NTO 4

In the last blog entry I said that copying played a crucial role in the preservation of NT texts.  I would like to develop this thought further.

 While we have tons of Greek manuscripts of the NT (I’ll say more about this below), we have no originals.  They disintegrated over time and use.  So what we’re dealing with—what the NT on your night table is based on—is copies of the originals; now, about these copies. . .

 Text Criticism (= TC, with apologies to Teens Conference!) compares all of the manuscripts of a document in order to determine the original form/wording of the original document.  As I mentioned, one reason we need TC is b/c we don’t have the originals.  There are other reasons for it: the copies were done by hand, so scribal errors are inevitable; the copies we have of texts span over 1000 years in age; and of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts and 8000+ Latin manuscripts none are exactly alike!  So, the NT is a perfect candidate for TC.

 There are 4 basic types of Greek manuscripts.  First, there are papyri.  These are perishable leafs; the earliest dates to the 2^nd century AD, and the date range for all of them is 2^nd – 8^th century AD.  Second, there are uncials.  These are vellum (animal skin), which replaced papyrus b/c of their greater durability.  The earliest uncial dates to the 3^rd century AD; the most important uncial is called, “Sinaiticus,” which has the whole NT and dates to the 4^th century AD; the date range for all uncials is 3^rd – 11^th AD.  Third, we have minuscules.  These are written in cursive script rather than the block capitals of the previous manuscripts.  Minuscules represent more than half of Greek NT manuscripts; the earliest dates to the 9^th AD, and the date range is 9^th – 16^th AD.  Fourth, are lectionaries.  These are actually a subcategory of uncials and minuscules: they are uncials and minuscules that are calendrical, i.e., written according to the church calendar.  They represent about 40% of all Greek NT manuscripts.  The uncial lectionary date range is 4^th – 13^th AD, while the minuscule lectionary range is 10^th – 16^th AD.

 Before comparing all these manuscripts, the TC scholar would put them into their families, i.e., their text-types, of which there are four.  First, there is the Alexandrian text-type.  These manuscripts were written in Egypt, and they tend to have short, difficult (see below) readings.  By “reading” I mean the wording of a manuscript (e.g., Manuscript WB for John 3:16 might read, “For the Lord God so loved the world…” instead of “God”).  There is the Western text-type.  These were written in North Africa, and they tend to have long, paraphrase-ish, harmonistic readings.  There is the Byzantine text-type.  They hail from parts unknown (maybe Antioch).  This text-type represents the majority text—80% of all Greek manuscripts.  The King James Version is based on the Byzantine text.  The Byzantine family tends to smooth out difficulties and combine readings of other texts.  Lastly, there is the Caesarean text-type, which is a mixture of the three others.  Don’t worry about all this: you’re (probably) not going to be tested on any of this stuff, but some poor souls find all of this interesting.

So let me try and offer a purely hypothetical example of the readings that could come from these families of texts, based on the above characteristics.  An Alexandrian text could read, “The red ball flew high.”  Another Alexandrian text might read, “The blue ball flew high into a loft.”  A Western version of the sentence might read, “The colourful ball flew high aloft before coming to rest.”  5 Byzantine versions might go, “The colourful red and blue ball flew high before coming to rest in a loft.”  So, how did the original sentence go?  They all can’t be right!  We’ll come back to this question.                                                                                                              

Now, about the business of comparing texts: how does a TC scholar get back to the original text/reading?  Well, there are external and internal considerations.  In terms of external considerations, the TC scholar would evaluate the age of a text: a text dating to the 4^th century, for example, would hold more weight than a 14^th century text.  The physical quality of a manuscript must be considered: is it in good condition or is it missing huge chunks of verses?  Also, the wideness of geographic distribution must be evaluated: e.g., a copy of a certain reading of John 3:16 (e.g., “Lord God”) found in only one country would not rate as highly as a copy of a different reading of John 3:16 (e.g., “God”) found in 5 countries. 

 In terms of internal considerations, the TC scholar, when comparing different readings of a text, chooses the more difficult reading—it is the more likely reading b/c ancient scribes would often try to smooth out difficulties.  Also TC scholars choose the shorter reading—it is the more likely reading—b/c, again, ancient scribes would often add words to clarify ambiguity for his readers.  The TC scholar also asks what kind of error was made: hypothetically would it be easier to make an error going from ‘a’ to ‘b’, or from ‘b’ to ‘a’?  If going from ‘a’ to ‘b’ is the easier error, then ‘b’ is the more likely reading.  Linguistic style is also considered.  When you understand a text’s grammatical style—choice of vocabulary and syntax—then the scholar can predict more accurately what the author would have written.

 So, let’s go back to our hypothetical example:

 A1: “The red ball flew high.”

A2: “The blue ball flew high into a loft.” 

W: “The colourful ball flew high aloft before coming to rest.” 

5B’s: “The colourful red and blue ball flew high before coming to rest in a loft.”

Which is most likely the original?  Even though there are 5 identical B versions it’s highly unlikely that they represent the original reading: B is much later in terms of date (see above), the B’s could have copied from each other, and it clearly looks like B simply tried to make sense of and harmonize A1, A2, and W—so that they didn’t conflict.  In view of the basic axiom, ‘the shorter, more difficult reading is to be preferred,’ W can be eliminated.  So the original reading would be found in/captured by either A1 or A2.  To determine which, you’d have to check their respective date, which version appears more commonly in different locales, etc.  Internally, which version fits best with the context in which this sentence appears?  Stylistically, which one fits with the style/vocabulary of the overall letter?  OK, clear as mud?

 One significant example (there are others) of how the translators of your bible applied TC is in the ending of the Gospel of Mark.  While Modern translations (e.g., NIV, NASB) have 20 verses for the last chapter of Mark, they also state in a footnote that the oldest manuscripts do not have verses 9-20; in other words, the translators believe that when Mark originally wrote his Gospel (in AD 75-ish), he ended it with the words we read in v. 8.  Later manuscripts like the Byzantine texts, found the ancient “shorter ending” to be problematic, especially compared to the other 3 Gospels, so they added more: hence, the KJV has the “long ending” of Mark (i.e., vv. 9-20) as its ending, believing it to be the original.  But based on your now comprehensive knowledge of TC, would that be right?