Another "New" Approach to Textual Criticism

By Christian M. McShaffrey

A “new” approach to textual criticism was popularly announced in 2017 with a book by Tommy Wasserman and Peter J. Gurry entitled, A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method[CBGM].

The term “new” is certainly relative because the CBGM had already been in use for over fifteen years and has already influenced readings in the Nestle-Aland 28th edition.

Nevertheless, the method was “new” enough because it no longer relied on the “old” canons of textual criticism developed by Messrs. Westcott, Hort, Aland, etc.  The CBGM is a computer-assisted model that enables critics to observe and assess relationships between variant readings on a scale previously not possible.

It was estimated that the fruits of this new method would perhaps be available for public evaluation in the early 2030’s when the Editio Critica Maior was anticipated to be completed and published.

In a recent YouTube video, Dr. Peter Montoro, previously featured on the Textual Confidence Collective, announced that he has been hired by Tyndale House and part of his job description is to “develop a new way of doing textual criticism that is based on large data sets and a comprehensive analysis of the textual tradition. The aim is to provide a complete overview of textual variation.”

This is, obviously, a very ambitious goal, but even more ambitious is Dr. Montoro’s aim to complete this project so that “everyone from every perspective becomes dependent on it [sic], ‘cause there’s no substitute for it…” and that “no one can do credible scholarship without.” [15:18]

An additional, and somewhat odd, aim to this already ambitious project is “training up scholars for the global church” so that the academy can break free of “western” dominance in textual scholarship by raising up “indigenous” scholars in non-western countries where the church is allegedly “healthier.”

Dr. Montoro admits that one of the motives behind building this “international team” is related to the financial feasibility of the project. “Cheaper labor costs” will enable the project to develop while also benefiting the indigenous scholars through part-time employment.

Once this international team is organized, Dr. Montoro expects to make “significant breakthroughs in our understanding of the process of textual transmission” (i.e., scribal habits) and “in our understanding of the facts of textual history.” [27:04]

When asked about the practical or apologetic relevance of this project, Dr. Montoro shared his vision for “a five-minute video” which will account for all the textual variants in scripture so that people could see that they (i.e., the evangelical textual critics) have done more work than the skeptics.

Perhaps the “newest” element of Dr. Montero’s approach is the development of a comprehensive computational philogenetic tree, or graph, that represents how readings that share a common ancestor are related.

Having seen such graphs and models already provided by the CBGM, the natural question was asked by the interviewer, “Is this a refinement of, or an alternative to, the Coherence-based Genealogical Method?” Dr. Montoro answered that it was an alternative to the CBGM because it will account for scribal habits in the transmission of the text. [45:25]

The church has been waiting patiently for the results of the last “new” approach to textual criticism for nearly a decade, and now it seems that she will have to wait even longer. Some, no doubt, may begin wondering, “How long must we wait for the finalization of a standard sacred text?”

Confessional Bibliology offers the most satisfying answer: The work has already been done by men more competent than Messrs. Wasserman, Gurry, and Montoro in the seventeenth century, when the church was at its healthiest state, under the singular care and providence of Almighty God.

Learn more at: confessionalbibliology.org