Bruce M.
Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament:
Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. Fourth Edition. New
York: Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. xvi +366.
Review of pp. 164–343 Part II
This book has three parts: Material for
Textual Criticism (pp. 1–134); History of Textual Criticism (pp. 135–194); and
Application of Textual Criticism (pp. 195–343). It has 9 chapters, and this
review will cover the last 6 chapters (pp. 165–343). Chapter 3 deals with the
precritical period of the history of New Testament Textual Criticism.
Chapter 4 is about the modern critical
period ranging from Griesbach to the present (p. 137–194). Griesbach, a student
of Semler developed 15 canons of textual criticism (p. 166-7). Johan Leonhard
Hug (1765-1846) developed the theory of Western Text called a common edition (p.
169). Berlin Karl Lachmann (1793–1851) totally broke away totally from Textus
Receptus, publishing the Greek New Testament, and without using minuscule
manuscripts (p. 170); he also attracted a lot of criticism even from a liberal
scholar. The authors estimated Tischendorf’s contribution to the field of
Textual Criticism the most.
After him, came Trigelles, Henry Alford,
Westcott, and Hort. Hort popularized the concept of “Internal Evidence of
Readings” which is of two kinds: Intrinsic probability and Transcriptional
probability (p. 175). Wescott and Hort distinguished four principal types of the
text of the New Testament: Syrian, Western, Alexandrian, and Neutral. Western
is known for paraphrasing (p. 178), Alexandrian for polished language, Neutral
as the most free from corruption, and Syrian is farthest from original.
Westcott and Hort rejected Textus Receptus totally (p. 181) drawing
criticism from many other scholars and clergies.
Next, Weiss detected five types of
error in the variant readings: harmonization, interchange, omissions and
additions, alteration of order, and orthographical variation (p. 184). Von Soden came up with his classification of
text into three groups: Koine, Hesychian, and Jerusalem recension. Then, Metzer
and Ehrman write briefly about the editions of Nestle-Aland and UBS versions of
the Greek New Testament.
Chapter 5 is about the origin of
textual criticism as a scholarly discipline (p. 197–204). Textual criticism
originated with the Greeks before the time of the New Testament (p. 197).
Origen suggested that all the manuscripts existing may have become corrupt (p. 201).
Geneva Bible of 1560 became the first English Bible to have variant readings
(p. 203). Francis Lucas is identified as the first scholar to use the three
important witnesses for the text of the New Testament (p. 204). Richard Simon’s
four publications regarding textual criticism ushered in a new level in its
field (p. 204).
Chapter 6 is about the modern methods
of textual criticism (p. 205–249). Recension and Emendation methods are
practiced. Joseph Bedier developed his method rejecting the genealogical method
(p. 210). Clark developed the theory of accidental scribal omission by
challenging the classical view: “shorter reading of two is probably original”
(p. 212). By the end of the twentieth century Byzantine Text regained
popularity again through the scholarship of Robinson, Pierpoint, Farstad, and
Zane Hodges (p. 218).
Other methods of textual criticism
include Thoroughgoing Eclecticism, and Conjectural Emendation. The authors
noted the observation of Schmiedel that Trigelles, Tischendorf, and Weiss
contained only one conjecture each, while the 24th edition of Nestle’s Greek
New Testament had 200 conjectures (p. 230). Colwell and Parvis employed the
method of multiple reading for the classification and identification of text
family (p. 233). Three other methods have been developed by the scholars:
Claremont Profile Method, Testellen, and Comprehensive Profile Method. The use
of computers has taken textual criticism to another level since the 1950s (p. 240),
especially in the areas of Collection of Data, Presentation of Data,
Statistical Analyses, and Hypertext Possibilities. Then the authors mention the
ongoing project taken up by INTF and IGNTP towards furher scholarship.
Chapter 7 is about the cause of error
in the transmission (p. 250–271). Metzer and Ehrman present two types of errors:
unintentional and intentional errors. Unintentional Changes include those that
arise from eyesight, hearing, mind, and judgment. Intentional Changes involve
grammar, spelling, harmonization, addition, conflation, doctrinal, and
omission. They document how scribes were led to error by faulty eyesight on p. 251-4.
The similar sounds of first- and second-person plural pronouns in Greek would
be sometimes confused (p.255). In p. 260 n13, the complaint of Jerome
concerning scribal intentional errors is recorded. An account of Bishop
Spyridon’s zeal for textual accuracy is recorded in p. 261. Several more
examples are documented for each type of unintentional change and intentional
change.
Chapter 8 is about the history of
transmission (p. 271–299). This chapter contains fewer facts and documentation
than the previous chapters. Four sections under this chapter are—complications
in establishing the original text, the dissemination of early Christian
literature, the rise and development of text types, and the use of textual data
for the social history of early Christianity. The author(s) present the history
of transmission to be difficult to ascertain because of the existing theories
concerning the original autograph of each book of the New Testament: oral,
dictation, collection, etc. (p. 272-4). A few other topics in this chapter
under the section on social history are—Doctrinal disputations,
Jewish-Christian relations, Oppression of women, Christian apologia, Christian asceticism,
and Magic and Fortune-telling. In p. 282, the book claims that the early
churches had competing views, and the victorious orthodoxy rewrote the history
of the church.
Chapter 9 is about the practice of New
Testament Textual Criticism (p. 300–343). The basic criterion for evaluating
the variant reading is to “choose the reading that best explains the origin of
the others” (p. 300). External Evidence (date, geography, genealogy of the
witnesses) and Internal Evidence (Transcriptional probability and Intrinsic
probability) are employed to determine the original reading (p. 302-4).
Priority of the Gospel of Mark is noted under intrinsic probability (p. 304).
Three groups of Witnesses are discussed briefly—Koine or Byzantine, Western,
and Alexandrian (p. 306-313). Western text is considered by some scholars to
have been the result of retranslation from Latin or Syriac into Greek (p. 309).
Helpful demonstrations of Textual
analysis of some selected passages (Acts 6:8; John 7:37-9; 1 Thess. 2:7; Mark
14:25; Acts 20:28; Col. 2:2; Luke 20:1; 1 Thess. 3:2; Acts 12:25; Luke 10:1,
17, last 12 verse of Mark, and many more) are given at the end of the book from
page 316 to 343. The book concludes with the practical fact that there is no
mechanical way for a textual critic to follow based on one manuscript or family
of manuscripts. Textual critics must acknowledge not only what can be ascertained
but also what “cannot be known” (p. 343).
The authors consider rejection of Textus
Receptus as a victorious thing with negative descriptions like “overthrow”
(pp. 170, 232) “debased form of Greek” (p.149) “abandoned” (p. 156) “supplant”
(p. 157) “departed” (pp. 162, 190) “deserted” (p. 163) reject (p. 171) “was
most successful in drawing . . . away” (p. 173). The strength of this section
(chapters 4-9) lies in the several examples of textual analysis given in the
last chapter, and the documentation of various scribal errors in chapter 7. The
weakness of this book is the inadequate discussion of the modern method of
textual criticism in chapter 6. Claremont Profile Method and Comprehensive
Profile Method deserve to be treated much longer than how they have been
presented in this book. Also, chapter 8 looks more subjective and speculative
than any chapter of this book.