# An Inadequate View of God's Providence Regarding Manuscripts of the NT



## greenbaggins (Aug 19, 2022)

There are several versions of an argument out there in support of the TR position which argue that God's providence preserved the original reading of the NT only in the Byzantine texts, which were the texts in use in the church, "received everywhere" (as the term "Textus Receptus" means). There may be different versions of this that are more nuanced, or nuanced in different ways than I have written here, but I wish to answer in several different points this inadequate view of God's providence. Some I have talked to argue that there were many more Byzantine text manuscripts in use in the time of the Reformers that have since been lost or used to the point of destruction. The Alexandrian readings in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are in manuscripts that were purportedly not in use because their readings were rejected. These issues will also be addressed.

First point of response: a manuscript like Sinaiticus was almost certainly in use in the Alexandrian church. This is indicated by the fact that it had no fewer than three correctors (some today estimate as many as seven). One does not correct a manuscript that is useless. In addition, one does not correct a manuscript that was not being used. That it was hidden for centuries proves absolutely nothing. TR advocates tend to speculate on the reason of its hiddenness as being the church rejecting its readings. This is certainly not known, and is actually quite unlikely. Far more likely is that when Muslims invaded, destroying Christian manuscripts as they went, that Christians hid the MOST valuable manuscripts, like Sinaiticus. We cannot know this for certain, either, but the rejection of Sinaiticus on the basis of its being hidden because its readings were rejected is not a cogent argument, and needs to be eliminated from the discussion entirely. 

The second point I wish to make in connection with the hiddenness of Sinaiticus (and Vaticanus in the Vatican, too, for that matter) is that the assumption on the part of TR advocates that manuscripts had to be not only used but visible all the while in the church is actually an unbiblical idea of God's providence. The entire book of Esther refutes it. The name of God is hidden in Esther. God is not once mentioned. Yet His providence was at work in ways invisible to most of the key players. Mordecai is the only person who had a hint of it when he asked whether Esther had not been raised up for such a time as this. Ahasuerus certainly didn't think of God's providence as giving him insomnia or directing the gaze of the readers in the chronicles to the exact place where Mordecai's saving of the king was recorded. The providence of God works in hidden things, not just visible things, and is itself often hidden. The plain fact of the matter is that God's providence _actually preserved_ Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bezae, and many, many other non-Byzantine texts. God's providence therefore extends to the preservation of all extant manuscripts, whether visible all the while or invisible for part of the time. This can be paralleled in the church itself. The true church is sometimes more visible, sometimes less visible. 

Thirdly, TR advocates engage in chronological snobbery with their arguments. The only period of the church that matters to TR advocates in terms of manuscripts is the time when the Byzantine church had the priority of manuscript production. Which manuscripts were around, however, before that time, between, say, the third century and the eighth century? TR advocates say that there were likely a lot more Byzantine manuscripts around during the time of the Reformation. Who is to say there weren't a lot more Alexandrian and Western texts around before that time? And since we cannot know how any of these lost manuscripts read in the variants, it is quite useless to speculate on such matters. We can only go on _all_ the evidence we have today. 

In regard, therefore, to the manuscripts we have today, I believe we must avoid two equal and opposite errors. The first error is to discount the Byzantine manuscripts. While Warfield had quite a different approach than his usual detractors today charge him with (he explicitly said, for example, that the original readings are in the apographs, something many deny him saying; he also spoke of "the providence of God in preserving for His Church in each and every age a competently exact text of the Scriptures," p. 12 of his introduction), it cannot be denied that he denigrated the Byzantine manuscripts too much. The equal and opposite error is that of the TR position in rejecting everything but the TR manuscripts. The position of Harry Sturz threads the needle between these errors and argues quite cogently for geographical distribution being a key external factor. If a reading is shown to have support from geographically diverse manuscripts, that means the reading is most likely older than any of the distinctive geographical types. In my opinion, this is one of the very strongest external criteria, as _it is a special recognition of God's providence_ in having the correct reading in _every_ geographical area of the church, not just the Byzantine region, or just the Alexandrian region. 

One last point that needs to be made is the error of the TR assumption that godly textual criticism essentially stopped when the TR was published. First of all, there is no one manuscript in the Byzantine tradition that corresponds precisely with the TR. They all have differences with the TR. The process of textual criticism was therefore part of what the Reformers did. Refinements can happen later on in textual criticism just as in theology as a whole. The text of Scripture has always been sufficiently pure for the people of God. TR advocates drive a truck through the phrase "kept pure in all ages" implying that if we are not 100% sure of every textual variant, then it is not pure at all. They also greatly exaggerate the differences between the TR and the CT. I would simply ask this: point me to the single manuscript that is the same as the autograph. The TR is an edition of the Greek New Testament. It is eclectic within the Byzantine manuscripts. It does not correspond to ANY single manuscript at every point. I simply plead for an edition eclectic to _all_ the evidence, based on Sturz's position, not WH or TR, and not ignoring most of the manuscripts, as the TR position does.

Reactions: Like 8 | Informative 1 | Edifying 1 | Amen 3


----------



## Jake (Aug 19, 2022)

From what I've read, most Textus Receptus (as it appears in Scrivener and KJV) advocates do not necessarily use this style of argument you're responding to, at least not all of the time. Otherwise how do you account for I John 5:7, with little to no evidence in the Byzantine text but well evidenced in late Latin manuscripts? Instead, the argument is often made for God's working through the TR at the time of the Reformation trumping the other concerns. I find those who are MT-priority use arguments that tend to use the one you are responding to, but not necessarily those who are specifically TR-priority.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 19, 2022)

Jake said:


> From what I've read, most Textus Receptus (as it appears in Scrivener and KJV) advocates do not necessarily use this style of argument you're responding to, at least not all of the time. Otherwise how do you account for I John 5:7, with little to no evidence in the Byzantine text but well evidenced in late Latin manuscripts? Instead, the argument is often made for God's working through the TR at the time of the Reformation trumping the other concerns. I find those who are MT-priority use arguments that tend to use the one you are responding to, but not necessarily those who are specifically TR-priority.


I have seen TR advocates use the kind of argument regarding providence that I outlined above. Their view of providence is usually central to the position. I wouldn't doubt that many MT guys would use the argument more frequently. In which case, I am content to have it stand against the MT position, for which I have greater respect, but still view it as inferior to Sturz's position.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Santiago DO (Aug 19, 2022)

I have a practical question:

¿How can we instruct our brothers about manuscripts and translation without tiring them out? (Especially new believers)


----------



## Claudiu (Aug 19, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> The TR is an edition of the Greek New Testament. It is eclectic within the Byzantine manuscripts. It does not correspond to ANY single manuscript at every point. I simply plead for an edition eclectic to _all_ the evidence, based on Sturz's position, not WH or TR, and not ignoring most of the manuscripts, as the TR position does.


This, I think, is the heart of the matter. I was convinced of the TR position for a while, and in many respects I'm still sympathetic to it. However, after my studies I've concluded that the TR is an eclectic text of its own.

[Confessional] TR advocates launch their attacks against the critical text or modern eclectic text from a paradigm of "preservation (TR) vs. those who deny preservation (anyone not TR)." If one buys into the paradigm formulated this way, the TR becomes the safe harbor. But this is a QIRC (quest for illegitimate religious certainty) as R. Scott Clark likes to claim. The reason the TR paradigm fails in my opinion is that contemporary Reformed, much to the chagrin of TR proponents, do start from a position of preservation. The difference is where that preservation lies: is it within only _a _family of texts or _all_? Once we move beyond the false dichotomy of "preservation (TR) vs. those who deny preservation (anyone not TR)," and instead accept that todays Reformed do start from a position of preservation (but don't believe it's only in the TR), the discussion can move forward.

An interesting shift that I think has also contributed to the revival of the TR position among even the Reformed is the general political and sociological climate we find ourselves in. People are distrustful of the government, culture, and many of our institutions in general. There has been a plethora of bible translations in the last few decades. We are waging battles over language, trans confusion, pronouns, etc. In the midst of this climate, I've seen defenders of the ESV and modern textual criticism move over to the KJV/TR position as the safe harbor. Because the KJV/TR is frozen in time, so to speak, there is no danger of committees and modern folk tampering with it. I suspect this appears to be the QIRC element at play and I see it gaining ground.

Reactions: Like 9 | Informative 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 19, 2022)

Claudiu, I think you are right on the money on this analysis, all of which resonates very strongly with me, especially the QIRC, which I have thought about many times in relation to the TR question. Very insightful regarding the "frozen in time" stuff, too. 

Santiago, I am well past the weary stage myself. However, the information needs to get out there, and people reading their ESV's need to know that they are reading God's Word, not something with a perpetual asterisk next to it, or Satan's Bible (as any translation based on what Myers calls "Satan's Bible" would be Satanic, in turn).

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 19, 2022)

Santiago DO said:


> I have a practical question:
> 
> ¿How can we instruct our brothers about manuscripts and translation without tiring them out? (Especially new believers)


With regard to the PB, this problem could easily be raised with every single topic in theology! With new believers, my advice is always to fry the bigger fish first. This discussion is highly technical, requiring years of study and careful thought even to enter the arena. I don't generally recommend new believers take on this topic as a field for study before they have other aspects of bibliology, theology proper, christology, harmatiology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology in some kind of stable shape first.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 19, 2022)

I think if God had wanted us to have 100% certainty on the text of the NT, He would have preserved the autographs themselves, not just the readings of the autographs through the apographs. This is because He wants us to live by faith and not by sight. _All_ editions of the Greek NT are eclectic in that they pull readings from multiple manuscripts and are not identical with any one manuscript. The difference is whether one believes it is a very small sample size (TR), the majority size (MT), geographical-distribution-primary (Sturz), or genealogically based (NA). It is my opinion that all four positions can be within the bounds of orthodoxy, if God's providence in preserving the manuscripts is the starting point.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 1 | Edifying 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 19, 2022)

Lane, I think there is a good solution to this problem. When reading the sermons by Vos (Banner of Truth ed) I noticed he quoted the KJV (from memory this is the only translation he quoted). Therefore if the KJV and RT was good enough for Vos, does this not mean the debate is now over?

Reactions: Like 3 | Funny 6


----------



## Charles Johnson (Aug 19, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> It does not correspond to ANY single manuscript at every point. I simply plead for an edition eclectic to _all_ the evidence, based on Sturz's position, not WH or TR, and not ignoring most of the manuscripts, as the TR position does.


T.R. or Majority text advocate here, I would also be final with a bible based on _all_ the (Greek) manuscripts. However, there are many thousands of Byzantine manuscripts, and about two complete "Alexandrian" ones, so the sum of all the manuscripts is going to have a Byzantine reading in every passage, unless for some reason we have determined that those two are each one thousand times more weighty, simply on account of their age. My personal sentiment is that the Alexandrian manuscripts are not very good, and if we are going to weight manuscripts, they should probably be given less weight, but again, whether they are given equal weight or less weight, the results will be similar. The only thing that changes the results is the textual-critical apparatus that gives extraordinary weight to the Alexandrian side.


greenbaggins said:


> First point of response: a manuscript like Sinaiticus was almost certainly in use in the Alexandrian church. This is indicated by the fact that it had no fewer than three correctors (some today estimate as many as seven). One does not correct a manuscript that is useless. In addition, one does not correct a manuscript that was not being used. That it was hidden for centuries proves absolutely nothing. TR advocates tend to speculate on the reason of its hiddenness as being the church rejecting its readings. This is certainly not known, and is actually quite unlikely. Far more likely is that when Muslims invaded, destroying Christian manuscripts as they went, that Christians hid the MOST valuable manuscripts, like Sinaiticus. We cannot know this for certain, either, but the rejection of Sinaiticus on the basis of its being hidden because its readings were rejected is not a cogent argument, and needs to be eliminated from the discussion entirely.


Perhaps it was in use in the Alexandrian Church, but that raises the question, "Where are its daughter manuscripts?" Why were these readings unknown until these manuscripts were discovered? Generally, for manuscripts that were in continuous use, tens or hundreds of manuscripts have been copied from them or from their copies.
As for the argument that it being hidden indicates it is of greater worth, the Gnostic gospels were also found hidden in Egypt, so I hardly find that persuasive. That's not an attempt to poison the well, mind you, just a counter-example.


greenbaggins said:


> The second point I wish to make in connection with the hiddenness of Sinaiticus (and Vaticanus in the Vatican, too, for that matter) is that the assumption on the part of TR advocates that manuscripts had to be not only used but visible all the while in the church is actually an unbiblical idea of God's providence. The entire book of Esther refutes it. The name of God is hidden in Esther. God is not once mentioned. Yet His providence was at work in ways invisible to most of the key players. Mordecai is the only person who had a hint of it when he asked whether Esther had not been raised up for such a time as this. Ahasuerus certainly didn't think of God's providence as giving him insomnia or directing the gaze of the readers in the chronicles to the exact place where Mordecai's saving of the king was recorded. The providence of God works in hidden things, not just visible things, and is itself often hidden. The plain fact of the matter is that God's providence _actually preserved_ Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bezae, and many, many other non-Byzantine texts. God's providence therefore extends to the preservation of all extant manuscripts, whether visible all the while or invisible for part of the time. This can be paralleled in the church itself. The true church is sometimes more visible, sometimes less visible.


I think you are missing the point of the TR advocates here, which is that the church is God's ordained means for preserving the word. In the temple, which signified the Church, the books of the law were laid up, and the tablets of the ten commandments were kept in the arc of the covenant. Outside the church, there were copies of the Scriptures too, like those of the Samaritans, but they were corrupt, and taught the people to worship, not in Jerusalem, but at Mt Gerizim. In the N.T., the Apostles commit the books of Scripture to the Church. Every epistle of Paul is addressed to the Church, and they are commanded to circulate the Scripture (Col. 4:16). The church, after all, is the "pillar and bulwark of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). Those things believers were to receive were called "traditions" because they were passed down in the church (1 Thes. 2:15). In an era where every sect and heresy had their own corrupted Scriptures, and no one had their own bible because their was no printing press, certifying the authenticity of Scripture in this way was a big deal. 


greenbaggins said:


> Thirdly, TR advocates engage in chronological snobbery with their arguments. The only period of the church that matters to TR advocates in terms of manuscripts is the time when the Byzantine church had the priority of manuscript production. Which manuscripts were around, however, before that time, between, say, the third century and the eighth century? TR advocates say that there were likely a lot more Byzantine manuscripts around during the time of the Reformation. Who is to say there weren't a lot more Alexandrian and Western texts around before that time? And since we cannot know how any of these lost manuscripts read in the variants, it is quite useless to speculate on such matters. We can only go on _all_ the evidence we have today.


I'm sure you're aware, Lane, that the oldest Byzantine manuscript is from the 5th century, so this rings a bit hollow. Regarding whether all, or many, of the manuscripts of the middle ages were actually Alexandrian, you are engaging in unfounded speculation. On could just as easily incline to the other extreme. "Who is to say that while there are 5000 Byzantine manuscripts now, there weren't 500,000 in the middle ages which have been lost, but just two Alexandrian manuscripts?" But that's not a very weighty argument.


greenbaggins said:


> In regard, therefore, to the manuscripts we have today, I believe we must avoid two equal and opposite errors. The first error is to discount the Byzantine manuscripts. While Warfield had quite a different approach than his usual detractors today charge him with (he explicitly said, for example, that the original readings are in the apographs, something many deny him saying; he also spoke of "the providence of God in preserving for His Church in each and every age a competently exact text of the Scriptures," p. 12 of his introduction), it cannot be denied that he denigrated the Byzantine manuscripts too much. The equal and opposite error is that of the TR position in rejecting everything but the TR manuscripts. The position of Harry Sturz threads the needle between these errors and argues quite cogently for geographical distribution being a key external factor. If a reading is shown to have support from geographically diverse manuscripts, that means the reading is most likely older than any of the distinctive geographical types. In my opinion, this is one of the very strongest external criteria, as _it is a special recognition of God's providence_ in having the correct reading in _every_ geographical area of the church, not just the Byzantine region, or just the Alexandrian region.



Geography is fine, I suppose, as long as we're not claiming that two manuscripts from Egypt are of equal or greater weight than 5000 from elsewhere, by that simple fact. I might add that there it is a very real possibility the oldest Byzantine-type manuscript came from Egypt, so the idea that God preserving his word in all places lends weight to the Alexandrian manuscripts is not necessarily sound.
In conclusion: as I said at the beginning, I think your proposal to take all manuscripts into account is fine. I do not think, however, that such is truly what is being done in the production of critical texts in our day.

Reactions: Like 9 | Love 1 | Edifying 2 | Amen 1


----------



## iainduguid (Aug 19, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Lane, I think there is a good solution to this problem. When reading the sermons by Vos (Banner of Truth ed) I noticed he quoted the KJV (from memory this is the only translation he quoted). Therefore if the KJV and RT was good enough for Vos, does this not mean the debate is now over?


Hi Stephen,
Unfortunately, I think your memory is defective. In the first paragraph of "The wonderful tree" he quotes Isaiah 5:7: “The vineyard of Jehovah of Hosts is the house of Israel." which is distinctively from the ASV. Later in the same sermon, he quotes Hosea 6: "Come and let us return unto Jehovah; for He hath torn, and He will heal us; He hath smitten and He will bind us up." Again, the use of the divine name is a very distinctive mark of the ASV. 

In his sermon on heavenly mindedness, he quotes Isaiah 28:16: "“Behold I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a precious cornerstone of sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.” Again this is clearly from the ASV, especially "a precious cornerstone of sure foundation"

Since the ASV was not based solely on the TR, and Vos could hardly have been ignorant of the debates over the manuscripts, I think we can chalk Vos as being sympathetic to a more eclectic approach. Not that that is likely to change anyone's mind.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 19, 2022)

iainduguid said:


> Hi Stephen,
> Unfortunately, I think your memory is defective. In the first paragraph of "The wonderful tree" he quotes Isaiah 5:7: “The vineyard of Jehovah of Hosts is the house of Israel." which is distinctively from the ASV. Later in the same sermon, he quotes Hosea 6: "Come and let us return unto Jehovah; for He hath torn, and He will heal us; He hath smitten and He will bind us up." Again, the use of the divine name is a very distinctive mark of the ASV.
> 
> In his sermon on heavenly mindedness, he quotes Isaiah 28:16: "“Behold I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a precious cornerstone of sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.” Again this is clearly from the ASV, especially "a precious cornerstone of sure foundation"
> ...


Hello Iain, 

I did a quick check of your quotes and I am sure you are correct. However, I checked the verses at the heading of each sermon and ALL the ones I checked were from the KJV. But as you will be aware my comments above were 'tongue in cheek' and not serious.

I would say that as Vos was a serious scholar at the turn of the 20th century, it would make sense that he would sometimes quote the ASV.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## iainduguid (Aug 19, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Hello Iain,
> 
> I did a quick check of your quotes and I am sure you are correct. However, I checked the verses at the heading of each sermon and ALL the ones I checked were from the KJV. But as you will be aware my comments above were 'tongue in cheek' and not serious.
> 
> I would say that as Vos was a serious scholar at the turn of the 20th century, it would make sense that he would sometimes quote the ASV.


It's quite possible that the headers to each sermon were added by the editor at BoT, rather than being included by Vos himself. I don't print my text at the top of my sermon notes; I think the in-text quotations are more likely to be from the text Vos was using. But that's a text critical decision of its own. I have a feeling that he's consistently quoting from the ASV, not using it to compare with the KJV; in most cases it's pretty close to the KJV. I remember that it struck me when I was reading the sermons, especially those citations that use the divine name Jehovah (which is quite distinctively not KJV). It was also his own preference in the sermons to call "the Lord" "Jehovah"; it would be interesting to know whether that was influenced by his use of the ASV, or if he was drawn to the ASV by its choice of Jehovah. I suspect maybe the latter. As I recall, the ASV came out in 1901, so in mid-career for Vos. Prior to this he must have used the KJV and consciously switched. It would be interesting to know what the other Princeton professors preached from, but that is really a separate thread topic.

(Edit: Warfield used the ASV also for his sermon "The Christian Attitude Toward Death")


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 19, 2022)

iainduguid said:


> As I recall, the ASV came out in 1901, so in mid-career for Vos. Prior to this he must have used the KJV and consciously switched.


This might help. As you know the Banner produced the original 1922 edition of the sermons and added 10 others. These 10 were preached between 1896 and 1913. 7 of these were preached between 1902 and 1905. He may have switched sometime during the period of these 7 sermons.


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 20, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> T.R. or Majority text advocate here, I would also be final with a bible based on _all_ the (Greek) manuscripts. However, there are many thousands of Byzantine manuscripts, and about two complete "Alexandrian" ones, so the sum of all the manuscripts is going to have a Byzantine reading in every passage, unless for some reason we have determined that those two are each one thousand times more weighty, simply on account of their age. My personal sentiment is that the Alexandrian manuscripts are not very good, and if we are going to weight manuscripts, they should probably be given less weight, but again, whether they are given equal weight or less weight, the results will be similar. The only thing that changes the results is the textual-critical apparatus that gives extraordinary weight to the Alexandrian side.


There are LOTS more Alexandrian texts than just Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Many of the papyri (some of them are not just fragments) are Alexandrian. of the codices and uncials, Codex Ephraim is an amalgamation of readings, often including the Alexandrian. Porphyrianus has Alexandrian readings in the majority of its books. Borgianus is very similar to Vaticanus. Dublinensis echoes Sinaiticus in most places. Zacynthius is Alexandrian. Of the minuscules, the following are Alexandrian: 81, 579, 892, 1739, 2053, 2344. This helps to answer your question in the next paragraph also. Most of these are (most likely) daughter manuscripts of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. 



Charles Johnson said:


> Perhaps it was in use in the Alexandrian Church, but that raises the question, "Where are its daughter manuscripts?" Why were these readings unknown until these manuscripts were discovered? Generally, for manuscripts that were in continuous use, tens or hundreds of manuscripts have been copied from them or from their copies.
> As for the argument that it being hidden indicates it is of greater worth, the Gnostic gospels were also found hidden in Egypt, so I hardly find that persuasive. That's not an attempt to poison the well, mind you, just a counter-example.



This was already answered by the Muslim invasion theory. I did not argue that because they were hidden, they were of greater value. I argued that such a possibility negates the typical "hidden, therefore worthless" argument I see in TR advocates all the time. It was actually my argument that was a counter-example. 


Charles Johnson said:


> I think you are missing the point of the TR advocates here, which is that the church is God's ordained means for preserving the word. In the temple, which signified the Church, the books of the law were laid up, and the tablets of the ten commandments were kept in the arc of the covenant. Outside the church, there were copies of the Scriptures too, like those of the Samaritans, but they were corrupt, and taught the people to worship, not in Jerusalem, but at Mt Gerizim. In the N.T., the Apostles commit the books of Scripture to the Church. Every epistle of Paul is addressed to the Church, and they are commanded to circulate the Scripture (Col. 4:16). The church, after all, is the "pillar and bulwark of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). Those things believers were to receive were called "traditions" because they were passed down in the church (1 Thes. 2:15). In an era where every sect and heresy had their own corrupted Scriptures, and no one had their own bible because their was no printing press, certifying the authenticity of Scripture in this way was a big deal.


Given my positions on how the Alexandrian text was preserved, I see no need whatsoever to deviate from the position that the church is God's ordained means for preserving the word. Where I strongly disagree is in the TR's claim that the TR position is the only position that believes such. 



Charles Johnson said:


> I'm sure you're aware, Lane, that the oldest Byzantine manuscript is from the 5th century, so this rings a bit hollow. Regarding whether all, or many, of the manuscripts of the middle ages were actually Alexandrian, you are engaging in unfounded speculation. On could just as easily incline to the other extreme. "Who is to say that while there are 5000 Byzantine manuscripts now, there weren't 500,000 in the middle ages which have been lost, but just two Alexandrian manuscripts?" But that's not a very weighty argument.


The vast majority of Byzantine manuscripts are later than the 8th century. My "unfounded speculation" was countering the equally "unfounded speculation" of all the lost Byzantine manuscripts., and was not trying to claim anything more than that. I am not claiming that there are thousands of either. My argument was a _reductio ad absurdam_ counter-factual claim. You therefore misread the intent of the argument. 



Charles Johnson said:


> Geography is fine, I suppose, as long as we're not claiming that two manuscripts from Egypt are of equal or greater weight than 5000 from elsewhere, by that simple fact. I might add that there it is a very real possibility the oldest Byzantine-type manuscript came from Egypt, so the idea that God preserving his word in all places lends weight to the Alexandrian manuscripts is not necessarily sound.
> In conclusion: as I said at the beginning, I think your proposal to take all manuscripts into account is fine. I do not think, however, that such is truly what is being done in the production of critical texts in our day.



I believe that the majority of readings that are distinctively Byzantine did not originate in Egypt. Probably most of the very earliest manuscripts were copied in Egypt, as it was a major center of such learning, not to mention the source of papyrus, which was the material for the earliest manuscripts. That does not even have a bearing on my argument at all. By the time the manuscripts we have surviving were around, the distinctiveness of the regions was already at play. Therefore, geographical distribution is more important than quantity. If 5000 manuscripts from Byzantium (and, by the way, there are certainly not 5,000 complete Byzantine manuscripts of the NT!) all agreed on a distinctive reading that was not found in any manuscript outside of Byzantium, then the chance that such a reading originated in Byzantium and not in the autographs is fairly high. It wouldn't be the only factor at work. But a reading that comes from all the regions is far more likely to be the oldest reading. Therefore, the various geographical regions should have equal weight, in my opinion.


----------



## Charles Johnson (Aug 20, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> There are LOTS more Alexandrian texts than just Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Many of the papyri (some of them are not just fragments) are Alexandrian. of the codices and uncials, Codex Ephraim is an amalgamation of readings, often including the Alexandrian. Porphyrianus has Alexandrian readings in the majority of its books. Borgianus is very similar to Vaticanus. Dublinensis echoes Sinaiticus in most places. Zacynthius is Alexandrian. Of the minuscules, the following are Alexandrian: 81, 579, 892, 1739, 2053, 2344. This helps to answer your question in the next paragraph also. Most of these are (most likely) daughter manuscripts of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Byzantine type is not limited to "Byzantium" in any sense though. The ancient manuscripts from Mt Athos, those scattered across Europe east and west, even those in Ethiopia and Syria [the ancient Peshitta and Ethiopic NT both conform more to the "Byzantine" type], are all from this type.
It is almost a misnomer to say there is a Byzantine family and an Alexandrian family, because the reality is that the vast majority of extant manuscripts in the world, not just "Byzantium", are what is called Byzantine, and there are a relatively small number of manuscipts that neither agree particularly with the Byzantine ones nor with each other, which have been called "Alexandrian". If the Vaticanus and Sinaticus agree so little with each other, why should they be taken as representing Egypt geographically, instead of simply being understood as idiosyncratic?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 20, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> The Byzantine type is not limited to "Byzantium" in any sense though. The ancient manuscripts from Mt Athos, those scattered across Europe east and west, even those in Ethiopia and Syria [the ancient Peshitta and Ethiopic NT both conform more to the "Byzantine" type], are all from this type.
> It is almost a misnomer to say there is a Byzantine family and an Alexandrian family, because the reality is that the vast majority of extant manuscripts in the world, not just "Byzantium", are what is called Byzantine, and there are a relatively small number of manuscipts that neither agree particularly with the Byzantine ones nor with each other, which have been called "Alexandrian". If the Vaticanus and Sinaticus agree so little with each other, why should they be taken as representing Egypt geographically, instead of simply being understood as idiosyncratic?


I am a bit puzzled as to how your post is an answer to mine. You claimed there were only two complete representatives of the Alexandrian text-type. Then you quote the number of 5,000 Byzantine manuscripts, as if all of those were complete. There are very few pandects in existence. How is it an answer to my argument about the simple respective number of manuscripts to claim that Byzantine text-type is not limited to Byzantium? 

I see you agree with the highly misleading "Vaticanus and Sinaiticus agree so little with each other" fallacy. All manuscripts differ from each other in thousands of ways. That does not mean that _any_ of the differences are automatically significant. One of my biggest pet peeves about the whole discussion is this particular point. Bart Ehrman can claim that there are 400,000 differences among NT manuscripts. Depending on how one is counting, it could actually be much higher than that. I have seen estimates as high as two or three million differences. But what is the nature of those differences? If 99% of them don't amount to a hill of beans (and 99% of the remaining 1% are easily solvable), the statistic is highly misleading. As I mentioned before, one of the manuscripts Erasmus used for his edition of the Greek NT differed far more from the TR than Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ from each other. But that is not even necessarily significant _at all_. I read my apparatus rather carefully when preaching in NT books. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus rarely differ from each other in _meaningful_ ways. 

This leads me to one of my biggest criticisms of the TR position: the exaggeration of statistics, and the ambiguity of terms. For example, everyone lands on Metzger like a ton of bricks for using the term "corruption" regarding the New Testament. All the connotations of intentionality factor in here. In textual criticism, the word "corruption" means a difference from the autograph in a manuscript. That is ALL it means. It does NOT automatically imply intention, let alone malevolence. If the autograph read "Iesou Christou" and the copy reads "Christou Iesou" (usually abbreviated in the manuscripts, but the point is the same), that is a corruption, according to NT textual criticism. But would anyone in their right mind think that such a corruption was significant? TR advocates quote large statistics, especially about how often Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ from each other. Without contextual understanding of the meaning of such statistics, it is misleading.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Robert Truelove (Aug 20, 2022)

Here are a few quick responses from a TR advocate against the points in the OP.

Point 1: The question of the use of Siniaticus.

The argument isn't so much that this manuscript never received any use, but that it was not selected for copying over the centuries to any meaningful degree. The extant manuscripts on the whole would seem to bear this out.

The reality is, as the Greek New Testament was copied over the centuries, those manuscripts often labeled as "Alexandrian" were rejected.

Finally, I find it dubious to label as secondary the manuscripts copied over the centuries in those regions where Greek was the primary language in preference for manuscripts copied in regions where Coptic was the actual text used in the churches.

For a solid, critical treatment on this point, see Dr. Robinson's, "Case for Byzantine Priority."

Point 2: Hidden Things

I simply do not see the situation in Esther as analogous to to subject of the preservation of the Scriptures. While hidden things are indeed part of the providence of God, the idea that God would hide away the true readings of the Scriptures while Christians virtually everywhere labor for centuries under the delusion that complete narratives like the Last 12 Verses of Mark and the Woman Caught in Adultery in John's gospel belong in the canon just doesn't line up with the Scripture's teaching about Scripture.

Point 3: Byzantine Snobbery

It's just a fact that the preservation of the Greek New Testament through the manuscript era happened in the region where Greek was the local language. This is not snobbery, but a historical reality. There are many very good reasons to think that the form of the text passed down through time in the regions speaking Greek would be the purest.

Again, on this front, Dr. Robinson's, "Case for Byzantine Priority" is very helpful.
P.S. It must also be noted that the current position of textual criticism is that there really are no "Alexandrian", "Western" or "Caeserean" textual families, but that all manuscripts previously labeled as such are mixed texts and can no longer be ascribed to "families." The Byzantine alone is now referred to as a "textual family." This comes from the new developments in the Coherence Based Genealogical Method.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 20, 2022)

Here is ultimately where I net out on this question. See, I am on record in a published article for saying that the KJV and NKJV are two of five translations that I would recommend for churches to use (the others being ESV, CSB, and NASB). I have no quibble with anyone who wants to say the TR is the most accurate Greek edition. I might disagree, but I don't feel the need to try to force them out of that conviction. What I will fight tooth and nail against is the sectarian view of some who will say that the ESV, CSB, NASB are based on Satan's Bible. As someone recently told me, if they are based on Satan's Bible, then Satan didn't do a particularly good job of erasing the most important bits from the Bible. All Christian doctrine is still fully intact in the ESV, CSB, and NASB. 



Robert Truelove said:


> Here are a few quick responses from a TR advocate against the points in the OP.
> 
> Point 1: The question of the use of Siniaticus.
> 
> The argument isn't so much that this manuscript never received any use, but that it was not selected for copying over the centuries to any meaningful degree. The extant manuscripts on the whole would seem to bear this out.


This is pure speculation. You don't know that the Alexandrian manuscripts were not selected for copying. You simply cannot know that. 


Robert Truelove said:


> The reality is, as the Greek New Testament was copied over the centuries, those manuscripts often labeled as "Alexandrian" were rejected.


This is precisely the kind of unfounded speculation I was trying to argue against with the Muslim invasion facts. You have zero basis for saying that the Alexandrian manuscripts were "rejected." 


Robert Truelove said:


> Finally, I find it dubious to label as secondary the manuscripts copied over the centuries in those regions where Greek was the primary language in preference for manuscripts copied in regions where Coptic was the actual text used in the churches.


Alexandrian scholars (who were most likely the best scholars in the world before Muslim invasions) knew Greek just as well as anyone else in the Mediterranean world. This argument is specious. 


Robert Truelove said:


> For a solid, critical treatment on this point, see Dr. Robinson's, "Case for Byzantine Priority."
> 
> Point 2: Hidden Things
> 
> I simply do not see the situation in Esther as analogous to to subject of the preservation of the Scriptures. While hidden things are indeed part of the providence of God, the idea that God would hide away the true readings of the Scriptures while Christians virtually everywhere labor for centuries under the delusion that complete narratives like the Last 12 Verses of Mark and the Woman Caught in Adultery in John's gospel belong in the canon just doesn't line up with the Scripture's teaching about Scripture.


This is a rather extreme distortion of what I said. I never would say that God would hide away "the true readings of the Scriptures." And, for the record, I believe the last 12 verses of Mark are genuine, and I am open to the genuineness of the _pericope de adulterae_ being genuine. The reason for God hiding away some manuscripts (not "the true readings") is not necessarily known. Maybe when the advent of the digitilization of information was coming, and all readings could be preserved, God had us discover these manuscripts and others. This is not an overhaul, in my opinion, but a small course correction in only a few places. Just because you exaggerate the differences doesn't mean I do. 


Robert Truelove said:


> Point 3: Byzantine Snobbery
> 
> It's just a fact that the preservation of the Greek New Testament through the manuscript era happened in the region where Greek was the local language. This is not snobbery, but a historical reality. There are many very good reasons to think that the form of the text passed down through time in the regions speaking Greek would be the purest.


Everyone spoke Greek in the early centuries of the church. Since Greek was not the first language of most of the NT authors either, this argument is specious as well. Hardly an obstacle for the preservation of the Greek NT. And it is hardly an answer for my argument about the centuries before Byzantine predominance. 


Robert Truelove said:


> Again, on this front, Dr. Robinson's, "Case for Byzantine Priority" is very helpful.
> P.S. It must also be noted that the current position of textual criticism is that there really are no "Alexandrian", "Western" or "Caeserean" textual families, but that all manuscripts previously labeled as such are mixed texts and can no longer be ascribed to "families." The Byzantine alone is now referred to as a "textual family." This comes from the new developments in the Coherence Based Genealogical Method.



I have my own doubts about the legitimacy of the genealogical method. However, in the broader sense, (not the narrow families of the genealogical method), there are characteristics of manuscripts that are regional. This is why the study of the provenance of manuscripts is still essential work for textual criticism.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Robert Truelove (Aug 20, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Here is ultimately where I net out on this question. See, I am on record in a published article for saying that the KJV and NKJV are two of five translations that I would recommend for churches to use (the others being ESV, CSB, and NASB). I have no quibble with anyone who wants to say the TR is the most accurate Greek edition. I might disagree, but I don't feel the need to try to force them out of that conviction. What I will fight tooth and nail against is the sectarian view of some who will say that the ESV, CSB, NASB are based on Satan's Bible. As someone recently told me, if they are based on Satan's Bible, then Satan didn't do a particularly good job of erasing the most important bits from the Bible. All Christian doctrine is still fully intact in the ESV, CSB, and NASB.


I agree with you 100% here. While I have differing gripes with this or that translation, I benefit from virtually ALL of the commonly used modern translations and would encourage Christians to avail themselves of them as well...even while I advocate the continued use of the KJV.



greenbaggins said:


> This is pure speculation. You don't know that the Alexandrian manuscripts were not selected for copying. You simply cannot know that.
> 
> This is precisely the kind of unfounded speculation I was trying to argue against with the Muslim invasion facts. You have zero basis for saying that the Alexandrian manuscripts were "rejected."


I say they were rejected based upon the present extant witnesses. I of course am not saying they were not copied at all...certainly they were! But over time they were passed over by those who continued to copy manuscripts through the manuscript era.

I can agree though that there is some speculation in this. This is actually one of my problems with the purely empirical approach to textual criticism. It is rife with speculation. So much so that I don't think "we can get there" through that methodology.



greenbaggins said:


> Alexandrian scholars (who were most likely the best scholars in the world before Muslim invasions) knew Greek just as well as anyone else in the Mediterranean world. This argument is specious.



There is a HUGE misunderstanding today about how fluent not native Greek speakers were in the Roman Empire because Greek was the Lingua Franka (bridge language). The reality was that it was known well enough to get by for trade and commerce but not nearly so well known as to replace local dialects. For this reason we see translations from almost the beginning (Syriac, Latin, Coptic, etc.). 

I find that we err in either overstating or understating Greek fluency in the Roman Empire. Those who knew it best, were those who spoke it as their native tongue...just like today. It's not specious at all to point out that fact.



greenbaggins said:


> This is a rather extreme distortion of what I said. I never would say that God would hide away "the true readings of the Scriptures." And, for the record, I believe the last 12 verses of Mark are genuine, and I am open to the genuineness of the _pericope de adulterae_ being genuine. The reason for God hiding away some manuscripts (not "the true readings") is not necessarily known. Maybe when the advent of the digitilization of information was coming, and all readings could be preserved, God had us discover these manuscripts and others. This is not an overhaul, in my opinion, but a small course correction in only a few places. Just because you exaggerate the differences doesn't mean I do.



Your last sentence is an unfounded accusation. Reading other's comments into my own isn't helpful.



greenbaggins said:


> Everyone spoke Greek in the early centuries of the church. Since Greek was not the first language of most of the NT authors either, this argument is specious as well. Hardly an obstacle for the preservation of the Greek NT. And it is hardly an answer for my argument about the centuries before Byzantine predominance.


Already addressed above. Also...I think you are again reading into my comments the assumption that I think the worst of the "alexandrian" manuscripts. Far from it. I think they are tremendous blessings because, even with their issues, they do demonstrate that as far back as at least the 2nd century, there was no general corruption of the Greek New Testament. Even with the issues, each book of the New Testament witnessed to, is STILL that book. We don't look at Mark's gospel in Siniaticus for instance and think, "wow!, this looks nothing like the Gospel of Mark we know!"

No, for me, I don't see "Satan's Bibles" in any of this. The question is how we are to discern the purest form of the text, and I see that as a canonical matter.



greenbaggins said:


> I have my own doubts about the legitimacy of the genealogical method. However, in the broader sense, (not the narrow families of the genealogical method), there are characteristics of manuscripts that are regional. This is why the study of the provenance of manuscripts is still essential work for textual criticism.



I think provenance is a mixed bag because we do not have the provenance for the vast majority of ancient manuscripts. It is specuation.

BTW...have you ever read Maurice Robinson on this subject? http://jbtc.org/v06/Robinson2001.html

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## semperveritas (Aug 20, 2022)

Claudiu said:


> This, I think, is the heart of the matter. I was convinced of the TR position for a while, and in many respects I'm still sympathetic to it. However, after my studies I've concluded that the TR is an eclectic text of its own.
> 
> [Confessional] TR advocates launch their attacks against the critical text or modern eclectic text from a paradigm of "preservation (TR) vs. those who deny preservation (anyone not TR)." If one buys into the paradigm formulated this way, the TR becomes the safe harbor. But this is a QIRC (quest for illegitimate religious certainty) as R. Scott Clark likes to claim. The reason the TR paradigm fails in my opinion is that contemporary Reformed, much to the chagrin of TR proponents, do start from a position of preservation. The difference is where that preservation lies: is it within only _a _family of texts or _all_? Once we move beyond the false dichotomy of "preservation (TR) vs. those who deny preservation (anyone not TR)," and instead accept that todays Reformed do start from a position of preservation (but don't believe it's only in the TR), the discussion can move forward.
> 
> An interesting shift that I think has also contributed to the revival of the TR position among even the Reformed is the general political and sociological climate we find ourselves in. People are distrustful of the government, culture, and many of our institutions in general. There has been a plethora of bible translations in the last few decades. We are waging battles over language, trans confusion, pronouns, etc. In the midst of this climate, I've seen defenders of the ESV and modern textual criticism move over to the KJV/TR position as the safe harbor. Because the KJV/TR is frozen in time, so to speak, there is no danger of committees and modern folk tampering with it. I suspect this appears to be the QIRC element at play and I see it gaining ground.


What is amazing to me, and I agree the TR is and eclectic from the Byzantine mss tradition, is how close the modern critical eclectic is to the TR eclectic. The differences are negligible enough to overthrow any notions of conspiracy. The hand of Providence no doubt is still preserving His word even in the modern translations by translators less committed to inneracy and infallibility.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 20, 2022)

Robert Truelove said:


> I agree with you 100% here. While I have differing gripes with this or that translation, I benefit from virtually ALL of the commonly used modern translations and would encourage Christians to avail themselves of them as well...even while I advocate the continued use of the KJV.


Fantastic. I don't have any ultimate gripe with your position as articulated, even though we undoubtedly differ on particulars. I wish you could persuade some others on this board to jettison their attacks on the ESV, CSB, and NASB, and resolve to think about it as you do. 


Robert Truelove said:


> I say they were rejected based upon the present extant witnesses. I of course am not saying they were not copied at all...certainly they were! But over time they were passed over by those who continued to copy manuscripts through the manuscript era.


I still think this is a problematic way of putting things. You have no evidence other than the number of Byzantine manuscripts for this assertion. That is a rather flimsy basis to say they were rejected or passed over. Let me be clear about the alternative explanation of why there are fewer Alexandrian manuscripts. Muslims invaded Egypt and laid siege to Alexandria in 641. They were killing Christians everywhere they went. That would also mean that they would seize and burn Christian manuscripts, including manuscripts of the NT. They would certainly not allow Alexandrian Christians to copy the New Testament after the Muslims had possession of Alexandria. Living under Sharia law has always been like this. Christians are not allowed to evangelize; distribute, or copy Christian literature; or even look at a Muslim in the street. Don't you think this is a far better explanation of why there are fewer Alexandrian manuscripts than Byzantine? At the very least, the very provable facts of the Muslim invasion are far less speculative than "rejection" or "passing over" as an explanation for why there are fewer Alexandrian manuscripts. Unless you can come up with actual contemporary to the time statements to the effect of "Alexandrian manuscripts are inferior, and therefore we aren't copying them," you have no basis at all for saying they were rejected or passed over.



Robert Truelove said:


> I can agree though that there is some speculation in this. This is actually one of my problems with the purely empirical approach to textual criticism. It is rife with speculation. So much so that I don't think "we can get there" through that methodology.


I wouldn't say that there is nearly much methodological difference between the believing CT/Sturzian/MT/TR/ approaches as this statement seems to imply. I would say that certain "canons" of textual criticism are too often taken to an extreme. It is my opinion that most "canons" of textual criticism need to be tamed. 


Robert Truelove said:


> There is a HUGE misunderstanding today about how fluent not native Greek speakers were in the Roman Empire because Greek was the Lingua Franka (bridge language). The reality was that it was known well enough to get by for trade and commerce but not nearly so well known as to replace local dialects. For this reason we see translations from almost the beginning (Syriac, Latin, Coptic, etc.).


And you have conclusive proof that no native Greek speakers ever wound up as scribes copying manuscripts in Alexandria, do you? People could get around the Mediterranean, you know. Paul made four missionary trips around the Mediterranean. Your argument is specious because it is based on the assumption that the copyists in Alexandria were less fluent in Greek than native Greek speakers. You can't possibly know that. Therefore that is no objection to the Alexandrian manuscripts. 


Robert Truelove said:


> I find that we err in either overstating or understating Greek fluency in the Roman Empire. Those who knew it best, were those who spoke it as their native tongue...just like today. It's not specious at all to point out that fact.


No, but it is specious to introduce it into the text-critical debate as if you could discern on the manuscript evidence alone who had Greek fluency and who didn't. 


Robert Truelove said:


> Your last sentence is an unfounded accusation. Reading other's comments into my own isn't helpful.


I have found all TR advocates have this in common: they exaggerate the differences between the TR and the CT. You don't exaggerate as much as most others. I am certainly willing to give you that. But I still think you do some. 


Robert Truelove said:


> Already addressed above. Also...I think you are again reading into my comments the assumption that I think the worst of the "alexandrian" manuscripts. Far from it. I think they are tremendous blessings because, even with their issues, they do demonstrate that as far back as at least the 2nd century, there was no general corruption of the Greek New Testament. Even with the issues, each book of the New Testament witnessed to, is STILL that book. We don't look at Mark's gospel in Siniaticus for instance and think, "wow!, this looks nothing like the Gospel of Mark we know!"


I don't necessarily think you think the worst of them. I do believe you think they shouldn't be used AT ALL in text criticism. That is what I find unfounded. 


Robert Truelove said:


> No, for me, I don't see "Satan's Bibles" in any of this. The question is how we are to discern the purest form of the text, and I see that as a canonical matter.


Glad to see you disagree with Christopher Myers on this. 


Robert Truelove said:


> I think provenance is a mixed bag because we do not have the provenance for the vast majority of ancient manuscripts. It is specuation.
> 
> BTW...have you ever read Maurice Robinson on this subject? http://jbtc.org/v06/Robinson2001.html


Haven't read Robinson yet on text-critical matters, though I definitely want to. I don't think provenance is entirely speculation. The materials of the manuscript can give us good clues, as well as the ligatures of writing, which can indicate regional specificity if we can compare them with manuscripts we know came from a certain region. Not speculative, then.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## itsreed (Aug 20, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> There are several versions of an argument out there in support of the TR position which argue that God's providence preserved the original reading of the NT only in the Byzantine texts, which were the texts in use in the church, "received everywhere" (as the term "Textus Receptus" means). There may be different versions of this that are more nuanced, or nuanced in different ways than I have written here, but I wish to answer in several different points this inadequate view of God's providence. Some I have talked to argue that there were many more Byzantine text manuscripts in use in the time of the Reformers that have since been lost or used to the point of destruction. The Alexandrian readings in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are in manuscripts that were purportedly not in use because their readings were rejected. These issues will also be addressed.
> 
> First point of response: a manuscript like Sinaiticus was almost certainly in use in the Alexandrian church. This is indicated by the fact that it had no fewer than three correctors (some today estimate as many as seven). One does not correct a manuscript that is useless. In addition, one does not correct a manuscript that was not being used. That it was hidden for centuries proves absolutely nothing. TR advocates tend to speculate on the reason of its hiddenness as being the church rejecting its readings. This is certainly not known, and is actually quite unlikely. Far more likely is that when Muslims invaded, destroying Christian manuscripts as they went, that Christians hid the MOST valuable manuscripts, like Sinaiticus. We cannot know this for certain, either, but the rejection of Sinaiticus on the basis of its being hidden because its readings were rejected is not a cogent argument, and needs to be eliminated from the discussion entirely.
> 
> ...


Dude! You've admonished me (helpfully so). Appreciate your clear thinking.
Any Sturz bibliography for us slow-pokes?
(Neva'min; just read your reference to his book on another thread. 
Thx)


----------



## Charles Johnson (Aug 20, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> How is it an answer to my argument about the simple respective number of manuscripts to claim that Byzantine text-type is not limited to Byzantium?


It is specifically an answer to your geographical claims.


----------



## Romans922 (Aug 20, 2022)

These links give the TR position fairly to all sides so as to better critique the position:

How we got the OT Bible

How we got the NT Bible Pt. 1

How we got the NT Bible Pt. 2

How we got the Critical Text

How we got the Textus Receptus

Philosophy of Text Criticism Pt. 1

More to come...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 20, 2022)

itsreed said:


> Dude! You've admonished me (helpfully so). Appreciate your clear thinking.
> Any Sturz bibliography for us slow-pokes?


Harry Sturz, _The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism_. They just republished it in paperback in a quite affordable edition. A hugely helpful corrective to the problems of the TR/MT position on the one hand, and the CT problems on the other.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 20, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> It is specifically an answer to your geographical claims.


Since my claims in that particular paragraph were about text-types, and not geography, specifically about the relative numbers of manuscripts supporting a particular text-type, your answer was still not a propos.


----------



## Charles Johnson (Aug 20, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > Since my claims in that particular paragraph were about text-types, and not geography, specifically about the relative numbers of manuscripts supporting a particular text-type, your answer was still not a propos.
> ...


How is it not a claim about geography to say "If 5000 *from Byzantium*... *not found in any outside of Byzantium..."*? My point, which I will repeat, is that there is not one single city or country called Byzantium from which all the Byzantine manuscripts come. So this hypothetical is a very poor representation of the actual situation.


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 20, 2022)

Charles Johnson said:


> How is it not a claim about geography to say "If 5000 *from Byzantium*... *not found in any outside of Byzantium..."*? My point, which I will repeat, is that there is not one single city or country called Byzantium from which all the Byzantine manuscripts come. So this hypothetical is a very poor representation of the actual situation.


I think I see what happened. You quoted the entirety of the post, when your reply was only to the last particular paragraph. The only paragraph visible of my quoted post was the top paragraph, which was not related to your reply. 

In answer to your statement, my argument does not depend on all "Byzantine" manuscripts originating in the actual city of Byzantium. I am referring to Byzantium here as a region of manuscript origin, and also as a description of a text-type.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## iainduguid (Aug 20, 2022)

Romans922 said:


> How we got the OT Bible
> 
> How we got the NT Bible Pt. 1
> 
> ...


Andrew, 
I'm not sure what you think these add to the discussion. They are general Sunday school classes that are delivered by a young man who is not adequately equipped to speak on these subjects. I understand the need to simplify for such an audience, which precludes a sophisticated discussion, but I listened to his presentation on "How we got the OT Bible" and it was seriously mistaken on several important issues, notably the Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls. I don't blame him for that - we've probably all spoken on topics that we didn't know as much as we should have, especially in the midst of the pressures of pastoral ministry, but I would caution that at least on the first topic he is not an accurate guide. That doesn't inspire any confidence for the rest of the series.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 20, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Harry Sturz, _The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism_. They just republished it in paperback in a quite affordable edition. A hugely helpful corrective to the problems of the TR/MT position on the one hand, and the CT problems on the other.


Two comments Lane:

I understand the position of Sturz and yourself is that the CT has downplayed some advantages of the MT. The MT has the advantage of having significantly more manuscripts than the CT. There may be strength in numbers. Also the manuscripts have a greater geographical spread. This brings 'checks and balances' into the discussion. We need greater 'checks and balances' than simply using the CT. On the other hand the CT has the advantage in that the CT manuscripts are generally older, therefore closer to the originals. Undoubtedly there are nuances in this, but the Sturztian view is we should use both the witness of the MT and the CT. Broadly speaking, is this how you see it?
I skimmed through a copy of Sturz's book (I don't own a copy) and it looked fairly technical. Does this book presuppose a good knowledge of textual criticism?


----------



## Romans922 (Aug 20, 2022)

iainduguid said:


> Andrew,
> I'm not sure what you think these add to the discussion. They are general Sunday school classes that are delivered by a young man who is not adequately equipped to speak on these subjects. I understand the need to simplify for such an audience, which precludes a sophisticated discussion, but I listened to his presentation on "How we got the OT Bible" and it was seriously mistaken on several important issues, notably the Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls. I don't blame him for that - we've probably all spoken on topics that we didn't know as much as we should have, especially in the midst of the pressures of pastoral ministry, but I would caution that at least on the first topic he is not an accurate guide. That doesn't inspire any confidence for the rest of the series.


Iain, you have a provided for everyone a great example of _ad hominem_.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 20, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I understand the position of Sturz and yourself is that the CT has downplayed some advantages of the MT. The MT has the advantage of having significantly more manuscripts than the CT.


I have not read the book (and, boy, do I want to!). Still, judging from Pastor Lane's past comments on the book, I think it would be ever-so-slightly more accurate to say that Sturz is arguing we need to give more weight to the Byzantine text type, not the Majority Text, which is an edition, not a manuscript. I think this is what you meant, anyway.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 20, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Two comments Lane:
> 
> I understand the position of Sturz and yourself is that the CT has downplayed some advantages of the MT. The MT has the advantage of having significantly more manuscripts than the CT. There may be strength in numbers. Also the manuscripts have a greater geographical spread. This brings 'checks and balances' into the discussion. We need greater 'checks and balances' than simply using the CT. On the other hand the CT has the advantage in that the CT manuscripts are generally older, therefore closer to the originals. Undoubtedly there are nuances in this, but the Sturztian view is we should use both the witness of the MT and the CT. Broadly speaking, is this how you see it?
> I skimmed through a copy of Sturz's book (I don't own a copy) and it looked fairly technical. Does this book presuppose a good knowledge of textual criticism?


Stephen, this is close. Sturz elevates geographic distribution as an external criterion, one I also highly value. His position is that there are three basic regions: Byzantium, Alexandria, and Western, and these three should basically be given equal weight as a whole. There should, as you say, definitely be checks and balances on many of the other canons of textual criticism, as most of them need more nuance. Take the age of a manuscript, for example. Just because a manuscript is older does not guarantee that it is closer to the original reading. If it had more generations in-between it and the autograph than a later manuscript did, then the later copy might be more accurate. Generally speaking, an older manuscript is going to have fewer generations between it and the autograph, but that cannot simply be assumed. Similarly with the majority. The majority is not always correct. That would be a sort of manuscript version of the _ad populam_ fallacy. It is not automatic that the majority is correct. But that doesn't totally negate the weight of numbers. The thing is that there are many factors that need to be weighed in each text-critical issue. Now one canon seems to have the priority, now another, or a group of them, given the nature of the evidence. As for Sturz's book, the first half of the book, which contains the substance of his argument, is understandable for a seminary graduate who has already had an introduction to textual criticism. I would not recommend it as an introduction to the field as a whole. He is arguing for a particular position. 


Taylor said:


> I have not read the book (and, boy, do I want to!). Still, judging from Pastor Lane's past comments on the book, I think it would be ever-so-slightly more accurate to say that Sturz is arguing we need to give more weight to the Byzantine text type, not the Majority Text, which is an edition, not a manuscript. I think this is what you meant, anyway.


I don't see there being much difference in Sturz's mind between the Byzantine text-type and the majority text.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 20, 2022)

I think one of the things I'd wonder is why, in God's Providence, He would preserve the papyri and other manuscripts discovered in the last couple hundred of years. For the TR advocate, is this merely so God could test the Church to see if we would be deceived by these discoveries and swerve from what we have absolutely certainty that he preserved at the time that the West became broadly interested in recovering Greek manuscripts? 

I'm asking because there is a kind of conspiracy (as Lane has pointed out) about corruption and a tendency to note providential preservation. The kinds of corruptions we find are usually spelling or missing a line or other issues that aren't even translatable. Further, as Lane noted, for many of these manuscripts studied you can witness corrections in margins without the loss of readings. The very reason we have such broad agreement in an established text is that the readings mostly agree.

So, again, why did God preserve these manuscripts? Was it in order for the Church to ignore them and come up with ad hoc arguments as to why we never need to look at variant readings again once Scrivener completed his work?

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Phil D. (Aug 20, 2022)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I think one of the things I'd wonder is why, in God's Providence, He would preserve the papyri and other manuscripts discovered in the last couple hundred of years. For the TR advocate, is this merely so God could test the Church to see if we would be deceived by these discoveries and swerve from what we have absolutely certainty that he preserved at the time that the West became broadly interested in recovering Greek manuscripts?


Actually, some of the more extremist writers do infer this to be the case. I seem to recall one even saying something along the lines of "Satan also remains an active force in the world, and God has allowed him to be so in this matter." (Sorry, that is only a recollection of something I read quit a while ago, so I'm not able to give an actual reference for it.) But the same also seems to be the natural conclusion when statements like "Satan's bible" are used to describe various manuscripts and their use.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 20, 2022)

iainduguid said:


> They are general Sunday school classes that are delivered by a young man who is not adequately equipped to speak on these subjects.



Is the person in question not an ordained minister?


----------



## iainduguid (Aug 20, 2022)

Romans922 said:


> Iain, you have a provided for everyone a great example of _ad hominem_.


Andrew,
I'm not sure how this is _ad hominem_. I didn't say "He's stupid; don't listen to his arguments". I said, "He is ill informed on this specific topic, and therefore his arguments are problematic" and I gave two specific examples: his treatments of the Masoretic Tradition and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The information he presented was factually wrong in ways that neither side of the argument would dispute. He gave the impression that there are no variations at all within the Masoretic tradition, and he suggested that the Dea Sea Scrolls are uniformly identical with the Masoretic Tradition. He also claimed that the OT texts would originally have been transmitted on stone or papyrus, whereas most would likely have been transmitted on scrolls of parchment or vellum. Those are fundamentally misleading statements, which don't inspire confidence in the rest of the series.

Reactions: Like 12 | Informative 1


----------



## iainduguid (Aug 20, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Is the person in question not an ordained minister?


He is an ordained minister. That does not mean that he knows this topic. Text criticism and the transmission of the Hebrew text are rarely dealt with on ordination exams, though a good seminary education should cover them.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922 (Aug 20, 2022)

iainduguid said:


> He is an ordained minister. That does not mean that he knows this topic. Text criticism and the transmission of the Hebrew text are rarely dealt with on ordination exams, though a good seminary education should cover them.


Brother, you called him "young" to apparently discredit him. In fact, he is not young at all. He's only 10 years younger than you, which is not that young. No offense intended. 

Then you said he's not adequately equipped, again to apparently discredit him. By whose standards is he not adequately equipped to speak on this topic? Does the man need a PhD? In fact, how do you get a PhD, you read primary sources as this man has done. He knows his stuff, and he is well read on this particular topic. Now he might not agree with you, but that doesn't mean he is not adequately equipped. In fact, you don't know how much he's studied, you don't know his academic credentials. But you certainly do not need a PhD in OT studies to be "adequate to speak" on this topic. But all this you assumed and then sought to discredit him in his person instead of interact with the arguments or ideas alone that he brought forth.

If it is not _ad hominem_, perhaps you would accept that it is an appeal to accomplishment or the credentials fallacy.


----------



## Logan (Aug 20, 2022)

Romans922 said:


> Brother, you called him "young" to apparently discredit him. In fact, he is not young at all. He's only 10 years younger than you, which is not that young. No offense intended.



I thought Dr Duguid was actually trying to be charitable and understanding toward Edgar by calling him "young". I know Edgar and I doubt he would call himself a textual authority. If he's incorrect on certain facts, then that should be acknowledged; it's not an attack to acknowledge it.

We should all strive after and love truth, and what a man says should be tested.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 2


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 20, 2022)

Folks, get any posts on this in tonight and then let it go till Monday (and I'm talking Texas time). Be sure posts are temperate and seeking neither to give nor take offense. A reminder one should always explain about links they post on threads. If I were given mystery links to a series on a subject I considered myself informed on, but given no background and then taken the time to listen to the first offering and it was a dud, I would certainly say it did not bode will for the rest. Get off ad hominem and deal with substance. Did the speaker make errors or didn't he? Is it fair criticism or isn't it? Don't drag it to the personal as MW always used to say.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## iainduguid (Aug 20, 2022)

Romans922 said:


> Brother, you called him "young" to apparently discredit him. In fact, he is not young at all. He's only 10 years younger than you, which is not that young. No offense intended.
> 
> Then you said he's not adequately equipped, again to apparently discredit him. By whose standards is he not adequately equipped to speak on this topic? Does the man need a PhD? In fact, how do you get a PhD, you read primary sources as this man has done. He knows his stuff, and he is well read on this particular topic. Now he might not agree with you, but that doesn't mean he is not adequately equipped. In fact, you don't know how much he's studied, you don't know his academic credentials. But you certainly do not need a PhD in OT studies to be "adequate to speak" on this topic. But all this you assumed and then sought to discredit him in his person instead of interact with the arguments or ideas alone that he brought forth.


I'm sorry if I mischaracterized his age. I was going by the thumbnail picture on sermon audio.

I certainly do not suggest that you need a PhD to address this topic, and I don't disagree with his general point that the OT text has been carefully preserved and handed down to us. However, it is helpful to get one's facts correct and to present them in a way that acknowledges difficulties. Around 42 minutes, he suggests that there are only 9 differences that exist between the Leningrad Codex and the 1525 Ben Chayyim edition, failing to mention that there is quite a bit more variation among the individual Medieval Hebrew manuscripts - including one place where the KJV follows the Septuagint and one or two medieval manuscripts against Leningrad and the vast majority of the Masoretic tradition. At 46 minutes, he discusses the Dead Sea Scrolls. He compares "the Isaiah scroll" (I presume he means 1Q Isa a) with the Leningrad text and claims that in Isaiah 53 there are only 17 letters different. I haven't checked that claim but it seems plausible. However, by itself it is misleading, since there are other OT scrolls at Qumran that are not nearly as close. In particular, it is well-known that there are a significant number of Hebrew texts at Qumran that match readings where the Septuagint deviates from the MT (for example 1 Sam. 1:24, as well as entire Jeremiah scrolls that follow the shorter version of the LXX rather than the fuller MT edition). So his overall presentation was significantly lacking in precision, in part probably because he was speaking to what sounds like an adult Sunday School class. Perhaps he could have done a fuller job in a different setting, but I was responding to the source you gave, and I found that it painted an unbalanced picture. Precision is important in these matters.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 20, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Still, judging from Pastor Lane's past comments on the book, I think it would be ever-so-slightly more accurate to say that Sturz is arguing we need to give more weight to the Byzantine text type, not the Majority Text, which is an edition, not a manuscript. I think this is what you meant, anyway.


The post I quoted from Lane referred to the MT, but I accept Byzantine type text is a more precise expression.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 21, 2022)

Thanks Lane, I found this very insightful


greenbaggins said:


> ,Western


Interesting that in the debates between the Byzantine and the CT the Western text is often minimised.


greenbaggins said:


> Take the age of a manuscript, for example. Just because a manuscript is older does not guarantee that it is closer to the original reading. If it had more generations in-between it and the autograph than a later manuscript did, then the later copy might be more accurate.


I read something from Dan Wallace some years ago, a student of Sturz, that he had moved away from Sturz's position, presumably because of the papyri discovered last century was consistent with the CT. But like you said, perhaps the 'older is better approach' does not take into the account the multiple factors that need to be considered in the text-critical decision making.


----------



## Imputatio (Aug 22, 2022)

@greenbaggins I appreciate your words on this matter.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NM_Presby (Aug 23, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Here is ultimately where I net out on this question. See, I am on record in a published article for saying that the KJV and NKJV are two of five translations that I would recommend for churches to use (the others being ESV, CSB, and NASB). I have no quibble with anyone who wants to say the TR is the most accurate Greek edition. I might disagree, but I don't feel the need to try to force them out of that conviction. What I will fight tooth and nail against is the sectarian view of some who will say that the ESV, CSB, NASB are based on Satan's Bible. As someone recently told me, if they are based on Satan's Bible, then Satan didn't do a particularly good job of erasing the most important bits from the Bible. All Christian doctrine is still fully intact in the ESV, CSB, and NASB.


I definitely am a TR advocate who would not say anything that awful about modern critical text translations. I prefer the TR. I think it's the best Greek Text. I still think the others are the Word of God. 

It is very unfortunate that some in the TR camp have given the impression to many people that the TR position means all other versions are evil or worthless.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## NM_Presby (Aug 23, 2022)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I think one of the things I'd wonder is why, in God's Providence, He would preserve the papyri and other manuscripts discovered in the last couple hundred of years. For the TR advocate, is this merely so God could test the Church to see if we would be deceived by these discoveries and swerve from what we have absolutely certainty that he preserved at the time that the West became broadly interested in recovering Greek manuscripts?
> 
> I'm asking because there is a kind of conspiracy (as Lane has pointed out) about corruption and a tendency to note providential preservation. The kinds of corruptions we find are usually spelling or missing a line or other issues that aren't even translatable. Further, as Lane noted, for many of these manuscripts studied you can witness corrections in margins without the loss of readings. The very reason we have such broad agreement in an established text is that the readings mostly agree.
> 
> So, again, why did God preserve these manuscripts? Was it in order for the Church to ignore them and come up with ad hoc arguments as to why we never need to look at variant readings again once Scrivener completed his work?


I think you could ask the question right back the other direction too, though. Why would God allow the Church to come to a strong consensus on a text only then to suddenly uncover "better" manuscripts and have to re-open the whole debate about the text of Scripture? This is certainly subjective, but in my mind preservation makes far more sense as something actively happening in the Church than as discovering something much later that the Church had no access to for centuries.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 23, 2022)

NM_Presby said:


> I think you could ask the question right back the other direction too, though. Why would God allow the Church to come to a strong consensus on a text only then to suddenly uncover "better" manuscripts and have to re-open the whole debate about the text of Scripture? This is certainly subjective, but in my mind preservation makes far more sense as something actively happening in the Church than as discovering something much later that the Church had no access to for centuries.


Andrew, appreciate very much your measured view on this. I would answer by reiterating what most CT/MT/Sturzians would say: the manuscripts we have found since the Reformation don't reopen the whole question, as if we have to start from scratch. They are a small course correction, from where we stand. Most TR guys I know tend to believe that the CT completely upends everything the TR was about. Maybe some extreme CT guys phrase themselves this way, but I certainly don't, and most Reformed guys I know don't, either.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio (Aug 23, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Andrew, appreciate very much your measured view on this. I would answer by reiterating what most CT/MT/Sturzians would say: the manuscripts we have found since the Reformation don't reopen the whole question, as if we have to start from scratch. They are a small course correction, from where we stand. Most TR guys I know tend to believe that the CT completely upends everything the TR was about. Maybe some extreme CT guys phrase themselves this way, but I certainly don't, and most Reformed guys I know don't, either.


Could you give a succinct statement on why the CT does NOT upend everything? 

I don’t believe it does, but you know more than me.


----------



## NM_Presby (Aug 23, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Andrew, appreciate very much your measured view on this. I would answer by reiterating what most CT/MT/Sturzians would say: the manuscripts we have found since the Reformation don't reopen the whole question, as if we have to start from scratch. They are a small course correction, from where we stand. Most TR guys I know tend to believe that the CT completely upends everything the TR was about. Maybe some extreme CT guys phrase themselves this way, but I certainly don't, and most Reformed guys I know don't, either.


It’s helpful that you say it that way. Many of the CT men I’ve read seem to frame it more as a ground-up reconstruction, even thought they may not use that particular word.


----------



## Jake (Aug 24, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> Could you give a succinct statement on why the CT does NOT upend everything?
> 
> I don’t believe it does, but you know more than me.


This post I made in the other thread has some good points from Dabney (a TR advocate) on the matter: https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...-critique-question.109224/page-4#post-1315061

“No one claims the Textus Receptus” as represented “ipsissima verba” or inspired in every case.
The TR contains “all essential facts and doctrines” and that even with the “most divergent various readings found in any ancient MS” that “not a single doctrine of Christianity… would be thereby expunged.”
The various readings are counted by the “hundred thousand” yet are “nearly all exceedingly minute and trivial” and overall are in agreement with the TR.
Criticism only slightly changes the TR, and increasingly the number of places it differs is quite small and mostly confirms the TR.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 24, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Claudiu, I think you are right on the money on this analysis, all of which resonates very strongly with me, especially the QIRC, which I have thought about many times in relation to the TR question. Very insightful regarding the "frozen in time" stuff, too.



Well God's Word does not change so in that sense it is "frozen in time".



greenbaggins said:


> Santiago, I am well past the weary stage myself. However, the information needs to get out there, and people reading their ESV's need to know that they are reading God's Word, not something with a perpetual asterisk next to it, or Satan's Bible (as any translation based on what Myers calls "Satan's Bible" would be Satanic, in turn).



Are they reading God's Word when they read of the woman taken in adultery, or the end of the last chapter of Mark? These passages are included but they are singled out as questionable. Are they or are they not God's Word? If they are they should be included without any qualification; if not they shouldn't be included at all. And if the editors don't know then they shouldn't take it upon themselves to translate and publish the Bible and mislead people or sow doubt. And they shouldn't refer to the whole Bible as God's inerrant and infallible Word when that edition of the Bible contains passages which they are not sure should be there or would even reject.

The ESV also doesn't contain the Johannine comma. So that is an executive decision they have taken to exclude those verses. And yet they retain other "disputed" passages. What is their reasoning?

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 24, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> Could you give a succinct statement on why the CT does NOT upend everything?
> 
> I don’t believe it does, but you know more than me.


The CT does not upend everything, because of the very small percentage of passages in the NT which are even controverted between the two editions. It is basically the ending of Mark, the woman caught in adultery, the comma Johanneum, and about sixty other single verses that are seriously affected. That is a very small percentage of the NT. The author of that post estimates the differences to be around 2% of the TR.

And while we are talking about percentages, I want to bring up another point that relativizes the differences between CT and TR even more, and that is the Old Testament, which is approximately three-quarters of our Bible, and which the debate over CT/TR doesn't affect at all. Sometimes I get the distinct impression that NT textual criticism is the only text criticism that matters at all to some people. And yet, the text underlying the KJV and the ESV, say, in the OT is pretty much the same, even more so than the NT. So, then, when you are talking about underlying textual differences between the KJV and the ESV across the whole Bible, the CT/TR affects far less than 1 percent of the entire text. Now, there are translational differences to add in, of course, but that is a completely different question than the text-critical one, which is the one we are looking at in this thread. The textual differences across the whole Bible from KJV to ESV amount to far less than 1 percent of the total. This is the key reason why I believe the rhetoric of many in the TR camp is more than a bit overblown.



alexandermsmith said:


> Well God's Word does not change so in that sense it is "frozen in time".


What is in the autograph does not change. The original readings do not change. Our understanding of what that is might change. Do you think no change at all in our understanding of the Greek NT occurred when the TR was first published?


alexandermsmith said:


> Are they reading God's Word when they read of the woman taken in adultery, or the end of the last chapter of Mark? These passages are included but they are singled out as questionable. Are they or are they not God's Word? If they are they should be included without any qualification; if not they shouldn't be included at all. And if the editors don't know then they shouldn't take it upon themselves to translate and publish the Bible and mislead people or sow doubt. And they shouldn't refer to the whole Bible as God's inerrant and infallible Word when that edition of the Bible contains passages which they are not sure should be there or would even reject.


As I am on record disagreeing with the CT on the longer ending of Mark (which I regard as genuine), and am open to the woman taken in adultery being genuine (the issue is complicated, and the evidence is mixed), these comments don't really affect my position. I don't have a problem at all with text-critical comments being included in the editions of Scripture. They teach us that we live by faith, not by sight when it comes to God's Word just as much as to any other aspect of the Christian life. As I said above, what God said is certain. Whether we receive it as certainly is another question.


alexandermsmith said:


> The ESV also doesn't contain the Johannine comma. So that is an executive decision they have taken to exclude those verses. And yet they retain other "disputed" passages. What is their reasoning?


The evidence for the Johannine comma is significantly worse than for the longer ending of Mark or the woman caught in adultery. Very few Greek manuscripts have it. The evidence for the woman caught in adultery is about 50-50 in terms of the number of manuscripts. The Byzantine majority has it, of course, but the majority of Uncials, including some Byzantine uncials, do not have it. The longer ending of Mark has the vast majority of manuscripts supporting it. People always bring in the early church fathers on the Johannine comma, but the early church fathers are not nearly as easy to cite as many people think they are. They often quoted from memory, as they didn't always have the text in front of them. Determining how verbatim the quotation was intended to be is fraught with difficulties. There are only 8 Greek manuscripts that contain the verse, four of which have it in the margin as a later addition. According to Metzger's commentary, no early Greek church father quotes it (see above on the difficulty of ascertaining any kind of certainty on early church father biblical quotation), and it is absent from all early versions except one recension of the Vulgate. It is almost certainly a commentary note in the margin some copyist mistook for a correction. If the verse was original, how would one explain how it got left out? It is way too Trinitarianly orthodox (not to mention lengthy!) for anyone to leave it out accidentally. When Christians were constantly debating the Jews, would any copyist have deliberately left out such a clear reference to the Trinity? I do not believe the Comma Johanneum is genuine.

Edit: Dr. Maurice Robinson himself reached out to me with correcting figures on the PA in John. The uncials are actually about evenly split, with slightly more (including 5 presumably omitting) omitting than having it. The majority of the minuscules have it, of course. A lot of lectionaries have it, as well.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Jake (Aug 24, 2022)

At the time of the Reformation, the Comma was "preserved" through the Latin. A consequence of Erasmsus using the Greek manuscripts he had available was that early editions of the TR and Bibles based on it (e.g., Luther Bible) did not include the Comma. However, there was a high value placed on the Vulgate as the common text in the West, enough that the scant Greek evidence was sufficient to include the Comma in later editions of the TR and translations from it. The Comma was not included because it was in the majority of the Greek manuscripts or because it was in use as the common/received text in the Eastern, Greek-speaking church.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 24, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> As I am on record disagreeing with the CT on the longer ending of Mark (which I regard as genuine), and am open to the woman taken in adultery being genuine (the issue is complicated, and the evidence is mixed), these comments don't really affect my position. I don't have a problem at all with text-critical comments being included in the editions of Scripture. They teach us that we live by faith, not by sight when it comes to God's Word just as much as to any other aspect of the Christian life. As I said above, what God said is certain. Whether we receive it as certainly is another question.



What exactly does it mean to live by faith, not by sight when it comes to the inscripturated Word? We live by faith _in Christ_, not by the sight of Him with the eye of sense. But how do we know about Christ? From the _written _Word, which we _read with our eyes_. We do not imbibe Scripture from the immaterial realm nor is it engraved word for word by the Spirit on our hearts and minds thus bypassing the eyes. We read it. Our trust is in the written Word. The faith with which we receive it, given by the Holy Spirit, is the faith that it is true in what it says. It is not that "amongst what we have read there is the true Word of God". That is just the same as saying the Bible (the book we hold in our hands) isn't the Word of God but contains the Word of God. I don't care how few variants are claimed it amounts to the same thing.

Therefore it is of the upmost importance that we can trust the version of the Scriptures we have in our hands. If this keeps changing or if men publish a translation and within the body of the text call into question passages which are printed, this only erodes trust in what we are reading. The text of Scripture is not a jigsaw which the Lord has given us to fit together.



greenbaggins said:


> The evidence for the Johannine comma is significantly worse than for the longer ending of Mark or the woman caught in adultery. Very few Greek manuscripts have it. The evidence for the woman caught in adultery is about 50-50 in terms of the number of manuscripts. The Byzantine majority has it, of course, but the majority of Uncials, including some Byzantine uncials, do not have it. The longer ending of Mark has the vast majority of manuscripts supporting it. People always bring in the early church fathers on the Johannine comma, but the early church fathers are not nearly as easy to cite as many people think they are. They often quoted from memory, as they didn't always have the text in front of them. Determining how verbatim the quotation was intended to be is fraught with difficulties. There are only 8 Greek manuscripts that contain the verse, four of which have it in the margin as a later addition. According to Metzger's commentary, no early Greek church father quotes it (see above on the difficulty of ascertaining any kind of certainty on early church father biblical quotation), and it is absent from all early versions except one recension of the Vulgate. It is almost certainly a commentary note in the margin some copyist mistook for a correction. If the verse was original, how would one explain how it got left out? It is way too Trinitarianly orthodox (not to mention lengthy!) for anyone to leave it out accidentally. When Christians were constantly debating the Jews, would any copyist have deliberately left out such a clear reference to the Trinity? I do not believe the Comma Johanneum is genuine.



People who take it upon themselves to produce new translations of Scripture (unsolicited, except by publishers who want to make some money) should at least have the conviction to publish what they believe to be the definitive edition of Scripture. The continual translations are bad enough but to publish what they aren't even sure is Scripture is extremely irresponsible. I don't know enough to get into the minutiae of the debate but I do know that the church is not being served by all these translations. Something has gone very wrong when one translation sufficed for hundreds of years and yet now there are apparently 60 English versions available, all appearing in the last hundred years or so.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## NM_Presby (Aug 24, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> The CT does not upend everything, because of the very small percentage of passages in the NT which are even controverted between the two editions. It is basically the ending of Mark, the woman caught in adultery, the comma Johanneum, and about sixty other single verses that are seriously affected. That is a very small percentage of the NT. The author of that post estimates the differences to be around 2% of the TR.


For the record, I think when many TR advocates talk about things being "upended" it is not so much that the text itself is radically transformed as it is the way in which we know the text is upended. A full discussion of this is probably beyond the scope of this thread, but I do think there is a significant departure from the past in the way we know the true text when it comes to modern text criticism. So from my perspective at least, the criticism is more philosophical/methodological than it is about the actual differences in the text (which is why I don't hesitate to affirm that modern versions are the Word of God).

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Logan (Aug 24, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> There are only 8 Greek manuscripts that contain the verse, four of which have it in the margin as a later addition. According to Metzger's commentary, no early Greek church father quotes it (see above on the difficulty of ascertaining any kind of certainty on early church father biblical quotation), and it is absent from all early versions except one recension of the Vulgate.



My understanding is that it is even worse than that. Elijah Hixson did a post where he examined (and posted images) of each of the manuscripts that do contain the Comma, whether in the margin or the text. Of all the ones that could possibly be before Erasmus, none had the same exact wording as found in the TR. Let me emphasize that: _NONE_.

There are 10 manuscripts to look at. We can pretty confidently remove 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 from the pool as later additions/editions. That leaves 1, 2, and 10 as potential witnesses for the TR, and of those three, none contain the comma in the form in which it is in the TR(!) and of those, at least two came from Roman Catholic sources, not those in use by the Greek church (which I bring up because the TR often uses the apologetic that it is the text of the Greek-speaking church).

I feel comfortable in this instance saying that without exception, ALL of the Greek evidence (at least extant) is _against_ the reading found in the TR. The only evidence for it comes from the Latin.

As for manuscripts that contain 1 John 5:6 and 5:8 but don't contain 5:7 (which would be evidence against)...


> This is a list of Greek manuscripts of 1 John that don't contain the Comma:
> 
> *Manuscripts Produced Before the 700s:* 01, 03, 02, 048, 0296
> *Manuscripts Produced in the 700s-800s:* 018, 020, 025, 049, 0142, 1424, 1862, 1895, 2464
> ...

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 24, 2022)

NM_Presby said:


> For the record, I think when many TR advocates talk about things being "upended" it is not so much that the text itself is radically transformed as it is the way in which we know the text is upended. A full discussion of this is probably beyond the scope of this thread, but I do think there is a significant departure from the past in the way we know the true text when it comes to modern text criticism. So from my perspective at least, the criticism is more philosophical/methodological than it is about the actual differences in the text (which is why I don't hesitate to affirm that modern versions are the Word of God).


This "significant departure" in method is also, I believe, overblown. This is one reason why I, and others like me, insist that the methodology used to create the TR is not significantly different in fundamentals from the methodology used to create the CT. Both editions use extant manuscripts to compare with each other in order to determine what the original reading most likely is. In both cases, there is no single manuscript that is identical with the finished edition. While some CT scholars no doubt reject the "providential preservation" of the text, no Reformed text-critical scholars of which I am aware do this. And while CT and TR methodologies differ somewhat in the "canons" or rules whereby they decide what they think the original is, the starting point and goal for the TR and believing CT is the same: to recognize the original reading, which is there in the apographs. From where I stand, believing CT guys tend to get tarred and feathered with WH's brush. And this is hardly fair to do even to unbelieving CT guys, since textual criticism has moved on a fair bit from WH. I would ask this simple question: if the methodology is so completely upended in the CT, then why are the results so similar that only 2% of the NT (in terms of significant variants) is even controverted? I can only conclude that the methodology is not nearly so upended as TR advocates seem to think.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 24, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> What exactly does it mean to live by faith, not by sight when it comes to the inscripturated Word? We live by faith _in Christ_, not by the sight of Him with the eye of sense. But how do we know about Christ? From the _written _Word, which we _read with our eyes_. We do not imbibe Scripture from the immaterial realm nor is it engraved word for word by the Spirit on our hearts and minds thus bypassing the eyes. We read it. Our trust is in the written Word. The faith with which we receive it, given by the Holy Spirit, is the faith that it is true in what it says. It is not that "amongst what we have read there is the true Word of God". That is just the same as saying the Bible (the book we hold in our hands) isn't the Word of God but contains the Word of God. I don't care how few variants are claimed it amounts to the same thing.
> 
> Therefore it is of the upmost importance that we can trust the version of the Scriptures we have in our hands. If this keeps changing or if men publish a translation and within the body of the text call into question passages which are printed, this only erodes trust in what we are reading. The text of Scripture is not a jigsaw which the Lord has given us to fit together.


To live by faith in this context is to recognize that we do not have the autographs anymore. The original readings are in the apographs, but it takes a great deal of effort to recognize what the original readings are. We have to do the immensely difficult and painstaking work of comparing faded manuscripts to each other to seek that original reading which God has indeed preserved. As Warfield said in his introduction, when compared to the printed word, the manuscript situation seems somewhat alarming. But when compared entirely to its own time, the manuscript situation is entirely reassuring. Again, I would reiterate that if God wanted us to have 100% certainty about every single word in the NT text whether it was in or out, He would have preserved the autographs themselves. To say this does not mean that I think it unimportant to seek with all diligence to recognize what the original words are. We must do that. The warnings at the end of Revelation certainly imply that. The TR is an eclectic text. It is not identical to any one manuscript. Why is that? Because the editors compared manuscripts one to another in order to set aside obvious mistakes. The CT's goal is no different. The main difference is the pool of manuscripts from which to draw. The TR's pool is tiny compared to what we have available. I believe God's providence preserved all the manuscripts we currently have, and that such manuscripts (as Rich so ably pointed out) cannot have a merely negative role to play in textual criticism.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 24, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> To live by faith in this context is to recognize that we do not have the autographs anymore. The original readings are in the apographs, but it takes a great deal of effort to recognize what the original readings are. We have to do the immensely difficult and painstaking work of comparing faded manuscripts to each other to seek that original reading which God has indeed preserved. As Warfield said in his introduction, when compared to the printed word, the manuscript situation seems somewhat alarming. But when compared entirely to its own time, the manuscript situation is entirely reassuring. Again, I would reiterate that if God wanted us to have 100% certainty about every single word in the NT text whether it was in or out, He would have preserved the autographs themselves. To say this does not mean that I think it unimportant to seek with all diligence to recognize what the original words are. We must do that. The warnings at the end of Revelation certainly imply that. The TR is an eclectic text. It is not identical to any one manuscript. Why is that? Because the editors compared manuscripts one to another in order to set aside obvious mistakes. The CT's goal is no different. The main difference is the pool of manuscripts from which to draw. The TR's pool is tiny compared to what we have available. I believe God's providence preserved all the manuscripts we currently have, and that such manuscripts (as Rich so ably pointed out) cannot have a merely negative role to play in textual criticism.



It is my understanding that the Westminster Divines believed they had the autographs in the apographs. They were not of the opinion that what they had was merely an approximation of the Word, or documents which _contained_ the Word; but rather they had the Word pure and complete. I understand that there was work done to compile the TR, but, again as I understand it, that work was done with the conviction that it was possible to produce a final, definitive text of Scripture and that they did indeed end up with that. I have faith that the Lord preserved His Word, and worked through men to compile the faithful text of His Word and that is what we have now. The ordinary Christian cannot be expected, nor is he, to do the work himself to compile an accurate text. That work has been done by those the Lord raised up to do it.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## NM_Presby (Aug 24, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> This "significant departure" in method is also, I believe, overblown. This is one reason why I, and others like me, insist that the methodology used to create the TR is not significantly different in fundamentals from the methodology used to create the CT. Both editions use extant manuscripts to compare with each other in order to determine what the original reading most likely is. In both cases, there is no single manuscript that is identical with the finished edition. While some CT scholars no doubt reject the "providential preservation" of the text, no Reformed text-critical scholars of which I am aware do this. And while CT and TR methodologies differ somewhat in the "canons" or rules whereby they decide what they think the original is, the starting point and goal for the TR and believing CT is the same: to recognize the original reading, which is there in the apographs. From where I stand, believing CT guys tend to get tarred and feathered with WH's brush. And this is hardly fair to do even to unbelieving CT guys, since textual criticism has moved on a fair bit from WH. I would ask this simple question: if the methodology is so completely upended in the CT, then why are the results so similar that only 2% of the NT (in terms of significant variants) is even controverted? I can only conclude that the methodology is not nearly so upended as TR advocates seem to think.


There are many avenues this discussion could go down, but one simple difference I would point to (other than the different "canons", which I do think are significant as well) is simply the fact that the production of the TR was a collation of the best manuscripts of the day which had been passed down and retained in the use of the church. There was a clear sense of the active preservation of the text among the churches. While of course this involves making decisions, it is distinct from the modern mode of text-criticism which essentially seems to start from a position of neutrality, and to construct the text on the basis of critical methods that presume to know quite a bit about the history of the manuscripts. The results are extremely similar, certainly, but I think that is in spite of very different fundamental approaches. 

I'll add the caveat to this distinction, of course, that I know currently there are a _wide _variety of approaches advocated by text critics, so it would not be fair to paint everyone with the same brush. But I do think the fundamental difference between the editors of the TR and the folks who are actually producing widely-used texts today holds. 

I admit I still want and need to do more research in this area, so I'm open to guidance and critique, but that distinction does seem significant to me. I suppose it does go back to one's view of preservation, as you initial post discusses. It seems intuitively correct to me that preservation would generally happen in and through the usage of the Church, rather than through manuscripts that have been lost to the church for centuries and then suddenly recovered. I need to continue to develop my theological and biblical grounding for this, but I do believe a biblical case can be made. 

Anyway, I'll reiterate that I do think the methodology question is significant, but I am in no way saying that those who use the modern critical text lack the Word of God. I'm glad we can discuss these things candidly as brothers.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 24, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> It is my understanding that the Westminster Divines believed they had the autographs in the apographs. They were not of the opinion that what they had was merely an approximation of the Word, or documents which _contained_ the Word; but rather they had the Word pure and complete. I understand that there was work done to compile the TR, but, again as I understand it, that work was done with the conviction that it was possible to produce a final, definitive text of Scripture and that they did indeed end up with that. I have faith that the Lord preserved His Word, and worked through men to compile the faithful text of His Word and that is what we have now. The ordinary Christian cannot be expected, nor is he, to do the work himself to compile an accurate text. That work has been done by those the Lord raised up to do it.


While I am sure that the view looks a bit different from where you stand, I can assure you that I don't believe for a second that we have a mere approximation of the Word, or documents which merely "contain" the Word, and that we have the Word pure and complete. My arguments do not imply the Barthian version of Scripture you seem to think they do. My definitions of "pure" are no doubt slightly different than yours. My definition would allow people for the centuries before the TR to have the pure Word of God, even though they didn't have a "final, definitive" text of Scripture. It would allow Alexandrian churches shortly to be invaded by Muslims to have the pure complete Word of God. It would allow Byzantine churches to have the same. You seem to want to complain that modern textual criticism is constantly in a place of approximating. By your argument, however, that is exactly what was happening before the TR was made, since, as I feel the need to point out again, the TR, if it is the definitive version of the NT, doesn't exactly equal any manuscript. To pick the publication of the TR as the place of final resting seems a bit arbitrary to me. If people were not "approximating" before the publication of the TR, then which manuscript precisely is exactly the same as the autograph? The level of certainty you seem to require proves way too much. 


NM_Presby said:


> There are many avenues this discussion could go down, but one simple difference I would point to (other than the different "canons", which I do think are significant as well) is simply the fact that the production of the TR was a collation of the best manuscripts of the day which had been passed down and retained in the use of the church. There was a clear sense of the active preservation of the text among the churches. While of course this involves making decisions, it is distinct from the modern mode of text-criticism which essentially seems to start from a position of neutrality, and to construct the text on the basis of critical methods that presume to know quite a bit about the history of the manuscripts. The results are extremely similar, certainly, but I think that is in spite of very different fundamental approaches.
> 
> I'll add the caveat to this distinction, of course, that I know currently there are a _wide _variety of approaches advocated by text critics, so it would not be fair to paint everyone with the same brush. But I do think the fundamental difference between the editors of the TR and the folks who are actually producing widely-used texts today holds.
> 
> ...


As to preservation and providence, that is precisely what my original OP answered already. I get the feeling that the TR position arbitrarily cuts off manuscripts found later simply because you have this idea that "active preservation of the text among the churches" is the only criteria that should be allowed to have any weight. You simply cannot explain what Sinaiticus, say, is doing in the providence of God, at least, not with any degree of plausibility. This doctrine of preservation only through the active church is impossible to demonstrate as a Scriptural principle, again as my OP demonstrates. By this type of argument, there were time periods when there was no church of Jesus Christ at all, since the active preservation of the church was entirely Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox at some points in history. The WCF says that the true church is sometimes more visible, sometimes less visible. Why can't the same be said about manuscripts? I have yet to see a single plausible argument beyond mere assertion that Sinaiticus is worthless because it was hidden. On the same argument, the Dead Sea Scrolls, including the great Isaiah scroll found there, shouldn't ever be used in text criticism in the Old Testament, because it wasn't actively used in the visible church. Do you really want to go there? Especially when the great Isaiah scroll is so similar to the Leningrad codex as to baffle the skeptics?

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 24, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> While I am sure that the view looks a bit different from where you stand, I can assure you that I don't believe for a second that we have a mere approximation of the Word, or documents which merely "contain" the Word, and that we have the Word pure and complete. My arguments do not imply the Barthian version of Scripture you seem to think they do. My definitions of "pure" are no doubt slightly different than yours. My definition would allow people for the centuries before the TR to have the pure Word of God, even though they didn't have a "final, definitive" text of Scripture. It would allow Alexandrian churches shortly to be invaded by Muslims to have the pure complete Word of God. It would allow Byzantine churches to have the same. You seem to want to complain that modern textual criticism is constantly in a place of approximating. By your argument, however, that is exactly what was happening before the TR was made, since, as I feel the need to point out again, the TR, if it is the definitive version of the NT, doesn't exactly equal any manuscript. To pick the publication of the TR as the place of final resting seems a bit arbitrary to me. If people were not "approximating" before the publication of the TR, then which manuscript precisely is exactly the same as the autograph? The level of certainty you seem to require proves way too much.



I get that throughout history the amount of Scripture Christians had access to changed quite dramatically depending on time and geography. And I'm sure many in the church for long stretches of time made do with incomplete Bibles. But it is also true to say that there is a complete Bible which allows nothing more nor nothing less. But can we not say that it took time to compile that Bible in one complete edition but that that work of compilation had a decisive completion? Otherwise it seems we can never know definitively whether, for example, the woman taken in adultery should be in Scripture. An if we can't know definitively then I don't see how we can say the Lord preserved His Word pure.


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 24, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> I get that throughout history the amount of Scripture Christians had access to changed quite dramatically depending on time and geography. And I'm sure many in the church for long stretches of time made do with incomplete Bibles. But it is also true to say that there is a complete Bible which allows nothing more nor nothing less. But can we not say that it took time to compile that Bible in one complete edition but that that work of compilation had a decisive completion? Otherwise it seems we can never know definitively whether, for example, the woman taken in adultery should be in Scripture. An if we can't know definitively then I don't see how we can say the Lord preserved His Word pure.


My position is that we have always had a level of completion sufficient for God's people at every single point in history. Your view doesn't appear to say that. But the providence of God requires it. But just because there may be uncertainty about the PA now doesn't mean it will always be so. Neither does progress in textual criticism imply continual shifting sideways into completely unrelated positions. It never has. Why do you need decisive completion when this wasn't necessary for God's people for almost fifteen centuries? What makes your situation so different from people in 1400 A.D. that you need a decisive completion more than they did? Your position cannot hold on this point, my friend.

You say, "And if we can't know definitively then I don't see how we can say the Lord preserved His Word pure." This sentence almost explicitly contradicts WCF 1.8. People in 1400 didn't know definitely. Therefore, they could not say that that the Lord preserved His Word pure, according to your argument. Therefore the Word of God was not kept pure in all ages. Your argument falls under its own weight.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 24, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> My position is that we have always had a level of completion sufficient for God's people at every single point in history. Your view doesn't appear to say that. But the providence of God requires it. But just because there may be uncertainty about the PA now doesn't mean it will always be so. Neither does progress in textual criticism imply continual shifting sideways into completely unrelated positions. It never has. Why do you need decisive completion when this wasn't necessary for God's people for almost fifteen centuries? What makes your situation so different from people in 1400 A.D. that you need a decisive completion more than they did? Your position cannot hold on this point, my friend.
> 
> You say, "And if we can't know definitively then I don't see how we can say the Lord preserved His Word pure." This sentence almost explicitly contradicts WCF 1.8. People in 1400 didn't know definitely. Therefore, they could not say that that the Lord preserved His Word pure, according to your argument. Therefore the Word of God was not kept pure in all ages. Your argument falls under its own weight.



There is surely a difference between not having a complete Bible and having alternative Bibles and we don't know which is correct.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NM_Presby (Aug 24, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> While I am sure that the view looks a bit different from where you stand, I can assure you that I don't believe for a second that we have a mere approximation of the Word, or documents which merely "contain" the Word, and that we have the Word pure and complete. My arguments do not imply the Barthian version of Scripture you seem to think they do. My definitions of "pure" are no doubt slightly different than yours. My definition would allow people for the centuries before the TR to have the pure Word of God, even though they didn't have a "final, definitive" text of Scripture. It would allow Alexandrian churches shortly to be invaded by Muslims to have the pure complete Word of God. It would allow Byzantine churches to have the same. You seem to want to complain that modern textual criticism is constantly in a place of approximating. By your argument, however, that is exactly what was happening before the TR was made, since, as I feel the need to point out again, the TR, if it is the definitive version of the NT, doesn't exactly equal any manuscript. To pick the publication of the TR as the place of final resting seems a bit arbitrary to me. If people were not "approximating" before the publication of the TR, then which manuscript precisely is exactly the same as the autograph? The level of certainty you seem to require proves way too much.
> 
> As to preservation and providence, that is precisely what my original OP answered already. I get the feeling that the TR position arbitrarily cuts off manuscripts found later simply because you have this idea that "active preservation of the text among the churches" is the only criteria that should be allowed to have any weight. You simply cannot explain what Sinaiticus, say, is doing in the providence of God, at least, not with any degree of plausibility. This doctrine of preservation only through the active church is impossible to demonstrate as a Scriptural principle, again as my OP demonstrates. By this type of argument, there were time periods when there was no church of Jesus Christ at all, since the active preservation of the church was entirely Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox at some points in history. The WCF says that the true church is sometimes more visible, sometimes less visible. Why can't the same be said about manuscripts? I have yet to see a single plausible argument beyond mere assertion that Sinaiticus is worthless because it was hidden. On the same argument, the Dead Sea Scrolls, including the great Isaiah scroll found there, shouldn't ever be used in text criticism in the Old Testament, because it wasn't actively used in the visible church. Do you really want to go there? Especially when the great Isaiah scroll is so similar to the Leningrad codex as to baffle the skeptics?



To be clear, I don't believe Sinaiticus and the Isaiah scroll are totally worthless-- I do believe older manuscripts have value for the purpose of historical study, so demonstrating the general unity of the manuscript tradition still has real value in my view. That could be one reason why God would allow us to make these discoveries on a TR view.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 24, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> There is surely a difference between not having a complete Bible and having alternative Bibles and we don't know which is correct.


Alternative Bibles? Where are you getting that out of my posts? Again, you exaggerate the differences between TR and CT, which differ on less than 2% of significant readings. Hardly alternate Bibles. I don't agree with that way of putting things at all. Also, see the last paragraph of my last response, which adds something not there before. If absolute certainty is required for knowing that God's Word is pure, then God's Word was not kept pure in all ages. For the entire time before the TR was printed, people did not know for absolute certainty.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 24, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Alternative Bibles? Where are you getting that out of my posts? Again, you exaggerate the differences between TR and CT, which differ on less than 2% of significant readings. Hardly alternate Bibles. I don't agree with that way of putting things at all. Also, see the last paragraph of my last response, which adds something not there before. If absolute certainty is required for knowing that God's Word is pure, then God's Word was not kept pure in all ages. For the entire time before the TR was printed, people did not know for absolute certainty.


 But it's not about how much is different it's the fact that there is difference and modern textual critics, after all the work that has been done, all the compiling of manuscripts, still can't tell me which is correct. But those who compiled the TR can.

As to the last point I don't know enough to address that. But I do know that if I follow your approach I don't have certainly today either but I do with the TR.


----------



## Imputatio (Aug 24, 2022)

If I may comment as an observer to this helpful conversation, and as someone working through this in my mind. Please critique the following:

It seems as though one side is searching for a particular kind of _certainty _that doesn’t exist, which, in my opinion, results in anachronistic dealings with the text or history that essentially reverse engineer their own position.

The other side is, again, in my opinion, dealing more in the realm of _reality_. What God has given us. What we have to deal with regarding extant manuscripts, their historical usage, etc.

The reality is, we don’t have the “certainty” as defined by the former position, as Lane has explained. That is not to be confused with the “believing certainty” that we have the word of God, which Lane has also mentioned.

At least that’s how it seems in my mind. This TR position trades reality in the search for their desired certainty, but instead gets neither.

I’d like to develop the definitions of “certainty” better.

EDIT: I see that as I was typing, more comments were made addressing some of these things.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 24, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> But it's not about how much is different it's the fact that there is difference and modern textual critics, after all the work that has been done, all the compiling of manuscripts, still can't tell me which is correct. But those who compiled the TR can.


This is called the fallacy of the beard. How many hairs does it take to say that one has a beard? If one says 1000, then if someone has 999, do they not have a beard? Your argument implies that, theoretically, if the CT only differed from the TR in one single, insignificant word change, it would be an alternate Bible. There is more variation than that even in the editions of the TR, not to mention the KJV. 

You ask which reading is correct. The original reading is correct. That's what CT/Sturz/TR/MT all say. The question is where it is located. And again, the question is not whether it is located in the apographs. All believing text-critical scholars agree that the original reading is in the apographs (I get VERY tired of people claiming that Warfield and CT guys don't believe this; they do). The real question is simply, "which apographs?" To posit that recently discovered manuscripts should have a say in where that original reading is located puts us in no worse off a position than the believers of 1400. In fact, we are still in a better position, since we have simultaneous access to most of these manuscripts now. That simultaneity is getting better all the time. That it should bump us down from 100% to 98% certainty (and concerning the NT ONLY!) is hardly problematic, if such uncertainty wasn't problematic in 1400. That is, the mere fact of such uncertainty is not unbiblical. 


alexandermsmith said:


> As to the last point I don't know enough to address that. But I do know that if I follow your approach I don't have certainly today either but I do with the TR.


If God called the people of 1400 to have less than absolute certainty, then how do you know He is not calling on you today to have less than 100% certainty? Why would it be a problem, if it wasn't a problem for people in the past? Sounds to me that are definitely searching for that QIRC that Claudiu was talking about. Beware of making certainty an idol. I'm not saying you have done so. However, that seems to me to be the main temptation here for the TR position.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Logan (Aug 24, 2022)

alexandermsmith said:


> But it's not about how much is different it's the fact that there is difference and modern textual critics, after all the work that has been done, all the compiling of manuscripts, still can't tell me which is correct. But those who compiled the TR can.



That seems a bit simplistic. Which TR? After all, there are at least some variations between every single edition (Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Scrivener). Which one is correct?

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Logan (Aug 24, 2022)

I want to make a note here that I don't mind someone believing that the TR is the best available representation of the autographs available today. It may very well be. In fact, I think it's the safest, or most conservative, between itself and the CT (although I prefer the balance of the Byzantine Priority). But I disagree with it becoming a doctrine or a necessity, or that somehow there is overwhelming historical evidence to support it (with no exceptions), or that it is above any correction, or that it necessitates viewing any other collation as corrupted.

The TR advocate almost always reads their position anachronistically back into those of the past, and that's one of the biggest problems I have with the position. It suffers from what I see as cognitive dissonance that sees only the support for the hypothesis and none of the facts or historical information that falsify it.

The same men who penned that the word of God was "kept pure in all ages" believed that was true in "_all" _ages, not merely post-1500s ages.
The same men also diligently compared manuscripts (as much as they had available).
The same men also wrote many things in their commentaries such as "some manuscripts have x" or "a better reading is y". Surely that would have been completely out of line if the printed manuscripts were "it". Do they dare to question the certainty of the "received text"?!

Our idea of providential preservation must of necessity be broad enough to encompass all nations and all ages. We should not start with the hypothesis that it is to be found only in one published tradition (which isn't drawn from Scripture or by necessary consequence) and defend that hypothesis despite all evidence to the contrary.

Reactions: Like 10


----------



## NM_Presby (Aug 24, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> If I may comment as an observer to this helpful conversation, and as someone working through this in my mind. Please critique the following:
> 
> It seems as though one side is searching for a particular kind of _certainty _that doesn’t exist, which, in my opinion, results in anachronistic dealings with the text or history that essentially reverse engineer their own position.
> 
> ...


I do agree that this impression can be given by some of the arguments made by the TR camp, but I don't think it is inherent to the TR position. As someone who believes the TR is the best Greek text, I do not believe that this means I have 100% certainty on every jot and tittle, but I do have theological presuppositions that incline me to view the providential work of God in the church as resulting in a text that serves as a sound standard. I also have basic doubts about the soundness of the modern critical method and its ability to produce accurate results. 

So I understand why you make that criticism, but please realize it is not universally applicable, just as many criticisms of modern text critics are not universally applicable.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 25, 2022)

I am quite sympathetic to Alexander’s stand here @alexandermsmith regarding the Bible he uses.

Concerning what Rich said (post #35): God is not going to suppress evidences of (the existence of) manuscripts. The determining factor is not primarily evidential, but presuppositional. Are such “ad hoc arguments”? – how about sincere, mature theological understanding?

Elsewhere, this “Satan’s Bible” stuff is put forth in an unfortunate lapse of judgment. Would we call the Arminian views “Satan’s doctrines”? One might, but it shuts down irenic, rational discourse. The same with the varying baptistic views. There are those who call the Reformed teachings satanic. Those who use such terms are content to villainize brethren (if but by inference) and cause unnecessary division in the church. Fiery words might fly in closed communities, but in the true church universal they are inflammatory and destructive. Yes, there was some villainy involved in the history of the CT version of 1881 (as I have recently exhibited here), but when men of good conscience *use* such modern versions nowadays that kind of language is inappropriate, and uncharitable. And there _is_ villainy in the Arminian error, but when talking with Arminian friends I rarely use such epithets.

Lane (#60): “The original readings are in the apographs, but it takes a great deal of effort to recognize what the original readings are. We have to do the immensely difficult and painstaking work of comparing faded manuscripts to each other to seek that original reading which God has indeed preserved.”

Lane (#63): “we have the Word pure and complete” – *but to discern it is “immensely difficult and painstaking*”. [emphasis added]

What about the thick-headed among us (I include myself)? Are we left to the “tyranny of experts” to give us our daily bread?

Logan (#73): “Our idea of providential preservation must of necessity be broad enough to encompass all nations and all ages.”

I agree. The churches before the compiling of the TR did have the providentially preserved Scripture in the main. It was an adequate preservation in God’s gracious providence for the calling of the elect, and the establishing and nurturing of His churches. That He had it preserved in the minutiae in a later development does not detract from this care of His people.

As regards _how_, and _what_ was “kept pure in all ages”? — 1) an entire and intact Greek NT? And that throughout the church age till printing came to be? I don’t think so. 2) Or the pure READINGS of the autographs kept in various Greek mss, and then compiled in an authoritative edition, and then printed? Which edition would that be? I know of none. 3) Or the pure READINGS of the Greek autographs kept in various mss—mostly the Traditional (Byzantine) Greek, but a very few kept in other versions due to attacks and mutilations on the Greek—and then put into print in the Greek Textus Receptus editions (known to and used by the Westminster divines), having also been put into the English, Dutch, and other translations? I hold to the third option. No reconstruction here, but keeping.

This way the WCF / 1689 are not made to bear the burden of asserting there was an entire and intact NT extant throughout the church age before the Reformation, but rather the authentic *readings* of the entire Greek NT were “by [God’s] singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages” — none of them were corrupted, or lost, and “fell to the ground”, but instead kept, and kept pure — despite attacks on certain passages, and words. One can see how this was actually done in God’s providential preservation.

-----

Some may have noted the evolution of my views /attitudes in fairly recent posts, such as, my nuanced view from the *One More Textus Receptus Critique Question thread*:






One More Textus Receptus Critique Question


Is it fair to say that the Southern Presbyterians differed as a whole on this topic from the Princeton men, or was Dabney an anomaly? I can check out this article if I can find it, but I have not read Dabney, et al on the topic. Not sure about any consistent differences between North and South...




www.puritanboard.com










One More Textus Receptus Critique Question


Is it fair to say that the Southern Presbyterians differed as a whole on this topic from the Princeton men, or was Dabney an anomaly? I can check out this article if I can find it, but I have not read Dabney, et al on the topic. Not sure about any consistent differences between North and South...




www.puritanboard.com





& this: https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...-critique-question.109224/page-3#post-1314947

Re the Mark Ward’s review of _Why I Preach from the Received Text: An Anthology of Essays by Reformed Ministers_, I have only read the GoodReads review, which is succinct and clear:








Mark Jr.'s review of Why I Preach from the Received Text


2/5: I’ve wondered how I can fairly describe a book that has more than two dozen authors. There is, indeed, a spectrum of views represented here. The contributions do not all perfectly cohere. So I think I’ll describe the poles, which I take to be the contributions of Mahlen and Myers. And then...



www.goodreads.com





Given my more liberal use of modern Bible versions among dear men and women from Nigeria who greatly struggle with understanding (we have recently gone through, in the preaching series) Romans 1-5, I found it helpful to use readings from some of these, even though CT-based.

I adhere to my TR/AV stand, but not, as Ward highlights, *exclusively*. I repeat to my flock that for accuracy the AV is my standard, yet find value in the simpler to read versions.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## Jake (Aug 25, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> 3) Or the pure READINGS of the Greek autographs kept in various mss—mostly the Traditional (Byzantine) Greek, but a very few kept in other versions due to attacks and mutilations on the Greek—and then put into print in the Greek Textus Receptus editions (known to and used by the Westminster divines), having also been put into the English, Dutch, and other translations? I hold to the third option. No reconstruction here, but keeping.
> 
> This way the WCF / 1689 are not made to bear the burden of asserting there was an entire and intact NT extant throughout the church age before the Reformation, but rather the authentic *readings* of the entire Greek NT were “by [God’s] singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages” — none of them were corrupted, or lost, and “fell to the ground”, but instead kept, and kept pure — despite attacks on certain passages, and words. One can see how this was actually done in God’s providential preservation.


If I recall, you hold to the Johannine Comma. Can you explain how this view squares with that text?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 25, 2022)

Hello Jake – are you questioning for your own edification, or is this more of a challenge?


----------



## Imputatio (Aug 25, 2022)

He’s questioning because it doesn’t seem to add up. 

I’ll add, if it’s not true, it won’t be edifying. So the former needs to be established before the latter is possible.


----------



## Jake (Aug 25, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Jake – are you questioning for your own edification, or is this more of a challenge?


I respect your position and have read your posts over the years. Admittedly, I have shifted away from a TR-preferred position over the years. I don't view that as an intellectual challenge, and in fact, as a result of this thread I'm going to be dig into Sturz as Lane has pointed out some compelling reasons to consider his view.

I've still throughout this thread been trying to figure out how the argument for the Majority Text fits together with believing the Comma fits in (as to me, the most important example of where the TR specifically differs from the Majority Text). I've found many TR advocates ultimately use a different argument than Majority Text (as I noted here) to account for differences like this, but I want to understand how the quoted portion of your post fits together as it doesn't make sense to me.

I specifically find that the manuscript evidence in Greek is very, very limited for the Comma (thanks Logan for this link earlier in the thread -- I'd dug into this myself but this did a better job). The evidence is good in Latin, but that doesn't seem to be what you're pointing to. I have trouble believing "none of [the readings] were corrupted, or lost, and 'fell to the ground', but instead kept, and kept pure" IF the Comma is one of those readings. The only way I can make sense of that is that the Western, Latin tradition preserved the Comma (with limited translation of the Comma into Western, Greek manuscripts) and the Eastern, Greek tradition preserved the other texts and Erasmus was able to bring those together in his later editions of the Textus Receptus.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 25, 2022)

Thank you, Jake – I did believe you were asking in good faith! Perhaps this will answer your question.

In Robert Truelove’s thread, “Ecclesiastical Text — Response to James White” [August 2015], I posted a defence of the _Johannine comma_, which you may find helpful.

<https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/ecclesiastical-text-—-response-to-james-white.87309/page-4#post-1084315>
___

For those who consider “the Latin and other versions’ attestations ‘irrelevant’, and that only the Greek manuscripts count”, this is a good reminder this is not, in textual critics’ eyes, the case. I quote heavily in  this post from a private exchange between Dr. Thomas Holland and James White on the variants found in Luke 2:22. It bears on the discussion of the Comma.

<https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/ecclesiastical-text-—-response-to-james-white.87309/page-3#post-1083415>

So much has already been said on this passage, I think I will bow out of further discussion; I think Logan well supported the case for the paucity of Greek mss, and I don't deny that. This is my view.


----------



## Jake (Aug 25, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Thank you, Jake – I did believe you were asking in good faith! Perhaps this will answer your question.
> 
> In Robert Truelove’s thread, “Ecclesiastical Text — Response to James White” [August 2015], I posted a defence of the _Johannine comma_, which you may find helpful.
> 
> <https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/ecclesiastical-text-—-response-to-james-white.87309/page-4#post-1084315>


From my initial reading (I started with the post I quoted), it seems that the theories you cite (Hills and Nolan) seem to say that the Comma was preserved primarily in the Latin and not the Greek. I now understand that you were saying in your post that the readings of the original Greek NT were preserved, not that they were necessarily preserved in Greek. I think that's where my misunderstanding was, as it seems very demonstrable that this is an example of a reading that has limited evidence in the Greek manuscript tradition. 

My question now is how does this impact how we think about what the Received Text is? Obviously besides I John 5:7 there are plenty of other differences between the TR and the MT as well as between the Greek tradition and Vulgate. I only pick I John 5:7 because it's a key, often cited verse. If there were evidence that the text were removed from the Eastern, Greek manuscript tradition because of Sabellianism or other heresy, does that indicate that the Vulgate is a more faithful tradition than the Greek Majority Text? How do we judge that the common "received" text of the Eastern church is to be trusted generally, but on this important, key text the common "received" text of the Western church is to be preferred?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 25, 2022)

Jake, Before I hit the sack, I'll post this: you may find some answers regarding the variances between the TR and the MT; it's an interesting study. The reason I collect and preserve some of these posts is that in-depth understanding – derived from long research – is helpful in such an endeavor. At 80 years of age, and nearing the end, it is part of the legacy I leave. You can also check out the Textual Posts link in my signature for more. 

Answering Alan Kurschner of aomin for light on the TR – MT differences.

Edit: a P.S. There is a lot of material in what I linked to just above (and some links in that material are now dead). Your interest, as stated above, is in the TR vis-à-vis the MT or Byz, and that is dealt with in the beginning, a fraction of the continuing material. As this was written some 15 years ago, the focus then was on the KJV / AV, nonetheless we understood it was the underlying Greek mss that were at issue. Nothing has really changed since then, except here on the PB we are more sophisticated and knowledgeable in these things now.

Also, some of the font formatting programs used, having changed, interferes a bit with the reading, but not much.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 26, 2022)

More to the point, Jake, now that I am more awake, than what I posted in #82 (re TR and MT differences), is simply the persistent belief of those who who were aware of its previous existence that it was removed during the Sabellian controversy, the testimony of the entire African/Latin Church*, the internal evidence, the pre-vulgate of Rome appearance of the _Johannine comma_ in the Italian church in Milan (per Nolan's report), and the confessional testimony to its authenticity in these documents:

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

Thomas Holland has an excellent section on 1 John 5:7 in this article on Textual Considerations. Find it in the search feature of your browser. He goes at some length into both the external and internal evidences.

Despite this, some will doubt. I, and many others, do not. When we arrive in glory we shall see the truth.

* Church Council of Carthage (485 A.D.) Eugenius was the spokesman for the bishops of Africa, Mauritania, Sardinia, Corsica and the Balearick Isles, these bishops numbered in the 300’s that stood in defense of the Trinity and used 1 John 5:7-8.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Aug 26, 2022)

EDIT: Never mind I found the citations I was looking for.


----------



## Phil D. (Aug 26, 2022)

Eugenius was a leader of the orthodox party involved in the council. On the Comma see here.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio (Aug 26, 2022)

Jake said:


> From my initial reading (I started with the post I quoted), it seems that the theories you cite (Hills and Nolan) seem to say that the Comma was preserved primarily in the Latin and not the Greek. I now understand that you were saying in your post that the readings of the original Greek NT were preserved, not that they were necessarily preserved in Greek. I think that's where my misunderstanding was, as it seems very demonstrable that this is an example of a reading that has limited evidence in the Greek manuscript tradition.
> 
> My question now is how does this impact how we think about what the Received Text is? Obviously besides I John 5:7 there are plenty of other differences between the TR and the MT as well as between the Greek tradition and Vulgate. I only pick I John 5:7 because it's a key, often cited verse. If there were evidence that the text were removed from the Eastern, Greek manuscript tradition because of Sabellianism or other heresy, does that indicate that the Vulgate is a more faithful tradition than the Greek Majority Text? How do we judge that the common "received" text of the Eastern church is to be trusted generally, but on this important, key text the common "received" text of the Western church is to be preferred?



You are aiming at a moving target. If the argued for methodology for “proving” the TR in one place actually disproves it in another place (Comma), then the rules are changed.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## NM_Presby (Aug 26, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> You are aiming at a moving target. If the argued for methodology for “proving” the TR in one place actually disproves it in another place (Comma), then the rules are changed.


I think part of the point here that may be getting missed is that the TR position isn't a "methodology". We have a text which we believe is best based on theological reasoning. We don't claim to have a consistent methodology for arriving at the TR via textual criticism.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Imputatio (Aug 26, 2022)

NM_Presby said:


> I think part of the point here that may be getting missed is that the TR position isn't a "methodology". We have a text which we believe is best based on theological reasoning. We don't claim to have a consistent methodology for arriving at the TR via textual criticism.


Generally a fair point, brother. Then perhaps getting into evidential discussions is moot, especially when they don’t hold water.

Although, you can’t really claim that textual criticism was never done with the Bible you hold in your hands.

This is where definitions come into play, because some will say that it wasn’t _actually_ textual criticism that took place. And so the discussion cycle repeats itself.

Sorry for moving off the threads intent to discuss providence.

I have another question:

Why is the TR allowed such amazing providences such as the way the Comma came to be kept and used, but any other position is looked down upon if they claim providence?

Especially since we are dealing with things that we can’t fully know (i.e. exactly how and why God works in his providence)?

Is it the “cause the Church used it” argument that slays all comers?

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 26, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> Is it the “cause the Church used it” argument that slays all comers?



Indeed. I tell people to be careful putting too much weight into that argument. There is a place for it, to be sure. But if we make it the kill-switch, then it later becomes very difficult arguing with Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholics.

Reactions: Like 9


----------



## Logan (Aug 26, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Thomas Holland has an excellent section on 1 John 5:7 in this article on Textual Considerations. Find it in the search feature of your browser. He goes at some length into both the external and internal evidences.



I understand where you're coming from, but this is what I see when I read Holland:

Open with an appeal to emotion ("it's not found in the majority of Greek manuscripts, however it is a wonderful testimony to the Heavenly Trinity and should be maintained in our English versions...because of its doctrinal significance..."). After all, who wouldn't want to maintain something testifying to the Heavenly Trinity?

Gloss over the Greek evidence (four of the five he gives are post-Erasmus and almost of no value in the discussion).

Then bring up how the Critical Text also relies on minority readings at times (irrelevant to bring up the "but the other side does the same thing" argument but it almost always seems to happen).

Then focus on the Latin evidence ("While the Greek textual evidence is weak [i.e., non-existent?] the Latin textual evidence for the Comma is extremely strong"). Once again: irrelevant. We appeal to the original languages; that is part of our Confession as well (1:8 doesn't just say "kept pure in all ages", it also says "so as, in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal unto them [the Hebrew and Greek]." Not "And also the Latin in some instances where we believe it was providentially preserved there but lost in the original languages."

Then go into some quotations from the early Fathers which are in the nature of commentary and dubious as proof they were actually citing it.

Then go into the "internal evidence" like, it makes more sense when it's there, the grammar is imperfect without it, etc., which seems to be only ever brought up by people who are already arguing to include it, does everyone else really not notice or is it not really the problem they make it out to be?

And wrap up with "When we consider the providential hand of God and his use of the Traditional Text in the Reformation it is clear that the Comma is authentic", which is simply begging the question.

Reactions: Like 11 | Informative 1


----------



## Imputatio (Aug 26, 2022)

This just dawned on me:

Is not this TR position a form of textual Gnosticism?

1. Manuscript Gnosticism

The position is seeking, and believes it has found, a type of knowledge, a type of “greater certainty,” about the manuscripts than can be deduced from the data, facts, or history surrounding said manuscripts.

This was developed a bit earlier on in the thread, that this TR “certainty” is not according to factual reality. It’s assumed; it’s hoped for; it sounds pious; but it’s not how God actually dealt/deals with biblical manuscripts over time.

To assert this “certainty” is to claim a knowledge greater than the rest of us have, knowledge we’ve obtained through our human faculties.

Of course don’t conflate this with the type of certainty that brother Lane mentioned previously. I’m not saying there can be no certainty.


2. Providence Gnosticism

This position believes it has a particular level or degree of knowledge that is so high that it can discern the deep and hidden things of God’s providence. Not only in positively proving its own assertions, but in actually _knowing _what God’s providence _hasn’t_ done and _doesn’t_ mean with regards to other textual positions.

Is there any other time that we are so confident, so brash even, to not only assume we can perfectly decipher God’s providence, but even be dogmatic about it?

Yes, the Christian can look at providence and see God at work. But this form of “knowledge” about providence seems to, again, be higher and greater than any we normally speak of.

I’m laying it out black and white and heavy so that my meaning doesn’t get lost in nuance.

Does this line of thinking hold any water, brothers?


----------



## Romans922 (Aug 26, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> This just dawned on me:
> 
> Is not this TR position a form of textual Gnosticism?
> 
> ...


No, your thinking does not hold water.



Aspiring Homesteader said:


> that this TR “certainty” is not according to factual reality


17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio (Aug 26, 2022)

Romans922 said:


> No, your thinking does not hold water.
> 
> 
> 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


How doesn’t it hold water?

Are you claiming those verses where Christ speaks of fulfilling the Law are actually about Greek manuscripts?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 26, 2022)

Logan said:


> I understand where you're coming from, but this is what I see when I read Holland:
> 
> Open with an appeal to emotion ("it's not found in the majority of Greek manuscripts, however it is a wonderful testimony to the Heavenly Trinity and should be maintained in our English versions...because of its doctrinal significance..."). After all, who wouldn't want to maintain something testifying to the Heavenly Trinity?
> 
> ...


A good summary of how ad hoc the attacks on other Greek manuscripts are levied only to leave your own position untouched. At the end of the day, if TR advocates would simply say: "We are ultimately not interested in the method that our TR manuscript was formed, it suffices to know that the Church in the 17th Century collated some manuscripts, produced an English translation, and then someone later figured out what choices they made in order to arrive at a stable text and that's what Preservation means. We'll levy any argument against another position but our own remains unarmed because we have no actual methodology that relies on evidence or approach."

I also find that many arguments ultimately rely upon impious speculation regarding why manuscripts are the way they are that don't correspond to the TR. Why impious? These manuscripts were copied, as far aw know, by Christians. The unhinged TR "scholar" ahs to speculate that it wasn't a Christian who created the copies but a heretic. That's why we don't find the Johannine comma. We care more about a theory than we do the care with which we represent our Christian Brethren in the past who used and copied the Scriptures under great persecution. 

The Word of God was kept pure in all ages - just not in the Greek that was actually in use for centuries in the East or just not in the Latin in the West. But _we're_ those who belief in preservation!

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## De Jager (Aug 26, 2022)

This is a level 10 thread and I am at level 1. But I have a question: if there is debate over which verses are really inspired or not, why can't we also have a debate on which books are or aren't inspired?

My second question is this: the canon was essentially agreed upon and established a few centuries after Christ. This is in essence a pretty arbitrary point in time. What if we found today Paul's 3rd letter to the Corinthians? Would that open up the discussion on canon again? Why wouldn't it? If the Canon can be closed at a certain arbitrary point in time by the church's "reception" of such, why can the actual text of the canon not be "received" as such at another arbitrary point in history?

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Jake (Aug 26, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> Why is the TR allowed such amazing providences such as the way the Comma came to be kept and used, but any other position is looked down upon if they claim providence?
> 
> Especially since we are dealing with things that we can’t fully know (i.e. exactly how and why God works in his providence)?
> 
> Is it the “cause the Church used it” argument that slays all comers?



This is not the argument addressed in the OP, but it's where I struggle even seeing as a consistent argument. The text the church used pre-Reformation -- we could simplify in categorizing as the Vulgate in the West and the Byzantine type texts in the East. Then the Protestant church largely followed the TR as the best compilation of the Greek manuscripts available. But even within the TR versions, there are differences when we consider for example the Comma. The Reformation in the German speaking world using the Luther Bible did not have the Comma, as Luther followed earlier versions of the TR. Luther himself also rejected the Comma and it did appear in Luther Bibles until after his death. The English-speaking world ended up using translations mostly based on later versions of the TR which did include it. Still, you cannot even say all the Reformation bibles included The Comma; perhaps the English-speaking Reformation Bibles included it? And some only with qualifiers (like Tyndale).


----------



## NM_Presby (Aug 26, 2022)

There's obviously a lot of vitriol coming out at the TR position at this point, and I will be the first to admit that there are plenty of bad arguments for the TR out there-- but I'll say my peace here just by adding that for me, and for at least some others, the issue is not perfect certainty, which seems to be the issue being attacked. Rather, two key issues caused me to embrace this position: 
1) A lack of confidence that the modern method is actually capable of producing what it claims to produce, and a belief that the Reformation era, being hundreds of years closer and directly connected to the manuscript era, was much better positioned to make those judgments.
2) A belief that God's providence was at work in the Reformation era as the focus on Scripture re-emerged and standardization became possible, to provide trustworthy copies of his word on that mass scale.

I readily admit that number 2 is an inference drawn from theological principles, not a direct biblical principle, but I think it is valid nonetheless. And I think that #1 is something that should be seriously considered more often, in our era of such high confidence in modern scholarly abilities.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Imputatio (Aug 26, 2022)

NM_Presby said:


> There's obviously a lot of vitriol coming out at the TR position at this point, and I will be the first to admit that there are plenty of bad arguments for the TR out there-- but I'll say my peace here just by adding that for me, and for at least some others, the issue is not perfect certainty, which seems to be the issue being attacked. Rather, two key issues caused me to embrace this position:
> 1) A lack of confidence that the modern method is actually capable of producing what it claims to produce, and a belief that the Reformation era, being hundreds of years closer and directly connected to the manuscript era, was much better positioned to make those judgments.
> 2) A belief that God's providence was at work in the Reformation era as the focus on Scripture re-emerged and standardization became possible, to provide trustworthy copies of his word on that mass scale.
> 
> I readily admit that number 2 is an inference drawn from theological principles, not a direct biblical principle, but I think it is valid nonetheless. And I think that #1 is something that should be seriously considered more often, in our era of such high confidence in modern scholarly abilities.


Brother, please don’t take my words as vitriol (cruel and bitter criticism). 

I don’t intend them to be that way. I’m trying to be objective.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Aug 26, 2022)

NM_Presby said:


> 1) A lack of confidence that the modern method is actually capable of producing what it claims to produce, and a belief that the Reformation era, being hundreds of years closer and directly connected to the manuscript era, was much better positioned to make those judgments.



Two notes: one can have misgivings over modern methods AND past methods. It's not an XOR situation.

Second, I don't think that the Reformation era was better positioned to make those judgements. They had enormous logistical problems even traveling from one location to another. There were no databases of manuscripts, and even the _leading _scholars in the field had only seen a couple dozen incomplete manuscripts at _most_. You couldn't mail manuscripts back and forth, most people who saw a Greek manuscript would only ever see a couple.

When Walton's _Polyglot_ was published in 1654 (long after these events), he compiled as many differences in manuscripts as he was able to find, and people of the day were shocked at the number of difference, including John Owen who wrote a treatise on it. No one had a clue of the extent of differences there were in manuscripts (not that they were necessarily significant, or unsolvable, just more numerous than anyone had thought). Awareness of differences in texts was pretty minimal, not because they weren't good scholars, but because they couldn't perform the type of collation and comparison which was done later. 

It's pretty clear that if you read Calvin, Turretin, Owen, etc. on textual matters (or things like medicine/physic), that they were working with extremely limited knowledge just because of the nature of the time and limitations of the era they lived. Older is not always better.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 26, 2022)

NM_Presby said:


> There's obviously a lot of vitriol coming out at the TR position at this point, and I will be the first to admit that there are plenty of bad arguments for the TR out there-- but I'll say my peace here just by adding that for me, and for at least some others, the issue is not perfect certainty, which seems to be the issue being attacked. Rather, two key issues caused me to embrace this position:
> 1) A lack of confidence that the modern method is actually capable of producing what it claims to produce, and a belief that the Reformation era, being hundreds of years closer and directly connected to the manuscript era, was much better positioned to make those judgments.
> 2) A belief that God's providence was at work in the Reformation era as the focus on Scripture re-emerged and standardization became possible, to provide trustworthy copies of his word on that mass scale.
> 
> I readily admit that number 2 is an inference drawn from theological principles, not a direct biblical principle, but I think it is valid nonetheless. And I think that #1 is something that should be seriously considered more often, in our era of such high confidence in modern scholarly abilities.


My irritation (not vitriol) is aimed at those who argue for the TR in any manner other than they just want to assert that the manuscript developed post-Reformation for the Greek manuscript (in the time of Scrivener) is what is what it means that the Word of God is preserved in the Greek in all ages.

I find much of the "scholarship" attacking the discovery of manuscripts to be of the same kind of speculative quality that unbelievers use to assert that the variations in the manuscripts are a conspiracy among the orthodox to get rid of the "diversity" of beliefs that supposedly existed in the early Church.

If one is actually interested in trying to ascertain what the Greek contains then why would one rely upon what was later an educated guess at what the KJV authors chose among their manuscripts based on the translation work? This is why the TR does not match any Greek manuscript in the past.

One doesn't have to believe in modern methods to establish a text in order to question whether the TR is and must be God's preserved text. Every argument against other methods and even notions about Byzantine priority eventually fall apart when one asks why the TR doesn't match an actual manuscript and has to answer how the Greek is preserved in all ages. The person then leaves the realm of history and any commitment to what we find the Church used and goes into speculation about how a conjectural emendation here or a translation from the Latin over there is what *must* be accepted in order to believe in Providential preservation.

I'm sympathetic to an argument about Byzantine priority or the idea that a Greek manuscript in continuous use is to be preferred over manuscripts that we find earlier where those readings aren't in use. It' makes logical sense that those who continued to use the Greek would notice a change and that it's possible that early manuscripts that have variant readings are the manuscripts that have the error.

In other words, I'm not wedded to just trusting that older is better or some other method. What I can't stomach are the impious arguments by some TR advocates that paint the same users of the Byzantine text of a heresy conspiracy when it suits their argument that the Latin preserved a reading or that some later conjectural emendation should be there because it happened at the time of the Reformation. To claim that those who doubt the Providential preservation of God's Word is an abject absurdity compared to the ad hoc gymnastics one has to engage in to at the same time praise and condemn those who used the Greek manuscripts.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 2


----------



## Claudiu (Aug 26, 2022)

NM_Presby said:


> 1) A lack of confidence that the modern method is actually capable of producing what it claims to produce...


This is where there needs to be push-back. 

The modern method, as it operates within those who hold to preservation, is not much different from that during the "TR era" or those of earlier Reformers. The TR camp as it developed and currently stands today is a novelty in history. It is more of the new kid on the block. The Reformation era did not hold to the arguments and viewpoints proposed by the modern TR camp. Reformation era textual criticism looks a lot more like what our Reformed scholars are doing today, albeit with changed or competing emphasis (as Lane has outlined in the OP and other posts). What Reformation era textual criticism didn't look like is what the modern TR proponents project it looked like: critics consciously choosing to only operate within a few fixed manuscripts limited to a family frozen in time. Once a faulty wedge is driven between the "modern method" and what TR proponents think happened during Reformation era textual criticism, then TR proponents can cast doubt on the modern method as driven by unbelief and denial of preservation and return to the safe harbor of the Reformation. Problem is, it's an incorrect history. 

It's the same anachronism I witnessed in my time in the Eastern Orthodox church. In the EO context 11th-15th century texts that spoke about what the church believed in 400AD or even 100AD was used today as gospel truth representing that early history. Similarly, TR advocates have developed a narrative in the last hundred years, with a recent revival, wherein the reader assumes that what the TR camp is presenting as history is factual. But when you actually dig in the history you realize the current narrative just doesn't match up. It should give one pause when a seemingly 99% of Reformed scholarship in this area holds to the "modern method" against the TR. 

Additionally, "modern method" can be used in different ways. I get the impression from TR advocates that many times they speak of it as bible translators simply taking the Greek critical edition and just translating straight from it. But the committees of say the ESV, CSB, NASB don't just wholesale take the critical text without themselves looking at the data, wrestling with a decision, and voting by committee which way to go. Individuals did this with the TR, as did translators of that era. That's simply text criticism.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## NM_Presby (Aug 26, 2022)

Claudiu said:


> This is where there needs to be push-back.
> 
> The modern method, as it operates within those who hold to preservation, is not much different from that during the "TR era" or those of earlier Reformers. The TR camp as it developed and currently stands today is a novelty in history. It is more of the new kid on the block. The Reformation era did not hold to the arguments and viewpoints proposed by the modern TR camp. Reformation era textual criticism looks a lot more like what our Reformed scholars are doing today, albeit with changed or competing emphasis (as Lane has outlined in the OP and other posts). What Reformation era textual criticism didn't look like is what the modern TR proponents project it looked like: critics consciously choosing to only operate within a few fixed manuscripts limited to a family frozen in time. Once a faulty wedge is driven between the "modern method" and what TR proponents think happened during Reformation era textual criticism, then TR proponents can cast doubt on the modern method as driven by unbelief and denial of preservation and return to the safe harbor of the Reformation. Problem is, it's an incorrect history.
> 
> ...


Aside from the actual critical principles used to evaluate readings, one key distinction I have in mind is that the TR was assembled from manuscripts currently in use at a time when manuscripts were still an actively used element in church life (or very recently had been) as opposed to our attempt to essentially reach back and uncover the best text. I know to some that may not seem like a big difference, but to my mind that seems like a significant difference.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Polanus1561 (Aug 26, 2022)

After studying this issue for 5 years or so, I would say for myself (if you disagree that is fine) that this is similar to the baptism debate. Both sides start from different points and ask different questions.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## NM_Presby (Aug 26, 2022)

John Yap said:


> After studying this issue for 5 years or so, I would say for myself (if you disagree that is fine) that this is similar to the baptism debate. Both sides start from different points and ask different questions.


Definitely true.


----------



## Imputatio (Aug 26, 2022)

John Yap said:


> After studying this issue for 5 years or so, I would say for myself (if you disagree that is fine) that this is similar to the baptism debate. Both sides start from different points and ask different questions.


Baptism can actually be debated, and the Scriptures appealed to for direct teaching on the matter. Not so with this TR position. And yet it’s often elevated to a doctrine of secondary importance, becoming an essential tenet of a particular body of believers.

Reactions: Like 1 | Wow 2


----------



## Claudiu (Aug 26, 2022)

NM_Presby said:


> Aside from the actual critical principles used to evaluate readings, one key distinction I have in mind is that the TR was assembled from manuscripts currently in use at a time when manuscripts were still an actively used element in church life (or very recently had been) as opposed to our attempt to essentially reach back and uncover the best text. I know to some that may not seem like a big difference, but to my mind that seems like a significant difference.


I think you bring up a good point in the spirit of what Lane is addressing in the OP. There should be good, healthy debate on the weight placed on the different canons of textual criticism. But we would quibble over the history of what manuscripts were used and the nature of their use.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Imputatio (Aug 26, 2022)

Claudiu said:


> I think you bring up a good point in the spirit of what Lane is addressing in the OP. There should be good, healthy debate on the weight placed on the different canons of textual criticism.


I second that. Although, doesn’t this TR position shut down that type of debate by default?

And Claudiu, I really appreciate your previous post about the anachronistic tendencies.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Claudiu (Aug 26, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> I second that. Although, doesn’t this TR position shut down that type of debate by default?
> 
> And Claudiu, I really appreciate your previous post about the anachronistic tendencies.


The TR position as espoused by some (maybe most at this point?) advocates would shut down the debate. But not necessarily. For example, there are TR advocates who will honestly deal with the Comma.


----------



## Claudiu (Aug 26, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I'm reading through John and read Chapter 8 yesterday, I think it was. As I read about the woman taken in adultery I felt a sadness, knowing how the word of God in this place is doubted and debated. (I also felt great joy in seeing seeing how our Lord so wisely and majestically dealt with her guilt.) I'm thankful to rest in this.


My Orthodox friends and family can say something along the same lines with Psalm 151 in their bibles. This doesn't have bearing one way or another on the authenticity of the pericope.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jake (Aug 26, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> Baptism can actually be debated, and the Scriptures appealed to for direct teaching on the matter. Not so with this TR position. And yet it’s often elevated to a doctrine of secondary importance, becoming an essential tenet of a particular body of believers.


While for the most part our denominations and churches are divided between those who are paedobaptist versus credobaptist, only a relatively few smaller denominations take a stance on the issue on textual traditions. The ARP, RPCNA, OPC, PCA, etc. all allow the use of translations based off of the TR and the CT. I'm aware that the FCoS(C) and FPCoS take a stance on this issue in the Presbyterian tradition.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jake (Aug 26, 2022)

Claudiu said:


> The TR position as espoused by some (maybe most at this point?) advocates would shut down the debate. But not necessarily. For example, there are TR advocates who will honestly deal with the Comma.


One example is this. The RPCNA testimony reads in commenting on WCF 1:7 -- "The Church is responsible to examine the documents available to determine as far as possible what was originally written, and to study the translations as to their accuracy in conveying the meaning of the original, and to advise the public concerning them." This is a great statement and one I wholeheartedly agree with.

Some TR advocates are not interested in examining the documents to determine what is originally written, but are willing to trust the TR (generally because of its place in influencing the Reformation). KJV onlyists of course take this even further. This would be shutting down the debate. Thankfully I've not seen this attitude here on the PuritanBoard. I think we all agree for example with the Comma in what the evidence is (weakly attested in the Greek; more attested in the Latin to simplify) but it's based on that evidence that folks are saying they're arriving at their conclusion.


----------



## Imputatio (Aug 26, 2022)

Jake said:


> While for the most part our denominations and churches are divided between those who are paedobaptist versus credobaptist, only a relatively few smaller denominations take a stance on the issue on textual traditions. The ARP, RPCNA, OPC, PCA, etc. all allow the use of translations based off of the TR and the CT. I'm aware that the FCoS(C) and FPCoS take a stance on this issue in the Presbyterian tradition.


And the Baptist’s can’t be counted due to their independence.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 27, 2022)

It is not the antiquity of the Comma that is in question, but its authenticity. Dr. Juan Hernández Jr., in his article, "The Comma Johanneum: A Relic in the Textual Tradition" (not at all friendly to the Comma), does admit, “Priscillian would most likely have understood the Comma Johanneum in a modalist manner. *The Comma was nevertheless widely used in orthodox Trinitarian tractates throughout North Africa and Spain during the fifth and sixth centuries.* The Comma soon surfaced in commentaries and even gained a prominent endorsement – falsely attributed to Jerome – in the Prologue to the Catholic Epistles (in Codex Fuldensis), a credit that bolstered the Comma’s legitimacy.” [emphasis added]

In the providence of God He brought the Comma to be in a TR edition of the NT just when it was possible for it to be mass printed and sent into all the world. Anyone who wants to attack, attack. We stand firm on what has already been accomplished, and acknowledged in our Confessions. We will not be moved. It is a _fait accompli_, and cannot be undone.

Reactions: Love 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Brian R. (Aug 27, 2022)

Claudiu said:


> My Orthodox friends and family can say something along the same lines with Psalm 151 in their bibles. This doesn't have bearing one way or another on the authenticity of the pericope.


This isn't really a fair analogy, is it? Jeri has the woman caught in adultery in her copy of God's word. Who has Psalm 151?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 27, 2022)

Brian R. said:


> This isn't really a fair analogy, is it? Jeri has the woman caught in adultery in her copy of God's word. Who has Psalm 151?


A large version of the church for well over 1,000 years (maybe longer, different Orthodox jurisdictions sometimes have slightly different scopes of the Deuterocanonicals).


----------



## Brian R. (Aug 27, 2022)

It occurred to me why this textual debate will never end: *Quite simply, the burden of proof is on the CT side, but there are many of us TR folks who will not be persuaded.* In other words, there's nothing you could tell me or show me that would cause me to move from, say, the KJV to the ESV. So it's an impasse. When I look at what I'd receive by switching over I see this- a bible with many words removed, a bible based on a manuscript foundation that was only established about 150 years ago, and a bible that calls into question certain texts. It's a no brainer for me. I won't even consider that.

This is why the paedo-credo baptism debate is different. On that we all use the same standard. I'm a convinced paedobaptist, but if you come at me with chapters and verses I'm going to at least listen.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 2


----------



## De Jager (Aug 27, 2022)

As a serious Christian of perhaps only 7 years (I am not sure when I was really converted), I have to admit, when I read through my ESV and footnote after footnote, saying things like "this verse not in best mss", or " earliest mss omit x or y" etc. etc., I wonder if we actually know what God's word is. You might say I am looking for a level of certainty that simply cannot be achieved. I would say that I am simply looking for a level of certainty commensurate with the gravity of the situation. If I want to build my life on every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God, how am I supposed to do this if we don't even know which words actually proceeded from his mouth? While you all debate TR vs CT, the reality is that the vast majority, probably 99% of Christians just want to know that what they have is actually the Word of God. When your Bible contains thousands of footnotes placing verses or words in doubt, that doesn't help the situation.

Reactions: Like 9 | Amen 1


----------



## Imputatio (Aug 27, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> In the providence of God He brought the Comma to be in a TR edition of the NT just when it was possible for it to be mass printed and sent into all the world. Anyone who wants to attack, attack. We stand firm on what has already been accomplished, and acknowledged in our Confessions. We will not be moved. It is a _fait accompli_, and cannot be undone.


TR users aren’t martyrs facing the enemies of God, and you don’t need to add rhetorical flair to make your position sound like the noble and honorable one.



Brian R. said:


> It occurred to me why this textual debate will never end: *Quite simply, the burden of proof is on the CT side, but there are many of us TR folks who will not be persuaded.* In other words, there's nothing you could tell me or show me that would cause me to move from, say, the KJV to the ESV. So it's an impasse. When I look at what I'd receive by switching over I see this- a bible with many words removed, a bible based on a manuscript foundation that was only established about 150 years ago, and a bible that calls into question certain texts. It's a no brainer for me. I won't even consider that..


The burden of proof is on the _novel_, _anachronistic_ position that was held by no one for the vast majority of church history.

And your reasons for not switching over show how _begging the question_ is often a staple of this TR position.

Reactions: Like 1 | Wow 1


----------



## Imputatio (Aug 27, 2022)

De Jager said:


> As a serious Christian of perhaps only 7 years (I am not sure when I was really converted), I have to admit, when I read through my ESV and footnote after footnote, saying things like "this verse not in best mss", or " earliest mss omit x or y" etc. etc., I wonder if we actually know what God's word is. You might say I am looking for a level of certainty that simply cannot be achieved. I would say that I am simply looking for a level of certainty commensurate with the gravity of the situation. If I want to build my life on every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God, how am I supposed to do this if we don't even know which words actually proceeded from his mouth? While you all debate TR vs CT, the reality is that the vast majority, probably 99% of Christians just want to know that what they have is actually the Word of God. When your Bible contains thousands of footnotes placing verses or words in doubt, that doesn't help the situation.


Brother, I understand the sentiment, but you’re mistaken if you think using the TR changes the reality of the manuscript situation, and makes all those things disappear. 

All you will have is a Bible that doesn’t have them printed in it. 
Just like when I read a modern edition without any footnotes. 

In actuality, the original KJV also had textual notes. Now what?

“But the variants were only of the TR stream.”

Which takes us back up to the beginning of the thread.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jake (Aug 27, 2022)

De Jager said:


> As a serious Christian of perhaps only 7 years (I am not sure when I was really converted), I have to admit, when I read through my ESV and footnote after footnote, saying things like "this verse not in best mss", or " earliest mss omit x or y" etc. etc., I wonder if we actually know what God's word is. You might say I am looking for a level of certainty that simply cannot be achieved. I would say that I am simply looking for a level of certainty commensurate with the gravity of the situation. If I want to build my life on every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God, how am I supposed to do this if we don't even know which words actually proceeded from his mouth? While you all debate TR vs CT, the reality is that the vast majority, probably 99% of Christians just want to know that what they have is actually the Word of God. When your Bible contains thousands of footnotes placing verses or words in doubt, that doesn't help the situation.



There's a fellow in my church that spoke to me (and has also spoken to his pastor) who really struggles with the fact that there are so many ways to translate the Greek and Hebrew that he's not sure how much he can trust his version. He showed me his KJV that has many translator notes. I dug into this recently to understand why these are included in the KJV. (I know you do not call out any particular version here, and that there have been versions of the Bible published with considerably less notes than the KJV, but I use this as an example).

First of all, the KJV translators in the preface to the reader note their reason for including them: "Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point... It hath pleased God in his Divine Providence here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difﬁculty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain), but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than conﬁdence,... There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once... Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts, and precious stones, &c. concerning which the _Hebrews_ themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have deﬁned this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. _Hierome_ [Jerome] somewhere saith of the _Septuagint._ Now in such a case doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?... Therefore as St. _Augustine_ saith, that variety of translations is proﬁtable for ﬁnding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signiﬁcation and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good; yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.… They that are wise had rather have their judgments at liberty in difference of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other."

KJV scholar F.H.A. Scrivener noted (see chapter 2) that there are 8,422 marginal notes in the 1611 KJV, with hundreds more added in 1769 and other revisions. Most of these are about how to translate the text. Now there are also marginal notes offering alternative readings from other texts. On p. 59 he notes that in the New Testament, the 1611 has 37 textual notes and

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 3


----------



## Jake (Aug 27, 2022)

and 16 added by the 1762 and 1769 editions. He notes that the textual comparisons include to other translations (including a lot of reliance on the Latin Vulgate), but I will admit most of the variants are within different versions of the Textus Receptus.

Scrivener also noted there was a history of offering marginal notes with other English Bibles before the KJV, and it has continued so that almost all modern editions include them or at least have them available to the publishers.

I think the question of how wise this is to provide notes goes back to the original post -- how does God work in his providence? He did not provide us the original manuscripts in our vulgar tongue. He preserved manuscripts in their original languages (as well as in many earlier translations) that we're able to put together and translate so that they're accessible to us today. And God has greatly blessed the church through the availability of his Word. In fact, I would argue that the availability of the Bible in the original languages and then translated to the languages of the common people was used greatly by God for the Reformation to spread like wildfire. There's a reason that the flourishing of the Reformation followed the humanist era (back to the sources) and the invention of the printing press (easy to distribute the Scriptures and other good literature). While we shouldn't overwhelm laymen with everything about their Bibles at once, we should be willing to inform about both the process of translation and examining the evidence. I think the KJV translators understood this as well as many modern translators do today.

(The forum software cut off my last post and won't allow editing, so here is the 2nd half).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 27, 2022)

Jake is on the right track here. Instead of seeing text-critical and translational issues as a barrier to confidence, we should be seeing them as opportunities to learn more. If we think there should be no notes, then we are in essence saying that the KJV is inspired by God _as a translation_, not insomuch as it is faithful to the Hebrew and Greek. There are problems with the KJV _as the KJV translators themselves noted_. There are problems with all translations. It is not easy work getting one language to speak in another language. We should therefore not desire to be in a position where the evidence simply gets ignored. Not only does language change over time (whether for the better or not is neither here nor there), but so also does our understanding of various languages, including Hebrew and Greek. Freezing everything in the 16-17th centuries is not the solution, as valuable as their contributions were.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Logan (Aug 27, 2022)

Brian R. said:


> It occurred to me why this textual debate will never end: *Quite simply, the burden of proof is on the CT side, but there are many of us TR folks who will not be persuaded.* In other words, there's nothing you could tell me or show me that would cause me to move from, say, the KJV to the ESV. So it's an impasse. When I look at what I'd receive by switching over I see this- a bible with many words removed, a bible based on a manuscript foundation that was only established about 150 years ago, and a bible that calls into question certain texts. It's a no brainer for me. I won't even consider that.



I dislike the binary language that sees only two options. Us vs them. Tribalism. Both can be imperfect and I have no issue honestly critiquing the CT as well.

Reformed believers of all positions start with the general belief that God has preserved his word in the apographs. This should be agreed upon by all and is certainly attested to by Scripture and by good and necessary consequence of God being who he is, and his Word being what it is. This was the position of the Reformers and Protestants everywhere.

However, the TR position takes that general belief further with the _hypothesis _that it is only to be found pure (or purest) in one family of printed texts. This was not the position of the Reformers. This is not a necessary conclusion from Scripture or good and necessary consequence and thus, there _should_ be a burden of proof upon the claimant to support that hypothesis. And that proof has been supplied in the main, but even when extremely lacking in areas admits of no modification or fault. That's concerning.

The TR advocate in practice narrows that scope even further to the single edition of the "TR" that is a compilation of the Greek that underlies the KJV, and that certainly is not attested to by Scripture or by necessary consequence.

So when the TR advocate starts from the general doctrine of preservation (which is confessional and biblical) and moves to "every single reading of this specific edition is the specific preservation" and treats that as doctrine and all else as corruptions, then I think a diligent Christian has a _duty_ to test that hypothesis. I should not accept it as true simply because I would like it to be or it would be convenient.

If there is nothing that can ever change that hypothesis (i.e., "whatever ended up in the Reformation, or whatever ended up the Greek of the KJV, even though those aren't exactly identical, I take on faith is the purest word of God"), then it's pointless to even discuss evidence and no due diligence testing can be performed. It's then become dogma. I wish the TR advocate would just come right out and say that they won't even consider any possibility of correction and stop trying to bring up evidence as though it could really matter.

Reactions: Like 11


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 27, 2022)

Logan said:


> I dislike the binary language that sees only two options. Us vs them. Tribalism. Both can be imperfect and I have no issue honestly critiquing the CT as well.
> 
> Reformed believers of all positions start with the general belief that God has preserved his word in the apographs. This should be agreed upon by all and is certainly attested to by Scripture and by good and necessary consequence of God being who he is, and his Word being what it is. This was the position of the Reformers and Protestants everywhere.
> 
> ...


This is an apt summary. I think it requires some knowledge of how one would work from a Greek manuscript to arrive at an English translation and how the Greek manuscripts that were created and used by the translators involved some insertions from the Latin to understand what you're saying.

Essentially, the TR advocate argues for the presuppositional acceptance of a chain of decisions and interpretive choices by translators into the Greek from the Latin and then, from there, from the limited manuscripts to the English. It then argues for a "back translation" from the English KJV to a Greek manuscript and then says: "We take this as a presupposition that this is what God preserved as something to be ever trusted by the Church that He has preserved "in all ages" for the Church."

Not any particular epigraphs for further edification and work by the Church but a fixed standard from the time of Scrivener.

They then claim a moral high ground on the level of Luther saying; 'Here I Stand" on this method and claim that others who don't believe this to be settled to be doubting God's preservation in all ages.

Oh, let's throw in the invention of the printing press now because that seals it. I see, _that's_ why, prior to that point, we didn't have a manuscript that we can look at to see what God preserved in all ages. 

God was content that, in previous ages, the Western Church had a Latin text and the Eastern Church had a Greek text. In "most of the ages" the text was "waiting" for Scriveners work at the time of the printing press so the idea that God's Word was kept pure in all ages would be true conceptually, even though every jot and tittle of certainty that the TR provides was not available to anyone in most of Church history.

The amount of epistemic certainty that no verb, noun, pronoun, article, or participle was amiss in a Greek manuscript in use demanded by TR proponents was something God only wanted us to have after the printing press. Prior to that, God's people didn't have a manuscript in their possession that they could rely upon. Others had a Latin text. Thus, according to the argument, those prior to the invention of the printing press had reason to doubt whether they had God's Word since they lacked the epistemic certainty demanded if one really believes that God has preserved His Word.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Polanus1561 (Aug 27, 2022)

Did the OT text (which came to a close, canon-wise, before the time of the Apostles) became frozen during the time of the inspired Apostles?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 27, 2022)

John Yap said:


> Did the OT text (which came to a close, canon-wise, before the time of the Apostles) became frozen during the time of the inspired Apostles?


John, OT textual criticism is a completely different ballgame. There are far fewer texts available to us, but also far fewer differences among the texts we do have. Also different is that the oldest texts of the LXX are older than our oldest MT texts (with the exception of the great Isaiah scroll from Qumran). So, manuscripts from the oldest translation of the OT are older than the oldest Hebrew manuscripts we have. Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls are not uniform in their support of either the LXX or the MT. The Jeremiah witnesses in the DSS, for example, are divided. Generally speaking, most textual scholars follow the MT, though many believe they can use the LXX as a textual witness insofar as it reflects (sometimes) a different Hebrew original. Back-translating Greek into Hebrew is quite tricky, however, and so the process is fraught with difficulties. 

However, the MT is not completely uniform either. The Leningrad codex is the most important of the Hebrew manuscripts. But the Aleppo Codex cannot be counted out of the discussion. Currently, there is a new Hebrew edition called Biblia Hebraica Quinta being compiled. There are two options, basically, when it comes to OT textual criticism. You either follow a particular manuscript (most often the Leningrad codex) or you do an eclectic option based on all the manuscripts.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 27, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> I simply plead for an edition eclectic to _all_ the evidence, based on Sturz's position


Lane, as a convinced Sturzian, what do you think of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method?


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 27, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Lane, as a convinced Sturzian, what do you think of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method?


The CBGM is certainly going to get more accurate results than before, when only the differences were used to ascertain family resemblances. However, in my opinion, the CBGM still does not tame the genealogical method enough. My opinion is that genealogical relationships among manuscripts are far more difficult to parse than is often supposed. I think a regional provenance for a given manuscript is about the best we are going to get. In other words, I think the "families" are regional, not so much manuscript-specific.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 28, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> I think a regional provenance for a given manuscript is about the best we are going to get. In other words, I think the "families" are regional, not so much manuscript-specific.


I wonder if part of this is a greater appreciation of the Byzantine mss and their greater geographical spread. As you have previously said the Sturzian method appreciates a greater mss witness than the CT.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 28, 2022)

Interesting turn of discussion of late. Logan says (post #123),

If there is nothing that can ever change that hypothesis [there is a “single edition of the ‘TR’ that is a compilation of the Greek that underlies the KJV” and this is what’s preserved] then it's pointless to even discuss evidence and no due diligence testing can be performed. It's then become dogma. I wish the TR advocate would just come right out and say that they won't even consider any possibility of correction and stop trying to bring up evidence as though it could really matter.​
E.F. Hills, one of the respected purveyors of the TR/AV view, did suggest there were 3 possible corrections that could be made in the TR/AV. There are others who deny even that. Is it right to call this a “dogma”? Perhaps for a certain sector on the church it is such, but one that they are careful not to impose on others; it is a dogma among themselves. I admit, others may not be so reserved. I myself have spoken of this recently while posting on another thread; see post #94, and post #98

It seems not to matter that I hold a broad and gracious view regarding the worth of other versions, even those CT-based. That I hold to a view that “God has preserved in the minutiae an edition (in the Greek), and we have a faithful translation of that” is an intellectual offence to some, which they wish to overturn and marginalize, pouring forth a flood of words.

Rich’s “epistemic certainty” (post #124) may be a quality desired in *these* days – given the present state of confusion, discord, and uncertainty – as regards a settled Greek text and translations thereof, particularly among the children of the Reformation, but in previous ages different sectors of the church were content to have a reliable text preserved in the main. It is *us* nowadays in our peculiar situation who _legitimately_ desire it.

@Brian R. ‘s post #116 – apart from his saying “the burden of proof is on the CT side”, which I think is moot, says very simply what so many think and feel these days:

It occurred to me why this textual debate will never end: *Quite simply, the burden of proof is on the CT side, but there are many of us TR folks who will not be persuaded.* In other words, there's nothing you could tell me or show me that would cause me to move from, say, the KJV to the ESV. So it's an impasse. When I look at what I'd receive by switching over I see this – a bible with many words removed, a bible based on a manuscript foundation that was only established about 150 years ago, and a bible that calls into question certain texts. It's a no brainer for me. I won't even consider that.​
That’s equivalent to a dogma to Brian, a truth rightly held dear to his heart and mind.

-----

Now about this supposedly illegitimate desire for certainty as regards the promises of Scripture being preserved by God in the minutiae, and that He has indeed done so. It is the LORD Himself that has set the standard for us, as we consider the standards He set for His servants the prophets:

*Jer 26:2*, “Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD's house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD's house, *all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word*”

*Deut 6:2*, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, *neither shall ye diminish ought from it*, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.”

*Isa 59:21*, “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.”

And then Jesus, in *Matt 4:4*, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by *every word *that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

It is evident that the LORD holds His prophets to conveying the words He gives them accurate even in the minutiae, neither adding nor omitting a bit. Now shall He, who requires such fidelity from His messengers, do less Himself? In His providential preservation of His words (“*every word*” of which we must “*live by*”), is He not able and willing to do what He says? We hold He is.

Whatever the editors of the TR, the Westminster divines, and our other Reformed forebears thought – big-picture-wise – about what they were doing back then, *we* in the 20th and 21st centuries look back in hindsight seeking to make sense of what God did during the Reformation years, and text-wise / Bible-wise only one work stands out, and that’s the King James Bible and the Greek edition that captures its underlying source. Yes, I know that Scrivener’s 1894 work was derived from Greek texts in the various TR editions that matched what the KJV had in itself. Why did he do that? Because, perhaps due to the Great London Fire which destroyed so much of the translation committees’ notes and records, there were no other records available for him to work with in this historical detective work. The God who demanded utter fidelity in the conveying of His word, so we believe, oversaw the textual work done, and left for us.

We consider the various critical texts, although eclectic, nonetheless based primarily on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and these are on the face of them unacceptable. Finding the golden needle in the haystack of the thousands of Greek mss (many of them but fragments) has been by many critics deemed an impossible task. Even the best of the MT / Byz compilations are admittedly provisional. As the days darken through many “shadow of Mordor-like” evil developments affecting all the globe with dystopian threat, and supernatural judgments – such as wicked rulers over powerful governments – are we to believe that God has yet to give us what He has promised by way of His sure word? Many – myself among them – believe we are in the early throes of the little season of evil foretold.

And we hold that – since such a big uproar was made here on PB against the _Johannine comma_ – this key verse, perhaps the most vulnerable in our Bible, in God’s providence He saw to it that the world was *flooded* with this disputed reading kept pure and intact in untold millions of Bibles. Perhaps there are _billions_ of KJV and other Bibles translated from the TR in homes around the world. As I said before, we stand firm on what has already been accomplished, and acknowledged in our Confessions. It is a _fait accompli_, and cannot be undone. We will not be moved.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 28, 2022)

I read MT and MT. Majority or Masoretic Text? Context is King. I do think that Manuscript history is really important. Like the writing of uninspired Hymns I know that there is a writing of uninspired scriptures. We are called to test things. We are not called to test God except in one area that I know of. There is a black and white in life. There is also a gray. There are the influences of the Ariens and other kinds of Alexandrian heresies we should worry about. That is also a geographical discussion.
This one thing I do know. God can be trusted. Man is not fully trustworthy. I am not a CT guy. The Critical Text lacks historically in my estimation in critical texts concerning deity and other lesser issues.
You guys are going to make me go dig out all my old notes again that I haven't looked at in two decades. My forgetter is becoming more gooderer the older I become.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 28, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Context is King. I do think that Manuscript history is really important



Can you explain how CT guys miss the context?


----------



## Jake (Aug 28, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> And we hold that – since such a big uproar was made here on PB against the _Johannine comma_ – this key verse, perhaps the most vulnerable in our Bible, in God’s providence He saw to it that the world was *flooded* with this disputed reading kept pure and intact in untold millions of Bibles. Perhaps there are _billions_ of KJV and other Bibles translated from the TR in homes around the world. As I said before, we stand firm on what has already been accomplished, and acknowledged in our Confessions. It is a _fait accompli_, and cannot be undone. We will not be moved.



Praise God that his Word is so readily accessible and continues to be.

I'm curious your perspective as a missionary in a non-English speaking land. Do you think there is any linguistic bias in what we acknowledge with our textual choices? From what I understand, there is a lot of attachment to traditional Bibles in other countries as well, some of which have different textual decisions than the KJV (example I gave earlier was the Luther Bible based on Erasmus' 2nd edition of the TR). And now, while English is a world language and has been the main language of multiple missionary-sending countries (UK, US especially), English is only the 3rd most spoken native language in the world. Is it possible in another 500 years (if the Lord tarries) we could say the same thing with say the Chinese Union version and its textual and translational choices? Because of the prominence the KJV has had for so many years, are we more inclined to think of it as the "right" way to do things? Arguably it was the best to that point (even most Puritans traded their Genevas for the KJV despite some hesitation at certain translation choices) and was undefeated in use for many centuries, possibly even to today. But we all admit that it is not a perfect translation, even the likes of great appreciators of the KJV like Hill and Scrivener will admit as much.

That's why ultimately the most important thing is the original languages and readings as nearly as we can construct them. I believe God used his Word being rediscovered in the original languages and translated to vulgar languages faithfully to bring about the Reformation, in a way that it could not in Western Europe with the Bible being hid primarily in a dead language (Vulgate) that obscured key doctrines (like repentance). Perhaps the KJV can obscure for some certain doctrines, with its use of terms like "bishop" and "easter" or increasingly antiquated language, but it still leaves the church in a much, much better than the situation the church was in pre-1500 even if we had no other version in English.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 28, 2022)

Hello Jake,

I would delight to see a widely accepted KJV update (there are some, but not that popular) that was faithful to the TR and the translational choices of the KJ – such that I wouldn't have to use modern versions to clarify meaning – but I do think we are heading swiftly into the final dark age before the eschaton, and such a project will not happen.

Edit: P.S. I would want to add, that such a translation update – if done by an individual – they would have to be a linguistic genius of Tyndale's caliber who could capture the majesty and cadence of the AV's language.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio (Aug 29, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> The CBGM is certainly going to get more accurate results than before, when only the differences were used to ascertain family resemblances. However, in my opinion, the CBGM still does not tame the genealogical method enough. My opinion is that genealogical relationships among manuscripts are far more difficult to parse than is often supposed. I think a regional provenance for a given manuscript is about the best we are going to get. In other words, I think the "families" are regional, not so much manuscript-specific.


Some fear that, needing human input in order to work, CBGM will give biased results depending on those inputs. 

What are your thoughts?


----------



## De Jager (Aug 29, 2022)

I have to admit my suspicion of the CT position. Therefore, I have a couple questions. 

If we believe that God has preserved his word for his church through all ages, then why was it even necessary to develop entirely new translations in the 1800s and 1900s based on newly found manuscript traditions that are (allegedly) better than the manuscripts from which the previous reformation-era translations were based? Was the word pure in 1700? If so, why does it need to be changed in the 1800s? What is the point of the exercise? Someone might say that the new translations based on the CT really don't differ from the reformation-era translations in terms of any significant doctrinal matters. If that is indeed the case, I also question, what was the point of the exercise? It seems like an entire exercise in futility and of no meaningful benefit other than to feed a general attitude of skepticism towards the reliability of God's word. It is not with undue reason that one raises their eyebrows at the fact that the plethora of new translations based on the CT arises exactly in conjunction with a general period of apostasy in the west, whereas the translations adopted in the reformation era were adopted in a period of general spiritual revival. That is not to say that all new things are bad and all old things are good, but it is nevertheless a fact that cannot be died.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Imputatio (Aug 29, 2022)

De Jager said:


> I have to admit my suspicion of the CT position. Therefore, I have a couple questions.
> 
> If we believe that God has preserved his word for his church through all ages, then why was it even necessary to develop entirely new translations in the 1800s and 1900s based on newly found manuscript traditions that are (allegedly) better than the manuscripts from which the previous reformation-era translations were based? Was the word pure in 1700? If so, why does it need to be changed in the 1800s? What is the point of the exercise? Someone might say that the new translations based on the CT really don't differ from the reformation-era translations in terms of any significant doctrinal matters. If that is indeed the case, I also question, what was the point of the exercise? It seems like an entire exercise in futility and of no meaningful benefit other than to feed a general attitude of skepticism towards the reliability of God's word. It is not with undue reason that one raises their eyebrows at the fact that the plethora of new translations based on the CT arises exactly in conjunction with a general period of apostasy in the west, whereas the translations adopted in the reformation era were adopted in a period of general spiritual revival. That is not to say that all new things are bad and all old things are good, but it is nevertheless a fact that cannot be died.


“f we believe that God has preserved his word for his church through all ages, then why was it even necessary” for Erasmus et al to do the work of textual criticism to produce what became known as the TR some 15 centuries after Christ?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 29, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> Some fear that, needing human input in order to work, CBGM will give biased results depending on those inputs.
> 
> What are your thoughts?


While I might have other issues with the CBGM, this wouldn't be one of them. All editions of the Greek NT required rather significant human input to work.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## De Jager (Aug 29, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> “f we believe that God has preserved his word for his church through all ages, then why was it even necessary” for Erasmus et al to do the work of textual criticism to produce what became known as the TR some 15 centuries after Christ?


I'll have to think about this, but this seems like a valid counter-argument.


----------



## Logan (Aug 29, 2022)

De Jager said:


> I have to admit my suspicion of the CT position. Therefore, I have a couple questions.
> 
> If we believe that God has preserved his word for his church through all ages, then why was it even necessary to develop entirely new translations in the 1800s and 1900s based on newly found manuscript traditions that are (allegedly) better than the manuscripts from which the previous reformation-era translations were based? Was the word pure in 1700? If so, why does it need to be changed in the 1800s? What is the point of the exercise? Someone might say that the new translations based on the CT really don't differ from the reformation-era translations in terms of any significant doctrinal matters. If that is indeed the case, I also question, what was the point of the exercise? It seems like an entire exercise in futility and of no meaningful benefit other than to feed a general attitude of skepticism towards the reliability of God's word. It is not with undue reason that one raises their eyebrows at the fact that the plethora of new translations based on the CT arises exactly in conjunction with a general period of apostasy in the west, whereas the translations adopted in the reformation era were adopted in a period of general spiritual revival. That is not to say that all new things are bad and all old things are good, but it is nevertheless a fact that cannot be died.



The CT methodology should certainly be scrutinized and I agree, with Maurice Robinson, that it sometimes results in a reading which could not have arisen naturally. That said, it is also a historical mistake to assume that scholars only started wrestling with differences in manuscripts in the 1800s.

There were numerous attempts to update the "standard text" throughout the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s. Read commentaries and you'll see other manuscripts and readings referenced. There was just too much inertia to move the general acceptance. After all, once you have a Bible in your hands, it's almost impossible to not see that as the standard by which everything should be compared. We're naturally biased toward what already exists.

But people did argue for centuries that the text should be updated. Even reformed stalwarts such as Archibald Alexander and Charles Hodge.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Aug 29, 2022)

The fact that our copy came out of biblical reformation is the answer for me as to why we can now settlewith finality on the manuscripts worked on and then produced for the churches during those reformation times. The periods of time before that were times of relative darkness and declension in the visible church. There will never be a definite text that all will agree on, if we can't agree on what God gave us out of the period of greatest light and godliness since the apostolic period. (Assertion.) We will just never find proof that what we were given is not what God wants us to cling to as the word of God. (Assertion via tream of consciousness thought.)


----------



## Imputatio (Aug 29, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> The fact that our copy came out of biblical reformation is the answer for me as to why we can now settlewith finality on the manuscripts worked on and then produced for the churches during those reformation times. The periods of time before that were times of relative darkness and declension in the visible church. There will never be a definite text that all will agree on, if we can't agree on what God gave us out of the period of greatest light and godliness since the apostolic period. (Assertion.) We will just never find proof that what we were given is not what God wants us to cling to as the word of God. (Assertion via tream of consciousness thought.)


Sister, I appreciate and can sympathize with your view. It feels safe. But as you admit, it’s based on an assertion, not on _the way things really are_.

Conversely, I’m convinced that the Reformers and the men who made the KJV would all scratch their heads at the TR position that has been argued for in this thread. 

It’s a novel position. It’s an anachronistic position. It’s a position that attempts to speak authoritatively about discerning God’s work of providence.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio (Aug 29, 2022)

De Jager said:


> I'll have to think about this, but this seems like a valid counter-argument.


Brother, I understand where you are coming from. But I honestly believe it is trading truth for certainty, and getting neither.


----------



## De Jager (Aug 29, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> Brother, I understand where you are coming from. But I honestly believe it is trading truth for certainty, and getting neither.


So...we are pretty sure that we have the word of God? But not certain.

Why would I take up my cross and follow Christ if we aren't even certain that his words are actually what we have.

Would you say that my KJV/NKJV Bible contains "mostly" the word of God? So, maybe 99.8% the word of God and 0.02% the word of man? How much of my Bible can I trust? Based on this thread, the whole ballgame is blown.

If someone asks me what God thinks of this or that, I guess I will say "scholars believe that God has said x or y about this, based on the fact that we have 1000s of manuscripts". I can't just say "God said ____".

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Polanus1561 (Aug 29, 2022)

I posted something earlier in the form of a rhetorical question, but let me present it more clearly now.

Jesus and the apostles lived in a time of variant readings, did they not? Does it not puzzle any of you why they did not settle the variants among the proto-MT, LXX etc and set the definitive readings to clear up the variants that appeared since the time of Ezra? Yet, we find the apostles quoting the LXX and MT! To me, it seems they did not resolve the tension (of course they could have) we now face regarding variant readings. In fact, they seem to live quite comfortably with it.

"Our Lord and his apostles confronted OT variants qualitatively similar to the ones that confront us, yet they did not hesitate to rely on the authority of Scripture. These difference did not prevent Jesus from saying that Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35), nor Paul from confessing that “all Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Tim 3:16). Why should the contemporary church, which is built upon Christ and his apostles, hesitate any more than they to confess the reliability and inspiration of Scripture?"
- Bruce Waltke

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jake (Aug 29, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> The fact that our copy came out of biblical reformation is the answer for me as to why we can now settlewith finality on the manuscripts worked on and then produced for the churches during those reformation times. The periods of time before that were times of relative darkness and declension in the visible church. There will never be a definite text that all will agree on, if we can't agree on what God gave us out of the period of greatest light and godliness since the apostolic period. (Assertion.) We will just never find proof that what we were given is not what God wants us to cling to as the word of God. (Assertion via tream of consciousness thought.)


In Lane's first post, my response (first on this thread) was to say many TR-advocates don't actually use the "majority text" argument he was arguing against, but use an argument more like yours Jeri for the specific place of the TR in the Reformation. I actually think this argument is more internally consistent if arguing for the TR and not the MT. I'm still having trouble wrapping my mind how Steve uses the majority text argument while arguing for the inclusion of several non-MT readings like the Comma for example.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jake (Aug 29, 2022)

De Jager said:


> So...we are pretty sure that we have the word of God? But not certain.
> 
> Why would I take up my cross and follow Christ if we aren't even certain that his words are actually what we have.
> 
> ...


I think this goes back to what Lane said earlier in the thread. If God had wanted us to have the original autographs, he could have preserved them. See here: https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...ng-manuscripts-of-the-nt.109376/#post-1316539

My faith is not shaken because of differences in the manuscripts, but is very greatly strengthened because of the huge amount of evidence we have for all of Scripture, especially compared to other ancient documents (of which the Bible's evidence is so much greater its scarcely a comparison). Similarly, my faith is not shaken because scholars don't agree on how to translate every word of ancient Greek or Hebrew. Even the KJV translators admitted this. I'd refer again to the quote I gave you from the KJV Translator's preface in this post: https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...uscripts-of-the-nt.109376/page-4#post-1317117

In fact, I would recommend reading the KJV Translator's preface and the NKJV introduction in their entireties. Listening to the KJV translators themselves or Dr. Farstad (general editor for the NKJV) I think you would find a different attitude.

Dan Wallace, PCA member and Greek scholar involved with several good Bible translations, once said, "In American Christianity, we have replaced the search for truth with the search for certainty. The cults have certainty, but they don't have truth."


----------



## Imputatio (Aug 29, 2022)

De Jager said:


> So...we are pretty sure that we have the word of God? But not certain.
> 
> Why would I take up my cross and follow Christ if we aren't even certain that his words are actually what we have.
> 
> ...



Brother, go back and read the early posts of this thread, specifically post #5 and those from @greenbaggins.

The other viewpoints DO NOT say we have no certainty about the word of God. That’s a TR straw man. 

I believe you are engaging in the QIRC mentioned in post #5.

The TR is an eclectic text drawn from a certain group of manuscripts. It doesn’t provide you the type of certainty you are after. You’ve been sold the TR promises, which, again, disregard what actually happened in history with the manuscripts. 

Again I’ll say, I sympathize with how you feel. You are looking for a safe harbour, and you think it can only be found in your KJV. But I don’t believe that is true, nor necessary.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Logan (Aug 29, 2022)

De Jager said:


> So...we are pretty sure that we have the word of God? But not certain.
> 
> Why would I take up my cross and follow Christ if we aren't even certain that his words are actually what we have.
> 
> ...



Keep in mind that the TR doesn't really solve this problem. There is no one "TR". What you have is a subset or family of variants, most of them minor, but there are several hundred of them. Are you therefore not confident that it's the word of God? Does that shake your certainty or do you have to pick one? The TR pretends there is uniformity, when really it's just "fewer" or "less controversial" differences. 

Or do we have to be content with the "TR" that was was essentially reverse-compiled from the KJV (Scrivener 1895) and which doesn't exactly match any "TR" edition of the past? I find the argument that we can't have certainty unless we accept the TR on faith to be a bit of a straw man, especially when it is admitted that verses like 1 John 5:7 were lost to the Greek. Did the Greek speakers pre-Erasmus not have certainty then?

None of the Reformers or Puritans just "picked one". They regularly compared manuscripts and were content that what they had accurately represented what had been preserved in all the manuscripts, while still being far from saying it was above any improvement or correction or that further study was not just unnecessary but out of bounds.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## De Jager (Aug 29, 2022)

@Logan Brother, I appreciate your posts and they are helpful. I was voicing some frustration. Perhaps in essence my "problem" isn't so much with TR/CT debate, but perhaps with the issue of variant readings period. I will have to do some studying to determine how to deal with that. I recognize that there are variances in manuscripts and that even the TR is produced from various manuscripts and those manuscripts aren't all the same. I don't want to further derail the thread in that respect.

I am by no means KJV-only or even TR-only, in fact our church uses the NKJV, I regularly use the NKJV and have copies of ESV, NIV, NKJV and KJV at home and read from all of them. I am not dogmatic on this, but I am not naturally inclined to be sympathetic to the CT position. That is my natural bias that I will admit up front. I am also not against all forms of "textual criticism" (I don't like that term) in the sense that I do believe one has a duty to compare manuscripts and to use sanctified logic and reason to try and work out differences, if there are any. What I am wary of, is what I perceive of as novel textual criticism that arose in a time of, frankly, rank apostasy. I am also seeing a lot of comments in this thread which seem to denigrate advocates of the TR or KJV "TR advocates do this or that, why can't they just admit that they don't use logic, etc etc". I look at the fact that there are ordained ministers in this very thread who differ, for what seems to be good reasons. I look at the fact that there is a very highly acclaimed, faithful reformed seminary (Puritan Reformed) which advocates for the use of the KJV, and I'd like to think that they have some good reasoning beyond "we take it on faith", or "that's the version that the apostle Paul used" or other such nonsense.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 29, 2022)

De Jager said:


> So...we are pretty sure that we have the word of God? But not certain.
> 
> Why would I take up my cross and follow Christ if we aren't even certain that his words are actually what we have.
> 
> ...


Once again, you have to be able to take what you wrote above and apply it to anyone prior to the 16th Century. It sounds pious until you ask: "What would the Saint in the Western Church ask regarding the Vulgate and what would the Saint in the East ask regarding the Greek text he was reading?"
Since the answers are different than the text you hold may they ask the same impious question you pose as denying certainty since (in retrospect) they didn't have the certain text you possess?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 29, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Interesting turn of discussion of late. Logan says (post #123),
> 
> If there is nothing that can ever change that hypothesis [there is a “single edition of the ‘TR’ that is a compilation of the Greek that underlies the KJV” and this is what’s preserved] then it's pointless to even discuss evidence and no due diligence testing can be performed. It's then become dogma. I wish the TR advocate would just come right out and say that they won't even consider any possibility of correction and stop trying to bring up evidence as though it could really matter.​
> E.F. Hills, one of the respected purveyors of the TR/AV view, did suggest there were 3 possible corrections that could be made in the TR/AV. There are others who deny even that. Is it right to call this a “dogma”? Perhaps for a certain sector on the church it is such, but one that they are careful not to impose on others; it is a dogma among themselves. I admit, others may not be so reserved. I myself have spoken of this recently while posting on another thread; see post #94, and post #98
> ...


I consider the bulk of this post to be "fluff".

1. Insert the same argument here that doesn't deal with the challenges to method and presuppositions.
2. Claim that your view is ipso facto what the Scriptures teach because of the verses you propose.

All I need to do is to present an argument in 1 and then follow up with the same verses and, Voila!, Steve doesn't believe in the preservation of God's Word! I know you're accustomed to presenting arguments like this to impress upon others that, if they disagree with you, they doubt the preservation oof God's Word but I find the methodology impious. It leaves the ignorant and unlearned in a state where they need to trust your method or they are explicitly charged with denying that God preserves His Word.

Reactions: Like 2 | Sad 1


----------



## Imputatio (Aug 29, 2022)

John Yap said:


> Did the OT text (which came to a close, canon-wise, before the time of the Apostles) became frozen during the time of the inspired Apostles?


No one has responded yet, but your point is noted, brother. Thank you.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 29, 2022)

I think one of the things one can use to describe how impious some of the TR arguments are is to compare it to other claims that have to rely upon special pleading from Church History to bolster a claim that they *know* is true. For example, Landmark Baptists of the Baptist tortured Church History to find a continuous witness of those who must have performed credo-Baptism. 
1. Make the tortured argument about how this sect here or fragment there proved that it was still practiced.
2. Follow up with a Scripture proof that demonstrates if you deny the method in 1. then one is denying what the Scriptures Promise that Christ will never fail to have a witness.

For example, Steve once made the argument that Textual Criticism requires a chain of God-honoring Churchmen. When challenged with Erasmus, he constructs a historical fiction of a man that is a paragon of belief. Never mind that of all Luther's opponents, Erasmus was the man who put his finger on what Luther was reforming and choses his belly and reputation over belief. It doesn't matter in the end because the presupposition must be preserved. The chain of events is what *must* be believed to account for not one or two but many decisions that the Christian must hold to in order to believe that the TR one holds in his hands is without error in any of its parts. Follow that up with a verse (or verses) that God's Word never fails and you have bound a person's conscience not to God's Word but one's own theory of Saints and Heretics who preserved the Greek Text, an Erasmus who is the paragon of Christian belief, and the other emendations and choices by Scrivener that constitute the edifice. Deny them and one denies the preservation of God's Word.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Imputatio (Aug 29, 2022)

How would you then counter the argument of Church custody of the manuscripts being a necessity? Simply with Erasmus’ character and unbelief showing that the custody was broken, or is the premise faulty from the beginning?

I believe it’s faulty from the start, as we’ve talked in this thread of alternate providences also being valid ways to account for the manuscripts over time; and even if you do consider the chain of custody argument to be critical, there’s no biblical way to justify being dogmatic about it. Alas, as you’ve shown, it’s elevated to “choose it or deny God’s preservation of his word.”

And that’s assuming the chain of custody argument is even based on pure historical fact.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 29, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> Sadly, I have to agree with you, Rich. I don’t feel qualified to say it in those terms; I’m glad you did.
> 
> How would you then counter the argument of Church custody of the manuscripts being a necessity? Simply with Erasmus’ character and unbelief showing that the custody was broken, or is the premise faulty from the beginning?
> 
> I believe it’s faulty from the start, as we’ve talked in this thread of alternate providences also being valid ways to account for the manuscripts over time; and even if you do consider the chain of custody argument to be critical, there’s no biblical way to justify being dogmatic about it. Alas, as you’ve shown, it’s elevated to “choose it or deny God’s preservation of his word.”


I counter it with the belief in God's Providence. Full stop. I don't need to construct a chain of historical events that must be believed by all Christians in order to believe that God's Word has been preserved. I believe God preserved the Word even by those who would otherwise destroy the article of the standing and falling Church. I believe He preserved God's people in the time of Esther even when the decree of the Persian King seemed unbreakable.

I'll even grant that what we have in the KJV translation is God's Word. I don't doubt it. I've studied and continue to study Greek and how translation works. I think the translators did a great job of translating from the Greek into the English given the manuscripts they had.

But, I also believe that God's Word never fails and so I believe that those who had only the Vulgate in the Western Church could trust that they had God's Word and I believe that those who had Greek Bibles in the Eastern Church possessed God's Word.

I'm not wed to a historical process. The TR advocate is. I cannot accept, as an article of faith, that everything claimed must be true to possess a Greek manuscript with no variants and, when asked, simply state that to believe otherwise is to doubt the preservation of God's Word and His Providence in human history. No matter how many pious words are built up. No matter how many quotations from Church history are levied, it is impious to bind any man or woman to a specific account of how God preserved His Word and to teach them that to doubt it is to doubt that God preserved His Word.

Reactions: Like 6 | Love 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 29, 2022)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I don't need to construct a chain of historical events that must be believed by all Christians in order to believe that God's Word has been preserved.



Change "God's Word" to "Church" and you have the doctrine of Apostolic Succession.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 29, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Can you explain how CT guys miss the context?


I am sorry I jumped in Jacob. I don't have the time right now. It is U. S. Nationals week. I just got home and I have a full schedule this week. Sorry brother. Maybe next week as I work on my Camaro. It needs a window and heater core. I love working on cars... he says semi sarcastically. 
And oh yeah, my Wifi is out in my house. Waiting on a new one from Att as I burn up my hotspot whatever. LOL. busy last months.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 29, 2022)

Rich, this is not a true statement: 

"For example, Steve once made the argument that Textual Criticism requires a chain of God-honoring Churchmen. When challenged with Erasmus, he constructs a historical fiction of a man that is a paragon of belief."

Erasmus was certainly _not_ "a paragon of belief", but he was a believer, and I believe saved. As I said in that discussion, we do not say John Wesley, an Arminian, was not saved, but rather that he greatly erred.

I accept that God can use ungodly individuals in His providences. However, in the very citadel of textual refinement, discernment, and production, we have let in the ungodly. The ancient Jews would never have let Babylonians or Canaanites into the priestly work of preserving and copying the documents of the Tanakh.

The non-Christian Masoretes were, as has been said, "the librarians of the church" in their keeping its mss.

It used to be our stance re the TR and the AV was normative. Now times have changed. Sometimes it is best to stay on the old paths, despite the ridicule and disinformation of others.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Imputatio (Aug 30, 2022)

You are essentially saying, “I accept that God can use ungodly individuals in His providences…except not in this case.”

What do you do with modern _believing_ textual scholars, since they don’t fit the unbelieving charge? Or are you also calling them Babylonians, Canaanites, and Masoretes?

Also brother, why do you feel the need to end every post with a Luther-esque “Here I stand, I can do no other” comment? I can only see that as a form of rhetoric, because it’s certainly not persuasive.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 30, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Sometimes it is best to stay on the old paths, despite the ridicule and disinformation of others.


Again, you resort to rhetoric instead of simply dealing with the fact that you constrain a belief in God's Providence to a specific set of facts.

{Insert here} any of the following:
1. Apostolic Succession
2. Landmark Baptism
3. The chain of events that must be believed that TR=Providential Preservation

Finish with: "Sometimes it is best to stay on the old paths, despite the ridicule and disinformation of others."

I'm not ridiculing you, I'm pointing out how your arguments amount to no arguments at all except to propose a chain of events that work only to answer how it cannot be otherwise for the person to believe in Providential preservation and then finish with pious words about how it's simply staying on the old paths.

Given my commitment (above) that I believe the KJV is the Word of God and that I'm even fine with people translating the Word from other manuscripts, I don't think it's necessary to take a person's KJV from them or to translate from a new apparatus. Those who memorized God's Word 200 years ago can trust in it even as those who memorized in 1000 years ago.

I'm not the person who makes impious claims and then finishes with quoting God's Word to explicitly note that those who believe otherwise are denying that God preserves His Word. You are.

Yes, Erasmus was a Christian. So was Cardinal Cajetan and so was the Pope who excommunicated Luther. He probably said something to the effect that: "Some times the old paths are better despite the ridicule" while men bowed their heads in reverence at the seemingly piousness of the words.

“Whenever I pray, I pray for a curse upon Erasmus.” - Martin Luther

I do want to thank you, however. You don't shy away from the absurd claims that must be believed even when you have to reconstruct history to show that Erasmus was a believer specifically trusted by God upon which our faith in Providential preservation would stand or fall. That he would have been happy to see the Gospel die out is of no consequence.

It illustrates to those who read this how fragile the chain of events is that must be believed in order to trust that God has preserved His Word. It's why you ultimately must cloak the actual arguments with rhetorical flourishes and quote Scripture at the end about God preserving His Word because the actual account of all the things that must be believed are absurd. The "trust me, Erasmus is a Christian" is just one of many.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 30, 2022)

I'm disappointed, Rich, in your remarks. 

I've done a good bit more research on Erasmus since our discussions some years ago, and your view of him is slanderous. Will people differ on this? Obviously yes. I could print more about him from various sources, but that won't deter you from slamming him and me regardless. Disagreements can be had without vitriol, even with grace and friendship.

Our faith – those who hold to the TR preserved in the minutiae by God – is not dependent on Erasmus being a born-again Christian. I did say above, "I accept that God can use ungodly individuals in His providences." But you like to make that one of your main talking points, as you steer away from _my_ main arguments.

And you get quite personal in your character assassination: false piousness and impious. And that leveled at an ordained teaching elder. And then assert of my view of preservation that "those who believe otherwise are denying that God preserves His Word"!! – _you're_ an elder, how can you bear such false witness? I clearly say that others – those not TR preservationists – do believe, in good conscience, that God has preserved His word, they just believe He has done it in a different manner. Men like Lane and Logan, both scholarly men, clearly believe in providential preservation. I respect their views, though we differ.

In these recent posts – which you call "fluff"! – I have shown the standard the LORD held His prophets to as regards minute fidelity to His every word, and asked would He not maintain that standard Himself? This does not negate others' views of preservation, it but clearly shows my own. That you would construe it to mean that they must "trust your method or they are explicitly charged with denying that God preserves His Word" is an untruth.

Rich, I'm sorry if my tenacity in holding my view exasperates and irritates you, but it is for the sake of maintaining a testimony to an old and long-established view of providential preservation that I persist – especially when I see brothers who hold the same being piled on.

Please, I would ask you to repent of the false witness and false charges. I know, and the Lord knows, I am a flawed person who lives by His undeserved favor, and that I am wretched apart from His sustaining. Still, we are to be gracious with one another. This is His law.

Reactions: Like 8 | Amen 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 30, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I'm disappointed, Rich, in your remarks.
> 
> I've done a good bit more research on Erasmus since our discussions some years ago, and your view of him is slanderous. Will people differ on this? Obviously yes. I could print more about him from various sources, but that won't deter you from slamming him and me regardless. Disagreements can be had without vitriol, even with grace and friendship.
> 
> ...


Which false charges:
1. That Erasmus is a Christian?
2. That you don't use "Here I Stand" rhetoric to try to lead others to the conclusion that one should trust an account of Providential preservation?

I say the stance itself is impious. That it is impious to sow doubt into the minds of sheep by dealing with half-truths regarding whether we can trust the work of scholars if they are unbelievers and then point out Erasmus as being in the chain of believing scholarship.

As for libel, how about the libel that you state that I bring up Erasmus as my main point? That is a life. I don't deal with this subject and merely remember it as one of the more stunning and ludicrous arguments you've relied upon that have the air of scholarship but amount to a superstitious claim about a mode of preservation.

What I'm disappointed in, Steve, is an Elder who has an opportunity to educate on how the process actually works and how accessible it is to people but you perform hand-waving about what a scholar said here or a scholar said there to bolster a theory that manuscripts we possess shouldn't be trusted. All in service to a mode of preservation. You double or tripe or quadruple words but get no closer to helping the ignorant understand what is actually going on in textual criticism, only telling them to be secure that all the ways that the TR uses to ensure it has the correct text must be the case. After all, you claim, all you're doing is quoting Scripture about how God's Word never fails and all you've done is cast doubt that He left us manuscripts as a testimony of that reality. You are not at all seemingly self-aware that your method repeatedly bears false witness against those in the past in service to theories. You see a manuscript (probably copied by a believer)and you have a story as to why it doesn't correspond to what you know must be true.

So, yes, I'm irritated. I'm irritated because of the "high ground" that you take when you slander in support of a theory or ultimately sow doubt in the minds of others that, unless they have a translation from the TR, that they are unsure whether it is true what the Scriptures say that God's Word has not failed. That you are blissfully unaware that you sow this doubt (despite your protestations to the otherwise) is part of the problem. 

So, let's just say that we're mutually disappointed in one another. The difference is that I haven't been the occasion for any to doubt that God has preserved His Word in the past, present, or future. You have.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 31, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> The burden of proof is on the _novel_, _anachronistic_ position that was held by no one for the vast majority of church history.
> 
> And your reasons for not switching over show how _begging the question_ is often a staple of this TR position.



The Westminster Divines, when they drew up the Confession, believed they had the full and definitive Word of God. And that sufficed for hundreds of years. And then some guys came along and decided that actually this verse and that verse and this passage and that passage are contested. And now we have 60 English versions of the Bible. Who gave these textual critics the authority to call into question the Bible which had endured and which had been blessed to countless millions of Christians? What has been the blessing to the church of this work? It has been a blessing to the publishers who have raked in the money producing translation after translation. But where is the blessing to the people of God?

You say that the TR people of today are not following the same approach that the producers of the TR followed. Why would we continue a work which is finished? The modern textual critic's work will never end because the inability to reproduce a faithful, complete replica of the autographs is hardwired into the approach. I don't believe that was the mentality of those who compiled the TR. I believe they knew they could produce a faithful, definitive replica of the autographs and that that is indeed what they did do.

Reactions: Like 2 | Sad 1


----------



## Logan (Aug 31, 2022)

Oof. Nearly everything you just said is demonstrably, factually incorrect. You’ve made bare claims with no support which have been repeatedly disproven (some in this very thread) with primary sources.

You’ve got a revisionist history that does not understand the position of the people you purport to follow.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Logan (Aug 31, 2022)

I figured I owed you a little more exposition of my statements above.



alexandermsmith said:


> The Westminster Divines, when they drew up the Confession, believed they had the full and definitive Word of God.


They believed what they had was authoritative and pure. So do I. You are reading much more into their position than they ever stated, which you can easily see if you take the time to look at their writings. None of them said that the work of textual compilation and comparison was finished. There are many writings of theirs that prove the contrary. I've posted dozens of quotations in the past. Any time one of them quotes from an alternate Greek reading, they are inherently stating that what they possess can (or should) be improved upon. The KJV also included notes with alternate readings, which the framers of the Confession were aware of. But far from bothering them, they embraced it and felt no compulsion to "pick one lest they have uncertainty."



alexandermsmith said:


> And that sufficed for hundreds of years.


Oh? The various editions up to that point with variants in the margins don't count? The collations of readings that were regularly published and suggested as changes don't count? Just glancing quickly, here are some textual critical editions that collected readings and suggested corrections to the Greek text:
1657 Walton's edition
1658 Curcelaeus
1675 Oxford University Press edition
1707 Mill's edition
1710 Kuster's edition
1711 Mill's Amsterdam edition
1720 Bentley's proposals and textual critical collation
1725 Bengel's
1751 Wetstein
1782 Matthaei
1786 Alter
1788 Birch
1796 Griesbach
1820 Scholz
1842 Lachmann
1865 Tischendorf

I'm sure I'm missing some, but I wouldn't say that "it sufficed for hundreds of years" as though nobody ever wrestled with manuscript variants. It was because people were wrestling with it and controversy and debate had finally come to a head that some of the alternate readings were finally widely accepted. There was nothing sudden about it, it had been going on _before_ any edition of the TR had been published.



alexandermsmith said:


> And then some guys came along and decided that actually this verse and that verse and this passage and that passage are contested.


Come now. As shown above and repeatedly over and over again through writings of various Protestants, pretty much anybody who ever looked at the Greek text had questions before these "some guys". There have been contests and disputes over readings for all of church history. Calvin notes many. Any commentator notes many.



alexandermsmith said:


> And now we have 60 English versions of the Bible.


This is relevant how?



alexandermsmith said:


> Who gave these textual critics the authority to call into question the Bible which had endured and which had been blessed to countless millions of Christians? What has been the blessing to the church of this work? It has been a blessing to the publishers who have raked in the money producing translation after translation. But where is the blessing to the people of God?


This is outright slanderous to the many Christians who have worked on the various translations. I personally know many Christians who were converted through reading of these works so apparently it has been a blessing. And the KJV is a blessing. It's a false dichotomy to say that one is a blessing and therefore the other must not be. That the one was done purely for godly reasons and the others for purely selfish and greedy reasons. That's slander.



alexandermsmith said:


> You say that the TR people of today are not following the same approach that the producers of the TR followed. Why would we continue a work which is finished?


Please do elucidate as to what you think their approach was and when exactly this work was finished. 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1536, 1547, 1549, 1550, 1551, 1565, 1567, 1580, 1588, 1590, 1598, 1604, 1624, 1633, 1641, or the 1894 "TR" edition? Note that four of those post-date the KJV and all have differences with each other and none exactly match the KJV except the very last one, because it was designed to (and obviously wasn't the standard for hundreds of years because it came after Westcott and Hort). So which is the finished work? The producers of "the TR" were clearly working from some idea of manuscript compilation, comparison, and correction; what do you think their approach was?



alexandermsmith said:


> The modern textual critic's work will never end because the inability to reproduce a faithful, complete replica of the autographs is hardwired into the approach. I don't believe that was the mentality of those who compiled the TR. I believe they knew they could produce a faithful, definitive replica of the autographs and that that is indeed what they did do.



The "TR critic's" work never ended either, apparently. What is "the TR" in your mind, that you think it is a definitive replica of the autographs? And which of those editions of "the TR" listed above is that definitive replica (keeping in mind that they all have variations with each other)?

Importantly, your position robs anyone prior in history of the same level of certainty and authority of texts that you want to claim. You've been convinced of a historical fantasy that sounds amazing, but simply never existed. I wish your fantasy were true. It would be lovely because it would make everything so much simpler---but it's a fantasy because it completely ignores actual history.

By all means, show me where I'm wrong. Show me where a Reformer or a Puritan or a WCF framer shares your view.

Reactions: Like 12 | Edifying 1


----------



## Logan (Aug 31, 2022)

Now none of that above is to shake your faith in the trustworthiness of the Bible, not at all! But you've put your faith in a construction that is fantasy, that ignores reality. That is, put simply, ignorant. It's such a fragile construction that I'm concerned it will crumble under the slightest bit of pressure.

I strongly side with the Reformers like Calvin, who recognized that there were various readings, but felt no compulsion to take a firm stand on any given variant. They believed that the true reading was contained in the manuscripts, and that what they had was an accurate and authoritative copy of the very Word of God, even if they had questions on specific readings. That didn't seem to bother them.

They were fine with any edition of the Greek text that was published and didn't get worked up about the uncertainty about the differences between them. Calvin expounded 1 John 5:8 as though 1 John 5:7 were not in the text, because he knew there was some question about it. But he also expounded 1 John 5:7 because why not? 

My confidence in the authority and purity of the word of God does not depend on a single printed text being the only true one. Or even a certain family of printed texts being the true one. I think that's a far more robust foundation to have.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 1, 2022)

I've had my say, and if nothing pressing comes up, I'm bowing out of this discussion.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 1, 2022)

Logan said:


> They were fine with any edition of the Greek text that was published and didn't get worked up about the uncertainty about the differences between them. Calvin expounded 1 John 5:8 as though 1 John 5:7 were not in the text, because he knew there was some question about it. But he also expounded 1 John 5:7 because why not?
> 
> My confidence in the authority and purity of the word of God does not depend on a single printed text being the only true one. Or even a certain family of printed texts being the true one. I think that's a far more robust foundation to have.


Well said. As I noted in another thread, when you witness how infrequently any variant arises that causes some question then it is natural that one doesn't really get stressed out about it.

Prior to the printing press, the idea that someone might (through the slip of a pen or some other mistake) make a copying error was unsurprising. I'm using a computer to type this and I still have errors in what I type all the time. I'll go back and read something and realize I might have misspelled Christ. I've even been distracted and referred to a man's wife as "Kim's wife". In the stream of a long post, however, people knew what I was communicating.

To deny this creaturely frailty of error - both in copying and reading - is to deny Providence because God doesn't work through infallible means in order to preserve. In fact, it's a form of the Roman Catholic idea that the reason why the believer can have confidence is to know that the institution deciding the canonical texts is infallible. They argue that we cannot have confidence that we possess the Word of God unless we can have confidence that the person(s) telling you which books belong in the Bible are, themselves, infallible. Likewise, some keep arguing that trust that God's Word has been preserved is destroyed if, in God's Providence, copied manuscripts of the Word of God differ. Unless we can infallibly possess what the autograph was then (they argue) God's promises about His Word are not true. They start from this premise and work their way into a set of events and declare the work of Scrivener to be that infallible, without variant, epigraph.

The confidence I have in the preservation of God's Word is akin to how He condescends in all other areas of grace. Believers in the past excitedly received a copy of the Scriptures - not by some professional scribe (although they might have) - and they receive them with joy. They listen to it preached. They trust in Christ and they are assured. Little did they realize that their copy differed in some inconsequential manner from another and, had they realized it, they would not have made the impious statement (so oft cited) that God's Promises had failed because they had a copyist error in their possession. They possessed the pure Word of God and it was profitable for their salvation.

We have thousands of these and so our "problem" is not that we lack the pure Word of God. It's not even (as repeatedly noted) that we have so much to choose from that we can't figure out what to do with them. We have more of a "translation from the original language" problem than we do understanding what the original language contained. We have more of a "unstable and unlearned" twisting to the destruction of others than was ever whether we know what the original words were. As evidenced in this thread, even when we have confidence that what we possess in the TR is without variant, it doesn't keep people from bearing false witness against Saints in the past and using half-truths to exaggerate the reality in the present.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Logan (Sep 1, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I've had my say, and if nothing pressing comes up, I'm bowing out of this discussion.



Steve, I can appreciate that you likely feel that many responses simply don't apply to you or don't understand your position.

The difficulty I have is that there never seems to be one TR position. Almost invariably they end up at the same place (the King James Version) but how they get there and what they find convincing is different. You are definitely one of the most informed and consistent and I appreciate that.

Your view (at least in the past) is that the text (at least in its purest form) lies among the variants in the TR editions and one can do textual work if they restrict themselves only to those printed variants of Beza, Stephanus, Erasmus, Elzevir, and Scrivener. Others apparently believe (erroneously) that there is no difference in the TR editions and no one ever tried to update it until Westcott and Hort. Others that the TR is the church's "canonized" text and it's moot as to if it's actually the true text. Others actually do pick one (like the Scrivener 1894) as the true text. Others believe that the KJV itself can be considered a TR variant. Still others agree that there could be some careful updating and correction from the manuscripts.

This makes it extremely difficult to respond to "the TR position" because every time you respond to one, another says that _their_ position has been mischaracterized.

Another disappointing thing I'll mention in passing is that I can't recall ever seeing one TR advocate correct the misunderstanding of another. Even gross errors of fact are passed over in silence. This makes it seem like being on "the team" is more important than truth. And on the other hand, rarely do I see any acknowledgement of a mistake when a clear error is pointed out by "the other side".

As an example, suppose a TR advocate claims that Beza never engaged in textual criticism and that his 1598 edition is the same as Scrivener's 1894. Both statements are demonstrably false. Yet in such a situation, I've seen no correction comes from "the TR side". Then when someone who is not exclusively a TR proponent corrects that and says "that's not true, Beza did textual criticism, wrote about it, and here, I've done the research and enumerated the differences between his text and Scrivener's for you", nobody from "the TR side" acknowledges it, finds it informative, or even admits that the original statement was indeed incorrect. Situations similar to this example appear repeatedly and I find it troubling.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 1


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 1, 2022)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Well said. As I noted in another thread, when you witness how infrequently any variant arises that causes some question then it is natural that one doesn't really get stressed out about it.
> 
> Prior to the printing press, the idea that someone might (through the slip of a pen or some other mistake) make a copying error was unsurprising. I'm using a computer to type this and I still have errors in what I type all the time. I'll go back and read something and realize I might have misspelled Christ. I've even been distracted and referred to a man's wife as "Kim's wife". In the stream of a long post, however, people knew what I was communicating.
> 
> ...


Brother, thank you for the picture you painted. Before reading this I never stopped to consider what it would actually be like for Christians before the printing press. (Side note: the day the first printing press was invented is not the same day every person all of a sudden had printed Bibles. Hand written copies persisted still)

To think of how every local congregation had handwritten copies that varied a little from what other Christians had, and yet they would all have fully trusted and believed they had the word of God—it’s amazing.

An implication of this is that comparison of the manuscripts is “baked in” to the very nature of the medium.

Does anyone think that the creation of printed Bibles has led to a false sense of textual uniformity? And imagine what possessing the originals would do—guaranteed idolatry of the physical writings.

Anyway, I say this not to stray into some heresy of undervaluing the written word, but to muse on the reality of the Christian experience for most of church history.

Their manuscripts differed. For them that was reality.

What would you think while holding a copy of one of Paul’s letters, knowing (if you could know) that your sister church in a different part of Europe had differences in their copy?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Logan (Sep 1, 2022)

Logan said:


> I strongly side with the Reformers like Calvin, who recognized that there were various readings, but felt no compulsion to take a firm stand on any given variant. They believed that the true reading was contained in the manuscripts, and that what they had was an accurate and authoritative copy of the very Word of God, even if they had questions on specific readings. That didn't seem to bother them.



I'm sure many people disagree with this, but let me offer a couple of quotes:

"Where a Hebrew or Greek word admits two meanings of a suitable kind, the one was to be expressed in the text, the other in the margin. The same to be done where a different reading was found in good copies." - Samuel Ward, _Report to the Synod of Dort_, November 20, 1618.

"Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point...Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatise upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption...They that are wise had rather have their judgements at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one when it may be the other. " - Miles Smith, KJV Preface

Smith was referring to uncertainties in translation of words, but he also seems to apply that to "readings"---differences in texts (he references Sinensis as taking an opposite approach). Ward clearly talks about differences in manuscripts (in that quote he was recounting to the Synod of Dort what they as KJV translators did). Both Miles Smith and Samuel Ward were contributors to the KJV and apparently found no qualms in admitting there was good evidence for multiple readings. That didn't shatter their confidence in the purity or authority of God's word.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Phil D. (Sep 1, 2022)

Logan said:


> Smith was referring to uncertainties in translation of words, but he also seems to apply that to "readings"---differences in texts



This was indeed the case, as these examples from the 1611 KJV show.

Matt. 26:26





Luke 10:22





Luke 17:36






_________________________________________


It's also notable that the Council of Trent decreed that the Roman Catholic Church hold to a JVO (Jeromes Vulgate Only) position:


*Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year 1546.
DECREE CONCERNING THE EDITION, AND THE USE, OF THE SACRED BOOKS
Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and Vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.*

Of course, they've since backed-off some from this...

Reactions: Informative 3


----------



## Jake (Sep 1, 2022)

@Phil D. And as Scriviner noted in studying the KJV Bible, many of the alternate readings of the 1611 footnotes made it into the main text of the 1769 which most of us hold in our KJVs.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 1, 2022)

I’d love to hear the TR explanation and defence of these things. Very interesting. Anyone?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 1, 2022)

Logan said:


> I'm sure many people disagree with this, but let me offer a couple of quotes:
> 
> "Where a Hebrew or Greek word admits two meanings of a suitable kind, the one was to be expressed in the text, the other in the margin. The same to be done where a different reading was found in good copies." - Samuel Ward, _Report to the Synod of Dort_, November 20, 1618.
> 
> ...


It seems to me that some of things that the Reformers (and post-Reformation dogmaticians) had to defend against are now misinterpreted as them sort of having confidence that what they had was all the Church would ever have as far as a textual platform.

What I mean is that the Reformers believed they needed to go back to the original languages and trusted that they had been preserved in the manuscripts they possessed. Roman Catholic detractors would engage in sophistry and other kinds of "dust in the air" arguments arguing that what the "Church" had preserved in its text (and tradition) truly preserved apostolic teaching.

This would require a strong argument to appeal to a confidence that God had preserved His Word and that what they possessed was so much to be trusted as pure that it could be relied upon to reform the Church's idea that we are "made righteous" in justification and other key doctrines.

Now, it's one thing for them to have a valid confidence that they believed God preserved His Word in a way they could have confidence in the manuscripts they possessed (including the variants they recognized) while it is another to then use their arguments as a way to say: "And see, they are so certain that this Greek text they possess is the Word of God that they *confessed* that the manuscripts they possessed, and none others to be discovered thereafter, contained all the Church would ever need to collate and study."

That it is to say that the "spirit" of Calvin's comments you cited shows that he's not disturbed by the presence of variants and can have confidence in the Greek text against the cavils of Rome not because he's settled on all variants but upon the confidence of God's preservation. We cannot know how Calvin would exactly debate if he could weigh in presently but it's hard to believe he would see the discovery of new manuscripts as some sort of signal that the Church needs to erect a wall of assurance that the texts he had, and no others, are evidence of God's preservation.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Phil D. (Sep 1, 2022)

Just for fun...

I have a page from a first edition 1611 KJV pulpit Bible, with the title page from 1 Corinthians on one side, and I see it contains several marginal notes, one which has the symbol typically used for variant readings ( II ) at v.17. However, it only indicates that their rendering "words" could also be "speech." There are also notes giving alternate readings in terms of Greek vocabulary indicated by † - v.7 in place of the rendering "coming" it could be "revelation", and v. 10 "divisions" could also be "schismes"

- sorry the lighting and shadows in the room - and my photography skills - did not make for a great pictures...

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 1, 2022)

@greenbaggins 
“The position of Harry Sturz threads the needle between these errors and argues quite cogently for geographical distribution being a key external factor. If a reading is shown to have support from geographically diverse manuscripts, that means the reading is most likely older than any of the distinctive geographical types. In my opinion, this is one of the very strongest external criteria, as _it is a special recognition of God's providence_ in having the correct reading in _every_ geographical area of the church, not just the Byzantine region, or just the Alexandrian region.”

Sorry the quote messed up. 

Brother, I’m curious about this point.

At what time in history does Sturz say is the cut-off point for this geography argument? Manuscripts up until when?


----------



## Taylor (Sep 1, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> @greenbaggins
> “The position of Harry Sturz threads the needle between these errors and argues quite cogently for geographical distribution being a key external factor. If a reading is shown to have support from geographically diverse manuscripts, that means the reading is most likely older than any of the distinctive geographical types. In my opinion, this is one of the very strongest external criteria, as _it is a special recognition of God's providence_ in having the correct reading in _every_ geographical area of the church, not just the Byzantine region, or just the Alexandrian region.”
> 
> Sorry the quote messed up.
> ...


I haven’t read Sturz yet, so I don’t know what he says, but remember that NT _manuscripts_ are only so late because after the invention printing press manuscripts by definition ceased to be made. Remember, a *manu*script is copied by hand. A printed edition of the Greek NT is not a manuscript. So the cutoff date really established itself.


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 1, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I haven’t read Sturz yet, so I don’t know what he says, but remember that NT _manuscripts_ are only so late because after the invention printing press manuscripts by definition ceased to be made. Remember, a *manu*script is copied by hand. A printed edition of the Greek NT is not a manuscript. So the cutoff date really established itself.


That’s what I assumed, but I’m curious because the printing press didn’t get rid of hand copies overnight. Maybe a better question is how old are the latest legitimate manuscripts?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 2, 2022)

Hello Logan, thanks for your irenic remarks in your post #170. One of the things you said is, "The difficulty I have is that there never seems to be one TR position." One reason I'm responding is that kindness and respect in discussion is "pressing" to me. Incivility and disrespect – which is sin in the house of God – shuts down all discussion. And is a leaven that will permeate the whole if not repented of.

But to your remarks. Isn't that "never seems to be one position" analogous to the Amil view, where there are many minor variations though in the basic argument structure and presuppositional foundation there is agreement? Then you list a few, and say, "This makes it extremely difficult to respond to 'the TR position' because every time you respond to one, another says that their position has been mischaracterized."

I would agree, some of the TR views are not well thought out and erroneous, though I have seen them corrected by more informed teachers. Maybe not on the PB, where it's all they can do – it appears – to defend their views. Within TR group discussions I see it regularly. That's why we have teachers. 

Then you give the example of Beza 1598 vis-à-vis Scrivener 1894 and someone saying they are alike, which you correctly affirm is wrong. I suppose part of the problem is that many TR folks do not study the "the main argument structure and presuppositional foundation" of their position and so bring disrepute to it, or at least can't give good answers when challenged. Part of my labors these past 16 years here has been to lay such a foundation, and develop the arguments built on it, in numerous posts and threads (some of which I link to in my signature). Good teaching comes prior to the later correcting of errors. I note materials in my posts such as the essay / booklet, "Where the King James Bible* Leaves the Greek Text of Theodore Beza 1598", by Kirk DiVietro, a topic of great interest to those who like understanding and studying. (Unfortunately my library is in NY, and I can't access this book, though it now looks like we may sell our NY place and be able to relocate here permanently.)

*The reason the KJB is often substituted for the TR in some discussions is that, ultimately, it is the one translation in English that gives ready access to the Greek and Hebrew and an _enormous_ amount of study and research materials linked to it, without having to spring for pricey programs such as Logos. I have a hard time getting concordances and other study materials for my flock here in Cyprus. Many of them, from Africa, only know and have the KJV – and they learn of the modern, easier versions from me, when I give them some.

I love talking about this topic – and teaching it – for the word of God is our life, that we live by. You may see me argue my points, but you don't see me challenging and tearing down those whose views differ, seeking to "sink their ships".

I could deal with it, if I cared to, but my time is too valuable to go into a shark tank to de-tooth the sharks. I had fervently set myself to stay away from this thread, and only joined to support a brother.

Friends, we are not to be sharks tearing apart each others beliefs – especially such core beliefs as the sanctity of our Bibles. I learned this lesson when I co-pastored a church in NYC where many different versions were used, and I had to teach on textual criticism, and build up Christian lives and faith. The Lord showed me what was important to Him.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 2, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Logan, thanks for your irenic remarks in your post #170. One of the things you said is, "The difficulty I have is that there never seems to be one TR position." One reason I'm responding is that kindness and respect in discussion is "pressing" to me. Incivility and disrespect – which is sin in the house of God – shuts down all discussion. And is a leaven that will permeate the whole if not repented of.
> 
> But to your remarks. Isn't that "never seems to be one position" analogous to the Amil view, where there are many minor variations though in the basic argument structure and presuppositional foundation there is agreement? Then you list a few, and say, "This makes it extremely difficult to respond to 'the TR position' because every time you respond to one, another says that their position has been mischaracterized."
> 
> ...


Steve,

Just to be clear, I am tearing down bad arguments that I believe are hazardous to a Christian having confidence in the Word of God they possess in their hands.

I know you would like repentance and mutual respect. I respect you. You do however engage in rhetoric (e.g. calling people "sharks") that tends toward division. You also have engaged frequently in kinds of arguments that propose ideas that would bolster a man's confidence that any other potential form of Providence was used by God to preserve His Word.

It's one thing, for instance, to be thankful to God for the KJV and the resulting TR that comes from it. We can be thankful to God for His Providence of raising up men toward its production.

It's another thing to sustain men in the belief that this *is* God's Providence in such matters.

Of course it is all God's Providence and so I take a very humble and non-committed view in how God may have used people. I don't need to train them to overlook suspicious accounts. I don't need to train them to repeat historical fiction about people finding manuscripts in trash cans. I don't need to train them to assume that a variant is a curse but rather a blessing and a testimony of the wide use of the NT throughout the Church.

The evidence of where people take your views is in how they represent other Christians. The problem is the idiosyncratic view. Some men are very charitable toward others who are not idiosyncratic while others ultimately will carry their conviction to its logical conclusion. If God's Providential Preservation is testified by the TR (as you repeatedly argue) then it only follows that others will not conclude that others can have confidence in the Word of God they use.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 2, 2022)

Hello Rich,

You said, "If God's Providential Preservation is testified by the TR (as you repeatedly argue) then it only follows that others will not conclude that others can have confidence in the Word of God they use."

Well, that works both ways. From your vantage it could be, "If God's providential preservation is testified by the corpus of mss sifted and chosen by the scholars, then others who don't have that view are thought to have a false confidence in the Word of God they use."

Obviously there are (at least) two views of how His providential preservation was accomplished. We both, in good conscience, differ in how He did preserve it. You folks promote your view, and are able to coherently defend it. Likewise with us. Is there not room for the both of us to co-exist here? Each sufficiently confident in our view that we are not disturbed by the other (though we could change our minds if we wanted)? – like with the paedo-credo situation here.

Rich, I have more respect and esteem for you than you might be aware! As the owner of this Puritan Board site, who has managed, supported, and administrated it for years, you have provided an oasis and "university" of sorts for Reformed souls to gather, learn, fellowship, and be refreshed which is unique among Christian sites on the internet. We here owe you and Matthew gratitude and thanks for our learning community you have nurtured and sustained in the presence of our God and Lord, to His glory, and our _untold_ blessing.

It is with trepidation I reprove you! I have seen – over the years – you are a man who is quick to openly repent when you are hasty in judgment, a godly trait. And you have been unusually patient with me over these years. Even so, at 80 years of age, _and_ a minister of the word, Scripture does give some direction, such as 1 Tim 5:1, and the WLC at Q&A 144, 145 on the ninth commandment.

I can overlook the small trespass, as I do not even deserve respect and love, but it is our Saviour's command we love as He loves – and you, as captain of the ship set the tone and example here. On _this_ ship, sometimes even a common deck hand can correct the chief (sorry for all the Navy references!). You are my dear brother, and I value you as such. Sorry that my tenacious way sometimes annoys you.

It remains – if it were not for you we would have no refuge such as you have provided us (under God's direction and by His grace), and would all be greatly the poorer. Thank you from us all. And thanks for all the slack you have cut me over the years!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 2, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Obviously there are (at least) two views of how His providential preservation was accomplished. We both, in good conscience, differ in how He did preserve it. You folks promote your view, and are able to coherently defend it. Likewise with us. Is there not room for the both of us to co-exist here? Each sufficiently confident in our view that we are not disturbed by the other (though we could change our minds if we wanted)? – like with the paedo-credo situation here.


Steve, what I have seen fairly consistently on this board is that CT/Sturzian types have been content to acknowledge all the basic positions on textual criticism as being within the pale of confessional orthodoxy (some positions are outside the pale, if they reject the "pure in all ages" phrase, or the providential preservation), even while disagreeing with some of them. What has risen in stridency in about the last year or two is a militant TR position that does not acknowledge any other position as being within the pale of confessional orthodoxy, or even, in some cases, within the pale of Christianity itself. An obvious case is Christopher Myer's by-now-infamous "Satan's Bible" comment, a comment I have yet to see outright condemned by ANY TR advocate on this board. This strident TR'ism is what Rich is reacting to. Sometimes, Steve, you are the very model of Christianly humble, small "c" catholic interaction. Other times you seem to walk in lock-step with the strident TR guys. So, it is actually a question of whether the militant TR guys are intending to live in peace with other positions, not the other way around. Up until a year ago, or so, I would have said it was all an in-house debate. Now, I am not so sure. Not that I think the TR position itself is out of bounds. Rather, it is the militant treatment of other positions that I find utterly reprehensible. I won't speak for Rich on his actual words. But I think you need to see how guys like Rich and I are seeing things right now. We are seeing a bit of red because of the militant, sectarian version of TR advocacy that is gaining in popularity in confessional circles, and which, in my opinion, cannot be eliminated fast enough, and which is constantly accusing us of unbelief in God's providence (THE major reason I wrote the original OP), not having God's Word at all (at best having only an asterisked Word of God, at worst a translation of Satan's Bible), and similarly reprehensible statements. I, personally, see plenty of room for the non-militant version of TR advocacy that some have displayed on this thread. I have no room for the militant version, and I will fight it, because it is divisive and sectarian.

Reactions: Like 9 | Love 1


----------



## Logan (Sep 2, 2022)

I feel similarly to Lane. I respect that the TR advocates are protective the Scriptures. I respect that many believe it is the best representation of the autographs. I too have some critiques of the CT and between the CT and TR, would probably say that the TR is the "safest" route. I regularly use (and have confidence in!) both the KJV and NKJV and have no issues with anyone else doing so either. Or believing the TR and KJV are the best.

But many (most?) TR advocates don't stop there. Many seem to feel a compulsive need to attack all other texts and all other translations (even the NKJV). I briefly listened to Nick Sayers the other day (a most unpleasant experience) and he was agreeing with Myer's statement about modern translations being based on "Satan's Bible" and said that the NIV, the NASB, the ESV are all garbage and need to be thrown in the garbage. This is actively trying to undermine people's confidence in their Bibles. Many quite vocal individual share his views and many well-meaning but ignorant people are being misled by demonstrably false claims. I don't find the broader TR debate to be a healthy situation at all.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 2, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Rich,
> 
> You said, "If God's Providential Preservation is testified by the TR (as you repeatedly argue) then it only follows that others will not conclude that others can have confidence in the Word of God they use."
> 
> ...


Steve,

I appreciate the rebuke. Forgive me if my concern for the confusion of souls tread into areas where a man felt like I was maligning or misrepresenting him. 
I think Lane adequately expressed my concern.

You see, you actually underline my point.

You do believe that a position either argues for one version of God's Providential preservation. It's sort of a "Either it's the TR account of God's preservation or..."

What I was actually saying above (as Lane pointed out) is that, for me and many others, it's not a choice of looking at a series of historical events and saying: "This is the method that God used to preserve the Greek text for the Church."

I think God's Providence is far too inscrutable for us to sort of pin down.

I want to avoid moving this discussion too far afield but there is a controversy right now over how we are to collectively relate to a tradition in the Church regarding Theology Proper. It's an incredibly intricate and complex topic as to how basic Biblical and theological and metaphysical concepts have developed to define doctrines such as God's aseity and simplicity. On many of these topics, we are in agreement with the catholic Church as a whole (not large c but small C) and the 17th and 18th Century Reformers didn't necessarily reform all doctrines but largely agreed with certain ideas around Trinity, Hypostatic union, God's attributes, etc.

The Providential nature of how these ideas were transmitted, refined, etc is very complex and there is a bit of argument right now because there is sort of a basic disagreement on whether men ought to trust that Thomistic definitions of simplicity (as one example) ought to be normative for the Church. One might even see that some are arguing in a manner akin to some of these arguments to denote that God's providential ordering of events meant that some of the refinements and consolidation of ideas settled on a monk who nevertheless propagated ideas inimical to other very key ideas of our salvation or the Sacraments. Things get really heated because people "take sides" and either Thomas is all-critical or not-critical. My view is that all things are part of God's providence and so we look backward and see what is concluded and beneficial to the Church and don't have to create an authoritative chain of events that insulates Thomas from valid criticisms in other areas. For that matter, some of the councils that settled ideas on Christ were surrounded by monks beating up and even killing people. Yet, we can look beyond the sins of fallen men and see God's preservation of key ideas necessary for our salvation.

What I reject is what I might consider an idiosyncratic confidence in God's Providence that tries to comprehend the incomprehensible. It's fine, for instance, to understand that God's providence governed the Reformation at the time of interest around original sources and all that followed. For man, feeble as he is, to then start creating a chain of certain events or even arguing for a minimal "purity" of all actors in this chain of events so that the Saint holding a Bible need not ever worry that a jot or tittle is missing from the Greek text is, as Lane noted, "an inadequate view of God's Providence." It is placing God's actions within the limits of human reason. I can embrace the KJV as a faithful and pure copy of God's Word without understanding every action that ultimately led to the Church being able to benefit from it. I understand a good number of the historical events but my confidence in Preservation doesn't hang on a "time and place and events" that I comprehend. I apprehend in part and so I continue to apprehend that God's providence did not end in one important chapter in God's Church but that manuscripts continued to be discovered that were preserved by a process that none of us comprehends but were kept pure for the embattled Saints that were saved by those copies in time and place. Thus, I continue to see God's governing of all human activities, even now, and how he ensures we have something pure and faithful even as we recognize that includes the governance of sinful men as well as Saints in the preservation of what we have.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 2, 2022)

Thanks, Lane, (and Logan)! what you wrote above I agree with:

"What has risen in stridency in about the last year or two is a militant TR position that does not acknowledge any other position as being within the pale of confessional orthodoxy, or even, in some cases, within the pale of Christianity itself. An obvious case is Christopher Myer's by-now-infamous 'Satan's Bible' comment, a comment I have yet to see outright condemned by ANY TR advocate on this board."

In my post #75 I wrote, "this 'Satan’s Bible' stuff is put forth in an unfortunate lapse of judgment. Would we call the Arminian views 'Satan’s doctrines'? One might, but it shuts down irenic, rational discourse." I also said, "in the true church universal they are inflammatory and destructive". I also said, "Yes, there was some villainy involved in the history of the CT version of 1881 (as I have recently exhibited here), but when men of good conscience *use* such modern versions nowadays that kind of language is inappropriate, and uncharitable." You can see all I wrote concerning this by looking at the post.

A grasp of the history of the Critical Text of W&H shows some unsavory things that were part of that, and yet, from Warfield's perspective (who was ignorant of the W&H involvements) those who follow him, their consciences are clean. So here we are, in September of 2022. This is the stand I will take:

What is called the "militant" TR view, denying the legitimacy of the Bibles which are not TR-based, but follow the CT or ET (eclectic) versions, calling them "satanic", this is neither sound nor godly. For instance, some close to me who use the NIV '84, or the ESV, I will not call their versions satanic, as they are in the main preserved by God. Because they do not affirm the last 12 verses of Mark, 1 John 5:7, 8, or John 7:53-8:11, does not render their Bibles satanic, only their variant readings are – to my understanding – false.

So I would say to those my friends who are of the "militant" wing of the TR school, be aware that you are coming into my congregation and saying that those in my flock who use the NIV '84, the ESV, or the NASB etc are using "Satanic Bibles" – I would have to withstand you as you are denying the providential preservation _in the main_ of their Bibles. The variants in them are a legitimate source of protestation and discussion – this is the case on _both_ sides of the debate – but the Bibles in the main are sound.

You who are "militant" according to how we are using that term now in this stage of the discussion may use your terminology of Satanic, but you are causing division in the body of Christ and are being schismatic, which is referred to in Titus 3:10: "A man that is an heretik after the first and second admonition reject". Heretic, as used here, includes those causing division and sectarianism in the local churches. It is a false teaching to say that all non-TR Bibles are satanic, seeing as the Lord has preserved them in the main.

Everyone here knows I will fight for the inclusion of 1 John 5:7, 8, and the other TR readings, but I will not say that those who do not have them are satanic. To do so is schismatic.

I would agree with Lane, Logan, and Rich that this is not acceptable here.

Reactions: Like 9 | Love 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 2, 2022)

Steve, very glad for your last post. I hope it gets a wide readership indeed. It has been growing in my mind lately that it is the moderates of a given viewpoint that should reign in the extremes of that same viewpoint. The moderates have the most weight and clout. Those on the fringe won't listen to the other side very well (as in, usually never admitting that the other side ever has any valid point whatsoever, ignoring the strong arguments, and only trying to poke holes at the perceived weakest point, which is never a convincing debate pattern, but it doesn't seem to stop some people from doing it), and get very defensive when the position is attacked. 

I know that it is not usually the case that there is inclination for the moderates to do such moderating, either because they agree with much of the extreme viewpoint (and therefore don't always see the offense), or because they might think that it is the other side that is supposed to do so. In my experience on the PB, however, moderating by someone on an opposing viewpoint has many pitfalls attached to it, some of which I have fallen into myself in the past. I hope you will consider helping to reign in the extreme viewpoints (as your last post definitely does!), as a more senior statesman for the TR position on the PB. 

The same could be said for a number of other debates on the PB, in terms of the moderates of a position moderating the extreme. It would seem to me that this moderation needs to happen, if all the various positions on textual criticism are to co-exist peacefully on the PB. 

There will always be debate on this, as on other issues. The question before us is whether it will be an edifying debate, with more light than heat; or an acrimonious shouting match, with more heat than light. This board most certainly does not make one's text-critical position a test of orthodoxy. We have never done so. We have never even regarded any particular text-critical position to be necessarily an exception to any of the doctrinal standards or the only possible interpretation of the standards, rightly viewing such narrowing as fundamentally anachronistic. 

If someone denied preservation or "kept pure in all ages", that would be another matter. But to hold to those two ideas does not necessarily mean one has the same interpretation of them as someone else does. It would be good for some to remember that having a different interpretation of those ideas does not constitute a denial of them. 

There are matters concerning the confession where more than one possible position has been historically allowed, and we have recognized that on the PB. There is no question on the PB (or any Reformed/Presbyterian denomination of which I'm aware) of making infra-, supra-, or moot-lapsarianism (my own position is that the question is moot) positions a test of orthodoxy. Similarly, the PB has not made EP or lack thereof a bar to membership here. And while there are a few denominations that require EP, that is not the majority. It would be nice if the members of the PB always respected that view of the boundaries. 

There is a way of propounding a position (like EP or TR) that views itself as the correct viewpoint, without disenfranchising, de-confessionalizing, de-Christianizing, or demonizing those who disagree. The voice for the wolf had better not be the same voice as the voice for the sheep. Some get those voices confused. The problem with confusing those two voices is that the one doing so puts a stumbling block in front of the sheep.

Reactions: Like 9 | Amen 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 2, 2022)

I find this a good summary of how I feel about this topic lately:

Reactions: Like 6 | Informative 1


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 3, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I find this a good summary of how I feel about this topic lately:


That’s great stuff. Thank you. 

I haven’t listened to much Ward, but he always strikes me as someone with a real concern for loving the brotherhood, and who (as he mentions near the end of this video) takes pains to weigh his words carefully so as to adorn Christ in all his relations. 

I would love if one of you knowledgeable and godly men were to start a thread in this vein. How can we coexist with each other? How can we love one another despite these differences? Especially when we are part of the same local body. 

Unfortunately, I share the same concerns as Ward, and concerns that have been raised lately in this thread, namely, this TR position tends to have no room whatsoever for the other side(s) of the disagreement. Whereas living in peace will require effort from both sides. 

God bless you all, brothers!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Sep 3, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> That’s great stuff. Thank you.
> 
> I haven’t listened to much Ward, but he always strikes me as someone with a real concern for loving the brotherhood, and who (as he mentions near the end of this video) takes pains to weigh his words carefully so as to adorn Christ in all his relations.
> 
> ...


I’d love see a discussion between Ward and our own Pastor Steve.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 3, 2022)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> I’d love see a discussion between Ward and our own Pastor Steve.


Ultimately, it's not the proponents in the debate that would ultimately matter but the confidence attached to certain ideas.

I have friends that adopt this view and even adopt the view that the Scriptures teach that the Earth is flat and thus believe that the Earth is flat.

I learned, over a decade ago, there there is no argument that could change one's mind who is fixed on the conclusion. The scholarship that attends it is all designed not to deal with any specific pattern that manuscripts and language and other things have come about, but, ultimately, to provide as many arguments that support a conclusion already arrived upon.

This is why the debate takes on a different character for the person who merely trusts that God's Word is kept pure and then finds out there are people who have a really detailed account of what happened in God's Providence (and no other).

One assumes that, when the TR advocate proposes something about the majority text that they are actually interested in what those manuscripts contain. They are if it does not correspond to a reading in a modern text, but they are not if it does not correspond to a reading in the TR.

One assumes that when the TR avers that we cannot trust the discovery of manuscripts in the 19th and 20th centuries and onwards as the work of unbelievers that they would be concerned that some of those involved in the manuscript collation of the TR were enemies of the Reformation. They are not.

I say this not to ultimately bring back up any specific arguments but only to point out that you cannot find a method, a line of argumentation, or any history that will be argued consistently. The arguments or evidence are only suitable to cast doubt on manuscript discoveries. They are only suitable to propose a theory as to why a reading disappeared from all Greek manuscripts. They are all, ultimately, in service to a certain conclusion. It's not that the persons are not intelligent and can write very long things talking about what other people said, but it's not really an interest in any particular argument or any particular evidence but only and ever interest in a conclusion. Not merely a conclusion, per se, that the Word has been kept pure in all ages but that the TR *is* without any errors. This is the conclusion that ultimately matters and that's why the "debaters" who defend it have no position on the "how" because the how is ultimately irrelevant. Only the conclusion matters. They can be relatively kind and patient and "moderate" in how they deal with others but the scholarship is all, ultimately, ad hoc because you can't definitively circumscribe an authoritative method but only an authoritative conclusion.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 3, 2022)

Johnathan said, "I’d love see a discussion between Ward and our own Pastor Steve."

I also would love to sit down over a meal or coffee with Mark and talk about these things. I read his review of the recent TR book and quite liked most of it, seeing as I struggle with getting the Gospel – and Scripture generally* – in simple language to the men and women from (mostly) Nigeria I care for. (*So far we have been through, in-depth, Genesis 1-10, Romans 1-5, and currently going through Mark in the preaching, an extended intro to the main themes of Job, ditto with Ruth, and currently ditto with Revelation. Some of the folks are biblically illiterate, though highly intelligent.) I'm not offended by the man at all. I would appreciate bouncing my views regarding the TR and KJV off him, and listen to his responses. I'm not intimidated by scholarship and factual findings.

This Lord's Day I'll be preaching through Mark 3:22-30 and the Scribes and Pharisees blaspheming the Holy Spirit. One of the things the Lord said was, "...if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but has an end."

I thought that could well apply to here at PB (or in the church setting), if some would call the Bibles used by others "Satan's Bibles". That would cause such division and strife among us as to divide this place. We see such division – through opposing ideologies and politics – in America, and it could cause the rapid disintegration of the Union, which has already started. I've already shown how such a term used re the Bibles is not true in the post above, but it remains a danger.

As for my textual views being conclusion driven, that's not accurate (though one's perspective may see it so), but rather presuppositionally driven, such presuppositions derived from Scripture. So first comes Scripture, then a presup leading to a conceptual framework.

I won't want to wrangle over this simple approach.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Robert Truelove (Sep 4, 2022)

I want to jump in again with a MUCH NEEDED CLARIFICATION.

I am seeing more and more in the critics of TR advocacy the attempt to define the position as stating...

1. That TR Advocacy (under whatever term) means arguing for "absolute certainty."

2. Claiming the Critical Text and its favoring manuscripts are "Satan's Bibles."

While there are some among us who think those things, it is far from the majority among Reformed TR proponents.

I find this constant mischaracterization of the position to be a lazy dismissal of the more serious arguments for the position.

Furthermore, I've read a few replies here that speak of favoring the TR as arbitrary while completely ignoring the doctrinal, historical and epistemological concerns of the position.

To conclude, the tendency has been to dismiss the position upon the grounds of the impossibility of "absolute certainty" and extreme and divisive fruit of the "Satan's Bibles" rhetoric. But this is not what the majority of us are saying brothers.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 4, 2022)

Let's take this up again after the Lord's Day.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 5, 2022)

Thread reopened.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Sep 5, 2022)

Robert Truelove said:


> 2. Claiming the Critical Text and its favoring manuscripts are "Satan's Bibles."
> 
> While there are some among us who think those things, it is far from the majority among Reformed TR proponents.
> 
> I find this constant mischaracterization of the position to be a lazy dismissal of the more serious arguments for the position.


Mischaracterization? A major and lauded book was just released where a chapter says this very thing, where the editors not only didn’t advise the author to change his tone BUT have DEFENDED the author’s use of such language, not to mention several sites have used other harsh language attacking modern version use and redefining what “King James Only” means.

But only one TR advocate I know of (Pastor Steve above) has condemned the more and more extreme language that TR advocates are speaking with. Rev. Myers says CT translations are derived from Satan’s Bible, and Dr. Riddle has defended him and blown off criticism of such language. Like political rhetoric, it seems religious rhetoric is becoming more and more animated these days and I hate to see the Body of Christ torn asunder from an argument that should be in house, fair, and brotherly. This recent book, and much recent TR rhetoric, doesn’t fit that bill.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 5, 2022)

I’ve posted this query a few times and not really gotten and answer (I’m not sure if I just can’t take a hint or nobody really has an answer) so I’ll try one last time (and then take the hint).

In all of these TR/MT/CT conversations, no one ever seems to take into account the issue of Church authority. *Why should we use – and expect to be blessed using - a text compiled by scholars not operating under the authority of a branch of the visible Church?* Whether they are secular or professing believers doesn’t matter to me. It doesn’t matter if Erasmus was truly a believer or not (though it should be acknowledged that he professed to be and was a member of the visible Church) – the question should be whether or not he was authorized by the Church to do his work. In my view God preserves His Word through His visible Church, which includes both true and false professors. One of the reasons I use a TR text is because that is what the men used who God used to create the confessional standards I adhere to (including when they stated the inspired canon in WCF 1.2). These men believed they had God’s Word in its entirety - for example, most CT versions question the ending of Mark's Gospel, but verses from it are used 4 times in the WCF and 4 times in the LC as a proof text so our Westminster fathers certainly believed it to be part of inspired Scripture. I realize the following question does not apply to those (individuals and churches) who already take exceptions to the Westminster Standards, but *for those who claim to fully subscribe to the Westminster Standards, how can you also hold to the CT* - which is missing verses the Westminster Standards uses as proof texts (I know it was not their choice to add them, but when they did, they used verses and phrases that are absent in many CT versions) – *as inspired by God?

Does the confessional statement that "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself" (WCF 1.9) apply to the TR/MT/CT conversation* in determining the basis for deciding which Greek NT text is "better" (if it aligns more completely with the OT reference/text - see TR/CT differences in Ephesians 5.30-31 referencing Genesis 2.22-23, for example)? *Does the larger statement of WCF 1.8 forbid using the LXX and Latin-based copies in textual decisions when it states:* "The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them."?

Ecclesiology is just as important in the discussion of texts as methodology and theology. *Does a denomination in a land with no established church have the authority to receive a text definitively?* Unless we live in a nation that has done so, or are part of continuing church, we seem to be stuck with an anarchy of texts in our congregations, with each doing what is right in their own eyes, though I would suggest that does not mean that we cannot advocate for accepting what has already been accepted by a church (objective arguments) instead of allowing what is acceptable at the moment to a majority within a congregation/denomination/scholar group (subjective arguments). I know that most of my American friends reject the Establishment Principle in the WCF, but consider the texts and translations have been produced by the Church and authorized by the State. In the English-speaking world, I can think only of the Geneva (King James I/Church of Scotland) and the KJV/AV (same guy with a bigger kingdom/church). Were there a CT version produced and authorized in the same way, I would have to accept that it also had merit. For all the poo-pooing of the fact the TR/G/KJV-AV were products from an extraordinary time of reformation and revival, consider the splintered state of the Church in the present age and the fact that there is no current possibility in the Western world of a text/translation being authorized by a faithful national church. I know much of one’s perspective on this latter point depends on one’s eschatology, but it is not merely an assertion to state that the TR/G/KJV-AV/printing press era was providentially situated to produce authorized texts any more than it is to state that Christ’s arrival on this planet happened exactly when it happened, when “Greek... was most generally known to the nations.” (WCF 1.8)

It is disappointing to follow this discussion and see no interaction or appeal to confessional standards. They were produced to bring about uniformity and unity, something that does not seem to be true about most TR/MT/CT conversations. *Could someone please show how their position aligns with their confessional standards? *If not, that’s okay – I can take a hint….

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jake (Sep 5, 2022)

Robert Truelove said:


> I want to jump in again with a MUCH NEEDED CLARIFICATION.
> 
> I am seeing more and more in the critics of TR advocacy the attempt to define the position as stating...
> 
> ...


Humbly I would suggest: both of those positions came out of threads here. Several folks have advocated for #1 in this very thread. #2 came out of a volume that has sparked many of these TR conversations (Why I Preach from the Received Text: An Anthology of Essays by Reformed Ministers) which you also contributed to. I don't mean to say you are responsible for the statement, as you are not an editor (and many people I greatly respect contributed to that volume), but it's not as if we are going to Peter Ruckman or Anderson to find ideas with which to disagree. 

That said, I do think it is a bit lazy to beat a dead horse with these as these are the more extreme positions being taken by confessional TR advocates and I concede that they are not representative of the positions of many TR advocates. I have interacted with some posts of this vein when they came up as I think they needed to be addressed, but I admit they are not what most TR folks are advocating, nor yourself from what I've read and listened to from you.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 5, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> I’ve posted this query a few times and not really gotten and answer (I’m not sure if I just can’t take a hint or nobody really has an answer) so I’ll try one last time (and then take the hint).
> 
> In all of these TR/MT/CT conversations, no one ever seems to take into account the issue of Church authority. *Why should we use – and expect to be blessed using - a text compiled by scholars not operating under the authority of a branch of the visible Church?* Whether they are secular or professing believers doesn’t matter to me. It doesn’t matter if Erasmus was truly a believer or not (though it should be acknowledged that he professed to be and was a member of the visible Church) – the question should be whether or not he was authorized by the Church to do his work. In my view God preserves His Word through His visible Church, which includes both true and false professors. One of the reasons I use a TR text is because that is what the men used who God used to create the confessional standards I adhere to (including when they stated the inspired canon in WCF 1.2). These men believed they had God’s Word in its entirety - for example, most CT versions question the ending of Mark's Gospel, but verses from it are used 4 times in the WCF and 4 times in the LC as a proof text so our Westminster fathers certainly believed it to be part of inspired Scripture. I realize the following question does not apply to those (individuals and churches) who already take exceptions to the Westminster Standards, but *for those who claim to fully subscribe to the Westminster Standards, how can you also hold to the CT* - which is missing verses the Westminster Standards uses as proof texts (I know it was not their choice to add them, but when they did, they used verses and phrases that are absent in many CT versions) – *as inspired by God?
> 
> ...



Wasn't the ultimate authority on the King James version King James himself?


----------



## Jake (Sep 5, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> I’ve posted this query a few times and not really gotten and answer (I’m not sure if I just can’t take a hint or nobody really has an answer) so I’ll try one last time (and then take the hint).
> 
> In all of these TR/MT/CT conversations, no one ever seems to take into account the issue of Church authority. *Why should we use – and expect to be blessed using - a text compiled by scholars not operating under the authority of a branch of the visible Church?* Whether they are secular or professing believers doesn’t matter to me. It doesn’t matter if Erasmus was truly a believer or not (though it should be acknowledged that he professed to be and was a member of the visible Church) – the question should be whether or not he was authorized by the Church to do his work. In my view God preserves His Word through His visible Church, which includes both true and false professors.


I'm not well studied enough to fully answer this, but it seems doubtful to me that Erasmus was under the authority of the visible church. Erasmus is a complicated figure from what I've read. Luther sparred with him and did not mince words when speaking of him (calling him "the vilest miscreant that ever disgraced the earth" and said "whenever I pray, *I* pray for a curse upon Erasmus"), yet he still used his 2nd edition of the Textus Receptus to compile his German translation of the Bible. If Erasmus was under the authority of the church, how was he so? He was an unfaithful Roman Catholic priest who never joined the Reformation cause, despite having his differences with the Papists. During the time he was working the Roman Catholic Church continually reinforced the authority of the Vulgate against the original languages, including the work of Erasmus. If we care about what the visible church's authoritative version of the Bible was in the Humanist era (that is, the time when the original languages reigned supreme), it was the Latin Vulgate! It was the Reformation era churches which followed the Humanists' labors to focus on the original language. However, most of the original Reformational Bibles were done under times of persecution. Many were done by individuals (Luther, Tyndale, exiles to Geneva, Reina y Valera, etc.) and not by the church at large.



Northern Crofter said:


> One of the reasons I use a TR text is because that is what the men used who God used to create the confessional standards I adhere to (including when they stated the inspired canon in WCF 1.2). These men believed they had God’s Word in its entirety - for example, most CT versions question the ending of Mark's Gospel, but verses from it are used 4 times in the WCF and 4 times in the LC as a proof text so our Westminster fathers certainly believed it to be part of inspired Scripture. I realize the following question does not apply to those (individuals and churches) who already take exceptions to the Westminster Standards, but *for those who claim to fully subscribe to the Westminster Standards, how can you also hold to the CT* - which is missing verses the Westminster Standards uses as proof texts (I know it was not their choice to add them, but when they did, they used verses and phrases that are absent in many CT versions) – *as inspired by God?*


I do not believe that subscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith requires subscription to the proof texts. In fact, my understanding is the proof texts were added later and not done so consistently. In fact, I believe in several doctrines of the WCF that I do not believe are in the proof texts for said doctrine. For example, if the doctrine of daily family worship were only supported by Matthew 6:11, I would not believe in that doctrine. However, I do not believe the proof texts are binding or as comprehensive as the work on the Confession itself. 

The only exception related to CT I considered taking was on WSC 107 because I do not believe the conclusion to the Lord's Prayer is part of the original delivered by our Lord. However, I believe the statement in the prayer as it is in the TR/KJV is Biblical with close parallels to elsewhere in the Bible and I believe the doctrine drawn out from this is sound. This was the logic my own pastor used to not take an exception here and I followed him. 



Northern Crofter said:


> *Does the confessional statement that "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself" (WCF 1.9) apply to the TR/MT/CT conversation* in determining the basis for deciding which Greek NT text is "better" (if it aligns more completely with the OT reference/text - see TR/CT differences in Ephesians 5.30-31 referencing Genesis 2.22-23, for example)?


I don't have a full answer here. But relating it to your next point, how does this relate to the LXX being quoted by the Apostles? For example, in Hebrews 2:7, we see "little lower than the _angels_" which is how the LXX renders Psalm 8:5. In Hebrew, the word is "Elohim" which is rendered as "God" most often or possibly "gods" or "heavenly beings." The Geneva Bible renders Psalm 8:5 as "For thou hast made him a little lower than God" (using the Hebrew) while the KJV renders Psalm 8:5 as "For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels" (following the LXX and the quotation of it in Hebrews).


----------



## Jake (Sep 5, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> *Does the larger statement of WCF 1.8 forbid using the LXX and Latin-based copies in textual decisions when it states:* "The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them."?


I believe the original languages are most important, and this is what I believe is so important about Reformation-era Bibles; that they went back to the best versions of the original languages they had available. I do not think this excludes all use of other languages for reference, as even the Apostles used the LXX over the MT in many places. 

This is a bit odd to come from a TR advocate, as almost every defense of the Comma in I John 5:7 depends on looking at evidence beyond the original Greek. The Greek evidence is very slim for this verse and is limited to a handful of manuscripts that were closely tied to the Latin. Many TR advocates including in this thread have admitted God preserved the Comma through the Latin, rather than the Greek. It's certain not in the "Majority Text." Erasmus was very dependent on the Latin to fill in parts of the Greek he lacked from what I can tell, especially toward the end of Revelation. And the KJV translators' notes compare frequently to the Latin and sometimes borrow from it to help in translation.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jake (Sep 5, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> Ecclesiology is just as important in the discussion of texts as methodology and theology. *Does a denomination in a land with no established church have the authority to receive a text definitively?* Unless we live in a nation that has done so, or are part of continuing church, we seem to be stuck with an anarchy of texts in our congregations, with each doing what is right in their own eyes, though I would suggest that does not mean that we cannot advocate for accepting what has already been accepted by a church (objective arguments) instead of allowing what is acceptable at the moment to a majority within a congregation/denomination/scholar group (subjective arguments). I know that most of my American friends reject the Establishment Principle in the WCF, but consider the texts and translations have been produced by the Church and authorized by the State. In the English-speaking world, I can think only of the Geneva (King James I/Church of Scotland) and the KJV/AV (same guy with a bigger kingdom/church). Were there a CT version produced and authorized in the same way, I would have to accept that it also had merit. For all the poo-pooing of the fact the TR/G/KJV-AV were products from an extraordinary time of reformation and revival, consider the splintered state of the Church in the present age and the fact that there is no current possibility in the Western world of a text/translation being authorized by a faithful national church. I know much of one’s perspective on this latter point depends on one’s eschatology, but it is not merely an assertion to state that the TR/G/KJV-AV/printing press era was providentially situated to produce authorized texts any more than it is to state that Christ’s arrival on this planet happened exactly when it happened, when “Greek... was most generally known to the nations.” (WCF 1.8)


I largely see this as a moot point, because there have been so few established churches and am not coming at this from quite the same perspective as you. I see the general pattern is that the availability of faithful translations makes the way for Reformation and so we do not see many authorized versions coming out of the state. I think in absence of the state making these decisions with a unified religion it should be done by faithful church bodies.

But regarding your statement, "Were there a CT version produced and authorized in the same way, I would have to accept that it also had merit.": I've actually been meaning to study this more. Wikipedia states of the 1881 Revised Version, "It was the first and remains the only officially authorised and recognised revision of the King James Version in Great Britain." The preface to the New Testament clearly identifies the Revised Version as in the "authorised" tradition, while not viewing the Geneva Bible in this strain:

"Three successive stages may be recognised in this continuous work of authoritative revision: first, the publication of the Great Bible of 1539–41 in the reign of Henry VIII; next, the publication of the Bishops’ Bible of 1568 and 1572 in the reign of Elizabeth; and lastly, the publication of the King’s Bible of 1611 in the reign of James I. Besides these, the Genevan Version of 1560, itself founded on Tyndale’s translation, must here be named; which, though not put forth by authority, was widely circulated in this country, and largely used by King James’ Translators. Thus the form in which the English New Testament has now been read for 270 years was the result of various revisions made between 1525 and 1611; and the present Revision is an attempt, after a long interval, to follow the example set by a succession of honoured predecessors."

Starting in the section labeled "II" you will see the basis for the authority behind this revision, beginning with the following statement and then laid out in detail:

"The present Revision had its origin in action taken by the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury in February 1870, and it has been conducted throughout on the plan laid down in Resolutions of both Houses of the Province, and, more particularly, in accordance with Principles and Rules drawn up by a special Committee of Convocation in the following May."

Now I would need to study this more, as I am not very familiar with the polity of the Church of England. It seems that the authority here comes only from the "Convocation of the Province of Canterbury" and not from the magistrate himself. I do not hold to the exact same view of the authority of the magistrate as you from what I can tell, so I'm not sure if you would consider this authorization; nonetheless, it is considered so by the translators.


Northern Crofter said:


> It is disappointing to follow this discussion and see no interaction or appeal to confessional standards. They were produced to bring about uniformity and unity, something that does not seem to be true about most TR/MT/CT conversations. *Could someone please show how their position aligns with their confessional standards? *If not, that’s okay – I can take a hint….


I think a large part of why Lane started this thread and has emphasized several times throughout is to show how multiple views of preservation are in line with how WCF 1:8 views God's providence as important in the doctrine of preservative. He has interacted with this part of the Confession many times, as it is generally the primary section of the WCF that is cited when approaching textual debates. You've brought up a few more sections, yes, but I think showing Confessional fidelity was actually one of the goals in having this conversation as framed.


----------



## Logan (Sep 5, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> In all of these TR/MT/CT conversations, no one ever seems to take into account the issue of Church authority. *Why should we use – and expect to be blessed using - a text compiled by scholars not operating under the authority of a branch of the visible Church?* Whether they are secular or professing believers doesn’t matter to me. It doesn’t matter if Erasmus was truly a believer or not (though it should be acknowledged that he professed to be and was a member of the visible Church) – the question should be whether or not he was authorized by the Church to do his work.



Erasmus was not authorized to my knowledge. He was opposed by many within the "visible Church" of the day. Many believing individuals have contributed to the work of textual preservation, compilation, and translation without the authorization of the church. Many unbelieving individuals contributed as well. The idea that it must be done under the authority of a branch of the visible Church is an assumption that is simply not warranted by Scripture. Although that scenario certainly seems ideal, we should judge the work by its merits, not its sources. Much bad work has been done under the authority of the visible church.



Northern Crofter said:


> In my view God preserves His Word through His visible Church, which includes both true and false professors. One of the reasons I use a TR text is because that is what the men used who God used to create the confessional standards I adhere to (including when they stated the inspired canon in WCF 1.2). These men believed they had God’s Word in its entirety - for example, most CT versions question the ending of Mark's Gospel, but verses from it are used 4 times in the WCF and 4 times in the LC as a proof text so our Westminster fathers certainly believed it to be part of inspired Scripture. I realize the following question does not apply to those (individuals and churches) who already take exceptions to the Westminster Standards, but *for those who claim to fully subscribe to the Westminster Standards, how can you also hold to the CT* - which is missing verses the Westminster Standards uses as proof texts (I know it was not their choice to add them, but when they did, they used verses and phrases that are absent in many CT versions) – *as inspired by God?*



I've actually responded to this numerous times but it always seems to fall on deaf ears. The claim is often made that if people said their copies had been "kept pure" or they used the text, they were automatically claiming the whole was perfect, and that simply isn't the case if you review their writings. Any time an alternative reading is given, that is room for correction. Calvin questioned both the Comma Johanneum and the Pericope Adulterae yet _also_ taught from and quoted both. They understood the situation was complicated but didn't waste too much time worrying about it. 

I would also caution that in my opinion, this view you're talking about makes Scripture subordinate to the Confessional Standards. There were some in the Westminster Assembly that no doubt questioned the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 (it was a well-known debate), yet still quoted from it, as Calvin did. They clearly did not have an "either/or" mentality about variants and referenced alternative readings regularly.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Logan (Sep 5, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> I know that most of my American friends reject the Establishment Principle in the WCF, but consider the texts and translations have been produced by the Church and authorized by the State. In the English-speaking world, I can think only of the Geneva (King James I/Church of Scotland) and the KJV/AV (same guy with a bigger kingdom/church). Were there a CT version produced and authorized in the same way, I would have to accept that it also had merit.



Was the Geneva authorized by the state? Where do you find this requirement in Scripture? Or the Confession? The Bishop's Bible was authorized by both church (Anglican being the official church) and state, yet the Puritans rejected it as faulty. 



Northern Crofter said:


> I know much of one’s perspective on this latter point depends on one’s eschatology, but it is not merely an assertion to state that the TR/G/KJV-AV/printing press era was providentially situated to produce authorized texts any more than it is to state that Christ’s arrival on this planet happened exactly when it happened, when “Greek... was most generally known to the nations.” (WCF 1.8)



I don't understand why providence is allowed in that situation (which I completely agree with!) but the age of information sharing and the explosion of diligent scholarship and interest in the Greek texts is denied providence. Can't it be both? The problem is not with the assertion, it's with the limiting of that assertion.



Northern Crofter said:


> It is disappointing to follow this discussion and see no interaction or appeal to confessional standards. They were produced to bring about uniformity and unity, something that does not seem to be true about most TR/MT/CT conversations. *Could someone please show how their position aligns with their confessional standards? *If not, that’s okay – I can take a hint….



I believe that the scriptures were kept pure in "all ages", not merely purified during the Reformation. In order to keep in line with that statement in the WCF, I must necessarily take a broader view of preservation than to restrict it to primarily to one moment in English history. 

I believe it is a false assumption that in order to accept those doctrinal standards, one has to believe that every word contained in the Bibles of their day cannot be changed or you become unconfessional. Read their writings and you'll see that they did not believe that. 

Don't read something into their views that isn't there. They believed that their English translation, and the Greek underlying it, was imperfect, yet authoritative. So do I.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Logan (Sep 5, 2022)

Logan said:


> This makes it extremely difficult to respond to "the TR position" because every time you respond to one, another says that _their_ position has been mischaracterized.





Robert Truelove said:


> While there are some among us who think those things, it is far from the majority among Reformed TR proponents.
> 
> I find this constant mischaracterization of the position to be a lazy dismissal of the more serious arguments for the position.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 5, 2022)

I hope brother Robert brings some of that majority TR thinking. I’d love to see it interacted with here.


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 5, 2022)

Robert Truelove said:


> I want to jump in again with a MUCH NEEDED CLARIFICATION.
> 
> I am seeing more and more in the critics of TR advocacy the attempt to define the position as stating...
> 
> ...


Robert, as to 1, several have noted that_ several_ people in this thread have argued for absolute certainty as a calling card of the TR position, and one of its best assets. If you don't believe that this is endemic to the TR position, then I would like to see your arguments against your fellow TR advocates on this point, not to mention an argument that absolute certainty is not part of the majority TR position. I think you might have a hard time proving that. I have seen this kind of language dozens of times in various contexts. 

As to point 2, almost everyone I can recall on this thread who brought up the "Satan's Bible" quote did so _already knowing and acknowledging_ that this was far from a majority position among the TR advocates. Bringing up the quotation, therefore, does not automatically constitute distortion of the TR position. It could merely constitute an establishment of the range of TR opinion. In short, your assertions that the TR position has been mischaracterized are not convincing yet. They could become so if you can offer more than assertion. 

While we are on the subject of mischaracterization, I would like to point out the following mischaracterizations I have seen from some (not all) TR advocates concerning other positions: 1. Anyone not holding the TR position doesn't really believe in preservation. 2. Anyone not holding the TR position doesn't really believe that God's Word has been kept pure in all ages. 3. Anyone not holding the TR position is automatically enslaved to Westcott and Hort. 4. Anyone not holding the TR position doesn't have God's Word at all. 5. Anyone not holding the TR position believes that it is okay to remove verses from the Bible (starting from the assumption that the disputed texts are in, so that all other positions automatically cut out the verses rather than that the TR added verses not in the original: there is a HUGE amount of circular reasoning here). 6. Anyone not holding the TR position automatically believes the longer ending of Mark is not genuine, the PA is not genuine, 1 Timothy 3:16 reads "who" instead of "God," and many other similar passages. 7. There are only two text-critical positions: TR or WH-induced error. I have seen these mischaracterizations quite often in the TR camp. Not everyone makes them. Some of these mischaracterizations are more prevalent than others. I have seen some TR advocates on this thread who don't hold to any of them. But I have seen them, and they are mischaracterizations.

Reactions: Like 4 | Love 1


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 5, 2022)

Logan said:


> Was the Geneva authorized by the state? Where do you find this requirement in Scripture? Or the Confession? The Bishop's Bible was authorized by both church (Anglican being the official church) and state, yet the Puritans rejected it as faulty


In Scotland, the Edinburgh ‘Bassandyne Bible’ of 1579 (the first Bible printed in Scotland) was a straight reprint of the first (1561) folio Geneva Bible was ordered to be in each parish kirk by King James' Privy Council after a petition to that effect from the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (see _History of the Bassandyne Bible, the first printed in Scotland; with notices of the early printers of Edinburgh _by William Dobson, 1887, Chapter 4).

I follow the old Covenanter path, so I maintain as Biblical the requirement that all nations must (and will) recognize Christ as King and covenant with Him. I also maintain that the civil magistrate "hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire" (WCF 23.3). The Geneva officially replaced the Bishop's - I have no problem with the civil magistrate in a covenanted nation doing so in order to keep the truth of God be pure and entire.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 5, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Wasn't the ultimate authority on the King James version King James himself?


No - his authority came from God. His authority and his duty was "to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed" and he had authority "to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God" (even though this had yet to be written - WCF 23.3). He did not have authority to assume "the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven" or to prevent "the ministers of Christ, of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons, upon delegation from their churches, [to] meet together in [synods and councils}]. (WCF 31).

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 5, 2022)

Jake said:


> it seems doubtful to me that Erasmus was under the authority of the visible church.


I was simply using Erasmus as a hypothetical since his name was raised numerous times - my point was that it is the power of the Church to determine what is Scripture despite the fact that there may be those in the visible Church who are not true believers. (WCF 25.4-5) The Church and Scripture are inextricably linked: "there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to his will" (WCF 25.5) and the Word of God "being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages" (WCF 1.8). One does not exist without the other, and there would be no point having one exist without the other.


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 5, 2022)

Jake said:


> In fact, my understanding is the proof texts were added later and not done so consistently.


The proof texts were required to be added by the civil magistrate and the Church complied with the request. I adhere to the Westminster Standards as adopted by the Church of Scotland, which also adopted the proofs texts. Denominations such as the OPC have revised and continue to revise them. For those who have questioned where I am coming from, holding to the old path of the Covenanters, I do not believe a nation has not covenanted to Christ and established the Church and provided for a General Assembly has the authority to do so.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 5, 2022)

Jake said:


> I don't have a full answer here. But relating it to your next point, how does this relate to the LXX being quoted by the Apostles? For example, in Hebrews 2:7, we see "little lower than the _angels_" which is how the LXX renders Psalm 8:5. In Hebrew, the word is "Elohim" which is rendered as "God" most often or possibly "gods" or "heavenly beings." The Geneva Bible renders Psalm 8:5 as "For thou hast made him a little lower than God" (using the Hebrew) while the KJV renders Psalm 8:5 as "For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels" (following the LXX and the quotation of it in Hebrews).


This is one of the reasons I use the Geneva. Christ and the Apostles had the power to quote the Septuagint as an authoritative commentary on the Hebrew Bible. That is different than reading the NT reading back into the OT. If the Hebrew was originally "God" ("divine judges"), it should still be translated that way. If the author of Hebrews interprets it as "angels," he does so with apostolic authority - nowhere do Christ or the Apostles claim to be quoting the OT; they are teaching what it truly meant.


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 5, 2022)

Jake said:


> I believe the original languages are most important, and this is what I believe is so important about Reformation-era Bibles; that they went back to the best versions of the original languages they had available. I do not think this excludes all use of other languages for reference, as even the Apostles used the LXX over the MT in many places.
> 
> This is a bit odd to come from a TR advocate, as almost every defense of the Comma in I John 5:7 depends on looking at evidence beyond the original Greek. The Greek evidence is very slim for this verse and is limited to a handful of manuscripts that were closely tied to the Latin. Many TR advocates including in this thread have admitted God preserved the Comma through the Latin, rather than the Greek. It's certain not in the "Majority Text." Erasmus was very dependent on the Latin to fill in parts of the Greek he lacked from what I can tell, especially toward the end of Revelation. And the KJV translators' notes compare frequently to the Latin and sometimes borrow from it to help in translation.


I never refer to myself as a "TR advocate." I advocate whatever the Church tells me is God's Word.


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 5, 2022)

Jake said:


> I largely see this as a moot point, because there have been so few established churches and am not coming at this from quite the same perspective as you.


Correct - we do not have the same perspective. And probably not the same eschatology!


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 5, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> No - his authority came from God. His authority and his duty was "to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed" and he had authority "to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God" (even though this had yet to be written - WCF 23.3). He did not have authority to assume "the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven" or to prevent "the ministers of Christ, of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons, upon delegation from their churches, [to] meet together in [synods and councils}]. (WCF 31).



Exactly. My point is that King James was not a minister (I'm not an Anglican, after all)


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 5, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> my point was that it is the power of the Church to determine what is Scripture despite the fact that there may be those in the visible Church who are not true believers.



This is word-for-word Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 5, 2022)

Logan said:


> Much bad work has been done under the authority of the visible church.


Which is why the doctrine of the Church is so important: "This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them." (WCF 25.4) It is the duty of every Christian to seek out and join with the most pure. I suggest this will also bring you to the most pure Scriptures as, again, the Church and the Word are inextricably linked.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 5, 2022)

Logan said:


> this view you're talking about makes Scripture subordinate to the Confessional Standards.


I don't view it that way.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Sep 5, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> I don't view it that way.


Won't you find better answers from those in your denomination who don't use the TR? Just asking.


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 5, 2022)

Logan said:


> Can't it be both? The problem is not with the assertion, it's with the limiting of that assertion.


Not in my view - the purity and unity of the Church and the purity and unity of the Word are inextricably linked. I do not see many nations whose spiritual purity and unity rival that of the Dutch or the Scots during the late Reformation era.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 5, 2022)

Andrew, are you aware of the function of multi-quotation on this board? Please do not post separately for five different issues you want to respond to.


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 5, 2022)

Logan said:


> Was the Geneva authorized by the state? Where do you find this requirement in Scripture? Or the Confession? The Bishop's Bible was authorized by both church (Anglican being the official church) and state, yet the Puritans rejected it as faulty.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was careful not to say this - what I showed was that verses they were certain enough about to include as proof texts are now missing from some Bibles in the English language.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 5, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Andrew, are you aware of the function of multi-quotation on this board? Please do not post separately for five different issues you want to respond to.


Sorry - I just saw this and I'm new at this. I'll try to figure it out...


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 5, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Exactly. My point is that King James was not a minister (I'm not an Anglican, after all)


I apologize - I am not sure what your point is/was.


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 5, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> This is word-for-word Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.


How so? Who determines the canon of Scripture? A collection of scholars? A publishing company? In my confessional tradition, the Church decides, thus the WCF begins by stating what is (1.2) and what is not Scripture (1.3).


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 5, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> How so? Who determines the canon of Scripture? A collection of scholars? A publishing company? In my confessional tradition, the Church decides, thus the WCF begins by stating what is (1.2) and what is not Scripture (1.3).



Every EO and RCC talking point says the church determines Scripture.


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 5, 2022)

Andrew, to multi-quote, you click the +Quote button next to the "like" button. But you can add more quotes than just that to the multi-quote. Then copy them all out into your post, and use Return to space them. 

As for your position on the church determining the canon, you are indeed mistaken if you believe this is the Reformed view. The church receives the canon. It only recognizes the authority of God that is already there in the text. The way you formulate it, the text of Scripture isn't canon unless the church says so. That is, as Jacob has said, the EO and RCC way of putting things. In the Reformed view, the canon underlies the church, and is the foundation of the church. In the EO and RCC view, the church underlies and is the foundation for the canon. You need to get this one straight.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 5, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Andrew, to multi-quote, you click the +Quote button next to the "like" button. But you can add more quotes than just that to the multi-quote. Then copy them all out into your post, and use Return to space them.
> 
> As for your position on the church determining the canon, you are indeed mistaken if you believe this is the Reformed view. The church receives the canon. It only recognizes the authority of God that is already there in the text. The way you formulate it, the text of Scripture isn't canon unless the church says so. That is, as Jacob has said, the EO and RCC way of putting things. In the Reformed view, the canon underlies the church, and is the foundation of the church. In the EO and RCC view, the church underlies and is the foundation for the canon. You need to get this one straight.


Thank you for the tech help - I will try to teach my neo-Luddite self to do better.

I apologize for writing in haste and thus being imprecise - I agree that the Church receives the canon and that God's Word exists outside of the Church. What I was trying to put forth was the point that the Church must at some point in time determine which written texts to receive (or not) as canonical. 

Respectfully, what is the point of all this? In these conversations it is stated over and over that the recently discovered (post-Reformation) variants do not challenge any doctrines. And if a textual variant or computer model emerged that did challenge a doctrine we hold, we would reject that variant/model based on our presupposition that the doctrines we have been handed down are true. So why are we looking for and debating the validity of manuscripts when they will not change our doctrine? The Reformers did not change or invent new doctrine because they discovered new manuscripts - they pealed away the dross and went back to the doctrines that previously existed, purging the leaven using God's Word (which was made more available in that age - not just with the printing press, but also with labor-saving technologies allowing more and more people the time to read the Word for themselves instead of trying to survive a subsistence lifestyle). I am a historian by trade and so I value palaeography perhaps more than the average person, but what profit is it to the Church in this present age? Again, what do we gain from the discovery of new variants and manuscripts?


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 5, 2022)

Andrew, you are well illustrating some of the reason for the frustration non-TR folk have had debating a wide variety of viewpoints within the TR position. For you, no doctrine changes going from TR to CT. For other TR folk, the doctrine of Scripture itself is at stake, and a huge difference exists between the TR and the CT. For you, not as much is at stake. For other TR folk, guys like me don't even have the Word of God at all. I have been clanging on this bell for years about the minuscule differences between the TR and the CT. You are therefore directing your complaint to the wrong party. Tell your fellow TR guys that they need to formulate their position in more moderate ways. Or are you ignorant of the full-frontal assault on the CT that has been gaining traction in the last year and a half or so? We non-TR guys are arguing because our entire structure is under full-blown attack. We have the feeling that if we did not argue for our position, then we would be ousted as being not Reformed at all. We are being told that only the TR position is confessional. 

As for the value of discovering new manuscripts, that is easy. The discovery and collation of new manuscripts only demonstrates the truth that God's Word has been preserved and kept pure in all ages. The way you put it is prejudicial (this happens all the time with TR folk: creating a non-level playing field by asking prejudicial and slanted questions). We are not in this for finding new variants. It is for finding the original reading.

Reactions: Like 3 | Love 1


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 5, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> It is for finding the original reading.


What is the point (if even possible)? If it will not add to or subtract from any doctrine, why bother looking? Again, contrary to your assertion, I do not consider myself a TR (or CT) guy, but what would be lost (in your view) in simply saying "let's just all use TR-based translations and move on"? I think the TR folk would say "quite a few verses" if you subbed CT in that proposal but seriously - what would we lose if we all moved on in unity with translations from the TR? I can appreciate the sense in which even the moderate TR side sees the CT push to remove certain verses as coming across as being on par with the Reformers removing the apocrypha. There are extremes on both sides. But what solution is the best for the peace and prosperity of the Church?


----------



## Logan (Sep 5, 2022)

Andrew, you've written a lot but to be brief and stick to the main points, the conditions you are proposing for accepting a Bible are not found in Scripture nor any confession. I don't even know if those conditions a true for any translations anywhere in the world except the KJV and perhaps (if you accept Scotland's approval) the Geneva Bible. Which would at least call into question the legitimacy of all other translations in all other languages. By the way, I am establishmentarian myself.

Wasn't the Revised Version authorized by the magistrate and the established church (in England)? And thus...by God according to the reasoning you used for King James? Or is there some other qualifier that would discount the Revised Version but maintain the KJV and Geneva as legitimate?

I have to say that I find these sorts of qualifiers based upon this or that historical condition to be very arbitrary and anglo-centric and I've often seen the same person change their qualifiers once they realize the historical facts don't fit their premise. This really seems like the "no true Scotsman" line of reasoning.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 5, 2022)

Logan said:


> Andrew, you've written a lot but to be brief and stick to the main points, the conditions you are proposing for accepting a Bible are not found in Scripture nor any confession. I don't even know if those conditions a true for any translations anywhere in the world except the KJV and perhaps (if you accept Scotland's approval) the Geneva Bible. Which would at least call into question the legitimacy of all other translations in all other languages. By the way, I am establishmentarian myself.
> 
> Wasn't the Revised Version authorized by the magistrate and the established church (in England)? And thus...by God according to the reasoning you used for King James? Or is there some other qualifier that would discount the Revised Version but maintain the KJV and Geneva as legitimate?
> 
> I have to say that I find these sorts of qualifiers based upon this or that historical condition to be very arbitrary and anglo-centric and I've often seen the same person change their qualifiers once they realize the historical facts don't fit their premise. This really seems like the "no true Scotsman" line of reasoning.


Outside of the Dutch Church, I have not studied the establishment of the Church in many other nations (other than the British Isles). As I think I stated above (admittedly amongst a lot of words), I still largely follow the old Covenanter path from which I am descended. So I would not recognize as legitimate the actions of churches (such as authorizing the RV) like the C of E that broke their covenant obligations. This is why I use the Geneva and hold to the Westminster Standards as adopted by the C of S when it was faithful to its covenants, those covenants being the immediate basis of the Westminster Assembly and its work. I do not believe this means that other nations have not done or cannot do the same.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 5, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> Outside of the Dutch Church, I have not studied the establishment of the Church in many other nations (other than the British Isles). As I think I stated above (admittedly amongst a lot of words), I still largely follow the old Covenanter path from which I am descended. So I would not recognize as legitimate the actions of churches (such as authorizing the RV) like the C of E that broke their covenant obligations. This is why I use the Geneva and hold to the Westminster Standards as adopted by the C of S when it was faithful to its covenants, those covenants being the immediate basis of the Westminster Assembly and its work. I do not believe this means that other nations have not done or cannot do the same.


I'm not sure what you mean about why you use the Geneva. The AV was viewed in Scotland as "our English version" to quote Gillespie in _English Popish Ceremonies_, and after the covenants (National and SL&C) the Westminster Assembly did not abandon the AV but it was what they exclusively authorized for publication why they were sitting. I think the last Geneva was published in the Netherlands around 1642-3 as an import.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 5, 2022)

To the person saying the Church determines scripture. That is not a protestant position. If I recall correctly, the church recognizes scripture. God determines the scripture.

Also, for anyone on the fence (or interested) in this issue. I would recommend the 7 part series Mark Ward did on textual confidence. Nothing I have heard from the TR advocates has overcome what they have put together in that series.



https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLq1Aq0ucgkPC8DHPKsXWl8zl3iAG64qyV

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 5, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I'm not sure what you mean about why you use the Geneva. The AV was viewed in Scotland as "our English version" to quote Gillespie in _English Popish Ceremonies_, and after the covenants (National and SL&C) the Westminster Assembly did not abandon the AV but it was what they exclusively authorized for publication why they were sitting. I think the last Geneva was published in the Netherlands around 1642-3 as an import.


I did not mean to communicate that my use of the Geneva means that I do not also recognize the equal legitimacy of the AV. I could swap AV for Geneva in #223. I prefer the Geneva because I like the notes. And while Gillespie and the Assembly used the AV, it was largely because the further publication of the Geneva was banned (James did not the notes as much as I do), but the Geneva was still widely used and preferred by many Scots and English Puritans, including those who emigrated to Ulster and the American colonies.


----------



## Jake (Sep 5, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> The proof texts were required to be added by the civil magistrate and the Church complied with the request. I adhere to the Westminster Standards as adopted by the Church of Scotland, which also adopted the proofs texts. Denominations such as the OPC have revised and continue to revise them. For those who have questioned where I am coming from, holding to the old path of the Covenanters, I do not believe a nation has not covenanted to Christ and established the Church and provided for a General Assembly has the authority to do so.


I do not think agreeing to the proof texts is required for subscription even in the Church of Scotland and its direct descendants, even before you get to modifications. If I understand correctly from my time in the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) the catechisms, system of government, proof texts, etc. are not required to be held to in full, only the Confession itself. Whereas in both the RPCNA and ARP Church the Confessions and Catechisms are included, though still not the proof texts.



Northern Crofter said:


> I never refer to myself as a "TR advocate." *I advocate whatever the Church tells me is God's Word.*


I assumed based on your other posts you would hold to the TR as used in the Geneva Bible including the Johannine Comma. Sorry I misinterpreted you. However, I think the bolded statement is a very dangerous view. The church has erred but God's Word does not err. I would not place my authority on the church to determine what is the Word of God.


Northern Crofter said:


> Correct - we do not have the same perspective. And probably not the same eschatology!


For the record, I agree with WCF Chapter 23 as adopted by the RPCNA in her Testimony. I don't like the revisions made by the ARP Church to the section of the WCF on the Civil Magistrate. But I am not a historicist and it seems you're getting at a very different view of the role of the state in the affairs of the church. It sounds closer to being Erastian to me, but I'm probably just getting confused since I know you are a Covenanter.


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 5, 2022)

Jake said:


> The church has erred but God's Word does not err. I would not place my authority on the church to determine what is the Word of God.


If it is not the Church that determines what texts are to be received, then who does have that power/authority? It seems to take a very low view of the Church of Christ and His providential care of Her to fear this. Yes, for hundreds of years the Church included apocryphal writings and there were centuries where the light of the Church was almost extinguished. The Church will never be perfect until Christ returns, it will be more or less visible in various places and times, and it may even err in holding forth a less-than-pure version of Scripture. And yet "there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to his will" (WCF 25.5) and God's Word will always be "kept pure" in every age (WCF 1.8). And I confess that I hold to the belief that "particular churches" (which I believe refers to national churches) within the visible catholic Church can be judged as more or less pure, thus I prefer what the "more pure" branches confess to be the Word of God. I do believe the light has "faded" if comparing our present age to the Reformation era. But I also believe (and pray that) it is ready to burst forth and shine brightly at any moment, though I suspect it will probably not be in the West. 

I would be interested in hearing thoughts on WCF 1.5 and how it puts forth authoritative appeals to *ecclesiastical*, _rational_, and experiential aspects of recognizing God's Word as God's Word (this section always stands out to me with its use of the first person plural "We" and "our" in contrast to the almost universal use of third person in the rest of the chapter): "*We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture*; _and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God_; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts."


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 5, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> If it is not the Church that determines what texts are to be received, then who does have that power/authority?



The Bible. 

You are confusing "recognizing" the texts with "determining" the texts. The former is Protestantism. The latter is Roman Catholicism.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 5, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> I did not mean to communicate that my use of the Geneva means that I do not also recognize the equal legitimacy of the AV. I could swap AV for Geneva in #223. I prefer the Geneva because I like the notes. And while Gillespie and the Assembly used the AV, it was largely because the further publication of the Geneva was banned (James did not the notes as much as I do), but the Geneva was still widely used and preferred by many Scots and English Puritans, including those who emigrated to Ulster and the American colonies.


The assembly could have unbanned it. But by the time of the last GB edition I think the AV had become accepted by the puritans and the Scottish kirk.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 5, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Andrew, you are well illustrating some of the reason for the frustration non-TR folk have had debating a wide variety of viewpoints within the TR position. For you, no doctrine changes going from TR to CT. For other TR folk, the doctrine of Scripture itself is at stake, and a huge difference exists between the TR and the CT. For you, not as much is at stake. For other TR folk, guys like me don't even have the Word of God at all. I have been clanging on this bell for years about the minuscule differences between the TR and the CT. You are therefore directing your complaint to the wrong party. Tell your fellow TR guys that they need to formulate their position in more moderate ways. Or are you ignorant of the full-frontal assault on the CT that has been gaining traction in the last year and a half or so? We non-TR guys are arguing because our entire structure is under full-blown attack. We have the feeling that if we did not argue for our position, then we would be ousted as being not Reformed at all. We are being told that only the TR position is confessional.
> 
> As for the value of discovering new manuscripts, that is easy. The discovery and collation of new manuscripts only demonstrates the truth that God's Word has been preserved and kept pure in all ages. The way you put it is prejudicial (this happens all the time with TR folk: creating a non-level playing field by asking prejudicial and slanted questions). We are not in this for finding new variants. It is for finding the original reading.


Andrew's position doesn't really exist or isn't mainstream according to Robert Truelove. We really need to figure out *what* the TR position is so that there is a definitive version that can be critiqued. After all, the preservation of God's Word is at stake.


----------



## Jake (Sep 5, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> I would be interested in hearing thoughts on WCF 1.5 and how it puts forth authoritative appeals to *ecclesiastical*, _rational_, and experiential aspects of recognizing God's Word as God's Word (this section always stands out to me with its use of the first person plural "We" and "our" in contrast to the almost universal use of third person in the rest of the chapter): "*We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture*; _and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God_; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts."


Section 5 follows section 4. You have to read section 5 in light of 4, which I believe answers your concerns.

WCF 1:4 reads, "The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God." 

The Belgic confession says similarly:
We receive all these books, and these only, as holy and canonical, for the regulation,
foundation, and confirmation of our faith; believing, without any doubt, all things
contained in them, _not so much because the church receives and approves them as
such_, *but more especially because the Holy Ghost witnesseth in our hearts that they
are from God*, whereof they carry the evidence in themselves. For the very blind are
able to perceive that the things foretold in them are fulfilling.

I also recommend reading the Chapter 7 of the first book of Calvin's Institutes, entitled, "The testimony of the Spirit necessary to give full authority to Scripture. The impiety of pretending that the credibility of Scripture depends on the judgment of the church."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 5, 2022)

It's interesting that one of the things I was musing about yesterday was illustrated in this thread after it was re-opened.

Another line that was taken was something that a Baptist TR-advocate (who confessedly represents the "mainstream") wouldn't agree with as a historical Baptist and that is the Establishmentarian context of the "creation" of the very standard that everyone is relying upon but then argues at from a different angle.

What I mean is that some come at this issue from the fact that the scholars who contributed to the TR represented the "believing Church" but, when you look at the "how" of all these things it was in the context of their commitment to the fact that the Magistrate had commissioned them to perform this work.

What makes it "authorized" is the Establishmentarian Church collating, translating, and then "authorizing" its use among the Churches. Even though some maintain this commitment to an Establishmentarian context, others then sort of choose to ignore this context and want to simply refer to it as the "Church" or believing scholars.

Given the ad hoc nature of these arguments, I've even seen some sort of argue that (for now) we have what the "Church" has created but, given the only hypothetical nature of the "Church" coming together again to look at the manuscripts that exist and represent a "believing textual criticism" to look at this issue, then various folks can simply fall back on the idea that "believers did it in the past" and so we stay with what was done in the era when the "Church" collated and translated.

I guess it would have to be the Church of England if this happened again. I can't see someone accepting that the Establishmentarian dream would materialize and the thoroughly Calvinistic State of the Netherlands in 2050 would be a thoroughly Christian country at that point. Because English is the Lingua Franca, this country would look at all the manuscripts and all its Reformed Scholars would do the work of textual criticism in a believing fashion. The scholars would all be committed Reformed men who saw that the Westminster Standards were superior to the 3FU and adopted them in 2040 as Reformation swept the Netherlands. The King called for a "believing work of collation and translation" to serve the "Church". These men would look at all manuscripts and come up with the "2050 TR" that defined for the "Church" a Greek platform without any variants. They would then translate this into the English preserving all the old English idioms to preserve the richness of language as it once existed.

In this glorious future would this be the work of the Church if the product differed from the TR?

Oh, I forgot to mention that, like the TR produced in the 17th Century, no Baptists would be part of that work because, well, how could a State Church be Baptist?

I know, to some, who take this very seriously it sounds like I'm mocking but I'm trying to point out the inherent contradictions when people use terms like "believing scholarship" when what they really mean is that men who were in the Church (who were certainly believers) ultimately believed that the work was authorized because it was in an Establishmentarian context. 

Even though the majority of the Confessional Reformed Churches don't adopt the TR position, our current Churches don't (somehow) represent what the "Church" believes because we're no longer, ultimately, in an Establishmentarian context.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 5, 2022)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Andrew's position doesn't really exist or isn't mainstream according to Robert Truelove. We really need to figure out *what* the TR position is so that there is a definitive version that can be critiqued. After all, the preservation of God's Word is at stake.


How very Byzantine of you.



retroGRAD3 said:


> To the person saying the Church determines scripture. That is not a protestant position. If I recall correctly, the church recognizes scripture. God determines the scripture.
> 
> Also, for anyone on the fence (or interested) in this issue. I would recommend the 7 part series Mark Ward did on textual confidence. Nothing I have heard from the TR advocates has overcome what they have put together in that series.
> 
> ...


Jason, thanks very much for linking these. They are spectacular.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 5, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> The Bible.
> 
> You are confusing "recognizing" the texts with "determining" the texts. The former is Protestantism. The latter is Roman Catholicism.


I'm not sure that it is that cut and dry. Again, I agree that the Church receives the canon and that God's Word exists outside of the Church. But the Church must at some point in time make a determination and testify which written texts it recognizes/receives as canonical. If I follow you, you are saying "the Bible determines the Bible" which seems at odds with Reformed confessional statements which appeal to two or three witnesses: to "the testimony of the Church" and "the inward work of the Holy Spirit" and not merely aspects of self-evidence alone. I am not generally a big Sproul fan, but he has his uses:

"Roman Catholics view the canon as an infallible collection of infallible books. Protestants view it as a fallible collection of infallible books. Rome believes the church was infallible when it determined which books belong in the New Testament. Protestants believe the church acted rightly and accurately in this process, but not infallibly. This does not mean that Reformed theology doubts the canonical status of books included in the New Testament canon. *Some Protestant theologians believe a special work of divine providence kept the church from error in this matter without imparting to the church any permanent or inherent infallibility.*" (_Grace Unknown : The Heart of Reformed Theology,_ p.54). The bold (mine) seems to be an allusion to the WCF.

My question, however poorly framed, is how CT proponents deal with the issue of not having any particular church recognize such texts whereas there is evidence that particular churches did receive TR texts. My point in all of this is, I don't think there is a particular church able to do so in this present age, so shouldn't we look back (reform) to when there was and use what they used? Which, admittedly would leave us with using the TR and is where I'm at. It is, after all, called the "received text" for a reason - it was received not only by the English-speak churches, but also by the Germans, the Spanish, the Czechs and just about every other Reformed group in Europe in translating the New Testament into their native tongue. What faithful church has received the CT in the same manner?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Sep 6, 2022)

Semper Fidelis said:


> After all, the preservation of God's Word is at stake.


I am not a TR advocate as such but I think the TR proponents have picked up on a problem. 2 Tim 3:16 says ' All Scripture is breathed out by God'. If all scripture is breathed out by God, this implies the scripture should be perfect with no variants, just as God Himself is perfect.

Calvin says "By a kind of mutual bond the Lord has joined together the certainty of His word and of His Spirit so that the perfect religion of the word may abide in our minds when the Spirit, who causes us to contemplate God’s face, shines; and that we in turn may embrace the Spirit with no fear of being deceived when we recognise Him in His own image, namely, in the word.” (Institutes 1:9:3) If the Spirit Himself is perfect and is joined 'by a mutual bond' with the word, and 'we recognise Him in His own image, namely in the word', does this imply that the transmission of the scriptures should be perfect?

I do not believe the TR proponent has solved this problem. They cannot solve the 'which TR' question. I raised this in a previous post but did not find the responses convincing.

Perhaps Deut 29:29 is applicable '“The secret _things belong_ to the Lord our God, but those _things which are_ revealed _belong_ to us and to our children forever, that _we_ may do all the words of this law.' [NKJV]


----------



## Logan (Sep 6, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I am not a TR advocate as such but I think the TR proponents have picked up on a problem. 2 Tim 3:16 says ' All Scripture is breathed out by God'. If all scripture is breathed out by God, this implies the scripture should be perfect with no variants, just as God Himself is perfect.



Agreed, and I think everyone confesses that. But it does not imply that every copy will be perfect with no variants. Or that the work of every scribe will be God-breathed. Or the work of every textual compiler/comparison. It's all touched by human fallibility. Does that mean that we can't trust it is God's word, as is Ehrman's view? Certainly not.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Sep 6, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> To the person saying the Church determines scripture. That is not a protestant position. If I recall correctly, the church recognizes scripture. God determines the scripture.


I could be wrong, but I think “the church recognises scripture” is what Andrew is arguing, and not that the church determines scripture.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 6, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> I could be wrong, but I think “the church recognises scripture” is what Andrew is arguing, and not that the church determines scripture.



That would make sense, but he has doubled and insisted that the church determines Scripture.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 6, 2022)

Logan said:


> I think everyone confesses that. But it does not imply that every copy will be perfect with no variants. Or that the work of every scribe will be God-breathed.



That's the key point. The nature of copying implies variants. Try copying a page from the dictionary and see how many harmless variants appear. At this point, if someone says there can be no variants, they have to apply the doctrine of inspiration to the manuscript process.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## csallen (Sep 6, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> I never refer to myself as a "TR advocate." I advocate whatever the Church tells me is God's Word.


Andrew, As another brother pointed out, the Church recognizes God's Word, but does not determine it. I trust this was what you meant. With this clarification in mind, are you aware of the RPCNA's stated position on the text of the NT? The Synod of 1973 adopted recommendations that recognized translations based upon critical editions of the Greek NT as "acceptable" and "faithful" translations of the Scriptures.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## De Jager (Sep 6, 2022)

Is it possible to prefer the majority text without dogmatically adhering to an idea of "textus receptus"? Is that an acceptable viewpoint?


----------



## JH (Sep 6, 2022)

De Jager said:


> Is it possible to prefer the majority text without dogmatically adhering to an idea of "textus receptus"? Is that an acceptable viewpoint?


To my knowledge, those who affirm a Majority Text position typically end up rejecting the Comma, amongst other passages that are lacking in extant manuscript evidence.


----------



## Logan (Sep 6, 2022)

De Jager said:


> Is it possible to prefer the majority text without dogmatically adhering to an idea of "textus receptus"? Is that an acceptable viewpoint?



I certainly believe so. I've mentioned several times that I very much appreciate the work of Maurice Robinson, and think his "Case for the Byzantine Priority" is well-worth reading. Lane has mentioned Sturz as another approach.

I think the TR is too dogmatic about holding on to readings that were clearly influenced by the Latin. I think the CT is a little too aggressive with going with readings about which there is reasonable doubt about which reading is original (e.g., Pericope Adulterae, long ending of Mark) or with preferring older readings that are a minority. I would much rather be too cautious than too dogmatic on a given reading.

I think there is at least a reasonable case for preferring texts which were commonly used in the church, and carefully studying, weighting, and collating them. Not that you would just take a statistical approach, but weight that type of text more heavily. But I would be cautious of denying God's providence to any other group of texts as well.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Jake (Sep 6, 2022)

csallen said:


> Andrew, As another brother pointed out, the Church recognizes God's Word, but does not determine it. I trust this was what you meant. With this clarification in mind, are you aware of the RPCNA's stated position on the text of the NT? The Synod of 1973 adopted recommendations that recognized translations based upon critical editions of the Greek NT as "acceptable" and "faithful" translations of the Scriptures.


I think that this statement from the RPCNA Testimony is quite compatible with the use of critical text based translations, and directly contradicts the attitudes of some TR-only advocates I've heard in this thread.

18. Bible translations must combine faithfulness to the original text with the idiom of the native language, and thus will always be imperfect. The Church is responsible to examine the documents available to determine as far as possible what was originally written, and to study the translations as to their accuracy in conveying the meaning of the original, and to advise the public concerning them. Paraphrases, which interpret rather than translate, must be used with great caution.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager (Sep 6, 2022)

Logan said:


> I certainly believe so. I've mentioned several times that I very much appreciate the work of Maurice Robinson, and think his "Case for the Byzantine Priority" is well-worth reading. Lane has mentioned Sturz as another approach.
> 
> I think the TR is too dogmatic about holding on to readings that were clearly influenced by the Latin. I think the CT is a little too aggressive with going with readings about which there is reasonable doubt about which reading is original (e.g., Pericope Adulterae, long ending of Mark) or with preferring older readings that are a minority. I would much rather be too cautious than too dogmatic on a given reading.
> 
> I think there is at least a reasonable case for preferring texts which were commonly used in the church, and carefully studying, weighting, and collating them. Not that you would just take a statistical approach, but weight that type of text more heavily. But I would be cautious of denying God's providence to any other group of texts as well.


I recently listened to a lecture from Dr. Michael Barrett of PRTS on the King James Version. I thought it was quite good. He explained why in his view it was an excellent translation, and why he even prefers it, and yet did not dogmatically assert that it was the only acceptable translation for Christians.









Tradition, Text, and Translation of the KJV


Dr. Michael Barrett | Geneva Reformed Seminary




www.sermonaudio.com

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 6, 2022)

De Jager said:


> Is it possible to prefer the majority text without dogmatically adhering to an idea of "textus receptus"? Is that an acceptable viewpoint?



I think that you have highlighted what is a serious problem with these discussions, namely, that the subject is discussed as if there were no mediating positions in between those adopted by either CT or TR idealogues. Nearly every time this subject comes up, those who reject TR purism are caricatured as CT advocates - even when they are not.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Logan (Sep 6, 2022)

Just gonna drop this quote here from Rutherford, which I definitely agree with:



Samuel Rutherford said:


> And though there be errors of number, genealogies, etc., of writing in the Scripture, as written or printed, yet we hold Providence watcheth so over it, that in the body of articles of faith and necessary truths, we are certain, with the certainty of faith, it is that same very word of God, having the same special operations of enlightening the eyes, converting the soul, making wise the simple, as being lively, sharper than a two-edged sword, full of divinity of life, Majesty, power, simplicity, wisdom, certainty, etc., which the prophets of old, and the writings of the Evangelists, and Apostles had.



I'm pretty sure Rutherford, as a Westminster Divine, is "Confessional" and would have known what "kept pure" meant 



William Bridge "Scripture Light the Most Sure Light" said:


> How shall we hold and keep fast the letter of Scripture, when there are so many Greek Copies of the New Testament? and these diverse from one another? Yes, well: For though there are many received Copies of the New Testament; yet there is not material difference between them...In the times of the Jews before Christ, they had but one original of the Old Testament; yet that hath several readings: there is a Marginall reading, and a Line reading, and they differ no less than eight hundred times the one from the other; yet the Jews did adhere to both and denied neither; Why? Because there was no material difference. And so now, though there be many Copies of the New Testament; yet seeing that there is no material difference between them, we may adhere to all:



Bridge was also a Westminster Divine. This is exactly what I have been stating was the position of men like Beza and Calvin: they had questions, they did not come down on an absolute position on certain readings, but they also didn't lose sleep over it and sometimes taught from variants they were unsure of. And contrary to Andrew, neither Rutherford of Bridge here appealed to a received text or translation that was approved by the Magistrate and an Established Church, despite being very contributors to the WCF. Are they unconfessional?

To this I might add 


Bishop Usher said:


> Although in the Hebrew copies there hath been observed by the Masorites, some very few differences of words, by similitude of letters and points; and by the learned in the Greek tongue, there are like diversities of readings noted in the Greek text of the N.T., which came by fault of writers: yet in most by circumstance of the place, and conference of other places, the true reading may be discerned. And albeit in all it cannot...yet this diversity or difficulty can make no difference or uncertainty in the sum and substance of the Christian religion;



He admitted that it might not be possible to discern the true reading, yet it doesn't make the sum and substance of the Christian religion uncertain.



Walton's Polyglott Prolegomena said:


> p 14:
> The whole Prolegom. 7 is spent in proving that the Originall Texts are not corrupted either by Jews, Christians or others, that they are of supream authority in all matters, and the rule to try all translations by. That the copies we now have are the true transcripts of the first autographa written by the sacred Pen-men, That the special providence of God hath watched over these books, to preserve them pure and uncorrupt against all attempts of Sectaries, Hereticks, and others, and will still preserve them to the end of the world, for the end for which they were first written, That the errors or mistakes which may befall by negligence or inadvertency of Transcribers or Printers, are in matters of no concernment (from whence various readings have risen), and may by collation of other copies and other means there mentioned, be rectified and amended.
> 
> pg 66
> ...



Textual confidence in the purity of scripture is declared by all, despite _none_ of them appealing to a printed text, and all of them admitting that there were variants that should be compared.

Now, how far would they be willing to go I will not speculate, nor should anyone else. But what did they mean by "kept pure in all ages"? We don't have to speculate about that. They tell us. No doubt some would have been more to one one side and some on the other of specific readings, but I don't think it can be questioned that many, if not all did _not_ share the same views as today's proponents of "Confessional Bibliology" or "the TR". Their view was far more nuanced and less dogmatic. I like to believe I share their views.

Reactions: Like 7 | Informative 3


----------



## De Jager (Sep 6, 2022)

"And though there be errors of number, genealogies, etc., of writing in the Scripture, *as written or printed*, yet we hold Providence watcheth so over it, that in the body of articles of faith and necessary truths, we are certain, with the certainty of faith, it is that same very word of God, having the same special operations of enlightening the eyes, converting the soul, making wise the simple, as being lively, sharper than a two-edged sword, full of divinity of life, Majesty, power, simplicity, wisdom, certainty, etc., which the prophets of old, and the writings of the Evangelists, and Apostles had."

As written...in subsequent manuscripts? Or is he saying that the original autographs contained errors in number and genealogies, etc.??

What I am reading in this quotation is that the Bible "contains" the word of God, and the important doctrinal matters are sure, but we can't be sure of some peripheral details. Is this correct?


----------



## Logan (Sep 6, 2022)

De Jager said:


> As written...in subsequent manuscripts? Or is he saying that the original autographs contained errors in number and genealogies, etc.??
> 
> What I am reading in this quotation is that the Bible "contains" the word of God, and the important doctrinal matters are sure, but we can't be sure of some peripheral details. Is this correct?



Only in subsequent copies made from the originals. They recognized that there were readings (most quite small) where one manuscript said one thing and another said another thing and that sometimes one couldn't tell which was the original. But that despite that, we are sure of the key points of doctrine, that they are the very word of God.

I don't know how far Rutherford would allow himself to go with that view (e.g., long ending of Mark, Pericope Adulterae, Comma Johanneum), but the primary point is that he didn't take a textual absolutist stand and say that we have to pick a reading (or family of printed texts, or a particular translation) in order to have certainty and assurance nor that the belief in preservation necessitates the belief in knowing every reading with certainty.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## De Jager (Sep 6, 2022)

Logan said:


> Only in subsequent copies made from the originals. They recognized that there were readings (most quite small) where one manuscript said one thing and another said another thing and that sometimes one couldn't tell which was the original. But that despite that, we are sure of the key points of doctrine, that they are the very word of God.
> 
> I don't know how far Rutherford would allow himself to go with that view (e.g., long ending of Mark, Pericope Adulterae, Comma Johanneum), but the primary point is that he didn't take a textual absolutist stand and say that we have to pick a reading (or family of printed texts, or a particular translation) in order to have certainty and assurance nor that the belief in preservation necessitates the belief in knowing every reading with certainty.


This makes sense. Thanks Logan.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 6, 2022)

Anecdote: The deeper I go into the things presented in this thread by Lane, Logan, Rich, and others, the more confidence I have in the text of Scripture we possess, and the less dogmatic I feel even about my own position. Thank you very much brothers. 

Above all, praise the Lord that there is a solid path that keeps one out of the ditches of the extreme positions, and also deals with the reality of the manuscript situation as we have it!

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 1


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 6, 2022)

Logan said:


> Just gonna drop this quote here from Rutherford, which I definitely agree with:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Could I get the sources for these, brother?


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 6, 2022)

csallen said:


> Andrew, As another brother pointed out, the Church recognizes God's Word, but does not determine it. I trust this was what you meant. With this clarification in mind, are you aware of the RPCNA's stated position on the text of the NT? The Synod of 1973 adopted recommendations that recognized translations based upon critical editions of the Greek NT as "acceptable" and "faithful" translations of the Scriptures.


I appreciate your input. I don't see my statement that "the Church must at some point in time make a determination and testify which written texts it recognizes/receives as canonical" is the same as the Papist position that the Church determines what is Scripture and what is not. Maybe I'm just not picking up on the semantics but determining what texts you will receive (or not receive) is not the same as saying that the act of such a determination makes those texts infallible and inerrant, the Word of God being both of these by nature. To me the former is what WCF 1.2-3 is doing.

As for the RPCNA, as I state publicly in my signature on PB, I am an adherent. This is because I cannot take the oath required for denominational membership, and (I asked and was told) there is no allowance to state exceptions (except, I have observed, for ministers and other Church officers). I worship with them because they are the closest Reformed work and I believe it is a sin to forsake assembling with the brethren. I was not aware but am not surprised the RPCNA Synod's approval of CT translations in the 1970s. I will simply note that was the same era where they began ordaining women, rejected multiple parts of the WCF, and generally departed from their covenants as binding. I love my RP brethren and sit with them at the Lord's Table, but for many reasons (which I do not believe are appropriate to include in this thread) I cannot join them at this time beyond that.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 6, 2022)

Logan said:


> I certainly believe so. I've mentioned several times that I very much appreciate the work of Maurice Robinson, and think his "Case for the Byzantine Priority" is well-worth reading. Lane has mentioned Sturz as another approach.
> 
> I think the TR is too dogmatic about holding on to readings that were clearly influenced by the Latin. I think the CT is a little too aggressive with going with readings about which there is reasonable doubt about which reading is original (e.g., Pericope Adulterae, long ending of Mark) or with preferring older readings that are a minority. I would much rather be too cautious than too dogmatic on a given reading.
> 
> I think there is at least a reasonable case for preferring texts which were commonly used in the church, and carefully studying, weighting, and collating them. Not that you would just take a statistical approach, but weight that type of text more heavily. But I would be cautious of denying God's providence to any other group of texts as well.


I think this is where I fall down as well. Again, I see the many manuscripts we find as an opportunity to rejoice and think: "Praise God that he preserved so many Christians with HIs Word throughout the ages! Look, another testimony that Christians are a people of the Word!" I mean, seriously, one tires to find the oldest copies of the accounts of Julius Caesar and the unmistakable conclusion you are left with is that we have far more and earlier copies of the writings of some martyred servant of Christ from the early Church! These beleaguered Saints mean far more in human history than the Romans who killed them could have every imagined.

The good thing about all the modern versions is that they haven't "deleted" the contested passages but left them in there for the still living Church to read and for Pastors to continue to do the work of preaching from those texts and explaining why they are in the margins and let the Spirit do its work. I don't know if the pericope adultery is original with absolute confidence but I read it yearly and I believe it is.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jake (Sep 6, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> As for the RPCNA, as I state publicly in my signature on PB, I am an adherent because I cannot take the oath required for denominational membership, and (I asked and was told) there is no allowance to state exceptions (except, I have observed, for ministers and other Church officers). I worship with them because they are the closest Reformed work and I believe it is a sin to forsake assembling with the brethren. I was not aware but am not surprised the RPCNA Synod's approval of CT translations in the 1970s. I will simply note that was the same era where they began ordaining women, rejected multiple parts of the WCF, and generally departed from their covenants as binding. I love my RP brethren and sit with them at the Lord's Table, but for many reasons (which I do not believe are appropriate to include in this thread) I cannot join them at this time beyond that.


How do you determine which church (or civil magistrate -- not 100% clear where you land on this) is qualified to make a judgment on the text and translation of Scripture, since the denomination you worship with is not?


----------



## Logan (Sep 6, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> Could I get the sources for these, brother?



Strange, I did include sources in the top "said" portion of the quotations but it looks like the forum truncates those.
Most of them were gathered from Warfield's little discussion on phrase in the WCF, which is excellent and he includes a myriad of quotations in his footnotes which are well worth reading.
https://books.google.com/books?id=W0Q9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA643&lpg=PA643

The Rutherford quote is from "Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience", 1651, pp 360, 361
The Bridge quote is from "Scripture Light the Most Sure Light" 1656, pg 47
The Walton quote is from "Prolegomena", pg 14, 66, and 68
The Usher quote is from "Body of Divinity" pp 20, 21. Warfield shows in parallel columns how closely the WCF resembles this work.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 6, 2022)

Rutherford's PLC is 1649. He left the assembly, the last of the four Scottish ministers to leave (Henderson died), in 1648 (sorry, forget the exact date). 


Logan said:


> The Rutherford quote is from "Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience", 1651, pp 360, 361

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 6, 2022)

Jake said:


> How do you determine which church (or civil magistrate -- not 100% clear where you land on this) is qualified to make a judgment on the text and translation of Scripture, since the denomination you worship with is not?


It is not for me to determine - it has been determined for me by my forbearers: a nation that covenants with Christ, establishes a Church, and maintains its confession has the authority to make such judgements through its synods and councils.

For my family that goes back to the _Scots Confession_ (1560): "And such Kirks we, the inhabitants of the Realm of Scotland, professors of Christ Jesus, confess us to have in our cities, towns, and places reformed; for *the doctrine taught in our kirks is contained in the written word of God, to wit, in the Books of the Old and New Testaments. In those books, we mean, which of the ancient have been reputed canonical*, in the which we affirm that all things necessary to be believed for the salvation of mankind, is sufficiently expressed; the interpretation whereof, we confess, neither appertained to private nor public person, neither yet to any kirk for any pre-eminence or prerogative, personal or local, which one has above another; but appertained to the Spirit of God, by the which also the Scripture was written. *When controversy then happeneth for the right understanding of any place or sentence of Scripture*, or for the reformation of any abuse within the Kirk of God, we ought not so much to look what men before us have said or done, as unto that which the Holy Ghost uniformly speaks within the body of the Scriptures, and unto that which Christ Jesus Himself did, and commanded to be done. For this is a thing universally granted, that the Spirit of God, which is the Spirit of unity, is in nothing contrarious unto Himself. If then the interpretation, determination, or sentence of any doctor, kirk, or council, repugn to the plain word of God written in any other place of the Scripture, it is a thing most certain, that theirs is not the true understanding and meaning of the Holy Ghost, supposing that Councils, Realms, and Nations have approved and received the same: For *we dare not receive and admit any interpretation which directly repugneth to any principal point of our faith, or to any other plain text of Scripture*, or yet unto the rule of charity." (Chapter 18)

This confession was maintained in the _National Covenant_ (1638) which opens thus: "WE all and every one of us under-written, protest, That, after long and due examination of our own consciences in matters of true and false religion, we are now thoroughly resolved in the truth by the word and Spirit of God: and *therefore we believe with our hearts, confess with our mouths, subscribe with our hands, and constantly affirm, before God and the whole world, that this only is the true Christian faith and religion, pleasing God, and bringing salvation to man, which now is, by the mercy of God, revealed to the world by the preaching of the blessed evangel; and is received, believed, and defended* by many and sundry notable kirks and realms, but *chiefly by the kirk of Scotland, the King's Majesty, and three estates of this realm*, as God's eternal truth, and only ground of our salvation; *as more particularly is expressed in the Confession of our Faith*, established and publickly confirmed by sundry acts of Parliaments, and now of a long time hath been openly professed by the King's Majesty, and whole body of this realm both in burgh and land. To the which Confession and Form of Religion we willingly agree in our conscience in all points, as unto God's undoubted truth and verity, grounded only upon his written word."

This was enlarged in the _Solemn League and Covenant_ to include all of the kingdoms in the British Isles to state "That we shall sincerely, really, and constantly, through the grace of GOD, endeavor, in our several places and callings, *the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, against our common enemies*; the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, according to the Word of GOD, and the example of the best reformed Churches; and shall endeavour to bring the Churches of GOD in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, Confession of Faith, Form of Church Government, Directory for Worship and Catechising; *that we, and our posterity after us, may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us*." (SL&C I.) Thus they concluded by "most humbly beseeching the LORD to strengthen us by his HOLY SPIRIT for this end, and to bless our desires and proceedings with such success, as may be deliverance and safety to his people, and *encouragement to other Christian Churches*, groaning under, or in danger of the yoke of antichristian tyranny, *to join in the same or like association and covenant, to the glory of GOD*, the enlargement of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and the peace and tranquillity of Christian kingdoms and commonwealths."

My understanding of WCF Chapter 31 is that it allows the civil magistrate to call upon the Church to make a judgment on the text and translation of Scripture (31.2 - see also the end of 31.5), but precludes magistrates from making such a judgment themselves (31.3). I believe this is what occurred with the Geneva in Scotland and the KJV-AV in the United Kingdom.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 7, 2022)

One of he things that occurs to me is an assumption that isn't really spelled out as to what constitutes something as "Ecclesiastical". It's argued, for instance, that even though the KJV was produced at the behest of the Crown and initially authorized by the Anglican Church (in an Erastian context), it became "Ecclesiastical" because another Church body received it.

But does that process cease now?

One of the articles I post regularly to other PCA Elders is this great article on Naphtiali.com: https://www.naphtali.com/articles/schism-separatism/the-sin-of-schism/

The principal point about a catholic conception of the Church catholic is not that it will have institutional unity but that the various branches of the Christian faith constitute the Church. This is why we don't require re-baptism for persons baptized in other communions.

Is the OPC a branch of the Church and, if so, does it have the authority to receive the ESV or the NKJV as faithful translations or are members of respective NAPARC Churches bound to accept a translation as "Ecclesiastical" if it was originally authorized within an Erastian Church?

I see some of the arguments for "Ecclesiastical" to be at odds with the very principle articulated as to how Scottish theologians viewed the unity of the Church. I don't believe my own branch of the visible Church has the right to "bind and loose" a translation of the Scriptures upon all Christians everywhere but, it seems to me, that some who circumscribe "Ecclesiastical" to a specific branch of the Church in space and time are in violation of the principles so well articulated in this article. At the very least they are under obligation to articulate how they are not making some standard for "Ecclesiastical" that works only for Bible translations but doesn't work for any other area of the Christian faith where we have common, catholic communion.

Incidentally, one of the reasons I so oft quote this article to PCA Elders is that some are under the illusion that our specific visible branch needs to tolerate teaching that is inimical to the Westminster Standards (side B, FV, paedocommunion, etc). The argument is sort of the idea that the key to unity is that Elders compromise on doctrines for the sake of unity. The healthier option is to adopt the principle that separation is not always schism when one is under the conviction that one has to sin in order to obey God's commands. The very reason I have such common, catholic unity with Baptists is because we are separated into communions where we can thrive within our Scriptural convictions. It would be utter rancor if we were casual about our views on the Sacraments and polity in order to achieve organizational unity. Likewise, the best thing for people who are crypto-Anglicans or distort teachings such as Side B is to separate and leave the PCA to the Reformed (realizing that many consider the PCA to be barely Reformed in the things it tolerates).

What I'm driving at, then, is how one applies the principle of "unity" and authority across a separation of the branches. It seems it has the ultimate spirit of schism to "un-Church" another branch of the Christian faith over whether it has the authority to receive a translation of the Scriptures on the basis that (somehow) only the time of the Reformation had the makings of that which is "Ecclesiastical".

That is, by the way, why a TBS-translated Bible is fruitful. Not because some other branch of the Church in history has given it the imprimatur of Ecclesiastical but because it is received and used by a visible branch of the Church.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 7, 2022)

Yes, I agree with this, Rich. To boil it down to a very nuts and bolts type of statement/question: on what biblical basis does the actual translation have to be done under church auspices? Wouldn't a church's approval of a translation function as a substitute for doing the actual translation itself? Theoretically speaking, even if a single individual did a translation of the Bible, that could still be approved by a church that didn't do the translation, and the authority issue is parallel. This gets at the sort of narrow or broad view of providence I brought up in the OP. When applied to this particular issue, the narrow view might claim that God's blessing only coincides with a churchly origin of a translation. Why is God so limited? Furthermore, most of the modern translations were done by a committee of men who were all members of the visible church anyway. So this objection to modern translations has zero weight.


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 7, 2022)

Brother @Robert Truelove, are you able yet to expand on your previous comments in this thread?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## ZackF (Sep 7, 2022)

Was the Vulgate officially sanctioned?


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 7, 2022)

I'm not sure if this is directed at my position but I will respond *(bold comments)* as I believe it is relevant:



greenbaggins said:


> Yes, I agree with this, Rich. To boil it down to a very nuts and bolts type of statement/question: on what biblical basis does the actual translation have to be done under church auspices? *None. *Wouldn't a church's approval of a translation function as a substitute for doing the actual translation itself? *Yes. *Theoretically speaking, even if a single individual did a translation of the Bible, that could still be approved by a church that didn't do the translation, and the authority issue is parallel. *Agreed. *This gets at the sort of narrow or broad view of providence I brought up in the OP. When applied to this particular issue, the narrow view might claim that God's blessing only coincides with a churchly origin of a translation. *That would be a very narrow view indeed and difficult to support - for example, none of the legends I am aware of surrounding the creation of the Septuagint mention the involvement of the OT Church, and yet it was clearly received by Christ and the Apostles as authoritative.* Why is God so limited? *He is not, of course! *Furthermore, most of the modern translations were done by a committee of men who were all members of the visible church anyway. So this objection to modern translations has zero weight. *These last two sentences are a different issue in my view - having a committee of translators who are all members of the visible Church is different than a lawful Church court receiving a translation for use by those under its authority. The former in my mind is similar to saying the United States is a Christian nation because some (or even if all) of the men who wrote its Constitution were Christians. In my view, in theory, the Church could receive a translation from a translation team that included non-believers (Jewish scholars of Hebrew, for example) - again, because God and His wonderful providence is not limited.*


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 8, 2022)

@greenbaggins, have you listened to all of those Textual Confidence Collective episodes?


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 8, 2022)

Jake said:


> WCF 1:4 reads, "The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God."
> 
> The Belgic confession says similarly:
> We receive all these books, and these only, as holy and canonical, for the regulation,
> ...


It is difficult for me to see these confessional statements as meaning every individual might end up with a different version based on the perceived witness of the Holy Ghost in their hearts. This to me would lead to some type of individualized existential post-modern relativistic chaos.

On the other hand, if there is only one true text then those who believe the Holy Ghost is bearing witness in their hearts that some other text is from God would actually be deceived. But this to me would lead to a textual gnosticism and the "Satan's Bible" type of language.

God is not divided, and He is not the author of confusion. Is it possible these confessional statements are referring to the work of God's Spirit when the visible Church assembles in synods and councils? It is "unto this catholic visible Church Christ hath given the ministry, *oracles*, and ordinances of God" (WCF 25.3). Arguing from the lesser to the greater perhaps, if Scripture is not open to private interpretation, wouldn't recognizing what is God's Word also not be a private decision? "...first know this, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation: For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost." (II Peter 1.20-21).


----------



## B.L. (Sep 9, 2022)

Here's an interesting article written by Jeffrey Stivason that was posted yesterday on Gentle Reformation.

Edward Hills & a Strange Providence

Enjoy!


----------



## Logan (Sep 9, 2022)

B.L. said:


> Here's an interesting article written by Jeffrey Stivason that was posted yesterday on Gentle Reformation.
> 
> Edward Hills & a Strange Providence
> 
> Enjoy!


In the interest of fairness, I'd very much hesitate to bring up Edward Hills and KVJO in the same breath, even though he was defending the KJV and did so with some language that I find extremely bizarre.

He thought it was possible, in addition to the end of Revelation, that God had preserved 1 John 5:7 in the Latin even though it had been lost in the Greek, and then providentially brought it back into the Greek through the various TR editions. 

None of which, I'd point out, would have been the view of the Reformers or of the framers of the WCF. This is not "kept pure in all ages" or appealing exclusively to the original languages. It is also a one-sided view of Providence, i.e., it is saying that since common faith makes us believe that God is providentially caring for his word, and since the incorporation of the Latin into the Greek actually happened, that therefore God intended this to happen and therefore we accept that this is the true reading. 

But it is one-sided because the same providence is denied to any other moment in textual history: i.e., it denies that any incorporation of even _Greek_ readings (not Latin!) into the CT and into English Bibles, is permitted or overseen by God. The one instance is "providence" but the other is "corruption".

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 9, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> @greenbaggins, have you listened to all of those Textual Confidence Collective episodes?


I've listened to the first three, and very much liked what I've heard so far.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 9, 2022)

With all this said, when discussing God’s providence with a TR proponent, is it necessary to get into the particulars of said providence, or is there a better way to show the problems with their position at this point?

How would you summarize the over-arching principle at play (that doesn’t require the particulars to be discussed)?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 14, 2022)

Just to re-visit this thread very briefly before departing –

Amongst the Reformed family there is wrangling and confusion regarding this crucial matter of do we have an agreed-upon NT text.

Perhaps we sometimes forget there are often *10 times* the number of visitors than members looking in on our discussions (welcome, you visitors! we are glad you look in on us!) – and what must they think when they see the (supposed) “brightest and best” at loggerheads on this topic?

Now, if there is such disagreement among us, who are careful students of the Bible, what are those seeking for knowledge to think? It is a poor witness. God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33). What then? An enemy hath done this (Matt 13:28), sowing, not tares, but discord.

My approach is not like Andrew’s (@Northern Crofter), as I am more adrift from cohesive church bodies – for an enemy is also wasting the churches in what I take to be days near the end, and must settle for sound local churches (plus I am out of the country, probably permanently) – but more like a saint among like-minded brethren, seeking a ground to stand on to defend our NT Scripture. My stand here is well-known, so I won’t repeat it (see post #130 and following for that).

Notwithstanding the confusion, I love this community, for in the great main we have so much in common! You guys are a home away from home to my spirit and mind! Why can we not have a moratorium on this topic, and live more at peace like the credos and paedos here?
_______

Edit: Perhaps it is because of excesses in the KJV (Not KJV*O*) and TR views that a reaction against them has risen, and I think that’s healthy. For my part I can rest easy with Lane’s and Logan’s views (to name just two), knowing that they do indeed hold to a providential preservation view I can live with, though I differ in some particulars.

We can discuss variants, while maintaining consensus in the main. I know that 1 John 5:7, 8 can be a flashpoint for some, but it can be defended – as I have done – though I can live with those who disagree.

We are entering a period where our energies, time, and efforts are needed to a) walk in close, strengthening communion with our Shepherd, for there are serious enemies gathering about the believing churches, with hostility and massive agendas against us; and b) to be aware of these latter and how to best survive and thrive in the days ahead.


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 14, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I am more adrift from cohesive church bodies – for an enemy is also wasting the churches


I would like to charitably suggest that this may be part of the problem that you have identified, with the former being a cause of the latter.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 14, 2022)

Hello Andrew, 

What would you suggest to remedy the lack of available cohesive church bodies? When in the states (NYC) there were none near me.


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 14, 2022)

Will, I'm not sure there is an answer to your question. The subject of textual criticism is so difficult that is quite resists "summing up" or "putting things in a nutshell." People rush into this subject without the necessary tools or patience. As a result, they fail to understand the vitally important nuances that must be present for the discussion to have any credibility. 

Steve, I would love nothing more than such a moratorium. However, the so-called "confessional bibliology" movement that is casting doubts on people's NIV's, ESV's, even NKJV's will sow discord unless it is answered. If this movement had been content with an approach along the lines of "Well, we merely think the TR is the best, but the NIV (pre-2011, that is!), ESV, NKJV is still the Word of God without qualification or asterisk," I doubt the huge debates circling the web would even have arisen. That has not been their approach, at least not fully. There are a number of very shrill voices within that movement that want to attack the modern versions and say they are not God's Word, or at the very least there will always be an asterisk beside it. There are those of us who love church unity who cannot let such things pass. It is the way this movement has gained steam and is causing division that is the problem.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 14, 2022)

Lane, I would agree that we can call our respective Bibles – CT and TR – real Bibles (though we both have "asterisks" as regards some variant readings). Otherwise churches will be divided, and teachers/preachers who tear down others' Bibles will harm many. I suppose the bottom line for me is I won't destroy the faith my brother has in his Bible – his very lifeline to his Saviour – even if our views in some areas differ. I won't be doctrinaire on such points. The faith of God's individual children deeply matter to Him.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 14, 2022)

I must, in all honesty, say this. This evening, prior to the Bible study and waiting for folks to come, I was looking through a NKJV Bible one of the men asked me to get for him, and, preparing to explain to him about the NKJV margin notes (which I consider helpful), and I saw a margin note for Matthew 1:25 that made my heart sink! In the text it read, "and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son." The margin read, "NU _a son_" – NU meaning the Nestle-Aland / United Bible Societies – having a variant that deviated from the text indicating Jesus as firstborn among other children Mary would give birth to later.

This is an issue here in Cyprus, when talking with the Greek Orthodox.

Given that the NU text is an ecumenical endeavor produced under the supervision of the Roman Catholic organization, little wonder they should have that variant.

My heart now is wounded that I should give credence to such! I shall have to ask the Lord about this.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jake (Sep 14, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I must, in all honesty, say this. This evening, prior to the Bible study and waiting for folks to come, I was looking through a NKJV Bible one of the men asked me to get for him, and, preparing to explain to him about the NKJV margin notes (which I consider helpful), and I saw a margin note for Matthew 1:25 that made my heart sink! In the text it read, "and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son." The margin read, "NU _a son_" – NU meaning the Nestle-Aland / United Bible Societies – having a variant that deviated from the text indicating Jesus as firstborn among other children Mary would give birth to later.
> 
> This is an issue here in Cyprus, when talking with the Greek Orthodox.
> 
> ...



Can you not point them to Luke 2:7?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 14, 2022)

Thanks, Jake – I overlooked that! Still, the RC connection deeply troubles me. If I am getting feebleminded in my old age I should keep my mouth shut, and retract feebleminded remarks.


----------



## Logan (Sep 14, 2022)

A single child can be a "firstborn" so I've never read that particular verse as indicating Mary had other children. "Firstborn" by itself doesn't give you enough information to conclude one way or another.


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 14, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Lane, I would agree that we can call our respective Bibles – CT and TR – real Bibles (though we both have "asterisks" as regards some variant readings). Otherwise churches will be divided, and teachers/preachers who tear down others' Bibles will harm many. I suppose the bottom line for me is I won't destroy the faith my brother has in his Bible – his very lifeline to his Saviour – even if our views in some areas differ. I won't be doctrinaire on such points. The faith of God's individual children deeply matter to Him.


Steve, I would say you've been rather consistent on this point. It is very much appreciated. Many of your fellow TR/KJV advocates are not so generous. In other words, non-TR guys did not bring up this debate, and are certainly not responsible for the divisiveness already created. Up until about two years ago, most of the debate happened within collegial bounds, and most TR guys I knew were saying things similar to your position, Steve. That is not true anymore, with many TR advocates now blasting away at any Bible but the KJV/TR as if those other translations were deliberately trying to twist Scripture into something else. The debate has an edge to it now that most non-TR guys like myself feel is completely unwarranted and uncharitable.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 15, 2022)

Hi Lane, a little further clarification. You said, "If this [confessional Bibliology] movement had been content with an approach along the lines of "Well, we merely think the TR is the best, but the NIV (pre-2011, that is!), ESV, NKJV is still the Word of God without qualification or asterisk," I doubt the huge debates circling the web would even have arisen."

I already mentioned the asterisks, so now for the "without qualification" you mentioned. (Please note, I do appreciate the points you are highlighting!) If a "militant TR" guy came into my congregation here in Cyprus saying the Bibles some use not based on the TR are "Satan's Bibles", I would have to expel him for bringing division and error into the church. *In the main* such Bibles are indeed God's word.

However, I do teach my flock that in _particular_ instances they are not – referring to the variant readings. And they must learn which are which. Generally – as can be seen in the margin footnotes in the NKJV – those readings noted "NU" are not to be trusted, i.e., "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have...". I like this source-indicating feature in the NKJV, and explain how to use it.

The Roman Catholic connection is serious, and should not, in my view be dismissed (re your "without qualification"), due to
“an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it [their Critical Text] has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision.” The NA (Nestle-Aland) 27 edition's intro:





Also the United Bible Societies (producers of the Greek Critical Text) view:





I'll continue in a following post.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 15, 2022)

The "made under the supervision" of the Vatican needs to be noted.

In sum: I do fully concur, Lane, with withstanding militant TR influences disrupting the peace of both PB, and my own flock — yet it cannot be "without reservation", that is, warning to be alert to what I consider errors introduced by a doctrinally differing organization.

So the non-TR Bibles are *in the main* true Bibles, to be received as such, and *not* to be called satanic. Yet discernment must be used in detecting errors. If the Lord is magnanimous in using CT-based Bibles to nurture and sustain His flocks around the world (and He is, and He does) even though in some minutiae they err, it is upon me to be and do likewise.

I think my view is magnanimous and not at all militant. We may differ on some of this, but this is where I stand.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 15, 2022)

Logan, is there not a difference in usage between Matt 1:25, Luke 2:7, "her firstborn son", and Col 1:15, "the firstborn of every creature", i.e., preeminent, and likewise Col 1:18, "the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he might have the preeminence"?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 15, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I must, in all honesty, say this. This evening, prior to the Bible study and waiting for folks to come, I was looking through a NKJV Bible one of the men asked me to get for him, and, preparing to explain to him about the NKJV margin notes (which I consider helpful), and I saw a margin note for Matthew 1:25 that made my heart sink! In the text it read, "and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son." The margin read, "NU _a son_" – NU meaning the Nestle-Aland / United Bible Societies – having a variant that deviated from the text indicating Jesus as firstborn among other children Mary would give birth to later.
> 
> This is an issue here in Cyprus, when talking with the Greek Orthodox.
> 
> ...



Steve, are you aware that most of the Reformers defended Mary's perpetual virginity? I make this observation as one who regards the idea as superstitious and without biblical warrant. I am only pointing it out because it may not be the best issue to argue with the Eastern Orthodox about, as they could accuse you of ignoring your own tradition.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jake (Sep 15, 2022)

Hi Steve,

I'm having trouble understanding where you're coming from to be honest. As you said in this and your above post, "Given that the NU text is an ecumenical endeavor produced under the supervision of the Roman Catholic organization, little wonder they should have that variant."

Taken at face value, you are saying there is a bias on the count of Nestle–Aland scholars on wanting to include a variant because it would support their Roman Catholic beliefs. The NA catalogues the variants and includes them. Even if they did believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, that did not create the variants themselves and they must have done a bad job in their work because they left the exact same phrasing in another Gospel.

I've never been convinced by the idea that the Alexandrians were removing verses about the diety of Christ or other key doctrines due to heretics in the region. There were many solid theologians in the region as well, and the diety of Christ still clearly shows through in the Alexandrian texts. But a conspiracy in the early church by heretics seems far more plausible than NA/UBS introducing variant readings (inconsistently even) to me.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 15, 2022)

Jake said:


> Even if they did believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary



Moreover, if the NA guys were liberals, they wouldn't have believed Mary was a virgin at all!

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 16, 2022)

Hello again, Jake,

My focus here is not primarily upon the Alexandrian mss (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus [Aleph]) but on the Critical Greek Text produced by the CoE Revision committee headed by Hort and Westcott (W&H), starting around 1871 until 1881. They used B and Aleph – even though these two differed extensively between themselves – as the basis for what they would later call “a neutral text”. So it is not these two mss, but the Revision Committee’s separate production.

Most modern Bibles use the 1881 CT as their general basis. (Sturtzians, such as our Rev. Lane Keister, are not to be typed as holding to any one camp, as they are genuinely eclectic and painstaking in their textual choices.)

My focus at present is on two men who headed the committee, and dominated it, according to the reports of some who were there and wrote on it. Here – in the first link – is some info on what these men thought and said, noted in a recent post from another thread. Below that is an excerpt from a paper on the committee and a Unitarian pastor, Dr. Vance Smith, also on the committee. These are recorded and documented facts.

I do see some worth in the two mss, B and Aleph, as they are ancient and extensive documents of alternate text. Despite their variances they are, in the main, sufficiently preserved Bibles. Even the 1881 revision underlying most modern Bibles which contain most of the B and Aleph variants – all are preserved in the main.

The doings of said committee were a scandal in England of their day, and much that is unsavory was accepted and approved by it.

This is my issue in this discussion, in a nutshell: I much rather choose the judgment of the Reformation scholars and editors in their textual choices, than those by Catholics and Anglo-Catholics. It’s a no-brainer to me.


W&H Post # 175 https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...-critique-question.109224/page-6#post-1315302

Excerpts from a paper:

It was the scandal of England at the time that the openly Arian, Unitarian pastor Dr. Vance Smith was on the [Westcott and Hort] Revision Committee. When he was told by the Church of England he must resign his position Westcott threatened to resign himself if Smith were forced to leave.[1] Vance Smith caused an uproar when he attended a Communion Service and refused to say the Nicene Creed (affirming that Christ is God), although Hort loved it! He says,

…that marvelous Communion…It is, one can hardly doubt, the beginning of a new period in Church history. So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment. But it is strange that they should not ask themselves…what is really lost…by the union, for once, of all English Christians around the altar of the Church…[2]​
For the unregenerate Hort the Christ-denying Unitarian was a true “English Christian,” part of the good-ol’-boys’ religious club of academics and intellectuals who wear the frock, and not to be denied either the Lord’s Supper or a place in determining genuine Scripture. When Hort said, “So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment,” he wasn’t referring only to the Communion service, but to the results of the Unitarian on the Committee for Revision. There were many small but highly significant changes to the text they would eventually be publishing. Regarding the Revision, he said, _“*It is quite impossible to judge of the value of what appear to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearing which few would think of at first…the difference between a picture say of Raffaelle and a feeble copy of it is made up of a number of trivial differences*.”_[3] [emphasis added]

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

The old reading is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it has long been known to be by all careful students of the New Testament…It is in truth another example of the facility with which ancient copiers could introduce the word God into their manuscripts,—a reading which was the natural result of the growing tendency in early Christian times…to look upon the humble Teacher as the incarnate Word, and therefore as “God manifested in the flesh”.[4] …It has been frequently said that the changes of translation…are of little importance from a doctrinal point of view…[A]ny such statement [is]…contrary to the facts.[5]

The only instance in the N.T. in which the religious worship or adoration of Christ was apparently implied, has been altered by the Revision: ‘At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow,’ [Philippians 2:10] is now to be read ‘in the name.’ Moreover, *no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to make up for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the N.T. contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship of Jesus Christ*.[6] [Emphasis added]​
A.G. Hobbs, in his Forward to the reprint of Burgon’s _The Revision Revised_, wrote,

Here is a real shocker: Dean Stanley, Westcott, Hort, and Bishop Thirwall all refused to serve if Smith were dismissed [in the face of the public outcry at his presence on the Revision Committee]. Let us remember that the Bible teaches that those who uphold and bid a false teacher God speed are equally guilty. ‘For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds’ (2 John 9-11). No wonder that the Deity of Christ is played down in so many passages.[7]​
Does it not make sense what was happening? Unregenerate men had infiltrated the church, and not only the church, but the inner precincts of scholarship and textual reproduction. The enemy had taken the inner stronghold, and put unholy hands on the written Word of God, to alter it.

_____

[1] _Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott_, by his son Arthur Westcott (Macmillan, London, 1903) Reprint by the Bible for Today. Volume I, page 394.
[2] _Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort_, by his son, Arthur Fenton Hort (Macmillan, London, 1896) Reprint by the Bible for Today. Volume II, page 139.
[3] Ibid.
[4] _Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed_, by Dr. Vance Smith (London: 1881), pages 39, 47. Cited in _Revision Revised_, by Burgon, pages 515, 513.
[5] Ibid., page 45.
[6] _Texts and Margins_, Smith, page 47. Cited in, _For Love of the Bible: The Battle for the King James Version and the Received Text from 1800 to Present_, by David W. Cloud (WA: Way of Life Literature, 1997), page 31.
[7] _The Revision Revised_, by John William Burgon (Centennial Edition, Fifth printing, 1991), Forward [no page #]. See also, _Life of Westcott_, Vol I, page 394.

Reactions: Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Northern Crofter (Sep 16, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Steve, I would say you've been rather consistent on this point. It is very much appreciated. Many of your fellow TR/KJV advocates are not so generous. In other words, non-TR guys did not bring up this debate, and are certainly not responsible for the divisiveness already created. Up until about two years ago, most of the debate happened within collegial bounds, and most TR guys I knew were saying things similar to your position, Steve. That is not true anymore, with many TR advocates now blasting away at any Bible but the KJV/TR as if those other translations were deliberately trying to twist Scripture into something else. The debate has an edge to it now that most non-TR guys like myself feel is completely unwarranted and uncharitable.


One side may seem less charitable in the current climate, but the logical conclusion of each side seems equally offensive to the other: TR folk essentially feel/believe the CT folk are taking away from Scripture, and the CT folk essentially feel/believe the TR folk are adding to it. It's Luke 16:17 vs Revelation 22:18 Perhaps the only peaceable way forward is for each to submit to the rule of their fellowship (and if no rule, then petition for one) and depart from parachurch discussions on this topic. In other words, work it out in your own church body and/or limit such discussions to that sphere - if more needs to be said, let fellowship speak to fellowship instead of individual-to-individual or side-to-side. This topic is different than other discussions because it is foundational to all other beliefs. Just a thought...


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 16, 2022)

For my part, I can live with Lane, Logan, Rich and the other godly men here, as I respect them and their walks and scholarship – even if we differ in the latter in one area. And I also agree that "militancy" in one party which condemns the others' Bibles is truly destructive of the peace and unity of the church, and should not be allowed. All our Bibles are sacred to us, as the word of our God.

We can point out respective flaws, and let folks decide what they will. I'd rather not talk about these things for a good while now – and both sides have had plenty of "say" lately.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 16, 2022)

Just to be clear, I haven't found one person in this thread arguing for a CT "position". I guess this goes to the general ignorance (evident by the way people post about it) as to what the use of the collation of manuscripts is.

Regardless of what one thinks about the textual choices a committee makes about what to do with a variant, the net result is not the "deletion" of any readings but (within the apparatus) the manuscripts that contain the various readings. These are relatively few and far between in terms of significance.

This gets to the point of an educated ministry that is trained to handle the Greek and be able to establish a translation.

I'm not of the conviction that a Bible exists for individual study and no translation can completely avoid some theological interpretation. To understand this requires understanding of Greek and Hebrew syntax. What one does with a genitive, a participle, a relative clause, etc. What one does with a long sentence by Paul and how it is broken up. It's easy to forget that the English translation (any translation) is (in its own way) a "commentary" because the translators had to theologically interpret the text and it was not merely something that can be "finished". In that I mean that it is the work of good teachers to exegete and explain and build up members.

Yes, of course, the Scriptures are perspicuous in the most fundamental areas concerning God and salvation but some things are not altogether plain and this is why it's important to not overstate the "crisis" of the so-called "CT" as if we've "lost" some verses. Even if we were to all stick to the KJV, it would not resolve the unstable and unlearned from twisting the Scriptures (even if they knew Greek). Dispensationalists know Greek too and might even rely upon the TR to still remain in and propagate error.

For my part, I think it is a tremendous blessing to see the variant readings. I'm no more required to accept the underlying Greek for a particular verse in the ESV than I am the translation of the ESV even where it agrees with the TR on the underlying Greek. I can look at the Greek myself and apply a trained theological mind to the process of properly exegeting the text.

In other words, the charge that the CT itself is "Satanic" is a strange and impious statement because it shows everything. It doesn't delete anything. It can't because the manuscripts exist. It can't because all the opinions of the scholars (whether good or bad) are on full display for Godly ministers to look at and apply their skills to either agreeing with or disagreeing with along with establishing their own translation of the text for the purposes of a sermon or an illustration. The charge of being "Satanic" ultimately means that some Christian in the past must have not copied a manuscript in error but that Satan himself caused it or that the variant was always nefarious. It is, in the end, an inadequate view of God's Providence (which is what this thread is all about).

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 16, 2022)

Northern Crofter said:


> One side may seem less charitable in the current climate, but the logical conclusion of each side seems equally offensive to the other: TR folk essentially feel/believe the CT folk are taking away from Scripture, and the CT folk essentially feel/believe the TR folk are adding to it. It's Luke 16:17 vs Revelation 22:18 Perhaps the only peaceable way forward is for each to submit to the rule of their fellowship (and if no rule, then petition for one) and depart from parachurch discussions on this topic. In other words, work it out in your own church body and/or limit such discussions to that sphere - if more needs to be said, let fellowship speak to fellowship instead of individual-to-individual or side-to-side. *This topic is different than other discussions because it is foundational to all other beliefs*. Just a thought...


I have to disagree with the type in bold. 

Sufficiency of Scripture, inspiration, infallibility—those are foundational to all other beliefs.

A broad or narrow view of God’s providence regarding manuscripts is a completely different category. 




Jerusalem Blade said:


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



Are we circling back to this stuff again?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 16, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Logan, is there not a difference in usage between Matt 1:25, Luke 2:7, "her firstborn son", and Col 1:15, "the firstborn of every creature", i.e., preeminent, and likewise Col 1:18, "the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he might have the preeminence"?


Or John 3:13 concerning his Omnipresence? There are a lot of areas we can specifically tackle. There are a lot of Attributes that can be looked at too. I am about ready to delve in. 

This mess we are discussing has too much bias in it. We all have it. We have worked 1 John 5:7 to death. I am not sure I have ever delved into this argument here because I think I could raise more questions than answers, especially concerning historicity and scriptures use in the Church and writings. I do know that I think I have sufficient answers for me but not sure if I will raise more questions for you. There are too many other places in Scripture that scream also. Yes, I said scream. Maybe it is that testimony you all are talking about inside of me that testifies. I kind of tilt my head at that a bit but I digress. I believe we have a lot of other answers that are not being given because there is a lack of discussion concerning specific families of manuscripts and the historical writings that include the scriptures. There are particular families of manuscripts that are very basic to follow as I understand. The CT is supposedly the best because they are the oldest attestations to the original autographs. Then there is the argument that the oldest might not be the best. That is about how this discussion is going and sounds to me. It always sounds like that to me. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. 

I think I might delve into this subject again. Be it known that I will be using Jay Greens work and Dean John Burgon's works. I have already cut two yards today. I have two more. The reason why I don't participate in these discussions is because it is extremely time consuming for me and I have a hard enough time just checking in on the PB. I will try my best. 
I think I would like to start with John 3:13 and 1 Timothy 3:16.

13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
The Person and Work of Christ are two very important doctrines. I believe the manuscript history can tell us the same thing. There has always been opposition to the Word of God. Who hates scripture and wants to divide us more than depraved man? We aren't alone in this fight. It has two sides. There is so much at Stake, especially in the times to come no matter how you view the Last Days. God's word will not fail. 

Please give me some time and I will try a different approach to this discussion from a different angle in the future. I just need to get my ducks in a row. I will have a lot of questions to ask. Also, on another matter, since we are discussing manuscripts and translations the mode of translation needs to be acknowledged. There is no such thing as a word for word or grammatical to grammatical translation. There are such things as Formal Equivalence and Dynamic Equivalence translations and there is a mixture of both in each translation. 

You all have a good weekend. I will check in and break my old books out. They need dusting anyways.
Edit: I evidently gave my books away. I will download what I can find.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 16, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> Are we circling back to this stuff again?


Maybe it needs it. Not a bad reminder. Have you read Unholy Hands on the Bible?


----------



## Polanus1561 (Sep 16, 2022)

Any view worth its salt can stand on itself by proving itself positively without going down the wormhole of investigating the morals of men behind other views. Even Burgon did not do it in Revision Revised, did he? Even if you want to go there, it doesn't refute the Majority Text method.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 16, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Or John 3:13 concerning his Omnipresence? There are a lot of areas we can specifically tackle.



How do the modern translations deny his omnipresence? This verse says he was in heaven, even in the ESV.


PuritanCovenanter said:


> Maybe it needs it. Not a bad reminder. Have you read Unholy Hands on the Bible?



That sounds very close to the genetic fallacy.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 17, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> That sounds very close to the genetic fallacy.



Sorry Jacob, I just got home from racing my slot cars. LOL. It wasn't set up to be that. I was honestly asking. I have asked in a few of these threads if anyone has interacted with Burgon. That is an honest question. I don't mean to be a snob or sound like I know the whole ins and outs in this discussion. It is just an honest question to help lead me somewhere.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 17, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> How do the modern translations deny his omnipresence? This verse says he was in heaven, even in the ESV


And that is a plus for the ESV. Sorry Jacob. I am going to bed brother. Love ya, TTY probably Monday.


----------



## Logan (Sep 17, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Sorry Jacob, I just got home from racing my slot cars. LOL. It wasn't set up to be that. I was honestly asking. I have asked in a few of these threads if anyone has interacted with Burgon. That is an honest question. I don't mean to be a snob or sound like I know the whole ins and outs in this discussion. It is just an honest question to help lead me somewhere.


I've read Burgon. I appreciate a lot of what he had to say. However, he was no "confessional bibliologist", in that he offered many places that the traditional text should be updated, and as far as I know, he didn't defend 1 John 5:7. I would place him more in the "majority text" or "Byzantine" camp, if we're using today's terms.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 19, 2022)

Logan said:


> I've read Burgon. I appreciate a lot of what he had to say. However, he was no "confessional bibliologist", in that he offered many places that the traditional text should be updated, and as far as I know, he didn't defend 1 John 5:7. I would place him more in the "majority text" or "Byzantine" camp, if we're using today's terms.


Which book(s) by him?


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 19, 2022)

Are there any published authors who represent the “official” so-called Confessional Bibliology position?

Hills, Letis, Van Kleeck, etc.?

From talking to CB proponents, I get the sense that each of these men has good points and bad points. The bad being where they occasionally stray into KJVO-type argumentation.


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 19, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> Which book(s) by him?


The main book is _The Revision Revised_. Amidst much irritating rhetoric, you will find a bona fide text-critical scholar who argues ably for his position. I especially found his argument concerning 1 Timothy 3:16 convincing, and his evidence regarding possible changes in reading in the same manuscript over centuries to be quite fascinating.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 19, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> The main book is _The Revision Revised_. Amidst much irritating rhetoric, you will find a bona fide text-critical scholar who argues ably for his position. I especially found his argument concerning 1 Timothy 3:16 convincing, and his evidence regarding possible changes in reading in the same manuscript over centuries to be quite fascinating.


Thank you.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Sep 19, 2022)

@greenbaggins posted this review of Revision revised awhile back https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/review-of-burgons-revision-revised.94168/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Sep 19, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> Are there any published authors who represent the “official” so-called Confessional Bibliology position?
> 
> Hills, Letis, Van Kleeck, etc.?
> 
> From talking to CB proponents, I get the sense that each of these men has good points and bad points. The bad being where they occasionally stray into KJVO-type argumentation.



Personally I think that's the issue: each person has their own path to getting to the KJV but their methodology is typically very different. I'm sure Jerusalem Blade has some good resources from that perspective.

But you have Burgon, an Anglican who was arguing for certain readings (but not all) in the traditional text, finding many sources in the early church fathers.

You have Hills, who was a Presbyterian, more or less interested in defending the KJV and in my opinion his take on the Greek text secondary to that. He believed that the KJV could be considered its own version of the "received text".

Then you have Letis, whom I would avoid. He ended up Lutheran. His scholarship is either incompetent or dishonest. There were multiple instances where I read him and he quoted a sentence from someone (e.g., Warfield) and then built a case off of that for how horrible Warfield was and how Warfield meant X. However, when I went to the source and read Warfield, there were a couple of times when Warfield said, on the very same page, that he did NOT mean X! Letis also intentionally obscured his own views but there were several times when he said things like he didn't know whether the long ending of Mark was original or not, but what mattered is that the church "canonized it" so it was now part of the canon. You can read some of my interactions with Letis in this (lengthy) thread.

See any doctrinal similarity between these individuals? I don't, but they shared a common goal on this one topic. The "confessional bibliology" group uses a different approach than any of these three. Steve has his own unique approach. Jeff Riddle has some of his own ideas. Matthew Winzer argued from a unique position as well. Robert Truelove is different from them. But they all eventually arrive at the KJV. There just isn't one argument, or one theological view here.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 3


----------



## NM_Presby (Sep 19, 2022)

Logan said:


> Personally I think that's the issue: each person has their own path to getting to the KJV but their methodology is typically very different. I'm sure Jerusalem Blade has some good resources from that perspective.
> 
> But you have Burgon, an Anglican who was arguing for certain readings (but not all) in the traditional text, finding many sources in the early church fathers.
> 
> ...


In this vein, as a TR advocate myself I think it is absolutely true that the modern defense of the TR is still very much in its early stages of being formed and coming to coherence, because historically speaking the modern challenge to the TR is relatively new. Thus while preference for the TR has been around for some time, the current effort to articulate why the TR is to be preferred is still in some senses just getting going in earnest.

As TR advocacy has surged in recent years, I think we will see development and refining of arguments which will make the position a little more easily approachable and coherent, and will hopefully eliminate many of the bad arguments which have popped up.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## NM_Presby (Sep 19, 2022)

To clarify, I'm not saying no good or coherent arguments have been made yet, just that the position as a whole is still being developed/consolidated.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Sep 19, 2022)

NM_Presby said:


> In this vein, as a TR advocate myself I think it is absolutely true that the modern defense of the TR is still very much in its early stages of being formed and coming to coherence, because historically speaking the modern challenge to the TR is relatively new. Thus while preference for the TR has been around for some time, the current effort to articulate why the TR is to be preferred is still in some senses just getting going in earnest.
> 
> As TR advocacy has surge in recent years, I think we will see development and refining of arguments which will make the position a little more easily approachable and coherent, and will hopefully eliminate many of the bad arguments which have popped up.


I for one find the most persuasive form of the pro-TR view to be the providential preservation one. Things start get wonky once some pro-TR views start talking about evidences for the minority readings of 1 Jn 5:7, Eph 3:9 and then shift to a majority view for Mark 16 etc.

And I think that is where the split should be among TR views. My 2c.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 19, 2022)

I am back. I had a good weekend guys. Slept most of it. I am so glad Summer is winding down. 
Jay Green Sr. was more of a Majority Text guy. He use to publish Burgon's works. Most of us end up with the KJV because it is an excellent translation based on manuscripts from that family. Most of the Eclectic Text translations tend to be more Dynamic Equivalence. The Majority Text side tend to translate with a Formal Equivalence mind. 

Yes, 1 Timothy 3:16 is one of the passages that should have made it into the Eclectic Text. I was up at Wheaton for a Reformation and Revival Conference many years ago now. (I got to meet J. I. Packer) They had a representative there for the ESV translation. I mentioned the 1 Timothy 3:16 text to him and he noted to me that they were wrestling with that passage. Evidently it didn't make the cut to say God was manifest in the flesh. 

Logan, Despite what Dr. Oakley (James White) says Jay Green was a Majority text guy like Burgon. Of course it is easier to label all guys who like that family of manuscripts to be KJVO. Bring me a better translation and I will surely recommend it. I do recommend the ESV. 

Man, I became a Christian reading a Living Bible in a Navy Barracks. But that doesn't mean I recommend it for study. We all mature at different times in different ways. God's word will not return void. It accomplishes what he wants when he wants. There is a Providence in this whole thing. It just doesn't appear to be revered the same generationally. Our reverence level for the word is dropping quickly.


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 19, 2022)

Logan said:


> Personally I think that's the issue: each person has their own path to getting to the KJV but their methodology is typically very different. I'm sure Jerusalem Blade has some good resources from that perspective.
> 
> But you have Burgon, an Anglican who was arguing for certain readings (but not all) in the traditional text, finding many sources in the early church fathers.
> 
> ...


Thanks for this. 

That’s part of the frustration when interacting with this position; you hit a target and then it’s moved. 

Perhaps one should focus on the foundations—the supposed “gotcha” assertions of superior theology, presuppositions, and epistemology that undergird the position. 

But then again, the leaps that have to be made to support the dogmatic form of so-called CB are past the point of debate. 

Or perhaps the focus should be on the tangible problem with this view: the division and lack of trust in the Bible* it causes in the church when it is asserted that it is “CB” or nothing. 

*They would argue the same for other text positions; but I believe this charge rightly lies with them.


----------



## NM_Presby (Sep 19, 2022)

Sorry for the multiple replies, but one last thing to add. I'd also say that in reality the arguments for modern critical texts are just as diverse. There is hardly a uniform textual critical position that 100% characterizes all pastors and scholars who prefer the critical text today. Rather, there is broad agreement mixed with many individual idiosyncracies.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 19, 2022)

NM_Presby said:


> In this vein, as a TR advocate myself I think it is absolutely true that the modern defense of the TR is still very much in its early stages of being formed and coming to coherence, because historically speaking the modern challenge to the TR is relatively new. Thus while preference for the TR has been around for some time, the current effort to articulate why the TR is to be preferred is still in some senses just getting going in earnest.
> 
> As TR advocacy has surge in recent years, I think we will see development and refining of arguments which will make the position a little more easily approachable and coherent, and will hopefully eliminate many of the bad arguments which have popped up.


Perhaps you are right.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NM_Presby (Sep 19, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> Or perhaps the focus should be on the tangible problem with this view: the division and lack of trust in the Bible* it causes in the church when it is asserted that it is “CB” or nothing.
> 
> *They would argue the same for other text positions; but I believe this charge rightly lies with them.


I agree with you that some TR advocates argue in a way that can be seriously damaging to people's confidence in the Bible; I experienced this when I first encountered the position. Some critical text guys do this as well, which I think we all can acknowledge. It's really more about how you're arguing than which position you're taking.


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 19, 2022)

NM_Presby said:


> Sorry for the multiple replies, but one last thing to add. I'd also say that in reality the arguments for modern critical texts are just as diverse. There is hardly a uniform textual critical position that 100% characterizes all pastors and scholars who prefer the critical text today. Rather, there is broad agreement mixed with many individual idiosyncracies.


The problem though is that the dogmatic “CB” position claims modern texts are not truly and fully the Word of God. Otherwise we could all live in relative unity, each believing and trusting his own Bible. Much like we do with baptism or church government.


----------



## NM_Presby (Sep 19, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> The problem though is that the dogmatic “CB” position claims modern texts are not truly and fully the Word of God. Otherwise we could all live in relative unity, each believing and trusting his own Bible. Much like we do with baptism or church government.


I agree that we should be able to have unity, and that some hardliners take the argument too far, but it is worth noting that as with baptism and church government, churches as well as individuals have to make decisions on these things which affect their congregations. That's why the conversation is worth having-- though it should be a brotherly one.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 19, 2022)

NM_Presby said:


> I agree with you that some TR advocates argue in a way that can be seriously damaging to people's confidence in the Bible; I experienced this when I first encountered the position. Some critical text guys do this as well, which I think we all can acknowledge. It's really more about how you're arguing than which position you're taking.





NM_Presby said:


> I agree that we should be able to have unity, and that some hardliners take the argument too far, but it is worth noting that as with baptism and church government, churches as well as individuals have to make decisions on these things which affect their congregations. That's why the conversation is worth having-- though it should be a brotherly one.



1. I’m curious what parts of the TR arguments caused you problems?

2. Yes, some CT guys could damage someone’s trust in the Bible, but I submit that it is the unbelieving scholars, or overzealous laymen—_*not the position itself that causes this problem.*_

Otherwise the position isn’t being understood correctly—or, more likely, the unfounded assertions for the TR being something that it is not are then colouring how the CT is being viewed.

On the flip side, _*I think it is the “CB” position itself (not just poor examples of men holding to it) that causes this same problem*_ because it’s baked into the position to distrust all else than the TR.

Speaking solely of the positions (not men), believing modern scholarship says to the ESV and KJV reader alike, “You have the Word of God.”

The “CB” position says, “That ESV is not _really_ the Word of God.”

(I don’t know if the position even has a name or category for the ESV or NASB, etc.)

Which of those two statements will cause more trouble to the man or woman in the pew? “CB” all day.


----------



## NM_Presby (Sep 19, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> 1. I’m curious what parts of the TR arguments caused you problems?
> 
> 2. Yes, some CT guys could damage someone’s trust in the Bible, but I submit that it is the unbelieving scholars, or overzealous laymen—_*not the position itself that causes this problem.*_
> 
> ...


I think you may have only encountered certain variants of the TR argument that are more extreme. While I will acknowledge some TR advocates argue in a damaging way, I do not think it is inherent to the position. Most TR advocates I know would not say, as your hypothetical argument says, that those who have the ESV, for instance, do not possess the word of God, nor does our position necessitate such a statement. Some people claim that it does, but they do not speak for all TR advocates when they say this. 


I believe the TR is the _best _edition of the Greek NT, but that all others are the Word of God insofar as they represent the originals, which is still quite substantially-- just as many CT guys would say about the TR.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 19, 2022)

I'm going to state this again (since it appears by comments that people are ignorant of the process of looking at variants), but there is really not a "CT position".

Yes, the CT "platform" exists where scholars have decided that, of all the variants found among manuscripts, which is most likely the original. What they have not done, however, is "deleted" any readings.

The ad hoc nature of the TR position will always exist because it will always have to account for (in some way) manuscripts discovered since the 17th (or even 19th centuries). Some story has to be put forward as to why the Church should ignore manuscripts that were, well, _preserved_.

It is remarkable, is it not, that we have papyri fragments within the first century? I suppose some are so devoted to an account of preservation that the answer is "No".

The reason why most Reformed Elders don't take the TR position is that they don't have a specific position on whether an academic "vote" settles a reading. The apparatus is available and the "position" of Reformed Churches is to train its Pastors to be able to translate from the original languages and look at the variants themselves. We do not ignore the providential preservation of _thousands _of additional manuscripts in favor of some ad hoc account as to why the ought to be ignored.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 19, 2022)

NM_Presby said:


> I think you may have only encountered certain variants of the TR argument that are more extreme. While I will acknowledge some TR advocates argue in a damaging way, I do not think it is inherent to the position. Most TR advocates I know would not say, as your hypothetical argument says, that those who have the ESV, for instance, do not possess the word of God, nor does our position necessitate such a statement. Some people claim that it does, but they do not speak for all TR advocates when they say this.
> 
> 
> I believe the TR is the _best _edition of the Greek NT, but that all others are the Word of God insofar as they represent the originals, which is still quite substantially-- just as many CT guys would say about the TR.


My comments were directed specifically at dogmatic “Confessional Bibliology.” You are right otherwise, brother. 

I appreciate your position!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 19, 2022)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I'm going to state this again (since it appears by comments that people are ignorant of the process of looking at variants), but there is really not a "CT position".
> 
> Yes, the CT "platform" exists where scholars have decided that, of all the variants found among manuscripts, which is most likely the original. What they have not done, however, is "deleted" any readings.
> 
> ...


How do you account for the recent groundswell of dogmatic “Confessional Bibliology”?


----------



## Polanus1561 (Sep 19, 2022)

I was just wondering, if a prospective Pastor wants to use, say the ESV, in the FCC for example, is there any official clause to prohibit from doing so? Or would the elders just not call him (and if so, what is their official rejection reason?)


----------



## Logan (Sep 19, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Logan, Despite what Dr. Oakley (James White) says Jay Green was a Majority text guy like Burgon. Of course it is easier to label all guys who like that family of manuscripts to be KJVO. Bring me a better translation and I will surely recommend it. I do recommend the ESV.



Was this intended to be directed at me? I've not mentioned James White at all. Or Jay Green. Nor have I called anyone KJVO...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NM_Presby (Sep 19, 2022)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I'm going to state this again (since it appears by comments that people are ignorant of the process of looking at variants), but there is really not a "CT position”


Not sure if this is directed at what I said but that’s kind of my point. There isn’t a CT position properly defined— rather a largely agreed upon methodology with many individual modifications. I simply pointed that out to note that the “TR position” isn’t unique in its diversity. 

I do know how the basic process of textual criticism works, btw.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 19, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> How do you account for the recent groundswell of dogmatic “Confessional Bibliology”?


I'm not sure I need a _reason_ to account for every idiosyncratic position that people make. Nailing "Confessional Bilbiology" will always be like nailing Jello to the wall (as evidenced in this thread). Each advocate argues forcefully that the reason for their position is the Confessional position, but each differs with as much dogmatic certainty as the other. It doesn't help that the position requires a "creative" use of history and each person's creativity differs from another. When persons disagree on other doctrinal ideas at least the history of the view can be explored where some ideas of this view rely on accounts that can never be historically verified because the idea was the product of an active imagination. Ideas such as "well this was what the Reformed Churches of x Century" used are likewise both the linchpin for some and disposable for others. Note that I'm not talking about arguments about whether certain readings are preferable to the methods of the CT apparatus. Theological and historical arguments can come into play for those. I'm talking about the position that has to view with suspicion the providential preservation of thousands of discovered manuscripts and concoct historical theories or ad hoc arguments that only work to throw shade on every discovery and on every ancient Christian who copied and then used these manuscripts in worship.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 19, 2022)

Logan said:


> Was this intended to be directed at me? I've not mentioned James White at all. Or Jay Green. Nor have I called anyone KJVO...


Just general information on who I counted reliable in the debate. This thread is so long to read that there is no way I can address the arguments from here now. I do think the Johannian Comma belongs. but I have to dig up my notes from over 25 years ago. I can't remember if Jay did. BTW, I found the books I thought I gave away. I am going to have to brush up on this one as it has a lot of dust to blow away. Give me a few weeks to research my old notes. I will try to start a half way intelligent thread. That will be a task for me. This is one of the scariest things to discuss because of the warnings by scripture. I will try to discuss families, geological locations, historicity and personalities the best I can as a simple layman. No you don't have to know Greek to understand this discussion. It certainly helps.


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 19, 2022)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I'm talking about the position that has to view with suspicion the providential preservation of thousands of discovered manuscripts and concoct historical theories or ad hoc arguments that only work to throw shade on every discovery and on every ancient Christian who copied and then used these manuscripts in worship.


That’s a good point.


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 20, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> While Warfield had quite a different approach than his usual detractors today charge him with (he explicitly said, for example, that the original readings are in the apographs, something many deny him saying


Lane, could you (and others) enlighten me on Warfield here? Does he say this about the apographs in his “Introduction”?


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 20, 2022)

The difference among all the participants' positions is a vital point. The book edited by Riddle/McShaffrey is long on lumping all non-TR positions together, and very short on nuance. That's why it was good to see a TR advocate (Andrew) note the huge variety of views. Accuracy on this point is important if we are going to avoid the whole misrepresentation problem, which has happened on many occasions, though from where I stand, it seems to me that it is the TR position doing the lion's share of misrepresentation. The book aforementioned is full of that. The misrepresentations tend to go along these lines: 1. Person A generalizes about the other position. 2. Person B of the other position, but not of the generalization, accuses Person A of mischaracterizing because it doesn't affect Person B's position. We need a better taxonomy of views delineating various positions within the field. Something like this

A. TR positions
1. Confessional Bibliology movement (TR is the providentially preserved text)
a. extreme (a la Christopher Myers) abbreviated ECBTR (extreme confessional bibliology TR): all other Bibles based on Satan's Bible

b. strong (McShaffrey) abbr. SCBTR: the TR is the Word of God; others, while faithful in the main, still have an asterisk by them

c. moderate (Andrew and others on the PB), abbr. MCBTR: the TR is the most accurate, others are still the Word of God

2. Ruckmann (KJV is inspired), also Riplinger, abbr. RKJVO

3. KJVO, non-Ruckmann, abbr. KJVO, KJV is the best, others are problematic

B. Majority Text positions (abbr. MT, follows Robinson, Pierpont, Farstad, Burgon), majority of manuscripts is original. 

C. Sturzian (Black's Reasoned Conservatism), abbr. SRC (Sturzian reasoned conservatism) geographic diversity of readings points more likely to original; Byzantine on same footing as other locales. 

D. Critical Text Positions
1. Radical Eclecticism (Kilpatrick, Elliott), abbr. RACT, pure eclecticism, internal evidence primary

2. Reasoned Eclecticism (Metzger, Aland), abbr. RECT, external and internal evidence equal, favors Alexandrian, but others important as well

3. Westcott-Hort, abbr. WH, similar to reasoned eclecticism, except almost exclusively favors Alexandrian. 

4. Coherence-Based Genealogical Method, abbr. CBGM, agreement as well as disagreement points to genealogical families

If there are any other positions I am leaving out, I am certainly open to tweaking.

Reactions: Like 8 | Informative 2 | Edifying 2


----------



## NM_Presby (Sep 20, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> The difference among all the participants' positions is a vital point. The book edited by Riddle/McShaffrey is long on lumping all non-TR positions together, and very short on nuance. That's why it was good to see a TR advocate (Andrew) note the huge variety of views. Accuracy on this point is important if we are going to avoid the whole misrepresentation problem, which has happened on many occasions, though from where I stand, it seems to me that it is the TR position doing the lion's share of misrepresentation. The book aforementioned is full of that. The misrepresentations tend to go along these lines: 1. Person A generalizes about the other position. 2. Person B of the other position, but not of the generalization, accuses Person A of mischaracterizing because it doesn't affect Person B's position. We need a better taxonomy of views delineating various positions within the field. Something like this
> 
> A. TR positions
> 1. Confessional Bibliology movement (TR is the providentially preserved text)
> ...


This is helpful, and I think a fairly accurate representation of the range of opinions out there.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 20, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> Lane, could you (and others) enlighten me on Warfield here? Does he say this about the apographs in his “Introduction”?


He implies or says it in a number of places. P. 10: "...the New Testament, the text of which is incomparably correct." P. 12 "the providence of God in preserving for His Church in each and every age a competently exact text of the Scriptures"; P. 136-7 "We seek the original text of the New Testament in the extant MSS., because we judge that where these MSS. agree, this agreement can be accounted for in no other way than by common inheritance from the ancestor of all."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 20, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> The difference among all the participants' positions is a vital point. The book edited by Riddle/McShaffrey is long on lumping all non-TR positions together, and very short on nuance. That's why it was good to see a TR advocate (Andrew) note the huge variety of views. Accuracy on this point is important if we are going to avoid the whole misrepresentation problem, which has happened on many occasions, though from where I stand, it seems to me that it is the TR position doing the lion's share of misrepresentation. The book aforementioned is full of that. The misrepresentations tend to go along these lines: 1. Person A generalizes about the other position. 2. Person B of the other position, but not of the generalization, accuses Person A of mischaracterizing because it doesn't affect Person B's position. We need a better taxonomy of views delineating various positions within the field. Something like this
> 
> A. TR positions
> 1. Confessional Bibliology movement (TR is the providentially preserved text)
> ...


Very helpful list.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 20, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> He implies or says it in a number of places. P. 10: "...the New Testament, the text of which is incomparably correct." P. 12 "the providence of God in preserving for His Church in each and every age a competently exact text of the Scriptures"; P. 136-7 "We seek the original text of the New Testament in the extant MSS., because we judge that where these MSS. agree, this agreement can be accounted for in no other way than by common inheritance from the ancestor of all."


I will look into it. Thank you. Does he speak in a way anywhere that would give the impression of the opposite?


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 20, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> The difference among all the participants' positions is a vital point. The book edited by Riddle/McShaffrey is long on lumping all non-TR positions together, and very short on nuance. That's why it was good to see a TR advocate (Andrew) note the huge variety of views. Accuracy on this point is important if we are going to avoid the whole misrepresentation problem, which has happened on many occasions, though from where I stand, it seems to me that it is the TR position doing the lion's share of misrepresentation. The book aforementioned is full of that. The misrepresentations tend to go along these lines: 1. Person A generalizes about the other position. 2. Person B of the other position, but not of the generalization, accuses Person A of mischaracterizing because it doesn't affect Person B's position. We need a better taxonomy of views delineating various positions within the field. Something like this
> 
> A. TR positions
> 1. Confessional Bibliology movement (TR is the providentially preserved text)
> ...


Did you have a particular position in mind when starting this thread?


----------



## Jake (Sep 20, 2022)

John Yap said:


> I was just wondering, if a prospective Pastor wants to use, say the ESV, in the FCC for example, is there any official clause to prohibit from doing so? Or would the elders just not call him (and if so, what is their official rejection reason?)



I asked about a similar question of several men in the US presbytery -- mine was more on the belief in the TR, not preaching from the ESV. The general answer I got was that it was the understood position by at least all of the men in the presbytery of TR being the interpretation of WCF 1:7 so it would be unlikely I would pass examination. However, there were not official statements about the TR or providential preservation that anyone was aware of. I had questions about this and a related issue that the presbytery was now unified on, but was not in 1843. 

That said, the US presbytery also did unify on using the KJV as the pulpit Bible sometime around 2014-2015, but I don't have the wording of this. This was not in the whole denomination, but my congregation was affected and moved from the NKJV to the KJV.

While I am no longer in the FCC, I did notice that there was an overture submitted by another presbytery to make KJV the "official" translation of the FCC. It was received with the following:

"The General Assembly receive the Overture from the Free Southern Presbytery anent
Scripture Versions to the extent that the General Assembly commend the Authorised
(King James) Version of the Holy Scriptures for use in the public worship of God."

and also in response,

"The General Assembly receive the Overture from the Free Southern Presbytery anent
Scripture Versions to the extent that they appoint a Special Committee on Scripture
Translation with remit to elucidate the principles of Bible translation consistent with the
Westminster Confession of Faith and other authoritative documents, and maintain a record
of English translations that conform to the said principles, the Committee to consist of two
brethren from within the bounds of each presbytery and to seek advice, as required, from
other reformed denominations with whom the FCC maintains close ecumenical relations,
the Committee to report on their progress to the next General Assembly."

This is far short from what was requested, which was:
1. Whereas the Holy Scriptures are the primary Constitutional document of the Free
Church of Scotland (Continuing);
2. Whereas the Westminster Confession of Faith, being a subordinate standard of the Free
Church of Scotland (Continuing), declares that the Old and New Testaments of the Holy
Scriptures being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence
kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical, so as in all controversies of religion, the
Church is finally to appeal to them (WCF 1.VIII);
3. Whereas the Directory for the Public Worship of God, being a subordinate standard of
the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing), speaks in its Preface of the endeavours for
uniformity in divine worship, which we have promised in our Solemn League and
Covenant
4. Whereas the Directory for the Public Worship of God, in reference to the public
reading of the books of Old and New Testament, states that they shall be read in the
vulgar tongue, out of the best allowed translation (Of Public Reading of the Holy
Scriptures);
5. Whereas the regulation of public worship is a fundamental concern of Presbyterian
Church government and a vital means of maintaining the unity of the Church;
6. Whereas the Authorised (King James) Version of the Bible alone fulfils all the above
criteria, and is the best translation available in English;
7. It is overtured by the Free Southern Presbytery that the General Assembly take these
premises into consideration and assert that the Authorised (King James) Version of the
Bible is the only English version of the Holy Scriptures which is currently approved by
the General Assembly for use in public worship within the denomination.

(see here: https://www.freechurchcontinuing.org/images/documents/pdfs/Acts__Proceedings_2021.pdf )

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Sep 20, 2022)

Jake said:


> ...
> 
> 6. Whereas the Authorised (King James) Version of the Bible alone fulfils all the above
> criteria, and is the best translation available in English;


Sorry, but what part excludes the NKJV from consideration?


----------



## Jake (Sep 20, 2022)

John Yap said:


> Sorry, but what part excludes the NKJV from consideration?


I imagine that is in part why the overture was not accepted. I know the NKJV is used in parts of the denomination. But I don't know as these are the only public records I can find related to the issue.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 20, 2022)

Those from the Free Church tradition ought to consider William Cunningham's position on the subject. 









William Cunningham: Holding the centre-ground on the Textus Receptus


In the midst of William Cunningham’s lectures discussing the providential preservation of scripture and textual criticism, he articulated his views concerning the accuracy of the Textus Recep…




reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 20, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Those from the Free Church tradition ought to consider William Cunningham's position on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Mr. Cunningham is very welcome to his thoughts.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 20, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Mr. Cunningham is very welcome to his thoughts.


You are also welcome to interact with them here instead of merely dismissing them in such fashion.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Sep 21, 2022)

John Yap said:


> Sorry, but what part excludes the NKJV from consideration?


Presumably "best allowed translation".

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 21, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> You are also welcome to interact with them here instead of merely dismissing them in such fashion.


It was meant with gentle humor. Hopefully Daniel got that. But thank you for your evaluation of my remark.


----------



## Jake (Sep 21, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Those from the Free Church tradition ought to consider William Cunningham's position on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As I mentioned in an earlier post, two other members of the Disruption of 1843 were also on the translation committee for the 1881 Revised Version (along with several other Free Churchmen).


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 21, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> But thank you for your evaluation of my remark.


I know you wouldn’t be indulging in passive-aggressiveness, but this comment makes no sense otherwise. Can you explain?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 21, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> I know you wouldn’t be indulging in passive-aggressiveness


You don’t know me! or you do rather: I’m a sinful human. I edited this out last night right after I posted it, only to see that I must not have saved the edit. Good on me for being exposed. I indulged in a moment of irritation regarding your comment on MY comment. I do ask your forgiveness for my sinful sarcasm toward you; I hope you will forgive it.


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 21, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> I will look into it. Thank you. Does he speak in a way anywhere that would give the impression of the opposite?


He has some quotations that many take out of context. For example, this one (p. 13) is quoted in the McShaffrey/Riddle book out of context: "The divergence of its current text from the autograph may shock a modern printer of modern books;" They don't quote the immediately following part: "its wonderful approximation to its autograph is the undisguised envy of every modern reader of ancient books." See, the process for publication in the 19th century and early 20th century was far more rigorous than editing is today. You can read until your eyes bleed in all those Nichols editions of the Puritans without finding a single typo. I'm sure there are a few, but precious few. I find quite a few typos in modern books. So, judging his comment by the standards of editing in that day, and he is making quite a strong statement affirming the reliability of the Greek NT. 


Imputatio said:


> Did you have a particular position in mind when starting this thread?



I have relatively little quibble beyond simple disagreement for the MCBTR position. My comments were primarily directed at the SCBTR and ECBTR positions, which I find sectarian and divisive.


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 21, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> You don’t know me! or you do rather: I’m a sinful human. I edited this out last night right after I posted it, only to see that I must not have saved the edit. Good on me for being exposed. I indulged in a moment of irritation regarding your comment on MY comment. I do ask your forgiveness for my sinful sarcasm toward you; I hope you will forgive it.


I forgive you; and I can sympathize with you as well!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 21, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> He has some quotations that many take out of context. For example, this one (p. 13) is quoted in the McShaffrey/Riddle book out of context: "The divergence of its current text from the autograph may shock a modern printer of modern books;" They don't quote the immediately following part: "its wonderful approximation to its autograph is the undisguised envy of every modern reader of ancient books." See, the process for publication in the 19th century and early 20th century was far more rigorous than editing is today. You can read until your eyes bleed in all those Nichols editions of the Puritans without finding a single typo. I'm sure there are a few, but precious few. I find quite a few typos in modern books. So, judging his comment by the standards of editing in that day, and he is making quite a strong statement affirming the reliability of the Greek NT.
> 
> 
> I have relatively little quibble beyond simple disagreement for the MCBTR position. My comments were primarily directed at the SCBTR and ECBTR positions, which I find sectarian and divisive.


The SCBTR seems to be gaining steam lately—perhaps not in followers, but in putting out resources. It’s the position that’s the most dangerous I think. The more extreme “Satan’s Bible” stuff is just laughable; but the asterisk beside most people’s Bibles has real potential for harm. Again, I know they’d claim the same thing against modern textual criticism. 

And thanks for the Hills response. I’ll be reading him eventually.


----------



## JimmyH (Sep 21, 2022)

Stayed out of this one so far ... 10 years on the PB and this thread is 'deja vu all over again' (Yogi Berra) 

I will say that D.A. Carson, in his The King James Version Debate, A Plea For Realism, 1979, says in the appendix that, "Of the books that have been written in defense of a Textus Receptus type of text, perhaps none is as convincing as _The Identity of the New Testament Text_. Written by Wilbur N. Pickering, this little book adopts a line of reasoning quite different from most others that defend its viewpoint". Carson goes on to say that because it was published after most of his own book had been written he decided to answer Pickering in the appendix.

Also, for anyone interested in the whys, and wherefores of translation, D.A. Carson's, 'The Inclusive Language Debate, A Plea For Realism,' is also a very informative and revealing account of the issues that faithful translators deal with to convey the meaning to the target language. Particularly his chapter 'Translation is treason,' 

Finally, for those who might be daring enough to risk putting their presuppositions at risk, Gordon Fee's, 'How To Choose A Translation For All It's Worth' is also quite an informative read. 

Carry on.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 21, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Mr. Cunningham is very welcome to his thoughts.



His thoughts would indicate that your position is an innovation from a Free Church point of view. I find it odd that the views of the Free Church's greatest theologian, who had carefully surveyed the relevant facts and literature in relation to this subject, are dismissed out of hand.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 21, 2022)

Hello Daniel, while I greatly value Wm. Cunningham’s work, I don’t think Jeri’s view “an innovation”, as Rev. Fredrick Nolan’s _Inquiry Into the Integrity of The Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament_ carefully examined and interacted with Johann Griesbach’s views in the earlier days of textual criticism and the defense of the TR. Nolan (1784–1864) was a highly esteemed scholar.

Even our greatest theologians may err in areas. Perhaps she might have been more pointed if she'd added to his being "welcome to his thoughts" _*on the NT text*_, seeing as Griesbach was _far_ from the Reformation spirit and labors, on which she stands.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 21, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Daniel, while I greatly value Wm. Cunningham’s work, I don’t think Jeri’s view “an innovation”, as Rev. Fredrick Nolan’s _Inquiry Into the Integrity of The Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament_ carefully examined and interacted with Johann Griesbach’s views in the earlier days of textual criticism and the defense of the TR. Nolan (1784–1864) was a highly esteemed scholar.
> 
> Even our greatest theologians may err in areas. Perhaps she might have been more pointed if she'd added to his being "welcome to his thoughts" _*on the NT text*_, seeing as Griesbach was _far_ from the Reformation spirit and labors, on which she stands.



Thank you for bringing Frederick Nolan to my attention, Steve, as I always like to see 19th-century Church of Ireland theologians getting some much-needed publicity. However, I stated that Jeri's view on the subject is an innovation from "a Free Church point of view." William Cunningham's position on the TR shows us that the Disruption Worthies did not receive Westminster Confession 1.8 to mean that there could be no divergence from the Received Text. Whether their view of the subject was factually accurate or even in line with the original intent of the Confession is, of course, a different question entirely.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 22, 2022)

I was thinking about God’s providence, and wondering, is there any other area of life (besides this form of CB) where Reformed believers make dogmatic statements regarding their interpretation of God’s providence to the exclusion of other interpretations?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 22, 2022)

I was pondering the other day if the Historicist approach to The Revelation of John in having to find what in history fullfilled different places was similar to treating history w.r.t. providential preservation, at least broadly? 


Imputatio said:


> I was thinking about God’s providence, and wondering, is there any other area of life (besides this form of CB) where Reformed believers make dogmatic statements regarding their interpretation of God’s providence to the exclusion of other interpretations?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## NM_Presby (Sep 22, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> I was thinking about God’s providence, and wondering, is there any other area of life (besides this form of CB) where Reformed believers make dogmatic statements regarding their interpretation of God’s providence to the exclusion of other interpretations?


Our belief in the Protestant canon has some significant parallels.


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 22, 2022)

NM_Presby said:


> Our belief in the Protestant canon has some significant parallels.


I should have said “…to the exclusion of other, widely held, orthodox interpretations of providence.”

There isn’t an alternative view of the Canon widely held by Reformed believers.

I’m looking for other idiosyncratic (as I see them) views of providence.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 22, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Those from the Free Church tradition ought to consider William Cunningham's position on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Coming indeed from the Free Church condition I've been curious about this so searched around a bit and came across this paper. Wanted to quote a couple of paragraphs:

"It is only a little surprising, therefore, that Cunningham had 
misgivings about “lower” criticism as well as “higher” criticism. 
The mere settlement of the text, “the decision of all questions 
about the reading for the purpose of exhibiting the sacred text as 
nearly as possible as it came from the hands of its original 
authors”, as he described the “lower”, was for him important, but 
only insofar as it paved the way for interpretation. What mattered 
was “the investigation of the sense and meaning” of Scripture’s 
statements, that is, hermeneutics or exegesis . 49 His belief that 
every word of Scripture had been given by God should not be 
taken, then, as an ultimate concern even for the purity of the text. 
A lot of the work done in trying to ascertain it, he felt, was 
insignificant . 50 Although he believed it was “necessary and 
imperative that ministers should acquire some knowledge of the 
leading points involved in it”, he also believed that the subject was 
“not one of very great practical importance, so far as concerns the 
actual discovery of the mind and will of God from his word ”. 5 1 

"Cunningham fits least tidily into the thesis that the views of the 
Free Church Fathers embody a kind of embryonic criticism. What 
he shared with the critics was a conviction that every passage in the 
Bible ought to be analysed with the utmost care; but he covered this 
with an equally firm conviction that the results of such analysis 
could not be inconsistent with “the general scheme of truth taught 
in the Bible ”. 52 He was unequivocally opposed to criticism as he 
understood it. He described it as carried on by German writers, 
“some of whom have brought to this work a large amount of 
learning, accompanied generally with a miserable lack of common 
sense and sound logic. ” And in what he labelled “the thorough and daring infidelity of German rationalists”, he nearly
paraphrased the views for which George Adam Smith was impeached less than sixty years later."

Perhaps he fits least tidily into the thesis but perhaps he still fits (first sentence second paragraph). 

One can certainly argue against a link between Mr. Cunningham's acquiescence to the textual criticism being carried on in his day and a George Adam Smith arising in the FCoS a few decades later. Smith was at least censured I think, and he left the Free Church for another denomination. But I'm just saying his views wouldn't have dared been spoken aloud in earlier times.

I see from my reading that Mr. Cunningham was a staunch defender of the Scripture and is much to be appreciated.

Reactions: Love 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 22, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Coming indeed from the Free Church condition I've been curious about this so searched around a bit and came across this paper. Wanted to quote a couple of paragraphs:



It is great that they have made the back issues of the _Records of the Scottish Church History Society_ for free online. (The journal is now called _Scottish Church History_, published by Edinburgh University Press.)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## iainduguid (Sep 22, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Coming indeed from the Free Church condition I've been curious about this so searched around a bit and came across this paper. Wanted to quote a couple of paragraphs:
> 
> "It is only a little surprising, therefore, that Cunningham had
> misgivings about “lower” criticism as well as “higher” criticism.
> ...


Jeri, 
If you had continued the quote you wuld have seen the author's conclusion:
"His (Cunningham's) is perhaps the tightest defence of inspiration of any of the Free Church Fathers."

That hardly suggests that Cunningham was part of the downgrade that only really took off after his death. In fact, his views are the natural precursor to Old Princeton and men like B.B. Warfield, who was no friend of Higher Criticism.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Sep 22, 2022)

iainduguid said:


> Jeri,
> If you had continued the quote you wuld have seen the author's conclusion:
> "His (Cunningham's) is perhaps the tightest defence of inspiration of any of the Free Church Fathers."
> 
> That hardly suggests that Cunningham was part of the downgrade that only really took off after his death. In fact, his views are the natural precursor to Old Princeton and men like B.B. Warfield, who was no friend of Higher Criticism.



Right, I see that he certainly was a staunch defender of inspiration and he himself was obviously not on a downgrade.


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 23, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I was pondering the other day if the Historicist approach to The Revelation of John in having to find what in history fullfilled different places was similar to treating history w.r.t. providential preservation, at least broadly?


That’s a really good point. A great point.


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 23, 2022)

I want to recommend the 7 videos of the Textual Confidence Collective on youtube. They are so, so good, and so, so knowledgeable. Here is the first one:

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Imputatio (Sep 23, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> I want to recommend the 7 videos of the Textual Confidence Collective on youtube. They are so, so good, and so, so knowledgeable. Here is the first one:


Agreed.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Oct 4, 2022)

Imputatio said:


> I should have said “…to the exclusion of other, widely held, orthodox interpretations of providence.”
> 
> There isn’t an alternative view of the Canon widely held by Reformed believers.
> 
> I’m looking for other idiosyncratic (as I see them) views of providence.



You mean to the exclusion of *your *particular theory then?


----------

