Books on Textual Criticism

[John of Japan]

Consider first of all The Revision Revised by Burgon. This is his major work, I would say. On the title page it divides the book into:
I. The New Greek Text (meaning Westcott and Hort)
II. The New English Version (meaning the English Revised Version of 1881, 1885)
III. Westcott and Hort's New Textual Theory.

After these sections, there is also a "Letter to Bishop Ellicott, in Reply to his Pamphlet" at the end. Ellicott was a defender of Westcott and Hort and the English revision. Letter is it? It is actually over 150 pages!

This book is well worth the read. An interesting aspect of Burgon's work is that he was an expert on the church fathers, and he refers to the Greek NT readings found in their writings. The readings found in the fathers is an important component of his textual criticism.

Note that Burgon at times calls the Byzantine text type the "textus receptus."

 

[John of Japan]

True, as isn't that work basically calling the other Greek texts inspired by satan, as all got corrupted at their core?

I may have misunderstood you here. Are you saying that Jay Green calls other Greek texts from Satan? He may have gone that far, I don't know, but I don't find that statement in a quick look at his Forward to the book.

 

[Yeshua1]

I may have misunderstood you here. Are you saying that Jay Green calls other Greek texts from Satan? He may have gone that far, I don't know, but I don't find that statement in a quick look at his Forward to the book.

I may be wrong here, but doesn't that publisher use their materials to assert that KJVO is right, and anything else is satanic?

 

[Yeshua1]

Consider first of all The Revision Revised by Burgon. This is his major work, I would say. On the title page it divides the book into:
I. The New Greek Text (meaning Westcott and Hort)
II. The New English Version (meaning the English Revised Version of 1881, 1885)
III. Westcott and Hort's New Textual Theory.

After these sections, there is also a "Letter to Bishop Ellicott, in Reply to his Pamphlet" at the end. Ellicott was a defender of Westcott and Hort and the English revision. Letter is it? It is actually over 150 pages!

This book is well worth the read. An interesting aspect of Burgon's work is that he was an expert on the church fathers, and he refers to the Greek NT readings found in their writings. The readings found in the fathers is an important component of his textual criticism.

Note that Burgon at times calls the Byzantine text type the "textus receptus."

How close though is the cyrrent Critical Greek text to that which he was so adament against?

 

[John of Japan]

I may be wrong here, but doesn't that publisher use their materials to assert that KJVO is right, and anything else is satanic?

If you mean Jay Green's Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, then no. If you mean the Dean Burgon Society, then no also. Waite strongly defends the KJV and is KJV-only, but I haven't so far found him saying other versions to be satanic per se.

 

[John of Japan]

How close though is the cyrrent Critical Greek text to that which he was so adament against?

The UBS/NA Greek text has much in common with the Westcott-Hort Greek text that Burgon opposed. The modern eclectic method is similar to the WH method especially in the presupposition that the Alexandrian text type ("Neutral" in WH) is primary over the Byzantine (Syrian in WH) and Western.

 

[HankD]

True, as isn't that work basically calling the other Greek texts inspired by satan, as all got corrupted at their core?

I never read anything of Burgon's writings in which he said that the W&H work was satanic.

In fact, he said that they were well intentioned but WRONG and often he said it very forcibly with strong conviction.

The KJVO or KJV strongly preferred followers may have claimed a satanic influence concerning the W&H work. I don't remember myself.

But how can the work be satanic if what they did was to show historical variants between Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and a few other uncials compared to the common TR texts of the day?

Almost every eclectic Greek NT contains the Traditional variants in footnotes or marginal notes graded as to the author/editor assessment, so it's all there.

I agree with Burgon that it is a flawed idea to rely on Alexandrian texts in lieu of the TR type texts coming out of the traditional apostolic churches of the Byzantium area.

W&H thought the Byzantine texts contained "priestly conflations" where they disagreed With Aleph and other African texts and/or contained priestly attempts to "smooth out" the original text.

Authors like Harry Sturz (and others) showed that W&H were probably wrong to put so much faith in these Alexandrian texts by showing that some of the earliest papyri (circa AD100) contained "conflated" texts of the Byzantine kind (predating their 3rd and 4th century favorites).

Of course the papyri were not available to W&H so we can't blame them for that.

So, I also agree with Burgon that WH were well-intentioned and sincere men but with flawed critical criterion as well as using flawed conclusions according to their logical methods of deduction.

I am relying on my memory concerning all the research i did over the years that brought me to my aforementioned conviction/conclusion.

JoJ if I made any factual errors that you see above, please correct me.

There are mountains more that could be discussed about higher and lower criticism, but it's a weary process and usually does not end well.

True IMO higher criticism appeals more to scholars, particularly those of this world, it's more "scientific" (or so it is supposed) than the traditional views held by Burgon but the WH work is not "satanic" just humanly flawed IMO.


HankD

 

[John of Japan]

I never read anything of Burgon's writings in which he said that the W&H work was satanic.

This is correct. He did not talk that way, contrary to modern KJVO types who don't understand proper bibliology.

W&H thought the Byzantine texts contained "priestly conflations" where they disagreed With Aleph and other African texts and/or contained priestly attempts to "smooth out" the original text.

They actually promoted the idea, with no historical data for it, that Lucian had done a recension (edited text) in the early 4th century to produce the Byzantine text type. The statement in Jerome often referred to as proof for a Lucianic recension gives no detail for W&H to draw the conclusions they did. (I have it before me and have just read it.)

JoJ if I made any factual errors that you see above, please correct me.

You've done well. I simply added some extra information on a couple of points.

There are mountains more that could be discussed about higher and lower criticism, but it's a weary process and usually does not end well.

True IMO higher criticism appeals more to scholars, particularly those of this world, it's more "scientific" (or so it is supposed) than the traditional views held by Burgon but the WH work is not "satanic" just humanly flawed IMO.


HankD

Agreed. :thumbs:

 

[Rippon]

Authors like Harry Sturz (and others) showed that W&H were probably wrong to put so much faith in these Alexandrian texts by showing that some of the earliest papyri (circa AD100)

Are anyone has claimed there are papyri in our possesion dating back as far as 100 AD?

contained "conflated" texts of the Byzantine kind (predating their 3rd and 4th century favorites).

I still think the Byz. was an edited affair.

True IMO higher criticism appeals more to scholars, particularly those of this world, it's more "scientific" (or so it is supposed) than the traditional views held by Burgon

You are confused. Textual criticism is lower criticism --not higher. Many textual critics are conservative men and women who most certainly are engaged in lower criticism and they are not of the Byz. priority viewpoint.

 

[John of Japan]

Burgon also wrote The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, which was edited and published after his death by Edward Miller. I have his but have not yet read it, so I can't say a lot about it. There are chapters that look interesting on "Principles," "The Vatican and Sinaitic Manuscripts," and much evidence for the Byzantine from the early fathers and the early versions. It will be a good read when I can get to it. :saint:

 

[HankD]

Are anyone has claimed there are papyri in our possesion dating back as far as 100 AD?

I still think the Byz. was an edited affair.

You are confused. Textual criticism is lower criticism --not higher. Many textual critics are conservative men and women who most certainly are engaged in lower criticism and they are not of the Byz. priority viewpoint.

Greetings Rippon, normally I don't get entangled anymore as in former years with discussions that don't end well, however I'll answer your inquiries and suspicions of my confusion this time around.

RE: p66 Bodmer papyrus:

Herbert Hunger. Zur Datierung des Papyrus Bodmer II p66, 1960, claims a date as early as AD100 for p66. Others early on claimed an AD96 possibility. Most cite AD200.

It has been years since I have done this research. I have a reference book of papyri work but it is buried somewhere in my computer-Library room. If by chance I come across it I will share the author information.

Here are a few dates:

P66 AD100-200, most of the Gospel of John. Bodmer Library.
P52 AD125 John 18 (several verses), John Rylands University Library.
P98 AD150 Revelation 1, Cairo.
P90 AD150 John 18, part 0f 19, Sakler Library (UK).
P4 AD175 Luke 1 – 6 National Library of France.

There are quite a few AD200 papyri.

RE:Byzantine editions, conflations, etc...
So, we disagree, Individual Soul Liberty (A Baptist Distinctive), right?

RE:Higher vs. lower criticism alleged confusion:

Rippon, what do you mean by confusion? I did not object to lower criticism.

I am critical of higher criticism not lower criticism as defined below:

Higher criticism treats the Bible as a text created by human beings at a particular historical time and for various human motives, in contrast with the treatment of the Bible as the inerrant word of God. Lower criticism is used for attempts to interpret Biblical texts based only on the internal evidence from the texts themselves.

http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/430/what-are-higher-and-lower-criticism

Look over the definitions here. Now I may have muddled my post so let me know where you believe I am confused.

It may be nomenclature connotation differences.

BTW, many years ago we had a donnybrook here at the BB about text witnesses including the papyri. You may be able to mine it out from the archives under "papyri, papyrus". Good luck, don't ask me what year.


HankD

 

[HankD]

Burgon also wrote The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, which was edited and published after his death by Edward Miller. I have his but have not yet read it, so I can't say a lot about it. There are chapters that look interesting on "Principles," "The Vatican and Sinaitic Manuscripts," and much evidence for the Byzantine from the early fathers and the early versions. It will be a good read when I can get to it. :saint:

I'm in the exact situation John. I have it as well but haven't gotten around to reading it either.

HankD

 

[Rippon]

The UBS/NA Greek text has much in common with the Westcott-Hort Greek text

According to your consultant friend, Maurice Robinson, he thinks there is a 99.5% correlation between the two.

 

[Rippon]

So, I also agree with Burgon that WH were well-intentioned and sincere men but with flawed critical criterion as well as using flawed conclusions according to their logical methods of deduction.

There are mountains more that could be discussed about higher and lower criticism, but it's a weary process and usually does not end well.

True IMO higher criticism appeals more to scholars, particularly those of this world, it's more "scientific" (or so it is supposed) than the traditional views held by Burgon but the WH work is not "satanic" just humanly flawed IMO.

I still don't know where you stand. Is the field of textual criticism involved with lower or highrer criticism? I'm glad you don't think that WH were not involved in a Satanic enterprise! But I am not clear if you think that scholars who are not believers in the Byz. Priority theory are engaged in lower or higher criticism.

 

[HankD]

I still don't know where you stand. Is the field of textual criticism involved with lower or highrer criticism? I'm glad you don't think that WH were not involved in a Satanic enterprise! But I am not clear if you think that scholars who are not believers in the Byz. Priority theory are engaged in lower or higher criticism.

Lower if they are born-again believers.
IMO intent and spiritual status makes all the difference.

e.g. higher criticism has the JEDP theory and the multiple Isaiah authorship of the Book of Isaiah,
questioning the miracles of Christ, the reality of His resurrection, His virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14 "young girl") etc...

My position is where Burgon was about the Alexandrian texts.
.
But that's my opinion and everyone is entitled to my opinion.

Also, my local church officially uses the NIV and/or the NKJV.
Members use whatever they want which is the way it should be IMO.
It's not an issue there and I don't intend to make it one.
I am a deacon and a teacher there so it should be evident that I am not judgmental, I use them both as well as the KJV on occasions.

Any final decisions I draw from the TR - the Scrivener 1894-95 which he compiled is my text of choice and as we both know it has no apparatus.

HankD

 

[John of Japan]

Another book by Burgon that I feel is excellent is The Last Twelve Verses of Mark. Frankly,this is an easier read than his other books, but of course your interest in any of his books will be governed by your interest in textual criticism.

An interesting feature of this book is that Burgon has photos in the book of Codex L (which has the longer ending) and Sinaiticus. The photo of Sinaiticus shows clearly an empty space exactly where the LE could go. I have read scholars who say that there is room there for the LE and others who say there is not. According to J. K. Elliot, "One of my students has demonstrated that it is possible to insert vv. 9-20 into the space available; he was not concerned with the average letters per column but the maximum text possible" (Perspectives on the Ending of Mark, p. 84, footnote).

Whether there is room, we are still left to speculate why that space is there. I believe it was a tentative space for the LE until the scribe found a ms that had it so he could copy it in.

 

[John of Japan]

That brings me to the book I quoted from in the previous post, Perspectives on the Ending of Mark, edited by David Alan Black. This contains the essays presented in the conference on that subject in 2007 at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. My son was at that conference and was greatly helped. I recommend this book without hesitation and in fact, think it is indispensable for any student of textual criticism.

The contributors were: David Alan Black, Darrell Bock, Keith Elliott, Maurice Robinson and Daniel Wallace.

 

[Yeshua1]

I never read anything of Burgon's writings in which he said that the W&H work was satanic.

In fact, he said that they were well intentioned but WRONG and often he said it very forcibly with strong conviction.

The KJVO or KJV strongly preferred followers may have claimed a satanic influence concerning the W&H work. I don't remember myself.

But how can the work be satanic if what they did was to show historical variants between Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and a few other uncials compared to the common TR texts of the day?

Almost every eclectic Greek NT contains the Traditional variants in footnotes or marginal notes graded as to the author/editor assessment, so it's all there.

I agree with Burgon that it is a flawed idea to rely on Alexandrian texts in lieu of the TR type texts coming out of the traditional apostolic churches of the Byzantium area.

W&H thought the Byzantine texts contained "priestly conflations" where they disagreed With Aleph and other African texts and/or contained priestly attempts to "smooth out" the original text.

Authors like Harry Sturz (and others) showed that W&H were probably wrong to put so much faith in these Alexandrian texts by showing that some of the earliest papyri (circa AD100) contained "conflated" texts of the Byzantine kind (predating their 3rd and 4th century favorites).

Of course the papyri were not available to W&H so we can't blame them for that.

So, I also agree with Burgon that WH were well-intentioned and sincere men but with flawed critical criterion as well as using flawed conclusions according to their logical methods of deduction.

I am relying on my memory concerning all the research i did over the years that brought me to my aforementioned conviction/conclusion.

JoJ if I made any factual errors that you see above, please correct me.

There are mountains more that could be discussed about higher and lower criticism, but it's a weary process and usually does not end well.

True IMO higher criticism appeals more to scholars, particularly those of this world, it's more "scientific" (or so it is supposed) than the traditional views held by Burgon but the WH work is not "satanic" just humanly flawed IMO.


HankD

Thanks for these helpful clarrification points!

Would say that my misunderstanding is to lump those advocating for the TR as being THE received text and from God, as KJVO hold with, to those whose belief is that majority/Bzt text is superior...

I still would hold that the Critical text would have the closest reproduction of the originals to use, but still also would maintain that any of them can be used to study and research with!

 

[Yeshua1]

I still don't know where you stand. Is the field of textual criticism involved with lower or highrer criticism? I'm glad you don't think that WH were not involved in a Satanic enterprise! But I am not clear if you think that scholars who are not believers in the Byz. Priority theory are engaged in lower or higher criticism.

The ones behind the latest CT greek editions were those whose views would still be that of inspiration from God for the originals, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

Another book by Burgon that I feel is excellent is The Last Twelve Verses of Mark. Frankly,this is an easier read than his other books, but of course your interest in any of his books will be governed by your interest in textual criticism.

An interesting feature of this book is that Burgon has photos in the book of Codex L (which has the longer ending) and Sinaiticus. The photo of Sinaiticus shows clearly an empty space exactly where the LE could go. I have read scholars who say that there is room there for the LE and others who say there is not. According to J. K. Elliot, "One of my students has demonstrated that it is possible to insert vv. 9-20 into the space available; he was not concerned with the average letters per column but the maximum text possible" (Perspectives on the Ending of Mark, p. 84, footnote).

Whether there is room, we are still left to speculate why that space is there. I believe it was a tentative space for the LE until the scribe found a ms that had it so he could copy it in.

Does it really matter though if we conclude that there was an original longer ending for mark or not?
For those holding to either views do that from their understanding of the textual evidence, and not just because some are saved, while others are not?