# Slightly Imperfect Bibles?



## Romans922 (Oct 29, 2021)

Slightly Imperfect Bibles?

I recently received a catalogue from a book distributor that included a discount section titled “slightly imperfect” and, yes, there were several Bibles listed.

Obviously, the phrase “slightly imperfect” was intended a reference to _cosmetic_ defects, but it got me thinking about more substantive imperfections that no publishers dare acknowledge while advertising their Bibles.

Would you purchase a Bible that was missing an entire page? Not many would, I suppose, but when compared to the Bibles published in Reformation times, most modern versions are actually missing about that much content.

Twelve verses from the end Mark’s Gospel are missing. An additional twelve verses from John’s Gospel are missing. Sixteen other verses are usually found missing and several more words and verses have either been deleted or noted as questionable.

Many seek to minimize these discrepancies by speaking only in terms of the percentage of material missing. The forty verses referenced above constitute less than one-quarter percent of the whole. However, if you compare the amount of missing material to the length of some books in Scripture, the discrepancy appears as more significant.

The forty missing verses contain eight hundred and fifty-four words. That’s more than the prophecy of Obadiah. That’s more than the Epistle of Jude. That’s more than Paul’s Epistle to Philemon. That’s more than the second and third Epistles of John combined. Would you buy a Bible that was advertised with this disclaimer: Slightly imperfect, missing only one or two epistles?

Modern scholars will undoubtedly take some umbrage with such argumentation, but that is only because they believe the missing verses never belonged there in the first place. It is their position that the otherwise pious scribes in ancient times intentionally corrupted the Bible by adding words to it.

This view, however, is out of accord with what the Reformed have confessed for centuries; namely that God not only inspired the scriptures, but also kept them pure in all ages by his singular care and providence (Westminster Confession of Faith, I.8).

These are two very different views of the transmission of Holy Scripture. One assumes early corruption and the other presupposes providential preservation. Slightly imperfect Bibles seem to betray a slightly imperfect confidence in the promise of Christ, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matthew 24:35).

_Christian McShaffrey is a Minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Pastor of Five Solas Church (Reedsburg, WI). He also serves as the Stated Clerk of the Presbytery of the Midwest (OPC), and executive director of the Kept Pure in All Ages conference._

Reactions: Like 9 | Informative 2 | Funny 2


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 29, 2021)

Amen. 

"...immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, *kept pure in all ages*, are therefore authentical..."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 29, 2021)

Is “kept pure in al ages” to be understood from man’s perspective or God’s? I have often wondered this when pondering these debates. It seems in the context of Westminster, it is from God’s vantage point. I am still unsettled on this matter and enjoy the wrestling.

Thanks for sharing Pastor Barnes!


----------



## Taylor (Oct 29, 2021)



Reactions: Like 3 | Funny 1


----------



## Edward (Oct 29, 2021)

Romans922 said:


> “slightly imperfect”


Well, we know that TNIVs wouldn't fit in that cateogory.


----------



## ZackF (Oct 29, 2021)

Edward said:


> Well, we know that TNIVs wouldn't fit in that cateogory.


Perfect?

Reactions: Funny 1 | Wow 1


----------



## VictorBravo (Oct 29, 2021)

ZackF said:


> Perfect?


Knowing Edward, the category description is governed by "slightly."

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## De Jager (Oct 29, 2021)

What do you folks think of bibles like the ESV that list manuscript variants and such in the margins?


----------



## greenbaggins (Oct 29, 2021)

The way it is phrased assumes a particular starting point, the very point which is under dispute. Christian is a fantastic brother in Christ, and I love him dearly. But we do differ on this issue. If one assumes the correct nature of the TR or MT in the NT, then text is "missing" in the eclectic text. But that way of phrasing prejudges the question on a given variant. When looking at a given manuscript situation, the evidence could indicate an original that is larger, or an original that is smaller. That is why most text critics now use the words "plus" and "minus" rather than "omission" or "addition," since the latter set of words prejudges what the original must have said. On balance, it is just as likely to add as to omit. Omission can happen due to homoioteleuton, whether words, phrases, or lines. Addition can happen due to dittography, or thinking a commentary in the margin was meant to be a correction to the manuscript. Either one can be an accident. Proving intent is incredibly difficult, far more difficult than some people seem to think. 

As to the view of providence, it is far too small a view of providence. In the TR/MT viewpoint, providence only applies to what can be seen in the church. It does not seem to apply to manuscripts that God might have kept hidden for years, centuries even, to use once certain parties could no longer have a lock on them.

As to the argument of purity, it is a question of degree. There are variants among ALL the TR/MT manuscripts, as many as Christian alleges are between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. I have a larger definition of "pure" than the TR/MT guys have. There are degrees of purity, yes, but the Scripture has been kept pure in all ages, in some ages very pure, and in some ages, a bit less pure, but still with integrity. Some eclectic guys think that the TR is completely corrupt. Reformed eclectic guys like myself do not go there. TR guys tend to throw "kept pure in all ages" at eclectic guys as if it is some kind of smoking gun, and we are heretics if we don't believe in the TR. Not so.

Reactions: Like 7 | Love 4 | Informative 1


----------



## yeutter (Nov 1, 2021)

greenbaggins said:


> Some eclectic guys think that the TR is completely corrupt. Reformed eclectic guys like myself do not go there. TR guys tend to throw "kept pure in all ages" at eclectic guys as if it is some kind of smoking gun, and we are heretics if we don't believe in the TR. Not so.


The ecclesiastical text of the Greek and other canonical Eastern Orthodox Churches differs very little from the TR.
Prior to the Reformation , the ecclesiastical text of the Western Church was the Vulgate. The manuscripts that St. Jerome used when he translated the Greek into Latin are lost. But many of the places where the Vulgate seems to have omissions seem to be supported by some of the texts used in modern eclectic translations.
What should we think about those places where the critical eclectic text departs from both the Eastern Ecclesiastical text and from the Vulgate? If the Bible was kept pure in all ages, why do our pro-eclectic texts friends view those deviations, and the translations that use them?


----------



## greenbaggins (Nov 1, 2021)

Thomas, the only real answer that can be given is that specific text-critical readings really need to be the focus in a discussion like that. Each variant has its own set of readings according to the manuscripts. Only the autographs have zero errors. Therefore, neither the Eastern Ecclesiastical text nor the Vulgate can function as "the" standard, to which all other manuscripts fall short. They are valuable textual witnesses that must be weighed alongside all the Greek manuscripts.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 1, 2021)

greenbaggins said:


> The way it is phrased assumes a particular starting point, the very point which is under dispute. Christian is a fantastic brother in Christ, and I love him dearly. But we do differ on this issue. If one assumes the correct nature of the TR or MT in the NT, then text is "missing" in the eclectic text. But that way of phrasing prejudges the question on a given variant. When looking at a given manuscript situation, the evidence could indicate an original that is larger, or an original that is smaller. That is why most text critics now use the words "plus" and "minus" rather than "omission" or "addition," since the latter set of words prejudges what the original must have said. On balance, it is just as likely to add as to omit. Omission can happen due to homoioteleuton, whether words, phrases, or lines. Addition can happen due to dittography, or thinking a commentary in the margin was meant to be a correction to the manuscript. Either one can be an accident. Proving intent is incredibly difficult, far more difficult than some people seem to think.
> 
> As to the view of providence, it is far too small a view of providence. In the TR/MT viewpoint, providence only applies to what can be seen in the church. It does not seem to apply to manuscripts that God might have kept hidden for years, centuries even, to use once certain parties could no longer have a lock on them.
> 
> As to the argument of purity, it is a question of degree. There are variants among ALL the TR/MT manuscripts, as many as Christian alleges are between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. I have a larger definition of "pure" than the TR/MT guys have. There are degrees of purity, yes, but the Scripture has been kept pure in all ages, in some ages very pure, and in some ages, a bit less pure, but still with integrity. Some eclectic guys think that the TR is completely corrupt. Reformed eclectic guys like myself do not go there. TR guys tend to throw "kept pure in all ages" at eclectic guys as if it is some kind of smoking gun, and we are heretics if we don't believe in the TR. Not so.


"Kept somewhat pure...more or less.... through the ages"

Nobody would say you are a heretic. But how can your position be said to be confessional?


----------



## greenbaggins (Nov 1, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> "Kept somewhat pure...more or less.... through the ages"
> 
> Nobody would say you are a heretic. But how can your position be said to be confessional?


Perg, my view is that the original is in the manuscripts, and we can almost always find out what that is, and that the differences between TR and CT do not amount to a "depurifying." There was no deliberate attempt (contra Muslims, Dan Brown, etc.) to mess with the text of Scripture. It is my opinion that "kept pure in all ages" is not an absolute statement such that there can be no textual criticism allowed._ All manuscripts have differences with any other manuscript!_ That means that NO single manuscript is absolutely 100% without copying errors. If "kept pure in all ages" means that we must have a 100% pure manuscript, then we have been put in an impossible position, since no such single manuscript or tradition exists. The manuscripts underlying the TR all have differences with each other. The same is far more true of the MT. It seems to me that the way "kept pure in all ages" is being read by TR/MT guys refuses to acknowledge the textual differences even within the TR/MT manuscripts. I get crickets every time I bring this up.

Reactions: Like 11


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 1, 2021)

greenbaggins said:


> Perg, my view is that the original is in the manuscripts, and we can almost always find out what that is, and that the differences between TR and CT do not amount to a "depurifying." There was no deliberate attempt (contra Muslims, Dan Brown, etc.) to mess with the text of Scripture. It is my opinion that "kept pure in all ages" is not an absolute statement such that there can be no textual criticism allowed._ All manuscripts have differences with any other manuscript!_ That means that NO single manuscript is absolutely 100% without copying errors. If "kept pure in all ages" means that we must have a 100% pure manuscript, then we have been put in an impossible position, since no such single manuscript or tradition exists. The manuscripts underlying the TR all have differences with each other. The same is far more true of the MT. It seems to me that the way "kept pure in all ages" is being read by TR/MT guys refuses to acknowledge the textual differences even within the TR/MT manuscripts. I get crickets every time I bring this up.


"almost always find out what that is..." Almost?

That still strays from the literal wording of the confession. Either the confession errs on this point or you do. Do you take an exception to the confession on this issue? I believe all who affirm your view should. Of course we could argue that the confessions are imperfect and err as being man-made. 

Do some of the proof-texts in the Confession use made-up texts?


----------



## greenbaggins (Nov 1, 2021)

Perg, there are places where the evidence seems completely evenly divided, no matter what criteria are used. It can be quite difficult to come to a decision about a particular reading. Again, you seem to be requiring a level of certainty that God does not, or He would have preserved the original autographs. I do not believe that is what God meant to happen, nor do I believe that the divines meant to imply that there was absolute certainty on every single reading.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Nov 1, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> "almost always find out what that is..." Almost?
> 
> That still strays from the literal wording of the confession. Either the confession errs on this point or you do. Do you take an exception to the confession on this issue? I believe all who affirm your view should. Of course we could argue that the confessions are imperfect and err as being man-made.
> 
> Do some of the proof-texts in the Confession use made-up texts?



The men that wrote the Confessions were well aware of the issues that Rev. Keister brings up, so the Confessions must clearly mean something different than you are taking them to mean.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Logan (Nov 1, 2021)

greenbaggins said:


> Perg, my view is that the original is in the manuscripts, and we can almost always find out what that is, and that the differences between TR and CT do not amount to a "depurifying." There was no deliberate attempt (contra Muslims, Dan Brown, etc.) to mess with the text of Scripture. It is my opinion that "kept pure in all ages" is not an absolute statement such that there can be no textual criticism allowed._ All manuscripts have differences with any other manuscript!_ That means that NO single manuscript is absolutely 100% without copying errors. If "kept pure in all ages" means that we must have a 100% pure manuscript, then we have been put in an impossible position, since no such single manuscript or tradition exists. The manuscripts underlying the TR all have differences with each other. The same is far more true of the MT. It seems to me that the way "kept pure in all ages" is being read by TR/MT guys refuses to acknowledge the textual differences even within the TR/MT manuscripts. I get crickets every time I bring this up.



Agreed. The phrase "kept pure in all ages" also has to mean "kept pure in any given age". And at any given time in textual history, there were differences.

Erasmus performed textual criticism when he collated what we now call the TR. Was his text identical with any other manuscript extant? No. So was his text "kept pure"? Yes. Was the manuscripts he collated from "kept pure"? Yes. But how can both be true?

The authors of the confession knew about variants and I know of very few they rejected. Obviously all the variants couldn't have been original yet they still insisted that the Scripture itself had been "kept pure". Therefore, the phrase has to be applied more broadly than current TR advocates like to apply it (whether it encompasses CT methodology is a different question but first one has to recognize that "kept pure" didn't mean what many are claiming it does).

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 1, 2021)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> The men that wrote the Confessions were well aware of the issues that Rev. Keister brings up, so the Confessions must clearly mean something different than you are taking them to mean.


ok. That is a good response.

So they worded it poorly? Or tried to claim too much? Or did they just mean general preservation instead of perfect preservation?

It appears view of many is as follows: God has preserved His Word somewhere and in some manuscripts in every age if you look hard enough and compare them and then, you can assemble these into a relatively pure text that may need to be corrected periodically and without certainty. 

It does, indeed, appear that many believe in slightly imperfect bibles.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Nov 1, 2021)

The Presbyterian and Reformed Review


Includes section "Reviews of recent theological literature".



books.google.com





Read what Warfield says, but also note that he includes many quotations from men of that period, including some that were part of the Westminster Assembly. I think those footnote citations give a more full and nuanced picture of what "kept pure" means than what many today are anachronistically reading back into it.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1


----------



## yeutter (Nov 1, 2021)

greenbaggins said:


> Only the autographs have zero errors. Therefore, neither the Eastern Ecclesiastical text nor the Vulgate can function as "the" standard, to which all other manuscripts fall short


Agreed, only the autographs are free from error. But, not to belabor the point, if a reading was unknown to either the Eastern Church or to the Western Church how are we to understand "kept pure in all ages."?


----------



## greenbaggins (Nov 1, 2021)

Thomas, I seriously doubt that we are going to discover some new cache of manuscripts that is going to upend our entire apparatus of textual criticism. Not even the Dead Sea Scrolls did that. It tweaked some of our understanding of OT textual criticism. It did not impact our NT textual criticism much at all. Most readings that we currently have were known for long ages past. Manuscripts that are currently being discovered are not offering brand new readings that the church has never seen before.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Nov 1, 2021)

What do you all think of the idea that any critical work involving making changes to our Bible should be an ecclesiastical undertaking? (i.e., via a called church council). It's such a huge thing to take away portions of the Scripture. I've felt that Westminster was such a council, for instance. They did know that there were other, rejected manuscripts out there.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Logan (Nov 1, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> What do you all think of the idea that any critical work involving making changes to our Bible should be an ecclesiastical undertaking? (i.e., via a called church council). It's such a huge thing to take away portions of the Scripture. I've felt that Westminster was such a council, for instance. They did know that there were other, rejected manuscripts out there.



I certainly agree with that. I also have critiques of the Critical Text.

However, I would note that the Critical Text isn't exactly like a text that translators then translate straight into another language. It's more of an apparatus that sets forth each variant and the manuscript support for each variant. So one could say that the subjective weight one gives to a manuscript might influence how much relative weight is put on it, but the "CT" does have all the variants and the translators are then welcome to use their judgment as well.

I mention that because if you believe that portions of Scripture have been taken away, then I think part of that (or all) is on the translators themselves who apparently found certain weights of evidence convincing. 

As to Westminster, in all my reading I've found that they had the attitude that some of the variants that were out there actually _should_ be in their Bibles. However, they also had the attitude that it had been in use for a while and was worthy to use. Both views can be held simultaneously. But I wouldn't assume that just because they used the KJV that they didn't have critiques of it or its manuscripts: they did, and noted it frequently while still defending its overall trustworthiness.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Nov 1, 2021)

Logan said:


> he KJV that they didn't have critiques of it or its manuscripts: they did, and noted it frequently while still defending its overall trustworthiness.


It’s been a while since I’ve looked into all this, but wouldn’t any of their critiques have concerned translation choices within the same set of manuscripts that make up the received text? I don’t remember that they believed any of the already rejected manuscripts outside that collection to be worthy of reconsideration. 

That’s just my memory from some reading and discussion a good while back.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Nov 1, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> It’s been a while since I’ve looked into all this, but wouldn’t any of their critiques have concerned translation choices within the same set of manuscripts that make up the received text? I don’t remember that they believed any of the already rejected manuscripts outside that collection to be worthy of reconsideration.
> 
> That’s just my memory from some reading and discussion a good while back.



What do you mean by "rejected manuscripts"? I'm not aware of there being any such thing as a "rejected manuscript" in the 16th Century.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Nov 2, 2021)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> What do you mean by "rejected manuscripts"? I'm not aware of there being any such thing as a "rejected manuscript" in the 16th Century.


I probably shouldn’t be trying to converse about it since it has been a long time since I’ve read up on the issues. My thinking is that some manuscripts accepted today for critical text work were known but rejected by the Westminster divines. May well have that wrong.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Nov 2, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I probably shouldn’t be trying to converse about it since it has been a long time since I’ve read up on the issues. My thinking is that some manuscripts accepted today for critical text work were known but rejected by the Westminster divines. May well have that wrong.



I've heard that argument made before, but to my knowledge it's an argument from omission rather than any positive evidence.

This is an age where travel took days and there were no photocopies. If you wanted to do any kind of comparison of manuscripts, you had to physically consult the manuscript. How many were in England? Many were in universities or private collections, how do you find out who has what? It's hard to imagine even the ability to be aware of a tiny fraction of what might have been "available". And if you did hear about a copy in some university in Germany, maybe you could travel there, or send a letter which may or may not reach its destination. You're obviously not going to do that for every passage (or even every manuscript) so for all practical purposes you're limited to what you have close at hand: private collections in London among your friends, a university, but most particularly: printed editions. So rather than assume they didn't use them because they rejected them, I think it's quite reasonable to assume that they didn't use them because they simply weren't available, for all practical purposes.

With that in mind, it's pretty sensible that the KJV translators consulted primarily the printed Greek copies from Beza, and the printed Greek copies from Stephanus. With multiple translators, it's a matter of practicality, if not theology, to have a printed copy, and those were the printed copies available. However, Scrivener, when producing the Greek text underlying the KJV (a new Textus Receptus if you will) found perhaps 200 readings that did not correspond to these printed texts but he could perhaps match them to some other Greek text somewhere, showing that they did consult more than just the printed texts. 

Stephanus himself, for his printed edition, consulted just 15 manuscripts, not 15 full copies of the NT, but 15 manuscripts (a few copies of the gospels, a few mostly complete NT, a few copies of the epistles). I am not aware that he specifically rejected any: he made use of all he could get his hands on. There may have been specific readings he rejected, but I can only imagine that was done simply by comparing the copies he had at hand: he couldn't compare to copies he didn't have. 

I realize this is mostly about KJV translators, but it's much the same situation for the Westminster Divines.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 3, 2021)

Well, Erasmus had a friend in the Vatican Library, Paulus Bombasius, who corresponded with him concerning readings in the Vaticanus manuscript, which Erasmus rejected as departing from the mss commonly used. This knowledge would have been familiar to the divines of the Westminster Assembly as well.

What is often missing in these discussions is the overriding providence of God in bringing certain mss to the attention of all the editors of what came to be comprised as the TR, and was eventually published as the AV.

Look at where we are today – there is confusion and doubt concerning the true text of the Bible, and the consequent lack of faith that God has preserved His word for His people, despite His promises to do so. We quibble about the meaning of "kept pure in all ages", and even the Reformation churches cannot agree on the Bible text.

This is the primary attack on the church, and the authority of its standing strong in the word of God. Perhaps the scholars among us here can function with this difficulty, but multitudes in the Faith have had their faith greatly troubled. And the moreso, when they become aware that the standard critical texts underlying the modern Bibles are produced by Rome's supervision of the United Bible Society's two editions, the *N*estle Aland and the *U*nited Bible Society, abbreviated in the NKJV margins as the NU text.

After the great fire in London destroyed the AV translators' notes recording their discussions, all we have left is the product itself, and the Greek version of the AV "back-translated" by Scrivener in 1894, which is often considered the authoritative version or edition of the Greek TR. Where does my faith in my Bible lie? In the providence of God preserving His word for His people. The egregious errors or omissions of the CT – not to mention the scandalous history of the exemplar critical text of 1881 – disqualifies it as that preserved word.

This is the faith that I have as regards my Bible. That said, I nonetheless value the modern versions built upon the CT as truly adequate Bibles – preserved in the main, if not in some minutiae – and easily used by the Lord to save and to nurture those individuals and churches He has set His electing love upon. I consult those modern versions almost every day to glean nuances and shades of meaning as they variously translate certain passages, to my great benefit. But my authoritative Bible is the KJV.

Reactions: Like 4 | Love 3 | Edifying 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Nov 3, 2021)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> What is often missing in these discussions is the overriding providence of God in bringing certain mss to the attention of all the editors of what came to be comprised as the TR, and was eventually published as the AV.


Thank you Steve!

I remember when I first began to really become acquainted with God’s word- I read voraciously and with delight. Also, using the ESV as my primary Bible, I was becoming somewhat of a critical expert due to those footnotes, you know. I have a sad memory of a conversation with a friend when she mentioned, as a passage dear to her, the woman caught in adultery, and I quickly corrected her that this passage was not in the “best manuscripts!” I remember her confusion and honestly, her hurt.

Reactions: Edifying 2


----------



## Logan (Nov 3, 2021)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> What is often missing in these discussions is the overriding providence of God in bringing certain mss to the attention of all the editors of what came to be comprised as the TR, and was eventually published as the AV.



I don't know that this is missing, I just think that providence has to be viewed as broader than that.

Why assume providence was imperfect before that time and it culminated in the KJV? Why did the Germans end up using Erasmus' earlier editions which did not contain 1 John 5:7? Do the Germans have any less right to assume that their Bibles providentially left that verse out as we have to assume it was providentially inserted in later editions? To view one branch of TR and the KJV as being _the_ providential preserved is too narrow a view of providence, in my mind and not something you find in the Reformers or Puritans. It is remarkably anglo-centric and I believe God's providence encompasses more than that.

I'd also be curious to see a source on the Erasmus and Bombasius correspondence. Was it an active rejection, or is that another argument from omission?

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 3, 2021)

Hi Logan,

You can take your pick of these sources re *Paulus Bombasius and his correspondence with Erasmus *from various places, it being common knowledge.

You are surely entitled to your view of God's providential preservation of His word, especially as you have considered this matter for some time. But it comes down to this: there are essentially two lines of textual transmission of that text, the Critical Text and the TR. Yes, the TR has some fine points at variance in the general TR mss, if we may refer to them in that manner.

There are so many battles pertaining to the 1 John 5:7 passage; here's a now rare book on that topic from my Google Drive: Michael Maynard's, _A History Of The Debate Over 1 John 5.7-8_ free for the taking; Mr. Maynard died young (fairly recently) – and it's a shame he's not around to speak to this matter. But he did leave his witness.

The translators of the Reformation's AV (and the Geneva 1599) considered it genuine, as did the Westminster divines to use it in their Scripture proofs. The Johannine Comma was cited a proof text for the Trinity in the following confessions and catechisms:  

* *Westminster Confession of Faith 1646* 2.3 
* *Westminster Larger Catechism* Q&A 6
* *Westminster Shorter Catechism* Q&A 6
* *The London Baptist Confession of 1689* 2:3 
* *The Belgic Confession of 1561*, Article 9 quotes the passage: “There are three who bear witness in heaven– the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit– and these three are one.” 
* *The Heidelberg Catechism of 1563*, Lord’s Day 8, Q&A 25, footnote 5

I'll side with these witnesses over the modern ones who differ.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## greenbaggins (Nov 3, 2021)

Steve, I am curious as to why you feel the need to set the TR over against the CT as if they were somehow opposed to each other. They agree with each other in FAR more places than they differ, and it is not even close. This sort of gets at one of my biggest objections to the TR position: it sets one group of manuscripts over in opposition to another set of manuscripts. This has the effect of implying that the "CT manuscripts" shouldn't even be used at all for textual criticism, as if utilizing Sinaiticus and Vaticanus for any reason in textual criticism is somehow a betrayal of God's Word. Speaking as someone who values ALL the manuscript evidence and doesn't believe ANY of it should be thrown out or ignored, I value the Byzantine texts far more highly than most CT guys do. The TR position almost universally exaggerates the differences between the TR and the CT. This is not helpful.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## Logan (Nov 3, 2021)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> You can take your pick of these sources re *Paulus Bombasius and his correspondence with Erasmus *from various places, it being common knowledge.



Thanks Steve, but I want to know if there is a _specific_ proof of an _intentional_ rejection. This "common knowledge" all seems to stem from major assumptions over silence.

For example, the search you linked to gives me the textus-receptus.com page which states:
"[Bombasius] offered to make the entire document available to Erasmus for use in his latest edition of the TR. However, Erasmus rejected the readings of the Vatican manuscript because he considered from the massive evidence of his day that the Textus Receptus data was correct."

Okay, what's his source to say that Erasmus rejected the readings? Thankfully, this page links to Jones' paper, which cites from Vincent and Scrivener. Vincent's _A History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament_, which can be found online but it merely states, p 53:
"Erasmus also refers in his notes to other manuscripts seen by him in his travels, but the allusions are indistinct, and some of the readings are not to be found. That he had heard of B, appears from Sepulveda's correspondence with him in 1533. Sepulveda speaks of a "most ancient Greek exemplar in the Vatican Library, containing both Testaments, most carefully and accurately written in uncial characters, and differing greatly from ordinary copies."

Well that doesn't prove whatever Jones was trying to prove about Erasmus rejecting the readings, all we can gather is that Erasmus was told about some copy of Greek in the Vatican Library. So what about Jones' other source, Scrivener? We find in Scrivener _A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament_, p 109
"Tischendorf says truly enough that something like a history might be written of the futile attempts to collate Cod. B, and a very unprofitable history it would be. The manuscript is first distinctly heard of (for it does not appear to have been used for the Complutensian Polyglott) through Sepulveda, to whose correspondence with Erasmus attention has been seasonably recalled by Tregelles...and after noticing as a weighty proof of excellence its agreement with the Latin version...against the common Greek text...he furnishes Erasmus with 365 readings as a convincing argument in support of his statements. It would probably be from this list that in his Annotations to the Acts, published in 1535, Erasmus cites the reading kanda, ch. xxvii. 16 ('quidam admonent' is the expression he uses), from a Greek codex in the Pontifical Library, since for this reading Cod. B is the only known _Greek_ witness, except a corrector of Cod. Aleph. It seems, however, that he had obtained some account of this manuscript from the Papal Librarian Paul Bombasius as early as 1521...Lucas Brugensis, who published his Notationes in S. Biblia in 1580, and his Commentary on the Four Gospels (dedicated to CArdinal Bellarmine) in 1606, made known some twenty extracts from Cod. B taken by Werner of Nimeguen; that most imperfect collection being the only source from which Mill and even Wetstein had any acquaintaince with the contents of this first-rate document. More indeed might have been gleaned from the Barberini readings gathered in or about 1625 (of which we shall speak in the next section) but their real value and character were not known in the lifetime of Wetstein...In 1669 indeed the first real collation of the manuscript with the Aldine edition (1518) had been attempted by Bartolocia, then Librarian of the Vatican; from some accident, however, it was never published, though a transcript...was first discovered and used by Scholz in 1819, and subsequently by Tichendorf and Muralt."

This is so far from proving Jones' statement, it actually undermines it: Erasmus apparently _did_ use at least one reading in his Annotations to the Acts which is known only to Cod. B. This doesn't at all prove he rejected it, but actually considered it as having some use. And Scrivener's account also undermines the claim that the Westminster Divines or KJV translators would have known (and rejected) its readings, because knowledge of the document is so obscure and unknown...

I find these arguments usually become "common knowledge" because someone somewhere along the line noticed a lack of certain readings, and then leapt to the assumption that it was because of a positive rejection, rather than a passive "didn't include" (for whatever reason unknown). The only proof of this claim that I would find convincing would be Erasmus saying "I will not include these readings because..." or the Westminster Divines or KJV Translators specifically making mention of it. An argument from silence is not proof at all. It's an assumption, and a biased one.

Maybe Erasmus knew and rejected it. But unless he said so, we can't know. And evidence might actually lean the other way. Certainly the evidence seems to be that almost nobody else would have even known about it to even have the opportunity to reject it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Nov 3, 2021)

Let me see if I can put it more succinctly:

The argument I see on this goes like this:
"Sepulveda and/or Bombasius told Erasmus (in Basel, Switzerland) that there was an ancient Greek manuscript in the Vatican Library (Rome, Italy) some 600 miles away Even sent some readings showing how it agreed with the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus didn't use this manuscript in his compilation, therefore he must have rejected it as spurious and corrupt."

Or maybe traveling 600 miles wasn't feasible. Or maybe Erasmus was being a good scholar and not trusting someone else's word in a letter as to what the readings said, but only would believe the manuscripts sitting in front of him. I just don't find the above argument proof. It's speculation unless Erasmus says something about it.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 3, 2021)

Hi Lane,

In response to your saying in post #32, "I am curious as to why you feel the need to set the TR over against the CT as if they were somehow opposed to each other", I think you overlook the nuance of my view, as I said (and please note the words in bold, which I've added here), "*I nonetheless value the modern versions built upon the CT as truly adequate Bibles – preserved in the main, if not in some minutiae – and easily used by the Lord to save and to nurture those individuals and churches He has set His electing love upon.* I consult those modern versions almost every day to glean nuances and shades of meaning as they variously translate certain passages, to my great benefit."

For there are two aspects to my view of the CT vis-à-vis the TR (and the Byz): on the one hand there are significant variant readings in the CT which depart from the older traditional text, which enemies of the Bible such as Bart Ehrman see as the soft underbelly of the "better, newer" Bibles to be attacked with lethal effectiveness. These enemies say that if God did not care to preserve His word in the minutiae, why should we even think He inspired them in the first place? (Ehrman has a different way to attack the older Bibles.)

Plus there *is* a scandalous history involved in the 1881 revision of both the Greek and English versions.

But even so, I state that – *in the main* – the preservation is truly adequate for God's use. Please, don't only focus on the issue of minutiae over that of in the main. I may well highlight one over the other when talking of the different aspects, but I try to balance them together – as I do when teaching on textual criticism, so as not to cause a rift between the users of different Bibles. The unity of the church is of great importance to me. And talking of "bad variants" is much easier to discuss than "bad Bibles" – which latter divides the church. I do try to be balanced in this.

But we must – at the same time – have academic freedom to discuss the weighty issues involved in all their aspects.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 3, 2021)

Logan, you make some good points. I will consider what you have said, and get back to you.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Nov 4, 2021)

greenbaggins said:


> As to the argument of purity, it is a question of degree. There are variants among ALL the TR/MT manuscripts, as many as Christian alleges are between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. I have a larger definition of "pure" than the TR/MT guys have. There are degrees of purity, yes, but the Scripture has been kept pure in all ages, in some ages very pure, and in some ages, a bit less pure, but still with integrity.


I grew up in a KJV only home and I really struggled over the issue of textual variances. I struggled to reconcile this with the inerrancy and verbal plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. 

In particular I struggled with the idea of variances in the text and the teaching of 2 Tim 3:15 "*All Scripture* is *breathed out* by *God*" (ESV). After all if all scripture is breathed out by God Himself, it would seem we have a perfect text as God Himself is perfect. I have often reflected on Calvin's powerful words in his Institutes 1:9 on the relationship between the word and Spirit. Calvin says: “By a kind of mutual bond the Lord has joined together the certainty of His word and of His Spirit so that the perfect religion of the word may abide in our minds when the Spirit, who causes us to contemplate God’s face, shines; and that we in turn may embrace the Spirit with no fear of being deceived *when we recognise Him in His own image, namely, in the word*.” (Institutes 1:9:3) In other words if there is an inextricable link between word and Spirit should we not expect the text of scripture to be pure as the Spirit Himself is pure? 

The modern day Received Text Confessional text position seeks to grapple with this problem. I did note, for example, when James White debated Jeffrey Riddle on Eph 3:9, White said Riddle opened the door to skepticism because Riddle ignored the multitude of Byzantine manuscripts to defend a KJV reading which has very little mss support. I am sure White is correct. But surely Riddle can say White also has a problem because the critical text scholar has a text that is changing as we find new mss and/or change our text method (such as adopting the coherence-based genealogical method). Riddle would say there is a disconnect between a changing text and the inerrancy and verbal plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. Again, the scriptures are breathed out by God, who is pure. 

I am aware of the various attempts to solve this problem. I am unsure if the problem is fully solved. The closest I have come is to see this as a difficult providence in the sense of Deut 29:29 "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever". 


greenbaggins said:


> Thomas, I seriously doubt that we are going to discover some new cache of manuscripts that is going to upend our entire apparatus of textual criticism.


I am sure you are correct, but it is a faith position.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## BlockheadedSinner (Nov 4, 2021)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I grew up in a KJV only home and I really struggled over the issue of textual variances. I struggled to reconcile this with the inerrancy and verbal plenary inspiration of the Scriptures.
> 
> In particular I struggled with the idea of variances in the text and the teaching of 2 Tim 3:15 "*All Scripture* is *breathed out* by *God*" (ESV). After all if all scripture is breathed out by God Himself, it would seem we have a perfect text as God Himself is perfect. I have often reflected on Calvin's powerful words in his Institutes 1:9 on the relationship between the word and Spirit. Calvin says: “By a kind of mutual bond the Lord has joined together the certainty of His word and of His Spirit so that the perfect religion of the word may abide in our minds when the Spirit, who causes us to contemplate God’s face, shines; and that we in turn may embrace the Spirit with no fear of being deceived *when we recognise Him in His own image, namely, in the word*.” (Institutes 1:9:3) In other words if there is an inextricable link between word and Spirit should we not expect the text of scripture to be pure as the Spirit Himself is pure?
> 
> ...



Once we reject the TR/KJV position, I think we avoid a crisis of faith by re-evaluating our understanding of how our holy, holy, holy God has chosen to interact with His fallen creation. The TR position is incongruent with everything else we know about the mode of God's special revelation. Unlike the false god of Mormonism, the real God did not dictate the text or give it to us on levitating gold plates. He could have, right? But He didn't. We all know this -- but if the failure of the TR position causes us issues with our doctrine of God, I think it means we haven't fully thought through the issues of inspiration and providential preservation of Scripture. 

One practical consideration that I sometimes entertain in my own reflections upon this issue is that I try to imagine what it would be like to have the singular autograph of the Scriptures extant to us today. Imagine the abuse that this might cause in the hands of fallen humans -- attempts to destroy or pervert the text, claims of alteration, actual alterations and attempts to use those alterations to pervert the church. Yes, God could supernaturally protect that autograph, but this type of constant supernatural activity is clearly incongruent with how we understand the primacy and focus of God's revelation in His Word in these post-apostolic times. So, instead, we have an amazing and overwhelming collection of manuscripts, despite the fires, wars and strife over the centuries. When we compare the manuscript evidence of the Scriptures to any other ancient book, the sheer volume is remarkable and is, I believe, a clear marker of divine preservation. The decentralization of the manuscripts is a masterpiece of preservation through the ages, in the face of a Gospel that man naturally resists and obscures. Not even the Roman Catholic Church was ultimately powerful enough to obscure the plain meaning of the text.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Nov 5, 2021)

BlockheadedSinner said:


> Once we reject the TR/KJV position, I think we avoid a crisis of faith by re-evaluating our understanding of how our holy, holy, holy God has chosen to interact with His fallen creation. The TR position is incongruent with everything else we know about the mode of God's special revelation. Unlike the false god of Mormonism, the real God did not dictate the text or give it to us on levitating gold plates. He could have, right? But He didn't. We all know this -- but if the failure of the TR position causes us issues with our doctrine of God, I think it means we haven't fully thought through the issues of inspiration and providential preservation of Scripture.


This is a fairly gross misrepresentation of what the "TR position" actually holds.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## BlockheadedSinner (Nov 5, 2021)

Taylor said:


> This is a fairly gross misrepresentation of what the "TR position" actually holds.


I didn't expect this to be received well by TR advocates.

Reactions: Wow 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Nov 5, 2021)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I grew up in a KJV only home and I really struggled over the issue of textual variances. I struggled to reconcile this with the inerrancy and verbal plenary inspiration of the Scriptures.
> 
> In particular I struggled with the idea of variances in the text and the teaching of 2 Tim 3:15 "*All Scripture* is *breathed out* by *God*" (ESV). After all if all scripture is breathed out by God Himself, it would seem we have a perfect text as God Himself is perfect. I have often reflected on Calvin's powerful words in his Institutes 1:9 on the relationship between the word and Spirit. Calvin says: “By a kind of mutual bond the Lord has joined together the certainty of His word and of His Spirit so that the perfect religion of the word may abide in our minds when the Spirit, who causes us to contemplate God’s face, shines; and that we in turn may embrace the Spirit with no fear of being deceived *when we recognise Him in His own image, namely, in the word*.” (Institutes 1:9:3) In other words if there is an inextricable link between word and Spirit should we not expect the text of scripture to be pure as the Spirit Himself is pure?
> 
> ...


Every position on textual criticism has difficulties. I have pointed out a few with the TR position. The one you mention is a difficulty with the CT position. Although, I would qualify this by asserting that a "changing" text is not a problem only for the CT position. The text "changed" during the process of producing the TR as well. The text "changed" every time a new manuscript was copied that was not absolutely the same as the _Vorlage_. Within the changes and all the manuscripts, however, _the original reading remains secure and unchanging_. It is there. And it is the original reading that connects to inerrancy and verbal plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. So the thread goes like this. 1. The original autographs are breathed out by God into the prophets and apostles and written down by concursus (God's power working through the personalities of the writers, in such a way that there is a dual authorship of such a kind that God's very words are recorded). 2. The original autographs are copied imperfectly, but in such quantities that the original reading is always still there in the copies. The original reading is in various places depending on the variation discussed. 3. We can discern what that is to a very high degree of completion. 4. Although our discernment may change, and the face of the evidence might slightly alter, that does not change the original reading at all.


----------



## Taylor (Nov 5, 2021)

BlockheadedSinner said:


> I didn't expect this to be received well by TR advocates.


Indeed, being compared to Mormons, even if only by implication, would bother any Christian, not just “TR advocates.” I don’t think your comment furthers this discussion.

For myself, I am still frankly undecided on the issue. I find myself stuck somewhere in the middle. I am very pleased and find myself in essentially total agreement with the comments made thus far by @Logan and @greenbaggins. I understand and sympathize with both positions on different points.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Nov 5, 2021)

Taylor said:


> For myself, I am still frankly undecided on the issue. I find myself stuck somewhere in the middle.



Being in the middle isn't necessarily bad 
Textual history, textual transmission, and textual criticism are prone with human error and subjectivity. Thankfully---in God's providence---to an extremely small degree. I'd love for it to be different, but honesty recognizes it's not clear cut...at least when you look at historical evidence.

I see a providential purpose in the preservation of all manuscripts, but what the purpose is might not be so easy to discern in all cases. To claim to be certain seems to me to be more presumption than faith or knowledge but I recognize and sympathize with the desire.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 5, 2021)

Taylor said:


> For myself, I am still frankly undecided on the issue. I find myself stuck somewhere in the middle.



You and I must be what Tim Keller once called the mushy middle.


----------



## Logan (Nov 5, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> You and I must be what Tim Keller once called the mushy middle.


I had someone describe me as "alt-middle". I can see that


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Nov 5, 2021)

I can understand scholars in the church continuing to look at manuscripts, and even forming opinions and having private debate as individuals. What doesn't seem good to me is the individualistic publishing of alternate versions of the Bible than what we received from the Reformation, which leave out portions of Scripture from that Bible, casting doubt not only on those passages but potentially many more. Ought it not to have waited for a called and proper church council, in a prayed-for time of outpouring of prayer and reformation, with concern for the unity of the church and the mind of God on the matter?

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## Taylor (Nov 5, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I can understand scholars in the church continuing to look at manuscripts, and even forming opinions and having private debate as individuals. What doesn't seem good to me is the individualistic publishing of alternate versions of the Bible than what we received from the Reformation, which leave out portions of Scripture from that Bible, casting doubt not only on those passages but potentially many more. Ought it not to have waited for a called and proper church council, in a prayed-for time of outpouring of prayer and reformation, with concern for the unity of the church and the mind of God on the matter?


I think this is a very valid concern. I have said to many people that I wish Reformed church bodies (OPC, RPCNA, ARP, etc.) would group together to produce such a work. At the same time, it also seems unfair to assume that the work of current translations was done individualistically and prayerlessly. The vast majority of modern translations were in fact _not_ done individualistically, but in quite large groups (some of which are more than 100 scholars). And these committees all seem to be comprised of prayerful, godly, and pious people, as far as we know.

But this brings up an important question I have. How was the assembly of men who translated the AV any different than, say, the assembly of men who translated the ESV? As far as I know, the AV was not the result of a called Church council, but was rather a group of churchmen called by a king. This is a sincere (i.e., not a polemical) question, because I have seen the claim numerous times that the AV was "the work of the Church."

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Logan (Nov 5, 2021)

I think it should be borne in mind too that the translation committees for the various translations today don't just slavishly follow the CT. In fact, what we call the CT isn't so much a text as an apparatus that tries to show the weight for any given reading. So the translation committees can (and do) evaluate individual readings. There can certainly be a bias toward and against certain weighting of evidence but I think it's theoretically possible to use that CT apparatus and translate it into the KJV.

This indicates to me that the vast majority of translators do think the weight of evidence goes against the TR in many instances. That doesn't necessarily mean they are right and one could argue that it's merely because of their education, but these are intelligent, gifted individuals who are also evaluating the evidence presented to them. So the responsibility is certainly shared by translation committees. 

Again, I sympathize with arguments on both side. Actually I find Maurice Robinson's approach with the Byzantine Priority most persuasive (and his critiques of both the TR and CT) but Taylor and I might be the only two people in the world who feel that way

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Nov 5, 2021)

Taylor said:


> I think this is a very valid concern. I have said to many people that I wish Reformed church bodies (OPC, RPCNA, ARP, etc.) would group together to produce such a work. At the same time, it also seems unfair to assume that the work of current translations was done individualistically and prayerlessly. The vast majority of modern translations were in fact _not_ done individualistically, but in quite large groups (some of which are more than 100 scholars). And these committees all seem to be comprised of prayerful, godly, and pious people, as far as we know.
> 
> But this brings up an important question I have. How was the assembly of men who translated the AV any different than, say, the assembly of men who translated the ESV? As far as I know, the AV was not the result of a called Church council, but was rather a group of churchmen called by a king. This is a sincere (i.e., not a polemical) question, because I have seen the claim numerous times that the AV was "the work of the Church."


My thinking is that even though the work of modern translations was undertaken by large groups, and I'm sure prayerfully, it's still individualistic compared to an ecclesiastical undertaking? Individualistic may not be the right word. Private may be better?

My understanding is that the king did call together a church council in calling together the AV assembly. Isn't it very similar to Parliament calling together the Westminster council?


----------



## Taylor (Nov 5, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> My understanding is that the king did call together a church council in calling together the AV assembly. Isn't it very similar to Parliament calling together the Westminster council?


Thanks for clarifying. So, suppose President Bush (who was president during the ESV committee's initial work) called the ESV committee together, instead of Crossway. All other things being equal, would that have legitimized the ESV as the "new" AV? Again, this isn't polemics. I am really trying to understand the difference.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Nov 5, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Thanks for clarifying. So, suppose President Bush (who was president during the ESV committee's initial work) called the ESV committee together, instead of Crossway. All other things being equal, would that have legitimized the ESV as the "new" AV? Again, this isn't polemics. I am really trying to understand the difference.


The analogy would have been President Bush calling together a committee to produce the most faithful English Bible from the most reliable manuscripts, I suppose. I don't know if that would have been the ESV committee, or from a wider pool. But what if churchmen steeped in our confession and church history and walking in the path of the Puritans knew that these aren't the times, nor is the church in the right state to be undertaking such a work...
Thankful that didn't happen.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Nov 5, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> The analogy would have been President Bush calling together a committee to produce the most faithful English Bible from the most reliable manuscripts, I suppose. I don't know if that would have been the ESV committee, or from a wider pool. But what if churchmen steeped in our confession and church history and walking in the path of the Puritans knew that these aren't the times, nor is the church in the right state to be undertaking such a work...
> Thankful that didn't happen.


I think I can understand, but it still doesn't help me in determining how the two were _actually_ different.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Nov 5, 2021)

Taylor said:


> I think I can understand, but it still doesn't help me in determining how the two were _actually_ different.


I guess they're not different in the sense you mean, that a magistrate can call together a group of Christian leaders... But consider that you could ask the same question about the council of Nicaea (what if the council had been called by a different emperor, etc). God in his providence had it called when it was. God governs the calling together of faithful church councils, and the faithful church discerns that it's him calling and sees the need and is prepared by him providentially to be ready for this time and season of settling important issues.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Nov 5, 2021)

I struggle to articulate. but it has to do with extraordianary times in which God is doing something very outward and public in the visible church in the way of reformation. Momentous times and occasions, pivotal times. That are huge for the outward, visible and invisible unity of the church. Such as a common confession of faith and the settling on a common bible (and psalter).


----------



## Logan (Nov 5, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> My understanding is that the king did call together a church council in calling together the AV assembly. Isn't it very similar to Parliament calling together the Westminster council?



While the committees did fine work, I'm not sure they were exactly a church council. They were all scholars and all were members of the Church of England (probably most everyone was at that time).

So if you mean "Established Church" then maybe. But it certainly didn't include the Puritans or those outside the Church of England. Actually, steps were taken to limit Puritan influence. The Puritans favored the Geneva Bible, which King James found offensive. This was his "Authorized Version" as opposed to the unauthorized Geneva Bible. The printing of the Geneva Bible was actually banned by King James after his edition was published. To get around this, some printers kept printing illegal copies, but with the date 1599 to make it seem like they were earlier editions.

I can admire the KJV, but I don't particularly find its history or the circumstances surrounding it all that rosy as though it was a glorious age of universal church council cooperation and godly men. I actually believe it was admirable in spite of its circumstances, not because of them.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Taylor (Nov 5, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> ...consider that you could ask the same question about the council of Nicaea (what if the council had been called by a different emperor, etc). God in his providence had it called when it was. God governs the calling together of faithful church councils, and the faithful church discerns that it's him calling and sees the need and is prepared by him providentially to be ready for this time and season of settling important issues.





Jeri Tanner said:


> I struggle to articulate. but it has to do with extraordianary times in which God is doing something very outward and public in the visible church in the way of reformation. Momentous times and occasions, pivotal times. That are huge for the outward, visible and invisible unity of the church. Such as a common confession of faith and the settling on a common bible (and psalter).


I can appreciate all this. I really can. But, again, I don't see the difference yet, unfortunately (aside from _who_ called the assembly). God's providence was just as much over the Council of Nicaea and the AV as he was over the organization of the ESV committee by Wayne Grudem and Lane Dennis. Sure, the former were perhaps more extraordinary (Nicaea especially so), but we don't judge truth from outward glory. There have been many crucial and wondrous works of God that have happened without the notice of any other human eye, things about which we will all surely learn one day in glory. Such does not make them insignificant.

Again, I say all this as one who is deeply sympathetic to your position. This has just been a matter of struggle for me, and I want closure, so I am somewhat sensitive to arguments that don't seem too strong to me.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Nov 5, 2021)

Taylor said:


> God's providence was just as much over the Council of Nicaea and the AV as he was over the organization of the ESV committee by Wayne Grudem and Lane Dennis.


Yes, his providence is over everything. But the outcome of the Council of Nicaea was discerned and recognized by the true church as authoritative to the church, whereas the work of the ESV committee isn't. Why?


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Nov 5, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> ... a committee to produce the most faithful English Bible from the most reliable manuscripts, I suppose.



To be completely fair, this doesn't exactly describe the situation with the AV/KJV either. King James gave the translators some instructions on exactly _how_ they were supposed to translate certain things.


----------



## Taylor (Nov 5, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> ...the outcome of the Council of Nicaea was discerned and recognized by the true church as authoritative to the church, whereas the work of the ESV committee isn't.


Of course it wasn't. Was the AV recognized in the same way as the Nicene Creed? I feel the comparison of the AV committees to Nicaea is unhelpful.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Nov 5, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> ... the outcome of the Council of Nicaea was discerned and recognized by the true church as authoritative to the church ...



That's not exactly fully true either, as there are several canons of the Council of Nicaea that Protestants do not follow.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Nov 5, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Of course it wasn't. Was the AV recognized in the same way as the Nicene Creed? I feel the comparison of the AV committees to Nicaea is unhelpful.


I understand that, and not to say that the council called together to produce the AV is exactly analagous to Nicaea. But this council did produce the Bible that became the common Bible of the English-speaking church. It was the Bible of the men at Westminster and was accepted by them as such. Until such a church council convenes again, I believe we shouldn't alter its content.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Nov 5, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I understand that, and not to say that the council called together to produce the AV is exactly analagous to Nicaea. But this council did produce the Bible that became the common Bible of the English-speaking church. It was the Bible of the men at Westminster and was accepted by them as such. Until such a church council convenes again, I believe we shouldn't alter its content.


This is fair, although I think you’re confusing providence with the explicit decision of a church council. That the AV commission was a church council, I think, has yet to be proved. There is no church council of which I am aware that made a declaration regarding the AV. Westminster used the AV, sure, but that is hardly an official pronouncement. And what else would they have used?


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Nov 5, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> You and I must be what Tim Keller once called the mushy middle.


I’m getting more of a mushy middle. My wife’s cooking is too good.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Nov 5, 2021)

Taylor said:


> This is fair, although I think you’re confusing providence with the explicit decision of a church council.


I see, yeah. I guess it's more the outcome of that translation, its acceptance by the men of Westminster and implicit approval of it by affirming that God has kept his word pure? (Not that I think the AV is a perfect translation.)


Taylor said:


> Westminster used the AV, sure, but that is hardly an official pronouncement. And what else would they have used?


They believed that parts of it were the word of God (using verses and passages as proof-texts) that are now said to be probably not really the word of God. I guess for me, all this hinges on what I said in my first comment: I can understand scholars in the church continuing to look at manuscripts, and even forming opinions and having private debate as individuals. What doesn't seem good to me is the individualistic (or private) publishing of alternate versions of the Bible than what we received from the Reformation, which leave out portions of Scripture from that Bible, casting doubt not only on those passages but potentially many more. And it's a church unity issue.

I was in part informed and persuaded on the theological and churchly aspects of this by MW here on the board. I do appreciate all sides of the issue when they express things carefully and theologically (as I am very poor at doing! And sumpremely unqualified. So hushing up now.)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Nov 5, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I was in part informed and persuaded on the theological and churchly aspects of this by MW here on the board.


I can say the same for @Jerusalem Blade on my part, as well as @Logan and @greenbaggins. I am thankful for the brethren here.

(Also, there is certainly no need for you to "hush up." I respect you very much, sister, and I highly value our conversation. Iron sharpens iron, and I for one am certainly being sharpened.)

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 5, 2021)

I think it's a great thing that we can talk about this most crucially important aspect of our faith – the reliability of the word of God, our Bible – in the irenic and scholarly manner we are here. It being so important to each of us who _live by this word_, it at times devolves into unproductive contention, which then causes us to violate the command to abide in peace and love as Christ's family.

I can see brothers of mine – I think of Lane, and Logan, among others – who use their intelligence and studies to minimize the differences between our respective camps by means of really sharp syntheses of what "providential preservation" might entail apart from the more rigid – or should I say stricter – stand taken by the TR/AV folks (of which I am one). I think such syntheses commendable in that they do hold at bay the snarling dogs who seek to ravage and destroy our Bibles, or at least our faith in them, by positing legitimate defenses of the Bible.

But among ourselves it is different; some of us are content with said syntheses; others, while respecting these, want a more precise and minute view of our LORD's preservation of His word. We find warrant for this desire in His own desire that we are "precise and minute" in our fidelity to it, as He said through Jeremiah,

"Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD's house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD's house, *all the words that I command thee to speak* unto them; *diminish not a word*" (Jer 26:2).​
He spoke to this issue by Isaiah also in his prophesying,

"As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever" (Isa 59:21).​
There are many others I could marshal to support this point, but these suffice to warrant the idea – it might even be called a doctrine – of providential preservation in the minutiae. Not "in the main" – as a golden needle in a haystack – that our expertise may perhaps discover, and failing that, merely affirming that the golden needle is for certainty in there somewhere, and that satisfies our intellects and affirmations that His promises are true.

Some of us, however, say it is not enough. Our Saviour said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by *every word* that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matt 4:4), and Peter said, "his divine power *hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness*" (2 Pet 1:3), one of the precious promises he mentions in the next verse.

I do take the sayings of the Spirit of God at His word. And this causes me to look around the landscape of Scripture and its transmission up through the ages, to discern where these promises of providential preservation might have been fulfilled – in the minutiae. In manifest, tangible form, which in these later centuries would be in printed editions, in book form.

I won't go into the standard defense of the TR and the use of the Reformation, of Erasmus and his editions of the NT being the basis of the editions of Beza, Stephanus, the Elzevirs, the AV translators and all that, which I've done many times and most of you are probably familiar with that anyway. There is no other viable contender for preservation in the minutiae; the exemplar of the texts who aspire to that position – Vaticanus, and its cousin, Sinaiticus – are so riddled with errors and problems that it's not even in the running (despite its being the Champion of the day).

I may get some pushback on that, but that's the case.

Speaking of Erasmus, and Vaticanus – which I told Logan I'd get back to him on – I really appreciate the detailed investigations you undertake , and have been undertaking these *years* we've been discussing these things. You've taught me I need to go to the sources as best I can and not rely on mere assertions!

I'll continue to investigate that area, but this I'll say (I'm trying to get scholarly papers that have combed through the Latin writings and letters – pertaining to Erasmus and Bombasius / Bombace, but I don't have access yet); it appears that Erasmus actually stayed with Bombace when he visited Rome, but the author of the paper I'm seeking (no TR fan!) says there is no mention of Bombace taking Erasmus to the Vatican Library he was prefect over, so we cannot assume he did.

Which is kind of odd – two men, both fervent and diligent NT scholars – not delving into the house of books they both were enamored of (and B was trying to convince E of the superiority of the Vatican text). But okay, it _is_ an argument from silence. Still, it grates against common sense.

It remains, Erasmus did have a lot of information re Vaticanus, which, along with the Vulgate of Jerome, presented a different kind of text than the Greek minuscules – the great preponderance of which were Byzantine – and it was this latter strain of manuscripts, the Byz, that were reflected in Erasmus's editions, and which were the grist for the mills of Stephanus, Beza etc. Erasmus *chose* the Byz mss and *not* the Vatican's, as he thought the Greek reflected the original NT text.

We – the school I am of – say, this was God's providential care in bringing together the true readings of the NT vorlage (the original autographs) to His people in the Reformation, and through the missionary labors following that into all the world. The AV and the Geneva represent God fulfilling His promises to keep His word intact, the underlying Hebrew and Greek of the original languages translated into many tongues for many people.

There has always been hostility to bringing God's word to the nations – an authoritative, intact word. The papacy was one of the great enemies of the Protestant missionary endeavor, and what they called the Reformation's "paper Pope" – which they also hated. They upheld their "sacred tradition" instead, loath to give up their hold on the people.

Reactions: Like 6 | Love 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Nov 7, 2021)

greenbaggins said:


> however, _the original reading remains secure and unchanging_. It is there.


It is where? My comment was a little 'tongue in cheek' but it illustrates the problem that we cannot lay our hands on a pure text, hence the textual disagreement. 

I still like my Deut 29:29 thesis


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 10, 2021)

I have to make a minor correction in my post #66. Erasmus didn't live with Bombasius, prefect of the Vatican Library, when E visited Rome, but he lived with him earlier in the city of Bologna, Italy – in the house of Aldus the printer – along with a number of other young scholars. That's where they became close friends. It was later B sent E info on the contents of Codex B. (I just looked through Roland Bainton's, _Erasmus and Christendom_.)

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## hLuke (Nov 10, 2021)

A general comment. There are languages around the world needing a translation, and with tens or hundreds of millions of people yearning for bibles in their language, and in comparison the wealth of very fine and faithful English translations, I trust that we are grateful for the diligent labour of various English translation panels throughout history, and content with the produce of many bible translations with which God has graciously blessed us, seemingly more than we need.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## hLuke (Nov 10, 2021)

With that general comment said, I remain sensitive to the importance of textual criticism and my brothers and sisters' interest in holy manuscripts.


----------



## gcdugas (Nov 11, 2021)

De Jager said:


> What do you folks think of bibles like the ESV that list manuscript variants and such in the margins?


Notes in the margin essentially say: "Hath God said?"

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Nov 12, 2021)

gcdugas said:


> Notes in the margin essentially say: "Hath God said?"



Sometimes "Hath God said?" is a good question to ask, because sometimes "God _*hath not*_ said".

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Nov 12, 2021)

gcdugas said:


> Notes in the margin essentially say: "Hath God said?"


Does that include the KJV which was originally published with 104 textual variants listed in the margins?

Reactions: Like 4 | Love 1 | Funny 1


----------



## TooManySystematics (Nov 12, 2021)

I remained unconvinced that the "Confessional Text" position in any way accurately reflects an early-modern approach to textual criticism. Various of their authors that I've read speak as though the early Reformed authors held this wonderfully high view of the apographic text (note: note autographic), which continued until B.B. Warfield, who introduced doubt as to the apograph's reflection of the autographs. Since then it's been all downhill with Reformed people, generally, uncritically accepting liberal approaches to Scripture mediated to us by B. B. Warfield.

That simply isn't the case. Note Beza, who himself went against all Greek manuscript evidence in Luke 2:22 and Revelation 16:5 and made conjectural emendations there, emendations which are completely indefensible from all perspectives and positions. Note Calvin who went even farther than Beza in many other texts (see https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2021/08/calvins-conjectures.html?m=1 for examples). My personal thoughts are that there is absolutely no need for conjectural emendations, that any attempt to make one would be to, in a way, reject the preservation of Scripture. This sentiment is shared by many conservative textual critics. Does that mean that we who may hold to the Critical Text or the Majority Text have a higher view of the preservation of Scripture than Calvin or Beza?

However, if the _actions_ of 16-17th century divines aren't enough, what about what they actually said? James Ussher, Anglican prelate of Ireland said that in most cases we can determine the original reading, though sometimes we cannot, but that in no way attacks the substance of the faith (http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2018/12/james-ussher-why-unsolved-variants-dont.html). Richard Baxter goes further, says that "many little words are uncertain", and the reason is that "God promised not infallibility to every scribe or printer" (http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2019/02/richard-baxter-on-autographs-and.html). He boldly states: "Many hundred texts are uncertain, through various readings in several copies of the original." This does not sound at all like the "Confessional Text" position.

The same year that Westcott and Hort finished their Greek New Testament, R. L. Dabney and man who even wrote in defence of 1 John 5:7, said this:
"No one claims for the Textus Receptus, or common Greek text of the New Testament, any sacred right, as though it represented the ipsissima verba, written by the inspired men in every case... It is therefore not asserted to be above emendation." (Works, vol. I, p. 398). Dabney said that "nobody" held that the Textus Receptus was identical to the autographic text in his day. In other words, nobody held to the same conclusion that the Confessional Text puts forward. This should be borne in mind. The "Confessional Text" position does not appear to match the historic perspective at all.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 3


----------



## Irenaeus (Nov 14, 2021)

On the topic of "kept pure in all ages":

Before I come to the consideration of these words, a doubt must be resolved. For some men may say that this is epistle is corrupted because these words are wanting in sundry translations and editions of the Bible. And Jerome says that they were not found in the copies of the Bible in his days. _Answer_. In the editions and translations of the Bible, there are sundry differences and diversities of readings. And these differences are not the fault of the Scripture, but of the men which used to write out the Bible. For the Bible heretofore was spread abroad, not by printing, but by writing. Again, though in the books of the Bible there be sundry varieties of reading, yet the providence of God has so watched over the Bible that the sense thereof remains entire, sound, and incorrupt, specially in the grounds of religion. And not the words principally, but the sense is the Scripture. For whether these words be left in, or put out, the sense of the verse is one and the same.

(William Perkins, Commentary on Galatians, quoted at https://heidelblog.net/2021/11/did-providence-stop-working-after-1633/)

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Nov 14, 2021)

You know, it occurred to me fairly recently that a fair argument can be mounted apologetically against Islam in relation to the manuscripts found within the last two hundred years. Muslims claim that our NT is distorted, and yet the Koran quotes the NT as if people should go there to read what it says. One could argue that the great 4th and 5th century manuscripts were hidden so that Muslims would not destroy them, and so that we could prove that the text had not been distorted in the copies, but that the Bible we have now is substantially the same as what the early church had.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Charles Johnson (Nov 14, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I understand that, and not to say that the council called together to produce the AV is exactly analagous to Nicaea. But this council did produce the Bible that became the common Bible of the English-speaking church. It was the Bible of the men at Westminster and was accepted by them as such. Until such a church council convenes again, I believe we shouldn't alter its content.


Didn't the Geneva Bible continue to be printed for many years after 1611?


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Nov 14, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> What doesn't seem good to me is the individualistic (or private) publishing of alternate versions of the Bible than what we received from the Reformation, which leave out portions of Scripture from that Bible, casting doubt not only on those passages but potentially many more. And it's a church unity issue.


So we should only use the KJV and its predecessors? It’s that what you’re saying? Or we should only use translations done from manuscript traditions used by the Reformation? Help me understand.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 14, 2021)

Charles Johnson said:


> Didn't the Geneva Bible continue to be printed for many years after 1611?


There was an edition of 1640 but the Westminster assembly itself only oversaw editions of the AV. I do not know if that was by design or if there simply were no printing firms willing to do another edition after 1640. *Edit. Also a 1644; both these were Amsterdam. But by the time of Westminster the AV was viewed as the English edition and you don't see any discussion of doing any actual English printings of the Geneva in the assembly.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Nov 14, 2021)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> So we should only use the KJV and its predecessors? It’s that what you’re saying? Or we should only use translations done from manuscript traditions used by the Reformation? Help me understand.


Maybe reading back on my comments and interaction with @Taylor can help clarify- otherwise, I’ve bowed out of the conversation.


----------



## gcdugas (Nov 14, 2021)

Irenaeus said:


> On the topic of "kept pure in all ages":
> 
> Before I come to the consideration of these words, a doubt must be resolved. For some men may say that this is epistle is corrupted because these words are wanting in sundry translations and editions of the Bible. And Jerome says that they were not found in the copies of the Bible in his days. _Answer_. In the editions and translations of the Bible, there are sundry differences and diversities of readings. And these differences are not the fault of the Scripture, but of the men which used to write out the Bible. For the Bible heretofore was spread abroad, not by printing, but by writing. Again, though in the books of the Bible there be sundry varieties of reading, yet the providence of God has so watched over the Bible that the sense thereof remains entire, sound, and incorrupt, specially in the grounds of religion. And not the words principally, but the sense is the Scripture. For whether these words be left in, or put out, the sense of the verse is one and the same.
> 
> (William Perkins, Commentary on Galatians, quoted at https://heidelblog.net/2021/11/did-providence-stop-working-after-1633/)


It appears Perkins was the first advocate of "dynamic equivalence".


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Nov 15, 2021)

Irenaeus said:


> On the topic of "kept pure in all ages":
> 
> Before I come to the consideration of these words, a doubt must be resolved. For some men may say that this is epistle is corrupted because these words are wanting in sundry translations and editions of the Bible. And Jerome says that they were not found in the copies of the Bible in his days. _Answer_. In the editions and translations of the Bible, there are sundry differences and diversities of readings. And these differences are not the fault of the Scripture, but of the men which used to write out the Bible. For the Bible heretofore was spread abroad, not by printing, but by writing. Again, though in the books of the Bible there be sundry varieties of reading, yet the providence of God has so watched over the Bible that the sense thereof remains entire, sound, and incorrupt, specially in the grounds of religion. And not the words principally, but the sense is the Scripture. For whether these words be left in, or put out, the sense of the verse is one and the same.
> 
> (William Perkins, Commentary on Galatians, quoted at https://heidelblog.net/2021/11/did-providence-stop-working-after-1633/)


In fairness, there is quite a difference between this position, that providential preservation pertains to the sense of scripture and not individual words, and the position the OP is arguing against. The OP is pointing out the deficiency of a text missing 854 words, including two blocks of 12 verses each, and 16 other individual verses, plus differences in other verses which affect the sense of the verse or passage. You cannot argue from the section of Perkins you quoted that the sense of a bible missing Mark 16:9-20 is "entire, sound and incorrupt" - that's not what he is saying. Of course same goes for John 7:53 - 8:11, Acts 8:37, etc.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Irenaeus (Nov 15, 2021)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> In fairness, there is quite a difference between this position, that providential preservation pertains to the sense of scripture and not individual words, and the position the OP is arguing against. The OP is pointing out the deficiency of a text missing 854 words, including two blocks of 12 verses each, and 16 other individual verses, plus differences in other verses which affect the sense of the verse or passage. You cannot argue from the section of Perkins you quoted that the sense of a bible missing Mark 16:9-20 is "entire, sound and incorrupt" - that's not what he is saying. Of course same goes for John 7:53 - 8:11, Acts 8:37, etc.


I disagree. These variances are not the result of a Marcionite purge of Scripture but rather the result of divergence in evaluation of textual evidence. Plenty of absurd suggestions have been made about which parts of Scripture are authentic or not, like the arguments about Pauline authorship of the Pastorals or Ephesians which never cease to amaze me as shining examples of erudite stupidity. The idea that those passages of Mark or John are questionable is founded on their absence from some manuscripts.

Your answer _presumes_ a certain starting point to be correct by default, and other posts in this thread, written from the same starting point, are indeed arguing that the sense of Scripture is contained in the minutiae. It's an argument with some merit. But the shortcomings in the use and application of this line of reasoning are evident as well, and have been addressed better by others in this thread. I think the Perkins quote is completely relevant, as does R. Scott Clark who brings it up in a blog post on this very topic. I can't even claim originality for the suggestion!


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Nov 15, 2021)

Irenaeus said:


> I disagree. These variances are not the result of a Marcionite purge of Scripture but rather the result of divergence in evaluation of textual evidence. Plenty of absurd suggestions have been made about which parts of Scripture are authentic or not, like the arguments about Pauline authorship of the Pastorals or Ephesians which never cease to amaze me as shining examples of erudite stupidity. The idea that those passages of Mark or John are questionable is founded on their absence from some manuscripts.
> 
> Your answer _presumes_ a certain starting point to be correct by default, and other posts in this thread, written from the same starting point, are indeed arguing that the sense of Scripture is contained in the minutiae. It's an argument with some merit. But the shortcomings in the use and application of this line of reasoning are evident as well, and have been addressed better by others in this thread. I think the Perkins quote is completely relevant, as does R. Scott Clark who brings it up in a blog post on this very topic. I can't even claim originality for the suggestion!


Perkins' point is that arguing over a missing word doesn't change the sense of the passage. RSC, (and you, if I understand you correctly), is using that to supoort a thesis that missing passages don't alter the overall doctrine taught in scripture as a whole. I'm not commenting on the merits of the Perkins quote, just pointing out that it doesn't support that thesis - it's not relevant to it at all.


----------



## Irenaeus (Nov 15, 2021)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> Perkins' point is that arguing over a missing word doesn't change the sense of the passage. RSC, (and you, if I understand you correctly), is using that to supoort a thesis that missing passages don't alter the overall doctrine taught in scripture as a whole. I'm not commenting on the merits of the Perkins quote, just pointing out that it doesn't support that thesis - it's not relevant to it at all.


I can't speak for RSC, but that's not my point and I didn't read that to be RSC's point.


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Nov 15, 2021)

Irenaeus said:


> I can't speak for RSC, but that's not my point and I didn't read that to be RSC's point.


OK. In the article you linked to he specifically cited the two longer passages, (and the Johannine Comma, though he cites the wrong verse), and suggests these are passages that are questionable as to whether they are actually scripture. He then a bit later cites Perkins in support. Perkins is talking about a completely different issue though, and in a different category - he's talking about a missing word in a passage, which doesn't change the meaning of the passage. So the Perkins quote does not support the argument RSC is making.

Apologies if I misunderstood your point, I had assumed you were standing on the same ground as the article you linked to.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 15, 2021)

This discussion sort of proves my point: what is called here "textual criticism" – the endless wrangling over the true-to-the-autograph status of the apographs – and the current widespread denial they _are_ true, reflects a view that was not held by the Westminster Assembly, nor by the Three Forms of Unity, nor by the 1689 Confession, and which is the fruit of – initially, at any rate – Rome's assault on the Reformation text.

We, the Protestant, and more particularly the Reformed, are in disarray as to a consensus we have a sure, true, and reliable Bible given us by our God. If significant portions of it are fervently argued against among us, this but confirms my statement.

I wrote about this in 2009 here at PB, in the thread, "Skepticism and doubt toward the Bible", and things have only gotten worse, many having lost faith that our LORD provided us an intact, sure-in-all-its-parts, edition of His word, despite His promises. It is a bane upon our house loosed from an enemy's armory, and many have not the heart or mind to resist it.

Oh well, that's warfare.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## pgwolv (Nov 15, 2021)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> not to mention the scandalous history of the exemplar critical text of 1881


Hi Steve, will you please point me to information on this, as I am not familiar with the scandal. God bless


----------



## Logan (Nov 15, 2021)

Charles Johnson said:


> Didn't the Geneva Bible continue to be printed for many years after 1611?



No, I mentioned this earlier in the thread. The idea behind the "Authorized" version was that it was to be the only Bible authorized to be read in churches and printed. King James did not like the Geneva Bible and actually banned its printing, but some printers continued to print it with the date "1599" on it to make it look like they weren't breaking the law. I believe it was continued to be printed in some other countries. I don't know if the ban extended to importing Bibles or not but obviously that would be far more expensive.

Thus, when Westminster came together, for better or worse, it truly was the state's official Bible and for practical purposes, the only Bible. I remember reading that many of the commissioners preferred Geneva but it was kind of a moot point at that stage.

So there was something of a forced uniformity behind the KJV. Not that I think it was a bad Bible at all, but it definitely wasn't pure free market that led to its rise.

Interestingly, there was a group of Scottish commissioners in the 1650s or so that attempted to petition for an update to the KJV, particularly to change some of the vernacular that was unfamiliar to their congregants.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 15, 2021)

Logan said:


> No, I mentioned this earlier in the thread. The idea behind the "Authorized" version was that it was to be the only Bible authorized to be read in churches and printed. King James did not like the Geneva Bible and actually banned its printing, but some printers continued to print it with the date "1599" on it to make it look like they weren't breaking the law. I believe it was continued to be printed in some other countries. I don't know if the ban extended to importing Bibles or not but obviously that would be far more expensive.
> 
> Thus, when Westminster came together, for better or worse, it truly was the state's official Bible and for practical purposes, the only Bible. I remember reading that many of the commissioners preferred Geneva but it was kind of a moot point at that stage.
> 
> ...


Gillespie refers to the AV as our English translators and our English translation in his _EPC_ (1637). In his 1641 _Assertion of the Government_ he refers to it as the new English translation. Corrections were already being made before 1641, notably 1 Cor. 12:28 which figures in the case for ruling elders. That this was corrected to the Greek despite the heavy hand of the Stuart bishops is interesting.
“It would take a goodly volume to contain the misprints of the various editions {of the Authorized Version}. There are also many variations from the issues of 1611. Rom. 12:2 'What is that good, that acceptable, and perfect will of God,' passed into the present more literal reading in 1629. In the same way 'helps in governments,' 1 Cor. 12:28, became in the same year, more correctly, 'helps, governments'… .” John Eadie, _The English Bible: An External and Critical History of the Various Translations of Scripture_… (London: Macmillan and Co., 1876), vol. 2, p. 194.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Logan (Nov 15, 2021)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> Perkins is talking about a completely different issue though, and in a different category - he's talking about a missing word in a passage, which doesn't change the meaning of the passage. So the Perkins quote does not support the argument RSC is making.



As a point of clarification, Perkins is speaking specifically about the words in Galatians 3:1 "that ye should not obey the truth." So a phrase rather than a single word. 

In answer to the two questions: 
1. Has the Word of God been kept pure in all ages?
2. Is there any uncertainty as to minor points in the text?

Perkins is able to answer both with "yes". That is in sharp distinction to the strict (and forced) interpretation of "kept pure in all ages" many TR advocates use WCF 1:8 for. It can be shown over and over again that the men of that historical context could both affirm that purity, and recognize that there were variants they could not determine which was original. They recognized it and it didn't seem to bother them or hinder their faith in the purity of God's word.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Nov 15, 2021)

Logan said:


> As a point of clarification, Perkins is speaking specifically about the words in Galatians 3:1 "that ye should not obey the truth." So a phrase rather than a single word.
> 
> In answer to the two questions:
> 1. Has the Word of God been kept pure in all ages?
> ...


Granted. The point though is that the elasticity of interpretation of WCF 1.8 implied in Perkins is a far cry from that advocated by those who reject, or at least allow that it is within the bounds of WCF 1.8 to reject, Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53 - 8:11, etc. Including the article which cited the Perkins quote as support for that view.

It's one thing to say that a word (or a few words) in a passage, which dont alter the meaning of said passage, can be debatable (which is precisely what Perkins is saying), and yet adhere to WCF 1.8. It's another thing entirely to say that a whole standalone passage of scripture is of debatable provenance, and argue that one is still within the bounds of WCF 1.8.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Nov 15, 2021)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> It's one thing to say that a word (or a few words) in a passage, which dont alter the meaning of said passage, can be debatable (which is precisely what Perkins is saying), and yet adhere to WCF 1.8. It's another thing entirely to say that a whole standalone passage of scripture is of debatable provenance, and argue that one is still within the bounds of WCF 1.8.



A difference of degree, or of kind?


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Nov 15, 2021)

Logan said:


> A difference of degree, or of kind?


Of kind. The entire point in the quote from Perkins is that, despite the variance in words, "the sense of the verse is one and the same". There are differences of degree in how much variance (in words) might fit into that. Once the variances go from words which may or may not affect the meaning of a particular verse or passage, to whole verses or passages, that is a different kind of variance. You can demonstrate this by trying to apply the same argument Perkins is making - "whether these verses be left in or left out, the sense of the verse is one and the same" - doesn't make sense.


----------



## Logan (Nov 15, 2021)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> Of kind. The entire point in the quote from Perkins is that, despite the variance in words, "the sense of the verse is one and the same". There are differences of degree in how much variance (in words) might fit into that. Once the variances go from words which may or may not affect the meaning of a particular verse or passage, to whole verses or passages, that is a different kind of variance. You can demonstrate this by trying to apply the same argument Perkins is making - "whether these verses be left in or left out, the sense of the verse is one and the same" - doesn't make sense.



I think you're misunderstanding Perkins. He says "the providence of God has so watched over _the Bible_ that the sense thereof remains entire, sound, and incorrupt, _specially in the grounds of religion._" The "specially in the grounds of religion" is his test, and he's talking about the sense of the Bible itself, not whether removing a few words leaves the sense the same in a particular passage.

The "sense of the verse is one and the same" is specifically noted in _this example_, but that is a smaller example of his larger point: the Bible being uncorrupted in the grounds (or essentials) of religion. It is an example, but not a limiting one.

Now, how far one is willing to stretch that "specially in the grounds of religion" is certainly debatable. The CT folks will say that no doctrine is at stake, but there are definitely some entire thoughts at stake (e.g., Pericope Adulterae). 

Regardless of whether we agree or disagree on exactly what Perkins means, I think it's clear that Perkins would not have held to a position that "kept pure" means an established text with no variants (e.g., only the TR). I'm pretty sure that pointing this out was the intent behind bringing his quote up. He might not take the CT position either, but that wasn't the point.


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Nov 15, 2021)

Logan said:


> I think you're misunderstanding Perkins. He says "the providence of God has so watched over _the Bible_ that the sense thereof remains entire, sound, and incorrupt, _specially in the grounds of religion._" The "specially in the grounds of religion" is his test, and he's talking about the sense of the Bible itself, not whether removing a few words leaves the sense the same in a particular passage.
> 
> The "sense of the verse is one and the same" is specifically noted in _this example_, but that is a smaller example of his larger point: the Bible being uncorrupted in the grounds (or essentials) of religion. It is an example, but not a limiting one.
> 
> ...


I might be misunderstanding Perkins, though I don't think I am. If the point stretches as far as you suggest though, it essentially means that it doesn't really matter what is added to or subtracted from scripture, so long as the "sense of the Bible" is not changed, and no doctrine is omitted or denied. That might be some people's view, but I doubt it was Perkins' (though I could be wrong, it might have been), and it's certainly at odds with the confessional view of scripture. If our view of "pure and entire" stretches this far, there is really no strong argument against appending the story of Bel and the Dragon to the book of Daniel, for instance.

What I _think_ Perkins means (I might be wrong) is the God in his providence has so watched over the Bible that the sense of _every part of it _has been kept pure and entire in all ages. This makes sense, because each each passage of scripture has a sense in itself, and it's not really true to say that the bible as a whole has a single "sense", or even to say that it has many/any senses separate and distinct from the senses of each of its passages. His final sentence about the verse he is referring to then exemplifies that point, whereas if he's making the point you suggest he might be, his last sentence runs somewhat counter to it.

Edit to add, regarding your last paragraph, yes I agree, I think it's fair to infer from the quote that Perkins would not subscribe to the particular position you mention. That may have been the point of bringing it up, and as I said before, I apologise to @Irenaeus if I misunderstood him. I did think the quote was being wheeled out in support of the CT position, which it does not support. Also, having read the article, I do think that was RSC's point in using the quote, even if it was not the point being made by our brother on this forum.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Irenaeus (Nov 15, 2021)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> I might be misunderstanding Perkins, though I don't think I am. If the point stretches as far as you suggest though, it essentially means that it doesn't really matter what is added to or subtracted from scripture, so long as the "sense of the Bible" is not changed, and no doctrine is omitted or denied. That might be some people's view, but I doubt it was Perkins' (though I could be wrong, it might have been), and it's certainly at odds with the confessional view of scripture. If our view of "pure and entire" stretches this far, there is really no strong argument against appending the story of Bel and the Dragon to the book of Daniel, for instance.


I don't think that it essentially means that what is added or subtracted does not matter. I think that Perkins is saying is that, _in the textual variations we have,_ the sense of Scripture is unchanged. In applying Perkins' point to the present, I (and Prof. Clark, if I am reading him correctly) freely acknowledge that he did not have the CT in mind *but* I think his point is valid and relevant to the CT/MT debate. Granted, we are now talking about passages rather than phrases, but we are still - and this is the commonality - talking about _well-supported textual variants that have come down to us from ancient manuscripts_ and though the differences be larger the principle is the same. It's a difference of degree, not kind. The sense of Scripture is preserved entire. This is _not an argument for or against the CT_ but it is an argument that the presence of the CT and the CT/MT question fails to negate in any way the point made by Perkins.

@Jerusalem Blade, I don't necessarily agree that the CT/MT debate undermines the trust and confidence that one can have in Scripture. What undermines that trust is a doubting heart and the fiery darts of an unbelieving and hostile world. There have _always _been nagging questions about Scripture. Calvin had to grapple with the numerical discrepancies between the Hebrew text of Genesis and the Septuagint version quoted by Stephen, or Matthew seeming to confuse Jeremiah and Zechariah. This is a larger issue in degree, to be sure! I hope one day we find evidence to resolve it (personally, my money is on the MT and on a positive re-evaluation of the Byzantine text tradition) but in the meantime I don't consider the CT any less Scripture nor do I consider God's providential oversight of Scripture, or his ability to show forth its credibility in all ages, to be in any way diminished by his allowing us to discover a set of texts that appear to complicate the picture. It's a matter of perspective. To the unbeliever, this is fresh ammunition for the arrows of doubt - AS IF the world would regard Scripture without this discovery: one might as well believe that the Pharisees who asked for a sign were on the cusp of belief. To me, the texts actually simplify the picture. This is, and always has been, God's inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word to all ages and I think we have more reason for certainty than ever before, if, perhaps, a little less comfort in our ability to wrap our minds around the whole thing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Nov 15, 2021)

Irenaeus said:


> I don't think that it essentially means that what is added or subtracted does not matter. I think that Perkins is saying is that, _in the textual variations we have,_ the sense of Scripture is unchanged. In applying Perkins' point to the present, I (and Prof. Clark, if I am reading him correctly) freely acknowledge that he did not have the CT in mind *but* I think his point is valid and relevant to the CT/MT debate. Granted, we are now talking about passages rather than phrases, but we are still - and this is the commonality - talking about _well-supported textual variants that have come down to us from ancient manuscripts_ and though the differences be larger the principle is the same. It's a difference of degree, not kind. The sense of Scripture is preserved entire. This is _not an argument for or against the CT_ but it is an argument that the presence of the CT and the CT/MT question fails to negate in any way the point made by Perkins.


But the point ceases to apply once you start talking about passages rather than words, or even phrases, which do not change the sense of the passage. The sense of scripture is not preserved entire if John 8:1-11 is missing. And if you allow the principle to extend to whole passages, why not whole chapters? Perhaps whole books?

I don't know the answer to this, but were there any bibles published between the Reformation and the late 18th Century with the two passages in question missing (Mark 16 and John 8)?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Irenaeus (Nov 15, 2021)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> But the point ceases to apply once you start talking about passages rather than words, or even phrases, which do not change the sense of the passage. The sense of scripture is not preserved entire if John 8:1-11 is missing. And if you allow the principle to extend to whole passages, why not whole chapters? Perhaps whole books?
> 
> I don't know the answer to this, but were there any bibles published between the Reformation and the late 18th Century with the two passages in question missing (Mark 16 and John 8)?


At this point I think we are talking past each other, so I'll make one final restatement/summation of my points and then I'm bowing out.

1) Your post assumes the premise that the MT position is the correct one.
2) I believe the sense of Scripture is preserved entire with or without the Pericope Adulterae.
3) I do not believe I am the one extending the principle. I see a manuscript tradition that is now more complicated. The question about whole chapters and books is a red herring and an unnecessary and rather tiring one because it creates the impression that CT defenders are sitting around deciding how much Scripture can be omitted without changing the sense as opposed to evaluating manuscript traditions. That's not a fair depiction of the view.
4) The MT/CT debate is not the only time there has been a textual question. In fact, as I think about it, I am no longer sure that it's a unique difference in degree, in light of the differences between the Septuagint and Hebrew OT and other textual issues across time, space, and language barriers.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 15, 2021)

Hello JP (Irenaeus),

When the phrase "the sense of Scripture" is used, it is so vague – to me and others – as to be almost useless. I see it as far less accurate, and meaningful, than the phrase I use regarding God's preservation of Scripture "in the main" as distinguished from "in the minutiae". In the main is a good thing!

Okay, learned and godly men differ on the textual situation, but let's please keep the differences distinct, so respecting each camp's distinctives.

When you say of Scripture (in post #97), that it "is, and always has been, God's inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word to all ages" – while holding to the view of it you have – you divest the word "infallible" of all meaning. We might as well just toss that word in the garbage bin, were your view and usage of it to prevail (though you're not the first I have heard so use it).

Infallible means without error, incapable of being in error, unerring and the like. Yet we have the ERROR of Asaph and Amos in Matt 1:7, 10 instead of the correct Asa and Amon, in the Greek of the CT (and the English of the ESV). We have in Luke 2:22 the CT saying that either Joseph or Jesus (or both) went with Mary to Jerusalem "for their purification according to the Law of Moses", when the law of Moses required only her, Mary's, purification. I could go on, but I have work to get to.

I find it far more wholesome in scholarly discourse to keep to the integrity of language than to blur it. 

The AV and the ESV cannot both be infallible and differ, likewise with the TR and the CT.

That little phrase in Galatians 3:1, "that ye should not obey the truth", is omitted by Westcott and Hort's Revised Greek and Revised English versions, on the basis of Codex Vaticanus – which latter's reading the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies editions also maintain. It's not in the NU Bibles. It is in the AV and the 1599 Geneva. I don't know William Perkins' background (1558–1602), but, as I said, learned and godly men differ in this area.'

When "infallible" becomes a mere slogan without substance we lose the sense of our very language.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Nov 16, 2021)

Irenaeus said:


> At this point I think we are talking past each other, so I'll make one final restatement/summation of my points and then I'm bowing out.
> 
> 1) Your post assumes the premise that the MT position is the correct one.
> 2) I believe the sense of Scripture is preserved entire with or without the Pericope Adulterae.
> ...


Not trying to provoke you to continue the discussion, I'm done with it too, but just to respond to these points:

1. I actually favour the TR rather than the MT, but in the context of this discussion it doesn't matter much as I deliberately avoided advocating for a particular text in order to avoid the endless, and often unedifying debates that go on here on the topic. It might sound like I'm assuming the correctness of a particular text, actually I'm assuming providential preservation, which is both scriptural and confessional, and simply pointing out what it _cannot_ stretch to mean, even if we allow it the elasticity Perkins does. (As an aside, I also didn't pass comment on the merit of Perkins' view deliberately, same reason as above).

2. That's interesting, and quite problematic in terms of believing the whole confessional doctrine of scripture - not merely preservation (I'm not accusing you of being unconfessional, as I hope you understand, just pointing out the issue with that reasoning). I tried to show above why that is, but probably didn't do a great job. One thing I will say though is that, if we allow that whole passages of scripture are debatable_ in their authenticity_, and can be included or omitted in scripture indifferently, we are indeed subject to the charge our brother made earlier in the thread - conducting textual criticism this way amounts to saying "hath God said" to chunks of scripture.

3. I'm aware that CT advocates are using actual manuscripts and not deleting scripture willy-nilly. I assumed nobody here would think I thought that, so apologies if it seemed I was characterising the view that way, it wasn't my intention. Manuscripts can be unreliable though, and given that the mass of manuscripts we have differ from each other, some _must_ be unreliable. While of course deciphering the original text from all that is the point of textual criticism, it seems to me that the TR position (and I'm aware there are varieties of it) starts with the doctrine of preservation and conducts textual criticism through that lens, while the CT position does not, and those of a confessional bent (a small minority of its advocates) attempt to fit it into the bounds of the confession _ex post facto_ as it were. The point about whole chapters and books I think is legitimate, but since we both plan to end the discussion I won't go into why. I understand why you feel it was a red herring and I'm sorry for bringing it up.

4. True, but the same principles apply whatever biblical texts one is comparing. Biblical criticism is not the same as criticism of, for example, Homer or Plato - the doctrine of preservation has to be a starting point, otherwise we risk being altogether loosed from a scriptural mooring in the course of the work. The question of LXX vs Hebrew for OT is of a different nature though, since Hebrew is the original language and LXX is a translation. There are uses for existing translations when making new translations, but using an existing translation as a base language and preferring it over the actual base language is evidently problematic in the main.


----------



## Logan (Nov 16, 2021)

@Scottish Presbyterian, although I think some parts of your post are begging the question, I did want to say that I really appreciate the thought and humility that is going into your posts. It's a nuanced subject and I really appreciate anyone who doesn't immediately devolve into tribalism!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Nov 16, 2021)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> The AV and the ESV cannot both be infallible and differ, likewise with the TR and the CT.



Maybe I'm having an "aha" moment here, but if your theological position demands that there be an infallible authority (i.e., "without error"), then you believe there must exist one, and therefore the best candidate (in English) would be the KJV?

Or would you even apply the word "infallible" to the KJV? If I recollect correctly, Turretin would apply the term to any Bible translation or copy, insofar (and only insofar) as it represented the original words. So the KJV and ESV could both be different, and yet both be infallible---insofar as they represent the autographs. They contain God's infallible word, even if they are themselves fallible and the products of fallible men.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## gcdugas (Nov 17, 2021)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Gillespie refers to the AV as our English translators and our English translation in his _EPC_ (1637). In his 1641 _Assertion of the Government_ he refers to it as the new English translation. Corrections were already being made before 1641, notably 1 Cor. 12:28 which figures in the case for ruling elders. That this was corrected to the Greek despite the heavy hand of the Stuart bishops is interesting.
> “It would take a goodly volume to contain the misprints of the various editions {of the Authorized Version}. There are also many variations from the issues of 1611. Rom. 12:2 'What is that good, that acceptable, and perfect will of God,' passed into the present more literal reading in 1629. In the same way 'helps in governments,' 1 Cor. 12:28, became in the same year, more correctly, 'helps, governments'… .” John Eadie, _The English Bible: An External and Critical History of the Various Translations of Scripture_… (London: Macmillan and Co., 1876), vol. 2, p. 194.


The OP is agitating for the TR not the KJV and although the author presently uses the KJV in his pulpit ministry, he does not conflate the two in his arguments. Thus this is nice information to have regarding the KJV, it doesn't touch the matter the OP raises.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Nov 17, 2021)

gcdugas said:


> The OP is agitating for the TR not the KJV and although the author presently uses the KJV in his pulpit ministry, he does not conflate the two in his arguments. Thus this is nice information to have regarding the KJV, it doesn't touch the matter the OP raises.


I wasn't responding to the OP but interacting on the subject of the Geneva vs the AV in subsequent posts.


----------



## gcdugas (Nov 18, 2021)

Very well Naphtali. I thought your material was good to stuff away for future debates as I found it very helpful.

And as long as we are branching out a bit...

Here is my take from the WCF Ch 1...

6. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men._a_ Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word;_b_ and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed._c_

a. Gal 1:8-9; 2 Thes 2:2; 2 Tim 3:15-17. • b. John 6:45; 1 Cor 2:9-12. • c. 1 Cor 11:13-14; 14:26, 40

I would argue that "nothing at any time is to be added" is not limited by the phrase "new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men" and that the "archaeologist's shovel" and the "critic's scalpel" come within the scope of "nothing at any time shall be added" [or altered]. Especially as it is only separated from "singular care and providence kept pure in all ages" by two sentences.


AND if that isn't enough....

5. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture;_a _and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts._b_

a. 1 Tim 3:15. • b. Isa 59:21; John 16:13-14; 1 Cor 2:10-12; 1 John 2:20, 27

I would further argue that the phrase "the majesty of the style" agitates for a "formal equivalence" translation methodology.

OK... I've put a bunch out there, now let the fur fly while I duck for cover.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Nov 18, 2021)

gcdugas said:


> I would argue that "nothing at any time is to be added" is not limited by the phrase "new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men" and that the "archaeologist's shovel" and the "critic's scalpel" come within the scope of "nothing at any time shall be added" [or altered]. Especially as it is only separated from "singular care and providence kept pure in all ages" by two sentences.



This has been covered in extensive detail earlier in this thread. Read the primary source quotes from the authors Warfield cites in the link I listed earlier. The framers of the WCF themselves (together with their peers) describe what they meant by "kept pure", so we don't even have to guess.

What you are saying proves too much:
If you say that "nothing" shall ever be added or subtracted from the "archeologist's shovel" and the "critic's scalpel", and you apply that to textual criticism, then you have to have a known textual _standard_ to add to or subtract from. What standard is that? Erasmus' first, second, third editions (all which had variations), Stephanus' or Beza's editions, the Elzevir editions, the 1881 edition Scrivener put together, etc.? They all have differences---generally minor, but differences nonetheless. As noted earlier, the KJV translators didn't use any one published manuscript but consulted individual manuscripts as well. And no two manuscripts agree in every point. 

They all have some changes, even if minute. But if you allow even one change, even minor ones, then you've destroyed your position and are forced to make qualifications for your exceptions or to broaden your definitions somewhat arbitrarily to some kind of textual family. So which _absolutely_ unchanged textual standard would the WCF framers have used? Which _absolutely_ unchanged textual standard do you use? And on what specific date was that standard set? No matter which date you set, either the people before it or the people after it did not have it "unaltered", according to your restrictive reading of the WCF. And once you make exceptions (e.g., "minor differences are okay", "a word here or there is okay"), the argument for the restrictive "kept pure" falls apart and becomes arbitrary and subjective. The only way to avoid that is if that phrase refers to something more general than "The TR".

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Nov 18, 2021)

I am seeing another problem here that needs to be addressed. Manuscripts are being characterized as reliable or unreliable as complete wholes. This is not how copying works. If a manuscript were to be completely unreliable, then what we would have to posit is either a completely unreliable copyist, or a malevolent copyist. Neither can be assumed for any particular manuscript of the NT. Every existing manuscript has copyist errors in it, some more than others. Therefore, manuscripts cannot be rejected wholesale. Rather, individual readings at certain verses are compared. My estimate just from looking at, say, Sinaiticus compared with the TR is that they agree well over 90% of the time. And of the 10% remaining differences, the vast majority of them are spelling differences or word order differences. Yes, the ending of Mark and the PA are special text-critical cases. But to go from having a minus there to make the leap to "unreliable" is quite a stretch. In other words, manuscripts should not be designated "reliable" or "unreliable" as a whole, but should rather be judged so in individual readings, not as a whole. 

As an aside, Nicholas Lunn has proffered an outstanding argument for the longer ending of Mark from a CT perspective, arguing that the evidence against the longer ending based on Aleph-B is much less sturdy than previously thought. In fact, he argues that there is no unambiguous evidence that the longer ending of Mark was minus in Aleph-B. His argument has already persuaded several people in the CT camp, and I imagine that more will follow. He certainly persuaded me that the longer ending of Mark is original.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 3


----------



## Phil D. (Nov 18, 2021)

greenbaggins said:


> Nicholas Lunn has proffered an outstanding argument for the longer ending of Mark from a CT perspective


Is it possible to provide a link to this?


----------



## greenbaggins (Nov 18, 2021)

__





The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20: Lunn, Nicholas P.: 9781625646286: Amazon.com: Books


The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 [Lunn, Nicholas P.] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Original Ending of Mark: A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20



www.amazon.com

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Phil D. (Nov 18, 2021)

From the preview: "It is demonstrated that the church fathers knew the Markan ending from the very earliest days, well over two centuries before the earliest extant manuscripts."

This can also be said of other dispited passages such as Acts 8:37, which Irenaeus and others quote in the late 2nd century.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Nov 18, 2021)

I know I bowed out earlier but the mention earlier of the majesty of the language stirred my memory of this thread from of old, which surely won the internet in its day. I commend to you the edifying 2007 PB discussion, AV and the case for a Single English Translation.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 27, 2021)

Hi Logan, you said,



Logan said:


> So the KJV and ESV could both be different, and yet both be infallible---insofar as they represent the autographs. They contain God's infallible word, even if they are themselves fallible and the products of fallible men.



Now this really isn't about textual matters, but just language, and logic – though it could be applied to texts.

Infallible means without error, incapable of error, yet if the two versions differ they can't both be infallible (though logically they _could_ neither be such). Even if they both "'contain' God's infallible word", what they purport to "contain"of it differs. _At least_ one of them has to be wrong.

I do acknowledge that the ESV contains God words, but in Matt 1:7,10 it differs in the ESV (and the Greek CT) in those verses: ESV, vs 7 "and Solomon the father of Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of *Asaph*", v 10 "and Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh the father of *Amos*, and *Amos* the father of Josiah". That precludes infallibility, does it not?

I'll be almost incommunicado for a while when I depart for Cyprus (Dec 9), amid the vicissitudes of international travel, the new Omicron covid variant and its repercussions, and my own infirmities – plus my needing to focus on the significant details of packing, medical issues, and managing flight stuff.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Nov 27, 2021)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Now this really isn't about textual matters, but just language, and logic – though it could be applied to texts.
> 
> Infallible means without error, incapable of error, yet if the two versions differ they can't both be infallible (though logically they _could_ neither be such). Even if they both "'contain' God's infallible word", what they purport to "contain"of it differs. _At least_ one of them has to be wrong.



Hi Steve, sorry to reply when you might not have the chance to clarify, but I was specifically responding to your comment "The AV and the ESV cannot both be infallible and differ, likewise with the TR and the CT." 

I reject the assumption that, in the sense you seem to mean it, the KJV is "infallible", or even that the TR and CT are infallible. I understand what you are getting at but I don't think that is the correct starting point from which to judge all other versions. Each is only infallible insofar as they represent the autographs.

Turretin, Q. 13:XIX p. 126
"Although any version made by fallible men cannot be considered divine and infallible with respect to terms, yet it can well be considered such with respect to the things, since it faithfully expresses the divine truth of the sources even as the word which the minister of the gospel preaches does not cease to be divine and infallible and to establish our faith, although it may be expressed by him in human words. Thus faith depends not on the authority of the interpreter or minister, but is built upon the truth and authenticity of the things contained in the versions."

Turretin, Q. 11:VIII p. 114
"The various readings which occur do not destroy the authenticity of the Scriptures because they may be easily distinguished and determined, partly by the connection of the passage and partly by a collation with better manuscripts. Some are of such a kind that although diverse, they may nevertheless belong to the same text."

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 28, 2021)

Hello Logan,

The Turretin quotes you've offered pertain to versions; I prefer to consider the original languages – for this reason: when I am discussing these things, say, in a class, I focus not on the minutiae of differences in versions / translations, but on the variants. I can accept the translation of the ESV (though I prefer the KJV, while at times the ESV can be quite good), but I cannot accept its variant readings. That's the primary issue for me in a classroom setting.

When talking of the original Hebrew and Greek Turretin speaks thus:

*ON SCRIPTURE

QUESTION 5: Are there in Scripture true contradictions, or any irreconcilable passages, which cannot be resolved or harmonized in any way? We deny. *

VII. (2) Unless unimpaired integrity is attributed to Scripture, it cannot be regarded as the sole rule of faith and practice, and a wide door is opened to atheists, libertines, enthusiasts, and others of that sort of profane people to undermine its authority and overthrow the foundation of salvation. Since error cannot be part of the faith, how can a Scripture which is weakened by contradictions and corruptions be regarded as authentic and divine? Nor should it be said that these corruptions are only in matters of little significance, which do not affect the fundamentals of the faith. For as soon as the authenticity of Scripture has been found wanting, even if it be a single corruption [of the text] that cannot be corrected, how can our faith any longer be sustained? If corruption is conceded in matters of little importance, why not also in others of more significance? Who will be able to give me faith that there has been no forgetfulness or deceit in the fundamental passages? What answer can be given the subtle 'atheist or heretic who persistently claims that this or that text, unfavorable to him, rests on falsehood? The reply should not be that divine providence has willed the [Scripture] be preserved from serious corruptions, but not from minor ones. For not only is this an arbitrary assumption, but it also cannot be made without grave insult [to Scripture], implying that it lacks something necessary for its full self-authentication, nor can it easily be believed that God, who spoke and inspired every single word to God-inspired men, would not have provided for the preservation of all. If human beings preserve their words with the greatest care so that they will not be changed or corrupted, especially when--as is the case, for instance, with wills and contracts--they are of some importance, how much more should God be thought to have taken care for his Word, which he willed to have the status of testament and public notice of his covenant with us, so that nothing could corrupt it, especially when he could have easily foreseen and prevented such corruptions, to uphold the faith of his church? (p 71 in the hardcopy)

*QUESTION 10: Has the original text of the Old and New Testaments come to us pure and uncorrupted? Affirmative, against the Roman Catholics. *

I. This question is forced upon us by the Roman Catholics, who raise doubts concerning the purity of the sources in order more readily to establish the authority of their Vulgate and lead us to the tribunal of the church.

II. By "original texts" we do not mean the very autographs from the hands of Moses, the prophets, and the apostles, which are known to be nonexistent. We mean copies (apographa), which have come in their name, because they record for us that word of God *in the same words* into which the sacred writers committed it under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit. [emphasis added]

III. There is no question of the sources being pure in the sense that no error has crept into many sacred codices, either from the ravages of time, or the carelessness of copyists, or the malice of Jews and heretics. This is recognized on both sides, and the variant readings, which Beza and Robert Stephanus have noted in Greek, and the Jews in Hebrew, witness sufficiently to this. But the question is whether the original text, in Hebrew or in Greek, has been so corrupted, either by the carelessness of copyists or by the malice of Jews and heretics, that it can no longer be held as the judge of controversies and the norm by which all versions without exception are to be judged. The Roman Catholics affirm this; we deny it. (p 106 in the hardcopy)
_____

From Monergism, 21 Questions on The Doctrine of Scripture by Francis Turretin (1623-1687)


https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/21%20Questions%20on%20Doctrine%20of%20Scripture.pdf



I realize that Turretin has more to say, in fine-tuning this matter, but this is a good starting point.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Nov 29, 2021)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Logan,
> 
> The Turretin quotes you've offered pertain to versions; I prefer to consider the original languages – for this reason: when I am discussing these things, say, in a class, I focus not on the minutiae of differences in versions / translations, but on the variants. I can accept the translation of the ESV (though I prefer the KJV, while at times the ESV can be quite good), but I cannot accept its variant readings. That's the primary issue for me in a classroom setting.



Bit of a correction: the first quote pertains to versions (which is what we were talking about, since you seemed to be implying the KJV was infallible, without error, so that's where my focus was), the second quotation is indeed about the original languages. For that, 10.III, which you quoted, is very relevant as to what is meant when we talk about "purity".

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 29, 2021)

Hi Logan,

Yes, you are right, the second quote – in 10:III – does pertain to the originals, and does reflect on their “purity”, which, if it is such, may be reflected in versions.

And this is part of my point: that, per Turretin (and myself) the originals were preserved pure in the apographs – and are thus infallible – while a version that is faithful in translating the original may have a derived infallibility, but only insofar as it is faithful.

Turretin, Q. 13:XVIII. It is one thing to conform to the original, another to be on a par with it. Any accurate translation conforms to the original because the same teaching, in substance, is presented; but it is not for that reason on a par with it, because the form of expression is human, not divine.

XIX. Although a given translation made by human beings subject to error is not to be regarded as divine and infallible verbally, _it can be properly so regarded in substance if it faithfully renders the divine truth of the sources_, for the word which a minister of the gospel preaches does not fail to be divine and infallible, and to uphold our faith, although proclaimed by him in human words. But faith does not depend on the authority of translators or ministers, but on the substance (res ipsi) which is, in truth and authenticity, in the versions. (emphasis added)​
So, while a version/translation of a pure original is not equal to the apograph, yet it _may_ have a derived, or secondary, infallibility. But only if it is true to the original Hebrew or Greek.

But then we come back to the original mss., those of the (as regards the Greek) TR or the CT. Which do you think Turretin favors?

One can see in the Eleventh Question on the “Authentic Version” (of the originals), section X, that he favors the TR:

X. The statement that the Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New have become defective is false, and the passages which are offered in proof of this by our adversaries cannot demonstrate it. Not the pericope of adultery (John 8), which, although it is lacking in the Syriac, is found in all the Greek manuscripts. Not the saying in I John 5:7, although formerly some called it into question, and heretics do so today. All the Greek witnesses (exemplaria) have it, as Sixtus Senensis recognizes: "The words always were of unquestioned truth, and are read in all Greek manuscripts from the time of the apostles themselves." Not Mark 16, which was lacking in a number of manuscripts in Jerome's time, as he admits, but now is found in all, and also in the Syriac, and is clearly necessary to complete the account of Christ's resurrection.​
One may question this but that’s what he says. It is fairly clear in Q.10:III, seeing the Greek mss. he mentions are those of the editors Beza and Stephanus, that he does not consider Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and their fellows.

I don’t go by everything Turretin asserts (and of course one is free to disagree with him) ; for example, in the matter of Cainan in Luke 3:36, he thinks that is an error, and talks about it. (Oddly, in the monergism version of the “21 Questions on The Doctrine of Scripture by Francis Turretin”, section XII, dealing with Cainan is missing – omitted – without explanation. In the P&R hardcopy edition it is present.)

Here’s a brief entrée on that:

As for Luke 3:36, which places Cainan in the lineage between Arphaxad and Salah (Sala), where the Genesis genealogy omits mention of Cainan, some remarks:

First, the absence of a person in the lineage does not annul the tightly interlocking numeric values between the patriarchs and their offspring. As Floyd Nolan Jones, in his _Chronology of the Old Testament_ puts it,

For regardless of the number of names or descendants that might be missing between Arphaxad and Salah (or any other two patriarchs) their lives are mathematically interlocked and a fixed relationship exists; when Salah was born, Arphaxad was thirty-five years old and so on across the entire span in question. Consequently, no time can possibly be missing even though names may so be. Strange as it may seem at first, in this instance the two concepts are mutually exclusive. (p. 34)​
Dr. Jones is firm that both the Genesis genealogy and the one in Luke 3 are correct and both the infallible word of God. While admitting there is no explanation for the omission given in Scripture, Jones gives a number of scenarios to show how it may have come to be. Here is one of them:

In this scenario both Arphaxad and Cainan (Arphaxad’s son) married young. Cainan dies after conceiving Salah but before his birth. At age 35, Arphaxad then adopts his grandson, Salah (like Jacob adopted his grandsons, Ephraim and Manasseh) (Mat. 1:1; Heb. 7:9-10). [Footnote: Compare Ruth 4:17 which declares that “there is a son born to Naomi”, whereas technically she is his step mother-in-law. . .] (Ibid., p. 35)​
At any rate, the Cainan spoken of in Luke 3:36 poses no threat to the timeline of Genesis 11, only a mystery. The LXX versions of Genesis 11 which posit a Cainan in them are spurious, patently contriving to construct an order which fails.

Again, my statement on the “infallibility” of the KJV NT pertains only as regards its fidelity to the original Greek. If it is not faithful then this derived infallibility is null and void. Any questioning of this is then to be fought out “in the trenches” of particular readings.


----------



## Logan (Nov 29, 2021)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> The AV and the ESV cannot both be infallible and differ, likewise with the TR and the CT.





Logan said:


> If I recollect correctly, Turretin would apply the term to any Bible translation or copy, insofar (and only insofar) as it represented the original words. So the KJV and ESV could both be different, and yet both be infallible---insofar as they represent the autographs. They contain God's infallible word, even if they are themselves fallible and the products of fallible men.





Jerusalem Blade said:


> Again, my statement on the “infallibility” of the KJV NT pertains only as regards its fidelity to the original Greek. If it is not faithful then this derived infallibility is null and void. Any questioning of this is then to be fought out “in the trenches” of particular readings.



I'm finding this exchange a bit puzzling. So...you agree with me?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 30, 2021)

Hi Logan,

The ESV would be infallible – _in its particulars_ – insofar as it was faithful to a faithful original. Thus, it could be infallible in the main, while being fallible (and indeed erroneous) in those particulars where it reflected flawed readings from the original it is based on.

You said, “insofar as they represent the autographs” both the KJV and ESV _could_ be derivatively infallible, but if they use different “autographs” (via the apographs they respectively use) that takes it beyond anything Turretin says, for the autographs/apographs must be without error. Do you think Turretin would accept the Critical Text readings of _its_ apographs, seeing what his view is in the Eleventh Question on the “Authentic Version” (of the originals), section X, which I noted above in post #117?


----------



## Logan (Nov 30, 2021)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> You said, “insofar as they represent the autographs” both the KJV and ESV _could_ be derivatively infallible, but if they use different “autographs” (via the apographs they respectively use) that takes it beyond anything Turretin says, for the autographs/apographs must be without error. Do you think Turretin would accept the Critical Text readings of _its_ apographs, seeing what his view is in the Eleventh Question on the “Authentic Version” (of the originals), section X, which I noted above in post #117?



No one can say what Turretin would accept were he presented with the same evidence we are.

You say that he favors the TR. I would say that is a false assumption. What he favors is what the manuscript evidence shows, e.g., he favors John 8, 1 John 5:7, Mark 16 _because_ it "is found in all the Greek manuscripts". Now clearly he was mistaken about the evidence, but note that this is his _criteria_. He was working from an extremely limited amount of knowledge and evidence.

We should also recognize the context in which he is responding: is the Word of God (in the original languages) so corrupt that we have to use the Latin Vulgate instead? He says no. Does he mean by this that it is perfect? No, as you noted:

"There is no question of the sources being pure in the sense that no error has crept into many sacred codices, either from the ravages of time, or the carelessness of copyists, or the malice of Jews and heretics. This is recognized on both sides, and *the variant readings*, which Beza and Robert Stephanus have noted in Greek, and the Jews in Hebrew, witness sufficiently to this. But the question is whether the original text, in Hebrew or in Greek, has been *so corrupted*, either by the carelessness of copyists or by the malice of Jews and heretics, that it can no longer be held as the judge of controversies and the norm by which all versions without exception are to be judged. The Roman Catholics affirm this; we deny it."

Turretin noted that we do not have perfect copies. There are variants. And he did not simply accept or receive a text, he was for additional textual criticism! He didn't just say "Beza's edition perfectly encapsulates the autographs," or "we just need to use Stephanus", he does not say that this work is finished, he indicates there is work yet to be done:

"The various readings which occur do not destroy the authenticity of the Scriptures because they may be easily distinguished and determined, partly by the connection of the passage and partly by a collation with better manuscripts. Some are of such a kind that although diverse, they may nevertheless belong to the same text."

So would Turretin have been a CT guy? I have no clue since he didn't have CT evidence and wasn't even attempting to answer that question, but he was far from being a TR guy in the sense of merely receiving a text, believing it to be entirely pure, and ceasing textual criticism. He was clearly for additional textual criticism and he doesn't limit himself to one subset of Greek manuscripts either. To assume he knew about other manuscripts and rejected them is an assumption and an argument from silence.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Nov 30, 2021)

I find Turretin’s comments about the uniformity of the Greek in the disputed passages odd, given that the variants were not only known and debated in his day, but had been for over a hundred years. 

Regardless, note that when Turretin mentions the infallible “originals”, he means the apographs possessed by the church, not the nonexistent autographs. This was the Reformed view for 300+ years. Muller notes that the modern position of “inerrancy” in the autographa only (Warfield) is a shift from the historic view.


----------



## Logan (Nov 30, 2021)

Eyedoc84 said:


> Regardless, note that when Turretin mentions the infallible “originals”, he means the apographs possessed by the church, not the nonexistent autographs. This was the Reformed view for 300+ years. Muller notes that the modern position of “inerrancy” in the autographa only (Warfield) is a shift from the historic view.



Mmm, I don't think this is quite correct. Turretin spends a good bit of time talking about the derived authenticity the apographs have. The church only possesses apographs, therefore her authority must come from them. But they possess that authority because they accurately represent, or speak for, the autographs. There is a derivative authority he develops that certainly predates Warfield.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 30, 2021)

As I said, Logan, "I don’t go by everything Turretin asserts (and of course one is free to disagree with him)", as there are too many ifs and variables in his presentation,_ or so it can be made to seem_.

That's why I prefer not to go to so-called experts to prove my points, though I can reference them to show how other reliable commentators may agree with me, or when they _do_ provide and _prove_ valuable information. You brought Turretin up – one I would not.

You say he was mistaken re the 3 passages, but we do not know which mss he referred to, and whether they did exist and were forgotten or disappeared. He was not a slouch in judgment, I would say. It was refreshing going through his material again – and for that I thank you! Even though I think he supports my view, you don't – so there we are.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Nov 30, 2021)

I just want to say that I have really profited from this thread. I am especially edified by how peaceful and brotherly it has been, whereas in the past these discussions have sometimes gotten quite heated. Thank you especially to @Jerusalem Blade, @Logan, and @greenbaggins.

I just thought that was worth mentioning.

Reactions: Like 3 | Love 2


----------



## reformed grit (Nov 30, 2021)

Romans922 said:


> Slightly Imperfect Bibles?
> 
> I recently received a catalogue from a book distributor that included a discount section titled “slightly imperfect” and, yes, there were several Bibles listed.
> 
> ...


It would be helpful to know if we've come any further in the thread to alleviating the OP @Romans922 concerns? I'm aware that just about every major English Bible publisher has indeed published Bibles with errors from what they intended to publish (yes, even to missing a page or pages). Most often these are recalled by the publisher, but not always, sometimes simply sold at a discount or no discount at all (waiting for a new printing cycle or newer edition - the popular translations usually hit that within 2-4 years at the outside). I've sometimes said were I in dire straits with access to nothing else, even a Jehovah's Witness New World Translation could find usefulness. And as serious an issue as the reliability of Scripture is, one can still find Geneva, KJV, ESV and other English translations containing some Apocrypha, some without qualifying explanation of distinction. In that sense the WCF might sometimes be thought by some an enemy to the use of these Bibles, even of a Reformed tradition, though I in no wise view it so.

I'm glad to see the attention here given to, "the authority of Holy Scripture... dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof..." (WCF 1.4); that, "we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word..."; and a good measure of agreement on what the Confession intends by, "kept pure in all ages, and therefore authentical..".


----------



## greenbaggins (Nov 30, 2021)

For alleviating concerns, it seems to me that an opinion on the matter will depend greatly on the point of view one already has. I think that clarity on a number of matters has been achieved. If one's opinion leans towards the TR, I doubt that the concerns have been alleviated. If one leans towards the CT or a blend of methodologies, then concerns would probably be alleviated to a great extent. I think the discussions about the nature of God's providence in regard to preserving His Word are important here, as well as the meaning of the phrase "kept pure in all ages."


----------



## reformed grit (Nov 30, 2021)

Well, thereto, one hopes there's agreement that no Church, nor any of us determines what is the Word of God, but God alone. We only are accountable for our recognition of the Word, and that through the Holy Spirit. And I'm encouraged to think that the OP and most if not all of us here agree on essential and substantial recognition, as the great green one hath indicated.


----------



## Grant Van Leuven (Nov 30, 2021)

For anyone who may have interest, we recently put up a 3-part series on why we use the KJV (with important disclaimers addressing what we deem as misnomers on "both sides"). The first lecture (with a pdf to cover the two other subsequent classes, with a map at the end we found pretty helpful for the discussion) is liked here: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=10721356275095. It was supplemental to our study of the WCF, chapter 1, especially with section 8 in view. These are not sermons but lectures during our Wednesday night study (which is much less formal and sometimes a bit comical).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Nov 30, 2021)

Grant Van Leuven said:


> For anyone who may have interest, we recently put up a 3-part series on why we use the KJV (with important disclaimers addressing what we deem as misnomers on "both sides"). The first lecture (with a pdf to cover the two other subsequent classes, with a map at the end we found pretty helpful for the discussion) is liked here: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=10721356275095. It was supplemental to our study of the WCF, chapter 1, especially with section 8 in view. These are not sermons but lectures during our Wednesday night study (which is much less formal and sometimes a bit comical).


I look forward to listening!


----------



## Logan (Dec 1, 2021)

Focusing not so much on Turretin's accuracy as to facts, but his methodology and foundation.

Turretin pg 71
"The question is not as to the particular corruption of some manuscripts or as to the errors which have crept into the books of particular editions through the negligence of copyists or printers. All acknowledge the existence of many such small corruptions. The question is whether there are universal corruptions and errors so diffused through all the copies (both manuscript and edited) as that they cannot be restored by any collation of various copies, or of Scripture itself and of parallel passages."

pg 72
"The principal arguments for the integrity of the Scriptures and the purity of the sources are four. (1) The chief of these is the providence of God (who as he wished to provide for our faith by inspiring the sacred writers as to what they should write, and by preserving the Scriptures against the attempts of enemies who have left nothing untried that they might destroy them), so he should keep them pure and uncorrupted in order that our faith might always have a firm foundation."

pg 72
"Although we give to the Scriptures absolute integrity, we do not therefore think that the copyists and printers were inspired (theopneustous), but only that the providence of God watched over the copying of the sacred books, so that although many errors might have crept in, it has not so happened (or they have not so crept into the manuscripts) but that they can be easily corrected by a collation of others (or with the Scriptures themselves). Therefore the foundation of the purity and integrity of the sources is not to be placed in the freedom from fault (anamartesia) of men, but in the providence of God which (however men employed in transcribing the sacred books might possibly mingle various errors) always diligently took care to correct them, or that they might be corrected easily either from a comparison with Scripture itself or from more approved manuscripts. It was not necessary therefore to render all the scribes infallible, but only so to direct them that the true reading may always be found out. This book far surpasses all others in purity."

pg 106
"The question is not Are the sources so pure that no fault has crept into the many sacred manuscripts, either through the waste of time, the carelessness of copyists or the malice of the Jews or of heretics? For this is acknowledged on both sides and the various readings which Beza and Robert Stephanus have carefully observed in the Greek (and the Jews in the Hebrew) clearly prove it. Rather the question is have the original texts (or the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts) been so corrupted either by copyists through carelessness (or by the Jews and heretics through malice) that they can no longer be regarded as the judge of controversies and the rule to which all the versions must be applied? The papists affirm, we deny it."

pg 108 
"Although various corruptions might have crept into the Hebrew manuscripts through the carelessness of transcribers and the waste of time, they do not cease to be a canon of faith and practice. For besides being in things of small importance and not pertaining to faith and practice (as Bellarmine himself confesses and which, moreover, he holds do not affect the integrity of the Scriptures), they are not universal in all the manuscripts; or they are not such as cannot easily be corrected from a collation of the Scriptures and the various manuscripts."

pg 111
"A corruption differs from a variant reading. We acknowledge that many variant readings occur both in the Old and New Testaments arising from a comparison of different manuscripts, but we deny corruption (at least corruption that is universal)."

pg 113
"An authentic writing is one in which all things are abundantly sufficient to inspire confidence; one to which the fullest credit is due in its own kind; one of which we can be entirely sure that it has proceeded from the author whose name it bears; one in which everything is written just as he himself wished. However, a writing can be authentic in two ways: either primarily and originally or secondarily and derivatively. That writing is primarily authentic which is autopiston ("of self-inspiring confidence") and to which credit is and ought to be given on its own account. In this manner the originals of royal edicts, magistrates' decrees, wills, contracts, and the autographs of authors are authentic. The secondarily authentic writings are all the copies accurately and faithfully taken from the originals by suitable men; such as the scriveners appointed for that purpose by public authority (for the edicts of kings and other public documents) and any honest and careful scribes and copiers (for books and other writings). The autographs of Moses, the prophets and apostles are alone authentic in the first sense. In the latter sense, the faithful and accurate copies of them are also authentic."

pg 113
"Again, the authority of an authentic writing is twofold: the one is founded upon the things themselves of which it treats and has relation to the men to whom the writing is directed; the other is occupied with the treatise itself and the writing and refers to the copies and translations made from it...But the latter consists in this, that the autographs and also the accurate and faithful copies may be the standard of all other copies of the same writing and of its translations. If anything is found in them different from the authentic writings, either autographs or apographs, it is unworthy of the name authentic and should be discarded as spurious and adulterated, the discordance itself being a sufficient reason for its rejection."

@Eyedoc84 I would say those last two sound pretty Warfieldian in their distinction between the autographs and the apographs. Of course we derive our authority from the apographs now, but it's because we believe they represent (through collation and comparison) the autographs, which are alone authentic or authoritative in the primary sense.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Dec 1, 2021)

@Logan , I was not claiming the distinction was Warfieldian, but how that distinction was understood and used. When I get time, I will try to gather Muller’s argument.


----------



## Logan (Dec 1, 2021)

I noted this passage from Turretin above, but I think it's worth highlighting specifically with regards to the "purity" issue. Turretin's view of "kept pure in all ages" is not the same as those of the TR advocates in this thread. Turretin is consistent with Perkins and with all the Puritans Warfield quoted from: it has been kept pure in the many copies, that should be collated and corrected by comparison. How far Turretin would be willing to go with that, we cannot say, but we can say that his view was not that he was merely receiving a completely pure text, but he believed that a pure text was possible and work needed to be done.

pg 72
"Although we give to the Scriptures absolute integrity, we do not therefore think that the copyists and printers were inspired (theopneustous), but only that the providence of God watched over the copying of the sacred books, so that although many errors might have crept in, it has not so happened (or they have not so crept into the manuscripts) but that they can be easily corrected by a collation of others (or with the Scriptures themselves). Therefore the foundation of the purity and integrity of the sources is not to be placed in the freedom from fault (anamartesia) of men, but in the providence of God which (however men employed in transcribing the sacred books might possibly mingle various errors) always diligently took care to correct them, or that they might be corrected easily either from a comparison with Scripture itself or from more approved manuscripts. It was not necessary therefore to render all the scribes infallible, but only so to direct them that the true reading may always be found out. This book far surpasses all others in purity."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Dec 1, 2021)

Logan said:


> I noted this passage from Turretin above, but I think it's worth highlighting specifically with regards to the "purity" issue. Turretin's view of "kept pure in all ages" is not the same as those of the TR advocates in this thread. Turretin is consistent with Perkins and with all the Puritans Warfield quoted from: it has been kept pure in the many copies, that should be collated and corrected by comparison. How far Turretin would be willing to go with that, we cannot say, but we can say that his view was not that he was merely receiving a completely pure text, but he believed that a pure text was possible and work needed to be done.
> 
> pg 72
> "Although we give to the Scriptures absolute integrity, we do not therefore think that the copyists and printers were inspired (theopneustous), but only that the providence of God watched over the copying of the sacred books, so that although many errors might have crept in, it has not so happened (or they have not so crept into the manuscripts) but that they can be easily corrected by a collation of others (or with the Scriptures themselves). Therefore the foundation of the purity and integrity of the sources is not to be placed in the freedom from fault (anamartesia) of men, but in the providence of God which (however men employed in transcribing the sacred books might possibly mingle various errors) always diligently took care to correct them, or that they might be corrected easily either from a comparison with Scripture itself or from more approved manuscripts. It was not necessary therefore to render all the scribes infallible, but only so to direct them that the true reading may always be found out. This book far surpasses all others in purity."


I'm reluctant to jump back in as I don't intend to say much more, but what are the differences you see between this quote from Turretin and the TR position on the purity of scripture? Looks to me like he's saying the same thing as what most TR advocates would, and not quite the same thing as Perkins.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 1, 2021)

Hi Logan,

From your studies in this area, I think you know that Warfield was a Westcott & Hort man, believing their revised Greek text after (primarily) Codices B and Aleph were the answer to the rationalist detractors of the doctrine of preservation; he believed that their claim to have a neutral text would enable the church to withstand those who attacked the infallibility of God's word.

We now know he was wrong, as the "superior" neutral text but exploded all confidence in *ever* finding the original text among the textual scholars. His heart was in the right place, but he erred, believing false promises.

It is hard for me to comprehend how Turretin's view can be spun to have him become the eclectic textual critic you seem to have him being. His reservoir of acceptable mss for comparing and selecting the original readings was certainly not so broad as you seem to conceive – it would surely reside in those that the TR editors themselves used (with a few others, perhaps), but certainly _not_ those held by Rome, as Rome was attacking the Sola Scriptura of the Reformers with a vengeance, using its own mss.

And when Turretin writes about God's providence in preserving the Scripture as _*the main factor*_ in their purity, even down to retaining "the very words" (the other translation of him says, "the same words") this precludes his use of such "originals" that omit the last 12 verses of Mark, John 7:53-8:11, and 1 John 5:7 (despite your allegation he was ignorant in this area, and we are wiser due to more mss being available – as *he* was going by _providential_ preservation focused on that rare moment of Reformation whereas *you* are going on evidentiary materials, which two views of preservation differ radically).

He makes clear that what was preserved were *the very words* of the autographs retained in the faithful apographs. I'll re-post (with emphases added) what I wrote earlier in post #115 :

ON SCRIPTURE

QUESTION 5: Are there in Scripture true contradictions, or any irreconcilable passages, which cannot be resolved or harmonized in any way? We deny. 

VII. (2) Unless *unimpaired integrity* is attributed to Scripture, it cannot be regarded as the sole rule of faith and practice, and a wide door is opened to atheists, libertines, enthusiasts, and others of that sort of profane people to undermine its authority and overthrow the foundation of salvation. Since error cannot be part of the faith, how can a Scripture which is weakened by contradictions and corruptions be regarded as authentic and divine? Nor should it be said that these corruptions are only in matters of little significance, which do not affect the fundamentals of the faith. *For as soon as the authenticity of Scripture has been found wanting, even if it be a single corruption [of the text] that cannot be corrected, how can our faith any longer be sustained? If corruption is conceded in matters of little importance, why not also in others of more significance? Who will be able to give me faith that there has been no forgetfulness or deceit in the fundamental passages? What answer can be given the subtle 'atheist or heretic who persistently claims that this or that text, unfavorable to him, rests on falsehood? The reply should not be that divine providence has willed the [Scripture] be preserved from serious corruptions, but not from minor ones.* For not only is this an arbitrary assumption, but it also cannot be made without grave insult [to Scripture], implying that it lacks something necessary for its full self-authentication, nor can it easily be believed that God, who spoke and inspired *every single word* to God-inspired men, would not have provided for *the preservation of all*. If human beings preserve their words with the greatest care so that they will not be changed or corrupted, especially when--as is the case, for instance, with wills and contracts--they are of some importance, *how much more should God be thought to have taken care for his Word*, which he willed to have the status of testament and public notice of his covenant with us, *so that nothing could corrupt it*, especially when he could have easily foreseen and prevented such corruptions, to uphold the faith of his church? (p 71 in the hardcopy)

QUESTION 10: Has the original text of the Old and New Testaments come to us pure and uncorrupted? Affirmative, against the Roman Catholics. 

I. This question is forced upon us by the Roman Catholics, who raise doubts concerning the purity of the sources in order more readily to establish the authority of their Vulgate and lead us to the tribunal of the church.

II. By "original texts" we do not mean the very autographs from the hands of Moses, the prophets, and the apostles, which are known to be nonexistent. *We mean copies (apographa), which have come in their name, because they record for us that word of God in the same words* into which the sacred writers committed it under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit. [emphases added]​
This is a very far cry from "Warfieldian", and almost identical to the TR people who say that the WCF at 1.8 means *they record for us that word of God in the same words *the NT writers wrote.

Why should it be thought it impossible God could and did do this? He saw *you* in His mind – in eternity past – and decreed that you would be written in the Lamb's Book of Life; He saw you then, as you exist today, and despite all the damage done to the gene pool and the vicissitudes of harm your ancestors bore, you have turned out *exactly* as He envisioned you way back before time. His providential care provided for this. Even so with His word, in the apographs. Now whether the AV is a faithful translation of that, that is a battle being fought, and to continue being fought – in the trenches, as it were, of the validity of the particular readings.


----------



## Logan (Dec 1, 2021)

Steve,

Without going line by line, I feel like the majority of this post is speaking to something other than my own views or what I have said. I specifically said no one could say whether Turretin would have gone as far as the CT position, but that his methodology was NOT one of merely receiving some established text, but continued textual criticism. He didn't point to an Erasmus or a Stephanus but to all the manuscripts extant.

You cannot make the assumption that he rejected some manuscripts such as Rome may have used. He never said he rejected some. No one can possibly know which manuscripts he saw himself and what information he heard that he was merely repeating, so the only thing we can go off of is what he himself said, and that is to compare the copies in the Greek, with no distinction or limitation on text type or origin. Any assumption you make on limitation of TR text type and not being broad is strictly an assumption and not warranted by anything Turretin himself said.

When he says that 1 John 5:7 was contained in all the Greek manuscripts, I'm sorry you believe this is an allegation on my part but he could not possibly be right. Out of some 600 manuscripts on 1 John that we have, only five contain it and those all are dated at least post-14th century, perhaps all but one are even post-Erasmus. Thus in order for Turretin to be correct, even if he only said that the "vast majority" (rather than "all") contained it, we would have to have had thousands of manuscripts containing it during his day and all just happened to be lost within 200 years, _despite everyone looking for them_. That stretches credulity far beyond the limits and flies in the face of the very providential preservation we believe in. Besides that, there is no possible way in Turretin's day that he could have examined any significant number of manuscripts, let alone hundreds. Stephanus himself, who made a career of it, only compared something like twenty for the entire New Testament if I recollect correctly, and certainly not that many of 1 John. Add to this that Turretin made this assumption based on reading someone else's statement, he gives his source: the Roman Catholic Sixtus Senensis and you tell me whether a Roman Catholic would have examined all the manuscript evidence himself or whether he had an incentive to make that claim without examining the evidence. Given the RCC's stance on this verse and the Vulgate and the pressure they put on Erasmus to include it, I don't find this a reliable source at all.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 3, 2021)

Hello Logan,

You say in post # 120, “No one can say what Turretin would accept were he presented with the same evidence we are.” This is anachronistic, imposing on Turretin a textual methodology alien to him. Although he did indeed compare reliable copies available *in his day*, he did this within the paradigm of God’s providence preserving what He wanted preserved *in his day*, and not in the future. More on this in a moment.

And in post # 130 – at the end – you said, “I would say those last two sound pretty Warfieldian in their distinction between the autographs and the apographs. Of course we derive our authority from the apographs now, but it's because we believe they represent (through collation and comparison) the autographs, which are alone authentic or authoritative in the primary sense.”

Perhaps @Eyedoc84, speaking of Richard Muller vis-à-vis Warfield, had this in mind (and I am quoting from pastor Jeff Riddle’s discussion of this very point) :

What does Muller say in this work about the question of how Turretin and other post-reformation dogmatic theologians approached the text of Scripture?

Here are a few excerpts from Muller [_Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics_, Vol. 2, _Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology_ (Baker, 1993)] p. 433:

By “original and authentic” text, the Protestant orthodox do not mean the _autographa _which no person can possess but the _apographa _in the original tongue which are the source of all versions…. It is important to note that the Reformed orthodox insistence on the identification of the Hebrew and Greek texts as alone authentic does not demand direct reference to the _autographa_ in those languages; the “original and authentic text” of Scripture means, beyond the autograph copies, the legitimate tradition of Hebrew and Greek apographa.​
Footnote 165 for the statement above on p. 433:

Cf. Turretin, _Inst. theol_., II.xi.3-4, with Mastricht, _Theoretico-practica theol_., I.ii.10. A rather sharp contrast must be drawn, therefore, between the Protestant orthodox statements concerning the _autographa_ and the views of Archibald Alexander Hodge and Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield. This issue must be raised because of the tendency to confuse these two views…. The point made by Hodge and Warfield is a logical trap, a rhetorical flourish, a conundrum designed to confound the critics—who can only prove their case for genuine errancy by recourse to a text they do not (and surely _cannot_) have….​
Muller continues on p. 434:

The orthodox discussion of _autographa_ and _apographa_ was designed, therefore, to point toward continuity of text-tradition between the original authors and the present day texts…. For them the _autographa_ were not a concrete point of regress for the future critical examination of the text but rather a touchstone employed in gaining a proper perspective on current textual problems…. The orthodox tended to address issues of infallibility of Scripture in matters of faith and practice from an entirely different vantage point.​
And on p. 435:

Even so Turretin and other high and later orthodox writers argued that the authenticity and infallibility of Scripture must be identified in and of the _apographa_, not in and of lost_ autographa_…. The orthodox do, of course, assume that the text is free of substantive error and, typically, view textual problems as of scribal origin, but they mount their argument for authenticity and infallibility without recourse to a logical device like that employed by Hodge and Warfield.​
Muller’s conclusion is clear: The Protestant orthodox view of the text of Scripture of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was NOT equivalent to the modern reconstructionist (restorationist) view of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, as popularized among evangelicals by Hodges and Warfield. This distinction was not due to differences in the amount of data each had but to a fundamental difference in intellectual (theological) outlook. TF is, then, in error when he states that (the real) Turretin embraced the same modern textual methodology as JW [James White]. According to Muller, this would be an example of “the tendency to confuse these two views” (p. 433, n. 165).

The small but growing number of those who embrace the traditional text (the MT of the Hebrew OT and the TR of the Greek NT), driven by confessional considerations, are simply saying that they prefer the approach of Calvin, Owen, the 1689 framers, and Turretin to that of Metzger, Piper, and White.​
This is what I meant, Logan, by anachronistically imposing a paradigm on Turretin alien to him and his time.

And about Turretin’s view of 1 John 5:7 and the copies he was aware of that contained it, I found this of interest in Muller’s book where he discusses that passage of Scripture:

Many of the Bibles printed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, whether in the original languages, in Latin, or in a vernacular translation, gave the following reading as the text of 1 John 5:5-8: [and he gives the reading as it is in the A.V., and then discusses the great conflict that arose as to its authenticity -SMR] pp 443, 444​
Then, on p 445, Muller says,

Turretin noted that Erasmus had located the passage in a “most ancient British codex” and that “the most praiseworthy editions, the Complutensian, the Antwerp, Arias Montanus, R. Stephanus, and Walton, which have all utilized the best codices, have the phrase.” (Elect. Inst. III.xxv.9)​
Not to use Turretin as part of _my own_ defense of the comma, but to show that he had warrant to hold such, despite our later awareness – if it be sound – of a scarcity of Greek witnesses.

What I wish to point out is that an anachronistic critique of Turretin, and a wrongfully co-opting him into your camp, will not fly. He did not think like you do.


----------



## Logan (Dec 3, 2021)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> You say in post # 120, “No one can say what Turretin would accept were he presented with the same evidence we are.”
> 
> What I wish to point out is that an anachronistic critique of Turretin, and a wrongfully co-opting him into your camp, will not fly. He did not think like you do.



Respectfully Steve, I am baffled by your statements. It abundantly clear that I never said Turretin thought like I did nor did I co-opt him into "my camp" (whatever camp that is). And what precisely is my "anachronistic critique" of him? Do you think I'm trying to say that Turretin would have agreed with Warfield? I explicitly denied I or anyone else can know that or anything like that, multiple times. What am I missing?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 4, 2021)

Hello Logan,

I have learned from this discussion with you how that Turretin – without any guile _at all_ on your part – can be made “equivalent to the modern reconstructionist (restorationist) view of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, as popularized among evangelicals by Hodges and Warfield”, to quote (in post #136) Jeff Riddle discussing Richard Muller’s view of Turretin, where Muller says, “A rather sharp contrast must be drawn, therefore, between the Protestant orthodox statements concerning the _autographa_ and the views of Archibald Alexander Hodge and Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield. This issue must be raised because of the tendency to confuse these two views”.

In my post #134, I show Turretin declaring for the “preservation…of every single word” in the faithful copies / apographa – which he had *in hand* *at that time* – and not in the far off collations and comparisons of the text criticism of a later age. The real question is what apographa (plural) did he have in hand where “every single word” could be discerned by the Reformed scholars of that day? Not in the days of centuries down the line, but *that* day?

I don’t think discussing Turretin in the context of our modern textual situation and paradigms is profitable, besides doing Turretin a grave disservice. His viewpoint was based primarily on the presupposition that God had preserved His word for them *then*; the modern presupposition is that text experts would find the golden needle of that word in the haystacks of mss. *in later times*. That’s the anachronism I referred to.

Thank you for your patience and graciousness in this discussion! I'm a bit preoccupied getting all the requirements met for our flight out of NY, not least of which are those peculiar to the time of Omicron.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 4, 2021)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> the modern presupposition is that text experts would find the golden needle of that word in the haystacks of mss. *in later times*.


This is most emphatically NOT the presupposition of Reformed eclectic text critics. Much like Vos's view of the completeness of revelation for each era for each time period of biblical revelation, the view of Reformed eclectic text critics is that all ages of the church have had access to God's word with progressive refining going on, yes, but not in such a way as to deny previous ages the access mentioned. However we might quibble over the exact meaning of "kept pure in all ages," at the very least, those who hold to the WCF must hold to this. Pretty sure Logan would agree with me here. The problem is that you are judging our position on the basis of your presuppositions, not on the basis of ours. This has resulted in distortion.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 4, 2021)

Hi Lane – I'm talking about resolving the discrepancies the significant variants pose re having a settled text. And do not the producers of the critical text editions emphasize that the state of the text is provisional, depending on new information and discoveries? If you want to say there is a school of "Reformed eclectic text critics" who stand against the consensus, well, that may be a different story. How may I discern who these text critics are?

Are things any different now – since I wrote on this – the skepticism and doubts of the textual critics? You may just be an anomaly, with your stronger faith.


----------



## Logan (Dec 4, 2021)

greenbaggins said:


> the view of Reformed eclectic text critics is that all ages of the church have had access to God's word with progressive refining going on, yes, but not in such a way as to deny previous ages the access mentioned. However we might quibble over the exact meaning of "kept pure in all ages," at the very least, those who hold to the WCF must hold to this.



I agree this is the crux of the matter with respect to confessing God's providential care over the text.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 4, 2021)

It seems to me that the functional equivalent of “kept pure in all ages” is that even the CT editions with their variants have been preserved _in the main_, so that the LORD easily uses those editions of His word to save His elect and nurture His church unto holiness and dependence on His strong name. It is a further refinement of “kept pure in all ages” that some hold certain editions of His word have been preserved _in the minutiae_ as well.

This in no way implies that those who hold to this latter are superior to others in any respect, neither in holiness nor in wisdom and understanding – just simply having this peculiar faith in His promises in this matter. It is nonetheless an important witness they hold forth to all – that God has been faithful in the providential preservation of His word, according to their understanding of His promises, that those who need a sure and – to the uttermost – intact Bible have one.

Those who hold to the “in the main” view also have their own confidence in the Bibles they love, and are able to defend it against detractors, as one can see with your efforts and knowledge, Lane and Logan. Yours are truly sufficient Bibles, even if we want something more as regards sufficiency. Can we not live in peace, we two camps?


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Dec 4, 2021)

@Jerusalem Blade thanks for doing some of my work for me! Yes those are largely the quotes from Muller I had in mind. I will add this further one from his _Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms_:

”The Protestant scholastics do not press the point made by their nineteenth-century followers that the infallibility of Scripture and the freedom of Scripture from error reside absolutely in the autographa and only in a derivative sense in the apographa; rather, the scholastics argue positively that the apographa preserve intact, with minimal scribal corruptions, the true words of the prophets and the apostles and that the God-breathed character of Scripture is manifest in the apographa, as well as in the autographa. The issue primarily addressed by the seventeenth-century orthodox in their discussion of the autographa is the continuity of the extant copies in Hebrew and in Greek with the originals, both quoad res, with respect to the thing or subject of the text, and quoad verb, with respect to the words of the text. As to the continuity between the original language autographa and any, even the best translations, only continuity quoad res was recognized…the surviving texts in Hebrew and Greek, namely, the apographa, could be viewed in continuity both quoad verba and quoad res.”

Muller notes that the issues at hand were different: the reformed and scholastics were arguing about the authority of the languages whereas the 19th and 20th century battles were over “inerrancy”, which may have certainly led to different approaches and distinctions. But note for the earlier reformed, there was an emphasis on _continuity_ and for the moderns the emphasis was on _discontinuity_. I personally would argue this difference in approach to the texts leads to drastically different conclusions when carried over into textual criticism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 4, 2021)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hi Lane – I'm talking about resolving the discrepancies the significant variants pose re having a settled text. And do not the producers of the critical text editions emphasize that the state of the text is provisional, depending on new information and discoveries? If you want to say there is a school of "Reformed eclectic text critics" who stand against the consensus, well, that may be a different story. How may I discern who these text critics are?
> 
> Are things any different now – since I wrote on this – the skepticism and doubts of the textual critics? You may just be an anomaly, with your stronger faith.


Steve, I'm sure you can appreciate the tendency of myself and others of similar persuasion to wish to avoid being lumped in with unbelieving text critics who do not hold to the phrase "kept pure in all ages." Care has not always been taken by those of a TR persuasion to make such distinctions, with the result that Reformed text critics get tarred with Metzger's (among others) brush. Our position has always been that "kept pure in all ages" is the bar over which any progress in understanding/discovery of manuscripts has to operate. Any "provisionality" the status of textual criticism might have has to operate above the bar of "kept pure in all ages," not below it. As to who they are, there are a number of them right here on the PB, and you can find them simply by the confessional handle. I'm not sure you can say there is a consensus on much of anything in textual criticism these days. At any rate, you seemed to be including Logan and myself in your description of the "modern presupposition." 

On a related topic, your seeming need to have a settled text betrays the position you hold, since there was no "settled" text before Erasmus published his first edition. There were only manuscripts, which all differed from each other, no one of them having absolute authority. Furthermore, there was no "settled" text after Erasmus, either, since Erasmus' text differed slightly from the publications that followed. So, if we have to have a "settled" text in order for "kept pure in all ages" to be operative, then the church didn't have a text "kept pure in all ages" before Erasmus. 



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Those who hold to the “in the main” view also have their own confidence in the Bibles they love, and are able to defend it against detractors, as one can see with your efforts and knowledge, Lane and Logan. Yours are truly sufficient Bibles, even if we want something more as regards sufficiency. Can we not live in peace, we two camps?


I appreciate this, and I hope you were not interpreting my previous comment as not living in peace with you. Clarity and accuracy were my motivations.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 4, 2021)

Thank you, Lane, for the clarification. I do appreciate that you and Logan both hold to an understanding of "kept pure in all ages", it's just that we differ somewhat as to what it consists of. And, yes, it is a point of good clarification that that maxim (kept pure...) is a bar over which "provisionality" must rise in your view. That's helpful in this discussion! This is a very nuanced topic with fine distinctions.

My position is not "betrayed" by my need for a settled text, but rather it is heralded. I have this need because God said that I must live by every word that proceeds from His mouth, and I'm hungry for that. At any rate, this is how I see the matter of a settled text before Erasmus: which brings us back to the matter of preservation in the main – a sufficient, an adequate preservation – such that the LORD was in no way hindered from raising up His elect and maturing His bride – throughout the church age. One might say that the Byzantine region's text was more excellent, albeit not settled, than the Alexandrian/Egyptian's region (they had received no apostolic mss.), yet even what they had was preserved in the main.

The paradigm I hold and promote is that in the fulness of His timing the LORD's providence brought to maturity – to utter intactness – the word He had spoken and had recorded in the prophets and the apostles – in the autographs. So that the framers of the Westminster Confession were able to assert the apographic Scriptures had been “kept pure in all ages...by his singular care and providence" (1:8). What exactly did they mean by this?

it’s an interesting question. In a nutshell my view is the LORD kept the true *readings* of the autographic Hebrew and Greek extant in all ages. Not entire perfect manuscripts, but *the readings* were kept intact and in the Lord’s timing put into a particular edition of the Hebrew and the Greek apographs. When I say "the true readings" I mean the significant variants were gotten rid of. The text was settled.

We may differ in this somewhat academic matter – albeit one fraught with profound significance – for we nonetheless stand together in that we have in common, in the _great_ main, the word of our God, and our differences are not worth fighting over. We can discuss them, but not war over them. For our enemies circle us, aiming to destroy us, and our King mandates we be at peace, and abide in His love, so we may stand strong in His grace in these days of the dragon.

If those are two glasses of port wine they're clinking, I'll toast to the peace between us!


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 5, 2021)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> My position is not "betrayed" by my need for a settled text, but rather it is heralded. I have this need because God said that I must live by every word that proceeds from His mouth, and I'm hungry for that. At any rate, this is how I see the matter of a settled text before Erasmus: which brings us back to the matter of preservation in the main – a sufficient, an adequate preservation – such that the LORD was in no way hindered from raising up His elect and maturing His bride – throughout the church age. One might say that the Byzantine region's text was more excellent, albeit not settled, than the Alexandrian/Egyptian's region (they had received no apostolic mss.), yet even what they had was preserved in the main.


I am curious as to what you mean by "they had received no apostolic mss" in relation to Alexandria. On what do you base such a claim, and on what would you base your implied claim that Byzantium did receive such mss? How in the world could one know where the apostolic mss went and where they did not? Presumably the letters went to their recipients, but beyond that, we have very little evidence of which I am aware as to their secondary destinations and copying centers (though Alexandria being a famous center for manuscript production, it would seem odd indeed if none of the autographs ever made their way there). 



Jerusalem Blade said:


> The paradigm I hold and promote is that in the fulness of His timing the LORD's providence brought to maturity – to utter intactness – the word He had spoken and had recorded in the prophets and the apostles – in the autographs. So that the framers of the Westminster Confession were able to assert the apographic Scriptures had been “kept pure in all ages...by his singular care and providence" (1:8). What exactly did they mean by this?
> 
> it’s an interesting question. In a nutshell my view is the LORD kept the true *readings* of the autographic Hebrew and Greek extant in all ages. Not entire perfect manuscripts, but *the readings* were kept intact and in the Lord’s timing put into a particular edition of the Hebrew and the Greek apographs. When I say "the true readings" I mean the significant variants were gotten rid of. The text was settled.


This is interesting, as the main argument parallels what Warfield and Reformed CT guys would say. We, too, would agree that the autographs are the location of utterly intact revelation. We would also agree that the readings of the autographs are in the apographs. Where we seem to disagree is the location of the true readings in the apographs. I would argue that_ all _the existent manuscripts, _put together_, reveal the apographic mirror of the autographs. You believe that the Byzantine tradition has the most accurate apographic readings, while the Alexandrian tradition is somewhat inaccurate, but still "preserved in the main." Functionally, this would seem to imply that the Alexandrian texts should not be used at all, despite their great age. Is there any place at all where you believe the Alexandrian tradition can offer any correction to the Byzantine? 

From where I stand, there seems to be a certain circularity in play in the TR position at this point. How do you know that the Alexandrian tradition is not as accurate as the Byzantine? Or the Western text, for that matter? Simply because it differs from the Byzantine? That would be begging the question, assuming the Byzantine as the standard, and then finding that everything else comes up short. Do you have an alternative form of argumentation for this point? 

I am unclear what you mean by "significant variants were gotten rid of." To which variants do you refer? And what is the timeline of the settling of the text? When would you consider it settled, and when not? You seem to imply by your last two sentences that the settlement of the text took place after the significant variants were gotten rid of, though that may not be what you mean. I press you on this firstly in order to gain an accurate picture of your position, and second, because I am not sure our positions are as far apart as they sometimes appear. 

I offer these points in friendly debate, not in any kind of fighting spirit, as I agree that this difference does not disfellowship us.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 5, 2021)

About Egypt / Alexandria, I think *this summation* by Wilbur Pickering from chapter 5 on the history of the text in his, _The Identity of the New Testament Text II_, gives a good answer (including Metzger’s and Aland’s thoughts on Egypt in the section “The strength of the Church”).

Lane, you said, “I would argue that_ all _the existent manuscripts, _put together_, reveal the apographic mirror of the autographs.” But this is exactly what I meant when I said in post #138, “the modern presupposition is that text experts would find the golden needle of that word in the haystacks of mss.” – if they find it at all. The text critics will endeavor to hunt down – according to their own subjective criteria, even here on PB – the most feasible idea of the NT text in their views.

I would agree our positions are not that far apart, as regards *the vast corpus of the NT text* is concerned. It is the pesky variants that aggravate the difference! The variants I refer to can be plainly seen in comparing the texts – in the English (representing the Greek) ESV and KJV or NKJV or Geneva. The variants were “gotten rid of” by God’s providence in their not being included in the TR editions.

Can we – you and I – live with this difference between us? Or must we endlessly wrangle over it? I’m going to have to bow out of this discussion very soon, as I have to finish packing and getting various things in order so as to get on my plane to Cyprus. Perhaps I should let you have the last word, as that is one sure way to end the “wrangling”! I’ve pretty much had my say.


----------



## Logan (Dec 6, 2021)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> In my post #134, I show Turretin declaring for the “preservation…of every single word” in the faithful copies / apographa – which he had *in hand* *at that time* – and not in the far off collations and comparisons of the text criticism of a later age. The real question is what apographa (plural) did he have in hand where “every single word” could be discerned by the Reformed scholars of that day? Not in the days of centuries down the line, but *that* day?



I have been trying to leave you alone Steve, but I did want to note that I disagree with this assessment. No Reformed scholar (Turretin included) ever took the position that "only the manuscripts I have in hand are allowed and anything after date x is considered out of bounds." They recognized their limitations and believed by faith that it was preserved in the entirety at large, and in the main at hand. 

Are you aware that I consider myself partial to Maurice Robinson's Byzantine Priority position?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 8, 2021)

I would love to participate in this discussion, but I must stay on top of the requirements (uploading of PCR test results, vax status, and various forms) for international travel in these days of plague, or I would be overwhelmed, and risk my flight, not even to mention packing (according to TSA specs). I hope to be back when we are set up in Cyprus.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

