Customer Reviews

The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament

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

 

 

This is a scolarly presentation of the viewpoint that a recension took place in the fourth century produced by Lucian of Antioch which incorporated hundreds (if not thousands) of textual changes in the New Testament. It is the author's opinion that the Majority Text, or Textus Receptus, is made up basically of 5th through 14th century copies of this recension, and therefore the text does not represent the original wording of the Greek New Testament. The author argues that the concept that the church loses the original Word of God and then recovers it falls in line with the biblical concept of recovery.

This thesis is, of course, contrary to that of the proponents of the Majority Text, who believe that God has always preserved a true rendering of his Word throughout the entire church age. Majority Text proponents feel that there is either not enough evidence to support the idea of a fourth century recension, or they feel that thousands of manuscripts should not be summarily dismissed as evidence simply on the grounds that some (or many) believe there was a fourth century recension.

The author argues for the superiority of the Alexandrian text over the Lucian text and feels that those older (Alexandrian) manuscripts be given more weight than the erroneous, though more numerous, majority Text manuscripts.

The author's viewpoint is well argued and although a knowledge of Greek would be definitely advantageous to a study of this book, its main points can be easily understood even with no language background. Recommended reading.

Wow, you get extrema comments coming from the far left of the Bart Ehrman kind of side who can't recover ANY historical text at all; and the far right who has his KJV (maybe only the English) from the TR created from a late handful of MSS by a Roman Catholic trying to prove his Latin is better than Jerome's Vulgate, that says a lot to me.

Because both are in agreement to reject Philip Comfort's book, it must be a really good book! When it is hated by the extremes of both sides of error, I think that says a lot as to how good the book is.

In fact, though I don't have this one yet, I have many/most of his books, and have greatly enjoyed all of them. I am very sure I would like this one as well. Philip Comfort has had the respect and endorsement of many scholars in this area of study: Metzger, Allan, Bruce, Fee, Wallace, White, etc. I have read his books and thoroughly enjoy them.

The most incisive review of this book was written by William L. Petersen in the Autumn 1994 issue of the Journal of Biblical Literature (Vol. 113, No. 3.). Quoting the last paragraph of the review:
"In short, Comfort's acquaintance with both the literature of textual criticism and
its issues is utterly inadequate. Time and again he speaks of "believing" (pp. 9,20, 37).
One can see why. This book, with its Abfall Theorie of textual origins (a view as
discredited in textual matters as it is in issues of church history), serves as an example
of a particular genre of pseudo-scholarship, which finds its way into certain schools
and churches and then into students. This is unfortunate, for the unlearning of this
volume's half-truths and outright untruths will be a painful experience for the student
and an unwarranted waste of time for the professor. The publisher and external reviewers
are to be rebuked for allowing such nonsense into print."

Petersen was Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins in the Religious Studies Program at Penn State University. He was a widely respected scholar and authority in this area.

Reader beware!!

How a modern "Textual Scholar" can write a book promoting a theory that was MADE UP by Westcot and Hort, without a shred of evidence, but instead, to help their theories, that were groundless, is beyond understanding. The Critical Text position is factually wrong, and unhistorical. The idea that the churches of Jesus Christ LOST THE TRUE NT TEXT FOR OVER 1500 YEARS, until two apostate Protestant scholars, united with concealed Papists and Unitarians gave it back to us is demented. Only a "scholar" could be so easily deceived, but not a Bible-believing, Spirit led Christian interested in facts and the Providence of God. The Textus Receptus IS the RECEIVED Text, and THE TEXT of the church since the Apostolic days. Facts and Faith in God's Providential dealings lead us there. The realms of scholarship are riddled with apostasy and unbelief, hence Comfort's absurd book and thesis.