What do you think?
Rate this book
Can We Recover the Original Text of the New Testament?
In recent decades, the traditional definition of the original text of the New Testament (NT) has shifted from seeking one singular text to seeking a number of texts. Instead of one "authorial" text, now it is claimed that it could be one of several different texts based on their locations in the history of preauthorial, authorial, canonical, and postcanonical. These distinctions were first listed by Eldon Epp in his article "The Multivalence of the Term 'Original Text' in New Testament Textual Criticism" as "predecessor," "autographic," "canonical," and "interpretive" text-forms. It is apparent that with such changing definitions of the original text of the NT, text-critics are ambivalent regarding reaching the traditional goal of NT textual criticism. Instead, attention is now given towards hypothesizing regarding the emergence of the variant readings. Furthermore, any attempt towards utilizing text-critical principles to reach the original text is looked upon as being out of date and pointless. All such shifting definitions of the original text and the ensuing claims have far-reaching consequences for biblical faith and praxis.
In this work, three different scholars will present their methodologies for retrieving the original text of the NT. No matter how each of the presenters evaluates the text-critical evidence, it is obvious that they all believe in the inerrancy and retrievability of the NT text.
In this work, three different scholars will present their methodologies for retrieving the original text of the NT. No matter how each of the presenters evaluates the text-critical evidence, it is obvious that they all believe in the inerrancy and retrievability of the NT text.
114 pages, Kindle Edition
Published November 6, 2023
6 people are currently reading
11 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
July 10, 2024
These are the published papers from the 2022 Clearview Apologetics Conference held on the topic of New Testament textual criticism. I try to stay somewhat up-to-date on the discipline, and especially anytime Maurice A. Robinson publishes something. Overall I found it interesting and unsatisfying.
It's interesting because it's about textual criticism, and this is a glimpse onto one small corner of the field.
It was unsatisfying to me because it didn't really seem to move the conversation forward at all, participants seemed largely talking past each other, and what I consider to be Robinson's strongest arguments for the Byzantine Priority position were almost entirely unaddressed.
Here's what I mean. I recently posted a list of quotes from Robinson's essay "The Case for Byzantine Priority" highlighting what I take to be the main point of the entire thing: reasonable historical transmission.
https://biblioskolex.wordpress.com/20...
Not theology ("what do we think God providentially did"), not speculation ("why do you think this scribe might have written this instead of that?"), but *historical evidence*: "why is it that the vast majority of NT manuscripts reflect a basic Byzantine textform? What is your "history of the text" that accounts for this?" This is fundamentally a *historical* question; not a math question (the infamous "nose counting" epithet notwithstanding) nor is it a theological question ("what was God doing here?") but a historical one. And I think Robinson has proposed the best historical account of these facts.
So it was pretty dissatisfying to read Peter Gurry's contribution to this volume, representing a "reasoned eclecticism" approach (the predominant mainstream view these days), and read him describing the Byzantine priority view like this:
1. "It appeals to its adherents because of its numerical advantage..." (25)
2. "It appeals ... also because it is close--though not exact--to the text behind the venerable (and venerated) King James Version" (25).
3. "Those who accept it can take security in knowing that their text is found in most Greek manuscripts and in the most used English translation of all time. Note: In my experience, pastors sometimes find in Byzantine priority a safe haven from the implausible arguments for the textus receptus on the one hand and the degree of human judgment required in eclecticism on the other" (25).
I wrote in the margin "0 for 3!" Perhaps this is a faithful account of the pastors in Gurry's experience, but it is *not* a faithful account of the main points of Robinson's Byzantine Priority, nor does it reflect at all why I find the Byzantine Priority position most persuasive: its proposed *history of the text.* In fact, Gurry does not mention this at all in his treatment of BP, though this is arguably the main point of the position.
Let me briefly address the three points (my enumeration) above.
1. "Appeal because of numerical advantage" -- the Byzantine Position does not appeal mainly to "numerical advantage," though this is a common criticism launched against the "Majority Text Position." I would phrase it this way: "the fact that the vast majority of manuscripts reflect a Byzantine form of the text demands a historical explanation, and so far, eclecticism proposes an utterly improbable history of the text, while the Byzantine account is reasonable." Robinson actually explicitly addresses this critique at length in "The Case for Byzantine Priority," so Gurry's point reads as out of date and irrelevant in 2023.
2. 2. "It appeals ... also because it is close--though not exact--to the text behind the venerable (and venerated) King James Version" -- this has *nothing* to do with Byzantine priority as expressed by Robinson, in fact, Robinson disclaims it on the very first page of "The Case for BP": "the Byzantine Textform is not the TR, nor need it be associated with the TR or those defending such in any manner." This reads to me like a sloppy association of the Byzantine priority position with any variety of "King James Onlyism," a position that is unrelated to the Byzantine position.
3. "security" -- I'm not really sure what a psychological evaluation of pastors and their desire for the "security" of a traditional text has to do with the discipline of textual criticism. In any case, Maurice Robinson makes no appeal to "security" or "safety... from human judgments" -- Robinson is quite explicit about the fact that the Byzantine position depends on human judgments (what is "reasonable") over against any theological trump cards ("providence" or "tradition").
So I found this dissatisfying. Now, to be clear, overall I appreciate Gurry's work and his engagement with other views. I like the blog where Gurry contributes:
https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.b...
And I appreciate the irenic tone that he takes with Robinson and others who hold different views. I just found this chapter very dissatisfying to read.
I appreciated Robinson's chapter as a good summary of the position, and I found Black's exposition of a "Sturzian" approach interesting, as I was not familiar with it before, in a word "geographical majority"(?)
Overall I think the book is worth reading, if you're into this kind of thing ;)
It's interesting because it's about textual criticism, and this is a glimpse onto one small corner of the field.
It was unsatisfying to me because it didn't really seem to move the conversation forward at all, participants seemed largely talking past each other, and what I consider to be Robinson's strongest arguments for the Byzantine Priority position were almost entirely unaddressed.
Here's what I mean. I recently posted a list of quotes from Robinson's essay "The Case for Byzantine Priority" highlighting what I take to be the main point of the entire thing: reasonable historical transmission.
https://biblioskolex.wordpress.com/20...
Not theology ("what do we think God providentially did"), not speculation ("why do you think this scribe might have written this instead of that?"), but *historical evidence*: "why is it that the vast majority of NT manuscripts reflect a basic Byzantine textform? What is your "history of the text" that accounts for this?" This is fundamentally a *historical* question; not a math question (the infamous "nose counting" epithet notwithstanding) nor is it a theological question ("what was God doing here?") but a historical one. And I think Robinson has proposed the best historical account of these facts.
So it was pretty dissatisfying to read Peter Gurry's contribution to this volume, representing a "reasoned eclecticism" approach (the predominant mainstream view these days), and read him describing the Byzantine priority view like this:
1. "It appeals to its adherents because of its numerical advantage..." (25)
2. "It appeals ... also because it is close--though not exact--to the text behind the venerable (and venerated) King James Version" (25).
3. "Those who accept it can take security in knowing that their text is found in most Greek manuscripts and in the most used English translation of all time. Note: In my experience, pastors sometimes find in Byzantine priority a safe haven from the implausible arguments for the textus receptus on the one hand and the degree of human judgment required in eclecticism on the other" (25).
I wrote in the margin "0 for 3!" Perhaps this is a faithful account of the pastors in Gurry's experience, but it is *not* a faithful account of the main points of Robinson's Byzantine Priority, nor does it reflect at all why I find the Byzantine Priority position most persuasive: its proposed *history of the text.* In fact, Gurry does not mention this at all in his treatment of BP, though this is arguably the main point of the position.
Let me briefly address the three points (my enumeration) above.
1. "Appeal because of numerical advantage" -- the Byzantine Position does not appeal mainly to "numerical advantage," though this is a common criticism launched against the "Majority Text Position." I would phrase it this way: "the fact that the vast majority of manuscripts reflect a Byzantine form of the text demands a historical explanation, and so far, eclecticism proposes an utterly improbable history of the text, while the Byzantine account is reasonable." Robinson actually explicitly addresses this critique at length in "The Case for Byzantine Priority," so Gurry's point reads as out of date and irrelevant in 2023.
2. 2. "It appeals ... also because it is close--though not exact--to the text behind the venerable (and venerated) King James Version" -- this has *nothing* to do with Byzantine priority as expressed by Robinson, in fact, Robinson disclaims it on the very first page of "The Case for BP": "the Byzantine Textform is not the TR, nor need it be associated with the TR or those defending such in any manner." This reads to me like a sloppy association of the Byzantine priority position with any variety of "King James Onlyism," a position that is unrelated to the Byzantine position.
3. "security" -- I'm not really sure what a psychological evaluation of pastors and their desire for the "security" of a traditional text has to do with the discipline of textual criticism. In any case, Maurice Robinson makes no appeal to "security" or "safety... from human judgments" -- Robinson is quite explicit about the fact that the Byzantine position depends on human judgments (what is "reasonable") over against any theological trump cards ("providence" or "tradition").
So I found this dissatisfying. Now, to be clear, overall I appreciate Gurry's work and his engagement with other views. I like the blog where Gurry contributes:
https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.b...
And I appreciate the irenic tone that he takes with Robinson and others who hold different views. I just found this chapter very dissatisfying to read.
I appreciated Robinson's chapter as a good summary of the position, and I found Black's exposition of a "Sturzian" approach interesting, as I was not familiar with it before, in a word "geographical majority"(?)
Overall I think the book is worth reading, if you're into this kind of thing ;)
November 10, 2023
Excellent if only that Black gives a taste of his Sturzian approach!
April 16, 2025
Very good overview of the textual frameworks from which today's Biblical scholars work, with arguments for each approach presented by a prominent advocate for that position. All the writers are irenic, and the framework makes for a very concise work that is generally easy for most educated Christians to digest, though there are a few segments which will only be fully intelligible to those who can read Greek (which I cannot). Though probably best suited for those who have some experience with the topic, the various discussions are introduced well enough that those new to the area should be able to follow along pretty well. Definitely recommended for anyone looking to better understand the textual basis for the Bible.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews