CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Hi All:
I recognize that the below is a very brief critique, but I would appreciate any feedback on this review.
Dr. Carson’s book is intended for a lay audience that has little to no understanding of a very complex subject. He presents the case for the modern scientific approach to textual criticism with clarity and sensibility. The book is useful to both laymen and scholars alike as a brief, broad, and basic presentation of the modern theory. Nevertheless it suffers from its generality, and, consequently principles are assumed to be true rather than proved to be true. The modern theory of textual criticism, however, is fraught with problems that lend one to question the value of the theory in regards to its subject.
In chapter 4 of his book Dr. Carson sets forth “Some Criteria for Making Textual Changes.” He mentions quite a few of them, but those criteria which he sets forth which should be proved rather than assumed are: 1) The genealogical method, 2) The older document is more authoritative, 3) Manuscripts must be weighed rather than counted, 4) The shorter reading is to be preferred (though he qualifies this principle), and, 5) The most difficult reading is to be preferred. Because of the brevity of this review only one of these principles will be investigated - #5 “The more difficult reading is to be preferred.”
In Luke 4:44 the reading of the Critical Text is, “Καὶ ἦν κηρύσσων εἰς τὰς συναγωγὰς τῆς Ἰουδαίας.” The questionable text reading here is, “Ἰουδαίας.” Dr. Metzger, in defending this reading writes, “the reading “τῆς Ἰουδαίας” (P75 a B C L f1 892 Lect syrs,h al) is obviously the more difficult, and copyists have corrected it to τῆς Γαλιλαίας.” Thus the reading used in the Critical Text at Mark 4:44 (τῆς Ἰουδαίας) is justified by the principle that the more difficult reading is to be preferred. This reading is translated into the following English texts: LB, NIV, NASB, NEB, RSV and ESV. A problem arises when using the Reformed hermeneutic of comparing Scripture with Scripture. In Mark 1:35 both the Critical Text and the Textus Receptus read that Jesus went, “τῆς Γαλιλαίας.” Comparing Luke 4:44 and Mark 1:35 creates a contradiction in the Greek text. Thus, the Critical Text reading in Luke 4:44 are contradictory to what the Critical Text reads in Mark 1:35, and this reading are justified only by a few manuscripts and lectionaries as well as the principle “the more difficult reading is to be preferred.” The Bible does not contradict itself. Nevertheless, using the modern principles of textual criticism by modern scholar’s error and contradiction has been inserted into the Scriptures. The reader is drawn farther away from the original by a text critical principle which has no foundation in fact, and causes a contradiction rather than a clarification. The Textus Receptus does not produce a contradiction in these passages, and is consistent in both verses with the vast majority of manuscripts.
This is simply one example wherein one principle of the modern textual theory is examined. However, there are many such examples of problems in the Greek text that arise from the principles which Dr. Carson lists above. The principles of modern textual theory do not produce a manuscript that is closer to the originals. The Critical Text can be shown to be factually in error, flawed, and contradictory to the very teachings of the Bible and the Reformed faith.
Blessings,
Rob
I recognize that the below is a very brief critique, but I would appreciate any feedback on this review.
Dr. Carson’s book is intended for a lay audience that has little to no understanding of a very complex subject. He presents the case for the modern scientific approach to textual criticism with clarity and sensibility. The book is useful to both laymen and scholars alike as a brief, broad, and basic presentation of the modern theory. Nevertheless it suffers from its generality, and, consequently principles are assumed to be true rather than proved to be true. The modern theory of textual criticism, however, is fraught with problems that lend one to question the value of the theory in regards to its subject.
In chapter 4 of his book Dr. Carson sets forth “Some Criteria for Making Textual Changes.” He mentions quite a few of them, but those criteria which he sets forth which should be proved rather than assumed are: 1) The genealogical method, 2) The older document is more authoritative, 3) Manuscripts must be weighed rather than counted, 4) The shorter reading is to be preferred (though he qualifies this principle), and, 5) The most difficult reading is to be preferred. Because of the brevity of this review only one of these principles will be investigated - #5 “The more difficult reading is to be preferred.”
In Luke 4:44 the reading of the Critical Text is, “Καὶ ἦν κηρύσσων εἰς τὰς συναγωγὰς τῆς Ἰουδαίας.” The questionable text reading here is, “Ἰουδαίας.” Dr. Metzger, in defending this reading writes, “the reading “τῆς Ἰουδαίας” (P75 a B C L f1 892 Lect syrs,h al) is obviously the more difficult, and copyists have corrected it to τῆς Γαλιλαίας.” Thus the reading used in the Critical Text at Mark 4:44 (τῆς Ἰουδαίας) is justified by the principle that the more difficult reading is to be preferred. This reading is translated into the following English texts: LB, NIV, NASB, NEB, RSV and ESV. A problem arises when using the Reformed hermeneutic of comparing Scripture with Scripture. In Mark 1:35 both the Critical Text and the Textus Receptus read that Jesus went, “τῆς Γαλιλαίας.” Comparing Luke 4:44 and Mark 1:35 creates a contradiction in the Greek text. Thus, the Critical Text reading in Luke 4:44 are contradictory to what the Critical Text reads in Mark 1:35, and this reading are justified only by a few manuscripts and lectionaries as well as the principle “the more difficult reading is to be preferred.” The Bible does not contradict itself. Nevertheless, using the modern principles of textual criticism by modern scholar’s error and contradiction has been inserted into the Scriptures. The reader is drawn farther away from the original by a text critical principle which has no foundation in fact, and causes a contradiction rather than a clarification. The Textus Receptus does not produce a contradiction in these passages, and is consistent in both verses with the vast majority of manuscripts.
This is simply one example wherein one principle of the modern textual theory is examined. However, there are many such examples of problems in the Greek text that arise from the principles which Dr. Carson lists above. The principles of modern textual theory do not produce a manuscript that is closer to the originals. The Critical Text can be shown to be factually in error, flawed, and contradictory to the very teachings of the Bible and the Reformed faith.
Blessings,
Rob