5. Text Criticism of the Bible

1
5. Text Criticism of the Bible

• BIB586 Biblical Introduction

2
4.1 Text Criticism of the OT

• "Until recently, OT textual criticism has paid
  much attention to the Versions. This interest
  was justified because the oldest Heb mss were
  dated to the Middle Ages while some of the mss of
  the LXX, Peshitta, and Vulgate date from the 4th
  and 5th centuries AD (some fragmentary papyruses
  of the LXX go back as far as the 2d century BC).
  This situation has now changed because the Hebrew
  scrolls from the Judean desert/Dead Sea are not
  only considerably older than these but often also
  more important. Therefore text-critical interest
  will in the future be focused more on

3
4.1 Text Criticism of the OT

• Hebrew sources than on the Versions, even though
  text-critically the LXX will always remain of
  great importance. The importance of the other
  Versions for textual criticism is diminishing,
  although occasionally they contain significant
  readings. At the same time, these Versions
  remain important as witnesses to ancient
  exegesis." Tov

4
4.1 Text Criticism of the OT

• 1. Relationship between Textual Witnesses
• "The most important textual witnesses to the OT
  are MT, with Heb Vorlage of the LXX (here simply
  designated as LXX), independent Qumran texts
  and those written in the Qumran orthography and
  language, the proto-Samaritan sources, and the
  Sam. Pent. All other sources (such as the
  Peshitta, Vulgate, Targums, the Heb texts from
  Nah9al H9ever, Wad4 Murabba(at, Masada, and
  many Qumran texts) are less significant for the
  history of the OT text since they are virtually
  identical with MT." Tov

5
4.1 Text Criticism of the OT

• 2. Urtext or Early Divergence
• de Lagarde vs. Kahle
• 3. Textual Variations
• Unintentional Variants
• Confusion of consonants
• Dittography errors produced by the repetition
  of letters or words.
• Haplography errors produced by skipping one or
  more letters or words.
• Homoeoteleuton errors produced by skipping a
  group of words with the same

6
4.1 Text Criticism of the OT

• ending, cause by the eye of the copyist jumping
  down to a similar word.
• Metathesis transposition of letters.
• Doublet (conflated readings) the juxtaposition
  of two or more parallel readings, with or without
  grammatical connection, could lead to an error.
• Different word division.
• Other Variants
• Linguistic
• Theological

7
4.2.1 Text Criticism Intro

• The primary objective of New Testament Text
  Criticism is to reconstruct the original or
  earliest form of the text. (Urtext)
• NTTC also deals with all aspects of textual
  transmission and its history, identifying
  geographical and ideological/theological biases
  of the texts.
• NTTC is both an art and science.
• The older name for Text Criticism was "lower
  criticism.

8
3.2.2.1 Text Criticism Terms

• Reading "The term reading is the broadest and
  most general term, referring to any textual
  difference or any varying text formulation in a
  ms found by comparison with the same passage in
  any other ms." Epp
• Significant / Insignificant Readings
• A nonsense reading
• Clearly demonstratable scribal error.
• Orthographic differences.
• Singular readings

9
3.2.2.1 Text Criticism Terms

• Textual Variant "The term variant (or textual
  variant) is reserved for those readings that are
  significant or meaningful in the major tasks of
  NT textual criticism, . . . determining ms
  relationships, locating mss within NT textual
  history and transmission, and in establishing the
  original or earliest possible NT text." Epp
• Variant Unit "A reading and a variant by
  definition exist only over against another and
  divergent reading therefore, a variant to be a
  variant must be a member of a variation unit,
  which constitutes the indispensable basis of

10
3.2.2.1 Text Criticism Terms

• comparison in textual criticism. A variation
  unit is that determinate quantity or segment of
  text, constituting a normal and proper
  grammatical combination, where our mss present at
  least two variant readings and where (after
  insignificant readings have been excluded) each
  of these variant readings has the support of at
  least two mss." Epp

11
3.2.2.2 Text Criticism

• 1. Intentional Alterations
• 1.1 Alterations in grammar, spelling, and style,
  including the spelling of proper names.
• 1.2 Intentional harmonizations to bring the
  passage being copied into conformity with one
  similar or parallel (such as a parallel in the
  Synoptic Gospels), or with an OT quotation
  (sometimes expanding it to include more of the
  source or conforming it to the LXX), or with a
  liturgical passage in the Church lectionaries, or
  even to bring a passage into conformity with a
  translation known to the scribe or found in a
  bilingual ms.

12
3.2.2.2 Text Criticism

• 1. Intentional Alterations
• 1.3 Clarification of perceived geographical or
  historical discrepancies, such as references to
  time or place, or to authors of OT quotations.
• 1.4 Conflation of varying readings present in two
  or more mss accessible to the scribe, yielding a
  full text.
• 1.5 Addition of logically appropriate material,
  such as expanding Jesus or Lord to the Lord
  Jesus Christ

13
3.2.2.2 Text Criticism

• 1. Intentional Alterations
• 1.6 Theological or ideological alterations,
  usually involving minor changes in the interest
  of the Virgin Birth, the omniscience of Jesus,
  the trinity, or asceticism, to mention a few
  examples, as well as extensive additions of
  material, as found, e.g., in mss of the so-called
  Western text.
• 2. Unintentional Alterations
• 2.1 Confusion of letters that have similar
  appearance (uncial alpha, delta, and lamda look
  alike, as do epsilon and sigma, omicron and theta
  eta and nu, pi and gamma-iota or
  tau-iota/iota-tau, etc.)

14
3.2.2.2 Text Criticism

• 2.2 "Mistaken division of words (since uncial
  letters were run together in mss, without word
  division or punctuation)."
• 2.3 "Misreading of abbreviations or
  contractions."
• 2.4 "Metathesis, or interchanging the order of
  letters or words."
• 2.5 "Mistaking a less familiar word for one more
  familiar to the scribe."
• 2.6 "Haplography (single/simple writing), the
  omission of one word when it occurred twice, or
  of two or several words that are dropped as the
  scribes eye jumps from one group of letters to a
  similar group of letters farther down the leaf,
  thereby resulting in the failure to copy what lies

15
3.2.2.2 Text Criticism

• between the two words that have a similar ending
  (homoeoteleuton)."
• 2.7 "Dittography (double writing), repetition
  of a letter, word, or passage because the
  scribes eye went back to what had already been
  copied."
• 2.8 "Simple misspellings due to carelessness and
  failure to notice the error."

16
3.2.2.3 Text Types

• 3. Text Types
• "A text type maybe defined as an established
  textual cluster or constellation with a
  distinctive character or complexion that
  differentiates it from other textual
  constellations. Such differentiations are based
  not on general impressions or on random samples,
  but on a full quantitative comparison of
  agreement/disagreement in variation units (or
  test readings when large numbers of manuscripts
  are being considered). The quantitative
  definition of a text-type is a group of
  manuscripts that agree more than 70 per cent of
  the time and is separated by a gap of about 10
  per cent from its neighbors (Colwell 1969 59)."
  Epp

17
3.2.2.3 Text Types

• 3.1 Alexandrian Text
• This text arose in Egypt and is generally
  conceded to be the most important one. Westcott
  and Hort, who named this the Neutral Text,
  thought that Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus
  had preserved a pure form of the Alexandrian type
  of text. It is now evident that these manuscripts
  had been corrected by later scribes, but they are
  the most ancient uncials and preserve the
  Alexandrian text at an early stage. Some of the
  important papyrus manuscripts also represent this
  family."

18
3.2.2.3 Text Types

• 3.1 Alexandrian Text
• 3.1.1 Proto-Alexandrian
• P45 (in Acts) P46 P66 P75 a B Sahidic (in part),
  Clement of Alexandria, Origen (in part), and most
  of the papyrus fragments with Pauline text.
• 3.1.2 Later Alexandrian
• (C) L T W (in Luke 1.1-12 and John) (X) Z D (in
  Mark) X Y (in Mark partially in Luke and John)
  33 579 892 1241 Bohairic.
• Acts P50 A (C) Y 33 81 104 326

19
3.2.2.3 Text Types

• 3.1 Alexandrian Text
• Pauline Epistles A (C) HP I Y 33 81 104 326 1739
• Catholic Epistles P20 P23 A (C) Y 33 81 104 326
  1739
• Revelation A (C) 1006 1611 1854 2053 2344 less
  good P47 a

20
P66 (200CE )
21
P75 (175-225CE)
22
Codex Vaticanus (B) 4th CE
23
3.2.2.3 Text Types

• 3.2 Western Text
• This family of texts was closely related to the
  church in the west, particularly in North Africa.
  Although it can probably be traced to the second
  century, its value has been disputed. It was used
  by the early church fathers. Its age would seem
  to suggest great importance, but there are clear
  indications that it was not carefully preserved.
  It is best represented by the Old Latin
  translations, by the Syriac versions, and the
  church fathers. Its most famous representative is
  manuscript D (Codex Bezae) for the book of Acts.
• ". . . Most scholars do not find this type of
  text homogeneous enough to be called a textual

24
3.2.2.3 Text Types

• 3.2 Western Text
• recension it is usually considered to be the
  result of an undisciplined and 'wild' growth of
  manuscript tradition and translational activity."
  Metzger

25
3.2.2.3 Text Types

• 3.2 Western Text
• Gospels D W (in Mark 1.1-5.30) 0171, the Old
  Latin Syr3 and Syrc (in part), early Latin
  Fathers, Tatian's Diatessaron
• Acts P29 P38 P48 D 383 614 Syrh mg, early Latin
  Fathers, the Commentary of Ephraem (preserved in
  Armenian).
• Pauline Epistles the Greek-Latin bilinguals DP
  EP FP GP Greek Fathers to the end of the third
  century Syrian Fathers to about 450 CE

26
Codex Sinaiticus (a) 4th CE
27
(No Transcript)
28
Codex Sinaiticus (a) 4th CE
29
Codex Bezae (D) 6th CE
30
Codex Bezae (D) 6th CE
31
3.2.2.3 Text Types

• 3.3 C Text Type
• This family of texts was widely used in Caesarea
  from which it derived its name. It seems to have
  arisen out of the Alexandrian text but was also
  mixed with the Western text. Consequently, its
  value is limited. Metzger suggests that it is
  necessary to distinguish between two stages in
  its development, the pre-Caesarean and the
  Caesarean (Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New
  Testament, p. 215). Some of its more prominent
  representatives are W (Washington Codex, fifth
  century), P45, and two groups of minuscules and
  lectionaries.
• "The special character of the Caesarean text is
  its distinctive mixture of Western readings and

32
3.2.2.3 Text Types

• 3.3 C Text Type
• Alexandrian readings. . . . Evidently its maker
  knew both and made a kind of compromise in
  substance he followed the Alexandrian text while
  retaining any Western readings which did not seem
  too improbable, for the later text was widely
  current, although the former was the better. One
  may also observe a certain striving after
  elegance, and thus consideration for the needs of
  the Church." Metzger
• Basically found in P45 and W

33
Codex Washingtonensis (W) 5/7th CE
34
Codex Washingtonensis (W) 5/7th CE
35
3.2.2.3 Text Types

• 3.4 Byzantine or Koine Type
• This family has been designated by many names. It
  is called Byzantine because it was adopted in
  Constantinople and used as the common text in the
  Byzantine world. It was produced in Antioch,
  Syria, under the direction of Lucian near the
  beginning of the fourth century and has been
  called the Syrian or Antiochene text. It was used
  almost universally after the eight century. Both
  Erasmus, who created the first printed Greek
  text, and the translators of the King James
  Version of the Bible used this type of text. It
  was produced by combining earlier texts and has
  less value than the Alexandrian text. A (Codex
  Alexandrinus, fifth century) and C (Codex
  Ephraemi,

36
3.2.2.3 Text Types

• 3.4 Byzantine or Koine Type
• fifth century) are the oldest representatives of
  the Byzantine family. A great majority of late
  uncials and minuscules belong to this group.

37
3.2.2.3 Text Types

• 3.4 Byzantine or Koine Type
• Gospels A E F G H K P S V W (in Matt. And Luke
  8.13-24.53) P Y (in Luke and John) W and most
  minuscules.
• Acts Ha Lap Pa 049 and most minuscules
• Epistles Lap 049 and most minuscules
• Revelation 046 051 052 and many minuscules.

38
Codex Alexandrinus (A) 5th CE
39
Codex Alexandrinus (A) 5th CE
40
Codex 666 12-13th CE
41
Codex 666 12-13th CE
42
3.2.2.4 Canon/Criteria of Criticism

• 4.1 External
• 1. A variants support by the earliest mss, or by
  mss assuredly preserving the earliest texts.
• 2. A variants support by the best quality mss.
• 3. A variants support by mss with the widest
  geographical distribution.
• 4. A variants support by one or more established
  groups of mss of recognized antiquity, character,
  and perhaps location, i.e., of recognized best
  quality.

43
3.2.2.4 Canon/Criteria of Criticism

• 4.2 Internal
• 1. A variants status as the shorter or shortest
  reading in the variation unit.
• 2. A variants status as the harder or hardest
  reading in the variation unit.
• 3. A variants fitness to account for the origin,
  development, or presence of all other readings in
  the variation unit.
• 4. A variants conformity to the authors style
  and vocabulary.
• 5. A variants conformity to the authors
  theology or ideology.

44
3.2.2.4 Canon/Criteria of Criticism

• 4.2 Internal
• 6. A variants conformity to Koine (rather than
  Attic) Greek.
• 7. A variants conformity to Semitic forms of
  expression.
• 8. A variants lack of conformity to parallel
  passages or to extraneous items in the context
  generally.
• 9. A variants lack of conformity to OT passages.

45
3.2.2.4 Canon/Criteria of Criticism

• 4.2 Internal
• 10. A variants lack of conformity to liturgical
  forms and usages.
• 11. A variants lack of conformity to extrinsic
  doctrinal views.

46
3.2.2.5 Text Critical Methodology

• 5.1 Historical Documental Method
• "In an ideal text-critical world, this method
  would be largely adequate by itself, for it
  attempts to reconstruct the history of the NT
  text by tracing the lines of transmission back
  through the extant mss to the earliest stages and
  then selecting the reading that represents the
  earliest attainable level of the textual
  tradition. The NT text-critical world, of course,
  is not ideal, and the matter is not as simple as
  this schema suggests." Epp

47
3.2.2.5 Text Critical Methodology

• ". . . it emphasizes external criteria, including
  the age and provenance of a document, as well as
  the general quality of its scribe and its text.
  This could be called the historical-genealogical
  method, but-unlike textual criticism in the
  classic - strict genealogical procedures
  (establishing stemmata of manuscripts) is not
  feasible in NT textual criticism, for there is
  too much textual mixture in the complex array of
  mss" Epp

48
3.2.2.5 Text Critical Methodology

• ". . . ascribes a major role to the earliest
  papyruses and uncials-that group prior to the 4th
  century-for these mss, many discovered only
  recently, provide for the first time a genuine
  opportunity to assess and to reconstruct the
  history of the NT text in those crucial one and a
  half to two centuries preceding the great uncial
  codices. Unfortunately, this earliest group of
  mss does not reveal one earliest cluster or type
  of text, but a spectrum of readings that do not
  easily lend themselves to grouping." Epp

49
3.2.2.5 Text Critical Methodology

• 5.2 Rigorous Eclectic Method
• "Those who employ this method rely largely,
  primarily, or exclusively on internal criteria
  for resolving text-critical problems and for
  establishing the original text. It is also known
  as rational criticism or thoroughgoing
  eclecticism by its proponents . . . ." Epp
• "In practice, the variant is selected that best
  suits the context of the passage, the authors
  style and vocabulary, or the authors theology,
  while taking into account also such

50
3.2.2.5 Text Critical Methodology

• factors as scribal habits, including their
  tendency of conformity either to Koine or to
  Attic Greek style, to Semitic forms of
  expression, to parallel passages, to OT passages,
  or to liturgical forms and usage. Internal canons
  of these kinds take precedence over the external
  ones-sometimes to the virtual exclusion of the
  latter." Epp

51
3.2.2.5 Text Critical Methodology

• 5.3 Reasoned Eclectic Method
• "The third method combines these two approaches,
  drawing from both-that is, relying on the balance
  of probabilities arising from the application of
  all relevant canons - external and internal. This
  is the method adopted and employed day-to-day by
  the vast majority of NT textual critics, and it
  was the method used, in general, to form the text
  common to the Nestle-Aland26 and the UBSGNT3.
  When one is faced with any variation unit, the
  variant reading

52
3.2.2.5 Text Critical Methodology

• 5.3 Reasoned Eclectic Method
• would be chosen that appears to be in the
  earliest chronological group and that makes the
  best sense when the internal criteria are
  applied. If no one textual group can be
  identified unambiguously as the earliest cluster,
  then the variant would be chosen that is in one
  of the earliest groups and that best satisfies
  the relevant internal considerations." Epp