# Verse differences



## SeanAnderson (Aug 30, 2014)

Please note that the point of this thread is not to start a Critical Text versus Textus Receptus argument (I know it is a very contentious issue).

Since I've been a Christian, I've used the ESV, but have recently begun to look at alternative manuscript traditions.

In the Critical Text, some verses which are not present in one gospel are still present in another gospel or, additionally, in another location in the same gospel. Anyone making an argument for the Critical Text here can simply state that such verses have been transposed by scribes who are seeking to harmonise the accounts - whether this is true or not.

But something which has me scratching my head even more are those places where the Textus Receptus has content neither found in the Critical Text verse nor anywhere else in scripture.


*Matthew 20:22*
_Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” _ (ESV)
_But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of,* and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with*? They say unto him, We are able._ (KJV)

*Mark 9:49*
_For everyone will be salted with fire._ (ESV)
_For every one shall be salted with fire, *and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt*._ (KJV)


These are just two examples. I'm sure there are quite a few more, including the doxology of the Lord's Prayer.

What are we to make of these difficult passages? Is it possible that some of them could be scribes' notes rather than the Word of God?

As I said before, I didn't previously question the CT, but now that I have, it's still a minefield. I respect Burgon, but even he indicates that corrections could be made to the Textus Receptus. Is there a complete list anywhere of verses in the Textus Receptus where the manuscript evidence may be wanting?


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 30, 2014)

The books linked below will answer your questions. Bruce Metzger's earlier edition without the assistance of Bart Ehrman, before Ehrman went apostate, is the one I have read. I can't speak for the other. My preference of the three listed is Carson's for readability. White is so verbose it is tiresome after awhile and Metzger is scholarly, I'm recommending those if you want a more detailed overview than you'll get from posting threads on internet boards. Nothing wrong with that, it is just that you'll get brief snippets from one side or the other. Another good website with many links to both sides of the issue, and more importantly source material from which you can do your own research is Michael Marlowe's Bible Research ...... Bible Research by Michael Marlowe

Bruce Metzger The Text Of The New Testament : Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration 

James White, The King James Only Controversy

D.A. Carson The King James Version Debate; A Plea For Realism


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 30, 2014)

First thing to remember is that the "Critical Text" includes an apparatus that lists the variants found in various manuscripts. In other words, it includes the readings found in the TR.

Regarding Matt 20:22 compare to Mark 10:38:

Mark 10:38 (ESV)
38*Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”


When you go to the apparatus for Matt 20:22, here are the notes:



> {A} πίνειν. א D L Z Θ ƒ13 1 itaur, b, c, d, e, ff1,2, g1, l, n, r1 vg syrc, s copsa, meg, bopt ethpp Diatessaron Ambrose Jerome Augustine Speculum // πίειν. B 085 // πίνειν ἢ τὸ βάπτισμα ὃ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι βαπτισθῆναι (see Mk 10.38) C (G 579 πίειν) W Δ 13 28 33 (205 1424 πίνω for μέλλω πίνειν) 565 597 700 828 1006 1010 1241 1243 1292 1342 1505 Byz [E H O Σ] Lect it(f), h, q syrp, h arm geo2 slav Origenlat Marcusacc. to Irenaeus // πίνειν καὶ τὸ βάπτισμα ὁ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι βαπτισθῆναι 157 (180) 892 1071 (l*673 πίειν) lAD copbopt ethTH geo1 Chrysostom
> 
> Aland, K., Black, M., Martini, C. M., Metzger, B. M., Wikgren, A., Aland, B., & Karavidopoulos, J. (2000). The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (with apparatus); The Greek New Testament, 4th Revised Edition (with apparatus). Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft; Stuttgart.



OK, that looks like gobblygook but let me try to explain, the {A} indicates that the committee has a high degree of confidence that the original reading is as follows:



> 22 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· οὐκ οἴδατε τί αἰτεῖσθε. δύνασθε πιεῖν τὸ ποτήριον ὃ ἐγὼ μέλλω *πίνειν*; λέγουσιν αὐτῷ· δυνάμεθα.



And Jeus answered saying: "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am going *to drink*?" They answered to Him: "We are able."

Next to the {A} are all the manuscripts that contain this translation. Here's some basic information about the manuscripts where this reading is found:

The order will be Manuscript, Century, Type, Family

א, IV, Uncial, Alexandrian and Western 
Indicates the manuscript is א, it's dated from the 4th century, it's an Uncial, and it has readings from the Alexandrian and Western families.
D, V, Uncial, Codex Bezae
L, VIII, Uncial Agrees much with Vaticannus
Θ, IX,	Uncial	Mostly Byzantine but Caesarean in Mark
ƒ13, XI-XV, minuscule Like fam. 1 , this family also has affinities with the Caesarean type of text
Notice also that it includes citations from Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine

One of the things the reading has going for it is the number of textual families that have this reading. I don't have the space to go into why this makes the reading preferable.

The second reading they cite replaces the bolded "to drink" infinitive with the word *πίειν* which is used earlier in the sentence and also means "to drink". Note the manuscripts that support that reading. It is possible that in copying the scribe saw the first πίειν in the sentence and failed to an a nu to the second "to drink".

The third variant is the one found in the KJV for that verse and the TR. You can see the text families that cite it but note also that Mark 10:38 is cited as I pointed out before. They point it out because it is a parallel text and if one is copying a text it's possible that they included the extra words out of habit or may have been harmonizing the text. One can look at the manuscripts and familiies that include this reading and get a sense for how old or stable those text families are. Sometimes one will find that the reading tends to be in one textual family which indicates that the reading came in and due to the tenacity of readings they tended to be copied into every manuscript thereafter.

Generally speaking then, there are a few rules that folks will make and then come to a conclusion regarding why they think the first reading is to be preferred but this does not mean that one can come to another conclusion regarding the text and what is original.

Here is Metzger's note on Mark 9:49 (because I'm too lazy to go through all of the above again):


> πᾶς γὰρ πυρὶ ἁλισθήσεται {B}
> 
> The opening words of this verse have been transmitted in three principal forms: (1) πᾶς γὰρ πυρὶ ἁλισθήσεται (B L Δ f 1 f 13 syrs copsa al, “For every one will be salted with fire”); (2) πᾶσα γὰρ θυσία ἁλὶ ἁλισθήσεται (D itb, c, d, ff2, i, “For every sacrifice will be salted with salt”); and (3) πᾶς γὰρ πυρὶ ἁλισθήσεται καὶ πᾶσα θυσία ἁλὶ ἁλισθήσεται (A K Π al, “For every one will be salted with fire, and every sacrifice will be salted with salt”). The history of the text seems to have been as follows. At a very early period a scribe, having found in Lv 2:13 a clue to the meaning of Jesus’ enigmatic statement, wrote the Old Testament passage in the margin of his copy of Mark. In subsequent copyings the marginal gloss was either substituted for the words of the text, thus creating reading (2), or was added to the text, thus creating reading (3). Other modifications include πυρὶ ἀναλωθήσεται (Θ, “… will be consumed with fire …”), θυσία ἀναλωθήσεται (Ψ, “… sacrifice will be consumed …”), ἐν πυρὶ δοκιμασθήσεται (1195, “… will be tested by fire …”), and πᾶσα δὲ οὐσία ἀναλωθήσεται (implied by itk, “and all [their] substance will be destroyed,” ο being read for θ, and αναλω for αλιαλις).
> 
> ...


----------



## SeanAnderson (Aug 30, 2014)

Thanks to both of you.

(I did not take into account that the NA/UBS Mark text included the 'baptism' reading).

Generally, I can see that even with the more recent critical approach, very little is 'missing' compared with the Textus Receptus - considering that a number of differences are possible attempts at harmonisation.

The biggest issues remain with the ending of Mark and the _pericope adulterae_. Two fairly large portions of text which reflect truth and have also been beloved by many generations of Christians.

I know there are a number of threads on these already, however.

I will read the recommended books with interest.


----------



## Romans922 (Aug 30, 2014)

Not trying to get into debate, but why would anyone trust 'the committee' who determines grading of possibility in the critical text?

Anyone ever research the makeup of said committee and their backgrounds?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 30, 2014)

Romans922 said:


> Not trying to get into debate, but why would anyone trust 'the committee' who determines grading of possibility in the critical text?
> 
> Anyone ever research the makeup of said committee and their backgrounds?



As I noted, Andrew, you don't have to trust the committee to use the Apparatus. Neither the UBS-4 nor the NA-28 hide the manuscript variants nor the reasoning chosen. One can accept or reject their conclusions.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 2, 2014)

JimmyH,

I don’t think it’s responsible to recommend a book, the most up-to-date edition of which is co-authored By Bart Ehrman, a fervent enemy of the Christian faith and its Bible: _The Text Of The New Testament : Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration _.


Hi Sean,

Yours are good questions. The discrepancies between the Critical Text-derived NT editions and the Byzantine and Received Text editions result – materially – from two differing lines of the transmission of the respective textual traditions, and with regard to those who cleave to one or the other, from accepting one of two differing paradigms (though there are also degrees of acceptance between them) of _how_ God preserved His word.

The two schools each have dogmas they hold to (presuppositions): the dogma of neutral (unmolested) texts or readings that can be discerned by textual critics using scientific method rightly applied in this field, or the dogma of God’s providence not using the former method, but preserving His word according to specific promises and in the minutiae (not merely in the main), resulting in a Bible that is not provisional or theoretical but which we may hold in our hands. Though this latter school is certainly not without evidences though presupposition-driven.

My own recommendations would be _Crowned With Glory : The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version_, by Dr. Thomas Holland, and another good one is, _The King James Version Defended_, by Harvard text critic E.F. Hills (a PDF here, and hardcopy available as well). Plus my own partial collection of posts and threads here at PB dealing with a number of readings contested by the CT, as well as some interactions with Dr. James White, and another of his men at AOMIN, etc.


----------



## JimmyH (Sep 2, 2014)

Steve, note that I specified that I read the edition published before any involvement by Ehrman. Add that, though I deliberately found a used copy sans Ehrman I'm given to understand that he contributed to professor Metzger's book before he became apostate.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 2, 2014)

Hi Jimmy, thanks for the clarification. I note that BE graduated from Wheaton in ’78 and went directly to Princeton. It was in his second semester (probably ’78 or ’79) that he came upon Prof Story, and as he reported in his book, _Misquoting Jesus_ (1985) p 8ff., it was then that the floodgates of doubt opened upon him and he lost faith in the Bible being without error, and from there its being God’s word, and from there that there even is a God. He never was a born-again believer.

On top of that, Bruce Metzger’s genuineness as a Christian is also in doubt, for if he puts his editorial approval upon unbelieving statements about the Bible generally (just to mention he stated in his _Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament_ 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Ed. pp 1, 2, that Matthew erred when he wrote Matt 1:7,10, having used the wrong genealogical lists), I would not trust his opinion on textual matters. As I have said many times, the ancient Levites, guarding the deposit of God’s word, would never have let learned and wise scribes from Babylon or Egypt work on the Torah of Moses, or the later writings of the Tanakh – it may well have been a capital offense had they done so. But we upon whom the ends of the world have fallen, we let the uncircumcised (of heart) deal with the sacred things with abandon.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 2, 2014)

I just received this (unsolicited) following email,

-------

Dear Mr Rafalsky,

On the Puritan Board, “Semper Fidelis” commented to “Romans922” on 30 Aug: 

“As I noted, Andrew, you don't have to trust the committee to use the Apparatus. Neither the UBS-4 nor the NA-28 hide the manuscript variants nor the reasoning chosen. One can accept or reject their conclusions.”

You might want to point out that this comment is not exactly correct, since there are **hundreds** of translatable manuscript variants that are **not** mentioned in UBS-4 nor NA-27/28 -- and quite obviously they provide no reasons for excluding such from their apparatus, nor for defending their preferred text in such instances.

I am currently examining the numerous **translatable** differences just between just the Byzantine Textform and the NA-27/28 critical text that are **not** mentioned in any manner by the Nestle-27/28 apparatus. It should be an interesting and lengthy tabulation once complete.

In the end, it seems clear that – at least for those non-cited translatable variants, particularly within the Byzantine Textform – the reader of the Nestle-27/28 apparatus indeed **must** accept their conclusions by default, so long as they do not go to other more extensive critical apparatuses. The Nestle text in those cases simply doesn’t discuss non-cited variants, even when such are characteristic of a major texttype like the Byzantine.

Maurice A. Robinson, PhD
Research Professor in NT and Greek
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Wake Forest, North Carolina

[end Dr. Robinson]

--------

In the interests of full disclosure I must say that although Dr. Robinson and I have corresponded, he does _not_ share my views about the AV, which he has noted near the end of the Intro to his _The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine / Majority Textform_, and elsewhere.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 2, 2014)

While critics of the Received Text say, “there are numerous readings in the KJV that follow a small minority of Greek texts”, this supposed small minority is really an unknown quantity, for Hermann Von Soden in his widely used massive edition gathering and collating the “majority” cursive manuscripts, _Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments_ (Berlin, 1902-1910), did not use but a fraction of the MSS that existed, and he has been critiqued for this failure by later scholars. On this topic, I quote from Kevin James’, _The Corruption of the Word: The Failure of Modern New Testament Scholarship_ (distributed by Micro-Load Press, 1990, ISBN: 0962442003):

Some examples of places where a King James wording seemingly has little support are given in the following chapters. Seemingly, because, *while most existing New Testament copies have been roughly categorized into “majority” or “non-majority” groupings, the exact text of thousands of existing manuscripts is unknown except in a handful of places.* [Emphasis mine –SMR] 

It should be understood that it is impossible to *prove* which of two or more competing wording variations is the original since the originals have long since disappeared. But it is the height of folly to throw the settled received text of three and one-half centuries into the dustbin to make a revision *when the exact contents of thousands of existing copies of mainstream tradition manuscripts is unknown* [this last emphasis mine –SMR]. A clear picture of New Testament manuscript transmission history is also lacking. Finally, unless the vigilance of a living God is recognized, attempts at revision of the King James can easily stray from a stated target of supplying God’s people with a “better” New Testament.

Paul said: “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21.) This should be the guiding principle for the Christian church when dealing with the intricacies of the wording of the original text. (pp. viii, ix)​ 
For those interested in reading this now out-of-print work (perhaps you can get it through Inter-library Loan), he collates and studies a number of Greek manuscripts in the following chapters.

The late Kurt Aland, director of the manuscript centre at Muster, Germany – where about 80% of all Greek manuscripts are available on microfilm – admitted,

…the main problem in N.T. textual criticism lies in the fact that little more than their actual existence is known of most of the manuscripts…(_The Significance of the Papyrii_ pp. 330-301, quoted in Wilbur Pickering’s _The Identity of the New Testament Text_, p 149)​ 
Jack Moorman points out (quoting from his, _Hodges/Farstad 'Majority' Text Refuted By Evidence_), “However, Aland’s interest in the vast repository of MS evidence which he oversees is not what we would expect…Frederik Wisse, in _The Profile Method for the Classification and Evaluation of Manuscript Evidence_ (Eerdmans, 1982) explains:”

Yet Aland’s interest in the minuscules is not for their own sake. He is no longer satisfied with Hort’s judgment that the discovery of important cursives is most improbable. He wants to find the few hypothetical nuggets which Hort did not think were worth the effort. Aland wants to be able to say that he has searched the minuscules exhaustively for anything of value. This search of course, presupposed that the minuscules as such are of little value… Minuscules have to pass a test before they are worthy of inclusion in a textual apparatus. All MSS which are generally Byzantine will fail (_Profile Method_, p. 4)​ 
Moorman continues, “Therefore, when we read about many more cursives being cited in the latest Nestle-Aland Greek NT; we are not to believe that a significant shift away from the Alexandrian text has taken place…Wisse singles out the central reason why textual criticism cannot afford to pass over the great mass of manuscripts:”

In a situation where MS evidence runs into more than 5000 separate items and a time span of more than fourteen centuries, it should be questioned whether all this evidence is relevant for the establishment of the original text. It may well be that the oldest copies in existence are adequate representatives of the MS tradition so that the rest can be ignored. After all, why start more than thirteen centuries after the autographs were written and wade back through literally thousands of MSS in an immensely complicated process…To find the foundation of a building one does not first climb the roof; one starts somewhere below the ground floor.

This argument…forms the background for all those who consider it justified to ignore all, or almost all, minuscules…

There is basically only one argument which can circumvent the task of studying all the late minuscules…This argument is that among the early uncials there are the MSS which stand in a relatively uncorrupted tradition, and which show all other text-types of the period to be secondary and corrupted. Only if this argument can be proved, and if it is clear from some sampling that late minuscules fall predominantly in the tradition of one of the corrupted texts, can we safely omit a full study of these MSS (_Profile Method_, pp. 1, 2)​ 
Moorman continues, “When Aleph and B, the two main pillars of the critical text, display 3,000 clear differences in the Gospels (they must be weary of hearing this!); then what candidate do they propose for ‘relatively uncorrupted tradition.’?

“They have none! Yet they continue to work at the miserable business of keeping the TR-KJV out of public sight, without giving all the witnesses a chance to speak. Hodges and Farstad reacted against this and turned to the work of Hermann von Soden for help.”

Wisse sums it up:

Except in von Soden’s inaccurate and unused pages, the minuscules have never been allowed to speak…

It is an ironic fact that today basic MS evidence of the NT is less available to the textual critic than it was 50 years ago… Though the casual user of a critical text of the Greek NT has been well provided for, the expert and serious student is at the mercy of a highly selective and incomplete _apparatus critici_. This situation could only be defended if the task of establishing the best possible NT text had been accomplished, and if the history of the transmission of that text was clear. But it is not. (_Profile Method_, p. 5).​ 
In closing I remark, here we are (arguably) near the end of the age, and we do not yet have the Bible God promised to preserve? We should be grateful for scholars such as Maurice Robinson for their labors in seeking and documenting additional manuscript evidence, and exposing the falsity or negligence of critical editions that omit great amounts of the same.

Still and all, I hold we have such a Bible as men long for, despite the well concerning it having been poisoned, and it is freely available. God did not fail, nor leave us bereft of His word.


----------



## MW (Sep 3, 2014)

Rich's statement was made in a context, and it related to two specific verses. In those places the reader is given some opportunity to compare readings.

There is a problem in that a large gap exists between the hands-on criticism of technical scholars and the second, third, and fourth-hand information which students usually deal with. Knowing a variant and its support is not really "doing" textual criticism, but this is about as much as can be done with an apparatus.

Textual critics are engaging in hard and difficult empirical work which does have some apologetic value for the Christian faith. It is not wise to write off this work as if it were useless, even if there are disagreements of a systemic nature.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 3, 2014)

First of all, I appreciate Dr. Robinson's note. I will modify my point to note Dr. Robinson's caution but that, in general, having an apparatus (or multiple apparati) is useful if you want to evaluate the variants. I think it's best for any student of the word to take the covers off of how scholarship functions in this area so as not to be stumbled by arguments that can be evaluated if one has more understanding.



armourbearer said:


> Textual critics are engaging in hard and difficult empirical work which does have some apologetic value for the Christian faith. It is not wise to write off this work as if it were useless, even if there are disagreements of a systemic nature.



I agree.

One of the things that irks me about some of these discussions is the liberty to enshroud in a cloud of conspiracy any scholar that does not support one's own view. I've even seen some attempts to paint Erasmus as some sort of pristine figure because, once the argument rests on destroying the credibility of scholars on the grounds of their relative orthodoxy, one is left with the impression that God is constrained to work only through men who were regenerate. Inconveniently, however, Erasmus was an instrument of the devil against Luther in debates over justification. Nevertheless, he was used of God to recover the Greek NT after centuries of it falling in dis-use by the Western Church. I don't have to choose between destroying Erasmus on the one hand or go through some ridiculous argument to prove that Erasmus otherwise loved Christ but hated justification by faith in order to profit from his work and thank God for it.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 3, 2014)

Hi Rich,

When you say “enshroud in a cloud of conspiracy any scholar that does not support one’s own view” perhaps you are speaking of my remarks re the late Dr. Metzger? though perhaps not. Do we not well to mark those who cause division by heterodox views, and I have in mind what is termed “liberal theology” generally, of which the German rationalists were particularly enamored, and their text critics in particular, and those who were their ardent disciples. When it comes to pastors/preachers and seminary profs we surely do, and must. When it comes to text critics who are demonstrably “liberal” in their theology we seem to think that advanced learning and expertise trump sound and saving faith, and this is one of the failings of academia and its publishing houses in our times – as well the churches who do not care to discern in this area, lest they be slurred as “Fundamental”.

When you refer to “some ridiculous argument to prove that Erasmus otherwise loved Christ but hated justification by faith” what comes to mind is an old discussion we had (and a recent one you were not part of), though when I think of John Wesley saying to George Whitefield, “Your God is my devil” (referring to their disparate views on election and reprobation, and free and bondaged will), we do not (most do not, at any rate), deny Wesley’s faith, just his faulty theology. The contention between Luther and Erasmus was as much about freedom of the will versus its bondage as about justification by faith versus works.

My own thoughts were, may a man not greatly err in understanding doctrines, yet be born of Christ’s Spirit? I suppose another way to put it could be, how far may we err in our understanding of doctrines and still belong to Christ? And what erroneous doctrines in particular could damn us?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 3, 2014)

I'll let the reader decide Steve. Thank you for stating it so clearly. I am not blind to the pitfalls that learned men find themselves in and Erasmus was no exception. I don't put any more or less stock in Erasmus' scholarship but the man clearly denied the Gospel in his debates. The point the reader needs to understand is that nobody would ever try to rehabilitate Erasmus as one who "clings to Christ" while simultaneously outright denying justification by faith unless there was a system of thought that depended upon it. To try to put Erasmus' level of trust in Christ as a foundational stone to one's trust in Providential preservation is bound to call into question the stability of the foundation. I can't imagine anyone who had more opportunity to understand what the Scriptures said in the original language of his day than Erasmus. A man with the Spirit of God would not have risen up against the Reformation of the Church and a system of preservation that depends on "well, a man can deny the Gospel but cling to Christ" is not a system I'll ever be persuaded to hold. Thankfully the TR position does not have to engage in such arguments and I do wish (because I really have fondness for you) that you would abandon this line of argumentation.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 3, 2014)

On another note, I conversed with Dr. Robinson and he provided what I believe would be a helpful methodology to include some readings that the NA and UBS leave out:



> Alternatively (and the process I am currently following as the basis for my projected study article), you could compare the NA27 variants at the foot of the page of the RP2005 Byzantine edition with what appears in the NA27 text and apparatus, noting specifically the variants cited in my footnotes that are not mentioned at all in the Nestle apparatus.



RP2005 refers to The New Testament in the Original Greek (Byzantine Textform 2005) Compiled and Arranged by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont


----------



## JimmyH (Sep 3, 2014)

I know little of Dr Metzger but, just for the value of diversity, here is John Piper's take from the Desiring God website ;

Personal Tribute to Bruce Manning Metzger | Desiring God

Personal Tribute to Bruce Manning Metzger
February 14, 2007 

by John Piper

Bruce Metzger died on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 at the age of 93. He was the George L. Collord Professor Emeritus of New Testament Language and Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary. I think it would be fair to say that in his prime there was no greater authority on New Testament textual criticism than Dr. Metzger—at least not in the English-speaking world. I have five memories by way of tribute to a great man.

1. His book, The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Context was the text I used each time I taught the basic New Testament course at Bethel from 1974 to 1979. It was short, careful, solid, and readable.

2. He came to Fuller Seminary during my studies there (1968-71) and taught a class on Galatians, which I took with great enjoyment. I was so helped by his teaching and so impressed with him as a man, I applied to Princeton to do my graduate work with him when I was finished at Fuller in 1971. I was rejected. He wrote me a personal letter to ease my disappointment, saying that only four people were accepted. It helped (a little).

3. He told us the story that when the Concordance to the Revised Standard Version of the Bible was published, the publisher offered $25 for every mistake people found. He told of sitting up in bed at night reading the concordance noting errors—more for enjoyment than money.

4. Only when the Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament and the Aland Greek Testament coincided in wording did I make the change to use the small pocket size Aland Greek New Testament. Until then my ragged old Greek Testament was the Bible Societies’ edition—the one edited by Bruce Metzger.

5. He quoted a Chinese proverb: “The faintest ink is more lasting than the strongest memory.” Accordingly, he said in his Memoir (Reminiscences of an Octogenarian, p. 229) that he made notes of noteworthy sayings on 3 by 5 cards as he read throughout his life. There are over 20,000 of these which were left to the archives at Princeton. One of them from R. W. Sockman says, “Time is the deposit each one has in the bank of God, and no one knows the balance.” (Until the note falls due.)

I pray that I will fill my days as diligently as Bruce Metzger. His life gave the word assiduous flesh and blood meaning.

John Piper (@JohnPiper) is founder and teacher of desiringGod.org and chancellor of Bethlehem College & Seminary. For 33 years, he served as pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, Minnesota. He is author of more than 50 books.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 3, 2014)

Thanks for the gracious response, Rich. Just a little while ago I ordered from my local library Bainton's _Erasmus of Christendom_. If I'm wrong in any of my views I'd like to know it, and so will seek more knowledge.


P.S. Jimmy, thanks for that Piper tribute.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 4, 2014)

Incidentally, an online copy of the RP2005 that I cited above can be found here: https://sites.google.com/a/wmail.fi/greeknt/home/greeknt/rp2005

The Preface is worth a read. Whether or not one agrees with all of the conclusions, it is a respectable argument about why one ought to question a "pick and choose" approach to variant readings.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 5, 2014)

I just finished reading J.I. Packer’s “Historical and Theological Introduction” to Luther’s, _The Bondage of the Will_. In this Packer well contrasts the differences in both temperaments and spiritual life between the two men, not to even mention the one he focuses on as being true to the word of God.

But my question still lingers, and I perceive I may study the life and background and writings of Erasmus and come no closer to answering it, as it has more to do with how we view deviating theology in general than the case of just one man.

So I go back to the conflict between Whitefield and Wesley mentioned in my post #14, and by extension to the vast number of Arminian / semi-Pelagian churches which likely comprise the majority of “Protestant” churches in the world today.

Are we prepared to publicly level the apostolic curse upon all these churches?
“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” Galatians 1:6-9).​ 
Are we prepared to say that they have departed from the faith, and are apostate, knowing not the Lord, and certainly do not love Him despite their professions of faith, seeing as they deny the absolute sovereignty of God in salvation, which is the point of contention between us and them, as it also was between Luther and Erasmus, and between the Remonstrants and the framers of the Canons of Dort?

Going to a personal level on this, over the course of my life I have known many Wesleyans, free-will Baptists, and Arminians of various stripes, and I can say that I assess some of them as truly regenerate Christians despite their lack of spiritual understanding. Perhaps it has been the way the sovereignty of God was presented to them, or perhaps it is simply their inherent trust in man, presuming some good in him that warrants some reward from God for their “choosing” Him.

(Even in my early life as a believer, though I was sovereignly arrested by God, I still fell under the sway of John Wesley and Charles Finney – it was the default theology all around me in the evangelical churches I could find in NYC in the late 1960s and early ‘70s. I was still saved, although a spiritual mess, for certain spiritual desperados must be fed proper food to stay alive, and not “the thinnest of soups” which was standard fare all around me.)

I have had to separate from Arminians and semi-Pelagians in terms of working together, as we could not agree on the basic issue involved: the locus of salvation lies where, in man or in God? It was the absence of any Reformed church in my home city in Cyprus (and only one other in the nation) that led to my planting one there, as there were only Charismatics and Arminians, and the believers in that locale suffered as a result, as did the proclamation of the glory of God. It was a God-given passion for His glory and the strengthening of His church that led to that church plant, and the pastoring of it for years afterward. A number of lives were profoundly changed as a result of hearing the grace of God preached instead of the performance of man. So this is no trifling or indifferent matter to me

Still, are we prepared to deny the regeneration of all those free-will Baptists, Wesleyans, Nazarenes, Methodists, and multitudes of other individuals and churches who cannot subscribe to the Doctrines of Grace? There are many, especially the IFBs, who militantly fight against “Calvinism” and “Reformed theology”, yet lay down their lives in proclaiming the Gospel as best they can on foreign missions fields, and in the highways and byways of this world.

I note Luther’s sincere and humble pleading with Erasmus to turn to the Biblical view of God’s sovereignty and man’s utter inability to in any way please God of himself; I would be interested to see if Erasmus was changed in his views by this exchange.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 6, 2014)

To pursue this a bit further. We – the Reformed – say the heart of the gospel is the sovereignty of God in salvation (as well as in all of life), and we say well and truly in this. The Arminians we deprecate because they mount (we say) the “ridiculous argument . . . that [they] love Christ but hate justification by faith”. Now their argument is faulty to be sure, but is it “ridiculous”? They define “justification by faith” differently than we do, and they deprecate us for removing “our wills” from the act of the new birth and making of man mere puppets and God the puppet-master who consigns men to glory and gloom apart from any fault or merit of their own, and they desire to vindicate the honor and justice of God (albeit in error). I say this in order to understand our opponents and their subsequent charges against us and our view of God and His sovereignty, not to give any approval to them.

If one holds their erroneous view, yet maintains, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16), and “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Tim 1:15), and all the rest of Scripture, but err in their understanding of salvation, God’s sovereignty, and other matters of great importance, are we right to cut them off and deny them their profession of being His and abiding in His love? Do they not preach “Christ crucified, risen, and coming again”?

Cannot it be said of us, that we are, generally speaking, far more Erasmian in our conduct, being of timid (fearful) spirits (cf 2 Tim 1:7) and failing in courage – such as Luther manifested – in proclaiming the salvation of God to the hostile world? This was one of Erasmus’ notorious failings (say Packer and many others, rightly), he wanted to peacefully reform the church and not rock the boat, nor endanger his good reputation, whereas Luther saw that the devil’s doctrines and workmen must be confronted openly and fearlessly, and he knew it would result in great tumult and danger, and he cared not for the disdain of those who resented his proclaiming God’s glory and man’s wicked and desperate estate. His attitude was,
Let goods and kindred go,
this mortal life also;
the body they may kill:
God’s truth abideth still;
His kingdom is forever.​ 
Cannot it be said – generally speaking – that in terms of their zeal for bearing public witness to the salvation of God in Christ and seeking the salvation of those about to perish in everlasting torment, these free will Baptists and other fervent-hearted Arminians are more Lutheran than we Presbyterian and Reformed, and we more Erasmian? Like Erasmus, we trust in our correct knowledge, but the fervent free willers are full of passion for the glory of the saving knowledge of the crucified and risen Saviour, and care for the lost. Do I not speak truly?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 6, 2014)

Steve,

Who is deprecating all Arminians here? You've written an awful lot without proving, one way or another, that Erasmus is regenerate.

Whether he was regenerate or not is not for us to know. I didn't state he could not have been regenerate but that I don't have any reason to believe he was based on his public rejection of Biblical soteriology. Erasmus was not an Arminian but one committed to the Sacramental system of the Roman Catholic Church - a defender of its sacerdotalism. May such a man be later converted or may he even be so blinded by tradition that God might have later grabbed him by some other means? Speculation but it's certainly possible. The same might be said for those who denied other tenets of the Christian faith. Might not your same plea be directed toward the men whose labors you reject as worthless also be said to have *possibly* been converted in the same hidden manner as Erasmus was? Why must Erasmus require our special consideration as speculatively regenerate?

I also don't think one has any Scriptural (or historically theological) leg to stand upon to insist that God must only work through the regenerate to accomplish his Holy ends. There is nothing in our doctrine of Providence that requires He only works through those means and I consider all of the above as interesting but sidetracking to the main issue as to the operation of Providence itself. If you would like to show us any place where the doctrine of Providence has required that God work only through the regenerate then make your case that way but use the Scriptures or good and necessary consequence to demonstrate it.

As I've stated, and I'll state again, the Reformed doctrines on Providence and the light of nature allow us to accept the work of Erasmus without any judgment (which is left to the hidden counsel of God) as to whether he or any man is regenerate.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 6, 2014)

Rich, true, I did have Erasmus in the back of my mind, but was arguing from the greater to the lesser in bringing up free-will and Arminian believers, as they also would fall into the same category as one who is said to have “loved Christ but hated justification by faith” – as we the Reformed define it. Packer concurs that Erasmus was Arminian and semi-Pelagian in his arguments against Luther.

When you bring up the sacramental system you bring a new and additional element into your initial remarks. His alleged sacerdotalism I will be looking into – that system is indeed opposed to salvation by faith alone in Christ alone.


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 7, 2014)

This is the presuppositional article the convinced me the Ecclesiastical (Majority) Text is the one to follow: http://biblicalblueprints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/HasGodIndeedSaid.pdf


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 7, 2014)

Steve,

There's another fundamental problem with your argument. If the substance of this rests with "regenerate" scholarship then what do you do with believing scholars involved in the same field who come to conclusions that differ? In other words, what if there are scholars who we can identify as "more probably regenerate" than Erasmus who look at the same Greek manuscripts as he and come to different conclusions after taking into account the more recent finds? 

As to the "lesser to the greater" argument:

1. Erasmus was not an Arminian. That's anachronistic. Semi-pelagian does not equate to Arminian. In fact, on some points Erasmus was probably more orthodox on many points than some free-will folks that are downright Pelagian.

2. There is no real "lesser to the greater" because we don't have a good and necessary consequence from any Scripture by which to judge how much to trust a man based on whether or not we suspect he is regenerate. Even the High Priest, who had Christ beaten and brought to Pilate, prophesied truth in the service of God (as did Pilate).

The argument is a sentimental one. I know it's a popular argument to dissuade people from being too haughty by arguing in such a matter but I've never thought that making sweeping generalizations about whether people are going to heaven or hell is very useful. If someone asks me whether my family members who died Roman Catholic are in hell then I don't think it's my place to make some point about something that is not revealed. The secret things belong to the Lord. I live by what is revealed. If someone asks me whether one can simply teach or believe a false Gospel with impunity then I'll point them to the Book of Galatians. If they further try to persuade me by asking me: "Are you saying that all these sincere people are necessarily going to hell..." then they've missed the point. I don't base what I believe on sentiment.

The point is twofold:

1. Arguments for the "Arminians around us" is a sentimental argument. It establishes nothing.

2. Even if one buys the sentimental argument it still establishes nothing in the way of Providence. One has come no closer to establishing credibility of a person's scholarship by arguing that he or she may have been regenerate. If I thought it made a difference I would be demonstrating to you that I was probably regenerate and asking you to trust me more than Erasmus on this point and you would be required, by your own standard, to take whether I was "born again" into the equation. Of course, I would hope you would not. The doctors that saved my daughter's life were not born again and the fact that I am did not make me more of a medical expert and able to deal with her severe anemia at birth.


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 8, 2014)

The above link that I posted was released by the publisher for free.


----------



## One Little Nail (Sep 8, 2014)

Romans922 said:


> The above link that I posted was released by the publisher for free.



Thanks for that, will make interesting reading.

from *Has God Indeed Said?*



> * The Egyptian Texts Are Corrupt *
> 
> Dr. Pickering’s essay clearly shows why the manuscripts underlying the NIV, the NASB, the ESV and most modern versions are not reliable, whereas the majority of Greek manuscripts1 of the New Testament can be trusted. While many modern translations repeatedly appeal to the Alexandrian (Egyptian) manuscripts as being "the oldest and best manuscripts," the truth of the matter is that many evidences show them to be the most corrupted and unreliable of the manuscripts.





> 1The majority of manuscripts (over 5000) are referred to in the literature as the "Majority Text," or the "Antiochian," "Syrian," "Byzantine," "Traditional," or "Ecclesiastical" Text. The lectionaries of the church are Byzantine. The KJV, NKJV, MKJV, Young’s Literal translation, the ALT and all Reformation era Bibles in various languages can generally be said to represent the Majority Greek text.





> An estimated 28,500 variants exist within the Egyptian manuscripts.2 Since there are almost 200,000 words in the New Testament,3 this amounts to an incredible one in seven words that have been corrupted in this supposedly "oldest and best" manuscript tradition! Granted, most of those Egyptian texts tend to be ignored by textual critics in their actual practice of textual criticism, and most of the mistakes are so obvious that there is little debate about whether it is a mistake.





> 2 Some place the figure much higher. In part it depends upon which manuscripts are included as "Egyptian." Some would place the highly corrupted "Western" and so-called "Caesarean" texts in Egypt. There is considerable debate on that question. And some manuscripts have fewer mistakes than others. Pickering says that the manuscript P66 has "roughly two mistakes per verse." (Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1977], pp. 122-123.) Pickering’s book is an outstanding introduction to the Majority Text debate, and is a must read. This is one of over two-dozen books that I have been heavily dependant upon for information.
> 3 From time to time, the figure of 184,590 words (and 839,380 letters) is dogmatically stated to be the number of words in the New Testament. However, that is the number that exist in one edition of the eclectic text. And the Byzantine manuscripts have many more words.





> But we are analyzing the reliability of the copyists, not whether the mistakes can be easily recognized. And on this score, all of the Alexandrian manuscripts are defective. For example, if even the three most trusted manuscripts (B, a and A) are compared to the Majority Text, then 8% of the New Testament still comes into question. Granted, half of those differences are spelling differences, word order and other inconsequential changes that would not be reflected in an English translation. But that still leaves about 4% of the New Testament text in question. Even the differences between B and a are enormous. As Wilbur Pickering has noted, in the Gospels alone, these two manuscripts disagree with each other over 3000 times! Logic tells us that one or both of them are unreliable witnesses. Yet modern versions place most of their trust in those two Egyptian texts.


----------



## earl40 (Sep 8, 2014)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I also don't think one has any Scriptural (or historically theological) leg to stand upon to insist that God must only work through the regenerate to accomplish his Holy ends. There is nothing in our doctrine of Providence that requires He only works through those means and I consider all of the above as interesting but sidetracking to the main issue as to the operation of Providence itself. If you would like to show us any place where the doctrine of Providence has required that God work only through the regenerate then make your case that way but use the Scriptures or good and necessary consequence to demonstrate it.



I understand you are speaking of the WCF chapter 5 and how God is able to do anything He desires to do, which I am in full agreement with our confession. Now in stating such I ask.....Does not God _limit Himself _ to only odinary means as stated in Romans 10. It appears to say that God does only use ordinary means to bring men to faith and those men are regenerate.

14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!”


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 8, 2014)

Rich,

You said, “If you would like to show us any place where the doctrine of Providence has required that God work only through the regenerate then make your case that way but use the Scriptures or good and necessary consequence to demonstrate it.”

I will seek to do just that, but remember we are not talking of Providence generally, but of the providential care and transmission of His written word. I have brought this up before and no one cared to interact with it: We have a Regulative Principle with regard to worship – how we approach our God as we gather unto Him as the church – but not as regards the _foundation itself_ of the RPW, that is, from whence we derive regulative principles: God’s word. That has become, in the Christian era, an almost haphazard activity: we allow that virtually anyone with expertise may put their hand to it. But is such an allowance warranted by Scripture? Further, is it _commanded_ by Scripture, such as we base our RPW upon? No? How odd then, that downstream from the source we say the pure water of the word says thus and thus, and we act on it; but we allow – contrary to all Scripture – the very source of the word, our Bible, to be not only handled but actually _determined_ by the ungodly! And with gruesome consequences: I recently learned that because of a CT reading supplanting the TR the words of institution of the Lord’s Supper have been changed, “This is my body, broken for you…” now having “broken” removed in the PCA’s Book of Church Order, and at the Lord’s Table in a church I know. In my eyes that is loathsome! 

And I have brought up the idea questioning if it were even _conceivable_ the priests the Levites (to whom were given the possession and care of the Scriptures – cf *Deut 17:18; 31:9-13, 24-26* – and this would include their preservation and reproduction) that they would allow the wise and linguistically expert scholars of Egypt or Babylon to come and work on the scrolls of the law and the prophets containing the words of the true God, Jehovah of Israel? First, these scrolls were kept in the temple, yea, the prototype – the exemplar – “in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God” (Deut 31:26), and do you think any alien would have been allowed to get that close to it and still live? 

Is there a “general equity” that would be applicable in this case? Such as the care of the mss of the sayings of *God the Son*, who brought the final and very words of Jehovah to humankind? Would not the possession and care of these be given, with the disbanding of the Levitical priesthood, to the High Priest and those His seed, the new priesthood of believers?

We have in Isaiah 59:20-21, these words:
And the Redeemer shall come to Zion,
and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.
As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD;
My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth,
shall not depart out of thy mouth,
nor out of the mouth of thy seed,
nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD,
from henceforth and for ever.​ 
This covenant is made with Christ, and with His seed.

Returning now to the matter of Dr. Bruce Metzger and his _determining_ the actual text of what God the Holy Spirit gave Matthew to write in the opening of his gospel. Metzger & Co. commenting on Matt 1:7 and 10, saying that Asaph and Amos are the apostle’s error (instead of the correct Asa and Amon in Christ’s lineage), declare that the apostle erred and so did his text. They assert the correct reading is Asaph and Amos, and so reads the CT Greek, and the ESV, one of the few versions with the “courage” to print that travesty.

It was the Committee which put together both the UBS 4 and NA 27 editions (Drs. Aland; J. Karavidopolous; Carlo Martini, and Bruce Metzger) that spoke on the matter of Asaph and Amos, through Dr. Metzger in his, _A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament_, Second Edition:
Since, however, 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, the Committee saw no reason to adopt what appears to be a scribal emendation in the text of Matthew. (p.1)​ 
This is the fruit of disobeying the Regulative Principle of Bible Preservation and Reproduction ((RPBPR): the unbeliever denies the inspiration of the New Testament Scripture, and we nonetheless bow the knee to his expertise in the language and mss and allow him his unbelieving say.

Yet the Scripture says of God, that “without faith it is impossible to please him” (Heb 11:6), and “whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Rom 14:23). But we give the unholy a free pass because we proceed not on the footing of faith when it comes to textual matters, but of supposed scientific acumen, even though their unbelief shows like a smoking gun as they seek to snuff out the living words of the Most High.

Should I be faulted for insinuating Dr. Metzger is among the unholy? Consider this:

*Bruce Manning Metzger* is renown as a textual critic; he is one of the editors of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (a modern edition of W&H’s Greek text), and George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Princeton Theological Seminary. He was the chairman for the _Reader’s Digest Condensed Bible_ (which removed 40% of the Bible text, including the warning of Revelation 22:18-19), and he wrote the introductions to each book of this abbreviated “Bible.” In these he denies the authorship by Moses of the Pentateuch, and the writing of Daniel by Daniel (instead, he says, written by others in 168-165 B.C – whereas abundant evidence proves he wrote in approx. 605 – 536 B.C.).* Metzger was co-editor of the _New Oxford Annotated Bible RSV_ (NOAB-RSV), and wrote many of the notes in this Bible and put his editorial stamp of approval on all the others. In the section, “Introduction to the Old Testament,” is written, “The Old Testament may be described as the literary expression of the religious life of ancient Israel…The Israelites were more history-conscious than any other people in the ancient world. Probably as early as the time of David and Solomon, *out of a matrix of myth, legend, and history,* there has appeared the earliest written form of the story of the saving acts of God from Creation to the conquest of the Promised Land…*Thus the Pentateuch took shape over a long period of time.*” [bold emphases added]

But this is not true criticism or exegesis, this is the thinking of a rationalistic unbeliever. It matters not how famous a man may be, a red flag of danger should go up if he says of the Book of Job it is an “ancient folktale,” and of Jonah it is “from the realm of popular legend” (both of these from the same notes in the NOAB-RSV as the above), and of the Book of Genesis, “The opening chapters of the Old Testament deal with human origins. They are not to be read as history…These chapters are followed by the stories of the patriarchs, which preserve ancient traditions now known to reflect the conditions of the times of which they tell, though they cannot be treated as strictly historical…it is not for history but for religion that they are preserved…” (Notes from “How To Read The Bible With Understanding” in the NOAB-RSV).**

-----------
Footnotes:
* The dates and events Daniel gives are historically solid, attested to by internal evidences (including the teaching of Jesus Christ in the N.T.), corroborating histories of other nations, and archeological discoveries. The unbelieving modernists cannot stand that Daniel made accurate prophesies which all came true to the letter, so they claim someone else wrote them centuries later, after the events happened! For an extended and in-depth treatment, see Robert Dick Wilson’s, _Studies In The Book of Daniel_, 2 volumes (MI, Baker, 1972); also Josh McDowell’s, _Daniel In The Critics’ Den_ (CA, Here’s Life Publishers, 1979). Edward J. Young, _An Introduction to the Old Testament_, (MI, Eerdmans, 1977), pp. 360-377; and also his, _A Commentary on Daniel_, (PA, Banner of Truth, 1972), pp. 15-26, ff.; Gleason L. Archer, _A Survey of Old Testament Introduction_, (IL, Moody Press, 1994), pp. 421-447. These are but five among many able defenses of the integrity of the Book of Daniel.
** Cited in, _Modern Versions Founded upon Apostasy_, by David W. Cloud (WA: Way of Life Literature, 3rd ed. 1997), pages, 41, 42, 43, 44.

-----------


I would say, whoever denies the historicity of the opening chapters of Genesis – the creation, the Fall, the proto-evangelion, the “progress” of the human race from these beginnings – denies the basic realities of the human condition as the Scripture reveals them, and the need for the salvation that only God can provide, and that through Christ. *If* the Biblical beginnings of humankind are only myth (this includes the accounts of the patriarchs) – not to be considered historical, but only pertaining to “religion” – *then* the Christian faith is nonsense. I cannot imagine a living faith in Christ as the atoning Saviour from the crushing weight of the guilt and power of sin in one who promotes such views. 

It is one thing for a man’s theology to be faulty – even greatly so – and he still be saved. When one denies the basic foundation of the Biblical revelation, and faith in it, this is saying of the Bible, “I don’t believe Genesis is historic but rather the religious account of a people to whom history and religion are important.” If there is no historic fall as per Genesis, a Saviour making atonement for the sin of humankind is both unnecessary, and a sham.

We have violated the principles regulating the care and reproduction of God’s word, and the modern Christian mind revels in it; but this travesty has intruded its foul print in the very core of our worship – despite all the high verbiage lauding our adherence to the RPW! – by erasing the very word our Lord Jesus spoke concerning the broken bread signifying His broken body! Even the RPW has been violated by this transgression.


----------



## MW (Sep 8, 2014)

Steve, I appreciate your defence of the traditional text, but making this about "regeneration" is going too far. It is enough that God has used His church to preserve the Scriptures. By that is meant the visible professing church, which is a mixed communion. I think it is also a misapplication to speak of the regulative principle in this context. What is not commanded is forbidden in matters of faith and worship. That principle does not apply to all of life. See WCF 20.2 for the two different ways Scripture rules us.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 8, 2014)

First, you are abusing the theological principle of the Regulative Principle of Worship (by which we have clear commands) and applying it conveniently and incorrectly. We don't "infer" things for the Regulative Principle by general equity but by clear commands of Scripture. Your description is more like a normative principle where (if applied to worship in the manner you apply to preservation) you would overthrow the very regulative principle itself.

Secondly, the Priests were not all regenerate who kept the Books of the Law.

Thirdly, as we know in Josiah, the Priests had pretty much lost track of the Scriptures for decades.

Fourthly, it was the King's responsibility to make a new copy of the Scriptures. I could easily apply your "general equity" and state that is now the purview of the Magistrates to ensure that every magistrate that assumes a judicial/leadership role ought to be those who are most trusted in the copy of the texts.

Fifthly, the Reformers were adamant that justification by faith alone was the heart of the Reformation. In its denial is the denial of the Gospel itself. In the service of your idiosyncratic theory, Erasmus' denial of a central doctrine is a mere small error. Does your theory of preservation depend so much on Erasmus that you're willing to jettison this doctrine as inconsequential so long as insisting Erasmus must be regenerate serves the ends? Were the Reformers really just schismatics in the final analysis since this doctrine is so disposable to you?

You build irrelevant (and some impious) points on faulty foundations and give the appearance of a strong house but it is easily blown over.

As I said previously, there are regenerate men who are handling and have handled the same texts that Metzger and others use. Whatever you might want to do in the form of character assasination to convince people by verbiage of a fundamentally flawed argument you're still left with the regenerate handlers of the texts that come to the same conclusions as the "unregenerate" scholars. Consequently, by your own standard, you ought to trust their conclusions when they agree with the readings in the CT. Everything else is just fluff.

I repeat there is no "general equity" of the Regulative Principle and I would urge you to actually study that principle rather than undermining it to establish a theory of preservation. Secondly, you offer no GNC on how Providence depends upon the regenerate in the task which is the relevant theological header for the topic of preservation. Thirdly, if you want to argue for "trusting the regenerate" then you need to trust regenerate scholars when their conclusions differ from your own.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 8, 2014)

I will consider the things you men are saying.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 11, 2014)

Hello Matthew, there is some truth to what you say in your post #30 about not all who had the care of the Scripture having to be regenerate. As Rich brought up, it is very likely that some of the OT priests who kept the Books of the Law were not regenerate. And we know that the various classes of Jewish scribes (the Tannaim, Amoraim, Masoretes) who guarded and preserved the OT Scriptures after the dispersion following the 70 A.D. destruction of the temple, we know these scribes were not believers in Christ – although Jacob Ben Chayyim, who produced the Second Great Rabbinic Bible (1524-25) was converted to Christ – and yet they are the ones who kept the Scriptures by God’s providence, as it is written, “unto them were committed the oracles of God” (Rom 3:2), and they fulfilled that task, God’s providence enabling them. Augustine called them the “librarians” of the church.

Edward Hills, in his chapter eight of _The King James Version Defended_, avoids laying the weight of his argument on the regeneration of Erasmus, hinting at it while not denying it:
“Hence in the editing of his Greek New Testament text especially Erasmus was guided by the common faith in the current text. And back of this common faith was the controlling providence of God. For this reason Erasmus’ humanistic tendencies do not appear in the Textus Receptus which he produced. Although not himself outstanding as a man of faith, in his editorial labors on this text he was providentially influenced and guided by the faith of others.” (p 199)

“In the days of Erasmus, therefore, it was commonly believed by well informed Christians that the original New Testament text had been providentially preserved in the current New Testament text, primarily in the current Greek text and secondarily in the current Latin text. Erasmus was influenced by this common faith and probably shared it, and God used it providentially to guide Erasmus in his editorial labors on the Textus Receptus.” (p 197)​ 
You say,
I think it is also a misapplication to speak of the regulative principle in this context. What is not commanded is forbidden in matters of faith and worship. That principle does not apply to all of life.​ 
The last two sentences of course I agree with. You referred me to WCF 20.2,
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. . .​ 
Okay, worship is worship, and matters of faith are . . . that of which the word of God speaks concerning what we are to believe and do. And we are to believe – exercise faith in – those things He has said we should believe, which are many, directed to the OT people in their day, and the NT people in ours – with some things applicable to both dispensations.

Now if the care, preservation, and reproduction of God’s word in which we must have faith are not themselves “matters of faith” I do not know what is. When men who have demonstrated a faithless attitude to the word of God as Scripture put their hands to it with power to alter it, and do so, is this not contrary to His word and will? “Add thou not unto his words” (Prov 30:6); “diminish not a word” (Jer 26:2). 

Is the giving of it to the priesthood to keep and guard not something that should speak to us? Is the saying, “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope” (Rom 15:4), not applicable with regard to this matter? Is it only with regard to the typical things this applies?

Perhaps my likening it to the RPW is incorrect, though I am not certain it is. And I am castigated (not by you – but I will get to this shortly elsewhere) for daring to suggest that there could be – or *ought* to be – a principle enunciated in Scripture that ought to regulate how its care and reproduction is approached? The word of Moses to the priests to keep the Law was a command. And just why may not this have a general equity for our era? I certainly will not be beaten down by berating remarks (not that you are doing this), though I am willing to be edified.

As I noted earlier, the Scripture says of God, that “without faith it is impossible to please him” (Heb 11:6), so is He displeased with those who openly declare a lack of faith in the inspiration and historicity of His word? If “whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Rom 14:23), why does the church allow those “text critics” who openly sin with an “evil heart of unbelief” to do those things which they presume to involve themselves in?

As you say, we cannot always tell who are wheat and who chaff among the visible professing church are, but we _can_ tell who open disbelievers are, especially if they publish it forth.

I am open to hearing more about these things from you, as I may well be instructed.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 11, 2014)

Rich, I have addressed the matters of general equity and the RPW to Matthew above, and I am willing to be edified if I am wrong in my understanding of these things.

As I said to him, you were right about the priests not all being regenerate, and the strong wind coming from you has battered the door of my mind so that it is loosened a bit and I find myself willing to consider if it is possible you may just be right about Erasmus.

Though I ask, please take a gentler tone, and avoid the assumption of ill motives and contra-Reformed views on my part. You are not a Luther, and I am certainly not an Erasmus! Yet I do realize that you, as always, are fervent in your desire not to let error prevail here on this ship, and that I can respect (sorry to link you with the Navy!). Still, I am at least as much a fervent defender of Reformed doctrine as you.

I gather at New Geneva you are preparing for the pastorate. When I planted and pastored the church in Cyprus almost all those who attended, and became members, had not been taught anything positive about Reformed doctrine. Some were Arminian, some charismatic, some from atheist and others from Islamic backgrounds. A number of them evidenced a genuine faith in Christ, yet it was without a sure foundation on Biblical doctrine. I had to work tenderly and caringly with them despite their erroneous beliefs, gently showing them the consequences of false doctrine. From the pulpit I would preach regularly on the sovereign grace of God in regeneration, and our utter spiritual inability apart from this grace, and how we were not only born again by sovereign grace, but justified by grace through faith, and that a gift, not a thing earned. This was revolutionary in the lives of those that took it to heart; still, it was a work of years to strengthen and guide them in this.

So I am used to being gentle and non-condemning with Arminians (and with others who err in different areas), seeking to recognize real faith even when it was not sound and healthy. And I still work with such, for even in a Presbyterian church back here in the U.S. (where I have taught a number of classes), many come from other church backgrounds – some staunchly Arminian, some Dispensationalist, some charismatic, etc – and I do not deal with them with a heavy hand and doctrinaire approach, nor do I accuse them of “denying the gospel” by what they believe. Rather, gently but firmly show them the flesh-honoring and death that result from attributing merit to ourselves in how we are saved and justified, and how this takes away from the glory of God’s grace toward us who do not deserve it, neither can receive it unless He first give it to us freely.

Many come to Christ through the bare proclamation of their desperate estate under the law and the mercy offered through the death of Christ in their stead, and subsequent resurrection, and so come to Him without much other doctrinal knowledge. Many are truly born-again in quite substandard settings, and struggle long as a result of little or no good instruction.

When you say to me, “In the service of your idiosyncratic theory, Erasmus’ denial of a central doctrine is a mere small error.” Rich, you put a spin on what I say that is unworthy a Christian brother. Please, grant me a little more grace.

Not everyone who errs in the doctrine of justification is “a hater of Christ”. I wasn’t in my early years, and the Lord led me out my error, and I have a heart for those who are likewise deceived. If you think and proceed as those hate who are but deceived, you will do much harm to those you ought instead be leading to the truth. 

It appears you are lowering the boom on me in your imagined thought that I am betraying the Reformation to serve a textual position. I do think it is clear, as I noted to Matthew above and as EF Hills stated (and as you also hold), Erasmus need not have been regenerate for the TR view to stand. I just think he is anyway, but will continue to study his life (concerning which I have found so many differing views over the centuries!). 

It is not just regeneration that has been an issue for me (rightly or wrongly), but also *agendas* with regard to the textual material men deal with. Erasmus wanted to get the NT in Greek (and then vulgar tongues) into as many hands as possible; other textual scholars have other agendas, not all of them God-honoring.

To clarify some issues: You said,
#25 “Erasmus was not an Arminian. That's anachronistic. Semi-pelagian does not equate to Arminian.”​ 
It is true that, strictly (historically) speaking, semi-Pelagianism way antedated Arminianism, although Packer explicitly equates the former being the theological precursor of the latter, they both having the same view of the human will and human merit.
Is our salvation wholly of God, or does it ultimately depend on something we do for ourselves? Those who say the latter (as the Arminians later did) thereby deny man’s utter helplessness in sin, and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all. (J.I. Packer, “Historical and Theological Introduction” to Martin Luther’s, _The Bondage of the Will_, p 59.)​ 
In Steele and Thomas’ book _The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented_ (the edition I have is 1963, and I realize there are later revised editions), they show the intimate connection:
*Semi-Pelagianism, the Forerunner of Arminianism*

Smeaton, in showing how Semi-Pelagianism (the forerunner of Arminianism) originated, states that “Augustin’s unanswerable polemic had so fully discredited Pelagianism in the field of argument, that it could no longer be made plausible to the Christian mind. It collapsed. But a new system soon presented itself, _teaching that man with his own natural powers is able to take the first step toward his conversion_, and that this obtains or merits the Spirit’s assistance. Cassian . . . was the founder of this middle way, which came to be called SEMI-PELAGIANISM, because it occupied intermediate ground between Pelagianism and Augustinianism, and took in elements from both. He acknowledged that Adam’s sin extended to his posterity, and that human nature was corrupted by original sin. But on the other hand he held a system of universal grace for all men alike making the final decision in the case of every individual dependent on the exercise of free will.”

Speaking of those who followed Cassian, Smeaton continues, “they held that the first movement of the will in the assent of faith must be ascribed to the natural powers of the human mind. This was their primary error. Their maxim was: ‘_it is mine to be willing_ to believe, and it is the part of God's grace to assist.’ They asserted the sufficiency of Christ's grace for all, and that every one, according to his own will, obeyed or rejected the invitation, while God equally wished and equally aided all men to be saved. The entire system thus formed is a half-way house containing elements of error and elements of truth, and not at all differing from the Arminianism which, after the resuscitation of the doctrines of grace by the Reformers, diffused itself in the very same way through the different Churches.”* (pp 20-21)

* Quoting from George Smeaton, _The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit_, pp 300, 301.​ 
Rich in your post #15 you said,
“nobody would ever try to rehabilitate Erasmus as one who ‘clings to Christ’ while simultaneously outright denying justification by faith unless there was a system of thought that depended upon it”.​ 
To repeat myself, No, I don’t think that is true, as I have long considered Erasmus a genuine believer based on his life and writings. And I will allow the possibility he was not, as per what I have said above. I continue to look for light on this.
Post #22 “Erasmus was not an Arminian but one committed to the Sacramental system of the Roman Catholic Church - a defender of its sacerdotalism.”​ 
I think you’re too quick on the draw with regard to Erasmus being committed to the sacramental system and RC sacerdotalism. I believe you’re making unfounded assumptions. Those were the days – the 1520s – of the Eucharist Controversies, and Erasmus was if anything, against the Roman Catholics in this. I am still researching his position. To quote from Michael Maynard,
The attitude of Rev. Hugh Pope (professor of N.T. exegesis in Colegio Angelico at Rome) toward Erasmus is noteworthy:​
But the real trouble was Erasmus’ lack of theology . . . He seemed to take pleasure in suggesting doubts about almost every article of Catholic teaching: the Mass, confession, the primacy of the Apostolic See, clerical celibacy, fasting and abstinence, and so forth. Small wonder then, that he came to be regarded as the man who paved the way for the Reformation . . . (H. Pope, English Versions of the Bible, revised by Rev. S. Bullough, O.P. [St. Louis: Herder, 1952, p 105])​
Cited in Michael Maynard, _A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8_, (Comma Publications, 1995 AZ) p 329.​ 
This (Rev. Pope’s) the view of a Catholic.

---------

Rich, getting briefly to your post #31, point 4, “it was the King's responsibility to make a new copy of the Scriptures.”

John Gill in his commentary on Deut 17:18 says,
Instead of hanging his heart upon these earthly things, when he sat upon his royal throne he was to have a copy of the law written out by the Levitical priests, that he might keep the law by him, and read therein all the days of his life. [It] does not involve writing with his own hand (Philo), but simply having it written.​ 
Looking at your post #25, With “regenerate scholarship” resulting in different conclusions we weigh and study what they have said; they are all in the camp, and are worthy a hearing; some are so obviously wrong we study them so as to refute them – yet they are within the pale.

When I spoke of “greater to lesser”, the greater referred to the many who err yet are not haters of Christ; if all those who err on the doctrine of justification are “haters of Christ” then I would call this a doctrinaire stance, the caring for correct doctrine more than the souls of those who err. You even have the nerve to imply that in pointing this out I make the Reformers “just schismatics . . . since this doctrine [justification by faith] is so disposable to you”. This is bad spin.

Whatever you may imagine, my supposed “sentimental argument” is not primarily about Erasmus but, as I have said, about the many who likewise err. Forget for a moment – for argument’s sake, please – Erasmus and the textual issue. Is it as you say, but a “sentimental argument” to talk about professing Christians that err on a sound view of justification by faith – who nonetheless exhibit saving grace in their lives and words – as all “haters of Christ”?

May it not more rightly be termed a “heartfelt care argument” for those true sheep who have been fed bad grain for many years, and both fail to live fully godly Christian lives and do not ascribe the honor and glory to God that He alone deserves? I fear you may be as impatient with such who may come under your pastoral care as you are with me who bring them up.

That you denigrate me as an opponent of the Reformation by my views on the regenerate who err on justification I find ironic, for if I err, instead of edifying me in grace, you accuse and vilify, even though the word says,
“Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted” (Gal 6:1).​ 
(Please also note concerning Erasmus, it was by you in post #13 his name was first brought into this thread after I earlier spoke about other text critics and their unbelieving _agendas_, as though you needed him to bolster your own argument, and tear mine down.)

It is not sentimental, Rich, to care for souls, and to grant them judgment of charity, rather than judgment of condemnation. For they do call on His name.

I really won’t be dismissed so lightly and derogatorily, for my arguments are not built on “faulty foundations and give the appearance of a strong house but it is easily blown over”. And I can so demonstrate it.

Rich, if I examine the works and sayings of unbelieving textual critics who have stated agendas against a believing approach to the church’s Bible, why do you term this “character assassination” when it is sober assessment? And you may claim mine is a “fundamentally flawed argument” but I do not believe you have demonstrated this at all. You have just put a bad spin on me and it, undeservedly. I care at least as much as you about the integrity of the doctrines of God’s sovereignty in salvation, and His justifying us by faith.

O.K., I will admit I was heated when I spoke about the change in the words of institution for the Lord’s Supper (but the WCF framers used the traditional reading of 1 Cor 11:24 in all their proof texts, and so does the current 2005 OPC / PCA edition of the Westminster standards). His words in the traditional text are very important and meaningful to me. It really upsets me that it has changed from the old Reformation view, and I am not sure what to do about it. I can deal with churches using different versions, but this strikes home.

Still and all, how’s about we both speak with less heat and more grace?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 12, 2014)

P.S. I see I didn’t respond to your saying in post #31 regarding Deut 17:18, when you said it might as well apply to magistrates of our times “who are most trusted in the copy of the texts”. I did give Gill’s take on the meaning of that, but my point – which I neglected to make clear – pertained not to governance and magistrates’ use of the Scripture, but to the latter part of the verse which refers to “a copy of this law in a book out of that *which is before the priests the Levites*”, the emphasis being on there was an appointed personnel and place for the keeping and care of God’s word (as Deut 31:9-13, 24-26 also indicate).

Harvard text critic, E. F. Hills, really has the same concern:
Has the text of the New Testament, like those of other ancient books, been damaged during its voyage over the seas of time? Ought the same methods of textual criticism to be applied to it that are applied to the texts of other ancient books? These are questions which the following pages will endeavor to answer. An earnest effort will be made to convince the Christian reader that this is a matter to which he _must_ attend. For in the realm of New Testament textual criticism as well as in other fields the presuppositions of modern thought are hostile to the historic Christian faith and will destroy it if their fatal operation is not checked. If faithful Christians, therefore, would defend their sacred religion against this danger, they must forsake the foundations of unbelieving thought and build upon their faith, a faith that rests entirely on the solid rock of holy Scripture. And when they do this in the sphere of New Testament textual criticism, they will find themselves led back step by step (perhaps, at first, against their wills) to the text of the Protestant Reformation, namely, that form of New Testament text which underlies the King James Version and the other early Protestant translations. (_The King James Version Defended_, page 1)​ 
I’m not really saying anything different with regard to the issues of faith and unbelief being of utmost importance in how we approach the texts of Scripture, exactly as they are in all other areas of the Christian life. You may not agree with this view, but it is surely not worthy of ridicule and blithe dismissal.

I also note in JimmyH’s posting of Piper’s kind tribute to the late Bruce Metzger, that Piper did not say a word about his spiritual life, but simply aspects of his civil conduct and demeanor (and Piper is *big* on spiritual biography when applicable). Nor have I spoken against his character, save to say he was not a believing man of God, nor fit to determine what was or was not the word of God in behalf of the church. Rich, this is not character assassination in the least.

I realize we differ in our views on the spiritual status of textual critics, but my approach is worthy of consideration, and _not_ condemnation, however much one may not agree with it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 12, 2014)

Steve,

I repent for being overly harsh but some of your arguments are exasperating. I have friends who were affected by faulty theology that I considered Christians. I loved them and served with them to try to teach them the Truth.

But I would never, and I repeat, never use their error in the service in the argument for the Truth. That is to say that I can't use my affection for them to establish some other kind of point that is totally unrelated to the fact that I considered them brothers and sisters in Christ insofar as I was able to make that judgment.

The problem is that you bring in so may things that have to be responded to that are completely inconsequential to the argument. Someone sees your passion for an "Arminian" or poorly taught person and you say: "Rich, 


Jerusalem Blade said:


> Is it as you say, but a “sentimental argument” to talk about professing Christians that err on a sound view of justification by faith – who nonetheless exhibit saving grace in their lives and words – as all “haters of Christ”?


And someone thinks to himself: "Boy, he made a great point there. Maybe his textual position makes sense."

Do I really need to respond to this? It's exasperating. The friends I know have nothing to do with the issue. I might as well start a debate about Baptism and use my affection for certain Christians as proof for some point and when the person with whom I'm debating takes issue with it, I can throw the fact that I love these people in his face as some sort of weapon to show him unloving. That'll show him!

You show me and others a tremendous amount of disrespect by introducing points that are irrelevant and then accuse us of thinking people are "god haters" because we don't buy the argument to begin with.

Premise 1: Some semi-Pelagians love Christ.
Premise 2: Erasmus was a semi-Pelagian who loved Christ.
Premise 3: All textual criticism needs to be done by those who love Christ.
Conclusion: ?????

But, if I call into question Premise 2 as unknowable and doubtful and challenge Premise 3 as un-Biblical I'm now required by you to defend whether I believe Premise 1! My problem is that the form of your argument is NOT VALID and you have false premises. Your conclusion cannot be supported at all. I wish you understood how exasperating it is because you're showing disrespect to many people by your Premises and accusations with lofty speech about how your view is the true Regulation and then you're offended when people rebuke you for the faulty argument that you're using that makes everyone else look as if they're heartless or love not the preservation of the Scriptures.

As for Erasmus being Arminian. Don't waste my time. Seriously. Do some homework. Many Arminians downplayed the importance of the Trinity. Semi-Pelagians sharing things in common is one thing but just admit to the error. If anything I was complimenting Erasmus. Many in the medieval Church had a higher view of the necessity of grace than those in the Church today. Many current Roman Catholics do as well. The debates were never over the necessity of grace but the _sufficiency_ of it.

The reason I took you to task over Erasmus is that you can wax LONG about the sins of every textual scholar you disagree wtih. You can cite every denial that suits your aim. When it comes to Erasmus, however, you can say this:


Jerusalem Blade said:


> t is one thing for a man’s theology to be faulty – even greatly so – and he still be saved. When one denies the basic foundation of the Biblical revelation, and faith in it, this is saying of the Bible, “I don’t believe Genesis is historic but rather the religious account of a people to whom history and religion are important.” If there is no historic fall as per Genesis, a Saviour making atonement for the sin of humankind is both unnecessary, and a sham.


In other words, in you view. A man's theology can be greatly faulty on soteriology and still be saved but if his theology is faulty on the nature of Genesis then he cannot. I consider that hand waving Steve. I'm extremely uncomfortable making pronoucements about the salvation of either individual but I cannot put Metzger behind Erasmus on the basis of his views on Genesis. I consider your pass on Erasmus in denying the sufficiency of grace in salvation IN COMPARISON to how you savage Metzger as necessarily unsaved to be reprehensible. I'm pretty sure I know what the "unforgivable sin" is in your estimation and it's certainly not related to how one undertands the Gospel even if one is faulty on Genesis.

Finally, you still have the RPW wrong and you need to study it. You cannot rehabilitate that argument and you're only destroying the very principle of the RPW in your attempt. Let me be brief: IF THE RPW APPLIED TO TEXTUAL PRESERVATION YOU WOULD NOT HAVE TO INFER IT. Worship is NOT regulated by INFERENCE. it is regulated by POSITIVE COMMAND. An element of worship is an element of worship precisely because IT IS CLEARLY COMMANDED in Scripture. We do not sing because we infer singing. We do not preach because we infer preaching. We do them because they are commanded. If the Scriptures are only to be copied and collated by certain Churchmen AND it is regulated by god then you have to produce the POSITIVE COMMAND of God from the Scriptures. Insofar as you have failed to do so you have failed to show that it is part of the RPW. Insofar as you do not think you need a positive command but only inference from general equity you have FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THE RPW and, in doing so, are undermining the very principle itself.

In conclusion, you may feel that you are gently approaching this subject but your arguments provide for a tremendous amount of contention because of the manner in which you bring them up. You make the love or hatred of potentially saved people the supporting basis of an argument and then call into question the love of potential brethren to put the person who calls you on that faulty argument in the dock. If I did that to you, you would be livid. You claim that a man can have faulty theology and be saved but Erasmus denial of key tenets of soteriology is among the list of "passable" offenses that receive nary an exploration while you go out of your way to show how terrible the faulty theology of a person is who denies the historicity of Genesis. You then go out of your way to show that Erasmus must not have been so bad because he criticized the Roman Catholic Church. You do everything in your power to cast your opponents beyond the reach of God's salvation for their faulty theology but Erasmus is the object of your special concern as probably saved. The imbalance is both breathtaking and exasperating and I think I'm warranted in openly rebuking how little you think of certain denials compared to others. My position does not require that I either pass or fail any man so I'm not here to rule on Erasmus' regeneracy. The ONLY reason it is an issue is because you have made one's holy disposition toward God a foundational piece in your system and you utterly savage those who won't fit and will give every benefit of the doubt to those who do. You do not weigh with fair scales.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 12, 2014)

Thanks, Rich, for the more irenic level of interaction. The way I see it, the discussion went like this (as it developed in complexity and varying topics). JimmyH recommended Metzger and Ehrman’s book, which I cautioned against (post 9) because of both their backgrounds. You, Rich, disputed that (post 13), disliking my characterization of Metzger, brought up the issue of regeneration not needful and attacked Erasmus as a case in point, characterizing him as an instrument of the devil in attacking Luther. I brought up (post 14) Wesley and Whitefield, and asked “may a man not greatly err in understanding doctrines, yet be born of Christ’s Spirit?”

You said – in a round-about defense of Metzger – “a system of preservation that depends on ‘well, a man can deny the Gospel but cling to Christ’ is not a system I'll ever be persuaded to hold” (post 15). So your defense of Metzger was built on denying the regeneration of Erasmus, they supposedly both being in the same boat of unregeneracy. Your denial of E. was based on a) his being semi-Pelagian, and b) a sacerdotalist, which I sought to refute by saying there were many semi-Pelagians / Arminians who, despite bad theology, were still regenerated and loved Christ, and that E’s holding to the RC sacraments was doubtful.

I went on to give the example of Hills (post 33) who minimized the issue of the spiritual status of E. and focused instead on his following the “common faith” of “informed Christians” in his textual choices.

I then brought up the idea of principles similar to the RPW which might apply to the care and reproduction of the Scriptures (post 29), which you scorned (post 31), and likewise with the idea of general equity from the OT’s priests appointment to care for the Law to the priesthood of believers in the gospel age doing the same for the NT. Perhaps I err in this, but there is a definite connection in my mind, which I will continue to seek to formulate.

It might seem like a complicated discussion with many rabbit-trails, but there is a coherency throughout. I would posit the following syllogisms re the New Testament text:

Premise 1: The word of God is for believers
Premise 2: The word of God is cared for by believers, whether lay or text critics
Premise 3: The word of God cannot be cared for by those who don’t believe
Conclusion: Text-critical caring for the word of God can only be done by believers

-------

Premise 1: Some semi-Pelagians love Christ
Premise 2: Some semi-Pelagians hate Christ
Conclusion: Not all semi-Pelagians hate Christ

-------

Premise 1: Erasmus the semi-Pelagian professed to believe in and love Christ
Premise 2: Erasmus’ words and conduct make this likely (though not certain)
Premise 3: Erasmus’ theology was bad
Premise 4: Bad theology does not cancel out belief in and love of Christ
Conclusion: It is likely (though not certain) Erasmus believed in and loved Christ

-------

Premise 1: Erasmus was likely a believer
Premise 2: It cannot be proven he was not a believer
Premise 3: Erasmus cared for the word of God
Conclusion: Erasmus can text-critically care for the word of God

-------

Premise 1: Metzger denied the fall and atonement
Premise 2: Deniers of the fall and atonement cannot have saving faith 
Premise 3: Metzger did not have saving faith (was not a believer)
Conclusion: Metzger cannot text-critically care for the word of God.

If Metzger denied the historicity of Genesis, including the account of creation in the opening chapters, it follows that he denied the events therein. If there is no fall of man – and all mankind – into death and perdition, there is no need for a Saviour to save man from these. If there is no need for a Saviour, then Christ did not make an atonement for mankind.

This is of an entirely different order than believing in Genesis, and the creation account, but having a faulty theological understanding of it.

I do not see that I, regarding Erasmus, “use [his] error in the service [of] the argument for the Truth” (post 36); I have used not that, but rather what in him was *not* error in service of the truth. Big difference.

I will be continuing to study Erasmus, as impartially as I can, and if I come to lean in your direction of thinking about him I will share that.

You said (post 36), “The ONLY reason [Erasmus’ regeneracy] is an issue is because you have made one's holy disposition toward God a foundational piece in your system and you utterly savage those who won’t fit and will give every benefit of the doubt to those who do. You do not weigh with fair scales.”

Rich, I think the benefit of doubt in E.’s case is far more warranted than in Metzger’s. Even if we deal not in the matter of regeneration, but simply regarding their respective agendas and views concerning the word of God, the latter is prejudiced against faith in it, while the former is not. I do not “utterly savage” Metzger but examine his presuppositions concerning God’s word in the NT. When one takes faith into consideration in these things, I think my scales are righteous.

--------

To take a different tack now – pertaining to the OP – 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.”


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 12, 2014)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Thanks, Rich, for the more irenic level of interaction. The way I see it, the discussion went like this (as it developed in complexity and varying topics). JimmyH recommended Metzger and Ehrman’s book, which I cautioned against (post 9) because of both their backgrounds. You, Rich, disputed that (post 13), disliking my characterization of Metzger, brought up the issue of regeneration not needful and attacked Erasmus as a case in point, characterizing him as an instrument of the devil in attacking Luther. I brought up (post 14) Wesley and Whitefield, and asked “may a man not greatly err in understanding doctrines, yet be born of Christ’s Spirit?”
> 
> You said – in a round-about defense of Metzger – “a system of preservation that depends on ‘well, a man can deny the Gospel but cling to Christ’ is not a system I'll ever be persuaded to hold” (post 15). So your defense of Metzger was built on denying the regeneration of Erasmus, they supposedly both being in the same boat of unregeneracy. Your denial of E. was based on a) his being semi-Pelagian, and b) a sacerdotalist, which I sought to refute by saying there were many semi-Pelagians / Arminians who, despite bad theology, were still regenerated and loved Christ, and that E’s holding to the RC sacraments was doubtful.
> 
> ...


A very strange reading of the facts. I never *insisted* on Erasmus being unregenerate and my point about him being an instrument of the devil was with respect to his debate with Luther. I also characterized his work as being of service to texual criticism. The only reason, and I have repeated this throughout, is that the idiosyncratic notion that regenerate men can only be of service in the Providential preservation of the text cannot be sustained and you have failed to do so here.

Conclusions are only true if the form is valid and all premises are valid:


Jerusalem Blade said:


> Premise 1: The word of God is for believers
> Premise 2: The word of God is cared for by believers, whether lay or text critics
> Premise 3: The word of God cannot be cared for by those who don’t believe
> Conclusion: Text-critical caring for the word of God can only be done by believers



Premise 1 is false. The word of God is for the unregenerate and the regenerate and we do not know who is regenerate.
Premise 2 is true but but can also be false. Believers can do a bad job of caring for the text and they are not automatically given an ability
Premise 3 is an assertion. It is not established.
Conclusion is invalid.




Jerusalem Blade said:


> Premise 1: Erasmus the semi-Pelagian professed to believe in and love Christ
> Premise 2: Erasmus’ words and conduct make this likely (though not certain)
> Premise 3: Erasmus’ theology was bad
> Premise 4: Bad theology does not cancel out belief in and love of Christ
> Conclusion: It is likely (though not certain) Erasmus believed in and loved Christ



Premise 1 is true of every person who has ever been called a Christian.
Premise 2 is an assertion.
Premise 3 is true but an understatement.
Conclusion is doubtful.


Jerusalem Blade said:


> Premise 1: Erasmus was likely a believer
> Premise 2: It cannot be proven he was not a believer
> Premise 3: Erasmus cared for the word of God
> Conclusion: Erasmus can text-critically care for the word of God


Premise 1 has not been established. It also contradicts your prior false conclusion that textual criticism can only be done by believers. If Erasmus is only *likely* a bliever then your Conclusion is already false.
Premise 2 is about as useful as saying that nobody can be proven to an unbeliever. The Premise adds nothing to the conclusion.
Premise 3 is again something you said he can ONLY do if he is a believer and you stated in Premise 1 that he is likely a believer.
You're missing a premise in order to support your conclusion (you sneaked it into premise 1 but it's already been shown to be false).
Conclusion is false both because the form is invalid as are all three premises (on your own suppositions)




Jerusalem Blade said:


> Premise 1: Metzger denied the fall and atonement
> Premise 2: Deniers of the fall and atonement cannot have saving faith
> Premise 3: Metzger did not have saving faith (was not a believer)
> Conclusion: Metzger cannot text-critically care for the word of God.


Premise 1 is true of most Arminians who deny substitutionary atonement and the nature of the Fall.
Premise 2 is contradicted by you throughout this thread in your appeal that you can't possibly imagine all those Arminians who really love Christ. If deniers of the fall and the atonement cannot have saving faith then Arminians cannot. For that matter, a semi-Pelagian Erasmus denied substitionary atonement or he would not have argued against the sufficiency of grace and so Erasmus is caught up in your premise.
Premise 3 is again contradicted by you in your appeal to all the fine Arminians you know.
If conclusion was true then everything you said about Arminians is false. We know the Conclusion is false because your earlier conclusion has already been demonstrated to be false.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 12, 2014)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> his 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:


Cue conspiratorial music for what follows. Of course, if Erasmus had agreed to this it would have been perfectly in accord?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 13, 2014)

“Cue conspiratorial music for what follows.”

*Joking it off won’t make it go away. The source documents speak for themselves.*

------

There is some merit in your objections to my syllogisms; I will try to tighten them up, yet as Matthew said (post 30) “the visible professing church. . . is a mixed communion”, and thus we are _very often_ “not certain” about those who claim to be saints, yet some things – i.e., types of fruit – are better indicators than others.

Plus I am continuing my research on Erasmus.


----------



## JimmyH (Sep 13, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> The books linked below will answer your questions. Bruce Metzger's *earlier edition without the assistance of Bart Ehrman*, before Ehrman went apostate, is the one I have read. I can't speak for the other.





Jerusalem Blade said:


> JimmyH,
> 
> I don’t think it’s responsible to recommend a book, the most up-to-date edition of which is co-authored By Bart Ehrman, a fervent enemy of the Christian faith and its Bible: _The Text Of The New Testament : Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration _.





JimmyH said:


> *Steve, note that I specified that I read the edition published before any involvement by Ehrman.* Add that, though I deliberately found a used copy sans Ehrman I'm given to understand that he contributed to professor Metzger's book before he became apostate.
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk





Jerusalem Blade said:


> Thanks, Rich, for the more irenic level of interaction. The way I see it, the discussion went like this (as it developed in complexity and varying topics). *JimmyH recommended Metzger and Ehrman’s book, which I cautioned against (post 9) because of both their backgrounds. *



Brother Steve, a friend of mine, years ago used to say,"Don't put words in my mouth, and then quote me." I'm an old man myself, and not as sharp as I was, if I ever was. Sometimes I get facts wrong. This is the second time, in this thread, you have mis-characterized my post. Whether it is advanced age, carelessness, or deliberate, I cannot say, anymore than I can say whether Erasmus, Bruce Metzger, or Brooke Foss Westcott for that matter, were regenerate. 

I will say that if I were to get jumped by a gang of thugs in a dark alley, I'd be glad if you were on my side. I've seldom seen someone with your tenacity in a debate.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 13, 2014)

Don't bother Steve. I'm weary of this. As much as I'm trying to convince you, you have your Procrustrean bed and no objection will suffice. I think we've made that abundantly clear. One cannot salvage your argument because you keep appealing to "facts" that cannot be supported by Scripture themselves. You are also careless with other people's words as has been demonstrated in this thread in the way you cite and characterize others thoughts. You've started with your conclusion and will keep generating bad syllogisms. I just don't have the energy to keep up with your imagination.

As for the Roman Catholics cooperating with the UBS, I have two thoughts:

1. By your own repeated insistence, all these fine Roman Catholics may have bad theology but are otherwise motivated to be faithful to the text. I would suggest you study how often in Church history the Roman Catholic Church has affirmed the inerrancy of the text in dogmatic statements. I furthermore you suggest you research as vigorously as you can to find nice things that these people say about dependance on the Holy Spirit and the like. They'll sound as pious and holy as Erasmus and, by this, you will assuage yourself of any fears that they are involved in textual critical studies. Why, the things you quoted about Pope Francis being so "biblical" are quite glowing.

2. Let's assume for a minute you succeed on measuring all current Roman Catholics and find them wanting. So what? News Flash: Translation is not the same thing as textual criticism.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 13, 2014)

Jimmy, I apologize for twice mischaracterizing you! I retract saying you recommended Ehrman, and I was mistaken in doing so. Sorry again!


----------



## JimmyH (Sep 13, 2014)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Jimmy, I apologize for twice mischaracterizing you! I retract saying you recommended Ehrman, and I was mistaken in doing so. Sorry again!



Thank you Steve, I understand it was nothing personal, just in the heat of a rigorous debate. We are brothers who agreee on the most important thing, and disagree on some other important, and not so important things, but brothers in Christ nonetheless.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 13, 2014)

Rich, it is quite possible I am just enveloped in a sphere in “invincible ignorance” and out of touch with reality, but I am open to being shown this if it is so. I even ask the Lord to show me, for thick-headedness is no problem to Him. I think it a good maxim, the saying, If you say you cannot be deceived you already are.

I think it odd that when I seek to cleave to the Bible of the Reformation I am thought an obscurantist and reactionary; when I seek to proceed by faith in textual matters I am called a fundamentalist, and against the godly conventional wisdom of the day. When I point out that the UBS is in serious league with the RCs – producing ecumenical-standard Bibles – you want “conspiratorial music” played in the background. Yet I, as you, also love the Reformation, and have been profoundly affected for the good by its doctrinal standards. We neither of us want to betray the Reformation and what it stood / stands for.

I realize – thanks in good part to you – I need to think through my views re Erasmus more thoroughly and clearly, and that I am proceeding to do. How it will fall out I am not sure.

I have said I do not want to hurt other people’s confidence in their Bibles, and I am serious about that. So why did I bring up the Catholic connection of the UBS? I had been unaware of this till just a week or so ago, but it was startling to me. I am not sure what to make of it. I rather think our Reformation and Puritan forebears would turn away from it, and I wonder about the times we are in, and the state of the church. I repeat that my contention is with the readings not the Bibles of others in the main, and at the same time I have been taken with your own fervor to maintain Reformation doctrine, and I wonder, do I take an Erasmian timidity (if that was really the case with him at all, as some deny it) to the Bible issue? You have modeled (in educational parlance) a fervent spirit for the truth, which I appreciate, even though I was on the pointed receiving end of it!

At any rate, I still believe my approach is right (to be irenic and gracious in the Bible discussion). But this matter of omitting the word “broken” from the words of institution for the Lord’s Table really troubles me (it is so in all the PCA churches in my area, I believe); and to compound the disturbance in me, I note that the Westminster divines agreed to use the King James reading in all their Scripture proofs for the WCF and the LC (as well their practice), as did the OPC (and PCA, supposedly) in their 2005 edition of the Standards, so why do we depart once again from what was right in their eyes. This is shaking my confidence in the PCA, which is a terrible thing for me, as this is my church family and home. If anyone can counsel me how to handle this better than I am I would appreciate it.

Finally, Rich, you also are a dogged and tenacious opponent in discussion/debate, and I have a lot of respect for you, both as a retired officer in a service I was once in, and a master technician in the digital world, and now preparing for the hardest and best of callings, to serve the Lord and His people in ministry. You have been gracious with me (save for an exasperation or two), especially given how difficult I can be, and I always think twice before tangling with you. I’ll give you the last word here – though please be assured I do seek light, and do not want to block it out. If I am in His hands (and I am) He will see to it.

-----

P.S. Thank you for your graciousness, Jimmy.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 13, 2014)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I think it odd that when I seek to cleave to the Bible of the Reformation I am thought an obscurantist and reactionary; when I seek to proceed by faith in textual matters I am called a fundamentalist, and against the godly conventional wisdom of the day. When I point out that the UBS is in serious league with the RCs – producing ecumenical-standard Bibles – you want “conspiratorial music” played in the background. Yet I, as you, also love the Reformation, and have been profoundly affected for the good by its doctrinal standards. We neither of us want to betray the Reformation and what it stood / stands for.


Steve,

This thread diverged primarily because I was trying to show that some arguments undermine the credibility of a position. I was trying to show you that one does not need to rely upon the "born again" status of people to profit from them or for God to use them. God accomplishes His holy will to include the preservation of His text by means we cannot draw neat categories for. It would not only be nigh impossible to prove who was and was not regenerate in Church history to provide confidence to Churchmen in the text of Scripture but would actually undermine it. One could just back the issue up one more level and wonder why God didn't so require that only regenerate copyists produce texts we need. We could shipwreck many lives by erecting a standard God has not.

Even above, you make the argument rest on the nobility of your cause. It sounds great but it's not an argument. I can't convince a person of Justification by Faith by appealing to how earnest I am. If my arguments are unfounded and un-Biblical then I'm only surrounding bad arguments with flowery language of my love of God that do not pertain to sound principles.

Am I concerned that Roman Catholics put their hand to textual matters? Not really. The Rabbis of Christ's day cared deeply for the transmission of the text. One might say their zeal was good for something at least for it was said that put 12 Rabbis together and they could reproduce the text of the OT from memory to include the jots and tittles (see Edersheim). Does this mean we don't need to be careful? No, but bad translation is different than manuscript manipulation. As recently as Vatican II, the RCC has upheld the inerrancy of the Scriptures. They don't need to worry about messing with the text anyhow because they have a hermeneutical principle that gets them around anything they don't agree with. Honestly, I worry less about the "honesty" of those who come at the text from an RCC position than some KJVO (not TR types but the rabid types) who have a superstitious view of the English version as controlling the underlying Greek and Hebrew.

The point is that I think God is bigger than the conspiracies of men (Psalm 2) so I don't worry about conspiracies. Christ is bigger than them.

I think the thread has been useful in introducing some thoughts that Dr. Robinson brings to expand the textual process and keep one's eyes open with respect to the CT but I find more data and not less data to be useful when looking at what has been copied through the centuries. I also think Dr. Robinson's thoughts about how one ought to go about the task to be quite compelling.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 13, 2014)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Am I concerned that Roman Catholics put their hand to textual matters? Not really. The Rabbis of Christ's day cared deeply for the transmission of the text. One might say their zeal was good for something at least for it was said that put 12 Rabbis together and they could reproduce the text of the OT from memory to include the jots and tittles (see Edersheim). Does this mean we don't need to be careful? No, but bad translation is different than manuscript manipulation. As recently as Vatican II, the RCC has upheld the inerrancy of the Scriptures. They don't need to worry about messing with the text anyhow because they have a hermeneutical principle that gets them around anything they don't agree with. Honestly, I worry less about the "honesty" of those who come at the text from an RCC position than some KJVO (not TR types but the rabid types) who have a superstitious view of the English version as controlling the underlying Greek and Hebrew.


Steve, as someone who used to sincerely hold a Received Text position, and now holds a CT position I agree with the above. The issue is textual criticism based on mss evidence, not primarily the views of the critics themselves - unless you want to discredit the Masoretic text because it was transmitted by Pagan Jews who were entrenched in unbelief.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> I think it odd that when I seek to cleave to the Bible of the Reformation I am thought an obscurantist and reactionary; when I seek to proceed by faith in textual matters


I believe James White gives an excellent defense of the Providential preservation of the CT in his King James Only Controversy [Revised 2009 ed] page 79ff. He concludes the section with this challenge [page 88]
"I have engaged in defense of the Christian faith against a wide variety of critics and opponents. I have debated leading scholars ... in the midst of this study and apologetic engagement I have been reminded over and over again of one fact: Those who hold to the King James Only position could never, ever provide this kind of consistent defense of Scripture. King James Onlyism is, by its nature, anti-apologetic. Its leaders have not only declined one debate challenge after another from me, but they are not the ones giving any kind of meaningful response to the likes of [a list of liberal and Muslim scholars]. In other words, *King James Onlyism cripples its adherents apologetically* in a day when such can have devastating results. This has only convinced me again of the need to warn against this unbiblical, ahistorical, and illogical abuse of a fine seventeenth Anglican translation of the Bible in English" [emphasis by James White]

Some points:
1,. James Price in his King James Onlyism gives a similar warning
2. The quote is best understood in the context I mentioned above.
3. I am especially sensitive to this issue as someone with an interest in Muslim evangelism. Whites comments are very relevant over the debate of the transmission of the Bible vs the Transmission of the Quran. White is a Muslim scholar himself and knows first hand the impact of an anti apologetic approach to textual criticism has when debating Muslims.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 14, 2014)

Hello Stephen,

You said, “The issue is textual criticism based on mss evidence…”

To me the issue is textual criticism based on faith God will uphold his promise to give us His word intact. I remember your saying a few times you held the KJV view but dropped it when DA Waite couldn’t answer James White’s questions. I heard probably the same debate but jotted down the verses he couldn’t answer concerning, so as to study them myself. My faith in textual matters isn’t based on a man but on God’s word – His promises.

I like James White and have high respect for the man, although disagreeing with him on textual matters and baptism. I likely would fare very poorly with him in a verbal debate as I don’t think too fast “on my feet” as it were (especially as I have been ill, and slightly impaired mentally from medicines, although now on the mend – I will probably give a praise report here on this shortly), but am much better in writing when I have time to think and research.

Likely James is right that _some_ KJVO thinking “cripples its adherents apologetically”, but that doesn’t apply to me as a) I’m not KJVO but KJV _priority_, and b) that hasn’t hindered my apologetic endeavors over a number of decades. I do have to say I am certainly not an apologist of the caliber of Dr. White, but I have had to deal with various cults (JWs, Mormons, Roman Catholicism, etc) false religions (non-Messianic Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, atheism, New Age, Theosophy, etc) and my textual views have not hindered me in the least.

I have interacted with some of James Price’s views starting here (on PB).

It is a matter of faith (albeit not without evidences) that I hold to a fully preserved Bible – the Greek TR and Hebrew MT, and the English translation and other language equivalents derived therefrom – that God brought to pass in His good timing. It is possible I err on discerning the precise nature of the process He used in accomplishing this (I continue studying this, especially after this present discussion), but that He did accomplish this is the faith of the Reformation and the Bible they had. From our vantage it is a _fait accompli_, though our times generally prefers to trust in the ongoing activities of men plus God’s gracious provision for this Bible, which hasn’t materialized even yet, at least not in a final and intact form.

Nothing can shake me from this faith in God’s realized provision, even as nothing can shake me from faith in Him and His gracious salvation in Christ.

It is odd that the arguments of the variants the CT adherents use against the AV adherents are precisely those which Rome used against the Reformers’ claims in their presentation of the doctrine of sola Scriptura. But they stood successfully against Rome on the word of God they had in hand, as I likewise do on that very same word, and against the very same assault.

Please note that my language is not flowery and poetic, but to-the-point and concrete, insofar as matters of faith can be concretized.


----------



## MW (Sep 14, 2014)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> It is a matter of faith (albeit not without evidences)



This is important to emphasise. The reality is, we do not have one word which can be established with certainty by an empirical methodology to be the word of God. One would have to see and examine the original writing, and be able to prove it was the original writing, in order to reach that kind of empirical certainty; and even then, we would still only be in the same situation as the original recipients in terms of having to exercise faith that this is the word of God.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 14, 2014)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Likely James is right that some KJVO thinking “cripples its adherents apologetically”, but that doesn’t apply to me as a) I’m not KJVO but KJV priority, and b) that hasn’t hindered my apologetic endeavors over a number of decades. I do have to say I am certainly not an apologist of the caliber of Dr. White, but I have had to deal with various cults (JWs, Mormons, Roman Catholicism, etc) false religions (non-Messianic Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, atheism, New Age, Theosophy, etc) and my textual views have not hindered me in the least.


Steve, did you read the pages I mentioned? This is relevant to the discussion on how God preserved His word. Note it is only in the 2009 ed, it is not in the 1995 ed.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 15, 2014)

Hello, Stephen,

I only have the old edition, and the budget is too tight to spring for the new one. If you'd care to scan the pages 79-88 and send them to me (PM me for email) I'd be very interested to see what he says. Thanks.


----------



## One Little Nail (Sep 16, 2014)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I believe James White gives an excellent defense of the Providential preservation of the CT in his King James Only Controversy [Revised 2009 ed] page 79ff. He concludes the section with this challenge [page 88]
> "I have engaged in defense of the Christian faith against a wide variety of critics and opponents. I have debated leading scholars ... in the midst of this study and apologetic engagement I have been reminded over and over again of one fact: Those who hold to the King James Only position could never, ever provide this kind of consistent defense of Scripture. King James Onlyism is, by its nature, anti-apologetic. Its leaders have not only declined one debate challenge after another from me, but they are not the ones giving any kind of meaningful response to the likes of [a list of liberal and Muslim scholars]. In other words, *King James Onlyism cripples its adherents apologetically* in a day when such can have devastating results. This has only convinced me again of the need to warn against this unbiblical, ahistorical, and illogical abuse of a fine seventeenth Anglican translation of the Bible in English" [emphasis by James White]




When I read this, could not help but think of Sir Walter Raleigh's famous quote :



> "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still"


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 16, 2014)

Consider,

_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 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_. 

It is surely an anomaly to the Reformed mind when they consider that the so-called “Queen of the manuscripts” was in the treasures and under the care of the antichrist, and given to the world to – in effect – undermine the text and sola Scriptura doctrine of the Reformation, in the name of “modern textual criticism”. All this fancy footwork of argumentation, all this scorn and dismissal of the Authorized Version, well, you can have it. I will hold fast to the old paths.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 16, 2014)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> If you'd care to scan the pages 79-88 and send them to me (PM me for email) I'd be very interested to see what he says. Thanks.


Sorry I do not have a scanner. I tend to spend my money on books rather than technology.

Here is a core summary of his argument: There have been much discovery of ancient papyri mss in the last 80 or so years that show the CT was the majority text in the early church. The discovery of the Papyri has moved knowledge of the NT text back closer to the original than any other work of antiquity. Evidence shows that the mss were spread geographically very fast so that no one controlling authority could change and corrupt them. They are spread over a large area geographically - this in the providence of God prevented early corruption. Thus the corruption argument by the TR advocates is not true historically. It means CT advocates can argue for Providential preservation. 

What is more significant is that the Qua-ran was modified by a controlling authority and the original mss of the Qua-ran were destroyed. Thus there is no way to check to see if the modifications were reliable or not. Christians who support the CT have a powerful argument against Muslims. Further the CT predates the Qua-ran by a number of centuries so Christians who support the CT can show an earlier witness to the NT text than Muslims can. CT supporters thus have a two fold argument against Muslims. This is why James White says that King James Onlyism cripples its adherents apologetically.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 16, 2014)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> It is surely an anomaly to the Reformed mind when they consider that the so-called “Queen of the manuscripts” was in the treasures and under the care of the antichrist, and given to the world to – in effect – undermine the text and sola Scriptura doctrine of the Reformation, in the name of “modern textual criticism”. All this fancy footwork of argumentation, all this scorn and dismissal of the Authorized Version, well, you can have it. I will hold fast to the old paths.


This argument makes no sense. Erasmus was linked to Rome (under the care of the Antichrist as you put it). Further the Byzantine Text is the text of the Greek Orthodox church which is no more and no less the antiChrist than Rome.

Steve, it is this sort of argument that DA Waite and Jack Moorman used with James White. Both were *thoroughly* refuted!!


----------



## JimmyH (Sep 16, 2014)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> All this fancy footwork of argumentation, *all this scorn and dismissal of the Authorized Version*, well, you can have it. I will hold fast to the old paths.



Steve, in my opinion accepting scholarship and respecting the CT translators, does not equate to "scorn and dismissal" of the Authorized Version. Some of us believe that God's providential preservation extended beyond the manuscripts Erasmus used for his translation of the TR, and value the AV as much as we do the CT translations. Believing that they are God's Word in spite of some explainable, some unexplainable, inconsistencies between manuscripts. Virtually all of which have no effect on doctrinal tenants of the faith.


----------



## MW (Sep 16, 2014)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Here is a core summary of his argument: There have been much discovery of ancient papyri mss in the last 80 or so years that show the CT was the majority text in the early church. The discovery of the Papyri has moved knowledge of the NT text back closer to the original than any other work of antiquity.



This is fallacious. (1) The corruptions of the text pre-date the earliest mss. (2) The earliest mss. contain a variety of readings; they do not bear witness to a so-called CT text, and they include support for some Byzantine readings. In other words, the array of findings have served to overthrow the Westcott-Hort theory of a neutral text. (3) If one wants to follow the "evidence" in the vein of modern textual criticism it will lead to the higher critical theory that there were probably various editions of the same work which were circulated by communities in the second century rather than the traditional view of single compositions written by apostles in the first century.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 16, 2014)

Jimmy, I appreciate your more irenic approach. Yes, not all are scornful and dismissive. Thanks for the correction.


Stephen, thanks for summarizing in lieu of scanning – much appreciated. 

As it has been said, _everybody_ (save the Waldenses and their spiritual kin) was Catholic in those days! And some cleaved to Rome and some sought to Reform her. Erasmus and his works were anathemized by Rome, and his writings were on the forbidden list. He was not the “Catholic” he is made out to be. I am doing further studies in the life and spirituality of Erasmus so as to get greater clarity on him, and to see if ideas I have need correcting, or not.

The Greek text of the New Testament documents was also the language written in by the apostles, and we have a feasible history of the transmission of those manuscripts in Wilbur Pickering’s account of it; the Greek church preserved those documents through fiery persecution, especially that of Diocletian, while the NT manuscripts put together by Eusebius for the NT Emperor Constantine ordered from him (from Origen’s Caesarean library) didn’t have “sticking power” with the Greeks who knew how their ancient manuscripts read – which were different than the Alexandrian type.

Granted, the G.O. church also apostatized to a great extent, but they kept the mss passed on to them from ancient times, even as the Jews did with the Hebrew. There were so many Greek-speakers treasuring these mss (even on pain of death), that when the change-over in the 9[SUP]th[/SUP] century from majuscule to minuscule writing took place, the numerical amount of minuscules were enormous compared to those Greek mss which reflected the Alexandrian, which were not popular among those who knew what the ancient NTs looked like.

The findings of scholars like Dr. Robinson (whose Preface and Intro are linked to above) and Pickering disagree with the theory that the papyri support the predominance of CT readings in the early church.

The Majority / Byzantine Text priority view (and these are theories or differing views because we have no comprehensive historical data – and we all have the same data, but interpret it differently) is not one whit behind the CT paradigm of Dr. White in apologetic use (to say the least) and that would include the further providential views of the AV folks who state that God used the few Latin (and other version) readings to perfect the Byz NT readings that went through Erasmus and then Stephens’ and Beza’s further editorial work to the 1611 translation into English.

I spent 9 years in Greek Orthodox Cyprus, and I would agree that the church there is mostly apostate (cleaving to the sacramental system of salvation), though the manuscripts of their NT reflect the ancient archetypes.

It comes down to this: we either have a Bible we can hold in our hands, or a provisional concept of a Bible that we can assert more or less is God’s preserved Book, but not one that actually exists. I agree that the few modern versions based on the TR Greek and MT Hebrew are close to this, but still provisional.

I believe God gave us an intact Bible at the time of the Reformation.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 17, 2014)

Hello Stephen, when you say above, concerning my statements re Rome, “This argument makes no sense”, it is not true that “the Greek Orthodox church… is no more and no less the antiChrist than Rome”. John Chrysostom (347 – 407) was not apostate, and his liturgy has been in use since then in the Greek churches. Though it is correct to say that the Greek church slowly fell, but *not* correct to say it was “no less the antiChrist than Rome”, for the Greeks did not oppose and slaughter all who differed from them. 

I wonder what the Reformed churches will look like in the U.S. should the Lord not come back for 100 years (already the larger portion of them are apostate); I wonder what the descendant European churches of the Reformation look like in the U.K. and Europe today – I think most are apostate, with but a remnant remaining. Does this mean that the things of the Reformation were not true, and should not be held to? If so many become antichristian, does this invalidate their original standards? I expect to see the same here as the end approaches (I do not think we have 100 years till the return of Christ), with a great falling away attending that.

To disregard the place of Rome in the purposeful corruption of the Protestant Bible, to say it “makes no sense” to take a Reformation view of Rome even though centuries have past, appears to me to betray our heritage, and to relativize everything so that there is no longer a true or false with regard to Rome, the Reformers, and ourselves – it is all just one big crapshoot, and let every man do and think what seems right to him as regards our treasured Scripture and our history.

To my view the Reformation made clear – in many respects – what the Rock is upon which we are to make our stand, the Rock of doctrine, of Scripture, and the Person of Christ. I need not give these up because contradicting waters have come upon us as a flood.

Nor need I demonize those godly who take a conscientious, intelligent, and differing stand than the one I hold. We have the freedom to hold forth our views, and Bibles to search and see which ring true and which false.

This is why the Lord through James says, “My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation” (3:1). Those who presume to teach – whether formally or informally – will be subject to a much stricter judgment. I myself speak as one who knows he shall have to appear before the Lord for this very thing, and I do not proceed lightly.


----------



## JimmyH (Sep 17, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> Jerusalem Blade said:
> 
> 
> > All this fancy footwork of argumentation, *all this scorn and dismissal of the Authorized Version*, well, you can have it. I will hold fast to the old paths.
> ...





Jerusalem Blade said:


> Jimmy, I appreciate your more irenic approach. Yes, not all are scornful and dismissive. Thanks for the correction.


 Thanks Steve, what about the point that God also provided providential oversight over the texts that the Alexandrian region had for hundreds of years before the first known sources of the TR surface in the 9th century if I remember correctly ?

Reading James White's "King James Only Controversy" on page 72-74 ;

"The Byzantine text type represents the vast majority of the Greek manuscripts available to us today, and there is a fairly simple reason for this. Within a few centuries after the New Testament's writing, Latin superseded Greek as the language of Western people. Obviously, when people are no longer speaking a language, the production of manuscripts in that tongue will be less than if everyone is still speaking it.

The rise of Islam and the Muslim invasion of Palestine, then North Africa, and into Spain and southern France (AD 632-732) were other factors of great impact upon the use of language. Production of manuscripts in those areas was adversely affected by Islam becoming the predominant religion.

The only area that continued to speak and utilize Greek was the area under the control of Constantinople, also known as Byzantium. The brave people of this region withstood the attacks of the invaders for many years, finally succumbing in the mid-fifteenth century.

Given that these Christians continued to write and use Greek all through this period, even while Greek had passed out of normal use throughout the rest of Europe and North Africa, the dominance of the text-type found there is easily understood.

KJV Only advocates disagree with this summary of the historical situation. The Textus Receptus, the Greek text from which the King James New Testament was translated, is primarily Byzantine in character, so AV Alone believers must find a way of defending the Byzantine text-type as superior, the best. They explain the lack of ancient Byzantine text-type examples by theorizing that those manuscripts wore out from excessive use over the years, while the Alexandrian texts were quickly seen as corrupt and hence just buried in the sand. Such a theory, of course, defies proof by its very nature.

Another common KJV Only claim is that Alexandrian texts have been corrupted by heretics. They point to men like Origen, who did things and believed things that most modern fundamentalists find more than slightly unusual, and on this basis make the very long leap to the assertion that the manuscripts from the same area must be corrupt. The problem is that you can also find excellent examples of orthodox Christians in the Alexandrian area just as you can find some rather heretical folks in the Byzantine area.

As we noted before, it is important to emphasize that the differences between the Alexandrian and Byzantine text-types do not result in two different New Testaments. A person who reads the New Testament as found in Codex Sinaiticus and applies sound exegetical methods to its text will come to the very same conclusions as anyone reading a Byzantine manuscript written a thousand years later."


----------



## MW (Sep 17, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> Given that these Christians continued to write and use Greek all through this period, even while Greek had passed out of normal use throughout the rest of Europe and North Africa, the dominance of the text-type found there is easily understood.



When we speak of preservation, this is precisely what is meant -- that the Word was really preserved through the living witness of the church.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 17, 2014)

Jimmy, I rather frown on the “discussion method” of copy and pasting someone else’s arguments, and then expecting those in the discussion to answer, not your own thoughts, but the copy and pasted thoughts of others . . . . and this sort of thing can go on indefinitely, with you doing no work but copy (or typing) and pasting. Fortunately for me I had answered a very similar question from Dr. White’s lieutenant, Alan Kurschner, some years back, and I’ll put that here rather than “inventing the wheel twice”. The words in blue are Mr. Kurschner’s, and those in black mine:

(3) How did the Byzantine text-form end up having more attested Greek manuscripts than the other text-forms such as the Alexandrian and the Western? Here is a very important fact of history that KJVO advocates ignore. Given the supplanting of the Greek language for Latin in the West early on, and given the expansion of Islam into Egypt and other regions, it explains why Byzantine Greek manuscripts continued to be copied in the Byzantine corner of the empire and eventually became the majority Greek text around the ninth century onwards; and explains why the early Greek text-types such as the Alexandrian were not copied during later times in other areas of the Christian world.

If there were no Islam expansion and coupled with the West speaking Greek not Latin, certainly the Byzantine text would not have been the “majority.” The Alexandrian and Western Greek text-forms would have continued to be copied with frequent pace.

This is a peculiar argument. I do not think it does justice to the complexity of the linguistic situation during this period. Did the Latin language “supplant” the Greek in the West – which Latin had been spoken in Italy and parts of Europe, including Britannia, for centuries – or was it simply the language of all, both common and educated – in this region? After the Roman conquest of Greece (B.C. 146), an unofficial diglossy (see “diglossia”) of Greek and Latin was established in the city of Rome and Koine Greek became the lingua franca of the vast Roman Empire. Educated Romans read the Greek classics. It can be shown that Latin remained the primary written language of the Western empire, and was the language of the administration of its government. (In the East, eventually written Latin was replaced by the native Greek, where the Greek language remained the only spoken tongue. Yet as late as Emperor Theodosius II [408-50], Latin was used within his administration, but Greek was used in communication with his subjects.) Earlier in the West, the Roman legions carried a vernacular Latin throughout the provinces where they were stationed, and in Europe this Latin eventually mixed with the native tongues to become the Romance languages, Spanish, French, Portuguese, Italian, and Romanian. Latin survived the fall of the Roman Empire (the Western Empire, as distinguished from the Eastern, the Greek or Byzantine Empire), later to be transformed into the aforementioned Romance tongues, except in the Western / Roman Church, where Latin remained its language. 

In Roman Egypt, after the conquest by Alexander the Great, the native language, Demotic (which later evolved into Coptic, and even later was replaced as the national language by Arabic), slowly decreased in official spheres in lieu of the Greek, probably as a result of Roman policy. Demotic and Greek were used in Roman Egypt in the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] century A.D. and beyond.

In Western Europe Latin did not “supplant” the Greek, but was its native tongue.

The “Byzantine corner of the empire” was no corner, but a vast territory.

The persecutions of Diocletian, 302-312 A.D., greatly diminished the copies of Greek New Testament manuscripts, as one of his laws was that all copies of them be destroyed. To conceal and keep a copy was a capital crime, which some risked nonetheless. There was a special class of informers, called _traditores_, apostates who came from the ranks of the church, who sought out copies of the Scripture (and those who owned them), and turned them over to the authorities for reward.* 

To compensate for this scarcity of Bibles, it is historically documented that Constantine, upon his becoming emperor, ordered – and paid – Eusebius to make 50 copies of the Bible, an edition that is Alexandrian in nature (Tischendorf thought his Sinaiticus likely one of those 50, and others have thought that of Vaticanus). Copies of Scripture were few. How then, did the predominance of the “Greek Vulgate” – that is, the Byzantine textform – come to be? It came to be the dominant text in the Greek church from the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] century on, while the Alexandrian form of Eusebius’ official edition disappeared for the most part. Considering just this Byzantine development, how did it come to pass?

A difference needs to be made between the Old Latin Bibles of Europe – copied after the form of text that came from Palestine and Syrian Antioch (the missionary church) – and the Latin Vulgate of Jerome that came into existence centuries later. The form of text that came to be standardized in the Latin West (where the Greek was discontinued) in the increasingly power-hungry church of Rome was a corrupted text, a debased form of the Scripture that was shunned by the dissenting Christians in Milan and the mountains of Europe (the Waldenses and Albigenses).

The “if-then” fallacy that *if* there had been no Islamic invasion of Egypt and no alleged “supplanting of Greek for [I think AK means “by” here] Latin in the West” *then* “The Alexandrian and Western Greek text-forms would have continued to be copied with frequent pace”, is without merit. It is sheer conjecture, and based at that upon false premises.

Around 641 A.D. Islam began to spread into Egypt, and before that the local text of that region (which had never had any autographs of the NT Scriptures sent to them) was not accepted by the Byzantine church, which had ample time and occasion to become familiar with them through Eusebius’ bringing them in from Origen’s Alexandrian/Caesarian library. By the time Islam took Egypt the dust had settled on the issue of the validity of their NT MSS, in the eyes of the Greek church.

And in all of these historical/geographical/linguistic events, what was the hand of God doing as regards His Scripture He had promised to preserve for His people (and this matter of His preserving them is pivotal in this whole discussion!)? Did the Muslims slip by Him and thwart the dominance of the supposed “superior” Alexandrian texttype? Did the changes of languages in the Roman Empire catch Him by surprise and ruin His plan to elevate the textform Mr. Kurschner thinks ought to have been elevated?

This is not the Sovereign we know, “who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will,” for He has said, “My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure” (Eph 1:11; Isa 46:10).

____________

* _History of the Christian Church_, Vol. II, by Philip Schaff (MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1910), page 69.

[End quote from discussion with Mr. Kurschner]

---------

Jimmy, please spare me such distasteful type of discussion, where you paste and I work! Now you did ask, “what about the point that God also provided providential oversight over the texts that the Alexandrian region had for hundreds of years before the first known sources of the TR surface in the 9th century if I remember correctly?”

Okay, I agree God did provide providential oversight of the Alexandrian texts as well, as “all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do” (Heb 4:13), though His providence was such as we see in those very mss yet extant unto this day, and I will note only 3, Vaticanus (B), Sinaiticus ([SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE]), and P75 of the Bodmer papyri (which agrees with B 92% in John and 94% in Luke, and thus confirms the existence of the texttype B represents back to the early 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] century, rather than the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] as previously thought). The Lord certainly looked over these mss and preserved them, and due to them many of the churches today use a Greek text that has been preserved in the main though not in the minutiae, a NT text that is capable of being a vehicle used by God to convert souls to Jesus Christ and of sustaining and nurturing churches under the pastoral care of godly ministers.

Due to the variants (including many omissions) this text is not preserved in the minutiae yet is adequate to sustain souls and churches as noted just above.

(Will Kinney examines P75 and B as well as other papyri in an article on his KJV defense articles page. He’s a little tougher-minded than I, but he’s good. In his article he also shows that P75 agrees with the TR _more_ than with Vaticanus!)

Now when you say, “the first known sources of the TR surface in the 9th century”, you leave your presuppositions showing, i.e., that the TR text is a young text without any ancient attestation. Perhaps it is better to call them “hearsay remembrances” than “presuppositions”. Maurice Robinson examines the history of the Byzantine / Majority Text in his excellent Introduction to _The New Testament  In The  Original Greek  According To The  Byzantine / Majority Textform_, or in the _newer_ Preface to the 2005 edition of this work.

Jakob van Bruggen in his, _The Ancient Text of the New Testament_, also examines the textual history, with a focus on the results for the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century text-critical enterprise. Note that both of these men, Robinson and van Bruggen, are Byzantine / Majority Text defenders, not KJV.

(These articles are rare, and internet links often go defunct, so download them if they are of value to you.)

I referenced it above, but will again, Wilbur Pickering’s account of the early history of the NT text is also of great value.

I post links to these articles not to engage anyone in discussion thereby, or to refute other views, but to steer readers who are interested in an alternative to the “provisional” Bibles that abound, that being the Authorized Version of the Reformation. 

The Received Text (Textus Receptus) is not at a far remove from the Byzantine / Majority textform – or the “Traditional Text” of Burgon, Hoskier, Miller, Scrivener, which is pretty much the same. I have said this of the situation via-à-vis the MT and the TR,
Be it known that while I fully use what is of value in the Byz/MT labors, which are immense and of precious value, I go beyond what they allow. We of the TR and AV school stand on their shoulders – or to perfect the metaphor, we _leap_ from their shoulders to a high rock, upon which we take our stand.

It is this leap of faith (which is not without evidences) in God’s providence bringing certain readings back into the Biblical text that had been taken out of the Byzantine textform so the Reformation Bible could be made intact, it is in this leap that many Byz folks cannot follow us.​


----------



## JimmyH (Sep 17, 2014)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Jimmy, I rather frown on the “discussion method” of copy and pasting someone else’s arguments, and then expecting those in the discussion to answer, not your own thoughts, but the copy and pasted thoughts of others . . . . and this sort of thing can go on indefinitely, with you doing no work but copy (or typing) and pasting.
> 
> 
> Jimmy, please spare me such distasteful type of discussion, where you paste and I work!



Steve, had I been able to copy and paste the quoted text by White, I certainly would have. I painstakingly read my copy of his book while I typed that text ...... and I am a self taught typist ..... In other words, ....... it ain't smooth and easy. So after an hour or so of typing, proofing, editing, it was ready for prime time.

As for it being the thoughts of others ....... where do we get these arguments if not from the thoughts of others ? Your defense of the AV in post after post is a conglomeration of quotes and links to one author after another, and this post is no exception.

Thanks for the links to Robinson/Pierpont, I have the book here in hard copy and have read the appendix with the defense, where I might note that Robinson characterizes the TR as, "the faulty Textus Receptus editions which stemmed from Erasmus' or Ximenes' uncritical selection of a small number of late manuscripts". ........ and ;

"Certainly the Textus Receptus had its problems, not the least of which was its failure to reflect the Byzantine Textform in an accurate manner. but the Byzantine Textform is not the TR, nor need it be associated with the TR or those defending such in any manner." (footnote to the preceding sentence) ; "This includes all the various factions which hope to find authority and certainty in a single "providentially preserved" Greek text or English translation (usually the KJV), It need hardly be mentioned that such an approach has nothing to do with actual text-critical theory or praxis."



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Now you did ask, “what about the point that God also provided providential oversight over the texts that the Alexandrian region had for hundreds of years before the first known sources of the TR surface in the 9th century if I remember correctly?”
> 
> Okay, I agree God did provide providential oversight of the Alexandrian texts as well, as “all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do” (Heb 4:13), though His providence was such as we see in those very mss yet extant unto this day, and I will note only 3, Vaticanus (B), Sinaiticus ([SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE]), and P75 of the Bodmer papyri (which agrees with B 92% in John and 94% in Luke, and thus confirms the existence of the texttype B represents back to the early 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] century, rather than the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] as previously thought). The Lord certainly looked over these mss and preserved them, and due to them many of the churches today use a Greek text that has been preserved in the main though not in the minutiae, a NT text that is capable of being a vehicle used by God to convert souls to Jesus Christ and of sustaining and nurturing churches under the pastoral care of godly ministers.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the link to Jakob van Bruggen, I will check him out. D.A. Carson wrote an appendix to his "The King James Only Controversy, A Plea For Realism," titled "A Critique of The Identity of the New Testament Text." Carson wrote, "Of the books that have been written in defense of a Textus Receptus type of text, perhaps none is more convincing than The Identity of the New Testament Text." (Wilbur Pickering)

I need to read Pickering, and re-read Carson's rebuttal. Steve, I'm not 'on a mission' with this. I won't be debating with you post after post as some members have. I don't have the knowledge base, nor the stamina.

I must say, _with all due respect_, believe me, that I always have gotten a kick out of the way Reverend Winzer will answer in these forays with a sentence or two, while predictably you will have multiple paragraphs with many links and quotes. Quite frankly I thought you would thank me for giving you 'grist for your mill' with my question. You've always said you would debate James White in writing but weren't 'fast enough on your feet' to do it mano a mano ....... anyway.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 18, 2014)

Another gracious response from you, Jimmy, which I appreciate. The excerpt of James White you laboriously typed out (I can relate) is really a very complex matter, and I’m glad I had come across it before in Kurschner and had the time and energy to research and answer it then, so it would not so occupy my time now, seeing as I am busy on another project. (I note that I didn’t answer all the points of White in your quote, though I have elsewhere, such as re Origen, etc.)

I mean, the quoting of White, or Carson, or Kutilek et al and then expecting an answer, well, where will it end? Such a method can go on forever, and I don’t have forever – not in this life! Indeed, I can answer these gentlemen in writing, but again, I am finite and so is my time, and I desire to choose my battles. This thread particularly engaged me as the topic of my faithfulness to the Reformation and its doctrines was questioned, and this provoked me to go into some depth on the topic (aside from the Erasmus business, which I am pursuing privately). 

I am aware of the difference in Rev Winzer’s pithy and keenly insightful style of writing (which I highly value most of the time) and my own far more drawn out manner (to put it mildly). I suppose – and this includes my own quoting of others and giving links – the difference is that in this venue I am a teacher, and I use the material of others much as a classroom venue would warrant the assigning of textbooks and essays, for those of a mind to follow along. I write primarily to teach those of like (or enquiring) minds the nature of the textual issues and that a defense of the Traditional Text against current opposing views may be done well and convincingly (to some, at any rate).

If I were in a classroom setting and someone kept quoting from Dr. White’s book and expecting me to answer, I might do it a time or two, but after all, I have my own agenda of topics to explicate and don’t want to spend my time accommodating someone else’s agenda. Actually, at times it _has_ been my specific purpose to deal with an opponent – or an opposing view – to the TR or AV, to demonstrate its defense, while at other times my purpose varies.

I am preparing to do another thread on eschatology, and also getting a book together to publish (I have been prodded on to complete this through being ill recently – and reminded of my mortality!) which I have been working on for years – _decades_ – and want to get print ready. Perhaps I shall start with a Kindle version, and then go to other e-reading formats, and if a print publisher wants it, even better (as I like real books better than e-books). A working title is, _A Great and Terrible Love: A pilgrimage from Woodstock to Babylon (and Armageddon!_).

So time is short, and precious.


----------



## JimmyH (Sep 18, 2014)

And thank you for your gracious reply Steve. I had read the thread with your praise to God for healing you from the hep-C. In my younger days I spent too much time on the wild side, and have had too many friends and acquaintances, who succumbed to that disease. It is only by the grace of God that I missed the bullet so to speak. In the early days of the interferon I had friends who went into deep depression through the side effects. Some few survived the ordeal and came out the other side virus free, others were not so fortunate. I am happy for you that you are living to fight another day, and I look forward to your book.


----------

