A Westminster Divine and an Alexandrian Codex

Not open for further replies.
Very good, this is how it should be done, and this is the right attitude: "Goodwin’s big concern is to discover what the Apostle originally wrote"

You may disagree about the exact methodology, but the goal should be the same.
Last edited:
Does anyone know if anyone in the Confessional Bibliology camp has interacted with this article? This article has been out for several months now but I haven't seen much commentary. I first came across it when someone posted it in passing in a comment here but it didn't get much interaction.

It seems closely reading the framers of the Confession would not accord with the Confessional Bibliology position, despite what the name implies. From what I can tell from this article and elsewhere, there was interest in reviewing other manuscripts outside of the printed editions of the TR when they were available and the readings were occasionally preferred.
Goodwin and Owen certainly consider various readings, when there are any, and then make judgements based on that. I don't think Manton is any other, but his judgment in this particular case is simply that a few testimonies don't deserve to put away the general consent of the church, as he calls it there.

I don't really understand what the guy on Facebook is trying to say. Certainly not that Manton or the puritans were King James Onlyists or something like that? Because I am pretty sure (even though I never studied it) that they wouldn't go such a route.

But it would indeed be interesting to see how exactly they were making their judgements, are there any resources that talk about that?
I haven't seen any of the pastors respond but have seen one series of responses today, adducing a contrary Westminster divine in Manton against Goodwin.

Quoting Manton (who in context is defending the canonicity of James) as apparent proof of the Westminster Divines' stance against any texts other than the printed TR, seems an odd reading, to say the least.

And pointing out that there are more than a few differences between the texts is missing the point. The point is, Manton was willing to consider texts other than his printed text. That is contrary to the modern TR-proponent's reading of WCF 1:8 (but completely consistent with what I believe is the historical reading of it).
Goodwin is hardly a one-off in being willing to consider the possibility that the TR has an incorrect reading. Voetius gives a whole list of guys that thought some mistake had crept into the apographs, including Beza.
Christians from the earliest days had before them various readings, what's wrong with that? Making a printed text your final authority is nothing else than placing your faith in the guy who printed that text and blindly following him in all of his judgements. I can hardly imagine that this is what the Facebook guy is suggesting. This would be way out.
Not open for further replies.