TCGoals

Textual criticism is the scientific process of recovering the original text of a document. A secondary goal of this process is to discover the history of the
transmission of the document's text.

Unlike a proof-reader who only compares a text to his idea of what its author intended to write, a textual critic (the word "critic" in this context means
"analyst") compares copies of the text to each other. A place in the text where the copies disagree is called a variant-unit. The textual critic provisionally
detects the causes of the disagreeing readings in each variant-unit, and selects the variant which, in his judgment, best represents what the author wrote. In
this way, the textual critic reconstructs the archetype, the ancestral text from which all available copies descend. The archetype is then proof-read, and
closely contested variants are reconsidered. Where a non-extant reading appears to embody what the author wrote, and it accounts for the extant variants,
the textual critic conjecturally emends the text. The result of this analytical process, when successfully performed, is the recovery of the original text, that is,
the text which the document contained when it was first produced as a finished work by its author or authors.

The comparison of variants is undertaken according to several standards, or "canons," of which the following are of chief importance.

(1) A reading which explains its competitors with greater elegance and force than it is explained by any of them is more likely to be original.

(2) A reading supported by witnesses representing two or more locales of early Christendom is more likely to be original than a reading supported by
witnesses representing only one locale.

(3) A reading which can be shown to have had, in the course of the transmission of the text, the appearance of difficulty (either real or imagined), and which
is rivaled by variants without such difficulty, is more likely than its rivals to be original.

(4) A reading supported by early attestation is more likely to be original than a reading supported exclusively by recent attestation.

(5) A reading which conforms a statement in the text to the form of a similar statement in a similar document is less likely to be original than a competing
reading that does not exhibit conformity.

(6) A reading which involves a rare term or expression is more likely to be original than a reading which involves an ordinary term or expression.

(7) A reading which is consistent with the author's discernible style, syntax, and vocabulary is more likely to be original than a reading which deviates from
the author's usual style, syntax, or from the vocabulary which he may naturally be expected to have been capable of using.

The seven major internal indicators of authenticity are thus

(1) EXPLICATION - which reading best explains its rivals?

(2) DIVERSITY - which reading has the widest range of support in early Christendom?

(3) DIFFICULTY - to what extent would each rival variant appear to early copyists to invite change?

(4) ANTIQUITY - which reading has the oldest attestation?

(5) NON-CONFORMITY - which reading is least likely to have been the result of the influence of copyists' familiarity with similar texts?

(6) RARITY - which reading, having an obscure word or expression, would tend to provoke a copyist to substitute something more ordinary?

(7) STYLE - which reading is most consistent with the author's normal style and, to the extent that it can be discerned, his vocabulary?

The weight given to each of these qualities will vary from one reading to another. No single canon is a completely reliable guideline. They are all
generalizations, which must be handled logically and practically. Different canons frequently counterbalance one another, supporting rival variants. And
even when several canons support a reading, some special factor may militate against its adoption.

Consideration of internal evidence should be framed by consideration of the traits of the witnesses in which the variants are preserved. The date of the
witness, the skill of the copyist, and discernible characteristics of particular transmission-lines (to abridge, expand, adjust, or to rigorously preserve),
considered together, may confer special status to a copy, a group of copies, or to some other witness.

UNIQUE FACTORS IN NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM

Textual critics should be aware of some unique factors which have influenced the New Testament text as presented in the MSS. These include the
following:

(1) LITURGICAL ADJUSTMENTS. Portions of the New Testament were divided into sections; each section was assigned an annual day or occasion
on which it was to be read. These sections were often supplements by introductory phrases to provide some idea of their setting in the text, and by
insertions which served to provoke the performance of a liturgical action when a particular passage was read. Liturgical adjustments also include the
replacement of pronouns with nouns, and the addition or expansion of titles.

(2) LINGUISTIC ADJUSTMENTS. These consist of instances in which ancient koine Greek was conformed to Attic modes of expression, or in
which terms, word-order, spelling, and syntax were conformed to later local standards.

(3) THEOLOGICAL ADJUSTMENTS. Copyists expected the text to promote orthodox theology; as a result they sometimes made explicit a
theological statement which was otherwise merely implicit, or adjusted the text in order to prevent misunderstanding of potentially question-raising words or
phrases. On rare occasions, copyists suspected that a copy in their possession had been corrupted by heretics, and this provoked them to create what they
perceived to be a more orthodox statement. Also, heretics did in fact corrupt the text, and their copies were sometimes acquired by non-heretical copyists
who were sometimes aware and sometimes unaware of the corruptions.

(4) ANTI-JUDAIC ADJUSTMENTS. Some copyists, interpreting the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and the failure of the Second Jewish Revolt
in A.D. 132-134 as signs of divine displeasure, removed or adjusted statements in the text which appeared favorable to the Jewish people as a whole.

(5) SEPTUAGINT CONFORMATION. Loose quotations, combined quotations, and paraphrases of the Septuagint, the popular Greek translation of
the Hebrew Bible, were adjusted so as to conform more precisely or more fully to the Septuagint, or to the form of the Septuagint known to copyists.

(6) RETRO-TRANSLATION. The Greek text of the New Testament books was translated into other languages, such as Latin, Syriac, and Sahidic.
On rare occasions, a bilingual copyist allowed his knowledge of, and familiarity with, the versional form of a passage to affect the fidelity of his transmission
of the Greek text. This sometimes resulted in the creation of a Greek translation of material that originated in a non-Greek manuscript.

(7) SACRED NAMES. Very early in the transmission-stream -- apparently earlier than the sub-archetypes of all text-types -- copyists contracted several
words of special significance, such as "God," "Lord," "Jesus," "Christ," and "Spirit." The list of contractions varied among locales, and among copyists.
Variant-units involving these words should be approached with special caution.

(8) SCRIBAL FORMATS. Features such as the type of handwriting, the length of lines, paragraph-formation, the addition of accompanying
commentaries or margin-notes, colophons, decorations, illustrations, and other embellishments introduced by copyists can help identify a manuscript's place
in the text-stream.

Besides those eight factors, you will also need to become familiar with the concept of genealogical relationships between manuscripts -- a very important
concept which involves our next subject.

TEXT-TYPES OF THE GOSPELS

The value of copies and groups of copies should be measured not only according to their traits but also according to their discernible history. The
transmission-history of the Gospels involved, in the second century, the development of "local texts" -- forms of the text endowed with unique traits and
unique readings in different locales.

Textual critics have identified the local text-types of the Gospel of Mark as the Alexandrian Text, the Western Text, the Caesarean Text, and the Byzantine
Text. These names derive from locales in which the text-types were utilized (not necessarily the locales in which they began). Although it can be argued
that these names are misnomers, they are retained as the traditional terms for their contents.

Many textual critics have adopted the view, made famous by Westcott & Hort in 1881, that the relationship of the Byzantine Text to the Alexandrian Text
and the Western Text is like the relationship of a child to his parents. Westcott & Hort attributed this blending to an editor or editors near the end of the
200's. However, subsequent discoveries and analyses -- particularly the research of Harry Sturz -- have shown that many unique Byzantine readings are
demonstrably earlier than Hort's assigned date for their creation. Many more Byzantine readings in the Gospels are not plausibly accounted for as editorial
creations. This implies that the Byzantine Text includes a substantial stratum of ancient and independent readings. This stratum may be called the Proto-
Byzantine Text.

Hort tentatively linked the origin of the Byzantine Text to Lucian of Antioch, who was martyred in A.D. 312. In a list of saints' commemoration-days from
about 600, Lucian is credited with the production of a Bible which contained the Old Testament and New Testament, and which was taken to Nicomedia.
Probably Lucian thoughtfully produced the text of the New Testament portion of his Bible by comparing copies which represented the Alexandrian Text, a
form of the Western Text, and the local text of Antioch in Syria. However, other witnesses to the Syrian text, such as the Gothic Version (made c. 350 by
Wulfilas) and the Peshitta, often disagree with the Byzantine Text, and another group of mostly-Byzantine manuscripts (Family Pi) also has distinct
disagreements with the Byzantine (Majority) Text. A simple explanation for this is that the Byzantine Text, as represented by the majority of Greek copies,
is a combination of two combinations: the first being Lucian's combination of Syrian, Alexandrian, and Western readings, and the second being a
combination of the text of Lucian's venerated copy and the local text of Nicomedia and its environs.

Two further implications of this scenario are

(1) agreements between the Byzantine Text and the Syrian Text may represent two local texts, and

(2) a reading in the Byzantine Text which disagrees with the Syrian Text may be due to interference from Lucian (involving his rejection of a Syrian reading
which was previously shared by the Nicomedian and Syrian Texts), but it may attest to a reading which was entrenched in the local text of Nicomedia and
survived the "invasion" of Lucian's venerated copy and its amalgamated text.

It should be clear that the canon which emphasizes the diversity of attestation for a reading does not mainly involve quantities of copies but quantities of local
texts, where they appear to be independent of one another. The agreement of all text-types is tremendously strong evidence of authenticity. The agreement
of three out of four local texts, or, in the Gospel of Mark, four out of five, is strong evidence of authenticity, which a dissenting reading can only outweigh
with very strong internal indicators of authenticity in its favor. Lesser proportions, however, are less important.

COMPARING VARIANT-READINGS

To conduct textual criticism, you will need to know how to compare the support for one variant to the support for another variant. You will need data, and
you will need to know how to understand it. The Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece is a major source of information about variant-readings. This
book, now in its 27th edition, consists mainly of an Introduction, a Text, and an Apparatus (a list of selected variant-units, the rival variants within them, and
the main witnesses for each variant). For those who wish to learn how to read and understand the textual apparatus of the Nestle-Aland NTG, its
Introduction is a fine place to start -- in fact, there is hardly any need to look elsewhere to learn how to de-code the Nestle-Aland text's symbols and
apparatus. The United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament, now in its 4th edition, contains essentially the same text as the 27th edition of the NTG, with
a different sort of apparatus that features fewer -- much fewer -- variant-units but offers a fuller citation of witnesses. It has been supplemented by Dr.
Bruce Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. In addition to those three books, Dr. Reuben Swanson's series New Testament
Greek Manuscripts - Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines Against Codex Vaticanus provides comprehensive representation of the readings of
major Greek witnesses. Each format has advantages and disadvantages; for detailed text-critical work, Swanson's volumes should be the primary sources
of data about the Greek evidence, supplemented by the NTG apparatus, supplemented by the UBS' GNT apparatus.

It is important to realize, when using the data in these works, that you are reading something like an attendance-record at a family reunion, so to speak. It is
also important to realize that not all branches of the family-tree are represented in the same way in the apparatus. Usually the Greek Byzantine Text is
represented by a single siglum ("M" or "Byz") while several Greek Alexandrian and Greek Western witnesses are listed individually. This treatment is, in
part, a relic of Hort's theory that the Byzantine Text is an Alexandrian+Western amalgamation: on the assumption that the Byzantine Text was created
sometime after 250, it would make sense to treat its witnesses as just one witness, in essentially the same way that witnesses of translations such as the
Armenian Version or the Vulgate are treated. However, while the Byzantine Text is an amalgamation, it is an amalgamation made mostly of ancient
component-parts. The value of the Byzantine Text is not reduced by its potential to inform us about two local texts (the Syrian and the Nicomedian) instead
of just one. A Byzantine reading might be a (rare) Lucianic invention, but it also might be an ancient Syrian reading, or an ancient Nicomedian reading, or an
ancient reading shared by the local texts of Syria and Nicomedia.

What this means, as far as interpreting the apparatus is concerned, is that a lengthy list of Alexandrian Greek witnesses is not necessarily more weighty than
the Byzantine Text, even though most Byzantine witnesses are cited as a single siglum, "M." The Alexandrian witnesses (usually) echo an ancestral local
text, and the Byzantine witnesses (usually) echo at least one ancestral local text. A comparison of rival variants in the sub-archetypes should not be
influenced by the greater quantity of Byzantine Greek witnesses in real life, or by the greater quantity of citations of individual Alexandrian Greek witnesses
in an apparatus.

When reading an apparatus, you should keep in mind that the chief significance of the contents of a witness consists in how well, and how thoroughly, it
reveals the contents of its sub-archetype (or, in the case of "mixed text" witnesses, its sub-archetypes). The degree of veneration accorded by copyists to a
particular copy, the physical climate where a copy was kept, the amount of handling a copy endured, and the degree to which its possessors were inclined
to preserve it (rather than replace it) have largely determined which text-type has the most representatives, and which text-type has the oldest
representatives. These are nevertheless incidental factors which should not be allowed to overshadow internal indicators of authenticity in the texts of the
sub-archetypes.