Textual criticism

Textual criticism is a branch of philology that examines the extant manuscript copies of an ancient or medieval literary work to produce a text that is as close as possible to the original. The original is called the autograph.

Before the invention of printing, literary works had to be copied by hand, and each time a manuscript is copied, errors were introduced by the human scribe. The difficulty in textual criticism is that it isn't always immediately apparently which variant is original and which is an error. The task of the textual critic, therefore, is to sort through the variants and establish a "critical text" that is intended to represent the original by explaining best the state of all extant witness. In establishing the critical text, the text critic considers both "external" evidence (the age, provenance, and affiliation of each witness) and "internal" considerations (what the author and scribes were likely to have done).

Methods of Textual Criticism

There are three fundamental approaches to textual criticism: copy text editing, eclecticism, and stemmatics.

Copy Text Editing

With copy text editing, the textual critic selects a base text from a manuscript thought to be reliable. Often, the base text is selected from the oldest manuscript of the text, but in the early days of printing the copy text was often a manuscript that was at hand.

Using the copy-text method, the text examined the base text and makes corrections (called emendations) in places where the base text appears wrong to the critic. This can be done by looking for places in the base text that do not make sense or by looking at the text of other witnesses for a superior reading. Close-call decisions are usually resolved in favor of the copy text.

The first published, printed edition of the Greek New Testament was produced by this method. Erasmus, the editor, selected a manuscript from the local Dominican monastery in Basle and corrected its obvious errors by consulting other local manuscripts.

Eclecticism

Eclecticism is the practice of examinating a wide number of manuscripts and selecting the variant that seems superior, usually on internal grounds. In this approach, no one manuscript is theorectically favored, but, in practice, the eclectic critic tends to have a couple of favorites, often chosen based on external consideration, to resolve doubtful cases.

Eclecticism is the dominant method of editing the Greek text of the New Testament, in which the critical text (Nestle-Aland, 27th edition) isn't to be found entirely in any one manuscript but is a combination of readings from various manuscripts. Even so, mnuscripts of the Alexandrian text-type are the most favored, and the critical text has a decidedly Alexandrian tinge.

Stemmatics

Stemmatics is the one of the most rigorous approaches to textual criticism and requires the reconstruction of the history of text by examining the variants for patterns of error. In particular, stemmatic critics use the principle that "a community of error implies a unity of origin" to decide whether a group of manuscripts are descended from a lost intermediate, called a hyparchetype. Then, relations between the lost intermediates are determined by the same process, so that all extant manuscripts can be placed in a family tree or stemma codicum descended from a single archetype.

After this step, called recensio, the stemmatic critic then proceeds to the step of selectio, where the text of the archetype is determined by examining the variants of the closest hyparchetypes to the archetype and selecting the best ones. After the text of the archetype has been established, the step of examinatio is applied to examine the this text for corruptions. If the archetypal text appears corrupt, it is corrected by a process called divinatio or emendatio.

Thus, the stemmatic method adopts the techniques of the other approaches after fitting the manuscripts into a rigorous historical framework. The process of selectio resembles eclectic textual criticism, but applied to a restricted set of hypothetical hyparchetypes. The steps of examinatio and emendatio resemble copy-text editing.

In fact, the other techniques can be seen as special cases of stemmatics, but in which a rigorous family history of the text cannot be determined but only approximated. If it seems that one manuscript is by far the best text, then copy text editing is appropriate, and if it seems that a group of manuscripts are good, then eclecticism on that group would be proper.

Textual Criticism of the New Testament

The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts (about 5,000 Greek and 10,000 Latin) than any other ancient work. The sheer number of witnesses presents unique difficulties, mainly in making stemmatics impractical. Consequently, New Testament textual critics have adopted eclecticism after sorting the witnesses into three major groups, called text-types.

• The Alexandrian text-type constitutes a group of early and well-regarded texts, including Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.

• The Western text-type is also very early, but its witnesses are more prone to paraphrase and other corruptions.

• The Byzantine text-type is a group of the vast majority of manuscripts, especially after the 5th century.

Following Westcott and Hort, New Testament textual critics have concluded that the Byzantine text-type is late, based on the Alexandrian and Western text-types. Among the other types, the Alexandrian is viewed as more pure than the Western, and so the practice of New Testament textual criticism is to follow reading of the Alexandrian texts unless those of the Western are clearly superior.

Textual Criticism of Classical Texts

The much smaller number of witnesses to classical texts permit the adoption of stemmatics, and in some cases, to copy-text editing. However, unlike the New Testament where the earliest witnesses are within a 200 years of the original, the earliest existing manuscripts of most classical texts were written about a millennium after their composition. This puts a greater need for emendation on classical texts than the New Testament, in which the true reading is almost certainly preserved in at least one witness.

Common misspelling and questions (FAQ)

extual-criticism  txtual-criticism  tetual-criticism  texual-criticism  textal-criticism  textul-criticism  textua-criticism  textualcriticism  textual-riticism  textual-citicism  textual-crticism  textual-criicism  textual-critcism  textual-critiism  textual-criticsm  textual-criticim  textual-criticis  etxtual-criticism  txetual-criticism  tetxual-criticism  texutal-criticism  textaul-criticism  textula-criticism  textua-lcriticism  textualc-riticism  textual-rciticism  textual-cirticism  textual-crtiicism  textual-criitcism  textual-critciism  textual-critiicsm  textual-criticsim  textual-criticims  textual-criticis  ttextual-criticism  teextual-criticism  texxtual-criticism  texttual-criticism  textuual-criticism  textuaal-criticism  textuall-criticism  textual--criticism  textual-ccriticism  textual-crriticism  textual-criiticism  textual-critticism  textual-critiicism  textual-criticcism  textual-criticiism  textual-criticissm  textual-criticismm  5extual-criticism  rextual-criticism  fextual-criticism  6extual-criticism  gextual-criticism  6extual-criticism  yextual-criticism  gextual-criticism  t3xtual-criticism  twxtual-criticism  tsxtual-criticism  t4xtual-criticism  tdxtual-criticism  t4xtual-criticism  trxtual-criticism  tdxtual-criticism  testual-criticism  teztual-criticism  tedtual-criticism  tedtual-criticism  tectual-criticism  tex5ual-criticism  texrual-criticism  texfual-criticism  tex6ual-criticism  texgual-criticism  tex6ual-criticism  texyual-criticism  texgual-criticism  text7al-criticism  textyal-criticism  texthal-criticism  text8al-criticism  textjal-criticism  text8al-criticism  textial-criticism  textjal-criticism  textuql-criticism  textuwl-criticism  textuzl-criticism  textuwl-criticism  textusl-criticism  textuzl-criticism  textuao-criticism  textuak-criticism  textua,-criticism  textuap-criticism  textua.-criticism  textuap-criticism  textua;-criticism  textua.-criticism  textual0criticism  textualpcriticism  textual[criticism  textual-driticism  textual-xriticism  textual-friticism  textual-friticism  textual-vriticism  textual-c4iticism  textual-ceiticism  textual-cditicism  textual-c5iticism  textual-cfiticism  textual-c5iticism  textual-ctiticism  textual-cfiticism  textual-cr8ticism  textual-cruticism  textual-crjticism  textual-cr9ticism  textual-crkticism  textual-cr9ticism  textual-croticism  textual-crkticism  textual-cri5icism  textual-criricism  textual-crificism  textual-cri6icism  textual-crigicism  textual-cri6icism  textual-criyicism  textual-crigicism  textual-crit8cism  textual-critucism  textual-critjcism  textual-crit9cism  textual-critkcism  textual-crit9cism  textual-critocism  textual-critkcism  textual-critidism  textual-critixism  textual-critifism  textual-critifism  textual-critivism  textual-critic8sm  textual-criticusm  textual-criticjsm  textual-critic9sm  textual-criticksm  textual-critic9sm  textual-criticosm  textual-criticksm  textual-criticiwm  textual-criticiam  textual-criticizm  textual-criticiem  textual-criticixm  textual-criticiem  textual-criticidm  textual-criticixm  textual-criticisj  textual-criticisn  textual-criticisk  textual-criticisk  textual-criticis,  textual-cryticism  yextual-criticism  tyextual-criticism  textual-criticisms 


Gashwiler sat for a few moments speechless, vacillating between enjoying the whole scene malevolently with his sinister eye. "YOUR unfortunately I had in the same bag some memoranda of my own for bad use if found by a clever man." The two rascals looked at each other. There is on the whole really inferior rascal succumbed at the reflection of what HE might do if relaxing his dignity with the perspiration that oozed from.