Textual criticism is “the science and art that seeks to determine the most reliable wording of a text.”[1] In biblical contexts, its goal is “to recover the original texts of the [Bible] from the available evidence.”[2] The need for it “arises from two circumstances: (a) none of the original documents is extant [i.e., still existing], and (b) the existing copies differ from one another”[3] in varying degrees. If you have a modern English translation, this second point can be illustrated by your footnotes (e.g., Dt 32:8, 35, 36, 43, 44; Jn 1:18; 7:53–8:11). Therefore, the task of the text critic is to compare the textual variants (i.e., manuscript differences), assess their strengths and weaknesses, and come to a reasoned conclusion concerning the text at hand. To make these decisions competently, the text critic needs to have a working knowledge of the sources of the biblical text, the common types of scribal error, critical texts, and the commonly accepted principles of weighing the evidence. These topics will be addressed below.
Sources
Old Testament
We will not address all of the sources for OT textual criticism, but only the most significant ones. The sources can be categorized into primary and secondary sources. Primary sources are texts written in Hebrew, while secondary sources are written in some other language. Secondary sources are also called versions, or translations. The most important primary sources for OT textual criticism are the manuscripts of the Masoretic Text (MT) tradition and the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). Although our oldest manuscript of the MT (the Aleppo Codex) dates to AD 895,[4] it represents a text tradition that stretches back several centuries. As noted earlier, the Masoretes were meticulously careful in preserving the text of the OT. Of these manuscripts, the most important one is Codex Leningradensis (AD 1008) since it is our “oldest and most complete manuscript.”[5] This manuscript is the base text for most modern translations of the OT. Until the first discovery of the DSS in 1947 at the Qumran caves surrounding the Dead Sea, Codex Leningradensis was our oldest Hebrew manuscript.[6] Since its discovery, around 230 biblical manuscripts have been recovered with dates of composition ranging from about 250 BC to AD 70, with another 600 or so non-biblical manuscripts.[7] Except for Esther, every book of the OT is represented either by partial fragments or complete manuscripts.[8] Although the discovery of the DSS has a multifaceted significance, two facets merit special mention. First, the similarities between the DSS and the mt confirm the remarkable stability of the text of the OT, even over a milllenium of transmission. In other words, the scribes were not simply playing the telephone game. Secondly, the DSS provide a a balancing witness to the mt. Although the similarities are striking, there are also differences between many readings of the two textual families. Thus, we are able to compare the strengths and weaknesses of certain textual variants. Of the secondary sources, three are worth mentioning in this discussion: the Septuagint (LXX), the Aramaic Targums, and the Syriac Peshitta. The lxx is the Greek translation of the OT initiated by Jews in Alexandria, Egypt during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus (285–246 BC) to meet the needs of the Jewish Diaspora in the Hellenized world.[9] The translation began with the Pentateuch and then was completed in stages over the next century or two.[10] The lxx is “one of our most important witnesses to the text of the OT.”[11] One reason for this is because it is a translation from a Hebrew text that predates the third century BC. A second reason is that “unlike the Qumran scrolls [DSS], it is complete and contains the text of the entire OT.”[12] The Aramaic Targums were translations (and paraphrastic interpretations) of the Hebrew text which arose due to the progressive decline of Jew’s ability to understand Hebrew after the Babylonian Exile of 586 BC, and their subsequent adoption of Aramaic, which was the lingua franca of the time. [13] Brotzman and Tully explain, “Rather than create a translation that would replace the Hebrew text (as the Greek Septuagint was intended to do), the rabbis instead elected to accompany the reading of the Hebrew text with translation in Aramaic.”[14] Keeping the reading of the Hebrew text and the translation separate allowed for the translation to provide more interpretation of the text. “Therefore, the targum functioned not only to render the linguistic meaning of the biblical text but also to provide a guide to its contemporary meaning.”[15] Although our earliest Targum fragments are from the dss (dating to around the 2nd century BC), we can perhaps see the origin of this process in Ezra and Nehemiah’s day (Neh 8:1–8).[16] Finally, the Syriac Peshitta was a fairly literal translation of the whole Bible that was probably started in the 1st or 2nd century AD, which may have been translated by Jewish converts to Christianity in the Eastern church.[17] Our earliest manuscripts of the Peshitta date to the 5th century AD. Taken together, all of these sources, primary and secondary, gives us immense evidence of the OT text.
New Testament
The sources for NT textual criticism fall under three categories: Greek manuscripts, versions, and the early church fathers.[18] Greek manuscripts are further categorized into four groups: papyri (named so because of the writing material which was made from the papyrus reed), majuscules (or uncials; written in capital letters), minuscules (a cursive form with “lower case” letters), and lectionaries (weekly readings for church services).[19] To date, there are approximately 6,000 Greek manuscripts, whether partial or complete, that have been discovered.[20] Our earliest fragment is called p52, which contains John 18:31–34, 37–38, dates to around AD 125—just thirty years after John penned the Book of Revelation! [21] This wealth of manuscript evidence is unheard of for any other literary work of antiquity. As the Scriptures were carried into various regions, translations became necessary. In textual criticism, these ancient translations are generally called versions. The most important versions are the Latin, Syriac, and Coptic.[22] The Latin versions are categorized into two main groups: the Old Latin versions (AD 2nd c.–386) and the Vulgate (AD 386), which Jerome undertook.[23] Similarly, there is the Old Syriac and the Palestinian Syriac (AD 5th c.)[24] Finally, the Coptic versions are translations from Egypt and include two main categories of dialects: Sahidic and Bohairic.[25] The final type of source for NT textual criticism is Scripture quotations from the early church fathers. As these churchmen wrote various works—whether sermons, apologetic works, letters, or other types—they often referred to Scripture to support their claims. Sometimes they did this with direct quotations; other times, they alluded to passages. Although the church fathers are not as useful in textual criticism as other sources, Alan Black observes, “These writers quoted extensively from the New Testament, using forms of the text known to them. In fact, it has been said that if all the New Testament manuscripts were destroyed, the text of the New Testament could still be restored from the quotations made by the church fathers.”[26] God has indeed preserved his word! All of these sources can be divvied up into three main text families, which correlate broadly with their geography. These are groups of texts which maintain distinctive similarities with each other, suggesting a common source tradition. The three text families are the Alexandrian text, the Western text, and the Byzantine text. Wegner explains the characteristics of these textual traditions:[27]
Taking these characteristics into account is important when seeking to determine the original text, a topic we will address after considering the common types of scribal error.
Types of Scribal Error
In the process of copying, various errors or changes crept into the manuscript traditions. We should not be disturbed by this reality for several reasons: (1) the errors are usually easy to spot, (2) since we have such a wealth of manuscripts, many errors can be ruled out simply by comparison with other manuscripts, (3) the majority of variants make little to no difference in the meaning of the text (e.g., addition/omission of the article “the,” differing word order, or misspellings), (4) in a desire to preserve the text, the tendency of scribes was to include rather than omit readings from the text, and (5) no doctrines of the church rest solely on one variant. There are two basic types of scribal error: unintentional and intentional. Unintentional errors “often resulted from the text being read aloud and the scribes relying on their hearing to record it” or stem “from misunderstanding or forgetfulness.”[28] Intentional changes did not originate from malice but rather were “made in good faith under the impression that a linguistic or theological error had crept into the text.”[29] These might include “changes to correct an apparent error of fact, harmonizations of parallel passages, doctrinal corrections, and improvements in grammar, spelling, and style.”[30] Consider the following summary of scribal errors:[31]
Critical Texts
A critical text is a tool used by text critics and translators which contains a base text and a critical apparatus which lists the variants according to their sources. This can be in the form of a diplomatic text, which uses one manuscript as the primary base text, or an eclectic text, which is a reconstruction of the original text by means of combining the most supported readings for each variant as opposed to relying upon one manuscript. The most popular Hebrew text is Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), which is a diplomatic text based on the Leningrad Codex but does contain the variant readings in the apparatus. The most popular Greek text is the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece. Most modern translations use these as their base text, though sometimes they may make decisions on the text different than the editors of these critical texts in certain passages. These texts are essential to making informed decisions on the text.
Weighing the Evidence
When a text critic encounters a textual variant (a place where there are differences between manuscripts), he is confronted with a decision to make: which reading is most likely to be original to the autograph. To do this he needs to collect all of the evidence and then weigh it according to certain principles. Evidence that needs to be weighed includes both external and internal evidence. “External evidence seeks to determine which reading is supported by the most reliable witnesses.”[32] Black defines three principles for examining the external evidence:
- Prefer the reading attested by the oldest manuscripts.
- Prefer the reading supported in widely separated geographical areas.
- Prefer the reading supported by the greatest number of text types.[33]
Instead of dealing with the number, type, and spread of manuscripts, internal evidence deals with the context within a manuscript—such as the authors’ patterns of grammar, style, and theology. The main principle to consider while weighing internal evidence is, “The reading that best explains the origin of the other readings is probably original.”[34] Once again Black lists five principles in weighing the internal evidence:
- Prefer the shorter reading.
- Prefer the more difficult reading.
- Prefer the reading that accords best with the author’s style and vocabulary.
- Prefer the reading that best fits the context and/or the author’s theology.
- Prefer the less harmonious reading in parallel passages.[35]
Applying these principles involves a balancing game, since in some situations they may wind up conflicting with one another. However, when you consider both the internal and external evidence, it is usually very easy to come to a confident decision regarding the original text. In those cases where it is difficult, one must go with the stronger case. Once the text has been established, it can then be used for translation, which will be discussed next.
[1] Ibid., 24.
[2] David Alan Black, New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994), 12.
[3] Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 2nd ed. (NY: Oxford University Press, 1968), v.
[4] Wegner, Textual Criticism, 97.
[5] Ibid., 159.
[6] Ibid., 152.
[7] “The Dead Sea Scrolls — Introduction,” https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/introduction?locale=en_US.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ellis R. Brotzman and Eric J. Tully, Old Testament Textual Criticism: A Practical Introduction, Second Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016), 67.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid., 74.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid., 76.
[14] Ibid. Emphasis original.
[15] Ibid., 77
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid., 82–83.
[18] Black, New Testament Textual Criticism, 18.
[19] Ibid., 18–21.
[20] As of February 21, 2024, the INTF lists 141 papyri, 329 majuscules, 3035 minuscules, and 2556 lectionaries, totaling 6061 entries. See https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/liste.
[21] Black, New Testament Textual Criticism, 18–19.
[22] Ibid., 22.
[23] Ibid., 22–23.
[24] Ibid., 23.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid., 24. Emphasis added.
[27] Table adapted from Wegner, Textual Criticism, 244
[28] Black, New TestamentTextual Criticism, 16–17.
[29] Ibid., 17.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Table adapted from Wegner, Textual Criticism, 55.
[32] Black, New Testament Textual Criticism, 32.
[33] Ibid., 34–35.
[34] Ibid., 35.
[35] Ibid., 35–36.
A Boy and His Bible 