What do you think?
Rate this book
The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority & the Popular Mind
The Ecclesiastical Text Criticism, Biblical Authority & the Popular Mind
- GenresTheologyBiblical Studies
273 pages, Paperback
First published August 1, 1997
6 people are currently reading
72 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 - 26 of 26 reviews
September 11, 2020
8.5/10
A mandatory work for both Protestants, Lutheran and Reformed, and Catholics about the nature of the bible in relation to the eternal question, 'which bible?', with essays on the essence of sacred texts and the quest for Protestants to achieve or regain certainty as to what their 'infallible final authority' actually says, given the doctrine of scripture is central to Protestantism.
Also a great refutation of the historical novelty called the 'inerrant autographs theory' and the attempt to locate authority in texts no one has or ever can have, allowing sidesteps of pressing critical issues.
A mandatory work for both Protestants, Lutheran and Reformed, and Catholics about the nature of the bible in relation to the eternal question, 'which bible?', with essays on the essence of sacred texts and the quest for Protestants to achieve or regain certainty as to what their 'infallible final authority' actually says, given the doctrine of scripture is central to Protestantism.
Also a great refutation of the historical novelty called the 'inerrant autographs theory' and the attempt to locate authority in texts no one has or ever can have, allowing sidesteps of pressing critical issues.
December 20, 2024
Overall a useful collection of articles. Some are more technical than others using Greek and discussing manuscript variants (such as chapter 5 on the textual variants for John 1:18).
Chapter 1 provides some useful historical background and a critique of BB Warfield's method of textual criticism (eclectic method) and the influence of common-sense realism on his methodology. Lots of useful primary source research here to consider the shift in modern reformed textual criticism that essentially follows Warfield.
This brief quote shows the legacy of BB Warfield with many contemporary reformed seminaries approach to textual criticism,
"Warfield's common-sense adoption of German methods would be more fully developed by others at Princeton who would no longer find his appendage of the inerrant autographs theory either convincing, or any longer relevant for N.T. studies. This latter aspect if his legacy would be preserved, however, at the breakaway institution, Westminster Seminary. And since it was the Wescott and Hort method that Warfield canonized as the scientific means, based on his reinterpretation of the Westminster Confession, of restoring inerrant autographs, Westminster has been frozen in time, still advocating their method, while the discipline has moved on" (pg. 38).
Chapter 2 is an excellent historical survey of both Lutheran and Reformed historical views on the doctrine of Scripture and specifically the relation between the apographa and the autographa.
Chapter 8, The Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text and the claims of the Anabaptists, helps to clarify Dr. Letis' position as a Majority Text view, although many of the articles presented in the book would largely agree with the confessional bibliology/TR position. He explicitly denies in chapter 8 that his position, as well as John Burgon and Edward Hills, was KJV-onlyist and critiques fundamentalist Baptist groups for misrepresenting their works and citing them out of context.
There are appendices with book reviews and a brief response to James White's book on the King James controversy critiquing many of his arguments.
Chapter 1 provides some useful historical background and a critique of BB Warfield's method of textual criticism (eclectic method) and the influence of common-sense realism on his methodology. Lots of useful primary source research here to consider the shift in modern reformed textual criticism that essentially follows Warfield.
This brief quote shows the legacy of BB Warfield with many contemporary reformed seminaries approach to textual criticism,
"Warfield's common-sense adoption of German methods would be more fully developed by others at Princeton who would no longer find his appendage of the inerrant autographs theory either convincing, or any longer relevant for N.T. studies. This latter aspect if his legacy would be preserved, however, at the breakaway institution, Westminster Seminary. And since it was the Wescott and Hort method that Warfield canonized as the scientific means, based on his reinterpretation of the Westminster Confession, of restoring inerrant autographs, Westminster has been frozen in time, still advocating their method, while the discipline has moved on" (pg. 38).
Chapter 2 is an excellent historical survey of both Lutheran and Reformed historical views on the doctrine of Scripture and specifically the relation between the apographa and the autographa.
Chapter 8, The Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text and the claims of the Anabaptists, helps to clarify Dr. Letis' position as a Majority Text view, although many of the articles presented in the book would largely agree with the confessional bibliology/TR position. He explicitly denies in chapter 8 that his position, as well as John Burgon and Edward Hills, was KJV-onlyist and critiques fundamentalist Baptist groups for misrepresenting their works and citing them out of context.
There are appendices with book reviews and a brief response to James White's book on the King James controversy critiquing many of his arguments.
November 23, 2019
A fascinating series of essays that effectively challenges popular narratives about the history and validity of text criticism in conservative Protestantism. Highly recommended.
June 5, 2017
Careful presentation of two important topics: the referent for “inerrancy” and understanding what is the Ecclesiastical Text and the significance for the Church today.
I had read this six years ago, but have just finished re-reading it. Well worth it the second time through.
I had read this six years ago, but have just finished re-reading it. Well worth it the second time through.
March 1, 2009
First rate.
July 31, 2009
Groundbreaking for me in winning me over to the ecclesiastical text/majority text
April 9, 2018
I read this when it came out years ago. Great the second time round too.
December 25, 2019
Great writing. Fundamentally off base.
October 12, 2023
A good book! What the author aims to do in his essays, he does well! He shows the direct connection of Lower Criticism (Textual Criticism) and Higher Criticism (Historical Criticism), and shows how they are directly connected. The search for the “Historical (original) Text” will always lead to the search for the “Historical (original) Jesus”. As well, he shows the history of the changing view of the inerrancy of the Word of God. Scripturally and historically, the view has been that the God has inspired His Word in the originals (autographa) and that accurate and faithful copies of originals (the apographa) are equally inspired by God. As well, I enjoyed the critique of J. White and G. Riplinger.
Theodore Letis, provides throughly studied and thought provoking essays in the discourse.
Theodore Letis, provides throughly studied and thought provoking essays in the discourse.
Read
February 8, 2019Only read the following chapters:
6. The Reformation and the Philosophy of Vernacular Translations of the Bible
8. The Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text and the Claims of the Anabaptists
Disclaimer: I am a bit cautious in reading Letis, not because I completely disagree with his arguments, but wary of his scholarship at times - citing secondary literature at times where he should have gone to the primary source to make such an important point, claims/conclusions that are not demonstrated (e.g. Erasmus in support of charismatic prayer meetings, early American colonial life as a post-Enlightenment state), quotations without citations (e.g. Erasmus block quote), and frequent use of absolutes (e.g. all, always, etc.).
6. The Reformation and the Philosophy of Vernacular Translations of the Bible
8. The Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text and the Claims of the Anabaptists
Disclaimer: I am a bit cautious in reading Letis, not because I completely disagree with his arguments, but wary of his scholarship at times - citing secondary literature at times where he should have gone to the primary source to make such an important point, claims/conclusions that are not demonstrated (e.g. Erasmus in support of charismatic prayer meetings, early American colonial life as a post-Enlightenment state), quotations without citations (e.g. Erasmus block quote), and frequent use of absolutes (e.g. all, always, etc.).
May 30, 2019
A bit confusing because it is a book of essays that do not progress logically from one another. If one had zero background at all with text criticism, I imagine it would be even more confusing
But this is a very helpful and thoughtful book that aptly shows how 20th century Protestant theology has drifted from the confessional standard of the Scriptures. It made me want to dive into the topic further and also made me want to grab a copy of the King James Version.
But this is a very helpful and thoughtful book that aptly shows how 20th century Protestant theology has drifted from the confessional standard of the Scriptures. It made me want to dive into the topic further and also made me want to grab a copy of the King James Version.
June 6, 2019
Letis presents a well annotated scholarly defense of the Ecclesiastical Text (the Confessional Text). Letis challenges modern enlightenment scientific methods of textual criticism and presents the confessional position as the Word of God being preserved. I do not recommend this being the first book to read on this topic. This is a good resource for those who have already dipped themselves in understanding the Confessional Text position.
August 25, 2019
Interesting. Letis did a good job of introducing this poor schlub to some of the more prominent scholars who introduced lower textual criticism to American soil and thus opened the doors to higher textual criticism. Way to go, Warfield.
Letis does not yet have me convinced but perhaps I am on my way?
-2019
Letis does not yet have me convinced but perhaps I am on my way?
-2019
January 10, 2022
Amazing. Recounts providential preservation, Westminster and Reformer’s perspective on apographs and the inspiration of Scripture, and basically how Warfield messed up some stuff. Seeing a pattern in how the Princetonians preserved orthodoxy, but reclothed the Reformation in respectable modernism with the Supper, and with Inspiration.
September 13, 2017
I am thoroughly enjoying this subject. While this book may not be the best place to start, his essays do cover a number of different topics pertinent to the debate. I look forward to studying this more.
November 7, 2020
A very important collection of essays concerning the text of Scripture, text criticism, and the views of various Reformers on these matters.
October 19, 2022
Very good!
January 29, 2023
Frankly a lot of this is above my pay grade, but it makes a good and strong argument for avoiding the “original autographs” theory of inspiration in favor of the “canonical text” approach.
March 20, 2023
Sympathetic to the 30,000ft view that Letis is making but the book is a mess and Letis can come off petty.
April 23, 2023
I’m not sure exactly what his point is, other than he thinks his brilliance is terribly unappreciated by the greater academic community. He’s like an “ecclesiastical text” gadfly, a guy who doesn’t have formal training (“ecclesiastical history”?) in the discipline he claims to be an expert; who is more interested in taking potshots at everyone, but isn’t capable of making a coherent, comprehensive argument; and who is trying to get as much mileage repackaging his PhD dissertation.
While this is a deeply silly book, I will say that he writes with conviction and style.
His review of James White’s book is an hilarious exercise in entitled narcissism.
While this is a deeply silly book, I will say that he writes with conviction and style.
His review of James White’s book is an hilarious exercise in entitled narcissism.
September 22, 2011
Not entirely convinced; the historical work on Warfield was very good, but the interpretation may not convince everyone. I am most impressed by the correlation between the reception of the canon and the reception of the texts, but I didn't get that from Letis directly. An introductory essay giving cohesion to the whole project for the beginning student of this question would be invaluable - maybe Maurice Robinson's fills that gap.
Letis decries "restorationism" in general Christian practice; but it would seem that his calls to return to the Ecclesiastial text could possibly be described in similar terms. Following Childs, Letis sees authority as dependent upon reception by the church, but apparently only the early church, as he rejects Rome's attempt to authorize the Vulgate, and the modern equivalent of the prevalence of the Eclectic Text. The key point is not to attempt the impossible and seek the original autographic text, which may not even exist, but to find that textual tradition which was received as authoritative by the Church, but only the early church. (Maximum, not absolute certainty.) All subsequent shifts are steps backwards, ie. Vulgate and Eclectic text. In other words, we need to return to the original reception point, the early church. Why prefer the Byzantine text-type? Not because they are older, or because they more closely approximate the original autographs, but because the early church accepted them. How is this different from restorationism?
His most winsome article, which closes with a plea for the tiny reformed faithful to soldier on attempting to win others to the cause with winsomeness, and a thanks to the friend who taught him winsomeness, is rendered somewhat laughable by his non-academic writings, especially his interactions with James White. His big chance to winsomely make his case to those who were ready to be sympathetic resulted in him looking like an arrogant jackalope, completely unable or unwilling to take the time to explain the foundations of his positions. Instead, he loudly bellowed his conclusions, and attacked the intelligence of any who questioned him.
His chapter the Anabaptist abuse of Burgon and Hills in helpful, but his rhetoric is not. "Don't let the Anabaptists insulate themselves or we'll have a new Munster!" More likely, we'll have one Koran-burning pastor somewhere in Florida. Not good, but hardly a debacle of Munsterian proportions. He himself references Waco, but the connection between the Branch Davidians and text critical issues seems tenuous, if I may put it generously.
Letis decries "restorationism" in general Christian practice; but it would seem that his calls to return to the Ecclesiastial text could possibly be described in similar terms. Following Childs, Letis sees authority as dependent upon reception by the church, but apparently only the early church, as he rejects Rome's attempt to authorize the Vulgate, and the modern equivalent of the prevalence of the Eclectic Text. The key point is not to attempt the impossible and seek the original autographic text, which may not even exist, but to find that textual tradition which was received as authoritative by the Church, but only the early church. (Maximum, not absolute certainty.) All subsequent shifts are steps backwards, ie. Vulgate and Eclectic text. In other words, we need to return to the original reception point, the early church. Why prefer the Byzantine text-type? Not because they are older, or because they more closely approximate the original autographs, but because the early church accepted them. How is this different from restorationism?
His most winsome article, which closes with a plea for the tiny reformed faithful to soldier on attempting to win others to the cause with winsomeness, and a thanks to the friend who taught him winsomeness, is rendered somewhat laughable by his non-academic writings, especially his interactions with James White. His big chance to winsomely make his case to those who were ready to be sympathetic resulted in him looking like an arrogant jackalope, completely unable or unwilling to take the time to explain the foundations of his positions. Instead, he loudly bellowed his conclusions, and attacked the intelligence of any who questioned him.
His chapter the Anabaptist abuse of Burgon and Hills in helpful, but his rhetoric is not. "Don't let the Anabaptists insulate themselves or we'll have a new Munster!" More likely, we'll have one Koran-burning pastor somewhere in Florida. Not good, but hardly a debacle of Munsterian proportions. He himself references Waco, but the connection between the Branch Davidians and text critical issues seems tenuous, if I may put it generously.
April 3, 2014
Another book I ready many years ago on the topic of Bible translations. It, like many others of that genre, takes a particular view in their "battle over the Bible." It's essentially about theology and particularly bibliology. I later realized these views were unnecessarily divisive and had no real basis in textual criticism.
February 9, 2009
This book offers one of the best arguments for a textus receptus only position. He was anything but a Fundie (I think he was Lutheran), and he was a great scholar with regards to textual criticism, manuscript evidence, etc.
March 5, 2011
This was a helpful overview of certain textual issues, but it was more valuable for its historical content than for how to deal with biblical authority.
September 12, 2016
Must reading for anyone interested in New Testament canon and text criticism. An important and out of print book that needs to be reprinted.
August 30, 2011
Great. Very helpful.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews