# Dr. James White's Newest Discussion



## Taylor (Mar 26, 2016)

Good day, brother and sisters.

Today I am listening to Dr. James White's newest discussion about textual issues on Apologia Radio. I, for one, am quite thankful for Dr. White's ministry and especially his work in this area. Although I still have not fallen into one or the other category definitely, I appreciate that I am at least aware of the issues with whatever text I am using. Since I love to be better educated about this topic, I would love for the bright minds of this forum to watch this video and maybe leave a comment or two with their thoughts. I know these issues have been hammered out already at length, but maybe something new will be said.

[video=youtube;izLoGyJM_hQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izLoGyJM_hQ[/video]


----------



## Username3000 (Mar 26, 2016)

I'll begin by saying that I am complete amateur in this area, and I still have much to learn. 

I greatly appreciate Dr. White's work. He has helped me begin to understand textual criticism more than I ever have before. He has helped me to see that textual criticism isn't a bane to the Christian, but a great blessing. As much as those who oppose the CT would claim the contrary, his teaching on this topic has greatly strengthened my confidence and trust in the text of Scripture, whereas the anti-CT positions have always left me with more questions than answers, and have actually undercut my confidence in this area.

The statement he makes that many people sacrifice truth for comfort here really hits home for me. Since I have begun listening to Dr. White, I have yet to hear a critic of his say anything that is even remotely convincing to my mind.

I know many brothers will disagree with me, but I have nothing but good things to say about my experience with Dr. White, and his teaching on the text of Scripture. I thank God for his work.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 27, 2016)

James White has indeed been a blessing to me as well. He is an excellent apologist and a true scholar. He is also right to take on many of these KJV only people who make bad arguments and lead many astray. That being said, there are many of us who disagree with his conclusions regarding textual criticism. For a more reasoned and scholarly dissent from Dr. White's position than that offered by so many of his opponents, I would commend to you the work of Dr. Maurice Robinson. http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v06/Robinson2001.html


----------



## Robert Truelove (Mar 27, 2016)

I am one of those "ETers" in the Reformed Pub on Facebook. Here is my response there to his latest video...

---------

Just finished watching, and my initial thoughts...

1) The issue is not the textual data but HOW we interpret it. Presenting the "ET" position as simply burying one's head in the sand and ignoring the data has already been proven thoroughly false right here in the Pub. Simply go back over all of the comments made over the last few days in the pub by ET proponents. Dr. White's comments in this regard are only persuasive to people not following the conversation.

There is also, yet again, the couching of the argument within in an anti-KJVO kind of framework (and I am truly getting weary of it). Who here was denying there were not some issues in the TR (of whatever edition)? However, as soon as we recognize the minor issues, we are said to not have a text to base translations upon ("Where is the text? You can't produce a text?", says White). This is a complete red herring. If our not being about to hold up a text and say "in every single solitary respect THIS is the perfect autographic text!" means we don't have a text, then what on Earth can Dr. White hold up and make this claim? 

I can hold up the TR (pick ANY edition) and say this is the text of the Reformation and it is based upon the text of the Greek text copied for centuries in the East where people were actually still speaking Greek. When I am asked, "What about Revelation 15:3?", I can look at the data and say...yep, there does seem to be a deviation from the better reading from the source our printed text came from and address that in my exegesis. That in no way proves I "don't have a text". As a matter of fact, a ET approach gives me a lot more confidence in my text than does a CT approach to anyone who cares to look at textual commentaries and the stunning labyrinth of disagreements between bonafide textual scholars on the vast majority of important variants. 

Absolute certainty for every single solitary variant problem is NOT what "ETism" is contending for. The position has simply been misrepresented.

I compare the way Dr. White presents the concerns and the case being made by "ETers" like the way anti-Calvinistic Arminians present Calvinism. There are so many red herrings and straw men arguments being made in this latest video that it would take considerable time and effort to take it apart piece by piece. This we will do over time if God permits.

James R. White, all of the above are my initial thoughts to the members of the Pub. If you care to respond, what I'd like to hear you address (without deflection this time please) the question I have asked you repeatedly for some time now. It's simple, and answering it will speak to the heart of the concern of your ET brethren. 

----------

If the Scripture is self-authenticating as our confession teaches...

"...it is to be received because it is the Word of God" 1689 1.4

"...our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts." 1689 1.5

How is it that the church, both East and West, could have been wrong about the authenticity of this complete gospel narrative (The Pericope Adulterae) for so long?—that is, how can you consistently maintain a self-authenticating Bible and a blunder of this magnitude being received for so long?

I'll add, you've answered "tradition" before but this doesn't answer the question. You need to square that with how you address the implications for the church (virtually everywhere) doing this for over a Millenia. Since our ultimate confidence is in the authenticating work of the Holy Spirit, how does your view consistently address this when, according to you view, the Holy Spirit wasn't working in this particular case for so long. Keep in mind that we, nor our confession, is making this claim for dogma (the church can indeed and does err there), but here were dealing with an extended and complete gospel narrative received as the text of Scripture.


----------



## Taylor (Mar 27, 2016)

Robert Truelove said:


> I am one of those "ETers" in the Reformed Pub on Facebook. Here is my response there to his latest video...



This is precisely the response I was looking for. Thank you so much for your thoughts. I truly hope this continues.

P.S. — I was born and grew up a little north of Athens, GA, and lived there until I moved to Illinois for seminary a little over a year and a half ago.  I hope to come visit your church at some point in the near future. I will surely introduce myself when the time comes, Lord willing.


----------



## MW (Mar 27, 2016)

Paraphrasing ... "The canon is one thing, the text is another." There is the issue. He adopts this assumption without undertaking to prove it. Ironically, in the course of his own presentation he has given evidence to overturn it, when he connects the dispute over the canonical reception of Revelation with the manuscript evidence relating to the text.


----------



## manuelkuhs (Mar 28, 2016)

MW said:


> Paraphrasing ... "The canon is one thing, the text is another." There is the issue.



That struck me also. 

Is he trying to say that the canon which the Spirit led the church to receive is simply a 1 page table of contents to the bible with a list of the canonical books? 

These canonical books contain words, right??

I think the longer ending of Mark is longer than the entire epistle of 3 John...


----------



## Dekybo (Mar 28, 2016)

manuelkuhs said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> > Paraphrasing ... "The canon is one thing, the text is another." There is the issue.
> ...



I may be wrong, but I believe that the distinction he is making between the canon and the text itself is to show that he disagrees with certain reformed believers over portions of the text not what is accepted as canon. He may conclude that the longer ending of Mark and that the beginning of John 8 should not be a part of Scripture, but both gospels are not open to debate as to their canonicity. The accepted canon is a point of agreement that all Christians should be able accept.


----------



## Whitefield (Mar 28, 2016)

manuelkuhs said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> > Paraphrasing ... "The canon is one thing, the text is another." There is the issue.
> ...



WCF I.2 is a statement of the Canon. The Canon is a list of books which comprise the authoritative books; the text is the contents of those canonical books. The Canon is the list of the books contained between the covers of your Bible; the text is the words contained therein. Although not totally unrelated, canonical criticism and textual criticism are different disciplines.


----------



## MW (Mar 28, 2016)

Whitefield said:


> Although not totally unrelated, canonical criticism and textual criticism are different disciplines.



With different approaches and methods, one having a primary place for the witness of the church while the other ignores that witness in favour of the agreement of favoured mss. It is what it is. The issue is, can they be separated in this way? The textual critics themselves are thrown back onto historical criticism at numerous points in the process of their investigations, and repeatedly make historical claims which impact canonicity.


----------



## MW (Mar 28, 2016)

manuelkuhs said:


> These canonical books contain words, right??
> 
> I think the longer ending of Mark is longer than the entire epistle of 3 John...



3 John is longer, but the two are comparable for showing the way canonics can accept a whole block of text simply because it belongs to an accepted book whilst textual criticism can discard a whole block of text because of its absence in certain mss., notwithstanding the fact that the discarded text has as much support as the accepted text.


----------



## Dekybo (Mar 28, 2016)

MW said:


> With different approaches and methods, one having a primary place for the witness of the church while the other ignores that witness in favour of the agreement of favoured mss. It is what it is. The issue is, can they be separated in this way? The textual critics themselves are thrown back onto historical criticism at numerous points in the process of their investigations, and repeatedly make historical claims which impact canonicity.



Could you provide a specific example of a his tick claim that textual critics make that impacts canonicity?


----------



## MW (Mar 28, 2016)

Take the short ending of Mark. It leads to the conclusion that the Gospel is unfinished or that there were two or more editions. You can impose a conservative view of inspiration to deny this claim, but at the canonical level you would be falling back on a non evidential position which runs counter to empirical methods of textual criticism.


----------



## Dekybo (Mar 28, 2016)

MW said:


> Take the short ending of Mark. It leads to the conclusion that the Gospel is unfinished or that there were two or more editions. You can impose a conservative view of inspiration to deny this claim, but at the canonical level you would be falling back on a non evidential position which runs counter to empirical methods of textual criticism.



Couldn't you accept the shorter rendering of Mark as a complete gospel without concluding that it is unfinished or that there were several accounts?


----------



## MW (Mar 28, 2016)

Dekybo said:


> Couldn't you accept the shorter rendering of Mark as a complete gospel without concluding that it is unfinished or that there were several accounts?



The point is that the discipline is not coming to the short ending of Mark on textual considerations apart from higher historical considerations which impact their findings.


----------



## Whitefield (Mar 28, 2016)

MW said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > Although not totally unrelated, canonical criticism and textual criticism are different disciplines.
> ...



A debate over the _Comma Johanneum_ is not a debate over whether 1 John should be in the Canon; it is a debate as to which textual variants should be included in the book already accepted as canonical. I am not aware of anyone claiming that because there is a question about 1 John 5:7-8 there is a question as to 1 John's place in the Canon. If Canon and text are the same thing, then any textual variant in a book would bring into question that book's place in the Canon, and hence any textual critical discussion on the presence or absence of ὑμιν in 1 John 1:4 would imply a question as to the canonicity of 1 John.


----------



## MW (Mar 28, 2016)

Whitefield said:


> A debate over the _Comma Johanneum_ is not a debate over whether 1 John should be in the Canon; it is a debate as to which textual variants should be included in the book already accepted as canonical. I am not aware of anyone claiming that because there is a question about 1 John 5:7-8 there is a question as to 1 John's place in the Canon. If Canon and text are the same, then any textual variant in a book would bring into question that book's place in the Canon, and hence any textual critical discussion on the presence or absence of ὑμιν in 1 John 1:4 would imply a question as to the canonicity of 1 John.



Is the final form of the text of 1 John dependent on the apostle John or a Johannine community? Those who are working with the text do not treat historical criticism as a separate issue, but integrate it at numerous points.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 28, 2016)

Whitefield said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> > Whitefield said:
> ...



The point that I think so many are missing is that the process and authority that established the canon is the same as the process and authority that established the ecclesiastical text. It makes little sense to affirm this process and authority when it comes to the canon, and yet reject it when it comes to the text. The truth is that if Dr. White were apply his textual methods towards the canon, no doubt he would arrive at many of the same conclusions that Ehrmann and other liberal scholars have arrived at. Perhaps his reluctance to arrive at such a conclusion explains his inconsistency.


----------



## Whitefield (Mar 28, 2016)

MW said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > A debate over the _Comma Johanneum_ is not a debate over whether 1 John should be in the Canon; it is a debate as to which textual variants should be included in the book already accepted as canonical. I am not aware of anyone claiming that because there is a question about 1 John 5:7-8 there is a question as to 1 John's place in the Canon. If Canon and text are the same, then any textual variant in a book would bring into question that book's place in the Canon, and hence any textual critical discussion on the presence or absence of ὑμιν in 1 John 1:4 would imply a question as to the canonicity of 1 John.
> ...



Textual criticism and historical criticism are different disciplines. Textual criticism tries to look at the extant manuscripts and make educated guesses as to what probably harkens back to the original text. Historical critism assumes layers of redactors who intentionally manipulated the text to convey some doctrinal point, and then plays the role of historical psychologist in order to unravel the original meaning behind the presented text. Maurice Robinson is an excellent textual critic, but he is not a historical critic, nor, I assume, would he ever want to be included in that category. A textual critic approaches the ending of Mark from a much different direction than a historical critic, carrying a much different bag of tools and a much different set of assumptions.


----------



## Whitefield (Mar 28, 2016)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > MW said:
> ...



You make reference to "the ecclesiastical text". Can you be specific and tell me where I might find this text? I would like to see if it contains the _Comma Johanneum_.


----------



## MW (Mar 28, 2016)

Whitefield said:


> Textual criticism and historical criticism are different disciplines.



You are just repeating your original assertion and failing to interact with the factors which have been presented to challenge that assertion. A textual critic has to believe something about the historicity of the text; he must have some sort of working hypothesis as to "the thing" he is reconstructing.


----------



## Whitefield (Mar 28, 2016)

MW said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > Textual criticism and historical criticism are different disciplines.
> ...



Indeed a textual critic has to believe something about the historicity of the text. But that is not what you said earlier. Earlier you connected the textual critic with historical criticism. Historical criticism is a technical term which does not mean "dealing with the historicity of the text". In fact, historical criticism cares little about the historicity of the text; it is concerned with the psychology and motives of those who transmitted the text. Your quoted statement is pretty obvious and I doubt any textual critic would find fault with it, but what is your point in stating the obvious?


----------



## MW (Mar 28, 2016)

Whitefield said:


> Your quoted statement is pretty obvious and I doubt any textual critic would find fault with it, but what is your point in stating the obvious?



I am stating the obvious because the obvious is being denied by those who separate text and canon as if they were to be established on two different bases. They cannot be separated in the concrete despite the abstract attempt to do so, which means the witness of the church is as important for the text as for the canon. They go hand in hand.


----------



## Whitefield (Mar 28, 2016)

MW said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > Your quoted statement is pretty obvious and I doubt any textual critic would find fault with it, but what is your point in stating the obvious?
> ...



If the question of Canon and text are so intertwined and the church has clearly spoken on issues of Canon, I assume it has also clearly spoken on issues of the text. If I ask you what is the ecclesiastical Canon, hopefully you would point me to WCF I.2 or LBCF I.2 for a clear answer. If I ask you what is the ecclesiastical text, where would you point me for a clear answer?


----------



## MW (Mar 28, 2016)

Whitefield said:


> If the question of Canon and text are so intertwined and the church has clearly spoken on issues of Canon, I assume it has also clearly spoken on issues of the text. If I ask you what is the ecclesiastical Canon, hopefully you would point me to WCF I.2 or LBCF I.2 for a clear answer. If I ask you what is the ecclesiastical text, where would you point me for a clear answer?



On the first question, you have the basic fact that canonical discussions include quotations of a "text" as evidence that an apostolic father regarded the "book" as authoritative.

On the second question, WCF 1.8 has the answer you are looking for; and you will find in the proofs from Scripture the type of text which the divines regarded as having been kept pure and to be appealed to as authentic.


----------



## Whitefield (Mar 28, 2016)

MW said:


> On the second question, WCF 1.8 has the answer you are looking for; and you will find in the proofs from Scripture the type of text which the divines regarded as having been kept pure and to be appealed to as authentic.



To be more specific and clear: does the NASB (or the ESV, or the NIV) fulfill the intent of WCF I.8 for those in the English speaking world?


----------



## MW (Mar 28, 2016)

Whitefield said:


> To be more specific and clear: does the NASB (or the ESV, or the NIV) fulfill the intent of WCF I.8 for those in the English speaking world?



We were talking about the text in relation to the canon and you have asked a question about translations. I can't discern any context by which to understand your question.


----------



## Whitefield (Mar 28, 2016)

MW said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > To be more specific and clear: does the NASB (or the ESV, or the NIV) fulfill the intent of WCF I.8 for those in the English speaking world?
> ...



Then it seems the ecclesiastical text is a general concept with no concrete definition.


----------



## MW (Mar 28, 2016)

Whitefield said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> > Whitefield said:
> ...



Are you trying to be opaque? I haven't a clue what your statement has to do with the relationship between text and canon in text critical methodology.


----------



## Whitefield (Mar 29, 2016)

MW said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > MW said:
> ...



How does the canon guide us in regards to textual variants (e.g. the _Comma Johanneum_)?


----------



## MW (Mar 29, 2016)

Whitefield said:


> How does the canon guide us in regards to textual variants (e.g. the _Comma Johanneum_)?



The point about the canon and text is to show that the church has an important role as a witness to the text just as it does to the canon. On that basis, if you were to ask how the church can guide us, I could make sense of your question. As it stands in the context of this discussion, to ask how the canon can guide us makes no sense.

To give an example of the church witnessing to the text as well as the canon, consider the disputed ending of Mark.


----------



## manuelkuhs (Mar 29, 2016)

Whitefield said:


> WCF I.2 is a statement of the Canon. The Canon is a list of books which comprise the authoritative books; the text is the contents of those canonical books. The Canon is the list of the books contained between the covers of your Bible; the text is the words contained therein. Although not totally unrelated, canonical criticism and textual criticism are different disciplines.



So, when the Westminster Divines wrote the list of canonical books, they were simply thinking of book titles - they were not thinking of the text these contained?

So if I were to remove 99% of the Gospel of Mark as currently found in NA-USB, and retain just Mark chapter 1, I could still claim that I am receiving as canonical the same Gospel of Mark as our spiritual fathers?

In the sense of what is written, the canon is a list of book titles; but these book titles are used to refer to the CONTENT, the WORDS contained in them.

When I talk about "Lord of the Rings", I am talking about a book containing usually over 1,000 pages of written content. It is this written content that I'm referring to with the title "Lord of the Rings".


----------



## manuelkuhs (Mar 29, 2016)

Whitefield said:


> How does the canon guide us in regards to textual variants (e.g. the _Comma Johanneum_)?





MW said:


> To give an example of the church witnessing to the text as well as the canon, consider the disputed ending of Mark.



I agree; let's stick with the example of Mark's longer ending.


----------



## Username3000 (Mar 29, 2016)

Dr. White is going to be responding to this article on today's Dividing Line program:

http://confessionalbibliology.com/2...hite-on-augustine-and-the-pericope-adulterae/


Live YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTuh8T3QDZQ (2:00pm EST)


----------



## JimmyH (Mar 29, 2016)

I don't know if it is worth adding to the discussion, but I was listening to a lecture by N.T. Wright (prayerfully) and in the Q&A afterwards he said that he believed the ending _and the beginning_ of Mark were lost because the scroll on which the original autograph was written became worn to the point that _it tore apart on both ends_, and both the beginning and the end were lost to some of the copyists. This may presuppose quite a bit, but it makes sense to me. 

I had never considered the beginning of Mark being lost, OTOH, the other synoptic gospels begin with the birth of our Saviour, while in Mark we begin with John the Baptist's making the way for our Lord's earthy ministry. In retrospect it does seem to me that the 'complete' text would likely have begun, like Matthew and Luke, with the birth of our Lord. Certainly the short ending being complete doesn't make sense, the women going home in great fear and telling no one. For whatever it is worth, I have confidence that the long ending is the complete and true text.


----------



## StephenG (Mar 29, 2016)

Dr. White is the MAN when it comes to textual criticism and apologetics! God bless him!


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 29, 2016)

StephenG said:


> Dr. White is the MAN when it comes to textual criticism and apologetics! God bless him!



I too have profited from Dr. White's ministry, but I wonder if perhaps you are placing far too low a criteria on being "the MAN" when it comes to textual criticism.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Mar 29, 2016)

JimmyH said:


> I don't know if it is worth adding to the discussion, but I was listening to a lecture by N.T. Wright (prayerfully) and in the Q&A afterwards he said that he believed the ending _and the beginning_ of Mark were lost because the scroll on which the original autograph was written became worn to the point that _it tore apart on both ends_, and both the beginning and the end were lost to some of the copyists. This may presuppose quite a bit, but it makes sense to me.
> 
> I had never considered the beginning of Mark being lost, OTOH, the other synoptic gospels begin with the birth of our Saviour, while in Mark we begin with John the Baptist's making the way for our Lord's earthy ministry. In retrospect it does seem to me that the 'complete' text would likely have begun, like Matthew and Luke, with the birth of our Lord. Certainly the short ending being complete doesn't make sense, the women going home in great fear and telling no one. For whatever it is worth, I have confidence that the long ending is the complete and true text.



Regardless of what one might think about the ending of Mark, it seems highly speculative and unlikely that the beginning of Mark's gospel has also been lost. I am curious as to which part of Mark 1:1 would seem to suggest to you that this was not precisely where Mark intended to begin? "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."


----------



## JimmyH (Mar 29, 2016)

Bill The Baptist said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know if it is worth adding to the discussion, but I was listening to a lecture by N.T. Wright (prayerfully) and in the Q&A afterwards he said that he believed the ending _and the beginning_ of Mark were lost because the scroll on which the original autograph was written became worn to the point that _it tore apart on both ends_, and both the beginning and the end were lost to some of the copyists. This may presuppose quite a bit, but it makes sense to me.
> ...



Before I posted I looked at the three gospels to refresh my memory. In spite of that first sentence, I still think Wright is on to something. your mileage may vary.


----------



## MW (Mar 29, 2016)

JimmyH said:


> I still think Wright is on to something.



See the preaching of Peter in Acts 10. Mark's Gospel follows the pattern of Peter's preaching, beginning with the baptism of John. Whether one accepts or rejects the fact that Mark was Peter's spokesperson, Peter's preaching at least establishes that there is historico-theological precedent for beginning the Gospel with the baptism of John. This means there is no reason to conjecture a lost beginning to the Gospel.


----------



## JimmyH (Mar 29, 2016)

MW said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > I still think Wright is on to something.
> ...


Thank you Reverend Winzer. What about the possibility that the lost ending is a result of the scroll tearing and being lost ? Too simplistic, too speculative ?


----------



## MW (Mar 29, 2016)

JimmyH said:


> What about the possibility that the lost ending is a result of the scroll tearing and being lost ? Too simplistic, too speculative ?



Acts 10 includes the appearance to the disciples and sending them to preach, so on that basis one might expect the Gospel to originally contain the longer ending. If that is accepted one would have cause to seek a reason why the ending has dropped out in ms. transmission. It has been suggested that if an earlier copy was made in codex form then the last page might have torn away.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 30, 2016)

JimmyH said:


> I still think Wright is on to something.



Just a side note: I know this is a topic about texts and canons, but to even suggest a man who fundamentally denies the imputed righteousness of Christ as someone credible is a joke. N.T. Wright does not believe in the imputed righteousness of Christ, which means he isn't a Christian. 



> For Wright, for example,the righteousness of God is not the sort of thing that can be imputed to another, because the righteousness of
> the judge is a very different thing from the righteousness of a plaintiff or defendant. (OPC Report on Justification)


----------



## manuelkuhs (Mar 30, 2016)

JimmyH said:


> I had never considered the beginning of Mark being lost, OTOH, the other synoptic gospels begin with the birth of our Saviour, while in Mark we begin with John the Baptist's making the way for our Lord's earthy ministry. In retrospect it does seem to me that the 'complete' text would likely have begun, like Matthew and Luke, with the birth of our Lord.



Jimmy, unfortunately you demonstrate the logical end result of a view whereby the text of scripture is purely established on rationalistic scientific principles, by divorcing it from the question of canon. The end result is that any portion of text in Scripture can be called into question.

My answer would be simple: For the same reasons that you receive the Gospel of Mark as canonical, receive the beginning of Mark as canonical.

Blessings.


----------



## Username3000 (Mar 30, 2016)

manuelkuhs said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > I had never considered the beginning of Mark being lost, OTOH, the other synoptic gospels begin with the birth of our Saviour, while in Mark we begin with John the Baptist's making the way for our Lord's earthy ministry. In retrospect it does seem to me that the 'complete' text would likely have begun, like Matthew and Luke, with the birth of our Lord.
> ...



What exactly are those reasons? And speculating that Mark must be like the other synoptics, while speaking about unknown lost pages or torn scrolls is not the result of any scientific endeavour.


----------



## manuelkuhs (Mar 30, 2016)

E.R. CROSS said:


> manuelkuhs said:
> 
> 
> > JimmyH said:
> ...



The orthodox understanding of the identification and receiving of the canon of Scripture.



E.R. CROSS said:


> And speculating that Mark must be like the other synoptics, while speaking about unknown lost pages or torn scrolls is not the result of any scientific endeavour.



Science, and especially historical science, can never give certainty. You may evaluate the theory of the lost beginning of Mark as "speculation" but someone else might consider the comparison to other synoptic gospels as reasonable evidence, or arguments from "intrinsic probability", the style of Mark, etc.

Much of accepted textual criticism borders on speculation - the attempted reconstruction of the origins of textual families, as (in)famously exemplified by Westcott & Hort's theory (pure speculation accepted almost as fact for several decades) of an official ecclesiastical 3rd century Syrian recension. In fact, many modern textual critics are coming just to this conclusion and are giving up on identifying the relationship between the different textual families (thoroughgoing eclectics).

I am published scientist, and can tell you that most people have far too high a view of "science", especially historical science (such as textual criticism and evolution and the age of the earth). When you can't design an experiment to test and verify your hypothesis...


----------



## Whitefield (Mar 30, 2016)

MW said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > If the question of Canon and text are so intertwined and the church has clearly spoken on issues of Canon, I assume it has also clearly spoken on issues of the text. If I ask you what is the ecclesiastical Canon, hopefully you would point me to WCF I.2 or LBCF I.2 for a clear answer. If I ask you what is the ecclesiastical text, where would you point me for a clear answer?
> ...



I don't believe that WCF I.8 establishes an ecclesiastical text for these reasons. The Assembly contained too many brilliant people who knew that there were more manuscripts than Erasmus had at hand. Some in the Assembly had to know that there were even variants in the texts Erasmus did have. The divines in the Assembly would know it was presumptuous to speak definitively as the εκκλησια, for the εκκλησια existed long before the 1640s and in many places other than the British Isles. I doubt they thought they had the authority to make a final pronouncement for churches outside their sphere of influence and would be reluctant to tell the Dutch Reformed that its ecclesiastical text was what Westminster said it was.

And if, perchance, the Assembly had a definite corpus in mind as the ecclesiastical text, and it had the temerity to pronounce that corpus as "the ecclesiastical text", I think it grossly overstepped its authority.

When we come to a disagreement over the ecclesiastical text and we hear competing claims from Rome, from Byzantium, and, as some would claim, from Westminster, I think the only solution is to return _ad fontes_. What the Assembly considered pure and authentic was based on insufficient evidence. One can only imagine what their thoughts would have been if they had known of the thousands of manuscripts that would be discovered in the subsequent two centuries.


----------



## MW (Mar 31, 2016)

Whitefield said:


> The Assembly contained too many brilliant people who knew that there were more manuscripts than Erasmus had at hand.



True; but this only means the proofs from Scripture to which they appealed were based on an informed choice.



Whitefield said:


> And if, perchance, the Assembly had a definite corpus in mind as the ecclesiastical text, and it had the temerity to pronounce that corpus as "the ecclesiastical text", I think it grossly overstepped its authority.




To make a confessional statement based on Scripture one must have a Scripture to which to appeal. Or do you think confessional statements should be made without respect to Scripture? If it is overstepping to appeal to Scripture then you would be bound to conclude that making a Confession is a monstrous act of tyranny.



Whitefield said:


> I think the only solution is to return _ad fontes_.



The text is the fountain. But according to you one grossly oversteps authority to declare what the fountain is. You have left yourself in a hopeless place where nothing can serve as an ultimate court to which appeal can be made.




Whitefield said:


> What the Assembly considered pure and authentic was based on insufficient evidence. One can only imagine what their thoughts would have been if they had known of the thousands of manuscripts that would be discovered in the subsequent two centuries.



They tell us what their thoughts are when they say the Word has been kept pure, is authentic, and is accessible for the church to appeal to it.


----------



## Grimmson (Apr 1, 2016)

Here a link of an article written by Daniel Wallace, which could be added to the discussion on textual criticism:
https://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today
He does not mention canon or the WCF, but he does provide a basic introduction to the topic if any are interested and mentions the brief textual history of 1 John 5:7-8 and Erasmus. I have heard James White say similar things. I also found a statement in his "Addendum" concerning heretics and a mystery cult textbook interesting.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Apr 7, 2016)

Whitefield said:


> What the Assembly considered pure and authentic was based on insufficient evidence. One can only imagine what their thoughts would have been if they had known of the thousands of manuscripts that would be discovered in the subsequent two centuries.



This is is exceedingly problematic...I understand where you are coming from...but it's exceedingly problematic.

What you are looking for is a purely rationalistic argument for the establishment of the New Testament text. The trouble is, if you press that line of reasoning, you are left with an OLD TESTAMENT that we have no reason to believe looks anything like what it did in it's original form. In the Old Testament, many of the earliest copies we have are centuries older than the autographs and for some we are looking at more that 1,500 years! 

If the text must be established upon rationalistic empiricism, there is no basis to accept that the Old Testament text has survived the stream of history without significant corruption. 

The reality is, we accept the Old Testament not upon the mere broken reed of human reason, but faith. We believe it was pure in the time of Christ because he did not correct it and we have no reason to believe it was corrupted since then. On top of that, we believe that God preserves his Word just as it teaches in numerous places. 

If we all accept the Old Testament text by faith (and we do whether we want to admit it or not), we need to press the faith argument in how we handle the text of the New Testament as well.


----------



## Logan (Apr 8, 2016)

Robert Truelove said:


> If we all accept the Old Testament text by faith (and we do whether we want to admit it or not), we need to press the faith argument in how we handle the text of the New Testament as well.



There is a difference though. With the OT we accept it by faith despite the lack of _support_ of "really ancient" evidence. The problem many have with the TR is being asked to accept it "by faith" despite evidence to the _contrary._ 

It's not a lack of faith, as much as trying to show honesty and integrity in not closing our eyes or ignoring what God _has_ seen fit to preserve.


----------



## JimmyH (Apr 8, 2016)

Robert Truelove said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > What the Assembly considered pure and authentic was based on insufficient evidence. One can only imagine what their thoughts would have been if they had known of the thousands of manuscripts that would be discovered in the subsequent two centuries.
> ...


Correct me if I am (shudder) wrong, isn't it an accepted fact that the Hebrew scribes who copied the OT were much more careful, diligent, and organized than the NT scribes, many of them not professional scribes, but individuals who were devout, and wanted their own copy ? Doesn't the complete copy of Isaiah found at Qumran being virtually identical to what we have in the OT translation attest to the accuracy of our OT ? 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_scroll



Logan said:


> Robert Truelove said:
> 
> 
> > If we all accept the Old Testament text by faith (and we do whether we want to admit it or not), we need to press the faith argument in how we handle the text of the New Testament as well.
> ...


 The TR is after all a compiled text from various manuscripts and the Vulgate for the book of Revelation. It is not as if Erasmus found a complete NT and merely copied it. I don't see what difference there is in compiling a version of the NT out of a handful of manuscripts then or now.


----------



## MW (Apr 8, 2016)

Logan said:


> There is a difference though. With the OT we accept it by faith despite the lack of _support_ of "really ancient" evidence. The problem many have with the TR is being asked to accept it "by faith" despite evidence to the _contrary._



Actually in the Old Testament the canonical and textual issues are exponentially multiplied by the so-called "evidence." You have many more cases of transposition, shorter and longer readings, as well as simple variants, and some of these on a much larger scale; not to mention the canonical problems associated with the presence of apocryphal books both in the DSS and the Greek codices.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Apr 9, 2016)

Logan said:


> Robert Truelove said:
> 
> 
> > If we all accept the Old Testament text by faith (and we do whether we want to admit it or not), we need to press the faith argument in how we handle the text of the New Testament as well.
> ...



My point was not to present a complete argument for the TR (indeed, I didn't even mention it!). There are certainly things to discuss regarding weakly supported readings in the Traditional Text from which we get the TR. That said, my point is that ALL Bible believers acknowledge the role of faith in accepting the Old Testament as kept pure in all ages. Reasoned Eclecticism scoffs at the very notion of presuppositions based upon the doctrine of preservation. It is a purely rationalistic system which begins with "treat the Bible like any other book".

The reality is, HOW one interprets the evidence is going to be radically shaped by the presuppositions he brings to the matter at hand.

Confessionally Reformed Christians tend to understand this point and champion it for virtually every other area of Biblical study...but not when it comes to the text of Scripture. However, the winds do appear to be changing...


----------



## JohnGill (Apr 9, 2016)

*Review and Refutation to Mr. White's Apologia episode*

For those interested, Dr. Jeff Riddle did a review and provided a refutation to many of Mr. White's claims in the Apologia episode. You'll find them here: Dr. Riddle's refutation. It begins with Word Magazine episode 49. If you scroll down to the bottom of the page you'll find Chris Keith's Brill Monograph on the Pericope from 2009. On the right hand side you will also find a link to a shorter paper by Keith's dealing with the location of the Pericope.


----------

