# Book to better understand Nestle-Aland and UBS?



## BuddyOfDavidClarkson (Feb 25, 2007)

Is there a book that would give me insight into the philosophy/practice behind the folks that make up the Nestle-Aland and UBS groups? I want to understand who they are, what they do, and how they do it and the philosophy/practices behind what they are doing.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 26, 2007)

David, Here are two for starters:

A REPORT ON THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/unholyhands1.htm

An analysis of the sources of modern textual criticism: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/textualcriticism.htm

Be apprised, please, these are highly critical of Nestle-Aland and UBS, and are from the "defense of the AV camp." Still, they are both scholarly and accurate, although the exposé may make some uncomfortable

Steve


----------



## Archlute (Feb 26, 2007)

BuddyOfDavidClarkson said:


> Is there a book that would give me insight into the philosophy/practice behind the folks that make up the Nestle-Aland and UBS groups? I want to understand who they are, what they do, and how they do it and the philosophy/practices behind what they are doing.




Yes. For a less critical presentation, read:

_The Text of the New Testament_, by Kurt and Barbara Aland (Eerdmans, 1995), and 

_The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration_, by Bruce M. Metzger (Oxford University Press, 1992) 


Also, you will find some good history regarding not just the transmission of the Greek text, but also an engaging history of English Bible translation in:

_The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible_, by Paul D. Wegner (Baker, 1999).


Hope that helps.


----------



## Archlute (Feb 26, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> David, Here are two for starters:
> 
> A REPORT ON THE UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/unholyhands1.htm
> 
> ...




I found it particularly helpful how he lumped F. F. Bruce in with the unbelieving rationalists in the penultimate paragraph of the second article.  

BTW, I tend not to take too seriously the scholarship of sites that have Calvinism listed under their "End Times Apostasy Online Database"....


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 26, 2007)

Adam,

It may have been “unhelpful” to you, but is it inaccurate? This is part of the offending paragraph:

“It is true that some theologically orthodox men have adopted the theories of modern textual criticism, but they did not develop them. When a man goes to an Evangelical or Fundamentalist seminary and studies textual criticism, what textbooks does he normally use? He will use books by Bruce Metzger, Frederic Kenyon, Kurt Aland, F.F. Bruce, etc. I have visited Bible colleges and seminaries all over the country and these are the books that are commonly sold in the bookstores. All of these men, and the overwhelming majority of the other men who have developed the theories of modern textual criticism, are rationalists who deny the infallibility of the Scriptures, who hold the heretical documentary views of the Old Testament, etc. Evangelicals and Baptists who have promoted textual criticism did not develop it themselves, but merely received it from the hands of the Griesbachs, Kenyons, Metzgers, and Alands, and have passed it along as the most up-to-date scientific thought.”​
F.F. Bruce is notorious for propounding the doctrine of the annihilation of Hell and the wicked in lieu of the Biblical teaching of eternal torment. He wrote the Introduction to Edward W. Fudge’s, _The Fire That Consumes_, an annihilationist book.

Bruce has taken the position that “Paul’s writings restricting women from leadership positions in the churches were ‘merely a statement of practice for a particular time’”

In a commentary series edited by himself and William Barclay (Abingdon Press), in the volume dealing with Daniel and Revelation they claim Daniel was written after the events prophesied occurred, and that we cannot know who the author of Daniel was. Regarding 1st and 2nd Timothy they say we don’t know the author of these, and that the book of Isaiah had three authors. [The info in the last two paragraphs is from Cloud’s, _Myths about the Modern Bible Versions_.]

Re Cloud’s aversion to Calvinism, and this supposedly invalidating his research in other fields of history and textual studies, we don’t invalidate Luther or Augustine for their serious errors. Because Cloud is seriously wrong in one area (soteriology) does not mean he is in others. You will not be able to stand in the face of facts if the best you can do is say, “But he’s wrong _there_, so he must be _here_!

You will note Cloud did not say Bruce was liberal as were the others, though _I_ would not call him orthodox.

Steve


----------



## Archlute (Feb 26, 2007)

Steve, thanks for the info. I have always found Bruce's commentary work to be very edifying and accurate. I have not heard, or come across in my study, that he is an annihilationist. I may just be unaware of this in his other writings. I'm not really surprised that he takes the view that he does on women in the Pastorals, it is, sad to say, the majority view among modern commentators. I do not think that what has been mentioned, however, validates Cloud's labeling him as a rationalist - a theological pluralist maybe, but not a rationalist. 

Along with that, his acting as a co-editor in a commentary series does not mean that he espouses all that is written in those commentaries. Unless Bruce specifically wrote the background information to each of those commentaries mentioned, I would not necessarily assign those views to him. Often scholars of individual books within a series are given leeway, within certain boundaries, in the positions that they take. It is an academic freedom that I am not fond of seeing, but it is there nonetheless. Bruce may not have agreed with numerous positions taken, but had to allow for varying viewpoints. If he actually authored those books, that would be a different story.

As for my second statement, I agree that Mr. Cloud has some good things to say in his writings, and that not all can be discounted where there is error (which goes for commentators and text critics as well), but his ranting alarmism seriously discredits his scholarship, in my opinion. In much of his writing he seems to be looking for the demon of liberalism under every bush, and he too often commits the fallacy of saying, "Mr. X holds to this position, Mr. X had at one time previously read works by (studied under/was friends with/looked at a picture once of) Mr. Y, therefore all of Mr. X's assumptions are grounded in a Christ hating and demonic liberalism that cannot be trusted.


I'm not trying to downplay his zeal, or slander his motives, but I've been around stuff like this before (some of the members of my broader family are/have been Independent Fundamentalist KJV-only Baptists), and I do not find it very helpful to the cause of Christ and the growth of His Church in the long run.

Grace to you, Steve.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 27, 2007)

Adam,

I appreciate your view that some of Bruce's stuff is good. I have and use a number of his books with profit.

I do not know an editor that would allow a *major* departure from historic Christian faith in the series he or she is superintending, for they are held accountable for such departures. After all, it is often the name of renown scholars/_general_ editors that make a commentary series salable; our trust in that person's theological integrity is the deciding factor.

John Stott is another "renown" annihilationist; and it is for this reason I stay away from his commentaries, although they are lauded by people I respect. (I refused to buy and use Gerhard Kittel's 10 volume theological dictionary because he was a convicted Nazi war criminal.)

Re Cloud's careful investigation of people, their doctrines, their education, I have not found him off the mark yet. His critique of James Boice and his view of textual criticism I find warranted, despite my love of Boice. He is not a "witch-hunter," nor is he a gunslinger who shoots from the hip (i.e., carelessly, and wounding bystanders).

I think Cloud is on target re his concerns about "New Evangelicalism" -- but David Wells and many others voice the same sort of concerns. There is a great diluting of Biblical doctrine nowadays, and a failure of separation from the world, as well as from heretics (another vice of Stott's, documented in Ian Murray's booklet, _The Unresolved Controversy_ (Banner of Truth)). In other words, there is a great apostatizing, and Cloud does not flinch from decrying it. Liberals are taken into the bosom of the churches because of their erudite scholarship; why should he not decry that? There is a sleep unto death falling over the churches. At first they get drowsy, and then they lose spiritual consciousness.

If he and I ever cross paths no doubt there will be a clash, for I am as adamant a Calvinist and he is anti. I like to study his views so as to understand his misperceptions (and others).

Make no mistake, I clearly say that his brand of anti-Calvinist doctrine is highly destructive to the peace and security of the church, as much as _hyper_-Calvinist error. The first defence, in my view, is that of the Scripture; the second is the Gospel in its purity. Arminianism and Charismatic teaching are both enemies of the Gospel, the two most destructive within the camp.

Thank you, Adam, for the amicable discussion!

Steve


----------



## bookslover (Feb 27, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> John Stott is another "renown" annihilationist; and it is for this reason I stay away from his commentaries, although they are lauded by people I respect.



To be just a little bit fair to Stott, the last time he opined on the subject of the final end of the wicked (that I know of), he had backed away from annihilationism and declared himself to be agnostic on the subject.

Which is an improvement..........................................sort of...


----------



## bookslover (Feb 27, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> (I refused to buy and use Gerhard Kittel's 10 volume theological dictionary because he was a convicted Nazi war criminal.)



I appreciate the integrity behind your decision, Steve, but to make these kinds of distinctions _everywhere_ would be well-nigh impossible, don't you think?

For instance: should I not listen to Mozart because he was a Mason, or not listen to recordings by a certain classical pianist who's name escapes me at the moment because he was a card-carrying Nazi who signed his personal letters with "heil Hitler"? Heck, as a Calvinist, should I listen to Bach because he was a Lutheran (just to carry this point to a mischevious extreme)?

Regarding Kittel, my attitude would be: yes, he was a Nazi, but he's subject to the judgment of God on that score. However, God also gifted him to perform the kind of scholarly work he engaged in; so the Nazism doesn't detract from his dictionary work, _qua_ dictionary.

Anyway, like I say, I respect your decision, but I just think that could be hard to do consistently, I think.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 28, 2007)

Richard,

Of course you are right, and I apologize to anyone I may have given the impression that this should be a matter of conscience for all, for it is not. As it is written, “…the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just,” and also, “…he gave them the lands of the heathen: and they inherited the labour of the people” (Proverbs 13:22; Psalm 105:44). Thus we may profit from not only the material riches of the wicked, but the intellectual, and artistic.

Being a Jew, I had an aversion to using this man’s material. It would be as though I came across a knife that had been used to kill a friend of mine; far be it from me to take and use such a thing on my treks into the mountains as my survival knife. Rather, I would break the blade and trash it. It's a personal matter.

It is lawful and right to use the things of people who are sinners; and as for Christians who merely disagree with our doctrines, we are still family, of one Spirit, and under one King.

Thank you for bringing balance to my extremity, Richard!

Steve


----------

