Program / Course 4: Biblical Studies and Hermeneutics / Lesson 3.4
What you will learn
- Define textual criticism and state its aim.
- Distinguish external evidence from internal evidence.
- State the main rules of thumb and the cautions that go with each.
- Work through a simple variant using a stepwise procedure.
The big idea
Textual criticism is the study of the manuscripts of a text in order to recover, as far as possible, its earliest form. It works by weighing evidence. External evidence concerns the manuscripts: how old, how good and how widespread. Internal evidence concerns the readings: which one explains the others, which fits the author. Common rules, such as preferring the harder or the shorter reading, are guides and not laws. Skilled critics use them together, admit uncertainty and sometimes disagree.
Key terms
- Textual criticism
- The discipline that compares manuscripts in order to find the earliest recoverable wording of a text. Also called lower criticism.
- External evidence
- Evidence from the manuscripts themselves: their age, quality, geographic spread and relationships.
- Internal evidence
- Evidence from within the readings: what the author is likely to have written and what a scribe is likely to have changed.
- Transcriptional probability
- A form of internal evidence that asks which reading a scribe would be more likely to produce from the other.
- Intrinsic probability
- A form of internal evidence that asks which reading best suits the author’s style, vocabulary and thought.
- Lectio difficilior
- Latin for the more difficult reading. The rule that the harder reading is likelier to be original, since scribes tend to smooth difficulty.
- Lectio brevior
- Latin for the shorter reading. The rule that the shorter reading is often original, since scribes tend to add. It has important exceptions.
Background
Every ancient text that has come to us in copies needs textual criticism. The process is the same for the works of Homer, Plato and Virgil as for the New Testament. The critic gathers the witnesses, notes where they differ, and decides which reading best accounts for all the others. The goal is modest and clear: the oldest form of the text that the evidence allows us to reach, called by many scholars the initial text.
Some use the phrase lower criticism for this work, in contrast to higher criticism, which asks about authorship, date and sources. The names are old and can sound as if one is lesser, but the work of textual critics is the foundation for all other study, since one has to know what the text says before asking what it means.
The principles in this lesson come from centuries of practice. Early modern scholars such as Johann Bengel and Johann Griesbach set down rules, and Westcott and Hort in the nineteenth century refined them. Today they are used with more caution and in combination, and with the help of computer methods.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: Weigh the external evidence
Ask four questions of the manuscripts that support a reading. How old are they? Older manuscripts are closer in time to the original, though an old manuscript may copy a poor exemplar. How good are they? A manuscript that is careful in most places is more trustworthy where it is doubtful. How widely spread are they geographically? A reading found in different regions is less likely to be the quirk of one place. And are they related? Many copies descending from one ancestor count as one witness, not many.
This is why the number of manuscripts alone is not decisive. The saying that manuscripts should be weighed and not counted is an old one among critics. At the same time, a reading supported by only one late manuscript against all others rarely wins.
Step 2: Weigh the internal evidence
Now ask which reading the author most likely wrote, and which a scribe would more likely have made from the other. Three rules of thumb are used often. The first is that the reading which best explains the origin of the others is probably original. The second is that the harder reading is probably original, since scribes tended to smooth difficulties. The third is that the shorter reading is probably original, since scribes tended to add. Each rule is a tendency and not a law.
Cautions apply. A reading can be hard because it is a mistake. Studies of early papyri found that scribes sometimes dropped words by accident, so the shorter reading is not as safe as once thought. Critics also ask which reading fits the author’s style, vocabulary and theology elsewhere in the same book, since an author is likelier to use his own habits than a copyist is.
Step 3: Work through a case
Take the ending of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:13. Some manuscripts, including the King James tradition, add the words For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. External evidence: the earliest and best manuscripts, such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, lack it, and so do early versions and the early fathers who comment on the prayer. Internal evidence: the shorter reading is a clear case where a scribe is likely to have added a familiar liturgical close, whereas it is hard to see why a scribe would remove it. The words also fit the style of worship in the church. The shorter text is therefore judged likely to be original, and the ending is probably an early addition.
Note what this does not show. It does not say the ending is false doctrine or unfit for worship. It shows the history of the text. Many Christians continue to use the ending in prayer, and nothing in the argument prohibits it.
Step 4: Handle a hard case with honesty
John 1:18 shows the limits of the rules. Some manuscripts read the only begotten Son and others read the only begotten God. The second reading is found in early and strong manuscripts such as P66, P75 and Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. The first is widespread in later ones. Critics weigh the age of the manuscripts against the possibility that the harder reading is a high statement of Christ’s nature. Most modern editors prefer the second, and the debate continues. A good critic says what weighs on each side and then says where the evidence is not decisive.
The same approach applies in your own study. State the variant, list the witnesses, weigh the evidence in both categories, reach a conclusion and note your level of confidence.
- What are the readings, and which manuscripts support each?
- How old and how reliable are those manuscripts, and how widely spread?
- Which reading best explains how the other arose?
- Is one reading harder, and could it be hard because it is a mistake?
- Does either reading fit the author’s style and thought in the rest of the book?
- How confident am I, and what would change my mind?
Examples
A reading that explains the others
If one manuscript reads A and others read B, and B looks like A smoothed out, then A is probably earlier. Imagine one manuscript reading the Lord’s brother and others reading the brother. A scribe might add the Lord to clarify, but would be unlikely to remove it. The reading that explains the origin of the others is the one to prefer.
Count or weigh
Ten late copies made from one older copy that has been lost are one witness, not ten. If a single early papyrus reads differently, the question is whether it is independent and good. This simple example shows why critics weigh witnesses and not just count them.
The more difficult reading
In Mark 1:41 the reading that Jesus was angry is harder than compassion. A critic reasons that a scribe would soften anger more readily than he would introduce it. But the critic also checks that the harder reading is not simply a scribal slip. The two steps together are the discipline.
Different perspectives
Reasoned eclecticism
Many scholars follow this approach. They weigh external and internal evidence together at each point, without a fixed priority for any manuscript family. They accept that the result is a text that may not match any single manuscript.
Documentary approach
Some scholars, following Westcott and Hort, give priority to the best manuscripts and rely on internal evidence only when the manuscripts divide. They worry that internal rules can be applied too subjectively.
Byzantine priority
Advocates of the Byzantine text apply the same principles differently, giving great weight to the number of manuscripts and the continuity of the church’s use. They say that the majority reading is likely original unless there is good reason otherwise.
Church traditions
Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant scholars all take part in the standard critical editions. The churches differ in how they relate the original text to the Latin or Greek forms used in worship, but none of them regards textual criticism as an enemy of faith.
Why it matters
A student who understands the principles can follow the notes in a critical edition, evaluate claims made in books and on the internet, and distinguish a real problem from a manufactured one. The skill also helps in any reading of old documents. It teaches humility, since it asks you to hold conclusions with the level of confidence the evidence supports.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: The reading with the most manuscripts must be right.
Correction: Critics weigh the age, quality, spread and independence of the witnesses. Many copies of one ancestor count as one witness.
Misunderstanding: The shorter reading is always original.
Correction: It is a tendency, not a law. Scribes also dropped words by accident, so the rule has exceptions.
Misunderstanding: Textual criticism undermines faith in Scripture.
Correction: Most Christian scholars regard it as a service. It aims to recover the wording that the church received, and for the great majority of the text the result is secure.
Misunderstanding: Critics choose readings to fit their theology.
Correction: Some bias is possible, which is why the rules, the published evidence and the debate among scholars of different views matter. Critics from different traditions often reach the same conclusion.
Knowledge check
What is the difference between external and internal evidence?
External evidence concerns the manuscripts, such as their age, quality, geographic spread and relationships. Internal evidence concerns the readings themselves, such as which reading the author would more likely have written and which a scribe would more likely have created from the other.
State two rules of thumb and one caution about each.
The harder reading is probably original because scribes smooth difficulties, but a reading may be hard because it is an error. The shorter reading is probably original because scribes add, but scribes also drop words accidentally, so it is not safe by itself.
Why are manuscripts weighed and not just counted?
Many copies may descend from one ancestor and so count as one witness. A smaller number of old, good and independent manuscripts may be a better guide than a large number of late and related copies.
Using the Lord’s Prayer ending, explain how the principles apply.
The best early manuscripts lack the ending, which is external evidence for the shorter text. A scribe is likelier to add a familiar liturgical close than to remove it, which is internal evidence. So the shorter text is probably original, though the ending remains in worship.
Think it through
- Why is it important to state your level of confidence as well as your conclusion?
- How could a critic guard against his own bias when applying the rules?
- What does it say about a discipline that it welcomes disagreement among its practitioners?
- Is there a difference between asking what the original text said and asking what text the church has used? Why might both questions matter?
Independent assignment
A stepwise variant study
Choose a variant noted in a study Bible, such as John 1:18, Luke 22:43-44 or Mark 1:41. In your notebook, write the readings, the manuscripts named in your note, and your weighing of external and internal evidence. Reach a tentative conclusion and state your level of confidence. Write 350 to 500 words. Do not look up the scholarly decision until you have written your own. Keep your work in your notebook.
Further study
- Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration Read the chapter on the principles and practice of textual criticism and work the examples.
- F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Compare its confidence with that of Metzger.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fallacies Useful for thinking about weighing evidence and common errors in reasoning.
- Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth Read the section on choosing a translation.
- John 1:18 Only begotten Son or only begotten God.
- Luke 22:43 A passage absent from some early manuscripts.
- Matthew 6:13 The ending of the Lord’s Prayer.