# One question about the Ecclesiastical/TR preferred position..



## Polanus1561 (Sep 16, 2019)

I understand that the position is a theological one, looking at God's providence at the time of the Reformation just before the printing presses came into play and also not believing the text needs to be 'restored/reconstructed', so my question is, if HYPOthetically the TR is the text that does not have the long ending of Mark, 1 Jn 5:7 etc AND the Alexandarian/CT text is the one that DOES have all these verses, would you still stick to the TR with its 'missing' verses?


----------



## Taylor (Sep 16, 2019)

First of all...



Second of all...

I am not a "TR Only" advocate, but I think this question, with all due respect, is both irrelevant and unhelpful, mainly because the very nature of textual criticism, for both sides of this issue, deals with what _is_, not _what might have been_. This is especially so for the TR, because I can actually point to the TR; it's a finished product that cannot be changed without ceasing to be the TR. (In other words, there is no "What if the TR had..." for the TR.) I can't really point to a definitive CT ("Critical Text") simply because there really could be new information obtained in the next ten years that could change which variants in any given place might be given more weight as being genuine.

Therefore, I understand what you are asking, but if I were a "TR Only" advocate, I would frankly refuse to answer such a question.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Polanus1561 (Sep 16, 2019)

All I asked or am asking, is to affirm that TR only people Affirm: that it is not the content of the TR that is the main issue (e.g they do not choose the TR because it has the longer and larger text), but because it is the text which they see God's providence and preservation in at that point in history.
If my hypothetical question is to be ignore then fine, but I hope the nature of my question is understood. Thanks.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 17, 2019)

Hello John,

As Taylor indicated, it is the "if / then fallacy" you have indulged in with your question. But to get to the "nature of [your] question", which is _upon what basis_ do the TR-preferred (TR-P) assert "it is the text which they see God's providence and preservation in at that point in history"?

You state in a sort of rhetorical question re what you think the TR-preferred affirm,

"it is not the content of the TR that is the main issue (e.g they do not choose the TR because it has the longer and larger text), but because it is the text which they see God's providence and preservation in at that point in history."​
This reduces the issue to an almost arbitrary conclusion by the TR-P based on mere historical phenomena—_excluding_ the content of the text—whereas in fact it is the intact nature of the text *and* the historical situation the Reformers found themselves in.

What the Reformers chose were the Byzantine Greek mss, along with some few readings in other versions that had been expunged from the Byz yet deemed original, over against the mss used by Rome's effort to overturn the Reformer's doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

How the Reformers / TR-preferred formulated this is seen in the WCF at 1.8:

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...​
But _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. There is not a reconstruction of the text here, but a *keeping of it intact*.

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” — not a one of them, not even a word, ultimately was corrupted, or lost, and “fell to the ground”, but instead kept intact and pure — despite attacks on certain passages, and words. This was actually manifested in God’s providential preservation at the time of the Reformation, when He also re-established Biblical doctrine at the commencement of the Protestant era.

Looking at the alternative, with regard to the *content* of the TR text's rival, which would be the Alexandrian or Critical Text: were the Reformers, as though they were ignorant and not up-to-speed and—ultimately—wrong in their stand against Rome in using the Hebrew MT and Greek TR to undergird their doctrine of Sola Scriptura? In fact, the primary exemplars—although the NA 28 and the UBS 4 are purportedly eclectic texts—remain Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and the ongoing critical editions in our day are supervised by the Vatican for the purpose of producing Rome-approved ecumenical Bibles. That seems not to faze in the least some Reformed folks. I also attach (below) photo of a page from the Introduction to the Nestle-Aland Greek NT 27th Ed on this contemporary connection to the Vatican.

So the issue, John, is complex and at the same time simple: The Reformers were well-informed and wise as regards the differences between the TR and it's Romish rival, and so are we in these days.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jerusalemblade/25183960248/

P.S. I couldn't figure out how to simply post the photo on this post—can anyone help me to do that?

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Taylor (Sep 17, 2019)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I couldn't figure out how to simply post the photo on this post—can anyone help me to do that?



Dear Mr. Rafalsky,

Thanks for the helpful post. I had hoped you would speak to this issue.

As for your question, I would imagine that you would have to save a copy of the picture to your desktop, and then attach the image using the "Image" button in the toolbar of the forum reply window (the button that has mountains and a sun in it).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 17, 2019)

John Yap said:


> All I asked or am asking, is to affirm that TR only people Affirm: that it is not the content of the TR that is the main issue (e.g they do not choose the TR because it has the longer and larger text), but because it is the text which they see God's providence and preservation in at that point in history.
> If my hypothetical question is to be ignore then fine, but I hope the nature of my question is understood. Thanks.


God did not preserve to us the Greek text as in TR or CT, but the manuscripts themselves, by which we derive the various Greek texts from.

Reactions: Like 1 | Sad 3


----------



## Tom Hart (Sep 17, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> God did not preserve to us the Greek text as in TR it CT, but the manuscripts themselves, by which we derive the various Greek texts from.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 17, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


>


The Greek texts in use derive off those documents, so can be said that CT/MT/TR are all authentic!

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Taylor (Sep 17, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> The Greek texts in use derive off those documents, so can be said that CT/MT/TR are all authentic!



Don’t you think that if it were as simple as that, that this debate wouldn’t be happening? I cannot think of a single scholar—conservative, liberal, TR, Majority, or CT—that would agree with you here.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 17, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Don’t you think that if it were as simple as that, that this debate wouldn’t be happening? I cannot think of a single scholar—conservative, liberal, TR, Majority, or CT—that would agree with you here.


Most do not see just one text as being infallible Greek text though either!


----------



## Taylor (Sep 17, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Most do not see just one text as being infallible Greek text though either!



I don’t think I’m following you, brother.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 17, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I don’t think I’m following you, brother.


There is not just one received Greek text to us, as all of them, such as TR/CT/MT can be viewed as the word of God to us today.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 17, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> There is not just one received Greek text to us, as all of them, such as TR/CT/MT can be viewed as the word of God to us today.



You’re confusing things. The “Received Text” is a technical term, not merely a description. It’s literally the translation of “Textus Receptus.”

Plus, saying, “All of these traditions can be viewed as the Word of God,” is—in the context of this debate, at least—begging the question. That’s the question this entire debate is seeking to answer, no?


----------



## bookslover (Sep 17, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


>



I think he means "by which we derive the various Greek text _families_ from."


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 17, 2019)

bookslover said:


> I think he means "by which we derive the various Greek text _families_ from."


Correct, as the Lord preserved for us in the manuscripts, varients, and other documents all needed in order to assembly the word of the Lord for us in both Hebrew and Greek texts. No translation made off them are inspired, but they are infallible witness.


----------



## Tom Hart (Sep 17, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Correct, as the Lord preserved for us in the manuscripts, varients, and other documents all needed in order to assembly the word of the Lord for us in both Hebrew and Greek texts. No translation made off them are inspired, but they are infallible witness.


So you're a CT guy, then? Just trying to make sense of your position.


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 17, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> So you're a CT guy, then? Just trying to make sense of your position.


I prefer the CT, but do not see it as bring the only Greek text to use.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 18, 2019)

Here's a photo from the Intro to the Nestle-Aland Greek NT 27th Ed, and the United Bible Society's mission statement:

“We assure Pope Francis of our renewed availability to serve the Catholic Church in her endeavours to make the Word of God the centre of new evangelisation.”

Reactions: Informative 1


----------

