Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism by David Alan BlackReview by: L. W. HurtadoNovum Testamentum, Vol. 46, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 2004), pp. 288-289Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1561589 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 12:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 12:05:10 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS

DAVID ALAN BLACK (ed.), Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002) 157 pp. ISBN 0-8010-2280-0. $16.99.

This slim volume comprises essays originally delivered as contributions to a 'Symposium on New Testament Studies' held in April 2000 at Southeastern Seminary (North Carolina, USA), together with a brief introduction by the editor. The book is directed primarily at wider circles of readers from outside specialists in New Testament textual criticism, especially students who wrongly may be inclined to avoid the discipline as too complex and arcane. Essentially, there are two foci: (1) major issues in New Testament textual criticism, and their wider rel- evance for the study of Christian origins, and (2) major schools of thought on how New Testament textual criticism should be practiced.

In a programmatic 'keynote' essay ('Issues in New Testament Textual Criticism'), Eldon Jay Epp lays out major issues with the clarity and magisterial control of relevant material that are his trademarks. The subjects reviewed include the so- called 'canons of criticism' (principles to do with the use of 'internal' and 'external' evidence), 'text-types' (for which Epp prefers the term 'textual clusters'), current critical editions (and the curious similarity of many of them with the edition by Westcott and Hort), manuscripts and variant readings 'in their church-historical, cultural, and intellectual contexts' (the relationship of textual variation and dogmatic controversies and other features of early Christian history, and the importance of studying NT manuscripts in the light of a wider acquaintance with ancient scribal practices and the reading and use of texts), and the meaning and feasibility of striving to reconstruct the 'original' text of NT writings. Out of regard for space, I mention only a few of the points he makes.

As regards the early history of the NT text, Epp contends that the cumulative evidence exhibits two main 'clusters' in the second century, one represented by P75 and Codex B, and another most fully represented by Codex D (and sup- ported also by some early fragmentary papyri, the Old Latin, and Old Syriac). In addition, he recognises 'an abortive C-text' in Mark, represented by P45 and W, 'but continuing no farther' (noting that the so-called 'Caesarean text' now seems to have suffered a 'demise', largely attributed to the 1981 volume by this reviewer). He also refers to 'a later cluster, the A-text' (represented by Codex A and the majority of later manuscripts).

Epp applauds recent studies by Bart Ehrman and David Parker for their focus on the fluidity of early textual tradition, and their illustrations of the influence of doctrinal and other ecclesiastical forces upon the transmission of the NT text. Overall, he expresses a more 'up beat' view of the prospects for NT textual crit- icism than the somewhat pessimistic judgement that he offered in articles he pro- duced in the 1970s.

The three following contributions to this volume are from advocates of each of three main approaches to NT textual criticism. Citing the work of Gunther Zuntz as 'the most illustrative as well as methodologically sophisticated example', Michael Holmes ('The Case for Reasoned Eclecticism') advocates a combination of judge- ments about textual witnesses and about variants that are informed by 'a care- fully grounded theory of the history of the text' as the only appropriate approach. Indeed, Holmes contends that neither of the two other approaches advocated by

c Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Novum Testamentum XLVI, 3 Also available online - www.brill.nl

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 12:05:10 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS 289

other contributors to this volume builds upon a sufficiently grounded account of the history of the early transmission of the NT text.

J. K. Elliott presents 'The Case for Thoroughgoing Eclecticism', defending his own view of how it should be practiced against alleged misconstruals and misrepre- sentations. In particular, he emphasises that his approach does not involve a dis- regard for the relative qualities of manuscripts, only 'the consistent application of criteria and principles for assessing textual variants that are based primarily... on internal evidence'. Though he admits to feeling more comfortable in supporting a variant with 'a fair measure of manuscript support', nevertheless he advocates a readiness to attempt to judge variants on the basis of their intrinsic probability.

Maurice Robinson sketches the thinking behind his advocacy of 'Byzantine pri- ority', contending that the sort of NT text presented in modern critical editions is implausible as representing the original text because it has 'absolutely no sup- port from any known manuscript, version, or patristic writer'. Further, he con- tends that a proper theory of the history of the transmission of the NT text should support the likelihood that the form of text represented by the majority of manu- scripts of the Byzantine and Medieval period essentially preserves the original text better than the alternatives.

In a concluding 'Response', Moises Silva takes stock of these four essays, with a combination of some light-hearted comments and some incisive (and, in my view, cogently presented) judgements. He characterises Elliott's articulation of 'thor- oughgoing eclecticism' as 'a kinder, gentler brand', emphasising points of conver- gence with the approach advocated by Holmes and endorsed in most textbooks on the discipline. Confessing to be 'an unrepentant and unshaken Hortian', Holmes contends that Hort's classic presentation of his principles for NT textual criticism was more a clear articulation and consolidation of the work of his predecessors than a revolutionary development, and that these principles stand up well in the light of the succeeding century of accumulated data and analysis. Silva also illus- trates how Robinson's assertions about the priority of the Byzantine 'text-form' rest upon unsubstantiated assumptions about the textual history of the NT, assump- tions that in fact ignore the thrust of available data.

Moreover, though granting the complexities involved, Silva reaffirms the valid- ity of seeking to recover the 'original text' of NT writings, contending that the difficulties in doing so do not invalidate the effort.

This is a stimulating and very current set of essays that accomplishes the aims of providing readers with informed presentations of the variety of opinion in current NT textual criticism, and of demonstrating the liveliness and relevance of the dis- cipline for the wider circles of students and scholars to whom this book is directed.

L.W. HURTADO

MAURICE CASEY, An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 122: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. x + 210. ISBN 0-521-81723-4, ?42.50/$60.00.

Casey offers the second instalment of his study into Aramaic sources that under- lie the gospels. His first volume sought to provide plausible reconstructions of Aramaic material that stood behind Mark, the second volume applies this method- ology to argue for Aramaic sources behind material shared uniquely by Matthew and Luke, the Q source. Such an endeavour may seem, especially to those who do not believe in Q, to be a case of building hypothesis upon hypothesis. However, contrary to first expectations, Casey's work may in fact resonate with Q-sceptics since he questions the traditional Q hypothesis in two major ways.

? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2004 Novum Testamentum XLVI, 3 Also available online - www.brill.nl

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.17 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 12:05:10 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions