Book Review: Logical Criticism of Textual Criticism

Book review
Logical Criticism of Textual Criticism

Full description of book:
Gordon H. Clark, Logical Criticism of Textual Criticism (Jefferson, Maryland, USA: Trinity Foundation, 1986). ISBN 0-940931-93-1

Rating:

Scholarship: 10/10
Information content: 7/10
Spiritual content: 10/10
Overall rating: 9/10

Review:

This short book by Gordon Clark is truly an introduction to the science of Textual Criticism, and in this case criticizing the philosophy and methodology of Textual Criticism as practiced by Westcort and Hort, Metzger et al. At a mere 50 pages, it easily leads the uninitiated through the issues involved in textual criticism and the philosophies adopted by traditional textual critics. Looking at various parts in all of Scripture, Clark shows the variant readings of various verses and how the textual critical methodology adopted by Westcort and Hort decides at time the variant to be used in the various modern versions of the Bible.

Through all this, Clark has made it plain that he is not advocating a KJV-Only position, nor even the TR-only (Textus Receptus only) position held by the less extreme KJVOnlyists. Rather, he makes it plain early on that his view is towards being an advocate of the Majority Text, and thus advocates for the use of the NKJV as a good English translation which is still mainly based upon the Byzantine text-type as like the KJV. However, his main bone of contention here is not with the Alexandrian or Western text-type per se, but the illogical reasoning and plain discrimination against the Majority text renderings lying behind much of the decisions made in assigning ratings of the variant readings in the Critical Text by the textual critics B.F. Westcort, F.J.A. Hort and Bruce Metzger. Clark successfully shows in various instances the illogical inconsistencies in how the ratings were given by traditional textual critics, and that the ratings sometimes do not even make sense using the textual critics' own criteria unless the additional criteria of being opposite of the Majority Text reading is added.

As an example of such irrational bias, Clark demonstrates in the case of Luke 19:25 that

.. is another instance of the critics' prejudice against the evidence. Because D, W, and three minuscules omit the verse, they give it a D rating in spite of the fact that it is found in Aleph, A, B, K, L, Delta, Theta, Pi, Psi, and a long list of others. It seems as if the critics doubt their own favorite combination of Aleph and B when even these support the Byzantine text. (p. 34)

Clark here highlights three fundamental assumptions behind traditional textual criticism in the book as follows (p. 15-16):

Number is less important than weight. A dozen or a hundred manuscripts count only as one; and therefore a lone manuscript of a different type equals the other hundred in weight
When several manuscripts differ at a given place, the reading that is harder to understand rather than the easier reading is preferred, as it is assumed that the scribe is likely to think that the harder reading was a mistake, with the result that he guesses his easy interpretation is the original
The shorter reading is correct and the longer one corrupt.

As it can be easily seen, these assumptions are not defensible at all. What can be seen rather is that the methodology lying behind traditional textual criticism is irrational and even unscholarly.

That said, it is heartening that the good modern translations are moving away from this essentially Modernist unbelieving methodology. Cross-referencing with the ESV, it has been found that in many places, the ESV defies the rating offered by these textual critics and seem to be more objective in analyzing such variants. For example, the phrase that in essence states "Peter, rising, ran to the tomb" in Lk. 24:12 is given a D rating yet the ESV includes it without so much of a footnote indicating any uncertainty over the place of the verse in the text. Similarly, Lk. 24:40 is given a D rating and the ESV similarly ignores the ratings of the textual critics on these two verses. This of course is not done for all the variant readings, but in most of them the ESV has shifted towards a more balanced view of the variants in the text instead of assuming that the mere presence of a particular variant in Aleph and B indicates that it is most definitely the correct rendering of the text.

One surprising thing that is seen in this book is the fact that the NIV has altered some of the text rather significantly, for whatever reason it is unclear. As it can be seen

For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? (Heb. 1:5a — ESV)

For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father"? (Heb. 1:5a — NIV)

For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father"? (Heb. 1:5a — TNIV)

and

By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. (Heb. 11:11 — ESV)

By faith Abraham, even though he was past age—and Sarah herself was barren—was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise (Heb. 11:11 — NIV)

And by faith even Sarah, who was past childbearing age, was enabled to bear children because she considered him faithful who had made the promise. (Heb. 11:11 — TNIV)

As it can be seen, the NIV and TNIV in Heb. 1:5a changed the traditional phrase "begotten you" to "have become your Father", which alters the meaning of the text rather significantly. There is a footnote there giving the rendering of "begotten", but the question then is why is the phrase "have become" used here, since there is no textual variant that can be translated "have become" here? Furthermore, this footnote is found only in the NIV not in the later TNIV, so why is that the case?

With regards to Heb. 11:11, the distortion of the text in the NIV and the TNIV is simply amazing. The NIV comes up with a complete novel proposition and places the correct rendering in a footnote, all done without any textual rationale for doing so The TNIV which is later and supposed to be better reverts back to the correct rendering of the passage (which is good), but inexplicably it places the false rendering of the passage in a footnote for the text! So much for improvement of the NIV! Oh well, I guess swapping the text and footnote text is an improvement after all, but still in error.

In conclusion therefore, this book is indeed an interesting primer to the issues involved in textual criticism. As such, it is given a scholarship rating and spiritual rating of 10. Due to its brevity, it is given an information content of 7, and an overall rating of 9.