I wrote this essay some time ago. I’m strongly in favor of caring for our long-term church members, those who keep the church going through thick and thin, and have been doing so for a long time.
But as a member of the long-enduring group, I advocate every effort being made for the next generation, physically and spiritually.
Featured image by S. Hermann & F. Richter from Pixabay
In my business role as president of Energion Publications, I’ve just cleared the proofs for the release of the book The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism by Dr. Harry Sturz. This is a reproduction of the original book, released in 1984 and is produced under license from HarperCollins Christian Books.
Note: This discussion is not intended for experts, but for people who have only occasional contact with New Testament textual criticism. While I have studied textual criticism, I am not a specialist in it by any stretch of the imagination.
We have thousands of manuscripts of all (a few) or part (many) of the New Testament. In preparing a Bible translation, translators must make choices of which manuscript readings they are going to use.
It’s easy to overestimate the problem here, because significant and/or doubtful variations form a very small part of the New Testament text. Nonetheless, in public discussions, the variants get all the press, because we like to find things that are different, and therefore more interesting.
One thing I learned early in studying textual criticism was that manuscripts should be weighed, rather than counted. What does this mean and how does it work? Well, in general textual critics divided manuscripts into three large groups, which were named for regions associated with them, though actually divided by characteristics of the text. We had the Western text, associated with Rome and parts west, the Alexandrian, associated with Alexandria, Egypt, and the Byzantine text, associated with the eastern church.
The vast majority of surviving manuscripts are of the Byzantine text-type, largely due to history. The church survived much longer, and many more copies were made in the east. In addition, a great deal of manuscript production in the west was in Latin. I’m brushing past a number of factors, but the bottom line is that there were more Byzantine manuscripts.
In the 19th century, and somewhat into the 20th, there were a large number of manuscript discoveries, or rediscoveries, which produced texts that differed from the common texts found in the majority of the manuscripts. These newly-found manuscripts were older, in general, than the existing manuscripts, and in many cases included readings that scholars thought were more likely original. This produced a strong swing in scholarly work toward the text in these newly discovered manuscripts. The Alexandrian text got a lot of attention, with the western text following not far behind. A theory developed that the Byzantine text was the result of a major editorial effort, that produced a single, new text.
As a result, two things happened. First, the Byzantine text was considered generally more recent than those newly discovered manuscripts, and second that it was likely to have readings that were essential 4th/5th-century revisions. At most, it could reflect essentially one manuscript.
Opposed to this general consensus, on which the text of most modern Bible versions has been based, was the view that the reason we had more Byzantine manuscripts was that the text was actually better preserved there, so that it should be preferred, and manuscripts from the other text-types should be considered some sort of aberration.
Dr. Sturz argued that the Byzantine text-type could and did preserve older readings. It was not to be preferred over all others, but its readings should be given due consideration in all cases. He provided evidence that many Byzantine readings show up in early papyri, showing either that if there was any unifying editorial process, it had not been one that erased all of the prior evidence.
The general result of accepting Dr. Sturz’s argument is to improve the evidence that we have for determining the text of the New Testament, as well as change the weight we give to various sources.
I am glad to be able to release this important book and make it available at a reasonably price again. On the Energion Publications retail site, it will be available for $22.99 (suggested retail 24.99) through Wednesday, which is the official release date.
Below is an interview I conducted with Dr. David Alan Black (who wrote the preface to the new edition) and Dr. Abidan Shah.
From my Twitter feed:
When you sit with a griever, your work is to be with them where they are, not drag them out where you are more comfortable.
— Diane Langberg, PhD (@DianeLangberg) April 28, 2022
Truly excellent advice!
In Alice in Wonderland, the queen says that sometimes she has believed six impossible things before breakfast. A fair number of years ago, someone told me that in response to points of my Christian faith. The aim was most likely to shock or offend me.
How did I respond? I don’t recall what I said. It wasn’t terribly memorable. But I do know what I thought. Yes, indeed, I do believe a number of impossible things before breakfast, not to mention after breakfast as well. I have never understood the desire to make so many of the very difficult aspects of the Christian faith as rational as possible. If God can be explained rationally within the incredibly tiny sphere of my personal knowledge, there’s really no point. That’s a mini-god.
Now I don’t mean here that all aspects of religious faith are irrational. There are things I believe that can be rationally explained. Various arguments for the existence of God can, for example, open up a crack through which some light may shine. The arguments of a historian may create a place in which a virgin birth, or a resurrection might just be hinted at as an explanation for so many things.
But I believe in a God who created the universe. I was thinking the other day while I gazed at a picture of galaxies seen from the Hubble Telescope in a part of space that looked empty to the naked eye. The space was filled. Now it’s not entirely impossible to suggest that this was created by someone or something. But when you add to that the idea that the entire universe was created by Someone who actually cares about anything that happens to me, you are proposing something patently impossible. If you claim it is possible, other than in one’s imagination, I suspect you of not really comprehending just how far that is out of the boundaries of comprehension.
As we come up to Easter, we will commemorate a God who became flesh, lived here, and ultimately permitted himself to be tortured and killed. I believe that happened. If you try to reply to that problem with the doctrine of the trinity, let me note that you have responded to an apparent physical impossibility with a logical impossibility, the idea that one person can really be three, and three can be one.
Yet I believe all of those things. I have disappointed not a few people when I decline to try to make all these beliefs rational. The incarnation (a person being 100% God [whatever we mean by that] and 100% human at the same time) is both a logical and, should we be able to figure out what would be involved, would doubtless also be a physical impossibility.
People who believe all these things can certainly also believe in a great number of truly rational and reasonable things. I believe in the laws of nature and live my life largely in accordance with them. (Some of that health stuff is overcome by my general desire to enjoy life!) I find often that I agree to a large extent with those who do not believe in God on matters of ethics, politics, and as far as it applies to daily life, rational interaction with the universe.
But I still believe that God, one capable of creating all those galaxies, well past my imagination already in the physical universe, also, as one member of the trinity (three in one!) became flesh (100% divine and 100% human), died, and rose again from the dead.
The same God also notices when a sparrow falls.
Six impossible things before breakfast?
Trivial!
David Alan Black, Greek professor and author of a number of books on languages, suggests you don’t use Greek from the pulpit.
Speak emancipating truth in a way that all can understand, and we will thank you for it.
Dave Black Online
I agree, and add the fact that in most cases when I’ve heard Greek referenced from the pulpit it is referenced incorrectly. Use your Greek or Hebrew to enhance your own study, but bring it to the people in their language.
I confess that I usually do use a Greek word (one, unless it’s in a language context), because people expect it of someone whose degrees are in biblical languages and not in theology. But I introduce it with a caveat, and tell people why I’m doing it.
Then again, I’m usually teaching small groups and only rarely preaching.
… a God without wrath does not plan to do much liberating. Indeed, that God’s anger is kindled when harm is done to the least among us not only gives us hope that earthly injustices don’t have the last word but also insight into God’s compassionate nature.
Deanna Thompson, Deuteronomy (Belief: a Theological Cimmentary on the Bible), 31
This is an excellent point. We need to think about what is necessary when evil asserts itself.
“The established church is far more dangerous to Christianity than any heresy or schism. We play at Christianity. We use all the orthodox Christian terminology — but everything, everything withour character …. There is something frightful in the fact that the most dangerous thing of all, playing at Christianity, is never included in the list of heresies or schisms” .
(Provocations, p. 227) – via Dave Black Online
This review is of a Bible I received as a #BibleGatewayPartner.
When I set out to review a Bible, I find it difficult to determine precisely what I should discuss. There is the translation it is based on, the nature and extent of the notes, the theological positions that drive those notes, and elements of the edition such as text size, arrangement, and paper quality.
In approaching the Grace & Truth Study Bible, edited by R. Albert Mohler and published by Zondervan, the question became even more interesting when I added it to my Bible store, and found that my distributor has 17 editions/formats available, ranging in price from $39.99 (unjacketed hardcover) to $279.99 (Premium Goatskin, gilded edges). The edition I’m reviewing is priced at $49.99, and is a jacketed hardcover.
I’ll begin with a few pictures.
The production is of good quality, as you would expect from a Zondervan product. The layout is quite traditional for a study Bible. You have an introduction to each book, notes at the bottom of each page (allowing me to continue to remind classes to read from the upper part!), and cross-references in the center of the Bible text. In the back you’ll find a concordance and some fairly standard Bible maps.
Other editions have some variations on this, such as different page sizes, binding, and paper.
Overall, there is nothing to criticize about the layout, and in fact, I kind of like the straightforward approach. We don’t have numerous “features” added that really tend to detract from study. There is a text, and there is a commentary, one study Bible! I think few modern readers make great use of cross-references, but it is nice to have them.
The big weakness of this particular edition is the 9 pt font. I found it hard to read extended portions of the text. I’m just five years short of three-score and ten, and thus my eyes may not be quite as good as those of some readers, but I read extensively and rapidly, and reading this Bible feels like work.
It’s important to note, however, that several of the editions do have larger print than the one I’m reading, so one can look at the page and font size and choose a better compromise along those lines.
The translation used is the New International Version. My general comment on this edition is simply that it is a compromise between woodenly literal and freely interpretive dynamic translation work. This means it suffers from the problems of both formal and dynamic equivalence, but it also shares in the benefits. There is no such thing as a perfect translation, and the NIV covers a great deal of ground. It is definitely evangelical in flavor and thus it is not surprising for it to be the basis of this study Bible, considering the general editor. You can find brief comments on the NIV at My Bible Version or in my book What’s in a Version?
First, let me note that I do not intend to criticize this study Bible for differences in theology. Dr. Mohler is a Southern Baptist and I’m United Methodist. The header of this blog proclaims me a “passionate moderate, liberal charismatic,” and while each word of that description brings up issues when applied to my theology, it does not suggest that I’m a conservative evangelical. A book edited by a conservative evangelical is one I expect to be, well, conservative and evangelical. And this book is that.
I strongly recommend that Bible students have on hand study Bibles that disagree with them as well as ones that are from their own theological tradition. I have gotten valuable insights by comparing the comments in various study Bibles.
The commentary is not dedicated to railing against theological opponents. I would describe most comments as gently conservative, but often not putting controversial issues front and center. For example, in the introduction to Genesis there is a comment about treating this not as a scientific or historical account, but understanding it as theology and even as a work of art. I know of people all across the spectrum who would find the literary description of Genesis as quite acceptable. Conservative evangelical interpretations are espoused in the notes as one would expect.
Another example is Romans 1, which is a frequent citation in arguments about homosexuality. The notes do, in fact, express a conservative view, but it correctly (in my view) see the primary point of the passage in idolatry, and it places idolatry at the foundation of human sin.
Book introductions don’t spend a great deal of time on issues of dating and authorship and don’t enter into controversies on these issues, but do assume a relatively conservative chronology regarding the writing of the text. For example, you could read the introductions to each of the gospels and miss any issues of authorship and dependency between the various writers.
The strength of the notes is that they are a nice blend of theological and devotional. Some study Bibles emphasize giving you technical and background details that you might not know. While you will get some of that from this Bible, the devotional value appears to be primary. I would say that this is a sort of theology that is readable by the average Sunday School class. It is not seminary material. It doesn’t give you a list of options for various issues, but basically preaches its way through.
Overall, I found nothing surprising here. The Bible was very much as I imagined it would be when I first looked over the descriptions involved. I personally wouldn’t recommend it as your sole study Bible. There is a strong possibility of absorbing relatively controversial conclusions without being alerted to the possibility of disagreement. That can be nice for morning devotions, but not as your sole opportunity to study.
I do think it would be valuable as one study Bible out of a set that one uses to study. The other study Bible should be from different tradition streams, and also with a different emphasis. There are a number of evangelical study Bibles that do more analysis of the issues, for example. That may be less devotional, but if you want a balanced perspective, it’s good to know what other views exist.
Note: I received this copy of the Grace & Truth Study Bible as a #BibleGatewayPartner, with the only requirement being an honest review.
This video is my interview with Dr. Veronica Sites, author of the newly released book Love Me to Life: Suicide Recovery at Church. I was particularly pleased both to publish this book and to do this interview because suicide is often ignored or swept under the rug in the church. This results in harm to just about everyone, those who contemplate suicide, those who survive it, family, and friends.
Veronica takes this issue head-on and discusses it seriously. There are many practical points in the interview, pointing to even more practical materials in the book. I think any pastor or church leader would benefit from a serious study of this. Don’t be caught off guard!
Do you know where you can refer someone who is contemplating suicide? Do you know how to listen? Are you going to add condemnation to the burdens that person is already bearing?
Love Me to Life will help you respond faithfully and positively to those who are very much in need.
I’ve just added Understanding the Bible – With and Without Inerrancy to the Energion Publications YouTube channel.
I am the interviewer for this video, and am talking with two very good friends, Alden Thompson, who was my undergraduate advisor, and Elgin Hushbeck, Jr., a friend since the mid-1990s when we met on the old CompuServer Religion Forum. Both have since spoken at conferences which I’ve organized.
The purpose of this video was not to settle the issue of inerrancy, which is unlikely to occur, but instead to discuss how each of these scholars use their view of inspiration as they interpret scripture. One interesting result is that while the emphasis is different, much of what they’d say about scripture is very similar.
Neither would be accurately described as either liberal or progressive. This is a discussion between two conservatives, both of whom have a high view of scripture (they discuss what this means), regarding one potential dividing point.
