Textual Criticism- The science of Textual criticism deals with answering questions such as what did the original author really write? What words came from his pen? Is the Text we use identical with its original form? The object of Textual Criticism when applied to the holy scriptures, is to determine what the Apostles and Evangelists of Christ actually wrote- the precise words they employed, and the very order of them. It is therefore one of the most important subjects which one can be proposed for Examination. Before one can even discuss what the Bible Teaches, i.e. Systematic Theology and Biblical Doctrine, one must first establish what the very words of Holy writ are. Textual Criticism occupies itself with Two distinct methods of inquiry; A-Its first object is to collect, investigate, and arrange the evidences supplied by manuscripts, Versions, and early church writers. B-Its second object is to discover the truth of the text from critical inferences, which requires clear and judicial understanding The principles Governing sacred textual Criticism involve seven tests of truth; 1-Antiquity 2-Consent of witnesses(number) 3-varity of evidence 4-respectability of witnesses(weight) 5-Unbroken tradition (continuity) 6-Evidence of entire passage (context) 7-Internal Considerations (reasonableness) In considering textual criticism, there are indeed two prevailing and opposing schools, and to sum up the two positions; ~ “the oldest is best” this is the stand of those who choose to adapt the methodology of the Critical Greek textual critics and is commonly held as the Westcott-Hort system. These hold that surely the oldest text must be the closest to what was originally written and thus able to correct all else. ~ “Lets look at all the evidence” is the position of those who champion the Textus Receptus and is best represented by the Scrivener-Burgon styles. These contend that the oldest is not necessarily the Best and may indeed be corrupt. All in all the W-H school are Experts on the first note of truth; antiquity but they lack an honest study by neglecting the other essential six points, brings to my mind our lords teaching to the religionist of his day; Matthew 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Antiquity is a vital matter, but they leave the other weightier matters undone! The W-H school of thought in these matters can easily be found, namely in the very works of Westcott-hort, but if any wish a further understanding of their branch without lumbering over the long technicalities of Hort or Westcott, I would recommend Bruce Metzger’s work “the Text of the New Testament” he champions this line of thought very well, lesser works useful would be A.T. Robinsons “introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament” many books abound in defense of this opposing school. Now, for those who would wish to understand our stand against them, please consider to read; “The Traditional Text” by J.W. burgon and “A guide to the textual criticism of the New Testament” by Edward miller. As for me, after years of study I believe the thoughts of the W-H system to be in grave error on not a few assumptions, which puts me at odds with a great many scholars I otherwise hold in high regard such as Metzger, Treggeles, Ladd, etc..allow me to give one small example in answer to “WHY?” I reject the w-h school of Textual criticism; read Acts 1:1,2..Luke who wrote the gospel of Luke here plainly states the contents of his gospel “Until the day in which he was taken up”..this text is in no wise disputed..yet when you take up Lukes gospel..according to the W-H thinkers the portion of Luke which contains this event doesn’t belong, because its not found in the oldest texts! Many versions Italicize the words if not omit them! And the textual critics slash away at Luk 24 in their works, deeming the words as “not in the original”..so much for oldest is best, IMO, now I say “lets look at all the evidence”. God Bless!
Posted on: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 12:27:44 +0000