Editing Textual criticism (section)

== Application to religious documents ==

=== Book of Mormon ===
{{See also|Historicity of the Book of Mormon}}
[[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] ([[LDS Church]]) includes the [[Book of Mormon]] as a foundational reference. LDS members typically believe the book to be a literal historical record.{{citation needed|date=May 2023}}

Although some earlier unpublished studies had been prepared,{{citation needed|date=March 2022}} not until the early 1970s was true textual criticism applied to the Book of Mormon. At that time BYU Professor Ellis Rasmussen and his associates were asked by the LDS Church to begin preparation for a new edition of the Holy Scriptures. One aspect of that effort entailed digitizing the text and preparing appropriate footnotes; another aspect required establishing the most dependable text. To that latter end, [[Stanley R. Larson]] (a Rasmussen graduate student) set about applying modern text critical standards to the manuscripts and early editions of the Book of Mormon as his thesis project—which he completed in 1974. To that end, Larson carefully examined the Original Manuscript (the one dictated by [[Joseph Smith]] to his scribes) and the Printer's Manuscript (the copy [[Oliver Cowdery]] prepared for the Printer in 1829–1830), and compared them with the first, second, and third editions of the Book of Mormon to determine what sort of changes had occurred over time and to make judgments as to which readings were the most original.<ref>Stanley R. Larson, "A Study of Some Textual Variations in the Book of Mormon, Comparing the Original and Printer's MSS., and Comparing the 1830, 1837, and 1840 Editions," unpublished master's thesis (Provo: BYU, 1974).</ref> Larson proceeded to publish a useful set of well-argued articles on the phenomena which he had discovered.<ref>Stanley Larson, "Early Book of Mormon Texts: Textual Changes to the Book of Mormon in 1837 and 1840," ''Sunstone'', 1/4 (Fall 1976), 44–55; Larson, "Textual Variants in the Book of Mormon Manuscripts," ''Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought'', 10/4 (Autumn 1977), 8–30 [FARMS Reprint LAR-77]; Larson,  "Conjectural Emendation and the Text of the Book of Mormon," ''BYU Studies'', 18 (Summer 1978), 563–569 [FARMS Reprint LAR-78].</ref> Many of his observations were included as improvements in the 1981 LDS edition of the Book of Mormon.{{citation needed|date=May 2023}}

By 1979, with the establishment of the [[Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies]] ([[FARMS]]) as a California non-profit research institution, an effort led by [[Robert F. Smith (historian)|Robert F. Smith]] began to take full account of Larson's work and to publish a Critical Text of the Book of Mormon. Thus was born the FARMS Critical Text Project which published the first volume of the 3-volume Book of Mormon Critical Text in 1984. The third volume of that first edition was published in 1987, but was already being superseded by a second, revised edition of the entire work,<ref>Robert F. Smith, ed., ''Book of Mormon Critical Text'', 2nd ed., 3 vols. (Provo: FARMS, 1986–1987).</ref> greatly aided through the advice and assistance of then Yale doctoral candidate [[Grant Hardy]], Dr. [[Gordon C. Thomasson]], Professor [[John W. Welch]] (the head of FARMS), Professor [[Royal Skousen]], and others too numerous to mention here. However, these were merely preliminary steps to a far more exacting and all-encompassing project.{{citation needed|date=May 2023}}

In 1988, with that preliminary phase of the project completed, Professor Skousen took over as editor and head of the FARMS Critical Text of the Book of Mormon Project and proceeded to gather still scattered fragments of the Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon and to have advanced photographic techniques applied to obtain fine readings from otherwise unreadable pages and fragments. He also closely examined the Printer's Manuscript (owned by the [[Community of Christ]]—RLDS Church in Independence, Missouri) for differences in types of ink or pencil, in order to determine when and by whom they were made. He also collated the various editions of the Book of Mormon down to the present to see what sorts of changes have been made through time.{{citation needed|date=May 2023}}

Thus far, Professor Skousen has published complete transcripts of the Original and Printer's Manuscripts,<ref>''The Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon'' (Provo: FARMS, 2001); ''The Printer's Manuscript of the Book of Mormon'', 2 vols. (FARMS, 2001).</ref> as well as a six-volume analysis of textual variants.<ref>''Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon'', 6 vols. (Provo: FARMS, 2004–2009).</ref> Still in preparation are a history of the text, and a complete electronic collation of editions and manuscripts (volumes 3 and 5 of the Project, respectively). Yale University has in the meantime published an edition of the Book of Mormon which incorporates all aspects of Skousen's research.<ref>Skousen, ed., ''The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text'' (Yale Univ. Press, 2009).</ref>

=== Hebrew Bible ===
{{main|Documentary hypothesis}}
{{Further|Textual variants in the Hebrew Bible}}
[[Image:Targum.jpg|right|thumb|11th-century manuscript of the Hebrew Bible with [[Targum]]]]
[[Image:Aleppo Codex (Deut).jpg|right|thumb|A page from the [[Aleppo Codex]], Deuteronomy.]]

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

{| border="0" style="margin:auto"
|-
|colspan="5" style="background:#66cdaa;" |
|- style="background:#cef2e0; text-align:center;"
! width=""|Manuscript !!|Examples !! width=""|Language !! |Date of Composition !! | Oldest Copy
|-
| [[Dead Sea Scrolls]]||[[Tanakh at Qumran]]|| Hebrew, [[Paleo-Hebrew alphabet|Paleo Hebrew]] and Greek (Septuagint) || {{circa|150 BCE}}&nbsp;– 70 CE || {{circa|150 BCE}}&nbsp;– 70 CE
|-
| colspan="5" style="background:#66cdaa;"|
|-
|[[Septuagint]]||[[Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209|Codex Vaticanus]], [[Codex Sinaiticus]] and other earlier papyri
||Greek||300–100 BCE || 2nd century BCE (fragments)<br />4th century CE (complete)
|-
| colspan="5" style="background:#66cdaa;"|
|-
| [[Peshitta]]||[[Codices Ambrosiani|Codex Ambrosianus B.21]]||[[Syriac language|Syriac]]|| ||Early 5th century CE
|-
| colspan="5" style="background:#66cdaa;"|
|-
| [[Vulgate]]||[[Quedlinburg Itala fragment]], [[Codex Complutensis I]]|| Latin|| ||Early 5th century CE
|-
| colspan="5" style="background:#66cdaa;"|
|-
| [[Masoretic]]||[[Aleppo Codex]], [[Leningrad Codex]] and other incomplete mss|| Hebrew|| {{circa|100 CE}} ||10th century CE
|-
| colspan="5" style="background:#66cdaa;"|
|-
|[[Samaritan Pentateuch]]|| Abisha Scroll of Nablus|| Hebrew in [[Samaritan alphabet]]||200–100 BCE||Oldest extant mss {{circa|11th century CE}}, oldest mss available to scholars 16th century CE, only Torah contained
|-
| colspan="5" style="background:#66cdaa;"|
|-
| [[Targum]] || ||[[Aramaic]]||500–1000 CE||5th century CE
|-
| colspan="5" style="background:#66cdaa;"|
|}

As in the New Testament, changes, corruptions, and erasures have been found, particularly in the Masoretic texts. This is ascribed to the fact that early ''soferim'' (scribes) did not treat copy errors in the same manner later on.{{sfn|Tov|2001|p=9}}

There are three separate new editions of the Hebrew Bible currently in development: ''[[Biblia Hebraica Quinta]]'', the ''[[Hebrew University Bible Project|Hebrew University Bible]]'', and the ''[[Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition]]'' (formerly known as the ''Oxford Hebrew Bible''). ''Biblia Hebraica Quinta'' is a [[Diplomatics#Diplomatic editions and transcription|diplomatic]] edition based on the [[Leningrad Codex]]. The ''Hebrew University Bible'' is also diplomatic, but based on the Aleppo Codex. The ''Hebrew Bible: A Critical Edition'' is an eclectic edition.<ref>Hendel, R., "The Oxford Hebrew Bible: Prologue to a New Critical Edition", ''Vetus Testamentum, vol. 58'', no. 3 (2008). pp.&nbsp;325–326</ref>

=== New Testament ===
{{main|Textual criticism of the New Testament}}
{{Further|Textual variants in the New Testament}}
Early New Testament texts include more than 5,800 [[Greek language|Greek]] manuscripts, 10,000 [[Latin]] manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages (including [[Syriac language|Syriac]], [[Slavic languages|Slavic]], [[Ethiopic]] and [[Armenian language|Armenian]]). The manuscripts contain approximately 300,000 textual variants, most of them involving changes of word order and other comparative trivialities.<ref name="wallace_on_majority">{{cite web|last= Wallace|first= Daniel|title= The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?|url= https://bible.org/article/majority-text-and-original-text-are-they-identical|access-date= 23 November 2013|url-status= live|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20131203000201/https://bible.org/article/majority-text-and-original-text-are-they-identical|archive-date= 3 December 2013}}</ref><ref name="westhort">{{cite book|last= Westcott and Hort|title= The New Testament in The Original Greek: Introduction Appendix|publisher= Macmillan|url= https://archive.org/details/newtestamentino02hortgoog|page= [https://archive.org/details/newtestamentino02hortgoog/page/n40 2]|quote= The New Testament in the Original Greek.|access-date= 23 November 2013|year= 1896}}</ref> As according to Wescott and Hort:

<blockquote>With regard to the great bulk of the words of the New Testament, as of most other ancient writings, there is no variation or other ground of doubt, and therefore no room for textual criticism... The proportion of words virtually accepted on all hands as raised above doubt is very great, not less, on a rough computation, than seven eights of the whole. The remaining eighth therefore, formed in great part by changes of order and other comparative trivialities, constitutes the whole area of criticism.{{r|westhort}}</blockquote>

Since the 18th century, Protestant New Testament scholars have argued that textual variants by themselves have not affected doctrine. Evangelical theologian [[D. A. Carson]] has claimed: "nothing we believe to be doctrinally true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants. This is true for any textual tradition. The interpretation of individual passages may well be called in question; but never is a doctrine affected."<ref name=wallace_on_majority/><ref>{{Cite book | last1=Beacham | first1=Roy E. | last2=Bauder | first2=Kevin T. | title= One Bible Only?: Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible | url= https://books.google.com/books?id=uQWTxDdIO6IC&q=D.+A.+Carson+nothing+we+believe+to+be+doctrinally+true,+and+nothing+we+are+commanded+to+do,+is+in+any+way+jeopardized+by+the+variants.&pg=PA133 | year=2001 | publisher=Kregel Publications | isbn=9780825497032 | language=en }}
</ref>

Historically, attempts have been made to sort new New Testament manuscripts into one of three or four theorized '''text-types''' (also styled unhyphenated: '''text types'''),  or into looser clusters.

However, the sheer number of witnesses presents unique difficulties, chiefly in that it makes stemmatics in many cases impossible, because many copyists used two or more different manuscripts as sources. Consequently, New Testament textual critics have adopted eclecticism. {{As of | 2017}} the most common division today is as follows:

{| border="1" style="margin:auto; width:100%"
|- style="background:#cef2e0; text-align:center;"
! width="20%"|Text type !! width=" 10%" |Date!!Characteristics!! Bible version
|-
| The [[Alexandrian text-type]]<br />(also called the "Neutral Text" tradition)||2nd–4th centuries CE|| This family constitutes a group of early and well-regarded texts, including Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Most representatives of this tradition appear to come from around [[Alexandria, Egypt]] and from [[Coptic Church|the Alexandrian Church]]. <br /><br />It contains readings that are often terse, shorter, somewhat rough, less harmonised, and generally more difficult. The family was once{{when|date=August 2017}} thought{{by whom|date=August 2017}} to result from a very carefully edited third-century [[recension]], but now is believed to be merely the result of a carefully controlled and supervised process of copying and transmission. <br /><br />It underlies most translations of the New Testament produced since 1900.||[[New International Version|NIV]], [[New American Bible|NAB]], [[New American Bible Revised Edition|NABRE]],  [[Jerusalem Bible|JB]] and [[New Jerusalem Bible|NJB]] (albeit, with some reliance on the Byzantine text-type), [[Today's New International Version|TNIV]], [[New American Standard Bible|NASB]], [[Revised Standard Version|RSV]], [[English Standard Version|ESV]], [[Emphasized Bible|EBR]], [[New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures|NWT]], [[The Living Bible|LB]], [[American Standard Version|ASV]], [[New Century Version|NC]], [[Good News Bible|GNB]], [[Christian Standard Bible|CSB]]
|-
|The [[Western text-type]] (also called Syrian text-type)||3rd–9th centuries CE ||Also a very early tradition, which comes from a wide geographical area stretching from North Africa to Italy and from [[Gaul]] to Syria. It occurs in Greek manuscripts and in the Latin translations used by the [[Western church]]. <br /><br />It is much less controlled than the Alexandrian family and its witnesses are seen to be more prone to [[paraphrase]] and other corruptions. <br /><br />Some modern textual critics doubt the existence of a singular Western text-type, instead viewing it as a group of text-types.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Ehrman |first1=Bart D. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=guYq9rohFQ8C |title=The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. Second Edition |last2=Holmes |first2=Michael W. |date=2012-11-09 |publisher=BRILL |isbn=978-90-04-23604-2 |pages=190–191 |language=en}}</ref> Some New Testament scholars posit a distinct [[Caesarean text-type]], with mixed Western and Alexandrian features, for the four [[Gospels]].||[[Vetus Latina]], [[Syriac versions of the Bible#Old Syriac version|Old Syriac]]<br/><br>[[Vulgate]] New Testament is Vetus Latina base, with Byzantine revisions for the Gospels<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Chapman|first=John|year=1922|title=St Jerome and the Vulgate New Testament (I–II)|journal=[[The Journal of Theological Studies]]|series=o.s.|volume=24|issue=93|pages=33–51|doi=10.1093/jts/os-XXIV.93.33|issn=0022-5185}} {{Cite journal|last=Chapman|first=John|year=1923|title=St Jerome and the Vulgate New Testament (III)|journal=The Journal of Theological Studies|series=o.s.|volume=24|issue=95|pages=282–299|doi=10.1093/jts/os-XXIV.95.282|issn=0022-5185}}</ref> and Alexandrian revisions for the rest.<ref name="Scherbenske 2013 183">{{Cite book|last=Scherbenske|first=Eric W.|title=Canonizing Paul: Ancient Editorial Practice and the Corpus Paulinum|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2013|page=183}}</ref> Used by all Western translations before 1520, including [[Wycliffe's Bible|Wycliffite New Testaments]], original [[Douay–Rheims Bible|Douay-Rheims]]
|-
| The [[Byzantine text-type]]||5th–16th centuries CE||This group comprises around 95% of all the manuscripts, the majority of which are comparatively very late in the tradition. It had become dominant at [[Constantinople]] from the fifth century on and was used throughout the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]] in the Byzantine Empire. <br /><br />It contains the most harmonistic readings, paraphrasing and significant additions, most of which are believed{{by whom|date=August 2017}} to be secondary readings. <br /><br />It underlies the Textus Receptus used for most [[Protestant Reformation|Reformation]]-era translations of the New Testament. The "[[Byzantine_priority_theory|Majority Text]]" methodology effectively produces a Byzantine text-type, because Byzantine manuscripts are the most common and consistent.<ref name=wallace_on_majority/>|| Bible translations relying on the ''Textus Receptus'': [[King James Version|KJV]], [[New King James Version|NKJV]], [[Tyndale Bible|Tyndale]], [[Coverdale Bible|Coverdale]], [[Geneva Bible|Geneva]], [[Bishops' Bible]], [[Orthodox Study Bible|OSB]]<br/><br/>The [[List of English Bible translations|Aramaic Peshitta]],<ref name="ident-nt">{{Cite book |last=Pickering |first=Wilbur N. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Ii5bzgEACAAJ |title=Identity of the New Testament Text III |publisher=Wipf & Stock Publishers |year=2012 |isbn=978-1-4982-6349-8}}</ref> [[Ulfilas|Wulfila's Gothic translation]],<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ratkus |first1=Artūras |title=The Greek Sources of the Gothic Bible Translation |journal=Vertimo Studijos |date=6 April 2017 |volume=2 |issue=2 |pages=37 |doi=10.15388/VertStud.2009.2.10602|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>Bennett, William, 1980, ''An Introduction to the Gothic Language'', pp. 24-25.</ref>

|}

=== Quran ===
[[Image:SanaaQuoranDoubleVersions.jpg|thumb|right|[[Sana'a manuscript]]s of the [[Quran]]. [[Andrew Rippin]] has stated that the discovery of Sana'a manuscript is significant, and its variant readings suggest that the early Quranic text was less stable than previously claimed.<ref name="atlantic"/>]]
{{see also|History of the Quran|Early Quranic manuscripts|Birmingham Quran manuscript}}
Textual criticism of the Quran is a beginning area of study,<ref>Christian-Muslim relations: yesterday, today, tomorrow Munawar Ahmad Anees, Ziauddin Sardar, Syed Z. Abedin&nbsp;– 1991 For instance, a Christian critic engaging in textual criticism of the Quran from a biblical perspective will surely miss the essence of the quranic message. Just one example would clarify this point.</ref><ref>Studies on Islam Merlin L. Swartz&nbsp;– 1981 One will find a more complete bibliographical review of the recent studies of the textual criticism of the Quran in the valuable article by Jeffery, "The Present Status of Qur'anic Studies," Report on Current Research on the Middle East</ref> as Muslims have historically disapproved of [[higher criticism]] being applied to the Quran.<ref>Religions of the world Lewis M. Hopfe&nbsp;– 1979 "Some Muslims have suggested and practiced textual criticism of the Quran in a manner similar to that practiced by Christians and Jews on their bibles. No one has yet suggested the higher criticism of the Quran."</ref> In some countries textual criticism can be seen as apostasy.<ref>Egypt's culture wars: politics and practice&nbsp;– Page 278 [[Samia Mehrez]]&nbsp;– 2008 Middle East report: Issues 218–222; Issues 224–225 Middle East Research & Information Project, JSTOR (Organization)&nbsp;– 2001 Shahine filed to divorce Abu Zayd from his wife, on the grounds that Abu Zayd's textual criticism of the Quran made him an apostate, and hence unfit to marry a Muslim. Abu Zayd and his wife eventually relocated to the Netherlands</ref>

Amongst Muslims, the original Arabic text is commonly considered to be the final revelation, revealed to Muhammad from AD 610 to his death in 632. In Islamic tradition, the Quran was memorised and written down by Muhammad's companions and copied as needed.{{citation needed|date=May 2023}}

The Quran is believed to have had some [[oral tradition]] of passing down at some point. Differences that affected the meaning were noted, and around AD 650 [[Uthman]] began a process of standardization, presumably to rid the Quran of these differences. Uthman's standardization did not eliminate the textual variants.<ref>{{Cite news | url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33631745 | title=The origins of the Koran| work=BBC News| date=23 July 2015| last1=Sadeghi| first1=Behnam}}</ref>

In the 1970s, 14,000 fragments of Quran were discovered in the [[Great Mosque of Sana'a]], the Sana'a manuscripts. About 12,000 fragments belonged to 926 copies of the Quran, the other 2,000 were loose fragments. The oldest known copy of the Quran so far belongs to this collection: it dates to the end of the seventh to eighth centuries.{{citation needed|date=May 2023}}

The German scholar [[Gerd R. Puin]] has been investigating these Quran fragments for years. His research team made 35,000 microfilm photographs of the manuscripts, which he dated to early part of the eighth century. Puin has not published the entirety of his work, but noted unconventional verse orderings, minor textual variations, and rare styles of orthography. He also suggested that some of the parchments were [[palimpsest]]s which had been reused. Puin believed that this implied an evolving text as opposed to a fixed one.<ref name="atlantic"/>

In an article in the 1999 ''[[Atlantic Monthly]]'',<ref name="atlantic">{{cite news |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/01/what-is-the-koran/304024/?single_page=true |title=What Is the Koran? |last=Lester |first=Toby |work=The Atlantic |date=January 1999 |access-date=10 April 2019 |language=en-US }}</ref> Gerd Puin is quoted as saying that:

{{blockquote|My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants.<br />
The Koran claims for itself that it is "mubeen", or "clear", but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn't make sense. Many Muslims—and Orientalists—will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Koran is not comprehensible—if it can't even be understood in Arabic—then it's not translatable. People fear that. And since the Koran claims repeatedly to be clear but obviously is not—as even speakers of Arabic will tell you—there is a contradiction. Something else must be going on.<ref name="atlantic"/>}}

[[Canadians|Canadian]] Islamic scholar, [[Andrew Rippin]] has likewise stated:
{{blockquote|The impact of the Yemeni manuscripts is still to be felt. Their variant readings and verse orders are all very significant. Everybody agrees on that. These manuscripts say that the early history of the Koranic text is much more of an open question than many have suspected: the text was less stable, and therefore had less authority, than has always been claimed.<ref name="atlantic"/>}}

For these reasons, some scholars, especially those who are associated with the [[Revisionist school of Islamic studies]], have proposed that the traditional account of the Quran's composition needs to be discarded and a new perspective on the Quran is needed. Puin, comparing Quranic studies with Biblical studies, has stated:
{{blockquote|So many Muslims have this belief that everything between the two covers of the Koran is just God's unaltered word. They like to quote the textual work that shows that the Bible has a history and did not fall straight out of the sky, but until now the Koran has been out of this discussion. The only way to break through this wall is to prove that the Koran has a history too. The Sana'a fragments will help us to do this.<ref name="atlantic"/>}}

In 2015, some of the [[Birmingham Quran manuscript|earliest known Quranic fragments]], containing 62 out of 6236 verses of the Quran and with proposed dating from between approximately AD 568 and 645, were identified at the [[University of Birmingham]]. David Thomas, Professor of Christianity and Islam, commented:
{{blockquote|These portions must have been in a form that is very close to the form of the Koran read today, supporting the view that the text has undergone little or no alteration and that it can be dated to a point very close to the time it was believed to be revealed.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/business-33436021 |first=Sean |last=Coughlan |title='Oldest' Koran fragments found in Birmingham University |work=BBC News |date=22 July 2015 |access-date=10 April 2019 }}</ref>}}

David Thomas pointed out that the radiocarbon testing found the death date of the animal whose skin made up the Quran, not the date when the Quran was written. Since blank parchment was often stored for years after being produced, he said the Quran could have been written as late as 650–655, during the Quranic codification under [[Uthman]].<ref name=":1">{{cite web |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35151643 |title=Birmingham's ancient Koran history revealed |date=23 December 2015 |publisher=BBC |access-date=4 February 2016}}</ref>

Marijn van Putten, who has published work on idiosyncratic orthography common to all early manuscripts of the Uthmanic text type<ref>{{cite journal |last1=van Putten |first1=M. |date=2019 |title= The 'Grace of God' as evidence for a written Uthmanic archetype: the importance of shared orthographic idiosyncrasies |journal=Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies |volume= 82 |issue=2 |pages=271–288|doi=10.1017/S0041977X19000338 |s2cid=231795084 |doi-access=free |hdl=1887/79373 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> has stated and demonstrated with examples that due to a number of these same idiosyncratic spellings present in the Birmingham fragment (Mingana 1572a + Arabe 328c), it is "clearly a descendant of the Uthmanic text type" and that it is "impossible" that it is a pre-Uthmanic copy, despite its early radiocarbon dating.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://twitter.com/PhDniX/status/1220812853495640066 |title=Apparently some are still under the impression that the Birmingham Fragment (Mingana 1572a + Arabe 328c) is pre-Uthmanic copy of the Quran|last=van Putten |first=Marijn|publisher=Twitter |date=January 24, 2020 |website=Twitter.com |access-date=August 24, 2021}}</ref> Similarly, [[Stephen J. Shoemaker]] has also argued that it is extremely unlikely that the Birmingham manuscript was a pre-Uthmanic manuscript.<ref name="Shoemaker">Shoemaker, Stephen J. "Creating The Quran: A Historical Critical Study" University of California Press, 2022, p. 96-97.</ref>

=== Talmud ===
Textual criticism of the Talmud has a long pre-history but has become a separate discipline from Talmudic study only recently.<ref>Economic analysis in Talmudic literature: rabbinic thought in the .Roman A. Ohrenstein, Barry Gordon.. Page 9 2009 "In fact, textual criticism of the Talmud is as old as the Talmud itself. In modern times, however, it became a separate scholarly concern, where scientific method is applied to correct corrupt and incomprehensible passages."</ref> Much of the research is in Hebrew and German language periodicals.<ref>The treatise Ta'anit of the Babylonian Talmud: [[Henry Malter]]&nbsp;– 1978 It goes without saying that the writings of modern authors dealing with textual criticism of the Talmud, many of which are scattered in Hebrew and German periodicals, are likewise to be utilized for the purpose.</ref>