Books on Textual Criticism

[John of Japan]

Would it not be better to have a translation based off the MT instead of trying to correct
the TR?

Perhaps.

 

[JesusFan]

Perhaps.

Too bad that the HCSB did not stay as originally intended, as was at first to be based off the MT, but when the general editor died, they switched over to the CT!

 

[John of Japan]

I had thought Edward Hills was a KJV/TR advocate, not a Byzantine.

I have never seen Burgon refuted by anyone. They have to either ignore him or say something not flattering about him. No opponents ever really addresses him. Probably because he was in the main right and correct.

A friend has pointed out to me that Westcott and Hort, in the "Notes on Select Readings" in their Vol. 2, have a refutation of over 20 pages of Burgon's book on the longer ending of Mark. I had forgotten about that, though I have read Burgon's and another book on the longer ending, which I'll review later.

My friend also points out that surely the very title of the other book by Hills makes him KJVO--The King James Version Defended. He has a point. You can find a pdf of this book here: https://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/VPP/TheKingJamesVersionDefended.pdf

 

[JesusFan]

A friend has pointed out to me that Westcott and Hort, in the "Notes on Select Readings" in their Vol. 2, have a refutation of over 20 pages of Burgon's book on the longer ending of Mark. I had forgotten about that, though I have read Burgon's and another book on the longer ending, which I'll review later.

My friend also points out that surely the very title of the other book by Hills makes him KJVO--The King James Version Defended. He has a point. You can find a pdf of this book here: https://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/VPP/TheKingJamesVersionDefended.pdf

He still seems to be Kjvo to me!

 

[37818]

He still seems to be Kjvo to me!

Do you have a citation by him to support that?

 

[John of Japan]

Here are a couple from the 1950's-1960's.

Vincent Taylor, The Text of the New Testament, 2nd ed. London: MacMillan and Co. Ltd., 1963.

This is a general guide to textual criticism by a British scholar, and probably served as a beginning textbook. It gives a good explanation of the types of manuscripts. Then it describes the various early versions (translations, then the patristics (church fathers) and other early quotes, then the printed Greek NTs. It then goes into scholars and their theories: Westcott and Hort, then Streeter (author of The Four Gospels: A Study in Origins). It finishes up with a chapter on further developments, then "Notes on Select Readings."

There is a Scripture index, and then one proper names. That always bugs me. Do a complete index, people! But all in all, this is a helpful little book (107 pages).

 

[John of Japan]

F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments, 3rd ed. Westwood, NJ: Revell, 1963.

This is a classic. It is actually a general guide to the transmission of the OT and NT, so it fits in the apologetics realm. However, it has a good deal of information about textual criticism, also, especially in Chapter XIV, "The Text of the New Testament."

For anyone who is interested by doesn't know how to get started, it is probably the best book around. It discusses the languages, canon, OT text, NT text, translations such as the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, all the way up to the English Bible. A good read!

 

[RipponRedeaux]

F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments, 3rd ed. Westwood, NJ: Revell, 1963.

This is a classic. It is actually a general guide to the transmission of the OT and NT, so it fits in the apologetics realm. However, it has a good deal of information about textual criticism, also, especially in Chapter XIV, "The Text of the New Testament."

For anyone who is interested by doesn't know how to get started, it is probably the best book around. It discusses the languages, canon, OT text, NT text, translations such as the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, all the way up to the English Bible. A good read!

I used to have that book of his. It's probably his most well-known work. I have only about a half dozen of F.F. Bruce books now. The one that comes closest to TBATP is The Canon Of Scripture, though it's not about textual criticism as such.

My main go-to book is The Early Text Of The New Testament edited by Charles E. Hill and Michael J. Kruger.

Next in order of importance is How We Got The New Testament : Text, Transmission, Translation by Stanley E. Porter, Craig Evans and Lee McDonald. Though it doesn't specify textual criticism in the title, it deals with the subject.

Fundamentals Of New Testament Textual Criticism by Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts. It's a handy-dandy books of about 200 pages that's suitable for a layperson like myself.

Behind The Bible : A Primer On Textual Criticism by Jeffrey D. Johnson. It's a concise book of 111 pages --barely more than a booklet. But it packs a lot in those 100 plus pages. It's very readable and informative.

 

[John of Japan]

I used to have that book of his. It's probably his most well-known work. I have only about a half dozen of F.F. Bruce books now. The one that comes closest to TBATP is The Canon Of Scripture, though it's not about textual criticism as such.

My main go-to book is The Early Text Of The New Testament edited by Charles E. Hill and Michael J. Kruger.

Next in order of importance is How We Got The New Testament : Text, Transmission, Translation by Stanley E. Porter, Craig Evans and Lee McDonald. Though it doesn't specify textual criticism in the title, it deals with the subject.

Fundamentals Of New Testament Textual Criticism by Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts. It's a handy-dandy books of about 200 pages that's suitable for a layperson like myself.

Behind The Bible : A Primer On Textual Criticism by Jeffrey D. Johnson. It's a concise book of 111 pages --barely more than a booklet. But it packs a lot in those 100 plus pages. It's very readable and informative.

Helpful post. Thank you.

 

[John of Japan]

Here are two more basic books.

J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction to Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964). There is a revised edition from 1993, which I never bought.

This is a well-written basic book of 130 pages, easy to read. It is from the viewpoint of the critical text, giving a fairly good view of Westcott and Hort's work in Chapter 6, starting out with "The textual theory of W-H underlies virtually all subsequent work in N.T. textual criticism" (p. 78). I'm sure the revision deals with changes in the position, eclectic methods, etc.

The book assumes that the Byzantine position is dead, discussing briefly Burgon and Miller, concluding, "With the death of Burgon and Miller serious scholarly support of the T.R. virtually ceased" (p. 82). Unfortunately for this view, after this Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad brought out The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, then Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont brought out The New Testament in the Original Greek, Byzantine Textform, and authors such as Wilbur Pickering, Harry Sturz, and Jacob van Bruggen did their work. Meanwhile, Maurice Robinson's essays on Byzantine Priority have done a great job in refuting various critical text canons.

Anyone have the revised edition of this one?

 

[John of Japan]

David Alan Black, New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994.

This little book is only 50 pages, plus 21 pages of appendixes, but it is quite useful in a couple of ways. First of all, it briefly describes the current positions on NT textual criticism on pp. 36-40: Radical Eclecticism (G. D. Kilpatrick, J. K. Elliot), Reasoned Eclecticism (B. M. Metzger, K. Aland), Reasoned Conservatism (H. A. Sturz), and Radical Conservatism (Z. Hodges, A. Farstad; this was before the Byzantine Textform of Robinson & Pierpont was published).

It also gives some examples of textual criticism for the student to work through, so that the reader gets a taste of what real textual criticism is. I recommend Dr. Black's writings; he is a good scholar and the PhD mentor of another good scholar (my son).

 

[John of Japan]

Gordon H. Clark, Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism. Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation, 1986.

This is a curious little book of 49 pages by a well-known scholar who, nonetheless, was not a scholar of Greek or textual criticism. Clark (1902-1985), was a professor of philosophy and apologetics at Butler U., a well known Calvinist, and a prolific author.

He was essentially a defender of the TR. He closes the book with, "If we want to get closer to the very words of God, we must pay attention to Hodges, Farstad, Pickering, the The New King James Version" (p. 49).

 

[Deacon]

Well we are into books written in the late twentieth century.
Here’s an odd one from my collection.

The Living Text of the Gospels by D. C. Parker, University of Birmingham, Cambridge University Press. 1997. 224 pages

I enjoy the study of the Old Testament. Its textual history is ancient and mysterious. When teaching an extended passage or a whole book, discussions about different textual traditions are not often discussed, we simply use the text as it is before us. I’ve often wondered about how this approach might apply to the text of the New Testament.

David C. Parker begins to put flesh to this thought.

David Parker‘s book approaches New Testament textual criticism as “a living text”, the text as a results becomes more fluid/less rigidly structured and open to changes both in its transmission, its translation and its interpretation; tradition plays a prominent role.
Parker takes a non-conservative, perhaps Barthian position on inerrancy, broader than what most Baptists believe.
As such, you may not agree with his conclusions but his excellent step-by-step analysis of the theory, the materials and the practice of textual criticism makes this book worth reading, if for nothing else to simply to familiarize oneself with the application of the process. In the book Parker examines key passages to lead you to his final conclusion: the chapters include an examination of The Lord’s Prayer, sayings on marriage and divorce, the story of the woman taken in adultery, the endings of Mark’s Gospel, and others.

Parker begins his first chapter with an example showing how textual criticism is performed in our everyday life.

“Everyone who reads the newspaper is expert in textual
criticism, in coping with those distctive errors of omission and
displaced lines, and jumbling of letrset. This sophisticated process
of recognizing nonsense and picking up the sense is so natural to us
the classical scholars of ancient Alexandria or the Benedictines of
that we perform without thinking, unaware of our kinship with
St Maur. Textual criticism is not an arcane science. It belongs to all
human communication.
The matter will become a little more complicated when we apply our critical facilities to another language than our own, in a form spoken two millennia since.”p1​

In his chapter on the endings of Mark, Parker mentions John Burgon.

“Along with the story of the woman take an adult in adultery, the ending of Mark is one of the more substantial blocks of material where scientific textual criticism has produced a markedly different text from the Received Text. This bulk is perhaps one reason why it has been such a center for debate on the issue. But there are two further reasons. One is historical. The conservative opposition to Westcott and Hort was most trenchantly, indeed unpleasantly, expressed by the Dean of Chichester, Burgon, who also supported the Authorised Version and the Received Text against the Revised Version and Westcott and Hort in The Revision Revised, collected all the evidence he could muster to support his case.” …​

Needless to say, Parker is not a fan of Burgon; regarding an argument Burgon makes that Papias knew the long ending of Mark, he simply states, “There is no evidence here to support Burgon’s claim.” p.139.

Concerning the endings of Mark, he writes, “This passage beyond almost any other gives the lie to the idea that the variants of the manuscripts of the New Testament are insignificant and have no substantial effect on the text. The remainder of this chapter will therefore be devoted to considering the implications of the materials we have been studying.” p. 141.​

Parker’s concludes “…this book has not been concerned with a process that is now ended. Scholars continue to discover fresh materials and to revise the text of the Gospels; translators provide fresh renderings, commentators new interpretations, and theologians new ideas. We have seen how much the printed text has changed since 1516, and have wondered what changes will be brought by the electronic text. Today’s influences on the text of the Gospels are not those of the early centuries, but they may prove equally powerful. The text of the Gospels remains a living text.” p. 213.

Rob

 

[John of Japan]

J. Harold Greenlee, Scribes, Scrolls, & Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985.

This second book by Greenlee appears to appeal to college students, perhaps to be used as a supplementary textbook. The subtitle is, "A Student's Guide to New Testament Textual Criticism. So it is written on a lower level, with only 97 pages and no appendixes.

We have chapters such as:
1. What Ancient Books Looked Like
2. How Ancient Manuscripts Were Written
5. The New Testament Meets the Printing Press
etc.

All in all it is a good book to get started with. I remember reading it many years ago and liking it.

 

[Conan]

Well we are into books written in the late twentieth century.
Here’s an odd one from my collection.

The Living Text of the Gospels by D. C. Parker, University of Birmingham, Cambridge University Press. 1997. 224 pages

I enjoy the study of the Old Testament. Its textual history is ancient and mysterious. When teaching an extended passage or a whole book, discussions about different textual traditions are not often discussed, we simply use the text as it is before us. I’ve often wondered about how this approach might apply to the text of the New Testament.

David C. Parker begins to put flesh to this thought.

David Parker‘s book approaches New Testament textual criticism as “a living text”, the text as a results becomes more fluid/less rigidly structured and open to changes both in its transmission, its translation and its interpretation; tradition plays a prominent role.
Parker takes a non-conservative, perhaps Barthian position on inerrancy, broader than what most Baptists believe.
As such, you may not agree with his conclusions but his excellent step-by-step analysis of the theory, the materials and the practice of textual criticism makes this book worth reading, if for nothing else to simply to familiarize oneself with the application of the process. In the book Parker examines key passages to lead you to his final conclusion: the chapters include an examination of The Lord’s Prayer, sayings on marriage and divorce, the story of the woman taken in adultery, the endings of Mark’s Gospel, and others.

Parker begins his first chapter with an example showing how textual criticism is performed in our everyday life.

“Everyone who reads the newspaper is expert in textual
criticism, in coping with those distctive errors of omission and
displaced lines, and jumbling of letrset. This sophisticated process
of recognizing nonsense and picking up the sense is so natural to us
the classical scholars of ancient Alexandria or the Benedictines of
that we perform without thinking, unaware of our kinship with
St Maur. Textual criticism is not an arcane science. It belongs to all
human communication.
The matter will become a little more complicated when we apply our critical facilities to another language than our own, in a form spoken two millennia since.”p1​

In his chapter on the endings of Mark, Parker mentions John Burgon.

“Along with the story of the woman take an adult in adultery, the ending of Mark is one of the more substantial blocks of material where scientific textual criticism has produced a markedly different text from the Received Text. This bulk is perhaps one reason why it has been such a center for debate on the issue. But there are two further reasons. One is historical. The conservative opposition to Westcott and Hort was most trenchantly, indeed unpleasantly, expressed by the Dean of Chichester, Burgon, who also supported the Authorised Version and the Received Text against the Revised Version and Westcott and Hort in The Revision Revised, collected all the evidence he could muster to support his case.” …​

Needless to say, Parker is not a fan of Burgon; regarding an argument Burgon makes that Papias knew the long ending of Mark, he simply states, “There is no evidence here to support Burgon’s claim.” p.139.

Concerning the endings of Mark, he writes, “This passage beyond almost any other gives the lie to the idea that the variants of the manuscripts of the New Testament are insignificant and have no substantial effect on the text. The remainder of this chapter will therefore be devoted to considering the implications of the materials we have been studying.” p. 141.​

Parker’s concludes “…this book has not been concerned with a process that is now ended. Scholars continue to discover fresh materials and to revise the text of the Gospels; translators provide fresh renderings, commentators new interpretations, and theologians new ideas. We have seen how much the printed text has changed since 1516, and have wondered what changes will be brought by the electronic text. Today’s influences on the text of the Gospels are not those of the early centuries, but they may prove equally powerful. The text of the Gospels remains a living text.” p. 213.

Rob

Everyone intrested in Textual Criticism should read John W Burgon, no matter what. He points out many flaws in Westcott and Hort and totally exposes their errors. Parker doesnt anwser Burgon, and Parkers comments like Metzgers hopes people will not read Burgon for themselves.

Burgon was all totally for revising both the King James Version and certainly the Textus Receptus. He acknowledged both goals, but when he found out about the way that Westcott and Hort's methods were being used he opposed them and wrote exposing the great flaws in their theories.

When scholars dismiss him instead of engaging him they hope people will not read him, even after 100 years.

 

[John of Japan]

Bruce Manning Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford, 1968.
Bruce Manning Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament, 4th ed. New York: Oxford, 2005.

This is very informative, a true classic in the field. However, the reader must realize that Metzger is somewhat liberal. Yes, Daniel Wallace calls him a conservative evangelical (Inerrancy and the Text-Critical Problem in Romans 5:1 | Bible.org). But in the same essay, Wallace says that "his view of biblical authority is not quite the same as many other evangelicals." In other words, Wallace is gently saying that Metzger did not believe in biblical inerrancy.

That brings us to the 4th edition, with Bart Ehrman as the co-author. Are you kidding me? Just in case you didn't know, Ehrman was a Christian, became a student of Metzger, and eventually became an atheist, having slid into liberalism at least partly because of the issues of textual criticism he learned under Metzger. To me, this means he should be the last person on the planet doing New Testament textual criticism.

So you may rightly ask, why do I have the 4th edition? My son the scholar is occasionally on me to get the most recent edition of various scholarly books. On the level of true biblical scholarship (not just some pastor's self published book), it is necessary to keep up with developments in the world of scholarship. For that reason, it is important to cite from the latest edition if one is writing a scholarly essay or book.

At any rate, this is a book that is truly necessary to understand textual criticism. It is well written and very informative.

 

[John of Japan]

Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1994.

I'll go ahead and mention this one since I'm on Metzger. This is another book of which I had the first edition but my son insisted I needed the second edition. This work is necessary for anything resembling advanced study in the discipline of textual criticism. A knowledge of Greek is quite necessary to profit from this book (and indeed to do NT textual criticism).

This is a reference book; the pages are on Bible type paper, in a very nice burgundy color. It starts out with a very necessary 16 page introduction, which is very helpful in understanding the critical text methodology. Then comes the body of the book: delineating the passages with textual problems considered to be the most important by Metzger.

It gives many, perhaps most, of the readings chosen by the editors of the UBS Greek NT, and gives the reasoning behind those decisions, which can be fascinating. Thus, there are 691 pages of pure textual criticism!

The reader should know that the viewpoint is very much weighted on the Alexandrian side (though "eclectic"), and Byzantine readings are given short shrift. However, the Byzantine (even the TR) is often discussed, and so the book is very helpful places even for a Byzantine priority guy like me.

 

[John of Japan]

Bruce M. Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible. New York: Oxford, 1981.

I almost forgot that I have one more book by Metzger. The subtitle is, "An Introduction to Greek Paleography." This one is a lot of fun to look through, with copious plates of Greek manuscripts, with lots of explanations of what you are seeing.

There are only 46 pages in the body of the book, but the book goes on to almost 100 pages of appendixes on how paleography is done. So definitely, don't judge this book by its cover!

 

[Deacon]

Bruce Manning Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford, 1968.
Bruce Manning Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament, 4th ed. New York: Oxford, 2005.

This is very informative, a true classic in the field. However, the reader must realize that Metzger is somewhat liberal. Yes, Daniel Wallace calls him a conservative evangelical (Inerrancy and the Text-Critical Problem in Romans 5:1 | Bible.org). But in the same essay, Wallace says that "his view of biblical authority is not quite the same as many other evangelicals." In other words, Wallace is gently saying that Metzger did not believe in biblical inerrancy.
[snip]
At any rate, this is a book that is truly necessary to understand textual criticism. It is well written and very informative.

(index from 3rd edition - 1992)
PART ONE - The Materials for the Textual Criticism of the New Testament
I. The Making of Ancient Books
II. Important Witnesses to the Test of the New Testament

PART TWO - The History of New Testament Textual Criticism as Reflected in Printed Editions of the Greek Testament
III. The Pre-critical Period: The Origin and Dominance of the Textus Receptus
IV. The Modern Critical Period: From Griesbach to the Present

PART THREE - The Application of Textual Criticism to the Text of the New Testament
V. Origins of Textual Criticism as a Scholarly Dicipline
VI. Modern Methods of Textual Criticism
VII. The Causes of Error in the Transmission of the Text of the New Testament
VIII. The Practice of New Testament Textual Criticism

In the last chapter (which is almost 40 pages), Metzger provides many examples of how NT textual criticism was performed. As John noted, this book is a fine companion to Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament.

Yet much has changed in the field of NT textual criticism in recent decades. It is important to realize that many theories and methods that were utilized in even the recent past have been rendered obsolete.

...let it be emphasized again that no single manuscript and no one group of manuscripts exists which the textual critic may follow mechanically. All known witnesses of the New Testament are to a greater or less extent mixed texts, and even the earliest manuscripts are not free from egregious errors. Although in very many cases the textual critic is able to ascertain without residual doubt which reading must have stood in the original, there are not a few other cases where he can come only to a tentative decision based on an equivocal balancing of probabilities. Occasionally none of the variant reading will commend itself as original, and he will be compelled either to choose the reading which he judges to be the least unsatisfactory or to indulge in conjectural emendation. In textual criticism, as in other areas of historical research, one must seek not only to learn what can be known, but also to become aware of what, because of conflicting witnesses, cannot be known. p. 246.​

I purchase many books used, sometimes in bundles.
I’ve got two copies of the third edition, paperback.
If someone is interested, send me a message with why you want it and I’ll send it your way.

Rob

 

[Deacon]

Moving into the twenty-first century…

Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism, essays by Eldon Jay Epp, Michael W. Holmes, J.K. Elliott, Maurice A. Robinson, and Moises Silva.
David Alan Black, editor
Baker Academics, Grand Rapids, 2002. 157 pp

The book presents a cordial interaction between experts in the field of textual criticism: this is not a textbook on the mechanics of textual criticism, it is a condensed presentation of a variety of modern text-critical approaches written by renouned scholars in the field. The book is a collection of the papers submitted during a conference on textual criticism conducted at Southeastern Seminary on April 6-7, 2000, entitled, ‘Symposium on New Testament Studies: A Time for Reappraisal’.

Contents​

1. Introduction, David Alan Black
2. Issues in New Testament Textual Criticism, Moving from the Nineteenth Century to the Twenty-First Century, Eldon Jay Epp
3. The Case for Reasoned Eclecticism, Michael W. Holmes
4. The Case for Thoroughgoing Eclecticism, J. K. Elliott
5. The Case for Byzantine Priority, Maurice A. Robinson
6. Response, Moises Silva

Snipped from Moises Silva’s “Response”

One of the oddest curiosities in the modern controversy is the common perception of Hort as an innovator. In fact, there is precious little in the substance of his work that can be accurately described as original and what can be described lies pretty much at the periphery and does not significantly affect the main thesis. But his work does indeed display brilliant originality in the organization and exposition of the subject matter. Having had considerable experience as a botanist, Hort applied his scientific training and extraordinary analytical powers to the study of textual variation. His starting point was the achievements of previous scholars, prominently the work of Bengel and Griesbach, but closer to him in time the advances made by Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles.​

Hort’s job was to gather all the relevant data, to restructure the material, and to fill in the blanks, which meant primarily making explicit what until then was only implicit, though, of course, at some points new research and conceptualization were necessary. Once the whole argument had been constructed, the result was quite simply a thing of beauty. Even a look at the detailed table of contents of WH’s introduction tells you that you are dealing with a remarkable mind. It is no wonder that even Hort’s opponent Scrivener said of this work: “Never was a cause, good or bad in itself, set off with higher ability and persuasive power.”​

Indeed, it is the persuasiveness of Hort’s argumentation that has made his work appear innovative to some observers. Here for the first time the arguments were laid out in a complete and systematic fashion, with all the implications drawn out (both theoretically and practically, since it included the publication of a critical text). What was this? A new teaching—and with authority? (cf. Mark 1:27) No. In all essential points—the validity of the text-critical canons, the superiority of ancient documents, the importance of textual groupings, and the relative late character of the Majority text—Hort was merely adopting views that had been widely accepted by specialists for several generations. …

… nearly every time I go back to Hort’s introduction I find that he had quite effectively anticipated many of the challenges and objections that we continue to hear in our day, maybe even in this volume of essays. pp. 143-144.
​

Overall this is a very worthwhile book that reviews a variety of positions without acrimony.

Rob

​