LOGICAL
CRITICISMS OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM
By Gordon Clark
Published by the Trinity
Foundation
Reviewed by Louis F. DeBoer
The title of this book sounds inviting. One is led to believe that this will be a systematic and logical critique of the whole science and industry of textual criticism, that has given us a confusing and competing array of translations of the Bible. Unfortunately, the book does not completely deliver on that promise. Clark is neither a defender of the Received Text, nor is he a real critic of textual criticism. His main points are the following.
 |
Much of the changes incorporated into modern translations constitutes change for the sake of change rather than constituting improvement in the translation of the text. However, this is merely a translation and not a textual issue. |
|
As far as the textual issue, the attempt to recover a more accurate text of the Greek New Testament through the techniques of textual criticism, Clark limits his criticism to the fact that the textual critics have proceeded illogically at times and have done a poor job. The legitimacy of the whole enterprise is not questioned. |
Basically, Clark likes the King James translation. This seems to be more a respect for tradition, and a dislike of needless change for the sake of change, than a commitment to the King James as the dominant English translation of the Received Text. Similarly, Clark frequently defends the readings of the Received Text. However, again this is not due to a conviction that the received Text represents the original Greek Text as providentially preserved by God. Rather, this is based on his critique of the illogical conclusions drawn by many of the textual critics, and the inconsistent manner in which they apply their principles.
The value of this book is in its negative conclusions. It rightly points out the fallacies of the modern science of textual criticism. Speaking of the critical text that it has constructed Clark says, "The flaws in the revised text are not incidental and unintentional lapses. They are the result of a pervasive and controlling methodology." The weakness of this book is that Clark will not take a forthright stand in defense of the Received Text. At times one thinks that perhaps he is leaning towards a Majority Text position. He says nice things about some of the Majority Text men. However he also says some nice things about Jacob vanBruggen and Edward F. hills, defenders of the Received Text, while personally distancing himself from their conclusions. Ultimately Clark seems in search of a more consistent and logical textual criticism. He feels that "textual criticism is legitimate and necessary, and... textual critics have done much good work..."
Clark rejects the Johannine comma and leave the passage about the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) in limbo. So that while this book may be a worthy addition to the literature opposing the results of a century of textual criticism, it is not a defense of the faith. It is not a defense of the Bible of the Reformation. Clark does not believe in the providential preservation of the text. He is still in search of the Holy Grail of a true text of the Greek New Testament, a search that he believes the current crop of textual critics have badly bungled.
