InevitablyReformed
Puritan Board Freshman
It's the top entry on the page:
Alpha and Omega Ministries, The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James R. White
Alpha and Omega Ministries, The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James R. White
Calvin and Hodges on the DL
- Thread starter InevitablyReformed
- Start date
- Status
ThomasCartwright
Puritan Board Freshman
I have listened to the interview and White does not deal with the Confessional Position at all. Even the experts that he uses for his textual arguments blows a hole in his non-TR Confessional position. For instance, leading contemporary textual critic, Dan Wallace on his own blog admits that the Divines based their doctrine of perfect preservation on the Textus Receptus,
"The response by Protestants was swift, though perhaps not particularly well thought out. In 1646, the first doctrinal statement about God preserving his text was formulated as part of the Westminster Confession. The problem is that what the Westminster divines were thinking of when they penned that confession was the TR. By virtually ignoring the variants, they set themselves up for more abuse."
Kurt Aland the principal editor of the Nestle-Aland edition of Novum Testamentum Graece writes, “Finally it is undisputed that from the 16th to the 18th century orthodoxy’s doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed this Textus Receptus. It was the only Greek text they knew, and they regarded it as the ‘original text.’” Barbara Aland writes, “Every Theologian of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (and not just the exegetical scholars) worked from an Edition of the Greek Text of the New Testament which was regarded as the ‘revealed text.’ This idea of verbal inspiration (i.e. literal and inerrant inspiration of the text) ….was applied to the Textus Receptus.” Merrill M. Parvis states, “The Textus Receptus is not the ‘true’ text of the New Testament,” but concedes, “It [the TR] was the Scripture of many centuries of the Church's life. ... The Textus Receptus is the text of the Church. It is that form of text which represents the sum total and the end product of all the textual decisions which were made by the Church and her Fathers over a period of more than a thousand years.” Samuel Tregelles notes, "Beza’s text was during his life in very general use among Protestants; they seemed to feel that enough had been done to establish it, and they relied on it as giving them a firm basis....After the appearance of the texts of Stephanus and Beza, many Protestants ceased from all inquiry into the authorities on which the text of the New Testament in their hands was based."
White claims that the TR has proven mistakes - a claim he can only make if he has access to the originals. Also, he then tries to claim that "pure in all ages" could not mean the TR as it was not directly accessible to all believers in all ages who could not speak Greek. That is not what the Confessional or the TR only position which maintains that God preserved His words in an available manner for the whole Church.
William Orr in his commentary on the Confession accepts, “Now this affirms that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New which was known to the Westminster divines was immediately inspired by God because it was identical with the first text that God has kept pure in all the ages. The idea that there are mistakes in the Hebrew Masoretic texts or in the Textus Receptus of the New Testament was unknown to the authors of the Confession of Faith."
White repeats the whole chesnut that Erasmus used the Vulgate to backtranslate the last few verses of Revelation, despite Hoskier disproving this hypothesis. Erasmus also had access to the Vaticanus readings and rejected multiple readings of them and not just I John 5:7. White cannot prove that the Comma Johannine was imported from the Vulgate yet he boldly makes this assertion.
White's basic position on the WCF is that God singularly cared for His Words to keep them pure in all ages but we did not have them for 1500 years and are still not sure we have them all. I do not think that he can show any evidence for this view. In fact, the Divines utilised I John 5:7 in their original edition of the WCF as a proof text.
Also, White shows his inconsistency in the text that he follows. The bottom line is that the CT is closer to the Vulgate Text than the TR. The Divines rejected the Vulgate text as corrupt (I can put on multiple quotes for this). Yet White, in his book, defends the clearly corrupted Vulgate text in Mark 1:2 just because he is wedded to the Critical Text. This is despite the fact that the strongest test ie the internal evidence of the Bible itself shows that the TR is accurate in that the citation is "written" by the prophets and not Isaiah.
White also spends a lot of time pouring scorn on the view that the Church received the true words as akin to Romanism tradition. Yet, what he does not acknowledge in his claim for "consistency" is that he utilises the same pre-suppositional argument for canonicity.
He rejects any theories that cannot be proven yet posits the argument that Islam prevented the Alexandrian texts taking over the true Church. Sorry, Mr White we cannot argue on this hypothetical either. He pours out sarcasm as to there being no monolithic Byzantine tradition but never acknowledges that teh most divergent tradition is the Alexandrian - just run a comaprison between Vaticanus and Sinaticus!
"The response by Protestants was swift, though perhaps not particularly well thought out. In 1646, the first doctrinal statement about God preserving his text was formulated as part of the Westminster Confession. The problem is that what the Westminster divines were thinking of when they penned that confession was the TR. By virtually ignoring the variants, they set themselves up for more abuse."
Kurt Aland the principal editor of the Nestle-Aland edition of Novum Testamentum Graece writes, “Finally it is undisputed that from the 16th to the 18th century orthodoxy’s doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed this Textus Receptus. It was the only Greek text they knew, and they regarded it as the ‘original text.’” Barbara Aland writes, “Every Theologian of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (and not just the exegetical scholars) worked from an Edition of the Greek Text of the New Testament which was regarded as the ‘revealed text.’ This idea of verbal inspiration (i.e. literal and inerrant inspiration of the text) ….was applied to the Textus Receptus.” Merrill M. Parvis states, “The Textus Receptus is not the ‘true’ text of the New Testament,” but concedes, “It [the TR] was the Scripture of many centuries of the Church's life. ... The Textus Receptus is the text of the Church. It is that form of text which represents the sum total and the end product of all the textual decisions which were made by the Church and her Fathers over a period of more than a thousand years.” Samuel Tregelles notes, "Beza’s text was during his life in very general use among Protestants; they seemed to feel that enough had been done to establish it, and they relied on it as giving them a firm basis....After the appearance of the texts of Stephanus and Beza, many Protestants ceased from all inquiry into the authorities on which the text of the New Testament in their hands was based."
White claims that the TR has proven mistakes - a claim he can only make if he has access to the originals. Also, he then tries to claim that "pure in all ages" could not mean the TR as it was not directly accessible to all believers in all ages who could not speak Greek. That is not what the Confessional or the TR only position which maintains that God preserved His words in an available manner for the whole Church.
William Orr in his commentary on the Confession accepts, “Now this affirms that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New which was known to the Westminster divines was immediately inspired by God because it was identical with the first text that God has kept pure in all the ages. The idea that there are mistakes in the Hebrew Masoretic texts or in the Textus Receptus of the New Testament was unknown to the authors of the Confession of Faith."
White repeats the whole chesnut that Erasmus used the Vulgate to backtranslate the last few verses of Revelation, despite Hoskier disproving this hypothesis. Erasmus also had access to the Vaticanus readings and rejected multiple readings of them and not just I John 5:7. White cannot prove that the Comma Johannine was imported from the Vulgate yet he boldly makes this assertion.
White's basic position on the WCF is that God singularly cared for His Words to keep them pure in all ages but we did not have them for 1500 years and are still not sure we have them all. I do not think that he can show any evidence for this view. In fact, the Divines utilised I John 5:7 in their original edition of the WCF as a proof text.
Also, White shows his inconsistency in the text that he follows. The bottom line is that the CT is closer to the Vulgate Text than the TR. The Divines rejected the Vulgate text as corrupt (I can put on multiple quotes for this). Yet White, in his book, defends the clearly corrupted Vulgate text in Mark 1:2 just because he is wedded to the Critical Text. This is despite the fact that the strongest test ie the internal evidence of the Bible itself shows that the TR is accurate in that the citation is "written" by the prophets and not Isaiah.
White also spends a lot of time pouring scorn on the view that the Church received the true words as akin to Romanism tradition. Yet, what he does not acknowledge in his claim for "consistency" is that he utilises the same pre-suppositional argument for canonicity.
He rejects any theories that cannot be proven yet posits the argument that Islam prevented the Alexandrian texts taking over the true Church. Sorry, Mr White we cannot argue on this hypothetical either. He pours out sarcasm as to there being no monolithic Byzantine tradition but never acknowledges that teh most divergent tradition is the Alexandrian - just run a comaprison between Vaticanus and Sinaticus!
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
If there are thousands of Byzantine manuscripts and only one, which is very recent, contains the Comma Johannine, it's fair for any reasonable person to say that a collation of the Byzantine texts doesn't have the Comma Johannine.
This above is a typical technique of the extremist TR position. Demanding that one prove a negative. They use the hopelessly illogical methodology of starting from a theory taken on faith and work backwards picking and choosing from all sorts of data to prove the theory rather than to test it by trying to disprove it. Then to make matters worse, they demand their opponents prove a negative. It goes like this:
"God would have preserved a text, and in the fullness of time revealed that text to the Church. This was in 106 editions of the TR which were made over a period of a couple centuries, and although those editions differed from one another you can't bring that up or you lack faith.
Most of these editions have the Comma Johannine, so since most of those editions have the Comma Johannine, it must be part of the TR. It's true that we claim the TR came from the Byzantine textual family, and that virtually none of the Byzantine texts have the Comma Johaninne, but YOU CAN'T PROVE IT NEVER EXISTED so it must have existed, otherwise God doesn't keep His promises.
It's true that in one case we're basing our argument on the number of texts which support our claim, and it's true that in another case we reject that the number of texts as a basis for our claim. And you have to accept what we say, otherwise God is a liar."
ThomasCartwright
Puritan Board Freshman
Tim,
Try and avoid pejorative terms like "extremist" to describe other Confessional brethren. I note the unedifying and disgraceful ad hominen comments James White made about Kent Brandenburg in contrast to his sycophantic approach to the apostate Ehrman. I do not agree with Br Brandenburg on his ecclesiology or baptism views but he is not a "bigot" or a "liar" because he interprets the Bible differently from me on certain passages.
I John 5:7 - With respect those are not the facts. White et al conveniently ignores these when throwing around the statistics. For instance, John Gill's commentary on I John 5:7 tells us "out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens's, nine of them had it." Secondly, the Westminster Divines used this as a proof text for the Trinity which all Reformed Elders swear on oath as a Confession of their Faith. Now, you and James White may wish to derogate from this part of the Confessions but you should be consistent.
What you call "hopelessly illogical methodology" is simply letting the Bible promises of perfect preservation as a priori guide us in identifying the perfect text. It is the same pre-suppositional approach you use to identify that the Book of James was in the Canon and Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans is not. So, your argument is self-refuting. There is nothing wrong with starting with a pre-suppositional view of Scripture and then interepreting the facts from this - that is why we believe Creationism, Virgin Birth, miracles despite the so-called scientific, rationalistic, or historical evidence that may appear to contradict it.According to your logic it is acceptable and even necessary to have theological pre-suppositions about the resurrection, but it is unacceptable to hold theological pre-suppositions about the historical sources that the belief in the resurrection is based upon.
Now, before you come on and tell us that no essential/Fundamental doctrine is affected by any variant either above ground or buried still in the sands of Egypt, you should consider the telling blow Ehrman made against White on this point. Ehrman pertinently observed that arguing that no doctrine is affected because we have essential purity in percentages of agreement between manuscripts is fallacious as one could have 99 words out of 100 that were the same but this would be irrelevant if the missing word was 'not.' That is a problem that you cannot resolve.
Now,please explain to me how the Critical Text on Mark 1:2 is consistent with the internal evidence of Scripture.
Last edited:
Jesus is the Messiah of the Old Testament Scriptures. All Christians start by faith in this fact, and then appeal to the Old Testament Scriptures which confirm their basic starting position. They certainly do not test their position in true Cartesian style by trying to disprove it.
Grymir
Puritan Board Graduate
I heard it to and thought CalvinandHodges did well. I thought Dr. White spent all the time on little issues instead of the big picture. Which is something people against the TR seem to do. I don't understand why they spend all the time on a few verses, instead of discussing the philosophy that the translators use, or the methods that they employed, or the actual history of the texts used. It's like spinning your wheels on the little issues instead of the bigger ideas. I would of enjoyed a broader disscussion on those issues instead of dwelling all the time on a few verses.
I especially enjoyed the the Jerome quotes CalvinandHodges brought up. Which were really good.
I especially enjoyed the the Jerome quotes CalvinandHodges brought up. Which were really good.
tellville
Puritan Board Junior
Obviously people are listening to this show with their "textual" lenses because I thought Dr. White clearly "won". Kudos to both though for having an intelligent conversation without going Jack Bauer on each other!
On a side note: I've been reading through the NKJV, a translation I've never even given the light of day (I guess because so many people on both sides of the debate flame the NKJV) and I've really appreciated the textual notes as well as the English. I feel so much more informed seeing where all the major variants and textual issues are while reading.
On a side note: I've been reading through the NKJV, a translation I've never even given the light of day (I guess because so many people on both sides of the debate flame the NKJV) and I've really appreciated the textual notes as well as the English. I feel so much more informed seeing where all the major variants and textual issues are while reading.
CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Hi:
Thanks to InevitablyReformed for starting this thread.
I thought that Dr. White was a very gracious host. He was quite patient with me who has no experience at live debating, and who has little experience on the Radio. Afterwards, I found that I was kicking myself saying, "I should have said this..."
I thought that Dr. White brought up some very important issues.
When I asked him if he thought that the TR was an authentic copy of the autographs he kind of surprised me by replying "no." I did not expect that level of bluntness. His response was very telling:
"How can it be authentic when it has so many errors in it?"
He gave a short list of those errors: Luke 2:22; 1 John 5:7,8; Rev 16; and the last verses of the book of Revelation.
First, and I would appreciate anyone's response to this, it appears to me that Dr. White's answer here is very similar to Dr. Erhman's point that I was elucidating in the previous thread:
Dr. Erhman questioned the inspiration of the Scriptures because there were many variations in the text. How could God have preserved the MSS of the original with so many "errors" in its transmission?
Dr. White pointed out that the Byzantine MSS are not an ivory tower - but has many various readings in it. He also pointed out the above - the TR has many "errors" in it, so, then how could it be authentic much less inspired? I am assuming here that if the TR is not authentic, then it cannot be considered inspired.
It is this line of argumentation by Critical Text scholars that concerns me. The problem is not alleviated by the Critical Text. The CT has far more "errors" and transmissional difficulties than the TR. The list, compiled by Jack Moorman, is about 8,000 which amounts to about 20,000 words. This comes to a 10% difference - about 1 in 10 words in the NT are changed by the Critical Text.
It is very eye-opening in class: I look at my TR as my professor uses the CT, and the differences are very telling. It appears to me, and, I believe, to anyone who will objectively look at the texts, that both cannot be correct.
It would have been nice if Dr. White had given me his agenda for this conversation, but it was not necessary. He wanted to delve into specifics where I was prepared for speaking about text transmission, Providence, and the TR vs CT.
I had never heard that Luke 2:22 was a disputed text. When I opened Metzger's Text Commentary (2nd Edition) today he does not even list it as a disputed text. Is such in the 3rd Edition?
We discussed 1 John 5:7,8; Rev 16 (?); and the final ending of Revelation.
I don't remember the verse citation on Rev 16 - I will have to listen to the debate again - However, if what Dr. White has said is legitimate, and I do not deny that it may very well be, then I believe that the TR should be amended according to the Byzantine Greek witness.
When it comes to 1 John 5:7,8 - this is one of the times when I kick myself and "should have said..."
I will readily admit that the Greek witness to this text is scant. When Dr. White asked me if there was one ancient Greek text that contained the Comma, then I should have mentioned Robert Dabney's citation of Codex Wizenburgensis, "which Lachman dates in the 8th Century."
I did cite Jerome's statement in the canonical epistles, and mentioned that both John Calvin and John Gill mention this in their respective commentaries on 1 John 5:7. What I was not prepared for was Dr. White's reply:
Do you know what kind of changes need to be made in the TR if we include one minority reading from the Vulgate in the text?
I was thrown a bit by this statement. It was a very good question, but not without a good answer - another "I should have said this..."
My initial response was that in the other readings that Dr. White is now proposing - does Jerome make a similar comment? His answer to this was not very satisfying.
However, there are better reasons against Dr. White's question.
First, (and this was implied in my response) are the readings that Dr. White is now requiring me to consider - found in the Byzantine MSS of the Greek Text? I will not consider non-Byzantine texts.
*Though there are scant Greek Text readings for the Comma Johanneum there are Greek Texts in the Byzantine family that contain it.*
Second, does Jerome attest to the texts in the same fashion that he does to the Comma Johanneum? This was the point I made in the discussion.
Third, (not mentioned in the discussion) Are there other translations, Syriac, Old Latin, etc, which contain these said variations?
Much weight, in my opinion, can be placed upon the Waldensian Old Latin text which can be found in the translations into French by Robert Olivetian, and into the Italian Diodati. I do not know if we have a copy of the Waldensian text today. I know we have copies of the Old Latin, but I do not think they are Waldensian in nature. The Comma can be found in all of these.
I believe the above three criteria are enough to answer the question that Dr. White asked - a very apropos question - I might add.
In the last verses of Revelation I challenged Dr. White to show where Erasmus, in his annotations, wrote: ex nostris Latinis supplevimus Graeca - that he supplied the Greek from the Latin.
This "story" concerning Erasmus has been debunked here:
Erika Rummel, Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament: From Philologist to Theologian (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986)
I emailed Dr. White this citation after the debate - I did not have it handy.
The reference concerning Hoskier is:
H. C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, vol. 2 (London: Bernard Quaritch, Ltd., 1929), 644
It is worth looking into further.
All in all I thought it went well.
Blessings,
Rob
Thanks to InevitablyReformed for starting this thread.
I thought that Dr. White was a very gracious host. He was quite patient with me who has no experience at live debating, and who has little experience on the Radio. Afterwards, I found that I was kicking myself saying, "I should have said this..."
I thought that Dr. White brought up some very important issues.
When I asked him if he thought that the TR was an authentic copy of the autographs he kind of surprised me by replying "no." I did not expect that level of bluntness. His response was very telling:
"How can it be authentic when it has so many errors in it?"
He gave a short list of those errors: Luke 2:22; 1 John 5:7,8; Rev 16; and the last verses of the book of Revelation.
First, and I would appreciate anyone's response to this, it appears to me that Dr. White's answer here is very similar to Dr. Erhman's point that I was elucidating in the previous thread:
Dr. Erhman questioned the inspiration of the Scriptures because there were many variations in the text. How could God have preserved the MSS of the original with so many "errors" in its transmission?
Dr. White pointed out that the Byzantine MSS are not an ivory tower - but has many various readings in it. He also pointed out the above - the TR has many "errors" in it, so, then how could it be authentic much less inspired? I am assuming here that if the TR is not authentic, then it cannot be considered inspired.
It is this line of argumentation by Critical Text scholars that concerns me. The problem is not alleviated by the Critical Text. The CT has far more "errors" and transmissional difficulties than the TR. The list, compiled by Jack Moorman, is about 8,000 which amounts to about 20,000 words. This comes to a 10% difference - about 1 in 10 words in the NT are changed by the Critical Text.
It is very eye-opening in class: I look at my TR as my professor uses the CT, and the differences are very telling. It appears to me, and, I believe, to anyone who will objectively look at the texts, that both cannot be correct.
It would have been nice if Dr. White had given me his agenda for this conversation, but it was not necessary. He wanted to delve into specifics where I was prepared for speaking about text transmission, Providence, and the TR vs CT.
I had never heard that Luke 2:22 was a disputed text. When I opened Metzger's Text Commentary (2nd Edition) today he does not even list it as a disputed text. Is such in the 3rd Edition?
We discussed 1 John 5:7,8; Rev 16 (?); and the final ending of Revelation.
I don't remember the verse citation on Rev 16 - I will have to listen to the debate again - However, if what Dr. White has said is legitimate, and I do not deny that it may very well be, then I believe that the TR should be amended according to the Byzantine Greek witness.
When it comes to 1 John 5:7,8 - this is one of the times when I kick myself and "should have said..."
I will readily admit that the Greek witness to this text is scant. When Dr. White asked me if there was one ancient Greek text that contained the Comma, then I should have mentioned Robert Dabney's citation of Codex Wizenburgensis, "which Lachman dates in the 8th Century."
I did cite Jerome's statement in the canonical epistles, and mentioned that both John Calvin and John Gill mention this in their respective commentaries on 1 John 5:7. What I was not prepared for was Dr. White's reply:
Do you know what kind of changes need to be made in the TR if we include one minority reading from the Vulgate in the text?
I was thrown a bit by this statement. It was a very good question, but not without a good answer - another "I should have said this..."
My initial response was that in the other readings that Dr. White is now proposing - does Jerome make a similar comment? His answer to this was not very satisfying.
However, there are better reasons against Dr. White's question.
First, (and this was implied in my response) are the readings that Dr. White is now requiring me to consider - found in the Byzantine MSS of the Greek Text? I will not consider non-Byzantine texts.
*Though there are scant Greek Text readings for the Comma Johanneum there are Greek Texts in the Byzantine family that contain it.*
Second, does Jerome attest to the texts in the same fashion that he does to the Comma Johanneum? This was the point I made in the discussion.
Third, (not mentioned in the discussion) Are there other translations, Syriac, Old Latin, etc, which contain these said variations?
Much weight, in my opinion, can be placed upon the Waldensian Old Latin text which can be found in the translations into French by Robert Olivetian, and into the Italian Diodati. I do not know if we have a copy of the Waldensian text today. I know we have copies of the Old Latin, but I do not think they are Waldensian in nature. The Comma can be found in all of these.
I believe the above three criteria are enough to answer the question that Dr. White asked - a very apropos question - I might add.
In the last verses of Revelation I challenged Dr. White to show where Erasmus, in his annotations, wrote: ex nostris Latinis supplevimus Graeca - that he supplied the Greek from the Latin.
This "story" concerning Erasmus has been debunked here:
Erika Rummel, Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament: From Philologist to Theologian (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986)
I emailed Dr. White this citation after the debate - I did not have it handy.
The reference concerning Hoskier is:
H. C. Hoskier, Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, vol. 2 (London: Bernard Quaritch, Ltd., 1929), 644
It is worth looking into further.
All in all I thought it went well.
Blessings,
Rob
A.J.
Puritan Board Junior
Hi To Everyone,
I find discussions like this one interesting. In the past, I've been influenced by a King James Only position advocated by Jack Chick. Right. I was an avid reader of his tracts, and there are fundamental Baptist groups in my country which have been influenced by his writings.
But that was before I discovered Reformed Theology. I then found Dr. James White's website which has always been a useful resource to me. I haven't read much about the nature of this debate, and haven't made up my mind on this. And I thank you all for bringing this ever relevant issue. For the record, I grew up memorizing verses from the KJV. So reading this version has not been that difficult for me.
CalvinandHodges, I thank thee for thine posts here and in the recent thread discussing manuscripts issues also. They were very helpful.
I find discussions like this one interesting. In the past, I've been influenced by a King James Only position advocated by Jack Chick. Right. I was an avid reader of his tracts, and there are fundamental Baptist groups in my country which have been influenced by his writings.
But that was before I discovered Reformed Theology. I then found Dr. James White's website which has always been a useful resource to me. I haven't read much about the nature of this debate, and haven't made up my mind on this. And I thank you all for bringing this ever relevant issue. For the record, I grew up memorizing verses from the KJV. So reading this version has not been that difficult for me.
CalvinandHodges, I thank thee for thine posts here and in the recent thread discussing manuscripts issues also. They were very helpful.
Hippo
Puritan Board Junior
In order for Jesus to be Messiah he must satisfy the Old Testament prophecy's, but he is not the Messiah because he ticks the various boxes. The Jews identified countless candidates on the basis of prophecy and then appealed "to the Old Testament Scriptures which confirm their basic starting position" and look where it got them, false Messiah's. The claim as Messiah is made by Jesus, and attested to by miricles, it is not something that was arrived at solely by looking at the Old Testament.
The problem is that when the claim is made that the promise to keep the word pure through all ages is made this refers to the TR and this excludes all other manuscripts it just falls down and in so many ways as has been illustrated.
To prepare the TR you have to look at the various Byzantine manuscripts and using textual critisism recreate what to the best of your skills was the original text. Everyone accepts that the original Erasmian texts contaioned many errors and it was by looking at the manuscript tradition that such errors were largely corrected. In view of this it is illogical to compalin about the concept of textual critisism when a form of CT is being discussed, of course you can argue about the technicalities of such critisism and the weight put to various texts but you cannot disreagard the CT on the basis that it is an artificial text, if you did that you would have to reject the TR as well.
If you are preparing a TR by looking at the Byzantine texts the Comma Johannine illustrates a huge problem for the TR position, the only possible reasonable basis for concluding that after looking at the histoical evidence the Comma Johannine should be included is that it was providentially included by Erasmus. There are countless other possible variants hinted at by previous sources or included in a couple of texts but no one is suggesting that these should outweigh the overwhelming weight of the manuscript tradition.
The only basis given for excluding the Alexandrian manucripts from a textual consideration of the biblical texts are that:
1) There were heretics in Egypt
2) The Alexandrian line was providentially extinguished
3) The Church did not have access to Alexandrian manuscripts for a thousand years
Of these 1) is just plain daft. You have to be on guard against corruption in any tradition and given the problems with the Byzantine tradition (albeit much less pronounced than the Alexandrian variants) it is pure assertion to say that one has been kept pure while the other has not. If there had been additions to the Alexandrian manuscripts that were at odds with orthodoxy then this would be worrying but that is not the case. If the Gnostics did corrupt the Alexandrian texts they did a pretty poor job of it.
I find the contention that the spread of Islam was providential to the destruction of Alexandrain texts to have very little merit. You can label anything providential if it agrees with you, it is a dead end argument. Why is it not providential that the Alexandrian manuscripts have been preserved?
It is a gross misuse of presupositionalism to legitimise a claim that a TR only position is sound, in doing so your presupposition is that the TR is the preserved pure text so your presupposition and conclusion are the same. You can justify anything by that argument.
The correct presuppositions are that the Canon was inspired by God, it is innerant and that it has been preserved through all ages.
We have the ancient texts and to pick a fifteenth century manuscript and say this one is it is not the result of sound presuppositions, it verges on superstition. To solve textual issues by edict using a "hopelessly illogical methodology" cannot be remedid by the presuposition that you were right in the first place.
ThomasCartwright
Puritan Board Freshman
Hi Mike
I think you are replying to what you believe are a standard KJVO position. Most who post on here would not argue the way you are assuming. I know I certainly would not.
You cannot compare the textual critical approach of the CT with Erasmus. He was merely identifying the text handed down through the Church whereas the CT proponents are seeking to restore a text that has been lost for over 1500 years through purely naturalistic methods.
Also, all of the CT textual critics deny that the original text has been or ever can be recovered and I can cite liberals, evangelicals such as Wallace, and even Fundamentalists scholars like William Combs who will state this as an axiom. Not very helpful when you believe God has according to Scripture and the Confessions kept His Word "pure in all ages."If the Church has been without the most authentic text of the New Testament for nearly two millennia then it is far-fetched to argue that God has “by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages” the New Testament text. God revealed the Scriptures so men could know His will both in the Old and New Testaments and in the future (Deut. 31:9-13,24-29; 1 John 1:1-4; 2:1-17; 2 Tim. 3:14-17, 2 Peter 1:12-15). Certainly the Bible makes clear that no Scripture was intended for only the original recipient (Rom 15:4; 1 Cor 10:11). Logically, if all the Scriptures were “written,” for the purpose of instructing New Testament saints (2 Tim. 3:16), that purpose for the inspired writings must invariably demands their perfect preservation.
No one here is arguing that there was no variants in the manuscripts handled by Erasmus, Beza, KJV translators et al but that providence guided these men to identify the true text which the Church eventually settled on in 1611 (just like they did with the books). This is not a crazy methodology as it is exactly the same utilised to determine the inerrant canon. Let me illustrate with the views of Reformed author, Keith A. Mathison who argues,
Evangelical theologian, Wayne Grudem correctly adopts a similar fidelistic pre-supposition to canonicity,
He also, paradoxically, sees the pressing need for preservation yet still ultimately rejects it when he argued, “We know that God loves his people, and it is supremely important that God's people have his words, for they are our life (Deut. 32:47; Matt. 4:4).”
You are arguing for canonised books made up of uncanonised words - you adopt a fidelistic approach for the former but reject it for the latter as "illogical." Can you give us an objective reason why. It should be noted that there are at least 50 times more verse for preservation than inspiration and 100% more verses to show preservation than canonicity. So our pre-suppositional approach to preserved Words is not a blind unreasonable faith.
There are doctrines affected by the CT and it is absurd to argue otherwise. Let me cite the famous Mr Dan Wallace again,
You say that it is "superstition" to "to pick a fifteenth century manuscript and say this one is it" yet you pick up 6,000 manuscripts floating around including the 1,000 or so Dan Wallace says are still probably unidentified or dug up yet and say they may have all of the Words. That is not very certain or helpful either.
I think you are replying to what you believe are a standard KJVO position. Most who post on here would not argue the way you are assuming. I know I certainly would not.
You cannot compare the textual critical approach of the CT with Erasmus. He was merely identifying the text handed down through the Church whereas the CT proponents are seeking to restore a text that has been lost for over 1500 years through purely naturalistic methods.
Also, all of the CT textual critics deny that the original text has been or ever can be recovered and I can cite liberals, evangelicals such as Wallace, and even Fundamentalists scholars like William Combs who will state this as an axiom. Not very helpful when you believe God has according to Scripture and the Confessions kept His Word "pure in all ages."If the Church has been without the most authentic text of the New Testament for nearly two millennia then it is far-fetched to argue that God has “by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages” the New Testament text. God revealed the Scriptures so men could know His will both in the Old and New Testaments and in the future (Deut. 31:9-13,24-29; 1 John 1:1-4; 2:1-17; 2 Tim. 3:14-17, 2 Peter 1:12-15). Certainly the Bible makes clear that no Scripture was intended for only the original recipient (Rom 15:4; 1 Cor 10:11). Logically, if all the Scriptures were “written,” for the purpose of instructing New Testament saints (2 Tim. 3:16), that purpose for the inspired writings must invariably demands their perfect preservation.
No one here is arguing that there was no variants in the manuscripts handled by Erasmus, Beza, KJV translators et al but that providence guided these men to identify the true text which the Church eventually settled on in 1611 (just like they did with the books). This is not a crazy methodology as it is exactly the same utilised to determine the inerrant canon. Let me illustrate with the views of Reformed author, Keith A. Mathison who argues,
Evangelical theologian, Wayne Grudem correctly adopts a similar fidelistic pre-supposition to canonicity,
He also, paradoxically, sees the pressing need for preservation yet still ultimately rejects it when he argued, “We know that God loves his people, and it is supremely important that God's people have his words, for they are our life (Deut. 32:47; Matt. 4:4).”
You are arguing for canonised books made up of uncanonised words - you adopt a fidelistic approach for the former but reject it for the latter as "illogical." Can you give us an objective reason why. It should be noted that there are at least 50 times more verse for preservation than inspiration and 100% more verses to show preservation than canonicity. So our pre-suppositional approach to preserved Words is not a blind unreasonable faith.
There are doctrines affected by the CT and it is absurd to argue otherwise. Let me cite the famous Mr Dan Wallace again,
You say that it is "superstition" to "to pick a fifteenth century manuscript and say this one is it" yet you pick up 6,000 manuscripts floating around including the 1,000 or so Dan Wallace says are still probably unidentified or dug up yet and say they may have all of the Words. That is not very certain or helpful either.
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
That is naturally where your presuppositions would take you if you demand that all three quarters of a million words in the Bible have to be exactly the same as in the Books in their directly inspired form for a Bible version to be authentic.
Rob, please answer me two straight questions. Is the KJV inspired? Is the ESV inspired?
Yes, that bothered me a well in the interview. Another common Independent Fundamental Baptist type of thinking that drives me to great frustration. Just two days ago I heard an IFB preaching on the radio while I was driving. He said many statisticians have proven a correlation with events like Hurricane Katrina with the US forcing Israel to compromise with Palestinians. And some people really take sort of "scholarship" seriously.
White pushed Rob into admitting that he thought the God sent the Muslim armies "south" to destroy the Alexandrian tradition. Rob, both Alexandria and Antioch fell to Islam within three years of each other! Have you checked a map for directions? And you do know the modern name of Byzantium? I was hoping you would have admitted that you were under pressure and weren't thinking clearly.
ThomasCartwright
Puritan Board Freshman
This is not as telling a blow as you or James White thinks. In fact it backfires on you both.
The truth is when Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453 the study of the classics in Europe was quickened by the exodus of large numbers of Greek scholars, with their manuscripts of the old Greek and Hebrew authors, from Constantinople to Italy and Germany, France and England. These Byzantine manuscripts were in the main the very ones that Erasmus was able to construct his printed edition from. However, you could not say the same for the Alexandrian manuscripts which remained buried/locked away for another 400 years.
So providence was working and keeping these Words accessible generally to the true Church in every generation. Remember, God has established Biblical precedents which show that He keeps and protects His Word in all generations. For instance, when Moses broke the original copy of the tables of God, they were replaced very soon afterwards and not hundreds of years later. In the book of Jeremiah, God responded to the burning of His inspired word by preparing Baruch to record exactly the words of the former scroll. God perfectly preserved His word to all generations in both instances just as He promised (Isaiah 59:21; Psa. 33:11; Psa. 100:5; Psa. 119:89-90)!
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
Mr. F., could you please answer me two straight questions?
Is the KJV inspired? Is the ESV inspired?
So, Europe got large quantities of Byzantine texts 14 centuries after Christ, and only got Alexandrian texts 18 centuries after Christ, and that justifies Rob's statement that God sent the Muslim armies "south" (even though it isn't true) and White actually fell into a trap by contesting this?
Is the KJV inspired? Is the ESV inspired?
So, Europe got large quantities of Byzantine texts 14 centuries after Christ, and only got Alexandrian texts 18 centuries after Christ, and that justifies Rob's statement that God sent the Muslim armies "south" (even though it isn't true) and White actually fell into a trap by contesting this?
ThomasCartwright
Puritan Board Freshman
Tim,
You are the one who brought providence up and sought to interpret it. Now, you do not like its conclusions because it leaves you with one answer.
If God is preserving His words unto all generations, as per Scripture, then the Alexandrian manuscripts fail the test as they were not available to anyone generally for 1400 years. I have demonstrated that the Byzantine manuscripts were made providentially available throughout this period. For instance, Bishop C. J. Ellicott, chairman of the 1881 Revision Committee, issued a pamphlet in that same year in which he significantly conceded that the Received Text was as ancient as the Vaticanus B,
You are the one who brought providence up and sought to interpret it. Now, you do not like its conclusions because it leaves you with one answer.
If God is preserving His words unto all generations, as per Scripture, then the Alexandrian manuscripts fail the test as they were not available to anyone generally for 1400 years. I have demonstrated that the Byzantine manuscripts were made providentially available throughout this period. For instance, Bishop C. J. Ellicott, chairman of the 1881 Revision Committee, issued a pamphlet in that same year in which he significantly conceded that the Received Text was as ancient as the Vaticanus B,
I listened to this DL as well and found it to be very interesting.
I want to thank Rob for having the guts to come on the show.
A few weeks ago, some more extreme KJVO advocates (true KJVO advocated, more than just TR people here) Spent a few weeks on their show speaking against White's book, the King James only Controversy, yet they would not come on the Dividing Line and discuss this directly.
So while I do agree with White on this subject, I do appreciate those who are willing to debate the subject with White.
That is something Gail Riplinger is not willing to do.
I want to thank Rob for having the guts to come on the show.
A few weeks ago, some more extreme KJVO advocates (true KJVO advocated, more than just TR people here) Spent a few weeks on their show speaking against White's book, the King James only Controversy, yet they would not come on the Dividing Line and discuss this directly.
So while I do agree with White on this subject, I do appreciate those who are willing to debate the subject with White.
That is something Gail Riplinger is not willing to do.
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
No, you've swallowed a theory with a "one or the other" mentality built into it, and it's affecting your judgment. Just like any one who disagrees with your theory "must" support the CT, you've assumed I would be as presumptuous at to interpret God's working in history to support a theory not held by any major denomination anywhere in the world.
My whole post was a criticism of that sort of thinking. No where did I presume to interpret God's providence in history. That was Rob, not me. Please concentrate for a bit on that, and if necessary re-read the posts.
Now, please answer two straight questions. Is the KJV inspired? Is the ESV inspired?
Last edited:
ThomasCartwright
Puritan Board Freshman
Tim,
Like James White, you need to learn to hide your detestation of those who happen to disagree with you from the TR camp. In all of your postings you cannot help sneering at them.
Unfortunately, you keep widening this discussion. I am quite happy to put on mutiple quotations from the Reformers and the Divines that the CT textual readings of the Vulgate were corruptions and were not included in the Confessional fences they erected around the TR. You claim, ludicrously, that the WCF position which includes providential preservation of the authentic text as including I John 5:7 as not held to by any "major denomination." Err... try most of the Reformed churches. Let us start with the Free Presbyterians of Scotland, Ulster and the Bible Presbyterians of Singapore.
You also feel you have the unanswerable question here on KJV/ESV. Let me say that no translation is inspired but is derivately inspired in so far as it reflects the originals as preserved in the preserved text. Could you tell me when the ESV says "it is written in Isaiah the prophet" in Mark 1:2 is it inspired?
Now, you answer my question: Do you believe we have an inerrant canon? If so, on what pre-suppositional objective grounds have you based your conclusion on?
sotzo
Puritan Board Sophomore
This thread is stellar and making headway for alot of observers out here who are considering this issue.
Mods, there may be some heat being thrown, but please let them keep going because the passion is helping fuel the arguments for our consideration. Just wanted to throw my 2 cents in before a mod steps in.
Mods, there may be some heat being thrown, but please let them keep going because the passion is helping fuel the arguments for our consideration. Just wanted to throw my 2 cents in before a mod steps in.
Moderator note. I disagree about the passion. Everyone dial it back and discuss the issues without feeling the need to castigate and excoriate. Otherwise this will just deteriorate and the thread will get closed. Consider this fair warning.
N.B. Clarification on vows. The Bible PC in this country and Canada did not adopt the original Westminster proof texts, and I believe the OPC has the proofs largely from the PCUSA's 1896 revision along with their own changes. I do believe the 1 John reference was dropped either in 1896 or subsequently by the OPC. In the PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) the original proofs are used but are not formally a part of their standards. One can disagree with these changes, but due to revisions it is not true that all reformed elders take an oath to uphold that proof text. It would be fair to say I think that in this country in the conservative Presbyterian churches the majority do not take any vows to the original proofs.
N.B. Clarification on vows. The Bible PC in this country and Canada did not adopt the original Westminster proof texts, and I believe the OPC has the proofs largely from the PCUSA's 1896 revision along with their own changes. I do believe the 1 John reference was dropped either in 1896 or subsequently by the OPC. In the PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) the original proofs are used but are not formally a part of their standards. One can disagree with these changes, but due to revisions it is not true that all reformed elders take an oath to uphold that proof text. It would be fair to say I think that in this country in the conservative Presbyterian churches the majority do not take any vows to the original proofs.
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
OK, can you point to one specific Greek text or collation and say that it is inspired in every word?
I believe that God's Word has been kept pure in all generations, but not necessarily written down in one place. I believe that before the Church agreed on our Canon, before, during the process of compiling the Canon and before several of the Books of the Canon were even written, God's Word was kept pure.
If you want my personal opinion, I would not have included, like Luther and the KJV translators the Apocrypha, even with the caveats provided. I think that through great study and yes, providential preservation the 66 Books of the Protestant Bible are properly included.
The overwhelming majority of Protestant leaders and thinkers have been in agreement with this for centuries, and would be arrogant and presumptuous of me to think that I've come up with some new doctrine to dispute the choices made by these people over the centuries.
Just as I think it would be presumptuous to think that the overwhelming number of Protestant leaders and thinkers were wrong when they accepted, starting in 1516, that better information would allow refinements in the wording of these 66 Books.
ThomasCartwright
Puritan Board Freshman
My position is that God preserved all of His Words for every generation in a manner in which it is generally accessible as He promised in Scripture. Now having got my Scriptural framework I look at the historical and textual evidence to coincide with this. In similar vein, I believe in Creationism ex nihilo and I then sift through the scientific evidence testing it by the scriptural pre-supposition. Now, the only text that fits this scriptural pre-supposition is the Greek/Hebrew texts underlying the King James version. So my belief is that all of the inspired Words are there to answer your direct question.
Many will say this is ludicrous and foolish, but the choice is absolute certainty or pepertual uncertainty.This uncertain “certainty” position of the CT advocates is in marked contrast to what the Lord spoke through Solomon about the inspired words, “Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?” (Prov. 22:20-21).God also promises in Proverbs 1:23 “I will pour out My Spirit unto you, I will make known My Words unto you.”
Theology teaches us that all that God does is in perfect harmony with Who He is. To argue that God has done anything imperfectly really flies in the face of His Self revelation and Self Declarations. By adopting the perpetual uncertainty model of textual critics today, like the Enlightenment rationalists, we have exalted man as the measure of all things. Textual critics place themselves as God’s judge by positing that the only appointed and fore-ordained means of salvation and the surest basis for the knowledge of God is somehow less than He intended. If we cannot trust God by faith to keep His Word to preach in its entirety, who is able to determine the minimum He did give us that is necessary for us to live by and how can we know they are correct? Paradoxically, many professed Calvinists today argue that God is Sovereign over salvation, sanctification, inspiration, preserving Israel and the Church remnant but yet for some reason, textual variants are too much for God to keep His Words.
Tim, Can you give any objective reasons for why you believe in 66 books other than the "overwhelming majority of Protestant leaders and thinkers have been in agreement with this for centuries?"
What evidence have you that these same leaders believed that "better information would allow refinements in the wording of these 66 Books?" Do you accept that the Reformed Protestants until the days of Warfield would not have contemplated any changes to the Received Text from any non-Byzantine source?
Many will say this is ludicrous and foolish, but the choice is absolute certainty or pepertual uncertainty.This uncertain “certainty” position of the CT advocates is in marked contrast to what the Lord spoke through Solomon about the inspired words, “Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?” (Prov. 22:20-21).God also promises in Proverbs 1:23 “I will pour out My Spirit unto you, I will make known My Words unto you.”
Theology teaches us that all that God does is in perfect harmony with Who He is. To argue that God has done anything imperfectly really flies in the face of His Self revelation and Self Declarations. By adopting the perpetual uncertainty model of textual critics today, like the Enlightenment rationalists, we have exalted man as the measure of all things. Textual critics place themselves as God’s judge by positing that the only appointed and fore-ordained means of salvation and the surest basis for the knowledge of God is somehow less than He intended. If we cannot trust God by faith to keep His Word to preach in its entirety, who is able to determine the minimum He did give us that is necessary for us to live by and how can we know they are correct? Paradoxically, many professed Calvinists today argue that God is Sovereign over salvation, sanctification, inspiration, preserving Israel and the Church remnant but yet for some reason, textual variants are too much for God to keep His Words.
Tim, Can you give any objective reasons for why you believe in 66 books other than the "overwhelming majority of Protestant leaders and thinkers have been in agreement with this for centuries?"
What evidence have you that these same leaders believed that "better information would allow refinements in the wording of these 66 Books?" Do you accept that the Reformed Protestants until the days of Warfield would not have contemplated any changes to the Received Text from any non-Byzantine source?
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
I answered your last statement fully and clearly, now it's your turn to answer.
Can you point to one specific Greek text or collation and say that it is inspired in every word?
How many do you want? Isn't Erasmus enough?
During the last year I've largely limiting the scope of my argument to those texts within the Byzantine tradition. I frankly doesn't concern me much from which tradition changes have been made. There are enough places where the TR differs from the vast majority of Byzantine texts that there's no reason to go to the CT.
ThomasCartwright
Puritan Board Freshman
I just did - the texts underlying the KJV.
Yes, much more. No one here is arguing that Erasmus' work was the finalised text. Also, demonstrate that those coming after 1611 believed the text was open for amendment from outside the printed editions of the TR.
Hippo
Puritan Board Junior
The best way to get somewhere on this thread would be for us to attempt to agree what the correct preuppositions are, in that way we can hopefully agree the foundations and then see wht the resulting building look like.
Now this is probbaoby a difficult task but it may be more worthwhile than arguing from the conclusions that arise from hidden presuppositions.
It may be that due to the heat this topic develops this could be a mod policed exercise. Or Perhaps Rev Winzer could do this, he may lean towards the TR position but he has a brain the size of a planet and I am sure that no one would question his credentials as a being of pure logic.
Now this is probbaoby a difficult task but it may be more worthwhile than arguing from the conclusions that arise from hidden presuppositions.
It may be that due to the heat this topic develops this could be a mod policed exercise. Or Perhaps Rev Winzer could do this, he may lean towards the TR position but he has a brain the size of a planet and I am sure that no one would question his credentials as a being of pure logic.
CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Greetings:
TimV:
I do not like to answer your posts, because I believe that much of the heat on this thread - and the other one - was generated by you. Why you have not received an infraction for your conduct is beyond me.
However, in answer to your questions:
No, I do not believe that the KJV is inspired.
Yes, I do believe the Textus Receptus is an authentic apographia of the autographs. Consequently, with slight emendations here and there which do not affect the doctrine or sense of the Scriptures - it is inspired by God.
Blessings,
Rob
TimV:
I do not like to answer your posts, because I believe that much of the heat on this thread - and the other one - was generated by you. Why you have not received an infraction for your conduct is beyond me.
However, in answer to your questions:
No, I do not believe that the KJV is inspired.
Yes, I do believe the Textus Receptus is an authentic apographia of the autographs. Consequently, with slight emendations here and there which do not affect the doctrine or sense of the Scriptures - it is inspired by God.
Blessings,
Rob
CharlieJ
Puritan Board Junior
So... it isn't inspired? Inspired means no errors, right? So if you even had a spelling error (from the texts, not the printer), that would nullify its qualification to be inspired.
If there is room for emendation as long as it does not "affect the doctrine," then any of the GNTs in print would qualify. As to "sense," that's a vague word. I think anything other than spelling or punctuation would alter sense in some way.
Everyone stick to the subject as indicated in my previous post and let the moderators worry about moderating. If you think a post is out of line use (wisely) the report a post feature.
- Status
Similar threads
