Textual criticism is nearly impossible to avoid in the local church context. Textual criticism involves the decisions scholars make concerning the most original form of a text based on the manuscript evidence for the Hebrew Old Testament or the Greek New Testament. Every pastor deals with text-critical decisions each week as he prepares his sermon. Even the average Christian encounters text-critical issues when he or she picks up a Bible for daily devotions. While some may have never heard the term textual criticism, they have undoubtedly come across the concept, whether they recognize it as such or not, because it is inescapable for anyone reading the Scriptures.
Every English translation of the Bible is based on manuscripts that were considered superior to other available manuscripts. Even those who know Hebrew and Greek are not exempt from making text-critical decisions or relying on the text-critical decisions of others. Hebrew and Greek Bibles are also based on certain manuscript traditions recognizing some versions of a text as superior to others. Since textual criticism is inescapable for all Bible readers, pastors and church leaders must consider how to address text-critical issues appropriately when they arise, doing so in a way that is honest with the text but also strengthens peoples’ confidence in the Scriptures.
The goal of textual criticism is to answer the questions of how and why changes occurred in a text’s transmission over time.[1] Textual critics aim to recover the earliest possible form of a text. After discerning the various versions and manuscripts of a text, they will discern which words were most likely the original words of the Biblical authors. These determinations differ significantly for the Old Testament versus the New Testament.
Textual Criticism in the Old and New Testaments
One may notice that there is much more consistency among translations in the Old Testament than in the New Testament. The reason is that most English translations rely on the Masoretic Text as produced in Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensia (BHS). Though the manuscript is relatively late (approximately AD 1000), the text is based on a long tradition of copyists who carefully preserved the Hebrew text. Their work extended beyond copying, however, as they also edited the text by adding verse divisions, paragraph divisions, and vocalization to the Hebrew consonants to preserve proper pronunciation of the text.
Occasionally, one will find minor differences amongst English translations in the Old Testament. No doubt, translation methodology plays a major role in most of these differences. At times, however, the difference between English translations is due to a translation committee choosing to emend the Hebrew text in some way. This often happens when translators prefer the Septuagint’s reading of a text. Consider Psalm 8:5a, for example:
- “Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings” (ESV).
- “Yet You have made him a little lower than God” (NASB).
- “You made them a little less than the heavenly beings” (NET).
- “You have made them a little lower than the angels” (NIV).
- “For You have made him a little lower than the angels” (NKJV).
The Hebrew of Psalm 8 says “wattᵉḥassᵉrēhû mᵉꜥaṭ mēʾᵉlōhim,” which is most isomorphically translated into English as: “You have made him a little lower than the gods.” This translation raises some questions: who are the gods? And what led most of the English translations to say “angels” instead? The translation committees who opted for “angels” are choosing to use the Greek Septuagint instead of the Hebrew in this instance.
This reading is also supported in the New Testament by Hebrews 2:7, which quotes Psalm 8:5a: “You made him for a little while lower than the angels.” Psalm 8:5a is representative of many other cases in the Old Testament where English translations prefer the Greek Septuagint over the Hebrew.
Preference for a Septuagint reading also happens at times when there is no New Testament support for the emended reading. Most of the time, the reason for the emendation is that the Hebrew reading is difficult in some way, but the Septuagint reading has smoothed things out in a way that helped clarify what the passage means.
For the New Testament, on the other hand, one will notice much more variation amongst English translations, especially when comparing the KJV and NKJV to other modern translations. The reason for this variation is that the KJV and NKJV base their translations off the Textus Receptus, also known as the Received Text, which was based on only a few manuscripts available at the time.
Other English translations are based off eclectic Greek New Testaments. Eclectic texts are created by a committee of scholars who take all credible manuscripts of the New Testament and reproduce what they believe to be the earliest form of the text. At times, these manuscripts differ significantly from what is found in the KJV and NKJV, which can be concerning for some Christians if they do not understand why. For example, consider the ending of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:13:
- “And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen” (NKJV).
- “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil” (ESV).
The NKJV includes an entire line that is not found in the ESV and other modern translations. This difference is small when compared to other variances between the Textus Receptus underlying the KJV/NKJV and the eclectic Greek New Testament underlying other translations. For example, the earliest manuscripts of the Greek New Testament do not include the well-known story of the woman caught in adultery (Jn. 7:53–8:11). It is included in the Textus Receptus, but it is bracketed off in most modern translations with a statement about its omission in early manuscripts. Similarly, the Gospel of Mark ends after Mark 16:8 in the earliest manuscripts with Mary Magdalene, Mary the son of James, and Salome fleeing from the empty tomb. However, the Textus Receptus, and therefore the KJV/NKJV, has a longer ending (twelve more verses).
Other examples such as these exist throughout the New Testament, though most of them are more like the longer ending to the Lord’s prayer rather than being full passages like the latter two examples. An important question is whether pastors should address these differences or let them be.
Addressing Text-Critical Issues
Text-critical issues are nearly impossible to avoid, especially in a church context where the KJV or NKJV is used. If the pastor is using the KJV, and some church members have the ESV, church members may wonder why the preacher’s Bible has a verse of Scripture that is absent in their Bibles. The reverse often happens as well. If the preacher is using a modern translation while many of the congregants are using the KJV, the congregants will notice if a preacher does not read a given verse.
Since this issue is unavoidable, pastors should address these differences as they arise. It is important, though, for pastors to do so in a way that does not cause their members to question the validity of the Scriptures. How can we achieve this goal successfully?
One thing pastors should avoid is ignoring text-critical issues. Whether it is in their Bible’s footnotes or they see it somewhere online, church members are going to notice these issues. Therefore, church members should hear an explanation for the variants from their pastor rather than from the other end of a Google search or a liberal scholar on the History Channel. The principle undergirding this suggestion does not mean pastors have to address every (or even most) textual variants, but, when the more obvious ones occur, like the Lord’s Prayer example mentioned above, a brief explanation would be helpful.
For some church members, even the thought of textual variants may be uncomfortable. For this reason, pastors should regularly express confidence in the reliability of the Scriptures. If we consistently remind our church members that the Scriptures are valid and that God’s Word is perfect and true, our church members will know that variants are the exception rather than the rule when we come across passages with more substantial textual differences. For most of the Bible, the available manuscripts are overwhelmingly consistent. We would not want to let the way we handle one passage of Scripture with some textual variants cause others to doubt the reliability of the Scripture as a whole.
Conclusion
Preaching and teaching are amazing privileges for pastors, but they come with a massive responsibility. We must ensure we instill trust in God’s Word in the minds and hearts of those we shepherd. While most of the time, the manuscript evidence for a text is stable and consistent, we should pray for wisdom concerning how best to handle the texts that have more variation in the manuscript tradition.
[1] Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 1.
Recent Comments