Textual criticism - what is it?

Dr. Kirkpatrick opens the first of these papers with words which sound well:- "The aim of the Christian student is truth; and the aim of the Christian teacher is to bring that truth to bear upon human character and life. The Old Testament forms an integral part of the Bible. It was placed in the hands of the Christian Church by its Founder and His Apostles as the record of God's revelation of Himself to His chosen people and the manifold preparation for His own coming; as the source from which instruction in conduct was to be derived, and as the means by which the spiritual life was to be fed. We cannot therefore treat it as any other book: it is sacred ground: reverence is demanded of us as we approach it. But it is no true reverence which would exempt it from the fullest examination by all legitimate methods of criticism" (p. 3). Textual criticism as applied to Scripture has for its aim to set out the very words of the original, and the rejection of every intrusion, omission, or change through the copyist whether unintentional or designed. Such was the recognised task of the orthodox critic from the first; and the MSS., the Versions, and ancient citations furnished the materials which the critic employed to give, in his judgment, the most exact approach to the deposit of faith: a difficult and delicate work, which demanded spiritual discernment at least as much as patient research and multifarious learning. Such is the criticism alone considered "legitimate" till of late.

My other remark is one of sorrow. All examination of the originals, collecting of manuscript readings, versions, etc., is a proper and most useful employment. It is usually called "textual criticism," or a judgment as to the text, based on the various readings, etc., of different manuscripts. In contrast with this, there is another form of judgment, miscalled "higher criticism," whose purpose it is to judge of the text by its contents, and to accept or reject it according to certain standards adopted by the critics. In this way, judging, and most often mistakenly, by differences of style, new words and supposed doctrines or opinions, the books of the Bible have been cut to pieces. The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is rejected, its date of composition made much later, and practically the Spirit of God is ignored and despised. I have no hesitation in declaring this form of criticism, as usually pursued, to be a work of Satan. It is not within our sphere to examine it. I can only say it has laid its unclean hands upon well nigh every portion of God's word, and as a result has robbed those who are ensnared of a faith in that Word.

Legitimate criticism may seek to gather the true text from reliable documents, in time differing more or less through human infirmity or fault. But it rightly supposes an original Divine deposit. No intelligent person would mix this question with God's inspiration; various readings belong to the distinct region of man's responsibility, as Scripture does to Divine grace. The problem of the true critic is to use all means, external and internal, to recover what was originally written (See §3). What is called "higher criticism" is essentially spurious, either denying God as the Author or impudently pretending to speak for Him, if they go not so far. Even Christians are in danger of heeding what these enemies of the written word assume, when it is said that it nowhere claims Divine authority. Nor is it only inferential evidence that is given throughout the Bible in general, as well as the conclusive proof of the reverence to all then written shown by our Lord, the Lord of all. It is dogmatic truth that God's inspiration is claimed for every Scripture — not merely for all given before the Apostle Paul wrote his last epistle, but for that part which remained to be written. For nothing less is the force of 2 Tim. 3:16: Every scripture [is] inspired of God and profitable," etc. Had the existing body been meant the article would have been requisite, as in verse 14, which speaks only of the Old Testament. Its absence was no less correct for accrediting with the same source and character all that God might be pleased to vouchsafe till the canon was complete.

The function of a sound and Christian critic is to detect and cast out every slip, or what is worse, any quasi-correction, which crept into the original text through the copyists. In the O.T. this is chiefly in names and dates. In the N.T. are more serious additions, as in Acts 8:37, Acts 9:3-4 (from elsewhere only), 1 John 5:7-8; and omissions, as in 1 Cor. 9:20, 1 John 2:23. But though these and the like have their importance, especially for those jealous for God's word to the minutest degree, as believing in its plenary inspiration, they affect most slightly the reliable and blessed testimony of God in the Scriptures. And the most ample grounds are in general extant to convince any upright mind, whatever may be the case. True criticism goes on the ground of faith in God's authoritative and certain written testimony to man; the soi-disant "higher" believes in no inspired deposit in the Pentateuch, etc., in the Psalms, or in the Prophets, according to the measure of their incredulity. And this ungodliness cannot stop there, but will at length undermine the N.T., Christianity, and Christ Himself for themselves and their admirers. W. K.

2 Three questions arise in connection with study of any Book of the Bible: (i.) as to the authorship and the materials ("sources") used by the writer, to which those engaged in the higher internal criticism address their inquiries; (ii.) as to the authority attaching to the Book, which is concerned with inspiration, and also with interpretation; (iii.) as to its genuine text, which is the inquiry of textual, external criticism (cf. Barry, p. 28). To each of these topics some remarks will be devoted, as introductory to such study of the Gospel.

Since that epoch, the libraries of Europe, Asia, and North Africa, have been ransacked, and many valuable MSS. discovered which were then unknown; and the settlement of the text, as it is called, has become the subject of the attention of biblical students. A judgement has to be formed from the variety and abundance of materials that exist, and a text produced that shall be as nearly as possible like what it was when it left the hands of the original writers. And in order to accomplish this, not only have the ancient MSS. themselves to be examined, and their comparative value decided, but due weight has to be given to any differences that may appear in the ancient translations, or in quotations made in ancient authors. It frequently happens that the different sources of information vary in particulars, and then a judgement must be exercised as to which is to be preferred.

Since that epoch, the libraries of Europe, Asia, and North Africa, have been ransacked, and many valuable MSS. discovered which were then unknown; and the settlement of the text, as it is called, has become the subject of the attention of biblical students. A judgement has to be formed from the variety and abundance of materials that exist, and a text produced that shall be as nearly as possible like what it was when it left the hands of the original writers. And in order to accomplish this, not only have the ancient MSS. themselves to be examined, and their comparative value decided, but due weight has to be given to any differences that may appear in the ancient translations, or in quotations made in ancient authors. It frequently happens that the different sources of information vary in particulars, and then a judgement must be exercised as to which is to be preferred.

While upon the subject of the infallible inspiration of Scripture, I will say a few words upon the texts, versions, etc. To be very simple, you know that until a late date all copies were made by pen. The accuracy of these copies depended, of course, upon the care of the copyist. But, even with the greatest care, it was impossible, humanly speaking, to keep out all errors. We find, therefore, that among the hundreds of manuscripts there are a large number of small variations. Most of these scarcely affect the meaning at all, being slight omissions or insertions of letters, small words, etc. Other cases occur where the meaning of a certain verse may be altered; but I think I am safe in saying that in no one manuscript is there embodied a false doctrine, or a true one eliminated. It is certainly a great mercy of God that He has preserved His truth uncontaminated through all these centuries.

The 'oracles of God' were committed to Israel, Rom. 3:2, and they have been zealous defenders of the letter of the O.T. For a long time it was thought that their great care and exactitude in copying had preserved the manuscripts from error; but it has been abundantly proved that those copyists erred, as all others have erred in this respect, and numerous errors have been discovered in the MSS, though many of them are seen at once to be mistakes of the pen, some doubtless caused through the similarity of the Hebrew letters, and are easily corrected. Other differences can be set right by the preponderance of evidence in the MSS themselves now that many of these have been collated.

There have been and are men who have spent the best part of their lives in comparing the various copies: they have duly considered the value of each, and have carefully sought to discover the true text as it stood in the original.