# Textual Manuscripts?



## Coram Deo (Dec 28, 2007)

If someone wanted to start to study the variations of the manuscripts, how does one get copies of the different manuscripts? Not exactly translations of them but of the original Greek with maybe an interlinear possible English word for word side column.

I already have the Textus Receptus interlinear Greek/English book from Green and His Old Testament Interlinear, but what about the other manuscripts?

One I am looking for in particular is one called *"Manuscript C"*, if that is the correct name and other manuscripts would be helpful also...

Any Thoughts?


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 28, 2007)

thunaer said:


> If someone wanted to start to study the variations of the manuscripts, how does one get copies of the different manuscripts? Not exactly translations of them but of the original Greek with maybe an interlinear possible English word for word side column.
> 
> I already have the Textus Receptus interlinear Greek/English book from Green and His Old Testament Interlinear, but what about the other manuscripts?
> 
> ...



Some thoughts: 

Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament

also check this link.


----------



## larryjf (Dec 28, 2007)

Here are some good online resources...

Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism
About P46
Manuscripts - CSNTM
Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament
New Testament Transcripts Prototype
http://alpha.reltech.org/cgi-bin/Ebind2html/BibleMSS/U3Tisch
http://alpha.reltech.org/cgi-bin/Ebind2html/BibleMSS/U5

Any usernames or passwords that are required...just enter "any"


----------



## larryjf (Dec 28, 2007)

I would recommend NOT getting Metzger's book as he was quite liberal in his theology...to the point of not even considering the original inspired documents to be inerrant.

I would recommend "A Student's Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible"


----------



## KMK (Dec 28, 2007)

Go to the Puritan Board search box and type in: "Steve Rafalsky" That should last you a couple of months!


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 28, 2007)

larryjf said:


> I would recommend NOT getting Metzger's book as he was quite liberal in his theology...to the point of not even considering the original inspired documents to be inerrant.
> 
> I would recommend "A Student's Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible"



Certainly wasn't recommending Metzger for his theology... it seems that Michael was after information about a particular manuscript, not questions of interpretation or inerrancy...


----------



## Thomas2007 (Dec 29, 2007)

thunaer said:


> If someone wanted to start to study the variations of the manuscripts, how does one get copies of the different manuscripts?



A few thoughts, for your consideration, that I hope will be received for your edification as they are intended. I realize this is a little outside the scope of your question, I just feel obliged since I've spent 20 years in the field in which you are proposing a study, and wish someone would have told me this 20 years ago when I set out on a similar course.

I would suggest that one insure they were well grounded in the Reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura and its historical meaning before wandering across a mine field. The gentlemen that advised you to study Elder Rafalsky's posts was good advice, he can lead you to a wealth of information. Since B.B. Warfield the Reformed community has abandoned the historic doctrine and its meaning, one needs to know this, as it can have drastic consequences to your faith if you proceed on a study of variants in possible ignorance of the underlying issues and the redefinition of the doctrine.

Romanists introduced the study of variants for one reason, to attack and undermine the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, you need to know that. I say that simply to point out that you don't enter this field of study on neutral ground, anymore than you do soteriology. Just as there are Calvinist and Arminian sides to soteriology, there is also of textual studies. The Reformed community, has almost universally adopted a "textual Arminianism," of sorts, so you will take a side once you enter the study, consciously or not. The presuppositional ground upon which you stand determines how one interprets the evidence, the same way an evolutionist examines a rock and determines it is 400 billion years old and a creationist looks at it and determines it is 7,000 years old. Any time one studies "variations of manuscripts," then you are pitting yourself as judge over the word of God, one needs to understand the gravity of what that means.

That isn't ground one needs to wander upon lightly, nor can one do so blindly as the other gentlemen advised you to beware of Bruce Metzger, that also was good advice, as he has made the faith of many souls shipwrecked. No disrespect to Todd intended who mentioned Meztger, I just say that from my personal experience, as not everyone is as strong as others.

Hence, I would strongly suggest that you consider settling which ground you stand upon in terms of what you believe about the Bible, before setting out on a study of variant texts of the Bible. You need to know if you stand with historic Reformed orthodoxy in terms of the meaning of Scripture, or if you stand with the modernists that have redefined it - and just be honest with yourself. If you believe, like many, that the Protestant Reformers were wrong for whatever reason, then just be honest with yourself, from the start, because the tendency of man is self deception.

Romans 3:4 says, _"[L]et God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."_ When I study these things I've learned to remember that I am just a man, a redeemed sinner that is easily deceived, when I have to judge God's words between variants. In the absence of proof, one is better off counting the advice of men between variants as liars - even yourself.

Hence, if you haven't already, it would be advisable to settle the presuppositions upon which you are entering this field of study before setting out on the journey. Our Lord tells us very plainly, _"Beware of the scribes..."_ (Luke 20:46) and ..._"a little leaven leaventh the whole lump,"_ (Galatians 5:9) something that modern Christians seemed to have forgotten, especially when they approach the work of scribes.

In Christ's Bonds,

Thomas


----------



## KMK (Dec 29, 2007)

Great post!

When you say, "You need to know if you stand with historic Reformed orthodoxy in terms of the meaning of Scripture...", are you alluding to WCF 1:8 where it states, "by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages..."?


----------



## Thomas2007 (Dec 29, 2007)

Hello Pastor Klein,

Yes, and more, the Helvetic Consensus Formula comes to mind. However, it is the entire paradigm and approach to the Scripture that is different in historic Reformed orthodoxy as against modern textual criticism.

They didn't take their stand against Rome upon an unknown "inerrant original autograph," neither did Reformed scholasticism defend an unknown hypothetical text. Neither did they advocate a radical individualism where every man decides for himself which words are genuine; they would have viewed the state of our Churches today, where every man is a textual critic, with horror. The Westminster Divines viewed spelling errors in various printings of the Authorized Version as "dangerous to religion," and moved Parliament to outlaw the importation of bootleg reprints from Holland with spelling errors.

Cordially,

Thomas


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 29, 2007)

Thomas, thanks for your posts.

Michael, where do you find reference to a "manuscript C"? Can you put it in some context?

To find interlinear Gr-Eng NTs just Google: greek english interlinear nt. There are a number on the market. I know there is an NRSV, and an NIV, and likely others. Though, as Thomas intimated, it leads to a quicksand where there is nothing solid to hold onto.

Steve


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 31, 2007)

Michael,

Concerning Codex C:

*EPHRAEMI RESCRIPTUS (C)*, [located in] BIBLOTHEQUE NATIONALE IN PARIS. One of the old uncials.


Written originally in the 5th century and containing the whole of both Testaments it was in the 12th century converted into a palimpsest. That is, the original writing was washed out, and some works of a certain Ephraim Syrus were written over it. Many leaves also were thrown away. It now contains parts of all the NT books except for II Thessalonians and II John. Much of the original writing has been discerned. (Kenyon). Strouse says the text is mixed but pro-Byzantine. Kenyon (as we would expect) speaks of this Byzantine presence being due to "its correctors."

Burgon would rank this codex behind Alexandrinus as having the fewer corruptions among the "five old uncials".​
--------

I got this info from the online version of _Forever Settled_, Part Four : A Survey of New Testament Documents, by Jack Moorman. A sound and informative book.

Hope this helps.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 31, 2007)

Thomas2007 said:


> Hello Pastor Klein,
> 
> Yes, and more, the Helvetic Consensus Formula comes to mind. However, it is the entire paradigm and approach to the Scripture that is different in historic Reformed orthodoxy as against modern textual criticism.
> 
> ...




Thomas - thanks for this - can you expand a bit more to help me understand your point?


----------



## Thomas2007 (Dec 31, 2007)

Hello JD,

Thanks for your question, I can attempt to do so, although I'm not aware of your present knowledge of the issues. So, I'll just start here:

Our Reformation inheritance is the Received Text. We talk a lot about "What is Reformed Theology?" In so doing we are discussing the interpretations of Scripture and their meaning, but this is all presuppositional upon the question, "Why the Reformation?" We've forgotten this critical question in many ways and it's answer, which is Sola Scriptura. The creedal defense of that doctrine is the Received Text, not the "inerrant original autograph," nor various hypothetical reconstructions out of the whole body of existing manuscripts. 

The issue was and still is Authority, the Reformers simply held that Authority didn't inure to the Pontiff, didn't inure to the visible Church, but was, is and always will be in the Word of God. To them, though, this was an identifiable and existing text in use by the Greek speaking Church. The "Received Text" is only a change in the transmission of this text from a handwritten manuscript form to a printed form. It is this text that they identified with the term Sola Scriptura as the physical manifestation of Christ's Prophetic Office given unto us and Providentially preserved for us. Nominally, we only still agree with this presupposition today, but it's been redefined to mean the inerrant original autograph, which we do not have nor has Providence preserved in that form. It's a hypothetical text. As such, Authority has been transferred from the actual words once again to men, the "textual critical" or Scribe as a new priest class. In order for the concept of the Priesthood of the Believer to have meaning in this paradigm it has become necessary for every man to become his own textual critic, or "Priest," as judge over the word of God.

We now have a radical individualism in our Churches because we hold to the uniformity of worship under the Regulative Principle, but we have half dozen or more different texts and translations of Scripture in our Congregations and no Confessional unity. Without Confessional unity we cannot maintain uniformity, and so we splinter and fractionalize all the more, and ultimately it's impossible to bind any man to anything that he doesn't personally define himself since every dispute becomes, at bottom, a translational dispute which is often a cloaked textual dispute.

The historic Reformation creedal and scholastic defense of Sola Scriptura was the Received Text until the 20th century when that was fundamentally altered by BB Warfield and his departure, which everyone has followed, from historic Reformed orthodoxy. This was because science was rising and assaulting Christendom on every front, it was doing so in terms of the Received Text as well, Warfield errantly believed he could stand upon enlightenment ground and defend historic orthodoxy. The concept of a Providentially "preserved" text was altered to mean a Providentially "restored" text in terms of the inerrant original autograph, as a result we have numerous hypothetical texts and translations of those texts that really have never been used by any Christian in history in that form. The propensity of science to utilize society as a sociological test laboratory has simply been brought into the Church as a sociological test laboratory in terms of the Scripture.

The Reformers simply didn’t accept every “obscure private copy…to be admitted as a various lection.” Nor did they accept the opinions of “textual critics,” on the contrary, as Owen explains:

“Let it be remembered, that the vulgar copy we use, was the public possession of many generations; that upon the invention of printing, it was in actual authority throughout the world, with them that used and understood that language….men may, if they please, take pains to inform the world, wherein such and such copies are corrupted or mistaken, but to impose their known failings on us as various lections, is of course not to be approved….[t]he generality of learned men among Protestants are not yet infected with this leaven…And if this change of judgment which hath been long insinuating itself, by the curiosity and boldness of critics, should break in also on the Protestant world, and be avowed in public works, it is easy to conjecture what the end will be. We went from Rome under the conduct of the purity of the originals, I wish none have a mind to return thither again, under the pretence of their corruption.” John Owen, Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of the Scripture, pg 473 to 477

To the Romanists the Reformation was heresy, for the first sixty years or so they were asking the question, "What is this theology?" When they got their ducks in a row and started asking, "Why is it?" They then developed Trent and set out with the Tridentine attack upon our Authority - Sola Scriptura. This is where the arguments over variants begins and it is a Romanist argument, they simply argued that we can't possibly hold to Sola Scriptura because we can't know for certain what those words are without Papal Authority and Church Tradition. It was about another century before they refined a weapon to combat Sola Scriptura at the hands of Romanist Richard Simon, that is "New Testament Textual Criticism." It was developed upon enlightenment and humanistic grounds and still is standing upon that ground.

It is this ground that Greisbach and Wescott and Hort worked upon and it was BB Warfield that attempted that attempted to straddle the Confessional fence with one foot on either side that established the redefinition of Sola Scriptura as the hypothetical "inerrant original autograph."

The Bible you use is the Bible you have to defend. I stand upon the Authorized Version and I comprehensively defend the Authorized Version. When I do that I end up at 1776 and an alteration of the Westminster Confession that reflects a major change of Authority in terms of historic Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura as it affects continuity between private, religious and public life. When I try to defend every other text I once again end up at 1776 with Griesbach in Germany. So, I look at the fruit of these things, the philosophies behind them, one is the American Revolution and the other is the French.

The Reformers cried "Ad Fontes," they had a controversy of religion; but once they did that and identified their Authority they stood upon it comprehensively for all of life, and worked to bring continuity in terms of life. We are crying "Ad Fontes," but I'm told repeatedly by the textual critics that they've made no fundamental change to the doctrine, what is the purpose for it then? What is the heresy we are trying to correct?

What I do find, as a result, though is a denial of the historic Reformed orthodox definition of Sola Scriptura at the beginning of the 20th century. Since Authority no longer rests in an identified text, it no longer has Authority and it no longer has Authority for all of life, private, religious and public life. In turn, this has resulted in a discontinuity of private, religious and public life; because if the Church isn't going to stand upon this, then neither is the State. Scripture as Authority, even by those that nominally claim Sola Scriptura, has been reduced to a Kantian concept of mental assent - not true Authority that men are subject to.

I believe that this textual battle we are embroiled in today isn't theological, it's political; it's an argument of Authority and for the present Rome has won the Reformed Church back to it's presupposition, and it's done it through the Tridentine plan and weapons it forged, honed and sharpened for that purpose.

While we are told that no fundamental doctrine has been changed, that isn't true, Federal Vision is a good example of the results of textual criticism. The defense mounted against that today is asking "What is Federal Vision?" It's attempting to anathematize it as a departure from Reformed theology, but it rests upon a departure from Sola Scriptura and it can't be answered until we ask and answer "Why Federal Vision?" Everyone is busy dissecting it's soteriology and ecclesiology, but it's doing so in terms of developed creedal doctrines, not in terms of the text. Federal Vision can't stand upon the Received Text, it can only stand upon Rome's text and its hypothetical twins delivered to us through textual criticism. So, we can't defend ourselves against this because the Reformed Church has abandoned the Reformed text from which its doctrines were derived, and the march back to Rome has been accelerated, as it's already won the civil realm and now it is restoring the ecclesiastical.

Anyway, we can go into much more detail and discuss this at more length if you like, but this should help you understand my points a little more.

Cordially,

Thomas


----------



## KMK (Dec 31, 2007)

Thomas2007 said:


> As such, Authority has been transferred from the actual words once again to men, the "textual critical" or Scribe as a new priest class. In order for the concept of the Priesthood of the Believer to have meaning in this paradigm it has become necessary for every man to become his own textual critic, or "Priest," as judge over the word of God.



And, this transfer of authority has been embraced by many of the Reformed community without much of a struggle!

I find your example of FV very interesting. How would their theology change if they were under the authority of the TR? Can you give specific passages where the CT is necessary for the FV?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 31, 2007)

Thomas - thank you - do I understand you accurately to be saying that the principle of Sola Scriptura is based solely on the authority and accuracy of the Received Text? Also - does this wiki entry accurately describe the Textus Receptus position?

Apologies if I am inaccurately understanding.


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 31, 2007)

Thomas, what do you do with all the differences among TR manuscripts? Which one is original?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 1, 2008)

Hello Lane,

I have addressed your question in a number of earlier posts, some of which I excerpt here to help me conserve my time. I hope you don't mind this approach.
-------

There were a number of Greek texts in the Reformation era, the primary of which were, Stephen’s, Beza’s, and the Elzevirs. The TBS’s 1894 TR was put together by Scrivener to indicate the exact Greek text underlying the KJV. As a distinct Greek text it never existed before Scrivener compiled it. The 1611 translators picked and chose from the different Greek texts, the previous English versions – and other language versions – when rendering the AV. The TR 1894 but gives a Greek text exactly corresponding to the English of the AV.

Here is some background on the “TRs”.

The Trinitarian Bible Society's edition containing F.H.A. Scrivener's edition of "The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the text followed in the Authorized Version" (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1894 and 1902). In the Preface this TBS edition says, 

The editions of Beza, particularly that of 1598, and the last two editions of Stephens, were the chief sources used for the Authorized Version of 1611.

The Elzevir partners, Bonaventure and Abraham, published editions of the Greek text at Leyden in 1624, 1633, and 1641, following Beza's 1565 edition, with a few changes from his later revisions. The preface to the 1633 Elzevir edition gave a name to this form of the text, which underlies the English Authorized Version, the Dutch Statenvertaling of 1637, and all of the Protestant versions of the period of the Reformation—"_Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum, [in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus]_" [thus you now have the universally received text in which we present nothing that has been changed or is corrupted]. The Elzevir text became known throughout Europe as the _Textus Receptus_ or _Received Text_, and in course of time these titles came to be associated in England with the Stephens text of 1550.

The editions of Stephens, Beza and the Elzevirs all present substantially the same text, and the variations are not of great significance and rarely affect the sense. The present edition of the _Textus Receptus_ underlying the English Authorized Version follows the text of Beza's 1598 edition as the primary authority, and corresponds with [Scrivener's of 1894 and 1902].​
Scrivener has a book, _The Authorized Edition Of The English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints And Modern Representatives_ (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1910), with a section, “Appendix E. _The Greek text adopted by the Translators of the Authorized Version of the New Testament_, where he examines the “TRs” the translators used. It is of interest to those doing careful study in this area. It can likely be obtained in a good seminary library or even by your local library’s Inter-library Loan System (how I got mine, and which I photo-copied).

So in one sense, there are a number of “TRs”. _The_ TR, and the one underlying the AV is Scrivener’s work done in 1894, and published by the TBS. This, in my view, and that of KJV defenders, is the true Textus Receptus, as it depicts (gathers together in one edition) in Greek the various texts the translators chose and upon which they based their translation.

We hold that the Lord provided the Reformation editors with the manuscripts He wanted them to use (wherein the genuine readings were preserved), and guided their judgment in the translating. I do NOT mean by this they were “inspired,” as some erroneously hold.

------------

[And this is from another discussion of the TR.]


You said,

I assume the Textus Receptus is what the AV folks would state is the authoritative manuscript that translators should refer to.​
Yes, this is so.

What is this based on? It is my understanding that the Textus Receptus is a critical compilation by Scrivener based on the manuscript choices of the AV translators. Accurate or no?​
Yes, that is accurate.

Is the sole argument for the TR that it was chosen by the Church and it doesn't matter whether Erasmus may have made some errors and doesn't matter how or which manuscripts the AV translators used and why they made those choices?​
The argument for the TR is that God had kept the Byzantine textform (the Scriptures of the Greek Church) in a very pure (but not perfect) state, and these mss were used by Erasmus, along with readings from the Latin Vulgate, and other Latin mss, to produce his Greek editions, the later ones being those used by subsequent editors, such as Beza, Stephens, and the Elzevirs. 

---
[Jan 1, 2008 note]: Erika Rummel, in her _Erasmus'_ Annotations _on the New Testament: From Philologist to Theologian_ (Univ. of Toronto Press 1986), makes the point that Erasmus had access to (and took copious notes on) a _vast_ array of NT manuscripts during his many travels; it is a myth that he had "access" to only a few manuscripts when he produced his NT editions.
---

Edward Hills, a textual scholar and KJV defender, says he has found 3 errors in the KJV, one of which I know he attributes to Eramsus, and that is in Romans 7:6. I am still researching that. From Ted Letis’ books, I have learned that John Owen (and perhaps Turretin) owned possible minute variants within the TR editions, and their view was that God had allowed them:

This is from Dr. Theodore P. Letis’ _The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate_:

Owen saw only the minor variants between the various editions of TR as valid areas for discrimination, staying within the broad parameters of providential preservation, as exemplified by “Erasmus, Stephen, Beza, Arias Montanus, and some others.” Within the confines of these editions was “the first and most honest course fixed on” for “consulting various copies and comparing them among themselves.”

This is both the concrete domain of the providentially preserved text, as well as the only area for legitimate comparisons to chose readings among the minutiae of differences. In fact, “God by His Providence preserving the whole entire; suffered this lesser variety [within the providentially preserved editions of the TR –TPL] to fall out, in or among the copies we have, for the quickening and exercising of our diligence in our search into His Word [for ascertaining the finality of preservation among the minutiae of differences among the TR editions –TPL] (_The Divine Original_, p. 301)* It is the activity, editions, and variants after this period of stabilization that represent illegitimate activity, or, as Owen says, “another way.”

Thus Owen maintained an absolute providential preservation while granting variants. (“John Owen _Versus_ Brian Walton” fn 30, p. 160)​
* Owen’s _Divine Original_ online: DIVINE ORIGINAL, AUTHORITY, SELF-EVIDENCING LIGHT, AND POWER OF THE SCRIPTURES. This is from volume 16 of Owen’s works.

This would be in line with the thinking of Dr. Hills. There is another view, and that is God _completely_ – that is, perfectly – preserved the Greek and Hebrew texts, so that they are without any error whatever.

If one wants to understand the matter of the Greek (the Hebrew is another discussion) editions used by the Reformers and post-Reformation divines, it is helpful to learn something of the historical context of those times. Letis’ two books are excellent historical resources: _The Majority Text_, and _The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority, and the Popular Mind_. Although there is some excellent work in the latter, I think the former might be the more valuable. They may be obtained at reasonable prices, along with other of his works, by contacting Russ Spees <[email protected]>.

Who knows that the doctrine of providential preservation, and that with regard to the Textus Receptus (the early forms of it), was developed by the post-Reformation theologians to withstand the assault of Rome’s counter-reformation? And that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was based on God’s preserving the texts these theologians had – the Reformation texts – and it was these “texts in hand” the WCF 1:8 had in mind. Letis’ latter book, _The Ecclesiastical Text_, has as its first essay the groundbreaking, “B.B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism,” which clearly proves that Warfield _redefined_ the WCF’s understanding of the Scriptures referred to in 1:8 (contrary to the intent of its framers) to refer to the no-longer extant autographs instead of the apographs, the copies they actually had. Warfield meant well, but he departed from bulwark of the Standards, and what we see today, in terms of the erosion of integrity in the Reformed communions, is in great measure a result of this. Of course there is more to this erosion, such as the entertaining of Arminianism within the very precincts of the Calvinist stronghold, yet the loss of a sure Scripture is as a mighty torpedo in the hull. It remains to be seen, the effects of this loss in that one body of congregations that held to the doctrines of grace. Maybe not this generation, but in one or two, should the Lord tarry that long, we will see devastation – as regards spiritual stability – that will make us weep, for this is the province of our children and grandchildren.

----------

Your next question:

“what is the Providence by which the manuscript choices were made that people used to form what they consider to be the authoritative Greek Scriptures?”​
God preserved the true reading of the NT in the majority of mss. Great defenses of this position are made by the Majority Text people; I list three, Maurice Robinson and Wm. Pierpont (their valuable Introduction has a link in one of my above posts); Wilbur N. Pickering, and his, _The Identity of the New Testament Text II_, and Jakob van Bruggen’s, _The Ancient Text of the New Testament_:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030428225220/www.thescripturealone.com/VanBrug.html.

One would think it reasonable that such an overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts – over 90% of the 5,000+ extant mss, lectionary readings, etc – represented that text form commonly used by the people of God, and was due to their coming from a common source albeit in widely diverse geographical areas, meaning the original apostolic writings. Westcott and Hort tried to invalidate this clear numerical superiority by a theory of an official church edition in the 4th century which resulted in this 90% agreement of mss, and for a while the “church intelligencia” bought into their theory, but increasingly it was proven to be groundless speculation, and today is entirely debunked, save for those who are “not up to speed” in text critical matters.

So the priority of the Majority (or Byzantine) text remains, at least for some.

But the AV adherents go a step farther than the MT folks: they see God’s preservation of the Greek text not only in the Byzantine mss, but in the confluence of those and other sources which contained readings lost in the Byzantine, such as disappeared during the dominance of the Arian party in the Byzantine empire, and the struggle against the Sabellians, in the 4th century, namely those Scripture passages declaring the triunity of the Godhead and the deity of Jesus Christ.* 

The AV folks hold that God, even though He had _adequately_ (and that is the operative word) preserved the NT Scriptures in previous times and locales, at the onset of the Reformation brought together those passages He had preserved the readings of into the Scriptures the Reformation divines would use to restore Biblical doctrine and the Biblical church, and from there these Scriptures would go forth into all the world in the great missionary thrust of the recent centuries. It was a matter of _adequate_ preservation compared to _preservation in the minutiae_.

I refer to another post which discusses this in further detail: The PuritanBoard - View Single Post - TTer gone CTer

* see Frederick Nolan’s classic, _AN INQUIRY INTO THE INTEGRITY OF THE GREEK VULGATE OR RECEIVED TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT_: An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate.

I am trying to be concise, and so I may not answer all your questions, and would be glad to if you state them further. This also is why I give links to resources, and to other posts.

-----------

These 90% are what is called the Traditional or Majority or Byzantine textform, in contradistinction to the Critical textform, which is not Byzantine but Alexandrian. There is a distinction between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus of the AV, and this difference consists primarily in the additions to the Byzantine of certain readings missing from it but present in some Latin mss, including the Latin Vulgate (and other versions), such as “God” in 1 Timothy 3:16, the entirety of 1 John 5:7, and some others. The AV folks say that certain readings were expunged from the Byzantine manuscripts during the period (roughly 335 to 385 A.D.) the Arian party was in control of both the Greek Church and Empire; one might imagine what the JWs or Unitarians would do were they in the same positions of authority. There 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 & souls, what would they do to paper?

At any rate, the AVers say that the Lord providentially preserved these missing readings by taking them from the Latin mss of the West where the persecuting authorities of the East had far less effect – first through the pen of Erasmus, and then the other Reformation editors.

The ESV guys _can_ say they have the Word of God, only the text has some mutilations in it (I mean essentially omissions, and some changes). There are some honorable and godly people, such as Dr. James White, who take strong exception to my view (and the MT view as well), though a weak point in his presentation is that the texts (the Critical and Eclectic texts) as well as the different English translations that come from them often differ among themselves.

The woman through whom the Lord converted me to Himself used a Lamsa Pesh-itta (to avoid the censoring software!) version, and I think she told me it was because that was the Bible Oral Roberts was using! A pastor in NYC I love and who has profoundly changed and enriched my walk with Christ uses the NIV, and I think is now changing to the ESV. When men and women cleave to the Word of God they have in a good conscience God blesses them, and makes them a blessing to others, despite our small differences as regards the versions.

For those who have problems with the language of the KJV, and the few errors in the NKJV, I would recommend Jay Green’s _Modern King James Version_.

There are godlier men than I who use the ESV, and whom God uses more than me, because of their better hearts.

Early on in my walk, coming as I did out of the 60’s counter-culture, drugs, and occult stuff, I saw quickly that for me to withstand Satan I would need certainty of mind as regards the reliability and authenticity of His Scripture. It was a close combat for many years, and I *had* to *know* my sword and shield would hold in the fray. That’s the furnace I was forged in. And it was the Doctrines of Grace which enabled me to stand before my God, in His power and grace, not trusting in myself. Though it was years before I took to heart the things in this previous sentence.

Hope this clarifies somewhat.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 1, 2008)

> Hello Lane,
> 
> I have addressed your question in a number of earlier posts, some of which I excerpt here to help me conserve my time. I hope you don't mind this approach.
> -------
> ...



I thank you, Steve, for a very clear presentation of the TR position. I also wish to thank you for a gracious presentation. I am glad you reference more sedate defenders of the TR position (Burgon and Hill were certainly great scholars) instead of those who accuse non-TR people of complete and utter heresy. If you are willing, I will intersperse my comments in between yours, and if you would like to respond, that's great. I know that I am almost certainly treading ground that has been trodden before on the PB. However, this subject has perennial interest. In your mind, what elevates the Reformation editors, and the texts used in the Reformation, over the early third and fourth century manuscripts that are Alexandrian? Were the Alexandrians not part of the church? Why is the Alexandrian text-form illegitimate? Sometimes I get the impression that defenders of the TR argue in effect that the church gives legitimacy to the manuscripts. Also, there seems to me to be a curtailed view of God's sovereignty and providence. Why could not God's providence encapsulate *both* the manuscripts that were in use, and *also* the manuscripts that were hidden? Surely God was aware that manuscripts that were used more often would of course disintegrate more quickly. Why could this not be the reason why Codices Aleph and B were hidden safely away for many long centuries? 

------------



> [And this is from another discussion of the TR.]
> 
> 
> You said,
> ...


---

This is an important point to remember. Erasmus was undoubtedly the greatest classicist of his day, and maybe of any age. It is freely admitted that the majority of manuscripts favor the Byzantine text-type. 



> Edward Hills, a textual scholar and KJV defender, says he has found 3 errors in the KJV, one of which I know he attributes to Eramsus, and that is in Romans 7:6. I am still researching that. From Ted Letis’ books, I have learned that John Owen (and perhaps Turretin) owned possible minute variants within the TR editions, and their view was that God had allowed them:
> 
> This is from Dr. Theodore P. Letis’ _The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate_:
> 
> ...



So why cannot this same approach govern an eclectic approach to manuscript variety? 



> * Owen’s _Divine Original_ online: DIVINE ORIGINAL, AUTHORITY, SELF-EVIDENCING LIGHT, AND POWER OF THE SCRIPTURES. This is from volume 16 of Owen’s works.
> 
> This would be in line with the thinking of Dr. Hills. There is another view, and that is God _completely_ – that is, perfectly – preserved the Greek and Hebrew texts, so that they are without any error whatever.
> 
> ...



The appeal to Arminianism as a slippery slope with regard to Warfield is not a cogent argument against Warfield's view of Scripture. There are few theologians in the history of the church who argued against Arminianism as vociferously as Warfield did. Arminianism is certainly not directly related to textual criticism. The other difficulty with this argument is that it assumes that a textual minus is an automatic *omission,* whereas every single textual variant is neutral from the get-go as to whether it is an _omission_ in one text, or an _addition_ in the other text. In other words, this argument assumes that which it has to prove, namely, whether the Alexandrian text _omitted_ something, or whether the Byzantine mss _added_ something. 





> Your next question:
> 
> “what is the Providence by which the manuscript choices were made that people used to form what they consider to be the authoritative Greek Scriptures?”​
> God preserved the true reading of the NT in the majority of mss. Great defenses of this position are made by the Majority Text people; I list three, Maurice Robinson and Wm. Pierpont (their valuable Introduction has a link in one of my above posts); Wilbur N. Pickering, and his, _The Identity of the New Testament Text II_, and Jakob van Bruggen’s, _The Ancient Text of the New Testament_:
> ...



This argument does not take into account several factors. The first is that the majority text is by no means the same as the TR. The second factor is that this argument ignores manuscript relationships and families. If 500 manuscripts come from one parent manuscript, then all 500 have only the weight of the parent manuscript. The only way that that can change is if the child manuscript is checked against *another* manuscript, which, of course, does happen. However, what is evident is that the Byzantine manuscript tradition has family traits and similarities. See the textual family 13, for instance. 

The upshot is that a variety of criteria is necessary such that no text-form is ignored. I am by no means *anti* Byzantine. However, it is one text-form among three (or four, depending on how one is counting). To my mind, geographical distribution is a far more reliable criteria than simple majority (though I do not ignore that either). A variant that has geographical distribution over the entire Mediterranean world is far more likely to be original than a variant that originated only in one pocket of that world. This is by no means the only criteria that I use. 

It seems to me that a lot of TR folk are arguing against Westcott and Hort, who were overly imbalanced in favor of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Modern textual criticism is much more eclectic, and gives much more weight to the Byzantine text form than WH did. The arguments against WH are not applicable to today's eclectic methods. 




> But the AV adherents go a step farther than the MT folks: they see God’s preservation of the Greek text not only in the Byzantine mss, but in the confluence of those and other sources which contained readings lost in the Byzantine, such as disappeared during the dominance of the Arian party in the Byzantine empire, and the struggle against the Sabellians, in the 4th century, namely those Scripture passages declaring the triunity of the Godhead and the deity of Jesus Christ.*
> 
> The AV folks hold that God, even though He had _adequately_ (and that is the operative word) preserved the NT Scriptures in previous times and locales, at the onset of the Reformation brought together those passages He had preserved the readings of into the Scriptures the Reformation divines would use to restore Biblical doctrine and the Biblical church, and from there these Scriptures would go forth into all the world in the great missionary thrust of the recent centuries. It was a matter of _adequate_ preservation compared to _preservation in the minutiae_.



It is difficult to know how to respond to this. I can only go about it by asking a question: is it impossible that pious scribes, being faced with Arianism and Sabellianism and all the other Christological heresies would add something to the text? Oh, it might not have been intentional. It might have originally been a marginal note that a later scribe mistook for a textual correction. We need not posit any kind of "dumb scribe" thesis here. Is this possibility automatically ruled out by the TR people? Heaven forbid that the Comma Johanneum which is not represented by any text-form, and has the manuscript support of one, count them, one manuscript could possibly be a scribal addition. 




> These 90% are what is called the Traditional or Majority or Byzantine textform, in contradistinction to the Critical textform, which is not Byzantine but Alexandrian.​



This is highly inaccurate. Modern textual criticism is *eclectic,* not *Alexandrian* only. It is fair to say that the Alexandrian text-type is more heavily weighted, usually, in modern textual traditions. However, there are many examples in the NA 27th where the Alexandrian text-type is *rejected.* 






> There is a distinction between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus of the AV, and this difference consists primarily in the additions to the Byzantine of certain readings missing from it but present in some Latin mss, including the Latin Vulgate (and other versions), such as “God” in 1 Timothy 3:16, the entirety of 1 John 5:7, and some others. The AV folks say that certain readings were expunged from the Byzantine manuscripts during the period (roughly 335 to 385 A.D.) the Arian party was in control of both the Greek Church and Empire; one might imagine what the JWs or Unitarians would do were they in the same positions of authority. There 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 & souls, what would they do to paper?



So, which is more accurate, the TR or the MT? Why? 



> At any rate, the AVers say that the Lord providentially preserved these missing readings​



Why prejudge whether they are additions in one manuscript or omissions in another manuscript? 



> by taking them from the Latin mss of the West where the persecuting authorities of the East had far less effect – first through the pen of Erasmus, and then the other Reformation editors.
> 
> The ESV guys _can_ say they have the Word of God, only the text has some mutilations in it (I mean essentially omissions, and some changes). There are some honorable and godly people, such as Dr. James White, who take strong exception to my view (and the MT view as well), though a weak point in his presentation is that the texts (the Critical and Eclectic texts) as well as the different English translations that come from them often differ among themselves.



Some? Name one Reformed seminary where the TR is proclaimed as the most accurate version of the Greek NT. The TR position is the minority by far among seminaries today. 



> The woman through whom the Lord converted me to Himself used a Lamsa Pesh-itta (to avoid the censoring software!) version, and I think she told me it was because that was the Bible Oral Roberts was using! A pastor in NYC I love and who has profoundly changed and enriched my walk with Christ uses the NIV, and I think is now changing to the ESV. When men and women cleave to the Word of God they have in a good conscience God blesses them, and makes them a blessing to others, despite our small differences as regards the versions.
> 
> For those who have problems with the language of the KJV, and the few errors in the NKJV, I would recommend Jay Green’s _Modern King James Version_.
> 
> ...


​[/QUOTE]

There is no way that I would ever say that if someone has the TR that they do not have the Word of God. However, only the autographs were completely without errors, unless we want to say that God directly inspired the manuscript copying procedure, which is not where I would want to go. With regard to confidence in the NT manuscripts, one only has to do this simple comparison: even given the differences between the NA27th and the TR, less than %1 of the NT is in any serious doubt, and less than 10% *of* that one percent has any significant bearing on its meaning. Compare that with Homer (the next best attested ancient text after the NT), where a full 10% of the text is in serious doubt. 

No, God did not preserve the original autograph. I believe there is a very good reason for it: we would be strongly tempted to worship such a text. But the text is so well preserved in the manuscript tradition (NT textual critics have an embarassment of riches) that we can confidently say that we have the NT, whether one is a TR person or whether one is an eclectic critic. 

Cordially, Lane


----------



## KMK (Jan 1, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> It seems to me that a lot of TR folk are arguing against Westcott and Hort, who were overly imbalanced in favor of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Modern textual criticism is much more eclectic, and gives much more weight to the Byzantine text form than WH did. The arguments against WH are not applicable to today's eclectic methods.



If true, this is good news.

Could you interact with the statements in posts above that argue that Textual Criticism has led to individualism in that each member of the church has to become his own critic in order to decide what is the Word of God for him?



greenbaggins said:


> even given the differences between the NA27th and the TR, less than %1 of the NT is in any serious doubt, and less than 10% *of* that one percent has any significant bearing on its meaning.



Where do these figures come from? I am not being argumentative, but would really like to know. This is a topic that has been debated before on PB. Here is one example: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/av-theology-compared-modern-versions-19437/


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 1, 2008)

> Could you interact with the statements in posts above that argue that Textual Criticism has led to individualism in that each member of the church has to become his own critic in order to decide what is the Word of God for him?​



Given that the differences among manuscripts are so slight, and that only a very, very small percentage of differences make any difference in meaning, there is no need for any lay-person to become an expert in textual criticism. The pastor, whether he is TR or NA27th is still giving them the Word of God. I think that all pastors ought to be reasonably proficient in textual criticism to the point where he can make his own informed decisions. But, as per the above, even that ability will make almost zero difference in the pulpit. 




> Where do these figures come from? I am not being argumentative, but would really like to know. This is a topic that has been debated before on PB. Here is one example: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/av-theology-compared-modern-versions-19437/


[/QUOTE]​
I got them from my seminary professor. I think that they are also available in a book somewhere, but I can't place it right now.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 1, 2008)

Lane,

I'll get back to your thoughtful remarks and questions shortly. Please be patient, as I have some busy days ahead!

Steve


----------



## Thomas2007 (Jan 1, 2008)

KMK said:


> And, this transfer of authority has been embraced by many of the Reformed community without much of a struggle!



I'm not sure I would characterize it precisely like that. The rise of science and it's claim of neutrality was making inroads and attacking the very foundations of life, so Christianity was trying to figure out the meaning of all of these things and mount defenses against them. However, I don't think everyone fully comprehended the devastating results of the humanistic presupposition contained within the paradigm, which is really evidenced in Warfield's thinking.

I think that regeneration and the change in our legal standing before God makes us by nature more trusting than the non-believer, spiritually we are at peace with God, and we must war against the flesh, the world and the devil. We are fighting many fronts simultaneously, the world doesn't have this problem, they don't have to struggle and fight against sin the way we do, thus they have a unity in sin they don't have to struggle to obtain or maintain. Reaching a cultural low point for the world is a very easy thing to do, their only battle is really maintaining that lowness; whereas reaching and maintaining cultural highpoints for Chrisianity requires eternal vigilance, confessional unity is a very difficult thing to obtain or maintain.

We're born into a context, it's very easy to judge those of the past and discount the magnitude of the things they faced, likewise it's easy to discount the magnitude of their successes as well.

I think what we need to consider is receiving what we've inherited and carrying it forward championing truth instead of tearing down the past successes and having to rebuild them continually because we may not be happy that they weren't performed precisely within our theological or ecclesiastical preferences or ideals.



KMK said:


> I find your example of FV very interesting. How would their theology change if they were under the authority of the TR? Can you give specific passages where the CT is necessary for the FV?



It's a matter of emphasis, because of that it doesn't seem that a lot of critical text supporters can see the issue because they are bound by the Confession. The Confession, though, wasn't developed from those that developed a certain emphasis on texts utilizing critical texts. It's more easy to demonstrate how the Received Text mitigates against Federal Vision's new interpretation, because they are willing to depart from being bound by the Confession.

Consider, for a moment, the way they collapse the distinction between the visible and invisible Church where the sacrament of baptism becomes as close to baptismal regeneration as one can get without actually claiming it. Take a look at Ephesians 5:30, being members of Christ includes "his flesh and his bones," whereas it doesn't in the critical texts, the same is true for the Latin Vulgate. The teaching is a certainy in the Promise tied to the marital covenant between Christ and His Church; Federal Vision makes that conditional upon visible Church membership, which the exclusion of His flesh and bones would support. John 17:12 is another good example, which is where John Knox threw his first anchor into the Reformed Faith, "in the world," is missing from the critical texts and the Latin Vulgate, hence the concept of Authority inuring to the visible Church is much easier to start developing. There are many more that will readily come to mind, but that should give you a couple to start thinking about this idea.

We are taught about Rome from a Reformed perspective and that kind of results in a conceptualization that everything about it was manmade doctrines in a Scriptural void. I think we have to take a new look at that, because I believe Rome became what the Latin Vulgate taught being derived from a predominance of the Alexandrian texts. Hence, I believe that Federal Vision is returning to Romanistic doctrines because it's willing to consider the development of doctrine independent of being bound by a Confession derived from the Received Text.

Hence, textual criticism tells us that there is no change to doctrine from their work, that is only because the implications of the textual changes have not been fully carried forth, they are now beginning to do that, and many Reformed Churches are returning to Rome as a result. Those willing to be bound by the Confession in doctrinal definitions don't fully comprehend the change in emphasis on the doctrines once you are willing to re-examine them independent from it upon the critical texts.

Cordially,

Thomas


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 1, 2008)

Thomas,

You have raised a number of very important points. Having been schooled (somewhat uncritically in the CT) 35 years ago, I have never given the subject the kind of attention it deserves. 

Your observations about the implications of textual criticism are fascinating . . .



> Hence, textual criticism tells us that there is no change to doctrine from their work, that is only because the implications of the textual changes have not been fully carried forth, they are now beginning to do that, and many Reformed Churches are returning to Rome as a result. Those willing to be bound by the Confession in doctrinal definitions don't fully comprehend the change in emphasis on the doctrines once you are willing to re-examine them independent from it upon the critical texts.



I have not studied these matters in detail and would welcome more from you on this subject. For some time I have felt that the critical methodologies being applied to biblical interpretation lead somewhat inevitably to non-conservative outcomes. A few years ago one of my former teachers, Moises Silva, gave a presidential address to the ETS raising issues of the somewhat inconsistent use of critical methodologies by evangelical scholars. It seems to me that the presuppositions inherent in these critical methodologies, if practiced consistently, will lead us all to the left . . . over time.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Jan 1, 2008)

jdlongmire said:


> Thomas - thank you - do I understand you accurately to be saying that the principle of Sola Scriptura is based solely on the authority and accuracy of the Received Text? Also - does this wiki entry accurately describe the Textus Receptus position?
> 
> Apologies if I am inaccurately understanding.



Hello JD,

Here are two quotes that briefly answer your question. The Helvetic Consensus Formula of 1675 explains clearly the meaning of Reformed Orthodoxy in terms of the texts mentioned in the Westminster Confession:

“The Hebrew original of the Old Testament, which we have received and to this day do retain as handed down by the Jewish Church,…not only in its matter, but in its words, inspired of God, thus forming, together with the original of the New Testament, the sole and complete rule of faith and life: and to its standard, as to a Lydian stone, all extant versions, Oriental and Occidental, ought to be applied, and wherever they differ, be conformed.” HCF, Chapter 2, edited for clarity

The Reformers held the Received Text tradition as the standard and to them this was the definition of "Sola Scriptura," in terms of the New Testament.
Jack Rogers did a good job explaining what this meant to Reformers in comparison to modern principles:

“The text of Scripture is the Word of God, and God’s Word is not to be sought independently of the text of Scripture. Inspiration does not usually imply any particular theory about how the Scripture came to be the Word of God. Nor does inspiration eliminate the human contribution which the human authors made to the written Scripture. And most certainly, for the Westminster divines, inspiration can not be used as an excuse for trying to find God’s Word separate from the written text of Scripture.” Rogers, Scripture in the Westminster Confession, p 301-2

I think it would be easiest to follow suite of Elder Rafalsky and post some prior work I've done on this. The following was some blog comments on this subject I made a few months ago in regard to a similar question, I think it will help explain this in more depth. Of course, if it doesn't, I'll be happy to answer more particular points.

My answer to the question below is similar to your question: "Do I understand you accurately to be saying that the principle of Sola Scriptura is based solely on the authority and accuracy of the Received Text?"


---begin post 1---

You said:

“The “providential view” is a name I made up, but I’m sure that someone holds to something like this! Many King James only advocates, for example, would argue that God must have preserved scripture a certain way, and the KJV is how he did it.”

My answer:

What you claim to have “made up” is actually what the Magisterial Reformers held to and is the Confessional position of the Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:8

While they didn’t hold to unlearned anabaptist thought about inspiration of translation, which should be self evident, they did hold that the commonly Received Text of Scripture was the original text Providentially Preserved (1, Aland quote below).

(1) “…it is undisputed that from the 16th century to the 18th century orthodoxy’s doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed… [the] Textus Receptus. It was the only Greek text they knew, and they regarded it as the ‘original’ text.” (Kurt Aland, “The Text of the Church” Trinity journal 8 (1987), p. 131.

Thus, during the English civil wars the printing of Bibles in England had ceased, some copies printed in Holland and imported were examined by the Assembly of Divines in 1643 and found to contain printing errors they considered to be “corrupt and dangerous to religion.” (see Scrivener, Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), p 25) They then petitioned Parliament to outlaw any importation that was not approved by said Divines which was enacted, but it didn’t do much good as many were subsequently imported from Holland with false claims as to the origin of press .

In that sense one could say the Westminster Divines were “King James Onlyists” as they were opposing the Tridentine attacks upon Sola Scriptura through the introduction of variant readings and Rome’s assertion therein that Papal Infallibility was the only reliable guide to Truth. This claim, of course, has simply been restated today in terms that enlightenment textual philosophers are now the infallible guide.

While it is not true that it was the only Greek “text” they knew (2), in case someone reads that to mean “manuscript text”, it is true they regarded it as the original and reliable text of Scripture itself.

That is why it is called the “Received Text” as it is held by orthodox Protestantism to be the original autographa Providentially Preserved and “received” by Christendom through the ages. They had a much higher view of Scripture and approached the issue from an entirely different orientation, never entering their mind to attempt to compare apographs with hypothetical “inerrant autographs” which they didn’t nor could possess. Thus, the doctrine of Inspriration, Inerrancy and Infallibility was not approached from the enlightment philosophy that posits an extrabiblical standard upon textual reliability.

Furthermore, it is incorrect to allude, the way you do that the Received Text “finds its roots in Erasmus’s Novum Instrumentum Omne.” The word “roots” indicates, at least in my interpretation, that you are saying that Erasmus created a “received text,” when it is merely the transmission of a manuscript text already commonly received into printed form.

Sincerely,

Thomas

(2) Paul Bombasius, on June 18, 1521, the secretary of the Lorenzo
Pucci at Rome, sent a letter to Erasmus containing a copy of portions of Codex Vaticanus. Jospeh Dixon (1853) says that Erasmus rejected it presuming Vaticanus to be corrupt and altered to match the Latin.

----end post 1----


A couple of people responded with more questions to this post, those responses are below:


---begin post 1---

Question asked:

“If I may ask, if they did not approach this from an Enlightenment philosophy with its attendant extrabiblical standards, then whence or how did they approach the doctrine of Inspiration, Inerrancy, and Infallibility?”

My answer:

Francis Turretin, a Geneva Reformer and author of the Helvetic Consensus, explains the matter plainly. For more see that Consensus:

“By the original texts, we do not mean the autographs written by the hand of Moses, of the prophets and the apostles, which certainly do not now exist. 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.” Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1992 1:106.

For a much more expansive answer I would refer you to Richard Muller’s, “Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics.” Here is a pertinent quote:

“By “original” and “authentic” text, the Protestant orthodox do not mean the autographa which no one can possess but the apographa in the original tongue which are the source of all versions. The Jews throughout history and the church in the time of Christ regarded the Hebrew of the Old Testament as authentic and for nearly six centuries after Christ, the Greek of the New Testament was viewed as authentic without dispute. It is important to note that the Reformed orthodox insistence on the identification of the Hebrew and Greek texts as alone authentic does not demand direct reference to autographa in those languages: the “original and authentic text” of Scripture means, beyond the autograph copies, the legitimate tradition of Hebrew and Greek apographa. The case for Scripture as an infallible rule of faith and practice and the separate arguments for a received text free from major (non-scribal) error rests on an examination of the apographa and does not seek the infinite regress of the lost autographa as a prop for textual infallibility…. [In related footnote 165 Muller observes: “A rather sharp contrast must be drawn, therefore, between the Protestant orthodox arguments concerning the autographa and the views of Archibald Alexander Hodge and Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield.”] p. 433

The principle held today in modern criticism of this “infinite regress” to “inerrant autographa” is the textual heterdoxy of BB Warfield when he departed from the Westminster Confession and then redefined it in terms of his departure standing upon the enlightenment presupposition of Wescott and Hort. His departure from Protestant orthodoxy created a need to establish and maintain a scientific definition of Biblical inerrancy under attack by naturalistic scientific theory, walla, “inerrant autographa.” It is a new and novel idea in terms of historic Reformed Orthodoxy, none of the Magisterial Reformers held to the concept, on the contrary, that was Rome’s claim.

To the Reformers the Bible was infallible because it was the very word of the Living God. They simply identified the legitimate tradition of the preservation of the text and received it.

So, they approached it in the way they approached Nicene and Chalcedonian orthodoxy, thus they did not create a second classification of Scripture based upon hypothetical and hellenic presuppositions (”inerrant autographs”) in which God by His “singular care and providence” becomes required to abide by. Once you take the Bible in your hands and pit the autographa against the apographa, you are attempting to hold it in dialetical tension in the hellenic Form/Matter dialetic; you then become a wordless “Christian Mime.” Which is why the Gospel only speaks today in terms of “relevancy,” instead of an authoritative word from the Most High God.

Thus, they didn’t philosophize about the text, they received the Scriptures that was common to Greek and Protestant Church through the ages. The modern heterdoxy of “inerrant autographs” would have been seen by the Reformers as a concession to Rome, and the modern fundamentalist “KVJ Only” baptist clearly senses this. He simply doesn’t have the ability to deal with the problem of Biblical Authority with the philosophical tools at hand to him, this is because he is standing upon Reformed Orthodoxy in receipt of the Authorized Version but theologically denies the doctrines of that Orthodoxy. Hence, he necessarily creates the “inspiration” of the translation to maintain his theological independence. If you look at Riplinger, for example, whom James White disparages; she receives the Bible of Chalcedonian Orthodoxy (e.g., Calvinism) and sets out on anti-Calvinistic tirade because the Reformed caved to naturalistic scientific criticism ala BB Warfield and published that Romish NIV. James White, then, in his championing of Warfeldian heterdoxy simply confirms, in their eyes, every word she wrote.

The Reformers did not try to stand upon a presupposition of neutral objectivity, they were biased against Rome and championed that bias. It is a matter of presuppositions by and through which one interprets the data, EF Hills explains this very well in his work, King James Version Defended.

The same problem exists, for example, in the way the evolutionist pretends to be capable of standing upon neutral ground to interpret the creation, instead of being analogical and thinking God’s thoughts after Him, in his definition he becomes a maker of facts, and stumbles. Likewise, the principles of eclectic criticism is the academic equivalent of the Scopes Monkey Trial in its quest for the inerrant autographa, which is why the Authorized Version is scorned and disparaged.

---end post 2---

---begin post 3---

You asked,

“Where did the Magisterial Reformers get the idea “that the commonly Received Text of Scripture was the original text Providentially Preserved”?”

That is the essence of the Reformation and its doctrine of Sola Scriptura in its return to “ancient catholic orthodoxy.” Steinmetz explains what this term means:

“[T]he attempt of the Protestant reformers to recapture ancient doctrine and discipline is labelled innovation by a Church which has lost contact with its own past and which identifies modern belief and practice with the faith and discipline of the early Church….In point of fact, the Protestant reformers are attempting to keep faith with the ancient teaching of the Apostles as understood by the fathers against the later unwarranted innovations and novelties introduced by the medieval Catholic Church.” Steinmetz, Luther in Context, 1986 p 92

continuing question:

“This is certainly not a Biblical idea, so aren’t they also imposing an extrabiblical standard by which to determine the inspired text?”

It most certainly is a Biblical idea because returning to the original language texts as against Popery was a rejection of it’s extrabiblical innovations upon the doctrines of the Faith once delivered to the Saints and the text itself.

continuing question:

“It seems to me that they more or less picked one specific text and decided to go with that one.”

The issue is one of Authority, does it rest in men or does it rest in the Word of God itself? Does the visible Church create Authority or does it simply recognize Authority?

They rejected the former and accepted the latter. Hence, they recognized the Received Text as the Authoritative text of ecclesiastical tradition and received it upon the same terms they received the early ecumenical creeds.

Hence, there is continuity between the teaching of the Creeds and the Scripture and discontinuity in the Romish practice and textual variants that support it. Modern textual criticism says these variants are the “oldest and best manuscripts.” They marked those textual variants out as corrupted. Burgon, who actually spent about six years personally collating manuscripts explains his rejection of Wescott and Hort’s New Greek Text:

“The task of laboriously collating the five “old uncials” throughout the Gospels, occupied me for five-and-a-half years, and taxed me severely. But I was rewarded. I rose from the investigation profoundly convinced that, however, important they may be as instruments of Criticism, codices Aleph A B C D are among the most corrupt documents extant. It was a conviction derived from exact Knowledge and based on solid grounds of Reason. You, my lord Bishop, who have never gone deeply into the subject, repose simply on Prejudice. Never having at any time collated codices Aleph A B C D for yourself, you are unable to gainsay a single statement of mine by a counter-appeal to facts. Your textual learning proves to have been all obtained at second-hand, taken on trust. And so, instead of marshalling against me a corresponding array of ancient authorities, you invariably attempt to put me down by an appeal to Modern Opinion.” Burgon, Revision Revised, p 376

Burgon, even though a High Church Anglican, was standing upon textual Protestant Orthodoxy. Wescott and Hort following Greisbach had rejected this and formulated a new theory, which if held to will destroy Protestantism. That is why everyone that faithfully holds to modern textual criticism eventually rejects the doctrines of Protestant Orthodoxy and is invariably led back to Rome or a High Church position, or some in between (e.g., Federal Vision Theology of Reformed Presbyterians)

Finally question:

“The original manuscript view agrees that there was one inspired text (the original manuscript), but it is now lost, hence the task of textural criticism, that is, to as nearly as possible determine what that original manuscript was.”

I agree that this the modern view and it was the view of Rome, it is not the view of Reformational Orthodoxy, they denied it was lost, but preserved in the apographs, just with the warts of uninspired human agencies upon its transmission.

The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Mainz stated the issue very well, when he first saw a Bible:

“Of a truth I do not know what book this is, but I perceive everything in it is against us.” Bennet’s Memorial of the Reformation, p. 20; Edin., 1748

The modern view of textual criticism is a continuation of medieval
scholasticism. Scholasticism reintroduced Aristotle’s humanism into Western
history, the result was the decline of orthodox Christianity and it’s Trinitarian
answer to the problem of the “One and the Many”, or the problem of Authority.

The implications of scholasticism are by their very nature subordinationist. Revelation was slighted and nature was, after Greek philosophical presuppositions, asserted as the primary and basically self sufficient order. The same principle is held to by secular humanists when they interpret “natural law,” which means something completely different to Christians.

When Scripture is suboridnated the determination of history and Sovereignty as a religious concept passes from eternity into time, from the supernatural to the natural. Subsequently, a subordinationist Christology was developed and this became the imperial Christology of the Roman Catholic Church.

Modern textual criticism invariably leads one back to an Imperial Christology as well and displaces Chalcedonian Orthodoxy in the process.

---end post 3---

---being post 4---

Question asked:

Thomas,

I would like to read more along the lines you are spelling out. You mentioned a couple of references ie EF Hills and Mueller, anything else I can check in to.

Oh and thanks for the detailed response. And the distinction between what you are setting forth and KJV-Onlyism.

My answer:

In my understanding the issue of modern textual criticism has to be put into its proper context to understand both its origin, method and effect in terms of Reformational Orthodoxy that delivered unto us the Received Text, and the Authorized Version as the established Bible, as well as our Reformed Confessional standards. That is to say, we must seek to understand the rationale employed by the Reformation era editors in producing the Received Text and the Westminster Confession’s theological tenet of Providential Preservation of which it is the tangible reality.

You simply can’t evaluate Renaissance scholarship by post-Enlightment standards and make the conclusion that they were all wrong, or doofus’s, or not as smart as we are &c. They approached the issue from a completely different orientation.

As Rushdoony states, “The issue of the Received Text is thus no small matter, nor one of academic concern only. The faith is at stake.” The Problems of the Received Text, 1989

First, one needs to understand the Reformed Dogmatics in which this textual tradition arose, so the reference to Muller is a good one as well as “The Inspiration of Scripture: A Study of the Theology of the Seventeenth Century”, by Robert D Preus, Ph.D.

Then, I would suggest, these two works to understand the principles of Griesbach and its affect upon the theology and the discipline:

An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, Frederick Nolan, 1830

“The Canon of Scripture being received as the unerring rule of faith, and the ultimate test of controversy; the foundation of all Religion must necessarily collapse with the destruction of its
integrity. As this object would be effectually obtained, should the critical system, on which Dr. Griesbach proposed to amend the Received Text, be incautiously admitted; it required no exertion of sagacity, or stretch of foresight to observe, that while his critical labors continued silently to gain
ground; the landmarks fixed by the Established Church, as a barrier to innovation and error, could not preserve their original position.” Ibid.

The Rise of Biblical Criticism in America, 1800-1820: The New England Scholars, Jerry Wayne Browne, 1969

“Joseph S. Buckminster persuaded the officials of Harvard College to publish an American edition of Griesbach’s Greek New Testament, because he viewed text criticism as a most powerful weapon to be used against the supporters of verbal inspiration.” Ibid.

Also, you’ll need a good history of the Reformation, and Bennet’s “Memorial of the Reformation” is an absolutely pleasurable read, then everything by Edward Freer Hills and Theodore Letis, especially:

“The Ecclesiastical Text,” Theodore P. Letis
“The Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text and the Claims of the Anabaptists,” Theodore P. Letis

and finally, John Owen, “Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of the Scriptures”

Cordially,

Thomas


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 2, 2008)

Lane, you say (in your post #18),

“The appeal to Arminianism as a slippery slope with regard to Warfield is not a cogent argument against Warfield's view of Scripture. There are few theologians in the history of the church who argued against Arminianism as vociferously as Warfield did. Arminianism is certainly not directly related to textual criticism.”​
Sorry if my lack of clarity led you to this conclusion! What I said/meant to say was there were two distinct components in the rapid decline of the Presbyterian-Reformed churches, 1) the absence among them of a standard text, a common Bible, with the resulting confusion as what is the genuine Word of God, and 2) the encroachments of Arminianism into the Reformed camp. I put it like this:



> Warfield meant well, but he departed from bulwark of the Standards, and what we see today, in terms of the erosion of integrity in the Reformed communions, is in great measure a result of this. Of course there is more to this erosion, such as the entertaining of Arminianism within the very precincts of the Calvinist stronghold, yet the loss of a sure Scripture is as a mighty torpedo in the hull.



I did not mean – in the slightest – that Warfield introduced Arminianism into the Reformed camp. Though the breach of Scripture did weaken the “immune system” of the Body. When the primary standard of the Church’s confession – the Scripture – is overthrown, as I maintain it is (and will demonstrate shortly) – the secondary standards of the confessions will naturally follow suit.

When I am told that in the ESV’s Matthew 1 verses 7 and 10 with their notorious Asaph and Amos replacing the royal forebears of the Lord Jesus we have the authentic Greek text (reflecting the reading of the CT), with disdain I reject that assertion which posits error in the autograph of the apostle.

It is in the details of a thing that its excellence and especially its _functionality_ is seen. A superior watch is known by its internal parts and not only its face.

In the _details_ of the CT can we assert that God’s providence was active upon them to preserve the true readings, or did He pass over some of them, letting them fall into error? In this the newest – and some say the finest – translation of the CT, the ESV, we observe its reading in Matthew 1, verses 7 and 10. Both the Greek text and the English translation read, in v. 7, that Asaph was in the royal lineage of Christ rather than Asa, and in v. 10, that Amos was a progenitor of Christ rather than Amon. It will not do to aver “these are alternate spellings,” for Hebrew is a precise language, and Matthew was a literate man; we would not accept, in English, that Solar was an alternative spelling for Sol, or Merry an alternative for Mary.

In this discussion of the relative merits of the CT vs. the TR there are two approaches I use, the macro and the micro. The former pertains to the overview – positing a plausible (for some of the details are lost to us) history of the textual transmission, including the corruption of the text – and the latter involves fighting in the trenches, as it were; that is, looking at the specific variants introduced initially by Rome to subvert the Reformation’s Sola Scriptura / “preserved text”, and now by those seduced to the progressive allure of those manuscripts (used initially by Rome) who claim the variants represent the superior text.

So in this trench, Matt. 1:7, 9, we see the Critical Text asserting that in Matthew’s *original* the apostle made an error. This cannot be allowed to stand. It is on the face of it false.

I will continue to respond to your post shortly.


----------



## MW (Jan 2, 2008)

I much appreciate the posts contributed to this thread in defence of the TR. May I make a clarifying observation without in the slightest detracting from what has been said.

The fact that the TR has variants is irrelevant. It might even have had more variants than the critical text, and the fact would still have been irrelevant. The reason is, that the concept of the textus receptus contains within it a fundamental theological point which is abandoned when critics opt for an eclectic text. That fundamental theological point is the conviction that the church possesses the Word of God uncorrupted. No one has laid claim to the idea that this uncorrupted Word of God is to be found in a single MS., and thereby excluded the possibility of variants. It is readily acknowledged that the preserved text is to be found amongst a multiplicity of MSS., and that therefore textual criticism of a kind is required. But it is maintained with the utmost confidence that such critical work must proceed on the basis of faith in the Word of God, and that entails an unshaken commitment to the belief that the church possesses the Word of God and not merely something which approximates to it.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 2, 2008)

Steve, thanks for your clarification. It was quite helpful. I understand you'll be posting more on this issue. So, I don't wish to sidetrack you. However, I will briefly respond to the issues raised about Matthew 1. My brief response is that Matthew has very good reasons for saying Asaph and Amos, not Asa and Amon. It was no mistake. First of all, the idea of "begetting" has a larger semantic range than merely father to son. This is proved absolutely conclusively in Matthew 1 by the fact that Matthew deliberately skips three entire generations, thus having grandfathers being said to father their grandchildren. The reason he did that was so that the generations would work out to 3 sets of 14 generations (there is numerical symbolism present here in that DVD, the Hebrew consonants in David's name, corresponds to this numerical setup: the theological point is that Jesus is the Davidic King). However, the semantic range of "begetting" is even larger than direct line od descendents. This is shown by the phrase "children of disobedience," "children of wrath." The idea of generation does not always have to be genealogical. It could be that Matthew simply wanted to include these names in the genealogy for their prophecies and Psalms. 

Secondly, you are too quick to rule out the possibility of alternate spellings. Especially in Matthew 1:10, it is a fact that Amos is a Septuagintal reading for Amon. See the LXX manuscripts A Bc at 1 Chronicles 3:14, which read Amos for Amon. See Nolland's commentary on Matthew, pg. 81. He does argue (wrongly) that Asaph is an error for Asa. Hebrew is not nearly as precise as you make it out to be. Nebuchadnezzar is spelled Nebuchadrezzar in more than one place in Daniel. Alternate spelling cannot be ruled out nearly as easily as you think. 

Thomas, if you put one single ounce of confidence is Gail Riplinger's book, then you are making a huge mistake. Try this experiment. Go through every single quotation of her category "the modern versions" and check how often the reading is found in only *one* of the modern versions, not all of them, though she quotes them as all having the reading. Also check out how bad her hermeneutics are. I went through every single quotation in the first chapter, and found *hundreds* of factual and quotational errors, not to mention hermeneutical fallacies. For TR positions, trust Burgon and Hill. Don't go to Riplinger. 

Furthermore, the WCF 1.8 nowhere mentions "the received text." You are reading into the confession an issue that didn't come to light with regard to textual criticism until much later. Even the Enlightenment didn't happen until well after the WCF was written. I utterly repudiate the notion that the Enlightenment is responsible for textual criticism, for this very simple reason: even the TR is the result of textual criticism! They had to compare manuscripts one with another. Textual criticism is not inherently evil. The fact that some have put humanity over the text of Scripture and wanted to play God over the Word of God is no reason to throw out the baby with the bath-water. 

Thirdly, your interpretation of WCF 1.8 is also flawed when it comes to saying that the TR is what the divines had in mind as opposed to the autographa. First of all, your quotation of Muller is not accurate. I looked in every volume of Muller's PRRD on page 433 and did not find the quotation that you said he had. Furthermore, the divines clearly had the autographs in mind: the exact wording is this: "being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages." The immediately inspired document is not the copy, for that would be mediate, not immediate. It was the autograph that has been preserved through the manuscripts. But to say that the Westminster divines would have rejected Westcott and Hort (who were NOT Romanists) is most anachronistic. The debate simply wasn't around in the days of the Westminster Assembly. By far and away the majority of *Confessional* adherents today hold to the critical text. To suggest that all these fine men are Enlightenment, proto-Roman Catholic rejecters of the true, pure Word of God is slanderous. No advocate of the critical text, as far as I know, makes any such vituperative claims about TR people. I have slammed Riplinger's book because it completely lacks scholarly integrity. 

Matthew, I appreciate your stand for the uncorrupted nature of the Word of God. You say, "That fundamental theological point is the conviction that the church possesses the Word of God uncorrupted." My question is this: do you really think that advocates of the critical text have abandoned this point? I certainly have not. My position is that 99.999% of the NT is assured as to what it is. The remaining .001 percent has nothing to do with the meaning of Scripture. Not even the ending of Mark, or the Comma Johanneum, or any other verse in dispute shakes the doctrinal meaning of the NT, whether one uses the TR or the critical text. I fear that too many TR advocates make too much of the differences between the TR and the CT. The differences are peanuts, folks. Again, compare it to Homer, where a full tenth of the text is in serious doubt.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 2, 2008)

Sincere thanks to Lane for his balanced helpful comments.



> For TR positions, trust Burgon and Hill. Don't go to Riplinger.




Always stick with the best proponents of a position in order to avoid erecting straw-men.


----------



## KMK (Jan 2, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> Furthermore, the divines clearly had the autographs in mind: the exact wording is this: "being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages." The immediately inspired document is not the copy, for that would be mediate, not immediate.



Thank you for a very thoughtful post! Because of my ignorance, I don't understand the argument here. The original autographs were immediately inspired by God and penned by men. The inspiration was immediate even though the autographs were not. Why can't the same be said for the 'copy'? Isn't that what is implied by "singular care and providence"?


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 2, 2008)

KMK said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > Furthermore, the divines clearly had the autographs in mind: the exact wording is this: "being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages." The immediately inspired document is not the copy, for that would be mediate, not immediate.
> ...



The argument here is that God's inspiration applies to the author as he was writing. God's direct inspiration does not apply to a scribe who is copying the manuscript. Only God's general providence applies to that, such that the differences among the manuscripts are but slight. In other words, the divines are talking about how the words from God were *originally* written down, not about how they were copied, when they said "immediately inspired by God."


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 2, 2008)

Lane,

Thanks for your response. I'll be pondering it till I have a chance to get back. This thread is moving along so quickly, and my pastoral tasks keep me away — but I have told the Lord that the care of His people takes priority over my writing. I have to find a psych ward in the country's capitol tomorrow (a city I am mostly unfamiliar with), and see an African sister — she just turned 19 — who's been incarcerated for two years for coming into the country with bad papers (converted in prison), and now for some reason put into psych. She told me over the phone that God will use this for good for her. I solicit prayer for this girl (Marie), that her faith in Christ be true and strong, and that He have mercy and get her out.

I found the Muller quote of Thomas' in _Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: Vol 2, Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology_ (Baker 1993), p. 433; ISBN: 0801062993, paperback.

This is what it looks like: IEC BOOKS


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 2, 2008)

Ah, I see the problem with the Muller. Different editions. I have the second edition of that work, available here. In that volume, the quotation in question is found on pp. 413-414, with the footnote being number 192. The quotation is unaltered from the first to the second edition. However, the quotation was not given its full context (and Turretin certainly wasn't, as I shall prove below). After the portion that Thomas quoted, the footnote goes on to explain: "This issue must be raised because of the tendency in many recent essays to confuse the two views. Like virtually all exegetes and theologians before and after them, they recognized that the text of Scripture as we now have it contains contradictory and historically problematic statements. They also recognized the futility of harmonizations of the text-but they insisted that all such difficult or erroneous passages ought to be understood as the result of scribal errors. Those who claim an errant text, against the orthodox consensus to the contrary, must prove their case. To claim errors in the scribal copies, the _apographa_, is hardly a proof: the claim must be proven true of the _autographa_. The point made by Hodge and Warfield is a logical trap, a rhetorical flourish, a conundrum designed to confound the critics- who can only prove their case for genuine errancy by recourse to a text they do not (and surely _cannot_) have."

However, the case that Muller makes is by no means so clear-cut (that the Reformers are sharply distinguished from Hodge/Warfield on this). Muller seems to have forgotten, first of all, that Turretin was Hodge's text used in his class. Secondly, this useful distinction by Turretin is vital to the discussion (and completely missed by Thomas): Turretin makes a distinction between writing that is primarily authentic (which includes the autographs of authors) and secondarily authentic, which inclues "all the copies accurately and faithfully taken from the originals by suitable men" (volume 1, pg. 113 of the IET). He ascribes primary authenticity only to the autographs of Scripture, and secondary authenticity to the copies, which are "accurately and faithfully taken from the originals." Again, I ask the question: I, as an eclectic text critic, hold that just about all the manuscripts we have today are "accurate" and "faithful." The differences are minuscule (pun intended). Why then are we supposed to ignore completely Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and the rest of the Alexandrian tradition? As soon as one starts harping on the fact that the TR is the *received* text, then is this not the argument that the text used in the church is the right one? Is this not saying that the church gives legitimacy to the manuscripts? 

Secondly, the Turretin quotation on page 106 of the first volume is not directed against different _Greek_ manuscripts, but against the _Vulgate_. This is clear from the immediately preceding context where Turretin is setting forth the question about the Vulgate version. By original, then, Turretin obviously means original language, which can obviously be found in the copies, not only the autographs. Immediately following the quotation that Thomas referred to, is the argument that the apographs are not perfectly pure. There are faults in the manuscripts, as _both sides have acknowledged_. Turretin denies that such faults amount to such a crippling that "they can no longer be regarded as the judge of controversies." Again, Thomas has distorted Turretin's view here, since Turretin plainly ascribes perfection only to the autographs. There are textual corruptions that have entered into the apographs. Otherwise, why introduce the distinction referred to in the previous paragraph?


----------



## Thomas2007 (Jan 2, 2008)

Dear Reverend Keister,

I'm finally getting to answer some of your many posts, I'm going to try and provide some brief answers for several of them in this one response, consolidating them together.



greenbaggins said:


> Thomas, what do you do with all the differences among TR manuscripts? Which one is original?



First, I don't do anything with them, I simply receive the established Bible and stand upon it, exercising dominion to the extent I still can between my private and public life upon that established version. I receive it upon the same grounds as I receive the early creeds, and this is the ground the Reformers received it as well.

I'm simply not willing to subjugate my life to the enemy over arguments that ultimately boil down to mere opinion. In my view, Providence hasn't worked out the text in terms of the perfection of original autograph, nor do I believe He has intended us to have this perfection, or He would have preserved it in that form. Either that, or the whole idea of "Providential preservation" is wrong, as many of the critical proponents argue today.

I believe we are to come unto submission to the word of God and unto one another in the fear of God as brethern, in my mind it is impossible to have Confessional Unity when we are constantly arguing over the text. While you claim there is very little difference, that doesn't comport to practical experience, at least in my world as a former minister of the Word myself, neither does it address the issue of Authority. Rather, in my eyes it seem to skirt the real issue. The modern paradigm I find to be shameful, because there are consequences to it that no one seems to be willing to recognize or accept.

In my view the Church has swung open the door to the world questioning the validity of its Authority, with practically neon lights inviting it in, "Come, make merchandise of the Bride of Christ," and then disowns it's responsibility when it reaps the consequences of that.

The issue is Authority, men don't create Authority, they merely recognize it. Perfection is not Authority, rather it is recognition and submission unto obedience. 

The critical text and the philosophy behind it was brought upon the Church in secrecy, denying Authority of Scripture and attacking its establishment, the public life of the Church has been the battle ground. Various hypothesis are brought forward as theories without any ability to actually test them, and thus no true theory exists, just mere opinions of men that substantively differ from our Reformed fathers whose fruit we can clearly ascertain. What is the fruit of this work? The pew, to me, isn't a hypothetical realm that I come unto, it is where I bow my heart and seek covenant renewal each week before a Just and Holy God that offers me redemption by One that kept "every word of God." (Luke 4:4)

The only thing that is argued as a certainty is that the established Authorized Version is full of so many errors, that apparently don't affect any doctrine, but it must be put down nevertheless - and what goes with that, especially in America, is the public standing of the Church and it's ability to govern itself as an independent realm, relinquishing the Authority of its Apostolic witness to the opinions of men.

If you have verifiable proof of the textual issue, bring it forward in its proper sphere and make your case - but in my opinion and belief, the public life of the Church is not the proper sphere, where every layman is then rallied to various positions that none are truly qualified to take, based upon mere supposition and opinion.

The burden of proof isn't upon us, we are simply receiving what our Reformed fathers have handed down to us, the burden of proof is upon those that deny it as reliable Authority.




> It seems to me that a lot of TR folk are arguing against Westcott and Hort, who were overly imbalanced in favor of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Modern textual criticism is much more eclectic, and gives much more weight to the Byzantine text form than WH did. The arguments against WH are not applicable to today's eclectic methods.



The argument is one of reality about the Bible's in people's hands, not some future perpetually evolving text that may be published under eclectic methodologies. Modern criticism philosophically stands upon the same grounds as Wescott and Hort, they've fully incorporated those hypothesis in differening methologies, which in no way distinguishes the principles of the underlying issue.



> There is no way that I would ever say that if someone has the TR that they do not have the Word of God.



Maybe you wouldn't, but for nearly a century now, the Received Text and those that use it have suffered under very grotesque assaults and ridicule. I was introduced to Calvinism, for example, under the pretext of disparagment and ridicule over the Bible I used.

As Owen said, they came out of Rome under the purity of the text, and would not wish to see men return thither under the pretence of their corruption - but that is precisely what has happened. Elder Rafalsky posted a very good defense of the Lord's Prayer, and although the modern Bible's that everyone is using negates the validity of it's doxology, when congregations recite it they invariably recite the Received reading. If you really believed the critical text position, and the doxology is nothing more than errant tradition, then under the Regulative Principle of Worship you should bear down on that and disallow it. Our Reformed fathers, if they would have believed what modern critics tell us, would have bore down on that with manliness.

Again, until verifiable proof is brought forward, the public life of the Church is not the proper domain for the debate, as far as I am concerned. There is a reason it was brought there and there is a reason it is continually fought there. All they have is hypothesis and mere opinion, so they bring it forth upon the public life of the Church, where they can rely upon the ignorance, to rally a democratic stand. The whole attitude of people today toward the Scriptures has been lowered, if you try to bind a man today to the Scripture, the general response is this or that text can be translated this or that way, generally licensing his behavior - every body has become a judge, a critic and a translator.



> Thomas, if you put one single ounce of confidence is Gail Riplinger's book, then you are making a huge mistake. Try this experiment. Go through every single quotation of her category "the modern versions" and check how often the reading is found in only *one* of the modern versions, not all of them, though she quotes them as all having the reading. Also check out how bad her hermeneutics are. I went through every single quotation in the first chapter, and found *hundreds* of factual and quotational errors, not to mention hermeneutical fallacies. For TR positions, trust Burgon and Hill. Don't go to Riplinger.



Is not the scope of my reference self evident? I made it through the first couple of chapters of Mrs Riplingers book when it came out, what maybe ten years ago now, and I never finished it - didn't need to. From what I could tell, if memory serves me correctly, she has what appears to me a "mystical" interpretation of Scripture. But that doesn't change the fact than in her eyes and those that follow that thinking, that approaches like Mr White's does nothing to contradict it but rather simply establishes the principle.

She accused modern versions as being AntiChrist, and in the light of Scripture, her credentials or credibility, notwithstanding - the textual changes on the identifying traits of what or what is not antichrist is substantively changed in Bible's based upon the critical texts.

My Bible tells me to try the spirits whether they are of God, and then instructs me on precisely how to do that:

"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that is should come; and even now already is it in the world." 1 John 4:2-3

Bible's based upon critical texts invariably leave out the flesh in verse 3, what does that mean? Do I doctrinally insert it because it's in verse 2, or do I acknowledge everyone that merely confesses "Jesus" as being from God? The flesh of Christ is conspicuously absent from several texts, it's absent from Ephesians 5:30. Do these changes, based upon their emphasis, affect any doctrines if re-interpreted independent of our Confessional Standards? I think they do and I think it changes the Confessional Unity of the Church by allowing questions to stand, and opinions to vary, that are settled upon the emphasis demanded in the Received Text.

Can you offer me certainty to build up my faith advocating the Critical Texts when questions like this arise, or just doubt clouded in a mist of technicality and opinion? When a man is dealing with a real spiritual battle, do we Pastorally advise him, "Well, son, Aleph as set against B and its varying families, in contradistinction to the Received Text certainly, indicates that we should consider the weight of these evidences in light of opinion of eclectic critical methodologies whereby we can certainly be assured that less than 1% of the text is unknown, and this important text just happens to be one of them." Ultimately, though, this is the undercurrent of Scriptural answers to the real problems of life today - and we wonder why the word of God doesn't convict the public conscience anymore. It's because we don't approach the word of God as the word of God anymore, even 1% is enough leaven to leaven the Ninety and Nine, and it is the leaven of the Pharisee's and it leavens it!

"Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts; Which devour widows' houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation." Luke 20:46-47

There is an appearance of impropriety that is inherit in the critical camp, that is because it is real, instead of dealing with the facts and the means in which the debate broke out into the Church its proponents have chosen disparagement and ridicule. Then they are offended when these folks, like Riplinger and others, have lashed back. Have they acted properly, no, but brother - we are not offend one another in our food and drink, we are to take into consideration the weaker brethern in the smallest of things, yet the whole public life of the Church has become a battleground over the very Foundation of our Faith. This should not be so and I lament over it, it just breaks my heart.

I'm out of time, I'll try to answer some of your other questions later.

Cordially,

Thomas


----------



## MW (Jan 2, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> Matthew, I appreciate your stand for the uncorrupted nature of the Word of God. You say, "That fundamental theological point is the conviction that the church possesses the Word of God uncorrupted." My question is this: do you really think that advocates of the critical text have abandoned this point?



Yes, and I could quote any number of modern textual critics to demonstrate it. They hold that the current state of textual criticism has restored the New Testament text to what it would have been about the fourth century. They also maintain (and I agree with them on this point) that the corruption of the NT text is to be dated to the second century -- which effectively refutes the simpleton idea that the earliest MSS. are more reliable. The fundamental point of difference between traditional text advocates and critical text exponents is the belief of the former that the church possesses the word of God over against the misguided opinion of the latter that the church must discover the word of God. The WCF, chapter 1, sections 1 and 8, uncompromisingly comes down on the side of the former, as did the reformed tradition which preceded this faithful standard.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 3, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew, I appreciate your stand for the uncorrupted nature of the Word of God. You say, "That fundamental theological point is the conviction that the church possesses the Word of God uncorrupted." My question is this: do you really think that advocates of the critical text have abandoned this point?
> ...



Matthew, my hunch is that you could quote any number of modern _liberal_ textual critics to demonstrate that. I solemnly declare to you that the shoe fits me so badly that I have blisters and bleeding from it.  So, I'm not sure what you are going to do about people like me, who say that we have the original text uncorrupted



> The fundamental point of difference between traditional text advocates and critical text exponents is the belief of the former that the church possesses the word of God over against the misguided opinion of the latter that the church must discover the word of God.



Unfortunately, since the Reformers did textual criticism in order to come up with the TR, this argument can be turned right around and directed back at the TR folk. The methods are at the very least analogous to what modern critics do. The texts have to be weighed and categorized, compared carefully, with all the differences catalogued. Modern text critics are not the only people who could be accused of trying to discover the text. You are driving a rather large wedge between the Reformed world of the 16-17th centuries and Reformed folk of today. 

On the issue of earliest manuscripts, no one today uses that as the only criteria. That is only one criteria among many that have to be weighed in each and every instance of variance. Other criteria include family relationships of manuscripts, geographical distribution of variant readings, number of manuscripts (which considerations are known as external evidence), and _lectio difficilior_, scribal probability, harmonization, etc. for the internal evidence (which is rather subjective, and therefore to be weighed much less than the external evidence). This is by no means an exhaustive list, but modern textual critics are not under the illusion that earlier is better without heavy qualification. 

Thomas, you say (to my question about what to do with the variants in the TR manuscripts)



> First, I don't do anything with them, I simply receive the established Bible and stand upon it, exercising dominion to the extent I still can between my private and public life upon that established version. I receive it upon the same grounds as I receive the early creeds, and this is the ground the Reformers received it as well.



All I can say to this is that it is a good thing that the Reformers did a bit more work in textual criticism than you would be willing to do. Otherwise, there wouldn't have been a TR. They would have received the first manuscript that fell into their laps and declared that they had received it, and that would be the end of the discussion. 



> The critical text and the philosophy behind it was brought upon the Church in secrecy, denying Authority of Scripture and attacking its establishment...



This is slanderous. The people who discovered manuscripts immediately published them for all scholars to look over. Westcott and Hort were very open about their methods. Von Soden was open about his methods. Furthermore, modern textual criticism is not the enemy here. The enemy here is people who practice textual criticism from the standpoint of autonomy. The shoe doesn't fit me, Thomas, nor does it fit any other Reformed textual critic. And if you say it does, then I have nothing further to say to you. 



> The only thing that is argued as a certainty is that the established Authorized Version is full of so many errors, that apparently don't affect any doctrine, but it must be put down nevertheless



Complete and utter straw man. I believe that the KJV was the very best translation of its time, and for many centuries. The issue is not whether it was accurate. The issue is that language changes over time. Here is Psalm 118:148 in the KJV: "Mine eyes prevent the night watches, that I might meditate in thy word." This is a perfectly accurate translation that is incomprehensible because of the change in language. How many people today use the word "prevent" in the sense of "come before in time." The KJV translators meant that the person was up before the night watches in order to study the Word. The KJV translators did NOT mean that the Psalmists eyes stopped the night watches from happening. By the way, I happen to own a fascimile of the 1611 KJV. Did you know that the KJV has been modified over time (without a lot of fanfare, I might add!) so that spelling has been standardized, punctuation standardized, etc.? How do you know that you have the real KJV? Why not give people the real KJV in fascimile and ask them to read its practically illegible script? 



> She accused modern versions as being AntiChrist, and in the light of Scripture, her credentials or credibility, notwithstanding - the textual changes on the identifying traits of what or what is not antichrist is substantively changed in Bible's based upon the critical texts.



Thomas, Riplinger has zero credibility. As I said, I went through the first chapter and detailed all the misquotations. What she did was to quote one modern version and say it was all modern versions, when, as a matter of fact, most of the modern versions agreed with the KJV at that point! Are you seriously agreeing with her that modern versions are the AntiChrist? Again, if so, I have nothing further to say to you. I have already answered your other arguments, and have no wish to continue this conversation with you.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 3, 2008)

> All I can say to this is that it is a good thing that the Reformers did a bit more work in textual criticism than you would be willing to do. Otherwise, there wouldn't have been a TR. They would have received the first manuscript that fell into their laps and declared that they had received it, and that would be the end of the discussion.




While I think a sensible case can be made for Byzantine priority, I would advise TR proponents to study the matter a bit further before coming to such dogmatic conclusions against their brethren. It was a position that I used to hold myself (I was a member of the Trinitarian Bible Society), however, having looked into the subject further I was persuaded that their dogmatism and (in many cases) Separatism over this issue was completely over the top.


----------



## Stephen (Jan 3, 2008)

larryjf said:


> I would recommend NOT getting Metzger's book as he was quite liberal in his theology...to the point of not even considering the original inspired documents to be inerrant.
> 
> I would recommend "A Student's Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible"



Are you sure about that brother? He was one of the most noted scholars in the area of textual criticism. He did not deny the innerancy of the original documents. He very much opposed putting gender neutral language in the NRSV. His textbooks are used in a number of Reformed Seminaries. He was certainly not Reformed, but he made a great contribution to the study of the New Testament.


----------



## Stephen (Jan 3, 2008)

Thomas, I hope you are not stating that the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus. If you are then what edition of the KJV is based on the TR? It has been translated many times. The Reformers rejected the KJV and translated the Geneva Bible. The Puritans who came to the U.S did not bring the KJV but the Geneva Bible.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 3, 2008)

Thanks for your patience, Lane! From your post #27: 

“I will briefly respond to the issues raised about Matthew 1. My brief response is that Matthew has very good reasons for saying Asaph and Amos, not Asa and Amon. It was no mistake. First of all, the idea of "begetting" has a larger semantic range than merely father to son. This is proved absolutely conclusively in Matthew 1 by the fact that Matthew deliberately skips three entire generations, thus having grandfathers being said to father their grandchildren. The reason he did that was so that the generations would work out to 3 sets of 14 generations (there is numerical symbolism present here in that DVD, the Hebrew consonants in David's name, corresponds to this numerical setup: the theological point is that Jesus is the Davidic King). However, the semantic range of "begetting" is even larger than direct line of descendents. This is shown by the phrase "children of disobedience," "children of wrath." The idea of generation does not always have to be genealogical. It could be that Matthew simply wanted to include these names in the genealogy for their prophecies and Psalms.”​
It was the Committee which put together both the UBS 4 and NA 27 editions (Drs. Aland; J. Karavidopolous; Carlo Martini, and Bruce Metzger) that spoke on the matter of Asaph and Amos, through Dr. Metzger in his, _A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament_, Second Edition:



> Since, however, the evangelist may have derived material for the genealogy, not from the Old Testament directly, but from subsequent genealogical lists, in which the erroneous spelling occurred, the Committee saw no reason to adopt what appears to be a scribal emendation in the text of Matthew. (p.1)



In other words, because of the Committee’s presupposition “that the name ‘Asaph’ is the earliest form of text preserved in the manuscripts” (Ibid.) they decided that Matthew _had_ to have made an error, and this error is recorded in the “earliest and most reliable” MSS, and they weren’t going to tamper with “corrections” made by later scribes. “Like Duh, Matthew! Couldn’t you have found a reliable source!?”

But wait a minute! Although Matthew was the _human_ writer of the first Gospel account, *“All scripture is given by inspiration of God….*[and] *no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”* (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20)

But it is not surprising that Dr. Metzger (and presumably – & co.) would aver error in the apostle’s account, for he has said that the Pentateuch was not only not written by Moses, but was not to be taken as history but as “religion”.

In the next post I will quote an article on the topic and then move on.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 3, 2008)

In the book Dr. Theodore Letis edited (and contributed to), _The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate_, James A. Borland has an essay, *“Re-Examining New Testament Textual-Critical Principles and Practices Used to Negate Inerrancy”* [reprinted from the _Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society_; Vol. 25, No. 4 (December 1982), by permission]. In this essay Borland shows how that one thrust of TC practice is indeed used to negate the inerrancy of the apostles’ original writings; in other words, the apostles were in error in the things they wrote. I quote the opening paragraph of the essay:

Perhaps it is not shocking to assert that Satan uses every means at his disposal to attack the credibility, reliability and authority of God’s Word. He began the assault in the garden with Eve and has not stopped yet. But often his ways are more subtle than the blatant lie succumbed to by Eve. We live in a modern era of sophistication. Even in Biblical and textual studies we hear more and more about the use of computers and other highly technical tools. And Satan is more than willing to accommodate our sophistication in the area of textual criticism. Especially is this so when it occasionally allows men to assert fallibility in the New Testament autographs based on widely accepted principles and practice of textual criticism.​
He briefly surveys the established tenets of NT text critical theory, and then in particular Dr. Hort’s, which postulates the “primacy of the two earliest uncial MSS, Aleph (_Sinaiticus_) and B (_Vaticanus_), which date from the middle of the fourth century A.D. These two MSS were given the question-begging designation of being the ‘neutral text.’” He continues,

In short, the resultant practice of these new sophisticated principles was to overturn completely the textual critical practices of the past. Since the majority Byzantine text was judged to be a later text, the supposedly more ancient, more pure “neutral text” was substituted at the junctures of innumerable variants…

In referring to the Westcott and Hort theory, George Ladd approvingly writes, “The basic solution to the textual problem has been almost universally accepted.” He goes on to assert that “it is a seldom disputed fact that critical science has to all intents and purposes recovered the original text of the New Testament.” Ladd believes that “in the search for a good text, piety and devotion can never take the place of knowledge and scholarly judgment.” [the quotes are from Ladd’s book, _The New Testament and Criticism_ (Eerdmans 1967) In a footnote Borland quotes Gordon Fee in the same vein saying, “Fee is equally bold in asserting that ‘the task of NT textual criticism is virtually completed’” (in “Modern Textual Criticism and the revival of the Textus Receptus,” _JETS_ 21, 1978, 19-33).] Yet it is precisely this “almost universally accepted” “knowledge and scholarly judgment” that if followed too often leads to the conclusion that the very autographs of Scripture recorded errors and blunders.​
He then considers more deeply Westcott and Hort’s rules of external evidence regarding the manuscripts (by which they were able to dispose of the testimony of the majority of manuscripts), and then their rules of internal evidence, which came to the forefront after their external rules had gotten rid of the MT. Borland goes on,

Naturally each of these canons [of internal evidence] to a large degree must be subjectively applied. When a decision is difficult in the area of the internal evidence of readings, scholars often resort to the old circular reasoning that “certain MSS tend to support the ‘original’ text more than others and that those MSS are the early Alexandrian. Therefore, when internal evidence cannot decide, Gordon Fee advises, “the safest guide is to go with the ‘best’ MSS.” [Fee, “Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” _Expositor’s Bible Commentary_, p. 431] Thus all too often external evidence is the last resort, and when it is appealed to, the results have already been determined by a preconception of which MSS are the “best.”….[L]et us examine several examples of this prevalent textual-critical method—which ultimately asserts that the autographs did indeed contain incontrovertible mistakes.

In other words, the prevalent textual methodology can be and is being used _to deny the inerrancy of the original autographs_.

Nearly a century ago George Salmon astutely observed that Westcott and Hort had attributed to the gospel writers “erroneous statements which their predecessors had regarded as copyists’ blunders.” Salmon noted that “there was indeed but little rhetorical exaggeration in the statement that the canon of these editors was that Codex B was infallible and that the Evangelists were not. Nay, it seemed as if Hort regarded it as a note of genuineness if a reading implies error on the part of the sacred writer.” [G. Salmon, _Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament_ (London: John Murray, 1897)]

*I. The Case of Asa and Amon*

One example of current import is found in the readings of Matthew 1:7, 10. These texts contain part of the kingly genealogy of Christ. Many conservative commentators seem almost oblivious to the problem [and in a footnote he lists a number]. But scholars who do not adhere to the doctrine of inerrancy do not pass up a chance to point out what they consider to be a fallacy in Matthew’s autograph. The majority of all MSS read _Asa_ (Asa; v. 7) and _Amon_ (Amon; v. 10), easily recognized as two kings of Judah who were ancestors of Christ. Matthew’s point is to demonstrate our Lord’s royal lineage. But the United Bible Societies’ text instead chooses alternate readings based on the “better” manuscripts as well as some very subjective internal considerations. They substitute for the kings Asa and Amon the names “Asaph” and “Amos,” a psalmist and prophet respectively. They reason that “the evangelist may have derived material for the genealogy, not from the Old Testament directly, but from subsequent genealogical lists, in which the erroneous spelling occurred.” [B.M. Metzger, _et al_., _A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament_ (NY: United Bible Societies, 1971), p.1] Prior to that confident assertion, Bruce Metzger and others, claimed that “most scholars are impressed by the overwhelming weight of textual evidence supporting _Asaph_.” [_Ibid_.]

What is the composition of this “overwhelming weight of textual evidence” in favor of the Asaph blunder? Heading the list are the fourth and fifth century codices, Aleph B and C. Next come the minuscules of families 1 and 13 and two eleventh- and twelfth-century cursives, 700 and 1071, followed by fourteenth-century manuscript 209. Among the versions are several Old Latin MSS (notably k, Bobiensis, a fourth or fifth century production), along with others of the seventh century and beyond. The Coptic, following the basic Egyptian text of Aleph and B, agrees; and the Armenian, Ethiopic and Georgian translations, each perhaps related to Caesarean origins (of f1 and f13), indicate Asaph also. In the Harclean Syriac it merits only a listing in the margin. In summary, barely more than a dozen Greek MSS carry the Asaph reading, followed by a few Old Latin MSS, the Coptic and several minor versions.

On the other hand, the expected reading of Asa is found in literally hundreds of Greek witnesses beginning with uncials E K L M U V W G D and P. These MSS date from the fifth through the tenth centuries and no doubt represent a wide geographic distribution, including Washingtoniensis (the Freer Gospels of the fifth century) and Regius (L), which in Metzger’s opinion has a good type of text, “agreeing very frequently with codex Vaticanus.” [Metzger, _The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration_, 2nd ed. (NY: Oxford Univ. Press, 1968), p. 54] In addition, hundreds of cursives lend their support including numbers of those known “to exhibit a significant degree of independence from the so-called Byzantine manuscript tradition.” [Metzger, _Textual Commentary_, p. xvii] These would include 33 (the queen of the cursives and constant ally of Aleph and B) and other minuscules beginning with the ninth century. To this may be added the entire bulk of cursive manuscripts that must represent nearly every geographical point where Greek was studied and copied throughout the middle ages and demonstrates an unbroken continuity of evidence sorely lacking in the paucity of material supporting the Asaph reading.

The lectionaries too stand solidly behind Asa, as do a number of Old Latin MSS including the notable fourth-century Vercellensis. the entire Vulgate is another early and uniform witness to Asa—as are the Curetonian, Sinaitic, Peshitta, Harclean and Palestinian versions of the Syriac. To these may be added both Ephiphanius and Augustine of the first quarter of the fifth century. Only a preconceived notion as to which witnesses are best would cause anyone to deny that the truly “overwhelming weight of textual evidence” favors the traditional reading of Asa.

If such is the case, then Asaph should be viewed as an early scribal blunder injudiciously copied into (fortunately) only a handful of Greek MSS. The evidence for Amon versus Amos in Matthew 1:10 is somewhat similar. It is difficult to believe that Matthew, no doubt an educated literary Jewish writer, was incapable of distinguishing between the Hebrew _’āsā’_ and _’āsāp’_ or between the even more distinguishable _‘āmôn_ and _‘āmôs_. Not only would he have known the names of Israel’s kings by memory, but he probably would have used the genealogy of 1 Chronicles 3:10-14 in securing the names he used.

Lest one thinks this all amounts to academic irrelevance, we should be aware that the Revised Standard Version places the prophet’s name Amos in the text of Matthew 1:10 with the note “other authorities read Amon.” The Catholic New American Bible (1970) reads Amos without explanation. The American Standard Version, the RSV and the New American Standard Bible each read Asa for Matthew 1:7 but append a note indicating that the Greek reads Asaph. But where does the reading for Asa come if not from the Greek? The ASV and NASB do the same for Amos in Matthew 1:10, and the Jerusalem Bible is similar. At the least, this nomenclature is certainly inconsistent with the usual way of introducing a textual variant. We might well believe that Matthew got his kings, prophets and psalmists a bit confused! (excerpted from pp. 46-52)​


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 3, 2008)

To reply briefly, you haven't addressed my arguments. You have addressed Metzger's erroneous arguments. The fact that I agree with Metzger's conclusion as to the correct reading has nothing to do with how we got there. Metzger's argumentation posits an error in the original. My argumentation does not. To argue that because Metzger argued this way, we should ditch the critical text is not logical. Further, arguments against Metzger are not arguments against me.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 3, 2008)

Lane, I’d like to respond to a couple of things you said, one in response to a statement of mine. First, my statement:



> By Steve
> 
> These 90% [of mss] are what is called the Traditional or Majority or Byzantine textform, in contradistinction to the Critical textform, which is not Byzantine but Alexandrian.



And you replied,



> By Lane
> 
> This is highly inaccurate. Modern textual criticism is *eclectic,* not *Alexandrian* only. It is fair to say that the Alexandrian text-type is more heavily weighted, usually, in modern textual traditions. However, there are many examples in the NA 27th where the Alexandrian text-type is *rejected.*



At another point you said



> By Lane
> 
> It seems to me that a lot of TR folk are arguing against Westcott and Hort, who were overly imbalanced in favor of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Modern textual criticism is much more eclectic, and gives much more weight to the Byzantine text form than WH did. The arguments against WH are not applicable to today's eclectic methods.



What you say, Lane, has merit to it. Eclectic critics _do_ pick and choose among the various manuscripts, varying from the older WH dominance, and often picking Byzantine readings over the Alexandrian. I can’t argue with that. However (and it’s a *BIG* however!), *in the main* those readings that are distinctively Alexandrian (per B, [size=+1]a[/size], and P75, along with a few others) are continued in the “eclectic” texts, so they might _say_ they are not Alexandrian – with an element of truth in that – but as regards the distinctive Alexandrian variants they contain they might as well be.

I respond a bit more at length to these points:

Concerning my referring to what some will term the outdated methodology of FJA Hort, consider:

It has been said by Dr. James White that “While modern Greek texts are not identical to that created by Westcott and Hort, one will still find defenders of the AV drawing in black and white, saying that all modern versions are based upon their work.” (_The King James Only Controversy_, by James White [Bethany, 1995], p. 99). Is not this equivalent to saying, “Modern versions are not based upon the W&H Greek text”?

For those interested in looking at this issue, I suggest David Cloud’s book, _Examining “The King James Only Controversy"_ – the link is to the online version’s part 3 – and enter into your browser’s Find feature _WHITE DENIES A DIRECT CONNECTION_ to be taken to the section on this. An excerpt from that section:

White and many others attempting to discredit King James Bible defense also claim that Westcott and Hort are not important because (as they say) "the modern versions (NASV and NIV) are not based on the Alexandrian text or on the Westcott and Hort text. They are based on an eclectic text which sometimes favors the TR over Aleph or B."

This is true as far as it goes, but it ignores the heart of the issue. The fact is that the United Bible Societies (UBS) text is almost identical to the W-H text of 1881 _in significant departures from the Received Text_. For example, both the W-H and the UBS delete or question almost the same number of verses (WH--48, UBS--45). Both delete almost the same number of significant portions of verses (WH--193, UBS 185). Both delete almost the same number of names and titles of the Lord (WH--221, UBS--212). An extensive comparison of the TR against the WH text, the Nestle’s Text, the UBS text, and key English versions was done by the late Everett Fowler and can be seen in his book _Evaluating Versions of the New Testament_, available from Bible for Today.

The W-H text of 1881 and the latest edition of the United Bible Societies’ text differ only in relatively minor points. _Both represent the same TYPE of text with the same TYPE of departures from the Received Text_.

The fact is that the Westcott-Hort text represents the first widely-accepted departure from the TR in the post-Reformation era, and the modern English versions descend directly from it. It is a very significant text and its editors are highly significant to the history of textual criticism. Any man who discounts the continuing significance of Westcott-Hort in the field of Bible texts and versions is probably trying to throw up a smoke screen to hide something. [In the hard-copy book, this section is found on pp. 88-91 –SMR]​
[end of Cloud]
------------

[The following, in the same vein, is from a paper of my own.] The two MSS, [size=+1]a[/size] and B, are the basis of both Westcott and Hort’s Greek Revision supplanting the TR, and subsequently most all modern Bible versions.

This is to show the vital connection between the W&H text and the modern versions, a connection denied by both Alan Kurschner and Dr. White. In 1928 textual critic and scholar, Professor Kirsopp Lake of Harvard, wrote:

…more important than anything else was the publication of the critical text and introduction of Drs. Westcott and Hort…This work is the foundation of nearly all modern criticism, and demands close attention.[1]​
In 1964 Greek scholar J. Harold Greenlee was still able to affirm,

The textual theories of W-H underlie virtually all subsequent work in NT criticism.[2]​
In 1990 Philip Wesley Comfort, textual critic and scholar, although lauding new manuscript discoveries (from Egypt), still builds upon the Hortian theory, maintains the foundational validity of his and Westcott’s text, and supports his “minority” readings.[3] In _The NIV Interlinear Greek-English New Testament_,[4] Alfred Marshall (editor) states (p. xix) that although the Greek text used in the interlinear is Nestle’s _Novum Testamentum Graece_ (based essentially on W&H’s Greek Revision), the NIV uses “an eclectic” Greek text (i.e., the translators choose from various readings). But in practice the NIV – and modern versions generally – retain the distinctive readings which are found in the W&H text.


1 _The Text of the New Testament_, by Kirsopp Lake (London: Rivingtons, 1928), page 67.
2 _Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism_, by J.H. Greenlee (MI: Wm. B. Erdmanns Publishers Co., 1964), page 78. 
3 _Early Manuscripts & Modern Translations of the New Testament_, by Philip Wesley Comfort (MI: Baker Books, 1996 ed,), pages 12, 13, and 14.
4 (MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 1976).

--------------

This all to clear the ground a bit to further discuss the things you spoke of, Lane.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 3, 2008)

What is wrong with the Alexandrian texts? Why is there prejudice against them? The TR was received in the time of the Reformation. The Alexandrian texts are received now. What's the difference in _how_ these came to the church? 

I don't deny that WH is foundational. I just want to make sure that arguments that might have applied to WH are not applied to modern eclectic texts, since modern eclectic texts do not ignore any manuscript tradition, unlike the TR tradition, which wants to throw out the Alexandrian manuscripts completely.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 3, 2008)

Come on, Lane, you say “it was no mistake” Matthew wrote Asaph and Amos….and then discuss the “semantic range” of the word “begetting” (which I find no fault with per se), and end with, “*It could be* that Matthew simply wanted to include these names in the genealogy for their prophecies and Psalms.” [emphasis mine –SMR] Isn’t that somewhat lame? Why, for the sake of “their prophecies and Psalms,” would he falsify the genealogical record? It doesn’t make sense. It’s too far-fetched. What on earth do their prophecies and psalms have to do with literal royal forebears? “Semantic range” is too feeble a reason to explain such a discrepancy.

I interacted with Metzger’s argument because it had more substance to it, and it showed the specific reason why this vagary was foisted upon the church – it was the decision of the textual critics, based upon their presuppositions.

Sorry to depart. In this part of the world it’s way past my bedtime. Back tomorrow.

I'll continue the discussion then. I have a list of the things you mentioned earlier to discuss, such as you just mentioned in your latest.

Steve


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 3, 2008)

I believe that you are taking a modern approach to an ancient text. In other words, history has to look a certain way for it to be history. Otherwise, it is "falsifying" the genealogical record. Why would this be a falsifying of the record, given the fact that Matthew already omitted three whole generations? By your argument, all the manuscripts are wrong here, because they do not follow the genealogies in Kings and Chronicles. In fact, how dare Matthew falsify the genealogical record by omitting three whole generations? The fact is that this is ancient history writing, not modern, meaning NOT that it is less accurate, but that it has broader aims. Every historian picks and chooses the facts that he wants to portray (witness the fact that we have four Gospels). Matthew picked and chose the names that he wanted to include in his genealogy, including Asaph and Asa. Besides this, you still have not answered the alternate spelling argument. In any case, these are two ways to explain why the critical text has the readings it does without resorting to Metzger's arguments, which posit an error in the original. There is no reason that any scribe would intentionally change Asa to Asaph, is there? But there is definite reason why a scribe might change Asaph to Asa, since this more closely matches the Kings/Chronicles genealogies (but doesn't necessarily match Matthew's theology). What you have to reckon with here is that the final explanation for a variant's reading must be able to explain why all the other variants arose, or it is not the best reading. I can explain easily the origin of the reading Asa. You cannot explain the origin of the reading Asaph.


----------



## MW (Jan 3, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> Matthew, my hunch is that you could quote any number of modern _liberal_ textual critics to demonstrate that. I solemnly declare to you that the shoe fits me so badly that I have blisters and bleeding from it.  So, I'm not sure what you are going to do about people like me, who say that we have the original text uncorrupted.



The method itself presupposes a corrupted text; the _liberal_ critics are merely stating a reasonable conclusion based on the experience of their research. What are we to do with reformed people who take it on board? Point out the painfulness of trying to walk both sides of a barbed wire fence. 



greenbaggins said:


> Unfortunately, since the Reformers did textual criticism in order to come up with the TR, this argument can be turned right around and directed back at the TR folk. The methods are at the very least analogous to what modern critics do. The texts have to be weighed and categorized, compared carefully, with all the differences catalogued. Modern text critics are not the only people who could be accused of trying to discover the text. You are driving a rather large wedge between the Reformed world of the 16-17th centuries and Reformed folk of today.



Again, no one denies that a textual criticism of sorts is necessary. The difference between the reformers and modern critics was the belief of the reformers that the text of the NT is that which has been "received" by the church. There was no divorce between canon and text, higher and lower criticism. MS. evidence merely bore witness to the text. Modern critics make MS. evidence the judge and jury of the case. Here again we find modern reformed exponents of the critical text to be inconsistent, maintaining one criterion for canon and an alotogether inconsistent criterion for text.



greenbaggins said:


> On the issue of earliest manuscripts, no one today uses that as the only criteria. That is only one criteria among many that have to be weighed in each and every instance of variance. Other criteria include family relationships of manuscripts, geographical distribution of variant readings, number of manuscripts (which considerations are known as external evidence), and _lectio difficilior_, scribal probability, harmonization, etc. for the internal evidence (which is rather subjective, and therefore to be weighed much less than the external evidence). This is by no means an exhaustive list, but modern textual critics are not under the illusion that earlier is better without heavy qualification.



These other criteria are merely subjective tools; the genealogical theory of the critic predominates his choice of readings. One needs only to consult Metzger's Textual Commentary to see this is the case.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 3, 2008)

> The method itself presupposes a corrupted text; the _liberal_ critics are merely stating a reasonable conclusion based on the experience of their research. What are we to do with reformed people who take it on board? Point out the painfulness of trying to walk both sides of a barbed wire fence.



I don't see the critical method as implying this. I see the critical method as positing that the original text is there among all the manuscripts. Plus, the word "corrupt" is ambiguous. If you mean are there mistakes made by the copiers, then every text is corrupt. If you mean that the texts are unable to be used as the inerrant basis for our faith, then no, the manuscripts are not corrupt. 



> Again, no one denies that a textual criticism of sorts is necessary. The difference between the reformers and modern critics was the belief of the reformers that the text of the NT is that which has been "received" by the church. There was no divorce between canon and text, higher and lower criticism. MS. evidence merely bore witness to the text. Modern critics make MS. evidence the judge and jury of the case. Here again we find modern reformed exponents of the critical text to be inconsistent, maintaining one criterion for canon and an alotogether inconsistent criterion for text.



What prevents us from saying that the newly discovered manuscripts are currently received by the church? Unless, of course, you wish to define the church in such a way that 99% of the church isn't the church. Besides this, TR people make manuscript evidence the basis for judgment as well: the manuscripts that they had were compared and contrasted in order to come up with the TR. That is the same thing that is being done today. Again, I have not yet seen any reason to reject the Alexandrian text from the discussion. I reject no Byzantine text, and yet you reject outright the Alexandrian texts. 




> These other criteria are merely subjective tools; the genealogical theory of the critic predominates his choice of readings. One needs only to consult Metzger's Textual Commentary to see this is the case.



There were several criteria that I mentioned that are not subjective in the slightest, such as geographical diversity of readings, which heavily favors the eclectic method.


----------



## MW (Jan 3, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> I don't see the critical method as implying this. I see the critical method as positing that the original text is there among all the manuscripts. Plus, the word "corrupt" is ambiguous. If you mean are there mistakes made by the copiers, then every text is corrupt. If you mean that the texts are unable to be used as the inerrant basis for our faith, then no, the manuscripts are not corrupt.



It seems you're using "text" as that which is written on a piece of paper instead of that which is the form of the text. I'm using "text" in the latter sense. The point I am making is that modern textual critics hypothesise corruption into the text form, that is, the loss of the original NT text by the second century, and subsequently aver the task of the text critic is one of recovery. And when they do this, they can only confidently lay claim to having recovered a particular text form which they regard to be the earliest, and that this text form dates back to the fourth century, with occasional attestations from the third and second centuries.



greenbaggins said:


> What prevents us from saying that the newly discovered manuscripts are currently received by the church? Unless, of course, you wish to define the church in such a way that 99% of the church isn't the church. Besides this, TR people make manuscript evidence the basis for judgment as well: the manuscripts that they had were compared and contrasted in order to come up with the TR. That is the same thing that is being done today. Again, I have not yet seen any reason to reject the Alexandrian text from the discussion. I reject no Byzantine text, and yet you reject outright the Alexandrian texts.



I do not reject outright the Alexandrian texts. Where these agree with the traditional text they serve as a confirming witness. There are points where variant readings can be exegetical, and serve to show us how original Greek speakers of a later era interpreted the NT text.

Nothing prevents us from saying newly discovered MSS are currently received by the church. That is a sad reality. But the fact is, the readings and especially the omissions in those MSS were once _rejected_ by the reformed church.



greenbaggins said:


> There were several criteria that I mentioned that are not subjective in the slightest, such as geographical diversity of readings, which heavily favors the eclectic method.



Geographical diversity is merely an offshoot of the genealogical principle. Given the current theory of priority as to which influenced what, it remains a subjective criteria. If on genealogical principles the critic maintains the Byzantine text form is mostly a conflation of readings, the presence of a variant from that tradition is not really taken seriously.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 4, 2008)

> It seems you're using "text" as that which is written on a piece of paper instead of that which is the form of the text. I'm using "text" in the latter sense. The point I am making is that modern textual critics hypothesise corruption into the text form, that is, the loss of the original NT text by the second century, and subsequently aver the task of the text critic is one of recovery. And when they do this, they can only confidently lay claim to having recovered a particular text form which they regard to be the earliest, and that this text form dates back to the fourth century, with occasional attestations from the third and second centuries.



I'm not quite following your distinction between something written and something which is the "form" of the text, and how that affects my argument. Could you help me out a bit, brother? 



> I do not reject outright the Alexandrian texts. Where these agree with the traditional text they serve as a confirming witness. There are points where variant readings can be exegetical, and serve to show us how original Greek speakers of a later era interpreted the NT text.
> 
> Nothing prevents us from saying newly discovered MSS are currently received by the church. That is a sad reality. But the fact is, the readings and especially the omissions in those MSS were once _rejected_ by the reformed church.



On what basis do you say that the Alexandrian texts were rejected by the Reformed church? The manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, for instance, were not discovered or known until the 19th century. Furthermore, you seem to be disenfranchising the Alexandrian church. Were they not part of the church? Did they not receive those texts when they were written? Is the Reformation the only part of church history that matters with regard to textual criticism? I was thinking about why it is that the Alexandrian text-form has so few manuscripts. Then it hit me: Alexandria was over-run by Islam in the Middle Ages. That's probably why these texts have not come out into the open before now. It is still a theory right now. However, that Alexandria was over-run by Islam is not theory. And I can easily believe that Islamic groups would not be very favorable to retaining NT manuscripts. If the Reformation had much of any Alexandrian texts to reject, they were so few that the balance of weight would still favor the Byzantine text-form at the time. But the Reformers never had an opportunity to reject the more full-orbed Alexandrian tradition that we have now. To say otherwise seems anachronistic to me. 




> Geographical diversity is merely an offshoot of the genealogical principle. Given the current theory of priority as to which influenced what, it remains a subjective criteria. If on genealogical principles the critic maintains the Byzantine text form is mostly a conflation of readings, the presence of a variant from that tradition is not really taken seriously.



I simply cannot go with this. The country of origin is fairly well-known for many if not most manuscripts. So there is definitely an element there that is not subjective in the slightest. The connection with genealogical principle can be granted. However, the genealogical principle by no means exhausts the geographical principle.


----------



## KMK (Jan 4, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> On what basis do you say that the Alexandrian texts were rejected by the Reformed church? The manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, for instance, were not discovered or known until the 19th century. Furthermore, you seem to be disenfranchising the Alexandrian church. Were they not part of the church? Did they not receive those texts when they were written? Is the Reformation the only part of church history that matters with regard to textual criticism? I was thinking about why it is that the Alexandrian text-form has so few manuscripts. Then it hit me: Alexandria was over-run by Islam in the Middle Ages. That's probably why these texts have not come out into the open before now. It is still a theory right now. However, that Alexandria was over-run by Islam is not theory. And I can easily believe that Islamic groups would not be very favorable to retaining NT manuscripts. If the Reformation had much of any Alexandrian texts to reject, they were so few that the balance of weight would still favor the Byzantine text-form at the time. But the Reformers never had an opportunity to reject the more full-orbed Alexandrian tradition that we have now. To say otherwise seems anachronistic to me.



If your theory is correct, and even if it isn't, is there any way we can say with certainty that the Alexandrian texts were 'received' by any church? It is my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, that when they were discovered, the Alexandrian texts were not being used by any church. What eveidence do we have that they were ever truly used by any church at any time?


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 4, 2008)

Fair question. I would say that the it is difficult to argue one way or the other as to whether they were received. However, the fact that an Alexandrian text-type exists surely proves that the Alexandrian text-type itself was used in Alexandria. There are a lot more than one Alexandrian manuscript. Plus, there are no Byzantine texts from Alexandria! Therefore, the Byzantine text-type was _not received_ in all branches of the church, at least in the fourth century. I'm sure that this was because the Byzantine texts were not distributed. So, I could turn the question around and say this: what _reception_ in the third and fourth centuries did the Byzantine text-form have in the West and in Alexandria? Is there any evidence at all of the Byzantine text being received in all branches of the church at that time?


----------



## MW (Jan 4, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> I'm not quite following your distinction between something written and something which is the "form" of the text, and how that affects my argument. Could you help me out a bit, brother?



A "text form" is not a text which exists in any particular MS. per se, but a uniformity of readings over numerous MSS.



greenbaggins said:


> On what basis do you say that the Alexandrian texts were rejected by the Reformed church? The manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, for instance, were not discovered or known until the 19th century.



Again, you are confining your comments to particular MSS. rather than to the text form. The Alexandrian readings were well known to the reformers and their successors. The existence of these "variants" formed the basis for the Roman Catholic claim that the fountains are corrupted. Some Alexandrian corruptions are to be found in the Vulgate itself. The reformers insisted that the fountains were not corrupted, that God had preserved His living Word with "singular" providence, and rejected the Alexandrian readings of the Vulgate together with the translations which were founded on it.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 5, 2008)

With a claim this sweeping, it is only fair to ask about the sources which have led you to this conclusion. The Vatican never let Vaticanus out of its library until the 1880-1890's. Sinaiticus was not available. Many of the Alexandrian papyri also were not available. This raises the question of how much of the Alexandrian tradition there was to reject. Yes, I do bring up individual manuscripts. In fact, I have brought up the most important Alexandrian manuscripts precisely to address this point. The fact that some have abused the manuscript tradition to argue for corruption in the text is _not even remotely_ a logical argument against the manuscripts themselves, or against the text-form. I dare say that I would have argued with the Reformers, since there were hardly any Alexandrian texts available, and thus it was easy to argue that the Alexandrian tradition was an aberration. However, that is not true anymore.


----------



## KMK (Jan 5, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> With a claim this sweeping, it is only fair to ask about the sources which have led you to this conclusion. The Vatican never let Vaticanus out of its library until the 1880-1890's. Sinaiticus was not available. Many of the Alexandrian papyri also were not available. This raises the question of how much of the Alexandrian tradition there was to reject. Yes, I do bring up individual manuscripts. In fact, I have brought up the most important Alexandrian manuscripts precisely to address this point. The fact that some have abused the manuscript tradition to argue for corruption in the text is _not even remotely_ a logical argument against the manuscripts themselves, or against the text-form. I dare say that I would have argued with the Reformers, since there were hardly any Alexandrian texts available, and thus it was easy to argue that the Alexandrian tradition was an aberration. However, that is not true anymore.



In this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/do-textual-variants-give-us-confidence-22188/ Mr. Rafalsky posted the following from an article titled "REFORMATION EDITORS LACKED SUFFICIENT MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE" by David Cloud:



> THE VATICANUS READINGS WERE KNOWN AND REJECTED BY THE PROTESTANT
> TRANSLATORS
> 
> Erasmus, Stephanus, and other sixteenth century editors had access to the
> ...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 5, 2008)

> "Through his study of the writings of Jerome and other Church Fathers
> Erasmus became very well informed concerning the variant readings of the
> New Testament text. Indeed almost all the important variant readings known
> to scholars today were already known to Erasmus more than 460 years ago and
> ...



Since it is the case that scholars have known about these things, and debated them for centuries, then are we likely to sort out the dispute with posts on the PB?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 5, 2008)

Ken, you beat me to it, but I’m glad you posted the entire piece by Cloud.


Lane, responding to your post #45:

I appreciate Matthew’s is not a “modern” genealogy, and that ancient writers would often abbreviate lineage, especially when the line was well known. There are many ideas as to why the number 14 was so prominent in Matthew’s. Some say that “the numerical value of 'David' in Hebrew is fourteen” (Cf., D.A. Carson, _EBC_, p. 69), others that there was mystical meaning in the number to Matthew’s contemporaries (Leon Morris, [Eerdmans 1992], p. 25); David Cloud (quoting George DeHoff’s book on alleged contradictions) says, “The Jewish genealogies are marvels of accuracy even in this modern age. Every genealogy does what it purports to do—even an infidel could not ask more. There are genealogies which leave out some names. The object in such cases was not to include every name but to keep a regular line of descent; hence sometimes a genealogy may be found which skips from grandfather to grandson.”

Your point here is well taken: “The idea of generation does not always have to be genealogical.” But when you add, “It could be that Matthew simply wanted to include these names in the genealogy for their prophecies and Psalms”, you descend into speculation bordering on the absurd. For Matthew is clearly writing of lineage, not moving elsewhere in the “semantic range” of the word “generations”! You do your defense in behalf of the CT or ET a disservice when you grasp at such will-o’-the-wisp exegeses!

Because you can find an aberrant form of the aberrant LXX which contains the error of Amos for Amon (post #27) doesn’t make your case. When I say “aberrant” for the LXX itself I refer to the fact that it has been back-corrected in places to conform to the NT readings (see thread http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/psalm-14-3-lxx-15502/ for example), so this is not a good source for precision in wording, in my view. There are many other criticisms which may be leveled at the LXX, but this is not the place to do it.

The alternate spellings for the king of Babylon in the Masoretic Text are found, not in Daniel, but in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and evidently these were acceptable, but to have Matthew write names which were not accepted (I do not include a lone variant or two in LXX mss “accepted” as alternate spellings), but rather distinct spellings for other men’s names, is error, plain and simple, no matter how you try to defend it.

You said,

“There is no reason that any scribe would intentionally change Asa to Asaph, is there? But there is definite reason why a scribe might change Asaph to Asa, since this more closely matches the Kings/Chronicles genealogies (but doesn't necessarily match Matthew's theology). What you have to reckon with here is that the final explanation for a variant's reading must be able to explain why all the other variants arose, or it is not the best reading. I can explain easily the origin of the reading Asa. You cannot explain the origin of the reading Asaph.”​
A scribe could easily write Asaph in error (and on the face of it it is an error), without it being deliberate. The origin of the reading Asa is that it is from Matthew’s pen, and reflects the authentic lineage, and was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The fact remains the CT has Matthew err, despite your protestations.

But I really want to get at a more basic issue – and one that drives your presuppositions.

These are some questions/statements you have made. I compile them so as to answer them:

post #18 “In your mind, what elevates the Reformation editors, and the texts used in the Reformation, over the early third and fourth century manuscripts that are Alexandrian? Were the Alexandrians not part of the church? Why is the Alexandrian text-form illegitimate?”

post #49 “On what basis do you say that the Alexandrian texts were rejected by the Reformed church? The manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, for instance, were not discovered or known until the 19th century. Furthermore, you seem to be disenfranchising the Alexandrian church. Were they not part of the church? Did they not receive those texts when they were written? Is the Reformation the only part of church history that matters with regard to textual criticism? I was thinking about why it is that the Alexandrian text-form has so few manuscripts. Then it hit me: Alexandria was over-run by Islam in the Middle Ages. That's probably why these texts have not come out into the open before now. It is still a theory right now. However, that Alexandria was over-run by Islam is not theory. And I can easily believe that Islamic groups would not be very favorable to retaining NT manuscripts. If the Reformation had much of any Alexandrian texts to reject, they were so few that the balance of weight would still favor the Byzantine text-form at the time. But the Reformers never had an opportunity to reject the more full-orbed Alexandrian tradition that we have now. To say otherwise seems anachronistic to me.”​
To answer these thoughts. First, _Vaticanus_ (B) has been in the Vatican Library at least since 1481, when it was catalogued. Erasmus knew of it, as one of his friends in Rome, Professor Paulus Bombasius, often sent him readings from it – _many_ readings – and he rejected them as departures from the common text accepted by the people of God, and from the Greek texts he came into contact with during his travels and searching out of manuscripts. Nor will it do to say he did not know the people of God, belonging to Rome as he did, because he fellowshipped with Protestants (and died among them), and was intimately acquainted with some of their teachers. The Reformers *did* know of the Vaticanus readings.

In John Owen’s day, Brian Walton published his _Biblia Polyglotta_, which was intended to attack the Reformation’s text – the _Textus Receptus_ – and it exhibited the variants, including Vaticanus’, in this (ultimately Romish) attempt to subvert the Reformation.

Ted Letis has done remarkable research (well documented) in this area, in his book, _The Majority Text_, and I highlight the essay, “John Owen _Versus_ Brian Walton.” Also David Cloud, in his, _Myths About the Modern Versions_, the chapter on Erasmus and the one following, “Myth Number Two: Reformation Editors Lacked Sufficient Manuscript Evidence,” gives abundant documentation that the variant readings of B were well known at that time. Aleph, or _Sinaiticus_, is another story. It was as you say, discovered in the 1800s; but this leads to another topic. Seeing as Aleph ([size=+1]a[/size]) is, after B, the main exemplar of the Alexandrian textform, and is one of the “oldest and most reliable manuscripts” (per the margin notes of the modern versions), it is an odd circumstance that it differs from its co-exemplar in _many_ places.

It will be edifying to see how these two manuscripts were resurrected from obscurity into places of prominence in the 19th century, and to take a brief peek at what the characters of each are.

Herman C. Hoskier was a textual scholar of the Greek New Testament who minutely examined and then opposed Westcott and Hort’s principal texts, _Vaticanus_ and _Sinaiticus_ in a two-volume study. The first is titled, _Codex B And Its Allies: A Study and an Indictment_; the second volume, which we will quote from here, is titled, _Codex B And Its Allies, Part II: Chiefly concerning [size=+1]a[/size], but covering three thousand differences between and [size=+1]a[/size] and B in the Four Gospels, with the evidence supporting each side, including the new manuscript evidence collected by VON SODEN, and the collateral readings of other important authorities_.(1) Hoskier states,

In the light of the following huge lists let us never be told in the future that either [size=+1]a[/size] or B represents any form of “Neutral” text…

Our little study [after the examination of B in Volume I] would be quite incomplete without a further account of the idiosyncrasies of [size=+1]a[/size]. This is best shown by exhibiting the principal places where [size=+1]a[/size] and B differ, which, in number, far exceed what anyone might suppose who does not go deeply into the comparative study of the two documents. As a matter of fact the “shorter” text of the two is found in [size=+1]a[/size] …

I have tabulated the major part of these differences between [size=+1]a[/size] and B in the Gospels and given the supporting authorities on each side. They amount to—

Matt……..656+
Mark…….567+
Luke…….791+
John……1022+
Total....3036+ (2)​
Hoskier’s study continues on for 381 pages of documentation (412 including a Scriptural index), if anyone is interested in pursuing a comparative examination of [size=+1]a[/size] and B, the foundation of _all_ critical texts.
----------
(1) _Codex B And Its Allies_, by Herman C. Hoskier (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1914).
(2) Ibid., Vol. II, page 1.
-----------

In a courtroom when two witnesses testifying to the same matter disagree sharply with one another, they cannot be called “reliable” witnesses, but rather they impugn one another’s testimony. And when such _un_reliable witnesses are scrutinized in the light of a virtual multitude of other witnesses who disagree with the two while agreeing with one another, the evidence becomes preponderant in favor of the majority. Mere “age” of a manuscript may easily be offset by other more weighty factors. It is a given regarding the condition of a manuscript that those exhibiting the least wear have been used the least; often it is because they have been set aside as of inferior quality. In my own library the books that are in the worst shape, and which sometimes have to be replaced, are those I use the most. Those in the best shape I use the least.

[size=+1]a[/size] was discovered by Tischendorf at St. Catharine’s Greek Orthodox Monastery on Mt. Sinai in 1844. _Vaticanus_ has been in the Vatican Library at least since 1481, when it was catalogued, as noted above. 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 people 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. 

I am indebted to David Cloud’s research for some the historical information above.

I will answer more of your questions/remarks, Lane (particularly concerning the Alexandrian church, and the transmission of their manuscripts), but for the moment I have to focus my mind on my sermons for tomorrow. I appreciate your willing to engage in this discussion, especially in an amicable spirit.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 5, 2008)

Steve, I'm going to have to wait to respond until tomorrow. Have a blessed Lord's Day.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 6, 2008)

Daniel, you said, “Since it is the case that scholars have known about these things, and debated them for centuries, then are we likely to sort out the dispute with posts on the PB?”

That’s a good point. My own purpose in posting re this “debate” is to show those seeking understanding of this matter that the KJV and TR position can be held to – and defended – by thinking, intelligent, godly believers, contra the disinformation that is widely spread about them, and not only that, but that our position is the most reasonable and in accord with the Biblical statements concerning the preservation of the Scripture. I submit a brief excerpt from the “Answering Alan Kurschner” thread to show _how_ this disparity of views comes to be:

----------

Just as we stand on God’s word as regards the creation account in Genesis, despite all the supposed evidences of the evolutionists and evolutionary theorists – believing His word to be true notwithstanding all appearances to the contrary – even so do we believe His promises that His word is not only directly inspired by Him but that it will also be preserved by Him through time and eternity. We do not stand on science or scientific method – although we are glad to see true science as it aligns with the realities of God’s universal sovereignty – but on the realities of God’s word, and in this case, His promises. We may be ridiculed and scorned by scoffers of all stripes, but we will trust in Him and hold our heads high in His truth.

A pertinent quote from an essay by Dr. Theodore Letis:

Both schools interpret the data of NT textual criticism and modern translations differently, and both groups fill in the gaps in the data with assumptions which favor their given position. I hope some are beginning to see that this is not an argument between scholarship (the established school represented by Carson) and non-scholarship (the challenging school which has traditionally been treated as non-scholarly and completely uncritical). To the contrary, the best representatives of both schools display genuine scholarship. Why is it, then, that these two schools co-exist on this all-important issue of the very wording of the NT text?​
He closes the essay with these words,

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…(pp. 201-204). [From, _The Majority Text: Essays And Reviews In The Continuing Debate_, the essay, “In Reply to D.A. Carson’s ‘The King James Version Debate’”.]​
[end of excerpt]
----------

This discussion on the PB may not settle the dispute, but it may clarify the issues for some who do not see them clearly, and also give them a chance to see intelligent proponents of each side amicably (if pointedly!) exchange remarks on the matter.

Steve


----------



## KMK (Jan 6, 2008)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> My own purpose in posting re this “debate” is to show those seeking understanding of this matter that the KJV and TR position can be held to – and defended – by thinking, intelligent, godly believers, contra the disinformation that is widely spread about them, and not only that, but that our position is the most reasonable and in accord with the Biblical statements concerning the preservation of the Scripture.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 6, 2008)

> Daniel, you said, “Since it is the case that scholars have known about these things, and debated them for centuries, then are we likely to sort out the dispute with posts on the PB?”
> 
> That’s a good point. My own purpose in posting re this “debate” is to show those seeking understanding of this matter that the KJV and TR position can be held to – and defended – by thinking, intelligent, godly believers, contra the disinformation that is widely spread about them, and not only that, but that our position is the most reasonable and in accord with the Biblical statements concerning the preservation of the Scripture.



Thanks Steve.


----------



## MW (Jan 6, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> I dare say that I would have argued with the Reformers, since there were hardly any Alexandrian texts available, and thus it was easy to argue that the Alexandrian tradition was an aberration. However, that is not true anymore.



So after all that has been said, it would appear you believe the reformers only possessed something which approxiimated to the word of God, and that they did not possess the word of God in its purity -- that the Westminster divines were in fact incorrect in their claim to possess the authentical word of God. Would this be a fair assessment of your position?


----------



## Thomas2007 (Jan 6, 2008)

Dear Reverence Keister,

I'm going to attempt to respond to a couple of things, although the thread has pretty much surpassed my time to be very involved. Although, from what I've seen, I would suggest that you consider reading some of the works that Brother Raflalsky has cited, such as Letis's "Ecclesiastical Text."

I didn't enter this thread to set out to debate over points that people aren't equally studied on, just to provide some caution to the original poster and then briefly answer some questions that were asked. I'd be happy to defend my position to much greater detail, but arguing into the void of knowledge doesn't seem to be very profitable.

Here is just a couple answers to your statements and questions:


You said:

"Furthermore, the WCF 1.8 nowhere mentions "the received text."

The Westminster Confession is referring to the text of Protestant development as against the Tridentine attack. To understand this you have to understand the actual scholastic development and circumstances as they arose and comprehend them as a totality. 

Our Protestant forebears worked in terms of what we call the Received Text tradition claiming Sola Scriptura, the Romanists responded with Trent and variants to counter it, thus they said we cannot claim Sola Scriptura not knowing what the original autograph was amongst all the variants; the Protestants responded with Providential Preservation. 

That is the scholastic defense of their textual work and it is manifested in the Westminster Confession as well in many other works. Hence, they held that the apographic texts they were using were the Providentially Preserved autographs. The Received Text is what the Protestants defended, really this should be self evident since that was the universal text of Protestantism for three hundred years, and your man stated it very plainly:

(1) “…it is undisputed that from the 16th century to the 18th century orthodoxy’s doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed… [the] Textus Receptus. It was the only Greek text they knew, and they regarded it as the ‘original’ text.” (Kurt Aland, “The Text of the Church” Trinity journal 8 (1987), p. 131.

It appears to me that you are simply rejecting what is undisputed fact in your own camp.


"You are reading into the confession an issue that didn't come to light with regard to textual criticism until much later. Even the Enlightenment didn't happen until well after the WCF was written. I utterly repudiate the notion that the Enlightenment is responsible for textual criticism, for this very simple reason: even the TR is the result of textual criticism! They had to compare manuscripts one with another. Textual criticism is not inherently evil. The fact that some have put humanity over the text of Scripture and wanted to play God over the Word of God is no reason to throw out the baby with the bath-water. "

The Received Text is not a result of textual criticism, that statement doesn't make any sense to me. They never set up the text of Scripture in a form/matter dialectical presupposition that textual criticism does, they never approached it from this perspective.

It appears to me from your statements that someone has deceived you into thinking that textual criticism is a field of study that is somehow neutral at best, when it's origins are rabidly counter-reformational. Hence, one can't enter that ground, devoid of that knowledge, and not be affected by the underlying intent of the presuppositions and principles involved in it.

Textual criticism is inherently counter-reformational, as I stated, it is the product of the enlightenment and was born by Richard Simon in 1689, whose "Critical History of the New Testament" is the origin of modern criticism and its purpose, whereby: 

"The study of the New Testament was divorced for the first time from the study carried on by the ancients. Kummel, The New Testament, p 40

Baird tells us, "Simon sharpened historical criticism into a weapon that could be used in the attack on Protestantism's most fundamental error: the doctrine of Sola Scriptura." Baird, History of New Testament Research, p 19

And Simon himself explains plainly his purpose:

"The great changes that have taken place in the manuscripts of the Bible - as we have shown in the first book of this work - since the first originals were lost, *completely destroy the principle of the Protestants*...if tradition is not joined to scripture, there is hardly anything in religion that one can confidently affirm." Simon, Critical History

Your position is analogous to someone defending theistic evolution against atheistic evolution as standing upon true Christian ground, when in reality one is attempting to syncretise Creation with evolution and the other is outright denying it. The same situation exists between the Reformers work on Scripture and the rise of textual criticism, modern Reformed folks are like the "theistic evolutionists," just in terms of Scripture.

If we were discussing evolution against modern scientific presuppositions, you'd clearly see this and we'd be on the same side. But since you are standing upon the claims of neutrality of scientific presuppositions you don't see it. Hence, you claim that your intentions are honest, which I assume they indeed are, but my point is that once you accept those presuppositions it really doesn't matter what your intentions are - you simply can't syncretise those things together and still be standing upon the same ground as the Reformed Fathers.

So, I go back to the intent of my first post, one needs to know what ground they are standing upon and why and what that means. It's a sad truth that the majority of the Reformed Church is standing upon counter-reformational ground in terms of Scripture, and they are carrying on the work of the enemy of Sola Scriptura.


Then you said:

"Thirdly, your interpretation of WCF 1.8 is also flawed when it comes to saying that the TR is what the divines had in mind as opposed to the autographa. First of all, your quotation of Muller is not accurate. I looked in every volume of Muller's PRRD on page 433 and did not find the quotation that you said he had. Furthermore, the divines clearly had the autographs in mind: the exact wording is this: "being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages." The immediately inspired document is not the copy, for that would be mediate, not immediate. It was the autograph that has been preserved through the manuscripts. But to say that the Westminster divines would have rejected Westcott and Hort (who were NOT Romanists) is most anachronistic. The debate simply wasn't around in the days of the Westminster Assembly. By far and away the majority of *Confessional* adherents today hold to the critical text. To suggest that all these fine men are Enlightenment, proto-Roman Catholic rejecters of the true, pure Word of God is slanderous. No advocate of the critical text, as far as I know, makes any such vituperative claims about TR people. I have slammed Riplinger's book because it completely lacks scholarly integrity."

Well, you've taken my statements out of their context and redefined them as I was clearly never defending Riplinger's book, scholarly or otherwise, rather I was explaining their thinking and the way in which people like James White disparage them. Maybe you should go re-read my original statements, because it sure seemed to me, and still does, that you read into it what you wanted to read into, not anything I said.

The Reformers never set the apographs against the autographs, never embraced a claim of scientific neutrality establishing imagining principles that Providence must adhere to. They were biased, they were biased against Rome and it's Bible, and they explicitly approached the whole issue theologically. This is a big no - no today, if you approach Scripture theologically you aren't being scientific, thus you are immediately dismissed from the debate. Without the Received Text tradition the Reformation would have never happened, neither could it have happened, neither can it be continued on other ground.

For example, you accused me of slander in regards to my statements that Wescott and Hort's text was foisted off on the Church in secrecy, this is common knowledge. It's also common knowledge that they never applied their theories to the texts, nor has it ever been applied, it was created for the sole purpose of attacking the Received Text.

Colwell stated in 1947 that the "genealogical method as defined by Westcott and Hort was not applied by them or by any of their followers to the manuscripts of the New Testament. Moreover, sixty years of study since Westcott and Hort indicate that it is doubtful if it can be applied to New Testament manuscripts." Colwell, "Hort Redivivus," Studies, p.158. 

He further noted, "Hort utilized this principle solely to depose the Textus Receptus, and not to establish a line of descent." and finally, "Yet, in truth, all of Hort's main points were subjectively-based and were deliberately contrived to overthrow the Byzantine-priority hypothesis."

I'm not interested in winning an argument with you, and I'm not going to get involved in that style of debate, as I don't find it edifying for either of us. I've got to leave for worship.

Cordially,

Thomas


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 7, 2008)

From post #35



> Thomas:
> 
> “The critical text and the philosophy behind it was brought upon the Church in secrecy, denying Authority of Scripture and attacking its establishment...”






> Lane:
> 
> “This is slanderous. The people who discovered manuscripts immediately published them for all scholars to look over. Westcott and Hort were very open about their methods...”



Lane, Thomas is actually right here. Westcott and Hort distributed their own revised Greek Text to the Committee in 1871 when it first gathered in the Jerusalem Chamber (the place where their work was conducted), with the stipulation that it be kept secret until the publication of the finished product. They violated the stipulations of the Church of England which were laid upon them for the work, and they threatened to resign when Dr. Vance Smith, a Unitarian, outraged England by his presence on the committee (who later gloatingly wrote about the damage the Committee had done to the NT’s testimony to the deity of Jesus Christ).

In a letter to Westcott, in April of 1861, while they were unofficially* working on their revision of the Greek text, Hort wrote,

Also—but this may be cowardice—I have a sort of craving that our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean, a text, issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, will have great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach, and whence it would not easily be banished by subsequent alarms.**​
Hort was worldly-wise in this, for it was not until dogged research by scholars in the 20th century unearthed their “dangerous heresy”*** (though “damnable” be a more apt description) in _many_ areas, that we have learned things about them their contemporaries were unaware of. In a letter to Lightfoot in May of 1860, concerning a proposed commentary they would write with Westcott on the New Testament, Hort said,

Depend on it, whatever either you or I may say in an extended commentary, if only we speak our mind, we shall not be able to avoid giving grave offence to…the miscalled orthodoxy of the day.†​-------

Notes
* They did not receive their official appointment to revise the New Testament – *not* the Greek text, but make minor revisions in the English text – until 1871.
** _Life and Letters of J.F.A. Hort_, Vol. I, page 445. By his son.
*** 2 Peter 2:1 more accurately classifies theirs as “damnable heresies” – there being a distinction between the two types.
† Ibid., page 421.

------------

Actually, Thomas was not slanderous, but rather barely uncovered their treachery, as recorded by each of their sons in their written biographies.

And I do not think Thomas in any way supported or condoned Riplinger, or her work, but instead showed how the attack on the Scripture was interpreted by her, and fueled her ranting errors. I didn’t think you were being fair to him – perhaps just mistaking what he said.

More on Alexandria to come!

Steve


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 7, 2008)

I will try to respond. Life has become a bit busy here lately. I certainly wouldn't mind if there are any other defenders of the critical text out there, if they would chip in and answer some of the arguments for the TR side. Debating 4 guys at once is rather exhausting!


----------



## KMK (Jan 7, 2008)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Lane, Thomas is actually right here. Westcott and Hort distributed their own revised Greek Text to the Committee in *1971* when it first gathered in the Jerusalem Chamber (the place where their work was conducted), with the stipulation that it be kept secret until the publication of the finished product. They violated the stipulations of the Church of England which were laid upon them for the work, and they threatened to resign when Dr. Vance Smith, a Unitarian, outraged England by his presence on the committee (who later gloatingly wrote about the damage the Committee had done to the NT’s testimony to the deity of Jesus Christ).



Should that be '1871'?


----------



## KMK (Jan 7, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> I will try to respond. Life has become a bit busy here lately. I certainly wouldn't mind if there are any other defenders of the critical text out there, if they would chip in and answer some of the arguments for the TR side. Debating 4 guys at once is rather exhausting!



Try being a credobaptist in the PB Baptism Forum!


----------



## SRoper (Jan 7, 2008)

KMK said:


> Jerusalem Blade said:
> 
> 
> > Lane, Thomas is actually right here. Westcott and Hort distributed their own revised Greek Text to the Committee in *1971* when it first gathered in the Jerusalem Chamber (the place where their work was conducted), with the stipulation that it be kept secret until the publication of the finished product. They violated the stipulations of the Church of England which were laid upon them for the work, and they threatened to resign when Dr. Vance Smith, a Unitarian, outraged England by his presence on the committee (who later gloatingly wrote about the damage the Committee had done to the NT’s testimony to the deity of Jesus Christ).
> ...



It's 1971 according to the oldest and most reliable manuscripts.


----------



## KMK (Jan 8, 2008)

SRoper said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Jerusalem Blade said:
> ...


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 8, 2008)

Oops! Thanks for the correction, guys!

And I do have to hand it to you, Lane — taking on 4 opponents is a feat!

Steve

P.S. The hippie Calvinists have a good sense of humor!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 10, 2008)

Lane has asked what is wrong with the Alexandrian manuscripts. He said,



> post #18 “In your mind, what elevates the Reformation editors, and the texts used in the Reformation, over the early third and fourth century manuscripts that are Alexandrian? Were the Alexandrians not part of the church? Why is the Alexandrian text-form illegitimate?”
> 
> post #49 “On what basis do you say that the Alexandrian texts were rejected by the Reformed church? The manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, for instance, were not discovered or known until the 19th century. Furthermore, you seem to be disenfranchising the Alexandrian church. Were they not part of the church? Did they not receive those texts when they were written?"



These are good questions, and I would briefly like to respond by quoting from chapter 5 ("The History of the Text") of Wilbur N. Pickering’s, _The Identity of the New Testament Text_, where he talks about the history and factors involved concerning the copies made from the autographs. Please note that this later version of the book (the online version) is slightly different from the earlier hardcopy book:

-----------

We have objective historical evidence in support of the following propositions:


The true text was never "lost".


In A.D. 200 the exact original wording of the several books could still be verified and attested.


There was therefore no need to practice textual criticism and any such effort would be spurious.

However, presumably some areas would be in a better position to protect and transmit the true text than others.

[size=+1]*Who Was Best Qualified?*[/size]

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.

*Access to the Autographs*

This criterion probably applied for less than a hundred years (the Autographs were presumably worn to a frazzle in that space of time) but it is highly significant to a proper understanding of the history of the transmission of the Text. Already by the year 100 there must have been many copies of the various books (some more than others) while it was certainly still possible to check a copy against the original, should a question arise. The point is that there was a swelling stream of faithfully executed copies emanating from the holders of the Autographs to the rest of the Christian world. In those early years the producers of copies would know that the true wording could be verified, which would discourage them from taking liberties with the text.

However, distance would presumably be a factor—for someone in north Africa to consult the Autograph of Ephesians would be an expensive proposition, in both time and money. I believe we may reasonably conclude that in general the quality of copies would be highest in the area surrounding the Autograph and would gradually deteriorate as the distance increased. Important geographical barriers would accentuate the tendency.

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.

*Proficiency in the source language*

As a linguist (PhD) and one who has dabbled in the Bible translation process for some years, I affirm that a 'perfect' translation is impossible. (Indeed, a tolerably reasonable approximation is often difficult enough to achieve.) It follows that any divine solicitude for the precise form of the NT Text would have to be mediated through the language of the Autographs—Greek. Evidently ancient Versions (Syriac, Latin, Coptic) may cast a clear vote with reference to major variants, but precision is possible only in Greek (in the case of the N.T.). That by way of background, but our main concern here is with the copyists.

To copy a text by hand in a language you do not understand is a tedious exercise—it is almost impossible to produce a perfect copy (try it and see!). You virtually have to copy letter by letter and constantly check your place. (It is even more difficult if there is no space between words and no punctuation, as was the case with the N.T. Text in the early centuries.) But if you cannot understand the text it is very difficult to remain alert. Consider the case of P66. This papyrus manuscript is perhaps the oldest (c. 200) extant N.T. manuscript of any size (it contains most of John). It is one of the worst copies we have. It has an average of roughly two mistakes per verse—many being obvious mistakes, stupid mistakes, nonsensical mistakes. From the pattern of mistakes it is clear that the scribe copied syllable by syllable. I have no qualms in affirming that the person who produced P66 did not know Greek. Had he understood the text he would not have made the number and sort of mistakes that he did.

Now consider the problem from God's point of view. To whom should He entrust the primary responsibility for the faithful transmission of the N.T. Text? If the Holy Spirit is going to take an active part in the process, where should He concentrate His efforts? Presumably fluent speakers of Greek would have the inside track, and areas where Greek would continue in active use would be preferred. For a faithful transmission to occur the copyists had to be proficient in Greek, and over the long haul. So where was Greek predominant? Evidently in Greece and Asia Minor; Greek is the mother tongue of Greece to this day (having changed considerably during the intervening centuries, as any living language must). The dominance of Greek in the Aegean area was guaranteed by the Byzantine Empire for many centuries; in fact, until the invention of printing. Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453; the Gutenberg Bible (Latin) was printed just three years later, while the first printed Greek New Testament appeared in 1516. (For those who believe in Providence, I would suggest that here we have a powerful case in point.)

How about Egypt? The use of Greek in Egypt was already declining by the beginning of the Christian era. Bruce Metzger observes that the Hellenized section of the population in Egypt "was only a fraction in comparison with the number of native inhabitants who used only the Egyptian languages."[21] By the third century the decline was evidently well advanced. I have already argued that the copyist who did P66 (c. 200) did not know Greek. Now consider the case of P75 (c. 220). E.C. Colwell analyzed P75 and found about 145 itacisms plus 257 other singular readings, 25% of which are nonsensical. From the pattern of mistakes it is clear that the copyist who did P75 copied letter by letter![22] This means that he did not know Greek—when transcribing in a language you know you copy phrase by phrase, or at least word by word. K. Aland argues that before 200 the tide had begun to turn against the use of Greek in the areas that spoke Latin, Syriac or Coptic, and fifty years later the changeover to the local languages was well advanced.[23]

Again the Aegean Area is far and away the best qualified to transmit the Text with confidence and integrity. Note that even if Egypt had started out with a good text, already by the end of the 2nd century its competence to transmit the text was steadily deteriorating. In fact the early papyri (they come from Egypt) are demonstrably inferior in quality, taken individually, as well as exhibiting rather different types of text (they disagree among themselves).

*The strength of the Church*

This question is relevant to our discussion for two reasons. First, the law of supply and demand operates in the Church as well as elsewhere. Where there are many congregations and believers there will be an increased demand for copies of the Scriptures. Second, a strong, well established church will normally have a confident, experienced leadership—just the sort that would take an interest in the quality of their Scriptures and also be able to do something about it. So in what areas was the early Church strongest?

Although the Church evidently began in Jerusalem, the early persecutions and apostolic activity caused it to spread. The main line of advance seems to have been north into Asia Minor and west into Europe. If the selection of churches to receive the glorified Christ's "letters" (Rev. 2 and 3) is any guide, the center of gravity of the Church seems to have shifted from Palestine to Asia Minor by the end of the first century. (The destruction of Jerusalem by Rome's armies in A.D. 70 would presumably be a contributing factor.) Kurt Aland agrees with Adolf Harnack that "about 180 the greatest concentration of churches was in Asia Minor and along the Aegean coast of Greece." He continues: "The overall impression is that the concentration of Christianity was in the East. . . . Even around A.D. 325 the scene was still largely unchanged. Asia Minor continued to be the heartland of the Church."[24] "The heartland of the Church"—so who else would be in a better position to certify the correct text of the New Testament?

What about Egypt? C.H. Roberts, in a scholarly treatment of the Christian literary papyri of the first three centuries, seems to favor the conclusion that the Alexandrian church was weak and insignificant to the Greek Christian world in the second century.[25] Aland states: "Egypt was distinguished from other provinces of the Church, so far as we can judge, by the early dominance of gnosticism."[26] He further informs us that "at the close of the 2nd century" the Egyptian church was "dominantly gnostic" and then goes on to say: "The copies existing in the gnostic communities could not be used, because they were under suspicion of being corrupt."[27] Now this is all very instructive—what Aland is telling us, in other words, is that up to A.D. 200 the textual tradition in Egypt *could not be trusted.* Aland's assessment here is most probably correct. Notice what Bruce Metzger says about the early church in Egypt:

Among the Christian documents which during the second century either originated in Egypt or circulated there among both the orthodox and the Gnostics are numerous apocryphal gospels, acts, epistles, and apocalypses. . . . There are also fragments of exegetical and dogmatic works composed by Alexandrian Christians, chiefly Gnostics, during the second century. . . . In fact, to judge by the comments made by Clement of Alexandria, almost every deviant Christian sect was represented in Egypt during the second century; Clement mentions the Valentinians, the Basilidians, the Marcionites, the Peratae, the Encratites, the Docetists, the Haimetites, the Cainites, the Ophites, the Simonians, and the Eutychites. What proportion of Christians in Egypt during the second century were orthodox is not known.[28]​
It is almost enough to make one wonder whether Isaiah 30:1-3 might not be a prophecy about N.T. textual criticism!

But we need to pause to reflect on the implications of Aland's statements. He is a champion of the Egyptian ("Alexandrian") text-type, and yet he himself informs us that up to A.D. 200 the textual tradition in Egypt could not be trusted and that by 200 the use of Greek had virtually died out there. So on what basis can he argue that the Egyptian text subsequently became the best? Aland also states that in the 2nd century, 3rd century, and into the 4th century Asia Minor continued to be "the heartland of the Church." This means that the superior qualifications of the Aegean area to protect, transmit and attest the N.T. Text carry over into the 4th century! It happens that Hort, Metzger and Aland (along with many others) have linked the "Byzantine" text-type to Lucian of Antioch, who died in 311. Now really, wouldn't a text produced by a leader in "the heartland of the Church" be better than whatever evolved in Egypt?

*Attitude toward the Text*

Where careful work is required, the attitude of those to whom the task is entrusted is of the essence. Are they aware? Do they agree? If they do not understand the nature of the task, the quality will probably do down. If they understand but do not agree, they might even resort to sabotage—a damaging eventuality. In the case of the N.T. books we may begin with the question: "Why would copies be made?"

We have seen that the faithful recognized the authority of the N.T. writings from the start, so the making of copies would have begun at once. The authors clearly intended their writings to be circulated, and the quality of the writings was so obvious that the word would get around and each assembly would want a copy. That Clement and Barnabas quote and allude to a variety of N.T. books by the turn of the 1st century makes clear that copies were in circulation. A Pauline corpus was known to Peter before A.D. 70. Polycarp (XIII) c. 115, in answer to a request from the Philippian church, sent a collection of Ignatius' letters to them, possibly within five years after Ignatius wrote them. Evidently it was normal procedure to make copies and collections (of worthy writings) so each assembly could have a set. Ignatius referred to the free travel and exchange between the churches and Justin to the weekly practice of reading the Scriptures in the assemblies (they had to have copies).

A second question would be: "What was the attitude of the copyists toward their work?" We already have the essence of the answer. Being followers of Christ, and believing that they were dealing with Scripture, to a basic honesty would be added reverence in their handling of the Text, from the start. And to these would be added vigilance, since the Apostles had repeatedly and emphatically warned them against false teachers. As the years went by, assuming that the faithful were persons of at least average integrity and intelligence, they would produce careful copies of the manuscripts they had received from the previous generation, persons whom they trusted, being assured that they were transmitting the true text. There would be accidental copying mistakes in their work, but no deliberate changes. It is important to note that the earliest Christians did not need to be textual critics. Starting out with what they knew to be the pure text, they had only to be reasonably honest and careful. I submit that we have good reason for understanding that they were especially watchful and careful—this especially in the early decades.

As time went on regional attitudes developed, not to mention regional politics. The rise of the so-called "school of Antioch" is a relevant consideration. Beginning with Theophilus, a bishop of Antioch who died around 185, the Antiochians began insisting upon the literal interpretation of Scripture. The point is that a literalist is obliged to be concerned about the precise wording of the text since his interpretation or exegesis hinges upon it.

It is reasonable to assume that this "literalist" mentality would have influenced the churches of Asia Minor and Greece and encouraged them in the careful and faithful transmission of the pure text that they had received. For example, the 1,000 MSS of the Syriac Peshitta are unparalleled for their consistency. (By way of contrast, the 8,000 MSS of the Latin Vulgate are remarkable for their extensive discrepancies, and in this they follow the example of the Old Latin MSS.) It is not unreasonable to suppose that the Antiochian antipathy toward the Alexandrian allegorical interpretation of Scripture would rather indispose them to view with favor any competing forms of the text coming out of Egypt. Similarly the Quarto-deciman controversy with Rome would scarcely enhance the appeal of any innovations coming from the West.

To the extent that the roots of the allegorical approach that flourished in Alexandria during the third century were already present, they would also be a negative factor. Since Philo of Alexandria was at the height of his influence when the first Christians arrived there, it may be that his allegorical interpretation of the O.T. began to rub off on the young church already in the first century. Since an allegorist is going to impose his own ideas on the text anyway, he would presumably have fewer inhibitions about altering it—precise wording would not be a high priority.

The school of literary criticism that existed at Alexandria would also be a negative factor, if it influenced the Church at all, and W.R. Farmer argues that it did. "But there is ample evidence that by the time of Eusebius the Alexandrian text-critical practices were being followed in at least some of the scriptoria where New Testament manuscripts were being produced. Exactly when Alexandrian text-critical principles were first used . . . is not known."[29] He goes on to suggest that the Christian school founded in Alexandria by Pantaenus, around 180, was bound to be influenced by the scholars of the great library of that city. The point is, the principles used in attempting to "restore" the works of Homer would not be appropriate for the NT writings when appeal to the Autographs, or exact copies made from them, was still possible.

*Conclusion*

What answer do the "four controlling factors" give to our question? The four speak with united voice: "The Aegean area was the best qualified to protect, transmit and attest the true text of the N.T. writings." This was true in the 2nd century; it was true in the 3rd century; it continued to be true in the 4th century. And now we are ready to answer the question, "Was the transmission normal?", and to attempt to trace the history of the text.

-------

Notes

[21]Metzger, _Early Versions_, p. 104.
[22]Colwell, "Scribal Habits," pp. 374-76, 380.
[23]K. and B. Aland, _The Text of the New Testament_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), pp. 52-53.
[24]_Ibid_., p. 53.
[25]Roberts, pp. 42-43, 54-58.
[26]K. and B. Aland, p. 59.
[27]K. Aland, "The Text of the Church?", _Trinity Journal_, 1987, 8NS:138.
[28]Metzger, _Early Versions_, p. 101.
[29]W.R. Farmer, _The Last Twelve Verses of Mark_ (Cambridge: University Press, 1974), pp. 14-15. He cites B.H. Streeter, _The Four Gospels_, 1924, pp. 111, 122-23.​
----------

I post this fairly lengthy section of Pickerings to give an idea of the text-critical hypothesis he gives to account for the existence of the Byzantine text, and also to put in perspective the phenomenon of the Alexandrian textform. Remember what Dr. Maurice Robinson said,



> A sound rational approach which accounts for all the phenomena and offers a reconstruction of the history of textual transmission is all that is demanded for any text-critical hypothesis. (From the Introduction to _The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Byzantine/Majority Textform_, by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont.



This "Introduction" of Robinson's is also an excellent resource for information concerning the early transmission of the autographs, and the status of the various textforms.

For those who are interested in looking at Pickering’s examination and critique of Eclecticism and the Eclectic Text, please see here. (I don’t post it because it would make this *too* lengthy!)

Steve


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 11, 2008)

I cannot possibly respond to all of the arguments, especially since I am only using my own argumentation, not quoting long sections of other people's work. Forgive me, but I simply do not have the time. However, there are a couple of things I would like to bring up. Firstly, who likely held manuscripts. I disagree with Pickering's assessment of John and Mark. I don't think we can know where those manuscripts were held. The same with Luke, Acts, and 2 Peter. I think it most likely that Matthew and James were held in Jerusalem. However, Pickering's assessment of Alexandria leaves out quite a few facts. Firstly, if any manuscripts were held in Palestine, they would be far more likely to get to Alexandria first. Alexandria is only 314 miles from Jerusalem, as opposed to Istanbul's (aka Byzantium and Constantinople) 727. Secondly, the majority of the population in Alexandria was Jewish (see Davidson's The Birth of the Church, pg. 45), and the city was enormous (Davidson estimates 400,000, certainly the second most important city if the entire Roman empire after Rome itself). There was a strong Christian presence early in Alexandria, so his conclusion that the 70 AD massacre of Jerusalem meant that the manuscripts were more likely to go to Antioch is pure speculation. They could just as easily have gone to Alexandria (for those manuscripts held in Palestine). Further, the Mediterranean Sea was easily traversible in those days with the pax Romana in place. So, this idea that the manuscripts held in Turkey, Greece and Rome could not have made it down to Alexandria is absurd, but more importantly, speculation. Again, they constitute no reason whatsoever to reject the Alexandrian texts. 

As to the Greek language, it is illogical to conclude that because Greek was on the decline in Alexandria, that therefore the scribes who copied these manuscripts must not have known Greek. Alexandria was a _center_ of learning in the old world. Itacisms are not a logical criteria in the slightest in this regard, since this is a matter of pronunciation, not of Greek knowledge. In other words, someone whose _mother tongue_ was Greek could make an itacistic mistake. 

With regard to WH, they published their work, and they openly discussed their methods in their publications. That is not secret. That they did not want it distributed beforehand is common to all scholars' work. They have a sense of propriety about their work, not wanting others to steal from them. It is extremely unwise, at this great distance, to read motives into their reasons for not distributing their work ahead of time. 

What is Thomas going to do about the fact that Stephanus published a critical apparatus to his text? Is that not textual criticism? Did Stephanus have just one Byzantine manuscript, which he received, and said, "This is it: the exact copy of the original." No, of course not. He compared all manuscripts at his disposal. CT folk do the same thing today.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Jan 12, 2008)

> What is Thomas going to do about the fact that Stephanus published a critical apparatus to his text? Is that not textual criticism? Did Stephanus have just one Byzantine manuscript, which he received, and said, "This is it: the exact copy of the original." No, of course not. He compared all manuscripts at his disposal. CT folk do the same thing today.



You know, you posted a very good opinion today on the beauty of women, when I read it, I thought, "Why doesn't he see that this same principle is applicable to the textual issue?" 

You related that female beauty today is an external standard of perfection that exists only in the photographers studio, whereby if women are to attain unto it, she has to have the head of one woman, the body of another, the legs of a third &c, to meet this unattainable "ideal." Modern textual criticism approach to the text of Scripture, is in principle, very similar to that concept - and it results in the same analogous frustration for the Bride of Christ and her orthodox ministers, as you related between man and wife.

I will now attempt to clarify my statements since I've apparently been unclear. If I remember correctly you alluded to a concept that modern criticism is engaged in the same activity as our Protestant fathers, synonymously relating them as textual criticism the same way you did here, I then said that doesn't make any sense to me. 

I provided a quote from Kummel, explaining that the text critical method developed by Simon and applied to the study of the New Testament "was divorced for the first time from the study carried on by the ancients." This was in 1689, long after the Protestants work was finished, by this time the high orthodox dogmaticians were hard at work defending the text against Simon's attack.

Our Protestant fathers did not consider every manuscript to be an authentic text, they never engaged in what you are calling "textual criticism," because what comes with that is the entire paradigm in which the discipline is exercised. They never approached the text of Scripture through that paradigm, you should know that as well as I do. If you don't, you've got Muller's work, have you not read it? Plenty of works have been cited in this and other threads that conclusively prove that your claim is incorrect.

I'll correct my terminology so we can know precisely what each other is talking about, in the future I'll try and stick to this. Modern textual criticism can really only be described as "*textual eugenics*," a self directed evolving text subjective to an external hypothetical standard of perfection, that God Himself has not chosen to preserve. In contrast, our Protestant fathers received the text of Scripture, within its historical context, from the Greek speaking Church where it was actually used for centuries. They have a history of the text, in ancient catholic orthodoxy, and thus they can make informed and intelligent decisions dealing with scribal errors.

Childers explains the foundation of the concept, from which I develop the terminology "textual eugenics," which I will further clarify and explain below:

"[The] text-critical method functions properly only in conjunction with a view of the history of the transmission of the text….Indeed, in his famous 1968 article on “Hort Redivivus,” Colwell excoriated the discipline for its near-universal failure to deal with or take into account the history of the manuscript tradition....What Colwell wrote over three and a half decades ago remains essentially true: the discipline has largely neglected to give due attention to writing the history of the text. But no method works without such a history of the text, so what has filled the void? The lingering influence of Wescott & Hort’s view of the history of the text, it would seem; Epp recently suggested that their text (and by implication the historical view associated with it) has become the unconscious “default setting” of the discipline.

Jeff W. Childers, Transmission and Reception: New Testament Text-Critical and Exegetical Studies, p 112-113

Now, then, that takes us back to Colwell and the citations I posted:

"[T]he "genealogical method" as defined by Westcott and Hort was not applied by them or by any of their followers to the manuscripts of the New Testament. Moreover, sixty years of study since Westcott and Hort indicate that it is doubtful if it can be applied to New Testament manuscripts." Colwell, "Hort Redivivus," Studies, p.158. 

He further noted, "Hort utilized this principle solely to depose the Textus Receptus, and not to establish a line of descent." and finally, "Yet, in truth, all of Hort's main points were subjectively-based and were deliberately contrived to overthrow the Byzantine-priority hypothesis."

Since the text critical method doesn't work in the absence of a history of the text and the critical camp has no history of the text other than Wescott and Hort deliberately contrived and never utilized hypothesis, then it is not and cannot be engaged in any legitimate activity when it approaches the Biblical texts.

It was 1689 and it is today textual eugenics, whose sole purpose is to attack and overthrow the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Text they stand upon as that authentic and authoritative text of Scripture.

The discipline you are supporting rejects centuries of continual use of the Protestant text by Reformed and Protestant Churches, altering it back to Latin Vulgate readings, which are universally rescensions from Reformed doctrine, claiming they are the autographic readings which our Protestant Fathers rejected as corrupt and false along with the Ancient Fathers anathematizing their teachings and teachers.

So, in answer to your question, none of the Protestant fathers were engaged in textual eugenics.

Cordially,

Thomas


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 14, 2008)

Lane, 

In your post #71 you said,

“I am only using my own argumentation, not quoting long sections of other people's work.”​
Regarding the first clause, “I am only using my own argumentation…”, this is not necessarily a good thing, especially if not supported by evidences with substance. And regarding the latter, “…quoting long sections of other people’s work”, this is not necessarily a bad thing! For I am a researcher, and a teacher, and what I do is the online equivalent of using textbooks or selected materials chosen for their relevance to the topic under discussion.

I want to look at something you said, as an example of what I consider inadequate “argumentation”:

"…there are a couple of things I would like to bring up. Firstly, who likely held manuscripts. I disagree with Pickering's assessment of John and Mark. I don't think we can know where those manuscripts were held."​
John first. I will refrain from “quoting long sections of other people’s work,” but will indicate where material may be found. William Hendriksen, in his commentary on the Gospel of John, marshals much evidence from the writings of the early fathers that the apostle John lived in Ephesus both before and after his banishment to Patmos. The tradition of the early church was that John fled Jerusalem around the time of its destruction in A.D. 70 and went to Asia Minor, settling in Ephesus. He quotes numerous people to this effect, both fathers and contemporary scholars. See pages 29-31 for this. This also would be where the autographs of his Gospel, the Apokalypse, and Epistles would be – where the apostle himself was living.

I use Hendriksen because his works are readily available, and he is very good on chronologies and locations, as well as being one of the premiere NT scholars – in my view.

Regarding Mark, we turn again to Hendriksen and his commentary on _that_ Gospel. I will quote but two sentences, and those interested may pursue it further. WH says (on p. 13, in the section “When and Where Was It Written?):



> What has just been said with respect to the relation of Mark’s Gospel to _Peter_ holds also with reference to its connection with _Rome_. Here too this Gospel, though nowhere definitely indicating and proving its place of origin, confirms the statements of Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, etc., that it was written in Rome and for the Romans.



Although in my previous post (#70) I quoted Pickering at length – seeing him as a responsible proponent of not only the Byzantine priority hypothesis, but generally accepted history concerning the early situation of the NT mss. This history is not in dispute – the possessors and locations of the autographs and the copies made from them – although other factors are, such as the (may I call it _bizarre?_) theory of the Lucian/Antiochian official rescension (per Westcott and Hort, and their followers) which is without a shred of historical attestation, it being just an imaginary construct designed to depose the confidence of many in the Byzantine/Traditional Text.

I could post a good bit more on Alexandria, but I shall restrain myself with but a brief quote from a work of my own:

…we go back to Egypt of the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D., and in particular to Alexandria – a city of pleasure, learning, culture, and the arts – out from which came forth certain Greek manuscripts containing a version of the New Testament. These Alexandrian manuscripts – exemplars of the ones used by W&H in their revision ([size=+1]a[/size] and B) – came from (or at least came _through_) the theological school of Clement (150-220?), Origen (185-253), Pamphlius (died 309), and Eusebius of Caesarea (265-339), this latter the historian and scholar who served the emperor Constantine, and provided him with 50 Bibles made from these manuscripts.

Alexandria was famous for its luxuries and pleasures, renown for its world-famous library, and for its scholars and learned men. When the city was conquered in 641 A.D., the invading Moslem commander, Amr, said,

It is impossible to enumerate the riches of this great city, or to describe its beauty; I shall content myself with observing that it contains 4000 palaces, 400 baths, 400 theaters.*​
Truly this place in Egypt was a marvelous type of the world, with its beauty, wisdom, wealth, status, and power! And in this place of high culture, _to which we have no Biblical record of any apostolic autographs_ (original gospels or letters of the New Testament) _being sent_, a “Christian” school arose, as well as New Testament manuscripts which were identified with it. Historian Albert Newman comments, 

The Alexandrian theologians with whom the scientific spirit had its birth were Platonists…not that they had been simply brought up as Platonists (as were Justin and Athenagorus, who yet, after they adopted Christianity, rejected Platonism as the work of demons); but they remained Platonists, and sought to explain Christianity according to the Platonic categories, in somewhat the same way in which Philo had, two centuries earlier, attempted to explain Judaism. In fact these Christian Platonists were greatly indebted to Philo.**​
Clement and Origen, two of the “Christian Platonists,” have both been condemned as heretics by the church…

----------

* _The Story of Civilization_, Vol. 4, _The Age of Faith_ (NY: Simon & Schuster, 1950), page 282. Cited by Dr. William P. Grady, in _Final Authority: A Christian’s Guide to the King James Bible_, (Grady Publications, Inc. 1993), page 77.
** _A Manual of Church History_, Vol. 1, _Ancient and Medieval Church History (To A.D. 1517)_, 1st ed., rev., by Albert Henry Newman (PA: Judson Press, 1933), page 272. Cited in Grady, page 81.​
[end excerpt]

-------

I could go on about Alexandria, and Clement, Origen, and Pamphlius, but as information about them is common I will refrain.

Lane, you said,



> Pickering's assessment of Alexandria leaves out quite a few facts. Firstly, if any manuscripts were held in Palestine, they would be far more likely to get to Alexandria first. Alexandria is only 314 miles from Jerusalem, as opposed to Istanbul's (aka Byzantium and Constantinople) 727. Secondly, the majority of the population in Alexandria was Jewish (see Davidson's The Birth of the Church, pg. 45), and the city was enormous (Davidson estimates 400,000, certainly the second most important city if the entire Roman empire after Rome itself). There was a strong Christian presence early in Alexandria, so his conclusion that the 70 AD massacre of Jerusalem meant that the manuscripts were more likely to go to Antioch is pure speculation.



Where I live now, Turkey is closer to me than Athens, where I have close Presbyterian friends, but that does not mean if I were fleeing for my life I would head for Turkey! Yes there are some Christians there, but it is not a strong evangelical church, as are the churches I know (and would go to) in Athens. *The strong churches John knew when Jerusalem was about to fall were in Asia Minor, not Alexandria (the NT tells us this); and the accounts of early church historians and fathers confirm that is where he went.* With the Jewish population against the Jewish followers of Jesus, especially after the fall of the city (for Jesus’ disciples fled the city, according to Jesus’ prior warning, and were considered deserters), why would John seek aid with the Jewish unbelievers rather than the brethren in the apostolic churches? Paul had evangelized (himself and his disciples) the area of Asia Minor for about three years, establishing many churches there (Acts 19:9, 10; 20:31) – so these were _apostolic_ churches, of which there were none in Egypt. Would the last remaining apostle have brought the New Covenant documents – that precious Deposit – with him to his new area of residence?

The fact that no New Testament Gospel or Epistle *original manuscripts* were sent to Egypt, but to the churches the apostles labored for or in, lessens the likelihood that the NT mss Egypt did have were able to be compared with an autograph, and corrected if in error.

Lane, I appreciate – painfully – that in positing my view of the transmission of the NT documents, and refuting yours, I am assailing an aspect of your faith, which you hold to as precious truth, a foundation of your life. I do not mean to cause you grief. And I am sorry if do. I do, however, assert gladly that we do have the word of God preserved by Him, and on this the church stands. The differences in the various textforms range from what I would call _adequate preservation_ – which all churches in all ages have possessed at the very least – to _preservation in the minutiae_. There is good news, and there is the best news. I am glad to herald both, but especially the latter.

Steve


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 14, 2008)

*First Thomas*, then Steve. 

Nice move, using my post on women's beauty! Let me answer it by answering also your claim that Muller supports your position. He doesn't really. Listen to what he says (this is the second edition, now) on page 399, the only time the term textus receptus occurs in this volume of PRRD, by the way: 



> It needs to be noted here that the so-called textus receptus was merely a *part* of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century *process* of establishing a normative or definitive text of the New Testament. The phrase "textus receptus" or "received text" comes from the Elzevir New Testament of 1633- and as the context of the phrase itself and the use of the Greek New Testament in the seventeenth century both testify, *there was no claim, in the era of orthodoxy, of a sacrosanct text in this particular edition*. Nor did it, in the era of orthodoxy, provide some sort of _terminus ad quem_ for the editing of the text of the Bible: the statement that this was the "text now received by all" simply meant that it was the text, produced by Stephanus and Beza, and slightly reedited by the Elzevirs, that was then regarded (by Protestants!) as the best available text of the Bible: namely, the *critically examined* combination of the Masoretic text of the Old Testament and the so-called Byzantine text of the New Testament. Both in the era of the Reformation and the era of orthodoxy, there was a close adherence to the Old Testament Hebrew test inherited from the Western rabbinici tradition and to the New Testament Greek text that had served the Greek Orthodox church- and the *text-critical work* of the era was intended primarily as *the method of establishing the genuine "original"* of that text tradition of the Hebrew and the Greek. (emphasis added)



This is *precisely* the same aim that modern Reformed textual critics have today. So, unfortunately, Muller does not support your position here. He supports the idea that the Reformers and the post-Reformation tradition engaged the manuscript tradition, and engaged in textual criticism. I suspect that a huge problem of miscommunication that we're all having here is the definition of this term "textual criticism." What Muller means by it is surely defined by the above quotation: comparing one manuscript with another to try to figure out what the original was. I agree with this definition of textual criticism as to its methods and goals. What you TR guys seem to mean by it is an inherent denial of sola Scriptura, an autonomous attitude towards the text, and a completely subjective approach to the evidence. Your actual words are, "Modern textual criticism can really only be described as 'textual eugenics,' a self directed evolving text subjective to an external hypothetical standard of perfection, that God Himself has not chosen to preserve." I would reject such an approach _equally as vehemently_ as you guys do. My point is this: Reformed textual criticism has always seen itself as supporting sola Scriptura, and has magnificently accomplished such a goal. So, the ultimate problem with your illustration is that the original perfect version *did* actually exist, whereas a modern "Platonic" perfect woman does *not* exist, except in the imagination. You quotation from Kummel (himself a liberal scholar) does not speak for all textual critics. Just because some textual critics use the techniques to deny sola Scriptura does not mean that all textual critics do so. 

The Childers quotation does not take into account modern eclecticism. Modern eclecticism takes into account _every_ manuscript, denying _no_ manuscript its own voice, unlike the TR position, which denies any validity at all to any other textual tradition except the Byzantine. 

The Colwell quotation only asserts, but does not prove its point, which would take quite a bit of documentation. 

You assert that it is necessary to have a history of the text in order to engage in this discussion. What do you mean by the term "history of the text?" There is a history of the Alexandrian text. It is told for us in Metzger's work on the NT manuscripts. I suspect you mean "churchly authorization." Again, though, and none of you TR people have answered this point yet: the Alexandrian textual tradition was accepted by the Alexandrian church at that time. You cannot escape this point. 

*Okay, now Steve. *

Firstly, regarding quotations. My point was not to say that your argumentation was illegitimate just because it used long quotations from other people's work. My point was that is extremely difficult to answer points, when the points to which I am to respond have been cut and pasted from enormous tracts of material. It makes me feel like I am trying to get a drink of water from a fire hydrant! It is the job of a scholar to summarize, summarize, and summarize! 

The point about John completely begs the question of when John was actually written. John was at least a teenager when Jesus was alive. By some accounts he lived until 98 AD. There is a spread there from maybe 40 AD onward when he could have written the Gospel. There are no references to the Fall of Jerusalem. If John was written closer to 40, then there were maybe 25 or thirty peaceful years when it would have time to mosey on down to Alexandria. There is no evidence to suggest that it written after his move to Ephesus. So your entire argument depends on it being written at least close to 70 AD. There is no obstacle to supposing that it was written even twenty years *previously* to that. John is a thoroughly Jewish Gospel. I think it likely that its target audience was first Jewish (see Carson's commentary on this point). If that is so, then its more likely provenance was Jerusalem, in which case it is still quite possible that it got to Alexandria before it got to Ephesus. At any rate, there is no reason to *reject* the Alexandrian manuscripts of John on this line of argumentation. There is no proof possible in these kinds of reconstructions. However, all I need to prove is that we should not reject the Alexandrian manuscripts from the process of textual criticism. How we *weight* those manuscripts is a completely separate question. 

Hendriksen on Mark is a bit confusing. If there is no confirmation of its place of origin, then how can Mark confirm the early church fathers' assessments of it? Could you provide a page reference, please, so I can look it up in my copy? 



> This history is not in dispute – the possessors and locations of the autographs and the copies made from them



Is this not precisely what we _are_ disputing here? You are using shaky arguments here about the location of the autographs to discredit the Alexandrian tradition, and I am challenging that move. 

About Clement, where exactly did he get condemned, and who condemned him? Origin's condemnation was not because of his theological views (which would become controversial enough later), but because he was teaching without ordination (see Davidson, The Birth of the Church, pg. 257). Besides, the supposed Platonic-ness of the Alexandrian school is utterly irrelevant to the question of manuscript transmission. Classic case of "poisoned well" fallacy. The manuscripts are automatically corrupt because of the nature of the people who transcribed them. The Medieval church (which transcribed the Byzantine tradition) was afflicted by Aristotelianism, especially in Aquinas. Does this make the Byzantine textual tradition problematic? 



> The fact that no New Testament Gospel or Epistle original manuscripts were sent to Egypt



This is speculation. It is quite easy to conceive of manuscripts being written in Jerusalem, carefully copied there, being compared to the originals, and then being sent out to all the churches, Alexandria included. There would be only one generation even in that case between the copies being made in Alexandria and the autographs. And there is nothing to suggest that the Jerusalem-provenance manuscripts didn't ever travel down there. What you've got here is speculation, Steve. You cannot reject the Alexandrian tradition on speculation. 

I deeply appreciate your last paragraph. There are some who have viciously attacked me personally for holding to a non-TR position. I am glad that you do not. Would you agree that my position is consistent with sola Scriptura?


----------



## MW (Jan 14, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> This is *precisely* the same aim that modern Reformed textual critics have today.



Muller acknowledges the differences on p. 415. He states the issue was one of "linguistic continuity," and distinguishes this from the approach of Hodge and Warfield. Further, the section beginning on p. 417, entitled The Problem of Corruptions in the Text, shows the Protestant scholastic commitment to the traditional text both against Romanist apologists and Anti-trinitarian free thinkers.

To progress beyond Muller for a moment -- from the Princeton school modern reformed thinking has inherited a mindset which tends to seek out the original reading in terms of the autographa. In the reformed orthodox period the belief was that the original is preserved in the apographa, and the apographa was considered to be preserved in its purity as the final court of appeal.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 15, 2008)

Lane,

Re Mark, _in the Gospel itself_ there is no indicator to prove where it was written, but tradition has it in Rome. It is page 13 of WH on Mark.

Re John, if you are positing a date of the Gospel before 70 (the Apokalypse and Epistles would be included) because there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, you are entering a new topic. Do you actually hold to a pre 70 date for all of these writings on that basis? I do not. 

Hendriksen says, 

For several years John lived in Ephesus. But sometime during the reign of Domitian, who ruled from 81-96, he was banished to the island of Patmos. With the accession of Nerva he was allowed to return to Ephesus, where he died at the beginning of Trajan’s reign; i.e., about the year 98.

Now tradition is well-nigh unanimous in maintaining that the place where the apostle wrote his Gospel was Ephesus (Eusebius, _Ecclesiastical History_ III, xxiii, 1, 6; V, viii, 4; xxiv, 4; Clement of Alexandria, _Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?_ XLII, ii). Repeated attempts, also in recent literature, to discredit this strong tradition have not been successful. (pp. 29, 30 ff.)​
Hendriksen continues with a discussion on the merits of the view of a late date for John. And although the Apokalypse was written on Patmos (Rev 1:9) after the accession of Domitian, there is no mention of the destruction of the temple there either. It had happened quite a while back.

But what I have said here will not in the least convince a firm believer in the early dating of John and Revelation, and I do not want to enter that topic now.

What I had meant was that no autograph itself was sent to Alexandria.

How about this, Lane, that between you and me, we call it a draw? Those who have listened in can form their own conclusions from the material presented by each of us thus far. In fact, I am willing to let you have the last word.

One of the problems with discourse in the Kingdom of God – at least in the earthly sector of it – is that it too often becomes more important than the Spirit of Christ, after whose manner we should conduct ourselves. There is a time to get tough, and severe, but certainly not in a discussion such as we are having. I realize John Burgon was tough on his opponents in the controversy following the publication of the new Greek NT and the RV, but that was a different situation entirely; and even there he stuck to the issues and did not indulge in verbal abuse. Even so, his manner was too _passionate_ for the English “gentlemen” he disputed, and they ignored him. We are told that verbal abuse is a prohibited activity for would-be saints, and that it is “railing” (1 Cor 5:11), an offense of such seriousness that we are “not to eat” with such who are habitually so, and to put them away from our company.

We are brothers, both adopted into the royal family of Heaven, and should carry ourselves with that dignity, graciousness, and kindness appropriate to our stations – and eternal kinship.

The problem is, the Holy Bible is so precious to God’s people, that to disparage their version of it is – to many – tantamount to attacking the Faith, and the Lord. But seeing as there are so many who hold to the CT or ET, and to modern versions based on them, and who with all their hearts and minds seek to love the Lord and follow Him, that one has to look at their hearts and not their judgment – right or wrong in our eyes – as to what Scripture is best. There is a saying that applies to topics such as we are discussing: “You get more flies with honey than with vinegar.”

The reason I suggest a draw between us in our contest, is that we both are busy, and to wrangle over small points that can be argued fairly well from our differing points of view, is not being good stewards of the precious time allotted to us. What do you say?

And yes, your position is consistent with Sola Scriptura (the title of James White’s book is the English of that: _Scripture Alone_) within the context of your paradigm (and White’s), which is that the NT text can be discerned through textual criticism and the multitude of manuscripts scrutinized thereby. I do not accept your or White’s paradigm, and I would say that your approach to Sola Scriptura may be consistent with the Princeton School’s post-Warfield view, but not with the earlier paradigm of the Reformation and post-Reformation.

It comes down to this: how well you can defend your position vis-à-vis the secular/demonic onslaught against the written Word of God. A for-instance would be posts #55 & 56 on the http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/do-textual-variants-give-us-confidence-22188/#post344408 thread.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 15, 2008)

Steve, I appreciate so much your willingness to see what is important in this debate, and engage in honest and fair debate. I think we can let the arguments stand as they are. I don't feel the need to have the last word. 

Matthew, it is quite possible that Hodge and Warfield were not entirely consistent in their argumentation. But don't you think that they appealed to the manuscripts as the final court of appeal with regard to doctrine? I mean, that is all they had. I would not be so quick to posit a complete wedge between Hodge/Warfield on the one hand, and the Reformers on the other. Besides, what are you going to do with the fact that Muller describes the Reformers' method as textual criticism? Do you acknowledge the differences among definitions that I posited in the last post?


----------



## KMK (Jan 15, 2008)

*Thanks!*

I appreciate the contributions by everyone in this thread. It has been edifying to me.


----------



## MW (Jan 15, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> Matthew, it is quite possible that Hodge and Warfield were not entirely consistent in their argumentation. But don't you think that they appealed to the manuscripts as the final court of appeal with regard to doctrine? I mean, that is all they had. I would not be so quick to posit a complete wedge between Hodge/Warfield on the one hand, and the Reformers on the other. Besides, what are you going to do with the fact that Muller describes the Reformers' method as textual criticism? Do you acknowledge the differences among definitions that I posited in the last post?



Lane, as noted in my first post on this thread, no one supposes the received text is to be found in a single MS. It is acknowledged the orthodox reformed engaged in a textual criticism of sorts; but they faithfully maintained the "authentic" word of God was preserved in its purity in all ages -- believing criticism, in other words, as over against the sceptical criticism which predominates today. Please read the afore cited section in Muller, where he shows the way in which high reformed orthodoxy defended traditional readings against Romanist and Infidel attacks. Modern textual criticism has no time for this kind of process, which demonstrates it is a critical method of a completely different stamp.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Jan 16, 2008)

Dear Pastor Keister,

I'm going to try and be brief.



greenbaggins said:


> Nice move, using my post on women's beauty! Let me answer it by answering also your claim that Muller supports your position. He doesn't really. Listen to what he says (this is the second edition, now) on page 399, the only time the term textus receptus occurs in this volume of PRRD, by the way.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------

