Thursday, March 12, 2026

The Current State of Textual Criticism

I love it when essentials are made simple and brief. Simplicity helps us understand the essentials. Brevity helps us remember them.

Year ago, Tom Peters and Robert Waterman wrote a book entitled In Search of Excellence. They went on a search for the best companies in America to find out what made them successful. Their goal wasn't to write a major treatise on the subject but to keep it simple and brief so that anyone could understand some of the secrets of successful corporations. Just before naming 8 attributes of great companies, they made this statement:
"The excellent companies were above all brilliant on the basics. Tools did not substitute for thinking. Intellect didn't overpower wisdom. Analysis didn't impede activities. Rather, these companies worked hard to keep things simple in a complex world."

The book became an immediate bestseller. Two statements stuck out to me. First, "brilliant on the basics." And second, "simple in a complex world." I've discovered in my own life that when things are made simple without being simplistic -- by that I mean free of verbal mumbo-jumbo -- I'm able to put them into action in my life. I think that's one reason I've always been drawn to Bible study. Some people say the Bible is a complicated book and it takes trained experts to understand it. I strongly disagree. I think you can be simple without being simplistic. In fact, I think that's what's needed in biblical studies today more than ever.

Later this month I'll be speaking at a conference on textual criticism. I will argue that the science of New Testament textual criticism is in a state of disarray. Why, we can't even agree any more on the goal of textual criticism. It used to be quite simple: to recover the original text of the New Testament. But that was then. Today we're told this goal is too simplistic. So what should we use in its place? Well, again the waters get muddy. Options include:
  • authorial text
  • editorial text
  • initial text 
  • final text
  • multivalent texts (note the plural)
But the term that has taken the academic world by storm is Ausgangstext. That's right. Why use an English word when you can substitute for it a high falutin German word? I seriously doubt that any of my North American colleagues who brandish the term Ausgangstext could even hold a simple conversation in German. This term is trendy, yes. But helpful? Not really. That's the problem with trends. I'm reminded of what Dr. Houghton says about the text of Eph. 1:1 in his new Textual Commentary (p. 465): 
"The trend in modern translations is to include 'in Ephesus' but with a note of the variant reading."

Personally, I find trends annoying. Trends come and go. At lightning speed. Some of them cause you to scratch your head how they even got started in the first place. 
  • AI-generated art is now replacing human creativity and craftsmanship.
  • Gender-reveal parties have become over-the-top spectacles.
  • Playing music in public without headphones. That's just plain rude.
  • Filming people in distress instead of helping them.
  • Glorifying "senior pastors" and treating them like gods.
I can't wait for these trends to go out of style. Likewise, I can't wait for common sense to return to the field of textual criticism. I mean, how in the world did Westcott and Hort get away with their notion of a Lucianic recension of the Byzantine text for all those years? There is not a scrap of evidence -- ZERO -- that any such thing ever took place. And how about their 8 examples of conflation? This argument for Byzantine posteriority is so inane I won't even attempt to rebut it. As for Eph. 1:1, if you feel the words "in Ephesus" are not original, just relegate them to the footnote. But what purpose is served by including them in square brackets? 

Is the discipline of textual criticism stalled? I think so. Is it too early to speak of a "Twenty-first Century Interlude in Textual Criticism"? I think not. Have we come to the point where the intellect has overpowered wisdom? I believe we have. Complicated tools have now replaced common sense. 

Christians everywhere should be concerned about the current state of textual criticism. After all, the Bible does not belong to the academy. It is God's word. It is the church's book.