Robert Truelove
Puritan Board Sophomore
Here's my response to James White from his Dividing Line on 4/27/2017...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Just to track, the same decisions as in those of the critical text crowd, or the same decisions as in the confessionalists' doctrine of inerrancy?I also think that many simply make the assumption that the same men would have made the same decisions if they had the manuscripts we have discovered.
What I was trying to say is that we read certain things that Turretin might have written and assume he would have written the same things about Greek manuscripts if he had access to thousands of additional manuscripts. One of the very points Robert makes is citing Turretin stating that there are no known variants in any known Greek manuscripts and it's been that way from the very beginning of the Church. Some of his statements are just not accurate even for his own day. On the one hand he made a factual error (an unintended one) but, on the other, what might he and others have done with the discovery of so many ancient papyri? We can never know.Just to track, the same decisions as in those of the critical text crowd, or the same decisions as in the confessionalists' doctrine of inerrancy?
What I was trying to say is that we read certain things that Turretin might have written and assume he would have written the same things about Greek manuscripts if he had access to thousands of additional manuscripts. One of the very points Robert makes is citing Turretin stating that there are no known variants in any known Greek manuscripts and it's been that way from the very beginning of the Church. Some of his statements are just not accurate even for his own day. On the one hand he made a factual error (an unintended one) but, on the other, what might he and others have done with the discovery of so many ancient papyri? We can never know.
In other words, we can see how they handled the information they had and how they handled the manuscript evidence and learn from it. We don't dismiss it out of hand but we also can see things in these same men that we disagree with because we've discovered more information.
That's not to say that we have to buy into an eclectic approach to how we put together the Scriptures or leave it to "experts" outside the Church. It's simply an acknowledgement that we now possess a wealth of additional manuscripts and I am not persuaded that we simply ignore these manuscripts as having no bearing on determining what the autographs contained.
III.The question is not are the sources so pure that no fault has crept into the many sacred manuscripts, either through the waste of time, the carelessness of copyists or the malice of the Jews or of heretics? For this is acknowledged on both sides and the various readings which Beza and Robert Stephanus have carefully observed in the Greek (and the Jews in the Hebrew) clearly prove it. Rather the question is have the original texts (or the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts) been so corrupted either by copyists through carelessness (or by the Jews and heretics through malice) that they can no longer be regarded as the judge of controversies and the rule to which all the versions must be applied? The papists affirm, we deny it. (Page 106)
Chris,
I'd have to find the specific reference. I know Turretin understood this. There was a particular claim that a certain verse had no corruption in any of the manuscripts.
My point is not to get into the specifics of critiquing Turretin or arguing about him per se. That would be pointless. The broader point is taking into account what was known of existing manuscripts at the time and taking the arguments made in light of those facts. It's not fair to criticize our forefathers for neglect when they are working with the materials at hand. We simply cannot assume that, given more information, they would be in the same "camp" of those who quote them to maintain opposition to including additional manuscript finds as if they would be allies given the same information.
This thread started with a video. To those interested in understanding the context of the dialogue between these two men, links to the actual videos have been provided. Not providing these can lead to misrepresentation.I really cannot understand the idea behind linking to a video which takes an hour to say what could be read in a post in two minutes.
On his program "The Dividing Line", and in his book "The King James Only Controversy", Dr. White has always distinguished between the elements of discussion which differ: King James Only, King James preferred, TR only, TR preferred, Byzantine text, ecclesiastical text, etc.Dr. White repeatedly brings the KJVO movement into the discussion of the issue over the textus receptus. It shows a lack of ability to distinguish things that differ. It would be akin to someone refuting his position by referring to Bart Ehrman.
This thread started with a video. To those interested in understanding the context of the dialogue between these two men, links to the actual videos have been provided. Not providing these can lead to misrepresentation.
On his program "The Dividing Line", and in his book "The King James Only Controversy", Dr. White has always distinguished between the elements of discussion which differ: King James Only, King James preferred, TR only, TR preferred, Byzantine text, ecclesiastical text, etc.
Let me support this claim. This book opens with:... and in his book "The King James Only Controversy", Dr. White has always distinguished between the elements of discussion which differ: King James Only, King James preferred, TR only, TR preferred, Byzantine text, ecclesiastical text, etc.
The nature of White's live webcast does mean he covers different topics. And no index of topics is added later to the videos, which is unfortunate. The textual critical topic in his 4/27/2017 video starts at 10:40. He then proceeds to talk about the 1550 Stephanus Greek New Testament, variant reading notations in that particular printed edition(*), the ecclesiastical text, confessions, textus receptus, etc. Evidence is provided first before a summary is given at 16:40 that the people at this time dealing with the Greek texts recognized the existence of textual variants among the few Greek manuscripts (handwritten copies) available at the time.Pastor Truelove's initial video went straight to the points of dispute. One cannot reasonably expect someone to sit through an hour of [deleted]...
Go to around 18.35 on the first video link you provided.
(*)Dr. White's claim about textual variant notations in the margins of the 1550 Stephanus Greek New Testament can be checked at this website containing scans of this particular book.
http://www.bibles-online.net/1550/
To use White's example, go to the book of Romans and turn the pages to see what might be in the margins.
Here's a helpful post by Jeff Riddle from his blog:
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2017/05/word-magazine-75-james-white-versus.html?m=1
Interesting observation, Matthew. Could you elucidate a little further on the differences you see?
Being used to those holding to the KJVO position within baptist churches, they indeed would hold to it in a much different fashion that Reformed understanding on what was the received standard text!Steve, as I perceive it, within fundamentalist circles the defence of the AV assumes anti-reformed principles such as their doctrine that the translators were inspired and that the AV can be used to correct the Hebrew and Greek originals. The "baptist" view of regenerate church membership influences the way differences are discussed, especially using terms like "apostate" and "new age" to describe anything which might produce variation from the AV. The Reformed clearly hold to the authenticity of the originals while maintaining the integrity of faithful translations, and make careful distinctions between inspiration and providence, the visible and invisible church, etc.
Would see tha tthe church need not be divided over this issue, as the Critical/TR/Majority texts all pretty much agree on the majors of the Christian faith, and the englsh versions translated off all of them are the word of the lord to us for today...Thanks, Matthew, for your thoughts on this. While there are indeed some IFBs (Independent Fundamentalist Baptists) who hold to the things you speak of (inspired translators, AV correcting the Greek and Hebrew, calling those who do not use the AV apostates and New Age), there are some I have in mind who are scholarly, irenic, and godly.
Yes, even these latter are sometimes enemies of the doctrines of grace and Reformed teaching—on occasion virulently so—and yet they have done great good in their scholarship and research, especially as regards the Greek NT, and also the history of its transmission. There are not that many Presbyterians and Reformed as diligent and understanding with respect to the infallibility of the Bible, at least not nowadays.
Alas, the church is in disarray in many areas of knowledge, and disunion is rife among us. I think the LORD may bring things to pass to begin to remedy that, so we may be fitter to dwell together in His Paradise.
My position would not be directed towards those holdingto a preference for which Greek text to be used, but to those who think like KJVO, that ONLY one text can be used!Well, David, I do operate in a church (broadly speaking) where all "texts all pretty much agree on the majors of the Christian faith", and that is a good thing; the various English versions are sufficiently preserved that the Lord uses them to sustain and nurture both individuals and churches unto godliness and eternal life.
It does remain, though, that some do take the Lord's saying seriously and literally when He said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Emphasis added; Matt 4:4). Such folks have a strong interest in believing He kept His word when He said that "his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness" (Emphasis added; 2 Pet 1:3), His "every word" among those things. So the validity of the minutiae / the many particular readings—which the Critical Text variants militate against—are of importance to us.
True, we—the churches—can thrive apart from this being settled, yet when the majestic word of our King is questioned it well behooves some of us to defend it. I think of passages, or even individual words, such as in the last twelve verses of Mark, John 7:53-8:11, Acts 20:28, Luke 23:34, Eph 5:30, 1 Tim 3:16, 1 John 5:7 etc etc that are denied in the CT. It is a legitimate and godly endeavor.
With regard to individual words, consider Jer 26:2: "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".
And also Deut 4:2: "Ye shall not add unto the word which 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."
Personally, I can carry this endeavor on without dividing the church, as I have a pastor's care for the flock as well as a scholar's for the truth. I would hope that all who are so engaged can do likewise.
Regarding Turretin's statement that 1 John 5:7 is found in all the Greek copies...I have heard that Turretin wrote a formal treatise in defense of 1 John 5:7 in Latin (that is untranslated) wherein he acknowledges problems in the Greek manuscripts. This has led some to think what he is referring to in the statement I quoted was pertaining to all of the printed Greek texts of his time (not manuscripts), which if so, would give credence to the idea that he saw authenticity due to the fact the reading had been received.
This has led some to think what he is referring to in the statement I quoted was pertaining to all of the printed Greek texts of his time (not manuscripts), which if so, would give credence to the idea that he saw authenticity due to the fact the reading had been received.
Why not set up a formal debate with Dr White. The cross examination often forces each debater to engage the specific points.Finally, the frustration I have with interacting with Dr. White on this subject is he never seems to engage the point I am actually making.