this?

A. “Oldest is best” or “earliest and best” are expressions of an eclectic theory of textual criticism, in which the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament that are dated chronologically as the oldest are also thought to be the best (i.e., by “best” they mean closest to or most like the original words written by a biblical author). For example, discussing Acts 8:37 Edward D. Andrews (Critical Text supporter and chief translator of the Updated American Standard Version) begins, “The earliest and best Greek manuscripts [emp. mine] … do not contain vs. 37.”

The oldest manuscript (i.e., first) is the original autograph. It was first in time, first chronologically. When God finished inspiring and Isaiah had written down his prophecies, that was the first and oldest manuscript of Isaiah. When God finished inspiring and Paul completed his letter to the Galatians, that was the first and oldest manuscript of Galatians. However, none of these original autographs are extant (that is, the media on which these words were written no longer exists). All manuscripts, authentical or inauthentic, are copies of the original autograph, it being the first.[i] At first blush someone might think, “Well, it seems like the first copy made (i.e., oldest) would be the best.” That is a logical fallacy, and even if that were true, the oldest copies we have are not the first copies of the originals.

There is no biblical reason to think the older the manuscript, the better it is, or that it is the best. Neither is there any logical reason why it should be said that an older manuscript is better. The prevailing mantra of textual criticism asserts that the older is better because it is closer in time to the original autographs. If it is actually older, then all that can be said is that it is older, that is, is closer in time to the autographs.[ii] However, the age of a manuscript does not equal or necessarily reflect the age of its text. A newer manuscript could be a copy of an older text. Or a newer manuscript could be a copy of the same text from which the older manuscript was copied, but accomplished with no or fewer errors. Which would be more accurate? Closer in time to the original does not equal closer in accuracy to the original. An older inaccurate manuscript is not better than a newer more accurate one. 

Consider this illustration. Ten years ago (November 7, 2013) I write out on a piece of paper all the information that is on my birth certificate. In doing so, I make some mistakes. Today (November 7, 2023) I write out on a piece of paper all the information that is on my birth certificate. In doing so, I make no mistakes. Which copy is older? Which copy is better?[iii]

---

[i] That is, they all in some sense go back to the original or first writing. Obviously we recognize there are copies of the original, copies of copies of the original, and so on.

[ii] Text critics who reject eclectic text theories – for example, Maurice Robinson (who promotes majority text theory) – have succinctly and successfully pointed out “the fallacy of the oldest.” Older manuscripts and versions, as well as references by early church writers, demonstrate a terminus a quo for a particular reading, that is, a time or date at which the reading can be “no later than.” For example, if around AD 175 Irenaeus mentions what we know are Mark 16:19, then we know that in or around AD 175, Mark 16:19 was in the Gospel of Mark used by Irenaeus. This establishes the existence of a given reading at a given date. It arose “no later than” that. Authenticity is a different debate not established by time or dating.
[iii] Even those who dismiss providential preservation must accept the logic of this illustration. Even if I made a mistake in the more recent copy, were it to have fewer mistakes than the older copy, it is still the better copy. Age does not determine accuracy.