This simple democratization of manuscript evaluation was discussed above. It is not the best argument. If I ask my 84 students which New Deal program was involved in reforestation and conservation efforts and 81 tell me the FDIC that does not make that the right answer over the 3 who say "CCC."
Why keep it a secret? That's like we have something to hide.
Sure, and we can use this reasoning in favour of evangelical textual criticism - it's not 'new information', it's a return to biblical doctrine, as we get closer to the original text and get rid of later additions such as the Johannine Comma.
You say that like we would see it as a problem, and we don't.
This time James White won't be criticizing me as opposed to the Thomist and Platonist threads.
Not including it =/= keeping it a secret. Are the variants not noted being kept secret by that same reasoning?
So then you can!
But wasn't your original reason for leaving it out to protect your average pew member from anything that might cause them to doubt? That would be keeping it a secret, intending to keep information from your congregation for their own good (supposedly).
I was focusing more on the sentiment of this discovery, since it will reveal a lot. What do our TR brethren feel about this event which non-TR people rejoice over? Just another angle to look at things.
I'm not sure how the minister expositing the passage and explaining variants if need be is considered "keeping it a secret."
My question with all these discoveries is "Who decides?" I think it's clear I don't believe it should be a democratic decision since the truth is not always what is accepted by the majority - and truth is the goal of scholarship. Although I use a TR translation, I am not a "TR-guy." In my view, the Church must ultimately be involved in the process using their ordained authority to rule and to judge. That does not mean that they cannot (a) use the existing scholarship or (b) simply endorse an existing version. I use the version I use largely because it was once approved by a particular church. Again, why is the modern Church not doing so? If you want a new version that incorporates recently discovered variants (or acceptance of such), lay it out before your brethren in the assembly of the saints (which should include the Church's best scholars!). Though not written to address this specific situation, I think I Corinthians 6 is applicable.
Which church?
The discovery of these manuscripts are an objective event in church history. And I am not even talking about versions. Just the historical discovery. Do you need the church to help you assess a providential act? I do not think so but I guess you differ.
It isn't about the majority deciding what is true - nobody is making that argument. It's about whether the people in the pews can be trusted to have all the information or not. I think it's dangerous to try to hide it from them or argue that it would be better if they didn't. Which seemed to be your original position.
Not necessarily anyone. Mark Ward has some social media stuff too
The Church. Ideally a national church. If none exists in a nation, then a synod or presbytery. But I think it is the privilege and duty of the Church (rather than individuals or para-church organizations and publishers) to decide a matter of controversy involving the text of Scripture.
The text of Scripture is a public, objective fact. Maybe the church should decide it, but it’s already out in the open. If a church decided on Westcott Hirt, would you submit to that?
Westcott hirt? Was he hurt by some affliction?
I must have misunderstood your post. No, I do not need help acknowledging a historical discovery. Yes, I need the help of the Church to assess what has been discovered. Again, while not written to address this specific situation, I believe the principles of 2 Peter 1:20 apply to the discovery of texts purported to be inspired Scripture.
If that was what the particular church I communed with decided, yes.
Which text?
That depends which of my statements you are referring to. The RPCNA is a *particular church, not the Church - I try to use church/Church as it is used in the WCF (see 25.4 for example). [*perhaps technically not in the original meaning in the WCF but close enough in a land with no established church]
From my first post in this thread (#59) I have argued for the central role of preaching in explaining textual difficulties (archaic words, "false friends," variants). Nowhere have I endorsed hiding anything from anyone - I have even agreed with you that this is dangerous in #144.
All the ones that we have
In recent years I have seen some assert that "private interpretation" in 2 Pet. 1:20 means an interpretation that differs from that of the Church, and that one has no right to differ from the decisions of synods, from the confessions of the Church, etc.
