Books on Textual Criticism

[Rippon]

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.

A review submitted on 10/10/2012 gave Wallace 5 stars and Robinson 3.

The reviewer had this to say of Wallace:

"Wallace made the best case for his position, by far. He is strong not only in his handling of the evidence, but also in his careful identification of the presuppositions inherent in the debate. He raised several imporant points I had not previously considered and also introduced pieces of evidence that the other contributors seemed unaware of."

 

[Yeshua1]

A review submitted on 10/10/2012 gave Wallace 5 stars and Robinson 3.

The reviewer had this to say of Wallace:

"Wallace made the best case for his position, by far. He is strong not only in his handling of the evidence, but also in his careful identification of the presuppositions inherent in the debate. He raised several imporant points I had not previously considered and also introduced pieces of evidence that the other contributors seemed unaware of."

He supports the Critical text, and shorter ending for Mark, correct?

 

[John of Japan]

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?

It certainly does matter. I'd be happy to discuss the reasons it matters on a new thread if you are so inclined as to start one.

 

[John of Japan]

To get back to the OP, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., by Bruce M. Metzger, is an essential book for anyone studying textual criticism. It is a companion text to the UBS Greek NT. My only problem is that it is too short, and I've often looked up textual variations hoping to see why the critical omits or changes various readings only to be disappointed.

Of course it goes without saying that a knowledge of Greek is essential for understanding this book and, as I've been saying all along, textual criticism. Each entry has a verse number and then the Greek reading in question. Anyone here on the BB who is interested in textual criticism could learn Greek if they are willing to put forth the time and effort.

A textual commentary gives notes about the variations in the mss, anywhere from a sentence or two to a short paragraph to several pages (5 1/2 on the ending of Mark). This one also has a useful introduction describing the canons (rules) and process of eclectic textual criticism.

 

[John of Japan]

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.

Correction of self: the empty space at the end of Mark is in Vaticanus, not Sinaiticus.

 

[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!

I agree either will do. My preference is TR.

HankD

 

[Rippon]

My preference is TR.

Which edition? There are a lot of incarnations of the TR.

 

[John of Japan]

I have a book by Bruce Metzger that is a little unique: Manuscripts of the Greek Bible. The subtitle is "An Introduction to Greek Paleography." This is the study of the actual manuscripts and their production. The preface says that "the present volume aims to acquaint the beginner in paleography with the habits of scribes and the difficulties they faced in copying manuscripts" (p. v).

Metzger discusses everything from what the early Greek alphabet looked like to how to collate mss. The best thing about the book are the copious plates of various mss, which takes up more than the second half of the book. This excellent book has been reprinted and is available, but one reviewer notes that the plates are not as good in quality as the 1981 copy I have.

 

[Yeshua1]

It certainly does matter. I'd be happy to discuss the reasons it matters on a new thread if you are so inclined as to start one.

The point though is that one can come down on either side of this issue, and that it does make mean that one is "critical or liberal" on their views on insprayion and infallibility, just due to how they view this issue!

Dr Wallace holds firmly to both of those views, and his is in the camp seeing that a shoter ending fits criteria best!

As many Evangelicals also hold to that view...

Just saying that one can take either view, and not have their biblical understanding called into question..

 

[John of Japan]

The point though is that one can come down on either side of this issue, and that it does make mean that one is "critical or liberal" on their views on insprayion and infallibility, just due to how they view this issue!

Dr Wallace holds firmly to both of those views, and his is in the camp seeing that a shoter ending fits criteria best!

As many Evangelicals also hold to that view...

Just saying that one can take either view, and not have their biblical understanding called into question..

I'll not argue with this post. But if the longer ending of Mark is part of Scripture as I believe but is rejected as such, then a part of God's revelation is thus lost to the doubter.

 

[John of Japan]

The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism by Harry Sturz is a must for any library on textual criticism. For the record, Sturz did not hold to the Byzantine-priority position nor any similar position. However, his research (much of which is included in the appendices) showed that the Byzantine text-type is at least as old as the Alexandrian, and that makes his work critical for anyone attempting to understand textual criticism. Thus, he ended up with a position that gives equal weight to the Alexandrian and Byzantine.

Interestingly enough, the body of the book only goes to p. 131, and then the appendices start, ending on p. 230: various lists and tables comparing readings of mss of the different text-types. Note: a knowledge of Greek is essential to understanding the appendices. These are followed by the best bibliography on the subject that I've seen anywhere, pp. 231-274.

At the end of the body of the book, Sturz writes: "Contrary to what WH held, distinctively Byzantine readings of every kind have been shown to be early" (p. 130; emphasis by Sturz). He then concludes with the statement that "it appears reasonable to conclude that the Byzantine text should be given equal weight, along with the Alexandrian and 'Western' texts, in evaluating internal evidence for reading" (ibid).

 

[Yeshua1]

The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism by Harry Sturz is a must for any library on textual criticism. For the record, Sturz did not hold to the Byzantine-priority position nor any similar position. However, his research (much of which is included in the appendices) showed that the Byzantine text-type is at least as old as the Alexandrian, and that makes his work critical for anyone attempting to understand textual criticism. Thus, he ended up with a position that gives equal weight to the Alexandrian and Byzantine.

Interestingly enough, the body of the book only goes to p. 131, and then the appendices start, ending on p. 230: various lists and tables comparing readings of mss of the different text-types. Note: a knowledge of Greek is essential to understanding the appendices. These are followed by the best bibliography on the subject that I've seen anywhere, pp. 231-274.

At the end of the body of the book, Sturz writes: "Contrary to what WH held, distinctively Byzantine readings of every kind have been shown to be early" (p. 130; emphasis by Sturz). He then concludes with the statement that "it appears reasonable to conclude that the Byzantine text should be given equal weight, along with the Alexandrian and 'Western' texts, in evaluating internal evidence for reading" (ibid).

I would see that as being very reasonable, as still maintain that one has the word f God to us today in any of the various greek texts used by scholars in translation, assuming the translators are saved an believers in infallibility/inspiration!

So Mormons/JW/Liberal and critical ones do not fit that criteria!

 

[Yeshua1]

I'll not argue with this post. But if the longer ending of Mark is part of Scripture as I believe but is rejected as such, then a part of God's revelation is thus lost to the doubter.

just stating though that if one is rejecting that due to JUST the textual evidences, and NOT based upon being liberal and critical in views regarding the Bible itself, that is not not the same as just deciding to reject the bible period...

 

[John of Japan]

just stating though that if one is rejecting that due to JUST the textual evidences, and NOT based upon being liberal and critical in views regarding the Bible itself, that is not not the same as just deciding to reject the bible period...

I'll agree with that.

 

[John of Japan]

A well-known Greek scholar recently donated some books to our college library, and one of them was Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament, by Ernest C. Colwell. I immediately grabbed it from the box in my son's office and plan to read it when I can. This is a very important book for the study of textual criticism, especially for the Byzantine-priority position, though that is not Colwell's position that I know of.

In his preface, Colwell states that this is a book of essays he has written over time "for the most part concerned with external evidence, with the appraisal of manuscripts as manuscripts." Since Byzantine-priority places heavy value on external evidence, this book is thus important.

Chapter Eight is significant: "Method in Evaluating Scribal Habits." In this chapter he evaluates especially the habits of the scribes of p45, p66 and p75. In this chapter he humanizes the ancient scribes. He shows that they (especially the p66 scribe) often made "nonsense readings" and other errors. The scribe of p45 was also often quite free with word order. One lesson: simply because a document is ancient does not make it authoritative.

 

[HankD]

Which edition? There are a lot of incarnations of the TR.

Oops, sorry for the delay Rippon.

My preference is Scrivener's 1894-5 The New Testament published by the Trinitarian Bible Society.
He used the English AV as a guide. However my research shows that he compiled/reconstructed the text from several existing TR's to match the English of the AV.

Beza being his primary source.

In the preface of the publication:

The present edition of the Textus Receptus underlying the English Authorized Version of 1611 follows the text of Beza's 1598 edition as the primary authority and corresponds with 'The New Testament in the original Greek according to the text followed by the Authorised version ' edited by F.H.A Scrivener , M.A., D.C.L, LL.D., and published by Cambridge University Press in 1894 and 1902.

HankD

 

[John of Japan]

I'm mostly done here. I have some other pamphlets and books on textual criticism, but nothing significant and most older stuff. I'll just mention two that have been influential. These are more technical, so unless you're just really into the subject you won't need these.

Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, by Fredric Kenyon (1951 reprint of the 1895 original)

The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, by B. H. Streeter (1964 reprint of 1930 revision of 1924 original)

 

[John of Japan]

Actually, I need to mention one other book. The Identity of the New Testament Text (revised) by Wilbur Pickering. This one helped me come to a majority text position back in the day. The revision is copyright 1980, so it is out of date in terms of Byzantine/Majority scholarship, and Pickering is sometimes careless in his language, but it is worth a read.

Another book worth a read is Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism, by well-known Reformed scholar Gordon Clark. Caveat: he is not a textual critic and admits as much on p. 10, but he is a thinker. (I have his textbook on logic.)

 

[Deacon]

Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism [LINK]
By Eldon J. Epp and Gordon Fee, (1993)

Written for seminary or graduate students, this volume contains 17 essays on various select topics in textual criticism of the NT.

The first section has two essays giving a "General and Historical Overview" of the topic.

"Textual Criticism is … of special significance to the biblical interpreter in at least three ways: (1) It attempts to determine the authentic words of an author. The first question the exegete asks is, What does the text say? before one asks, What does it mean? (2) The majority of Christians have access to the NT only in translation, and the basic consideration in choosing a translation is its accuracy in representing the original text of the author. Before deciding what any of the words meant, a translator's first concern must be that he or she is translation the actual word the author wrote. (3) A knowledge of the history of textual variation will also help the interpreter to see how a passage was understood during the early history of the church. In many instances variant reading are a reflection of a scribe's or a church's theological interests, and sometimes such changes put one in direct contact with historical exegesis." (Fee, p.3)
​

In the second section, the two authors then provide chapters of definitions, including types, classification, and presentation of variations.
Section 3 provides six essays critiquing current theory and method. In the last of these Chapter 10, titled "The Majority text and the Original Text of the New Testament", Fee notes the recent popular revival of the Byzantine text-type. He is not a supporter. In a footnote he writes:

"It must be emphasized that even though quite a few Byzantine reading existed earlier than this, [in the context of the fourth century] the text-type itself did not exist. The question here is not a matter of readings, but of these readings all existing together in collocation in the same piece(s) of evidence. The failure to recognize this crucial point is the Achilles' heal of Sturz's study as well; it does no good to argue that some Byzantine reading can be shown to have existed early. What must be shown is that they existed together in the form that early." (footnote 4, p. 184)

Concerning Fee's criticism of Stutz, I must note that the eclectic Critical Text is a patchwork itself.

The last three sections, containing the last seven chapters, deal with theories of establishing textual relationships, and the use of patristic evidences in establishing the text.

Rob

 

[Yeshua1]

Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism [LINK]
By Eldon J. Epp and Gordon Fee, (1993)

Written for seminary or graduate students, this volume contains 17 essays on various select topics in textual criticism of the NT.

The first section has two essays giving a "General and Historical Overview" of the topic.

"Textual Criticism is … of special significance to the biblical interpreter in at least three ways: (1) It attempts to determine the authentic words of an author. The first question the exegete asks is, What does the text say? before one asks, What does it mean? (2) The majority of Christians have access to the NT only in translation, and the basic consideration in choosing a translation is its accuracy in representing the original text of the author. Before deciding what any of the words meant, a translator's first concern must be that he or she is translation the actual word the author wrote. (3) A knowledge of the history of textual variation will also help the interpreter to see how a passage was understood during the early history of the church. In many instances variant reading are a reflection of a scribe's or a church's theological interests, and sometimes such changes put one in direct contact with historical exegesis." (Fee, p.3)
​

In the second section, the two authors then provide chapters of definitions, including types, classification, and presentation of variations.
Section 3 provides six essays critiquing current theory and method. In the last of these Chapter 10, titled "The Majority text and the Original Text of the New Testament", Fee notes the recent popular revival of the Byzantine text-type. He is not a supporter. In a footnote he writes:
Concerning Fee's criticism of Stutz, I must note that the eclectic Critical Text is a patchwork itself.

The last three sections, containing the last seven chapters, deal with theories of establishing textual relationships, and the use of patristic evidences in establishing the text.

Rob

So after reading thru this good discussion, am I wrong to still hold to the truth that regardless if one chooses to use the TR/MT/CT, that one still has the word of god to us as the Lord intended us to have for the new testament?

That one cannot be dogmatic in seeing that one is superior to exclusion of all others, but that we can prefer to use one over another?