Authorized (Mark Ward)

Status
Not open for further replies.
My guess is that it's a numbers game. Only the most significant variants get a mention. If you have 500 manuscripts and 300 hundred say ABC and 195 say XYZ and only 5 say DEF, you're probably not going to bother listing DEF.
This simple democratization of manuscript evaluation was discussed above. It is not the best argument. If I ask my 84 students which New Deal program was involved in reforestation and conservation efforts and 81 tell me the FDIC that does not make that the right answer over the 3 who say "CCC."
 
... I would first need a sufficient answer ...

Unless you're someone in the position of approving or denying the practice, I am not convinced that you're entitled to the kind of answer you're demanding.

"Awareness and education" is a good enough answer considered absolutely. That it's not a good enough answer for you, is, well, irrelevant.
 
Well, I'm not sure there is a neat separation as Erasmus was working from a collection of Greek manuscripts. Which is part of the problem for the TR onlyists; the only difference he is the sample size, but what was still being done was textual criticism.

The Reformation didn't devise new doctrine but was a return to Biblical doctrine. There was development and refining in regards to the articulation of doctrine to be sure but what came out of the Reformation was based on the Bible, it wasn't "new information".

But either way it still suffices to fulfil my criteria of a problem arising and then doctrines needing to be revised as a result of it. Another example not related to textual criticism would be the American revisions to the WCF. The problem that arose was political, and the doctrines were revised to match the new political environment. Obviously there's disagreement as to whether this was justified, but again it's an example in which a doctrine has been revised based on a new problem arising.

Yes it's an example of defective change in doctrine. Granted Reformed churches are not immune to declension.
 
The Reformation didn't devise new doctrine but was a return to Biblical doctrine. There was development and refining in regards to the articulation of doctrine to be sure but what came out of the Reformation was based on the Bible, it wasn't "new information".



Yes it's an example of defective change in doctrine. Granted Reformed churches are not immune to declension.
Sure, and we can use this reasoning in favour of evangelical textual criticism - it's not 'new information', it's a return to biblical doctrine, as we get closer to the original text and get rid of later additions such as the Johannine Comma.
 
This simple democratization of manuscript evaluation was discussed above. It is not the best argument. If I ask my 84 students which New Deal program was involved in reforestation and conservation efforts and 81 tell me the FDIC that does not make that the right answer over the 3 who say "CCC."

The simple reason is that the margins of a bible aren't very big. You can't include everything. There is a translation, the NET, that does that.
 
Not including it =/= keeping it a secret. Are the variants not noted being kept secret by that same reasoning?

So then you can!
But wasn't your original reason for leaving it out to protect your average pew member from anything that might cause them to doubt? That would be keeping it a secret, intending to keep information from your congregation for their own good (supposedly).
 
I feel this boils down to the evaluation of discovering Codex Sinaiticus (irrespective of using it or not in our bibles)

It was of course a providential event. But how do we evaluate it? Some of course say it was wonderful. But I don’t know how say @Northern Crofter looks at this event.

It seems for the TR view - post TR all these discoveries do more harm than good since it really does not contribute anything but only introduces confusion. This seems to be the logical conclusion seeing we already have the preserved text. No other discoveries would fit providential preservation so it’s useless and at worst, confusing because of how some would use it to form other texts.
 
Last edited:
I feel this boils down to the evaluation of discovering Codex Sinaiticus (irrespective of using it or not in our bibles)

Not at all. Even if Codex Sinaiticus didn't exist, there have (and will be) questions concerning variants that people have discussed the entirety of church history. 1 John 5:7 for example doesn't really have textual support period, Alexandrian or Byzantine or whatever and people debated it for over 1,000 years.

And there were questions regarding the ending of Mark prior to Alexandrian texts too.

Ultimately, I think it's about honesty. We can try to hide the fact that there are actual questions regarding the text and pretend they don't exist, or we can be open and honest.

And I'll reiterate that I think this whole thing about marginal notes is a red herring because if they were removed (like they have in many editions of the KJV) I still don't think that's going to sway the anti-NKJV folks to use the NKJV.
 
Not at all. Even if Codex Sinaiticus didn't exist, there have (and will be) questions concerning variants that people have discussed the entirety of church history. 1 John 5:7 for example doesn't really have textual support period, Alexandrian or Byzantine or whatever and people debated it for over 1,000 years.

And there were questions regarding the ending of Mark prior to Alexandrian texts too.

Ultimately, I think it's about honesty. We can try to hide the fact that there are actual questions regarding the text and pretend they don't exist, or we can be open and honest.

And I'll reiterate that I think this whole thing about marginal notes is a red herring because if they were removed (like they have in many editions of the KJV) I still don't think that's going to sway the anti-NKJV folks to use the NKJV.
I was focusing more on the sentiment of this discovery, since it will reveal a lot. What do our TR brethren feel about this event which non-TR people rejoice over? Just another angle to look at things.
 
But wasn't your original reason for leaving it out to protect your average pew member from anything that might cause them to doubt? That would be keeping it a secret, intending to keep information from your congregation for their own good (supposedly).
I've stated multiple times above that the Church should have those discussions, even from the pulpit.
I'm not sure how the minister expositing the passage and explaining variants if need be is considered "keeping it a secret."
 
But I don’t know how say @Northern Crofter looks at this event.
My question with all these discoveries is "Who decides?" I think it's clear I don't believe it should be a democratic decision since the truth is not always what is accepted by the majority - and truth is the goal of scholarship. Although I use a TR translation, I am not a "TR-guy." In my view, the Church must ultimately be involved in the process using their ordained authority to rule and to judge. That does not mean that they cannot (a) use the existing scholarship or (b) simply endorse an existing version. I use the version I use largely because it was once approved by a particular church. Again, why is the modern Church not doing so? If you want a new version that incorporates recently discovered variants (or acceptance of such), lay it out before your brethren in the assembly of the saints (which should include the Church's best scholars!). Though not written to address this specific situation, I think I Corinthians 6 is applicable.
 
My question with all these discoveries is "Who decides?" I think it's clear I don't believe it should be a democratic decision since the truth is not always what is accepted by the majority - and truth is the goal of scholarship. Although I use a TR translation, I am not a "TR-guy." In my view, the Church must ultimately be involved in the process using their ordained authority to rule and to judge. That does not mean that they cannot (a) use the existing scholarship or (b) simply endorse an existing version. I use the version I use largely because it was once approved by a particular church. Again, why is the modern Church not doing so? If you want a new version that incorporates recently discovered variants (or acceptance of such), lay it out before your brethren in the assembly of the saints (which should include the Church's best scholars!). Though not written to address this specific situation, I think I Corinthians 6 is applicable.
The discovery of these manuscripts are an objective event in church history. And I am not even talking about versions. Just the historical discovery. Do you need the church to help you assess a providential act? I do not think so but I guess you differ.

By church do you mean RPCNA?
 
My question with all these discoveries is "Who decides?" I think it's clear I don't believe it should be a democratic decision since the truth is not always what is accepted by the majority - and truth is the goal of scholarship. Although I use a TR translation, I am not a "TR-guy." In my view, the Church must ultimately be involved in the process using their ordained authority to rule and to judge. That does not mean that they cannot (a) use the existing scholarship or (b) simply endorse an existing version. I use the version I use largely because it was once approved by a particular church. Again, why is the modern Church not doing so? If you want a new version that incorporates recently discovered variants (or acceptance of such), lay it out before your brethren in the assembly of the saints (which should include the Church's best scholars!). Though not written to address this specific situation, I think I Corinthians 6 is applicable.
It isn't about the majority deciding what is true - nobody is making that argument. It's about whether the people in the pews can be trusted to have all the information or not. I think it's dangerous to try to hide it from them or argue that it would be better if they didn't. Which seemed to be your original position.
 
Which church?
The Church. Ideally a national church. If none exists in a nation, then a synod or presbytery. But I think it is the privilege and duty of the Church (rather than individuals or para-church organizations and publishers) to decide a matter of controversy involving the text of Scripture.
 
The Church. Ideally a national church. If none exists in a nation, then a synod or presbytery. But I think it is the privilege and duty of the Church (rather than individuals or para-church organizations and publishers) to decide a matter of controversy involving the text of Scripture.
The text of Scripture is a public, objective fact. Maybe the church should decide it, but it’s already out in the open. If a church decided on Westcott Hirt, would you submit to that?
 
The discovery of these manuscripts are an objective event in church history. And I am not even talking about versions. Just the historical discovery. Do you need the church to help you assess a providential act? I do not think so but I guess you differ.
I must have misunderstood your post. No, I do not need help acknowledging a historical discovery. Yes, I need the help of the Church to assess what has been discovered. Again, while not written to address this specific situation, I believe the principles of 2 Peter 1:20 apply to the discovery of texts purported to be inspired Scripture.
If a church decided on Westcott Hirt, would you submit to that?
If that was what the particular church I communed with decided, yes.
The text of Scripture is a public, objective fact.
Which text?
By church do you mean RPCNA?
That depends which of my statements you are referring to. The RPCNA is a *particular church, not the Church - I try to use church/Church as it is used in the WCF (see 25.4 for example). [*perhaps technically not in the original meaning in the WCF but close enough in a land with no established church]
I think it's dangerous to try to hide it from them or argue that it would be better if they didn't. Which seemed to be your original position.
From my first post in this thread (#59) I have argued for the central role of preaching in explaining textual difficulties (archaic words, "false friends," variants). Nowhere have I endorsed hiding anything from anyone - I have even agreed with you that this is dangerous in #144.
 
I must have misunderstood your post. No, I do not need help acknowledging a historical discovery. Yes, I need the help of the Church to assess what has been discovered. Again, while not written to address this specific situation, I believe the principles of 2 Peter 1:20 apply to the discovery of texts purported to be inspired Scripture.
In recent years I have seen some assert that "private interpretation" in 2 Pet. 1:20 means an interpretation that differs from that of the Church, and that one has no right to differ from the decisions of synods, from the confessions of the Church, etc.
However, the phrasing of v. 21, "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," makes clear that a "private interpretation" is an interpretation that differs from the divine intent of the Holy Spirit, who is the original author.
Peter does not say "no Scripture is of private interpretation, for the Church interprets it," but "no Scripture is of private interpretation... but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
The idea that private interpretations are those which differ from the accepted doctrine of the Church is a Roman Catholic doctrine, which would lead to the conclusion that men like Martin Luther and other Reformers had no right to stand up to the false teachings of their day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top