B. B. Warfield on New Testament Textual Criticism

B. B. Warfield

“I believe that Warfield is second only to Jonathan Edwards as America’s greatest theologian.” – R.C. Sproul

            Let’s look into B. B. Warfield’s 1886 An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament.       

            Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield (1851-1921) is usually remembered by his intellectual heirs (such as Daniel Wallace) on account of his defense of the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy.  Born in Kentucky, Warfield graduated from Princeton Seminary in 1876, studied briefly in Germany,  and served as pastor at First Presbyterian Church in Baltimore for two years.  He then taught New Testament at Western Theological Seminary for nine years.  In 1886 he left Allegheny and began his prolific career as Professor of Reformed Theology at Princeton, and served there until his death.   His writings include The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, The Significance of the Westminster Standards as a Creed,  Counterfeit Miracles, and  Revelation and Inspiration.

            What exactly is the New Testament text that Warfield considered inerrant?  He almost answered that question in the same year that he began his professorship at Princeton, at age 35, when he published An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament preparing students to engage the compilations made by Tischendorf (his eighth edition, which due to the impact of Codex Sinaiticus differs from his seventh edition at 3,572 points), Tregelles, and Westcott & Hort.  

            Warfield’s approach to New Testament textual criticism closely echoed Hort’s.  He had a direct and down-to-earth writing style, and presented the case for Hort’s ideas with practical candor in four chapter:  (1) The Matter of Criticism, (2) The Methods of Criticism, (3) The  Praxis of Criticism, and (4) The History of Criticism.

            After sampling Tischendorf’s textual apparatus in Mark 1:11, Warfield lists and briefly describes the major witnesses to the text of the New Testament – uncials, minuscules, lectionaries, versions, and patristic quotations.   He acknowledged the lack of papyri, observing that “No very early papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament have come down to us,” with trivial exceptions.    

            Like John Burgon, Warfield knew the shallowness of the research done on these materials.  He lamented that “A critical edition of even the Vulgate is, however, still a desideratum” and acknowledged that “the versions are not even critically edited.”  And he knew how relatively novel the foundational discoveries were on which Hort’s transmission-model depended, observing that “À was not published until 1862; no satisfactory  edition of B existed until 1868;  C, Q, D, D₂, N, P, R, Z, L, X, E₂, P₂, S, have all been issued since 1843.”   Unlike Burgon, though, Warfield embraced Hort’s approach enthusiastically.     

            Warfield believed that the Peshitta had existed in 250 and went through a standardization process that ended around 350, suggesting that a “late third or early fourth century revision” is likely because of its non-inclusion of Second Peter, Second John, Third John, Jude, and Revelation.   He was misinformed about the age of some Ethiopic manuscripts, stating that the Ethiopic version’s earliest extant MSS “appear to be as late as the fifteenth century.”  The first chapter closes with a consideration of the textual contest in John 7:8 between ουκ and ουπω.  But he declined to declare a winner, using the data to illustrate the precariousness of  simplistic reliance on the mere quantity of witnesses, and on the age of the witnesses, and moves on.

            In chapter 2, Warfield very openly dismisses traditionally accepted readings despite their appearance in a super-majority of manuscripts in Matthew 6:4, Matthew 6:13, Mark 9:29, and Luke 8:31.    He highlights the importance of internal evidence, both intrinsic and transcriptional, which he summarizes beautifully on page 84:  “We are making use of two separate methods of inquiry; one of which deals with the probability that the author wrote this reading, and the other with the probability that the scribe began with it.”

            Warfield’s  claims in the second chapter are initially startling, but he follows  up with reasonable qualifications.  He shows his willingness to reject the reading favored by a super-majority of Greek MSS in Matthew 6:1.  Intrinsic evidence is likewise decisive in Luke 15:21.  Additional examples are drawn from Acts 12:25 and 11:20.  He states although internal evidence “is very easy to abuse,” “no conclusion to which it does not give at least its consent can be accepted as final in any case of textual criticism.”   On one hand, this is normal caution; on the other it guarantees that his New Testament text is perpetually tenuous where reasonable critics reach opposite verdicts. 

            Although Warfield repeatedly expresses his admiration for Codex Vaticanus as the best manuscript of the New Testament, when investigating Matthew 27:49 he rules against ÀB.   

            In the course of illustrating transcriptional evidence, Warfield raises issues about “the famous  reading Θεος in I Tim iii. 16,” Romans 12:11, Acts 17:25, Acts 13:23, and even mentions that “Perhaps the form Ἀσάφ in Matt. i. 7 has so come into the text from the influence of the Ἰωσαφάτ which stands immediately beneath it.”  After touring various categories of transcriptional errors, following a list of errors drawn from Codex Sinaiticus’ text of Hebrews, he reminds readers (p. 107) that “All “canons of criticism” are only general averages.”  Within this frame of caution he proceeds to posit – as “general guides,” to which exceptions should be expected, three valuable rules:  (1)  “the more difficult reading is to be preferred” (2) “the shorter reading is to be preferred” and (3) “the more characteristic reading is to be preferred” and above all these, he dictates that “That reading is to be preferred from which the origin of all the others can most safely be derived.”  

            In his presentation of external evidence, Warfield repeatedly cautions against oversimplifications, such as assuming that preference should always be given to what is more ancient, or always to the reading with the most abundant pieces of independent evidence in its favor.  He opposes the notion that if a witness is late, its text must therefore be bad, and affirms candidly (like Burgon) that “There is reason to believe that the very grossest errors that have ever deformed the text had entered it already in the second century.”

            He leans heavily on Tregelles’ analysis of the variant-unit in Matthew 6:4 (the presence, or absence, of ἐν τῷ φανερω), and follow up with a less detailed rejection of the doxology in Matthew 6:13.  Then he revisits John 7:8 –and again declines to issue a verdict.

            Warfield observed (p. 126) that “The discovery of a single manuscript (À) revolutionized  Tischendorf’s text.”   Certainly:  according to Eberhard Nestle, Tischendorf’s eighth edition differed from his seventh edition at 3,572 points, due primarily to the impact of Codex Sinaiticus.  Nevertheless Warfield seems entirely undisturbed by the prospect of another major discover destabilizing the compilation he supports (the readings about which Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Hort agree). 

            On page 132-133 Warfield expresses his position very clearly:  he endorses Hort’s approach, stating that “his results may be safely accepted as sound,” and regards Vaticanus as “plainly the best single codex known.”  Little by little, he reveals his confident adherence to Hort’s transmission-model, including the Lucianic recension.   At the same time he rejects the reading of ÀBCLUΓ at Matthew 27:49.    

            His definition of internal evidence of groups is worth remembering:  “Internal evidence of  groups is, therefore, simply internal evidence of documents applied to lost documents, a list of the readings which has come down to us, and nothing more.”

            Another pithy statement emphasizing the importance of considering evidence in terms of groups, on p. 139:  “MSS agree together nor by accident but by inheritance.”  And then Warfield proceeds to consider, in more detail than Hort, genealogical evidence – concluding that Hort was justified to set aside all that is distinct in the Syriac (i.e., the Byzantine) text.  What Warfield writes on p. 157-170 is essentially a summary of what Hort’s introduction presented more verbosely.  Warfield helpfully offers diagrams to illustrate the how the text of the Gospels has been transmitted.  He even utilizes Hort’s slanted nomenclature without question.

            By the time he has finished summarizing Hort, Warfield says that “The proper procedure” for settling textual contests involves, as its first step, “Sift out all  Syrian evidence from the mass of witnesses.”  He states outright (p. 171) “Any reading supported only by the Syriac class is convicted of having originated after A.D. 250.”

            When facing Hort’s theory of “Western non-interpolations,” Warfield bypasses Luke 24, and merely treats the “Neutral and Alexandrian” reading in Matthew 27:49 as an error.  He moves on to small variant-units such as μᾶλλον in Second Corinthians 2:7 and διο in Second Corinthians 12:7 and the contest between ᾖλθεν versus ᾖλθον in Galatians 2:12.  A hint of frustration seems to peek out in his brief discussion of Hebrews 10:11 where he laments, “We long for B,” and he admits that as far as the text of Revelation is concerned, “genealogical evidence can as yet be scarcely employed at all, without the greatest doubt and difficulty.”   How the same mind could make such an admission, and expect his readers to confidently regard their newly printed compilations simultaneously as inerrant and tenuous, is mystifying.

            In his third chapter, The Praxis of Textual Criticism, Warfield focuses on Acts 20:28, John 1:18, First Timothy 3:16, John 7:53-8:11, and Mark 16:9-20, and in each case he rejects the Syrian reading, “sifting out the Syrian evidence.”  He favors Θεου in Acts 20:28 and fails to mention Hort’s conjecture that υιου has dropped out of the text.   Warfield does, however, briefly delve into the subject of conjectural emendation, stating that “The only test of a successful conjecture is that it shall approve itself as inevitable” and mentioning proposed emendations in Colossians 2:18:  Lightfoot’s ἐώρᾳ or αἰώρᾳ κενεμβατεύων and C. Taylor’s  ἀέρα κενεμβατεύων.  (In the same verse Hort proposed ἐθελοταπεινοφροσύνῃ where θέλων ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ.)

            Chapter Four is brief and Warfield’s history adds nothing that later authors such as Bruce Metzger have not presented other than to notice more prominently the work of Simon Colinaeus (1534) and Edward Wells (1709-1719) (whose annotated Paraphrase of the New Testament is available in Part One and Part Two).  Warfield recognized that he was in a generation of pioneers, not street-pavers; yet he was confidently optimistic enough to state, “We have at least attained the position of having evidence enough before us to render the sketching of the history of the text possible, and to certify us that new discoveries will only  enlighten dark places, and not overturn the whole fabric.”  He closes not by declaring that the text of the New Testament has been established, but by point to Tischendorf’s 8^th edition (1864-1872), Tregelles’ compilation (1857-1879) and Westcott & Hort’s compilation (1881) as “the high-water mark of modern criticism, and states that where they differ, “future criticism may find her especial task.”  It does not seem to have bothered him that he could never show exactly what was the New Testament text that he considered inerrant.         

 

 

 

Mark 5:21 - "In the Boat" - When Trusting the Science and Trusting the Church are Different Things

             Relying on the most up-to-date scholarship can have its drawbacks.  Case in point:  the scholarship that questioned the authenticity of the words “in the boat” in Mark 5:21.  Once, the words were universally accepted as part of the original text – affirmed in the Vulgate (Latin), the  Peshitta (Syriac) and in the Byzantine and Alexandrian transmission-lines of the Greek text of the Gospel of Mark.  

            By 1970, though, according to Bruce Metzger (in Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament) “a minority of the Committee regarded the phrase ἐν τῷ πλοιῳ [in the boat] as an early scribal insertion,” and so the decision to include the words was ranked as a “D” – meaning that “there is a very high degree of doubt concerning the reading selected for the text.”  The words were absent from UBS2 and were bracketed in UBS4 and NA27.  Translators using the most up-to-date authority in 1966 (UBS1) or 1968 (UBS2) would have omitted these words, and with a “B” difficulty-rating in the apparatus at the time, they would not have considered it controversial to do so.

            Do you remember the TEV, Today’s English Version, popularly issued as Good News for Modern Man?  It was a paraphrastic version made by Robert G. Bratcher (1920-2010) with line illustrations by Annie Vallotton published by the American Bible Society.   Bratcher is still remembered for his vigorous and vocal rejection of the doctrine of inerrancy.  In 2026, his version of the New Testament is still included in the list of English versions on Bible Gateway.  In Mark 5:21 it reads “Jesus went back across to the other side of the lake. There at the lakeside a large crowd gathered around him.”  It’s missing these words in Mark 5:21 that are in major English versions such as the KJV, NKJV, ESV, NIV, NLT, NRSV, WEB, EHV, etc.

            Bratcher probably thought in 1966 that he was safely following the science.  Advocates of the Byzantine Text, the Textus Receptus, and other more stable editions of the New Testament immune to the filter of the scholarly minds on the UBS compilation committee can only say in retrospect, “Told you so.”  Compilers and translators must be weighed, not counted.

 

Mark 5:22 - Who's That Guy? (How to Spell "Jairus")

             The character known as Jairus appears on one occasion in the Gospels, in an episode described in Matthew 9:18-26, Mark 5:22-43, and Luke 8:40-56.  Matthew did not provide his name, but both Mark and Luke do so – except in Codex 05 the name is not included in the Gospel of Mark.  Usually the name “Jairus” appears as  ̓Ιάειρος.  That was the spelling in Mark 5:22 in the Textus Receptus, in the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform,  in the solid Rock Greek New Testament, in the Hodges-Farstad GNT According to the Majority Text, and in earlier printed Greek Gospels such as those issued by Tregelles, Westcott & Hort, and Baljon.  The Tyndale House GNT echoes Tregelles.  The UBS GNT has always printed ̓Ιάιρος in Mark 5:22, and so do Michael Holmes’ SBL GNT and Wayne A. Mitchell’s Greek New Testament (4^th edition).

            But why the change?   Swanson’s list of witnesses for Ιάιρος consists of merely 01 and 33, while Ιάειρος is supported by 02 03 019 032 038  and all other Greek witnesses except C (which reads Ιάερος) and 28 (which reads Ιάιαρος).  032 and 038 and 565 and 700 together support  ᾧ ὀνόμα ̓Ιάειρος, harmonizing with Luke 8:41.  Considering what a notoriously bad speller the main scribe of Sinaiticus was, the decision to print ̓Ιάιρος instead of Ιάειρος seems incredibly tenuous and arbitrary.  Future editions should adopt Ιάειρος, both in Mark 5:22 and in Luke 8:41 (a verse for which the UBS compilation has zero support, exposing its “frankentext” nature).

            Finally, a more subtle question:  was Jairus’ name originally in Mark 5:22?   It’s missing in 05 and in some Old Latin copies – specifically, a (Codex Vercellensis) e (Codex Palatinus )  ff² (Codex Corbeiensis secundus) and i (Codex Vindobonensis).  Bruce Metzger spent nearly two pages on this question in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, and both Vincent Taylor and J. K. Elliott suspected that non-inclusion is original here.  No major English version has failed to include Jairus’ name in Mark 5:22 – a sign of ecclesiastical resistance to the idea that the mere shortness of shorter Western readings commends them as original.  Mysteries they may be, but arbitrary brevity is no more of a sign of authenticity than arbitrary verbosity.  

Notice the absence of "named Jairus" 

The Mystery of the Nomina Sacra in Second Peter in Papyrus 72

            If Papyrus 72 (Papyrus Bodmer VII and VIII) is correctly dated to 250-300, it is our earliest copy of Second Peter.    Here we have a document that is early enough, possibly, to give some insight on how scribes used nomina sacra instead of the full words God, Lord, Jesus, and Christ, and how soon the nomina sacra were expanded to include words such as spirit, mother, father, son, man, savior, heaven, David, and Jerusalem.  Since the Biblical portions of P72 are online at the Vatican Library’s website, it is easy to investigate. Let’s see what we can find out when we focus on P72’s text of Second Peter.

            The first occurrence of nomina sacra in Second Peter is not unusual – in both occurrences in verse 1, “Jesus Christ” is presented in three-character suspension,  ΙΗΥ ΧΡΥ.

            Verse 2 in P72 is unique and rather remarkable:  instead of the usual reading ἐπιγνώσει τοῦ θυ καὶ Ἰυ τοῦ, P72 reads επειγνωση του θυ ιηυ του κυριου – a rare example of κυρίου being written out in full.    

            In 1:8, the content is not unusual but the format is. In καθειστησιν εις τη του an overline appears over τη του.  It is tempting to think that the scribe initially wrote τη  and added the του while proofreading, having initially written the overline to represent a final ν.

            In 1:11, κυ appears as usual and the verse concludes with σωτηρος ιηυ χρυ.

            In 1:14, κς and ιης χρς appear.

            In 1:16, κυ and ιηυ χρυ appear.

            In 1:17, θυ πρς appears – and thus we have here evidence that πρς is as early as the other four nomina sacra, at least where in appears alongside θυ.

            In 1:21 πνς appears, and thus we see evidence that the contraction of πνεύματος was as ancient as the other four nomina sacra.  We also see θυ.

            In 2:4 θς appears where expected.

            In 2:9 κυριος appears written in full.

            In 2:11 κυ appears both overlined and underlined.

            In 2:20 κυριου is written in full and overlined and after σωτηρος, ιηυ χρυ appear.

Second Peter 2:18-21 in P72

            In 3:2 κυ appears as expected.

            In 3:5 θυ appears.

            In 3:9 κω and κς appear.

            In 3:10 κυ appears.

            In 3:12 θυ appears.

            In 3:15 κυ appears.

            In 3:18 κυ appears and so does ιηυ χρυ.

            The mystery - which as far as I know remains unsolved - is, why is κυριος written out in full in these specific places, and not elsewhere?  One thing is clear though:  it would be commendable for future printed Greek New Testaments to offer an archetype of all witnesses with the nomina sacra presented in their earliest extant form, not artificially uncontracted (as is currently this case).

 

 

Second Peter 1:10 - Grace By Faith - Confidence By Works

             A variant in Second Peter 1:10 – one that is undetectable in the SBL-GNT – shows that some scribes were not immune to contributing to the role of human effort in maintaining salvation.  During the Protestant Reformation, the Byzantine Greek text of this chapter was used to show that Peter, like Paul, affirmed that the salvation comes as a gift of God (1:2), and that nothing we do can ever add to what Christ has done, as the Spirit impels each faithful individual to diligently pursue virtue, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love.  But long before Martin Luther was born, a form of verse 10 existed which emphasized that good works contribute to the confidence of this soul.

Papyrus 72

             The Byzantine text of Second Peter and the modern text of NA/UBS read precisely the same.  In the Harklean Group – a small cluster of medieval manuscripts – there is a longer reading.  Before telling you what it is, the significance of the Harklean Group should be understood.  Why are these relative few, relatively late, manuscripts important?  Because they echo, in the General Epistles, a form of text that is virtually as early as our earliest surviving manuscripts of that category of books.  That is, although the manuscripts in the Harklean Group (GA 429 614 1505 1611 2138 2412 and 2495, with core members listed in boldprint) are medieval, they echo an ancient ancestor.  (The term “Harklean” is due to the close agreement between their text and a text used as an exemplar by Thomas of Harkle when he revised the Syriac Peshitta around the year 616 using Greek copies at the Enaton monastery that was near Alexandria, Egypt.)

          

Jude v. 3 in Sinaiticus

            How ancient?  Consider the text of Codex Sinaiticus (ﬡ, 01) in the third verse of the Epistle of Jude:  after the normal mention of the salvation common among believers, it adds “και ζωης” (“and life”).    The inclusion of σωτηρίας is established via its inclusion in P72, 02 (Alexandrinus), 03 (Vaticanus), 018 020 049 056 0142 and the overwhelming majority of minuscules including 1 6 18 69 81 323 630 1739 and the family 35 and Textus Receptus forms of the text.  However the Harklean Group members 1611 2138 1505 2495 uniquely do not include σωτηρίας and have (after κοινης ημων in 1611 2138, and after κοινης υμων in 1505 2495) ζωης.  This evidence implies that prior to the production of Sinaiticus in the mid-300s, a scribe had an exemplar with σωτηρίας and an exemplar with ζωης and, rather than choose between the two, embraced them both and created the longer reading, a conflation, displayed in Sinaiticus.

Second Peter 1:10 in Sinaiticus

          In Second Peter 1:10 the Harklean Group also supports, after σπουδάσατε, the words ἵνα διὰ τῶν καλῶν ἔργων βεβαίαν ὑμῶν τὴν κλῆσιν καὶ ἐκλογὴν ποιεῖσθε.  The words in bold print mean “through good works.”  The form of Second Peter 1:10 is supported by the Vulgate – Codex Amiatinus reads “Quapropter fratres magis agite ut per bona opera certam vestram vocationem et electionem faciatis:  haec enim facientes non peccabitis aliquando.”  Διὰ τῶν καλῶν ἔργων is also read by Sinaiticus and is supported by Lectionary 60 and the Sahidic, Armenian, and the Harklean Syriac versions.  

            Considering the diversity of witnesses for both readings this contest is much closer than the UBS Committee’s “A” rating would suggest.   I regard the shorter reading as original, and the early expansion as an example of the Western tendency to over-emphasize the meaning of the adequately clear original.  But if one were to prefer the longer reading as original – which, as far as I know, only Lachmann and diehard champions of the Vulgate have done – then we are looking at a reading which scribes in more than one transmission-line excised due to a desire to discourage the interpretation the idea that good works are necessary for assurance of salvation.

Second Peter 3:10 - A Step Backwards in NA28

 

            Has the church lost the original text of Second Peter 3:10?

            “Doubtless” was Hort’s answer in 1881.    His note is a bit torpid but his verdict is clear:

“iii.10 (†) εὑρεθήσεται] οὐχ εὐρεθήσεται syr.bod[= an obscure Syriac version of the three Catholic Epistles not in the Syriac canon] theb :  κατακαήσεται (? Alexandrian and) Constantinopolitan (Gr. Lat. Syr. Eg. Æth.) ; incl. A L₂ lat. vg. codd Cyr.al Aug:  ἀφανισθήσονται C: , ni: , the whole clause (καὶ γῆ … κατακ.) lat. vg pp^scr pp^lat.scr.  Text ﬡBK₂P₂27 29 66** syr.hl.mg. arm :  cf. bod the.  The great difficulty of text has evidently given rise to all these variations (Introd. § 365).  It is doubtless itself a corruption of ῾ρυήσεται (῾ρεήσεται) or of one of its compounds.”

Second Peter 3:10 in Codex Alexandrinus

            The Byzantine text of II Peter 3:10 is:   Ἥξει δὲ ἡ ἡμέρα κυ ὡς κλέπτης ἐν νυκτί ἐν ᾗ οἱ οὐρανοὶ ҅ροιζηδον παρελεύσονται στοιχεῖα δὲ καυσούμενα λυθήσονται καὶ γῆ καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ ἔργα κατακήσεται – diverging from the text of NA27 at five points, two of which are detectable in translation:  the simple presence or absence of ἐν νυκτί and the final word of the sentence.     

            While the shorter reading is explainable as a loss due to parablepsis from the ἐν before νυκτί to the ἐν after it, and its longer rival is supported by C K L 049 104 629 1751 Byz, the Byzantine reading was assumed so readily by the editors of UBS4 to be a harmonization to First Thessalonians 5:2 that it didn’t even receive a listing in the apparatus.  The array of external against it is indeed very impressive – P72 ﬡ A B P Ψ 048^vid 0156 33 323 945 1739 Vulgate Coptic. 

      
      It is the textual contest at the end of the verse that has attracted the most attention recently, because the editors of Novum Testamentum Graece decided to print in the text a reading which is not found in any Greek manuscript of Second Peter.   The textual contest in the last word of Second Peter 3:10 has been an issue for a long time.   Not only Westcott & Hort but also (according to NA27’s apparatus) Naber, Olivier, Mayor, and Eberhard Nestle each proposed different conjectural emendations here – swept away, conflagrated, removed, and judged, respectively).  Normal people might imagine that an “embarrassment of riches,” would naturally preclude such guesses, but, no, the NET’s annotator candidly admits that this is “one of the most difficult textual problems in the NT.” 

            The NET’s annotator firmly endorsed εὑρεθήσται as the original reading, arguing that the opacity of the meaning of εὑρεθήσται provoked scribes to substitute a word that seemed easier to understand.  This is perfectly lucid.  In addition, the meaning of the text in the smattering of non-Greek witnesses enlisted to support ουχ is accounted for as a harmonization to the meaning of Revelation 20:11 (οὐχ εὐρέθη in the majority text).  The conjectural emendation that currently is printed in NA28 cannot be recommended as superior – but it does serve as an interesting and obvious admission that the editors do not believe that the original text of Second Peter 3:10 has survived in any extant Greek witness.  Some onlookers have assumed that the C.B.G.M. had something to do with the editors’ decision, but that seems impossible, inasmuch as there is no coherence to consider.

Second Peter 2:11 - Instability in the Critical Text

Second Peter 2:11 in P72

It’s easy to read Second Peter 2:11 in several English versions and never notice the startling difference in meaning – but we’re about to do exactly that.  Compare:

1.  EHV:  whereas angels, even though they are greater in strength and power, do not bring a slanderous judgment against them before the Lord.

2.  KJV:  Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.

3.  ESV:  whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not pronounce a blasphemous judgment against them before the Lord.

4.  LEB:  whereas angels, who are greater in strength and power, do not bring against them a demeaning judgment.

Second Peter 2:11 in GA 2412 (Harklean Group)

5.  NLT:  But the angels, who are far greater in power and strength, do not dare to bring from the Lord a charge of blasphemy against those supernatural beings. 

Was the original text “before the Lord” (παρὰ κυρίῳ) or “from the Lord” (παρὰ κυρίου), or neither?  The textual difference impacts interpretation.  Did the original text mean that angels don’t bring reviling accusations against the ungodly in the Lord’s presence, or that angels don’t deliver to the ungodly reviling accusations that the Lord has made?    

Second Peter 2:11 in Vaticanus (03)

Adding the the trickiness of this context, an impressive array of witnesses (including A Ψ 1505 Vulgate Ethiopic Sahidic) support neither παρὰ κυρίῳ or παρὰ κυρίου – a short reading adopted by Michael Holmes in the SBL-GNT and in the Lexham English Bible (agreeing with the Rheims Version (1582) and the Confraternity Version (1941).  The late Bruce Manning Metzger made a note in Textual Commentary sympathetic with the shorter reading.

The difference between παρὰ κυρίῳ and παρὰ κυρίου in the early manuscripts is a one-letter-difference, for they all contract the sacred name involved:

παρὰ κῳ:  ﬡ B C 049 489 927 945 999 1243 1244 1315 1573 1646 1739 1874 Byz

παρὰ κυ:  P72 056 0142 1 35 69 330 1241 1251 1319 1751 2191 2197 2356 l593

One might think that a reading shared by the Alexandrian flagship manuscripts ﬡ B and the Byzantine Text would be readily adopted, but P72 and the witnesses that favor omission have complicated the equation.  Nestle-Aland 25, 26, and 27 had κυρίου; the 28th edition has  instead κυρίῳ.

Internal considerations decide the issue when the evidence is divided like this.  The parallel in Jude vv. 8-9 alludes to an angel (the archangel Michael) refraining from condemning the devil outright and instead leaving judgment up to the Lord.  The reading that has a corresponding sentiment is παρὰ κυρίῳ. 

Παρὰ κυρίῳ should be maintained in the text with confidence.