Come Study OT Textual Criticism in the Desert

ETC readers may know that Dr. Meade and I direct the recently-founded Text & Canon Institute at Phoenix Seminary. Our mission is to produce academic research and church resources that illuminate the origin of the Bible. We do this through publications, mentoring, academic colloquia, church conferences, and digital resources. 

Today, we are pleased to share that we have made a strategic hire that will help us fulfill that mission. Dr. Peter J. Gentry, whose work needs no introduction here, was already a member of our board of advisors but he will now be joining us as our first Senior Research Fellow. He also been appointed as a Distinguished Visiting Professor of Old Testament at the seminary. These positions provide continued teaching opportunity for Dr. Gentry while providing more time for his ongoing research on the text of the Old Testament.

Dr. Gentry will teach courses at both the MDiv and ThM level at Phoenix Seminary. As a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute, he will be especially involved with our TCI Fellows. If you are a student who is interested in a PhD in textual criticism or canon studies or just want to shore up those areas before doing ancillary work, let me encourage you to consider our TCI Fellowship. Applications are open through December 31. Where else can you study with two PJGs?

You can read the official announcement here or watch the video.

Eberhard Nestle on His Revision of Scrivener’s GNT

For some time now, my main church Bible has been a nice hardcover of Scrivener’s 1906 Greek New Testament. It combines several features I like: it’s hardy (mine having been rebound); the text is clear and uncluttered (verse numbers are in the margin); it gives clearly marked differences between the major editions of the GNT and Stephanus 1550; it details differences even in accent; it’s small.

This fourth edition is, however, a revision done by Eberhard Nestle that includes about 500 corrections to the third. I know this number only becasue Teunis van Lopik recently sent me the following note published by Nestle in 1905. Tuenis shared with me that he found it in his copy of Scrivener’s 4th edition which he purchased in 2006. His copy had been owned by the Dutch NT scholar F.W. Grosheide in 1907 according an exlibris signature and owner’s stamp. My thanks to Teunis for sharing this with us. I’ve printed it out to put in my own copy.

Why the Textus Receptus Cannot Be Accepted (Jan Krans)

Here follows a guest post from a colleague and reader of the blog, Jan Krans of the Protestantse Theologische Universiteit (PThU) in Amsterdam, author of Beyond What is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament, NTTSD 35 (Brill, 2006).

---

Why the Textus Receptus cannot be accepted

In the discussion on the Textus Receptus two points of view exist that are diametrically opposed. I will first present the two views, and then demonstrate why only one of these can be sustained. 

In favour of the Textus Receptus

According to the first position the Textus Receptus has to be the one and only reliable text of the Greek New Testament. In other words it has to be the text that shows the correct reading at every single place of variation. Important historical-theological reasons are brought forward for this conclusion.

Historically speaking the Textus Receptus was the Greek New Testament text of the Reformation, during which the Bible itself took centre stage. Theologically speaking the Reformation was God-willed and God-given. Hence God himself used the Textus Receptus for his plans, condoned it, and even guided the minds and hands of its editors. In short the Textus Receptus has to be perfect.

There is even a biblical foundation for this view, for numerous Bible verses show that nothing of God’s word shall be lost: God assures that the Bible is transmitted in a pure and unaltered form. This form is the Textus Receptus.

With this position comes the conviction that the entire textual history since the establishment of the Textus Receptus has to be seen as degradation. Every textual change and every critical voice has to be suspect. For this corollary, again, historical-theological grounds can be given. The time since the Reformation, notably the Enlightenment, is marked by gradual alienation from God and detrimental human autonomy. Driven by the Enlightenment spirit, people began to undermine the Textus Receptus. Therefore all later texts and editions have to be rejected as thinly veiled attacks on God’s word.

It will be clear already at this stage that this first position can only be valid for those who share its most important presupposition, namely the special character of the Reformation, although this presupposition itself does not necessarily lead to the unconditional acceptance of the Textus Receptus.

Book Notice: Changing the Goalpost of New Testament Textual Criticism

Congratulations to Dr. Abidan Paul Shah who has just published his dissertation written under the direction of Maurice Robinson. I first met Abidan several years ago at ETS and have had the benefit to see him in action as a pastor. I’m looking forward to getting a copy. Here are the details.

Publisher Description

Changing the Goalpost of New Testament Textual Criticism

Before the 1960s, the goal of New Testament Textual Criticism was singular: to retrieve the “original text” of the New Testament. Since then, the goalpost has incrementally shifted away from the “original text” to retrieving “any text” or “many texts” of the NT. Some scholars have even concluded that the “original text” is hopelessly lost and cannot be retrieved with any confidence or accuracy. Other scholars have gone a step further to claim that the idea of an “original text” itself is a misconception that needs to be abandoned. If this new approach in NTTC is correct, then the authority of Scripture is weakened or no longer valid. It will be shown in this book that such is not the case. Furthermore, emphasis will be placed on the need to return to the traditional goalpost of NTTC, i.e., to retrieve the original text. Without a generally definitive text, the door will be left wide open to recreate any desired text of the NT. An unsettled original text will result in an unsettled biblical theology due to a lack of any authoritative and standard text. Consequently, it will lead to an unsettled Christian faith and practice.

Endorsements

“In this much-needed study of New Testament textual criticism, Shah offers far more than careful historical scholarship concerning one of the most vexing questions in this field. While his analysis offers a first-class treatment of the concept of ‘original text,’ he also rediscovers ideas that speak to the current confusion concerning the overriding goal of the discipline of textual criticism. The result of Shah’s work is that rare academic book that is grounded in careful research and yet speaks powerfully to the church today about the proper role and goal of New Testament textual criticism. This is a scintillating book that I believe will prove vital for the church as it seeks to be faithful to its historical documents.”
—David Alan Black, M. O. Owens Jr. Chair of New Testament, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary 

“Shah’s work on this vitally important topic is both thorough and insightful. He is at his best when he is tracing and documenting the major players and ideas in the modern trends of New Testament textual criticism, and even those who might be inclined to disagree with Shah’s conclusions will find much in this work that is of great value to contemporary research in textual criticism.”
—Edward D. Gravely, Professor of Christian Studies, Charleston Southern University 

“The great pioneers of the field of New Testament textual criticism sometimes differed in method but agreed on the goal of the discipline–restoring the original text of the New Testament. Changing the Goalpost shows that some modern textual critics have abandoned this historic quest as unattainable and rightly urges a return to the traditional goal for the sake of both the academy and the church.”
—Charles L. Quarles, Research Professor of New Testament and Biblical Theology, Charles Page Chair of Biblical Theology, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

TC Journal vol. 25 (2020) is up

The first installment of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism vol. 25 (2020) is complete with two articles and eight reviews. More articles will be uploaded in a second installment, hopefully later this year.

Volume 25 (2020)

Articles

Florenc Mene, “Scribal Harmonization in Codex Alexandrinus? The Pentateuchal Quotations in the Corpus Paulinum” (pp. 1–35)

Abstract: This study examines the phenomenon of scribal harmonization in Codex Alexandrinus. It does so by analyzing all the Pentateuchal quotations in the Corpus Paulinum of A(02) to detect the presence of harmonization as a result of the LXX’s influence on the New Testament quotations (or vice-versa). It demonstrates that A(02) exhibits few signs of influence of LXX on Corpus Paulinum quotations (or vice-versa). It also reveals some characteristics of A(02)’s scribes. Finally, it shows that the influence of LXX on the New Testament quotations in biblical manuscripts, even as late as the fifth century, may not necessarily be as pervasive as is often assumed.

Ryan Kristopher Giffin, “Paul Not Yet Justified? The Text of Philippians 3:12 in P46” (pp. 37–47)

Abstract: The text of Phil 3:12 in P46 contains a reading in which Paul claims he has not yet been “justified” or “found righteous.” This reading, which appears in a few other witnesses (e.g., 06, 010, 012, Irenaus [Latin translation], Ambrosiaster), has been referred to as “the justification clause.” Scholars have labeled the reading “intriguing,” “very interesting,” “striking,” and “astounding.” However, scholars have devoted very little attention to this reading. This article fills that gap by highlighting the text of Phil 3:12 in P46. The author identifies four noteworthy features of the justification clause within this manuscript and proposes that the reading need not be considered “un-Pauline” (as many have understood it) but is wholly coherent with Pauline references to final justification at the last judgment. The author concludes that an early unconscious alteration due to homoioarcton or homoioteleuton best explains the absence of the reading among the majority of textual witnesses and that the justification clause should be considered authentic.

Reviews

Elijah Hixson, Scribal Habits in Sixth-Century Greek Purple Codices (Thomas Kraus, reviewer) (pp. 49–52)

Hugh A. G. Houghton, Christina M. Kreinecker, Rosalind F. MacLachlan, and Catherine J. Smith, The Principal Pauline Epistles: A Collation of Old Latin Witnesses (Thomas Kraus, reviewer) (pp. 53–55)

Didier Lafleur, with the assistance of Luc Brogly, Greek New Testament Manuscripts from Albania (Thomas Kraus, reviewer) (pp. 57–60)

Markus Mülke, Aristobulos in Alexandria. Jüdische Bibelexegese zwischen Griechen und Ägyptern unter Ptolemaios VI Philometor (Thomas Kraus, reviewer) (pp. 61–64)

Justin J. Soderquist and Thomas A. Wayment, A New Edition of Codex I (016): The Washington Pauline Manuscript (Dustin M. Rigsby, reviewer) (pp. 65–67)

Paolo Trovato, Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Lachmann’s Method: A Non-standard Handbook of Genealogical Textual Criticism in the Age of Post-Structuralism, Cladistics, and Copy-Text, 2nd ed. (Ven. Gyalten Jigdrel, reviewer) (pp. 69–76)

Mogens Müller and Heike Omerzu, eds., Gospel Interpretation and the Q-Hypothesis (Judith König, reviewer)(pp. 77–79)

Timothy C. F. Stunt, The Life and Times of Samuel Prideaux Tregelles: A Forgotten Scholar (An-Ting Yi, reviewer)(pp. 81–83)