In a Facebook group dedicated to the subject of “New Testament Textual Criticism,” a contributor using the name Stephen Ford posted a criticism of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. Probably an atheist or agnostic (since he speaks of Christians in the 3rd person), his primary aim is to show that “The fact that the 4 gospels’ portrayals of the Easter story do indeed contradict each other…calls into question the essential reliability of the narratives as historical or eyewitness sources.”[i] At the moment I bypass the fact that Ford is merely regurgitating claims that have been reliably answered multitudes of times. What I want to notice is a peculiar, or particular, example of the arrogance of some textual critics. The names are changed to protect the guilty, and the particular group is not named because I respect the creator of the group (who was not involved in the exchange).[ii]
The post was wrongly placed in this group because Stephen Ford does not (hopefully now, “did not”) understand the difference between New Testament textual criticism and criticizing the New Testament.[iii] When challenged for being “off topic,” he replied, “Pointing out discrepancies in a text is a criticism of the text, is it not?” Eventually, this led to mocking on the part of two text critics (and the moderator, who may also be a text critic).
Boyd Stevens wrote: “If one doesn’t know what textual criticism is, it’s hard to take serious the entire post above.” The moderator who called attention to it being off topic agreed with Stevens (yet continued to leave the post up for commenting).[iv]
Mitchell Timmons agreed: “I mean, the basic meaning of Textual Criticism is something that one learns about in Bibliology 101.”
J. Phillips correctly pointed out to Ford, “The sorts of discrepancies you see in the accounts are exactly what you see in real historical reporting. There are no actual contradictions.” Also, an exchange developed between Ford and a defender of the resurrection accounts, to which text critic Timmons looked down disgustedly and replied, “oh boy...”
Now, I understand that the post did not belong in this group, based on the criteria of what for and why the group exists. However, the particular moderator chose to leave it up for discussion before deleting it, to make an example as an illustration of people not knowing what text criticism is. Fair enough, I suppose. However, the mockery misses the point of truth by a mile. It is not that Ford does not know what text criticism is – but that he does not believe and misunderstands the Bible itself. You don’t have to be a text critic to harmonize and believe the Gospel accounts of the resurrection.
The comments of text critics Stevens and Timmons illustrate the arrogance of the Academy, the uplifting of the universities, and smirk of the scholastics. Knowing and understanding the biblical truth of the resurrection has nothing to do with knowing what the definition of text criticism is. Plenty of lay church members who know their Bibles “inside and out” and yet know little to nothing about text criticism. They understand the resurrection historically and theologically. You do not have to know what text criticism is to know what the Bible teaches,[v] however arrogantly some academics assume they know it all – and that you must bow before them if you wish to know it all. These text critics and the moderator do not get an “A” for effort, should go directly to jail, do not pass go, and do not collect $200!
- “Don’t let your boy’s schooling interfere with his education.” – Grant Allen
- “Pride brings a person low, but the lowly in spirit gain honor.” Proverbs 29:23
[ii] And does not himself usually play the scholar card.
[iii] Textual criticism is the study of a literary work that aims to establish the original text, including the analysis of the transmission of said text from its origin to the present. Bart Ehrman explains it this way: “Textual criticism is the attempt to establish what an author originally wrote whenever there is some uncertainty about it. For example, if Dante wrote the Inferno by hand, and we don’t actually have the hand-written copy he produced, and different surviving copies of the work have differences among them – which one is most like what he actually wrote?”
[iv] The thread was closed after staying up for reading and commenting 48 hours. In contrast, some moderator in that same group quickly closed a critique of Mark Ward’s KJV Parallel Bible website – even though both Ward and leading evangelical text critic have called it “A New Tool for Teaching Textual Criticism to English Speakers” (therefore patently relevant to the group’s purpose).
[v] Unless they are wrong in constantly claiming their work affects no major Bible doctrine.
No comments:
Post a Comment