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
