# Traditional Text Interaction between Christian McSchaffrey, Brett Mahlen, and James White



## Taylor (Mar 4, 2022)

Recently, the podcast coming out of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary put out an interview with Christian McShaffrey and Brett Mahlen discussing their work and thought when it comes to textual criticism. They are both advocates of what is commonly called the "traditional text position." They are very learned and irenic, for which I am very thankful. You can listen to that interview here.

Yesterday, James White released a response to that interview, which can be found here. I figured I would post both of these as an interesting dialogue between the two camps. Frankly, I am finding myself more and more convinced of the "traditional text position."

Reactions: Like 7 | Informative 3 | Amen 1


----------



## StevieG (Mar 4, 2022)

Thanks for sharing these and giving both sides of the debate. This is a topic I've become much more interested in recently and look forward to listening to these over the weekend.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Mar 4, 2022)

I am interested in White's proposition of how TR people actually do not need to talk about evidence / but they actually do / and they use different arguments for say Mark 16 longer ending and Eph 3:9. (i.e a majority text view for Mark 16 but a different view for Eph 3:9) / but again they do not have to talk about it because TR priority is not an evidential theory but a presuppositional theory rooted in providential preservation / and there is not much value in post-Beza appearances of manuscripts because they will not change anything since the TR is established------- (did I get White's view right?)

I wonder what is a textbook response to it from the TR priority view.


----------



## Taylor (Mar 4, 2022)

I will say, as I'm going through the White video, I'm becoming increasingly annoyed with White's tactics. He spends much if not most of his time caricaturing the other side and beating down a straw man. The things he is arguing against in this video might have been relevant when interacting with Gail Riplinger and Sam Gipp, but presenting McShaffrey's and Mahlen's position as he is, it's borderline mockery, and it's becoming more and more difficult to take him seriously.

Reactions: Like 9 | Love 1


----------



## JH (Mar 4, 2022)

John Yap said:


> I am interested in White's proposition of how TR people actually do not need to talk about evidence / but they actually do / and they use different arguments for say Mark 16 longer ending and Eph 3:9. (i.e a majority text view for Mark 16 but a different view for Eph 3:9) / but again they do not have to talk about it because TR priority is not an evidential theory but a presuppositional theory rooted in providential preservation / and there is not much value in post-Beza appearances of manuscripts because they will not change anything since the TR is established------- (did I get White's view right?)
> 
> I wonder what is a textbook response to it from the TR priority view.


To my knowledge the way TR people treat evidence (or at least, I do myself) is that evidence as mentioned above, is confirmatory, but not necessary to establish the validity of a reading. The extant manuscript evidence (though often appealed to as thousands upon thousands of manuscripts, though much is but shrubs and scraps of said manuscripts) that we have nearly 2,000 years later would not be the totality of manuscript evidence that existed throughout Christian history. Just as Christians were persecuted and their belongings plummeted, so too, there is plain evidence that there was a vast amount of those manuscripts destroyed and or lost. We often assume we have more knowledge and manuscripts now than Calvin, Beza, [insert whatever person here] had, but the truth is we don't know exactly what they had, and how much they had.

To me, the issue always reminds me of the apostles Creed, and the disputation on the subject of the Christ's "descent into hell". People question the validity of it because of the lack of extant evidence. "The evidence we have nearly 2 millenniums later seems to indicate it was inserted into the creed at XYZ time" - but that fact relies upon the lacking extant evidence we have at a much later period. Just sharing my thoughts, and I'm glad to hear Taylor you're approaching the subject through irenic resources.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 4, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Frankly, I am finding myself more and more convinced of the "traditional text position."


Likewise. I thought your old seminary, TEDS, was a bastion of critical text methodology. I'm interested in your journey. I ask because I am struggling with the issue myself. I have postulated that perhaps we do need a confessional text position, but it needs to be nuanced. The insert quote function is not working so I am doing a copy and paste. Recently I said:

_On one hand I struggle to believe one can make a consistent defense of 1 John 5:7 or Beza's textual emendation of Rev 16:5 (the Geneva Bible agrees with modern translations). I am aware of James White's argument that if you defend 'obscure' texts you weaken your Biblical apologetic against Muslim critique.

That said, I am not really satisfied by the CT, a text that keeps changing. It seems to me 2 Tim 3:16 "All scripture is breathed out by God" implies a stable, reliable, text - not one that keeps changing. I am certainly open to a modern TR that seeks to grapple with these issues and desires a stable text._

I added:

_Higher criticism assumes a naturalistic approach to Biblical doctrine, and much modern textual criticism also assumes a naturalistic approach. As a matter of interest it is worth listening to the debate on Eph 3:9 between James White [JW] and Jeff Riddle [JR]. When JW tried to argue one uses a scholarly textual criticism to determine the text of ancient writers such as Plato, JR correctly argued that the Bible is not a naturalistic book - it is a supernatural book. That said I think the argument is a bit more nuanced. The KJV has a number of text notes that suggest certain phrases or verses are not part of scripture. See for example the KJV notes at Luke 10:22, 17:36 and Acts 25:6. The KJV also appears to question parts of 1 John 2:23. Modern translations (including the NKJV) do not question this. I have previously mentioned Beza's textual emendation at Rev 16:5. My point is - do the KJV translators engage in some naturalistic textual criticism and doubt some passages of scripture with these changes/ footnotes? Someone like JW is quick to capitalise on these KJV textual issues. Coming back to the Eph 3:9 debate between JW and JR. I think JR was right to point out JW naturalistic assumptions. However JW pointed out that the slim textual evidence for the KJV reading of Eph 3:9 ignores the fact that God works through history. JW also pointed out that JR was inconsistent in that he defended the reading of the last few verses of Mark 16 by appealing to the *majority *of mss, but defended the KJV reading of Eph 3:9 by appealing to the *minority *of mss. It seems to me JW is correct on this point. That said I think JR was right to say that JW defence of the CT has produced a textual criticism that is uncertain and changing, based on the latest fads of modern textual scholars. _

I then responded to a PB member's comments about textual criticism and presuppositional apologetics:

_This argument certainly has some appeal for me. Perhaps the best Reformed TR scholar who argued for this position is Edward Hills. It is interesting that James Price's book "King James Onlyism" ch 12 summarises Dr Hills argument and accuses him of circular reasoning. https://www.jamesdprice.com/images/King_James_Onlyism.pdf Maybe he is right. But is it not true that Presuppositional Apologetics has pointed out that all reasoning is circular by its nature. We presuppose the self-attesting nature of scripture based on the infallible authority of God who gave us the scriptures.

In the final analysis I am back to my original argument. It may be good to have a new edition of the TR but in the few places where it is problematic, it would be wise to revise it by the weightier mss of the Byzantine tradition._

Taylor, do you argue for a pure RT or do you think it needs revising in a small number of places? I did note that in the podcast you linked to, the speakers emphasised they believed in scholarship not fundamentalism. Does this mean a sensitive revising of the TR is appropriate? As I said I am still thinking through these issues myself.


----------



## Logan (Mar 4, 2022)

Oof. I sympathize with the traditional text. With John Owen I'm of a mind that it's been in use for a while and it's probably good enough to keep using. I concur with a lot of the critiques of the critical text. But nor will I say the traditional text is beyond critique.

I wasn't going to comment but got less than five minutes into episode #269 and am finding myself wanting to clarify vehemently.
E.g., there was de facto an established text for 400 years, but there were numerous attempts at revision and numerous reformed scholars who took exception to various readings found in the TR, so to say it was "the established text for 400 years" as though that's the entire story is grossly simplistic. I'm finding the presentation a bit one-sided so far, to be honest 

I find it so strange that the people who are looked to are Dean Burgon (Anglican), Edward Hills (Presbyterian layman?) and Theodore Letis (History PhD and Lutheran). Strange bedfellows, and Burgon wasn't even TR (he didn't defend 1 John 5:7 for example).


----------



## jw (Mar 4, 2022)

I saw the first word and following first letters in the thread title, and was hoping it was going to be about Tex-Mex vs traditional Mexican culinary fare. I was disappointed. Everybody please stay on topic.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 4


----------



## Polanus1561 (Mar 4, 2022)

A revision of the TR is a huge step from TR priority in my opinion. It means many tenets of TR priority are torn down- including the stable text advantage. That is why the logical end of TR priority , per JW , is you should not talk about evidence. What if evidences arises that Mark 16 longer ending is no longer in the majority of manuscripts? This majority is used in debates by TR priority for support of the longer ending. If you want to establish the stability of the TR then do not talk about evidence for evidences can change with new discoveries.

This is why JW claimed a victory of sorts when JR agreed to debate about evidence.

(Correct me if I’m wrong on any of the above)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 4, 2022)

You might check out Theodore Letis also. He has some criticisms of White also. http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/Letis.html


.....

*Reviews of James R. White's The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Versions? (1994) and Gail Riplinger's New Age Versions (1993)*
Graphic Files scanned from _The Ecclesiastical Text_ (c) 1997 - 2nd Ed 2000
Page 222 | Page 223 | Page 224 | Page 225 | Page 226 | Page 227 |
Page 228 | Page 229 | Page 230 | Page 231 | Page 232


*John Ankerberg Show letter* (March 21, 1988)
Graphic Files scanned from actual letter: Page 1 | Page 2
*Letis Response* (April 6, 1988)
Graphic Files scanned from actual letter: Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3
*News & Views* (April, 1988)
Graphic Files scanned from actual newsletter: Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5
*Letis Response* (April 14, 1988)
Graphic Files scanned from actual letter: Page 1 | Page 2


In Reply To Bob Jones University Open Letter (June 10, 1998)
Letis' reply to a letter written by Bob Jones University against him.


In Reply to James Price's 'Review' As It Appeared in the BJU Publication, Frontline
Letis' reply to a poor book review of _The Ecclesiastical Text_


*An Open Letter to the International Bible Society and the Zondervan Corporation* (April 29, 1985)
Graphic Files scanned from actual letter: Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 

.....


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 4, 2022)

John Yap said:


> A revision of the TR is a huge step from TR priority in my opinion. It means many tenets of TR priority are torn down- including the stable text advantage. That is why the logical end of TR priority , per JW , is you should not talk about evidence. What if evidences arises that Mark 16 longer ending is no longer in the majority of manuscripts? This majority is used in debates by TR priority for support of the longer ending. If you want to establish the stability of the TR then do not talk about evidence for evidences can change with new discoveries.
> 
> This is why JW claimed a victory of sorts when JR agreed to debate about evidence.
> 
> (Correct me if I’m wrong on any of the above)


TR Translation, the Geneva Bible, Rev 16:5 says
"And I heard the Angel of the waters say, Lord, thou art just, which art, and which wast: *and Holy,* because thou hast judged these things."

TR Translation, the KJV, Rev 16:5 says
"And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, *and shalt be*, because thou hast judged thus."

We still have to decide which TR is best.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jake (Mar 4, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> TR Translation, the Geneva Bible, Rev 16:5 says
> "And I heard the Angel of the waters say, Lord, thou art just, which art, and which wast: *and Holy,* because thou hast judged these things."
> 
> TR Translation, the KJV, Rev 16:5 says
> ...



Even a very significant differentiator like the Comma Johanneum is not in all editions of the TR. It is not in the 1516 or 1519 editions of the Textus Receptus, nor Bibles based on it like the Luther Bible. In fact, it was not included in an edition of the Luther Bible until 1574, after his death.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Mar 4, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> TR Translation, the Geneva Bible, Rev 16:5 says
> "And I heard the Angel of the waters say, Lord, thou art just, which art, and which wast: *and Holy,* because thou hast judged these things."
> 
> TR Translation, the KJV, Rev 16:5 says
> ...











WM 140: Responding to the "Which TR?" Objection


WM 140: Responding to the "Which TR?" Objection has been posted. Listen here . In the chapter “Why Not the Textus Receptus” ...




www.jeffriddle.net





this would be relevant to follow up.

But I have to wonder.. Codex Vaticanus—which was around during Erasmus' time and was *preserved—*TR priority would reject it as a providentially preserved manuscript for use, because Erasmus never (*providentially*) used it? I.e to say - Erasmus was unconsciously used by God to select providentially preserved texts, which are the only evidences by which a critical text (Textus Receptus) can be formed out of?


----------



## Taylor (Mar 4, 2022)

John Yap said:


> But I have to wonder.. Codex Vaticanus—which was around during Erasmus' time and was *preserved—*TR priority would reject it as a providentially preserved manuscript for use, because Erasmus never (*providentially*) used it? I.e to say - Erasmus was unconsciously used by God to select providentially preserved texts, which are the only evidences by which a critical text (Textus Receptus) can be formed out of?


By "preserved" I do not think confessional advocates mean "in existence." _All_ the manuscripts we have in our possession today are by that definition "preserved," and there are many more we do not have that are waiting to be discovered that are also "preserved."

"Preserved" in this context speaks not only to mere existence, but also to recognition, use, attestation, and propagation by the church through the ages. This is why the papyrus fragments found in the sands of Egypt are not considered "preserved," because they have not been used, studied, copied, and passed down through the ages in the church, and, in that sense, fail to achieve the church's recognition.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Polanus1561 (Mar 4, 2022)

Thanks for the clarification. But when was the 'recognition, use, attestation, and propagation by the church through the ages' established? When Erasmus printed his first edition? (But he was not a church of course) Or during the translation of the AV? It seems like this recognition was more hindsight when we are talking about recognition, so I am confused.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Mar 4, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I will say, as I'm going through the White video, I'm becoming increasingly annoyed with White's tactics. He spends much if not most of his time caricaturing the other side and beating down a straw man. The things he is arguing against in this video might have been relevant when interacting with Gail Riplinger and Sam Gipp, but presenting McShaffrey's and Mahlen's position as he is, it's borderline mockery, and it's becoming more and more difficult to take him seriously.


But don’t forget, he’s debated Bart Ehrman and does actual apologetics in the real world.


----------



## Taylor (Mar 4, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> But don’t forget, he’s debated Bart Ehrman and does actual apologetics in the real world.


I’m not really sure what to do with this. Was this sarcasm? Was it a defense of his uncharitableness, since he has to deal with so many fanatics? What are you trying to argue here?


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Mar 4, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I’m not really sure what to do with this. Was this sarcasm? Was it a defense of his uncharitableness, since he has to deal with so many fanatics? What are you trying to argue here?


It was tongue in cheek. You said his tactics are wearing on you. I stopped listening to him a few years ago due to his penchant for picking on low-hanging fruit, act incredulous when presented with an argument that more ably attacks his position, and retreat to name-dropping Ehrman or Crossan and belittle other Christians who disagree with him by claiming that he does “real apologetics where it matters”.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Taylor (Mar 4, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> It was tongue in cheek. You said his tactics are wearing on you. I stopped listening to him a few years ago due to his penchant for picking on low-hanging fruit, act incredulous when presented with an argument that more ably attacks his position, and retreat to name-dropping Ehrman or Crossan and belittle other Christians who disagree with him by claiming that he does “real apologetics where it matters”.


Gotcha. I thought that’s what you were doing, I just wasn’t sure.

I agree.


----------



## Taylor (Mar 4, 2022)

In the end, I couldn't even finish White's presentation. His caricatures, straw men, condescending elitism, and straight-up mockery of McShaffrey's and Mahlen's position was just too much to handle. Regardless of what side you fall on in this debate, I think we can all agree that, in terms of approach and demeanor, McShaffrey and Mahlen are models. White has become just plain disappointing.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Mar 4, 2022)

Man, I was hoping we could wade through all that and just talk about the opinions


----------



## Taylor (Mar 4, 2022)

John Yap said:


> Man, I was hoping we could wade through all that and just talk about the opinions


Well, me too, honestly. But it's kind of difficult when one side (in this particular instance) is offering a cool-headed presentation of their position, and the other side in response resorts to, "Well, I hope their conference at least has good food, because what else is there?"


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 4, 2022)

Taylor said:


> "Well, I hope their conference at least has good food, because what else is there?"


Seriously? That's not scholarship; that's just being a jerk. Why do people give the time of day for that?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Mar 4, 2022)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Seriously? That's not scholarship; that's just being a jerk. Why do people give the time of day for that?


When speaking of this year's Kept Pure conference, entitled "Received Text Apologetics," here are White's exact words: "There is no apologetics in this position! [...] I'm not sure what they're going to be doing [at the conference]. I hope they have really cool food, and stuff like that, because [he shrugs here] there you go."

Of course, this kind of rhetoric doesn't make his position or opinions wrong necessarily. But it does reveal, I believe, something of his heart. He appears bitter. And I can understand a lot of that. He has spent years debating kooks like Riplinger, Gipp, et al. However, McShaffrey and Mahlen are OPC ministers—Reformed men, and brothers in the faith. They are approaching this from what they see as an explicit and deep-seated confessionalism. They know the issues; they are educated; they know the biblical languages; they are well-studied. They deserve better treatment than this.

So, as someone who has been looking into this debate for a number of years with a lot of confusion, I would love to just talk about the opinions. But when one man's opinions are so clouded by his mocking caricatures of the other side, there is little profit in discussing them.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## J.L. Allen (Mar 4, 2022)

Taylor said:


> When speaking of this year's Kept Pure conference, entitled "Received Text Apologetics," here are White's exact words: "There is no apologetics in this position! [...] I'm not sure what they're going to be doing [at the conference]. I hope they have really cool food, and stuff like that, because [he shrugs here] there you go."
> 
> Of course, this kind of rhetoric doesn't make his position or opinions wrong necessarily. But it does reveal, I believe, something of his heart. He appears bitter. And I can understand a lot of that. He has spent years debating kooks like Riplinger, Gipp, et al. However, McShaffrey and Mahlen are OPC ministers—Reformed men, and brothers in the faith. They are approaching this from what they see as an explicit and deep-seated confessionalism. They know the issues; they are educated; they know the biblical languages; they are well-studied. They deserve better treatment than this.
> 
> So, as someone who has been looking into this debate for a number of years with a lot of confusion, I would love to just talk about the opinions. But when one man's opinions are so clouded by his mocking caricatures of the other side, there is little profit in discussing them.


Exactly this. Reverends McShaffrey and Mahlen are dear friends and have been immensely helpful in my journey to where I'm at now as man under care of the same presbytery as Rev. Mahlen (and Rev. McShaffrey up until our presbytery was planted redrawing the boundaries) and will be licensed this coming fall should the Lord will. Despite the varied opinion on this issue in our presbyteries, there has been love and kindness displayed at every turn. I hope people look at that and know we all belong to Jesus Christ.

I stopped listening JW a couple years ago when I realized I was leaving each episode or video clip more angry than I was before. And that was with stuff I was in agreement about (like the woke stuff as of a couple years ago)!

Taylor,

I'm thankful for your thoughtful comments on the issue, and I'm encouraged by you, brother.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 4, 2022)

J.L. Allen said:


> I stopped listening JW a couple years ago when I realized I was leaving each episode or video clip more angry than I was before. And that was with stuff I was in agreement about (like the woke stuff as of a couple years ago)!


More precisely you said:
I haven't listened to JW in a long while. I found it was bad for my blood pressure!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## J.L. Allen (Mar 4, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> More precisely you said:
> I haven't listened to JW in a long while. I found it was bad for my blood pressure!


Ha! Bingo! Add it to the long list of things not conducive for healthy living.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Mar 4, 2022)

I guess then it’s time to close this thread


----------



## Taylor (Mar 4, 2022)

John Yap said:


> I guess then it’s time to close this thread.


Odd comment. I posted the videos in hopes of highlighting the interaction. That’s what I said in the OP. And now that the interaction itself is being discussed, you want the thread closed?


----------



## Polanus1561 (Mar 4, 2022)

I was hoping this thread was to be interaction on the points of textual criticism (Is this not the Translation sub and not General discussion) But it seems not to be so. Sorry for being disappointed. I didn’t think we were to be discussing the manner of interaction (which you yourself said you are turned off by, so why would you want to continue talking about something you are turned off by?)


----------



## Taylor (Mar 4, 2022)

John Yap said:


> I was hoping this thread was to be interaction on the points of textual criticism (Is this not the Translation sub and not General discussion) But it seems not to be so. Sorry for being disappointed. I didn’t think we were to be discussing the manner of interaction (which you yourself said you are turned off by, so why would you want to continue talking about something you are turned off by?)


My thread was not asking about various points of textual criticism, but highlighting two very recent and related podcasts on the topic. Anything in them is fair game. I found White’s presentation to be woefully deficient for several reasons—not just his demeanor but also his argumentation, both of which I pointed out. For the opposite reasons, I found the GPTS podcast to be more compelling.

If you want to discuss some other points in the podcasts, no one is stopping you. Again, I’m not sure why you are requesting the thread be shut down, unless you just like James White and don’t like seeing him criticized.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Mar 4, 2022)

It’s just a stylistic preference of mine for this sub forum not to go into discussing personalities. You can use Facebook or whatever for that: But maybe I’m niche and just want to focus on the textual issues. 

But anyway I’ll just pop by this thread again if there is good discussion going on. Don’t mind me. Till then

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## StevieG (Mar 5, 2022)

I found it interesting that one of the men (apologise that I can't remember which name) in the Greenville podcast said that he read from the TR, but preached from the NASB and then commented on any significant differences in in readings. Would many others hold to this practice? I don't think I've ever come across this. Is it simple a pragmatic decision or inconsistent with their belief that the TR is a more accurate text?

I haven't gotten round to listening to James White yet.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Mar 5, 2022)

StevieG said:


> I found it interesting that one of the men (apologise that I can't remember which name) in the Greenville podcast said that he read from the TR, but preached from the NASB and then commented on any significant differences in in readings. Would many others hold to this practice? I don't think I've ever come across this. Is it simple a pragmatic decision or inconsistent with their belief that the TR is a more accurate text?
> 
> I haven't gotten round to listening to James White yet.


I believe it may be Dr Pipa who holds to the Majority but uses an NASB.


----------



## StevieG (Mar 5, 2022)

Well that makes more sense. Apologies for the poor listening on my part, shouldn't have tried to listen while doing other things. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 5, 2022)

I thought James brought up some good points if one is actually interested in what the Greek manuscripts that we have contain. As he noted, he is sympathetic to a Byzantine priority or majority text approach. What he is not sympathetic to is the notion that a Greek manuscript can be constructed by looking at the English translation from several manuscripts and coming up with a Greek manuscript that is appealed to on the basis of providential preservation.

The problem I have with TR arguments is that they are inconsistent. One could just as easily point to the use of the Vulgate for centuries in the Church and create a Greek manuscript that is faithful to how the Vulgate was used. 

In writing this, I'm not arguing for a purely academic approach to determining what the original Greek text contained. What I'm noting, however, is that we see in Church history that translation choices were made that found there way into the thinking of the Church and the return to the Greek was a healthy thing in the history of the Church. Erasmus' and Stephanus (and others) work was very helpful in recovering the Greek text of the originals but I also don't believe that "Providential preservation" ends in the 16th and 17th centuries. 

Most f the debates about this center around arguments like the idea we need to be certain that we have the actual translation in our hands or speculation that men somehow knew all the Greek manuscripts when they were spread around Europe before modern communications methods existed. We don't need to say they were not learned men, but neither can we argue that because they did their work that it is the final story on what the autographs contained. 

The TR or traditional text arguments typically center around criticisms of other textual methods while submitting their own position to no possible criticism. At the end of the day, arguments for the textual choices are not appeals to actual Greek manuscripts that exist (for some readings) but upon the idea that, since it found its way into the original translation that it must now be "received" and any arguments to the contrary are somehow a disbelief in providential preservation.

Reactions: Like 7 | Love 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Mar 5, 2022)

My question would be, when exactly was the TR being the providentially providence text, set in stone? And when did the church recognised and declared this was the ecclesiastical text?


----------



## Taylor (Mar 5, 2022)

John Yap said:


> My question would be, when exactly was the TR being the providentially providence text, set in stone? And when did the church recognised and declared this was the ecclesiastical text?


I think the use of the phrase “set in stone” betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the traditional text position. McShaffrey and Mahlen do not appear to me to be arguing that the TR, in every jot and tittle, is “set in stone,” to the point where no reading could possibly ever be questioned, or no textual criticism could ever be done.

As McShaffrey pointed out in the interview, he is for and not against textual criticism. He finds the science helpful. He keeps up with the field. He recognizes that Erasmus engaged in textual criticism to produce the TR. What he challenges is the modern _approach_ to the text of scripture, which is fundamentally evolutionistic. Many of the “canons” of New Testament textual criticism are arbitrary (Dabney is good on this, by the way).

At the end of the day, Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are fundamentally different than the text family that the Church has made use of throughout the ages. It has significant portions of Scripture missing. And by God’s providence, the Church has made use of a more stable, fuller textual tradition. I think that must mean something in light of WCF 1.8. Thee was never a “declaration” that this is the “preserved text.” It just was preserved as a matter of historical fact.

That’s how I understand things, anyway.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Polanus1561 (Mar 5, 2022)

Thanks Taylor, it helps to refine my thoughts:
Is this a correct summary? :

1. The TR is not a 100% confirmed view of _every_ reading - there are TR variant readings and thus textual criticism was needed then and needed now.
2. What remains stable (and against the CT view), is that the TR tradition cannot be changed. Because unlike CT, the TR tradition will not welcome a Sinai or Vaticanus appearing and unstabilizing matters. The TR tradition is 'closed'.
3. What God has preserved is the TR tradition (Erasmus to Beza?) - however, textual criticism science is needed to deal with TR variants.
--
But what would help me understand further, 
Why does the TR view argue _evidentially_ for say the longer ending of Mark? (Assuming they do and I think they do)

and this was JW's point (if you can ignore whatever you dislike on the manner of his delivery), he considered it a victory when JR did a debate on Mk 16 and Eph 3:9 because not only was evidence debated, but JR used two different ways to argue. (25:00 onwards in the JW video posted in OP). JW views this as something to press the TR position on.

That is why JW is interacting with the TR view. Because there is discussion of evidences. That is why he likes to press on what is the TR methodology with regards to evidence?

So what confuses me and what JW is hinting at: why does the TR view talk about evidence and debating about it, when it actually hurts their cause because it gives _ammo_ for JW to say: Hey you are using 2 different arguments for 2 different places (Eph 3:9 / Mark 16)?

A TR view (if I follow correctly) - should stay away from talking about evidences. The above is _not to refute _that the TR view is wrong but to question the interaction with the TR view and evidence (mainly Byzantine non-TR manuscripts that the TR view uses to support the longer ending).

Once you bring in _evidence_ to support the TR (which does not need external evidence beyond the TR to determine any reading), it brings in an _unstability_ to the stable TR view _because evidences can change_ with discoveries. Using evidence to debate the longer ending means the debate remains _open. _And does this not go against the stability that the TR view offers?

So this is the summary for me: If I was a TR person, I would stay away from talking about non-TR evidence, instead the focus is using theology (and history) to show forth that we only need to talk about the TR tradition for the word of God because it is the providentially preserved text. Methodologies textual criticism etc ought to be discussed _only_ when talking about the TR tradition and its variants.


----------



## Taylor (Mar 5, 2022)

John Yap said:


> Thanks Taylor, it helps to refine my thoughts:
> Is this a correct summary? :
> 
> 1. The TR is not a 100% confirmed view of _every_ reading - there are TR variant readings and thus textual criticism was needed then and needed now.
> ...


Your post is quite long, so I’m not sure I can deal with all or even a lot of it. I would like to ask, though, where do you get the idea that the TR position is against the use of evidence? I didn’t get that from the GPTS interview at all. I don’t think it’s a matter of whether to use evidence or not, but rather how the evidence is approached and dealt with.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Mar 5, 2022)

My questions may go beyond your OP content, and my words to you from that post was just the 3 point summary, not necessarily the whole post brother.

If my post is too long I concede that of course. But if you or anyone, feel free to just help me understand how the TR view approaches non-TR evidence. How to use it.. goal of using it etc. don’t need to interact with my very wordy post

And my crux is not that the TR is against the use of evidence but I don’t think they should (non-TR evidence) : I know this is opening for someone to outright refute me and I welcome that (to learn).


----------



## Logan (Mar 5, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Your post is quite long, so I’m not sure I can deal with all or even a lot of it. I would like to ask, though, where do you get the idea that the TR position is against the use of evidence? I didn’t get that from the GPTS interview at all. I don’t think it’s a matter of whether to use evidence or not, but rather how the evidence is approached and dealt with.



If there were a consistent methodology, I would agree with that. I think many TR advocates believe they are approaching it from an evidence standpoint (and in the main they are correct). But there are specific instances where evidence is slim to nothing; weaker than you'd see in anything in the CT, yet that's apparently acceptable for the TR.

You have Hill saying that it appears that 1 John 5:7 was lost to the Greek church, but preserved in the Latin churches, and then providentially restored to the Greek. Yet that methodology wouldn't be conceded for a moment if the CT employed it (nor would any of the Reformers have held that position). Nor would that methodology be used for other passages in the TR. The evidence acceptable shifts from passage to passage and that isn't objective.

Ultimately, if only pros are considered as evidence, and cons are just ignored, then it's a methodology that isn't really about the evidence, it's confirmation bias.

That's why I've said that if someone wants to say "I believe that it was providentially established on this date and this is the text we are using" then that's fine, I can somewhat respect that, but using inconsistent evidence to bolster it is troubling. And then there is still the issue of "which TR", because even though the variants are more minor, there _are_ variants.

I'm a fan of a methodology that is clearly established and objective. I am _not_ a fan of a methodology that can only be established after the fact. Produce a methodology and then do the collation and produce the text and I'll respect that. Reverse it and produce the text and then later establish a methodology and I find that extremely subjective.

That's why I respect Robinson's Byzantine Priority view. He has a heavy sympathy toward the texts that have been _in use_ for centuries, critiquing the Critical Text's methodology, but also producing what he believes is a reasonable alternative that isn't simply defending what happens to already be there, despite the evidence against.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Mar 6, 2022)

I listened to the podcast and to White’s critique. My brief response -

* The OPC ministers were very irenic , but the arguments I heard made a lot of assumptions and appealed to emotions, tradition, and sentiment.
* White was practically incredulous, could be somewhat harsh, but his facts and data seemed to line up with reality. He didn’t turn me off but definitely needed to tone down the negativity.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 6, 2022)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> I listened to the podcast and to White’s critique. My brief response -
> 
> * The OPC ministers were very irenic , but the arguments I heard made a lot of assumptions and appealed to emotions, tradition, and sentiment.
> * White was practically incredulous, could be somewhat harsh, but his facts and data seemed to line up with reality. He didn’t turn me off but definitely needed to tone down the negativity.


This is essentially how I would review as well.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 6, 2022)

Hello Logan, you said,


Logan said:


> You have Hill saying that it appears that 1 John 5:7 was lost to the Greek church, but preserved in the Latin churches, and then providentially restored to the Greek. Yet that methodology wouldn't be conceded for a moment if the CT employed it (nor would any of the Reformers have held that position). Nor would that methodology be used for other passages in the TR. The evidence acceptable shifts from passage to passage and that isn't objective.



The TR position is not based on a particular methodology, but on the Scripture-based presupposition of providential preservation, *plus* evidences peculiar to whatever reading is being considered, even if the evidences are scant.

As for what the Reformers would have held regarding 1 John 5:7,

The Johannine Comma was cited a proof text for the Trinity in the following confessions and catechisms:

*Westminster Confession of Faith 1646* 2.3
*Westminster Larger Catechism* Q&A 6
*Westminster Shorter Catechism* Q&A 6
*The London Baptist Confession of 1689* 2:3
*The Belgic Confession of 1561*, Article 9 quotes the passage: “There are three who bear witness in heaven– the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit– and these three are one.”
*The Heidelberg Catechism of 1563*, Lord’s Day 8, Q&A 25, footnote 5

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 6, 2022)

I listened to the ' "Kept Pure in All Ages," Confessional Bibliology, & the Received Text' podcast Taylor linked to, and will listen to Dr. White's remarks when I have a little time, and comment on that. The aforementioned podcast was great in that it's showing awareness rising as regards the TR's validity, and gets an A from me.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 7, 2022)

Listened to both, I think James White is absolutely correct in his analysis. Was he prickly, sure, but his arguments against the TR position actually made sense and could be logically followed. The TR guys made a bunch of assertions, but couldn't tell me why they believed them. Basically they assert that is it the confessional position and it has been kept pure in all ages. My question is why? How do you know that it is the TR specifically that has been kept pure? Why isn't it the NASB? Why isn't it the vulgate? Also, if the reformers had access to the NA28 and the TR, would they have still said the TR? A lot of their assertions were anachronistic in nature. Maybe I'm just still to uneducated in this area, but the Greenville presentation just made me more in favor of the CT position. The TR is a product of reconstruction as well, so why it is the correct one and not the NA28 or even the majority text? In any case, the OPC gentlemen are brothers in the Lord, in my own denomination, and I was glad to hear the position presented from a non cultic standpoint (IFB), but I came away completely unconvinced. The position almost seems anti intellectual in nature. "This is it and that's it". These thoughts are what was running through my head as I listened. I'm not trying to insult anyone. I am also more than willing to be taught. I would love to hear more reasons why it is specifically the TR. However, saying things like it's confessional is not convincing by itself. Most OPCs use the ESV, so apparently that is confessional too. I didn't have to take any exceptions to the confession because I like the NASB. Also, saying we believe the Bible has been kept pure in all ages, yes I believe that too. I believe it is through the critical text that God is using means and providence to preserve his word. The fact that variants exist does not affect my faith one bit. Pretending they don't exist doesn't solve any problems either. I am confident that I can read the ESV, NASB, or NKJV and be reading the word of God and understand what the gospel is.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Andrew35 (Mar 7, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Listened to both, I think James White is absolutely correct in his analysis. Was he prickly, sure, but his arguments against the TR position actually made sense and could be logically followed. The TR guys made a bunch of assertions, but couldn't tell me why they believed them. Basically they assert that is it the confessional position and it has been kept pure in all ages. My question is why? How do you know that it is the TR specifically that has been kept pure? Why isn't it the NASB? Why isn't it the vulgate? Also, if the reformers had access to the NA28 and the TR, would they have still said the TR? A lot of their assertions were anachronistic in nature. Maybe I'm just still to uneducated in this area, but the Greenville presentation just made me more in favor of the CT position. The TR is a product of reconstruction as well, so why it is the correct one and not the NA28 or even the majority text? In any case, the OPC gentlemen are brothers in the Lord, in my own denomination, and I was glad to hear the position presented from a non cultic standpoint (IFB), but I came away completely unconvinced. The position almost seems anti intellectual in nature. "This is it and that's it". These thoughts are what was running through my head as I listened. I'm not trying to insult anyone. I am also more than willing to be taught. I would love to hear more reasons why it is specifically the TR. However, saying things like it's confessional is not convincing by itself. Most OPCs use the ESV, so apparently that is confessional too. I didn't have to take any exceptions to the confession because I like the NASB. Also, saying we believe the Bible has been kept pure in all ages, yes I believe that too. I believe it is through the critical text that God is using means and providence to preserve his word. The fact that variants exist does not affect my faith one bit. Pretending they don't exist doesn't solve any problems either. I am confident that I can read the ESV, NASB, or NKJV and be reading the word of God and understand what the gospel is.


To say nothing of the fact that *any one of those *(ESV, NASB, NKJV, or KJV, NIV for that matter) is head and shoulders in quality above the translations most languages have to work with--often as their _only _option_._


----------



## Logan (Mar 7, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> The TR position is not based on a particular methodology, but on the Scripture-based presupposition of providential preservation, *plus* evidences peculiar to whatever reading is being considered, even if the evidences are scant.


And that's repeating the problem that I stated. It's a presupposition that cannot, by definition, be disproven, because only evidence _for_ is considered, and evidence _against _is explained away. It's a position that sounds good in the main, but falls apart in the minutiae.

It's a methodology and apologetic that can _only_ be developed after the fact. It works backwards and finds the evidence to fit the presupposition and ignores evidence that doesn't. If there cannot, by definition, exist any evidence that defeats the position, then citing evidence for the position is disingenuous.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> As for what the Reformers would have held regarding 1 John 5:7,
> 
> The Johannine Comma was cited a proof text for the Trinity in the following confessions and catechisms:



I'm aware of that. What I said is that the Reformers would not have accepted Hills' methodology. For example, Turretin believed the Comma was genuine because he was led to believe that it was "in all the Greek copies", _not_ because he presupposed that it must be genuine and worked backward to assume that it must have been preserved in the Latin.

Can you show any reformed theologian who did _not_ critique the text he was using, comparing it with other Greek manuscripts? That doesn't sound like a presupposition that their printed copies were providentially preserved and there it stopped. It sounds like they believed they needed to always go back to the sources and verify their printed copies were representing the Greek faithfully. They didn't have your presupposition (in the minutiae).

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 7, 2022)

__





Kept Pure in All Ages | Conference on the Text of Scripture







www.keptpure.com





Since this is in my backyard I will likely go to this. If Dr. Riddle is one of the best person to hear this position from, then I am willing to hear him out. If it is going to be similar to the Greenville conversation, I am not sure I will be convinced, but I won't go into the presentations with a closed or stubborn mind. If nothing else, it will be a good opportunity to meet others in the OPC and fellowship with some Christian brothers and sisters. Maybe I will also bring the King James Only Controversy for Dr. Riddle to sign (kidding on this last sentence).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 7, 2022)

I don’t want to spend a lot of time on this – supposedly my day off, between sermon prep, Bible study prep, pastoral care, and regular life – but it is important not to be cowed by Dr. White’s views, and those he influences here on PB. As I have to get back to my duties I may not be able to respond to the likely voluminous opposition this could generate. So please note, it not because I cannot respond, but because I must simply get to the labors of dispensing the light I have in my Bible to God’s flock, and those He may be drawing. I no longer have the leisure to spend on "academic" matters like this.


*Some responses to Dr. White’s talk against the TR / Kept Pure position on the Greenville podcast*

He said:

“The Reformers did not have their views ‘with knowledge…the information we have today…it is historically anachronistic to say these things…’ ” they affirmed…

I reply: It is natural James disregards their views, as he ignores / disdains their frame of reference, which is that God gave them the manuscripts and editions *He* purposed for them to have in the fulness of time to fully preserve His word, in the face of the increase of knowledge in this field that would occur, knowing that men would try to overthrow His word in the centuries to come. He gave them what they needed to keep intact the Bible – despite the ravages of prior time – and make it available as the great missionary movements covered much of the world.

He said:

“This position is making the assertion the TR is _the_ word of God without question, and there is no need of further study… and [say the TR onlies] that all textual discoveries and all scholarship henceforth are irrelevant…have no meaning and no benefit to the church at all. That’s it. No need for further scholarship.”

I reply: further study can be helpful in many respects, but the promises God gave to keep His word intact were fulfilled by His providential care. One can see the results of the “textual criticism” of the last centuries: Rome, in its hatred of the evangelical faith supported by the sola Scriptura doctrine and the preserved Hebrew and Greek translated into common tongues, this instrument of the devil has convinced multitudes that their (Rome’s) take on sola Scriptura was true, and the Protestants do not have a reliable Bible. Many professional text critics have given up ever recovering the genuine NT text – it’s now all a crapshoot, as the efforts of men are at odds with one another, and there’s no standard by which to judge any outcome. Even the conservative textual scholars, with no plumbline to judge by, can only offer an ever provisional text.

He said: 

“Didn’t Erasmus and the other TR editors do reconstruction, and textual criticism? But no more – this is it [as far as further scholarly work to be done]… Such a position is indefensible, it can’t do apologetics.”

I reply: So the Reformers, and scholars, and preachers who held to the TR and versions translated in the following centuries did not defend their faith against many opponents? Their apologetic endeavors were nil? Not a credible statement.

He said: 

“Burgon was working with a completely different set of facts than we have today… Burgon didn’t have knowledge of the papyri – Burgon would be thoroughly embarrassed that his writings would be used today as they are, defending a text [now debunked].”

I reply: Yet the Lord gave him and the Reformation divines and editors that which He knew they needed to produce what He wanted produced. The wisdom of men vs the wisdom of God. Burgon gave us valuable knowledge / ammunition to fight against those who would seek to destroy God’s work in keeping the text intact.

He said:

The Greek exemplar used by the TR folks is worthless, and that the history of how it came to be, from Erasmus up through Stephanus, Beza, and then Scrivener’s 1894 – its history – “Ehrman would tear through such an argument” and its textual bases.

I reply: So he says, as his dismal view of the TR’s validity could not have him think otherwise. Ehrman, for all his erudition, is more vulnerable than he thinks. Both White and Ehrman have formidable debating skills, but many can and do write well against both of them.

He said: 

“We have so much more information today because of the technology which allows us to collate; we now have massive databases, and more information than Christian scholarship has ever ever ever ever _ever_ had” – this is a good argument for the CT position.

“I’m stunned when someone goes 140 years into the past – where people simply could not do what we can do today – this is not modern hubris, it is just recognizing that we have bypassed the “high tech” card catalogue of the last century, and we’re *way* beyond that now” in this century!

I reply: James again falls back on his own approach which denies the providential preservation view of the Reformation. It is imperative that he seek to destroy the validity of their view of God’s preservation, for it is the fortress of the TR position.

He said:

Re the “Reconstructed text” [33:14] of the Reformation text editors, they were making text critical decisions and thus reconstructing the text, although they had a _minuscule_ amount of information in comparison to what we have today, and were not consistent.

“The [Reformation] ‘fathers’ had no idea of about 98% of the information in here” [holding up the N/A Critical Text #28].

I reply: Nor did they need it, having what God gave them to work with – what He knew they needed for the dark days to come re the textual situation, when men would deny that God has actually given His church an intact Bible one can hold in one’s hand, whether it be the 1894 TR or a faithful translation thereof.

He said:

The four, Burgon, Hills, Letis, and Riddle, are all part of a “fringe perspective – extremely fringe” – not reflecting the Reformed churches.

I reply: There may be some truth in this, as we are presently a minority. Yet it is a wonder of God’s faithfulness that He has raised up such men to hold forth the truth concerning the Bible, so that those churches and individuals who desire more than the provisional or error-riddled versions offered by the Textual Criticism Industry, may have God’s word intact.

He said:

The Westcott and Hort revised Critical Text of 1881, based on B and Aleph, are greatly different than the NU text.

I reply: Yet the significant variant readings found in the 1881 are present in the NU, and that is the primary issue between the TR and the CT. These variants are the main departure from the faithful apographs, and their source is B and Aleph.

He said:

According to the TR position, most Christians did not have the pure word of God up through the ages, as the final TR came into being only after the beginning of the Reformation.

I reply: Here we get the “adequate preservation” phenomena, slowly leading up to the minute preservation at the beginning of the Reformation, where God kept the readings of the autographs in His text. Was this reconstruction? To re-construct – i.e., to re-build – the NT, or was it but _retaining_it? Were there text critical decisions made to this end? This is nuanced. It is better to say the TR editors were discerning what had been de-structed and _keeping it_ in the edition now being made – _keeping_ the NT text intact. Is this but semantics? Or do these nuances have profound meaning and significance?
_____

In sum:

“The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages…” WCF 1.8

So _how_, and _what_ was “kept pure in all ages”? — 1) an entire and intact Greek NT? And that throughout the church age till printing came to be? I don’t think so. 2) Or the pure READINGS of the autographs kept in various Greek mss, and then compiled in an authoritative edition, and then printed? Which edition would that be? I know of none. 3) Or the pure READINGS of the Greek autographs kept in various mss—mostly the Traditional (Byzantine) Greek, but a very few kept in other versions due to attacks and mutilations on the Greek—and then put into print in the Greek Textus Receptus editions (known to and used by the Westminster divines), having also been put into the English, Dutch, and other translations? I hold to the third option. No reconstruction here, but *keeping*.

This way the WCF / 1689 are not made to bear the burden of asserting there was an entire and intact NT extant throughout the church age before the Reformation, but rather the authentic *readings* of the entire Greek NT were “by [God’s] singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages”.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 7, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I don’t want to spend a lot of time on this – supposedly my day off, between sermon prep, Bible study prep, pastoral care, and regular life – but it is important not to be cowed by Dr. White’s views, and those he influences here on PB. As I have to get back to my duties I may not be able to respond to the likely voluminous opposition this could generate. So please note, it not because I cannot respond, but because I must simply get to the labors of dispensing the light I have in my Bible to God’s flock, and those He may be drawing. I no longer have the leisure to spend on "academic" matters like this.
> 
> 
> *Some responses to Dr. White’s talk against the TR / Kept Pure position on the Greenville podcast*
> ...


Why do you believe this? Why it is the TR that accomplishes this?


Jerusalem Blade said:


> He said:
> 
> “This position is making the assertion the TR is _the_ word of God without question, and there is no need of further study… and [say the TR onlies] that all textual discoveries and all scholarship henceforth are irrelevant…have no meaning and no benefit to the church at all. That’s it. No need for further scholarship.”
> 
> I reply: further study can be helpful in many respects, but the promises God gave to keep His word intact were fulfilled by His providential care. One can see the results of the “textual criticism” of the last centuries: Rome, in its hatred of the evangelical faith supported by the sola Scriptura doctrine and the preserved Hebrew and Greek translated into common tongues, this instrument of the devil has convinced multitudes that their (Rome’s) take on sola Scriptura was true, and the Protestants do not have a reliable Bible. Many professional text critics have given up ever recovering the genuine NT text – it’s now all a crapshoot, as the efforts of men are at odds with one another, and there’s no standard by which to judge any outcome. Even the conservative textual scholars, with no plumbline to judge by, can only offer an ever provisional text.


I don't think your response refutes White at all here. Why is the TR the fulfillment of God's promise? Why wasn't the Vulgate? Why isn't the majority text?


Jerusalem Blade said:


> He said:
> 
> “Didn’t Erasmus and the other TR editors do reconstruction, and textual criticism? But no more – this is it [as far as further scholarly work to be done]… Such a position is indefensible, it can’t do apologetics.”
> 
> I reply: So the Reformers, and scholars, and preachers who held to the TR and versions translated in the following centuries did not defend their faith against many opponents? Their apologetic endeavors were nil? Not a credible statement.


This appears to be a disagreement with White's position, but doesn't really offer anything to refute it.


Jerusalem Blade said:


> He said:
> 
> “Burgon was working with a completely different set of facts than we have today… Burgon didn’t have knowledge of the papyri – Burgon would be thoroughly embarrassed that his writings would be used today as they are, defending a text [now debunked].”
> 
> I reply: Yet the Lord gave him and the Reformation divines and editors that which He knew they needed to produce what He wanted produced. The wisdom of men vs the wisdom of God. Burgon gave us valuable knowledge / ammunition to fight against those who would seek to destroy God’s work in keeping the text intact.\


What leads you to believe that your reply is accurate? Why do you believe this? These are serious questions that I have not seen answered. Why is the TR what God wanted to produce and not another reconstruction/collation? His point about Burgon not agreeing with 1 John 5:7 appears to stand as well and that he would not agree with the TR only position.


Jerusalem Blade said:


> He said:
> 
> The Greek exemplar used by the TR folks is worthless, and that the history of how it came to be, from Erasmus up through Stephanus, Beza, and then Scrivener’s 1894 – its history – “Ehrman would tear through such an argument” and its textual bases.
> 
> I reply: So he says, as his dismal view of the TR’s validity could not have him think otherwise. Ehrman, for all his erudition, is more vulnerable than he thinks. Both White and Ehrman have formidable debating skills, but many can and do write well against both of them.


I didn't hear a response to Ehrman in the Greenville presentation at all. If I understood correctly (and maybe I didn't) they basically said, they will show him the TR and say, this is it. The question continues to be why?


Jerusalem Blade said:


> He said:
> 
> “We have so much more information today because of the technology which allows us to collate; we now have massive databases, and more information than Christian scholarship has ever ever ever ever _ever_ had” – this is a good argument for the CT position.
> 
> ...


Why do you believe the TR is God's providential preservation?


Jerusalem Blade said:


> He said:
> 
> Re the “Reconstructed text” [33:14] of the Reformation text editors, they were making text critical decisions and thus reconstructing the text, although they had a _minuscule_ amount of information in comparison to what we have today, and were not consistent.
> 
> ...


Same question as above.


Jerusalem Blade said:


> He said:
> 
> The four, Burgon, Hills, Letis, and Riddle, are all part of a “fringe perspective – extremely fringe” – not reflecting the Reformed churches.
> 
> I reply: There may be some truth in this, as we are presently a minority. Yet it is a wonder of God’s faithfulness that He has raised up such men to hold forth the truth concerning the Bible, so that those churches and individuals who desire more than the provisional or error-riddled versions offered by the Textual Criticism Industry, may have God’s word intact.


If the TR position is the accurate one to hold (and maybe it is), there needs to be more of an argument that "this is the providential preservation". People like me want to know why it is the TR specifically.


Jerusalem Blade said:


> He said:
> 
> The Westcott and Hort revised Critical Text of 1881, based on B and Aleph, are greatly different than the NU text.
> 
> ...


Saying that there is no reconstruction doesn't seem to line up with the facts. It was a reconstruction of sorts and it appears it is your chosen version. I want to know why you hold to these beliefs? What leads you to these conclusions beyond just saying "providential preservation"?


Jerusalem Blade said:


> This way the WCF / 1689 are not made to bear the burden of asserting there was an entire and intact NT extant throughout the church age before the Reformation, but rather the authentic *readings* of the entire Greek NT were “by [God’s] singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages”.


I was not trying to come across as angry or prickly, but communicating emotion in written text can sometimes be difficult. At the end of the day, I am willing learn and be corrected. I am not a CT guy where nothing will ever change my mind. As I mentioned, I will go to the Dr. Riddle conference and listen to what all of the gentlemen have to say. However, the arguments presented here are not convincing. I do not say that in a disrespectful tone either. I am truly trying to see what is so convincing about this position and I just don't. My conclusion is, people holding to this position don't like that there is textual variants. The solution is to say the TR specifically (and apparently the Schrivner) is the Bible that has been kept pure in all ages because God promised to preserve his word. I agree with the promise and that kept pure part, but nothing I see leads me to believe it is the TR specifically that has done this.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Logan (Mar 7, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> but it is important not to be cowed by Dr. White’s views, and those he influences here on PB.



I don't know of anyone who is cowed by Dr White's views and I'm certainly not influenced by him (I ignore him except when someone posts something like this). 



Jerusalem Blade said:


> So _how_, and _what_ was “kept pure in all ages”? ... 3) Or the pure READINGS of the Greek autographs kept in various mss—mostly the Traditional (Byzantine) Greek, but a very few kept in other versions due to attacks and mutilations on the Greek—and then put into print in the Greek Textus Receptus editions (known to and used by the Westminster divines), having also been put into the English, Dutch, and other translations? I hold to the third option. No reconstruction here, but *keeping*.
> 
> This way the WCF / 1689 are not made to bear the burden of asserting there was an entire and intact NT extant throughout the church age before the Reformation, but rather the authentic *readings* of the entire Greek NT were “by [God’s] singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages”.



I'm very curious to know how many TR advocates would share your view here, because it seems to me that this is precisely what the Reformed proponents of the CT would adhere to: they agree with you on what "kept pure" means, but disagree that the TR was the providential _end product_.

I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it too: that the WCF framers meant it was kept pure in all ages means in the various readings, AND that it was also completely pure in their printed copies. Once again, show me any of them that didn't point to various manuscripts in contrast to their printed copies. They all did, to my knowledge. I've seen no demonstration that there was any assumption that this was it, that this was where providential preservation and keeping pure ended. Instead, they recognized that what they had represented the Greek manuscripts very accurately, while still recognizing that it probably was not yet perfect.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Mar 7, 2022)

“THE PAPYRI!!!”

Exactly what major disputed reading do the papyri shed light on?

“We have so much more than the Reformers did!”

And we don’t have all the info they had either. Some of their manuscripts have since been lost or destroyed. Besides, there is not a single major variant being discussed today that they were not well aware of and discussed. Not the longer ending of Mark, not Eph 3:9, not the CJ, not the PA, not Rev 16:5, not the authorship of various epistles, not the inclusion or exclusion of various canonical books, etc....

————————————————
[unrelated to the above but pertinent to the discussion in general]

The reason printed editions matter is because that is how the scriptures were copied, translated, and distributed throughout the world after the invention of the printing press. Hand-copied mss were no longer the primary vehicle.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 7, 2022)

The history of the papyri also matters and the historical writings that have referenced the scriptures. These are things that should be discussed also.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Mar 7, 2022)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> The history of the papyri also matters and the historical writings that have referenced the scriptures. These are things that should be discussed also.


I place a high value on quotations and translations because they testify to acceptance of the reading. We would never accept the translation or quotation as scripture on that basis alone (it must be attested in the Hebrew or Greek), but it lends credence to a reading in dispute. So for instance, the longer ending of Mark is quoted ~150 years prior to its “disappearance” in Codex B, and made its way into early translations. 

While the CJ is admittedly poorly attested outside of Latin, Cyprian alluded to it 100 years before Codices Aleph and B, it was quoted by Priscillian contemporaneously to Aleph and B, and quoted at the Council of Carthage 100 years after. And while the contested verse has only sparse support in the Greek mss, the truth is 1 John in general is poorly attested for the first millennium, with less than 10 extant witnesses if my count is correct, most of which are heavily fragmented, and I think only 3 or 4 contain the disputed section (all of which omit the comma).


----------



## Taylor (Mar 7, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> And while the contested verse has only sparse support in the Greek mss, the truth is 1 John in general is poorly attested for the first millennium, with less than 10 extant witnesses if my count is correct, most of which are heavily fragmented, and I think only 3 or 4 contain the disputed section (all of which omit the comma).


I am still undecided on the Comma, but you bring up an important note that Jeff Riddle brought out for me in one of his podcasts. One of the problems I have with many of the textual footnotes in modern translations is that many of them are misleading. So, for the Comma, many translations make it seem like it is missing from hundreds of manuscripts. Yet we only have, as you said, three of four fragments that even contain the periscope in which the Comma exists.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Logan (Mar 7, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Yet we only have, as you said, three of four fragments that even contain the periscope in which the Comma exists.



Are you sure? According to Timothy Berg, this is a list of Greek manuscripts of 1 John that don't contain the Comma:

*Manuscripts Produced Before the 700s:* 01, 03, 02, 048, 0296
*Manuscripts Produced in the 700s-800s:* 018, 020, 025, 049, 0142, 1424, 1862, 1895, 2464
*Manuscripts Assigned to the 900s:* 044, 056, 82, 93, 175, 181, 221, 307, 326, 398, 450, 454, 456, 457, 602, 605, 619, 627, 832, 920, 1066, 1175, 1720, 1739, 1829, 1836, 1837, 1841, 1845, 1851, 1871, 1874, 1875, 1880, 1891, 2125, 2147,
*Manuscripts Assigned to the 1000s:* 35, 36, 2, 42, 43, 81, 104, 131, 133, 142, 177, 250, 302, 325, 312, 314, 424, 436, 451, 458, 459, 462, 464, 465, 466, 491, 506, 517, 547, 606, 607, 617, 623, 624, 635, 638, 639, 641, 699, 796, 901, 910, 919, 945, 1162, 1243, 1244, 1270, 1311, 1384, 1521, 1668, 1724, 1730, 1735, 1738, 1828, 1835, 1838, 1846, 1847, 1849, 1854, 1870, 1888, 2138, 2191, 2344, 2475, 2587, 2723, 2746
*Manuscripts Assigned to the 1100s:* 3, 38, 1, 57, 88, 94, 97, 103, 105, 110, 180, 203, 226, 256, 319, 321, 323, 330, 337, 365, 431, 440, 442, 452, 618, 620, 622, 625, 632, 637, 656, 720, 876, 917, 922, 927, 1058, 1115, 1127, 1241, 1245, 1315, 1319, 1359, 1360, 1448, 1490, 1505, 1573, 1611, 1646, 1673, 1718, 1737, 1740, 1743, 1752, 1754, 1850, 1853, 1863, 1867, 1868, 1872, 1885, 1889, 1893, 1894, 1897, 2127, 2143, 2186, 2194, 2289, 2298, 2401, 2412, 2541, 2625, 2712, 2718, 2736, 2805
*Manuscripts Assigned to the 1200s:* 4, 5, 6, 51, 204, 206, 172, 141, 218, 234, 263, 327, 328, 378, 383, 384, 390, 460, 468, 469, 479, 483, 496, 592, 601, 614, 643, 665, 757, 912, 914, 915, 941, 999, 1069, 1070, 1072, 1094, 1103, 1107, 1149, 1161, 1242, 1251, 1292, 1297, 1352, 1398, 1400, 1404, 1456, 1501, 1509, 1523, 1563, 1594, 1595, 1597, 1609, 1642, 1719, 1722, 1727, 1728, 1731, 1736, 1758, 1780, 1827, 1839, 1842, 1843, 1852, 1855, 1857, 1858, 1860, 1864, 1865, 1873, 2180, 2374, 2400, 2404, 2423, 2483, 2502, 2558, 2627, 2696
*Manuscripts Assigned to the 1300s:* 18, 62, 76, 189, 201, 209, 216, 223, 254, 308, 363, 367, 386, 393, 394, 404, 421, 425, 429, 453, 489, 498, 582, 603, 604, 608, 621, 628, 630, 633, 634, 680, 743, 794, 808, 824, 913, 921, 928, 935, 959, 986, 996, 1022, 1040, 1067, 1075, 1099, 1100, 1102, 1106, 1248, 1249, 1354, 1390, 1409, 1482, 1495, 1503, 1524, 1548, 1598, 1599, 1610, 1618, 1619, 1622, 1637, 1643, 1661, 1678, 1717, 1723, 1725, 1726, 1732, 1733, 1741, 1742, 1744, 1746, 1747, 1753, 1761, 1762, 1765, 1769, 1831, 1832, 1856, 1859, 1866, 1877, 1881, 1882, 1886, 1890, 1892, 1899, 1902, 2080, 2085, 2086, 2197, 2200, 2261, 2279, 2356, 2431, 2466, 2484, 2492, 2494, 2508, 2511, 2527, 2626, 2675, 2705, 2716, 2774, 2777
*Manuscripts Assigned to the 1400s:* 69, 102, 149, 205, 322, 368, 385, 400, 432, 444, 467, 615, 616, 631, 636, 664, 801, 1003, 1105, 1247, 1250, 1367, 1405, 1508, 1626, 1628, 1636, 1649, 1656, 1729, 1745, 1750, 1751, 1757, 1763, 1767, 1830, 1876, 1896, 2131, 2221, 2288, 2352, 2495, 2523, 2554, 2652, 2653, 2691, 2704
*Manuscripts Assigned to the 1500s and Later:* 90, 296, 522, 1702, 1704, 1749, 1768, 1840, 1844, 1861, 2130, 2218, 2255, 2378, 2501, 2516, 2544, 1101, 1721, 1748, 1869, 1903, 2243, 2674, 2776, 2473, 1104

That's not just three or four.

Reactions: Informative 3


----------



## A.Joseph (Mar 7, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Listened to both, I think James White is absolutely correct in his analysis. Was he prickly, sure, but his arguments against the TR position actually made sense and could be logically followed. The TR guys made a bunch of assertions, but couldn't tell me why they believed them. Basically they assert that is it the confessional position and it has been kept pure in all ages. My question is why? How do you know that it is the TR specifically that has been kept pure? Why isn't it the NASB? Why isn't it the vulgate? Also, if the reformers had access to the NA28 and the TR, would they have still said the TR? A lot of their assertions were anachronistic in nature. Maybe I'm just still to uneducated in this area, but the Greenville presentation just made me more in favor of the CT position. The TR is a product of reconstruction as well, so why it is the correct one and not the NA28 or even the majority text? In any case, the OPC gentlemen are brothers in the Lord, in my own denomination, and I was glad to hear the position presented from a non cultic standpoint (IFB), but I came away completely unconvinced. The position almost seems anti intellectual in nature. "This is it and that's it". These thoughts are what was running through my head as I listened. I'm not trying to insult anyone. I am also more than willing to be taught. I would love to hear more reasons why it is specifically the TR. However, saying things like it's confessional is not convincing by itself. Most OPCs use the ESV, so apparently that is confessional too. I didn't have to take any exceptions to the confession because I like the NASB. Also, saying we believe the Bible has been kept pure in all ages, yes I believe that too. I believe it is through the critical text that God is using means and providence to preserve his word. The fact that variants exist does not affect my faith one bit. Pretending they don't exist doesn't solve any problems either. I am confident that I can read the ESV, NASB, or NKJV and be reading the word of God and understand what the gospel is.


 I have no idea what you guys are talking about, but I have to admit that I have a soft spot for James White. He is brilliant about so many things and I actually think he’s fairly restrained for how smart he is.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Taylor (Mar 7, 2022)

Logan said:


> Are you sure? According to Timothy Berg, this is a list of Greek manuscripts of 1 John that don't contain the Comma:
> 
> *Manuscripts Produced Before the 700s:* 01, 03, 02, 048, 0296
> *Manuscripts Produced in the 700s-800s:* 018, 020, 025, 049, 0142, 1424, 1862, 1895, 2464
> ...


Honestly, I’m just repeating from memory what I heard Jeff Riddle say on a podcast. I could be remembering what he said incorrectly. He may have been talking about only early manuscripts.

Even so, that seems like a lot of manuscripts of 1 John. Do all those witnesses contain 1 John 5:6-8? Or are they just manuscripts of 1 John in general? Genuinely curious.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Mar 7, 2022)

Logan said:


> Are you sure? According to Timothy Berg, this is a list of Greek manuscripts of 1 John that don't contain the Comma:
> 
> *Manuscripts Produced Before the 700s:* 01, 03, 02, 048, 0296
> *Manuscripts Produced in the 700s-800s:* 018, 020, 025, 049, 0142, 1424, 1862, 1895, 2464
> ...


I’m not familiar with Tim Berg. I am somewhat familiar with Snapp. For the record, I was reporting mss pre-1000 from the online catalogs I found. Some of the numbers above aren’t in the catalogs I’ve found online. I do wonder if all the above actually contain the section in question, and not just parts of 1 John.


----------



## Andrew35 (Mar 7, 2022)

Logan said:


> Are you sure? According to Timothy Berg, this is a list of Greek manuscripts of 1 John that don't contain the Comma:
> 
> *Manuscripts Produced Before the 700s:* 01, 03, 02, 048, 0296
> *Manuscripts Produced in the 700s-800s:* 018, 020, 025, 049, 0142, 1424, 1862, 1895, 2464
> ...


Not extremely up on this debate, but it does strike me that if many of the later manuscripts are _known_ to be copies of the earlier which contain it, that would kind of invalidate their witness.

That would mean it's just one witness, magnified.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Mar 7, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> I’m not familiar with Tim Berg. I am somewhat familiar with Snapp. For the record, I was reporting mss pre-1000 from the online catalogs I found. Some of the numbers above aren’t in the catalogs I’ve found online. I do wonder if all the above actually contain the section in question, and not just parts of 1 John.


Unless you have reason to think the author is being deceptive, I would give the benefit of the doubt that if the person says said MSS doesn’t have that passage, it DOES have the section it would be in.


----------



## Logan (Mar 7, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> I’m not familiar with Tim Berg. I am somewhat familiar with Snapp. For the record, I was reporting mss pre-1000 from the online catalogs I found. Some of the numbers above aren’t in the catalogs I’ve found online. I do wonder if all the above actually contain the section in question, and not just parts of 1 John.



I used this to check them some (but I don't have time to check all)




__





Manuscript Workspace - INTF






ntvmr.uni-muenster.de





All the ones I looked at contained 1 John 5:6/8 but not 7. 

The overwhelming attestation from the Greek is that it's not there. It wasn't used in any of the Greek Trinitarian debates or writings, which surely indicates they didn't have it in the Greek. You only find it in the Latin fathers (and the Vulgate). Thus Hill's speculation that perhaps it was preserved in the Vulgate to be reincorporated into the Greek. The only Greek copies (three?) that have it are very late (14th/16th century) and appear to have been sourced from the Vulgate.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Mar 7, 2022)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> Unless you have reason to think the author is being deceptive, I would give the benefit of the doubt that if the person says said MSS doesn’t have that passage, it DOES have the section it would be in.


Well, to be fair, that actually happens a lot. Not necessarily intentionally, but I hear it quite often in these discussions. “We have thousands of Greek manuscripts, but only x number contain Y.”


----------



## Logan (Mar 7, 2022)

This post also has a helpful analysis of the manuscripts that do contain the CJ (and they apparently have variations even among the few late copies).









The Greek Manuscripts of the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7–8)


An academic forum to discuss the Bible's manuscripts and textual history from the perspective of historic evangelical theology.




evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com


----------



## Logan (Mar 7, 2022)

My point in bringing this up:

If a TR advocate will point to the evidence of manuscript support by saying "the vast number of Greek manuscripts/Byzantine text/texts actually in use by the church support the TR" but then turn around and with the Comma say "Oh yeah, we have evidence for that two" then the position is not really about evidence. 

And many do say that it is a presupposition. They presuppose that the TR is _the_ providentially preserved text against all others and ultimately brooks no critique. That's fine, but in that case, I wish they wouldn't be disingenuous and bring in evidence as though that is supposed to mean something to the position.

And I would further note that it is not a presupposition shared by any reformer or puritan that I'm aware of: anyone who commented on the Greek mentions manuscripts and readings other than the TR. There was no assumption that the printed text had completely supplanted all manuscripts. What they believed was that their printed copies were largely faithful to the manuscripts but that's a far cry from claiming it was above correction---they corrected it often.

I postulate that the Reformers, Puritans, framers of the WCF would not have supported the CT's methodology in its entirety (though they would have supported the collation of manuscripts); _but_ they would not have supported today's TR "apologetic" either! Personally I am not really put out by it. I'm happy to use TR-based translations or CT-based translations. Ultimately God has preserved his word and I am blessed to be able to read it in my own language.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 5


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 8, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Why do you believe this? Why it is the TR that accomplishes this?
> 
> I don't think your response refutes White at all here. Why is the TR the fulfillment of God's promise? Why wasn't the Vulgate? Why isn't the majority text?...


Hello Jason @retroGRAD3 ,

You're relatively new here, so I assume you haven't seen my work in the textual area. I have indeed given many evidences and proofs for my assertions, which you are likely unaware of. My going over these again in this thread would make the post(s) way too long. Please see the Textual Posts I have compiled here for more on my views, if this is even of interest to you.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 8, 2022)

Hello Logan – you said


Logan said:


> And that's repeating the problem that I stated. It's a presupposition that cannot, by definition, be disproven, because only evidence _for_ is considered, and evidence _against _is explained away. It's a position that sounds good in the main, but falls apart in the minutiae.
> 
> It's a methodology and apologetic that can _only_ be developed after the fact. It works backwards and finds the evidence to fit the presupposition and ignores evidence that doesn't. If there cannot, by definition, exist any evidence that defeats the position, then citing evidence for the position is disingenuous.



Re "It's a presupposition that cannot, by definition, be disproven", are you saying that my presupposition can not be disproven? I.e., the presup that God promised to preserve His word in the minutiae, upon which the doctrine of providential preservation is founded?

Are not *all* of our methodologies and apologetics developed after the fact? What can be wrong with citing evidences to support our presuppositions – to put flesh on the bones, as it were?

Disingenuous? (duplicitous, deceitful) Me? Or my method? (God forbid!) Is that a charge? Come on now, please.

Can there be any valid evidence against the presup of God's written promises, *and* what I build upon them, if they are in accord with said promises?

P.S. I will be updating my Collected Textual Posts and a link to them in my signature very shortly.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Mar 8, 2022)

Logan said:


> My point in bringing this up:
> 
> If a TR advocate will point to the evidence of manuscript support by saying "the vast number of Greek manuscripts/Byzantine text/texts actually in use by the church support the TR" but then turn around and with the Comma say "Oh yeah, we have evidence for that two" then the position is not really about evidence.
> 
> ...


Your first point is my question to the TR view: why even talk about evidence when you don’t need to (and it weakens your view)? Why go into the details?

The view of providential preservation is stronger without it. When TR people say in a way there is no harm in talking about evidence, I actually say there is - because as Logan says, once you talk about a methodology and evidence, you actually go down a route where MT and CT people scratch their heads at your view.

MT people would go : You side with us on longer ending of Mark but not on JC?









WM 138: Text Note: Ephesians 3:9


I have posted WM 138: Text Note: Ephesians 3:9 . Listen here . A popular internet apologist (PIA) has recently suggested that Ephes...




www.jeffriddle.net





When I see the above, I am confused (as someone learning the TR view), why would Dr Riddle go into so many details when again, the providential preservation view suffices?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 8, 2022)

Because, John @John Yap , confirmation of a presupposition-based position by evidences which support it, demonstrates its validity in the eyes of those who might be doubtful. I don't believe that a naked presupposition – perhaps new and unfamiliar to some – is of itself credible to, or even understood by, everyone.

Hence the doubt many have re providential preservation in the minutiae based on God's promises. If it can be _demonstrated_ that the presupposition and a position derived from it is in perfect accord with sound evidences, does not such confirmation tend to make it more credible?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Mar 8, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> If it can be _demonstrated_ that the presupposition and a position derived from it is in perfect accord with sound evidences, does not such confirmation tend to make it more credible?


Don’t we do this with other theological presuppositions, like 6-day creation/age of the earth/evolution, a global flood?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Mar 8, 2022)

John Yap said:


> Your first point is my question to the TR view: why even talk about evidence when you don’t need to (and it weakens your view)? Why go into the details?
> 
> The view of providential preservation is stronger without it. When TR people say in a way there is no harm in talking about evidence, I actually say there is - because as Logan says, once you talk about a methodology and evidence, you actually go down a route where MT and CT people scratch their heads at your view.
> 
> ...


In addition to what Steve and Jeri said below, I’d just point out that you are making the assumption that the evidence for the TR position is weak or that the evidence supports the CT or MT view as opposed to TR. We don’t grant that. I’m not going to get further involved in this discussion as I don’t have time, and have discussed it at length before (fruitlessly of course). 

One other thing to point out, the presupposition in question is both scriptural and confessional - that God has preserved his word. The basic difference between the TR position and the CT and MT positions (to the extent that their proponents actually hold that view at all, which we’ll assume that at least those on this board do), is that TR starts with that scriptural view and interprets the evidence in light of it (which is perfectly legitimate). The CT and MT positions purport to start with evidence and see where it leads them (though the Reformed who hold that view then have to explain how that’s consistent with believing in providential preservation if the evidence they choose to consider weighty doesn’t lead them there). To put your point on it’s head, it’s just as disingenuous to claim to believe in providential preservation and yet claim that your view is just based on evidence - isn’t your evidence based claim stronger without claiming to believe the confessional doctrine?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Mar 8, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> If it can be _demonstrated_ that the presupposition and a position derived from it is in perfect accord with sound evidences, does not such confirmation tend to make it more credible?



If that were the case, then yes. But here's what I see:

TR position: The CT is completely wrong about 1 Timothy 3:16. Yes they rely on only a handful of manuscripts but the TR follows the vast majority. Look at the evidence!

Also TR position: the CT is completely wrong about 1 John 5:7. Yes, they rely on the vast majority of manuscripts but the TR follows a handful (and throws in a sprinkling of Latin references). Look at the evidence!

The "evidence" is always _for_ the TR, no matter the evidence _against_ it. If the evidence for 1 John 5:7 is good enough for the position, then one wonders what could possibly be _not_ good enough! And if that's the case, then you're always falling back to your presupposition and the evidence really doesn't mean anything. It is disingenuous to say that the evidence "is in perfect accord" with the presupposition when you only entertain evidence that is, and dismiss evidence that is not (even overwhelming).

I would note that the presupposition that God preserved his word does not necessitate that it be the TR. I presuppose God preserved his word in all the manuscripts, in the TR, and in the CT. TR advocates start with the TR, and insist everyone else does too. _It's a more particular presupposition than found in Scripture or Confessions _and as such it shouldn't be above critique or modification.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Mar 8, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> In addition to what Steve and Jeri said below, I’d just point out that you are making the assumption that the evidence for the TR position is weak or that the evidence supports the CT or MT view as opposed to TR. We don’t grant that. I’m not going to get further involved in this discussion as I don’t have time, and have discussed it at length before (fruitlessly of course).
> 
> One other thing to point out, the presupposition in question is both scriptural and confessional - that God has preserved his word. The basic difference between the TR position and the CT and MT positions (to the extent that their proponents actually hold that view at all, which we’ll assume that at least those on this board do), is that TR starts with that scriptural view and interprets the evidence in light of it (which is perfectly legitimate). The CT and MT positions purport to start with evidence and see where it leads them (though the Reformed who hold that view then have to explain how that’s consistent with believing in providential preservation if the evidence they choose to consider weighty doesn’t lead them there). To put your point on it’s head, it’s just as disingenuous to claim to believe in providential preservation and yet claim that your view is just based on evidence - isn’t your evidence based claim stronger without claiming to believe the confessional doctrine?


1. I do not think TR evidence is weak - see Mk 16 longer ending. But that is a loaded question because when someone says the TR evidence for Mark 16 is strong, yes Amen. But then when you go to Eph 3:9, you have to admit that the evidence is weaker _based on what you just affirmed for Mark 16. _The point is how would you define an evidence is weak or not weak? Majority? Age?
- Again, that is why my question in this thread so far is: Why talk about evidence when the theory ought to suffice? When you talk about evidence, you bring in questions that @Logan would ask (per above).

2. Would you give that the MT view holds onto providential preservation also? The difference is that they have a larger pool of Byzantine manuscripts to look at, while the TR tradition is 'closed' and has a smaller pool. What is the principle by which you tell a MT guy, "Sorry, your pool is too big, it has to be more restricted."

This post is an echo of the post right above mine, from @Logan .

Anyway, @Scottish Presbyterian , dont feel the need to reply, as you have stated you do not which to debate more.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 8, 2022)

Logan said:


> TR advocates start with the TR, and insist everyone else does too. _It's a more particular presupposition than found in Scripture or Confessions _and as such it shouldn't be above critique or modification.


This is the question I have never seen answered by TR advocates. 


Jeri Tanner said:


> Don’t we do this with other theological presuppositions, like 6-day creation/age of the earth/evolution, a global flood?


6 day creation is stated in the Bible explicitly, so are the other things you mentioned. We can trust it without question because God stated it. That said, there are certainly evidences for them. We exist, so God must have created. The flood also has various difference evidence as Answers In Genesis will point to. However, those are just in support of what the Bible says (we don't believe it because of the evidence, we believe it because God said it). 

The Bible nowhere states that the TR is what God has preserved. That is the main point. If the Bible said, I will preserve my word in the Textus Receptus, I would not question it at all.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Mar 8, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> The Bible nowhere states that the TR is what God has preserved.


But… the Bible teaches explicitly and by good and necessary consequence that God _will_, and therefore _has_, has preserved his word, I’m sure you agree. So what does that mean— does the jot and tittle that he promised to preserve yet remain to be settled? The jot and tittle either includes passages like the Joahhanine comma and other disputed passages in our Bibles, or not… Surely his church is the repository for the testimony and witness of the preservation of his word in the world.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 8, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> But… the Bible teaches explicitly and by good and necessary consequence that God _will_, and therefore _has_, has preserved his word, I’m sure you agree. So what does that mean— does the jot and tittle that he promised to preserve yet remain to be settled? The jot and tittle either includes passages like the Joahhanine comma and other disputed passages in our Bibles, or not… Surely his church is the repository for the testimony and witness of the preservation of his word in the world.


I don't see anything in the Bible that leads me to believe it is the TR that accomplishes this preservation. I currently believe it is through the critical and majority texts that God is preserving his word (through secondary means and providence). Because us humans are imperfect and God uses us to accomplish this preservation, it makes sense there are things like copyist errors. The good news is because of all the manuscripts we can actually see HOW the Bible has been preserved, it is a wonderful thing. The TR, the CT, and the MT all share the same gospel and story of redemption. 

One could argue that the comma has been added to scripture and that is also forbidden. I feel that sometimes the conversation is too much on what has been supposedly removed (which is very important), but there is never a concern that something may have been added.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Mar 8, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I don't see anything in the Bible that leads me to believe it is the TR that accomplishes this preservation. I currently believe it is through the critical and majority texts that God is preserving his word (through secondary means and providence). Because us humans are imperfect and God uses us to accomplish this preservation, it makes sense there are things like copyist errors. The good news is because of all the manuscripts we can actually see HOW the Bible has been preserved, it is a wonderful thing. The TR, the CT, and the MT all share the same gospel and story of redemption.
> 
> One could argue that the comma has been added to scripture and that is also forbidden. I feel that sometimes the conversation is too much on what has been supposedly removed (which is very important), but there is never a concern that something may have been added.


I can understand all that, but there being no necessity to have removed or changed the once-settled texts now in question, it seems best that these disputes would have remained disputes among textual critics, and not have resulted in new translations that leave out or change texts, when it's not settled fact that this was at all necessary. I believe it has subtly done much to undermine God's word. I mentioned the church being the repository for the truth of his word; I do believe that we should pay attention to the work of the church in reforming times; as we see in the OT how God brought recovery of his word and ways in those times, so God brought about much in the Reformation period, including the use of the manuscripts that were received by the church and resulted in our English and other translations.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 8, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I can understand all that, but there being no necessity to have removed or changed the once-settled texts now in question, it seems best that these disputes would have remained disputes among textual critics, and not have resulted in new translations that leave out or change texts, when it's not settled fact that this was at all necessary. I believe it has subtly done much to undermine God's word. I mentioned the church being the repository for the truth of his word; I do believe that we should pay attention to the work of the church in reforming times; as we see in the OT how God brought recovery of his word and ways in those times, so God brought about much in the Reformation period, including the use of the manuscripts that were received by the church and resulted in our English and other translations.


I am not for higher criticism. I do agree that is damaging. I don't believe though all text criticism is bad though. I believe many faithful Christians are involved with the "lower" criticism. They truly want to know "what Mark wrote". The Greensville discussion says this is impossible, but maybe it's not, and even if it is, I don't see why striving for it is necessarily a bad thing. It may be that striving is the thing God has used to keep his word pure in all ages. The point here being, not all text criticism is bad. Yes, there is bad text criticism though.

I don't see why the TR is the settled text. I agree the reformation was an extra ordinary period for Christianity, a wonderful time, the recovery of the full gospel that was hidden in darkness for many years. However, I don't see the TR specifically as being part of that event, especially since there is more than one TR.

I also would mentioned, I am not trying to be stubborn for the sake of being stubborn. I just signed up for the "Kept Pure in All Ages" conference, so I am willing to keep listening.

Reactions: Love 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Mar 8, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> They truly want to know "what Mark wrote".


And I guess this illustrates my point. Christians should never have had to be put in doubt over this. (An assertion on my part, I know.)

But I do know that you're seeking the Lord on this and what more can we all do? Very nice that you have the opportunity to go to the conference, I pray it's a great time for you.


----------



## Logan (Mar 8, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> But… the Bible teaches explicitly and by good and necessary consequence that God _will_, and therefore _has_, has preserved his word, I’m sure you agree. So what does that mean— does the jot and tittle that he promised to preserve yet remain to be settled? The jot and tittle either includes passages like the Joahhanine comma and other disputed passages in our Bibles, or not… Surely his church is the repository for the testimony and witness of the preservation of his word in the world.



So here's where I would disagree:

Yes, God has preserved his word. But I believe he has done so in all ages, not just with the TR or not refined it with the TR. So the question is, did the TR exist before the TR? Did people prior to the TR have the TR in every jot and tittle_ as you have defined it_?

No. Mostly, but not entirely. Therefore I don't agree that the narrow definition (TR is _the_ preserved word) is the correct one. I must embrace a broader definition of preservation that encompasses all ages---i.e., "by his singular care and providence kept pure _in all ages_" (not just the post-TR age).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 8, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> And I guess this illustrates my point. Christians should never have had to be put in doubt over this. (An assertion on my part, I know.)


I would mention when the lower critic says "what Mark wrote", this is a simplification of the argument. We all know what Mark wrote because God has promised this. The goal is to ensure it is kept pure and that nothing has been added or removed from it over the years. As I mentioned earlier, the TR, CT, and MT, all share the same gospel and story of redemption.

Also, @Logan summed up what I was trying to say as well.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Mar 8, 2022)

Logan said:


> Did people prior to the TR have the TR in every jot and tittle_ as you have defined it_?
> 
> No. Mostly, but not entirely.


I'm not informed enough to be able to agree or disagree with this, but my main concern is that questions among scholars looking at the texts have led to unwarranted (in my view) new translations and public statements that undermine the texts we have.


retroGRAD3 said:


> We all know what Mark wrote because God has promised this. The goal is to ensure it is kept pure and that nothing has been added or removed from it over the years.


Isn't this contradictory? "We all know what Mark wrote..." yet we don't; because scholars must ensure that nothing has been added or removed from it over the years. So it seems to me we're still waiting to know what Mark wrote. And the discovery of further manuscripts might raise doubt about other passages that we're now "sure" of.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 8, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I'm not informed enough to be able to agree or disagree with this, but my main concern is that questions among scholars looking at the texts have led to unwarranted (in my view) new translations and public statements that undermine the texts we have.
> 
> Isn't this contradictory? "We all know what Mark wrote..." yet we don't; because scholars must ensure that nothing has been added or removed from it over the years. So it seems to me we're still waiting to know what Mark wrote. And the discovery of further manuscripts might raise doubt about other passages that we're now "sure" of.


It could be I suppose. However, I have seen nothing that the TR is the answer either other than the assertion that it is.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Mar 8, 2022)

Logan said:


> If that were the case, then yes. But here's what I see:
> 
> TR position: The CT is completely wrong about 1 Timothy 3:16. Yes they rely on only a handful of manuscripts but the TR follows the vast majority. Look at the evidence!
> 
> Also TR position: the CT is completely wrong about 1 John 5:7. Yes, they rely on the vast majority of manuscripts but the TR follows a handful (and throws in a sprinkling of Latin references). Look at the evidence!


Logan, that is not the TR position. One of the first questions the TR position asks is what has the church received as God’s word and made faithful use of throughout the millennia? Where do we see God’s special care and providence for his church vis a vis his word? In the case of Mark 16, since it has a clear majority report across time and space, it presents a low hurdle of supporting evidence. Again, not evidence that is stood upon, but used as corroborating for the presupposition. In the case of 1 John 5:7, there is more dispute. It is very weakly supported in the Greek, but there is a stronger history of support in the western churches via the Latin and some fairly early quotations and allusions. So the supporting evidential bar is higher and looks very different. 

Evidence doesn’t exist in a vacuum, it is interpreted based on presuppositions. This is true for everything in life. And unless you want to pick a singular line of reasoning when sorting through the text, the charge of “inconsistency” can always be leveled. If you go with Majority always wins, then textual criticism is a simple game of counting noses. Until the next new archaeological dig tips the scale. If you go with earliest is best, now you’re stuck with hoping your dating methods are accurate, and again tomorrow’s finding changes the whole game. 

Maurice Robinson (who I know you like, Logan, and I think he has done very admirable work), while not holding to a providential preservation presupposition, has done marvelous work in exposing the maxims of CT/Alexandrian priority. Likewise Burgon, who I think still has not been answered adequately on some texts despite the 100+ years of “advancements”. Pickering does hold to providential preservation, and while he comes to some odd conclusions, likewise does a superb job demonstrating the foolishness of certain CT ideas and forming a solid underlying theory of textual transmission. 

Just one CT maxim for example: “The harder reading is to be preferred.” Really? First of all, this supposes that “orthodox” scribes are the ones who intentionally alter the text to clean it up, and the real text is a mess. Talk about an unbelieving approach! Maybe it’s a harder reading because the scribe had no idea what language he was even copying! Or maybe he was heretic and intentionally altered readings (Tertullian tells us this happened).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Mar 8, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> It could be I suppose. However, I have seen nothing that the TR is the answer either other than the assertion that it is.


The assertion is that there is such a thing as a received text; beyond that, I do believe there's room for believing scholarship. But it should be an ecclesiastical undertaking, and unless it's performed in reformation times that God may be pleased to send us again, so that we know we have the Spirit of Christ undertaking such work, the church shouldn't be troubled and doubt brought upon her with these questions raised.

My own view is that the main critical work, which was a spiritual work, was indeed done as those winds of reformation began to blow, and translations using the texts in hand began to be published for the reformed church.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 8, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> The assertion is that there is such a thing as a received text; beyond that, I do believe there's room for believing scholarship. But it should be an ecclesiastical undertaking, and unless it's performed in reformation times that God may be pleased to send us again, so that we know we have the Spirit of Christ undertaking such work, the church shouldn't be troubled and doubt brought upon her with these questions raised.
> 
> My own view is that the main critical work, which was a spiritual work, was indeed done as those winds of reformation began to blow, and translations using the texts in hand began to be published for the reformed church.


I know you believe this is a belief you draw from Scripture, but for my currently, I don't see it supported by Scripture (The TR specifically being the received text). I hold myself to Sola Scriptura (as I know you do) and so I believe all beliefs need to be tested by scripture and proved by it. I don't see any Chapter and Verse to support the TR as the received text. That is where I am currently at.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Mar 8, 2022)

What would help the articulation of the TR view is focusing on how it would answer the MT view. How does it go from “we agree with you on John 8 and Mark 16” to “But on Eph 3:9 and 1 John 5:7… we disagree”

By this route we can free the discussion from the CT view on internal evidence etc (which ought to be talked about but if we want to limit the discussion to a positive view of the TR view, it would be helpful to limit the discussion).


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 8, 2022)

Logan said:


> The "evidence" is always _for_ the TR, no matter the evidence _against_ it. If the evidence for 1 John 5:7 is good enough for the position, then one wonders what could possibly be _not_ good enough! And if that's the case, then you're always falling back to your presupposition and the evidence really doesn't mean anything. It is disingenuous to say that the evidence "is in perfect accord" with the presupposition when you only entertain evidence that is, and dismiss evidence that is not (even overwhelming).



The presupposition (not the evidence) is always for the TR – as the only textual tradition that meets the criteria for true providential preservation. When the LORD says to the prophet in Jeremiah 26:2, to speak "all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word", and to Moses in Deut 4:2, "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you", do you imagine the LORD would do less than He required of His prophets in keeping the very minutiae of His words?

So when the LORD says by Isaiah, "As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever" (Isa 59:21), and by Jesus, "Man shall not *live* by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matt 4:4), that does seem to show what standard God is establishing as regards the keeping of His word.

When the Spirit of Christ says by Peter, that God "According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain *unto life* and godliness" (2 Pet 1:3), particularly "the exceeding great and precious promises" (2 Pet 1:4) of the Gospel, it falls to reason what we need to *live by* is *His every word*.

*"Diminish not a one of them"* is the command ringing clear from Moses on up through all the writings and prophets. The CT is disqualified from the get-go, with its replacing Asa with Asaph in Matt 1:7,8, and Amon with Amos in Matt 1:10 not only in the ESV, but in the Greek of the underlying CT. So scrap the CT as a runner in the preserved text race. I won't deal with the MT or Byz here, as that's not my burden at this point.

As I said, the presupposition is based on the word of God, and His word has spoken as regards the criteria required for any candidate for the honor of the title, _Received Text_.

Yes, there may be difficulties with the TR, but they are surmountable by faith, by trust. If you do not have this, I think you have a real problem.

Edward Hills, Princeton-educated text critic, said this,

Has the text of the New Testament, like those of other ancient books, been damaged during its voyage over the seas of time? Ought the same methods of textual criticism to be applied to it that are applied to the texts of other ancient books? These are questions which the following pages will endeavor to answer. An earnest effort will be made to convince the Christian reader that this is a matter to which he _must_ attend. For in the realm of New Testament textual criticism as well as in other fields the presuppositions of modern thought are hostile to the historic Christian faith and will destroy it if their fatal operation is not checked. If faithful Christians, therefore, would defend their sacred religion against this danger, they must forsake the foundations of unbelieving thought and build upon their faith, a faith that rests entirely on the solid rock of holy Scripture. And when they do this in the sphere of New Testament textual criticism, they will find themselves led back step by step (perhaps, at first, against their wills) to the text of the Protestant Reformation, namely, that form of New Testament text which underlies the King James Version and the other early Protestant translations. (Hills, KJVD, p 1)​
The original mss title for Hills' _The King James Version Defended_, was _Text and Time: A Reformed Approach to New Testament Textual Criticism_, but the publishers wanted to change it!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Mar 8, 2022)

So I posted a link to this earlier but I found this analysis of the various manuscripts with the Comma Johanneum (CJ) very interesting:








The Greek Manuscripts of the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7–8)


An academic forum to discuss the Bible's manuscripts and textual history from the perspective of historic evangelical theology.




evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com





*Summary:*
1. 629 is the earliest. It was not used by Greek speaking churches but appears to be Roman Catholic. It is a diglot (Latin and Greek) and the version of the CJ does not have any definite articles for the three witnesses, which is a hallmark of Latin, but not Greek. This does not match the CJ found in TR versions after Erasmus' fourth edition, and appears to be inserted from the Latin.

2. 61 Also a Roman Catholic (not Greek church) manuscript. It also lacks definite articles and does not match the TR.

3. 429 margin, known to be added after Erasmus' third edition, some of its marginal notes actual cite Erasmus' edition.

4. 918 Also Roman Catholic (not Greek church) manuscript, appears to have been derived from Erasmus' third edition and the scribe was post-Erasmus.

5. 2473, manuscript dates itself as 1634. Well after Erasmus.

6. 2318, dated some time in the 1700s. Well after Erasmus.

7. 177 margin, this is an 11th century manuscript but the margin includes the CJ...with a verse number. Since Stephanus added verse numbers it's clearly added after those printed editions.

8. 221 margin, apparently this manuscript dates to the 10th century, but a catalogue of manuscripts in 1854 explicitly noted it didn't have the CJ, so it was added some time after that.

9. 88 margin, 12th century manuscript with a Latin note that notes the CJ is omitted and adds it in the margin and used chapter/verse numbers. Likely well after printed versions.

10. 636 margin, 15th century manuscript, also lacks definite articles, could be from Erasmus' third edition.

*Summary of the summary*
So if this is correct (I can't view the manuscripts myself but have no reason to doubt it), then we can remove 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 from the pool as later additions/editions. That leaves 1, 2, and 10 as potential witnesses for the TR, and of those three, _none_ contain the comma in the form in which it is in the TR(!) and of those, at least two came from Roman Catholic sources, not those in use by the Greek church (which I bring up because the TR often uses the apologetic that it is the text of the Greek-speaking church).

I feel comfortable in this instance saying that without exception, ALL of the Greek evidence (at least extant) is against the reading found in the TR. The only evidence for it comes from the Latin.

Here's another fascinating note:
Gill says that Stephanus had something like 16 copies and that 9 of them contained the Comma. This led many to believe that we must have lost those manuscripts, that the evidence did at one time exist. Apparently the actual case is that Stephanus in his critical apparatus examined 14 manuscripts of the Catholic Epistles and marked 7 of his manuscripts as not having it, but failed to include markings for any of the manuscripts he examined at the Royal Library at Paris, so Beza and others believed that since the omission marks had been...omitted, it must be contained. These manuscripts were investigated as early as 1580 by by Franciscus Lucas Brugensis and not one of them contained the Comma. The manuscripts Stephanus used for his 1550 edition do still exist, but they don't contain it so the evidence cited in this case appears to stem from a typographical error...
I will note that some dispute this and say that maybe there were other manuscripts Stephanus had, but it seems speculative.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Andrew35 (Mar 8, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Isn't this contradictory? "We all know what Mark wrote..." yet we don't; because scholars must ensure that nothing has been added or removed from it over the years. So it seems to me we're still waiting to know what Mark wrote. And the discovery of further manuscripts might raise doubt about other passages that we're now "sure" of.


I think this confuses the popular and technical terms of "what someone wrote" unhelpfully.

Indeed, we do know "what Mark wrote." 

That is not the same, however, as knowing _every word_ that Mark himself wrote_ in the exact order that he wrote it _and, presumably, _with the original spelling and punctuation implied._

We can get the former without the latter--or the process of communication itself becomes an impossibility--but the latter is a noble and worthwhile goal.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Mar 8, 2022)

Andrew35 said:


> I think this confuses the popular and technical terms of "what someone wrote" unhelpfully.
> 
> Indeed, we do know "what Mark wrote."
> 
> ...


I was referring to the disputed ending of Mark 16, just to clarify.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## J.L. Allen (Mar 8, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I know you believe this is a belief you draw from Scripture, but for my currently, I don't see it supported by Scripture (The TR specifically being the received text). I hold myself to Sola Scriptura (as I know you do) and so I believe all beliefs need to be tested by scripture and proved by it. *I don't see any Chapter and Verse to support the TR as the received text.* That is where I am currently at.


I haven't had time to weigh in on this, and I really still don't, but I just have to point this out as a brother in the Lord. My previous posts in the MT thread from a bit ago summarize where I'm at and how I evaluate the arguments. That is, you'll find my replies there.

Brother,

Do you have a chapter and verse for covenant baptism? Do you have a chapter verse that explicitly says that only professing adults (or those of sufficient age subjectively determined) are to be baptized (just in case the Baptist brethren got excited  ). What about the Trinity? Even for people who accept the Comma as Scripture, and I'm one of those, don't have explicit "God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost." What about those pesky flat-earthers? Can we refute them with a chapter and verse? Can I sing man-made hymns? Or should I only sing the from the Psalter? 

If we left the bulk of our doctrines to only having explicit chapters and verses, and especially in the wording we want, we would hardly have the basis for growing to the robust theology we have now. Granted, there are times we have definite chapters and verses, and praise God for that! But we must praise God that he gave us the ability to reason in faith and to stand on the shoulders of giants, too.

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 8, 2022)

J.L. Allen said:


> I haven't had time to weigh in on this, and I really still don't, but I just have to point this out as a brother in the Lord. My previous posts in the MT thread from a bit ago summarize where I'm at and how I evaluate the arguments. That is, you'll find my replies there.
> 
> Brother,
> 
> ...



I think what Jason is saying is that you cannot equate the TR theory with doctrines such as six-day creation because, in his view, one is easily provable from scripture, while the other is merely an assumption based on conjecture.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 8, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I think what Jason is saying is that you cannot equate the TR theory with doctrines such as six-day creation because, in his view, one is easily provable from scripture, while the other is merely an assumption based on conjecture.


More or less, yes

@J.L. Allen Yours is a fair response. When you mention reason though, my reason does not lead me to the conclusion that the TR is "the" text based on all of the information I have seen on both sides.


----------



## J.L. Allen (Mar 8, 2022)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I think what Jason is saying is that you cannot equate the TR theory with doctrines such as six-day creation because, in his view, one is easily provable from scripture, while the other is merely an assumption based on conjecture.


Oh ok. I see what you're getting at.

As for my view on Scripture, I'll have to reevaluate the assumptions and conjectures from which I launch.


----------



## J.L. Allen (Mar 8, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> More or less, yes
> 
> @J.L. Allen Yours is a fair response. When you mention reason though, my reason does not lead me to the conclusion that the TR is "the" text based on all of the information I have seen on both sides.


Fair enough. I started staunchly pro CT. My reason led me differently.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 9, 2022)

J.L. Allen said:


> Fair enough. I started staunchly pro CT. My reason led me differently.


I would not even consider myself staunchly CT. I use the NKJV and the NASB as my main translations. I find value in the CT, MT, and TR. I don't hold to any "only" positions.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 9, 2022)

A note re defense of Eph 3:9, from a previous discussion: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/ecclesiastical-text-—-response-to-james-white.87309/page-4#post-1083862.

I'll be getting back to 1 John 5:7 and your remarks, Logan, shortly. I'm in no way daunted by your stats re the Greek mss that do not have it.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Logan (Mar 10, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I'll be getting back to 1 John 5:7 and your remarks, Logan, shortly. I'm in no way daunted by your stats re the Greek mss that do not have it.



Steve, I'm not sure how useful it would be to spend your time on it. You will always default to the position that we have the TR, God providentially guided it, therefore regardless of the Greek evidence (or lack thereof) it must be genuine. You'll post some quotes from someone talking about the internal consistency and the grandeur and how ancient Arians tried to eliminate it (successfully, apparently) from the Greek.

And I'll always come back to looking at the Greek evidence to see whether it supports that presupposition. And when 500 manuscripts (I counted them!) don't contain it, and none prior to Erasmus do (in the form in which it is found in the TR), then you're left with two recourses:

1) The speculation that it did exist in the Greek but all were lost (which is astounding when we have 500 of them and everybody including the Roman Catholics were looking for them). How was it then "kept pure" for the Greek speaking church?

2) It was preserved in the Latin in the Vulgate and a handful of possible references in the Latin fathers. And this I can confidently affirm is not standing on the same ground that any of the Reformers or Puritans stood upon. It was unthinkable to them. And how did we even get to this point? We're denying the original languages are authoritative in certain instances? How did we get to this point?

So ultimately, like I said, the evidence does not matter for your position. The position matters and any positive evidence is used and any negative evidence is explained away. But your presupposed position by definition cannot be altered regardless of _any_ evidence. None could ever exist that would alter your presupposition so I find it misleading when it is appealed to in support.

That the TR is _the _preserved word of God, above and beyond any correction by any Greek source whatsoever, is purely an opinion and is not a position that is demanded by either Scripture, Confessions, or necessary consequences.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Polanus1561 (Mar 10, 2022)

The TR view (from my understanding, and has not been changed from the discussion here) is that evidence is secondary. If a TR person says that, "My view is that God has preserved the readings of the JC and Eph 3:9", _I would understand that and I won't debate it_ (unless I want to debate the assumptions of that theory). But I won't push evidence in his face because I know he comes from a theological, not evidential perspective.

But when the TR view wants to _debate the evidence_, then that confuses me. Because that means the TR person is trying to say that the MT/CT guy must accept (a lesser amount of) the evidence for a TR reading and thus be silenced. Again, the silencing of the MT/CT view from a TR perspective is their view of providential preservation, and I only see a debate about evidence to hinder the TR view's_ own cause. _

This is nothing personal and I say this with all respect to @Jerusalem Blade whose posts and presence in the PB is invaluable.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Mar 10, 2022)

Logan said:


> Steve, I'm not sure how useful it would be to spend your time on it. You will always default to the position that we have the TR, God providentially guided it, therefore regardless of the Greek evidence (or lack thereof) it must be genuine. You'll post some quotes from someone talking about the internal consistency and the grandeur and how ancient Arians tried to eliminate it (successfully, apparently) from the Greek.
> 
> And I'll always come back to looking at the Greek evidence to see whether it supports that presupposition. And when 500 manuscripts (I counted them!) don't contain it, and none prior to Erasmus do (in the form in which it is found in the TR), then you're left with two recourses:
> 
> ...


Again, I have no intention of getting drawn into debate at this time, but just one question so I understand your position better. If the TR position as you characterise it was unthinkable to the Reformers and Puritans, and they would never have accepted the Comma on that basis, what in your view is the reason that so many of them did accept it? For instance, why did the Westminster divines, who articulated the doctrine of providential preservation in the Confession, believe that the Comma was part of the scriptures so preserved?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## beloved7 (Mar 10, 2022)

Personally I appreciate the additional manuscripts and have no issues with the CT position, yet my favored translation is still the KJV. My reasons are that I prefer it for memorization and find comfort in that it is a locked translation, as it were. 

I do at times check the ESV and then the NASB if I’m struggling to understand the wording of a passage, which helps. The ESV in particular is strikingly well done, but the fact that it is still being updated is a drawback for me. 

Textual criticism is such an important study, yet I wonder how many others there are that prefer the KJV for non TR reasons such as myself? So long as a version is a formal translation, I view several as safe and solid. Though I do think someone should pick one and stick with it for memorizing purposes.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Logan (Mar 10, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> Again, I have no intention of getting drawn into debate at this time, but just one question so I understand your position better. If the TR position as you characterise it was unthinkable to the Reformers and Puritans, and they would never have accepted the Comma on that basis, what in your view is the reason that so many of them did accept it? For instance, why did the Westminster divines, who articulated the doctrine of providential preservation in the Confession, believe that the Comma was part of the scriptures so preserved?



I don't have to speculate, they say why:
Calvin on the Comma:


Calvin said:


> "But as even the Greek copies do not agree, I dare not assert any thing on the subject. Since, however, the passage flows better when this clause is added, and *as I see that it is found in the best and most approved copies,* I am inclined to received it as the true reading."
> (i.e., he was looking to evidence from the Greek)



Turretin on the Comma:


Turretin said:


> "The statement that...*the Greek of the New have become defective is false,* and the passages which are offered in proof of this by our adversaries cannot demonstrate it...Not the saying in I John 5:7, although formerly some called it into question, and heretics do so today. *All the Greek witnesses* (exemplaria) have it, as Sixtus Senensis recognizes: "The words always were of unquestioned truth, and are read in *all Greek manuscripts from the time of the apostles themselves.*"



Now clearly Turretin was mistaken, he was relying on a source that said _all_ Greek manuscripts from the time of the apostles had it and that simply isn't true. I don't know what source Calvin was using but he likewise made the assumption that it was well-attested in the Greek. The point being that they both turned to the _Greek_. Neither said "well, we have this printed copy in our hands that must be providentially preserved." Or "maybe the Greek was corrupted and the true reading was preserved in the Latin."

Every reformed commentator I've ever read, points to other manuscripts "some say this" or "the best say that". This too is a fundamental departure from the modern TR view which would never place any manuscript reading above the TR.

Capel (appointed to the Westminster Assembly but unable to attend), for example:



Capel said:


> "For the originals, though we have not the primitive copies written by the finger of God in the tables, or by Moses and the prophets in the Hebrew, or by the Apostles, and the rest in the Greek for the New Testament, yet we have copies in both languages, which copies vary not from the primitive writings in any matter which may stumble any. This concerns only the learned, and they know that by consent of all parties, the most learned on all sides amongst Christians do shake hands in this, that God by his providence hat preserved them uncorrupt.
> 
> *What if there be variety of readings in some copies?* and some mistakes in writing or printing? this makes nothing against our doctrine, *sith for all this the fountain runs clear*, and if the fountain be not clear all translations must needs be muddy...
> 
> ...



Never does he point at the printed copies above the originals. He still looks to the originals and believes that it is kept pure in the whole, not in appealing to providence in printed editions.

They likewise believe that the Scriptures had been "kept pure in all ages" which has to mean ages before the TR as well. The view of providence has to be broad enough to encompass the TR and pre-TR.

Did they believe that what they had accurately represented the originals for the most part? Absolutely! I do too! Did they believe their printed copies were perfectly and providentially without error? No, as is clear from any reference to manuscripts. And that is the difference between them and the modern TR advocate. You are coming to the same manuscript with vastly different assumptions and thinking that because it's the same outcome (mostly) that it's the same position. It's not.


----------



## Polanus1561 (Mar 10, 2022)

beloved7 said:


> Personally I appreciate the additional manuscripts and have no issues with the CT position, yet my favored translation is still the KJV. My reasons are that I prefer it for memorization and find comfort in that it is a locked translation, as it were.
> 
> I do at times check the ESV and then the NASB if I’m struggling to understand the wording of a passage, which helps. The ESV in particular is strikingly well done, but the fact that it is still being updated is a drawback for me.
> 
> Textual criticism is such an important study, yet I wonder how many others there are that prefer the KJV for non TR reasons such as myself? So long as a version is a formal translation, I view several as safe and solid. Though I do think someone should pick one and stick with it for memorizing purposes.


definitely, many reasons for people for example

1. Affinity with psalters which uses KJV language
2. To help read the Puritans
3. To use a translation that has been used for 400 years is wonderful

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## beloved7 (Mar 10, 2022)

John Yap said:


> definitely, many reasons for people for example
> 
> 1. Affinity with psalters which uses KJV language
> 2. To help read the Puritans
> 3. To use a translation that has been used for 400 years is wonderful


Yes agreed, another aspect I forgot to mention is that it matches the hymns we sing in church, the LBCF, and to your point, the writings of the puritans. Though admittedly I don’t read them as often as I ought. I do read Valley of Vision often though.


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Mar 10, 2022)

Logan said:


> I don't have to speculate, they say why:
> Calvin on the Comma:
> 
> 
> ...



So, forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but isn't your point that there are no Greek copies from before that time with the Comma as found in the TR? Unless I'm misunderstanding you, how do you square that with them appealing to the fact that it's in the Greek? I know you think Turretin was just flat out wrong (and presumably sloppy in his scholarship, making statements on something he apparently didn't know about) - is it the same issue with Calvin, and the rest of them?

Is it possible, even likely, that there were older Greek manuscripts available to them which did attest the Comma, but which are now lost, for example? Or would you still say that it was never in the Greek, but they all claimed it was and so accepted it? Afraid I don't find that convincing at all.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 10, 2022)

I can't write much as I'm in a Starbucks near the church building, the internet being down where I live. @John Yap , I think you have my TR view down clearly. But because my presuppositional view is primary, am I thus disqualified from bringing confirmatory evidences supporting my view, or explaining why seemingly overwhelming evidences to the contrary are not as conclusive as they might seem? My presuppositional view _informs_ me, but it doesn't muzzle me! It lights my path, but I can also explain that there are ditches on either side of it. There is a practical application to my view.

Also, John, when you say of my position, it is "a theological, not evidential perspective", I would say rather it is "a Scriptural, not evidential perspective" – as "theological" is too broad a term. I thank you for the irenic interactions!

Hello Logan – I wonder on what basis Calvin said, "I see that it is found in *the best and most approved* copies", giving those copies such warrant of excellence? But even so – i.e., _whatever_ – I am not Calvin in his particular century, but now here in the second decade of the 21st, and I must formulate the ground of my epistemological stand as regards whatever I know concerning the Faith – and in particular my understanding and knowledge of the LORD's word.

My view is by faith, not by sight – as is the case with _all_ of my Christian life. I do not resort to that I can see as my primary foundation, but to the word and promises of my God. All Hell can break against me, and, by Christ's sustaining power I will stand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand (Eph 6:13).

So do not wonder, friends, if I seem backwards, or archaic, or whatever – I simply live by faith, and can defend *the* faith, and teach others to stand so. In this times of rising, raging violence, and madness in many lands, such an impregnable faith – confidence – is a good and needful thing.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Logan (Mar 10, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> So, forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but isn't your point that there are no Greek copies from before that time with the Comma as found in the TR? Unless I'm misunderstanding you, how do you square that with them appealing to the fact that it's in the Greek? I know you think Turretin was just flat out wrong (and presumably sloppy in his scholarship, making statements on something he apparently didn't know about) - is it the same issue with Calvin, and the rest of them?
> 
> Is it possible, even likely, that there were older Greek manuscripts available to them which did attest the Comma, but which are now lost, for example? Or would you still say that it was never in the Greek, but they all claimed it was and so accepted it? Afraid I don't find that convincing at all.



Let me lay it out a little more clearly then:

You today, with all the information you have at your fingertips, books, articles, online repositories of Greek manuscripts, have never done a complete analysis of all the Greek manuscripts. How then would you expect someone during that time period, where travel took months, there was no instantaneous communication, and no catalogues of manuscripts detailing exactly where they were or what was in each (let alone being able to actually look at them). What do you do? You rely on what people tell you. You are doing that yourself in this conversation when you talk about any of the Greek or Latin evidence: you are relying on what someone else said.

So what is more natural than that once something gets in print and is easily available, that you would assume the evidence supporting it is out there, somewhere? You literally cannot check it yourself but you assume it's correct, and if someone tells you it's correct, you believe it.

And as I highlighted earlier, Gill pointed to Beza saying that Stephanus had found 9 manuscripts that had the Comma (he said, he said, he said). But as was pointed out as early as 1580, the manuscripts referred to were all in Paris and still available and none of them had it and beyond doubt were the same ones Stephanus had examined. Beza's misunderstanding arose not from positive evidence (being told directly the manuscripts had them) but from negative evidence: from Stephanus failing to include marks around the passage: a typo (i.e., if there _aren't _marks saying this passage wasn't in those manuscripts, then they must contain it).

Turretin _is_ flat out wrong, that's undeniable, _he gives his source_. It was not manuscripts he saw himself, but something he read about (he said, he said) from someone who said it was in all the Greek copies. But that's obviously untrue because well, just ask the Greeks: there is no evidence they had it even in some or most, and it clearly wasn't "all" because the 500 we do have don't have it. So Turretin is wrong, but it's also natural and easily understandable.

Let's turn this the other way, does it seem convincing that say, let's suppose for the sake of argument that half of the Greek manuscripts used to have 1 John 5:7 and half didn't. Of the ones that don't contain it, 500 survived, and of the ones that do contain it, ZERO survived, despite everyone looking for them? I have yet to find any person from that time period who said "yes, I saw the Greek manuscript and it contained it". They all rely on some source other than the actual manuscripts, and while that's natural, it's clearly not reliable in the two primary instances I just dissected.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 10, 2022)

We can stop the debate. I have great news, Andy Stanley has solved the problem.





According to Stanley we can now "unhitch" the old and new testament and there is no problem (end sarcasm).

Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## beloved7 (Mar 10, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> We can stop the debate. I have great news, Andy Stanley has solved the problem.
> 
> View attachment 9019
> 
> According to Stanley we can now "unhitch" the old and new testament and there is no problem (end sarcasm).


He’s firmly in the mark and avoid category, this much we can all probably find common ground on.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Mar 10, 2022)

After listening to the GPTS discussion and chewing on it, i can’t help but come back to the gentlemen stating that their preserved Word of God is the Scrivener edition of the TR, which is not identical to any of the printed editions of the TR from days past.

What is it identical to? Why, the King James Version NT of course.

I’m convinced Dr. Scrivener edited this for the purpose of language study, but it seems that certain elements of the TR movement pretty much say this IS the one.

Any why is it The One to Rule Them All? Intentional or not, the answer is “because it matches up with the King James Version.” The English has, once again, become the true standard rather than the original Greek, though in a roundabout way.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## JH (Mar 10, 2022)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> The English has, once again, become the true standard rather than the original Greek, though in a roundabout way.


That would be incorrect. Those who do hold to the Scrivener believe the readings that are represented in the KJV were the ones the translators chose from various Greek texts to represent what they perceived to be the authentic reading. That is a far cry from actual Ruckmanism, wherein the English itself truly is the standard.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 10, 2022)

Jerrod Hess said:


> That would be incorrect. Those who do hold to the Scrivener believe the readings that are represented in the KJV were the ones the translators chose from various Greek texts to represent what they perceived to be the authentic reading. That is a far cry from actual Ruckmanism, wherein the English itself truly is the standard.


Side question, are TR advocates ok with the NKJV and Geneva Bible? Or, is it only the KJV?


----------



## JH (Mar 10, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Side question, are TR advocates ok with the NKJV and Geneva Bible? Or, is it only the KJV?


It depends who you ask and what you mean by OK with. TR advocates are not monolithic, y'know. I personally would recommend it before an ESV (because it contains the readings I'm persuaded are legitimate).

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 10, 2022)

Jerrod Hess said:


> It depends who you ask and what you mean by OK with. TR advocates are not monolithic, y'know. I personally would recommend it before an ESV (because it contains the readings I'm persuaded are legitimate).


I guess the main issue is I don't think the KJV is very readable anymore to modern English speakers. I do understand that it can be learned. However, the NKJV (which I use) is very readable. I have heard though from KJV onlyists (which I know are different) that anything other than the KJV is wrong.


----------



## JH (Mar 10, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I guess the main issue is I don't think the KJV is very readable anymore to modern English speakers. I do understand that it can be learned. However, the NKJV (which I use) is very readable. I have heard though from KJV onlyists (which I know are different) that anything other than the KJV is wrong.


While I certainly don't believe anything other than the KJV is wrong, I am persuaded of it's surpassing faithfulness and accuracy. Personally, I have more trust in the capability and theological aptness in the biblical languages than men of today, that's why I prefer and trust it. That is not to say that the KJV is above improvement. 

Like anything, reading the KJV becomes easier with exposure. I used to be in the very same boat myself. Beeke has a section in the very preface of the Reformation Heritage Study Bible about reading the KJV, and it becoming easier with exposure. Again, I say, if teaching our children the biblical languages is a goal of ours, it really ought not to be too difficult of a task to pickup early modern English.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 10, 2022)

Logan, you said,

"But your presupposed position by definition cannot be altered regardless of _any _evidence. None could ever exist that would alter your presupposition so I find it misleading when it is appealed to in support."

Were someone to say to me – with many persuasive arguments and supposed evidences – that the deity of Jesus Christ was a false and evil (being false) teaching, it is true that my presupposed position by definition cannot be altered regardless of _any_ purported evidence! Upon what is my presupposed position based? On two things: the Spirit of God revealing to me the reality of Christ's deity, along with the testimony of His written word.

Likewise, my faith in God's word is based upon the self-attesting truths of that word. Is that "circular reasoning", as I believe you have alleged? It might seem circular to you, from your vantage, trying to compass it, but to me it is the strong tower of His name (Prov 18:10), which name I know solely by His word, "for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name" (Psalm 138:2 AV).

So my position, standing upon this rock, does not prohibit me from speaking of the pitfalls of those standing on the sand, such as showing how sand is not firm support for a life, or that foundations built on that sand reveal a faulty epistemology – to sort of mix my metaphors.

If you, a friend, are exasperated at my stand, the devil is far more so, and with good reason.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 10, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Logan, you said,
> 
> "But your presupposed position by definition cannot be altered regardless of _any _evidence. None could ever exist that would alter your presupposition so I find it misleading when it is appealed to in support."
> 
> ...


From my viewpoint this looks like a category error. The deity of Christ is clearly revealed in scripture (in the CT, the MT, and the TR). The TR version of the Bible being the providentially preserved text is not. Everyone on this message board believes that God's word has been preserved. It's seems like there is a passive aggression message from most TR advocates though that if someone does not hold to TR only, then they don't actually believe in the preservation of God's word. If you want to assert this, that is one thing, but know it is not correct.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Mar 10, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Side question, are TR advocates ok with the NKJV and Geneva Bible? Or, is it only the KJV?


I’m ok with them. My wife and kids use NKJV. I reference the Geneva and Tyndale but find the KJV to be superior in translation. I also make use of the NLT. I go to a church that uses NASB in preaching (although with the 2020 update they are looking for a switch).

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 10, 2022)

Hello Jason,

I think it is well known here at PB that my view of preservation is nuanced. I.e., all the honest versions (the JW New World translation is not an honest one) are preserved in the main, and have great value – the Lord using them up through the ages, even into our own, to save souls and nurture unto maturity the churches. When I study the Bible (even as I'm studying Romans presently so as to preach it) I like a number of modern versions to consult. They are of value to me, in revealing different shades of meaning, even as consulting the Greek is (and, when applicable, the Hebrew).

So I don't know about passive aggression in this scholarly business. The issues of preservation in the main and in the minutiae are of significance to those who love God's word. I happen to be in the minority camp in this age, but can, by the Lord's help, defend what I believe.

About category errors, in my post 90 in this discussion I talk about the basis for my view of preservation in the minutiae. It is as solid a teaching as the deity of Christ, as far as I am concerned.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 10, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> The issues of preservation in the main and in the minutiae are of significance to those who love God's word. I happen to be in the minority camp in this age, but can, by the Lord's help, defend what I believe.


Yes, all on this board love God's word and believe in preservation. 



Jerusalem Blade said:


> About category errors, in my post 90 in this discussion I talk about the basis for my view of preservation in the minutiae. It is as solid a teaching as the deity of Christ, as far as I am concerned.


The issue here is disagreement. I don't believe the TR only position is as solid as the deity of Christ (as I mentioned in post #120). Also, with Logan's responses, I would agree with him in how he answered the information. 

Ultimately: I agree with @Logan, that the TR is _the _preserved word of God, above and beyond any correction by any Greek source whatsoever, is purely an opinion and is not a position that is demanded by either Scripture, Confessions, or necessary consequences.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## JH (Mar 10, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> Everyone on this message board believes that God's word has been preserved. It's seems like there is a passive aggression message from most TR advocates though that if someone does not hold to TR only, then they don't actually believe in the preservation of God's word


Jason, in the judgment of charity I would not say someone rejects the doctrine of preservation simply because they hold to a CT position, or are ignorant of the matter. That's akin to saying Arminians do not truly trust in Christ alone for their salvation. I do believe they have inconsistencies, and do not see the logical conclusions of their beliefs, but I would say no such thing.

To add, if your experience with TR advocates has left a bad taste in your mouth, know there exists irenic resources to the position, such as Dr. Riddle.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Polanus1561 (Mar 10, 2022)

Do TR people accept the Masoretic text and deny the LXX can do anything to posit a better reading?


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 10, 2022)

Jerrod Hess said:


> Jason, in the judgment of charity I would not say someone rejects the doctrine of preservation simply because they hold to a CT position, or are ignorant of the matter. That's akin to saying Arminians do not truly trust in Christ alone for their salvation. I do believe they have inconsistencies, and do not see the logical conclusions of their beliefs, but I would say no such thing.
> 
> To add, if your experience with TR advocates has left a bad taste in your mouth, know there exists irenic resources to the position, such as Dr. Riddle.


I have no issue debating the issue, but I don't think the allusions to someone not believing something as core as the preservation of God's word is helpful. Wrapping comments in pietistic language does not strengthen an argument either.


----------



## JH (Mar 10, 2022)

John Yap said:


> Do TR people accept the Masoretic text and deny the LXX can do anything to posit a better reading?


John, "the LXX" (there are various LXX's) can be an aid to solidifying an interpretation or reading, but it cannot be our final authority in matters or controversy unlike the inspired texts in the biblical languages (WCF 1.8) - The modern notion that posits we can retrieve the authentic reading from a translation of the original text is quite ironically Reformed Ruckmanism. That would be correcting the original approved text with a translation of it.


----------



## JH (Mar 10, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I have no issue debating the issue, but I don't think the allusions to someone not believing something as core as the preservation of God's word is helpful. Wrapping comments in pietistic language does not strengthen an argument either.


Okie


----------



## iainduguid (Mar 10, 2022)

Jerrod Hess said:


> John, "the LXX" (there are various LXX's) can be an aid to solidifying an interpretation or reading, but it cannot be our final authority in matters or controversy unlike the inspired texts in the biblical languages (WCF 1.8) - The modern notion that posits we can retrieve the authentic reading from a translation of the original text is quite ironically Reformed Ruckmanism. That would be correcting the original approved text with a translation of it.


Well...like all these things it is a bit more complicated than that.
1) I know people like to say "there are various Septuagints", but I don't think you'll find many scholars saying that. Sure there are variants, but you can buy a critical edition of the Septuagint, and when I say in a scholarly footnote "The Septuagint says..." no one is normally likely to give me a hard time. 
2) The Masoretic Text is not a single manuscript but a textual tradition. The tradition was collated in the early 16th century into the First Rabbinic Bible (1516-17), and shortly thereafter a corrected Second Rabbinic Bible (1524-25) appeared. The latter is what the translators of the KJV used primarily, though they were aware of an omission in Joshua that was present in the First Rabbinic Bible, and they included that. They also deviated from their source in Psalm 22:16 [Heb 17], where the MT has "like a lion" instead of "they pierced my feet". There were a few medieval manuscripts with the latter reading, which is what the Septuagint has, though it is not clear whether the translators of the KJV would have been aware of this manuscript evidence. Calvin was not averse to claiming the Jews had deliberately tampered with the Masoretic text here, which shows how far he was from a "Divinely Preserved Majority Text" position.
3) As far as I can tell, the translators of the KJV did not elsewhere favor a reading in the Septuagint over the Masoretic Text, though they used the Septuagint extensively to help them translate obscure words (sometimes with better success than others)
4) Modern translations generally use the Masoretic text preserved in the Leningrad Codex, which is older but was not available to the KJV translators. Some translations at points emend the text based on the Septuagint. The high point of this trend was the RSV, and the pendulum was swinging back to MT priority already by the first (1984) NIV.
5) It's not crazy to use a translation to do text criticism (assuming you believe such to be possible). There is an added layer of potential uncertainty in retroverting the translation into Hebrew, but the example of Ps 22:16 demonstrates that sometimes it is clear that the Septuagint is witness to a different Hebrew tradition, and the two alternatives are sufficiently different that the change in language doesn't matter. In addition, the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran have now revealed Hebrew originals that agree with the Septuagint in a number of places, over against the Masoretic tradition.

I think people should discuss the OT text preservation more than is typically done, if only to get away from rehashing the same problems over and over.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 3 | Edifying 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 11, 2022)

With regard to the remarks of Logan and Jason concerning my presuppositional position, can it be you see it as a _fault_ my living by faith in God's word? (I know this cannot be.) As though it were some strange cultish anomaly! Yes, you may disagree with my position, and my hermeneutic in understanding Scripture, but to live by faith in His word – as I seek to do – has clear Biblical warrant.

That I do not live by evidences? I am puzzled by what appear to be your arguments.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Mar 11, 2022)

Logan said:


> Let me lay it out a little more clearly then:
> 
> You today, with all the information you have at your fingertips, books, articles, online repositories of Greek manuscripts, have never done a complete analysis of all the Greek manuscripts. How then would you expect someone during that time period, where travel took months, there was no instantaneous communication, and no catalogues of manuscripts detailing exactly where they were or what was in each (let alone being able to actually look at them). What do you do? You rely on what people tell you. You are doing that yourself in this conversation when you talk about any of the Greek or Latin evidence: you are relying on what someone else said.
> 
> ...


As I said, I don't intend to continue debating this, but one final word from me. Your argument against the Comma can be summarised as follows:

1. You reject the Comma because it's not in the Greek.

2. The Reformers and Puritans never would have accepted the Comma on the basis of it's being in the Latin alone.

3. The Reformers and Puritans did in fact accept the Comma, but that was because they found it in the Greek.

4. Noting the inconsistency between 1 and 3, you clear this all up by claiming that the 16th and 17th century textual scholars who accepted the Comma never actually had access to the Greek, and they just accepted it on hearsay, and they were all wrong.

Logically it's an airtight position, but forgive me for not finding it at all convincing.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Logan (Mar 11, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> As I said, I don't intend to continue debating this, but one final word from me. Your argument against the Comma can be summarised as follows:
> 
> 1. You reject the Comma because it's not in the Greek.
> 
> ...



That's mostly correct, but I would modify 3 to say because "they thought it was found in the Greek". As shown above, in the two foremost instances cited of Greek evidence, both were mistaken assumptions. So what evidence is left?

The alternative is that it was in the Greek, but amazingly _all_ copies were lost, despite everyone looking for them, and despite 500 surviving without it, and despite the Greek church never using it in their controversies or readings---or the unconfessional position that it was lost to the Greeks centuries prior but was preserved in the Latin, something the Reformers never would have accepted. 

We not only lack any pre-Erasmus copies containing it in the same form as in the TR, we also have no first-hand evidence of anyone who saw an actual manuscript containing it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 11, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> With regard to the remarks of Logan and Jason concerning my presuppositional position, can it be you see it as a _fault_ my living by faith in God's word? (I know this cannot be.) As though it were some strange cultish anomaly! Yes, you may disagree with my position, and my hermeneutic in understanding Scripture, but to live by faith in His word – as I seek to do – has clear Biblical warrant.
> 
> That I do not live by evidences? I am puzzled by what appear to be your arguments.


The issue is not that you have faith or presuppositions. We both believe by faith that God has preserved his word. The difference is you believe something by faith that is no where explicitly taught by scripture and by that I mean that the TR specifically has been preserved. The only thing that I can see is explicitly taught by scripture is that God has preserved his word and always will. There is nothing about the TR or the KJV.

I guess that's where we have to let it lie for now.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 11, 2022)

Jason, you said, "The issue is not that you have faith or presuppositions. We both believe by faith that God has preserved his word. The difference is you believe something by faith *that is no where explicitly taught by scripture* and by that I mean that the TR specifically has been preserved. The only thing that I can see is explicitly taught by scripture is that God has preserved his word and always will. There is nothing about the TR or the KJV." [emphasis added -SMR]

It *is* explicitly taught by Scripture that God would preserve His word *in the minutiae* (see my post 90) – and yes, you are certainly correct that the TR or KJV are not mentioned! (as they didn't exist then!). But surveying the field in retrospect in 2022 there is no other even close contender for the "fully preserved" title but the TR.

I will respond to your thoughts re 1 John 5:7, shortly, Logan.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 14, 2022)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1503333447191908353
Followup to my earlier post. It is amazing how much of a heretic this man has become (Andy Stanley). Outside of the argument here, you have mega church "pastors" who don't even think the Bible is the word of God. It is simple the writings of random superstitious men who had no access to modern science. The sad thing is, this is the majority report for people who identify as "christians". I know these are important discussions to have internally, but there are so many who don't even believe the bible is authoritative. Very sad.

Reactions: Wow 1 | Sad 2


----------



## arapahoepark (Mar 14, 2022)

retroGRAD3 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1503333447191908353
> Followup to my earlier post. It is amazing how much of a heretic this man has become (Andy Stanley). Outside of the argument here, you have mega church "pastors" who don't even think the Bible is the word of God. It is simple the writings of random superstitious men who had no access to modern science. The sad thing is, this is the majority report for people who identify as "christians". I know these are important discussions to have internally, but there are so many who don't even believe the bible is authoritative. Very sad.


He aged rather poorly...Looks like a clown in addition to acting like one.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 15, 2022)

I said, in effect, in post #109: I am here in the second decade of the 21st century, in a different time, milieu, and situation than my Reformed forebears, and I must formulate the foundation of my epistemological understanding appropriate for my own time, milieu, and situation, regarding whatever I hold concerning the Faith – and in particular my understanding and knowledge of the LORD’s word.

Let me start by saying, for argument’s sake, that there is no extant witness for the CJ in the Greek prior to Erasmus (not saying that is conclusively so, but simply “for argument’s sake”). To further refine the argument, that it is not found in the exact form it is in the TR (though Priscillian’s mention of it in Latin and Greek in 380 would indeed show it was known very early in the church’s life). That would leave for me the testimony of the Latin manuscripts, and the general consensus of the Western church, and, notably, the African, and not including the Eastern / Byzantine church.

Given my view of its authenticity – in the face of legions of Greek critics and scholars – I can take comfort and heart that in Africa, which was relatively unmolested by the ravages of Diocletian and Galerius that stripped the Eastern churches of both many lives and many of their ancient Bibles.

Later, when Eusebius was commissioned by Constantine to produce 50 Bibles for him to replenish the drastic loss of Bibles in major locations, Eusebius had the authority and opportunity to edit them according to his sense of prudence. He was certainly no Arian, though he shamefully prevaricated regarding the doctrine of Christ being of _one substance _with the Father at the Council of Nicaea, but rather he had a strong hatred for Sabellius and his doctrine of modalism, and likely removed the Comma Johanneum as it supported his views contra Sabellius, and the orthodox were loath to restore them to the text – even in their fight against the Arians – as it would appear to have them supporting the Sabellians, and the additional controversy would have hindered them from dealing with the Arians. They had other uncontested verses to support the Trinity and the deity of Christ.

Although, PB’s down under sage of yore, Rev. Matthew Winzer, said this about the Comma:

Suppose, for the sake of the argument, 1 John 5:7 is not original. How does one set about to prove the confessional statement that in the unity of the Godhead there are three persons? Note, it does not merely say that there is one God. Rather, it specifically teaches the numerical and essential unity of the three persons of the Godhead. I quote from Thomas Boston (_Works,_ 1:145) to show how this is explicitly established on the basis of 1 John 5:7; but remove this text from the canon of Scripture and it appears to me that it can only be proved that God is one and God is three, not that there are three persons in the unity of the Godhead. (Source)

“How express the text is, _These three are one_. When the apostle speaks of the unity of the earthly witnesses, ver. 8. he says, they “agree in one,” acting in unity of consent or agreement only. But the heavenly witnesses are _one_, viz. in nature or essence. They are not only of a like nature or substance, but one and the same substance; and if so, they are and must be equal in all essential perfections, as power and glory.”​
Back to the Western churches more distant from the persecution of Diocletian and Galerius, which did not suffer the loss of their Bibles. In Africa, there was a Church Council in 485 AD at Carthage in northern Africa. Some 400 or so Bishops defended their Trinitarian faith, and stood against the Arian Vandal King Hunnerick, directly quoting 1st John 5:7 in their “Confession of Faith.”

After the African provinces had been over-run by the Vandals, Hunnerick, their king, summoned the bishops of the church, and of the adjacent isles, to deliberate on the doctrine inculcated in the disputed passage. Between three and four hundred prelates attended the Council, which met at Carthage; and Eugenius, as bishop of that see, drew up the Confession of the orthodox, in which the contested verse is expressly quoted. That a whole church should thus concur in quoting a verse which was not contained in the received text, is wholly inconceivable: and admitting that 1 John 5:7 was thus generally received, its universal prevalence in that text is only to be accounted for by supposing it to have existed in it from the beginning. (See, Frederick Nolan, _An Inquiry Into the Integrity Of the Greek Vulgate._)

Back to the East again, where the church and its Bibles were ravaged in the Byzantine region. It is widely acknowledged that the last [persecution], under Diocletian, was by far the worst, and it lasted ten years, from 302 to 312. One of his edicts, along with the destruction of all churches, and the command that every suspected Christian in the vast Roman Empire should renounce Christ and offer those pagan sacrifices most Christians refused to do [on pain of death], *was the order that all copies of holy writings and Bibles be destroyed*. This order, along with the others, was carried out ruthlessly. There was even a special class of informers, called _traditores_, apostates who came from the ranks of the church, who sought out copies of the Scripture (and those who owned them), and turned them over to the authorities for reward. Even under such horrid persecution the church grew, although copies of the Scripture were scarce. (_History of the Christian Church_, Vol. II, by Philip Schaff (MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1910), page 69.) [emphasis added]

[cont.]

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 15, 2022)

[cont.]

Logan, you said re the CJ, “the unconfessional position that it was lost to the Greeks centuries prior but was preserved in the Latin, something the Reformers never would have accepted” (post #132).

But what was “kept pure in all ages”? As I have elsewhere written:

So _how_, and _what_ was “kept pure in all ages”? — 1) an entire and intact Greek NT? And that throughout the church age till printing came to be? I don’t think so. 2) Or the pure READINGS of the autographs kept in various Greek mss, and then compiled in an authoritative edition, and then printed? Which edition would that be? I know of none. 3) Or the pure READINGS of the Greek autographs kept in various mss—mostly the Traditional (Byzantine) Greek, but a very few kept in other versions due to attacks and mutilations on the Greek—and then put into print in the Greek Textus Receptus editions (known to and used by the Westminster divines), having also been put into the English, Dutch, and other translations? I hold to the third option.​
You quoted Calvin regarding this, “But as even the Greek copies do not agree, I dare not assert any thing on the subject. Since, however, the passage flows better when this clause is added, and as I see that it is found in the best and most approved copies, I am inclined to received it as the true reading.” (post #105). [emphasis yours]. Whatever Old Latin copies he may have had, it is certain he had the Waldensian Italic version.

When the Reformation fathers, Calvin among them, considered these non-Greek versions among “the best and most approved copies”, what is that saying? Note, I am not arguing on the basis of disputed Greek mss or editions, but those of the Latin / African churches. It is understood that the Bible of the Waldenses, derived from either the Old Latin or earlier sources, was known in Geneva, and not only had a different text of Scripture than that of Rome, but it contained the “heavenly witnesses”, the Comma Johanneum.

You say it is an “unconfessional position”? When Beza and Stephanus included them in their _Greek_editions – despite all the criticisms of Beza’s and Stephanus’ methods (such as Jan Krans has leveled) – they still, as a result, existed in the Greek Textus Receptus. The LORD was working, even through flawed men, His providential preservation. And what was it that convinced Calvin, Matthew Henry, and many other Reformation divines that this pericope warranted inclusion in the Greek?

It surely did not escape the historical awareness of these men that from around 330 to 380 AD the Greek Byzantine empire was ruled, with an iron fist – in both the state and church hierarchies – by fervent, passionate Arians.

In his book, _A History of Heresy_, David Christie-Murray gives us a sense of those times:

The following year [328] Eusebius of Nicomedia [a leader of the Arians] was not only recalled from exile but became Constantine’s trusted advisor. The Emperor completely reversed his position [and supported the Arians]…From 326 onwards a regular campaign against the [Biblically orthodox] Nicene bishops was conducted, some dozen being deposed. The culmination came in 335 when Athanasius of Alexandria and Marcellus of Ancyra were removed from office and driven from their sees…In 339 the Arian cause was strengthened by the accession of Eusebius of Nicomedia to the patriarchal throne of Constantinople…[So fervent and violent were the anti-Nicenes], in 357 a council at Sirium…forced Hosius, now a centenarian [a hundred years or more of age], to attend against his will and to sign [an Arian formula] after being beaten and tortured…

…Constans (the orthodox son of Constantine) continued as Emperor of the Nicene west and Constantius [the Arian son] of the anti-Nicene east…Constantius became sole ruler of the Empire in 353…[and] anti-Nicene views were imposed on all his domains…

Hope for the Nicenes seemed to die when Constantius at last made up his mind and on New Year’s Day, 360, decided for the [Arian] Homoeism of Acacius as the official faith of the Empire, thus supporting historic Arianism against Catholic [i.e. universal, not “Roman”] orthodoxy and the Nicaean Creed. (_A History of Heresy_, by David Christie-Murray (Oxford; Oxford University Press 1991), pages 49, 50, 51.)

This terrible state of affairs for the believing Church ended around 380, when the new Emperor, Theodosius, “a convinced and energetic Nicene Christian,” imposed catholic orthodoxy throughout his empire, and replaced the Arian Bishop of Constantinople by the more orthodox Gregory Nazianzus. In 383 and 384 Theodosius issued imperial edicts which furthered the Nicene cause. (Ibid., pages 53, 54.)​
Imagine what would happen if the Jehovah’s Witnesses came into both ecclesiastical and governmental power in a small country (this is being written in the island country of Cyprus) and ruled over both the churches and the government for a period of 50 years. (Now the JWs forbid the holding of political office, so suppose a fervent JW _sympathizer_, yet not an official member of them.) Imagine what would happen to the Bibles of this land, and the decrees that could be issued against the Greek Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, and the Protestant / Evangelicals. The police – or a newly formed government office with the “power of the sword” – controlling all religious affairs, including Bibles, for half a century, could exterminate most so-called heretical beliefs and documents. When the state controls the church, or the church the state, trouble always ensues; as the Lord Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). The devil is “the god of this world” (2 Cor 4:4; John 14:30; 1 John 5:19) so far as the Most High allows, and at times he is allowed the power of the furnace, and the sword.

The real question, to me, is how did it come to pass that the Comma was excised from the text, not how it was alleged to have been added. It was widely known in the early centuries of the church age, but wicked hands, and at times fearful hands, either removed it or allowed it to stay removed without loud complaint.

I’ll add a separate – and brief – excerpt from Frederick Nolan on this shortly.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 15, 2022)

From an early PB thread, “Verses ommited [sic] from the ESV”

To conclude Nolan’s contribution to our investigation on what is authentic and what is false regarding the texts, some of his own conclusions are drawn from his preface:

Another point to which the author has directed his attention, has been the old Italick translation…on this subject, the author perceived, without any labour of inquiry, that it derived its name from that diocese, which has been termed the Italick, as contradistinguished from the Roman. This is a supposition, which receives a sufficient confirmation from the fact,—that the principal copies of that version have been preserved in that diocese, the metropolitan church of which was situated in Milan. The circumstance is at present mentioned, as the authour thence formed a hope, that some remains of the primitive Italick version might be found in the early translations made by the Waldenses, who were the lineal descendants of the Italick Church; and who have asserted their independence against the usurpations of the Church of Rome, and have ever enjoyed the free use of the Scriptures. In the search to which these considerations have led the authour, his fondest expectations have been fully realized. It has furnished him with abundant proof on that point to which his Inquiry was chiefly directed; *as it has supplied him with the unequivocal testimony of a truly apostolical branch of the primitive church, that the celebrated text of the heavenly witnesses was adopted in the version which prevailed in the Latin Church, previously to the introduction of the Modern Vulgate.* [_Inquiry Into the Integrity Of the Greek Vulgate, Or Received Text Of the New Testament; in which the Greek Manuscripts are newly classed; the Integrity of the Authorised Text vindicated; and the Various Readings traced to their Origin_, by Fredrick Nolan ((London: F.C. and J. Rivington, 1815), pages xvii, xviii. Reprint available at Bible for Today ministry. Nolan’s complete book online (minus the Preface) : http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/classics/inquiry0.html] [Emphasis added]​
In a lengthy footnote at this point, he documents the progress of the text of this primitive Italick version up into the mountain communities of the Waldenses and into the French language in a number of texts, and he states, *“It thus easily made its way into Wicklef’s translation, through the Lollards, who were disciples of the Waldenses.”* [Emphasis added] [Ibid., Footnote #1, pages xviii, xix]

_______


When I would teach on textual issues in the church, I always made sure not to tear down the faith in the Bibles of those who differed with me, as that would be cruel – that faith and their Bibles being their lifeline to the Lord. I would stick with the variants, a legit and non-threatening topic of disagreement. But with 1 John 5:7, it seems to be different in this age. The Comma is seen by some as *the* weak part of their opponents’ armor (like the dragon’s missing armored scale Frodo discovered), and almost obsessively seek to go in for the “kill”, collateral damage not a consideration.

I suppose that’s the price to be paid in this age when one holds to the Reformation view of God leaving us a preserved Bible in the minutiae to hold in hand. It is a price worth paying.

A late edit: to introduce Marty Shue's piece on 1 John 5:7:

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Smeagol (Mar 15, 2022)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> like the dragon’s missing armored scale Frodo discovered)


If the TR position maintains Frodo was the one who discovered this, then we have a barrier keeping me from embracing the position. The original manuscripts of the story reveal Bilbo spotted the missing scale.You must have some erroneous Isengard papyrus that came centuries later and are known for errors as Frodo was not even been born yet at the time of the desolation of Smaug.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1 | Informative 1 | Edifying 1 | Amen 1 | Funny 1 | Wow 1 | Rejoicing 1 | Praying 1 | Sad 1


----------



## Taylor (Mar 15, 2022)

Smeagol said:


> If the TR position maintains Frodo was the one who discovered this, then we have a barrier keeping me from embracing the position. The original manuscripts of the story reveal Bilbo spotted the missing scale.You must have some erroneous Isengard papyrus that came centuries later and are known for errors as Frodo was not even been born yet at the time of the desolation of Smaug.


I think this post deserves one each of all ten possible reactions. It already has five.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## aaronsk (Mar 15, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I think this post deserves one each of all ten possible reactions. It already has five.


I adjusted my laugh to an edifying to do my part for the cause.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 16, 2022)

Smeagol said:


> If the TR position maintains Frodo was the one who discovered this, then we have a barrier keeping me from embracing the position. The original manuscripts of the story reveal Bilbo spotted the missing scale.You must have some erroneous Isengard papyrus that came centuries later and are known for errors as Frodo was not even been born yet at the time of the desolation of Smaug.


Hello Grant @Smeagol , you may very well be right, and I in error on this! My entire library, save a very few books I was able to pack and take with me to Cyprus, are back in the states! Now that I think about it, I _know_ you are correct, as JRRT's _The Hobbit_ was where that took place, and it was Bilbo who discovered the missing scale! Thanks for the correction! I_ sorely_ miss my library, and perhaps, less than a week from 80, even more my younger, more fine-tuned memory!

Taylor, I added a sad, as in suffering loss – of memory!

Reactions: Love 1 | Funny 3


----------



## ReformedCuban (Mar 16, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I think this post deserves one each of all ten possible reactions. It already has five.


All he needs is some prayer.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 2


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Mar 16, 2022)

_That_ I need!

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Taylor (Mar 16, 2022)

Thank you, everyone. My plot has come to fruition. This may be the first and only post on Puritan Board with all ten reactions.

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 1 | Edifying 1 | Funny 3 | Wow 1 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## Robert Truelove (Mar 17, 2022)

A summation of my own contribution to this subject can be found in my lectures at the 2019 Text and Canon Conference. There I set forth the canonical argument for the Received Text. The canonical approach directly answers the "why the TR" question, and why the 16th and 17th centuries...

The Canonical Argument for the Received Text, Part 1








1. The Canonical Argument for the Received Text, Part 1


Pastor Robert Truelove | Christ Reformed Church




www.sermonaudio.com





The Canonical Argument for the Received Text, Part 2








2. The Canonical Argument for the Received Text, Part 2


Pastor Robert Truelove | Christ Reformed Church




www.sermonaudio.com

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Taylor (Mar 17, 2022)

Robert Truelove said:


> A summation of my own contribution to this subject can be found in my lectures at the 2019 Text and Canon Conference. There I set forth the canonical argument for the Received Text. The canonical approach directly answers the "why the TR" question, and why the 16th and 17th centuries...
> 
> The Canonical Argument for the Received Text, Part 1
> 
> ...


Thanks for popping in, brother! It's been about a year since you last posted. Are you aware of the Kept Pure conference in Reedsburg?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Robert Truelove (Mar 17, 2022)

Taylor said:


> Thanks for popping in, brother! It's been about a year since you last posted. Are you aware of the Kept Pure conference in Reedsburg?


Yes. I think they are trying to do that annually. At some point, Christ Reformed Church will likely be hosting another Text and Canon conference as well.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Mar 17, 2022)

Robert Truelove said:


> A summation of my own contribution to this subject can be found in my lectures at the 2019 Text and Canon Conference. There I set forth the canonical argument for the Received Text. The canonical approach directly answers the "why the TR" question, and why the 16th and 17th centuries...
> 
> The Canonical Argument for the Received Text, Part 1
> 
> ...


Pastor Truelove, remind me, did you switch to a TR position from a Byzantine priority (Robinson-Pierpont) position? Including the CJ?


----------



## Logan (Mar 17, 2022)

Robert Truelove said:


> A summation of my own contribution to this subject can be found in my lectures at the 2019 Text and Canon Conference. There I set forth the canonical argument for the Received Text. The canonical approach directly answers the "why the TR" question, and why the 16th and 17th centuries...



I listened to the first 20 minutes. It's much like I've stated in this thread multiple times: if one wants to say that this is the providentially preserved text and leave it at that (a faith position) then that's fine, but I complain when the allowable evidence brought in to back up specific texts shifts depending on the specific text. That weakens the position.

And you still have the issue that the Puritans and Reformers did NOT approach the text as canonical in the same way you have. Every time a commentator uses a phrase like "some manuscripts say", that belies a belief in a more broad kind of providential preservation than you've allowed for. So I reject the attempts to fit them (and their confessions) into some narrow, specific view of providential preservation of specific texts that they simply didn't have.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 17, 2022)

I haven't had a chance to listen to the podcast until this morning. Brett and Christian are dear brothers of mine. Before the latest planting of a new presbytery, we were all in the same presbytery, and Brett still is in the same presbytery as I am. As most who have followed the text-critical debates on the PB should know, my position is not pigeon-holeable as either TR, Majority, or Critical Text. I have been told my position is similar to Harry Sturz, but I have not yet read his book (though I now have it on order). Some things I think should be said in response. 

Firstly, I agree with White's critique on the issue of reconstructing. What was Erasmus doing if not reconstructing the text? There is a definitional problem here with the word "reconstruction." It can have the connotation of "rebuilding something almost completely destroyed." Similar and related definitional problems accrue with the word "corruption," which can have the connotation of wicked and intentional perversion of something pure. A better definition of both words would look like this: "reconstructing" a text means comparing manuscripts with each other to discern what the reading is which is most likely to be original. This has an inherently _receptive_ quality to it. Erasmus and modern text critics are, in other words, doing the same thing on this particular point. Whether they start from the same point is a distinct question, of course. But both are reconstructing. The definition of "corruption" should be "a change in the text from the original reading," without prejudicing the question of whether some perverted textual process happened. In other words, when modern text critics use the term, they are not intending (at least from what I've seen) to infer perversion. Rather, they are simply inferring a change from the original in a given instance. That is ALL it means. 

This definitional clarity would have been helpful, as Mahlen and McShaffrey (shall I abbreviate them M&M?) claim that the TR position starts from the position of preservation, whereas the critical text position starts from the position of corruption. This is simply not true, at least of Reformed text critics. Reformed text critics start from the position that the original has been kept pure in all ages, and preserved, but also that all current manuscripts have some changes from the original. The original reading is in the apographs. The question is _which apographs_ should be considered as contributing to the question. On this, I firmly hold that ALL manuscripts need to be taken into account and that, yes, certain manuscripts should be weighted more highly than others. I don't weight the Alexandrian text quite as highly as the typical CT guy does, and I weight the Byzantine tradition MUCH higher than the CT position does, but I still hold that ALL the manuscripts, most definitely including the ones discovered _since the Reformation_, need to be consulted and included. The M&M position implies that text criticism should stop at Scrivener's text. 

The all-important question here is the nature of God's providence in preserving the text. Here I utterly differ from the TR position, which typically holds that only the texts that have been in use in the church can be said to factor into God's preservation of the true reading in the church. This is contrary to Scripture, actually. God's preservation and providence quite often involves things being hidden. Esther is a prime example of God's hidden providence. God Himself is hidden in Esther, as His name never once occurs, and yet His providence is directing all things. God's providence in manuscript preservation extends both to the ones used in the church and to the ones hidden so that they would not be destroyed, and could be used later on for greater clarity and correction. To deny God's hidden providence in the case of the hidden and unused manuscripts would actually be an impoverishing of the phrase "kept pure in all ages." It would be as much as to say that God's providence can only apply to what we can _see_ in the text-critical world, and not to what God hides. 

M&M also brought up the 3,000 differences between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in the gospels, with the implication that such differences do not exist in such numbers in the TR tradition. This is highly misleading. There are hundreds of differences between any two manuscripts of the New Testament. Just because there are differences hardly means that the lion's share of them are even significant. Have M&M looked at any two manuscripts that form the basis of the TR and compared them to each other? If one is going to argue that the number 3,000 is significant, then one must have a base line with which to compare those differences. There is no base line in their argument for that number. The vast majority of differences are spelling differences and word order differences (which, as any student of Greek would know, usually amount to quite a bit less than a hill of beans). It is very easy to exaggerate the difference between TR and CT by citing such statistics. I haven't done the comparison, but I would be quite surprised if all the differences between TR and CT put together amount to more differences than there are between any two Homeric texts, and Homer is the next best attested ancient Greek text we have.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Robert Truelove (Mar 17, 2022)

Logan said:


> I listened to the first 20 minutes. It's much like I've stated in this thread multiple times: if one wants to say that this is the providentially preserved text and leave it at that (a faith position) then that's fine, but I complain when the allowable evidence brought in to back up specific texts shifts depending on the specific text. That weakens the position.
> 
> And you still have the issue that the Puritans and Reformers did NOT approach the text as canonical in the same way you have. Every time a commentator uses a phrase like "some manuscripts say", that belies a belief in a more broad kind of providential preservation than you've allowed for. So I reject the attempts to fit them (and their confessions) into some narrow, specific view of providential preservation of specific texts that they simply didn't have.


I think it would be helpful to offered your criticism AFTER you have listened fully to both lectures.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 17, 2022)

I haven't been up on this debate in years. It has always seemed to be a pick and choose your providence or evidence discussion which both sides actually hang on to. They just vary in degrees and evidences. I landed on the Majority / TR side mostly based upon evidences I saw in texts being quoted and used outside of scripture by date and by the references being used and context. I am way past going into notes and remembering things taught to me. My memory just doesn't hold on to things taught to me thirty years ago. At this stage in life I am lucky to remember what I did 5 minutes ago. Really. Ole J. P. taught me stuff from Burgon as he published him. I haven't seen much of his work being discussed in recent years . Has he been poo pooed and pushed aside as someone who is not relevant in the discussion any longer?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 17, 2022)

Oh yeah and I am not sure I have heard anything concerning the history of the critical text and how it was put together either. Not sure it has a healthy group of manuscripts to have as a root if they came from Arien influenced Bishops who may have had their hand in transcription.

Just a thought.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 17, 2022)

greenbaggins said:


> Firstly, I agree with White's critique on the issue of reconstructing. What was Erasmus doing if not reconstructing the text? There is a definitional problem here with the word "reconstruction." It can have the connotation of "rebuilding something almost completely destroyed." Similar and related definitional problems accrue with the word "corruption," which can have the connotation of wicked and intentional perversion of something pure. A better definition of both words would look like this: "reconstructing" a text means comparing manuscripts with each other to discern what the reading is which is most likely to be original. This has an inherently _receptive_ quality to it. Erasmus and modern text critics are, in other words, doing the same thing on this particular point. Whether they start from the same point is a distinct question, of course. But both are reconstructing.


Lane, I have battled with this subject for some years. I grew up in a KJV only environment. I think all sides would agree there has been some reconstructing of the text. It seems to me the debate that Confessional text Christians make is that there has been a shift in textual criticism post Enlightenment. That is, during the Reformation Christians saw the text as supernaturally given. Today, it is argued that the text has to be studied naturalistically. This is the concern of Reformed scholars such as Edward Hills, and Confessional text adherents stand on his shoulders.

I am not sure what difference this debate (supernatural vs naturalistic) makes to the actual mechanics of textual criticism itself. But it needs to be said that a lot of textual apparatus has been formulated by men who are theologically liberal.


----------



## Logan (Mar 17, 2022)

Robert Truelove said:


> I think it would be helpful to offered your criticism AFTER you have listened fully to both lectures.



Respectfully, I've watched/listened to much of your material in the past. I've even interacted with you. I've watched Riddle. I've read Burgon, Hill, and Letis. Numerous articles on Confessional Bibliology and TBS, and participated in countless discussions on this board (Steve can attest to that!). So I feel like it would be hard to say that I'm uninformed

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 17, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I am not sure what difference this debate (supernatural vs naturalistic) makes to the actual mechanics of textual criticism itself.


Just to clarify a point I made earlier, even the KJV translators discussed textual variants. Eg, see KJV translator notes for Luke 10:22, 17:36 and Acts 25:6. Thus we cannot say modern scholars 'doubt' the text when KJV translators freely discussed variants. My underlying concern is that we acknowledge that the text has been supernaturally given to us (2 Tim 3:16). Perhaps the difficulty is how this truth applies in practice.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 17, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Lane, I have battled with this subject for some years. I grew up in a KJV only environment. I think all sides would agree there has been some reconstructing of the text. It seems to me the debate that Confessional text Christians make is that there has been a shift in textual criticism post Enlightenment. That is, during the Reformation Christians saw the text as supernaturally given. Today, it is argued that the text has to be studied naturalistically. This is the concern of Reformed scholars such as Edward Hills, and Confessional text adherents stand on his shoulders.
> 
> I am not sure what difference this debate (supernatural vs naturalistic) makes to the actual mechanics of textual criticism itself. But it needs to be said that a lot of textual apparatus has been formulated by men who are theologically liberal.


There are supernatural and natural elements in how God's Word has come to us. It is supernaturally inspired, and (providentially) naturally preserved. 

There certainly have been liberal men involved in textual criticism. However, that does not make any individual conclusion of theirs incorrect. We have to sift through their work like we would any theologian, and eat the meat and spit out the bones. Erasmus was hardly orthodox either. He stayed in the Roman Catholic Church, had a very high view of natural fallen man's will (Luther lambasted him for it), and disliked most aspects about the Reformation (especially justification by faith alone) except getting rid of graft in the RCC. Does that make his conclusions incorrect? I always find it ironic that some TR advocates blast the Vaticanus text because of its Roman Catholic pedigree, and fail to notice the TR's own Roman Catholic pedigree (not that you are doing this, Stephen). My own position is that one's theological position on liberalism or Catholicism can be relevant to conclusions drawn, and we always need to be aware of that possibility, but that it hardly makes skewing the data inevitable on their part

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 17, 2022)

I agree with Lane on his bent but the historical debate concerning roots and groups goes long before that even as I tried to note above.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Mar 17, 2022)

Logan said:


> Respectfully, I've watched/listened to much of your material in the past. I've even interacted with you. I've watched Riddle. I've read Burgon, Hill, and Letis. Numerous articles on Confessional Bibliology and TBS, and participated in countless discussions on this board (Steve can attest to that!). So I feel like it would be hard to say that I'm uninformed


So what's your take on things like the antilegomena in relation to canonicity and the 16th century?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Robert Truelove (Mar 17, 2022)

Eyedoc84 said:


> Pastor Truelove, remind me, did you switch to a TR position from a Byzantine priority (Robinson-Pierpont) position? Including the CJ?



Yes, several years ago now. For me, the issue is a matter of the canon and must be settled foremost from a canonical praxis. I argue that it is no more a question answered from an and empirical praxis any more than is the authenticity the antilegomena and the other canonical books.

My position is not a rehash of the same TR arguments. My contribution to the subject is in the canonical nature of the text and demonstrates the Reformation as the watershed moment in history for all things canon (both the books and the text). It also demonstrates how it is a matter of "special providence", not "general providence"...these are actually confessional distinctives almost overlooked these days when we bring up the subject of providence.

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 18, 2022)

J.L. Allen said:


> I stopped listening JW a couple years ago when I realized I was leaving each episode or video clip more angry than I was before. And that was with stuff I was in agreement about (like the woke stuff as of a couple years ago)!





Stephen L Smith said:


> More precisely you said I haven't listened to JW in a long while. I found it was bad for my blood pressure!





J.L. Allen said:


> Ha! Bingo! Add it to the long list of things not conducive for healthy living


I should have thought of this solution sooner. Get Jae Kim to get you this hoodie 








KEEP CALM NEW ZEALAND GUY


Keep Calm New Zealand Guy T-Shirt , Classic fit, unisex - Keep Calm And Let The New Zealand Guy Handle It




teespring.com

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## J.L. Allen (Mar 19, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I should have thought of this solution sooner. Get Jae Kim to get you this hoodie
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ha! He always has things under control.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 20, 2022)

J.L. Allen said:


> Ha! He always has things under control.


Back to the subject I will be interested to hear if you discuss textual criticism with Jae.


----------



## J.L. Allen (Mar 21, 2022)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Back to the subject I will be interested to hear if you discuss textual criticism with Jae.


We haven't really discussed it much. A lot of the guys don't really think much about the topic. Some feel strongly one way or the other. It might be upwards to 1/3 of the students hold to TR/MT priority. We, of course, all know how to engage in the CT approach for the sake of papers and the like.


----------

