# Response to GreenBaggins: "Manuscript Traditions within Orthodoxy."



## CalvinandHodges (Jan 1, 2010)

Greetings:

I applaud the tone of GreenBaggins' post. The topic of textual traditions tends to get heated at times, and I am not one who has been exempt from such discussions, and, so, I beiieve that Mr. Baggins (if I may fondly refer to him as such) presents a true Christian attitude toward this explosive subject. Blessings to him!

However, despite the genteel manner, it seems that he is fundamentally wrong on a few matters. Especially to one who has studied out this matter over the past few decades.

First, it might be wise for Mr. Baggins to differentiate between the KJV/ESV and the Textus Receptus/Criticial Text. The KJV/ESV are translations whereas the TR/CT are collations of the Greek MSS. If we are talking about translations, then both the KJV and the ESV are flawed. If we are talking about the Greek Text, then we must look at the "Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word, in our hearts," the teachings of Scripture, and Reformed Orthodoxy in order to come to a reasonable conclusion concerning the Greek Text of the New Testament. To confuse the translations with the Greek Text does not seem helpful to me.

Second, Mr. Baggins' statement, "Both positions can be well within the boundaries of confessional orthodoxy," (I take it he means Reformed confessional orthodoxy), is not really substantiated. Though there are principles within the Westcott-Hort/Reasoned Eclecticism (RE) theory that have Scriptural basis - the overall theory is contrary to confessional orthodoxy. For proof of this I will refer Mr. Baggins to John Burgon's excellent work, _The Traditional Text_. As far as I know Burgon's book has never been adequately answered by RE theorists - maybe Mr. Baggins will be the first?

Third, Mr. Baggins contradicts the statement in #2 above by saying, "Critical text advocates err outside of orthodoxy when they enthrone human judgment as king." But, is not this the very heart of the RE theory? That using reason and the scientific method one can come to the original autographs? The major scholarly advocates of the postiion, Lachman, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and Griesbach have never acknowledged WCF 1:5 as foundational to their theory. Wesstcott and Hort paid it no mind. And the major catch-phrase which runs through the theory (stated also by Warfield) is that the Holy Scriptures are to be treated like any other human writings from a text-critical perspective.

Fourth, though there are orthodox men (such as Warfield) who have embraced the RE theory - such does not mean that the theory itself is orthodox. Godly men have erred in the past. And, this kind of reasoning is similar to saying that the Federal Vision is orthodox because the Federal Visionists hold to the 5 points. Orthodox men do not make Orthodoxy orthodox. Mr. Baggins, and those who hold to his views, must prove the whole of the RE theory to be orthodox - if they are going to advocate the Critical Text as consistent with Reformed confessional orthodoxy. Why? Because those who crafted the CT used the RE theory in order to come to the various readings of the text.

Fifth, Mr. Baggins' appeal here, "Come on, folks! Don't you realize how small the differences are between the two manuscript traditions?!" contains a truth within it. However, one would then ask "Why a new Greek Text?" If the differences are so slight, then there is no reason for there to be a new Greek Text produced during the 19th Century. If this is a true sentiment of the CT advocates, then I would ask my brothers to abandon the CT and return to the TR out of brotherly love and the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

I would imagine that my CT brothers may counter by sayng that their text is closer to the autographs because they rely on MSS that are older than the Byzantine family. Such is a 19th century thought. As more texts are being uncovered unique Byzantine readings have been found to be older than the 4th Century. The Magdalen Papyrus, for example, (dated by liberal scholars at 200 AD) contain readings in Matthew that are unique to the Byzantine family, and are, at least, 160 years older than the oldest CT manuscript. Thus, the argument that the CT contains readings that are older has been substantially undermined.

Sixthly, When Jesus says that "not one jot or tittle will pass from the law until all be fulfilled," He is not simply saying that the teachings of Scripture will be preserved, but that the words themselves (verbal) and all of the words (plenary) of Scripture shall be preserved. The Holy Spriit inspired the Words of Scripture and not simply the teachings. The Westminster Confession of Faith says this openly:



> WCF 1:8 reads: The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old,) and the New Testament in Greek, (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the Nations) being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of Religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope, Mt 5:18; Is 8:20 Acts 15:15; John 5:39,46; 1 Cor 14:6,9,11,12,24,27-28; Col 3:16; Rom 15:4.


One could ask the question: Which Greek Text is the WCF referring to? The Byzantine copies represented by the Textus Receptus of their time? or, the Alexandrian varients represented by the Critical Text?

Seventhly, Confessional orthodoxy, as noted above in WCF 1:8, states that the Autographs of the New Testament have been preserved *through all ages* in the copies we have today. When we investigate which copies the Church has always relied upon for the autographs the answer is the Byzantine MSS. We know that during the 4th century the Church knew about the Alexandrian varients (through Codex Alexandrinus), but these variations in the Scripture were never re-copied by the Church. This is why the vast amount of mss we have today are Byzantine in natue (5401 of 5683 extant mss). The Church copied those manuscripts which she believed were pure, and rejected those Alexandrian varients which she considered farther from the autographs. Thus, what came into the hands of Erassmus and the Reformers were the pure copies of the autographs which they collated and made the Textus Receptus.

How the Alexandrian varients can be made to fit into this textual history is beyond me. Even Erasmus rejected the Codex Vaticanus (B) as corrupt. See here: W. Willker Codex Vaticanus 1209, B/03: A textcritical complaint

Eightly, if doctrine was only at stake here, then I may agree with Mr. Baggins when he writes, "Don't you realize that precisely zero doctrines hang in the balance on this issue?!" If, however, Verbal Plenary Inspiration is a doctrine of the Bible, then either the Byzantine mss or the Alexandrian mss are in violation of such a doctrine. One might think that the Spirit of God is grieved because a passage has been omitted that He directly inspired, or, that a passage is included which He never spoke.

Finally, I will agree with Mr. Baggins that a person's salvation is not dependent upon which *translation* he/she reads. I will point out, though, that God will honor and sanctify His elect child on a greater basis when that child adheres to the whole counsel of God.

Blessings to you my brother Mr. Baggins!

-Rob


----------



## TaylorWest (Jan 2, 2010)

I often get the sense from reading folks who argue for the authenticity of the TR that they seem to be a bit too much like John Owen when he quotes approvingly Vanentine Schindlerï¿½s _Lexicon_:



> He says that ï¿½There are many distinguished and learned scholars who maintain that the vowels did not exist at the same time as the Hebrew consonants, but rather were devised long after the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. A simple consideration of the passages of Scripture I have just cited (a few of many that could be given) will at once make it clear that either the points originated along with the 22 letters, or else the Scriptures are like wax, and may be turned now in this direction, now in that. And further, if the points were invented by men, it necessarily follows that in our day the Scripture has but human, and not divine, authority.ï¿½ (_Biblical Theology_, 511)



The problem with such thinking is this, now that it is proven beyond doubt that the Hebrew vowel points did come many many centuries after the originals, John Owen is left with nothing to believe.


----------



## tleaf (Jan 2, 2010)

Thank you CalvinandHodges for that reply. 

I am a new member here, and certainly not trained in these matters, but in my "search for the truth" in translations I find it hard to balance the latest research in mss., etc, and the tremendous advance of the Gospel through Tyndale, Geneva and the KJV. I'm eager to be further educated, but arguments that posit "changes should be made, but the difference doesn't really change much" are troubling. What is true? What is false? How is the average Bible reader to decide?

I use many translations, and enjoy them all, but "that old time religion" seems to have been diluted.

As one of my church brothers said, "As Christians, we must agree on doctrine, but may disagree on dogma."


----------



## JOwen (Jan 3, 2010)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> I applaud the tone of GreenBaggins' post. The topic of textual traditions tends to get heated at times, and I am not one who has been exempt from such discussions, and, so, I beiieve that Mr. Baggins (if I may fondly refer to him as such) presents a true Christian attitude toward this explosive subject. Blessings to him!
> 
> ...


 
That, my friend, is a post de fantastique!


----------



## Romans 9:16 (Jan 4, 2010)

CT advocates, when asked how we have the canon, will usually appeal to God’s providence in history, confirming on earth through men what preexisted in His own mind. This is really the only option when one realizes the infallible scriptures contain no table of contents, and when one, rightly, rules out a Papacy to dictate the canononical contents. 

It occurs to me that the question of manuscript traditions should not be detached from the issue of canon. It essentially is the same issue: 

-Is John 8 part of the canon or not?
-If Codex Sinaiticus is to have an a-priori favored status over the Majority Text, should we accept the Epistle of Barnabas, which it includes?
-If a an even older codex is found with a version of Romans significantly different from the one we have today, with say, a very different doctrine of justification. Would we accept it (and revise our theology accordingly) simply because it is older, the “harder reading,” etc.?

It seems to me to be a continual double standard: answering the canon question one way, but the manuscript question another way. I don’t think this is methodologically consistent. The manuscript question_ is _the canonical question. Or to put another (and a softer) way: if a person believes the canon is determined by providence in history, should Majority Text advocates be dismissed for holding the same argument for what textual transmission pedigree is preferred? If you don’t think they are the same question, are they not similar questions?


----------

