Textual Criticism for idiots

[SolaSaint]

Hi All,

I'm soliciting your expertise on what would be a good beginners guide to textual criticism, you know what may be considered "Textual Criticism for Idiots". lol

I'm not looking for a hard to follow read, I need a simple explanation of the history of TC. Thanks

 

[Jeff Burns]

All of Dr. Black's works are highly accessable. I'd consider purchasing his primer on the subject.

New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide: David Alan Black: 9780801010743: Amazon.com: Books

 

[SolaSaint]

Thanks Jeff. I will probably order this. Sounds like what I need.

 

[OPC'n]

you're not an idiot!

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Rick, although I appreciate Professor Black's stance in the book (which he edited), Perspectives On The Ending Of Mark: 4 Views (he defends its originality), his approach is basically eclectic – i.e., he "hold that none of the texttypes is superior or inferior to the others, and that each has been preserved for our use in resolving textual issues" (ibid p 103). In other words, he would not take the Reformation view that the Byzantine text, or the Textus Receptus edition coming out of the Byz texttype, are superior to the Egyptian manuscripts. Thus his book on criticism mentioned in an earlier post would be a furthering of this (what I would say is an) erroneous view.

This essay would give you another view of textual criticism: Textual Criticism Drawn From The Wells Of Infidelity. Some folks don't like that Pastor David Cloud is a fundamentalist Baptist and defender of the KJV, or that he is a staunch anti-calvinist (I don't like this stand of his either! but that's a different battle!), yet he is astute with regard to text critical issues. I include this to give you some perspective on different views with regard to the discipline of textual criticism itself.

This following is a text critical study upholding the ecclesiastical text of the Reformation, Dr. Thomas Holland's excellent intro to the subject, Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version.​

 

[BibleCyst]

The King James Only Controversy by James White is a good representative of the Critical Text side of things.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

The King James Only Controversy by James White is a good representative of the Critical Text side of things.

This book is more helpful than any of David Cloud's writings

 

[CharlieJ]

You really need to buy, borrow, or copy the introduction found in Bruce Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. It's just a standard in the field. And hey, it's not that long.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

The King James Only Controversy by James White is a good representative of the Critical Text side of things.

This book is more helpful than any of David Cloud's writings

I love James White and i think that he is a brilliant apologist, but other than his MDiv, all of his advanced degrees are from the unaccreditted distance education seminary that he teaches at. That hardly qualifies him as an expert on textual criticism

 

[TheElk]

The King James Only Controversy by James White is a good representative of the Critical Text side of things.

This book is more helpful than any of David Cloud's writings

I love James White and i think that he is a brilliant apologist, but other than his MDiv, all of his advanced degrees are from the unaccreditted distance education seminary that he teaches at. That hardly qualifies him as an expert on textual criticism

I don't believe his academic credentials have any weight on whether or not he is an expert on textual criticism.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

His academic credentials have no bearing on his ability to have an educated opinion, but they most certainly do have bearing on his ability to be an expert on the subject. If we followed that logic, then anyone with a Bible and an opinion would be qualified to preach

 

[TheElk]

Hi All,

I'm soliciting your expertise on what would be a good beginners guide to textual criticism, you know what may be considered "Textual Criticism for Idiots". lol

I'm not looking for a hard to follow read, I need a simple explanation of the history of TC. Thanks

I recommend: Journey from Texts to Translations, The: The Origin and Development of the Bible by Paul D. Wegner.

 

[Jeff Burns]

His academic credentials have no bearing on his ability to have an educated opinion, but they most certainly do have bearing on his ability to be an expert on the subject. If we followed that logic, then anyone with a Bible and an opinion would be qualified to preach

There are plenty of "accredited" colleges and universities churning out folks with 1/10th the expertise of James White on any number of given subjects. Degrees do not equal education.

 

[CharlieJ]

Just recently I found this bibliography on textual criticism. Take a look: Top Ten Essential Works in New Testament Textual Criticism | Evangelical Textual Criticism

 

[KaphLamedh]

More technical books on the Bible version issue, books by Jack Moorman have good information. Moorman is King James onlyist. After reading couple books and watched some videos on the Bible version issue, I am sure that the Devil has made Christians to fight against others. For some one it seems to be too big thing what version the person on next seat reads. Aren't KJV or Geneva Bible good enough?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Charlie,

The list of “Top Ten Essential Works in New Testament Textual Criticism” is a careless choice! Of the ten books mentioned, nine are not by scholars as would be recognized in a conservative Bible-believing church (I am not talking King James or TR! – but even modern-version-using churches here at PB). Why would you post this, Charlie, as a resource for those beginning textual studies? Please be more careful – people’s faith in the Bible is at stake.

You’re batting a 100 (and the 10th author I am unsure of also, but can’t find enough info on him or his book).

Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism, By David Alan Black mentioned in a thread here. Also a quote on David Parker in the OP of this thread.

On Bruce Metzger

The Doctrinal Views of Kurt Aland, a detailed examination of Dr. Aland’s textual views.

Eldon J. Epp:

“…every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates, rather, that we have made little progress in textual theory since Westcott-Hort; that we simply do not know how to make a definitive determination as to what the best text is; that we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and alternation of the text in the first few centuries; and accordingly, that the Westcott-Hort kind of text has maintained its dominant position largely by default” (Eldon J. Epp, “The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 43, 1974, pp. 390-391).

“We face a crisis over methodology in NT textual criticism. ... Von Soden and B.H. Streeter and a host of others announced and defended their theories of the NT text, but none has stood the tests of criticism or of time. ... [F]ollowing Westcott-Hort but beginning particularly with C.H. Turner (1923ff.), M.-J. Langrange (1935), G.D. Kilpatrick (1943ff.), A.F.J. Klijn (1949), and J.K. Elliot (1972ff.), a new crisis of the criteria became prominent and is very much with us today: a duel between external and internal criteria and the widespread uncertainty as to precisely what kind of compromise ought to or can be worked out between them. The temporary ‘cease-fire’ that most—but certainly not all—textual critics have agreed upon is called a ‘moderate’ or ‘reasoned’ eclecticism ... the literature of the past two or three decades is replete with controversy over the eclectic method, or at least is abundant with evidence of the frustration that accompanies its use...” (Eldon Epp, “Decision Points in New Testament Textual Criticism,” Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, 1993, pp. 39-41).

“…we no longer think of Westcott-Hort’s ‘Neutral’ text as neutral; we no longer think of their ‘Western’ text as Western or as uniting the textual elements they selected; and, of course, we no longer think so simplistically or so confidently about recovering ‘the New Testament in the Original Greek.’…We remain largely in the dark as to how we might reconstruct the textual history that has left in its wake—in the form of MSS and fragments—numerous pieces of a puzzle that we seem incapable of fitting together. Westcott-Hort, von Soden, and others had sweeping theories (which we have largely rejected) to undergird their critical texts, but we seem now to have no such theories and no plausible sketches of the early history of the text that are widely accepted. What progress, then, have we made? Are we more advanced than our predecessors when, after showing their theories to be unacceptable, we offer no such theories at all to vindicate our accepted text?” (Eldon J. Epp, “A Continuing Interlude in NT Textual Criticism,” Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, (Eerdman’s, 1993), pp. 114, 115). [from here]

Bart Ehrman, is known as an apostate from the Faith, an enemy of God (he doesn’t believe He exists) and an enemy of the Scriptures (doesn’t believe they are inspired, legitimate, or of God). Why on earth would you recommend this person’s books?

Info on Westcott and Hort here.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

His academic credentials have no bearing on his ability to have an educated opinion, but they most certainly do have bearing on his ability to be an expert on the subject. If we followed that logic, then anyone with a Bible and an opinion would be qualified to preach

There are plenty of "accredited" colleges and universities churning out folks with 1/10th the expertise of James White on any number of given subjects. Degrees do not equal education.

I would certainly agree with your point on colleges, but I think you are missing my point on what it means to be an "expert" in textual criticism. Generally someone would need a legitimate PhD. in Biblical Languages or Linguistics and then would have also spent years working with original manuscripts as their primary occupation before they could be considered an expert. James White, no matter how brilliant he may be, does not come close to meeting this criteria and thus he is not an expert on textual criticism and his book should not be presented as anything other than one man's educated opinion.

 

[Jackie Kaulitz]

Steve, thank you for quickly correcting the sources and their lack of reliability. I knew Metzger was off and I completely agree that Bart Ehrman is completely apostate and Westcott and Hort are also terrible. But most of these other guys, I've never heard of before, so thank you for the links on the other guys so that we can see for ourselves that they are also not reliable. Your post was essential to save us all from being lead astray.