.
Subsections
Ecclesiastical Text
Lost, Greek Text of the KJV & Back-Translating
OT Textual Criticism
.
.
Order of Contents
Intro
Main Schools
Quote
Collection of Works
Older Works
Historical
The Critical Texts
Against Authenticity of Vulgate
On Not Accepting the Whole Canon
.
Introduction
Textual Criticism is the science of trying to reconstruct the original autographs of the Scriptures from the many manuscripts that we have today (which vary about about 1% in the Majority Text and 7-13 % in the Critical Texts).
‘Higher Criticism’, as exercised by liberals, assumes and operates on unbelieving and destructive principles to the Bible. ‘Lower Criticism’ is the legitimate work of the Church, putting oneself under the authority of the text, and seeking to be faithful to God in using our sanctified wisdom in order to preserve and maintain the deposit of his heavenly Revelation to mankind.
Why does textual criticism matter? Because most Bible versions today (besides the KJV & NKJV) are based largely off of the Critical Texts. While no primary doctrine of Christianity is lost in these versions, many secondary and tertiary doctrines are significantly altered. See here for a list of 40 Doctrinally Significant Variants.¹
¹ Mt 5:22,44; 6:1,13; 9:13; 17:21; 18:11; 19:17; 20:16; 20:22; 23:14; Mk 1:2; 6:11; 7:8; 9:29,44,46,49; 10:21,24; 16:9-20; Lk 2:40; 18:28; 22:43-44, 64; 23:34, 42, 45; Jn 1:18; 3:13; 5:4; Acts 2:30; 8:37; 10:30; 24:6-8; 28:29; Rom 8:1; 11:6; 1 Tim. 3:16; James 2:20; 1 Jn 4:3.
.
The Main Schools of Thought
The Ecclesiastical Text (recommended)
See here for an introduction as to how the manuscripts of the New Testament have been providentially preserved by God through the ages. The King James’ Textus Receptus comes from this tradition.
.
Reasoned Eclecticism – The most popular school of thought today
Pro
Snapp, James – ‘Equitable Eclecticism: the Future of New Testament Textual Criticism’
Eclecticism means to pick and choose from various paradigms. ‘Reasoned’ and ‘Equitable’ refers to giving things their proper due weight, as opposed to a consistent and systematic critical text approach. This view is something of a middle view (though in practice it often leans 85% to the critical texts and shares many of their presuppositions).
Snapp gives an excellent introduction to the concept of textual criticism, one of the best overviews of the modern and recent history of textual criticism, and gives many helpful principles of doing textual criticism (much of which the Majority Text school of thought would agree with). Read this, learn and be humbled.
.
Con
Wilson, Andrew – The Problem with Reasoned Eclecticism n.d. 53 paragraphs
Wilson is a published author in the field. The article is technical and offers 4 problems with Reasoned Eclecticism, though the main one is simply that it follows the Critical Texts nearly all the time and its appearance of neutrality otherwise is a facade.
Wilson calls his own position Balanced Eclecticism, which is something of a middle position between Reasoned Eclecticism and the Majority Text.
Wilson, Andrew – ‘Prefer the Shorter Reading?’ n.d. 8 paragraphs with two charts
One of the most foundational pillars of critical textual criticism since its rise in the late 1800’s has been to (almost always) prefer the shorter reading, which pillar is still widely popular today. The unproven assumption was that scribes would most often have willingly expanded the text (contrary to any fear of God and the testimony of the early Church Fathers).
This pillar of modern textual criticism, unbeknownst to many, has been thoroughly disproved by half a dozen recent textual studies. Consistent with common sense, scribes, insofar as they unintentionally made mistakes, most often simply left a letter or word out (bad eyesight). Wilson provides a table. Modern textual criticism, which underlies the basis of most modern Bible versions, has no clothes on; but rather has been cutting out the Word of God (Rev. 22:18-19).
.
The Critical Texts (not recommended)
In the mid-late 1800’s 3 or so rather full N.T. manuscripts were uncovered in the sands of Egypt, which appear to be from circa A.D. 250. As these were older than the many Majority Texts we had at the time (many from the 300’s), they were thought by many to be more accurate.
However, while the Majority Text differs in a about 1% with itself, the Critical Texts differ about 8-13% with themselves and with what the Church previously used throughout Church history. Today we have found numerous early paper manuscripts from the 2nd century that have confirmed Majority Text readings.
It is believed by the contributors to this website, with much scholarship, that the Critical Texts are inferior and corrupt manuscripts. To see the very full evidence that points to this conclusion, see some of the numerous articles on the Majority Text page. Most Bible versions today are based off of the Critical Texts.
.
.
Quote
1600’s
Manton, Bates, Case, Baxter, Fairclough, et al.
The Judgment of Non-Conformists of the Interest of Reason in Matters of Religion in which it is Proved against Make-Baits that both Conformists & Non-Conformists, & All Parties of true Protestants are herein really agreed, though unskilful speakers differ in words (London: 1676), p. 12 This was signed by 15 non-conformist English puritans.
“We must use our best reason in diligent meditation and judgement to search the works of God in nature, to know which are the true canonical Scriptures, to discern true copies and readings where the copies differ, to expound the text, to translate it truly…”
.
A Collection of Works on Textual Criticism
Library of New Testament Textual Criticism
This collection by James Snapp, Jr. includes 70 of the major textual critical works available on the internet, both conservative and liberal.
.
Older Articles
1800’s
Cunningham, William – ‘The General Integrity of the Original Text of Scripture, Westminster Confession of Faith’, ch. 1.8 (1878), p. 525, 25 pp. being chs. 43 & 44 of Theological Lectures
Dabney, Robert – ‘The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek’ in Discussions, vol. 1, p. 350 ff.
Gaussen, Louis – ‘On Sacred Criticism’, p. 324, 25 pp. being ch. 6 of Theopneustia: The Divine Inspiration of the Bible
.
1900’s
Whitley, William Thomas – VIII. ‘A Study in Textual Criticism’ in Princeton Theological Review 1.1 (1903), pp. 93-100
Whitlely demonstrates that the canons used to redact critical editions of the New Testament are simply incorrect.
“A dozen intelligent Christians were desired to copy exactly two passages: eight of these were theological students and knew something of the theories of textual criticism; all were urged to be scrupulously precise, were interested in the subject-matter, and had abundance of time.
The result was to show that additions were absent, omissions frequent, alterations nearly always for the worse. Is it not high time that these canons were subjected to a thorough testing?”
.
Historical
Article
Marlowe, Michael D. – ‘Textual Criticism in the Writings of Francis Turretin: A Case Study in the History of Criticism & Dogma’ (2003) at Bible-Researcher
.
The Critical Texts
eds. Aland, Black et al – The Greek New Testament 2nd ed. (United Bible Societies, 1968) 995 pp. ToC
Note that this work is now on its 4th (or greater) edition.
eds. Nestle-Aland – Greek New Testament 28th ed. (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012) 1,005 pp. ToC
.
Against the Authenticity of the Latin Vulgate over the Greek
Article
1500’s
Rollock, Robert – A Treatise of Effectual Calling (1603) in Select Works of Robert Rollock… (d. 1599; Edinburgh, 1849), vol. 1
19. ‘The Authentic Edition of the Scripture—The New Testament’ 119-27
21. ‘The Syriac Translation of the New Testament’ 135-36
22. ‘The Latin Translations of both Testaments’ 136-40
.
.
On Not Accepting the Whole Canon or All the Right Texts
Quote
1500’s
William Whitaker (1548-1595)
A Defense of Ecclesiastical Authority against Stapleton & for the Authority & Autopistia of the Sacred Scripture (Christopher Corvinus, 1596), p. 181 tr. Nosferatur with AI On whether one may have “the Holy Spirit who rejects any canonical Scripture:”
“Those indeed who either reject all the Scriptures, or truncate the principal and primary parts of Scripture and as it were the most beautiful members of this body, it is manifest that they are driven by an evil spirit. But it can happen that someone, induced by probable arguments, may not think one or another particle of Scripture to be Canonical, being prepared to change his opinion, if either a better reason should persuade otherwise, or the Lord should dispel that doubt with His Spirit. Will you immediately condemn this man, and judge him to be plainly deserted by the Holy Spirit?
If you do this, you will now proscribe not only Luther, or Calvin, or a few private men, but you will adjudge many, both ancient and flourishing Churches, to eternal punishments. For there never was of the Churches, nor is there today, not even among the Papists, the same opinion of all Christians concerning the Canon and the number of the divine books, as has been explained by me rather often.”
.
.
.
Related Pages