Quoting the Critics

Quoting the textual critics, showing some of their ideas about the preservation of the Bible, and how they go about the work of textual criticism. Briefly, they do not believe in preservation of the Bible in the same way most average Christians do (at least those whose views are yet to be tainted by the Academy), and they see their work as secular and academic, not religious and spiritual.

On Preservation.

“Not only do we not have the originals, we don’t have the first copies of the originals. We don’t even have copies of the copies of the originals or copies of the copies of the copies of the originals.” Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, New York, NY: Harper, 2005, p. 10.

“We do not have now—in our critical Greek texts or any translations—exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it.” Dan Wallace in “Foreword,” Myths & Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, Elijah Hixson & Peter Gurry, Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2019, p. xii.

“My own approach to textual criticism allows that the correct, original text (or, better, the Ausgangstext) has been preserved, by sheer chance, somewhere in our 5,000 surviving Greek witnesses.” J. K. Elliott in “The Last Twelve Verses of Mark: Original or Not?” (80-102), Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: 4 Views, David Alan Black, Editor. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Academic, 2008, p. 100. [To Elliott the Ausgangstext is “as close as scholarship enables one to get to the possible original.”]

“The initial text is not identical with the original, the text of the author. Between the autograph and the initial text considerable changes may have taken place which may not have left a single trace in the surviving textual tradition.” Gerd Mink, as cited by Thomas C. Geer, Jr. and Jean-François Racine, “Analyzing and Categorizing NT Greek Manuscripts,” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis (2nd edition), Bart D. Ehrman & Michael W. Holmes, editors. Leiden, Brill, 2013, p. 513. (According to Mink, the initial or Ausgangtext is “a hypothetical, reconstructed text, as it presumably existed, according to the hypothesis, before the beginning of its copying.” p. 512.)

“...I do not believe that God is under any obligation to preserve every detail of Scripture for us, even though he granted us good access to the text of the New Testament.” Dirk Jongkind, An Introduction to the Greek New Testament, Produced at Tyndale House, Cambridge, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, p. 90.

“What is left behind are fragments, chance survivals from the past—we are trying to piece together a puzzle with only some of the pieces.” Peter Gurry, A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence Based Genealogical Method, Tommy Wasserman, Peter J. Gurry. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, p. 112.

“Biblical texts on the reliability and preservation of God’s word have nothing to do with textual criticism, for the simple reason that the authors did not have copying processes in mind but only the value of the truths they conveyed.” Jan Krans, “Why the Textus Receptus Cannot Be Accepted” (Posted October 22, 2020).

On the work of textual criticism.

“...no real progress was possible as long as the Textus Receptus remained the basic text and its authority was regarded as canonical...” Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament (Der Text Des Neuen Testaments), translated by Erroll F. Rhodes, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman’s, 1989, p. 6.

“I have no intention of trying to prove that this or that textual variant is the original word of God. I would like to work as a text-critic as if God didn’t exist, so to speak. On the other hand, I have a personal faith which certainly affects also my scholarship, and I try to be honest about that. I am certain that other people’s belief or disbelief affects what they do to. I prefer not to be put in a box of privileged white male text-critics who just pretend to do real scholarship.” Tommy Wasserman, comment on blog post “‘First-Century Mark’ SBL Panel,” (Posted November 25, 2019).

“I should add a word of warning, that in the case of biblical research bibliography will inevitably find theology dragged into it at some point.” David C. Parker, Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament. Oxford: University Press, 2012, p. 30.

“In practice New Testament textual critics today tend to be Christians themselves, but not always. It does not matter, for the quality of their work does not depend on their faith but on their adherence to academic standards.” Jan Krans, “Why the Textus Receptus Cannot Be Accepted” (Posted October 22, 2020).

“If something has dropped out, I have no way of knowing what it is (despite the conjectures of the early versions), so it is not my business to put it in. My job as a textual critic is not to ensure that readers have an inerrant edition of the Bible in their hands.” P. J. Williams, “Inerrancy and textual criticism” (Posted February 28, 2006).

Concluding thoughts.

The quotes collected above are from modern textual critics, all living and active in the field (with the exception of Kurt Aland). However, the current process is built on a faulty old foundation. Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort make clear in 1882 that they had no confidence in the original writings, which they think might have corruptions (errors) in them.

“Are there as a matter of fact places in which we are constrained by overwhelming evidence to recognise the existence of textual error in all extant documents? To this question we have no hesitation replying in the affirmative...Little is gained by speculating as to the precise point at which such corruptions came in. They may have been due to the original writer, or to his amanuensis if he wrote from dictation, or they may be due to one of the earliest transcribers.” Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, Introduction and Appendix, New York, NY: Harper and Brothers, 1882, 279-281.

Iain Murray warns, “The academic approach to Scripture treats the divine element—for all practical purposes—as non-existent. History shows that when evangelicals allow that approach their teaching will soon begin to look little different from that of liberals.” (Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950-2000, Iain Harnish Murray. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2000, p. 185).

I leave you all with this question. “Should we judge the word of God by scholars or scholars by the word of God?”