Featured Books on Textual Criticism

Good review. I have this one too.

 

And now for "the rest of the story" behind the book Deacon reviewed, 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.

First of all, you should know that this is the book version of a symposium at Southeaster BTS. Now, note that Epp's essay is 66 pages, the one by Holmes is 24, the one by Elliot is 24, but the one by Robinson is only 15. Does that mean that Robinson's case was weak, as some reviewers said? Absolutely not. The truth is, the publisher's editor at Baker Academic insisted that Robinson's essay was too long, and so he must cut it by 25%, giving no reason for the cut! And no other author was asked to cut his essay, least of all Epp at 66 pages.

So Robinson cut it by 25%, and the book's editor, David Alan Black, was happy with it, so the book was ready to publish. However, to get his complete essay out there, Robinson submitted it to the peer reviewed online journal, TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, where it was published in the complete version.

And then guess what? The editor now said Robinson had to cut it again by 50%!! This is the dirtiest move I've ever heard of by an editor, when you consider the length of the other essays, especially Epp's. By this time, Robinson was ready to refuse to have his essay in the book. He finally agreed to do so only if there was a footnote telling where the original essay can be found online. (See the footnote on p. 126; the essay is no longer at the URL given there, though.) The complete essay may be read nowadays either online at Robinson, The case for Byzantine priority, or as the appendix to The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005.

So, note that the essay in this book is a very brief summary of his theory of textual criticism. Note also that many reviews don't read footnotes, so criticized Robinson for brevity. Note that there are publishing editors who you can't trust (though I trust mine completely). Note that you can't really learn Byzantine priority from this book. And that's "the rest of the story," as Paul Harvey used to say.

 

Burnett Hillman Streeter, The Four Gospels; a Study of Origins. London & NY: MacMillan, 1964.

This is a well-known book on the subject by a well-known liberal scholar. I have to say that it is a mixture of source criticism and textual criticism, and so is very technical. I've read much of it, but not all, and consulted it a few times, but it's hard to wrap your head around. Don't buy it unless you have the training to get through it.

Essentially, he follows Westcott and Hort, and does his best to improve on them. He puts forth a four source theory of the Gospel origins, whereas the usual liberal theory is only two sources: Mark and Q. He accepts the Lucian recension proposed by W&H, but adds his own view of a recension of the Alexandrian text type. Pretty heavy stuff.

Well, see you tomorrow. I have to go for a routine (hopefully) dental exam.

 

Harry A. Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984.

This is a ground-breaking book in the field of textual criticism. To be clear, Sturz was not Byzantine priority. Black calls his position "Reasoned Conservatism" (New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 38), saying, "Scholars who hold to this view argue that the Byzantine text is older than the age of the earliest Byzantine manuscript (fifth century)."

The point of Sturz's method is not that the Byzantine should have priority, but that the Byzantine textform should be given equal weight with the Alexandrian textform in determining readings because of its antiquity being provably equal to the Alexandrian. Thus, Sturz closes the body of his book with the statement, "However, if it is not 'secondary' but 'independent' in its attestation to early readings, it appears reasonable to conclude that the Byzantine text should be given equal weight, along with the Alexandrian and 'Western' texts, in evaluating external evidence for readings" (p. 130).

This book is the result of massive scholarship by Sturz. To show you what I mean, note that the body of the book is only 130 pages, but the appendixes, manuscript lists, and charts go on to p. 230, then his bibliography goes on for 44 pages!

 

Wilbur N. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, rev. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1977, 1980. The 4th edition came out in 2014, and one of these days I'll get it--when the CFO of the family says we have enough money--sometime after the very expensive crown is paid for that I learned yesterday that I need.

This was an early entry in the defense of the Byzantine/Majority text, and Pickering did a good job. To be clear, his PhD is in linguistics, not textual criticism or ancient languages, but all in all he does a good job for the Byzantine. I have to say that since he is a missionary translator, I feel a great affinity with him.

Pickering believes that the true text of the Greek NT must be preserved somewhere in the manuscripts. In recent years he has come to believe that to be in the Family 35 group of Greek mss, and has edited a Greek NT along that line, which can be seen here: https://www.amazon.com/Greek-New-Testament-According-Family/dp/0997468688/ref=sr_1_5?crid=18NWMFIHZJD33&keywords=wilbur+pickering&qid=1650380236&s=books&sprefix=wilbu,stripbooks,304&sr=1-5

One of these days I'll catch up to Pickering's thinking, but since retiring from Japan and becoming a prof, I really have not had time.

 

Everett W. Fowler, Evaluating Versions of the New Testament. Watertown, WI: Maranatha Baptist Press, 1981.

This was the publishing arm of Maranatha Baptist Bible College (now called MBU) in 1981. Back in the day, the college was a strong supporter of a majority text position, and Fowler was a professor there.

The body of the book is only 23 pages, and gives what might be called a strong Received Text position. Then there are six "tables" that make up the rest of the book. These "tables" are charts showing the differences between the TR and various Greek and English versions of the NT. As such, it is a useful book, and I've kept it around all of these years.

My son went to Maranatha for his BA, and we got our MA degrees there together while my wife and I were on furlough in 2005, even being in some classes together. (Pity the poor professors!) Nowadays the school has backed off from that hardline position on the TR.

 

Theodore P. Letis, ed., The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate. Grand Rapids: Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, 1987.

Letis is somewhat of an odd duck. If I recall correctly, he is Presbyterian, but strong on the TR. I remember that back in the day he spoke at Pensacola Christian College on textual issues, though they are fundamentalist and mostly Baptist, though ostensibly interdenominational. I believe Letis is still active.

The book has essays by Pickering, John Wenham, James Borland (at Liberty), Pierson Parker, and S. M. Houghton, and four by Letis himself. Overall, the book is somewhat helpful as I recall, though it was way back in 1991 that I read it. However, it starts off badly in the preface with, “A Christian makes perhaps no more crucial decision than choosing a Bible” (p. v.). Really? What about the decision to surrender one’s life to Jesus Christ? And serve Him alone?

 

Aha. Thank you. You say "was," so is he still alive?

 

Carson is a great writer, usually gracious. He's definitely right about eclectics needing to answer the questions raised by Pickering and other Byzantine scholars. As seen above in my story about how Robinson was discriminated against by the publisher's editor, many times the eclectic side summarily dismisses the Byzantine/Majority side without even considering our arguments.

Metzger & Ehrman (the atheist textual critic) say, "Pierpont and Robinson acknowledge their theological assumption that God must have preserved the text for his church in a relatively pristine form and that the majority of witnesses are therefore more likely to be original" (The Text of the NT, 219 fn). Regardless of the fact that I don't think this is how they would put it, the opposition to divine preservation is an atheistic, anti-providence view. All of the systematic theologies acknowledge the doctrine that God providentially preserves His creation. So, why would He not preserve His Word?? But with a footnote, Metzger & Ehrman dismiss the Byzantine priority view.

One who does somewhat respect Maurice Robinson is Stanley Porter. In Translating the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), the book he edited with Mark Boda, he includes essays on textual criticism by Robinson, Barbara Aland, and Philip Comfort.

Robinson has two essays: "The Rich Man and Lazarus--Luke 16:19-31: Text Critical Notes," and: "Rule 9, Isolated Variants, and the 'Test-Tube' Nature of the NA27/UVS4 Text: A Byzantine Priority Perspective." Aland, while opposing Robinson, is fairly respectful.

If you are curious about Rule 9, it is one of 12 put forth by Aland and her husband in their book, The Text of the New Testament, and it states that "Variants must never be treated in isolation, but always considered in the context of the tradition. Otherwise there is too great a danger of reconstructing a 'test-tube text' which never existed at any time or place" (quoted in Porter and Boda, p. 23). Robinson then goes on to prove that NA27 is the very "test-tube text" that the Alands warned against! There are many readings in NA27 which appear nowhere at all in any manuscript.