Chapter 7: Textual Criticism

Note: This is a mere summary of the subject. In fact, it is a summary of a summary. Milton Terry does not treat Textual Criticism too thoroughly and does not address at all the work of either Dean Burgon or F.H.A Scrivener. In other words, it is not at all balanced. I do not share Terry's view on this subject and so this summary has taken a more "observational" approach with a hint of disagreement. Please do not take this summary in any wise as sufficient to educate or scarcely introduce yourself to the subject of textual criticism.

Textual Criticism refers to the scientific investigation of an ancient work of literature. The examination of the date, authorship, and interpretation of the Bible is called Higher Criticism. The effort to recontruct the autograph of the biblical text through collating and scrutinizing the extant copies, or manuscripts, of the Bible is referred to as Lower Criticism. It is necessary that any expositor of the Holy Scriptures be familiar with this field of study. A truly devout study of God’s Word will certainly be concerned with the transmission of the text from the days of the Apostles to the present time.

All ancient writings that have survived the passage of time exist in copies of the original. These copies may be collected and examined under certain principles and canons seeking to arrive at the original text. In addition, Scriptural quotations from ancient writers, such as the Apostolic Fathers, may be consulted regarding variant readings. For the Old Testament the primary ancient text is that of the Masoretes referred to as the Masoretic Text. These scribes and rabbis developed a vowel system in the sixth century that enabled a version of the OT to be readable. Milton’s short review of Textual Criticism, being written in 1890, did not have the benefit of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1946-47. The Dead Sea Scrolls gave to the world older copies than the Masoretic and have only served to confirm the authenticity and reliability of the Old Testament. Even more abundant manuscript evidence exists for the New Testament text. Manuscripts exist in a variety of forms. All-capital texts are called uncials. These are older, and fewer in number, than the later miniscule, or cursive, manuscripts which make up the majority of the existing copies. Turning to the examination of the extant copies, both internal and external evidence is considered to construct a complete text.

External evidence investigates the age of a text and seeks to determine which of the manuscripts carry more weight in determining the original reading. It is generally thought among modern critics that the manuscripts which are older are more likely the original reading. Quotations of the New Testament from the early Church Fathers are also given prominence. Generally, modern scholarship affords more authority and value to the texts with regard to age, origin, and character. Some translations of the Bible, for example, include a notation on disputed passages suggesting that more reliable and ancient passages do not contain certain verses. This is based on the principle of giving more weight to the uncials, which are older yet, fewer in number, than to the cursives which carry a later date but are more numerous. It is possible that the later cursives are a more accurate translation of the autograph but this logic is generally rejected by modern criticism.

External evidence also takes into account agreement between two manuscripts should they be found in different locations. It is thought that copies divergent from one another in proximity carry more weight than those found in similar locations because those in close proximity may have been copied from one another. Since one is handling the Word of God, great care must be taken when engaged in this kind of work. No amount of study and expertise should be spared in carrying out the task. When external evidence seems to fall short of settling a variant reading, internal evidence may be of some benefit. Nevertheless, even more caution ought to be employed as the weight of internal evidence depends on the reason and conjecture of the textual critic.

Internal evidence has been employed in settling word order due to variants in the manuscripts. It is often judged by the critic that the word order is chosen based on what is perceived as the biblical writer’s particular style. This is deduced from other writings of the author. For example, critics have disputed the reading of John 13:14 “who might it be” which has ancient textual support rendering it rather “who is it” because the Apostle John never uses the operative mood. Internal evidence also gives more weight to the shorter reading rather than a longer one assuming that scribes were prone to add to the text rather than omit from it in order to give more clarity. Along this same line of thinking, modern textual critics choose the more difficult reading to a simpler one. They suppose that a copyist may have been inclined to make the text more readable and easier to understand or harmonize a portion of Scripture that seemed to the copyist to attract attention. Modern critics will also prefer a certain reading over another when they suppose the others could be more easily derived.

These principles and canons of modern textual criticism must be seen as guidelines and not rules. It is obvious that there is much left to the personal judgment of the critic. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, a 19th century textual critic, remarked, “The point aimed at is a moral certainty, or a moral probability.” This is obviously something subjective and it is hoped that the principles set forth in modern textual criticism will lead the critic to the true reading of the autograph casting aside the more mechanical method of weighing the number of witnesses. It should be noted that a vast majority of the variants in the texts deal with slight changes in spelling which have little bearing on the actual meaning of the text itself.