Jeffrey
D. Johnson, Behind the Bible: A Primer on Textual Criticism (Solid
Ground Christian Books, 2012): 111 pp..
Behind
the Bible is a booklet written by Jeffrey D. Johnson, pastor
of Grace Bible Church in Conway, Arkansas which provides a popular overview and
introduction to text critical study of the New Testament. Perhaps a better title would be Behind the New Testament, since the book
does not address the text of the Old Testament.
An introduction is provided by Dr. Richard Belcher and a back cover
endorsement by apologist James White.
Content:
After the forward by
Belcher, the book consists of five chapters:
In chapter one, “A Need
for Textual Criticism,” Johnson notes the necessity for some grasp of text
critical issues given the modern proliferation of English translations.
Chapter two,
“Paleography,” is devoted to “the art and science of dating ancient literature”
(p. 25). A survey is provided of the
writing materials used in the production of Biblical texts.
In chapter three,
“Textual Faithfulness,” reviews the various “textual families” proposed by
modern text criticism.
Chapter four, “Methods
of Textual Criticism,” suggests that there have been two fundamental approaches
to text criticism: (1) the documentary
method (using one text as the basis); and (2) eclecticism (using many texts as
the basis).
In chapter five, “The
History of the Greek Text,” the author provides a survey of various editions of
the New Testament from ancient to modern times.
The book concludes with
a brief appendix (pp. 109-111), “Answering Bart Ehrman.”
Analysis:
The importance of text
criticism for the modern church is indeed a significant issue, and I commend
Pastor Johnson for addressing this topic in a popular format. I found the most engaging parts of the book
to be the review of the ancient materials and text-making process. I also appreciated Pastor Johnson’s efforts
to provide a survey of modern scholarship that resulted in the modern critical
text.
In the end, however,
the booklet has some serious shortcomings. I will address these under two
headings: (1) methodological issues; and
(2) factual and editorial issues.
First,
methodological issues:
Johnson uncritically assumes, without ever proving or demonstrating, the
validity of the modern critical text as the best basis for English Bible
translations for evangelical Christians.
He assumes, for example, that the goal of text criticism is the recovery
of the original “autographs,” and assures the reader that with the modern text
we can come “very, very close” in a manner that “does not alter any truth of
doctrine” (pp. 19-20). He assumes
various aspects of modern text criticism and passes these along as fact without
sufficient discussion, proof, or source citation.
Perhaps most
significantly, Johnson does not interact with alternative proposals for
understanding text criticism, especially as they have been presented in
conservative and Reformed circles. He
does not address the confessional (Westminster and Second London Baptist) Reformed
doctrine of the providential preservation of the Scriptures through the apographa (copies). There is also no discussion of the Majority
text championed by Farstad, Hodges, and Pickering or the Byzantine text
championed by Robinson. Johnson also
makes no reference to the current seismic shifts that have taken place in
contemporary, post-modern, academic New Testament textual criticism which have
essentially resulted in the abandonment of
the old “modern” attempts to reconstruct the “original autograph” in
favor of a construal of a diversity of “living texts” (D. C. Parker), or how evangelicals
might respond to these shifts. The
author appears to have relied on a very limited number of sources. The factual material in the book appears to
be especially dependent on summarizing Harold Greenlee’s Introduction to New Testament Text Criticism, which, though it has
been released in a revised edition, was first published in 1964.
Second,
factual and editorial issues: In general, I believe this book might be greatly
strengthened if it provided more source documentation for the factual material
that it presents. I ran across a number
of statements that appeared to be speculative, confused, or erroneous. Here are some examples:
1.
On p. 37:
“It is uncertain whether the uncial or minuscule style was used in
autographs of the New Testament. Many
scholars believe that Paul’s epistles, as personal letters, were written in
minuscule.”
The chart on p. 47,
however, points out that the minuscule script was not introduced until the 9th
century, replacing the uncial scripts of the earlier centuries. What scholars believe Paul’s letters were
written in minuscule in the original hand?
2.
On
pp. 61-62: “None of the early church
Fathers quoted from the Byzantine text.”
This statement is not
factually accurate. In fact, Johnson
himself refers to the work of Harry Sturz on these same pages (footnote 29),
who has pointed to Byzantine quotations in the Church Fathers.
3.
On p. 76: “The first NT book to be written was the
epistle of James.”
Though some scholars,
Study Bibles, etc. make this suggestion, it remains an unproven and speculative
suggestion, not a fact. No argument is
put forward for this assertion or footnote provided for an authoritative source
to support this claim.
4.
On p. 78:
The assertion is made that the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts were
“transmitted and dispersed together throughout the church in one scroll or
codex.”
Again, no source is
cited for this assertion. It is a
speculation. Though Luke and Acts share
common Lukan authorship, they are, of course, canonically separated by the
Gospel of John.
5.
On p. 92:
“The first scripture quotation from a Byzantine text is found in the
writings of Chrysostom.”
This is
inaccurate. See again comments above on
pp. 61-62.
6.
On p. 92:
“…the Byzantine text was likely the byproduct of the fifty Bibles
published by Eusebius for the church at Constantinople in AD 331.”
No source is provided
for this assertion. It is an unproven speculation. In fact, in Codex Sinaiticus: The World’s
Oldest Bible, D. C. Parker suggest that Sinaiticus (hardly a Byzantine
text) might have been one of the de luxe
Bibles ordered by Constantine.
7.
On p. 105:
Johnson says of Westcott and Hort’s Greek NT: “Their edition of the Greek text is the basis
for the Revised Standard Version.”
Rather than the RSV of
1946/1952 I assume he meant to say the English Revised Version of 1881.
8.
On pp. 106-107, Johnson suggests that the
“United Bible Societies” are responsible for both the Nestle-Aland and the UBS
modern critical Greek texts of the NT.
Though the contemporary editions of these texts do
agree and there is cooperation between the organizations that publish them,
this reference confuses the fact that the Nestle-Aland 27th
ed. is produced by the German Bible Society (Deutche Bibelgesellschaft).
In addition to
addressing factual problems like those cited above, this book would also profit
from some editorial revision. Though it
is brief, there are unnecessary repetitions.
The Ehrman appendix is not adequately developed and might just as well
be dropped. The booklet would be
improved if it provided more footnotes and a detailed bibliography. There are also some writing errors that might
be corrected if it is ever reprinted.
For example, the title of Harold Greenlee’s book on p. 22, n. 11 is
cited as “Introduction to the New
Testament Textual Criticism.” The
“the” should be omitted. The chapter
headings are also confused from chapter 3 forward (sic “chapter 2” p. 53; “chapter
3” p. 66; “chapter 4” p. 75).
Conclusion:
As noted earlier, text
criticism is an issue of emerging significance among traditional and Reformed
Christians. The proliferation of modern
translations has led many to ponder not merely the translation philosophy that
undergirds such translations but also the original language texts upon which
they are based. Unfortunately, Johnson’s
work does not demonstrate a firm and reliable grasp of all the historical,
factual, and doctrinal issues that are involved in textual study of the New
Testament.
Jeffrey
T. Riddle, Pastor, Christ Reformed Baptist Church, Charlottesville, Virginia
No comments:
Post a Comment