Van Til and Textual Criticism
- Thread starter py3ak
- Start date
- Status
I think it is safe to say he was Warfieldian on the doctrine of Scripture, so he likely accepted the critical text. It was for Edward Hills to take up the presuppositional approach and apply it to textual criticism. Rousas Rushdoony also advocated Hills' view in the Journal for Christian Reconstruction's volume on the Ecclesiastical Text.
For Van Til's doctrine of Scripture see his Introduction to P&R's edition of Warfield on the Inspiration and Authority of the Bible.
For critique of Hills and Rushdoony see a WTJ article by Richard Brash, Must Presuppositionalists Be KJV Only? Given the name of the title it should be clear that the position of Hills has been misunderstood.
LanceJ
Puritan Board Freshman
It's alleged by Rushdoony that Van Til did end up applying his method to Textual Criticism and changed his position away from the Critical Text position (see below link). This is hard to confirm for obvious reasons.
www.textandtranslation.org
Cornelius Van Til and the Textus Receptus - Text and Translation
www.textandtranslation.org
It's alleged by Rushdoony that Van Til did end up applying his method to Textual Criticism and changed his position away from the Critical Text position (see below link). This is hard to confirm for obvious reasons.
Cornelius Van Til and the Textus Receptus - Text and Translation
As the author says, intriguing!
I forgot to mention that the VanTillian Skilton included some material on Hills in his New Testament Student. He ventured into the waters but didn't commit to it.
The JCR volume is available here: https://feismo.com/doc-viewer-v2
The evaluation of Theodore Letis: "While Hills was able to offer such a critique of Warfield, because he had attained the same status of expertise in text criticism that Warfield {130} had in his day, and was aware of its results in the twentieth century, no one else at Westminster ever did, including Van Til, so Hills’s critique was never fully appreciated."
- Status
