Book Review posted: D. C. Parker, Codex Sinaiticus: The Story of the World's Oldest Bible

 

I have posted an audio version of my book review of D. C. Parker, Codex Sinaiticus: The Story of the World's Oldest Bible (British Museum/Hendrickson, 2010).

I have also posted to academia.edu the written review which appeared in American Theological Inquiry, Vol. 5, No. 1 (2012): 138-141. Read it here.

Blessings, JTR

Book Review posted: David C. Parker, Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament

 

I have posted a video and audio version of my review of David C. Parker, Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament (Oxford, 2012).

My review appeared in American Theological Inquiry, Vol. 7, No. 1 (2014): 81-84.

I also posted a pdf of my review to my academia.edu page (find it here).

JTR

WM 164: Has there been a "major shift" in the goal(s) of text criticism?

Note: I have posted WM 164: Has there been a "major shift" in the goal(s) of text criticism? to sermonaudio.com. Listen here.

Here are some notes for this episode:

I was pleased to have Pastor Dane Jöhannsson as a special guest on this episode.

This episode is a follow up to the discussion in WM 163:Follow Up: Gurry, Parker, Text & Postmodernism.

It examines the question as to whether or not there has been a “major shift” in the goals of modern academic text criticism in the twenty first century.

It has three parts:

First, it offers a survey of some of the conversation with PG that continued in the comments section on my blog on the WM 163 post:

PG doubled down on his contention that the goal of NT criticism has not undergone a significant postmodern change and that many are still pursuing the “old goal.” He wrote: I repeat: many in the guild continue to think the original text is a legitimate goal for the discipline.

In response I provided a list of quotations in chronological order for readers to consider for themselves:

Here are a few quotes readers might enjoy reviewing in making their own judgments:

Wescott and Hort, Introduction to the NT in the Original Greek (1882): “This edition is an attempt to present exactly the words of the NT, so far as they can now be determined from surviving documents.”

Bart Ehrman, “The Text as Window” (1995): “The ultimate goal of textual criticism, in the judgement of most of its practitioners, is to reconstruct the original text of the NT….No historian would deny the desirability of this objective… At the same time, many textual critics have come to recognize that an exclusive concentration on the autographs can prove to be myopic… Much more, however, is left to be done … as we move beyond a narrow concern for the autographs to an interest in the history of their transmission, a history that can serve as a window into the social world of early Christianity.”

DC Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels (1997): “There is no original text. There are just different texts from different stages of production”

DC Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels (1997): “…the concept of a Gospel that is fixed in shape, authoritative, and final as a piece of literature has to be abandoned.”

EJ Epp, “The Multivalence of the Term ‘Original Text’ in NT Textual Criticism” (1999): “Now, however, reality and maturity require that textual criticism face unsettling facts, chief among them that the term ‘original’ has exploded into a complex and highly unmanageable multivalent entity.”

Michael W. Holmes, “Introduction,” The Greek NT SBL Edition (2010): “The standard text is viewed by some of those who use it as a ‘final’ text to be passively accepted rather than a ‘working’ text subject to verification and improvement…. In circumstances such as these, the existence of an alternatively critically edited text … will help remind readers of Greek NT that the text-critical task is not finished… it may also serve to draw attention to a fuller understanding of the goal of NT textual criticism: both identifying the earliest text and also studying all the variant readings for the light they shed on how particular individuals and faith communities adopted, used, and sometimes altered the texts they read, studied, and transmitted.”

DC Parker Textual Scholarship (2012): “…“the modern concept of a single authoritative ‘original’ text … a hopeless anachronism.”

Dirk Jongkind, Ed., “Introduction,” Tyndale House Greek NT (2017): “This edition aims to present in an easily readable format the best approximation to the words written by the NT authors, within the constraints of the documentary evidence that survives.”

Jennifer Knust & Tommy Wasserman, To Cast the First Stone (2019): “Our interpretation therefore begins not with the search for an original or initial text but with the available textual objects, each of which tells its own story, and with the readings of these distinctive objects by the communities that produced and interpreted them.”

Second, we discussed two other reactions to WM 163: a private email rebuke and TW’s response:

First, we discussed a couple of private emails I got from someone “in the guild”
rebuking me as an “outsider” and challenging someone who is “on the inside.”

Second, we noted Tommy Wasserman’s recent response to WM 163 in a post on the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog.

I plan to do a separate WM soon that will be devoted entirely to responding to TW.

Third, I shared a brief clip from a recent podcast in which Maurice Robinson, noted Byzantine Priority Advocate and Research Professor at SEBTS, addresses the current state of academic NT text criticism:

His comments were taken from episode 3 of a podcast called Hoi Polloi hosted by Pastor Abidan Paul Sha (22:27-28:01).

At one point Robinson quips, “there are a lot of strange things happening in NT textual criticism.”

Dr. Robinson’s comments seem to affirm my contention that there has, in fact, been a major postmodern shift in the goal(s) of contemporary academic text criticism.

Conclusion:

PG seems to be saying, “But there are some of us (evangelicals) in 'the guild' and even some 'gatekeepers' of the scholarly academic text who are seeking the 'original' text." But that’s not the language they use. They want the “initial text.” They do not mean by “initial text” what Wescott and Hort meant by “original text.” The most, for example, that Jongkind can say of the THGNT is that it is “the best approximation to the words written by the NT authors, within the constraints of the documentary evidence that survives.” Our concern is that this type of approach ultimately undermines any confidence in the ability to define with confidence (and accuracy) what the Word of God is.

JTR

WM 163: Follow Up: Gurry, Parker, Text, & Postmodernism

Image: Dedication page: Jennifer Knust & Tommy Wasserman, To Cast the First Stone (Princeton, 2019).

I have posted WM 163: Follow Up: Gurry, Parker, Text, & Postmodernism. Listen here. Notes for WM 163:

In this episode I want to follow up to the interaction I had with Dr. Peter Gurry (PG) and James Snapp (JS) back on January 29, 2020 (in the pre-covid days!) on Josh Gibbs’s Talking Christianity podcast. Unfortunately, what was supposed to be a moderated conversation between our three positions turned out to be something of a disorderly disaster. See my follow up blog post here. Still, I think some have profited from it, and I continue to hear from folk every now and then whose interest in the confessional text was piqued by the conversation.

There were a number of things that made the interaction difficult, from my perspective. For one thing, my co-participants wanted to make the conversation about reconstructing the external evidence, and did not seem to grasp or respond to my argument that such a method is futile given the paucity of evidence and its scattered and fragmented condition. For another thing, with regard to PG, in particular, I was frustrated with the unwillingness to acknowledge or respond to what I consider to be some basic factual realities with regard to contemporary text criticism in the modern academy.

First, PG dismissed as altogether insignificant the postmodern shift that has taken place in contemporary text criticism and the abandonment of any certainty with respect to the reconstruction of the autograph.

Second, oddly enough, he denied the influence of D. C. Parker as a “gatekeeper,” an influential thinker, who has greatly shaped the approach to modern text criticism in the academy.

So, in this WM I want to do four things:

First, I want to play a clip from the Josh Gibbs’s podcast in which I interacted with PG.

Second, I want to talk a little about DC Parker and his views: Why is he significant?

Third, I want to read a book review I wrote of DC Parker’s Textual Scholarship and the Making of the NT (Oxford, 2012), so that you can judge for yourself the influence of Parker.

Fourth, I want to offer some brief concluding thoughts.

First: the clip from the discussion with PG. You can find it here (from c. 35-48 minute mark).

Second: Is DC Parker a gatekeeper?

Let’s begin with Dr. Parker’s webpage at the University of Birmingham, where he is Professor of Digital Philology in the Department of Theology and Religion.

His introductory blurb:

My main current work is editions of the Gospel of John funded by the AHRC. One is a critical edition of the Greek text in the series Novum Testamentum Graece. Editio critica maior, in partnership with the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung, Münster, Germany. Another is an edition of the Gospel of John in Latin in the Vetus Latina series.

His biography:

I read Theology at St. Andrews, specialising in New Testament and Church History. From there I went to Cambridge, where I completed a postgraduate degree and trained for the Anglican priesthood. After eight years in parochial ministry in North London and Oxfordshire, I moved to Birmingham in 1985, teaching at Queen’s College until 1993, when I joined the department. I have a doctorate from the University of Leiden, The Netherlands.

I have been Executive Editor of the International Greek New Testament Project since 1987. I am editor of the series Texts and Studies. Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature (published by Gorgias Press) and Arbeiten zur neutestamentliche Textforschung (published by De Gruyter).

In 2012 I was elected a Fellow of the British Academy. From the 2017-18 academic year, I have taken stepped retirement and will not be accepting any more postgraduate students.

His Research:

My main current work is editions of the Gospel of John funded by the AHRC. One is a critical edition of the Greek text in the series Novum Testamentum Graece. Editio critica maior, in partnership with the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung, Münster, Germany. Another is an edition of the Gospel of John in Latin in the Vetus Latina series. I also contributed to the COMPAUL Project directed by Dr Hugh Houghton. I am co-editor of the monograph series Arbeiten zur neutestamentliche Textforschung and am on the editorial board of the journal Filologia Neotestamentaria.

Other research contributions in recent years include online editions of two early Christian manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus  and Codex Bezae, and the Society of Antiquaries of London’s three copies of Magna Carta. My most recent book (Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament. The Lyell Lectures 2011, Oxford: Oxford University Press, paperback edition 2014) describes many aspects of my current thinking and ITSEE projects. 

His publications: Here are some key works:

Codex Bezae. An Early Christian Manuscript and Its Text, Cambridge University Press, 1992.

The Living Text of the Gospels, Cambridge University Press, 1997.

An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and their Texts, Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament, Oxford University Press, October 2012.

Codex Sinaiticus. The Story of the World’s Oldest Bible, British Library and Peabody MA: Hendrickson, 2010. German translation, German Bible Society, 2012.

Of these works, Parker’s Living Text of the Gospels is considered by many to have been groundbreaking. In the opening chapter on “The theory” Parker states a key thesis: “There is no original text. There are just different texts from different stages of production” (4).

Third: My book review of DC Parker’s Textual Scholarship and the Making of the NT (Oxford, 2012) [from American Theological Inquiry Vol. 7 No. 1 (2014):  pp. 81-84]:

Conclusion:

Clear assessment:

There has been a momentous postmodern shift in the contemporary academic NT text criticism.

DC Parker has exerted enormous influence in the field of contemporary NT Text Criticism.

For just one final piece of evidence of this, look at the dedication to Jennifer Knust & Tommy Wasserman, To Cast the First Stone: The Transmission of A Gospel Story (Princeton, 2019) which reads: “For D. C. Parker on the occasion of his retirement.”

The concluding paragraph of the Acknowledgements: “Finally, in recognition of his long service to our discipline and his profound influence upon us, we have chosen to dedicate this book to David C. Parker. His living texts, vibrant scholarship, overwhelming openness, and noble example, give us much to admire. We wish him the best for his retirement and would like to express our sincerest thanks for everything he has taught us. Thank you David!” (xviii).

So, why was PG so intent in our conversation to deny the shift that has taken place in contemporary text criticism? Why deny the influence of DC Parker as a gatekeeper in (post) modern text criticism? I do not know.

I think it would be burying one’s head in the sand to deny that a postmodern shift has taken place in contemporary text criticism, and that this shift is a challenge to the authority of Scripture as the basis for faith and practice in traditional Christianity.

JTR

New Word Magazine: Review: Dan Wallace on Preservation.Part 5

I uploaded a new WordMagazine today.  This episode is the fifth and final in a series of reviews of Dan Wallace’s article, Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism.

Here are a few sources I cited in the review:

First, Wallace argued that “the doctrine of preservation was not a doctrine of the ancient church,” noting that it was not articulated until the Westminster Confession.

In response I cited Richard A. Muller’s observation in Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 2:  “The church fathers devoted virtually all their theological energies to the exposition of the central issues in that body of doctrine—Trinity, Christology,  soteriology.  Whereas a high view of Scripture is implied in al their efforts, the development of an explicit doctrine of Scripture was, like the problem of theological prolegomena, left to later ages, specifically to the high scholastic era of the Middle Ages and to the Reformation and post-Reformation eras” (p. 6).  The point is that the fact that the doctrine of preservation was not explicitly articulated until the Westminster Confession, does not mean it was not a view held by early Christians and by the Church Fathers.

Second, I spent the final part of this episode noting four points.  These are drawn from David C. Parker, perhaps the leading academic NT scholar in the world today,  in his recent book Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament (Oxford University Press, 2012) based on the 2011 Lyell Lectures at Oxford:

1.  Modern academic text criticism has abandoned the quest for the original autograph:

“…the modern concept of a single authoritative ‘original’ text was a hopeless anachronism, foisting on early Christianity something that can only exist as a result of modern concepts of textual production” (p. 24).

“The New Testament philologist’s task is not to recover an original text, not only because we cannot at present know on philological grounds what the original text might have been, nor even because there may have been several forms to the tradition, but because philology is not able to make pronouncements as to whether or not there was such an authorial text” (pp. 26-27).

2.  The Westcott-Hort Theory is outdated and inadequate:

On the conclusion that the “Neutral” text is superior to the Byzantine based on thirteen examples:  “… this is a totally inadequate amount of evidence, even if we grant their examples are only intended to be exemplary.  They did not have the evidential base to substantiate their claim that there is not one contrary example of the conflation found in the Byzantine text” (p. 82).

On the winsome presentation of the Westcott-Hort theory which based its critical text on the superiority of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus:  “It is confident and convincing.  It has been accepted by most people for a long time.  And yet we are left—or should be left—with the feeling that the theory does not deserve the reverence which has been accorded it” (p. 83).

He adds:  “Nevertheless, the time has come to abandon it [the Westcott-Hort proposal] completely, not because it was wrong, but because we can do better” (p. 83).

3.  The “geographical argument” should be rejected as a test for superiority:

“The geographical range of a reading may show its age or its popularity, but it will not demonstrate its superiority” (p. 80).

Note:  This quote applies in particular to Wallace’s argument that the traditional text is suspect because it was not dominant in Egypt.

4.  The application of text type theories from the Gospels to the rest of the NT is inappropriate:

“It is quite strange that NT philology drew up a concept of text types based upon the Gospels, and then assumed that it applied to the entire corpus of writings, even though it has always been widely acknowledged that the text types of the Gospels could not be shown to exist in other parts of the NT.  Thus we have worked with a very incomplete and unproven system, and in effect tried to reconstruct the oldest recoverable form of the writings without having a sound methodology for doing so” (pp. 161-162, n. 31).

Note:  This quote contradicts Wallace’s claim in the article that there is no majority text for the Pauline letters until the ninth century.  Wallace does precisely what Parker challenges:  He applies text types drawn from the Gospels to the rest of the NT (namely, the Pauline corpus).