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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Logan, Despite what Dr. Oakley (James White) says Jay Green was a Majority text guy like Burgon. Of course it is easier to label all guys who like that family of manuscripts to be KJVO. Bring me a better translation and I will surely recommend it. I do recommend the ESV.

Was this intended to be directed at me? I've not mentioned James White at all. Or Jay Green. Nor have I called anyone KJVO... :scratch:
 
I'm going to state this again (since it appears by comments that people are ignorant of the process of looking at variants), but there is really not a "CT position”
Not sure if this is directed at what I said but that’s kind of my point. There isn’t a CT position properly defined— rather a largely agreed upon methodology with many individual modifications. I simply pointed that out to note that the “TR position” isn’t unique in its diversity.

I do know how the basic process of textual criticism works, btw.
 
How do you account for the recent groundswell of dogmatic “Confessional Bibliology”?
I'm not sure I need a reason to account for every idiosyncratic position that people make. Nailing "Confessional Bilbiology" will always be like nailing Jello to the wall (as evidenced in this thread). Each advocate argues forcefully that the reason for their position is the Confessional position, but each differs with as much dogmatic certainty as the other. It doesn't help that the position requires a "creative" use of history and each person's creativity differs from another. When persons disagree on other doctrinal ideas at least the history of the view can be explored where some ideas of this view rely on accounts that can never be historically verified because the idea was the product of an active imagination. Ideas such as "well this was what the Reformed Churches of x Century" used are likewise both the linchpin for some and disposable for others. Note that I'm not talking about arguments about whether certain readings are preferable to the methods of the CT apparatus. Theological and historical arguments can come into play for those. I'm talking about the position that has to view with suspicion the providential preservation of thousands of discovered manuscripts and concoct historical theories or ad hoc arguments that only work to throw shade on every discovery and on every ancient Christian who copied and then used these manuscripts in worship.
 
Was this intended to be directed at me? I've not mentioned James White at all. Or Jay Green. Nor have I called anyone KJVO... :scratch:
Just general information on who I counted reliable in the debate. This thread is so long to read that there is no way I can address the arguments from here now. I do think the Johannian Comma belongs. but I have to dig up my notes from over 25 years ago. I can't remember if Jay did. BTW, I found the books I thought I gave away. I am going to have to brush up on this one as it has a lot of dust to blow away. Give me a few weeks to research my old notes. I will try to start a half way intelligent thread. That will be a task for me. This is one of the scariest things to discuss because of the warnings by scripture. I will try to discuss families, geological locations, historicity and personalities the best I can as a simple layman. No you don't have to know Greek to understand this discussion. It certainly helps.
 
I'm talking about the position that has to view with suspicion the providential preservation of thousands of discovered manuscripts and concoct historical theories or ad hoc arguments that only work to throw shade on every discovery and on every ancient Christian who copied and then used these manuscripts in worship.
That’s a good point.
 
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
Lane, could you (and others) enlighten me on Warfield here? Does he say this about the apographs in his “Introduction”?
 
The difference among all the participants' positions is a vital point. The book edited by Riddle/McShaffrey is long on lumping all non-TR positions together, and very short on nuance. That's why it was good to see a TR advocate (Andrew) note the huge variety of views. Accuracy on this point is important if we are going to avoid the whole misrepresentation problem, which has happened on many occasions, though from where I stand, it seems to me that it is the TR position doing the lion's share of misrepresentation. The book aforementioned is full of that. The misrepresentations tend to go along these lines: 1. Person A generalizes about the other position. 2. Person B of the other position, but not of the generalization, accuses Person A of mischaracterizing because it doesn't affect Person B's position. We need a better taxonomy of views delineating various positions within the field. Something like this

A. TR positions
1. Confessional Bibliology movement (TR is the providentially preserved text)
a. extreme (a la Christopher Myers) abbreviated ECBTR (extreme confessional bibliology TR): all other Bibles based on Satan's Bible

b. strong (McShaffrey) abbr. SCBTR: the TR is the Word of God; others, while faithful in the main, still have an asterisk by them

c. moderate (Andrew and others on the PB), abbr. MCBTR: the TR is the most accurate, others are still the Word of God

2. Ruckmann (KJV is inspired), also Riplinger, abbr. RKJVO

3. KJVO, non-Ruckmann, abbr. KJVO, KJV is the best, others are problematic

B. Majority Text positions (abbr. MT, follows Robinson, Pierpont, Farstad, Burgon), majority of manuscripts is original.

C. Sturzian (Black's Reasoned Conservatism), abbr. SRC (Sturzian reasoned conservatism) geographic diversity of readings points more likely to original; Byzantine on same footing as other locales.

D. Critical Text Positions
1. Radical Eclecticism (Kilpatrick, Elliott), abbr. RACT, pure eclecticism, internal evidence primary

2. Reasoned Eclecticism (Metzger, Aland), abbr. RECT, external and internal evidence equal, favors Alexandrian, but others important as well

3. Westcott-Hort, abbr. WH, similar to reasoned eclecticism, except almost exclusively favors Alexandrian.

4. Coherence-Based Genealogical Method, abbr. CBGM, agreement as well as disagreement points to genealogical families

If there are any other positions I am leaving out, I am certainly open to tweaking.
 
The difference among all the participants' positions is a vital point. The book edited by Riddle/McShaffrey is long on lumping all non-TR positions together, and very short on nuance. That's why it was good to see a TR advocate (Andrew) note the huge variety of views. Accuracy on this point is important if we are going to avoid the whole misrepresentation problem, which has happened on many occasions, though from where I stand, it seems to me that it is the TR position doing the lion's share of misrepresentation. The book aforementioned is full of that. The misrepresentations tend to go along these lines: 1. Person A generalizes about the other position. 2. Person B of the other position, but not of the generalization, accuses Person A of mischaracterizing because it doesn't affect Person B's position. We need a better taxonomy of views delineating various positions within the field. Something like this

A. TR positions
1. Confessional Bibliology movement (TR is the providentially preserved text)
a. extreme (a la Christopher Myers) abbreviated ECBTR (extreme confessional bibliology TR): all other Bibles based on Satan's Bible

b. strong (McShaffrey) abbr. SCBTR: the TR is the Word of God; others, while faithful in the main, still have an asterisk by them

c. moderate (Andrew and others on the PB), abbr. MCBTR: the TR is the most accurate, others are still the Word of God

2. Ruckmann (KJV is inspired), also Riplinger, abbr. RKJVO

3. KJVO, non-Ruckmann, abbr. KJVO, KJV is the best, others are problematic

B. Majority Text positions (abbr. MT, follows Robinson, Pierpont, Farstad, Burgon), majority of manuscripts is original.

C. Sturzian (Black's Reasoned Conservatism), abbr. SRC (Sturzian reasoned conservatism) geographic diversity of readings points more likely to original; Byzantine on same footing as other locales.

D. Critical Text Positions
1. Radical Eclecticism (Kilpatrick, Elliott), abbr. RACT, pure eclecticism, internal evidence primary

2. Reasoned Eclecticism (Metzger, Aland), abbr. RECT, external and internal evidence equal, favors Alexandrian, but others important as well

3. Westcott-Hort, abbr. WH, similar to reasoned eclecticism, except almost exclusively favors Alexandrian.

4. Coherence-Based Genealogical Method, abbr. CBGM, agreement as well as disagreement points to genealogical families

If there are any other positions I am leaving out, I am certainly open to tweaking.
This is helpful, and I think a fairly accurate representation of the range of opinions out there.
 
Lane, could you (and others) enlighten me on Warfield here? Does he say this about the apographs in his “Introduction”?
He implies or says it in a number of places. P. 10: "...the New Testament, the text of which is incomparably correct." P. 12 "the providence of God in preserving for His Church in each and every age a competently exact text of the Scriptures"; P. 136-7 "We seek the original text of the New Testament in the extant MSS., because we judge that where these MSS. agree, this agreement can be accounted for in no other way than by common inheritance from the ancestor of all."
 
The difference among all the participants' positions is a vital point. The book edited by Riddle/McShaffrey is long on lumping all non-TR positions together, and very short on nuance. That's why it was good to see a TR advocate (Andrew) note the huge variety of views. Accuracy on this point is important if we are going to avoid the whole misrepresentation problem, which has happened on many occasions, though from where I stand, it seems to me that it is the TR position doing the lion's share of misrepresentation. The book aforementioned is full of that. The misrepresentations tend to go along these lines: 1. Person A generalizes about the other position. 2. Person B of the other position, but not of the generalization, accuses Person A of mischaracterizing because it doesn't affect Person B's position. We need a better taxonomy of views delineating various positions within the field. Something like this

A. TR positions
1. Confessional Bibliology movement (TR is the providentially preserved text)
a. extreme (a la Christopher Myers) abbreviated ECBTR (extreme confessional bibliology TR): all other Bibles based on Satan's Bible

b. strong (McShaffrey) abbr. SCBTR: the TR is the Word of God; others, while faithful in the main, still have an asterisk by them

c. moderate (Andrew and others on the PB), abbr. MCBTR: the TR is the most accurate, others are still the Word of God

2. Ruckmann (KJV is inspired), also Riplinger, abbr. RKJVO

3. KJVO, non-Ruckmann, abbr. KJVO, KJV is the best, others are problematic

B. Majority Text positions (abbr. MT, follows Robinson, Pierpont, Farstad, Burgon), majority of manuscripts is original.

C. Sturzian (Black's Reasoned Conservatism), abbr. SRC (Sturzian reasoned conservatism) geographic diversity of readings points more likely to original; Byzantine on same footing as other locales.

D. Critical Text Positions
1. Radical Eclecticism (Kilpatrick, Elliott), abbr. RACT, pure eclecticism, internal evidence primary

2. Reasoned Eclecticism (Metzger, Aland), abbr. RECT, external and internal evidence equal, favors Alexandrian, but others important as well

3. Westcott-Hort, abbr. WH, similar to reasoned eclecticism, except almost exclusively favors Alexandrian.

4. Coherence-Based Genealogical Method, abbr. CBGM, agreement as well as disagreement points to genealogical families

If there are any other positions I am leaving out, I am certainly open to tweaking.
Very helpful list.
 
He implies or says it in a number of places. P. 10: "...the New Testament, the text of which is incomparably correct." P. 12 "the providence of God in preserving for His Church in each and every age a competently exact text of the Scriptures"; P. 136-7 "We seek the original text of the New Testament in the extant MSS., because we judge that where these MSS. agree, this agreement can be accounted for in no other way than by common inheritance from the ancestor of all."
I will look into it. Thank you. Does he speak in a way anywhere that would give the impression of the opposite?
 
The difference among all the participants' positions is a vital point. The book edited by Riddle/McShaffrey is long on lumping all non-TR positions together, and very short on nuance. That's why it was good to see a TR advocate (Andrew) note the huge variety of views. Accuracy on this point is important if we are going to avoid the whole misrepresentation problem, which has happened on many occasions, though from where I stand, it seems to me that it is the TR position doing the lion's share of misrepresentation. The book aforementioned is full of that. The misrepresentations tend to go along these lines: 1. Person A generalizes about the other position. 2. Person B of the other position, but not of the generalization, accuses Person A of mischaracterizing because it doesn't affect Person B's position. We need a better taxonomy of views delineating various positions within the field. Something like this

A. TR positions
1. Confessional Bibliology movement (TR is the providentially preserved text)
a. extreme (a la Christopher Myers) abbreviated ECBTR (extreme confessional bibliology TR): all other Bibles based on Satan's Bible

b. strong (McShaffrey) abbr. SCBTR: the TR is the Word of God; others, while faithful in the main, still have an asterisk by them

c. moderate (Andrew and others on the PB), abbr. MCBTR: the TR is the most accurate, others are still the Word of God

2. Ruckmann (KJV is inspired), also Riplinger, abbr. RKJVO

3. KJVO, non-Ruckmann, abbr. KJVO, KJV is the best, others are problematic

B. Majority Text positions (abbr. MT, follows Robinson, Pierpont, Farstad, Burgon), majority of manuscripts is original.

C. Sturzian (Black's Reasoned Conservatism), abbr. SRC (Sturzian reasoned conservatism) geographic diversity of readings points more likely to original; Byzantine on same footing as other locales.

D. Critical Text Positions
1. Radical Eclecticism (Kilpatrick, Elliott), abbr. RACT, pure eclecticism, internal evidence primary

2. Reasoned Eclecticism (Metzger, Aland), abbr. RECT, external and internal evidence equal, favors Alexandrian, but others important as well

3. Westcott-Hort, abbr. WH, similar to reasoned eclecticism, except almost exclusively favors Alexandrian.

4. Coherence-Based Genealogical Method, abbr. CBGM, agreement as well as disagreement points to genealogical families

If there are any other positions I am leaving out, I am certainly open to tweaking.
Did you have a particular position in mind when starting this thread?
 
I was just wondering, if a prospective Pastor wants to use, say the ESV, in the FCC for example, is there any official clause to prohibit from doing so? Or would the elders just not call him (and if so, what is their official rejection reason?)

I asked about a similar question of several men in the US presbytery -- mine was more on the belief in the TR, not preaching from the ESV. The general answer I got was that it was the understood position by at least all of the men in the presbytery of TR being the interpretation of WCF 1:7 so it would be unlikely I would pass examination. However, there were not official statements about the TR or providential preservation that anyone was aware of. I had questions about this and a related issue that the presbytery was now unified on, but was not in 1843.

That said, the US presbytery also did unify on using the KJV as the pulpit Bible sometime around 2014-2015, but I don't have the wording of this. This was not in the whole denomination, but my congregation was affected and moved from the NKJV to the KJV.

While I am no longer in the FCC, I did notice that there was an overture submitted by another presbytery to make KJV the "official" translation of the FCC. It was received with the following:

"The General Assembly receive the Overture from the Free Southern Presbytery anent
Scripture Versions to the extent that the General Assembly commend the Authorised
(King James) Version of the Holy Scriptures for use in the public worship of God."

and also in response,

"The General Assembly receive the Overture from the Free Southern Presbytery anent
Scripture Versions to the extent that they appoint a Special Committee on Scripture
Translation with remit to elucidate the principles of Bible translation consistent with the
Westminster Confession of Faith and other authoritative documents, and maintain a record
of English translations that conform to the said principles, the Committee to consist of two
brethren from within the bounds of each presbytery and to seek advice, as required, from
other reformed denominations with whom the FCC maintains close ecumenical relations,
the Committee to report on their progress to the next General Assembly."

This is far short from what was requested, which was:
1. Whereas the Holy Scriptures are the primary Constitutional document of the Free
Church of Scotland (Continuing);
2. Whereas the Westminster Confession of Faith, being a subordinate standard of the Free
Church of Scotland (Continuing), declares that the Old and New Testaments of the Holy
Scriptures 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 to them (WCF 1.VIII);
3. Whereas the Directory for the Public Worship of God, being a subordinate standard of
the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing), speaks in its Preface of the endeavours for
uniformity in divine worship, which we have promised in our Solemn League and
Covenant
4. Whereas the Directory for the Public Worship of God, in reference to the public
reading of the books of Old and New Testament, states that they shall be read in the
vulgar tongue, out of the best allowed translation (Of Public Reading of the Holy
Scriptures);
5. Whereas the regulation of public worship is a fundamental concern of Presbyterian
Church government and a vital means of maintaining the unity of the Church;
6. Whereas the Authorised (King James) Version of the Bible alone fulfils all the above
criteria, and is the best translation available in English;
7. It is overtured by the Free Southern Presbytery that the General Assembly take these
premises into consideration and assert that the Authorised (King James) Version of the
Bible is the only English version of the Holy Scriptures which is currently approved by
the General Assembly for use in public worship within the denomination.

(see here: https://www.freechurchcontinuing.org/images/documents/pdfs/Acts__Proceedings_2021.pdf )
 
Sorry, but what part excludes the NKJV from consideration?
I imagine that is in part why the overture was not accepted. I know the NKJV is used in parts of the denomination. But I don't know as these are the only public records I can find related to the issue.
 
Those from the Free Church tradition ought to consider William Cunningham's position on the subject.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, two other members of the Disruption of 1843 were also on the translation committee for the 1881 Revised Version (along with several other Free Churchmen).
 
I know you wouldn’t be indulging in passive-aggressiveness
You don’t know me! or you do rather: I’m a sinful human. I edited this out last night right after I posted it, only to see that I must not have saved the edit. Good on me for being exposed. I indulged in a moment of irritation regarding your comment on MY comment. I do ask your forgiveness for my sinful sarcasm toward you; I hope you will forgive it.
 
I will look into it. Thank you. Does he speak in a way anywhere that would give the impression of the opposite?
He has some quotations that many take out of context. For example, this one (p. 13) is quoted in the McShaffrey/Riddle book out of context: "The divergence of its current text from the autograph may shock a modern printer of modern books;" They don't quote the immediately following part: "its wonderful approximation to its autograph is the undisguised envy of every modern reader of ancient books." See, the process for publication in the 19th century and early 20th century was far more rigorous than editing is today. You can read until your eyes bleed in all those Nichols editions of the Puritans without finding a single typo. I'm sure there are a few, but precious few. I find quite a few typos in modern books. So, judging his comment by the standards of editing in that day, and he is making quite a strong statement affirming the reliability of the Greek NT.
Did you have a particular position in mind when starting this thread?

I have relatively little quibble beyond simple disagreement for the MCBTR position. My comments were primarily directed at the SCBTR and ECBTR positions, which I find sectarian and divisive.
 
You don’t know me! or you do rather: I’m a sinful human. I edited this out last night right after I posted it, only to see that I must not have saved the edit. Good on me for being exposed. I indulged in a moment of irritation regarding your comment on MY comment. I do ask your forgiveness for my sinful sarcasm toward you; I hope you will forgive it.
I forgive you; and I can sympathize with you as well!
 
He has some quotations that many take out of context. For example, this one (p. 13) is quoted in the McShaffrey/Riddle book out of context: "The divergence of its current text from the autograph may shock a modern printer of modern books;" They don't quote the immediately following part: "its wonderful approximation to its autograph is the undisguised envy of every modern reader of ancient books." See, the process for publication in the 19th century and early 20th century was far more rigorous than editing is today. You can read until your eyes bleed in all those Nichols editions of the Puritans without finding a single typo. I'm sure there are a few, but precious few. I find quite a few typos in modern books. So, judging his comment by the standards of editing in that day, and he is making quite a strong statement affirming the reliability of the Greek NT.


I have relatively little quibble beyond simple disagreement for the MCBTR position. My comments were primarily directed at the SCBTR and ECBTR positions, which I find sectarian and divisive.
The SCBTR seems to be gaining steam lately—perhaps not in followers, but in putting out resources. It’s the position that’s the most dangerous I think. The more extreme “Satan’s Bible” stuff is just laughable; but the asterisk beside most people’s Bibles has real potential for harm. Again, I know they’d claim the same thing against modern textual criticism.

And thanks for the Hills response. I’ll be reading him eventually.
 
Stayed out of this one so far ... 10 years on the PB and this thread is 'deja vu all over again' (Yogi Berra)

I will say that D.A. Carson, in his The King James Version Debate, A Plea For Realism, 1979, says in the appendix that, "Of the books that have been written in defense of a Textus Receptus type of text, perhaps none is as convincing as The Identity of the New Testament Text. Written by Wilbur N. Pickering, this little book adopts a line of reasoning quite different from most others that defend its viewpoint". Carson goes on to say that because it was published after most of his own book had been written he decided to answer Pickering in the appendix.

Also, for anyone interested in the whys, and wherefores of translation, D.A. Carson's, 'The Inclusive Language Debate, A Plea For Realism,' is also a very informative and revealing account of the issues that faithful translators deal with to convey the meaning to the target language. Particularly his chapter 'Translation is treason,'

Finally, for those who might be daring enough to risk putting their presuppositions at risk, Gordon Fee's, 'How To Choose A Translation For All It's Worth' is also quite an informative read.

Carry on. :)
 
Mr. Cunningham is very welcome to his thoughts.

His thoughts would indicate that your position is an innovation from a Free Church point of view. I find it odd that the views of the Free Church's greatest theologian, who had carefully surveyed the relevant facts and literature in relation to this subject, are dismissed out of hand.
 
Hello Daniel, while I greatly value Wm. Cunningham’s work, I don’t think Jeri’s view “an innovation”, as Rev. Fredrick Nolan’s Inquiry Into the Integrity of The Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament carefully examined and interacted with Johann Griesbach’s views in the earlier days of textual criticism and the defense of the TR. Nolan (1784–1864) was a highly esteemed scholar.

Even our greatest theologians may err in areas. Perhaps she might have been more pointed if she'd added to his being "welcome to his thoughts" on the NT text, seeing as Griesbach was far from the Reformation spirit and labors, on which she stands.
 
Last edited:
Hello Daniel, while I greatly value Wm. Cunningham’s work, I don’t think Jeri’s view “an innovation”, as Rev. Fredrick Nolan’s Inquiry Into the Integrity of The Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament carefully examined and interacted with Johann Griesbach’s views in the earlier days of textual criticism and the defense of the TR. Nolan (1784–1864) was a highly esteemed scholar.

Even our greatest theologians may err in areas. Perhaps she might have been more pointed if she'd added to his being "welcome to his thoughts" on the NT text, seeing as Griesbach was far from the Reformation spirit and labors, on which she stands.

Thank you for bringing Frederick Nolan to my attention, Steve, as I always like to see 19th-century Church of Ireland theologians getting some much-needed publicity. However, I stated that Jeri's view on the subject is an innovation from "a Free Church point of view." William Cunningham's position on the TR shows us that the Disruption Worthies did not receive Westminster Confession 1.8 to mean that there could be no divergence from the Received Text. Whether their view of the subject was factually accurate or even in line with the original intent of the Confession is, of course, a different question entirely.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top