# Review of Burgon's Revision Revised



## greenbaggins (Nov 1, 2017)

While there is little doubt that Dean John William Burgon was one of the most learned, meticulous, and pious textual critics of all time, the thesis of this review is that Burgon's arguments in _Revision Revised_, while strong in some areas, are weak in others, and even illogical.

Burgon's own canons (or rules) for the practice of textual criticism are clear. 1. Any reading that has consistent ecclesiastical testimony is preferable (xxv). Specifically, this involves the testimony of the manuscripts, translations (or versions), and the early church fathers (xxvii). 2. The earliest reading is preferable (this is not concurrent with the earliest manuscripts necessarily, 339). 3. The largest number of manuscripts, versions, and patristic citations has a better claim to be original (339). Later on, he will directly contradict Westcott and Hort's theory (manuscripts are to be weighed, not numbered) by claiming that the number of manuscripts _is_ weight (455). 4. The widest geographical distribution of the readings in canon 3 has a greater likelihood of authenticity. 5. The reading that can explain all the other readings is also preferable (340). 6. External grounds weigh heavier than internal considerations (96), or what he calls “postulates of the Imagination.”

While much of what Burgon affirms here is clearly sensible, there are some caveats that need attention. Concerning the first canon, the question arises of what constitutes consistent ecclesiastical testimony. What if two readings, for instance, enjoy fairly equal numbers of attestation by manuscripts, versions, and fathers? Secondly, the third canon is difficult to maintain consistently. If number is weight, then why does Burgon not once mention how much agreement there is between א and B, on the one hand, and the Textus Receptus (hereafter TR) on the other? This huge agreement does not prevent Burgon's complete rejection of the two manuscripts as two of the most corrupt manuscripts of all time. The fourth canon is not one that affects Burgon's arguments much. He argues far more from majority than from geographical distribution. While canon 5 is one that almost all textual critics agree with, Burgon oftentimes forgets to address alternate possible explanations of how a reading might have arisen. Concerning canon 6, while it is relatively strong to assert that patristic readings ought to be given more weight than they usually are, since they often attest to a reading that predates any extant manuscripts, much more caution is necessary with regard to the patristic evidence. Determining actual citations is notoriously difficult, since some fathers quoted from memory, and some biblical passages are very similar to others, thus casting doubt on which biblical passage is actually cited. Burgon shows little hesitation concerning the church father citations, which shows an over-confidence on his part concerning the evidence. In other words, external evidence is not always as clear as Burgon thinks it is.

Burgon's strongest arguments in the book are in reaction to Bishop Ellicott's articles (367-520). This response basically constitutes one long argument for the TR reading of Θεὸς as the correct reading over against the relative pronoun ὃς in 1 Timothy 3:16. These arguments are immensely detailed, and generally convincing. However, here or there one may quibble. For instance, the detailed argument concerning the cross stroke of the Θ and the overstroke indicating abbreviation in Codex Alexandrinus does not take into account the fact that it is equally possible that they were added by a corrector. Later textual criticism (particularly Metzger) refers the relative pronoun reading to the original reading of A, and the cross-stroke to the corrector of A (see NA28). That being said, it is very instructive to note Burgon's comments on how manuscripts can fade over time, and how the evidence then “changes.”

It is also difficult to argue with his dictum that all readings are old (245). This fact does not receive enough attention among modern textual critics. Most modern critics uncritically assume that the oldest reading is always (or usually) in the oldest manuscript. However, if a tenth century manuscript is copied from a first generation manuscript, there might be fewer generations of manuscripts in between the later tenth century manuscript and the autograph than between a fourth century manuscript that has more generations between it and the autograph. Of course, it is exceptionally difficult to determine genealogical relationships of any sort among the manuscripts. Even affinity among manuscripts is not proof of common ancestry. This is true because it is not usually evident from what exemplar a manuscript might have been corrected. This allows the possibility of much cross-pollination among the so-called families.

This leads to the first major problem of Burgon's book. On the one hand, he rejects the genealogical method in general, a method which he calls “purely arbitrary” (20). His objection is clear: that if no actual steps in the genealogical process are evident, then scholars cannot speak of genealogical evidence (256). However, this sets up a massive _tu quoque_: he uses the very same genealogical argument with regard to the relationship between א and B (12, 28, 227, 255-257, and 318)! Just because they have similar readings does not prove they have a common ancestor. To add a further problem: Burgon actually grants that “groupings” can be valid (339), though he rejects using such an idea as a foundational principle. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Burgon rejects the idea of grouping if it disadvantages the TR, but is perfectly willing to use the argument if it disadvantages א and B. Burgon is therefore overly prejudiced against א and B.

The second major problem of the book is that, although Burgon posits the TR as a standard for comparison only, not a standard for excellence (xviii-xix, 75), he does not avoid using the TR as a standard for excellence as well. Deviations from the TR are even labeled “depraved” (xxx). Furthermore, since the TR is assumed to be correct, any minuses from the TR are labeled as “omissions.” This begs the question of whether the material in א and B (for example) is shorter by intention or accident, versus the material in TR possibly being an expansion. This problem is one reason why most modern textual critics prefer the non-value terms “plus” and “minus” instead of “addition” or “omission,” terms which imply an _a priori_ conclusion. Burgon does not hold back from judging the motivations of the scribes of א and B as being intentionally sinister (16, 245).

The third major problem with Burgon's book is the illogicality of many of his arguments. For instance, he argues that the reason why א and B have survived is because they were not of average purity (319, 325). In other words, the purer documents were in use and thus wore out, and the less pure documents were unused, thus being preserved. This argument is common among defenders of the TR. It only works, however, if there are no other possible explanations of why such older manuscripts might have been preserved. All the extant manuscripts have been preserved. Is it completely out of the realm of possibility that the reason א and B have survived is because scribes thought it might be good to produce two excellent manuscripts and then put them away so that they might be brought out later to correct other manuscripts? Why is it impossible for God's providence to have worked in this way? Burgon's argument is so bizarre, that, if taken to its logical conclusion, it would cast doubt on the reliability of _any_ ancient manuscript of _any_ book. Burgon's view would imply that the older a manuscript is, the less likely it is to be a good manuscript. Where would one draw the line between a date that ensures it was a well-used copy versus a date that proves it was a poor copy and thus put away? So there are two main problems with this argument. First, it falls prey to the argument of the beard (what date is the cut-off?). Secondly, it has a too-narrow view of the providence of God. _All_ of the extant manuscripts have been preserved by God's providence. That God's providence looks unusual in the case of some manuscripts should not be a strike against them.

This leads to the fourth major problem with Burgon's book. It has quite a large number of logical fallacies. Burgon commits the following fallacies: 1. the fallacy of the beard—arguing that manuscripts have differences in every verse does not negate their usefulness (31). Where would he draw the line with regard to how many verses the manuscripts would have to offer consistent testimony on in order to be credible? 2. Begging the question—Burgon's use of statistics in the number of words in Luke's gospel (19,941) is begging the question, assuming the TR count. This is evident also in the way Burgon uses statistics generally, which never manages to point out the agreement of א and B with the TR. He only points out the differences. As a result, he greatly exaggerates the differences. 3. Non sequitur—it does not follow that manuscripts quoting the LXX are therefore self-condemned (56). It does not follow that Scripture could not have recorded something so foul as Herod being sexually aroused by his own daughter, and that this is therefore grounds for rejecting a reading (68). Genesis 19 comes to mind. It does not follow that because Burgon might be right in some instances of analysis, that therefore he is correct in all (107). 4. Poisoned well fallacy—just because there might be a “thicket” of incorrect readings does not make a reading in the midst of them untrue (96). Similarly, the often-used poisoned-well fallacies of the discovery of א in a waste-paper basket, and the long housing of B in the Vatican find their way to Burgon's pen (343). Joseph came out of a prison. Does this mean he was guilty or wrong in something? We do not know the links in the chain of God's providence as to how א got to be in a monastery's waste-paper basket, or how B got to be housed in the Vatican library. It is highly unwise to speculate on such things, let alone cast doubt on the manuscripts' worth by such means. 5. Ad hominem fallacy—the doctrinal position of a textual critic on the deity of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with how well he might be able to do his job as a textual critic (witness the care of Jewish scribes!). Yet Burgon casts doubt on everything Westcott and Hort did simply by attacking their association (and thus committing simultaneously the guilt by association fallacy) with some people who deny the deity of Christ (344). Burgon himself asked for help from Roman Catholic scholars. Should this fact cast doubt on the validity of Burgon's own conclusions? 6. False dichotomy—Burgon commits a false dichotomy in describing א and B, claiming that they are either the very purest or the very foulest of all manuscripts (365). These two manuscripts have far more agreement with the TR than disagreement. How is Burgon so certain that there is no mediating position? Surely _every_ manuscript in existence has a greater or lesser degree of purity.

To conclude, Burgon's book has some very strong arguments in certain sections, especially when he is dealing with particular text-critical problems. At the very least, Burgon should be a caution against espousing Westcott and Hort's theories blindly and fanatically. Westcott and Hort were certainly too slavish in their devotion to א and B. It is also certain that Westcott and Hort downplayed the Byzantine manuscripts far too much. The dictum that says manuscripts should be weighed not counted is a false dichotomy. Surely some manuscripts are better than others (though none have any kind of absolute sway). And yet it is _also_ true that numbers count. Furthermore, the genealogical method has many flaws that make conclusions based on it far more tenuous than most proponents of the method would like to believe. It is far too difficult to discern real genealogical relationships when the historical data is so thin (all we really have in most cases is the evidence of the manuscripts themselves), and when agreement and difference can be due to a fair number of different factors. Affinity among manuscripts can be a factor, however, even if it has to be chastened, just as many of the canons of textual criticism require adjustment.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 3


----------



## Logan (Nov 1, 2017)

Excellent write-up, thanks. I agree with the analysis, I found Burgon to be more than a bit biased and arbitrary, though he had some good points of restraint upon modern textual criticism. Two of my favorite critics are Maurice Robinson and Charles Scrivener, both of whom I think are careful thoughtful, yet not necessarily trying to fit all evidence to support the TR.

I think your point about it being too narrow a view of Providence to be spot on.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Nov 4, 2017)

Logan said:


> Excellent write-up, thanks. I agree with the analysis, I found Burgon to be more than a bit biased and arbitrary, though he had some good points of restraint upon modern textual criticism. Two of my favorite critics are Maurice Robinson and Charles Scrivener, both of whom I think are careful thoughtful, yet not necessarily trying to fit all evidence to support the TR.
> 
> I think your point about it being too narrow a view of Providence to be spot on.



Actually, Dr. Robinson believes that Burgon was on the right path in his approach to the subject.

Personally, having read quite a bit on this subject, I think it rather silly to think that ANYONE comes at this as pure, unbiased science without presuppositions fundamentally effecting conclusions from the outset.

One of the things I particularly appreciate about Burgon is his clarity regarding how his doctrine of the Scripture undergirded his approach to textual criticism.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 30, 2017)

Oh I wish I had the time to interact with your methodically-researched comments, Lane! Between teaching, sermon prep, and pastoral care I seem to not even have time for "pleasure" research and study! (Partly it's my age slowing me down.)

Burgon has been a companion for me many decades now, and while I do have a bone or two to pick with him, I would differ with you on some of the things you have said. Perhaps this "bump" will extend the period of this thread to allow me to "steal time" and post a few remarks.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 1, 2017)

Robert Truelove said:


> Actually, Dr. Robinson believes that Burgon was on the right path in his approach to the subject.
> 
> Personally, having read quite a bit on this subject, I think it rather silly to think that ANYONE comes at this as pure, unbiased science without presuppositions fundamentally effecting conclusions from the outset.
> 
> One of the things I particularly appreciate about Burgon is his clarity regarding how his doctrine of the Scripture undergirded his approach to textual criticism.


He was for the majority text of the Greek NT, correct?


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 1, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> While there is little doubt that Dean John William Burgon was one of the most learned, meticulous, and pious textual critics of all time, the thesis of this review is that Burgon's arguments in _Revision Revised_, while strong in some areas, are weak in others, and even illogical.
> 
> Burgon's own canons (or rules) for the practice of textual criticism are clear. 1. Any reading that has consistent ecclesiastical testimony is preferable (xxv). Specifically, this involves the testimony of the manuscripts, translations (or versions), and the early church fathers (xxvii). 2. The earliest reading is preferable (this is not concurrent with the earliest manuscripts necessarily, 339). 3. The largest number of manuscripts, versions, and patristic citations has a better claim to be original (339). Later on, he will directly contradict Westcott and Hort's theory (manuscripts are to be weighed, not numbered) by claiming that the number of manuscripts _is_ weight (455). 4. The widest geographical distribution of the readings in canon 3 has a greater likelihood of authenticity. 5. The reading that can explain all the other readings is also preferable (340). 6. External grounds weigh heavier than internal considerations (96), or what he calls “postulates of the Imagination.”
> 
> ...


What is interesting to me is that he is claimed as the patron saint of textual criticism by those holding to the KJVO, and yet he himself wrote that the TR itself and many areas where it should have been corrected.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 1, 2017)

Sounds like Burgon was trying to rig textual criticism so that his beloved KJV would always come out on top.

Reactions: Sad 2


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 2, 2017)

What a cynical judgment on a godly man, Richard—unworthy an RE. Seeing such aspersion cast upon him, I shall indeed have to add a little to this thread.

Reactions: Amen 5


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 2, 2017)

Maybe not that extreme, but


bookslover said:


> Sounds like Burgon was trying to rig textual criticism so that his beloved KJV would always come out on top.


 he would have to be seen as being KJV preferred, if not KJVO.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 3, 2017)

In the 19th century, both Alexander Maclaren and Charles Spurgeon would preach from the 1881 Revised Version when they felt that a particular reading was superior to the KJV. They both still adhered to the KJV most of the time but, as I say, were not averse to the new translation.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 3, 2017)

bookslover said:


> In the 19th century, both Alexander Maclaren and Charles Spurgeon would preach from the 1881 Revised Version when they felt that a particular reading was superior to the KJV. They both still adhered to the KJV most of the time but, as I say, were not averse to the new translation.


Yes. Spurgeon believed the Revised Version used better manuscripts in 1 John 3:1 than the Authorised Version. Spurgeon said this:
"A genuine fragment of inspired Scripture has been dropped by our older translators, and it is too precious to be lost. Did not our Lord say, “Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost”? The half lost portion of our text is restored to us in the Revised Version... Those authorities upon which we depend—those manuscripts which are best worthy
of notice—have these words; and they are to be found in the Vulgate, the Alexandrian, and several other versions. They ought never to have dropped out. In the judgment of the most learned, and those best to be relied on, these are veritable words of inspiration."


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 4, 2017)

Hello Stephen,

That goes to show that even "the prince of preachers" is not infallible. The RV was, in his day, a big deal, purporting to have a more accurate text, and many good men were initially enamored of it. It remains that it is a reading from a Roman Catholic ms (I will answer Lane on this issue when I get to that), and not the Reformation text. A very few mss have the reading, while the vast majority of the Greek mss do not recognize it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 5, 2017)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> It remains that it is a reading from a Roman Catholic ms (I will answer Lane on this issue when I get to that), and not the Reformation text. A very few mss have the reading, while the vast majority of the Greek mss do not recognize it.


I have read James White and James Price and I find their arguments convincing. But I wait with sincere interest your answer to Lane.

Note: Re James White, his presuppositions are helpfully laid out in his 'King James Controversy' Revised ed, p 79ff.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 5, 2017)

Thanks, Stephen. I don't know if I have the revised ed (can't keep buying book updates, Bible updates – when money is tight), but I'll check the edition I have. For the record, while I differ with James on the Bible issue, I do love the man – he's a stand-up brother – and have a lot of respect for him (notwithstanding friends who demonize him). I pretty much understand his presupps anyway.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 6, 2017)

bookslover said:


> In the 19th century, both Alexander Maclaren and Charles Spurgeon would preach from the 1881 Revised Version when they felt that a particular reading was superior to the KJV. They both still adhered to the KJV most of the time but, as I say, were not averse to the new translation.


They would have probably, if alive today, preached at times from the modern versions such as Nas/Esv, as wee not KJVO.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 6, 2017)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I have read James White and James Price and I find their arguments convincing. But I wait with sincere interest your answer to Lane.
> 
> Note: Re James White, his presuppositions are helpfully laid out in his 'King James Controversy' Revised ed, p 79ff.


I think that the works of James White is this area of bible versions is must reading.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Dec 6, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I think that the works of James White is this area of bible versions is must reading.



I find it perplexing that so many consider James White to be an expert on textual criticism, and yet I doubt anyone could come up with any reasons as to why this would be the case.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 6, 2017)

Bill The Baptist said:


> I find it perplexing that so many consider James White to be an expert on textual criticism, and yet I doubt anyone could come up with any reasons as to why this would be the case.


Mainly due to him be able to show in layman terms just how stupid the KJVO position is regarding the scriptures.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 6, 2017)

David, you need to temper your position a bit here. Not every person believes that the KJV is best for the same reasons. Some arguments are better than others. It is far better to deal with individuals, who have quite different sets of arguments, rather than treating them all in one lump.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Dec 6, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Mainly due to him be able to show in layman terms just how stupid the KJVO position is regarding the scriptures.



Low hanging fruit is always easy to pick, however he is much less compelling when dealing with the more cogent arguments of those who prefer the traditional text. Those who don’t know much about textual criticism probably think Dr. White did well in his debate with Bart Ehrman, but those who are more well versed in the subject realize that Ehrman was just toying with him.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 6, 2017)

Hello Lane,

To respond to your “first major problem of Burgon's book” as noted in the OP.

I see your method is to completely bypass his primary arguments and view of the textual terrain, and focus instead on small apparent contradictions, one of which is your confusing the use of genealogical categories. You said, “he rejects the genealogical method in general, a method which he calls 'purely arbitrary' (20).” Below I give the context of that statement in Burgon:

But indeed the principle involved in the foregoing remarks admits of being far more broadly stated. It even stands to reason that we may safely reject any reading which, out of the whole body of available authorities,—Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers,—finds support nowhere save in one and the same little handful of suspicious documents. For we resolutely maintain, that _external Evidence_ must after all be our best, our only safe guide; and (to come to the point) we refuse to throw in our lot with those who, disregarding the witness of _every other_ known Codex—_every other_ Version—_every other _available Ecclesiastical Writer,—insist on following the dictates of a little group of authorities, of which nothing whatever is known with so much certainty as that often, when they concur exclusively, it is to mislead. We speak of codices b or א or d; the IXth-century codex l, and such cursives as 13 or 33; a few copies of the old Latin and one of the Egyptian versions: perhaps Origen.—Not theory therefore:—not prejudice:—not conjecture:—not unproved assertion:—not any single codex, and _certainly_ not codex b:—not an imaginary “Antiochene Recension” of another imaginary “Pre-Syrian Text:”—not antecedent fancies about the affinity of documents:—neither “the [purely arbitrary] method of genealogy,”—nor one man's notions (_which may be reversed by another man's notions_) of “Transcriptional Probability:”—not “instinctive processes of Criticism,”—least of all “the individual mind,” with its “supposed power of divining the Original Text”—of which no intelligible account can be rendered:—nothing of this sort,—(however specious and plausible it may sound, especially when set forth in confident language; advocated with a great show of unintelligible learning; supported by a formidable array of cabalistic symbols and mysterious contractions; above all when recommended by justly respected names,)—nothing of this sort, we say, must be allowed to determine for us the Text of Scripture. The very proposal should set us on our guard against the _certainty_ of imposition.

We deem it even axiomatic, that, in every case of doubt or difficulty—supposed or real—our critical method must be the same: namely, after patiently collecting _all_ the available evidence, then, without partiality or prejudice, to adjudicate between the conflicting authorities, and loyally to accept that verdict for which there is clearly the preponderating evidence. _The best supported Reading_, in other words, must always be held to be _the true Reading_: and nothing may be rejected from the commonly received Text, except on evidence which shall _clearly_ outweigh the evidence for retaining it. We are glad to know that, so far at least, we once had Bp. Ellicott with us. He announced (in 1870) that the best way of proceeding with the work of Revision is, “_to make the Textus Receptus the standard_,—departing from it _only when_ critical or grammatical considerations _show that it is clearly necessary_.” We ourselves mean no more. Whenever the evidence is about evenly balanced, few it is hoped will deny that the Text which has been “in possession” for three centuries and a half, and which rests on infinitely better manuscript evidence than that of any ancient work which can be named,—should, for every reason, be let alone.​
I apologize to the readers for the lengthy quotes, but as Rev. Lane gives no context for his allegations, I must supply them instead to make sense of the matter. The “purely arbitrary” nature of *Hort’s* use—and definition—of “genealogical evidences” he (Burgon) does make clear, which I shall get to in a moment. Burgon’s denial of Hort’s peculiar “genealogical evidences” is but one of _many_ flawed claims, as can be noted in the above paragraphs.

Rev. Lane says of Burgon, “His objection is clear: that if no actual steps in the genealogical process are evident, then scholars cannot speak of genealogical evidence (256). Let us go to these pages 255-256 and see what Burgon actually says of Hort’s method:

High time however is it to declare that, in strictness, all this talk about “Genealogical evidence,” when applied to Manuscripts, is—_moonshine_. The expression is metaphorical, and assumes that it has fared with MSS. as it fares with the successive generations of a family; and so, to a remarkable extent, no doubt, it _has_. But then, it happens, unfortunately, that we are unacquainted with _one single instance_ of a known MS. copied from another known MS. And perforce all talk about “Genealogical evidence,” where _no single step in the descent_ can be produced,—in other words, _where no Genealogical evidence exists_,—is absurd. The living inhabitants of a village, congregated in the churchyard where the bodies of their forgotten progenitors for 1000 years repose without memorials of any kind,—is a faint image of the relation which subsists between extant copies of the Gospels and the sources from which they were derived. That, in either case, there has been repeated mixture, is undeniable; but since the Parish-register is lost, and not a vestige of Tradition survives, it is idle to pretend to argue on _that_ part of the subject. It may be reasonably assumed however that those 50 yeomen, bearing as many Saxon surnames, indicate as many remote _ancestors_ of some sort. That they represent as many _families_, is at least a _fact_. Further we cannot go.

But the illustration is misleading, because inadequate. Assemble rather an Englishman, an Irishman, a Scot; a Frenchman, a German, a Spaniard; a Russian, a Pole, an Hungarian; an Italian, a Greek, a Turk. From Noah these 12 are all confessedly descended; but if _they_ are silent, and _you_ know nothing whatever about their antecedents,—your remarks about their respective “genealogies” must needs prove as barren—as Dr. Hort's about the “genealogies” of copies of Scripture. “_The factor of Genealogy_,” in short, in this discussion, represents a mere phantom of the brain: is the name of an imagination—not of a fact.​
What Burgon is saying, is that in this context and usage, the impressive-sounding phrase “genealogical evidence” is but quasi-academic bluster meant to impress the unlearned, as it has no substance to it.

Then the good Rev. Lane charges Burgon with making a “massive _tu quoque_”, which in essence means a retort charging an adversary with doing what he criticizes in others. But is Burgon doing such, that is, using “genealogical evidence” that he disallows in Hort? Here we get into more intricate and interesting detail.

What actually _is_ the genealogical method as pertains to textual transmission? Is it even a valid method? Hort uses the term as though it is, but does Burgon? Rev. Lane says that “he uses the very same genealogical argument with regard to the relationship between א and B”, but does he? Because Burgon claims that “Between the first two (b and א) there subsists an amount of sinister resemblance, which proves that they must have been derived at no very remote period from the same corrupt original” (page 12), does this mean he is using the “genealogical method” as posited in some TC (text critical) circles, or is he simply stating that they both derive from a common source, given that these two mss have in common unique remarkably close variants found hardly anywhere else. The concept of genealogical families is quite different and more greatly developed than such a basic idea of transmission from an archetype to two copies made therefrom.

In his book, _Forever Settled: A Survey of the Documents and History of the Bible_ (an online version here), Jack Moorman, discussing genealogical “families of manuscripts”, says,

Though there is truth in the above commonly presented position and we have quoted Dr. Hills at length, yet the basic idea of textual types or families has its source in the naturalistic viewpoint and we do not believe that it represents the facts concerning the distribution of MSS in the early centuries.

With some 85% or more of the 5000 extant MSS falling into the category of the Received Text, there is in fact only one textual family, the Received. All that remains is so contradictory, so confused, so mixed, that not by the furthest stretch of imagination can they be considered several families of MSS.

Rather than face squarely this preponderance of support for the TR, naturalistic scholars with their ingrained bias against that text have found it convenient to talk of three or four families, as if all were basically equals. This was one of the main pillars in the Westcott and Hort theory which enabled them to Construct a new Greek Testament on the fewest possible MSS.

Yet as the following quotations from "_The Identity of the New Testament Text_" by Wilbur Pickering show, most present day textual scholars (mainly naturalistic) are prepared to abandon the entire idea:

"We have reconstructed text types and families and subfamilies and in so doing have created things that never before existed on earth or in heaven." (Parvis).

"The major mistake is made in thinking of the old text-types as frozen blocks." (Colwell).

"It is still customary to divide MSS into four well-known families ...this classical division can no longer be maintained." (Klijn).

"Was there a fundamental flaw in the previous investigation which tolerated so erroneous a grouping ... Those few men who have done extensive collating of MSS, or paid attention to those done by others, as a rule have not accepted such erroneous groupings." (Metzger).

"I defy anyone, after having carefully perused the foregoing lists ... to go back to the teaching of Dr. Hort (regarding text-types) with any degree of confidence." (Hoskier).​
Given all of this, I think that Rev. Lane’s distaste for the Received Text over against the Critical Text has tinted the lenses through which he views Burgon’s book. I have some (far milder) criticisms of Burgon, which Dr. E.F. Hills, the Harvard text critic has stated, that being Hills’ “high Anglicanism”, and the transmission of Christian truth primarily through the apostolic succession of church bishops, has weakened his view of the text to a small extent.

If I proceed to critique the remainder of Rev. Lane’s four “problems” with Burgon, please be prepared to endure lengthy rebuttals, as I like to be thorough in these matters. In fact, I have greatly _abbreviated_ my present response, restraining myself for both the readers’ sakes, and my own, as I’m a busy man.

(Here is a decent online copy of Burgon’s _The Revision Revised by gutenburg.org._)

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 6, 2017)

David, although I am not KJVO, but KJV _priority_ (granting the legitimacy of other Bible versions), it really is neither wise nor godly to opine "how stupid the KJVO position is regarding the scriptures". There is a thin line between the KJVO view and my own, and if you think *I'm* stupid you'd do better to demonstrate that rather than simply throw slurs around without any substance, and toward an ordained pastor at that, not to mention a child of the Almighty God. I probably _am_ stupid about some things, and if it bothers me I try to rectify that by learning, but you do your reputation no service by mouthing but empty words.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## JOwen (Dec 7, 2017)

Steve, thank you for your explanatory post. I'm always edified by your insight and evident study of the matter. I too am a KJV priority and appreciate your insightful and kind defense of the AV. You have taught me much.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 7, 2017)

Bill The Baptist said:


> I find it perplexing that so many consider James White to be an expert on textual criticism, and yet I doubt anyone could come up with any reasons as to why this would be the case.


Since you asked for "any reasons" why Dr. White could be viewed as having some expertise in Textual Criticism does the fact that his current PhD work involves textual critical work on a manuscript count?
James does not promote himself as *the* expert on Textual Criticism but I've studied the field of textual criticism as part of my Seminary degree and everything that James talks about is consistent with a grasp in the field that most people do not possess. Toward that end, he is one of the few people who actually regularly engages the topic from an apologetic perspective defending against popular claims by Ehrman and others.

May I ask what reasons, if any, someone should trust your own expertise in gauging whether Dr. White possesses any expertise in textual criticism?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Dec 7, 2017)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Since you asked for "any reasons" why Dr. White could be viewed as having some expertise in Textual Criticism does the fact that his current PhD work involves textual critical work on a manuscript count?
> James does not promote himself as *the* expert on Textual Criticism but I've studied the field of textual criticism as part of my Seminary degree and everything that James talks about is consistent with a grasp in the field that most people do not possess. Toward that end, he is one of the few people who actually regularly engages the topic from an apologetic perspective defending against popular claims by Ehrman and others.
> 
> May I ask what reasons, if any, someone should trust your own expertise in gauging whether Dr. White possesses any expertise in textual criticism?



Dr. White is no doubt a brilliant man and one whose work has profited me greatly. Regardless, there are objective standards by which to judge whether or not someone is an expert in a particular field, and one does not himself need to be an expert to discern this, nor do these objective standards change or cease to exist simply because we like or agree with the person in question. Much of what Bill Nye says lines up with what most scientists say, does this make him an expert? As far as textual criticism goes, the objective standards would be someone who has a legitimate Ph.D in a relevant field and who has engaged in the subject for multiple years as his primary occupation and pursuit. Dr. White, brilliant though he may be, does not meet this standard. Perhaps he will in the future.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 7, 2017)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Dr. White is no doubt a brilliant man and one whose work has profited me greatly. Regardless, there are objective standards by which to judge whether or not someone is an expert in a particular field, and one does not himself need to be an expert to discern this, nor do these objective standards change or cease to exist simply because we like or agree with the person in question. Much of what Bill Nye says lines up with what most scientists say, does this make him an expert? As far as textual criticism goes, the objective standards would be someone who has a legitimate Ph.D in a relevant field and who has engaged in the subject for multiple years as his primary occupation and pursuit. Dr. White, brilliant though he may be, does not meet this standard. Perhaps he will in the future.


Again, what expertise do you possess to gauge the relative expertise of Dr. White.
You state that there are "objective standards" to determine whether a person has a sufficient grasp of textual criticism to be relied upon for information.

What are these objective standards? Since neither of us are experts, can you please point me to the place where men are certified as having expertise in the field?

I ought to note as well that men like Dan Wallace have no problem interacting with Dr. White as if he has a firm handle on these subjects.

You stated that you doubt anyone can give even a single reason why Dr. White should be considered possessing expertise in this field. I find it to be a mean-spirited swipe at the man beneath the office you hold. What I'd like to find is proof that you were not merely being churlish but that you actually have some "objective standard" by which I can measure Dr. White and agree with you that there is absolutely *NO* reason why his well-reasoned discussions on these topics should be respected.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 7, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> David, you need to temper your position a bit here. Not every person believes that the KJV is best for the same reasons. Some arguments are better than others. It is far better to deal with individuals, who have quite different sets of arguments, rather than treating them all in one lump.


I fully agree with you on this issue, as my comments were directed towards the KJVO position period and only, as that position has really no scripture or textual support for it. One can be KJV preferred is fine, as I do use that version, as well as the Nas and the Esv .


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Dec 7, 2017)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Again, what expertise do you possess to gauge the relative expertise of Dr. White.
> You state that there are "objective standards" to determine whether a person has a sufficient grasp of textual criticism to be relied upon for information.
> 
> What are these objective standards? Since neither of us are experts, can you please point me to the place where men are certified as having expertise in the field?
> ...



I have no interest in arguing with you over this matter. I agree that Dr. White is a fine apologist and a gift to the church. I also believe that there are objective standards by which to judge such matters and that one need not himself be an expert in order to deduce this. I find these things to be rather self-evident, and in fact if they were not, we would be hopelessly lost when it comes to seeking reliable sources of information. At any rate, I certainly did not intend to be churlish, and if I came off as such, then I apologize.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 7, 2017)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> David, although I am not KJVO, but KJV _priority_ (granting the legitimacy of other Bible versions), it really is neither wise nor godly to opine "how stupid the KJVO position is regarding the scriptures". There is a thin line between the KJVO view and my own, and if you think *I'm* stupid you'd do better to demonstrate that rather than simply throw slurs around without any substance, and toward an ordained pastor at that, not to mention a child of the Almighty God. I probably _am_ stupid about some things, and if it bothers me I try to rectify that by learning, but you do your reputation no service by mouthing but empty words.


I meant no disrespect to you or anyone else here who has the KJV as best translation, as the KJVO goes way behind that, and makes it the only translation God will use, and makes it a perfect translation.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 7, 2017)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Since you asked for "any reasons" why Dr. White could be viewed as having some expertise in Textual Criticism does the fact that his current PhD work involves textual critical work on a manuscript count?
> James does not promote himself as *the* expert on Textual Criticism but I've studied the field of textual criticism as part of my Seminary degree and everything that James talks about is consistent with a grasp in the field that most people do not possess. Toward that end, he is one of the few people who actually regularly engages the topic from an apologetic perspective defending against popular claims by Ehrman and others.
> 
> May I ask what reasons, if any, someone should trust your own expertise in gauging whether Dr. White possesses any expertise in textual criticism?


The basic problem might be that he supports the Greek critical text over both the TR/MT, and some do have issues with him just due to that.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 7, 2017)

Bill The Baptist said:


> I have no interest in arguing with you over this matter. I agree that Dr. White is a fine apologist and a gift to the church. I also believe that there are objective standards by which to judge such matters and that one need not himself be an expert in order to deduce this. I find these things to be rather self-evident, and in fact if they were not, we would be hopelessly lost when it comes to seeking reliable sources of information. At any rate, I certainly did not intend to be churlish, and if I came off as such, then I apologize.


Bill,

I'm sorry but this response is utterly befuddling. You believe that there are objective standards by which these things can be judged and that we'd be utterly lost without them. Can you at least provide a link to these objective standards? Where someone might have written about these objective standards? I'm widely read and I'm not aware of any but I'd be happy to read them so I can judge for myself whether Dr. White possesses absolutely no expertise that anyone could possibly defend.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 7, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I fully agree with you on this issue, as my comments were directed towards the KJVO position period and only, as that position has really no scripture or textual support for it. One can be KJV preferred is fine, as I do use that version, as well as the Nas and the Esv .


Don't do me any favors by agreeing with me. I think you were taking a swipe at others and you would do better to post much less and read much more.

On this board, especially, it is obtuse to label people as KJVO. I may not agree with the men who argue in favor of the TR but they are not KJVO.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 7, 2017)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Don't do me any favors by agreeing with me. I think you were taking a swipe at others and you would do better to post much less and read much more.
> 
> On this board, especially, it is obtuse to label people as KJVO. I may not agree with the men who argue in favor of the TR but they are not KJVO.


I was not labeling anyone, and I apologize if any here felt that I was, as my position was directed towards JUST the KJVO position period.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Dec 7, 2017)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Bill,
> 
> I'm sorry but this response is utterly befuddling. You believe that there are objective standards by which these things can be judged and that we'd be utterly lost without them. Can you at least provide a link to these objective standards? Where someone might have written about these objective standards? I'm widely read and I'm not aware of any but I'd be happy to read them so I can judge for myself whether Dr. White possesses absolutely no expertise that anyone could possibly defend.



Just to be clear, just because someone is not an expert does not mean they cannot speak authoritatively or correctly on a subject, and in fact many of us on this board do just that on a regular basis. But there is still an objective standard for being an expert in a field, and this is generally understood as constituting an earned Ph.D in the subject from a reputable institution and professional experience in the field as a primary occupation. I really don’t think this is all that controversial. As someone who has completed graduate degrees, I am sure you are aware of the standards required in order to qualify a particular writing as an academic source. I feel that any further discussion of this topic would be fruitless, and so I will bow out.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 7, 2017)

And to be clear...

James is not without sin but he is very clear where is "expertise" does and does not lie. He doesn't claim to be an "expert" on textual critical matters.

That said, he is competent to handle the arguments in textual critical matters. He is capable of reading the arguments that people put forward for their positions and presenting a case for/against the views presented. He accurately summarizes the relevant issues and makes clear what his view is on the matter. He shows people how he arrived at his conclusions by displaying the texts themselves and provides education to people to help them understand what the manuscripts look like and the difficulty associated with the practice of textual criticism.

For my own part, I took a few years of Greek to include some training on how to use textual apparatti. I was very grateful for the time I had spent listening to James describe those processes because it helpe me to understand those processes.

I've worked in many different disciplines over the years. I also have enough degrees under my belt at this point to have respect for scholars but also not to assume that their work is so inaccessible as to be immune to criticism. Were this not the case, this entire sub-area of the forum would be devoid of content as those who actually are not "experts" at textual criticism very frequently criticize the work of those whose scholarly work focuses upon it.

James White does a great job of exposing the assumptions behind those approaches so that we don't have to be over-awed by the "experts" telling us that Scribees did this or that or that textual transmission was like "... the phone game."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 7, 2017)

With regard to Rev. Lane’s “second major problem” with _The Revision Revised_, he states,

…although Burgon posits the TR as a standard for comparison only, not a standard for excellence (xviii-xix, 75), he does not avoid using the TR as a standard for excellence as well.​
This is more nuanced than the Rev. shows, for here is the view of Mr. Burgon:

§ 6. But how (let me ask) does it appear from this, that I have “put forth Lloyd's Greek [TR] Testament as the _final standard of Appeal_”? True, that, in order to exhibit clearly their respective divergences, I have referred five famous codices (a b א c d)—certain of which are found to have turned the brain of Critics of the new school—_to one and the same familiar exhibition of the commonly received Text of the New Testament_: but by so doing I have not by any means assumed _the Textual purity_ of that common standard. In other words I have not made it “_the final standard of Appeal_.” _All_ Critics,—wherever found,—at all times, have collated with the commonly received Text: but only as the most convenient _standard of Comparison_; not, surely, as the absolute _standard of Excellence_. The result of the experiment already referred to,—(and, I beg to say, it was an exceedingly laborious experiment,)—has been, to demonstrate that the five Manuscripts in question stand apart from one another in the following proportions:—

842 (a) : 1798 (c) : 2370 (b) : 3392 (א) : 4697 (d).

But would not the same result have been obtained if the “five old uncials” had been _referred to any other common standard which can be named_? In the meantime, what else is the inevitable inference from this phenomenon but that four out of the five _must_ be—while all the five _may_ be—outrageously depraved documents? instead of being fit to be made our exclusive guides to the Truth of Scripture,—as Critics of the school of Tischendorf and Tregelles would have us believe that they are? (pp xviii, xix)​
Burgon, on p xxv, gives another instance of how the “common version” (the AV) was used as a standard by *all* critics:

I employ that Text,—(as Mill, Bentley, Wetstein; Griesbach, Matthæi, Scholz; Tischendorf, Tregelles, Scrivener, employed it before me,)—not as a criterion of _Excellence_, but as a standard of _Comparison_.​
Burgon makes it clear, in the quote just above the last one, he does “not, surely, [think of it] as the absolute _standard of Excellence._” [All italics in these quotes Burgon’s, unless otherwise noted.] On p 384 he states, “a standard _of _comparison, is not _therefore_ of necessity a standard _of _excellence.” Note, please, the nuances: the Traditional Text (as he calls it) is not the “absolute _standard of Excellence”, nor, because it is used as a standard of comparison is it “*of necessity*” a standard of excellence._

On pages 387 and 388, answering Bishop Ellicott’s misconceptions of his view, Burgon says,

I mistake the Received Text, (you imply,) for the Divine Original, the Sacred Autographs,—and erect it into “a standard from which there shall be no appeal,”—“a tradition which it is little else but sacrilege to impugn.” That is how you state my case and condition: hopelessly _confusing_ the standard of _Comparison_ with the standard of _Excellence_.

By this time, however, enough has been said to convince any fair person that you are without warrant in your present contention. Let _any_ candid scholar cast an impartial eye over the preceding three hundred and fifty pages,—open the volume where he will, and read steadily on to the end of any textual discussion,—and then say whether, on the contrary, my criticism does not invariably rest on the principle that the Truth of Scripture is to be sought in that form of the Sacred Text which has _the fullest_, _the widest_, _and the most varied attestation_. Do I not invariably make _the consentient_ _voice of Antiquity_ my standard? If I do _not_,—if, on the contrary, I have ever once appealed to the “Received Text,” and made _it_ my standard,—why do you not prove the truth of your allegation by adducing in evidence that one particular instance? instead of bringing against me a charge which is utterly without foundation, and which can have no other effect but to impose upon the ignorant; to mislead the unwary; and to prejudice the great Textual question which hopelessly divides you and me?... I trust that at least you will not again confound the standard _of Comparison_ with the standard _of Truth_.​
As is generally understood, Burgon finds some small faults with the English Authorized Version (and even with the Greek underlying it). He is more a Majority or Byzantine Text man. Still, he considered it possessed of “manifold excellences” (p xiii).

Our intrepid Reviewer, Rev. Lane, is offended that Burgon thinks, “Deviations from the TR are even labeled ‘depraved’ (xxx).” But that is not what Burgon thinks at all! Rather, they are considered depraved by him, and elsewhere he considers them “sinister” (p 245) and “intentional perversions” (p 16) on their own demerits, not merely because they deviate.

Depraved? Intentional perversions? Really? What can he be talking about? There is an historical background to the 1881 Revision that Burgon examined.

It was the scandal of England at the time that the openly Arian, Unitarian pastor Dr. Vance Smith was on Westcott and Hort’s Revision Committee. When he was told by the Church of England he must resign his position Westcott threatened to resign himself if Smith were forced to leave.[1] Vance Smith caused an uproar when he attended a Communion Service and refused to say the Nicene Creed (affirming that Christ is God), although Hort loved it! He says,

…that marvelous Communion…It is, one can hardly doubt, the beginning of a new period in Church history. So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment. But it is strange that they should not ask themselves…what is really lost…by the union, for once, of all English Christians around the altar of the Church…[2]​
For the unregenerate Hort the Christ-denying Unitarian was a true “English Christian,” part of the good-ol’-boys’ religious club of academics and intellectuals who wear the frock, and not to be denied either the Lord’s Supper or a place in determining genuine Scripture. When Hort said, “So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment,” he wasn’t referring only to the Communion service, but to the results of the Unitarian on the Committee for Revision. There were many small but highly significant changes to the text they would eventually be publishing. Regarding the Revision, he said, “It is quite impossible to judge of the value of what appear to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearing which few would think of at first…the difference between a picture say of Raffaelle and a feeble copy of it is made up of a number of trivial differences.”[3]

One of these highly significant changes – “trifling alterations” Hort would say, perhaps – was the unwarranted deletion of the word “God” in the text of 1 Timothy 3:16, where the Scripture in speaking of Jesus talks of “the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh”. The Revisers replaced it with “who”. The Unitarian Dr. Smith later wrote,

The old reading is pronounced untenable by the Revisers, as it has long been known to be by all careful students of the New Testament…It is in truth another example of the facility with which ancient copiers could introduce the word God into their manuscripts,—a reading which was the natural result of the growing tendency in early Christian times…to look upon the humble Teacher as the incarnate Word, and therefore as “God manifested in the flesh”.[4] …It has been frequently said that the changes of translation…are of little importance from a doctrinal point of view…[A]ny such statement [is]…contrary to the facts.[5]

The only instance in the N.T. in which the religious worship or adoration of Christ was apparently implied, has been altered by the Revision: ‘At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow,’ [Philippians 2:10] is now to be read ‘in the name.’ Moreover, *no alteration of text or of translation will be found anywhere to make up for this loss; as indeed it is well understood that the N.T. contains neither precept nor example which really sanctions the religious worship of Jesus Christ.*[6] [Emphasis added]​
A.G. Hobbs, in his Forward to the reprint of Burgon’s _The Revision Revised_, wrote,

Here is a real shocker: Dean Stanley, Westcott, Hort, and Bishop Thirwall all refused to serve if Smith were dismissed [in the face of the public outcry at his presence on the Revision Committee]. Let us remember that the Bible teaches that those who uphold and bid a false teacher God speed are equally guilty. ‘For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds’ (2 John 9-11). No wonder that the Deity of Christ is played down in so many passages[7]​
______


1 _Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott_, by his son Arthur Westcott (Macmillan, London, 1903) Reprint by the Bible for Today. Volume I, page 394.
2 _Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort_, by his son, Arthur Fenton Hort (Macmillan, London, 1896) Reprint by the Bible for Today. Volume II, page 139.
3 Ibid.
4 _Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament Affecting Theological Doctrine Briefly Reviewed_, by Dr. Vance Smith (London: 1881), pages 39, 47. Cited in _Revision Revised_, by Burgon, pages 515, 513.
5 Ibid., page 45. 
6 _Texts and Margins_, Smith, page 47. Cited in, _For Love of the Bible: The Battle for the King James Version and the Received Text from 1800 to Present_, by David W. Cloud (WA: Way of Life Literature, 1997), page 31.
7 _The Revision Revised_, by John William Burgon (Centennial Edition, Fifth printing, 1991), Forward [no page #]. See also, _Life of Westcott_, Vol I, page 394.​____________

It is little wonder that the godly scholar, John William Burgon, was offended at, not only the underhanded goings-on of the Revision Committee, but also the work they produced. He considered it an attack not only on the sacred deposit – the Scripture – but on the God who wrote it, and the faith of the people of England.

Westcott and Hort’s original commission by the Church of England was to only make minor corrections in the English of the Authorized Version, but they had a secret agenda of their own, which was to supplant the AV’s Greek text with one of their own making, according to the text-critical principles of the German rationalist critics. And this they accomplished.

I will touch more on the actual character of codices b א in my next response.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 2


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 8, 2017)

Steve, a couple of points in response (always a pleasure to cross swords with you). Firstly, I have zero "distaste" for the TR. If a person operates off the TR, he has the Word of God. Period. That I think the same is true of the critical text does not lower my estimation of the TR. But as no doctrinal difference whatsoever hinges on the differences between the TR and the CT, and some estimates of the overlap put it around 90% overlap, some perspective on this debate is needed. What we can say is that the most differing manuscripts we have differ from each other in less than 10% of the text, and of that 10%, only about a tenth of those differences make any exegetical difference (and NO doctrinal difference). So, even between the TR and the CT, only about 1% makes any difference exegetically. 

Secondly, the _tu quoque_ will still stick for this reason: the reasoning behind Burgon's rejection of the genealogical method is that determining genealogical relationships per se is pure speculation. He says, "[W]e are unacquainted with _one single instance_ of a known MS. copied from another known MS" (256). He then says "[A]ll talk about 'Genealogical evidence,' where _no single step in the descent_ can be produced,-in other words, _where no Genealogical evidence exists_,-is absurd." Emphasis is original. Burgon is not just talking about the theory as a whole, but about every possible conceivable step in seeking to demonstrate that theory. If there is not one known instance of a known MS copied from another known MS, then how can he possibly posit the copying of Aleph and B from an unknown origin? Burgon would answer that they show the same corruptions. _But that is precisely what the genealogical method does_. The fact that Burgon's genealogical method is limited to Aleph and B (and F and G, p. 257) and that WH's theory is much more developed does not let Burgon off the hook for using the very same principle he condemns. 

Thirdly, although I did not draw this out in the OP as much, what I wanted to show was that Burgon made his major case by means of many logical fallacies. This calls into question his major case. If the building blocks he uses to build his building are flawed, then isn't the final product also flawed?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 8, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Steve, a couple of points in response (always a pleasure to cross swords with you). Firstly, I have zero "distaste" for the TR. If a person operates off the TR, he has the Word of God. Period. That I think the same is true of the critical text does not lower my estimation of the TR. But as no doctrinal difference whatsoever hinges on the differences between the TR and the CT, and some estimates of the overlap put it around 90% overlap, some perspective on this debate is needed. What we can say is that the most differing manuscripts we have differ from each other in less than 10% of the text, and of that 10%, only about a tenth of those differences make any exegetical difference (and NO doctrinal difference). So, even between the TR and the CT, only about 1% makes any difference exegetically.
> 
> Secondly, the _tu quoque_ will still stick for this reason: the reasoning behind Burgon's rejection of the genealogical method is that determining genealogical relationships per se is pure speculation. He says, "[W]e are unacquainted with _one single instance_ of a known MS. copied from another known MS" (256). He then says "[A]ll talk about 'Genealogical evidence,' where _no single step in the descent_ can be produced,-in other words, _where no Genealogical evidence exists_,-is absurd." Emphasis is original. Burgon is not just talking about the theory as a whole, but about every possible conceivable step in seeking to demonstrate that theory. If there is not one known instance of a known MS copied from another known MS, then how can he possibly posit the copying of Aleph and B from an unknown origin? Burgon would answer that they show the same corruptions. _But that is precisely what the genealogical method does_. The fact that Burgon's genealogical method is limited to Aleph and B (and F and G, p. 257) and that WH's theory is much more developed does not let Burgon off the hook for using the very same principle he condemns.
> 
> Thirdly, although I did not draw this out in the OP as much, what I wanted to show was that Burgon made his major case by means of many logical fallacies. This calls into question his major case. If the building blocks he uses to build his building are flawed, then isn't the final product also flawed?


This was what my main response to this OP has been, in that we can and should be accepting the various Greek texts such as CT/MT/TR , and that we can and should be accepting as legit English translations any that have been accurately translated off from those source texts.
Can prefer say the Nas, or KJV, or Esv, but there is no standard perfect only bible version that can be used today.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 8, 2017)

Hello Lane,

Likewise a pleasure for me as well to communicate with you again! (And to the folks watching I want to say that I hold the Rev. Lane Keister in high regard, and count Lane a friend. He is widely noted to be a scholarly and learned minister of the Gospel of our Lord, and a godly man. So this difference we are batting back and forth amounts, as he also views it, to sword-play among friends, as we discuss text-critical matters. If I sound a little tough at times it is because I vigorously argue my view, and it implies no disrespect toward my brother and fellow pastor. Obviously there is a lot at stake in such a discussion, to wit, the reliability of the Bible, both in the main and in the minutiae, and specifically regarding our respective textual choices.)

I do think, Lane, a basic difference between us, and I believe Burgon’s view is similar to mine, is I hold that the “genealogical method” – that is, distinguishing between a variety of manuscript families for text-critical (TC) purposes – is not a helpful or really valid method, as there is only one textual “family”, that being the vast majority of Greek minuscule / cursive manuscripts, or the Byzantine / Majority / or Traditional Text, as it is variously called. I will post an illustration of this from Wilbur Pickering’s _The Identity of the New Testament Text_ (TINTT), though I did mention it above referencing Jack Moorman and his book. I’ll seek to post a chart and some of Pickering’s commentary on it here (and then continue after the three photos) :



Pickering, Stream of Transmission 01




Pickering, Stream of Transmission 02




Pickering, Stream of Transmission 03

As can be seen in the chart “Figure C” (he has an updated and more nuanced chart in his online versions of this book) the real and only “family” is comprised of the approximately 85-90% of the mss, while those outside the cone are the very few disagreeing-among-themselves aberrant forms of text.

The “doctrinal difference” arising from the CT vs. the TT (Traditional Text) is that of a providential preservation of the NT text in the minutiae. I will agree with you that in the main there is 90% agreement between our two text types, but 10% is not insignificant when it comes to the words of God being omitted, or in your preferred terminology, a non-value minus of 10%. With respect to Vaticanus, Dr. F.H.A. Scrivener writes,

“One marked feature characteristic of this copy, is the great number of its omissions, which has induced Dr. Dobbin to speak of it as presenting ‘an abbreviated text of the New Testament’: and certainly the facts he states on this point are startling enough. He calculates that Codex B leaves out words or clauses no less than 330 times in Matthew, 365, in Mark, 439 in Luke, 357 in John, 384 in the Acts, 681 in the surviving Epistles; or 2,556 times in all. That no small proportion of these are mere oversights of the scribe seems evident from the circumstance that this same scribe has repeatedly written words and clauses twice over, a class of mistakes which Mai and the collators have seldom thought fit to notice, inasmuch as the false addition has not been retraced by the second hand, but which by no means enhances our estimate of the care employed in copying this venerable record of primitive Christianity.” (_A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament_, Vol. I, p. 120.)​
In a number of places the LORD prohibits the diminishing by even a word His commandments (Jer 26:2, for one), and yet that has been accomplished by some in the name of textual criticism, and in some circles it is acceptable – because the text critics have done it.

I reckon part of the textual problem we are debating derives from the sheer audacity of some textual critics to devalue the mass of concurring Greek minuscule mss as resulting from an alleged official revision in Antioch in the 400s AD (with not even a hint of proof), and grossly over-value a minute segment of mss whose exemplars clearly came (so many CT-favoring critics hold) from Eusebius and the library of Origen and Pamphilus in either Caesarea or Alexandria. But then Hort and Westcott had ample audacity to proceed so. And if you think I am unfairly trashing these two men, I will trot out some of their remarks concerning the revision they foisted on the CoE and the TC world.

I will not concur with you that Burgon did what he criticized in Hort, as the confusion of terms and texts has notoriously clouded communication in this arena: still, I will reiterate, “genealogical method” is a misnomer in this TC discussion. Aleph and B are not part of a family, but instead aberrant texts representing a distorted archetype located in the library Eusebius worked in. Shall I document this also?

For those looking in on this discussion, I want to post some remarks of Burgon from his, _The Traditional Text Of The Holy Gospels Vindicated And Established_:

Before our Lord ascended up to Heaven, He told His disciples that He would send them the Holy Ghost, Who should supply His place and abide with His Church for ever. He added a promise that it should be the office of that inspiring Spirit not only ‘to bring to their remembrance all things whatsoever He had told them’ (John 16:26), but also to ‘guide’ His Church ‘into all the Truth,’ or, ‘the whole Truth (John 16:13). Accordingly, the earliest great achievement of those days was accomplished on giving to the Church the Scriptures of the New Testament, in which authorized teaching was enshrined in written form. And first, out of those many Gospels which incompetent persons had ‘taken in hand’ to write or to compile out of much floating matter of an oral or written nature, He guided them to discern that four were wholly unlike the rest—were the very Word of God.

There exists no reason for supposing that the Divine Agent, who in the first instance thus gave to mankind the Scriptures of Truth, straightway abdicated His office; took no further care of His work; abandoned those precious writings to their fate. That a perpetual miracle was wrought for their preservation that copyists were protected against the risk of error, or evil men prevented from adulterating shamefully copies of the Deposit no one, it is presumed, is so weak as to suppose. But it is quite a different thing to claim that all down the ages the sacred writings must needs have been God’s peculiar care; that the Church under Him has watched over them with intelligence and skill; has recognized which copies exhibit a fabricated, which an honestly transcribed text; has generally sanctioned the one, and generally disallowed the other. I am utterly disinclined to believe—so grossly improbable does it seem—that at the end of 1800 years 995 copies out of every thousand, suppose, will prove untrustworthy; and that the one, two, three, four or five which remain, whose contents were till yesterday as good as unknown, will be found to have retained the secret of what the Holy Spirit originally inspired. I am utterly unable to believe, in short, that God's promise has so entirely failed, that at the end of 1800 years much of the text of the Gospel had in point of fact to be picked by a German critic out of a waste-paper basket in the convent of St. Catherine; and that the entire text had to be remodelled after the pattern set by a couple of copies which had remained in neglect during fifteen centuries, and had probably owed their survival to that neglect; whilst hundreds of others had been thumbed to pieces, and had bequeathed their witness to copies made from them.

I have addressed what goes before to persons who sympathize with me in my belief. To others the argument would require to be put in a different way. Let it then be remembered, that a wealth of copies existed in early times; that the need of zealous care of the Holy Scriptures was always felt in the Church; that it is only from the Church that we have learnt which are the books of the Bible and which are not; that in the age in which the Canon was settled, and which is presumed by many critics to have introduced a corrupted text, most of the intellect of the Roman Empire was found within the Church, and was directed upon disputed questions; that in the succeeding ages the art of transcribing was brought to a high pitch of perfection; and that the verdict of all the several periods since the production of those two manuscripts has been given till a few years ago in favour of the Text which has been handed down: let it be further borne in mind that the testimony is not only that of all the ages, but of all the countries: and at the very least so strong a presumption will ensue on behalf of the Traditional Text, that a powerful case indeed must be constructed to upset it. It cannot be vanquished by theories grounded upon internal considerations often only another name for personal tastes, or for scholarly likes or dislikes, or upon fictitious recensions, or upon any arbitrary choice of favourite manuscripts, or upon a strained division of authorities into families or groups, or upon a warped application of the principle of genealogy. In the ascertainment of the facts of the Sacred Text, the laws of evidence must be strictly followed. In questions relating to the inspired Word, mere speculation and unreason have no place. In short, the Traditional Text, founded upon the vast majority of authorities and upon the Rock of Christ's Church, will, if I mistake not, be found upon examination to be out of all comparison superior to a text of the nineteenth century, whatever skill and ingenuity may have been expended upon the production or the defence of it. (pp 11-13)

[Online sources, various formats: https://archive.org/details/traditionaltexto00burgrich , or http://www.gutenberg.org/files/38960/38960-pdf.pdf]​
Actually, Lane, you did, in the OP, bring up substantially the issue of Burgon’s alleged logical fallacies, and I would like to address some of them, along with others the Tischendorf waste basket, and the library in the precincts of the murderous antichrists (who slaughtered multitudes of Bible-believing Christians), which housed the ‘Queen of manuscripts’, that Codex B / Vaticanus Rome used to overthrow Sola Scriptura. The very fact we are arguing this on Reformed turf proves that Rome did in fact succeed, at least in the main, though there are stalwart holdouts against the incursion, bearing that standard the Spirit lifts up against the enemy’s flood (Isa 59:19).

And I shall also post a reasonable criticism of John William Burgon, which yet continues to honor his labors and remarkable vision.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 13, 2017)

Hello, Lane, I have a few different responses in the works to your review, but here’s a short one:

You said,

Deviations from the TR are even labeled “depraved” (xxx). Furthermore, since the TR is assumed to be correct, any minuses from the TR are labeled as “omissions.”​
Some perspective on this matter: 1) _Depravatio_n in Burgon’s usage means: the act of corrupting, changing for the worse. 2) When you use the term “TR” you are making it sound like a single manuscript, when in fact it is a term for designating the 5,000+ majority text mss over against the very few minority mss, giving the impression you are comparing equals. This was Hort’s tactic in trying to delegitimize the massive preponderance of the traditional text, by positing the idea of an official Antiochian recension in the fourth century, which no one believes anymore as there is no record or even hint of evidence supporting that—it was only an imaginary figment of his mind. But that kind of delegitimization no longer washes.

Burgon addresses this on pp 254-255:

“_Apart from the character of the Witnesses_, when 5 men say one thing, and 995 say the exact contradictory, we are apt to regard it even as axiomatic that, “by reason of their mere paucity,” the few “are appreciably far less likely to be right than the multitude opposed to them.” Dr. Hort seems to share our opinion; for he remarks,—

“A presumption indeed remains that a majority of extant documents is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral documents, than _vice versâ_.” [_Intro to the NT in the Original Greek_, by W&H… p 45]​[Burgon exclaims] Exactly so! We meant, and we mean _that_, and no other thing.”​
Hort reiterates this view:

p 257 “The fundamental Text of _late extant Greek MSS._ generally is _beyond all question identical_ with the dominant Antiochian or Græco-Syrian Text of the _second half of the fourth century_.” [Ibid, _Intro._, W&H p 92]​
His invention of the “Antiochian recension” sought to override this remark concerning the Byzantine Text, but Burgon would have none of it, seeing it is without any merit but a vivid imagination.

You are tilting at windmills, my friend. And more on what your review does, with respect to logic, follows shortly.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 13, 2017)

In your “fourth major problem with Burgon’s book”, in your scattershot “logical fallacies” #4 you say it is the,

Poisoned well fallacy—just because there might be a “thicket” of incorrect readings does not make a reading in the midst of them untrue (96). Similarly, the often-used poisoned-well fallacies of the discovery of א in a waste-paper basket, and the long housing of B in the Vatican find their way to Burgon's pen (343). Joseph came out of a prison. Does this mean he was guilty or wrong in something? We do not know the links in the chain of God's providence as to how א got to be in a monastery's waste-paper basket, or how B got to be housed in the Vatican library. It is highly unwise to speculate on such things, let alone cast doubt on the manuscripts' worth by such means.​
When a MS contains “a thicket” of incorrect readings it casts grave doubt on the integrity of the entire MS, just as when a witness is caught in a number of lies. A MS, as well as a person, my poison their own well with such obvious corruptions.

Similarly, “the long housing of B in the Vatican” library also reveals some telling characteristics of this MS:

_Vaticanus_ has been in the Vatican Library at least since 1481, when it was catalogued (an earlier 1475 catalogue also notes it). Those with some historical knowledge will know that these were the years of the Inquisition in Spain during the reign of Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484). In 1481 some 2,000 believers dissenting with Rome were burned alive, with multitudes of others tortured (M’Crie, _History of the Reformation in Spain_, p. 104). When Pope Innocent VIII (1484-1492) sat in the royal “Throne of Peter,” he followed in the vein of his namesake Innocent III and commenced anew a persecution against the peaceful Waldensian Christians in the northern Italian Alps, commanding their destruction “like venomous snakes” if they would not repent and turn to Rome (Wylie, _History of the Waldenses_, pp. 27-29). Bloodbaths followed against these harmless mountain peoples, who had their own Scriptures from ancient times, and worshipped in Biblical simplicity and order.

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

It does not inspire confidence in Reformed persons that the publishers of the Critical Text, the United Bible Societies, unabashedly serve the Vatican and the Pope, of whom UBS General Secretary Michael Perreau said,

“Pope Francis embodies several ‘first ever’ aspects: he’s the first Jesuit pope, the first Latin American pope, and the first to choose St Francis of Assisi as the patron of his papacy. He combines modesty, not least in his lifestyle, with fervent engagement for the poor, and traditional Catholic theology with courageous advocacy for human rights.

“He is a man of the universal church with an ecumenical spirit and he is a pastor, who knows the reality of ‘simple’ people. The new Pope is a truly biblical person whose faith and actions are deeply rooted in the Bible and inspired by the Word of God.”

“As a long-time friend of the Bible Societies Pope Francis knows that our raison d’être is the call to collaborate in the incarnation of our Christian faith,” says Mr Perreau. “We assure Pope Francis of our renewed availability to serve the Catholic Church in her endeavours to make the Word of God the centre of new evangelisation.”

https://www.unitedbiblesocieties.org/united-bible-societies-welcomes-pope-francis/​
Worse yet, the Nestle-Aland Greek NT 27th Ed. page 45 clearly states that,

The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following *an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision*. This marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text (in the sense of the century-long Nestle tradition): it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament. For many reasons, however, the present edition has not been deemed an appropriate occasion for introducing textual changes. [Emphasis added]​
Source document: 

Nestle-Aland Greek NT 27th Ed by Steve R., on Flickr

_Produced under the supervision of the Vatican_, this CT edition?! I don’t know about you, Lane, but these sorts of “pedigrees” inspire no confidence at all in me with respect to the Critical Text’s fidelity to the Bible. You talk about Burgon’s “poisoning the well” — what I am seeing is that he is rather exposing the poison well of Westcott and Hort’s corrupt textual work, and its progeny.

What amazes me is that good Reformed souls can fall for the Roman assault on Sola Scriptura through their prize MSS (the “Queen of the Uncials” Vaticanus is called), throwing into disarray the defense of the Reformation.

I think this may give many pause to think, What on earth are we doing siding with the arguments of Counter-Reformation Rome?

Little wonder, in my view, that *an increasing number of Reformed persons are crossing the Tiber (turning to Rome) in an effort to find a line of unbroken tradition and of infallible authority*. Where they find this in the papal system, we find it in the word of God providentially preserved by Him so that His children may stand against the world, the flesh, and the devil.

Your “logic” seems to me to be put to ill use.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 14, 2017)

A few points in response: arguments against WH will not work at all against my position, as I differ from WH in many respects. For example, while I do think it is theoretically possible to demonstrate genealogical relationships between manuscripts, it is a perilous enterprise fraught with many dangers, the most notable being overconfidence in one's results. While WH would devalue the entire Byzantine tradition on the basis of the genealogical hypothesis, in my opinion, their arguments are built on sand. Secondly, WH held that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus together outweighed everything else. I do not hold that position at all. I feel that you seem to think that answering WH is answering me. It won't work at all. My canons for textual criticism are quite different from WH. I see this kind of anachronistic argument happening all the time in KJV circles: answer WH and you've answered modern textual critics, too. It doesn't work at all.

Secondly, I do not refer to the TR as meaning only one text. I am not quite sure how you got that out of what I wrote. The TR is similar in most respects to the Majority Text, but it is not the same, as you seem to imply.

Your arguments about Vaticanus are continuing the poisoned well fallacy. Shift the topic over, for just a moment, to a person instead of a manuscript. Is it possible for a Christian to be "buried" (not dead, but well-concealed) in the Vatican? Is it possible for this to happen for quite a number of years? Can there be 7,000 who have not bowed the knee to Baal? Then why is it impossible for a manuscript to be housed in the devil's own library, and yet be virtuous? By your argument, Vaticanus is a tool of the devil, and has absolutely zero relationship to God's Word _at all_, which means the 90% overlap it has with TR has absolutely no weight at all, which means the NIV, the ESV, etc. are also tools of the devil. I think your argument proves WAY too much. No one knows the circumstances of Vaticanus's creation. Is it impossible that it was copied in a Bible-believing church, and then captured by Rome? There is almost a millennium between its manufacture and its cataloguing in Rome. Until you can fill that gap with knowledge, you cannot use a poisoned well fallacy against Vaticanus. 

As to a thicket of problems, is it impossible that a scribe may have had a blistering headache one day from reading too many smooth breathing marks, and trying to distinguish between smooth and rough breathing marks such that he made mistakes? Why would that invalidate any other part of the manuscript where he might have been alert and well-rested? It is not legitimate at all to say that a "thicket" of problems in one place invalidates everything else the manuscript has to offer. I am not buying that for one single second. Modern publishing is the same. I have seen books that have a thicket of typos in just a few pages, but relatively no typos anywhere else. Does that call into question the entire work? Of course not. Every manuscript that we have has errors in it. You are merely committing another form of the argument of the beard. How many mistakes does it take to call into question a whole manuscript? On what basis could you possibly determine that?

Lastly, the numbers game is often played by exaggeration. Differences can be as tiny as a different spelling for a name, or a different word order (which usually makes little to no difference in the meaning of the passage, given the inflected nature of Greek). The vast majority of differences between Vaticanus/Sinaiticus and the TR are of this nature. The rhetoric you employ (and Burgon as well) targets texts that contain the Word of God in them. I would have hoped that such would temper your rhetoric, but it doesn't seem to have done so.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 14, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> A few points in response: arguments against WH will not work at all against my position, as I differ from WH in many respects. For example, while I do think it is theoretically possible to demonstrate genealogical relationships between manuscripts, it is a perilous enterprise fraught with many dangers, the most notable being overconfidence in one's results. While WH would devalue the entire Byzantine tradition on the basis of the genealogical hypothesis, in my opinion, their arguments are built on sand. Secondly, WH held that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus together outweighed everything else. I do not hold that position at all. I feel that you seem to think that answering WH is answering me. It won't work at all. My canons for textual criticism are quite different from WH. I see this kind of anachronistic argument happening all the time in KJV circles: answer WH and you've answered modern textual critics, too. It doesn't work at all.
> 
> Secondly, I do not refer to the TR as meaning only one text. I am not quite sure how you got that out of what I wrote. The TR is similar in most respects to the Majority Text, but it is not the same, as you seem to imply.
> 
> ...


The truth on this issue is that regardless of which Greek text one prefers, there is substantial agreement in all major areas, as much as 90-95 %, and the only differences are minor issues, none related to changing any essential doctrines.
One can feel confident that all of the Greek texts in use today reflect the very word of God to us, and any translation done correctly from them would be the English word of the Lord to us now.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 15, 2017)

Lane, you said,

I feel that you seem to think that answering WH is answering me. It won't work at all. My canons for textual criticism are quite different from WH. I see this kind of anachronistic argument happening all the time in KJV circles: answer WH and you've answered modern textual critics, too. It doesn't work at all.​
I have seen it said by Dr. White, and Alan Kurschner his AOMIN colleague, 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”?

You are saying something quite similar to Dr. White, Lane.

For those interested in looking at this issue, I suggest David Cloud’s book, _Examining “The King James Only Controversy”_ part 3. 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 hardcopy book, this section is found on pp. 88-91]​
[End Cloud]
_______

The two MSS, א (Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus), 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, among others. 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.

This connection between the WH critical text and the modern CT is seen in UBS 4th Ed. and the N/A 27th – and the modern versions deriving from them.

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).
_______

Lane, as long as you support the variant readings which find their basis in the Westcott and Hort exemplars, you are subject to the same critique they are. I _am_ glad, however, to hear that you now receive the last twelve verses of Mark as authentic!

But then, Lane, you say,

Your arguments about Vaticanus are continuing the poisoned well fallacy.​
I think your comparing B to a virtuous person “buried” yet alive in the Vatican is silly. I realize afresh that in your mind you are solidly convinced of the CT paradigm concerning the NT MSS, and that I will not convince you no matter what I say. So I see my rebuttal of your review as, primarily, for the benefit of onlookers and for the truth.

That you do not interact with my remarks about the intimate relation between the UBS and the Vatican, with the latter “supervising” the continuing work on the Nestle-Aland Greek NT for the benefit of their “significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships”, and the UBS General Secretary Michael Perreau affirming,

“We assure Pope Francis of our renewed availability to serve the Catholic Church in her endeavours to make the Word of God the centre of new evangelisation.”​
That you do not interact, I say, with these things, is quite telling. I repeat, if not for your benefit (whose mind is made up), then for onlookers, Rome’s hand in all this is the source of the well being poisoned, not my arguing against their exemplar texts.

This reminds me of the old abortionist arguments that pro-lifers displaying the gruesome photos of dismembered aborted babies was obscene, whereas in fact it was but exposing the murders of the preborn children, and that it was not the exposures but the murderous acts that were the real obscenity. Rome and its Bible texts are the poison, and not my arguments exposing it!

Which is not to say that the CT-derived Bibles are poisonous, but only the false variant readings in it are, and that 90% of these Bibles are good and of great use to the Lord, and to His people.

You also avoid responding to my saying that the use of B and א with their variants has been the primary assault weapon against the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura and the intact *authoritative* Greek and Hebrew Bible they had in hand over against the Catholic Church with its dictums being the supreme authority. With the variants—deriving from their own textual exemplars, B and א—they sought to undermine the validity of the Reformers infallible Bible by asserting it had many errors.

I could go on and on, but this is enough for now.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 15, 2017)

Steve, how do you explain the 1,000 (!!!!!!!) years between Vaticanus's manufacture and its cataloging in the Vatican? If you do not know the circumstances of Vaticanus's manufacture, then how can you possibly use its LATER location as some kind of weapon against Vaticanus as a (not THE) valid NT manuscript? You have yet to answer this point. That would be like saying that a Marine captured by North Korea is now somehow tainted by the fact that he is now in North Korea, and therefore his loyalty to the US is now suspect. It is a poisoned well fallacy, except that the well is now ex post facto, in being an intermediate location. You cannot possibly know that Vaticanus was copied in Rome. The likelihood is that it was copied in Egypt, not in Rome. From where I'm standing, you and every other KJV defender make this same mistake. Where it is housed now has NOTHING to do with its creation. Furthermore, if, as most people believe, Vaticanus really was a fourth century manuscript, then it was copied LONG before Rome went off the rails doctrinally speaking. 

How the Vatican has used Vaticanus against the Reformation has _nothing_ to do with whether Vaticanus is a valuable manuscript or not, either. They are abusing it (not using it legitimately) for doctrinal-twisting purposes. What Rome has done with Vaticanus is completely irrelevant to Vaticanus's value as a manuscript. The abuse of something does not equal the use of something. Reformed textual critics who use Vaticanus do not agree with Rome's abuse of it. So, your arguments are wide of the mark.

Since you seem intent on tarring me with WH's feathers, let me show you just how far from WH I am by laying out for you some canons I believe to be reasonable and with which WH would _radically_ differ.

1. A reading that has wide geographical diversity has a greater likelihood of being original (WH ignored this completely in going wholesale after the Egyptian manuscripts).

2. The genealogical method is fundamentally flawed in several aspects, not least of which is the assumption that the errors always show genealogical relationship. Genealogical relationship can (at best!) be hinted at only, and not proven. This is radically different from WH, who believed that most manuscripts' genealogical relationships can be scientifically proven.

3. Older manuscripts only have a slightly higher likelihood of having an older reading. This is not always the case (WH would differ radically, saying that the older manuscripts almost always have the older reading). Sometimes a later manuscript can have the older reading. 

4. Scribal probabilities are extremely difficult to decipher (WH were far more confident about this possibility of internal evidence). 

5. Majority of manuscripts does have some weight (not as much as Majority Text advocates say, but considerably more than WH believe: WH say that manuscripts are NOT to be counted, but weighed).

6. Not only do I differ in these particular canons, but I also differ from WH in MANY choices they made in individual text-critical decisions. So, again, we have the argument of the beard problem. How many times would a text critic have to side with WH (and against the TR) before he is labelled a WH follower? I haven't counted, but I would say that I agree with the Majority Text about as often as I would agree with WH in places where they differ.

I could go on, but lumping me in with WH is something I regard to be a complete misrepresentation of my views. I would categorize myself as being in between CT and Majority Text opinions. The conversation is not likely to progress any further if you refuse to acknowledge this fact. 

I haven't done the math, but the modern CT texts often disagree with WH. Again, how many times would they have to disagree with WH before you would distinguish between the two?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 15, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Steve, how do you explain the 1,000 (!!!!!!!) years between Vaticanus's manufacture and its cataloging in the Vatican? If you do not know the circumstances of Vaticanus's manufacture, then how can you possibly use its LATER location as some kind of weapon against Vaticanus as a (not THE) valid NT manuscript? You have yet to answer this point. That would be like saying that a Marine captured by North Korea is now somehow tainted by the fact that he is now in North Korea, and therefore his loyalty to the US is now suspect. It is a poisoned well fallacy, except that the well is now ex post facto, in being an intermediate location. You cannot possibly know that Vaticanus was copied in Rome. The likelihood is that it was copied in Egypt, not in Rome. From where I'm standing, you and every other KJV defender make this same mistake. Where it is housed now has NOTHING to do with its creation. Furthermore, if, as most people believe, Vaticanus really was a fourth century manuscript, then it was copied LONG before Rome went off the rails doctrinally speaking.
> 
> How the Vatican has used Vaticanus against the Reformation has _nothing_ to do with whether Vaticanus is a valuable manuscript or not, either. They are abusing it (not using it legitimately) for doctrinal-twisting purposes. What Rome has done with Vaticanus is completely irrelevant to Vaticanus's value as a manuscript. The abuse of something does not equal the use of something. Reformed textual critics who use Vaticanus do not agree with Rome's abuse of it. So, your arguments are wide of the mark.
> 
> ...


The KJVO position itself is greatly flawed, and once again, the common consensus among those who are real textual experts would be that there is such a substantial agreement between any of the Greek texts chosen to use, that any of them would be valid for use in studying and for translation purposes.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 15, 2017)

Lane, thanks for explaining your views more clearly. As you might discern, I have not been defending or promoting a KJV view, but a Majority / Byzantine Text position. Let me ask, what Bible version do you use and hold most reliable?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 15, 2017)

The reason I am writing, Lane, is because I hold that you have taken a very inaccurate view of Burgon's position, and are critiquing it on faulty grounds. By imposing an interpretive grid based on your own text-critical paradigm, you negate the validity of what he is bringing forth.

You say you do not hold with the Westcott-Hort view, yet the bone of contention between us is that the variant readings that characterize their critical edition, are likely the very same that characterize yours, with the exception of Mark 16:9-20. As I keep stressing, this is the issue most significant to me. Burgon's greatest value is his defense of particular readings, which are attested to by the vast majority of MSS from all the various parts of the world, i.e., not a cluster from just one locale.


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 15, 2017)

Steve, as I believe I said in the original OP, on several particular textual issues, _I am actually convinced by Burgon_. For instance, it seems quite likely that his analysis of 1 Timothy 3:16 is correct. At the very least, he makes a very impressive case for it. I hold to the longer ending of Mark, along with Burgon. I am also completely open as to the _pericope adulterae_ (haven't come to a decision, as there are varying and conflicting canons with regard to it). I do not hold that the _comma Johanneum_ is original, but then the vast majority of Greek witnesses are against it. I quite agree with you that the best parts of Burgon's book are his particular defenses of individual readings. So, actually, I am not faulting him for those analyses. I am merely pointing out the areas in which he engaged in quite faulty reasoning, which usually appear in his intemperate bashings of WH. Those defending the KJ often seem quite willing to overlook these logical problems because Burgon defends the position near and dear to their hearts.

The thing is, Steve, that I don't hold with the idea that one must hold to a particular text or theory. I am quite willing to see value in many different texts, and many theories. I am quite as eclectic in my theories as I am in textual criticism practice itself. The world of textual criticism has been so long divided into TR versus (with a capital "V"!) the CT that any mediating positions are not acknowledged as even possible. 

As to which version I regard as the most accurate, I like several, and would be happy with a number of them: KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, CSB are probably my top five, and of those, I like the CSB the most, currently. I have never liked the NIV much, even less now that their underhanded practice of publishing a gender-neutral revision with the same title as the original (and without any footnotes or preface explaining the differences) is firmly established. The CSB has BY FAR the best translation philosophy of any translation in history.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 15, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Steve, as I believe I said in the original OP, on several particular textual issues, _I am actually convinced by Burgon_. For instance, it seems quite likely that his analysis of 1 Timothy 3:16 is correct. At the very least, he makes a very impressive case for it. I hold to the longer ending of Mark, along with Burgon. I am also completely open as to the _pericope adulterae_ (haven't come to a decision, as there are varying and conflicting canons with regard to it). I do not hold that the _comma Johanneum_ is original, but then the vast majority of Greek witnesses are against it. I quite agree with you that the best parts of Burgon's book are his particular defenses of individual readings. So, actually, I am not faulting him for those analyses. I am merely pointing out the areas in which he engaged in quite faulty reasoning, which usually appear in his intemperate bashings of WH. Those defending the KJ often seem quite willing to overlook these logical problems because Burgon defends the position near and dear to their hearts.
> 
> The thing is, Steve, that I don't hold with the idea that one must hold to a particular text or theory. I am quite willing to see value in many different texts, and many theories. I am quite as eclectic in my theories as I am in textual criticism practice itself. The world of textual criticism has been so long divided into TR versus (with a capital "V"!) the CT that any mediating positions are not acknowledged as even possible.
> 
> As to which version I regard as the most accurate, I like several, and would be happy with a number of them: KJV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, CSB are probably my top five, and of those, I like the CSB the most, currently. I have never liked the NIV much, even less now that their underhanded practice of publishing a gender-neutral revision with the same title as the original (and without any footnotes or preface explaining the differences) is firmly established. The CSB has BY FAR the best translation philosophy of any translation in history.


Would you see the Csb as being more accurate to the original texts than the more formal versions such as NASB/NKJV then?


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 16, 2017)

David, at this point, I would say yes. The problem with being as literal as the NASB is that accuracy is actually sacrificed when it comes to idioms. The NKJV is actually better at this than the NASB. The NASB is practically an interlinear, and winds up being inferior English to the CSB, and certainly inferior to the KJV. It is still reliable as a translation, of course.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 16, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> David, at this point, I would say yes. The problem with being as literal as the NASB is that accuracy is actually sacrificed when it comes to idioms. The NKJV is actually better at this than the NASB. The NASB is practically an interlinear, and winds up being inferior English to the CSB, and certainly inferior to the KJV. It is still reliable as a translation, of course.


Interesting, so would you see the Csb as being much better for use then the Niv 2011 edition, as that version went overboard in gender issues, and the Csb avoided doing that?

I would see more important to the issue of having a reiable bible translation then the question of which Greek text used to translate off from, would be the translation philosophy of the team. Wether they went for a formal , Dynamic Equivalency, Mediating, position etc.


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 16, 2017)

The CSB is far superior to the NIV 2011. As I have already said, the translation philosophy of the CSB is the best philosophy of any translation. It is self-designated "optimal equivalence," which means that the translators believe that there is meaning on every level of the text, and that the word and its context are not in competition, but in harmony, and equally important.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Dec 16, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> The CSB is far superior to the NIV 2011. As I have already said, the translation philosophy of the CSB is the best philosophy of any translation. It is self-designated "optimal equivalence," which means that the translators believe that there is meaning on every level of the text, and that the word and its context are not in competition, but in harmony, and equally important.



I would agree that the CSB is superior to the NIV, and also to the quirkier HCSB. I’m just not a fan of contractions and other informalities in Bible translations, and the CSB is full of such things.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 16, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> The CSB is far superior to the NIV 2011. As I have already said, the translation philosophy of the CSB is the best philosophy of any translation. It is self-designated "optimal equivalence," which means that the translators believe that there is meaning on every level of the text, and that the word and its context are not in competition, but in harmony, and equally important.


That would be the same as the NKJV translation, but the NKJV uses a different Greek text source.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 19, 2017)

Lane, what’s the value of a good translation philosophy if the underlying Greek text has errors in it? The CSB uses the standard Critical Text, and the variant readings are basically the same in both. It is not the text of the Reformation, which is apparently not an issue for you – but rather indicative of a logical fallacy in reasoning in those who hold to it!

Why is it necessary for Burgon “to point out the agreement of א and B with the TR. He only points out the differences”? It is commonly understood there is agreement in approximately 90% of the text. The significance is the extent of the disagreement, that there are major omissions (using the 90% dominant Majority Text as a standard) and changes. And not only that, there are major disagreements between the two primary exemplars, א and B, 3,036 in the Gospels alone – according to the collation of H.C. Hoskier.

Lane, you say it is an “Ad hominem fallacy—the doctrinal position of a textual critic on the deity of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with how well he might be able to do his job as a textual critic…” And yet the Unitarian Dr. Vance Smith crowed, after having his say in the translation committee on Jesus definitely not being “God manifest in the flesh” as the TR has it, “It has been frequently said that the changes of translation…are of little importance from a doctrinal point of view…[A]ny such statement [is]…contrary to the facts.” I elaborate on this in my post #36.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 19, 2017)

Lane, you said, “Burgon does not hold back from judging the motivations of the scribes of א and B as being intentionally sinister (16, 245).”

Here are his actual words:

“Between the first two (b and א) there subsists an amount of sinister resemblance, which proves that they must have been derived at no very remote period from the same corrupt original” (page 12. cf p 245)

“What we are just now insisting upon is only the _depraved text_ of codices א a b c d,—especially of א b d. And because this is a matter which lies at the root of the whole controversy, and because we cannot afford that there shall exist in our reader's mind the slightest doubt on _this_ part of the subject, we shall be constrained once and again to trouble him with detailed specimens of the contents of א b, &c., in proof of the justice of what we have been alleging. We venture to assure him, without a particle of hesitation, that א b d are _three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant_:—exhibit _the most shamefully mutilated_ texts which are anywhere to be met with:—have become, by whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of the largest amount of _fabricated readings_, ancient _blunders_, and _intentional perversions of Truth_,—which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of God.” (p 16)​
I would actually commend to those looking on to see Burgon’s method of evaluating manuscripts in his _The Revision Revised_, and decide for themselves whether his or Rev. Lane’s approach to the NT text is to be preferred over Burgon’s. It is *the LORD* who says that the intentional altering of His word is a wickedness to be severely punished.

Is this the case with א b? Responsibility must be taken at at least one point in the transmission of the text, and likely more. Let’s look at the ancient first.

Origen, and mainly B, are not to be regarded as wholly independent authorities, but constitute a class. It shall be instructive to look at another of Burgon’s books, _The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established_, by the late John William Burgon, and edited by his friend and associate Edward Miller.

We will commence with Chapter IX. The Old Uncials. The Influence Of Origen.

[I ask those looking on to please bear with this following extensive material, but how else to show the soundness of Burgon’s method _and_ results save by closely reviewing them, and showing Rev. Lane’s “logic” to be most illogical and misused!]

Commence Burgon [minus the important footnotes – please see the online version for those]:

§ 1.

Codex B was early enthroned on something like speculation, and has been maintained upon the throne by what has strangely amounted to a positive superstition. The text of this MS. was not accurately known till the edition of Tischendorf appeared in 1867: and yet long before that time it was regarded by many critics as the Queen of the Uncials. The collations of Bartolocci, of Mico, of Rulotta, and of Birch, were not trustworthy, though they far surpassed Mai's two first editions. Yet the prejudice in favour of the mysterious authority that was expected to issue decrees from the Vatican did not wait till the clear light of criticism was shed upon its eccentricities and its defalcations. The same spirit, biassed by sentiment not ruled by reason, has remained since more has been disclosed of the real nature of this Codex.

A similar course has been pursued with respect to Codex א. It was perhaps to be expected that human infirmity should have influenced Tischendorf in his treatment of the treasure-trove by him: though his character for judgment could not but be seriously injured by the fact that in his eighth edition he altered the mature conclusions of his seventh in no less than 3,572 instances, chiefly on account of the readings in his beloved Sinaitic guide.

Yet whatever may be advanced against B may be alleged even more strongly against א. It adds to the number of the blunders of its associate: it is conspicuous for habitual carelessness or licence: it often by itself deviates into glaring errors. The elevation of the Sinaitic into the first place, which was effected by Tischendorf as far as his own practice was concerned, has been applauded by only very few scholars: and it is hardly conceivable that they could maintain their opinion, if they would critically and impartially examine this erratic copy throughout the New Testament for themselves.

The fact is that B and א were the products of the school of philosophy and teaching which found its vent in Semi-Arian or Homoean opinions. The proof of this position is somewhat difficult to give, but when the nature of the question and the producible amount of evidence are taken into consideration, is nevertheless quite satisfactory.

In the first place, according to the verdict of all critics the date of these two MSS. coincides with the period when Semi-Arianism or some other form of Arianism were in the ascendant in the East, and to all outward appearance swayed the Universal Church. In the last years of his rule, Constantine was under the domination of the Arianizing faction; and the reign of Constantius II over all the provinces in the Roman Empire that spoke Greek, during which encouragement was given to the great heretical schools of the time, completed the two central decades of the fourth century. It is a circumstance that cannot fail to give rise to suspicion that the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. had their origin under a predominant influence of such evil fame. At the very least, careful investigation is necessary to see whether those copies were in fact free from that influence which has met with universal condemnation.

Now as we proceed further we are struck with another most remarkable coincidence, which also as has been before noticed is admitted on all hands, viz. that the period of the emergence of the Orthodox School from oppression and the settlement in their favour of the great Nicene controversy was also the time when the text of B and א sank into condemnation. The Orthodox side under St. Chrysostom and others became permanently supreme: so did also the Traditional Text. Are we then to assume with our opponents that in the Church condemnation and acceptance were inseparable companions? That at first heresy and the pure Text, and afterwards orthodoxy and textual corruption, went hand in hand? That such ill-matched couples graced the history of the Church? That upon so fundamental a matter as the accuracy of the written standard of reference, there was precision of text when heretics or those who dallied with heresy were in power, but that the sacred Text was contaminated when the Orthodox had things their own way? Is it indeed come to this, that for the pure and undefiled Word of God we must search, not amongst those great men who under the guidance of the Holy Spirit ascertained and settled for ever the main Articles of the Faith, and the Canon of Holy Scripture, but amidst the relics of those who were unable to agree with one another, and whose fine-drawn subtleties in creed and policy have been the despair of the historians, and a puzzle to students of Theological Science? It is not too much to assert, that Theology and History know no such unscientific conclusions.

It is therefore a circumstance full of significance that Codexes B and א were produced in such untoward times, and fell into neglect on the revival of orthodoxy, when the Traditional Text was permanently received. But the case in hand rests also upon evidence more direct than this.

The influence which the writings of Origen exercised on the ancient Church is indeed extraordinary. The fame of his learning added to the splendour of his genius, his vast Biblical achievements and his real insight into the depth of Scripture, conciliated for him the admiration and regard of early Christendom. Let him be freely allowed the highest praise for the profundity of many of his utterances, the ingenuity of almost all. It must at the same time be admitted that he is bold in his speculations to the verge, and beyond the verge, of rashness; unwarrantedly confident in his assertions; deficient in sobriety; in his critical remarks even foolish. A prodigious reader as well as a prodigious writer, his words would have been of incalculable value, but that he seems to have been so saturated with the strange speculations of the early heretics, that he sometimes adopts their wild method; and in fact has not been reckoned among the orthodox Fathers of the Church.

But (and this is the direction in which the foregoing remarks have tended) Origen's ruling passion is found to have been textual criticism. This was at once his forte and his foible. In the library of his friend Pamphilus at Caesarea were found many Codexes that had belonged to him, and the autograph of his Hexapla, which was seen and used by St. Jerome. In fact, the collection of books made by Pamphilus, in the gathering of which at the very least he was deeply indebted to Origen, became a centre from whence, after the destruction of copies in the persecution of Diocletian, authority as to the sacred Text radiated in various directions. Copying from papyrus on vellum was assiduously prosecuted there. Constantine applied to Eusebius for fifty handsome copies, amongst which it is not improbable that the manuscripts (σωματία) B and א were to be actually found. But even if that is not so, the Emperor would not have selected Eusebius for the order, if that bishop had not been in the habit of providing copies: and Eusebius in fact carried on the work which he had commenced under his friend Pamphilus, and in which the latter must have followed the path pursued by Origen. Again, Jerome is known to have resorted to this quarter, and various entries in MSS. prove that others did the same. It is clear that the celebrated library of Pamphilus exercised great influence in the province of Textual Criticism; and the spirit of Origen was powerful throughout the operations connected with it, at least till the Origenists got gradually into disfavour and at length were finally condemned at the Fifth General Council in ad 553.

But in connecting B and א with the Library at Caesarea we are not left only to conjecture or inference. In a well-known colophon affixed to the end of the book of Esther in א by the third corrector, it is stated that from the beginning of the book of Kings to the end of Esther the MS. was compared with a copy “corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus,” which itself was written and corrected after the Hexapla of Origen. And a similar colophon may be found attached to the book of Ezra. It is added that the Codex Sinaiticus (τόδε τὸ τεῦχος) and the Codex Pamphili (τὸ αὐτὸ παλαιώτατον βιβλίον) manifested great agreement with one another. The probability that א was thus at least in part copied from a manuscript executed by Pamphilus is established by the facts that a certain “Codex Marchalianus” is often mentioned which was due to Pamphilus and Eusebius; and that Origen's recension of the Old Testament, although he published no edition of the Text of the New, possessed a great reputation. On the books of Chronicles, St. Jerome mentions manuscripts executed by Origen with great care, which were published by Pamphilus and Eusebius. And in Codex H of St. Paul it is stated that that MS. was compared with a MS. in the library of Caesarea “which was written by the hand of the holy Pamphilus.” These notices added to the frequent reference by St. Jerome and others to the critical (ἀκριβῆ) MSS., by which we are to understand those which were distinguished by the approval of Origen or were in consonance with the spirit of Origen, shew evidently the position in criticism which the Library at Caesarea and its illustrious founder had won in those days. And it is quite in keeping with that position that א should have been sent forth from that “school of criticism.”

But if א was, then B must have been;—at least, if the supposition certified by Tischendorf and Scrivener be true, that the six conjugate leaves of א were written by the scribe of B. So there is a chain of reference, fortified by the implied probability which has been furnished for us from the actual facts of the case.

Yet Dr. Hort is “inclined to surmise that B and א were both written in the West, probably at Rome; that the ancestors of B were wholly Western (in the geographical, not the textual sense) up to a very early time indeed; and that the ancestors of א were in great part Alexandrian, again in the geographical, not the textual sense.” For this opinion, in which Dr. Hort stands alone amongst authorities, there is nothing but “surmise” founded upon very dark hints. In contrast with the evidence just brought forward there is an absence of direct testimony: besides that the connexion between the Western and Syrian Texts or Readings, which has been recently confirmed in a very material degree, must weaken the force of some of his arguments.

§ 2.

The points to which I am anxious rather to direct attention are (1) the extent to which the works of Origen were studied by the ancients: and (2) the curious discovery that Codexes אB, and to some extent D, either belong to the same class as those with which Origen was chiefly familiar; or else have been anciently manipulated into conformity with Origen's teaching. The former seems to me the more natural supposition; but either inference equally satisfies my contention: viz. that Origen, and mainly BאD, are not to be regarded as wholly independent authorities, but constitute a class.

The proof of this position is to be found in various passages where the influence of Origen may be traced, such as in the omission of Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ—“The Son of God”—in Mark i. 1; and of ἐν Ἐφέσῳ—“at Ephesus”—in Eph. i. 1; in the substitution of Bethabara (St. John i. 28) for Bethany; in the omission of the second part of the last petition the Lord's Prayer in St. Luke, of ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν in John i. 27.

He is also the cause why the important qualification εἰκῆ (“without a cause”) is omitted by Bא from St. Matt. v. 22; and hence, in opposition to the whole host of Copies, Versions, Fathers, has been banished from the sacred Text by Lachmann, Tischendorf, W. Hort and the Revisers (See _The Revision Revised_, pp. 358-61). To the same influence, I am persuaded, is to be attributed the omission from a little handful of copies (viz. A, B-א, D*, F-G, and 17*) of the clause τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι (“that you should not obey the truth”) Gal. iii. 1. Jerome duly acknowledges those words while commenting on St. Matthew's Gospel; but when he comes to the place in Galatians, he is observed, first to admit that the clause “is found in some copies,” and straightway to add that “inasmuch as it is not found in the copies of Adamantius, he omits it.” The clue to his omission is supplied by his own statement that in writing on the
Galatians he had made Origen his guide. And yet the words stand in the Vulgate.

[Here I pass over a number of his MSS both for and against the Vulgate reading, for brevity’s sake. -Steve]

In a certain place Origen indulges in a mystical exposition of our Lord's two miracles of feeding; drawing marvellous inferences, as his manner is, from the details of either miracle. We find that Hilary, that Jerome, that Chrysostom, had Origen's remarks before them when they in turn commented on the miraculous feeding of the 4000. At the feeding of the 5000, Origen points out that our Lord “commands the multitude to sit down” (St. Matt. xiv. 19): but at the feeding of the 4000, He does not “command” but only “directs” them to sit down. (St. Matt. xv. 35) ... From which it is plain that Origen did not read as we do in St. Matt. xv. 35, καὶ ἐκέλευσε τοῖς ὄχλοις—but παρήνγειλε τῷ ὄχλῳ ἀναπεσεῖν; which is the reading of the parallel place in St. Mark (viii. 6). We should of course have assumed a slip of memory on Origen's part; but that אBD are found to exhibit the text of St. Matt. xv. 35 in conformity with Origen. He is reasoning therefore from a MS. which he has before him; and remarking, as his unfortunate manner is, on what proves to be really nothing else but a palpable depravation of the text.

Speaking of St. John xiii. 26, Origen remarks,—“It is not written ‘He it is to whom I shall give the sop’; but with the addition of ‘I shall dip’: for it says, ‘I shall dip the sop and give it.’ ” This is the reading of BCL and is adopted accordingly by some Editors. But surely it is a depravation of the text which may be ascribed with confidence to the officiousness of Origen himself. _Who_, at all events, on such precarious evidence would surrender the established reading of the place, witnessed to as it is by every other known MS. and by several of the Fathers? The grounds on which Tischendorf reads βάψω το ψωμίον καὶ δώσω αὐτῷ, are characteristic, and in their way a curiosity.

Take another instance of the same phenomenon. It is plain, from the consent of (so to speak) all the copies, that our Saviour rejected the Temptation which stands second in St. Luke's Gospel with the words,—“Get thee behind Me, Satan.” But Origen officiously points out that this (quoting the words) is precisely what our Lord did not say. He adds a reason,—“He said to Peter, ‘Get thee behind Me, Satan’; but to the Devil, ‘Get thee hence,’ without the addition ‘behind Me’; for to be behind Jesus is a good thing.”

Our Saviour on a certain occasion (St. John viii. 38) thus addressed his wicked countrymen:—“I speak that which I have seen with My Father; and ye likewise do that which you have seen with your father.” He contrasts His own gracious doctrines with their murderous deeds; and refers them to their respective “Fathers,”—to “My Father,” that is, God; and to “your father,” that is, the Devil. That this is the true sense of the place appears plainly enough from the context. “Seen with” and “heard from” are the expressions employed on such occasions, because sight and hearing are the faculties which best acquaint a man with the nature of that whereof he discourses.

Origen, misapprehending the matter, maintains that God is the “Father” spoken of on either side. He I suspect it was who, in order to support this view, erased “My” and “your”; and in the second member of the sentence, for “seen with,” substituted “heard from”;—as if a contrast had been intended between the manner of the Divine and of the human knowledge,—which would be clearly out of place. In this way, what is in reality a revelation, becomes converted into a somewhat irrelevant precept: “I speak the things which I have seen with the Father.” “Do ye the things which ye have heard from the Father,”—which is how Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford exhibit the place. Cyril Alex. employed a text thus impaired. Origen also puts ver. 39 into the form of a precept (ἐστέ ... ποιεῖτε); but he has all the Fathers (including himself),—all the Versions,—all the copies against him, being supported only by B.

But the evidence against “the restored reading” to which Alford invites attention, (viz. omitting μου and substituting ἠκούσατε παρὰ τοῦ Πατρός for ἑωράκατε παρὰ τῷ Πατρὶ ὑμῶν.) is overwhelming. Only five copies (BCLTX) omit μου: only four (BLT, 13) omit ὑμῶν: a very little handful are for substituting ἠκούσατε with the genitive for ἑωράκατε. Chrys., Apolinaris, Cyril Jerus., Ammonius, as well as every ancient version of good repute, protest against such an exhibition of the text. In ver. 39, only five read ἐστέ (אBDLT): while ποιεῖτε is found only in Cod. B. Accordingly, some critics prefer the imperfect ἐποιεῖτε, which however is only found in אDLT. “The reading is remarkable” says Alford. Yes, and clearly fabricated. The ordinary text is right.

§ 3.

Besides these passages, in which there is actual evidence of a connexion subsisting between the readings which they contain and Origen, the sceptical character of the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts affords a strong proof of the alliance between them and the Origenistic School. It must be borne in mind that Origen was not answerable for all the tenets of the School which bore his name, even perhaps less than Calvin was responsible for all that Calvinists after him have held and taught. Origenistic doctrines came from the blending of philosophy with Christianity in the schools of Alexandria where Origen was the most eminent of the teachers engaged.

[End Burgon]
________

I apologize for the lengthy material! But I want to substantiate that “The influence which the writings of Origen exercised on the ancient Church is indeed extraordinary”, and the connection between him and the codices B and א – that is, their common origin.

The summary dismissal of Burgon’s method by our Rev. Lane on the basis of his cursory “logical” surmisings is rather extraordinary, though the Rev. seems to be fully persuaded of his own peculiar method.

Origen was culpable, per the instances noted above, of preferring his judgment over the Bible text given him on the basis of it not making proper sense to him. I would not want to be in his shoes when He stands before the Author of the Bible on the Day of Accounting.

Suffice these thoughts for now.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 20, 2017)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Lane, what’s the value of a good translation philosophy if the underlying Greek text has errors in it? The CSB uses the standard Critical Text, and the variant readings are basically the same in both. It is not the text of the Reformation, which is apparently not an issue for you – but rather indicative of a logical fallacy in reasoning in those who hold to it!
> 
> Why is it necessary for Burgon “to point out the agreement of א and B with the TR. He only points out the differences”? It is commonly understood there is agreement in approximately 90% of the text. The significance is the extent of the disagreement, that there are major omissions (using the 90% dominant Majority Text as a standard) and changes. And not only that, there are major disagreements between the two primary exemplars, א and B, 3,036 in the Gospels alone – according to the collation of H.C. Hoskier.
> 
> Lane, you say it is an “Ad hominem fallacy—the doctrinal position of a textual critic on the deity of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with how well he might be able to do his job as a textual critic…” And yet the Unitarian Dr. Vance Smith crowed, after having his say in the translation committee on Jesus definitely not being “God manifest in the flesh” as the TR has it, “It has been frequently said that the changes of translation…are of little importance from a doctrinal point of view…[A]ny such statement [is]…contrary to the facts.” I elaborate on this in my post #36. With respect to your logical prowess, I would not want to have you as my attorney if I were being tried for the crime of being a Christian!



Steve, every manuscript in existence has some errors in it. The manuscripts that make up the TR have errors in them. The manuscripts that make up the CT have errors in them. By careful comparison, we can eliminate the errors and come to the original readings in almost all cases. You say, "It is not the text of the Reformation, which is apparently not an issue for you – but rather indicative of a logical fallacy in reasoning in those who hold to it!" This is a complete caricature of what I have said. I don't recognize myself in this at all. It is not a logical fallacy to hold that the TR is the text of the Reformation and that it is the Word of God. I believe I have said over and over again that the TR is the Word of God. So is the CT. You continually exaggerate the differences among the manuscripts, like you do here between Aleph and B: "And not only that, there are major disagreements between the two primary exemplars, א and B, 3,036 in the Gospels alone – according to the collation of H.C. Hoskier." Have you examined these differences in detail? How many of them are spelling differences? How many of them are word order differences that make zero difference in the meaning? You seem to want to make the differences between Aleph and B great when it means it might discredit them, and yet when it comes to Burgon's argument that Aleph and B come from a single corrupt source, it is the similarities which are important. Which is it? Sounds like trying to eat one's cake and have it, too. The numbers game reminds me of the truth about statistics: numbers have to be interpreted, Steve. You can't just throw out numbers and expect people to believe that they are significant in some way without argumentation. Have you collated the differences among the manuscripts that make up the TR? Have you catalogued their differences so that you have a point of comparison between the differences between Aleph and B, on the one hand, and the differences among the TR manuscripts on the other? If you have not done this, then the number 3,036 means absolutely nothing, because it is completely lacking in context. 

As to the logical argument concerning ad hominem, Vance Smith's interpretation of why he did what he did does not speak for everyone else who might have sided with him on this particular text-critical issue. Why should I believe Smith's interpretation of why WH went with "He" instead of "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16? Smith seems to have had an agenda. That does not mean everyone else did. And it doesn't mean that Smith always had an agenda, either. 

As for this, "With respect to your logical prowess, I would not want to have you as my attorney if I were being tried for the crime of being a Christian!" this is unworthy of you, Steve. Disagree with my arguments, fine. But to call into question my entire logical processes (my father taught logic at Covenant College, and taught me, and I have taught logic as well) having to do with a completely unrelated topic hits with WAY too big a cannon, and more than borders on disrespecting a minister of the gospel.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 20, 2017)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Lane, what’s the value of a good translation philosophy if the underlying Greek text has errors in it? The CSB uses the standard Critical Text, and the variant readings are basically the same in both. It is not the text of the Reformation, which is apparently not an issue for you – but rather indicative of a logical fallacy in reasoning in those who hold to it!
> 
> Why is it necessary for Burgon “to point out the agreement of א and B with the TR. He only points out the differences”? It is commonly understood there is agreement in approximately 90% of the text. The significance is the extent of the disagreement, that there are major omissions (using the 90% dominant Majority Text as a standard) and changes. And not only that, there are major disagreements between the two primary exemplars, א and B, 3,036 in the Gospels alone – according to the collation of H.C. Hoskier.
> 
> Lane, you say it is an “Ad hominem fallacy—the doctrinal position of a textual critic on the deity of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with how well he might be able to do his job as a textual critic…” And yet the Unitarian Dr. Vance Smith crowed, after having his say in the translation committee on Jesus definitely not being “God manifest in the flesh” as the TR has it, “It has been frequently said that the changes of translation…are of little importance from a doctrinal point of view…[A]ny such statement [is]…contrary to the facts.” I elaborate on this in my post #36. With respect to your logical prowess, I would not want to have you as my attorney if I were being tried for the crime of being a Christian!


There was no real standard reformation bible text though, as many wanted to have the Geneva instead of the KJV, and the question of the Greek texts used in translation also was in flux, as the TR itself was never settles as to which one, as Erasmus used believe 5 different ones, and he also got some renderings from Latin Vulgate itself.
The doctrine of the preservation of the scriptures does not require to have either a perfect Greek/Hebrew source text, nor a perfect English version, as only the originals were that.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 20, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Steve, every manuscript in existence has some errors in it. The manuscripts that make up the TR have errors in them. The manuscripts that make up the CT have errors in them. By careful comparison, we can eliminate the errors and come to the original readings in almost all cases. You say, "It is not the text of the Reformation, which is apparently not an issue for you – but rather indicative of a logical fallacy in reasoning in those who hold to it!" This is a complete caricature of what I have said. I don't recognize myself in this at all. It is not a logical fallacy to hold that the TR is the text of the Reformation and that it is the Word of God. I believe I have said over and over again that the TR is the Word of God. So is the CT. You continually exaggerate the differences among the manuscripts, like you do here between Aleph and B: "And not only that, there are major disagreements between the two primary exemplars, א and B, 3,036 in the Gospels alone – according to the collation of H.C. Hoskier." Have you examined these differences in detail? How many of them are spelling differences? How many of them are word order differences that make zero difference in the meaning? You seem to want to make the differences between Aleph and B great when it means it might discredit them, and yet when it comes to Burgon's argument that Aleph and B come from a single corrupt source, it is the similarities which are important. Which is it? Sounds like trying to eat one's cake and have it, too. The numbers game reminds me of the truth about statistics: numbers have to be interpreted, Steve. You can't just throw out numbers and expect people to believe that they are significant in some way without argumentation. Have you collated the differences among the manuscripts that make up the TR? Have you catalogued their differences so that you have a point of comparison between the differences between Aleph and B, on the one hand, and the differences among the TR manuscripts on the other? If you have not done this, then the number 3,036 means absolutely nothing, because it is completely lacking in context.
> 
> As to the logical argument concerning ad hominem, Vance Smith's interpretation of why he did what he did does not speak for everyone else who might have sided with him on this particular text-critical issue. Why should I believe Smith's interpretation of why WH went with "He" instead of "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16? Smith seems to have had an agenda. That does not mean everyone else did. And it doesn't mean that Smith always had an agenda, either.
> 
> As for this, "With respect to your logical prowess, I would not want to have you as my attorney if I were being tried for the crime of being a Christian!" this is unworthy of you, Steve. Disagree with my arguments, fine. But to call into question my entire logical processes (my father taught logic at Covenant College, and taught me, and I have taught logic as well) having to do with a completely unrelated topic hits with WAY too big a cannon, and more than borders on disrespecting a minister of the gospel.


It seems that there is an issue here on what constitutes what a reliable word of God is to us today in either the Greek texts, or the English translations, as neither are perfect.


----------



## Logan (Dec 20, 2017)

David,

I'll try to say this gently, but I don't think any of your comments have added anything on this subject (whether in this topic or others) and are significantly below the level of what is being discussed (which make them irrelevant). I think it might be better all around if you read the topic and tried to learn without commenting.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 20, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> As for this, "With respect to your logical prowess, I would not want to have you as my attorney if I were being tried for the crime of being a Christian!" this is unworthy of you, Steve. Disagree with my arguments, fine. But to call into question my entire logical processes (my father taught logic at Covenant College, and taught me, and I have taught logic as well) having to do with a completely unrelated topic hits with WAY too big a cannon, and more than borders on disrespecting a minister of the gospel.



I apologize, Lane, and ask for your forgiveness, as I have not meant to disrespect you either as a minister, or as a person. Of course you could defend my being a Christian. I was meaning other than how it came across.

Reactions: Like 1 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 20, 2017)

I appreciate that very much, and of course I forgive you. Maybe you could clarify what you intended, then?


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 21, 2017)

Logan said:


> David,
> 
> I'll try to say this gently, but I don't think any of your comments have added anything on this subject (whether in this topic or others) and are significantly below the level of what is being discussed (which make them irrelevant). I think it might be better all around if you read the topic and tried to learn without commenting.


I appreciate your kind spirit here, but was just curious as to what I have posted here was wrong or not to the OP itself?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 21, 2017)

Thank you, Lane. This phrase, “if I were being tried for the crime of being a Christian!”, I just pulled out of the air, unwisely I now think, and with no special significance. What I intended was simply that your use of logic left something to be desired, and would not serve me well were you my lawyer. I was trying to dramatically illustrate my view of your logical conclusions.

Your character is sacrosanct – meaning inviolable – and ought not be impugned, given the man that you are. Though your critical method is not sacrosanct, but open to critique if warranted. Your critical method is putting to use various skills that you have so as to support or tear down ideas that you come across.

I hope that your “logical processes”, i.e., how you use those gifts in textual discussion, are not beyond commenting upon negatively if warranted. Such would not reflect upon your character or your ministerial credentials, both of which I think above reproach, but rather your potential capacity to err in judgment re text critical matters.


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 21, 2017)

Thanks for the explanation, Steve. We're good, as far as I'm concerned. As I said in my earlier response, disagreement with my conclusions is perfectly fine. Disagreement with my logic on a particular issue is fine. It brings to mind a sign that one of my ruling elders used to have (he was a pretty high department head in an organization), and that I've always valued: "If you never disagree with me, you are missing a golden opportunity to be right!" 

Disagreement is part of the give and take of debate. And anyone who can't handle that should go elsewhere. That being said (and now I'm generalizing my comments, and talking about all debate situations), it is always important to aim with the proverbial rifle, instead of with the proverbial shotgun. Precision helps avoid defensiveness. The second we hit more than we aim at is the second we have derailed the debate and made it about something it has no business being about, because the other guy is going to object to the additional targeting. It's generalizations from particular examples that are problematic.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## JimmyH (Dec 21, 2017)

To Reverend Keister and to Steve, I have avoided getting into this fray up until now since I didn't feel qualified to comment. But since logic has been mentioned I have a question for both of you gentlemen.

Since the CT has been overwhelmingly accepted as the text for which all but a few English translations have been sourced from since just before the turn of the last century, _isn't it logical_ to presuppose that the many gifted scholars, philologists, and exegetes who've relied on the critical text trust that it is genuine and authoritative ?

For example, the NICNT commentary on Mark by William Lane, in the Editor's Forward F.F. Bruce says :

"We are sometimes asked why, at this time of day, we persist in using the American Standard Version of 1901 as the basic text for the New International Commentary. The principal reason for our persistence is that its excessively literal style of translation, however unsuitable it may be for other purposes, is admirably suited to serve as a basis of a commentary which endeavors to pay careful attention to the details of the text."

Again referring to the dominance of the CT in English translations since the Revised Version of the late 1800s, the old saying, 'Nothing succeeds like success' comes to mind.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 21, 2017)

Well, Lane, I think I did use a shotgun for a moment there. Sorry about that – I heartily concur, _precision_ in such discussions is necessary.

Jimmy, one could say the fallacy of _argumentum ad populum_ ("If many believe so, it is so.") applies. Though it does pose an interesting question: _why_ do "many gifted scholars, philologists, and exegetes" hold to the CT? 

One might ask, Why did BB Warfield?* There are many reasons that come to mind: the belief that newer is better; that the scientific method applied to textual criticism is sounder than theological reasons or presuppositions; or that a very few experts have swayed many non-experts; etc. 

*Dr. Theodore Letis' essay, "B.B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism" (on Scribd). [The essays of Letis I post on Scribd I have done with the publisher’s permission, or recommendation.]

Also, Dr. (& pastor) Garnet Howard Milne's book, _Has the Bible been kept pure? The Westminster Confession of Faith and the providential preservation of Scripture_, has a substantial section on Warfield's view of the CT, and how it eventually became the paradigm for textual critics and many others.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 22, 2017)

JimmyH said:


> To Reverend Keister and to Steve, I have avoided getting into this fray up until now since I didn't feel qualified to comment. But since logic has been mentioned I have a question for both of you gentlemen.
> 
> Since the CT has been overwhelmingly accepted as the text for which all but a few English translations have been sourced from since just before the turn of the last century, _isn't it logical_ to presuppose that the many gifted scholars, philologists, and exegetes who've relied on the critical text trust that it is genuine and authoritative ?
> 
> ...


Very good point here, as there are many gifted and learned men who see no problem with using the CT for translation and study, not have any problem using the MT/TR texts for that either.


----------



## Logan (Dec 22, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I appreciate your kind spirit here, but was just curious as to what I have posted here was wrong or not to the OP itself?



Thank you for taking it kindly. You've not said anything _wrong_ per se, but irrelevant. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of topics relating to this subject. The people posting in this topic are very familiar with it and have discussed the basics years ago. Bringing up things like KJVO, for example, is so far below the discussion at this point that it's almost painful. Start a new topic if you'd like to do that, or just sit back and learn from this one without commenting.

An analogy would be some people having a discussion or debate on whether to use Leibnitz or Newton's notation for calculus and you come in and say "it seems to me that addition is the adding of two or more numbers". It's not wrong, but it's far below the level of the discussion and irrelevant. If you're not extremely well-versed in this subject, it's best to keep silent, In my humble opinion.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 23, 2017)

Logan said:


> Thank you for taking it kindly. You've not said anything _wrong_ per se, but irrelevant. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of topics relating to this subject. The people posting in this topic are very familiar with it and have discussed the basics years ago. Bringing up things like KJVO, for example, is so far below the discussion at this point that it's almost painful. Start a new topic if you'd like to do that, or just sit back and learn from this one without commenting.
> 
> An analogy would be some people having a discussion or debate on whether to use Leibnitz or Newton's notation for calculus and you come in and say "it seems to me that addition is the adding of two or more numbers". It's not wrong, but it's far below the level of the discussion and irrelevant. If you're not extremely well-versed in this subject, it's best to keep silent, In my humble opinion.


Would you see the need for us to actually have a perfect greek text, or english translation in order to have the word of God to us for today?


----------



## JimmyH (Dec 23, 2017)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Well, Lane, I think I did use a shotgun for a moment there. Sorry about that – I heartily concur, _precision_ in such discussions is necessary.
> 
> Jimmy, one could say the fallacy of _argumentum ad populum_ ("If many believe so, it is so.") applies. Though it does pose an interesting question: _why_ do "many gifted scholars, philologists, and exegetes" hold to the CT?
> 
> ...


Thanks for the reply Steve. I have read Dr Milne's book, thanks to your recommendation in another thread, and found it very informative. I was disturbed by his characterization of B.B. Warfield, and have been reading some of his work to try and draw my own conclusion on BBW's view of Scripture innerancy. He was certainly considered by many to be a true defender of Scripture, but that is a subject for another thread.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 23, 2017)

I hope to be finishing my involvement in this thread with this post. I have found Rev. Lane’s arguments, especially his use of “logical fallacies”, to be wanting in dealing with the text critical realities Burgon deals with. I do think that you have, Lane, “a distaste for the Received Text” when it is posited as a standard of excellence to which the other MSS may be compared. That goes against your “textual egalitarianism”, which finds intrinsic worth as “God’s word” in all the MSS. While I would concur that insofar as _any_ MS is in accord with what the WCF 1:8 and the Westminster divines held to be “kept pure in all ages”, such could be called “God’s word”, which the variant readings could not. And those MSS which had a plethora of such variants would be disqualified as corrupted.

I have shown in post 21 that “genealogical families” or “text-types” are not accepted as valid or helpful categories by critics today, even as Burgon showed in the 19th century. Your assertion that he is guilty of a “massive _tu quoque_” by using a genealogical argument against Hort fails. What he did show was something quite else. Hort had said,

“A presumption indeed remains that a majority of extant documents is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral documents, than _vice versâ_.” [_Intro to the NT in the Original Greek_, by W&H… p 45]

“The fundamental Text of _late extant Greek MSS._ generally is _beyond all question identical_ with the dominant Antiochian or Græco-Syrian Text of the _second half of the fourth century_.” [Ibid, _Intro._, W&H p 92]​
He said this because he could not deny the actual preponderance of the dominant Antiochian or Græco-Syrian Text, aka the Byzantine or Majority Text; what he did was (to use your terminology) attempt to poison the well as regards its validity by positing / imagining an official recension (edition) of the Greek NT as a means to suppressing all other MSS. No text critics of today hold to that, and Maurice Robinson and other Majority Text proponents (Pickering, Van Bruggen, etc) ably refute it, and the views of Hort and Westcott in general. I keep using them, W&H, in my refutation of your critique of Burgon, because their textual paradigm warranted _Burgon’s_ critical remarks that you take to task.

You use “why is it impossible…?” regarding textual things a number of times, as though such would make it feasible they could be true: “is it impossible for a manuscript to be housed in the devil's own library, and yet be virtuous?” Actually, it _is_ possible, but in light of other facts in the case _highly improbable_.

You also say, “Is it completely out of the realm of possibility that the reason א and B have survived is because scribes thought it might be good to produce two excellent manuscripts and then put them away so that they might be brought out later to correct other manuscripts? Why is it impossible for God’s providence to have worked in this way” I would agree with you, that it is within the realm of possibility for God’s providence to have worked in such a manner as you propose – though most improbable. For there is more to the history of א and B than you’ve brought forth. Yes, “_All_ of the extant manuscripts have been preserved by God's providence.” But not all of them were approved by the Reformation and post-Reformation divines as those that had been “kept pure in all ages”.

Why were all the MSS that exist preserved? Perhaps that we should “by reason of use have [our] senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (Heb 5:14).

When you say, “Burgon’s argument is so bizarre, that, if taken to its logical conclusion, it would cast doubt on the reliability of _any_ ancient manuscript of _any_ book.” In my own library, the most precious books I have are those Bibles I regularly use and consult – and they are the ones that most quickly wear out, and need replacement. Those books least used stay in the best shape. This is the norm. And most textual critics concur with this as a principle concerning the longevity of MSS. So to say it is bizarre is not sound. It may just seem bizarre to you who have a different paradigm re the NT MSS.

You say of Vaticanus, “Is it impossible that it was copied in a Bible-believing church, and then captured by Rome?” No, it is not impossible, but highly improbable. I give Burgon’s information with respect to Vaticanus’ and Aleph’s likely origin in the library of Origen in post 57.

You keep saying that my bringing up the involvement of the papacy with the CT of the United Bible Society – which critical text underlies all of the modern versions – but continues the fallacy of poisoning the well. Whereas I say that the CT, by this involvement, and by its history, has poisoned its own well.

You have said,

How the Vatican has used Vaticanus against the Reformation has _nothing_ to do with whether Vaticanus is a valuable manuscript or not, either. They are abusing it (not using it legitimately) for doctrinal-twisting purposes. What Rome has done with Vaticanus is completely irrelevant to Vaticanus's value as a manuscript.​
The Vatican’s use of B, with respect to its variants, does indeed impact the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Westcott and Hort were staunch Anglo-Catholics, and despisers of the Reformation and Evangelical spirit (easily documentable in their own words), and well knew what they were doing. It does not change things that you see the value of B and Aleph (and there is value, I must agree, in that we have a very old MS to compare with others). That you do not agree with W&H does not change the impact of B & Aleph on Sola Scriptura. It’s a done thing.

But Burgon could see it, and spoke to it. To those looking in on this discussion, I would say that if you wonder about the respective takes of Lane and myself on this issue of Burgon, and of textual criticism as well, you would be edified by simply reading in Burgon’s books to see the value of his labors. E.F. Hills wrote a chapter in D.O. Fuller’s _Which Bible?_, “The Magnificent Burgon, Doughty Champion of the Byzantine Text”, which is well worth the read. Not all learned men have such a view of Burgon as Lane.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Logan (Dec 26, 2017)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> One might ask, Why did BB Warfield?* There are many reasons that come to mind: the belief that newer is better; that the scientific method applied to textual criticism is sounder than theological reasons or presuppositions; or that a very few experts have swayed many non-experts; etc.
> 
> *Dr. Theodore Letis' essay, "B.B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism" (on Scribd). [The essays of Letis I post on Scribd I have done with the publisher’s permission, or recommendation.]



I've been pondering whether to reply to this or not and finally decided it would be best to. Not to counteract what Steve says but I want to warn that in another, older thread, Steve and I thoroughly interacted with the essay in question and I am thoroughly convinced that Letis was untrustworthy as a historian in this particular case. He repeatedly caricatures Warfield and rather than interact with Warfield's own words, draws his own inferences from isolated phrases, sometimes even contradicting what Warfield himself says in the very same work he quotes from. In other places he inexplicably ignores what Warfield says his own views are, instead postulating his own conjectures. If you take the time to go to Letis' sources (Warfield's work), you'll be stunned at the biased manner in which he treats Warfield. Warfield wrote prolifically on the subject, both in his works and in the two volumes of his collected shorter writings and all are well worth reading.

I'd recommend Warfield's own review of Burgon's work, "The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established" (in vol. 10, pg 25). It is gracious and fair and Warfield praises Burgon for adding much needed discussion to the question and that many had followed after Hort too readily. It is well worth reading. Nevertheless, after a lengthy portion on the strengths of the work, Warfield makes this statement which I find very apt:



> We would not willingly underestimate any item of the case for the "Traditional Text" [by Burgon] thus presented. But we are bound to bear witness that after an honest attempt to weigh it impratially, in its entirety and in its several parts, it seems to us to halt fatally. We cannot indeed fail to be impressed when we read such a statement as this: "The advocates of the Traditional Text urge that the Consent without Concert of so many hundreds of copies, executed by different persons, at diverse times, in widely sundered regions of the Church, is a presumptive proof of their trustworthiness, which nothing can invalidate but some sort of demonstration that they are untrustworthy guides after all." (I. p. 17; cf. p. 33). But we observe that its whole force turns on the phrase "Consent without Concert," which is the very point in dispute. Dr. Hort seems to have shown that the consent is due just to concert, and his exhibition of that fact, as yet unrebutted, transfers the presumption at once to the older though fewer witnesses, which, on the test of internal evidence of groups, evince themselves also as the better. So, again, we are far from accounting the appeal to Providence either illegitimate or active in preserving His inspired Word to his Church. We do not believe that, after giving the Scriptures of Truth to mankind, He "straightway abdicated His office; took no further care of His work; abandoned those precious writings to their fate" (I. p.11). But just because we believe in God's *continuous* care over the purity of His Word, we are able to look upon the labors of the great critics of the nineteenth century---a Tregelles, a Tischendorf, a Westcott, a Hort---as well as those of a Gregory and a Basil and a Chrysostom, as instruments of Providence in preserving the Scriptures pure for the use of God's people. Dean Burgon and Mr. Miller are able to reconcile with their appeal to Providence the early prevalence of a corrupt text which needed purifying in the fourth century: why cannot they reconcile with it also a further purification of this same text in the nineteenth century? The fact is, their point of view is determined not so much by a religious as by an ecclesiastical presumption. And when we probe their fundamental principle to the bottom, it is found to rest really on a high doctrine of the Church. Their prime consideration is, in a word, that "a certain exhibition of the Sacred Text---that exhibition of it with which we are all most familiar---rests on ecclesiastical authority" (p. 13). Their confidence in the "Traditional Text" is due to their view that that text "rests on the authority of the Church Catholic"; and they are strenuous in its defense because they cannot believe that the "probat of the Orthodox...Christian Bbishops" through so many years can be mistaken (p. 14): and therefore they fully recognize that the force of their appeal can be felt in its fullness only by "Churchmen." "How Churchmen of eminence and ability, who in other respects hold the truths involved in Churchmanship," they exclaim (p. 59), "are able to maintain and propagate such opinions" as those advocated by Dr. Hort, "without surrendering their Churchmanship we are unable to explain." In a word, the root of the opinions here set forth as to the purity of the "Traditional Text" of the New Testament is to be found, not in considerations drawn from the history of the transmission of that text or from a critical estimate of the relative value of its actual witnesses, but in considerations which lie outside of the text itself and its own history in a general doctrine of the *continuous* authority of the Church, which itself rests on a special theory of the Church peculiar to certain sections of the Christian body.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 3


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 27, 2017)

Hello Logan,

As I was just looking over our old thread on Letis, I am reminded how carefully you studied him and his views, and to what lengths you went to amass material on him! While I still differ with your view “that Letis was untrustworthy as a historian in this particular case . . . [and that] He repeatedly caricatures Warfield and rather than interact with Warfield's own words, draws his own inferences from isolated phrases…” etc, I probably should have had the hindsight not to unearth the old topic of Dr. Theodore Letis. Not that Letis erred in his understanding of BBW and the WCF, but that his other writings and sayings cover a lot of terrain, and I would not want to become embroiled in a broader defense of him. I might have done better only referencing Garnet Milne’s work on the WCF, and his section on Warfield, as Dr. Milne is solidly Reformed and his research is unassailable, plus he is alive to explain and defend himself, if he wishes.

My point in bringing up BB Warfield in post 68 was to illustrate one among “ ‘many gifted scholars, philologists, and exegetes’ [who] hold to the CT” and an examination and critique of that one case – namely the allure and promise of the new (in the late 1800s and early 1900s) movement in text-critical studies to have a scientifically-based text rather than one theologically and presuppositionally-based. Milne’s book adequately shows Warfield’s departure from intents of the WCF’s framers, and as his book is in print it is available to those who wish to learn more on this topic.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 27, 2017)

Lane, I just want to express my sorrow at how things soured between us recently. In my post 73 where I spoke of Sproul’s “judgment of charity” – I deleted that, not wanting to justify myself at your expense. No way for a pastor to be treating another pastor. I really do hold you in high esteem – that’s not just talk – and I’m sorry I haven’t always lived that out. You’re a godly man and a good pastor, I think better than me on both counts. May your new year be your best yet!

Reactions: Like 1 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 28, 2017)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Lane, I just want to express my sorrow at how things soured between us recently. In my post 73 where I spoke of Sproul’s “judgment of charity” – I deleted that, not wanting to justify myself at your expense. No way for a pastor to be treating another pastor. I really do hold you in high esteem – that’s not just talk – and I’m sorry I haven’t always lived that out. You’re a godly man and a good pastor, I think better than me on both counts. May your new year be your best yet!


Do you see the Critical and Majority Greek texts as being legit, but flawed, or neither of them at all the word of the Lord to us in the original language?


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 28, 2017)

Steve, as I said before, I am fine. There is nothing between us from my side. It was only the one comment, which you have fixed, so, smooth sailing as far as I am concerned. Is there anything you are still angry about?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 29, 2017)

No, not angry, Lane — _disappointed_, and I didn't deal with it in a godly way. And I'm fine with you also.

David, I have spelled out very clearly in this thread precisely what my views are vis-à-vis the CT and Byz Text. I'm afraid you're so into racking up posts to build up your count that it's become 2nd nature to you now — I do not think you're so dense you don't understand what many folks are saying to you — you just no longer even notice it, or care. It's not a good reputation to have.

Logan, as I said, I would have done better omitting reference to Letis given your view of him, and stuck solely with Milne's analysis of Warfield, which is far more detailed and insightful — given that Milne is solidly Reformed and firmly holds to the Westminster Standards, unlike the Lutheran Letis.

Milne leaves it unmistakably clear, through numerous quotes from Warfield's writings, and a searching analysis of what his view actually was, that he

"did more than anyone else to open the door for modern evangelicals, including those in the Reformed and Presbyterian churches, to embrace the paradigm that we still do not and may never possess the Word of God in its entirety; and that certain parts of recently discovered extant copies should replace the Greek New Testament text relied on by the Reformers and their heirs in many readings." (p 38)​
Then in subsequent chapters Milne proceeds to examine the views of the Westminster divines on the issue of what they meant concerning the NT texts with respect to their "being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, [and] are therefore authentical" — and all this in light of the Warfieldian view.

Although Letis opened up this matter to the world, he was vulnerable to critique by careful students of his various views, whereas Dr. Garnet Milne comes with impeccable credentials and reputation, and exposes once for all how Prof. Benjamin Warfield, for all his Biblical fidelity and theological might, nonetheless erred in this matter and caused great damage to the field of textual criticism.

Milne does not go into the area of Warfield's views on evolution, as that was not pertinent to the present study.

Even great men err — and gives all the more reason to critique such, lest we be carried away with their errors due to their exemplary work elsewhere — a danger we are seeing today with lesser great men among us.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 29, 2017)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Even great men err


Dr Milne lives in my country and I personally know this statement is true of him also.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 29, 2017)

Hello Stephen,

Curious about your words above I had PM'd you enquiring as to what they signified. Upon further reflection, however, I recalled the Scripture, 

1 Tim 5:19: Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.​
Warfield's error consisted in widely publicized statements that, upon analysis — and comparison of pertinent documents — misinformed the Christian public respecting their Scriptures. With the presumption that he did this ignorantly and without any intention to deceive, it is not reckoned sin to him, but error. Grave and tremendously damaging error, but not willful sin.

Your remarks concerning pastor Milne appear to be an accusation of some sort of wrongdoing. And if so would warrant corroborating witnesses. Or perhaps following the Matthew 18:15 direction would apply: "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother." If it was a trespass against the church or a third party, it should be brought before the church, again, seeing it pertains to an elder, with witnesses.

These safeguard commands are put in place by the Lord to protect His servants from false accusations.

If pastor Milne has done something public such as Prof Warfield had then a public reproof might be in order, though one would think speaking to him personally first might be in order.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 30, 2017)

Hi Steve,

I have not met Dr Milne but have had email correspondance with him. One of my close friends knows him quite well. I worship with the Reformed Churches of New Zealand where he served as a minister for some time.

I used to be on the executive committee for the NZ Christian Apologetics Society. Dr Milne gave an excellent presentation on presuppositional apologetics - one ofthe best pesentations I have sen. He has also made a strong stand against New Zealand's tragic abortion rate, homosexuality, laws banning smacking of children etc. His public stands on these important issues, in my judgment, has been noble.

The problem is that Dr Milne left the Reformed Churches of New Zealand not on the best of terms. He was promoting his views on the King James Bible. The Reformed Churches of New Zealand are a confessional church and permit conservative Bible translations including the KJV. But many in the denomination felt he went beyond the denominations stance on Bible translations and promoted his own agenda. Of course Dr Milne would argue he was sincerely promoting his own views. The problem was they were not consistent with that of the Reformed Churches of New Zealand. My view was he lacked wisdom on how he handled it. It caused trouble in the denomination.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Your remarks concerning pastor Milne appear to be an accusation of some sort of wrongdoing.


I did not say he did wrongdoing but I do believe he placed himself in a situation where he lacked wisdom.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 30, 2017)

Thanks, Stephen, for that information. I would appreciate hearing it from his point of view as well, which I will try to obtain.

It may well be that he took a stand on what the WCF and its framers actually stated, the alternative to which is the confusion and wrangling we find now in our land and churches, and even in this thread.

In some classes I taught on textual criticism in the church I presently co-pastor, the approach I took—taking great care not to divide the church on this issue—was that all legitimate Bible versions (the JW’s _New World Translation_ is not legit) are the word of God preserved in the main, and what is to be examined as legitimate or not are the variant readings. Thus we are to strive to determine the word of God preserved in the minutiae, not only in the main. In this way the various version are not delegitimized, so that no one loses faith in the Bible they use, and they can change to one based on better variant readings if they see fit.


David, looking over this thread I find that I _haven’t_ said “precisely what my views are vis-à-vis the CT and Byz Text”, and I apologize for that. In this below you can see my views re the Byz, and as regards the CT what is in the present thread does show that.

The Majority Text (aka the Greek Byzantine text) represents the last development in a line of transmission from the apostles to the Greek-speaking churches in the Aegean area, Rome, and Palestine (note: no autographs / apostolic originals were sent to Alexandria, from which the Critical Text arose), and which remained in a mostly pure form in the Greek churches until the Reformation, and the final compiling of the Greek edition from which the King James Bible was translated. A clear and succinct presentation of this early history may be found in Wilbur Pickering’s chapter 5 of his, _The Identity of the New Testament Text III_.

The Received Text (Textus Receptus) is not at a far remove from the Byzantine / Majority textform – or the “Traditional Text” of Burgon, Hoskier, Miller, Scrivener, which is pretty much the same. I have said this of the situation via-à-vis the MT and the TR,

Be it known that while I fully use what is of value in the Byz/MT labors, which are immense and of precious value, I go beyond what they allow. We of the TR and AV school stand on their shoulders – or to perfect the metaphor, we _leap_ from their shoulders to a high rock, upon which we take our stand.

It is this leap of faith (which is not without evidences) in God’s providence bringing certain readings back into the Biblical text that had been taken out of the Byzantine textform so the Reformation Bible could be made intact, it is in this leap that many Byz folks cannot follow us.​
You can find more concerning my views of the Byz here; and also here.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 30, 2017)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Thanks, Stephen, for that information. I would appreciate hearing it from his point of view as well, which I will try to obtain.
> 
> It may well be that he took a stand on what the WCF and its framers actually stated, the alternative to which is the confusion and wrangling we find now in our land and churches, and even in this thread.
> 
> ...


I appreciate this, and am still trying to see just exactly why you seemed to be so concerned about the Critical Greek text as somehow not being the word of God to us, as there is no direct apostolic link on copies for any of the various Greek texts used today, and the so called majority text would seem to be closer to the originals in content than the TR Greek text or the Bzt one is.
just appears to me reading through your various postings here, that you have to have a perfect Greek text or English text my Brother for you to accept them as being valid, but only the originals were that.


----------



## Logan (Dec 30, 2017)

Steve can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe his view is more akin to accepting by faith, that God providentially purified the text leading up to the KJ version, so that the TR underlying it is in fact close (or identical with) the autographs. This is nearly true for the Geneva Bible as well.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH (Dec 30, 2017)

Logan said:


> Steve can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe his view is more akin to accepting by faith, that God providentially purified the text leading up to the KJ version, so that the TR underlying it is in fact close (or identical with) the autographs. This is nearly true for the Geneva Bible as well.


I wouldn't want to put words in Steve's mouth and then quote him either,  but what you've stated is my impression of Steve's view as well.
What is a mystery to me regarding those who hold to that view, is why they don't think that God's providence wouldn't have extended to the CT as well ?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 30, 2017)

JimmyH said:


> I wouldn't want to put words in Steve's mouth and then quote him either,  but what you've stated is my impression of Steve's view as well.
> What is a mystery to me regarding those who hold to that view, is why they don't think that God's providence wouldn't have extended to the CT as well ?


that view also seems to have the translators being inspired in the same sense as the Apostles were to create a perfect product, and Jesus just authorized that for the Apostles and the Originals.


----------



## JimmyH (Dec 30, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> that view also seems to have the translators being inspired in the same sense as the Apostles were to create a perfect product, and Jesus just authorized that for the Apostles and the Originals.


I don't say, or assume, that the translators were inspired then, or are inspired now. Just examining the 1st editions of the AV, with translator's notes in the margins, offering alternatives to various words/verses, demonstrates that the translators of the AV were not inspired. 
On the other hand, God said His word liveth and abideth forever, so I take it that stands for the TR, MT, CT, regardless of variables in the texts.


----------



## Dachaser (Dec 30, 2017)

JimmyH said:


> I don't say, or assume, that the translators were inspired then, or are inspired now. Just examining the 1st editions of the AV, with translator's notes in the margins, offering alternatives to various words/verses, demonstrates that the translators of the AV were not inspired.
> On the other hand, God said His word liveth and abideth forever, so I take it that stands for the TR, MT, CT, regardless of variables in the texts.


Based upon that posting, you and I see this issue in pretty much exact same fashion.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 30, 2017)

David, the Critical Greek text is not the word of God *insofar* as its variants are false readings, such as the omission of the last 12 verses of Mark, or the incorrect Asaph and Amos in Matt 1:7, 10 (as the ESV reads from the CT original). It *is* the word of God *insofar* as its “variant” readings are true. That’s where the battle is.

Now here is my point: Corruptions / mutilations did enter into the text, even the Byzantine; why should not the God, in whose hand is the heart of kings, to turn them “whithersoever He will” (Prov 21:1), why should He not turn the hearts of those editors of His word to pick the words He wants restored to the text? This is consistent with my method: *in the main* God preserved the accurate reading of the autographs in the Byzantine tradition; *in some minute particulars*, where the Byz lost the true reading, but by Him “kept pure in all ages” in some other language manuscripts or traditions, and restored when He deigned to bring His word into the English language and those other language versions the great missionary movements sent forth throughout the world. As He is Lord of the Book, superintending it with His invincible care (“…for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name” Ps 138:2 AV [cf. ESV margin]), this is no big thing for the One who moved an empire to have His Son born in Bethlehem, who knows the names of all the stars in the _billions_ of galaxies (in the _known_ universe), who knows no limits to the care He will bestow on the Bride He has chosen for His Son, providing for her “all things that pertain unto life and godliness”, foremost of which is “every word that proceedeth out of [His] mouth” and by which we must live! (2 Pet 1:3; Matt 4:4)

Mine is a supernatural faith from beginning to end; my salvation is such, and the word by which I have been begotten is such. Why is it thought odd I should see the Book of God in this same light? My faith is not in the scientific scrutiny of men, in their theories of transmission and texts, but in the power and promises of the God of my life, His Book being one of those supernatural wonders. As the repentant emperor confessed, “...he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?” (Dan 4:35) And the apostle says the same, He “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will” (Eph 1:11).

Some might say to me, “But it is not written *how* He will work all things, especially with regard to His Book.” Agreed. I say those things to show how easily He *could* have brought readings back to His Book lost through error, accident, or design. In the realm of faith it is as sound a view – at the *least* – as marshaling evidences. But this does not mean we are bereft of such! Evidences are just not the foundation of our understanding.
_______

God’s providence *has* extended to the CT, in the main, but *not* in the minutiae, as seen in Mark 16:9-20’s absence, Asaph and Amos in Matt 1 as if they were in Christ’s genealogy, "their" instead of "her" in Luke 2:22, etc.

Translators are *not* inspired as were the writers of Scripture, period. Translations partake of the inspiration of the fully preserved original language apographs (copies) *only insofar* as they faithfully render the Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew, and no further. God has *not* said that errors “liveth and abideth forever”. They are where the battle over the versions is.

David, I hope this clarifies things for you.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 30, 2017)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> It may well be that he took a stand on what the WCF and its framers actually stated, the alternative to which is the confusion and wrangling we find now in our land and churches, and even in this thread.


Steve, I wll make a few comments on my own accord although will not make lengthy comments in the future. I will leave it to the more gifted here.

I used to believe that the Received Text was the most reliable text. I used to be a New Zealand agent for the Trinitarian Bible Society. One of that Societies Directors examined me to ensure I had solid convictions re the Received Text!

But I have changed my position. I believe the WCF statement "kept pure in all ages" needs to reflect mss discoveries of the past 80-100 years.

Let me give an example. Rev 16:5 has been changed by Beza's conjectural emendation. The Received text of Erasmus 1522 and Stephanus 1555 have the correct reading. The Coverdale translation of 1538 "Holy One" has the correct translation. Yet the KJV has been changed by Beza's conjectural emendation! The WCF was written after this KJV change. The KJV has not been "kept pure". Further, in the KJV, the translations with footnotes make comments that Luke 10:22, Luke 17:36, and Acts 25:6 have some textual uncertainty. These footnotes in the KJV suggest textual variation was a issue even in the time of the Reformation. In fact the footnotes suggest the "text was not kept pure in all ages"!

I suggest the WCF would be best revised to consider the papyri discovered in the last 80-100 years. Scholars in the 15 and 16th centuries used the term "ad fontes" - to the sources. This means going back to the original documents as a standard of truth rather than relying on a preconceived theory.

Perhaps to tie this all together I will summarise James White's Excursus on New Testament transmission [ I mentioned this a few weeks ago. It is found in his King James Only Controversy Rev ed pp 79-88.] I will add a few of my own comments in [].

Early scribes sought to faithfully transmit the text faithfully. We can observe variants but only normal scribal errors. Further, the mss discovered in the past 80-100 years bring us back closer to the original text. Two key points:
1] Wholesale changes to the mss would require a centralised controlling authority. There is no evidence such an authority existed. Dr White gives evidence that such an authority DID exist for Islam which creates major problems re them checking they have the original text.
2] Any corruptions to the text would stand out like a "sore thumb". [When Dr White debated Dr DA Waite on this issue, Dr Waite argued that the critical text has been corrupted. Dr White said "prove it"! Dr Waite could not prove it and it made me personally realise the critical text was reliable]. The discovery of the papyri have moved our knowledge of the NT text back much closer to the original [James White, as a Muslim scholar, is aware how powerful argument for the critical text this is. The Muslim would say the text is corrupted so we cannot trust the Bible. Dr White can show the earliest mss are reliable and are closest in time to the originals. ]

Dr White concludes his argument by stating that he has had a lot of experience debating Muslim scholars and Liberal scholars. He says that those who defend the Received Text could not provide a consistent defense of scripture against Muslim scholars and Liberal scholars. White states "King James Onlyism cripples its adherents apologetically in a day when such can have devastating results."

It is interesting to note that when the Cannon of scripture was affirmed the church used the critical text. So why not use the text of scripture that was used when the Cannon was affirmed?

In terms of debates with Muslim scholars and Liberal scholars, Dr White gives another example in his book - the disputed passage 1 John 5:7. Dr White states that if the Greek mss tradition can be so corrupted that one can loose this intire reading without a trace, you esentially concede a point to the Muslim scholars and Liberal scholars. Therefore using the mss tradition that goes back the closest to the original text gives the evangelical position on the Scriptures more credibility.

Finally, if someone contacts Dr Milne, perhaps they could challange him to a debate with Dr White. I am not convinced Dr Milnes arguments could be upheld in cross-examination but I could be wrong 

There was an interesting debate between James White and British pastor Jack Moorman done a few years ago. James White, In my humble opinion, gave a convincing presentation of the critical text.

I realise I have not tied up all the loose ends; I have tried to keep to the key points. Because of time constraints I will limit my discussion in the future.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Dec 30, 2017)

Stephen L Smith said:


> It is interesting to note that when the Cannon of scripture was affirmed the church used the critical text. So why not use the text of scripture that was used when the Cannon was affirmed?



This is speculative at best, and yet you present it as undisputed fact. I am curious as to what evidence you have to prove the church was universally using an Alexandrian text type at the time the canon was affirmed.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 30, 2017)

Bill The Baptist said:


> This is speculative at best, and yet you present it as undisputed fact. I am curious as to what evidence you have to prove the church was universally using an Alexandrian text type at the time the canon was affirmed.


It is a fact. The critical text type was dominant for the first 6 centuries. See James Whites book (revised ed) pp 193-198. Also similar discussion in James Price's book.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Dec 30, 2017)

Stephen L Smith said:


> It is a fact. The critical text type was dominant for the first 6 centuries. See James Whites book (revised ed) pp 193-198. Also similar discussion in James Price's book.



This is based merely on the fact that all of the surviving manuscripts that we have from this time frame are of the Alexandrian variety, however this is hardly conclusive. For one thing, the manuscripts from this period are very sparse, and further they all come from a very narrow geographical area. This hardly proves that the Alexandrian text type was exclusively in use during this period.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 30, 2017)

Bill The Baptist said:


> This is based merely on the fact that all of the surviving manuscripts that we have from this time frame are of the Alexandrian variety, however this is hardly conclusive. For one thing, the manuscripts from this period are very sparse, and further they all come from a very narrow geographical area. This hardly proves that the Alexandrian text type was exclusively in use during this period.


Your own argument is hardly conclusive


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 31, 2017)

Hello Stephen,

I’ll get to Rev 16:5 in a moment.

Okay, I can see you’ve bought into Dr. White’s paradigm concerning the textual transmission. With regard to the transmission of the early NT text, here is an excerpt from Wilbur Pickering’s _The Identity of the NT Text II_; and it makes excellent sense (I'm providing links so as to keep from bloating the thread—those with a scholarly bent can follow them).

And since we are talking about the Byzantine or Majority Text and early transmission, here is a thread of great interest, Do Many Scholars Prefer the Majority Text?.

Stephen, I believe I heard that same debate between James White and D.A. Waite, and this before computers were popular, and before CDs existed. I listened to it on audio cassette. One difference between you and me: When I heard White’s challenge to Waite, I noted the verses that Waite couldn't give an answer for, and jotted them down, so I could look for answers to White’s challenge myself (I think I still have that paper somewhere), and I have been answering White’s challenges over the years. I didn’t fold just because one man couldn’t answer him at that point.

I also answered Dr. White on your 1 John 5:7 reference here.

Re the debate between Jack Moorman and White: Moorman is a brilliant and dogged scholar, he is just not White’s equal in verbal debate. Nor am I, for that matter. I am sort of slow at verbal repartee. I am better at studying and writing. Moorman should have known better than to try to debate him. Moorman's written work is sound. I might debate James concerning texts over a hamburger, but not in formal debate!

With respect to Revelation 16:5—there is a lot more to it than you might imagine. Clearly this is a minority reading, if it can be considered even that, as the sole appearance of it is in Beatus of Liebana, a Spanish theologian (circa 786 AD), in his compiling—in Latin—an earlier commentary on Revelation by Tyconius (circa 380 AD). Dr. Thomas Holland, in one of his lessons on manuscript evidence, says, “Dr. Edward Hills has correctly cited passage as a conjectural emendation” (cf. Hill’s _KJVD_, p 208). Very likely Beza, whose emendation it was, did not know of Beatus’ work, but had his own sound reasons for what he did. 

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

Holland (see his article below) gives Beza's full reasoning for the emendation.

In the textual history there is chaos concerning what the reading is. Three of the four earliest witnesses to Rev 16:5 read (and all differing),

"ο ων και ος ην και οσιος" (P47)
"ο ων και ο ην ο οσιος" (Sinaiticus)
"ο ων και ο ην οσιος" (Alexandrinus)

They differ. Corruption had set in early. “Lord” is also missing in some mss, yet is present in many Reformation Bibles.

This is Dr. Thomas Holland’s view of the emendation (using your browser’s search feature, go to the 3rd appearance of 16:5, and down to Rev. 22:19).

And then a fuller examination of the matter (I don’t know who publishes this site, but it is scholarly and irenic): Beza and Revelation 16:5.

Stephen, the long and short of it is: Beza, following sound text-critical principles, has given the best rendering of this verse that there is. One may differ with his emendation, but one certainly cannot say he is wrong, or did wrong.

What I would suggest to you: you have given up your first love for a love of lesser worth. That’s my respectful take. Thanks for your well-thought-out remarks.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Dec 31, 2017)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Okay, I can see you’ve bought into Dr. White’s paradigm concerning the textual transmission.


Steve, I said I would be brief. Actually I hardly get into textual debates these days.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> I also answered Dr. White on your 1 John 5:7 reference


I am not onvinced. I was not convinced when I read Dr Hills on this some years ago. It is safer to use the earlier Greek mss. You will not find respected scholars like Dr Pickering, or Dr M Robinson defending 1 John 5:7!



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Re the debate between Jack Moorman and White: Moorman is a brilliant and dogged scholar, he is just not White’s equal in verbal debate.


A more likely explanation is that his views on the Received text do not stand up to rigorous examination.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Stephen, the long and short of it is: Beza, following sound text-critical principles, has given the best rendering of this verse that there is. One may differ with his emendation, but one certainly cannot say he is wrong, or did wrong.


The safer method is to go bak to the sound mss tradition as modern translations have done and to say the KJV has an error. James White, in his book, provides a number of photos of the mss tradition showing the modern translations use a better textual foundation re this verse. You will not find respected scholars like Dr Pickering, or Dr M Robinson defending Beza's emendation.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> What I would suggest to you: you have given up your first love for a love of lesser worth. That’s my respectful take.


Not at all. I have correspoded over the years with Dr Pickering, Dr DA Waite, and Dr M Robinson as I thought through my views. In fact I have encouraged Dr Robinson to publish a detailed but user friendly of his Byzantine priority view. It was also be great for Maurice Robinson and James White to have a debate. I remain a critical text supporter but personally think Maurice Robinson's influence may provide some "checks and balances".

But I do think James White's "two key points" noted above provide a better overall foundation fo texual criticism.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 1, 2018)

Stephen, you said,

I suggest the WCF would be best revised to consider the papyri discovered in the last 80-100 years. Scholars in the 15 and 16th centuries used the term "ad fontes" - to the sources. This means going back to the original documents as a standard of truth rather than relying on a preconceived theory.​
This in itself sends a red-flag warning signal to readers that a “progressive” agenda is at the door (be it understood that what you say applies to your 1689 Confession at 1:8 as well). Not merely “progressive”, but abdicating the Reformation’s stand against Rome by accepting the MSS Rome says are the best, to the overturning of its arch-enemy’s Sola Scriptura doctrine.

Surely you are aware that, in leaving the TBS some time ago, and cleaving to the United Bible Society which publishes the Nestle-Aland and UBS editions of the critical text underlying the new versions, you are tacitly ratifying the UBS operating principles: for the Nestle-Aland Greek NT 27th Ed. page 45 states that,

The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following *an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision*. This marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships. [emphasis added] (see post 41 for source)​
Your brave new Bible is put together under the supervision of the Vatican? To further “interconfessional relationships”? What kind of Reformed are you to subscribe to such declarations?

I am aware you “will not be convinced” by anyone who veers from the path set forth by Dr. White. So be it. Yet you gloss over arguments as if they were negligible, not interacting with them, which seems to indicate you will adhere to your opinions no matter what is said.

Your interaction with Bill the Baptist above illustrates this, as when he said re your view that “when the Cannon of scripture was affirmed the church used the critical text.”,

This is speculative at best, and yet you present it as undisputed fact. I am curious as to what evidence you have to prove the church was universally using an Alexandrian text type at the time the canon was affirmed.​
And you replied,

It is a fact. The critical text type was dominant for the first 6 centuries. See James Whites book (revised ed) pp 193-198. Also similar discussion in James Price's book.​
Whereupon Bill said,

This is based merely on the fact that all of the surviving manuscripts that we have from this time frame are of the Alexandrian variety, however this is hardly conclusive. For one thing, the manuscripts from this period are very sparse, and further they all come from a very narrow geographical area. This hardly proves that the Alexandrian text type was exclusively in use during this period.​
And you said,

Your own argument is hardly conclusive ​
So your method of argumentation is that James White said it on page so-and-so, thus it is a fact. And you tell us to go to James Price’s book and he says something similar. Possibly you are not aware of the critical examinations of Dr. White’s book (or of Price’s writings), or of the *fact* that none of the autographic NT documents were sent to Alexandria or anywhere in Egypt.

In Wilbur Pickering’s chapter 5 of his, _The Identity of the New Testament Text III _(the history of the text), in discussing the “The strength of the Church” in places that received books of the NT, he quotes both Aland and Metzger on the trustworthiness of Egypt and Alexandria:

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?​
[End Pickering]
_____

Evidentally you have no problem blowing off Pickering's remarks, yet you will acknowledge that neither Aland nor Metzger were friends toward either the Byz text or the TR.

Stephen, you are not doing Dr. White or the CT cause any favour by arguing as you are.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 1, 2018)

Some background on how I think. I came out of the early 1960s counterculture with its sorcerous drugs and smokes, made quite vulnerable to the demonic realm. When converted to Jesus Christ in 1968, after I got my bearings to a small extent, and realizing that I was going to have to depend on the words of the Bible being exactly true when I stood against my spiritual adversaries the evil spirits—for uncertainty as regards their reliability would be disastrously exploited by them—I began to search for understanding concerning the true text. For I had already gotten hold of the first edition of the NASB with its margin notes indicating there were seriously differing readings of the NT. So I had my KJV, and the NASB. I also had the old Living Bible paraphrase to help me understand difficult passages.

Half a century later, after much inquiry and careful study, I have come to treasure that word I know is true. By God’s grace I will not be shaken, as He hath said, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matt 5:18), and “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matt 24:35). Our Lord spoke plainly and profoundly.


----------

