# Reformed Seminaries and Text Criticism



## christianyouth (Jul 23, 2008)

Hey all,

What is text criticism and should Reformed seminaries teach it? If so, why? If not, why?

In Christ,
Andrew


----------



## JohnGill (Jul 23, 2008)

*Yes, with qualifications*



christianyouth said:


> Hey all,
> 
> What is text criticism and should Reformed seminaries teach it? If so, why? If not, why?
> 
> ...



From theopedia:


> New Testament Textual Criticism examines the existing manuscript witnesses to the New Testament in order to produce a text that is as close as possible to the original.



As to whether or not we should do it, that depends on which method you use. I believe we should not use the modern method of new testament textual criticism due to its underlying non-christian presuppositions and subjective methodology. Sacred Textual Criticism is an approach more derived from scripture than the rationalistic approach of the German school.

With the approximately 5500+ extant mss we need a methodology to determine which readings are correct and which are in error. However, I also believe that God has insured to his people throughout each successive generation his correct word without loss. Because of this, I personally believe the efforts of the majority of textual critics of the last 160+ yrs to have been a phenomenal waste of time. 

(This might have been better placed under the Translations and Manuscripts forum.

Two books to help you out and see both points of view:

A Plain Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism by Frederick H. A. Scrivener (books.google.com or ccel.org)

The Text of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger (You'll have to buy this one. The bibliography provides the titles to some early and pre-20th century books that are either available at books.google.com or archive.org for free download.)


----------



## christianyouth (Jul 24, 2008)

Thank you, Brother Chris, for the book suggestions. I definitely need to do some reading on this.

Do Reformed seminaries practice the Sacred Textual Criticism or the rationalistic textual criticism? 

Are seminaries accountable for people who go to seminary and then lose their belief in the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture?

Thank you for the book recommendations. 

In Christ,
Andrew


----------



## larryjf (Jul 24, 2008)

Here's a textual criticism class at TNARS...
The North American Reformed Seminary


----------



## CharlieJ (Jul 24, 2008)

Most seminaries teach views of textual criticism in a few periods in their New Testament Intro class. Some seminaries, which have the ability, have a Textual Criticism course usually available on the doctoral level.

I would not say that there are two kinds of textual criticism - sacred and rational. There are various theories of textual criticism, each with some variations.

One book that surveys seven views of text criticism (which may be out of print now) is _Bible Preservation and the Providence of God_ by Sam Schnaiter and Ron Tagliapietra.

Another book on a strong lay-level is God's Word in Our Hands. Amazon.com: God's Word in Our Hands: The Bible Preserved for Us: James B. Williams, Randolph Shaylor: Books


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Jul 24, 2008)

christianyouth said:


> Thank you, Brother Chris, for the book suggestions. I definitely need to do some reading on this.
> 
> Do Reformed seminaries practice the Sacred Textual Criticism or the rationalistic textual criticism?
> 
> ...



I am beginning work at Reformed Theological Seminary. I do not expect to find anything that undermines the innerancy of Scripture. My first course is in Systematic Theology and Innerancy will be a topic. The required text is Geisler's work on Inerrancy and Louis Berokhof's Systematic Theology. Since this seminary holds to the Westminster Confession.


----------



## Stephen (Jul 24, 2008)

Reformed Baptist said:


> christianyouth said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you, Brother Chris, for the book suggestions. I definitely need to do some reading on this.
> ...



On which RTS campus are you studying?


----------



## JohnGill (Jul 24, 2008)

christianyouth said:


> Thank you, Brother Chris, for the book suggestions. I definitely need to do some reading on this.
> 
> Do Reformed seminaries practice the Sacred Textual Criticism or the rationalistic textual criticism?
> 
> ...



I think most practice the modern variant. However, this cannot be construed as teaching rationalism. In most reformed seminaries they are vehemently opposed to rationalism. Neither do they subscribe to the underlying presuppositions of the rationalistic method, namely 1) the Bible is and can be treated like any other book, 2) the true text of scripture was lost for 1500 yrs. Throughout their classes they teach just the opposite of these presuppositions. In fact they, by God's grace, are able to use the rationalistic version to teach the inerrancy and inspiration of scripture and strengthen the faith of many.

The only person I'm aware of who "lost" his belief in scripture from the rationalistic method is Bart Erhman, who is now agnostic. However he went to Princeton Theological Seminary which has long since abandoned a biblical belief in scripture. (However one cannot loose their belief if they never had it.)

There are some Reformed Seminaries which use the older method. They are generally Free Church Presbyterian or Dutch Reformed. I think the Trinitarian Bible Society has a list of them.

Forgot to add a plug for The North American Reformed Seminary. Free courses!


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 24, 2008)

I would strongly disagree that modern textual criticism is inherently rationalistic and subjective. Just because some people who practice it are rationalistic and favor subjective arguments overly much does not mean that the discipline itself is so. Almost all seminaries today practice modern textual criticism. The canons of modern criticism are simply common sense (not rationalistic): older manuscripts will tend to be more accurate (this is a generalization, not an infallible rule!); geographical distribution of a reading will tend to greater accuracy, since it cuts down the possibility of a purely local error of copying; family traits tend to lessen the authority of the family as a whole (a child manuscript can only be as accurate as its parent, unless corrected against another manuscript); number of manuscripts favoring a reading is not so important as the weight of the manuscripts (measured according to the above criteria); the more difficult reading is more likely to be correct (copyists tended to simplify or explain something, rather than make it more obscure), although this canon certainly has its limits. There are other rules as well. All of them taken together have to be weighed and balanced on a case by case basis (that is, variant reading by variant reading basis). This is not rationalistic. This is taking human nature into account, and the balance of probabilities, which in no case is against the providence of God.


----------



## staythecourse (Jul 24, 2008)

Don't say textual criticism around Jerusalem Blade! I got my ear (eyes) seared when I could not defend a minority text view!

But, I love the topic. I go fro the idea that men are corrupt and it plays out even in the re-writing of Scripture so that it's all botched BUT can be put back together 99.9999% pure. Steve is among those, and I may be putting words in Steve's mouth, who believe that God kept them 100% accurate in the Byz. texts.

If you read this Steve, let me know if that's what you and most other majority text-ers hold to.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 24, 2008)

staythecourse said:


> Don't say textual criticism around Jerusalem Blade! I got my ear (eyes) seared when I could not defend a minority text view!
> 
> But, I love the topic. I go fro the idea that men are corrupt and it plays out even in the re-writing of Scripture so that it's all botched BUT can be put back together 99.9999% pure. Those, and I may be putting words in Steve's mouth, are that God kept them 100% accurate in the Byz. texts.
> 
> If you read this Steve, let me know if that's what you and most other majority text-ers hold to.



Oh, Jerusalem Blade and I have already been around the horn on this one.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jul 24, 2008)

Lane gave you the best lay definition of the discipline you will find in print! While the standard textbooks are a bit more technical, the essential ideas are not that complicated.

By and large the vast majority of scholars of all persuasions hold to a Critical Text (aka eclectic text). That is why virtually all modern translations of the NT are predicated on it rather than the Textus Receptus. [Note: this doesn't prove that it is true, merely that it is overwhelmingly popular]

Bart Ehrman is a special case. He was graduated from Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College prior to matriculating to Princeton. His doctoral work there was under the famed Bruce Metzger, perhaps the leading textual critic in the world at that time. Ehrman even revised Metzger's text on textual criticism.

Ehrman's problems were not entirely with the text of the Bible but also with the problem of Evil. When he could not find a way to reconcile a God of love with evil in the world, he went over the deep end. Yet, in his bestseller, _Misquoting Jesus_, he tells of his experience struggling with the evangelical inerrancy taught at Moody and Wheaton in light of textual variants. Now he is one of the most popular teachers at UNC (Chapel Hilll) and one of the most agnostic people around academia.


----------



## JohnGill (Jul 25, 2008)

*Need some help*



greenbaggins said:


> I would strongly disagree that modern textual criticism is inherently rationalistic and subjective. Just because some people who practice it are rationalistic and favor subjective arguments overly much does not mean that the discipline itself is so. Almost all seminaries today practice modern textual criticism. *The canons of modern criticism are simply common sense* (not rationalistic): older manuscripts will tend to be more accurate (this is a generalization, not an infallible rule!); geographical distribution of a reading will tend to greater accuracy, since it cuts down the possibility of a purely local error of copying; family traits tend to lessen the authority of the family as a whole (a child manuscript can only be as accurate as its parent, unless corrected against another manuscript); number of manuscripts favoring a reading is not so important as the weight of the manuscripts (measured according to the above criteria); the more difficult reading is more likely to be correct (copyists tended to simplify or explain something, rather than make it more obscure), although this canon certainly has its limits. There are other rules as well. All of them taken together have to be weighed and balanced on a case by case basis (that is, variant reading by variant reading basis). This is not rationalistic. This is taking human nature into account, and the balance of probabilities, which in no case is against the providence of God.



I have two questions so that I can better understand your post:

How do you define subjective and subjectivism?

What is your objective standard for common sense?


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 25, 2008)

JohnGill said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > I would strongly disagree that modern textual criticism is inherently rationalistic and subjective. Just because some people who practice it are rationalistic and favor subjective arguments overly much does not mean that the discipline itself is so. Almost all seminaries today practice modern textual criticism. *The canons of modern criticism are simply common sense* (not rationalistic): older manuscripts will tend to be more accurate (this is a generalization, not an infallible rule!); geographical distribution of a reading will tend to greater accuracy, since it cuts down the possibility of a purely local error of copying; family traits tend to lessen the authority of the family as a whole (a child manuscript can only be as accurate as its parent, unless corrected against another manuscript); number of manuscripts favoring a reading is not so important as the weight of the manuscripts (measured according to the above criteria); the more difficult reading is more likely to be correct (copyists tended to simplify or explain something, rather than make it more obscure), although this canon certainly has its limits. There are other rules as well. All of them taken together have to be weighed and balanced on a case by case basis (that is, variant reading by variant reading basis). This is not rationalistic. This is taking human nature into account, and the balance of probabilities, which in no case is against the providence of God.
> ...



I would probably define "subjective" in this context as the text being placed under the textual critic so that the critic gets to decide, based on an arbitrary feeling or hunch what the original was supposed to be. It would also involve ranking internal evidence (which cannot be discounted entirely), such as intrinsic probability of what a scribe would have done, over the external evidence (the manuscripts' readings themselves, the geographical distribution of readings, and other facts). I suppose one would have to say that complete objectivity is impossible, no matter what position one takes on textual criticism (whether one holds to the Textus Receptus or the Critical Text). In other words, one's presuppositions will undoubtedly affect the outcome of one's scholarship. I would merely deny that the presuppositions of the textual critic who favors the Critical Text have to be opposed to biblical truth and God's Providence. 

Standard for common sense? Much more difficult question. I guess what I mean is that it seems evident that an older manuscript, copied closer to the time of the original, has more likelihood of being closer to the original than a later one does. Of course, there are all sorts of qualifications one has to introduce immediately, since the number of intervening manuscripts has to play a part, and the provenance of the manuscript can also play a part (who copied it and why, which are difficult questions). In other words, if a 4th century manuscript has 10 generations in-between it and the autograph, it will probably be less accurate than a 6th century manuscript that has only 5 generations of manuscripts in-between. Such situations do occur regularly in textual criticism. However, since it is often quite difficult to discern the generations (how many there were, and whether there were any at all), except in families of manuscripts, the canon of age still stands as one canon among many others that have to be weighed. And it seems a self-evident one to me. 

The TR people will probably come back with "yes, but such older manuscripts were not used by the church, and hence are of lesser value, since, if they were used and approved, then they would have worn out." This argument does not hold water for several reasons. One is that we cannot discern why it is that a certain manuscript is preserved and another is not. God's providence works in more than one way. Suspicion should not fall on a manuscript simply because of its old age. Why could not a scribe carefully copy a manuscript, and then put it away so that, in the future, there would be correctives in place? I think scribes knew back then that manuscripts did not last forever. Otherwise, we wouldn't have over 5,000 manuscripts of the NT. In other words, the common sense argument of old age for a manuscript as being in its favor is a useful criteria. And scribes in those days were not dumb. They would have been thinking about future generations, not just their own. 

Another criteria for textual criticism, namely, geographical distribution, also makes good common sense. Lots of manuscripts were copied in particular locations. We talk of the Byzantine text-type, for instance, or the Alexandrian text-type. A variation that is located in only one of these text-types is less likely to be original, since it quite possibly originated in that locality only. If, however, a particular reading finds support in all four of the major text-types (Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine, and Caesarean), then it is far more likely to be original, since, in order to be in all four text-types, it had to have been in the parent manuscript that gave rise to all the text-types. Personally, I think this canon has been under-rated by many text critics. To me it seems like common sense. But then, I am not sure I can give you an objective standard for why this seems like common sense. Common sense is usually described as something that understands how the world works. But that is not too helpful. What I have tried to do is explain how it is that these canons work, so that you can understand why it is that I call it common sense.


----------



## JohnGill (Jul 25, 2008)

*Appreciate the clarification*

I guess that's my problem with the usage of 'common sense.' It is itself subjective. What one group calls common sense another group has just as much right to say their position is common sense. Before you know it, we're stuck in castles catapulting the charge of heretic at each other.

It's similar to the oldest is best idea. It's assumed that because it's closer to the original than later copies, that it is in general more reliable. Others assume that if it was so reliable, then why where other text-types used. Both rely upon what they call common sense. And both camps are exhibiting the consequences of their presuppositions.

I think my preference for what is called Sacred Criticism is that, in theory if not always in practice, it attempts to base its principles off of scripture. This removes a subjective standard like 'common sense.' Of course then you're relying upon the accuracy of their interpretation of the scriptures. But at least the foundation is sure.

I've read Metzger's book I posted above along with many of the books listed in his bibliography. (I love books.google.com & archive.org) But he gives no objective standard for his principles other than an appeal either to common sense or consensus. Even Richard Simon's book is little more than an appeal to his own personal opinion.

Neither consensus or common sense can provide a sure standard. What was once common sense 50 yrs ago is no longer. And what the consensus held to 10 yrs ago is no longer true.

I think until the standard for both camps is scripture, there will be no 'consensus.'


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Jul 25, 2008)

Stephen said:


> Reformed Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > christianyouth said:
> ...



RTS Virtual, which is out of the Charlotte campus.


----------



## jogri17 (Jul 25, 2008)

Yes and Karl Barth and Paul Tillich should be heros we look to on this subject. 



















JUST KIDDING!


----------



## CharlieJ (Jul 25, 2008)

JohnGill said:


> I think until the standard for both camps is scripture, there will be no 'consensus.'



I am interested in what Scripture has to say on the subject.

To my knowledge, Scripture makes no claim as to how, where, or when it will be preserved. It supplies no procedure for copying manuscripts, nor for determining which manuscripts are reliable. 

In short, I don't see where Scripture addresses text criticism, though I am open to anything that it might say.


----------



## JohnGill (Jul 26, 2008)

*Which one?*



CharlieJ said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> > I think until the standard for both camps is scripture, there will be no 'consensus.'
> ...



I could either provide a list of books in which it is covered or a list of verses with an exegetical brief from the books which would take several pages. Let me know which one you want. If you ask for the list, please know, it will take me about 4+ weeks to put it all together. (I got other threads to read! ) And I haven't done a verse count from the various books.

If scripture doesn't address, in principle, how we are to deal with the text of scripture with regards to tc, then what is the authority for textual criticism?

If it's 'those principles which are reliable, self-evident, and logical', then it's rationalism, which is subjective and reduces to skepticism. If it's, these scholarly men, say these are the principles we are to use, then the skeptic can come along and ask, what makes them an authority? Even if everyone in the world agreed on the principles of mtc, save one man, that man then has every right to ask, "Who says you are right?" (Athanasius contra mundum.) 

Without a basis in scripture there is no answer to the skeptic. And without a basis in scripture, then textual criticism has not been brought unto the obedience of Christ.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 26, 2008)

The basis for modern textual criticism is not outside the scope of Scripture's teaching, although I do not think that Scripture explicitly addresses the issue. One could profitably go to discussions about the providence of God in preserving His Word, passages that deal with the nature of man in understanding what scribes would be likely to do, passages that deal with idolatry to understand why we do not have the original autographs in our possession. This is by good and necessary consequence. Scripture explicitly tells us that we are not to put ourselves in judgment over God and over His word. However, this does not mean that we are to be ignorant of how God has preserved His Word, and seek to puzzle out how He has done so, which is another way of describing TC. TC is nothing but an exercise in thinking God's providential thoughts after Him.


----------



## JohnGill (Jul 26, 2008)

*I agree*



greenbaggins said:


> The basis for modern textual criticism is not outside the scope of Scripture's teaching, although I do not think that Scripture explicitly addresses the issue. One could profitably go to discussions about the providence of God in preserving His Word, passages that deal with the nature of man in understanding what scribes would be likely to do, passages that deal with idolatry to understand why we do not have the original autographs in our possession. This is by good and necessary consequence. Scripture explicitly tells us that we are not to put ourselves in judgment over God and over His word. However, this does not mean that we are to be ignorant of how God has preserved His Word, and seek to puzzle out how He has done so, which is another way of describing TC. TC is nothing but an exercise in thinking God's providential thoughts after Him.



I agree with everything you said here. My issue is over methodology. How do I know when the shortest is to be preferred? How do I know that Aleph & B are more reliable simply because they're older? How do I know the more difficult reading is to be preferred? How do I know that the family classifications for the mss are correct? If it's based on common sense, consensus, or this is the way we do it, it is subjective and reduces to skepticism.


----------



## JohnGill (Jul 26, 2008)

*Everyone read his quote:*



greenbaggins said:


> *The basis for modern textual criticism is not outside the scope of Scripture's teaching, although I do not think that Scripture explicitly addresses the issue. One could profitably go to discussions about the providence of God in preserving His Word, passages that deal with the nature of man in understanding what scribes would be likely to do, passages that deal with idolatry to understand why we do not have the original autographs in our possession. This is by good and necessary consequence. Scripture explicitly tells us that we are not to put ourselves in judgment over God and over His word. However, this does not mean that we are to be ignorant of how God has preserved His Word, and seek to puzzle out how He has done so, which is another way of describing TC. TC is nothing but an exercise in thinking God's providential thoughts after Him.*



Kudos to the best definition of what textual criticism should always strive for. Wish I had thought of it. Hmm.  I've quoted it twice, once more and I did think of it. Aren't those the rules?


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 26, 2008)

JohnGill said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > The basis for modern textual criticism is not outside the scope of Scripture's teaching, although I do not think that Scripture explicitly addresses the issue. One could profitably go to discussions about the providence of God in preserving His Word, passages that deal with the nature of man in understanding what scribes would be likely to do, passages that deal with idolatry to understand why we do not have the original autographs in our possession. This is by good and necessary consequence. Scripture explicitly tells us that we are not to put ourselves in judgment over God and over His word. However, this does not mean that we are to be ignorant of how God has preserved His Word, and seek to puzzle out how He has done so, which is another way of describing TC. TC is nothing but an exercise in thinking God's providential thoughts after Him.
> ...



No canon of textual criticism is an absolute in the sense that it always over-rides every other canon. Each canon constitutes one factor that must be weighed among many factors. This is why there will be differences among textual critics, and this is also why every pastor must learn these canons himself and apply himself to knowing about textual criticism. 

Fortunately for us, the text of the NT is preserved in an embarrassingly rich textual tradition. We have many thousands of manuscripts. This allows us to come as close as we possibly can get without having the autographs. Even the differences between the TR and the CT are minuscule when set against the differences among the various Homeric manuscripts. 

I would also venture to say that no confessed doctrine of the church is threatened by the differences between the TR and the CT. Some might ask about WLC 196 and the conclusion to the Lord's Prayer. Even though I do not think that the conclusion was present in the autograph, it is a very biblical conclusion to the Lord's Prayer. The CT says elsewhere what the TR says in Matthew 6. Therefore, I do not feel the need to take an exception to the WLC there.


----------



## Casey (Jul 26, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> I would also venture to say that no confessed doctrine of the church is threatened by the differences between the TR and the CT. Some might ask about WLC 196 and the conclusion to the Lord's Prayer. Even though I do not think that the conclusion was present in the autograph, it is a very biblical conclusion to the Lord's Prayer. The CT says elsewhere what the TR says in Matthew 6. Therefore, I do not feel the need to take an exception to the WLC there.


Sounds funny to say it's a "biblical" conclusion to the Lord's Prayer if you don't actually think it's a part of the Bible.  But I get what you're saying.


----------



## larryjf (Jul 26, 2008)

The Scripture tells us that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).

Does that not imply something with regards to textual criticism?

If we know that the Church is the pillar of the truth why would we want something outside of the Church to give us the truth of Scripture?

Do we believe that committees are the pillar of truth in our modern age, or perhaps scholars? Or do we still consider the Church to be the pillar, and if so how would that affect our practice of textual criticism?


----------



## JohnGill (Jul 26, 2008)

*Epistemology*



greenbaggins said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> > greenbaggins said:
> ...



I agree again, with the exception of the Lord's Prayer; but my question is how do we know when one canon of TC outweighs another canon of TC? Or to put it in philosophical gibberish (mocking myself here) , what is the epistemological foundation for choosing one canon over another canon?  

BTW I've now quoted it three times. It's mine!! I said it! From now on I can take all the credit. I'll just ignore Proverbs 6:17.


----------

