# New video from James White regarding Nestle-Aland 28th edition



## Bill The Baptist (Oct 11, 2012)

To all those who prefer the Byzantine texts, what do you think of this video? Should it bother us that scholars continue to revise the Greek text and are now releasing a 28th edition? Or is James White correct in his conclusions? http://youtu.be/OP5YTe_I-9g


----------



## Loopie (Oct 11, 2012)

It doesn't seem like Dr. White was targeting those who prefer the Byzantine Texts. He seems to be focusing his words against KJV Onlyism, which should be distinguished from a preference for the Byzantine texts (if I am not mistaken). I still look forward to hearing what others think of this video (personally I think Dr. White presents some great arguments, and his heart is very much in the right place when he declares that his goal is to determine what the original texts said).


----------



## MW (Oct 11, 2012)

I think we can agree that there is scholarly value in having surviving mss. collated and critically analysed in order to discover what the surviving ms. evidence tells us at the current time. On this basis it is good to have whatever number of editions will be necessary to provide current information and to correct past mistakes. The problem arises when this book is called "the Greek New Testament" and this book undergoes numerous editions. That, precisely, is the problem. To be quite blunt, it is not what it claims to be. The "New Testament" is a canonical term, and the New Testament was written in Greek. To call a book the Greek New Testament is to claim to possess the Greek text which was originally inspired and received as canonical by the New Testament church. To make such a claim and then to change the text on a regular basis is simply dishonest.

There are two problems here. First, the idea of a "Greek New Testament" goes back to a time when it was believed that textual criticism was in fact delivering us the original text. Those who work in the field now no longer believe this. Most scholars today believe that some of the New Testament books were not completed until the second century by a community of believers who shared the values of an apostle. There is no thought now that textual criticism gives us the original words which were inspired by God and penned by the apostles. Secondly, modern evangelical critics work with a mixture of "faith" and "science," and the constituency of the two elements is continually changing as they seek to meet different objections to the Christian faith. The fact is, science will continually develop as new evidence comes to light, whereas faith is the evidence of things unseen. The two cannot mix. They will not mix. They do not mix. They are two entirely different sources of information. Faith is based on testimony. Science requires physical evidence.

What lies at the heart of these problems? It is this. People who call themselves believers do not stop to evaluate the process by which they came to believe. People are brought to faith by hearing the word, and they hear the word through God-ordained preachers. They do not come to faith by reading the Greek New Testament. God has never said that paper and ink are witnesses to His word. That would make a dead witness, and a dead witness does not live to declare the word of God to a succeeding age. It must itself have a witness to explain it. The church of the living God, on the other hand, is God's ordained witness, the pillar and ground of the truth. This is the living witness which God uses from age to age to declare His word. The problems will begin to be solved when believers shut themselves up to the means which God has ordained.


----------



## timmopussycat (Oct 11, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> I think we can agree that there is scholarly value in having surviving mss. collated and critically analysed in order to discover what the surviving ms. evidence tells us at the current time. On this basis it is good to have whatever number of editions will be necessary to provide current information and to correct past mistakes.


 
Agreed.




armourbearer said:


> The problem arises when this book is called "the Greek New Testament" and this book undergoes numerous editions. That, precisely, is the problem. To be quite blunt, it is not what it claims to be. The "New Testament" is a canonical term, and the New Testament was written in Greek. To call a book the Greek New Testament is to claim to possess the Greek text which was originally inspired and received as canonical by the New Testament church. To make such a claim and then to change the text on a regular basis is simply dishonest.



We have the same problem when anyone calls any translation of the OT Heb. mss and the NT Gk. mss "The Bible" or and even more so when the translation is called "The Scriptures." Despite the fact that it is normally understood by almost all readers of the bible that while what we have is very close to the original materials at all major substantive points we do not have exactly the same OT texts or NT texts as the early church had, we do need to come up with better labels for these documents. 



armourbearer said:


> There are two problems here. First, the idea of a "Greek New Testament" goes back to a time when it was believed that textual criticism was in fact delivering us the original text. Those who work in the field now no longer believe this. Most scholars today believe that some of the New Testament books were not completed until the second century by a community of believers who shared the values of an apostle. There is no thought now that textual criticism gives us the original words which were inspired by God and penned by the apostles.



Your last two sentences may be an overstatement. At least a substantial minority of textual critics would dissent from both your premises. 



armourbearer said:


> Secondly, modern evangelical critics work with a mixture of "faith" and "science," and the constituency of the two elements is continually changing as they seek to meet different objections to the Christian faith. The fact is, science will continually develop as new evidence comes to light, whereas faith is the evidence of things unseen. The two cannot mix. They will not mix. They do not mix. They are two entirely different sources of information. Faith is based on testimony. Science requires physical evidence. What lies at the heart of these problems? It is this. People who call themselves believers do not stop to evaluate the process by which they came to believe. People are brought to faith by hearing the word, and they hear the word through God-ordained preachers. They do not come to faith by reading the Greek New Testament.



Although I have not met many bible translators, I have met two of the lead editors of both the NIV and ESV and can say from personal knowledge that both know full well that they came to faith via other means than reading the Greek NT. Consequently I suspect that it is unfair to charge modern evangelical textual critics, many of whom are bible translators, with either mixing faith and science in an unstable fashion, nor with not evaluating how they came to believe. What these folk are primarily attempting to do is to use the discipline (I don't like the word 'science') of textual criticism to a) give Christians a bible that is as close as possible to the NT text and b) show that it is reasonable for Christians to trust the canonical scriptures. As new evidence comes to light from time to time some texts may change.


----------



## kodos (Oct 11, 2012)

I have a rather - perhaps simplistic question for those who engage in Critical Textual Scholarship. On what basis do we have to have any trust that the Word of God that we have before us is even anywhere close to the actual Word of God? It seems like once you go down this path, there is ZERO confidence in any particular passage of Scripture.

Many are calling into question the ending of Mark, the story of the woman caught in adultery, and so on. Many saints have died believing that this is God's Holy Word, but now many want us to remove it from our Bibles. Did the Sovereign God really confuse His Church for so long? What else is going to be removed from our Bibles? Or, what could potentially be added to what we have now?

I just don't see how this enterprise does anything but call into question the idea that God has _providentially_ preserved His Word, and not left His Church without the Holy Scriptures for almost 2,000 years. It's just really weird to me, and is actually really bothering to think about .

I haven't studied this very much, but it is very troubling. Maybe I have a very simplistic view of these things, and after-all I use the ESV more often than any other translation


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 11, 2012)

I also think James’ heart is in the right place. He is a stand-up believer and a great benefit to the church. I hope to have joyous fellowship with him in the New Earth and Heaven. 

*However*, my brother is mistaken with regard to the textual situation. He thinks it “backward” for one to think we have (or would even want) a single standard edition of the New Testament – i.e., the TR or the King James – and that there is “intellectual dishonesty” involved to holding to such a view. It would be more gracious at least to say “intellectually mistaken”. 

He thinks it “totally non-reflective” that we should desire certainty – “absolute certainty” – in the Bible God promised to give us, and that it is really a great boon to us that we now have 28 editions – 28 series of further corrections, and counting – of the NT, with a good number more to come as new information is made available to the ECM (see _Editio Critica Maior_ research projects).

We (of the Byzantine text school – and remember, the TR is an _edition_ of the Bzy textform) _also_ desire to know whether Jude wrote “Lord” or “Jesus” in verse 5 (he wrote “Lord”, for those interested), and not what some scribe may have written decades or centuries later. It is important to us. It is _crucial_ to us to know the actual words God inspired! Nor is it merely holding to “tradition” when we discern the progression of the apostolic writings – their original readings – in the early decades and centuries of the church. See this excerpt from Dr. Wilbur Pickering’s, _The Identity of the New Testament Text II_, in chapter five of the book, showing a persuasive account of its transmission in the early years. 

James, believing in a certain view of how God preserved His New Testament text, thinks it fine that we have edition after edition, where scholars are poring over various manuscripts, or re-evaluating their earlier textual decisions, and do not have a settled text – and may _never_ have it (before the Lord returns) – and we will just have to trust the editorial board and be satisfied with but a provisional New Testament for the rest of this age. With regard to Jude 5, it seems James is saying (around 10:30 into the video) that those of us who want to come to a definite answer will have to ponder over it and just use our best judgment on the true reading. It does indeed seem that such a method of determining the text is but a crapshoot. That probably is the method we are to use to determine all the variants that are similarly problematic! 

He repeatedly states that holding to the TR / KJV is holding to a “tradition”, whereas in fact we are holding to a living Book, God’s Book, which He deigned to preserve for His people, and by His remarkable providence kept intact. 

Nor is there any fault or backwardness in this! As though there were anything shameful or wrong with asserting that the Lord will preserve His every word, seeing as man does not live by bread alone, but by *every* word that proceeds out of the mouth of God (cf. Matt 4:4). As though the Almighty cannot preserve His word – which he has magnified above all His name (Ps 138:2 AV) – when He has preserved our lives and selves down to the very atoms that would comprise us these many millennia since He conceived us in His mind before the foundation of the world! 

It is thought by some such a big deal for the Lord to have inspired and then preserved through His providence every word of His Bible. Consider though: He knew us and loved us with an eternal love, and chose us to be in Christ from before the creation of the world, that is, way before we existed in material form. He thus preserved the specific genetic information in our DNA and the raw molecular material needed for the formation and manifestation of our beings all through the violent and ravaged history of the human race down to our day, so that we would be the very beings He had conceived in “eternity past”. That kind of preservation of keeping the genetic information intact – along with superintending other manifold conditions – so that *we* would manifest as He knew us in ages past is even more remarkable than keeping His words through the prophets, the Lord Christ, and the apostolic writers intact down through the ages. 

If we exist, why should not a providentially preserved Bible? 

As though it were a shameful thing to trust that God could and did preserve His word intact in the texts underlying the faithfully translated English AV, and gave us in the English a Bible that has extreme fidelity to the providentially preserved apographs. In this day, I suppose, disapproval comes from “the wise and the prudent” and upon His “babes” – His trusting children (Matt 11:25).” 

Because we trust in a particular method of God’s preserving His word – and His accomplishment of it – it is not right to assert we do not want to know what He wrote in the original, seeing as we believe (with good warrant) the Byz and the final further touches He providentially had His editors put upon it at the time of the Reformation _reflects this original_. Because James has his peculiar view he thinks we are far less than intellectually astute than those who hold views similar to his. 

His view _presupposes_ that God did not _finalize_ the compilation of His preserved readings in the Hebrew and Greek of the texts of the Reformation era, and thus he looks for new and better light in new textual discoveries or new linguistic insights. He is consistent in his view, and it makes sense – but only if the Byz / TR view is wrong. I think we can make a far better case for it being right than he can for his view of the textual data. 

He thinks that it is good if we don’t have a settled text for the Bible, as this would mean (as he sees it) progress would be halted, as it was “in the dark ages” – sort of implying that the Byz / TR / KJV attitude is akin to them dark ages! 

We *do* have comfort in the settled and intact word of our God, but it is not the result of a trade-off for “the truth” – comfort of tradition in exchange for truth – but a careful and intelligent discernment of the transmission of the text based upon the presupposition that God would preserve His word in the minutiae, and His fulfillment of that at the time of the Reformation. 

I think we, with our textual views, can indeed “present a robust defense of the Christian faith in a world where there’s a lot of opposition”. 

When I engage in apologetics – all of which is based upon the word of God – I do not say to those I talk with, “Well, this is my version of the crapshoot regarding what the actual (original) readings of the Bible are” (I’m being a little extreme and facetious here), but rather, “This is the word of the Lord”. 

I think James White is an extremely intelligent and godly man – and I like the guy – who has a mistaken view of the textual situation. Now there may be some of you folks reading this who are not of the PB, and this attitude I have to James White gets you mad – _fuming!_ – because you see him tearing down people’s faith in what we (you and I both) consider to be God’s true word down to the minute details, the jots and tittles. Okay, he does get this vitally important thing wrong, although the Bibles based on the critical and eclectic texts, while not preserved in the minutiae, are preserved adequately enough so that souls may be saved, nourished, and sanctified, and churches sustained. This can’t be denied. As important as our Bibles are, love for the brethren is equally so – according to our Lord’s command. It’s a violation of the 9th commandment to demonize White, and it’s a work of the devil to try to destroy the faith many souls have in the word of God as it is in their modern versions. They don’t believe in our view of God’s word – perhaps in part because of the railing and abuse of some – and would you try to take away the faith they have in theirs, these for whom the Lord Jesus Christ suffered, bled and died? 

There are days coming when we shall be asked to give shelter and succor to those who hold different views of the Bible than we do. When the great persecution comes upon the churches and true born-again believers, will you check which version of the Bible they hold to before you give those being hunted by evil posses aid and shelter? Would you deny James White entrance to your hideout because of his views of the Bible? I wouldn’t. I might say, James, in this safehouse we mostly hold to the KJV, so please respect our view while you receive our care. And the opposite goes – if those who hold to the ESV, NIV, or NASB give us shelter, we should respect their faith in God’s word.


----------



## MW (Oct 12, 2012)

timmopussycat said:


> Your last two sentences may be an overstatement. At least a substantial minority of textual critics would dissent from both your premises.



Textual Criticism is a "science" only admitting of conclusions which can be empirically validated. Most Christians know little to nothing of it. Their exposure to textual criticism comes through a popularising medium (like that of James White) which attempts to make it understandable for the sake of confirming those with evangelical beliefs. What you are calling "textual critics" in your above statement more than likely belongs to the popularising medium, not the critics themselves.


----------



## AThornquist (Oct 12, 2012)

Mr. Rafalsky, 

I lean toward Dr. White's views in these matters (though I have a lifetime to learn and be convinced one way or another), but I do certainly appreciate your balanced view of our brotherhood and your care not to demonize a brother who disagrees on these matters. It's very encouraging to read.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Oct 12, 2012)

Greetings:

I agree with Pastor Winzer and Steve Rafalsky.

Dr. James White is, in my opinion, a good Christian man, a scholar, and a blessing to the Church of Jesus Christ. However, on the subject of Textual Criticism he has embraced a false philosophy which will never lead him to the infallible copies of the infallible autographs.

Eric: Dr. White does not make the distinction between those who uphold the Byzantine MSS and those who believe that the King James Bible is infallible and inerrant. In his book _The King James Only Controversy_, Dr. White denotes 5 different types of KJO advocates. The second type he labels, "Group 2: The Textual Argument" (pgs. 24-25) - a group that you and I may belong. All of these five groups can be labelled King James Onlyists in his opinion. Thus he has set up a Straw Man argument, because the moment you start to defend the Byzantine MSS as superior to the Alexandrian, then you are automatically labelled a KJO advocate and placed in the same "intellectually dishonest" group ("intellectually dishonest" is his phrase not mine) of people like, Gail Riplinger, Dr. Gipp, and others.

However, I am encouraged to hear that in this recent video Dr. White is referring to "radical KJO types" when he points out their errors rather than the more general "KJO types" which is his usual reference. I hope and pray that there will come a day when Dr. White can make a distinction between those who believe that the Byzantine MSS contain the infallible copies of the infallible autographs, and those who believe that the KJ Version is the inspired and inerrant Word of God.

After watching his video I have to ask this simple question of Dr. White: Did the Reformers and the Reformed Baptists (during the 16th and 17th centuries) have in their possession the infallible copies of the infallible autographs? Or, was it only the finding of the Aleph Text (Sinaiticus - 1844 or 1859) that the infallible copies of the autographs came to light

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## sevenzedek (Oct 12, 2012)

kodos said:


> I have a rather - perhaps simplistic question for those who engage in Critical Textual Scholarship. On what basis do we have to have any trust that the Word of God that we have before us is even anywhere close to the actual Word of God? It seems like once you go down this path, there is ZERO confidence in any particular passage of Scripture.



Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Call me a man of faith, but this is my basis. I've been called worse.


----------



## kodos (Oct 12, 2012)

sevenzedek said:


> kodos said:
> 
> 
> > I have a rather - perhaps simplistic question for those who engage in Critical Textual Scholarship. On what basis do we have to have any trust that the Word of God that we have before us is even anywhere close to the actual Word of God? It seems like once you go down this path, there is ZERO confidence in any particular passage of Scripture.
> ...



I agree with this , and it speaks well to the doctrine of Providential Preservation. However, it doesn't seem to fit well with the enterprise of us piecing together a Critical Text which can remove or add to anything the Church has had before her for almost 2,000 years now.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Oct 12, 2012)

I would agree with most of the responses on here and I would also agree that James White is a great Christian brother. I have often profited from his apologetic ministry and from watching his debates, however on this issue I would disagree with him. It should bother us that there are hundreds of readings in the critical text that have no textual basis whatsoever in any manuscript anywhere. It should bother us that the Greek text that is supposedly based on the so-called "earliest and best manuscripts" is constantly subject to revision and correction. I agree with Rev. Winzer that textual criticism has become too much of a science, and science is ever-changing, while the Word of God should stand forever.


----------



## Jeff Burns (Oct 12, 2012)

Bill The Baptist said:


> It should bother us that there are hundreds of readings in the critical text that have no textual basis whatsoever in any manuscript anywhere.



Indeed it should. Could you point out some of these hundreds that one cannot find attested in any manuscript anywhere in the world?


----------



## timmopussycat (Oct 12, 2012)

For Byzantine text advocates
a) How can you determine which of the variants in the Byzantine text type are correct and why? 
b) Since you have to engage in such determination, how can you be confident that you have a fair or better translation of God's infallible word in your hands?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timmopussycat (Oct 12, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > Your last two sentences may be an overstatement. At least a substantial minority of textual critics would dissent from both your premises.
> ...



Unlike true scientific conclusions which are capable of being falisified or validated by repeatable experiments, the conclusions of textual critics are not so provable - they ultimately rest on the weighing of probabilities. It is for that reason I and others do not like to apply the term science to textual criticism. Having met a couple of professionals in the discipline, I stand by my statement that at least a substantial minority of text critics and somewhat more of the evangelicals among them do not buy into any notion that any of the NT is second century or that any of the NT is pseudopigrapha.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Oct 12, 2012)

Greetings:

Jeff: Check out Dr. Jack Moorman's book, _8000 Differences between the NA and TR_.

Tim: Check out my latest video on Textual Criticism - especially the 2nd part on Reformed Textual Criticism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bleRIbumGuA&feature=plcp

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Oct 12, 2012)

Jeff Burns said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > It should bother us that there are hundreds of readings in the critical text that have no textual basis whatsoever in any manuscript anywhere.
> ...



Check out this article by Dr. Maurice Robinson of Southeastern Seminary Robinson, The case for Byzantine priority


----------



## Jeff Burns (Oct 12, 2012)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Jeff Burns said:
> 
> 
> > Bill The Baptist said:
> ...



I think I missed your point in your original post. By "reading" you mean sequence of words, thus the CT has a sequence of words that are nowhere found in that exact form in the MSS tradition. Correct? When I first read it, I was thinking of individual words and it seemed like you were accusing the compilers of the CT of just grabbing words and phrases out of thin air and inserting them into the text. Am I correct that you were suggesting the former, not the later?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Oct 12, 2012)

Jeff Burns said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Jeff Burns said:
> ...



That is correct. Because the critical text is based mostly on Codex Sinaticus and Codex Vaticanus, and since these two manuscripts often disagree with one another, what has resulted is what's known as an "eclectic" text. Whenever these two mauscripts disagree, scholars will often blend the two together resulting in an arrangement of Greek words that is not found in any known manuscript.


----------



## sevenzedek (Oct 12, 2012)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> Jeff: Check out Dr. Jack Moorman's book, _8000 Differences between the NA and TR_.
> 
> ...



Considering that I have heard that there are 7,959 verses in the NT... Just puts things into perspective.


----------



## MW (Oct 12, 2012)

timmopussycat said:


> It is for that reason I and others do not like to apply the term science to textual criticism.



As it is being practised by textual critics, it is certainly a science, which only ever leads to probabilities. Matter was created to be interpreted by mind, and specifically, it is the Divine Mind alone which ensures infallibility. As science shuts itself up to physical evidence and only accepts testimony insofar as it accords with the physical evidence, the science can never lead man to an understanding of the Divine Mind. Faith rests upon testimony, and will do so whether the physical evidence accords with the testimony or not. Faith alone leads to certainty. Where there is an attempt to mix evidential findings with faith, it is pseudo-science, neither faith nor science, but a sui generis which leads to "probable certainties" or "certain probabilities" depending on the specific mixture being applied. The fact is that neither can bring us to "the word of God." Faith given by God as He blesses the ministry of the church holding forth the word of life is the only way of attaining to certainty.


----------



## timmopussycat (Oct 12, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > It is for that reason I and others do not like to apply the term science to textual criticism.
> ...



Actually anything leading only to probable conclusions is not a science, by definition. Even if some text critics misidentify their discipline, we should not.



armourbearer said:


> Matter was created to be interpreted by mind, and specifically, it is the Divine Mind alone which ensures infallibility. As science shuts itself up to physical evidence and only accepts testimony insofar as it accords with the physical evidence, the science can never lead man to an understanding of the Divine Mind.



The work of the evangelical textual critics is not aiming at gaining an understanding of the divine mind's intent by science, but gaining the most probable understanding of exactly what the Divine Mind has told us through the inspired authors of the NT. 



armourbearer said:


> Faith rests upon testimony, and will do so whether the physical evidence accords with the testimony or not. Faith alone leads to certainty. Where there is an attempt to mix evidential findings with faith, it is pseudo-science, neither faith nor science, but a sui generis which leads to "probable certainties" or "certain probabilities" depending on the specific mixture being applied. The fact is that neither can bring us to "the word of God."



When Byzantine priority text critics analyze the variants within that tradition, they use largely the same criteria as those of the CT persuasion employ when they estimate the relative probabilities across all textual variants. So would you say the Byzantine priority folk are also using a procedure which "cannot bring us to the word of God?" 




armourbearer said:


> Faith given by God as He blesses the ministry of the church holding forth the word of life is the only way of attaining to certainty.



Agreed, but that's not what is in question here. As previously noted, the second purpose of textual criticism is to demonstrate the resonableness of holding to Scripture (as commanded by 1 Pt 3:15), it is not to bring anyone to the certainty of faith.


----------



## MW (Oct 12, 2012)

timmopussycat said:


> Actually anything leading only to probable conclusions is not a science, by definition. Even if some text critics misidentify their discipline, we should not.



You must be equivocating on the word "science." In the modern sense of the term, it refers to the means of pursuing knowledge, as in "the scientific method." This is achieved by an induction of particulars leading to general conclusions, and induction only renders a conclusion probable to a greater or less extent; so the concept of science in and of itself is restricted to probabilities. The only way this can be avoided is to defer to the older, classical use of the term, which speaks of science as a body of reliable knowledge; but this is not the way the term is used when a specific discipline is called a "science."


----------



## MW (Oct 12, 2012)

timmopussycat said:


> When Byzantine priority text critics analyze the variants within that tradition, they use largely the same criteria as those of the CT persuasion employ when they estimate the relative probabilities across all textual variants. So would you say the Byzantine priority folk are also using a procedure which "cannot bring us to the word of God?"



Yes; but again, I am thankful for their scientific endeavours. As with archaeology, I am thankful when the historicity of the Bible is shown to have evidence in its favour, but my acceptance of its historicity does not depend on the archaeology, but on faith in the word of God.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Oct 12, 2012)

Greetings:

Jon: They are not verse differences, but word differences.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## timmopussycat (Oct 13, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > Actually anything leading only to probable conclusions is not a science, by definition. Even if some text critics misidentify their discipline, we should not.
> ...



I am not equivocating at all: although my training was primarily in arts, I did take a few science courses and one of the few things I got out of them was the distinction between knowledge verifiable or falsifiable by repeated experiment and knowledge not so verifiable. To quote Merrriam Webster, (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientific method) scientific method is the "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses." This was expanded in an online introduction to the topic (http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html) which claimed that
"The scientific method has four steps: 
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. 
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. 
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments." 

Which is essentially what I have said. The corollaries are simple. If predictions cannot be verified or falsified by repeated experiment the scientific method is not being followed. Whatever discipline cannot use repeated experiments to verify or falsify conclusions cannot properly be called a science. Since textual criticism does not work on this basis it cannot properly be called a science.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 13, 2012)

timmopussycat said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > timmopussycat said:
> ...



Tim,

Textual criticism and science are similar in that both use induction to arrive at a probability. Science, as with any empirical method, can at best give a _moral certainty,_ or probability without a reasonable doubt. 

Empirical reasoning never leads to absolute certainty. In areas of absolute certainty, we need a Word from God.

I think this is what is being gotten at when textual criticism is referred to as a science.


----------



## timmopussycat (Oct 13, 2012)

TylerRay said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...



You are missing the point. While both methods use induction, the difference is the scientific method uses repeated experiments to verify its results. When results can be verified our confidence in such conclusions goes beyond both probability or moral certainty. To use an extremely simple example: water either freezes at 0 Celsius or it freezes at some other temperature. Performing the experiment of reducing the room temperature and finding out where water freezes settles the question. When we perform and repeat the experiment we don't get a probable answer that we can believe in with moral certainty, we get an answer we know is correct to the limits of our measuring equipment, provided our analysis of the situation has taken all relevant factors into account. 

Now there have been occasions where scientific conclusions have been challenged and superseded by later discoveries as Newton was by Einstein, but what often happens (and what happened in this case) is that the Einstein does not prove Newton's work incorrect but answers questions that were left ambiguous by Newton. In other occasions, what appeared to be proven scientific truth has been shown untenable because the initial experiments did not take all relevant factors into account. 



TylerRay said:


> Empirical reasoning never leads to absolute certainty. In areas of absolute certainty, we need a Word from God.




As armourbearer pointed out neither the necessary textual criticism of the Byzantine text type variations, nor that of the CT family will lead to absolute certainty when deciding which text variant is correct in particular cases. But our confidence is not in the fact that we can put forward a biblical text that is demonstrably identical to the autograph. Our confidence rests in Christ and has its source in the Holy Ghost. 

Although we use the principles of textual criticism to determine the probabilities of the variants, what often is forgotten in these discussions is the tremendous unity in the extant texts. Where there is no (significant i.e., obvious spelling error and similar) variant we can have at least moral certainty that what we have matches the autographa. And even when variants are present, the comforting fact is that, despite all the variants, no Christian doctrine is rendered unprovable by particular variant choice.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 13, 2012)

timmopussycat said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > timmopussycat said:
> ...



Your entire response was equivocation. You answered precisely as Matthew had argued. Slow down and pay attention so as to respect what another has written.

Carefully again:




armourbearer said:


> *You must be equivocating on the word "science." In the modern sense of the term, it refers to the means of pursuing knowledge, as in "the scientific method." This is achieved by an induction of particulars leading to general conclusions*, and induction only renders a conclusion probable to a greater or less extent; so the concept of science in and of itself is restricted to probabilities.


So, in your response, what do you do?

You provide a *modern* definition of the word science and talk about your limited understanding of the scientific method, which, in fact, makes Matthew's point perfectly.

Again, carefully read the rest of what Matthew wrote:



> The only way this can be avoided is to defer to the older, classical use of the term, which speaks of science as a body of reliable knowledge; but this is not the way the term is used when a specific discipline is called a "science."



From Webster's 1828 Dictionary:



> Science
> 
> n. [L. scientia, from scio, to know.]
> 
> ...



In conclusion, one does not need to agree with Matthew's overall conclusions but his use of the term "science" has a much longer pedigree than modern usage that restricts the usage to that which can be verified by the modern scientific method. Put another way, many naturalists assume that any discipline that does not lend itself to the "scientific method" is not science but many scientists and practitioners of other disciplines of knowledge have refused to cede the ground to this baseless assertion.

In fact, looking at a modern Merriam-Webster definition, your assertion does not even hold up. The notion of science being strictly limited to that which is knowable by the scientific method clearly does not cover the entire semantic range of the word.


> 1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
> 2
> a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>
> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
> ...


----------



## MW (Oct 14, 2012)

Once again, Tim, I have agree with what you are saying even though you make a point of presenting what you are saying as if it is in opposition to what I said. How is that? If you would like to have edifying discussion where the aim is to come to points of agreement, I am more than happy to enter into discussion with you; if not, you will have to find somebody else with whom to enter into combat.


----------



## sevenzedek (Oct 14, 2012)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> Jon: They are not verse differences, but word differences.
> 
> ...



I recognize that. My comment was meant to point to the pervasiveness of the differences. When I consider that there are nearly as many word differences as there are verses, the pervasiveness of the differences becomes alarming. Do you think this is an incorrect way of looking at the issue?


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Oct 15, 2012)

Hi Jon:

I am sorry that I misunderstood your point. Yes, I think that is a valid thing to say: That there are more differences than verses in the New Testament indicates that we have at least one difference per verse - a rather significant difference between texts.

Blessings in Jesus,

Rob


sevenzedek said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> > Greetings:
> ...


----------



## timmopussycat (Oct 15, 2012)

Semper Fidelis said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...



Rich

You and Matthew must be using the word "equivocation" in a different sense from the way in which I was taught to use it. I am using it in the technical sense of making illegitimate use of ambiguous words within a single syllogism. (That's how my logic text defines it.) And by that definition I was not equivocating. I was advocating that the church not apply the term "science" to textual criticism because it does not fit within the modern definition of the word.

Although I am aware of the longstanding debate over what is or is not a science, I've tried to make it as obvious as possible that I think the "hard science" view of the matter is correct. And the reason I think that maintaining the distinction between sciences that can prove their conclusions by verifiable experiment and disciplines which cannot do so is important is that the distinction is a great aid to clear thinking in general, and particularly when talking about the relative weight we should place on conclusions drawn from textual criticism. If we do not accept the distinction and call textual criticism a science, we ourselves are both equivocating and contributing to the unstable mix of faith and science that Matthew seems to see as prevalent in the church today. (While I disagree with Matthew's assertion that evangelical text critics and translators are the source of this confusion, I do affirm that some confusion on the matter exists.) 

In fact C. S. Lewis, in his article Christian Apologetics, unwittingly gives an example of how some of this confusion comes about. He discovered that the "uneducated Englishman" (a term for which we could substitute "many Christian layfolk") . . . has a distrust (very rational in the state of his knowledge) of ancient texts. [So, how asks an objector, does Lewis know the texts are accurate?] . . . one cannot, then and there, start teaching the whole science of textual criticism. But then their real religion (i.e. faith in science) has come to my aid. The assurance that there is a science called Textual Criticism and that its results, . . . are generally accepted will usually be received without objection."

Although the older definition of the word "science" goes back to Aristotle, I suggest that most people today do not know the older definition and when they think of "a science" they are thinking of a discipline in which claimed facts are proven or falsified, not one in which the conclusions are only probable. As evidence, remember how widely the conclusions promoted by "global warming" advocates of a few years back were promoted as "facts" (at least until the problems with their evidence gathering became better known.)

If we call textual criticism a science, I suggest that most moderns will regard its conclusions in the same way that they regard those of say physics i.e., not as confidently held probabilities, or moral certainties, but as proven facts, which will not be the correct way to assess those conclusions. Let's not have any more confusion than we can help.


----------



## timmopussycat (Oct 15, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> Once again, Tim, I have agree with what you are saying even though you make a point of presenting what you are saying as if it is in opposition to what I said. How is that? If you would like to have edifying discussion where the aim is to come to points of agreement, I am more than happy to enter into discussion with you; if not, you will have to find somebody else with whom to enter into combat.



If you reread my post 4 you will see that my initial disagreement was over whether all evangelical bible translators and text critics could be fairly charged with particular offenses. The subsidiary disagreement seems to have arisen because you used a different and probably broader definition of equivocate than I did.


----------



## Jeff Burns (Oct 15, 2012)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> Jeff: Check out Dr. Jack Moorman's book, _8000 Differences between the NA and TR_.



Thanks for the reference. Won't be able to order any books for the time being, but did find this debate helpful

James White v. Jack Moorman on the KJV


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 15, 2012)

timmopussycat said:


> You and Matthew must be using the word "equivocation" in a different sense from the way in which I was taught to use it. I am using it in the technical sense of making illegitimate use of ambiguous words within a single syllogism. (That's how my logic text defines it.) And by that definition I was not equivocating.


But you were. Matthew had already defined how _he_ was using the word science and so it is inappropriate to then correct him and tell him that "science" is another thing and then describe the scientific method. In other words, if your point was to communicate to Matthew that you don't believe that one ought to use the word "science" more broadly any more then that's a debatable point but, instead, you corrected his use of the term not on the basis with which he (and all older and current dictionaries use it) but upon your limited definition. In other words, you were guilty of "...directing an opponent toward an unwarranted conclusion by making a word or phrase, employed in two different senses in an argument, appear to have the same meaning throughout." (this is how equivocation is defined in at least one sense of the term).

If anything, we need to hold fast to a broader definition of science even if it requires a bit of education as to how we are employing the term. Scientism has infected modern thinking to assume that the only legitimate grounds for knowledge is empirical verifiability. The historical and legal sciences utilize methods that differ from the scientific method and we can often help people to understand that the Resurrection may not be an empirically verifiable event but neither was the crossing of the Delware by George Washington. They are historical facts. Indeed, if every court case hung on the empirical repeatability of the crime committed then we would convict nobody of murder for every crime is a unique event. In other words, historical and legal sciences arrive at real knowledge but not by the same means.

I'm not against explaining my use of a term, which people have become accustomed to using for the natural and physical sciences but I'm willing to cede its use altogether.


----------

