Textual Criticism

The Textual Frankenstein of Modern Critical Text Theory

A passionate Textus Receptus advocate named Jonathan Sheffield recently published a video about textual criticism, framed around James White, a well-known Reformed apologist and PhD candidate in textual criticism. Although Sheffield apparently does not realize that Frankenstein is the name of Mary Shelley’s scientist, not the monster (who is never named), he raises a number of objections to modern textual critical theory.

The video is excellent from a technical standpoint, and Sheffield employs a number of amusing pop-culture references throughout. The more one has followed developments in textual criticism in recent years (look for a reference to the now-infamous Wallace/Ehrman/early Markan fragment debate!), the more “in jokes” one will see in the video, which is very entertaining. James White is a favorite target of Sheffield’s, who prodcued a similar video last year entitled “A James White Christmas Carol on ‘Father Forgive Them’ in Luke 23:34.

Sheffield asks:

Why are Modern NT Textual Scholars like James White, Daniel Wallace and the field as a whole losing the intellectual argument against the scholarship of Dr. Bart Ehrman and others that hold to his primary hypothesis on the text of the New Testament? In order to understand this predicament for Modern New Testament Textual Scholars, we will document the problems with Modern Textual theories as shown in the following cartoon animation.

1504 reads

Are There Critical Text Readings in the NKJV after All? A Nerdy and Detailed Response to a Set of Fair Questions

"My recent post charging KJV defenders with sin because they 1) repeated the claim that the NKJV includes critical text readings and yet 2) never produced any evidence for that claim—that post has been answered by someone holding a minority viewpoint." - Mark Ward

1581 reads

"[T]his is what defenders of the TR believe, too. You disagree only in degree, not kind, with the mainstream view."

"There are about two dozen printed 'TR' editions with varying levels of difference among them. Which one preserves the perfect text? Purchasers of which of these editions had the every jot and tittle promise fulfilled for them? It can be only one—if indeed you believe in perfect preservation." - By Faith We Understand

1279 reads

“First-Century Mark,” Published at Last?

"It looks like we are finally getting that First-Century Mark (henceforth, FCM) fragment everyone has been talking about for years. (By the designation 'FCM' I am not implying that it actually dates to the first century. I don’t know the date yet. I only mean that 'FCM' is probably the actual papyrus that has been reported to be the first-century Mark fragment.)" ETC

954 reads

15th Anniversary of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts

Pages