An ancient text becomes “corrupted”?

What we have today as the Scripture is not the autobiography handed down to us. We have copies of copies that were handwritten by the scribes. A great deal of human effort was involved in the process of copying from another copy. As a result, mistakes are inevitable. There are three profound causes of textual corruption. The first scribe who is working on his predecessor’s work cannot make sense of the words in the copy in front of him. He tries to take that task upon himself by providing a nonsensical jumble of letters. The second, which is deemed worse, tries to be a textual scholar on his own merits by trying to correct the work in front of him. He supplies word(s) that he thinks there should be guided by his unaided intelligence. There is a minimal chance of him getting the textual transmission accidentally right. Thirdly, the worst of all, the scribe sees the word or sentence that he does not like or agree with. In this case, he alters the text from his predecessor’s work to suit his theological agenda. 

Some are genuine mistakes; others were theologically motivated. Those mistakes are a deliberate attempt to alter the meaning of the text. For example, a trained scribe who had his source copy lying in front of him does not like what he read. So, he slightly makes changes. In some instances, he writes a marginal comment on the side or in between lines. When another copyist uses that copy for his work, it becomes a part of the text during transmission. In some cases, there are some shreds of evidence that the copyist had skipped the entire paragraph. The plausible reason for that blunder could be physical or visual fatigue from working long hours in dim light. 

In short, we have thousands of discrepancies in the text as a result of a mistake in the copying process. Some are minor and could be fixed easily. Other mistakes such as inversion of letters and repetition or omission of words or letters can be seen in the Greek New Testament. As a result, the ancient text becomes corrupted during the transmitting process. But also we need to remember that those thousands of textual variants do not affect or alter the essential Christian doctrines whatsoever.

Westcott and Hort’s Tremendous Contribution to New Testament Textual Criticism

Westcott and Hort developed a methodology for the New Testament textual criticism. Their contribution is notable and of lasting value to us. Many scholars before them had made some progress in the various readings of the manuscripts. No one had developed a methodology to work on the manuscripts. When they were presented with various readings, they either chose A.E. Houseman’s procedure to decide one manuscript over others as the best or simply relied on one’s inner intuition and made a judgment on the selected text whey various readings differ. 

Hort sets out to formulate a complete theory and a genuinely scientific method of textual criticism. He laid out plainly what textual criticism is how it should be done and what is to achieve from the work. Hort established the canons of criticism on which every textual scholar bases their work on his principles. 

Westcott possessed the deepest felt theological mind. The revelation of the living God is hidden behind the originality of text and particles and its grammar, he believed. We can see Westcott and Hort have directly or indirectly influenced the most Bible translations we have today. These two scholars agreed with Lightfoot to produce a commentary on the Bible that has to be critical, linguistic, historical, and exegetical. They argue that the number of manuscripts must not be equated with the purity of manuscripts. Reading must always be determined by the family of the manuscripts they belong to. 

Westcott and Hort’s five principles of approaching textual criticism

Westcott and Hort, two prominent 19th-century biblical scholars, made significant contributions to the field of textual criticism, particularly in their work on the New Testament manuscripts. Their approach to textual criticism was guided by several key principles. These principles are often inferred from their writings and methodologies. Here are five key principles associated with their approach:

1. Genealogical Method: Westcott and Hort advocated for a genealogical method of textual criticism, which involves analyzing variant readings in manuscripts to reconstruct the history of their transmission. They believed that manuscripts could be grouped into text families, with earlier manuscripts presumed to be closer to the original text.
2. Preference for Older Manuscripts: They generally favored readings found in older manuscripts, believing that these were closer to the original text and less likely to have been corrupted by later scribal errors or alterations.
3. Internal Evidence: In addition to considering external evidence such as manuscript age and textual tradition, Westcott and Hort also examined internal evidence. This included factors such as the style and vocabulary of the text, as well as its consistency with the author’s known writing style and theological beliefs.
4. Scribal Tendencies: They were attentive to common scribal tendencies, such as harmonization (where scribes might alter a text to make it more consistent with parallel passages) and interpolation (where additional material is inserted into the text).
5. Principle of Harder Reading: Westcott and Hort generally preferred readings that were more difficult or challenging, believing that scribes were more likely to modify the text to make it easier to understand rather than to make it more difficult.