Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
If a new text is discovered that opposes established doctrine, shouldn't we automatically assume that text is in error, not our doctrine?
Authorized (Mark Ward)
- Thread starter RamistThomist
- Start date
- Status
Ulster Fry
Puritan Board Freshman
Yes, the Reformation.
MyCrows
Puritan Board Sophomore
Weren't the issues surrounding the reformation due to the resulting translations themselves, and not the actual manuscript text? Latin Vulgate for example.
In other words, tradition and biased translation over actual doctrine in the ancient writings?
ZackF
Puritan Board Doctor
@RamistThomist about the OP, are you still nervous about this post?
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Senior
We all have to soak in this moment. A Book Review thread is the top thread of the week.
Ulster Fry
Puritan Board Freshman
Well, I'm not sure there is a neat separation as Erasmus was working from a collection of Greek manuscripts. Which is part of the problem for the TR onlyists; the only difference he is the sample size, but what was still being done was textual criticism.
But either way it still suffices to fulfil my criteria of a problem arising and then doctrines needing to be revised as a result of it. Another example not related to textual criticism would be the American revisions to the WCF. The problem that arose was political, and the doctrines were revised to match the new political environment. Obviously there's disagreement as to whether this was justified, but again it's an example in which a doctrine has been revised based on a new problem arising.
Ulster Fry
Puritan Board Freshman
That's what I would immediately assume, yes. But I would want to be able to demonstrate why we shouldn't trust the text in question, rather than just leave it at the level of assumption. I have no reason to believe such a text will arise in the first place that would cause significant issues, and such texts would likely appear obviously anomalous given the evidence which we do have.
The problem with the TR position, on the other hand, is that the evidence is stacked against it. Hence, they should revise their theory of preservation if they cannot provide the evidence to support it. That's the point I was making, I wasn't trying to call for a free-for-all, and apologise if I didn't make that clear.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
It has met my expectations.
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
The idea that a new discovery would completely upset the existing translations of the Bible is demonstrably false, because we have en existing case study: the Dead Sea Scrolls. Their publication actually reined in the tendency toward conjectural emendation in the scholarly world. In a few places, they demonstrated that there were Hebrew manuscripts behind Septuagint variants. But if you compare post-DSS English translations (ESV/CSB) with pre-DSS translations (which you can easily do thanks to those pesky marginal notations), the changes are minuscule and do not affect any doctrine. Its time to bury that spurious argument.
Some have mentioned being old earth, and I’ve always noticed that what one believes about interpretation of data surrounding the age of the earth is similar to this issue of the preservation of Scripture. One definitely in both cases begins with a presupposition about what the Scriptures teach about both. Debates about scholarship, validity of certain manuscripts, etc. are really not the deciding factor. It’s more fundamental than that.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
To a degree this is true. Evidence is still real, though. The evidence will impress itself on one's mind or not. If people ignore or dismiss overwhelming evidence, cognitive dissonance might be a factor.
We all have presuppositions. We still have to face evidence. The question is whether our presuppositions can accommodate the evidence.
Has anyone demonstrated this?
The difference is that one can much easier go from psalm 12 and proverbs 30 to a partial preservation view* then from Exodus 20 and genesis 1 to old earth
*There is still no excuse to remove or doubt Mark 16 and John 8 even if this is the correct view
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
But it's not an example of a new textual variant changing doctrine.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
So why bother noting them in translations intended for use by the general population?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Because people notice things. And if the church is unwilling to have these discussions, they will go to some weirdo youtuber to learn.
Ulster Fry
Puritan Board Freshman
'That isn't how this works; rather, new information appears that forces us to look at and possibly revise our doctrines'
That was my original statement, which was more general than that and in response to the supposition that people are nefariously running around looking for new information so that we can change everything. My point was that sometimes a tricky problem arises, and sometimes this leads to doctrines being reformulated.
An example that can be given is the fact that we do have question marks over the Mark 16 ending, the woman caught in adultery in John, and the Johannine comma. Focusing on the latter (the only one I do think is demonstrably not original), while there were already question marks over the Johannine comma, we have more reason to doubt it today than ever given our access to early manuscripts and its lack of support. If one believes the TR is the perfectly preserved text, then they will have to revise that view given that the Johannine comma is evidently not original. They can either wish away the evidence or revise their position.
Last edited:
Ulster Fry
Puritan Board Freshman
Johannine Comma - Wikipedia
MyCrows
Puritan Board Sophomore
Thanks for the link.
But it doesn't seem like the presence of the phrase poses a problem to the clear teaching of the doctrine of the trinity that we formulate from less contested parts of Scripture?
How would it's presence, or absence, drive us to re formulate the teaching?
But it doesn't seem like the presence of the phrase poses a problem to the clear teaching of the doctrine of the trinity that we formulate from less contested parts of Scripture?
How would it's presence, or absence, drive us to re formulate the teaching?
Ulster Fry
Puritan Board Freshman
Exactly, it doesn't change anything regarding our teaching of the Trinity.
The only problem it poses is to those who believe the TR is the perfectly preserved text, if the Johannine Comma is not original. Because then it would be an example of the very thing they wish to deny; that there are any textual errors in the TR and that textual criticism can contribute to our knowledge of the original text. Hence, the narrative that naughty people are trying to take verses out of our Bible, to introduce doubt, etc etc.
Ulster Fry
Puritan Board Freshman
Again, despite his faults, this is an area in which James White has been helpful.
CasualWestminsterEnjoyer
Puritan Board Senior
Are you calling James White a weirdo YouTuber? If so, no comment.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
No. Quite the opposite. By weirdo youtuber, I meant your average 17 year old atheist on the internet. I have huge problems with White, but I am on the same page with him on this topic. We commend White's work here.
MyCrows
Puritan Board Sophomore
Who's we? You have a mouse in your pocket?
MyCrows
Puritan Board Sophomore
Just kidding, I agree with you lol.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
I've stated multiple times above that the Church should have those discussions, even from the pulpit. That still doesn't justify noting them in translations intended for use by the general population. There was obviously a discussion during translation and that variant wasn't adopted as the preferred one, so why include it as a note? Why include some and not others? Why not note every variant (or at least note/admit how many there are) for every verse to show a willingness exists to recognize and discuss variants that have been discovered? Who gets to decide if a variant is "significant" enough to be included as a note?
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
Why not? What criteria do you use to make this judgment?
Again, why not? What's wrong with it?
My guess is that it's a numbers game. Only the most significant variants get a mention. If you have 500 manuscripts and 300 hundred say ABC and 195 say XYZ and only 5 say DEF, you're probably not going to bother listing DEF.
Probably space considerations.
The translators.
CasualWestminsterEnjoyer
Puritan Board Senior
In his hat, and it likes to cook.
Haven't you seen the movie?
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
I've asked above why they are included. RamistThomist answered that it shows the Church is willing to discuss variants. I didn't accept that as an answer because that willingness can be shown without noting variant. So I would first need a sufficient answer as to why variants should be included - answer my original "Why?" before asking me to answer your "Why not?"s if you will.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
