# Ecclesiastical Text — Response to James White



## Robert Truelove

Here is a video I did over the weekend in response to James White's recent video, "My Concerns With the Ecclesiastical Text Position". He was responding to an off handed comment I made on social media and this is my response to his video. 

It's my hope that this will be of help for all sides of the textual debate to have more irenic future interaction on the subject. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUl0vNcDB9A


----------



## Logan

I've only watched the first 15 minutes, but wanted to say that I appreciated your non-combative approach.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

I just watched the whole thing. You did an awesome job of integrating your response with White's comments. I would love to hear how he responds to your apology (apology in the technical sense).


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Well done brother. You interacted with clarity and humility.


----------



## Captain Picard

As a big Dr. White fan, thank you for responding. Watching now.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

As someone who falls into your camp Rev. Truelove this was very gracious and well done.


----------



## Semper Fidelis




----------



## MW

Exceptional work! What comes to the surface here is that Dr. White has allowed his apologetics to assume the lead on theological questions. From his perspective the position that effectively refutes Muslims must have superiority. Pastor Truelove has presented a truly pastoral perspective on this. His concern is to feed the flock of God, to endeavour to see the Word of God has free course and is glorified as a matter of first priority. I hope Dr. White will take time to listen and genuinely weigh what has been presented here.


----------



## JOwen

Well done!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

MW said:


> Exceptional work! What comes to the surface here is that Dr. White has allowed his apologetics to assume the lead on theological questions. From his perspective the position that effectively refutes Muslims must have superiority. Pastor Truelove has presented a truly pastoral perspective on this. His concern is to feed the flock of God, to endeavour to see the Word of God has free course and is glorified as a matter of first priority. I hope Dr. White will take time to listen and genuinely weigh what has been presented here.



While I agree that Robert has done a good job of responding to Jame's concerns, yours is clearly not an accurate representation of the issue. The strength in Robert's response is precisly because he deals with legitimate concerns that James (and many others) have about the claim of an ecclesiastical text. Many defenders of this position do not labor (as Robert did) to acknowledge the legitimacy of the claim and even admit that certain verses with no Greek manuscript tradition appear in the text. He doesn't hand wave it away but interacts with what are valid theological questions.

To claim that James adopts his position as superior due to its apologetic value to Muslims is beneath you. James only started his ministry to Muslims about 7-8 years ago and has had his theological position on the text for some time.

Had Robert taken the tact (as you just did) to sum up his view so unfairly then he clearly would not hear anything but another unfair attack. I gave Robert a thumbs up because he's one of the few I've ever heard who have acknowledged some of the real concerns of the position without claiming that the persons raising the concern somehow lack the theological conviction of the preservation of the text of Scripture.


----------



## Ken

Pastor Truelove,

You represented our position well, this is a very timely discussion. I was raised on the KJV, learned how to read from it and just have always using it because I recognize it's voice. For the past few years I have been leading Bible studies and am the only one who uses the KJV, whenever I read scripture the people in my small group do not recognize the passages. Based on this, and the arguments that there are no doctrinal differences between the different translations, I tried to find a modern Bible for study; unfortunately, this put me in the position of not recognizing what I was reading.

I have been studying this issue for months, my wife thinks I am nuts (that's another story  ). I had no idea how controversial deleting 40 verses from the Bible could be; though, studying this issue has raised way more questions than answers. For example, I had no idea that modern versions use a different OT text variant, this is not near as controversial; though, for some reason it has been swapped out. 

I have been gleaning many gems from the early Christian writers; though, it is strange when an early reference cannot be found in a modern Bible. I am not sure how to react, it obliterates what the early Christian is saying. Being a lay-person, I am not sure how to react to early writers who chasten others for altering the Biblical text; for example, Gregory Nazianzen condemns removing the "comma", then James White says he cannot take anyone serious who defends the "comma". Another example, Irenaeus accuses Marcion of mutilating the text, this just causes more confusion, I do not know what to think. 

I agree with your concerns about the textual method, knowing that the strictness of the CT method does not allow for readings that support the TR that are older than the Alexandrian text because they are not Greek manuscripts or they are found in the writings of the early Christians. As you pointed out, the CT method applied to Biblical texts had never been used before, I wounder what the text would look like using a more traditional method and allowing the entirety of the Christian textual record?

For the mean time, I am going to continue with the KJV assuming that it is just as Biblical as the CT versions of the Bible, because that is what I have used for my entire life, I trust the reformers to have produced a good Bible.

God bless you and keep you,
Ken


----------



## MW

Semper Fidelis said:


> To claim that James adopts his position as superior due to its apologetic value to Muslims is beneath you.



He claims ecclesiastical text folk cannot deal with Muslims like he does. It is beneath me to answer a low argument like that.


----------



## Logan

MW said:


> He claims ecclesiastical text folk cannot deal with Muslims like he does. It is beneath me to answer a low argument like that.



I'm honestly a bit stunned at this reply to what I thought to be a valid criticism. Did Pastor Truelove think James White believes his apologetic must have superiority because it refutes Muslims?


----------



## MW

Logan said:


> I'm honestly a bit stunned at this reply to what I thought to be a valid criticism. Did Pastor Truelove think James White believes his apologetic must have superiority because it refutes Muslims?



I don't know what Pastor Truelove believes on this. It only matters what James White himself has said. If you watch the video you will see that James White himself has said it. That should be conclusive.


----------



## Logan

I did watch it, and not only do I not recall him saying that, but I didn't even get that impression. He made the comment that TR people often seemed concerned with their own Reformed circle as opposed to apologetics, e.g., with Muslims. And he talked about how his position is useful it speaking with them, but that it must have superiority because it refutes Muslims? Really? If you were to ask Dr White that question directly, would he answer "yes"?


----------



## MW

Logan said:


> I did watch it, and not only do I not recall him saying that, but I didn't even get that impression.



What video have you watched? The video in question is this one:

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2015/07/17/my-concerns-with-the-ecclesiastical-text-position/

The whole video exults over the ecclesiastical text position in terms of his apologetic vocation, particularly in relation to Muslims. His basic position is that an ecclesiastical text position does not have a leg to stand on.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Logan said:


> not only do I not recall him saying that, but I didn't even get that impression.





MW said:


> What video have you watched?



The impression I got was that the Ecclesiastical Test position was in fact harmful to the Church's witness to Muslims. And this is hardly the first time he's expressed himself in this way.


----------



## Logan

C. M. Sheffield said:


> The impression I got was that the Ecclesiastical Test position was in fact harmful to the Church's witness to Muslims. And this is hardly the first time he's expressed himself in this way.



I don't disagree with that, but that is not the same thing as saying "from his perspective the position that effectively refutes Muslims must have superiority."
So I ask once again, if Dr White were asked "must your position have superiority because it effectively refutes Muslims?" would he answer "yes"?

Side note: I'm not offended when Dr White says the ecclesiastical text position can be harmful to the church's witness, since he's painting with a broad brush and I agree that there are some who hold views that I do think harmful. But it's hard to know exactly who he means, because it seems to me like the "ecclesiastical text" position has so many variants that I've yet to see two people agree on much more than general ideas. Letis' beliefs were different from Hills, Steve's, Winzer's, or as an extreme example, Childs'. I wouldn't expect Dr White to know any specific "ecclesiastical text position".


----------



## MW

Logan said:


> So I ask once again, if Dr White were asked "must your position have superiority because it effectively refutes Muslims?" would he answer "yes"?



Only Dr. White can answer that, so we will have to leave that to him. Those watching the video can see for themselves how much weight he lays upon the apologetic value of his position over the ecclesiastical text position. Whether he agrees or not, that is what he has done.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Let me dispense with this silly "it's all about the Muslims" issue. I suppose blind spots exist for all of us but I'm frankly surprised some who display careful attention in some areas miss obvious points. It's sad to me because it doesn't serve the points they are trying to make.

The point James makes when he brings Muslims into the mix is how well an apologetic works when one is not "preaching to the choir". It's quite like the man who yells "The Eucharist!!!!!" in a Roman Catholic debate and all the Catholics cheer or the Muslim who yells "Alluya Akbar!" in a Muslim debate. It fires up the base. The base shakes their head vigorously and exclaims: "Man, did you hear that dude yell 'The Eucharist'?! He totally shut James down. He had no response to that point!"

Meanwhile, the rest of us are shaking our heads and wondering whether these folks have ever tried to defend their faith outside of the convinced.

Is it a hard and fast rule that the *only* apologetic value is whether the argument has any force outside of a closed circle of the convinced? Of course not.

That said, it is always worth considering whether we're arguing in an echo chamber and the only voices we're listening to sound exactly like our own. Having listened to much Muslim apologetics, I find it to be the worst kind of ingrown "preaching to the choir" that spends zero time reflecting on the challenges to plain reason that belief in the Muslim religion demands. Of course I believe that their is spiritual bondage involved but it is appropriate to point out to the Muslim that they have zero historic footing upon which to stand when they anachonistically make claims about the corruption of the Christian text not on a shred of evidence except what their text teaches.

When the Muslim responds and asks the Christian how he trusts in the presrvation of the text in the presence of some variants, I think we have more to fall back on then the same kind of "pushing history to the side because we just know we have the ecclesiastical text" position. In other words, if our apologetic ignores even our own history (like the Muslim) then it weakens any criticism we can levy at him for being anachronistic for the sake of his "revealed" text.

Now, you may take issue with this entire reasoning process but, that said, anyone who has spent even an ounce of time to try to listen to *why* James uses this argument will understand that this is his point. He doesn't think the critical text is superior to the ecclesiasticial text because of how it plays to Muslims. He brings up this point precisely because, when we're witnessing to Muslims, they want to hear answers to some things that have some questionable historical pedigrees. To his credit, Robert understood the *reason* James brought this up and it is lazy to wonder as to why James raises this point. One can play to the "echo chamber" and be applauded but it's pretty obvious to the casual observer why James poses the challenge. I think Robert did a commendable job of answering that concern and, if James takes up a response, I'll be interested in hearing it.


----------



## MW

Semper Fidelis said:


> One can play to the "echo chamber" and be applauded



This was also one of his arguments, and is as unconvincing coming from you, Rich, as it was coming from Dr. White. Why bother having a confessional discussion list if you agree with him? You are just creating your own echo chamber. There is no substance to these kinds of arguments.

The fact is, the Koran upholds the authority of the Bible. So any argument which undermines the authority of the Bible has a negative effect on apologetics with those who believe in the Koran.


----------



## Captain Picard

Semper Fidelis said:


> Let me dispense with this silly "it's all about the Muslims" issue. I suppose blind spots exist for all of us but I'm frankly surprised some who display careful attention in some areas miss obvious points. It's sad to me because it doesn't serve the points they are trying to make.
> 
> The point James makes when he brings Muslims into the mix is how well an apologetic works when one is not "preaching to the choir". It's quite like the man who yells "The Eucharist!!!!!" in a Roman Catholic debate and all the Catholics cheer or the Muslim who yells "Alluya Akbar!" in a Muslim debate. It fires up the base. The base shakes their head vigorously and exclaims: "Man, did you hear that dude yell 'The Eucharist'?! He totally shut James down. He had no response to that point!"
> 
> Meanwhile, the rest of us are shaking our heads and wondering whether these folks have ever tried to defend their faith outside of the convinced.
> 
> Is it a hard and fast rule that the *only* apologetic value is whether the argument has any force outside of a closed circle of the convinced? Of course not.
> 
> That said, it is always worth considering whether we're arguing in an echo chamber and the only voices we're listening to sound exactly like our own. Having listened to much Muslim apologetics, I find it to be the worst kind of ingrown "preaching to the choir" that spends zero time reflecting on the challenges to plain reason that belief in the Muslim religion demands. Of course I believe that their is spiritual bondage involved but it is appropriate to point out to the Muslim that they have zero historic footing upon which to stand when they anachonistically make claims about the corruption of the Christian text not on a shred of evidence except what their text teaches.
> 
> When the Muslim responds and asks the Christian how he trusts in the presrvation of the text in the presence of some variants, I think we have more to fall back on then the same kind of "pushing history to the side because we just know we have the ecclesiastical text" position. In other words, if our apologetic ignores even our own history (like the Muslim) then it weakens any criticism we can levy at him for being anachronistic for the sake of his "revealed" text.
> 
> Now, you may take issue with this entire reasoning process but, that said, anyone who has spent even an ounce of time to try to listen to *why* James uses this argument will understand that this is his point. He doesn't think the critical text is superior to the ecclesiasticial text because of how it plays to Muslims. He brings up this point precisely because, when we're witnessing to Muslims, they want to hear answers to some things that have some questionable historical pedigrees. To his credit, Robert understood the *reason* James brought this up and it is lazy to wonder as to why James raises this point. One can play to the "echo chamber" and be applauded but it's pretty obvious to the casual observer why James poses the challenge. I think Robert did a commendable job of answering that concern and, if James takes up a response, I'll be interested in hearing it.





MW: I'm not going to blaze away on this issue. But any book that says "they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them" does not _consistently_ uphold the authority of the Bible.


----------



## MW

Captain Picard said:


> MW: I'm not going to blaze away on this issue. But any book that says "they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them" does not _consistently_ uphold the authority of the Bible.



If biblical authority were consistently maintained Jesus Christ would be believed in for the salvation of the soul. That is the point! The Koran provides an opening to make that case from the Bible.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

MW said:


> This was also one of his arguments, and is as unconvincing coming from you, Rich, as it was coming from Dr. White. Why bother having a confessional discussion list if you agree with him? You are just creating your own echo chamber. There is no substance to these kinds of arguments.



How is it unconvincing coming from me? You were convinced that he was making the argument that I said he was making and you agreed with me that this is an argument he is making when he brings up Muslims. It seems you are rather convinced that this is one of his arguments so it is, in fact, convincing that James argues this way and that it is not a mystery.

I recognize that there is a bit of an "echo chamber" here but it's a pretty big chamber with Baptists and Presbyterians on a pretty wide spectrum. The fact that we're disagreeing with each other and having to try to convince each other with arguments that we recognize is the issue. When I argue with a Baptist, I don't merely make the argument that the WCF teaches that to contemn baptism is a great sin and expect him to simply fold on the issue. If you followed my argument then I commended Robert for the manner in which he defended his conviction. I did not ask him to abandon his conviction. He didn't merely make arguments that resonated with his base.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

It seems to me that James White's position is best explained by his own words in the opening section of his book, _The King James Only Controversy_:

"Finally, this leads to one more observation. In the nearly decade and a half since I first wrote this book, I have engaged in defense of the Christian faith against a wide variety of critics and opponents. I have debated leading scholars like John Dominic Crossan, cofounder of the Jesus Seminar, and Bart Ehrman. And in recent years I have engaged leading Islamic apologists. In May 2006 I debated Shabir Ally before an audience of twenty-five hundred at Biola University in Los Angeles on this very topic. And in the midst of all this study and apologetic engagement I have been reminded over and over again of one fact: Those who hold to the King James Only position could never, ever provide this kind of consistent defense of Scripture. King James Onlyism is, by its nature, anti-apologetic. Its leaders have not only declined one debate challenge after another from me, but they also are not the ones giving any kind of meaningful response to the likes of John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, John Shelby Spong, Shabir Ally, Zulfigar Ali Shah, or Bart Ehrman. In other words, King James Onlyisnt cripples its adherents apologetically in a day when such can have devastating results. This has only convinced me again of the need to warn against this unbiblical, ahistorical, and illogical abuse of a fine seventeenth-century Anglican translation of the Bible in English."​{emphasis mine}

I realize that White's position is one against _KJVOnlyism_, but I have to wonder how he draws his apologetic line between those in the _KJVOnlyism_ camp and those that view the Received Text as the underlying basis of the WCF. I realize that in his book he often waxes eloquent about the KJV and tips his hat at those that find it a "fine translation", yet those junctures in the book are often followed by the word "but" as he proceeds to make his case. Given his concerns over the debate in 2006 with Shabir Ally I also wonder if James was not quite prepared to respond to the KJV textual issues that arose which he later became at least more knowlegeable about in the writing of his KJVOnlyism book some three years later.

As Rev. Winzer notes, the fact that the Muslim's holy book declares authority to the Bible, one need only observe the many cases wherein their book contradicts itself, not the least of which when Islam declares non-Trinitarianism, e.g., the caricature of "Father, Son, and Mother" in _Surah_ 5:116. Given that Gabriel presumably revealed God to Muhammad one would think that this presumed corrective from God through Gabriel to Muhammad, several centuries after the close of the Biblical canon, would at least have its facts straight about the Christianity described in the Bible, God's special revelation, being denounced therein. It seems to me, the fact that it does not is _prima facie_ evidence of the questionable origins of the Muslim's holy book, textual traditions notwithstanding.


----------



## Ken

If I might attempt to put James White's Muslim apologetic using the "eclectic" text as being a better apologetic in simple words. What I heard Dr White say, is that the Bible is still the Bible even with the variant readings, that the variant readings do not change the doctrine of the Bible one bit. If someone says there is only one "variant" that is the correct "variant", how do you know which "variant" is the one?

I do not believe Dr White was attacking from the perspective of TR versus the CT; as much, as he was making the point that (KJV onlyism) claiming that only one variant is valid, gives the Muslim a foothold to argue.

God bless you and keep you,
Ken


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> It seems to me that James White's position is best explained by his own words in the opening section of his book, The King James Only Controversy:



James says and writes a lot of things. I've listened to him consistently for years and I think I have a good sense of his basic tact and the *why* he does something. I'm not claiming to have a close friendship but I do consider him a friend.

Do I agree with all his theological foundations? No.

That said, I think his corpus is wide enough given how much he's spoken on this that his problems with certain forms of KJVO or TR are varied. It depends on the argument being made. The crippling effect that he's talking about for many KJVO owes to a superstitious approach to the issue that would require someone to adopt the same outrageous superstition about the inspiration of an English text. Those kinds of views are inaccessible to any historical investigation or any kind of debate. One either has to accept the inspiration of the English text by the hand of God or you're just not in the faith.

Robert, I think, represents a spectrum on the Ecclesiastical text. At least this group makes historical arguments and deals with Greek manuscripts. They're not superstitious and their arguments are "accessible". Some TR fight tooth and nail over some things that were in the Vulgate and not in any Greek MSS so I think the approach differs.


----------



## Robert Truelove

Rich,

The approach does indeed differ. One thing that is helpful to understand between the differing methodologies of the Traditional Text position is this...

Some approaches, such as Byzantine-Priority and Majority Text, approach the subject from a purely rationalistic perspective — that their text critical approach is simply a better evaluation of the evidence. They do so without acknowledging any presuppositional or doctrinal bias in how the evidence is weighed.

On the other hand, you have the approach that presupposes the preservation of the text as "kept pure in all ages" and this a necessary corollary to the doctrine of inspiration. The Ecclesiastical Text position falls on this side of the fence. I use that label because it implies and admits the doctrinal bias behind the chosen methodology. In this way, someone can hold to both the doctrine of preservation (as taught in our confessions), and hold to one of the critical methods above though not on purely rationalistic grounds. I would say I hold to "Byzantine Priority" or "Majority Text" approach to textual criticism BECAUSE they are more consistent with my presuppositions (and I realize these two methods are not identical).

Finally, I cannot say that I am completely happy with either the Byzantine Priority or the Majority Text approach to textual criticism though I think they get us far closer than any other present methodology without compromising my presuppositions. As I said in my video, a lot more work needs to be done in this area. For this reason, I am very glad that the Textus Receptus, despite its faults, is as accurate as it is. No one will be led astray by relying upon it as an authoritative edition of the Traditional Text.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

I think that both Rich and Rev. Winzer bring up some good and valid points regarding this discussion. One the one hand, as Rev. Winzer has pointed out, Dr. White does seem to suggest that holding to the ecclesiastical text position weakens ones ability to engage in apologetics with Muslims and therefore it puts the Christian apologist at a serious disadvantage. At the same time, as Rich pointed out, this is certainly not the main reason why Dr. White prefers the critical text, nor why he argues for its superiority. Ultimately, I believe that the text tradition that we prefer should not be based on its perceived apologetic value, but rather on its perceived faithfulness to the revealed Word of God. Thank you for helping us to understand these difficult issues. I'm sure I speak for all of us when I say that I have and continue to profit from the wisdom of both Rich and Rev. Winzer.


----------



## KMK

Robert Truelove said:


> It's my hope that this will be of help for all sides of the textual debate to have more irenic future interaction on the subject.



From my viewpoint over the years, as an observer and not a participant, I have noticed that all three Reformed camps equivocate on the meaning of 'by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages'. 

KJO: The TR is 'pure'.
ET: The Greek Text 'stream' is pure.
CT: Anything we have or ever will have is pure because God 'preserved' it.

Is this a good thumbnail of the different positions?


----------



## Robert Truelove

KMK said:


> Robert Truelove said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's my hope that this will be of help for all sides of the textual debate to have more irenic future interaction on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From my viewpoint over the years, as an observer and not a participant, I have noticed that all three Reformed camps equivocate on the meaning of 'by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages'.
> 
> KJO: The TR is 'pure'.
> ET: The Greek Text 'stream' is pure.
> CT: Anything we have or ever will have is pure because God 'preserved' it.
> 
> Is this a good thumbnail of the different positions?
Click to expand...


For a treatment of what the framers of our confession meant, see http://www.theauthorizedversion.com/reformed-confessions-of-faith-and-the-traditional-text/


----------



## Ken

Robert, 

Thank you for pursuing this, the link you provided is very helpful for understanding the Ecclesiastical Text position. As I stated in an earlier post, delving into this issue raises more questions than answers, I tend to fact check everything and the facts just don't add up.

FYI - the Logos 6 Ancient Literature Tool makes fact checking very simple!

Note: If you are looking for ancient references to a verse that is in the TR that is not in the CT, you need to do the search in a range that includes the verse; for example, if you are looking for ancient references to Acts 8:37, the passages need to be Acts: 8:36-38. 

God bless you and keep you,
Ken


----------



## DMcFadden

Robert, you did a brilliant and amazingly irenic job with your video. I have not made it to the end yet, but was impressed at your tone and the tenor of your response to White (admittedly a favorite of mine on numerous apologetic topics). 

Jordan Cooper captures some of my own concerns in his blog: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/the-ecclesiastical-text-versus-the-critical-text/.

In the "count" vs. "weigh" controversy, I resonate with the same arguments that Cooper makes in his next to the last paragraph. Arguing for the reading that seems to have been accepted throughout church history (including in the early authors, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr) and attested in the majority of manuscripts (e.g., long ending of Mark) makes more sense to me than the privileging of a few "older" manuscripts. This same line of reasoning, what God has deigned to preserve, may argue effectively against the Johnannine comma.

Contrary to those in the White camp AND those in the KJVO camp, such an argument allows for textual critical discussion, weighing of evidence, and determinations that may go against the KJV while still favoring the majority tradition.

God has preserved his word. Despite the defects of textual variants, we HAVE the Word of God, whether we use a Bible based on the TR or the CT. However, Cooper raised some nuanced points that are worthy of consideration.


----------



## Robert Truelove

Ken said:


> Robert,
> 
> Thank you for pursuing this, the link you provided is very helpful for understanding the Ecclesiastical Text position. As I stated in an earlier post, delving into this issue raises more questions than answers, I tend to fact check everything and the facts just don't add up.
> 
> FYI - the Logos 6 Ancient Literature Tool makes fact checking very simple!
> 
> Note: If you are looking for ancient references to a verse that is in the TR that is not in the CT, you need to do the search in a range that includes the verse; for example, if you are looking for ancient references to Acts 8:37, the passages need to be Acts: 8:36-38.
> 
> God bless you and keep you,
> Ken



Ken,

I'd be happy to respond but I don't quite understand your post?


----------



## Ken

Robert Truelove said:


> Ken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Robert,
> 
> Thank you for pursuing this, the link you provided is very helpful for understanding the Ecclesiastical Text position. As I stated in an earlier post, delving into this issue raises more questions than answers, I tend to fact check everything and the facts just don't add up.
> 
> FYI - the Logos 6 Ancient Literature Tool makes fact checking very simple!
> 
> Note: If you are looking for ancient references to a verse that is in the TR that is not in the CT, you need to do the search in a range that includes the verse; for example, if you are looking for ancient references to Acts 8:37, the passages need to be Acts: 8:36-38.
> 
> God bless you and keep you,
> Ken
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ken,
> 
> I'd be happy to respond but I find what you said to be somewhat incomprehensible?
Click to expand...


Robert,

Given the vagueness of the statement "somewhat incomprehensible", I will attempt to deduce what is incomprehensible.

Probably not the thank you or the point about fact checking and I will assume you know how to use hyperlinks and clicked on the hyperlink for the Logos 6 Ancient Literature Tool video.

Assuming the above statement is correct, that leaves the note. The note is concerning how to use the tool to find ancient literature associated with a particular passage that is not in the CT, the tool uses a non-TR text for searching the text.

Being a software engineer, this is not logical, why do we find references to verses that are not supposed to exist that are older than the "best manuscripts"?

I am not sure what is more disturbing, the existence of texts that supposedly did not exist or the comments by Westcott and Hort concerning what they don't believe that have a 1 to 1 correlation to what they say does not belong in the text. 

I suppose the logic is that the Church Fathers quoted the Bible with verses that they thought should be in the Bible and then they were officially added later; for example:



Cyprian of Carthage. (1886). Three Books of Testimonies against the Jews. In A. Roberts said:


> In the Acts of the Apostles: “Lo, here is water; what is there which hinders me from being baptized? Then said Philip, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.”



I am sure these questions have been hashed over at ad nauseam with little progress on these boards, so I will hold my piece, I have probably said too much already. 

God bless you and keep you,
Ken


----------



## MW

DMcFadden said:


> This same line of reasoning, what God has deigned to preserve, may argue effectively against the Johnannine comma.



The Comma stands firm on the ground that "early authors" are witnesses to the text.


----------



## MW

Semper Fidelis said:


> You were convinced that he was making the argument that I said he was making and you agreed with me that this is an argument he is making when he brings up Muslims.



There seems to be some confusion. The argument which is unconvincing is that the ecclesiastical text only finds traction in a confessional context. It is worthless as an argument since it says nothing about the facts of the case.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

MW said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were convinced that he was making the argument that I said he was making and you agreed with me that this is an argument he is making when he brings up Muslims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There seems to be some confusion. The argument which is unconvincing is that the ecclesiastical text only finds traction in a confessional context. It is worthless as an argument since it says nothing about the facts of the case.
Click to expand...


Clearly there is confusion. I had already conceded the point that someone would not necessarily find the "echo chamber" concern a persuasive argument. You agreed with me on that point by saying you found my argument unconvincing (or did you in fact find it unconvincing that you would find the argument unconvincing so you were, in fact, convinced of the concern?). Either way, you then acknowledged that James raises the concern and even agree that I accurately summarize his concern so you, in fact, agree with me:

Point 1: Here is why James is raising this concern... (you don't state that you disagree that he raises the concern but only that you find it unconvincing. OK, fine, but I was only giving explanation so you agree that the point is accurate).

Point 2: Some will find his reason unconvincing. You agree with this by finding his reasoning unconvincing.


----------



## MW

Semper Fidelis said:


> so you, in fact, agree with me:



If you say so. At the end of the day, his "apologetical superiority" (or whatever name one wants to call it) is worthless as an argument against the ecclesiastical text. If we agree on that we have gotten somewhere.


----------



## Theophilus73

Pastor Robert, thank you for taking the time to do this video, it is a blessing!


----------



## JOwen

MW said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> This same line of reasoning, what God has deigned to preserve, may argue effectively against the Johnannine comma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Comma stands firm on the ground that "early authors" are witnesses to the text.
Click to expand...


Rev. Winzer is correct. I would point out that Edmund Calamy wrote _Thirteen Sermons Concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity_ at Salter's Hall in 1722. His _A Vindication of that Celebrated Text_ is worthy of your time as he clearly lays out the biblical, textual, and historical reason for its inclusion. You may read it lecture here.


----------



## Ken

After watching several of Dr James White's debates it is more than obvious that he is not only a brilliant debater, he himself is brilliant. Though, I have some concerns that Dr White prefers winning over the truth, I am not questioning his devotion to God, that is more than apparent. For example, he will make a point at the expense of determining the truth, he can be like a shark that smells blood in the water then goes in for the kill. Also, Dr White tends to preface his points with an onslaught of ad hominem that makes the listener feel as if they question what he says, they must be a complete idiot. Not to be so critical; though, Dr White also pleads from cases that cannot be proved. For example, he argues that the translators of the KJV would agree with him completely; this is not so obvious, it is not clear that Dr White has done his due diligence on this point, this assumption is hard to prove and may be flawed.

The first Dr White debate I watched was where he made mincemeat out of Dr Jack Moorman of the Dean Burgon Society: King James Only Debate. After seeing this, I thought it was safe to dip my toe into the waters of modern Bible versions and being conservative, picked up a NKJV. I tend to read through the Bible multiple times a year and started reading the NKJV, it was not long before certain renderings sounded more like the NIV, so I went to the Hebrew and realized the KJV rendering was more faithful to the original languages. It only took a couple of these NIV type renderings to make the decision to put down the NJKV and stay with the KJV; the fear, how many of these are there and how will I find them all.

With all this, I went back and listened to the Dr James White discussion with Dr Jack Moorman again, listening carefully, Dr Moorman tried to make the points that what they were discussing could not be answered succinctly, as Dr White tends to make everything. Dr Moorman kept referring to the books he had written as having the issues for discussion. This is when I realized that Dr Moorman had the expectation that Dr White had read his books and was prepared to respond critically to Dr Moorman's positions, this could be very fruitful. Though, with the grace of an Olympic athlete, Dr James skirted the issues, it was very obvious that Dr White had not read Dr Moorman's dissertations and was not prepared to offer academic criticism.

Now the question is, what is in Dr Moorman's books and do they deserve consideration; not willing to let it go, I purchased many of Dr Moorman's books attempting to avoid the radical KJVO sites, they are not helpful. Being an engineer, I found it interesting that much of Dr Moorman's material reads like a Hubble star chart and requires a lot of patience and digging to figure out if it has merit. Interestingly, Dr Moorman's work is fact based; though, very dry. Fact checking Dr Moorman's work is very tedious; though, rewarding. Not to belittle the point, I tend to approach problems from the standpoint of a Physicist; the first rule, do not throw out data points, even if they do not agree with the expected outcome. This is the biggest issue I have with the eclectic text, selective data points versus using all of the available data.

This is where I am hoping that Dr White stops being a "data source" and continues his research and examines all of the data, it is abundantly clear listening to the Dr White/Dr Moorman debate, that Dr White was not prepared to legitimately critique the work of Dr Moorman and Dr Moorman was not prepared to not defend his work. It is of grate concern that academia has become like a gladiator pit, where survival of the fittest wins at the expense of the truth. Dr White likes to point to the few recent textual finds, what about the proof we do not have because of the complete genocide of Christians that refused to bow down to the Pope as a god, that included the destruction of ancient Biblical texts? 

God bless you and keep you,
Ken


----------



## Captain Picard

Ken, I don't see the _ad hominem_ you do. Dr. White is, in many cases, correct that people supporting certain views are less than scholarly in their means and method (see for example, his interactions with Texe Marrs or Sam Gipp). But Dr. White doesn't say "so and so is an idiot and a fraud, therefore I win". He presents factual evidence that exposes KVJO (Not the same as the Ecclesiastical Text position here) as specious and absurd. It's not Dr. White's fault that the position is in fact specious and absurd. He should be able to say so.


----------



## Ken

Captain Picard said:


> Ken, I don't see the _ad hominem_ you do. Dr. White is, in many cases, correct that people supporting certain views are less than scholarly in their means and method (see for example, his interactions with Texe Marrs or Sam Gipp). But Dr. White doesn't say "so and so is an idiot and a fraud, therefore I win". He presents factual evidence that exposes KVJO (Not the same as the Ecclesiastical Text position here) as specious and absurd. It's not Dr. White's fault that the position is in fact specious and absurd. He should be able to say so.



Captain Picard,

I hope you are not asking me to defend Texe Marrs, Sam Gipp or the KJVO camp?

It is not obvious why a diatribe on KJVO needs to be part of the conversation when discussing the Ecclesiastical Text position or even why you bring this up?

There is no doubt that Dr James White is presenting factual evidence; though, what I find disturbing is the idea of presenting selective factual evidence, I would like to see all of the evidence weighed. The Biblical text has been under attack from the very beginning, to separate the texts into textual families and weigh each family as a single text is naive. For example, the Old Latin is one family, I find this very odd, considering the North African text and Italia texts do not follow each other. Applying secular critical text methodologies is one dimensional and works for secular documents that have not come under attack; in contrast, the Biblical text is multidimensional in it's preservation and needs to be treated accordingly.

For example, how does the destruction of the Biblical text by Diocletian that prompted Constantine to commission Eusebius to create 50 Bibles play into the equation; given, Eusebius was a devout student of Origen? More than likely, the few "better manuscripts" that support the modern translations were from this batch of Bibles. 

God bless you and keep you,
Ken


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Robert, I much appreciated your presentation, and also your interaction with Dr. White. I took some notes while watching, and will share a few of them. I anticipate Dr. Oakley (aka Dr. James White) may be looking in on this thread as he is a member of the PB.

Let me open some of these thoughts with a brief quote from Dr. Ted Letis’, _The Majority Text: Essays And Reviews In The Continuing Debate,_ from the essay, “In Reply to D.A. Carson’s ‘_The King James Version Debate_’ ” :
Some will fault me for not answering every objection of Carson’s, but it was only our intention to raise the old issue of presuppositions and to underscore the fact that this debate is not one between experts with data and non-experts with dogma, but rather one between experts with the same data, but different dogma—the dogma of neutrality versus the dogma of providence…(p. 204)​ 
Thus to relegate the Ecclesiastical Text position, per Dr. White, to being based on a “theological conclusion, not a historical conclusion” errs. In truth it is based upon both theological _and_ historical conclusions—at least the way _I_ present it.

James (please, if I may dispense with the formality), it is not so that I cannot “muster any meaningful historical argument” for my view, though it is true that my historical view is informed by my “theological”—presuppositional—view, as is yours. I do not neglect evidences, but I make sense of the evidences through a presuppositional lens.

In a nutshell, here is a “historical conclusion” arising from my view (please note that I take my cue from a portion of Dr. Wilbur Pickering’s chapter 5, “The History of the Text”, in his book, _The Identity of the New Testament Text II_, where he talks about the history and factors involved concerning the copies made from the autographs). Regarding some of the questions he seeks to answer, he says,
“What factors would be important for guaranteeing, or at least facilitating, a faithful transmission of the text of the N.T. writings? I submit that there are four controlling factors: access to the Autographs, proficiency in the source language, the strength of the Church and an appropriate attitude toward the Text.”​ 
He elaborates on these four points, and I’d like to focus on the first, the locales that had access to the autographs and thus would be in a good position to replicate them when they wore out and able to check with the originals—at least for the first hundred years—to verify their accuracy. I directly quote Pickering:
So who held the Autographs? Speaking in terms of regions, Asia Minor may be safely said to have had twelve (John, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 and 2 and 3 John, and Revelation), Greece may be safely said to have had six (1 and 2 Corinthians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Titus in Crete), Rome may be safely said to have had two (Mark and Romans)—as to the rest, Luke, Acts, and 2 Peter were probably held by either Asia Minor or Rome; Matthew and James by either Asia Minor or Palestine; Hebrews by Rome or Palestine; while it is hard to state even a probability for Jude it was quite possibly held by Asia Minor. Taking Asia Minor and Greece together, the Aegean area held the Autographs of at least eighteen (two-thirds of the total) and possibly as many as twenty-four of the twenty-seven New Testament books; Rome held at least two and possibly up to seven; Palestine may have held up to three (but in A.D. 70 they would have been sent away for safe keeping, quite possibly to Antioch); Alexandria (Egypt) held *none*. The Aegean region clearly had the best start, and Alexandria the worst—the text in Egypt could only be second hand, at best. On the face of it, we may reasonably assume that in the earliest period of the transmission of the N.T. Text the most reliable copies would be circulating in the region that held the Autographs. Recalling the discussion of Tertullian above, I believe we may reasonably extend this conclusion to A.D. 200 and beyond. So, in the year 200 someone looking for the best text of the N.T. would presumably go to the Aegean area; certainly not to Egypt. [All of the four points may be found here in this PB post]​ 
[End Pickering]

We may safely assume that reliable copies of the NT books proliferated in these regions. A quick jump to the end of the 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] century and beginning of the 4[SUP]th[/SUP]: in 303 AD Emperor Diocletian commenced a violent persecution of Christians in the Eastern part of the empire. All church buildings were destroyed, all sacred writings destroyed (there was even a special class of informers, which included ministers—called _traditores_—who would inform on those who believed and had secreted away copies of the Scriptures or other holy writings), all faithful ministers were to be arrested (till there was no more room in the prisons for them), and sacrifices to the Roman gods were required on pain of death—and vast multitudes of Christians were slain. After Diocletian died in 304, Galerius continued the persecutions with greater intensity, and other rulers continued them, and they did not completely end until Constantine became Emperor in 324.

Needless to say, copies of the Scripture were scarce. It is in the historical record that in 331 Emperor Constantine commissioned Eusebius to make 50 copies of the Bible, in order to replenish what had been destroyed. On Frederick Nolan’s view of these Bibles and how they impacted the Greek NTs see here. Interestingly, these Bibles did not catch on with the people, as there is little evidence of them proliferating in the years following. [If you look at Nolan there’s a typo: The phrase, “I have hitherto laboured to no purpose *if* it is not admitted”—the *if* should be supplied, as it’s absent.]

Nolan investigates the changes to texts like Acts 20:28, 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 John 5:7 in light of the doctrinal battles of those days, Eusebius’ personal views and contentions, as well his Imperial authority to alter the texts he produced, and internal textual evidences, such as annotations and writing styles.

Before the time of the Diocletian persecution in 303 AD the Greek texts were fairly intact, but afterwards—after the great and effective campaign to root out and destroy all Bibles, and then the replacement of them with Alexandrian-type Scriptures—there were readings that disappeared during the 3rd and 4th century struggles against the Sabellians and later the Arians. Regarding the latter, with the dominance of the Arian party in the Byzantine empire, it was those Scripture passages declaring the triunity of the Godhead and the deity of Jesus Christ that were targeted. [An extensive treatment of this historical matter to be found in Frederick Nolan’s classic, _An Inquiry into The Integrity of the Greek Vulgate Or Received Text of the New Testament_; multiple formats.]

It is asserted that during the 50 years (approximately 335 – 385 A.D.) the Arian party held supreme power both in the Greek church _and_ the Imperial government, the zealous among them expunged parts of those verses they held to conduce to heresy (Acts 20:28, 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 John 5:7, among others).* We’ve seen that Constantine had ordered from Eusebius 50 complete Bibles to replace those destroyed by Diocletian, and we know the textual treasure house of Origen’s library in Caesarea was available to Eusebius (a devotee of Origen); Tischendorf, among others, was of the opinion that Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B) were of that 50, though this is hotly disputed. Still, these verses (not to mention numerous others) are altered or omitted in Aleph and B, and could well have been useful in the Arian and Sabellian causes. Even among the orthodox in the 2nd and 3rd centuries the Sabellians' use of 1 John 5:7's "and these three are one" made them highly suspect in their eyes [more on this in post #104].

This _would_ explain why 1 John 5:7 is missing in the Greek / Byzantine manuscripts of the Eastern Empire and remained intact in the Latin MSS of the Western portion of the Empire where neither Diocletian’s vendetta against the Scriptures (and Eusebius’ replacements) nor the Arian oppression had much impact. This, in part, is what Frederick Nolan investigated in his above-mentioned book. It’s a fascinating study.

______

* So fervent and violent were the anti-Nicenes, “in 357 a council at Sirium…forced Hosius, now a centenarian [a hundred years or more of age], to attend against his will and to sign [an Arian formula] after being beaten and tortured…” (from, _A History of Heresy_, by David Christie-Murray, p. 51). One might imagine what fervent JWs or Unitarians would do if they held the same positions of ecclesiastical _and_ governmental authority in a country for 50 years. These are historical accounts of the Arians persecuting and torturing the orthodox believers to get them to recant owning Christ as God; if they would do this to flesh and to souls, what would they do to paper—“paper” which confirmed those beliefs they _hated_?

Fast forward again—this time to the 800s AD. The texts in the Greek Church remain stable during this period.

In the ninth century, during the revolutionary transition from the majuscule MSS to the minuscule, the majority text-type appeared in numerous minuscule manuscripts. Almost none of the majuscule MSS they were copied from exist. Text critic Kirsopp Lake has said of this, “It is hard to resist the conclusion that the scribes usually destroyed their exemplars when they had copied the sacred books.” This destroying of the exemplars was the ancient Jewish practice as well.

With respect to detailed knowledge of post-NT textual transmission history we have, on the one hand, besides those times we have documentation concerning, there are still dark periods where our knowledge is incomplete or utterly absent, and on the other, we have the promises and prophecies _of_ the New Testament. My “historical conclusions” are informed by both historical evidences and by that which is indisputably true, namely, the promises of Christ, and we can see the fulfillments thereof after-the-fact of their manifestation. My understanding may be contested, I know, but I am not without “any meaningful historical argument.”

My textual history goes up to Erasmus and the later NT editors and their editions, which we all know is a battleground rife with contention, and I won’t repeat it here.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Regarding the matter of what the framers of the Westminster Confession of Faith meant when they asserted the Scriptures had been “kept pure in all ages” (1:8), it’s an interesting question. In a nutshell this is my view: *the Lord kept the true readings of the autographic Hebrew and Greek extant in all ages*. Not entire perfect manuscripts, but _the readings_ were kept intact and in the Lord’s timing put into a particular edition / editions. Above I’ve tried to indicate that, due to horrific satanic assaults on the Greek text in the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] century, there may have been a reading or more preserved in the Latin stream, not the usual MO, but a precious providence nonetheless.

James, when you said of the Ecclesiastical Text view, “It cannot answer direct questions about specific readings”, I must say I delight in answering “direct questions about specific readings”! I’ll be looking over some of those you mentioned in the video.

I call my view King James Version _priority_, for while I hold to the superiority of the KJV I recognize the validity and importance of other versions. The issue to me is what are the right—faithful to the autographs—readings? Many godlier men and women than I use the modern versions, and theirs are preserved Bibles, though I maintain that in certain variants they contain the preservation failed in those instances, even if not in the main.

Robert, you said, “I think if we’re going to be consistent with an objective approach that lines up with our doctrine of Scripture we can’t being going back and ‘recovering readings’ out of the Latin. We have to look at the traditional text stream that God has preserved through time.” 

Well, Old Latin readings _have_ entered into some of the Textus Receptus editions, and these the Westminster Divines had in hand as well. If the Reformation editors included them in—in God’s providence—and cases may be made from textual evidences also, these _are_ in “the stream”.

James, I’m certainly not at all in your league as an apologist—you’re a stand-up brother in your defense of the Faith, with unique gifts—still, I am not hampered in dealing with folks, including the Bart Ehrmans of the world, from my textual position, your thoughts to the contrary notwithstanding.

Zealot: a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals. I don’t think I’m either fanatical or uncompromising, nor am I entirely ignorant. I am a man of faith, and I love to study as well, including the views of my opponents.

The production of our Bible is not meant to be a Sisyphean task, one that can never be completed. Robert, the Ecclesiastical Text position can be weakened so that it becomes but a provisional text, always waiting for new discoveries or insights—or moods, it seems, given the way the Elite NU-Text Committee changes _its_ classifications—so that we will not have the final word of God even when the Lord appears to call us to Himself.


----------



## Robert Truelove

Regarding some of the comments earlier in this thread regarding Dr White's presenting the Ecclesiastical Text position as harmful to apologetics with Muslims and the Erhman's of the world...

It is clear from Dr. White's video that he is presenting a caricature of what people like myself actually believe. Either 1) Dr. White is not aware of what most Reformed & confessional Traditional Text advocates actually believe or, 2) he is intentionally making a caricature of the position. I chose to err on the side of grace and assume that the former is the case. I am very interested to see how Dr. White chooses to represent the position moving forward.

Regardless, I tend to agree with him that a slavish, TR-Onlyism is a difficult position to maintain apologetically. However, I think a well balanced Traditional Text position is a far stronger apologetical foundation for a case for the authority of Scripture than that of reasoned eclecticism. Having said that, "what argues best" should not be considered the foundation of our doctrine. For this reason, I'd rather speak directly to the issues from a Biblical standpoint.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Robert,

I think it's hard for James to sort out which angle he's being attacked from at times. I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt as you do. I've generally heard James repeatedly note that certain Reformed positions and even Maurice Robinson's positions are not what he's generally responding to. I'd say that 90% of the time he's getting attacked by the KJVO crowd. As much as people who favor an Ecclesiastical text position such as yours or a more rigorous TR position would want him to take up their view, it's just generally not on the radar screen of the attacks coming his direction or "making a lot of noise" in the general Christian public. I'm not sure if we were to "count noses" how much it would all break out.

Just to make clear, I've been trying to defend James against overstating where his position lies or the relative weight he gives to his own position for the sake of its "apologetic value". That said, I think I probably align pretty closely to the idea of an Ecclesiastical text as opposed to some eclectic version that doesn't take into account how the Church has actually utilized the text. I actually think this dovetails into Michael Kruger's historical and apologetic work in The Heresy of Orthodoxy where he points out the collection and use of Scripture rather than taking some sort of critical historical approach that ignores how the early Church utilized books of the Bible in worship from a practical standpoint as irrelevent to the task of scholarship. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with *only* looking at how the Church has used texts and that actual Greek MSS ought to play a role but I think there is apologetic value in demonstrating a widespread use of readings rather than simply using some scientific approach that might assume that a simpler reading is preferred or that a scribe was smoothing things out, etc.


----------



## God'sElectSaint

This was a very excellent and respectful response to Dr. James White. I really enjoyed this. This is an issue I struggle a lot in terms of determining my particular position. I would like to see a revised TR as you mentioned in this video.


----------



## Captain Picard

Ken said:


> Captain Picard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ken, I don't see the _ad hominem_ you do. Dr. White is, in many cases, correct that people supporting certain views are less than scholarly in their means and method (see for example, his interactions with Texe Marrs or Sam Gipp). But Dr. White doesn't say "so and so is an idiot and a fraud, therefore I win". He presents factual evidence that exposes KVJO (Not the same as the Ecclesiastical Text position here) as specious and absurd. It's not Dr. White's fault that the position is in fact specious and absurd. He should be able to say so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Captain Picard,
> 
> I hope you are not asking me to defend Texe Marrs, Sam Gipp or the KJVO camp?
> 
> It is not obvious why a diatribe on KJVO needs to be part of the conversation when discussing the Ecclesiastical Text position or even why you bring this up?
> 
> There is no doubt that Dr James White is presenting factual evidence; though, what I find disturbing is the idea of presenting selective factual evidence, I would like to see all of the evidence weighed. The Biblical text has been under attack from the very beginning, to separate the texts into textual families and weigh each family as a single text is naive. For example, the Old Latin is one family, I find this very odd, considering the North African text and Italia texts do not follow each other. Applying secular critical text methodologies is one dimensional and works for secular documents that have not come under attack; in contrast, the Biblical text is multidimensional in it's preservation and needs to be treated accordingly.
> 
> For example, how does the destruction of the Biblical text by Diocletian that prompted Constantine to commission Eusebius to create 50 Bibles play into the equation; given, Eusebius was a devout student of Origen? More than likely, the few "better manuscripts" that support the modern translations were from this batch of Bibles.
> 
> God bless you and keep you,
> Ken
Click to expand...


Ken I did not mean to imply that you were in the Gipp camp, merely responding to the charge of ad hominem by attempting to distinguish what Dr. White says about that camp versus the ET position proper. I feel the ET camp are the ones who are not distinguishing between what Dr. White has said about one and what, about the other.


----------



## Peairtach

I enjoyed watching your irenical video, Robert, which I found instructive on this subject.


----------



## Robert Truelove

James White did a Dividing Line this evening in which he caricatured/glossed the Ecclesiastical Text position...again. I'm honestly stunned that he would proceed to present the position in this fashion at this point. Clearly he has no interest in honestly discussing this subject nor presenting it to the public in an honest manner. 

Compare my video presented two weeks ago posted at the beginning of this thread (even shared to him on his Facebook page), with this rant this evening (and it is a rant)...

Begin around 1:08:55 to start at the exact spot...He is responding to some KJVO guy but cites his prior video that I answered on The Ecclesiastical Text position. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=4322&v=ZtbFp3Qr9bA


----------



## Logan

Robert Truelove said:


> He is responding to some KJVO guy but cites his prior video that I answered on The Ecclesiastical Text position.



I would assume he didn't watch your video, which isn't surprising is it? You're random guy from the Internet #3,838 whose views don't coincide with anyone else he's ever dealt with.

You spent over an hour detailing a position it seems almost anyone outside of this board has never even heard of. It was kind of a long shot that he would even watch it to begin with wasn't it? It's disappointing, but not surprising.


----------



## Ken

Robert Truelove said:


> James White did a Dividing Line this evening in which he caricatured/glossed the Ecclesiastical Text position...again. I'm honestly stunned that he would proceed to present the position in this fashion at this point. Clearly he has no interest in honestly discussing this subject nor presenting it to the public in an honest manner.
> 
> Compare my video presented two weeks ago posted at the beginning of this thread (even shared to him on his Facebook page), with this rant this evening (and it is a rant)...
> 
> Begin around 1:08:55 to start at the exact spot...He is responding to some KJVO guy but cites his prior video that I answered on The Ecclesiastical Text position.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=4322&v=ZtbFp3Qr9bA



Dr White created his own "Ecclesiastical Text" dragon and then slayed the dragon.

God bless you and keep you,
Ken


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Logan said:


> Robert Truelove said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is responding to some KJVO guy but cites his prior video that I answered on The Ecclesiastical Text position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would assume he didn't watch your video, which isn't surprising is it? You're random guy from the Internet #3,838 whose views don't coincide with anyone else he's ever dealt with.
> 
> You spent over an hour detailing a position it seems almost anyone outside of this board has never even heard of. It was kind of a long shot that he would even watch it to begin with wasn't it? It's disappointing, but not surprising.
Click to expand...


Considering that Dr. White's original video was made in response to a comment that Robert made on a Facebook group, then yes we should expect that he would take the time to watch Robert's video response.


----------



## chuckd

JOwen said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> This same line of reasoning, what God has deigned to preserve, may argue effectively against the Johnannine comma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Comma stands firm on the ground that "early authors" are witnesses to the text.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rev. Winzer is correct. I would point out that Edmund Calamy wrote _Thirteen Sermons Concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity_ at Salter's Hall in 1722. His _A Vindication of that Celebrated Text_ is worthy of your time as he clearly lays out the biblical, textual, and historical reason for its inclusion. You may read it lecture here.
Click to expand...


Sorry Pastor. "If you defend the comma, you have no basis whatsoever for assuring anybody with a straight face that we continue to have the original readings of the New Testament."


----------



## Ken

chuckd said:


> JOwen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> This same line of reasoning, what God has deigned to preserve, may argue effectively against the Johnannine comma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Comma stands firm on the ground that "early authors" are witnesses to the text.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rev. Winzer is correct. I would point out that Edmund Calamy wrote _Thirteen Sermons Concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity_ at Salter's Hall in 1722. His _A Vindication of that Celebrated Text_ is worthy of your time as he clearly lays out the biblical, textual, and historical reason for its inclusion. You may read it lecture here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Pastor. "If you defend the comma, you have no basis whatsoever for assuring anybody with a straight face that we continue to have the original readings of the New Testament."
Click to expand...


If it was only that simple: In Defense of the Authenticity Of 1 John 5:7

God bless you and keep you,
Ken


----------



## Bill The Baptist

I actually thought Dr. White's commentary at the end of the video was very much on point, I just don't think it particularly pertains to those who hold to the Ecclesiastical Text position.


----------



## Logan

I keep seeing references to how Dr White has caricatured "the Ecclesiastical Text position". Yet it seems to me that there is little agreement on precisely what that position is. From my perspective it seems to be mostly people unified under the umbrella of "I don't like the Critical Text."

I know Letis' views. I know Childs' views (at least as Letis applied them), I know Burgon's views, I know Hills' views, I know Steve's views, and more or less Pastor Winzer's views, Beeke's views, TBS's views, and a good portion of Pastor Truelove's views, but I don't know of any one "Ecclesiastical Text position". Some of them differ quite strongly in their fundamental reasons for their views, beliefs, and whether they'd be willing to revise the TR. The unity seems to come from having a common enemy.


----------



## Ken

Bill The Baptist said:


> I actually thought Dr. White's commentary at the end of the video was very much on point, *I just don't think it particularly pertains to those who hold to the Ecclesiastical Text position.*



Exactly, Dr White attacked the Ecclesiastical position with a KJVO rebuttal; thus, implying they are one and the same.

God bless you and keep you,
Ken


----------



## chuckd

Logan said:


> I keep seeing references to how Dr White has caricatured "the Ecclesiastical Text position". Yet it seems to me that there is little agreement on precisely what that position is. From my perspective it seems to be mostly people unified under the umbrella of "I don't like the Critical Text."
> 
> I know Letis' views. I know Childs' views (at least as Letis applied them), I know Burgon's views, I know Hills' views, I know Steve's views, and more or less Pastor Winzer's views, Beeke's views, TBS's views, and a good portion of Pastor Truelove's views, but I don't know of any one "Ecclesiastical Text position". Some of them differ quite strongly in their fundamental reasons for their views, beliefs, and whether they'd be willing to revise the TR. The unity seems to come from having a common enemy.



I believe it is "by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages..."


----------



## Ken

Logan said:


> I keep seeing references to how Dr White has caricatured "the Ecclesiastical Text position". Yet it seems to me that there is little agreement on precisely what that position is. From my perspective it seems to be mostly people unified under the umbrella of "I don't like the Critical Text."
> 
> I know Letis' views. I know Childs' views (at least as Letis applied them), I know Burgon's views, I know Hills' views, I know Steve's views, and more or less Pastor Winzer's views, Beeke's views, TBS's views, and a good portion of Pastor Truelove's views, but I don't know of any one "Ecclesiastical Text position". Some of them differ quite strongly in their fundamental reasons for their views, beliefs, and whether they'd be willing to revise the TR. *The unity seems to come from having a common enemy.*




The common enemy is the few Alexandrian texts that were never circulated until they were raised from the dead in the 19th century versus the "Ecclesiastical text" that was circulated in the Church throughout the centuries.

After listening to Dr James White, I thought it would be a slam dunk for the eclectic text; though, the more one digs into the issue, the weaker the eclectic text position appears. Unfortunately, the issue is not one of Greek scholarship, it is more detective work involving Church history; of which, makes one wonder which Church Dr White supports, the persecuted Church that preserved the text with their blood or the persecuting Church that killed the ones preserving the Ecclesiastical Text?

A little off topic, when someone makes a statement about all the killing by the "Church", the real question is who is killing who?

If you are really interested in the facts, this is a good site: KJV Today

God bless you and keep you,
Ken


----------



## JOwen

Logan said:


> I keep seeing references to how Dr White has caricatured "the Ecclesiastical Text position". Yet it seems to me that there is little agreement on precisely what that position is. From my perspective it seems to be mostly people unified under the umbrella of "I don't like the Critical Text."
> 
> I know Letis' views. I know Childs' views (at least as Letis applied them), I know Burgon's views, I know Hills' views, I know Steve's views, and more or less Pastor Winzer's views, Beeke's views, TBS's views, and a good portion of Pastor Truelove's views, but I don't know of any one "Ecclesiastical Text position". Some of them differ quite strongly in their fundamental reasons for their views, beliefs, and whether they'd be willing to revise the TR. The unity seems to come from having a common enemy.



From the men and organization listed, I don't know of any substantial variances on this position. I am a member of TBS and have spoken for them on numerous occasions. The consensus is the Majority Text is the place to engage in textual criticism. To this point, the Received Text is the best codification from that larger family. I for one am not frightened with the thought of a slight update from the Majority Text Family. I will say there are varied positions within TBS, but not from the Reformed men I know. Any strident KJO position comes from the rank and file, not the leadership. So while there is no, ONE book on the ET, I think all mentioned above (including Letis, who I knew personally)would be in substantial agreement. And our common bond is not based on a "common enemy", it is bases on a _common love_ for the AV.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Logan said:


> I keep seeing references to how Dr White has caricatured "the Ecclesiastical Text position". Yet it seems to me that there is little agreement on precisely what that position is. From my perspective it seems to be mostly people unified under the umbrella of "I don't like the Critical Text."
> 
> I know Letis' views. I know Childs' views (at least as Letis applied them), I know Burgon's views, I know Hills' views, I know Steve's views, and more or less Pastor Winzer's views, Beeke's views, TBS's views, and a good portion of Pastor Truelove's views, but I don't know of any one "Ecclesiastical Text position". Some of them differ quite strongly in their fundamental reasons for their views, beliefs, and whether they'd be willing to revise the TR. The unity seems to come from having a common enemy.



[video=youtube;kHHitXxH-us]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHHitXxH-us[/video]


----------



## Logan

Ken said:


> Exactly, Dr White attacked the Ecclesiastical position with a KJVO rebuttal; thus, implying they are one and the same.



Ironically, it may have been Letis, author of "The Ecclesiastical Text" himself who caused this identity, by aligning himself with fundamentalist KJVO camps in both video and radio for the purpose of attacking James White.

I only listen to White occasionally. I find him a little too abrasive to listen to much, but I really do see where he's coming from here. And again, it really doesn't surprise me that a guy who listens to text-to-speech books in double-time while riding his bike in order to consume the vast amount of material he does, would take the time to watch an hour-long video detailing a position that in all honesty, 99% of even Reformed people have never heard of, let alone Christians in general. Would I have liked him to respond? Sure! I would like him to respond to Steve's (very) lengthy letter too, but I'm not surprised he hasn't.

I think its hard for us to realize just how much of a target he is for people with all kinds of different positions, and how impossible it would be to understand them all in detail. I'm sure there are others just as miffed because he keeps caricaturing their particular KJVO variety.


----------



## Robert Truelove

Logan said:


> I'm sure there are others just as miffed because he keeps caricaturing *THEIR PARTICULAR KJVO VARIETY*.



*facepalm*


----------



## Logan

I was in no way implying you held to a KJVO position, if that's what you "facepalmed" over. How about "their particular muslim textual tradition", does that work better for you? Please read that entire paragraph for the context.

Can we try to be irenic in our discussion, even if Dr White is not?


----------



## Robert Truelove

Logan said:


> I was in no way implying you held to a KJVO position, if that's what you "facepalmed" over. How about "their particular muslim textual tradition", does that work better for you? Please read that entire paragraph for the context.
> 
> Can we try to be irenic in our discussion, even if Dr White is not?



Yes. This whole thing gets lumped in as some KJVO thing and that is not correct.

Regarding Letis, have you read his book The Ecclesiastical Text? Are you aware the longest chapter in the book is railing on Fundamental Independent Baptists and the KJVO movement?

Letis is caricatured as a KJVO radical and this is just another problem with the campaign of misinformation over this subject. When ad hominem arguments are being employed and none of the key issues are being addressed, there is a problem with one's position (or at least one's ability to defend it).


----------



## Logan

I have read it and many other things by Letis. Including his scathing critique of those like Riplinger. And I have watched as many of his presentations and listened to as many of his recordings as I could readily find. And I never would classify him, you, or any of the others I listed earlier as KJVO.


----------



## Robert Truelove

Logan said:


> I have read it and many other things by Letis. Including his scathing critique of those like Riplinger. And I have watched as many of his presentations and listened to as many of his recordings as I could readily find. And I never would classify him, you, or any of the others I listed earlier as KJVO.



Very much appreciated.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

This quote from Maurice Robinson is helpful



> The Byzantine-priority principles reflect a "reasoned transmissionalism" which evaluates internal and external evidence in the light of transmissional probabilities. This approach emphasizes the effect of scribal habits in preserving, altering, or otherwise corrupting the text, the recognition of transmissional development leading to family and texttype groupings, and the ongoing maintenance of the text in its general integrity as demonstrated within our critical apparatuses. The overriding principle is that textual criticism without a history of transmission is impossible.46 To achieve this end, all readings in sequence need to be accounted for within a transmissional history, and no reading can be considered in isolation as a "variant unit" unrelated to the rest of the text.



http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v06/Robinson2001.html


----------



## MW

JOwen said:


> And our common bond is not based on a "common enemy", it is bases on a _common love_ for the AV.



Thankyou to Pastor Lewis for pointing out what should be obvious. We are reformed. We stand in the reformed tradition. The reformed tradition has bequeathed a very faithful Bible translation and deposited it in our hands. I simply cannot understand the inclination to cast it to the ground and trample it under foot.

Who believes the Holy Bible because it is found in old manuscripts? We believe it because it is the living and abiding Word of God. It is the instrument which brought us to faith in the first place. Without the presuppositions of faith there is no basis for saying one word in any manuscript is the Word of God.

When everything is turned to confusion it is time to get back to basics. Let us examine why the Bible is so important to us in the first place, and proceed from there.


----------



## Robert Truelove

Dr. White responded to me this evening on Facebook and to be fair to him, I think it right to share his response here...

"Brother, I have your video in my list, and should be done with it by tomorrow. But, I was not referring to you on the DL yesterday (unless you wrote the comment I replied to---I did not assume that was you, and would be surprised if it was). I can see why you would assume I was, but I was only focusing upon the specific comment that had been provided to me from the Logos forums. Nothing more."

"OK, Robert Truelove, listened to the large majority of the video while making my uber yummy tuna fish/pasta/peas---stuff. For most of your argumentation you are a Byzantine Priority advocate...while dipping your toes into ET a few times, only to pull them out before I chomp them off. smile emoticon I see some serious inconsistencies, and I think you missed my point a number of times regarding the apologetic issues, but in any case, on the one hand you admit the Comma must go (as Burgon understood); ok, ET guys would say you have missed the heart of ETism itself (just like the guy I responded to on the DL yesterday cited the Comma's use in the Scriptural proofs offered in the LBCF). But on the other hand you want to claim "providential preservation" of the Byzantine text "down through time." Well, that's quite problematic on many historical grounds. The Vulgate completely over-took the Greek in the West, so are you saying the "line" was preserved only in the Greek Orthodox churches around Byzantium? And once again, functionally speaking, there are major differences even in the Byzantine line---ever tried to create a "Byzantine" text for the book of Revelation? Isn't really possible, actually. 

In any case, you are not a Letistian ETist, as you said. There are some important differences in your position and the ET position."

I appreciate the clarification and a gracious response and I think it is important for people to see that after this thread. I do think that when Dr. White gets going on this subject that he starts painting with too broad a brush.

It's interesting regarding his view of Letis. Letis was not a proponent of 1 John 5:7 either. I think Dr. White may have too narrow a view on some of these terms (like "Ecclesiastical Text") OR I and others have too broad a view of them.


----------



## DMcFadden

> I think Dr. White may have too narrow a view on some of these terms (like "Ecclesiastical Text") OR I and others have too broad a view of them.



Nicely put. It reminds me of King James' quote from the Psalms in the documentary "KJB: The Bible that Changed the World," when he said: "how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!"


----------



## DMcFadden

> The Vulgate completely over-took the Greek in the West, so are you saying the "line" was preserved only in the Greek Orthodox churches around Byzantium? And once again, functionally speaking, there are major differences even in the Byzantine line---ever tried to create a "Byzantine" text for the book of Revelation? Isn't really possible, actually.



Dr. White uses the primacy of the Vulgate as arguing against the preservation position. While that may be a point some will make against the proponents of the Byzantine text type, one could argue for superiority of the Byzantine without bringing in preservation. Upholders of the eclectic position want to find the MOST accurate text. Is it impossible to believe that the Byzantine mss may be more accurate than the Alexandrian? 

Defenders of the "weight" vs. "counting" position routinely argue that the plethora of late mss does not prove their superiority. But, neither does the antiquity of corrupt mss prove their superiority.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Dennis,

About Dr. White’s using “the primacy of the Vulgate . . . against the preservation position”, it would need to be a genuine church’s use, and Rome does not qualify. The Greek Orthodox would be a better, though not good, example of one. I had written the three paragraphs below with regard to Codex Vaticanus and Rome, but it has some relevance here:
_Vaticanus_ has been in the Vatican Library at least since 1481, when it was catalogued. Those with some historical knowledge will remember that these were the years of the Inquisition in Spain during the reign of Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484). In 1481 some 2,000 believers dissenting with Rome were burned alive, with multitudes of others tortured (M’Crie, _History of the Reformation in Spain_, p. 104). When Pope Innocent VIII (1484-1492) sat in the royal “Throne of Peter,” he followed in the vein of his namesake Innocent III and commenced anew a persecution against the peaceful Waldensian Christians in the northern Italian Alps, commanding their destruction “like venomous snakes” if they would not repent and turn to Rome (Wylie, _History of the Waldenses_, pp. 27-29). Bloodbaths followed against these harmless mountain peoples, who had their own Scriptures from ancient times, and worshipped in Biblical simplicity and order.

It perplexes many that the Lord of these many hundreds of thousands of Bible-believing saints who were tortured with unimaginable barbarity and slaughtered like dogs by the Roman Catholic “church” for centuries (it is no exaggeration to say for over a millennium) should have kept His choicest preserved manuscript in the safekeeping of the Library of the apostate murderers, designating it by their own ignominious name: _Vaticanus_. 

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

Re your question, “Is it impossible to believe that the Byzantine mss may be more accurate than the Alexandrian?”, I post some of John William Burgon’s thoughts on the topic from his, _The Traditional Text Of The Holy Gospels Vindicated And Established_, and a brief partial critique of Burgon’s High Anglican view of the texts by E.F. Hills; in the meanwhile I’m working on a response (for this thread) on James’ remarks from the video Robert interacted with,
“You have to have textual critical principles . . . [theories are] apologetically vacuous.” 

And, “[Rev 16:5, Luke 2:22], Eph 1:18, Eph 3:9, 2 Tim 2:19. These are places the TR reading is basically indefensible.”​ 
Here are Burgon’s thoughts, (please pardon the length—those not into scholarly info please skip) :
Before our Lord ascended up to Heaven, He told His disciples that He would send them the Holy Ghost, Who should supply His place and abide with His Church for ever. He added a promise that it should be the office of that inspiring Spirit not only ‘to bring to their remembrance all things whatsoever He had told them’ (John 16:26), but also to ‘guide’ His Church ‘into all the Truth,’ or, ‘the whole Truth (John 16:13). Accordingly, the earliest great achievement of those days was accomplished on giving to the Church the Scriptures of the New Testament, in which authorized teaching was enshrined in written form. And first, out of those many Gospels which incompetent persons had ‘taken in hand’ to write or to compile out of much floating matter of an oral or written nature, He guided them to discern that four were wholly unlike the rest—were the very Word of God.

There exists no reason for supposing that the Divine Agent, who in the first instance thus gave to mankind the Scriptures of Truth, straightway abdicated His office; took no further care of His work; abandoned those precious writings to their fate. That a perpetual miracle was wrought for their preservation that copyists were protected against the risk of error, or evil men prevented from adulterating shamefully copies of the Deposit no one, it is presumed, is so weak as to suppose. But it is quite a different thing to claim that all down the ages the sacred writings must needs have been God’s peculiar care; that the Church under Him has watched over them with intelligence and skill; has recognized which copies exhibit a fabricated, which an honestly transcribed text; has generally sanctioned the one, and generally disallowed the other. I am utterly disinclined to believe—so grossly improbable does it seem—that at the end of 1800 years 995 copies out of every thousand, suppose, will prove untrustworthy; and that the one, two, three, four or five which remain, whose contents were till yesterday as good as unknown, will be found to have retained the secret of what the Holy Spirit originally inspired. I am utterly unable to believe, in short, that God's promise has so entirely failed, that at the end of 1800 years much of the text of the Gospel had in point of fact to be picked by a German critic out of a waste-paper basket in the convent of St. Catherine; and that the entire text had to be remodelled after the pattern set by a couple of copies which had remained in neglect during fifteen centuries, and had probably owed their survival to that neglect; whilst hundreds of others had been thumbed to pieces, and had bequeathed their witness to copies made from them.​
I have addressed what goes before to persons who sympathize with me in my belief. To others the argument would require to be put in a different way. Let it then be remembered, that a wealth of copies existed in early times; that the need of zealous care of the Holy Scriptures was always felt in the Church; that it is only from the Church that we have learnt which are the books of the Bible and which are not; that in the age in which the Canon was settled, and which is presumed by many critics to have introduced a corrupted text, most of the intellect of the Roman Empire was found within the Church, and was directed upon disputed questions; that in the succeeding ages the art of transcribing was brought to a high pitch of perfection; and that the verdict of all the several periods since the production of those two manuscripts has been given till a few years ago in favour of the Text which has been handed down: let it be further borne in mind that the testimony is not only that of all the ages, but of all the countries: and at the very least so strong a presumption will ensue on behalf of the Traditional Text, that a powerful case indeed must be constructed to upset it. It cannot be vanquished by theories grounded upon internal considerations often only another name for personal tastes, or for scholarly likes or dislikes, or upon fictitious recensions, or upon any arbitrary choice of favourite manuscripts, or upon a strained division of authorities into families or groups, or upon a warped application of the principle of genealogy. In the ascertainment of the facts of the Sacred Text, the laws of evidence must be strictly followed. In questions relating to the inspired Word, mere speculation and unreason have no place. In short, the Traditional Text, founded upon the vast majority of authorities and upon the Rock of Christ's Church, will, if I mistake not, be found upon examination to be out of all comparison superior to a text of the nineteenth century, whatever skill and ingenuity may have been expended upon the production or the defence of it. (pp 11-13) 
[Online source, various formats: https://archive.org/details/traditionaltexto00burgrich] ​
[End Burgon]

__________

And here’s the critique of Burgon’s High Anglican view [see item (b) below] by E.F Hills, in his, _The King James Version Defended_, chapter 8:
from 1. Three Alternative Views Of The Textus Receptus (Received Text)

One of the leading principles of the Protestant Reformation was the sole and absolute authority of the holy Scriptures. The New Testament text in which early Protestants placed such implicit reliance was the _Textus Receptus _(Received Text), which was first printed in 1516 under the editorship of Erasmus. Was this confidence of these early Protestants misplaced? There are three answers to this question which may be briefly summarized as follows:

*(a) The Naturalistic, Critical View of the Textus Receptus*
Naturalistic textual critics, of course, for years have not hesitated to say that the Protestant Reformers were badly mistaken in their reliance upon the Textus Receptus. According to these scholars, the Textus Receptus is the worst New Testament text that ever existed and must be wholly discarded. One of the first to take this stand openly was Richard Bentley, the celebrated English philologian. In an apology written in 1713 he developed the party line which naturalistic critics have used ever since to sell their views to conservative Christians. (1) New Testament textual criticism, he asserted, has nothing to do with Christian doctrine since the substance of doctrine is the same even in the worst manuscripts. Then he added that the New Testament text has suffered less injury by the hand of time than the text of any profane author. And finally, he concluded by saying that we cannot begin the study of the New Testament text with any definite belief concerning the nature of God's providential preservation of the Scriptures. Rather we must begin our study from a neutral standpoint and then allow the results of this neutral method to teach us what God's providential preservation of the New Testament text actually has been. In other words, we begin with agnosticism and work ourselves into faith gradually. Some seminaries still teach this party line.

*(b) The High Anglican View of the Textus Receptus*
This was the view of Dean J. W. Burgon, Prebendary F. H. A. Scrivener, and Prebendary Edward Miller. These conservative New Testament textual critics were not Protestants but high Anglicans. Being high Anglicans, they recognized only three ecclesiastical bodies as true Christian churches, namely, the Greek Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Anglican Church, in which they themselves officiated. Only these three communions, they insisted, had the "apostolic succession." Only these three, they maintained, were governed by bishops who had been consecrated by earlier bishops and so on back in an unbroken chain to the first bishops, who had been consecrated by the Apostles through the laying on of hands. All other denominations these high Anglicans dismissed as mere "sects."

It was Burgon's high Anglicanism which led him to place so much emphasis on the New Testament quotations of the Church Fathers, most of whom had been bishops. To him these quotations were vital because they proved that the Traditional New Testament Text found in the vast majority of the Greek manuscripts had been authorized from the very beginning by the bishops of the early Church, or at least by the majority of these bishops. This high Anglican principle, however, failed Burgon when he came to deal with the printed Greek New Testament text. For from Reformation times down to his own day the printed Greek New Testament text which had been favored by the bishops of the Anglican Church was the Textus Receptus, and the Textus Receptus had not been prepared by bishops but by Erasmus, who was an independent scholar. Still worse, from Burgon's standpoint, was the fact that the particular form of the Textus Receptus used in the Church of England was the third edition of Stephanus, who was a Calvinist. For these reasons, therefore, Burgon and Scrivener looked askance at the Textus Receptus and declined to defend it except in so far as it agreed with the Traditional Text found in the majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts.

This position, however, is illogical. If we believe in the providential preservation of the New Testament text, then we must defend the Textus Receptus as well as the Traditional Text found in the majority of the Greek manuscripts. For the Textus Receptus is the only form in which this Traditional Text has circulated in print. To decline to defend the Textus Receptus is to give the impression that God's providential preservation of the New Testament text ceased with the invention of printing. It is to suppose that God, having preserved a pure New Testament text all during the manuscript period, unaccountably left this pure text hiding in the manuscripts and allowed an inferior text to issue from the printing press and circulate among His people for more than 450 years. Much, then, as we admire Burgon for his general orthodoxy and for his is defense of the Traditional New Testament Text, we cannot follow him in his high Anglican emphasis or in his disregard for the Textus Receptus.

*(c) The Orthodox Protestant View of the Textus Receptus*
The defense of the Textus Receptus, therefore, is a necessary part of the defense of Protestantism. It is entailed by the logic of faith, the basic steps of which are as follows: _First, _the Old Testament text was preserved by the Old Testament priesthood and the scribes and scholars that grouped themselves around that priesthood (Deut. 31:24-26). _Second, _the New Testament text has been preserved by the universal priesthood of believers by faithful Christians in every walk of life (1 Peter 2:9). _Third, _the Traditional Text, found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts, is the True Text because it represents the God-guided usage of this universal priesthood of believers. _Fourth, _The first printed text of the Greek New Testament was not a blunder or a set-back but a forward step in the providential preservation of the New Testament. Hence the few significant departures of that text from the Traditional Text are only God's providential corrections of the Traditional Text in those few places in which such corrections were needed. _Fifth, _through the usage of Bible-believing Protestants God placed the stamp of His approval on this first printed text, and it became the Textus Receptus (Received Text).

Hence, as orthodox Protestant Christians, we believe that the formation of the Textus Receptus was guided by the special providence of God. There were _three _ways in which the editors of the Textus Receptus Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevirs, were providentially guided. In the _first _place, they were guided by the manuscripts which God in His providence had made available to them. In the _second _place, they were guided by the providential circumstances in which they found themselves. Then in the _third _place, and most of all, they were guided by the _common_ _faith. _Long before the Protestant Reformation, the God-guided usage of the Church had produced throughout Western Christendom a common faith concerning the New Testament text, namely, a general belief that the currently received New Testament text, primarily the Greek text and secondarily the Latin text, was the True New Testament Text which had been preserved by God's special providence. It was this common faith that guided Erasmus and the other early editors of the Textus Receptus.​ 
[End Hills]



I post Hills' critique due to the nuanced view of the Byz/Majority Text I have, as I concur, yet highly value Burgon. This is something from the piece to James I'm writing:
The Textus Receptus is not at a far remove from the Byzantine / Majority textform—the “Traditional Text” of Burgon et al—which is pretty much the same. I have said this of the situation vis-à-vis the Byz/MT and the TR,​
Be it known that while I fully use what is of value in the Byz/MT labors, which are immense and of precious value, I go beyond what they allow. We of the TR and AV school stand on their shoulders—or to perfect the metaphor, we _leap_ from their shoulders to a high rock, upon which we take our stand.

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


----------



## MW

DMcFadden said:


> Dr. White uses the primacy of the Vulgate as arguing against the preservation position. While that may be a point some will make against the proponents of the Byzantine text type, one could argue for superiority of the Byzantine without bringing in preservation. Upholders of the eclectic position want to find the MOST accurate text. Is it impossible to believe that the Byzantine mss may be more accurate than the Alexandrian?



This is just the kind of confusion which the material evidence creates when it is not properly supported through testimony. A court of law would require witnesses to substantiate the evidence. Regrettably empiricism commits itself to the fallacy that matter can speak for itself.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

James, you said: “What text did the church—the ecclesia—‘receive’ of Rev 16:5? There’s no question that up until 1598 we know what Rev 16:5 read in all the ‘good’ manuscripts”

And, “You have to have textual critical principles . . . [theories are] apologetically vacuous.” 

And, “[Luke 2:22], Eph 1:18, Eph 3:9, 2 Tim 2:19. These are places the TR reading is basically indefensible. Is _that_ the _Ecclesiastical Text_ reading?”

Before I address these things, a few points I want to make.

The reason you can say what you’ve said and fully believe it is due to your presuppositions: that evidences and not presuppositions / theology (“theories” as you disparagingly call them) _ultimately_ determine truths regarding the identity of the New Testament text. The TR is a stretch beyond credibility—and thus “indefensible”—to _you_.

“Indefensible” from the vantage that trusts in the purported “textual science” and reason of man _over_ the promise of God to preserve His words in the minutiae—this preservation not “theoretical” and abstract, but one manifested such that it may be held in hand. Which is not at all to say, James, you don’t trust God’s promises in this matter, you just have a different take on how He does it, and how it works out.

As with all aspects of our walk with the living God, this is a supernatural business we are about, from beginning to end. Our regeneration was accomplished by the supernatural, sovereign power of God; likewise our justification, _and_ sanctification; again, our faith is given us and sustained in us by the supernatural grace of our Saviour and Father, and His love is likewise conveyed to us through the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures were given us by “holy men of God [who] spake [and wrote] as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:21); again, it is written, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim 3:16). 

Can it possibly be that once He had accomplished the delivering of His word to humankind, and having it recognized and compiled by His people (in the Old and New Testaments respectively), He then cut it loose from His ongoing _minute_ care, leaving it up to the science and philosophy of men (many of whom in the Text Criticism and Production Industries unbelievers) to pick and choose what seemed best to them what words were His and what not? This most precious Deposit to humankind for their salvation and comfort no longer superintended by His mighty providential care and preservation—mostly via the Church—now but left to the ingenuity of men and their academies? The science of men and no longer the supernatural power and care of the Almighty?

Consider this: In eternity past in God’s omniscience He knew you before ever He created you; fast forward through the creation, the fall in the garden, the long centuries of mayhem and destruction, the toxins introduced increasingly with the advent of the industrial and then the modern ages, the havoc wrought in the human gene pool—and yet through all this, He preserved those molecules and atoms, those strands of DNA, that would eventually comprise the person you now are. From His eternal vision of you to your creation and development in time, you are the very person He envisioned before the creation of the world. Talk about providential preservation—down to very molecules and genes! Is this not far more complex a feat than preserving a Book of writings intact through around three millennia? Okay, there was a concerted effort to destroy this Book by the prince of demons and his tools, so that made it more complex; but the thought still stands: if He could bring the exact you into being, could He not bring His Book?

I assert He could, and did. And many Scriptures attest to this very preservation even in the minutiae. 

Now when John William Burgon speaks of Sacred Science and textual criticism, _him_ I take to heart, as his view of the history of the New Testament text is sound and built on overwhelming evidences (as I quoted from him above).

For purposes of clarity, when I use the terms here _TR_ or _Textus Receptus_, I mean the _edition_ of the Traditional (or Ecclesiastical or Majority) Text that underlies the King James Bible New Testament.

I’m not familiar with your views of Burgon or Scrivener or Maurice Robinson, but you’re likely aware that these scholars marshal weighty _evidence_ in support of their textual positions regarding the superiority of the Byzantine or Traditional Text over that of the “Alexandrian” based upon Codices B and א primarily. With respect to Burgon, though, his work has its limits, for, as a high Anglican, he disallowed contributions to the Textus Receptus that were not given by Bishops in the line of Apostolic Succession (i.e., found only in the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, or Anglican churches), hence Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were out as far as he was concerned!

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

It is this leap of faith (which is not without evidences) in God’s providence bringing certain readings back into the Biblical text that had been taken out of the Byzantine textform so the Reformation Bible could be made intact—it is in this leap that many Byz folks cannot follow us.​ 
To the “indefensible”! Not in the little list, but you mentioned it, is Revelation 16:5. I’ll try to keep this brief (though, Logan, I’m afraid it will still be _sort_ of long, for how else can I make a case? I’ll keep it pithy, and elaborate if requested).

Clearly this is a minority reading, if it can be considered even that, as the sole appearance of it is in Beatus of Liebana, a Spanish theologian (circa 786 AD), in his compiling—in Latin—an earlier commentary on Revelation by Tyconius (circa 380 AD). Dr. Thomas Holland, in one of his lessons on manuscript evidence, says, “Dr. Edward Hills has correctly cited passage as a conjectural emendation” (cf. Hill’s _KJVD_, p 208). Very likely Beza, whose emendation it was, did not know of Beatus’ work, but had his own sound reasons for what he did. 

Holland then quotes Bruce Metzger as saying, “The classical method of textual criticism . . . If the only reading, or each of several variant readings, which the documents of a text supply is impossible or incomprehensible, the editor's only remaining resource is to conjecture what the original reading must have been. A typical emendation involves the removal of an anomaly.” (Metzger, _The Text Of The New Testament_, p 182.)

There were only four manuscripts of Rev 16:5 before the 10[SUP]th[/SUP] century—and three of them are corrupt, differing from one another—P47, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus. Along with other factors which Beza took into consideration, thinking (as he himself notes) a different rendering of the verse would be anomalous if not completing the declaration of God’s past, present and future aspects, as is done in Revelation 1:4, 1:8, 4:8, 11:17 (a variant in 11:17 also, but better attested). Further studies on this text here, and here.

You had asked, James, “What text did the church—the ecclesia—‘receive’ of Rev 16:5? There’s no question that up until 1598 we know what Rev 16:5 read in all the ‘good’ manuscripts.” And, speaking of 1 John 5:7, but relevant here, you said,
“If an entire vitally important theologically relevant text can completely disappear from the Greek manuscript tradition, then there’s no reason to believe we continue to have the original reading. . .”​ 
You may certainly think that, but one may responsibly and reasonably differ with you, seeing the violent assault, not only on the body of our Lord while He dwelt among us, but also on the body of His written word after He ascended. As I noted above, citing Nolan’s writings, there was violence done to the Greek mss in the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] century, and it is quite feasible—nay, _certain!_—the Lord used the Latin-speaking church in North Africa to preserve what had wickedly been removed from His words. Granted, Rev 16:5 is not a “vitally important theologically relevant text” as Acts 20:28, 1 Tim 3:16, and 1 John 5:7 are, but the principle applies.

And *every word* of God is “vitally important”, as it is written, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by *every word* that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt 4:4), and being assured that “his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness” (2 Pet 1:3), through the knowledge of Him that is alone found in His word by the revelation of His Holy Spirit. Would not our Lord supply us with that which we need to live, i.e., *every word* of God?

And the “good manuscripts” you refer to, well, we differ with you as well on their goodness. Nor am I intimidated by your “chomping toes off” those who hold to the Ecclesiastical Text position—and my view of the ET is more stringent that Pastor Truelove’s. I do take you to be a good brother notwithstanding how we differ on a few things.

Let me end this for now, as I prepare to pithily defend the allegedly “indefensible” Luke 2:22, Eph 1:18, Eph 3:9, and 2 Tim 2:19.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Ken said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually thought Dr. White's commentary at the end of the video was very much on point, *I just don't think it particularly pertains to those who hold to the Ecclesiastical Text position.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, Dr White attacked the Ecclesiastical position with a KJVO rebuttal; thus, implying they are one and the same.
> 
> God bless you and keep you,
> Ken
Click to expand...

It seems that way to me as well. I continue to think he has not drawn the proper line between the two views:
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthr...Response-to-James-White?p=1082438#post1082438


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

As Logan rightly points out, "the 'ecclesiastical text' position has . . . many variants" (post 18), so it may well be James is aiming at those who venture into TR territory, which not all do.


----------



## God'sElectSaint

I think because of James many dealings with radical KJV only types that that abrasiveness he uses with them seems to appear in this video as well. I also think as Rev. Winzer said earlier that James does seem to weigh most issues in terms of "is this an acceptable apologetic". Seeing he is an apologist that makes sense but that can't be the ultimate standard of weighing all views, can it?


----------



## Captain Picard

I confess myself very much not an expert in these matters, but just saying "the church was persecuted, just like Jesus!" to claim that the Johannnine Comma could have been lost for centuries and then appear later in the TR is a stretch to end all stretches, whether you are KJVO, ET, or WXYZ.


----------



## MW

Captain Picard said:


> and then appear later in the TR



It didn't appear later in the TR. The reading had a steady transmission and witness throughout the centuries.

What is preserved? The living and abiding Word of God. A Christian's faith is not in paper and ink, but in the Word.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello James S,

But what if the persecution of the church involved the ferreting out on a massive scale of precious NT manuscripts and destroying them, along with the believers who had them? And what if there was a satanic assault on the integrity of the Scriptures through heretics of various sorts excising what they didn't like—rooting out what _they_ thought heretical? 

Or during the 50-some years (from around 335-385 AD) when the Arians (ancient version of the JWs) ruled both the Eastern Empire and its Church? If they would torture a saint over 100 years of age to get him to recant on the deity of Christ, would they scruple to hesitate mutilating Scripture that affirmed the same, thinking it false doctrine? There were other threats to that passage involving the Sabellian heresy.

There is tremendous evidence for 1 John 5:7’s authenticity, despite all the bluster to the contrary. Nor was it lost for centuries and then just—poof!—appears in the TR, for it remained in the Bible of the Waldensian churches from the Latin / Italick versions coming up from the Western portion of the Empire which had not suffered the ravages of the Eastern. A little more info on it here.

When one thinks of wicked queen Athaliah killing all the seed royal, thinking all rightful heirs to the throne dead—and ruling triumphantly in Jerusalem 6 years—but then shocked to learn Joash the late king’s son lived (2 Kings 11:1-3 ff.), one can see how evil appears to prevail a while, but then is overturned. The LORD preserves His word (_and_ His people) as He pleases, and reveals it in His good timing.

I do not want to debate this here as I’m busy working on the matter of Luke 2:22—another hotly contested verse. I just wanted to protest your hasty remark.


----------



## Captain Picard

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello James S,
> 
> But what if the persecution of the church involved the ferreting out on a massive scale of precious NT manuscripts and destroying them, along with the believers who had them? And what if there was a satanic assault on the integrity of the Scriptures through heretics of various sorts excising what they didn't like—rooting out what _they_ thought heretical?
> 
> Or during the 50-some years (from around 335-385 AD) when the Arians (ancient version of the JWs) ruled both the Eastern Empire and its Church? If they would torture a saint over 100 years of age to get him to recant on the deity of Christ, would they scruple to hesitate mutilating Scripture that affirmed the same, thinking it false doctrine? There were other threats to that passage involving the Sabellian heresy.
> 
> There is tremendous evidence for 1 John 5:7’s authenticity, despite all the bluster to the contrary. Nor was it lost for centuries and then just—poof!—appears in the TR, for it remained in the Bible of the Waldensian churches from the Latin / Italick versions coming up from the Western portion of the Empire which had not suffered the ravages of the Eastern. A little more info on it here.
> 
> When one thinks of wicked queen Athaliah killing all the seed royal, thinking all rightful heirs to the throne dead—and ruling triumphantly in Jerusalem 6 years—but then shocked to learn Joash the late king’s son lived (2 Kings 11:1-3 ff.), one can see how evil appears to prevail a while, but then is overturned. The LORD preserves His word (_and_ His people) as He pleases, and reveals it in His good timing.
> 
> I do not want to debate this here as I’m busy working on the matter of Luke 2:22—another hotly contested verse. I just wanted to protest your hasty remark.



Thank you Jerusalem Blade and Pastor Winzer for you comments. I am continuing to digest the material shared on these threads by ET proponents and I am trying to take care lest I be guilty of besmirching my elders, both in the sense of the book of Titus, and in the general sense amonth Christian brothers. I am still inundated in Dr. White's view on the Comma and thus skeptical, but I am not taking your views lightly or subjectively. I may keep this thread going for my edification if I need to, though...

In Christ


----------



## TrustGzus

Should "what if"s be used as evidence?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Joe,

Of course you're right about that! The "what if"s are rhetorically speaking, as I assumed James—and others—had read (or would read) my posts #45 and 46, where I did give evidences. It is good to read prior posts in a thread (even long threads) if one's going to comment, so as to be on track.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

*Luke 2:22 KJV*

James White says it’s “indefensible”, and has stated, “the KJV's reading cannot be traced anywhere earlier than the 14th century, and most feel that this is actually a conjectural emendation made by Beza”.

After reviewing scholarly discussions for a number of days, I was surprised to see the powerful defense of the phrase is question—“her purification” (AV) vs “their purification” (CT)—by Dr. Thomas Holland.

Holland initiates anew a conversation between James and himself in a letter to him over this and other matters, where he says, contradicting James’ view of the text,
When you [James] state, “KJV's reading cannot be traced anywhere earlier than the 14th century,” were you unaware of the Latin support? The Latin Vulgate  (fourth century) and later the Latin Codex Brixianus read, “et postquam impleti sunt dies purgationis eius secundum legem mosi” (And after the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses). The Latin word *eius,* or more commonly *ejus,* stands in the feminine genitive singular, thus *of her.* If the Latin texts had used *eorum* (of them) the reading would have supported modern versions. However, this is not the case. In fact, almost all of the Old Latin Codices support the reading “of her”, with the exception of Codex Monacensis (seventh century). It is found in the Old Latin Codex Vercellensis of the fourth century, and Latin texts of the fifth century such as Codex Curiensis, Codex Veronensis, and Codex Corbeiensis II as well as later Latin manuscripts such as Codex Usserianus I (seventh century) and Codex Rhedigeranus (eighth century). Further, it is clear that the Latin speaking Catholic Church understood *ejus* to mean "of her" as the English translation of the Latin Vulgate reads, “And after the daies were fully ended of her purification according to the  law of Moyses, they caried him into Hierusalem, to present him to our Lord.” (Rheims, 1582).”​ 
Dr. Holland then says to Dr. White,
Therefore, we see that this reading existed long before the 14th century. If you knew this, why did you not in all fairness at least  mention it? If you did not know this, will you retract your statement about the  reading not existing before the 14th century?​ 
James’ response was that he considers the Latin and other versions’ attestations “irrelevant”, and that only the Greek manuscripts count. Whereupon Holland replies (in the eighth letter between them),
as for "secondary language(s)" not being "relevant," I am afraid that modern textual scholars would not agree with your statement. Kurt Aland wrote:  ​
“The transmission of the New Testament textual tradition is characterized by an extremely impressive degree of tenacity. Once a reading occurs it will persist with obstinacy. It is precisely the overwhelming mass of the New Testament textual tradition, assuming the hugainousa didaskalia of New Testament textual criticism (we trust the reader will not be offended by this application of 1 Tim. 1:10), which provides an assurance of certainty in establishing the original text. Even apart from the lectionaries (cf. p. 163), there is still the evidence of approximately 3,200 manuscripts of the New Testament text, not to mention the early versions and the patristic quotations--we can be certain that among these there is still a group of witnesses which preserves the original form of the text, despite the pervasive authority of ecclesiastical tradition and the prestige of the later text.” (_The Text of the New Testament_, p. 291-292)​
Please note that Aland believes the “tenacity” of a reading can be found not only in the evidence of the Greek manuscripts, but also among the “early versions and the patristic quotations.” He states that we can be CERTAIN that, “among these there is still a group of witness which preserves the original form of the text. . .” Therefore, early versions are to be used and considered evidence in the science of textual criticism.

Dr. Alexander Souter noted:​
"The second (source of the NT text) is translations made from this original Greek, especially if directly made from it, and not through the medium of another language, which is itself a direct translation from the original Greek. If such a translation was carefully made, and has survived in the precise form and text in which the translator himself issued it, what we possess in it is tantamount to the Greek copy in front of the translators when he made his translation." (The Text And Canon Of The New Testament, p.10.)  ​
Since the Old Latin manuscripts are almost unanimous in their reading "of her" and since the Latin Vulgate likewise possesses the reading "ejus" (of her), it is highly likely that there was an early Greek text with this reading which we no longer possess, at least according to the logic of textual criticism as just expressed by Souter. I do not believe that there is any reason to continue with additional citations which agree with this point. However the same may be found in the writings of Metzger, Geisler and Nix, Jack Finegan, and others.​ 
In the first and later letters Holland questions White as to why he made the allegation that in Luke 2:22 Beza made a “conjectural emendation” as Beza knew of the early Latin readings, and this would show it was rather a well-informed textual decision.

To my thinking the arguments of Dr. Holland were overpowering. Here are the 9+ letters (quite a remarkable collection) :

http://web.archive.org/web/20050330070822/members.aol.com/Logos1611/Lk2_1lt.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20050117201614/members.aol.com/Logos1611/Lk2_2lt.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20050116213105/http://members.aol.com/Logos1611/Lk2_3lt.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20041214234506/http://members.aol.com/Logos1611/Lk2_4lt.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20050130173104/members.aol.com/Logos1611/Lk_5lt.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20050116212132/members.aol.com/Logos1611/Lk_6lt.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20080906130230/http://members.aol.com/Logos1611/Lk2_7lt.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20080706154709/http://members.aol.com/Logos1611/Lk2_8lt.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20080726225513/http://members.aol.com/Logos1611/Lk2final.html

___________

Here are some _*citations from Augustine*_:

Augustine: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf106.vi.v.xii.html#vi.v.xii-p4.1
_Harmony of the Gospels_ - Book 2, Chapter XI
An Examination of the Question as to How It Was Possible for Them to Go Up, According to Luke's Statement, with Him to Jerusalem to the Temple, *When the Days of the Purification of the Mother of Christ Were Accomplished*, in Order to Perform the Usual Rites, If It is Correctly Recorded by Matthew, that Herod Had Already Learned from the Wise Men that the Child Was Born in Whose Stead, When He Sought for Him, He Slew So Many Children. 

and agitated by the intelligence received from the wise men concerning the birth of the King of the Jews, for them, *when the days of the purification of His mother were accomplished,* to go up in any safety with Him to the temple . . . [emphasis added]​ 
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/106/1060102.htm
_Harmony of the Gospels_ Book 2, Chapter V
A Statement of the Manner in Which Luke’s Procedure is Proved to Be in Harmony with Matthew’s in Those Matters Concerning the Conception and the Infancy or Boyhood of Christ, Which are Omitted by the One and Recorded by the Other . . . 

Then, after this account of their return, the narrative goes on thus: *When the days of her (His mother’s) purification, according to the law of Moses*, were accomplished, they brought Him to Jerusalem, to present Him to the Lord. . . [emphasis added]

​_*And from Jerome*_, who knew both Latin and Greek well (and considered the Greek the true source of NT Scripture), says this in his Latin work, The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary, Against Helvidius,
At all events Scripture thus speaks of the Saviour, “And *when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were fulfilled*, they brought him up to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord. . .” [emphasis added]​ 
________

In sum: It is not known why or how the error crept into the Greek manuscripts so early, resulting in such an extreme paucity of Greek attestation for _AUTHS_ (_her_ purification) and the prevalence of _AUTWN_ (_their_ purification). On the face of it _autwn_ (their) is in error, as the law of Moses explicitly states in Leviticus 12:1-4 that she—the woman only—will be unclean “until the [forty] days of her purifying be fulfilled”, with no requirement for purification of the husband or child. “Their” is also grammatically difficult. The reading of “their” brings a contradiction into Scripture. Many have tried to find a way to make either Jesus or Joseph unclean and needing purification, or else have the “their” refer to “_the Jews’_ laws concerning purification”, but these violate both common sense and context.

“her purification” is the right reading in God’s word, and Beza made a sound textual decision, in the providence of God. The reading is quite defensible, to say the least.


----------



## TrustGzus

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hello Joe,
> 
> Of course you're right about that! The "what if"s are rhetorically speaking, as I assumed James—and others—had read (or would read) my posts #45 and 46, where I did give evidences. It is good to read prior posts in a thread (even long threads) if one's going to comment, so as to be on track.



Steve, I had read every line in every post in this thread. Thank you for the comments.


----------



## Captain Picard

Thanks for all the work, Steve.


----------



## Robert Truelove

For those looking into the claims for the Traditional Text versus the Critical Text, it is vitally important that you don't misunderstand the issues. Men like James White use a cunning approach to call the entire Traditional Text into question by citing a handful (and it is a relative handful) of very difficult readings found in the Textus Receptus. Then, men with a more narrow commitment to the Textus Receptus than the Traditional Text positions actually demands step forward to defend those readings...and the man trying to decide between the two views think the matter is to be decided upon the matter of the most diffiuclt of cases. This is erroneous.

For instance, one can acknowledge skepticism for passages such as 1 John 5:7 while still being firmly in support of the Traditional Text over against the Critical Text. As a matter of fact, I am convinced that Traditional Text advocates need to stop falling for this tactic employed by men like James White. Until someone has come around to see the doctrinal merits of the Traditional Text position, discussions about the most difficult readings in the Textus Recptus are superfluous (and even unhelpful). All the discussion of difficult variants in the TR does is distract from the main point.

SO...it's pretty clear that Steve Rafalsky and myself may differ on how we would handle some of the difficult readings BUT we are both committed to the same doctrinal presuppositions. THAT is the main issue here. Don't let the arguments pertaining to individual readings side track you from the matter at hand.

I hope this is helpful.


----------



## MW

I agree with Pastor Truelove that opponents of the ecclesiastical text will use some readings to leverage their criticisms. That this is inequitable is proven by showing that other text critical theories have their problems also. The question is whether a particular text-critical position is able to effectively deal with the problems on its own terms. So far as the "ecclesiastical text" position is concerned, these so-called problem-readings are fully accounted for on the basis that "the church" has borne witness to them and thereby provided a transmissional history which justifies their inclusion in the received text. Unless one is going to commit exclusively to the eastern church and deny the claims of the western church or its reformation, one is bound to acknowledge the testimony of the western church as a part of the "ecclesiastical" text position.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Ken Avery,

I noted your mention of the Logos 6 Ancient Literature Tool earlier in this thread, and checked it out. It certainly seems an excellent program, though way beyond my means, being retired on a fixed income.

I have a request: would you please look up any ancient references to 2 Timothy 2:19, as I am searching for ancient attestations of the reading (as it is in the AV), "Let every one that nameth the name of _*Christ*_ depart from iniquity". The Critical Text has the word "Lord" instead of Christ, and Dr. White taunts AV folks with its poor attestation and supposed "indefensibility". I care not what language it may be in, whether Greek, Latin, Syriac, or whatever—nor where it may appear, whether a ms, lectionary, version, father, etc.

Thanks much for your help!

In Christ,

Steve


----------



## Bill The Baptist

The notes in the NKJV indicate that both the critical text and the majority text read "Lord", and Dr. Robinson's Greek Text also reads "Lord." Hendriksen indicates that this verse could be a compilation of Numbers 16:5 (The Lord knows who are his) and Numbers 16:26 (Depart from the tents of these wicked men). Regardless, surely by "Lord" Paul means "Christ".


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Steve,

Augustine uses the phrase frequently, a few of which are shown in the attached.

View attachment Augustine 2_Tim2_19.pdf


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

On Ephesians 1:18, *The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints* (Authorized Version / KJB)

“The eyes of your *understanding*” is the reading of the Reformation Bibles and the Traditional Textus Receptus and is found in Psi, 056, 075, 0142, 0150, 0151 (these from what are called the “Alphabet and O Uncial mss”)* and in the Greek texts of Stephanus 1550, Beza, Elzevir, Scrivener, and is so quoted by Cyril of Jerusalem in 386 A.D, Theodoret of Cyrus in 466, and Oecumenius of Thrace in the 6th century. It also appears in Lamsa’s Syriac Peshitta, and many other post-Reformation Bibles, both in English and other languages.

* [Dr. – and pastor – Jack Moorman, says of these, “The Alphabet and O uncials give important insights into the kind of manuscript that was being copied between the fifth and ninth centuries. They leave no question about the matter!” (_Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version: A Closer Look! (With Manuscript Digest and Summaries)_, p 21)


The major variant is that in the CT and many Greek mss it reads “the eyes of *your heart *”, though many of their mss omit “your”. Nowhere else in the Bible does this expression—“the eyes of your heart”—occur. Though it has similar constructions among the heathen philosophers: “Plato spoke about ‘eyes of the soul’; and Ovid, speaking of Pythagoras said: ‘with his mind he approached the gods, though far removed in heaven, and what nature denied to human sight, he drew forth with the eyes of his heart’ (_Vincent’s Word Studies_, p. 848)”, cited in Jack Moorman’s, _When the KJV Departs from the Majority Text_, 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Ed., p 71.

The Critical Text reading appears in Aleph A B D Dabs F G K L P, majority of cursives, most Old Latin, Vulgate, Syrian: pesh harc, Cop: sa bo

________

Some comments on this: first, we do not really _have_ the majority of cursive Greek manuscripts—here is a sentence from a thread dealing (in part) with the “majority text” manuscript situation:
What Moorman brings out, Von Soden's collating of the MSS was very incomplete, and relatively few of the thousands of MSS were represented. It was not in the least a depiction of how the majority of cursives read.​ 
If anyone want to look further into this, click on the thread linked to above, and go down about 10 paragraphs (a paragraph consisting of at least two lines) and start with the sentence reading, “Jack Moorman, in his book, _Hodges/Farstad 'Majority' Text Refuted By Evidence_”.

The so-called “majority text” (MT) is in actuality an illusion, as but a fraction of the cursive mss evidence has been collated and made available. The brief section referred to above examines that.

In *numerous* places the Critical Text relies on minority readings, and that many, many times more than the Textus Receptus underlying the King James does (another place to go into that). As both the CT and MT editions admit, their texts are but provisional—tentative—for they do not claim to have a _settled_ Bible. Is this what the Lord has promised to give us, a patchwork Bible constantly in need of being updated and revised? Is this what the LORD told Isaiah He would leave us:
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. (Isa 59:21)​ 
Having studied this matter of the texts for decades (I wasn’t always a KJV / TR man, but was considering other Bibles as far back as the 1980s), I have come to believe that the LORD fulfilled His promises for a preserved text—in Hebrew and Greek—and available in reliable translations in both English and other languages in the time of the Reformation. This understanding is a matter of both much study, *and faith*! So when I come across a reading in the KJV that has little _apparent_ attestation (for not all the cursives, or old mss that have been worn to death, are represented) I prefer to take it on faith that this Reformation Bible has been put together by the providence of God, overriding—or even using—the frailty of men and accidents of transmission, so that we would have His word, concerning which He assured us,
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away (Matt 24:35).​ 
What, only in Heaven His word is settled (Psalm 119:89), but not on Earth for men to whom it was written? We know that He said we *shall live* “*by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God*” (Matt 4:4); we also know that
*his divine power* *hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness*, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue (2 Pet 1:3).​ 
One of those things being *His every word we must live by!* These Scripture statements are equivalent to divine promises. If He has given to us words that are uncertain, in a text that is unsettled, and we confused about whether this statement or that statement is reliable and true, then it cannot be He has kept His word, His promises.

But I believe He *has* kept His word, and the only Bible that can possibly be is the Greek and Hebrew underlying the King James Bible. The editors—Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, the Elzevirs—_and_ the translators, with their various manuscripts, versions, and other sources of Scripture knowledge, all operated under the providential (not miraculous, in this case) hand of the all-wise and all powerful God, to deliver to us what He promised, by what unusual means He devised to that end. As I indicated in an earlier post in this thread, it just does not have His “signature” on it that the alleged “prize” of all manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus, was to be unveiled from the treasure house of antichrists, the blood of precious saints dripping from their wicked and violent hands.

No, I trust He did it right, in plain sight, apart from villainy. Even if there arise a verse, or phrase, or word, that has no apparent attestation anywhere, but is in the Authorized Version, and the mss underlying it (this includes the “back-engineered” 1894 Greek TR of Scrivener, as we don’t have the notes of the translators, destroyed in the great London fires, to point to their textual sources), I will take it on faith this is God’s word. Can I answer every single question put to me about this Bible—I probably can’t. But I will hold to this Book by faith in His promises. My other option is to hold to the MT editions, but they are admittedly provisional and uncertain, and I do not have the faith for that.

Can it be, that (according to my view) the age is rapidly winding down in crescendos of evil, our brothers’ and sisters’ blood in *many* countries soaking the ground, and our own affluent and high-tech lands in the West welling with a rising tide of depravity and hatred to Christ and His kingdom, and (note the tone of incredulity rising) we do not _yet_ have God’s promised word to us in a sure form?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

On Ephesians 3:9, *And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ*, (AV)

There are two major variants (and one minor, *all men*, which we shall skip) in this verse, the word *fellowship* in the AV/TR vs. *administration *or* plan *or* secret plan *or* dispensation* in the CT and the MT. The second major variant pertains to the last three words, *by Jesus Christ*, omitted in the CT but present in most all of the MT mss. First I’ll review Dr. Thomas Holland’s work (I do not believe this can be found in hardcopy), _Manuscript Evidence_, Lesson 10, “Textual Considerations”. He states:
The Textus Receptus uses the Greek word, _koinonia_ (fellowship). However, almost all Greek manuscripts of this passage use the Greek word, _oikonomia_ (dispensation or stewardship). To this, James White states,​
We have already noted the fact that the TR has a very unusual reading of "fellowship," found only in the margin of minuscule manuscript 31 and a few other very late manuscripts, rather than the reading of all uncials, 99% of the minuscules, and all the early Fathers, which have "administration." (White, _King James Only Controversy_, 179.)​
Although we may have cause to question the statistical information provided, White is correct in stating that almost all of the Greek manuscripts and Church Fathers used the word _oikonomia_ (administration). However, in addition to the minuscule manuscript 31, we may also add minuscule 57 (twelfth century) as using the word _koinonia_ (fellowship). Additionally, Metzger notes that, "a few other minuscules," contain the Greek word koinonia. (Bruce Metzger, _A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament_ [New York: United Bible Societies, 1968], 603.). Thus there are at least three or four Greek manuscripts which have the Greek word _koinonia_. In favor of the Greek word _oikonomia_, we have P46, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and the correctors of Codices D, G, K, L, and P. Among the minuscules 17, 37, and 47 support the use of _oikonomia_ instead of _koinonia_.

Early English versions, being based on the Textus Receptus of the Reformation, used the Greek word _koinonia_ and thus the English word fellowship. The much beloved Geneva Bible reads, "And to make cleare unto all men what the felowship of the mysterie is, which from the beginning of the worlde hathe bene hid in God, who hathe created all things by Jesus Christ."

_Oikonomia_ is translated as stewardship, administration, and dispensation in various modern versions in Ephesians 3:9. On the other hand the word, _koinonia_ is translated as fellowship (Acts 2:42), communion (2 Corinthians 6:14), contribution (Romans 15:26), and distribution (2 Corinthians 9:13) in the Authorized Version. There is a commonality here among these English words, and even among the two Greek words, for all of them reflect one who gives what he is a part of.

Dr. A. W. Thorold (Lord Bishop of Rochester) noted this in 1882. Commenting on Ephesians 3:9 he writes, " 'Fellowship.' or, dispensation, in making Gentiles fellow-heirs with the Jews." (A. W. Thorold, "The Epistle to the Ephesians," in _Commentary On The New Testament_, vol. 2 [London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1882].) John Locke tied fellowship, communication, and dispensation together in 1707. Locke cites the Authorized Version's reading of fellowship and then uses the meaning of communicated in his own paraphrase.​
_TiV h koinonia_, What is the Communication, i.e. that they may have light from me, to see and look into the Reason and Ground of the Discovery or Communication of this Mystery to them now by Jesus Christ, who is now exhibited to the World, into whose hands God has put the Management of this whole Dispensation. (John Locke, _A Paraphrase And Notes On The Epistles Of St. Paul To The Galatians, 1 And 2 Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians_, Arthur W. Wainwright ed., vol. 2 [1707; reprint, Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1987], 640-641.)​
Further, Dr. G. W. H. Lampe demonstrates that among the writings of the early Church Fathers, such as Justin Martyr and Clement, _koinonia_ carried the meaning of distribution and imparting. (G. W. H. Lampe, _A Patristic Greek Lexicon_ [Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1961], 764.) Still further, the English word fellowship carries this same meaning which demonstrates a mutual sharing. Thus, the Greek words and all the English words reflect the meaning of giving what we are partakers of, which is the meaning of the passage in Ephesians 3:9.

In light of the definition, the use of the words, and the textual support, it seems rather ridiculous to cite this passage as an example of errata in the King James Bible. This passage can hardly be compared to places in modern editions where the Traditional Text is rejected and whole verses are missing or the context is completely changed.

Source <http://www.wilderness-cry.net/bible_study/courses/mssevidence/> see Lesson 10​ 
[End Holland]
_________

What Dr. Holland is saying is that *fellowship* / koinonia and *administration* / oikonomia are, in this particular usage and at that time, synonymous—the sharing or giving to others what one is oneself partaker of. And that this is not a _conflict_ in meanings.

Looking through Spiros Zodhiates’ _The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament_, I see this confirmed; oikonomia (Strong’s #3622) has the usage of steward / servant (Luke 16:2), administration [of God’s grace] (Eph 3:2). Oikonomos, a house-manager, steward, overseer, figurative for minister (Strong’s #3623); and means to deal out, distribute, apportion; an administrator of goods or money—or as in Eph 3:2, the grace of God.

Koinonia (Strong’s #2842) has the meanings of sharing, contribution (Rom 15:26), communication / sharing (Philem 6), fellowship (Eph 3:9), distribution / ministry / service / ministration (2 Cor 9:13). Our fellowship / koinonia in the mystery of the gospel is our mutual participation in—Jews and Gentiles—and ministering to one another the riches of Christ.

Okay, there’s little doubt that oikonomia is by far the prevalent reading, and again I wonder why Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevirs—astute men all—went with the koinonia reading. We don’t know what mss or versions they had which guided them so, but I trust that God guided them by His providence, and as well the translators who were aware of the variant reading but chose “fellowship” nonetheless, and that the KJV reading is sound. _Many_ of the Reformation-era Bibles have the koinonia / fellowship reading. I’ll hold to the King James / TR in this.

This is a matter of using a minority *synonym*; I won’t go into the various Critical Text _extreme_ minority readings that outright omit or contradict the vast majority of mss many more times than the KJV / TR going with the minority, as I don’t want to divert attention from this defense.

As for the second variant, *by Jesus Christ*, this is a CT vs. MT *and* King James / TR reading. In _so_ many places the CT omits the names Jesus and Christ—someone just doesn’t like either of those names.

Will Kinney in his KJV defense articles page says,
The words “by Jesus Christ” are found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts in existence. In his book, _Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version, A Closer Look!_, Jack Moorman notes that this is the reading found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts plus [uncials] D correction, Dabs, K, L, 049, 056, 078, 0142, 0150 and 0151.​ 
[End Kinney]
______________

When the Critical Text versions, and even the far better Majority Text versions declare of themselves that they’re but provisional, tentative, continually subject to revision—I can’t place my trust in them. Okay, I know some do, and that with even the CT in “over four-fifths of the New Testament, the Greek text is considered 100% certain, regardless of which texttype might be favored by any critic.”* So whatever version one uses it has been preserved in the main, even if not in the minutiae, and is adequate to save and nurture both individual souls and entire congregations.

Still, I am comfortable in my mind and my heart using the Reformation Bible that held sway among the believing churches till the treachery that took place in the Jerusalem Chamber of the Church of England, back when Westcott and Hort did their evil deed. The sowing of the seeds of doubt and despair (for an uncertain Bible leads many to despair)—an enemy hath done this. I will hold to the Bible God gave the Reformation saints. It is sound.

* From the brilliant Introduction to _The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Byzantine/Majority Textform_, by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont.

Next: On 2 Timothy 2:19


----------



## Username3000

As someone who has vacillated between whether I should use the KJV or the ESV over the last few years, and having now landed firmly on the ESV, I can attest to having neither doubt nor despair due to my Bible. I too trust God's providential hand in its creation, and I too take it on faith that it is God's word. I don't appreciate the rhetoric this issue creates.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Since this thread is getting a pretty wide readership (James White's name is always a draw), I'd like to say that, while I differ with Dr. White on textual matters (and on baptism), I do appreciate the brother as a stand-up witness in a powerfully hostile world. Not only that, but he's a very good scholar (again, apart from textual issues) and theologian. I have a number of his books, and became aware of him back in the 1980s I think, in an article defending the deity of Christ—I do believe he had a flattop haircut back then.

We all of us need to have hearts of love to those brothers and sisters we differ with, if we are to abide in Christ and His commandments:
As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you (John 15:9-12).​
I know this will upset many KJV defenders—my standing up for James—as they perceive him an enemy attacking their precious Bibles. He attacks my Bible too, but I'm not threatened by him and his views. This is simply a disagreement between brothers and friends. I'm secure in my stand. Now I don't believe I could stand up to James White in an actual (verbal) debate 'cause I'm sort of slow on my feet repartee-wise. I could handle hecklers if I were street preaching (the Lord giving me grace), but to deal with intricate textual matters in a scholarly debate, no. I'm better at studying and writing.

I bring this up because my view is that we are entering into a period where the true church is going to enter into real difficulty, both from the culture and from judgments meted against said culture by our Saviour and King—and the Lord wants His people to be real disciples, keeping His commandments. I think we all know that to Him the basic commandments are to love God and our neighbor, especially our brother. James White is a brother. When/if the beast tells him he has to shut his mouth or suffer pain or prison, you know the man will look to his God and continue to bear witness. May I do as well in like circumstances. Our brethren (including sisters) around the world are doing this now, their blood soaking the earth. We shall not be exempt from the trials to come, nor are they afar off.

Just a word to the wise.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Not all are like you, Elijah. God has given you grace in the matter. As a pastor and teacher I have seen much of the "doubt and despair"—and that on three continents; nor is it but "rhetoric", the things I say—I speak from my heart, and with knowledge. In fact, I cannot see how anyone could be unaware of the impact an uncertain Scripture has on multitudes.


----------



## God'sElectSaint

E.R. CROSS said:


> I don't appreciate the rhetoric this issue creates.


Elijah I would agree the rhetoric is a shame but it is an issue that must be addressed by any serious bible student. Which obviously you have tackled this matter yourself and now have confidence in your conclusion. I am a KJV advocate myself but I don't think it's perfect and i personally as Pastor Truelove stated in his video wouldn't tell anyone to stop reading their bible. I think pastor Truelove showed quite a bit of grace in this video and a reasonable argument. I hold a similar view at the moment on the text as him. But there are those on the fringe for both sides though. And much of their rhetoric is not edifying. But that said I don't think these Ruckmanite types nullify the ET position to which I and many reformed brethren firmly hold to.


----------



## Username3000

Well spoken brothers. Please forgive me for the rhetoric comment.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

*2 Timothy 2:19* Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of* Christ* depart from iniquity.

The CT and MT have *the Lord* instead of* Christ*. 

The reading found in the King James Bible is in the Greek texts of Erasmus 1516, Stephanus 1550, Beza 1598, Elzevir 1624, and the “back-engineered” Scrivener 1894. In the early “Alphabet and O” uncials it may be found in Psi, 048, 056, 075, 0142 and 0150. I repeat what I quoted from Dr. – and pastor – Jack Moorman, concerning these, “The Alphabet and O uncials give important insights into the kind of manuscript that was being copied between the fifth and ninth centuries. They leave no question about the matter!” (_Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version: A Closer Look! (With Manuscript Digest and Summaries)_, p 21.) Four of these six uncials were witnesses also for the AV reading in Ephesians 1:18 discussed above.

The Reformation Bibles that read like the KJB with “the name of Christ” are Tyndale 1534, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Geneva Bible 1587, and Beza’s New Testament 1599.

The CT and MT reading is found in Aleph A C D dabs F G K L P, and majority of cursives, d e f g of the Old Latin, in the Vulgate, the Syriac pesh harc, the Coptic sa bo, and Gothic Arminian and Ethiopian.

An interesting aspect of this is that Augustine used the 2 Tim 2:19 reading of “Let every one that nameth the name of* Christ* depart from iniquity” numerous times in his writings. Looking in my hardcopy of the Post-Nicene Fathers (by Schaff) I found four uses of it (and I didn’t even get through half of his writings). Some friends using the Logos 6 Ancient Literature Tool found nine uses of it in Augustine, but I won’t list all of them here (unless requested).

In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol 3, in Doctrinal Treatises, On the Catechizing of the Uninstructed, Augustine uses the Scripture, “For the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His; and, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.” p 295.

In Vol 4 of the First Series, in On Baptism, Against the Donatists, again he uses the phrase, “let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity”, p 455. In the same treatise he uses the phrase again on pages 455 and 456. I could go on, but for space’s sake I cease.

Evidently Augustine believed that this was the true reading, and it was prevalent in the (probably Old Latin) Scriptures he had at hand.

I repeat what I said above concerning Eph 3:9: “I wonder why Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevirs—astute men all—went with [this minority reading]. We don’t know what mss or versions or Fathers they had which guided them so”. But they, *and* the 1611 translators, exercising their well-informed judgment, settled on the reading, “let every one that nameth the name of *Christ* depart from iniquity” as being the authentic one. I said above, I can’t answer every question put to me about how God’s providence operated, but I believe it did so as to give us what He commanded of His servant Jeremiah:
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* [emphasis added] (Jer 26:2).​ 
If He could command Jeremiah not to diminish a word of what He spoke, would He not abide by that perfect standard Himself, He who “who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will” (Eph 1:11)? The Almighty and all-wise, could He not preserve a Book of His precious words to His beloved elect people, perfect in its entirety? A friend asked this of me recently, “can you explain exactly why you hold so dearly to the AV and how accurate you deem it to be?”

There are two schools of thought on this matter of preservation in the minutiae, one exemplified by Dr. E.F. Hills, the Harvard-educated textual critic (author of _The King James Version __Defended_, and _Believing Bible Study_), who said he thought there were only three (3) errors in the Greek text of the KJV. And then there are men like Dr. Thomas Holland and Will Kinney who assert there are no errors, and labor to demonstrate that. I ponder them both, and lean toward Holland and Kinney, believing that the Almighty can (_if He wanted_) preserve His word perfectly by His wondrous providence and wisdom. Did He _want_ to?
The words of the LORD are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever (Psalm 12:6, 7).​ 
Of course this passage is contested in its reading, but the truth is that even as far back as ancient rabbinic literature there have been two divergent views of what the Psalm is speaking of, the people of God, or the words of the LORD. A fair take on the matter:
However, there has always been ambiguity in this passage. I believe the ambiguity is placed here because God will preserve both the people, and His words. In fact that is the theme of Peter Van Kleeck, in _The Genius of Ambiguity_ . He summarizes,​
“…the only sure conclusion is that there is no consensus within the English Bible tradition for the interpretation of “them” in Psalm 12:7 and it was precisely this lack of agreement within the tradition which was the genius of the ambiguity of the King James Version’s rendering. … by choosing a Greek-Latin basis the modern versions elect to overlook the Reformation’s Hebrew basis for translation in Psalm 12:6-7; and the churchly tradition in the new versions is censored by not including a translation that is broad enough to include both interpretations–oppressed people and God’s words.”​ 
In sum: I think I have shown that the passages James White has asserted are “indefensible” are indeed defensible, no doubt not to the satisfaction of those demanding “scientific” and “neutral” evidences which trump faith, but certainly reasonable to those whose faith extends to God’s ability to do what seems impossible to men: preserve His precious word even to the minutiae, so that we may hold it in hand rather than hold an abstract theory of a preserved word in a vast pile of mss like a needle in a haystack, but which our experts (some of whom are unbelievers) will provisionally $ort out for us through their advanced $cholar$hip.

E.F. Hills speaks of the matter thus,
Has the text of the New Testament, like those of other ancient books, been damaged during its voyage over the seas of time? Ought the same methods of textual criticism to be applied to it that are applied to the texts of other ancient books? These are questions which the following pages will endeavor to answer. An earnest effort will be made to convince the Christian reader that this is a matter to which he must attend. For in the realm of New Testament textual criticism as well as in other fields the presuppositions of modern thought are hostile to the historic Christian faith and will destroy it if their fatal operation is not checked. If faithful Christians, therefore, would defend their sacred religion against this danger, they must forsake the foundations of unbelieving thought and build upon their faith, a faith that rests entirely on the solid rock of holy Scripture. And when they do this in the sphere of New Testament textual criticism, they will find themselves led back step by step (perhaps, at first, against their wills) to the text of the Protestant Reformation, namely, that form of New Testament text which underlies the King James Version and the other early Protestant translations. (_King James Version Defended_, p 1)

​


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Although I have spoken of five texts James referred to as “indefensible” and have given them fair defenses, I have one more to speak of. Part of James’ strategy was to choose texts that had little Byzantine support, and then deny the relevance of the Old Latin witnesses (which latter view of his has been demonstrated as invalid by even CT textual critics, as shown above). From his point of view regarding how God’s providence worked I can understand his believing this, though I strongly disagree—and will give a reason or two shortly. But James made one further remark I wanted to briefly address (insofar as I am capable of being brief!); he said,
“This is where I draw the line. If you defend the Comma, you have no basis whatsoever . . . for assuring anybody with a straight face you have the original readings.

“If an entire vitally important theologically relevant text can completely disappear from the Greek manuscript tradition, then there’s no reason to believe we continue to have the original reading. . . And when I encounter someone who is willing to go to the mat in defense of the Comma I know I am dealing with a zealot who’s going to be holding to views that will be detrimental to anyone who’s trying to defend the faith in the context that we’re called to minister today, and that is in an extremely anti-Christian culture that is _soaked_ with the false information and the anti-Biblical presuppositions of the Bart Ehrmans of the world.”​ 
First, argumentum ad hominem is counter-productive, though I am sure James’ exasperation quota is overfull given the limits he places on what he considers relevant textual data, and some of the abuse he has to deal with; second, I must say he is *not* the Final Word on apologetic methods despite his being one of the foremost Christian apologists—that is, this standing does not per se baptize his views and methods as paragons of orthodoxy. He may be one of the best, but this does not mean that all his views are right.

Dictionary definition of Zealot: “a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.” “Fanatical” may include excessive, obsessive, extremist, intolerant, close-minded, doctrinaire / authoritarian and holding to ideas to the extent of valuing them more than people.

I certainly wouldn’t characterize myself “a zealot”—though I might well say I’m zealous, that is, dedicated and passionate regarding the textual issue facing the church of Christ. Zeal and zealous are good Biblical words!

I also note, in other discussions, folks such as myself—in the company of EF Hills, Thomas Holland, and others who, in _scholarly_ and _irenic_ fashion, believe the Reformation-era King James Bible is the best we’ve been given—are pejoratively termed proponents of “KJVOism” and part of the “KJVO crowd” as though we were a cult or fringe group. This dismissive labeling of scholarly AV pastors and teachers is really unworthy of Reformed scholarly discourse. But then even the church is touched by the meanness permeating the general culture’s “conversational style”. Odd that to hold to the confessional views in this brave new world of 2015 (imagine what 2020 might bring!) gives one to be called a “zealot” and utterly inadequate to give a credible apology to the Faith and its Bible. Yet the Johannine Comma was cited a proof text for the Trinity in the following confessions:

*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

The framers of—and early adherents to—these confessions were zealots, and James White “draws the line” against _them_? What sort of days are we in for such things to be said!?

Back to the Comma. I may not lead with those verses in discussions about the original readings with new Christians, or in speaking of the true Bible texts, but I have no qualms whatever affirming my belief they are original, and am capable of looking at the history of the textual transmission in the early centuries and seeking to discern what happened to remove this passage from most of the Greek manuscripts.

Harvard text critic and AV / TR defender, E.F. Hills, says this of the early centuries’ situation re the Comma,
In the second place, it must be remembered that during the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] and 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] centuries (between 220 and 270, according to Harnack)[SUP]37[/SUP] the heresy which orthodox Christians were called upon to combat was not Arianism (since this error had not yet arisen) but Sabellianism (so named after Sabellius, one of its principal promoters), according to which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were one in the sense that they were identical. Those that advocated this heretical view were called _Patripassians _(Father-sufferers), because they believed that God the Father, being identical with Christ, suffered and died upon the cross, and _Monarchians, _because they claimed to uphold the Monarchy (sole-government) of God.

It is possible, therefore, that the Sabellian heresy brought the _Johannine comma _into disfavor with orthodox Christians. The statement, _these three are one, _no doubt seemed to them to teach the Sabellian view that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were identical. And if during the course of the controversy manuscripts were discovered which had lost this reading in the accidental manner described above, it is easy to see how the orthodox party would consider these mutilated manuscripts to represent the true text and regard the _Johannine comma _as a heretical addition. In the Greek-speaking East especially the _comma _would be unanimously rejected, for here the struggle against Sabellianism was particularly severe.

Thus it was not impossible that during the 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] century amid the stress and strain of the Sabellian controversy, the _Johannine comma _lost its place in the Greek text, but was preserved in the Latin texts of Africa and Spain, where the influence of Sabellianism was probably not so great. In other words, it is not impossible that the _Johannine comma _was one of those few true readings of the Latin Vulgate not occurring in the Traditional Greek Text but incorporated into the Textus Receptus under the guiding providence of God. In these rare instances God called upon the usage of the Latin-speaking Church to correct the usage of the Greek speaking Church. (EF Hills, _The KJV Defended_, Chapter 8, pp 212, 213)

[SUP]37[/SUP] _New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge_, Article, “Monarchianism.”​ 
[end Hills]
_________

I saw on a textual discussion board once a person lightly dismiss me because I used Frederick Nolan’s monumental work, _An Inquiry into The Integrity of the Greek Vulgate Or Received Text of the New Testament_ [multiple formats]. Perhaps Nolan (1784–1864) is not that well known or appreciated these days, but he was one of the foremost text critics to oppose Johann Griesbach (1745-1812) and his Greek text which had readings differing from the Received Text, one of the readings being the Johannine Comma (and others affirming the deity of Christ). Which led to Nolan’s investigation of the “Greek Vulgate or Received Text”. Two of Griesbach’s textual rules were, “The most suspicious reading of all is the one that yields a sense favorable to the nourishment of piety (especially monastic piety)”; and, “When there are variant readings in one place, that reading which more than the others manifestly favors the dogmas of the orthodox is deservedly regarded as suspicious.” (_Novum Testamentum, Graece_, 2nd edition, 1809, vol. 1, pp. 75-82; Cited in Hills, KJVD, p 65)

I will excerpt from a longer post on Nolan’s search for ancient mss containing, as he termed them, “the heavenly witnesses” :
On 1 John v.7 we may cite [its use in] Tertullian in the age next the apostolical, and St. Cyprian in the subsequent era. In the following age, we may quote Phoebadius, Marcus Celedensis, and Idatius Clarus; and in the succeeding age, Eucherius, Victor Vitensis, and Vigilius Tapsensis. Fulgentius and Cassiodorus occur in the next age; and Maximus in the subsequent: to whom we might add many others, or indeed the whole of the Western Church, who, after this period, generally adopted this verse in their authorized version…

With respect to 1 John v.7 the case is materially different [than the cases of 1 Tim 3:16 and Acts 20:28]. If this verse be received, it must be admitted on the single testimony of the Western Church; as far at least as respects the external evidence. And though it may seem unwarrantable to set aside the authority of the Greek Church, and pay exclusive respect to the Latin, where a question arises on the authenticity of a passage which properly belongs to the text of the former; yet when the doctrine inculcated in that passage is taken into account, there may be good reason for giving even a preference to the Western Church over that of the Eastern. The former was uncorrupted by the heresy of the Arians, who rejected the doctrine of the passage in question; the latter was wholly resigned to that heresy for at least forty years, while the Western Church retained its purity. And while the testimony borne by the latter on the subject before us, is consistent and full; that borne by the former is internally defective. It is delivered in language, which has not even the merit of being grammatically correct; while the testimony of the latter is not only unexceptional in itself, but possesses the singular merit of removing the forementioned imperfection, on being merely turned into Greek, and inserted in the context of the original. But numberless circumstances conspire to strengthen the authority of the Latin Church in supporting the authenticity of this passage. The particular Church on whose testimony principally we receive the disputed verse, is that of Africa. And even at the first sight, it must be evident, that the most implicit respect is due to its testimony.

In those great convulsions which agitated the Eastern and Western Churches, for eight years, with scarcely any intermission; and which subjected the sacred text to the greatest changes, through the vast tract of country which extends round the Levant, from Libya to Illyricum, the African provinces were exposed to the horrours of persecution but for an inconsiderable period. The Church, of course, which was established in this region, neither required a new supply of sacred books, nor received those which had been revised by Eusebius and St. Jerome; as removed out of the range of the influence of those ancient fathers.

As the African Church possessed this competency to deliver a pure unsophisticated testimony on the subject before us; that which it has borne is as explicit as it is plenary: since it is delivered in a Confession prepared by the whole church assembled in council. After the African provinces had been over-run by the Vandals, Hunnerick, their king, summoned the bishops of this church, and of the adjacent isles, to deliberate on the doctrine inculcated in the disputed passage. Between three and four hundred prelates attended the Council, which met at Carthage; and Eugenius, as bishop of that see, drew up the Confession of the orthodox, in which the contested verse is expressly quoted. That a whole church should thus concur in quoting a verse which was not contained in the received text, is wholly inconceivable: and admitting that 1 John v.7 was generally thus received, its universal presence in that text is only to be accounted for by supposing it to have existed in it from the beginning.

The testimony which the African church has borne on the subject before us, is not more strongly recommended by the universal consent, than the immemorial tradition of the evidence, which attests the authenticity of the contested passage. Victor Vitensis and Fulgentius, Marcus Celedensis, St. Cyprian, and Tertullian, were Africans, and have referred to the verse before us. Of these witnesses, which follow each other at almost equal intervals, the first is referred to the age of Eugenius, the last to that nearly of the Apostles. Thus they form a traditionary chain, carrying up the testimony of the African Church, until it loses itself in time immemorial.

The testimony of the African Church, which possesses these strong recommendations, receives confirmation from the corroborating evidence of other churches, which were similarly circumstanced. Phoebadius and Eucherius, the latter of whom had been translated from the Spanish to the Gallican Church, were members of the latter; and both these churches had been exempt, not less than the African, from the effects of Dioclesian’s persecution. Both these early fathers, Phoebadius and Eucherius, attest the authenticity of the contested passage: the testimony of the former is entitled to greater respect, as he boldly withstood the authority of Hosius, whose influence tended to extend the Arian opinions in the Western world, at the very period in which he cited the contested passage. In addition to these witnesses we have, in the testimony of Maximus, the evidence of a person, who visited the African Church; and who there becoming acquainted with the disputed passage, wrote a tract for the purpose of employing it against the Arians. The testimony of these witnesses forms a valuable accession to that of the African Church.

We may appeal to the testimony of the Greek Church in confirmation of the African Churches. Not to insist on positive testimonies, the disputed verse, though not supported by the text of the original Greek, is clearly supported by its _context_. The latter does not agree so well with itself, as it does with the testimony of the African Church. *The grammatical structure, which is imperfect in itself, directly recovers its original integrity, on being filled up with the passage which is offered on the testimony of this witness.* Thus far the testimony of the Greek Church is plainly corroborative of that of the Western…

…I shall now venture to conclude, that the doctrinal integrity of the Greek Vulgate is established, in the vindication of these passages. It has been my endeavor to rest it upon its natural basis; the testimony of the two Churches, in the eastern and western world, in whose keeping the sacred trust was reposed…[4] [Bold emphasis added.]​ 
In this unusual demonstration Frederick Nolan has shown how major portions of the Christian Church did not lose the use – *the presence* – of this verse in their Bibles. It is clear this is not a “well-meant” but unlawful addition to God’s Word, but a part of it that stood in John’s 1st Epistle from the beginning.

To conclude Nolan’s contribution to our investigation on what is authentic and what is false regarding the texts, some of his own conclusions are drawn from his preface:
Another point to which the author has directed his attention, has been the old Italick translation…on this subject, the author perceived, without any labour of inquiry, that it derived its name from that diocese, which has been termed the Italick, as contradistinguished from the Roman. This is a supposition, which receives a sufficient confirmation from the fact,—that the principal copies of that version have been preserved in that diocese, the metropolitan church of which was situated in Milan. The circumstance is at present mentioned, as the authour thence formed a hope, that some remains of the primitive Italick version might be found in the early translations made by the Waldenses, who were the lineal descendants of the Italick Church; and who have asserted their independence against the usurpations of the Church of Rome, and have ever enjoyed the free use of the Scriptures. In the search to which these considerations have led the authour, his fondest expectations have been fully realized. It has furnished him with abundant proof on that point to which his Inquiry was chiefly directed; *as it has supplied him with the unequivocal testimony of a truly apostolical branch of the primitive church, that the celebrated text of the heavenly witnesses was adopted in the version which prevailed in the Latin Church, previously to the introduction of the Modern Vulgate.* [5] [Emphasis added]​ 
In a lengthy footnote at this point, he documents the progress of the text of this primitive Italick version up into the mountain communities of the Waldenses and into the French language in a number of texts, and he states, *“It thus easily made its way into Wicklef’s translation, through the Lollards, who were disciples of the Waldenses.”* [Emphasis added] [6]

4 _Inquiry Into the Integrity Of the Greek Vulgate, Or Received Text Of the New Testament; in which the Greek Manuscripts are newly classed; the Integrity of the Authorised Text vindicated; and the Various Readings traced to their Origin_, by Fredrick Nolan (London: F.C. and J. Rivington, 1815), pages 291, 292, 293-305, 306.
5 Ibid., pages xvii, xviii.
6 Ibid., Footnote #1, pages xviii, xix.

[End Nolan]
____________

I could go on, but I said I would be brief (after my own fashion). I really do consider the Johannine Comma to have far greater attestation than many other contested verses in the preserved TR / AV, and have not even a shade of doubt concerning it. It is a wonderful thing to defend this precious word of God with full confidence.

_____________


A pertinent quote attributed to Tim Keller: “Tolerance isn’t about not having beliefs. It’s about how your beliefs lead you to treat people who disagree with you.” Would we all took this to heart! Remember the Lord's warning:*
And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another . . . And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold (Matt 24:10, 12).*​
Let not such be said of us who are His.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I desire this to be my last post in this thread, for although I have enjoyed it, I have my own book to work on—and send out into the world.


----------

