# Critical Textual Criticism and Missionary Work



## Pergamum (Feb 6, 2020)

*How the Textual critics hurt missionary work:*

I am a missionary and focus on tribal peoples, but have discipled former mslms as well. Right now I am just strugglign to get healthy. 



Here is a story that may be profitable regarding textual criticism and missionary work:


One former Mslm that I discipled came to me distressed one day after I bought him a bible commentary.

What was the problem?

The commentary mentioned that it was uncertain whether a particular passage was in the originals or not. Humanly speaking, I thought I had lost him right there back to Islam.

I had bought him a tool to study Scripture and it led him to doubt Scripture.

He asked me, "Is the Bible not certain?" and "Do people not know what exactly is in the Bible?"

This bible commentary had cast doubt on a number of passafges such as the endign of Mark, the adultery passage, and the Comma. "How can I be sure that the Bible is really the Word of God, then?" He asked. I felt as if the "Christian" resources I had given him were undoing his faith.

It is ironic that there are men who debate Muslims and yet their views on textual criticism fall right into the propaganda of the Muslims. They vigorously debate Mslms and yet their view of textual criticism gives the mslm the victory over our faith.

After all, the Qur'an is fairly settled; after the Battle of Yamama and 70 men who had memorized the Qur'an fully were killed the Caliph Abu Bakr compiled the Qur'an and the 3rd Caliph Uthman copied it ( and all old copies were destroyed). Because of this, and because of the reluctance to translate the Qur'an out of Arabic (the Mother Book in Heaven is in Arabic, after all), the Qur'ans that circulate today are all uniform whereas our bibles are not.

What is more, even in public schools in the country where I serve, the teachers tell the students that while the Christians are, indeed, The People of the Book as well, they cannot trust their Injil because the Jews have corrupted their text. Meanwhile, Christian scholars say pretty much the same thing - that many manuscript readings cannot be trusted.

If the lie is the same, perhaps the source of the lie is the same as well.

I have concluded that the most vile enemies of the Scripture are not the followers of Muhammad, but the professors and textual critics sitting in many Christian seminaries, and those who hurt the faith of these "little ones" on the mission field by making them doubt the Scriptures.


----Follow-up on this family:

In this particular case, the man was persecuted. The Mosque loudspeaker told his neighbors not to associate with him. He had trouble finding work. His wife considered divorcing him. But over many months, she too believed. She wore her mslm veil for a time to church (ha ha, a bit awkward but nobody said anything, thankfully).

He is now in Bible school and their 2 kids are enrolled in a Christian school.

I will try in the future to do better as a missionary. Please pray for me and any failings that I may have.

Reactions: Like 6 | Edifying 1 | Amen 1 | Praying 1


----------



## Taylor (Feb 6, 2020)

So, what are we supposed to do with the real variants that really exist in real history (even in the so-called “Received” tradition, by the way)? Just pretend they’re not there? Textual criticism didn’t create these variants, after all. So, whether we do textual criticism or not, they are there, and they are public knowledge. I’m not saying all manner textual criticism is good (some is patently wicked), but textual criticism is an ancient tradition in the Christian Church, having its first practitioner in Origen.

Furthermore, I get very uneasy with the apologetic method that says, “If anything ever causes offense, the fault is with it, not with the person.” It’s pure pragmatism, in my opinion. Are we supposed to reject the doctrine of election because it has caused many people, even supposed Christians, to stumble and reject the Faith (which it has)?

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 6, 2020)

There are real variants. You can't escape. When you revocalize Hebrew words, you can get an entirely different word.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## deleteduser99 (Feb 6, 2020)

@Pergamum

I'm not qualified to talk at length on this subject, but here is how it did create a real issue for me, an everday Christian, just three years ago.

I am big on memory, and I am firmly convinced that it should be part of our spiritual exercises to commit the Scriptures to memory.

Textual criticism was a huge discouragement to me. I would look at my Nestle Aland Greek text and ask myself, "Should I memorize all these variants too? What if the text as laid out is not correct?" So, a big memorization project--getting the Scriptures in memory--probably doubles in size if you are concerned to make sure you have the real thing.

Of course you can say, "Just go with what is likely the best reading." That opinion can change. What if what's accepted as original is considered inauthentic tomorrow? I felt like my Bible could change at a moment! If every jot and tittle abides forever, what do you do when you are not certain what the jots and tittles really are?

I don't miss the turmoil the issue created in my Bible reading.

It's certainly not academic. It's a real issue for an everyday Christian.

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 6, 2020)

@Pergamum Thank you for sharing this experience. This is so disheartening. As you know, I've been reading up on the issue myself after having the presentation in favor of critical text criticism so positively pushed at Moody. 

I'm seeing doubt of the text and finding the "true" text to be more and more of a problem. Modern text criticism doesn't have roots in the Church.

As @Taylor Sexton has pointed out, the cat is out of the bag, so to speak. How do we stand on the Word of God and believe that He has kept pure in all ages this infallible Word? How do we do this in a world that is eager to see more and more variations (taken at their word so easily) advocate for an inauthentic faith?


----------



## Hamalas (Feb 6, 2020)

While I do understand the tension people are pointing to, it's really important that we realize that the discussion here isn't over whether or not textual criticism is valid or not, rather the discussion is really about what faithful textual criticism looks like. 

This is a similar issue to the debate over creeds. The "no-creed-but-the-Bible" folks actually have a creed - the question is simply whether or not that creed is consciously worked out and biblically faithful. In the same way, every time you pick up a Bible you are doing textual criticism (and that's true whether we're talking about the ESV & the KJV or the TR & NA28). You can't get away from making choices about which manuscript readings best reflect the original autographs. 

So the real discussion centers around the best and most biblical way of doing that task.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Hamalas (Feb 6, 2020)

And this is not just a post-enlightenment discipline driven by godless secular "scholars." Theadore Beza (along with other Reformers) was quite involved in textual criticism in his day. Textual criticism is neither good nor bad on its own. It's how it's done that's so important.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Taylor (Feb 6, 2020)

I think it is also important to point out that—in my view, at least—this "problem" is actually a great apologetic _for_ Christianity rather than a polemic _against_ it.

Here is what I mean. How is "revealed truth" preserved in pagan religions? In Islam, it is a supposedly in a pristine copy of the Qur'an. How is this "truth" to be accessed? Well, you must come to _them_ for the "truth"; it is controlled by _them_. Even in Roman Catholicism, although the Scriptures have recently been permitted to be translated into the vernacular, it is still Rome who holds the only right to interpret them. Again, the truth and divine authority reside with _them_.

This is not the case with the Christian Scriptures. Sure, there are variants in the text. But the Christian Scriptures, from day one, have been intended for the _world_. They were never hidden. No one person or institution could claim exclusive right to them. Sure, there are variants, mostly in minor points of mere grammar and spelling. But is it not a testimony to the goodness of God that he decreed such a widespread and rapid promulgation and reproduction of his Word throughout the entire world, in many languages, and yet has kept it pure from corruption?

Unlike all these other religions, God has nothing to hide or conceal. Sure, it takes illumination by the Spirit to understand these things, but God has published his Word for worldwide consumption by anyone who desires it. Nothing holds them back from it. And yet he has done so, all the while preserving it as the most attested ancient document in history. Even if the Qur'an could claim uniformity in preservation (it can't, by the way), it was only accomplished by careful and secluded protection by a small and exclusive group of like-minded people. That God accomplished the same thing without any of these human protections, I could hardly imagine a stronger apologetic.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 6, 2020)

WCF 1:8: "...by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages...."

-If my "discipleship" materials state that the last verses of Mark, the Adultery passage, and the Comma don't actually belong in the bible how can I teach a convert that WCF 1:8 is true? Sounds pretty impure to me.

Reactions: Like 7 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 6, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> There are real variants. You can't escape. When you revocalize Hebrew words, you can get an entirely different word.



Revocalizing a word doesn't delete the last 12 verses of Mark.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Taylor (Feb 6, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> WCF 1:8: "...by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages...."
> 
> -If my "discipleship" materials state that the last verses of Mark, the Adultery passage, and the Comma don't actually belong in the bible how can I teach a convert that WCF 1:8 is true? Sounds pretty impure to me.



The point is that regardless of whether you recognize textual criticism, regardless of whether you think it's valid, and regardless of whether you yourself do it or not (you do, I promise), _the variants are there for everyone to see_. So, you have two choices: 1) deal with them, or 2) shrug and walk away.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Hamalas (Feb 6, 2020)

Pergy, could you maybe offer us a definition of what you mean when you talk about textual criticism? I suspect that we're not all using the term in the same way here.


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 6, 2020)

"...kept pure in all ages..."

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Taylor (Feb 6, 2020)

Romans922 said:


> "...kept pure in all ages..."



Didn't the translation the Divines themselves used have variants, some significant, listed in the footnotes?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 6, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Revocalizing a word doesn't delete the last 12 verses of Mark.



Still going to have variants. And where in the Nicene Council did they use the Johannine Comma?


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 6, 2020)

Hamalas said:


> Pergy, could you maybe offer us a definition of what you mean when you talk about textual criticism? I suspect that we're not all using the term in the same way here.



I would say that higher textual criticism is the belief that we have lost the bible and need scholars to reconstruct the text for us. Scholars stand in judgment of the bible. My view is that we've always had the bible and the Church has always possesses it and recognized it for what it is.

How would you define it?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Feb 6, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> I would say that higher textual criticism is the belief that we have lost the bible and need scholars to reconstruct the text for us. Scholars stand in judgment of the bible. My view is that we've always had the bible and the Church has always possesses it and recognized it for what it is.



This definition is problematic because it excludes a significant middle. Your comment appears to say that there are only two positions—higher critical thought (which I and everyone here rejects, by the way), and the "Received Text" position. You do realize there are conservative textual scholars—many are very Reformed—doing the exact same work that Erasmus did, the text-critical work which gave the "Received Text" folks the "Received Text"? They are what you have excluded.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Hamalas (Feb 6, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> I would say that higher textual criticism is the belief that we have lost the bible and need scholars to reconstruct the text for us. Scholars stand in judgment of the bible. My view is that we've always had the bible and the Church has always possesses it and recognized it for what it is.
> 
> How would you define it?



I would define it this way: textual criticism is the work of studying textual variants to discover the original text of the Bible.

Now that work can be done by liberal scholars who place themselves above the Bible (as you describe so well) but it is also done by faithful evangelical scholars who pursue textual criticism to demonstrate the very truth laid out in WCF 1.8, that God has kept His word "pure in all ages." 

I think Don Stewart walks through the major issues well in this article: https://www.blueletterbible.org/Com...bible/question2-what-is-textual-criticism.cfm 

And if I can just add one point to clarify as well. I'm currently a student at PRTS which, as many of you know, uses the KJV and holds to the Majority Text. They would not endorse the genealogical textual tradition used by most modern versions (ESV, NIV, etc...). However, even with that being said, we take a class on textual criticism here and Dr. Barrett (who holds firmly to the Majority Text) goes out of his way to argue that textual criticism is not only valid but also necessary. 

In other words: to pursue textual criticism doesn't mean that you automatically use NA28 or follow a critical text. You can pursue textual criticism and still hold to the longer ending of Mark and use the KJV. I think some here are assuming conclusions which don't necessarily follow.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 6, 2020)

@Pergamum I thank you for this also. I see the issue as being no different from the issue of evolution and age of the earth. There is data and then there is interpretation of the data. It’s a theological and faith issue, not a scientific one; the data will be interpreted according to what one believes about the Bible’s own testimony.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Hamalas (Feb 6, 2020)

Can we not distinguish between the legitimacy of the discipline of textual criticism and the conclusion of many textual critics?

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Taylor (Feb 6, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> ...the data will be interpreted according to what one believes about the Bible’s own testimony.



And what is the Bible's own testimony regarding the variants in its transmission history?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 6, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> And what is the Bible's own testimony regarding the variants in its transmission history?



Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away.

Luke 16:17
But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for a single stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.

Luke 21:33
Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2


----------



## Taylor (Feb 6, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Matthew 24:35
> Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away.
> 
> Luke 16:17
> ...



How many variants do we allow so as not to enter the "passed away" stage? Where is the line drawn? And who drew it?


----------



## Jack K (Feb 6, 2020)

The textual variants are a real issue. I have to deal with it in Sunday school class, too. Kids tend to be troubled to learn that in some cases we can't be sure exactly what Moses or Isaiah or Paul wrote. My response begins with something similar to what Taylor said in post #8 above:

It is so good of God that he has given his Word to his people and caused it to spread out into the whole world. There is no secret place where someone keeps a perfect Bible but the rest of us can't see it. Instead, we all have the Bible! We should be glad God has done this.

But people make mistakes and are sinful. So there are a few places where we can tell that someone has made a mistake when they copied the Bible and we can't be sure which way was the way Moses or Isaiah or Paul wrote it. At the same time, we can tell that people have mostly been very careful when they copied the Bible. God has helped people be careful so that most of the time we do know exactly what Moses or Isaiah or Paul wrote, and the places where we aren't sure don't change the Bible's main message about Jesus and how he saves us. So God has made it so we can still be sure we are studying his Word when we study the Bible.

Sometimes people might make mistakes too when they translate the Bible into a different language, or they might not be sure of the best way to take what Moses or Isaiah or Paul wrote and say it in English (or some other language), and in a few cases sinful people have translated parts of the Bible wrongly on purpose. So, we should be careful to pick a good translation when we study the Bible. But here again, God has been kind to us and he has given us many good Bible translations in English. He wants his people to have his Word, and this is great!

Some people don't believe this. Even though they have no proof, they like to say that there are big mistakes and changes from what Moses and Isaiah and Paul wrote that affect the Bible's meaning. But they are just guessing. They don't actually have any old copies of the Bible where you can tell that there are those kinds of big changes—because there aren't any! God hasn't let that happen. He wants his people to have his Word.​

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 6, 2020)

What I have seen tending to happen today when people look at textual criticism and are shocked to find that there are variants, is that they take an almost computer-based idea of "kept pure" and apply an anachronistic standard back on to the biblical texts. If there is the slightest deviance from an already assumed standard, then "corruption" rears its ugly head, with all the negative connotations that the word "corruption" has. However, this word does not mean (in textual criticism) what most modern people think it means. It does not mean, "Some scribe gleefully changed the meaning of a text to suit his own diabolical theology." It means "an error in transmission." When the Westminster divines used the words "kept pure," they did not have computer based models of how to keep something pure. Nor did they imply "100% pure with no manuscripts having any differences whatsoever." So, for starters, we absolutely must stop comparing (in our minds, whether consciously or unconsciously) the differences in manuscripts through the ages with the idea of modern computer-based printing procedures, where a thousand copies printed can all be precisely the same with absolutely zero divergence. Printing procedures in the time of the Westminster divines had errors creep in (maybe the most amusing example being the so-called Wicked Bible in 1631, which read "Thou shalt commit adultery"). Copying by hand, of course, represents many more opportunities for errors to creep in. Having the unfair comparison in mind allows many people to imitate Chicken Little and think the sky is falling in when people seek to do responsible textual criticism. There is very little grace on the part of some, and accusations of diabolically changing the text of Scripture are leveled at people who have no business being accused of such. 

The fact is that we all want to know what God's Word says. Therefore we must compare manuscripts to seek to eliminate the scribal errors that crept in. Sometimes those errors are obvious, and can be easily explained. Sometimes the issues are incredibly complex and difficult. The desire to over-simplify the issues is understandable, but wrong-headed. It is an immensely complex field, with many factors to weigh, and each individual case of variants has its own set of evidence. 

Can we say that we have God's Word? Certainly we can. IF we don't apply anachronistic standards to the evidence and require a degree of certainty consistent with the modern age, but NOT with other ages of the world.

Reactions: Like 7 | Amen 6


----------



## Taylor (Feb 6, 2020)

The other issue here is that merely quoting Luke 16:17 or some such passage is actually question begging. It begs the very question that is being discussed here: _What texts are genuine?_ After all, it is _those_ passages that shall not pass away. If, for example, 1 John 5:7 is not original (I am not here making a judgment either way), then the fact that it has been "deleted" in most modern Bibles is actually a _fulfillment_ of Luke 16:17 rather than a violation of it. So, someone who believes that 1 John 5:7, for example, is not original can most certainly affirm Luke 16:17 without the slightest unsoundness in logical integrity.

Presuppositions matter.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Taylor (Feb 6, 2020)

Sorry for the double post. I just want to approach this one more time from a Christian charity perspective.

The primary reason I get passionately involved in this debate is not because I have a firm opinion about it. To be honest, I probably lean more Majority Text in my textual views. But, even then, I don't know. I waffle on it. No, the reason I get involved in this debate is because, frankly, I am so tried of getting painted as something of an unbeliever simply because I do not hold to a certain position on the manuscript tradition of Scripture, and how that tradition must be dealt with.

I have also witnessed a good deal of smugness, and just down-right hatred, on this board and in other places on this issue. And, to be even more frank, most of that I have seen coming from the "Received Text" crowd. I am not saying the the "Critical Text" side is innocent, but I have seen it _far_ more from the other side. Just take this very thread as an example. It began by calling "professors and textual critics" "vile enemies of the Scripture." Brothers and sisters, this rhetoric about fellow believers—people with whom we share a common union in our Lord Jesus Christ—ought not be found in our mouths, our keyboards, or anywhere about us. I sat under several of these very professors for years. I know them personally, and their families, and to call them "vile enemies of the Scripture" is, without qualification, disgusting and filthy, and it ought to be repented of. (Call that an appeal to emotion if you wish. These men are neither vile nor enemies.)

I just want to make a strong appeal, brothers and sisters, that we do not engage in such talk. Sure, let's debate this issue. Let's debate it with every bit of scholarly fiber in our beings. But let's not resort to tactics like these. They are unbecoming of all of us.

Thanks.

Reactions: Like 7 | Amen 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 6, 2020)

Just to piggy-back off Taylor's excellent comments, I would issue this solemn warning to those who would read motivations into people's minds on this issue (from either side): if you feel that strongly about the other side that you think they are deliberately corrupting God's Word, then this forum (or ANY online place of discussion) is the 100% WRONG, WRONG, and WRONG place to deal with it. You need to write to that person's governing ecclesiastical body and ask that they press charges. No one could deny that tampering with God's Word is a fully chargeable offense in the ecclesiastical courts. But to charge people with tampering with God's Word on a discussion board is divisive and probably libelous.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 6, 2020)

Copy a dictionary. See how many errors you make. That's how the transmission process works. Unless, of course, you want to apply inerrancy to the transmission process as well.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 6, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> And what is the Bible's own testimony regarding the variants in its transmission history?


Taylor, I think it's just very simple. The Scripture is God's very word to us. His words to us, plural. That's the claim of Scripture. God hasn't failed in preserving for his church that word, every word of it. He hasn't added to or taken away from his word. I don't know that the Bible speaks to variants, just as it doesn't speak to the data that compels Christians to accept evolution. But it does speak positively to the integrity of the Scriptures.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 6, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Taylor, I think it's just very simple. The Scripture is God's very word to us. His words to us, plural. That's the claim of Scripture. God hasn't failed in preserving for his church that word, every word of it. He hasn't added to or taken away from his word. I don't know that the Bible speaks to variants, just as it doesn't speak to the data that compels Christians to accept evolution. But it does speak positively to the integrity of the Scriptures.



But there are variants. Even in the OT masoretic texts. That's just a fact or history.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 6, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> So, what are we supposed to do with the real variants that really exist in real history (even in the so-called “Received” tradition, by the way)?


Every respected scholar I've read on this question is not against further scholarship within the received texts and the possibility of changes in translation choices in the current authorized version.

Have you ever read any of the recommended works on the history and doctrine of this?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 6, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> But there are variants. Even in the OT masoretic texts. That's just a fact or history.


I know!


----------



## Hamalas (Feb 6, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I know!



So what do you with those variants? No matter how you answer that question you are doing textual criticism. 

If I'm understanding my brothers (Taylor, Greenbaggins, Jacob, etc...) this is really the only point that we're trying to make in this thread. There are lots of debates over how to answer these questions (as a quick search through the PB will prove). But all that we're trying to do is establish that these are questions that do require an answer and the very process of answering involves you in textual criticsm.

So by all means, feel free to defend the use of the Majority Text/TR but don't think that textual criticism is an optional (or evil) exercise. Everyone on this board is doing textual criticism. The only question is if we're being wise and well-informed when we do it!

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Taylor (Feb 6, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Every respected scholar I've read on this question is not against further scholarship within the received texts and the possibility of changes in translation choices in the current authorized version.



That’s odd, because that’s the very endeavor that I’ve seen so strongly condemned on this board.

Besides, this “further research” would foster the exact dilemma Pergamum described in the OP. How would we know what God really said?



Jeri Tanner said:


> Have you ever read any of the recommended works on the history and doctrine of this?



It would help me answer that question if I had a list of books. But, yes, I have read many of the standard works on textual criticism. We had to read them in seminary.



Jeri Tanner said:


> I know!



So, by the definition of “kept pure” being assumed by many in this thread, Scripture has in fact not been kept pure.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 6, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Besides, this “further research” would foster the exact dilemma Pergamum described in the OP. How would we know what God really said?


I didn't say "further research," I said "further scholarship." Maybe worth making that distinction. I will try to find some quotes from books I have that speak to why work within the received text would not mean adding or subtracting passages of Scripture. 




Taylor Sexton said:


> It would help me answer that question if I had a list of books. But, yes, I have read many of the standard works on textual criticism. We had to read them in seminary.


The books I have are "Crowned with Glory" by Dr. Thomas Holland, "The King James Version defended" by Edward F. Hills, and "Has the Bible Been Kept Pure" by Garnet Howard Milne. There are probably others.

Hopefully all on the PB are familiar with the fact that holding to the RT is not KJV-onlyism, just to make that statement. 

I won't have time to do much more on this thread than try to provide a few quotes that pertain to Taylor's first quoted statement/question above.


----------



## Taylor (Feb 6, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I didn't say "further research," I said "further scholarship."



Either way, what does this even mean, practically? These people would be permitted to study the issue, as long as that don't make any changes to the text due to this "scholarship"? Sorry, but this is vague almost to the point of being meaningless for me.



Jeri Tanner said:


> Hopefully all on the PB are familiar with the fact that holding to the RT is not KJV-onlyism, just to make that statement.



I, for one, absolutely understand that. Furthermore, I am _very_ quick to correct those who would assert otherwise. I just wish the other side provided the same courtesy and charity to those to differ by refusing to believe that they are necessarily liberals, don't believe in preservation, are the "vile enemies of the Scripture," or other such libelous nonsense. That's really all I've ever asked for in these threads.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 6, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I didn't say "further research," I said "further scholarship." Maybe worth making that distinction.



What's the difference?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 6, 2020)

_Jeri Tanner said: ↑_
_I didn't say "further research," I said "further scholarship."_



Taylor Sexton said:


> Either way, what does this even mean, practically? These people would be permitted to study the issue, as long as that don't make any changes to the text due to this "scholarship"? Sorry, but this is vague almost to the point of being meaningless for me.


Taylor, and all, I actually want to retract my statement in post #32, which said,
"Every respected scholar I've read on this question is not against further scholarship within the received texts and the possibility of changes in translation choices in the current authorized version."

I am not qualified to speak knowledgeably on that particular area and I apologize for saying this in ignorance. As I look at the pertinent sections in the three books I have and mentioned above, I'm not seeing anything on this. Rather I'm seeing high confidence and lengthy reasons for that confidence in translation decisions made. Perhaps I was going on something I read elsewhere but misremembering or misunderstood. I agree with you, what I said (in my ignorance of how to speak properly on this, blush) is pretty much meaningless...

Reactions: Edifying 3


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 6, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> What's the difference?


Maybe none. See my reply to Taylor.


----------



## Taylor (Feb 6, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> _Jeri Tanner said: ↑_
> _I didn't say "further research," I said "further scholarship."_
> 
> 
> ...



There's no apology needed, sister. Like I said way back, my main purpose in getting involved in these things is not because I am settled on the issue. I am not settled on it. And I am glad—truly—that there are people here who are. Be that as it may, my main concern is that good Christian brothers and sisters not be labelled as "vile enemies of the Scripture" simply because they differ on these matters. I realize you haven't done as much, but the OP certainly did. And I still stand by my call to repentance, and even move to ask for a retraction. Such ninth commandment violations ought not be tolerated here. (In fact, I thought they weren't.)

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 6, 2020)

Taylor, I took Perg to be describing a certain class of unbelieving men, and how their undermining of the word of God can hurt God's littlest ones.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Feb 6, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Taylor, I took Perg to be describing a certain class of unbelieving men, and how their undermining of the word of God can hurt God's littlest ones.



That may have been what he _meant_ (a big _maybe_), but what he _said_ was so blanket and general that I could only conclude that he, at least in part, was targeting not just liberal professors in liberal seminaries, but conservative professors in conservative seminaries. Furthermore, given the disdain he seems to hold for textual criticism in general (which is apparent in this thread), it is hard to see how he was _not_ intending both classes of people as the target of that comment.

The lesson: If you're going to call anyone a "vile enemy of the Scripture," you had better well be specific.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## chuckd (Feb 6, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> So, what are we supposed to do with the real variants that really exist in real history (even in the so-called “Received” tradition, by the way)? Just pretend they’re not there? Textual criticism didn’t create these variants, after all. So, whether we do textual criticism or not, they are there, and they are public knowledge. I’m not saying all manner textual criticism is good (some is patently wicked), but textual criticism is an ancient tradition in the Christian Church, having its first practitioner in Origen.


You keep the discussion among scholars and seminaries where it belongs. They don't belong in study bibles. What purpose does that serve? Thanks for the information that this passage I'm about to read may not actually exist? It either does or doesn't so the publisher needs to decide, not some recent convert to Christianity.


----------



## Taylor (Feb 6, 2020)

chuckd said:


> You keep the discussion among scholars and seminaries where it belongs. They don't belong in study bibles. What purpose does that serve? Thanks for the information that this passage I'm about to read may not actually exist? It either does or doesn't so the publisher needs to decide, not some recent convert to Christianity.



I certainly see your point. However, how many other apologetics issues are study Bibles not permitted to address? Where do we draw the line? And who draws it? What other matters do we just leave believers—even new believers (study Bibles aren't just for new believers, by the way)—in the dark on? Archaeology? Philosophical attacks? Theological debates? Aren’t these the point of these kinds of materials? What would you suggest instead? Let the believer fend for themselves, and just hope they don’t defect because they are defenseless?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## chuckd (Feb 6, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I certainly see your point. However, how many other apologetics issues are study Bibles not permitted to address? Where do we draw the line? And who draws it? What other matters do we just leave believers—even new believers (study Bibles aren't just for new believers, by the way)—in the dark on? Archaeology? Philosophical attacks? Theological debates? Aren’t these the point of these kinds of materials? What would you suggest instead? Let the believer fend for themselves, and just hope they don’t defect because they are defenseless?


A study Bible should study the Bible. In a very brief way, teach me what the text says and how it applies to me. Yes, most of that stuff does not belong (unless it's necessary to understand the passage) because the mere size of a study bible makes it extremely limited in scope.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 6, 2020)

chuckd said:


> You keep the discussion among scholars and seminaries where it belongs. They don't belong in study bibles. What purpose does that serve? Thanks for the information that this passage I'm about to read may not actually exist? It either does or doesn't so the publisher needs to decide, not some recent convert to Christianity.



That encourages lay members to ignore the issues involved, and if we don't address them, Bart Ehrman will.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Feb 6, 2020)

The NT authors seemed comfortable quoting the LXX in spite of its variants from the Masoretic text. I don’t get the sense they ever doubted that they had the pure word of God. 

While we shouldn’t ignore variants and try to the best of our ability to establish the best reading, we also shouldn’t pretend that the truth of Scripture depends on our coming to this determination. 

The truth of God’s forgiveness towards repentant sinners still stands even if the Pericope Adulterae isn’t original. The truth of the trinity stands even if the Comma Johaneum isn’t original, and on and on. This is what I think the confession means about keeping pure. The truth of God’s word stands in spite of the inherent flaws in the method that he providentially established for its transmission.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Feb 6, 2020)

chuckd said:


> A study Bible should study the Bible. In a very brief way, teach me what the text says and how it applies to me. Yes, most of that stuff does not belong (unless it's necessary to understand the passage) because the mere size of a study bible makes it extremely limited in scope.



Again, I see your point, and I appreciate it. Unfortunately, most Bibles, KJV included, have variants listed in the footnotes. If the notes of a study Bible doesn't address at least the significant ones, then I can’t imagine that being a better than at least explaining them briefly.

On that, I must disagree with something your post assumes—namely, that addressing variants has no practical value, and therefore does not belong in a study Bible. However, knowledge of the basic tenets of textual criticism, and it’s application in a few specific and important cases, can be very practical in terms of apologetics. Just because something might not have direct application to behavior doesn’t mean it isn’t immensely useful.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 6, 2020)

Taylor, you say you’re not settled on the issue but you sound settled. On what points if any are you open to or still interested in the TR position?


----------



## Taylor (Feb 6, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Taylor, you say you’re not settled on the issue but you sound settled.



I’m not sure where you’re getting that. As far as I know, I have not disputed any claims other than 1) CT folks are liberals, and 2) study Bible ought not to address variants. I haven’t challenged the TR position at all, other than to appeal to those who hold it to be charitable to other positions. The only thing I have flatly asserted is that there are variants. I don’t think any position denies that.

Has anything I’ve said in this indicate that I have in fact taken a position, or that I’m arguing against a specific position?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 6, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Has anything I’ve said in this indicate that...I’m arguing against a specific position?


You seem to be consistently arguing against the TR position. Would you take issue with the TR position as expressed by Jeff Riddle and Robert Truelove, for instance?


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 6, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> You seem to be consistently arguing against the TR position. Would you take issue with the TR position as expressed by Jeff Riddle and Robert Truelove, for instance?



He is arguing against the TR-types who say that anyone who addresses variant readings is a God-hating liberal who thinks God failed to keep the Bible pure. He didn't say anything about the truth or falsity of the TR position.

While I am a CT guy, I actually like the NKJV. The greatest study bible of all time is the Nelson NKJV Study Bible. If you can find a used genuine leather edition of the NKJV Nelson Study bible for under $20, I'll reimburse you (but send pics beforehand).

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 6, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> He is arguing against the TR-types who say that anyone who addresses variant readings is a God-hating liberal who thinks God failed to keep the Bible pure.


I guess I don’t know what y’all mean by “addressing variant readings.” Do Robert Truelove or Jeff Riddle or @Jerusalem Blade fail to address variant readings?


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 6, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I guess I don’t know what y’all mean by “addressing variant readings.” Do Robert Truelove or Jeff Riddle or @Jerusalem Blade fail to address variant readings?



I am not saying whether they do or don't. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say they do. Doesn't affect my statement one way or another.


----------



## Taylor (Feb 6, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> You seem to be consistently arguing against the TR position. Would you take issue with the TR position as expressed by Jeff Riddle and Robert Truelove, for instance?



Jacob essentially responded for me above, and quite well. I have not argued against a position, but against a behavior.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 6, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> the TR-types who say that anyone who addresses variant readings is a God-hating liberal


I’ll try again; I’m really trying to understand what are the variant readings you mention, and what is meant by not addressing them. 

Also if you use the phrase “the TR-types who...” surely you have someone specific in mind?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 6, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I have not argued against a position, but against a behavior


Can you clarify the behavior you’re against?


----------



## Taylor (Feb 6, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Can you clarify the behavior you’re against?



Has what I said throughout this thread really been that unclear? Is this a genuine question? I would just suggest re-reading everything I have said in this thread.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 6, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I’ll try again; I’m really trying to understand what are the variant readings you mention, and what is meant by not addressing them.



Look in the margins of any bible, even KJVs. Now, if every word of the (presumably) KJV is pure and preserved, then what do we do with the variant readings.


Jeri Tanner said:


> Also if you use the phrase “the TR-types who...” surely you have someone specific in mind?



Not without revealing Facebook confidentiality, but basically any of the reactions to James White.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 6, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Look in the margins of any bible, even KJVs. Now, if every word of the (presumably) KJV is pure and preserved, then what do we do with the variant readings.


There are no variant readings offered in my KJV. It is published by the Trinitarian Bible Society, so I have their TR stance to thank for the welcome lack of intrusion. 


BayouHuguenot said:


> Not without revealing Facebook confidentiality, but basically any of the reactions to James White.


So sadly you were referring, in post 53, to folks I know and believe to be sound when you described “TR-types who say that anyone who addresses variant readings is a God-hating liberal.” ?


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 6, 2020)

Okay,

Let's just focus on 3 key passages: 1. The last 12 verses of Mark, 2. The Adultery Passage, and 3. The Comma.

The Church has been treating these 3 passages as Scripture now for how long? 

IF these 3 passages are not God's Word, then NO, the Bible has not been kept pure through the ages because the majority of church history has involved these passages as being treated as Scripture. We must disavow WCF 1:8 if we reject any of these 3 passages. 

None of us deny clear scribal errors in words or notations, or even deleting a line or repeating a phrase on a parchment sometimes. But whole passages added or subtracted.....?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 6, 2020)

*Regarding "TR-types":* 

Yes, I know a few. No I don't think that anyone who disavows the TR is necessarily a godless heretic.

On the other hand, I've heard others repeatedly try to lump all the TR-Types into KJV-Only Categories and label them all as Ruckmanites, or nearly so. 

But I do wonder why we've put our Bible into the hands of godless scholars who deny the Trinity and the Virgin Birth, instead of keeping the Bible in the hands of the Church. 

Dean Burgon mentions the same when he mentions the clear unbelief of Westcott and Hort and others who presumed to sit in judgment over the Bible.

Here is a current example from a few years ago:

"BYU professor named editor of new edition of Hebrew Old Testament."

https://news.byu.edu/news/byu-profe...aX83ZsSESyfG6Uh1qpRVP2ugKuB9M0pIO_Jj3skjGfDn8


Why are heretics always put in charge of controlling the Word of God? Why does the Church allow it?

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 6, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Why are heretics always put in charge of controlling the Word of God? Why does the Church allow it?


In terms of the Textual debate I think this is an important point.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Feb 6, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Why are heretics always put in charge of controlling the Word of God? Why does the Church allow it?



The very man who produced what would be called the TR denied the gospel. Fortunately, this is a genetic fallacy, which I recognize, and thus do not reject the TR on that basis. Again, I’m not sure why the "other side" doesn’t get the same courtesy.

Besides, you are again excluding, very conveniently, many people who do not fit your chosen paintbrush. I’m not sure where you got the official list of those "in charge," but one of the leading textual scholars and manuscript archivists of our day, who has defended vigorously the authority of the Bible against many of those who would question or malign it, is also an avowed conservative evangelical. He is likely the leading authority in his field. His name is Dan Wallace. Another like him would be Gordon Fee.



Jeri Tanner said:


> Brother I can’t see how your position is not opposed to the TR one, contrary to what you’ve said. Another member posted that “textual criticism is the work of studying textual variants to discover the original text of the Bible,” with which you agreed. So what am I missing- how is this not taking a position (and therefore arguing against another one?)



If anything, I have only asserted that textual criticism (which everyone does, including every single person on this thread by default) can actually be a great blessing rather than, as the OP argued, a hindrance. So I addressed that. Then, I noticed the OP's disgusting ninth commandment violation (and don’t think its being ignored has escaped me). So, I addressed that next. Beyond that, I have argued for nothing except charity to differing positions, not by arguing for any specific position, but simply by offering counter perspectives. Of course, these tend to lean CT since the hostility has come exclusively from the TR side. That is different than arguing for the CT position, though. I even specifically said I probably lean more MT.

If you want to read something else into my words that isn’t there, that’s your choice. (I also never agreed to the mentioned definition of textual criticism. I challenge you to find my agreement to that statement. I didn’t even "Like" the post which contained it.) The posts are there for you and everyone to see and read, if you need clarification. The "Likes" and "Amens" indicate to me that at least some people understood what I was saying.

As for me, I’m tired of going around this circle. I’ve stated my appeal.

Good night.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 6, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> If anything, I have only asserted that textual criticism (which everyone does, including every single person on this thread by default)...


How do I do textual criticism? That’s an assertion made on the thread that I don’t understand. (Anyone can (please) answer me, I really want to know what’s meant by that.)

Taylor I deleted my post in which I stated that you agreed with something in the thread which you had not. I do ask your forgiveness for that mistake made in haste. 

I guess I’m struggling to understand some ideas expressed by some of you. I’m not familiar with how textual criticism is done by every believer when we read the Bible, even those who hold to a settled, received text.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 6, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> How do I do textual criticism? That’s an assertion made on the thread that I don’t understand. (Anyone can (please) answer me, I really want to know what’s meant by that.)



Jeri, the point that these brethren are making is that there are textual variants even within the Received Text, therefore, one cannot appeal to the Received Text in order to escape the necessity of textual criticism. Since no two editions of the Received Text are 100% identical, then one is going to have to engage in textual criticism to decide which of the variant readings between the different editions of the TR is the correct one.

As someone who was once a member of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster and then moved in other AV/TR circles, once I found out about the above point, I felt as if I had been lied to by these people. Now that does not mean that we should all become hard-core CT advocates just because some people have made bad arguments for the TR, but it does mean that bad arguments for the TR should be avoided.

For anyone who cares, I sit somewhere in between the hardline CT and TR positions. I am friendly to Byzantine Priority, but only if the readings can be supported on the basis of empirical facts.

Edit: I also usually decline to participate in these discussions for the reasons that @Taylor Sexton has mentioned throughout this thread. Also, since we generally know what everyone is going to say in advance, I tend to find such debates futile. In this case, however, I thought that I could say something to move the discussion along.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 6, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Jeri, the point that these brethren are making is that there are textual variants even within the Received Text, therefore, one cannot appeal to the Received Text in order to escape the necessity of textual criticism. Since no two editions of the Received Text are 100% identical, then one is going to have to engage in textual criticism to decide which of the variant readings between the different editions of the TR is the correct one.


Ok thanks, that’s helpful. Now what if I say that I myself do not have to make these decisions; that I’m under no burden to do textual criticism as that work was done by those who were placed in the proper position and station to do it. I mean this as a genuine question, and invite pushback to show me what I’m missing; how it is that I still must engage in this work.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Feb 7, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Ok thanks, that’s helpful. Now what if I say that I myself do not have to make these decisions; that I’m under no burden to do textual criticism as that work was done by those who were placed in the proper position and station to do it. I mean this as a genuine question, and invite pushback to show me what I’m missing; how it is that I still must engage in this work.



Ok.

Let's do this as a starting point: Which edition of the Bible's text (let focus just on the NT) do YOU PERSONALLY accept and why do you accept it? Do you accept the Erasmus text of 1516? The Erasmus text of 1522? The Stephanus Text of 1546, 1549, 1550 or 1551? The Beza text of 1604? The Elzivir text of 1633?

All of those are the "Received Text", and all of them differ from one another.

Which one do you like?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## ZackF (Feb 7, 2020)

I think this thread should be about apologetics and not CT/TR redux #74737912. The OP was asking about how questions about variants and manuscript traditions challenge evangelism. Evangelism and pastoral care are not going to wait for textual issues that have spanned over decades and centuries to resolve themselves. It would be helpful, like how Jack has done, to discuss ways to answer people’s questions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 7, 2020)

I need to clarify something:

Perg said:


Pergamum said:


> Why are heretics always put in charge of controlling the Word of God? Why does the Church allow it?


I replied:


Stephen L Smith said:


> In terms of the Textual debate I think this is an important point.


I want to make it clear I am not denying there are good godly men involved in various sides of the textual debate. My concern is that often the textual authority is often done outside the church. I meant nothing more than that.


Taylor Sexton said:


> it takes illumination by the Spirit to understand these things


Exactly.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 7, 2020)

ZackF said:


> I think this thread should be about apologetics and not CT/TR redux #74737912. The OP was asking about how questions about variants and manuscript traditions challenge evangelism. Evangelism and pastoral care are not going to wait for textual issues that have spanned over decades and centuries to resolve themselves. It would be helpful, like how Jack has done, to discuss ways to answer people’s questions.



That is a good idea.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 7, 2020)

In post 11, Taylor Sexton said,

“_the variants are there for everyone to see_. So, you have two choices: 1) deal with them, or 2) shrug and walk away.”​
Taylor Sexton again, in post 17,

“there are conservative textual scholars—many are very Reformed—doing the exact same work that Erasmus did” [that is, text-critical work, although with variant-laden texts]​
greenbaggins says (post 25), posits the concept of

“an almost computer-based idea of ‘kept pure’ and apply an anachronistic standard back on to the biblical texts”​
Hamalas (post 34) says, “the only point that we're trying to make in this thread” is that engaging in textual criticism is a valid enterprise.

I do not think that is the only point, nor is it the main point. Rather, as Perg says in the OP, what are we to do when the Bible / textual resources we have point to the phenomena that there are variants in the Bibles we use and this indicates we have errors in the Bible?

I would concur with Taylor that this sentence in the OP is inaccurate in its emotionally overcharged conclusion, 

“I have concluded that the most vile enemies of the Scripture are not the followers of Muhammad, but the professors and textual critics sitting in many Christian seminaries, and those who hurt the faith of these 'little ones' on the mission field by making them doubt the Scriptures.”​
Here is where the situation becomes complex. Perg evangelizes and disciples a mslm and gives him a standard textbook on Scripture which casts doubt on the integrity of the Bible, and risks losing the disciple to the devil. I think his offending statement, “I have concluded that the most vile enemies of the Scripture…”, should be amended to read, “I have concluded that the most damaging opponents of the Scripture are those who mean well in their text-critical endeavors…” 

In post 48 Bill the Baptist said, “The NT authors seemed comfortable quoting the LXX in spite of its variants from the Masoretic text.” Yes, that is fine, and appropriate, but they did not when it _contradicted_ the Masoretic.

Since his name was brought up by Jacob, I quite like James White, and consider him a beloved stand-up brother, although I disagree with him on a couple of points, and do think he damages the faith of some, but certainly not with ill intent.

While teaching in Africa, I had some men from Kenya (and also South Sudan) who were shocked to find that in the ESV editions they’d been given by someone (not me) that Acts 8:37 was missing—a verse very important to them—and shook their faith in that Bible. We had a profitable discussion on this—in an impromptu class on textual criticism.

I think Taylor, and Lane (greenbaggins) are correct in insisting that we, as sons and daughters of God, deal charitably with those who disagree with us, especially here on PB, where we accept the commands of Christ and the writers of Scripture that we must love one another, and not violate the 9thcommandment in how we talk of them. I think in the OP Perg was upset and spoke hastily. Yes, there are some who deliberately mutilated the text, but most do not when they teach the variants show the Scripture has not been “by his [God’s] singular care and providence kept pure in all ages” (WCF 1.8), as we understand “purity” in this day. We have discussed this many times here on PB, and while I defend the view that it is certainly not “anachronistic” to take the words at face value, I reckon brethren who differ as both godly and in good conscience.

It does remain that the faith of some is greatly weakened by the erosion of confidence many in positions to teach on the subject of the Scripture demonstrate, either by their spoken words or their books. Over a decade ago I wrote of this here—Skepticism and doubt toward the Bible—though, fortunately, the Lord has raised up scholarly men like Robert Truelove and Jeff Riddle to irenically address this trend.

I don’t doubt that the debate will continue until the eschaton, but as remarked here, for the honor and glory of our holy God we should be holy ourselves in how we address one another. I do admit that in my earlier years I transgressed in this area, and it was being here on PB, and gently entreated by a fellow pastor, that I saw I was neither gracious nor godly in my ways and thoughts, and gladly repented. This board has been a civilizing influence on me! 

Taylor said that we can with deal with the variants, or shrug and walk away. How I have dealt with it may be seen here in this collection of my posts and threads (also linked to in my signature below). I would call it, as Harvard text critic, E.F. Hills, termed it: “_believing_ text criticism”.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## deleteduser99 (Feb 7, 2020)

I will say for one that I agree that it is good for a Christian to be able to discuss matters related to manuscript history and variants.The world will bring it up.

And it doesn't surprise me if at some age or another it takes a little work to get to the original. God may judge negligence by allowing the original to be obscured for a time.

I am against any view (professed by none here) that the originals may not ever be recovered. I fear something with the effect of a perpetually open Bible. Neither can be confessional.

However, the issue does not confine itself to apologetics.

Just this morning I came across a good example of how this gets down to the laymen even in private devotions, so it does not stay in the realm of apologetics. I am going through Spurgeon on the Psalms for private worship and came across this.

Concerning missions, this does impact discipleship at the every day level.

Psalm 7 - God is angry with the wicked every day - Bad translation?

Spurgeon's Treasury of David

_Verse_ 11. _"God judgeth the righteous,"_ etc. Many learned disputes have arisen as to the meaning of this verse; and it must be confessed that its real import is by no means easily determined: without the words written in italics, which are not in the original, it will read thus, "God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry every day." The question still will be, is this a good rendering? To this question it may be replied, that there is strong evidence for a contrary one. AINSWORTH translates it, "God _is_ a just judge; and God angrily threateneth every day." With this corresponds the reading of COVERDALE'S Bible, "God is a righteous judge, and God is ever threatening." In King Edward's Bible, of 1549, the reading is the same. But there is another class of critics who adopt quite a different view of the text, and apparently with much colour of argument. BISHOP HORSLEY read the verse, "God is a righteous judge, although he is not angry every day." In this rendering he seems to have followed most of the ancient versions. The VULGATE read it, "God is a judge, righteous, strong, and patient; will he be angry every day?" The SEPTUAGINT reads it, "God is a righteous judge, strong, and longsuffering; not bringing forth his anger every day." *The SYRIAC has it, "God is the judge of righteousness; he is not angry every day." In this view of the text Dr. A. Clarke agrees, and expresses it as his opinion that the text was first corrupted by the CHALDEE. This learned divine proposes to restore the text thus, "(Heb.), el, with the vowel point tseri, signifies God; (Heb.), al, the same letters, with the point pathach, signifies not." There is by this view of the original no repetition of the divine name in the verse, so that it will simply read, as thus restored, "God is a righteous judge, and is NOT angry every day."* The text at large, as is intimated in the VULGATE, SEPTUAGINT, and some other ancient versions, conveys a strong intimation of the longsuffering of God, whose hatred of sin is unchangeable, but whose anger against transgressors is marked by infinite patience, and does not burst forth in vengeance every day. _John Morrison, in "An Exposition of the Book of Psalms,"_ 1829.

So what does the layman do here? What sense is it that the Spirit will bless? Which words did Christ author?

Now Joe Believer or the Papuan tribal man or woman has a task they are not qualified for, and don't have the resources for--judge what is the right translation, and what Hebrew vowel point and consonant is correct. They can probably just move to the next verse and say, "I don't know, it impacts no major doctrines", but then whatever Christ wanted to convey in these jots and tittles, it is lost to them simply *because no rendering can be received and applied in faith as the words of Christ*.

This is a place where, for these words, the word of Christ may not dwell in them richly, and they cannot rightly teach or admonish, until they can be persuaded of one rendering or the other.

Big major drain on morning worship to have that feeling.

And I think it is self-evident how this impacts evangelism.

I've seen James White obscure a paedobaptist argument in Acts 16(?), Phillipian jailor by just pointing out there was a textual variant. So here it impacts a major doctrine.

Point being, there is a scholarly demand now put on laymen who don't have any qualifications to judge such matters. There are real everyday practical ramifications to myself, my children, my church, my shepherding, and Papuan missionaries and laypeople.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 7, 2020)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> In post 11, Taylor Sexton said,
> 
> “_the variants are there for everyone to see_. So, you have two choices: 1) deal with them, or 2) shrug and walk away.”​
> Taylor Sexton again, in post 17,
> ...



I would concur with Steve's excellent revision to my over-charged statement in the OP. I can edit it even now, but the damage has already been done. 

I would also concur with Zack's suggestion that we focus on apolgetics rather than devolving into a TR/CT debate again. This is a big issue on the mission field as local believers newly discover the complexities of the manuscripts, and it hurts their faith.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 7, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> So sadly you were referring, in post 53, to folks I know and believe to be sound when you described “TR-types who say that anyone who addresses variant readings is a God-hating liberal.” ?



There are some TR types who refer to anyone who doesn't hold to their position as a god-hating liberal. Yes, those people. I didn't name any names.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 7, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Ok thanks, that’s helpful. Now what if I say that I myself do not have to make these decisions; that I’m under no burden to do textual criticism as that work was done by those who were placed in the proper position and station to do it. I mean this as a genuine question, and invite pushback to show me what I’m missing; how it is that I still must engage in this work.



Then don't do textual criticism. No one is saying you have to. We are just saying that there are variants, even in the TR.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 7, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Why are heretics always put in charge of controlling the Word of God? Why does the Church allow it?



DTS mostly produced the NASB. Aside from dispensationalism, these guys did more for inerrancy than anyone else. Leland Ryken chaired the ESV. He's no heretic. Dan Wallace is the leading textual critic today. He's no heretic. We need to be careful with this language.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 7, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> DTS mostly produced the NASB. Aside from dispensationalism, these guys did more for inerrancy than anyone else. Leland Ryken chaired the ESV. He's no heretic. Dan Wallace is the leading textual critic today. He's no heretic. We need to be careful with this language.



My comment was linked to the article about a BYU professor being put in charge of the OT revision. I like Dan Wallace. yes, there are many faithful men. But how do so many liberals sneak in there, too?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 7, 2020)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Ok.
> 
> Let's do this as a starting point: Which edition of the Bible's text (let focus just on the NT) do YOU PERSONALLY accept and why do you accept it? Do you accept the Erasmus text of 1516? The Erasmus text of 1522? The Stephanus Text of 1546, 1549, 1550 or 1551? The Beza text of 1604? The Elzivir text of 1633?
> 
> ...


Thank you Sean. 

I like what was handed down to me for my use by the Reformation; i.e. I like the English Bible that in God’s providence was and still is in common use, and retains its usefulness until God should bring about such times of Reformation in his church again. I do appreciate your response, as it answers my question about the duty of a Christian to do textual criticism when reading and studying the Bible; I needed to be sure I wasn’t misunderstanding what was implied by the phrase ‘textual criticism’ at this level.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Feb 7, 2020)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> In post 11, Taylor Sexton said,
> 
> “_the variants are there for everyone to see_. So, you have two choices: 1) deal with them, or 2) shrug and walk away.”​
> Taylor Sexton again, in post 17,
> ...



Steve, as usual, you bring charity and clarity to this conversation. Thank you, sir. You are one of the ones in this board whose posts I love to read, whose posts always challenge me, and whose speech is always kind and charitable. You do not fit the mold so often associated with these debates.

To everyone else, I do apologize if I came off as angry last night. I wasn’t angry. I simply do not like it when I feel like I’m not being understood, or when the conversation is getting steered away from the main point I was trying to make. That is all. I do realize that @Jeri Tanner was asking genuine questions. Be that as it may, I still maintain that I have said all I intended to. Since I did not and still do not want to debate about the viability of the various textual positions (since, again, my only issue was the behavior and rhetoric, which Steve also pointed out), I will refrain from posting any further.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 7, 2020)

Pause for this to catch up to everyone: OP author and others have called for this to move to the topic of apologetics.


Pergamum said:


> I would also concur with Zack's suggestion that we focus on apolgetics rather than devolving into a TR/CT debate again. This is a big issue on the mission field as local believers newly discover the complexities of the manuscripts, and it hurts their faith.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 7, 2020)

Reopening; please see the previous post and stay on the redirected topic.


----------



## Taylor (Feb 7, 2020)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Reopening; please see the previous post and stay on the redirected topic.



With all respect, I don't think this is possible in this thread. The OP itself appeared to me (and I'm sure not only to me) to be not a request for help, but a polemic against a position based upon lived experience. The very next post of the original poster confirms this. Several folks, including myself, tried to offer apologetic responses to the OP's situation, but it was immediately met with direct polemic in the aforementioned post.

Not sure what else can be done here and yet stay within the bounds of this "redirection."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 7, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> With all respect, I don't think this is possible in this thread. The OP itself appeared to me (and I'm sure not only to me) to be not a request for help, but a polemic against a position based upon lived experience.


First of all Taylor, the Moderators can control, if need be, shut down the forum.

Secondly, from a pastoral and Missionary perspective it is a difficult area. Scripture makes important claims about the inspiration and authority of the Holy Scriptures yet we have to deal with variants which seemingly undermine the Bibles inspiration and authority. I say that because I have struggled with this issue myself.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones showed a lot of wisdom on this - a man that used the KJV. When he addressed a variant in the text he did not shy away from it. But he was always gentle and pastoral. We was aware that "we all stumble in many ways." James 3:2 As I have got older I have become more aware that wisdom is very important in the Christian life, including this issue.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 7, 2020)

There were several appeals to narrow the discussion including by the thread author, and that is all this moderating is about. It was not about you or any one side of the discussion. Others think there have been positive posts as noted along this line and that is all this moderating is trying to aid. 


Pergamum said:


> That is a good idea.





ZackF said:


> I think this thread should be about apologetics and not CT/TR redux #74737912. The OP was asking about how questions about variants and manuscript traditions challenge evangelism. Evangelism and pastoral care are not going to wait for textual issues that have spanned over decades and centuries to resolve themselves. It would be helpful, like how Jack has done, to discuss ways to answer people’s questions.





Taylor Sexton said:


> With all respect, I don't think this is possible in this thread. The OP itself appeared to me (and I'm sure not only to me) to be not a request for help, but a polemic against a position based upon lived experience. The very next post of the original poster confirms this. Several folks, including myself, tried to offer apologetic responses to the OP's situation, but it was immediately met with direct polemic in the aforementioned post.
> 
> Not sure what else can be done here and yet stay within the bounds of this "redirection."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Feb 7, 2020)

I'm not saying it's not an important discussion. I'm also not saying there aren't real issues to deal with. I am simply saying that the requested "redirection" was what I (and I assume several others, judging by the first few responses) had assumed the thread was about in the first place—a legitimate request for help. But, in my opinion, it was revealed rather quickly why the OP was posted—not to seek counsel about an apologetic situation, but to attack a particular textual position.

I am not trying to tell the moderators what to do with regard to closing the thread or keeping it open. I am simply offering my own opinion on _this specific thread_. I just don't see how discussing this matter in _this_ thread can be done with profit within the bounds of the "redirection," since the first responses seemed to be operating on that very assumption.

Besides, I wonder how this apologetic issue might be discussed at all without also discussing, and even debating, the CT/TR issue? That is an honest question. After all, the answers that one will give to this question about textual variants will of necessity be informed by that person's position regarding textual criticism, will it not?


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 7, 2020)

Yes, the OP was created out of a frustration when Bible Study materials that I gave to a new convert cast doubt upon the very presence of a passage (I believe it was the adultery passage).

The broader purpose of the OP was to discuss how to deal with this issue in the context of evangelism and missions.

Particularly in reference to the 1. the ending of Mark, 2. the adultery passage, and 3. The Comma, if a missionary's bible study materials tell the convert that these passages are not Scripture, and yet the translated bible and the missionary tell the convert that these are Scripture, and the missionary has even used one example (the women caught in adultery) as an example of God's forgiveness, then this creates a major problem on the mission field. 

Particularly in comparison with the Qur'anic text, there are a lot of variants. The Qur'an is fairly uniform. So for an ex-mslm to hear for the first time of variants in the biblical text, whereas he's been told his whole life that the Qur'an is a perfect copy of the Mother Book in heaven, this will sow doubts.

I do also note that, despite many godly men handling textual criticism, how are there so many heretics involved as well. There are a lot of heretics doing textual criticism and standing in judgment of the text. This is also a frustration.

Nobody denies the existence of textual variants or scribal errors. And we all know printer's and scribe's have left out a word here or there and even created a "Bad Bible" by one such error. This is different than saying that for most of Church History we've taught from the 3 examples I've given above (1.Mark's ending, 2. Adultery passage, 3 the Comma), but we needed Liberal scholars like Westcott and Hort recently to show us that we've been mistaken for the majority of the last two millenia and to guide the Church into greater truth.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 7, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> I do also note that, despite many godly men handling textual criticism, how are there so many heretics involved as well. There are a lot of heretics doing textual criticism and standing in judgment of the text. This is also a frustration.



Can you give names of these heretics within evangelical institutions? Liberal unbelief doesn't count, since they have been doing that since Porphyry


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 7, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> but we needed Liberal scholars like Westcott and Hort recently to show us that we've been mistaken for the majority of the last two millenia and to guide the Church into greater truth.



This is a really sweeping statement. Did Westcott and Hort really say we got it wrong? Does that mean we got it wrong on some textual readings or that we just got the whole thing wrong? The first option isn't problematic.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## gjensen (Feb 7, 2020)

I want to a share a perspective from the street where apologetics happen. Much of this conversation is useless out on the street.

I would make an appeal to all of the elders here. Leave this out of the pulpit and Sunday School class. This is not a subject new believers need to get bogged down in. Preach and teach from a translation that you trust. We do not need to hear about all of its deficiencies, or the many variants over and again.

I realize the above statement will not go over well here.

In evangelism and discipleship, it is best that everyone use the same translation. The differences can be unsettling for some. At this point, we do not need any extra-added difficulties. I certainly would not hand out commentaries in evangelism. I would be very careful what I suggest to new believers. Any extra materials used should be carefully considered.

This subject will still come up, and it will have to be addressed. This is a reality that we have to deal with. And when it has to be dealt with, know who you are dealing with. Be concerned with where they are. It does not take too much to be too much. It can be too much for mature believers.

I visited a Southern Baptist Church using Lifeway material in Sunday School. The material used the KJV as its text, but the commentary had the CSB in mind with its explanations. It troubled the retirement age believers that had been reading their Bible their entire lives. I did not help them by explaining the differences. It hurt me to see them troubled. People need to be certain about the Bible they have in their hand.

I had a man ask me why after 2,000 years the church has not worked this out yet. A good question though he understood that it was not that simple. The larger point he was making was that this does not belong out on the street.

There is some appeal in reliable translations of a settled text. For this reason I would choose the KJV, but I am convinced that it has lost its place in evangelism today.

We are blessed to have so much, but we do not have the wisdom to manage what we have. We have not caught up to the ever evolving text and translations yet. I wish we could go back to the "authorized for the use in churches". I suspect that we would be better for it.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Taylor (Feb 7, 2020)

gjensen said:


> I want to a share a perspective from the street where apologetics happen. Much of this conversation is useless out on the street.
> 
> I would make an appeal to all of the elders here. Leave this out of the pulpit and Sunday School class. This is not a subject new believers need to get bogged down in. Preach and teach from a translation that you trust. We do not need to hear about all of its deficiencies, or the many variants over and again.
> 
> ...



I know you said that your post wouldn’t go over well here, but l found myself agreeing with all of it.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 7, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Can you give names of these heretics within evangelical institutions? Liberal unbelief doesn't count, since they have been doing that since Porphyry



You gonna make me do homework? I already linked an article about a BYU professor being put in charge of the Hebrew OT revision.

Even Metzger calls large portions of Scripture to be fables or mere stories and not history, such as Job and Jonah. I don't think he believed Moses wrote the first five books of the bible. 

Carlo Martini was editor of the United Bible Societies’ Greek N.T. since 1967 for many years. He is a Jesuit priest and Roman Catholic Archbishop of Milan. He is within "Christendom" but we can hardly count him as a close friend.

JP Green details many other folks who cast doubt on the Scripture in his book, "Unholy Hands on the Bible": https://books.google.com.my/books?i...epage&q=unbelievers textual criticism&f=false

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 7, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I know you said that your post wouldn’t go over well here, but l found myself agreeing with all of it.



I also agree.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 7, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Even Metzger calls large portions of Scripture to be fables or mere stories and not history, such as Job and Jonah. I don't think he believed Moses wrote the first five books of the bible.



I put Metzger as midway between Evangelical and liberal. He was a Princeton don. Doesn't excuse him, but those views were quite common back then.


----------



## iainduguid (Feb 7, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> You gonna make me do homework? I already linked an article about a BYU professor being put in charge of the Hebrew OT revision.
> 
> Even Metzger calls large portions of Scripture to be fables or mere stories and not history, such as Job and Jonah. I don't think he believed Moses wrote the first five books of the bible.
> 
> ...


The basic fallacy here is that no one is "in charge" of text criticism. What critical resources like Nestle Aland and BHS (and in the future - if they ever get it done - BHQ) are simply handy collocations of information about the different readings that exist in a variety of manuscripts and translations (including variations among majority manuscripts). Scholars like myself then use these resources to save having to track down all of the individual manuscript readings. We then make independent decisions about which reading we think is best in a particular context. The fact that NA28 or the editors of BHS propose a particular reading as the best has little or no impact on the text critical decisions that scholars make, whether they are conservative or evangelical, except insofar as scholars reach similar conclusions for similar reasons. 
As to the main point, I tend to agree that text critics, like plumbers, are best when you don't have to see them. Somebody needs to do that work, even if you only want them to provide a compelling case that the Received text is based in the best manuscript evidence. Study Bibles probably need to discuss text critical issues at least briefly (see the introduction to the Reformation Heritage KJV for an example of that kind of text critical discussion within a believing framework). But we should provide that discussion in a context that builds up people's confidence in the text rather than tearing it down.

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 7, 2020)

Somebody is in charge of the Bible societies and the text apparatus (Na28). And these decisions are critical and trickle down to the layman. It is not merely a loose collection of anyone, but there is a structure and there are head people picked and they make critical decisions impacting commentaries. 

So, yes, there are people in charge of textual criticism. And many of them are not conservative believers.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 8, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Somebody is in charge of the Bible societies and the text apparatus (Na28). And these decisions are critical and trickle down to the layman. It is not merely a loose collection of anyone, but there is a structure and there are head people picked and they make critical decisions impacting commentaries.
> 
> So, yes, there are people in charge of textual criticism. And many of them are not conservative believers.



You are confusing two different issues. Metzger's private beliefs about Jonah have nothing to do with variant NT readings. Anyway, if TR guys can praise someone like Erasmus who denied the gospel, then we have the right to go to Metzger.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 8, 2020)

And the man who taught me NT Greek--Carlton Winbery--was close friends with Metzger, so we got everything first hand. Metzger believed in the evangelical essentials about Christ; he just could never shake OT criticism. Again, that was common before the Jewish thinker Umberto Cassuoto effectively buried the Documentary Hypothesis.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 8, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> And the man who taught me NT Greek--Carlton Winbery--was close friends with Metzger, so we got everything first hand. Metzger believed in the evangelical essentials about Christ; he just could never shake OT criticism. Again, that was common before the Jewish thinker Umberto Cassuoto effectively buried the Documentary Hypothesis.



Ok, thanks for the information. Fair points.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 8, 2020)

Hi everyone, I realize now I was ignorant in my understanding of the place of variants within the received text. I vaguely knew they were there, but didn't understand what that meant, on a practical level. So I misunderstood some of the positions and remarks on the thread. My sincere apologies for the needless typing and frustration that caused. 

As far as apologetics, I get it much more now after doing a bit of reading. I would of course be coming from the RT position. I'll probably never be really fluent in apologetics for it, certainly not in getting deeply into technical issues, but it would be good to at least understand the main broad issues and to have some resources to refer to if and when things come up. So I've begun compiling and organizing some quotes and resources from past PB threads (a great resource for the RT position at least, maybe CT as well). I've ordered a publication that was recommended and will be looking for more that address the broad issues. My aim would be first of all to honor the Lord, and also to bring comfort and encouragement to Christians dismayed and suffering a loss of confidence due to thinking they don't have a reliable Bible (the same aim we all share). I know that I would be speaking to people according to my station in life, just in small ways, and not debating. 

So it was recommended and requested that we address apologetics, do we want to do that and can we without getting back into debate mode?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Hamalas (Feb 8, 2020)

I've had people raise this objection when doing street evangelism. When I've had this conversation with people, I've tried to help them re-frame the issue in their minds. 

Textual criticism is usually brought up as a kind of "gotcha" argument (or sometimes coming more from a place of agnosticism/uncertainty). The thought generally is: "If there are variants in the textual tradition, surely that must mean that we have no idea what the original Bible said?"

To which I always ask them: have you had the chance to look at the kinds of variants we can see in the manuscripts? When they say "no" (and they almost always say "no" because they're usually just parroting an objection they heard somewhere) I try to help them understand what kinds of variants actually exist. As Pergy mentioned, the vast VAST majority of these are absolutely meaningless. (Like the difference between spelling Savior with or without a "u" in it). Of the more "significant" variants, there is not a single variant reading that would materially affect any tenant of Christian teaching. 

Bottom line for believer and unbeliever alike: the in-depth study of textual variants gives us an unheard of level of certainty regarding the testimony of Scripture. There is simply no other ancient book about which we have such quantity and quality of evidence. And even the variants we see are largely peripheral and unimportant. So if you want to cast doubt on the Bible, you'll have to find another way to do it.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 8, 2020)

Perhaps the best way to deal with the missionary "problem" raised by textual variants when one is engaged in evangelism to those from an Islamic background is only going to be solved by a long period of instruction for new converts in the doctrine of biblical inspiration and preservation in contrast with the Islamic notion of the Koran as divine revelation. 

I realise that I may be asking a lot, but those evangelising in the Islamic world need to have a firm grasp of these issues as part of the efforts to reach out with the gospel. Sweeping matters under the rug will not help anyone in the long-run and may actually damage their faith once they realise that facts have been hidden from them.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 8, 2020)

A bit of an addendum to the above post: I am currently reading through William Cunningham's _Theological Lectures_ (I usually read one lecture per Sabbath) and have been struck by how much time he spends discussing matters of apologetics when he was teaching ministerial students. We might not like the hard work of apologetics, but training and reading in the discipline are essential if you are going to give a reason for the hope that is in you - and how much more so for ministers and missionaries than the ordinary Christian?

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 8, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Perhaps the best way to deal with the missionary "problem" raised by textual variants when one is engaged in evangelism to those from an Islamic background is only going to be solved by a long period of instruction for new converts in the doctrine of biblical inspiration and preservation in contrast with the Islamic notion of the Koran as divine revelation.
> 
> I realise that I may be asking a lot, but those evangelising in the Islamic world need to have a firm grasp of these issues as part of the efforts to reach out with the gospel. Sweeping matters under the rug will not help anyone in the long-run and may actually damage their faith once they realise that facts have been hidden from them.



Given the time and busyness and all the other priorities of trying to disciple ex-mslms, the textual variants have never been anything I've brought up voluntarily. There is too many other priorities. Plus, dealing with their rejection from family, threats of violence, losing jobs, etc. 

We try to do our best, but we always come up short.

One textual issue that often comes up is the meaning of John's Gospel 1:1, showing that in the beginning the Word already was and was with God and was God (and therefore Jesus was not a creation, but Creator). And the Muslims believe that the Qur'an has existed eternally and perfectly in heaven as the Mother Book in Heaven, and so this can become a bridge to understanding (they also acknowledge something eternal and uncreated residing in heaven alongside God and yet they are not polytheists, so neither are we).

Also, (and this will receive opposition) but most mslms who come to faith do so, not through argumentation or apologetics, but because 1. prayers for healing are answered dramatically, 2. Christians aided then in their times of illness or poverty and showed kindness, 3. they've reported dreams - often of Jesus - leading them to seek out the bible or a pastor, 4. or they've been touched when a Christian has prayed for them. or 5. They've read of Jesus in the gospels or heard stories of his healings and tenderness, and were attracted to His beauty. Most come to faith through non-cognitive factors first, but are drawn first with the heart or the beauty of Jesus.

Few are argued into the faith, which is why I've never been a fan of apologetics-as-evangelism, but only as a later discipleship tool. This is why simple preachers often baptize many Mslms and why some big-name apologists who debate mslms often have little actual fruit among the mslms.

Reactions: Like 6 | Edifying 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Feb 10, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Given the time and busyness and all the other priorities of trying to disciple ex-mslms, the textual variants have never been anything I've brought up voluntarily. There is too many other priorities. Plus, dealing with their rejection from family, threats of violence, losing jobs, etc.
> 
> We try to do our best, but we always come up short.
> 
> ...



Calvin, Institutes, Ch 7, Sec 4 and 5. Beveridge translation, taken from my Logos copy (Hendricksen).

Central point: Scripture taken by faith on the authority of God, by a Spirit given persuasion; and to begin with arguments is backwards, as no one _can_ be persuaded by argumentation.

He later clarifies that arguments will confirm a faith already established.

For the record, I do not believe in burying my head in the sand concerning variants.

---------

" Yet they who strive to build up firm faith in Scripture through disputation are doing things backwards. For my part, although I do not excel either in great dexterity or eloquence, if I were struggling against the most crafty sort of despisers of God, who seek to appear shrewd and witty in disparaging Scripture, I am confident it would not be difficult for me to silence their clamorous voices. And if it were a useful labor to refute their cavils, I would with no great trouble shatter the boasts they mutter in their lurking places. But even if anyone clears God’s Sacred Word from man’s evil speaking, he will not at once imprint upon their hearts that certainty which piety requires. Since for unbelieving men religion seems to stand by opinion alone, they, in order not to believe anything foolishly or lightly, both wish and demand rational proof that Moses and the prophets spoke divinely. But I reply: the testimony of the Spirit is more excellent than all reason. For as God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in men’s hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. The same Spirit, therefore, who has spoken through the mouths of the prophets must penetrate into our hearts to persuade us that they faithfully proclaimed what had been divinely commanded. Isaiah very aptly expresses this connection in these words: “My Spirit which is in you, and the words that I have put in your mouth, and the mouths of your offspring, shall never fail” [Isa. 59:21 p.]. Some good folk are annoyed that a clear proof is not ready at hand when the impious, unpunished, murmur against God’s Word. As if the Spirit were not called both “seal” and “guarantee” [2 Cor. 1:22] for confirming the faith of the godly; because until he illumines their minds, they ever waver among many doubts!

Let this point therefore stand: that those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture, and that Scripture indeed is self-authenticated; hence, it is not right to subject it to proof and reasoning. And the certainty it deserves with us, it attains by the testimony of the Spirit. For even if it wins reverence for itself by its own majesty, it seriously affects us only when it is sealed upon our hearts through the Spirit. Therefore, illumined by his power, we believe neither by our own nor by anyone else’s judgment that Scripture is from God; but above human judgment we affirm with utter certainty (just as if we were gazing upon the majesty of God himself) that it has flowed to us from the very mouth of God by the ministry of men. We seek no proofs, no marks of genuineness upon which our judgment may lean; but we subject our judgment and wit to it as to a thing far beyond any guesswork! This we do, not as persons accustomed to seize upon some unknown thing, which, under closer scrutiny, displeases them, but fully conscious that we hold the unassailable truth! Nor do we do this as those miserable men who habitually bind over their minds to the thralldom of superstition; but we feel that the undoubted power of his divine majesty lives and breathes there. By this power we are drawn and inflamed, knowingly and willingly, to obey him, yet also more vitally and more effectively than by mere human willing or knowing!"

........ then Chapter 8, Section 1...........


"Unless this certainty, higher and stronger than any human judgment, be present, it will be vain to fortify the authority of Scripture by arguments, to establish it by common agreement of the church, or to confirm it with other helps. For unless this foundation is laid, its authority will always remain in doubt. Conversely, once we have embraced it devoutly as its dignity deserves, and have recognized it to be above the common sort of things, those arguments—not strong enough before to engraft and fix the certainty of Scripture in our minds—become very useful aids. "

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Feb 10, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Yes, the OP was created out of a frustration when Bible Study materials that I gave to a new convert cast doubt upon the very presence of a passage (I believe it was the adultery passage).
> 
> The broader purpose of the OP was to discuss how to deal with this issue in the context of evangelism and missions.
> 
> ...



I think, try to find better study materials if possible, now that you are aware the current one is defective, and try to reassure your pupil of the authority of the Word of God. Maybe a teachable moment in a sense - the Bible is the Word of God, the study material casting doubt on it is the word of man - they (and we) must trust the word of God over the word of man.


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 10, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Hi everyone, I realize now I was ignorant in my understanding of the place of variants within the received text. I vaguely knew they were there, but didn't understand what that meant, on a practical level. So I misunderstood some of the positions and remarks on the thread. My sincere apologies for the needless typing and frustration that caused.
> 
> As far as apologetics, I get it much more now after doing a bit of reading. I would of course be coming from the RT position. I'll probably never be really fluent in apologetics for it, certainly not in getting deeply into technical issues, but it would be good to at least understand the main broad issues and to have some resources to refer to if and when things come up. So I've begun compiling and organizing some quotes and resources from past PB threads (a great resource for the RT position at least, maybe CT as well). I've ordered a publication that was recommended and will be looking for more that address the broad issues. My aim would be first of all to honor the Lord, and also to bring comfort and encouragement to Christians dismayed and suffering a loss of confidence due to thinking they don't have a reliable Bible (the same aim we all share). I know that I would be speaking to people according to my station in life, just in small ways, and not debating.
> 
> So it was recommended and requested that we address apologetics, do we want to do that and can we without getting back into debate mode?



I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure it isn't you who is causing frustration. The discussion, at any rate, appears to have gotten back to an even keel.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## iainduguid (Feb 10, 2020)

We all agree that text criticism is necessary, even for those who adopt the received text. The question is where it needs to be mentioned in Study Bibles and commentaries, which is a wisdom matter. Calvin, John Gill (extensively) and Matthew Henry all have at least some mention of the text critical issues that arise with Psalm 22:16, where the KJV chose to go with a minority manuscript tradition (supported by Septuagint and Vulgate) rather than the vast bulk of the received manuscript tradition. Calvin and Henry even attribute the manuscript differences to deliberate tampering on the part of the Jews, which seems far more likely to undermine people's faith than most Study Bibles' comments about different manuscript traditions in the NT. So it's definitely not simply a new problem. The onus is on us as pastors to review the level of the materials we are using with young believers to build up rather than tear down their faith, and equip ourselves to answer their questions well when they come up.

Reactions: Like 6 | Informative 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Robert Truelove (Feb 12, 2020)

The text is a canonical issue and must be addressed from a Biblical, canonical worldview. Until the post-enlightenment approach to the text is set aside and a return is made to the pre-critical, canonical understanding of the text, we will continue to suffer declension and arm our enemies to assault the faith once given to the saints.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 12, 2020)

For the Muslims it was the first "rightly guided caliphs" who gathered and assembled the Qur'an and destroyed all competing copies. They recognized better than modern Christians that the Islamic Holy Book is to be kept pure under the care of those who believed and defended their faith. I cannot imagine any part of the process of printing the Qur'an to be given over to a printing company run by atheists or homosexuals, for instance.

Yet this has been so with the Bible. There are some folks who are holding key positions who could never receive communion or even membership in most of our churches, and yet come out every few years with a new Nestle-Aland's revision. What are we on now, NA-28 or NA-29? And how many of those who worked on this will end up in hell?

Dr Kurt Aland, for instance, seems to deny that 2 and 3 John, Jude, and 2 Peter were really written by those men. He seems to doubt that the gospels were actually written by those 4 men. Despite the ancient Fathers saying otherwise, Alan is convinced that many of the New Testament epistles were written under pseudonyms and not really Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.


We can say: "We must put a man's personal beliefs aside and only focus on his scholarship" - but how is this possible when he is unsound? The modern critical apparatus is partially named after a guy who doesn't even believe that John wrote his own Gospel. And yet we are revising the bible and even deleting long-held passages based upon his "scholarship" - I don't buy it. 

These textual critics have used their "scholarship" as a Trojan Horse to get within our very walls.

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 12, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> He seems to doubt that the gospels were actually written by those 4 men.



Where do the Gospels say they were written by those men?


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 12, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Where do the Gospels say they were written by those men?



So you don't believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the Gospels attributed to them?


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 12, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> So you don't believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the Gospels attributed to them?



I'm simply going by the text.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 12, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I'm simply going by the text.



Taking Luke/Acts as an example, not only is the ancient church pretty much unanimous but there are also the "we" passages.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 12, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Taking Luke/Acts as an example, not only is the ancient church pretty much unanimous but there are also the "we" passages.



True, you can reverse-engineer the "we" passages back to a Lucan authorship. Still, condemning a man simply because he refused to go beyond the bible on this isn't fair.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 12, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> True, you can reverse-engineer the "we" passages back to a Lucan authorship. Still, condemning a man simply because he refused to go beyond the bible on this isn't fair.



He cast doubt upon the very canonicity and authorship of the books. 

Likewise, Eberhard Nestle seems to say that the Bible is to be judged like any other piece of literature and that the NT authors did not believe their writings to be the authoritative Word of God, nor expected to be read by the worldwide Christian community.


--

Can it really be said that these men even believed in the verbal inspiration of Scripture?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 12, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> He cast doubt upon the very canonicity and authorship of the books.
> 
> Likewise, Eberhard Nestle seems to say that the Bible is to be judged like any other piece of literature and that the NT authors did not believe their writings to be the authoritative Word of God, nor expected to be read by the worldwide Christian community.
> 
> ...



I can't remember, did he specifically attack the canonicity? The canon list isn't actually in the bible.


----------



## Hamalas (Feb 12, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> For the Muslims it was the first "rightly guided caliphs" who gathered and assembled the Qur'an and destroyed all competing copies. They recognized better than modern Christians that the Islamic Holy Book is to be kept pure under the care of those who believed and defended their faith. I cannot imagine any part of the process of printing the Qur'an to be given over to a printing company run by atheists or homosexuals, for instance.
> 
> Yet this has been so with the Bible. There are some folks who are holding key positions who could never receive communion or even membership in most of our churches, and yet come out every few years with a new Nestle-Aland's revision. What are we on now, NA-28 or NA-29? And how many of those who worked on this will end up in hell?
> 
> ...


----------



## Hamalas (Feb 12, 2020)

I post that in love brother (and _somewhat_ tongue-in-cheek). I do hold you in high regard, but I do think the argument you're making basically boils down to a good-old-fashioned genetic fallacy. Maybe I'm missing something.


----------



## Taylor (Feb 12, 2020)

Robert Truelove said:


> The text is a canonical issue and must be addressed from a Biblical, canonical worldview. Until the post-enlightenment approach to the text is set aside and a return is made to the pre-critical, canonical understanding of the text, we will continue to suffer declension and arm our enemies to assault the faith once given to the saints.



When is “the pre-critical” period in biblical scholarship, and what characterizes it?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 12, 2020)

Hamalas said:


> I post that in love brother (and _somewhat_ tongue-in-cheek). I do hold you in high regard, but I do think the argument you're making basically boils down to a good-old-fashioned genetic fallacy. Maybe I'm missing something.



No problem. It was a good picture, sort of funny. I've seen better pics of a football referee meme throwing flags and naming the philosophical fallacies ("Penalty on the play.....genetic fallacy...15 yard penalty"), and that would have been even funnier, though! 

Let me ask though: Even if it is a genetic fallacy, are all genetic arguments invalid? Where a thought comes from and where an idea originates from IS, indeed, important, though, isn't it? We either trust a source or we don't right? For example, on the Puritanboard the scathing discernment blog Pulpit and Pen often gets dismissed out of hand, even though they are often correct in their reporting. And they profess to be Christians, at least. If a liberal textual critic who denies the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection is instrumental in revising the critical apparatus used in translating our bibles, on the other hand, is it still a genetic fallacy to take a step back and say, "Whoa! This guy is a rank heretic....maybe this will impact his view of Scripture!"

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## wcf_linux (Feb 12, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> For the Muslims it was the first "rightly guided caliphs" who gathered and assembled the Qur'an and destroyed all competing copies. They recognized better than modern Christians that the Islamic Holy Book is to be kept pure under the care of those who believed and defended their faith. I cannot imagine any part of the process of printing the Qur'an to be given over to a printing company run by atheists or homosexuals, for instance.



I think it's Good, Actually, that we can't/don't stop such as those from printing the Bible! God has preserved the text so well for us without having to resort to such tactics. I think Uthman burning the rival texts was a show of weakness that undermines the trustworthiness of Quranic transmission. Unbelievers claim we had the Roman Emperors destroy books we didn't want, but even the documented heretics who defied the post-Constantine emperors kept the same Bible as us! How little must one trust in the power of God to "preserve" a holy text by the torch! (I am not accusing you; I am accusing the one who burned more of them than an obscure storefront church in Florida.)

I think in a strange way even those unbelieving scholars may despite themselves be God's instrument in preserving trust in the reliability of the scriptures for generations to come. As many griefs as they cause us, the revisionists unwillingly testify to the lengths one has to reach in order to slander the reliability of the Bible.


----------



## Taylor (Feb 12, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> ...are all genetic arguments invalid?



Yes, all fallacies invalidate _arguments_. What you are wondering is whether a _conclusion_ based upon a fallacious argument might be true. The answer is yes, it can. That is because, in logic, truth and validity are different things. The conclusion of a fallacious argument can be true, _just not on the basis of one or more of the premises of that argument_. It’s true for other reasons. In the same way, the conclusion of a valid argument might be untrue, in which case we would call it "unsound."

So, for example, take this syllogism:

P1: Bob believes pigs can fly.
P2: Bob is a bad man.
C: Therefore, pigs cannot fly.

This is a fallacious and thus an invalid argument. So, the conclusion, though invalid, is true.

Anyway, I’m not sure why you want the genetic fallacy to be valid logically when the very man who gave us the TR is likely in hell for perverting the gospel. That sword would cut in direction I think you would find undesirable.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 12, 2020)

wcf_linux said:


> I think it's Good, Actually, that we can't/don't stop such as those from printing the Bible! God has preserved the text so well for us without having to resort to such tactics. I think Uthman burning the rival texts was a show of weakness that undermines the trustworthiness of Quranic transmission. Unbelievers claim we had the Roman Emperors destroy books we didn't want, but even the documented heretics who defied the post-Constantine emperors kept the same Bible as us! How little must one trust in the power of God to "preserve" a holy text by the torch! (I am not accusing you; I am accusing the one who burned more of them than an obscure storefront church in Florida.)
> 
> I think in a strange way even those unbelieving scholars may despite themselves be God's instrument in preserving trust in the reliability of the scriptures for generations to come. As many griefs as they cause us, the revisionists unwillingly testify to the lengths one has to reach in order to slander the reliability of the Bible.



Interesting point. 

But if Allah guided the Caliphs, then the protection of the true Qur'an can be seen in the same light as the "providential preservation of the text" of the Bible as it has passed through church history. It is just that their holy book has appeared to have remained more pure than our holy book.

If I recall, there were some inferior manuscripts that were, indeed, burned or discarded throughout church history, right?

But yes, I grant your point: every enemy of the Church has helped to strengthen the church in the long-run just as sparring partners help to hone the skills of a boxer. And the Church will always be undefeated even if we get pummeled in practice sometimes.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 12, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Yes, all fallacies invalidate _arguments_. What you are wondering is whether a _conclusion_ based upon a fallacious argument might be true. The answer is yes, it can. That is because, in logic, truth and validity are different things. The conclusion of a fallacious argument can be true, _just not on the basis of one or more of the premises of that argument_. It’s true for other reasons. In the same way, the conclusion of a valid argument might be untrue, in which case we would call it "unsound."
> 
> So, for example, take this syllogism:
> 
> ...



Good points. Thanks for the lesson. And good point about the TR.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 12, 2020)

My own position: 

Right now I am struggling with my own position but believe in a Byzantine Priority and am not happy with the weight given to Aleph and B. I think the weight should be given to the greater number of accepted manuscript by the Church rather than a few older but unique manuscripts. We want to copy that which is purer and more correct, after all. 

Any thoughts?


----------



## wcf_linux (Feb 13, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> My own position:
> 
> Right now I am struggling with my own position but believe in a Byzantine Priority and am not happy with the weight given to Aleph and B. I think the weight should be given to the greater number of accepted manuscript by the Church rather than a few older but unique manuscripts. We want to copy that which is purer and more correct, after all.
> 
> Any thoughts?



I'm more persuaded of Byzantine Priority than I was before. I was actually exposed to the arguments for it by a PCA seminarian who was trying to debunk it by lumping it in with KJV-only views. I'm still generally fine with the textual critical approach in general (the differences are so small, they don't worry me at all about whether God has providentially preserved the text of the scriptures for us), though obviously I have been persuaded to a degree as to why the Byzantine text has a better-than-conventionally-recognized textual-critical claim. (I also tend to view the T.R. as an early critical text, which seems to infuriate all kinds of people. ) I also make a strong distinction between the question of the ending of Mark and the woman caught in adultery on the one hand, and the Johannine Comma on the other. The Comma just doesn't seem to have the same antiquity. It's not clearly in any Greek text until Erasmus, does not seem to be in the early Vulgate, and the 4th century Fathers don't use it the way you would expect them to if it was widely included in their copies of 1 John.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 13, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> We want to copy that which is purer and more correct, after all.



Sure, and if you are going back to the sources, that usually means the older mss.


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 13, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Sure, and if you are going back to the sources, that usually means the older mss.


Does it mean this necessarily? Does older _have _to mean better? Some of the earliest "Christian" writings we have are heretical. Some of the elements in Aleph and B contain questionable (at best) material, too.


----------



## Taylor (Feb 13, 2020)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> Does it mean this necessarily? Does older _have _to mean better? Some of the earliest "Christian" writings we have are heretical. Some of the elements in Aleph and B contain questionable (at best) material, too.



To be fair, he did say "usually."

But, to address your other concern, what readings in Aleph and B trouble you? And are those readings seen as authentic by either the NA28 or UBS5?


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 13, 2020)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> Does it mean this necessarily? Does older _have _to mean better? Some of the earliest "Christian" writings we have are heretical. Some of the elements in Aleph and B contain questionable (at best) material, too.



We are talking about transmission of texts, not doctrine.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 13, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> No problem. It was a good picture, sort of funny. I've seen better pics of a football referee meme throwing flags and naming the philosophical fallacies ("Penalty on the play.....genetic fallacy...15 yard penalty"), and that would have been even funnier, though!
> 
> Let me ask though: Even if it is a genetic fallacy, are all genetic arguments invalid? Where a thought comes from and where an idea originates from IS, indeed, important, though, isn't it? We either trust a source or we don't right? For example, on the Puritanboard the scathing discernment blog Pulpit and Pen often gets dismissed out of hand, even though they are often correct in their reporting. And they profess to be Christians, at least. If a liberal textual critic who denies the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection is instrumental in revising the critical apparatus used in translating our bibles, on the other hand, is it still a genetic fallacy to take a step back and say, "Whoa! This guy is a rank heretic....maybe this will impact his view of Scripture!"





Taylor Sexton said:


> Yes, all fallacies invalidate _arguments_. What you are wondering is whether a _conclusion_ based upon a fallacious argument might be true. The answer is yes, it can. That is because, in logic, truth and validity are different things. The conclusion of a fallacious argument can be true, _just not on the basis of one or more of the premises of that argument_. It’s true for other reasons. In the same way, the conclusion of a valid argument might be untrue, in which case we would call it "unsound."
> 
> So, for example, take this syllogism:
> 
> ...



It can be very useful to look at the source of things to help determine the validity of those things. When it comes to the Critical Text, two of the early pioneers of that were Westcott and Hort both of whom were heretics. Therefore it would be advisable, to say the least, to be distrustful of any original output of theirs. Does that automatically mean that all "critical textual criticism" is false? No, not logically. But it should give us pause. It is perfectly possible for sound or well-meaning men to fall prey to error without realising it. They might come across a certain stream of scholarship which has the appearance of orthodoxy or soundness (because of who is currently involved in it, or because the passage of time has established it as the "majority" view) not realising its heretical roots. It is hardly a coincidence the earliest pioneers of textual criticism were heretics, however.

When judging the soundness of information, who distributes that information is one important factor to consider. We shouldn't dismiss information out of hand merely because the source is a bit dodgy, but we should also ask: why is this information coming from this source and not others? It might be because other sources are compromised and aren't willing to report the facts (this is usually the case with the news) or maybe its because that source is not trustworthy. When it comes to the Biblical text why the benefit of the doubt would be given to a tradition originating with heretics when the godly at the time were opposed to these developments is very strange to me. As is why so-called scholarship would be given more prominence than the godliness of those who were critical of these developments.


----------



## Taylor (Feb 13, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> When it comes to the Critical Text, two of the early pioneers of that were Westcott and Hort both of whom were heretics.



How so?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 13, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> How so?



https://www.Jesus-is-lord.com/hort.htm


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 13, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> To be fair, he did say "usually."
> 
> But, to address your other concern, what readings in Aleph and B trouble you? And are those readings seen as authentic by either the NA28 or UBS5?


He said "usually," but it is standard practice in text criticism to assume this approach. 

I'm not completely against, from what I understand at this point, using Aleph and B to establish the Traditional Text (Byzantine). The obscurity and background of these two texts (Aleph and B) should be understood better before using them to dismiss an entire text group (Byzantine) as nearly out of order when that is the text (and its coming to) that has been in the care of the church, the priesthood of believers like it was in the OT era.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 13, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> but we should also ask: why is this information coming from this source and not others?



Like KJVonly advocates and Erasmus?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Feb 13, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> https://www.Jesus-is-lord.com/hort.htm



Two things:

1) Can you point out to me _specific_ things that Westcott or Hort said that indicates one or both of them were heretics? I am not saying they weren't. I would just like some specific and documented examples. Posting a link to a very long web page just isn't helpful, and it is done far too much on here. Besides, all that website does is list bits of quotes, many of which have no citation at all. Context would be helpful. And, frankly, just posting a link is a little offensive, as if to say having a discussion with me and help me understand you is simply not worth your time or effort. Instead of actually engaging in discussion and trying to help me, you just say, "Here's a link. Have fun." Can you do me a little better please?

2) If it is the case that Westcott and/or Hort were heretics, will you be consistent and reject the work of Erasmus, the _known_ heretic? He was a papist, was he not? He denied the gospel very clearly, did he not?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Feb 13, 2020)

Johnathan Lee Allen said:


> He said "usually," but it is standard practice in text criticism to assume this approach.
> 
> I'm not completely against, from what I understand at this point, using Aleph and B to establish the Traditional Text (Byzantine). The obscurity and background of these two texts (Aleph and B) should be understood better before using them to dismiss an entire text group (Byzantine) as nearly out of order when that is the text (and its coming to) that has been in the care of the church, the priesthood of believers like it was in the OT era.



So, again, what portions of Aleph or B trouble you? And, are those troubling portions judged as genuine by modern text-critical efforts?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 13, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Two things:
> 
> 1) Can you point out to me _specific_ things that Westcott or Hort said that indicates one or both of them were heretics? I am not saying they weren't. I would just like some specific and documented examples. Posting a link to a very long web page just isn't helpful, and it is done far too much on here. Besides, all that website does is list bits of quotes, many of which have no citation at all. Context would be helpful. And, frankly, just posting a link is a little offensive, as if to say having a discussion with me and help me understand you is simply not worth your time or effort. Instead of actually engaging in discussion and trying to help me, you just say, "Here's a link. Have fun." Can you do me a little better please?
> 
> 2) If it is the case that Westcott and/or Hort were heretics, will you be consistent and reject the work of Erasmus, the _known_ heretic? He was a papist, was he not? He denied the gospel very clearly, did he not?



1) The posting of the link was not meant to be rude. It was the source I could find which would give you an idea of where I was coming from. If I had myself mentioned things I'd imagine you would ask for references so I saved some time.

2) Didn't Erasmus produce his text based mainly on the Byzantine text tradition? Which in turn is the trusted text tradition over the Alexandrian text. That would suggest, to me, that Erasmus was working with reliable manuscripts whatever his personal doctrine whereas Westcott and Hort were working with unreliable manuscripts. As I said I agree with you that the origin of something is not a decisive argument one way or the other but it is not irrelevant either. I would also argue that Erasmus' motivation was to provide a definitive Greek NT, whereas for the textual critics later on the motivation was to provide an _alternative_ or "improved" text. Therefore their motivations and contexts are also different. The choices of the text traditions of Erasmus on the one hand and W&H on the other seems very significant.


----------



## Taylor (Feb 13, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> Didn't Erasmus produce his text based mainly on the Byzantine text tradition?



The point is that he engaged in textual criticism, regardless of what his material was.



alexandermsmith said:


> That would suggest, to me, that Erasmus was working with reliable manuscripts whatever his personal doctrine whereas Westcott and Hort were working with unreliable manuscripts.



I think this is the crux of the matter. It is not an issue of the personal character or faith of the textual critic (it's fallacious to argue from that standpoint anyways, on which we both agree). The issue, rather, is one group thinks only one portion of the extant manuscripts are authoritative, while another group thinks they all have something to contribute to the study.



alexandermsmith said:


> I would also argue that Erasmus' motivation was to provide a definitive Greek NT, whereas for the textual critics later on the motivation was to provide an _alternative_ or "improved" text. Therefore their motivations and contexts are also different.



Do you have any documentation from the people themselves saying that these were their respective motivations? To argue what someone's motivations are or were—regardless of whether they are dead or alive—is, without evidence from _them_, speculative at very best.


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Feb 13, 2020)

Hamalas said:


> I post that in love brother (and _somewhat_ tongue-in-cheek). I do hold you in high regard, but I do think the argument you're making basically boils down to a good-old-fashioned genetic fallacy. Maybe I'm missing something.



You are. The Word of God is committed to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. Not to unbelievers.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Hamalas (Feb 13, 2020)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> You are. The Word of God is committed to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. Not to unbelievers.



What version do you use?


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Feb 13, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> Didn't Erasmus produce his text based mainly on the Byzantine text tradition? Which in turn is the trusted text tradition over the Alexandrian text.



The question of which manuscripts Erasmus used is a very good question. It seems as best we can tell that he used _every manuscript he had access to.
_
We know that there were other extant texts he would have liked to have used, but he had no physical access to examine them.


----------



## J.L. Allen (Feb 13, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> So, again, what portions of Aleph or B trouble you? And, are those troubling portions judged as genuine by modern text-critical efforts?


Taylor,

I would like to give you a thoughtful and developed answer. I'm unable to do this at this time and would like to take the time to do so.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 13, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> The point is that he engaged in textual criticism, regardless of what his material was.
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is the crux of the matter. It is not an issue of the personal character or faith of the textual critic (it's fallacious to argue from that standpoint anyways, on which we both agree). The issue, rather, is one group thinks only one portion of the extant manuscripts are authoritative, while another group thinks they all have something to contribute to the study.



Personal character remains an important factor.



Taylor Sexton said:


> Do you have any documentation from the people themselves saying that these were their respective motivations? To argue what someone's motivations are or were—regardless of whether they are dead or alive—is, without evidence from _them_, speculative at very best.



I'm speaking merely of fact: there was already an established text from which the KJV was translated. That text/translation had stood for over two hundred years. Their work produced an alternative: that is undeniable. Why did they want to produce an alternative?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 13, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> Didn't Erasmus produce his text based mainly on the Byzantine text tradition? Which in turn is the trusted text tradition over the Alexandrian text. That would suggest, to me, that Erasmus was working with reliable manuscripts whatever his personal doctrine whereas Westcott and Hort were working with unreliable manuscripts.



Erasmus didn't receive scrolls from heaven. He had to choose between variants.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 13, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> Their work produced an alternative: that is undeniable. Why did they want to produce an alternative?



Because that's how textual criticism works. You look for readings and mss that explain why the variants are the way they are.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 13, 2020)

It's simply asking this question: Given the TR, why are there different readings in the earliest mss?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Feb 13, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> [W & H's] work produced an alternative: that is undeniable. Why did they want to produce an alternative?



Westcott and Hort's work did not appear out of the blue. There were numerous attempts to revise the printed Greek texts prior to it: polyglotts (like Walton's), Griesbach's work and Tischendorf's, to name a few. In addition, many, many commentators and scholars had made notes on where they thought the best manuscripts differed with the then commonly printed Greek text. 

I would say the vast majority of Christian textual scholars and Reformed commentators of the day and prior centuries recognized that there were problems with the Received Text, although there was not an agreed solution. Certainly the Princetonians (Hodge and Alexander even before Warfield) recognized issues. Westcott and Hort was just the first revised text to find some kind of general acceptance during that period. 

Their work was produced and accepted because there was a growing consensus that it was needed.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 14, 2020)

Logan said:


> Westcott and Hort's work did not appear out of the blue. There were numerous attempts to revise the printed Greek texts prior to it: polyglotts (like Walton's), Griesbach's work and Tischendorf's, to name a few. In addition, many, many commentators and scholars had made notes on where they thought the best manuscripts differed with the then commonly printed Greek text.
> 
> I would say the vast majority of Christian textual scholars and Reformed commentators of the day and prior centuries recognized that there were problems with the Received Text, although there was not an agreed solution. Certainly the Princetonians (Hodge and Alexander even before Warfield) recognized issues. Westcott and Hort was just the first revised text to find some kind of general acceptance during that period.
> 
> Their work was produced and accepted because there was a growing consensus that it was needed.



Thanks. I would love to hear more about this. Can you write more or direct me to books or links?


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 14, 2020)

Logan said:


> Westcott and Hort's work did not appear out of the blue. There were numerous attempts to revise the printed Greek texts prior to it: polyglotts (like Walton's), Griesbach's work and Tischendorf's, to name a few. In addition, many, many commentators and scholars had made notes on where they thought the best manuscripts differed with the then commonly printed Greek text.
> 
> I would say the vast majority of Christian textual scholars and Reformed commentators of the day and prior centuries recognized that there were problems with the Received Text, although there was not an agreed solution. Certainly the Princetonians (Hodge and Alexander even before Warfield) recognized issues. Westcott and Hort was just the first revised text to find some kind of general acceptance during that period.
> 
> Their work was produced and accepted because there was a growing consensus that it was needed.



Still not a coincidence it was them. One could also ask why the move for a new translation gained momentum at the same time rationalism and liberalism was beginning to have an impact on the church.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 14, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> Still not a coincidence it was them. One could also ask why the move for a new translation gained momentum at the same time rationalism and liberalism was beginning to have an impact on the church.



We can just as easily say that Arianism came into the church the same time that the Received Text became popular.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Taylor (Feb 14, 2020)

I am still just astounded at the inconsistently applied criteria here. Westcott and Hort are bad, but Erasmus, a defender of Babylon, gets a pass? Unbelievable. I’m not saying anyone should accept or reject any of the textual “traditions,” but we of all people should at least be judicious in our methodologies and our dealing with plain facts.



alexandermsmith said:


> Still not a coincidence it was them. One could also ask why the move for a new translation gained momentum at the same time rationalism and liberalism was beginning to have an impact on the church.



You seriously believe rationalism and liberalism only began to impact the church in 1881?

...LOL

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 14, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I am still just astounded at the inconsistency applied criteria here. Westcott and Hort are bad, but Erasmus, a defender of Babylon, gets a pass? Unbelievable. I’m not saying anyone should accept or reject any of the textual “traditions,” but we of all people should at least be judicious in our methodologies and our dealing with plain facts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I didn't say 1881.


----------



## Taylor (Feb 14, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> I didn't say 1881.



You said, “One could also ask why the move for a new translation gained momentum *at the same time* rationalism and liberalism was beginning to have an impact on the church.”

When was this “move for a new translation” you speak of? Westcott and Hort released their Greek NT in 1881.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 14, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I am still just astounded at the inconsistently applied criteria here. Westcott and Hort are bad, but Erasmus, a defender of Babylon, gets a pass? Unbelievable. I’m not saying anyone should accept or reject any of the textual “traditions,” but we of all people should at least be judicious in our methodologies and our dealing with plain facts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Agreed. It's not simply that Erasmus happened to be a Roman Catholic. No, he openly opposed the Reformation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 14, 2020)

I have been culling some information on Erasmus, since much of the pushback against the doctrine of a received text comes back to him. Here is a pertinent quote from an old PB thread; the conversation had become centered around the dependability of Erasmus' work which of course devolved into a discussion of Erasmus' doctrine. 

"[Regarding] Erasmus's dedication to the Pope, to me it was a slap in his face. Luther was protected at the advice of Erasmus, which saved his life, who after publishing his Latin translation was in risk of being executed himself. Erasmus protects Luther and places his own neck on the chopping block instead - yet you make it sound like Erasmus is the "great enemy." I don't get it - certainly doctrinally Erasmus didn't join the Reformation, but he did sincerely want reform in the Church and he did till the soil for that seed to be planted and germinate in.

"Rudolf Pfeiffer, in his History of Classical Scholarship from 1300 to 1850 has an insightful comment, “few modern scholars have taken trouble to consider Erasmus’ actual intentions.” Now, that statement I found to speak volumes, as I learned that in Erasmus' concept, his greek testament was supportive work for his Latin translation, not the other way around - as the picture was always painted to me.

"Very few criticism’s concerning Erasmus’ Greek text follow publication, what is attacked is his Latin translation and Annotations. In the main it his Latin translation and Annotations that he spends the next few years defending in his disputes with Stunica and others before publication of his second edition of 1519.

"Today these disparaging criticisms are all hurled from the 19th and 20th century with the rise of the critical schools, but toward the Greek instead of the Latin, and within them I find continual internal inconsistencies that I cannot reconcile. Many of which I found to be just plain disparagement without any factual support whatsoever."

The gentleman who posted these statements is no longer active on the PB but appears to have a focused interest and knowledge on issues surrounding textual criticism. His PB handle is thomas2007, if you care to do a PB search of his postings.

Reactions: Informative 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## Taylor (Feb 14, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I have been culling some information on Erasmus, since much of the pushback against the doctrine of a received text comes back to him. Here is a pertinent quote from an old PB thread; the conversation had become centered around the dependability of Erasmus' work which of course devolved into a discussion of Erasmus' doctrine.
> 
> "[Regarding] Erasmus's dedication to the Pope, to me it was a slap in his face. Luther was protected at the advice of Erasmus, which saved his life, who after publishing his Latin translation was in risk of being executed himself. Erasmus protects Luther and places his own neck on the chopping block instead - yet you make it sound like Erasmus is the "great enemy." I don't get it - certainly doctrinally Erasmus didn't join the Reformation, but he did sincerely want reform in the Church and he did till the soil for that seed to be planted and germinate in.
> 
> ...



You're not understanding what I and a couple others have been saying. None of us have actually attempted to discredit Erasmus because of his doctrine. Rather, what we have been saying is that _if the personal beliefs of a textual critic discredits his work_ (as some here have maintained against Westcott and Hort), _then the same ought to apply to Erasmus_. This hasn't been a critique of Erasmus at all; it has been a critique of an inconsistently applied fallacy.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 14, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I have been culling some information on Erasmus, since much of the pushback against the doctrine of a received text comes back to him. Here is a pertinent quote from an old PB thread; the conversation had become centered around the dependability of Erasmus' work which of course devolved into a discussion of Erasmus' doctrine.
> 
> "[Regarding] Erasmus's dedication to the Pope, to me it was a slap in his face. Luther was protected at the advice of Erasmus, which saved his life, who after publishing his Latin translation was in risk of being executed himself. Erasmus protects Luther and places his own neck on the chopping block instead - yet you make it sound like Erasmus is the "great enemy." I don't get it - certainly doctrinally Erasmus didn't join the Reformation, but he did sincerely want reform in the Church and he did till the soil for that seed to be planted and germinate in.
> 
> ...



We are not attacking Erasmus's text, not at this point anyway. Rather, we are responding to Alexander's genetic fallacy with another genetic fallacy in order to show how flawed that thinking is.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 14, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> You're not understanding what I and a couple others have been saying. None of us have actually attempted to discredit Erasmus because of his doctrine. Rather, what we have been saying is that _if the personal beliefs of a textual critic discredits his work_ (as some here have maintained against Westcott and Hort), _then the same ought to apply to Erasmus_. This hasn't been a critique of Erasmus at all; it has been a critique of an inconsistently applied fallacy.





BayouHuguenot said:


> We are not attacking Erasmus's text, not at this point anyway. Rather, we are responding to Alexander's genetic fallacy with another genetic fallacy in order to show how flawed that thinking is.


I get that, thanks. I keep forgetting that's what you're doing, maybe it would help to give those qualifiers when you post such things. In addition to the folks following these debate-type threads now, there are future readers and out of love and charity for each other, we ought to be careful not to tear down unintentionally; not everyone is debate oriented and no one is a mind reader. 

I do appreciate that we need to be very careful of inconcistencies and other such faulty reasoning.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 14, 2020)

One thing that I find rather interesting about Westcott and Hort is that Ian Paisley, a fundamentalist who advocated both TR and AV-onlyism, actually cited B. F. Westcott in defence of fundamental doctrines in his book _Christian Foundations_ (I have decided to remove a link to an online PDF version of this book owing to what looks like a second commandment violation that showed up when I posted it).

If you wish to prove that Westcott was a heretic, please provide documentary evidence from either 1) the primary sources (i.e. Westcott's own writings), demonstrating that you have properly understood what he has said in context; or, 2) a reliable, peer-reviewed secondary source by a _proven_ historical scholar.

Latching on to partisan sources that "prove" what you have already decided is the case is #NotAnArgument that is likely to persuade anyone outside of your sectarian echo-chambers. That point applies to all sides in this discussion.

Reactions: Informative 1 | Amen 2


----------



## Taylor (Feb 14, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> ...there are future readers and out of love and charity for each other, we ought to be careful not to tear down unintentionally...





You mean like the OP did? And how it was never addressed or retracted, but just dismissed with an "eh, the damage is done"?

I think I've been very clear in what I have said. I've literally spent this entire thread trying to dispel inconsistencies.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 14, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> You mean like the OP did? And how it was never addressed or retracted, but just dismissed with an "eh, the damage is done"?
> 
> I think I've been very clear in what I have said. I've literally spent this entire thread trying to dispel inconsistencies.



To be fair, did the author of the OP not retract once Steve called it out as being over-emotional? I seem to recall seeing it, but I have not got time just now to look for the specific post. 

As the old saying goes, only the good threads die young.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 14, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> You said, “One could also ask why the move for a new translation gained momentum *at the same time* rationalism and liberalism was beginning to have an impact on the church.”
> 
> When was this “move for a new translation” you speak of? Westcott and Hort released their Greek NT in 1881.



Yes so clearly the movement to produce it started before 1881. The 19th Century was a period of great erosion of confidence in Biblical truth and significant intrusion into the church of rationalism and liberalism. This was the century of Darwin, German Rationalism, the rise of theories like the Documentary Hypothesis. Yes these ideas can maybe be traced further back but it was during the 19th century- especially with the popularising of evolutionism- that these ideas took hold in the churches and started them on the downward spiral which resulted in all that we know happened in the churches in the 20th century.

So my point is it is hardly surprising- to me- that the move to produce a "revision" of the English Bible came to fruition in this environment and since then it has been non-stop translation after translation.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 14, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> You mean like the OP did? And how it was never addressed or retracted?
> 
> I think I've been very clear in what I have said.


 By "there are future readers and out of love and charity for each other, we ought to be careful not to tear down unintentionally," the unintentional tearing down I spoke of, I was applying to the reputation of Erasmus. We can unintentionally tear down someone's reputation by saying things about them without qualifiers. You know, and Jacob knows, that you were only trying to highlight a logic fallacy you think was being presented. But even in the midst of debate, out of love we should be thinking of the readers who are not well-versed in debate and logic.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 14, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> To be fair, did the author of the OP not retract once Steve called it out as being over-emotional? I seem to recall seeing it, but I have not got time just now to look for the specific post.
> 
> As the old saying goes, only the good threads die young.


Perg did retract, and the saying is true.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 14, 2020)

Correct; see post 75. 


Reformed Covenanter said:


> To be fair, did the author of the OP not retract once Steve called it out as being over-emotional? I seem to recall seeing it, but I have not got time just now to look for the specific post.
> 
> As the old saying goes, only the good threads die young.





Taylor Sexton said:


> You mean like the OP did? And how it was never addressed or retracted, but just dismissed with an "eh, the damage is done"?
> 
> I think I've been very clear in what I have said. I've literally spent this entire thread trying to dispel inconsistencies.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 14, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> So my point is it is hardly surprising- to me- that the move to produce a "revision" of the English Bible came to fruition in this environment and since then it has been non-stop translation after translation.



Ad hoc ergo post propter hoc

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Feb 14, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Perg did retract, and the saying is true.





NaphtaliPress said:


> Correct; see post 75.



Yes, I am well aware of that post; I in fact had it in my mind when I wrote what I wrote. What was said is, in my opinion, hardly a retraction. There wasn't even a recognition of wrongdoing, or an apology. In fact, the author even said he _could_ edit it, but "the damage has been done." Wow, if I treated my loved ones like this, well, I wouldn't have that many loved ones anymore.

Either way, I really don't wish to discuss this any longer. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand. And, I suppose that since we have a "retraction," we can let bygones be bygones.



alexandermsmith said:


> This was the century of Darwin, German Rationalism, the rise of theories like the Documentary Hypothesis. Yes these ideas can maybe be traced further back but it was during the 19th century- especially with the popularising of evolutionism- that these ideas took hold in the churches and started them on the downward spiral which resulted in all that we know happened in the churches in the 20th century.



Can you demonstrate that Westcott and Hort, or those of similar occupation (Tregelles, von Soden, etc.), were motivated by these ideologies in the carrying out of their work?


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 14, 2020)

Taylor:
-Is triggered that I have possibly slandered textual critics.
-Then proceeds to state that my retraction is not genuine.

Hmmmm......


Let's try to refocus:

-How do we treat textual criticism in a missionary context so as not to hurt the faith of new believers overseas?


----------



## ZackF (Feb 14, 2020)

Again, what do we tell people on the mission field?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 14, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Can you demonstrate that Westcott and Hort, or those of similar occupation (Tregelles, von Soden, etc.), were motivated by these ideologies in the carrying out of their work?



This is kind of like being on the Titanic and instead of running for your life you're demanding whether I can prove that the iceberg caused the sinking or not.

Can I prove that Westcott and Hort's motivation was to undermine faith in Scripture and promote rationalism? No I don't have a document where they write: "our aim is to undermine faith in Scripture and promote rationalism". But that's exactly what their work and the work of many others did and that's good enough for me to know that what they did was catastrophic.


----------



## Taylor (Feb 14, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Taylor:
> -Is triggered that I have possibly slandered textual critics.
> -Then proceeds to state that my retraction is not genuine.



1) I hope you would never slander _anyone_. It's sinful no matter who the target is. Regardless, I was "triggered" because you in your general vagueness slandered people whom I know personally, who are most certainly not enemies of the faith.

2) I never said your "retraction" wasn't genuine. I believe what you said was genuine. I just don't think it was a retraction. If that was your attempt at a retraction, will you make the retraction clear now for people like me who didn't catch it between the lines?

———

Folks, I just want to be clear. I’m not trying to be cantankerous or needlessly oppositional. I just firmly believe that 1) this thread is premised on a very bad OP (i.e., it poses as a request for help when it was really just an attempt at polemics), and 2) this topic in general is not treated with much equity by certain folks of a certain persuasion here on this board. I have seen it for years. I and several others have tried to steer the thread away from that, apparently to no avail.

———



alexandermsmith said:


> Can I prove that Westcott and Hort's motivation was to undermine faith in Scripture and promote rationalism? No...



Then what you say is speculation at very best, and ought not to be asserted with the dogmatism heretofore exhibited (that is, until hard evidence is produced).

Again, I am not trying to exonerate or even validate the work of these men. Rather, I just want whatever is concluded to be based upon actual facts and good argumentation, and not just assertions. That's all. I am actually myself fairly convinced of men like Maurice Robinson, that's because in his writing he deals with the facts and makes real arguments based upon substantive analysis, and doesn't just say "critical text man bad."


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 14, 2020)

ZackF said:


> Again, what do we tell people mission field?


I think Jack posted something good that would be helpful and applicable from the CT side. 

My hope would be that it be approached from the RT side. As stated, one would need a working knowledge of textual criticism and the theology of it.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Feb 14, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Then what you say is speculation at very best, and ought not to be asserted with the dogmatism heretofore exhibited (that is, until hard evidence is produced).
> 
> Again, I am not trying to exonerate or even validate the work of these men. Rather, I just want whatever is concluded to be based upon actual facts and good argumentation, and not just assertions. That's all. I am actually myself fairly convinced of men like Maurice Robinson, that's because in his writing he deals with the facts and makes real arguments based upon substantive analysis, and doesn't just say "critical text man bad."



I understand all that however we are told in Matthew that we shall know them by their fruits. What are the fruits of what people like Westcott and Hort did? Very bad fruits. It is incumbent upon the church to be very watchful and to be on the look out for the smallest incursion of the world because a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Westcott and Hort are long dead. They are not before a court of the church. What we are concerned with is their legacy and that has been immensely destructive.


----------



## Taylor (Feb 14, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> What are the fruits of what people like Westcott and Hort did? Very bad fruits.



Well, that is, again, a very vague assertion. What are these fruits? And, moreover, can you demonstrate that these fruits are the direct result of their work or persons?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (Feb 14, 2020)

My point what does a garden variety elder, deacon or layman say to the people he encounters on behalf of #teamChristian. Jack’s remarks are indeed helpful as they usually are. How can RT leaning people help unbelievers or weak believers without throwing their CT brethren under the bus?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 14, 2020)

ZackF said:


> My point what does a garden variety elder, deacon or layman say to the people he encounters on behalf of #teamChristian. Jack’s remarks are indeed helpful as they usually are. How can RT leaning people help unbelievers or weak believers without throwing their CT brethren under the bus?


I am learning how to disagree without throwing people under the bus!! I guess just frame it as a disagreement among brethren, and understandable considering.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 14, 2020)

ZackF said:


> My point what does a garden variety elder, deacon or layman say to the people he encounters on behalf of #teamChristian. Jack’s remarks are indeed helpful as they usually are. How can RT leaning people help unbelievers or weak believers without throwing their CT brethren under the bus?


And I see that lay people can be helpful too; you don’t have to know everything. It would be so helpful to have a very accessible, layman oriented book on the topic of the RT.


----------



## Taylor (Feb 14, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> And I see that lay people can be helpful too; you don’t have to know everything. It would be so helpful to have a very accessible, layman oriented book on the topic of the RT.



I'm not sure what you mean by the "RT" (whether that is for you the TR or the Byzantine text type), but I have found the writing of Maurice Robinson to be very helpful with regard to Byzantine text-type arguments. In fact, I find his argumentation compelling. A lot of his stuff can be found easily online.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 14, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by the "RT" (whether that is for you the TR or the Byzantine text type), but I have found the writing of Robinson to be very helpful with regard to Byzantine text-type arguments. In fact, I find his argumentation compelling. A lot of his stuff can be found easily online.


RT=Received Text. I’ll check out Maurice. Robinson. I’d like to see something very concise, accessible intellectually to the average lay-person, in a hard copy form. I haven’t seen anything like that.


----------



## Taylor (Feb 14, 2020)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I’d like to see something very concise, accessible intellectually to the average lay-person, in a hard copy form. I haven’t seen anything like that.



Yeah, most of what I've seen is online. Search for interviews with him, too. He's done a few, and they are helpful.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 14, 2020)

alexandermsmith said:


> Can I prove that Westcott and Hort's motivation was to undermine faith in Scripture and promote rationalism? No I don't have a document where they write: "our aim is to undermine faith in Scripture and promote rationalism". But that's exactly what their work and the work of many others did and that's good enough for me to know that what they did was catastrophic.



You are assuming what you are trying to prove. By parity of reasoning, Westcott and Hort can easily say, "We are trying to recover the original text, which is the essence of the Reformation's ad fontes."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 14, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Well, that is, again, a very vague assertion. What are these fruits? And, moreover, can you demonstrate that these fruits are the direct result of their work or persons?



Exactly. CT guys like Walter Kaiser and Gleason Archer have borne fruit in my life. TR guys like Steven Anderson have done quite the opposite.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## gjensen (Feb 14, 2020)

I would not call Stephen Anderson a "TR guy". I am not sure that he needs anymore publicity. 

And I have been encouraged and discouraged by both sides. I continue to be troubled by both extremes, and there is two extremes. 

It is understandable that men and women would be passionate about defending God's word. I am skeptical that is what much of this is though. 

After Dr. Duguid (sp?) mentioned it, I read the article on the text of the KJV in the Reformation Heritage Study Bible. I found a healthy and balanced approach to introducing this subject in Study Bibles. It could also serve as a model on how to positively promote a position. Some of us do not represent our position very well.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 14, 2020)

gjensen said:


> I read the article on the text of the KJV in the Reformation Heritage Study Bible.


I have used the ESV for a number of years and purchased a Reformation Study Bible. I love this study Bible. However I recently discovered Reformation Heritage Study Bible was also an excellent study Bible (available in the KJV) so I purchased it. Thus I use two great Bibles for my devotions. I have come to the view it is helpful to read quality translations in both the RT and the CT tradition.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Feb 17, 2020)

Pergamum said:


> Thanks. I would love to hear more about this. Can you write more or direct me to books or links?



Unfortunately that's not the sort of thing I could point to any particular source on because it's information gathered from a myriad of sources:

* Archibald Alexander's inaugural address, 
* Hodge's Systematic theology and commentaries (throughout), 
* any reformed commentary over the last 5 centuries where it mentions "some manuscripts" or "the true reading", or "the best manuscripts" etc.
* Even Owen's book "Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Texts of Scripture" acknowledges shortcomings, while still being more dogmatic about it (i.e., "it's good enough")
* Turretin defends the TR (as it stood in his day) but notably because he believed it was completely supported by existing manuscripts, and even he believes there are some readings that could be gathered from better manuscripts
* Warfield's numerous articles citing primary sources
* Walton's Poloyglott
* Articles in the Presbyterian Review or the Princeton Review from the 1800s on textual critical work of Griesbach, Tischendorf, or W&H
* Even Burgon advocated for changes to the TR while still being an opponent of the Alexandrian text type 

Read Warfield beginning on pg 643 from the link below, including the footnotes. I am convinced that the authors of the WCF, by "kept pure", did not at all mean what some today think it means with respect to the TR, but had a more comprehensive and broad view of preservation.

https://books.google.com/books?id=W0Q9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA643&lpg=PA643#v=onepage&q&f=false

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 17, 2020)

Logan said:


> Unfortunately that's not the sort of thing I could point to any particular source on because it's information gathered from a myriad of sources:
> 
> * Archibald Alexander's inaugural address,
> * Hodge's Systematic theology and commentaries (throughout),
> ...



Thank you. I'll start looking up these sources. I appreciate your input.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 24, 2020)

*Erasmus, and Westcott and Hort*

I have seen it said by @Taylor Sexton (post 154) that Erasmus was “a defender of Babylon”; and in post 138, “Erasmus, the _known_ heretic? He was a papist…”. And it was also asked, regarding Westcott and Hort, where did they show themselves unregenerate, unfit to work on the Scriptures?

Here are some links giving a far more balanced view of Erasmus:

Here is an old thread where I talk CONCERNING ERASMUS:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/what-is-the-authentic-new-testament-text.15134/#post-196909

*What About Erasmus?*
https://www.wayoflife.org/database/erasmus.html

*Refuting the charge that Erasmus was a Catholic Humanist- Will Kinney*
https://pmicenter.wordpress.com/201...-erasmus-was-a-catholic-humanist-will-kinney/

*In Defense Of Erasmus, By John Cereghin*
http://www.solascriptura-tt.org/PessoasNosSeculos/InDefenseOfErasmus-Cereghin.htm

This is a PB discussion (more a knock-down drag-out where I think 9th commandment violations are frequent) simply for defending Erasmus and his spiritual life (from Post 14 on) :

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/verse-differences.84468/#post-1056875

_______

And then, this, re Westcott and Hort, is from a paper I wrote a while back (in two posts) :

Although we will be going back and taking a quick look at Bible scholars who came from or were associated with Alexandria, Egypt – namely Origen, Pamphilus, and Eusebius of Caesarea – who greatly influenced the Greek text underlying the modern versions, we will focus mainly on the two scholars and textual critics, Drs. Westcott and Hort, who dominated the revision committee of the Anglican Church – which produced a Greek version that supplanted the Received Text – in the latter part of the 1800s. These two men, utilizing German secular textual theories, as opposed to believing Christian scholarship, resurrected two old Greek manuscripts, codices _Vaticanus_ (B) and _Sinaiticus _(א) or _aleph_, after the first Hebrew letter, both of Alexandrian origin. We will look at these two manuscripts shortly, but first let us look at the two men who gave them new life after they had lain discarded and in deliberate disuse some thirteen or fourteen centuries.

Lest anyone wonder why we will spend valuable time examining these men, hear what John Kohlenberger, spokesman for Zondervan Publishing House (which has produced the NIV, NASB, Living Bible, RSV, and other versions), has to say of them:

Westcott and Hort…all subsequent versions from the Revised Version (1881) to those of the present…have adopted their basic approach…[and] accepted the Westcott and Hort [Greek] text.[1]​
D.A. Carson, author of _The King James Version Debate_, whose book was published by Baker Books (which also publishes a number of modern versions), says in it,

Westcott and Hort gave much weight to the Alexandrian tradition; but preeminent emphasis was laid on B and א (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus)…and designated by them the “Neutral [i.e., uncorrupted] text.” Subsequent textual critical work accepted the theories of Westcott and Hort, although with modifications…It is on [the] basis [of their theories]…almost universally accepted today…that Bible translations since 1881 have, _as compared with the KJV_, left out some things and added a few others…[T]he vast majority of evangelical scholars…hold that in the basic textual theory Westcott and Hort were right, and that the church stands greatly in their debt.[2]​
Westcott and Hort (henceforth W&H), are either revered as fathers of modern textual criticism, or reviled as men unworthy to lay hands on the Book of God, and enemies of the Faith; are there verifiable facts to clarify the record?

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892), both began their academic careers as students of Trinity College at Cambridge University. Westcott was Hort’s senior by three years at the college, and was his tutor in Classics after Hort began his graduate studies there in 1849-50, beginning what was to be a lifelong friendship and collaboration in various endeavors, most notable of which was their Revised Greek Text of the New Testament, published in 1881. Westcott was also tutor, in 1848, to two other Cambridge men (among others) who would likewise remain his friends for life, J.B. Lightfoot and E.W. Benson.

The academic and spiritual atmosphere of Cambridge in those days was unusual; there was a great conflict between “liberal” theology (pretty much the same then as now), conservative Anglicans (of the Church of England), and conservative Roman Catholicism, the latter having many allies in certain sectors of the Anglican Church (which were known by terms such as the Oxford Movement, and Sacerdotalists), which sought to elevate the Church, her traditions, and her sacraments above the Scriptures as the final authority over the people of God, after the model of Rome. Many liberals who had been ousted from other universities for theological heresy found a haven at Cambridge; to name a few: Frederick Maurice (denied eternal Hell), John Henry Newman (pro-Vatican teaching), John William Colenso (openly questioned the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch), and William Roberson Smith (he likewise opposed the Mosaic authorship, and also the doctrine of inspiration).[3] The work of Charles Darwin was in the air, and in 1877 Cambridge conferred an honorary degree upon Darwin.[4] Some of the men mentioned, and the two we are focusing our attention on in particular, held a mixture of views, that is, both “liberal” and Catholic. Cambridge had fallen greatly since the days two centuries earlier when William Tyndale and other reformers pursued studies there! Evangelicals, who were also active in these times, were looked down upon as primitive and crude “fundamentalists” (as they would be called by the liberals in the 1920s), just for holding firmly to the fundamental historic doctrines of the believing church up through the ages. Such men, along with their Bibles, were often despised by the “learned” elite.

The focus of Westcott’s and Hort’s studies was the classics, notably the Greek. Hort wrote that Dr. Maurice “urged me to give the greatest attention to the Plato and Aristotle, and to make them the central points of my reading, and the other books subsidiary.” [5] Westcott also was first and foremost a classicist. In a letter to Lightfoot he exclaims, “I can never look back on my Cambridge life with sufficient thankfulness. Above all, those hours which were spent over Plato and Aristotle have wrought that in me which I pray may never be done away.” [6]

But there was more in the air of the times then than liberalism, Catholicism, and love of the classics. Although W&H were nominal members of the Church of England (COE), they evidently had no fear of God in the Biblical sense. In 1845, as an undergraduate, Westcott and some of his friends founded a club at Cambridge which eventually took the name Hermes Society.[7] That of itself might not be so bad, even though Hermes is widely known, not only as a god in Greek mythology, but a major figure in the occult, from notorious occultist H.P. Blavatsky’s equating of Hermes with Satan [8] (this latter entity not being evil in her eyes) to Carl Jung, as editor, including in a book of his, “Hermes is Trickster in a different role as a messenger, a god of the crossroads, and finally the leader of souls to and from the underworld.…Hermes recovered attributes of the bird life [wings] to add to his chthonic [underworld] nature as serpent.” [9] Occultism and spiritualism were exploding into manifestation in 19th century England, and Hermes was esteemed in these groups. What leads us to think Westcott’s Hermes club was not innocent of occult involvement are the name and the activities of his next club, founded in 1851: the Ghostly Guild.

James Webb, a secular historian of the occult, notes in his book, _The Occult Underground_, in the section, “The Necromancers,”

In 1882 the Society for Psychical Research was founded. In effect it was a combination of those groups already working independently in the investigation of spiritualist and other psychic phenomena (telepathy, clairvoyance, etc.). Of these the most important was that centered round Henry Sidgwick, Frederick Myers and Edmund Gurney, all Fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge, and deriving its inspiration from the Cambridge University Ghost Society, founded by no less a person than Edward White Benson, the future Archbishop of Canterbury. As A.C. Benson wrote in his biography of his father, the Archbishop was always more interested in psychic phenomena than he cared to admit. Two members of the Ghost club became Bishops, and one a Professor of Divinity.

…The S.P.R. was a peculiar hybrid of Spiritualistic cult and dedicated rationalism; the S.P.R. fulfilled the function of Spiritualist Church for the intellectuals.[10]​
We learn from Hort himself who some of the members were:

Westcott, Gorham, C.B. Scott, Benson, Bradshaw, Laurd, etc., and I have started a society for the investigation of ghosts and all supernatural appearances and effects, being all disposed to believe that such things really exist, and ought to be discriminated from hoaxes and mere subjective delusions; we shall be happy to obtain any good accounts well authenticated with names. Westcott is drawing up a schedule of questions.[11]​
The Society For Psychical Research, in its history written by one of its presidents, acknowledges its origins in “The Cambridge ‘Ghost Society’” and says, under the section of that title,

Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort were among its members…Lightfoot and Westcott both became bishops, and Hort Professor of Divinity. The S.P.R. has hardly lived up to the standard of ecclesiastical eminence set by the parent society.[12]​
The believing church, however, does not consider this “ecclesiastical eminence”! If this were all we found objectionable in W&H, it would be sufficient to disqualify them from membership in an evangelical church, much less to teach or preach in one. But I am afraid it is not all. There is much more that can be said about their continued occult involvement, including other secret societies they founded or were part of, having others be the officers in (and “founders” of) these clubs while they remained generally unnamed and (to public scrutiny) in the background, but there is not room here for a thorough exposé. That they were practicing spiritualists – “necromancer” is the Biblical word – is beyond dispute. It is enough to note the Lord’s judgment on this matter:

There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire [i.e., to be burned as a child sacrifice], or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or *a consulter with familiar spirits*, or a wizard, or *a necromancer*. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD… (Deuteronomy 18:10-12)

And *the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits*, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people. (Leviticus 20:6)

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, *witchcraft*, hatred…murders, drunkenness…they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19,20,21)

Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, *and sorcerers*, and whoremongers, and murderers… (Revelation 22:14, 15)​
Another secular historian looking at this time in English history says,

In this same period a group of young dons from Trinity College, Cambridge, were also turning to psychic research as a substitute for their lost evangelical faith…spiritism as a substitute for Orthodox Christian faith.[13]​
It should be clear that these men were not Christians, although they were baptized when infants in the Church of England. These were worldly men, unregenerate. You might picture in your minds college youths of today who, growing up in an unbelieving culture, have prejudiced attitudes toward the evangelical Christian faith, and toward the Bible.

Westcott, for example, at 21 years of age says,

…in the principles of the Evangelical school [there is that] which must lead to the exaltation of the individual minister, and does not that help to prove their unsoundness? If preaching is the chief means of grace, it must emanate not from the church, but from the preacher, and besides placing him in a false position, it places him in a fearfully dangerous one.[14]​
In the following year he says,

I never read an account of a miracle [in the Bible] but I seemed instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it.[15]​
In the same letter (above) where Hort was announcing to a friend the formation of the Ghost Society, he showed a belligerent prejudice to the Universal Text – the King James Bible – of the English-speaking world, and its underlying Greek basis, the Textus Receptus, presumably because it was the Bible of the Evangelicals, and its authority supported the authority with which they preached (in those days Charles Spurgeon was preaching in London, and D.L. Moody was evangelizing all over England). In similar fashion, young and educated unbelievers of today off-handedly disdain Bible preaching and Bibles. A 23-year-old Hort wrote,

I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous _Textus Receptus_…Think of that vile _Textus Receptus_ leaning entirely on late MSS.; it is a blessing there are such early ones…[16]​
In 1858 Hort wrote,

The positive doctrines…of the Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on authority, and especially the authority of the Bible…[17]​
In 1865, when trying to “understand…the ever-renewed vitality of Mariolatry,” Hort surmised it was,

…a right reaction from the inhuman and semi-diabolical character with which God is invested in all modern orthodoxies—Zeus and Prometheus over again? In Protestant countries the fearful notion ‘Christ the believer’s God’ is the result….I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and ‘Jesus’-worship have very much in common in their causes and effects.[18]​
In these same letters (see footnote 20) Hort opines that mediation is the proper role for each – Mary and Jesus – and not worship.

We will look at some further beliefs and statements of W&H, to get an idea of the hearts and minds of these men. It was important to them that the things they believed and did were kept secret, as they well knew they were at odds with orthodox Christian faith, even in the ailing Anglican Church. In a letter to Westcott, in April of 1861, while they were unofficially [19] working on their revision of the Greek text, Hort wrote,

Also—but this may be cowardice—I have a sort of craving that our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean, a text, issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, will have great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach, and whence it would not easily be banished by subsequent alarms.[20]​
Hort was worldly-wise in this, for it was not until dogged research by scholars in the 20th century unearthed their “dangerous heresy”[21] (though “damnable” be a more apt description) in _many_ areas, that we have learned things about them their contemporaries were unaware of. In a letter to Lightfoot in May of 1860, concerning a proposed commentary they would write with Westcott on the New Testament, Hort said,

Depend on it, whatever either you or I may say in an extended commentary, if only we speak our mind, we shall not be able to avoid giving grave offence to…the miscalled orthodoxy of the day.[22]​
He was surely right in this! He was not a believer, and it was easily apparent in his views! Remember, both he and Lightfoot were involved in spiritualism (along with Westcott and Benson), and although having respect to the COE and its traditions, the group of them were but secular classicists highly trained in classical Greek. They approached the New Testament Scriptures as they did any other Greek classics, with worldly, rationalist presuppositions and critical methods. In other words, their spiritualism was not their only heresy.

In answer to an Oxford undergraduate’s questions (in 1886) about the COE’s Thirty-Nine Articles of Faith, with regard to Article IX (concerning the doctrine of Original Sin), Hort answered thus,

The authors of the Article doubtless assumed the strictly historical character of the account of the Fall in Genesis. This assumption is now, in my belief, no longer reasonable.[23]​
One might understand why he would think this way from his view of Darwin’s _Origin of Species_. In a letter to Westcott (1860) he says,

…Have you read Darwin?…In spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case it is a treat to read such a book.”[24]​
To his friend John Ellerton, he wrote (in 1860),

But _the_ book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with…at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable[25]. (emphasis his)​
We see Westcott was of the same mind:

No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history—I never could understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did…[26]​
The implications of these views are immense. If the Book of Genesis is not true history, then it is either error, or allegory masquerading as history. If Genesis is not true history, Jesus was in error asserting the historicity of Adam and Eve,[27] and Paul likewise in error in Romans and 1 Corinthians. If there was no actual fall of an actual Adam and Eve, the atonement of Christ was but a meaningless fiction. The Book of Genesis is foundational for all of God’s revelation concerning salvation. But such supposed errors were in accord with W&H’s view of the _errancy_ of Scripture.

In the event someone says, but this is _argumentum ad hominem_ (criticism of an opponent’s character or motives, rather than of the person’s argument or beliefs), it is not!—as we are talking of their doctrinal and spiritual views (their characters as believers or unbelievers). As the Lord Jesus said, “…a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” (Matthew 7:17, 18)

There are mountains of further instances of W&H’s apostatizing from the Faith, but this should give an idea of these men’s hearts and minds, that is, of their unregenerate state, and actual antagonism to the Evangelical faith and the Bible which supported that faith. They had an axe to grind against these latter, and grind it they did. And when it was sharpened, they pursued an evil course!

Now I ask you, if these men were unfit to teach in a Sunday School Bible class, or to have _any_ forum in the church to hold forth on their views, what are we doing using Bibles that these spiritualists and evolutionists put together with the express purpose of supplanting the sacred and universal text used by the vigorous Evangelical churches? Another remark of Westcott’s:

_*I…am most anxious to provide something to replace them* _[28] [the standard Traditional Texts of the New Testament, Westcott, in his rationalism, and his bitterness against the power and authority of the Evangelicals, felt were a “disgrace” and “falsified”] (emphasis mine).​
And he did replace them.

_____

1 _Words about the Word_, by John R. Kohlenberger (MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1987), page 42.
2 _The King James Version Debate_, by D.A. Carson (MI: Baker Book House, 1979), pages 41, 75.
3 _Final Authority: A Christian’s Guide to the King James Bible_, by Dr. William P. Grady (Grady Publications, Inc. 1993), page 210.
4 _Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort_, by his son, Arthur Fenton Hort (Macmillan, London, 1896) Reprint by the Bible for Today. Volume II, page 186.
5 Ibid., page 202.
6 _Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott_, by his son Arthur Westcott (Macmillan, London, 1903) Reprint by the Bible for Today. Volume I, pages 175, 176.
7 _Life of Westcott_, Vol. I, p 47.
8 _The Secret Doctrine_, by Helena P. Blavatsky (the Theosophical Publishing Society, 1893), Vol. II, page 30.
9 _Man and His Symbols_, Edited by Carl G. Jung (Dell Pub. Co., 1964); “Part 2: Ancient Myths and Modern Man,” by Joseph L. Henderson, page 155.
10 _The Occult Underground_, by James Webb (Open Court Pub. Co. 1974), page 36.
11 _Life of Hort_, Vol. I, page 211.
12 _The Society For Psychical Research: An Outline Of Its History, _by W.H. Salter (President, 1947-8), (London, Society For Psychical Research, 1948), pages 6, 7.
13 _The Fabians_, by Norman and Jeanne MacKenzie (NY: Simon and Schuster, 1977), page 18.
14 _Life of Westcott_, Vol. I, pages 44, 45.
15 Ibid., page 52.
16 _Life of Hort_, Vol. I, page 211.
17 Ibid., page 400.
18 Ibid., Vol. II, pages 49-51.
19 They did not receive their official appointment to revise the New Testament – not the Greek text, but make minor revisions in the English text – until 1871.
20 _Life of Hort_, Vol. I, page 445.
21 2 Peter 2:1 more accurately classifies theirs as “damnable heresies” – there being a distinction between the two types.
22 Ibid., page 421.
23 Ibid., Vol. II, page 329.
24 Ibid., Vol. I, page 414.
25 Ibid., page 416.
26 _Life of Westcott_, Vol. II, page 69.
27 Matthew 19:4-6
28 _Life of Westcott_, Vol. I, pages 228, 229.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 24, 2020)

*More on W&H*

We have looked closely at Alexandria, Caesarea, Constantinople, and at men who lived in those places, Origen, Pamphilus, Constantine, and Eusebius. We have looked at the heresies these men were involved with, and at the texts that came from these places – with embedded notations certifying they were from Origen’s hand – with omissions that supported their heresies.

The Arians we mentioned a while ago were the equivalent of today’s Jehovah’s Witnesses or Unitarian-Universalists; they denied the very Godhood of Jesus Christ – made Him to have the status of a creature, an exalted one to be sure, but a creature nonetheless, and not the Creator – and they denied the doctrine of eternal Hell, and the punishment of the wicked therein. In his book, _A History of Heresy_, David Christie-Murray gives us a sense of those times:

The following year [328] Eusebius of Nicomedia [a leader of the Arians] was not only recalled from exile but became Constantine’s trusted advisor. The Emperor completely reversed his position [and supported the Arians]…From 326 onwards a regular campaign against the [Biblically orthodox] Nicene bishops was conducted, some dozen being deposed. The culmination came in 335 when Athanasius of Alexandria and Marcellus of Ancyra were removed from office and driven from their sees…In 339 the Arian cause was strengthened by the accession of Eusebius of Nicomedia to the patriarchal throne of Constantinople…[So fervent and violent were the anti-Nicenes], in 357 a council at Sirium…forced Hosius, now a centenarian [a hundred years or more of age], to attend against his will and to sign [an Arian formula] after being beaten and tortured…​
…Constans (the orthodox son of Constantine) continued as Emperor of the Nicene west and Constantius [the Arian son] of the anti-Nicene east…Constantius became sole ruler of the Empire in 353…[and] anti-Nicene views were imposed on all his domains…

Hope for the Nicenes seemed to die when Constantius at last made up his mind and on New Year’s Day, 360, decided for the [Arian] Homoeism of Acacius as the official faith of the Empire, thus supporting historic Arianism against Catholic [i.e. universal, not “Roman”] orthodoxy and the Nicaean Creed.[1]​
This terrible state of affairs for the believing Church ended around 380, when the new Emperor, Theodosius, “a convinced and energetic Nicene Christian,” imposed catholic orthodoxy throughout his empire, and replaced the Arian Bishop of Constantinople by the more orthodox Gregory Nazianzus. In 383 and 384 Theodosius issued imperial edicts which furthered the Nicene cause.[2]​
Imagine what would happen if the Jehovah’s Witnesses came into both ecclesiastical and governmental power in a small country (this is being written in the island country of Cyprus) and ruled over both the churches and the government for a period of 50 years. (Now the JWs forbid the holding of political office, so suppose a fervent JW _sympathizer_, yet not an official member of them.) Imagine what would happen to the Bibles of that land, and the decrees that could be issued against the Greek Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, and the Protestant / Evangelicals. When the state controls the church, or the church the state, trouble always ensues; as the Lord Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” [3]

The Bibles that came from Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea supported the Arian views, even as Westcott and Hort’s resurrecting of these deservedly neglected texts supported the Unitarian’s (and later, the Jehovah’s Witness’) heretical views of Christ.

It was the scandal of England at the time that the openly Arian, Unitarian pastor Dr. Vance Smith was on the Revision Committee [producing the W&H Critical Greek text]. When he was told by the Church of England he must resign his position Westcott threatened to resign himself if Smith were forced to leave.[4] Vance Smith caused an uproar when he attended a Communion Service and refused to say the Nicene Creed (affirming that Christ is God), although Hort loved it! He says,

…that marvelous Communion…It is, one can hardly doubt, the beginning of a new period in Church history. So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment. But it is strange that they should not ask themselves…what is really lost…by the union, for once, of all English Christians around the altar of the Church…[5]​
For the unregenerate Hort the Christ-denying Unitarian was a true “English Christian,” part of the good-ol’-boys’ religious club of academics and intellectuals who wear the frock, and not to be denied either the Lord’s Supper or a place in determining genuine Scripture. When Hort said, “So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment,” he wasn’t referring only to the Communion service, but to the *results* of the Unitarian on the Committee for Revision. There were many small but highly significant changes to the text they would eventually be publishing. Regarding the Revision, he said, “It is quite impossible to judge of the value of what appear to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearing which few would think of at first…the difference between a picture say of Raffaelle and a feeble copy of it is made up of a number of trivial differences.” [6]

One of these highly significant changes – “trifling alterations” Hort would say, perhaps – was the unwarranted deletion of the word “God” in the text of 1 Timothy 3:16, where the Scripture in speaking of Jesus talks of “the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh”. The Revisers replaced it with “who”. The Unitarian Dr. Smith later wrote,

The old reading is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it has long been known to be by all careful students of the New Testament…It is in truth another example of the facility with which ancient copiers could introduce the word God into their manuscripts,—a reading which was the natural result of the growing tendency in early Christian times…to look upon the humble Teacher as the incarnate Word, and therefore as “God manifested in the flesh”.[7] …It has been frequently said that the changes of translation…are of little importance from a doctrinal point of view…[A]ny such statement [is]…contrary to the facts.[8]

The only instance in the N.T. in which the religious worship or adoration of Christ was apparently implied, has been altered by the Revision: ‘At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow,’ [Philippians 2:10] is now to be read ‘in the name.’ Moreover, *no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to make up for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the N.T. contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship of Jesus Christ.*[9] [Emphasis added]​
A.G. Hobbs, in his Forward to the reprint of Burgon’s _The Revision Revised_, wrote,

Here is a real shocker: Dean Stanley, Westcott, Hort, and Bishop Thirwall all refused to serve if Smith were dismissed [in the face of the public outcry at his presence on the Revision Committee]. Let us remember that the Bible teaches that those who uphold and bid a false teacher God speed are equally guilty. ‘For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds’ (2 John 9-11). No wonder that the Deity of Christ is played down in so many passages.[10]​
Does it not make sense what was happening? Unregenerate men had infiltrated the church, and not only the church, but the inner precincts of scholarship and textual reproduction. The enemy had taken the inner stronghold, and put unholy hands on the written Word of God, to alter it. Little wonder multitudes have left the larger institutional churches, now citadels of apostasy, and joined smaller, more conservative or “fundamentalist” churches. Little wonder also, that all modern Bibles which issued forth from the Revised Greek monstrosity spawned in 1881 have been avoided by multitudes, who choose instead the old standard of textual integrity, the King James Bible based on the Greek _Textus Receptus_ and the old Hebrew Masoretic text.

And it is little wonder that the cults love the Westcott and Hort production. The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ _Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures_ says, “In the broad left-hand column of the pages will be found the Greek text edited by B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, and published in 1881.” [11] They use the W&H text directly, and not the more modern Greek editions! The testimony to the Deity of Christ is weakened or removed, and this is crucial to the liberals and the cults.
____

[1] _A History of Heresy_, by David Christie-Murray (Oxford; Oxford University Press 1991), pages 49, 50, 51.
2 Ibid., pages 53, 54.
3 John 18:36.
4 _Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott_, by his son Arthur Westcott (Macmillan, London, 1903) Reprint by the Bible for Today. Volume I, page 394.
5 _Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort_, by his son, Arthur Fenton Hort (Macmillan, London, 1896) Reprint by the Bible for Today. Volume II, page 139.
6 Ibid.
7 _Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed_, by Dr. Vance Smith (London: 1881), pages 39, 47. Cited in _Revision Revised_, by Burgon, pages 515, 513.
8 Ibid., page 45.
9 _Texts and Margins_, Smith, page 47. Cited in, _For Love of the Bible: The Battle for the King James Version and the Received Text from 1800 to Present_, by David W. Cloud (WA: Way of Life Literature, 1997), page 31.
10 _The Revision Revised_, by John William Burgon (Centennial Edition, Fifth printing, 1991), Forward [no page #]. See also, _Life of Westcott_, Vol I, page 394.
11 _The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures_ (PA: Watchtower bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, 1985), page 5.

Reactions: Informative 3


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 25, 2020)

Logan said:


> Unfortunately that's not the sort of thing I could point to any particular source on because it's information gathered from a myriad of sources:
> 
> * Archibald Alexander's inaugural address,
> * Hodge's Systematic theology and commentaries (throughout),
> ...



But, but, Logan, how can you quote the worst demon of them all, the worst underminer of inerrancy the world has ever seen...B.B. Warfield? As everyone knows, he was a closet Unitarian Universalist, who believed many heretical opinions, and was not, in fact, the face of Old Princeton at all, but rather the forerunner of modernism! Therefore, everything he said on matters of textual criticism is automatically suspect because of unrelated heresies he held to be true. 

*Takes off snarky hat now* I had not seen that wonderful bit of Warfield before. Thanks for sharing it, Logan. I have been arguing the same points for years, and hadn't known that Warfield said the exact same thing long before me.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Logan (Feb 25, 2020)

greenbaggins said:


> *Takes off snarky hat now* I had not seen that wonderful bit of Warfield before. Thanks for sharing it, Logan. I have been arguing the same points for years, and hadn't known that Warfield said the exact same thing long before me.



Ha, you're welcome. Yes, I don't know if any scholars/theologians since have matched Warfield in clarity and breadth of knowledge. His articles span almost every aspect of Christian life and theology and all with a breathtaking depth of understanding.

For anyone who reads that passage from Warfield linked above, I strongly urge them to read the 8 pages of footnoted quotations. These are not from lightweights but from Rutherford, Lightfoot, Capel, Usher, Walton and they clearly understood that there were various readings across all the manuscripts. What they meant by "kept pure in all ages" is clear from those quotations.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 25, 2020)

It is clear that Westcott and Hort *deliberately* violated the commission they had been given by the Church of England as regards the rules given them to guide the enterprise, because of an agenda they had to replace the New Testament Greek text of some 20-30 years before the 1881 revision was completed. Their commission was to minimally revise the English translation. They were patently devious, and in correspondence between themselves talked about it openly.

The Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury—of the Church of England—appointed a committee to get a revision of the Authorized Version underway:

“Before, however, this committee reported, at the next meeting of Convocation in May, and on May 3 and May 5 [of 1870], the following five resolutions, which have the whole authority of Convocation behind them, were accepted unanimously by the Upper House, and by large majorities in the Lower House:

‘1. That it is desirable that a revision of the Authorised Version of the Holy Scriptures be undertaken.

2. That the revision be so conducted as to comprise both marginal renderings and such emendations as it may be found necessary to insert in the text of the Authorised Version.

3. That in the above resolutions we do not contemplate any new translation of the Bible, nor any alteration of the language, except where, in the judgment of the most competent scholars, such change is necessary.

4. That in such necessary changes, the style of the language employed in the existing version be closely followed.

5. That it is desirable that Convocation should nominate a body of its own members to undertake the work of revision, who shall be at liberty to invite the co-operation of any eminent for scholarship, to whatever nation or religious body they may belong.’​‘These are the fundamental rules of Convocation, as formally expressed by the Upper and Lower Houses of this venerable body. The second and third rules deserve our especial attention in reference to the amount of the emendations and alterations which have been introduced during the work of revision. This amount, it is now constantly said, is not only excessive, but in distinct contravention of the rules which were laid down by Convocation. A responsible and deeply respected writer, the late Bishop of Wakefield, only a few years ago plainly stated in a well-known periodical {21} that the revisers ‘largely exceeded their instructions, and did not adhere to the principles they were commissioned to follow...’.”

Source: https://biblehub.com/library/ellico...oly_scripture/address_ii_later_history_of.htm​_________

Further developments on the revision may be seen in the eight rules to be observed by those appointed to do the work.

From, *Lectures on Bible Revision*, Samuel Newth, 1881

LECTURE IX. _THE REVISION OF 1881._
[https://www.gutenberg.org/files/42514/42514-h/42514-h.htm#Page_105]

The first meeting of this second joint Committee was held on May 25th. It was then agreed that the Committee should separate into two Companies—one for the revision of the Old Testament, and one for that of the New. Of the Members of Committee belonging to the Upper House five were assigned to the former Company and three to the latter. The Members belonging to the Lower House were divided equally between the two Companies. At the same meeting the Committee selected the Scholars who should be invited to join the Companies, and also decided upon the general rules that should guide their procedure. These were:

1. “To introduce as few alterations as possible into the Text of the Authorized Version consistently with faithfulness.”

2. “To limit as far as possible the expression of such alterations to the language of the Authorized and earlier English versions.”

3. “Each Company to go twice over the portion to be revised, once provisionally, the second time finally, and on principles of voting as hereinafter is provided.”

4. “That the Text to be adopted be that for which the evidence is decidedly preponderating; and that when the Text so adopted differs from that from which the Authorized Version was made, the alteration be indicated in the margin.”

5. “To make or retain no change in the Text on the second and final revision by each Company, except _two-thirds_ of those present approve of the same, but on the first revision to decide by simple majorities.”

6. “In every case of proposed alteration that may have given rise to discussion, to defer the voting thereupon till the next Meeting, whensoever the same shall be required by one-third of those present at the Meeting, such intended vote to be announced in the notice for the next Meeting.”

7. “To revise the headings of chapters, pages, paragraphs, italics, and punctuation.”

8. “To refer on the part of each Company, when considered desirable, to Divines, Scholars, and Literary Men, whether at home or abroad, for their opinions.”​To these it was added, that the work of each Company be communicated to the other as it is completed, in order that there may be as little deviation from uniformity in language as possible. (pp 107-108)​
However:

“Each member of the [New Testament] Company had been supplied with a private copy of Westcott and Hort's [Greek] Text, but the Company did not, of course, in any way bind itself to accept their conclusions.” _Hort_, Vol. 2, p. 237. (Though W&H—mostly Hort—put intense pressure on the company to accept his views.) All the members were made to vow they would keep the Greek text meant to supplant the Received Text a secret.

Westcott and Hort had been working on their Greek Text, according to the memoirs their sons wrote, from the 1850s. They had a plan, early on, which they cleverly implemented. They deliberately violated the rules they were charged to observe—paying no heed to them at all—but simply proceeded with their agenda.
_____

To add a final note: how many are aware that the NA/UBS Critical Greek Text essentially underlying most modern Bibles is produced under the supervision of the Vatican, and for the purpose of furthering “interconfessional relationships”? (see the attached photo below)

“As a long-time friend of the Bible Societies Pope Francis knows that our _raison d’être_ is the call to collaborate in the incarnation of our Christian faith,” says Mr Perreau. “We assure Pope Francis of our renewed availability to serve the Catholic Church in her endeavours to make the Word of God the centre of new evangelisation.” United Bible Societies welcomes Pope Francis

From the Intro to the Nestle-Aland Greek NT 27th Ed, pp 44-45:


----------



## Username3000 (Feb 25, 2020)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> It is clear that Westcott and Hort *deliberately* violated the commission they had been given by the Church of England as regards the rules given them to guide the enterprise, because of an agenda they had to replace the New Testament Greek text of some 20-30 years before the 1881 revision was completed. Their commission was to minimally revise the English translation. They were patently devious, and in correspondence between themselves talked about it openly.
> 
> The Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury—of the Church of England—appointed a committee to get a revision of the Authorized Version underway:
> 
> ...


What are you proposing a person does after reading your posts?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 25, 2020)

Hello @Rutherglen1794 

I posted that information as I kept seeing things asserted that I knew were mistaken and wrong. It’s an area I’ve studied for decades, due to a desire in me to verify the infallibility of the Scripture, having come out of the ‘60s and ‘70s counterculture and the demonic depths therein and I needed certainty that the word of God is utterly true / reliable in my seeking to walk with and know my Saviour, and in my warfare with the devil and his spirits. Back in the late ‘60s (I was saved in the Spring of ’68) I became aware of differing versions. Either the word of God—every word of which we must live by (Matt 4:4)—is certain or it is not. So I started searching and studying—“Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding” (Prov 4:7).

What should a person do after reading my posts? Start studying the issue of the differing Bible versions; and it comes down to basically two positions, or you could say three: the Reformation Scriptures (the King James or Geneva, or if you must, the NKJV or MKJV), the modern versions based on the critical text (the fruit of W&H’s endeavors), or the Majority (or Byzantine) Text view, held by Maurice Robinson and others.

In one respect the real issue is the matter of the variant readings. All of the Bibles (not including the JW’s _New World Translation_) have been adequately preserved so as to be used by the Lord in the saving of souls and the nurturing and sustaining of churches. Godlier men and women than I use the modern versions and walk well with Christ.

But many of us want more than just adequate preservation in the main, we want it in the minutiae. It isn’t a translation issue really, as there are readings in the NIV ’84 (which my wife uses) I so like that I write them in the margins of my KJV.

When pastoring churches and teaching on textual criticism I am very careful not to divide the church on this issue of the versions, and I bring it down to the variants, which is a legit and non-divisive approach. That takes it to the discernment—studying evidences, as well as presuppositions re preservation—of which reading is sound. Sort of like trench warfare. I don’t, in such classes in a local church, make it an issue of “you’re wrong and I’m right”—I give information and let people do with it what they will, though I do encourage examining and holding to the view I think best, if they are receptive. But I neither push it, nor deal with a heavy hand.

Seeing as we here on PB are all Reformed, it’s easier to appeal to the confessions, such as the WCF or 1689 at 1.8. Though, some folks here being quite learnèd, and dogged researchers, seek various nuances even in understanding of the confessions, and so we have ongoing discussions. The reason it can become so heated at times is that there is likely no other physical possession we have so precious to us as our versions of the word of our God, by which we live.

So to you (and any others listening in) I would propose (since you asked) getting a copy of _Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version_, by Dr. Thomas Holland. It is one of the best treatments upholding the Hebrew and the Greek texts underlying the KJV, and done in an irenic and scholarly manner.

To repeat, the reasons I posted all that info above is that folks were making assertions that were mistaken, and others were asking questions that weren’t being answered, and as I’m familiar with this field I thought it fitting to share what I know. In my signature below you can see this: Jerusalem Blade's PB Collected Textual Posts, and Eschatology. In the textual posts can be seen how I deal with many aspects of textual criticism, both down in the trenches and in overviews.

I hope this is helpful!

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Username3000 (Feb 26, 2020)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello @Rutherglen1794
> 
> I posted that information as I kept seeing things asserted that I knew were mistaken and wrong. It’s an area I’ve studied for decades, due to a desire in me to verify the infallibility of the Scripture, having come out of the ‘60s and ‘70s counterculture and the demonic depths therein and I needed certainty that the word of God is utterly true / reliable in my seeking to walk with and know my Saviour, and in my warfare with the devil and his spirits. Back in the late ‘60s (I was saved in the Spring of ’68) I became aware of differing versions. Either the word of God—every word of which we must live by (Matt 4:4)—is certain or it is not. So I started searching and studying—“Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding” (Prov 4:7).
> 
> ...


Thank you for your efforts. You are obviously very passionate about this topic.

Personally, I am confident in the underlying texts of the modern translations, and I have far too many pressing issues at hand to be able to give this topic any energy at the moment. Perhaps one day (if, Lord willing, I survive the coming coronavirus outbreak in North America).

But again, thank you for sharing your concerns and research.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## CalvinistBaptist (Feb 26, 2020)

Logan said:


> Unfortunately that's not the sort of thing I could point to any particular source on because it's information gathered from a myriad of sources:
> 
> * Archibald Alexander's inaugural address,
> * Hodge's Systematic theology and commentaries (throughout),
> ...


dean Burgon to me as always been interesting, as being acknowledged as being one of the best textual critics of all time, and yet he also was honest enough to admit that the TR Greek text had areas in it that could and should be improved upon. He also would have allowed for a revision of the KJV itself.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

