Biblical Textual Criticism Part 1

Since this blog's purpose is to highlight an apparatus that I am working on, an apparatus being an important part of a critical text, I thought it might be worthwhile talking about the subject.

I am not a trained textual critic, so the research I will do for future posts on the subject will be as much a learning experience for me as for anyone who might read them. Also, nothing I say about any position on textual criticism in this or future posts should be taken as an endorsement or condemnation of any given position. I do have a position, but I am trying to make this as neutral as possible and to keep out bias as far as it is possible.

What Exactly is Textual Criticism?

Textual criticism seeks to uncover the original wording of a given text. This is not limited to the Bible but some of the earliest text critical efforts were of the Bible. A textual critic will examine copies of a text and attempt to determine if a reading is authentic or if it has been altered (known as a variant), whether deliberately or accidentally and if so, find what may be the original reading. A number of different methodologies have been used in the process of textual criticism. But more on those in a future post.

Why Do We Need Textual Criticism?

Prior to the invention of the printing press texts were copied entirely by hand. The limitations of humans led to errors creeping in as new manuscripts were made. Many of these were minor, such as spelling errors or differences in word order, while others are more serious such as addition or omission of words to entire passages (e.g. John 7:53-8:12 aka the Pericope Adulterae and the ending of Mark).

An example I have recently encountered while editing my work in Acts 14 is very minor, but like all variants we can ask which is correct? The Greek text reads as follows (1 = 'Alexandrian' and 2  'TR/Byzantine'):

1. διέτριβον δὲ χρόνον οὐκ ὀλίγον σὺν τοῖς μαθηταῖς.
2. διέτριβον δὲ ἐκεῖ χρόνον οὐκ ὀλίγον σὺν τοῖς μαθηταῖς.

In English this reads:

1. They stayed with the disciples for a long time.
2. They stayed there with the disciples for a long time.

This variant is minor and does not change the meaning of the text, it merely makes it more specific in stating they stayed in Antioch (see Acts 14:26). But which version is the one Luke actually wrote? That is what textual criticism seeks to determine.

Many variants are untranslatable. For example we see variants such as Δαβιδ, Δαυιδ, and Δαυειδ or Πιλατος versus Πειλατος. In English these will all translate to David and Pilate respectively.

A common cause of variants is iotacism (or itacism). This is generally caused by the process of certain vowels in the Greek language merging in sound as the language evolved. This is seen in modern Greek with η, υ, ει, οι, and occasionally υι all being pronounced as ι. It seems that this process began in different places and in different regions prior to the 1st century AD. It may be that the different spellings of Δαυιδ/Δαυειδ or Πιλατος/Πειλατος were caused by iotacism and the names were pronounced in an identical manner. Where this change to the language had taken hold it is likely that someone reading words such as υμων (hymōn) and ημων (hēmōn) would pronounce both himōn leading to the copyists confusing words.

In most cases the changes were accidental, but in some cases they were possibly deliberate. It is hard to determine exactly which variants are deliberate and which are accidental. Apart from the variants listed above we have a number of verses that were either added or removed from the text. But which way it was is debated with proponents of one side arguing they were added perhaps by well meaning scribes seeking to harmonise readings of one Gospel with those of another while another side will argue they have been removed and are genuine and therefore should be restored to the text.

The purpose of the textual critic is not to determine if what they say is true, but rather they ask, are the words we read the words that the original author penned or have they changed over time and if they have changed, what might the original reading be?

Next Time

 In future posts I hope (God willing) to talk about topics such as:

• Does textual criticism undermine trust in the Bible?
• A short history of textual criticism
• Methods used
• Textual critics and their works (e.g. Erasmus, Tregelles, Scrivener, Westcott & Hort, Robinson and so on)
• Any other important topics connected to textual criticism.

This may not be a week by week project, but I do hope to do a couple of posts a month on it.

I will possibly edit these posts as I study further and find more/better information for the posts. I will flag them as Edited if I do this.