Textual criticism – what is it?

Answer

Simply put, textual criticism is a technique used to ascertain the content of the original manuscripts of the Bible. The original manuscripts of the Bible have been lost, concealed, or are no longer extant. What we possess are tens of thousands of copies of the original manuscripts dating from the 1st to the 15th centuries A.D. (for the New Testament) and from the 4th century B.C. to the 15th century A.D. (for the Old Testament). Within these manuscripts, there exist numerous minor and a few significant discrepancies. Textual criticism involves the examination of these manuscripts in an effort to determine the precise original wording.

Textual criticism employs three primary approaches. The first is the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus was a compilation of the Bible created by Erasmus in the 1500s A.D. He amalgamated the limited number of manuscripts available to him into what later became known as the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus serves as the textual foundation for the King James Version and New King James Version.

The second approach is referred to as the Majority Text. The Majority Text evaluates all the existing manuscripts, compares the variations, and selects the most probable original reading based on the frequency of occurrence. For instance, if 748 manuscripts read “he said” and 1,429 manuscripts read “they said,” the Majority Text would opt for “they said” as the most likely original reading. No major Bible translations are based on the Majority Text.

The third approach is the critical or eclectic method. The eclectic method involves the consideration of external and internal evidence to determine the most probable original text. External evidence prompts questions such as: in how many manuscripts does the reading appear? what are the dates of these manuscripts? in which geographical region were these manuscripts discovered? Internal evEvidence prompts these questions: what could have caused these varying readings? Which reading can possibly explain the origin of the other readings? The New International Version, New American Standard, New Living Translation, and most other Bible translations use the Eclectic Text.

Which method is most accurate? That is where the debate begins. When the methods are first described to someone, the person typically picks the Majority Text as the method that should be used. It is essentially the “majority rules” and the “democratic” method. However, there is a regional issue to consider here. In the first few centuries of the church, the vast majority of Christians spoke and wrote in Greek. Starting in the 4th century A.D., Latin began to become the most common language, especially in the church. Starting with the Latin Vulgate, the New Testament began to be copied in Latin instead of Greek.

However, in the eastern Christian world, Greek continued to be the dominant language of the church for over 1,000 more years. As a result, the vast majority of Greek manuscripts are from the eastern / Byzantine region. These Byzantine manuscripts are all very similar to each other. They likely all originated in the same few Greek manuscripts. While being very similar to each other, the Byzantine manuscripts have numerous differences with the manuscripts found in the western and central regions of the church. So, it essentially boils down to this: if you started with three manuscripts, one was copied 100 times, another was copied 200 times, and the third was copied 5,000 times, which group is going to have the majority rule? The third group, of course. However, the third group is no more likely to have the original reading than the first or second group. It only has more copies. The critical / eclectic method of textual criticism gives equal “weight” to the manuscripts from different regions, despite the manuscripts from the East having the overwhelming majority.

How does the critical / eclectic method work iIn practice? If you compare John 5:1-9 in the King James Version (Textus Receptus) and the New International Version (Critical Text), you will notice that verse 4 is absent from the NIV. In the KJV, John 5:4 reads, “For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.” Why is this verse missing from the NIV (and the other Bible translations that use the Critical Text)? The eclectic method works as follows: (1) The text of John 5:4 does not appear in most of the oldest manuscripts. (2) The text of John 5:4 is present in all of the Byzantine manuscripts, but not in many of the non-Eastern manuscripts. (3) It is more probable that a scribe would add an explanation than remove one. John 5:4 clarifies why the crippled man desired to enter the pool. Why would a scribe omit this verse? That does not seem logical. It does seem logical that the tradition of why the crippled man wanted to enter the pool would be added. Consequently, the Critical / Eclectic Text excludes John 5:4.

Regardless of the textual criticism method you believe is accurate, this is a topic that should be approached with grace, respect, and kindness. Christians can and do have differing opinions on this matter. We can discuss the methods, but we should not criticize the motives and character of those with whom we differ on this issue. We all share the same objective—to ascertain the most probable original wording of the Bible. Some simply employ different methods to accomplish that objective.