TheologySense

Textual Criticism

What is “textual criticism”?  If you are or were an English or Literature major, then you already know what I am talking about.  Here I am talking specifically about textual criticism applied to the Bible.  Textual criticism is essentially a scientific approach to determining the origin of any piece of literature, and also determining any errors that may exist from the transmission of documents by hand (we all know that the Bible was originally orally transmitted, then hand-written for many centuries in various languages before our modern Bible translations were printed).  A fairly good description is given here.

The beginning point for this research was to find a view of NT textual criticism that is satisfac­tory from the vantage point of a “high view” of Scripture. To define this “high view,” two statements are necessary. First, God communicated all the words of Scripture clearly and without contradiction. The second statement is quoted directly from Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology: “the inerrancy of Scrip­ture means that Scripture in the original languages does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact.”1 A student of the Bible is early confronted by scholarly work that states unequivocally that certain passages of Scripture do not belong in the Bible. For example, the long ending in Mark is an example hotly debated for many years. It seems contradictory to hold a high view of Scripture as noted above and yet question the authenticity of many verses of Scripture. This research is prompted by this tension. Does textual criticism provide accuracy without devaluing the authority of Scripture?

The inerrancy of Scripture presupposes that the original text is known. Textual criticism con­cerns itself with ascertaining the original text. Textual criticism can be defined as follows: “textual criti­cism is the study of copies of any written work of which the autograph (the original) is unknown, with the purpose of ascertaining the original text.”2

Dr. Tregelles notes the same tension — namely that a textual critic questions the authenticity of certain verses of Scripture and therefore questioning inspiration of the material itself. The following quo­tation captures the conflict,

There is in some minds a kind of timidity with regard to Holy Scripture, as if all our no­tions of its authority depended on our knowing who was the writer of each particular portion; instead of simply seeing and owning that it was given forth from God, and that it is as much His as were the Commandments of the Law written by His own finger on the tables of stone.3

The point at issue for Tregelles is the long ending of Mark, which he takes to be written by another but considers it no less inspired. Tregelles desires to retain Mark 16:9-20 as authentic without a question of authorship. John W. Burgon criticizes Tregelles here, though Burgon himself argues for the retention of 16:9-20, as too willing to dispense with his critical faculties for piety.

There are many Greek New Testaments. One can choose from a collection of Byzantine based manuscripts: Erasmus I edition (1516), Erasmus 5th edition (1535), Stephanus (1551), Textus Receptus (Elzevir, 1624), Byzantine/Majority. Or a person can opt for an Alexandrian based Greek New Testament as typified by a Wescott-Hort version, and more recently with one of four Nestle-Aland editions. This list is by no means exhaustive. It simply expresses the variety.4

There are over 5300 Greek manuscripts, 8000 Latin manuscripts, and 1000 manuscripts of other languages that make up the New Testament. In contrast to the amount of manuscripts found in the New Testament one need look no further in antiquity than the classical Greek writers whose works have been preserved since antiquity. J. Harold Greenlee states, “Ancient Greek and Latin classics are known today, in some cases, from only one surviving manuscript.”5 At best, Greek classical textual critics can claim hundreds of manuscripts and at worst a handful. The Greek Anthology and the Annals of Tacitus are known to have direct descent from earlier material. The plays of Aeschylus are known to have fifty manu­scripts, the works of Sophocles one hundred, the works of Euripedes, Cicero, Ovid, and Virgil a few hun­dred. A greater amount of manuscript evidence ensures a greater accuracy in the reconstruction of the original text. If only a handful of manuscripts are present, confidence in the accuracy could certainly be diminished. Further, the earliest extant New Testament manuscripts (MSS) were written much closer to the original writing than almost any other piece of ancient literature.6

J. Harold Greenlee notes the relationship between the manuscript evidence and inspiration,

But it is important to see that the inspired, authoritative New Testament has come down through the centuries in a great multitude of ancient manuscripts that differ from one another in various details, that almost all of these manuscripts give us the Word of God, and that the exact wording of the original text can be determined only by studying the variants and applying sound principles to decide among them. The great multitude of manuscripts is a convincing proof for the inspiration of Scripture, nevertheless it is not satisfactory for all. It is often argued that the great number of variant readings among the New Testament manuscripts plays against the inspiration of Scripture.7

The point of contention is that the manuscripts do not agree exactly on every detail. In answer to this ob­jection it may be noted that the manuscripts agree in most of their content. A second objection is that most of the variants do not affect the meaning of the text. What is not often taken into account by critics of Scripture’s inspiration is that the business of textual criticism generally concerns itself with “. . . for the most part, small details and relatively minor matters.”8

A few general principles must be mentioned in regard to the ‘small details’ and ‘minor matters’. The methods of textual criticism offered by Kirsopp Lake follow this general pattern. (1) Study each in­dividual manuscript by itself and correct obvious mistakes. (2) Compare manuscripts and arrange them into groups to distinguish an archetype. (3) Compare the archetypes and construct a provisional text of the archetype. (4) Subject the archetype texts to the process of conjectural emendation, i.e., an attempt to explain and emend all the passages that still seem corrupt.9

The first phase concerns itself with the ‘small details’ and ‘minor matters’. ‘Small details’ often pertains to different spellings. ‘Minor matters’ generally regards scribal errors. Mistakes and corruptions fall under two classes: unintentional due to natural error and intentional due to a desire for improve­ment.10 Unintentional alterations include dittography, homoioteleuton, haplography, and itacism. Dit­tography is the repetition of a letter, word or phrase when it should be written once. Homoioteleuton is the omission of a letter, word or phrase. Haplography, dittography’s opposite, is the omission of a word actually repeated in the text. Itacism describes a copyist mistake of spelling or grammar. Intentional al­terations include marginal notes, added traditional readings, grammatical improvements, harmonistic alterations, and dogmatic alterations.11

Phases two and three of NT textual criticism attempt to arrange manuscripts by genealogy. A modified view of B. H. Streeter’s division of text-types is often the adopted one for discussion of text-types. Incidentally, it is important to note that the most significant contribution Streeter made is the principle of weighing MSS evidence rather than counting. Returning to genealogy, Streeter renames Hort’s “a” text-type Byzantine, and the “b” text-type Alexandrian. Streeter disregards “g” (Caesarean) as a separate family and breaks “d” (Western) into four groupings. The discussion that ensues will regard g as a separate family and d as a separate family.12

Genealogical grouping is viewed variously by scholars. Hort viewed genealogy as important and elevated b by arguing that some readings of b, particularly Vaticanus and its intimate kin, are superior. Therefore all MSS of b were superior. Von Soden agreed to the neces­sity of genealogy but disagreed in the historical reconstruction.13 Streeter did much work in the g text-type belying his agreement to genealogical methodology.

Ernest Colwell points out that scholars have in various ways championed or repudiated particu­lar text-types[i] or repudiated the arrangement of texts into text-types.[ii] Colwell advocates a moderate posi­tion that first determines a text-type in the largest group of sources that can objectively be identified by external evidence. The second point is to abandon efforts to establish the archetype text that Lake in­cluded as important. Third, one must recognize that there is a process in the development of the text-type resulting in gradual distinctiveness and uniformity. Fourth, the study of text-type and the resulting his­torical reconstruction does not precede study of individual texts but occurs simultaneously. Fifth, identify quantitative agreement with others in the text-type and qualitatively define it without resorting to con­struction of an archetype. Sixth, study the text-types book by book or section by section. Seventh, give priority to text-types that are frequently quoted. Eighth, begin with the earliest sources and work forward to the later sources. Ninth, recognize different values in different groupings.14

In view of the discussion of genealogy, James Borland sees a type of circular reasoning that bi­ases selection of authentic readings. Borland briefly defines the rules of internal evidence as follows,

(1) Prefer the reading that best explains the rise of other variants; (2) prefer the shorter reading; (3) prefer the more difficult reading; (4) prefer the reading most characteristic of the author.15

When a decision is difficult it is frequently regarded as safest to go with the best MSS. Borland points out that Westcott and Hort reasoned that the best external evidence was found in those MSS that contained the “best readings”. The “best readings” were found in b, thus decisions can be made in favor of b. Borland questions whether b is so infallible.16 In his article, Borland concerns himself with textual-critical studies’ often hostile view to inerrancy of the Scriptures. Borland asks that textual criticism be altered to maintain a high view of Scripture. Borland states: “If we accept the inerrancy of the Scriptures and yet countenance a textual criticism that voids inerrancy, something is amiss — and I would suggest that it is not the Word of God that needs reconsideration but rather our principles of textual criticism.”17

Before beginning the evidence Borland presents, it must be noted that it is very difficult to avoid noting Borland’s bias throughout his article. For instance, Borland implies that textual critical study is Satanically influenced since in this modern era it uses ‘highly technical tools’ and ‘computers’.18 Return­ing to Borland’s evidence, he cites two cases. Only one may be discussed for the sake of space.

Borland believes that this is one of the textual problems where scholars denigrate the inerrancy of Scripture. The first is Matthew 1:7,10 containing the kingly genealogy of Christ, which requires a de­cision between variant readings Asa verses Asaph. Nearly all textual critics regard Asaph the original whereas it is printed Asa in English Bibles (NAB, ASV, RSV, NASB) footnoting that Asaph is the origi­nal reading. On the side of Asaph are the following MSS: Codices X, B and C (4th and 5th century); minuscules 1, 13; cursives 700 and 1071 (12th century); MSS 209 (14th century), other language MSS K (4th or 5th), Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Georgian. In summary, about a dozen Greek MSS witness to Asaph. On the other hand hundreds of Greek witnesses exist for Asa. Uncials that contain Asa are E K L M S U V W G D and P dating fifth through the tenth centuries with a wide geographical distribution. Further, Washingtoneinsis and Regius (L) are often agreeable with codex Vaticanus. In addition, there are hundreds of cursives that exhibit independence from the Byzantine text-type and other minuscules stating at the ninth century, which 33 of them align themselves constantly with X and B. The lectionaries stand behind the Asa reading as do old language (OL) MSS: Vercellensis (4th, AD), Vg, Curetonian, Sinaitic, Peshitta, Harclean and Palestinian (versions of Syriac).19

Borland interprets the data as follows. Only a preconceived idea could favor the dozen Alexandrian texts above the hundreds of Greek witness covering a vast geographical region and dating from fifth century (OL 4th) on up.20 Borland believes it erroneous to favor any MSS text-type that does not have support throughout the ages and a widespread geographical region.21 Thus, Borland regards Asa as the overwhelming reading. Again, viewing Asa as the overwhelming favorite eliminates an inerrancy dilemma. Further, it vindicates Matthew as unconfused in his Jewish genealogy by faulting the scribal tradition for an error in some of the MSS but maintaining the correct rendering in most. Borland argues for a more balanced examination of both internal and external evidence, but especially call for a question­ing of a MS considered ‘best’ that suggests errors in the autographs.

There is a dividing line between those who hold to the Byzantine textform or an eclectic textform usually favoring the Alexandrian textform. Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont, in defense of the Byzantine/Majority textform, argue that an historical reconstruction of textual transmission argues for the Byzantine/Majority over against the Alexandrian based eclectic textforms. The issue, Robinson and Pierpont believe, is Byzantine priority wherein a division in Byzantine-era manuscripts necessitated consultation of all other ancient manuscripts under the standard textual critical methods. Thus, Robinson and Pierpont offer an edited Byzantine/Majority Greek New Testament as the closes to the autographs.22

Historical Overview of Textual Critics

The division indicated necessitates a historical overview. The following is not intended to be exhaustive nor is intended to be revisionist. What is included here is that which leads up to the tension between eclecticists and Byzantine prioritists.

In the fifteenth century Biblical scholars were more concerned with the Latin Vulgate. The first Latin edition was printed in 1456 (Guttenburg Bible). In 1514, Cardinal Ximenes of Spain began the preparation of a Greek New Testament. The New Testament was printed that year (Complutensian Polyglot) but publication was delayed because the pope would not approve it until the Old Testament vol­umes were printed. The first, however, to be published was begun by Erasmus in September, 1516, with six MSS. Seven months later, in March 1516, the first Greek New Testament was published (Erasmus). In 1546, Robert Estienne published the Stephanus Greek New Testament using fifteen MSS and the third edition contained variant readings in a critical apparatus. Theodore Beza, a French Protestant scholar, published nine editions of the Greek NT essentially in the Erasmus-Stephanus version. In 1624 through 1678, the Elzevir brothers of Holland dominated the scene with seven editions. The second edition (1633) became the standard text for the continental United States. This version received the title ‘Textus Receptus’ (received text).23

John Mill published a 3rd edition of the Textus Receptus (1707) with a few changes and a criti­cal apparatus with readings of 78 MSS and some Patristic evidence. Johannes Albert Bengel published a text in 1734 deserting the Textus Receptus when other preferable readings were already in print. Bengel began a classification system calling them African or Asiatic. John Jacob Wetstein published the Textus Receptus with the true readings in the apparatus designating uncials by capital letters and minuscules by Arabic numbers. Johann Salomo Semler separated Bengel’s classification of witnesses into Alexandrian, Western, and Eastern families. Semler’s pupil, Johann Jakob Griesbach, published three editions and collated large numbers of MSS. Karl Lachmann, a classicist, was the first to depart from the Textus Receptus in 1831 and in a second edition delineated principles of textual criticism that stood behind his ‘critical text’. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles also collated MSS, published his own critical text (1857-79) with a critical apparatus and explanation of textual critical principles. Constantine Tischendorf discov­ered many MSS, including Codex Sinaiticus (X), and published eight editions unequaled in comprehen­siveness. Tischendorf included citations of Greek MSS, versions, and patristic evidence. Perhaps the two most important textual critical scholars, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Antony Hort, coupled together and published a twenty eight year work in two volumes under the title The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881-2).24 Westcott and Hort, building on the foundations of their predecessors at last vanquished the Textus Receptus by “. . . the thoroughness with which they explained their views in their volume of introduction, and the fact that their text was printed in a handy, easily usable volume without the added bulk of an extensive critical apparatus.”25

Westcott and Hort postulated the following method for determining the critical text: (1) study individual readings on the basis of intrinsic probability; (2) evaluate the individual witnesses; (3) deter­mine the family groupings of the witnesses; and (4) return to the individual readings to confirm or revise conclusions. Intrinsic probability relates to internal evidence (e.g., congruence of language with author). External evidence related to the testimony of MSS, versions, patristic citations, etc. Westcott and Hort divided MSS witnesses into four groups: (1) most of the minuscules, later uncials, later versions (4th cen­tury and beyond) designated ‘Syrian’; (2) a small group of witnesses (e.g., x, B) designated the ‘Neutral Text’; (3) witnesses that composed the ‘Neutral’ group but differed with codex B was designated ‘Alexandrian’; (4) a small group of MSS (e.g., D, D2), Old Latin version, and most Fathers of second and third centuries designated ‘Western’. 26

Westcott and Hort incited a final Textus Receptus defense by F. H. A. Scrivener, and by J. W. Burgon coupled with Edward Miller. Burgon and Miller argued a threefold defense: (1) God would not permit His church a corrupt text; (2) it is unnecessary to set aside hundreds of later MSS in favor of a few early witnesses; (3) the traditional text was actually older and intrinsically superior to the younger.27 An­other scholar, Wilbur N. Pickering adopts Burgon and Miller’s argument in criticism of the Westcott and Hort theory. Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont also prioritize a Byzantine textform and de­lineate this in The New Testament in the Original Greek: According to the Byzantine/Majority Textform.

W. N. Pickering’s criticisms of the Westcott-Hort theory are extensive. Pickering first uses one of Hort’s letters to indicate an obvious agenda the youthful Hort (age, 23) had against the Textus Receptus before he had done any serious study. Hort’s goal was to replace the “villainous Textus Receptus” in one year with a revision of the Greek New Testament. It took twenty-eight years to finish the New Testament but it did ultimately dethrone the Textus Receptus.28

Hort used a genealogical method to overthrow the numerical superiority of manuscripts the Textus Receptus held over his “Neutral”, “Alexandrian”, and “Western” families. Hort’s supposition was that one copy could be copied many times over and yet not be the correct one. Thus, Textus Receptus be­came one competing text-type called “Syrian” among other text-types. With equal chance at authenticity it had to be determined what families represented a more original reading.29

Using the term “conflation” to describe a reading existing as a mixture of other earlier manu­scripts was Hort’s attempt to discredit the “Syrian” readings. Scholars such as Vincent Taylor and Kirsopp Lake believed this to be a cornerstone argument for the Westcott-Hort (W-H) theory. Further discrediting the “Syrian” readings was Hort’s contention that Syrian readings did not exist prior to the middle of the third century. Lake and Kenyon also noted the key role of this argument in the W-H the­ory.30

Another discrediting argument Hort used was the “Lucianic Recension” in which Hort tenta­tively suggested the church Father Lucian as a senior editor masterminding a revision process resulting in the overwhelming numbers in the “Syrian” family.31

Pickering’s attack on the genealogical method marshaled the contemporary scholarship[iii] who considered the W-H genealogical method inapplicable to the New Testament. Westcott and Hort are now criticized for not providing evidence or the application of the method on the New Testament. Further honing in on text-types Parvis and Wikgren find no basis for generalizations about a “Byzantine” (Syrian) text. Zuntz discredits the idea that codex B is a ‘neutral’ text or that the “Western” text is the dominant 2nd century text. Klijn doubts whether grouping MSS in families (i.e., Alexandrian, Caesarean, Western, and Byzantine) can be maintained. H. C. Hoskier’s massive collations forced his conclusion that abso­lutely no confidence could rest on the teachings of Dr. Hort.32

As regards conflation Pickering notes the ludicrous proposition that eight examples in two Gospels (Mark and Luke) could characterize a supposed family of MSS. Burgon has questioned most of the eight. E. A. Hutton’s work, An Atlas of Textual Criticism, listed 821 instances of conflation. Out of all that, Pickering states that only a few cases of Syrian conflation[iv] may be culled. Further, Hort’s claim that inversions[v] (conflations of other text-types with the Syrian) were nonexistent is not true. Finally, Lake questioned whether in a triple variant the longer reading could be assumed a conflation of two shorter readings apart from Patristic evidence.33

Regarding Syrian readings before Chrysostom, a collation of Chrysostom’s text shows that it contains no appreciable difference of Textus Receptus variants against the Neutral text (Western and Alexandrian). Origen also had no settled text; he sided with the Textus Receptus 460 times and the Neutral text with Western combined totaled 491 times. Irenaeus sided with the Textus Receptus 63 times and the Western plus Neutral 41 times. Hyppolytus cited two long passages (1 Thess. 4:13-17, 2 Thess. 2:1-12) that agree with Textus Receptus readings. Miller’s study concludes that Origen uses Textus Receptus 2:1 compared to Western combined with Neutral. By combining Origen, Justin Martyr, Heracleon, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian results in a 1.33:1 ratio in favor of the Textus Receptus. There is much more evidence unexamined here[vi], but it is sufficient to describe the case that Syrian read­ings in fact predate 350 AD.34

Another argument Pickering uses is Papyri vindication of Byzantine readings. The strength of this argument is found in the Papyri’s dating in the 2nd century. P46 agrees with a number of previously discarded Byzantine readings. Thirteen percent of Byzantine readings considered late have been proved by Papyrus Bodmer II to be early readings. H. A. Sturz conservatively estimated 150 distinctive Byzantine readings supported by Papyri. Colwell even places Byzantine readings in this early second century: “most of its [Byzantine New Testament] readings existed in the second century.”35

The final argument Pickering musters to destroy the Westcott-Hort theory is the demolition of the Lucianic Recension theory. Hort postulated that the church Father Lucian worked with copyists and created a recension of which the Syrian text is made. Again Pickering needs only to survey scholarly lit­erature. Burgon scoffs since there is simply not a trace of historical evidence.36

The conclusion of the matter is that Westcott and Hort’s theory is destroyed and as Epp states no theory has replaced it. Aland and Colwell agree that apart from a reconstruction of the history of trans­mission textual criticism attempts the impossible.37

Pickering’s Historical Reconstruction

Wilbur N. Pickering reconstructs the historical textual transmission first acknowledging that from the time of Ireneaus there is no doubt that the New Testament writings are considered Scripture.38 The early Fathers were soon alarmed by heretics who would dare pervert the sayings of the Lord. Ireneaus adjured any copyist of his own work by the God who ‘judges the living and the dead’ to carefully copy and correct any possible errors in copying. The early Fathers’ concern for Scripture necessitates even more care in handling the Scriptures, which holds greater esteem to the Fathers than their own works. Pickering then goes on to maintain that Tertullian (circa 208 AD) indicated that the “authentic writings are read” meaning at the very least that the copies were faithful copies of the autographs.39

Pickering places possession of the autographs in regions. Asia minor held John, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation. Greece held 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, and Titus. Rome held Mark and Romans. Luke, Acts, and 2 Peter, were held at Rome or Asia Minor. Matthew and James were held by Asia Minor or Palestine. Jude was possibly held by Asia Minor. This leaves eighteen auto­graphs and possibly twenty-four in the collective region of Greece and Asia Minor (called the Aegean re­gion); Rome held two to seven; Palestine held up to three; Alexandria held zero.40

The making of copies commenced immediately.41 Evidence of this norm includes Peter’s ac­knowledgment of a Pauline Corpus and the common practice of circular letter reproduction typified by Polycarp’s sending a collection of Ignatius’s letters to the Philippian church. There was free travel and exchange between the churches, which practiced weekly Scripture readings. Any questions of accuracy could still be checked against faithful copies of the autographs if they had perished (200 AD). Prolifera­tion of copies under normal probability leads to majority agreement among texts and the high rate of agreement is accounted for by the careful treatment of the sacred Scriptures. It would take cataclysmic circumstances to overthrow such statistical probability. The minority MSS constitute 10-20% and “. . . disagree as much (or more) among themselves as they do with the majority” and the reason is the aberrant textforms introduced by heretics.42 Pickering gives the orthodox Father, Gaius, who named four heretics who altered texts and multiplied their copies as an example of how aberrant textual transmission took place.43

Pickering describes the stream of transmission as a triangle broadening out at the base in the later years. Within that triangle are the MSS with minor variations. Outside the triangle are those whose transmissions are described as abnormal. Thus, Pickering finds the Majority Text dominating the stream of transmission.

Textual Criticism Today

Eldon Jay Epp, in his article “A Continuing Interlude In New Testament Textual Criticism,” defends his 1973 Hatch Memorial Lecture from Kurt Aland. Epp asserted that the field of textual criti­cism was in need of a methodology and an understanding of the history. In 1990, Epp voices again the need for theories dealing with the MSS witnesses and a historical reconstruction. Aland believes Epp to be naive in that in Aland’s opinion it is impossible. No longer do NT textual critics work with genealo­gies, nor is the Westcott-Hort theory accepted. Epp goes on then to explain that there is a strikingly large amount of data today and no workable theories or advances in our understanding of that data.44

Aland supplies a theory called the local-genealogical method. The local-genealogical method approach ignores family groupings and compares only variation units. This requires that “in each locale, then, the genealogy of variants is constructed so as to isolate that variant reading from which all the others successively are to be explained, at the same time taking into full consideration all applicable internal cri­teria.”45 Epp shows concern over Aland’s notion of the “expert practitioner” who is so familiar with the variants that “. . . at the sight of the variants and their attestation at a given place generally will very soon be clear as to where the original text is to be sought.”46 Epp notes the subjectivity engendered by such an intuitional approach. Epp concedes that the only method available today is Aland’s local-genealogical method but maintains that it is merely a temporary until something better than slippery eclecticism or my­opic variant-by-by variant assessment is grounded on the solid rock of historical reconstruction.47

Relationship to Inerrancy

If 80% of the textual tradition is useless, namely the Byzantine tradition then it is arguably less a numerical superiority to the works of Latin and Greek antiquity. Further, the agreement between the text-types left is greatly decreased. In other words, to state that there is 90% agreement among MSS as a proof for inspiration necessitates the redemption of 80% of MS witnesses.

The case to be concluded here is that no text-type or form exists apart from its agreement with other Papyri, MSS and church Fathers. Current editions still largely compare with Westcott-Hort in that their primary reliance is upon three MSS (x B d). One cannot justify a three manuscript New Testament with consultation of others when they disagree. The theories today simply do not back up such methodol­ogy. Nor does any evidence purport to. Current methods really do not rely upon the church Fathers for attestation. One may argue that they are included in the critical apparatus as witnesses. Nevertheless, modern methods of textual criticism will often decide the matter long before the church Fathers are con­sulted, thus the Fathers are merely icing on the cake.

Excellent scholars are beginning to acknowledge that there is not a current theory that is work­able. The present theories seem to present more problems than solutions. Especially regarding inerrancy there is a problem created when errors are pointed out where they do not agree with a handful of MSS (x B d). Present methodology must be moored, in this author’s humble opinion, to the idea that the MSS attest to inerrant autographs. The vast number alone is proof that the autographs are inerrant. Hence, any methodology that advances a few MSS against many over a vast geographical region must be questioned. The suggestion here is that a new methodology begin with the assumption that the autographs are inerrant and that the number of witnesses attest to that fact. Proceeding from there is the only safe ground.

Further, as many have noted before, textual criticism must be anchored firmly to the bedrock of historical reconstruction. Current methods do not do this, though they may agree that it is needful. So far, Pickering’s reconstruction is the best offered though it does not seem readily accepted. The only excep­tion known is found in the work of Pierpont and Robinson who offer a similar account. Also, it seems more reasonable to accept Pickering’s stream of transmission, which concurs with the proposition above. The smaller the attestation, unless convincingly proved a scribal error or falsification, the more likely the reading is to be considered aberrant. Less weight should be given to subjective interpretation of internal evidence and more weight given to Church Fathers and the stream of transmission. Under these guiding principles it is highly likely that the form of the text will be largely Byzantine, however, that is only if one still regards the genealogy as useful. The end result of that would perhaps please Textus Receptus enthu­siasts or those wedded to the King James. This author cares little about that and in fact does not relish the idea of reading the King James Bible. What is important here is not what English version one prefers, but that the most accurate New Testament that reflects the inerrant autographs be developed for sound exegesis, teaching and reading. English translations can be made. Further, if the textform is more representative of the whole, then this entire business of questioning the authenticity of certain verses will greatly diminish. Upon this basis a greater confidence is produced in those who exegete, teach, or read the Scriptures.

Endnotes

1 Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Co., 1991), p. 73-85.

2 J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1964), p. 11.

3 John Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses According to the Gospel of Mark, (1959), p. 89.

4 Barbara Aland and Kurt Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, (Grand Rapids: E. J. Brill, 1987), p. 34.

5 J. Harold Greenlee, Scribes, Scrolls, & Scripture: A Student’s Guide to New Testament Textual Criticism. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985), p. 3.

6 J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 16.

7 J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 15.

8 J. Harold Greenlee, Scribes, Scrolls, & Scripture, p. 55.

9 Kirsopp Lake, The Text of the New Testament, (London: Billing & Sons Ltd., 1959), pp. 2-5.

10 Kirsopp Lake, p. 3.

11 Vincent Taylor, The Text of the New Testament, (London: Macmillan & Co. Ltd., 1963), p. 3.

12 Vincent Taylor, p. 57.

13 Ernest Colwell, Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism in the New Testament, (Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1969), p. 2.

14 Vincent Taylor, pp. 9, 15, 20-24.

15 James Borland, “Re-examining New Testament Textual-Critical Principles and Practices used to Negate Inerrancy,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Vol. 25, (Deerfield: Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1982), p. 501.

16 James Borland, p. 500.

17 James Borland, p.506.

18 James Borland, p. 499.

19 James Borland, pp. 501-2.

20 James Borland, pp. 502-3.

21 James Borland, p. 506.

22 William Pierpont and Maurice Robinson, The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine / Majority Textform. (Atlanta: The Original Word Publishers, 1991), p. xxvi-xlii.

23 J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, pp. 69-72.

24 J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, pp. 73-7.

25 J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 77.

26 J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, pp. 79-80.

27 J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, pp. 81-2.

28 Wilbur Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Inc., Publishers, 1977), p. 31.

29 Wilbur Pickering, pp. 34-6.

30 Wilbur Pickering, p. 104.

31 Wilbur Pickering, p. 37.

32 Wilbur Pickering, pp. 44-50.

33 Wilbur Pickering, pp. 58-62.

34 Wilbur Pickering, pp. 62-74.

35 Ernest Colwell, What Is The Best New Testament?, p. 70.

36 Wilbur Pickering, p. 88-91.

37 Wilbur Pickering, pp. 93-99.

38 Wilbur Pickering, pp. 100-4.

39 Wilbur Pickering, pp. 104-7.

40 Wilbur Pickering, p. 105.

41 Wilbur Pickering, p. 104-7.

42 Wilbur Pickering, p. 112.

43 Wilbur Pickering, p. 109.

44 Eldon Jay Epp, “New Testament Textual Criticism Past, Present, and Future: Reflections on the Alands’ Text of the New Testament,” Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 82, (Cambridge: Harvard Divinity School, 1989), p. 135.

45 Ibid., p. 141.

46 Ibid., p. 142.

47 Ibid., p. 151.

Bibliography

Aland, Barbara and Aland, Kurt. The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. (1987). Grand Rapids: E. J. Brill.

Borland, James A. “Re-examining New Testament Textual-Critical Principle and Practices Used to Negate Inerrancy.” Evangelical Theological Journal. (1982). Vol. 25. Deerfield: Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Pp. 499-506.

Burgon, John W. The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark. (1959). Ann Arbor: The Sovereign Grace Book Club.

Colwell, Earnest C. Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament. (1969). Netherlands: E. J. Brill.

Colwell, Ernest C. What is the Best New Testament. (1952). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Epp, Eldon, J. “A Continuing Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism.” Harvard Theological Review. Vol. 73. (1990). Cambridge: Harvard Divinity School. Pp. 131-151.

Greenlee, Harold J. Scribes, Scrolls, & Scripture: A Student’s Guide to New Testament Textual Criticism. (1985). Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Greenlee, Harold J. Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism. (1964). Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. (1994). Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.

Lake, Kirsopp. The Text of the New Testament. (1959). London: Billing & Sons Ltd.

McKnight, Scot. “The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism by Harry A. Sturz: A Book Review.” Trinity Journal. (1984). Vol. 5-6. Deerfield: Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Pp. 225-228.

Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. (1964). New York: Oxford University Press.

Pickering, Wilbur N. The Identity of the New Testament Text. (1977). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Inc.

Pierpont, William G. and Robinson, Maurice A. The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine / Majority Textform. (1991). Atlanta: The Original Word Publishers.

Taylor, Vincent. The Text of the New Testament: A Short Introduction. (1963). 2nd Edition. London: Macmillan & Co. Ltd.

Westcott, B. F. and Hort, F. J. A. Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek. (1988). Reprinted from 1882. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.

[i] Ernest Colwell, pp. 2-5. Hort championed codices X and B; Lagrange championed codex B; Burgon, Miller, Pickering, and Pierpont champion Byzantine.

[ii] Ernest Colwell, pp. 2,3. H. J. Vogels, Harold Murphy, Klijn (p. 6).

[iii] Wilbur Pickering, pp. 44-7; Colwell, Parvis, Zuntz, and Vaganay all think the genealogical method useless. Von Soden and Lake annihilated the single recension idea in their collation work.

[iv] Wilbur Pickering, p. 59. Matt. 27:41, John 18:40, Acts 20:28, and Rom. 6:12. Also, Bodmer II shows Syrian readings anterior to Neutral readings around 200 AD(p. 60).

[v] Ibid., p. 60. D conflates in John 5:37; B conflates in Col. 1:12 and 2 Thess. 3:4. Western readings conflate Syrian and Neutral readings in Matt. 4:13, John 5:37 and Acts 10:48. P46 and x conflate B and the Byzantine text. This is not a complete list.

[vi] Other Byzantine readings are found in the following: Didache (2nd), Diognetus (2nd), Justin Martyr (2nd), Gospel of Peter (2nd), Athenagorus (2nd), Hegesippus (2nd), Irenaeus (2nd), Clement of Alexandria (3rd), Tertullian (3rd), Clementines (3rd), Hippolytus (3rd), Origen (3rd), Gregory of Thaumaturgus (3rd), Novatian (3rd), Cyprian (3rd), Dionysis of Alexandria (3rd), Archelaus (3rd), Eusebius (4th), Athanasius (4th), Macarius Magnus (4th), Hilary (4th), Dydimus (4th), Basil (4th), Titus of Bostra (4th), Cyril of Jerusalem (4th), Gregory of Nyssa (4th), Apostolic Canons and Constitutions (4th), Epiphanius (4th), Ambrose (4th).

Share on Facebook