Textual Criticism
THE METHOD IN PRACTICE
A reasoned eclecticism seeks to follow one fundamental guideline that governs all other considerations: the variant most likely to be original is the one that best accounts for the existence of the others. That is, when confronted with two or more variant readings at some point in the text, it asks, "Which one best explains, in terms of both external and internal evidence, the
114 I Michael Holmes
origins of the others?" It is important to emphasize that "best accounts for" is here defined in terms of both external and
internal because to reaching a
ment about a variant is the reconstruction of its history. This is where both the Majority text and rigorous eclectic approaches fall in that they repeatedly contend for the originality of readings that cannot account for the historical (i.e., manuscript) evidence. Only the variant that can best account for all the evidence can seriously be considered as original.
Within the framework established by this fundamental guideline, several factors must be taken into consideration. Exactly which ones ought to be considered and how much weight is to be given to each depends upon the particular facts and circumstances in any given case. It may be helpful, therefore, to list the basic criteria for evaluating variant readings along with the various considerations that must be taken into account. We will then illustrate their application and use by means of some examples.
External Evidence
Four basic factors to consider when evaluating external evidence (i.e., the evidence provided by the MSS and other witnesses themselves) are: (1) the relative date of the witnesses (does the evidence support one variant more than the
others? Are some variants without any early support? Or do all
the readings have early (2) the geographic distribu- tion of the witnesses (generally, the broader the geographic distribution of the supporting witnesses the higher the proba- bility that the variant may be original, assuming that remote witnesses are not otherwise (3) the genealogical relationships among the MSS (one must determine whether the MSS supporting a variant represent a variety of text-types or are all from a single one, in which case it may be that a variant represents only a peculiarity of that text-type; also, once the reading of the text-type has been established, the addition of large numbers of additional witnesses of the same text-type does not appreciably affect matters); and (4) the relative quality of the
Textual Criticism I 115
Internal Evidence
Internal evidence is of two kinds, transcriptional (having to do with the habits and practices of scribes) and intrinsic (having to do with the author's style and vocabulary). Each must be considered separately.
In evaluating transcriptional factors, it is a matter of asking whether any of the readings may be the result of slips, errors, or alterations in the copying process. In addition to the causes of error discussed above, one must take into account scribal tendencies to smooth over or resolve difficulties rather than create them, to harmonize passages, and to add rather than
omit material.
As for intrinsic factors, the aim is to evaluate readings in light of what an author is most likely to have written. Factors to consider include the author's vocabulary and style, the flow of thought and logic of the immediate context (here exegesis may be decisive for the textual decision), congruence with the author's ideas or teachings, whether traditional material is being utilized, and, in the Gospels, the Aramaic background of Jesus'
Not all these factors will apply in every case, of course, and it is not uncommon for two or more of them to conflict. This is why none of them can be applied or followed in a mechanical or thoughtless fashion and why the fundamental guideline must always be kept in mind: The variant most likely to be original is the one that best accounts for, in terms of both external and internal considerations, the origins of the others.
Summary
By now it should be clear that textual criticism is an art as well as a science. Like other historical disciplines it resists being reduced to a mechanical application of any one rule or set of rules. Each new variant confronts the critic with a potentially unique set of circumstances and data, and must be approached on that basis. Thus it is no surprise that two instances of variation may offer variants having identical external attestation and yet be evaluated quite differently on the basis of other considerations. As A. E. Housman so aptly and colorfully expressed it, textual criticism
116 I Michael W. Holmes
is not a branch of nor indeed an exact science at all. It deals with . . . the frailties and aberrations of the human and of its insubordinate the human fingers. It therefore is not susceptible of hard-and-fast rules. It would be much easier if it were; and that is why people try to pretend that it is . . . Of course you can have hard-and- fast rules if you like, but then you have false rules, and they will lead you wrong; because their simplicity will render them inapplicable to problems which are not simple, but complicated by the play of personality. A textual critic engaged upon his business is not at all like Newton investigating the motions of the planets: he is much more like a dog hunting for fleas. If a dog hunted for fleas on mathematical principles, basing his researches on statistics of area and population, he would never catch a flea except by accident. They require to be treated as individuals; and every problem which presents itself to the textual critic must be regarded as possibly
Selected Examples
The following section attempts to illustrate by means of a discussion of selected variant readings some of the principles outlined above. Not every point touched on earlier can be mentioned of but the range and variety of the chosen examples should serve to give one a feel for how textual critics go about the business of applying these general consider- ations to specific problems.
It is customary to present the data of the Greek MSS, early and early church fathers in the format of a critical apparatus (in Latin, apparatus criticus) to the passage under discussion. This offers a concise and precise way to present the mass of data available for most passages. Further to save space numerous abbreviations are used. To the uninitiated, a critical
apparatus can appear intimidating. But with a little practice and
some knowledge of the abbreviations used, it is possible to unpack the information presented in a critical apparatus without too much difficulty. Some common abbreviations and symbols used below include the following:
Byz = the reading of the majority of the Byzantine
MSS
= the "Family 1" or "Family 13" group of MSS
Textual Criticism I 117
it = the or Old Latin version (superscript letters indicate individual MSS)
vg = the Vulgate
= version
= Curetonian Syriac version syp = Syriac version
= Harclean Syriac version Palestinian Syriac version
Coptic version (the united witness of the dialects)
Coptic version, Sahidic dialect Coptic version, Bohairic dialect Coptic version, dialect Coptic version, dialect pc = a few
= in part
= an alternate reading in the margin of a MS * = reading of the original scribe of a MS
= reading of the corrector of a MS (e.g., = readings of successive correctors of a MS The first example will provide both a critical apparatus and a narrative listing of the evidence; successive examples will provide only a critical apparatus.
cop
Luke 11:2, 4
What are the opening and closing words of the Lord's Prayer in the Gospel according to The MSS offer the
following possibilities:
11:2 Father X B 700 pc vg Marcion
Our Father pc
Our Father in heaven
28 565 892 1010 1071 1241 Byz it cop
11:4 temptation B L 700 pc vg Marcion Tertullian Origen
temptation but deliver us from the evil one A C D K
W X A 0 3 28 33 565 892 1010 1071 1241 Byz it
When we unpack this apparatus, we find out the following information: In Luke 11:2, the prayer opens with the single
118 I Michael W. Holmes
700, and a few others, in the Latin Vulgate and Syriac
among the versions, and and Origen among the early church fathers. It opens with "Our Father" in Greek manu- script L and a few others, while the opening line is "Our Father in heaven" in manuscripts A, C, D, K, P, W, X, Delta (A), Theta (0), Pi (II), Upsilon Family 13 28, 565, 892, 1010, 1071, 1241, and the rest of the Byzantine text-type, and in the old Latin, the Curetonian, Peshitta, and Harclean Syriac, and the Coptic versions.
In 11:4, the prayer ends with "lead us not into temptation" in both the original reading and the second corrector of codex B, L, Family 1, 700, and a few other Greek MSS, in the Vulgate, the Sinaitic Syriac, the Sahidic Coptic and part of the Coptic among the versions, and Marcion, Tertullian, and Origen among the early fathers. It ends with "lead us not into temptation but deliver us from the evil one" according to the first corrector of Sinaiticus A, C, D, K, W, X, A, ©, n, Family 13, 28, 33, 565, 892, 1010, 1071, 1241, and the rest of the Byzantine text-type, and in the Old Latin, the Curetonian, Peshitta, and Harclean Syriac, and part of the Bohairic Coptic versions.
Now that we have unpacked the apparatus and found out what the external evidence (i.e., the actual readings of the Greek manuscripts, the versions, and the church fathers) is, we are now in a position to evaluate it. In this instance, the support for the two of variants is so similar that they may be evaluated together.
The first thing to evaluate is external evidence: date, geographical distribution, genealogical relationships, and rela- tive quality. In purely numerical terms the support for the longer reading is overwhelming. When the evidence is weighed, however, rather than counted, the situation is rather different. In view of the conjunction of Western (e.g., D it and Byzantine support (A, most uncial and almost all minus- cule MSS) the longer reading clearly is an early but (early third century) and the patristic citations, especially Marcion 140), show that the shorter reading is even earlier. The longer reading is broadly supported by representatives of the secondary Alexandrian (e.g., C 33 892 Western (D it and Byzantine (A K W A most uncials and minuscules) textual traditions, the shorter largely by primary Alexandrian witnesses Origen) and, significantly, the Vulgate and
Textual Criticism I 119
Sinaitic Syriac. The geographic distribution of the witnesses for each is roughly similar; the shorter reading, however, has the in terms of relative Overall, then, the external
evidence favors the shorter reading.
Internal evidence, it will be recalled, is of two kinds,
(having to do with the habits and practices of
scribes) and intrinsic (having to do with the author's style and vocabulary). Since both the longer and shorter forms of the
prayer are consistent with the style and teaching of Jesus, the key considerations in this instance are transcriptional in nature. As is the case today, in the ancient church the Matthean version of the Lord's prayer (6:9-13) was best known, memorized, and used in worship. In light of this fact, the fundamental guideline given above (the variant most likely to be original is the one that bests accounts for the existence of the others) may be applied by asking this question: which of the readings best explains the rise of the others? Specifically, in this instance is a scribe more likely to have shortened the longer Lukan reading (thereby creating a discrepancy between Matthew and Luke) or added to the shorter Lukan form in order to harmonize it to the much more familiar Matthean version? The answer is clear: if the longer reading were original, it is virtually inconceivable that a scribe would cut out such well-known phrases, whereas if the shorter reading is original, it is easy to account for the rise of the longer reading as the result of inadvertent or deliberate assimilation to the better known Matthean form of the prayer. In short, the shorter reading can account for the rise of the longer, but not
Note how in this case both external and internal consider- ations favor the shorter reading. This convergence of evidence demonstrates conclusively that it represents the original text of the Lucan form of the Lord's Prayer.
John 6:69
The difference between the New King James and the New International versions of John are the Christ, the Son of the living God" versus "You are the Holy One of hints at the extent of variation in this text. The textual evidence reads as follows:
120 I Michael W. Holmes
(1) the Christ the Son of the living God K (A) II 28 700 892 1071 1241 Byz itP<
0250 (2) the Christ the Son of God
(3) the Son of God (4) the Christ Tertullian
(5) the Christ the Holy One of God
(-) 33 565 pc
cop
(6) the Holy One of God B C D L W
An initial assessment suggests (barring some consideration to
the contrary) that readings (3), (4), and (5) should probably
be set aside on the basis of their slim external support. With regard to internal considerations, these readings appear upon further investigation to be the result of harmonization to or conflation with parallel passages (John 11:27; 1:49; and Mark 8:29 respectively), an observation that clinches the case against them. Readings (1), which has good Byzantine (K A 700 Byz) and some versional and secondary Alexandrian (892 support, and (6), which has support from Alexandrian B C L W) and Western (X [in John 1:1-8:38] D) witnesses, require further attention.
Both readings have parallels elsewhere in the Gospel accounts: (1) parallels Matthew 16:16, the disciples' confession at Caesarea (the Synoptic episode parallel to John 6:60- 71), while (6) parallels Mark 4:34, where an unclean spirit about to be cast out acknowledges that Jesus is "the Holy One of God." Conceivably either reading could be explained as the result of assimilation to the parallel passage. It seems far more likely, however, that scribes would harmonize (6) to Matthew 16:16, and thereby remove a discrepancy between the two parallel episodes, than that they would create a discrep- ancy by replacing (1) with words spoken elsewhere only by an unclean spirit. Thus one may conclude that
considerations clearly favor (6).
The same may be said for intrinsic In v. 69 Peter says "we have come to know," or "we have recognized the truth" implying a new depth of insight on the part of the disciples. Yet the essence of the other variants Jesus is Messiah and Son of already confessed as early as 1:41 and 1:49. Variant (6),
Holy One of appropriate as the disciples' response to the events recorded in John 6. Furthermore, it also
sets up, in a typically Johannine way, 10:36 (the Father
Textual Criticism I 121
sanctified and sent Jesus into the world) and 17:19 (Jesus sanctifies himself for the disciples' sake). Of all the variants it best fits both the immediate context and the structural development of the book as a whole.
Thus all three lines of transcriptional, and together in support of variant (6) as the reading that best meets our basic guideline. We may in this case be virtually certain that "the Holy One of God" represents the original text of John 6:69.
John 5:44
Though much less complex than the last example, this variant is of interest because of the similar alignment of the MSS evidence. Consideration of other factors, however, leads to a different conclusion. In the phrase "yet you do not seek the praise that comes from the only God" one finds these variants:
the only One B W
the only God [tou monou theou]
0210 28 33 565 700 892 1071 1241 Byz it
While the Alexandrian support B W for the shorter reading is early and very impressive, internal consider- ations suggest that in this instance it is also wrong. First, God (theou) appears to be required by the context, a point confirmed by the observation that John nowhere God "the only One." Second, the accidental omission of ©Y (theta upsilon, the customary Greek contraction of theou from the sequence remembering that the earliest manuscripts were written in continuous capitals) seems more likely than its insertion. Thus both intrinsic and transcriptional considerations favor the inclusion of theou, which in addition has substantial external support (secondary
Alexandrian [L 33 892 Western [X D it and
Byzantine [A K A It seems relatively certain, therefore, that here the longer reading is original, rather than the shorter.
122 I Michael W. Holmes Textual Criticism I 123 Matthew 22:13
Three forms of the king's instructions to his servants are found in the MSS at this point:
(1) binding [deo] him hand and foot, toss [ekballo] him. . . X B L 0 085 700 892 pc (syp) cop
(2) seize 1 him hand and foot and throw .
it Irenaeus Lucifer of
(3) binding [deo] him hand and foot, seize [airo] him and toss
[ekballo] him. . . C (M) W 0138 (565 1241 1424)
Variant the Byzantine reading, is easily accounted for as a combination of (1) and (2), whereas it is not possible to derive
both (1) and (2) from (3), as a little experimentation will
demonstrate. Hence it may be set aside as a clever (but obviously secondary) conflation of the other two variants.
The differences between (1) and (2) are (a) deo ("bind") versus airo (b) ekballo ("toss") versus ballo
and (c) subordination (participle + verb) versus parataxis (two verbs joined by "and"). In this instance consid-
erations are of little help in choosing between the two variants since the differences are obviously not accidental. It is just possible that airo has been deliberately substituted for deo because it was thought to be more suited to the setting (why bind someone just to toss him out of the banquet but this is too slim a point to carry much weight. Intrinsic factors are also indecisive. On the basis of usage all four verbs under evaluation may be said to be equally (deo occurs ten airo nineteen, ballo thirty-four, and ekballo twenty-eight times in and while Matthew generally prefers
subordination to parataxis (a point in favor of the first reading),
this can be turned to favor (2) as the more unusual
construction (and thus more likely to be altered). In short, in
this instance internal considerations either cancel each other out
or are indecisive.
Hence it is necessary to make the decision solely on external grounds. Here Westcott and Hort's
edge of documents should precede judgment upon read-
into play. For the Western textual tradition, and particularly D, its leading witness, exhibits a decided tendency
toward substitutions and revisions (of which the above variant
is typical), which almost always prove to be secondary rather than original. The Alexandrian text-type, on the other hand, manifests a consistent freedom from these types of secondary alterations. In instances like this, therefore, when a decision must be made on purely external grounds, one is justified in preferring the Alexandrian reading and adopting (1) as the text of 22:13.
Summary
The preceding examples should serve to (1) illustrate the application of the primary guideline given above, (2) demonstrate that no one manuscript or textual tradition is always and (3) make clear that no one rule, consider- ation, group of MSS, can be followed or applied to textual problems in a mechanical or thoughtless fashion. Every textual problem must be approached on its own terms; all the critic can learn about MSS, about scribes, about the author, must be brought to bear on it. Above all, the fundamental guideline must be kept in mind: Which variant best accounts for the origin of the others? The variant that, after thoughtful consider- ation of all the best satisfies this question will almost invariably best represent the original text.