Thanks, Rob. This is helpful.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Books on Textual Criticism
- Thread starter John of Japan
- Start date
I'd like to mention books from old timers which would chiefly help in following how textual criticism developed. I've already mentioned the two volume Westcott and Hort, one volume of which lays the groundwork for the modern eclectic method.
There is a little volume by Kirsopp Lake, a theological liberal, The Text of the New Testament. My copy is the 6th ed. of 1933. Lake pretty much follows Westcott/Hort, calling the Byzantine the Neutral Text as they did.
I have on Kindle the basic text by B. B. Warfield (a conservative) in 1923, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. I haven't read all of it, but it's pretty standard from the W/H perspective. The well known Baptist scholar of Greek, A. T. Robertson (a conservative) had a similar volume with the same title which was reprinted last year by a reputable publisher: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1498200893/?tag=baptis04-20
Vincent Taylor (who also did a four volume set of word studies) wrote The Text of the New Testament. I have the second edition from 1963. This is an interesting update to the W/H position, with some interesting information on the Byzantine text type (pp. 61-62), which he calls "The Textus Receptus." The point here is that until probably 1970 (when I date the KJV-O position as a movement), the term textus receptus was often used to refer to the traditional texts (OT and NT) instead of just the Beza, Stephanus and Scrivener Greek NTs.
There is a little volume by Kirsopp Lake, a theological liberal, The Text of the New Testament. My copy is the 6th ed. of 1933. Lake pretty much follows Westcott/Hort, calling the Byzantine the Neutral Text as they did.
I have on Kindle the basic text by B. B. Warfield (a conservative) in 1923, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. I haven't read all of it, but it's pretty standard from the W/H perspective. The well known Baptist scholar of Greek, A. T. Robertson (a conservative) had a similar volume with the same title which was reprinted last year by a reputable publisher: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1498200893/?tag=baptis04-20
Vincent Taylor (who also did a four volume set of word studies) wrote The Text of the New Testament. I have the second edition from 1963. This is an interesting update to the W/H position, with some interesting information on the Byzantine text type (pp. 61-62), which he calls "The Textus Receptus." The point here is that until probably 1970 (when I date the KJV-O position as a movement), the term textus receptus was often used to refer to the traditional texts (OT and NT) instead of just the Beza, Stephanus and Scrivener Greek NTs.
Last edited by a moderator:
I've been informed that the publisher still has 500 copies. You may order a box of 12 from the publisher: Chilton Book Publishing, PO Box 606, Southborough, MA 01772-0606. (Link: http://www.chiltonpublishing.com/Products.html)
For a single copy, contact Dr. Maurice Robinson at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. His price is $14, including packaging and shipping, but if you drop by his office it is considerably cheaper.
It's a shame that those programs ask so much for it, $36.95 for Logos and $49.90 for Accordance. It's also in BibleWorks, but for free.
A Greek scholar friend informed me that the NA27 has the best apparatus, better than me NA25 or even the most recent NA28. UBS has fewer variants but more information for the mss.
The king of such works is called the Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (SQE), which majors on the Gospels. The most recent version runs up around $100, so this is only for someone serious about doing textual criticism, or at least an interested amateur like me--maybe after I start getting SS....
The king of such works is called the Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (SQE), which majors on the Gospels. The most recent version runs up around $100, so this is only for someone serious about doing textual criticism, or at least an interested amateur like me--maybe after I start getting SS....
Last edited by a moderator:
The price does seem steep. Texts of this type are best picked up in a base package where the per-book price is significantly lower.
I’ve purchased a few Hebrew and Greek texts for my bookshelves many years ago and they sit collecting dust on my shelves.
The digitalized texts are much more versatile than the dead-tree format. They are not simply PDFs of the text.
I don't know about BibleWorks software but Logos tags the each word of the text with its morphology, adding a lot of additional information.
Tagging also allows a researcher to link it to various English and Greek versions for contrast and comparisons, as well providing simple or complex links to lexicons and grammars.
Rob
BibleWorks also has the tagging.
It has a ton of Greek versions, includingTichendorf, Tregelles, Von Soden. It also has the text of a number of mss, including Sinaiticus, Bezae, Alexandrinus, etc. It's a great resource for amateur textual critics.
Before going on with the NT books on textual criticism, just a word on the OT brand. There are not nearly as many books on OT TC, but I do have the 1994 Old Testament Textual Criticism, by Ellis R. Brotzman, which is good.
There are some good books out there on the Dead Sea scrolls, but not so many on the OT mss in general. I do have a book with a good chapter on the subject, The Old Testament Documents, by Walter Kaiser, Jr. (2001).
There are some good books out there on the Dead Sea scrolls, but not so many on the OT mss in general. I do have a book with a good chapter on the subject, The Old Testament Documents, by Walter Kaiser, Jr. (2001).
A book I have returned to again and again for reference is Harold Scanlin's, The Dead Sea Scrolls & Modern Translations of the Old Testament [Tyndale, 1993].
Packed with information regarding the scrolls, their location and contents.
You can identify the fragment of the scroll by verse number, this combined with the rather recent release to the public of the contents of the scrolls makes this quite handy!
The chapter on how the Dead Sea Scrolls have changed various versions is quite interesting.
IMO, the best argument for the Byzantine text relates to the way the Hebrew Scriptures were developed and preserved... But I've never heard this argument advanced by anyone.
Rob
Packed with information regarding the scrolls, their location and contents.
You can identify the fragment of the scroll by verse number, this combined with the rather recent release to the public of the contents of the scrolls makes this quite handy!
The chapter on how the Dead Sea Scrolls have changed various versions is quite interesting.
IMO, the best argument for the Byzantine text relates to the way the Hebrew Scriptures were developed and preserved... But I've never heard this argument advanced by anyone.
Rob
This seems like an interesting link to this subject matter!
biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_textual_waltke.html
Thanks for the link.
Thanks for the info. Sounds like a good read.
There might be something there, but as you say I've never heard the argument advanced.
Someone has already mentioned The Text of the New Testament, by Bruce Metzger. It is now in its 4th edition. I have the 2nd and 4th, but shudder every time I look at the 4th since Bart Ehrman the apostate (a student of Metzger's) was the co-author. At any rate, this is a key text for learning textual criticism. Ch. 1 is "The Making of Ancient Books," 2 lists the "Important Witnesses to the Text of the NT." 3 and 4 give the history of the discipline, and then 5-9 present the eclectic method as practiced by Metzger et al.
Despite the collaboration of Bart Ehrman, if one is just looking for the facts of the manuscripts and the history and practice of the eclectic method, this is the book. I don't see how any layman could claim to know much about the subject without reading this.
Despite the collaboration of Bart Ehrman, if one is just looking for the facts of the manuscripts and the history and practice of the eclectic method, this is the book. I don't see how any layman could claim to know much about the subject without reading this.
Last edited by a moderator:
Any list of books on textual criticism should include the works of John Burgon, who was Dean of Chichester Cathedral. For some strange reason he is thus often referred to as "Dean Burgon," as if "Dean" were his first name or as if he were still "dean" of something or other. At any rate, Burgon was the opposite number to Hort and Westcott, criticizing their theories.
He wrote several books that are worth reading for anyone who wants to be well-read in the area of textual criticism. Furthermore, his principles are important for anyone who really wants to understand Byzantine-priority.
Please note that though Burgon is quoted by many KJV-only people, he was not one of them, and did not even believe the TR was a perfect Greek text.
The Dean Burgon Society (which I do not otherwise recommend) has done good quality reprints of Burgon's books, but I'm pretty sure they may all be found somewhere on line. I will warn you not to get the one volume edition of Burgon's works, Unholy Hands on the Bible, edited by Jay Green and published by the Sovereign Grace Trust Fund. It is poorly edited, sometimes deleting parts of the books, and poorly proofed, with many errors.
He wrote several books that are worth reading for anyone who wants to be well-read in the area of textual criticism. Furthermore, his principles are important for anyone who really wants to understand Byzantine-priority.
Please note that though Burgon is quoted by many KJV-only people, he was not one of them, and did not even believe the TR was a perfect Greek text.
The Dean Burgon Society (which I do not otherwise recommend) has done good quality reprints of Burgon's books, but I'm pretty sure they may all be found somewhere on line. I will warn you not to get the one volume edition of Burgon's works, Unholy Hands on the Bible, edited by Jay Green and published by the Sovereign Grace Trust Fund. It is poorly edited, sometimes deleting parts of the books, and poorly proofed, with many errors.
True, as isn't that work basically calling the other Greek texts inspired by satan, as all got corrupted at their core?
No, to be fair they don't go that far.
I thought that they expoused KJVO viewpoints though?
Yes, but they are not nearly so radical as, for example, Peter Ruckman. They maintain that the KJV is not inspired as the originals are. However, they used to sell all of Gail Riplinger's stuff (author of the notorious New Age Versions) until they found out she had been divorced twice and lied to them about it.
I completely reject higher criticism.
After many years, I have come to the acceptance of the Scrivener Greek New Testament as the TR of 99 and 44/100 % purity.
Yes, I guess I'm TRO but not in the idealism of perfection of the KJVO advocates.
Neither would I condemn, belittle or cast aspersions upon any brethren who follow after the W&H philosophy in whole or in part.
I accept the NKJV as the English language NT scripture (by derivation) as a faithful word-for-word (for the most part) translation of the above mentioned TR.
the NIV IMO, fulfills the requirement of the English language NT scripture (by derivation) translated into the understandable vernacular of the common man.
Using these two translation together is a winning combination IMO.
I always gravitate towards the NKJV/KJV.
HankD
After many years, I have come to the acceptance of the Scrivener Greek New Testament as the TR of 99 and 44/100 % purity.
Yes, I guess I'm TRO but not in the idealism of perfection of the KJVO advocates.
Neither would I condemn, belittle or cast aspersions upon any brethren who follow after the W&H philosophy in whole or in part.
I accept the NKJV as the English language NT scripture (by derivation) as a faithful word-for-word (for the most part) translation of the above mentioned TR.
the NIV IMO, fulfills the requirement of the English language NT scripture (by derivation) translated into the understandable vernacular of the common man.
Using these two translation together is a winning combination IMO.
I always gravitate towards the NKJV/KJV.
HankD