Fundamentals of New Testament Textual Criticism ed. by Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts

Abstract

Reviewed by: Fundamentals of New Testament Textual Criticism ed. by Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts Scott Charlesworth stanley e. porter and andrew w. pitts, Fundamentals of New Testament Textual Criticism ( Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015). Pp. xvi + 202. Paper $22. Porter and Pitts have set out to fill a gap in the literature by writing a mid-level textbook for first- and second-year students of Greek. Their aim is to avoid both oversimplification and too much complexity by introducing NT textual criticism in enough detail to provide "exposure to major issues" (p. xiii). High expectations are dashed, however, when in chap. 1 they define the primary goal of textual criticism as "reconstruction of the original text of the NT" (p. 6). Omitted is any reference to theoretical discussions about the meaning of "original" and current preference for distinctions implied by use of the terms "authorial," "initial," and "archetype" (text). Is the rationale pragmatic, due to the limitations the authors have set themselves? If so, it cannot be justified. Moreover, the selected bibliography that follows this (and every other) chapter, which is designed to facilitate further study and make up for the paucity of footnotes, does not include any literature on the subject. In order to lay a foundation for exegesis, text-critical matters are "book-ended" by chaps. 2 and 13 on canon (the "domain of NT textual criticism") and English translations respectively. It is certainly right, as the authors explain, to get students thinking about all three areas before they come to exegesis, but the uncritical tone now becomes apologetic. The canon was established "as soon as the literature was written … and closed as soon as the last of the apostles died" (p. 30). The church did not then decide but discovered what was canonical (p. 30). The Canon 1 and 2 distinction is dismissed, and evidence to the contrary all but ignored, except as regards, for obvious reasons, the date of the Muratorian Fragment. Concerns about approach continue in chaps. 3 and 4 on materials, methods of classification, and major witnesses. There is apparent acceptance of Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett's consistently early dating of NT papyri (The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001] 58-59; cf. the endorsements [End Page 735] on pp. 46, 102), even though Comfort and Barrett's methodology has been roundly criticized by Pasquale Orsini and Willy Clarysse ("Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Date," ETL 88 [2012] 443-74), who describe it as "theological palaeography." Additional questions about accuracy also start to arise. The review copy came with an errata slip correcting the highly inaccurate numbers of papyri, majuscules, minuscules, and lectionaries given in the book (p. 50). The notion of text-types, let alone geographically based text-types (so chap. 5), is under increasing challenge. While scribes in copying the text did not have license to change its essential meaning, the low-level "improvements" that were allowable all but disallow the classification of the papyri according to text-types. Again, there is no reference to current scholarly discussion of text-types in the text or bibliography. Chapter 6, however, contains a helpful introduction to textual variants with some input from linguistics. But students are also denied even-handed treatment in the methodological chaps. 7‒10. The Coherence-Based Genealogical Method is dismissed in a footnote (p. 90 n. 2) and the authors are ambivalent about whether students should even use the latest critical edition of the Greek New Testament (NA28, UBSGNT5) since it contains the text of the Catholic letters from the Editio Critica Maior (p. 147 n. 1). The ECM, as a result, is not among the critical editions discussed in chaps. 11‒12. In addition, the authors' strong preference for external evidence along with their hope that Sinaiticus, as "an ancient eclectic text that likely reflects or closely resembles the original" (p. 101), might become the diplomatic or base text of a future critical edition, risks "canonizing" a new "standard text" and diminishing the role of textual criticism. Finally, devaluation of the papyri (p. 102) in favor of the majuscules passes over the very important...