Books on Textual Criticism

[Logos1560]

One book related to textual criticism, especially the textual criticism involved in the making of some Textus Receptus editions would be the following:

Krans, Jans. Beyond What Is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament. Boston: Brill, 2006.

Erasmus is not known to have any set of textual measures that he followed consistently and justly in making his textual decisions. Jan Krans observed: “It has to be stressed that Erasmus did not apply his own ’rules’ in a consistent, methodical way. This cannot be expected, for he did not have a fixed canon of rules that could be used as a check-list to inspire and to guide text-critical reflections and decisions” (Beyond What is Written, p. 51).

 

[Yeshua1]

One book related to textual criticism, especially the textual criticism involved in the making of some Textus Receptus editions would be the following:

Krans, Jans. Beyond What Is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament. Boston: Brill, 2006.

Erasmus is not known to have any set of textual measures that he followed consistently and justly in making his textual decisions. Jan Krans observed: “It has to be stressed that Erasmus did not apply his own ’rules’ in a consistent, methodical way. This cannot be expected, for he did not have a fixed canon of rules that could be used as a check-list to inspire and to guide text-critical reflections and decisions” (Beyond What is Written, p. 51).

So his version of the TR would not be seen as being the definitive one then?

 

[John of Japan]

Thanks to Deacon and Logos for good contributions to this thread. :type:

 

[HankD]

So his version of the TR would not be seen as being the definitive one then?

It's subjective and up to you to declare for yourself.

My advice FWIW, let your faith be your guide.

HankD

 

[Deacon]

My advice FWIW, let your faith be your guide.

HankD

I don’t look at the choice as a faith issue.

I come from a science background. I work in the medical field where statistics play a role making a diagnosis.
So my tendency is to look at things analytically.
The greater the probability of a result doesn’t always mean it’s the correct result.
I may be wrong in my analysis of a problem.

I have my opinions and others have theirs. My faith changes the way I react to the problem.

I can be friends and have fellowship with brothers that have different opinions about a matter without bitterness or angst because we share the same Savior.

Rob

 

[HankD]

I don’t look at the choice as a faith issue.

I come from a science background. I work in the medical field where statistics play a role making a diagnosis.
So my tendency is to look at things analytically.
The greater the probability of a result doesn’t always mean it’s the correct result.
I may be wrong in my analysis of a problem.

I have my opinions and others have theirs. My faith changes the way I react to the problem.

I can be friends and have fellowship with brothers that have different opinions about a matter without bitterness or angst because we share the same Savior.

Rob

I absolutely agree with your last statement Rob.

HankD.

 

[Greektim]

If you want a snooze-fest read, try The Early Text of the New Testament. Part 1 was really good. Part 2 was a feat to stay awake, unless you want to know about 2nd and 3rd century papyri stuff. I think it works better as a reference guide than a straight read through (which I did last summer). Part 3 was ok, not bad, not good. Parts 1 & 3 are worth the read. Part 2 if you are needing a reference for a particular passage or book of the NT.

I've also used Comfort's New Testament Text and Translation Commentary a bit with mixed helpfulness. I want to read more of Comfort's stuff. Does anyone know or like his other works?

 

[John of Japan]

I absolutely agree with your last statement Rob.

HankD.

I second the motion. All in favor?

 

[Greektim]

I second the motion. All in favor?

Eye....

I...

ay... caramba

 

[John of Japan]

If you want a snooze-fest read, try The Early Text of the New Testament. Part 1 was really good. Part 2 was a feat to stay awake, unless you want to know about 2nd and 3rd century papyri stuff. I think it works better as a reference guide than a straight read through (which I did last summer). Part 3 was ok, not bad, not good. Parts 1 & 3 are worth the read. Part 2 if you are needing a reference for a particular passage or book of the NT.

Based on the fact that this book is copyrighted just last year, it looks like an important update (however boring!) to what is going on in the discipline. Thanks for the recommendation.

I've also used Comfort's New Testament Text and Translation Commentary a bit with mixed helpfulness. I want to read more of Comfort's stuff. Does anyone know or like his other works?

I don't have anything by Comfort. Anyone else?

 

[Greektim]

Based on the fact that this book is copyrighted just last year, it looks like an important update (however boring!) to what is going on in the discipline.

Just staying current in the research... that's how I roll. :thumbs: :thumbsup: :thumbs:

 

[John of Japan]

Just staying current in the research... that's how I roll. :thumbs::thumbs:

By all means, roll on! :thumbsup: (Borrowed one of your "thumbsup.")

 

[Deacon]

I've also used Comfort's New Testament Text and Translation Commentary a bit with mixed helpfulness. I want to read more of Comfort's stuff. Does anyone know or like his other works?

I've got his book "The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts" [LINK] on Logos Bible Software - it includes every manuscript up to the year 300 at the time of its writing - digital is the preferential for comparison to other manuscripts and modern Greek versions.

You can look it over for yourself by following the link on Google Books.

Rob

 

[Deacon]

I picked this one up recently...

Codex Sinaiticus, The Story of the World's Oldest Bible [LINK]

By David C. Parker (2010)

From the dust cover:
Codex Sinaiticus is one of the world's most remarkable books. Written in Greek in the fourth century, it is the oldest surviving complete New Testament, and one of the two oldest manuscripts of the whole Bible. It also stands out as a complex and beautiful artefact. It is one of the most important texts for studying ancient Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible, and for the study of the New Testament and the two other early Christian writings it contains, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.

Early in the book, Parker describes how the codex was produced and the way it was bound, the incredibly thin parchment pages average between 100 to 150 micrometers.

Parker theorizes about the cost to produce such a work, "…enough wheat to produce 10,500 loaves of a pound weight."

It tells of the way the scribes masterfully formatted the pages. At least three scribes worked on it. We know what scribe wrote what specific sections and who corrected the original copy.

Parker discusses theories about dating the codex, lightly dismissing its connection to Constantine.

It introduces us to the decisions the scribes encountered, among them were determining the canon of Scripture in a time when it was still fluid, and working with the various Greek versions of the Septuagint.

From chapter 6 to the end discusses the text, "the correctors and what they did". We can see how errors were introduced and how others were corrected. He describes how there are 14 pages that are a repetition of text that had already been copied that the in-house corrector did not notice.

The book includes 16 color illustrations, not including the front and back end-plates.

A good book to put beside the bed and read slowly.
Even so it is the most fascinating book on textual criticism that I've ever read.

Rob

 

[Rippon]

Codex Sinaiticus, The Story of the World's Oldest Bible [LINK]

By David C. Parker (2010)


Early in the book, Parker describes how the codex was produced and the way it was bound, the incredibly thin parchment pages average between 100 to 150 micrometers.

Parker theorizes about the cost to produce such a work, "…enough wheat to produce 10,500 loaves of a pound weight."

It tells of the way the scribes masterfully formatted the pages. At least three scribes worked on it. We know what scribe wrote what specific sections and who corrected the original copy.

Parker discusses theories about dating the codex, lightly dismissing its connection to Constantine.

It introduces us to the decisions the scribes encountered, among them were determining the canon of Scripture in a time when it was still fluid, and working with the various Greek versions of the Septuagint.

From chapter 6 to the end discusses the text, "the correctors and what they did". We can see how errors were introduced and how others were corrected. He describes how there are 14 pages that are a repetition of text that had already been copied that the in-house corrector did not notice.

The book includes 16 color illustrations, not including the front and back end-plates.

A good book to put beside the bed and read slowly.
Even so it is the most fascinating book on textual criticism that I've ever read.

Rob

Wonderful. And as you noted, on the dust cover it stated;"Codex Sinaiticus is one of the world's most remarkable books. It is one of the most important texts for studying ancient Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible, and for the study of the New Testament..."

Yet on 7/16/2015 JoJ asked:"Why should I consider it authoritative?" That is an astounding question.

 

[Rippon]

If you want a snooze-fest read, try The Early Text of the New Testament. Part 1 was really good. Part 2 was a feat to stay awake, unless you want to know about 2nd and 3rd century papyri stuff. I think it works better as a reference guide than a straight read through (which I did last summer). Part 3 was ok, not bad, not good. Parts 1 & 3 are worth the read. Part 2 if you are needing a reference for a particular passage or book of the NT.

I got this particular book almost three weeks ago. But I certainly don't consider it a snooze-fest! It's fascinating.

None of the 21 scholars are of the Byzantine -priority point of view.

In chapter 21 Carl P. Cosaert says in part of the footnote on page 404:
"It should be pointed out, however, that the presence of some Byzantine readings in early papyri does not point to the existence of an early
Byzantine text-type, as Harry Sturz mistakenly concludes...The Byzantine text-type only appears several hundred years later, around the time of Chrysostom..."