WM 301: Sermon Review: Gurry on the PA as a Spurious but "True" Illustration

 

Here is a link to my TBS booklet, Why John 7:53-8:11 is in the Bible.

JTR

WM 296: Review: Can We Recover the Original Text of the New Testament?

 

JTR

Book Review: Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism

 

Read the written book review here on academia.edu.

JTR

WM 232: Gurry on Preservation of Scripture: Kept "Mostly Pure Enough"?

 

For the video under review look here.

JTR

WM 231: Gurry: Should Mark 16:9-20 be treated as Apocrypha?

 

Watch the original video under review here.

JTR

WM 230: PROBLEMS with modern text advocacy: Are Gurry and Hixson reconstructing the autograph?

 

Watch the clip under review here.

A few quotes:

D. C. Parker: "We can use philology to reconstruct an Initial Text. But we need not then believe that the Initial Text is an authorial text, or a definitive text, or the only form in which the works once circulated" Textual Scholarship and the Making of the New Testament, 29).

Tommy Wasserman and Peter J. Gurry: "Textual criticism is a discipline that tries to restore texts.... Where that is not possible, it aims to reach back as closely to the initial text as it can" (A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method, 1-2).

Daniel B. Wallace: "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" (Foreword, Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, xii).

Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry: "Simply put, we believe the textual evidence we have is sufficient to reconstruct, in most cases, what the authors of the New Testament wrote. We cannot do this with equal certainty in every case...." (Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, 20).

JTR

WM 219: Changing Goals of Modern Text Criticism Revisited

 

First WM of 2022. Recorded this on 1/11/22 but had some editing to do and just posted today.

JTR

WM 211: Childers, Gurry, Text, & Apologetics

 

JTR

WM 194: TBS Textual Key, Gurry, Variants, and Epistemology

 

Find the TBS Textual Key to the NT 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

Follow Up: Talking Text on Talking Christianity Podcast

I was on Josh Gibbs’s "Talking Christianity" podcast Wednesday evening/Thursday morning, along with James Snapp, Jr. (JS) and Peter Gurry (PG) to discuss the topic, “How should Christians approach textual criticism, or how should they deal with textual variation in our manuscripts?” I forgot that Josh was on central time, so a scheduled two hour 9-11 pm podcast became a 10 pm-12 midnight podcast, and then the feed broke in the middle, had to get reconnected, and then stretched into an over three hour conversation, that did not end till after 1 am!  You can watch part one here and part two here. Just now getting around to jotting down a few notes/reflections on the exchange:

My view in the discussion: Surprise, surprise, the Confessional Text. The other two represented, respectively, reasoned eclecticism (PG) and “equitable” eclecticism (JS; his own unique view, leading to a variety of the Majority Text).

After opening introductions, we were supposed to pose four questions to each other in turn, but we only made it through one round of questions (I to PG, PG to JS, and JS to me). From there the conversation sort of went off the rails. There was a lot of talking over and interruptions (of which I’ll claim my fair share).

Anyhow, I think my fellow guests (and probably some listeners) got pretty frustrated with me, since the conversations often went like it sometimes goes for confessionalists when they speak with reconstructionists:

Reconstructionist: So, what empirical evidence would you use to reconstruct the text of this passage?

Confessionalist: I would just accept the TR reading. My approach assumes “preservation” not “reconstruction.”

Reconstructionist: You mean you just accept the TR?

Confessionalist: Yes.

Reconstructionist: Which TR?

Confessionalist: I would look to the family of the printed editions of the Reformation era, which are generally uniform.

Reconstructionist: Would you even accept the CJ?

Confessionalist: Yes.

Reconstructionist: (While clutching pearls) How could you? No reasonable person could ever hold such a ridiculous view!

Reconstructionist: So, what empirical evidence would you use to reconstruct the text of this other passage?

Confessionalist: I would just accept the TR reading….

PG had some particularly interesting comments, including:

Suggesting that twenty-first New Testament criticism has not really abandoned the nineteenth century and twentieth century goal of restoring the original text, even suggesting most contemporary text critics assume the “initial text” is the “authorial text”(?).

Suggesting that David C. Parker, advocate of the “living text” view and editor of the Gospel of John in the ECM, in partnership with the Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Münster, which will be incorporated into the Novum Testamentum Graece, has not really exerted that much influence on the academic text (?).

Suggesting that the ending of Mark in the NLT (2015), with its inclusion of the non-canonical “shorter ending” (in the text) and the “Freer Logion” (in the footnotes) is not really an example of the “trickle down” influence of current trends in postmodern text criticism (?).

Suggesting that there really wasn’t much that was providentially significant about the Reformation era with respect the text of Scripture, and that the nineteenth century, with the discovery of the uncials, was of greater significance than the Reformation for text criticism (?).

Wholeheartedly defending the omission of the Pericope Adulterae (PA: John 7:53-8:11) from the text of the Tyndale House Greek New Testament (THGNT), rejecting it as part of Scripture, and suggesting that it would be the addition of this passage to the text that would, in fact, be a violation of Revelation 22:18-19 (?). On reflection this phrase came to mind: “Today’s evangelical is yesterday’s liberal.”

Suggesting, on one hand, that the role of text criticism in the church isn’t the sort of big deal that confessionalists like me make it out to be; while, on the other hand, suggesting that he and other elite scholars were doing the same sort of vital work in text criticism for the church that Origen and Jerome did, and that they use the exact same methods that Origen and Jerome did, and not a method reflecting Enlightenment era influenced historical-critical methodology (?).

Piously suggesting in his closing statement that rather than wanting the Bible of Owen and the Protestant orthodox (as I had stated was my desire in my closing remarks), he wanted the text of the apostles (?). The problems with this assertion: (1) As I had previously stated, the Reformed orthodox (like Owen) believed that when they read the apographs (as presented in faithful printed editions) they were reading the autographs (the text of the apostles); (2) Despite PG's protestations to the contrary, contemporary reasoned eclecticism does not seek to recover the autograph of the apostles but only some approximation of the so-called initial text.

JS spoke less (hard to get a word in edge wise at times), but he also had some points of note. This included a unique definition of “kept pure in all ages”, not according to its use in WCF 1:8, as meaning that any valid reading must appear in a currently extant Greek manuscripts culled from all ages of Christian history. In his closing statement, he took aim at any position based on “tradition.” I noted in my introduction that I was the only confessionally Reformed person in the discussion, with PG an evangelical and JS from a Campbellite “Christian Church” restorationist tradition with a decidedly anti-creedal bent. Given this, JS’s interest in “restoration” text criticism and his rejection of “authority in appeal to a tradition” fits perfectly with his ecclesiastical orientation.

I did not get to pose any of my prepared questions to JS. Here is what I would have asked if opportunity had allowed:

First: If the proper text of the NT should be some reconstructed form of the Majority Text, why didn’t the Protestant Reformers reach this conclusion, and why has this text not yet been conclusively defined in any widely used printed edition? And why have no widely used translations of it been made in any language? Does this mean that Christians are still waiting, after c. 2,000 years, to have a Bible?

Second: If you were preaching through Acts 8, how would you handle v. 37? Do you reject this passage as part of the Word of God?

I can’t say it was a great conversation. It was what it was. Despite this, hope it can be useful to some.

JTR

WM 112: Q & A on Text Topics

I have posted WM 112: Q & A on Text Topics to sermonaudio.com (listen here).

I recorded it on Saturday evening (12.30.18) but just got around to uploading it this morning. In this episode, I respond to recent questions on text topics received by text and email.

Question # 1:

Pastor Jeff,

Of how much use would a fresh translation into English of the TR with explanatory footnotes or alternative translations, as well as grammar and syntax explanations, designed for the use of ministers who hold to the confessional text position (particularly those who struggle with Greek) to use in sermon preparation be? Would this be a worthwhile endeavor? It would not be meant for a translation to use in public preaching and teaching or to replace existing translations but to compliment them and shed extra light on them.

My response:

On a new TR translation I’d be hesitant. We already have modern translations generally following the traditional text like the NKJV and MEV. These seems sufficient.

I’d add:

I’m not sure we could or would want to limit a translation to the use of ministers. For teaching elders, they need to be encouraged to study and learn the Biblical languages to use in their pulpit and lectern ministries.

Question # 2:

Dear Brother Riddle,

I need some help from someone who is more knowledgeable than I on textual matters. I listened to several of your Word Magazines after I corresponded with you some time ago, and I appreciate your scholarly work. Some questions have come up (from one whose ear James White has) that I hardly know how to answer. I will paste three paragraphs from recent emails (see below)….

If you have any insight, it would be greatly appreciated. If there is source material to which you can point, that would be fine. I know you are busy, so I am not asking for a lengthy answer. Thanks for your help.

My response: On the three paragraphs:

There are more than 30 TR's. None of them exactly follow any Greek manuscript perfectly. They were all eclectically put together by incorporating variant readings from different places. So for you to hold that any of them are the exact Word of God requires you to say that whoever did the compiling of that particular one did a perfect job. The Stephanus 1550 TR deviates from the "majority reading" (aka the "Byzantine text") a full 1,838 times. So you have to have 100% confidence that every single one of those times, the people compiling the TR made the right decision.  

Response: Yes, the TR is an eclectic text (as is the modern critical text). Are you opposed to "reasoned eclecticism"? If so, you not only reject the TR but the modern critical text also. Yes, this means the TR is not based on any single NT ms. I know of no current printed Greek text which does this. The closest is W. Pickering's printing of a text based on Family 35 mss. Yes, the TR deviates from the "Byzantine." We do not believe that the Byzantine/Majority is the authentic text. Yes, I trust that God was providentially at work during the Reformation era and the technological revolution of the printing press to preserve his word (see WCF/2LBCF-1689, chapter one, paragraph 8). I feel much more confident trusting men of this era (Stephanus, Calvin, Beza, etc.) and their judgments than I do the editorial decisions of modern editors. Allow me to turn the question around: If you accept the modern critical text (like the NA28) does this mean that you have 100% confidence that they are right? So, you are absolutely sure they are right on Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53--8:11, 2 Peter 3:10, etc.?

No edition of the Greek New Testament agreeing precisely with the text followed by the KJV translators was in existence until 1881 when F. H. A. Scrivener produced such an edition (though even it differs from the King James Version in a very few places, e.g. Acts 19:20). It is Scrivener's 1881 text which was reprinted by the Trinitarian Bible Society in 1976. This text does not conform exactly to any of the historic texts dating from the Reformation period and known collectively as the textus receptus.

Response: Though they are related, we need to distinguish between the development of the printed editions of the TR and the KJV translation. I am not defending KJV-Onlyism but preference for the TR as a standard Greek text for the NT. For example, the KJV was done in 1611 but the Elzevir printing of the TR whose blurb coined the term "TR" did not appear till 1633. Scholars are still unclear as to all the sources to which the KJV translators had access. The Scrivener edition preface explains that it "follows the text of Beza's 1598 edition as the primary authority." You cite Acts 19:20 where Scrivener reads ho logos tou kuriou (literally: "the word of the Lord") but the KJV reads, "the word of God." There are two possibilities; First, the KJV translators had a ms. that read ho logos tou theou  and followed it (and Scrivener overlooked this). Second, the KJV translators took the liberty of translating kurios here as "God" (and Scrivener assumed this). In the KJV preface the translators explain that they do not always render the same original word with the same English word but variety is applied. It is one of the hallmarks of the KJV as a translation.

Do we have a full Greek New Testament that we have 100% confidence is the exact Word of God to the last jot and tittle? If so, which of the 30+ TR versions is it, and why that one? 

Response: I agree we could use a "critical edition" of the TR. For now, I see no problem with Scrivener's which is the most widely available printed edition on the contemporary market, especially if one preaches from the Geneva, KJV, NKJV, or MEV. Let's not exaggerate the differences between the printed editions of the TR. They all include Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 without brackets. They all include the doxology of the Lord's Prayer (Matt 6:13b). They all include the CJ (1 John 57b-8a). Etc.... I also find this objection disingenuous given that the alternative is to embrace the ever-shifting modern critical text. I might turn this around: Which modern critical text do you embrace? NA 26? NA 27? NA 28? Or are you waiting for the NA 29? NA 30? What about the Greek NT SBL Edition (2010) or the Tyndale House Greek NT (2017). Which of these do you think is the Word of God? The truth is that the modern critical method never promises to arrive at a fixed text. It assumes permanent epistemological uncertainty as to the text. This is why I prefer to TR.

Hope this helps, Pastor Jeff

Question # 3:

Hello Pastor I really enjoy your podcast. 

I was wondering if you have ever thought about having Peter Gurry on the podcast. He is very active on Twitter and seems to love to talk about textual criticism.

 (I think I saw in one Twitter thread that he might be leaning towards a TR view too.)

https://mobile.twitter.com/pjgurry

My response:

Thanks for you note. Sorry to be so long in getting back. I was out of town for Christmas.

I'll take your suggestion on Gurry into consideration. I've had some interactions with Peter and find him a person of good will (see here).

As I understand him, PG has some views that are somewhat encouraging (e.g., he holds Mark 16:9-20 as part of Scripture, but he does not believe it is Markan). He is also reading/studying right now the Reformation era writers on text which may be challenging some of his modern critical assumptions, but unless he has undergone some significant recent changes of view I believe he is still a pretty hard-core modern text advocate.

Grace and peace, Jeff

I’d add:

PG recently put a post with a link to my review of the THGNT on the Evangelical Text Criticism blog (read here) and it was interesting to read some of the responses to it.

Question # 4:

Pastor Riddle,

I saw that Covenant Baptist Seminary in Owensboro, KY is having James White teach an upcoming “January Module” on “Reliability of New Testament Documents & Textual Criticism.” I am disappointed that students in this class will be exposed to modern criticism and not the confessional text position. Are there any RB seminaries that are willing to teach the confessional text position?

Thanks and blessings

My response:

Thanks for letting me know about this. Yes, interesting that JW is doing this. Most evangelical and even Reformed seminaries and Bible colleges continue to hold to the reconstructionist view of modern text criticism, so, in some ways, this choice is not surprising. JW is well known and will likely attract students to enroll.

I think the confessional text view is actually beginning to appear on the radar screen for some in this field but, unfortunately, I would not count of JW, from what I’ve heard so far, to be relied upon properly to understand or fairly represent it.

JTR