# Read With Me: ‘Why I Preach from the Received Text: An Anthology of Essays by Reformed Ministers’



## Imputatio (Jul 26, 2022)

I’m going to be reading through Why I Preach from the Received Text: An Anthology of Essays by Reformed Ministers.

If anyone would like to also read it, this is a place where we can share our thoughts and perhaps talk through some of the issues.

I put it in this forum (not the literary forum) because the discussion will be about textual issues. 

Anyone interested?

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jul 26, 2022)

I read Brett Mahlen's essay. As Dr. Riddle mentioned at the conference though, the book is more of a devotion/testimonial rather than an apologetic for the TR position.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 26, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I read Brett Mahlen's essay. As Dr. Riddle mentioned at the conference though, the book is more of a devotion/testimonial rather than an apologetic for the TR position.


I understand that, but it still helps give a full-orbed view of the TR position. At least I hope so. I’ve yet to read anything like it.


----------



## B.L. (Jul 26, 2022)

Here's a review of the book by Mark Ward from a few days ago. 

I haven't read the book, but am interested...

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1 | Informative 2


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 27, 2022)

I read chapter one. 

I know the book is not meant to be a systematic apologetic of the position, but the first essay was a 1/5, if I’m being generous.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Jul 27, 2022)

How can a pastor who thinks a certain Bible is “satan’s Bible” be in a denomination where many of his fellow pastors use said “satanic” Bible?

Reactions: Like 5 | Edifying 1


----------



## danekristjan (Jul 27, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> I read chapter one.
> 
> I know the book is not meant to be a systematic apologetic of the position, but the first essay was a 1/5, if I’m being generous.


What made it a 1/5?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 27, 2022)

B.L. said:


> Here's a review of the book by Mark Ward from a few days ago.
> 
> I haven't read the book, but am interested...


I'm sad to say that I'm much less interested now if Ward is correct that some of the contributors appeal to Psalm 12:6-7.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 27, 2022)

That's an interesting review. Concerning the "demonization" language, I've seen it from a certain contributor (in that book) on social media.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## danekristjan (Jul 27, 2022)

Pilgrim said:


> I'm sad to say that I'm much less interested now if Ward is correct that some of the contributors appeal to Psalm 12:6-7.


Yes ... it's unfortunate, seeing that almost no one in church history, outside of ruckmanites, have taken this verse as referring to the preservation of the scriptures.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 27, 2022)

danekristjan said:


> What made it a 1/5?


I will respond when I have time to scan over my notes. Hopefully later this evening.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 28, 2022)

danekristjan said:


> What made it a 1/5?


I hesitate to be too critical because I’m just a nobody. But these were my observations.

1)

The author uses nearly two pages out of the nine total to tell us how bad the RSV, NASB, and NIV *translations* are. In a book about the Received Text, translational choices are irrelevant to the discussion.

As an example, the author says of the NASB, it “favors questionable interpretations in the way it translates some prepositions and other words.”

No evidence given. Simply “modern translations bad, KJV good” type of argumentation.

For the NIV, the author decries it for not being “a word-for-word translation,” and tacks on to the end of the paragraph, “based on the critical text.”

Again conflating translation and textual issues, coming across as mere rhetoric (which I’m finding much of the book to be).


2)

Author says’ “When I began to study Old Testament textual criticism in seminary, it became quite clear that the Lord had “by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Old Testament.”

States it as fact, provides no evidence, and moves on.


3) 

Author claims eclecticism is “not based on biblical faith in the infinite, eternal, unchangeable, supernatural God…[who] reveals himself in his Word, which he breathed out and preserved.”

Granted this was during his time in seminary, possibly learning about the worst of modern textual criticism; but it is a common theme in this book to go after the low-hanging fruit instead of comparing the TR position to the best of believing, faithful, Confessional CT scholarship.


4)

There’s nearly a page devoted to proclaiming the glories of God, and speaking of things such as infallible truth, divine promises, God as author of Scripture, the divine nature of Scripture in its qualities, etc., with a rhetorical flair that is meant to lead the reader to think the TR position has a monopoly on believing such things.


5)

Author claims that the way the “modern method of textual criticism” deals with variant readings (i.e. “make a rational guess about what a human author is likely to have written and whether it was accurately copied or was corrupted”), is “fundamentally contrary to the biblical doctrine of God and his self-attesting revelation of himself to men.” He cites WCF 1.4 here.

This obviously makes it seem as though the TR is monolithic, with no variants between the manuscripts, and that no human had to ever make a judgment call about any jot or tittle.


6)

In favor of his position, the author claims that “when an error was made in a manuscript [through the centuries], it was discarded.” Meaning, the church kept the manuscript tradition “faithfully preserv[ed].” This is why you can trust the TR.


That’s all I have for that one. I’d love your thoughts on any of those points.

Overall it was full of rhetoric and baseless assertions, never touching upon solid, believing CT scholarship.

I’m really worried the book is going to be largely a collection of essays with a KJVO vibe, dressed in TR garb. I hope I’m wrong.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 5


----------



## danekristjan (Jul 28, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> I hesitate to be too critical because I’m just a nobody. But these were my observations.
> 
> 1)
> 
> ...


Thank you for your feedback. That was exactly what the book was intended to do. We hoped to stimulate interaction and thinking through the issues. It's good to remember that these are largely personal testimonies, which of course make claims. I know every man who contributed a chapter would categorically reject KJVO, and many are reformed ministers in reformed denominations that would likely discipline them for holding such a view. Good to keep that in mind as we read, even as the rhetoric flies back and forth. 
My chapter, for instance, is just as valid whether you use the Geneva, NKJV, Matthew's, MEV, Jay Green's etc etc, though, it presupposes what I was preaching from at that time, the KJV.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jul 28, 2022)

danekristjan said:


> My chapter, for instance, is just as valid whether you use the Geneva, NKJV, Matthew's, MEV, Jay Green's etc etc, though, it presupposes what I was preaching from at that time, the KJV.


I wonder if one of the book contributors will respond to Mark Ward?


B.L. said:


> Here's a review of the book by Mark Ward from a few days ago.


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 28, 2022)

danekristjan said:


> Thank you for your feedback. That was exactly what the book was intended to do. We hoped to stimulate interaction and thinking through the issues. It's good to remember that these are largely personal testimonies, which of course make claims. I know every man who contributed a chapter would categorically reject KJVO, and many are reformed ministers in reformed denominations that would likely discipline them for holding such a view. Good to keep that in mind as we read, even as the rhetoric flies back and forth.
> My chapter, for instance, is just as valid whether you use the Geneva, NKJV, Matthew's, MEV, Jay Green's etc etc, though, it presupposes what I was preaching from at that time, the KJV.


Sounds good. Even though I disagree with the position, I look forward to the rest of it as I’m merely a novice.


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 28, 2022)

Overview of Chapter 2 up next. Stay tuned.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jul 28, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I wonder if one of the book contributors will respond to Mark Ward?



I would respond to Mark Ward but as he doesn't interact with my own contribution in the book I'll leave that to others. I'm actually disappointed with all of the emphasis on the King James Version and not the matter of the authentic/canonical text (TR).

I have yet to be able to respond to anyone offering a critique of the argument from canon that I make, whether from the lectures at the 2019 Text and Canon Conference, or in the initial responses to the short essay I wrote for the book.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 28, 2022)

Robert Truelove said:


> I would respond to Mark Ward but as he doesn't interact with my own contribution in the book I'll leave that to others. I'm actually disappointed with all of the emphasis on the King James Version and not the matter of the authentic/canonical text (TR).
> 
> I have yet to be able to respond to anyone offering a critique of the argument from canon that I make, whether from the lectures at the 2019 Text and Canon Conference, or in the initial responses to the short essay I wrote for the book.


Do you think any of the essays actually weaken the overall argument of the book when taken as a whole? Especially when it may be someone’s first exposure to the position?


----------



## Robert Truelove (Jul 28, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> Do you think any of the essays actually weaken the overall argument of the book when taken as a whole? Especially when it may be someone’s first exposure to the position?



I have yet to read it. I'm still waiting for my printed copy.

That said, I do think some of the arguments (in general...not commenting on the book) used to lead the argument for the TR can weaken the defense of the position.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 28, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I read Brett Mahlen's essay. As Dr. Riddle mentioned at the conference though, the book is more of a devotion/testimonial rather than an apologetic for the TR position.


It seems this is the purpose of the book, not as an apologetic for the TR position.... But it seems like you (@Aspiring Homesteader) are treating it as an apologetic for the TR position. There are many other books that do this...it seems this is not one of them.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jul 28, 2022)

Robert Truelove said:


> I would respond to Mark Ward but as he doesn't interact with my own contribution in the book I'll leave that to others. I'm actually disappointed with all of the emphasis on the King James Version and not the matter of the authentic/canonical text (TR).
> 
> I have yet to be able to respond to anyone offering a critique of the argument from canon that I make, whether from the lectures at the 2019 Text and Canon Conference, or in the initial responses to the short essay I wrote for the book.


Agree with this. I keep being told it's not just the KJV but when you actually see what is is practice it almost always is it has to be the KJV and no others. The NKJV (my favorite translation) is attacked almost as bad as the NIV. My suggestion to the editors of future editions would be to reject any essays that are truly KJV only and focus on the true TR proponents. I believe that is a more honest message and helps separate from the unbalanced folks. I personally am not really a fan of the KJV. The language is outdated no matter what someone wants to say. The language is not more holy or anything special. The NKJV also seems to follow the schrievner TR a lot more which appears to be the favored text. The MEV also seems like a good option.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jul 28, 2022)

Romans922 said:


> It seems this is the purpose of the book, not as an apologetic for the TR position.... But it seems like you (@Aspiring Homesteader) are treating it as an apologetic for the TR position. There are many other books that do this...it seems this is not one of them.


What is the best book on the defense of the TR position in your opinion? I would love to get it and read it. I can put it next to the KJV only controversy as the two books to read on the topic. Pastor Mahlen did give me a book called "kept pure in all ages" by Jeffrey Khoo that I plan to read.


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 28, 2022)

Robert Truelove said:


> I have yet to read it. I'm still waiting for my printed copy.
> 
> That said, I do think some of the arguments (in general...not commenting on the book) used to lead the argument for the TR can weaken the defense of the position.


Thanks.


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 28, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> What is the best book on the defense of the TR position in your opinion? I would love to get it and read it. I can put it next to the KJV only controversy as the two books to read on the topic. Pastor Mahlen did give me a book called "kept pure in all ages" by Jeffrey Khoo that I plan to read.


@Robert Truelove would probably be better at answering that as he is much more well read on the subject. 

One recently I've read that was good was this: https://www.amazon.com/Westminster-...ments=p_27:Garnet+Howard+Milne&s=books&sr=1-2

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 28, 2022)

Romans922 said:


> It seems this is the purpose of the book, not as an apologetic for the TR position.... But it seems like you (@Aspiring Homesteader) are treating it as an apologetic for the TR position. There are many other books that do this...it seems this is not one of them.


That’s fair, and I will read others. But when someone is telling me (via a book) why they preach from the TR, I think it’s fair to “join in the conversation.”

Plus, the book claims to be “An exceptional volume confirming the integrity of the traditional text of the Bible;” “Both persuasive and encouraging.” Etc.

It makes big claims; I think it’s then fair to assess those claims. 

Thanks for the reminder though, brother.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 28, 2022)

How many of the essays are written by men on this board? And which ones?


----------



## danekristjan (Jul 28, 2022)

Romans922 said:


> It seems this is the purpose of the book, not as an apologetic for the TR position.... But it seems like you (@Aspiring Homesteader) are treating it as an apologetic for the TR position. There are many other books that do this...it seems this is not one of them.


True enough, but as I pointed out, while it is testimonial in nature, myself and all the other contributors make arguments for the TR in our testimonies as to why we use it, so those arguments can be fairly dealt with as they stand, even if their context is personal testimony. The personal testimonies are really just launching pads for popular level arguments for the TR.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andres (Jul 28, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> What is the best book on the defense of the TR position in your opinion? I would love to get it and read it. I can put it next to the KJV only controversy as the two books to read on the topic. Pastor Mahlen did give me a book called "kept pure in all ages" by Jeffrey Khoo that I plan to read.


If you have a copy of the "Why I Preach..." book, there is a pretty hefty bibliography at the back that has numerous references and suggestions.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Jul 28, 2022)

Andres said:


> If you have a copy of the "Why I Preach..." book, there is a pretty hefty bibliography at the back that has numerous references and suggestions.


I had not even looked to the back yet. Thanks for pointing it out.


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 28, 2022)

danekristjan said:


> True enough, but as I pointed out, while it is testimonial in nature, myself and all the other contributors make arguments for the TR in our testimonies as to why we use it, so those arguments can be fairly dealt with as they stand, even if their context is personal testimony. The personal testimonies are really just launching pads for popular level arguments for the TR.


In your opinion, which essays best represent the correct position?


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 29, 2022)

I have now received (finally) this book and read the first chapter. 



Aspiring Homesteader said:


> 1)
> 
> The author uses nearly two pages out of the nine total to tell us how bad the RSV, NASB, and NIV *translations* are. In a book about the Received Text, translational choices are irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> ...



First, let's not exaggerate. It's about 1.25 pages to compare those translations and how they word things compared to a translation based on the TR. I see this as serving the purpose of "setting the stage". Why is this topic important to the modern reader? Not everyone believes it is important... 

As for the NIV - it is a fact that it is not a word-for-word translation and it is based on the critical text. Not sure anyone denies this. This first chapter seems to be more of a testimonial more than an apologetic. 



Aspiring Homesteader said:


> 2)
> 
> Author says’ “When I began to study Old Testament textual criticism in seminary, it became quite clear that the Lord had “by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Old Testament.”
> 
> States it as fact, provides no evidence, and moves on.



While he doesn't prove this, he is quoting the WCF 1.8. So does he need to prove it? Are we disagreeing with the WCF 1.8 here on the PB?



Aspiring Homesteader said:


> 5)
> 
> Author claims that the way the “modern method of textual criticism” deals with variant readings (i.e. “make a rational guess about what a human author is likely to have written and whether it was accurately copied or was corrupted”), is “fundamentally contrary to the biblical doctrine of God and his self-attesting revelation of himself to men.” He cites WCF 1.4 here.
> 
> This obviously makes it seem as though the TR is monolithic, with no variants between the manuscripts, and that no human had to ever make a judgment call about any jot or tittle.



I think his point here is going off what he said of Pastors and others reading the Eclectic Text, individuals have to make guesses based on probability (he cited USB categorization method of A, B, C, D ratings). It's all based on probabilities. He quoted Bruce Metzger about this (a major Eclectic Text scholar). So for someone like myself, going to use the USB or NA, I am having to make rational (fallen by the way) guesses. I fully understand what he's saying. 



Aspiring Homesteader said:


> 6)
> 
> In favor of his position, the author claims that “when an error was made in a manuscript [through the centuries], it was discarded.” Meaning, the church kept the manuscript tradition “faithfully preserv[ed].” This is why you can trust the TR.



Yep. More closely to say the Lord promised and has been faithful to preserve His word in the Church through the centuries.


Overall, I can't really rate it as I'd like to compare to the rest of the chapters/authors in the book. It is certainly more testimonial as to the TR/KJV, but does bring into view the great concerns with the CT.

Looking at the rest of the book, it seems that this book won't provide what is being looked for as a defense of the TR. The chapters/articles are much too short to prove anything when each article is by a different author. Rather it seems this book is to represent why people made the choices that they have for *PREACHING* from the Authorized Version. Hence the title of the book. For chapter 1, it seems the authors main reason for preaching from the KJV is "Infallible Truth". If he were preaching from other translations he believes he would be preaching based on probability.


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 29, 2022)

Romans922 said:


> I have now received (finally) this book and read the first chapter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks, brother. 

I checked again and I actually see 1.5 pages. Let’s not underestimate it! 

But in all seriousness, running on fumes when I wrote it, I made a mistake. My apologies. 1.5. 

Perhaps his points helped to affirm the position to you, but as someone on the other side who doesn’t take these things as granted, the essay actually left me more turned off than before. 

But that’s the whole issue, isn’t it? By definition, there is no evidence or argument (or lack thereof) that could possibly disprove or cast doubt upon the TR. 

I believe that the position’s epistemology excludes any type of argumentation, especially textual critical argumentation. 

Hopefully the rest of the book can shed a lot more light on the belief, and really help understand it. 

Would you like to post an overview of the second chapter?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Jul 29, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> But that’s the whole issue, isn’t it? By definition, there is no evidence or argument (or lack thereof) that could possibly disprove or cast doubt upon the TR.


This isn't necessarily true. It's not that there is "no evidence or argument that could possibly disprove or cast doubt upon the TR." Rather, this discussion is actually upstream from speaking of evidences. It's actually presuppositional in nature, and I think that's where the divide often occurs. CT folks often want to speak of evidence, data, etc., and TR folks (at least in the strain of E. F. Hills) wish to discuss presuppositions. For myself, I'm fine discussing evidence, but evidence must be filtered through presuppositions, so I want to discuss those first.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 29, 2022)

Taylor said:


> CT folks often want to speak of evidence, data, etc., and TR folks (at least in the strain of E. F. Hills) wish to discuss presuppositions.



Yep. We start with Scripture and move forward, we don't start with methods of man and work backward.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Taylor (Jul 29, 2022)

Romans922 said:


> Yep. We start with Scripture and move forward, we don't start with methods of man and work backward.


And this is where I have had a problem particularly with Dr. Daniel Wallace, who has said on numerous occasions that we ought to approach the text of Scripture from a completely neutral standpoint, with no presuppositions whatsoever. Of course, this is nonsense, because it is not possible to approach anything without presuppositions. The attempt to be without presuppositions is itself a presupposition.

Because of this, Dr. Wallace also despises the confessional doctrine of preservation, calling it the novel invention of Westminster. (Of course, I fully recognize that this is not the stated position of all CT advocates, which is why I name Dr. Wallace specifically.)

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 29, 2022)

Taylor said:


> This isn't necessarily true. It's not that there is "no evidence or argument that could possibly disprove or cast doubt upon the TR." Rather, this discussion is actually upstream from speaking of evidences. It's actually presuppositional in nature, and I think that's where the divide often occurs. CT folks often want to speak of evidence, data, etc., and TR folks (at least in the strain of E. F. Hills) wish to discuss presuppositions.


Indeed, brother. 

My comment about epistemology is most applicable in the context of discussing evidence. 

When speaking of textual critical evidence, if the TR camp wants to leave things at, “God did it,” then I believe that is more faithful to their position (and logical and consistent).

Thank you for bringing up the distinction. I’m still learning.


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 29, 2022)

Romans922 said:


> Yep. We start with Scripture and move forward, we don't start with methods of man and work backward.


Can you expand on this?


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 29, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> Can you expand on this?



If we want to talk about textual criticism of Scripture, and the doctrine of Scripture through the ages (after the 1st Century AD), then we must start with Scripture. Scripture is perfect for it is God's Word. I.e. We must work from Scripture forward in time so that our doctrine determines our practice. Does God speak about His Word in the Scriptures? He certainly does. Then we must start there. However, modern textual criticism doesn't start with the presuppositions of Scripture. It starts with a theory from man that there's a problem, and then works backwards from the present to seek to solve said problem.



Taylor said:


> Dr. Daniel Wallace, who has said on numerous occasions that we ought to approach the text of Scripture from a completely neutral standpoint, with no presuppositions whatsoever."



Starting from a neutral standpoint is not starting from Scripture. So as Dr. Wallace says, there are no presuppositions. But the problem with that is God says something about His Word.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Jul 29, 2022)

Romans922 said:


> If we want to talk about textual criticism of Scripture, and the doctrine of Scripture through the ages (after the 1st Century AD), then we must start with Scripture. Scripture is perfect for it is God's Word. I.e. We must work from Scripture forward in time so that our doctrine determines our practice. Does God speak about His Word in the Scriptures? He certainly does. Then we must start there. However, modern textual criticism doesn't start with the presuppositions of Scripture. It starts with a theory from man that there's a problem, and then works backwards from the present to seek to solve said problem.


In other words, the Bible not only _cannot_, but _may not_ be treated like any other book, because it is like no other book. While all literature is sustained and upheld by the providence of God, Scripture, as the Confession says, is the object of God’s “_singular_ care and providence.”

This is, again, where men like Daniel Wallace and James White go astray in their presuppositions. They would say—and indeed have said—that we ought to treat the Bible like any other book. This is not a little problematic, in my view.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 29, 2022)

Thanks for sharing your opinions brothers. Much to think through. 

Where I am currently at is the TR position talks the talk, but doesn’t walk the walk. 

There’s always a majestic, rhetorical flair when speaking of the TR in these terms, but when I read church history and how the TR came to be, I just don’t see it. 

What I see is ultimately an anachronistic position. 

With all that said, I’m still learning and will comment with more substance as I’m able. 

Grace to you both!


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 29, 2022)

Taylor said:


> In other words, the Bible not only _cannot_, but _may not_ be treated like any other book, because it is like no other book. While all literature is sustained and upheld by the providence of God, Scripture, as the Confession says, is the object of God’s “_singular_ care and providence.”
> 
> This is, again, where men like Daniel Wallace and James White go astray in their presuppositions. They would say—and indeed have said—that we ought to treat the Bible like any other book. This is not a little problematic, in my view.


Can you link me to where White has said that we ought to treat the Bible like any other book? Thanks.


----------



## Taylor (Jul 29, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> Can you link me to where White has said that we ought to treat the Bible like any other book? Thanks.


All I could do would be to search through articles he’s written, but I’m talking about spoken material. I have indeed heard him say it on The Dividing Line on multiple occasions, but it would likely take dozens of hours to try to find quotes hidden somewhere in numerous multi-hour videos. So, unfortunately, you will simply have to take my word for it.

To be clear, this is in the area of textual criticism. These men do not believe we should treat the Bible like any other book in general, but only when doing textual criticism on it.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 29, 2022)

I think I am on the edge of something. I can't quite put my finger on it. I suppose my initial question is: "Do TR people consider their position falsifiable?"

Reactions: Like 1 | Wow 1


----------



## danekristjan (Jul 29, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I think I am on the edge of something. I can't quite put my finger on it. I suppose my initial question is: "Do TR people consider their position falsifiable?"


It would depend who you'd ask. Also what their position exactly is. Within the TR/Confessional Bibliology movement there are a host of different emphases, flavors, starting points and ending points. I think the book demonstrates that. I may be more willing to bend on certain things than others and others might bend where I am rigid.


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 29, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I think I am on the edge of something. I can't quite put my finger on it. I suppose my initial question is: "Do TR people consider their position falsifiable?"


I don’t know about theoretically, but in practice it seems it is not falsifiable because the system conforms the way external evidence is judged to whatever is needed to “affirm the consequent.”

The TR is assumed as the foundational starting point. Doesn’t that preclude any falsifiability?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Jul 29, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> The TR is assumed as the foundational starting point.


This is not the case at all.


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 29, 2022)

Taylor said:


> This is not the case at all.


In the realm of falsifiability (i.e. the realm of evidence for or against), is the TR not assumed as the correct text? 

Or are you saying the TR position is the conclusion of weighing the external textual evidence? I thought that is the very thing it may never be.


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 29, 2022)

Logic dictates how things may be contradictions. Contradiction is able to be predicated for any logical argument. All S is P; Some S is not P. 

Generally, proponents of the TR say that all of the TR is purely preserved by the Lord. It can then be falsified by proving that some of the TR is not purely preserved.


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 29, 2022)

Romans922 said:


> Logic dictates how things may be contradictions. Contradiction is able to be predicated for any logical argument. All S is P; Some S is not P.
> 
> Generally, proponents of the TR say that all of the TR is purely preserved by the Lord. It can then be falsified by proving that some of the TR is not purely preserved.


What would it require to prove that?

Because the CT camp believes it has been proven when the manuscript evidence for a particular reading is really bad.


----------



## Taylor (Jul 29, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> In the realm of falsifiability (i.e. the realm of evidence for or against), is the TR not assumed as the correct text?
> 
> Or are you saying the TR position is the conclusion of weighing the external textual evidence? I thought that is the very thing it may never be.


I think you’re still not understanding the TR position. The TR position is at its core a set of doctrinal presuppositions, the conclusions of which lead to the TR. It’s not a matter of _merely_ weighing evidence because, again, all textual data must of necessity be filtered through presuppositions about the text. This is why, for example, Dabney in his essays on this topic deals primarily with the canons of modern textual criticism. He absolutely deals with evidence, but mainly deals with the presuppositions, which he (I believe rightly) finds lacking.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 29, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I think you’re still not understanding the TR position. The TR position is at its core a set of doctrinal presuppositions, the conclusions of which lead to the TR. It’s not a matter of _merely_ weighing evidence because, again, all textual data must of necessity be filtered through presuppositions about the text. This is why, for example, Dabney in his essays on this topic deals primarily with the canons of modern textual criticism. He absolutely deals with evidence, but mainly deals with the presuppositions, which he (I believe rightly) finds lacking.



So the questions you should be asking should/must be what does Scripture say about Scripture? Perhaps more specifically, what does Scripture say about Scripture's preservation? You have to start there. Doctrine must come before practice (doxis --> praxis).


Now, I do not agree with the full conclusion of the Majority Text (Byzantine) as these authors, but this is the first thing I read that made me question everything on Textual Criticism that I had learned in seminary. They provide in the middle of this 13 points of presuppositions based in Scripture. https://www.amazon.com/Has-God-Indeed-Said-Preservation-ebook/dp/B07D49Y6C5#:~:text=Has God Indeed Said is,hope they continue to publish.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 29, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I think you’re still not understanding the TR position. The TR position is at its core a set of doctrinal presuppositions, the conclusions of which lead to the TR. It’s not a matter of _merely_ weighing evidence because, again, all textual data must of necessity be filtered through presuppositions about the text. This is why, for example, Dabney in his essays on this topic deals primarily with the canons of modern textual criticism. He absolutely deals with evidence, but mainly deals with the presuppositions, which he (I believe rightly) finds lacking.


Okay fair enough. I’ll put Dabney on the list. Thank you.

Was the exact book of his mentioned already? Can’t remember off the top of my head. I seem to think it was. I’ll check. 

Back to Jacob’s question. Can the position be falsified? If so, how?

If the presuppositions lead only to the TR, can’t it be said to be unfalsifiable?


----------



## Taylor (Jul 29, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> Was the exact book of his mentioned already? Can’t remember off the top of my head. I seem to think it was. I’ll check.


The two articles are _The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek_ and _The Revised Version of the New Testament_. They are in volume one of his _Discussions_. They can also be found online.



Aspiring Homesteader said:


> Back to Jacob’s question. Can the position be falsified? If so, how?
> 
> If the presuppositions lead only to the TR, can’t it be said to be unfalsifiable?


What do you mean by “unfalsifiable,” and what significance does it have?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 29, 2022)

Taylor said:


> The two articles are _The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek_ and _The Revised Version of the New Testament_. They are in volume one of his _Discussions_. They can also be found online.
> 
> 
> What do you mean by “unfalsifiable,” and what significance does it have?


Thank you. 

And you’ll have to ask @RamistThomist those particulars.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jul 29, 2022)

Taylor said:


> All I could do would be to search through articles he’s written, but I’m talking about spoken material. I have indeed heard him say it on The Dividing Line on multiple occasions, but it would likely take dozens of hours to try to find quotes hidden somewhere in numerous multi-hour videos. So, unfortunately, you will simply have to take my word for it.
> 
> To be clear, this is in the area of textual criticism. These men do not believe we should treat the Bible like any other book in general, but only when doing textual criticism on it.


During James White's debate with Jeff Riddle on Eph 3:9, James compared Biblical textual criticism to determining the true reading of historic works of Plato Aristotle etc. In other words he was implying that you determine the text of the Bible naturalistically, just as you would for other historical works. I rejected the CT approach after this!

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 1 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 29, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> Thank you.
> 
> And you’ll have to ask @RamistThomist those particulars.



Unfalsifiable = no conditions under which the position may be proven false. At least that's how I am using it.


----------



## Taylor (Jul 29, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> Thank you.
> 
> And you’ll have to ask @RamistThomist those particulars.





RamistThomist said:


> Unfalsifiable = no conditions under which the position may be proven false. At least that's how I am using it.


That’s how I figured it was being used. I know that falsifiability is usually a criteria for having a legitimate/valid hypothesis. But what is the significance in this particular matter of having the thesis be falsifiable? I’m asking genuinely.


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 30, 2022)

A review of the book. Can’t recall if it has been shared. Sorry if it has. 









Mark Jr.'s review of Why I Preach from the Received Text


2/5: I’ve wondered how I can fairly describe a book that has more than two dozen authors. There is, indeed, a spectrum of views represented here. The contributions do not all perfectly cohere. So I think I’ll describe the poles, which I take to be the contributions of Mahlen and Myers. And then...



www.goodreads.com


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 30, 2022)

Taylor said:


> That’s how I figured it was being used. I know that falsifiability is usually a criteria for having a legitimate/valid hypothesis. But what is the significance in this particular matter of having the thesis be falsifiable? I’m asking genuinely.



If the TR admits that his position is not falsifiable, then he is practically saying under no conditions could he be wrong. That's why these conversations often end the way they do.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Jul 30, 2022)

Having not read the book but the review, it bothers me that Rev. Myers, who I believe is RPCNA, calls CT translations “Satan’s Bible.” Is this a widespread belief among CB advocates, as opposed to being “inferior”? It would seem that pastors who believe CT promoters are promoting the devil’s work should be bringing the CT users up on church disciplinary charges for corrupting the Word of God. If it’s not worth this, they should stop using such incendiary (slanderous?) language.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 30, 2022)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> Having not read the book but the review, it bothers me that Rev. Myers, who I believe is RPCNA, calls CT translations “Satan’s Bible.” Is this a widespread belief among CB advocates, as opposed to being “inferior”? It would seem that pastors who believe CT promoters are promoting the devil’s work should be bringing the CT users up on church disciplinary charges for corrupting the Word of God. If it’s not worth this, they should stop using such incendiary (slanderous?) language.



Perhaps you should read the article instead of just the review (which is obviously very much against the book/conclusions) before coming to such conclusions. Mr. Ward has an axe to grind, and if you read the book you will find that Mr. Myers doesn't call translations "Satan's Bible". He does say that they are based on Satan's Bible.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Jul 30, 2022)

Romans922 said:


> Perhaps you should read the article instead of just the review (which is obviously very much against the book/conclusions) before coming to such conclusions. Mr. Ward has an axe to grind, and if you read the book you will find that Mr. Myers doesn't call translations "Satan's Bible". He does say that they are based on Satan's Bible.


What’s the effective difference?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 30, 2022)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> What’s the effective difference?


One is the CT and one regards translations. Maybe ask why Mr Ward is misrepresenting the author…. Further, read the article not just the contrary position review of it…

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Jul 30, 2022)

Romans922 said:


> One is the CT and one regards translations. Maybe ask why Mr Ward is misrepresenting the author…. Further, read the article not just the contrary position review of it…


This is from the book right, or is there an article to this effect? (I looked up Myers name and “Satan’s Bible” but only came to reviews of this book)

That still prompts the question if people are using translations of “Satan’s Bible” is this not a heresy that should be prosecuted? Does this not bring into question the salvation of its promoters? If indeed the CT is a satanic Bible.


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 30, 2022)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> This is from the book right, or is there an article to this effect? (I looked up Myers name and “Satan’s Bible” but only came to reviews of this book)
> 
> That still prompts the question if people are using translations of “Satan’s Bible” is this not a heresy that should be prosecuted? Does this not bring into question the salvation of its promoters? If indeed the CT is a satanic Bible.


It’s a chapter in the book. I’m calling you to go read the book instead of reading reviews of a book where clearly the man has an axe to grind. And then commenting on it and calling for action…

It could call into question their salvation, or it could call into question their discernment, or it could be said that they have been deceived. Of the last, I can see how on many topics in the church I have been deceived by Satan’s device throughout the years. I’m sure you could too. There are many possibilities. If someone is attacking your view, the best thing to do is to examine your heart, the Scriptures, etc. not get offended as if someone is questioning one's salvation.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## kodos (Jul 30, 2022)

Ward's review is odd. His review seems entirely against the KJV and does not really consider the text family argument that the men bring up (I have only skimmed through the book, but even I have seen textual arguments in the book). So, I am unsure if his is a fair review of the book, or an expression of his distaste of the KJV being used in public ministry.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 30, 2022)

@RamistThomist, you seem to be on to something.

For you TR gentlemen, is there anyone who isn’t misrepresenting your position? Anyone who isn’t attacking a straw-man? Anyone who doesn’t have an axe to grind? Anyone who actually understands your position well enough to critique it? Is there even a reasonable critique that your are willing to admit?

EDIT: I want to know so I can see the best of either side.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 30, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> @RamistThomist, you seem to be on to something.


https://puritanboard.com/threads/re...ys-by-reformed-ministers’.109245/post-1315162 It was asked and answered.


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 30, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> For you TR gentlemen, is there anyone who isn’t misrepresenting your position? Anyone who isn’t attacking a straw-man? Anyone who doesn’t have an axe to grind? Anyone who actually understands your position well enough to critique it? Is there even a reasonable critique that your are willing to admit?


What is our position? I am not sure that has been described by a non-TR person in this thread...for it to possibly be misrepresented. No one here has made an argument really against the TR to be possibly a strawman. We are minimally interacting with a book that supports why men preach from the KJV. You sir may have an axe to grind, but I'm not sure others do necessarily even of yourself it is difficult to tell. If a reasonable critique of the TR were offered it must be considered and examined. In this thread a critique really hasn't been offered, I assume mostly because we are dealing with a book again about why men preach from the KJV. I'm not really sure what the point of your questions are, this has all been asked and answered before. Should I ask the same of you? Perhaps pose your own questions back to yourself concerning your view...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 30, 2022)

Romans922 said:


> What is our position? I am not sure that has been described by a non-TR person in this thread...for it to possibly be misrepresented. No one here has made an argument really against the TR to be possibly a strawman. We are minimally interacting with a book that supports why men preach from the KJV. You sir may have an axe to grind, but I'm not sure others do necessarily even of yourself it is difficult to tell. If a reasonable critique of the TR were offered it must be considered and examined. In this thread a critique really hasn't been offered, I assume mostly because we are dealing with a book again about why men preach from the KJV. I'm not really sure what the point of your questions are, this has all been asked and answered before. Should I ask the same of you? Perhaps pose your own questions back to yourself concerning your view...


I’m asking more generally, not in the context of what’s been offered in this thread.


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 30, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> I’m asking more generally, not in the context of what’s been offered in this thread.


I have found many people who have and have not misrepresented our position, created strawmen and didn't, etc. Are you now asking that I reproduce them all? LOL Again what's the purpose of these questions?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio (Jul 30, 2022)

Romans922 said:


> I have found many people who have and have not misrepresented our position, created strawmen and didn't, etc. Are you now asking that I reproduce them all? LOL Again what's the purpose of these questions?



I’m asking these questions because instead of potentially wasting our time working through points that are dismissed out of hand by the TR position, I’d like to go straight to published, well-known men who have offered legitimate critiques.

So I’m asking first, are there any legitimate critiques?

Then, which men are doing the best at bringing those critiques?

I’m not asking you to produce an encyclopedia of everyone’s personal arguments. 

@greenbaggins has mentioned Harry Sturz on this board. Does he offer a legitimate critique, in your opinion?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 30, 2022)

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> I’m asking these questions because instead of potentially wasting our time working through points that are dismissed out of hand by the TR position, I’d like to go straight to published, well-known men who have offered legitimate critiques.
> 
> So I’m asking first, are there any legitimate critiques?
> 
> ...



Never heard of Harry Sturz. I don't think anyone here is dismissing an argument against TR out of hand. That doesn't mean that a proponent of TR will just give up their position easily either.

I will bow out of this thread, we are apparently not discussing the book anymore. Have a blessed Lord's day.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Aug 12, 2022)

Romans922 said:


> One is the CT and one regards translations. Maybe ask why Mr Ward is misrepresenting the author…. Further, read the article not just the contrary position review of it…



Ward did not misrepresent the author. He clearly quoted him. 








Review: Why I Preach from the Received Text | By Faith We Understand






byfaithweunderstand.com





For what it's worth, Ward has written quite a bit on this and textual topics and I find him to be extremely well-informed, fair, and irenic. He makes a lot of fair points in his critique that should balance out the praise.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Romans922 (Aug 16, 2022)

Logan said:


> Ward did not misrepresent the author. He clearly quoted him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Riddle's response to Ward:






Riddle responds to Ward's review of "Why I preach from the Received Text"


Riddle does a good job on responding to Ward's review on the book. After reading the book, and then reading Ward's review, I felt he completely missed (and did not engage with) the arguments concerning Providential Preservation in the book and only seemed to see the three letters "KJV"...




www.puritanboard.com

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## kodos (Aug 16, 2022)

Logan said:


> Ward did not misrepresent the author. He clearly quoted him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Surely, you can quote someone and still misrepresent them? See: Satan quoting Scripture.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Aug 16, 2022)

kodos said:


> Surely, you can quote someone and still misrepresent them? See: Satan quoting Scripture.



Summary:


Romans922 said:


> Mr. Ward has an axe to grind, and if you read the book you will find that Mr. Myers doesn't call translations "Satan's Bible". He does say that they are based on Satan's Bible.





Romans922 said:


> Maybe ask why Mr Ward is misrepresenting the author…



Ward's quotes Myers: "Modern translations _based on_ Satan’s Bible, that omit some of the Word of God, include the New American Standard Bible, New International Version, English Standard Version, and many others."

Ward continues: "Let me stop and register this again: according to Myers, this very day I carried, heard, and preached from translations _based on_ Satan’s Bible."

Thus Ward did not misrepresent the author on this particular point, which is what I said. Ward never said that Myers called some translations "Satan's Bible" as claimed.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 29, 2022)

Dr Matthew Everhard's review is now available. I found the review very charitable. One point - I remain unconvinced that my Confessional Text brethren have put sufficient distance between their position and KJV onlyism. Dr Everhard agrees and argues this book is essentially a defense of Practical King James Onlyism.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2


----------



## Logan (Aug 30, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Dr Matthew Everhard's review is now available. I found the review very charitable. One point - I remain unconvinced that my Confessional Text brethren have put sufficient distance between their position and KJV onlyism. Dr Everhard agrees and argues this book is essentially a defense of Practical King James Onlyism.



Thanks for posting this. I had the chance to listen to it while working on other things.

I definitely appreciated the tone and the balance. He had positive things to say but also pointed out many of the same negatives Ward did.

I was surprised to hear from him that the book was primarily about the KJV and the Greek text is almost not mentioned. Perhaps Ward's review wasn't so far off base? However, that does highlight one of the concerns that I have with the TR position: at least from the Reformed side it truly does try to stress that it's all about the Greek text...but in the end it really does seem to be all about the KJV and defending whatever ended up in that English translation. TR advocates who think the NKJV is acceptable are about as rare as hen's teeth and apparently none of them contributed to this collection. It truly does seem sometimes like it ends up at practical KJVO position.

On the point that Turretin is quoted in the book as saying that "All the Greek copies have [1 John 5:7]:
It really does irk me when Turretin is brought up regarding this because it is either ignorant or dishonest scholarship. Turretin did say that (pg 115 of his Elenctic Theology), but he gives his source (Sixtus Sinensis) and quote:

"et in omnibus Graecis exemplaribus ab ipsis Apostolorum temporibus lecta", Bibliotheca sancta, 1575.

So let's be honest: Turretin is NOT the authority you're talking about. You're really talking about the Roman Catholic scholar Sixtus Sinensis who was defending the Comma in the Vulgate and made the lofty and pious-sounding claim that "It was in all the Greek copies from the time of the Apostles." That's the authority you're really appealing to, not Turretin. And personally I don't find that to be a reliable authority (or a documented claim) at all. 

So if the actual quotation (from a Roman Catholic) is demonstrably false, what value do we gain from even quoting it? What could possibly be gleaned from it? It's demonstrably false: "all" the Greek copies do not in fact contain it. Do we assume it indicates that "most" of the Greek copies had it...but they must have been lost? That "some" of the Greek copies had it...but they must have been lost? There is nothing of value that we can get from this quotation except the appearance of authority (Turretin) to bolster the position...which ends up being an unsubstantiated Roman Catholic claim.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Aug 30, 2022)

Logan said:


> Thanks for posting this. I had the chance to listen to it while working on other things.
> 
> I definitely appreciated the tone and the balance. He had positive things to say but also pointed out many of the same negatives Ward did.
> 
> ...


I just got done listening to the review. I believe Dr. Everhard is right on the mark with his comments.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 30, 2022)

Can someone remind me and all that read this thread (now nearly 3,000 at this posting) what KJV onlyism is, what makes one a practical KJC onlyist, and what must a defender of the received text do to avoid getting labeled by either of these?

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## ZackF (Aug 30, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Can someone remind me and all that read this thread (now nearly 3,000 at this posting) what KJV onlyism is, what makes one a practical KJC onlyist, and what must a defender of the received text do to avoid getting labeled by either of these?


Respectfully Chris, you just hit on it. You've mentioned KJV onlyism and defender of the received text in the same sentence. To some they are a packaged deal. To others they are not.


----------



## Logan (Aug 30, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Can someone remind me and all that read this thread (now nearly 3,000 at this posting) what KJV onlyism is, what makes one a practical KJC onlyist, and what must a defender of the received text do to avoid getting labeled by either of these?



At least according to Everhard's recounting of this book, the contributors of the book would rightly decry KJV Onlyism as a cult and say instead that their own stance is about the TR.

However, practically speaking, the contributors all focused on the KJV, discounted any other version as acceptable, and never discussed any differences the KJV has with the various TR editions.

I guess it's kind of like someone vigorously denying they are a vegan, but refuses to eat anything but vegetables and tells everyone else they should only eat vegetables too. 

Personally, I'd avoid the label.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 3


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 30, 2022)

Logan said:


> However, practically speaking, the contributors all focused on the KJV, discounted any other version as acceptable, and never discussed any differences the KJV has with the various TR editions.


Agreed. I believe if they had said the NKJV is a very good translation of the Received Text, they would have been able to demonstrate they indeed distance themselves from KJV Onlyism.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 30, 2022)

Logan said:


> At least according to Everhard's recounting of this book, the contributors of the book would rightly decry KJV Onlyism as a cult and say instead that their own stance is about the TR.
> 
> However, practically speaking, the contributors all focused on the KJV, discounted any other version as acceptable, and never discussed any differences the KJV has with the various TR editions.
> 
> ...


KJVO = The English is inspired. "If the KJV English was good enough for Paul, it's good enough for me."
TR = The Greek, based on the "best guess" of the choices made by the KJV translators *is* the Greek text (epigraph=autograph=inspired)

You could create another "non-Vegan" text but it's going to be in the shape of a KJV vegetable.

Reactions: Funny 2 | Wow 1


----------



## Jake (Aug 30, 2022)

Semper Fidelis said:


> KJVO = The English is inspired. "If the KJV English was good enough for Paul, it's good enough for me."
> TR = The Greek, based on the "best guess" of the choices made by the KJV translators *is* the Greek text (epigraph=autograph=inspired)
> 
> You could create another "non-Vegan" text but it's going to be in the shape of a KJV vegetable.



In this debate which I'm finishing, I think the TR folks and the KJVO only folks were similar to what you describe. 



 The most telling difference was that the KJVO would translate to other languages from the KJV instead of Scrivener's TR. I've found most TR advocates on this forum are much better than the ones in that debate, thankfully.

That said, some TR advocates including Robert Truelove are willing to accept variants within the editions of the TR (or more practically, within Erasmus' 3rd edition on; excluding the versions without the Comma). I haven't read this book so I don't know how it would be approached by the contributors.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Aug 31, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Agreed. I believe if they had said the NKJV is a very good translation of the Received Text, they would have been able to demonstrate they indeed distance themselves from KJV Onlyism.


It seems many TR/Confessional Text advocates are redefining KJVO - “I’m not KJVO since I’m not a Ruckmanite and don’t believe the KJV corrects the Greek. I also don’t think people need to learn English to read the one Bible.” I don’t think many self proclaimed KJVO IFBs believe this either. It’s deflection. 

I’ve always thought it made sense that if you think English speaking Christians should only use the KJV, and that all others(NKJV, MEV) are corrupt, you’re not just TRO but KJVO. All Ruckmanites are KJVO, but not all KJVOs (Cloud, Waite, TBS, many TR advocates) are Ruckmanite.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Phil D. (Aug 31, 2022)

Logan said:


> So let's be honest: Turretin is NOT the authority you're talking about. You're really talking about the Roman Catholic scholar Sixtus Sinensis who was defending the Comma in the Vulgate and made the lofty and pious-sounding claim that "It was in all the Greek copies from the time of the Apostles." That's the authority you're really appealing to, not Turretin. And personally I don't find that to be a reliable authority (or a documented claim) at all.



My curiosity got the better of me, so I did some poking around and discovered that Sinensis’ main arguments for the authenticity of the Comma were as follows :

[We may reject the claim of] the impious Anabaptists and Servetans who contend those words were added in the 5th chapter of 1 John, on the ground of the words of those undoubted to be a source of truth to the Catholics, and as were read in all the Greeks from the time of the Apostles themselves.​​There is no need to doubt anything concerning its perpetual integrity and authenticity, when in Pope Hyginus’ [d. c.142] first letter, writing against the heretics, used it as invincible proof and testimony of the Trinity. For thus he writes in his epistle to all the faithful of Christ, "and John the Evangelist himself, writing to the Parthians, says, ‘There are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.’"​​...Nor did Jerome indicate it was not anywhere in the Greek codices of the Catholic Church. In fact, in the Prologue of the Canons to Euphtochus, it is complained that these words were not translated into Latin by unbelieving and heretical translators when they were read in the Greek volumes.​[_Fr. Sixti senensis Ordinis Praedicatorum Bibliotheca Sancta criticis _[etc.]..., (Naples: Ex Typographia Mutiana, 1742), 2:1027]​
Both sources cited by Sinensis are deemed forgeries by many scholars, for understandable reasons.
​…Serious doubts attend the authenticity of a document claimed as the most important early witnesses to the authenticity of the comma: the Prologue to the Catholic Epistles (incipit: _Non ita ordo est apud Graecos_) ascribed to Jerome (c. 340-420). The earliest extant source of this prologue is Codex Fuldensis (c.545). The author of the prologue complains that the lack of uniformity between the various Latin versions of Scripture led to confusion; the biggest single problem with these Latin versions, he contends, was the fact that they omitted the comma:​​[_The relevant passage in the Prologue reads_:] If the letters were also rendered faithfully by translators into Latin just as their authors composed them, they would not cause the reader confusion, nor would the differences between their wording give rise to contradictions, nor would the various phrases contradict each other, especially in that place where we read the clause about the unity of the Trinity in the first letter of John. Indeed, it has come to our notice that in this letter some unfaithful translators have gone far astray from the truth of the faith, for in their edition they provide just the words for three [witnesses]—namely water, blood and spirit—and omit the testimony of the Father, the Word and the Spirit, by which the Catholic faith is especially strengthened, and proof is tendered of the single substance of divinity possessed by Father, Son and Holy Spirit.​​...This prologue would be compelling evidence that Jerome considered the comma to be genuine if the text of John’s Epistles in Codex Fuldensis also contained the comma—but it does not.​[McDonald, G. R. (2011, February 15). _Raising the ghost of Arius : Erasmus, the Johannine comma and religious difference in early modern Europe_. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/1887/16486 ]​
In other words, the claim in the earliest copy of the Prologue is itself contradictory to the very Vulgate text it was attached to. Most references to the Prologue that I found attribute it to a pseudo-Jerome. As concerns Hyginus' supposed letter,

Another document forged to prove the authenticity of the comma is a decretal ascribed to Pope Hyginus (c. 138-140), which appears in the collection put together at Metz in the mid-ninth century by a group of scholars known as ‘Isidorus Mercator.’ Another of the forged decretals in the collection is the famous Donation of Constantine, exposed by Lorenzo Valla, which also contains an allusion to the comma, with two credal phrases tacked on the end. [Ibid.]​
The editors of the American edition of _The Ante-Nicene Fathers_ series write of this collection :

The learned editors of the Edinburgh series have given us only a specimen of these frauds, which pretending to be a series of papal edicts from Clement and his successors during the ante-Nicene ages, are, in fact, the manufactured product of the ninth century—the most stupendous imposture of the world's history, the most successful and the most stubborn in its hold upon enlightened nations. [ANF, 1908, 8:601]​
A plethora of citations of historical citations denouncing the authenticity of the collection follow, including from several Roman Catholic scholars.

Still. probably my biggest takeaway in all this is one of surprise and disappointment that a theological giant like Turretin would be so uncritically accepting of a source like Sinensis…

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 5


----------



## Logan (Aug 31, 2022)

Phil D. said:


> Still. probably my biggest takeaway in all this is one of surprise and disappointment that a theological giant like Turretin would be so uncritically accepting of a source like Sinensis…



Thank you for looking further into this, this is very helpful information, I didn't know the bit about Jerome and the prologue, which I've often heard brought up when defending 1 John 5:7.

At the end of the day, we should all be lovers of the truth, even if the truth doesn't support our position. And Turretin's quote simply does not contribute to supporting this position.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 31, 2022)

I find two places where Turretin addresses 1 John 5:7, the briefer argument has Sinensis and in another place the longer argument doesn't and brings in Erasmus, the two older polyglotts, Arias Montanus, the ancient British codex, etc. Page 126. Page 295. Sinensis was not an uncommon source for Protestants. Turretin cites him several times on subjects in the volume referenced and authors I deal with like Durham and Gillespie cite him. As far as the spurious nature of some sources, it is also not uncommon for earlier authors (Durham, Gillespie, Bownd) before the cases were made or widely known against them, to cite what are now known as spurious or miss-attributed works as the basis of arguments. In other words, I wouldn't knock Turretin too hard on this, unless the case had been made and widely known by his time against Sinensis's sources.


Phil D. said:


> Still. probably my biggest takeaway in all this is one of surprise and disappointment that a theological giant like Turretin would be so uncritically accepting of a source like Sinensis…

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Phil D. (Aug 31, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> As far as the spurious nature of some sources, it is also not uncommon for earlier authors (Durham, Gillespie, Bownd) before the cases were made or widely known against them, to cite what are now known as spurious or miss-attributed works as the basis of arguments. In other words, I wouldn't knock Turretin too hard on this, unless the case had been made and widely known by his time against Sinensis's sources.



Sure, I'm not one to just _ad hominem_ disregard other things an obviously capable person wrote because they blundered in certain matters. 

Still, I find it curious that the stated complaint was that Latin translators supposedly disregarded what they found in Greek manuscripts - but isn't it the case that virtually all of the extant examples of the Comma are in fact contained in Latin manuscripts, while it is absent from virtually all extant Greek manuscripts? So unless it were supposed most of "all the Greek" manuscripts asserted as evidence were lost between the 4th century (Jerome/pseudo-Jerome) and 17th century (Turretin)--which I've never seen proposed--you would think its relative absence in the Greek would be a somewhat known convention among third generation Reformed scholars, and a relatively easy issue to verify. 

In terms of the collection containing Hyginus' letter, which accompanied the extremely notorious Donation of Constantine, it seems these writings were widely believed to have been a terrific hoax beginning in the 15th century - as was first demonstrated by a RC scholar! For sure, some Catholics were slow to give the collection up as spurious (ala, obviously, Sinensis), but Protestants were often quite eager to point this out to their Catholic antagonists.

Admittedly, I don't know enough about Turretin's circumstances to make a full assessment, but it does seem he may have been hasty in the matter, at least in accepting Sinensis' stated arguments.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 31, 2022)

I don't know anything about the subject. It is interesting he doesn't repeat it in the second case. There were doubts on all sorts of things but it took a while, for example, for works assigned to Augustine, or Chrysostom, to work there way out after newer critical editions were published. 


Phil D. said:


> Admittedly, I don't know enough about Turretin's circumstances to make a full assessment, but it does seem he may have been hasty in the matter, at least in accepting Sinensis' stated arguments.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## aaronsk (Sep 12, 2022)

Dr Matthew Everhard has posted an interview video today with Dane Johannsson and Brett Mahlen who both authored articles in the book. I debated in my mind if to share here or on the more active thread but I think this might be the better place. Enjoy.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2 | Wow 1


----------



## danekristjan (Sep 12, 2022)

aaronsk said:


> Dr Matthew Everhard has posted an interview video today with Dane Johannsson and Brett Mahlen who both authored articles in the book. I debated in my mind if to share here or on the more active thread but I think this might be the better place. Enjoy.


Two OPC boys ganging up on a PCA brother. Shameful.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Polanus1561 (Sep 12, 2022)

danekristjan said:


> Two OPC boys ganging up on a PCA brother. Shameful.


Fantastic library as far as I can see, Dane.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 12, 2022)

danekristjan said:


> Two OPC boys ganging up on a PCA brother. Shameful.


Yeah, you guys were pretty nasty to him.

Seriously, though, I just listened to it on the commute home, and the conversation blessed me. I especially appreciated your and Rev. Mahlen's demeanor—very brotherly and warm.

I also did not know you were a student at GPTS. My pastor graduated from there. And although I didn't go there, I am very thankful for it. It is a very positive influence on our presbytery.


----------



## danekristjan (Sep 12, 2022)

John Yap said:


> Fantastic library as far as I can see, Dane.


Thanks! If only I was as fantastic at reading, digesting, meditating upon, and living out what is in those books as I am at acquiring them!


----------



## danekristjan (Sep 12, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Yeah, you guys were pretty nasty to him.
> 
> Seriously, though, I just listened to it on the commute home, and the conversation blessed me. I especially appreciated your and Rev. Mahlen's demeanor—very brotherly and warm.
> 
> I also did not know you were a student at GPTS. My pastor graduated from there. And although I didn't go there, I am very thankful for it. It is a very positive influence on our presbytery.


I'm glad it was helpful. Both of those men are wonderful and godly brothers so it was easy to be brotherly. 

Yes, I am loving my time at GPTS. It is a rare gem.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Sep 13, 2022)

I was happy to see both men reject the "Satan's Bible" comment as unhelpful. I figured they would. Both are very reasonable men. I was also happy to see the NKJV get some love.

Reactions: Like 2


----------

