Fundamentals of New Testament Textual Criticism by Stanley E. Porter & Andrew W. Pitts

Author:Stanley E. Porter & Andrew W. Pitts
Language: eng
Format: mobi
Publisher: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Published: 2015-12-04T00:00:00+00:00

* * *

1. Eldon Jay Epp, “Decision Points in Past, Present, and Future New Testament Textual Criticism,” in Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee, Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism (SD 45; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 32-33.

2. Gerd Mink, “Contamination, Coherence, and Coincidence in Textual Transmission,” in The Textual History of the Greek New Testament: Changing Views in Contemporary Research (ed. Klaus Wachtel and Michael W. Holmes; SBLTCS 8; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), 141-216. The coherence method has its limitations, however. These include the lack of an adequate definition of what is meant by coherence. Coherence becomes a mathematical calculation, rather than a literary concept that appreciates the possible means for variants within a given manuscript. Further, the individual traits of a manuscript are completely overlooked, because variants are studied in isolation apart from their original contexts. There is also a problem with relating the initial text to the original text. The goal of textual criticism should, we believe, be the reconstruction of the original text, not a later stage in textual transmission. Finally, the limits created by the need for technology restricted to those who have access to the materials required to develop and run this program make textual criticism into a task beyond the abilities of any but the few, thus hindering access.

3. Here we may also examine the major theoretical point that numerical representation is the most reliable guide to the original reading. Typically, when Majority text advocates are confronted with the fact that the numerous documents that make up the Byzantine tradition come mostly from the ninth century and following, they respond that this must be due to a recognition of their superiority by the church that resulted in continued use in light of deterioration of other manuscripts and their traditions. But if this is the case, as Daniel Wallace asks, “what is to explain how they became the majority from the ninth century on?” (“The Majority Text: History, Methods, and Critique,” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis [2nd ed., ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes; NTTSD 42; Leiden: Brill, 2013], 731). Several other questions are left unanswered by the Majority text approach as well. Statistical probability of documents simply cannot explain why no distinctively Byzantine readings are identifiable in the Greek manuscripts, church fathers, or versions from the first several centuries — certainly some remains would have been left, even if the manuscripts were in constant use. If the Majority text most accurately reflects the original, we would expect some traces of it chronologically close to the original. These significant obstacles for the Majority text approach still have not been convincingly overcome by its adherents.

4. Stanley E. Porter, “Textual Criticism,” in Dictionary of New Testament Background (ed. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 1212.

5. Eldon J. Epp, “The Eclectic Method in New Testament Textual Criticism: Solution or Symptom?” in New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Bruce M.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.