Calvin and Hodges on the DL

[TimV]

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.

Rob, in regards to CharlieJ's post, could you please tell me exactly how many emendations to the TR are allowed before a translation is no longer inspired?

If you would like, we can limit the sources of the emendations to the Byzantine tradition. Up to how many changes can be made to the TR and still have the TR inspired by God?

 

[Skyler]

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.

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.

By those standards, then, do we have an inspired Bible today?

 

[CalvinandHodges]

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.

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.

Hi:

No. inspired does not mean "no errors." Innerrant means "no errors." I believe that the Holy Spirit can inspire a work that may have grammatical errors in it. Or, seeming errors based on human philosophy.

Berkhof:

The object or design of inspiration is to secure infallibility in teaching .... The effect of revelation was to render its recipient wiser. The effect of inspiration was to preserve him from error in teachcing.

Inspiration is both Verbal (the words) and Plenary (all the words) of the Bible. We have the words and all of the words which God spoke in the Byzantine MSS extent today. Here are the classic texts which teach the Inspiration of the Scriptures:

Jesus says, "Not one jot or tittle will pass from the Law until all be fulfilled."

Paul: "All Scripture is inspired by God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

Peter, "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of men, but Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

First, the paltry "errors" which can be found in the Textus Receptus do not change a doctrine of the church nor do they change the sense of the passages in question. They can be easily fixed by referring to the Byzantine MSS which address the particular passages under question.

An excellent example is given by Dr. White in Rev. 16:5. The "O Lord" should be changed to "Holy One" because there is no Greek testimony to the reading of "O Lord." I think that Dr. White has done a great service to the Textus Receptus by pointing this out. "Holy One" is a reading found in the Byzantine MSS.

Second, there is no rule set down in the Bible that God needs to have an innerrant text in order to inspire the Scriptures. I would point out 1 Corinthians 1:14 and the statement by Paul that he baptized no one but Crispus and Gaius. Then, in verse 16 he adds that he baptized the house of Stephanas.

Is 1 Cor 1:14 "inspired" even though it contains an error? Yes. We search the Scriptures to find the whole truth.

Do I believe that the Textus Receptus is inspired even though there may be some paltry and/or seeming errors in it? Yes, I do. We can search through the thousands of Byzantine MSS to determine the truth of the matter.

Blessings,

 

[ThomasCartwright]

Others can state their own view but Rob's view that inspired does not mean inerrant opens a can of worms.

I most certainly do not agree that I Cor 1:14 and v16 are examples of errancy. There are many ways of explaining this without surrendering inerrancy. For instance, Paul could have been referring to "you" in v14 as part of the group that was being divisive or he could have separated Stephanus' house as they no longer lived/attended the particular local Church at Corinth he was writing to at that point in time.

My view is that the Holy Spirit guided the Church to settle on the Words. Now, if the TBS in their TR edition has printing errors that has no effect. If the Cambridge or Oxford edition in English has errors in it the same.

The only consistent position is to look at Scrivener's TR and compare it with what the Church received and settled on in 1611 and accept those were the actual Words of the autographs.

James White seizes on a few supposed errors on the KJV and repeats them triumphantly without dealing with the horrendous errors in the CT.

For instance, he refuses to accept the internal evidence of Scripture that Mark 1:2 is a corruption of the Vulgate into the Greek manuscripts even though every Hebrew manuscript cites has the verse written in Malachi. Secondly, Mark 8:7 as pointed out by Burgon in Revison Revised (p82) has 5 different sentences in Vaticanus, Sinaticanus and the other 3 old uncials the CT men follow. So which is right and how do we know?

The so called “oldest and best” manuscripts, upon which many modern versions rely, in John 5:4, instead of the traditional reading of BETHESDA, Vaticanus reads Bethsaida, D has Belzetha, while Sinaiticus has Bethzatha. So, perhaps Mr White could identify the inspire words in these three passages from "objective scientific principles" in a way that gives us all certainty. Lets not even begin to examine the fact that Mr White's NASB from 1963 to at least 1972 omitted all these words from their text and consigned them to a marginal note, but has now placed this inspired-expired-now inspired (for now) words in their texts!

 

[john_Mark]

Robert,

I don't mean to get off topic, but I just have to ask. How do you see 1 Cor. 1:14 as containing an error?

In v. 14 Paul is speaking about two people amongst a certain audience whereas as in v. 16 he's expanding outside that audience.

 

[Skyler]

Second, there is no rule set down in the Bible that God needs to have an innerrant text in order to inspire the Scriptures. I would point out 1 Corinthians 1:14 and the statement by Paul that he baptized no one but Crispus and Gaius. Then, in verse 16 he adds that he baptized the house of Stephanas.

Is 1 Cor 1:14 "inspired" even though it contains an error? Yes. We search the Scriptures to find the whole truth.

One could take that methodology and find hundreds of "contradictions" in the Bible. Verse 14 and verse 16 are two verses away, part of the same thought. I usually read it "I thank God that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius, so you can't say you were baptized in my name. Oh, and the household of Stephanus; I don't remember if I baptized any others." I think that's how the NIV puts it too. If you read it in context, taking each passage as a complete thought rather than breaking it up into verses--and I'm pretty sure Paul didn't when he wrote it--the "contradiction" vanishes.

If there's something wrong with my interpretation, let me know.

 

[TimV]

The only consistent position is to look at Scrivener's TR and compare it with what the Church received and settled on in 1611 and accept those were the actual Words of the autographs.

Yes, that is the position that consistency dictates the TRers need to hold to.

Rob, do you hold to this?

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Greetings:

I love and agree with you all!

I do not believe that there is an error in the text. I wrote:

Is 1 Cor 1:14 "inspired" even though it contains an error? Yes. We search the Scriptures to find the whole truth.

Do I believe that the Textus Receptus is inspired even though there may be some paltry and/or seeming errors in it? Yes, I do. We can search through the thousands of Byzantine MSS to determine the truth of the matter.

From a 1st Century Hebrew/Middle Eastern mindset the text will not show up as an error because it is corrected in another part of Scripture.

The rigorus exactitude that is required in 21st Century "scientific" America requires Paul to be precise in verse 14. That he "corrects" his "error" is not excusable.

I do not believe that the NIV translation follows the punctuation very well. There is a semicolon after verse 14, and a period after verse 15. Verse 16 starts up a new sentence that merges with verse 17.

I appreciate the NIV translators attempting to "cover up a seeming error." But, they do not have to do such a thing. Scripture interpreting Scripture is enough to solve the problem.

Blessings,

Rob

-----Added 2/7/2009 at 11:38:55 EST-----

The only consistent position is to look at Scrivener's TR and compare it with what the Church received and settled on in 1611 and accept those were the actual Words of the autographs.

Yes, that is the position that consistency dictates the TRers need to hold to.

Rob, do you hold to this?

No

 

[Brian Withnell]

The preservation of the text of scripture is what God determines is the preservation of the text of scripture.

When you read 2 Chronicles 34 and 35, Josiah is read the found book of the law. While there is no specific reference to how long it was lost, in chapter 35, the passover that was celebrated was the first one in many years (at least since the time of Samuel).

A quick search for history of the TR is here and clearly shows that prior to the printing press, there were no two versions of the Greek NT that agreed 100%. Preservation of the text prior to the printing press had to be more than an just having a well known, existent full copy of the text. The site states that with over 5000 distinct manuscripts, none of them are exactly the same.

Where does that leave us? It leaves us with the assurance that God preserves his word (not one letter, or the least stroke will pass away) but not as we might think.

What we know is that while we might not preserve the scripture the same way that God would, he has in fact done what he claims. If the scripture matters, and from my world view, it is the starting point of what matters, then it has to be not only without error, but must be more ... it must be infallible. The hard part of that is that I am not the judge of what that means, God is the only judge and he has preserved his word.

Erasmus had sections of the scripture for which he had no Greek manuscript, so those he translated from the Latin (with his style, that of a scholar, replacing the style of the original writer). There is no error in the scripture, but neither is it up to me or any other man to judge what that means. The scripture is not judged by man, but man by the scripture.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

The preservation of the text of scripture is what God determines is the preservation of the text of scripture.

When you read 2 Chronicles 34 and 35, Josiah is read the found book of the law. While there is no specific reference to how long it was lost, in chapter 35, the passover that was celebrated was the first one in many years (at least since the time of Samuel).

A quick search for history of the TR is here and clearly shows that prior to the printing press, there were no two versions of the Greek NT that agreed 100%. Preservation of the text prior to the printing press had to be more than an just having a well known, existent full copy of the text. The site states that with over 5000 distinct manuscripts, none of them are exactly the same.

Where does that leave us? It leaves us with the assurance that God preserves his word (not one letter, or the least stroke will pass away) but not as we might think.

What we know is that while we might not preserve the scripture the same way that God would, he has in fact done what he claims. If the scripture matters, and from my world view, it is the starting point of what matters, then it has to be not only without error, but must be more ... it must be infallible. The hard part of that is that I am not the judge of what that means, God is the only judge and he has preserved his word.

Erasmus had sections of the scripture for which he had no Greek manuscript, so those he translated from the Latin (with his style, that of a scholar, replacing the style of the original writer). There is no error in the scripture, but neither is it up to me or any other man to judge what that means. The scripture is not judged by man, but man by the scripture.

Hi:

Such a theory sounds good, but what you are saying is that the Word of God was judged by Erasmus.

Ultimately, in matters like this, it is the Spirit of God who works by and with the Word of God in our hearts that confirm to us the inspiration of the Scriptures in the TR.

Blessings,

Rob

 

[Hippo]

Ultimately, in matters like this, it is the Spirit of God who works by and with the Word of God in our hearts that confirm to us the inspiration of the Scriptures in the TR.

Blessings,

Rob

I think that you have correctly assessed the TR position, the problem with this position is that an arbitrary (and I do not mean that in a perjoritive sense) decision is defended on the basis of fallen mans "feelings".

At the very least this suggests that those who do not "feel led" to this position should not be held to be in rebellion for not accepting such a personal revelation and its consequenses.

 

[CharlieJ]

Ultimately, in matters like this, it is the Spirit of God who works by and with the Word of God in our hearts that confirm to us the inspiration of the Scriptures in the TR.

I wonder what would have happened if you had said this to James White?

Seriously, Rob, I don't think that you meant anything bad by this, but it's sort of a slap in the face to your brothers. I guess we need to go figure out where to get some more Holy Spirit.

If you're tired of the discussion, I certainly don't mind if you jump out. I only came in because I thought your position was that the TR was the inspired, preserved word of God, but then you said it could be emended. Surely, you wouldn't amend the autographs, would you? It seems that the definition of "inspired" on this thread is somewhat elastic. Even that verse you quoted about the "jot and tittle" would seem to militate against any emendation, IF we accept the premise that God must have preserved His word in a single printed document.

Oh, BTW, you have guts for the James White thing.

 

[TimV]

Ditto on the guts thing. One has to admire someone willing to go toe to toe with someone known as a skilled debater. One could wish for more of that sort of courage in the church today.

 

[ThomasCartwright]

I think that you have correctly assessed the TR position, the problem with this position is that an arbitrary (and I do not mean that in a perjoritive sense) decision is defended on the basis of fallen mans "feelings".

At the very least this suggests that those who do not "feel led" to this position should not be held to be in rebellion for not accepting such a personal revelation and its consequenses.

Hippo,

On what basis do you accept the 66 books as the Canon of Scripture: leadership of the Holy Spirit to the reception of these books by the Church? If I agree that there are only 66 books is that an arbitrary decision also? After all I have no bible verse to guide me that this is the number. If I reject e.g. the Epistle of James am I in rebellion or a heretic?

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Ultimately, in matters like this, it is the Spirit of God who works by and with the Word of God in our hearts that confirm to us the inspiration of the Scriptures in the TR.

I wonder what would have happened if you had said this to James White?

Seriously, Rob, I don't think that you meant anything bad by this, but it's sort of a slap in the face to your brothers. I guess we need to go figure out where to get some more Holy Spirit.

If you're tired of the discussion, I certainly don't mind if you jump out. I only came in because I thought your position was that the TR was the inspired, preserved word of God, but then you said it could be emended. Surely, you wouldn't amend the autographs, would you? It seems that the definition of "inspired" on this thread is somewhat elastic. Even that verse you quoted about the "jot and tittle" would seem to militate against any emendation, IF we accept the premise that God must have preserved His word in a single printed document.

Oh, BTW, you have guts for the James White thing.

Greetings:

I meant no offense in my statement, and, if I engendered anger in you concerning it, then, please, forgive me?

I was simply paraphrasing the Confession:

The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinons of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined; and in whose sentence we are to rest; can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

There is a testimony of the Spirit of God to the Word of God, and, to neglect such a thing when doing textual criticism is not wise. It is not a matter of feelings, nor is it a matter of the intellect only. It is God speaking in your heart through the Word testifying that these things are true.

There are good and necessary reasons for accepting the Comma Johanneum, for example, but these reasons will not convince you unless the Spirit of God testifies to the passage.

There are good, but not insurmountable, reasons why one should reject the Comma, but these reasons should not convince you unless the Spirit of God testifies to the argument.

In the end it is not what James White says or what Rob Wieland (especially me!) says - it is God speaking through His Word that is the final arbiter in textual criticism.

So, if you want to believe that the non-Comma view is correct, that is fine with me. Someday we will meet in Heaven and one of us will have a holy blush on his face because of our misunderstanding.

Nevertheless, I firmly believe that if you consider all of the arguments for and against the Comma, and then you sit down and pray and meditate on this passage in Scripture (KJV or TR if you can read the Greek) that God will answer your prayers and confirm the authenticity of the Comma Johanneum.

I believe that passages in Scripture like this are placed there by God for that very reason - that we would show our utter dependance upon God for our knowledge of Him, and not man.

Grace and Peace, brother

Rob

 

[TimV]

On what basis do you accept the 66 books as the Canon of Scripture: leadership of the Holy Spirit to the reception of these books by the Church? If I agree that there are only 66 books is that an arbitrary decision also? After all I have no bible verse to guide me that this is the number. If I reject e.g. the Epistle of James am I in rebellion or a heretic?

Can I assume you are thinking of Luther?

Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow

I don't see how any can doubt that Luther and many others, including Erasmus had strong doubts about such books as James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation. And these doubts were more widespread until the 16th century that would make some people comfortable.

The brutal fact is that the choices for inclusion in the Canon were as difficult as the choices between the various readings of these books, and have to be handled with much prayer, thought and debate.

The feelings of Luther and the rest, and I would argue New Testament authors, was that God would and did preserve His Word. This is the reason I keep coming back to New Testament authors quoting the Septuagint on occasion, preferring certain Greek translations and traditions over Hebrew translations and traditions.

And this is naturally why the more "conservative" segment of the AVer community denies the existence of the Septuagint, calling it a hoax, or at least claiming against virtually all respected scholarship that NT authors never quoted from the Septuagint.

Because if NT authors quoted from from two differing textual traditions, and traditions that were even further apart than the TR, CT and MT are from each other, then we have inspired evidence that while God did indeed preserve His Word to all generations it wasn't, even during the time of the writing of the NT, contained in one, specific manuscript.

The church is like a mustard seed, which when planted is the smallest seed of the garden plants, but grows into the biggest herb in your garden. It takes time, and hard work. The Church as finally come to a point where all orthodox churches recognize the 66 Books as coming from God (some feel there are other Books with at least useful teachings) and the Canon is now closed. No more books will ever be added, and none taken away from the 66.

But the Church hasn't come to the point yet where she unanimously agrees on an ecumenical text. No major orthodox denomination has done so, at least to my knowledge, and certainly we are years away from any consensus on the matter. I think we will get there, but it will take years of the same kind of hard work that resulted in our Canon.

 

[MW]

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.

Textual citicism is accepted; it is the kind of textual criticism which is rejected. It is based solely on empirical considerations; and those considerations are themselves proven to be faulty when the majority of texts are taken into consideration. But the idea of being constrained only to what there is ms. evidence to support is itself rejected by all evangelicals who believe they hold the Word of God in their hand. Textual criticism as a science has only been able to settle the state of the NT text as it existed in the fourth century, but evangelicals believe they poseess the word of God as it was given in the first century. Therefore evangelicals are believing something which goes above and beyond the ability of the ms. evidence to support. What TR advocates ask of their brethren is simply that they might consider their fideistic presuppositions a little more self-consciously. Blessings!

 

[Hippo]

I think that you have correctly assessed the TR position, the problem with this position is that an arbitrary (and I do not mean that in a perjoritive sense) decision is defended on the basis of fallen mans "feelings".

At the very least this suggests that those who do not "feel led" to this position should not be held to be in rebellion for not accepting such a personal revelation and its consequenses.

Hippo,

On what basis do you accept the 66 books as the Canon of Scripture: leadership of the Holy Spirit to the reception of these books by the Church? If I agree that there are only 66 books is that an arbitrary decision also? After all I have no bible verse to guide me that this is the number. If I reject e.g. the Epistle of James am I in rebellion or a heretic?

On the basis of Apostolic Authority and the rule of faith that recognised the canon. The Church as a whole decided and in doing so it accepted Alexandrian manuscripts.

And yes if you rejecty James you are verging on a heretic, we are an Apostolic Church and it is not my place to decide.

-----Added 2/8/2009 at 05:33:11 EST-----

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.

Textual citicism is accepted; it is the kind of textual criticism which is rejected. It is based solely on empirical considerations; and those considerations are themselves proven to be faulty when the majority of texts are taken into consideration. But the idea of being constrained only to what there is ms. evidence to support is itself rejected by all evangelicals who believe they hold the Word of God in their hand. Textual criticism as a science has only been able to settle the state of the NT text as it existed in the fourth century, but evangelicals believe they poseess the word of God as it was given in the first century. Therefore evangelicals are believing something which goes above and beyond the ability of the ms. evidence to support. What TR advocates ask of their brethren is simply that they might consider their fideistic presuppositions a little more self-consciously. Blessings!

I cannot argue with anything you say here, and Dr White repeatedly points out that modern textual critisism no longer seeks to identify the first century text, the whole aim of confessional textual critisism.

 

[MW]

I cannot argue with anything you say here, and Dr White repeatedly points out that modern textual critisism no longer seeks to identify the first century text, the whole aim of confessional textual critisism.

So it becomes somewhat important for him to beware of tearing down his own fideistic structure while he is in the process of dismantling the TR, because his arguments can easily be turned back on himself by a liberal critic.

 

[john_Mark]

What do you all make of Muller's quote below? I also don't understand how one would call Dr. White position fideism. It seems that those contra-White fall more in the fideistic camp. Bahsen, who to my knowledge was not a KJV guy, a presuppositionalist was able to argue for inerrancy, for example.

It needs to be noted that the so-called textus receptus, was merely a part of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century process of establishing a normative or definitive text of the New Testament. The phrase “textus receptus” or “received text” comes from the Elzevir New Testament of 1633 - and as the context of the phrase itself and the use of the Greek New Testament in the seventeenth century both testify, there was no claim, in the era of orthodoxy, of a sacrosanct text in this particular edition. Nor did it, in the era of orthodoxy, provide some sort of terminus ad quem for the editing of the text of the Bible: the statement that this was the “text now received by all” simply meant that it was the text, produced by Stephanus and Beza, and slightly reedited by the Elzevirs, that was then regarded (by Protestants!) as the best available text of the Bible: namley, the critically examined combination of the Masoretic text of the Old Testament and the so-called Byzantine text of the New Testament. Both in the era of the Reformation and the era of orthodoxy, there was a close adherence to the Old Testament Hebrew text inherited from the Western rabbinic tradition and to the New Testament Greek text that had served the Greek Orthodox church - and the text-critical work of the era was intended primarily as a method of establishing the genuine “original” of that text tradition of the Hebrew and the Greek (an approach that also accounts for the practice of placing variants gleaned either from an alternative text tradition, such as represented by De Colines’ edition of the New Testament or as might be inferred from the Syriac New Testament or the Targums, into the annotations). Establishment of the authoritative Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible, thus, was in the orthodox view to be based on a collation of the best exant Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and codices - whereas the ancient versions were to be used not for the emendation of text but as useful guides to interpretation, given that a translation was, of its very nature, a form of interpretation.

Muller, Richard A.. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2: Holy Scripture : The Cognitive Foundation of Theology. 2nd. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.

 

[MW]

It needs to be noted that the so-called textus receptus, was merely a part of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century process of establishing a normative or definitive text of the New Testament.

This is accepted. The question at hand is whether or not they succeeded. If so, there is nothing left to discuss; if not, then the door is open to ask whether the reformed scholastics erred by basing their theological and practical conclusions on a text which could not definitely be called sacred Scripture. As one reads the discussion in PRRD 2 about the integrity of the text, it becomes clear that to accept this as an error is really to capitulate to the Romanist position.

 

[MW]

I also don't understand how one would call Dr. White position fideism.

Within the evangelical circle his position would be accepted on the basis of a shared framework which assumes certain beliefs, but when interacting with liberal critics he cannot account for these beliefs by empirical evidence; e.g., that the fundamental message of the Bible is not altered by the variants, that the fourth century text is basically the inspired text of the first century, etc. These become mere platitudes when placed in a "neutral" empirical light.

 

[john_Mark]

Muller also stated, "Nor did it, in the era of orthodoxy, provide some sort of terminus ad quem for the editing of the text of the Bible.."

-----Added 2/8/2009 at 07:35:15 EST-----

I beg to differ concerning Dr. White position and neutrality. As I understand Dr. White, he was showing that with Ehrman's position on its own basis cannot make sense of itself. Ehrman's position actually reduces not being able to know or trust any written material in which one did not observe the author literally writing. Therefore, the evidence only makes sense within the Christian presupposition which also defeats Ehrman's (internally inconsistent) position.

Of course, presuppositionalism does get labeled as fideism at times, however, fideism is not what Dr. White nor Dr. Bahnsen, in the article linked, argue from.

 

[MW]

Muller also stated, "Nor did it, in the era of orthodoxy, provide some sort of terminus ad quem for the editing of the text of the Bible.."

Only extremists deny this. If one reads the Presbyterian Dabney or the Anglican Burgon it will be seen that an ongoing emendation WITHIN the reformation textual tradition is perfectly acceptable.

Ehrman's position actually reduces not being able to know or trust any written material in which one did not observe the author literally writing.

No, the empiricist position is that the NT text can only be established to about the fourth century, and it is acknowledged by all parties that the corruptions of the text are to be traced to the second century. Hence the physical evidence speaks against the position of being able to recover the inspired text of the first century; one requires a belief in providential preservation without ms. evidence for this position.

 

[Brian Withnell]

Hi:

Such a theory sounds good, but what you are saying is that the Word of God was judged by Erasmus.

Ultimately, in matters like this, it is the Spirit of God who works by and with the Word of God in our hearts that confirm to us the inspiration of the Scriptures in the TR.

Blessings,

Rob

I would disagree with just part of this. Erasmus did not judge the Word, but made a diligent attempt at recording what he believed the church had received as the word. As best he could, he compiled the text of the scripture. While that text might not have been a perfect copy (I certainly do not believe what Erasmus compiled was perfect from a pure textural criticism standpoint) it was close enough that when better manuscripts were produced there were absolutely no changes to the Westminster Standards because of rediscovered or corrected passages. The certitude of the TR is certainly better than the complete loss (for a time) of the scriptures during the time of Josiah.

One thing I think we ought understand is that when the confession was written, they knew the TR was changed and compiled from what Erasmus had put together, and to this they asserted that God preserves his Word pure. Did they believe that God had not preserved the word between the time of Erasmus and the 1633 version which first bore that title? I think not ... rather they admit that during that period, the preservation of the text may have been less than "perfect" from our cultural world view, but not from their world view. It also might mean that they acknowledge that God preserving the word might have done so with a laps of availability of the pure word (which they might have thought extent from the early 1500's to the mid 1600's ... but if so, there is no reason to not extend that until the discovery of the Alexandrian tradition).

We receive the text. WCF: "our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts." Those who "judge" the scripture rather than receive it may be one day persuaded they judged incorrectly ... unless they at some time receive it, they are on the wrong side of the equation. Those "argued" into the kingdom, may one day be "argued" out of the kingdom ... we are not saved by logic, we are saved by grace.

-----Added 2/8/2009 at 08:10:50 EST-----

This is accepted. The question at hand is whether or not they succeeded. If so, there is nothing left to discuss; if not, then the door is open to ask whether the reformed scholastics erred by basing their theological and practical conclusions on a text which could not definitely be called sacred Scripture. As one reads the discussion in PRRD 2 about the integrity of the text, it becomes clear that to accept this as an error is really to capitulate to the Romanist position.

I will respectfully disagree with the dichotomy. It isn't that either they had what we would call perfect in order to come to a right view of scripture. That they erred is without question ... their work was derivative from scripture by sinful men, and therefore must contain error. The real question is weather the scholars had a sufficiently pure copy of the text to come to a proper set of conclusions.

There are many today that say the Alexandrian text is closer to and more accurate to the original autographa. If there is an issue of some difference of faith or practice ... at least as far as reformed faith and practice are concerned ... there would be a push to change the confessions based on the rediscovered texts. There have been no such moves to change the confessions based on the Alexandrian tradition.

Ultimately, what we are talking about is not "is the TR a totally off the wall text" and the Alexandrian text "flawless". If society around me collapsed and the only Bible I could have is one that was based on Erasmus 1516 edition of the Greek, I would gladly accept it rather than go without. I would prefer a version that used the most reliable versions, but I would certainly accept those from a different tradition.

 

[MW]

I will respectfully disagree with the dichotomy. It isn't that either they had what we would call perfect in order to come to a right view of scripture. That they erred is without question ... their work was derivative from scripture by sinful men, and therefore must contain error.

Please read Muller's account, which places the historical debate over the integrity of the text in a contrasting light.

Also, if sinful men must err, either you are sinless or your evaluation errs. Clearly, you are not sinless; hence your evaluation errs. Obviously, then, your basic premise that sinful men must err is erroneous.

 

[MW]

There have been no such moves to change the confessions based on the Alexandrian tradition.

The critical scholarship of the 19th century led to such a movement.

 

[Hippo]

I cannot argue with anything you say here, and Dr White repeatedly points out that modern textual critisism no longer seeks to identify the first century text, the whole aim of confessional textual critisism.

So it becomes somewhat important for him to beware of tearing down his own fideistic structure while he is in the process of dismantling the TR, because his arguments can easily be turned back on himself by a liberal critic.

Christianity is not solely a matter of faith, it is a matter of history. We have nothing to fear from examining history and historical documents because Christianity is factualy and historically based.

It is this history that establishes Christianity. Of course our enquiry has to be a servant of faith not its master but a liberal critic can have a field day day your suggestion that we should accept an arbitrary document and ignore any logic or reason.

You repeatedly insinuate all sorts of problems with the non TR position but do not comment on the probelms with a TR position.

I could change your words to:

"So it becomes somewhat important for him to beware of tearing down his own logical structure while he is in the process of dismantling the CT, because his fear of history and logic can easily be turned back on himself by a liberal critic."

And that is much nearer the mark.

 

[MW]

Christianity is not solely a matter of faith, it is a matter of history. We have nothing to fear from examining history and historical documents because Christianity is factualy and historically based.

It is factually and historically based in God's redemptive action and special revelation. The "facts of history" cannot be neutrally interpreted to establish the veracity of the Christian faith but require the starting-point of faith from which to interpret them.

 

[Brian Withnell]

Also, if sinful men must err, either you are sinless or your evaluation errs. Clearly, you are not sinless; hence your evaluation errs. Obviously, then, your basic premise that sinful men must err is erroneous.

Of course not everything that sinful men do is totally sinful. Otherwise your evaluation of sinful men must err is erroneous is in error.