TR/KJV Viewpoint and NAPARC Churches?

[Jerusalem Blade]

From a paper I'm working on:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them...

But how, and what, was “kept pure in all ages”? — 1) an entire and intact Greek NT? And that throughout the church age till printing came to be? I don’t think so. 2) Or the pure READINGS of the autographs kept in various Greek mss, and then compiled in an authoritative edition, and then printed? Which edition would that be? I know of none. 3) Or the pure READINGS of the Greek autographs kept in various mss—mostly the Traditional (Byzantine) Greek, but a very few kept in other versions due to attacks and mutilations on the Greek—and then put into print in the Greek Textus Receptus editions (known to and used by the Westminster divines), having also been put into the English, Dutch, and other translations? I hold to the third option. There is not a reconstruction of the text here, but a keeping of it intact.​

Paul Ferguson (in his Transmission of Text Paper, p 57), said: “the Bible tells us that God would preserve His Words rather than manuscripts, editions etc.”

I'm struggling to put together a brief paper, but with my entire library gone (given to churches / pastors who can put them to good use), it is hard. Plus, my memory has deteriorated drastically. I may not be able to – we'll see.

 

[CGS]

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

Hey, Rich - thank you for taking the time to listen to the podcast. I wouldn't expect the podcast to change your mind about this topic. However, this thread has over 15,000 views, so there are a lot of folks following along at home. And I suspect many of them have never heard the case for the TR expounded. So, I thought it might be a helpful resource for those who are interested in learning more about the TR position. Some will find the arguments convincing, others won't.

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

It's easy to have great confidence (dare I say maximum certainty) when you are relying on God's promises in His Word to make your case. And, yes, it is very satisfying to hear these Christian brothers faithfully and confidently expounding the doctrine of Scripture and preservation that we hold dear.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It's easy to have great confidence (dare I say maximum certainty) when you are relying on God's promises in His Word to make your case. And, yes, it is very satisfying to hear these Christian brothers faithfully and confidently expounding the doctrine of Scripture and preservation that we hold dear.

But this is precisely where Proverbs 18:17 applies.

Of course it sounds convincing when one side confidently announces:

1. God promised to preserve every word.
2. The Reformation was God's great recovery of truth.
3. The Byzantine manuscripts wore out because Christians were using them.
4. The Alexandrian manuscripts survived because the Church rejected them.
5. The printing press arrived providentially.
6. The faithful manuscripts were brought together.
7. The text was “frozen in ink.”
8. The Church organically received it.

Therefore, questioning a TR reading is questioning God's promise of preservation.

That sounds terrific when nobody stops after about the third proposition and asks, “Wait. Where did God promise all of those other things?”

My confidence can be absolute that God preserves His Word.

My confidence cannot therefore be absolute that I have correctly reconstructed how His Providence accomplished that preservation.

Those are two very different things.

“The grass withereth...but the word of our God shall stand for ever” is God's Word.

“Sinaiticus survived because Christians knew it was corrupt and therefore didn't use it” is not God's Word.

“Byzantine manuscripts disappeared because Christians wore them out” is not God's Word.

“The Reformation was God's appointed moment to freeze the Greek text into its final ecclesiastical form” is not God's Word.

“The manuscripts Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza possessed are the ones Providence intended permanently to control all subsequent textual judgments” is not God's Word.

Those are historical and theological inferences. Some may have arguments behind them. But attaching the word “Providence” to them does not turn them into divine promises.

That is why this argument worries me pastorally.

It sounds like maximum confidence in God, but if you turn it sideways you discover that an enormous amount of the certainty is actually being placed in a very particular human reconstruction of what Providence must have done.

And that can be remarkably brittle.

Because what happens when somebody discovers that Erasmus occasionally lacked Greek evidence?

Or that TR editions differ?

Or that the Byzantine tradition does not always agree with the TR?

Or that Reformed theologians after the supposed settlement continued evaluating manuscript readings?

Or that believing, confessionally Reformed Presbyterians in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries plainly did not believe that WCF 1.8 required an untouchable printed Received Text?

This last point is increasingly important to me because I don't think many people realize how historically unusual the modern argument actually is.

John Dick, the Scottish Secession minister and professor who died in 1833, said it was “ignorance and prejudice” to regard the received text as so sacred that it could not be altered. Thomas Chalmers explicitly taught textual criticism as the work of determining what the biblical authors actually wrote and had no theological crisis about correcting false readings.

And William Cunningham, one of the giants of nineteenth-century confessional Scottish Presbyterianism, could hardly be clearer. In discussing this very doctrine of preservation, he said:

“kept pure in all ages” does not require purity in any particular manuscript or printed edition.

Rather, God preserved His Word while giving the Church manuscripts, versions, and other evidence by which the text could be accurately ascertained.

These are not liberal Germans.

These are not Bart Ehrman.

These are not men embarrassed by WCF 1.8.

These are believing, confessional Presbyterians who thought textual criticism and providential preservation belonged together.

I do not need to tell a Christian:

“Your confidence in God's preservation depends upon this entire historical theory being correct.”

I can tell him:

“God promised to preserve His Word. He did. We possess it."

That confidence survives learning more history.

The other kind can become vulnerable precisely because it has quietly transferred the certainty belonging to God's promise onto a speculative account of manuscript history that God never promised.

So, yes, I want maximum certainty.

Maximum certainty in what God has actually said.

I want considerably more humility when somebody tells me that he has looked backward through Church history and figured out exactly how Providence must have worked.

 

[CGS]

But this is precisely where Proverbs 18:17 applies.

Right back at ya...Proverbs 18:17 would also need to be applied to the CT position. And when we examine the CT position and its underlying presuppositions, we find that they cannot be reconciled with the Scriptures or the WCF. So, we can easily eliminate the CT position as a valid position.

But of course, none of this applies to you since you are not actually defending the CT position. Again, no one is concerned about your personal opinions/presuppositions. We know you believe in preservation. The critiques in the podcast and the sermon by Rev. McCurley are critiques of the CT position and its presuppositions. If you are not defending the CT position, then just ignore those critiques since they don't apply to you.

 

[De Jager]

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



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 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.



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.

Brother,

With all due respect, you are taking this far too personally, and the tone of this post is simply not proper. I don't even know where to begin. The post that I made in the thread, that you just responded to, was not directed to you. It should be clear enough by the fact that I didn't actually make it in response to any particular post of yours. Secondly, the post made no mention of any particular position that you personally hold. I can throw a lot of this right back at you, and show you pretty clearly that you are essentially trying to rhetorically destroy things that I was not even arguing for. For example, no where in this thread have I said that textual criticism must stop in the 1600s or any other time. Find me where I said that. I didn't. And I don't even believe that.

I will post a more detailed response later when I have time.

 

[Northern Crofter]

First, I was largely responding to your inaccurate reference to the Geneva Bible containing text-critical notes (notes that reference variants or state that a particular phrase or verse is not in some manuscripts) which it does not contain.

...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.

Several people in this thread have stated that it has caused them and/or others issues regarding their faith in the Scriptures they hold - whether or not you and Rich think they have any reason for such doubts creeping in does not remove that reality. Not everyone - especially those new to the faith - can quickly come to the understanding of the Reformed view (and the comfort that comes with it) that despite (or perhaps because of) the many variants that exist, the testimony of Scripture is more sure than any other written work in the history of this world. It cannot be denied that the existence of modern textual criticism is used in attempts to discredit the Christian Scriptures, and those whose faith is weak can be devastated by this.

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.

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.

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.

It's a pretty simple and not at all unique or recent boundary/premise - it's simply the approach of the compilers of the Geneva Bible. You may find their approach narrow or arbitrary, but how would you say their approach of limiting their notes to devotional, historical, or cultural insight - being fully aware of many textual variants and questions and yet not including such notes as the 1611 AV would do - could ever work against comfort and hope? If they can't, and people have expressed that notes regarding textual variants (noting older or newer or fewer manuscripts contain or don't contain certain text) do or have worked against their comfort and hope, then it seems pretty obvious which approach should be used in a vulgar translation intended for the masses.

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?

I'm happy to see that your faith is strong and can handle this issue. But not every believer is where you are, and some never will be, so I would caution this kind of dismissive mocking when many of us know (and some were) these weaker brethren.

I don't recommend giving any type of study Bible to a new believer. I obviously prefer my Geneva, but I don't give that to people right off the bat. Acts 8 seems to provide the perfect model: "And Philip ran thither, and heard him read the Prophet Isaiah, and said, 'But understandest thou what thou readest?' And he said, 'How can I, except I had a guide?' And he desired Philip, that he would come up and sit with him." (And, yes, there were annotated texts and commentaries on Isaiah at that time - like the Isaiah pesharim or the targum of Isaiah - that Philip could have directed him to).

What is lost if the textual notes are removed from a vulgar translation?

 

[Ploutos]

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.

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.


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.

This is probably the closest I've seen in this thread to an honest and upfront articulation of the position, with no holds barred. You consider the Reformation and roughly the century or so after it to be a specially superintended era of providential guidance, and you filter everything else through this lens; and you see the era since then as one of deformation and regress. That's certainly a possibility; I don't know that you can make a case for that objectively without blatant circular reasoning, but it's definitely a possible position. In my mind, it's somewhat analogous to speculation over Daniel 4 and whether Nebuchadnezzar had a true conversion experience - possible but nothing more.

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.

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.

It makes sense as a possibility. I don't see that there's any doctrinal basis for asserting it as fact, nor do I see much spiritual or doctrinal sense in the way in which this doctrine is so often defended (with the linked sermons by Rev. McCurley probably being about the most damaging thing to the credibility of this viewpoint).

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.

No, they most certainly do not. They provide information about manuscript variants that God in his providence has allowed.

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.

I doubt that your self-characterization as an extinct flightless bird is accurate; I did already address your experience by drawing an analogy to Calvinism. We don't stop believing in Calvinism because it can be a stumbling block to some weak in the faith. Likewise, I'm not going to change my beliefs on how God's providence works because some of the details may be hard for those newer to the faith. I WILL (and must) adjust my approach in the presence of such people - but not my beliefs.

 

[Ploutos]

First, I was largely responding to your inaccurate reference to the Geneva Bible containing text-critical notes (notes that reference variants or state that a particular phrase or verse is not in some manuscripts) which it does not contain.


Several people in this thread have stated that it has caused them and/or others issues regarding their faith in the Scriptures they hold - whether or not you and Rich think they have any reason for such doubts creeping in does not remove that reality. Not everyone - especially those new to the faith - can quickly come to the understanding of the Reformed view (and the comfort that comes with it) that despite (or perhaps because of) the many variants that exist, the testimony of Scripture is more sure than any other written work in the history of this world. It cannot be denied that the existence of modern textual criticism is used in attempts to discredit the Christian Scriptures, and those whose faith is weak can be devastated by this.

Several things are being conflated here. First: when someone stumbles, that is not necessarily an argument against the doctrine. It certainly could be; but it is not a necessary or inevitable conclusion. Many people have stumbled over the doctrines of grace - no Calvinist argues that this is because of the doctrine. It might be because of the person's weakness; it might be due to poor presentation or attitude on the part of the other.

Likewise here, when someone stumbles over this - it could be the doctrine itself. It could simply be the weaknesss of the hearer. Or it could be a problem with the way the doctrine is presented. But I don't think it can be argued, solely on the basis of someone stumbling, that the doctrine has got to go.

It's a pretty simple and not at all unique or recent boundary/premise - it's simply the approach of the compilers of the Geneva Bible. You may find their approach narrow or arbitrary, but how would you say their approach of limiting their notes to devotional, historical, or cultural insight - being fully aware of many textual variants and questions and yet not including such notes as the 1611 AV would do - could ever work against comfort and hope? If they can't, and people have expressed that notes regarding textual variants (noting older or newer or fewer manuscripts contain or don't contain certain text) do or have worked against their comfort and hope, then it seems pretty obvious which approach should be used in a vulgar translation intended for the masses.

Again, someone's comfort and hope is not necessarily a determinant of correct doctrine. It can be, but there are times when someone's sense of comfort and hope needs to be adjusted over time to rest in better places.

I'm happy to see that your faith is strong and can handle this issue. But not every believer is where you are, and some never will be, so I would caution this kind of dismissive mocking when many of us know (and some were) these weaker brethren.

Again, our doctrine is not determined by the weakness of the faith of those around us. And I think this is a specious argument, because if someone is struggling over a doctrine, the solution is not to change the doctrine but to approach the person with pastoral wisdom and care.

If the doctrine is wrong, then of course it should be changed. But the doctrine is not wrong because somebody stumbles over it - it's wrong because it's wrong.

I don't recommend giving any type of study Bible to a new believer. I obviously prefer my Geneva, but I don't give that to people right off the bat. Acts 8 seems to provide the perfect model: "And Philip ran thither, and heard him read the Prophet Isaiah, and said, 'But understandest thou what thou readest?' And he said, 'How can I, except I had a guide?' And he desired Philip, that he would come up and sit with him." (And, yes, there were annotated texts and commentaries on Isaiah at that time - like the Isaiah pesharim or the targum of Isaiah - that Philip could have directed him to).

I think that's perfectly fine! I'm not sure I would think that way myself in every situation; but I could definitely envision a situation where I would encourage someone to just read a plain unannotated Bible and work through it with a pastor or whatever other spiritual guide they have in that context.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Brother,

With all due respect, you are taking this far too personally, and the tone of this post is simply not proper. I don't even know where to begin. The post that I made in the thread, that you just responded to, was not directed to you. It should be clear enough by the fact that I didn't actually make it in response to any particular post of yours. Secondly, the post made no mention of any particular position that you personally hold. I can throw a lot of this right back at you, and show you pretty clearly that you are essentially trying to rhetorically destroy things that I was not even arguing for. For example, no where in this thread have I said that textual criticism must stop in the 1600s or any other time. Find me where I said that. I didn't. And I don't even believe that.

I will post a more detailed response later when I have time.

Brother, I don't think this is “personal” in the sense you are taking it.

You are correct about one thing: you have not literally written, “Textual criticism must stop in the 1600s.” I don't need to put those words in your mouth.

What I was responding to is the pattern of argument you have repeatedly made, because it has consistently placed alternatives to what you presently think preservation requires in the worst possible light.

For example, you wrote:

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...

And:

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".

That is not merely a personal preference about which Greek edition you like. You are associating the alternative with “manufacturing” a text and placing the enterprise itself in “considerable tension” with the confessional doctrine of preservation.

Likewise, regarding ordinary Bibles, you wrote:

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".

And then:

if they can do this for these passages, why not for any passage? And how long until that happens?

That is exactly the rhetoric I have repeatedly objected to. Nobody is merely hearing, “I personally don't care for brackets.” The alternative is being characterized as creating a category of “probably not Scripture,” with the logical trajectory that eventually any passage might be questioned.

Then there was this:

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.

And later:

All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful.

Again, that is prescriptive. You are not merely saying, “I prefer a Bible without those notes.” You are saying that the practice is generally unhelpful, likely to damage faith, and unsuitable for the vast majority of Christians.

You have also repeatedly described the notes themselves as statements that:

cast doubt on their authenticity

and questioned whether the traditional Reformed approach really included this sort of thing.

So when I respond polemically to the conceptual world being constructed by those arguments, that is not me taking something personally.

It is me responding to what you have actually been arguing.

Now, I readily grant that some of the more elaborate “golden age,” “frozen in ink,” and Providence-kept-the-Alexandrian-manuscripts-away arguments have been articulated more explicitly by others. I should not attribute every statement made by every TR advocate in this thread to you.

But you have contributed substantially to the mood in which the alternatives are repeatedly framed as unwise at best and inconsistent with preservation at worst.

That is why your latest objection is directly relevant to what I wrote.

You say:

no where in this thread have I said that textual criticism must stop in the 1600s or any other time. Find me where I said that. I didn't. And I don't even believe that.

Fine. Then I am glad to hear it.

But you have also drawn this distinction:

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

and then immediately questioned whether the latter is compatible with preservation.

That is exactly where the issue lies.

If textual criticism may continue after the Reformation, what may it actually do?

May a believing Reformed minister examine manuscript evidence unavailable to Erasmus and conclude that Erasmus made the wrong textual judgment?

May he conclude that a reading in the TR is not original?

If yes, then we are much closer together than this thread suggests.

If no, then for all practical purposes you have established a boundary around the received textual form. Manuscripts discovered afterward may “confirm” it, illuminate history, or demonstrate how wonderfully God preserved it, but they may not actually correct it.

That is what I mean by a textual freezing point. I am describing the entailment of the position, not pretending you used that particular phrase.

And this is why I have been frustrated by repeatedly being told, in effect, “Convince me of the propriety of the modern eclectic enterprise.”

I have repeatedly told you I am not defending “the modern eclectic enterprise” as some indivisible methodology.

I am defending the propriety of the Church continuing to examine the manuscript evidence God has preserved and making ministerial judgments about it.

So, no, my post was not intended as a personal attack upon you.

It was deliberately polemical because after eleven pages we still keep cycling back to formulations in which one position gets described as preservation, confidence, received Scripture and pastoral wisdom, while alternatives are associated with “manufacturing” Scripture, casting doubt upon Scripture, potentially hurting people's faith, and opening a logical path toward questioning any passage.

Those are not neutral descriptions.

If you don't mean to imply those things about Christians who reject a fixed TR position, then I am glad for the clarification.

But I hope you can also see why, given the pattern of your own posts, my response was not simply some inexplicable personal reaction to a position you have never advanced.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Right back at ya...Proverbs 18:17 would also need to be applied to the CT position. And when we examine the CT position and its underlying presuppositions, we find that they cannot be reconciled with the Scriptures or the WCF. So, we can easily eliminate the CT position as a valid position.

But of course, none of this applies to you since you are not actually defending the CT position. Again, no one is concerned about your personal opinions/presuppositions. We know you believe in preservation. The critiques in the podcast and the sermon by Rev. McCurley are critiques of the CT position and its presuppositions. If you are not defending the CT position, then just ignore those critiques since they don't apply to you.

Right back at ya...Proverbs 18:17 would also need to be applied to the CT position.

Of course it would. I have never said otherwise.

But for pages now I have explained and re-explained that I am not defending some monolithic “CT position.” I have been describing how believing Reformed and Presbyterian ministers have historically handled additional manuscript evidence while still confessing providential preservation: examine the evidence, compare witnesses, make ministerial judgments, reject bad methodology where necessary, and do not pretend that an editor or committee is a Protestant magisterium.

So when I point out that the highly specific “Ecclesiastical Text” account being presented here depends upon historical claims that do not withstand scrutiny, answering “the CT has bad presuppositions too” simply avoids the argument.

That is precisely the pattern I was criticizing.

The podcast tells us that the Reformation text was providentially “frozen in ink,” that an organic ecclesiastical consensus settled it, that Alexandrian manuscripts survived because the Church did not use them, and that subsequent reconstruction represents a different, unconfessional view of preservation.

I then point out that Reformed and Presbyterian scholars after the supposed settlement continued examining manuscript evidence and did not understand WCF 1.8 to mean that a particular printed edition had become untouchable.

The answer cannot simply be:

Right back at ya.

Right back at me about what?

If I were arguing that Westcott and Hort possessed the uniquely Reformed method of textual criticism, then by all means attack that proposition.

I am not.

The historical question remains sitting there untouched: where is the Reformed pedigree for the claim that Providence brought the Church to a settled textual platform in the Reformation such that later manuscript evidence cannot alter a reading?

Pointing out defects in modern textual criticism does not establish that claim.

And saying:

If you are not defending the CT position, then just ignore those critiques since they don't apply to you.

doesn't really work either.

They do apply to what I have written because the “CT” is repeatedly being used as the foil by which this much more specific theory is made to appear necessary. The argument becomes: either accept this account of providential preservation or inherit all the alleged epistemological problems of the Critical Text.

I have spent a considerable amount of time demonstrating that this is a false dilemma.

So, pastorally, I would just ask that we stop retreating to “but the CT has problems too” whenever the historical case for the alternative is pressed.

I know the CT has problems.

That still does not prove your historical account of Providence.

That is the argument I am asking you to answer.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Jeri Tanner said:
This has me scratching my head. They literally do cast doubt on the authenticity of various 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.

No, they most certainly do not.

I lost the use and comfort of the longer ending of Mark, of the woman taken in adultery, and several other places in Scripture for some years due to textual notes that told me these passages were not found in the best and oldest manuscripts. But I got those places in Scripture back, for which I rejoice.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Several things are being conflated here. First: when someone stumbles, that is not necessarily an argument against the doctrine.

You're conflating doctrine with wisdom. Including textual notes is not a doctrinal decision. Deciding to do so or not is a matter of wisdom.

 

[Ploutos]

You're conflating doctrine with wisdom. Including textual notes is not a doctrinal decision. Deciding to do so or not is a matter of wisdom.

I think deciding which study Bibles and which books to recommend to particular people in particular contexts is wisdom.

This is absolutely a doctrinal discussion. It's a discussion of how and where God's providence works and how we determine that. Decisions about how we approach textual variants touch on questions of methodology and doctrine and those questions come into play when study notes are put together. A Reformed study bible that discusses textual variants is making a choice informed by certain doctrinal considerations.

 

[Ploutos]

Jeri Tanner said:
This has me scratching my head. They literally do cast doubt on the authenticity of various 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.

I lost the use and comfort of the longer ending of Mark, of the woman taken in adultery, and several other places in Scripture for some years due to textual notes that told me these passages were not found in the best and oldest manuscripts. But I got those places in Scripture back, for which I rejoice.

We are all able to make informed judgments about these matters and we are able to seek wise counsel on these things.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

First, I was largely responding to your inaccurate reference to the Geneva Bible containing text-critical notes (notes that reference variants or state that a particular phrase or verse is not in some manuscripts) which it does not contain.


Several people in this thread have stated that it has caused them and/or others issues regarding their faith in the Scriptures they hold - whether or not you and Rich think they have any reason for such doubts creeping in does not remove that reality. Not everyone - especially those new to the faith - can quickly come to the understanding of the Reformed view (and the comfort that comes with it) that despite (or perhaps because of) the many variants that exist, the testimony of Scripture is more sure than any other written work in the history of this world. It cannot be denied that the existence of modern textual criticism is used in attempts to discredit the Christian Scriptures, and those whose faith is weak can be devastated by this.




It's a pretty simple and not at all unique or recent boundary/premise - it's simply the approach of the compilers of the Geneva Bible. You may find their approach narrow or arbitrary, but how would you say their approach of limiting their notes to devotional, historical, or cultural insight - being fully aware of many textual variants and questions and yet not including such notes as the 1611 AV would do - could ever work against comfort and hope? If they can't, and people have expressed that notes regarding textual variants (noting older or newer or fewer manuscripts contain or don't contain certain text) do or have worked against their comfort and hope, then it seems pretty obvious which approach should be used in a vulgar translation intended for the masses.


I'm happy to see that your faith is strong and can handle this issue. But not every believer is where you are, and some never will be, so I would caution this kind of dismissive mocking when many of us know (and some were) these weaker brethren.

I don't recommend giving any type of study Bible to a new believer. I obviously prefer my Geneva, but I don't give that to people right off the bat. Acts 8 seems to provide the perfect model: "And Philip ran thither, and heard him read the Prophet Isaiah, and said, 'But understandest thou what thou readest?' And he said, 'How can I, except I had a guide?' And he desired Philip, that he would come up and sit with him." (And, yes, there were annotated texts and commentaries on Isaiah at that time - like the Isaiah pesharim or the targum of Isaiah - that Philip could have directed him to).

What is lost if the textual notes are removed from a vulgar translation?

You're conflating doctrine with wisdom. Including textual notes is not a doctrinal decision. Deciding to do so or not is a matter of wisdom.

I agree with that distinction as far as it goes. Whether a particular Bible includes a textual note is a matter of wisdom. My concern is that we keep moving from “this requires wisdom” to fairly broad judgments that exposing ordinary Christians to this information is generally unwise.

And I think we need another distinction that has been getting lost throughout this thread: textual evidence is not the same thing as “Critical Text methodology.”

I have no problem saying that unbelieving scholars can take real evidence and construct arguments from it that are destructive of the faith. Christians can do the same thing. I get quite annoyed with apologetic arguments made by professing Christians that surrender cardinal doctrines because somebody thinks that is what the evidence requires.

But bad use of evidence does not make the evidence disappear.

That has really been one of my concerns here. We do not get a pass because we are Christians to construct a comforting story around evidence and then treat that story as though it were itself the doctrine of Providence.

If Sinaiticus exists, it exists.

If Byzantine manuscripts differ, they differ.

If Erasmus lacked Greek for part of Revelation, he lacked it.

If the KJV translators knew of alternative readings, they knew them.

The unbeliever can tell a false story about those facts. So can the Christian.

Our task is to deal faithfully with what God in His Providence has actually given us.

That gets me back to the distinction between a textual note and an explanatory note.

On the surface they seem categorically different. One explains the meaning of an accepted text. The other reports evidence bearing upon what the original reading may have been. Scripture is the norma normans, while our interpretations are normed by it.

Fine.

But at the level of actual ministerial work, there is more continuity than that distinction initially suggests.

The men producing a Greek text had to exercise judgment over evidence.

The men translating that Greek into English had to exercise judgment about syntax, semantic range, participles, genitives, idioms, theological context, and how one language can faithfully express another.

None of that descended upon them on golden tablets.

They were fallible Church men carrying out a ministerial task.

And the same men sometimes thought it wise to tell the reader, in effect:

“As far as we can determine, this is the correct reading and therefore this is what we have printed. There is, however, another reading known to us.”

Or:

“Some copies do not contain this.”

That does not mean they thought Scripture was uncertain. It means they understood the difference between the infallibility of God's Word and the fallibility of their own judgment concerning a particular textual or translational question.

That distinction is profoundly Reformed.

The same applies to translation. Even where every Greek manuscript agrees, there may be two plausible English renderings. A translation is itself an extended act of exegesis. The reader usually does not get a footnote explaining why the committee regarded a genitive one way rather than another, or why it thought one English word conveyed Paul's thought better than another.

That is also wisdom.

So I agree with you: this is all wisdom.

But that cuts both ways.

It means the KJV translators exercised wisdom in including textual notes.

It means another translation committee may exercise wisdom in omitting some.

It means a pastor may wisely explain a variant to one congregation and decide it is unnecessary in another context.

What I don't think follows is a general principle that putting such information before ordinary Christians is somehow pastorally suspect.

And this is why I keep returning to the Roman Catholic analogy, not because anyone here is Roman Catholic, but because there is a perennial temptation to gain certainty by locating a human decision at which the question becomes closed.

Rome has an infallible Magisterium. You need not know every difficulty leading up to the judgment. The tribunal has spoken.

Protestants do not have that luxury.

Nor should we manufacture a functional equivalent by saying that Providence brought the Church to an “Ecclesiastical Text” at a particular moment such that the few remaining textual questions became effectively irreformable.

That simply was not how Reformed ministers generally behaved after the Reformation.

They continued looking at manuscripts.

They continued discussing readings.

They continued correcting editions.

They continued distinguishing God's perfectly preserved Word from their own fallible judgments about particular readings.

So, yes, there is pastoral wisdom involved in deciding how much of that process one exposes in any particular setting.

I am not suggesting that we hand a new convert NA28 and tell him to start working through the apparatus.

But neither do I think it is healthy to catechize Christians into a highly specific theory of Providence and then protect that theory by telling ministers that it is “unwise” to expose them to the historical evidence that complicates it.

That can produce exactly the brittleness we are trying to avoid.

Imagine somebody being taught:

God preserved His Word.

The Reformation recovered the correct textual form.

The Church organically received it.

The later manuscripts were providentially kept away.

The TR therefore represents the settled ecclesiastical text.

Then somebody tells him that Erasmus lacked Greek for the end of Revelation, or that the TR differs from the Byzantine majority in places, or that Puritans continued discussing readings outside the received printed text.

Now what?

If his confidence was placed in God's Providence, none of that should trouble him very much.

If his confidence was placed in a highly specific account of what Providence had to look like, it may trouble him enormously.

That is why I think the better pastoral approach is not to conceal the sausage-making process but to teach people what the Reformed doctrine actually gives them confidence in.

God has preserved His Word.

The history of that preservation includes fallible scribes, fallible editors, fallible translators, and fallible ministers.

The Church nevertheless possesses the Scriptures.

And because those Scriptures need no defense from the truth, we can examine the evidence honestly without fear.

That does not mean every Christian needs to know everything.

It does mean we should be very cautious before telling Reformed ministers that discussing the evidence God preserved is generally unwise because the people in the pews might not be able to handle it.

They're going to encounter these questions eventually anyway. The KJV reader will sit in a Bible study next to somebody with an ESV. Somebody will read a footnote. Somebody will search Mark 16 online. Somebody will hear about Erasmus.

I'd much rather have their pastor explain those things within a robust doctrine of Providence than have their first exposure come from Bart Ehrman.

So, yes, wisdom.

But wisdom is not silence, and pastoral care is not the construction of an artificially tidy history.

 

[Ploutos]

In the end, the hard-line TR view, by trying to preserve providence through human contrivance, ends up producing a more fragile view of God's providential preservation. It's one that has to be held with rigidity and fear, as opposed to the confidence of a viewpoint that says "I'm not afraid of your evidence and I don't have to resort to logical contortions to explain it away because God's providence is stronger than that".

 

[Venator Veritatis]

In the end, the hard-line TR view, by trying to preserve providence through human contrivance, ends up producing a more fragile view of God's providential preservation. It's one that has to be held with rigidity and fear, as opposed to the confidence of a viewpoint that says "I'm not afraid of your evidence and I don't have to resort to logical contortions to explain it away because God's providence is stronger than that".

By "hard-line TR"do you mean KJV onlyists? TR preffered? Or men like our brother Steve who calls it the "Gold Standard"?

Saying the hard-line TR view is one that has to be held with fear seems like a potential mischaracterization of the views of solid members of this board? I think both sides assert with confidence that "I'm not afraid of your evidence and I don't have to resort to logical contortions to explain it away because God's providence is stronger than that"


I'm not a TR or a CT person. Mostly because I know so previous little on the subject to make an educated decision. But if, as the reformed tradition teaches, the Church does not determine scripture but recognizes it, I have to wrestle with the fact that there are indeed passages of scripture that were once recognized as Scripture that are now no longer recognized as such.

In this humble layman that does not always give me confidence in the process of textual criticism. I can be confident in 99% of the Word, but it seems as if there will be no lack of discussion and consternation about what disputed passages do or don't belong until our Lord returns.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

… it seems as if there will be no lack of discussion and consternation about what disputed passages do or don't belong until our Lord returns.

I appreciate your whole post. I do think the church can hope for clarity while still in our pilgrimage (though the Lord’s return is what we ultimately hope in); pray for another day of unity, and the Spirit’s power, that the church may assemble to settle such things.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

In the end, the hard-line TR view, by trying to preserve providence through human contrivance, ends up producing a more fragile view of God's providential preservation. It's one that has to be held with rigidity and fear, as opposed to the confidence of a viewpoint that says "I'm not afraid of your evidence and I don't have to resort to logical contortions to explain it away because God's providence is stronger than that".

I want to express this gently, but it often feels as though the call to "respect the Textus Receptus position" functions as a one-way street.

At times, the framework appears to demand that we reject out of hand the possibility that any other Greek manuscript could have aided Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, or the King James translators, even when earlier Reformers and Puritans consulted a wider range of witnesses. It often frames confidence in such a way that anything other than a rigidly defined "settled Providential text" is treated as a complete surrender of our trust in Scripture. To maintain that wall, alternate scholarship is frequently met with suspicion or uncharitable narratives, such as assuming manuscripts like Sinaiticus or Vaticanus survived only because they were discarded, or labeling their scribes as heretics.

The trouble with that posture is that it shuts down charitable dialogue. It quickly reduces a nuanced text-critical and historical discussion into an "either you are with us, or you are against the Bible" dynamic.

While I can certainly be persistent in working through these questions, my intention is always to represent the TR position fairly, as its advocates understand it. I hold deep reverence for the men who compiled the TR and translated the Reformation-era Bibles. Certain arguments within the position carry genuine historical weight; for instance, the idea that an authentic reading preserved in Jerome’s Latin might have temporarily faded from the Byzantine stream. Yet nothing in the historical record of Erasmus’s editions or their subsequent reception demands that we view the sixteenth-century printed text as an untouchable, exhaustive boundary of God’s providence.

Reflecting on this recently, I tend toward the Byzantine text-type, the stream of manuscripts used continuously by the Greek-speaking church throughout centuries. In communities where the Greek text was read, heard, and copied continually, sudden novelties or major omissions would naturally be noticed. That provides a stable, church-centered baseline. With that foundation, one doesn't need to feel threatened by papyri or early codices. We know copyists were human and made unintentional errors, and we can evaluate outliers with discernment without needing elaborate theories to malign the manuscripts or the scribes who produced them. For all we know, an early copyist in Alexandria was a faithful brother doing his best to preserve God’s Word on fragile papyrus. To casually label him a heretic simply because his transcript diverges from a later printed edition feels spiritually hazardous.

This is why the tension within the strict TR position grieves me. The appeal of a "text used by the church" makes intuitive pastoral sense, but the position often claims the mantle of the Byzantine tradition while simultaneously defending places where Erasmus departed from that very Greek consensus in favor of the Latin Vulgate. When someone raises this historical reality, the response is too often that they are denying Westminster Confession 1.8 or "stealing God’s Word from the people."

If you trace the arc of this thread, you can see this dynamic playing out in real time. I have tried, with varying degrees of success, to foster genuine dialogue while also pointing out where this rigid framework inevitably leads. At the end of the day, the conversation is forced into a false binary: either you stand uncritically with the TR, or you are viewed as standing against God's Word. Observers who may not follow every historical nuance get caught in the wake, coming away with the impression that anyone highlighting these textual problems must be ambivalent about Scripture itself.

I certainly do not claim that those critiquing the TR position are blameless in how they engage. Even so, it becomes almost impossible to have a fruitful conversation when the stakes are framed as an all-or-nothing proposition, where questioning a sixteenth-century edition is treated as an attack on divine preservation and the comfort of millions of believers.

It is painful when discussions devolve this way, especially among brothers and sisters in Christ whom I love and count as friends. The tragic irony is that an approach intended to guard believers from uncertainty often breeds an unnecessary fragility: if the entire faith is made to stand or fall on the pristine finality of a specific sixteenth-century printing, even honest historical questions are perceived as existential threats. We ought to be able to study how the Lord has providentially kept His Word across history with confidence, intellectual honesty, and mutual charity.

 

[jwright82]

I noticed a trajectory among some people commenting on textual criticism notes that concerns me. We know that sometimes the NT authors quotes' the OT in different ways than we have in the OT (see the quote in Mathew 21:16 quoting Psalm 8:2).
But if one carries out the Logic of concern for the average reader (not aware of this famous problem in Biblical scholarship) they could conclude that Jesus is lying right?
Mathew 21:16 (ESV) "out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise".
Psalm 8:2 (ESV) "out of the mouth of babies and infants you have established strength because of your foes, to still the enemy and avenger".
If textual criticism notes are going to cause problems then how much more of a problem will our Lord and Savior "misquoting" the OT cause? Should we then correct our Lord and retranslate his Words, so as not to confuse people?
And why (to get back to the OP) hasn't any Denomination in NAPARC ruled on this immensely confusing issue in our Churches? Maybe because it's not an issue and they assume (I can't possibly know this, so take it with a grain of salt) that they're dealing with adults who can seek out answers to these questions. Maybe they trust the pastors and elders given authority within these churches (I'm aware this is a simplified view of the situation) to be equipped by the Holy Spirit to shepherd the flock into truth.
The same thing with textual criticism notes, in fact in my ESV it has a note on this quote "Greek". The person, if so concerned as an adult, can figure out that this is a reference to the Septuagint text. They can research it and seek counsel on the issue.
The "logic" of removing textual criticism notes from the text (to protect people) logically leads to a greater problem with the NT's use of the OT (that therefore must be corrected despite that being the actual word's we have in Scripture), just to protect the people.
Now, no one would go that far and they are perfectly happy with pastors and elders being present to answer those questions for the average "troubled spirit" of a partitioner. And this is the pastoral wisdom answer given by us on the other side of this debate, it applies to textual criticism notes as well.
So shouldn't we also have faith in adults being able to sort the issue of textual criticism notes out for themselves with or without help? But the same "logic" can be used to reach both conclusions.
It's called the "Law of Unintended Consequences". Or your case "proves too much". We can all agree that that is a bad road to go down, so why not agree as well with "pastoral wisdom" being applied to this situation as well?

 

[Silas22]

As a pastor, I recommend the ESV, NASB 95, NKJV, and the CSB to my congregation. I preach from the ESV so many follow along with that translation. I've considered switching to the NASB or the NKJV, but it would be difficult given the congregation would have to change as well (as well as the pew-bibles!)

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I enjoy the KJV sometimes, but wouldn't use it in quite a few scenarios. I mainly use the ESV for normal reading, but I really like the NLT sometimes for grasping the intention and meaning of a text that otherwise can be difficult to decipher.

 

[De Jager]

I can say that I've learned a lot in the course of this whole discussion. This has caused me to dig in to these things far more than I had ever done before (which I'm sure isn't surprising to the more educated posters in this thread). I want to thank everyone for their engagement. Sorry for my density, at times.

I think I have some significant common ground with @Semper Fidelis and @Ploutos. I want to outline, very briefly, what my convictions are, as they currently stand. This post in no way is meant to characterize anyone's opinions other than my own, and it is in no way to be construed as being "Pro CT" or "Pro TR".

1. I am not in favour of assigning an arbitrary point in time after which all textual criticism activity must stop. I can't get behind that.

2. I am not going to go so far as to say "1500 guys good, modern guys bad". I also can't say that.

3. I believe that God has preserved his word.

4. I put significant weight, *possibly?* more than others in this thread, on ecclesiastical reception and use of a textual tradition. It is not the be-all and end all, but it is a significant data point that to me, holds weight.

5. I cannot be in favour of a position that says scholars today cannot correct something that Erasmus did.

6. In a broad sense, guys like Beza, Erasmus, and Stephanus practiced textual criticism in the sense that they looked through manuscripts and made judgements on readings; but I'm not willing to grant that it is therefore completely equivalent to the modern practices. I'm also not willing to grant sweeping approval of modern practices on the basis that "Beza did that too". (Note: I am not claiming that anyone here is doing that)

6. At the same time, I believe that textual critical work should be, no matter who does it, essentially a corrective enterprise rather than a construction enterprise. Earlier the question was asked "what may modern text critics legitimately do?" That would be my answer, in line with Steve's post earlier. Maintenance vs. Construction. They should correct obvious errors. The burden of proof is on the textual critic to correct what the church has used. It is not the other way around, where the burden of proof is on the church's "received" text to prove that it belongs to an eclectic text construction.

7. I make a distinction between looking at manuscript evidence and making corrections, and the construction of an eclectic text from thousands of manuscripts to try and reconstruct the "Ausgangstext". To me, this is problematic. While I am not impugning the motives or faith of anyone involved in this, to me it appears to rely on the presupposition that God has not preserved his word. If he had preserved his word, then this would be a superfluous exercise.

9. Based on these things, I have a preference for bible versions for which the new testament is translated based on the received Greek text tradition rather than a modern critical text. With that said, I will not say that those based on a modern critical text aren't God's word. But I will say that in my judgment, it is better to use one based on the received text tradition.

10. Regarding notes in the margins, this is a matter of preference and a pastoral issue, but my preference is that such notes be kept to a minimum. I'm heartily against the practice of bracketing entire passages and qualifying them with statements like "some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9-20". This practice of casting doubt onto whether a passage of scripture, which is printed in the scriptures, is actually scripture, is in my view, inappropriate.

Thanks

 

[Ploutos]

I like a lot of the things you said in this post.

Some of the things you point out below, without being more knowledgeable myself, I am quite certain are the case for some parts of the text-critical world, where skepticism and higher critical assumptions predominate. I would not be at all surprised to find that in some parts of the liberal world, the quest for the "true Bible" takes on a shape akin to the "quest for the historical Jesus". I'm totally opposed to that - but I'm just as heartily opposed to any efforts to conflate that position with the more moderate CT or neutral or soft-TR views present in this thread. It's those distinctions that I'm keen to maintain, and one thing I have hoped to drive home in this thread is that borrowing or appropriating some valid conclusions and discoveries made by the world of secular scholarship does not equate to adopting some sort of unbiblical reconstructionist quest for the "Scripture behind the Scripture". That's just a general note - not aimed at any particular person.

The bracketing of notes - this is the thing that really seems to bug you the most, and I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly but it seems it may have caused you some legitimate doubt or spiritual stumbling in your own life. At any rate, I think this is one thing I would suggest that you could frame differently in your mind. My understanding is that versions like the ESV, which are more decidedly inclined toward the CT, are written with the belief that the weight of evidence supports not having these passages in Scripture. Their scoring rubric says "this shouldn't be here". But they are there, albeit in brackets - and why? Perhaps out of respect for those who think otherwise, perhaps out of respect for a long and attested tradition of having these verses. So I don't think of it as casting doubt on Scripture so much as trying to fairly acknowledge a different viewpoint.

Now to make one thing clear: this doesn't mean that I, or anybody else, has to agree with the ESV's decision or the methodology behind it. The reasoning used prioritizes age of individual manuscripts over larger bodies of manuscripts, and as I said above, I'm not sure that's the right move. But that being said, that is the decision they made. Need we speculate on their motive or worse, slander them in an unchristian and uncharitable way? Should that be the effect of our own stance on text criticism, instead of it producing in us greater charity and kindness?

In that light, when I see those brackets, I imagine them saying (and again this is speculation too, but I like to think it's a charitable and warranted speculation) "Well, our best judgment is that this passage ought not to be here because it was a later addition by some scribe or disciple of Mark or Peter who wanted to round out a very abrupt ending - BUT for the sake of people who have a clear conviction otherwise, let's translate it and put it in, but with brackets". In other words, if you have a strong conviction that this is part of Scripture, then you can still hold this Bible in your hands without that stumbling block.

Now maybe there was a better solution than brackets. But, I think that if you hold some judgment of charity toward the reasoning behind such decisions and the text-critical methodology behind them, this is at least one way to come to grips with those pesky brackets, even if you don't agree with them. They are there precisely for those people who might object to the conclusions arrived at by the people who assembled that version.

I don't know if that helps you or makes you even more upset about the brackets than you were before, but I think that I've given one perfectly reasonable and possible hypothesis for what's going on there. Rather than accusing those brackets of casting doubt on Scripture, ask yourself - do you have a conviction that those last 12 verses of Mark are God's inspired word and that it would be wrong to omit them? Great! Here's an ESV - you'll find those last 12 verses, right after the ones that came before them, and translated with the same care and attention. That, I think, constitutes the principled disagreement held with charity that we should all strive for.

I can say that I've learned a lot in the course of this whole discussion. This has caused me to dig in to these things far more than I had ever done before (which I'm sure isn't surprising to the more educated posters in this thread). I want to thank everyone for their engagement. Sorry for my density, at times.

I think I have some significant common ground with @Semper Fidelis and @Ploutos. I want to outline, very briefly, what my convictions are, as they currently stand. This post in no way is meant to characterize anyone's opinions other than my own, and it is in no way to be construed as being "Pro CT" or "Pro TR".

1. I am not in favour of assigning an arbitrary point in time after which all textual criticism activity must stop. I can't get behind that.

2. I am not going to go so far as to say "1500 guys good, modern guys bad". I also can't say that.

3. I believe that God has preserved his word.

4. I put significant weight, *possibly?* more than others in this thread, on ecclesiastical reception and use of a textual tradition. It is not the be-all and end all, but it is a significant data point that to me, holds weight.

5. I cannot be in favour of a position that says scholars today cannot correct something that Erasmus did.

6. In a broad sense, guys like Beza, Erasmus, and Stephanus practiced textual criticism in the sense that they looked through manuscripts and made judgements on readings; but I'm not willing to grant that it is therefore completely equivalent to the modern practices. I'm also not willing to grant sweeping approval of modern practices on the basis that "Beza did that too". (Note: I am not claiming that anyone here is doing that)

6. At the same time, I believe that textual critical work should be, no matter who does it, essentially a corrective enterprise rather than a construction enterprise. Earlier the question was asked "what may modern text critics legitimately do?" That would be my answer, in line with Steve's post earlier. Maintenance vs. Construction. They should correct obvious errors. The burden of proof is on the textual critic to correct what the church has used. It is not the other way around, where the burden of proof is on the church's "received" text to prove that it belongs to an eclectic text construction.

7. I make a distinction between looking at manuscript evidence and making corrections, and the construction of an eclectic text from thousands of manuscripts to try and reconstruct the "Ausgangstext". To me, this is problematic. While I am not impugning the motives or faith of anyone involved in this, to me it appears to rely on the presupposition that God has not preserved his word. If he had preserved his word, then this would be a superfluous exercise.

9. Based on these things, I have a preference for bible versions for which the new testament is translated based on the received Greek text tradition rather than a modern critical text. With that said, I will not say that those based on a modern critical text aren't God's word. But I will say that in my judgment, it is better to use one based on the received text tradition.

10. Regarding notes in the margins, this is a matter of preference and a pastoral issue, but my preference is that such notes be kept to a minimum. I'm heartily against the practice of bracketing entire passages and qualifying them with statements like "some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9-20". This practice of casting doubt onto whether a passage of scripture, which is printed in the scriptures, is actually scripture, is in my view, inappropriate.

Thanks

 

[Persequeor]

It may have been said already, but I wish to add my unsolicited opinion. Back in the 70's and 80's I was caught up in this debate. So were many of my Presbyterian, Baptist and Methodist friends. Then I had an idea (the source of many troubles); the church where I was pastor would have a debate on the issue. Dr Waite came for the one side, and the expert for the other side-whom I shall not name-didn't bother to show, and it was a very one-sided week of debate that created more problems than it cured. Not to be critical of my dear brother, few were able to answer him intelligently.

This is presented to give you the opinion that all of this helped to form: Burgon, Westcott or Hodges notwithstanding, until there is more proof that some malicious person purposely left out the Pericope, or some overly zealous person added the Comma, or whatever else may be the real truth, these things should neither be inserted into the text nor force a change to the confessional standards. BUT they cannot be ignored; they belong in the margins. Like the proverbial elephant in the room, they cannot be ignored and should be discussed. They belong in the margins, not in the text, in my opinion, such as it is. They are not meant to solicit unbelief in the text, but to show that there are indeed variant or minority readings; that is their purpose. In God's providence they were discovered, and for a reason; we cannot dismiss them without proper evidence. I am neither a CT nor a TR proponent, and if pressed might say a Majority Text guy, but I left those battles decades ago to those better equipped. No arguments, just an asserted opinion. Thank you for all the learned words in previous posts. God has preserved His word, maybe in ways we might not like, or perhaps there are other reasons; may He give us the grace to know the difference. His word is settled in heaven-our problem is here on earth!

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I’d like to give a brief and cogent statement on what Scriptures support my view of the LORD’s providential preservation of the TR / KJV priority position I hold to.

For example, in Jeremiah 26:2 KJV, the LORD speaking to the prophet, it is written, “Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD’s house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD’s house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word…” [emphasis added]

Earlier, this word was given to Moses in Deuteronomy 4:2 KJV, “Ye shall not add unto the wordwhich I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” [emphasis added]

In Proverbs 30:6 KJV, we are told by the Spirit, “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”

And, similar to that, in Isaiah 59:21 KJV, the LORD tells us, “As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.” [emphasis added]

This is what I take from these statements – commands, really: Will not the LORD requiring His prophets to not diminish or add a word, Himself keep to the same standard when providentially preserving His own word?

When the Lord Jesus said, in Matthew 4:4 KJV, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God”, I take that literally, as even one word may be full of meaning, and quickening life. [emphasis added]

In 2 Peter 1:2-4 KJV, we are told this, “Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.” [emphasis added]

These are the Scriptures – which, really, have the same meaning and import as other versions do – that convince me the LORD is able to keep the word He has given us through His providential preservation.

Now that’s not always easy to figure out, but it does take reviewing the versions that would fit into this class, with the details involved, and I’m not concerned to get into all that at this time.

And I have a few caveats: As I have been ministering (before I was incapacitated by severe illnesses) to folks for whom English was not their first language, I soon realized that using various modern versions (the NJKV, ESV, NIV ’84, NLT, and so forth) made it much easier for them to understand. I have even come to appreciate and like some of these versions, and purchase them for those people who like to study more deeply – all the while letting them know that the “gold standard” for accuracy is the KJV.

I also have ministered to Greek-speaking people, and have been able to obtain an extraordinarily clear vernacular Greek NT that is based on the older TR Greek.

So I really do like and appreciate the modern versions, seeing their worth.

Some may ask me how do I reconcile the major variants, and it comes down to this: there is a preservation in the main, and a preservation in the minutiae. So that earlier generations, before there even was a TR, had a preservation in the main, and by which the LORD was able to mightily convert and care for His elect people. And that principle applies today in the midst of the many modern versions available now.

I certainly to not condemn or look down upon those who use Bibles that differ from mine. And I know that they may well be wiser and godlier folks than I!

I cannot answer all the very fine-tuned questions in this area of discussion, as my extended stays in fiery furnaces wrought havoc on my memory, my brain, and – as a result of these physical impairments and failing health – have had to give away my entire library, so I cannot defend my views in this area as I was once able to!

I realize that the lightning rod of attack on the TR / KJV view is the Johannine Comma / 1 John 5:7-8 KJV. I won’t engage in discussion, but I might post some valuable resources.

Spending 30 days (Jan 1-30) of this present year with a fractured vertebrae (L1) and the resulting extreme pain affected my cognitive faculties, from which I have not recovered. (On Jan 31st I had an operation to repair that, although I have reinjured myself (having osteoporosis), and the neurosurgeon says he can do no more, but refer me to pain management, which I am loath to do (it would cause GI troubles I would avoid, unless the pain is unbearable); I can only take Tylenol, as my heart condition would contraindicate other NSAIDS. One Dr. told me I’ll more likely die of heart failure than anything else.

In fact, I see this all as the Lord’s providence – His wisdom and love – keeping me lowly of heart and mind, as promoting my written corpus of works as I do could easily tend to self-aggrandizement. Spiritually I am impoverished, yet He is with me through the faith He graciously grants. It is well with my soul. It’s just that I can’t think as I once used to. (I have posted this in the Translations and Manuscripts forum also, the Statement of Faith thread).

I'll also add some resources for the Johannine Comma / 1 John 5:7-8 KJV issue.

1 John 5:7 (Johannine Comma)

This posted has been uploaded from the following article: . The following is an excerpt from Dr. Thomas Holland’s Crowned With Glory, ©2000, used with permission. 1 John 5:7 (Johannine Comma) – “These Three Are One” “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the...

answeringislam.blog

KJV Today: https://www.kjvtoday.net/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57

1 John 5:7 - Textus Receptus

Will Kinney: https://www.brandplucked.com/1john57.htm

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I realize that the lightning rod of attack on the TR / KJV view is the Johannine Comma / 1 John 5:7-8 KJV. I won’t engage in discussion, but I might post some valuable resources.

Steve, I think a resource thread would be useful; let others discuss.

 

[De Jager]

It may have been said already, but I wish to add my unsolicited opinion. Back in the 70's and 80's I was caught up in this debate. So were many of my Presbyterian, Baptist and Methodist friends. Then I had an idea (the source of many troubles); the church where I was pastor would have a debate on the issue. Dr Waite came for the one side, and the expert for the other side-whom I shall not name-didn't bother to show, and it was a very one-sided week of debate that created more problems than it cured. Not to be critical of my dear brother, few were able to answer him intelligently.

This is presented to give you the opinion that all of this helped to form: Burgon, Westcott or Hodges notwithstanding, until there is more proof that some malicious person purposely left out the Pericope, or some overly zealous person added the Comma, or whatever else may be the real truth, these things should neither be inserted into the text nor force a change to the confessional standards. BUT they cannot be ignored; they belong in the margins. Like the proverbial elephant in the room, they cannot be ignored and should be discussed. They belong in the margins, not in the text, in my opinion, such as it is. They are not meant to solicit unbelief in the text, but to show that there are indeed variant or minority readings; that is their purpose. In God's providence they were discovered, and for a reason; we cannot dismiss them without proper evidence. I am neither a CT nor a TR proponent, and if pressed might say a Majority Text guy, but I left those battles decades ago to those better equipped. No arguments, just an asserted opinion. Thank you for all the learned words in previous posts. God has preserved His word, maybe in ways we might not like, or perhaps there are other reasons; may He give us the grace to know the difference. His word is settled in heaven-our problem is here on earth!

Could you clarify what things you are referring to? Are you saying the passages themselves belong in the margins, or are you referring to notes that allude to doubts concerning their authenticity?

 

[De Jager]

I like a lot of the things you said in this post.

Some of the things you point out below, without being more knowledgeable myself, I am quite certain are the case for some parts of the text-critical world, where skepticism and higher critical assumptions predominate. I would not be at all surprised to find that in some parts of the liberal world, the quest for the "true Bible" takes on a shape akin to the "quest for the historical Jesus". I'm totally opposed to that - but I'm just as heartily opposed to any efforts to conflate that position with the more moderate CT or neutral or soft-TR views present in this thread. It's those distinctions that I'm keen to maintain, and one thing I have hoped to drive home in this thread is that borrowing or appropriating some valid conclusions and discoveries made by the world of secular scholarship does not equate to adopting some sort of unbiblical reconstructionist quest for the "Scripture behind the Scripture". That's just a general note - not aimed at any particular person.

The bracketing of notes - this is the thing that really seems to bug you the most, and I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly but it seems it may have caused you some legitimate doubt or spiritual stumbling in your own life. At any rate, I think this is one thing I would suggest that you could frame differently in your mind. My understanding is that versions like the ESV, which are more decidedly inclined toward the CT, are written with the belief that the weight of evidence supports not having these passages in Scripture. Their scoring rubric says "this shouldn't be here". But they are there, albeit in brackets - and why? Perhaps out of respect for those who think otherwise, perhaps out of respect for a long and attested tradition of having these verses. So I don't think of it as casting doubt on Scripture so much as trying to fairly acknowledge a different viewpoint.

Now to make one thing clear: this doesn't mean that I, or anybody else, has to agree with the ESV's decision or the methodology behind it. The reasoning used prioritizes age of individual manuscripts over larger bodies of manuscripts, and as I said above, I'm not sure that's the right move. But that being said, that is the decision they made. Need we speculate on their motive or worse, slander them in an unchristian and uncharitable way? Should that be the effect of our own stance on text criticism, instead of it producing in us greater charity and kindness?

In that light, when I see those brackets, I imagine them saying (and again this is speculation too, but I like to think it's a charitable and warranted speculation) "Well, our best judgment is that this passage ought not to be here because it was a later addition by some scribe or disciple of Mark or Peter who wanted to round out a very abrupt ending - BUT for the sake of people who have a clear conviction otherwise, let's translate it and put it in, but with brackets". In other words, if you have a strong conviction that this is part of Scripture, then you can still hold this Bible in your hands without that stumbling block.

Now maybe there was a better solution than brackets. But, I think that if you hold some judgment of charity toward the reasoning behind such decisions and the text-critical methodology behind them, this is at least one way to come to grips with those pesky brackets, even if you don't agree with them. They are there precisely for those people who might object to the conclusions arrived at by the people who assembled that version.

I don't know if that helps you or makes you even more upset about the brackets than you were before, but I think that I've given one perfectly reasonable and possible hypothesis for what's going on there. Rather than accusing those brackets of casting doubt on Scripture, ask yourself - do you have a conviction that those last 12 verses of Mark are God's inspired word and that it would be wrong to omit them? Great! Here's an ESV - you'll find those last 12 verses, right after the ones that came before them, and translated with the same care and attention. That, I think, constitutes the principled disagreement held with charity that we should all strive for.

Regarding the bracketing of passages, no it has not caused me any kind of crisis of faith at any time. I simply don't like the practice and feel it appears misleading. Of course this is my personal opinion, and I don't want to make it sound like its a sin or that I'm condemning the publishers who do it. I'm not sure the reasoning for the practice we are discussing - it might well be exactly what you are describing. But in terms of whether it casts doubt on those passages of scripture, I don't really think that's up for debate - it almost unquestionably has done so for some believers. Take for example what Jeri has said earlier. You might think that her or others' doubts are unfounded, but the doubts have arisen nonetheless, and this ought never to be brushed aside flippantly (not saying you're doing this), and publishers need to be keenly aware that it is indeed a weighty thing to be in the business of handling and printing the scriptures. It might be argued conversely that "well, they could have left it out, and then the people would be faced with the same fact - i.e. that this passage is disputed by the very fact that it is left out". There is some truth to that. And yet, I believe it would be more appropriate, as it would mean that what is actually printed as the scriptures is not at the same time accompanied with notes that cast doubt on their authenticity. I don't think that it is proper to display God's Word, which is the very Word of God, and the final appeal for all matters of life and religion, with qualifiers. I think that kind of practice mitigates against the very notion of it being the very Word of God.

 

[Persequeor]

The additions and deletions and notes that question their authority belong in the margins; I believe the vss themselves must remain in the text.