Textual Criticism

Textual Criticism.

Introduction. As far as we know, no original manuscripts of biblical books exist. As such, biblical texts must be established through textual criticism/analysis, the comparison of witnesses to the original text, such as manuscript copies, early translations, and citations. This is particularly challenging with respect to the NT, for which, depending upon the method of calculation, these manuscripts, versions, and quotations contain anywhere between 15,000 and 250,000 variations. These variations touch virtually every phrase within the NT. Textual criticism, formerly referred to as Lower Criticism, is the scholarly attempt to make sense of this phenomenon.

Traditional Approach to Textual Criticism. Scholars have identified two general approaches to textual criticism. The first is the traditional approach, which applies the rules of textual criticism to surviving witnesses to reconstruct an assumed but presently unavailable original form of the text (i.e., autograph). Where a text developed over a period of time, textual critics focus on its final form. A non–biblical example is Homer’s Illiad, of which the earlier eighth-century BC original was developed into its final form when writing reforms were introduced in fifth–century BC Greece. For most biblical texts, the final form can be taken as indicative of the original form in that most were published shortly after having been written. Scholars who employ this approach produce critical editions of the OT and NT which they believe best approximate the original autographs (e.g., BHS–W4, NA²⁸, USB⁵). Adventist scholars typically adopt this approach to textual criticism.

Socio-historical Approach to Textual Criticism. The goal of this approach is the reconstruction of the history of the development of different textual traditions and the use of this insight to gain an understanding of the historical development of either OT Israel or early Christianity. This approach stresses the idea that when scribes replicated biblical texts, they intentionally introduced changes that reflected their theological or ecclesiastical tendencies. A good example of this is the NT witness, Codex Bezae. Some scholars have used this approach, however, to undermine traditional understandings of Christian origins by claiming that orthodox beliefs originated not with Jesus and the apostles but rather with post-Constantine scribal tendencies.

Book Production in the Ancient World. The rules of textual criticism reflect scholarly reconstructions of how the ancient literary works were written, copied, edited, and disseminated. Scholars propose a process whereby biblical writers, sometimes with scribal assistance (e.g., Baruch in Jer 36:32; Tertius in Rom 16:22), wrote their texts and then made copies for distribution throughout Israel or, in the case of the NT, early Christian communities. These texts were gathered into collections, either by the authors in question or their recipients. Paul, for example, instructs Timothy to bring to him his books (τὰ βιβλία) and parchments (τὰς μεμβράνας), most likely a collection of his own letters (and perhaps of the Hebrew scriptures) he carried around from church to church (2 Tim 4:13), permitting them to copy and disseminate his letters.

Early Christianity was, from the start, a bookish movement characterized by a very high demand for its authoritative texts. In response to this demand, local communities often had to reproduce texts in-house either because of sporadic and localized persecution banning the production and possession of Christian texts or because they could not afford to employ professional scribes.

Development of Textual Variants. Scholars have proposed a number of scribal processes that account for textual variants, whether voluntary or involuntary in their origin.

Additions, Omissions, and Confusion of Letters. The most common error is dittography, the involuntary repetition of a letter, word, group of words, or even part of a sentence. Such additions are readily recognizable. The omission of letters, syllables, or words would usually result from distraction (e.g., parablepsis, “oversight”). Furthermore, many letters or words can be confused, especially when they are of similar shape or sound (homoioarkton, “similar beginning”; homototeleuton, “similar ending”).

It is often difficult to determine whether a letter, word, or phrase has been added to one manuscript or omitted from another. For example, one of our earliest NT manuscripts, 𝔓⁴⁶ (ca. 200), as well as other important manuscripts (ℵ, B), do not include ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in Ephesians 1:1, raising the question as to whether it was omitted in these manuscripts or added to later manuscripts. Another less significant example is from MT Joshua 6:26: “Cursed before the LORD be anyone who tries to build this city—this Jericho!” The LXX does not include the phrase “this Jericho,” possibly reflecting an earlier Hebrew recension to which later Masoretic scribes have added a clarificatory note. On a larger scale, the LXX version of Jeremiah is about an eighth shorter—about twenty-seven hundred words—than the MT. Fragments of Jeremiah found at Qumran reflect both the longer and the shorter versions. Finally, unfamiliar names are often spelled differently, as, for example, Nazareth in Luke 4:16 (Ναζαρά, Ναζαρέτ, Ναζαρέθ, Ναζαράτ, Ναζαρέδ).

Variations in Word Order. A scribe may have omitted a word, realized his mistake, and then inserted it later in the sentence. The inflected nature of the Greek language allows for just such a process in that word order can often be changed without significantly altering the sense of a phrase or sentence.

Marginal Notes. Scribes sometimes wrote in the margins alternative readings or simply their own thoughts. A later scribe, copying the manuscript, might suppose that these notes represented accidental omissions that they would then include in the new copy.

Substitution of Synonyms. The attention of the scribe might have wandered as a result of which he simply substituted a word with a synonym. Alternatively, a drop of water may have smudged the text or, due to a flaw in the vellum/papyri, a future scribe may simply have had to guess the unclear word. Sometimes, it seems as if a literary term has been deliberately used as a substitute for a colloquial term.

Assimilation. In the synoptic Gospels, a very common cause of difference is when a scribe, who may well have committed the Gospels to memory, introduced into one Gospel a term used in another to harmonize accounts. This may have been intentional or unintentional.

Grammatical Improvement. Many variations involve the choice of prepositions, conjunctions, particles, or syntactical constructions, which may have resulted from scribal error or from a desire to improve syntax and grammar.

The Practice of Textual Criticism. Based on their understanding of scribal practices, textual critics consider a number of sources of evidence when reconstructing a biblical autograph:

External Evidence. This includes (a) the date of the witness based upon the manufacture of the book (codicology—stitching, format, material used) and the style of writing (palaeography—shape and beauty of the letters); (b) the geographical distribution and number of the witnesses that support a particular variant; and (c) families of witnesses and their genealogical relationship.

In general, a family of early witnesses with a wide geographical spread is to be favored. Caution is required, however. A later or a more geographically restricted witness may well be preferred if it is judged to reflect an earlier textual tradition. A sixth-century AD text based on a second-century text may be more useful for reconstructing an autograph than a third-century text. In terms of numbers, a hundred copies of a later manuscript may be less significant than a single early witness.

Internal Evidence: (a) wording that is more difficult but with a deeper sense is to be preferred (Lectio difficilior praeferenda est), based upon the assumption that most scribes would tend to simplify rather than obfuscate, use more familiar synonyms in place of unfamiliar words, improve syntax and grammar, and add explanatory asides for the benefit of the reader; (b) the shorter wording is to be preferred on the assumption that scribes would rather add than subtract when copying a revered text. Exceptions include shorter wordings arising from an involuntary omission or a particular scribal tendency; and (c) preference is given to divergent readings on the assumption that scribes would harmonize divergent passages (e.g., NT quotes of the OT or different accounts of the same event). Internal evidence should normally be prioritized while recognizing that alternative explanations to those listed above are also possible.

Authorial Evidence. Textual critics also consider author–related evidence such as (a) the style and vocabulary throughout the book and in other works by the same author; (b) the immediate literary context (but this presumes a certain text); (c) the linguistic background; and (d) any known sources the author may have used.

Conclusion. Textual variations arise for many reasons, requiring the textual critic to adopt an eclectic, case-by-case approach that takes into consideration external, internal, and authorial evidence. No rule can be made into an absolute. Instead, the textual critic must apply good judgment, always aware that multiple explanations of the evidence are possible. Textual criticism is an art rather than a science that, in its practice, reveals the academic and faith commitments of its practitioners.

References

Barrera, Julio Trebolle. The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History of the Bible. Leiden: Brill, 1998.

Ehrman, Bart D. “The Text as Window: New Testament Manuscripts and the Social History of Early Christianity.” In The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. Edited by Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. Pages 361–375.

Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964.

Porter, Stanley E., and Andrew W. Pitts. Fundamentals of New Testament Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2015.

Streeter, Burnett H. The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins. London: MacMillan, 1951.

Vaganay, Léon and Christian-Bernard Amphoux. An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.