What is the Critical Text?

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.

Much has of late years been done to verify, as far as possible, the text of the Greek New Testament. Whether any critical text yet published should be invariably followed as correct is a question open to doubt, or perhaps some would say, one which admits of no doubt. Perhaps the text which, from the abundant materials now gathered together, shall generally command the confidence of scholars and Bible students has yet to appear. Meanwhile, we can in some places clearly see what should be read, and what corrections of the common Greek text (whether the second Elzevir edition, published in 1633, or the third edition of Stephen, published in 1550) should now be made. That neither of these texts can be accepted as an accurate reprint of the originals or even of what was read as such in the early ages of Christianity, we need not now stop to prove.Nor, since several attempts to revise the authorised version of the New Testament, or to translate afresh from the Greek, have of late years appeared, need we stop to inquire whether that version needs amendment. We shall, therefore, confine our remarks to pointing out some corrections of the authorised version which, in any revision, will most probably be made.

But our readers will naturally expect that we should give them some sort of finger-post to guide them through the apparent labyrinth of the various readings shewn forth in uncials, cursives, versions, and fathers. First, let us repeat what we said at the commencement, that though there are thousands of various readings, they do not touch one of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. All these remain intact; still, as we need and desire to know the very words of our God, we should value every help that would lead us to a more correct text. To attain this we know of no better plan for the general reader than to be guided by the united judgment of the various editors. There have been men who have laboured diligently and faithfully in the task of discovering what was the text of the New Testament as God caused it to be written at the first. These laid down certain rules for themselves — one taking this path, and another that; but in many cases they all arrived at the same conclusion. Where this is so, we consider that the student of scripture will be safe in taking their united judgment as decisive for a reading.

In 1775-7, a new era dawned on textual criticism. Griesbach then first published a critical text of the New Testament. Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, have since followed his example; whilst Hamilton, in 1821, published his Codex Criticus of the Hebrew Bible, the first attempt to form a critical text of the Old Testament.

By the labours of these and other scholars, what, it is pertinent to ask, has been accomplished? Have they demonstrated the perfection of the text from which the authorised version was made? Does the authorised version, when critically examined, faithfully represent the meaning of the originals?

This, compared with the various editions since the Complut. and Erasmian, may serve to show "the disadvantages under which the Greek text of the New Testament was first printed from late and inferior MSS.; the long neglect to take serious measures amending it; the slow process of the accumulation and study of evidence; the late date at which any considerable number of corrections on ancient authority were admitted into the slightly modified Erasmian text that reigned by an accidental prescription, and the very late date at which ancient authority was allowed to furnish not scattered touchings but the whole body of text from beginning to end; and lastly the advantage enjoyed by the present generation in the possession of a store of evidence largely augmented in amount and still more in value, as well as in the ample instruction afforded by previous criticism and previous texts."

The resources of textual criticism are shown to rise, in judging between variants, from Internal Evidence of "readings" (intrinsic and transcriptional) to that of "documents" and "groups of documents," as well as to what is called "genealogical" evidence (sometimes complicated by "mixture"); yet there are confessedly rival early readings which do not yield to what is here designated "the highest evidence" but are intrinsically to be condemned. The chief faults in this description are two, and they are very grave to a believer: (1) the reasoning proceeds as if the New Testament stood on no better grounds than any other book; and (2) that the Spirit of God has nothing to do with enabling the believer to form a sound judgment!

There is another point which relates to the Greek text itself, and which it is needful to mention. Until the end of the fifteenth century, at which period printing was invented, the holy scriptures — as well as all other books — existed only in the form of manuscripts. The first impression of the Bible was due to Cardinal Ximenes, but the sources from which he drew are still very little known to us. Two years previous to its publication, Erasmus had already given an editio princeps of the Greek text, but he had been able to consult only a very few manuscripts, and indeed for the Apocalypse he possessed but one, and this very incorrect and incomplete. About the middle of the sixteenth century, R. Stephens (Stephanus) published in Paris an edition of the Greek text, founded upon the comparison which he had made of thirteen manuscripts that he had found in the royal library, and of a fourteenth which his son Henry had examined, and which afterwards, from the hands of Theodore Beza, found its way into the Cambridge library. Theodore Beza himself published, at about the same time, an edition of the New Testament with a fresh translation in Latin. Also in 1633 a new edition of the Greek text was published in Holland, differing little from that of Stephens, to which they were bold enough to give the title of "Textus ab omnibus Receptus," the text received by all. If, at the present day, we put aside the translations from the Vulgate or ancient Latin version, we may say that in so far at least as we know, all modern translators of the New Testament have hitherto taken as the basis of their labours, either the text which is called "Text received by all," or another which is even less correct. Now this "Received Text" is founded on a very limited number of MSS. At the time of its publication criticism had made but little progress. The anxiety also of some who feared that the common faith might thereby be shaken prevented the raising of the question as to the accuracy of the existing text thus presented. But since that period many hundred MSS, some of which are of great antiquity, have been carefully examined and compared. Those faults could thus be corrected which copyists had introduced into the thirteen MSS to which Stephens had access, or which, by any other means, had crept into the "Received Text." The learned men who have thus employed their time and their sagacity in purging the text from those errors, which had found their way into it through the carelessness or presumption of men, have formed a corrected text; classifying, according to different systems, and judging, each according to his own point of view, the numerous MSS known at present.

188 We will name here the most distinguished among these learned men. The first, perhaps, whom we should point out, is Mill, who accumulated an immense number of different readings, by examining the MSS that he found in divers European libraries. Next came Bengel, who suggested the principle, turned afterwards to good account, of classifying the MSS in different families. After him Wetstein added many more readings, and published an edition of great critical value. Then Griesbach, Scholz, Tischendorf, Lachmann, availed themselves of the resources furnished by their predecessors in this field of labour, making also fresh researches themselves. We may add to the preceding names those of Birch, Matthaei, Alter, who have also contributed their share to the reconstruction of the text. Other men, no doubt, have laboured in the same way; but it suffices to have pointed out the principal ones among the number.

189 We have then thought it good to profit by all the means which learned and hard-working men have put within our reach. Some among them have preferred to form their text entirely on the most ancient MSS. It is true that every copy tends to multiply mistakes; but a MS which is more modern than some other one may happen to be an exact copy of a MS much more ancient than the latter. The MSS from which a copy was made at a comparatively modern period, may also have been less corrupted by deliberate alterations, so that the true way of having a text as pure as possible is to make use of all the resources that are at one's disposal. There are versions more ancient than the most ancient of the known MSS. Those versions control the text of the MSS. A work has been recently published by Mons. Rilliet, on perhaps the most ancient of all MSS, called the Vatican. His work appears to us very well done, and in many respects interesting; but no one MS can, by itself, furnish a satisfactory text of the New Testament.

Although able critics have for a century sought to edit the Greek Testament on documentary evidence of Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, and early citations, none as yet have succeeded in commanding more than partial confidence. Hence it has been a necessity for any careful and conscientious scholar who would really know the sources to compare several of these editions, and search into the grounds on which their differences depend, so as to have anything like a correct and enlarged view of the text, and to judge fairly of the claims of conflicting readings. … Mature spiritual judgment, with continual dependence on the Lord, is just as essential as a sound and thorough familiarity with the ancient witnesses of all kinds. From a review of the Revised Version of the New Testament in B.T., vol. xiii., p. 287 (June, 1881).

Lachmann published a manual edition of the New Testament professedly based on Bentley's idea of exhibiting the text as read in the fourth century … at one fell swoop sentenced the mass of the surviving witnesses to an ignominious death, and presented us with a text formed on absolute principles of singular narrowness … .14 The neglect of internal evidence is a fatal objection. But the grand fallacy involved is that a manuscript of the fourth or fifth century must give better readings than one of the seventh or eighth. Now this is in no way certain. There is a presumption in favour of the more ancient manuscript, because each successive transcription tends to introduce new errors in addition to those it repeats. On the other hand, a copy of the ninth century may have been made from one older than any now extant, and certainly some old documents are more corrupt than many of the more recent witnesses. Every ingenuous scholar must own, to say the least, that the oldest manuscripts have some bad readings, and that the modern manuscripts have some that are good.15 Hence the distinction is not between the united evidence of the most ancient documents (Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers), and the common herd of those more recent; for rarely, if ever, is there such unanimous ancient testimony without considerable support from witnesses of a later day. The truth is that almost always, where the old documents really agree, there is large confirmation elsewhere, and where the ancients differ, so do the moderns. It is quite unfounded, therefore, to treat it as a question pure and simple between old and new. Nor is it the important point of research what particular readings existed in the days of Jerome. For notoriously errors of various kinds had then crept into both Greek and Latin copies, and no antiquity can sanctify an error. The true question is: What, using every available means to form a judgment, was the primitive text? It is often forgotten that our oldest documents are but copies. Several centuries elapsed between the original issue of the New Testament Scriptures and any manuscripts now existing. All, therefore, are on the ground of copyists differing only in degree. It is not, then, a comparison between a single eye-witness and many hearsay reporters, unless we have the original autographs. And, in fact, we know that an historian's account, three centuries after alleged facts, may be, and often is, corrected, five hundred or a thousand years after, by recurrence to sources more trustworthy, or by a more patient, comprehensive, and skilful sifting of neglected evidence.

Although able critics have for a century sought to edit the Greek Testament on documentary evidence of Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, and early citations, none as yet have succeeded in commanding more than partial confidence. Hence it has been a necessity for any careful and conscientious scholar who would really know the sources to compare several of these editions, and search into the grounds on which their differences depend, so as to have anything like a correct and enlarged view of the text, and to judge fairly of the claims of conflicting readings. … Mature spiritual judgment, with continual dependence on the Lord, is just as essential as a sound and thorough familiarity with the ancient witnesses of all kinds.18 From a review of the Revised Version of the New Testament, in — Bible Treasury, Vol. XIII., p. 287 (June, 1881).

Lachmann published a manual edition of the New Testament professedly based on Bentley's idea of exhibiting the text as read in the fourth century … at one fell swoop sentenced the mass of the surviving witnesses to an ignominious death, and presented us with a text formed on absolute principles of singular narrowness. … The neglect of internal evidence is a fatal objection. But the grand fallacy involved is that a manuscript of the fourth or fifth century must give better readings than one of the seventh or eighth. Now this is in no way certain. There is a presumption in favour of the more ancient manuscript, because each successive transcription tends to introduce new errors in addition to those it repeats. On the other hand, a copy of the ninth century may have been made from one older than any now extant, and certainly some old documents are more corrupt than many of the more recent witnesses. Every ingenuous scholar must own, to say the least, that the oldest manuscripts have some bad readings, and that the modern manuscripts have some that are good. Hence the distinction is not between the united evidence of the most ancient documents (Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers) and the common herd of those more recent; for rarely, or never, is there such unanimous ancient testimony without considerable support from witnesses of a later day. The truth is that almost always, where the old documents really agree, there is large confirmation elsewhere, and where the ancients differ, so do the moderns. It is quite unfounded, therefore, to treat it as a question pure and simple between old and new. Nor is it the important point of research what particular readings existed in the days of Jerome. For notoriously errors of various kinds had then crept into both Greek and Latin copies, and no antiquity can sanctify an error. The true question is: What, using every available means to form a judgment, was the primitive text? It is often forgotten that our oldest documents are but copies. Several centuries elapsed between the original issue of the New Testament Scriptures and any manuscripts now existing. All, therefore, are on the ground of copyists differing only in degree. It is not, then, a comparison between a single eye-witness and many hearsay reporters, unless we had the original autographs. And, in fact, we know that an historian's account, three centuries after alleged facts, may be, and often is, corrected, five hundred or a thousand years after, by recurrence to sources more trustworthy, or by a more patient, comprehensive, and skilful sifting of neglected evidence.

The English Authorised Version (1611) of the New Testament was mainly derived from what was afterwards called the Received Text, based on a recension of the original Greek called "Byzantine" by Griesbach, and contained chiefly in relatively late MSS. (such as LΔ among uncials and cursive 1). The Revised Version (1881) is founded on a more ancient text (ℵABC, etc.) allied to that which the same critic named "Alexandrian," but, as limited by Westcott and Hort, the most influential members of the committee in textual matters, has been called "Neutral." The views of these English scholars rapidly received general support, and the dominance of their system of selection has only within the last few years been shaken by those critics who incline towards greater recognition of a third rescension, known as the "Western" or "Syro-Latin." As Sir R. Anderson has written, the Westcott-Hort "mutilation of the Gospels" by rejection of the indirect evidence afforded by the united voice of versions (such as the Old Syriac and Old Latin) and Fathers in favour of the direct evidence of "certain of the oldest manuscripts," was not likely to commend itself to adepts in the science of evidence. ("Pseudo-Criticism," p. 5.) The, leaders in the reaction are German critics, Blass and Wellhausen in particular. Sanday continues his allegiance to the Cambridge scholars, whilst Weiss adheres to a modified form of the Westcott-Hort criticism, regarding the cursives somewhat more than those English scholars have done, and internal evidence always, but sometimes following B even when Hort has not done so, as in 5:18, whilst Harnack is disposed to apply the drag to the rapidly radical departure from it.