TR/KJV Viewpoint and NAPARC Churches?

[jwright82]

I wasn’t implying that the problem was Calvinism, that was just the vehicle in my case that brought me to purchase an ESV and be enamored with the “fact” that I was now in the know, and in possession of the latest scholarship.

The story I told doesn’t materially change the issues at hand, it is the issue at hand. The issue that you say needs to be handled with discernment and care is actually an issue that needs to go away, as soon as possible. Many people, like former me, weren't and aren’t struggling at all over having doubt placed on a passage of Scripture via a (breathtaking) footnote in their Bible that casts doubt on God’s word. That was and is a problem.

You say we don’t change doctrines based on people’s needs, but in reality we shouldn’t be trying to change doctrines at all. There will never, never be proof that any passage in the received text is wrong or shouldn’t be there, and certainly that no doctrine should be changed. The variants we have available to us in the TR were used wisely like commentators like Gill and Matthew Henry to implement nuance and color in places (kind of like an amplified effect). If that’s what you mean by textual criticism then that’s fine, although that description needs to be dropped, there’s no need for it, we’ve had that work from pastor commentators since the Reformation.

Your last sentence is incomprehensible to me, but it did make me smile. I don’t mean any of this personally, I hope you take it in the spirit of Christianly argument.

I can second the "dropping the description" thing. Since I've started studying this and people ask me about it, all I get is concerned faces by Christian's and a complete shutting down of listening to me try to explain the difference between higher and lower criticism. Textual criticism, it seems, is not the best word to use.
I'll have to come up with something else to explain what I'm doing, without trying to explain a whole subject to someone so concerned about me that it's over before it started.
As far as "brackets in Bible's" I certainly agree that practically speaking pew Bible's without them is a good solution, stop the problem before it starts. But at my Church everyone has their own Bible in physical form or on some kind of electronic device. So it would really only apply to visitors.
The majority of times I've ever heard these sorts of questions come up, this isn't universal only my experience, is in Sunday School or private conversations. Sure unbeliever's bring it up all the time but their easy to deal with, in my experience.
Jeri I'm glad you have taken so much comfort in the TR approach and thanks for your comments, always a blessing to hear from you. And maybe that's the appeal of the whole thing but like your "hick up" with your friend it seems that some people took the whole thing a step further (which you've haven't) and are trying to make it a Confessional issue, which I disagree with.
This thread has been enlightening to me because I naively thought it was a simple issue of practicality and what Church's were or weren't doing (and individuals). But it has brought up so many other real issues to the subject.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

One thing Izaak brought up that I think is very important is that critical theory work over the past years has resulted in average Christians using Bibles that have footnotes that say “the oldest and best manuscripts don’t contain this passage” etc.; to which average Christians, not knowing the issues, just think oh, ok. In my excitement at discovering Calvinism and coming to a more Reformed theology (and so having acquired an ESV, of course), I once informed a dear family member, who simply loved God and His Word, that “the story of the woman taken in adultery is probably not really in the original.” I was so proud to be in the know, so to speak, and to share this startling news with my dear loved one. I never even thought to ask our pastor about it- after all, it was the authoritative word of God I had a copy of, and it was the ESV, the cutting-edge Bible of the young, restless, and reformed (I say this sarcastically with a sigh at my ignorance, of course). Maybe, hopefully, many wise pastors speak to their people about these footnotes in their Bibles and the issues they raise.

Holding to the TR position now is a great comfort. I see that there’s no reason not
to hold to it (I’m reminded of evolution theory, and the steady stream of discoveries that in the end don’t disprove a young earth).

Jeri, I hope the friend was not upset. But you touch on something that I've been thinking about. What do pastors on any end of the textual debate do pastorally with cases such as a 90 yo grandmother who memorized, meditated, found comfort in, prayed, verses the pastor believes is not scripture? It raises third and second commandment issues so it surely is not a non moral issue. Sure; sin of infirmity; but you don't leave someone in sin of any kind. If the end of Mark 16 or the Pericope Adulterae is not scripture it is a moral question when it comes to use in worship. This is not a gotcha for one side; you can create cases from other perspectives I'm sure. Do you instruct the grandma, risking distress or leave her be in her sin of infirmity? The textual debate is not just ivory tower; it can cause real distress and dissent and has a moral component as said.

I think both of these posts put their finger on something important, and it is actually part of what I have been trying to distinguish throughout this discussion.

I agree that this is pastoral.

A pastor should not casually announce to a congregation, “Well, scholars tell us this probably isn't Scripture,” merely because the preferred reading of a critical edition goes one way. Jeri's experience is a good example of how someone can learn just enough about textual criticism to speak with far more certainty than the evidence warrants. And Chris is right that questions about whether a passage is Scripture have implications for preaching, worship, meditation, and conscience.

But I think we need to distinguish several things that continue to get collapsed.

There is a difference between the methodology used by the editors of a critical edition to select their preferred reading and the broader question of what manuscript evidence the Church may legitimately consider.

I have never argued that because NA28 prints a reading, the Church should say, “The scholars have voted. Case closed.”

Quite the opposite.

Take the Pericope Adulterae or the longer ending of Mark. It is perfectly legitimate to ask whether the mere absence of those passages from some very early manuscripts outweighs their broader history in the manuscript tradition, their ecclesiastical use, patristic evidence, internal considerations, and their consonance with the rest of Scripture.

A pastor can look at the evidence and conclude, quite responsibly, that an editorial methodology has placed too much weight on the age of particular witnesses.

That is a textual judgment the Church can make.

But consider a very different case, Revelation 22:19.

There we have a TR reading, “book of life,” whose history appears to involve Erasmus supplying Greek from Latin because his Greek manuscript lacked the end of Revelation. The surviving pre-Erasmian Greek manuscript tradition reads “tree of life.” Erasmus' dependence upon Latin for these final verses and the resulting relationship of “book of life” to the Latin textual tradition are well established.

Why should the Church be forbidden even to ask whether “tree of life” is the original Greek reading?

That is where I part company with any account of preservation that effectively says the editorial work represented by the TR marks the end of legitimate inquiry.

In one case I may conclude that broad ecclesiastical and manuscript reception provides good reason to retain a passage despite its absence from certain earlier witnesses.

In another case I may conclude that a sixteenth-century editorial emendation from Latin should yield to the surviving Greek evidence.

There is nothing inconsistent about that.

It simply means that I am not applying a mechanical rule such as:

“Older is always better.”

or:

“Received in the TR is always better.”

The Church should be doing theology and exegesis while evaluating historical evidence.

That is also why I agree with the pastoral concern but not with the idea that the solution is to conceal the existence of variants.

Not every believer needs a seminar on every variation unit in the apparatus. Good pastoral judgment means knowing what needs to be explained, when it needs to be explained, and at what level.

We do the same thing everywhere else.

I would not hand a new Christian a collection of second-century Gnostic writings and say, “Here are some other early Christianities. Figure it out.”

Nor would I hide their existence and pretend the Church has never had to distinguish apostolic Christianity from later counterfeits.

Even the history of the canon is messier than a simplistic account would suggest. The Shepherd of Hermas was enormously popular, appears alongside the New Testament in Codex Sinaiticus, and was regarded very highly, even as Scripture by some early Christians. Yet the Church ultimately recognized that it was not apostolic Scripture.

Anyone who has actually read much of Hermas can rather quickly perceive that one of these things is not like the others.

That is not because God failed to preserve or identify his Word until the Church finally took a vote. It is because the Church, guided by the Spirit through the Word already given, was capable of distinguishing what belonged to the apostolic deposit from what did not.

I think something analogous applies to textual questions, although obviously at a much smaller level.

We are not choosing between competing New Testaments.

We are generally dealing with questions inside an already received Gospel or Epistle:

Is this clause original?

Does this passage belong here?

Is the reading “book” or “tree”?

Which word best accounts for the manuscript evidence?

And the Church is not approaching those questions theologically naked.

We already have Genesis through Revelation. We already possess the biblical theology, Christology, soteriology, covenant theology, grammar, syntax, canonical patterns, and analogy of faith that provide a framework within which textual judgments can be evaluated.

That is why I think Chris is right that pastoral responsibility attaches to these questions, but I would be hesitant to characterize a 90-year-old grandmother as simply persisting in “sin” because she has prayed or meditated upon a passage her pastor happens to regard as textually doubtful.

A pastor who concludes that the Pericope Adulterae is not original has a responsibility to teach carefully. He also has a responsibility not to pretend that his textual judgment possesses the certainty of inspiration.

That cuts both ways.

A pastor who receives the passage should not tell his congregation that anyone who questions it denies providential preservation.

A pastor who rejects it should not swagger into the pulpit announcing that “scholarship has proved this isn't in the Bible.”

Both attitudes confuse a ministerial judgment with divine certainty.

What I would like to avoid are the two opposite pastoral failures.

One is the careless critical approach that says, “The oldest manuscripts omit it, scholars have decided, move along.”

The other is a rigid preservation account that says, “This reading appears in our received printed text, therefore entertaining contrary Greek evidence itself undermines confidence in Providence.”

Both can eventually damage people.

The first can make a believer think his Bible is perpetually being reconstructed by scholars.

The second can give him a brittle confidence that depends upon a highly specific historical theory. Then, if he eventually discovers that Erasmus occasionally lacked Greek evidence, that TR editions differ, that Westminster divines knew other manuscript readings, or that the Byzantine tradition sometimes differs from the TR, his supposedly simple certainty can be badly shaken.

I would much rather give people a sturdier confidence.

God has preserved his Word.

The manuscript tradition overwhelmingly bears witness to that fact.

There are some localized places where copies differ.

The Church has always had to exercise judgment about such things.

Some modern critical methodologies deserve criticism.

Some traditional readings deserve strong presumptive weight because of their manuscript and ecclesiastical history.

And occasionally the historical evidence may give us good reason to correct a reading that entered a printed edition through ordinary human editorial activity.

None of that means we are waiting for archaeologists to tell us whether we have Christianity.

It means the Church continues to act ministerially with the evidence God in his Providence has actually given it.

So I very much agree that pastors need to handle this carefully. Where I differ is that I do not think pastoral care requires either blind confidence in modern textual committees or an all-or-nothing account of the TR.

It requires something harder and, I think, more Reformed: informed, theological, ecclesiastical judgment exercised with humility and confidence in the Word God has unquestionably preserved.

 

[De Jager]

I have learned many things through this thread and my subsequent research. I will first admit that some of my earlier posts made certain claims and assumptions that were uninformed. Thanks to all who patiently explained these things. I have learned the following things:

-Don't use a phrase like "CT methodology" and equate that with modern versions like the ESV or NIV. It is far better to use descriptive language like "a translation based on an eclectic Greek text".

'-Instead of using the phrase "textus receptus" perhaps it is better to use descriptive language such as "a translation based on the traditional greek text"

'-Modern versions based on the eclectic text do not necessarily follow the eclectic text exactly; the translators can and choose to depart from these

'-The idea of comparing manuscripts against one another is not something that started in the 1800s

And so on. Despite all of these things, I have some remaining concerns, and I'm starting to refine my own positions.

1. I think its fair to say that the "textual criticism" performed in the 1500s by guys like Erasmus and Beza is not exactly equivalent to the textual criticism practiced in the 1800s and 1900s in its scope. So I don't think that a "received text" position can be easily dismissed by saying, in essence "textual criticism is old and there was no single manuscript that forms the basis of all Bibles in the 1500s".

2. I question the need of the composition of these modern eclectic texts, the basis of which forms most modern Bible versions. People who are on the "CT" side of the debate say "we have always had the Bible", and at the same time "we should review manuscript evidence that comes up". There is considerable tension in these two statements. If we had the Bible before 1800, and it was the preserved Word of God, then to me this negates the need to parse through thousands of manuscripts and "manufacture" a composite, eclectic text based upon the readings that we think are original, based upon our own set of rules that we have devised. I question the value of this entire enterprise. I would love for someone to demonstrate to me how this modern enterprise has helped the church. Note, I'm not saying don't look through the manuscripts. We could look through the manuscripts and say "wow, it's amazing, these are all 99% the same as the Bible we already had! What wonderful evidence that God has preserved his word!" That's one thing. It's entirely another to say "now that we have all these extra manuscripts, let's collate all this information and then as a group of men decide which parts of each are authentical to come up with a composite text which we are more sure actually represents the original".

3. I am not against all forms of "textual criticism". We confess that the scribes were not perfect and they made errors. Errors, if they can be proven to be errors, should be corrected. HOWEVER; there should be an extremely high bar for determining something to be erroneous. I think it is dangerous to make assumptions which give weight to certain readings just because they are shorter, or any other reason that involves speculation, because at the end of the day, does anyone really know why any particular textual variant exists in any particular manuscript?

4. Regarding versions that bracket certain passages; I have a big problem with this. I concede the questions surrounding some of these passages go back farther than the modern textual critical projects. Even guys like Calvin were aware of them. And yet, if you look at the Bibles from back then, did the publishers do this? Maybe so, maybe not, but I'm not for it. It seems that by doing so, the publishers have de facto created a category in scripture of "probably not scripture but we'll publish it anyways". I'm not saying this is the intention - but this is how I read it and I don't think I'm off in doing so. And as soon as you start doing something like that, you introduce the question I was asking earlier - if they can do this for these passages, why not for any passage? And how long until that happens? You can dismiss these questions as far-fetched or fanciful but they logically follow from the practice.

5. If you make use of footnotes like "Masoretic text reads ___" or "Septuagint says ____" you are more advanced than 99% of laypeople, and I say that with certainty even though I have not done any kind of study. The average lay person is not called to be a textual critic or to delve into that field. To those who say otherwise, I would love for you to prove to me, from the scriptures, that the average Christian should be engaged in this kind of thing. Before being accused of being like a Romanist (again), I would like to point out that I'm not saying this information should be unavailable, or that people should be burned at the stake for providing it. I'm saying that footnotes giving the conclusions of textual critics are not pastorally helpful to the vast majority of people, and I would say that it is more likely that they will hurt someone's faith than help. The vast majority of people are not equipped to handle such information.

Feel free to comment and correct where necessary. I appreciate your time, and succinctness if possible.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

4. Regarding versions that bracket certain passages; I have a big problem with this. I concede the questions surrounding some of these passages go back farther than the modern textual critical projects. Even guys like Calvin were aware of them. And yet, if you look at the Bibles from back then, did the publishers do this? Maybe so, maybe not, but I'm not for it. It seems that by doing so, the publishers have de facto created a category in scripture of "probably not scripture but we'll publish it anyways". I'm not saying this is the intention - but this is how I read it and I don't think I'm off in doing so. And as soon as you start doing something like that, you introduce the question I was asking earlier - if they can do this for these passages, why not for any passage? And how long until that happens? You can dismiss these questions as far-fetched or fanciful but they logically follow from the practice.

5. If you make use of footnotes like "Masoretic text reads ___" or "Septuagint says ____" you are more advanced than 99% of laypeople, and I say that with certainty even though I have not done any kind of study. The average lay person is not called to be a textual critic or to delve into that field. To those who say otherwise, I would love for you to prove to me, from the scriptures, that the average Christian should be engaged in this kind of thing. Before being accused of being like a Romanist (again), I would like to point out that I'm not saying this information should be unavailable, or that people should be burned at the stake for providing it. I'm saying that footnotes giving the conclusions of textual critics are not pastorally helpful to the vast majority of people, and I would say that it is more likely that they will hurt someone's faith than help. The vast majority of people are not equipped to handle such information.

this was what I found interesting in AI stressing that both Walton ('godfather' of critical apparatus) and Owen would be horrified at the bible industry that prints these apparatus or "not in" messages in regular bibles. See previous, https://puritanboard.com/threads/tr-KJV-viewpoint-and-naparc-churches.118719/page-10#post-1423949.

 

[jwright82]

I have learned many things through this thread and my subsequent research. I will first admit that some of my earlier posts made certain claims and assumptions that were uninformed. Thanks to all who patiently explained these things. I have learned the following things:

-Don't use a phrase like "CT methodology" and equate that with modern versions like the ESV or NIV. It is far better to use descriptive language like "a translation based on an eclectic Greek text".

'-Instead of using the phrase "textus receptus" perhaps it is better to use descriptive language such as "a translation based on the traditional greek text"

'-Modern versions based on the eclectic text do not necessarily follow the eclectic text exactly; the translators can and choose to depart from these

'-The idea of comparing manuscripts against one another is not something that started in the 1800s

And so on. Despite all of these things, I have some remaining concerns, and I'm starting to refine my own positions.

1. I think its fair to say that the "textual criticism" performed in the 1500s by guys like Erasmus and Beza is not exactly equivalent to the textual criticism practiced in the 1800s and 1900s in its scope. So I don't think that a "received text" position can be easily dismissed by saying, in essence "textual criticism is old and there was no single manuscript that forms the basis of all Bibles in the 1500s".

2. I question the need of the composition of these modern eclectic texts, the basis of which forms most modern Bible versions. People who are on the "CT" side of the debate say "we have always had the Bible", and at the same time "we should review manuscript evidence that comes up". There is considerable tension in these two statements. If we had the Bible before 1800, and it was the preserved Word of God, then to me this negates the need to parse through thousands of manuscripts and "manufacture" a composite, eclectic text based upon the readings that we think are original, based upon our own set of rules that we have devised. I question the value of this entire enterprise. I would love for someone to demonstrate to me how this modern enterprise has helped the church. Note, I'm not saying don't look through the manuscripts. We could look through the manuscripts and say "wow, it's amazing, these are all 99% the same as the Bible we already had! What wonderful evidence that God has preserved his word!" That's one thing. It's entirely another to say "now that we have all these extra manuscripts, let's collate all this information and then as a group of men decide which parts of each are authentical to come up with a composite text which we are more sure actually represents the original".

3. I am not against all forms of "textual criticism". We confess that the scribes were not perfect and they made errors. Errors, if they can be proven to be errors, should be corrected. HOWEVER; there should be an extremely high bar for determining something to be erroneous. I think it is dangerous to make assumptions which give weight to certain readings just because they are shorter, or any other reason that involves speculation, because at the end of the day, does anyone really know why any particular textual variant exists in any particular manuscript?

4. Regarding versions that bracket certain passages; I have a big problem with this. I concede the questions surrounding some of these passages go back farther than the modern textual critical projects. Even guys like Calvin were aware of them. And yet, if you look at the Bibles from back then, did the publishers do this? Maybe so, maybe not, but I'm not for it. It seems that by doing so, the publishers have de facto created a category in scripture of "probably not scripture but we'll publish it anyways". I'm not saying this is the intention - but this is how I read it and I don't think I'm off in doing so. And as soon as you start doing something like that, you introduce the question I was asking earlier - if they can do this for these passages, why not for any passage? And how long until that happens? You can dismiss these questions as far-fetched or fanciful but they logically follow from the practice.

5. If you make use of footnotes like "Masoretic text reads ___" or "Septuagint says ____" you are more advanced than 99% of laypeople, and I say that with certainty even though I have not done any kind of study. The average lay person is not called to be a textual critic or to delve into that field. To those who say otherwise, I would love for you to prove to me, from the scriptures, that the average Christian should be engaged in this kind of thing. Before being accused of being like a Romanist (again), I would like to point out that I'm not saying this information should be unavailable, or that people should be burned at the stake for providing it. I'm saying that footnotes giving the conclusions of textual critics are not pastorally helpful to the vast majority of people, and I would say that it is more likely that they will hurt someone's faith than help. The vast majority of people are not equipped to handle such information.

Feel free to comment and correct where necessary. I appreciate your time, and succinctness if possible.

Well I only have a few minutes to reply but I can check later to reply. I still don't really know what your concern is. The simple answer to your question is find a Bible that you prefer and read that (one without the brackets).
But I still don't think you're describing the situation realistically (how it normally goes). I'm unaware of the editor's behaving like that. This also borders on a mathematical impossibility but who knows.
Your insistence on a "in the past we thought this now one discovery changes all that by a show of hands by men, so now we're really, really sure we have the Word Of God". That's just not how it works. Those kind of hypothetical thought experiments lose their value once they encroach on actual reality.
I'm aware of instances of this happening but no amount of isolated cases are going to change what happens the majority of the time.
So what's your solution to this problem? You've said an awful lot about the problem but offered no solutions.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I had a good chat with the visiting minister on this subject today. He was not obviously "TR" or "CT" and helped me understand some of the nuances. I apologize to anyone for any tone or content of my posts that were in any way insulting or inappropriate. I appreciate the answers I've been given amd the knowledge of the posters here. I will try to be more accurate in my terminology.

I have learned many things through this thread and my subsequent research. I will first admit that some of my earlier posts made certain claims and assumptions that were uninformed. Thanks to all who patiently explained these things. I have learned the following things:

-Don't use a phrase like "CT methodology" and equate that with modern versions like the ESV or NIV. It is far better to use descriptive language like "a translation based on an eclectic Greek text".

'-Instead of using the phrase "textus receptus" perhaps it is better to use descriptive language such as "a translation based on the traditional greek text"

'-Modern versions based on the eclectic text do not necessarily follow the eclectic text exactly; the translators can and choose to depart from these

'-The idea of comparing manuscripts against one another is not something that started in the 1800s

And so on. Despite all of these things, I have some remaining concerns, and I'm starting to refine my own positions.

1. I think its fair to say that the "textual criticism" performed in the 1500s by guys like Erasmus and Beza is not exactly equivalent to the textual criticism practiced in the 1800s and 1900s in its scope. So I don't think that a "received text" position can be easily dismissed by saying, in essence "textual criticism is old and there was no single manuscript that forms the basis of all Bibles in the 1500s".

2. I question the need of the composition of these modern eclectic texts, the basis of which forms most modern Bible versions. People who are on the "CT" side of the debate say "we have always had the Bible", and at the same time "we should review manuscript evidence that comes up". There is considerable tension in these two statements. If we had the Bible before 1800, and it was the preserved Word of God, then to me this negates the need to parse through thousands of manuscripts and "manufacture" a composite, eclectic text based upon the readings that we think are original, based upon our own set of rules that we have devised. I question the value of this entire enterprise. I would love for someone to demonstrate to me how this modern enterprise has helped the church. Note, I'm not saying don't look through the manuscripts. We could look through the manuscripts and say "wow, it's amazing, these are all 99% the same as the Bible we already had! What wonderful evidence that God has preserved his word!" That's one thing. It's entirely another to say "now that we have all these extra manuscripts, let's collate all this information and then as a group of men decide which parts of each are authentical to come up with a composite text which we are more sure actually represents the original".

3. I am not against all forms of "textual criticism". We confess that the scribes were not perfect and they made errors. Errors, if they can be proven to be errors, should be corrected. HOWEVER; there should be an extremely high bar for determining something to be erroneous. I think it is dangerous to make assumptions which give weight to certain readings just because they are shorter, or any other reason that involves speculation, because at the end of the day, does anyone really know why any particular textual variant exists in any particular manuscript?

4. Regarding versions that bracket certain passages; I have a big problem with this. I concede the questions surrounding some of these passages go back farther than the modern textual critical projects. Even guys like Calvin were aware of them. And yet, if you look at the Bibles from back then, did the publishers do this? Maybe so, maybe not, but I'm not for it. It seems that by doing so, the publishers have de facto created a category in scripture of "probably not scripture but we'll publish it anyways". I'm not saying this is the intention - but this is how I read it and I don't think I'm off in doing so. And as soon as you start doing something like that, you introduce the question I was asking earlier - if they can do this for these passages, why not for any passage? And how long until that happens? You can dismiss these questions as far-fetched or fanciful but they logically follow from the practice.

5. If you make use of footnotes like "Masoretic text reads ___" or "Septuagint says ____" you are more advanced than 99% of laypeople, and I say that with certainty even though I have not done any kind of study. The average lay person is not called to be a textual critic or to delve into that field. To those who say otherwise, I would love for you to prove to me, from the scriptures, that the average Christian should be engaged in this kind of thing. Before being accused of being like a Romanist (again), I would like to point out that I'm not saying this information should be unavailable, or that people should be burned at the stake for providing it. I'm saying that footnotes giving the conclusions of textual critics are not pastorally helpful to the vast majority of people, and I would say that it is more likely that they will hurt someone's faith than help. The vast majority of people are not equipped to handle such information.

Feel free to comment and correct where necessary. I appreciate your time, and succinctness if possible.

I appreciate your earlier statement:

I apologize to anyone for any tone or content...

And I appreciate your acknowledgement that some previous assumptions were uninformed.

But this is where I continue to struggle with your posts. You repeatedly say that you are learning and trying not to offend, yet almost immediately make very confident pronouncements about a subject you are also admitting you do not understand very well.

A few examples:

there is considerable tension in these two statements

There isn't. “We possess the Bible” and “we may examine additional manuscript evidence concerning a local variant” are perfectly compatible. The Church possessed the Bible before Erasmus, yet Erasmus still compared manuscripts. Possession of Scripture never meant every local textual question had been permanently adjudicated.

manufacture a composite, eclectic text

“Manufacture” is loaded language. Every printed Greek New Testament assembled from multiple witnesses involves editorial judgment, including Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and ultimately Scrivener. The question is whether those judgments are sound, not whether one side “manufactures” Scripture and the other does not.

there should be an extremely high bar

I largely agree. A well-established reading should not be discarded casually. But that does not establish that the TR reading must always win, particularly where the TR itself reflects an editorial emendation or differs from the broader Greek manuscript tradition.

just because they are shorter

Again, this seriously mischaracterizes the process. “Shorter is better” is not some universal rule by which modern editors mechanically choose readings. Internal and external evidence are evaluated together, and a minister consulting an apparatus is not required to accept the editors' conclusion anyway.

why not for any passage?

Because evidence is particular. The unusual textual history of John 7:53-8:11 does not create uncertainty about Romans 8. A question about one variation unit does not logically place every passage of Scripture into an equally provisional condition.

And finally:

I say that with certainty even though I have not done any kind of study

This, frankly, summarizes my concern better than anything I could write.

You are asserting something “with certainty” while simultaneously admitting that you have done no study to establish it.

That is the problem I have been trying to identify. For someone who quite properly says he still has much to learn, you repeatedly move very quickly from learning a few facts to confidently explaining what textual critics are doing, what the Reformers were doing, what ordinary Christians can handle, and what effects textual notes will have upon their faith.

I do not think you are trying to be offensive. But humility about one's level of knowledge has to affect more than the introductory disclaimer. It also ought to produce considerably more caution about the assertions that follow.

Most importantly, you are still construing the entire discussion through a binary that several people have repeatedly told you is false: either receive a settled traditional text or adopt the methodology and conclusions of modern eclectic criticism.

Those are not the only choices.

I may give enormous weight to ecclesiastical use and the Byzantine tradition, reject particular modern textual canons, distrust some editorial conclusions, receive the Pericope Adulterae and Mark's longer ending, and still believe that the Church may examine a Greek manuscript Erasmus never possessed.

That does not make me a devotee of “CT methodology.”

It makes me someone who believes the Church may continue doing what Reformed ministers and scholars have long done: examine the Hebrew and Greek witnesses God has preserved and make fallible, ministerial judgments about the relatively few places where those witnesses differ.

Until that distinction is understood, I think you are going to continue criticizing a position that several of us are not actually holding.

 

[Ploutos]

I wasn’t implying that the problem was Calvinism, that was just the vehicle in my case that brought me to purchase an ESV and be enamored with the “fact” that I was now in the know, and in possession of the latest scholarship.

The story I told doesn’t materially change the issues at hand, it is the issue at hand. The issue that you say needs to be handled with discernment and care is actually an issue that needs to go away, as soon as possible. Many people, like former me, weren't and aren’t struggling at all over having doubt placed on a passage of Scripture via a (breathtaking) footnote in their Bible that casts doubt on God’s word. That was and is a problem.

You say we don’t change doctrines based on people’s needs, but in reality we shouldn’t be trying to change doctrines at all. There will never, never be proof that any passage in the received text is wrong or shouldn’t be there, and certainly that no doctrine should be changed. The variants we have available to us in the TR were used wisely like commentators like Gill and Matthew Henry to implement nuance and color in places (kind of like an amplified effect). If that’s what you mean by textual criticism then that’s fine, although that description needs to be dropped, there’s no need for it, we’ve had that work from pastor commentators since the Reformation.

Your last sentence is incomprehensible to me, but it did make me smile. I don’t mean any of this personally, I hope you take it in the spirit of Christianly argument.

Hi Jeri,

The point about Calvinism was an analogy. I think it's a well-known trope that newer adherents to Reformed theology will go through "cage-stage Calvinism" and that they may needlessly offend people and perhaps even harm their Christian witness along the way. In such situations, it's not correct to say that Calvinism is the problem.

From there, I drew an analogy to the situation you described, and the point I was making is that it should be handled similarly. Just because someone handles a doctrine rashly or imprudently doesn't mean the problem is with the doctrine itself.

I steadfastly disagree with the mindset that says this issue "needs to go away". In a certain sense, there are a lot of issues that "need to go away" - debates over the Trinity, over justification, over worship, over gender roles in marriage. And yet, here we are. These issues will go away by God's grace one day, and certainly in a very real sense it would be better if they did so now; but it is also in his providence that they haven't. It therefore seems misguided to try to make it go away by human contrivance.

I don't think it's a given that broader positions on text criticism are trying to change doctrines. One thing that I think that this thread has shown is that there is room for both TR and CT adherents to legitimately claim full adherence to what our confession says - but that if anything, it's the more fideistic tendencies of some in the TR camp that more closely resemble a reversion to the medieval mindest as opposed to the thinking of the magisterial Reformers.

As for saying that there has never been any proof that any passage in the received text shouldn't be there - I just don't think the historical record supports that statement. Noted textual variants exist for a reason - not because some manuscripts were discovered in a pot in Egypt yesterday, but because of substantial and attested evidence. The debate over the Johannine Comma is not a debate between everybody and a few fringe whackos who divide their time between text criticism and the moon landings. There is sufficient evidence for the matter to be debated, which is why it's debated among serious scholars and not just the Dan Browns of the world.

That it can be debated, of course, doesn't mean that all sides of the debate are equally valid, and there very well may be a clear-cut right and wrong answer. I'm on record in this very thread as expressing my qualified inclinations toward at least parts of the TR position as well as my preference for a well-attested manuscript tradition over isolated manuscripts of great age. And I am perfectly willing to flat-out reject the wisdom of scholars where it goes against God's Word - "Let God be true but every man a liar". But that's very different from saying there has never been any legitimate debate over the matter. That's what I mean by the anti-historical stance I was talking about in the last sentence of my previous post.

 

[De Jager]

I appreciate your earlier statement:



And I appreciate your acknowledgement that some previous assumptions were uninformed.

But this is where I continue to struggle with your posts. You repeatedly say that you are learning and trying not to offend, yet almost immediately make very confident pronouncements about a subject you are also admitting you do not understand very well.

A few examples:



There isn't. “We possess the Bible” and “we may examine additional manuscript evidence concerning a local variant” are perfectly compatible. The Church possessed the Bible before Erasmus, yet Erasmus still compared manuscripts. Possession of Scripture never meant every local textual question had been permanently adjudicated.



“Manufacture” is loaded language. Every printed Greek New Testament assembled from multiple witnesses involves editorial judgment, including Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and ultimately Scrivener. The question is whether those judgments are sound, not whether one side “manufactures” Scripture and the other does not.



I largely agree. A well-established reading should not be discarded casually. But that does not establish that the TR reading must always win, particularly where the TR itself reflects an editorial emendation or differs from the broader Greek manuscript tradition.



Again, this seriously mischaracterizes the process. “Shorter is better” is not some universal rule by which modern editors mechanically choose readings. Internal and external evidence are evaluated together, and a minister consulting an apparatus is not required to accept the editors' conclusion anyway.



Because evidence is particular. The unusual textual history of John 7:53-8:11 does not create uncertainty about Romans 8. A question about one variation unit does not logically place every passage of Scripture into an equally provisional condition.

And finally:



This, frankly, summarizes my concern better than anything I could write.

You are asserting something “with certainty” while simultaneously admitting that you have done no study to establish it.

That is the problem I have been trying to identify. For someone who quite properly says he still has much to learn, you repeatedly move very quickly from learning a few facts to confidently explaining what textual critics are doing, what the Reformers were doing, what ordinary Christians can handle, and what effects textual notes will have upon their faith.

I do not think you are trying to be offensive. But humility about one's level of knowledge has to affect more than the introductory disclaimer. It also ought to produce considerably more caution about the assertions that follow.

Most importantly, you are still construing the entire discussion through a binary that several people have repeatedly told you is false: either receive a settled traditional text or adopt the methodology and conclusions of modern eclectic criticism.

Those are not the only choices.

I may give enormous weight to ecclesiastical use and the Byzantine tradition, reject particular modern textual canons, distrust some editorial conclusions, receive the Pericope Adulterae and Mark's longer ending, and still believe that the Church may examine a Greek manuscript Erasmus never possessed.

That does not make me a devotee of “CT methodology.”

It makes me someone who believes the Church may continue doing what Reformed ministers and scholars have long done: examine the Hebrew and Greek witnesses God has preserved and make fallible, ministerial judgments about the relatively few places where those witnesses differ.

Until that distinction is understood, I think you are going to continue criticizing a position that several of us are not actually holding.

Brother,

I appreciate your knowledge on the topic.

I admit that some of my criticisms of certain things have been uninformed. I admit to language of rhetoric that is sometimes too strong when compared with my level of knowledge. If I continue to participate in this thread, and perhaps I should not, I will endeavor to do better in that regard.

Maybe I need to clarify one thing here. In my most recent post, and in this post, I am not arguing for or against either the "TR" or "CT" camp. I've learned that it's not that simple. Please don't read the 5 concerns I posted as somehow trying to "prove" the "TR" side of the debate. That wouldn't be correct. A concern about textual criticism or modern scholarship doesn't necessarily mean I'm trying to "own" one side or the other. It's just a genuine concern.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Brother,

I appreciate your knowledge on the topic.

I admit that some of my criticisms of certain things have been uninformed. I admit to language of rhetoric that is sometimes too strong when compared with my level of knowledge. If I continue to participate in this thread, and perhaps I should not, I will endeavor to do better in that regard.

[I appreciate this, brother, and I hope I have not been unnecessarily sharp with you. I also hope you do continue participating. Part of the value of a discussion like this is that all of us get forced to refine what we mean.

I wish there were an easier way to show what I am trying to convey rather than continually describing it.

My references to Roman objections were never intended to say, “You are a Romanist.” I have been pointing out the historical parallel because Protestants have already faced the argument that exposing ordinary Christians to textual questions necessarily undermines their confidence in Scripture.

What is sometimes missed is that the original 1611 KJV itself was not afraid to tell its readers about textual difficulties. At Luke 17:36, for example, the margin says that the verse “is wanting in most of the Greek copies.” At Matthew 26:26 it notes that “many Greek copies” have another reading. At Luke 10:22 it notes words found in “many ancient copies.” There are numerous other marginal notes concerning alternative translations and manuscript readings.

Those translators apparently did not believe that informing Christians that Greek copies differed was incompatible with confidently handing them the Word of God.

That is really all I have been trying to say.

There is something strange to me about the argument that we can learn about these questions, discuss them for hundreds of posts, consult manuscripts and historical sources, and retain complete confidence in Scripture, but that ordinary believers are somehow uniquely endangered by learning that the history of preservation is not perfectly tidy.

Why are we immune?

I certainly agree that pastors should exercise judgment. I would not dump an apparatus onto a new believer and tell him to sort it out. Nor should a pastor flippantly announce, “Scholars say this isn't Scripture,” as though a committee's judgment were inspired.

But pastoral care is different from constructing a confidence that depends upon shielding Christians from historical facts.

Providence itself is often messy when viewed from below. I can look back upon my own life and see my sins, the sins of others, mistaken decisions, suffering, contingencies, and circumstances I still cannot explain. None of that causes me to doubt Romans 8 or conclude that God was not providentially preserving and directing me.

The messiness of the secondary causes does not negate the certainty of Providence.

Why should the preservation of Scripture require something different?

Christians copied manuscripts. They made mistakes. Copies differed in some places. Some readings became more common than others. Some manuscripts disappeared. Others survived. Editors compared them. Translators made judgments. And through all of those ordinary and fallible secondary means God has preserved his Word with such abundance that what confronts us today is not competing Christian Scriptures, but a remarkably stable Hebrew and Greek text with a relatively small number of localized questions.

That strengthens my confidence rather than weakens it.

There is an interesting contrast with the Islamic textual tradition. According to the traditional account, the Uthmanic standardization involved producing an authorized Qur'anic text and ordering divergent codices destroyed. Christianity did not preserve its Scriptures by destroying all the inconvenient witnesses and leaving us with no ability to inspect the history.

We have the evidence.

We have manuscripts from different places and centuries. We can see the variants. We can see scribal mistakes. We can compare them. We can see what the Fathers quoted. We can watch Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, the KJV translators, and others making judgments.

And after exposing all of that history to scrutiny, the Scriptures remain standing.

I don't need the history to be artificially clean in order to believe WCF 1.8.

In fact, I would rather teach Christians a doctrine of preservation sturdy enough to withstand learning the truth about the manuscript tradition than give them an account so tightly packaged that discovering one awkward fact about Erasmus or one variant noted by the KJV translators threatens the whole construction.

That has been my pastoral concern throughout this discussion.

We do not need to frighten people with variants. We also do not need to hide them.

We can tell them something much simpler and stronger: God preserved his Word. The history by which he did so involved ordinary human beings and therefore was not always neat. Yet the surviving evidence itself overwhelmingly testifies that the Church possesses the Scriptures God gave it.

I think our people can handle that. More importantly, I think that is the kind of confidence the Reformed doctrine of Providence should teach them.

 

[Logan]

I very much sympathize with the desire for "certainty" and a Bible to "trust". That's what attracts many people to the TR: it has a sense of history and at least in the view of some authors, a defensible standard. I draw this observation cautiously, but interestingly enough, that's the same sort of thing that attracts many people today to the Roman Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodoxy. I think it's a good desire that becomes misled.

What they often don't realize is that when they set out to help people obtain confidence in their Bibles, they can actually undermine it. By claiming a "confident" Bible they deny others a confident Bible. The real history of textual transmission is much messier and nuanced and we should be very careful of any position that in essence denies that Christians of the past (who didn't have the TR) didn't have God's Word. The same providence that preserved Scripture for past generations is the same providence that preserves it for us.

Much is made of the marginal notes. Maybe they aren't helpful to the average person, but they are honest and factual. The KJV was initially published with similar notes on alternative textual readings but those were dropped by most printings. Did the KJV undermine confidence and did that problem go away when the notes were dropped? If they were dropped from today's Bibles, would the problem go away? No, it would just be hidden.

So how did people of the past handle this? Calvin commented openly on passages stating that it wasn't found in some copies. Are Calvin's notes undermining confidence in Scripture? Most commentators even from this golden era of the TR will speak openly about variants and manuscripts not having it. That didn't shake their confidence in Scripture and neither should it with us.

Staking your faith on one textual tradition doesn't solve the problem unless you just accept it on faith and care nothing about textual witnesses. Rich has brought up the ending of Revelation. There are a number of examples that could be brought up where the TR has readings that are simply not found in any known Greek manuscript but were known in the Vulgate. Do we confess that the Greek New Testament was preserved in the Greek...mostly but also some in the Vulgate? No. The TR is a wonderfully preserved text, but where it doesn't agree even with the textual tradition it was derived from, it should be subject to further collation and refinement. That's what many tried to do over the years but once something is in print, it's hard to change. It's seen as a deviation.

So confidence? Yes. I think we can be confident in our Bibles, whether you use the KJV/NKJV or the CSB/ESV etc. The notes and differences should not cause us distress. They didn't cause our Reformed Fathers distress. They are part of our Christian textual heritage from around the world and from all ages, not just our modern society and Anglo-centric culture. Every variant was part of somebody's Bible.

As for me, I want to know what is best attested by the evidence we possess. And we possess almost everything the TR compilers possessed and maybe two orders of magnitude more. Very, very few manuscripts have been lost since that time but have been carefully preserved so it's not accurate to just dismiss it as "well, they had access to things we just don't have anymore". But if we're going to use standards to judge evidence they should be fair standards. If I'm going to dismiss an "Alexandrian" text because it's only in a couple of manuscripts, then I'm going to dismiss a "TR" reading if it's only in a couple of manuscripts. If I'm going to accept TR readings because they are overwhelmingly attested to across all the manuscripts in all the families, then I'd better not reject others that are also overwhelmingly attested to across all the manuscripts in all the families. That's my main beef with the TR "methodology": the standard of evidence changes passage to passage to arrive at the TR. That's not being objective, that's just making up a mechanism for individual readings and is the same critique that is rightfully leveled at the CT at times.

Personally I like the approach of the Byzantine Priority methodology. It seems to apply just weights and balances across the board. The result is very close to the TR but it has much better evidence to back up alternative readings in some places than the TR. Anyway, I digress. I meant to post just a couple of sentences and this has already run well over that!

@NaphtaliPress I did see your posts on AI's characterization of Owen and Walton. Having read their works on this topic I would say that in my opinion it misses the mark a bit on both. They definitely didn't want to undermine confidence and that was an express concern (Owen said something to the effect that multiplying and collating every variant without comment and just enumerating how many there were would give people dismay), but they didn't think the variants would undermine confidence. Owen specifically said that if alternative readings were in reputable copies (that weren't just sloppy transcription), then they deserved to be considered.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I steadfastly disagree with the mindset that says this issue "needs to go away". In a certain sense, there are a lot of issues that "need to go away" - debates over the Trinity, over justification, over worship, over gender roles in marriage. And yet, here we are. These issues will go away by God's grace one day, and certainly in a very real sense it would be better if they did so now; but it is also in his providence that they haven't. It therefore seems misguided to try to make it go away by human contrivance.

If you go back and read it in context, the issue I was referring to that should go away is the issue I posted about, the insertions by publishers into Bibles that cast doubt on passages of Scripture. Of course that is not going to go away at the moment, though it does need to. I agree with you that in God's providence, this issue and the ones you mentioned will be settled one day in Christ's church. We await times of refreshing, reformation, and the unity that will bring, from the Lord.

 

[Ploutos]

If you go back and read it in context, the issue I was referring to that should go away is the issue I posted about, the insertions by publishers into Bibles that cast doubt on passages of Scripture. Of course that is not going to go away at the moment, though it does need to. I agree with you that in God's providence, this issue and the ones you mentioned will be settled one day in Christ's church. We await times of refreshing, reformation, and the unity that will bring, from the Lord.

I think it has been well argued in this thread that it's more nuanced than simply saying that those insertions cast doubt on passages of Scripture. One thing that I haven't seen addressed by TR adherents, that both Rich and Logan have brought up now, is the presence of such marginal notes and explicit referencs to variants going back to the very first printings of the KJV, as well as the acknowledgment of textual variants by commentators such as Calvin and Matthew Henry. I think a very good case has been made that such notes do not cast doubt on Scripture, and that to argue such is to go against the very spirit of intellectual honesty and inquiry that our Reformed forefathers sought to cultivate.

This is part of my issue with some elements of the TR position: it doesn't address or acknowledge such statements. It seems to be comprised of an implicit devotion to a specific narrowly-defined textual tradition, impervious to historical realities - a predetermined article of faith not to be challenged under any circumstances. This is why I refer to it as an anti-historical stance: it seeks to bury the evidence out of a fear of its possible impact. And what concerns me about that is that it has the implication of unwittingly misunderstanding how God works through his Spirit. He doesn't work through us hiding evidence that might, possibly, according to some, cause an issue. He works through honesty and transparency and coming to grips with attested facts, and then working in our hearts to provide us with that divine illumination that allows us to see his trustworthiness and superintendence through those messy realities. And yes, that also means that God's providence is at work when, through these messy realities, seeds of doubt are allowed to grow and blossom into a full-fledged rejection of God's Word.

It's a mis-characterization to blame such situations on the circulation of "undesirable" evidence (and again, I really don't understand how anyone can fail to see the parallels between that mindset and that of the medieval church in all its darkness) when in reality it has nothing to do with publisher insertions and their purported and hypothetical impact on some. Instead, it has everything to do with a heart set on rebellion against God, which God in his inscrutable wisdom has allowed to treasure up wrath against the day of wrath. You would think that here of all places, on an explicitly Calvinistic forum, that this would be a totally uncontroversial position; but instead the fate of those souls is being at least indirectly blamed on that bunch of yahoos at Crossway and Zondervan for allowing uncomfortable facts to be made available to the public.

Although I can not find the original source to cite, I remember reading an article about Abraham Piper and his apostasy. The writer of that article reflected on what will happen when such apostates stand before God and God says to them something along the lines of "let me get this straight, you rejected my gospel because your parents made you memorize a whole bunch of Bible verses when you were little?" I think something similar is at play here. If someone rejects the gospel because a range of manuscripts don't have the last handful of verses in Mark - that is hardly something that can be blamed on publisher insertions. On the ground, such situations absolutely require pastoral care and prudence, but that is a far cry from a call to hide the facts so that we can preserve (by human contrivance) a soul that the Holy Spirit might have otherwise allowed to fall into perdition. It's not a position that holds up to serious scrutiny.

At this point I've been hammering on this subject enough that I'm expecting the deceased equine to raise its head at any moment and say "Why have you beaten me these many times?" but I think it's a point worth repeating. We do an unnecessary (and possibly untruthful) injustice to the publishers, to Christians, and to our Reformed forefathers by making claims such as that publisher notes are casting doubt on passages of Scripture. And we do ourselves an injustice when we make such claims but refuse to confront the honest historical testimony that such notes are part and parcel of the Reformed tradition going back all the way to Calvin.

 

[De Jager]

I think it has been well argued in this thread that it's more nuanced than simply saying that those insertions cast doubt on passages of Scripture. One thing that I haven't seen addressed by TR adherents, that both Rich and Logan have brought up now, is the presence of such marginal notes and explicit referencs to variants going back to the very first printings of the KJV, as well as the acknowledgment of textual variants by commentators such as Calvin and Matthew Henry. I think a very good case has been made that such notes do not cast doubt on Scripture, and that to argue such is to go against the very spirit of intellectual honesty and inquiry that our Reformed forefathers sought to cultivate.

This is part of my issue with some elements of the TR position: it doesn't address or acknowledge such statements. It seems to be comprised of an implicit devotion to a specific narrowly-defined textual tradition, impervious to historical realities - a predetermined article of faith not to be challenged under any circumstances. This is why I refer to it as an anti-historical stance: it seeks to bury the evidence out of a fear of its possible impact. And what concerns me about that is that it has the implication of unwittingly misunderstanding how God works through his Spirit. He doesn't work through us hiding evidence that might, possibly, according to some, cause an issue. He works through honesty and transparency and coming to grips with attested facts, and then working in our hearts to provide us with that divine illumination that allows us to see his trustworthiness and superintendence through those messy realities. And yes, that also means that God's providence is at work when, through these messy realities, seeds of doubt are allowed to grow and blossom into a full-fledged rejection of God's Word.

It's a mis-characterization to blame such situations on the circulation of "undesirable" evidence (and again, I really don't understand how anyone can fail to see the parallels between that mindset and that of the medieval church in all its darkness) when in reality it has nothing to do with publisher insertions and their purported and hypothetical impact on some. Instead, it has everything to do with a heart set on rebellion against God, which God in his inscrutable wisdom has allowed to treasure up wrath against the day of wrath. You would think that here of all places, on an explicitly Calvinistic forum, that this would be a totally uncontroversial position; but instead the fate of those souls is being at least indirectly blamed on that bunch of yahoos at Crossway and Zondervan for allowing uncomfortable facts to be made available to the public.

Although I can not find the original source to cite, I remember reading an article about Abraham Piper and his apostasy. The writer of that article reflected on what will happen when such apostates stand before God and God says to them something along the lines of "let me get this straight, you rejected my gospel because your parents made you memorize a whole bunch of Bible verses when you were little?" I think something similar is at play here. If someone rejects the gospel because a range of manuscripts don't have the last handful of verses in Mark - that is hardly something that can be blamed on publisher insertions. On the ground, such situations absolutely require pastoral care and prudence, but that is a far cry from a call to hide the facts so that we can preserve (by human contrivance) a soul that the Holy Spirit might have otherwise allowed to fall into perdition. It's not a position that holds up to serious scrutiny.

At this point I've been hammering on this subject enough that I'm expecting the deceased equine to raise its head at any moment and say "Why have you beaten me these many times?" but I think it's a point worth repeating. We do an unnecessary (and possibly untruthful) injustice to the publishers, to Christians, and to our Reformed forefathers by making claims such as that publisher notes are casting doubt on passages of Scripture. And we do ourselves an injustice when we make such claims but refuse to confront the honest historical testimony that such notes are part and parcel of the Reformed tradition going back all the way to Calvin.

Brother,

I'm not arguing for either the "TR" or "CT" when I say the following. And also, I want to be clear that what I am saying refers to passages that are either bracketed or qualified by some statement that casts doubt on its authenticity, and is by no means to be construed as me arguing for the removal of all editorial notes:

If someone is not sure that something is in scripture, then maybe they should leave it out. I don't care if you're Calvin, Erasmus, or an employee of Zondervan. The merits or demerits of a thing have nothing to do with who does the thing. The thing stands or falls on its own merits. The thing I am referring to is putting qualifying statements in copies of the scripture that cast doubt on the authenticity of a passage. For example, for Mark 16 and John 8. I have a hard time with this practice, no matter who does it.

Some people call this practice honesty. I am calling it unnecessary qualification. I would love if the editors simply made a firm decision. If you as an editor or translator do not believe something is original, then make a decision and exclude it. Alternatively, make a firm decision and include it without a qualifier. No qualifiers. NONE. Don't place qualifiers beside God's word. Is this really too much to ask? I would have much more respect for a footnote that says "some manuscripts insert ___ but we don't believe it to be original and so it is excluded". In that way, you've made a firm decision, so at least I can take that at face value, and I could also go to view that passage on my own time, and evaluate your decision. But by including it in the text of scripture by printing it alongside the rest of scripture, and then ALSO placing a qualifier alongside it which casts doubt on its authenticity...this to me appears to create a category of "probably not scripture but here it is anyway". I don't open up my Bible to read things that probably aren't scripture. Either it is scripture and it deserves to be in scripture with the rest of scripture, without any kind of qualification, or it doesn't. If you aren't sure, then make a decision and by all means document it, but do so in a way that leaves me no room to doubt that the words that are printed as scripture, are really scripture. If you think something really is scripture, then print is as such.

In my view, it is a matter of wisdom and prudence, not only how you translate scripture, but how you present scripture. Margins filled with notes, and qualifying statements that cast doubt on the authenticity of passages, can, if overdone, lead someone to at least contemplate "wait, I thought this was the Word of God, not some scholarly construction". I think this is a real pastoral concern, and a legitimate one, and something that editors need to be aware of. I don't think I'm overstating this. I asked AI if my concerns were novel. For what its worth, here is part of the answer it gave, in red text:

I would put you in a recognizable historical stream, but with your own particular formulation:

• Some early seventeenth-century Protestants: worried that marginal variants would introduce a “show of uncertainty” that might shake Scripture's authority. The KJV translators disagreed with them.
• Owen: worried that extensive variant criticism could undermine the confessed purity and integrity of the providentially preserved original-language Scriptures.
• Burgon: explicitly objected to ordinary readers being confronted with rejected alternative readings and textual uncertainty in Bible margins, while still endorsing correction of genuine textual errors.
• TBS and later traditional-text advocates: have continued criticizing brackets, omissions and textual-critical notes in ordinary Bibles.

Of those, Burgon is by far the closest historical analogue to what you have just argued.


And there is one line of his that I think gets almost exactly at your position. He objected to putting alternative readings in the margin after the editors had already examined and rejected them, because ordinary readers would naturally wonder what status to give them.


Your proposal is essentially:

Make the best textual judgment you can and print a definite biblical text. If readers want to investigate competing evidence, make that information accessible elsewhere or in a note—but do not turn the main presentation of Scripture into a running display of editorial uncertainty.

So yes: there is quite substantial historical precedent for your concern, and it predates the modern TR/KJV-only movements by centuries.


The especially useful historical fact for your discussion board is that the KJV translators themselves tell us that Christians were already making essentially the “this display of uncertainty may shake Scripture's authority” argument in 1611—even though the translators themselves chose the other side. That demonstrates that the issue you're raising is not simply an emotional reaction by modern laymen who don't understand textual criticism. It is an old Protestant question about the proper relationship between scholarly uncertainty and the public presentation of God's Word.

At this point, I want to acknowledge that this is my personal preference, and this doesn't really have anything to do with the CT or TR debate - but since we are on this topic, I make my preference known. Editors can do what they want, and I'll still buy their Bibles even though they keep doing this.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Brother,

I'm not arguing for either the "TR" or "CT" when I say the following. And also, I want to be clear that what I am saying refers to passages that are either bracketed or qualified by some statement that casts doubt on its authenticity, and is by no means to be construed as me arguing for the removal of all editorial notes:

If someone is not sure that something is in scripture, then maybe they should leave it out. I don't care if you're Calvin, Erasmus, or an employee of Zondervan. The merits or demerits of a thing have nothing to do with who does the thing. The thing stands or falls on its own merits. The thing I am referring to is putting qualifying statements in copies of the scripture that cast doubt on the authenticity of a passage. For example, for Mark 16 and John 8. I have a hard time with this practice, no matter who does it.

Some people call this practice honesty. I am calling it unnecessary qualification. I would love if the editors simply made a firm decision. If you as an editor or translator do not believe something is original, then make a decision and exclude it. Alternatively, make a firm decision and include it without a qualifier. No qualifiers. NONE. Don't place qualifiers beside God's word. Is this really too much to ask? I would have much more respect for a footnote that says "some manuscripts insert ___ but we don't believe it to be original and so it is excluded". In that way, you've made a firm decision, so at least I can take that at face value, and I could also go to view that passage on my own time, and evaluate your decision. But by including it in the text of scripture by printing it alongside the rest of scripture, and then ALSO placing a qualifier alongside it which casts doubt on its authenticity...this to me appears to create a category of "probably not scripture but here it is anyway". I don't open up my Bible to read things that probably aren't scripture. Either it is scripture and it deserves to be in scripture with the rest of scripture, without any kind of qualification, or it doesn't. If you aren't sure, then make a decision and by all means document it, but do so in a way that leaves me no room to doubt that the words that are printed as scripture, are really scripture. If you think something really is scripture, then print is as such.

In my view, it is a matter of wisdom and prudence, not only how you translate scripture, but how you present scripture. Margins filled with notes, and qualifying statements that cast doubt on the authenticity of passages, can, if overdone, lead someone to at least contemplate "wait, I thought this was the Word of God, not some scholarly construction". I think this is a real pastoral concern, and a legitimate one, and something that editors need to be aware of. I don't think I'm overstating this. I asked AI if my concerns were novel. For what its worth, here is part of the answer it gave, in red text:

I would put you in a recognizable historical stream, but with your own particular formulation:

• Some early seventeenth-century Protestants: worried that marginal variants would introduce a “show of uncertainty” that might shake Scripture's authority. The KJV translators disagreed with them.
• Owen: worried that extensive variant criticism could undermine the confessed purity and integrity of the providentially preserved original-language Scriptures.
• Burgon: explicitly objected to ordinary readers being confronted with rejected alternative readings and textual uncertainty in Bible margins, while still endorsing correction of genuine textual errors.
• TBS and later traditional-text advocates: have continued criticizing brackets, omissions and textual-critical notes in ordinary Bibles.

Of those, Burgon is by far the closest historical analogue to what you have just argued.


And there is one line of his that I think gets almost exactly at your position. He objected to putting alternative readings in the margin after the editors had already examined and rejected them, because ordinary readers would naturally wonder what status to give them.


Your proposal is essentially:




So yes: there is quite substantial historical precedent for your concern, and it predates the modern TR/KJV-only movements by centuries.


The especially useful historical fact for your discussion board is that the KJV translators themselves tell us that Christians were already making essentially the “this display of uncertainty may shake Scripture's authority” argument in 1611—even though the translators themselves chose the other side. That demonstrates that the issue you're raising is not simply an emotional reaction by modern laymen who don't understand textual criticism. It is an old Protestant question about the proper relationship between scholarly uncertainty and the public presentation of God's Word.

At this point, I want to acknowledge that this is my personal preference, and this doesn't really have anything to do with the CT or TR debate - but since we are on this topic, I make my preference known. Editors can do what they want, and I'll still buy their Bibles even though they keep doing this.

I think the post immediately before this makes an important point about the historical continuity of marginal notes and textual discussion in the Reformed tradition. I was thinking along very similar lines.

But I want to press one aspect of this post a little further.

Margins filled with notes, and qualifying statements that cast doubt on the authenticity of passages, can, if overdone, lead someone to at least contemplate "wait, I thought this was the Word of God, not some scholarly construction".

I understand the pastoral concern. What I still do not understand is why the people participating in this discussion are apparently immune from the danger.

You now know that Calvin discussed variants. You know that the KJV translators knew about variants and put textual alternatives in their margins. You know that Owen discussed them. You know that many Reformed theologians before, during, and after Westminster knew that textual judgments had to be made.

Has learning any of that caused you to conclude that God did not preserve his Word?

If not, why assume that knowledge of the same historical facts is inherently dangerous to everyone else?

That is the point I keep trying to make. Confidence that God preserved Scripture does not depend upon believing that the history through which he preserved it was completely free of textual questions.

If you as an editor or translator do not believe something is original, then make a decision and exclude it. Alternatively, make a firm decision and include it without a qualifier. No qualifiers. NONE.

You are certainly free to prefer a Bible presented that way. But that is a preference about the presentation of Scripture, not a principle that gets us any closer to determining what the original Hebrew or Greek actually says.

In fact, Reformed Christians have lived quite comfortably with annotated Bibles for a very long time.

The Geneva Bible is an obvious example. Its extensive marginal annotations were one of its defining characteristics. It was deliberately designed to help ordinary readers understand difficult places, and its annotations became deeply influential in Reformed preaching and household Bible reading. Contemporary scholarship describes it as effectively an early “study Bible,” intended to help both learned and ordinary readers.

Interestingly, King James himself strongly disliked some of those Geneva notes. His objection was especially to their political and anti-monarchical implications. At Hampton Court he embraced the proposal for a new translation while insisting that it contain no partisan explanatory marginal notes of that kind. David Norton's history of the KJV notes that James considered the Geneva Bible the worst English translation because of several of its anti-monarchical annotations, and one of his particular requirements for the new translation was that there be no such marginal notes.

The Hampton Court formulation itself called for a translation “as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek” and directed that it be printed without explanatory marginal notes.

That historical irony is worth considering.

The Geneva translators thought marginal assistance helped ordinary Christians understand Scripture.

King James thought some of those notes were troublesome and wanted them removed.

So merely saying, “I would prefer not to have potentially troubling notes in the margin” does not actually resolve the theological question. Sometimes the very information that troubles someone may be useful information.

Nor does removing a note remove the underlying exegetical decision.

A translator still has to choose an English rendering.

Even where every surviving Greek manuscript agrees perfectly, translators can disagree about syntax, semantic range, grammatical relationships, or how best to express the sense in English. A particular genitive construction might be rendered one way or another because of theological and exegetical considerations. A minister may then stand in the pulpit and explain that he thinks the Greek communicates something more precisely than the wording of the translation in the congregation's hands.

Nothing has gone wrong when that happens.

The Church is still doing its ministerial work with the Word.

That is why I do not think the real dividing line is between “a Bible with qualifiers” and “a Bible without qualifiers.”

The deeper question is whether our confidence in Scripture requires an artificially uncomplicated account of its textual history.

And this is where I continue to have difficulty identifying what is frequently called “the TR position” with the settled outlook of the Reformed ministers who preceded, participated in, and followed the Westminster Assembly.

There clearly was a strong doctrine of providential preservation.

There clearly was deep confidence that the Church possessed the authentic Scriptures.

There clearly was great respect for the textual tradition received and used by the Church.

But those same men also collated manuscripts, discussed variants, corrected printed editions, compared translations, considered newly available witnesses, and disagreed about individual readings.

What I do not yet see historically is the alleged freezing point at which the Reformed Church collectively concluded:

“We have now reached the providentially final form of the Greek text. The legitimate process of manuscript comparison is finished. Future manuscript evidence may be recorded historically, but it cannot materially affect our judgment of an original reading.”

That seems to be a much later construction imposed upon the earlier doctrine of preservation.

And I think part of what drives it is an understandable reaction against forms of modern textual scholarship that really do treat Scripture as though it were merely another ancient document.

I share that objection.

A Christian textual scholar should not approach Scripture with the same theological assumptions as an unbeliever.

The Church should not simply outsource its judgment to a secular scholarly guild.

Theological context, canonical coherence, ecclesiastical use, the analogy of faith, and the Spirit's work in the Church all matter.

But rejecting a naturalistic approach to manuscripts is not the same thing as identifying one historical printed textual tradition as the providential terminus of all further textual inquiry.

Those are different claims.

I think that is where much of this thread ultimately comes down.

There is a perfectly legitimate Reformed criticism of textual criticism when it abstracts manuscripts from Scripture as the Word of God and treats the Church's historical reception and theology as irrelevant.

But it does not follow that the alternative is to locate a particular historical moment after which the Church may no longer reconsider a reading in light of Greek manuscript evidence.

The older Reformed position seems considerably more confident than that.

God preserved his Word.

Therefore the Church can examine the evidence without fear.

It can receive what is well established, give substantial weight to long ecclesiastical use, reject dubious scholarly theories, reconsider an unusual editorial emendation when the Greek evidence warrants it, and continue doing all of that without imagining that Scripture has somehow become a scholarly construction.

That seems to me much closer to what the Reformers themselves were actually doing.

 

[De Jager]

Has learning any of that caused you to conclude that God did not preserve his Word?

If not, why assume that knowledge of the same historical facts is inherently dangerous to everyone else?

That is the point I keep trying to make. Confidence that God preserved Scripture does not depend upon believing that the history through which he preserved it was completely free of textual questions.

I'm making no argument whatsoever regarding whether any practice is dangerous. I'm making an argument on whether something is proper and beneficial. All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful. I have no problem recognizing that there have been textual questions throughout history. I have a problem with a third way method which presents a particular passage alongside the rest of the scriptures and then qualifies it with statements that cause doubt in its authenticity. This is my opinion.

You are certainly free to prefer a Bible presented that way. But that is a preference about the presentation of Scripture, not a principle that gets us any closer to determining what the original Hebrew or Greek actually says.

I never said it was a principle that gets us closer to determining an original reading. I fully acknowledged, explicitly, that my post was a post of preference regarding the presentation of scripture.

In fact, Reformed Christians have lived quite comfortably with annotated Bibles for a very long time.

The Geneva Bible is an obvious example. Its extensive marginal annotations were one of its defining characteristics. It was deliberately designed to help ordinary readers understand difficult places, and its annotations became deeply influential in Reformed preaching and household Bible reading. Contemporary scholarship describes it as effectively an early “study Bible,” intended to help both learned and ordinary readers.

Interestingly, King James himself strongly disliked some of those Geneva notes. His objection was especially to their political and anti-monarchical implications. At Hampton Court he embraced the proposal for a new translation while insisting that it contain no partisan explanatory marginal notes of that kind. David Norton's history of the KJV notes that James considered the Geneva Bible the worst English translation because of several of its anti-monarchical annotations, and one of his particular requirements for the new translation was that there be no such marginal notes.

The Hampton Court formulation itself called for a translation “as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek” and directed that it be printed without explanatory marginal notes.

That historical irony is worth considering.

The Geneva translators thought marginal assistance helped ordinary Christians understand Scripture.

King James thought some of those notes were troublesome and wanted them removed.

So merely saying, “I would prefer not to have potentially troubling notes in the margin” does not actually resolve the theological question. Sometimes the very information that troubles someone may be useful information.

Nor does removing a note remove the underlying exegetical decision.

A translator still has to choose an English rendering.

Brother, I get it. You think my concern is illegitimate. That's fine. I was voicing my own personal opinion. And again, I was speaking specifically about bracketed passages or those passages accompanied with a footnote calling their authenticity into question. I was not speaking about all marginal notes. I'm not concerned that translators differ on how they render this or that greek word. What I am concerned with, is when there are entire verses or passages that are included in print when the translators feel it is doubtful that they are authentic. Those are not the same things. One is a debate on how a word, which is acknowledged to be part of scripture, is rendered in English. Another is whether that very verse or passage is even part of scripture at all. These are not the same issues.

 

[CGS]

I was recently reminded about this podcast from two years ago and have since rewatched it a couple of times. It is an excellent conversation on the Received Text and the issues with the Critical Text. I thought it might be a helpful resource to folks who may be following this thread, but who are not familiar with the arguments for the Received Text.

0:00:00 Introduction
0:00:37 Opening Remarks
0:02:53 Topic Introduction
0:08:18 The Critical Text defined
0:10:58 Critical text presupposition
0:12:27 Translations of the Bible
0:16:57 Westminster Confession 1.8
0:20:08 Where to find preserved word of God?
0:24:03 How the critical text might impact the WCF
0:30:29 John 1:18
0:33:27 Regarding ESV, begotten
0:35:14 Are major doctrines affected?
0:39:56 ESV Mark incomplete Gospel
0:42:51 Woman caught in adultery
0:48:04 Who has authority over God's word?
0:50:33 Bible is self-attesting
0:53:51 Who was involved in initiating changes in 1800's?
0:58:26 Who is the real Jesus of the scriptures?
1:02:04 What has been the fruit?
1:05:10 Academia's damage to the church
1:09:15 Why were some manuscripts discarded?
1:12:05 Impact of persecution
1:23:13 Some objections
1:13:27 Codex Vaticanus (Codex B)
1:20:13 About the KJV
1:32:16 Consistency and Confidence

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm making no argument whatsoever regarding whether any practice is dangerous. I'm making an argument on whether something is proper and beneficial. All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful. I have no problem recognizing that there have been textual questions throughout history. I have a problem with a third way method which presents a particular passage alongside the rest of the scriptures and then qualifies it with statements that cause doubt in its authenticity. This is my opinion.



I never said it was a principle that gets us closer to determining an original reading. I fully acknowledged, explicitly, that my post was a post of preference regarding the presentation of scripture.



Brother, I get it. You think my concern is illegitimate. That's fine. I was voicing my own personal opinion. And again, I was speaking specifically about bracketed passages or those passages accompanied with a footnote calling their authenticity into question. I was not speaking about all marginal notes. I'm not concerned that translators differ on how they render this or that greek word. What I am concerned with, is when there are entire verses or passages that are included in print when the translators feel it is doubtful that they are authentic. Those are not the same things. One is a debate on how a word, which is acknowledged to be part of scripture, is rendered in English. Another is whether that very verse or passage is even part of scripture at all. These are not the same issues.

I think the “lawful but not helpful” framing is a strange way to characterize something that was not merely tolerated in the Reformed tradition, but was often regarded as positively useful.

I'm making an argument on whether something is proper and beneficial. All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful.

That sounds almost like a judgment upon what generations of Reformed Christians regarded as normal with the Geneva Bible and other annotated editions. The notes were there because Reformed ministers believed explanatory material alongside the text could actually help ordinary Christians understand Scripture.

I could understand the instinct better if we were coming from the sort of IFB world many of us knew, where one could almost get the impression that Paul wrote in inspired Elizabethan English and every alternative rendering was suspect. But that is not the Reformed history. It is a little odd to look back at a tradition full of marginal notes, alternate renderings, textual observations, and ministers working from Hebrew and Greek and conclude, “Notes beside Scripture are probably unhelpful.” Unless, apparently, they are Scofield notes.

I was speaking specifically about bracketed passages or those passages accompanied with a footnote calling their authenticity into question. I was not speaking about all marginal notes.

I understand the distinction. I just do not think it carries as much weight as you do.

If there is substantial manuscript evidence concerning whether a passage belongs in the original text, a note reporting that fact can be pastorally mishandled, but the information itself is not improper. The problem is the tone of certainty sometimes attached to the conclusion, not the existence of the evidence.

One is a debate on how a word, which is acknowledged to be part of scripture, is rendered in English. Another is whether that very verse or passage is even part of scripture at all. These are not the same issues.

They are not identical, but they are related ministerial judgments about the text.

Even where every Greek manuscript agrees, a translation may still communicate a verse poorly because the translators misunderstand syntax, semantic range, or theological context. The printed English wording is therefore not self-authenticating merely because the underlying Greek has no variant.

That is why preference about presentation does not really get us closer to the substantive question.

You may prefer no brackets and no textual notes. That is perfectly fine as a preference. But the Church still has to decide what it believes the Hebrew and Greek actually say, and ministers still have to explain and translate those texts faithfully.

 

[Ploutos]

@De Jager - do you reject the idea of study Bibles altogether? If you don't want anything in your Bible that's not Scripture, it seems like that would rule out study Bibles. Or is it more that you don't want this specific type of note in your Bible?

Regarding the Reformed tradition, are you willing to simply acknowledge that you go against the Reformed tradition going back to Calvin and the Geneva Bible in your mindset toward text-critical notes? I'm not asking that as a trap. It just seems to me that your mindset is so antithetical to the traditional Reformed approach to this topic that it might be a way to resolve the tension by just saying that you disagree with what has been the traditional Reformed way of handling this topic... just as some reject the traditional Reformed view on holy days or hymns.

 

[Northern Crofter]

...you go against the Reformed tradition going back to Calvin and the Geneva Bible...

Calvin mentioning a variant in his commentaries is far different than it appearing in a vulgar translation intended for use by the general population.

There are no notes in the Geneva Bible that I have come across where the translators/publishers explicitly note that a verse or phrase is missing from the manuscripts they used, or that there is a question in the manuscripts used as to their authenticity. The textual comments you will find within the marginal notes are predominately explaining translation choices - the most frequent notes are ones giving the literal translation of the Hebrew (the very first example is in Genesis 1.2: "And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the deep*, and the Spirit of God moved upon the waters. [*Hebrew, face of the deep.]")

They used marginal notes heavily, of course, but those notes were almost strictly theological commentary, cross-references, or alternative English phrasing for difficult words, not text-critical evaluations of Greek or Hebrew manuscripts.

It was the 1611 King James authorised translation which first began adding occasional text-critical marginal notes (for example notes like the one for Luke 17:36 stating "This 36th verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies").

There is a lot of focus in this discussion on the wording of the first part of WCF 1.8 ("...by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical...") but there seems to be missing a major thrust of 1.8 which is that "all the people of God... have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them...." Therefore, "they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope." Confessionally speaking, a vulgar translation should generally provide the people of God (1) the Word in their language, (2) comfort, and (3) hope. How do marginal comments noting manuscript variations, omissions, etc. provide comfort and hope? If they do not do so, the confessionally consistent position would be to exclude them from vulgar translations, no?

That's not saying don't make a study Bible with devotional, historical, or cultural insight. It's also not saying hide the discussion of manuscripts and variants (or prevent the publication of such variants in the original languages) - but let those like Calvin who are ordained to teach and preach deal with that in a sermon or commentary (Calvin's commentaries are largely extracted from his sermons - but whether or not we should be using commentaries from people we wouldn't have in our pulpits is a whole other discussion!).

 

[Ploutos]

Calvin mentioning a variant in his commentaries is far different than it appearing in a vulgar translation intended for use by the general population.

I question just how different this is. Calvin's commentaries were not aimed to be erudite or technically complex, so how divergent were the intended audiences, especially if many of these commentaries were drawn from sermons?

There are no notes in the Geneva Bible that I have come across where the translators/publishers explicitly note that a verse or phrase is missing from the manuscripts they used, or that there is a question in the manuscripts used as to their authenticity. The textual comments you will find within the marginal notes are predominately explaining translation choices - the most frequent notes are ones giving the literal translation of the Hebrew (the very first example is in Genesis 1.2: "And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the deep*, and the Spirit of God moved upon the waters. [*Hebrew, face of the deep.]"

They used marginal notes heavily, of course, but those notes were almost strictly theological commentary, cross-references, or alternative English phrasing for difficult words, not text-critical evaluations of Greek or Hebrew manuscripts.

It was the 1611 King James authorised translation which first began adding occasional text-critical marginal notes (for example notes like the one for Luke 17:36 stating "This 36th verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies").

Ok, so let me rephrase then: are you or Izaak willing to say that you disagree with the Reformed approach to these matters from Calvin's commentaries and the King James Version onward? I'm not really sure what your point proves. It's still an established part of the Reformed tradition to acknowledge variants and deal with them squarely, and not behind the closed doors of the elite scholars who handle that with which the general public must never become acquainted.

There is a lot of focus in this discussion on the wording of the first part of WCF 1.8 ("...by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical...") but there seems to be missing a major thrust of 1.8 which is that "all the people of God... have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them...." Therefore, "they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope." Confessionally speaking, a vulgar translation should generally provide the people of God (1) the Word in their language, (2) comfort, and (3) hope. How do marginal comments noting manuscript variations, omissions, etc. provide comfort and hope? If they do not do so, the confessionally consistent position would be to exclude them from vulgar translations, no?

I would encourage you to read some of Rich's comments in this thread because he addresses the exact question that you asked. I would also note that your paragraph does two things. First, it presumes its own answer, because it leads with the assumption that mentioning textual issues in a study Bible works against comfort and hope. Rich has already explained above how this is not the case and how facing the reality of textual variations not only doesn't work against the Reformed view of Scripture - it actively works in favor of it.

Second, it raises the problem of either an arbitrary or overly narrow conception of what must and must not be included as annotations or study notes in a Bible. You yourself mention "historical" insights below. I personally happen to love history. I also love literary analysis. So when I read through the ESV Study Bible, I found the study notes at times to be intensely academic - and I loved them for that, particularly in the psalms, where there was a wealth of information about genres and forms and styles. However, I will be the first to say that I know that's not everybody's cup of tea, and it could raise a serious question whether such notes are really geared to bring comfort and hope. I also appreciate more devotional and pastoral study Bibles as well. And personally, I also find text criticism fascinating. Do you know why? Here's two reasons why: 1) I'm a nerd, and 2) it's the history of my very favorite book in the world. There are books I've read three or four times - not many, but some. There's no book that I've read over a dozen times as I have with God's Word. Everything about it is interesting to me. Everything adjacent to it is more interesting to me by virtue of its adjacency to that which I love dearly.

I will arrest that personal digression there. My main point is that you're setting a pretty interesting boundary for what can and can't be included in a study Bible based on an assumed premise that certain types of notes work against comfort and hope. I just don't think that's true. I think it may be true for some people as a matter of personality difference, the same way some people find Spurgeon dull and others love reading Lombard by candlelight with a cup of hot cocoa - but it's not something you can make as a blanket statement across the board. And with your comment about the Geneva Bible, you've still managed to sidestep the point that was raised about not only the acceptability but the positive desirability of this way of thinking in the history of the Reformed tradition. I refer you again to Rich's comments above - and I don't wish to be sycophantic toward him by any means, but I have to say that I believeu he is spot on, and my confidence in God's Word has been greatly strengthened by this Reformed way of approaching Scripture. We're not Catholics who have to bar our laity from access to the details, and we're not Muslims who have to destroy four alternate readings of our sacred text in order to ensure a man-made uniformity. Our God is better than the God of Rome or Mecca and our theology is better. And our God's ability to providentially preserve his word not only doesn't depend on us - it works through and in spite of our weaknesses. There are variants - but what kind of variants? There are no well-attested variants that strike at matters of doctrine - take out the Johannine Comma and hundreds of other passages in Scripture scream of the doctrine of the Trinity, for instance. Just as God sets a boundary for the oceans, he has set a boundary around his word such that, in the midst of these variants, his word is clearly preserved and speaks his full truth to us. He has written his word in such a way that it can withstand our flawed humanity and he has providentially superintended the preservation of his word in such a way that his word will never be cast into doubt.

You can make individual case stories. You can recommend a specific study Bible to a specific person or even a specific congregation. You can say that certain study Bibles are best for certain types of people and others for different types. I think you go too far when you say that study Bibles shouldn't have certain types of notes because (unproven assumption) those notes work against comfort and hope.

That's not saying don't make a study Bible with devotional, historical, or cultural insight. It's also not saying hide the discussion of manuscripts and variants (or prevent the publication of such variants in the original languages) - but let those like Calvin who are ordained to teach and preach deal with that in a sermon or commentary (Calvin's commentaries are largely extracted from his sermons - but whether or not we should be using commentaries from people we wouldn't have in our pulpits is a whole other discussion!).

I mean, again, this is just kind of arbitrary. See my comments above. So don't stop making study Bibles - but just leave out the text-critical notes. Don't hide the discussion of manuscripts and variants, but just... you know, put them over there, where they won't be AS readily visible. See? We're not hiding them.

The more people double down on this particular fixation, the more strongly it resembles that fideistic medieval mindset. It's hard to conclude that it's not fear-based reasoning. I certainly can't divine another person's motive, but neither can I come up with any other reason why someone would be so afraid that this "dangerous knowledge" will cause confidence in God's Word to unravel. What kind of foundation is that confidence built on, if such is the case?

 

[De Jager]

@De Jager - do you reject the idea of study Bibles altogether? If you don't want anything in your Bible that's not Scripture, it seems like that would rule out study Bibles. Or is it more that you don't want this specific type of note in your Bible?

Regarding the Reformed tradition, are you willing to simply acknowledge that you go against the Reformed tradition going back to Calvin and the Geneva Bible in your mindset toward text-critical notes? I'm not asking that as a trap. It just seems to me that your mindset is so antithetical to the traditional Reformed approach to this topic that it might be a way to resolve the tension by just saying that you disagree with what has been the traditional Reformed way of handling this topic... just as some reject the traditional Reformed view on holy days or hymns.

I certainly do not reject study Bibles...come on man...I've been pretty clear in what I am talking about.

I am talking about disputed passages like Mark 16, John 8, etc. etc.

Passages that in many modern printings are qualified by statements that cast doubt on their authenticity.

You say that "you go against the reformed tradition going back to Calvin and the Geneva Bible", and that I "disagree with what has been the traditional Reformed way of handling this topic". Are you really sure about this? Do you know how early Dutch Bibles handled this? How about French? German? I didn't, so I asked AI. Here is what is says - below in red - feel free to correct if its wrong, as I recognize that it's only a tool but not infallible. I just question your assertion that I'm truly going against the grain in how I'm feeling about these disputed passages and how they are presented.

Yes. I checked a representative group, and there is a fairly consistent pattern: major Protestant vernacular Bibles of the 1600s and 1700s generally printed the famous disputed passages straightforwardly as part of Scripture, even though their translators were aware that manuscript variants existed.

Bible	Treatment of Mark 16:9–20
Geneva Bible (1599; heavily used in 1600s)	Printed normally; its notes on vv. 9ff are exegetical, not warnings about authenticity.
KJV (1611)	Printed normally. The original marginal notes contain no textual warning at vv. 9–20; the only Mark 16 note is an alternative rendering at v.14.
Statenvertaling (1637)	Printed as continuous Scripture, without the modern-style separation of vv. 9–20.
Luther Bible (1545 and subsequent early-modern tradition)	Printed vv. 9–20 straightforwardly as the conclusion of Mark.
David Martin French Bible (1707/1744)	Prints Mark 16:9ff normally as Scripture.
Ostervald French Bible (1744)	Likewise contains the longer ending normally in the text.

The same general pattern appears with John 7:53–8:11. The Geneva Bible prints it normally and actually gives an ordinary exegetical annotation on John 7:53 rather than questioning the passage's status. The Martin Bible likewise prints John 7:53 and 8:1 in the continuous text.

But there is an important qualification​

These Bibles were not operating under a rule that readers must never be told about manuscript variants.


The 1611 KJV provides an excellent counterexample. At Luke 17:36, the original margin explicitly says:

“This 36. verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies”

while still printing the verse.


So the KJV translators absolutely were willing to tell ordinary readers, “There is a serious textual issue here.”


And earlier French Protestant Bibles sometimes did the same. For example, sixteenth-century French Geneva editions gave marginal information regarding the manuscript status of the Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5.


That means the historically defensible conclusion is not:

“Old Protestant Bibles never contained textual-critical notes.”

They did.


Rather, I think this is what the evidence supports:

The normal early-modern Protestant publishing practice was to print a definite biblical text. Textual variants might occasionally be acknowledged in the margin, but major received passages such as Mark 16:9–20 and John 7:53–8:11 were ordinarily presented as part of Scripture rather than segregated, bracketed, or prefaced by an editorial warning that they probably were not original.

That distinction is quite close to what you've been arguing.

 

[Ploutos]

I certainly do not reject study Bibles...come on man...I've been pretty clear in what I am talking about.

I am talking about disputed passages like Mark 16, John 8, etc. etc.

Passages that in many modern printings are qualified by statements that cast doubt on their authenticity.

You say that "you go against the reformed tradition going back to Calvin and the Geneva Bible", and that I "disagree with what has been the traditional Reformed way of handling this topic". Are you really sure about this? Do you know how early Dutch Bibles handled this? How about French? German? I didn't, so I asked AI. Here is what is says - below in red - feel free to correct if its wrong, as I recognize that it's only a tool but not infallible. I just question your assertion that I'm truly going against the grain in how I'm feeling about these disputed passages and how they are presented.

As I said, they were honest questions based on what you've said - not meant to entrap or inflame in any way. I think Rich has made a pretty good point in his posts about how the Reformed tradition approached this, and I was simply wondering if your position was one you'd be willing to stick to even if you came to understand that the historical Reformed approach was different. That's all.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Just a comment to clarify, and I hope it's helpful- the great majority of the Reformers and Puritans, including Calvin, were speaking of and making use of variants within the received text; I had mentioned earlier that two commentators I rely on a lot, Matthew Henry and John Gill, also refer to those variants and those alternate readings freely. So this is not the same as going outside that text and inserting notes in Bibles drawing on texts that providentially were unused by the church in settling the text of Scripture, and that cast such doubt on passages of Scripture as to take them away from the use of God's people.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I was recently reminded about this podcast from two years ago and have since rewatched it a couple of times. It is an excellent conversation on the Received Text and the issues with the Critical Text. I thought it might be a helpful resource to folks who may be following this thread, but who are not familiar with the arguments for the Received Text.

0:00:00 Introduction
0:00:37 Opening Remarks
0:02:53 Topic Introduction
0:08:18 The Critical Text defined
0:10:58 Critical text presupposition
0:12:27 Translations of the Bible
0:16:57 Westminster Confession 1.8
0:20:08 Where to find preserved word of God?
0:24:03 How the critical text might impact the WCF
0:30:29 John 1:18
0:33:27 Regarding ESV, begotten
0:35:14 Are major doctrines affected?
0:39:56 ESV Mark incomplete Gospel
0:42:51 Woman caught in adultery
0:48:04 Who has authority over God's word?
0:50:33 Bible is self-attesting
0:53:51 Who was involved in initiating changes in 1800's?
0:58:26 Who is the real Jesus of the scriptures?
1:02:04 What has been the fruit?
1:05:10 Academia's damage to the church
1:09:15 Why were some manuscripts discarded?
1:12:05 Impact of persecution
1:23:13 Some objections
1:13:27 Codex Vaticanus (Codex B)
1:20:13 About the KJV
1:32:16 Consistency and Confidence

I listened to the podcast, and I do not think it adds much that has not already been raised and answered in this thread.

What it does very effectively is present one side of the argument in a way that gives people who already find the position attractive the answers they want to hear. The difficulty is that several of its central claims are simply asserted as though they were settled historical facts when they are actually the very things under dispute.

For example:

the Textus Receptus is a member of the Byzantine family of manuscripts... Byzantine, Textus Receptus, they're almost synonymous

That “almost” matters. The TR and the broader Byzantine tradition are not identical. Once that is admitted, someone still has to make textual judgments where they differ.

Likewise:

all these faithful copies were brought together, collated, and they were put in printed form. They were frozen in ink. And there was an organic consensus among God's people.

That is not WCF 1.8. That is a highly specific account of how Providence supposedly culminated at a particular point in textual history.

This has been the central issue in this thread for pages now. I affirm that God preserved his Word. What has not been demonstrated is that the Reformed Church understood that doctrine to mean that the legitimate process of examining Greek manuscripts reached a providential stopping point during the Reformation.

The podcast simply assumes the conclusion.

The same thing happens with the claim that modern textual criticism represents a fundamentally different “presupposition” of reconstructing a corrupted Bible. That has been answered repeatedly. Recognizing that individual copies contain errors and comparing manuscript witnesses in order to judge a local variant does not entail believing that God failed to preserve his Word.

Erasmus did that.

Stephanus did that.

Beza did that.

The Reformed orthodox discussed textual variants.

The Westminster divines knew of readings outside the printed TR.

So the choice is not between “Providence” and “reconstruction.” That binary is being imposed upon the history rather than demonstrated from it.

The Alexandrian-manuscript discussion is another example. The podcast argues that certain manuscripts survived because they were not used, connects Egypt with heresy, and then suggests that this explains why the Church rejected those witnesses.

But that is precisely the kind of historical inference I have objected to throughout this thread.

“There were heretics who corrupted manuscripts” is a historical fact.

“Therefore this particular Alexandrian reading represents a heretical corruption rejected by the Church” requires evidence.

You cannot simply put the two propositions next to one another and call the second one Providence.

The Westminster proof-text argument does not advance things either. The podcast argues that because the divines cited readings such as 1 John 5:7, Mark 16, or Acts 8:37 in connection with doctrines, rejecting those readings undermines the Standards.

But that assumes that the proof-text apparatus made every cited textual reading a separate confessional proposition. It did not.

Nor does the doctrine of the Trinity depend upon the Comma, baptism upon Acts 8:37, or the resurrection upon the longer ending of Mark.

The doctrines are drawn from the whole counsel of God.

What I find most revealing is the repeated insistence that the Church must have had every authentic reading continuously present in the particular stream that later became the TR, otherwise Providence failed.

That is exactly the proposition that needs to be established.

Instead, the argument tends to go:

God preserved every word.

The Church possesses the Word.

The TR was used at the Reformation.

Therefore the TR is the providentially fixed textual form.

Therefore any reading outside that form threatens preservation.

But the critical middle steps are simply assumed.

I think Proverbs 18:17 is useful here: “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.”

This podcast states the case with great confidence. If someone already agrees with it, it will sound very satisfying.

But confidence of presentation is not the same thing as historical demonstration.

The video gives a number of answers that people who hold the Confessional Text position may enjoy hearing repeatedly, but most of those answers have already appeared in this thread and have been challenged without much substantive engagement with the objections.

At some point, saying again that the Reformation text was “frozen in ink,” that there was an “organic consensus,” that Alexandrian manuscripts were rejected, and that anything else represents a reconstructionist presupposition does not move the argument forward.

It amounts increasingly to:

“This must be how Providence worked because this is the account of Providence I believe.”

That is precisely the proposition under dispute.

 

[Logan]

the great majority of the Reformers and Puritans, including Calvin, were speaking of and making use of variants within the received text; I had mentioned earlier that two commentators I rely on a lot, Matthew Henry and John Gill, also refer to those variants and those alternate readings freely. So this is not the same as going outside that text and inserting notes in Bibles drawing on texts that providentially were unused by the church in settling the text of Scripture, and that cast such doubt on passages of Scripture as to take them away from the use of God's people.

Where does this claim come from? I am not aware of any of these who made any kind of distinction about "this was a unused text, this was a used text, this is within the received text tradition". To them every manuscript was precious and considered. Beza even has a codex named after him: Codex Bezae which he famously used to make marginal notes about alternative readings. This was definitely not in the "received text".

They didn't think in these categories. They didn't have these categories.

 

[Ploutos]

Just a comment to clarify, and I hope it's helpful- the great majority of the Reformers and Puritans, including Calvin, were speaking of and making use of variants within the received text; I had mentioned earlier that two commentators I rely on a lot, Matthew Henry and John Gill, also refer to those variants and those alternate readings freely. So this is not the same as going outside that text and inserting notes in Bibles drawing on texts that providentially were unused by the church in settling the text of Scripture, and that cast such doubt on passages of Scripture as to take them away from the use of God's people.

Again though, this presumes its own conclusion, because it presumes that manuscript discovery and text criticism was in effect up until that point, after which it stops - no further evidence can be admitted and no further discoveries can be allowed. I think the key phrase here is "providentially were unused by the church in settling the text of Scripture" and this really gets to the heart of it. It's a belief in a specific act of special providential superintendence during a set period of time that wasn't in effect before and hasn't been in effect since - and it makes the unavailability of other texts a "providential act" rather than making the discovery of other texts a continuation of that providential superintendence and guidance which was clearly advanced by the cause of the Reformation. And again, at this point, we've stopped outside of the realm of reasoned argument and into subjectivity and fideism and we've built a position based entirely on a priori conclusions.

I also have to question whether it accurately reflects the mindset of the Reformers. My understanding is that they made use of all the evidence available to them, so for them the "received text" was the collation of all the evidence available to them. It's a specious claim to convert "all the available evidence" into "the only allowable evidence for all time", and I question whether it is accurate to imagine those early Reformed commentators saying "here and no further... text criticism was allowed up until now but going forward the door is shut".

I'm also coming to realize (or rather, to realize with a greater degree of certainty) that this viewpoint, at the end of the day, is not amenable to discussion or open to serious reflection. It's not a reasoned position but rather it's an article of implicit faith not to be questioned. I wonder how many times in this thread it has been stated, mantra-like, that these variants take passages of Scripture away from God's people by casting doubt on them. That's a charge that has been repeatedly answered and addressed but it continues to come up. I think it's a misguided charge; but it's also just one of several points that have more or less been totally ignored throughout this thread.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Again though, this presumes its own conclusion, because it presumes that manuscript discovery and text criticism was in effect up until that point, after which it stops - no further evidence can be admitted and no further discoveries can be allowed.

Just to clarify for readers, this is in response to my having said that “the great majority of the Reformers and Puritans, including Calvin, were speaking of and making use of variants within the received text…”; this is a simple statement of fact, maybe not presuming exactly the conclusion you say it’s presuming. This thread has noted that these men made use of variants, but it has not been clearly noted in this thread (that I’m aware of) that providentially those variants were largely from the Greek texts. The ‘further’ evidence and discoveries of the Alexandrian etc texts were a fact, and there may even be more to come, and the TR position does not disagree with studying them, writing about them, debating them, etc, but the TR position does disagree with how some “take-aways” of those discoveries have been implemented.

I think the key phrase here is "providentially were unused by the church in settling the text of Scripture" and this really gets to the heart of it. It's a belief in a specific act of special providential superintendence during a set period of time that wasn't in effect before and hasn't been in effect since

Yes, here you’re pretty much correct. The TR position does hold to the Providential overseeing of the collation of texts (the “received” texts) that the church was in possession of, a possession also overseen by Providence. The TR position holds that this Providence can be traced and has been traced historically, and that this historical tracing, taken together with doctrinal beliefs gleaned from Scripture in how God works, His specific promises concerning His word, etc, gives certainty that the church possessed, in a time of great reformation, unity of the church, and the friendly inclinations of the civil realm, the texts He intended. Providence of course never stops working; it was by His providence that the Alexandrian texts for instance were discovered and have been studied and discussed. But Scripture teaches us that His providence brings about many things, including things meant to test His people.

and it makes the unavailability of other texts a "providential act"…

Yes; He kept those texts away during the time of great reformation in the church, and provided the Greek texts. Obviously, it was His will that these texts be used in the recovery of Scripture. Why did He eventually allow the kept-away texts to be brought out and studied? This is where the great disagreement comes. How do we view all that God did in the Reformation? One’s view of the church, of church councils called during such times, of comparing with how God’s providence preserved the canon of Scripture, etc will have a bearing.

…rather than making the discovery of other texts a continuation of that providential superintendence and guidance which was clearly advanced by the cause of the Reformation.

And the church is now in times of an overall spiraling deformation of that very reformation. That’s one very sobering reason that we should not be going down this road of thinking to in any way impose change upon the received texts of Scripture. The church lacks both the godliness and the unity.

I also have to question whether it accurately reflects the mindset of the Reformers. My understanding is that they made use of all the evidence available to them, so for them the "received text" was the collation of all the evidence available to them.

The received text was the one that they were in possession of. The reformers and puritans believed they had the whole counsel of God in the various Greek texts. There may have been men at the time who felt less strongly about that, but God in his providence called his amazingly unified Reformed church together at Westminster, and all evidence taken together, including the wording of our confession of faith on this issue, we can know that they had, and that we have, the word of God complete in the texts that were given and received.

It's a specious claim to convert "all the available evidence" into "the only allowable evidence for all time", and I question whether it is accurate to imagine those early Reformed commentators saying "here and no further... text criticism was allowed up until now but going forward the door is shut".

I hope by now (I’m not all that talented at communicating but I’m hopeful) it doesn’t seem so specious but rather makes sense spiritually and doctrinally, though you may disagree. I also hope it can be seen that the claim as you defined it above is not accurate as to what’s being claimed. I’ll add that TR folks are not uninterested in the Alexandrian texts and any others outside the TR, they can provide interesting and helpful data; just not along the lines of altering, adding to, or removing the texts as received.

I'm also coming to realize (or rather, to realize with a greater degree of certainty) that this viewpoint, at the end of the day, is not amenable to discussion or open to serious reflection. It's not a reasoned position but rather it's an article of implicit faith not to be questioned

I hope you can come to see that differently!

I wonder how many times in this thread it has been stated, mantra-like, that these variants take passages of Scripture away from God's people by casting doubt on them.

This has me scratching my head. They literally do cast doubt on passages of Scripture, and in that sense they do “take them away;” they can and do take
away the comfortable use of those texts, since they can take away faith that those texts are God’s word. Maybe not everyone takes these textual notes, and brackets, and whatnot so to heart like I did as I described earlier; you read that post on my experience with it. Surely I’m not the only such dodo in the church.

Praying for us all in these things.

 

[De Jager]

EDITED:

I have come to the tentative conclusion that a real divide in this entire issue is in how one actually views and defines "preservation". It's hard for me to reconcile what WCF 1.8 is claiming with the modern practice of compiling an eclectic text. Just saying "Beza also practiced some aspects of textual criticism" doesn't do it for me. Two people can do the same thing, and yet for different reasons, at a different scope/level, and it can end up with wildly different results. Also, just because one person does one thing at a particular point in history, does not not automatically justify that same thing at another point in history. There are people in this thread that say we have to investigate manuscripts that we find as they are discovered, because to do so would essentially be irresponsible and intellectually dishonest. Sure - I can grant that point, but investigations can have different purposes and goals. It is one thing for an investigations goal to be a) confirm the reliability of something that we already have (i.e. the received text). It is another thing for an investigations goal to be b) reconstruct the original text (regardless of motivations). It seems to me that the very act of constructing an eclectic text is in considerable tension with the notion that God has "preserved his word" and that it has been "kept pure". If that is really the case, then I question the necessity of that enterprise. Thus far, no one has convincingly, in this thread, convinced me of the actual propriety and need for compiling an eclectic text. Shouldn't we separate the practice of textual criticism from the compilation of an eclectic text?

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Where does this claim come from? I am not aware of any of these who made any kind of distinction about "this was a unused text, this was a used text, this is within the received text tradition". To them every manuscript was precious and considered. Beza even has a codex named after him: Codex Bezae which he famously used to make marginal notes about alternative readings. This was definitely not in the "received text".

They didn't think in these categories. They didn't have these categories.

I generally agree with you that they didn’t think in and address the categories that have developed in our time; obviously, why would they have, and how could they have. They saw the Providence of God at work in providing the received text to the church, and in the work of those who brought it to a good form; perhaps they expected that following generations would also see it so. I think manuscripts outside our texts have their place and value, and nothing wrong with, and maybe everything right and natural with studying them; just not to the end of replacing the recovered and settled Scripture. I believe the recovery of the Scripture in the texts Providence made available to the Church in an unprecedented time of reformation, and the overseen work of those who collected and collated it, gave us a sure Word.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I think this is an excellent question. You have to consider the historical context in this whole debate. One's doctrine of preservation, and one's views of what God was actually doing at each point in time will have a bearing on the conclusions one draws.

If Someone views the modern critical text enterprise as part of God's providential means for the preservation of his Word, then that person will of course be inclined to defend that practice (the contrary is also true). However, its inherently easier to make conclusions about what God is doing by looking backwards rather than looking at the the more recent past. It is rather easier to look back and say that God used the work of Erasmus, Beza, and the "TR" to benefit his church and preserve his word because those works were historically coincident with THE REFORMATION, i.e. the greatest recovery of God's truth in the entire New Testament era. It is much harder to conclude that God is using the modern text-critical enterprise to the same end. That's an assumption but I don't think its a convincing conclusion.

In short: convince me why I should believe that God is using modern eclectic reconstruction as a divinely appointed means of preservation, in the same way that he used the works of men in the 1500s. The mere fact that textual criticism was used on occasion by the reformers doesn't establish this. I'm willing to consider the evidence.

I confess that this is beginning to strike me as a rather remarkable challenge:

It is rather easier to look back and say that God used the work of Erasmus, Beza, and the "TR" to benefit his church and preserve his word because those works were historically coincident with THE REFORMATION, i.e. the greatest recovery of God's truth in the entire New Testament era.

Well, yes. If I construct the history that way first, it certainly sounds wonderful.

The Reformation!

Luther! Calvin! Beza! Puritans! Westminster!

The Gospel recovered! The good guys are doing textual criticism!

Yay, team!

Then comes the nineteenth century. Cue the ominous music. Now we have Westcott and Hort, unbelief, naturalism, liberal scholarship, Critical Text methodology and the men in black hats asking, “Did God really say?”

Once I have told myself that story, of course I know how Providence worked.

The Reformation was God's golden age of textual preservation. The manuscripts they had were the manuscripts Providence wanted them to have. The readings they settled upon were the readings Providence wanted settled. The printing press arrived at exactly the right moment. The text became “frozen in ink.” The Churches organically received it.

Done.

Now:

convince me

Convince you of what?

After you have already defined the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as the providential point at which the textual question was settled, what possible evidence could convince you that a manuscript discovered afterward should ever affect a reading?

That is not an argument from Providence. It is an assertion that you know the secret operation of Providence because you are looking backward at an era you admire.

And there is a wonderfully convenient exception built into the theory.

Erasmus creates a slight difficulty. He was not exactly John Owen. He famously opposed Luther on the bondage of the will.

No problem!

God can use imperfect and even wicked men to accomplish holy purposes.

Yes. I completely agree.

But notice how this works.

Erasmus has theological problems and contributes to the TR: Providence can use flawed men.

Later textual scholars have theological problems and discover or collate manuscripts: their theology gives us reason to distrust the enterprise.

That is convenient.

Heads, Providence selected the TR.

Tails, Critical Text methodology loses.

And then things become even stranger because the very Reformed men who supposedly lived through this providential textual settlement apparently did not understand that the process had been settled.

The KJV translators themselves put textual alternatives in the margins.

Then I am told those notes may have been “lawful” but were not necessarily beneficial, with Paul enlisted to explain the problem.

Think about what we are saying.

These translators supposedly lived during the providential golden age in which God was bringing the Church to an organically settled textual form, yet apparently they themselves did not understand that informing Christians about manuscript differences was pastorally questionable.

Then Puritans after the KJV continue discussing variant readings.

Other seventeenth-century Reformed theologians continue examining manuscripts.

Eighteenth-century believing scholars continue doing it.

Nineteenth-century confessional Presbyterians continue doing it.

Apparently nobody told all of these men that the text had been “frozen in ink.”

They were living much closer to the Reformation than we are, but somehow we have become better at reading Providence than they were.

That should give us pause.

Thus far, no one has convincingly, in this thread, convinced me of the actual propriety and need for the modern enterprise of textual criticism and compiling an eclectic text.

But this is still the caricature I have corrected repeatedly.

I am not trying to convince you that “Critical Text methodology” is good.

I am not defending Westcott and Hort.

I am not saying older manuscripts automatically win.

I am not saying unbelieving scholars determine Scripture.

I am not saying a committee in Germany gets to decree which verses remain in my Bible.

I am not saying the Church should accept whatever NA29 prints next.

I am asking an enormously simpler question:

May the Church examine the Greek manuscript evidence God has providentially preserved, including evidence that Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza did not possess, and may that evidence ever lead the Church to conclude that one of their fallible editorial decisions was incorrect?

And your answer appears to be:

“No, unless you first convince me that the entire modern Critical Text enterprise is superior to the providentially settled text of the Reformation.”

Why on earth would I have to prove that?

That isn't my position.

Suppose I think the longer ending of Mark is authentic.

Suppose I receive the Pericope Adulterae.

Suppose I think modern textual critics have overweighted certain early witnesses.

Suppose I think ecclesiastical reception matters much more than many modern scholars allow.

Suppose I reject naturalistic textual criticism outright.

And then I look at Revelation 22:19 and discover that Erasmus lacked Greek at the end of Revelation and retroverted from Latin.

May I look at the surviving Greek evidence and ask whether “tree of life” was originally written?

Apparently before I am permitted to do that, I must first “convince” you of the legitimacy of the entire modern critical enterprise.

That is absurd.

The real burden of proof has been backward throughout this discussion.

You are making the extraordinary historical claim.

You are claiming that somewhere around the Reformation God did something more specific than preserve His Word.

He providentially brought the Church to a particular textual form.

That form became organically settled.

The advent of printing effectively froze it.

And subsequent manuscript evidence cannot legitimately cause the Church to reconsider its readings because doing so would abandon the doctrine of preservation confessed in WCF 1.8.

Fine.

Convince me.

Show me where the Westminster divines say this.

Show me where the Puritans say textual inquiry has reached its providential terminus.

Show me the seventeenth-century Presbyterian who says the appearance of the printing press means that readings outside the received printed editions can no longer alter the Church's judgment.

Show me the eighteenth-century confessional Presbyterian rebuking fellow Presbyterians for continuing to collate manuscripts because Westminster has already settled the textual platform.

Show me this supposedly historic Reformed doctrine actually functioning in Reformed history.

Because what we keep finding instead are believing, orthodox, confessional men continuing to examine manuscript evidence after the supposed “freezing point.”

And every time that evidence appears, the response seems to be another assertion about Providence:

“But surely the Reformation was the time when God would have done it.”

That may feel satisfying.

It may fit a very attractive story about the Reformation.

It may give us a wonderfully clean history with good guys, bad guys and a providential moment when everything was written in steel ink.

But “this is how Providence must have worked because this is how I prefer to understand the history” is not a historical pedigree.

So, yes:

CONVINCE ME.

But convince me of the proposition you are actually asserting, rather than continually demanding that I defend a “Critical Text methodology” I have repeatedly told you I do not hold.