# This KJVO article has ruined the ESV for me :-(



## JimmyH

I grew up with and love the KJV but I'm not an onliest. I read the NKJV, NASB, RSV and the ESV. I had begun to like the flow of the ESV and was picking it up more and more. Then I read this article here on a KJVO site. At least the verses in question are included in brackets in my NASB and NKJV. To omit them completely in the ESV boggles my mind. I haven't checked my RSV yet but I assume they were ommitted there as well. I can live with the brackets and/or footnotes, but removing the verses completely ? Inexcusable AFAIC.


----------



## Philip

JimmyH said:


> To omit them completely in the ESV boggles my mind. I haven't checked my RSV yet but I assume they were ommitted there as well. I can live with the brackets and/or footnotes, but removing the verses completely ? Inexcusable AFAIC.



The online version has them as footnotes.


----------



## CharlieJ

Why aren't you angry at the KJV and NASB for adding verses?

Just pointing out that one's prior assumptions affect the way one looks at editorial decisions. I too would prefer brackets or footnotes, because I like to know the choices being made, but I don't think it's an absolute necessity.


----------



## Jeff Burns

The errors in that article are legion. No one who holds to the CT over and against the TR would argue that Matthew penned two different copies of Matthew. To say that there are 2 streams of transmission is also foolish. There are hundreds of streams of transmission. Some terminate with the Byzantine text type, some do not. I wouldn't let such poor arguments dissuade you from using the ESV.



JimmyH said:


> At least the verses in question are included in brackets in my NASB and NKJV. To omit them completely in the ESV boggles my mind.



I also prefer to have them there in the text in italics and double brackets. But we should respect the translators and compilers of the ESV for sticking to their guns on this issue and not pandering to emotionalism (as is manifested quite clearly in the article you linked to) and poor scholarship. The fact that the Comma Johanneum (and other later additions) made it _into _the text should boggle your mind more than the fact that the ESV left it out.


----------



## Christopher88

Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge (1/2)

I was looking some of these verses that the website was claiming was marked out. The ones I checked to see, its true. 

Can any bible scholars point to any validation on why the AV1611 is more reliable than the ESV? 


I know in my former baptist college, all the professors were AV guys. 


My only concern with the AV of 1611 is the fact Catholics, Protestants, and non clergy men who held no esteem for God were on the translation team. Is the text really close to the original language? AV only members do have valid point with the missing verses, but is this enough to condemn well translated bibles such as the ESV and NASB?


----------



## J. Dean

I always want to ask KJVO people _which_ KJV they hold to, as the KJV has undergone significant revisions over time. I remember reading that the first major revision occured not fifty years after the publication of the 1611 version.

Or that MANY KJVO people by their own admission have stated that some passages are better translated in other versions such as the NASB and the ERV. I've heard this in sermons and lectures given by KJVO people more than once, and it's left me puzzled.

It's sad, because the KJVO crowd has caused me in many ways to start bristling whenever people run back to the KJV. They've ruined my appreciation for that old text by their incessant, shortsighted antagonism toward anything not having "thee" and "thou" in it.


----------



## Jeff Burns

Sonny said:


> I was looking some of these verses that the website was claiming was marked out. The ones I checked to see, its true.



No one who advocates the CT would deny that those verses are left out. They would argue though that they never should've been included in the first place.



Sonny said:


> My only concern with the AV of 1611 is the fact Catholics, Protestants, and non clergy men who held no esteem for God were on the translation team. Is the text really close to the original language? AV only members do have valid point with the missing verses, but is this enough to condemn well translated bibles such as the ESV and NASB?



Before this thread desintegrates into another discussion of the merits of the AV over all other translations, suffice it to say that the NASB and ESV are incredibly accurate to the original languages (with the NASB having a slight edge over the ESV). The problem is the difference in the basis for what we're calling "the original languages." AV guys hold that the TR is the most accurate representation of what was contained in the autographs. Critical Text guys strongly disagree. There's merits to both sides. A few places to begin reading:

Home Page

http://www.newlivingtranslation.com/pdfs/BibleText.pdf

Robinson, The case for Byzantine priority


----------



## JimmyH

I didn't mean to stir up a hornet's nest. I'm not a KJVO person and I too don't want this thread to go to that debate. I will continue to read the ESV but the fact that the verses are excluded still irritates me. The NASB, my main study resource, including them in brackets is the better alternative AFAIC. 

Aside from my appreciation of the literary quality of the KJV, the fact that it was the Bible that saints came to know the Lord through for 400 years gives it merit, regardless of the textual source from which it was translated. I've only just begun to scratch the surface on the TR versus CT debate, so I'm not really qualified to speak to it intelligently.

I've read criticisms of W&H as well as articles defending them and I don't have a firm position yet. Could it be the author of confusion who created all of this debate ? Praying that the Holy Spirit will enlighten the eyes of my understanding and thankful for this board where intelligent discourse on these issues can be found.


----------



## greenbaggins

Jimmy, as has been pointed out, a particular verse being included or excluded is not a foregone conclusion. It depends on the manuscript tradition. You seem to be starting from the assumption that if a verse is IN the KJV version, then other versions are EXCLUDING it, rather than the KJV ADDING it. This is not a valid assumption. Even for KJV advocates, they would need to prove, in any instance, that the manuscripts favor its inclusion rather than simply assuming it. Scribes tended to add things to manuscripts. There are accidental omissions, of course, but the tendency was to add something to make it jibe with something else. In very few cases would a scribe deliberately omit something because he didn't like it. That is why one of the rules for textual criticism is that the shorter manuscript TENDS to be more accurate (always recognizing that there are exceptions to the rule, and that a host of other factors also come into play).


----------



## JimmyH

greenbaggins said:


> Jimmy, as has been pointed out, a particular verse being included or excluded is not a foregone conclusion. It depends on the manuscript tradition..


 Thanks for the explanation. More food for thought.


----------



## jogri17

JimmyH said:


> the fact that it was the Bible that saints came to know the Lord through for 400 years gives it merit


 Really? Perhaps in Britain, Australia, English Canada, and the States... but the world of Bibles is bigger than English. Also, how given the size of populations, I'm pretty sure one can make the case that more people have been converted under the Studium Biblicum Version in China (given population size) than in the Anglophone community between 1700 and 1980 (I use 1980 as the end of the dominance of the KJV).


----------



## JimmyH

jogri17 said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> 
> the fact that it was the Bible that saints came to know the Lord through for 400 years gives it merit
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Perhaps in Britain, Australia, English Canada, and the States... but the world of Bibles is bigger than English. Also, how given the size of populations, I'm pretty sure one can make the case that more people have been converted under the Studium Biblicum Version in China (given population size) than in the Anglophone community between 1700 and 1980 (I use 1980 as the end of the dominance of the KJV).
Click to expand...

 Point taken. I guess I tend to look at life/things from my own particular place in space and time. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to broaden my perspective.


----------



## JohnGill

Sonny said:


> *My only concern with the AV of 1611 is the fact Catholics, Protestants, and non clergy men who held no esteem for God were on the translation team.* Is the text really close to the original language? AV only members do have valid point with the missing verses, but is this enough to condemn well translated bibles such as the ESV and NASB?



Could your provide evidence for the bolded part in your post, especially since the Roman Church condemned it. Names would be helpful. I know that unbelievers and Catholics have worked on the CT which underlies the ESV, but I've never heard such a charge leveled against the AV translators. The TBS has a good article demonstrating the inadequacies of the ESV: The English Standard Version. The logical contradictions in it and the NASB are enough to discredit both for me.


----------



## Jake

If you would like a thorough treatment of the issue from the perspective of someone involved with the NASB, James White, a Reformed Baptist, has a great affirmation of the critical text (the basis of the ESV, NASB, and so on): Alpha and Omega Ministries

However, you have to remember that the prevailing opinion among most Bible scholars (judging by where translation effort and so on has been centred for some time) is that the generally older texts in the Alexandrian tradition more accurately reflect the original text than the Byzantine text. There is very little evidence, and relatively few people that argue (though there are some) that verses like "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (I John 5:7, KJV) were in the original text. Erasmus himself had trouble finding any copy of it to add to the Textus Receptus (Erasmus is a Catholic humanist who compiled the text that the KJV is based on).

There are some here who use and defend either the King James Version, the Textus Receptus (the text the KJV is based on), or the Majority Text. However, I recommend reading James White's book to get the opinion in favour of the critical text as well.


----------



## thbslawson

JimmyH said:


> I will continue to read the ESV but the fact that the verses are excluded still irritates me.



Again, you're assuming that those verses should have been there in the first place. Why are you not equally irritated that the KVJ added verses? Is this a less serious offense than removing them?


----------



## JimmyH

thbslawson said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will continue to read the ESV but the fact that the verses are excluded still irritates me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're assuming that those verses should have been there in the first place. Why are you not equally irritated that the KVJ added verses? Is this a less serious offense than removing them?
Click to expand...

 I don't "know" that the KJV _added_ them. Unless I'm misunderstanding the confroversy, some of the ancient manuscripts contain the verses while others do not ? Far be it from me to question the judgment of the KJV scholars who chose how to translate their sources, or which to judge as trustworthy.


----------



## KMK

greenbaggins said:


> That is why one of the rules for textual criticism is that the shorter manuscript TENDS to be more accurate



Where does this rule come from, Rev Keister? Can you point me to some literature that shows that scribes tended to add rather than delete? Are these biblical scribes or scribes in general?


----------



## KMK

greenbaggins said:


> That is why one of the rules for textual criticism is that the shorter manuscript TENDS to be more accurate



Where does this rule come from, Rev Keister? Can you point me to some literature that shows that scribes tended to add rather than delete? Are these biblical scribes or scribes in general?


----------



## Jeff Burns

KMK said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is why one of the rules for textual criticism is that the shorter manuscript TENDS to be more accurate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does this rule come from, Rev Keister? Can you point me to some literature that shows that scribes tended to add rather than delete? Are these biblical scribes or scribes in general?
Click to expand...


"_Prefer the shorter reading_, since scribes more often added to the text than omitted words. However, this principle must be used cautiously, since scribes sometimes omitted material either accidentally or because they found something to be grammatically, stylistically, or theologically objectionable in the text." David Alan Black, _New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide_ (Baker Books, Grand Rapids. 1994) p. 35.


----------



## Philip

JimmyH said:


> Far be it from me to question the judgment of the KJV scholars who chose how to translate their sources, or which to judge as trustworthy.



Part of the controversy, though, stems from the multiplicity of sources which we have and which weren'tr available to the 1611 translators. As pointed out, they were using Erasmus' Greek NT which was compiled by one individual. Their sources for translation, then, were Erasmus' NT with other translations and the Vulgate as reference for hard-to-translate passages.


----------



## JohnGill

Jeff Burns said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> The TBS has a good article demonstrating the inadequacies of the ESV: The English Standard Version.
> 
> 
> 
> Just read the TBS article. I'm no ESV fanboy, but that article has a lot of the same less-than-helpful information as the article Jimmy originally posted (i.e. verses left out, words changed, etc.). Both articles fail to account for the presupposition that the so called "excluded verses" ought to be there in the first place. They also fail to establish any basis for why the MT and TR ought to be the gold standard for Bible translation. Furthermore, they say some really ignorant things toward the end of the article:
> 
> "People who are concerned with the truth of the Bible will not be fooled by this new version once they see that it is merely a slightly revised edition of the RSV." So by that standard, John Piper, RC Sproul, Sinclair Ferguson, J.I. Packer, John MacArthur, and a slew of other men and women are not concerned with the truth of the Bible. Wow. That's a startling revelation!
> 
> They also say, "Since Crossway does not have the financial backing of the publishers of the NIV, there does not seem to be much of a future for the ESV." Yea... umm. That's kind of hard to believe when a huge majority of those in the reformed community have adopted the ESV as their standard translation, including the entire OPC (officially I might add).
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> The logical contradictions in it and the NASB are enough to discredit both for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could you please give some examples of logical contradictions in the NASB? I'd love to see some.
Click to expand...


Ps 119:9, denial of the Doctrine of Original Sin. Our way doesn't start out pure as implied in verse 9 of the NASB, but starts out corrupt. We are to purify/cleanse our way.

Prov 8:22 & Micah 5:2, denial of the eternality of Christ. Wisdom, Christ, wasn't created.

Letis also covers some of the issues with the ESV: The So-Called English Standard Version (and Bible Manuscripts, Texts, Separation, etc.) - SermonAudio.com

The foundation for removing the verses is based on the subjective practice of modern textual criticism. And yes it's quite possible for a group of godly men to be fooled on certain issues. How many godly Christians bought into some form of evolution towards the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century?


----------



## Jack K

The article you pointed to argues that the "omitted" verses are such good verses. How could we leave them out? Don't we want such verses in our Bibles, given how good they are?

That's a lame argument. It's the equivalent of saying that if you think of a good line that explains the gospel well it ought to be added to the Bible because it's a good line. No. That's not our criteria.

There are some good arguments for the KJV. But that article doesn't use any of them.


----------



## JohnGill

Jeff Burns said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is why one of the rules for textual criticism is that the shorter manuscript TENDS to be more accurate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does this rule come from, Rev Keister? Can you point me to some literature that shows that scribes tended to add rather than delete? Are these biblical scribes or scribes in general?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "_Prefer the shorter reading_, since scribes more often added to the text than omitted words. However, this principle must be used cautiously, since scribes sometimes omitted material either accidentally or because they found something to be grammatically, stylistically, or theologically objectionable in the text." David Alan Black, _New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide_ (Baker Books, Grand Rapids. 1994) p. 35.
Click to expand...


This doesn't actually answer his question. Saying scribes more often added to the text than omitted words doesn't demonstrate that in fact they did this. In order to prove this tenet of modern textual criticism one would have to be present at every instance a scribe copied from the NT text and then check to see if words were added or omitted. It is an assumption of modern textual criticism. Because of its inherent arbitrary nature, as are all tenets of modern textual criticism, one could also assume the opposite is true and be just as justified in their position as the modern textual critic. It should be remembered that the origin of the canons of modern textual criticism are not Christian, but have their foundation in German rationalism which originates from atheism and these canons assume apriori a non-supernatural view of scripture.


----------



## Philip

JohnGill said:


> In order to prove this tenet of modern textual criticism one would have to be present at every instance a scribe copied from the NT text and then check to see if words were added or omitted.



Actually, that's not the reason: the reason is that the earlier manuscripts tend more often to have things omitted.

Again, historically a lot of the controversy over the TR is that all of the textual decisions for it were made by its compiler: Erasmus. He did a fairly good job, yes, but he a) didn't have the larger pool of manuscripts that we now have with which to make these decisions b) had a very clear theological agenda.


----------



## JohnGill

Philip said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> In order to prove this tenet of modern textual criticism one would have to be present at every instance a scribe copied from the NT text and then check to see if words were added or omitted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that's not the reason: *the reason is that the earlier manuscripts tend more often to have things omitted.*
> 
> Again, historically a lot of the controversy over the TR is that all of the textual decisions for it were made by its compiler: Erasmus. He did a fairly good job, yes, but he a) didn't have the larger pool of manuscripts that we now have with which to make these decisions b) had a very clear theological agenda.
Click to expand...


Provide objective evidence for the bolded.


----------



## Philip

JohnGill said:


> Provide objective evidence for the bolded.



You'd have to ask my friends who are conservative Biblical scholars.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

KMK said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is why one of the rules for textual criticism is that the shorter manuscript TENDS to be more accurate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does this rule come from, Rev Keister? Can you point me to some literature that shows that scribes tended to add rather than delete? Are these biblical scribes or scribes in general?
Click to expand...


This is a general assumption of textual criticism and the thinking is that the older text is closer to the original and thus less likely to have been altered. This is is certainly a good theory, but by no means normative. As Dr. Maurice Robinson points out, propronents of the critical text need to provide a satisfying explanation for why the church at some point completely abandoned the Alexandrian text type in favor of the Byzantine text type. They have yet to provide such an explanation, and just because they are older does not adequately explain why there are so few examples of the Alexandrian text. The Hebrew texts are much older and yet much more plentiful.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

greenbaggins said:


> Even for KJV advocates, they would need to prove, in any instance, that the manuscripts favor its inclusion rather than simply assuming it.



Pastor Keister,
I think you have heard the arguments. There is evidence for why things have been left in even if the Older *Two* Manuscripts exclude them from Alexandria. There is more evidence from the Majority that they belong. At least as I understand it. The Church Fathers and their quotes from the scripture are closer to the Majority text. The older are not necessarily the most accurate. You know the arguments. At least I would hope so.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I love this site....
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org

Even if you are a CT guy, everyone should read this booklet. 

It is not KJV. 

Amazon.com: Accuracy of Translation and the New International Version: The Primary Criterion in Evaluating Bible Versions (9780851515465): Robert P. Martin: Books

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/nivi.html

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/onlinearticles.html


----------



## Jake

Philip said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> 
> Far be it from me to question the judgment of the KJV scholars who chose how to translate their sources, or which to judge as trustworthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Part of the controversy, though, stems from the multiplicity of sources which we have and which weren'tr available to the 1611 translators. As pointed out, they were using Erasmus' Greek NT which was compiled by one individual. Their sources for translation, then, were Erasmus' NT with other translations and the Vulgate as reference for hard-to-translate passages.
Click to expand...


Not to mention that part of Erasmus' NT was back-translated from the Vulgate anyway (the latter part of Revelation was not available to him).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Can you sight some of this for me Jake? I would love some references for your assertion. Is this Jerome's Vulgate?

I had a Roman Catholic assert that Jerome also included the Apocrypha as Scripture. I had to show him the truth of the matter. Jerome believed there were 66 books of the Bible only. He did translate the Apocrypha but didn't consider them Scripture.


----------



## JohnGill

Jake said:


> Philip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> 
> Far be it from me to question the judgment of the KJV scholars who chose how to translate their sources, or which to judge as trustworthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Part of the controversy, though, stems from the multiplicity of sources which we have and which weren'tr available to the 1611 translators. As pointed out, they were using Erasmus' Greek NT which was compiled by one individual. Their sources for translation, then, were Erasmus' NT with other translations and the Vulgate as reference for hard-to-translate passages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to mention that part of Erasmus' NT was back-translated from the Vulgate anyway (the latter part of Revelation was not available to him).
Click to expand...


This is an assertion, not a fact. It is similar to the fictional account of Erasmus' deal to include 1 Jn 5:7. It's best to stay away from such fraudulent stories.


----------



## Philip

JohnGill said:


> This is an assertion, not a fact. It is similar to the fictional account of Erasmus' deal to include 1 Jn 5:7. It's best to stay away from such fraudulent stories.



Nonetheless, the fact that the TR is the result of precisely _one_ scholar's work with _one_ textual tradition out of several means that we should at least think twice about it.


----------



## JohnGill

Philip said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is an assertion, not a fact. It is similar to the fictional account of Erasmus' deal to include 1 Jn 5:7. It's best to stay away from such fraudulent stories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonetheless, the fact that the TR is the result of precisely _one_ scholar's work with _one_ textual tradition out of several means that we should at least think twice about it.
Click to expand...


One scholar's work? Poor Elzevir brothers, Beza and others who worked on it. To claim it is the product of solely one scholar's work is to ignore history. One textual tradition agreed. However, it is from the textual tradition that has been in continual use throughout the history of the church unlike the CT which is comprised of a textual tradition abandoned by Christendom in the middle of the 4th century and re-introduced to Christendom in the late 18th century by atheistic German rationalists. In itself that is more than enough to dismiss the CT and its translations.


----------



## Philip

JohnGill said:


> which is comprised of a textual tradition abandoned by Christendom in the middle of the 4th century



Not true---lost in the Middle Ages, more like (extant copies through the 10th century). This is like claiming that the _Peshitta_ is a bad translation because it never reached Europe until the 19th century.



JohnGill said:


> Poor Elzevir brothers, Beza and others who worked on it. To claim it is the product of solely one scholar's work is to ignore history.



Editors, not compilers. The fact is that within one hundred years of 1611 (well before German textual criticism) there were new editions of the Greek NT that included thousands of variants, even before other textual traditions such as the Alexandrian texts or the _Peshitta_ were rediscovered.



JohnGill said:


> re-introduced to Christendom in the late 18th century by atheistic German rationalists.



German rationalism of the 18th century was overwhelmingly theistic. You're confusing it with France.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Philip said:


> German rationalism of the 18th century was overwhelmingly theistic. You're confusing it with France.



I will say this Phillip, weren't they both built upon the biblical theology that tried to move away from the scriptural truth of the transcendent? Wasn't there a moving away from the Bible in both situations? From what I have read both were opposed to the miraculous. Maybe I am incorrect. I certainly can be.

Maybe I should take that back. One tried to equate a leap of faith at least. Isn't this where we get existential thought and faith?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Okay, the TBS has updated recently. Trinitarian Bible Society


----------



## Philip

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I will say this Phillip, weren't they both built upon the biblical theology that tried to move away from the scriptural truth of the transcendent? Wasn't there a moving away from the Bible in both situations? From what I have read both were opposed to the miraculous. Maybe I am incorrect. I certainly can be.
> 
> Maybe I should take that back. One tried to equate a leap of faith at least. Isn't this where we get existential thought and faith?



German rationalism (Leibniz-style) tended to try and defend the miraculous by showing that natural laws didn't exist. They explained miracles by making everything (and therefore nothing) miraculous.

Existential thought came later as part of the after-effects of Hegelian and Nietzschean thought, both of which were reacting to rationalism.


----------



## JohnGill

Philip said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> which is comprised of a textual tradition abandoned by Christendom in the middle of the 4th century
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true---lost in the Middle Ages, more like (extant copies through the 10th century). This is like claiming that the _Peshitta_ is a bad translation because it never reached Europe until the 19th century.
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Elzevir brothers, Beza and others who worked on it. To claim it is the product of solely one scholar's work is to ignore history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Editors, not compilers. The fact is that within one hundred years of 1611 (well before German textual criticism) there were new editions of the Greek NT that included thousands of variants, even before other textual traditions such as the Alexandrian texts or the _Peshitta_ were rediscovered.
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> re-introduced to Christendom in the late 18th century by atheistic German rationalists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> German rationalism of the 18th century was overwhelmingly theistic. You're confusing it with France.
Click to expand...


I did not say the Alexandrian texts were lost. They were used by the Roman church and even Erasmus had access to the Alexandrian text type via the Roman church. He refused its use. I stated they were abandoned by Christendom around the middle of the 4th century. John William Burgon demonstrated this as have others.

But your claim was that,


JohnGill said:


> Nonetheless, the fact that the TR is the result of precisely one scholar's work


 isn't true. Editors or compilers, other men worked on it besides Erasmus.

No, the confusion lies with your understanding of the adjective "theistic" as applied to 18th century German rationalists. What kind of theistic? J.S. Semler, the father of German rationalism, may have been considered "theistic", but his beliefs are atheistic. Specifically his rejection of the divine authority of scripture, of inspiration, authority of the Old and New Testaments, the deity of Christ, et al. Such a belief is atheistic, not theistic. Simply because he is labelled as "theistic" does not make it so. Following such a line of argumentation one could then claim that all atheists are actually theists because one labels them as such. Bertrand Russel, Richard Dawkins, Michael Martin, and Gordon Stein all agree with Semler's views. By your claim that German rationalists of the 18th century were theistic, we may then claim the aforementioned atheists as theistic. Though such German rationalists may be labelled as theists, they implicitly if not explicitly, held to atheism.


----------



## Philip

JohnGill said:


> J.S. Semler, the father of German rationalism



I would consider the father of German rationalism to be Leibniz. At any rate, criticism of the TR predates Semler by a good bit: for example, John Mill and Johann Bengel both noted significant variations in the texts.

Also, just because certain scholars have been less orthodox does not invalidate their observations or their methods with regard to comparison of manuscripts and the attempt to figure out a version of the text that is as close to the original autographs as possible.



JohnGill said:


> By your claim that German rationalists of the 18th century were theistic, we may then claim the aforementioned atheists as theistic.



Absolutely not. Bertrand Russell never claimed to believe in God---Semler did. I'm going merely by the criterion that Semler is honestly reporting his own beliefs, nothing more. 



JohnGill said:


> Specifically his rejection of the divine authority of scripture, of inspiration, authority of the Old and New Testaments, the deity of Christ, et al. Such a belief is atheistic, not theistic.



Muslims are theists, but they wouldn't believe this. Theism is not necessarily Christian.


----------



## Pilgrim

There are practical implications here as well. The "omission" of verses as noted in the OP causes problems in group Bible studies, Sunday School classes and the like when people are using different versions. Sometimes you'll have a jump from v. 15 to v. 17 or whatever. (If the vast majority of people are using the ESV, for example, then obviously this is far less problematic.) I don't think conformity to one version should necessarily be mandated, but the current situation necessitates checking half a dozen versions prior to teaching a class lest one risk getting sidetracked with textual issues too frequently. Even then it's often unavoidable. But at least the teacher won't be blindsided like I was on one occasion in which I called on a person to read a verse and the response was that that verse wasn't in her version. At least with the versions that use brackets like the NASB and the HCSB, (as I understand it, not being very familiar with the HCSB) the "questionable" passages are still in the text more frequently than with the ESV and NIV. In some cases, this is not necessarily even a CT/TR issue, as confusion can ensue when one person's ESV doesn't have a verse but his friend sitting next to him with an NASB does have it. 

If translators are going to be so hard line as to put whole verses in the margin rather than in brackets, then why not do the same with the "longer" ending of Mark and the Pericope (the woman taken in adultery) as well? Most hardline CT people are convinced that neither are original, or that in any case are fairly certain that the Pericope most likely wasn't originally where it is now. The liberals who translated the RSV originally had Mark 16:9-20 in the margin in the first edition of the NT (1946) but put it back in the text with a note in the 2nd edition. 

Also, why not recite the Lord's Prayer but while doing so omit the last phrase that the CT omits (omission with respect to the traditional form) if one is convinced that it represents a later scribal addition to the text? I've actually been in one OPC congregation that did this, reading it from the ESV, If I recall correctly. That's something which some would no doubt assert is unconfessional. (I noted this in a previous thread and If I recall correctly that was Rev. Winzer's response and/or was someone else's who holds a similar view.)

If I'm not mistaken, you also have phrases that were "omitted" or put in the margin in earlier versions of the NASB but were later put back into the text in later editions. My understanding is that this happens with the various editions of UBS/Nestle. In other cases, I suppose the translators may just change their mind in the course of revising a translation as I wouldn't think that any major CT translation slavishly follows the latest critical text in every instance. Given this state of flux, it would seem to me that the conservatism represented by NKJV would be preferable as a modern translation. That's the one I use, for that reason as well as stylistic/literary preference.

If one is so convinced that verses that the critical text editors confidently assert are not original should be relegated to the margin, then why not go all the way, even in familiar passages, and altogether disregard the petty little sensibilities of ignorant people who should just submit to their betters and put aside their faulty KJV's and NKJV's that are translated from a corrupt Greek manuscript tradition? And why not revise historic confessions where they reflect the Textus Receptus while we're at it?

(Admittedly this is a somewhat off the cuff late night post. And I'm really not seeking to be inflammatory, I promise.  I don't advocate keeping people in the dark regarding textual issues. The apparatus in the NKJV that notes textual issues is another reason why I prefer it. It may not be perfect but it's more revelatory than the marginal notes that you find in any other translation that is widely used today.)


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Philip said:


> German rationalism (Leibniz-style) tended to try and defend the miraculous by showing that natural laws didn't exist.



Please show me this. Sounds like an old docetist heresy. Christ didn't have a human nature stuff relived.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Philip said:


> German rationalism (Leibniz-style) tended to try and defend the miraculous by showing that natural laws didn't exist.



What a contradiction. Even I am not that irrational. Is this really that easy? Stupid is as Stupid does stuff? Maybe I should look to Forest Gump. It seems like I am asking the question of if I exist. To Whom shall this question be addressed? I asked the question.


----------



## JohnGill

Philip said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> J.S. Semler, the father of German rationalism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would consider the father of German rationalism to be Leibniz. At any rate, criticism of the TR predates Semler by a good bit: for example, John Mill and Johann Bengel both noted significant variations in the texts.
> 
> Also, just because certain scholars have been less orthodox does not invalidate their observations or their methods with regard to comparison of manuscripts and the attempt to figure out a version of the text that is as close to the original autographs as possible.
Click to expand...


And Richard Simon before them. But all started with the underlying belief that the Bible did not have a supernatural origin. Such a belief is epistemologically atheistic. Such is all autonomous human reasoning. And to use the term "less orthodox" covers over the satanic beliefs of men such as Semler, Mill, Simon, et al. Their view of scripture and Christ is not just "less orthodox" it is outright heresy. Their heresy assumed that scripture can be treated just like any other book which is a denial of its supernatural origin and that autonomous human reasoning can somehow determine the alleged "true text" of scripture. A text which has constantly been changing since Richard Simon's began. A text which can never be found since we do not have the originals to compare it to and so it will always be subject to change. Such ungodly men have no place touching scripture and as Christians we should not only reject their view of scripture but any method developed out of their view of scripture. And that would include the arbitrary, subjective, and autonomous canons of modern textual criticism. Autonomous human reasoning, which is inherently atheistic, is not the foundation for scripture. Scripture is the foundation for ALL human reasoning. Modern textual criticism assumes the former is true. It is these same arbitrary canons that remove verses from one edition of the CT while adding back those same verses to another edition of the CT. So the foundation for scripture's text is left to the changing whims of men who believe scripture is of anti-supernatural origin. For in denying the supernatural origin of scripture, they are denying all that scripture teaches. This will always be a wrong position to start with and will always lead to error with regards as to how one treats scripture and what one considers to be scripture.


----------



## Philip

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Philip said:
> 
> 
> 
> German rationalism (Leibniz-style) tended to try and defend the miraculous by showing that natural laws didn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please show me this. Sounds like an old docetist heresy. Christ didn't have a human nature stuff relived.
Click to expand...


That's probably an over-statement. Jonathan Edwards more or less does the same thing when he claims that the only thing that makes an object the same object from moment to moment is Divine decree. Edwards (like Leibniz) denies any causality except Divine Causality.



JohnGill said:


> But all started with the underlying belief that the Bible did not have a supernatural origin.



Can you back this one up? It doesn't seem to me that comparison of manuscripts implies that the Bible is not supernatural in origin.



JohnGill said:


> Their heresy assumed that scripture can be treated just like any other book which is a denial of its supernatural origin and that autonomous human reasoning can somehow determine the alleged "true text" of scripture.



All right: so what methodology would you propose, then? Someone has to make a judgment somewhere down the line; methods of scholarship have to be used. Unless you're going to argue that the _textus receptus_ was handed down to the Church in the 16th century in its entirety rather than collated by a handful of scholars from one textual tradition, I'm puzzled as to what the difference is. People are making judgments and using their reason to try and parse out and figure out what belongs in the Biblical text either way.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

Since the identity of the so called "removed versus" are no great secret, I have just written them into my ESV's. I don't think I have missed any. My solution is probably way to simple, but I never seem to have the "skipped verse" problem. And you should watch the face of the Ruckmanites when they say "read me verse XYZ of God's word from that so called bible" and I say "Sure!, here we go."


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

100% Amen Pilgrim Chris.


----------



## J. Dean

Here's a good article on the matter: Which King James Bible?

Note this paragraph from the article, a good reminder for all of us, regardless of what side of the issue we take:


> The KJV has errors in it, but so does every translation. As long as human beings are involved, there will be some error. Yet these errors are usually minor, and if we are diligently studying God's word, seeking the truth, we are promised that we "shall find." Do not be so foolish as to claim that the translation of the scriptures you use is flawless. You should have several Bible translations for study, including interlinear of the Greek and Hebrew texts, commentaries, concordances, dictionaries, and other study helps. No one Bible translation should exclude all other translations. Rather, each one of us needs to diligently study, to grow in knowledge and truth, and be faithful and obedient to the text that we are using.


----------



## JohnGill

Philip said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philip said:
> 
> 
> 
> German rationalism (Leibniz-style) tended to try and defend the miraculous by showing that natural laws didn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please show me this. Sounds like an old docetist heresy. Christ didn't have a human nature stuff relived.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's probably an over-statement. Jonathan Edwards more or less does the same thing when he claims that the only thing that makes an object the same object from moment to moment is Divine decree. Edwards (like Leibniz) denies any causality except Divine Causality.
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> But all started with the underlying belief that the Bible did not have a supernatural origin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you back this one up? It doesn't seem to me that comparison of manuscripts implies that the Bible is not supernatural in origin.
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their heresy assumed that scripture can be treated just like any other book which is a denial of its supernatural origin and that autonomous human reasoning can somehow determine the alleged "true text" of scripture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All right: so what methodology would you propose, then? Someone has to make a judgment somewhere down the line; methods of scholarship have to be used. Unless you're going to argue that the _textus receptus_ was handed down to the Church in the 16th century in its entirety rather than collated by a handful of scholars from one textual tradition, I'm puzzled as to what the difference is. People are making judgments and using their reason to try and parse out and figure out what belongs in the Biblical text either way.
Click to expand...


I was referring not to a comparing of manuscripts but to the anti-supernatural view of scripture underlying the history and canons of modern textual criticism. Comparing manuscripts isn't the issue, how one views scripture when comparing the manuscripts of scripture is the issue. Modern textual criticism holds to an unscriptural view of scripture. Go back to Richard Simon and begin reading the works that laid the foundation of modern textual criticism and look at how they viewed scripture. Their view of scripture is contrary to scripture and is sinful. The Reformers held a completely different view of scripture.

The difference is simple, either scripture informs us as how to approach the process of dealing with textual variants or autonomous human reasoning does. We either go to scripture or we go to the ungodly men who created the field of modern textual criticism. Prior to the modern view their was another view on how to deal with variants. That view, a view held by the Reformers, assumed scripture must inform us as to what the variants mean and how to deal with them. Until we abandon autonomy for theonomy in the realm of textual criticism, it is a field that does nothing to profit the church.


----------



## Jeff Burns

JohnGill said:


> I was referring not to a comparing of manuscripts but to the anti-supernatural view of scripture underlying the history and canons of modern textual criticism. Comparing manuscripts isn't the issue, how one views scripture when comparing the manuscripts of scripture is the issue. Modern textual criticism holds to an unscriptural view of scripture. Go back to Richard Simon and begin reading the works that laid the foundation of modern textual criticism and look at how they viewed scripture. Their view of scripture is contrary to scripture and is sinful. The Reformers held a completely different view of scripture.
> 
> The difference is simple, either scripture informs us as how to approach the process of dealing with textual variants or autonomous human reasoning does. We either go to scripture or we go to the ungodly men who created the field of modern textual criticism. Prior to the modern view their was another view on how to deal with variants. That view, a view held by the Reformers, assumed scripture must inform us as to what the variants mean and how to deal with them. Until we abandon autonomy for theonomy in the realm of textual criticism, it is a field that does nothing to profit the church.



I mean this with all sincerety, as I largely agree with you that we ought to be informed by Scripture as opposed to our own fallen minds: how does Scripture inform us how to do text criticism? What was the view held by the reformers? Could you please provide some resources (from non-KJVO websites preferrably) that outline how the reformers practices textual criticism in a theonomistic way? Thanks a lot.


----------



## JohnGill

Jeff Burns said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring not to a comparing of manuscripts but to the anti-supernatural view of scripture underlying the history and canons of modern textual criticism. Comparing manuscripts isn't the issue, how one views scripture when comparing the manuscripts of scripture is the issue. Modern textual criticism holds to an unscriptural view of scripture. Go back to Richard Simon and begin reading the works that laid the foundation of modern textual criticism and look at how they viewed scripture. Their view of scripture is contrary to scripture and is sinful. The Reformers held a completely different view of scripture.
> 
> The difference is simple, either scripture informs us as how to approach the process of dealing with textual variants or autonomous human reasoning does. We either go to scripture or we go to the ungodly men who created the field of modern textual criticism. Prior to the modern view their was another view on how to deal with variants. That view, a view held by the Reformers, assumed scripture must inform us as to what the variants mean and how to deal with them. Until we abandon autonomy for theonomy in the realm of textual criticism, it is a field that does nothing to profit the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean this with all sincerety, as I largely agree with you that we ought to be informed by Scripture as opposed to our own fallen minds: how does Scripture inform us how to do text criticism? What was the view held by the reformers? Could you please provide some resources (from non-KJVO websites preferrably) that outline how the reformers practices textual criticism in a theonomistic way? Thanks a lot.
Click to expand...


There are no resources on KJVO websites. The best introduction would be Miller's "A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament" along with Burgon's works. Going back further, Francis Turretin's treatise on the Scriptures in Volume 1 of his writings, Volume 16 of John Owen's work, Whitaker's Disputations on Holy Scripture, John Gill's writings on Scripture. For the beginning of the modern view read Richard Simon's "A Critical History of the Text of the New Testament; Wherein is Firmly Established the Truth of Those Acts on Which the Foundation of Christian Religion is Laid." Volume 1 of Reformed Dogmatics by Bavinck also deals with some of the issues. H.J. de Jonge's writings on Erasmus. Theodore Beza's notes in his Greek New Testament. I've downloaded more and will try ot post the titles later if I can find them.


----------



## Philip

It also goes without saying that none of us are referring to so-called "higher criticism" which questions the origins of the original autographs. None of us, I think, would accept that. Further, none of us are disputing the authority of Scripture.

That being said, what are the Biblical criteria for determining, for instance, which manuscript traditions ought to be given priority? What it sounds like, Chris, is that your appeal is to tradition here and that your case against the CT is based on the genetic fallacy of "the founders of modern criticism (higher and lower) did not accept the authority of Scripture, therefore their methods are invalid." However, the ground motives that moved them to do textual analysis do not necessarily invalidate the methods which they used. This is like me saying "transcendental critique was first used by Kant, therefore it is invalid."


----------



## Galatians220

Just going to throw a link to a good sermon by Rev. Geoff Banister in here and then I will exit: The Issue of Bible Versions - SermonAudio.com.


----------



## JohnGill

Philip said:


> It also goes without saying that none of us are referring to so-called "higher criticism" which questions the origins of the original autographs. None of us, I think, would accept that. Further, none of us are disputing the authority of Scripture.
> 
> That being said, *what are the Biblical criteria for determining, for instance, which manuscript traditions ought to be given priority?* What it sounds like, Chris, is that your appeal is to tradition here and that your case against the CT is based on the genetic fallacy of "the founders of modern criticism (higher and lower) did not accept the authority of Scripture, therefore their methods are invalid." However, the ground motives that moved them to do textual analysis do not necessarily invalidate the methods which they used. This is like me saying "transcendental critique was first used by Kant, therefore it is invalid."



Due to the subjective and arbitrary nature of the canons of modern textual criticism the prejudice of the modern critic against scripture's supernatural origin is reflected in his application of these so-called methods. The underlying philosophy of modern textual criticism is the belief that man's autonomous reasoning can find the "true text" of scripture. Pure nonsense. To find the "true text" assumes that we don't have it. A view contradicted not just by the Reformers, but by scripture itself. It's the same underlying philosophy found in the quest for the historical Jesus. The determination of what is and is not scripture is left up to the whims of man as demonstrated in the various editions of the CT in which the same passage is removed and then brought back in to a later edition of the CT. So at one time it was scripture, at another it wasn't, and then later it was again. Such is the arbitrary nature of modern textual criticism where man's intellect sits in judgment against God's word. This allows for the possibility that any passage in scripture may at some future time be no longer considered scripture because of some textual discovery. 
The methods used in modern textual criticism are not derived from scripture and therefore have no right to be brought to bear upon scripture. Scripture is not like any other book and the philosophy under which these methods were developed and the philosophy which created the CT assumes at the outset that scripture is just like any other book from the ancient world and can be treated as such. Such a view is anti-biblical and is heresy. Look at the canons. Why should the harder reading be preferred over an easier reading? Or a shorter over a longer? Such "methods" are automatically discredited because they were not derived from scripture, but from autonomous human reasoning. Autonomous human reasoning is always sinful. Only Scripture can inform us on how to deal with variants in the texts of scripture. We cannot claim the shorter is to be preferred unless scripture itself teaches this. The methods of modern textual criticism are at best useless when dealing with scripture and at worst blasphemous. 

In the bolded part, you asked the right question. My answer would be to go back to the Reformers and remove from use the sinful autonomy of modern textual criticism. The Reformers dealt with textual variants from a Biblical framework. Let's go back to their text, their methods, and abandon autonomy for God's word.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

JohnGill said:


> The underlying philosophy of modern textual criticism is the belief that man's autonomous reasoning can find the "true text" of scripture. Pure nonsense. To find the "true text" assumes that we don't have it. A view contradicted not just by the Reformers, but by scripture itself. It's the same underlying philosophy found in the quest for the historical Jesus. The determination of what is and is not scripture is left up to the whims of man as demonstrated in the various editions of the CT in which the same passage is removed and then brought back in to a later edition of the CT. So at one time it was scripture, at another it wasn't, and then later it was again. Such is the arbitrary nature of modern textual criticism where man's intellect sits in judgment against God's word. This allows for the possibility that any passage in scripture may at some future time be no longer considered scripture because of some textual discovery.
> The methods used in modern textual criticism are not derived from scripture and therefore have no right to be brought to bear upon scripture. Scripture is not like any other book and the philosophy under which these methods were developed and the philosophy which created the CT assumes at the outset that scripture is just like any other book from the ancient world and can be treated as such. Such a view is anti-biblical and is heresy.





JohnGill said:


> The methods of modern textual criticism are at best useless when dealing with scripture and at worst blasphemous.





JohnGill said:


> In the bolded part, you asked the right question. My answer would be to go back to the Reformers and remove from use the sinful autonomy of modern textual criticism. The Reformers dealt with textual variants from a Biblical framework. Let's go back to their text, their methods, and abandon autonomy for God's word.


----------



## CharlieJ

Chris, the canons of textual of modern textual criticism are not so different from pre-modern canons of textual criticism. Augustine acknowledged the necessity of textual criticism; in fact, scribal error was so common in the ancient world that the first step in exegesis of any important text was establishing, as best as one could, the accurate rendering. Consider this passage from _De consens. Evang._ 3.7.29 



> "Now, if any one finds a difficulty in the circumstance that this passage is not found in the writings of the prophet Jeremiah, and thinks that damage is thus done to the veracity of the evangelist, let him first take notice of the fact that this ascription of the passage to Jeremiah is not contained in all the codices of the Gospels, and that some of them state simply that it was spoken “by the prophet.” It is possible, therefore, to affirm that those codices deserve rather to be followed which do not contain the name of Jeremiah. For these words were certainly spoken by a prophet, only that prophet was Zechariah. In this way the supposition is, that those codices are faulty which contain the name of Jeremiah, because they ought either to have given the name of Zechariah or to have mentioned no name at all, as is the case with a certain copy, merely stating that it was spoken “by the prophet, saying,” which prophet would assuredly be understood to be Zechariah. However, let others adopt this method of defence, if they are so minded. For my part, I am not satisfied with it; and the reason is, that a majority of codices contain the name of Jeremiah, and that those critics who have studied the Gospel with more than usual care in the Greek copies, report that they have found it stand so in the more ancient Greek exemplars. I look also to this further consideration, namely, that there was no reason why this name should have been added [subsequently to the true text], and a corruption thus created; whereas there was certainly an intelligible reason for erasing the name from so many of the codices. For venturesome inexperience might readily have done that, when perplexed with the problem presented by the fact that this passage could not be found in Jeremiah."



Notice Augustine makes his argument on three criteria:

1) the majority of manuscripts
2) the antiquity of the manuscripts, which he associates with their reliability
3) the difficulty of the correct reading, that is, the lack of scribal motivation 

That sounds pretty similar to modern textual criticism and shows that these practices are not some Enlightenment plot to overthrow the Bible. Augustine, of course, is hardly one to put his faith in "autonomous" human reasoning, but he apparently feels no need to defend the principles of his textual criticism with explicit scriptural warrant.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

CharlieJ said:


> Notice Augustine makes his argument on three criteria:
> 
> *1) the majority of manuscripts*
> 2) the antiquity of the manuscripts, which he associates with their reliability
> 3) the difficulty of the correct reading, that is, the lack of scribal motivation
> 
> *That sounds pretty similar to modern textual criticism*



hmm


----------



## Philip

JohnGill said:


> In the bolded part, you asked the right question. My answer would be to go back to the Reformers and remove from use the sinful autonomy of modern textual criticism. The Reformers dealt with textual variants from a Biblical framework. Let's go back to their text, their methods, and abandon autonomy for God's word.



Then please answer the question: what criterion would you use? Can you prove it from Scripture?



JohnGill said:


> Only Scripture can inform us on how to deal with variants in the texts of scripture. We cannot claim the shorter is to be preferred unless scripture itself teaches this.



The same should apply to the longer as well, then. If you're going to claim that Scripture itself provides the scholarly criteria for textual criticism, then I'd like to see where in Scripture we find them. Remember that adding to the text is just as sinful as subtracting from it.



JohnGill said:


> Scripture is not like any other book and the philosophy under which these methods were developed and the philosophy which created the CT assumes at the outset that scripture is just like any other book from the ancient world and can be treated as such.



On the contrary: if only higher critics would treat Scripture like any other ancient book. If only they would try to actually look at it honestly rather than scrutinizing it like they scrutinize nothing else.

---------- Post added at 01:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:04 PM ----------




Fogetaboutit said:


> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice Augustine makes his argument on three criteria:
> 
> *1) the majority of manuscripts*
> 2) the antiquity of the manuscripts, which he associates with their reliability
> 3) the difficulty of the correct reading, that is, the lack of scribal motivation
> 
> *That sounds pretty similar to modern textual criticism*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hmm
Click to expand...


Remember that the majority in Augustine's day might not be the majority today given the ravages of time (and Islamic conquest).


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Philip said:


> Originally Posted by Fogetaboutit
> Originally Posted by CharlieJ
> Notice Augustine makes his argument on three criteria:
> 
> 1) the majority of manuscripts
> 2) the antiquity of the manuscripts, which he associates with their reliability
> 3) the difficulty of the correct reading, that is, the lack of scribal motivation
> 
> That sounds pretty similar to modern textual criticism
> hmm
> Remember that the majority in Augustine's day might not be the majority today given the ravages of time (and Islamic conquest).



If you read Burgon he gives a few examples of passages in the CT where the reading is "fabricated", since it is not part of any manuscript but a collation taken from differing MSS. How can you defend such things? Plus most of the edition made to the CT were done from a "minority" of MSS that do not even agree with each other in many instances, look at your second point this would instantly disqualify these MSS.




Philip said:


> 2) the antiquity of the manuscripts,* which he associates with their reliability*



I'm not againt having the antiquity of a MSS as a criteria but when you disregard all other criteria it's just foolishness


----------



## CharlieJ

Etienne, 

You've missed my point entirely. I'm not debating which modern edition of the GNT is best. I'm just saying that believing Christians have been engaged in the text-critical task for a long time and that they didn't see any need to draw their criteria directly from the Bible. Augustine argues his point on the basis of empirically verifiable evidence and known scribal tendencies. 

Certainly there is room to criticize the choice and application of certain criteria, but that is entirely different from Chris' statement that empirical criteria "are automatically discredited because they were not derived from scripture, but from autonomous human reasoning."

---------- Post added at 01:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:28 PM ----------

Etienne, 

You've missed my point entirely. I'm not debating which modern edition of the GNT is best. I'm just saying that believing Christians have been engaged in the text-critical task for a long time and that they didn't see any need to draw their criteria directly from the Bible. Augustine argues his point on the basis of empirically verifiable evidence and known scribal tendencies. 

Certainly there is room to criticize the choice and application of certain criteria, but that is entirely different from Chris' statement that empirical criteria "are automatically discredited because they were not derived from scripture, but from autonomous human reasoning."


----------



## Fogetaboutit

CharlieJ said:


> Etienne,
> 
> You've missed my point entirely. I'm not debating which modern edition of the GNT is best. I'm just saying that believing Christians have been engaged in the text-critical task for a long time and that they didn't see any need to draw their criteria directly from the Bible. Augustine argues his point on the basis of empirically verifiable evidence and known scribal tendencies.
> 
> Certainly there is room to criticize the choice and application of certain criteria, but that is entirely different from Chris' statement that empirical criteria "are automatically discredited because they were not derived from scripture, but from autonomous human reasoning."



Just to clarify I'm not against all textual criticism, actually no matter which side of the fence you stand you will have to rely on some sort of textual criticism, the editor of the TR were critical of some manuscripts that they considered badly corrupted (funny that those same MSS are now almost idolized by the "modern" textual critics). I was only pointing that when you said that the 3 criteria used by Augustine were the same used by modern textual critics, it seemed pretty much ironic to me since they pretty much ignore the "majoirty" of MSS.

In short what we disagree on is not Textual Criticism itself but the "philosophy" of modern textual criticism.


----------



## JohnGill

CharlieJ said:


> Chris, the canons of textual of modern textual criticism are not so different from pre-modern canons of textual criticism. Augustine acknowledged the necessity of textual criticism; in fact, scribal error was so common in the ancient world that the first step in exegesis of any important text was establishing, as best as one could, the accurate rendering. Consider this passage from _De consens. Evang._ 3.7.29
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Now, if any one finds a difficulty in the circumstance that this passage is not found in the writings of the prophet Jeremiah, and thinks that damage is thus done to the veracity of the evangelist, let him first take notice of the fact that this ascription of the passage to Jeremiah is not contained in all the codices of the Gospels, and that some of them state simply that it was spoken “by the prophet.” It is possible, therefore, to affirm that those codices deserve rather to be followed which do not contain the name of Jeremiah. For these words were certainly spoken by a prophet, only that prophet was Zechariah. In this way the supposition is, that those codices are faulty which contain the name of Jeremiah, because they ought either to have given the name of Zechariah or to have mentioned no name at all, as is the case with a certain copy, merely stating that it was spoken “by the prophet, saying,” which prophet would assuredly be understood to be Zechariah. However, let others adopt this method of defence, if they are so minded. For my part, I am not satisfied with it; and the reason is, that a majority of codices contain the name of Jeremiah, and that those critics who have studied the Gospel with more than usual care in the Greek copies, report that they have found it stand so in the more ancient Greek exemplars. I look also to this further consideration, namely, that there was no reason why this name should have been added [subsequently to the true text], and a corruption thus created; whereas there was certainly an intelligible reason for erasing the name from so many of the codices. For venturesome inexperience might readily have done that, when perplexed with the problem presented by the fact that this passage could not be found in Jeremiah."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice Augustine makes his argument on three criteria:
> 
> 1) the majority of manuscripts
> 2) the antiquity of the manuscripts, which he associates with their reliability
> 3) the difficulty of the correct reading, that is, the lack of scribal motivation
> 
> That sounds pretty similar to modern textual criticism and shows that these practices are not some Enlightenment plot to overthrow the Bible. Augustine, of course, is hardly one to put his faith in "autonomous" human reasoning, but he apparently feels no need to defend the principles of his textual criticism with explicit scriptural warrant.
Click to expand...


What I don't see in your quote from Augustine are the modern canons of textual criticism. What you have given is very similar to the Reformed view of how to practice textual criticism. And they did provide Biblical foundations to their view of how to practice textual criticism. Augustine had no need to provide scriptural warrant since he was not dealing with the corrupt philosophy of modern textual criticism. The Reformers were dealing with this philosophy in their disputes with the papists.

Using the passage from Augustine, application of the canons of modern textual criticism will be made.

In the modern version we have two fundamental canons (The Text of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger/Bart Ehrman 4th Ed.):

1. The External Canon: manuscripts are to be weighed, not counted
2. The Internal Canon: that reading is best which explains the others

The External Canon is contrary to Augustine's view that the majority determine the reading. (The view that the majority determine the reading was rejected because it supported the Byzantine reading.)

Depending on how one weighs the manuscripts, not counts, would determine whether or not Jeremiah should be left in. The determination of the "weight" of a manuscript is of course arbitrary and subjective.

Since the shorter reading is to be preferred (Internal Canon), Jeremiah must not have been original to the text and was later added. Therefore his 3rd point is wrong.

Under the External Canon his 2nd point is questionable. Since under the External Canon manuscripts must be weighed, and since the Internal Canon requires the removal of Jeremiah via the shorter reading is to be preferred, those ancient manuscripts which do not have Jeremiah "weigh" more than those that do contain Jeremiah.

Therefore, Jeremiah is not original to the text in question.

Again.

How one weighs manuscripts determines the inclusion or exclusion of Jeremiah.

Since the shorter reading is to be preferred, but the manuscripts containing Jeremiah are now considered more weighty than those that don't, their weight overturns the shorter reading.

Jeremiah is now included.

In both cases, the final authority is man's subjective and arbitrary opinion. Therefore one is "free" to believe or not believe that Jeremiah was in the long gone original. One may do the same for any doctrine he may or may not disagree with.

As I stated earlier, the difference between modern textual criticism and the textual criticism of the Reformers (and Augustine) is the difference between autonomy and theonomy. In asking where scripture teaches, the shorter is to be preferred, I was pointing out the purely arbitrary and autonomous nature of the modern canons of textual criticism. One is just as justified in saying, the longer reading is to be preferred. For any canon of modern textual criticism to be useful it must be secure from skepticism. This is only possible if the canon is absolute and objective; in other words it must have some Biblical basis. Since the canons of modern textual criticism are arbitrary and subjective, they are subject to skepticism and reduce to absurdity. If we are going to appeal to subjective and arbitrary canons to determine the "true text" of scripture, then we will never know the true text of scripture and our faith must of necessity be vain for it is placed in some unknown and unknowable text. Subjective and arbitrary principles can never lead to known truth. Otherwise the vain philosophies of men throughout the centuries would have led to the same conclusions found in Scripture. History has shown autonomous philosophy leads only to confusion and the desire to go play backgammon. (Descartes) 

The Reformers held a different view. They didn't go searching for this elusive text, they believed they already had it in that family of manuscripts which came to be known as the Textus Receptus, variants and all. The foundation for the critical text, Aleph & B, and the underlying philosophy which has brought us the critical text, were rejected by the Reformers. If scripture is to be our authority, then it must be our authority in all things. Semper reformanda. The underlying philosophy which spawned the CT, that the Bible is and may be treated just like any other book from the ancient world, must be rejected. Corrupt trees only produce corrupt fruit. The arbitrary canons of modern textual criticism must be rejected as applying in any way to scripture. We do not apply subjective and arbitrary standards to the word of God. That is autonomy and therefore sin.

I don't know why you imply I think it some Enlightenment plot. I don't think it's a plot at all. I consider it to be equal to the abandonment of the Biblical view of Genesis for some form of the Evolutionism view of Genesis and the 19th century quest for the historical Jesus. Both assumed a non-supernatural view of scripture and both are wrong. Just as any practice based in a non-supernatural view of scripture is wrong and sinful. Psychology is a good example as is America's current jurisprudence. Any field which has as its starting point the view that scripture is just like any other book of the ancient world and can be treated as such will always end in foolishness. We're not just discussing modern textual criticism, but instead we are discussing every field and the futility of autonomous reasoning. Geology uninformed of scripture leads to the foolishness of sedimentary deposits over billions of years, instead of sedimentary deposits caused by a global flood. The philosophy which underlies modern textual criticism leads to the foolishness of the Big Bang theory, the Steady-State theory, and the idea of an infinite universe. The same philosophy when applied to language leads to deconstructionism. When applied to biology it leads to the quest for the hopeful monster of punctuated equilibrium and when applied to anthropology leads to the foolish belief that we evolved from apes a direct denial of the Doctrine of Original Sin and an attack on the integrity of Christ. When applied to morality, the French Revolution and the third Reich. 

The futile attempt at neutrality in modern textual criticism must be abandoned for what it is, sin against God. When we approach scripture for textual criticism we must, as the Reformers did, presuppose the veracity and authority of scripture alone to determine the text of scripture and not rely upon an ungodly philosophy which will continue to do and has done nothing but shipwreck the faith of many. Until then we have exchanged the riches of Christ for the dross of unbelief.


----------



## NB3K

I'm willing to bet that the RCC wrote some convincing arguments against the Wycliffe New Testament.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

NB3K said:


> I'm willing to bet that the RCC wrote some convincing arguments against the Wycliffe New Testament.



I don't know but they are trying awfully hard to discredit the TR


----------



## Philip

JohnGill said:


> If scripture is to be our authority, then it must be our authority in all things. Semper reformanda.



No one's disputing this. This is why the task of Biblical criticism must be ongoing. I ask and ask again what the criteria for evaluating texts ought to be from Scripture. You are very clear that you do not consider the consideration of other textual traditions to be Scriptural, but you have failed to show a) how it is not b) what criteria from Scripture you are using. Right now this is looking like an argument from tradition.


----------



## Jeff Burns

JohnGill said:


> The futile attempt at neutrality in modern textual criticism must be abandoned for what it is, sin against God. *When we approach scripture for textual criticism we must, as the Reformers did, presuppose the veracity and authority of scripture alone to determine the text of scripture *and not rely upon an ungodly philosophy which will continue to do and has done nothing but shipwreck the faith of many. Until then we have exchanged the riches of Christ for the dross of unbelief.



I think what we'd all like to see is how does one use scripture to determine the text of scripture. You have stated several times this is the necessary requisite for true textual criticism but have yet to show what this actually looks like.


----------



## Believer1993

Bill The Baptist said:


> propronents of the critical text need to provide a satisfying explanation for why the church at some point completely abandoned the Alexandrian text type in favor of the Byzantine text type.



In the 7th century Muslim forces conquered Egypt. This effectively halted manuscript production in the region. The Byzantines were producing texts until the 15th century. The church didn't abandon the Alexandrian text type, the texts simply stopped being produced due to Islam.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Believer1993 said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> propronents of the critical text need to provide a satisfying explanation for why the church at some point completely abandoned the Alexandrian text type in favor of the Byzantine text type.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the 7th century Muslim forces conquered Egypt. This effectively halted manuscript production in the region. The Byzantines were producing texts until the 15th century. The church didn't abandon the Alexandrian text type, the texts simply stopped being produced due to Islam.
Click to expand...


Here is what Dr. Robinson said in response to the question of what is the biggest problem with the CT.

"The primary issue remains a regionally localized minority texttype, only sporadically transmitted through scribal history in contrast to the vast majority of Greek MSS consistently perpetuated over the centuries in the primary Greek-speaking region of the Eastern Mediterranean world (modern southern Italy, Greece, and Turkey). From that region versional texts necessarily are absent and patristic quotations really are lacking prior to the fourth century; yet as soon as writing theologians appear in that region, they are using what appears to be a well-established Byzantine text. An additional problem affecting modern critical editions is a form of eclecticism that even in short passages of text (single NT verses or less) introduces a sequence of words that can be demonstrated as having no actual existence in any ancient MS, version, or patristic quotation prior to their modern (19th or 20th century) creation; this point is documented in my recent article, “Rule 9, Isolated Variants, and the `Test-Tube’ Nature of the NA27/UBS4 Text: A Byzantine-Priority Perspective,” in Stanley Porter and Mark Boda, eds., Translating the New Testament: Text, Translation, Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009, 27-61).


----------



## reaganmarsh

As an aside in this discussion -- for the TR folks, what do you mean when you say that the ESV has left verses out? 

I have the following versions of the ESV: 2000/2001 (Reformation Study Bible), 2005 (Compact/Pocket Size), 2007 (Literary Study Bible, ESV Study Bible), and the 2011 (New Classic Reference edition). The "omitted" verses are all footnoted. I will grant that I'd prefer them to be bracketed like Foundation's NASB does. But they're not missing...

I don't mean to sound obtuse (and I am all-too-familiar with the contours of the CT/TR debate). I'm just assuming that I've misunderstood something in the reasoning on this particular thread. 

Thanks.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Bill The Baptist said:


> Believer1993 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> propronents of the critical text need to provide a satisfying explanation for why the church at some point completely abandoned the Alexandrian text type in favor of the Byzantine text type.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the 7th century Muslim forces conquered Egypt. This effectively halted manuscript production in the region. The Byzantines were producing texts until the 15th century. The church didn't abandon the Alexandrian text type, the texts simply stopped being produced due to Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is what Dr. Robinson said in response to the question of what is the biggest problem with the CT.
> 
> "The primary issue remains a regionally localized minority texttype, only sporadically transmitted through scribal history in contrast to the vast majority of Greek MSS consistently perpetuated over the centuries in the primary Greek-speaking region of the Eastern Mediterranean world (modern southern Italy, Greece, and Turkey). From that region versional texts necessarily are absent and patristic quotations really are lacking prior to the fourth century; yet as soon as writing theologians appear in that region, they are using what appears to be a well-established Byzantine text. An additional problem affecting modern critical editions is a form of eclecticism that even in short passages of text (single NT verses or less) introduces a sequence of words that can be demonstrated as having no actual existence in any ancient MS, version, or patristic quotation prior to their modern (19th or 20th century) creation; this point is documented in my recent article, “Rule 9, Isolated Variants, and the `Test-Tube’ Nature of the NA27/UBS4 Text: A Byzantine-Priority Perspective,” in Stanley Porter and Mark Boda, eds., Translating the New Testament: Text, Translation, Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009, 27-61).
Click to expand...



Hi:

Thanks, Bill, for providing this quote. Dr. Robinson's statement should be received with its full scholarly weight. It was Kurt Aland (of the Nestle-Aland critical text) who wrote here:



> "It is increasingly important to keep the basic facts in clear focus as we proceed. If it seems too complicated at first, remember that only the Alexandrian text, the Koine text, and the D text are incontestably verified," The Text of the New Testament, 67.


There is no doubt that all scholars, TR, Majority, or Critical divide the manuscript evidences into geographical locations. That the majority of the "oldest" texts come from Alexandria does not necessarily mean that these texts were accepted throughout all of Christiandom. Origin, for that matter, was a known corrupter of both the Old and the New Testament - making "corrections" to the text according to his philosophy. That Aleph (aka "Sinaiticus") clearly states that it is a copy out of Origin's library given by Origin to his chief student Pamphilius does not recommend it as a very accurate copy. The notation for this is found at the end of the Book of Esther in Aleph. The oldest manuscripts, found only in the region of Egypt attest only to the use of the text in Egypt, and not that of the rest of the Christian world at that time.

The geographical argument shows a greater understanding of Biblical history. Consider where the Autographs would have been found in the 1st Century: Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Phillipi, Jerusalem, Antioch, Patmos, Thessalonica, "the churches in Asia Minor," (1 Peter 1:1), etc... All of these cities are in the geographical location known today as Byzantine. The scribes in Alexandria would, *at best*, possess second generation copies of the Autographs, and, given the amount of time it took to travel back then, probably had copies of copies of copies of which accidental corruptions would already have been introduced. One would have to ask oneself - who would be more familiar with the form of the Autographs? Those churches who actually possessed the Originals? Or, those who possessed already corrupted manuscripts which have been copied over several times?

Thus, to the scholars of the TR the naive assumption that the "older texts are better" which is argued by the Critical Text scholars does not convince. It also seems to be a bit self-serving.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Philip said:


> They explained miracles by making everything (and therefore nothing) miraculous.


 I think Dr. Warfield addressed this. Maybe I am wrong. I don't remember stuff I read years ago. But it seems he did. What is miraculous? How does this relate to this discussion? I think I know. I might not. Maybe I should relate to Machen and Virgin Birth.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Charlie (in post #59), Augustine (354-430) was there commenting on the apparent contradiction in Matthew 27:9 (there are good answers to this difficult problem), and one should keep in mind that both the majority and the antiquity of manuscripts _then_ were an entirely different story from what they are _now_. An excellent overview of the history of the NT text – from Dr. Wilbur Pickering’s, _The Identity of the New Testament Text_ – chapter 5 is here. I’d scroll down to the section, “Who Was Best Qualified?” – this will give a good sense of the mss situation in the early days of the church.

I think the modern critical take of "difficulty" is not such as you think Augustine had but rather, “The reading is less likely to be original that shows a disposition to smooth away difficulties”, as if the Holy Spirit could not speak clearly and elegantly by means of His chosen men! The “canons of textual criticism” per Metzger – and his openly apostate protégé, Bart Ehrman (who now wears Metzger’s mantle in the text-critical field) – Westcott & Hort, and the German rationalists, Greisbach, Bengel, Semler etc and before them the Roman Catholics, these unbelieving critics came up with a number of rules, such as the shorter reading is best, the harder likewise, etc and are to be contested as merely subjectively contrived. John William Burgon in his _The Revision Revised_ (here in a number of downloadable formats from Project Gutenberg) does a nice job examining these so-called canons. As far as text critics, Burgon stands as a master among novices – read him and see!

We make much of the Regulative Principle of Worship here. Is there to be no corollary with regard to the care and reproduction of our Scripture? The ancient Jews were very careful in this area. Can you imagine the ancient Jewish priesthood bringing in — or in anywise _allowing_ — wise men from Egypt or Babylon to superintend, copy, and preserve the scrolls of the Tenach?

The care of the “scrolls of the New Covenant” are likewise given into the hands of the priesthood of believers – not their enemies, and those who inject the demonic poison of evil unbelief into their doings. Is this not simply self-evident? It is not to some because we have become used to – _*inured!*_ – to the scandalous situation of our sacred writings being given over to the secular academy with its wicked anti-God and anti-Christ presuppositions.

We – we have given away the store. Why no RPBR (Regulative Principle of Bible Reproduction)? What Scripture says is not as important here as in the area of worship? One last thing: That we in the Reformed camp do not have a Regulative Principle concerning the Care and Reproduction of our Scripture may well turn out to be our Achilles' Heel. The Standard is weakened, with no end in sight. Even the defense of it has become schismatic. An enemy hath done this.

Why is it not a scandal among us that Bart Ehrman has become the new Dean of Textual Criticism, taking Metzger’s place in working on the new editions of the critical Greek text, and writing scholarly works about the transmission of same? The man is an open enemy not only of the Scriptures but of the very Faith itself!

One of the posters above said he has added in the “omitted” (marginalized) verses in his ESV, and I can dig that. I think that’s a great idea. (Mark, in Matthew 1:7 and 10 don’t forget to change Asaph and Amos – in Christ’s genealogy – to the correct Asa and Amon, which the CT and ESV have utterly corrupted.)


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

JimmyH said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> 
> the fact that it was the Bible that saints came to know the Lord through for 400 years gives it merit
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Perhaps in Britain, Australia, English Canada, and the States... but the world of Bibles is bigger than English. Also, how given the size of populations, I'm pretty sure one can make the case that more people have been converted under the Studium Biblicum Version in China (given population size) than in the Anglophone community between 1700 and 1980 (I use 1980 as the end of the dominance of the KJV).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Point taken. I guess I tend to look at life/things from my own particular place in space and time. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to broaden my perspective.
Click to expand...

Not to mention over much of the early portion of that time many in the English Speaking world were using the Geneva Bible... Like Shakespeare and the Puritans in the New World.


----------



## CharlieJ

CalvinandHodges said:


> Origin, for that matter, was a known corrupter of both the Old and the New Testament - making "corrections" to the text according to his philosophy. That Aleph (aka "Sinaiticus") clearly states that it is a copy out of Origin's library given by Origin to his chief student Pamphilius does not recommend it as a very accurate copy. The notation for this is found at the end of the Book of Esther in Aleph.



What evidence do you have that Origen intentionally corrupted texts? His _Hexapla_ is one of the earliest attempts at a rigorous textual criticism of the Old Testament. His contemporaries were highly impressed at his accomplishment, and the fragments that remain today attest to his care. I have never seen any indication that he was purposely introducing changes into the text, but I will listen to you if you can give me concrete examples.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

CharlieJ said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Origin, for that matter, was a known corrupter of both the Old and the New Testament - making "corrections" to the text according to his philosophy. That Aleph (aka "Sinaiticus") clearly states that it is a copy out of Origin's library given by Origin to his chief student Pamphilius does not recommend it as a very accurate copy. The notation for this is found at the end of the Book of Esther in Aleph.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence do you have that Origen intentionally corrupted texts? His _Hexapla_ is one of the earliest attempts at a rigorous textual criticism of the Old Testament. His contemporaries were highly impressed at his accomplishment, and the fragments that remain today attest to his care. I have never seen any indication that he was purposely introducing changes into the text, but I will listen to you if you can give me concrete examples.
Click to expand...


Hi:

To answer the question one must first come to a consensus as to what standard one is to use for the Old Testament. The KJV used the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text (1524). The current Old Testament text used by modern scholars is the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia which is not very much different from theBen Chayyim edition. Consequently, both Received Text scholars and Critical text scholars would agree that the Masoretic text is the standard by which translations are to be compared and contrasted. The accuracy of this manuscript has recently been proven by Hebrew copies found in the Dead Sea Scrolls of the Masoretic text.

Though I do not have the time to go through all of the evidence - I will in a later post. The differences between Origen's work and the Masoretic text will show a theological difference between the two. Origen's theology was not at all Christian in nature, and was more closely associated with that of Philo. The Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia has noted in its apparatus many of the changes that Origen proposes.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

Jerusalem Blade said:


> One of the posters above said he has added in the “omitted” (marginalized) verses in his ESV, and I can dig that. I think that’s a great idea. (Mark, in Matthew 1:7 and 10 don’t forget to change Asaph and Amos – in Christ’s genealogy – to the correct Asa and Amon, which the CT and ESV have utterly corrupted.)



Steve: I had not caught that one, off to investigate. Thanks! 

The "ommitted" versus are footnoted in little microtype (at least in the ESVSB), I just wrote 'em "back" into the text block to make it obvious as I read along.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Charlie, as Rob is busy, I will answer on this one. You said (post #77),
“What evidence do you have that Origen intentionally corrupted texts? His _Hexapla_ is one of the earliest attempts at a rigorous textual criticism of the Old Testament. His contemporaries were highly impressed at his accomplishment, and the fragments that remain today attest to his care. I have never seen any indication that he was purposely introducing changes into the text, but I will listen to you if you can give me concrete examples.”​ 
I’m afraid you’ve been given poor information. I’ll give you two sources; E.F. Hills, from his _The King James Version Defended_; and Frederick Nolan’s _An Inquiry Into The Integrity Of The Greek Vulgate, *or* Received Text Of The New Testament_. Don’t let the title of Hill’s book deceive you – he got his doctorate in textual criticism from Harvard. The book can be read online here, though the “download” link there is defunct. Downloads in different formats can be gotten here. 

This edition has the great benefit of a preface by Dr. Ted Letis. I’ll quote from chapter six in a moment with regard to Origen. In this section, where Hills is surveying John William Burgon’s investigations of various contested readings, the first discussion is on Matthew 19:16-17, where the traditional reading is, “Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And [Jesus] said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God”, but the critical text of Westcott and Hort (and thus most every modern version) reads “Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good?” Hills remarks,

Thus when the Traditional Text stands trial in a test passage such as Matt. 19 17, it not only clears itself of the charge of being spurious but even secures the conviction of its Western and Alexandrian rivals. The reading found in these latter two texts, _Why askest thou Me concerning the good_, is seen to possess all the earmarks of a "Gnostic depravation." The R.V., A.S.V., R.S.V., N.E.B. and other modern versions, therefore, are to be censured for serving up to their readers this stale crumb of Greek philosophy in place of the bread of life.

In his comment on this passage Origen gives us a specimen of the New Testament textual criticism which was carried on at Alexandria about 225 A.D. Origen reasons that Jesus could not have concluded his list of God's commandments with the comprehensive requirement, _Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself_. For the reply of the young man was, _All these things have I kept from my youth up_, and Jesus evidently accepted this statement as true. But if the young man had loved his neighbor as himself, he would have been perfect, for Paul says that the whole law is summed up in this saying, _Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself_. But Jesus answered, _If thou wilt be perfect, etc._, implying that the young man was not yet perfect. Therefore, Origen argued, the commandment, _Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself_, could not have been spoken by Jesus on this occasion and was not part of the original text of Matthew. This clause, he believed, was added by some tasteless scribe. (fn 12: Berlin, _Origenes Werke_, vol. 10, pp. 385-388.)

Thus it is clear that this renowned Father was not content to abide by the text which he had received but freely engaged in the boldest sort of conjectural emendation. And there were other critics at Alexandria even less restrained than he who deleted many readings of the original New Testament text and thus produced the abbreviated text found in the papyri and in the manuscripts _Aleph_ and B.​ 
This quote of Hills may be found in chapter six of TKJVD, pp. 144-145, and here in the online version (scroll down a bit to the section on the rich young man).

Frederick Nolan goes into more depth examining this proclivity of Origen to emend the text, and how this altered both the criticism of the NT of that day (and beyond), and gave courage to editors to actually change the wording of Scripture, due to their reverence of “the great Origen”.

To some period subsequent to the era of Origen, we must consequently fix the first change which took place in the received text of Scripture. And of such a change we have an explicit account, in the statement which is transmitted of the editions published by Hesychius and Lucianus, against which a charge has been preferred by St. Jerome, that they were interpolated, at least in the Gospels.

Whatever may have been the alterations which Lucianus and Hesychius introduced into the sacred writings, they must be clearly attributed to the influence of Origen's writings. Previously to his times, the inspired text had undergone no alteration, and they revised it not many years subsequent to the publication of his Hexapla. As he had labored to supercede the authorized version of the Old Testament, he contributed to weaken the authority of the received text of the New. In the course of his Commentaries he cited the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion on the former part of the Canon, he appealed to the authority of Valentinus and Heracleon on the latter.

While he thus raised the credit of those revisals, which had been made by the heretics, he detracted from the authority of that text which had been received by the orthodox. Some difficulties which he found himself unable to solve in the Evangelists, he undertook to remove by expressing his doubts of the integrity of the text. In some instances he ventured to impeach the reading of the New Testament on the testimony of the Old, and to convict the copies of one Gospel on the evidence of another, thus giving loose to his fancy and indulging in many wild conjectures, he considerably impaired the credit of the vulgar or common edition, as well in the New as in the Old Testament. (pp. 432-434)​ 
Nolan, further in this chapter, shows how the emendations of Origen can be traced through the copies produced from the Origen collection at the Library at Caesarea by Eusebius, with notations made on certain manuscripts:

In a word, there exists not a peculiarity in the tenets of those heretics, or in the texts which they followed, which has not left some deep mark impressed on the editions of the sacred text which were published in Egypt and Palestine. To form antitheses between the Law and the Gospel had been a leading object with Marcion, in order to illustrate the beneficent character of the first principle and the severe character of the second, in his religious system. Many of the corrections of the Egyptian and Palestine texts have consequently originated in attempts to destroy the force of those antitheses in the sacred text which had been pointed by Marcion. Some have arisen in endeavors to amend his gross perversions, or his foul aspersions of the Law, and some in attempts to correct his false notions relative to the nature and attributes of God, the person of Christ, and the character of the legal dispensation. In this manner it is not uncommon to find the peculiar phrases of Marcion’s text, and the very order of his language, retained in the Egyptian and Palestine texts, though the passages adopted from his Gospel and Apostolicum are given a totally different application from that which they possess in his writings. Through various channels those readings might have crept into the edition of Eusebius. The scripture text of Tatian, which most probably conformed in many respects to the Gospel and Apostolicum of Marcion; the text of Hesychius, which was compiled from various apocryphal works; and the Commentaries of Origen, which abounded in quotations drawn from heretical revisals of Scripture, opened a prolific source from which they directly passed into the Palestine edition. The facilities of correcting this text from Origen's writings, and the blind reverence in which that ancient father was held in the school of Caesarea, seem to have rendered the corruption of this text unavoidable. Short annotations or scholia had been inserted by Origen in the margin of his copies of Scripture, and the number of these had been considerably augmented by Eusebius, most probably by extracts taken from Origen's Commentaries. A comparison between the text and comment constantly pointed out variations in the reading, and Origen's authority having been definitive on subjects of sacred criticism, the inspired text was amended by the comment. Had we no other proof of this assertion, than the feasibility of the matter, and the internal evidence of the Greek manuscripts, we might thence assume the truth of the fact, without much danger of erring. *But this point is placed beyond conjecture by the most unquestionable documents. In some manuscripts containing the Palestine text it is recorded that they were transcribed from copies, the originals of which had been “corrected by Eusebius.” In the celebrated Codex Marchalianus the whole process observed in correcting the text is openly avowed. The reviser there candidly states, that, “having procured the explanatory Tomes of Origen, he accurately investigated the sense in which he explained every word as far as was possible, and corrected every thing ambiguous according to his notion.” After this explicit acknowledgment, it seems unnecessary any further to prolong this discussion. A text which bears internal marks of having passed through this process, which has been convicted on the clearest evidence of having been corrected from Origen, cannot be entitled to the smallest attention.* And as it has been thus corrupted from the same source with the Egyptian text, the joint testimony of such witnesses cannot be entitled to the smallest respect when opposed in consent to the Byzantine edition. (pp. 500-509)​ 
This passage may be found online in chapter (or section – in the original) six, “On the Corruption of the Palestinian and Egyptian Texts, p. 427” – see here – and using your browser’s search feature to find a phrase.

Regarding the entire volume, the MountainRetreat.org version may be found here:  _An Inquiry Into The Integrity Of The Greek Vulgate, *or* Received Text Of The New Testament_,

while a multi-format selection of this important text-critical work may be found here. The value of the online reading or pdf etc formats is that the _extensive_ footnotes are available for viewing and copying (not so in the Mountain Retreat version). For instance, in a footnote on page 446 there is this interesting note:

“. . . it was a canon of Origen’s criticism, by which Hesychius was guided in revising the text, that the Gospels of the different Evangelists _might be corrected by each other_ . . . It was equally a canon of the same criticism, that the Evangelists had _abridged the quotations_ of the Old Testament, in admitting them into the New… : _the shorter quotation_ was of course _preferred_, as supposed to contain _the genuine reading_. [emphases in original]​ 
I hope this little excursion into the distant past via the investigative labors of Presbyter Nolan has been of interest. It does, I believe, vindicate the assertion that Origen deliberately corrupted the text according to his “higher sensibility” of what it is the Scripture _should_ have said.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Getting back to the topic of the OP, what should have ruined the ESV for you is not the article you mentioned, but something written in small print on the bottom of the opposite side of the title page. "The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV) is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA. All Rights Reserved." Sorry, but someone had to say it


----------



## JohnGill

Philip said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> If scripture is to be our authority, then it must be our authority in all things. Semper reformanda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's disputing this. This is why the task of Biblical criticism must be ongoing. I ask and ask again what the criteria for evaluating texts ought to be from Scripture. You are very clear that you do not consider the consideration of other textual traditions to be Scriptural, but you have failed to show a) how it is not b) what criteria from Scripture you are using. Right now this is looking like an argument from tradition.
Click to expand...


2 Problems with your reply. 1) I've pointed out that the way the Reformers practiced textual criticism - starting with a view that scripture is of supernatural origin vs that it is like any other book of the ancient world; Reformed view of preservation vs modern view of preservation, view that the authority is in the authentic text which is composed of the apographs underlying those manuscripts called Textus Receptus vs some long lost autographs and a newly created text never known to Christendom until the late 19th century, the Reformed view that Christendom has had the full and complete text in continual use throughout its history vs the modern view that we do not have as yet the actual true text of scripture but may at some unknown future date which leaves *EVERY* doctrine up for grabs, that textual criticism must be done within the churches by men who hold to the truth of scripture vs ungodly scholars who deny the truth of scripture (Ehrman, Metzger, etc.). If you wish to see their method, read their works on how they viewed scripture and how the variants of scripture should be viewed.

As to how modern textual criticism is not valid, I have pointed out time and again its anti-supernatural, anti-biblical view of scripture. I have pointed out time and again it's arbitrary and subjective nature that allows the text to be determined by the whims of autonomous human reasoning. 

However, you have the issue twisted around. Since modern textual criticism and its ungodly underlying philosophy is a new view within Christendom, it must provide Biblical justification for the overturn of that family of manuscripts called the Textus Receptus. It must provide Biblical justification for applying arbitrary and subjective "principles" to the text of Scripture. In other words, the burden of proof lies in the CT camp. Their is no *reason* to abandon the older Reformed view of scripture and the practice of textual criticism, their is only *vain opinion* found in the writings of modern textual criticism. 

So please provide us with the following:

The Biblical justification for the underlying philosophy of modern textual criticism
The Biblical justification for the arbitrary and subjective canons of modern textual criticism
The Biblical justification for allowing ungodly men (Metzger, Ehrman, et al) to alter the text of scripture under modern textual criticism
The Biblical justification for abandoning the Reformed view of scripture for the anti-supernatural view inherent in modern textual criticism

Until supporters of modern textual criticism can provide these, it has no place within Christendom.


----------



## Philip

JohnGill said:


> Until supporters of modern textual criticism can provide these, it has no place within Christendom.



Chris, 

Your argument seems then to be this:

1) The reformers used the TR and held that the TR was, in fact accurate
2) Therefore it is and we should do likewise

This is an argument, in essence, from tradition.



JohnGill said:


> So please provide us with the following:
> 
> The Biblical justification for the underlying philosophy of modern textual criticism
> The Biblical justification for the arbitrary and subjective canons of modern textual criticism
> The Biblical justification for allowing ungodly men (Metzger, Ehrman, et al) to alter the text of scripture under modern textual criticism
> The Biblical justification for abandoning the Reformed view of scripture for the anti-supernatural view inherent in modern textual criticism



As for these:

1) I'm not arguing against supernaturalism, obviously. Asking us to justify anti-supernaturalism (and not all modern textual critics are such) is absurd.
2) I am of the belief that Scripture is capable of being subjected to scrutiny to find the best text. It's God's Word and I have faith that if the gates of hell can't prevail against it, then neither will modern methods.
3) Just because someone is an unbeliever does not make their arguments with regard to whether certain verses were in the original text invalid. This is yet another case of the genetic fallacy.

I am of the opinion that CT is credible precisely _because_ I believe in the inspiration and supernatural origin of Scripture.


----------



## JimmyH

Philip said:


> I am of the opinion that CT is credible precisely _because_ I believe in the inspiration and supernatural origin of Scripture.



In the Reverend D.Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Life In God, Studies in 1 John, (page 70 & 71) in reference to the Johannine Comma, and textual criticism, he said, "Textual criticism means just this: it is the endeavor of scholars to find out as far as is possible, the text that approximates the most closely to the original document. So it is something in which we should all believe and something that we should encourage.

And as you look at these various Greek, Latin, Syrian, Coptic, and Abyssinian texts and so on you will find a slight variation here and there. But and this is the point, the variations affect not a single doctrine. They are quite irrelevant. They make no difference to Christian truth; they are more a matter of detail-merely technical.

Take, for instance, this particular verse that is verse 7 in the Authorised Version. It makes no difference whatsoever to Christian doctrine if that verse is omitted. The variations are not only slight- they are quite unimportant;* and we are entitled to go further and say the text, so called , of Westcott and Hort we can undoubtedly take with confidence as being the original manuscripts and documents." *

I am not well schooled in textual or higher criticism but I must take what the Doctor says as having great merit. He was a man used mightily by God and knew something about the Holy Scriptures.


----------



## Pilgrim

JimmyH said:


> Philip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am of the opinion that CT is credible precisely _because_ I believe in the inspiration and supernatural origin of Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the Reverend D.Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Life In God, Studies in 1 John, (page 70 & 71) in reference to the Johannine Comma, and textual criticism, he said, "Textual criticism means just this: it is the endeavor of scholars to find out as far as is possible, the text that approximates the most closely to the original document. So it is something in which we should all believe and something that we should encourage.
> 
> And as you look at these various Greek, Latin, Syrian, Coptic, and Abyssinian texts and so on you will find a slight variation here and there. But and this is the point, the variations affect not a single doctrine. They are quite irrelevant. They make no difference to Christian truth; they are more a matter of detail-merely technical.
> 
> Take, for instance, this particular verse that is verse 7 in the Authorised Version. It makes no difference whatsoever to Christian doctrine if that verse is omitted. The variations are not only slight- they are quite unimportant;* and we are entitled to go further and say the text, so called , of Westcott and Hort we can undoubtedly take with confidence as being the original manuscripts and documents." *
> 
> I am not well schooled in textual or higher criticism but I must take what the Doctor says as having great merit. He was a man used mightily by God and knew something about the Holy Scriptures.
Click to expand...


True, but apparently he favored the TR or something close to it as he supported the work of the Trinitarian Bible Society, an organization whose position on the textual issue I can't imagine he would have been unaware of. I remember reading a letter of his to that effect (he pointed the person to the work of TBS) in an issue of the Banner of Truth magazine a few years ago that was dedicated to his life and ministry.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I would like to strike a conciliatory note here. Below I have quoted from a response I wrote some three years ago to a challenge from James White to AVers (to see it, click on the Textual Posts link in my signature), concerned that we both might do damage to the faith our brethren have in their Bibles during our contending.


An important point: I am all-too-aware that our exchanges have the potential to be grievously damaging to the faith our brothers and sisters have in their Bibles. You tear down the TR and Byz mss and I the Alexandrian / CT / Eclectic Text (ET), and we wreak havoc everywhere, in all quarters! So I would like to say some things I hope may offset this possibility, at least as far as _*my*_ causing such damage is concerned. There are folks who use the AV / TR who imply or openly state that CT / ET Bibles are not legitimate Bibles, disparagingly calling them “per-versions”. I neither think nor will speak like this, for it is not true. I realize I will anger and alienate a multitude in my camp with this saying, but I do not care to please men as long as I please the Lord who is overseeing this exchange between you and me. 

The woman through whose witness I was converted in 1968 used the Lamsa Syriac Peshitta Bible, and the anointing of the Holy Spirit was powerful through her, illumining and saving a wretch caught in the strong delusion of New Age and various Eastern influences. The men God used to minister to me up through the years used a variety of Bible versions; Jerry Bridges in _The Pursuit of Holiness_ was used by the Lord to direct my life in a time of crisis, the NIV he used was quickened by the Holy Spirit to edify and give me divine life and guidance. Al Martin, in one of his sermons, using a Bible I do not believe was the AV, caused – through the Holy Spirit – the heavens to be opened and a new walk of faith made available to me. R.C. Sproul likewise on numerous occasions. Tim Keller used the NIV and sometimes the ESV (as well as his own Greek translations) during the five plus years he was my pastor, to my eternal benefit as the depths and wonder of the Gospel of Christ was opened for my wife and myself. Not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power these men (and that woman) were vessels of the anointing of the Lord Himself, _*and they could not have been such if the Bibles they used were not legitimate Bibles, and they not godly souls who walked intimately with Him.*_ I repudiate the slurs put upon their Bibles and their souls, as I have personally seen the Lord in their ministries. The issue is, not the Bibles, but the variants and occasionally the translations. The variants may indeed not be legitimate, and there is no harm done in pointing this out, while generally affirming their Bibles. You AVers having fits over this view, consider, are you willing to tear down the faith of those for whom the Lord shed His blood so that your view may – in your own eyes – prevail? For many precious souls hold to the NIV / ESV / NASB etc, and would you take away that which they cling to, if they do not have faith that your view of the Scripture is right? The same applies to those disagreeing with the TR / KJV camp. There is a meanness and inconsiderateness over the welfare of other believers who differ in these debates, that the Lord will deal with, for you “correct ones” seek to take away that which they need to live – that being His Word, because it is not in the version you hold to be the best, and disagreeing with the variants or some translations in their versions you trash their Bibles in their entirety. Where does that leave them? Have you no mercy or love for erring brothers and sisters?​ 

So this is where I stand – I may and will contest the removal or changing of precious verses in the Bible, but it is the individual variants I will take issue with and not the Bibles themselves. Our Bibles – whatever editions they may be – are precious to us, seeing as they give us the life and love of our God and Savior, and are our comfort and guard in a world that has no love for us. These Bibles may differ in a few readings – and while these differences may upset us – yet in the main they are all sufficient – adequately preserved – to sustain us in our lives with the Lord.

My view is that a certain edition of the Scriptures has been preserved in the minutiae, but this does not invalidate – as noted to Dr. White – those I deem to have been but adequately preserved. From this latter category have come those who were God’s instruments through which He gave me spiritual birth, then nurture, and finally maturity in the faith of Christ. Please, let us keep this big picture in mind while we seek to pursue truth in these matters.


----------



## Pilgrim

Steve,

A good word, brother. 

There is a bookstore operated by a KJVO ministry near me (a Calvinistic ministry at that) that discounts books that use versions other than the KJV. I've picked up a good many bargains there! (I've picked up some bargains on some KJV bibles there as well.)


----------



## JohnGill

Philip said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until supporters of modern textual criticism can provide these, it has no place within Christendom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris,
> 
> Your argument seems then to be this:
> 
> 1) The reformers used the TR and held that the TR was, in fact accurate
> 2) Therefore it is and we should do likewise
> 
> This is an argument, in essence, from tradition.
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> So please provide us with the following:
> 
> The Biblical justification for the underlying philosophy of modern textual criticism
> The Biblical justification for the arbitrary and subjective canons of modern textual criticism
> The Biblical justification for allowing ungodly men (Metzger, Ehrman, et al) to alter the text of scripture under modern textual criticism
> The Biblical justification for abandoning the Reformed view of scripture for the anti-supernatural view inherent in modern textual criticism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As for these:
> 
> 1) I'm not arguing against supernaturalism, obviously. Asking us to justify anti-supernaturalism (and not all modern textual critics are such) is absurd.
> 2) I am of the belief that Scripture is capable of being subjected to scrutiny to find the best text. It's God's Word and I have faith that if the gates of hell can't prevail against it, then neither will modern methods.
> 3) *Just because someone is an unbeliever does not make their arguments with regard to whether certain verses were in the original text invalid.* This is yet another case of the genetic fallacy.
> 
> I am of the opinion that CT is credible precisely _because_ I believe in the inspiration and supernatural origin of Scripture.
Click to expand...


No, my argument is that we have no legitimate reason for replacing the TR with the CT since the CT is derived from arbitrary and subjective methods that rely upon the opinions of autonomous human reasoning to determine the current text of scripture and that it is based in the philosophy of an atheistic view of scripture. Since the underlying philosophy of modern textual criticism is an anti-supernatural view of scripture, and since the canons of it are arbitrary and subjective, and since the CT was cobbled together out of autonomous human reasoning, the CT and the practice of modern textual criticism have no place in Christendom. 

An unbeliever has no right to engage in textual criticism upon the scripture. Their unbelief disqualifies them from the work. Precisely because scripture is not like any other book. Last time I checked the unbeliever cannot understand the things of God. You are treating the textual criticism of scripture like the textual criticism of any other book in your 3rd point. That is anti-biblical. 

It's very simple. Show from scripture that the canons and practice of modern textual criticism are not arbitrary, subjective, and subject to autonomous reasoning. And then show from scripture that the unregenerate can sit in judgment of what is and what is not to be included in God's word.


----------



## Philip

JohnGill said:


> No, my argument is that we have no legitimate reason for replacing the TR with the CT



Why is the TR the default here? Why not the _peshitta_ (preserved since the Early Church)?



JohnGill said:


> Since the underlying philosophy of modern textual criticism is an anti-supernatural view of scripture



Assertion. Not all textual critics would agree with you here.



JohnGill said:


> since the canons of it are arbitrary and subjective



Asserted again. I find them to be fairly reasonable applications of Occam's Razor.



JohnGill said:


> and since the CT was cobbled together out of autonomous human reasoning



This has more to do with attitudes than methodology.



JohnGill said:


> An unbeliever has no right to engage in textual criticism upon the scripture. Their unbelief disqualifies them from the work. Precisely because scripture is not like any other book. Last time I checked the unbeliever cannot understand the things of God. You are treating the textual criticism of scripture like the textual criticism of any other book in your 3rd point. That is anti-biblical.



No it isn't: if Scripture is God's Word, then it is capable of standing up even to the scrutiny of unbelievers. Why should we be afraid here?



JohnGill said:


> And then show from scripture that the unregenerate can sit in judgment of what is and what is not to be included in God's word.



They don't: the Church decides this---it decided this a long time ago. The question now is about the texts that were acknowledged to be inspired.


----------



## JohnGill

Philip said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, my argument is that we have no legitimate reason for replacing the TR with the CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1. Why is the TR the default here? Why not the peshitta (preserved since the Early Church)?*
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the underlying philosophy of modern textual criticism is an anti-supernatural view of scripture
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *2. Assertion. Not all textual critics would agree with you here.*
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> since the canons of it are arbitrary and subjective
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *3. Asserted again. I find them to be fairly reasonable applications of Occam's Razor.*
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> and since the CT was cobbled together out of autonomous human reasoning
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *4. This has more to do with attitudes than methodology.*
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> An unbeliever has no right to engage in textual criticism upon the scripture. Their unbelief disqualifies them from the work. Precisely because scripture is not like any other book. Last time I checked the unbeliever cannot understand the things of God. You are treating the textual criticism of scripture like the textual criticism of any other book in your 3rd point. That is anti-biblical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *5. No it isn't: if Scripture is God's Word, then it is capable of standing up even to the scrutiny of unbelievers. Why should we be afraid here?*
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> And then show from scripture that the unregenerate can sit in judgment of what is and what is not to be included in God's word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *6. They don't: the Church decides this---it decided this a long time ago. The question now is about the texts that were acknowledged to be inspired.*
Click to expand...


1. As I stated before, I'm arguing that the Reformers' view of what constitutes the authentic text of scripture and how it should be treated is what we must adopt to be faithful to God and his word. The view and practice of modern textual criticism is contrary to their view.

2. It is immaterial whether or not all, most, half, some, or no textual critics agree with me. Truth isn't determined by consensus. Following your reasoning here we could then argue for the absurd notion that the any-view-x is correct because the majority believe it so. Such reasoning makes the God of scripture dependent upon the majority of mankind believing he exists. If you start with Richard Simon, John Mill and move forward to the German rationalists and analyze their view of scripture as expressed in their writings, it is anti-supernatural. This is further exhibited in the writings of Westcott & Hort, as well as Aland, Metzger, & Ehrman. That is the philosophy underlying the modern variant of textual criticism.

3. As I stated before, if you wish to escape the charge of arbitrariness and subjectiveness for the canons of modern textual criticism, then you must demonstrate them from *SCRIPTURE. * Your opinion of them is immaterial. And an appeal to Occam's Razor is also arbitrary as the opposite of each of the canons could be justified from Occam's Razor as well. This reduces any appeal other than to scripture for the canons of modern textual criticism to absurdity. As oftentimes in the literature one group of modern textual critics use one canon to justify an inclusion/exclusion to scripture, whilst another group uses the opposite of said canon to justify an inclusion/exclusion to scripture. 

4. And? You are still left with the CT cobbled together out of autonomous human reasoning which leaves the CT in a constant state of flux. As autonomous human reasoning changes, so does the text of scripture. So much for surety in doctrine. ALL doctrines are then subject to inclusion/exclusion based on the autonomy of man. You've reduced our conceptions about God & Creation to mere opinion and salvation becomes a vanity.

5. Neither being "afraid" nor scrutiny by unbelievers is the issue. Practicing textual criticism is a far cry from scrutinizing the scriptures. If you think the two are equivalent then I urge to read on the modern practice of textual criticism starting with the 2 works of Richard Simon and then Metzger & Ehrman's book and then the writings of Ehrman himself. Scrutinizing scripture is not logically equivalent to textual criticism. Inadvertent or not, your statement supports the treating of scripture like any other book. Such a view is anti-biblical. I'll assume your usage of the conditional does not express your view of scripture.

6. Patently false. Men like Bengel, Semler, Westcott, Hort, the Unitarian heretic George Smith, Bruce Metzger, Kurt Aland, Carlo Martini, Bart Ehrman, and other such men have been deciding for over a century what goes in and what gets cut from scripture. This is why various editions of the CT have had verses removed and then in later editions, because autonomous human reasoning changed its mind, added back into the CT the same verses it had previously decided were not scripture. This is the same reason you have textual critics today disagreeing over what is in and what is out of scripture. The whole field is awash in the stink of autonomy.

As to the Church, she had already decided. And the underlying texts of the CT were discarded by the Church for 1500+ years. 

You and other CT supporters have yet to provide any *SCRIPTURAL* support for the underlying philosophy, the canons, and the overall practice of modern textual criticism. Please begin providing it and stop appealing to consensus, autonomous reasoning, arbitrariness, inconsistencies, etc. as if these somehow bolster the CT & modern textual criticism. They do not. But instead show the field for what it is, an abandonment of the riches of Christ for vain philosophy and trust in the opinions of men who believe we don't as yet have the true text of scripture.

As to your constant claiming of the genetic fallacy on my part, 
1) if my appeal for using the text of the Reformers was based on tradition, which it wasn't, it would be an appeal to authority 
2) it would only be appropriate if scripture should be treated just like any other book when one engages in the practice of textual criticism. It should not be. At all points we are to treat scripture as something totally different from all other writings.

The origin of the practice is relevant to the nature of its canons (arbitrary, subjective) and to the practice of those canons (arbitrary, subjective). Or to put another way, it is legitimate to doubt all of evolutionary psychology because it is a form of psychology based on evolution. And it is just as reasonable to doubt all psychology because it is based on a flawed understanding of man. In order to determine if the field of psychology has anything to offer, everything within the field must be brought to scripture. In order to determine if the canons of modern textual criticism offer anything of value, they must be brought to scripture. 

Only scripture can inform us as to how to deal with scripture when it comes to the practice of textual criticism. No textual critic can inform us. Not Bruce Metzger, not Kurt Aland, not Bart Ehrman, no one.

The reason for not using the ESV, besides logical contradictions in the text, that the CT has at its foundation the two most corrupt Greek manuscripts Aleph & B, buying it supports the NCC, and that it is a rehashing of the RSV, is that it is based on an ever-changing Greek text guided by the whims of autonomy. And that is the root of the issue. Do we choose the CT and autonomy or theonomy and those manuscripts chosen by the Reformers called the TR. They knew of the main texts underlying the CT, but they discounted them as being the authentic scriptures.


----------



## kodos

First, I would like to say that I am new to the methodology and concepts used in Textual Criticism. I was converted through the preaching of God's Word from the NIV so I fully agree with Steve's charitable and gracious view towards those who use the CT, those who use the MT, and those who use the TR. I love his pastoral concern for those who are discouraged by "not knowing" whether their Bible is truly God's Word translated into their native tongue. There are many who have had their faith shaken by this discussion. Some have apostasized over this very issue (Erhman). 

That said, unbelievers have no business telling us the contents of God's Word. *Full stop*. I have no patience for their exegesis of scripture - does anyone here want to have them tell you what Leviticus really means? I care _even less_ about them telling me what should be considered Holy Scripture. These same people will tell us that Scripture was naturally produced, not as Peter says "by men moved by the Holy Spirit". 

Instead, unbelievers will tell us that there are no prophecies in the Scripture, that they were added back into the text by later scribes after events that have occured. That, is the methodology of the unbeliever - and would be a perfectly valid use of Occam's Razor according to _their_ presuppositions. In my usage of Occam's Razor the simplest explanation in the matter is Peter's explanation for how Scripture is produced! That's because I presuppose _God_.

I fully recognize that not everyone involved in Textual Criticism and in the production of the Critical Text is an unregenerate or apostate. And I'll listen to _their_ arguments for the Critical Text. I merely want to point out that unbelievers have no right to tell the Church what God's Word is. Non-negotiable.

Even within the Church, we must be discerning - as Peter warns us:


*2 Peter 1:19-2:3*



> 19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, *21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. *
> 
> 2 *But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction*. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.
> 
> 
> The New King James Version. 1982 (2 Pe 1:19–2:3). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.


----------



## Philip

JohnGill said:


> 1. As I stated before, I'm arguing that the Reformers' view of what constitutes the authentic text of scripture and how it should be treated is what we must adopt to be faithful to God and his word. The view and practice of modern textual criticism is contrary to their view.



So you say. I'm still not clear on why the practices of MTC are necessarily unChristian and anti-supernatural.



JohnGill said:


> It is immaterial whether or not all, most, half, some, or no textual critics agree with me. Truth isn't determined by consensus.



Which is beside my point entirely. My point is that not all textual critics are anti-supernatural and anti-Christian. It has been repeatedly pointed out that many in this camp are our brothers in the faith.



JohnGill said:


> As oftentimes in the literature one group of modern textual critics use one canon to justify an inclusion/exclusion to scripture, whilst another group uses the opposite of said canon to justify an inclusion/exclusion to scripture.



All right, so what Scripture would you use to resolve the question (chapter/verse please)?



JohnGill said:


> And? You are still left with the CT cobbled together out of autonomous human reasoning which leaves the CT in a constant state of flux. As autonomous human reasoning changes, so does the text of scripture. So much for surety in doctrine. ALL doctrines are then subject to inclusion/exclusion based on the autonomy of man. You've reduced our conceptions about God & Creation to mere opinion and salvation becomes a vanity.



So you say. I would argue that TR methodology is just as subjective because it relies on tradition to tell us what Scripture is.



JohnGill said:


> Scrutinizing scripture is not logically equivalent to textual criticism. Inadvertent or not, your statement supports the treating of scripture like any other book. Such a view is anti-biblical. I'll assume your usage of the conditional does not express your view of scripture.



Sure it is. Scripture was written by men and can be analyzed as such---Jesus was also a man and his life can be analyzed as such. The fact that Scripture is Divinely inspired just as Christ was God made flesh does not change this. We must never forget that Romans is both truly inspired by God and truly penned by Paul. Paul was truly the author of Romans even as God is truly the author of Romans.



JohnGill said:


> Patently false.



Of course not: the canon was decided a long time ago---the question now is what the original canonical texts looked like. 

Yes, unbelievers have worked on CT---and so have believers who hold to its inspiration. 



JohnGill said:


> You and other CT supporters have yet to provide any SCRIPTURAL support for the underlying philosophy



The fact that Scripture is inspired and therefore can stand up to such criticism is, I think, warrant enough for this kind of scrutiny by believers. I don't particularly care how unbelievers have misused certain methods---the church can appropriate them. As I recall, Van Til appropriated the methods of Nietszche, and Bahnsen those of Derrida. We have new evidence and better methods---why not use them for God's glory? This is exactly what the Reformers did with regard to the apocrypha.



JohnGill said:


> At all points we are to treat scripture as something totally different from all other writings.



Here's your central premise, so let me challenge it for a second: no. Scripture is different from all other writings in the sense that it is Divinely inspired, is infallible and inerrant in the original manuscripts, and carries Divine authority that we must listen to. At the same time, treating it like any other ancient book when it comes to trying to get as close to the originals as possible does nothing to undermine this.



JohnGill said:


> The origin of the practice is relevant to the nature of its canons (arbitrary, subjective) and to the practice of those canons (arbitrary, subjective). Or to put another way, it is legitimate to doubt all of evolutionary psychology because it is a form of psychology based on evolution. And it is just as reasonable to doubt all psychology because it is based on a flawed understanding of man. In order to determine if the field of psychology has anything to offer, everything within the field must be brought to scripture.



You've conflated two things here:

1) logical origin
2) historical and motivational origin

Just because the founders of MCT were autonomously motivated (which is all that autonomy is, after all: a set of attitudes) does not make the methods invalid. Valid methods may be misused. Again, see my earlier reference to Van Til, Kant, Bahnsen, and Nietzsche.



JohnGill said:


> Only scripture can inform us as to how to deal with scripture when it comes to the practice of textual criticism.



Then please point me to the relevant Scriptural texts that explain how to deal with variations. All you've given me so far is an argument from tradition.


----------



## JohnGill

Philip said:


> Of course not: the canon was decided a long time ago---the question now is what the original canonical texts looked like.
> 
> Yes, *unbelievers have worked on CT*---and so have believers who hold to its inspiration.



The evolutionary view of the text scripture that you have put forth was not only foreign to the Reformers, but condemned by them in their writings. Canon cannot be settled without the text being settled since the canon is made up of the text. To say we have a settled canon but an unsettled text is a contradiction. 

Your laissez-faire attitude to unbelievers working on the CT is a dangerous attitude to have about scripture. And it is unbiblical. Following your view, gnostic corruptions to the text of scripture are ok if Christians worked on those same texts whether they removed the gnostic corruptions or not.

And as stated earlier, since modern textual criticism is a rejection of the Reformed view of Bibliology, it must provide a biblical foundation for itself to be considered valid. Without such a foundation, it has no place in Christendom.

As to Bahnsen and Van Til, Derrida and Nietzsche? Really? Your confused as to where presuppositional apologetics came from and are confusing Van Til with Barth. Presuppositional Apologetics originated in scripture, not in the vain philosophies of autonomous reasoning. As to Kant's transcendental argument, it differs greatly from the transcendental argument put forth by Van Til. At most you could say that Van Til took the transcendental argument and brought it to scripture, but this would not be accurate. The definitions for "transcendental argument" are completely different between Van Til and Kant. Just as the philosophy, methods, and practice of textual criticism differ between the Reformers and the modern version of textual criticism.

Provide the biblical justification for the canons and the practice of modern textual criticism. Without this, your replies fall within the informal fallacy known as the red herring.

(For those wanting an example of the presuppositional apologetic for the TR family of manuscripts I recommend the following: http://www.therulingelder.com/2011/11/reformation-oc-conference-audio-of-rev.html)


----------



## Philip

JohnGill said:


> As to Bahnsen and Van Til, Derrida and Nietzsche? Really? Your confused as to where presuppositional apologetics came from and are confusing Van Til with Barth. Presuppositional Apologetics originated in scripture, not in the vain philosophies of autonomous reasoning.



Two things here Chris:

a) Presuppositional apologetics is not the view of the reformers at all. They were common-sense realists of the pre-modern variety (think Thomas Aquinas with a more robust view of the fall).

b) The methods of presuppositionalism are exactly those of Kant and Nietzsche. The vocabulary of Van Tillian apologetics is lifted from 19th century continental philosophy. This is, I realize, a side note, but it shows that plenty of Christian apologists and theologians (who we respect and admire) have drawn on the insights and methods of non-believers. Augustine drew on Plato: Calvin drew on Cicero.



JohnGill said:


> Canon cannot be settled without the text being settled since the canon is made up of the text.



Ok, so what was the text when canon was decided in the Early Church? What evidence do you have for this proposition? The problem is here that you're always asking a historical question and therefore the methods of historical-textual analysis are those which we use to determine it.



JohnGill said:


> And as stated earlier, since modern textual criticism is a rejection of the Reformed view of Bibliology



And I disagree with this. You haven't shown how it is necessarily such---you lump methods together with motivations as if you can't use certain methods of analysis without an agenda of discrediting the Scriptures. This is just silly. I can use a vote to try and elect a Godly man or I can use it to vote in an ungodly man. I can use a rifle to defend myself against an evildoer or I can use it to murder. I can use transcendental argumentation to argue for the faith or to destroy the faith of others. And I can use modern textual-critical methods to help contend for the authority of Scripture, or I can use them to undermine it. There is nothing inherently bad about the methods of textual criticism---what's bad is using them wrongly.



JohnGill said:


> Following your view, gnostic corruptions to the text of scripture are ok if Christians worked on those same texts whether they removed the gnostic corruptions or not.



Not at all---the question here is how we determine which version is the corrupted one (and I'm still waiting for your reasoning as to why you wouldn't accept the _Peshitta_ despite the fact that it has been in continuous use since the early Church).

By the way, which edition of the TR are you defending?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

It is asked, “What makes some think the Byzantine Text – from which the Textus Receptus came, after certain refinements – is a better text than the Alexandrian, of Egypt?” In the OP JimmyH wants to know why the ESV completely omits words and phrases while the other modern versions at least have them in the footnotes and margins. I suppose one would simply have to say that is the result of editorial fiat. The more pertinent question would be, “How does it come to be that the Critical Greek Text (on which these modern versions are based) _have_ so many omissions, while the Byzantine Text does not have them?” What are the differences between the Byz and the CT in terms of their pedigrees, so to speak?

These are good questions, and I would briefly like to begin answering by quoting from chapter 5 in Wilbur N. Pickering’s, _The Identity of the New Testament Text_, where he talks about the history and factors involved concerning the copies made from the autographs. Please note that this later version of the book (the online version) is slightly different from the earlier hardcopy book:

We have objective historical evidence in support of the following propositions:



The true text was never "lost".
 


In A.D. 200 the exact original wording of the several books could still be verified and attested.
 


There was therefore no need to practice textual criticism and any such effort would be spurious.


However, presumably some areas would be in a better position to protect and transmit the true text than others.


*[SIZE=+1]Who Was Best Qualified?[/SIZE]*

What factors would be important for guaranteeing, or at least facilitating, a faithful transmission of the text of the N.T. writings? I submit that there are four controlling factors: access to the Autographs, proficiency in the source language, the strength of the Church and an appropriate attitude toward the Text.

*Access to the Autographs*

This criterion probably applied for less than a hundred years (the Autographs were presumably worn to a frazzle in that space of time) but it is highly significant to a proper understanding of the history of the transmission of the Text. Already by the year 100 there must have been many copies of the various books (some more than others) while it was certainly still possible to check a copy against the original, should a question arise. The point is that there was a swelling stream of faithfully executed copies emanating from the holders of the Autographs to the rest of the Christian world. In those early years the producers of copies would know that the true wording could be verified, which would discourage them from taking liberties with the text.

However, distance would presumably be a factor—for someone in north Africa to consult the Autograph of Ephesians would be an expensive proposition, in both time and money. I believe we may reasonably conclude that in general the quality of copies would be highest in the area surrounding the Autograph and would gradually deteriorate as the distance increased. Important geographical barriers would accentuate the tendency.

So who held the Autographs? Speaking in terms of regions, Asia Minor may be safely said to have had twelve (John, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 and 2 and 3 John, and Revelation), Greece may be safely said to have had six (1 and 2 Corinthians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Titus in Crete), Rome may be safely said to have had two (Mark and Romans)—as to the rest, Luke, Acts, and 2 Peter were probably held by either Asia Minor or Rome; Matthew and James by either Asia Minor or Palestine; Hebrews by Rome or Palestine; while it is hard to state even a probability for Jude it was quite possibly held by Asia Minor. Taking Asia Minor and Greece together, the Aegean area held the Autographs of at least eighteen (two-thirds of the total) and possibly as many as twenty-four of the twenty-seven New Testament books; Rome held at least two and possibly up to seven; Palestine may have held up to three (but in A.D. 70 they would have been sent away for safe keeping, quite possibly to Antioch); Alexandria (Egypt) held *none.* The Aegean region clearly had the best start, and Alexandria the worst—the text in Egypt could only be second hand, at best. On the face of it, we may reasonably assume that in the earliest period of the transmission of the N.T. Text the most reliable copies would be circulating in the region that held the Autographs. Recalling the discussion of Tertullian above, I believe we may reasonably extend this conclusion to A.D. 200 and beyond. So, in the year 200 someone looking for the best text of the N.T. would presumably go to the Aegean area; certainly not to Egypt.

*Proficiency in the source language*

As a linguist (PhD) and one who has dabbled in the Bible translation process for some years, I affirm that a 'perfect' translation is impossible. (Indeed, a tolerably reasonable approximation is often difficult enough to achieve.) It follows that any divine solicitude for the precise form of the NT Text would have to be mediated through the language of the Autographs—Greek. Evidently ancient Versions (Syriac, Latin, Coptic) may cast a clear vote with reference to major variants, but precision is possible only in Greek (in the case of the N.T.). That by way of background, but our main concern here is with the copyists.

To copy a text by hand in a language you do not understand is a tedious exercise—it is almost impossible to produce a perfect copy (try it and see!). You virtually have to copy letter by letter and constantly check your place. (It is even more difficult if there is no space between words and no punctuation, as was the case with the N.T. Text in the early centuries.) But if you cannot understand the text it is very difficult to remain alert. Consider the case of P66. This papyrus manuscript is perhaps the oldest (c. 200) extant N.T. manuscript of any size (it contains most of John). It is one of the worst copies we have. It has an average of roughly two mistakes per verse—many being obvious mistakes, stupid mistakes, nonsensical mistakes. From the pattern of mistakes it is clear that the scribe copied syllable by syllable. I have no qualms in affirming that the person who produced P66 did not know Greek. Had he understood the text he would not have made the number and sort of mistakes that he did.

Now consider the problem from God's point of view. To whom should He entrust the primary responsibility for the faithful transmission of the N.T. Text? If the Holy Spirit is going to take an active part in the process, where should He concentrate His efforts? Presumably fluent speakers of Greek would have the inside track, and areas where Greek would continue in active use would be preferred. For a faithful transmission to occur the copyists had to be proficient in Greek, and over the long haul. So where was Greek predominant? Evidently in Greece and Asia Minor; Greek is the mother tongue of Greece to this day (having changed considerably during the intervening centuries, as any living language must). The dominance of Greek in the Aegean area was guaranteed by the Byzantine Empire for many centuries; in fact, until the invention of printing. Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453; the Gutenberg Bible (Latin) was printed just three years later, while the first printed Greek New Testament appeared in 1516. (For those who believe in Providence, I would suggest that here we have a powerful case in point.)

How about Egypt? The use of Greek in Egypt was already declining by the beginning of the Christian era. Bruce Metzger observes that the Hellenized section of the population in Egypt "was only a fraction in comparison with the number of native inhabitants who used only the Egyptian languages."[21] By the third century the decline was evidently well advanced. I have already argued that the copyist who did P66 (c. 200) did not know Greek. Now consider the case of P75 (c. 220). E.C. Colwell analyzed P75 and found about 145 itacisms plus 257 other singular readings, 25% of which are nonsensical. From the pattern of mistakes it is clear that the copyist who did P75 copied letter by letter![22] This means that he did not know Greek—when transcribing in a language you know you copy phrase by phrase, or at least word by word. K. Aland argues that before 200 the tide had begun to turn against the use of Greek in the areas that spoke Latin, Syriac or Coptic, and fifty years later the changeover to the local languages was well advanced.[23]

Again the Aegean Area is far and away the best qualified to transmit the Text with confidence and integrity. Note that even if Egypt had started out with a good text, already by the end of the 2nd century its competence to transmit the text was steadily deteriorating. In fact the early papyri (they come from Egypt) are demonstrably inferior in quality, taken individually, as well as exhibiting rather different types of text (they disagree among themselves).

*The strength of the Church*

This question is relevant to our discussion for two reasons. First, the law of supply and demand operates in the Church as well as elsewhere. Where there are many congregations and believers there will be an increased demand for copies of the Scriptures. Second, a strong, well established church will normally have a confident, experienced leadership—just the sort that would take an interest in the quality of their Scriptures and also be able to do something about it. So in what areas was the early Church strongest?

Although the Church evidently began in Jerusalem, the early persecutions and apostolic activity caused it to spread. The main line of advance seems to have been north into Asia Minor and west into Europe. If the selection of churches to receive the glorified Christ's "letters" (Rev. 2 and 3) is any guide, the center of gravity of the Church seems to have shifted from Palestine to Asia Minor by the end of the first century. (The destruction of Jerusalem by Rome's armies in A.D. 70 would presumably be a contributing factor.) Kurt Aland agrees with Adolf Harnack that "about 180 the greatest concentration of churches was in Asia Minor and along the Aegean coast of Greece." He continues: "The overall impression is that the concentration of Christianity was in the East. . . . Even around A.D. 325 the scene was still largely unchanged. Asia Minor continued to be the heartland of the Church."[24] "The heartland of the Church"—so who else would be in a better position to certify the correct text of the New Testament?

What about Egypt? C.H. Roberts, in a scholarly treatment of the Christian literary papyri of the first three centuries, seems to favor the conclusion that the Alexandrian church was weak and insignificant to the Greek Christian world in the second century.[25] Aland states: "Egypt was distinguished from other provinces of the Church, so far as we can judge, by the early dominance of gnosticism."[26] He further informs us that "at the close of the 2nd century" the Egyptian church was "dominantly gnostic" and then goes on to say: "The copies existing in the gnostic communities could not be used, because they were under suspicion of being corrupt."[27] Now this is all very instructive—what Aland is telling us, in other words, is that up to A.D. 200 the textual tradition in Egypt* could not be trusted.* Aland's assessment here is most probably correct. Notice what Bruce Metzger says about the early church in Egypt:

Among the Christian documents which during the second century either originated in Egypt or circulated there among both the orthodox and the Gnostics are numerous apocryphal gospels, acts, epistles, and apocalypses. . . . There are also fragments of exegetical and dogmatic works composed by Alexandrian Christians, chiefly Gnostics, during the second century. . . . In fact, to judge by the comments made by Clement of Alexandria, almost every deviant Christian sect was represented in Egypt during the second century; Clement mentions the Valentinians, the Basilidians, the Marcionites, the Peratae, the Encratites, the Docetists, the Haimetites, the Cainites, the Ophites, the Simonians, and the Eutychites. What proportion of Christians in Egypt during the second century were orthodox is not known.[28]​ 
It is almost enough to make one wonder whether Isaiah 30:1-3 might not be a prophecy about N.T. textual criticism!

But we need to pause to reflect on the implications of Aland's statements. He is a champion of the Egyptian ("Alexandrian") text-type, and yet he himself informs us that up to A.D. 200 the textual tradition in Egypt could not be trusted and that by 200 the use of Greek had virtually died out there. So on what basis can he argue that the Egyptian text subsequently became the best? Aland also states that in the 2nd century, 3rd century, and into the 4th century Asia Minor continued to be "the heartland of the Church." This means that the superior qualifications of the Aegean area to protect, transmit and attest the N.T. Text carry over into the 4th century! It happens that Hort, Metzger and Aland (along with many others) have linked the "Byzantine" text-type to Lucian of Antioch, who died in 311. Now really, wouldn't a text produced by a leader in "the heartland of the Church" be better than whatever evolved in Egypt?

*Attitude toward the Text*

Where careful work is required, the attitude of those to whom the task is entrusted is of the essence. Are they aware? Do they agree? If they do not understand the nature of the task, the quality will probably do down. If they understand but do not agree, they might even resort to sabotage—a damaging eventuality. In the case of the N.T. books we may begin with the question: "Why would copies be made?"

We have seen that the faithful recognized the authority of the N.T. writings from the start, so the making of copies would have begun at once. The authors clearly intended their writings to be circulated, and the quality of the writings was so obvious that the word would get around and each assembly would want a copy. That Clement and Barnabas quote and allude to a variety of N.T. books by the turn of the 1st century makes clear that copies were in circulation. A Pauline corpus was known to Peter before A.D. 70. Polycarp (XIII) c. 115, in answer to a request from the Philippian church, sent a collection of Ignatius' letters to them, possibly within five years after Ignatius wrote them. Evidently it was normal procedure to make copies and collections (of worthy writings) so each assembly could have a set. Ignatius referred to the free travel and exchange between the churches and Justin to the weekly practice of reading the Scriptures in the assemblies (they had to have copies).

A second question would be: "What was the attitude of the copyists toward their work?" We already have the essence of the answer. Being followers of Christ, and believing that they were dealing with Scripture, to a basic honesty would be added reverence in their handling of the Text, from the start. And to these would be added vigilance, since the Apostles had repeatedly and emphatically warned them against false teachers. As the years went by, assuming that the faithful were persons of at least average integrity and intelligence, they would produce careful copies of the manuscripts they had received from the previous generation, persons whom they trusted, being assured that they were transmitting the true text. There would be accidental copying mistakes in their work, but no deliberate changes. It is important to note that the earliest Christians did not need to be textual critics. Starting out with what they knew to be the pure text, they had only to be reasonably honest and careful. I submit that we have good reason for understanding that they were especially watchful and careful—this especially in the early decades.

As time went on regional attitudes developed, not to mention regional politics. The rise of the so-called "school of Antioch" is a relevant consideration. Beginning with Theophilus, a bishop of Antioch who died around 185, the Antiochians began insisting upon the literal interpretation of Scripture. The point is that a literalist is obliged to be concerned about the precise wording of the text since his interpretation or exegesis hinges upon it.

It is reasonable to assume that this "literalist" mentality would have influenced the churches of Asia Minor and Greece and encouraged them in the careful and faithful transmission of the pure text that they had received. For example, the 1,000 MSS of the Syriac Peshitta are unparalleled for their consistency. (By way of contrast, the 8,000 MSS of the Latin Vulgate are remarkable for their extensive discrepancies, and in this they follow the example of the Old Latin MSS.) It is not unreasonable to suppose that the Antiochian antipathy toward the Alexandrian allegorical interpretation of Scripture would rather indispose them to view with favor any competing forms of the text coming out of Egypt. Similarly the Quarto-deciman controversy with Rome would scarcely enhance the appeal of any innovations coming from the West.

To the extent that the roots of the allegorical approach that flourished in Alexandria during the third century were already present, they would also be a negative factor. Since Philo of Alexandria was at the height of his influence when the first Christians arrived there, it may be that his allegorical interpretation of the O.T. began to rub off on the young church already in the first century. Since an allegorist is going to impose his own ideas on the text anyway, he would presumably have fewer inhibitions about altering it—precise wording would not be a high priority.

The school of literary criticism that existed at Alexandria would also be a negative factor, if it influenced the Church at all, and W.R. Farmer argues that it did. "But there is ample evidence that by the time of Eusebius the Alexandrian text-critical practices were being followed in at least some of the scriptoria where New Testament manuscripts were being produced. Exactly when Alexandrian text-critical principles were first used . . . is not known."[29] He goes on to suggest that the Christian school founded in Alexandria by Pantaenus, around 180, was bound to be influenced by the scholars of the great library of that city. The point is, the principles used in attempting to "restore" the works of Homer would not be appropriate for the NT writings when appeal to the Autographs, or exact copies made from them, was still possible.

*Conclusion*

What answer do the "four controlling factors" give to our question? The four speak with united voice: "The Aegean area was the best qualified to protect, transmit and attest the true text of the N.T. writings." This was true in the 2nd century; it was true in the 3rd century; it continued to be true in the 4th century. And now we are ready to answer the question, "Was the transmission normal?", and to attempt to trace the history of the text.

-------

Notes

[21]Metzger, _Early Versions_, p. 104.
[22]Colwell, "Scribal Habits," pp. 374-76, 380.
[23]K. and B. Aland,_ The Text of the New Testament_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), pp. 52-53.
[24]_Ibid_., p. 53.
[25]Roberts, pp. 42-43, 54-58.
[26]K. and B. Aland, p. 59.
[27]K. Aland, "The Text of the Church?",_ Trinity Journal_, 1987, 8NS:138.
[28]Metzger, _Early Versions_, p. 101.
[29]W.R. Farmer, _The Last Twelve Verses of Mark_ (Cambridge: University Press, 1974), pp. 14-15. He cites B.H. Streeter, _The Four Gospels_, 1924, pp. 111, 122-23.​ 
----------

I post this fairly lengthy section of Pickering’s to give an idea of the text-critical hypothesis he gives to account for the existence of the Byzantine text, and also to put in perspective the phenomenon of the Alexandrian textform. Dr. Maurice Robinson, in his Introduction to his edition of the Byzantine Text, said,



> A sound rational approach which accounts for all the phenomena and offers a reconstruction of the history of textual transmission is all that is demanded for any text-critical hypothesis. (From the Introduction to _The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Byzantine/Majority Textform_, by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont.)


 
The history of those manuscripts which are the foundation of the Critical Text, Codices Aleph and B, have quite different pedigrees. To be continued.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

That Origen sought to interpret Scripture from his own philosophy was proven by Steven above. My intention is to show the actual verses in which Origen admits to actually doing this. Here it goes:

Origen On First Principles, book 4, (All quotes of Origen are from the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Hendrickson, 1994, volume 4 - unless otherwise noted):

Rejects Zechariah 9:10; Isaiah 7:15, 11:6-7 not from Textual issues, but because they contradict his eschatology, (pg. 356).

He rejects Exodus 16:9, "...for no living being is able to sit throughout a whole day, and remain without moving from the sitting position". The correct reading being: "stay where he is" rather than "sit".

In his second Homily on Exodus Origen finds a problem with Exodus 1:21 which reads in his Bible: "Because the midwives feared God, they made houses for themselves." This leads him to comment: "This statement makes no sense according to the letter. For what is the relationship that the text should say, "Because the midwives feared God, they made houses for themselves."? It is as if a house is built because God is feared. If this be taken as it stands written, not only does it appear to lack logic, but also to be inane. But if you should see how the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, teaching the fear of God, make the houses of the Church and fill the whole earth with houses of prayer, then what is written will appear to have been written rationally." (Origen, "Homilies on Genesis and Exodus," trans. Ronald E. Heine, The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 71. [Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1981], 242-243).

The solution to this can be found when one translates the Greek word oikias correctly in this context as "families" instead of "houses". The verse then reads: "And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families of their own." The figurative use of this term can be found throughout the Book of Acts.

Origen rejects Matthew 5:29 & 39 in On First Principles 4.1.18 because they seem to him impossible. There he writes that the command that the right cheek should be struck is most incredible, because every one who strikes (unless he happens to have some bodily defect) strikes the left cheek with his right hand, (pg. 367).

In his Commentary on Romans(2.9) Origen rejects the Mosaic command of circumcision (Lev. 12:3): "Now the law of nature can be in harmony with the law of Moses according to the spirit, not according to the letter. For what natural sense is there in, for example, the command to circumcise a child on the eighth day." (Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 2. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 573-574).

Origen's text critical approach was based on his preconceived views of what he thought of as rational. The above is a sampling of the nature of his thought. He discarded readings in the Scriptures simply because they contradicted his own philosophy. 

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

An itch that I need scratching concerning issues brought up on previous posts. I believe that the Word of God is so powerful that if Led Zepplin quoted Scripture in their songs that people would be converted to Christianity. I myself was converted in an evening service at a Baptist church with a copy of Ryrie's Study Bible (I think RSV or NRSV) in my lap. With this in mind I need to scratch my itch.

Even though modern translations like the ESV, NIV and NASB use inferior Greek texts, and the NIV (TNIV) also uses an inferior translation method, I agree in principle with what Steve Rafalsky has written above. However, and this is a big caveat, it seems to me that if someone is emotionally committed to a *translation* - even if that translation is the KJV or NKJV - to such an extent that criticism of the translation causes one to walk away from the faith, then it seems to me that there is some kind of idolatry, immaturity, or unbelief involved with such a person. (The determination of which is on a case by case basis). I think this is one of the major problems with the King James Only group. They are so emotionally committed to the KJV that they feel their "god" is being attacked when the translation is criticized. There is an idolatry there that does not seem to be healthy. I also think that the Critical Text group has a similar mentality, but are far more polite in their presentations.

My own personal belief is that the Byzantine mss - even those mss available to Erasmus and the Reformers back in the 1500's - contain the infallible copies of the infallible Autographs. Not that any one copy is infallible or inerrant, but that where there is a mistake in one manuscript it is corrected by a comparison with the others. Thus, like Burgon and Scriverner before me, I can admit errors in the Textus Receptus as long as those errors can be substantiated in the extant Byzantine mss.

"Where there is confusion there is every evil work." Satan is always trying to divide the people of God. I have been in churches where people sitting to my left and right are reading different versions. I have also been to churches where the pew Bibles have changed over time from the KJV to the NIV to the ESV. One of the legitimate complaints about the KJV is that the language is outdated, and the syntax hard to follow. However, there are two remedies for this 1) when a passage seems unclear one can ask his/her pastor about it, and, 2) following in the KJV tradition there are modern updates of the text (NKJV). Quite frankly I think that a new and fresh translation needs to be made using only the Masoretic text and the Textus Receptus (and do away with the modern philosophy). But given the Zeitgeist of modern textual criticism I find such an endeavor highly problematic as there will always be the temptation to use the "older" (Alexandrian) mss.

So, as long as people remain emotionally committed to a *translation*, then my itch remains. One can be converted and live a godly life reading one of the inferior translations and/or Greek texts, but to be emotionally committed to something that is inferior to such an extent that one will leave the Church over it, does not strike a right chord in my soul.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## J. Dean

Again, no translation is perfect. Even translations from the TR have their flaws.


----------



## Galatians220

> However, and this is a big caveat, it seems to me that if someone is emotionally committed to a





> *translation - even if that translation is the KJV or NKJV - to such an extent that criticism of the translation causes one to walk away from the faith, then it seems to me that there is some kind of idolatry, immaturity, or unbelief involved with such a person.*



Rob, I can't see anyone ever walking away from *the faith* because of criticism of a particular translation. To the contrary, I've been tossed from a church because I merely _privately_ requested that the KJV not be further ridiculed from the pulpit. *I would have stayed,* but they used a CT version and they didn't want me as a member anymore. It was fine, though, and I retained my friends there. You can have a _faith-based commitment_ to the KJV or the 1599 Geneva as better than other versions, but an "emotional commitment" that would cause a person to act like a nut or a child, or reasonably to be put under suspicion as a heretic or an idolater? 



> One of the legitimate complaints about the KJV is that the language is outdated, and the syntax hard to follow. However, there are two remedies for this 1) when a passage seems unclear one can ask his/her pastor about it, and, 2) following in the KJV tradition there are modern updates of the text (NKJV).



In the vast majority of Reformed churches now, if you are reading the KJV and having trouble with it, it is suggested that you switch translations, not that you refer to the glossary in most KJV editions, or use other study aids. The NKJV is based upon the CT; it is not a mere modernizing of the KJV.

I am "emotionally committed" to God, to my family and to my friends. If every KJ or Old Geneva Bible were suddenly wiped off the face of the earth, well, I still have a great deal of the King James in my memory and I would be fine, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, in being able to meditate on God's word in my heart. As a lay-person, I don't see why there was this huge push, from about 1881 onward, to "make the Bible better." What hubris... For over 1,800 years, there were millions of conversions based on the MSS that were _not_ "older and more reliable." You can't say that the world is rushing towards God and His Word with every new translation that rears its head every year and a half or so; I think the world concludes on the evidence that "hath God said...?" is, instead, justified by those who claim Christ but yet need a new version of God's word every so often. What's worse is that the accuser - having been the first to suggest that we need "to know what God really" said - receives implicit encouragement with every "improvement" on the Bible that Thomas Nelson, Zondervan, Crossways, etc. decide to market.

Peace and blessings.


----------



## J. Dean

It's interesting that (and I just found this out), at least with the Baptist sect of KJVO-ites, several of the people they champion for KJVO views were NOT KJVO people, like J. Frank Norris, C.I. Scofield, Ryrie and the like. Many of these people championed the NASB and maintained that the KJV incorrectly translated several passages (one of the most prominent being Daniel 3, in which Nebuchadnezzer's actual words regarding the fourth person in the fiery furnace with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego should be translated "a son of the gods" and not "the Son of God" as the KJV renders it).

And again, which version of the KJV do KJVO-ites hold to? The one we have now is not the same one as the 1611 version.


----------



## Galatians220

I could throw up some verse comparison charts here (AV 1611 to 18th-century revisions and others, to NKJV, to NASB, to NIV, to ESV, etc., etc.), but that wouldn't suffice. There would be a little change in vocabulary from the 1611 KJV to later ones, but the doctrines would all be intact and _Scripture would interpret Scripture_ very adequately. One can't say the same thing about various CT versions, all bearing copyright dates in the late 20th-early 21st century.

I really love going to Bible studies and spending 80% of the time listening to people saying, "Well, my ESV says _this..._" "But the NKJV translates it as_..._"  Makes one envious of those who attended Bible studies 100+ years ago and who were able to say, "Thus saith the Lord." At the studies (I'm talking about women's Bible studies only), I just sit silently with my KJV; I've no desire to make waves. It's very sad to see Christians so confused when they need not be. Political correctness dictates that one must not advocate for the KJV in any group or church if there's another version in common usage there.

I will throw out a couple of verses, though. How about 2 Corinthians 2:17? Or try comparing Genesis 15:1 in the KJV and the same verse in the ESV and the Holman Christian Standard Bible and then judging the implications of the uncertainty expressed in the latter two versions versus the certainty of Abram's "exceeding great reward" in the KJV. Interesting.


----------



## Philip

Galatians220 said:


> I really love going to Bible studies and spending 80% of the time listening to people saying, "Well, my ESV says this..." "But the NKJV translates it as..."



I wonder if our Puritan forebears did this with the Geneva Bible, Bishops Bible, Coverdale's Bible, and the 1611.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

To take a look at the “pedigrees” of the foundational manuscripts of the Critical Text, which basically are only two: codex _Vaticanus_, or B, and Codex _Siniaticus_, or [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE] / Aleph. There are a handful of others that are similar, but none have the stature or fame of these.

It is noteworthy how few people are familiar with the works which examine the alleged “most reliable and early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses” that the Critical Text (CT) is based upon, which latter derives in the main from the Westcott and Hort (W&H) Greek text of 1881.

The quote above is from the margin note found in the NIV, and meant to indicate the spuriousness of Mark 16:9-20, as well as other passages. The margin notes in the NASB and ESV are similar and to the same effect, the CT being the Greek they are also based upon.

The primary, and almost _exclusive_ “ancient witnesses” that omit these 12 verses of Mark are _Vaticanus_ and _Sinaiticus_, both of Alexandrian origin. Without looking at their origins in detail at the moment, they were very likely Egyptian manuscripts modified by Origen, or at least accepted by him, and made into the official NT text by Eusebius of Caesarea (265-339) when Constantine requested 50 Bibles of him, due to the scarcity of Scripture after the destruction of churches, Bibles, and believers in the reign of Diocletian and his 10 years of horrific persecution (302-312). The fierce conflict in the days of Eusebius between the orthodox Christians and the Arians and Sabellians led to the manuscripts being tampered with for doctrinal reasons, as has been documented.

More to the point here is how these two manuscripts were resurrected from obscurity into places of prominence in the 19th century, and what the characters of each are.

Herman C. Hoskier was a textual scholar of the Greek New Testament who minutely examined and then opposed Westcott and Hort’s principal texts, _Vaticanus_ and _Sinaiticus_ in a two-volume study. The first is titled, _Codex B And Its Allies: A Study and an Indictment_; the second volume, which we will quote from here, is titled, _Codex B And Its Allies, Part II: Chiefly concerning [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE], but covering three thousand differences between and [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE] and B in the Four Gospels, with the evidence supporting each side, including the new manuscript evidence collected by VON SODEN, and the collateral readings of other important authorities_.(1) Hoskier states,

In the light of the following huge lists let us never be told in the future that either [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE] or B represents any form of “Neutral” text…

Our little study [after the examination of B in Volume I] would be quite incomplete without a further account of the idiosyncrasies of [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE]. This is best shown by exhibiting the principal places where [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE] and B differ, which, in number, far exceed what anyone might suppose who does not go deeply into the comparative study of the two documents. As a matter of fact the “shorter” text of the two is found in [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE] …

I have tabulated the major part of these differences between [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE] and B in the Gospels and given the supporting authorities on each side. They amount to—

Matt. . . . 656+
Mark . . . 567+
Luke . . . 791+
John . . . 1022+
Total . 3036+ (2)​ 

Hoskier’s study continues on for 381 pages of documentation (412 including a Scriptural index), if anyone is interested in pursuing a comparative examination of [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE] and B, the foundation of W&H’s critical text. What he is saying is that B and Aleph disagree with each other 3,036 times _in the Gospels alone!_

(1) _Codex B And Its Allies_, by Herman C. Hoskier (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1914).
(2) Ibid., Vol. II, page 1.

-----------

In a courtroom when two witnesses testifying to the same matter disagree sharply with one another, they cannot be called “reliable” witnesses, but rather they impugn one another’s testimony. And when such _un_reliable witnesses are scrutinized in the light of a virtual multitude of other witnesses who disagree with the two while agreeing with one another, the evidence becomes preponderant in favor of the majority. Mere “age” of a manuscript may easily be offset by other more weighty factors. It is a given regarding the condition of a manuscript that those exhibiting the least wear have been used the least; often it is because they have been set aside as of inferior quality. In my own library the books that are in the worst shape, and which sometimes have to be replaced, are those I use the most. Those in the best shape I use the least.

[SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE] was discovered by textual critic Constantine Tischendorf in a rubbish bin – likely ready to be burned – at St. Catharine’s Greek Orthodox Monastery on Mt. Sinai in 1844. _Vaticanus_ has been in the Vatican Library at least since 1481, when it was catalogued. Those with some historical knowledge will remember that these were the years of the Inquisition in Spain during the reign of Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484). In 1481 some 2,000 believers dissenting with Rome were burned alive, with multitudes of others tortured (M’Crie, _History of the Reformation in Spain_, p. 104). When Pope Innocent VIII (1484-1492) sat in the royal “Throne of Peter,” he followed in the vein of his namesake Innocent III and commenced anew a persecution against the peaceful Waldensian Christians in the northern Italian Alps, commanding their destruction “like venomous snakes” if they would not repent and turn to Rome. (Wylie, _History of the Waldenses_, pp. 27-29) Bloodbaths followed against these harmless mountain peoples, who had their own Scriptures from ancient times, and worshipped in Biblical simplicity and order.

It perplexes many people that the Lord of these many hundreds of thousands of Bible-believing saints who were tortured with unimaginable barbarity and slaughtered like dogs by the Roman Catholic “church” for centuries (it is no exaggeration to say for over a millennium) should have kept His choicest preserved manuscript in the safekeeping of the Library of the apostate murderers, designating it by their own ignominious name: _Vaticanus_. But it well suited W&H, who loved Rome, and despised the “evangelicals” of their own day, _and_ the Traditional Text they used to preach with power.

As concerns Mark 16:9-20, it is odd that it is almost exclusively these two MSS. that omit the verses, which almost all other uncials, miniscules, and lectionaries retain. What gives these two MSS. such weight over all others? W&H developed a theory to support their prized MSS., but it has been demonstrated to be devoid of any historical attestation _whatsoever_. It is mere conjecture, which I am asked to assent to, and to ignore voluminous evidences – both historical and textual – to the contrary.

Nor would I allow either of these two men, Westcott or Hort, despite their ecclesiastical “attainments,” to preach or teach in the church I serve, seeing as they were heretics and reprobates, both in belief and in conduct, which assertions are documented. I find there is much secular attestation, beside the testimony of their sons in their respective _unabridged_ biographies of their fathers, to their spiritualism.

In a book, a former president of The Society For Psychical Research acknowledged its origins in “The Cambridge ‘Ghost Society’” formed by Westcott and Hort:

Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort were among its members…Lightfoot and Westcott both became bishops, and Hort Professor of Divinity. The S.P.R. has hardly lived up to the standard of ecclesiastical eminence set by the parent society. (_The Society For Psychical Research: An Outline Of Its History, by W.H. Salter (President, 1947-8), (London, Society For Psychical Research, 1948), pages 6, 7.)

_​_

I could go on with documentation of their unbelief in the historicity of the opening chapters of Genesis (and affirming solidarity with Charles Darwin and his theory), and other evidences of their unregenerate state. (To deny the historicity of Genesis, is to deny the Fall, the sinful condition of the human race, the need for an atoning sacrifice, etc etc.) That they fiercely demanded the presence of a notorious Unitarian on their revision committee , Dr. Vance Smith (who later published, gloatingly, of the textual damage done regarding the deity of Jesus Christ in the revision), indicating they considered him a brother Christian nonetheless, says something about their hearts.

Does it not make sense what was happening? Unregenerate men had infiltrated the church, and not only the church, but the inner precincts of scholarship and textual reproduction. The enemy had taken the inner stronghold, and put unholy hands on the written Word of God, to alter it.

And the means by which they did this was to use the two ancient manuscripts that were produced around the time of Eusebius – likely by the authority of Emperor Constantine – and Tischendorf, as well others, were of the opinion that Aleph and B were among those royally commissioned Bibles; they were, after all, written on very expensive material – vellum (treated animal skin).

It is a dramatic story in itself how W&H managed to bring these manuscripts into the Jerusalem Chamber of Westminster Abbey and over a ten year period insinuated the text-critical method of Origen – and the mss that probably came from texts at the Origen library in Caesarea – into a Bible version that has pretty much taken over the English speaking world, not to mention the multitudes of foreign-language translations made from the modern Critical Greek Text.

There is so much more that can be said, but I would rather keep it short. The Alexandrian mss, although the documents themselves are old (4th century), do not represent the older texts of the early church (these apostolic mss were not written on hardy vellum, but fragile papyrus), although the history of these Byz documents have their own trail of transmission.

I will close this with an excerpt from a text-critical study on an aspect of the repercussions of using the Alexandrian texts. Judge for yourselves.

-------- 

In the book Dr. Theodore Letis’ edited (and contributed to), The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate, James A. Borland has an essay, *“Re-Examining New Testament Textual-Critical Principles and Practices Used to Negate Inerrancy”* [reprinted from the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society; Vol. 25, No. 4 (December 1982), by permission]. In this essay Borland shows how that one thrust of TC practice is indeed used to negate the inerrancy of the apostles’ original writings; in other words, the apostles were in error in the things they wrote. I quote the opening paragraph of the essay:

Perhaps it is not shocking to assert that Satan uses every means at his disposal to attack the credibility, reliability and authority of God’s Word. He began the assault in the garden with Eve and has not stopped yet. But often his ways are more subtle than the blatant lie succumbed to by Eve. We live in a modern era of sophistication. Even in Biblical and textual studies we hear more and more about the use of computers and other highly technical tools. And Satan is more than willing to accommodate our sophistication in the area of textual criticism. Especially is this so when it occasionally allows men to assert fallibility in the New Testament autographs based on widely accepted principles and practice of textual criticism.
​ 
He briefly surveys the established tenets of NT text critical theory, and then in particular Dr. Hort’s, which postulates the “primacy of the two earliest uncial MSS, Aleph (Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus), which date from the middle of the fourth century A.D. These two MSS were given the question-begging designation of being the ‘neutral text.’” He continues,

In short, the resultant practice of these new sophisticated principles was to overturn completely the textual critical practices of the past. Since the majority Byzantine text was judged to be a later text, the supposedly more ancient, more pure “neutral text” was substituted at the junctures of innumerable variants…

In referring to the Westcott and Hort theory, George Ladd approvingly writes, “The basic solution to the textual problem has been almost universally accepted.” He goes on to assert that “it is a seldom disputed fact that critical science has to all intents and purposes recovered the original text of the New Testament.” Ladd believes that “in the search for a good text, piety and devotion can never take the place of knowledge and scholarly judgment.” [the quotes are from Ladd’s book, The New Testament and Criticism (Eerdmans 1967) In a footnote Borland quotes Gordon Fee in the same vein saying, “Fee is equally bold in asserting that ‘the task of NT textual criticism is virtually completed’” (in “Modern Textual Criticism and the revival of the Textus Receptus,” JETS 21, 1978, 19-33).] Yet it is precisely this “almost universally accepted” “knowledge and scholarly judgment” that if followed too often leads to the conclusion that the very autographs of Scripture recorded errors and blunders.​ 

He then considers more deeply Westcott and Hort’s rules of external evidence regarding the manuscripts (by which they were able to dispose of the testimony of the majority of manuscripts), and then their rules of internal evidence, which came to the forefront after their external rules had gotten rid of the MT. Borland goes on,

Naturally each of these canons [of internal evidence] to a large degree must be subjectively applied. When a decision is difficult in the area of the internal evidence of readings, scholars often resort to the old circular reasoning that “certain MSS tend to support the ‘original’ text more than others and that those MSS are the early Alexandrian. Therefore, when internal evidence cannot decide, Gordon Fee advises, “the safest guide is to go with the ‘best’ MSS.” [Fee, “Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p. 431] Thus all too often external evidence is the last resort, and when it is appealed to, the results have already been determined by a preconception of which MSS are the “best.”….[L]et us examine several examples of this prevalent textual-critical method—which ultimately asserts that the autographs did indeed contain incontrovertible mistakes.

In other words, the prevalent textual methodology can be and is being used to deny the inerrancy of the original autographs.

Nearly a century ago George Salmon astutely observed that Westcott and Hort had attributed to the gospel writers “erroneous statements which their predecessors had regarded as copyists’ blunders.” Salmon noted that “there was indeed but little rhetorical exaggeration in the statement that the canon of these editors was that Codex B was infallible and that the Evangelists were not. Nay, it seemed as if Hort regarded it as a note of genuineness if a reading implies error on the part of the sacred writer.” [G. Salmon, Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: John Murray, 1897)]

*I. The Case of Asa and Amon*

One example of current import is found in the readings of Matthew 1:7, 10. These texts contain part of the kingly genealogy of Christ. Many conservative commentators seem almost oblivious to the problem [and in a footnote he lists a number]. But scholars who do not adhere to the doctrine of inerrancy do not pass up a chance to point out what they consider to be a fallacy in Matthew’s autograph. The majority of all MSS read Asa (Asa; v. 7) and Amōn (Amon; v. 10), easily recognized as two kings of Judah who were ancestors of Christ. Matthew’s point is to demonstrate our Lord’s royal lineage. But the United Bible Societies’ text instead chooses alternate readings based on the “better” manuscripts as well as some very subjective internal considerations. They substitute for the kings Asa and Amon the names “Asaph” and “Amos,” a psalmist and prophet respectively. They reason that “the evangelist may have derived material for the genealogy, not from the Old Testament directly, but from subsequent genealogical lists, in which the erroneous spelling occurred.” [B.M. Metzger, et al., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (NY: United Bible Societies, 1971), p.1] Prior to that confident assertion, Bruce Metzger and others, claimed that “most scholars are impressed by the overwhelming weight of textual evidence supporting Asaph.” [Ibid.]

What is the composition of this “overwhelming weight of textual evidence” in favor of the Asaph blunder? Heading the list are the fourth and fifth century codices, Aleph B and C. Next come the minuscules of families 1 and 13 and two eleventh- and twelfth-century cursives, 700 and 1071, followed by fourteenth-century manuscript 209. Among the versions are several Old Latin MSS (notably k, Bobiensis, a fourth or fifth century production), along with others of the seventh century and beyond. The Coptic, following the basic Egyptian text of Aleph and B, agrees; and the Armenian, Ethiopic and Georgian translations, each perhaps related to Caesarean origins (of f1 and f13), indicate Asaph also. In the Harclean Syriac it merits only a listing in the margin. In summary, barely more than a dozen Greek MSS carry the Asaph reading, followed by a few Old Latin MSS, the Coptic and several minor versions.

On the other hand, the expected reading of Asa is found in literally hundreds of Greek witnesses beginning with uncials E K L M U V W G D and P. These MSS date from the fifth through the tenth centuries and no doubt represent a wide geographic distribution, including Washingtoniensis (the Freer Gospels of the fifth century) and Regius (L), which in Metzger’s opinion has a good type of text, “agreeing very frequently with codex Vaticanus.” [Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] ed. (NY: Oxford Univ. Press, 1968), p. 54] In addition, hundreds of cursives lend their support including numbers of those known “to exhibit a significant degree of independence from the so-called Byzantine manuscript tradition.” [Metzger, Textual Commentary, p. xvii] These would include 33 (the queen of the cursives and constant ally of Aleph and B) and other minuscules beginning with the ninth century. To this may be added the entire bulk of cursive manuscripts that must represent nearly every geographical point where Greek was studied and copied throughout the middle ages and demonstrates an unbroken continuity of evidence sorely lacking in the paucity of material supporting the Asaph reading.

The lectionaries too stand solidly behind Asa, as do a number of Old Latin MSS including the notable fourth-century Vercellensis. the entire Vulgate is another early and uniform witness to Asa—as are the Curetonian, Sinaitic, Peshitta, Harclean and Palestinian versions of the Syriac. To these may be added both Ephiphanius and Augustine of the first quarter of the fifth century. Only a preconceived notion as to which witnesses are best would cause anyone to deny that the truly “overwhelming weight of textual evidence” favors the traditional reading of Asa.

If such is the case, then Asaph should be viewed as an early scribal blunder injudiciously copied into (fortunately) only a handful of Greek MSS. The evidence for Amon versus Amos in Matthew 1:10 is somewhat similar. It is difficult to believe that Matthew, no doubt an educated literary Jewish writer, was incapable of distinguishing between the Hebrew ’āsā’ and ’āsāp’ or between the even more distinguishable ‘āmôn and ‘āmôs. Not only would he have known the names of Israel’s kings by memory, but he probably would have used the genealogy of 1 Chronicles 3:10-14 in securing the names he used.

Lest one thinks this all amounts to academic irrelevance, we should be aware that the Revised Standard Version places the prophet’s name Amos in the text of Matthew 1:10 with the note “other authorities read Amon.” The Catholic New American Bible (1970) reads Amos without explanation. The American Standard Version, the RSV and the New American Standard Bible each read Asa for Matthew 1:7 but append a note indicating that the Greek reads Asaph. But where does the reading for Asa come if not from the Greek? The ASV and NASB do the same for Amos in Matthew 1:10, and the Jerusalem Bible is similar. At the least, this nomenclature is certainly inconsistent with the usual way of introducing a textual variant. We might well believe that Matthew got his kings, prophets and psalmists a bit confused! (excerpted from pp. 46-52)​ 
Thank you for bearing with this longish but significant portion of essay. He goes on with another example, but so as not to stretch my availing myself of the “fair use” policy of copyrighted material I will refrain.

If you will look at the ESV this thread started on, you will see that in Matthew 1 it reads both Asaph and Amos instead of the kings! And it is that way in the Greek of Aleph and B. It’s not right._


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Regarding the entire volume, the MountainRetreat.org version may be found here: An Inquiry Into The Integrity Of The Greek Vulgate, or Received Text Of The New Testament,


 


Jerusalem Blade said:


> while a multi-format selection of this important text-critical work may be found here


I have added a table of contents to the PDF version of the book that can be downloaded here.

AMR


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Thanks, AMR!

By the way, I'll be looking at J. Dean's oft-repeated question re "different versions" of the King James shortly. Didn't mean to ignore your question, J. Dean!

What I really want to start on is _a response to Bart Ehrman's attack on the Bible_ – that's one of maybe 5 writing projects I'll be putting on the front burner (at 70 I have to radically prioritize my work – don't know how much longer the Lord will give me). I've dealt sufficiently with demonstrating that the TR and AV can be intelligently defended, and that those who hold to these have a sound faith in God's providentially preserving His word, as He promised He would. So I hope y'all (ye – KJV) will not mind if I retire (for the most part) from the Translations and Manuscripts forum so as to complete work I _really_ want to get done!


----------



## J. Dean

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Thanks, AMR!
> 
> By the way, I'll be looking at J. Dean's oft-repeated question re "different versions" of the King James shortly. Didn't mean to ignore your question, J. Dean!
> 
> What I really want to start on is _a response to Bart Ehrman's attack on the Bible_ – that's one of maybe 5 writing projects I'll be putting on the front burner (at 70 I have to radically prioritize my work – don't know how much longer the Lord will give me). I've dealt sufficiently with demonstrating that the TR and AV can be intelligently defended, and that those who hold to these have a sound faith in God's providentially preserving His word, as He promised He would. So I hope y'all (ye – KJV) will not mind if I retire (for the most part) from the Translations and Manuscripts forum so as to complete work I _really_ want to get done!



In fairness, Steve, let me be clear on my position: the KJV is a beautiful Bible translation. Some of the best Bible passages I've committed to memory are from my days being in a KJVO church. I have no problem with somebody reading from the KJV for their own private study, or even hearing it from the pulpit.

But when I would go and hear a preacher preach from the KJV, and especially somebody professing to be KJVO, and they would "update" the language while preaching, I wondered why they just didnt' get a modern version of the Scriptures which did what they suggested. For example, whenever a preacher would talk about the word "conversation" in the KJV, they would explain that the word "conversation" does not mean what it means now, but that it should mean "conduct" or "behavior."

I would respond with, "Okay, then why not use a translation of the Bible which gives an updated and more applicable translation of that particular word?"

"Oh, no!" they would reply, "We have to stick with the KJV because only THAT is the Word of God!" (I kid you not; the KJVO Christian school I attended as a youth even went so far as to warn parents to avoid even the NKJV).

Do you see the problem here, Steve? People were taking the liberty to verbally do what they forbid to be done on paper, as if audibly stating an alternate translation of the text during a sermon was somehow not the same as putting it in print. That struck me as awfully inconsistent.

The other thing that influenced me were the commentaries of reputable men such as Francis Schaeffer and Charles Hodge, who during their expositions would reference the orginal Greek and clearly state that the KJV did not render the original Hebrew or Greek accurately (again, I reference Nebuchadnezzer's "Son of God vs. son of the gods." Mind you, these were not liberals: these are doctrinally sound men who had no intention of permitting liberalism into the church. 

So, while I respect the heritage and history of the KJV, I do not believe it is exclusively "God's translation," nor do I believe that any other and every other translation is necessarily the product of some "liberal conspiracy" to destroy the Bible just because "thee" and "thou" are not used in the English. I realize this is not the attitude of everybody else here, but I HAVE seen this attitude, and it comes off as unnecessarily close-minded and hostile, attributing ill-intentions to people who are not ill-intentioned at all, but just believe that it's okay to put the Bible in a language easier to understand.


----------



## JimmyH

Last night I was reading chapters 9 through 16 of Luke's gospel. I'm following John MacArthur's "How To Study The Bible" program. I'll read those chapters for a month, splitting up the longer books into 3 months of daily reading. The shorter books, such as 1 John, read straight through daily for 30 days. Last night I read the current NASB. Sometimes I'll use the KJV, other times the NKJV, ESV or NASB. Reading the same text day after day I don't see a major difference in the content in the various translations. As the Reverend D Martyn Lloyd-Jones said, quoted in my earlier post #84 above,"and we are entitled to go further and say the text, so called , of Westcott and Hort we can undoubtedly take with confidence as being the original manuscripts and documents."

I do appreciate Brother Rafalsky's erudite and voluminous posts defending the AV but I must defer to the opinion of the Doctor, Lloyd-Jones in validating Wescott & Hort. I find it hard to believe that such a man, who dedicated his life to The Book and spreading the gospel, would have been #1 uneducated in all of the issues, and # 2 fooled by the conclusions of the translators. Having just finished the 8 volumes of sermons the Reverend Doctor preached on the book of Ephesians I cannot count the number of times he gave reference to superior choices translators used in the AV versus the RV and visa versa. Sometimes one was considered, by the Doctor, as a better choice of words to convey the meaning, sometimes the other. Other translations were referenced at times as well. Either as better in conveying the true meaning of the author of an epistle or gospel or not.

To think that all of the translations that have been published since the RV in 1881 are corrupt is something that I just cannot accept as credible. The devil is the author of confusion and if this debate is nothing else it is confusion personified. The Word Of God liveth and abideth forever and In my humble opinion, it lives and abides in more translations than the AV. If nothing else has come out of this thread to my personal benefit it is the conviction that the fore mentioned translations that I am reading are valid and represent the Word Of God. If I seem to be using the Doctor's name as some sort of mantra it is as a result of reading so much of his material and being blessed by it.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

JimmyH said:


> but I must defer to the opinion of the Doctor, Lloyd-Jones in validating Wescott & Hort. I find it hard to believe that such a man, who dedicated his life to The Book and spreading the gospel, would have been #1 uneducated in all of the issues, and # 2 fooled by the conclusions of the translators



We should be carefull when using the "opinion" of a man (even a great man of God) to make our mind on a subject. I could do the same and point to many great men of God do agree with my position and use it as an argument but that would be inconclusive. Your position on this subjet should be based on theological understanding of what it means for God to preserve his word (all of it or most of it?) and then look at which position better fits. Even the greatest men of God are fallible. You might perceive this discussion to be splitting hair, but let's remember that we are talking about scriptures which is our "sole" authority in all matter of faith and practice. What we are dealing with is the integrity of God's revelation. God is not bound by specific Greek texts or translations, but the way we handle these says a lot about how we view God and how we cherish the revelation he has gracefully given us.




JimmyH said:


> The devil is the author of confusion and if this debate is nothing else it is confusion personified



Would you say confusion increased or decreased with modern textual criticism and the creation of the CT in 1881? Sitting back and not standing for truth will not help to stop confusion it will only give it more room to grow.




JimmyH said:


> To think that all of the translations that have been published since the RV in 1881 are corrupt *is something that I just cannot accept *as credible



here lies the problem, most of this debate is an issue of the heart, we do not choose the truth, we wrestle with it, evidence and logic is not the issue in this debate.


----------



## JimmyH

Fogetaboutit said:


> We should be carefull when using the "opinion" of a man (even a great man of God) to make our mind on a subject. I could do the same and point to many great men of God do agree with my position and use it as an argument but that would be inconclusive. Your position on this subjet should be based on theological understanding of what it means for God to preserve his word (all of it or most of it?) and then look at which position better fits. Even the greatest men of God are fallible. You might perceive this discussion to be splitting hair, but let's remember that we are talking about scriptures which is our "sole" authority in all matter of faith and practice. What we are dealing with is the integrity of God's revelation. God is not bound by specific Greek texts or translations, but the way we handle these says a lot about how we view God and how we cherish the revelation he has gracefully given us.


 Quoting the Reverend Doctor again, he said that "all we have is this book, it is our sole authority." He was more than well aware of the importance of the accuracy and relevance of the translations of the Holy Scriptures. It is true he was, like as we all are, a fallible man. Taking that into account I have to look at the reality that I am a 63 year old man who has to choose where to spend whatever time I have left in this world of time wisely. For me reading the Bible, in the fore mentioned translations , is preferable to attempting to learn the original languages at this late date, and draw my own conclusions. Unless I do so I will have to depend on one 'fallible' man or another and draw from their conclusions.

In my personal experience I was saved when the Holy Spirit enlightend the eyes of my understanding while reading the first chapter of the book of Romans in a New Scofield Reference Bible in 1986. I had that and a Scofield Reference NIV which I used when I couldn't quite understand the meaning within the KJV. Paul's epistle. An example being verses 7:14 through 25. The NIV is on the shelf and will remain there since I don't read dynamic equivalence translations but my point is that I was saved reading texts that most people on this board consider less than ideal. The Word Of God, being sharper than any two edged sword, with the Holy Spirit, saved me regardless of the translation or the editor of the study Bible. Anyway, I appreciate your concern and I don't intend to change anyone's viewpoint. Just expressing my own.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

JimmyH said:


> In my personal experience I was saved when the Holy Spirit enlightend the eyes of my understanding while reading the first chapter of the book of Romans in a New Scofield Reference Bible in 1986. I had that and a Scofield Reference NIV which I used when I couldn't quite understand the meaning within the KJV. Paul's epistle. An example being verses 7:14 through 25. The NIV is on the shelf and will remain there since I don't read dynamic equivalence translations but my point is that I was saved reading texts that most people on this board consider less than ideal. The Word Of God, being sharper than any two edged sword, with the Holy Spirit, saved me regardless of the translation or the editor of the study Bible. Anyway, I appreciate your concern and I don't intend to change anyone's viewpoint. Just expressing my own.



I understand that not everybody will take time to study this subject in detail, all I was saying is that it is not unimportant. Many on this board (including myself) have gone through situations from which we had to change our views, I have fallen for false doctrine and had to change my convictions many times already and I'm sure it will keep happening, I'm not implying that God cannot work in us through these errors, but what I'm saying is that when we start looking into an issue (or when it is brought to our attention) we should be carefull not dismiss what we find because we dislike the outcome.

Lukewarmness is not the way to go, I understand that certain things take time to understand and/or accept, but we should always meditate on these things and seek God's guidance before sweeping them under the rug.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

JimmyH:

I would second what Etienne wrote above, and caution you about following the opinions of men - even such godly men as MLJ. You should remember that MLJ used the King James Version exclusively in the pulpit as well. What I would also like to point out is one of your last statements, "To think that all of the translations that have been published since the RV in 1881 are corrupt is something that I just cannot accept as credible..."

I believe that the Bible does not contradict itself. I also believe that MLJ would hold to such a position as well. I believe that you hold to verbal plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. However, the modern Greek text does not, and it has deliberately corrupted the Scriptures. Here is my evidence:

Read Luke 4:44 and cross reference it with Mark 1:39. These two passages are talking about the same event in the life of Jesus Christ. In the Textus Receptus (including the vast majority of Greek mss, and all translations with the majority of lecterns) reads in Luke 4:44 that Jesus went into Galilee. This is consistent and non-contradictory. However, reading the Critical text, and, by extension, the modern translations that come from the Critical text, the passage is changed at Luke 4:44 to "Judah," but the original is retained in Mark 1:39 "Galilee.* Bruce Metzger points out that the committee made this decision based on the "Harder reading" rule of the modern textual philosophy. The only translation that tries to explain this contradiction in the modern philosophy is the NASB which states that "Judah" included Galilee. But the context renders such a supposition unacceptable, because they would have Jesus visiting all of the synagogues of Judah and Galilee (including those in Jerusalem) - which was clearly not what he did.

Read Matthew 19:17 and cross reference it with Mark 10:18 and Luke 18:19. The justification for the difference in these passages by Bruce Metzger is that the critical text passage is "the more obscure one."

Read Mark 1:2. The Old Testament quote in Mark 2 is from Malachi 3:1 not Isaiah. Verse 3 is a quote from Isaiah 40:3. The majority of manuscripts side with the Byzantine reading at this point. Bruce Metzger says that the "harder reading" was used in the critical text.

Read Matthew 27:49. The critical text reading states that Jesus was speared by the Centurian before he died. This is in direct contradiction to John 19:34 where Jesus first "gives up the ghost" before he was pierced by the Centurian. Bruce Metzger questions the validity of Matthew 27:49 even though just about every single Greek text, the vast majority of ancient translations, and the vast majority of lecterns upholds the Byzantine readings in the Matthew passage.

These contradictions in the Critical Text are not introduced because of textual difficulties, but because of the philosophy of the text critics "the harder reading is preferred" or, "the more obscure reading is preferred."

In light of all of this one cannot state that "no doctrine of the Christian church is affected by the modern philosophy" because, it seems quite apparent, that the Critical Text introduces contradiction and error in the Greek text where there is no error or contradiction. Consequently, at least one doctrine of the Christian faith is affected by the Critical text: the Inerrancy of the verbally inspired Scriptures.

As I mentioned above - there is enough good teaching in the modern translations for one to be converted and live a godly life. But to say that the modern Greek text, "does not deny any precept of the Christian faith" is simply not true.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## JimmyH

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> JimmyH:
> 
> I would second what Etienne wrote above, and caution you about following the opinions of men - even such godly men as MLJ.


 Hi Rob. My thinking is that there are two ways to go. One is to learn the original languages, obtain copies of the texts and become textual critics ourselves. The other is to depend on the conclusions drawn by other men who have gone that route. I haven't read James White, Bruce Metzger or the many others who've spoken to the textual issues specifically. I must say that MLJ , John MacArthur, WA Criswell among others accepting the alternatives to the KJV, while still valuing the AV has an influence on my opinion. OTOH, I am not closed minded and will, no doubt research the questions further. I've said all I really have to say in this thread. I didn't intend to restart the debate between KJVO and others but I guess, in retrospect it was inevitable, given my OP.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

Jeff:

Thank you for your corrections. In response I would like to commend you on your diligence in searching for the truth. You write:



> The modern Greek text doesn’t hold to verbal plenary inspiration any more than the chair I’m sitting in doesn’t hold to VPI. The men who compiled the MGT may not hold to VPI. But the text itself isn’t capable of doing anything. Let’s not forget that.
> I take no issue with most of your points, but just wanted to offer another side on a couple.


Will you allow me to use a figure of speech? I would rather do so than inject personalities into a discussion that may or may not engender a more emotional reaction. The Greek text that I am mentioning is the product of a false philosophy that was invented by certain men.

Next you write:



> I preached on this text not too long ago and as such, had to deal with this citation. In my studies I discovered a commentator who in his research discovered that it’s not at all uncommon for an ancient writer to only cite the more eminent name even when citing multiple sources. Mark was thus only mentioning Isaiah by name because he was a major prophet. Either way, we shouldn’t get bent out of shape when 1st century writers don’t abide by our 21st century standards of citation. They simply weren’t as concerned about it! (Thus the writer of Hebrews can say “For He has said somewhere regarding the seventh day…”)


It seems to me that you are not interacting with the point I made. The majority of manuscripts follow the Byzantine reading here, "as it is written in the prophets." What are your text-critical reasons for introducing a deliberate error in the manuscript? I would like to hear your reasons without recourse to the modern philosophy. Why would you insert a deliberate error into the text when the majority of texts claim that such an error was not made? The reason you give is not sufficient in this particular passage.

Next,



> This is not the reading of the CT. Rather, it simply adds that some mss contain the reading you’re referring to. It’s certainly not the preferred reading. Even the 1881WH has it in double brackets. So I don’t think it’s very honest to say it’s “the critical text reading.”


Correct. It is the reading of the "older manuscripts" and, as I was reading Metzger here, I made the mistake of inferring that the passage was in the CT.

Finally:



> Sure we can. Because no one I know holds that the inerrancy of the verbally inspired Scriptures hangs on which edition of the GNT you prefer. Every single scholar I’ve ever read affirms this is only true of the autographs. The TR is not a photo copy of the autographs. Neither is the CT or the MT. We simply don’t have them. So your complaint falls flat.
> 
> BTW. For full disclosure, I happen to hold to the priority of the Byzantine Mss. I had Dr. Robinson as a prof in seminary and find his arguments very compelling. I just think we do the Christian community a disservice by causing a hysteria over these things, making mountains out of mole hills, and accusing the CT and its compilers and advocates of all sorts of unsubstantiated offenses.


For you to say these things seems to miss the point I am making: That errors and contradictions appear in the Critical Text as a direct result of using the modern text philosophy appears to me to be a different understanding of the inspiration of the Scriptures than the orthodox view of verbal plenary inspiration. To give you an example: If I were to insert a new philosophy into the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, would that seem relevant to you? That scholars today affirm that inspiration extends only to the original autographs, and not to the copies of the autographs is also a modern theory that was first proposed by B.B. Warfield. As Richard Muller notes:



> Even so, Turretin and other high and late 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 autographa figure in Turretin's argument only insofar as they were written in Hebrew and Greek and are, therefore, best represented quod verba and quoad res in the extant Hebrew and Greek apographa. The issue raised by the Protestant scholastic discussion of the relation of autographa and apographa is one of linguistic continuity rather than one of verbal inerrancy. 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, Richard A. Muller,_Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: Volume Two: Holy Scripture_, (Grand Rapids, Baker, 2003), 415.


It must be remembered that the Greek text the orthodox are referring to are the Byzantine manuscripts represented in their day as Stephens 1550 and others. In referring to Warfield's "logical device" Muller notes:



> 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, 414, note.


Though your signature indicates that you subscribe to the 1649 Baptist Confession of Faith, and there is no authoritative statement in that confession concerning the Scriptures at all, the later Baptist Confession of 1689 does indicate the same authenticity for the copies as for the autographs:



> The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of its writing was most generally known to the nations) were immediately inspired by God, and were kept pure through subsequent ages by His singular care and providence. They are therefore authentic , so that in all controversies of religion , the church must appeal to them as final. 1:8.


The offenses cited above are not unsubstantiated.

Blessings in Jesus,

Rob


----------



## Galatians220

JimmyH said:


> I do appreciate Brother Rafalsky's erudite and voluminous posts defending the AV but I must defer to the opinion of the Doctor, Lloyd-Jones in validating Wescott & Hort.



Point of information: Pastor Rafalsky is also properly addressed as Dr. Rafalsky, but he doesn't advertise it here in a huge manner.


----------



## JohnGill

Philip said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to Bahnsen and Van Til, Derrida and Nietzsche? Really? Your confused as to where presuppositional apologetics came from and are confusing Van Til with Barth. Presuppositional Apologetics originated in scripture, not in the vain philosophies of autonomous reasoning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two things here Chris:
> 
> a) Presuppositional apologetics is not the view of the reformers at all. They were common-sense realists of the pre-modern variety (think Thomas Aquinas with a more robust view of the fall).
> 
> b) The methods of presuppositionalism are exactly those of Kant and Nietzsche. The vocabulary of Van Tillian apologetics is lifted from 19th century continental philosophy. This is, I realize, a side note, but it shows that plenty of Christian apologists and theologians (who we respect and admire) have drawn on the insights and methods of non-believers. Augustine drew on Plato: Calvin drew on Cicero.
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canon cannot be settled without the text being settled since the canon is made up of the text.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, so what was the text when canon was decided in the Early Church? What evidence do you have for this proposition? The problem is here that you're always asking a historical question and therefore the methods of historical-textual analysis are those which we use to determine it.
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as stated earlier, since modern textual criticism is a rejection of the Reformed view of Bibliology
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I disagree with this. You haven't shown how it is necessarily such---you lump methods together with motivations as if you can't use certain methods of analysis without an agenda of discrediting the Scriptures. This is just silly. I can use a vote to try and elect a Godly man or I can use it to vote in an ungodly man. I can use a rifle to defend myself against an evildoer or I can use it to murder. I can use transcendental argumentation to argue for the faith or to destroy the faith of others. And I can use modern textual-critical methods to help contend for the authority of Scripture, or I can use them to undermine it. There is nothing inherently bad about the methods of textual criticism---what's bad is using them wrongly.
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Following your view, gnostic corruptions to the text of scripture are ok if Christians worked on those same texts whether they removed the gnostic corruptions or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all---the question here is how we determine which version is the corrupted one (and I'm still waiting for your reasoning as to why you wouldn't accept the _Peshitta_ despite the fact that it has been in continuous use since the early Church).
> 
> *By the way, which edition of the TR are you defending?*
Click to expand...


As I stated earlier, Provide the biblical justification for the canons and the practice of modern textual criticism. Without this, your replies fall within the informal fallacy known as the red herring.

The bolded I found particularly funny in that it shows you haven't read my posts very closely.


----------



## JohnGill

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Thanks, AMR!
> 
> By the way, I'll be looking at J. Dean's oft-repeated question re "different versions" of the King James shortly. Didn't mean to ignore your question, J. Dean!
> 
> What I really want to start on is _a response to Bart Ehrman's attack on the Bible_ – that's one of maybe 5 writing projects I'll be putting on the front burner (at 70 I have to radically prioritize my work – don't know how much longer the Lord will give me). I've dealt sufficiently with demonstrating that the TR and AV can be intelligently defended, and that those who hold to these have a sound faith in God's providentially preserving His word, as He promised He would. So I hope y'all (ye – KJV) will not mind if I retire (for the most part) from the Translations and Manuscripts forum so as to complete work I _really_ want to get done!



I keep hoping you'll write a paper on the difference between the Reformed view of Verbal Plenary Inspiration and Verbal Plenary Preservation versus the modern view of Inspiration and Preservation.


----------



## Philip

JohnGill said:


> As I stated earlier, Provide the biblical justification for the canons and the practice of modern textual criticism.



I have shown that a) the so-called "canons" are in fact motivations that aren't necessary to the practice b) that your appeal to the practices of the reformation is not an appeal to Scripture but to tradition. The criticisms that you make are therefore either a) fallacious (the genetic fallacy, in this case) b) non-unique---ie: they apply as much to your position as to mine.

Please, I'm waiting on the proof-texts that would show the earlier practices to be the default ones.


----------



## Mushroom

Galatians220 said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do appreciate Brother Rafalsky's erudite and voluminous posts defending the AV but I must defer to the opinion of the Doctor, Lloyd-Jones in validating Wescott & Hort.
> 
> 
> 
> Point of information: Pastor Rafalsky is also properly addressed as Dr. Rafalsky, but he doesn't advertise it here in a huge manner.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry Margaret, but his blog profile states 2+ years of college, nothing about a doctorate. Could you or he elaborate? And I have yet to hear of his ordination, would be interested in finding out about that as well. I want to give proper honor where honor is due, and if Steve is ordained to Church Office it would be helpful to know that in addressing him.


----------



## JohnGill

Philip said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I stated earlier, Provide the biblical justification for the canons and the practice of modern textual criticism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have shown that a) the so-called "canons" are in fact motivations that aren't necessary to the practice b) that your appeal to the practices of the reformation is not an appeal to Scripture but to tradition. The criticisms that you make are therefore either a) fallacious (the genetic fallacy, in this case) b) non-unique---ie: they apply as much to your position as to mine.
> 
> Please, I'm waiting on the proof-texts that would show the earlier practices to be the default ones.
Click to expand...


Ok then, what is necessary to the practice of textual criticism upon scripture? Provide biblical justification for what you deem necessary and for the practice of textual criticism.

As I stated before, the burden of proof is upon the modern view of text criticism of scripture. You must provide biblical justification for the modern view in order for the Reformed view to be overthrown. As I've pointed out the Reformed view can be found in the writings of Turretin, Owen, Beza, Gill, Whitaker. They may also be found in modern writers such as Muller, Letis, Hills, and in the writings on this forum by Brother Rafalsky. Go there and to the Reformed confessions for your proof-texts. 

The burden of proof rests upon those who would replace the TR family of manuscripts with the modern creation known as the Critical Text. You must overthrow from scripture the Reformed views of Verbal Plenary Inspiration and Verbal Plenary Preservation and then replace them with justification from scripture with the modern views of preservation and inspiration.

Demonstrate first from scripture why the Reformed view is wrong and then demonstrate from scripture why the modern view is correct. Until you, or others in the CT camp can do so, CT & MTC arguments are irrelevant.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Dear Margaret, I appreciate your usual encouragement and kindness, but I must correct your recent error: I am not a doctor / PhD, but in fact was a high-school dropout, got my GED while in the USMC, went to college and dropped out from that in order to hit the road Kerouac/Bob Dylan-style so as to get experience in life, and study literature. The Lord Jesus arrested me in my errant way at age 26, and I’ve been in His school since. I sort of hold forth my _lack_ of educational credentials in order to show folks that a formal education is not needed to be learned, or to be able to stand up to so-called experts that think to tyrannize those without degrees – such as in this matter of textual criticism. Nor am I a pastor now, but was till last year on a foreign mission field, though not seminary trained (trained in the Lord’s wilderness); before that I was appointed a ruling elder. But thanks for your heart.

Before answering J. Dean I’d like to say just a word to JimmyH about his recent posts.

I appreciate your heartfelt protestation against the confusion engendered by the Bible version debate! I planted and pastored a church in the middle east (Cyprus) and taught pastors and elders in Africa (for MERF in northern Kenya), and often have had to address the confusion this issue has caused as a part of pastoral care. It is not a “cold intellectual topic” to me!

For me it primarily comes down to individual readings (and _not_ delegitimizing various editions of Bibles) – are the _readings_ true or false? What is the true reading in Matt 1:7 and 10? Is it Asa or Asaph? Amon or Amos? Did the apostle get it wrong in his original gospel? If so, then what about the doctrine of divine inspiration? Is it not true? There are repercussions of these things that affect doctrine, such as the Inspiration and Providential Preservation of Scripture.

What of Mark 16:9-20? Are these verses authentic, or not? When you quote Dr. Lloyd-Jones as saying “the text, so called, of Westcott and Hort we can undoubtedly take with confidence as being the original manuscripts and documents”, do you think he was vouching for the authenticity of their having the apostle put Asaph and Amos into Christ’s genealogy, and discounting the last 12 verses of Mark? Was he giving his stamp of approval on the disallowance of the TR’s version of the genealogy and this Markan passage?

So has this confusion you rightly decry arisen because of the discussion here? Or has it arisen because doubt has been sown regarding the integrity – the _intactness_ – of the Holy Bible? I see this discussion as an investigative foray into the history of the transmission of the Biblical manuscripts – from the very beginning – in an attempt to discover where the errors and discord originated (for it was not so in the beginning, _*if*_ one believes that the original Scriptures were inspired by God, and without error).

I am sorry you are hurt by this discussion; it was as sort of an antidote to this very thing that I gave my views of the larger picture in post #86. Nonetheless, there is a growing skepticism and doubt toward the Bible in many quarters. You see the trouble it causes here, among brothers and sisters in Christ who are fairly knowledgeable regarding textual issues – imagine what it does and will do as younger and not knowledgeable souls come to the Lord, seeing as the very foundations of the faith are shaken and in dispute?

Men of equal stature with MLJ have come down on both sides of the issue. B.B. Warfield, as great a thinker, teacher, and defender of the faith as he was, was part of the problem in introducing the contentious textual variants (see here and here). Owen and Turretin took the opposing view (they had awareness of the basic W&H readings from the Roman Catholics – Codex _Vaticanus_ was in Rome’s library, and its readings were made known to many – which the Counter-Reformation threw at them, seeking to undermine the Reformer’s doctrine of Sola Scriptura). One cannot (or I cannot) use one or another man’s views as a sure answer. One must understand the issues pertaining to what is the authentic text, and make up one’s own mind.

This issue, once opened to a sincere mind, is as a Pandora’s box – the evils contained therein cannot be contained or exterminated (this side of the Resurrection) – and the sole antidote is to become educated in the matter (and even then it may not act as an antidote for some).

---------

J. Dean,

The KJO preacher you heard “updating the language” I think would fall into the category of expositing or “unpacking” the language and text, making it relevant to folks who live in this day and age. When I preached from the AV I would often “modernize” the words so they would be understandable to the congregation, for many of whom English was a second language (the pew bibles were NKJV, a choice I had to make between the planting church’s offer of ESVs or that – in Africa I had seen the havoc the ESV was causing among some of the class I taught; I saw the NKJV as far superior).

My view is one I am willing to “put on paper” (if one counts these discussion boards as “paper”). There are a few places where I prefer a modern version’s translation, and have put it in the margin of my Bible (I know this will give some KJVO folks the horrors). One of my favorite commentators on the NT is William Hendriksen, and he is a thorough-going CT person. I love his exegeses, and still retain my textual views. Remember, I call myself KJV _priority_, so as to acknowledge the legitimacy of other Bibles (I came to this position here at PB, interacting with godly men holding other views – and Bibles – and could not deny their integrity and devotion to the Lord and to His word). I make this clear in post #86 above.

With regard to Daniel 3:25 and the AV’s rendering “like the Son of God”, while I realize it is by far a minority rendering of the Hebrew (I have found only Lamsa’s translation from the Syriac Peshitta that agrees), I think it is a defensible choice, as that is who it was. I, for one, though, would not call the other translation choices bad. I have confidence in no other Bible’s underlying original-language texts, and I trust the AV translators’ work. Their translation choices are not the only ones possible, but they are good. I would not object to a fair and true modernization of the AV, but I do not think it possible given the current state of men’s minds and hearts.

I am still working on your question re differing “versions” of the King James Bible. I thought it would be a breeze, but have discovered it is actually a complicated matter. I have a hardcopy of F.H.A. Scrivener’s, _The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611): Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives_, which I am going through. He was not an AV man, but a Traditional Text (sort of Majority Text) man. I’ll have to report back to you on that shortly.

As I’ve said above, what I really want to do is start to work on the contra Bart Ehrman piece (I’ve loaned some of those books out to a pastor, and have just called them back in, giving a few weeks leeway).

-------

Chris (JohnGill), I think interacting with Ehrman’s views will call for my take on a Reformed presentation of VPI and VPP, although with the twist that it will be from the AV / TR position. I have a number of refutations of him from the CT school (books, online articles, and his debate with James White [haven’t listened to it yet]), but it is their very textual stance that puts the wind in his sails, so to speak. I ask the Lord for the ability to do this and whatever else I undertake. And I thank you for _your_ labors in this area!


----------



## JohnGill

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Chris (JohnGill), I think interacting with Ehrman’s views will call for my take on a Reformed presentation of VPI and VPP, although with the twist that it will be from the AV / TR position. I have a number of refutations of him from the CT school (books, online articles, and his debate with James White [haven’t listened to it yet]), but it is their very textual stance that puts the wind in his sails, so to speak. I ask the Lord for the ability to do this and whatever else I undertake. And I thank you for _your_ labors in this area!



I've listened to the White v Ehrman debate and must agree with Joel McDurmon's view on the debate. (It's online at American Vision.) Ehrman v Wallace had many of the same issues, though there appeared to be even less disagreement between the two. It was after hearing/watching these two debates that I bought Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of Christianity & Misquoting Jesus. Ironically Burgon's Causes for Corruption & Traditional Text refute Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption, yet Burgon is held in mean esteem by the modern school. I find Ehrman to be consistent in his presentation and agree with his critiques of both White & Wallace during and after the debates. McDurmon's critique of White v Ehrman had much in common with Ehrman's own take on the debate. I also find Ehrman's works to be valuable since he takes the modern view to its logical conclusion. He unknowingly refutes the modern view by reducing it to absurdity.

I pray God gives you the wisdom for the critique and the time to complete it.

Eventually I plan to offer an online database with books, articles, etc. available from both schools.


----------



## Philip

JohnGill said:


> Ok then, what is necessary to the practice of textual criticism upon scripture?



Linguistic and textual analytical methods such as we would use on any other document to determine what it looked like originally. The Bible is as truly human, after all, as it is Divine and God-Breathed. If the TR is, as you say, the perfectly preserved version, then you should have nothing to fear.



JohnGill said:


> You must overthrow from scripture the Reformed views of Verbal Plenary Inspiration and Verbal Plenary Preservation and then replace them with justification from scripture with the modern views of preservation and inspiration.



I don't have to---I believe this as you do. I disagree that a particular textual methodology is necessitated by this.


----------



## Galatians220

Oh, okay, Steve, I stand corrected! _Mea culpa!_ (a little Catholic lingo, there)...


----------



## JohnGill

Philip said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok then, what is necessary to the practice of textual criticism upon scripture?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Linguistic and textual analytical methods such as we would use on any other document to determine what it looked like originally. The Bible is as truly human, after all, as it is Divine and God-Breathed. If the TR is, as you say, the perfectly preserved version, then you should have nothing to fear.
> 
> 
> 
> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must overthrow from scripture the Reformed views of Verbal Plenary Inspiration and Verbal Plenary Preservation and then replace them with justification from scripture with the modern views of preservation and inspiration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have to---I believe this as you do. I disagree that a particular textual methodology is necessitated by this.
Click to expand...


You start from the faulty premise that we have somehow lost what the text of scripture looked like originally. Furthermore, your "linguistic and textual analytic methods" answer is a non-answer. Define these so-called methods since you dismiss the modern textual criticism methodology. Provide a biblical warrant not only for these methods, but for your so-called "linguistic and textual analytic methods" theory.

As to your claim to believe as I do in Verbal Plenary Inspiration & Verbal Plenary Preservation, you have denied this view in all of your previous posts. Furthermore, such a view is not consistent with the CT or the method which produced the CT.


----------



## J. Dean

Jerusalem Blade said:


> J. Dean,
> 
> The KJO preacher you heard “updating the language” I think would fall into the category of expositing or “unpacking” the language and text, making it relevant to folks who live in this day and age. When I preached from the AV I would often “modernize” the words so they would be understandable to the congregation, for many of whom English was a second language (the pew bibles were NKJV, a choice I had to make between the planting church’s offer of ESVs or that – in Africa I had seen the havoc the ESV was causing among some of the class I taught; I saw the NKJV as far superior).


Great, but again, why not simply update the language in translation instead of having to have a "middle man" redefine older English? Why make Bible understanding more difficult?



> My view is one I am willing to “put on paper” (if one counts these discussion boards as “paper”). There are a few places where I prefer a modern version’s translation, and have put it in the margin of my Bible (I know this will give some KJVO folks the horrors). One of my favorite commentators on the NT is William Hendriksen, and he is a thorough-going CT person. I love his exegeses, and still retain my textual views. Remember, I call myself KJV _priority_, so as to acknowledge the legitimacy of other Bibles (I came to this position here at PB, interacting with godly men holding other views – and Bibles – and could not deny their integrity and devotion to the Lord and to His word). I make this clear in post #86 above.


For the record, my comments about KJVO people do not necessarily apply to you. Let that be clear. Again, if somebody loves the KJV, more power to them. 



> With regard to Daniel 3:25 and the AV’s rendering “like the Son of God”, while I realize it is by far a minority rendering of the Hebrew (I have found only Lamsa’s translation from the Syriac Peshitta that agrees), I think it is a defensible choice, as that is who it was. I, for one, though, would not call the other translation choices bad. I have confidence in no other Bible’s underlying original-language texts, and I trust the AV translators’ work. Their translation choices are not the only ones possible, but they are good. I would not object to a fair and true modernization of the AV, but I do not think it possible given the current state of men’s minds and hearts.


And see, another problem crops up here, because later on in that same passage, Nebuchadnezzer refers to this being as an "angel" delivering Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Do you see the potential problem here? 



> I am still working on your question re differing “versions” of the King James Bible. I thought it would be a breeze, but have discovered it is actually a complicated matter. I have a hardcopy of F.H.A. Scrivener’s, _The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611): Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives_, which I am going through. He was not an AV man, but a Traditional Text (sort of Majority Text) man. I’ll have to report back to you on that shortly.
> 
> As I’ve said above, what I really want to do is start to work on the contra Bart Ehrman piece (I’ve loaned some of those books out to a pastor, and have just called them back in, giving a few weeks leeway).


 Here's one of my sources, just FYI: Which King James Bible?

And thank you for taking the time to respond.


----------



## Philip

JohnGill said:


> Define these so-called methods since you dismiss the modern textual criticism methodology.



I didn't dismiss the methodology---I dismissed the unbiblical attitudes which sometimes accompany it and which you have mistaken for a methodology.

Again, before I will provide a justification for such, I would ask that you establish what the methodological canons of "truly reformed" (whatever that means) textual criticism look like, and how they are derived from Scripture. Otherwise I must only assume that they are just as arbitrary as any other methodology.



JohnGill said:


> As to your claim to believe as I do in Verbal Plenary Inspiration & Verbal Plenary Preservation, you have denied this view in all of your previous posts. Furthermore, such a view is not consistent with the CT or the method which produced the CT.



Why not?

I'm also still waiting for your reasoning as to why the _Peshitta_ is not a valid transmission of Scripture.


----------

