# Traditional Text: Q&A



## Robert Truelove (Nov 6, 2015)

I did a 40 minute video yesterday addressing questions posed to me by another YouTuber on the subject of Textual Criticism.

1. What is your view of the transmission of the text?

2. Do you believe you can hold up a translation and say it is inspired or inerrant?

3. If Papyri actually contain the true readings, does that mean that Christians had a fallible Bible later on?

4. Why would God preserve His word in the long time lost minority text?

5. Is there a problem with believing by faith that God has preserved his word? Why can't it be a theological issue?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBr33f2vepU


----------



## Edward (Nov 6, 2015)

We are taught in our standards that the scriptures *in their original languages* are what was inspired by God, kept pure. and authentic, and to which reference should be made in matters of dispute.


----------



## Peairtach (Nov 6, 2015)

So Dr Robinson is evidential rather than presuppositional in his approach to textual criticism? Is this the/a way to speak about it?

I suppose in the light of e.g. the _pericope adulterae_, you could do an illustrative thought experiment which may help people see the importance of doctrinal first principles in this, in which MSS were found in the sands or lying neglected somewhere, and showed evidence of being very early, but lacked Romans 8, or John 3, or a Ephesians 1, and take it from there to illustrate what your saying.

A lot of Christians just find this subject difficult, and it goes over their heads because the doctrinal issue, and what's at stake, has not been presented in easy to comprehend literature. I consider myself reasonably intelligent but I'm only starting to realise better what's at stake, or why you should look at textual criticism from proper doctrinal principles, rather than saying, "It doesn't matter, because the actual textual differences are 'small' ", even although they are _relatively_ small.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 6, 2015)

Edward said:


> We are taught in our standards that the scriptures *in their original languages* are what was inspired by God, kept pure. and authentic, and to which reference should be made in matters of dispute.


By this statement, it appears we appeal to the original languages for matters of dispute? I doubt this is what you are implying.

Does not "being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical" speaks to the Hebrew and Greek autographs being kept pure in all ages and that *they* {the kept pure and authentical} are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation." Accordingly, would it not mean that we must have some idea about what is the "they" that have been kept pure are? Would not the church receiving these kept pure in all ages documents declare exactly where and what has been received as authentic?


----------



## Edward (Nov 6, 2015)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> By this statement, it appears we appeal to the original languages for matters of dispute? I doubt this is what you are implying.



That's how I read:

"The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as,* in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.*

That the 'them' refers to the original languages seems to be clear from the following sentence:
" But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come..."

And the purposes of the vulgar translations? 
"that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;[21] and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope."


----------



## TylerRay (Nov 6, 2015)

Rev. Truelove,

I don't think I understand question three. Would you please explain?


----------



## Robert Truelove (Nov 6, 2015)

TylerRay said:


> Rev. Truelove,
> 
> I don't think I understand question three. Would you please explain?



I think that what the person asking the question was getting at was if most of the proper readings in the case of textual variants were in the Alexandrian manuscripts that virtually fell out of use for over 1000 years, does that mean the text the church was using for all that intervening time was fallible?

I took the comment regarding fallibility to be referring to teaching that which is erroneous. I suppose it depends on how one is using the term.


----------

