Textual Criticism
BIBLIOGRAPHY Basic Works
Aland, Kurt and Barbara. The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. 2d ed., rev. and enlarged. Trans. by E. F. Rhodes. Rapids:
1989.
Fee, Gordon D. "The Textual Criticism of the New
In The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 1. Ed. by F. E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: 1979, 419-33. Finegan, Jack. Encountering New Testament Manuscripts: A Work-
ing Introduction to Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids: Eerd- 1974.
M. The Text of the New Testament: Transmis- sion, Corruption, and Restoration. 2d ed. New
Oxford University Press, 1968; 3d ed. forthcoming.
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament. 3d ed. London/New York: United Bible Socie-
ties, 1971; rev. ed. 1975.
For Further Reading
Aland, Kurt. Studien zur des Neuen Testaments und seines Textes. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1967.
J. Neville. "The New Testament Text." In The Cam- bridge History of the Bible. Vol. 1: From the Beginnings to Jerome. Ed. by P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans. Cambridge: University Press, 1979, 308-77.
Colwell, Ernest C. Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1969.
Epp, J. "Textual Criticism." In The New Testament and Its Modern Interpreters. Ed. by E. J. Epp and George W. MacRae. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989, 75-126.
Fee, Gordon D. and The Myth of Early
Textual Recension in Alexandria." In New Dimensions in New Testament Study. Ed. by R. N. Longenecker and M. C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974, 19-45.
"Rigorous or Reasoned In
Studies in New Testament Language and Text: Essays in Honour of George D. Kilpatrick on the Occasion of His Sixty-fifth Birthday. Ed. by J. K. Elliott. Leiden: Brill, 1976, 174-97. F. G. The Text of the Greek Bible. 3d ed. revised and augmented by A. W. Adams. London: Duckworth, 1975. Lagrange, Critique textuelle. II. La Critique rationnelle. 2d ed.
Paris: Gabalda, 1935.
Metzger, Bruce M. The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations. Oxford: Clarendon, 1977.
Reynolds, L. and Wilson, N. G. Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature. 2d ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1974.
Westcott, B. and Hort, F. J. A. The New Testament in the Original Greek, [ii] Introduction [and] Appendix. Cambridge: Macmillan, 1881; 2d ed. 1896.
Zuntz, G. The Text of the Epistles: A Upon the Corpus
126 I Michael W. Holmes
NOTES
for a parchment manuscript that originally contained the entire Greek Bible, is estimated to have required the hides of approximately 360 sheep and goats.
professional scriptorium, or copy center, employed people to correct the work of the scribes, and was capable of turning out high quality work. But with regard to New Testament manuscripts, production under such careful control appears to have been the exception rather than the rule.
the second century Christians seem to have been among the first to abandon the scroll for the less expensive and more convenient codex or book format. Out of a group of 476 non-Christian second- century papyri from Egypt, over ninety-seven percent are scrolls, while all the Christian papyri from the same period and area are in codex form Finegan, Encountering New Testament Manuscripts [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974], 29). See the fundamental study by C.
H. Roberts, Manuscript, Society, and Belief in Early Christian Egypt
(London: Oxford University Press for The British Academy, 1979).
phenomenon is termed or
teleuton, depending on whether the beginning, middle, or end of a
word is involved.
Matthew 5:19-20, e.g., the phrase "the kingdom of heaven" occurs at the end of verses 19a, and 20. A few scribes have skipped from the first occurrence to the second, thus eliminating 19b; one has skipped from the first to the third, thereby eliminating all of
19b and 20.
The use of dictation, common in scriptoria, added another step and opportunity for error, particularly in the case of homonyms. The well-known variation in Romans 5:1 between "let us have peace"
(echomen) and "we have peace" both words were pronounced alike) exemplifies this problem.
substitution of the frequently repeated Matthean form of the Lord's prayer for the less-familiar Lucan form in Luke 11 (see the first example below) is a good example of the latter phenomenon.
scribe's note in an Armenian MS (cited by B. M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 2d ed. [New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968], 18) mentions that it is snowing heavily outside, the ink is frozen, and his hand is numb. Others complain of the physical discomfort involved in copying for six or more hours a day. Little wonder that copies were less than perfect!
ancient historian records an incident around 350 in which a man was publicly rebuked for substituting the Attic word
for the colloquial Koine krabbatos ("pallet") in John 5:8 (cited by Metzger, Text, 196).
Textual Criticism I 127
in Luke 3:22, where "You are my son; today I have begotten (as and 2:7) has been replaced by
less problematic "You are my beloved son; with you I am well pleased" (as in NRSV, NASB, REB; cf. Mk 1:11).
125, containing Jn 37-38) is the earliest known of any part of the New Testament thus far identified. Claims that portions of Mark have been identified among the manuscript frag- of the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran are unconvincing (for bibliographic details of the discussion see B. M. Metzger, Manuscripts of
the Greek Bible [New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981],
24 n41, 62 The recent proposal by Y. K. Kirn
Dating of p46 to the Later First Century," 69 248-57) that
(widely dated to ca. 200) should be dated prior to the end of the first century has yet to be assessed.
a descriptive list of the papyri see K. and B. Aland, The Text of the New Testament. An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, 2d ed. rev. and enlarged (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 96-102 [through
the uncial numbers now run up to 0301, for a number of reasons only 263 different MSS are recognized; see Aland, Text, 106. For a descriptive list see Aland, Text, 107-28, and for greater detail on selected uncials see Metzger, Text, 42-61.
a descriptive list of selected minuscules see Aland, Text, 129-40, and Metzger, Text, 61-66.
to Aland, Text, 78. Strictly speaking, A and C are now incomplete, although they do contain at least part of every New Testament book.
these and other statistics see Aland, Text, 78-83.
B. M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their
Origin, Transmission, and Limitations (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977); for
briefer treatments see Metzger, Text, 67-86, and Aland, Text, 185-214. especially the sections on limitations in Metzger, Early Versions.
Text, 86.
Metzger, Text, 86-88. For a useful annotated list of early Church Fathers, see Aland, Text, 215-21.
in view of the attention that is rightly focused on the places where the evidence differs, it is worth noting just how much of the New Testament is well established. A survey by the Alands reveals that of the 7,947 verses in the Greek New Testament, seven editions are in complete agreement regarding 4,999, or 62.9% (Aland,
Text, 28-29). If one were to leave aside certain idiosyncracies and
minor differences between these editions, it may be estimated that the number of verses about which there is substantial agreement ap- proaches 90% of the total. To be sure, the remaining differences can be substantial and important, and fully merit the attention given to them
128 I Michael W. Holmes Textual Criticism I 129
over the centuries by textual critics. One should not neglect, however, to keep them in perspective, especially as people unacquainted with textual matters are sometimes shocked to encounter statements to the effect that "there are over 30,000 errors in the New Testament." The intended implication is that the New Testament is unreliable. Such statements are uninformed and inaccurate. If one defines "error" broadly enough, to e.g., spelling mistakes or differences, then it is true that there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of "errors" among the 5000 + manuscripts of the New Testament. But this hardly affects the reliability of the New Testament since wherever some MSS are in error, others have accurately preserved the original text. so-called Caesarean text was for several decades thought to comprise a fourth text-type of the Gospels (the classic expression of this view is by B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels. A in Origins. 5th
impression [London: This has recently been shown not to be the case. See B. M. Metzger, "The Caesarean Text of the
Gospels," Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism
Rapids: 1963), and L. W.
Hurtado, Text-Critical Methodology and the Pre-Caesarean Text: Codex W in
the Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981).
used by other writers for the two subdivisions of this text- type ("primary" and "secondary") include "neutral" and "Alexan- drian" and Hort); and "Later Alexan- drian" (B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New
Testament [London and New York: United Bible Societies, 1971;
ed. and "Alexandrian" and "Egyptian" (Aland, Text). a more detailed listing of witnesses in all three text-types, as well as other important witnesses, categorized according to Gospels, Acts, Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and Revelation, see Tables 1-5 in M. W. Holmes, "New Testament Textual Criticism," in
Introducing New Testament Interpretation, ed. by Scot (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 53-74, or Metzger, Textual Commentary, xxviii- xxxi.
term "Western" is somewhat misleading. It was first applied to this particular textual tradition at a time when the only witnesses to it did have ties to the West, Rome, North Africa, and Gaul. Discoveries since then, however, have made it clear that this early textual tradition was widely disseminated throughout the Roman Empire and may have originated in the East, perhaps in Egypt. The continued use of the term today is largely a matter of custom and convenience.
Western text of Acts, for example, is over eight percent longer than the Alexandrian text of the same book.
betray decided tendencies toward smoothing out gram- mar, supplying assumed words or pronouns, harmonization, removal
of ambiguity, and conflation (combination) of readings found in the Alexandrian and Western
selected examples see G. D. Fee, "Modern Textual Criticism and the Revival of the Textus 21 (1978): 31-33.
Irenaeus (ca. 175), for example, reports that while some copies read "616" at Revelation 13:18, "all good and ancient copies" read "666" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.30.1). Scholars such as (ca. 185-253) and Jerome (ca. 342-420) noted and discussed variances among MSS (see M. Metzger, "Explicit References in the Works of Origen to Variant Readings in New Testament Manuscripts," in Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce ed. by J. N.
Birdsall and R. W. Thomson [Freiburg: Herder, 1963], 78-95, repr. in Metzger, Historical and Literary Studies Rapids: 1968], 88-103; and "St. Jerome's Explicit References to Variant Readings in Manuscripts of the New Testament," in Text and Interpretation. Studies in the New Testament presented to Matthew Black, ed. by E. Best and R. McL. Wilson [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979], 179-90), and marginal and/or interlinear notes and comments remain as testimony to the occasional concern of now- anonymous editors to recover a "good and ancient" form of the text. Overall, however, there is little evidence of any sustained effort to choose between variant readings.
first printed edition of the Greek New Testament (part of a multilingual edition of the entire Bible known as the
Polyglot) was the product of a group of Spanish scholars at the University of Alcala Complutum in Latin), who finished their work in 1514. But it was not until 1520 that they were able to obtain permission to release it.
Jerry H. Bentley, Humanists and Holy Writ: New Testament
Scholarship in the Renaissance University Press, 112-61.
the first edition he relied primarily upon MS 2 of the Gospels and MS 2 of the Acts and Catholic Epistles; his sources of corrections were MS 817 (Gospels) and MS 4 (Acts and Catholic Epistles). His main source for the Pauline Epistles was MS 7 (Bentley, Humanists, 127-29). His only source for Revelation, MS 1, was missing the last six verses. Erasmus filled in the gap by translating from the Vulgate back into Greek; his self-made text includes readings not found in any known Greek MS. He did make numerous corrections in later editions (including the definitive fourth) on the basis of later collations of a substantial number of MSS, but these were not enough to affect the basic character of his original edition.
Text, 106.
principle recognizes that a scribe is far more likely to make a difficult reading easier than he is to create a difficult or awkward reading out of one that presents no difficulty. Thus, e.g., in Mark 1:2
130 I Michael W. Holmes
(which cites first Malachi 3:1 and then Isaiah 40:3) the original reading is certainly "in Isaiah the prophet" and not "in the prophets." The former is the "harder reading," in that it raises a question or difficulty for the reader while the latter does not.
Bentley, and Wettstein, see Text, and for the often-neglected L. D. Reynolds and N. G. Wilson,
Scribes and Scholars. A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature, 2d ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1974), 169-70, 244.
Text,
details of this fascinating story see Metzger, Text, 42-45, and for more recent developments J. H. Charlesworth, The New Discoveries in St. Catherine's Monastery: A Preliminary Report on the Manuscripts (American Schools of Oriental Research, 1981).
overshadowed by fame is the work of his English colleague, S. P. Tregelles (1813-1875). A careful and systematic worker, his examination of nearly all the then-known uncials and most of the leading minuscules contributed greatly to an accurate knowledge of the evidence. Unlike who rushed out a new edition almost every time he discovered a new manuscript, Tregelles focused his effort upon a single definitive edition, which, preceded by a statement of his own critical principles (An Account of the
Printed Text of the Greek New Testament. . appeared between 1857 and 1872. Cf. Metzger, Text, 127-28.
Tischendorf, Novum Graece. . .Editio
octava critica 2 1869-1872). A third volume of
Prolegomena was edited by the American scholar C. R. Gregory
(Leipzig, 1884, 1890, 1894); it later appeared in a German translation, with additions and corrections, under the title Textkritik Neuen
(Leipzig, 1900-1909).
F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original
Greek, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1881-1882). Volume 1 contains the Greek
text, while volume 2 contains an Introduction setting out their method and principles and an Appendix of notes on select readings.
a brief survey and assessment see Metzger, Text, 129-35. the text of the two most recent and widely-used editions, and stands closer to the text of Westcott and Hort than it does to any other text published since Tischendorf.
notable exception is the industrious, idiosyncratic, and ultimately misdirected efforts of H. F. von Soden (Die des
Neuen Testaments in ihrer Textgestalt auf
Grund ihrer Textgeschichte), which appeared in three large parts between
1902 and 1913. Cf. Metzger, Text, 139-43.
on this point the important article by E. J. Epp, "Textual
Criticism," in The New Testament and Its Modern Interpreters, ed. by E. J.
and G. W. MacRae (Atlanta: Scholars, 1989, 75-126), and his earlier articles to which he there refers. A different view is offered by
Textual Criticism I 131
Aland, "The Twentieth-Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism," in Best and Wilson, Text and Interpretation, 1-14.
Aland, Text, 19-22, or Metzger, Text, 144.
Novum Testamentum Graece, 26th ed. (Stuttgart:
Deutsche 1979).
edition, 1966; 3d edition (corrected), 1983.
a discussion of their distinctive features and aims, and an introduction to their use and textual symbols, see Aland, Text, 30-36,
222-67.
it may be added, the essential basis of nearly every recent major translation, including the NASB, TEV, NAB, and New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). In fact, the Westcott and
textual tradition underlies virtually all European and American Protestant translations of the last century, beginning with the Revised Version of 1881 (which utilized materials supplied by Westcott and Hort during the translation process). The sole significant exception among English translations is the NKJV, which continues to be based upon the Textus which was essentially the textual basis of the KJV. But whereas in their day the translators utilized the available to them, the NKJV follows what is now the worst text available. Even proponents of the Majority text recognize that the TR is a corrupt representative of the Majority text-type, differing from it in over 1800 instances. As a consequence of following the TR, the NKJV both includes words, phrases, and even sentences (cf. Acts 8:37) that never were part of the original text of Scripture and also omits parts that are original (cf. 3:1).
A related factor is the circumstance that almost all of the extant MSS are "orphans," without a parent, offspring, or siblings. Thus many of the genealogical links helpful in constructing a stemma are missing. As Metzger observes, "Instances of a known copy of another manuscript are exceedingly rare, which suggests that only a very small percentage of manuscripts have survived" (Metzger, Manuscripts, 54). referred to as "rational criticism" (M.-J. or the "local-genealogical" method (Aland, Text, 34, 291).
give just two illustrations: the editors of the United Bible Societies' The Greek New Testament tend to follow, when all other criteria are equal, the reading of the Alexandrian witnesses; the editors of the NIV appear to have a tendency to prefer the reading that best harmonizes with other passages.
most notably by G. D. and J. K. Elliott; see J. K. Elliott, "Keeping up with Recent Studies XV. New Testament Textual Criticism," Expository Times 99 (1987): 40-45, esp. 43-44.
Elliott ("Keeping 43): "I think it is perfectly feasible to try to reconstruct the original text by applying only internal crite- ria. . . . According to this method . . . the manuscripts are of
132 I Michael W. Holmes
importance primarily as bearers of readings. . . . (The number or age of the manuscripts supporting the readings are of little
For a detailed critique see G. D. "Rigorous or Reasoned Studies in New Testament Language and Text, ed. by J. K. Elliott (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 174-97.
C. Hodges and A. L. Farstad, eds., The Greek New Testament
According to the Majority Text (Nashville, Camden, and New
Nelson, 1982).
Hodges puts it,
Under normal circumstances the older a text is than its rivals, the greater are its chances to survive in a plurality or a majority of the texts extant at any subsequent period. But the
oldest text of all is the autograph. Thus it ought to be taken
for granted that, barring some radical dislocation in the history of transmission, a majority of texts will be far more likely to represent correctly the character of the original than a small minority of texts. This is especially true when the ratio is an overwhelming 8:2. Under any reasonably normal conditions, it would be for all practical purposes quite impossible for a later text-form to secure so one-sided a preponderance of extant witnesses. (Zane C. Hodges, "A Defense of the Majority Text," [printed syllabus notes, Dallas Theological Seminary, n.d.], 4).
In short, acceptance of modern critical texts "constitutes nothing less than a wholesale rejection of probabilities on a sweeping scale!" (Hodges, "Defense," 9). His entire case, however, rests upon a single the transmission of the New Testament has oc- curred under "reasonably normal" that there has been no "radical dislocation in the history of that assump- tion is false. The history of transmission has been radically dislocated; examples include the destruction of MSS and entire libraries during times of persecution and the Muslim conquests. Thus readings once known to be in the minority are today dominant, and vice-versa; this fact alone rules out any attempt to do textual criticism by counting or statistical means. See further the critique and bibliography in M. W. Holmes, "The text new form of an old issue,"
8 (1983): 13-19.
in practice this "method" suffers from an internal contradiction. Hodges and Farstad place a great deal of importance upon the construction of a genealogical stemma of MSS, one result being a text that in numerous places is supported by only a minority of MSS. Cf. Daniel B. Wallace, "Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text," Sacra 146 (1989): 270-90, especially 279-85; and
Holmes, "The text 18.
Textual Criticism I 133
best introductory (and now classic) treatment of this is still that of Metzger, Text, 207-46.
must be remembered, of course, that a late MS or witness may preserve a very early form of the text; e.g., MS 1739 (tenth century) preserves a text closely related to p46 (ca. 200).
is also true, however, as in linguistics, that change often affects remote areas last, if at all; hence a true reading may be