# Textual/mss Variants - Impact to Faith and Practice



## panta dokimazete (Jan 5, 2008)

OK - I have been loosely following this thread and will confess that I am not an scholar of the mss variants or textual criticism - can someone help me understand how/if adoption of certain text variations/mss would impact Christian faith and practice or is this mostly a scholarly exercise?

Not trying to devalue the scholarship, etc and no need for a dissertation, just want to understand the basis of the debate.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 5, 2008)

While I hope I am not being unfair to the TR folk here, I would summarize it this way: eclectic text folk believe that the modern methods in no way hamper one's commitment to sola scriptura, nor do such methods endanger the purity of the text. Eclectic folk also do not reject the Byzantine manuscripts, but rather insist that all manuscripts be given their due. It is the opinion of Reformed eclectic folk that the differences between the ct and the tr are not that great. TR folk would disagree with just about everything stated above.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jan 5, 2008)

Thanks, Lane  - looking forward to an equally pithy response from a TR proponent!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 5, 2008)

It's a good question, JD. And it is good to have Lane speaking in behalf of the CT/ET, seeing as he remains gracious in the fray!

It comes to this, do we have a sure text of Scripture, or are many readings in dispute and uncertain?

Maurice Robinson, MT advocate (and no friend of the KJV/TR position!), says

Christians who use a translation based upon the Alexandrian (or even the Western) texttype are only somewhat disadvantaged from a Byzantine-priority perspective, specifically in the study of details. The best-selling NIV, the NASV, and most other modern translations are themselves based upon a generally-Alexandrian text, and Christians seem to suffer no devastating effects from their use (one must remember that, regardless of texttype, over 85% of the text found in all manuscripts is identical).

There are certain exegetical and theological problems found within the manuscripts of the Alexandrian and Western texttypes. Many readings are plainly erroneous or contradict other passages of Scripture. However, the primary doctrinal emphases of Scripture remain sufficient and clear throughout even the worst of these manuscripts. Their many textual errors are in no way endorsed by the present editors, however, even though some of these erroneous readings appear in various modern English translations and critical Greek editions.*​
*Introduction to Robinson & Pierpont

That 15% difference is significant. In his book, _Defending the King James Bible_, D.A. Waite says that the Critical Text changes 9,970 words from the text of the TR. That includes omissions, additions, and changes. This is equal to changing every word in the entire book of Romans (9,447 words), or 1 Corinthians (9,489 words), or all the books, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1 Thessalonians (9,096 words)! Seeing as we are commanded not to add to or subtract from the words of God, this amounts to a very serious matter.

Something's not right in such a great discrepancy; in the CT (*and all the eclectic texts I am aware of, as they retain the majority and most significant changes of the CT*) these above-mentioned changes are _serious!_ The entire last 12 verses of Mark 16, the entire 12 verses of John 7:53-8:11, God missing in 1 Tim 3:16, etc etc etc. To my thinking the "eclectic" text is simply a variation of the standard CT with this difference: its proponents just pick and choose slightly differently from the CT. They're "kissing cousins."

At issue is, Do we have a sure text of Scripture? I think only the KJV/TR folks say Yes we do. They are under heavy fire for such a stand, called ignoramuses, rigid reactionaries, etc. But as you can see they are capable of mounting a reasonable, gracious defense. It is vital that they do, for the days are coming when there shall be a famine of hearing the word of God: 

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:

And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it. (Amos 8:11, 12)​
Although these words have come to pass many times over the ages, I believe this prophecy has relevance in our own day, and for sure in the days of our children and grandchildren, for *the confidence in the reliability of the Bible will have diminished to such an extent, that it will be as a famine!*

I have seen it happen, and it is a terrible thing.

I do *not* say that those who hold to the CT and its relatives are not good Christians. I know some of them to be better and smarter and closer to the Lord than I am. They are fine men and women. That is not the issue. The issue is, What is the word of God? There are basically two lines of transmission, the CT and the TR (and there is an equivalent to this in the OT also), although the CT is comprised of but a fraction of the mss compared to the TR. They cannot both be right.

There is a small contingent of men and women who hold to the old Reformation Bible, the TR. We are quite able to withstand all our opponents, be they doctors, Greek "experts", textual critics, etc. We do it for love of His word. (I do not say the CT folks do not love His word, for they do; the question is which version that is loved is the pure one?)

JD, it matters. There is a lot of dust in the air from the fray now, but in the generations to come, when it settles, the devastation will be seen. Nonetheless, we will hold up this standard as long as God gives us to do it. Myself, I do not write in this defense only for my peers, but for the generations to come, as have those others who are my colleagues in this matter.

The "old-fashioned language" objection is not the real issue (I often "modernize" my reading, especially for those folks who do not understand English very well); the issue is What is the text we are using?

Folks get by on the CT. But there is a growing diminishing of confidence, it eats like a cancer at the heart of faith. There is an ill fruit growing. Our progeny will see it (may they not taste of it!).

Sorry to go on so long, but this is on my heart and mind.


----------



## KMK (Jan 5, 2008)

For starters the CT theology requires throwing out WSC Q #107 and WLC Q # 196.

This thread has a lot to say about the subject: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/av-theology-compared-modern-versions-19437/


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 11, 2008)

Not so fast on the Lord's Prayer. TR people seem to forget that each textual variant has to be decided on its own merits. The three-fold ending for the Lord's Prayer does have attestation outside the Byzantine tradition. The Caesarean text-type attests it (fam 13), Alexandrian text-type attests it (L), and, of course, the Byzantine text-type. Not all CT folk would give the minus an A rating, as Metzger's commentary does. I really wish that the TR people would be willing to acknowledge that arguments that work against Metzger might not work against someone committed to biblical inerrancy.


----------



## larryjf (Jan 11, 2008)

Lane, 

Wouldn't the problem with what you are saying be that you don't have such a text? I mean, unless you developed your own critical text you couldn't really have a text that picks and chooses as you are suggesting. Further, wouldn't that mean that everybody could create their particular text that they feel is made of the best manuscripts, though it doesn't agree with anyone else?

as to the op...


> can someone help me understand how/if adoption of certain text variations/mss would impact Christian faith and practice or is this mostly a scholarly exercise?


I would say that in the specifics it is mostly a scholarly issue (i wouldn't use the word exercise). However, in the broad sense it is very important to one's faith and practice...

If we can't be sure that the Bible (and the underlying texts) are closed, but always open for the pen of the textual critic, then we can stop looking at Scripture as it ought to be looked at....the inspired, infallible Word of God.

If we are willing to leave the biblical text open to new evidence, then there is no valid reason for not leaving it open to new evidence about which books are in or out of the biblical text.


----------



## KMK (Jan 11, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> Not so fast on the Lord's Prayer. TR people seem to forget that each textual variant has to be decided on its own merits. The three-fold ending for the Lord's Prayer does have attestation outside the Byzantine tradition. The Caesarean text-type attests it (fam 13), Alexandrian text-type attests it (L), and, of course, the Byzantine text-type. Not all CT folk would give the minus an A rating, as Metzger's commentary does. I really wish that the TR people would be willing to acknowledge that arguments that work against Metzger might not work against someone committed to biblical inerrancy.



Rev Keister, if I may be so bold, given your statement here and in other places, maybe it is a misnomer to refer to yourself as 'CT folk'. I think you don't fit that mold.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 11, 2008)

larryjf said:


> Lane,
> 
> Wouldn't the problem with what you are saying be that you don't have such a text? I mean, unless you developed your own critical text you couldn't really have a text that picks and chooses as you are suggesting. Further, wouldn't that mean that everybody could create their particular text that they feel is made of the best manuscripts, though it doesn't agree with anyone else?
> 
> ...



Well, Larry, is there any one manuscript existent today that corresponds _100%_ to the original that the particular NT author wrote? The TR does not do so. There is not one single Byzantine manuscript that corresponds 100% to the TR. To prove that is very simple. The Comma Johanneum is not found in most Byzantine manuscripts. Only a very, very few have it. And yet, it is in the TR. Secondly, Stephanus' edition of the Greek New Testament had an apparatus detailing all the differences found in the 14 manuscripts that were the basis of his text. In other words, the TR have precisely the same difficulty that the CT folk have. Which Byzantine manuscript is it? Once you admit that there needs to be more than one manuscript to support the TR, then you've given the ball game away. In reality, I have already answered this one: we have the Greek NT. Let me ask you this: why did God not preserve the original manuscript, and instead gave us 5000 manuscripts of the NT? What is your explanation? So that we can ignore much of the evidence?


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 11, 2008)

KMK said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > Not so fast on the Lord's Prayer. TR people seem to forget that each textual variant has to be decided on its own merits. The three-fold ending for the Lord's Prayer does have attestation outside the Byzantine tradition. The Caesarean text-type attests it (fam 13), Alexandrian text-type attests it (L), and, of course, the Byzantine text-type. Not all CT folk would give the minus an A rating, as Metzger's commentary does. I really wish that the TR people would be willing to acknowledge that arguments that work against Metzger might not work against someone committed to biblical inerrancy.
> ...



Does this mean that I am allowed to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, and that I believe we have the Greek NT?


----------



## larryjf (Jan 11, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> Well, Larry, is there any one manuscript existent today that corresponds _100%_ to the original that the particular NT author wrote? The TR does not do so. There is not one single Byzantine manuscript that corresponds 100% to the TR. To prove that is very simple. The Comma Johanneum is not found in most Byzantine manuscripts. Only a very, very few have it. And yet, it is in the TR. Secondly, Stephanus' edition of the Greek New Testament had an apparatus detailing all the differences found in the 14 manuscripts that were the basis of his text. In other words, the TR have precisely the same difficulty that the CT folk have. Which Byzantine manuscript is it? Once you admit that there needs to be more than one manuscript to support the TR, then you've given the ball game away. In reality, I have already answered this one: we have the Greek NT. Let me ask you this: why did God not preserve the original manuscript, and instead gave us 5000 manuscripts of the NT? What is your explanation? So that we can ignore much of the evidence?


That's why i never said anything about being inerrant. You are correct in saying that we don't have 100% original documents in our Bible, and there never was a Bible with original autographs nor will there ever be one. The modern idea of searching for the original text is an unattainable quest.

Nobody will have a perfect text that matches the originals, so why change the text that the historical Church has held to? It's one thing to understand that we don't have a perfect text, it's another how we apply that understanding...

We can say that since we don't have a perfect text we must search for it...keep the Bible open to editing until it is found (which will be never)...

or we can say that we will receive the text of the Church as the Word of God and not leave it open for change....even with the imperfections.

As far as why God has given us 5,000+ manuscripts, i don't feel at liberty to say as God has not revealed His purpose in this. I certainly don't think that we can presume God allowed the originals be destroyed because He is a proponent of modern textual criticism.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 11, 2008)

larryjf said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > Well, Larry, is there any one manuscript existent today that corresponds _100%_ to the original that the particular NT author wrote? The TR does not do so. There is not one single Byzantine manuscript that corresponds 100% to the TR. To prove that is very simple. The Comma Johanneum is not found in most Byzantine manuscripts. Only a very, very few have it. And yet, it is in the TR. Secondly, Stephanus' edition of the Greek New Testament had an apparatus detailing all the differences found in the 14 manuscripts that were the basis of his text. In other words, the TR have precisely the same difficulty that the CT folk have. Which Byzantine manuscript is it? Once you admit that there needs to be more than one manuscript to support the TR, then you've given the ball game away. In reality, I have already answered this one: we have the Greek NT. Let me ask you this: why did God not preserve the original manuscript, and instead gave us 5000 manuscripts of the NT? What is your explanation? So that we can ignore much of the evidence?
> ...


----------



## larryjf (Jan 11, 2008)

Lane,



> This is ambiguous. What do you mean by the search? Do you mean a search to find the literal pieces of paper called the autographs? Or do you mean the search among the extant manuscripts? If the former, I agree, but no one is doing that. If the latter, most CT advocates think that our work is almost completely done already.


First, i disagree that most CT advocates think they will ever have a text that matches the originals. As a matter of fact, most have abandoned such an end to their efforts.

I mean a search for the original readings, not original documents. This can never be established as there are no originals to compare the results to.



> Again, what manuscripts did the Alexandrian church hold to? The Byzantine manuscript tradition was not universally held to during all ages of the church. As far as I know, there are no Byzantine text-form manuscripts that originated in Alexandria. So was that not a church, because they didn't have the Byzantine text-form? Were they corrupting the texts?


Are we to look to the Alexandrian church for our manuscripts or to the Byzantine church, which is the same region that the originals were actually sent.

And i don't think that a particular church is only valid if it has the infallible Word of God. There were true churches even before the NT canon was completed. However, in then Alexandrian area there were a great number of corrupt religious teachings.

As far as corrupting the texts...yes, i think we are all in agreement that the texts have been corrupted by those within the Church. Isn't that why some form of textual criticism is needed? But i also think that the Byzantine church would be "able" to correct the text more readily as they were the possessors of the originals.



> As I said, the CT position does not require the notion that we are still searching for it. If no new knowledge ever came up, we would still have the Word of God.


And yet they don't seem to stop putting out new versions of the critical text.



> This is a copout, and the latter sentence doesn't even begin to approximate what I argue. In fact, I know of no one who holds it. I believe that the autographs are not with us lest we worship a piece of paper (check, papyrus). But God's providence extends to all the manuscripts, not just some of them.


Please don't use the word "us" when you refer to folks worshipping the autographs as i don't consider myself part of that group. Why would i worship the original autographs? How can one worship something when that very same thing tells us not to worship it?

God's providence extends to more than just all manuscripts, it also extends to everything that ever happens. But that still doesn't mean that we are aware of His purposes in that providence.

So while we can say that God did providentially preserve all of the extant manuscripts, we can't say that He did so in order to embrace a minority of those preserved texts...not can we say that He did it so that we would embrace the majority...we simply can't know His purpose in it.


----------



## larryjf (Jan 11, 2008)

Thinking of God's providence regarding the preservation of manuscripts...

God providentially preserved the Byzantine Greek text where their language was Greek. In the West they started using Latin instead of Greek so the Greek manuscripts were simply not copied or preserved in many of the ages because they were promoting the Latin text.

God providentially had Alexandria conquered by the Muslims, effectively shutting off the propagation of their manuscripts.

So why would God providentially have none but the Byzantine empire produce Greek texts for such a large part of Church history?


----------



## Thomas2007 (Jan 11, 2008)

> But God's providence extends to all the manuscripts, not just some of them.



I believe this also, excepting, that I believe that the variants exist whereby the word of God in the plurality of New Testament manuscripts is preserved as a parable, which is the prophecy concerning it, expansively, and the example given within it. In other words, I consider them as the "stammering lips" of the word of God in another tongue.

For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. Isaiah 28:10

"Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given." Matthew 13:9-11

I believe the variants exist to confound the reprobate, just as Christ spoke face to face with the Apostle's in parables, allowing some to not truly understand like the non-elect Pharisee's, wherein He will say in the last day:

"When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out." Luke 13:25-28

and 

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matthew 7:21-23

These are terrifying thoughts, but I just pray that God grant me grace to understand and hold true to the faith once delivered to the saints and manifest the works of a saint whereby He is counting me as His child and the Protestant faith is true and Rome's is not.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Jan 12, 2008)

*Suicide of Protestanism*



panta dokimazete said:


> OK - I have been loosely following this thread and will confess that I am not an scholar of the mss variants or textual criticism - can someone help me understand how/if adoption of certain text variations/mss would impact Christian faith and practice or is this mostly a scholarly exercise?
> 
> Not trying to devalue the scholarship, etc and no need for a dissertation, just want to understand the basis of the debate.



Hello JD,

A little understanding of the history of Protestant scholasticism is necessary to understand the implications to your question. It is not, however, merely a scholarly exercise as it affects the life of the Church and individuals, indeed all of society, as the textual debate and publishing of critical text Bibles is not merely academic but invades the life of every individual in the Church.

We are receiving an already developed and unified theology derived from a converging of identification of the authentic canonical texts, exegesis and development of both biblical and dogmatic theology including creedal defenses; in contrast, our Protestant forefathers were engaged in rejecting Roman theology, which was the development of generation upon generation of theologizing creating its unified theology through the same type of convergence.

The Protestants were distinguishing between Biblical theology and Roman dogmatics, the former describing the theology of the early Church which developed the earliest ecumenical creeds, and the latter which was the present Roman Church and its novelties.

The acceptance of the Received Text coincides with the return to ancient catholic creedal orthodoxy and cannot properly be understood in the absence of that knowledge. In other words, they just didn't presume the text of Scripture existed in a theological vacuum and look out upon the sea of manuscripts as modern criticism, develop a hypothesis of transmission, and start working backwards to restore inerrancy of the autographs and declare this or that a true reading...and then develop their theology from the text.

It was, rather, the presupposition of our Biblical theology exegetically derived from the Byzantine text that the Romanists had introduced novelities in its Dogmatic theology upon the purity of ancient catholic orthodoxy that were derived from their *text of Scripture*, exegesis thereof and developed dogmatism. In order to correct those novelties and return to ancient catholic orthodoxy, it was necessary to reject everything that departed from it: texts, exegesis, hermeneutics, doctrines &c.

Muller notes citing Leigh: "*This is not dogmatics divorced from exegesis, but dogmatics framed by the exegetical debates of the day*. Leigh comments at length on the "great diversity of editions of the Holy Scripture" and shows the need to distinguish between them."

"There is a question betwixt the Church of Rome and the reformed Churches about the authentic edition of Scripture; they say, that the edition of the Bible in Hebrew and Greek is not authentic, but rather the vulgar Latin. We hold that the vulgar Latin is very corrupt and false; that the Hebrew for the Old Testament and the Greek for the New is the sincere and authentic writing of God; therefore that all other things are to be determined by them; and that the other versions are so far to be approved of, as they agree with these fountains."

Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, p 422, 1993

While our Protestant forebears could find the essentials of the Christian faith in the Latin Vulgate, they recognized many of its readings as being influenced by ancient heresies, such as Arianism, which over time had bloomed into the novelties they were now rejecting in their return to ancient catholic orthodoxy. The Latin Vulgate is translated from particular Greek texts. Nolan explains how Erasmus collated Greek manuscripts into two principle classes, one representing the Complutenian edition and the other the Vaticanus:

"The former was in the possession of the Greek Church, the latter in that of the Latin; judging from the internal evidence he had as good reason to conclude the Eastern church had not corrupted their received text as he had grounds to suspect the Rhodians from whom the Western church derived their manuscripts, had accommodated them to the Latin Vulgate. One short insinuation which he has thrown out, sufficiently provides that his objections to these manuscripts lay more deep; and they do immortal credit to his sagacity. In the age in which the Vulgate was formed, the church, he was aware, was infested with Origenists and Arians; an affinity between any manuscript and that version, consequently conveyed some suspicion that its text was corrupted." 

An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, 1815, p 413ff

First, lets consider the meaning of Scripture. 

For the Protestants and for Rome, it is the word of God, however, the former postulates that it is an independent and objective authority to which the Church must yield in the original languages, the latter holds that it is a dependent and subjective authority standing upon the magisterium of the Church and Latin is the authoritative text. Hence, exegesis and doctrinal development is subjective to ascribing hermeneutical emphasis consistent with each presupposition, moreover, if Scripture is subjective to the magisterium of the Church then altering Greek or Hebrew manuscripts to coincide with Church dogma is not on its face a corruption.

As the Protestants were working out the implications of their theology in terms of Sola Scriptura, they began rejecting both Old and New Testament readings that supported Rome's presupposition since they were now claiming that only Hebrew and Greek were authoritative and not the Latin. Receiving the Byzantine text tradition allowed them to accept a manuscript tradition that had existed and was in use by actual Greek speaking Churches for centuries, hence it came to them complete with a history. While there are variant readings in the Received Text tradition they are not considered the way modern criticism thinks of these things, again I defer to Muller to explain:

"Turretin and other high and late orthodox writers argued that the authenticity and infallibility of Scripture must be identified in and of the _apographa_, not in and of lost _autographa_. The _autographa_ figure in Turretin's argument only insofar as they were written in Hebrew and Greek and are, therefore, best respresented _quoad verba_ and _quoad res_ in the extant Hebrew and Greek apographa. The issue raised by the Protestant scholastic discussion of the relation of autographa and apographa is, in other words, one of linguistic continuity rather than one of verbal inerrancy. The orthodox do, of course, assume that the text is free of substantive error and, typically, view textual problems as of scribal origin, but they mount their argument for authenticity and infallibity without recourse to a logical device like that employed by Hodge and Warfield."

Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, p 435, 1993 (Italics in original)


For the first time in the history of the Church they developed a very specific identification of the canon, that is derived from Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, consisting of sixty six books of the Old and New Testament. Then also, for the first time in the history of the Church, an absolutely clear and determinate canon was developed at Trent and its declaration that all of the Apocraphyl books are canonical, the Latin is authoritative, and everyone who rejects them is anathema. From this arises the issue of variants and the subsequent development of textual criticism by Richard Simon to carry forth the Tridentine attack upon Sola Scriptura.

This is important, because the identity of the books in the canon is neither, strictly speaking, a doctrine contained in Scripture nor a doctrine deduced from Scripture - yet the exegetical summary of a particular faith in turn identifies the canon of Scripture as a primary article of that faith. Hence, the self evidencing character of the divine authority of Scripture finds a doctrinal analogue in the self evidencing character of the canonical authority that is derived from it, and contrariwise, the self evidencing character of the divine authority of the Roman Magisterium finds a doctrinal analogue in the self evidencing character of the canonical authority that is derived from it.

The problem, then, of the authentic edition of the Scriptures enters Reformed theology by way of the polemic with Rome and is in no way analogous to the claimed neutral ground of modern criticism's quest for an inerrant original autograph. As doctrinal debate intensified the version of the Scriptures employed in deciding theological matters became a matter of increasing importance. Hence, the nuances of textual differences, while you may find your doctrine present in another text, necessitates exclusion of your opponents, because he can find his doctrine there too.

The moment the Reformed Fathers made their canonical declaration concerning the books of Scripture, they rejected the predominately Alexandrian text type, or what is called Manuscript B (e.g., Vaticanus) and its subsequent allies, Aleph &c which contains the Greek Old Testament, the Apocaphra, Greek New Testament and Apocraphra - all of which were Canonical to the Roman Church, because the these original language texts are antecedents of the Latin Vulgate.

Hence, Larry is absolutely correct - when modern criticism brings to us Aleph and B and declares they are the "most reliable manuscripts" in terms of the readings then, if we accept that, we must consider the canon in which they are received. Modern criticism is positing an internal inconsistency, which is derived from it's form/matter dialetic (e.g., Warfield's logical device), by postulating Protestant theology developed from the Received Text against the Greek canon of Roman dogmatism while claiming its text is most reliable. If you've read where I've said something like modern criticism is "textual Arminianism" this is precisely what I'm getting at, because Arminianism does this exact same thing by standing upon Protestant Biblical Theology in terms of Rome's nature/grace dialetic and expresses it soteriologically.

This is not a neutral field of study, nor can one divorce it from theology as modern textual criticism demands and attempt to stand on neutral ground. There is no neutrality, this situation can be compared to our present political situation because they are indeed tied together. 

The liberal comes onto the political scene with a highly developed and doctrinaire religious presupposition of the State as the center of life (e.g., statist theology) , declaring that you can't bring your Christian theology into the political arena because it is primarily ecclesiastical. Yet, the very existence of an independence of Church and State is derived from Reformed Theology's dogma, but since we do enter the ground in the negation of our faith, we continually lose ground and we must lose ground because their political theology then takes priority as it conforms society to it's presupposition.

Likewise the same situation is true for the text critical debate, it has no history of the text, yet the text critical method it employs only works in combination with a history of the text, but historic Reformed Orthodoxy which has a theological history of the text is excluded, because it's history is theological, and thereby loses and will continue to lose based upon nothing more than the opinions of men that are holding a priori to a diametrically opposite position on the identity of the authentical text of Scripture of the Protestant Reformation (e.g., that the Greek texts of the Latin Vulgate are authentic). While it is brought forward couched in the guise of much learning, it is nothing more than bald assertion of opinion utilizing the very weapons developed to destroy Sola Scriptura and being effectively employed by Protestants themselves.

What you are witnessing in the text critical debate is the suicide of Protestantism, if it continues Hort will be proved right, it will be but a paranthetical and temporary blip in the history of Christianity. Protestantism is a house divided against itself and it cannot stand on these grounds.

Will this affect the faith and practice of Reformed Churches, absolutely and it already has, this is precisely why Princeton went liberal after Warfield and precisely why PCUSA Churches went liberal, all the Reformed orthodox can do is lose ground because its given up the foundation of the Reformed Faith, and *abandoned the readings which emphatically exclude doctrinal opposition*. While you can still find the true faith in critical text Bibles containing many authentic readings, so also can everyone else find heretical readings that the ancient councils anathematized.

You cannot receive a text in exclusion of it's history, but modern criticism demands that you do, by clouding it in a mist of complexity claiming an infinite regress to the lost autographa when in fact the text critical method it brings forth as authentic readings are the very foundation of the Latin Vulgate which our Protestant Reformed fathers rejected as corrupt and false.

You have no way, with a critical text Bible, to put down Arianism, for example, what is a champion text for the orthodox in the Received Text in 1 Timothy 3:16 is a champion of Arianism in the critical. While you can choose to prefer orthodoxy, you cannot defend it as being the truth - it is just your truth, your interpretation - not a required conclusion derived from the text of Scripture. The Received Text is in terms of Protestant Orthodoxy the original and authentic words of Scripture, and no other texts, everything that contradicts must be conformed to them, or as Leigh states:

"If the authority of the authentical copies in Hebrew, Chaldee, and Greek fall, then there is no pure Scripture in the Church of God, there is no high court of appeal where controversies (rising upon the diversity of translations, or otherwise) may be ended. The exhortations of having recourse unto the _Law and to the Prophets_, and of our Saviour Christ asking _how it is written_, and _how readest thou_, is now either of none effect, or not sufficient." Leigh, Treastise, I, iv (pp 102-3) cited by Muller, Ibid, p 435

Another way you may consider it, to help ease the understanding, is this: Modern critical text Bibles are, generally, the Latin Vulgate translated into English via Greek. Anyone can sit down with a Roman Catholic Bible and compare it to any critical text Bible against the Authorized Version and quickly see that the departures from Protestant readings are, in the main, generally and consistently identical.

Yet, we find the Reformed Protestants advocating, defending and bringing forth modern english versions that are identical readings to the Latin Vulgate our Reformed fathers fought against and authority is transferred to a new Priestclass, the textual critic.

Everyone that takes them up and holds true to the position, and begins questioning doctrinal definitions of the Protestant Creeds, will begin questioning the veracity of the Protestant faith in total and will begin moving toward theological liberalism. This is because the overwhelming unified testimony of the Received Text on essential doctrines has been sullied whereby doubt is allowed to enter, and once it enters then the old Deluder begins his work just like he did with our first ancestor upon Eve's textual criticism in Genesis 3:3, "_neither shall ye touch it_," who even in perfection of his reason did not resist sin.

In Christ's Bonds,

Thomas


----------

