Hello everyone!
This morning the weather continues to be ideal. I plan on working outdoors all afternoon. Earlier I had a great workout at the gym. As you can see, it went by fast.
Prior to that I began to pour over my copy of the Editio Critica Maior of the Gospel According to Mark. I spent 2 hours in it today and 2 hours yesterday morning.
And I can tell you: I am VERY impressed. I chose Mark because I've taught this book about 15 times in my career. I absolutely love this Gospel, not least because it poses many interesting questions about its text.
The way the field of textual criticism is evolving is interesting. The ECM of Mark represents the best in modern academic scholarship in that it employs the latest method of textual criticism (CBGM). If you're a Sturzian like me (or, for that matter, a Byzantine prioritist), your approach to textual criticism will differ from the one used here, but there is still much to be grateful for. Already I have about 3 pages of notes I want to share with you based on my preliminary reading of ECM/Mark. For example, the editors are to be congratulated for removing the square brackets around the words "son of God" in Mark 1:1. It's about time! Let me assure you, there are many other improvements over the NA28 as well.
ECM/Mark comes in three volumes. The second contains various supplementary materials. The third volume, which I found to be most interesting, presents a number of helpful studies that shed light on the methodology used in ECM/Mark. The first of these essays, by Klaus Wachtel (one of the editors), is by the far the most important. It's called "Notes on the Text of Mark." I highly recommend that you read it if you're at all curious as to how the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method has been used in the production of the ECM. Wachtel, of course, wants to dispense with the idea of "text types" altogether -- even the use of the expression "Byzantine text." It's obvious that this point of view represents a major departure from more traditional approaches to New Testament textual criticism (as espoused, say, by Bruce Metzger).
Let's get practical. How you approach the text of the New Testament will color everything you do when you try to resolve a variant. Pastors especially need to be aware of the current debate over text types because it's their job to prepare God's people for works of service by their devotion to "prayer and the ministry of the word" (Acts 6:4). May I again point out something obvious? Prayer is to be the first priority. Never begin to do any kind of scriptural study without pausing and asking God to help and guide your studies. But in addition to prayer, the word of God alone remains our guide for life and godliness. This includes how we approach places of textual variation in our New Testament. Our dedication to the word of God is not just rooted in the reading of it. Addressing error is also part of the pursuit of unity in the church. Reasoned Eclecticism and Byzantine Priority both can't be right. But they can both be wrong. Ditto for Sturz's view. So we need to stay on our knees. Prayer is the means by which God grants power and insight to those who rely on him. Reading ECM/Mark is giving me something I greatly lacked: a deeper insight into how the modern guild approaches the text. Rather than ignore it, I need to become conversant in it. In the body of Christ, we need each other's encouragement, wisdom, example, and accountability. I seldom open my Greek New Testament without trying to picture myself as a believer in the first two centuries of the church as he encountered the New Testament in the copy available to him. He read the New Testament because it was Scripture. And so should we today. However, let me quickly add that the canon isn't closed on textual criticism. The discipline continues to change and grow even though the truth of God's word never changes.
Hope this helps!