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
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 This is a scintillating book that I believe will prove vital for the church as it seeks to be faithful to its historical documents.”—David Alan Black, M. O. Owens Jr.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
—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
—Charles L. Quarles, Research Professor of New Testament and Biblical Theology, Charles Page Chair of Biblical Theology, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Congratulations Abidan Paul Shah. Well done!
ReplyDeleteThank you very much!
DeleteThanks for making us aware of this book, Peter. I know yours is a quick summary here so I know there is far more to the book than what you mention... but what I'm seeing is that mainly Shah is saying that the more recent academic movement away from an "original text" is problematic because of the outcome and results... what it inevitably means for the authority of scripture and/or biblical basis for Christian theology. I don't find that as helpful in this discussion. Yes, those things are important... but our inquiries into the earliest forms of the text shouldn't be decided by how we want the results to turn out theologically. Hopefully Shah addresses the important underlying historical issues about the nature of our witnesses, which has caused Ehrman, Parker, Larsen, and others to move away from a concept of an "original text." Thanks again. Sounds important to read.
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify: it’s the publisher’s summary not mine. I just requested a copy today so I haven’t read it.
DeleteImportant clarification, indeed... yes it is. :-) And expressing views about the results of this study would show its importance, not necessarily its underlying arguments. Thanks.
DeleteThanks for the comments! Just to clarify - theological considerations regarding the text itself formed no part of the dissertation.
DeleteA good place to start would be to reconstruct the Alexandrian text. NA28 certainly doesn't do that; in Acts 2:44, for example (particularly at the word πιστευοντες), it rejects the united testimony of the two "oldest and best manuscripts" and follows the reading of the later manuscripts behind the TR instead.
ReplyDeleteCongrats to Dr. Shah on the book! I just ordered a copy.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing this Dr. Gurry. Interesting that in our past discussions you seemed to reject the thesis of this book (i.e., that the goal of NT text criticism has changed). See my podcast: WM 164: Has there been a "major shift" in the goal(s) of text criticism? in which I share a clip from Dr. Shah's interview of M. Robinson:
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2020/04/wm-164-has-there-been-major-shift-in.html
Yes, and the existence of this book is a good example of why I do. I have never denied a shift in goal among some (see both my books on the CBGM). I have denied that it is universal or even predominant.
DeleteI haven't read the book form yet, but from Shah's dissertation after a survey of reasoned eclectics past and on into the present, he says on p. 32: "This brief survey of the select practitioners of reasoned eclecticism reveals that they all considered the original text of the NT retrievable and a primary task under their methodology. Although more practitioners could have been included here, this is enough to demonstrate the dominant understanding among reasoned eclectics regarding the original text. Since reasoned eclecticism remains the most popular methodology, the general retrievability of the original text of the NT remains the dominant view among text-critics."
DeleteDr. Gurry, I think your comment in our past conversation was something like, "There has NOT been a major shift in the goal of text criticism...At best there has been a MINOR shift...And I am not convinced that postmodernism has had anything to do with it."
DeleteSee WM 163: http://www.jeffriddle.net/2020/04/wm-163-follow-up-gurry-parker-text.html
I don't think I ever suggested that this shift was *universal*, but I did argue that it was of major significance and that it is exercising a *predominant* influence in contemporary text criticism (even among evangelicals). Of course, I am only a pastor and not a professional scholar. Smiles.
From the blurb it sounds like Dr. Shah (following Dr. Robinson) would agree that the current shift is indeed MAJOR and not minor. His response, however, is to argue in favor of a restoration (maintenance?) of the "old goal." I just don't see that happening.
I did appreciate the emphasis on epistemology as key in the blurb: "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." Agreed. IMHO, that is the key issue.
Ah, Dr. Hixson. Good to hear from you again. Yes, I don't think anyone would deny Dr. Shah's summary of the "old goal" of text criticism (19th-20th centuries), as stated in the quote you shared. My question would be with the present tense of the verb "remains" in the last sentence of the quotation. I'll be interested to read the new edition.
DeleteIt appears, in fact, that the thesis of this book is that the "old goal" is under siege. See the blurb:
"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."
The blurb also shows that he is arguing for a reclamation of the "old goal." I'm not very optimistic about that.
BTW, does this mean that Dr. Shah is now "in the guild?" Smiles.
"BTW, does this mean that Dr. Shah is now "in the guild?" Smiles." -Dr. Riddle
DeleteYes, so long as he doesn't start defending κοινωνία as the correct reading in Eph.3:9... ;-)
Dr. Riddle, elsewhere you have written that the tradition goal has “largely been abandoned by academic text critics.” It’s the “largely” that I think is incorrect. But perhaps we are conflating number of scholars with influence and that may add to our differing views.
DeleteThe word "abandoned" is also significant there.
DeleteTo be sure, some have abandoned that goal. But for many others who employ textual criticism in pursuit of other goals besides solely determining the original text (e.g. historical theological studies), their pursuit of those other goals is often in addition to that goal, and does not indicate that they have abandoned it. There are multiple reasons to study textual criticism, and these reasons are not mutually exclusive of one another.
While other aspects of NTTC have always existed within the field, these important pursuits did not negate in any manner the ultimate goal of establishing the original autographic text.
DeleteThe current paradigm shift gives these side issues (important as they are) a more intense focus than that of establishing the original, moving the ultimate goalpost more and more into the realm of "unrecoverable" and in fact "unattainable".
Dr Shah's dissertation deals primarily with this aspect, calling for a focused return to the primary intent and emphasis of NTTC, such as had been clearly stated and emphasized over the past two centuries or more before the current paradigm shift began in the last few decades. In this regard, his thesis is commendable.