Is it possible to have a professional conversation about the history of Textual Criticism?

[Dr. Jack]

That is, this:

You are looking at the 'final product' where an apparatus is provided. What I don't see you presenting are ...
1. The names of those who established the central rules of Textual Criticism; or
2. The theological views (pertaining to the Scriptures) of those who created those rules in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Keep in mind, even though Eclecticism, Stemmatics, and Copy text editing were practiced by men such as Erasmus, the rules of Textual Criticism used today were NOT in existence until 150 years after the days of Erasmus. (This means that there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that Erasmus used any of the same rules as modern Textual Criticis.)

The 1689 London Baptist Confession, Article 1, Paragraph 8 reads as follows:

"The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old),14 and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.15 But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read,16 and search them,17therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,18 that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope."

Can you provide evidence that the people who established the rules of Textual Criticism in the 18th and 19th centuries held to the beliefs presented in the Confession above?

 

[Radagast]

You are looking at the 'final product' where an apparatus is provided. What I don't see you presenting are ...
1. The names of those who established the central rules of Textual Criticism; or

I don't believe that you know what those rules are.

2. The theological views (pertaining to the Scriptures) of those who created those rules in the 18th and 19th centuries.

That's where I thought you were going. The rules and views of guys from way back then is profoundly irrelevant.

The 1689 London Baptist Confession

This may come as a shock to you, but I don't hold to the London Baptist Confession either (I'm a Presbyterian).

 

[Dr. Jack]

I don't believe that you know what those rules are.

You may believe anything you wish. My purpose here is to discuss the origin of these rules, and WHY they came into existence. This is most certainly relevant to the current beliefs pertaining to Textual Criticism, and why modern theologians are more likely to follow the Critical text, than the Recieved text.

That's where I thought you were going. The rules and views of guys from way back then is profoundly irrelevant.

That is an assertion I don't believe you can support.

This may come as a shock to you, but I don't hold to the London Baptist Confession either (I'm a Presbyterian).

Yes, most modern confessions deny this long held position ... the question is ... Why?

The answer is what makes it relevant.

 

[Radagast]

modern theologians are more likely to follow the Critical text, than the Recieved text.

Modern theologians are going to look at the footnotes in the Greek text and make up their mind on a case-by-case basis which textual variant they think is correct.

Yes, most modern confessions deny this long held position

Huh? I hold to the Belgic Confession of 1561.

 

[Dr. Jack]

Modern theologians are going to look at the footnotes in the Greek text and make up their mind on a case-by-case basis which textual variant they think is correct.



Huh? I hold to the Belgic Confession of 1561.

Do you know how, or why the rules of modern Textual Criticism were developed?

 

[Radagast]

Do you know how, or why the rules of modern Textual Criticism were developed?

I know what the genetic fallacy is.

If we follow your reasoning, we should reject mathematics because pagan Babylonians, Egyptians, and Greeks did all the early work.

 

[Dr. Jack]

I know what the genetic fallacy is.

If we follow your reasoning, we should reject mathematics because pagan Babylonians, Egyptians, and Greeks did all the early work.

Here is the problem with your position, you say you subscribe to the Belgic Confession of 1561; are you willing to put that to the test?

 

[Radagast]

Here is the problem with your position, you say you subscribe to the Belgic Confession of 1561; are you willing to put that to the test?

Are you calling me a liar?

Is it possible to have a civil conversation about this topic; and can it be kept at a professional, and polite level?

Apparently not.

 

[Dr. Jack]

Are you calling me a liar?

Not at all ... I believe your intent is to follow the Belgic Confession of 1561; but modern scholarship, especially Textual Criticism, clearly does not.

Apparently not.

Have I been uncivil, or unprofessional in any way?

You have told me that you do not believe that I know the rules of Textual Criticism more than once. Since I am the one that started this thread, (where the history of Textual Criticism is the topic); wouldn't it be you who was being unprofessional by asserting that I don't know the rules on the subject I brought up?

Hence, my challenge stands, are you willing to examine the portion of the Belgic Confession of 1561 that relates to the Scriptures, apply it to the very time wherein it was written, and see if it aligns with the intent behind the origin of Textual Criticism?

 

[hedrick]

Not at all ... I believe your intent is to follow the Belgic Confession of 1561; but modern scholarship, especially Textual Criticism, clearly does not.

I just looked at the Belgic Confession. It says that God "commanded his servants, the prophets and apostles, to commit this revealed Word to writing." I did not find any place where it talked about the way that writing was copied and given to us. Everyone agrees that there are manuscripts that disagree. I see nothing in the Belgic Confession to guide us in deciding how to use those manuscripts.

 

[Radagast]

Not at all ... I believe your intent is to follow the Belgic Confession of 1561; but modern scholarship, especially Textual Criticism, clearly does not.

Plenty of modern scholars also accept the Belgic Confession of 1561.

You have told me that you do not believe that I know the rules of Textual Criticism

Well, perhaps you could give an example of a textual-criticism rule that you disagree with, and then we could discuss that.

 

[Radagast]

I just looked at the Belgic Confession. It says that God "commanded his servants, the prophets and apostles, to commit this revealed Word to writing." I did not find any place where it talked about the way that writing was copied and given to us.

A typical Evangelical view consistent both with that and with Textual Criticism is the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

 

[Dr. Jack]

A typical Evangelical view consistent both with that and with Textual Criticism is the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

Using this last quote above, I will present my reason for this discussion.

The person I would like to introduce is Johann Solomo Semler.

"Johann Salomo Semler, (born Dec. 18, 1725, Saalfeld, duchy of Saxe-Saalfeld [Germany]—died March 14, 1791, Halle, Brandenburg), German Lutheran theologian who was a major figure in the development of biblical textual criticism during his tenure (1753–91) as professor of theology at the University of Halle.
"Semler was a disciple of the rationalist Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten, whom he succeeded on his death in 1757 as head of the theological faculty. Seeking to study biblical texts scientifically, Semler evolved an undogmatic and strictly historical interpretation of Scripture that provoked strong opposition. He was the first to deny, and to offer substantial evidence supporting his denial, that the entirety of the text of Old and New Testaments was divinely inspired and fully correct. He challenged the divine authority of the biblical canon, which he reexamined in order to determine the sequence of composition of biblical books, their nature, and their manner of transmission. From this work he drew a crucial distinction between an earlier, Jewish form of Christianity and a later, broader form."
Johann Salomo Semler | German theologian

We see the following concerning Semler:
1) He "was a major figure in the development of biblical textual criticism";
2) "He was the first to deny, and to offer substantial evidence supporting his denial, that the entirety of the text of Old and New Testaments was divinely inspired and fully correct."; and
3) "He challenged the divine authority of the biblical canon"

In the Concordia Theological Quarterly
Volume 80:1–2 January/April 2016, in the Article "The Contribution of Johann Salomo Semler
to the Historical Criticism of the New Testament", by Boris Paschke, we read, "A study of Semler’s contribution to historical criticism of the New
Testament is worthwhile because―even though it can be debated if he is to be called its father or founder―he was certainly one of the first and leading figures in New Testament historical criticism. Thus, studying his critical thought is a good introduction to the whole discipline."

The Belgic Confession of 1561 was written during the Reformation by Reformers who ...

1) Based their English Bible (the Geneva Bible), on the Byzantine MSS.
2) They believed that ALL Scripture was A) inspired by God; and B) carried the authority of God.

Semler denied both of the above. Semler, (and his disciples) developed the rules of Textual Criticism for the sole purpose of determining through scientific, and critical methodologies what portions of what was called Scripture (in the 1700's, approximately 200 years after the Belgic Confession was written), was indeed "inspired Scripture", and what was later "added" by man.

Here is the first line of the first of Johann Jakob Griesbach's rules:

"1. The shorter reading, if not wholly lacking the support of old and weighty witnesses, is to be preferred over the more verbose."

When we consider the fact that Griesbach was one of Semler's best students, we can see why such a rule was produced. Hence, it is clear to see that Textual Criticism was developed by "theologians" that actually denied both the inspiration, and authoritativenes of all Scripture.

 

[Radagast]

He was the first to deny, and to offer substantial evidence supporting his denial, that the entirety of the text of Old and New Testaments was divinely inspired and fully correct.

That's the genetic fallacy.

He challenged the divine authority of the biblical canon, which he reexamined in order to determine the sequence of composition of biblical books, their nature, and their manner of transmission. From this work he drew a crucial distinction between an earlier, Jewish form of Christianity and a later, broader form.

And you seem to be conflating textual criticism with so-called "higher criticism." They are in fact quite different.

The Belgic Confession of 1561 was written during the Reformation by Reformers who ...

1) Based their English Bible (the Geneva Bible), on the Byzantine MSS.

The Belgic Confession of 1561 was, as the name suggests, Belgic. The people behind it did not use an English Bible.

Here is the first line of the first of Johann Jakob Griesbach's rules:

"1. The shorter reading, if not wholly lacking the support of old and weighty witnesses, is to be preferred over the more verbose."

I don't think anybody accepts that rule today; not in any simplistic sense, that is. In fact, modern scholars have argued strongly against it. Why don't you take your rules from a modern textbook instead?

The ancient dictum proclivi scriptuoni praestat ardua is still widely cited, but ultimately these rules only affect the ranking of variants in the Greek text. A preacher or commentator can and will take a B-ranked variant over an A-ranked one if he feels the evidence supports that.

 

[Dr. Jack]

That's the genetic fallacy.



And you seem to be conflating textual criticism with so-called "higher criticism." They are in fact quite different.



The Belgic Confession of 1561 was, as the name suggests, Belgic. The people behind it did not use an English Bible.



I don't think anybody accepts that rule today; not in any simplistic sense, that is. In fact, modern scholars have argued strongly against it. Why don't you take your rules from a modern textbook instead?

The ancient dictum proclivi scriptuoni praestat ardua is still widely cited, but ultimately these rules only affect the ranking of variants in the Greek text. A preacher or commentator can and will take a B-ranked variant over an A-ranked one if he feels the evidence supports that.

You can claim the genetic fallacy all you want, but a study of Semler proves otherwise. The rules that were established by his disciples were established because Semler set out to separate what he thought was inspired, from that which he denied as inspired.

The rules of Bengal, Griesbach, and Hort are still the foundation of Textual Criticism.

That is why when the ERV was published, the translators rejected the very underlying Greek text of all Reformation Bibles, and literally published a critical Greek text simultaneously, as they produced the new English text.

They covered their actions with the following statement in the Preface:

"1. A revision of the Greek text was the necessary foundation of our work; but it did not fall within our province to construct a continuous and complete Greek text."

This was an absolute lie. We all know the Greek text of the ERV of 1881 is based upon the Alexandrian text type MSS, and not the Byzantine MSS.

The purpose of using producing a critical text (which the NA 28 can be traced back to), was to accomplish that which Semler set out to do.

 

[Radagast]

You can claim the genetic fallacy all you want, but a study of Semler proves otherwise.

No, it's all just the genetic fallacy over and over again.

If you want to talk about modern textual criticism, pick up a modern textbook and explain where it's wrong.

That is why when the ERV was published, the translators rejected the very underlying Greek text of all Reformation Bibles

I really don't care what the translators of the ERV of 1881 did. I don't use the ERV of 1881. Nobody I know does.

 

[Dr. Jack]

No, it's all just the genetic fallacy over and over again.

If you want to talk about modern textual criticism, pick up a modern textbook and explain where it's wrong.



I really don't care what the translators of the ERV of 1881 did. I don't use the ERV of 1881. Nobody I know does.

The practice of Textual Criticism with that same Greek text has been the basis of nearly all modern Bibles.

A typical Evangelical view consistent both with that and with Textual Criticism is the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

As I'm sure you are aware, θεοπνευστος literally means "God breathed". This means that God breathed the "words" of Scripture.

Do you believe there is a single Greek text that now "faithfully represent the original"?

 

[Dr. Jack]

No, it's all just the genetic fallacy over and over again.

If you want to talk about modern textual criticism, pick up a modern textbook and explain where it's wrong.



I really don't care what the translators of the ERV of 1881 did. I don't use the ERV of 1881. Nobody I know does.

I am aware that you "really don't care what the translators of the ERV of 1881 did". But like it or not, their practice of Textual Criticism has indeed affected the Greek text of every modern version.

Since 1881, modern scholarship has been seeking to reach a rendition of English that better represents the Greek. At the same time, they are also supposedly trying to bring the Greek text to properly reflect the original.

John Burgon said this:

"But there is clearly a question of prior interest and infinitely greater importance, which has to be settled first: namely, the merits or demerits of the changes which the same Scholars have taken upon themselves to introduce into the Greek Text. Until it has been ascertained that the result of their labours exhibits a decided improvement upon what before was read, it is clearly a mere waste of time to enquire into the merits of their work as Revisers of a [pg 008]Translation."

In the link provided concerning the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, we find the following:

1. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives.

The Belgic Confession states:

"We confess that this Word of God was not sent, nor delivered by the will of man, but that holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, as the apostle Peter says. And that afterwards God, from a special care, which he has for us and our salvation, commanded his servants, the prophets and apostles, to commit his revealed word to writing; and he himself wrote with his own finger, the two tables of the law. Therefore we call such writings holy and divine Scriptures."

In 1561, and in 1689 (London Baptist Confession) God fearing theologians believed they held in their hands God's preserved words. Yet, according to modern scholarship, all of those theologians were wrong, because all Reformation Bibles were based upon the Byzantine MSS, and in 1881 scholarship dismissed the vast majority of MSS for a few MSS that differ, more than they agree.

The editors of the NA/UBS text severely criticized the Textus Receptus, going as far as characterizing the Textus Receptus as the "poorest form of the New Testament text". The introduction to the Nestle-Aland 26th edition says:

"When Eberhard Nestle produced the first edition of the Novum Testamentum Graece in 1898, neither he nor the sponsoring Wurttemburg Bible Society could have imagined the full extent of what had been started. Although the Textus Receptus could still claim a wide range of defenders, the scholarship of the nineteenth century had conclusively demonstrated it to be the poorest form of the New Testament text." (Introduction to Novum Testamentum Graece - Nestle-Aland 26th Edition)


In the course of the twentieth century, textual critics, Kurt Aland, Bruce Metzger, Cardinal Carlo Martini and others built on the works of Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort and produced what is called the Nestle-Aland or United Bible Society Greek (NA/UBS) text. Metzger wrote:

"The international committee that produced the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, not only adopted the Westcott and Hort edition as its basic text, but followed their methodology in giving attention to both external and internal consideration" (James Brooks, Bible Interpreters of the 20th century, p. 264).


Bruce Metzger said the Westcott Hort text was
"The most noteworthy critical edition of the Greek Testament ever produced by British scholarship."
B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), p. 129.

Hence, the foremost Textual Critic of the NT of the 20th century agreed with the methodologies of Westcott and Hort.

 

[Dr. Jack]

I don't think anybody accepts that rule today; not in any simplistic sense, that is. In fact, modern scholars have argued strongly against it. Why don't you take your rules from a modern textbook instead?

So the leading scholar of the 20th century disagrees with you ... so much for your "genetic fallacy".

 

[Dr. Jack]

The reason a professional discussion cannot be had concerning the history of Textual Criticism is because those who believe in Textual Criticism cannot deal with the facts concerning the origins of Textual Criticism.