Modern Methods of Textual Criticism

"Modern Methods of Textual Criticism" Metzger & Ehrman pp. 205-249

Classical textual criticism has two important processes, recension and emendation. p. 205 "Recension is the selection, after examination of all available material, of the most trustworthy evidence on which to base a text. Emendation is the attempt to eliminate the errors that are found even in the best manuscripts." Through history scholars have attempted various ways of dealing with the biblical texts. Yet one of the most important developments in biblical criticism has been to determine families of texts. We find that the source document used to make other copies may bring us back toward authoritative early reading. p. 207 "The basic principle that underlies the process of constructing a stemma, or family tree, of manuscripts is that, apart from accident, identity of reading implies identity of origin." Metzger and Ehrman discuss the implications of tracing families of texts, pointing out that one text may have resulted in a large number of copies, but the large number of copies does not necessarily imply the original source document is to be preferred over another source document which may have had relatively few copies made.

In more modern times there have been reactions against the classical methods. One scholar who rejected the methodology of genealogical studies of manuscripts was Joseph Bedier, who (p. 210) "became distrustful of the genealogical method, (1) because in practice it has almost always resulted in the construction of a tree with two branches of witnesses . . . and (2) because one can often argue well for several different stemmata of classification of manuscripts." Metzger and Ehrman suggest in response to Bedier's second criticism that manuscripts remain living entities, as they are copied and recopied, corrected, and commented upon. This means that they are often open to variations. In response to Bedier's first criticism, on p. 211 Metzger and Ehrman observe that "a much more innocent explanation lies behind the circumstance that almost all stemmata result in two branches than the imputation of deliberate suppression or distortion of evidence. From the standpoint of mathematics, as Maas observed, 'We must remind ourselves that of the twenty-two types of stemma possible where three witnesses exist, only one has three branches.'"

Classical scholarship held as an axiom that the shorter reading was generally the original one. Albert C. Clark challenged this view in 1914 when a study of Cicero persuaded him that (p. 212) "accidental omission was a much more common fault than deliberate interpolation by scribes." He suggested that the longer reading might be more reliable, thus suggesting that the Western text rejected by Westcott and Hort was better than the Neutral text they embraced. Later Clark tended to abandon his theory and proposed that Luke had prepared two different editions of Acts. The methodology remains open to debate.

Burnett Hillman Streeter tended to use classical methodology in a positive manner, publishing works in the early 20th century. p. 215 "Building on Westcott and Hort's classic work, Streeter refined their methodology in light of the acquisition of new manuscript evidence since 1881 . . . Streeter emphasized the importance of isolating the forms of text that were current at the great centers of ancient Christianity." Streeter thought he was able to identify three different forms of text and he postulated a fourth text which has passed into the others in mixture with their texts. He suggested that readings after the fifth century could safely be ignored unless they differed from the Byzantine text. Generally Streeters methodology and conclusions have fallen out of favor.

p. 218 "The end of the twentieth century saw a resurgence of interest in the Byzantine text type among those who believe that the original text is best preserved in the vast majority of witnesses produced in the Middle Ages." Metzger and Ehrman spend some time discussing the conclusions and arguments of those who favor the Textus Receptus as the most reliable biblical text.

p. 222-223 "Several scholars have directed primary attention to the individual variants themselves in an effort to find which will account best for the rise of the others. This process has been given various names. Sometimes it has been referred to as 'rational criticism.' . . . in its application the textual critic pays less attention to questions of date and families of manuscripts than to internal or contextual considerations." Eclecticism can be taken to greater or lesser levels. Different scholars consider different texts as more or less worthy of inclusion in their eclectic editions.

Conjectural emendation has also existed. pp. 226-227 "If the only reading, or each of several variant readings, that the documents supply is impossible or incomprehensible, the editor's only remaining resource is to conjecture what the original reading must have been . . . Before a conjecture can be regarded as even probable, it must satisfy the two primary tests that are customarily applied in evaluating variant readings in manuscripts: (1) it must be intrinsically suitable and (2) it must account for the corrupt reading or readings in the transmitted text." One of the difficulties seen in this method has been the tendency to propose a reading which cannot be documented where there are other readings which can make sense.

Recent scholarship has also streamlined studies somewhat. Some scholars determine relationships among manuscripts then consult only the most important witnesses in a group, considering that they will determine the reading of the entire family. In their collations these scholars will frequently also look at the percentage of diversion from one another to identify whether the texts seem to be substantially in agreement with one another.

Some scholars have used profiling, using tendencies within a family of texts to identify the subgroups they fit. Some have identified some likely test passages which they think can point them accurately toward places where the families will diverge, thus allowing them to look at just a few passages in the manuscripts. Others will use sophisticated statistical profiling to see the extent to which texts diverge from one another.

This profiling tendency leads Metzger and Ehrman to discuss use of computer technology in biblical criticism. I found this portion of the chapter sadly lacking, as the authors discuss methods of compiling and analyzing variants in texts, as well as displaying images of manuscripts as ideas which will hopefully emerge onto the scene sometime in the future. I looked again at the copyright date of this edition of the book, as most of the methods which they said showed promise for the future were known to me as being theoretically possible as early as the mid 1980s. However, the copyright date in the book is 2004. Apparently biblical scholarship had, as of that time, remained behind the curve of technology. Maybe it will catch up at some point, making robust study tools available to scholars all around the world.