Critical Textual Criticism and Missionary Work

[Pergamum]

Westcott and Hort's work did not appear out of the blue. There were numerous attempts to revise the printed Greek texts prior to it: polyglotts (like Walton's), Griesbach's work and Tischendorf's, to name a few. In addition, many, many commentators and scholars had made notes on where they thought the best manuscripts differed with the then commonly printed Greek text.

I would say the vast majority of Christian textual scholars and Reformed commentators of the day and prior centuries recognized that there were problems with the Received Text, although there was not an agreed solution. Certainly the Princetonians (Hodge and Alexander even before Warfield) recognized issues. Westcott and Hort was just the first revised text to find some kind of general acceptance during that period.

Their work was produced and accepted because there was a growing consensus that it was needed.

Thanks. I would love to hear more about this. Can you write more or direct me to books or links?

 

[alexandermsmith]

Westcott and Hort's work did not appear out of the blue. There were numerous attempts to revise the printed Greek texts prior to it: polyglotts (like Walton's), Griesbach's work and Tischendorf's, to name a few. In addition, many, many commentators and scholars had made notes on where they thought the best manuscripts differed with the then commonly printed Greek text.

I would say the vast majority of Christian textual scholars and Reformed commentators of the day and prior centuries recognized that there were problems with the Received Text, although there was not an agreed solution. Certainly the Princetonians (Hodge and Alexander even before Warfield) recognized issues. Westcott and Hort was just the first revised text to find some kind of general acceptance during that period.

Their work was produced and accepted because there was a growing consensus that it was needed.

Still not a coincidence it was them. One could also ask why the move for a new translation gained momentum at the same time rationalism and liberalism was beginning to have an impact on the church.

 

[RamistThomist]

Still not a coincidence it was them. One could also ask why the move for a new translation gained momentum at the same time rationalism and liberalism was beginning to have an impact on the church.

We can just as easily say that Arianism came into the church the same time that the Received Text became popular.

 

[Taylor]

I am still just astounded at the inconsistently applied criteria here. Westcott and Hort are bad, but Erasmus, a defender of Babylon, gets a pass? Unbelievable. I’m not saying anyone should accept or reject any of the textual “traditions,” but we of all people should at least be judicious in our methodologies and our dealing with plain facts.

Still not a coincidence it was them. One could also ask why the move for a new translation gained momentum at the same time rationalism and liberalism was beginning to have an impact on the church.

You seriously believe rationalism and liberalism only began to impact the church in 1881?

...LOL

 

[alexandermsmith]

I am still just astounded at the inconsistency applied criteria here. Westcott and Hort are bad, but Erasmus, a defender of Babylon, gets a pass? Unbelievable. I’m not saying anyone should accept or reject any of the textual “traditions,” but we of all people should at least be judicious in our methodologies and our dealing with plain facts.



You seriously believe rationalism and liberalism only began to impact the church in 1881?

...LOL

I didn't say 1881.

 

[Taylor]

I didn't say 1881.

You said, “One could also ask why the move for a new translation gained momentum at the same time rationalism and liberalism was beginning to have an impact on the church.”

When was this “move for a new translation” you speak of? Westcott and Hort released their Greek NT in 1881.

 

[RamistThomist]

I am still just astounded at the inconsistently applied criteria here. Westcott and Hort are bad, but Erasmus, a defender of Babylon, gets a pass? Unbelievable. I’m not saying anyone should accept or reject any of the textual “traditions,” but we of all people should at least be judicious in our methodologies and our dealing with plain facts.



You seriously believe rationalism and liberalism only began to impact the church in 1881?

...LOL

Agreed. It's not simply that Erasmus happened to be a Roman Catholic. No, he openly opposed the Reformation.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I have been culling some information on Erasmus, since much of the pushback against the doctrine of a received text comes back to him. Here is a pertinent quote from an old PB thread; the conversation had become centered around the dependability of Erasmus' work which of course devolved into a discussion of Erasmus' doctrine.

"[Regarding] Erasmus's dedication to the Pope, to me it was a slap in his face. Luther was protected at the advice of Erasmus, which saved his life, who after publishing his Latin translation was in risk of being executed himself. Erasmus protects Luther and places his own neck on the chopping block instead - yet you make it sound like Erasmus is the "great enemy." I don't get it - certainly doctrinally Erasmus didn't join the Reformation, but he did sincerely want reform in the Church and he did till the soil for that seed to be planted and germinate in.

"Rudolf Pfeiffer, in his History of Classical Scholarship from 1300 to 1850 has an insightful comment, “few modern scholars have taken trouble to consider Erasmus’ actual intentions.” Now, that statement I found to speak volumes, as I learned that in Erasmus' concept, his greek testament was supportive work for his Latin translation, not the other way around - as the picture was always painted to me.

"Very few criticism’s concerning Erasmus’ Greek text follow publication, what is attacked is his Latin translation and Annotations. In the main it his Latin translation and Annotations that he spends the next few years defending in his disputes with Stunica and others before publication of his second edition of 1519.

"Today these disparaging criticisms are all hurled from the 19th and 20th century with the rise of the critical schools, but toward the Greek instead of the Latin, and within them I find continual internal inconsistencies that I cannot reconcile. Many of which I found to be just plain disparagement without any factual support whatsoever."

The gentleman who posted these statements is no longer active on the PB but appears to have a focused interest and knowledge on issues surrounding textual criticism. His PB handle is thomas2007, if you care to do a PB search of his postings.

 

[Taylor]

I have been culling some information on Erasmus, since much of the pushback against the doctrine of a received text comes back to him. Here is a pertinent quote from an old PB thread; the conversation had become centered around the dependability of Erasmus' work which of course devolved into a discussion of Erasmus' doctrine.

"[Regarding] Erasmus's dedication to the Pope, to me it was a slap in his face. Luther was protected at the advice of Erasmus, which saved his life, who after publishing his Latin translation was in risk of being executed himself. Erasmus protects Luther and places his own neck on the chopping block instead - yet you make it sound like Erasmus is the "great enemy." I don't get it - certainly doctrinally Erasmus didn't join the Reformation, but he did sincerely want reform in the Church and he did till the soil for that seed to be planted and germinate in.

"Rudolf Pfeiffer, in his History of Classical Scholarship from 1300 to 1850 has an insightful comment, “few modern scholars have taken trouble to consider Erasmus’ actual intentions.” Now, that statement I found to speak volumes, as I learned that in Erasmus' concept, his greek testament was supportive work for his Latin translation, not the other way around - as the picture was always painted to me.

"Very few criticism’s concerning Erasmus’ Greek text follow publication, what is attacked is his Latin translation and Annotations. In the main it his Latin translation and Annotations that he spends the next few years defending in his disputes with Stunica and others before publication of his second edition of 1519.

"Today these disparaging criticisms are all hurled from the 19th and 20th century with the rise of the critical schools, but toward the Greek instead of the Latin, and within them I find continual internal inconsistencies that I cannot reconcile. Many of which I found to be just plain disparagement without any factual support whatsoever."

The gentleman who posted these statements is no longer active on the PB but appears to have a focused interest and knowledge on issues surrounding textual criticism. His PB handle is thomas2007, if you care to do a PB search of his postings.

You're not understanding what I and a couple others have been saying. None of us have actually attempted to discredit Erasmus because of his doctrine. Rather, what we have been saying is that if the personal beliefs of a textual critic discredits his work (as some here have maintained against Westcott and Hort), then the same ought to apply to Erasmus. This hasn't been a critique of Erasmus at all; it has been a critique of an inconsistently applied fallacy.

 

[RamistThomist]

I have been culling some information on Erasmus, since much of the pushback against the doctrine of a received text comes back to him. Here is a pertinent quote from an old PB thread; the conversation had become centered around the dependability of Erasmus' work which of course devolved into a discussion of Erasmus' doctrine.

"[Regarding] Erasmus's dedication to the Pope, to me it was a slap in his face. Luther was protected at the advice of Erasmus, which saved his life, who after publishing his Latin translation was in risk of being executed himself. Erasmus protects Luther and places his own neck on the chopping block instead - yet you make it sound like Erasmus is the "great enemy." I don't get it - certainly doctrinally Erasmus didn't join the Reformation, but he did sincerely want reform in the Church and he did till the soil for that seed to be planted and germinate in.

"Rudolf Pfeiffer, in his History of Classical Scholarship from 1300 to 1850 has an insightful comment, “few modern scholars have taken trouble to consider Erasmus’ actual intentions.” Now, that statement I found to speak volumes, as I learned that in Erasmus' concept, his greek testament was supportive work for his Latin translation, not the other way around - as the picture was always painted to me.

"Very few criticism’s concerning Erasmus’ Greek text follow publication, what is attacked is his Latin translation and Annotations. In the main it his Latin translation and Annotations that he spends the next few years defending in his disputes with Stunica and others before publication of his second edition of 1519.

"Today these disparaging criticisms are all hurled from the 19th and 20th century with the rise of the critical schools, but toward the Greek instead of the Latin, and within them I find continual internal inconsistencies that I cannot reconcile. Many of which I found to be just plain disparagement without any factual support whatsoever."

The gentleman who posted these statements is no longer active on the PB but appears to have a focused interest and knowledge on issues surrounding textual criticism. His PB handle is thomas2007, if you care to do a PB search of his postings.

We are not attacking Erasmus's text, not at this point anyway. Rather, we are responding to Alexander's genetic fallacy with another genetic fallacy in order to show how flawed that thinking is.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

You're not understanding what I and a couple others have been saying. None of us have actually attempted to discredit Erasmus because of his doctrine. Rather, what we have been saying is that if the personal beliefs of a textual critic discredits his work (as some here have maintained against Westcott and Hort), then the same ought to apply to Erasmus. This hasn't been a critique of Erasmus at all; it has been a critique of an inconsistently applied fallacy.

We are not attacking Erasmus's text, not at this point anyway. Rather, we are responding to Alexander's genetic fallacy with another genetic fallacy in order to show how flawed that thinking is.

I get that, thanks. I keep forgetting that's what you're doing, maybe it would help to give those qualifiers when you post such things. In addition to the folks following these debate-type threads now, there are future readers and out of love and charity for each other, we ought to be careful not to tear down unintentionally; not everyone is debate oriented and no one is a mind reader.

I do appreciate that we need to be very careful of inconcistencies and other such faulty reasoning.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

One thing that I find rather interesting about Westcott and Hort is that Ian Paisley, a fundamentalist who advocated both TR and AV-onlyism, actually cited B. F. Westcott in defence of fundamental doctrines in his book Christian Foundations (I have decided to remove a link to an online PDF version of this book owing to what looks like a second commandment violation that showed up when I posted it).

If you wish to prove that Westcott was a heretic, please provide documentary evidence from either 1) the primary sources (i.e. Westcott's own writings), demonstrating that you have properly understood what he has said in context; or, 2) a reliable, peer-reviewed secondary source by a proven historical scholar.

Latching on to partisan sources that "prove" what you have already decided is the case is #NotAnArgument that is likely to persuade anyone outside of your sectarian echo-chambers. That point applies to all sides in this discussion.

 

[Taylor]

...there are future readers and out of love and charity for each other, we ought to be careful not to tear down unintentionally...

You mean like the OP did? And how it was never addressed or retracted, but just dismissed with an "eh, the damage is done"?

I think I've been very clear in what I have said. I've literally spent this entire thread trying to dispel inconsistencies.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

You mean like the OP did? And how it was never addressed or retracted, but just dismissed with an "eh, the damage is done"?

I think I've been very clear in what I have said. I've literally spent this entire thread trying to dispel inconsistencies.

To be fair, did the author of the OP not retract once Steve called it out as being over-emotional? I seem to recall seeing it, but I have not got time just now to look for the specific post.

As the old saying goes, only the good threads die young.

 

[alexandermsmith]

You said, “One could also ask why the move for a new translation gained momentum at the same time rationalism and liberalism was beginning to have an impact on the church.”

When was this “move for a new translation” you speak of? Westcott and Hort released their Greek NT in 1881.

Yes so clearly the movement to produce it started before 1881. The 19th Century was a period of great erosion of confidence in Biblical truth and significant intrusion into the church of rationalism and liberalism. This was the century of Darwin, German Rationalism, the rise of theories like the Documentary Hypothesis. Yes these ideas can maybe be traced further back but it was during the 19th century- especially with the popularising of evolutionism- that these ideas took hold in the churches and started them on the downward spiral which resulted in all that we know happened in the churches in the 20th century.

So my point is it is hardly surprising- to me- that the move to produce a "revision" of the English Bible came to fruition in this environment and since then it has been non-stop translation after translation.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

You mean like the OP did? And how it was never addressed or retracted?

I think I've been very clear in what I have said.

By "there are future readers and out of love and charity for each other, we ought to be careful not to tear down unintentionally," the unintentional tearing down I spoke of, I was applying to the reputation of Erasmus. We can unintentionally tear down someone's reputation by saying things about them without qualifiers. You know, and Jacob knows, that you were only trying to highlight a logic fallacy you think was being presented. But even in the midst of debate, out of love we should be thinking of the readers who are not well-versed in debate and logic.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

To be fair, did the author of the OP not retract once Steve called it out as being over-emotional? I seem to recall seeing it, but I have not got time just now to look for the specific post.

As the old saying goes, only the good threads die young.

Perg did retract, and the saying is true.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Correct; see post 75.

To be fair, did the author of the OP not retract once Steve called it out as being over-emotional? I seem to recall seeing it, but I have not got time just now to look for the specific post.

As the old saying goes, only the good threads die young.

You mean like the OP did? And how it was never addressed or retracted, but just dismissed with an "eh, the damage is done"?

I think I've been very clear in what I have said. I've literally spent this entire thread trying to dispel inconsistencies.

 

[RamistThomist]

So my point is it is hardly surprising- to me- that the move to produce a "revision" of the English Bible came to fruition in this environment and since then it has been non-stop translation after translation.

Ad hoc ergo post propter hoc

 

[Taylor]

Perg did retract, and the saying is true.

Correct; see post 75.

Yes, I am well aware of that post; I in fact had it in my mind when I wrote what I wrote. What was said is, in my opinion, hardly a retraction. There wasn't even a recognition of wrongdoing, or an apology. In fact, the author even said he could edit it, but "the damage has been done." Wow, if I treated my loved ones like this, well, I wouldn't have that many loved ones anymore.

Either way, I really don't wish to discuss this any longer. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand. And, I suppose that since we have a "retraction," we can let bygones be bygones.

This was the century of Darwin, German Rationalism, the rise of theories like the Documentary Hypothesis. Yes these ideas can maybe be traced further back but it was during the 19th century- especially with the popularising of evolutionism- that these ideas took hold in the churches and started them on the downward spiral which resulted in all that we know happened in the churches in the 20th century.

Can you demonstrate that Westcott and Hort, or those of similar occupation (Tregelles, von Soden, etc.), were motivated by these ideologies in the carrying out of their work?

 

[Pergamum]

Taylor:
-Is triggered that I have possibly slandered textual critics.
-Then proceeds to state that my retraction is not genuine.

Hmmmm......


Let's try to refocus:

-How do we treat textual criticism in a missionary context so as not to hurt the faith of new believers overseas?

 

[ZackF]

Again, what do we tell people on the mission field?

 

[alexandermsmith]

Can you demonstrate that Westcott and Hort, or those of similar occupation (Tregelles, von Soden, etc.), were motivated by these ideologies in the carrying out of their work?

This is kind of like being on the Titanic and instead of running for your life you're demanding whether I can prove that the iceberg caused the sinking or not.

Can I prove that Westcott and Hort's motivation was to undermine faith in Scripture and promote rationalism? No I don't have a document where they write: "our aim is to undermine faith in Scripture and promote rationalism". But that's exactly what their work and the work of many others did and that's good enough for me to know that what they did was catastrophic.

 

[Taylor]

Taylor:
-Is triggered that I have possibly slandered textual critics.
-Then proceeds to state that my retraction is not genuine.

1) I hope you would never slander anyone. It's sinful no matter who the target is. Regardless, I was "triggered" because you in your general vagueness slandered people whom I know personally, who are most certainly not enemies of the faith.

2) I never said your "retraction" wasn't genuine. I believe what you said was genuine. I just don't think it was a retraction. If that was your attempt at a retraction, will you make the retraction clear now for people like me who didn't catch it between the lines?

———

Folks, I just want to be clear. I’m not trying to be cantankerous or needlessly oppositional. I just firmly believe that 1) this thread is premised on a very bad OP (i.e., it poses as a request for help when it was really just an attempt at polemics), and 2) this topic in general is not treated with much equity by certain folks of a certain persuasion here on this board. I have seen it for years. I and several others have tried to steer the thread away from that, apparently to no avail.

———

Can I prove that Westcott and Hort's motivation was to undermine faith in Scripture and promote rationalism? No...

Then what you say is speculation at very best, and ought not to be asserted with the dogmatism heretofore exhibited (that is, until hard evidence is produced).

Again, I am not trying to exonerate or even validate the work of these men. Rather, I just want whatever is concluded to be based upon actual facts and good argumentation, and not just assertions. That's all. I am actually myself fairly convinced of men like Maurice Robinson, that's because in his writing he deals with the facts and makes real arguments based upon substantive analysis, and doesn't just say "critical text man bad."

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Again, what do we tell people mission field?

I think Jack posted something good that would be helpful and applicable from the CT side.

My hope would be that it be approached from the RT side. As stated, one would need a working knowledge of textual criticism and the theology of it.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Then what you say is speculation at very best, and ought not to be asserted with the dogmatism heretofore exhibited (that is, until hard evidence is produced).

Again, I am not trying to exonerate or even validate the work of these men. Rather, I just want whatever is concluded to be based upon actual facts and good argumentation, and not just assertions. That's all. I am actually myself fairly convinced of men like Maurice Robinson, that's because in his writing he deals with the facts and makes real arguments based upon substantive analysis, and doesn't just say "critical text man bad."

I understand all that however we are told in Matthew that we shall know them by their fruits. What are the fruits of what people like Westcott and Hort did? Very bad fruits. It is incumbent upon the church to be very watchful and to be on the look out for the smallest incursion of the world because a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Westcott and Hort are long dead. They are not before a court of the church. What we are concerned with is their legacy and that has been immensely destructive.

 

[Taylor]

What are the fruits of what people like Westcott and Hort did? Very bad fruits.

Well, that is, again, a very vague assertion. What are these fruits? And, moreover, can you demonstrate that these fruits are the direct result of their work or persons?

 

[ZackF]

My point what does a garden variety elder, deacon or layman say to the people he encounters on behalf of #teamChristian. Jack’s remarks are indeed helpful as they usually are. How can RT leaning people help unbelievers or weak believers without throwing their CT brethren under the bus?

 

[Jeri Tanner]

My point what does a garden variety elder, deacon or layman say to the people he encounters on behalf of #teamChristian. Jack’s remarks are indeed helpful as they usually are. How can RT leaning people help unbelievers or weak believers without throwing their CT brethren under the bus?

I am learning how to disagree without throwing people under the bus!! I guess just frame it as a disagreement among brethren, and understandable considering.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

My point what does a garden variety elder, deacon or layman say to the people he encounters on behalf of #teamChristian. Jack’s remarks are indeed helpful as they usually are. How can RT leaning people help unbelievers or weak believers without throwing their CT brethren under the bus?

And I see that lay people can be helpful too; you don’t have to know everything. It would be so helpful to have a very accessible, layman oriented book on the topic of the RT.