An Inadequate View of God's Providence Regarding Manuscripts of the NT

Status
Not open for further replies.

greenbaggins

Puritan Board Doctor
There are several versions of an argument out there in support of the TR position which argue that God's providence preserved the original reading of the NT only in the Byzantine texts, which were the texts in use in the church, "received everywhere" (as the term "Textus Receptus" means). There may be different versions of this that are more nuanced, or nuanced in different ways than I have written here, but I wish to answer in several different points this inadequate view of God's providence. Some I have talked to argue that there were many more Byzantine text manuscripts in use in the time of the Reformers that have since been lost or used to the point of destruction. The Alexandrian readings in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are in manuscripts that were purportedly not in use because their readings were rejected. These issues will also be addressed.

First point of response: a manuscript like Sinaiticus was almost certainly in use in the Alexandrian church. This is indicated by the fact that it had no fewer than three correctors (some today estimate as many as seven). One does not correct a manuscript that is useless. In addition, one does not correct a manuscript that was not being used. That it was hidden for centuries proves absolutely nothing. TR advocates tend to speculate on the reason of its hiddenness as being the church rejecting its readings. This is certainly not known, and is actually quite unlikely. Far more likely is that when Muslims invaded, destroying Christian manuscripts as they went, that Christians hid the MOST valuable manuscripts, like Sinaiticus. We cannot know this for certain, either, but the rejection of Sinaiticus on the basis of its being hidden because its readings were rejected is not a cogent argument, and needs to be eliminated from the discussion entirely.

The second point I wish to make in connection with the hiddenness of Sinaiticus (and Vaticanus in the Vatican, too, for that matter) is that the assumption on the part of TR advocates that manuscripts had to be not only used but visible all the while in the church is actually an unbiblical idea of God's providence. The entire book of Esther refutes it. The name of God is hidden in Esther. God is not once mentioned. Yet His providence was at work in ways invisible to most of the key players. Mordecai is the only person who had a hint of it when he asked whether Esther had not been raised up for such a time as this. Ahasuerus certainly didn't think of God's providence as giving him insomnia or directing the gaze of the readers in the chronicles to the exact place where Mordecai's saving of the king was recorded. The providence of God works in hidden things, not just visible things, and is itself often hidden. The plain fact of the matter is that God's providence actually preserved Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bezae, and many, many other non-Byzantine texts. God's providence therefore extends to the preservation of all extant manuscripts, whether visible all the while or invisible for part of the time. This can be paralleled in the church itself. The true church is sometimes more visible, sometimes less visible.

Thirdly, TR advocates engage in chronological snobbery with their arguments. The only period of the church that matters to TR advocates in terms of manuscripts is the time when the Byzantine church had the priority of manuscript production. Which manuscripts were around, however, before that time, between, say, the third century and the eighth century? TR advocates say that there were likely a lot more Byzantine manuscripts around during the time of the Reformation. Who is to say there weren't a lot more Alexandrian and Western texts around before that time? And since we cannot know how any of these lost manuscripts read in the variants, it is quite useless to speculate on such matters. We can only go on all the evidence we have today.

In regard, therefore, to the manuscripts we have today, I believe we must avoid two equal and opposite errors. The first error is to discount the Byzantine manuscripts. While Warfield had quite a different approach than his usual detractors today charge him with (he explicitly said, for example, that the original readings are in the apographs, something many deny him saying; he also spoke of "the providence of God in preserving for His Church in each and every age a competently exact text of the Scriptures," p. 12 of his introduction), it cannot be denied that he denigrated the Byzantine manuscripts too much. The equal and opposite error is that of the TR position in rejecting everything but the TR manuscripts. The position of Harry Sturz threads the needle between these errors and argues quite cogently for geographical distribution being a key external factor. If a reading is shown to have support from geographically diverse manuscripts, that means the reading is most likely older than any of the distinctive geographical types. In my opinion, this is one of the very strongest external criteria, as it is a special recognition of God's providence in having the correct reading in every geographical area of the church, not just the Byzantine region, or just the Alexandrian region.

One last point that needs to be made is the error of the TR assumption that godly textual criticism essentially stopped when the TR was published. First of all, there is no one manuscript in the Byzantine tradition that corresponds precisely with the TR. They all have differences with the TR. The process of textual criticism was therefore part of what the Reformers did. Refinements can happen later on in textual criticism just as in theology as a whole. The text of Scripture has always been sufficiently pure for the people of God. TR advocates drive a truck through the phrase "kept pure in all ages" implying that if we are not 100% sure of every textual variant, then it is not pure at all. They also greatly exaggerate the differences between the TR and the CT. I would simply ask this: point me to the single manuscript that is the same as the autograph. The TR is an edition of the Greek New Testament. It is eclectic within the Byzantine manuscripts. It does not correspond to ANY single manuscript at every point. I simply plead for an edition eclectic to all the evidence, based on Sturz's position, not WH or TR, and not ignoring most of the manuscripts, as the TR position does.
 
From what I've read, most Textus Receptus (as it appears in Scrivener and KJV) advocates do not necessarily use this style of argument you're responding to, at least not all of the time. Otherwise how do you account for I John 5:7, with little to no evidence in the Byzantine text but well evidenced in late Latin manuscripts? Instead, the argument is often made for God's working through the TR at the time of the Reformation trumping the other concerns. I find those who are MT-priority use arguments that tend to use the one you are responding to, but not necessarily those who are specifically TR-priority.
 
From what I've read, most Textus Receptus (as it appears in Scrivener and KJV) advocates do not necessarily use this style of argument you're responding to, at least not all of the time. Otherwise how do you account for I John 5:7, with little to no evidence in the Byzantine text but well evidenced in late Latin manuscripts? Instead, the argument is often made for God's working through the TR at the time of the Reformation trumping the other concerns. I find those who are MT-priority use arguments that tend to use the one you are responding to, but not necessarily those who are specifically TR-priority.
I have seen TR advocates use the kind of argument regarding providence that I outlined above. Their view of providence is usually central to the position. I wouldn't doubt that many MT guys would use the argument more frequently. In which case, I am content to have it stand against the MT position, for which I have greater respect, but still view it as inferior to Sturz's position.
 
I have a practical question:

¿How can we instruct our brothers about manuscripts and translation without tiring them out? (Especially new believers)
 
The TR is an edition of the Greek New Testament. It is eclectic within the Byzantine manuscripts. It does not correspond to ANY single manuscript at every point. I simply plead for an edition eclectic to all the evidence, based on Sturz's position, not WH or TR, and not ignoring most of the manuscripts, as the TR position does.
This, I think, is the heart of the matter. I was convinced of the TR position for a while, and in many respects I'm still sympathetic to it. However, after my studies I've concluded that the TR is an eclectic text of its own.

[Confessional] TR advocates launch their attacks against the critical text or modern eclectic text from a paradigm of "preservation (TR) vs. those who deny preservation (anyone not TR)." If one buys into the paradigm formulated this way, the TR becomes the safe harbor. But this is a QIRC (quest for illegitimate religious certainty) as R. Scott Clark likes to claim. The reason the TR paradigm fails in my opinion is that contemporary Reformed, much to the chagrin of TR proponents, do start from a position of preservation. The difference is where that preservation lies: is it within only a family of texts or all? Once we move beyond the false dichotomy of "preservation (TR) vs. those who deny preservation (anyone not TR)," and instead accept that todays Reformed do start from a position of preservation (but don't believe it's only in the TR), the discussion can move forward.

An interesting shift that I think has also contributed to the revival of the TR position among even the Reformed is the general political and sociological climate we find ourselves in. People are distrustful of the government, culture, and many of our institutions in general. There has been a plethora of bible translations in the last few decades. We are waging battles over language, trans confusion, pronouns, etc. In the midst of this climate, I've seen defenders of the ESV and modern textual criticism move over to the KJV/TR position as the safe harbor. Because the KJV/TR is frozen in time, so to speak, there is no danger of committees and modern folk tampering with it. I suspect this appears to be the QIRC element at play and I see it gaining ground.
 
Last edited:
Claudiu, I think you are right on the money on this analysis, all of which resonates very strongly with me, especially the QIRC, which I have thought about many times in relation to the TR question. Very insightful regarding the "frozen in time" stuff, too.

Santiago, I am well past the weary stage myself. However, the information needs to get out there, and people reading their ESV's need to know that they are reading God's Word, not something with a perpetual asterisk next to it, or Satan's Bible (as any translation based on what Myers calls "Satan's Bible" would be Satanic, in turn).
 
I have a practical question:

¿How can we instruct our brothers about manuscripts and translation without tiring them out? (Especially new believers)
With regard to the PB, this problem could easily be raised with every single topic in theology! With new believers, my advice is always to fry the bigger fish first. This discussion is highly technical, requiring years of study and careful thought even to enter the arena. I don't generally recommend new believers take on this topic as a field for study before they have other aspects of bibliology, theology proper, christology, harmatiology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology in some kind of stable shape first.
 
I think if God had wanted us to have 100% certainty on the text of the NT, He would have preserved the autographs themselves, not just the readings of the autographs through the apographs. This is because He wants us to live by faith and not by sight. All editions of the Greek NT are eclectic in that they pull readings from multiple manuscripts and are not identical with any one manuscript. The difference is whether one believes it is a very small sample size (TR), the majority size (MT), geographical-distribution-primary (Sturz), or genealogically based (NA). It is my opinion that all four positions can be within the bounds of orthodoxy, if God's providence in preserving the manuscripts is the starting point.
 
Lane, I think there is a good solution to this problem. When reading the sermons by Vos (Banner of Truth ed) I noticed he quoted the KJV (from memory this is the only translation he quoted). Therefore if the KJV and RT was good enough for Vos, does this not mean the debate is now over? :stirpot::stirpot:
 
It does not correspond to ANY single manuscript at every point. I simply plead for an edition eclectic to all the evidence, based on Sturz's position, not WH or TR, and not ignoring most of the manuscripts, as the TR position does.
T.R. or Majority text advocate here, I would also be final with a bible based on all the (Greek) manuscripts. However, there are many thousands of Byzantine manuscripts, and about two complete "Alexandrian" ones, so the sum of all the manuscripts is going to have a Byzantine reading in every passage, unless for some reason we have determined that those two are each one thousand times more weighty, simply on account of their age. My personal sentiment is that the Alexandrian manuscripts are not very good, and if we are going to weight manuscripts, they should probably be given less weight, but again, whether they are given equal weight or less weight, the results will be similar. The only thing that changes the results is the textual-critical apparatus that gives extraordinary weight to the Alexandrian side.
First point of response: a manuscript like Sinaiticus was almost certainly in use in the Alexandrian church. This is indicated by the fact that it had no fewer than three correctors (some today estimate as many as seven). One does not correct a manuscript that is useless. In addition, one does not correct a manuscript that was not being used. That it was hidden for centuries proves absolutely nothing. TR advocates tend to speculate on the reason of its hiddenness as being the church rejecting its readings. This is certainly not known, and is actually quite unlikely. Far more likely is that when Muslims invaded, destroying Christian manuscripts as they went, that Christians hid the MOST valuable manuscripts, like Sinaiticus. We cannot know this for certain, either, but the rejection of Sinaiticus on the basis of its being hidden because its readings were rejected is not a cogent argument, and needs to be eliminated from the discussion entirely.
Perhaps it was in use in the Alexandrian Church, but that raises the question, "Where are its daughter manuscripts?" Why were these readings unknown until these manuscripts were discovered? Generally, for manuscripts that were in continuous use, tens or hundreds of manuscripts have been copied from them or from their copies.
As for the argument that it being hidden indicates it is of greater worth, the Gnostic gospels were also found hidden in Egypt, so I hardly find that persuasive. That's not an attempt to poison the well, mind you, just a counter-example.
The second point I wish to make in connection with the hiddenness of Sinaiticus (and Vaticanus in the Vatican, too, for that matter) is that the assumption on the part of TR advocates that manuscripts had to be not only used but visible all the while in the church is actually an unbiblical idea of God's providence. The entire book of Esther refutes it. The name of God is hidden in Esther. God is not once mentioned. Yet His providence was at work in ways invisible to most of the key players. Mordecai is the only person who had a hint of it when he asked whether Esther had not been raised up for such a time as this. Ahasuerus certainly didn't think of God's providence as giving him insomnia or directing the gaze of the readers in the chronicles to the exact place where Mordecai's saving of the king was recorded. The providence of God works in hidden things, not just visible things, and is itself often hidden. The plain fact of the matter is that God's providence actually preserved Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bezae, and many, many other non-Byzantine texts. God's providence therefore extends to the preservation of all extant manuscripts, whether visible all the while or invisible for part of the time. This can be paralleled in the church itself. The true church is sometimes more visible, sometimes less visible.
I think you are missing the point of the TR advocates here, which is that the church is God's ordained means for preserving the word. In the temple, which signified the Church, the books of the law were laid up, and the tablets of the ten commandments were kept in the arc of the covenant. Outside the church, there were copies of the Scriptures too, like those of the Samaritans, but they were corrupt, and taught the people to worship, not in Jerusalem, but at Mt Gerizim. In the N.T., the Apostles commit the books of Scripture to the Church. Every epistle of Paul is addressed to the Church, and they are commanded to circulate the Scripture (Col. 4:16). The church, after all, is the "pillar and bulwark of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). Those things believers were to receive were called "traditions" because they were passed down in the church (1 Thes. 2:15). In an era where every sect and heresy had their own corrupted Scriptures, and no one had their own bible because their was no printing press, certifying the authenticity of Scripture in this way was a big deal.
Thirdly, TR advocates engage in chronological snobbery with their arguments. The only period of the church that matters to TR advocates in terms of manuscripts is the time when the Byzantine church had the priority of manuscript production. Which manuscripts were around, however, before that time, between, say, the third century and the eighth century? TR advocates say that there were likely a lot more Byzantine manuscripts around during the time of the Reformation. Who is to say there weren't a lot more Alexandrian and Western texts around before that time? And since we cannot know how any of these lost manuscripts read in the variants, it is quite useless to speculate on such matters. We can only go on all the evidence we have today.
I'm sure you're aware, Lane, that the oldest Byzantine manuscript is from the 5th century, so this rings a bit hollow. Regarding whether all, or many, of the manuscripts of the middle ages were actually Alexandrian, you are engaging in unfounded speculation. On could just as easily incline to the other extreme. "Who is to say that while there are 5000 Byzantine manuscripts now, there weren't 500,000 in the middle ages which have been lost, but just two Alexandrian manuscripts?" But that's not a very weighty argument.
In regard, therefore, to the manuscripts we have today, I believe we must avoid two equal and opposite errors. The first error is to discount the Byzantine manuscripts. While Warfield had quite a different approach than his usual detractors today charge him with (he explicitly said, for example, that the original readings are in the apographs, something many deny him saying; he also spoke of "the providence of God in preserving for His Church in each and every age a competently exact text of the Scriptures," p. 12 of his introduction), it cannot be denied that he denigrated the Byzantine manuscripts too much. The equal and opposite error is that of the TR position in rejecting everything but the TR manuscripts. The position of Harry Sturz threads the needle between these errors and argues quite cogently for geographical distribution being a key external factor. If a reading is shown to have support from geographically diverse manuscripts, that means the reading is most likely older than any of the distinctive geographical types. In my opinion, this is one of the very strongest external criteria, as it is a special recognition of God's providence in having the correct reading in every geographical area of the church, not just the Byzantine region, or just the Alexandrian region.

Geography is fine, I suppose, as long as we're not claiming that two manuscripts from Egypt are of equal or greater weight than 5000 from elsewhere, by that simple fact. I might add that there it is a very real possibility the oldest Byzantine-type manuscript came from Egypt, so the idea that God preserving his word in all places lends weight to the Alexandrian manuscripts is not necessarily sound.
In conclusion: as I said at the beginning, I think your proposal to take all manuscripts into account is fine. I do not think, however, that such is truly what is being done in the production of critical texts in our day.
 
Lane, I think there is a good solution to this problem. When reading the sermons by Vos (Banner of Truth ed) I noticed he quoted the KJV (from memory this is the only translation he quoted). Therefore if the KJV and RT was good enough for Vos, does this not mean the debate is now over? :stirpot::stirpot:
Hi Stephen,
Unfortunately, I think your memory is defective. In the first paragraph of "The wonderful tree" he quotes Isaiah 5:7: “The vineyard of Jehovah of Hosts is the house of Israel." which is distinctively from the ASV. Later in the same sermon, he quotes Hosea 6: "Come and let us return unto Jehovah; for He hath torn, and He will heal us; He hath smitten and He will bind us up." Again, the use of the divine name is a very distinctive mark of the ASV.

In his sermon on heavenly mindedness, he quotes Isaiah 28:16: "“Behold I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a precious cornerstone of sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.” Again this is clearly from the ASV, especially "a precious cornerstone of sure foundation"

Since the ASV was not based solely on the TR, and Vos could hardly have been ignorant of the debates over the manuscripts, I think we can chalk Vos as being sympathetic to a more eclectic approach. Not that that is likely to change anyone's mind.
 
Hi Stephen,
Unfortunately, I think your memory is defective. In the first paragraph of "The wonderful tree" he quotes Isaiah 5:7: “The vineyard of Jehovah of Hosts is the house of Israel." which is distinctively from the ASV. Later in the same sermon, he quotes Hosea 6: "Come and let us return unto Jehovah; for He hath torn, and He will heal us; He hath smitten and He will bind us up." Again, the use of the divine name is a very distinctive mark of the ASV.

In his sermon on heavenly mindedness, he quotes Isaiah 28:16: "“Behold I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a precious cornerstone of sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.” Again this is clearly from the ASV, especially "a precious cornerstone of sure foundation"

Since the ASV was not based solely on the TR, and Vos could hardly have been ignorant of the debates over the manuscripts, I think we can chalk Vos as being sympathetic to a more eclectic approach. Not that that is likely to change anyone's mind.
Hello Iain,

I did a quick check of your quotes and I am sure you are correct. However, I checked the verses at the heading of each sermon and ALL the ones I checked were from the KJV. But as you will be aware my comments above were 'tongue in cheek' and not serious.

I would say that as Vos was a serious scholar at the turn of the 20th century, it would make sense that he would sometimes quote the ASV.
 
Hello Iain,

I did a quick check of your quotes and I am sure you are correct. However, I checked the verses at the heading of each sermon and ALL the ones I checked were from the KJV. But as you will be aware my comments above were 'tongue in cheek' and not serious.

I would say that as Vos was a serious scholar at the turn of the 20th century, it would make sense that he would sometimes quote the ASV.
It's quite possible that the headers to each sermon were added by the editor at BoT, rather than being included by Vos himself. I don't print my text at the top of my sermon notes; I think the in-text quotations are more likely to be from the text Vos was using. But that's a text critical decision of its own. I have a feeling that he's consistently quoting from the ASV, not using it to compare with the KJV; in most cases it's pretty close to the KJV. I remember that it struck me when I was reading the sermons, especially those citations that use the divine name Jehovah (which is quite distinctively not KJV). It was also his own preference in the sermons to call "the Lord" "Jehovah"; it would be interesting to know whether that was influenced by his use of the ASV, or if he was drawn to the ASV by its choice of Jehovah. I suspect maybe the latter. As I recall, the ASV came out in 1901, so in mid-career for Vos. Prior to this he must have used the KJV and consciously switched. It would be interesting to know what the other Princeton professors preached from, but that is really a separate thread topic.

(Edit: Warfield used the ASV also for his sermon "The Christian Attitude Toward Death")
 
Last edited:
As I recall, the ASV came out in 1901, so in mid-career for Vos. Prior to this he must have used the KJV and consciously switched.
This might help. As you know the Banner produced the original 1922 edition of the sermons and added 10 others. These 10 were preached between 1896 and 1913. 7 of these were preached between 1902 and 1905. He may have switched sometime during the period of these 7 sermons.
 
T.R. or Majority text advocate here, I would also be final with a bible based on all the (Greek) manuscripts. However, there are many thousands of Byzantine manuscripts, and about two complete "Alexandrian" ones, so the sum of all the manuscripts is going to have a Byzantine reading in every passage, unless for some reason we have determined that those two are each one thousand times more weighty, simply on account of their age. My personal sentiment is that the Alexandrian manuscripts are not very good, and if we are going to weight manuscripts, they should probably be given less weight, but again, whether they are given equal weight or less weight, the results will be similar. The only thing that changes the results is the textual-critical apparatus that gives extraordinary weight to the Alexandrian side.
There are LOTS more Alexandrian texts than just Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Many of the papyri (some of them are not just fragments) are Alexandrian. of the codices and uncials, Codex Ephraim is an amalgamation of readings, often including the Alexandrian. Porphyrianus has Alexandrian readings in the majority of its books. Borgianus is very similar to Vaticanus. Dublinensis echoes Sinaiticus in most places. Zacynthius is Alexandrian. Of the minuscules, the following are Alexandrian: 81, 579, 892, 1739, 2053, 2344. This helps to answer your question in the next paragraph also. Most of these are (most likely) daughter manuscripts of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

Perhaps it was in use in the Alexandrian Church, but that raises the question, "Where are its daughter manuscripts?" Why were these readings unknown until these manuscripts were discovered? Generally, for manuscripts that were in continuous use, tens or hundreds of manuscripts have been copied from them or from their copies.
As for the argument that it being hidden indicates it is of greater worth, the Gnostic gospels were also found hidden in Egypt, so I hardly find that persuasive. That's not an attempt to poison the well, mind you, just a counter-example.

This was already answered by the Muslim invasion theory. I did not argue that because they were hidden, they were of greater value. I argued that such a possibility negates the typical "hidden, therefore worthless" argument I see in TR advocates all the time. It was actually my argument that was a counter-example.
I think you are missing the point of the TR advocates here, which is that the church is God's ordained means for preserving the word. In the temple, which signified the Church, the books of the law were laid up, and the tablets of the ten commandments were kept in the arc of the covenant. Outside the church, there were copies of the Scriptures too, like those of the Samaritans, but they were corrupt, and taught the people to worship, not in Jerusalem, but at Mt Gerizim. In the N.T., the Apostles commit the books of Scripture to the Church. Every epistle of Paul is addressed to the Church, and they are commanded to circulate the Scripture (Col. 4:16). The church, after all, is the "pillar and bulwark of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). Those things believers were to receive were called "traditions" because they were passed down in the church (1 Thes. 2:15). In an era where every sect and heresy had their own corrupted Scriptures, and no one had their own bible because their was no printing press, certifying the authenticity of Scripture in this way was a big deal.
Given my positions on how the Alexandrian text was preserved, I see no need whatsoever to deviate from the position that the church is God's ordained means for preserving the word. Where I strongly disagree is in the TR's claim that the TR position is the only position that believes such.

I'm sure you're aware, Lane, that the oldest Byzantine manuscript is from the 5th century, so this rings a bit hollow. Regarding whether all, or many, of the manuscripts of the middle ages were actually Alexandrian, you are engaging in unfounded speculation. On could just as easily incline to the other extreme. "Who is to say that while there are 5000 Byzantine manuscripts now, there weren't 500,000 in the middle ages which have been lost, but just two Alexandrian manuscripts?" But that's not a very weighty argument.
The vast majority of Byzantine manuscripts are later than the 8th century. My "unfounded speculation" was countering the equally "unfounded speculation" of all the lost Byzantine manuscripts., and was not trying to claim anything more than that. I am not claiming that there are thousands of either. My argument was a reductio ad absurdam counter-factual claim. You therefore misread the intent of the argument.

Geography is fine, I suppose, as long as we're not claiming that two manuscripts from Egypt are of equal or greater weight than 5000 from elsewhere, by that simple fact. I might add that there it is a very real possibility the oldest Byzantine-type manuscript came from Egypt, so the idea that God preserving his word in all places lends weight to the Alexandrian manuscripts is not necessarily sound.
In conclusion: as I said at the beginning, I think your proposal to take all manuscripts into account is fine. I do not think, however, that such is truly what is being done in the production of critical texts in our day.

I believe that the majority of readings that are distinctively Byzantine did not originate in Egypt. Probably most of the very earliest manuscripts were copied in Egypt, as it was a major center of such learning, not to mention the source of papyrus, which was the material for the earliest manuscripts. That does not even have a bearing on my argument at all. By the time the manuscripts we have surviving were around, the distinctiveness of the regions was already at play. Therefore, geographical distribution is more important than quantity. If 5000 manuscripts from Byzantium (and, by the way, there are certainly not 5,000 complete Byzantine manuscripts of the NT!) all agreed on a distinctive reading that was not found in any manuscript outside of Byzantium, then the chance that such a reading originated in Byzantium and not in the autographs is fairly high. It wouldn't be the only factor at work. But a reading that comes from all the regions is far more likely to be the oldest reading. Therefore, the various geographical regions should have equal weight, in my opinion.
 
There are LOTS more Alexandrian texts than just Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Many of the papyri (some of them are not just fragments) are Alexandrian. of the codices and uncials, Codex Ephraim is an amalgamation of readings, often including the Alexandrian. Porphyrianus has Alexandrian readings in the majority of its books. Borgianus is very similar to Vaticanus. Dublinensis echoes Sinaiticus in most places. Zacynthius is Alexandrian. Of the minuscules, the following are Alexandrian: 81, 579, 892, 1739, 2053, 2344. This helps to answer your question in the next paragraph also. Most of these are (most likely) daughter manuscripts of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.



This was already answered by the Muslim invasion theory. I did not argue that because they were hidden, they were of greater value. I argued that such a possibility negates the typical "hidden, therefore worthless" argument I see in TR advocates all the time. It was actually my argument that was a counter-example.

Given my positions on how the Alexandrian text was preserved, I see no need whatsoever to deviate from the position that the church is God's ordained means for preserving the word. Where I strongly disagree is in the TR's claim that the TR position is the only position that believes such.


The vast majority of Byzantine manuscripts are later than the 8th century. My "unfounded speculation" was countering the equally "unfounded speculation" of all the lost Byzantine manuscripts., and was not trying to claim anything more than that. I am not claiming that there are thousands of either. My argument was a reductio ad absurdam counter-factual claim. You therefore misread the intent of the argument.



I believe that the majority of readings that are distinctively Byzantine did not originate in Egypt. Probably most of the very earliest manuscripts were copied in Egypt, as it was a major center of such learning, not to mention the source of papyrus, which was the material for the earliest manuscripts. That does not even have a bearing on my argument at all. By the time the manuscripts we have surviving were around, the distinctiveness of the regions was already at play. Therefore, geographical distribution is more important than quantity. If 5000 manuscripts from Byzantium (and, by the way, there are certainly not 5,000 complete Byzantine manuscripts of the NT!) all agreed on a distinctive reading that was not found in any manuscript outside of Byzantium, then the chance that such a reading originated in Byzantium and not in the autographs is fairly high. It wouldn't be the only factor at work. But a reading that comes from all the regions is far more likely to be the oldest reading. Therefore, the various geographical regions should have equal weight, in my opinion.
The Byzantine type is not limited to "Byzantium" in any sense though. The ancient manuscripts from Mt Athos, those scattered across Europe east and west, even those in Ethiopia and Syria [the ancient Peshitta and Ethiopic NT both conform more to the "Byzantine" type], are all from this type.
It is almost a misnomer to say there is a Byzantine family and an Alexandrian family, because the reality is that the vast majority of extant manuscripts in the world, not just "Byzantium", are what is called Byzantine, and there are a relatively small number of manuscipts that neither agree particularly with the Byzantine ones nor with each other, which have been called "Alexandrian". If the Vaticanus and Sinaticus agree so little with each other, why should they be taken as representing Egypt geographically, instead of simply being understood as idiosyncratic?
 
The Byzantine type is not limited to "Byzantium" in any sense though. The ancient manuscripts from Mt Athos, those scattered across Europe east and west, even those in Ethiopia and Syria [the ancient Peshitta and Ethiopic NT both conform more to the "Byzantine" type], are all from this type.
It is almost a misnomer to say there is a Byzantine family and an Alexandrian family, because the reality is that the vast majority of extant manuscripts in the world, not just "Byzantium", are what is called Byzantine, and there are a relatively small number of manuscipts that neither agree particularly with the Byzantine ones nor with each other, which have been called "Alexandrian". If the Vaticanus and Sinaticus agree so little with each other, why should they be taken as representing Egypt geographically, instead of simply being understood as idiosyncratic?
I am a bit puzzled as to how your post is an answer to mine. You claimed there were only two complete representatives of the Alexandrian text-type. Then you quote the number of 5,000 Byzantine manuscripts, as if all of those were complete. There are very few pandects in existence. How is it an answer to my argument about the simple respective number of manuscripts to claim that Byzantine text-type is not limited to Byzantium?

I see you agree with the highly misleading "Vaticanus and Sinaiticus agree so little with each other" fallacy. All manuscripts differ from each other in thousands of ways. That does not mean that any of the differences are automatically significant. One of my biggest pet peeves about the whole discussion is this particular point. Bart Ehrman can claim that there are 400,000 differences among NT manuscripts. Depending on how one is counting, it could actually be much higher than that. I have seen estimates as high as two or three million differences. But what is the nature of those differences? If 99% of them don't amount to a hill of beans (and 99% of the remaining 1% are easily solvable), the statistic is highly misleading. As I mentioned before, one of the manuscripts Erasmus used for his edition of the Greek NT differed far more from the TR than Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ from each other. But that is not even necessarily significant at all. I read my apparatus rather carefully when preaching in NT books. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus rarely differ from each other in meaningful ways.

This leads me to one of my biggest criticisms of the TR position: the exaggeration of statistics, and the ambiguity of terms. For example, everyone lands on Metzger like a ton of bricks for using the term "corruption" regarding the New Testament. All the connotations of intentionality factor in here. In textual criticism, the word "corruption" means a difference from the autograph in a manuscript. That is ALL it means. It does NOT automatically imply intention, let alone malevolence. If the autograph read "Iesou Christou" and the copy reads "Christou Iesou" (usually abbreviated in the manuscripts, but the point is the same), that is a corruption, according to NT textual criticism. But would anyone in their right mind think that such a corruption was significant? TR advocates quote large statistics, especially about how often Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ from each other. Without contextual understanding of the meaning of such statistics, it is misleading.
 
Here are a few quick responses from a TR advocate against the points in the OP.

Point 1: The question of the use of Siniaticus.

The argument isn't so much that this manuscript never received any use, but that it was not selected for copying over the centuries to any meaningful degree. The extant manuscripts on the whole would seem to bear this out.

The reality is, as the Greek New Testament was copied over the centuries, those manuscripts often labeled as "Alexandrian" were rejected.

Finally, I find it dubious to label as secondary the manuscripts copied over the centuries in those regions where Greek was the primary language in preference for manuscripts copied in regions where Coptic was the actual text used in the churches.

For a solid, critical treatment on this point, see Dr. Robinson's, "Case for Byzantine Priority."

Point 2: Hidden Things

I simply do not see the situation in Esther as analogous to to subject of the preservation of the Scriptures. While hidden things are indeed part of the providence of God, the idea that God would hide away the true readings of the Scriptures while Christians virtually everywhere labor for centuries under the delusion that complete narratives like the Last 12 Verses of Mark and the Woman Caught in Adultery in John's gospel belong in the canon just doesn't line up with the Scripture's teaching about Scripture.

Point 3: Byzantine Snobbery

It's just a fact that the preservation of the Greek New Testament through the manuscript era happened in the region where Greek was the local language. This is not snobbery, but a historical reality. There are many very good reasons to think that the form of the text passed down through time in the regions speaking Greek would be the purest.

Again, on this front, Dr. Robinson's, "Case for Byzantine Priority" is very helpful.
P.S. It must also be noted that the current position of textual criticism is that there really are no "Alexandrian", "Western" or "Caeserean" textual families, but that all manuscripts previously labeled as such are mixed texts and can no longer be ascribed to "families." The Byzantine alone is now referred to as a "textual family." This comes from the new developments in the Coherence Based Genealogical Method.
 
Here is ultimately where I net out on this question. See, I am on record in a published article for saying that the KJV and NKJV are two of five translations that I would recommend for churches to use (the others being ESV, CSB, and NASB). I have no quibble with anyone who wants to say the TR is the most accurate Greek edition. I might disagree, but I don't feel the need to try to force them out of that conviction. What I will fight tooth and nail against is the sectarian view of some who will say that the ESV, CSB, NASB are based on Satan's Bible. As someone recently told me, if they are based on Satan's Bible, then Satan didn't do a particularly good job of erasing the most important bits from the Bible. All Christian doctrine is still fully intact in the ESV, CSB, and NASB.

Here are a few quick responses from a TR advocate against the points in the OP.

Point 1: The question of the use of Siniaticus.

The argument isn't so much that this manuscript never received any use, but that it was not selected for copying over the centuries to any meaningful degree. The extant manuscripts on the whole would seem to bear this out.
This is pure speculation. You don't know that the Alexandrian manuscripts were not selected for copying. You simply cannot know that.
The reality is, as the Greek New Testament was copied over the centuries, those manuscripts often labeled as "Alexandrian" were rejected.
This is precisely the kind of unfounded speculation I was trying to argue against with the Muslim invasion facts. You have zero basis for saying that the Alexandrian manuscripts were "rejected."
Finally, I find it dubious to label as secondary the manuscripts copied over the centuries in those regions where Greek was the primary language in preference for manuscripts copied in regions where Coptic was the actual text used in the churches.
Alexandrian scholars (who were most likely the best scholars in the world before Muslim invasions) knew Greek just as well as anyone else in the Mediterranean world. This argument is specious.
For a solid, critical treatment on this point, see Dr. Robinson's, "Case for Byzantine Priority."

Point 2: Hidden Things

I simply do not see the situation in Esther as analogous to to subject of the preservation of the Scriptures. While hidden things are indeed part of the providence of God, the idea that God would hide away the true readings of the Scriptures while Christians virtually everywhere labor for centuries under the delusion that complete narratives like the Last 12 Verses of Mark and the Woman Caught in Adultery in John's gospel belong in the canon just doesn't line up with the Scripture's teaching about Scripture.
This is a rather extreme distortion of what I said. I never would say that God would hide away "the true readings of the Scriptures." And, for the record, I believe the last 12 verses of Mark are genuine, and I am open to the genuineness of the pericope de adulterae being genuine. The reason for God hiding away some manuscripts (not "the true readings") is not necessarily known. Maybe when the advent of the digitilization of information was coming, and all readings could be preserved, God had us discover these manuscripts and others. This is not an overhaul, in my opinion, but a small course correction in only a few places. Just because you exaggerate the differences doesn't mean I do.
Point 3: Byzantine Snobbery

It's just a fact that the preservation of the Greek New Testament through the manuscript era happened in the region where Greek was the local language. This is not snobbery, but a historical reality. There are many very good reasons to think that the form of the text passed down through time in the regions speaking Greek would be the purest.
Everyone spoke Greek in the early centuries of the church. Since Greek was not the first language of most of the NT authors either, this argument is specious as well. Hardly an obstacle for the preservation of the Greek NT. And it is hardly an answer for my argument about the centuries before Byzantine predominance.
Again, on this front, Dr. Robinson's, "Case for Byzantine Priority" is very helpful.
P.S. It must also be noted that the current position of textual criticism is that there really are no "Alexandrian", "Western" or "Caeserean" textual families, but that all manuscripts previously labeled as such are mixed texts and can no longer be ascribed to "families." The Byzantine alone is now referred to as a "textual family." This comes from the new developments in the Coherence Based Genealogical Method.

I have my own doubts about the legitimacy of the genealogical method. However, in the broader sense, (not the narrow families of the genealogical method), there are characteristics of manuscripts that are regional. This is why the study of the provenance of manuscripts is still essential work for textual criticism.
 
Here is ultimately where I net out on this question. See, I am on record in a published article for saying that the KJV and NKJV are two of five translations that I would recommend for churches to use (the others being ESV, CSB, and NASB). I have no quibble with anyone who wants to say the TR is the most accurate Greek edition. I might disagree, but I don't feel the need to try to force them out of that conviction. What I will fight tooth and nail against is the sectarian view of some who will say that the ESV, CSB, NASB are based on Satan's Bible. As someone recently told me, if they are based on Satan's Bible, then Satan didn't do a particularly good job of erasing the most important bits from the Bible. All Christian doctrine is still fully intact in the ESV, CSB, and NASB.
I agree with you 100% here. While I have differing gripes with this or that translation, I benefit from virtually ALL of the commonly used modern translations and would encourage Christians to avail themselves of them as well...even while I advocate the continued use of the KJV.

This is pure speculation. You don't know that the Alexandrian manuscripts were not selected for copying. You simply cannot know that.

This is precisely the kind of unfounded speculation I was trying to argue against with the Muslim invasion facts. You have zero basis for saying that the Alexandrian manuscripts were "rejected."
I say they were rejected based upon the present extant witnesses. I of course am not saying they were not copied at all...certainly they were! But over time they were passed over by those who continued to copy manuscripts through the manuscript era.

I can agree though that there is some speculation in this. This is actually one of my problems with the purely empirical approach to textual criticism. It is rife with speculation. So much so that I don't think "we can get there" through that methodology.

Alexandrian scholars (who were most likely the best scholars in the world before Muslim invasions) knew Greek just as well as anyone else in the Mediterranean world. This argument is specious.

There is a HUGE misunderstanding today about how fluent not native Greek speakers were in the Roman Empire because Greek was the Lingua Franka (bridge language). The reality was that it was known well enough to get by for trade and commerce but not nearly so well known as to replace local dialects. For this reason we see translations from almost the beginning (Syriac, Latin, Coptic, etc.).

I find that we err in either overstating or understating Greek fluency in the Roman Empire. Those who knew it best, were those who spoke it as their native tongue...just like today. It's not specious at all to point out that fact.

This is a rather extreme distortion of what I said. I never would say that God would hide away "the true readings of the Scriptures." And, for the record, I believe the last 12 verses of Mark are genuine, and I am open to the genuineness of the pericope de adulterae being genuine. The reason for God hiding away some manuscripts (not "the true readings") is not necessarily known. Maybe when the advent of the digitilization of information was coming, and all readings could be preserved, God had us discover these manuscripts and others. This is not an overhaul, in my opinion, but a small course correction in only a few places. Just because you exaggerate the differences doesn't mean I do.

Your last sentence is an unfounded accusation. Reading other's comments into my own isn't helpful.

Everyone spoke Greek in the early centuries of the church. Since Greek was not the first language of most of the NT authors either, this argument is specious as well. Hardly an obstacle for the preservation of the Greek NT. And it is hardly an answer for my argument about the centuries before Byzantine predominance.
Already addressed above. Also...I think you are again reading into my comments the assumption that I think the worst of the "alexandrian" manuscripts. Far from it. I think they are tremendous blessings because, even with their issues, they do demonstrate that as far back as at least the 2nd century, there was no general corruption of the Greek New Testament. Even with the issues, each book of the New Testament witnessed to, is STILL that book. We don't look at Mark's gospel in Siniaticus for instance and think, "wow!, this looks nothing like the Gospel of Mark we know!"

No, for me, I don't see "Satan's Bibles" in any of this. The question is how we are to discern the purest form of the text, and I see that as a canonical matter.

I have my own doubts about the legitimacy of the genealogical method. However, in the broader sense, (not the narrow families of the genealogical method), there are characteristics of manuscripts that are regional. This is why the study of the provenance of manuscripts is still essential work for textual criticism.

I think provenance is a mixed bag because we do not have the provenance for the vast majority of ancient manuscripts. It is specuation.

BTW...have you ever read Maurice Robinson on this subject? http://jbtc.org/v06/Robinson2001.html
 
This, I think, is the heart of the matter. I was convinced of the TR position for a while, and in many respects I'm still sympathetic to it. However, after my studies I've concluded that the TR is an eclectic text of its own.

[Confessional] TR advocates launch their attacks against the critical text or modern eclectic text from a paradigm of "preservation (TR) vs. those who deny preservation (anyone not TR)." If one buys into the paradigm formulated this way, the TR becomes the safe harbor. But this is a QIRC (quest for illegitimate religious certainty) as R. Scott Clark likes to claim. The reason the TR paradigm fails in my opinion is that contemporary Reformed, much to the chagrin of TR proponents, do start from a position of preservation. The difference is where that preservation lies: is it within only a family of texts or all? Once we move beyond the false dichotomy of "preservation (TR) vs. those who deny preservation (anyone not TR)," and instead accept that todays Reformed do start from a position of preservation (but don't believe it's only in the TR), the discussion can move forward.

An interesting shift that I think has also contributed to the revival of the TR position among even the Reformed is the general political and sociological climate we find ourselves in. People are distrustful of the government, culture, and many of our institutions in general. There has been a plethora of bible translations in the last few decades. We are waging battles over language, trans confusion, pronouns, etc. In the midst of this climate, I've seen defenders of the ESV and modern textual criticism move over to the KJV/TR position as the safe harbor. Because the KJV/TR is frozen in time, so to speak, there is no danger of committees and modern folk tampering with it. I suspect this appears to be the QIRC element at play and I see it gaining ground.
What is amazing to me, and I agree the TR is and eclectic from the Byzantine mss tradition, is how close the modern critical eclectic is to the TR eclectic. The differences are negligible enough to overthrow any notions of conspiracy. The hand of Providence no doubt is still preserving His word even in the modern translations by translators less committed to inneracy and infallibility.
 
I agree with you 100% here. While I have differing gripes with this or that translation, I benefit from virtually ALL of the commonly used modern translations and would encourage Christians to avail themselves of them as well...even while I advocate the continued use of the KJV.
Fantastic. I don't have any ultimate gripe with your position as articulated, even though we undoubtedly differ on particulars. I wish you could persuade some others on this board to jettison their attacks on the ESV, CSB, and NASB, and resolve to think about it as you do.
I say they were rejected based upon the present extant witnesses. I of course am not saying they were not copied at all...certainly they were! But over time they were passed over by those who continued to copy manuscripts through the manuscript era.
I still think this is a problematic way of putting things. You have no evidence other than the number of Byzantine manuscripts for this assertion. That is a rather flimsy basis to say they were rejected or passed over. Let me be clear about the alternative explanation of why there are fewer Alexandrian manuscripts. Muslims invaded Egypt and laid siege to Alexandria in 641. They were killing Christians everywhere they went. That would also mean that they would seize and burn Christian manuscripts, including manuscripts of the NT. They would certainly not allow Alexandrian Christians to copy the New Testament after the Muslims had possession of Alexandria. Living under Sharia law has always been like this. Christians are not allowed to evangelize; distribute, or copy Christian literature; or even look at a Muslim in the street. Don't you think this is a far better explanation of why there are fewer Alexandrian manuscripts than Byzantine? At the very least, the very provable facts of the Muslim invasion are far less speculative than "rejection" or "passing over" as an explanation for why there are fewer Alexandrian manuscripts. Unless you can come up with actual contemporary to the time statements to the effect of "Alexandrian manuscripts are inferior, and therefore we aren't copying them," you have no basis at all for saying they were rejected or passed over.

I can agree though that there is some speculation in this. This is actually one of my problems with the purely empirical approach to textual criticism. It is rife with speculation. So much so that I don't think "we can get there" through that methodology.
I wouldn't say that there is nearly much methodological difference between the believing CT/Sturzian/MT/TR/ approaches as this statement seems to imply. I would say that certain "canons" of textual criticism are too often taken to an extreme. It is my opinion that most "canons" of textual criticism need to be tamed.
There is a HUGE misunderstanding today about how fluent not native Greek speakers were in the Roman Empire because Greek was the Lingua Franka (bridge language). The reality was that it was known well enough to get by for trade and commerce but not nearly so well known as to replace local dialects. For this reason we see translations from almost the beginning (Syriac, Latin, Coptic, etc.).
And you have conclusive proof that no native Greek speakers ever wound up as scribes copying manuscripts in Alexandria, do you? People could get around the Mediterranean, you know. Paul made four missionary trips around the Mediterranean. Your argument is specious because it is based on the assumption that the copyists in Alexandria were less fluent in Greek than native Greek speakers. You can't possibly know that. Therefore that is no objection to the Alexandrian manuscripts.
I find that we err in either overstating or understating Greek fluency in the Roman Empire. Those who knew it best, were those who spoke it as their native tongue...just like today. It's not specious at all to point out that fact.
No, but it is specious to introduce it into the text-critical debate as if you could discern on the manuscript evidence alone who had Greek fluency and who didn't.
Your last sentence is an unfounded accusation. Reading other's comments into my own isn't helpful.
I have found all TR advocates have this in common: they exaggerate the differences between the TR and the CT. You don't exaggerate as much as most others. I am certainly willing to give you that. But I still think you do some.
Already addressed above. Also...I think you are again reading into my comments the assumption that I think the worst of the "alexandrian" manuscripts. Far from it. I think they are tremendous blessings because, even with their issues, they do demonstrate that as far back as at least the 2nd century, there was no general corruption of the Greek New Testament. Even with the issues, each book of the New Testament witnessed to, is STILL that book. We don't look at Mark's gospel in Siniaticus for instance and think, "wow!, this looks nothing like the Gospel of Mark we know!"
I don't necessarily think you think the worst of them. I do believe you think they shouldn't be used AT ALL in text criticism. That is what I find unfounded.
No, for me, I don't see "Satan's Bibles" in any of this. The question is how we are to discern the purest form of the text, and I see that as a canonical matter.
Glad to see you disagree with Christopher Myers on this.
I think provenance is a mixed bag because we do not have the provenance for the vast majority of ancient manuscripts. It is specuation.

BTW...have you ever read Maurice Robinson on this subject? http://jbtc.org/v06/Robinson2001.html
Haven't read Robinson yet on text-critical matters, though I definitely want to. I don't think provenance is entirely speculation. The materials of the manuscript can give us good clues, as well as the ligatures of writing, which can indicate regional specificity if we can compare them with manuscripts we know came from a certain region. Not speculative, then.
 
There are several versions of an argument out there in support of the TR position which argue that God's providence preserved the original reading of the NT only in the Byzantine texts, which were the texts in use in the church, "received everywhere" (as the term "Textus Receptus" means). There may be different versions of this that are more nuanced, or nuanced in different ways than I have written here, but I wish to answer in several different points this inadequate view of God's providence. Some I have talked to argue that there were many more Byzantine text manuscripts in use in the time of the Reformers that have since been lost or used to the point of destruction. The Alexandrian readings in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are in manuscripts that were purportedly not in use because their readings were rejected. These issues will also be addressed.

First point of response: a manuscript like Sinaiticus was almost certainly in use in the Alexandrian church. This is indicated by the fact that it had no fewer than three correctors (some today estimate as many as seven). One does not correct a manuscript that is useless. In addition, one does not correct a manuscript that was not being used. That it was hidden for centuries proves absolutely nothing. TR advocates tend to speculate on the reason of its hiddenness as being the church rejecting its readings. This is certainly not known, and is actually quite unlikely. Far more likely is that when Muslims invaded, destroying Christian manuscripts as they went, that Christians hid the MOST valuable manuscripts, like Sinaiticus. We cannot know this for certain, either, but the rejection of Sinaiticus on the basis of its being hidden because its readings were rejected is not a cogent argument, and needs to be eliminated from the discussion entirely.

The second point I wish to make in connection with the hiddenness of Sinaiticus (and Vaticanus in the Vatican, too, for that matter) is that the assumption on the part of TR advocates that manuscripts had to be not only used but visible all the while in the church is actually an unbiblical idea of God's providence. The entire book of Esther refutes it. The name of God is hidden in Esther. God is not once mentioned. Yet His providence was at work in ways invisible to most of the key players. Mordecai is the only person who had a hint of it when he asked whether Esther had not been raised up for such a time as this. Ahasuerus certainly didn't think of God's providence as giving him insomnia or directing the gaze of the readers in the chronicles to the exact place where Mordecai's saving of the king was recorded. The providence of God works in hidden things, not just visible things, and is itself often hidden. The plain fact of the matter is that God's providence actually preserved Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bezae, and many, many other non-Byzantine texts. God's providence therefore extends to the preservation of all extant manuscripts, whether visible all the while or invisible for part of the time. This can be paralleled in the church itself. The true church is sometimes more visible, sometimes less visible.

Thirdly, TR advocates engage in chronological snobbery with their arguments. The only period of the church that matters to TR advocates in terms of manuscripts is the time when the Byzantine church had the priority of manuscript production. Which manuscripts were around, however, before that time, between, say, the third century and the eighth century? TR advocates say that there were likely a lot more Byzantine manuscripts around during the time of the Reformation. Who is to say there weren't a lot more Alexandrian and Western texts around before that time? And since we cannot know how any of these lost manuscripts read in the variants, it is quite useless to speculate on such matters. We can only go on all the evidence we have today.

In regard, therefore, to the manuscripts we have today, I believe we must avoid two equal and opposite errors. The first error is to discount the Byzantine manuscripts. While Warfield had quite a different approach than his usual detractors today charge him with (he explicitly said, for example, that the original readings are in the apographs, something many deny him saying; he also spoke of "the providence of God in preserving for His Church in each and every age a competently exact text of the Scriptures," p. 12 of his introduction), it cannot be denied that he denigrated the Byzantine manuscripts too much. The equal and opposite error is that of the TR position in rejecting everything but the TR manuscripts. The position of Harry Sturz threads the needle between these errors and argues quite cogently for geographical distribution being a key external factor. If a reading is shown to have support from geographically diverse manuscripts, that means the reading is most likely older than any of the distinctive geographical types. In my opinion, this is one of the very strongest external criteria, as it is a special recognition of God's providence in having the correct reading in every geographical area of the church, not just the Byzantine region, or just the Alexandrian region.

One last point that needs to be made is the error of the TR assumption that godly textual criticism essentially stopped when the TR was published. First of all, there is no one manuscript in the Byzantine tradition that corresponds precisely with the TR. They all have differences with the TR. The process of textual criticism was therefore part of what the Reformers did. Refinements can happen later on in textual criticism just as in theology as a whole. The text of Scripture has always been sufficiently pure for the people of God. TR advocates drive a truck through the phrase "kept pure in all ages" implying that if we are not 100% sure of every textual variant, then it is not pure at all. They also greatly exaggerate the differences between the TR and the CT. I would simply ask this: point me to the single manuscript that is the same as the autograph. The TR is an edition of the Greek New Testament. It is eclectic within the Byzantine manuscripts. It does not correspond to ANY single manuscript at every point. I simply plead for an edition eclectic to all the evidence, based on Sturz's position, not WH or TR, and not ignoring most of the manuscripts, as the TR position does.
Dude! You've admonished me (helpfully so). Appreciate your clear thinking.
Any Sturz bibliography for us slow-pokes?
(Neva'min; just read your reference to his book on another thread.
Thx)
 
Last edited:
Dude! You've admonished me (helpfully so). Appreciate your clear thinking.
Any Sturz bibliography for us slow-pokes?
Harry Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism. They just republished it in paperback in a quite affordable edition. A hugely helpful corrective to the problems of the TR/MT position on the one hand, and the CT problems on the other.
 
It is specifically an answer to your geographical claims.
Since my claims in that particular paragraph were about text-types, and not geography, specifically about the relative numbers of manuscripts supporting a particular text-type, your answer was still not a propos.
 
Since my claims in that particular paragraph were about text-types, and not geography, specifically about the relative numbers of manuscripts supporting a particular text-type, your answer was still not a propos.

If 5000 manuscripts from Byzantium (and, by the way, there are certainly not 5,000 complete Byzantine manuscripts of the NT!) all agreed on a distinctive reading that was not found in any manuscript outside of Byzantium, then the chance that such a reading originated in Byzantium and not in the autographs is fairly high. It wouldn't be the only factor at work. But a reading that comes from all the regions is far more likely to be the oldest reading. Therefore, the various geographical regions should have equal weight, in my opinion.
How is it not a claim about geography to say "If 5000 from Byzantium... not found in any outside of Byzantium..."? My point, which I will repeat, is that there is not one single city or country called Byzantium from which all the Byzantine manuscripts come. So this hypothetical is a very poor representation of the actual situation.
 
How is it not a claim about geography to say "If 5000 from Byzantium... not found in any outside of Byzantium..."? My point, which I will repeat, is that there is not one single city or country called Byzantium from which all the Byzantine manuscripts come. So this hypothetical is a very poor representation of the actual situation.
I think I see what happened. You quoted the entirety of the post, when your reply was only to the last particular paragraph. The only paragraph visible of my quoted post was the top paragraph, which was not related to your reply.

In answer to your statement, my argument does not depend on all "Byzantine" manuscripts originating in the actual city of Byzantium. I am referring to Byzantium here as a region of manuscript origin, and also as a description of a text-type.
 
Andrew,
I'm not sure what you think these add to the discussion. They are general Sunday school classes that are delivered by a young man who is not adequately equipped to speak on these subjects. I understand the need to simplify for such an audience, which precludes a sophisticated discussion, but I listened to his presentation on "How we got the OT Bible" and it was seriously mistaken on several important issues, notably the Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls. I don't blame him for that - we've probably all spoken on topics that we didn't know as much as we should have, especially in the midst of the pressures of pastoral ministry, but I would caution that at least on the first topic he is not an accurate guide. That doesn't inspire any confidence for the rest of the series.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top