Textual criticism

Carmina Cantabrigiensia, Manuscript C, folio 436v, eleventh century

Textual criticism (or lower criticism) is a branch of literary criticism that is concerned with the identification and removal of transcription errors in the texts of manuscripts. Ancient scribes often made errors or alterations, while copying manuscripts by hand.[1] Given a manuscript copy, several or many copies, but not the original document, the textual critic seeks to reconstruct the original text (the archetype or autograph) as closely as possible. The same processes can be used to attempt to reconstruct intermediate editions, or recensions, of a document's transcription history.[2] The ultimate objective of the textual critic's work is the production of a "critical edition" containing a text most closely approximating the original.

There are three fundamental approaches to textual criticism: eclecticism, stemmatics, and copy-text editing. Techniques from the biological discipline of cladistics are currently also being used to determine the relationships between manuscripts.


Lower criticism is used to describe the contrast between textual criticism and "higher" criticism, which is the endeavor to establish the authorship, date, and place of composition of the original text. The origin of textual criticism is rooted in both the rise of modern historigraphy, which provided greater tools for textual analysis, and the work of religious scholars to answer the pressing questions about the origins of sacred texts.


Textual criticism has been practiced for over two thousand years. Early textual critics were concerned with preserving the works of antiquity, and this continued through the medieval period into early modern times until the invention of the printing press.

Many ancient works, such as the Bible and the Greek tragedies, survive in hundreds of copies, and the relationship of each copy to the original may be unclear. Textual scholars have debated for centuries which sources are most closely derived from the original, hence which readings in those sources are correct. Although biblical books that are letters, like Greek plays, presumably had one original, the question of whether some biblical books, like the gospels, ever had just one original has been discussed.[3]

In the English language, the works of Shakespeare have been a particularly fertile ground for textual criticism–both because the texts, as transmitted, contain a considerable amount of variation, and because the effort and expense of producing superior editions of his works have always been widely viewed as worthwhile.[4] The principles of textual criticism, although originally developed and refined for works of antiquity, the Bible, and Shakespeare,[5] have been applied to many works, extending backwards from the present to the earliest known written documents, in Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt–a period of about five millennia.


The textual critic's ultimate objective is the production of a "critical edition." This contains a text most closely approximating the original, which is accompanied by an apparatus criticus (or critical apparatus) that presents:

  • the evidence that the editor considered (names of manuscripts, or abbreviations called sigla),
  • the editor's analysis of that evidence (sometimes a simple likelihood rating), and
  • a record of rejected variants (often in order of preference).[6]


Folio from Papyrus 46, containing 2 Corinthians 11:33–12:9

Before mechanical printing, literature was copied by hand, and many variations were introduced by copyists. The age of printing made the scribal profession effectively redundant. Printed editions, while less susceptible to the proliferation of variations likely to arise during manual transmission, are nonetheless not immune to introducing variations from an author's autograph. Instead of a scribe miscopying his source, a compositor or a printing shop may read or typeset a work in a way that differs from the autograph.[7] Since each scribe or printer commits different errors, reconstruction of the lost original is often aided by a selection of readings taken from many sources. An edited text that draws from multiple sources is said to be eclectic. In contrast to this approach, some textual critics prefer to identify the single best surviving text rather than combining readings from multiple sources.[8]

When comparing different documents, or "witnesses," of a single, original text, the observed differences are called variant readings, or simply variants or readings. It is not always apparent which single variant represents the author's original work. The process of textual criticism seeks to explain how each variant may have entered the text, either by accident (duplication or omission) or intention (harmonization or censorship), as scribes or supervisors transmitted the original author's text by copying it. The textual critic's task, therefore, is to sort through the variants, eliminating those most likely to be un-original, hence establishing a "critical text," or critical edition, that is intended to best approximate the original. At the same time, the critical text should document variant readings, so the relation of extant witnesses to the reconstructed original is apparent to a reader of the critical edition. In establishing the critical text, the textual critic considers both "external" evidence (the age, provenance, and affiliation of each witness) and "internal" or "physical" considerations (what the author and scribes, or printers, were likely to have done).[3]

The collation of all known variants of a text is referred to as a Variorum, namely a work of textual criticism whereby all variations and emendations are set side by side so that a reader can track how textual decisions have been made in the preparation of a text for publication.[9] The Bible and the works of William Shakespeare have often been the subjects of variorum editions, although the same techniques have been applied with less frequency to many other works, such as Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass.[10] and the prose writings of Edward Fitzgerald.[11]


Eclecticism refers to the practice of consulting a wide diversity of witnesses to a particular original. The practice is based on the principal that the more independent two transmission histories are, the less likely they will be to reproduce the same errors. What one omits, the other may retain; what one adds, the other is unlikely to add. Eclecticism allows inferences to be drawn regarding the original text, based on the evidence of contrasts between witnesses.

Eclectic readings also normally give an impression of the number of witnesses to each available reading. Although a reading supported by the majority of witnesses is frequently preferred, this does not follow automatically. For example, a second edition of a Shakespeare play may include an addition alluding to an event known to have happened between the two editions. Although nearly all subsequent manuscripts may have included the addition, textual critics may reconstruct the original without the addition.

The result of the process is a text with readings drawn from many witnesses. It is not a copy of any particular manuscript, and may deviate from the majority of existing manuscripts. In a purely eclectic approach, no single witness is theoretically favored. Instead, the critic forms opinions about individual witnesses, relying on both external and internal evidence.[12]

Since the mid-nineteenth century, eclecticism, in which there is no a priori bias to a single manuscript, has been the dominant method of editing the Greek text of the New Testament (currently, the United Bible Society, 4th ed. and Nestle-Aland, 27th ed.). Even so, the oldest manuscripts of the Alexandrian text-type are the most favored, and the critical text has an Alexandrian disposition.[13]

External evidence

External evidence is evidence of each physical witness, its date, source, and relationship to other known witnesses. Critics will often prefer the readings supported by the oldest witnesses. Since errors tend to accumulate, older manuscripts should have fewer errors. Readings supported by a majority of witnesses are also usually preferred, since these are less likely to reflect accidents or individual biases. For the same reasons, the most geographically diverse witnesses are preferred. Some manuscripts show evidence that particular care was taken in their composition, for example, by including alternative readings in their margins, demonstrating that more than one prior copy (exemplar) was consulted in producing the current one. Other factors being equal, these are the best witnesses.

There are many other more sophisticated considerations. For example, readings that depart from the known practice of a scribe or a given period may be deemed more reliable, since a scribe is unlikely on his own initiative to have departed from the usual practice.[14]

Internal evidence

Internal evidence is evidence that comes from the text itself, independent of the physical characteristics of the document. Various considerations can be used to decide which reading is the most likely to be original. Sometimes these considerations can be in conflict.[14]

Two common considerations have Latin names lectio brevior (shorter reading) and lectio difficilior (more difficult reading). The first is the general observation that scribes tended to add words, for clarification or out of habit, more often than they removed them. The second, lectio difficilior potior (the harder reading is stronger), recognizes the tendency for harmonization–resolving apparent inconsistencies in the text. Applying this principle leads to taking the more difficult (unharmonized) reading as the more likely to be the original. Such cases also include scribes simplifying and smoothing texts they did not fully understand.[15] Some developing research, however, suggests that this principle cannot be applied universally, as is the case with the Book of Revelation where much of the text is difficult to understand and interpret.

Another scribal tendency is called homoioteleuton, meaning "same endings." Homoioteleuton occurs when two words/phrases/lines end with the same sequence of letters. The scribe, having finished copying the first, skips to the second, omitting all intervening words. Homeoarchy refers to eye-skip when the beginnings of two lines are similar.

The critic may also examine the other writings of the author to decide what words and grammatical constructions match his style. The evaluation of internal evidence also provides the critic with information that helps him evaluate the reliability of individual manuscripts. Thus, the consideration of internal and external evidence is related.

After considering all relevant factors, the textual critic seeks the reading that best explains how the other readings would arise. That reading is then the most likely candidate to have been original.

Canons of textual criticism

Various scholars have developed guidelines, or canons of textual criticism, to guide the exercise of the critic's judgment in determining the best readings of a text. One of the earliest was Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687–1752), who in 1734 produced an edition of the Greek New Testament. In his commentary, he established the rule Proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua, ("the harder reading is to be preferred") [16]

Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745–1812) published several editions of the New Testament. In his 1796 edition Novum Testamentum Graece [17], he established 15 critical rules. Among them was a variant of Bengel's rule, Lectio difficilior potior, "the hardest reading is best." Another was Lectio brevior praeferenda, "the shorter reading is best," based on the idea that scribes were more likely to add than to delete.[18] This rule cannot be applied uncritically, as scribes may omit material inadvertently.

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901) and Fenton J. A. Hort (1828–1892) published an edition of the New Testament in 1881. They proposed nine critical rules, including a version of Bengel's rule,

"The reading is less likely to be original that shows a disposition to smooth away difficulties."

They also argued that "Readings are approved or rejected by reason of the quality, and not the number, of their supporting witnesses," and that "The reading is to be preferred that most fitly explains the existence of the others."[19]

Many of these rules, although originally developed for Biblical textual criticism, have wide applicability to any text susceptible to errors of transmission.

Limitations of eclecticism

Since the canons of criticism are highly susceptible to interpretation, and at times even contradict each other, they can often be employed to justify any result that fits the text critic's aesthetic or theological agenda. Starting in the nineteenth century, scholars sought more rigorous methods to guide editorial judgment. Best-text editing (a complete rejection of eclecticism) emerged as one extreme. Stemmatics and copy-text editing—while both eclectic, in that they permit the editor to select readings from multiple sources—sought to reduce subjectivity by establishing one or a few witnesses, presumably as more "objective" criteria.



Stemmatics or stemmatology is a rigorous approach to textual criticism. Karl Lachmann (1793–1851) greatly contributed to making this method famous, even though he did not invent it (see Timpanaro, The genesis of Lachmann's method). The method takes its name from the stemma, "family tree," which shows the relationships of the surviving witnesses. The family tree is also referred to as a cladorama.[20] The method works from the principle that a "community of error implies community of origin." That is, if two witnesses have a number of errors in common, it may be presumed that they were derived from a common intermediate source, called a hyparchetype. Relations between the lost intermediates are determined by the same process, placing all extant manuscripts in a family tree or stemma codicum descended from a single archetype. The process of constructing the stemma is called recension, or the Latin recensio.[21]

Having completed the stemma, the critic proceeds to the next step, called selection or selectio, where the text of the archetype is determined by examining variants from the closest hyparchetypes to the archetype and selecting the best ones. If one reading occurs more often than another at the same level of the tree, then the dominant reading is selected. If two competing readings occur equally often, then the editor uses his judgment to select the correct reading.[22]

After selectio, the text may still contain errors, since there may be passages where no source preserves the correct reading. The step of examination, or examinatio is applied to find corruptions. Where the editor concludes that the text is corrupt, it is corrected by a process called "emendation," or emendatio (also sometimes called divinatio). Emendations not supported by any known source are sometimes called conjectural emendations.[23]

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.

The Hodges-Farstad edition of the Greek New Testament attempts to use stemmatics for some portions.

Limitations and criticism

The stemmatic method assumes that each witness is derived from one, and only one, predecessor. If a scribe refers to more than one source when creating his copy, then the new copy will not clearly fall into a single branch of the family tree. In the stemmatic method, a manuscript that is derived from more than one source is said to be contaminated.

The method also assumes that scribes only make new errors; they do not attempt to correct the errors of their predecessors. When a text has been improved by the scribe, it is said to be sophisticated, but "sophistication" impairs the method by obscuring a document's relationship to other witnesses, and making it more difficult to place the manuscript correctly in the stemma.

The stemmatic method requires the textual critic to group manuscripts by commonality of error. It is required, therefore, that the critic can distinguish erroneous readings from correct ones. This assumption has often come under attack. W. W. Greg noted, "That if a scribe makes a mistake he will inevitably produce nonsense is the tacit and wholly unwarranted assumption."[24]

The critic Joseph Bédier (1864–1938) launched a particularly withering attack on stemmatics in 1928. He surveyed editions of medieval French texts that were produced with the stemmatic method, and found that textual critics tended overwhelmingly to produce trees divided into just two branches. He concluded that this outcome was unlikely to have occurred by chance, and that therefore, the method was tending to produce bipartite stemmas regardless of the actual history of the witnesses. He suspected that editors tended to favor trees with two branches, as this would maximize the opportunities for editorial judgment (as there would be no third branch to "break the tie" whenever the witnesses disagreed). He also noted that, for many works, more than one reasonable stemma could be postulated, suggesting that the method was not as rigorous or as scientific as its proponents had claimed.

The stemmatic method's final step is emendatio, also sometimes referred to as "conjectural emendation." But in fact, the critic employs conjecture at every step of the process. Some of the method's rules that are designed to reduce the exercise of editorial judgment do not necessarily produce the correct result. For example, where there are more than two witnesses at the same level of the tree, normally the critic will select the dominant reading. However, it may be no more than fortuitous that more witnesses have survived that present a particular reading. A plausible reading that occurs less often may, nevertheless, be the correct one.[25]

Lastly, the stemmatic method assumes that every extant witness is derived, however remotely, from a single source. It does not account for the possibility that the original author may have revised his work, and that the text could have existed at different times in more than one authoritative version.

Copy-text editing

Page from Codex Vaticanus Graece 1209, B/03

When copy-text editing, the scholar fixes errors in a base text, often with the help of other witnesses. 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 critic examines 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 (1466 – 1536), the editor, selected a manuscript from the local Dominican monastery in Basle and corrected its obvious errors by consulting other local manuscripts. The Westcott and Hort text, which was the basis for the Revised Version of the English Bible, also used the copy-text method, using the Codex Vaticanus as the base manuscript.

McKerrow's concept of copy-text

The bibliographer Ronald B. McKerrow introduced the term copy-text in his 1904 edition of the works of Thomas Nashe, defining it as "the text used in each particular case as the basis of mine." McKerrow was aware of the limitations of the stemmatic method, and believed it was more prudent to choose one particular text that was thought to be particularly reliable, and then to emend it only where the text was obviously corrupt. The French critic Joseph Bédier likewise became disenchanted with the stemmatic method, and concluded that the editor should choose the best available text, and emend it as little as possible.

In McKerrow's method as originally introduced, the copy-text was not necessarily the earliest text. In some cases, McKerrow would choose a later witness, noting that "if an editor has reason to suppose that a certain text embodies later corrections than any other, and at the same time has no ground for disbelieving that these corrections, or some of them at least, are the work of the author, he has no choice but to make that text the basis of his reprint."[26]

By 1939, in his Prolegomena for the Oxford Shakespeare, McKerrow had changed his mind about this approach, as he feared that a later edition—even if it contained authorial corrections—would "deviate more widely than the earliest print from the author's original manuscript." He therefore concluded that the correct procedure would be "produced by using the earliest 'good' print as copy-text and inserting into it, from the first edition which contains them, such corrections as appear to us to be derived from the author." But, fearing the arbitrary exercise of editorial judgment, McKerrow stated that, having concluded that a later edition had substantive revisions attributable to the author, "we must accept all the alterations of that edition, saving any which seem obvious blunders or misprints."[27]

W. W. Greg's rationale of copy-text

Anglo-American textual criticism in the last half of the twentieth century came to be dominated by a landmark 1950 essay by Sir Walter W. Greg, "The Rationale of Copy-Text." Greg proposed:

[A] distinction between the significant, or as I shall call them 'substantive', readings of the text, those namely that affect the author's meaning or the essence of his expression, and others, such in general as spelling, punctuation, word-division, and the like, affecting mainly its formal presentation, which may be regarded as the accidents, or as I shall call them 'accidentals', of the text.[28]

Greg observed that compositors at printing shops tended to follow the "substantive" readings of their copy faithfully, except when they deviated unintentionally; but that "as regards accidentals they will normally follow their own habits or inclination, though they may, for various reasons and to varying degrees, be influenced by their copy."[29]

He concluded:

The true theory is, I contend, that the copy-text should govern (generally) in the matter of accidentals, but that the choice between substantive readings belongs to the general theory of textual criticism and lies altogether beyond the narrow principle of the copy-text. Thus it may happen that in a critical edition the text rightly chosen as copy may not by any means be the one that supplies most substantive readings in cases of variation. The failure to make this distinction and to apply this principle has naturally led to too close and too general a reliance upon the text chosen as basis for an edition, and there has arisen what may be called the tyranny of the copy-text, a tyranny that has, in my opinion, vitiated much of the best editorial work of the past generation.[30]

Greg's view, in short, was that the "copy-text can be allowed no over-riding or even preponderant authority so far as substantive readings are concerned." The choice between reasonable competing readings, he said:

[W]ill be determined partly by the opinion the editor may form respecting the nature of the copy from which each substantive edition was printed, which is a matter of external authority; partly by the intrinsic authority of the several texts as judged by the relative frequency of manifest errors therein; and partly by the editor's judgment of the intrinsic claims of individual readings to originality—in other words their intrinsic merit, so long as by 'merit' we mean the likelihood of their being what the author wrote rather than their appeal to the individual taste of the editor.[31]

Although Greg argued that an editor should be free to use his judgment to choose between competing substantive readings, he suggested that an editor should defer to the copy-text when "the claims of two readings … appear to be exactly balanced. … In such a case, while there can be no logical reason for giving preference to the copy-text, in practice, if there is no reason for altering its reading, the obvious thing seems to be to let it stand."[32] The "exactly balanced" variants are said to be indifferent.

Editors who follow Greg's rationale produce eclectic editions, in that the authority for the "accidentals" is derived from one particular source (usually the earliest one) that the editor considers to be authoritative, but the authority for the "substantives" is determined in each individual case according to the editor's judgment. The resulting text, except for the accidentals, is constructed without relying predominantly on any one witness.


W. W. Greg did not live long enough to apply his rationale of copy-text to any actual editions of works. His rationale was adopted and significantly expanded by Fredson Bowers (1905–1991). Starting in the 1970s, G. Thomas Tanselle (1934–) vigorously took up the method's defense and added significant contributions of his own. Greg's rationale as practiced by Bowers and Tanselle has come to be known as the "Greg–Bowers" or the "Greg–Bowers–Tanselle" method.

Application to works of all periods

William Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night's Dream

In his 1964 essay, "Some Principles for Scholarly Editions of Nineteenth-Century American Authors," Bowers said that "the theory of copy-text proposed by Sir Walter Greg rules supreme".[33] Bowers's assertion of "supremacy" was in contrast to Greg's more modest claim that "My desire is rather to provoke discussion than to lay down the law".[34]

Whereas Greg had limited his illustrative examples to English Renaissance drama, where his expertise lay, Bowers argued that the rationale was "the most workable editorial principle yet contrived to produce a critical text that is authoritative in the maximum of its details whether the author be Shakespeare, Dryden, Fielding, Nathaniel Hawthorne, or Stephen Crane. The principle is sound without regard for the literary period."[35] For works where an author's manuscript survived – a case Greg had not considered – Bowers concluded that the manuscript should generally serve as copy-text. Citing the example of Nathaniel Hawthorne, he noted:

When an author's manuscript is preserved, this has paramount authority, of course. Yet the fallacy is still maintained that since the first edition was proofread by the author, it must represent his final intentions and hence should be chosen as copy-text. Practical experience shows the contrary. When one collates the manuscript of The House of the Seven Gables against the first printed edition, one finds an average of ten to fifteen differences per page between the manuscript and the print, many of them consistent alterations from the manuscript system of punctuation, capitalization, spelling, and word-division. It would be ridiculous to argue that Hawthorne made approximately three to four thousand small changes in proof, and then wrote the manuscript of The Blithedale Romance according to the same system as the manuscript of the Seven Gables, a system that he had rejected in proof.[36]

Following Greg, the editor would then replace any of the manuscript readings with substantives from printed editions that could be reliably attributed to the author: "Obviously, an editor cannot simply reprint the manuscript, and he must substitute for its readings any words that he believes Hawthorne changed in proof.[37]

Uninfluenced final authorial intention

McKerrow had articulated textual criticism's goal in terms of "our ideal of an author's fair copy of his work in its final state."[38] Bowers asserted that editions founded on Greg's method would "represent the nearest approximation in every respect of the author's final intentions."[39] Bowers stated similarly that the editor's task is to "approximate as nearly as possible an inferential authorial fair copy."[40] Tanselle notes that, "Textual criticism … has generally been undertaken with a view to reconstructing, as accurately as possible, the text finally intended by the author".[41]

Bowers and Tanselle argue for rejecting textual variants that an author inserted at the suggestion of others. Bowers said that his edition of Stephen Crane's first novel, Maggie, presented "the author's final and uninfluenced artistic intentions."[42] In his writings, Tanselle refers to "unconstrained authorial intention" or "an author's uninfluenced intentions."[43] This marks a departure from Greg, who had merely suggested that the editor inquire whether a later reading "is one that the author can reasonably be supposed to have substituted for the former",[44] not implying any further inquiry as to why the author had made the change.

Tanselle discusses the example of Herman Melville's Typee. After the novel's initial publication, Melville's publisher asked him to soften the novel's criticisms of missionaries in the South Seas. Although Melville pronounced the changes an improvement, Tanselle rejected them in his edition, concluding that

"there is no evidence, internal or external, to suggest that they are the kinds of changes Melville would have made without pressure from someone else."[45]

Bowers confronted a similar problem in his edition of Maggie. Crane originally printed the novel privately in 1893. To secure commercial publication in 1896, Crane agreed to remove profanity, but he also made stylistic revisions. Bowers's approach was to preserve the stylistic and literary changes of 1896, but to revert to the 1893 readings where he believed that Crane was fulfilling the publisher's intention rather than his own. There were, however, intermediate cases that could reasonably have been attributed to either intention, and some of Bowers's choices came under fire–both as to his judgment, and as to the wisdom of conflating readings from the two different versions of Maggie.[46]

Hans Zeller argued that it is impossible to tease apart the changes Crane made for literary reasons and those made at the publisher's insistence:

Firstly, in anticipation of the character of the expected censorship, Crane could be led to undertake alterations which also had literary value in the context of the new version. Secondly, because of the systematic character of the work, purely censorial alterations sparked off further alterations, determined at this stage by literary considerations. Again in consequence of the systemic character of the work, the contamination of the two historical versions in the edited text gives rise to a third version. Though the editor may indeed give a rational account of his decision at each point on the basis of the documents, nevertheless to aim to produce the ideal text which Crane would have produced in 1896 if the publisher had left him complete freedom is to my mind just as unhistorical as the question of how the first World War or the history of the United States would have developed if Germany had not caused the USA to enter the war in 1917 by unlimited submarine combat. The nonspecific form of censorship described above is one of the historical conditions under which Crane wrote the second version of Maggie and made it function. From the text which arose in this way it is not possible to subtract these forces and influences, in order to obtain a text of the author's own. Indeed I regard the "uninfluenced artistic intentions" of the author as something which exists only in terms of aesthetic abstraction. Between influences on the author and influences on the text are all manner of transitions.[47]

Bowers and Tanselle recognize that texts often exist in more than one authoritative version. Tanselle argues that:

Two types of revision must be distinguished: that which aims at altering the purpose, direction, or character of a work, thus attempting to make a different sort of work out of it; and that which aims at intensifying, refining, or improving the work as then conceived (whether or not it succeeds in doing so), thus altering the work in degree but not in kind. If one may think of a work in terms of a spatial metaphor, the first might be labeled "vertical revision," because it moves the work to a different plane, and the second "horizontal revision," because it involves alterations within the same plane. Both produce local changes in active intention; but revisions of the first type appear to be in fulfillment of an altered programmatic intention or to reflect an altered active intention in the work as a whole, whereas those of the second do not.[48]

He suggests that where a revision is "horizontal" (i.e. aimed at improving the work as originally conceived), then the editor should adopt the author's later version. But where a revision is "vertical" (i.e. fundamentally altering the work's intention as a whole), then the revision should be treated as a new work, and edited separately on its own terms.

Format for apparatus

Bowers was also influential in defining the form of critical apparatus that should accompany a scholarly edition. In addition to the content of the apparatus, Bowers led a movement to relegate editorial matter to appendices, leaving the critically-established text "in the clear," that is, free of any signs of editorial intervention. Tanselle explained the rationale for this approach:

In the first place, an editor's primary responsibility is to establish a text; whether his goal is to reconstruct that form of the text which represents the author's final intention or some other form of the text, his essential task is to produce a reliable text according to some set of principles. Relegating all editorial matter to an appendix and allowing the text to stand by itself serves to emphasize the primacy of the text and permits the reader to confront the literary work without the distraction of editorial comment and to read the work with ease. A second advantage of a clear text is that it is easier to quote from or to reprint. Although no device can insure accuracy of quotation, the insertion of symbols (or even footnote numbers) into a text places additional difficulties in the way of the quoter. Furthermore, most quotations appear in contexts where symbols are inappropriate; thus when it is necessary to quote from a text which has not been kept clear of apparatus, the burden of producing a clear text of the passage is placed on the quoter. Even footnotes at the bottom of the text pages are open to the same objection, when the question of a photographic reprint arises.[49]

Some critics believe that a clear-text edition gives the edited text too great a prominence, relegating textual variants to appendices that are difficult to use, and suggesting a greater sense of certainty about the established text than it deserves. As Shillingsburg notes:

"English scholarly editions have tended to use notes at the foot of the text page, indicating, tacitly, a greater modesty about the 'established' text and drawing attention more forcibly to at least some of the alternative forms of the text."[50]

The MLA's CEAA and CSE

In 1963, the Modern Language Association of America (MLA) established the Center for Editions of American Authors (CEAA). The CEAA's Statement of Editorial Principles and Procedures, first published in 1967, adopted the Greg–Bowers rationale in full. A CEAA examiner would inspect each edition, and only those meeting the requirements would receive a seal denoting "An Approved Text."

Between 1966 and 1975, the Center allocated more than $1.5 million in funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities to various scholarly editing projects, which were required to follow the guidelines (including the structure of editorial apparatus) as Bowers had defined them.[51] According to Davis, the funds coordinated by the CEAA over the same period were more than $6 million, counting funding from universities, university presses, and other bodies.[52]

The Center for Scholarly Editions (CSE) replaced the CEAA in 1976. The change of name indicated the shift to a broader agenda than just American authors. The Center also ceased its role in the allocation of funds. The Center's latest guidelines (2003) no longer prescribe a particular editorial procedure.[53]


Canterbury Tales, Woodcut 1484

Cladistics is a technique borrowed from biology, where it was originally named phylogenetic systematics by Willi Hennig. In biology, the technique is used to determine the evolutionary relationships between different species.[54] In its application in textual criticism, the text of a number of different manuscripts is entered into a computer, which records all the differences between them. The manuscripts are then grouped according to their shared characteristics. The difference between cladistics and more traditional forms of statistical analysis is that, rather than simply arranging the manuscripts into rough groupings according to their overall similarity, cladistics assumes that they are part of a branching family tree and uses that assumption to derive relationships between them. This makes it more like an automated approach to stemmatics. However, where there is a difference, the computer does not attempt to decide which reading is closer to the original text, and so does not indicate which branch of the tree is the "root"–which manuscript tradition is closest to the original. Other types of evidence must be used for that purpose.

The major theoretical problem with applying cladistics to textual criticism is that cladistics assumes that, once a branching has occurred in the family tree, the two branches cannot rejoin; so all similarities can be taken as evidence of common ancestry. While this assumption is presumed by scientists to be applicable to the evolution of living creatures, it is not always true of manuscript traditions, since a scribe can work from two different manuscripts at once, producing a new copy with characteristics of both.

Nonetheless, software developed for use in biology has been applied with some success to textual criticism; for example, it is being used by the Canterbury Tales Project[55] to determine the relationship between the 84 surviving manuscripts and four early printed editions of the Canterbury Tales.

Application of textual criticism to biblical criticism

The Hebrew Bible

Eleventh century manuscript of the Hebrew Bible with Targum

Textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible compares manuscript versions of the following sources (dates refer to the oldest extant manuscripts in each family):

  • Dead Sea Scrolls, Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek (Septuagint and other), various dates c. third century B.C.E. - first C.E.
  • Septuagint, Greek, fourth century C.E. (Codex Vaticanus but also earlier papyri)
  • Vulgate, Latin, early fifth century C.E.
  • Masoretic, Hebrew, tenth century C.E. (Leningrad Codex and other incomplete manuscripts).
  • Samaritan Pentateuch, oldest extant mss c. eleventh century C.E., oldest mss available to scholars sixteenth century C.E.
  • Peshitta texts in Syriac.
  • Targum texts in Aramaic.

Given the sacred nature of the Hebrew Bible in Judaism, adherents sometimes assume that there are no corruptions in the text, since these texts were meticulously transmitted and written. Yet in some texts, particularly the Masoretic texts, changes, corruptions, and erasures have been found. This is ascribed to the fact that early soferim (scribes) did not treat the text with the same reverence later imparted by many believers.[56]

The New Testament

Byzantine illuminated manuscript, 1020

The New Testament has been preserved in over 5,300 Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Ethiopic and Armenian. The sheer number of witnesses presents unique difficulties, chiefly in that it makes stemmatics impractical. Consequently, New Testament textual critics have adopted eclecticism after sorting the witnesses into three major groups, called text-types. The most common division today is as follows:

  • 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 seen to be more prone to paraphrase and other corruptions.
  • The Byzantine text-type is a group of around 95 percent of all manuscripts, the majority of which are comparatively very late in the tradition.

The New Testament portion of the English translation known as the King James or Authorized Version was based on the Textus Receptus, a Greek text prepared by Erasmus based on a few late medieval Greek manuscripts. For some books of the Bible, Erasmus used just single manuscripts, and for small sections made his own translations into Greek from the Vulgate.[57] However, following Westcott and Hort, most modern New Testament textual critics have concluded that the Byzantine text-type was formalized at a later date than the Alexandrian and Western text-types. Among the other types, the Alexandrian is viewed as more pure than the Western, and so one of the central tenets of current New Testament textual criticism is that one should follow the readings of the Alexandrian texts unless those of the other types are clearly superior.

However, a minority position represented by The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text edition by Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad insists that the Byzantine text-type represents an earlier text-type than the surviving Alexandrian texts, possibly the result of an early attempt at textual criticism. This position is also held by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont in their Byzantine Majority Text: The Greek New Testament: Byzantine Textform. Proponents of the Byzantine-text type assert that Egypt, almost uniquely, offers optimal climatic conditions to preserving ancient manuscripts. Thus, the papyri used elsewhere (Asia Minor and Greece) would not have survived due to the unfavorable climatic conditions. The argument states that the far greater number of surviving later Byzantine manuscripts implies an equivalent preponderance of Byzantine texts among lost earlier manuscripts; and hence that a critical reconstruction of the predominant text of the Byzantine tradition would have a superior claim to being closest to the autographs. Furthermore, proponent Jay P. Green, in Volume II of Unholy Hands on the Bible, questions over 3000 differences between Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus in the New Testament Gospels.

Other scholars have criticized the current categorization of manuscripts into text-types and prefer either to subdivide the manuscripts in other ways or to discard the text-type taxonomy.

Textual criticism is also used by those who assert that the New Testament was written in Aramaic.[58][59]


In attempting to determine the original text of the New Testament books, modern textual critics have identified several significant sections as probably not original. In modern translations of the Bible, the results of textual criticism have led to certain verses being left out or marked as not original. Previously, translations of the New Testament had mostly been based on Erasmus's redaction of the New Testament in Greek, the Textus Receptus from the 1500s.

These possible later additions include the following:[60]

  • the ending of Mark, see Mark 16.
  • Jesus sweating blood in Luke (Luke 22:43-44).
  • the story in John of the woman taken in adultery, the Pericope Adulterae.
  • Jesus referred to as "unique Son," rather than "unique God," in John 1:18.
  • the ending of John, see John 21.
  • an explicit reference to the Trinity in 1 John, the Comma Johanneum.
Other disputed NT Passages
  • 1 Corinthians 14:33-35. Some scholars regard the instruction for women to be silent in churches as a later, non-Pauline addition to the Letter, more in keeping with the viewpoint of the Pastoral Epistles (see 1 Tim 2.11-12; Titus 2.5) than of the certainly Pauline Epistles. Some manuscripts place these verses after 40[61]
  • 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16. These passages have often been regarded as a post-Pauline interpolation. The following arguments have been based on the content: (1) the contradiction between Romans 9-11 and 1 Thess. 2.14-16. (2) The references to what has happened to Jews as a model for a Gentile Christian church. (3) There were no extensive persecutions of Christians by Jews in Palestine prior to the first Jewish war. (4) The use of the concept of imitation in 1 Thessalonians 2.14 is singular. (5) The aorist eftasen (has overtaken) refers to the destruction of Jerusalem. It is also sometimes suggested that 5:1-11 is "a post-Pauline insertion that has many features of Lucan language and theology that serves as an apologetic correction to the Pauline expectation of the parousia and thus already reflects the problem of the delay of the parousia.[62]

Classical texts

While textual criticism developed into a discipline through analysis of the Bible, especially the New Testament, scholars also use it to determine the original content of classic texts, such as Plato's Republic.[63] There are far fewer witnesses to classical texts than to the Bible, so scholars can use stemmatics and, in some cases, copy text editing. However, unlike the New Testament, in which the earliest witnesses are within 200 years of the original, the earliest existing manuscripts of most classical texts were written about a millennium after their composition. Other factors being equal, textual scholars expect that a larger time gap between an original and a manuscript means more opportunities for changes in the text.

Further reading

  • Epp, Eldon J., "The Eclectic Method in New Testament Textual Criticism: Solution or Symptom?" The Harvard Theological Review 69 (3/4) (Jul. - Oct., 1976): 211–257 ISSN 0167-9732.
  • Hagen, Kenneth. The Bible in the Churches: How Various Christians Interpret the Scriptures. (Marquette Studies in Theology, Vol 4) Marquette University Press, 1998. ISBN 0874626285
  • Hodges, Zane C., and Arthur L. Farstad. The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text with Apparatus. Thomas Nelson; 2nd ed., 1985, ISBN 0840749635.
  • Housman, Alfred Edward, 1922. "The Application of Thought to Textual Criticism." Proceedings of the Classical Association 18: 67– 84. [1]. cnx.org. Retrieved June 12, 2008.
  • Love, Harold. 1993. Scribal Publication in Seventeenth-Century England. Oxford: Clarendon Press. section III. ISBN 9780198112198.
  • Schiffman, Lawrence H., Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran. Jewish Publication Society, 1st ed. 1994, ISBN 0827605307.
  • Soulen, Richard N. and R. Kendall Soulen. Handbook of Biblical Criticism. Westminster John Knox Press; 3 ed. 2001. ISBN 0664223141.

See also

  • Authority (textual criticism)
  • Comma Johanneum
  • John 21
  • Mark 16
  • Palaeography
  • Pericope Adulteræ
Critical editions
  • Editio octava critica maior - Tischendorf edition
  • The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text - Hodges & Farstad edition
  • The New Testament in the Original Greek - Westcott & Hort edition
  • Novum Testamentum Graece Nestle-Aland edition
  • Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine - Merk edition
  • List of New Testament papyri
  • List of New Testament uncials
  • List of manuscripts


  1. Bart D. Ehrman. 2005. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. (Harper Collins. ISBN 978-0060738174), 46
  2. Vincent. A History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament
    "… that process which it sought to determine the original text of a document or a collection of documents, and to exhibit, freed from all the errors, corruptions, and variations which may have been accumulated in the course of its transcription by successive copying."
  3. 3.0 3.1 Tanselle, (1989) A Rationale of Textual Criticism'
  4. Simon Jarvis. Scholars and Gentlemen: Shakespearian Textual Criticism and Representations of Scholarly Labour, 1725-1765. (Oxford University Press, 1995, ISBN 9780198182955), 1–17
  5. William R. Montgomery et al. 1997. William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion. (New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 039331667X.)
  6. "The apparatus criticus is placed underneath the text simply on account of bookprinting conditions and in particular of the format of modern books. The practice in ancient and medieval manuscripts of using the outer margin for this purpose makes for far greater clarity." Paul Maas. (1958). Textual Criticism, Translated from German by Barbara Flower. (Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198143184), 22–23.
  7. Philip Gaskell. 1978. From Writer to Reader: Studies in Editorial Method. (Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9781873040461)
  8. D.C. Greetham. 1999. Theories of the text. (Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198119933), 40
    "Tanselle thus combines an Aristotelian praktike, a rigorous account of the phenomenology of text, with a deep Platonic suspicion of this phenomenology, and of the concrete world of experience. For him—and, I would contend, for the idealist, or 'eclectic' editing with which he and Greg-Bowers are often identified, whereby an idealist 'text that never was' is constructed out of the corrupt states of extant documents—ontology is only immanent, never assuredly present in historical, particularized text, for it can be achieved only at the unattainable level of nous rather than phenomenon. Thus, even the high aims of eclectic (or, as it is sometimes known, 'critical') editing can be called into question, because of the unsure phenomenological status of the documentary and historical."
  9. Jerome J. McGann. 1992. A critique of modern textual criticism. (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. ISBN 0813914183), xviiii
  10. Sculley Bradley. 1980. Leaves of Grass: A Textual Variorum of the Printed Poems. (NYU Press, ISBN 0814794440)
  11. George Bentham and Edmund Gosse. The Variorum and Definitive Edition of the Poetical and Prose Writings of Edward Fitzgerald. (1902), (Doubleday, Page and Co.)
  12. Philip Wesley Comfort. 2005. Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textural Criticism. (B&H Publishing Group. ISBN 0805431454), 383
  13. Barbara Aland. 1994. New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis and Church History. (Peeters Publishers. ISBN 9039001057), 138
  14. 14.0 14.1 Patrick J. Hartin, J. H. Petzer, Bruce Manning. 1991. Text and Interpretation: New Approaches in the Criticism of the New Testament. (Leiden: BRILL, ISBN 9004094016), 47–53
  15. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland. 1987. The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. (Leiden: Brill. ISBN 9004083677), 276
  16. Critical Rules of Johann Albrecht Bengel. Bible-researcher.com. accessdate 2008-05-24
  17. Johann Jakob Griesbach. 1796 edition Novum Testamentum Graece books.google. Retrieved February 19, 2009.
  18. Critical Rules of Johann Albrecht Bengel. Bible-researcher.com. accessdate 2008-05-24
    "Brevior lectio, nisi testium vetustorum et gravium auctoritate penitus destituatur, praeferenda est verbosiori. Librarii enim multo proniores ad addendum fuerunt, quam ad omittendum."
  19. Theories of Westcott and Hort. Bible-researcher.com. accessdate 2008-05-24
    "The reading is to be preferred that makes the best sense, that is, that best conforms to the grammar and is most congruous with the purport of the rest of the sentence and of the larger context." (2.20)
  20. Margot Van Mulken and Pieter Van Reenen, (eds). 1996. Studies in Stemmatology. (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. ISBN 9027221537), 84
  21. N. G. Wilson and L. D. Reynolds. (1974) 1991. Scribes and scholars: a guide to the transmission of Greek and Latin literature. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ISBN 0198721463), 186
  22. Philipp Rosemann. 1999. Understanding scholastic thought with Foucault. (New York: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0312217137), 73
  23. P. Kyle McCarter. (1986) 2000. Textual criticism: recovering the text of the Hebrew Bible. (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press. ISBN 0800604717), 62
  24. W.W. Greg. "The Rationale of Copy-Text." Studies in Bibliography 3 (1950): 19–36. 20
  25. Emanuel Tov. 2001. Textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. (Minneapolis: Fortress. ISBN 9023237153), 351–368
  26. Quoted in Greg, 1950, 23–24
  27. R.B. McKerrow (1939) 1977. Prolegomena for the Oxford Shakespeare. (Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0841462267), 17–8, quoted in Greg, 1950, 25
  28. Greg, 1950, 21
  29. Greg, 1950, 22
  30. Greg, 1950, 26
  31. Greg, 1950, 29
  32. Greg, 1950, 31
  33. Fredson Bowers, (1964) "Some Principles for Scholarly Editions of Nineteenth-Century American Authors," Studies in Bibliography, 224
  34. Greg, 1950, 36
  35. Bowers, 1973, 86
  36. Bowers, 1964, 226
  37. Bowers, 1964, 226
  38. McKerrow, 1939, 17–18, quoted in Bowers, 1974, 82, n. 4
  39. Bowers, 1964, 227
  40. quoted in G. Thomas Tanselle, (1976), "The Editorial Problem of Final Authorial Intention." Studies in Bibliography 29: 167–211. 168.
  41. G. Thomas Tanselle and D. C. Greetham, (ed.) 1995. "The Varieties of Scholarly Editing", Scholarly Editing: A Guide to Research. (New York: The Modern Language Association of America. ISBN 9780873525619), 16
  42. quoted in Zeller, 1975, "A New Approach to the Critical Constitution of Literary Texts." Studies in Bibliography 28: 247
  43. Tanselle, 1986, 19
  44. Greg, 1950, 32
  45. Tanselle, 1976, 194
  46. Tom Davis, 1977, "The CEAA and Modern Textual Editing." Library, Fifth Series XXXII (32): 2–3
  47. Zeller, 1975, 247–248
  48. Tanselle, 1976,"The Editorial Problem of Final Authorial Intention.", 193
  49. Tanselle 1972, pp. 45–6
  50. Shillingsburg, 1989, 56, n. 8
  51. G. Thomas Tanselle, (1975). "Greg's Theory of Copy-Text and the Editing of American Literature." Studies in Bibliography 28: 167–168. Retrieved June 12, 2008.
  52. Davis, 1977, 61
  53. Aims and Services of the Committee on Scholarly Editions. The Committee on Scholarly Editions, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis. accessdate 2008-05-24
    "The editorial standards that form the criteria for the award of the CSE "Approved Edition" emblem can be stated here in only the most general terms, since the range of editorial work that comes within the committee's purview makes it impossible to set forth a detailed, step-by-step editorial procedure."
  54. Randall T. Schuh. 2000. Biological systematics: principles and applications. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. ISBN 0801436753), 7
  55. Canterbury Tales Project
  56. Tov, 2001, 9
  57. Ehrman, 2005, "For the most part, he relied on a mere handful of late medieval manuscripts, which he marked up as if he were copyediting a handwritten copy for the printer. … Erasmus relied heavily on just one twelfth-century manuscript for the Gospels and another, also of the twelfth century, for the book of Acts and the Epistles. … For the [last six verses of the] Book of Revelation … [he] simply took the Latin Vulgate and translated its text back into Greek. …" (78–79)
  58. Walter M. Dunnett and Merrill C. Tenney. 1985. New Testament survey. (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. ISBN 0802836119), 150
  59. Albertus Frederik Johannes Klijnl. 1980. An Introduction to the New Testament. (Leiden: BRILL, ISBN 90040626371980), 14
  60. Ehrman, 2006, 166
  61. Footnotes on 14:34-35 and 14:36 from The HarperCollins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version: A New Annotated Edition by the Society of Biblical Literature, (San Francisco, 1993), 2160. Note also that the NRSV encloses 14:33b-36 in parentheses to characterize it as a parenthetical comment that does not fit in smoothly with the surrounding texts.
  62. 1 Thessalonians. earlychristianwritings.com. accessdate 2008-05-24
  63. Rafey Habib. 2005. A history of literary criticism: from Plato to the present. (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Pub. ISBN 0631232001), 239


  • Aland, Hurt, Barbara Aland. 1987. The Text of the New Testament. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 9004083677.
  • Aland, Barbara 1994. New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis and Church History. Peeters Publishers. ISBN 9039001057.
  • Bentham, George, Edmund Gosse. The Variorum and Definitive Edition of the Poetical and Prose Writings of Edward Fitzgerald. (1902), Doubleday, Page and Co. OCLC 222966152
  • Bowers, Fredson 1972. Multiple Authority: New Problems and Concepts of Copy-Text. Library, Fifth Series XXVII (2): 81–115.
  • Bowers, Fredson 1964. Some Principles for Scholarly Editions of Nineteenth-Century American Authors. Studies in Bibliography 17: 223–228. Retrieved June 12, 2008.
  • Bradley, Sculley. Leaves of Grass: A Textual Variorum of the Printed Poems. 1980. NYU Press, ISBN 0814794440.
  • Comfort, Philip Wesley. 2005. Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textural Criticism. B&H Publishing Group. ISBN 0805431454.
  • Dunnett, Walter M., Merrill C. Tenney. 1985. New Testament survey. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. ISBN 0802836119.
  • Davis, Tom, 1977. "The CEAA and Modern Textual Editing." Library, Fifth Series XXXII (32): 61–74.
  • Ehrman, Bart D. 2005. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. Harper Collins. ISBN 978-0060738174.
  • Ehrman, Bart D. 2006. Whose Word Is It? Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 0826491294.
  • Gaskell, Philip 1978. From Writer to Reader: Studies in Editorial Method. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9781873040461
  • Greetham, D. C. 1999. Theories of the text. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198119933.
  • Greg, W. W. (1950). The Rationale of Copy-Text. Studies in Bibliography 3: 19–36.
  • Habib, Rafey 2005. A History of literary criticism: from Plato to the present. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Pub. ISBN 0631232001.
  • Hartin, Patrick J., J. H. Petzer, Bruce Manning. 1991. Text and Interpretation: New Approaches in the Criticism of the New Testament. Leiden: BRILL, ISBN 9004094016.
  • Jarvis, Simon. Scholars and Gentlemen: Shakespearian Textual Criticism and Representations of Scholarly Labour, 1725-1765. Oxford University Press, 1995. ISBN 9780198182955.
  • Klijn, Albertus Frederik Johannes. 1980. An Introduction to the New Testament. Leiden: BRILL, ISBN 9004062637.
  • Maas, Paul (1958). Textual Criticism. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198143184.
  • McCarter, P. Kyle (1986) 2000. Textual criticism: recovering the text of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press. ISBN 0800604717.
  • McGann, Jerome J. 1992. A critique of modern textual criticism. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. ISBN 0813914183.
  • McKerrow, Ronald. B. (1939) 1977. Prolegomena for the Oxford Shakespeare. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0841462267.
  • Montgomery, William Rhadamanthus; Stanley W. Wells, Gary Taylor, John Jowett. (1997). William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 039331667X.
  • Van Reenen, Pieter, and Margot van Mulken, eds. 1996. Studies in Stemmatology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. ISBN 9781556195075.
  • Rosemann, Philipp 1999. Understanding scholastic thought with Foucault. New York: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0312217137.
  • Schuh, Randall T. 2000. Biological systematics: principles and applications. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. ISBN 0801436753.
  • Shillingsburg, Peter, 1989, An Inquiry into the Social Status of Texts and Modes of Textual Criticism. Studies in Bibliography 42: 55–78. Retrieved June 12, 2008.
  • Tanselle, G. Thomas, (1972). "Some Principles for Editorial Apparatus." Studies in Bibliography 25: 41–88. Retrieved June 12, 2008.
  • Tanselle, G. Thomas (1975). "Greg's Theory of Copy-Text and the Editing of American Literature." Studies in Bibliography 28: 167–230. Retrieved June 12, 2008.
  • Tanselle, G. Thomas (1976). "The Editorial Problem of Final Authorial Intention." Studies in Bibliography 29: 167–211. Retrieved June 12, 2008.
  • Tanselle, G. Thomas (1981), "Recent Editorial Discussion and the Central Questions of Editing." Studies in Bibliography 34: 23–65. Retrieved June 12, 2008.
  • Tanselle, G. Thomas (1986). Historicism and Critical Editing. Studies in Bibliography 39: 1–46. Retrieved June 12, 2008.
  • Tanselle, G. Thomas, and D. C. Greetham, ed. 1995. "The Varieties of Scholarly Editing", Scholarly Editing: A Guide to Research. New York: The Modern Language Association of America. ISBN 9780873525619.
  • Tov, Emanuel 2001. Textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress. ISBN 9023237153.
  • Van Mulken, Margot, Pieter Van Reenen. 1996. Studies in Stemmatology. John Benjamins Publishing Co. ISBN 9027221537.
  • Vincent, Marvin Richardson (1899). A History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. Macmillan. Original from Harvard University. OCLC 3109951
  • Wilson, N. G., L. D. Reynolds, (1974) 1991. Scribes and scholars: a guide to the transmission of Greek and Latin literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press, ISBN 0198721463.
  • Zeller, Hans, 1975, "A New Approach to the Critical Constitution of Literary Texts." Studies in Bibliography 28: 231–264. Retrieved June 12, 2008.

External links

All links retrieved November 23, 2015.


New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.