Old and New in Textual Criticism:
Similarities, Differences, and Prospects for Cooperation
James R. Adair, Jr.
Scholars Press, Atlanta, GA, USA
1. In his 1966 book Old and New in Interpretation , James Barr calls for a
reexamination of thinking about the two testaments, focusing especially on
the areas of history, revelation, and exegesis, and their influence on
Christian theology. Barr criticizes the facile differentiation of ideas
into the categories of "Hebrew" and "Greek" as a caricature (Barr 1966:35),
but he also decries the simplistic identification of OT and NT terms and
concepts as "highly artificial" (ibid.:154). The OT and the NT themselves
are collages of overlapping ideas and structures, and the relationship of
OT thought to that of the NT is both varied and complex. The reading of the
OT informs NT interpretation, but so does the reading of the NT inform OT
interpretation. Unfortunately, as biblical scholars increasingly focus on
smaller and smaller areas of study, fewer cross-discipline investigations
occur, and the gap between the testaments grows.
2. One casualty of the persistent tendency within biblical scholarship
toward ever greater specialization is the discipline of textual criticism,
which is almost universally divided into the camps of Old Testament/Hebrew
Bible and New Testament. This separation of the two from each other (and
from other areas of textual criticism, such as of the classics) has
resulted in profoundly varying approaches to the task of textual analysis.
In and of itself, the variety is not detrimental, but the lack of
cross-pollination among textual critics is. Reasons to justify the split in
the discipline are not difficult to find. Didactic, religious, theological,
and historical arguments can all be made to support the current state of
affairs. After all, very real differences exist between the texts of the
Old and New Testaments, and they are also evident between OT and NT textual
critics themselves. OT and NT textual critics deal with different data,
they strive for different goals, they approach their task with different
methodologies, and they use different terminology. In other words, OT
textual criticism and NT textual criticism have different starting points
(data), different endpoints (goal), different ways of getting from one to
the other (methodology), and different ways of describing their work
(terminology). What, then, do they have in common?
3. This study aims to point out some of the differences, stress the
significant similarities, and suggest some fruitful prospects for
cooperation between practitioners of OT and NT textual criticism. Above
all, it is hoped that scholars on both sides of the canonical aisle will be
sensitized to what those on the other side are doing, and so strengthen the
exercise of their own discipline.
Different Data
4. First of all, OT and NT textual critics deal with different data. The
most obvious example, of course, is the fact that OT textual critics study
the OT (which itself varies, depending on whether one includes the
apocryphal/deuterocanonical books, and which ones), and NT textual critics
study the NT. Although this division seems natural enough, it is by no
means a necessity. A few textual critics of the past (Julius Wellhausen)
and the present (Bruce Metzger) have bridged the gap in their own work,
with rewarding results.
5. One area of evident overlap between the two disciplines is OT citations
present in the NT. It has long been noted that NT writers tend to quote the
OT from the LXX rather than the MT. For this reason, readings that reflect
a text different from that of the LXX are generally preferred to those that
mirror the LXX (Aland and Aland 1989:290).(1) One often unnoticed
prerequisite of this procedure is to establish the text of the LXX in the
passage in question. It is especially dangerous to assume that the text of
the Cambridge edition is the LXX, since it reflects the text of a single ms
(Vaticanus in most instances); the Göttingen edition, or even Rahlfs'
manual edition, are preferable to the Cambridge edition if the reading of
the text (as opposed to one of the readings of the apparatus) is to be
accepted. In contrast to NT textual critics' use of OT quotations, OT
textual critics rarely avail themselves of this data, despite the fact that
these quotations are valuable, and ancient, witnesses to both the LXX and
pre-Masoretic Hebrew texts. Methodologically, the use of these passages by
OT textual critics involves a detailed investigation of the NT context, a
determination of whether the citation is intended to be a direct quotation,
and an assessment of the reliability of NT author's memory or source. Both
NT and OT textual critics could make greater and more effective use of the
OT quotations found in the NT.
6. Not only are the specific texts that biblical textual critics study
different, but the state of preservation of those texts is as well. The NT
is unique among all ancient and classical literature in regard to the
abundance of original language witnesses that date from the first few
centuries after composition. More than one hundred Greek NT mss that were
written within five hundred years of composition are extant, and hundreds
more exist that stem from the next five hundred years. In contrast, mss of
the Greek and Latin philosophers, historians, and orators are rare and
late. Whereas NT textual critics have a large cache of old original
language mss at their disposal, the vast majority of Hebrew mss of the OT
are more than one thousand years younger than the date of composition of
the various books they contain. The discoveries in the Judaean desert,
particularly at Qumran, have added mss of immense importance and antiquity
to the OT textual critic's repertoire, but even these are generally several
hundred years younger than the earliest written texts of the books they
contain. Moreover, the only books from the Judaean desert that are complete
are Isaiah and most of the Minor Prophets (a scroll containing a nearly
complete Book of the Twelve was found at Wadi Murabaat, more than twenty km
from Qumran).
7. The respective natures of the original language mss of the OT and the NT
differ from one another as well. Early NT mss, particularly those from
before the fourth century C.E., vary greatly in regard the to the type of
text they contain (cf. Aland and Aland 1989:56-64). In contrast to this
situation, the vast majority of Hebrew mss, those that fall within the
pre-Masoretic/proto-Masoretic/Masoretic continuum, are practically
monolithic in character. Thus, the number of interesting and/or valuable
variants found in original language mss of the NT far surpasses that of the
original language OT mss. This phenomenon, which in reality is an accident
of historical preservation, leads directly to quite different attitudes
between the two camps with regard to three methodological issues: the use
of versional evidence, the attitude toward textual emendations, and the
issue of whether or not to attempt to reconstruct a Vorlage of extant
witnesses. These methodological issues will be discussed below, but the
importance of the versions for OT textual critics may be discussed at this
point.
8. The versions of the NT are regularly quoted in modern critical
apparatuses, but they play at best a supporting role in determining what is
considered to be the preferred text. This attitude is well stated by the
Alands: "The value of the early versions for establishing the original
Greek text and for the history of the text has frequently been
misconceived, i.e., they have been considerably overrated" (ibid.:186).
Although not all NT textual critics would assess the value of the versions
as so limited,(2) few NT textual critics would propose a reading based solely
on versional evidence without Greek ms support. How different is the
situation in the OT camp! While many OT textual critics are reluctant to
abandon the reading of the MT without strong proof, even these scholars
could cite passage after passage where the reading of one or more of the
versions, and especially of the LXX, is preferable to that of the MT. Other
scholars are even more prone to suggest that readings of the LXX, and
occasionally of other ancient versions such as the targums, the Peshitta,
or even the Vulgate, should be preferred over readings of the MT or other
Hebrew witnesses. The importance of the versions to OT textual critics, in
contrast to the relative insignificance attached to the versions by NT
textual critics,(3) is one of the most important distinctions between the two
disciplines.
9. A final matter related to the issue of the data used by textual critics
is the availability of mss for scholarly examination. The recent release to
the public of photographic images of the Dead Sea Scrolls under the
influence of scholars in the field, other interested academics, and even
the popular mass media is a well known and fortuitous turn of events. From
a text-critical point of view, the most important aspect of this
development is that all of the unpublished mss--most of which are
fragmentary--are now accessible for scholarly perusal from various sources
(Tov 1993; Wacholder and Abegg 1991-).(4) The Ancient Biblical Manuscript
Center in Claremont has been instrumental in the effort to make the scrolls
from the Judean desert, as well as other biblical mss, available to the
scholarly community as a whole. A similar role has been played on the NT
side by the Institute for New Testament Textual Research,
Münster/Westphalia. Under the direction of Kurt and Barbara Aland, the
institute has compiled a large number of images (microfilm and photographic
copies) of NT mss. In addition to these two projects, new critical editions
of various versions (arm, syr, cop, V) and patristic writers ("The New
Testament in the Greek Fathers") are adding a wealth of textual data for
the textual critic. While these projects, and other similar efforts, are of
immense importance to scholarly research, some of the most exciting work in
the field is in the area of electronic publication, particularly wide-area
publication on the Internet (e.g., the Electronic New Testament Manuscript
Project, work of the Syriac Computing Institute). The potential of
publishing ms images, critical texts, and textual studies that are
instantly available worldwide to everyone with a computer open doors of
access to scholarly information hitherto undreamed of. Both OT and NT
scholars can join in existing projects or initiate new projects that use
the technology of the Information Age to aid scholarship.
Different Goals
10. In addition to working with different data, OT and NT textual critics
often see themselves in pursuit of different goals. Many, perhaps most, NT
textual critics speak about the recovery of the original text, which they
see as possible to a large degree (Aland and Aland 1989:280).(5) OT textual
critics, on the other hand, generally shy away from the phrase "original
text," believing that only a form of the text somewhat removed from the
original (if in fact there was an original) is all that is recoverable and
all that should be sought (Barthélemy 1982:1.69*). Those OT textual critics
who pursue an "original text" generally understand the term in a nuanced
way. Textual evidence suggests that multiple literary editions of several
OT books circulated in different locales or at different times (though
perhaps concurrently to some extent). OT books for which multiple literary
editions seem to have existed include Exodus, Joshua, Samuel, Kings,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Proverbs, Esther, and Daniel (Tov 1992:177; Ulrich
1992:278-286). The circulation of multiple literary editions of a biblical
book, as opposed to the transmission of the oral tradition behind the
composition, creates a tension in the term "original text" that strains its
meaning. The concept of authorship and the role of the scribes are also
involved in this increasingly complex scenario (Fishbane 1985:87 and
passim),(6) as is the issue of parallel passages (e.g., Samuel-Kings and
Chronicles; 2 Kgs 18-20 and Isa 36-39; Ps 14 and Ps 53).
11. Similar difficulties with the concept of the "original text" exist for
certain NT books, though these problems are seldom noted. The book of Acts
is the most obvious NT example of multiple literary editions in concurrent
circulation, with Western and Alexandrian versions of the book (Metzger
1975:259-272). As for parallel passages and the complex relationship among
author, scribe, oral tradition, and literary influence, no set of books in
either the OT or the NT compares with the intertwinings of the synoptic
gospels (Fee 1993b:174-182).(7) Other NT phenomena that call for a closer
examination of the question of the nature of the "original text" include
the relationship between Jude and 2 Peter, the multiple accounts of Paul's
Damascus road experience in Acts, the reconstructed text of Q, the question
of an Ur-Markus or a Secret Mark, and the present form of the gospel of
John, in which chapter 21 at least is clearly a later addition to some
earlier version (cf. Petersen 1994:136-137).
12. Setting aside for the moment the question of oral antecedents to the
written text,(8) the existence of multiple literary editions of a text raise
a number of fundamental issues for readers of biblical material. Which one
is original? Which is authoritative? Which is properly the focus of the
text-critical enterprise? The question of authority, though logically
secondary to the question of originality, may be dealt with briefly before
the others, because it is not properly a text-critical question at all.
Though there is a tendency in some circles to equate "original" with
"authoritative," the two are by no means the same. For example, the
longstanding Roman Catholic predilection for the Vulgate, the traditional
Jewish preference for the Masoretic Text, and the conservative Protestant
championing of the Textus Receptus or the King James Version or the
Majority (Greek) Text all indicate that the issue of authority often has
little connection to the question of originality. It is true that arguments
for one particular form of the text are sometimes couched in language about
the "original text," but it would be more accurate to admit that the
acceptance of a particular text as authoritative is a theological, not a
text-critical decision.
13. The question of originality in regard to literary editions is, on the
one hand, a question about the relative age of one edition in comparison
with others. If it can be determined, for example, that the Alexandrian
version of Acts is older than the Western one, or that the shorter version
of Jeremiah represented by the LXX is older than the longer version present
in MT, one can say that the older is more original than the younger and
that oldest of all editions is the original text. Of course, achieving
scholarly consensus regarding which version is older is often difficult,
but in many cases such consensus does exist. However, age is not the only
issue in discussions about the original text, at least as far as OT textual
critics are concerned. In his essay on the relationship of text and canon,
Eugene Ulrich notes that the issue of canon is both a historical and a
theological matter (Ulrich 1992:270), so the question of a "canonical text"
(a term comparable in connotation to "original text" in the present
discussion, and one which he says should generally be avoided) involves
more than just determining the relative age of a set of readings
(ibid.:273). Emanuel Tov believes that the version of a book that has been
accepted as authoritative by Judaism should determine which "original text"
is to be sought (Tov 1992:172, 179), whereas Ulrich elsewhere discusses a
variety of possible ways to select the "original text," that is, the one
that should be translated (Ulrich 1988:111-115).
14. The foregoing discussion leads to the question of which text is
properly the focus of textual criticism. That the choice of one "original
text" among two or more possibilities is not strictly a matter of age, nor
is it an issue that can be addressed solely by textual critics, is evident
from what has been said. This situation leads to the observation that the
"original text," whichever text that may be, is not the only valid target
of text-critical concern. It is true that textual critics have often set
intermediate text-critical goals, such as establishing the text of the NT
as it stood in the fourth century (Bentley) or the LXX texts of Hesychius,
Lucian, and Origen, also in the fourth century (de Lagarde). In these
cases, however, the intermediate goal was either chosen as a stepping-stone
on the way to the "true" original text or was settled for because scholars
felt it was all that could be achieved. It is just as valid, though, to
attempt to reconstruct each of the literary editions of the books that have
more than one, without regard for the question of the authority of one or
the other. Other possible targets include the Hebrew text of 100 C.E., the
original form of each of Jerome's translations, and the predominant text of
the NT in Egypt at the time of Athanasius. Although such texts may not be
fully recoverable, even their partial reconstruction could be illuminating
from the standpoints of history and historical theology.
15. One other note concerning multiple literary editions is that the
textual critic should treat groups of variants together within a particular
edition, and not in isolation (Tov 1992:347-348; for a somewhat different
perspective, cf. Metzger 1975:270-272). Current critical apparatuses do not
indicate in any way the possible existence of multiple literary editions.
Text-critical judgments about a particular reading, which might be sound on
other grounds, can be completely wrong if the proper literary edition to
which the variants belong is not first determined. For example, judgments
about the inclusion or omission of 1 Sam 17:55-18:5 cannot be addressed
without first understanding their relationship to the shorter Greek and
longer Hebrew traditions of the story of David and Goliath. Likewise,
Western readings in Acts should often not be considered at all if it is the
Alexandrian versions that is being reconstructed. The best solution from a
text-critical perspective would be to create separate texts and separate
apparatuses for each of the literary editions. The implications of such a
critical edition for exegetes and translators would be substantial.
Different Terminology
16. A third major difference between textual criticism of the OT and the NT
is the terminology. Words such as group, family, text-type, and recension
often have different meanings in the two disciplines, and some words and
phrases that are technical terms in one area (e.g., group profile,
retroversion) are uncommon or even largely unknown in the other. In a 1976
article, D. W. Gooding points out some of the differences in terminology
between OT and NT textual critics in regard to groupings of related mss. He
notes that, whereas Colwell makes a distinction among the terms text-type,
sub-text-type, tribe, and family for NT mss (Colwell 1969:11, 15), OT
textual critics tend to use terms like text-type and family without any
apparent distinction (Gooding 1976:15-25).(9) Tov likewise notes that studies
of the OT text often suffer from vague terminology, such as the use of the
terms family and recension interchangeably (Tov 1992:157). He identifies
the term text-type with recension and suggests that "the use of these terms
requires that the witnesses actually differ from each other typologically,
that is, that each of them be characterized by distinctive textual
features" (ibid.:160). NT textual critics would not use the term recension
in the same way: for them, a recension is "the result of deliberate
critical work by an editor" (Metzger 1968:115 n. 2). James Davila, in a
1993 article, studies the relationships among several Qumran mss of Genesis
and Exodus, comparing them as well with the MT, SP, and LXX (Davila 1993:
4-5). Despite Gooding's assertion that, because of the different natures of
OT and NT textual criticism, "it would be both inappropriate and impossible
for Old Testament critics to use their technical terms in the sense in
which New Testament critics use them" (Gooding 1976:16), Davila does not
propose a new set of terms but instead uses those that Colwell has
suggested. Though the problems of OT terminology with regard to the
grouping of witnesses are greater than those in the NT arena, it should be
noted that the use of these terms by NT textual critics is not always
uniform, either, and that the additional term group is often used as more
or less equivalent to family.
17. Part of the problem with terminology in OT textual criticism with
respect to NT textual criticism revolves around the different nature of the
extant witnesses. Numerous historical and sociological reasons exist for
the different development of the texts of the OT and the NT, respectively.
For one thing, the large number of Greek NT mss produced before the
fifteenth century are largely the product of uncontrolled copying for many
centuries, whereas Hebrew OT mss were copied in a relatively uncontrolled
manner for only a few centuries, up until the first century C.E. In
addition, the need for multiple copies of their scriptures was not as great
in Judaism, which was more geographically centered (as least insofar as
Jews who spoke Hebrew are concerned) than was the early church.
Furthermore, the picture that scholars have of the development of the
Hebrew scriptures is changing as a result of more thorough studies of the
mss from the Judaean desert. OT scholars prior to the initial discoveries
of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 grouped OT witnesses into three camps: the
MT, the SP (in the Pentateuch), and the LXX. Initially, scholars tried to
fit the newly discovered mss into one of these three categories as well,
but Shemaryahu Talmon points out that the library of Qumran testifies to a
plurality of forms of the text (Talmon 1970:198-199; Talmon 1975:325). Tov
agrees with Talmon's assessment, saying, "The textual reality of the Qumran
texts does not attest to three groups of textual witnesses, but rather to a
textual multiplicity, relating to all of Palestine to such an extent that
one can almost speak of an unlimited number of texts (Tov 1992:161). He
suggests five different categories into which the Qumran mss fall, three
corresponding roughly to the MT, SP, and LXX, and two other previously
unattested categories: texts written in the "Qumran practice" and
non-aligned texts (ibid.:114-117). The non-aligned texts, as the name
suggests, are not really a distinct category at all, but include witnesses
that differ significantly from any of the established categories and from
one another. The texts written in the Qumran scribal practice present a
methodological problem, since their differences from mss in one of the
other categories, the proto-Masoretic texts, are primarily orthographical
and morphological rather than substantive. Nevertheless, Talmon and Tov
have conclusively demonstrated the complex nature of the development of the
Hebrew text. What remains is for someone to develop a "stricter
terminology" for the grouping of mss in OT textual criticism, one that
parallels established NT usage where possible but deviates from it when
necessary.
18. Aside from matters of textual grouping, another set of terms that might
cause communication problems between OT and NT textual critics involves
describing both the methodology used by various textual critics and the
published editions they produce. Most NT textual critics see themselves as
practitioners of the eclectic method of textual criticism, that is, one
that draws upon both external and internal evidence in making text-critical
decisions. The text they usually publish is an eclectic text, identical to
no single ms, but drawn from the mass of NT witnesses. OT textual critics,
when they use the term eclectic at all, often use it in a quite different
manner. For them, eclecticism means picking and choosing among different
readings in an unscientific and, therefore, illegitimate way. Thus F. E.
Deist warns readers, "Mixing different [textual] theories without inquiring
into their presuppositions may result in eclecticism" (Deist 1988:206 n.
10). So also Tov criticizes modern eclectic translations that choose which
variants are to be translated without looking at patterns of textual
variation among the witnesses (Tov 1981:310). It is important that OT
textual critics understand that their NT counterparts are not advocating
random, uncontrolled selection of variants when they promote eclecticism.
It is likewise necessary that NT textual critics know that when OT textual
critics reject eclecticism, and when they publish diplomatic editions of
their texts, they are not denying the need to examine carefully all extant
witnesses.
19. It is the nature of textual criticism to deal with variant readings,
but the terminology OT and NT scholars employ to classify different types
of variants is far from uniform. Colwell and Tune state that traditional
distinctions such as intentional and unintended variations do not suffice
to describe the qualitative differences that exist among the variants found
in NT mss. They propose instead to speak of significant and insignificant
variants, the latter of which are divided into nonsense readings,
dislocated readings, and singular readings (Colwell and Tune 1969:100-104).
Eldon J. Epp and Gordon Fee enlarge on this classification, adding
categories for scribal errors and orthographic variants (Epp 1993c:57-60;
Fee 1993c:66). Epp goes on to define significant variants as "meaningful or
useful for the broad tasks of NT textual criticism, including the
determination of a MS's relationship with all other MSS, the location of a
MS within the textual history and transmission of the NT, and the ultimate
goal of establishing the original text" (Epp 1993c:57). Since most variants
that OT textual critics deal with arise from the versions, their
descriptions of variants are much more focused on the question of whether a
particular reading in a version represents a varying Hebrew Vorlage. Tov
classifies all apparent variations from the MT that appear in the versions
as either true variants (those that presuppose a Hebrew text different from
the MT, excluding orthographic variants), variants/non-variants (readings
that might reflect a Hebrew text different from the MT, but for which no
certainty can be obtained), and pseudo-variants (apparent variants that,
although they can readily be retroverted into Hebrew, only existed in the
translator's mind) (Tov 1981:181-240). Tov's last category is problematic,
because, though the phenomenon he describes undoubtedly occurred, in almost
every case it is methodologically impossible to determine whether a variant
actually existed on parchment or arose in a translator's mind. With this
problem in mind, I proposed in my dissertation that Tov's pseudo-variants
should be treated as real variants in the initial stages of the
text-critical process, thus leaving only two categories of variants, which
I designated significant and nonsignificant (avoiding the term
insignificant because of its connotations) (Adair 1992:8). Significant
variants, then, are only those that reflect, or probably reflect, a
distinct Hebrew reading.(10) By definition, then, all readings of primary
(i.e., Hebrew) witnesses are significant, as are the readings of all the
secondary witnesses that can be retroverted reliably (Adair 1993:18-42).(11)
Terms used to classify textual variants is far from uniform in either OT or
NT textual criticism, though a greater consensus exists in the NT camp. It
is vital to consider the differences in usage, as well as differences in
the data, when reading discussions of textual variants.
20. A couple of other terms that are largely peculiar to one or the other
discipline may be noted in passing. First, NT textual critics often speak
of group profiles as a means of classifying mss into text-types or smaller
groups. One of the most common methods for determining group profiles is
the Claremont Profile Method (see below, par. 33), though other approaches
also exist. Second, the term retroversion, though not unknown to NT textual
critics, appears much more frequently in OT literature, because of the
nature of the extant textual data. OT textual critics define a valid
retroversion as a Hebrew reading that can be derived from a versional
witness in a methodologically sound manner. Many Hebrew reconstructions
that look equivalent to a reading in a version are not true retroversions
because the nature of the translation, aspects of the target language, or
conditions of the versional text do not permit a reliable retroversion at
that point in the text.
Different Methodology
21. Finally, a comparison of the work of the bulk of OT and NT textual
critics reveals an entirely different methodology. To use NT terminology,
most NT textual critics follow the path of rational eclecticism, while OT
textual critics tend more toward rigorous eclecticism. The difference in
methodology is not limited to this generalization, however, but also
manifests itself in varying attitudes toward the textus receptus/majority
text, the use of versional evidence, and textual emendation. The debate
between rational and rigorous eclecticism revolves primarily around the
relative importance given to internal and external evidence in making
text-critical decisions. The use of external evidence involves determining
the age of the various witnesses, looking at the geographic distribution of
witnesses for each variant reading, counting the number of witnesses
attesting each reading, and classifying each witness according to the type
of text it represents (e.g., Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine, or mixed).
Internal evidence includes such principles as preference for the more
difficult reading, preference for the shorter reading, preference for the
reading most in keeping with the author's style, and, most importantly,
preference for the reading that best explains the origin of the others.
Although a few NT textual critics, most notably G. D. Kilpatrick and J. K.
Elliott, devalue external evidence to a large extent, most afford it an
important, often primary, role in the text-critical enterprise. The Alands
state, "The work of textual criticism begins with external evidence, and
only after its contribution has been duly analyzed should internal criteria
be considered" (Aland and Aland:278). Gordon Fee would put less emphasis on
the external evidence, yet continues to consider it important, especially
when internal evidence is inconclusive.
Contemporary critics generally agree that questions of internal
evidence should usually be asked first and that the weight of the
manuscript evidence should be applied secondarily. What becomes
obvious, however, is that on the grounds of internal evidence certain
MSS tend to support the "original" text more often than others and
that those MSS are the early Egyptian. Therefore, when internal
evidence cannot decide, the safest guess is to go with the "best" MSS
(Fee 1993d:15-16).
22. The situation in OT textual criticism is the reverse of that in NT
textual criticism. Most OT textual critics emphasize internal evidence to
the practical exclusion of external evidence. Kyle McCarter, for example,
under the heading "The Unreliability of External Criteria," says, "External
criteria are based on the merits of the manuscripts in which the readings
are found, not the merits of the readings themselves. . . . Such criteria,
however, are unreliable" (McCarter 1986:71). He proceeds to advise the
textual critic, "The critic must base his choice between readings solely on
the merits of the readings themselves, that is, on internal criteria"
(ibid.:72). Though this statement must be modified to exclude the vast
majority of variants found in Masoretic mss, stemming as they do from the
medieval period, it is one that most OT textual critics would accept. One
exception to this generalization involves those critics who accept the
local text theory of Frank Moore Cross (Cross 1975:306-320). Briefly
stated, this theory proposes that extant witnesses can be divided into
three large groups, which are associated with Babylonia, Palestine, and
Egypt, the latter two being more closely related to one another than to the
first. Agreement between witnesses on disparate branches of the local text
tree suggests that the reading in question predates the split into local
texts. This theory has been expanded upon by several of Cross's students,
but it does not play a large role in the text-critical decisions of OT
critics, and some reject it outright (cf. Talmon 1975:323).
23. The question of the relative merit of external evidence is one on which
OT and NT textual critics will probably continue to disagree. The Alands'
confidence in the efficacy of external criteria reflects their belief that
no ancient readings, even stretching back as far as the beginning of the
second century, have totally dropped out of the manuscript tradition. Thus,
they say, "Major disturbances in the transmission of the New Testament text
can always be identified with confidence, even if they occurred during the
second century or at its beginning" (ibid.:295). Even more pointedly,
"Every reading ever occurring in the New Testament textual tradition is
stubbornly preserved, even if the result is nonsense" (ibid.:296). While
these statements may accurately reflect the situation of the NT text
(though they are debatable), they do not describe the feelings of OT
textual critics for their own text. Passages throughout the OT stubbornly
resist efforts at interpretation, often as a result of a corrupted text in
all extant witnesses. The common methodological ground between OT and NT
textual critics clearly lies in the area of the use of internal criteria. A
tendency to accord more weight to the internal evidence is evident in a
number of recent NT studies (Ehrman 1993; Petersen 1994).
24. Another area of difference in regard to methodology involves the
importance accorded to the textus receptus. The term textus receptus
originated in NT circles and is roughly equivalent to the Byzantine or
Majority text.(12) NT textual critics widely regard this text as textually
inferior to other text-types, and readings unique to this tradition are
almost universally rejected. The situation is otherwise in the OT camp,
where the textus receptus is the MT. Many scholars, Jewish and Christian
alike, treat the MT as the text of the OT. While few OT textual critics
would agree with this approach, it is fair to say that a reading found in
the MT is often more highly regarded than that found in another witness.
Whether true in theory, it is often true in practice, and efforts to
preserve the reading of the MT (though usually only the consonants, not the
pointing) through philological study are rife.(13) The reason for the
different evaluation of the OT and NT majority texts lies in the histories
of the respective texts. Whereas the Byzantine text-type is the product of
the conflation, harmonization, and "smoothing out" of earlier texts, the MT
represents the lone surviving ancient textual stream in Hebrew for the
majority of OT books. The relative value of the MT vis-ŕ-vis the Judaean
desert mss, the LXX, and other witnesses varies from book to book, but in
general it is regarded as the best overall witness to the OT. A primary
reason for this is that it is the only complete extant Hebrew witness.
25. Textual value aside, the reverence some accord the majority texts of
either the OT or the NT often has little to do with an honest textual
evaluation and more to do with a misunderstanding of the history of the
text, a misunderstanding of the methods of textual criticism, or simple
theological preference. The most common misunderstandings probably revolve
around the notion that "more is better," that is, because most NT mss
contain a Byzantine text, or because almost all OT mss contain the MT, that
type of text must be original. These misunderstandings can only be
counteracted by detailed investigations of the history of the text,
accompanied by reasoned explanations of the fallacy of counting mss. While
misunderstandings can be corrected, the textual critic has no basis for
rejecting the theological choice of the majority text on strictly
text-critical grounds and must resort to other types of arguments.
26. Another major difference in approach between textual critics of the OT
and the NT involves the use of versions. The relative importance with which
OT and NT textual critics regard the versions has already been discussed
above, where it was noted that versions play a much larger role in OT
textual criticism. This fact has led OT textual critics to have more
developed methodologies for dealing with the versions than their NT
counterparts. Tov, for example, has written a lengthy monograph on The
Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (Tov 1981). In it,
he discusses such topics as "literal" and "free" translations, criteria for
the analysis of literal translations, distinguishing true variants from
"pseudo-variants," and retroverting variants into Hebrew. The issue of
retroversion in particular is one that several OT textual critics address
(Margolis 1909; Miles 1985; Adair 1993). Several other books and articles
also deal with various aspects of using the versions (especially the LXX)
in a methodologically correct way (Olafsson 1990; Fernández Marcos 1985;
Adair 1994; Adair 1994a). In contrast, few NT studies of any length are
dedicated to the use of the versions in textual criticism. An exception is
Metzger's excellent book on The Early Versions of the New Testament , which
describes and assesses the text-critical value of all of the earlier
versions of the NT (Metzger 1977; cf. also Ehrman and Holmes 1995). A
general methodology for using versions in the text-critical task is not
developed, however. This assessment of the situation does not imply that OT
textual critics always make use of these methodological studies. In fact, a
rather unbridled, almost haphazard use of versional evidence has plagued
many OT studies, as well as many NT studies, from the beginning of modern
biblical textual criticism. Past abuses have often led modern critics to
shy away from using the versions, but the correct approach would rather
seem to be to develop methodologically sound ways of dealing with the
versions, then to follow those methods in all textual evaluations.
27. An example of the uncritical way in which textual critics across
canonical lines sometimes deal with versional evidence may be illustrated
by looking at the way in which the Syriac preposition (l in the
Peshitta (P) is treated. Tov notes the difficulty of retroverting
prepositions and other "grammatical words" with any accuracy (Tov
1981:100-101; but cf. Adair 1993:25-27), and an analysis of P's text of 1
Samuel 3 bears this generalization out to a large extent (Adair
1992:264-265). However, S. R. Driver, in his Notes on the Hebrew Text and
the Topography of the Books of Samuel suggests that (l in P
supports the reading epi in the LXX against the reading
)l in the MT (Driver 1913:43). The evidence of P itself does not
support this interpretation of the evidence, since (l renders
)l three times in this chapter alone, as well as several times
in the surrounding chapters. Moreover, the semantic range of the Syriac
(l is broader than that of its Hebrew cognate (l and
includes the dative meaning associated with the Hebrew )l (Adair
1992:138-139). Although it is certainly possible that the translators of P
had a Hebrew reading (l in front of them, the evidence of P
itself is indeterminate. In a similar vein, Tjitze Baarda, in his
insightful analysis of the critical apparatus used in the International
Greek New Testament Project, proposes that the reading (l in
syrh,pal of Luke 23:48 reflects the epi of the textus receptus,
while the l of syrp "may indicate that the reviser [of the Old
Syriac] had a Greek text with e)is before him" (Baarda 1994:68).
The reviser may in fact have had such a Greek text before him, but tests on
the translation technique of syrp in the NT, plus evaluation of the
semantic range of (l, would be necessary before one could
conclude that the correspondence between epi and (l
is more than just coincidence.
28. As is the case with the use of versional evidence, so also OT textual
critics tend to emend the text of their witnesses more frequently than
their NT comrades do. Many textual emendations are proposed in the
apparatus to BHS, with the editors of the respective books frequently
suggesting that the emendation is preferable to the reading of the text.
Many of these emendations are made with little or no versional support.
Though many of them involve only differences in pointing or minor
orthographical variations, others involve more substantial changes. For
example, in Obadiah, the shortest book in the OT, the editor offers about
forty possible emendations proposed by himself and others. Of these, he
marks eight as emendations that should either definitely or probably be
preferred to the text. By contrast, in the entire GNT, only one emendation
(in Acts 16:12 ) is proposed by the majority of the editors as preferable
to any of the extant texts (Metzger 1975:444-446).(14)
29. It is true that OT textual critics exist who oppose all or most textual
emendations, and that some NT textual critics would support more textual
emendations, but the foregoing characterization is generally true. The
difference in attitude towards emendations is a reflection once again of a
significant difference in the nature of the respective texts. Whereas the
text of the NT as reflected in the Greek mss is almost ubiquitously
coherent, many OT passages in Hebrew mss are textually obscure. Some of
this obscurity is undoubtedly the result of modern scholarship's lack of
knowledge about certain aspects of ancient Hebrew, and it is at these
points that philological research based on cognate languages, particularly
other Northwest Semitic languages like Ugaritic and Eblaite, proves most
helpful. Much, probably most, of the obscurity in Hebrew mss, however, is
the result of early textual corruption that has eliminated the original
readings from the ms tradition, leaving behind only random clues. That
textual critics need to consider emending their text when it is obscure is
apparent, and in this regard the extant text of the NT is superior to that
of the OT. However, even texts that make perfectly good sense may not be
original. Westcott and Hort acknowledge this fact when they identify more
than sixty passages as "suspected readings," that is, those which are
likely to contain primitive corruptions which have displaced the original
reading from the ms tradition and thus require conjectural emendation
(Westcott and Hort 1895:584-588). The question that faces the textual
critic of either the OT or the NT is whether any methodologically sound way
to identify those passages that may contain primitive corruptions can be
contrived and, if so, how they should be treated in a critical text.
30. The mention of a critical text raises another important distinction
between OT and NT textual criticism. Ever since the days of Lachmann, NT
textual critics have produced editions based not on a single ms but on a
critical comparison of numerous Greek mss, versions, and church fathers.
Even Erasmus' first edition of 1516 was based on a comparison of several
different mss in most cases. In other words, NT textual critics produce
eclectic texts. In contrast, editions of the Hebrew OT universally
reproduce the text of a single ms, or at most that of various mss of the
Masoretic tradition, which is monolithic in character, more so than even
the Byzantine family of the NT. All proposed changes to this text are
relegated to the critical apparatus, which in the most commonly used
editions is a mélange of references to rabbinic notes, readings from the
Dead Sea Scrolls, quotations from the versions (either in the language of
the version or retroverted into Hebrew), and proposed emendations by the
editors.(15)
31. The detriments of this situation are obvious. First, the protestations
of editors of diplomatic texts notwithstanding, many people who use such
editions tend to think of the base text as preferable simply because it is
the base text, whereas the readings in the apparatus are generally
secondary. They are correct: readings in the apparatus should be secondary.
Reasons for diplomatic texts do exist, of course. For example, when one
wants to emphasize the reading of a single ms in comparison to the rest of
the ms tradition, a diplomatic text is a necessity. Similarly, as a
provisional step in the process of collating a large amount of material
that will eventually be used to create an eclectic text, a diplomatic text
may again be necessary. One can argue with some justification that a major
critical edition like the International Greek New Testament Project will
primarily be used by specialists who understand the nature of a diplomatic
text and that the readings in the base text are not inherently superior to
those in the apparatuses. However, the most common Hebrew edition, BHS,
does not meet any of these criteria.
32. A second major problem with modern editions of the Hebrew Bible
involves the nature of the critical apparatus(es). First of all, as noted
above, the critical notes are too variegated. The different types of
information should be segregated into separate apparatuses, for example,
one for Hebrew readings (natural and retroverted), one for versional
evidence in the original languages, and one for proposed emendations (cf.
Adair 1993:117-124; Baarda 1994:49).(16) Second, the evidence is often
presented in an unbalanced way that unduly emphasizes the readings that
differ from the MT (Deist 1988:75-76). Third, versional evidence is
presented sometimes in the original language and sometimes in retroverted
Hebrew, without any clear reason for the choice. Furthermore, the editors
do not offer any explanation of the methodology they use in retroverting
non-trivial versional readings. Fourth, because various editors are
responsible for different books, the nature of the apparatus varies from
book to book. This fact is especially evident in the apparatus to Samuel,
where the editor, P. A. H. de Boer, unlike all his colleagues, declines to
offer a single conjectural emendation or to suggest that a reading
mentioned in the apparatus is preferable to that of the MT. He is content
merely to present the evidence and let the reader decide.
33. A final methodological difference between OT and NT textual criticism
involves the classification of witnesses. While OT textual critics do
divide witnesses into large families on the basis of certain similarities
and differences (Tov 1992:114-117; Cross 1975:306-315; Johnson 1963:19),
they seem to do so mostly on the basis of the general observations about
the text and perhaps a limited number of specific test passages. The fact
of the matter is that, beyond general descriptions of the characteristics
of a group of witnesses, specifics about how they are classified are not
stated (cf. Tov 1992:84-97; Wevers 1974:9-157[17]). This situation also
prevailed for most of the history of NT textual criticism, until the advent
of the Claremont Profile Method, developed by Paul McReynolds and Frederick
Wisse under the supervision of E. C. Colwell. The Claremont Profile Method
is a procedure for determining the textual affinities of a minuscule ms
based on a comparison of its readings in a number of test passages with the
textus receptus, the uncials, and a number of minuscules already assigned
to known textual groups (Wisse 1982:33-46; Epp 1993a:211-220). Gordon Fee
and Larry Hurtado use approaches similar to Colwell's in their analyses of
witnesses to John and Mark, respectively, but with a few modifications.
These modifications include a broader test base for comparison among mss
(i.e., a whole book) and determining the quantitative relationships among
mss before making qualitative judgments about them (Fee 1993a:225-226;
Hurtado 1981:10-12). Finally, the Institute for New Testament Textual
Research in Münster has undertaken the massive task of comparing thousands
of Greek minuscule mss in about one thousand test passages selected
throughout the NT by means of computer (Wisse 1982:21; Epp 1993b:111).
Despite differences in attitudes toward the use of external evidence
between OT and NT textual critics, the former cannot deny the value of
classifying mss, say of the LXX, into families on the basis of measurable
evidence rather than general impressions. They may also be in a better
position than NT textual critics to develop a methodology that would allow
versional evidence to be evaluated alongside the primary witnesses.
Prospects for Cooperation
34. Though the preceding study has illustrated some of the similarities of
OT and NT textual criticism, it is clear that significant differences in
regard to their respective data, goals, terminology, and methodologies
exist between the two disciplines. Perhaps these differences are part of
the reason that OT and NT textual critics have interacted with one another
so infrequently. Another and more probable cause of this lack of
communication, however, lies in the modern climate of specialization among
biblical scholars. Nevertheless, in light of the foregoing discussion, it
should be clear to textual critics of both stripes that communication
between scholars in the two camps is both beneficial and necessary. Each
discipline can and should enlighten the other, since most of the problems
faced in one have already been, or will eventually be, faced in the other.
Both disciplines have lessons to contribute to, and lessons to learn from,
the other.
35. What can OT textual critics teach NT textual critics? First, because
the versions are so much more important to OT textual critics, they have
led the way in studies that analyze the versions and that develop
comprehensive methodologies for using them. Particularly important are
studies that address translation technique and retroversion. It is
interesting to note, however, that despite the number of OT studies devoted
the use of the versions, it is NT scholars who have produced more complete
studies treating the versions as a whole (Metzger 1977; Ehrman and Holmes
1995; cf. Fernández Marcos 1985)! Just as versional evidence plays a vital
role in the textual criticism of the OT, so does conjectural emendation.
Aware of the excesses of past generations (and of some in the present
generation), OT textual critics nevertheless continue to see emendations as
potentially valuable in some cases for determining the reading that lies
behind the readings of all extant witnesses. Their cautious use of
emendations calls NT scholars to look again to Westcott and Hort and see
why they, too, consider some passages to contain primitive corruptions
which have entirely displaced the original reading from the ms tradition.
Another area in which OT scholars have contributed to the development of
the discipline concerns the existence and treatment of multiple literary
editions of certain books and portions of books. Their observations suggest
that the idea of the "original text" is far from a simple matter;
furthermore, the existence of multiple literary editions demands that
groups of variants belonging to a particular edition be identified as such
and dealt with as a group, rather than individually. Next, OT scholars'
studies of the canonical process and of the nature of the canon point out
the need to appreciate more fully the relationship between text and canon.
Finally, OT textual critics encourage their NT counterparts to give full
consideration to internal evidence in making their textual decisions and
not to rely too heavily on external considerations, particularly where
internal evidence strongly suggests one particular reading.
36. OT students of the text also have much to learn from NT scholars.
First, the care with which many NT textual critics examine the OT sources
of NT quotations should remind OT scholars that later texts can also
influence the transmission of earlier ones, so NT citations should be
considered alongside the readings of the MT and of the versions as
witnesses to the text. On a related matter, the many studies of the NT
texts used by the church fathers (particularly the series "The New
Testament in the Greek Fathers") demonstrate the importance of thoroughly
examining such evidence. In the same way, OT textual critics should
vigorously investigate the OT text that lies behind that found in both
patristic and rabbinic sources. Another area in which NT textual critics
have led the way is in the area of text-critical terminology. Although it
is not always used consistently, Colwell's standard terminology for
grouping of witnesses to the NT text does provide a common ground for
communication among NT critics, and OT scholars could benefit by following
their example. Third, although some extensive studies of particular groups
of witnesses have been done on the OT side, NT scholars have set the
standard for using precise, statistical methods for classifying mss. OT
textual critics could apply similar approaches with little modification to
LXX witnesses, and they could combine these approaches with
methodologically sound retroversions to analyze witnesses of disparate
languages. NT textual critics' drive to produce critical, eclectic texts
has existed for well over one hundred fifty years. In contrast, OT textual
critics have generally eschewed even the attempt to produce a text based on
all the evidence rather than on the MT, restricting their disagreements
with the MT to the apparatus. By attempting to reproduce a critical,
eclectic text, OT critics would be forced to treat variants comprehensively
rather than one by one (as indeed Tov and others have suggested in regard
to multiple literary editions; see above, par. 15), and they would also
have to decide finally on one reading above all others in each unit of
variation, a discipline that can both sharpen text-critical skills and
provide an appreciation for the work of other critics with whom one might
disagree in matters of detail. Finally, NT textual critics remind their
counterparts on the OT side of the aisle that such external matters as
date, geographic distribution, and patterns of agreement among different
groups of witnesses are not unimportant and should be considered alongside
internal evidence, particularly when internal evidence itself is ambiguous
or inconclusive.
37. One area in which both OT and NT textual critics can work together is
the development of improved critical apparatuses for major editions. In a
1993 presentation to the text-critical seminar in Münster, Tjitze Baarda
asked the question, "What kind of critical apparatus for the New Testament
do we need?" (Baarda 1994). His analysis of the apparatus used in the
International Greek New Testament Project's volume on Luke is thorough, and
he offers a number of helpful suggestions for future critical apparatuses.
These include segregating the apparatus into sections dealing with original
language mss, patristic testimony, conjectural emendations, and versional
evidence; the need for a methodologically more sound use of the versions;
and the need to present the evidence from all previous major critical
editions. To this list of desiderata could be added the need be able to
indicate the existence of multiple literary editions; a method for
distinguishing significant versional readings from those that seem to
support a particular reading but, for one reason or another, cannot be
considered significant (see above, par. 19); and the necessity of recording
the readings of the versions cited in both the original language and
retroverted form.(18)
38. Finally, three additional proposals for promoting a scholarly
interchange among all biblical textual critics may be suggested. First, the
development of a classified, annotated text-critical bibliographical
database, available both in print and online, would make textual critics of
the OT and the NT aware of the work of their alter-canonical counterparts.
Division between OT and NT works would be avoided for the most part, at
least at the highest levels of organization. Major headings might include
(1) general information on textual criticism, (2) history of textual
criticism, (3) terminology, (4) methodology for dealing with primary
witnesses, (5) methodology for dealing with secondary and tertiary
witnesses, (6) commentaries that put an emphasis on textual criticism, (7)
critical editions of biblical texts, (8) electronic resources, and (9)
bibliographies.
39. A second suggestion involves the creation of a journal devoted entirely
to biblical textual criticism. Such a journal would be peer-reviewed, with
an editorial board consisting of both OT and NT textual critics from around
the world. To reach the widest audience and to avoid the financial and
scheduling problems of a print journal, the journal would be available
electronically via the World Wide Web, File Transfer Protocol, or
electronic mail (if interest demanded it, periodic printed versions of the
articles could be made accessible as well). It would provide a forum for
discussing any topic of interest to either OT or NT textual critics, and it
would encourage OT and NT scholars to interact with one another. In
particular, it would foster communication regarding the development of
common methodological approaches, and it would make one group of scholars
aware of, and appreciative of, the other group's work. This goal has begun
to be realized in the present journal.
40. Third, a mailing list on biblical textual criticism could be created on
the Internet. This list would encourage scholarly interchange among textual
critics on theoretical and methodological issues, as well as enable
scholars to compare ideas about specific passages. Limited as it would be
to the area of textual criticism, it would avoid the problems inherent in
some mailing lists whose subject area is too broad. The mailing list
tc-list has been created to address this concern.(19)
41. OT and NT textual criticism, though divided by a canonical wall, are
not inherently different disciplines. Though differences in data, goals,
terminology, and methodology currently exist, many of these differences
could be surmounted if the two groups began working more in concert and
less in isolation from one another. To mix metaphors from both the OT and
the NT, perhaps it is time for the wall that separates OT and NT textual
critics from each other to come tumbling down and for the veil that
separates them to be ripped in two. Then OT and NT textual critics will be
able to engage in a continual and fruitful conversation, to the benefit of
both groups.
© TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, 1996.
Endnotes
1 "Quotations from the Old Testament which differ from the text of the
Septuagint popular in the Church were often corrected to agree with it."
But see also the caveat, "Neither should the commonly accepted rule of
thumb that variants agreeing with . . . the Septuagint in Old Testament
quotations are secondary be applied in a purely mechanical way" (Aland and
Aland 1989:281).
2 Cf. Metzger, "It is the textual critic, however, for whom the early
versions of the New Testament are of prime importance" (Metzger 1977:vii).
3 A distinction must be made between text-critical importance, that is,
importance for reconstructing earlier forms of the text, and
text-historical importance, the importance of a reading in tracing the
historical development of the text (as well as the history of exegesis).
The term "importance" is used in the former sense here.
4 Especially the facsimile edition on microfiche, published by E.J. Brill
(Tov 1993). This edition may be compared with that of the Biblical
Archaeology Society: (Wacholder and Abegg: 1991-).
5 "Only one reading can be original, however many variant readings there may
be. Only in very rare instances does the tenacity of the New Testament
tradition present an insoluble tie between two or more alternative
readings."
6 "The tendency to draw excessively determinate distinctions between scribes
and authors is rooted in excessively determinate notions of what the
authoritative status of the traditum meant in ancient Israel. . . . A
scribe who was concerned with transmitting the traditum to the community of
faith for observance and memory would want that traditum to be properly
understood and regarded. . . . The scribe would then be a co-author of the
traditum to which his traditio is allied" (Fishbane 1985:87).
7 Fee notes that the relationship between textual criticism and the Synoptic
problem is underemphasized in most studies. "That there is an
interrelationship between textual criticism and the Synoptic Problem is the
presupposition of most Synoptic studies. Nonetheless the specific nature of
that relationship, especially as it affects the finding of solutions, is
seldom spelled out, and, it would seem, is frequently neglected" (Fee
1993b:174).
8 Though the existence of oral antecedents lies properly in the realm of
literary criticism, the theological question of authority, which is dealt
with briefly below, must not gloss over the problem that many the words
that were written down deviated, often quite substantially, from the spoken
words of Jesus or the prophets, for example. Instructive in this regard is
the well-known statement of Papias stating his preference for the oral over
the written record: But if I met with any one who had been a follower of
the elders any where, I made it a point to inquire what were the
declarations of the elders. What was said by Andrew, Peter or Philip. What
by Thomas, James, John, Matthew, or any other of the disciples of our Lord.
What was said by Aristion, and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord;
for I do not think that I derived so much benefit from books as from the
living voice of those that are still surviving (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl.
3.29).
9 Gooding, who bases his article on an analysis of Cross's work on the local
text theory, sometimes draws unwarranted conclusions and criticizes Cross's
use of terminology unfairly. For example, his ranking of the relative merit
of witnesses to the text of Samuel on the basis of Cross's comments about
them does not follow from what Cross actually says (Gooding 1976:22-23).
Moreover, his criticism of Cross's comment that text-types (to use
Colwell's term; Cross says families) are "exceedingly fragile creations" on
the grounds that text-types necessarily contain a large number of mss is
not accurate. Colwell defines a text-type not in terms of the number of mss
it contains (though usually this is a large number) but in terms of
differences from other text-types. Text-types that contain few witnesses
could then be fairly characterized as fragile, in the sense that it would
not take the influences of many witnesses of a different text-type to
corrupt the characteristic readings of the first text-type. Despite these
problems with his analysis, however, Gooding does effectively demonstrate
his central thesis, that terminology in OT textual criticism is
unnecessarily vague.
10 At this point I also differ with Tov in including the reading of the MT
among the variants in a particular unit of variation. As noted above, he
defines variants as differences from the MT.
11 Certain caveats must be added to this statement: purely orthographic
variants are not considered significant in most cases, nor are variants
found in the vast majority of medieval Hebrew mss, except those mss which
M. H. Goshen-Gottstein identifies as containing important variant readings
(Goshen-Gottstein 1967:287; Adair 1992:238-239).
12 The true textus receptus is the 1624 edition of the Elzivir brothers,
which basically reproduces the earlier editions of Beza and Stephanus. The
Byzantine (earlier: Syrian) text is not one specific text, but rather a
text-type, originating in the fourth century, which became the dominant
form of the Greek NT in the Middle Ages. The Majority Text is a modern
extraction from the Byzantine text, containing those readings that appear
most frequently in the extant ms tradition. Though not the same, all three
terms refer to an almost identical set of readings.
13 Cf. especially the works of Dahood and Barr's response to these efforts
(Barr 1968).
14 Two of the five editors, Bruce Metzger and Kurt Aland, oppose the
majority view, preferring instead the reading supported by many Greek mss
(Metzger 1975:446)
15 Interestingly, the critical editions of the secondary witnesses of the OT
are also usually diplomatic texts, the primary exception being the
Göttingen edition of the LXX. Is it only coincidence that it is the Greek
version that the editors have chosen to produce as an eclectic text, or is
some influence by NT textual criticism possible?
16 The twofold apparatus of BHK, in which "less important" notes were
separated from the "more important" ones, was abandoned as unhelpful by
BHS, with good reason.
17 John William Wevers does an extensive study of the Greek text of Genesis,
identifying several different groups of mss that are more or less closely
related. He offers summaries of comparisons of the characteristic readings
of the various groups to one another, but he does not attempt to identify
the precise relationship of individual mss to the groups he identifies,
other than to say that a ms belongs to one groups and not to another. He
does present the raw data, however, that would allow some conclusions
regarding individual mss to be drawn.
18 Surprisingly, Baarda advocates rendering all the versional evidence that
is presented in the critical apparatus in Latin. Though he would apparently
prefer that the reading in the original language also be printed, he
rejects the feasibility of this approach on the basis on excessive cost. He
also rejects the use of either retroverted Greek or of modern languages
such as English, German, or French (Baarda 1994:60-61). The cost of using
multiple fonts can be reduced by communicating with the typesetter
beforehand and by producing electronic texts that use standard word
processing formats. In particular, using postscript fonts largely
eliminates the cost barrier. Moreover, although his observation that Greek
retroversions have often been misleading is salient, the same could be said
for Latin translations. His argument that the reader might mistake the
retroversion for an actual reading ignores the fact that it will be
primarily text-critical experts who peruse the apparatus, and so hopefully
they will not be led astray, particularly if the original language reading
is also present. Finally, another advantage of readings retroverted into
Greek is that the editors will be strongly encouraged to develop a solid
methodology for retroverting readings from the various versions, leading in
turn to more accurate and helpful presentations of the versional evidence
and to better-informed text-critical decisions.
19 Information on subscribing to tc-list can be obtained from the TC home
page ( http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/TC.html#tc-list).
Bibliography
Adair, James R., Jr. 1992. "A Methodology for Determining the Textual
Variants Which Are Relevant for Reconstructing the Original Text of the Old
Testament: A Case Study of 1 Samuel 3." Ph.D. dissertation, Southwestern
Baptist Theological Seminary.
Adair, James R., Jr. 1993. "Reconstructing 1 Samuel Chapter 3." M.A.
thesis, University of Stellenbosch.
Adair, James R., Jr. 1994. "'Literal' and 'Free' Translations: A Proposal
for More Descriptive Terminology," paper read at the Southwest Commission
on Religious Studies annual meeting 1994, ASOR section.
Adair, James R., Jr. 1994a. "A Methodology for Using the Versions in the
Textual Criticism of the Old Testament." Journal of Northwest Semitic
Languages 20, 2:111-142.
Aland, Kurt, and Aland, Barbara 1989. The Text of the New Testament. 2d ed.
Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans; Leiden:
E. J. Brill.
Baarda, Tjitze 1994. "What Kind of Critical Apparatus for the New Testament
Do We Need?" In New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis and Church
History: A Discussion of Methods, ed. Barbara Aland and Joël Delobel,
37-97. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology, no. 7. Kampen: Kok
Pharos.
Barr, James 1966. Old and New in Interpretation: A Study of the Two
Testaments. London, SCM Press.
Barr, James 1968. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barthélemy, Dominique 1982. Critique textuelle de l'Ancien Testament. Vol.
1, Josué, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther.
Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, no. 50/1. Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Colwell, Ernest C. 1969. "Method in Grouping New Testament Manuscripts."
Chap. in Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament.
New Testament Tools and Studies, vol. 9. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Colwell, Ernest C., and Tune, Ernest W. 1969. "Method in Classifying and
Evaluating Variant Readings." Chap. in Studies in Methodology in Textual
Criticism of the New Testament. New Testament Tools and Studies, vol. 9.
Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Cross, Frank Moore 1975. "The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts." In
Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, ed. Frank Moore Cross and
Shemaryahu Talmon, 306-320. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Davila, James R. 1993. "Text-Type and Terminology: Genesis and Exodus as
Test Cases." Revue de Qumran 61: 3-37.
Deist, F. E. 1988. Witnesses to the Old Testament. The Literature of the
Old Testament, vol. 5. Pretoria: NG Boekhandel.
Driver, S. R. 1913. Notes on the Hebrew Text and Topography of the Books of
Samuel. 2d ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ehrman, Bart D. 1993. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of
Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. New
York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ehrman, Bart D., and Holmes, Michael W., eds., 1995. The Text of the New
Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis.
Studies & Documents, vol. 46. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Epp, Eldon J. 1993a. "The Claremont Profile Method for Grouping New
Testament Minuscule Manuscripts." Chap. in Studies in the Theory and Method
of New Testament Textual Criticism, by Eldon J. Epp and Gordon D. Fee.
Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans.
Epp, Eldon J. 1993b. "A Continuing Interlude in New Testament Textual
Criticism?" Chap. in Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament
Textual Criticism, by Eldon J. Epp and Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids: William
B. Eerdmans.
Epp, Eldon J. 1993c. "Toward the Clarification of the Term 'Textual
Variant.'" Chap. in Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament
Textual Criticism, by Eldon J. Epp and Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids: William
B. Eerdmans.
Fee, Gordon D. 1993a. "Codex Sinaiticus in the Gospel of John: A
Contribution to Methodology in Establishing Textual Relationships." Chap.
in Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, by
Eldon J. Epp and Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans.
Fee, Gordon D. 1993b. "Modern Textual Criticism and the Synoptic Problem:
On the Problem of Harmonization in the Gospels." Chap. in Studies in the
Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, by Eldon J. Epp and
Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans.
Fee, Gordon D. 1993c. "On the Types, Classification, and Presentation of
Textual Variation." Chap. in Studies in the Theory and Method of New
Testament Textual Criticism, by Eldon J. Epp and Gordon D. Fee. Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans.
Fee, Gordon D. 1993d. "Textual Criticism of the New Testament." Chap. in
Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, by
Eldon J. Epp and Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans.
Fernández Marcos, Natalio, ed. 1985. La Septuaginta en la investigación
contemporánea (V congreso de la IOSCS). Textos y estudios "Cardenal
Cisneros" de la Biblia Políglota Matritense, no. 34. Madrid: Instituto
"Arias Montano" Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.
Fishbane, Michael 1985. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Gooding, Dwight W. 1976. "An Appeal for a Stricter Terminology in the
Textual Criticism of the Old Testament." Journal of Semitic Studies 21:
15-25.
Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe Henry 1967. "Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts: Their
History and Their Place in the HUBP Edition." Biblica 48: 243-290.
Hurtado, Larry W. 1981. Text-Critical Methodology and the Pre-Caesarean
Text: Codex W in the Gospel of Mark. Studies and Documents, no. 43. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans.
Johnson, Bo 1963. Die hexaplarische Rezension des 1. Samuelbuches der
Septuaginta. Studia Theologica Lundensia, no. 22. Lund: CWK Gleerup.
Margolis, Max Leopold 1909. "Complete Induction for the Identification of
the Vocabulary in the Greek Versions of the Old Testament with Its Semitic
Equivalents: Its Necessity and the Means of Obtaining It." Journal of the
American Oriental Society 30: 301-312.
McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. 1986. Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the
Hebrew Bible. Guides to Biblical Scholarship, Old Testament Series.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Metzger, Bruce M. 1968. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission,
Corruption, and Restoration. 2d ed. New York, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Metzger, Bruce M. 1975. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament.
Corrected ed. London, New York: United Bible Societies.
Metzger, Bruce M. 1977. The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their
Origin, Transmission and Limitations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Miles, John Russiano 1985. Retroversion and Text Criticism: The
Predictability of Syntax in an Ancient Translation from Greek to Ethiopic.
Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series, no. 17. Chico, CA: Scholars Press.
Olafsson, Staffan. 1990 The LXX Version: A Guide to the Translation
Technique of the Septuagint. Coniectanea Biblica, Old Testament Series, no.
30. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Petersen, William L. 1994. "What Text Can New Testament Textual Criticism
Ultimately Reach?" In New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis and Church
History: A Discussion of Methods, ed. Barbara Aland and Jo'l Delobel,
136-152. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology, no. 7. Kampen:
Kok Pharos.
Sanders, James A. 1991. "Stability and Fluidity in Text and Canon." In
Tradition of the Text : Studies offered to Dominique Barthélemy in
Celebration of His 70th Birthday, ed. Gerard J. Norton and Stephen Pisano,
203-217. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, no. 109. Fribourg:
Universitätsverlag, 1991; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991.
Talmon, Shemaryahu 1970. "The Old Testament Text." In The Cambridge History
of the Bible. Vol. 1: From the Beginnings to Jerome, ed. P. R. Ackroyd and
C. F. Evans, 159-199. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmon, Shemaryahu 1975. "The Textual Study of the Bible--A New Outlook."
In Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, ed. Frank Moore Cross and
Shemaryahu Talmon, 321-400. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Tov, Emanuel 1981. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical
Research. Jerusalem Biblical Studies, no. 3. Jerusalem: Simor.
Tov, Emanuel 1992. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press; Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum.
Tov, Emanuel, ed., 1993. The Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche: A
Comprehensive Facsimile Edition of the Texts from the Judean Desert.
Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Ulrich, Eugene 1988. "Double Literary Editions of Biblical Narratives and
Reflections on Determining the Form to Be Translated." In Perspectives on
the Hebrew Bible: Essays in Honor of Walter J. Harrelson, ed. James L.
Crenshaw, 101-116.
Ulrich, Eugene 1992. "The Canonical Process, Textual Criticism, and Latter
Stages in the Composition of the Bible." In Sha'arei Talmon: Studies in the
Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon,
ed. Michael Fishbane and Emanuel Tov, with the assistance of Weston W.
Fields, 267-291. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Wacholder, Ben Zion, and Abegg, Martin G. 1991-. A Preliminary Edition of
the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls. Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology
Society.
Westcott, Brooke Foss, and Hort, Fenton John Anthony 1895. The New
Testament in the Original Greek. London, Cambridge: MacMillan & Co.
Wevers, John William 1974. Text History of the Greek Genesis. Mitteilungen
des Septuaginta-Unternehmens, no. 11. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Wisse, Frederik 1982. The Profile Method for Classifying and Evaluating
Manuscript Evidence. Studies and Documents, no. 44. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.