# Dr. Maurice Robinson — Recent Interview on Evangelical Textual Criticism blog



## Robert Truelove

I thought you guys would be interested in this...

ETC Interview with Maurice Robinson: Part 1
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2015/08/etc-interview-with-maurice-robinson.html


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Excellent stuff. Thank you for sharing.


----------



## Logan

A very enjoyable read, thank you.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Fascinating.


----------



## Logan

Having not read much by Robinson, I hunted around and found a few articles, a good three-parter is here:



And then of course his "Case for Byzantine Priority", which I found fascinating. He makes a lot of good points and criticisms about the Critical Text, but also will be quick to point out faults in the Textus Receptus family as well (in this he reminds me of Scrivener). He has a lot of good things to say and this is an area of study that I would love to see more work being done in. I have a lot of sympathy for his position.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Thanks for the interview, Robert, very interesting. And thanks to you also, Logan, for the interview you posted a link to. I've found Dr. Robinson—with whom I've corresponded a few times—a real gentleman, and gracious to those he disagrees with. I think of him as the foremost textual scholar of our time.

This article is the Introduction to his and Pierpont's Byzantine Greek Textform: http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/RobPier.html.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

What is Dr. Robinson's take on the Comma?


----------



## Logan

He argues that the textual evidence for the Comma just isn't there, and so doesn't belong. From what I've read though, he does argue for the Pericope Adulterae, though I haven't looked into his reasoning.

I don't know what his position is on the ending of Mark.

Overall, I find his approach very common-sensical. 'The Case for Byzantine Priority' is a good read, as he talks about some of the assumptions text critics make and why he disagrees on certain points. He is very much a "show me the evidence" guy.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Logan said:


> He argues that the textual evidence for the Comma just isn't there, and so doesn't belong. From what I've read though, he does argue for the Pericope Adulterae, though I haven't looked into his reasoning.
> 
> I don't know what his position is on the ending of Mark.
> 
> Overall, I find his approach very common-sensical. 'The Case for Byzantine Priority' is a good read, as he talks about some of the assumptions text critics make and why he disagrees on certain points. He is very much a "show me the evidence" guy.



It's interesting. The reason I ask is that he takes a position on "Church use" that has, in my mind, a sensible factor in textual decisions but he also sticks to Greek manuscripts. It seems his position would be in fundamental tension with a TR perspective because he doesn't give sufficient weight to a particular period of Church history to accept Vulgate readings into the manuscript tradition. In other words, if the Byzantine tradition is trustworthy due to its regular Church use then readings that cannot be found in the byzantine manuscript family then the argument for Vulgate readings seem to fundamentally undermine the stability of the Byzantine argument.


----------



## Logan

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, but it is true that Dr Robinson is not a "TR man". I'm pretty certain he wouldn't accept Vulgate readings and isn't so much an "ecclesiastical text" person (i.e., favoring those texts in use by the church) as he is a textual critic who collates all texts (Alexandrian included) but believes the Byzantine family to be the most accurate in the main.

Ecclesiastical Text
Majority Text
Byzantine Priority
Textus Receptus

The terms seem to have some distinctions but also some overlap


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Logan said:


> He argues that the textual evidence for the Comma just isn't there, and so doesn't belong. From what I've read though, he does argue for the Pericope Adulterae, though I haven't looked into his reasoning.



His reasoning is that it is present in over 900 manuscripts, while the Comma is only present in 4. This is not to say that this makes the Comma invalid, just that this is his reasoning.


----------



## Logan

Bill The Baptist said:


> His reasoning is that it is present in over 900 manuscripts, while the Comma is only present in 4.



To expand on that a little, he eschews just counting noses. If I recall correctly, he just doesn't believe, like Hills, that it would have been "lost"; that a true reading would be persistent. That's my understanding at least.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Logan said:


> I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, but it is true that Dr Robinson is not a "TR man". I'm pretty certain he wouldn't accept Vulgate readings and isn't so much an "ecclesiastical text" person (i.e., favoring those texts in use by the church) as he is a textual critic who collates all texts (Alexandrian included) but believes the Byzantine family to be the most accurate in the main.
> 
> Ecclesiastical Text
> Majority Text
> Byzantine Priority
> Textus Receptus
> 
> The terms seem to have some distinctions but also some overlap



If you read the intro to his Byzantine textual work he does make some sort of an Ecclesiastical text argument that the readings that are in use by the Church are to be preferred to some sort of cobbling together of words in an ad hoc fashion.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Semper Fidelis said:


> Logan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, but it is true that Dr Robinson is not a "TR man". I'm pretty certain he wouldn't accept Vulgate readings and isn't so much an "ecclesiastical text" person (i.e., favoring those texts in use by the church) as he is a textual critic who collates all texts (Alexandrian included) but believes the Byzantine family to be the most accurate in the main.
> Ecclesiastical Text
> Majority Text
> Byzantine Priority
> Textus Receptus
> 
> The terms seem to have some distinctions but also some overlap
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you read the intro to his Byzantine textual work he does make some sort of an Ecclesiastical text argument that the readings that are in use by the Church are to be preferred to some sort of cobbling together of words in an ad hoc fashion.
Click to expand...


One of his main issues with the CT is the excessive eclecticism that has resulted in hundreds of readings that have no textual basis in any manuscript anywhere. This is not to suggest that these readings are completely out of left field, just that the exact word order they have chosen cannot be found in any manuscript, which is rather odd considering the CT's claim to be a reconstruction of the original Greek.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I agree Bill...



> Byzantine-priority functions within the framework of a predominantly transmissional approach, and stands as a legitimate alternative to the methods and results currently espoused by modern eclecticism. Rather than creating a preferred text on a variant-by-variant basis, Byzantine-priority seeks first the establishment of a viable history of textual transmission. Transcriptional and transmissional probabilities are then applied to the external data, which then is supplemented by various internal criteria. The resultant text reflects a defined level of agreement supported by a general transmissional continuity throughout all portions of the Greek New Testament.
> Byzantine-priority differs from other theories and methods within New Testament textual criticism: the object is not the reconstruction of an “original” text that lacks demonstrable continuity or widespread existence among the extant manuscript base; nor is the object the restoration or recovery of an “original” text long presumed to have been “lost.” Neither should the concept of an archetypal autograph be abandoned as hopeless. Rather, Byzantine-priority presents as canonical the Greek New Testament text as it has been attested, preserved, and maintained by scribes throughout the centuries. This transmissional basis characterizes the Byzantine-priority theory.
> 
> 
> The New Testament in the original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005, with morphology. (2006). (p. vii). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.



The point is that he is making sort of a "here's what is actually in use..." position. It assumes the Church has transmitted the original readings through the Scribes. It's not an Ecclesiastical Text position per se but the underlying assumption is that what is in regular use is what is original.

He notes also in his conclusion:



> Since the divine method of autograph preservation resides in the totality of the extant Greek evidence, the strongest claimant for autograph originality remains the general consensus text preserved among that material. The New Testament text thus can be established securely and presented accurately by a proper use of the existing data. The Christian need only apply sound principles of evidence—transmissional, transcriptional, external, and internal—and frame these within a properly nuanced theory and praxis of textual criticism that avoids the hazards of subjective speculation. By these means the autograph text preserved among the extant witnesses readily can be recognized and established. While diligent labor, careful research, and a systematic methodology is required for optimal results, the establishment of the basic consensus text remains a clear and simple task. A consensus-based text—derived from the entire body of extant Greek witnesses—is fully compatible with the concept of a benevolent overarching providence that has maintained the autographs in their basic integrity by means of normal transmission.
> No additional visible means of propagation was necessary to guarantee the integrity of the sacred originals. The testimony of the autographs has been preserved by means of independent transmission, scattered over a wide geographical area, amid a multitude of witnesses that span many centuries. The consensus Byzantine Textform thus is established by cooperation without collusion, requiring no imposition of external ecclesiastical authority. Special pleading is not demanded in order to maintain this perspective: everything corresponds to the extant preserved evidence.
> The recognition of autograph originality amid the preserved Greek transmissional consensus found in the Byzantine Textform is far more reasonable than a multitude of conflicting speculations derived from various forms of eclectic methodology. The consensus-based approach does not appeal to favored individual manuscripts, local texts, or minority regional texttypes, nor to subjective internal criteria that adopt an amalgam of individual readings with ever-changing degrees of minority support. The appeal is to the combined evidence that has been preserved among the extant Greek witnesses.
> 
> 
> The New Testament in the original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005, with morphology. (2006). (pp. xxii–xxiii). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.



So his view rejects both the CT and TR theories. In the former case he finds the CT approach ad hoc in how they sort of make a "Frankenstein" out of certain pericopes. In the case of the TR, he is not persuaded that readings could have dropped out of the Greek manuscript tradition.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

He does defend the last 12 verses of Mark: _Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views_


----------



## MW

Semper Fidelis said:


> In other words, if the Byzantine tradition is trustworthy due to its regular Church use then readings that cannot be found in the byzantine manuscript family then the argument for Vulgate readings seem to fundamentally undermine the stability of the Byzantine argument.



Yes, very perceptive. The theory claims an empirical basis but fails to establish itself by means of an impartial empirical observation of the manuscripts; it also requires a "providential" interpretation of the manuscripts which simply guesses that the Byzantine stream must be the most pure. At the same time I can appreciate that the Byzantine approach is giving this stream of mss. the attention it deserves and shows that there is a stable transmission history behind the so-called "majority" readings.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Logan said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> His reasoning is that it is present in over 900 manuscripts, while the Comma is only present in 4.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To expand on that a little, he eschews just counting noses. If I recall correctly, he just doesn't believe, like Hills, that it would have been "lost"; that a true reading would be persistent. That's my understanding at least.
Click to expand...


Yes I believe you are correct. As you said, he doesn't believe in simply counting noses, but he does believe that any workable theory of textual criticism will also take into account the reality of how the text was actually transmitted.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

MW said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, if the Byzantine tradition is trustworthy due to its regular Church use then readings that cannot be found in the byzantine manuscript family then the argument for Vulgate readings seem to fundamentally undermine the stability of the Byzantine argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, very perceptive. The theory claims an empirical basis but fails to establish itself by means of an impartial empirical observation of the manuscripts; it also requires a "providential" interpretation of the manuscripts which simply guesses that the Byzantine stream must be the most pure. At the same time I can appreciate that the Byzantine approach is giving this stream of mss. the attention it deserves and shows that there is a stable transmission history behind the so-called "majority" readings.
Click to expand...


I'm glad someone sees my point. 

If Dr. Robinson's textual critical approach is correct then we have a Greek manuscript tradition and do not need to appeal to readings found outside that manuscript tradition to find "lost readings" that survived in the Vulgate to reconstruct a pure text. This would clearly mean the loss of the Comma regardless of how much Ecclesiastical tradition surrounds that text.

In other words, Dr. Robinsons's approach is fatal to the TR position and vice versa.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

"In other words, Dr. Robinsons's approach is fatal to the TR position and vice versa."​
However valuable Dr. R's (and other Byz scholars') approach to the text critical endeavor, it remains that the two camps fall into either faith-based or reason-based positions. The reason-based disdain the faith-based vehemently, though the faith-based do treasure the Byz reason-based, though not the CT reason-based, yet acknowledging it does have much true value.

But in our presuppositions, based upon God's word, we—the faith-based—stand. And in good company.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Jerusalem Blade said:


> "In other words, Dr. Robinsons's approach is fatal to the TR position and vice versa."​
> However valuable Dr. R's (and other Byz scholars') approach to the text critical endeavor, it remains that the two camps fall into either faith-based or reason-based positions. The reason-based disdain the faith-based vehemently, though the faith-based do treasure the Byz reason-based, though not the CT reason-based, yet acknowledging it does have much true value.
> 
> But in our presuppositions, based upon God's word, we—the faith-based—stand. And in good company.



Although you may wish to have a corner on what is "faith based" and what is "reason based" I don't believe you own this designation. Dr. Robinson trusts in the preservation of the text. It his belief in the preservation of the text by Providence that he believes that the Greek manuscript tradition did not lose anything. It is your belief in a particular account of preservation that certain verses were lost to Greek manuscript tradition but were recovered by Erasmus et al in the 16th century.


----------



## MW

Semper Fidelis said:


> In other words, Dr. Robinsons's approach is fatal to the TR position and vice versa.



Agreed. It is fatal to any textual position which does not agree with him. 

Seriously, though, his justification for landing on the Byzantine family is a presupposition concerning preservation of manuscripts. From there he begins his empirical observations and these observations confirm his presupposition. No pure empiricist is going to find this an adequate approach for handling text-critical problems (although the pure empiricist is negligent of his own presupppositions). On the other side, I don't see why a believer in God's providence must be bound to think in terms of manuscript preservation which, as vast as it is in archaeological terms, is still a rather small percentage of the actual manuscripts which would have been produced. Having said that, it is good to see work being done on the transmission history of this stream of mss. given its neglect in text-critical studies. I just don't see it as definitive or determinative for faith.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

You’re surely right, Rich, I don’t “own this designation”, and right also that Dr. Robinson does have his own view of it, as he elaborates here:
The other matter — “divine preservation” — seems rarely to have been a major issue until the rise of the so-called “KJV-only” faction during the 1970s and beyond. Those few evangelical writers who made any statement regarding “divine” or “providential” preservation generally accepted that concept as applying to _any_ Greek nt manuscript or text, whether the tr, Westcott-Hort, or any other. The nt textual witnesses in their aggregate were considered to reflect the “providentially preserved” text. As with Biblical inerrancy, one can affirm providential preservation as permeating _all_ biblical documents and editions, with _no_ required limitation of either inerrancy or preservation to a single manuscript, texttype, edition, or translation. The _real_ issue regarding the original Greek text remains a matter of _theory_ and _evidence,_ best served _without_ the imposition of extraneous _a priori_ theological assumptions that predetermine textual decisions and force the adoption of certain variant readings on grounds ultimately theological and not text-critical. (From the Dave Black interview with Maurice Robinson)​ 
I gather his view is other than the Reformed, for “divine” or “providential” preservation was indeed an issue for us going back to the Reformation, and codified in the WCF at 1:8:
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical . . .​ 
So I will not go quietly to the fringe (where many would seek to relegate me), especially seeing as the notorious (in brave new 2015 at least) Johannine Comma was cited a proof text for the Trinity in the following Reformed 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 Reformed back then proclaimed that the texts they held in their hands (which included 1 John 5:7—and these men were not dummies!) were preserved providentially so that they could withstand harlot Rome with the doctrines of sola Scriptura, and the four other mighty solas—and sustain the true faith.

Five centuries or so later the doctrine of preservation is sometimes given to include all the MSS (including Rome’s), but not everyone goes along with that.


----------



## Logan

Jerusalem Blade said:


> The Reformed back then proclaimed that the texts they held in their hands (which included 1 John 5:7—and these men were not dummies!) were preserved providentially so that they could withstand harlot Rome with the doctrines of sola Scriptura, and the four other mighty solas—and sustain the true faith.



At the same time, I think we should be careful to not ascribe more to them than they themselves believed. Since they would often point to alternative readings in various manuscripts, or use phrases like "what is missing in one manuscript is supplied in the rest", that leads me to believe that they weren't exactly TR advocates the same way that term is used today. Even the phrase "kept pure" implies a type of "pureness" that continued since ancient times, in which case perhaps Dr Robinson's view actually is Reformed.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Jerusalem Blade said:


> So I will not go quietly to the fringe...



You certainly have a flare for the dramatic.

My point was that your rhetoric pits everyone but your own as being one based on "reason" while yours is based on "faith". I made no comments about it being "fringe" but simply that it's puerile to summarize the positions in the manner you did.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

MW said:


> Agreed. It is fatal to any textual position which does not agree with him.





My point was not to poke the bear on this issue but mostly to note my curiosity that Dr. Robinson's position is sort of seen as more favorable to an Ecclesiastical Text position but that when you scratch it a little bit you realize that one is either all in or all out.


----------



## MW

Semper Fidelis said:


> My point was not to poke the bear on this issue but mostly to note my curiosity that Dr. Robinson's position is sort of seen as more favorable to an Ecclesiastical Text position but that when you scratch it a little bit you realize that one is either all in or all out.



I think you are right, Rich, and I am inclined to think this is probably true of every approach. Technical and sophisticated research goes into textual criticism and findings are built up over time. The presentations of those findings have to be simplified for a popular audience who are not aware of the technicalities. Once the audience begin to look into it for themselves they find it is not so simple as they first thought. And even within a general consensus there are divergent views on individual readings. One who adopts Dr. Robinson's approach might come to different conclusions as individual research is conducted and ultimately might arrive at the need for a paradigm shift. That seems to be the nature of empirical research.


----------



## Robert Truelove

I only have time for a brief response tonight, but for what it is worth...

I find Robinson's approach to satisfy my doctrinal presuppositions regarding textual preservation AND provide a consistent dealing with the evidence.

Having spoken to Dr. Robinson recently, there is no question that he rejects 1 John 5:7 as a reading lacking sufficient textual support. He'd argue we can't make a case for Byzantine priority and then reject it where it isn't convenient to our presuppositions.

He also would not make the claim that his position is based upon any doctrinal presuppositions but rather a fair weighing of the evidence. He'd then go on to clarify the fact that the Byzantine Priority approach is fully compatible with the doctrine of the preservation of the text in all ages is subsequently "icing on the cake".

I tend to side with those that begin with acknowledging doctrinal presuppositions and that would be my biggest difference with Dr. Robinson. However, I find his textual approach to be the most compatible with my doctrinal presuppositions. I find it even more-so than trying to force a TR view. The Byzantine Text-form represents the historic text transmitted through the ages. Its particular readings then represents the text, "kept pure in all ages" (for it is the text of all ages). The TR (according to Dr. Robinson) is in 98.5% agreement with the Byzantine Text-form. 

I believe we should revise the TR using the historic Byzantine Text-form, not the other way around.


----------



## MW

Robert Truelove said:


> Having spoken to Dr. Robinson recently, there is no question that he rejects 1 John 5:7 as a reading lacking sufficient textual support. He'd argue we can't make a case for Byzantine priority and then reject it where it isn't convenient to our presuppositions.



This looks neat and tidy on a theoretical basis, but it gets messy with a text by text analysis; and there are places where one will end up following the Byzantine majority over the Byzantine minority, even though there are other text families which support the Byzantine minority, as in 1 John 2:23. This would be a clear-cut case of ignoring the warning signs because it doesn't fit with the itinerary.

It is interesting, moreover, to observe from 1 John 2:23, that a reading has been omitted from a majority of mss. which was later proven to have earlier support in the transmission of the text.


----------



## Robert Truelove

MW said:


> Robert Truelove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having spoken to Dr. Robinson recently, there is no question that he rejects 1 John 5:7 as a reading lacking sufficient textual support. He'd argue we can't make a case for Byzantine priority and then reject it where it isn't convenient to our presuppositions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This looks neat and tidy on a theoretical basis, but it gets messy with a text by text analysis; and there are places where one will end up following the Byzantine majority over the Byzantine minority, even though there are other text families which support the Byzantine minority, as in 1 John 2:23. This would be a clear-cut case of ignoring the warning signs because it doesn't fit with the itinerary.
> 
> It is interesting, moreover, to observe from 1 John 2:23, that a reading has been omitted from a majority of mss. which was later proven to have earlier support in the transmission of the text.
Click to expand...


Here is the trouble I have the the TR position...While it is true that a reading like 1 John 2:23 has early support in Aleph and B, it does not have transmissional support within the historical text stream. A demonstrable line of transmission is part and parcel to a view of the text "kept pure in all ages". When we ascribe this the transmissional history to the Latin Vulgate (or any other translation)in the case of weakly supported readings in the Greek text, we are arguing an authority for a translation that is contrary for the Biblical doctrine of preservation which refers to the original tongues as does the Reformed confessions.

What I find appealing about Byzantine Priority is 1) it seeks the preserved historical text from an actual view of textual transmission, 2) is thoroughly consistent, not changing the entire paradigm for "how we discern the correct readings" on a case by case basis (the TR position is a form of "text-theory eclecticism" using radically different and contradicting argumentation depending upon the reading in question) and 3) is demonstrably the historical text, transmitted throughout the age of the church and not simply the late 16th century edition with readings (though admittedly very few) that are not in the historic stream.

For me, Byzantine Priority answers all of the pertinent questions and is unassailable from the typical charges leveled by reasoned eclectics against the other Traditional Text positions.


----------



## MW

Robert Truelove said:


> What I find appealing about Byzantine Priority is 1) it seeks the preserved historical text from an actual view of textual transmission, 2) is thoroughly consistent, not changing the entire paradigm for "how we discern the correct readings" on a case by case basis (the TR position is a form of "text-theory eclecticism" using radically different and contradicting argumentation depending upon the reading in question) and 3) is demonstrably the historical text, transmitted throughout the age of the church and not simply the late 16th century edition with readings (though admittedly very few) that are not in the historic stream.



Byzantine priority isn't based on an actual view of textual transmission The view itself is probationary. It provides a theory of textual transmission based on the similarity of readings in a family of mss. which have for that reason been designated "Byzantine." It presupposes the genealogical theory, which was never adequately established in the first place.

There is no promise that a family of mss. would be preserved. The promise is that the Word would be preserved for the church, and the church is much larger than the eastern tradition.

As for the TR, in a number of cases it ends up having a broader base of support because it is not restricted to the genealogical theory or a conjectural history to support it. It gives the text to which the church has historically appealed, and has a range of support which is not limited to mss.

What percentage of "manuscripts" has been preserved in real terms, not just in terms of relative value with other archaeological discoveries? The percentage is quite small in terms of the number of mss. which must have actually been produced. To posit a theory of "providential preservation of mss.," it seems requisite to have a good percentage of mss. in possession, which is just not the case. There are too many gaps to be able to say for certain that specific "texts" developed at definite times and places and bear a definite relation to other "texts." Most of it is still hypothesis. One should not call on "providence" to fill in the missing links.


----------



## Logan

Finished reading the "Case for Byzantine Priority" (I was about 90% done earlier but hadn't been able to come back to it). A quote I appreciated:



> The Byzantine-priority hypothesis is far more complex than it may appear; it does not encourage a simplistic eclectic approach nor a narrow theological outlook toward a predetermined result. The final determination of that text remains problematic in all too many situations, despite a primarily externally-based methodology. Absolute certainty in regard to the entire NT text can not be expected, given the evidence as preserved. Under all theories, ca. 90% of the original text of the NT IS considered established. Byzantine-priority attempts to extend that quantity, following reasonable principles of internal and external evidence, balanced by historical and transmissional factors.
> 
> Byzantine-priority provides no domain or shelter for those unwilling to labor diligently, or for unscholarly individuals whose goal is merely a biased theological perspective or the advocacy of a particular translation. Rather, the theory manifests a compelling and logical perspective which can stand on its own merits. It attempts to explain the evidential data preserved to critical scholarship in the quest toward the goal of establishing the original text of the canonical Greek New Testament.


----------



## MW

> Absolute certainty in regard to the entire NT text can not be expected, given the evidence as preserved.



That is the point to keep in mind about the theory. It is manuscript-oriented, and derives its priority from the tentative observation that a majority of manuscripts are of one family. As such it cannot speak with the certainty of faith but has to presuppose its own empirical values in order to arrive at a working hypothesis.


----------



## Robert Truelove

MW said:


> Absolute certainty in regard to the entire NT text can not be expected, given the evidence as preserved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the point to keep in mind about the theory. It is manuscript-oriented, and derives its priority from the tentative observation that a majority of manuscripts are of one family. As such it cannot speak with the certainty of faith but has to presuppose its own empirical values in order to arrive at a working hypothesis.
Click to expand...


The Byzantine Priority approach of Pierpont & Robinson and the Majority Text of Farstad and Hodges is that they are roughly in 99.5% agreement (according to Dr. Robinson). 

What makes these two positions different is how variants are dealt with when the readings are divided among the Byzantine witnesses. The Majority Text simply seeks the majority reading and includes the "voice" of the Alexandrian & Western manuscripts. The Byzantine-Priority approach sees the Alexandrian & Western witnesses as inferior and therefore seeks to settle variants within the Byzantine textual family. It's for that reason that more advanced canons of criticism are used within then Byzantine Priority approach. That said, if you follow Dr. Robinson's reasoning, the Byzantine approach is VASTLY more objective than things we see going on within reasoned eclecticism. 

Regarding manuscript "families". I understand the argument that says that the genealogical theory is unproven, however, in the case of the Byzantine no one makes that argument. Indeed, the fact that we have hundreds of years of transmission of an exceedingly uniform text (especially in the minuscules) establishes the Byzantine as a "textual family" with a demonstrable transmissional history (demonstrated by it's uniform readings). The question some scholars are asking is whether the other "textual families" can be considered as such. 

However, it must be said again...the differences between the final product of a Majority Text approach and a Byzantine-Priority approach are virtually identical. The difference in the over all text is less than one percent.

Finally, Dr. Robinson's comment about not being able to get at absolute certainty of ALL readings...this is a technical statement and in no way means we are left in the dark as to the essential text of the New Testament. The same problem exists with the Textus Receptus as no two editions are absolutely the same. Divine providence, not being miracle, has virtually preserved the text of the New Testament. The question for those who believe in the doctrine of preservation is how it was preserved. Any position claiming ABSOLUTE certainty for every solitary reading is guilty of begging the question. For instance, if God preserved His word in an absolute manner in the Textus Receptus, which edition is it? What is the Biblical and objective basis for the answer to the question?


----------



## DMcFadden

I have not been reading the thread with close detailed eyes so this may be off base, but it seems that Matthew Winzer's argument is one that he would make about any empirically based evidentialism. In principle, an appeal to the "evidence" must of necessity be open ended since the possibility exists that new evidence will some day "turn up" unexpectedly. As such, certainty is NEVER a possibility, merely varying degrees of probability. And, with such an approach, the quality of the assumptions being used to evaluate the empirical data and the ones a person is making about the continuity between what has been found and what will yet be uncovered must also be considered.

Being "more empirical" does not usually correlate with certainty or necessity, as Mr. Hume observed.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Dennis,

I think there is a difference between the skepticism of Hume arising from empiricism as the organizing reality of what we can know. Empiricism is based on the idea that we cannot know anything but what we observe. It limits knowledge within the bounds of human reason.

To my way of thinking, believing that God is a revealing God, the light of nature reveals certain truths to us that we need not be skeptical about. Men, for instance, could demonstrate that the Donation of Constantine was a fraud. This was not based on empiricism but on the observation of evidence. A staunch Roman Catholic might conclude that the documentary evidence could only provide limited certainty whereas the "received faith" of the Church makes plain that the donation is a real one.

I'm not necessarily saying that we settle truth by empirical observation but I also don't want to be too hasty to draw parallels to Humean philosophy when a Common Sense realism doesn't make the Light of Nature so tentative. Jesus told the Pharisees that they were correct in their observations about the weather based on observing the skies showing that our senses and reason are trustworthy given the fact that God is the Author of all Revelation.


----------



## MW

DMcFadden said:


> I have not been reading the thread with close detailed eyes so this may be off base, but it seems that Matthew Winzer's argument is one that he would make about any empirically based evidentialism. In principle, an appeal to the "evidence" must of necessity be open ended since the possibility exists that new evidence will some day "turn up" unexpectedly. As such, certainty is NEVER a possibility, merely varying degrees of probability. And, with such an approach, the quality of the assumptions being used to evaluate the empirical data and the ones a person is making about the continuity between what has been found and what will yet be uncovered must also be considered.



Well observed, Dennis. We have this blessed thing called "the Word of God." We place our faith in it. Empiricism cannot manufacture faith. At best it can provide some organised evidential account of some material things which are related to the Word in some way, but it cannot give certainty of any kind, and it is certainty that faith derives from the Word. Our faith is not in paper and ink, no matter how old, how numerous, or how categorised. "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God." "We walk by faith, not by sight."


----------



## MW

Robert Truelove said:


> Finally, Dr. Robinson's comment about not being able to get at absolute certainty of ALL readings...this is a technical statement and in no way means we are left in the dark as to the essential text of the New Testament. The same problem exists with the Textus Receptus



I think this requires one to put faith in Dr. Robinson's theory to lead to a New Testament text, but this will prove as disappointing as the eclectic methods and the Alexandrian priority theory. The genealogical theory was shown to be inadequate from the beginning, going back to the early 19th century.

The same problems are indeed associated with the Textus Receptus so far as empirical observation is concerned. Empirically I could give as good account of a great diversity of readings which are to be found in the mss. The reason is, that the mind of man is finite, the evidence is quite limited, the categories for understanding the evidence are always conjectural, and man is always motivated by reasons which are not even always clear to himself.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Logan,

When you say (post 24), “Since they would often point to alternative readings in various manuscripts, or use phrases like ‘what is missing in one manuscript is supplied in the rest’ ”, can you give some examples? Besides John Owen—as we disagreed in our understanding of his statements on this topic (a year or two ago).

I think it really comes down to a) the historical context, as to what the Westminster divines meant when they used the phrase, “inspired by God, and, *by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages*”, and b) what texts they were referring to.

Textual critic Dan Wallace, in an article “Is the Bible a ‘Paper Pope’ for Protestants?”, while pondering the Roman Catholic–Reformation contention over their respective Bibles, says that the Westminster divines based their doctrine of perfect preservation on the Textus Receptus:
The response by Protestants was swift, though perhaps not particularly well thought out. In 1646, the first doctrinal statement about God preserving his text was formulated as part of the Westminster Confession. The problem is that what the Westminster divines were thinking of when they penned that confession was the TR. By virtually ignoring the variants, they set themselves up for more abuse.​ 
Somewhat earlier, F.H.A. Scrivener, in his critical study, _The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611)_, pp 24, 25, records it said of the Assembly of divines at Westminster, that as “many erroneous English Bibles were printed in and imported from Holland; which being diligently compared by the late Assembly of Divines were reported to the Parliament in 1643 to be corrupt and dangerous to Religion”, they were then prohibited by (ineffective) statute. This vigilance was occasioned in part by an earlier London printer’s notorious error in one impression of a Bible omitting the word “not” in the seventh commandment (“The Wicked Bible”, 1631).

Their diligence in seeking printer-error-free Bibles pertained strictly to the editions of the Authorized Version. This was the translation current among them of “The Old Testament in Hebrew. . . and the New Testament in Greek” they wrote of in 1:8.

English Puritan and theologian, Edward Leigh (1602–1671) explained why we needed confidence in a pure text for our Bibles,
If the authority of the authentical copies in Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek fall, then there is no pure Scripture in the Church of God, there is no high court of appeal where controversies (rising upon the diversity of translations, or otherwise) may be ended. The exhortations of having recourse unto the Law and to the Prophets, and of our Saviour Christ asking “How it is written,” and “How readest thou,” is now either of none effect, or not sufficient.” 

Edward Leigh, _Treatise_, (London, 1656), Vol I, vi. 102-3​ 

Puritan Thomas Watson (c. 1620 -1686) states,
The devil and his agents have been blowing at Scripture light, but could never blow it out; a clear sign that it was lighted from heaven….The letter of Scripture has been preserved, without any corruption, in the original tongue.​
Thomas Watson, _A Body of Divinity_ (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1965, First published in 1692), 27.​ 

Thomas Cartwright (c. 1535 – 1603) observed this about preservation,
Woe unto the churches, if the Scriptures, the charters and records of heaven be destroyed, falsified, or corrupted. These divine charters were safely kept in one nation of the Jews; and though they were sometimes unfaithful, yet they kept the keys of the Lord’s library: but now, when many nations have the keys, it is altogether incredible that any such corruptions should enter in, as the adversaries unwisely suppose. If the Lord preserved the book of Leviticus, with the account of the ancient ceremonies, which were afterward abolished, how much more may we conclude that his providence has watched over other books of Scripture which properly belong to our times and to our salvation? Will not the Scriptures bear witness to the perpetuity of their own authority? “Secret things belong to God;” but things revealed belong to us, and to our children forever. Jesus Christ said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away.” Notwithstanding the sacred writings were disregarded, and even hated by most persons, they had been preserved entire as they were the first day they were given to the church of God. More than fifteen hundred years had elapsed, during which not any one book, nor part of any book, of canonical Scripture had been lost: and it was evident not only that the matter of the Scripture, but also the words; not only the sense and meaning, but also the manner and form of speech in them remained unaltered. 

Benjamin Brook, _Memoir of the Life and Writings of Thomas Cartwright_, 275-6.​ 
A good summation of the _original language_ Scriptures these men were speaking of is found in the Trinitarian Bible Society’s Statement of Doctrine of Holy Scripture:
The Society accepts as the best edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text the one prepared in 1524-25 by Jacob ben Chayyim and known, after David Bomberg the publisher, as the Bomberg text. This text underlies the Old Testament in the Authorised Version.

The Greek Received Text is the name given to a group of printed texts, the first of which was published by Desiderius Erasmus in 1516. The Society uses for the purposes of translation the text reconstructed by F.H.A. Scrivener in 1894.​ 
The others in the “group of printed texts” mentioned would be, besides Erasmus, the Greek column of the Complutensian Polyglot, Stephanus’s 1550 edition, the various editions of Beza, especially the 1598, and the Elzevir editions. Because the Complutensian was a Catholic production it had less weight than the others, yet was still significant to them—Greek New Testament editions in print were rare.

Although the Westminster divines were aware of variants in the manuscripts, they—and other Reformation and post-Reformation scholars—held (regarding the Greek) that the Received Text they had was the one Divine Providence had preserved for them in order to sustain their lives in Christ and to effectively combat the Roman church.

In Richard A. Muller’s, _Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 2, Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology_, he makes some statements regarding the views of the Reformation and post-Reformation men on their theological and doctrinal—*not* modern-style text-critical—approach to preservation, and I’ll quote a few (I owe Kent Brandenburg for these) so as to demonstrate the early Reformed view was presuppositional and not evidential :
The position [in the _Formula Consensus Helvetica_] is very similar to the one taken at the beginning of the _Westminster Confession_, although more detailed, and it is little different from statements concerning the gift and preservation of the Scriptures in Reformed dogmatics as early as Calvin's_ Institutes_ and Bullinger's _Decades_. [Calvin Inst. I.vi.2 “If true religion is to beam upon us, our principle must be, that it is necessary to begin with heavenly teaching . . . . And surely in this respect God has with singular Providence provided for mankind in all ages.”] page 84​ 
On page 134, discussing John Owen (and disagreeing with his view of the Hebrew vowel points), Muller does make clear that, “like Turretin and the other orthodox . . . he assumed the authority, infallibility, and integrity of the text on doctrinal grounds”.

On page 231, he writes concerning the divinity of Scripture:
It ought be clear that the Reformers assumed a divine power at work in the writing and preservation of Scripture that, in concert with the efforts of the human authors and with scribal preservers of the text, had assured the availability of an authoritative Word of God in and for the life of the church.​ 
He writes on page 294 concerning the “miracle” of preservation:
On a lesser level of significance but nonetheless useful to the defense of the text against its detractors are the “extrinsic” arguments, which are divided by Leigh and others into two basic categories: miracle and testimony. The miracles can be miracles of “confirmation” as those performed by Christ and the apostles to manifest the truth of their words, or miracles of “preservation” like the providential care by which God preserved Scripture from all efforts of tyrants and evil men “to suppress and extinguish the word.”​ 
He continued on page 437:
The Reformed orthodox insisted on the providential preservation of Scripture in its integrity and the consistent care taken by the church throughout history to care for the text. This assumption of integrity refers, moreover, not to the versions but to the Hebrew and Greek sources on which all versions must be based.​ 
On the top of page 443, summarizing a section, he writes:
The Reformed orthodox do, thus, engage in a concerted textual effort to maintain their doctrine of the purity and perfection of the text of Scripture.​ 
[End Muller, and also the Reformed and Puritan quotes]
__________

Just a brief note regarding another line of texts that were available to Calvin, Beza, no doubt Stephanus, likely Erasmus, as well as the Westminster divines and other of the Reformed luminaries. And this was the influence of the Waldensians: Pierre Robert Olivétan (whose Waldensian French Bible influenced the Geneva Bible) and Pastor Jean Léger (the Waldensian historian) also of France, and Waldensian Giovanni Diodati of Italy whose Diodati Bible in Italian was current in Geneva and elsewhere. These men were in Geneva with Calvin and Beza and the other Genevans, and their Bibles came from an ancient line apart from Rome and Byzantium, yet had—so it is thought—origins in the Antiochian missionaries’ Greek Bibles. 

Frederick Nolan in his book, _Inquiry Into the Integrity Of the Greek Vulgate_, documents the progress of the text [containing the Johannine Comma] of the 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 *[the Comma] *thus easily made its way into Wicklef’s translation, through the Lollards, who were disciples of the Waldenses.”* [Emphasis added] (Footnote 1, pages xviii, xix.)

I bring this up to give an idea of the breadth of material available to both the editors of the TR editions and to the Reformed scholars (including the WCF men), men who were aware of the dire vicissitudes attending the journey of the Byzantine Greek text up through the Arian-dominated Byzantine Empire for half the fourth century, and who were open to the guiding of God’s Spirit in textual matters, and to the common faith of those who remained loyal to the King of saints.

Dramatic? Is not the story of our precious Bible up through the years fraught with high drama and heroism even unto death—tales of the warrior-scholars? Is not this great and terrible love affair—our own stories under the hand of the Shepherd in the vale of tears—is this not the great drama of the ages, the recounting of which will thrill hearts in the eternal state as the many stories of our lives are told? This is no mere religion, but an adventure of great and terrible loves. As the days to come will bear ample witness.

__________


The question I would posit at this point is, given the view that Reformation and post-Reformation divines in the main held to the doctrine of Providential Preservation based on presuppositions they derived from Scripture; this doctrine led to their doctrines of the five Solas firmly founded on Sola Scriptura. This they used to combat the Roman doctrine of Scripture determined by _their_ ungodly Tradition.

The Question: Were the Reformers *wrong* concerning the basis of their opposition to Rome? Was Dan Wallace right when he said of the WCF at 1:8, it was “not particularly well thought out”? Now Dr. Wallace, notwithstanding his immense value to the church for his labors in tracking down and photographing as many uncatalogued Greek manuscripts as he can, insists that the “so-called” doctrine of preservation is false and unbiblical.

Nor is Dr. Robinson—of whom I said he is likely the foremost textual scholar alive—friendly to the Reformation view, saying (per Logan’s quote from his “Case for Byzantine Priority” essay), of those who hold to the providential preservation view, they are “unscholarly individuals whose goal is merely a biased theological perspective or the advocacy of a particular translation”. Granted, that was said of modern folks, yet it was first enunciated by the early Reformed and their confessions.

When it is said of persons in proud 2015 who hold to the faith of the Reformers in this matter they are “unscholarly . . . biased . . . puerile”, is this not in effect casting such aspersions on our forebears of the faith? If the Reformers were wrong in their textual views, that means Rome was right in theirs.

In some respects that’s moot at this point, for Rome has prevailed in their textual claims, and we have prima facie abdicated the Sola Scriptura stance the Reformers took against them. Or many of us have—but not all.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

We, the professing church of Jesus Christ in the late 19[SUP]th[/SUP], the 20[SUP]th[/SUP], and early 21[SUP]st[/SUP] centuries, have institutionalized and conferred legitimacy upon a system—and an attendant industry—predicated on disbelief in _God’s_ providential working to preserve a _particular_ text for His people and approved as such by them, *instead* depending on _man’s_ science and skill to determine a _somewhat_ preserved text, and that not in the confines of the believing church but in the academy amidst both regenerate and unregenerate scholars. 

Those who hold to the faith of their Reformation forebears in the 16[SUP]th[/SUP] through mid-19[SUP]th[/SUP] centuries that God provided for His true church a _particular_ preserved text—then forged by their vigorous faith and godly wisdom into an invincible weapon against the proud boastings and bloody aggressions of the Romish monster—the spiritual progeny of these Reformation stalwarts in this matter of their Holy Bibles, are presently demeaned as ignorant and retrograde by those considering themselves the more intelligent and intellectually advanced members of the modern faith community.

Nonetheless, the regard of the company we stand in suffices us.


----------



## DMcFadden

Rich, I was not arguing the point, merely trying to clarify what some kept missing in Matthew's argument. He was not merely objecting to Robinson's argument on doctrinal grounds, but on methodological ones as well suggesting that any such reliance upon an empirically based enterprise could only produce degrees of probability, not certain faith. Matthew kept saying, and it seemed as if his point kept getting lost, that Robinson's approach could never reach completion since there will always be more texts to be discovered.


----------



## MW

To clarify, Hume's scepticism related to objects of sense, whereas I am simply pointing out the limitation of the senses with respect to objects of faith -- a limitation which has been recognised throughout the history of Christian theology and aptly summed up in the maxim that philosophy is the handmaiden of theology.


----------



## Logan

DMcFadden said:


> Rich, I was not arguing the point, merely trying to clarify what some kept missing in Matthew's argument. He was not merely objecting to Robinson's argument on doctrinal grounds, but on methodological ones as well suggesting that any such reliance upon an empirically based enterprise could only produce degrees of probability, not certain faith. Matthew kept saying, and it seemed as if his point kept getting lost, that Robinson's approach could never reach completion since there will always be more texts to be discovered.



Dennis,

I don't think I missed the point, I just don't find it convincing because I don't see the TR position as one of "certain faith" either, but is rather, like Hills said one of "maximum certainty", not total. The reason being that there are multiple editions of the TR, each with their own differences, albeit _fewer_, almost by definition, than any other manuscript "family". Yet the question remains: which one do you pick for your "perfectly preserved" copy? Or are you content to just accept that there will never be absolute certainty? Usually the "certainty" then appealed to is the KJV.

I'd like to point out briefly that saying Robinson's approach could never reach completion may be overstating the case a bit. He very much takes the position that the true reading is persistent, and sometimes newer manuscripts are more reliable than old, especially supposing that newer manuscripts were copied from even older manuscripts. Because of this, I'm hard pressed to think of anything at this point that would overturn Robinson's position. A giant cache of manuscripts with hitherto unknown readings? No. A few more ancient manuscripts? No. What then?


Steve,

Here is something like it, though there are more from others which I do not have handy:


Turretin said:


> Although various corruptions might have crept into the Hebrew manuscripts through the carelessness of transcribers and the waste of time, they do not cease to be a canon of faith and practice. For besides being in things of small importance and not pertaining to faith and practice (as Bellarmine himself confesses and which, moreover, he holds do not affect the integrity of the Scriptures), they are not universal in all the manuscripts; or they are not such as cannot easily be corrected from a collation of the Scriptures and the various manuscripts.
> ...
> A corruption differs from a variant reading. We acknowledge that many variant readings occur both in the Old and New Testaments arising from a comparison of different manuscripts, but we deny corruption (at least corruption that is universal).



Also, if individuals like Turretin would offer corrections to the TR of his day, and Owen would quote from "some manuscripts" (which I'm not convinced would only have been from some TR edition somewhere), then I would posit that their understanding of "preservation" was not as narrow as you make it to be. Are the men you cited arguing against "corruption" or all variants?



Turretin said:


> The question is not, are the sources so pure that no fault has crept into the many sacred manuscripts, either through the waste of time, the carelessness of copyists or the malice of the Jews or of heretics? For this is acknowledged on both sides and the various readings which Beza and Robert Stephanus have carefully observed in the Greek (and the Jews in the Hebrew) clearly prove it. Rather the question is have the original texts (or the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts) been so corrupted either by copyists through carelessness, or by the Jews or heretics through malice, that they can no longer be regarded as the judge of controversies and the rule to which all the versions must be applied? The papists affirm, we deny it.



I'm convinced that this is precisely what the divines meant by "kept pure".


----------



## MW

Logan said:


> Or are you content to just accept that there will never be absolute certainty?



The adjective "absolute" creates an equivocation on the word "certainty." Certainty exists or it does not. If something is not certain it might be likely, it might be probable, it might be conjectural, it might be possible, but it is not certain. Our certainty comes from faith. Empiricism offers no certainty. None. To speak of text critical theories offering certainty will only prove to be cruel in the end.


----------



## MW

Herman Bavinck, The Certainty of Faith, 26-27:

“But also in the narrower and truer sense of the word, faith as trust in another's testimony assumes an important role in science. Every man, even the most learned, is limited in his gifts and energies, in time and place. What he can investigate freely and independently for himself makes up only a tiny part of the boundless domain of science. He owes by far the largest part of his knowledge to the investigation of others, and he accepts their testimony on trust as being true.”

*“Anyone who demands mathematical or experimental proof in history is forced to challenge its scientific nature and will never achieve any degree of certainty.*

"There is no science without personal trust and faith in the testimony of others."

“Since in religion not a fallible being but God Himself steps forward as a witness, then from this point of view there is no science more certain of its subject matter than theology. Its basis and strength consists in the _Deus dixit_, so says the Lord. What human authority can be compared to that of the Almighty? And on whose word can man rely more fully with mind and heart, in suffering and death, for time and eternity, than the testimony of him who is himself the truth?”


----------



## MW

Let's follow Bavinck's lead for a moment. He said,

*“Anyone who demands mathematical or experimental proof in history is forced to challenge its scientific nature and will never achieve any degree of certainty.*

Suppose the Alexandrian-priority approach brings us to "90%" of the NT text. Let's be generous and suppose Byzantine-priority brings us to "99%" of the NT text. To what do these percentages refer? Do they refer to the actual NT text? No, they do not. Because these are empirical observations based on the manuscripts which have been preserved to us, they are really only percentages of the NT text as it is to be found in the preserved mss. Now, let us ask this question, What percentage of mss. have actually been preserved. Let's be generous again. Let's suppose 10% of mss. have been preserved. This leaves us with "90%" and "99%" of "10%" of the mss.

Empiricists use high numbers because they take a leap of faith and presuppose that mss. in possession are high enough to make calculations and conjectures of the actual NT text. But when the empiricist is called to go back to basics, he realises that he has no empirical basis for his presupposition, and at the end of the day his empirical research and methodology are themselves an act of faith.


----------



## Logan

MW said:


> The adjective "absolute" creates an equivocation on the word "certainty."



It's being used comparative to Hills' "maximum".



MW said:


> Empiricism offers no certainty. None.



I certainly don't dispute that. What I can't get around is the (to me) arbitrary nature of the "faith" and "certainty" in the TR, and allowing that there are variants within TR texts and so being content itself with a degree of uncertainty (even if finite. Believe me, I wish we could all just say "the 1894 Scrivener is it". I truly wish I could believe 1John 5:7 belongs, Turretin believed it was a true reading because he had report that "it is found in all the manuscripts" (which wasn't true but shows the criteria he used to regard it as true). But can I really have "faith" in readings inserted from the Vulgate? That kind of "certainty" comes at a cost I just can't pay (which is essentially to toss out all manuscript evidence altogether and exclusively rely on printed texts from the 16th and 17th century).


Steve,

I believe I had paraphrased Warfield. He said something like "the prevailing belief of the day was that a mistake in one manuscript was corrected in the rest". Usher said something similar:



Usher said:


> "and by the learned in the Greek tongue, there are like diversities of readings noted in the Greek text of the New Testament, which came by fault of writers: yet in most by circumstance of the place, and conference of other places, the true reading may be discerned. And albeit in all it cannot...yet this diversity or difficulty can make no difference or uncertainty in the sum and substance of Christian religion;


----------



## JimmyH

Logan said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The adjective "absolute" creates an equivocation on the word "certainty."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's being used comparative to Hills' "maximum".
> 
> 
> 
> MW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Empiricism offers no certainty. None.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I certainly don't dispute that. What I can't get around is the (to me) arbitrary nature of the "faith" and "certainty" in the TR, and allowing that there are variants within TR texts and so being content itself with a degree of uncertainty (even if finite. Believe me, I wish we could all just say "the 1894 Scrivener is it". I truly wish I could believe 1John 5:7 belongs, Turretin believed it was a true reading because he had report that "it is found in all the manuscripts" (which wasn't true but shows the criteria he used to regard it as true). *But can I really have "faith" in readings inserted from the Vulgate? That kind of "certainty" comes at a cost I just can't pay (which is essentially to toss out all manuscript evidence altogether and exclusively rely on printed texts from the 16th and 17th century).*
> 
> 
> Steve,
> 
> I believe I had paraphrased Warfield. He said something like "the prevailing belief of the day was that a mistake in one manuscript was corrected in the rest". Usher said something similar:
> 
> 
> 
> Usher said:
> 
> 
> 
> "and by the learned in the Greek tongue, there are like diversities of readings noted in the Greek text of the New Testament, which came by fault of writers: yet in most by circumstance of the place, and conference of other places, the true reading may be discerned. And albeit in all it cannot...yet this diversity or difficulty can make no difference or uncertainty in the sum and substance of Christian religion;
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I'm certainly not the 'sharpest tack' in the box, but I really cannot understand the _certainty_ that intelligent and learned men find in the TR and the AV, while excluding other texts/translations. God's providential protection extending to Erasmus and the KJV only ? 

I don't see that the realization that there is no perfect text be it TR, Vulgate, LXX, or CT is a lack of faith or certainty. Perhaps it requires stronger faith to believe accepting there are discrepancies between the extant texts. By the grace of God I've got it.


----------



## Robert Truelove

MW said:


> Let's follow Bavinck's lead for a moment. He said,
> 
> *“Anyone who demands mathematical or experimental proof in history is forced to challenge its scientific nature and will never achieve any degree of certainty.*
> 
> Suppose the Alexandrian-priority approach brings us to "90%" of the NT text. Let's be generous and suppose Byzantine-priority brings us to "99%" of the NT text. To what do these percentages refer? Do they refer to the actual NT text? No, they do not. Because these are empirical observations based on the manuscripts which have been preserved to us, they are really only percentages of the NT text as it is to be found in the preserved mss. Now, let us ask this question, What percentage of mss. have actually been preserved. Let's be generous again. Let's suppose 10% of mss. have been preserved. This leaves us with "90%" and "99%" of "10%" of the mss.
> 
> Empiricists use high numbers because they take a leap of faith and presuppose that mss. in possession are high enough to make calculations and conjectures of the actual NT text. But when the empiricist is called to go back to basics, he realises that he has no empirical basis for his presupposition, and at the end of the day his empirical research and methodology are themselves an act of faith.



Help me out here a minute...going on your reasoning—If we took a trip in my fictional time machine to the year 1350. Where could we go to lay our hands upon the preserved word of God according to your reasoning?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hi Logan,

A key to understanding Turretin on this topic is a saying of his, “*A corruption differs from a variant reading*. We acknowledge that many variant readings occur in both the Old and New Testaments arising from a comparison of different manuscripts, but we deny corruption (at least corruption that is universal).” p 111. [emphasis added] He continues:
“It is one thing to speak of the attempts of the heretics to corrupt some manuscripts (which we readily allow). They gave rise to the complaints of the fathers . . . It is quite a different thing to speak of their success or of entire universal corruption. This we deny, both on account of the providence of God, who would not permit them to carry out their intention, and on account of the diligence of the orthodox fathers, who having in their possession various manuscripts preserved them free from corruptions.” pp111, 112.​ 
In a number of places he talks about having “*the very words*” of God:

In the *Tenth Question: The Purity of the Sources*, he asks, “Have the original texts of the Old and New Testaments come down to us pure and uncorrupted? We affirm against the papists.” He continues:

“. . . By the original texts, we do not mean the autographs . . . We mean their apographs which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God *in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit*.” [emphasis added] p 106

Speaking of the “corruptions” in the manuscripts he says, “they are not such as cannot easily be corrected from a collation of the Scriptures and the various manuscripts” p 109. Earlier he spoke (as I noted above) of corruptions arising from heretics, and on 108 (as you noted) “as arising ‘through the carelessness of transcribers and the waste of time’ ”. So we have three causes for corruptions. He is speaking of the Hebrew text at this place. I believe the correction he spoke of at the beginning of this paragraph pertained to the collations done by the Masoretic scholar Jacob Ben Hayyim and his Second Rabbinic Bible of 1524-25.

Most of the textual matters he deals with pertain to the Hebrew Bible, as that’s what was primarily under attack from Rome. Speaking of variants—I assume both in the Hebrew _and_ the Greek, as that’s what this section starting on page 114 is about—he says, “The various readings which occur do not destroy the authenticity of the Scriptures because they may be easily distinguished and determined, partly by the connection of the passage [I think he means the context -SMR] and partly by a collation with better manuscripts.

Then on page 115 he shows some of his choices respecting NT variants—which choices speak volumes concerning which editions he considers “authentic”—saying,
There is no truth in the assertion that the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament and the Greek edition of the New Testament are said to be mutilated; nor can the arguments used by our opponents prove it. Not in the history of the adulteress (Jn. 8:1-11), for although it is lacking in the Syriac version, it is found in all the Greek manuscripts. Not in 1 Jn. 5:7, for although some formerly called it into question and heretics now do, yet all the Greek copies have it, as Sixtus Senenis acknowledges: “they have been the words of never-doubted truth, and contained in all the Greek copies from the very times of the apostles” (_Bibliotheca sancta_ [1575], 2:298). Not Mk. 16 which may have been wanting in several copies in the time of Jerome (as he asserts); but now it occurs in all, even in the Syriac version, and is clearly necessary to complete the history of the resurrection of Christ.”​ 
The way I understand Turretin speaking of purity is that while there are corruptions they may be corrected by collations with better manuscripts, and variants likewise, so that the apographs thus purified “*set forth to us the word of God* *in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit*.” This is my take on it.

[End quotes on Turretin]
_________

Jimmy H., you’re surely sharp enough to ponder these things astutely! What I meant to convey—as I know you understand—is simply that my position is that of our Reformed forebears. And my question was, Were they wrong and Rome right?

And I then said that in the eyes of multitudes of our Reformed brethren Rome has been proven right with regard to their opposition to the Reformation’s Sola Scriptura, as evidenced by our adoption of the texts they opposed Sola Scriptura with.

It was not a modern-type text-critical hypothesis the Reformers held to, but a theological / doctrinal presupposition that the word of God led them to, and on which they stood.
_________

An interesting take from Harvard-trained text critic Dr. Edward Hills’ book, _Believing Bible Study_:
*The King James Version a Variety of the Textus Receptus*

The translators that produced the King James Version relied mainly, it seems, on the later editions of Beza’s Greek New Testament, especially his 4th edition (1588-9). But they also frequently consulted the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the Complutensian Polyglot. According to Scrivener (1884, _Authorized Ed. of the Eng. Bible_, p 60), out of the 252 passages in which these sources differ sufficiently to affect the English rendering, the King James agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times,, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus. Hence the King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus. . . (p 206)

. . . The texts of the several editions of the Textus Receptus were God-guided. They were set up under the leading of God’s special providence. Hence the differences between them were kept down to a minimum. But these disagreements were not eliminated altogether, for this would require not merely providential guidance but a miracle. In short, God chose to preserve the New Testament text providentially rather than miraculously, and this is why even the several editions of the Textus Receptus vary from each other slightly.

But what do we do in these few places in which the several editions of the Textus Receptus disagree with one another? Which text do we follow? The answer to this question is easy. We are guided by the common faith. Hence we favor that form of the Textus Receptus upon which more than any other God, working providentially, has placed the stamp of his approval, namely, the King James Version, _*or, more precisely, the Greek text*_ underlying the King James Version. This text was published in 1881 by the Cambridge University Press under the editorship of Dr. Scrivener, and there have been eight reprints, the latest being in 1949. In 1976 also another edition of this text was published in London by the Trinitarian Bible Society. We ought to be grateful that in the providence of God the best form of the Textus Receptus is still available to believing Bible students. For the sake of completeness, however, it would be well to place in the margin the variant readings of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevirs (p 209). [emphasis added]​ 
[End Dr. Hills]
__________

Now this view may surely be laughed at by those indoctrinated under modern text-critical professors and writings, but in the end it is a) in accord with the Reformation’s presuppositions and views, and b) I do have a Bible I have full confidence in, and which I may hold in my hand as *the* intact word of God. And I’m not in bad company.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Robert,

My understanding as to “Where could we go to lay our hands upon the preserved word of God?” in 1350 would be this: In the Greek churches; and in the Waldensian communities of France and Italy that survived the Roman Catholic massacres. Perhaps neither of these churches had the Bible preserved in the minutiae, but the preservation was adequate to save souls, disciple them in spiritual maturity (those that were true disciples of Christ), and sustain the churches. Between these two communions I would say *the Lord kept the true readings of the autographic 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. It may be, however, I err in saying between these two communions *only*, as I don’t know the manuscripts and versions the AV translators had access to—there may well have been more. But in a nutshell, roughly, that’s where I think you’d find the preserved word of God.

But you better be careful if you go back there to 1350, for the Bubonic Plague in Europe has just killed about 75 million / perhaps one third of the population. And it’ll be another 67 years before Luther will hammer his famous nail.


----------



## MW

JimmyH said:


> I'm certainly not the 'sharpest tack' in the box, but I really cannot understand the _certainty_ that intelligent and learned men find in the TR and the AV, while excluding other texts/translations.



The use of the word "excluding" doesn't apply to my view. I don't exclude the other readings; I only exclude the text critical conclusions which exclude the TR. I will happily explain the other readings in the light of the TR. The criticism which rejects the TR has committed itself to an empirical certainty which it simply cannot achieve. The only assured result of criticism is that there is no assured result.


----------



## MW

Robert Truelove said:


> Help me out here a minute...going on your reasoning—If we took a trip in my fictional time machine to the year 1350. Where could we go to lay our hands upon the preserved word of God according to your reasoning?



If you went back to 1350 and then returned to 2015, your 2015 would be very different and we would be having a different discussion. 

Seriously, though, we can't seek for a transcendental text. The Word was given to a concrete historical situation, and continues to speak to concrete historical situations.


----------



## MW

Logan said:


> That kind of "certainty" comes at a cost I just can't pay (which is essentially to toss out all manuscript evidence altogether and exclusively rely on printed texts from the 16th and 17th century).



Have you thought about the cost of throwing out the concept of a "received text?"


----------



## Logan

MW said:


> Have you thought about the cost of throwing out the concept of a "received text?"



Yup. But I'm not interested in "throwing out the concept" of a received text. What I am interested in is the concept of a received text that existed in the 1st through 15th centuries and not just the 16th and 17th, in one that continuously existed and wasn't "restored" through the insertion of readings from the Vulgate.


----------



## JimmyH

MW said:


> Logan said:
> 
> 
> 
> That kind of "certainty" comes at a cost I just can't pay (which is essentially to toss out all manuscript evidence altogether and exclusively rely on printed texts from the 16th and 17th century).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you thought about the cost of throwing out the concept of a "received text?"
Click to expand...


DBSJ
1 (Spring 1996): 35–53
ERASMUS AND THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS
by
William W. Combs
*

http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/ERASMUS.PDF



> For those who may be new to this controversy, Textus Receptus is a Latin term which
> means “Received Text.” The name itself comes from an edition of the
> Greek NT produced by Bonaventura and Abraham Elzevir (or Elzevier).
> The Elzevirs printed seven editions of the Greek NT between 1624 and
> 1678.
> 1
> Their second edition (1633) has this sentence in the preface:
> “Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum, in quo nihil immuta-
> tum aut corruptum damus” (Therefore you [dear reader] have the text
> now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or corrupted).
> 2
> From this statement (Textum...receptum) comes the term Textus
> Receptus or TR, which today is commonly applied to all editions of the
> Greek NT before the Elzevir’s, beginning with Erasmus’ in 1516.
> 
> _________________
> *
> Dr. Combs is Academic Dean and Professor of New Testament at Detroit Baptist
> Theological Seminary in Allen Park, MI.
> 1
> J. Harold Greenlee,
> An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism,
> 2nd ed.
> (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), p. 65. Unlike the editions of Erasmus, Estienne,
> and Beza before them, the Elzevirs were not editors of the editions attributed to them,
> only the printers. The 1633 edition was edited by Jeremias Hoelzlin, Professor of Greek
> at Leiden. See Henk J. de Jonge, “Jeremias Hoelzlin: Editor of the ‘Textus Receptus’
> Printed by the Elzeviers Leiden 1633,”
> Miscellanea Neotestamentica
> 1 (1978): 105–28.
> De Jonge also notes that Abraham and Bonaventura were not brothers, as is frequently
> repeated, but that Abraham was the nephew of Bonaventura (p. 125, n. 48).
> 2
> *Bruce Metzger aptly calls this an advertising blurb *
> (The Text of the New Testament,
> 3rd ed. [New York: Oxford University Press, 1992], p. 106). The preface to the 1633
> edition was written by Daniel Heinsius (de Jonge, “Jeremias Hoelzlin,” p. 125)


----------



## Robert Truelove

Logan said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you thought about the cost of throwing out the concept of a "received text?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. But I'm not interested in "throwing out the concept" of a received text. What I am interested in is the concept of a received text that existed in the 1st through 15th centuries and not just the 16th and 17th, in one that continuously existed and wasn't "restored" through the insertion of readings from the Vulgate.
Click to expand...


I agree 100%. My struggle with the TRO position is that it deals with the textual data God has preserved in much the same way Carroll deals with church history in "The Trail of Blood". Both, in my mind, are historically indefensible. On the other hand, a Byzantine-Priority approach identifies a historical text that was in use throughout the centuries. 

Lest someone misunderstand me, The Textus Receptus is a late edition of the Byzantine-Textform and so close in its readings that I consider the necessary revisions to be minor (compared to the Critical Text). I also do not think revising the TR with a Byzantine-Priority approach would have been out of line with the view of preservation held by 17th century Reformed Scholasticism.


----------



## Robert Truelove

MW said:


> Robert Truelove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Help me out here a minute...going on your reasoning—If we took a trip in my fictional time machine to the year 1350. Where could we go to lay our hands upon the preserved word of God according to your reasoning?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you went back to 1350 and then returned to 2015, your 2015 would be very different and we would be having a different discussion.
> 
> Seriously, though, we can't seek for a transcendental text. The Word was given to a concrete historical situation, and continues to speak to concrete historical situations.
Click to expand...


The reason I used 1350 is this would predate the printing press. You'd have to identify the perfectly preserved edition somewhere in an actual manuscript. What your position seems to demand is not even a possibility before the printed page.

My point is, if you cannot make your assertions work for a text pre-printing press text (of which we have thousands of copies), then something is being unnaturally forced in the TR position.

If the TR is the development that perfected the manuscript issues, then there is no doctrinal reason to assert that the Critical Text is not a further development (which is exactly what its advocates are saying). I must, upon doctrinal grounds, reject TRO for many of the very same reasons I reject the Critical Text.


----------



## MW

It is nice to see the "received text" is at least being conceptually maintained. Now all that is needed is to conceive of the "received text" as something more than transcendental nothingness by connecting it with something real and concrete in human history. That is, the text which has actually been received rather than an ideal which is destined to remain unrealised.


----------

