Customer Reviews

Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Gordon Clark's books are all very excellent. Since he was a professor of logic, his books always deal with the logical fallacies seen in the arguments of others. In this book, he exposes the fallacies seen in the reasoning of Critical Text (CT) advocates.

The CT is the Greek text most modern versions are based on. Meanwhile, the KJV is based on the "Textus Receptus" (TR). But it should be noted that Clark is not a KJV onlyist. He speaks approvingly of the NKJV and the Majority Text (MT). The MT is similar to the TR, while both differ from the CT.

Clark deals with the textual question by looking at select verses from the NT, along with a couple from the OT. Along with showing the logical fallacies in the reasoning of CT advocates, he cites the manuscript evidence and shows how the CT reading is based on a minority of the evidence.

He also occasionally looks at the proper translation of passages. For these he explains that many modern versions mistranslate passages. The problem is, most modern versions follow a dynamic equivalence method of translation while Clark agrees with the formal equivalence method seen in the KVJ and NKJV.

So Clark's position is pro-TR/ MT, pro-formal equivalence. And with both of these I whole-heartedly agree. In fact, I present the same positions in my book "Differences Between Bible Versions." Clark's booklet is a good place to start in studying these issues, and my book will provide much more detail.

I think this slim volume should be better known. The author uses logic to winnow some of the positions and procedures taken by modern textual critics and shows with clarity and succinctness that many of these approaches are flawed. The author's motivation is to defend the King James Version, but his arguments have broader implications. Anyone interested in the issues of textual criticism can benefit from this well written and easily accessible essay.

I have only one criticism, and it's why I give it four stars instead of five. The author seems to equate modern approaches with 'liberals' and I don't think that is actually correct. I think the author has allowed his own dislike of liberalism to cloud his presentation on this point. Some of the strongest advocates for non-literal translations are, in fact, conservative evnagelicals on the grounds that such translations make the Bible more accessible to 'ordinary' people. On the other hand, there are liberals how are steeped in the King James Bible for primarily cultural, as opposed to textual, reasons. So pro and anti King James Bible advocates cut across political affiliation.

However, this is a minor criticism and it did not disrupt the flow of the arguments or undermine the central point of the book.