Eberhard Nestle, known for his work on the Greek New Testament and Syriac scholarship, opens this introduction by situating textual criticism as a discipline grounded in philological method. The volume, part of the Theological Translation Library, presents a translation of the second German edition with authorial corrections. Nestle’s approach is evident from the outset: he treats manuscript variants not as mere curiosities but as evidence requiring systematic evaluation. The editor’s preface, by Allan Menzies, highlights Nestle’s connections to English scholars and his role in proofreading major editions like Swete’s Septuagint. This context matters because Nestle’s own method—weighing internal and external evidence—is shaped by his engagement with both Continental and British textual traditions.

The Weight of a Single Witness

Nestle devotes considerable attention to the problem of evaluating readings supported by few manuscripts. He examines three variant readings from Codex Bezae (D) and the Latin version h: “bring the axe” (φέρε τὴν ἀξίνην) in Luke 13:7, “before you open your mouth” (ἀνοῖξαι τὸ στόμα) in Matthew 6:8, and “a basket of dung” (κόφινον κοπρίων) in Luke 13:8. He notes that Westcott and Hort, along with most recent editors, cite only the third reading, ignoring the first two. Nestle argues that the number of witnesses should not be the sole criterion: “the truth may have only one solitary representative left to support it against a whole world of adversaries.” He demonstrates that in Matthew 6:8, D is supported by h, a fourth- or fifth-century Latin manuscript, making it unlikely that h derives from D. This suggests an early, independent tradition for the reading. Nestle’s analysis shows how a single manuscript, when corroborated by a version or patristic quotation, can challenge the consensus of later editors.

The Bilingual Codex Bezae and Its Latin Counterpart

Nestle frequently returns to Codex Bezae (D), a bilingual Greek-Latin manuscript, and its Latin column (d). He uses the reading “a basket of dung” (κόφινον κοπρίων) to illustrate a methodological point: because d reads qualus rather than cophinus, the Greek text of D cannot be derived from the Latin. This counters a common objection against D’s Greek readings. Nestle also notes that Origen, in a Latin translation by Rufinus, appears to support “basket” (κόφινον), though Tischendorf had cited Origen for “dung” (κόπρια). Westcott and Hort, however, mention that Origen’s context supports κόφινον. Nestle thus presents a chain of evidence: D, eight Latin manuscripts, and a patristic quotation. He insists that editors should not dismiss readings simply because they appear in a “solitary Greek manuscript” when other witnesses align. The passage reveals Nestle’s commitment to tracing the history of each variant, weighing both internal probability and external attestation.

The Role of Conjecture and the Limits of Manuscript Evidence

Nestle acknowledges that textual criticism sometimes requires conjecture when no manuscript preserves the original reading. He states: “in certain circumstances the correct reading may no longer appear in any manuscript, but must be determined by conjecture.” This principle is embedded in his broader argument that the value of a reading does not depend solely on the number of its supporters. He contrasts this with the practice of Westcott and Hort, who often omit readings with weak attestation. Nestle’s own method is more inclusive: he believes that even a single witness, if it is early and independent, deserves consideration. He also emphasizes the importance of versions and patristic quotations as independent lines of evidence. The discussion of Codex Bezae and h shows how he reconstructs the transmission history to assess whether a reading is likely original or a scribal innovation. Nestle’s approach is cautious but open to the possibility that the truth may survive in unexpected places.

Readers should approach this introduction as a demonstration of method rather than a comprehensive handbook. Nestle’s focus on specific variants—particularly those from Codex Bezae—allows him to illustrate the reasoning behind textual decisions. The excerpts reveal a scholar who values both external evidence (manuscripts, versions, quotations) and internal criteria (style, context, transcriptional probability). Those new to the field will benefit from following his step-by-step analysis of each reading, while experienced critics may appreciate his challenges to prevailing editorial practices.