# TR/CT debate - split from White/Ehrman debate thread



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

I have not listened to the debate, but I plan on doing so. What troubles me about this is that Dr. White is standing within the same "tradition" of textual criticism as that of Dr. Ehrman. Dr. White's commitment to Calvinism forces him to be inconsistent with the teachings of the Critical Text. From the little I have read so far on the debate I will give an example:

Dr. Ehrman's view is that since there are textual varients in the MSS of the NT, then God must not have inspired the NT (or the OT for that matter).

Dr. White challenges this idea by questioning Dr. Ehrman that if such is the case, then if the Koran has varients in it, is it misquoting Muhammed?

From Dr. Ehrman's perspective the answer is "yes." Such an answer undermines the inspiration of the NT because the NT is now looked upon as any other human written document - such as the Koran. Though Dr. Ehrman was unwilling to reply to this challenge: one asks what would be an adequate response *within the Critical Text tradition* that could answer the point?

To make this less obtuse: Since, in the mind of Dr. Ehrman, textual varients render any writing: Muhammed, Plato, Aristotle, the Bible etc, to the level of a human work, then we can conclude that the Bible is not inspired by God. Though Warfield would not subscribe to such a view - this is definitely the leaning of the Alands, Metzger, and Dr. Ehrman.

(The "Conservative" (TR) response is that God, through the ages, has Providentially Preserved the MSS of the Bible, and, consequently, we can be sure that what we have is the authoritative apographia of the autographs.)

The "modern conservative" (Dr. White) view that accepts the CT as the inspired Word of the Living God has to baulk at the Orthodox view of Providential Preservation. Because then they would have to admit that the TR is the Providentially Preserved MSS, and that their (CT) collation of the Greek Text was never known throughout Church History. Consequently, the CT is not a Providentially preserved MSS, but a colocation done based on certain philosophical principles of the 19th Century. These principles are Liberal in nature, and they naturally lead to the conclusions that Dr. Ehrman has come to believe and advocate.

Dr. White's "inconsistency" in applying Biblical and Reformed theology to the principles of textual criticism opens the door of unbelief to the unwary who may equate CT principles as orthodoxy. The Westminster Confession, and, if I am not mistaken, the 1689 Baptist Confession, gives clear testimony as to the Orthodox position:



> 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, Ch. 1, Sect. 8.


By creating a "new Greek text" which was entirely unknown by the Church through the ages - the Biblical and Orthodox teachings are undermined.

Consequently, the atheism of Dr. Ehrman is substantiated rather than diminished. Dr. White's inconsistency would deny that such is the case, but *given the principles of textual criticism that he holds to* one cannot deny the logical conclusions in this inconsistency.

Thus, I am troubled...

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## BuddyOfDavidClarkson

CalvinandHodges said:


> (The "Conservative" (TR) response is that God, through the ages, has Providentially Preserved the MSS of the Bible, and, consequently, we can be sure that what we have is the authoritative apographia of the autographs.)



How could the TR which Eramus first published 1516 lay hold to any claim that is was passed down through the ages?

Any concerns about the lineage of the CT must also be shared by the TR.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

BuddyOfDavidClarkson said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> (The "Conservative" (TR) response is that God, through the ages, has Providentially Preserved the MSS of the Bible, and, consequently, we can be sure that what we have is the authoritative apographia of the autographs.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How could the TR which Eramus first published 1516 lay hold to any claim that is was passed down through the ages?
> 
> Any concerns about the lineage of the CT must also be shared by the TR.
Click to expand...


To give you a short, and simple, answer - which may sprout other questions as well:

The colocation of the TR was done with MSS that were known as authentic by the Church through all the ages. That is, they were copies handed down from apostolic times.

The colocation of the Critical Text was done with "recently discovered" texts which were never copied or known by the Church through the ages - such as the Aleph text.

I would not argue Texts Only though, it is the 19th Century text-critical philosophy that is contrary to Biblical and Reformed principles as well.

Grace and Peace,

Rob


----------



## Hippo

CalvinandHodges said:


> The colocation of the TR was done with MSS that were known as authentic by the Church through all the ages. That is, they were copies handed down from apostolic times.
> 
> The colocation of the Critical Text was done with "recently discovered" texts which were never copied or known by the Church through the ages - such as the Aleph text.
> 
> I would not argue Texts Only though, it is the 19th Century text-critical philosophy that is contrary to Biblical and Reformed principles as well.
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> 
> Rob



Why not just follow the Vulagate, if anything was providentially preserved in a word for word sense this was. The TR was not "known as authentic by the Church through all the ages" where they did not have that particular text.

White is an accomplished scholar who is not applying some secular model to textual examination of historical texts he is merely not retreating from the problems by arbitrarily claiming one variant is divinely correct.


----------



## TimV

> The colocation of the TR was done with MSS that were known as authentic by the Church through all the ages. That is, they were copies handed down from apostolic times.



Erasmus did what every other editor who has published a Greek text has done. He took more than one Greek manuscripts, all of which differed, and publish a text different than all of them.

The difference in the AVer philosophy is that they think Erasmus was directly inspired. The overwhelming majority of Reformed Christians on the other hand, agree with Erasmus when he said that if older texts are found, they should generally be preferred over newer texts, and that obligates changing the basic Greek text of the NT.

The AVer position is that when the WCF says



> 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, Ch. 1, Sect. 8.



the authors meant that 



> The "Conservative" (TR) response is that God, through the ages, has Providentially Preserved the MSS of the Bible, and, consequently, we can be sure that what we have is the authoritative apographia of the autographs



In other words, in a series of updates starting in 1516, a liberal Dutch Catholic took several differing apographs and re-created the exact, perfect autographs of the Books of the NT.

So, they believe that until an event taking place over several decades starting in 1516, the Word of God was contained in 3-4 differing manuscripts, and Erasmus was divinely inspired to re-create the perfect Word of God from these differing manuscripts.

They think it heretical that anyone else would try to do the same thing as Erasmus, since Erasmus re-created the original New Testament. Many also think that the overwhelming majority of Elders reading this right now on this board, and in the churches of everyone reading this, including mine, are betraying their ordination vows by using Greek texts created by people other than the Dutch humanist. So tomorrow, if you hear the NT read from the ESV, ASV, NIV etc...you are not hearing the real New Testament.

CalvinandHodges, you said you'd like to continue this conversation. Could you please comment?
http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/tree-life-exile-42301/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hippo said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> The colocation of the TR was done with MSS that were known as authentic by the Church through all the ages. That is, they were copies handed down from apostolic times.
> 
> The colocation of the Critical Text was done with "recently discovered" texts which were never copied or known by the Church through the ages - such as the Aleph text.
> 
> I would not argue Texts Only though, it is the 19th Century text-critical philosophy that is contrary to Biblical and Reformed principles as well.
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> 
> Rob
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not just follow the Vulagate, if anything was providentially preserved in a word for word sense this was. The TR was not "known as authentic by the Church through all the ages" where they did not have that particular text.
> 
> White is an accomplished scholar who is not applying some secular model to textual examination of historical texts he is merely not retreating from the problems by arbitrarily claiming one variant is divinely correct.
Click to expand...


A good question, and a good statement.

The inspiration of the Scriptures are that found in the Greek Text - the Latin Vulgate is a translation from that text, and is only "authentical" to the extent that it faithfully translates the Greek into Latin.

The TR is a colocation of those Greek MSS handed down to us through all ages, and, consequently carry the sacred apographia of the autographs. As I understand it, the worst critic of the TR has found about 1,800 differences (Daniel Wallace) between it and the Majority Text. This amounts to a little over a 1% difference in the texts. Dr. Wallace emailed me and said that most of these differences are found in the apparatus, and not in the texts themselves.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Hippo

Leaving aside the TR / CT chasm that has been discussed at length recently the basis of textual examination of manuscripts may possible be a more profitable area for discussion.

Within both the TR and the wider tardition there are variants that require consideration and I do accept that any examination of such variants will be very dependant on the presuppositions underlying the examination.

This is where I find critisism of White slightly unfair as such an examination does not require unchristian presuppositions (although they may). I have been listening to a few weeks of the "Dividing Line" and I think that White has done a good job of highlighting where Erhman has glossed over a presupposition which has radically altered the conclusions that he has come to.

White's own presupposition must of course be open to discussion and he may well be wrong (or at least open to challange) on occasion but it is on a case by case basis that these judgemnents can be challanged not on the basis that he is considering how different manuscripts can be reconciled, a task required whatever view you take of the different traditions.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi Tim:

You are running quite roughshod over the facts.

1) Not all those who support the TR believe that Erasmus was inspired by God. I especially do not believe that such is the case.

2) You do not cite any sources for the information that you provide. Consequently, it would be difficult to assess your statement, "The overwhelming majority of Reformed Christians on the other hand, agree with Erasmus when he said that if older texts are found, they should generally be preferred over newer texts, and that obligates changing the basic Greek text of the NT."

John Owen, for example, did not hold that such would be the case, and he argued that the Greek Text which he had in his hand - the TR - was the authentic copy of the original.

The Westminster Confession does not make any such statement that you claim the "majority" of Reformed held. Whatever you may interpret the Confession at 1:8 - it is clear they are speaking about the Greek Text of the 16th and 17th Century. A.A. Hodge, who can hardly be pidgenholed as a KJO advocate, commented on this passage thus:



> That the original sacred text has come down to us in a state of essential purity.


When you write this:



> They think it heretical that anyone else would try to do the same thing as Erasmus, since Erasmus re-created the original New Testament. Many also think that the overwhelming majority of Elders reading this right now on this board, and in the churches of everyone reading this, including mine, are betraying their ordination vows by using Greek texts created by people other than the Dutch humanist. So tomorrow, if you hear the NT read from the ESV, ASV, NIV etc...you are not hearing the real New Testament.


I do not believe that you have at all grasped the argument. It seems you are creating a Straw Man fallacy in order to invalidate a point.

You throw out all of these accusations - yet - not one of them can be found in any of my posts above.

Grace and Peace,

Rob


----------



## TimV

> You throw out all of these accusations - yet - not one of them can be found in any of my posts above.



You wrote:



> The "Conservative" (TR) response is that God, through the ages, has Providentially Preserved the MSS of the Bible, and, consequently, we can be sure that what we have is the authoritative apographia of the autographs



In other words, the AV is the authoritative apographia of the autographs, and other texts aren't, right? And can you comment on the Tree of Life post when you get a chance?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

TimV said:


> You throw out all of these accusations - yet - not one of them can be found in any of my posts above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "Conservative" (TR) response is that God, through the ages, has Providentially Preserved the MSS of the Bible, and, consequently, we can be sure that what we have is the authoritative apographia of the autographs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, the AV is the authoritative apographia of the autographs, and other texts aren't, right? And can you comment on the Tree of Life post when you get a chance?
Click to expand...


Tim:

Try to read my posts as they are written - not how you would like them to read.

First, I never said that the AV (Authorized King James Version of the Bible) was the "authoritative apographia of the autographs." I said the TR (Greek Text of the Reformation) contains the Sacred Apographia of the Autographs.

Second, my statement, "You throw out all of these accusations..." is clearly based upon my quoting you thus:



> They think it heretical that anyone else would try to do the same thing as Erasmus, since Erasmus re-created the original New Testament. Many also think that the overwhelming majority of Elders reading this right now on this board, and in the churches of everyone reading this, including mine, are betraying their ordination vows by using Greek texts created by people other than the Dutch humanist. So tomorrow, if you hear the NT read from the ESV, ASV, NIV etc...you are not hearing the real New Testament.


The statement that you quote from me says nothing to the above.

Please, if you wish me to respond, then it will behoove you to quote me accurately. If I have to correct your misquotations as well as your misunderstandings of Orthodox Greek Textual criticism, then I will not be able to answer you at all. It would be a waste of my time.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## DMcFadden

Since the vast majority of variants result from movable nu and idiosyncratic spelling issues, would it not be worth mentioning that God HAS preserved his Word so that its perspicuity and efficacy are protected? Generally (leaving aside the locus classicus texts such as 1 John 5:7, the Woman Taken in Adultery, and the Marcan ending and a few others), don't we have more meaningful differences between various English translations of the Bible than between the Greek manuscripts of any tradition?

I am content to call the ESV, KJV, Die Heilige Schrift, Reina-Valera translation, or eek: ) even the NIV . . . the Word of God.


----------



## TimV

> the Woman Taken in Adultery, and the Marcan ending and a few others), don't we have more meaningful differences between various English translations of the Bible than between the Greek manuscripts of any tradition?
> 
> I am content to call the ESV, KJV, Die Heilige Schrift, Reina-Valera translation, or ( ) even the NIV . . . the Word of God.



Exactly, and that is the position of the overwhelming majority of Reformed Elders.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

CalvinandHodges said:


> BuddyOfDavidClarkson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> (The "Conservative" (TR) response is that God, through the ages, has Providentially Preserved the MSS of the Bible, and, consequently, we can be sure that what we have is the authoritative apographia of the autographs.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How could the TR which Eramus first published 1516 lay hold to any claim that is was passed down through the ages?
> 
> Any concerns about the lineage of the CT must also be shared by the TR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To give you a short, and simple, answer - which may sprout other questions as well:
> 
> The colocation of the TR was done with MSS that were known as authentic by the Church through all the ages. That is, they were copies handed down from apostolic times.
> 
> The colocation of the Critical Text was done with "recently discovered" texts which were never copied or known by the Church through the ages - such as the Aleph text.
> 
> I would not argue Texts Only though, it is the 19th Century text-critical philosophy that is contrary to Biblical and Reformed principles as well.
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> 
> Rob
Click to expand...


Known by which "church"? The Greek Church? I would be more skeptical of these "churches" that blaspheme with such regularity. The reliability of these texts are still based on the testimony of men...just different men (Greek Orthodox). God preserves His word to be sure but uses men who apply scholarship to do it.


----------



## Whitefield

Is there a list somewhere of which MSS Erasmus had available and used in assembling his Greek text?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

CalvinandHodges said:


> 2) You do not cite any sources for the information that you provide.




Neither do you. I find this thread to be helpful, but if you make such a statement as this, consider the term "double standards". For someone like me, I'd love to have sources to read, yet none has been provided. It makes the thread harder to follow when statements are being tossed around without background information.

Andrew

-----Added 1/24/2009 at 02:06:29 EST-----



CalvinandHodges said:


> The "modern conservative" (Dr. White) view that accepts the CT as the inspired Word of the Living God has to baulk at the Orthodox view of Providential Preservation.



Ad hom?



CalvinandHodges said:


> Because then they would have to admit that the TR is the Providentially Preserved MSS,



And?



CalvinandHodges said:


> and that their (CT) collation of the Greek Text was never known throughout Church History.



That's a leap from the above comment you made. How does this follow?




CalvinandHodges said:


> Consequently, the CT is not a Providentially preserved MSS, but a colocation done based on certain philosophical principles of the 19th Century.



Do you have anything to back this claim?




CalvinandHodges said:


> These principles are Liberal in nature, and they naturally lead to the conclusions that Dr. Ehrman has come to believe and advocate.



Again, all I'm hearing are ad hom remarks. Where is your information for these conclusions?


----------



## Wannabee

It would be nice if the Vulgate were pure. But what we have has been "adapted" over the years by Rome. If Jerome's translation exists, we can rest assured that it's likely buried deep in the Vatican somewhere where any who would protest will not see. What a treasure that would be.

It seems odd to me that the debate would be TR vs. CT. I would think it would be MT vs. CT, in light of the relative newness of the RT. I do most of my studies with the MT.


----------



## DMcFadden

I believe the Erasmian texts used were . . .

1eap (1), XII cen., Basel, Univ. Bibl., A.N.IV.2
1r (2814), XII cen., Ausburg, Univ. Bibl., Cod. I.1.4.1
2e (2), XI/XII cen., Basel, Univ. Bibl., A.N.IV.1
2ap (2815), XII cen., Basel, Univ. Bibl., A.N.IV.4
4ap (2816), XV cen., Basel, Univ. Bibl., A.N.IV.5
7p (2817), XI cen., Basel, Univ. Bibl., A.N.IV.11

Or written out in real words . . .

1. Codex 1eap, a minuscule containing the entire NT except for Revelation,
dated to about the 12th century.
2. Codex 1r, a minuscule containing the book of Revelation except for the
last 6 verses (Rev 22:16–21), dated to the 12th century.
3. Codex 2e, a minuscule containing the Gospels, dated to the 12th century.
4. Codex 2ap, a minuscule containing Acts and the Epistles, dated to the
12th century or later.
5. Codex 4ap, a minuscule containing Acts and the Epistles, dated to the
15th century.
6. Codex 7p, a minuscule containing the Pauline Epistles, dated to the
11th century.


----------



## sotzo

I want to follow this post as there seems to be seeds of a profitable discussion. However, having a difficult time sorting out the question(s) at hand.

Rob, what are the question(s) that you have based on the background given in your OP?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

Much ground to cover, and little time to do it. I am sorry if I do not answer all of your questions, but I hope to provide an outline so that you can see where I am going in my answers.

Andrew:

When I challenged Tim on his statement concerning "Most Reformers say that if older mss were found..."(paraphrased) - I provided citations contrary to Tim's statement - John Owen, the Westminster Confession, and A.A. Hodge's Commentary on the Confession.

As far as the other statements I have made - they are generally recognized and have been defended on prior threads concerning TR vs CT.

When I said that CT advocates baulk at the doctrine of Providential Preservation it is an observation on their philosophy.

Pastor McFadden:

The question here would be: What did the Apostles and Prophets write? The differences between the two Greek texts are such that they are different texts. Jack Moorman has catalogued about 8,000 differences between the two texts - which amounts to about a 20,000 word difference. As you know Inspiration is both Verbal and Plenary. To what extent are you willing to bend this rule in order to argue that the Critical Text is the inspired Word of God?

The express intention of the collators of the Critical Text were to entirely replace the Textus Receptus as the Church's Greek Text. They created a philosophy of textual criticism that was never heard of before in order to overthrow the Byzantine MSS as represented in the TR.

Take, for example, the final ending in Mark. If this passage is the inspired Word of the Living God, and I believe it is, then excising it from the Scriptures produces what? What would God think of such an endeavor?

The list of text you have provided are helpful. It comes from Bruce Metzger's list. I would also add MSS 2049 as containing the final ending of Revelation which Erasmus used.

Manley Beasley:

The Universal Church as it is contained in the visible Church. The visible Church has always had a Greek Text witness to it through all ages.

Sotzo:

I apologize if I was not clear. 

Dr. Ehrman's argument is that because there are variations in the Greek Text of the New Testament - that such proves the New Testament to not be inspired by God. 

Dr. White challenged this presupposition by asking the question: If there are variations in the Koran, then can we suppose that it is simply a human document as well? Dr. Erhman was not willing to answer the question.

The answer, according to the Critical Text philosophy as understood by Dr. Ehrman, is "yes." The ball then falls into Dr. White's court to answer the point: How do variations in the Greek Text prove that God has inspired the Scriptures, and disprove that God did not inspire the Koran?

I would imagine that Dr. White will switch from his Critical Text philosophy to sound Orthodoxy, and prove the inspiration of the Scriptures. However, that is not what I am holding him to concerning this point.

Dr. White is explicitly teaching that the Critical Text philosophy is sound orthodoxy. Thus, I would require him to answer the question from the Critical Text philosophy, and not from his understanding of orthodoxy.

Sound orthodox principles would argue that God has Providentially Preserved the Greek Text in the Byzantine MSS extent today. That what we have today in the Byzantine MSS are the inspired word for word copies of the autographs. The Textus Receptus is a collation of these manuscripts, and, consequently, contains the sacred apographia of the autographs.

The advocates of the Critical Text are not psychologically ready to admit Providential Preservation, because of the above last paragraph. They would have to admit that the Byzantine MSS stand within such a Providence, and that these MSS contain more of the autographs than they desire to admit.

Personally: I believe that Dr. White has been so browbeaten by King James Only advocates, that he is unwilling to admit the Textus Receptus as a legitimate copy of the autographs. To do so, it appears to me, would be to admit that the King James Only advocates are right in their assessment of the Greek text. This is my impression in watching him on his videos as well as a few personal conversations with him (one on the Dividing Line). However, I do not claim to be a mind reader, and I may be very wrong in assessing his motivations.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Grymir

Oh boy, I've been at work all day, and couldn't wait to get home to post!!

First of all, the OP is asking "What troubles me about this is that Dr. White is standing within the same "tradition" of textual criticism as that of Dr. Ehrman." What this sounds like to me is that while Dr. White is showing Dr. Ehrman's view of scripture is false, isn't he (Dr. White) assuming the same presuppositions or "ground rules" that Dr. Ehrman is using, but coming to a different conclusion that affirms the truth. And since he is affirming the same "ground rules" by using the Critical Text methodology, isn't he (Dr. White) undermining the Bible in the same way?

I've read Dr. Ehrman's book. My brother thought it would be a good gift to get me for Christmas to show me how false the Bible is. It is very easy to see through what Dr. Ehrman is doing, especially if one has no idea of what the methodology or history of how we get the biblical texts. Most people (in the world) just assume the naturalistic view without knowing (or wanting) any other view.

As I've read this thread, there has been mis-information and red herrings thrown out. To wit, to call Erasmus a humanist and then dismiss his work is the Ad hominem abusive logical fallacy. Humanism back then was a revolt against the Scholastics, and not as we think of humanists today. There was a proverb in his day "Whatever is ingenious, scholarly, and wisely written, is termed erasmic, that is, unerring and perfect." According to the Catholic Encyclopedia "The literary works issued by Erasmus up to this time made him the intellectual father of the Reformation." We need to keep the focus on his work, and not his 'portrayed' character. To haggle over one verse and make that the focal point is to make it sound like people say he's inerrant, which is different than the 'inspired' that people say he was.

The Textus Receptus was built upon the Traditional Text that the church had at that time. The invention of the printing press caused a need to have a printed text to use. That need laid the foundation for the Textus Receptus. Erasmus's Textus Receptus was not the only version out there. His was just the first in print. He did 5 editions. After his death, Robert Stephanus produced four editions. These activities aroused the opposition of the Roman Catholic Church, so much so that in 1550 he was compelled to leave Paris and settle in Geneva, where he became a Protestant, embracing the Reformed faith. Theodore Beza also published editions of the Greek New Testament. His name is on the faceplate of the Geneva Bible. The Elzevirs were a family of Dutch printers. Bonaventure Elzevir texts followed Beza's editions mainly but also included readings from Erasmus, the Complutensian, and the Latin Vulgate. In the preface to the 2nd edition the phrase Textus Receptus made its first appearance. "You have therefore the text now received by all (textum ab omnibus receptum) in which we give nothing changed or corrupt." The Textus Receptus really was the text received by all. Its reign had begun and was to continue unbroken for years. In England Stephanus' 3rd edition was the form of the Textus Receptus generally preferred, on the European continent Elzevir's 2nd edition.

In the KJV bible in particular, the original tongues referred to on the title pages were the printed Hebrew Bibles and Beza's Greek text.

*********************************************************

Now we get into the philosophy of the questions of the OP. 

First, we have the Received Text position. That the text we have received is the text that God has preserved for us to use. That -

a. They were guided by the manuscripts which God in His providence had made available to them.
b. They were guided by the providential circumstances in which they found themselves.
c. They were guided by the common faith.

Now let's turn to the Critical Text. Contrary to gainsayers, Wescott and Hort is passé. "None of the major modern English Bible translations made since World War II used the Westcott-Hort text as its base. This includes translations done by theological conservatives — the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, the New King James, for examples — and translations done by theological liberals — the Revised Standard Version, the New English Bible, the Good News Bible, etc. The only English Bible translation currently in print that the writer is aware of which is based on the Westcott-Hort text is the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses." (Quoted from Douglas Kutilek, link below.) The CT position states that -

a. We do have texts in our hands that have been handed down through the church.
b. Errors have crept in by the copiers.
c. By comparing our texts to new ones that were unknown/unavailable to earlier translators, we can come closer to what the originals said.

Now to the crux of the question of the OP. Although Ehrman's position is similar, it is different enough from the real CT position that Dr. White is probably o.k. Ehrman's perversion is like - 

a. We do have texts in our hands that have been handed down through the church.
b. Errors have crept in by the copiers that have changed the church away from the original teachings of Jesus.
c. By comparing our texts to new ones and the social norms of society today, we can come closer to what the originals that were written by man may have said, although we can't be sure.

Ehrman says that the originals were written by humans and not the exact words of God. The real CT position does state that the originals were the words of God and inspired. Ehrman also states that the KJV was based on inferior manuscripts; as in the poisoning of the well - really, really bad kind of manuscripts. The CT position says that the TR needs to be updated with 'modern' finds. Ehrman tries to make what he says sound like the CT position, but his views are designed to make people not trust the bible at all. Ehrman may be "Misquoting Jesus", but I'm not mis-representing Ehrman. I'm holding his book in my hands. I do not have anything good to say about his book.

I'm also not a big Dr. White fan for some of the reasons that were mentioned in the OP, especially his KJV controversy book. I think he comes close to the line, but doesn't go over the line. If an biblical illiterate person listened to him, they would learn alot and come to a better understanding of the Bible and how we got it. I also think they could do much better. Just compare Barth's view of scripture to Dr. Whites. One is over the line (Barth) and one isn't (Dr. White).

**********************************************************

Here's the links to the information I have provided in my post. I generally don't like to get into a source frenzy because it ends up like modern psychology. People quoting people quoting people that becomes the truth. 

Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior?

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Desiderius Erasmus

CHAPTER EIGHT


----------



## DMcFadden

> Pastor McFadden:
> 
> The question here would be: What did the Apostles and Prophets write? The differences between the two Greek texts are such that they are different texts. Jack Moorman has catalogued about 8,000 differences between the two texts - which amounts to about a 20,000 word difference. As you know Inspiration is both Verbal and Plenary. To what extent are you willing to bend this rule in order to argue that the Critical Text is the inspired Word of God?



As the Majority Text project has shown, there are LOTS of variants in the Byzantine tradition. And, since most of these are spelling issues, they really do not bother me. 

For God so loved the world that he gave his only son . . .
For G*d so luved the world that he gave his only son . . .
For God so loved the wurld that he gave his only son . . .
For God so loved the world that he gaved his only son . . .
Fore God so loved the world that he gave his only son . . .

Would any reasonable person really doubt that the original text is clear? Besides, with the thousands of mss. extant, it is often mentioned that NO two of them are identical, even in the Byzantine text type. My doctrine of inerrancy does not depend upon a scribe's ability to copy the text inerrantly.

Ehrman has yet to show how the variations in the mss. tradition meaningfully impacts even ONE doctrine. 

I would love to see some discussion (with examples) on the putative heretical tendencies in the Alexandrian text type. In my mind, that would be a good counter-argument to the "weigh, don't count" drumbeat of the CT proponents. My college and seminary profs ALL acted as if arguments for the TR (or Majority Text) were just plain flat-earth nonsense. But, some of the claims that the Byzantine tradition preserves orthodoxy better than the Egyptian desert sects responsible for the the Alexandrian mss. would be interesting to explore.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

CalvinandHodges said:


> Dr. White challenged this presupposition by asking the question: If there are variations in the Koran, then can we suppose that it is simply a human document as well? Dr. Erhman was not willing to answer the question.


That was not the challenge precisely. He wanted Dr. Ehrman to answer whether or not we have the words of Mohammed, whcih Ehrman would not answer.



> The answer, according to the Critical Text philosophy as understood by Dr. Ehrman, is "yes." The ball then falls into Dr. White's court to answer the point: How do variations in the Greek Text prove that God has inspired the Scriptures, and disprove that God did not inspire the Koran?


That does not follow. White was not arguing that variations in the Koran argue for/against inspiration. He was demonstrating Ehrman's double standard in the handling of ancient MSS.



> I would imagine that Dr. White will switch from his Critical Text philosophy to sound Orthodoxy, and prove the inspiration of the Scriptures. However, that is not what I am holding him to concerning this point.
> 
> Dr. White is explicitly teaching that the Critical Text philosophy is sound orthodoxy. Thus, I would require him to answer the question from the Critical Text philosophy, and not from his understanding of orthodoxy.


This, I believe, is the disconnect. Let me draw and analogy.

I have an undergraduate in Nuclear Engineering. I learned about radioactive decay from Professors who have materialistic philosophies. Do I have to be a materialist to use the tools (math, physics, etc) that these men used and interpreted in a different light?

Dr. White repeatedly argues that he uses the same (or very similar) _method_ that the translators of the AV did in examining MSS. The issue has to do with those who receive the work of those translators and the work of Scribner and determine that, between the two, this is the final authority on any project to examine MSS.

It cannot be demonstrated that the traslators of the AV had a "TR philosophy" at the time of translation. The real question is for those that take the finished work and the compilation by Scribner and whether or not, from a historical theological standpoint, it is warranted to proclaim that _this_ is Providential Preservation and all others are doubting that the Chuch has the Word of God.

This is not an exegetical argument. In fact, it is rooted in theological history which we are willing to examine and criticize for all other areas of historical theology. The TR advocate will even criticize CT on a MSS tradition basis (as you have in this thread) but examination in the opposite direction is rejected by fiat. In other words, "the CT must be rejected because it was found by so and so..." is grounds for rejecting the CT wholesale but any questions about the existence of the Vulgate, Erasmus work, or even possible insertions by Bucer are all out of bounds to discuss wrt the TR. 

Why is examination of history appropriate for the CT and not the TR? I've never been able to determine why TR advocates who would never accept this form of argumentation from another faith tradition on a doctrine like baptismal regeneration seem to do so for this issue alone.



> Sound orthodox principles would argue that God has Providentially Preserved the Greek Text in the Byzantine MSS extent today.


Where may I find the reference to the Byzantine MSS tradition in the Scriptures as, in all matters of controversy, my conscience may not be bound by anything but the Scriptures.



> Personally: I believe that Dr. White has been so browbeaten by King James Only advocates, that he is unwilling to admit the Textus Receptus as a legitimate copy of the autographs. To do so, it appears to me, would be to admit that the King James Only advocates are right in their assessment of the Greek text. This is my impression in watching him on his videos as well as a few personal conversations with him (one on the Dividing Line). However, I do not claim to be a mind reader, and I may be very wrong in assessing his motivations.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rob



Rob: Please call Dr. White again. He never keeps his phone lines off. I'd like you to tell him the same thing rather than making psychological diagnoses that, are, quite frankly, subtle but real 9th Commandment violations. I'm not a disciple of the man but consider him a friend and he doesn't simply snipe from one ensconced position. If you are unwilling to call him up then you will not use my board to try to tell us what he is willing/unwilling to interact with when I've never seen him avoid a conversation on the subject nor be unwilling to consider an argument.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

I beg to differ with you Rich, but, the explication I gave was *precisely* the form of argumentation that Dr. White was presenting.

Dr. Erhman was denying the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures based upon the "fact" that there were textual variations in it. If God had inspired the Scriptures in a verbal and plenary sense, then why the variations? Consequently, we do not have the words of the Apostles and Prophets in our texts.

Dr. White responded by asking the question concerning whether or not there were variations in the Koran? And, if so, then how can we know we have the words of Muhammed?

To lift the quote from Dr. White's own webpage:



> He simply refused to comment on the Qur'an whatsoever, not even theoretically answering the question that if the Qur'an has textual variants, would this not mean that the Qur'an is misquoting Muhammad? His unwillingness to apply his own hyper-skepticism to anything other than Christianity betrays his deep bias and prejudice. He knew that to be consistent he would have to say the Qur'an misquotes Muhammad, but Dr. Ehrman is a good post-modernist liberal, and quite politically correct. He avoided that like the plague, though, obviously, he would have to say that very thing, if he was consistent.


The question that I would raise for Dr. White to answer is: What if Dr. Ehrman had said "yes" to Dr. White's question? Dr. Ehrman would be consistently arguing that all texts that have variations in them cannot then be inspired - that they are simply the words of men: Paul, Luke, John, Aristotle, Plato, and Mohammed.

Now, *I know* that as a Reformed Baptist Dr. White believes in Verbal and Plenary inspiration, and that he would reject Dr. Ehrman's point. However, my question is: How does one go about refuting such a statement from within the Critical Text philosophy?

If, as you say, that Dr. White is holding to the same textual principles as that of the Orthodox, then he would answer in the same fashion as the Westminster Confession and 1689 Baptist Confession: that God has, through all ages, providentially preserved the Greek Text. That would be the Orthodox answer that is in line with the Byzantine MSS as they are represented by the Textus Receptus collation.

*Nowhere have I ever heard Dr. White argue such a point.* If I am wrong, Rich, then show me where he has done so in any of his presentations: either powerpoint or internet.

The problem, Rich, is that Dr. White's precommitment to the Critical Text rules out any form of Orthodoxy concerning textual criticism. The moment he upholds Providential Preservation as it is presented in the Westminister and 1689 Confessions he has a twofold problem:

1) The Textus Receptus stands within that idea of Providence, and, thus contains the Sacred apographia of the autographs. Thus, no need for a new and critical text of the Greek MSS.

2) The new discoveries of the Greek Text used by Nestle's 26 edition (the edition of the Lockman foundation and the NASB) does not stand within the parameters of Providence since they were never known to the Church in general, but buried in a dusty monestary for about 1500 years. The usual argument here is that God preserved these texts until the mid 1800's, but, if that is so, then the Church did not have the Sacred apographia for over 1500 years. Even a cursory view of history would prove that such is not the case.

You ask for Scripture concerning the Byzantine MSS?

_For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man is as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower falleth away. But the word of the Lord endureth forever: and this is the word which is preached among you, 1 Pet 1:24,25_

The Scriptures teach that the inspired, infallible, Word of the Living God will always be among His people. This is such an important doctrine that Jesus is quoted three times as saying:

Mat 24:35 _Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away, c.f. Luke 21:33; Mk 13:31._

If the Byzantine MSS are not the preserved MSS, then the Word of God did pass away, and was only "recovered" by the Critical Text advocates.

Sorry if I stepped out of line concerning my understanding of Dr. White's motivations. I actually feel sorry for him concerning those KJO advocates who "browbeat" him. I will seek to talk to him on the Dividing Line on this matter in the future.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## TimV

> As far as the other statements I have made - they are generally recognized and have been defended on prior threads concerning TR vs CT.
> 
> When I said that CT advocates baulk at the doctrine of Providential Preservation it is an observation on their philosophy.



Perhaps he won't spend the time arguing with people who simply don't understand the point.

It's almost as if some people here think anyone who doesn't think the TR is God's exact Word automatically have the same idolatrous affection for the CV as some of them do for the TR. But it's just not true. I don't know how many times Pastor Greco and others have had to repeat themselves that they actually prefer the TR over the CR. And that's in addition to some who are just not following the argument even at the basic level.



> As I've read this thread, there has been mis-information and red herrings thrown out. To wit, to call Erasmus a humanist and then dismiss his work is the Ad hominem abusive logical fallacy.



Erasmus was a humanist, and he did dedicate his creation, the TR, to the Pope who excommunicated Luther. Luther DID write The Bondage of the Will in reply to Erasmus' book attacking the ancient Christian doctrine of total depravity. Grymir, you quote lots of books, but I've noticed you haven't always read the books you quote to support your claims. Using Ayn Rand and Edward Gibbons to support your view of the world, and now looking up a reference in the Catholic Encyclopedia about Erasmus being the father of the Reformation. You should read Luther's The Bondage of the Will, which he said was his most important book for a good view of Erasmus' philosophy, since you claim philosophy is more important that actual translation techniques.

And I'm not dismissing his Greek Text. It's great. It's just not the exact reproduction of the original autographs, and if he were alive today he'd be the first one to agree with me.



> To haggle over one verse and make that the focal point is to make it sound like people say he's inerrant, which is different than the 'inspired' that people say he was.



Sorry, that was way beyond me.



> The Textus Receptus was built upon the Traditional Text that the church had at that time.



I've asked you before to show me this Traditional Text. Specifically where the Traditional Text was in 1450, but the closest you've come to answering was "I suppose it was in a church somewhere", so I won't bother asking again, but I do hope others reading this will ask themselves the same question.


----------



## KMK

DMcFadden said:


> I would love to see some discussion (with examples) on the putative heretical tendencies in the Alexandrian text type. In my mind, that would be a good counter-argument to the "weigh, don't count" drumbeat of the CT proponents. My college and seminary profs ALL acted as if arguments for the TR (or Majority Text) were just plain flat-earth nonsense. But, some of the claims that the Byzantine tradition preserves orthodoxy better than the Egyptian desert sects responsible for the the Alexandrian mss. would be interesting to explore.



This might be some of what you are looking for: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/av-theology-compared-modern-versions-19437/


----------



## TimV

> This might be some of what you are looking for



Ken, I don't think you understand what Dr. McFadden is saying. He wants to see examples of where texts based on the Alexandrian tradition lead to heretical thinking where they differ from texts based on the Byzantine tradition.

I took the trouble to go to the link you provided, and found Rev. Winzer comparing versions such as the NKJV with the KJV. Both these versions are based on the Byzantine tradition.

Let me try to make it clearer. I believe Dr. McFadden wants to be shown places where the ESV, ASV, etc.. have used readings from non-Byzantine texts, rather than the Textus Receptus, that lead people to hold to teachings that will keep them out of the Kingdom of Heaven.


----------



## Hippo

If you hold to the TR in isolation is it not a danger that human additions to the apostolic texts are being accepted (which is truly an awful prospect) without any consideration?

We have thousands of ancient canonical texts yet there is no real problem with the vast majority of the texts, accross the whole spectrum of texts there has been a preservation of every doctrine.

There are two ways of handling the textual differences that do arise, you can examine the differences and within a framework of accepting the inspiration of the original texts you can use our God given reason to identify the original texts as afar as we are able. 

Alternatively you can identify one text and claim divine inspiration for that one text. This is what Islam did to the Koran and they now trumpet the purity of their text but all they have done is avoided the issue by an arbitrary decree. 

Any argument over what the original text of the scriptures was can readily incorporate a view that the MT is more reliable than the Alexandrian texts but what you have here is precisiely the type of argument that White is engaged in. It is also the same argument that has to take place when you decide how to constitiue a text from the various MT manuscripts.

The main argument of the TR only position is that the multitude of vartiants undermines trust in the text, but we do have variants and they have to be dealt with. To ignore them woudl in my view undermine trust in the scriptures far more than any apostolically based academic judgment. In particular the vilification of the Alexandrian texts and any academic approach to textual examination is incredibly damaging and in my view is verging on the culpable.

In summary a consideration of textual variants has to take place even within the MT tradition, it is not an inherently evil thing to do. What is damaging trust in the scriptures is a combination of liberal scholarship (which I do accept is very damaging) and fundamentalist claims that manuscripts outwith the TR cannot be trusted, with the only way to find biblical truth being arbitrarily through the manuscrpit created by Erasmus.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Rob,

Which is it? You said you didn't listen to the debate and now you're ascribing information as if you have. Further, as I noted, the question that James asked Ehrman had nothing to do with Ehrman accepting/rejecting inspiration of the Koran. As you even quoted, he asked if the Koran was the words of Mohammed. Do you really think White thinks Ehrman believes _anything_ is inspired? The debate wasn't about whether or not Ehrman should accept the inspiration of Scripture but whether Ehrman's standard for rejecting any knowledge of what the autographs contained is valid. You seem to be missing this vital point in your eagerness to find any way to paint White as just another scholar enslaved to a humanistic CT philosophy of scholarship.



CalvinandHodges said:


> The new discoveries of the Greek Text used by Nestle's 26 edition (the edition of the Lockman foundation and the NASB) does not stand within the parameters of Providence since they were never known to the Church in general, but buried in a dusty monestary for about 1500 years. The usual argument here is that God preserved these texts until the mid 1800's, but, if that is so, then the Church did not have the Sacred apographia for over 1500 years.



Once again, you bring historical examination into your evaluation of the CT but it is out of bounds for the TR.

Why is the precise argument you just made not apropos for the Vulgate compared to the Greek texts selected by Erasmus and/or the translators of the AV?

Double standard. If you don't want to answer historical questions about the formation of your preferred manuscript tradition then why is any historical information even useful at all. Your argument rests on a tautology and attempts to bring in historical information seem odd if you do not desire historical examination of your tautological argument.


----------



## JM

This has been a helpful thread.


----------



## SolaGratia

Rich, Tim, and Mr. McFadden,

Should TR (not the KJV, the KJV is only a english translation of the TR) then be FIXED according to the CT? 

Should churches (english, spanish, french, korean, etc.) stop reading from the TR base bible (again not the KJV)? 

Should there be a bible that uses the TR, CT, and other manuscripts? I think the ESV, NASB, etc. claimed this to be the case. 

Thanks


----------



## MW

DMcFadden said:


> Generally (leaving aside the locus classicus texts such as 1 John 5:7, the Woman Taken in Adultery, and the Marcan ending and a few others), don't we have more meaningful differences between various English translations of the Bible than between the Greek manuscripts of any tradition?



If we're discussing baptism, I believe we may appeal to Acts 8:37. It is bracketed in NASB and relegated to a footnote in NIV. To a person holding to the traditional text, the Greek ms. tradition which these Bibles translate includes a meaningful omission of the Word of God, and the translations themselves treat that Word in a most unbecoming manner.


----------



## Hippo

armourbearer said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Generally (leaving aside the locus classicus texts such as 1 John 5:7, the Woman Taken in Adultery, and the Marcan ending and a few others), don't we have more meaningful differences between various English translations of the Bible than between the Greek manuscripts of any tradition?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we're discussing baptism, I believe we may appeal to Acts 8:37. It is bracketed in NASB and relegated to a footnote in NIV. To a person holding to the traditional text, the Greek ms. tradition which these Bibles translate includes a meaningful omission of the Word of God, and the translations themselves treat that Word in a most unbecoming manner.
Click to expand...


Or altrnatively someone has added to Gods inspired word and such additions should be removed, to appeal to man made tradition over the inspired word of God is egregiously sinful.

The argument is based on a conclusion to the point at issue, therefore it cannot be utilised to decide the point at issue (i.e. were such verses original to the inspired documents).


----------



## MW

Hippo said:


> Or altrnatively someone has added to Gods inspired word and such additions should be removed, to appeal to man made tradition over the inspired word of God is egregiously sinful.
> 
> The argument is based on a conclusion to the point at issue, therefore it cannot be utilised to decide the point at issue (i.e. were such verses original to the inspired documents).



Please note the quoted portion to which I was responding. Your response equally substantiates that this is a "meaningful" disagreement.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

SolaGratia said:


> Rich, Tim, and Mr. McFadden,
> 
> Should TR (not the KJV, the KJV is only a english translation of the TR) then be FIXED according to the CT?
> 
> Should churches (english, spanish, french, korean, etc.) stop reading from the TR base bible (again not the KJV)?
> 
> Should there be a bible that uses the TR, CT, and other manuscripts? I think the ESV, NASB, etc. claimed this to be the case.
> 
> Thanks



That's a process question, Gil. If we can't talk process then how can we discuss it? I'm not averse to asking the question within the context of the Church but I don't know how to begin the conversation with those that I consider Brothers in Christ who are convinced, in their consciences, that the discussion itself is a departure from orthodoxy.


----------



## TimV

> Rich, Tim, and Mr. McFadden,
> 
> Should TR (not the KJV, the KJV is only a english translation of the TR) then be FIXED according to the CT?
> 
> Should churches (english, spanish, french, korean, etc.) stop reading from the TR base bible (again not the KJV)?
> 
> Should there be a bible that uses the TR, CT, and other manuscripts? I think the ESV, NASB, etc. claimed this to be the case.
> 
> Thanks



If necessary, it should be "fixed" the same way Erasmus "fixed" all the versions he based the TR on. Erasmus said



> "You cry out that it is a crime to correct the gospels. This is a speech worthier of a coachman than of a theologian. You think it is all very well if a clumsy scribe makes a mistake in transcription and then you deem it a crime to put it right. The only way to determine the true text is to examine the early codices."



Which in today's speech means only an ignorant manual laborer doesn't understand that on going research which could change some words in the Bible is good.

Or do you still not see that? Where was the TR in 1450? Please answer this without rhetoric.


----------



## MW

TimV said:


> Which in today's speech means only an ignorant manual laborer doesn't understand that on going research which could change some words in the Bible is good.



It seems that it also takes more than an ignorant manual labourer to see that different presuppositions means that there are different ways this is attempted.


----------



## TimV

> It seems that it also takes more than an ignorant manual labourer to see that different presuppositions means that there are different ways this is attempted.



All I want to show is that the attempt is fair. Give me that and we have no problem.

Saying God inspired Erasmus directly to perfectly recreate the original autographs (well, after the dozen or so editorial revisions) in 1516, and saying that no further debate is legitimate since the case was divinely settled in the early 16th century is a totally different subject than discussing the various presuppositions involved in textual criticism.


----------



## MW

TimV said:


> All I want to show is that the attempt is fair. Give me that and we have no problem.



As long as the attempt does not require an individual to deny the conviction that the Bible is the Word of God, then I can't see a problem.


----------



## Wannabee

Rather than adhering to the TR, wouldn't it be more consistent to embrace the MT according to the same methods?

_THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK: BYZANTINE TEXTFORM_
2005
COMPILED AND ARRANGED BY MAURICE A. ROBINSON AND WILLIAM G. PIERPONT


----------



## MW

Wannabee said:


> Rather than adhering to the TR, wouldn't it be more consistent to embrace the MT according to the same methods?



The difference between the CT and MT is that one goes from dating pieces of paper to counting them. Making pieces of paper the judge of the text is a basically liberal presupposition. What has the church appealed to as the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture? That is the more fundamental question so far as Protestant presuppositions are concerned.


----------



## Wannabee

I understand that. But the MT held sway in the church for centuries before Erasmus showed up. Except for the few manuscripts that Erasmus had at his disposal the church generally had either the MT or the Vulgate. It seems that modern MT adherents are more in line with continuing the work Erasmus began.

-----Added 1/25/2009 at 09:09:48 EST-----

Seems like _The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text_ (1985), edited by Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad should be given consideration as well. I don't know which would be preferred.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Semper Fidelis said:


> Rob,
> 
> Which is it? You said you didn't listen to the debate and now you're ascribing information as if you have. Further, as I noted, the question that James asked Ehrman had nothing to do with Ehrman accepting/rejecting inspiration of the Koran. As you even quoted, he asked if the Koran was the words of Mohammed. Do you really think White thinks Ehrman believes _anything_ is inspired? The debate wasn't about whether or not Ehrman should accept the inspiration of Scripture but whether Ehrman's standard for rejecting any knowledge of what the autographs contained is valid. You seem to be missing this vital point in your eagerness to find any way to paint White as just another scholar enslaved to a humanistic CT philosophy of scholarship.
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> The new discoveries of the Greek Text used by Nestle's 26 edition (the edition of the Lockman foundation and the NASB) does not stand within the parameters of Providence since they were never known to the Church in general, but buried in a dusty monestary for about 1500 years. The usual argument here is that God preserved these texts until the mid 1800's, but, if that is so, then the Church did not have the Sacred apographia for over 1500 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you bring historical examination into your evaluation of the CT but it is out of bounds for the TR.
> 
> Why is the precise argument you just made not apropos for the Vulgate compared to the Greek texts selected by Erasmus and/or the translators of the AV?
> 
> Double standard. If you don't want to answer historical questions about the formation of your preferred manuscript tradition then why is any historical information even useful at all. Your argument rests on a tautology and attempts to bring in historical information seem odd if you do not desire historical examination of your tautological argument.
Click to expand...


Hi Rich:

I have not listened to the debate - yet. What I am commenting on are the statements made in the thread that this is a spinoff of as well as Dr. White's own comments on his webpage.

I don't think that you really understand the historical nature of the transmission of Scripture over the centuries. We have always had a Greek textual witness to the autographs which goes back to circa 68 AD.

Here is the ISBN for Dr. Carston Thiede's book _Eyewitness to Jesus_ where he makes the case that the Magdalen Papyri date from about 68 AD.

0385480512

You can get a used copy of the book for about $1 plus shipping and handling at Amazon.

According to Dr. Thiede: Fragment 3 (on the Recto side) contains Matthew 26:22-23. The reading of this passage is consistent with the Byzantine MSS, and not with the Critical Text.

In 313AD the Emperor Constantine declares Christianity a state religion - thus giving it the protection of the Eastern Empire. He commissions 50 copies of the Bible funded by his own treasury. In the succeeding centuries we find *thousands* of MSS being copied, and all of them Byzantine in nature.

Rich, the more information we get concerning the history of textual transmission the more we are confident that the texts used by Erasmus, Stephens, Beza, and Scrivener are the Sacred apographia of the autographs.

Egypt's dry and arid climate is supposed to be the ideal place for the preservation of ancient texts. Yet, we only have a handful of Alexandrian MSS? If the Church truly believed that the Alexandrian varients were legitimate, then they would have been copied and re-copied in a similar fashion as the Byzantine MSS were done. Where are the thousands of Alexandrian texts that we should be digging up out of the sands of Egypt?

I will admit that our knowledge of textual transmission becomes sketchy prior to 300 AD. However, the Old Latin text of the Waldensians is purely Byzantine in nature, and is dated to 120 AD.

It is clear that the Byzantine MSS have been around for a lot longer than the Critical Text advocates care to admit.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Egypt. 

Is there any reason to believe that there might be a reason, other than climate, why MSS might be few from that region?   

Also, once again, we are presented with a one-way examination of historical formation. This is par for the course and I, for one, don't have the energy for another round.


----------



## JM

I found a chart, don't know if it's useful or not.


----------



## DMcFadden

I guess I'm still asking for some examples of the CT teaching damnable heresy _vis a vis_ the MT.

My training was all in CT, but my mind is open to consider sound arguments for the Byzantine tradition.

I'm still of the uneducated opinion that most variants are inconsequential and either untranslatable or of minimal impact on the narratives. It seems to me that we have much greater variation in language between English versions than we do between text types. If I do ever find myself on the MT side of the aisle, it would seem to me that a translation based upon a carefully edited Majority Text (e.g., Hodges, Robinson, et. al.) would make more sense than the TR.

The account of Erasmus' hurried effort to get his Bible into print in 1516 and the subsequent reliance upon a relatively few mss. does not overly impress me.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

I apologize Rev. McFadden for the late reply to your question. Here is a link for you to investigate one of the problems with a very famous text:

W. Willker Codex Vaticanus 1209, B/03: A textcritical complaint

The editorial margin indicates that this is a continuing problem with the scribe of the text in question. In other words - the Scribe performed other "creative" acts on the MSS.

The change done by the original Scribe indicates a Gnostic reading to the text. Instead of the original:

"upholding all things by the Word of His power."

The original Scribe has changed it to:

"manifesting all things..."

The original Scribe of the Vaticanus is saying that Jesus was simply a "manifestation" or ghostly apparation which is comparable to the Gnostic view of Jesus. The editor of the text restores the original by placing the correct reading in, and making a note of it.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## TimV

> Egypt's dry and arid climate is supposed to be the ideal place for the preservation of ancient texts. Yet, we only have a handful of Alexandrian MSS? If the Church truly believed that the Alexandrian varients were legitimate, then they would have been copied and re-copied in a similar fashion as the Byzantine MSS were done. Where are the thousands of Alexandrian texts that we should be digging up out of the sands of Egypt?



Another typical example of the backwards thinking the AVer sect relies on. You start from the premise that God preserved what we now call the TR, and look around for anything that will support your theory. And that's typical of Fundies, whether they are talking about the End Times or anything else.

You can spend all sorts of time dealing with their "proofs" but it doesn't do a lick of good, since they don't care a lick about proof. It's a matter of faith, so their reasoning doesn't depend of proof for support. Edersheim can make a off the cuff remark that was a mistake. He can say Aramaic was a dialect of Hebrew. I can contact scholars from all over the world who say Edersheim was wrong, and even contact the University of Tel Aviv and have one of the greatest living Aramaic scholars say Edersheim was wrong, but that evidence is just ignored, because to Fundies all evidence is of equal value.

And in the above example, tomorrow it could be announced that a monastery in Libya another 10 Greek manuscripts were uncovered (made of skin rather than papyrus, which (who'd of thunk it) doesn't last as long as skin). And that this manuscript differs from the TR in a dozen ways, including using tree instead of book in Rev. 22:19, and the above argument would be dropped. But dropping the argument wouldn't affect the theory, since the theory isn't based on facts.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I want to try to sum up what my thoughts on this impasse are and I apologize if this offends but this is my sense of the issue and why it is so difficult to have any kind of meaningful conversation about this subject.

A TR advocate doesn't really care about historical formation in the final analysis. The details of "how" the TR came to be an infallible authoritative textual platform are really not within the realm of "orthodox" discussion. It just is.

This is why it is extremely odd to me that the formulation of any other textual platform is important. Why does it matter? What difference does it make what method any textual platform uses if it doesn't matter how yours came together? What difference does it make where someone found a manuscript if you don't have a single manuscript that matches the TR? What difference does the fact that the Church didn't have a CT version of the Scriptures if it's not even worthy of discussion what the Church "possessed" in the Vulgate?

You see, all this talk about Dr. White being bound to a particular methodology by his philosophy rings as so much hollow rhetoric to me. There really is no interest at all in how the text was formed unless it relates to the formation of anything other than the TR. The light of examination works in only one direction.

Hence, my answer to the paucity of manuscripts in Egypt: Why does it matter? It is because it is. Historical formation doesn't matter in the final analysis.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

Rich:

You are not getting it, my friend, and I blame myself for the oversight. I have noted over and over that the TR is a collation of the Byzantine MSS. It is the Byzantine Family of MSS that contain the Sacred apographia of the autographs - of which the Textus Receptus is simply a representative collation of such texts. As it is a representation of the Byzantine family it has the authority of the Greek Texts as the Sacred apographia of the autographs.

I will admit something that may shock you: The TR can be redacted from the Byzantine family of MSS.

I have shown, in previous posts, that we have textual witness through all ages of the Byzantine MSS. That these MSS were copied and re-copied through all ages testifies to their authenticity. Thus, my comment about Egypt is appropos on this matter:

If the Church in Africa - which was strong and vibrant through the first five centuries (producing one of the greatest theologians in the history of the Church, St. Augustine) - thought the Sinaiticus (Aleph) text was a pure text, then they would be copying and re-copying it over the centuries. As the climate of Egypt is suitable for keeping ancient texts over long periods of time, then we should have thousands of texts testifying to the Alexandrian varients. Many of these, as ancient as Aleph, would blow the Byzantine MSS out of the water.

But such is not the case.

The Waldensians claimed that Jerome used corrupt MSS when he translated the Vulgate. Consequently, you will find both Alexandrian and Byzantine readings in his Vulgate. St. Augustine is on record as saying that the Waldensian Bible is the purest form available in his time. The Old Latin of the Waldensians is consistently Byzantine in nature, and is dated to 120 AD. It was used during the Reformation for the translation of the French Olivetian Bible, Coverdale's English translation, and the Italian Diodati as well. All of which are Byzantine in nature.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## sotzo

Jerusalem Blade...where are you? Wish he would enter the discussion.

I have to say I think the only way to deal with the impasse is as Dr. McFadden states above: "...most variants are inconsequential and either untranslatable or of minimal impact on the narratives." If we had zero variants we would still be subjective creatures having to do interpretive work, therefore, still subject to error. It is exactly the same dilemma Rome gets into by saying an infallible papacy leads to an infallibly interpreted text.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Rob,

It's not those broad discussions that matter it's the specifics and the ability to continue to "improve" the TR that grind the gears to a halt. Examination of very specific passages cannot be sustained by an appeal to the purity of the Byzantine text and, at that point, historical examination ends. The TR has no textual variations now. Any scholarship to determine MSS varations and best readings has ceased. It's not even a choice anymore of whether scholars should be using the MT when they translate a text but the TR alone is argued as authentic for non-historical reasons.

I was being facetious earlier but a more obvious reason we don't have a whole lot of surviving MSS left from the Middle East is Islam. It's the same reason, in part, we lost so many in the early centuries of the Church when various Roman Emperors did everything they could to destroy MSS.


----------



## TimV

> I have to say I think the only way to deal with the impasse



Where's the impasse? On a board like this you're going to get a higher percentage of unusual views than in an average church. There are no major Reformed denominations who hold to the AVer view, and there never were, and never will be.

There are people here, good, Christian people, who think a man can have a legitimate marriage to his half sister, but there are no major Reformed denominations that allow this, and there never were, and never will be.

In both cases the arguments are based on emotion and faulty thinking.

If I were to say "Rich, there were more people who copied Byzantine manuscripts than Alexandrian manuscripts, and this proves the Byzantine texts are God's Word" then Rich has the right to say "OK, if more Byzantine manuscripts use Tree instead of Book, then that proves Tree is God's Word and not Book". And he would be right.

But no, when the AVer questions are turned around and asked of THEM, they get mystic and claim the rest of us just have to accept their word for it "because".

Some of my favorites are "Where was the TR in 1450" and the answer "I suppose in a church somewhere". 

And "Did New Testament authors quote from the Septuagint" and the answer is "No, even though over 99% of Christian scholars have always said NT authors quoted from both the Hebrew and Septuagint, there was a forged letter by someone nobody's ever heard of" 

And "If every living Aramaic scholar says that Aramaic isn't a dialect of Hebrew, why do you say different" and the answer is "Edersheim was a man of God so you shouldn't question him".


----------



## CalvinandHodges

TimV said:


> I have to say I think the only way to deal with the impasse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the impasse? On a board like this you're going to get a higher percentage of unusual views than in an average church. There are no major Reformed denominations who hold to the AVer view, and there never were, and never will be.
> 
> There are people here, good, Christian people, who think a man can have a legitimate marriage to his half sister, but there are no major Reformed denominations that allow this, and there never were, and never will be.
> 
> In both cases the arguments are based on emotion and faulty thinking.
> 
> If I were to say "Rich, there were more people who copied Byzantine manuscripts than Alexandrian manuscripts, and this proves the Byzantine texts are God's Word" then Rich has the right to say "OK, if more Byzantine manuscripts use Tree instead of Book, then that proves Tree is God's Word and not Book". And he would be right.
> 
> But no, when the AVer questions are turned around and asked of THEM, they get mystic and claim the rest of us just have to accept their word for it "because".
> 
> Some of my favorites are "Where was the TR in 1450" and the answer "I suppose in a church somewhere".
> 
> And "Did New Testament authors quote from the Septuagint" and the answer is "No, even though over 99% of Christian scholars have always said NT authors quoted from both the Hebrew and Septuagint, there was a forged letter by someone nobody's ever heard of"
> 
> And "If every living Aramaic scholar says that Aramaic isn't a dialect of Hebrew, why do you say different" and the answer is "Edersheim was a man of God so you shouldn't question him".
Click to expand...


Now, Now, Tim, you know that I gave you solid reasons for rejecting Majority readings on the Tree of Life thread post #6.

Your statements are offensive in the light of such a matter.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## TimV

For one thing I wasn't talking about you. For another, there were no solid reasons given. You started with a theory and worked backwards looking for proof of the theory, rather than the proper way, which is to test your theory based on trying to disprove it.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

TimV said:


> For one thing I wasn't talking about you. For another, there were no solid reasons given. You started with a theory and worked backwards looking for proof of the theory, rather than the proper way, which is to test your theory based on trying to disprove it.



Oh, ok, Tim - that the Bible does not contradict its own Theology is a "theory"?

Riiiiight

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Herald

*MODERATOR HAT ON*

To all: let's play nice. This is a topic that brings out passionate responses. Make sure your responses are germane to the topic at hand, not personalized.

*MODERATOR HAT OFF*


----------



## charliejunfan

Just go to Presbyterians instead of baptists


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Rich:

I do not see why that is such a problem? There are many things concerning the True Religion that can be considered historically static: Justification by Faith Alone, the Trinity, the Canon of Scripture.

Why do you see a necessity in changing the Greek Text that the Church has always held? Especially in the light of 1 Pt. 1:24,25, and Mt. 24:35? Does Christ's Word change every generation?

It seems like it with all these new Bible translations coming out.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## DMcFadden

Rob,

Admittedly, I'm not an expert on textual criticism. But, don't the arguments basically boil down to the following:

The TR group believes that because the Byzantine mss are the vast majority of the extant ones we have today, they are most likely the right ones. When the CT folks counter that the Alexandrian mss are older, the MT people note that in their estimation the old Latin also tends to support the Byzantine readings. And, the doctrine of preservation is seen as supporting the claim to the Majority Text (if not the TR) as the "church's Bible" for most of its history. Why would we want to accept the changes made by heretical sects in Gnostic Egypt over the continuous use of the Byzantine text by worshipping Christians? And, analogous to the arguments made against secular counseling (i.e., its dependence upon alien presuppositions inimical to the Christian faith), the rise of WH type textual criticism depends upon premises born of an Enlightenment skepticism.

The CT folks argue that you ought to "weigh" not "count" mss. They suggest that the Alexandrian mss, albeit fewer, are older. And, when you recognize that some parts of the ancient world tended to favor the Western readings (rather than Byzantine or Alexandrian ones), only a "reasoned ecclecticism" allows us to do textual criticism with any surety. In the hands of radicals (e.g., Ehrman), the diversity of the mss. tradition undermines both the doctrine of preservation and inspiration. In the hands of conservatives, the differences in texts do not endanger a single doctrine. We should practice textual criticism in order to have the most accurate copy of God's Word humanly possible (analogous to why we need to work hard to be faithful in our translation efforts). However, the perspicuity of Scripture does not depend upon a variant free text.

It seems to me that both sides can claim the doctrine of inerrancy for themselves, while questioning the sanity or faithfulness of those on the "other" side. 

Thanks for the example in your post #46. That is the kind of thing I was looking for by way of instances. Again, please provide a list of other examples for the TR supporting orthodoxy against the CT.


----------



## Grymir

Hi DMcFadden. What a great post! That highlights the differences well.

quote - "the doctrine of preservation is seen as supporting the claim to the Majority Text (if not the TR) as the "church's Bible" for most of its history. Why would we want to accept the changes made by heretical sects in Gnostic Egypt over the continuous use of the Byzantine text by worshipping Christians? And, analogous to the arguments made against secular counseling (i.e., its dependence upon alien presuppositions inimical to the Christian faith), the rise of WH type textual criticism depends upon premises born of an Enlightenment skepticism."

Yes, according to the TR position that I lean to, preservation means that what we have now is what we are to have. It was the "Church's Bible" and can trace it's roots back to the beginning. I think Beza's stamp on it is a big point for me. And the TR doesn't say that it's variant free either. There is more than one Textus Receptus. I use the KJV based on Schiver's work. 

quote - "only a "reasoned ecclecticism" allows us to do textual criticism with any surety. In the hands of radicals (e.g., Ehrman), the diversity of the mss. tradition undermines both the doctrine of preservation and inspiration. In the hands of conservatives, the differences in texts do not endanger a single doctrine. We should practice textual criticism in order to have the most accurate copy of God's Word humanly possible (analogous to why we need to work hard to be faithful in our translation efforts). However, the perspicuity of Scripture does not depend upon a variant free text."

I like this part of what you said. Alot. It's not said much. The difference between radicals and conservatives isn't brought out much. It's the Church's seal of approval, with the translation blessed by knowledgeable translators that makes a difference. And was missing until recently. It's good that the Wescott and Hort version has fallen to the wayside, and when I hear the people that wrote the Nestle-Aland bring up the problems with the WH, It goes along way to adding credibility. To have R.C. Sproul give his "blessing" to the ESV is something that I cannot ignore. And your studies and comments have helped too. 

Which lead me to my conclusions about Dr. White's not being over the line concerning the OP. You just hit the nail on the head. Thanks.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

DMcFadden said:


> Rob,
> 
> Admittedly, I'm not an expert on textual criticism. But, don't the arguments basically boil down to the following:
> 
> The TR group believes that because the Byzantine mss are the vast majority of the extant ones we have today, they are most likely the right ones. When the CT folks counter that the Alexandrian mss are older, the MT people note that in their estimation the old Latin also tends to support the Byzantine readings. And, the doctrine of preservation is seen as supporting the claim to the Majority Text (if not the TR) as the "church's Bible" for most of its history. Why would we want to accept the changes made by heretical sects in Gnostic Egypt over the continuous use of the Byzantine text by worshipping Christians? And, analogous to the arguments made against secular counseling (i.e., its dependence upon alien presuppositions inimical to the Christian faith), the rise of WH type textual criticism depends upon premises born of an Enlightenment skepticism.
> 
> The CT folks argue that you ought to "weigh" not "count" mss. They suggest that the Alexandrian mss, albeit fewer, are older. And, when you recognize that some parts of the ancient world tended to favor the Western readings (rather than Byzantine or Alexandrian ones), only a "reasoned ecclecticism" allows us to do textual criticism with any surety. In the hands of radicals (e.g., Ehrman), the diversity of the mss. tradition undermines both the doctrine of preservation and inspiration. In the hands of conservatives, the differences in texts do not endanger a single doctrine. We should practice textual criticism in order to have the most accurate copy of God's Word humanly possible (analogous to why we need to work hard to be faithful in our translation efforts). However, the perspicuity of Scripture does not depend upon a variant free text.
> 
> It seems to me that both sides can claim the doctrine of inerrancy for themselves, while questioning the sanity or faithfulness of those on the "other" side.
> 
> Thanks for the example in your post #46. That is the kind of thing I was looking for by way of instances. Again, please provide a list of other examples for the TR supporting orthodoxy against the CT.



Hello Pastor:

As a general overview I think you have it down rather well. There are, however, a few details which need explaining.

As I understand it the TR position is not based upon the majority of the MSS, but upon the teaching of Scripture that God will keep His word pure through all ages:

_For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you, 1 Pt 1:24,25_

This is in conformity with the teaching of Jesus:

_Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away, Mt. 24:35_

It is consistent with sound Orthodox theology: The inspiration of the Scriptures is in the very words (verbal) and, extends to all of the words of the Bible (plenary). Since this is the case, then we can expect God to preserve the words of the Scriptures, and all of the words of the Scriptures.

We can trace an unbroken line of Greek Texts going back to the very 1st Century. These texts testify to what we now call the Byzantine family of manuscripts. I believe it was an act of Providence that landed only Byzantine MSS into the hands of Erasmus, Stephens, and Beza as the TR was being developed. History makes it clear that Erasmus knew about the Vaticanus manuscript in the Vatican, and, though he was painfully aware of the few MSS available to him - refused to use the Vaticanus because of its corrupt nature.

One can see Providence as well in the destruction of the Alexandrian copies. The Islamic horde which rampaged through Africa, and supposedly destroyed the copies of the Alexandrian texts, could just as easily turned north instead and overrun the Byzantine Empire. Thus, the Byzantine MSS would have been destroyed and the "pure" Alexandrian MSS would have been saved.

Corrupt Manuscripts? The Bible clearly tells us that corruptions started creeping into the Scriptures in the very first century:

_...even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of thoese things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction, 2 Pt 3:15b,16._

If heretics are so bold as to "wrest the scriptures" while the Apostles are still alive, then what would stop them after they have passed away? In the following centuries we have the testimonies of Tertullian and Cyprian stating to the effect that heretics were tampering with the texts of scripture.

Consequently, we have testimonies stating that the first, second, and third centuries heretics have been changing the text of scripture. This has not stopped even unto today, because the Jehovah Witnesses have tampered with the text as well.

What does this say about the "older" manuscripts? I would suggest that just because a manuscript is "older" does not mean it is better. It may very well be one of those manuscripts tampered with by a heretic.

To me, it is clear that the Reformation was a watershed concerning the Greek Texts. On one side the pure apographia of the autographs were upheld in the Byzantine MSS available. On the other hand the Alexandrian varients were rejected as corrupt. One can also see the testimony of Church History since the Reformation - the great blessings the Church received through the various and widespread revivals that have taken place. However, a revival has not happened since the Alexandrian varients have replaced the Byzantine MSS.

This I read as the hand of Providence in fulfilling Mt 24:35; 1 Pt 1:24, 25. To which I bow my head in humble adoration of the God who fulfills all of His Promises.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## TimV

> As I understand it the TR position is not based upon the majority of the MSS, but upon the teaching of Scripture that God will keep His word pure through all ages:





> We can trace an unbroken line of Greek Texts going back to the very 1st Century. These texts testify to what we now call the Byzantine family of manuscripts.





> This I read as the hand of Providence in fulfilling Mt 24:35; 1 Pt 1:24, 25. To which I bow my head in humble adoration of the God who fulfills all of His Promises.



In other words the rest of us doubt God fulfills all His promises.

You are working backwards again. You start from a theory you hold by faith, which includes God's direct hand in bringing together certain manuscripts in the first part of the 16th century. And working from that assumption backwards, you pick and chose from all the data. You accept as true data which supports your theory, and reject data that doesn't. And that's probably the main reasons the AVer theory isn't taken seriously by any major Protestant denomination. Because it's irresponsible scholarship. Take the chart in post 44 of this thread. A perfect example of AVer scholarship. *The Immaculate Conception of the King James Bible.*
We start with the Traditional Text Line, which comes from Antioch. And on this chart we see where this Traditional Text (whatever that is) comes from *The Apostles*. Wow. And some people reject something that comes directly from the Apostles.

Now take the Corrupted Text Line, which comes from Alexandria. And that came from *Papyrus*.

And from the text of the Apostles was born the *Original New Testament Texts*

And from Papyrus was born something corrupted by *Clement!*

Really, all things like this chart do are to weaken your case. Just going through it at random we see things like the True Text was used by the Bibles of the Waldenses, Gauls and Celts from 120-1400 AD. The first thing that catches one's attention is that the author is so ignorant of the subject matter he doesn't know the Gauls were Celts, but leaving that aside, when I visited Trinity in Ireland I saw a few pages of the Book of Kells.

The Book of Kells is by far the most famous of the Celtic Bibles. It is 10,000 times more famous than any other Celtic Bible from the time period given by this chart. This chart claims that the Vulgate came from the Corrupted Text. Well, guess where the majority of the Book of Kells is translated from. Yes, from the Vulgate. Those places differing from the Vulgate are from various Old Latin translations. In some places those Old Latin translations are closer to the Byzantine, and in some the Alexandrian line.

Rob, this chart barely reaches the level of junk science.


----------



## LawrenceU

> However, a revival has not happened since the Alexandrian varients have replaced the Byzantine MSS.



And, your point is? Where in Scripture does one find evidence to support such a view that a 'perfect' text in the hands of Christians is needed for God to pour out his grace upon the church and cause the massive salvation of the unsaved. (Aside from the fact that the statement is false.)

Frankly, I find this type of reaching a severe weakening of your stance. My debate coach would have berated me in a rather severe manner for injecting this.


----------



## GD

I realize that no one here authored or has endorsed the chart, but it makes a common claim that I think needs to be addressed. The chart claims that because Alexandria was a “center of heresy” that the manuscript copies coming from there must be corrupt. That argument has always troubled me. First, it has “genetic fallacy” written all over it. Second, in terms of Christology the Alexandrian school (as represented by Athanasius) was generally more orthodox than the Antiochene (represented by Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia).


----------



## MW

I think the chart tries to appeal to a side in people in which they would like everything to be polarised so that it is simple to choose one position or the other. It would be virtually impossible to examine and harmonise all the data with that kind of model in mind.

We should be clear that both sides of this debate engage in historical reconstruction. One should note that academic works on textual criticism seek, to a greater or lesser degree, to inform the reader of what the author considers to be the most likely scenario with regard to ms. traditions; and it has been customary to use what is called the genealogical principle when presenting that scenario. This principle naturally divides the mss. into families and names them on the basis of the locality in which they are thougth to have emerged. It is basically the case that conservative critics have tended to give pre-eminence to the ms. tradition which is said to have developed from Antioch, while the more empirical critics have seen the Alexandrian tradition as more "neutral."

It is true that there were heretics in Antioch as well as Alexandria, but in terms of taking liberties with the text of Scripture, it is a matter of historical record that the Alexandrians tended to allegorise while the Antiochenes would literalise. What we know about textual corruption, especially when it was deliberately undertaken for doctrinal purposes, points to a general tendency to meddle with those texts which have a bearing on the Arian-Trinitarian controversy. Both sides will explain this in different ways. The conservative, Antiochene supporters will maintain that the Alexandrine tradition has corrupted the text to remove support for the Trinitarian view; and empirical, Alexandrian supporters consider that the Antiochene tradition has buttressed the Trinitarian view by emending the text in its favour.

Each one must decide for himself what methodology he will employ, and he will do so on the basis of his own belief as to the hand of Providence in transmitting the text of Scripture to posterity. Either one is "catholic" or "scientific" in approach. Obviously the catholic view will appeal to those who believe the work of criticism is a matter for the church, while the scientific view will appeal to those who regard the academy as the properly qualified instrument.


----------



## Hippo

I do not understand why it has necessarily to be a matter of choosing one school or the other in isolation, obviously neither school is totally corrupt in view of the huge amount of commonality between them.

Errors have arisen in each tradition, be they simple scribal errors or perhaps even minor additions or deletions, attempts must be made to reconstitute the historical text by weighing the value of different variants. people will difffer as to which variants should be given more weight but this is a matter for informed consideration and should be acrried out by the Church.

This stops being a subject that can be discussed when one side claims divine protection for one particular textual tradition which by definition requires the other variant to be necessarily corrupt in all its differences. 

It is very hard to argue against a proposition based on what boils down to an argument that "it just is" and which often appears to be created in order to dismiss texts without proper consideration.


----------



## MW

Hippo said:


> This stops being a subject that can be discussed when one side claims divine protection for one particular textual tradition which by definition requires the other variant to be necessarily corrupt in all its differences.



The term "corrupt" is non pejorative, used by both sides of the issue to describe the alterations made to the original text whether by design or accident.

I tend to agree that the subject cannot really be discussed while there are contradictory views on the nature of that Providence which is exercised about the text. Hence it is probably best to decline all this talk of particulars, which could go on endlessly, and to simply deal with the general presuppositions that emerge from the discussion.


----------



## sotzo

Can somebody point out what doctrinal hills one would have to die on if you have a dog in this hunt? In other words,, where do the doctrinal differences appear in the text between the 2 traditions?


----------



## MW

Hippo said:


> It is very hard to argue against a proposition based on what boils down to an argument that "it just is" and which often appears to be created in order to dismiss texts without proper consideration.



Here, again, it must be realised that this was the procedure of the radical criticism of the 19th century which served to uproot the TR in favour of the so-called neutral text. A theory was created whereby the overwhelming majority of mss. could be ignored, and the painstaking progress of a conservative comparative criticism could be rejected, in favour of a few mss. which seemed to have antiquity on their side. So it is clear that the process itself is not the deciding factor, but the presuppositions governing the process.


----------



## TimV

> A theory was created whereby the overwhelming majority of mss. could be ignored, and the painstaking progress of a conservative comparative criticism could be rejected, in favour of a few mss. which seemed to have antiquity on their side.



That pretty much sums up the AVer position on Tree in Rev 22:19. If it weren't for the slavish, and perhaps even idolatrous view many of those folk have for the TR they'd probably get more people tending towards the TR. 

I mean I prefer the TR/MT in general myself, but often feel like pushing back when I'm pushed to accept what I consider illogical, badly researched and even naive views of the TR the extremists demand. Things like that doltish chart cause such a visceral contempt in me that I find myself often over reacting myself.

PS thanks for the historical info a couple posts up.


----------



## Grymir

TimV said:


> *The Immaculate Conception of the King James Bible.*





That's good. I'm so gonna use that! It beats my golden thread from Heaven line by a mile.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> I think the chart tries to appeal to a side in people in which they would like everything to be polarised so that it is simple to choose one position or the other. It would be virtually impossible to examine and harmonise all the data with that kind of model in mind.
> 
> We should be clear that both sides of this debate engage in historical reconstruction. One should note that academic works on textual criticism seek, to a greater or lesser degree, to inform the reader of what the author considers to be the most likely scenario with regard to ms. traditions; and it has been customary to use what is called the genealogical principle when presenting that scenario. This principle naturally divides the mss. into families and names them on the basis of the locality in which they are thougth to have emerged. It is basically the case that conservative critics have tended to give pre-eminence to the ms. tradition which is said to have developed from Antioch, while the more empirical critics have seen the Alexandrian tradition as more "neutral."
> 
> It is true that there were heretics in Antioch as well as Alexandria, but in terms of taking liberties with the text of Scripture, it is a matter of historical record that the Alexandrians tended to allegorise while the Antiochenes would literalise. What we know about textual corruption, especially when it was deliberately undertaken for doctrinal purposes, points to a general tendency to meddle with those texts which have a bearing on the Arian-Trinitarian controversy. Both sides will explain this in different ways. The conservative, Antiochene supporters will maintain that the Alexandrine tradition has corrupted the text to remove support for the Trinitarian view; and empirical, Alexandrian supporters consider that the Antiochene tradition has buttressed the Trinitarian view by emending the text in its favour.
> 
> Each one must decide for himself what methodology he will employ, and he will do so on the basis of his own belief as to the hand of Providence in transmitting the text of Scripture to posterity. Either one is "catholic" or "scientific" in approach. Obviously the catholic view will appeal to those who believe the work of criticism is a matter for the church, while the scientific view will appeal to those who regard the academy as the properly qualified instrument.



Thank you for this sober post.

It doesn't rely on fantastic tales to support a position but gives a sense as to why one tradition is preferred over another. I do, however, wish that some TR advocates would be a little more circumspect even within their own textual tradition.

The "sense" of the TR position is a guiding hand of Providence in the preservation of the text. That I can buy even as I see the guiding hand of Providence in the Creeds of Christendom when God used some very strange (and, in some cases, dubious) actors to bring the Church together to define some key aspects of orthodoxy.

Part of that Providence includes not only an Emperor Constantine sort of pressing the Church together for peace but, later, a lone Bishop willing to stand against the seeming "strain of accepted tradition" in his willingness to stand for Nicene orthodoxy.

In like manner, if there is sufficient evidence that a Church man added a verse to Holy Writ that no other previous manuscripts contained, the mere adoption of the text by the Church would be an insufficient grounds to appeal to "Providence" simply because the Church at large received it. To claim that Providence _always_ works like this would be to condemn Athanasisus in his stand against the Church.

I also think that we need to be careful when we, in our feeble human understanding, try to reconstruct a textual history and assume we can sketch out how God's Providential Hand has worked in the specific. We know, from Biblical History, that God used some very wicked and strange instruments to work out His purposes. I'm not saying I'm "sold" on a particular textual platform but simply noting that the Alexandrians were "bad people" (as some are apt to do) is not a demonstration that God is unable to preserve His Word through them. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses, in their perverted, deliberate attempt to deny the divinity of Christ, fail to edit out all the texts that testify to that Truth.


----------



## DrOakley1689

Greetings brother Wieland:

I would like to invite you to call _The Dividing Line_ on Thursday if you would like, 4pm MST. I would like to discuss your assertions in this thread on the program. Thank you!


----------



## DMcFadden

Careful, Rob. Never meet a bald man with a beard and Greek Testament in a dark alley (or in an internet podcast) unarmed.


----------



## sotzo

Wow! James White is here! Didn't know he was a member on here...

Thanks for your service to the Church Dr White!


----------



## dalecosby

> Greetings brother Wieland:
> 
> I would like to invite you to call The Dividing Line on Thursday if you would like, 4pm MST. I would like to discuss your assertions in this thread on the program. Thank you!



Welcome to the puritanboard DrO.

THough you have probably been a member here longer than I.


----------



## SolaGratia

DrOakley1689 said:


> Greetings brother Wieland:
> 
> I would like to invite you to call _The Dividing Line_ on Thursday if you would like, 4pm MST. I would like to discuss your assertions in this thread on the program. Thank you!



Why have a discussion if they are only "assertions"?


-Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother (2 Thessalonians 3:15).


----------



## Thomas2007

Hi Dennis,

There is a lot in this thread, much of which I don't have time to address. However, you provided some concise statements that I would like to comment on, for edification. I too am not an expert on textual criticism, but a layman that found it necessary to study in order to defend the faith. I can share with you my understandings that may shed a little light on the issues that are raised in this thread.



DMcFadden said:


> The TR group believes that because the Byzantine mss are the vast majority of the extant ones we have today, they are most likely the right ones.



This is an argument that arises in the post-critical era within the paradigm of the text critical debate, however, as I understand it, this was not the basis for the Reformation or Post-Reformation dogmaticians, that actually established the Received Text in its Confessional position.

The debate as it existed between Romanists and Protestants was over authority, they didn't disagree that the Bible was the word of God, or that it was inspired - rather the Protestants were asserting a radically different application of the doctrine of inspiration in that it applied to the *question of authority*. With their affirmation of "Sola Scriptura" authority of the inspired Scripture could be set above the authority of the Church and its uninspired tradition.

As the debate ensued each side responded dogmatically. Tridentine Catholics asserted sacred status to the ecclesiastical editions of the Latin Vulgate, Protestants asserted sacred status to the ecclesiastical editions of the Greek New Testament of the Greek speaking Church and the Hebrew of the synagogues. Each side, then, asserted that their sacred text was "authentical."

The common theme between them was that their respective claims of authentic texts centered upon ecclesiastical editions that were historically sanctioned by ecclesiastical use. This was a narrow scope that presupposes a history of the text upon which criticism was applied.

The high orthodox, for example, held that God established Scriptures in two parts. First, by revelation which was accomplished in three ways; a: by direct writing from the hand of God as in the Decalogue, b: by the command to write (Deut 31:19, Rev 1:19), and c: by inspiration. Second, by canonization, which assumes the existence of the inspired text and is accomplished when the Scriptures are carried forward in and sealed to the Church as its rule of faith.

I'm taking the time to point this out because many, I think, have this view that Roman Catholicism doctrines were based solely upon Church tradition developed in a Scriptural void. Thus, they tend to view Protestant doctrinal arguments against Rome as Scripture vs non-Scriptural Tradition. This is not a correct understanding. Contrariwise, Roman Tradition was doctrine derived from the Vulgate, textual issues for the Protestants, then, directly challenged Roman dogma as is clearly demonstrated by Luther's first thesis that the Lord commands us to repent, not do penance. (Received Text vs Vulgate).

The Tridentine counter-attack against Sola Scriptura was that textual variants proved the error of Protestant dogma against Romanist dogma, and hence was not a valid argument of authority against Church tradition. The Protestant response was that the variants were ultimately harmless, this was a defensive response against an attack upon authority of Scripture, that rested in the denial of the truth of doctrine.

The Reformed arguments always proceeded from the theological principle to the empirical proofs, not in reverse as is asserted today.




DMcFadden said:


> When the CT folks counter that the Alexandrian mss are older, the MT people note that in their estimation the old Latin also tends to support the Byzantine readings.




Again, this might be a response in the post-critical era, but during the era of establishment it was debate against Rome and then against antitrinitarians, socianians, arminians and deists - all of which took up textual criticism as empirical proof utilizing the variants against orthodoxy.

Protestants responded to Rome that the Vulgate is ancient and filled with ancient errors. Musculus, in dealing with similar arguments leveled by Rome citing antiquity, responded: 

"_In the Church of Christ the issue is not antiquity but the truth of doctrine: the authority of Christian doctrine does not arise because of great antiquity but because of its essential truth and because of its source in God._" Musculus, Loci Communes, p 363​
Spurious copies, private copies or those of an unknown pedigree, that agreed with the Vulgate were viewed with suspicion and never rose to the level of "authentic" texts. They couldn't rise to the level of authentic texts because they weren't supported by the twin pillars of revelation and canonization, and although used by Christians in history, were not established and thus were not within the realm of "Providential Preservation." 

This is in direct contrast to the modern re-interpretation of this concept that asserts Providential Preservation is linguistic in scope and quite mystical through unknown agencies. Contrary, to Protestants the meaning of the original language in relation to autographa and apographa was one of linguistic continuity. This, of course, is self evident because the way in which they defended the Received Greek Text is consistent with their defense of the Hebrew text and the linguistic arguments against its authenticity in regards to the vowel points.

Protestantism was a conscious reassertion of truth, its textual support is consistent with its primary assumptions and its dogma and polemical defenses are as well. Muller here is insightful:

_"The orthodox definition of the truth of Scripture - like the orthodox definitions of infallibility and authority - treads a very narrow line. Scriptural truth is never allowed to rest upon empirical proof: truth depends upon divine authoriship and can be defined as a "truth of promise" or as an intentional fidelity or veracity upon the part of God as author."_ Muller, PRRD, p 323​
This does not contradict WCF 1.4 because it is consistent with WCF 1.5 and the high orthodox systems of the eight duties of the Church in regards to Scripture (Muller, PRRD, p 383):

1. To approve and receive the Scriptures
2. To commend publicly the approved and received Scriptures
3. To draw up a catalogue of the canonical books, rejecting apocryphal writings
4. To preserve the authentic codices of holy Scripture
5. To furnish translations faithful to Scripture
6. To write creeds, catechisms, and summaries of doctrine grounded on Scripture
7. To interpret and explain the obscure and difficult passages of Scripture
8. To adjudicate controversies in faith and morals on the basis of Scripture

Hence, in the orthodox Protestant concept the definitions of the authority of Scripture, and the ecclesial testimony of the authority of Scripture is consistent and based upon the truth of Scripture and its teachings.

To assert that the Protestant definitions of truth of Scripture and its teaching, the "truth of promise" as Muller points out, follow a very narrow line, but its recognition of the legitimate tradition of the authentic texts of Scripture is inconsistent therewith, is quite odd to say the least.





DMcFadden said:


> And, the doctrine of preservation is seen as supporting the claim to the Majority Text (if not the TR) as the "church's Bible" for most of its history. Why would we want to accept the changes made by heretical sects in Gnostic Egypt over the continuous use of the Byzantine text by worshipping Christians? And, analogous to the arguments made against secular counseling (i.e., its dependence upon alien presuppositions inimical to the Christian faith), the rise of WH type textual criticism depends upon premises born of an Enlightenment skepticism.



I would say, why would we completely alter the categories of Protestant thought in an attempt to proceed from empirical proof to theological truth, which none of our Reformed fathers were willing to do. Furthermore, how do we entertain that, when the sources of that empircal proof fall outside of the boundaries of the legitimate tradition of Providential Preservation? 

OK, so your text is not within the legitimate tradition of Providential Preservation, and that is supposed to prove what?





DMcFadden said:


> The CT folks argue that you ought to "weigh" not "count" mss. They suggest that the Alexandrian mss, albeit fewer, are older. And, when you recognize that some parts of the ancient world tended to favor the Western readings (rather than Byzantine or Alexandrian ones), only a "reasoned ecclecticism" allows us to do textual criticism with any surety.



Weigh it according to what? The Hortian theory, which is the default presupposition of modern criticism, is that B was a neutral text and that the Byzantine tradition was a recension based upon no proof whatsoever. He simply asserted that as being the case and that assertion carried the day. He simply imagined that to the be case.

Hence, his weight is "antiquity" and it doesn't tip the balance against truth of Scripture.

Of course, the Protestants assume that Scriptures testimony is that God is going to preserve the text of Scripture for the Church, and they presume it is duty of the Church to fulfill those eight requirements, and they believed that all of these promises were true. Their definition of "truth of Scripture" was that their was an intentional fidelity upon God as author.





DMcFadden said:


> In the hands of radicals (e.g., Ehrman), the diversity of the mss. tradition undermines both the doctrine of preservation and inspiration. In the hands of conservatives, the differences in texts do not endanger a single doctrine.



This is the concept that "conservative" critical text advocates stumble upon. Ehrman, while following in the line of the English antitrinitarian textual critics has, albeit unwittingly, done a great service to the Church because he has demolished the ideology of harmless engagement. 

I believe, if I've understood Rob properly, that this is the foundation of his argument in this thread. That is that Dr. White's arguments asserting the "doctrine of inspiration" while subscribing to the same fundamental text critical principles, is in actuality an attempt to prop back up the ideology of harmless engagement which Erhman has thoroughly destroyed. Hence, I think that what Rob is saying is that without that ideological presupposition of harmless engagement, conservative critical text advocates cannot maintain their position.

The Protestant textual polemic against Rome is not "harmless" to Rome, it overthrows Rome in favor of truth of Scripture and its doctrine. Rome responds with variants that the Protestants show are harmless to doctrine, but Rome was never antitrinitarian and never attempting to undermine the deity of Christ, for example, by deferring to variants in 1 Tim 3:16 or the issue of the comma Johanneum.

The antitrinitarians, the socinians, the arminians, the deists and the atheists, all accuse us of suppressing texts in favor of theologically altered ones. And yet, with their "reasoned ecclecticism" they pick and choose texts and readings at random and indiscriminately from MSS with no prior consideration as to whether they were in *public use*, or merely private use, or relegated to obscurity in dusty halls. And, of course, that rests upon ripping the linguistic foundation out of its context in direct opposition to the historic Protestant doctrine.

The "conservatives" then stand upon Confessional dogma's derived from and defending a certain textual tradition as authentic, but agree with their enemies and excise otherwise orthodox readings based upon reasonings of MSS outside of the scope of that tradition, and then defend themselves with the ideology of harmless engagement. There is a great internal inconsistency in this position.

If conservatives are going to assert Sola Scriptura, yet agree that the textual basis of their Confessional dogma's is aberrant, thus destroying the sacred status of their textual foundation for those dogma's, then how do you know those dogma's are the *truth*?





DMcFadden said:


> Again, please provide a list of other examples for the TR supporting orthodoxy against the CT.




The problem with this is, defenders of the Received Text tradition, haven't changed texts. The burden of proof doesn't fall on our shoulders when Critical Text advocates have changed the text. The burden of proof falls on their shoulders - they must be able to prove, from their text, Confessional dogmas as *truth*.

To make it simpler, would a Romanist have a conscious problem using your Bible?


----------



## CDM

DMcFadden said:


> Thanks for the example in your post #46. That is the kind of thing I was looking for by way of instances. *Again, please provide a list of other examples for the TR supporting orthodoxy against the CT*.



See this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/av-theology-compared-modern-versions-19437/

Rev. Winzer had a field day as they say.  It seemed not many wanted to play.


----------



## john_Mark

SolaGratia said:


> Why have a discussion if they are only "assertions"?



Well...if Dr. White didn't believe they were assertions, but thought they were _facts_ then this whole thread probably wouldn't exist.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

DrOakley1689 said:


> Greetings brother Wieland:
> 
> I would like to invite you to call _The Dividing Line_ on Thursday if you would like, 4pm MST. I would like to discuss your assertions in this thread on the program. Thank you!



Hi Dr:

Unfortunately, I did not have the time to call you - I will do so in the future when I do get the time.

Having once been a student I am sure you understand the constraints - especially in the afternoon - of finding the opportunity to call.

The Lord's richest blessings to you and yours,

Rob

-----Added 1/30/2009 at 01:02:48 EST-----



TimV said:


> In other words the rest of us doubt God fulfills all His promises.



You have said so ... 

-Rob


----------



## sotzo

Rob:

Briefly, what would have been the points / questions you would have raised had you called in?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

sotzo said:


> Rob:
> 
> Briefly, what would have been the points / questions you would have raised had you called in?



Hi:

I don't know. Dr. White invited me onto his show. An invitation I did not read until this afternoon. I take it that he would set the agenda which would give him an advantage. Since it is his show - it would give him another advantage. And, since he is a very skilled debater, and I am a mere student, then all the advantages would be on his side.

In other words - when I call him on his show - I do not expect to do very well. I say "when" because I do plan on calling him - hopefully - this Thursday. I will try to block the time out for it.

I think it would be a good experience to talk to him directly about the Critical Text and the Textus Receptus.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## tdowns

*Remind us....*

so we can listen.

I listen to the show, but, can't always get to it. I'm not looking to find a winner, just fun (like when Rich was on) to hear fellow PB'ers.


----------



## john_Mark

Rob,

I believe that you have already set the agenda. All Dr. White has asked is that you defend your assertions. Does this mean that you will have the advantage then? 

You may be a mere student, but that doesn't really seem like that's how you presented yourself from the beginning. 

Whoever has whatever advantages, do you atleast admit that Dr. White will be fair to you?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

john_Mark said:


> Rob,
> 
> I believe that you have already set the agenda. All Dr. White has asked is that you defend your assertions. Does this mean that you will have the advantage then?
> 
> You may be a mere student, but that doesn't really seem like that's how you presented yourself from the beginning.
> 
> Whoever has whatever advantages, do you atleast admit that Dr. White will be fair to you?



Hi:

Touche'  I will acknowledge your points. However, Dr. White will be in control of the conversation, and, thus, the questions he will ask of me will set the agenda. Since a lot of material was covered on this thread he will be able to pick and choose what he likes.

I assume that Dr. White will ask about this paragraph in the dozens of paragraphs I wrote:



> Personally: I believe that Dr. White has been so browbeaten by King James Only advocates, that he is unwilling to admit the Textus Receptus as a legitimate copy of the autographs. To do so, it appears to me, would be to admit that the King James Only advocates are right in their assessment of the Greek text. This is my impression in watching him on his videos as well as a few personal conversations with him (one on the Dividing Line). However, I do not claim to be a mind reader, and I may be very wrong in assessing his motivations.


This was a personal observation on reading and watching his many videos on the subject. If I offended, then I do apologize. However, I am actually sympathic to Dr. White on the above matter - having to deal with those crazy KJO advocates shows a great deal of patience. I expect to be beaten to death about this in order to deny any of the other things I wrote.

If Dr. White is to be fair, then I would expect him to send me his agenda on this conversation.

Grace and Peace,

Rob

PS: I seemed to have misread his post - I get the impression that he wants me to call him this coming Thursday. -RPW


----------



## mossy

Rob,
Could you please provide evidence of this? 
"Personally: I believe that Dr. White has been so browbeaten by King James Only advocates, *that he is unwilling to admit the Textus Receptus as a legitimate copy of the autographs*."

I have listened to his debates and read his book on the subject and have only heard him say the opposite. I could have missed him saying the TR is not a legitimate copy of the autographs, but I would be really surprised. 
Thank you.
Terry


----------



## Hippo

SolaGratia said:


> Does Mr. White want a discussion or a debate? Which one for his radio program?
> 
> And will he be acting as brother in Christ, with love and patience admonishing another brother in Christ or as a secular critical scholar?



It is really insulting when you are stigmitised as a secular critical scholar because you do not accept the TR as pure in every respect compared to earlier Alexandrian manuscripts.

I really do not understand all these veiled allegations against a very learned and courageous orthodox Christian.


----------



## ChristianTrader

mangum said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the example in your post #46. That is the kind of thing I was looking for by way of instances. *Again, please provide a list of other examples for the TR supporting orthodoxy against the CT*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/av-theology-compared-modern-versions-19437/
> 
> Rev. Winzer had a field day as they say.  It seemed not many wanted to play.
Click to expand...


As a person leaning towards the TR, I would rather have Rev. Winzer call the Dividing Line and the two discuss the thread the Av Theology compared Thread.

CT


----------



## Marrow Man

Just so everyone understands exactly where I stand with regard to Dr. White:







There -- undeniable proof that I am not only taller than James White, but I also have more hair.


----------



## SolaGratia

Hippo said:


> SolaGratia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does Mr. White want a discussion or a debate? Which one for his radio program?
> 
> And will he be acting as brother in Christ, with love and patience admonishing another brother in Christ or as a secular critical scholar?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is really insulting when you are stigmitised as a secular critical scholar because you do not accept the TR as pure in every respect compared to earlier Alexandrian manuscripts.
> 
> I really do not understand all these veiled allegations against a very learned and courageous orthodox Christian.
Click to expand...


What? 


I do not accept the TR as pure? 

You can always send me a private message.


----------



## Hippo

SolaGratia said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SolaGratia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does Mr. White want a discussion or a debate? Which one for his radio program?
> 
> And will he be acting as brother in Christ, with love and patience admonishing another brother in Christ or as a secular critical scholar?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is really insulting when you are stigmitised as a secular critical scholar because you do not accept the TR as pure in every respect compared to earlier Alexandrian manuscripts.
> 
> I really do not understand all these veiled allegations against a very learned and courageous orthodox Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> 
> I do not accept the TR as pure?
> 
> You can always send me a private message.
Click to expand...


You have misread my message (or indeed perhaps I have mistyped it or a combination of the two). It is Dr White who I undersatnd does not accept that the TR is pure in every single one of its variants. I certainly do not and I do not have to adopt secular critical assumptions to do so.


----------



## TimV

> You have misread my message (or indeed perhaps I have mistyped it or a combination of the two).



You were perfectly clear. It is yet another example of how Gil is not following these threads with comprehension.

Gil, perhaps you should spend a few months using the search function here and reviewing these threads.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

I certainly am not an expert on this subject nor a scholar. I have been a christian for 24 years and by God's grace have been a student of the Word since then. I have been using the AV for all of that time. The only CT bible I own is a ESV that I use for comparison purposes besides that I have a NKJV and a Geneva. I also have online bible where I have access to other translations and "literal" translations. I have read the NKJV through as well as the Geneva but always go back to the AV because it is "burnt" into my mind from all the years of reading it. With that said I have a few questions that I am hoping some of those who advocate the CT could answer for me,

What new truth has the CT given us that we did not have in the TR?
What has the plethera of new translations done for the church?
Has the CT not caused a lot of confusion in the church regarding the accuracy of some texts maybe giving rise to unbelief in some?
What do we have in the CT that we do not have in the TR?

Blessings on you all


----------



## Hippo

Blueridge Believer said:


> What new truth has the CT given us that we did not have in the TR?
> What has the plethera of new translations done for the church?
> Has the CT not caused a lot of confusion in the church regarding the accuracy of some texts maybe giving rise to unbelief in some?
> What do we have in the CT that we do not have in the TR?
> 
> Blessings on you all





> What new truth has the CT given us that we did not have in the TR?



By the time the text evolved into the TR it contains additions and errors that were not in the original text



> What has the plethera of new translations done for the church?



The new transalations are a mixture of good and bad, what the best have done is to show that even though in every tradition there are textual variants the cannon as a whole has remained pure and we have texts in the vernaculer where people can understand the message for themselves. 



> Has the CT not caused a lot of confusion in the church regarding the accuracy of some texts maybe giving rise to unbelief in some?



No, it is the different historical texts that gives rise to confusion and unbelief. If the Church ignored all such texts or denied there existance it would be accused of ignoring history and relying on assertion rather than history. Islam has done a splendid job of keeping its text pure and denying any historical variants in the text, in doing so they have stemed unbelief but they have done so by distorting history and truth.



> What do we have in the CT that we do not have in the TR?



We have a more accurate historical text 


Now all these points are arguable but in arguing against any form of CT as a matter of principle rather than as a matter of historic evaluation of individual texts it is opponents of textual evaluation who seem to deny any real historical basis for the biblical texts.

The reformed traditions great strength is its willingness to put mans minds at the service of the Gospel, to fight Liberalism on the basis of historic Christianity being fact, not to retreat into a mire of assertions.


----------



## john_Mark

Hey Tim P.,

Where I stand too.







So...why are you wearing a GA Southern shirt? (That's my Alma mater.) 

p.s. If the image doesn't show up it's here.


----------



## Marrow Man

john_Mark said:


> Hey Tim P.,
> 
> Where I stand too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...why are you wearing a GA Southern shirt? (That's my Alma mater.)
> 
> p.s. If the image doesn't show up it's here.



And my alma mater as well (x2)! Nice to see south Georgia churning out more Reformed folk!


----------



## DMcFadden

> What new truth has the CT given us that we did not have in the TR?



The energy placed in this debate (on the PB) is fueled by a desire by orthodox Christians to have the most accurate, most exact, and closest text to the original autographs. TR folks think that they have it in the Erasmian text by the providential preservation of God providing him with the correct half dozen or so mss. that are the gold standard. The fact that he did not even have a mss. with the end of Revelation and had to "back translate" it himself from the Latin Vulgate would be enough to cast doubt in my mind as to the validity of the assumption.

As an orthodox Christian who holds to the inerrancy of the Bible, I want my English Bible to be based upon the closest thing we can get to the original autographs. The CT and TR crowd are both trying to do that. They do disagree on the way to accomplish that end. The TR side believes that we can find the more accurate text in the majority of mss; the CT group thinks that the better method is to look at the oldest mss.

Arguing against the invalidity of WH premises and presuppositions is typically not terribly impressive to CT advocates today because they do not view themselves as subscribers to WH. An analogy if you will would be Darwinian evolution (I write this as a 6 day creationist). In my disputes with modern evolutionists, they seem rather indifferent to my poking holes in Darwin. They suggest that they could poke their own holes in Darwin. Still, they hold to evolution as the best explanation of the evidence and credit Darwin with getting THAT right while much of the rest of it he got wrong. Bart Ehrman is an apostate. He uses the pheneomena of textual criticism to argue against the faith in the same way as others use the differences in the Synoptics to argue against inerrancy. Taking us back to the original premises of the founders of Textual Criticism or its earliest pioneers may be interesting, but will seldom convince a modern day practitioner, in my opinion.



> What has the plethora of new translations done for the church?



Here we are mixing apples and oranges. The issue of Bible translation is not the same as textual transmission. The translators of the Geneva Bible, the KJV, and the NKJV all work with essentially the same texts and attempt to render them into the vernacular English as Luther did with his_ Die Heilige Schrift_. The fact that people have proliferated English translations in the second half of the 20th century may be argued to have done as much harm as good. For every instance of easier translation, I would counter that we have lost a standard Bible, a function the KJV held for many generations. But, even the NKJV and the efforts to create a "modern language" English MT translation participate in that trend. 

The American fascination with creating new Bible translations is only incidentally related to the text from which they worked. If there were no CT, we might have had a NAS, RSV, NIV, CEV, NEB, LB, etc. style all based on the TR!!! Lay people don't typically read the NLT because it is based on "older and more accurate texts," but because they think that it reads "easier." Proponents of the NAS think that it is more "literal" and less literary than the KJV or RSV. Frankly, I suspect that ego, party spirit, and marketing realities have as much to do with the plethora of translations as anything else. Is there really any reason why the SBC had to have their own Bible (HCSB)? I like the HCSB, but do not see that it was all that "needed." The same can be said for the CEV, NEB, NLT, etc. If you want to have different translation philosophies represented, then how about the [KJV, NKJV, NAS] vs. [RSV, ESV, HCSB] vs. the [NIV, NLT] vs. the [CEV, TEV, LB, Message]?



> Has the CT not caused a lot of confusion in the church regarding the accuracy of some texts maybe giving rise to unbelief in some?



Sure. But there really are thousands of mss and they really do differ from each other. The rise of "reasoned eclecticism" is one approach to making sense of that reality. The fact that the Byzantine tradition (the vast majority of mss of which the TR is a part) differs from the TR provides the fodder for the critics regardless of whether the CT existed. in my opinion, critics would have a MUCH easier time throwing brickbats at the TR if we did not have a CT. The sheer weight of the argument that we have older mss that "differ" from the TR would be used to argue that the church corrupted the Bible from the original. Indeed, one might argue that the presence of the CT and apologists such as James White are a positive answer to Bible critics who try to make it out that we have a corrupt text. They argue with some measure of persuasion and cogency that the methods of textual criticism, albeit flawed, have allowed us to reconstruct the original text to such an extent that the arguments of the apostates and agnostics fall flat.



> What do we have in the CT that we do not have in the TR?



This is a funny question. IFF you can forget that there really are thousands of mss with differences, and IFF you accept the KJVO arguments about providence leading Erasmus to have the "right" mss to translate from, etc. . . . then . . . nothing.

If you begin by saying that out of the thousands of mss. you want to have only the readings that the original Author and the biblical writers actually wrote, and you are confident in the methodology employed by the textual critics to determine this, then you may gain quite a bit.

In terms of doctrinal outcomes neither textual tradition gives us anything all that unique . . . you can be just as Reformed with either the TR or the CT, just as Arminian with either the TR or the CT, and just as committed to the Word-Faith "name it and claim it" movement with either one. 

The vast majority of the most orthodox Reformed teachers today AND a rank apostate like Bart Ehrman all accept the CT. Some of the most Godly and articulate expositors of the Word (e.g., our own Rev. Winzer) AND some of the most heretical argue for their unusual views with a KJV in their hands. So, in my opinion, the issue is not one of what does the CT (or TR) add. You can be orthodox or heretical with either text in your hands.

Please remember: the most staunchly KJVO advocate and the firm CT devotee both argue that they have THE Word of God. And, on the doctrines of Christ, sin, salvation, the Holy Spirit, the Second Coming, Election, Predestination, the Atonement, etc. BOTH the CT and the TR "teach" THE SAME THING!!! Whether your Bible includes 1 John 5:7 or not, the Trinity is clearly articulated or suggested in many texts (e.g., Eph. 1:3-14; Matt 28:18-20, etc.). If you remove the woman taken in adultery from John 8, all of the doctrine and homiletical applications can be taught using other passages. The Marcan ending, however, just plain confuses me. I have nothing to say one way or the other on it. Mark 16:8 would indeed be a "weird" way to end a "Gospel." But so is snake handling???????


----------



## SolaGratia

I have heard that we have about 98% of the Word of God in our Bibles (either in the KJV, NASB, ESC, etc. or TR and CT). Also, that what we are missing is equivalent to not having one fat toe in one of our feet. However, this is okay since what we are missing we can know and figure out base on what we have already for certain in the Word of God revealed.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I'm going to close this thread now and remind everyone that the biggest issues, on both sides, has been a supposition (by a few) that an alternative view is wicked. Positions are painted in the worst possible light.

This debate from a few threads has spilled over in a way to affect personal relationships. A few of us on the Mod team have become emotionally exhausted by the turmoil this has sparked.

This issue is worth debating over and fighting for but, for me, it's not worth splitting Churches over and decreeing the "believers in God's Providence" from the unbelievers.

For my part, I have resolved in the board at large that I'm gong to spend much less engery trying to explain that I'm a brother in Christ who has a differing view for Biblical reasons to some who really are not interested in why I do or even believe that I can have Biblical reasons for some. I've resolved to be more irenic and not throw my weight into discussions that can only inflame because my sense of what a fair discussion has been co-opted. I'm going to encourage those and help those that want to hear my thoughts on a matter and be nonresponsive and patient with those who are disinterested.

I can't see any other way to keep some level of peace here as well as letting it affect personal relationships that I hold dear.


----------

