The Traditional Definition and Goal of Textual Criticism

For centuries, the field of textual criticism, whether applied to secular or sacred texts, has been defined as the study of the copies of any written document whose autograph (original) is unknown or non-existent, with the primary objective being the recovery of the exact wording of the original. This definition had been universally accepted across disciplines, including classical studies, until the early 1990s. Up to that point, it was assumed that the same principles applied equally to the New Testament text. However, since 1993, an observable shift has occurred within New Testament studies, wherein some scholars have begun to challenge or even reject this foundational objective.

It is crucial to note that this deviation is not mirrored in other fields of textual criticism. Scholars dealing with Greco-Roman historical texts, for example, maintain a commitment to recovering the autographic wording. The skepticism and unconventional approaches currently emerging in New Testament studies are often regarded by scholars in other disciplines as methodologically flawed and unnecessarily skeptical. In biblical scholarship, especially in Germany, Britain, and the United States, it appears that such shifts reflect broader educational and philosophical tendencies: Germans produce radical theories, the British moderate them, and the Americans, unfortunately, tend to sensationalize or corrupt them.

The Three Major Influences: Ehrman, Parker, and Epp

The redefinition of the goals of New Testament Textual Criticism (NTTC) in the 1990s centers around three key figures: Bart D. Ehrman, David C. Parker, and Eldon J. Epp.

The 1990s saw the publication of three influential works that have attempted to reshape the objective of NTTC: Bart D. Ehrman’s The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (1993), David C. Parker’s The Living Text of the Gospels (1997), and Eldon Jay Epp’s article, The Multivalence of the Term “Original Text” in New Testament Textual Criticism (1999). These works, while central in academic discussions, diverge significantly from the traditional purpose of textual criticism.

Bart D. Ehrman argues that the autographs should not be privileged and introduces a radical idea: early traditions, including altered texts shaped by theological agendas, are just as important as the autographs. This line of reasoning undermines the very rationale for identifying scribal corruptions. Ironically, Ehrman’s arguments in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture presuppose the existence of an original form—without which one cannot credibly speak of a “corruption.”

David C. Parker, now perhaps the most prominent British New Testament textual critic, redefines textual criticism to mean “understanding what another person means by the words that are laid before me.” This definition blurs the line between textual criticism and exegesis. Parker suggests that the goal is no longer to recover an original text, but to understand and appreciate the diversity of textual witnesses as valuable in themselves, regardless of their relationship to the autographic text.

Eldon Jay Epp, in his Harvard Theological Review article, presents the concept of the “multivalence” of the term “original text,” implying that there are multiple acceptable definitions and thereby weakening the case for a singular textual goal. He argues that a focus on the autographic text is myopic, asserting that we should acknowledge multiple layers of textual history as equally valid.

Two Faulty Premises

The transformation advocated by Ehrman, Parker, and Epp is based upon two primary premises:

First, they claim that it is often impossible to recover the original wording of the New Testament text. While it is true that some passages—such as the divorce sayings in the Synoptic Gospels—present significant challenges, difficulty does not imply impossibility. Conservative scholars such as Peter Gurry have demonstrated, through rigorous analysis, that even these problematic texts can yield to careful textual scrutiny. The original wording may still reside among the extant manuscripts; our task is to discern it.

Second, the claim that textual variants offer a window into the history of the early church has been used as justification for shifting the primary goal of NTTC. While it is undoubtedly true that variants provide valuable historical insights, this secondary goal must not displace the primary goal of recovering the autographic text. To prioritize the secondary over the primary is to redefine the discipline and to separate NTTC from the textual criticism of all other ancient documents.

Critique of the Redefined Goal

David Parker’s analogy comparing New Testament texts to Shakespeare’s plays or Mozart’s musical scores is misleading. Shakespeare and Mozart retained authorial control and revised their works continually. The New Testament writings, however, were finalized and dispatched as authoritative documents. The moment of dispatch signifies the loss of authorial control and marks the boundary for what constitutes the original text. This is further supported by historical sources such as Tertullian and Irenaeus. Tertullian emphasized the importance of the apostolic text, referring to churches that still possessed original manuscripts. Irenaeus preferred the reading of Revelation 13:18 that appeared in the most ancient manuscripts (666), recognizing temporal proximity as a criterion for authenticity.

The idea that the Spirit continued to inspire textual variants is a theological aberration. Textual variants arise from scribal errors or intentional alterations, not divine inspiration. Spiritual authority resides in the autographic text, not in later copies or ecclesiastical usage. To claim otherwise undermines the inspiration and authority of Scripture.

Moises Silva’s Refutation

Moises Silva, in his contribution to Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism (2002), strongly reaffirmed the traditional objective of NTTC. He stated: “The recovery of the original text… remains the primary task of textual criticism.” Silva acknowledged the difficulties and the value of studying textual variants but insisted that these should not eclipse the goal of identifying the autographic text. He criticized Parker’s appeal to a divinely inspired textual diversity as confusing and lacking theological coherence.

Silva rightly observes that Ehrman’s own work contradicts his stated position. Ehrman’s analyses in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture presume the existence of an identifiable original text, as it would be impossible to describe a corruption without a baseline from which the deviation occurred. Thus, Ehrman inadvertently reinforces the very concept he aims to dismantle.

Historical Witness: Tertullian and Irenaeus on the Original Text

Historical evidence from early Christian writers underscores the enduring importance of the autographic text. Tertullian, writing around the beginning of the third century, claimed that the original letters of Paul were still housed in the churches to which they were sent. While this claim may be debated, it shows that early Christians valued the original text. The standard was what the apostles wrote, not how the text evolved.

Likewise, Irenaeus, in addressing the textual variant in Revelation 13:18 regarding the number of the beast, explicitly preferred the more ancient manuscripts, asserting that 666, not 616, was correct. His reasoning was twofold: spiritual symbolism and proximity to the apostolic period. Even with a theological bent, he recognized the importance of manuscript antiquity in determining authenticity. That principle is still valid today.

The Importance of Historical Integrity and Spiritual Authority

NTTC is not merely an academic exercise but one with profound theological implications. The New Testament is not an artistic composition subject to aesthetic preferences, but a divinely inspired record with eternal consequences. The words of Jesus and the apostles affect not just our understanding but our eternal destinies. If we lose confidence in the words of Scripture, we undermine the foundation of Christian doctrine and practice.

This is why it is imperative to distinguish between NTTC and the textual criticism of aesthetic literature. Shakespeare’s plays and Mozart’s operas may inspire, but they do not save. The New Testament, however, bears the message of salvation. Its authority is inextricably tied to the accuracy of its text.

General Critique of the Postmodern Shift

Abandoning the goal of recovering the original text on the grounds of difficulty constitutes intellectual defeatism. No serious scholar of ancient literature throws in the towel simply because absolute certainty is elusive. Furthermore, the shift from original recovery to sociological or theological interest in variants represents a methodological misstep. Textual criticism of the New Testament must remain consistent with the standards applied to all ancient documents.

Upholding the Original Goal of NTTC

In light of recent attempts to redefine the objectives of NTTC, it is essential to reaffirm the discipline’s true goal: the recovery of the original, inspired text as dispatched by the apostles and New Testament authors. Variants do offer insight into early Christian history, but this must remain secondary to the primary task. To shift the focus to community usage, theological diversity, or mystical reinterpretation is to forfeit the historical integrity that undergirds biblical authority.

As conservative scholars such as Silva, Gurry, and others demonstrate, the traditional method is not only tenable but necessary. The integrity of NTTC depends upon it. The inspired Word of God deserves no less than the most diligent and faithful effort to recover the text as originally written.

Final Affirmation of the Traditional Goal

The principal aim of New Testament textual criticism must remain the recovery of the wording of the autographic text. While the analysis of textual variants as reflections of church history is valuable, it must never usurp the primary objective. The historical and theological integrity of the New Testament demands a method that privileges the autographs. This is the consistent approach found in the early Church, grounded in the historical reality of divine revelation, and affirmed by rigorous textual scholarship.

You May Also Enjoy

Nestle’s Text: (Novum Testamentum Graece) and UBS Text

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS