withallyourmind.net

In my last post I presented six “manuscripts” with nine variants for our examination. To believe critics like Bart Ehrman, we may as well throw our hands up in the air and give up on ever knowing what the original text said. As we shall see, this is not at all the case. We will be able, using the principles of textual criticism, to arrive at what was almost undoubtedly the original text.

Actually, before doing textual criticism, I must present the principles of textual criticism. These are also given by Bowman in his book, Scripture: Outline Studies in Authority, Canon, and Criticism. Here are the rules which are to be followed to arrive at the original text and to understand how the original text might have been changed over time:

1. The reading of the original language manuscripts, where it differs from later language versions, is presumed to be correct unless proven otherwise.

2. Manuscripts are weighed, not merely counted.

3. The reading that most naturally accounts for the others is most likely the original.

4. The “harder” or more difficult the reading is more likely to be the original.

5. The earlier reading is more likely to be original.

6. The shorter reading is more likely to be original.

7. The reading with wider geographical attestation is more likely to be original.

8. The reading in a larger number of manuscript “families” is more likely to be original.

9. The reading in an otherwise higher quality manuscript is more likely to be original.

10. The reading that conforms to the author’s usual style is more likely to be original.

Alright. Next time, we really will do some textual criticism of our six “manuscripts.”