lisa@phs.UUCP (Jeff Gillette) (11/05/84)
<>
There has been some question as to the reliability of the text
of the New Testament. Christian (and non-Christian) scholars often
claim to know with certainty what the original authors wrote. On
what basis can they presume this knowledge? Let me summarize some
of the work of textual criticism. I am drawing much from Bruce
Metzger (just retired professor of early Christianity at Princeton)
in his book "The Text of the New Testament: its transmission, corruption
and restoration," Oxford, 1968.
1. The Sources
The basic manuscript evidence exists in papyrus fragments, manuscripts,
translations, and quotations.
Papyrus fragments of the New Testament date from the second quarter of
the 2nd Century (two manuscripts of John's Gospel). By the year 200
we have evidence of John and Luke, and 10 letters of Paul (including
Hebrews!). In the 3rd Century we see Jude and 1/2 Peter.
The most famous manuscripts are Sinaiticus (4th Century - earliest
complete copy of New Testament) and Vaticanus (also 4th Century). In
331 AD (CE), Emperor Constantine ordered the production of 50 copies of
Holy Scriptures. The description given by Eusebius matches these two
manuscripts, suggesting that they are a part of (or at least akin to)
the collection authorized by Constantine.
Other important manuscripts are the codex Alexandrinus (5th Century) and
codex Bezae (5th/6th Century), the Washington manuscript (Pauline letters,
5th/6th Century), and the Freer codex (4th/5th Century).
Translations of the *Greek* text were made early in the history of the
church, primarily for missionary and liturgical purposes. The earliest
Syriac version is preserved in two 4th/5th Century manuscripts. The
Peshitta, the Syriac "vulgate" was composed in the 5th Century, and exists
in several 5th/6th Century manuscripts. Fragments of the Old Latin version
and Coptic translations stem from the 3rd Century. Other important
versions exist in the Gothic, Armenian, and Ethiopic languages. All of
these versions are clearly translations, though, and thus of secondary
value as witnesses to the original text of the New Testament.
Christian writers from the First Century on also quoted sayings of
Jesus and writings of the Apostle Paul. With these, however, there are
many inconsistent readings - many of these writers seemed to work from
memory, or paraphrased the text.
Fortunately, the 5000 Greek manuscripts (plus several more thousand
translated manuscripts and patristic quotations) are not all independent.
They tend to sort themselves into "families" on the basis of common
readings and style. The four commonly acknowledged types of text are
the Alexandrian (stemming from early 2nd Century - carefully preserved by
professional scribes - Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts are of this type);
the Western (stems from early 2nd Century - earlier and more widely
distributed, but also given to greater freedom in editing and revision
than the Alexandrian text); the Caesarean (from Caesarea, Palestine,
around end of 2nd Century - a compromise between Alexandrian and Western);
and the Byzantine (forebearer of the Textus Receptus - prepared by Lucian
of Antioch in late 3rd Century as a "compromise" standard text). Almost
all early manuscripts belong to one of these types.
2. Evaluating the evidence
When attempting to determine which variant of a verse is more likely
original, Metzger suggests several principles which characterize textual
criticism.
External evidence is gained from the different manuscripts. Generally,
the older manuscripts (or at least the older type of text) are more
likely original. The reading with a wider geographical distribution
(representing independent manuscripts) is also more probable. But,
genealogical relationships must be considered - 15 manuscripts that all
stem from a common late ancestor do not count 15 "points" against one
early independent witness. Metzger's statement is that "witnesses are
to be weighed rather than counted."
Internal evidence (from the intrinsic probability of the text itself)
asks what types of mistakes (conscious or unconscious) are most probable.
Since a scribe is more likely to make a text easier to understand, the
more difficult reading is more likely. Similarly, it is more likely that
a scribe will add something extra than to delete (scribes got paid by the
stichos - syllable), thus the shorter reading is favored. Scribes also
may have attempted to harmonize one passage with another (as in the Gospels),
or substituted for a strange word, or unpolished style. Finally, the text
critic considers the context of a passage - which reading is in keeping
with the author's chain of reasoning.
What happens when various lines of evidence conflict? If the conflict is
minor, these principles are applied in hierarchical order (each scholar has
his/her own hierarchy, but the order I have used above is pretty much
representative). If the conflict is major, he/she makes the best decision
he/she can, and includes some type of footnote or other documentation to
point out the major options. This is the case in most commonly used English
translations of the Bible. In the scholarly Greek texts (3rd Edition
United Bible Society, 26th Edition Nestle, Aland's Synopsis Quattuor
Evangeliorum) all credible variations are documented.
The final point to note is that evidence of conscious theological redaction
among scribes is minimal. Many of the earliest copies (especially in
Alexandria) were made by [secular] professional scribes who had no interest
in Christian theology. Even so, the broad diversity, geographically,
linguistically, and theologically, of pre-5th Century manuscripts tends to
rule out the possibility of a "conspiracy" by which the Roman church
systematically rewrote the New Testament to suit its own ends.
This has been a very quick and superficial overview of the practice of textual
criticism by New Testament scholars. I would recommend Metzger's textbook
to anyone interested in further study of the subject. Also helpful are
discussions in Ralph Martin ("New Testament Foundations", vol 1, 1975),
E.C. Colewell ("Studies in Methodology in the Textual Criticism of the
New Testament", 1970), and J.H. Greenlee ("Introduction to New Testament
Textual Criticism", 1964).
Jeff Gillette ...!duke!phs!lisa
The Divinity School
Duke Universitymrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (11/07/84)
[Jeff Gillette] > There has been some question as to the reliability of the text > of the New Testament... > Even so, the broad diversity, geographically, > linguistically, and theologically, of pre-5th Century manuscripts tends to > rule out the possibility of a "conspiracy" by which the Roman church > systematically rewrote the New Testament to suit its own ends. Nice summation, Jeff. I liked the listing of criteria of authenticity. Can you summarize similarly the reliability of the texts of other writings that have been excluded from the bible? (Lest this be considered some sort of approval of the bible, let me state that I consider references to god in the orignal texts to be ficticious, no matter how accurately they have been transmitted to us.) -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh