Given the continuing disputations between PB members who prefer one body of literature to another, be it Alexandrian, Byzantine, Textus Receptus or the hypothetical Caesarean, I thought opening a thread for the discussion of books on Biblical historiography might be a good thing. I personally was introduced to the subject by Paul Wegner's "Journey from Texts to Translations, The: The Origin and Development of the Bible."

Wegner is a bit biased twords the Alexandrian texts but overall provides a good foundation in the subject. Any other recommendations?

__________________
Robert K. "Kelly" Brumbelow
In Inquirer's class at Grace Presbyterian (PCA) Cedartown, GA
Cedartown, Georgia

Dear Lord and Father of mankind, Forgive our foolish ways;
Reclothe us in our rightful mind, In purer lives Thy service find,
In deeper reverence, praise. - John Greenleaf Whittier 1807-1892

Hello Robert,

Yes, you're right, as it is primarily the history of the texts and their transmission that is the key factor in these discussions (as experts in Biblical Greek / text critics disagree, so knowledge of the Greek is not the predominent factor). Those who present the best history win the day, with another crucial factor being, are they in accord with the statements / promises of Scripture?

Here are some of the ones I favor:

Jakob Van Bruggen, The Ancient Text of the New Testament.

Maurice Robinson and Wm. Pierpont's Introduction to The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine / Majority Textform.

Wilbur N. Pickering’s, The Identity of the New Testament Text II , especially chapter 5 on the history of the text.

And all of Theodore Letis' works, especially, The Majority Text, and The Ecclesiastical Text. Letis was essentially an historian of the text.

Edward F. Hills also focuses on the history of the text in his, The King James Version Defended

These first three are Majority Text advocates; the latter two advocated the KJV and TR.

__________________
Steve Rafalsky
Elder, International Evangelical Church (Reformed)
Limassol, Cyprus

"I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17)

"Strengthened with all might, according to His glorious
power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness..." (Colossians 1:11)

Blog: A Great and Terrible Love

Thanks for starting this thread Robert, I've been wondering about the same thing.

The Van Bruggen link wasn't working for me, I got it to work though, try this:

http://www.thescripturealone.com/VanBrug.html

Thanks Steve for the great suggestions!

__________________
Josh
Reformed - WCF
Clinton, Utah

"My business is to love others and not to seek that others shall love me" // "Redeeming the time, for the days are evil" Eph 5:16

Any study of modern Historiography has to deal with Bruce Metzger "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration" you may not like his theology (and who on this board does?), but he knew his manuscripts.

Since I have received a couple of PMs about it: Historiography is not just some made up word and it is not the same as history or historicity. Historiography is the study of texts or text groups in time and how they relate.

Current scholarship maintains 3 major lines and one hypothetical line: Alexandrian, Byzantine and Western are the main lines while Cesarean is relegated to hypothetical as it is about as provable in existence as "Q". Further, each of these major text types have sub types which hopefully we will get in to if enough people are interested in a conversation.

The oldest texts we have are Alexandrian, the most texts we have are Byzantine and the least accurate (due to heavy paraphrasing) is the Western.

Lastly I would like to stay away from higher criticism in general, while there is some overlap I would like to just assume original authorship of texts and stay away from the german that higher criticism is.

Robert,

While I acknowledge Metzger's (limited) worth, I must say that his bias — his presuppositional stance — is a source of poison as regards the sacred Scripture. See this post in "The merits of the A.V." thread.

I have seen it recently said that if we can accept Erasmus' work then we can accept Metzger's, though I do not think the comparison is sound, for it appears Erasmus was a believer, however flawed, whereas I do not think the same can be said of the late Dr. Metzger.

David Cloud on Erasmus (scroll down a ways to find Erasmus).

A post on Erasmus in the What is the authentic New Testament text? thread.

There is also the brief essay, "In Defense of Erasmus", by Dr. John Cereghin (two online sources, the first text, and the 2nd html and better, though linked to Riplinger info):

In Defense of Erasmus

In Defense of Erasmus

Metzger's student, Bart Ehrman, is wreaking havoc against the Faith, and he is now wearing his mentor's mantle.

For naturalistic text criticism, sure, Metzger is important, but when it comes to faith — and make no mistake, as the Bible is the result of God's supernatural activity it is to be approached by faith — when it comes to faith, Metzger is sorely wanting.

P.S. See this recent post by Paul Ferguson: Dr. Khoo on Metzger