Textual Criticism

It has been a year or so since the last discussion on textual criticism text books

There are two that seem to be 'major' works on the subject that are not currently in my library
Why should I add them when I already have about twenty others?

The Text of the New Testament

http://www.logos.com/product/24069/the-text-of-the-new-testament

Principles of Textual Criticism

http://www.logos.com/product/6472/principles-of-textual-criticism

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

NB.Mick

It has been a year or so since the last discussion on textual criticism text books

There are two that seem to be 'major' works on the subject that are not currently in my library
Why should I add them when I already have about twenty others?

The Text of the New Testament

http://www.logos.com/product/24069/the-text-of-the-new-testament

Principles of Textual Criticism

http://www.logos.com/product/6472/principles-of-textual-criticism

(sorry, no comment, just wanting to make your second link clickable - did so by inserting a space after it)

DMB

Given that you already have more recent ones, these are only good if you're interested in the history of the various arguments on the text.

I, myself, like Kirsopp; he's very transparent concerning the reasoning.

But again, there's been a lot of water under the bridge since then. I really wish Logos would add more modern texts on both the OT and NT, especially some more technical in nature. Kind of repeating prior threads, but NA28 is really likely to alter the whole approach to the underlying texts, and user access as well.

And 'we' have trouble getting the NA28 apparatus through the pre-pub hopper. Go figure.

James C.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/469152#Comment_469152

I agree with DMB. Newer works are to be desired over most of the older works.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/469160#Comment_469160

I'm not the first to say it, nor is this my first time saying it...but the older vs. newer resources debate simply isn't a black-and-white, one-is-better-than-the-other kind of issue. Yes, newer things can present info that has been gathered since older resources were published, but anyone who is an aficionado of 19th & early 20th century resources will know that many cogent insights from that generation have inexplicably fallen from the radar screen, and quite often is isn't because something "newer and better" has come along. Rather it is a function a the distance of time bundled with a common disposition that favors the new. I have uncovered many gems in the "older" Classic Commentaries that Logos released last year, things which I have never heard mentioned in newer and better known options.

James C.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/469169#Comment_469169

I'm not the first to say it, nor is this my first time saying it...but the older vs. newer resources debate simply isn't a black-and-white, one-is-better-than-the-other kind of issue. Yes, newer things can present info that has been gathered since older resources were published, but anyone who is an aficionado of 19th & early 20th century resources will know that many cogent insights from that generation have inexplicably fallen from the radar screen, and quite often is isn't because something "newer and better" has come along. Rather it is a function a the distance of time bundled with a common disposition that favors the new. I have uncovered many gems in the "older" Classic Commentaries that Logos released last year, things which I have never heard mentioned in newer and better known options.

I agree that just because something is old doesn’t mean it’s not useful or insightful (Like many older commentaries) but in these kinds of specialized areas the newer research and newer discoveries of things like manuscripts do make older materials not as useful. Just like in the area of biblical archeology. There may be a lot of great things in older books and journals but they become outdated and of little use with new discoveries and research.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/469180#Comment_469180

I'm not the first to say it, nor is this my first time saying it...but the older vs. newer resources debate simply isn't a black-and-white

I agree that just because something is old doesn’t mean it’s not useful or insightful (Like many older commentaries) but in these kinds of specialized areas the newer research and newer discoveries of things like manuscripts do make older materials not as useful. Just like in the area of biblical archeology. There may be a lot of great things in older books and journals but they become outdated and of little use with new discoveries and research.

"but they become outdated and of little use with new discoveries and research"

But [My 2 cents] only if the new research is properly done. If the current researchers are not just refuting the old so they can sell their books. [A book that just said 'Wow those old ones really had their act together' would not get many sales]

The problem with manuscripts is that a 11 th century one maybe an exact copy of a 6 th that might be an exact copy of 2 ed that was an exact copy of the original. [Did I say might be often enough?] and because it is the only one [known] with certain 'weird' wordings it gets rejected as an 11 th century fake!

Donnie Hale

It has been a year or so since the last discussion on textual criticism text books

This recent thread discussed textual criticism issues to a reasonable degree:

http://community.logos.com/forums/t/66615.aspx

Donnie

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/469230#Comment_469230

This recent thread discussed textual criticism issues to a reasonable degree:

Missed that one: When they start talking about "apparatus" my eyes start to glass over but per your comment there on "pictures (facsimile ?) of the actual manuscripts but rather a "transcription"" I thought that was what was in the apparatus - the transcription of every needed manuscript to show where they got the text from. [[I also get lost when they site an author rather than the resource]]

The advantage of the facsimile is that you get to see the 'original' as in did they read it correctly? Are those two letters a word or an abbreviation? In a transcription the transcriber decided and that is what gets printed. [[I have heard about things like letters that look like O but then 'they' wonder if the cross bar faded]] [Something like Ο or Θ then, not knowing Greek, I am totally lost] Thus I stick with the textbooks and try to figure out if the author knows what they are talking about or are they just tiring to pull the wool over my eyes.

Rick Brannan (Logos)

One resource that may be overlooked because of the generic title is Hort's "Introduction to the New Testament in Greek"

http://www.logos.com/product/28121/introduction-to-the-new-testament-in-the-original-greek

This is essentially Hort's manifesto for why they did what they did with the Westcott-Hort Greek NT. Nobody since has ever laid out what they did in the (oft-times excruciating) detail that Hort does here.

This is not an easy read, but it is very informative. He even talks about orthography. He talks about Jesus Christ vs. Christ Jesus. He talks about the formatting of the print (why do some sentences start with uppercase? Why some with allcaps?)

He also talks about the basic theories they used, their view on text-types, and all sorts of stuff.

Again, not an easy read, but worth it if one really wants to dig in to understanding text-critical principles behind their edition.

I say it isn't easy because Hort's style is more documentary (here's what we did) than explanatory (here's why we did it). There is explanation, but it is in the context of documentation.

Hort's book was originally part of the Biblical Languages: Reference Grammars collection (here: http://www.logos.com/product/4679/biblical-languages-reference-grammars-and-introductions) but has since been split out.

Hope it helps.

Donnie Hale

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/469238#Comment_469238

Thus I stick with the textbooks

Right now I'm working my way through Comfort's "Encountering the Manuscripts" (dead tree format). So far, I'd say it's well worth reading. Just in the first couple of chapters it clears up some misconceptions about early NT Greek manuscripts.

Donnie

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/469356#Comment_469356

Thus I stick with the textbooks

Right now I'm working my way through Comfort's "Encountering the Manuscripts" (dead tree format). So far, I'd say it's well worth reading. Just in the first couple of chapters it clears up some misconceptions about early NT Greek manuscripts.

Donnie

I was a skeptic before coming to Jesus and He has left me still a skeptic. That is I question everything. [[and that sometimes helps me find deeper meanings but also can get me off the track]]. So that got me to ask how critical are you reading "Encountering the Manuscripts?

Example one:
"Paul realized that his publishing efforts were limited by space and time—he could only be in one locality at one time. Thus, Paul expanded his publishing efforts by sending out coworkers with the gospel and by publishing encyclical epistles,"

Philip Comfort, Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism, 3 (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2005).

Yes, Paul DID send out coworkers but did Paul think "that his publishing efforts were limited by space and time" or did he just do as his mentor [Jesus] did in sending out others? And were all of the letters deliberate or just the replies to letters that he received? [[Romans, Philemon and the pastoral letters seem to have been deliberate but were all of the others deliberate or just replies?]] That is HOW did Philip Comfort get into the mind of Paul? Or is he just coming up with a good explanation and telling a good story that he presents as FACT.

Example two:
"The apostles Peter and John also took advantage of the written medium to publish their accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings, as well as their teachings about the Christian life. As with Paul, they first published the kerygma via oral proclamation. But later in life, each of these eminent apostles published written accounts of Jesus’ ministry"

Philip Comfort, Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism, 3 (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2005).

What proof? None stated. Just given as FACT!
Some footnotes on definitions but nothing backing up his 'claim'. [[The author does not site other works that have that make the same claims - and we have not yet gotten into the HARD stuff]]
Is the author saying "Just trust me I am always right!"
Stating that Peter and John "took advantage of the written medium" implies that they did it deliberately. That they, at some time, deliberately thought that 'If I don't leave a written record this will be lost'.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/469709#Comment_469709

Yep. I'm a skeptic too. Not relative to God or Jesus, but rather all the 'earthlings' who own time-machines and are most often an ecclesiastical leader. As a result of their special abilities and 'gnosis', are able to dig deep into God, Jesus and Paul's minds for factual statements.

Such statements wouldn't pass muster for your spouse's mind today (unless you'd like a major 'discussion' from them), much less religious leaders 2000 years ago.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/469356#Comment_469356

Right now I'm working my way through Comfort's "Encountering the Manuscripts" (dead tree format).

Hope that I did not scare you away - was just pointing out assumptions made.

Donnie Hale

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/469804#Comment_469804

Hope that I did not scare you away - was just pointing out assumptions made

It will take a lot more than that to scare me away.

I noticed statements like that and simply took them as someone offering a reasonable explanation which fits what we do know. He might have used softer wording to indicate that we don't know those things for sure.

My positive comments were based on the factual data about the manuscripts, etc. Other resources I've read on these topics have been significantly less exhaustive. So I'm thankful to have something that collects so much data and baseline information in one place.

Donnie

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/469885#Comment_469885

Hope that I did not scare you away - was just pointing out assumptions made

It will take a lot more than that to scare me away.

I will back off after pointing one statement he makes on page 8

"Some scholars think these contemporaries were the Ephesian elders. (John resided in Ephesus in his later years.)"

He references:
"There is consensus among scholars that John lived in Ephesus for a number of years in his later life."
David A. Case and David W. Holdren, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude: A Commentary for Bible Students, 210 (Indianapolis, IN: Wesleyan Publishing House, 2006).

But other resources state that there may have been 2 Johns at Ephesus

"The debate over which “old” John wrote the second and third epistles is not a recent debate. Gerald Bray reminds us that it was a matter of controversy in the early Church."3

3 Gerald Bray, ed. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, vol. XI (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 231. Don't have in Logos

David A. Case and David W. Holdren, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude: A Commentary for Bible Students, 325-26 (Indianapolis, IN: Wesleyan Publishing House, 2006).

Question: if on page 8 he cannot prove his statement [What John] will he be able to elsewhere?
Like I said: Is the author saying "Just trust me I am always right!" or does he prove his points?

Welcome to Textual Criticism!

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/469890#Comment_469890

Later in the book [Encountering the Manuscripts] I found " Modern advocates of the superiority of the TR over other text types are Hodges and Farstad, who produced The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text. " It is in Logos The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, with Apparatus Gives a different "slant" http://www.logos.com/product/2390/the-greek-new-testament-according-to-the-majority-text-with-apparatus

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/470440#Comment_470440

I hope Comfort didn't really say H&F advocated the TR as superior? I don't think forum guidelines allow repeating what Aland said about H&F. "Close your ears, ByzGirl!"

But the H&F do have a good quote, talking about NA26/UBS6 (my underlines), "The text which results from dependence on such manuscripts as these may fairly be described as Egyptian. Its existence in early times outside of Egypt is unproved."

I paste little ancient Egyptian flags on our ESVs at church.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/470452#Comment_470452

I paste little ancient Egyptian flags on our ESVs at church.

LOL. [:D]

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/470452#Comment_470452

I hope Comfort didn't really say H&F advocated the TR as superior? I don't think forum guidelines allow repeating what Aland said about H&F. "Close your ears, ByzGirl!"

But the H&F do have a good quote, talking about NA26/UBS6 (my underlines), "The text which results from dependence on such manuscripts as these may fairly be described as Egyptian. Its existence in early times outside of Egypt is unproved."

I paste little ancient Egyptian flags on our ESVs at church.

Found Page viii thanks. Comfort only pointed out H&F supported the TR and tries to make TR supporters jump though hoops while his side gets a free ride.

Other then listing what books to read and, perhaps, stating who is on what side might just get us over the line. [[And some of them do not like the ones on the other side - have read some of the books from the 1880s - Name calling in place of scholarship!] ]

But maybe the first time around [as in 285 bc] the Egyptians got it right.

Thank You everyone. I have added several items to my T. C. collection. Three new resources and several that were already in my Library that had not been added to the collection.

Donnie Hale

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/470440#Comment_470440

Gives a different "slant" http://www.logos.com/product/2390/the-greek-new-testament-according-to-the-majority-text-with-apparatus

I do have this and refer to it with some regularity, mostly out of curiousity.

Wallace's brief comments on the release of NA28 do bear a bit on "majority text" thinking.

http://danielbwallace.com/2012/12/17/259/

Donnie

Donnie Hale

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/470452#Comment_470452

"The text which results from dependence on such manuscripts as these may fairly be described as Egyptian. Its existence in early times outside of Egypt is unproved."

I guess that raises the question of what would constitute proof. If I weren't so ridiculously busy this week, I'd spend some time tonight looking into this assertion.

Donnie

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/470562#Comment_470562

I do have this and refer to it with some regularity, mostly out of curiousity.

Wallace's brief comments on the release of NA28 do bear a bit on "majority text" thinking.

Found one statement interesting: "Perhaps the most controversial reading in the text of NA28 is found in 2 Peter 3.10: οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται. This is not found in any Greek witnesses."

Don't know how deep you are into the two sides of the Textual Criticism debate. One side is the NA/UBS side - the other is the Majority / Byzantine. To say that there is "prejudice against" is a mild understatement [[All-out war might sometime be closer]]

When reading the 'According to the Majority Text' you might want to start over and forget everything that the NA/UBS side told you and just see if the arguments make sense. [[Without referring to the arguments of the other side, without even thinking what the other side has said]]

The statement is in the Introduction: page viii at the end of paragraph three.

Donnie Hale

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/470601#Comment_470601

Don't know how deep you are into the two sides of the Textual Criticism debate. One side is the NA/UBS side - the other is the Majority / Byzantine.

I'm very deeply into it - it's the primary reason I'm doing all this reading and research. Wallace has what I think is the clincher argument in favor of the critical texts in a journal article which Logos has in one of its journals collections. I've read that MT appendix and Wallace's article multiple times each. Wallace specifically addresses that appendix article in the 2005 (I think?) MT. I'll try to post the details when I can look it up.

BTW, I don't recall if this resource has been mentioned yet or not:

http://www.logos.com/product/7492/the-text-of-the-new-testament-in-contemporary-research

It starts out at a level I can follow, but after 3 - 4 essays it's citing large blocks of Syriac and other languages I don't know.

Donnie

Donnie Hale

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/470633#Comment_470633

Wallace has what I think is the clincher argument in favor of the critical texts in a journal article which Logos has in one of its journals collections.

"The Majority-Text Theory: History, Methods, and Critique" Journal of Evangelical Theological Society Volume 37, issue 2.

Donnie

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/470655#Comment_470655

True enough (the NT text being a theory).

Donnie Hale

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/470664#Comment_470664

True enough (the NT text being a theory).

Can't figure out if you mistyped "MT" (would seem doubtful for you) or if you're trying to not so subtly make a bigger point about the NT.

Donnie

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/470655#Comment_470655

Wallace has what I think is the clincher argument in favor of the critical texts in a journal article which Logos has in one of its journals collections.

"The Majority-Text Theory: History, Methods, and Critique" Journal of Evangelical Theological Society Volume 37, issue 2.

[[Put on PRO MT HAT]] [[I also have a pro NA/UBS hat]]
The entire argument comes down to: Find one Byzantine Manuscript of 109 ad and the MT wins.

And they are very very sure that the MT people burned it because it was worn out, or the Crusades burned it, or it was burned because it was in Greek, or the weather got it, or [my pet pro MT theory] maybe some critical text scholar got his hands on it and burned it just to protect his paycheck [he is not going to get paid if the KJV is the only ''true Bible'' - it is Public Domain - except in England].

Also they, the critical text scholars, demand that the MT scholar disprove all of the ideas of the critical text scholars. But then they just make fun of the ideas of the MT scholars. Interesting work but it clearly states that finding just one Byzantine Manuscript of 109 ad and the MT wins. [[And they will spend trillions to cast doubt on it - calling it a fake and worse]]

Thanks for the pointer - made an interesting evening's reading.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/470673#Comment_470673

Yes ... I was subtly commenting on Wallace. If I'm not mistaken (and I often am), the MT in all of it various forms remains the 'NT' for a majority of Christians, especially if you go into all the various language translations.

We probably ought to cease and desist on using 'MT' since that usually refers to the OT, in contrast to the LXX. Or we could just keep everyone on their MT toes!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/469709#Comment_469709

Actually, you are right. The Apostle Peter did not write a squat. He was illiterate as a fisherman. For further inquiry one should consult Bart Ehrman's "Forgery and Counterforgery" Oxford University Press, 2013.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/470744#Comment_470744

If I'm not mistaken (and I often am), the MT in all of it various forms remains the 'NT' for a majority of Christians, especially if you go into all the various language translations.

That would surprise me.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/471033#Comment_471033

Not sure your point, but if you're referring to the Vulgate-group (latin), then I'm very obviously wrong. The MT-group would be next.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/470784#Comment_470784

The Apostle Peter did not write a squat. He was illiterate as a fisherman.

If the Holy Sprint could give him the gift of Languages could he also have been given the gift of writing?

Yes, he was an illiterate fisherman but then one day he heard someone ask him 'come, follow me'. Did he stay an illiterate fisherman?

I am sorry, I forgot, supernatural events get ignored in the scientific / scholarly community. To be considered a scholarly work they have to get rid of all that supernatural 'stuff'.

Beloved Amodeo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/471091#Comment_471091

I come late to this discussion, but I would like to thank all participants for their views and recommendations. I appreciate your views brightly because I had no exposure to this interesting and vital area of scholarship. Which brings to light the reliability of the text we receive to be the record of our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ of God.

In my encounter with your views I have been stimulated to do my own search for useful resources. In that matter I have come upon a resource that was not mentioned but appears to have great merit both in its breadth and currency. I would be very interested with your feedback. It is not unfortunately offered by Logos. I bought it in kindle format and am very pleased with it. Ownership allows you the right to high quality reproductions on the website mentioned in the resource.

The resource is authored by David C. Parker and the title is An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and their Texts and the Amazon link is here: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_pg_2?rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Adavid+c+parker&page=2&d=1&keywords=david+c+parker&ie=UTF8&qid=1363312475

David Ames

Lexham Methods Series (4 vols.) $249.95

http://www.logos.com/product/26934/lexham-methods-series

Out of my price range!

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/472351#Comment_472351

Lexham Methods Series (4 vols.) $249.95

http://www.logos.com/product/26934/lexham-methods-series

Out of my price range!

I'm looking forward to drinking out of the golden goblet that comes with each one of these volumes!! [Y]

[^o)]