Textual Criticism
"I have great contempt for the work of these so-called scholars, working with the tools of speculation and armed with copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of original texts at the very best. They have no good evidence, simply the belief that God could not possibly be real and so all evidences of his existence must be refuted somehow."
This is a comment in reference to my previous post. Creeper responds intelligently below:
1. Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't you previously claimed that the Bible is one of the most accurately copied texts ever? I don't recall you backing up the boast, but I'm pretty sure you've made that claim.
I certainly have made that claim. King James spent millions of dollars (well, pounds in this case) in the 1600's to gather all scripture available from all over the world to try to ensure that an accurate text would be available to all. There have been other efforts to preserve scripture over time, since knowing exact wording is important here, far more than, say, a Shakespearian text. But the KJV effort is especially noteworthy.
(By the way, what we now call the Textus Receptus today is more accurately called the Byzantine, or majority, text. Long subject, probably boring to most, consisting of numerous quibbles over an exact word here or there. Then again, the desire to be exacting when it comes to the Bible is a good one.)
The late Dr. Henry Morris, founder of ICR, wrote the following concerning the Textus Receptus, aka received text or Byzantine text or majority text, that was the result of the King James effort:
"King James translators were also great scholars, every bit as proficient in the Biblical languages as any of those who have come after them. They were very familiar with the great body of manuscript evidence, as well as all the previous translations. They worked diligently on the project (assigned to them by King James) for over seven years, completing it in the year 1611.
The professional qualifications of the translators were all extremely high. There were 54 scholars originally assigned to the project by King James, though some died early in the project. There were evidently 47 who were active throughout the project, all of whom were exceptionally well qualified both academically and spiritually.
For example, John Bois, who kept the most complete account of the proceedings of the translators, was extremely skilled in both Hebrew and Greek. In fact, it is reported by his biographer that he was reading through the Hebrew Old Testament when he was only five years old. He was expert in all forms of Greek, including the Koine Greek of the New Testament, and compiled one of the largest Greek libraries ever. Dr. Bois became Dean of Canterbury in 1619.
Lancelot Andrews, a leader of the Old Testament translators, had been chaplain to Queen Elizabeth. He was fluent in fifteen modern languages, as well as Hebrew, Greek, and the cognate Biblical languages. He served as Dean of Westminster and later as Bishop of Winchester.
Dr. William Bedwell was expert in Latin, Arabic, and Persian, preparing lexicons in these languages, as well as in the Biblical languages. Edward Lively, who died after only a year, had been Regius Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge and had an unequaled knowledge of the Oriental languages. Dr. John Harding was Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford. Miles Smith was a noted Orientalist who became Bishop of Gloucester in 1612. He was the last man to review the translation and was selected to write the Translators' Preface.
Dr. Andrew Downes spent forty years as Regius Professor of Greek at Oxford University and was on the final checking committee of the translation. George Abbott became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1611. Sir Henry Saville was Provost of Eton and was a scientist as well as Bible scholar. His works included an eight-volume edition of the works of Chrysostom. And on and on. All the translators were great scholars, deeply fluent in the Biblical languages, the cognate languages, the writings of the church fathers and other relevant materials, as well as accomplished writers in English. It is almost certain that no group of Bible scholars before or since has ever been as thoroughly fit for their task as was the King James Translation Team."
Because of the existence of older manuscripts more recently found, such as Sinaiticus and Vatincanus, the Textus Receptus is often passed over as a basis for translating the Bible in favor of the Westcott & Hort text. The differences between these texts are few in number, however, it appears that both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus may have been thrown away (Sinai was found in, basically, a primitive trash can in a monastery) and because of their lack of subsequent use were therefore more easily preserved. They are both of the Alexandrian family of texts, associated with Origen, who is suspected of making slight changes in the scriptures to suit his own personal theology. In any event, both of these documents differ from each other as well as from the TR.
I am certainly NOT a King James Only guy and read more than one version of the Bible (NKJV, NIV, RSV) but when I consult the original texts, I depend on the TR, which is from the best Koine Greek manuscripts available in the 1600's and the OT, which is taken directly from Masoretic Hebrew rather than from the Latin Vulgate.
2. Isn't Textural Criticism also employed by present-day theologians who have absolutely no interest in refuting the existence of God?
I cannot specifically read the minds of those who employ TC. I am aware that some are making an attempt to disprove the existence of God and I am sure that some are not. I simply have issues with TC itself, as I will explain shortly.
3. Don't Textural Critics use exactly the same source materials as your good self? What makes you so fervently confident about those sources in your case but dismissive in theirs ("copies of copies of copies...")?
(I have been prompted to say that the usual spelling for this is "textual criticism, not textural. I thereby will spell it as such in the future.)
The problem is the nature of what Textual Criticism actually is, in my humble opinion. Early in the 19th century, people like Barth and Brunner in Germany began struggling with making evolution and the Bible fit together, as theistic evolutionists. I personally don't think you can logically do it, you are either a creationist or an evolutionist, but my readers know that already. The German TC movement has since expanded to include people with many differing agendas.
In any event, this desire led to a form of textual criticism that sought to, in the end, make the words of God into the words of mere men and therefore subject to error from the very beginning. Thus it also became the playground of pseudo-Bible Scholars intent on making the Bible itself irrelevant.
I don't personally believe anyone who doesn't believe that the Bible, in its original form, is inspired by God and inerrant, is qualified to criticize its contents or texts. Go try to figure out what Shakespeare really wrote, or whether Shakespeare was Francis Bacon, or whatever. Leave the Bible to people who believe in God.
What happens is that scholars will claim that Isaiah actually lived 200 years after he actually lived, or that his book was written or edited by another years later. Why? Largely to avoid the naming of Cyrus several generations ahead of the birth of Cyrus. No good reasons found within the texts.
Genesis was written by Moses, as the Jews confirm quite confidently. So why do these TC "scholars" assert that Genesis, for instance, was written by two, three, or even four men, none of whom were probably Moses? Again, no good reason other than to try to make the Bible into a book of myths.
Since every text we have is a compilation of copies of copies of copies, there are no originals to investigate so that these scholars could actually compare handwritings to nail down specific individual authors or lettering styles to attempt to set likely dates of writing based on those styles. They only have copies, copies that transmit the meanings but don't include those nuances from which they could more easily make those judgments. So they simply make things up! The Genesis stuff is especially fanciful, in which these TC "scholars" will have one so-called author write part of a chapter, have another one from a distant location carry on for a few verses, and then the first author is said to take over again. Hey, there was no internet back then, pretty hard to share things and collaborate over hundreds of miles when your best form of communication was talk and your normal form of transportation was on foot or camel or donkey. There is no historical evidence of a P1 or P2 writing Genesis, whereas there is plenty denoting Moses as the author.
No, I believe most TC "scholars" are making an attempt to revise the Bible to fit their particular worldview. Copies of copies of copies of copies of copies are fine when you wish to receive the message, but if you wanted to be certain of the actual author you either have to believe what history says or make something up for yourself. TC = people making things up for themselves.
--
(By the way, my next post will concern scientific matters, specifically evolution versus creation issues. We'll leave the subject of the Bible to the next issue that comes up, with one disclaimer - I'll be posting on the desolation of Northern Egypt soon, won't let that one go...)
This is a comment in reference to my previous post. Creeper responds intelligently below:
1. Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't you previously claimed that the Bible is one of the most accurately copied texts ever? I don't recall you backing up the boast, but I'm pretty sure you've made that claim.
I certainly have made that claim. King James spent millions of dollars (well, pounds in this case) in the 1600's to gather all scripture available from all over the world to try to ensure that an accurate text would be available to all. There have been other efforts to preserve scripture over time, since knowing exact wording is important here, far more than, say, a Shakespearian text. But the KJV effort is especially noteworthy.
(By the way, what we now call the Textus Receptus today is more accurately called the Byzantine, or majority, text. Long subject, probably boring to most, consisting of numerous quibbles over an exact word here or there. Then again, the desire to be exacting when it comes to the Bible is a good one.)
The late Dr. Henry Morris, founder of ICR, wrote the following concerning the Textus Receptus, aka received text or Byzantine text or majority text, that was the result of the King James effort:
"King James translators were also great scholars, every bit as proficient in the Biblical languages as any of those who have come after them. They were very familiar with the great body of manuscript evidence, as well as all the previous translations. They worked diligently on the project (assigned to them by King James) for over seven years, completing it in the year 1611.
The professional qualifications of the translators were all extremely high. There were 54 scholars originally assigned to the project by King James, though some died early in the project. There were evidently 47 who were active throughout the project, all of whom were exceptionally well qualified both academically and spiritually.
For example, John Bois, who kept the most complete account of the proceedings of the translators, was extremely skilled in both Hebrew and Greek. In fact, it is reported by his biographer that he was reading through the Hebrew Old Testament when he was only five years old. He was expert in all forms of Greek, including the Koine Greek of the New Testament, and compiled one of the largest Greek libraries ever. Dr. Bois became Dean of Canterbury in 1619.
Lancelot Andrews, a leader of the Old Testament translators, had been chaplain to Queen Elizabeth. He was fluent in fifteen modern languages, as well as Hebrew, Greek, and the cognate Biblical languages. He served as Dean of Westminster and later as Bishop of Winchester.
Dr. William Bedwell was expert in Latin, Arabic, and Persian, preparing lexicons in these languages, as well as in the Biblical languages. Edward Lively, who died after only a year, had been Regius Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge and had an unequaled knowledge of the Oriental languages. Dr. John Harding was Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford. Miles Smith was a noted Orientalist who became Bishop of Gloucester in 1612. He was the last man to review the translation and was selected to write the Translators' Preface.
Dr. Andrew Downes spent forty years as Regius Professor of Greek at Oxford University and was on the final checking committee of the translation. George Abbott became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1611. Sir Henry Saville was Provost of Eton and was a scientist as well as Bible scholar. His works included an eight-volume edition of the works of Chrysostom. And on and on. All the translators were great scholars, deeply fluent in the Biblical languages, the cognate languages, the writings of the church fathers and other relevant materials, as well as accomplished writers in English. It is almost certain that no group of Bible scholars before or since has ever been as thoroughly fit for their task as was the King James Translation Team."
Because of the existence of older manuscripts more recently found, such as Sinaiticus and Vatincanus, the Textus Receptus is often passed over as a basis for translating the Bible in favor of the Westcott & Hort text. The differences between these texts are few in number, however, it appears that both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus may have been thrown away (Sinai was found in, basically, a primitive trash can in a monastery) and because of their lack of subsequent use were therefore more easily preserved. They are both of the Alexandrian family of texts, associated with Origen, who is suspected of making slight changes in the scriptures to suit his own personal theology. In any event, both of these documents differ from each other as well as from the TR.
I am certainly NOT a King James Only guy and read more than one version of the Bible (NKJV, NIV, RSV) but when I consult the original texts, I depend on the TR, which is from the best Koine Greek manuscripts available in the 1600's and the OT, which is taken directly from Masoretic Hebrew rather than from the Latin Vulgate.
2. Isn't Textural Criticism also employed by present-day theologians who have absolutely no interest in refuting the existence of God?
I cannot specifically read the minds of those who employ TC. I am aware that some are making an attempt to disprove the existence of God and I am sure that some are not. I simply have issues with TC itself, as I will explain shortly.
3. Don't Textural Critics use exactly the same source materials as your good self? What makes you so fervently confident about those sources in your case but dismissive in theirs ("copies of copies of copies...")?
(I have been prompted to say that the usual spelling for this is "textual criticism, not textural. I thereby will spell it as such in the future.)
The problem is the nature of what Textual Criticism actually is, in my humble opinion. Early in the 19th century, people like Barth and Brunner in Germany began struggling with making evolution and the Bible fit together, as theistic evolutionists. I personally don't think you can logically do it, you are either a creationist or an evolutionist, but my readers know that already. The German TC movement has since expanded to include people with many differing agendas.
In any event, this desire led to a form of textual criticism that sought to, in the end, make the words of God into the words of mere men and therefore subject to error from the very beginning. Thus it also became the playground of pseudo-Bible Scholars intent on making the Bible itself irrelevant.
I don't personally believe anyone who doesn't believe that the Bible, in its original form, is inspired by God and inerrant, is qualified to criticize its contents or texts. Go try to figure out what Shakespeare really wrote, or whether Shakespeare was Francis Bacon, or whatever. Leave the Bible to people who believe in God.
What happens is that scholars will claim that Isaiah actually lived 200 years after he actually lived, or that his book was written or edited by another years later. Why? Largely to avoid the naming of Cyrus several generations ahead of the birth of Cyrus. No good reasons found within the texts.
Genesis was written by Moses, as the Jews confirm quite confidently. So why do these TC "scholars" assert that Genesis, for instance, was written by two, three, or even four men, none of whom were probably Moses? Again, no good reason other than to try to make the Bible into a book of myths.
Since every text we have is a compilation of copies of copies of copies, there are no originals to investigate so that these scholars could actually compare handwritings to nail down specific individual authors or lettering styles to attempt to set likely dates of writing based on those styles. They only have copies, copies that transmit the meanings but don't include those nuances from which they could more easily make those judgments. So they simply make things up! The Genesis stuff is especially fanciful, in which these TC "scholars" will have one so-called author write part of a chapter, have another one from a distant location carry on for a few verses, and then the first author is said to take over again. Hey, there was no internet back then, pretty hard to share things and collaborate over hundreds of miles when your best form of communication was talk and your normal form of transportation was on foot or camel or donkey. There is no historical evidence of a P1 or P2 writing Genesis, whereas there is plenty denoting Moses as the author.
No, I believe most TC "scholars" are making an attempt to revise the Bible to fit their particular worldview. Copies of copies of copies of copies of copies are fine when you wish to receive the message, but if you wanted to be certain of the actual author you either have to believe what history says or make something up for yourself. TC = people making things up for themselves.
--
(By the way, my next post will concern scientific matters, specifically evolution versus creation issues. We'll leave the subject of the Bible to the next issue that comes up, with one disclaimer - I'll be posting on the desolation of Northern Egypt soon, won't let that one go...)