Book Review - A NEW APPROACH TO TEXTUAL CRITICISM An Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Book Review - A NEW APPROACH TO TEXTUAL CRITICISM An Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
Book review A NEW APPROACH TO TEXTUAL CRITICISM An Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method[CBGM] Kindle Version

In summary this book is the latest Apologetic attempt by ETC (Evangelical Textual Criticism) to try and reduce the weight of The Difficult Reading Principle.

The CBGM does have some logic behind it as it reduces the weight of a Manuscript's evidence to the extent it disagrees with
Manuscripts it has some relationship to for the reading in question. The problem though is that as my classic Cumulative Weight of Early Witness for Difficult Readings Thread demonstrates there is an extreme inverse relationship between the Degree of the difficult reading and the amount of Manuscript support.
For the most difficult readings there are generally only a few Manuscripts that support the likely original and thus the CBGM will give these
Manuscripts less weight because they will disagree with most related Manuscripts.

The logic behind CBGM makes more sense for likely unintentional errors but for likely intentional errors could actually tend to give weight
in the wrong direction proportional to the degree of difficulty. And the primary use of Textual Criticism is for Difficult Readings/Intentional error.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

CBGM - Introduction

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:

Wasserman, Tommy. A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (Resources for Biblical Study Book 80). SBL Press. Kindle Edition.

Page 2
For the New Testament, scholars have been working toward this goal for centuries, reaching back as far as Irenaeus in the second century and Origen and Jerome in the third and fourth centuries.
Actually the earliest Patristic evidence is GMatthew/GLuke since both used GMark as a base and their editorial changes are often weighty evidence for Markan Difficult Readings.

Page 4 (Summary of CBGM)
On the other hand, the CBGM is much more than just a set of online tools, important as those are. As the name implies, it is also a new method for relating manuscript texts to each other. What is new is not that the CBGM relates texts; what is new is how it relates them. The new principle the CBGM uses is that the texts of manuscripts can be related to each other using the relationships of their variants. To illustrate how this works, consider two manuscripts, A and B. At any point of comparison, their text can be related in only one of these ways: 1. They agree with each other: A = B 2. They disagree with each other, and either 2a. One derives from the other: A → B or A ← B, or 2b. Their relationship is uncertain: A –?– B It is the use of the 2a type of relationship (where one text derives from the other) that really sets the CBGM apart from other genealogical methods. Where other such methods only use select agreements (A = B) to relate texts of manuscripts,5 the CBGM also uses the direction of their disagreements (A → B or A ← B). Specifically, it uses agreements to show how closely related two texts are but then also uses their disagreements to show which of the two texts is more likely to be the ancestor of the other.
Page 6
A final example is from 2 Pet 3:10, where the previous editions said that in the last days the earth and all its works “will be found” (εὑρεθήσεται). The new NA/UBS text now reads just the opposite: the earth and all that is in it “will not be found” (οὑχ εὑρεθήσεται). The new reading sits much easier with the surrounding context but is only attested in a few Coptic and Syriac manuscripts (i.e., only in translations); there is no Greek manuscript support at all, which is quite exceptional. Clearly, these changes will affect not only modern Bible translations and commentaries but possibly even theology and preaching.
Interesting.

Page 7
In all, there were in the Catholic Letters thirty-two uses of brackets compared to forty-three uses of the diamond and in Acts seventy-eight cases of brackets compared to 155 diamonds.11 This means that there has been an increase in both the number of places marked as uncertain and an increase in the level of uncertainty being marked. Overall, then, this reflects a slightly greater uncertainty about the earliest text on the part of the editors.
Page 7
1.3.3. Rejection of Text-Types The two previous changes are the easiest to quantify. However, the CBGM has also introduced several far-reaching changes in how the editors view and describe the history of the text. The most significant and, for that reason, controversial is that it has convinced the editors to abandon the concept of text-types traditionally used to group and evaluate manuscripts.12
This looks like Apologetics. For the Difficult Readings the Alexandrian Text is not merely superior to the Byzantine text but far superior. This looks like exorcism of a superior category of evidence on the surface but you have to wait to see how the CBGM will compare for Difficult Readings. Note that ETC tends to complain that Alexandrian Text Type is a major weight for Difficult Readings but actually it is not. The major weight is The Difficult Reading Principle and the Alexandrian text helps confirm. Again note that for the most Difficult Readings the likely original will disagree with most of its Alexandrian kinsmen.

Page 10
1.3.4. Renewed Appreciation for the Byzantine Text As just noted, the editors still accept a Byzantine group even if they do not view it as a traditional text-type. In fact, they do much more than merely accept it; they have reevaluated it and concluded that it should be given more weight than in the past.
For the Difficult Readings the quantity of Manuscripts, which is mainly Byzantine, has relatively little weight. The trend has been to give relatively more weight to the Internal evidence so giving more weight to the Byzantine text-type is another thing that seems backwards.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism
Post Reply