Textual Criticism Summary from Parchment and Pen
C. Michael Patton presents Textual Criticism in a Nutshell, though what he means more precisely is New Testament textual criticism in a nutshell.
It’s quite a good introduction giving a feel for the types of variants and why they might occur, and also why we might prefer not to call them “errors” considering that some are intentional, and some are stylistic variants and so forth.
I would note only one caveat–I think he is a bit optimistic on how much impact the few substantial variants would have. I recall one correspondent who noted that of course variants in the New Testament text made no difference on doctrinal issues, since we don’t truly base our doctrines on the Bible in any case. That’s also overstating the case, in my view.
Certainly there is a great deal more in the church’s doctrinal statements than is in the texts themselves. I regard this as a good thing. I think the church was supposed to grow and that the doctrinal statements express the church in that process. At the same time, they did take care within their approach to the study of texts, to provide some basis in scripture.
We would hardly have the debates we do about some variants if there were no doctrinal issues. Thus it is good to realize that while the support orthodoxy may be strengthened or weakened by particular variants, there are no smoking guns that say “that doctrine is wrong,” or “this other doctrine should have been there.” It’s more a matter of the weight of textual support for the elements of doctrine.
It’s an okay introduction; the good elements echo Metzger’s “Text of the NT,” sometimes phrase-for-phrase. But things are not really as simple as one might think if all one had to go on was that blog-entry. I’m a little concerned that readers at P&P will learn just enough accurate material to be dangerous, and “yeast” CMP’s statements in their ministries.
(Plus, his description of Mark 16:9-20 is extremely inaccurate, but that’s a sub-issue.)
Some thoughts I had as I was reading:
— The number of variants that = insertions drawn from margin-notes is really pretty small.
— The influence of the Diatessaron was a major impetus for variants. This should be mentioned.
— The # of variants in the NT MSS is probably over 500,000, not between 300,000 and 400,000. But it depends a bit on what one calls a “variant” (for instance, are two different kinds of abbreviations of the same sacred name really a variant?).
— Some non-original variants, if adopted, would have a significant doctrinal impact. For instance, if the Alexandrian text’s gloss at Mt. 27:49 is adopted, the doctrine of inerrancy would be jetissoned, inasmuch as Jesus cannot have been speared both before and after His death. The Sinaitic Syriac’s text of Matthew 1:16, if adopted, would significantly undermine the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. The variant at II Peter 3:10 has a doctrinal dimension. If the shorter readings of the Western Text of Lk. 24 are adopted, while Mk. 16:9-20 is rejected, and some Western readings in Acts 1 are adopted, then the NT basis for the doctrine of the *bodily* Ascension of Christ would be significantly lessened. If the Western text of Acts were adopted, numerous points (such as the contents of the Apostolic Decree in 15:29) would change, resulting in some theological adjustments.
Plus, some variants have a profound *interpretive* impact, even if the impact is not strictly theological. For instance, some commentators have approached the Gospel of Mark with the premise that Mark intended from the outset to portray Jesus as the Son of God. But when the phrase “Son of God” is removed from Mark 1:1 (as it is in some manuscripts, and in the TNIV, though retained in the ESV’s text), the foundation of that approach is significantly eroded. Some commentators think that Jude, Jesus’ half-brother, could not have possessed a high Christology, and interpret his epistle working from that premise. So if the variant “Jesus” is adopted in verse 5 of Jude (as it is in the ESV text), then commentators who nevertheless adhere to the premise that Jesus’ own half-brother could not have a high Christology will tend to assign authorship to someone else.
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
Thanks for providing a detailed review. I think one is bound to have some weaknesses in any blog post. His is fairly good as such things go, in my view, but you have pointed out some good additional considerations.