Textual Criticism rebuttals

We have a lot of pro Textual Criticism Books. I have 44 so taged in my library.
What is missing are works disputing the theories of Westcott and Hort.

Such as:
The Revision Revised by John Willian Burgon Some time around 1883 or so
Which Bible would Jesus use? By Jack Mcelroy © 2013, 2015

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Francis

I looked at the content of McElroy's. The title of chapter 1 says it all about the tenor of the book: "Why is the Lord forced to choose only one Bible". Even a cursory look at the rest of the TOC, the book content summary and so on show what kind of book this is. I don't think I could consider this a worthwhile disputation of text-critical principles. It's a cover up for King James only propaganda.

I guess everybody is entitled to his/her opinion. Mine would be a vote against this title. I would not want the FL store to start being invaded with propagandist materials and I would rather that the company devotes resources to making more useful titles available.

But if a principled discussion of text critical principles and a serious challenge to the current consensus can be found, it would be interesting to examine its claims and potentially a good resource to have in one's library.

DMB

Not sure about accusations about propaganda and keeping the Logos library pristine.

Logos actually has quite a few resources that potshot the Alexandrian trio and by extension WH. But they're either early 1900s or hidden in more modern tomes.

Even a volume that discusses the various manuscript theories would be a plus. Logos actually is quite limited on critical discussions of the manuscripts. Tov? Aland? Ironically, the LXX has far better coverage.

Matthew

What is missing are works disputing the theories of Westcott and Hort.

I would think you would be hard pressed to find ANY current author who supports Westcott and Hort's theory. No one has used their text in over 100 years, no one agrees that "neutral text" was a good description, and most would say they put too much weight on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

It sounds like what you are actually asking for is a defense of the Textus Receptus, Byzantine Text, or Majority Text. Is that correct? If so, is there one in particular out of the three you are seeking?

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/895803#Comment_895803

But if a principled discussion of text critical principles and a serious challenge to the current consensus can be found, it would be interesting to examine its claims and potentially a good resource to have in one's library.

Yes, and many of the KJV Only just repeat what Burgon says. “Which Bible would Jesus use” refers to and quotes “Revision Revised”

most would say they put too much weight on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

As I understand it the Textus Receptus is seen as a sub set of the Byzantine Text.
I have been lead to think that the Majority Text and the Byzantine Text are one and the same.

Logos actually has quite a few resources that potshot the Alexandrian trio and by extension WH. But they're either early 1900s or hidden in more modern tomes.
Logos actually is quite limited on critical discussions of the manuscripts.

Re: potshots – a list of resources please.

Who, other than John Willian Burgon, gives a critical discussion of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus? Most Many Bibles list them as the manuscripts to use. – a list of resources please.

[[Note that a resource that critically tells that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are indeed the Holy Grail of manuscripts is acceptable if it shows where Burgon is wrong in calling them “junk” (see below).]]

[[Burgon is said to have stated that “it is easier to find two consecutive verses in which the two MSS differ, the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree.” Faithlife has multi works by Westcott or Hort so answers by their contemporary critics (1860 – 1900) might just be what I need.]]

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/895820#Comment_895820

David, 'majority' has a general meaning (eg track what primarily got copied forward in time, as opposed to what proposes to be earliest). And then a specific meaning (eg Hodges and Farstad effort for example).

Regarding what might get you in the ballpark, in a very readable fashion (I'm copying Logos titles from my off-web PC):

Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text (Hodges and Farstad as above) has a good introduction concerning the manuscript groups, and why they went in the direction of the majority text. They subsequently took a lot of incoming.

New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005 (Robinson & Pierpont) also has a good lengthy introduction, considerably more detailed, and probably the most 'committed'.

The Text of the New Testament (Kersopp Lake). This is a full discussion of the MSS groups, just a decade after WH. Lake took no prisoners in his analyses. But of course, a century old.

These speak as you asked. There's tremendous emotion oddly enough and these sort of braved the hurricane of opinions.

Additional:

- Rick (Logos) hopefully will chime-in.

- The whole field has probably left the world of your average scholar, as the mss's are digitized. The big-data concept of tracking patterns from mss to mss is well along. I think a gentleman on the forum from Australia is heavily in this area.

- So, I look forward to more demonstrable data.

Paul

Textual Criticism rebuttals

We have a lot of pro Textual Criticism Books. I have 44 so taged in my library.
What is missing are works disputing the theories of Westcott and Hort.

Such as:
The Revision Revised by John Willian Burgon Some time around 1883 or so
Which Bible would Jesus use? By Jack Mcelroy © 2013, 2015

Thanks for this suggestion. I very much agree with making such books available within our Logos libraries. I have a hardback copy of Dean Burgon's "The Revision revisited". Its a reprint republished by the Dean Burgon Society Press" ( second printing September 1, 2000) and refer to it reasonably regularly. The society's webpage is at: http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/.

Another useful book (but paperback) is "Which Bible?" edited by David Otis Fuller, D.D. (Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503), the 5th edition published in 1990. This includes critique of Hort and Westcott theories, asks whether higher criticism is scholarly and much else. Its a very useful resource.

I haven't yet read Jack McElroy's book "Which Bible would Jesus use?" (https://www.amazon.com/Which-Version-Controversy-Explained-Resolved/dp/0986026514), but would like to do so when given an opportunity.

There is a whole field here which is very much worth exploring. Having diverse resources within Logos to enable us to explore the directions that have been taken in Bible versions would be tremendous. Keep well Paul

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/895845#Comment_895845

I have not read it but this title looks interesting in relation to the OP's suggestion:

https://www.logos.com/product/7490/studies-in-the-theory-and-method-of-new-testament-textual-criticism

This includes an essay on the Majority Text.

Searching the FL store for "textual criticism" produces many titles that relate to the question, including https://www.logos.com/product/43390/the-king-james-only-controversy-can-you-trust-modern-translations

Matthew

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/895820#Comment_895820

As I understand it the Textus Receptus is seen as a sub set of the Byzantine Text.

This is essentially correct. It also contains readings imported from the Latin Vulgate and readings not found in any known Greek manuscript.

I have been lead to think that the Majority Text and the Byzantine Text are one and the same.

The two are similar and often used interchangeably, but the difference is that the Majority Text in a technical sense is arrived at by following whichever reading occurs in the most manuscripts, whereas the Byzantine Text refers to a text-type, or a group of manuscripts displaying similar readings. As it turns out, these manuscripts by far make up the majority of extant manuscripts, which is why the Majority Text and Byzantine Text are often used as synonyms. There are differences among Byzantine manuscripts, just as there are differences among manuscripts of any other text-type. As was already suggested, see these two resources:

Hodges, Zane Clark, Arthur L. Farstad, and William C. Dunkin. The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text. 2nd ed. Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers, 1985.

The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005, with Morphology. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2006.

Although they do not have a particularly heavy emphasis on the sort of thing it sounds like you are looking for, here are some other Logos titles that I do not think were already mentioned above.

Carson, D. A. The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979.

Comfort, Philip. Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2005.

Wegner, Paul D. A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods & Results. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006.

Widder, Wendy. Textual Criticism. Edited by Douglas Mangum. Lexham Methods Series. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2013.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/895826#Comment_895826

The Text of the New Testament (Kersopp Lake). This is a full discussion of the MSS groups, just a decade after WH. Lake took no prisoners in his analyses. But of course, a century old.

Gives me a place to start - thanks

And thanks to all that have replied.

Over the next few months will review as many of the recomendations as I can.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/895747#Comment_895747

(...) I don't think I could consider this a worthwhile disputation of text-critical principles. It's a cover up for King James only propaganda.

(...) But if a principled discussion of text critical principles and a serious challenge to the current consensus can be found, it would be interesting to examine its claims and potentially a good resource to have in one's library.

((Edited))

After reading this book (twice and starting my third time) I think that asking what version would Jesus use is a valid question.

The book examines different Versions and shows that they can not all be correct. Not by going to the Greek texts but that they disagree with each other in English. The question often asked (in the book) is how many errors can be in a Bible and the Bible still be true?

If you think that Textual Criticism is correct I would highly recommend the two books I suggested at the beginning of this thread and your personal answer to the questions they ask. Many of the KJV Only people do go off the deep end. But I think that these two, while supporting the KJV as the ‘real’ Bible, are trying to be legit.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/899351#Comment_899351

Thanks, David, for your feedback.

Rick Brannan (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/895826#Comment_895826

Rick (Logos) hopefully will chime-in.

The best defense of a majority text (Byzantine priority) view is that of Maurice Robinson, which Denise listed above (the introduction to his 2005 Greek NT). Once you stray outside of him in modern work, you slowly and gradually move down the scale from rigorous and principled (Robinson) to sloppy and whacko.

I think the question of the OP is framed wrong. It isn't a question as to whether "textual criticism" is valid or not. Textual criticism happens with any view of the development of the text of the Bible. There's noting to be "refuted." The question is in which principles one uses when evaluating the text of the Bible. There's textual criticism behind the KJV and behind every other translation. There's more to it as well. I'd say dogmatic adherence to any strain of the textual tradition of the NT is problematic.

As to which version Jesus read? Well, if we ever found that Isaiah scroll mentioned in Luke 4:17, we might have a starting point for the discussion.

Donnie Hale

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/899390#Comment_899390

It isn't a question as to whether "textual criticism" is valid or not. Textual criticism happens with any view of the development of the text of the Bible. There's noting to be "refuted." The question is in which principles one uses when evaluating the text of the Bible.

Thank you for stating this. That was my immediate response to the OP. As soon as you have two manuscripts with the same passage, you have to do textual criticism.

Donnie

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/899390#Comment_899390

Rick, not arguing with the requested chiming!

But I wish indeed your comment (which is correct) was evidenced in the scholarly corpus. It is extremely difficult to locate exactly what supports a given statement. The exact assumptions (since the hard data is very limited).

In geology and paleontology (my other worlds), the assumptions are critical at each point, and are easily accessed, noted as strong/weak etc. In textual criticism, the assumptions are very rarely identified. More often then not, they're glossed over with expressions of 'commonly thought'.

So, there's 'textual criticism' (the desired), and then there's textual criticism (the common practice, ergo Mr Ames' request, I suspect).

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/899397#Comment_899397

There's nothing to be "refuted."

Except that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are indeed the Holy Grail of manuscripts.

And Thanks to Rick and Denise for showing me The New Testament in the original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005, with morphology. (2006). (pp. v–vi). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

"The Byzantine-priority hypothesis thus appears to offer the most plausible scenario for canonical autograph transmission. This hypothesis is far more probable than the speculative originality claimed for modern eclectic patchworks, constructed from scattered fragments, with continually shifting levels of support from existing manuscripts.(7) An historical theory that assumes a generally normal mode of transmission more readily accounts for the expansion and dominance of a single Textform that can be presumed closely to reflect the original autographs. The Byzantine-priority theory presents far fewer difficulties than are found in the alternative solutions proffered by modern eclectic proponents."

Which leads to The Bezan Text of Acts: A Contribution of Discourse Analysis to Textual Criticism (The Library of New Testament Studies) 0th Edition
by Jenny Read-Heimerdinger (Author) But at $260 is out of my price range

(7) "Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, The Bezan Text of Acts: A Contribution of Discourse Analysis to Textual Criticism, JSNTSS 236 (Sheffield: Academic Press, 2002), states, “The current editions of the Greek New Testament … [present] a hypothetical text that has been reconstructed by selecting variant readings from different MSS.… There is no evidence whatsoever that the current text ever existed in the form in which it is edited” ; thus, researchers and search programs “rely for their text on a printed edition whose text does not exist in any extant manuscript and which is reconstituted by textual critics” (64n7)."

As soon as you have two manuscripts with the same passage, you have to do textual criticism.

But what if the ‘rules’ of textual criticism are wrong? Is the hardest reading the most likely one to be the true reading? Is the oldest text the best or did it survive because it was seen as so bad back in 350 AD that no one used it so it did not get worn out like all the good ones?

But thanks to you and all the others – this thread got me to get three new books and got me reading others already in my library.

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/899488#Comment_899488

Except that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are indeed the Holy Grail of manuscripts.

I am not aware that any serious scholars would recognize this as their position. They are, indeed, witnesses to the state of the text at a particular time and place. Many would say they are quite important witnesses - especially where they have been confirmed by even earlier papyri. Just because they are an important resource worth consulting does not mean they are the Holy Grail that cannot be questioned.

But what if the ‘rules’ of textual criticism are wrong? Is the hardest reading the most likely one to be the true reading? Is the oldest text the best or did it survive because it was seen as so bad back in 350 AD that no one used it so it did not get worn out like all the good ones?

"Modern" text criticism, as I was taught it, is based on these questions. You cannot just assume the oldest is "right." You cannot just assume that the hardest reading (which can be gibberish) is "right." But also you cannot assume that a reading that is only documented a thousand years after it was written is "right."

Instead you are eclectic in weighing these "rules" or concerns, hopefully in a balanced way to arrive at a text from which we can work. In fact it is the actual text critics that most challenge how Nestle-Aland has become almost the new Received Text. They insist that you instead have to do your own homework, so to speak.

Rick Brannan (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/899488#Comment_899488

There's nothing to be "refuted."

Except that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are indeed the Holy Grail of manuscripts.

You'll also notice that I said:

I'd say dogmatic adherence to any strain of the textual tradition of the NT is problematic.

The text (not the apparatus) of Tischendorf's massive eighth edition is rightly criticized for being too enamored with Sinaiticus. But you can't just throw away these old manuscripts.

But what if the ‘rules’ of textual criticism are wrong?

If you understand them as "rules" you're understanding them wrongly. Principles. Guidelines. But not hard and fast rules. As rules, they contradict each other and make no sense (what if the longer reading is the harder one and it's from an "older" text?)

No, these (as well as full review of internal and external evidence) are all tools used to determine which available variation unit best explains the rise of the others. That really is the job of the textual critic and the only methodology that makes sense. You can't just blindly prefer one reading based on its presence in a particular manuscript or tradition (Byzantine, 'Alexandrian', or otherwise), you must also be able to explain the variations in light of what you consider to be the proper reading.

Back to Denise: Have you read Gunther Zuntz' "Text of the Epistles: Disposition on the Corpus Paulinum"? Wipf and Stock used to publish a decently priced reprint. You should check it out if you haven't.

Ronald Quick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/899535#Comment_899535

I was wondering where "The King James Version Debate" by Carson fits into this discussion. I haven't read it or any of the other resources mentioned, but this is a topic that interests me.

Lew Worthington

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/899535#Comment_899535

No, these (as well as full review of internal and external evidence) are all tools used to determine which available variation unit best explains the rise of the others. That really is the job of the textual critic and the only methodology that makes sense. You can't just blindly prefer one reading based on its presence in a particular manuscript or tradition (Byzantine, 'Alexandrian', or otherwise), you must also be able to explain the variations in light of what you consider to be the proper reading.

Exactly, and well said. Yet, even in these cases, there is still always a reasonable probability that the reading that best explains all variations does not, in fact, represent that autographs. This, in itself, has several implications, some of which are

1. We should always regard what we consider the best reading with some level of humility and healthy suspicion; therefore,

2. We can't represent the task of the textual critic as being trying to recover the autographs' texts. Not only is it impossible, but it is also impossible to verify.

3. Our humility and healthy suspicion should be applied not only to the readings we come up with, but also to the theory and methods we apply.

All of this gives a more nuanced meaning to the phrase, "best reading".

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/899556#Comment_899556

I was wondering where "The King James Version Debate" by Carson fits into this discussion. I haven't read it or any of the other resources mentioned, but this is a topic that interests me.

He is on the opposite side from me but welcome to the party.

There are some very good people on the subject here listing some very good resouces.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/899535#Comment_899535

Back to Denise: Have you read Gunther Zuntz' "Text of the Epistles: Disposition on the Corpus Paulinum"? Wipf and Stock used to publish a decently priced reprint. You should check it out if you haven't.

Thank, you, Rick. I ordered it!

https://www.amazon.com/Text-Epistles-Disquisition-Paulinum-Schweich/dp/1556353723

Coincidentally, I was investigating another 1940's volume .... almost a pair .... 'Marcion and the New Testament' by John Knox, an SMU professor. Similarly, works off of P46.

https://www.amazon.com/Marcion-New-Testament-John-Knox/dp/0404161839

That came from reading my present cancelled prepub on Mark and the patristic fathers (a good Kindle book), and the author(s) sliding over Acts from 'Luke' one too many times.

https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Margins-Reception-Second-Century-ebook/dp/B00S5J4M84 This started out $50+ (kindle!), then dropped to mid-$20's, and now $7!

Logos is a wonderworld of detective stories.

For anyone else:

https://www.amazon.com/Prepositions-Theology-Greek-New-Testament-ebook/dp/B06Y2KGBY4 This is a Kindle prepub. My favorite subject. My neural nets can change authorship just by changing the greek prepositions. Magic. Murray Harris in Logos: https://www.logos.com/product/3459/the-second-epistle-to-the-corinthians