* A paper prepared originally for the Textual Criticism Group of the Society of Biblical Literature, Chicago, 30 October 1975, and printed in SBLASP1975, 2. 47–82; it appears here by permission and with revisions prompted by the seminar discussion. This study was made while the author was a Fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, 1974–75; the support and generosity of the Foundation are gratefully acknowledged.

¹ Vaganay, L., An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: Sands, 1937) 91–94Google Scholar; French original, Paris: Bloud & Gay, 1934. For Kilpatrick, see nn. 116 and 125 below. For Lagrange, see his Critique textuelle: II. La critique rationnelle (EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1935), esp. 27–40Google Scholar; cf. Klijn, A. F. J., A Survey of the Researches into the Western Text of the Gospels and Acts (Utrecht: Kemink, 1949) 170–71.Google Scholar Further on the designation and use of “eclectic,” see Metzger, B. M., The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (2d ed.; New York/Oxford: Oxford University, 1968) 175–79Google Scholar; and the references to the works of Grant and Birdsall in the following note.

² Vaganay, Introduction, 91–95, would appear to qualify on the basis of his description of “proper” method; F. C. Grant's description of the procedures adopted by the RSV commission may fit this category (“The Greek Text of the New Testament,” An Introduction to the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament, by members of the Revision Committee [L. A. Weigle, chm.; International Council of Religious Education, 1946] 38–41); also, the combination found in Birdsall, J. N.'s “The Text of the New Testament,” The Cambridge History of the Bible: Volume I: From the Beginnings to Jerome (eds. Ackroyd, P. R. and Evans, C. F.; London/New York: Cambridge University, 1970) 308–77Google Scholar, esp. 316–18, 3 74–77, of an extensive treatment of the history of the NT text in its earliest period and of a strong emphasis on “rational criticism” to achieve, by this twofold approach, the goal of an “eclectic text” suggests that his method fits the category of “true” eclecticism.

³ Colwell, E. C., Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament (NTTS 9; Leiden: Brill, 1969) 63–83Google Scholar, esp. 66–70, 82–83, and 164; Kenyon, F. G., The Text of the Greek Bible (3d ed., rev. and augmented by Adams, A. W.; London: Duckworth, 1975) 254.Google Scholar

⁴ Dearing, Vinton A., Principles and Practice of Textual Analysis (Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California, 1974) 1–2.Google Scholar

⁵ For a recent statement, see Epp, Eldon J., “The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism,” JBL 93 (1974) 403–05.Google Scholar

⁶ Metzger, B. M., “Explicit References in the Works of Origen to Variant Readings in New Testament Manuscripts,” Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey (eds. Birdsall, J. N. and Thomson, R. W.; Freiburg: Herder, 1963) 81.Google Scholar

⁷ Ibid., 91–92.

⁸ Ibid., 82, 85, 87.

⁹ Pack, F., “Origen's Evaluation of Textual Variants in the Greek Bible,” Restoration Quarterly 4 (1960) 144–45.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Hulley, K. K., “Principles of Textual Criticism Known to St. Jerome,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 55 (1944) 87–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹ Lagrange, M.-J., Critique textuelle: II. La critique rationnelle (EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1935) 37.Google Scholar

¹² 'H KAINH ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ, Novum Testamentum … ac tandem Crisis Perpetua, qua singulas Variantes earumque valorem aut originem ad XLIII. Canones examinat G. D. T. M. D. [Gerhardus de Trajecto Mosae Doctor] (Amsterdam: ex officinia Wetsteniana, 1711) 11–16, 48–68.

¹³ See, as examples, Michaelis, J. D., Introduction to the New Testament (tr. Marsh, H.; 2d ed.; London, 1802)Google Scholar 1:1. 328–39, who lists about 20 canons; J. L. Hug, Introduction to the New Testament (tr. from 3d German ed. by D. Fosdick, Jr., with notes by M. Stuart; Andover, 1836) 301–07; Tregelles, S. P. in Horne, T. H., An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures (4 vols.; 11th ed.; London, 1860)Google Scholar 4. 343–45 (this same work, without the “Additions” and “Postscript,” was issued earlier under the title, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament [London, 1856]Google Scholar, with page numbers the same in both); Hammond, C. E., Outlines of Textual Criticism Applied to the New Testament (3d ed., rev.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1880) 93–99Google Scholar; Scrivener, F. H. A., A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (4th ed. by Miller, E.; 2 vols.; London: G. Bell, 1894Google Scholar) 2. 247–56; Nestle, Eb., Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament (London: Williams & Norgate, 1901) 239–41Google Scholar; Schaff, P., A Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version (New York/London: Harper, 1903) 202–05Google Scholar; Jacquier, E., Le Nouveau Testament dans I'église chrétienne (2 vols.; Paris: Gabalda, 1911–1913) 2. 328–35Google Scholar; idem, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London/New York: United Bible Societies, 1971) xxiv–xxviii.Google Scholar Cf. also Lagrange, Critique textuelle, 17–40; several canon lists are reproduced in Colwell, E. C., What Is the Best New Testament? (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1952) 32–33Google Scholar, 73–75, 111–15.

¹⁴ See Tregelles, S. P., An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament (London: Bagster, 1854) 44–45Google Scholar; Fox, A., John Mill and Richard Bentley: A Study of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament 1675–1729 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1954) 70–71.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Adapted from Fox, John Mill and Richard Bentley, 147, where the pertinent Latin texts may be found.

¹⁶ On the name, which has been the subject of controversy, see Abbot, Ezra, “Gerhard von Mastricht,” in his The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays (Boston: Ellis, 1888) 184–88.Google Scholar

¹⁷ I have used the 3d ed., ed. by Steudel, J. (Tübingen: 1855) xiv–xxi.Google Scholar The detailed refutation has been omitted from the English ed. of Gnomon (Philadelphia, 1864)Google Scholar and from its recent reprint, New Testament Word Studies (2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1971); cf. xx–xxiGoogle Scholar, xxxiv (= reprint, vol. 1).

¹⁸ Kümmel, W. G., The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems (Nashville/New York: Abingdon, 1972) 48, cf. 414 n. 45.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Nestle, Introduction to the Textual Criticism, 16–17, 239.

²⁰ Bengel, Gnomon Novi Testamenti (3d ed., ed. by Steudel, J.; Tübingen: 1855) xiiiGoogle Scholar; English ed. (see n. 17, above) 1. xviii.

²¹ Ibid., Latin ed., xii-xiv; English ed., 1. xvi-xx.

²² Ibid., Latin ed., xiii; English ed., 1. xviii (italics in original).

²³ Ibid., Latin ed., xiii; English ed., 1. xvii.

²⁴ See Tregelles in Horne, Introduction, 4. 69–70; he also gives Bengel's Latin text of these statements.

²⁵ Bengel, Gnomon, Latin ed., xiii; English ed., 1. xviii. I have added “in the next place” (tum) from Bengel's Latin text, quoting otherwise the English ed.

²⁶ Ibid., Latin ed., xiii; English ed., 1. xviii.

²⁷ Cf. now the ratings in the UBSGNT which “indicate the relative degree of certainty … for the reading adopted as the text” (2d ed.; 1968) x.

²⁸ Selected from 19 items in ch. 16 of Wettstein's [anonymous] Prolegomena of 1730, which appear as 18 items in the appendix to his 1751–52 edition of the NT, ”Animadversiones et cautiones ad examen variorum lectionum N. T. necessariae,” 2. 851–74. Cf. Tregelles, Account of the Printed Text, 80; Hulbert-Powell, C. L., John James Wettstein 1693–1754 (London: SPCK, 1938) 114–21.Google Scholar If not otherwise available, the text of Wettstein's 1752 ”Animadversiones” can be found in Wrangham, F., Briani Waltoni … in biblia polyglotta prolegomena … (Cambridge: 1828) 1. 511–12.Google Scholar

²⁹ Metzger, Text of the New Testament, 114. Note that Wettstein, in his 1752 appendix, has dropped the original 18th canon — that the reading of the majority of manuscripts normally is preferable.

³⁰ The canon in its entirety may be seen conveniently in Metzger, Text of the New Testament, 120. The Latin text of all of Griesbach's canons—should the 2d ed. of his Greek NT [see next note] not be available—will be readily accessible to most in Alford, H., The Greek Testament … (4 vols.; newed.; Boston: 1883) 1. 81–85.Google Scholar

³¹ Griesbach, Novum Testamentum Graece (2d ed.; Halle/London: 1796–1806) 1.Google Scholar lxxiii-lxxxi; reprinted in later eds. See also Tregelles in Horne, Introduction, 4. 76.

³² See Tregelles, Account of the Printed Text, 91–92; witness also the views of J. M. A. Scholz, whose Greek NT text (1830–36) followed the Constantinopolitan “recension,” and who relied on numbers of manuscripts (ibid., 92–97).

³³ The Latin text is given in Gregory, C. R., Textkritik des Neuen Testament (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1909) 966–67Google Scholar, and in Tregelles, Account of the Printed Text, 98n. Lachmann also refers the reader of his first edition to his article of the preceding year, “Rechenschaft über seine Ausgabe des Neuen Testaments von Professor Lachmann in Berlin,” ThStK 3 (1830) 817–45Google Scholar, for the rationale and plan of the edition. This article, however, contains neither a list nor a discussion of critical canons.

³⁴ Translation adapted from Tregelles in Horne, Introduction, 4. 135–36, and in Tregelles, Account of the Printed Text, 103; the Latin text may be found in Gregory, Textkritik, 968, or in Gregory's Prolegomena to Tischendorf's, C.Novum Testamentum Graece (8th major ed.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1869–1894)3260.Google Scholar

³⁵ Tregelles, Account of the Printed Text, 111.

³⁶ Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece (Prolegomena) 3. 47–48.

³⁷ Ibid., 3. 53–54, 63; see 47–68 for the entire discussion of Tischendorf's textcritical principles, with examples. Cf. Tregelles in Horne, Introduction, 4. 138–39, and Tregelles, Account of the Printed Text, 119–29, for a full discussion of Tischendorf's rules. Tischendorf's view of two pairs of documentary groups, one pair comprised of the more ancient, the other of the more recent witnesses, does not affect his use of canons; see Tregelles, Account of the Printed Text, 126–28.

³⁸ Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece (Prolegomena) 3. 54–55.

³⁹ Ibid., 3. 63–64.

⁴⁰ Tregelles, Account of the Printed Text, 174–226; cf. 151–74.

⁴¹ See n. 13 above; the canons are found on pp. 342–45 in both the 1856 and 1860 editions of Tregelles's work.

⁴² Tregelles, Account of the Printed Text, 152; cf. idem in Horne, Introduction, 4. 140–41: “The ancient MSS. should be the authorities for every word”; “the ancient authorities should be allowed a primary place”; “the general principle in the formation of the text is that of following [external] evidence.”

⁴³ Tregelles, Account of the Printed Text, 186; cf. idem in Horne, Introduction, 4. 344 (item 6).

⁴⁴ Tregelles, Account of the Printed Text, 191–92, 222, 230.

⁴⁵ Ibid., 194–96, 205–06, 220–21.

⁴⁶ Ibid., 196–200.

⁴⁷ Ibid., 206–07, 220–21, 224–25.

⁴⁸ Ibid., 221, 245–46.

⁴⁹ Ibid., 222–23. Tregelles allows these as “occasional” occurrences, such as alterations in the interest and support of asceticism, but he says that it would be “an entire mistake to suppose that there was any evidence of doctrinal corruption of the sacred records. …” Cf. 224–25.

⁵⁰ Ibid., 256–57.

⁵¹ Ibid., 201–02, 221–22.

⁵² Ibid., 220–21.

⁵³ Tregelles in Horne, Introduction, 4. 104–07.

⁵⁴ Westcott, B. F. and Hort, F. J. A., The New Testament in the Original Greek (Cambridge/London: Macmillan, 1881–1882) 2.Google Scholar 23. All references are to vol. 2, Introduction, Appendix, which, as is well known, was authored by Hort, though both are fully responsible for the “principles, arguments, and conclusions set forth” (2. 18).

⁵⁵ Ibid., 2. 59; cf. 2. 5–6, 31.

⁵⁶ Ibid., 2. 44.

⁵⁷ Ibid., 2. 49–50.

⁵⁸ Ibid., 2. 20.

⁵⁹ Ibid.

⁶⁰ Ibid., 2. 22–23.

⁶¹ Ibid., 2. 27, 29.

⁶² Ibid., 2. 28.

⁶³ Ibid., 2. 32–33.

⁶⁴ Ibid., 2. 150–51.

⁶⁵ Ibid., 2. 260–61.

⁶⁶ Ibid., 2. 185–86.

⁶⁷ Ibid., 2. 184.

⁶⁸ Ibid., 2. 63–64; cf. 2. 17 on the primacy of external evidence.

⁶⁹ Colwell, Studies in Methodology, 65; cf. the section on “Genealogical Evidence” in Westcott-Hort, 2. 39–62, also 90–119, 178–79.

⁷⁰ Westcott-Hort, 2. 41–42.

⁷¹ Ibid., 2. 19–39, 60–66.

⁷² Ibid., 2. 90–117.

⁷³ Ibid., 2. 134–35.

⁷⁴ Ibid., 2. 90–119.

⁷⁵ Ibid., 2. 130–32.

⁷⁶ Ibid., 2. 122–26.

⁷⁷ Ibid., 2. 128; cf. 178.

⁷⁸ Ibid., 2. 150–51.

⁷⁹ Ibid., 2. 171.

⁸⁰ Ibid., 2. 150–51, 170–71, 210–71, esp. 210.

⁸¹ Ibid., 2. 171,210–13, 222–23.

⁸² Ibid., 2. 212.

⁸³ Ibid., 2. 212; cf. 210: “Every group containing both ℵ and B is found, where Internal Evidence is tolerably unambiguous, to have an apparently more original text than every opposed group containing neither.”

⁸⁴ Elliott, J. K., “Rational Criticism and the Text of the New Testament,” Theology 75 (1972) 339Google Scholar, 340; idem, “Can We Recover the Original New Testament?” Theology 11 (1974) 345–46Google Scholar, 349; cf. idem, “The United Bible Societies Greek New Testament: An Evaluation,” Nov T 15 (1973) 278–300Google Scholar, esp. 297; and idem, “Ho baptizōn and Mark i.4,” ThZ 31 (1975) 15. A view similar to Westcott and Hort's—the championing of a “best manuscript” as an almost “external” criterion but one based essentially on internal judgments—can be seen in the work of M.-J. Lagrange and would be worth exploring as another step on the way to the current chaos in NT text-critical method; cf. Colwell, Studies in Methodology, 6, 80–81Google Scholar.

⁸⁵ Westcott-Hort, 2. 120.

⁸⁶ Ibid., 2. 149.

⁸⁷ Ibid., 2. 120.

⁸⁸ Ibid., 2. 149.

⁸⁹ Ibid., 2. 178.

⁹⁰ Ibid., 2. 124, 127, 131.

⁹¹ These ideas, in compressed form, were first developed for my article “Textual Criticism, NT,” IDBSup, 891–95.

⁹² This canon is based on the suggestions of Kilpatrick, G. D., “Atticism and the Text of the Greek New Testament,” Neutestamentliche Aufsätze: Festschrift für Prof. Josef Schmid zum 70. Geburtstag (eds. Blinzler, J., Kuss, O., and Mussner, F.; Regensburg: Pustet, 1963) 125–37.Google Scholar Cf. now the compelling cautions and objections of Fee, G. D., “Rigorous or Reasoned Eclecticism—Which?” Studies in New Testament Language and Text: Essays in Honour of George D. Kilpatrick (ed. Elliott, J. K.; NovTSup44; Leiden: Brill, 1976) 174–97Google Scholar, which was pre-printed in SBLASP 1975, 2. 36–41; and of Martini, C. M., “Eclecticism and Atticism in the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament,” On Language, Culture, and Religion in Honor of Eugene A. Nida (eds. Black, M. and Smalley, W. A.; Approaches to Semiotics; The Hague/Paris: Mouton, 1974) 149–56Google Scholar.

⁹³ These not uncontroversial matters have been treated by the present writer in a paper presented to the Society of Biblical Literature's Textual Criticism Seminar, Washington, D.C., 1974, entitled “Toward the Clarification of the Term ‘Textual Variant,’” published in Studies in New Testament Language and Text: Essays in Honour of George D. Kilpatrick (ed. Elliott, J. K.; NovTSup44; Leiden: Brill, 1976) 153–73Google Scholar.

⁹⁴ See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 18–19.

⁹⁵ Ibid., 39.

⁹⁶ Ibid., 40–41.

⁹⁷ Ibid., 41.

⁹⁸ Ibid., 42–43.

⁹⁹ Ibid., 67–68.

¹⁰⁰ Ibid., 307.

¹⁰¹ K. Aland, M. Black, C. M. Martini, B. M. Metzger, and A. Wikgren (2d ed.; New York/London/Edinburgh/Amsterdam/Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1968); 3d ed. forthcoming.

¹⁰² Metzger, Textual Commentary, xxiv–xxviii.

¹⁰³ That B played this decisive role in the UBSGNT is confirmed by the statement in the Textual Commentary, 295: “… The possibility must be left open that occasionally the text of B represents a secondary development.” The fact that this comment occurs in connection with an Acts passage makes it all the more significant, for Metzger reports (272–73) that the editors recognized that in the text of Acts “neither the Alexandrian nor the Western group of witnesses always preserves the original text, but that in order to attain the earliest text one must compare the two divergent traditions point by point and in each case select the reading which commends itself in the light of transcriptional and intrinsic probabilities,” and that, therefore, the editorial committee “proceeded in an eclectic fashion.” The clear implication is that, for the UBSGNTcommiuce, B was indeed the lodestar of the original text, for if in Acts—where there is the greatest uncertainty as to whether B and its group or its early rival, the Western text, represents the original—if here in Acts the possibility must be allowed that B occasionally represents the non-original text, then elsewhere B must surely stand as the most reliable guide. Incidentally, the statement from pp. 272–73 quoted above does not mean that in Acts the editors gave primacy to internal evidence, for what they sought, as stated explicitly, was “the earliest text”—an external criterion, though internal criteria were employed, as part of an overall eclectic process, to determine which of the two rival texts or which of the various alternative readings was in fact the earlier or earliest.

¹⁰⁴ Cf. n. 2 above.

¹⁰⁵ See Epp, “Twentieth Century Interlude,” 393–96, for a statement on the status of the Caesarean text in current criticism.

¹⁰⁶ Cf. ibid., 390–401.

¹⁰⁷ Cf. ibid., 387, 406–14.

¹⁰⁸ See Metzger, Text of the New Testament, 137–38, for a succinct description of Weiss's procedures, and pp. 175–79 for a general summary of this kind of eclectic methodology.

¹⁰⁹ Turner, C. H., “Marcan Usage: Notes, Critical and Exegetical, on the Second Gospel,” JTS 25 (1923–1924) 377–86Google Scholar; 26 (1924–25) 12–20, 145–56, 225–40, 337–46; 27 (1925–26) 58–62; 28 (1926–27) 9–30, 349–62; 29 (1927–28) 275–89, 346–61.

¹¹⁰ Lagrange, Critique textuelle, esp. 17–40.

¹¹¹ E.g., Klijn, A. F. J., A Survey of the Researches into the Western Text of the Gospels and Acts (Utrecht: Kemink, 1949) 170Google Scholar.

¹¹² Colwell, Studies in Methodology, 6; cf. n. 84 above.

¹¹³ Westcott-Hort, 2. ix, 31.

¹¹⁴ Turner, , JTS 25 (1923–1924) 377Google Scholar.

¹¹⁵ Kilpatrick, , “Western Text and Original Text in the Gospels and Acts,” JTS 44 (1943) 24–36Google Scholar; idem, “Western Text and Original Text in the Epistles,“JTS 45 (1944) 60–65Google Scholar.

¹¹⁶ JTS 44 (1943) 33–34Google Scholar, 36; 45 (1944) 65; see also Kilpatrick, “Atticism,” 136: “At each point the text must be decided impartially on the merits of the readings involved.” Similar statements appear inevitably in his articles on the subject.

¹¹⁷ JTS 44 (1943) 36Google Scholar.

¹¹⁸ Ibid., 25–26.

¹¹⁹ Ibid., 36.

¹²⁰ Ibid., 33.

¹²¹ Ibid., 26.

¹²² Kilpatrick, ibid., does speak of assessing the “antiquity of the tradition in a certain manuscript” from its spelling, abbreviations, script, number of columns, and errors.

¹²³ Ibid., 36.

¹²⁴ Kilpatrick, , “An Eclectic Study of the Text of Acts,” Biblical and Patristic Studies in Memory of Robert Pierce Casey (eds. Birdsall, J. N. and Thomson, R. W.; Freiburg: Herder, 1963) 76Google Scholar.

¹²⁵ Kilpatrick, , “The Greek New Testament Text of Today and the Textus Receptus” The New Testament in Historical and Contemporary Perspective: Essays in Memory of G. H. C. Macgregor (eds. Anderson, H. and Barclay, W.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1965) 189–206Google Scholar; the quotation is from 205–06.

¹²⁶ Elliott, “Rational Criticism,” 340–41.

¹²⁷ Ibid., 340–43 (the quotation is from 341); idem, “Can We Recover the Original New Testament?” 349–53.

¹²⁸ Ibid., 352.

¹²⁹ Elliott, , The Greek Text of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus (SD 36; Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 1968) 10Google Scholar. There are some ambiguous references to “weak” and “strong” support (p. 11).

¹³⁰ Ibid., 5–6, 11; cf. also p. 12: “Often such a study serves as further ammunition against the documentary method”; and his “Rational Criticism,” 341: “… internal rather than on documentary criteria.”

¹³¹ Cf., e.g., Kilpatrick, “Eclectic Study of the Text of Acts,” 77; Elliott, Greek Text of … Timothy and Titus, 8, who calls conformity to the author's style and usage the eclectic method's “basic rule of thumb.”

¹³² Kilpatrick, “The Greek New Testament Text of Today,” 205; cf. idem, JTS 44 (1943) 34.Google Scholar

¹³³ Klijn, A. F. J., “In Search of the Original Text of Acts,” Studies in Luke-Acts: Essays Presented in Honor of Paul Schubert (eds. Keck, L. E. and Martyn, J. L.; Nashville/New York: Abingdon, 1966) 104Google Scholar; cf. 108. Klijn makes this highly critical judgment while affirming at the same time that “the eclectic method seems to be the only adequate method to regain the original text” (104). Observe, however, that while Klijn's attribution of chaos to the eclectic method explicitly encompasses Kilpatrick's work, Klijn's own views on external evidence are radically different from Kilpatrick's, for Klijn, while approving the “rational criticism” of readings (mainly on grounds of intrinsic probability), states that textual criticism must attempt to render this approach superfluous, mainly by the grouping of manuscripts into families and texts (external evidence) (Klijn, Survey of the Researches into the Western Text, 170).