# Dr. James White would not preach on these texts!?



## JOwen (Oct 13, 2014)

I'm not sure if this has ever been discussed before on the PB, but this clip is disturbing for a few reasons:
1. That Dr. White would not preach a sermon on either Luke 23:34 or John 8:1-11. 
2. That Muslims are harnessing Dr. White in their apologetic. 

Here is the clip...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWiY32bb2K8

Thoughts?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Oct 13, 2014)

Dr. White is a CT guy, and so it should not surprise us that he would not preach on passages that he believed were not original.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 13, 2014)

I think Dr. White is just being consistent on the issue. If one holds to CT than I am not sure how you _could_ preach a text you didn't think was Holy Scripture.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Oct 13, 2014)

Bill, of course, is correct. Dr. White's textual views are well-known and defended by him. They are, in fact, the mainstream view in many evangelical and Reformed institutions. 

And it logically follows for many that they would not preach on the aforementioned texts (as well as the longer ending of Mark's gospel and the Johannine comma), though there are some who believe that the pericope adulterae is biblical but not properly in John. 

I think that the important thing here is that we can disagree, and argue quite passionately, over these textual matters, but differences here do not render Dr. White outside the evangelical and Reformed camp. Belief in the TR (or something along those lines) is not an article of our faith and is not a "test of orthodoxy." Again, it may be passionately held and argued, but men of the same confession can, and do, hold different textual convictions. 

I don't generally weigh in on this argument, but I think it important to do so here because, again, while I think that it is fine to be quite strong in making one's case here (for the TR or the eclectic text), I don't think that we ought to do so in a sectarian fashion. I am not implying that Pastor Jerrold is doing anything of the sort. These are legitimate questions/concerns that he raises. I am simply urging this thread not to turn into something that I think brings little light to any of us and is not a credit to the Reformed faith. Dr. White is a capable man and can well-defend himself, but we need not take shots at him in differing with him, as if his being Reformed is suspect because he does not hold a TR (or the like) position.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 13, 2014)

I've edited the thread. Stay on topic. Treat opponents with respect.


----------



## Abeard (Oct 13, 2014)

What does CT and TR stand for? 

Are there any resources on this topic?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Oct 13, 2014)

Abeard said:


> What does CT and TR stand for?
> 
> Are there any resources on this topic?



CT= Critical Text as published by the United Bible Society and Nestle-Aland. This is the text upon which most modern translations are based. 

TR= Textus Receptus, or received text. This is the text upon which the King James is based.


----------



## uberkermit (Oct 13, 2014)

CT refers to the Critical Text. The critical text, which is maintained by the United Bible Society, is the basis for most modern Bible translations, such as the NIV, NASB, and ESV. 

TR refers to Textus Receptus. Textus receptus is the basis for the King James translation of the Bible. 

If you do a search on textus receptus or critical text, you will find many threads discussing the matter. Note that there are two camps endorsing the TR. One camp you will find on this forum; they are generally charitable and reasonable. The other camp consists of a group of folks who are _rabid zealots_, and would consider anyone who disagrees with their position to be unbelievers. James White addresses the latter group in his book, _The King James Only Controversy._​


----------



## Edward (Oct 13, 2014)

Abeard said:


> What does CT and TR stand for?
> 
> Are there any resources on this topic?



There have been a number of textual debates here on PB, most of which I try to stay out of. 

CT is Critical Text
TR (in this context) is Textus Receptus.


----------



## ProtestantBankie (Oct 13, 2014)

Are the proof texts in the LBC/WCF not present in churches with these different textual positions?


----------



## whirlingmerc (Oct 13, 2014)

John 8 is tough since many manuscripts don't include it. I would not fault White for not preaching on it. 

John Calvin didn't write commentary on Revelation. Doesn't mean he was 'Harnessed in' there are lots of reasons people choose what to focus on.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Oct 13, 2014)

whirlingmerc said:


> John 8 is tough since many manuscripts don't include it.



I would recommend reading Hendriksen's thoughts on this passage in his commentary on John.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 13, 2014)

1) Put the name "Steve Rafalsky" into the PB search.

2) Take two weeks vacation.

3) Enjoy


----------



## whirlingmerc (Oct 13, 2014)

OK, there is a case to be made that some manuscripts leave the story off and some include it and the account should stand. I personally would not consider it being 'harnessed in' if a person in good conscience might have a reason to not preach it.

Interesting that the account that follows is de-emphasized, where Jesus tells the Pharisees 'I have much to say to condemn you' He appeared tough with some and mercifully softer with others in a proper way.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 13, 2014)

The OPC I believe has edited the proof texts to their standards to reflect the CT or adopted prior editing from the PCUSA (forget which).


ProtestantBankie said:


> Are the proof texts in the LBC/WCF not present in churches with these different textual positions?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 13, 2014)

Chris, the OPC version of the Standards which I have, _The Confession of Faith and Catechisms_, the 2005 edition, to my knowledge uses the KJV in its proof texts, unless a later edition has come out I am unaware of. Though it is clear the tide is shifting and the growing consensus, at least among the “cognoscenti”, is receding from the mark once held as true in the Reformation churches.


There are two aspects to discussions such as this: the first being, a) “Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph 4:3), and “be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves” (Phil 2:2,3). One should note that these are apostolic commands, not optional suggestions! 

The second aspect is, b) “speaking the truth in love” (Eph 4:15), “ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3), and, “Man shall...live...by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt 4:4). These also are commands.

There may be a strong tension between these two sets of commands, and it is upon us to resolve it while maintaining obedience to both. A difficult line to walk, to be sure, but it can be done. 

I would prefer the scholarly way of resolution, and such I shall do here. I will quote from two excellent scholars on this topic, Harvard text critic Edward F. Hills, and Anglican scholar John William Burgon. Hills first, from his work, _The King James Version Defended_, chapter 5, pp 132-133:
Luke 23:34a "Then said Jesus, Father forgive them, for they know not what they do."

This disputed reading is found in the vast majority of the New Testament manuscripts, including _Aleph, A, C, L, N. _and also in certain manuscripts of the Old Latin version, in the Curetonian Syriac manuscript and in the Peshitta, Harclean, and Philoxenian versions. It is also cited or referred to by many of the Church Fathers, including the following: in the 2nd century, Tatian (60) Irenaeus; (61) in the 3rd century, Origen; in the 4th century, Basil, Eusebius, and others. The reading is omitted, on the other hand, by the following witnesses: Papyrus 75, _B. D, W. Theta, _38, 435, certain manuscripts of the Old Latin version, the Sinaitic manuscript of the Old Syriac version, and the Coptic versions (with the exception of certain manuscripts). Cyril of Alexandria is also listed as omitting the reading, but, as Hort admitted, this is only an inference.

Not many orthodox Christians have agreed with Westcott and Hort in their rejection of this familiar reading which has become hallowed by many centuries of tender association. But these critics were nevertheless positive that this petition ascribed to Christ was not part of the original New Testament text but was interpolated into the Western manuscripts early in the 2nd century. This prayer of our Saviour for His murderers, they insisted, like the agony and bloody sweat, was "a fragment from the traditions, written or oral, which were, for a while at least, locally current beside the canonical Gospels, and which doubtless included matter of every degree of authenticity and intrinsic value.... Few verses of the Gospels," they continued, "bear in themselves a surer witness to the truth of what they record than this first of the Words from the Cross: but it need not therefore have belonged originally to the book in which it is now included. We cannot doubt that it comes from an extraneous source." (62)

Westcott and Hort's theory, however, is a most improbable one. This prayer of Christ would be interpreted as referring to the Jews and, thus interpreted, would not be something likely to have been added to the Gospel narrative by 2nd-century Christian scribes. For by that time the relationship between Jews and Christians had hardened into one of permanent hostility, and the average Christian would not have welcomed the thought that the Jews ought to be forgiven or that the Saviour had so prayed. Certainly the general tone of the 2nd-century Christian writers is markedly anti-Jewish. _The Epistle of Barnabas, _written about 130 A.D. reveals this emphasis. "In no other writing of that early time," Harnack tells us, "is the separation of the Gentile Christians from the patriotic Jews so clearly brought out. The Old Testament, he (Barnabas) maintains, belongs only to the Christians. Circumcision and the whole Old Testament sacrificial and ceremonial institution are the devil's work." (63)

For these reasons Harnack (1931) was inclined to accept Luke 23:34a as genuine and to believe that this prayer of Christ for His murderers was omitted from some of the manuscripts because of the offense which it occasioned many segments of the early Christian Church. "The words," he observed, "offered a strong offense to ancient Christendom as soon as they were related to the Jews generally. Indeed the connection, viewed accurately, shows that they apply only to the soldiers; but this is not said directly, and so, according to the far-sighted methods of the exegesis of those days, these words were related to the enemies of Jesus, the Jews generally. But then they conflicted not only with Luke 23:28 but also with the anti-Judaism of the ancient Church generally.... The verse ought in no case to be stricken out of the text of Luke; at the very most it must be left a question mark." (64)

Streeter also and Rendel Harris (65) were friendly to the supposition that Christ's prayer for His murderers was purposely deleted from Luke's Gospel by some of the scribes due to anti-Jewish feeling. But again it is not necessary to imagine that orthodox Christian scribes were the first to make this omission. It may be that Marcion was ultimately responsible for this mutilation of the sacred text. For, as Williams observes, "Marcion was anti-Jewish in all his sentiments." (66) It is true that, according to Harnack's analysis, Marcion still included this prayer of Christ in his edition of Luke's Gospel (probably relating it to the Roman soldiers), (67) but some of his followers may have referred it to the Jews and thus come to feel that it ought to be deleted from the Gospel record. (Source; notes)​ 
And then Burgon, from his _The Revision Revised_, pp 82-85 (for the footnotes see here, starting at fn 242):
Next in importance after the preceding, comes the Prayer which the Saviour of the World breathed from the Cross on behalf of His murderers (S. Luke xxiii. 34). These twelve precious words,—(“Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do,”)—like those twenty-six words in S. Luke xxii. 43, 44 which we have been considering already, Drs. Westcott and Hort enclose within double brackets in token of the “moral certainty” they entertain that the words are spurious.[SUP]242[/SUP] And yet these words are found in _every known uncial_ and in _every known cursive Copy_, except four; besides being found _in every ancient Version_. And _what_,—(we ask the question with sincere simplicity,)—_what_ amount of evidence is calculated to inspire undoubting confidence in any existing Reading, if not such a concurrence of Authorities as this?... We forbear to insist upon the probabilities of the case. The Divine power and sweetness of the incident shall not be enlarged upon. We introduce no considerations resulting from Internal Evidence. True, that “few verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness to the Truth of what they record, than this.” (It is the admission of the very man[SUP]243[/SUP] who has nevertheless dared to brand it with suspicion.) But we reject his loathsome patronage with indignation. “Internal Evidence,”—“Transcriptional Probability,”—and all such “chaff and draff,” with which he fills his pages _ad nauseam_, and mystifies nobody but himself,—shall be allowed no place in the present discussion. Let this verse of Scripture stand or fall as it meets with sufficient external testimony, or is forsaken thereby. How then about the _Patristic_ evidence,—for this is all that remains unexplored?

Only a fraction of it was known to Tischendorf. We find our Saviour's Prayer attested,—

In the IInd century by Hegesippus,[SUP]244[/SUP]—and by Irenæus:[SUP]245[/SUP]—
In the IIIrd, by Hippolytus,[SUP]246[/SUP]—by Origen,[SUP]247[/SUP]—by the _Apostolic Constitutions_,[SUP]248[/SUP]—by the _Clementine Homilies_,[SUP]249[/SUP]—by ps.-Tatian,[SUP]250[/SUP]—and by the disputation of Archelaus with Manes:[SUP]251[/SUP]—
In the IVth, by Eusebius,[SUP]252[/SUP]—by Athanasius,[SUP]253[/SUP]—by Gregory Nyss.,[SUP]254[/SUP]—by Theodoras Herac.,[SUP]255[/SUP]—by Basil,[SUP]256[/SUP]—by Chrysostom,[SUP]257[/SUP]—by Ephraem Syr.,[SUP]258[/SUP]—by ps.-Ephraim,[SUP]259[/SUP]—by ps.-Dionysius Areop.,[SUP]260[/SUP]—by the Apocryphal _Acta Pilati_,[SUP]261[/SUP]—by the _Acta Philippi_,[SUP]262[/SUP]—and by the Syriac _Acts of the App._,[SUP]263[/SUP]—by ps.-Ignatius,[SUP]264[/SUP]—and ps.-Justin:[SUP]265[/SUP]—
In the Vth, by Theodoret,[SUP]266[/SUP]—by Cyril,[SUP]267[/SUP]—by Eutherius:[SUP]268[/SUP]
In the VIth, by Anastasius Sin.,[SUP]269[/SUP]—by Hesychius:[SUP]270[/SUP]—
In the VIIth, by Antiochus mon.,[SUP]271[/SUP]—by Maximus,[SUP]272[/SUP]—by Andreas Cret.:[SUP]273[/SUP]—
In the VIIIth, by John Damascene,[SUP]274[/SUP]—besides ps.-Chrysostom,[SUP]275[/SUP]—ps. Amphilochius,[SUP]276[/SUP]—and the _Opus imperf._[SUP]277[/SUP]

Add to this, (since Latin authorities have been brought to the front),—Ambrose,[SUP]278[/SUP]—Hilary,[SUP]279[/SUP]—Jerome,[SUP]280[/SUP]—Augustine,[SUP]281[/SUP]—and other earlier writers.[SUP]282[/SUP]

We have thus again enumerated _upwards of forty_ ancient Fathers. And again we ask, With what show of reason is the brand set upon these 12 words? Gravely to cite, as if there were anything in it, such counter-evidence as the following, to the foregoing torrent of Testimony from every part of ancient Christendom:—viz: “b d, 38, 435, a b d and one Egyptian version”—might really have been mistaken for a _mauvaise plaisanterie_, were it not that the gravity of the occasion effectually precludes the supposition. How could our Revisionists _dare_ to insinuate doubts into wavering hearts and unlearned heads, where (as here) they were _bound_ to know, there exists _no manner of doubt at all_?​ 
[end Burgon]

__________

It is a real shame the word of God is being assaulted in this manner; such an attempt at excision is – to me – as grievous as the removal of “broken” in 1 Cor 11:24’s record of Jesus’ words, “Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you”. It is upon those who hold to the Reformation standard to adorn their conversation with grace, wisdom, and scholarship.


----------



## whirlingmerc (Oct 13, 2014)

Interesting controversy
I'm going to have to say I don't know

https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/John/Jesus-Forgives-Woman-Taken

This story, beloved for its revelation of God's mercy toward sinners, is found only in John. It was almost certainly not part of John's original Gospel. The NIV separates this passage off from the rest of the Gospel with the note, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53--8:11." That is, the earliest Greek manuscripts, the earliest translations and the earliest church fathers all lack reference to this story. Furthermore, some manuscripts place it at other points within John (after 7:36, 7:44 or 21:25), others include it in the Gospel of Luke (placing it after Luke 21:38), and many manuscripts have marks that indicate the scribes "were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials" (Metzger 1994:189). Furthermore, it contains many expressions that are more like those in the Synoptic Gospels than those in John.

It appears to have been a well-known story, one of many that circulated orally from the beginning yet that none of the Gospel writers were led to include. But some in the later church thought this one was too good to leave out. The controversy with the teachers of the law and the Pharisees (v. 3) is similar to stories found in the Synoptics, as is the theme of God's mercy mediated by Jesus.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 13, 2014)

Hello Michael, 

You affirm with respect to the authenticity of John 7:53-8:11, “I’m going to have to say I don’t know”, but then you post a highly negative view of some unknown IVP commentator (and I don’t mean Metzger, who is already on the record as not believing in apostolic Spirit-inspired infallibility, nor in the authenticity of the Mosaic accounts in Genesis). So are you in effect giving the passage a “thumbs-down”?

I would suggest this information is more sound.


----------



## MW (Oct 13, 2014)

"What do you do when you have a text that is highly questionable?" That is the question Dr. White poses. But all he has brought for evidence to prove that it is "highly questionable" is the omission of the saying in certain mss. That is it! He cannot tell us who wrote these mss. or what function they served. He categorises them, without any evidence, as "New Testament mss." And there is the problem. He does not know that the mss. which omit the saying are in fact "New Testament mss." The word "New Testament" is a canonical term which assumes an authenticity and authority that mss. in and of themselves do not possess. He is borrowing the term "New Testament" in order to give weight to a ms. and claim that a reading is questionable because it is not in a certain ms. There is nothing empirical or evidentially credible about such a claim. It is mere question-begging. He never goes to the trouble to prove what is fundamentally necessary in a case such as this, which is the right of the ms. to be called "the New Testament." And this of course is the problem which has arisen in connection with strict empiricism and the quest for "evidence."


----------



## Philip (Oct 13, 2014)

This could be another discussion but I had a brief comment on John 8. It was pointed out to me by Gordon Hugenberger that John 7-8 makes more sense from a literary perspective with the _Pericope Adulterae_ included than without it. John 7 begins at the feast of booths, which commemorates the wilderness wanderings, and the pattern of discourse follows the wilderness wanderings. You have discussions of Moses and circumcision, and flowing water (cf. Ex 17). At the beginning of the _Pericope Adulterae_, Jesus ascends the Mount of Olives, and then when pressed, he writes with his finger. If the pattern of wilderness wanderings is a correct interpretation of these passages, then it puts the _Pericope Adulterae_ in the place of Sinai, and Jesus is signalling his mediatorial function by going up a mountain and his divinity by writing with his finger.


----------



## Claudiu (Oct 13, 2014)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> 1) Put the name "Steve Rafalsky" into the PB search.
> 
> 2) Take two weeks vacation.
> 
> 3) Enjoy



True story. I did this. 

Add "armourbearer" (or "Rev. Matthew Winzer") and got a few more weeks


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 13, 2014)

When he finished up preaching through the New Testament, I understand that Dr. John MacArthur explained why he thought that the longer ending of Mark was not in the original. But he then proceeded to preach on it anyway. To me that is a better approach.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 13, 2014)

This is the text I linked to in post #18 above (actually, it is a slightly better version of that text):

John Burgon wrote a large section on this passage in his book, _The Causes of The Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels_, as he marshaled forth “overwhelming” evidence to demonstrate its authenticity. I will touch upon the briefest aspects of his well-documented case. It is admitted, he says, that the “Pericope de Adultera,” is missing from some of the manuscripts. He brings up the historical fact that this passage was offensive to some of the early Christians. At this point we look at Dr. E.F. Hills’ remarks as he reviews Burgon’s historical and textual evidences:
The story of the woman taken in adultery was a problem also in ancient times. Early Christians had trouble with this passage. The forgiveness which Christ vouchsafed to the adulteress was contrary to their conviction that the punishment for adultery ought to be very severe. As late as the time of Ambrose (c. 374), bishop of Milan, there were still many Christians who felt such scruples against the portion of John’s Gospel. This is clear from the remarks which Ambrose makes in a sermon on David’s sin. “In the same way also the Gospel lesson which has been read, may have caused no small offense to the unskilled, in which you have noticed that an adulteress was brought to Christ and dismissed without condemnation…Did Christ err that He did not judge righteously? It is not right that such a thought should come to our minds…”1

According to Augustine (c. 400), it was this moralistic objection to the_ pericope de adultera_ which was responsible for its omission in some of the New Testament manuscripts known to him. “Certain persons of little faith,” he wrote, “or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord’s act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if He who said ‘sin no more’ had granted her permission to sin.”2 Also, in the 10[SUP]th[/SUP] century a Greek named Nikon accused the Armenians of “casting out the account which teaches us how the adulteress was taken to Jesus…saying that it was harmful for most persons to listen to such things.”3

That early Greek manuscripts contained this _pericope de adultera_ is proved by the presence of it in the 5[SUP]th[/SUP]-century manuscript _D_. That early Latin manuscripts also contained it is indicated by its actual appearance on the Old Latin codices _b_ and _e_. And both these conclusions are confirmed by the statement of Jerome (c. 415) that “in the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord.”4 There is no reason to question the accuracy of Jerome’s statement, especially since another statement of his concerning an addition made to the ending of Mark has been proved to have been correct by the actual discovery of the additional material in _W_. And that Jerome personally accepted the _pericope de adultera_ as genuine is shown by the fact that he included it in the Latin Vulgate.5​ 
As Burgon presents his case, he says,
_These twelve verses occupied precisely the same position which they now occupy from the earliest period to which evidence concerning the Gospels reaches_.

And this, because it is a mere matter of fact, is sufficiently established by reference to the ancient Latin version of St. John’s Gospel. We are thus carried back to the second century of our era: beyond which, testimony does not reach. The pericope is observed to stand _in situ_ [in the same place] in Codd. b c e ff g h j. Jerome (A.D. 385), after a careful survey of older Greek copies, did not hesitate to retain it in the Vulgate. It is freely referred to and commented on by himself in Palestine: while Ambrose at Milan (374) quotes it at least nine times; as well as Augustine in North Africa (396) about twice as often. It is quoted besides by Pacian, in the north of Spain,—by Faustus the African (400),—by Rufinus at Aquileia (400),—by Chrysologus at Ravenna (433),—by Sedulius a Scot (434). The unknown authors of two famous treatises written at the same period, largely quote this portion of the narrative. It is referred to by Victorius or Victorinus (457),—by Vigilius of Tapsus (484) in North Africa,—by Gelasius, bp. of Rome (492),—by Cassiodorus in Southern Italy,—by Gregory the Great, and by other Fathers of the Western Church.

To this it is idle to object that the authors cited all wrote in Latin. For the purpose in hand their evidence is every bit as conclusive as if they had written in Greek—from which language no one doubts that they derived their knowledge. But in fact we are not left to Latin authorities…6​ 
Burgon then proceeds to list the various Versions (editions in different languages), and continues:
Add that it is found in Cod. D, and it will be seen that in all parts of ancient Christendom this portion of Scripture was familiarly known in early times.

But even this is not all. Jerome, who was familiar with the Greek MSS. (and who handled none of later date than B and [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE]), expressly relates (380) that the _pericope de adultera_ “is found in many copies both Greek and Latin.” (ii.748)…Whence is it—let me ask in passing—that so many critics fail to see that _positive_ testimony like the foregoing far outweighs the adverse _negative_ testimony of [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE]BT,—aye, and of AC to boot if they were producible on this point? How comes it to pass that the two Codexes, [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE] and B, have obtained such a mastery—rather exercise such a tyranny—over the imagination of many Critics as to quite overpower their practical judgment? We have at all events established our first proposition: viz. that from the earliest period to which testimony reaches, the incident of “the woman taken in adultery” occupied its present place in St. John’s Gospel.7​ 
But still Burgon is not finished. It remains for him to deliver the _coup de grâce_ to this wounded falsehood. It had been the perplexity of many critics friendly to this passage that there was little attestation to it among the Greek Fathers (although the aforementioned testimonies of Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome were of great weight), and its relative lack was the continual taunt of its adversaries. Burgon shows that in the Lectionaries (books with Scripture portions to be read on particular dates throughout the year, year after year) the reading for Pentecost – Whitsunday – extended from John 7:37 to 8:12, and an internal notation, in many Scriptures prepared for this ecclesiastical use, read (translating from the Greek) *“over-leap”* from verses 7:53 to 8:11, as the topic related therein was inappropriate for that day. This in itself is a reason the verses we are looking at are sometimes missing from the section they are naturally a part of. But Burgon continues:
It is the authoritative sentence of the Church then on this difficult subject that we desiderate…Are we, I say, left without the Church’s opinion?

Not so, I answer. The reverse is the truth. The great Eastern Church speaks out on this subject in a voice of thunder. In all her Patriarchates, as far back as the written records of her practice reach,—and they reach back to the time of those very Fathers whose silence is felt to be embarrassing,—the Eastern Church has selected nine out of these twelve verses to be the special lesson for October 8. A more significant circumstance it would be impossible to adduce in evidence. Any pretense to fasten a charge of spuriousness on a portion of Scripture so singled out by the Church for honour, were nothing else but monstrous. It would be in fact to raise quite a distinct issue: viz. to inquire what amount of respect is due to the Church’s authority in determining the authenticity of Scripture? I appeal not to an opinion, but to _a fact_: and that fact is, that though the Fathers of the Church for a very sufficient reason are nearly silent on the subject of these twelve verses, the Church herself has spoken with a voice of authority so loud that none can effect not to hear it: so plain, that it cannot possibly be misunderstood.

And let me not be told that I am hereby setting up the Lectionary as the true standard of appeal for the Text of the New Testament…We are not examining the text of St. John vii.53-viii.11. We are only discussing whether those twelve verses _en bloc_ are to be regarded as an integral part of the fourth Gospel, or as a spurious accretion to it. And that is a point on which the Church in her corporate character must needs be competent to pronounce; and in respect of which her verdict must needs be decisive.8​ 
There are many other defenses of our assaulted passage, but I will let it rest with what has been presented. Remember, the Greek Text of the Eastern Church – in particular, the Greek Orthodox Church – is in great measure the Traditional Text of the Reformation (with some few providential additions), and of the King James Bible. That Church would not have given a place of honored remembrance and regular use for edification to a questionable text. The _pericope de adultera_ is where it should be, and always has been, in spite of the scissors of the unscrupulous.

___________

1 _Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum_, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, Vienna, vol. xxxii, pp. 359, 360. Cited in _KJV Defended_, Hills, page 151.
2 Ibid., vol. xxxxi, p. 387. Cited in _KJV Defended_, Hills, page 151.
3 _S. S. Patrum_…J.B. Cotelerius, Antwerp, 1698. Cited in _KJV Defended_, Hills, page 151.
4 Migne, _Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina_, Vol. 23, col. 579.
5 _KJV Defended_, Hills, page 151.
6 _The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels_, by John William Burgon, Edward Miller, ed. (London: George Bell And Sons, 1896), pages 247-249.
7 Ibid., pages 249, 250.
8 Ibid., pages 259, 260.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Oct 13, 2014)

Chris, 

It has taken the OPC some time to get around to approving proof-texts for all the Standards--having adopted the OPC version of the WS at the 2nd GA in Nov. 1936--which almost entirely agree with the originals and are also in the KJV, as were the originals. This does not mean that overall the OPC adopts the TR: it has never taken an official position on that, but it determined to keep the proof texts in the KJV, because this language is often directly reflected in the Standards, and it would be odd to have the proof texts in contemporary English with the Standards employing 17th c. English. Steve noted this, but this is the reason: to keep the proof texts in the same version that informs the language of the Standards.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 13, 2014)

In the NASB, Dr. White's favored translation, Luke 23:34 is not even bracketed, which is what the NASB editors do when they are quite doubtful about a passage, such as John 5:3-4 or Acts 8:37. In the ESV, John 5:3b-4 and Acts 8:37 are relegated to the margin. Not so with Luke 23:34. Both translations have a note that "some manuscripts..." etc. But evidently the editors didn't think it was totally doubtful or else they would have bracketed it or relegated it to the margin. To be consistent, it would seem that there must be many dozens of verses that he would not preach on. (Also, some have particular reasons for not liking Luke 23:34, as is the case with the woman caught in adultery. But I have no idea what Dr. White's thoughts are with regard to the teaching of either passage.) 

Given the fact that (if I'm not mistaken) verses have been taken out of critical texts only to be put back in later, (or given a higher rating) those who would refrain to preach or teach or even read aloud questionable verses appear to have placed themselves at the whim of the "assured results of modern scholarship."


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 13, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> "What do you do when you have a text that is highly questionable?" That is the question Dr. White poses.



I know what I do, I first ask, "Who says it is highly questionable and what reasons does one say they are highly questionable? What are the presuppositions behind the thinking that they are highly questionable?"


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 13, 2014)

I wasn't thinking version so much as that passages questioned by the critical text have been omitted from the proofs regardless of the version such as dropping 1 John 5:7 from LC 6. 


Alan D. Strange said:


> Chris,
> 
> It has taken the OPC some time to get around to approving proof-texts for all the Standards--having adopted the OPC version of the WS at the 2nd GA in Nov. 1936--which almost entirely agree with the originals and are also in the KJV, as were the originals. This does not mean that overall the OPC adopts the TR: it has never taken an official position on that, but it determined to keep the proof texts in the KJV, because this language is often directly reflected in the Standards, and it would be odd to have the proof texts in contemporary English with the Standards employing 17th c. English. Steve noted this, but this is the reason: to keep the proof texts in the same version that informs the language of the Standards.
> 
> ...


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 13, 2014)

Not to add more to this, but why does everyone talk about the TR when they perhaps ought to be talking about the MT (Majority Text)? I mean if we had to choose one wouldn't we choose the MT?


----------



## MW (Oct 13, 2014)

Romans922 said:


> Not to add more to this, but why does everyone talk about the TR when they perhaps ought to be talking about the MT (Majority Text)? I mean if we had to choose one wouldn't we choose the MT?



So should we count mss. rather than date them? The "majority" changes with every new find. It doesn't seem right that the living and abiding word of God should be determined by the chance discovery of one collection of mss. over another.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Oct 13, 2014)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I wasn't thinking version so much as that passages questioned by the critical text have been omitted from the proofs regardless of the version such as dropping 1 John 5:7 from LC 6.



Gotcha. That is true. Few changes were made, generally for doctrinal reasons (in which a particular text was thought not to support the doctrine) and for textual reasons in the case of the Johannine comma.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## KMK (Oct 14, 2014)

Alan D. Strange said:


> It has taken the OPC some time to get around to approving proof-texts for all the Standards



How does the OPC proof text SC Q. 107 when the only version that has a conclusion to the Lord's Prayer is the AV? Doesn't the OPC's inclusion of Q 107 require them to, at least on this particular variant, side with the AV?


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Oct 14, 2014)

Ken:

A number of proof texts are given with respect to WSC 107 in the OPC version--check it out: http://www.opc.org/documents/SCLayout.pdf.

What you are seeking is given in WSC 99, where the Lord's Prayer is first cited. The last proof text for that question cites the Lord's Prayer from Matthew in the KJV, including the conclusion in question.

The answer to your question is that the OP version of the Standards employ the KJV and thus the eclectic text variants are not ordinarily there. The OP did not go into texts from the AV and change them to reflect the eclectic text. Rather, the Johannine comma is a special case and the whole verse is eliminated. It has, as you know, its own and highly controverted history. Otherwise, texts are there in their KJV form. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## KMK (Oct 14, 2014)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Ken:
> 
> A number of proof texts are given with respect to WSC 107 in the OPC version--check it out: http://www.opc.org/documents/SCLayout.pdf.
> 
> ...



Thank you, Dr. Strange. By 'OP version' do you mean the 'OPC version'?


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Oct 14, 2014)

Ken:

Yes, I mean the version in use by the OPC. And we gave the PCA permission to print the same version using their own cover. I am uncertain as to the history of the proof texts in the PCA constitutionally (Wayne?), but they print a version that is precisely the same as ours with the same proof texts. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 14, 2014)

Wayne can confirm by I believe the reason PCA has no problem issuing the OPC version with their prooftexts is the PCA never approved/adopted proof texts for the WCF and Catechisms. 


Alan D. Strange said:


> Yes, I mean the version in use by the OPC. And we gave the PCA permission to print the same version using their own cover. I am uncertain as to the history of the proof texts in the PCA constitutionally (Wayne?), but they print a version that is precisely the same as ours with the same proof texts.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Oct 14, 2014)

Chris:

That is what I believe to be the case, i.e., that the PCA has never approved proof texts for the Standards. My uncertainty stems from my being unaware of any actions in the PCA to approve proof texts, but I was concerned that I might have missed something. You confirm what I think to be, though Wayne can verify. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 14, 2014)

A PCA congregation I visit (not my home church) always uses the traditional Lord's Prayer (Matt 6) even though it is pretty strictly an ESV / NIV church – I suppose because this Scripture is very widely known in its traditional form, and to use the CT form would be a glaring departure from what the church up through the ages has mostly used. Would there were such a care for godly ecclesiastical tradition as regards the rest of Scripture!


----------



## whirlingmerc (Oct 14, 2014)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Michael,
> 
> You affirm with respect to the authenticity of John 7:53-8:11, “I’m going to have to say I don’t know”, but then you post a highly negative view of some unknown IVP commentator (and I don’t mean Metzger, who is already on the record as not believing in apostolic Spirit-inspired infallibility, nor in the authenticity of the Mosaic accounts in Genesis). So are you in effect giving the passage a “thumbs-down”?
> 
> I would suggest this information is more sound.



Hi, 

hope it's not too hot in Queens today
I hear upstate is very hot.

What I meant was that there is a wide controversy and I do not know enough about it
I do believe in inerrency, infallibility and plenary inspiration of the original documents so maybe I should have skipped that reference as you say.
(not inerrant in my spelling)

Why it might be cow towing to Muslims is a mystery to me. Seems a disagreement over which texts are best.

Michael


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 14, 2014)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> A PCA congregation I visit (not my home church) always uses the traditional Lord's Prayer (Matt 6) even though it is pretty strictly an ESV / NIV church – I suppose because this Scripture is very widely known in its traditional form, and to use the CT form would be a glaring departure from what the church up through the ages has mostly used. Would there were such a care for godly ecclesiastical tradition as regards the rest of Scripture!



Steve,

Have you been to many churches that do not use the traditional Lord's Prayer i.e. recite it from another version besides the AV? I have been to one that did that. Otherwise, I've always heard it from the KJV, even in churches that use the NASB or ESV.


----------



## whirlingmerc (Oct 15, 2014)

I may regret this, but ... OK... why is the account in various places various books in various manuscripts? 
John 7:53-8:11 -- is it authentic?

Steve, thanks for the references, I shall look into it.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 15, 2014)

Chris, you're right – I have not heard it in other than the traditional form even in CT-leaning churches, which seems inconsistent to me if one favors the CT as generally superior. It's like there is an instinct which says, "Do not change this – this is sacred", that overrides other considerations. A less positive spin might be, as I said above, "to use the CT form would be a glaring departure from what the church up through the ages has mostly used", and the cognitive dissonance make people wonder if the new wasn't really for the worse after all.


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Oct 15, 2014)

> I may regret this, but ... OK... why is the account in various places various books in various manuscripts?
> John 7:53-8:11 -- is it authentic?
> Last edited by whirlingmerc; Today at 12:09 PM.



I love how there is a copy of Luke with the story in it.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 15, 2014)

Hi Michael,

I would think it appears in various places (very few, really) because many scribes knew intuitively (from familiarity with Bible and manuscripts) that it belonged _somewhere_, but were puzzled and perhaps daunted by “an internal notation, in many Scriptures prepared for....ecclesiastical use, [that] read (translating from the Greek) *‘over-leap’* [i.e., skip over] from verses 7:53 to 8:11, as the topic related therein was inappropriate for that day” (John Burgon, see post #23 above). While the regular reading for Pentecost Sunday was where the notation to skip the passage (as inappropriate for that day) appeared, it nonetheless was retained by the Greek church in their Byzantine text and in their Lectionary reading for every October 8[SUP]th[/SUP] up through the centuries.

Without enumerating all the places – _scribal guesses_ – it found its way into, it remains that church fathers from antiquity affirmed its place in Scripture _in John 8_ and the reason _they knew of_ why it had been removed (apart from the Greek church situation – again see post #23 above, Hills' comments)! 

The reason it appears in so many ancient Latin mss. is that they did not have the notation to skip over it the Greek church did, and there was no like confusion among the scribes in the Latin West.

What you – and we all – are witnessing is that confusion engendered by both Rome and the God-hating rationalists (do any unbelievers _love_ God?) with the flooding of Christendom with textual variants in an attempt to overthrow the mighty Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which fatally opposed Rome’s doctrine of Tradition trumping all other authority. Does it not appear that Rome won, through winning the hearts and loyalty of even the Reformed Protestants? Still and all, there are those die-hard Reformed souls – and churches – which hold to the standards of the Reformation, and will until the Lord returns.

But you can see, Michael, that the faith of multitudes in an intact and trustworthy Bible has been profoundly shaken by _the defense of the variants_ *against* the foundation of Sola Scriptura _the Reformers held_, and that by modern Reformed and Presbyterian church leaders.

I have noted the following information elsewhere, and shall do it again here to make my point:
Here is something to consider when we talk of being true to the Reformation, the differences in various verses, i.e., the variant readings, and the United Bible Societies stance vis-à-vis Rome (and by implication, the Reformation). 

This is from a post from Will Kinney’s articles page alleging an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Society on jointly producing the critical text:

Kinney: “I have a copy of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition right here in front of me. It is the same Greek text as the UBS (United Bible Society) 4th edition. These are the Greek readings and texts that are followed by such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard AND the new Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem Bible 1985.

“If you have a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, open the book and read what they tell us in their own words on page 45 of the Introduction. Here these critical Greek text editors tell us about how the Greek New Testament (GNT, now known as the UBS) and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece grew together and shared the same basic text. In the last paragraph on page 45 we read these words:​
"The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament."​
And then, from The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity: 

*Collaboration for the Diffusion of the Bible
*
“Following the responsibility undertaken by the then Secretariat for the preparation of the dogmatic Constitution on _Divine Revelation, _the PCPCU was entrusted with promoting ecumenical collaboration for the translation and diffusion of Holy Scripture _(Dei Verbum, _n. 22). In this context, it encouraged the formation of the Catholic Biblical Federation, with which it is in close contact. Together with the United Bible Societies it published the _Guidelines for Interconfessional Cooperation in Translating the Bible_” (1968; new revised edition 1987).

[Kinney]: The United Bible Societies Vice-President is Roman Catholic Cardinal Onitsha of Nigeria. On the executive committee is Roman Catholic Bishop Alilona of Italy and among the editors is Roman Catholic Cardinal Martini of Milan. Patrick Henry happily claims, “Catholics should work together with Protestants in the fundamental task of Biblical translation …[They can] work very well together and have the same approach and interpretation ... This signals a new age in the church.” - Patrick Henry, _New Directions in New Testament Study_ (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1979), 232-234.

United Bible Societies welcomes Pope Francis

[Excerpt:] MARCH 15, 2013 - The election of Pope Francis, ‘a long-time friend of the Bible Societies’, is an encouragement to United Bible Societies (UBS) to work even harder to make the Bible available to everyone.

“He is a man of the universal church with an ecumenical spirit and he is a pastor, who knows the reality of ‘simple’ people. The new Pope is a truly biblical person whose faith and actions are deeply rooted in the Bible and inspired by the Word of God.”

“As a long-time friend of the Bible Societies Pope Francis knows that our raison d’être is the call to collaborate in the incarnation of our Christian faith,” says Mr Perreau. “we assure Pope Francis of our renewed availability to serve the Catholic Church in her endeavours to make the Word of God the centre of new evangelisation.”​ 
[end excerpt]
___________


I think this may give many pause to think, What on earth are we doing siding with the arguments of Counter-Reformation Rome?

Little wonder, in my view, that *an increasing number of Reformed persons are crossing the Tiber (turning to Rome) in an effort to find a line of unbroken tradition and of infallible authority*. Where they find this in the papal system, we find it in the word of God providentially preserved by Him so that His children may stand against the world, the flesh, and the devil. Take my life if you must, but do not take the word of my God out of my hands or out of my heart!


----------



## MW (Oct 15, 2014)

whirlingmerc said:


> I may regret this, but ... OK... why is the account in various places various books in various manuscripts?
> John 7:53-8:11 -- is it authentic?



It took a little time for the "books" to be collected and form what comes to be known as the fourfold gospel tradition. So in the earlier transmission of mss. the books were being copied individually. They were also being used individually, which led to speakers and writers often joining passages together. It is possible that by this means a passage in John came to be used in connection with a passage in Luke, and that over time it finds its way into the transmission of the text.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 15, 2014)

From a chapter in the book, _O Great and Terrible Love: A pilgrimage from Woodstock to Celestial City (via Babylon and Armageddon)_:

*
Warrior-scholar*

The warrior must be a scholar, or rather, a certain _class_ of warrior must, as attacks will be directed in such manner as to undermine the very basis of spiritual consciousness, which stands upon the word of the King. Undermine the word of the King, as contained in His book – in that alone – and the mind of the warrior has no foundation on which to stand – on which to *be*.

The word of truth – the Scriptures of the Jews, whether in Hebrew, Greek, English, or other languages – is the basis of spiritual life for the younger brothers and sisters of the Christ, who now take _His_ place in the satanic warfare as He has ascended to the throne of glory and power, having accomplished His warfare, and blazed the path for those who follow Him.

The written Word itself must be defended, its reliability, intactness, purity, even these millennia since their being written. Whoever cannot defend these holy writings will be vulnerable to attack from various fronts – in the mind and spirit directly from demons, from human vessels of doubt, unbelief, and / or hostility to the King who is the Lord of the Writings, and by other means.

One should be familiar with the arguments used against their reliability, and be able to overturn them. To do this one must study, if not in great depth (some will pursue it so), then to get a basic grasp, sufficient to be convinced in one’s own mind and to repel assaults. As the days get darker and times fiercer, these attacks will mount with greater subtlety and force.

Thus the warrior must also be a scholar, whether fledgling or master, for the times require it.


----------



## JasonGoodwin (Oct 18, 2014)

Edward said:


> Abeard said:
> 
> 
> > What does CT and TR stand for?
> ...



I'm trying to get back into a routine of visiting the PB more often. Having said that, debates and discussions like this can really get inside baseball. It's just best to sit back, read, learn - and not say anything.


----------

