Thread on Textual Criticism in r/churchofchrist
Out of respect for their boundaries, I'm not replying to this thread in the r/churchofchrist forum, only here. Thread URL is: https://www.reddit.com/user/deverbovitae/comments/1uhzjk4/new_testament_textual_criticism_why_it_matters/
My response: This is a sermon, not scholarship. It's an exercise in confessional apologetics cosplaying as serious historical criticism. It uses the language and resources of textual criticism, but it's engaged in a fundamentally different project than rigorous scholarship. There's a fundamental incommensurability between what this person is doing and what someone like Bart Ehrman and many other known textual critics do. This is ideological boundary maintenance to assure the faithful, i.e., Christian apologetics. It is not an attempt to rigorously work toward an undetermined outcome driven only by the data/evidence. It's also a sermon dump, not a serious call to critical dialogue. It's a theologically-driven confessional monologue cross-dressing as serious scholarly discourse.
I was trained in biblical textual criticism by such churchachrist scholars as Frank Pack, Neil Lightfoot, John T. Willis, F. Furman Kearley, J. D. Thomas, Thomas Olbricht, among others. I learned a lot from them, but there was always this ideologically driven assurance that nothing in this exercise of "lower criticism" (i.e., textual criticism) could ever be a threat to one's Xn faith. And that presumption/claim was foundational to their approach (i.e., all the variants/disputed texts were ultimately doctrinally unimportant and/or trivial).
A complementary topic that I've spent too much time on is the longer ending of Mark (16:9-10). But how churchachrist folks have addressed this textual challenge supports my observation that the theologically-driven practice of textual criticism has often been an ideological exercise masquerading as scholarship. McGarvey originally insisted it was authentic (1875). But by 1896, under the influence of Westcott-Hort and emerging NT textual criticism, he acknowledged it was not part of the original gospel, but still hedged his bets by insisting it was "authentic" in that it was added by a contemporary writer (i.e., not the author "Mark" but a contemporary).
But Guy N Woods would have none of that, declaring the "best and most conservative scholars" accepted this longer ending, and those who rejected it were "infidels, despisers of truth, and rationalistic 'scholars'" who rejected its authenticity for the obvious reason that it clearly establishes the necessity of baptism. [Woods was not much fun at parties.]
Much of the above about McGarvey/Woods from:
Helton, Stanley N. Churches of Christ and Mark 16:9-20. January 1, 1994. https://www.academia.edu/11556546/_Churches_of_Christ_and_Mark_16_9_20.
There are two different and, I would argue, ultimately incommensurable projects at play here. One is confessional and theological, despite its explicit use of the language and resources of critical scholarship. The other project is engaged in a critical attempt to establish the biblical text at some recoverable point in the past without regard to theological or confessional considerations or expectations. As far as I know, the best we can do is establish the textual tradition to about the 4th century CE. Lots of interesting stuff before that, but much about that earlier period is unknown and/or speculative, with only fragmentary evidence to work with. But that's another thread.
Cathartically yours.
