Calvin and Hodges on the DL

[Brian Withnell]

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.

But the critical scholarship of the 19th century rejected the infallibility of scripture. They did not seek to change the confession based on new understanding of the scripture because of restoration of the correct text, they were attempting to change the confession based on a rejection of the scripture, regardless of what original language texts were used.

It does not follow that God, as in times past, could not have interrupted the visible church from possession of the scriptures (Josiah is a perfect example) while still preserving the scripture pure. It also does not follow that just because an error free copy was not available to the divines that they could not have created the confession out of those sections which were so well known, that the errors contained within where more do to culture than a defect in the text. (I do hold to the "modern" OPC version ... 16th century in essence ... rather than the 15th Century English version).

The question is not if they had a complete and correct version, but if they version they had was sufficient to the task they were attempting.

 

[Brian Withnell]

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 We have nothing to fear from examining history and historical documents because Christianity is factualy and historically based.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 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.

The only thing that I see as a possible problem with what you are saying is that it sounds like it is a denial of all truth is God's truth. The world is as it is. It cannot contradict what God has said, but neither can what God has said contradict what has happened. But we can certainly be wrong in what we have thought God said or in what we think happened. Copernicus was right, and the church of that age was savagely dogmatic in what it thought God had said ... and wrong. You and I have just as much of a chance of erring in reading scripture as we do in looking at history. We study both knowing there can be no contradiction, and either one may correct us if we have erred in the other.

 

[Prufrock]

You and I have just as much of a chance of erring in reading scripture as we do in looking at history.

I might modify this statement a little: we have the Holy Spirit speaking the words of scripture to us, and guiding us in his teachings; we absolutely don't have that same guidance in interpreting providence and creation. We can, indeed, behold creation and providence in the light of the faith which has its source in the Spirit speaking in scripture, but the two are quite distinct.

Not to be confrontational, but that does seem to me to be an important distinction. (And I don't think it's all that off topic, either).

By the way, Welcome to the board, brother. Grace and peace,

 

[MW]

But the critical scholarship of the 19th century rejected the infallibility of scripture.

And their evangelical opponents mostly confined inerrancy to the originals. This, together with treating higher and lower criticism according to different standards, led to the capitulation which gave rise to creedal revision.

 

[MW]

Copernicus was right

Was he? According to empirical methods all one might say is that he could probably have been right but later evidence might overthrow his theory, as in fact much later evidence has done.

But one might have read the Bible and concluded right there and then that he was wrong.

Biblical revelation is a closed canon; scientific enquiry is an open question.

 

[Brian Withnell]

I might modify this statement a little: we have the Holy Spirit speaking the words of scripture to us, and guiding us in his teachings; we absolutely don't have that same guidance in interpreting providence and creation.

Then when reading Jesus statements about the Spirit of truth guiding us into all truth, you take that to mean only those things about himself and only as revealed in scripture, not what is revealed elsewhere. I do not see a need for that restriction from the passage, but perhaps I am missing something?

The reason I say this is because we are so prone to error, it would make a lot of sense that if there were things that could easily teach us from providence and creation that we are wrong about something within scripture, I would think the Spirit would (and certainly could) illumine our hearts to understand our mistakes from the general revelation.

-----Added 2/8/2009 at 11:55:42 EST-----

Copernicus was right

Biblical revelation is a closed canon; scientific enquiry is an open question.

Of course Biblical revelation is a closed canon, but our understanding of that canon is an open question, and will always be in this age.

 

[MW]

Of course Biblical revelation is a closed canon, but our understanding of that canon is an open question, and will always be in this age.

If one's understanding of the canon is an open question, whence does one derive the understanding that biblical revelation is a closed canon? Clearly one's understanding of the canon becomes an open question only when it suits a theological agenda where the understanding of the canon is anything but open.

 

[Brian Withnell]

Of course Biblical revelation is a closed canon, but our understanding of that canon is an open question, and will always be in this age.

If one's understanding of the canon is an open question, whence does one derive the understanding that biblical revelation is a closed canon? Clearly one's understanding of the canon becomes an open question only when it suits a theological agenda where the understanding of the canon is anything but open.

The axioms of the system are that God exists and has revealed himself in scripture.

That is the start of the logical framework upon which all else is built. Without that logical framework, nothing else is possible. The canon is closed because it says it is ... though I could be wrong in my interpretation of that (I am not infallible) I do not believe that I am wrong on that point.

My understanding that everyone's understanding of the scripture is an open question exists because in this age, every church is made up of those that are in this age not sanctified totally and completely. The remnants of corruption are throughout the whole man (Rom 7:14-25, WCF ch 13.2). Perfect thinking is not something anyone is capable of doing. When his word is writ on our hearts so that no man tells his neighbor "know the Lord", then and only then will our understanding of scripture be closed.

Does that mean scripture is open to question? No. But we are.

 

[MW]

The axioms of the system are that God exists and has revealed himself in scripture.

Which also implies the availability of that scriptural revelation, yet you consider the availability of the text of Scripture in history to be a matter of scientific enquiry. Your axiomatic principles are not serving as axioms of the sytem of thought being built around them.

 

[Brian Withnell]

The axioms of the system are that God exists and has revealed himself in scripture.

Which also implies the availability of that scriptural revelation, yet you consider the availability of the text of Scripture in history to be a matter of scientific enquiry. Your axiomatic principles are not serving as axioms of the sytem of thought being built around them.

Hmmm. I do not imply the availability of that scriptural revelation to all individuals at all times ... I did not think what I said even came close to implying it. In fact, the Bible itself refers to times when the scriptures were lost to the "church" (Biblical Israel) for many years.

 

[MW]

In fact, the Bible itself refers to times when the scriptures were lost to the "church" (Biblical Israel) for many years.

But think about the statement, "the Bible says ..." How can that have any substantive meaning when by your own admission the text of the Bible is not a settled matter? You speak of the self-revelation of God in Scripture as axiomatic, you then presume to read the text of Scripture in order to draw conclusions from it, but the conclusions you draw from this presumptive process leads you to believe that the text itself is up for debate. You leave yourself without a text from which to draw your conclusion about the state of the text.

 

[ThomasCartwright]

The cumulative efforts of all the textual critics of the last hundred and fifty years have resulted in maximum uncertainty as to the original reading of the New Testament text. As Dr. A. J. Gordon once correctly observed, “To deny that the Holy Spirit speaks in Scripture is an intelligible proposition, but to admit that He speaks, it is impossible to know what He says except as we have His Words. ” David Cloud observes, “There is something wrong with a position on Bible preservation that leaves a man with no preserved Bible.” Textual critics agree that it is impossible for us to have in our hand the Words of God today.

There appears to be a view on this thread that modern textual criticism can somehow restore the original text. However, this is a false premise as all of the leading advocates of this approach to the New Testament agree. Let me illustrate.

Rendel Harris in 1908 who declared that the New Testament text was, “More than ever, and perhaps finally, unsettled.” In 1910 Conybeare states that “the ultimate (New Testament) text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, is forever irrecoverable. ” Another critic, Merrill M. Parvis admits, “Each one of the critical texts differ quite markedly from all the others. This fact certainly suggests that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to recover the original text of the New Testament.” In 1941 Kirsopp Lake, after a life time spent in the study of the New Testament text, argues, “In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort and of von Soden, we do not know the original form of the Gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall.” Bart Ehrman states, “there is always a degree of doubt, an element of subjectivity.” Kurt Aland declares that the latest Text of the United Bible Societies is “not a static entity” and “every change in it is open to challenge.” G. Zuntz admits that “the optimism of the earlier editors has given way to that skepticisim which inclines towards regarding ‘the original text’ as an unattainable mirage”. Earnest Caldman Colwell admitted in 1947 that “no objective method can take us back through successive reconstructions to the original.” Robert M. Grant, a well-known critical scholar, says,

The primary goal of New Testament textual study remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well-nigh impossible. Therefore we must be content with what Reinhold Niebuhr and others have called, in other contexts, an ‘impossible possibility.”

K.W. Clark now accepts,"The textual history that the Westcott-Hort text represents is no longer tenable in the light of newer discoveries and fuller textual analysis. In the effort to construct a congruent history, our failure suggests that we have lost the way, that we have reached a dead end, and that only a new and different insight will enable us to break through."

Contemporary liberal Textual Critic, Bruce Metzger, bewails,

Occasionally none of the variant readings will commend itself as original, and he [the textual critic] will be compelled either to choose the reading which he judges to be the least unsatisfactory or to indulge in conjectural emendation . . . one must seek not only to learn what can be known, but also to become aware of what . . . cannot be known.

Reuben Swanson, one of the most eagerly-read modern critical scholars states, “To believe that we can reconstruct out of fragmentary and late material ‘the original pure text’ is thus a delusion.... There can, therefore, be no agreement among critics as to which reading may have been original .” Dan Wallace argues that, “when we say ‘thus says the word of God,’ we have a relative degree of certainty that this is indeed what the original text said .” Wallace tries to comfort us by assuring,"To be sure, we do not know whether we have recovered the exact wording of the original, and we may never know. At the same time, we are getting closer and closer. And no essential belief is affected by any viable variants."

Even a Fundamentalist, William Combs of Detroit Baptist Seminary also has given up hope and states,

While it is not possible to produce a text that is in all points identical to the autographs, nevertheless, carefully produced texts and versions are able to convey God’s truth to the reader.

-----Added 2/9/2009 at 02:41:24 EST-----

Hmmm. I do not imply the availability of that scriptural revelation to all individuals at all times ... I did not think what I said even came close to implying it. In fact, the Bible itself refers to times when the scriptures were lost to the "church" (Biblical Israel) for many years.

Could you show where the Bible was hidden from Israel. Even in Josiah's time the Word was where it always was kept i.e. in the temple and they clearly knew the Word as it led him to begin the Reformation. There are no explicit examples in Scripture where God's people seeking the Words of God have them hidden from them. By contrast, God has established Biblical precedents which show that He keeps and protects His word. 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)!

 

[Grymir]

Y'all know, as I'm reading this, alot of the modern stuff surounding the CT sounds like the junk the 'modern' philosophers write. ie, Kant, Hume and their following ilk. Especially as I read the stuff about certainty. This is very interesting and informative.

It especially relates as I thought the modern slide in the church was because of liberals and neo-orthodoxy, but, especially in post #64 quote - "And their evangelical opponents mostly confined inerrancy to the originals. This, together with treating higher and lower criticism according to different standards, led to the capitulation which gave rise to creedal revision." is opening up a bigger picture into the modern state of the church, and how the TR/CT debate is a part of it in ways hitherto unkown. hmm.

 

[TimV]

If one's understanding of the canon is an open question, whence does one derive the understanding that biblical revelation is a closed canon? Clearly one's understanding of the canon becomes an open question only when it suits a theological agenda where the understanding of the canon is anything but open.

And if the Canon itself shows God's Word definitely was not kept pure in one manuscript, but rather (as every widely recognized authority on the subject, Protestant, Orthodox or Catholic, conservative or liberal, for the last 2000 years has believed) that NT authors quoted from at least two distinct textual traditions? What then? Isn't emendation built into the Canon?

The cumulative efforts of all the textual critics of the last hundred and fifty years have resulted in maximum uncertainty as to the original reading of the New Testament text.

That is a truly remarkable statement, especially as you yourself brought up James. There is today more certainty about the contents of the Canon than ever before in history. Up until the late 16th century it was perfectly acceptable for both Protestant and Catholic scholars to question the authenticity of whole Books!

 

[sotzo]

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.

Rev Winzer...is the basic summary of this then that the fideism of the TR camp sees the need for a text to be grounded in the 1st century whereas the CT camp sees the need to stop at the 4th century due to a mixture of empiricism and faith?

Where exactly are the presuppositional differences here because it looks like the TR camp would wind up (to some degree) saying that the CT camp's doctrine of God is the issue (ie, God preserved a reliable text, but not an infallible text).

 

[john_Mark]

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.

No? Since you cut out the rest of my quote concerning presuppositionalism let me try again. In the Bahnsen article I linked to above he shows that evidence is not opposed to inerrancy. Just as in Bahnsen's Inductivism, Inerrancy, and Presuppositionalism where he is arguing against to empiricists who come to different conclusions about the text. Your statement of the physical evidence only works if one is arguing from neutral grounds.

Both Rich Pierce, President of AOMin.org, and Mike O'Fallon, Sovereign Cruises (he set-up the Ehrman debate), have agreed with my assessment of White's presuppositional approach. White was attempting to show that Ehrman's own position is internally inconsistent and cannot account for it's own conclusions.

one requires a belief in providential preservation without ms. evidence for this position.

Is this not your presupposition? How is this not fideism?

 

[DMcFadden]

Grymir,

If you want to really tweak your brain, check out Dr. Wallace's writings on textual criticism on Bible.org (Bible.org: Textual Criticism). As to the origins of the Majority Text . . .

We don’t have enough concrete evidence to argue decisively about its roots, but the work of Kurt Aland, Gordon Fee, Bart Ehrman, Michael Holmes, and Tim Ralston has helped immeasurably. Aland did some nice work showing that the first father to use the Byzantine text qua text was Asterius, one of Lucian’s students. Fee and Ehrman have shown that the Byzantine text just didn’t seem to exist anywhere prior to the fourth century, and that its earliest form is decidedly different from later forms. This also was the point of Tim Ralston’s doctoral dissertation at Dallas Seminary. Holmes has shown that, in the words of Samuel Clemens, 'There are lies, damn lies, and statistics'—and statistics are no way to measure authenticity. My best guess on the origins of the Byzantine text—a view that is constantly being shaped—is that it originated in the early fourth century as a consciously edited text, cannibalizing readings from earlier textforms, even to the point of almost obliterating any traces of one of those textforms (the Caesarean). But then it took on a life of its own, developing into a growing text that had several sub-branches. Two major recensions were done on it, one in the ninth and one in the eleventh century. Ironically, the text that Hodges and Farstad produced, and the one that Robinson and Pierpont produced, did not, in every respect, represent the majority until the fifteenth century.

Dan Wallace concludes: "Hort’s threefold argument against the Byzantine text is still a good argument that demonstrates the Byzantine text to be secondary, late, and inferior. Although there are a few leaks in the Hortian boat, it’s not enough to sink the ship."

The arguments by some of the TR proponents in this thread make me realize how I wish it was possible to "buy a vowel" in the game of life and trade for some more IQ points. The arguments for and against the TR and CT and MT are amazingly complex and convincing.

 

[timmopussycat]

Hi Dennis

Which paper did you get the quote from? I tried looking through a couple of Wallaces papers listed on the page and couldn't find it.

Grymir,

If you want to really tweak your brain, check out Dr. Wallace's writings on textual criticism on Bible.org (Bible.org: Textual Criticism). As to the origins of the Majority Text . . .

We don’t have enough concrete evidence to argue decisively about its roots, but the work of Kurt Aland, Gordon Fee, Bart Ehrman, Michael Holmes, and Tim Ralston has helped immeasurably. Aland did some nice work showing that the first father to use the Byzantine text qua text was Asterius, one of Lucian’s students. Fee and Ehrman have shown that the Byzantine text just didn’t seem to exist anywhere prior to the fourth century, and that its earliest form is decidedly different from later forms. This also was the point of Tim Ralston’s doctoral dissertation at Dallas Seminary. Holmes has shown that, in the words of Samuel Clemens, 'There are lies, damn lies, and statistics'—and statistics are no way to measure authenticity. My best guess on the origins of the Byzantine text—a view that is constantly being shaped—is that it originated in the early fourth century as a consciously edited text, cannibalizing readings from earlier textforms, even to the point of almost obliterating any traces of one of those textforms (the Caesarean). But then it took on a life of its own, developing into a growing text that had several sub-branches. Two major recensions were done on it, one in the ninth and one in the eleventh century. Ironically, the text that Hodges and Farstad produced, and the one that Robinson and Pierpont produced, did not, in every respect, represent the majority until the fifteenth century.

Dan Wallace concludes: "Hort’s threefold argument against the Byzantine text is still a good argument that demonstrates the Byzantine text to be secondary, late, and inferior. Although there are a few leaks in the Hortian boat, it’s not enough to sink the ship."

The arguments by some of the TR proponents in this thread make me realize how I wish it was possible to "buy a vowel" in the game of life and trade for some more IQ points. The arguments for and against the TR and CT and MT are amazingly complex and convincing.

 

[MW]

And if the Canon itself shows God's Word definitely was not kept pure in one manuscript, but rather (as every widely recognized authority on the subject, Protestant, Orthodox or Catholic, conservative or liberal, for the last 2000 years has believed) that NT authors quoted from at least two distinct textual traditions? What then? Isn't emendation built into the Canon?

I think we have been down this road before. One must first prove that the Bible itself quotes from two textual traditions. Scholars readily accept that allusion is not quotation and oral patterns do not equate to a stable textual form.

 

[MW]

Rev Winzer...is the basic summary of this then that the fideism of the TR camp sees the need for a text to be grounded in the 1st century whereas the CT camp sees the need to stop at the 4th century due to a mixture of empiricism and faith?

Where exactly are the presuppositional differences here because it looks like the TR camp would wind up (to some degree) saying that the CT camp's doctrine of God is the issue (ie, God preserved a reliable text, but not an infallible text).

The difference is in the conscious recognition of the presuppositions one is working with. Everyone acknowledges that the ms. evidence is only partial. Therefore the physical evidence will not support any theory that the church today possesses the words originally written by means of the apostles. A doctrine of providential preservation is required in order to believe this.

What happens, however, is, when TR advocates explain providential preservation, they are criticised for being fideistic and igoring evidence. What evidence? We ask our evangelical friends to face up to the fact that there is no evidence which links the mss. we possess with the words of immediate inspiration.

Then it is asked, If God is to be trusted to preserve His word through the ages, what agency has He promised to use? Here we expect that He would use the same agency whereby the books of Scripture have been identified. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to a high and reverent esteem of the Scriptures. It is this testimony that we depend on for confirming (not creating) the canon of Scripture, and therefore we are bound to recognise the same testimony for confirming (not creating) the text of Scripture. In other words, we do not separate higher and lower criticism and go about to discover the text of Scripture on a different basis as we would discover the canon of Scripture.

It is especially the latter point where traditional text adherents meet with so much opposition from modern text critical scholars within evangelical circles. This opposition is based on a failure to properly declare the basis on which it can be maintained that the text contained in the ms. evidence can be proven to be the very words of inspiration, while at the same time insisting on a "neutral" evaluation of the ms. evidence which basically ignores the testimony of the church. The underlying belief is that the church must have erred somewhere, but the ms. evidence cannot err; this, notwithstanding the fact that the ms. record is hopelessly partial and fragmentary.

 

[MW]

one requires a belief in providential preservation without ms. evidence for this position.

Is this not your presupposition? How is this not fideism?

As already noted, this is every person's presupposition who would maintain that mss. belonging to later centuries contain the very words which God gave through the apostles. It can only be hoped that this presuppostion might be acknowledged for what it is, namely, one which rises from faith alone, so that one side of the discussion is not unfairly accused of engaging in fideism, when the reality is that both sides are working from the same fundamental conviction.

 

[DMcFadden]

Hi Dennis

Which paper did you get the quote from? I tried looking through a couple of Wallaces papers listed on the page and couldn't find it.

Both of the following quotes were taken from: Evangelical Textual Criticism: Interview with Dan Wallace

"Hort’s threefold argument against the Byzantine text . . ."

We don’t have enough concrete evidence to argue decisively about its roots, but the work of Kurt Aland, Gordon Fee, Bart Ehrman, Michael Holmes, and Tim Ralston has helped immeasurably. Aland did some nice work showing that the first father to use the Byzantine text qua text was Asterius, one of Lucian’s students. Fee and Ehrman have shown that the Byzantine text just didn’t seem to exist anywhere prior to the fourth century, and that its earliest form is decidedly different from later forms. This also was the point of Tim Ralston’s doctoral dissertation at Dallas Seminary. Holmes has shown that, in the words of Samuel Clemens, 'There are lies, damn lies, and statistics'—and statistics are no way to measure authenticity. My best guess on the origins of the Byzantine text—a view that is constantly being shaped—is that it originated in the early fourth century as a consciously edited text, cannibalizing readings from earlier textforms, even to the point of almost obliterating any traces of one of those textforms (the Caesarean). But then it took on a life of its own, developing into a growing text that had several sub-branches. Two major recensions were done on it, one in the ninth and one in the eleventh century. Ironically, the text that Hodges and Farstad produced, and the one that Robinson and Pierpont produced, did not, in every respect, represent the majority until the fifteenth century.

I found the articles on the Bible.org site to be instructive as well. Frankly, comparing Wallace and the articulate defenders of the TR is a fascinating experience. I only wish that my college and seminary studies dealt with the issue in more detail.

Presuppositionally, I like the TR case for the same reason that I dislike so much of the Enlightenment carving up of the Bible. The methodology elevates the observer to a position of power and authority over the observed (in this case the human scholar over the God of the Word!!!). Even the admirable Dr. Wallace admits that the praxis of textual criticism has led to his changing his mind about the cruciality of inerrancy (not a core doctrine) and his commitment to it ("My own views on inerrancy and inspiration have changed over the years. I still embrace those doctrines, but I don’t define them the way I used to. The evidence has shaped my viewpoint; and I must listen to the evidence because of the Incarnation.").

However, with so many evangelicals smarter than I am holding to the CT, it appears the height of hubris for me to dismiss their arguments as so much rubbish. And, has anyone really refuted the trifecta of Hortian critique of the Byzantine text: secondary, late, and inferior? I would love to do some reading on the subject from a scholarly and confessional perspective (i.e., not from a separatist fundamentalist POV).

 

[Grymir]

Grymir,

If you want to really tweak your brain, check out Dr. Wallace's writings on textual criticism on Bible.org (Bible.org: Textual Criticism). As to the origins of the Majority Text . . .

We don’t have enough concrete evidence to argue decisively about its roots, but the work of Kurt Aland, Gordon Fee, Bart Ehrman, Michael Holmes, and Tim Ralston has helped immeasurably. Aland did some nice work showing that the first father to use the Byzantine text qua text was Asterius, one of Lucian’s students. Fee and Ehrman have shown that the Byzantine text just didn’t seem to exist anywhere prior to the fourth century, and that its earliest form is decidedly different from later forms. This also was the point of Tim Ralston’s doctoral dissertation at Dallas Seminary. Holmes has shown that, in the words of Samuel Clemens, 'There are lies, damn lies, and statistics'—and statistics are no way to measure authenticity. My best guess on the origins of the Byzantine text—a view that is constantly being shaped—is that it originated in the early fourth century as a consciously edited text, cannibalizing readings from earlier textforms, even to the point of almost obliterating any traces of one of those textforms (the Caesarean). But then it took on a life of its own, developing into a growing text that had several sub-branches. Two major recensions were done on it, one in the ninth and one in the eleventh century. Ironically, the text that Hodges and Farstad produced, and the one that Robinson and Pierpont produced, did not, in every respect, represent the majority until the fifteenth century.

Dan Wallace concludes: "Hort’s threefold argument against the Byzantine text is still a good argument that demonstrates the Byzantine text to be secondary, late, and inferior. Although there are a few leaks in the Hortian boat, it’s not enough to sink the ship."

The arguments by some of the TR proponents in this thread make me realize how I wish it was possible to "buy a vowel" in the game of life and trade for some more IQ points. The arguments for and against the TR and CT and MT are amazingly complex and convincing.

That is interesting. I was referring in my post to what Brian Withnell was saying in his posts. They had a different philosophical base than most of the stuff I read about the CT. It really reminded me about the modern philosophical quest for certainty. Which I think is wrong. Truth is what corresponds to reality, and we can know for certainty. Very different from the analytic/apriori truth false dichotomy that seemed to come through in Brian's posts. Which then armourbearer countered with some good ol' fashioned reasoning. As in A=A, What ever is, is! kind of philosophical base. Which stood out. You know that I face Barth's influence in my Church, and Withnell's/armourbearer's dialog brought out some of the approaches that I see every Sunday. I usually am quick to blame Barth, but it made me think that this modern philosophical base could be an even deeper problem.

I did check out Wallace's writings. First I have to question why anybody would use Ehrman in any kind of favorable light. But I didn't let that prejudice my reading him. In fact, I found this interesting quote - "In fact, the most recent edition of a Greek New Testament which is based on the majority of MSS, rather than the most ancient ones (and thus stands firmly behind the King James tradition)," You said you had used in college and talked about the Nestle Greek New Testament. Is the statement about the majority MSS true?

 

[Brian Withnell]

In fact, the Bible itself refers to times when the scriptures were lost to the "church" (Biblical Israel) for many years.

But think about the statement, "the Bible says ..." How can that have any substantive meaning when by your own admission the text of the Bible is not a settled matter? You speak of the self-revelation of God in Scripture as axiomatic, you then presume to read the text of Scripture in order to draw conclusions from it, but the conclusions you draw from this presumptive process leads you to believe that the text itself is up for debate. You leave yourself without a text from which to draw your conclusion about the state of the text.

I wanted to make sure I took some time with this, so please bear with me.

The first thing I would present is an analogy. I do not know all there is to know of quantum mechanics. The subject is too expansive for me to be able to know it, and investigation into the universe, that God created and rules by order (the full basis of science is God having created, otherwise there is no possibility of investigation as it could change ... but that is ). The subject itself is static, but all of mankind does not know it fully. In a sense, the created universe is analogous to the scripture.

The scripture exists, it is pure, unchanging, and kept by God. Yet I also know I will never exhaust the full meaning in all detail, nor be positive of my understanding of it. I may or may not have discovered all of the text ... the whole of the church had none of it during the reign of Josiah, the church in various quarters had little or none of it during long periods of time (even someone that holds to the TR would have to accept the text was an open question from early 16th century to mid 17th century.)

Suppose we have not yet fully compiled a text true to the original autographa, but we could ten years from now. Do we stop investigating because we have come close enough? Do we declare a single version the correct one when we might clearly find there are errors in it? Suppose we were to find a true original autograph ... and it different in some small way from the TR, would you really toss it as not being the inspired word in order to keep the TR? Were late medieval dissenters without the scriptures, and therefore without basis?

Clearly, there were times in the church age before the TR was compiled. The scriptures testify that the scriptures have not always been available to all. Yet we hold firmly to God preserving pure his word. Special revelation cannot contradict history (which is also what God has ordained) nor can history contradict special revelation. They must both be true at the same time. What does not have to be true is my view of either. We are not worshipers of a god that can contradict himself, but of a God who is truth itself and does not have even a shadow of change ... the same yesterday, today and forever.

Before the TR was produced, or even the Byzantine tradition started, the word existed, and was kept pure by God.

An objection for not having a perfect knowledge of what is a perfect word is that those that reject the word use as excuse the lack of the original, and the various texts from which translations are made (if they are knowledgeable) or even the various translations.

While I sympathize with those that want to remove such arguments, I would point out what the scripture says the real issue with such people are: 1) they are spiritually blind, 2) they suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 3) they are not sheep of the Great Shepherd. We know that the only way to see the truth of scripture is from the testimony of the Holy Spirit ... there is no logical argument that will convince the reprobate of the truth of scripture, it is spiritually discerned by those that can spiritually see. Those that reject the word of God reject it not because they do not understand or they do not know. They know it is true, but suppress that truth in unrighteousness. And thirdly, they do not hear the voice of the great shepherd. His sheep hear his voice, we follow because we know him. Those that are not his sheep will not hear his voice, and it matters not what argument we give. It also matters not that we cannot answer every question for those who are his sheep ... they will hear his voice.

It is not just a matter of having a "stake in the ground" that we will defend. We might not yet have a "perfect" version of the original, for we might be like those who in Josiah's time, had lost the scriptures. God is preserving his word, but he is not required to preserve it as we would. His word will not pass, and it will accomplish what he sends it to do. We just might not see what or how that is happening.

What we are required to do is be diligent in studying his word to the best of our ability. We do not say like a fool, "I do not know that I have a perfect copy, so I won't bother."

 

[DMcFadden]

I did check out Wallace's writings. First I have to question why anybody would use Ehrman in any kind of favorable light. But I didn't let that prejudice my reading him. In fact, I found this interesting quote - "In fact, the most recent edition of a Greek New Testament which is based on the majority of MSS, rather than the most ancient ones (and thus stands firmly behind the King James tradition),"

I'm watching Mr. Obama and may be missing your point. However, Wallace (where did you get the quote? which article?) seems to be referencing The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform, 2005, compiled and arranged by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont (Chilton Book Publishing: USA, 2005).

1) It lists all variants between the Byzantine text (as given by the editors) and the Nestle-Aland text. Even for those with a CT preference, this will be valuable since it is the only place (?) I have seen this done.

2) Because it deals with the Byzantine text tradition, the editors have provided some pretty interesting variants.

3) The preface (23 pages!) lays out the rationale for a MT edition. For confessionally Reformed types, the editors follow the Westminster Confession in affirming that divine revelation 'has been kept pure in all ages by the singular care and providence of God' (p. xxi). As one reviewer notes, "They particularly relate this providence to preservation of evidence." Robinson and Pierpont aver:

The task set before God's people is to identify and receive the best-attested form of that Greek biblical text as preserved among the extant evidence. Although no divine instruction exists regarding the establishment of the most precise form of the original autographs, such instruction is not required: autograph textual preservation can be recognized and established by a careful and judicious examination of the existing evidence. Scribal fidelity in manuscript transmission over the centuries remains the primary locus of autograph preservation.

 

[ThomasCartwright]

Br Winzer's point is stronger than many think as all textual critics agree (see quotes above in my previous post that we can never recover the original text through a scientific method). If this is true, then we must adopt a fidelistic pre-suppositional approach to the Canon and its text.

Interestingly, Westcott rejected such an approach as he wrote "I hardly feel with you on this question of discussing anything doctrinally or on doctrine. This seems to me to be wholly out of our province. We have only to determine what is written and how it can be rendered. Theologians may deal with the text and version afterwards." Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary concurs, “A theological a priori has no place in textual criticism.” Ironically, Wallace fails to discern that this denial is itself a theological presupposition of his textual criticism, and thus a wholly self-defeating claim.

Westcott and Hort, as well as modern textual critics, accept that the Alexandrian texts were corruption of the originals (they can hardly do other wise when they all disagree in such a diverse manner from each other). This was amply demonstrated in the Wallace/Parker/Ehrman debate the current position at the Greer-Heard Forum where the collective wisdom of the experts is that "we only know what was the 4th century textual tradition" but before that we can only speculate. That is why these three "scholars" have embraced the view that there is no doctrine of preservation, liberalism, and agnosticism respectively.

It is why Kurt Aland (cited positively by James White) argues in The Text of the New Testament that concerning the Alexandrian text,

It was assumed that in the early period there were several recensions of the text... or that at the beginning of the fourth century scholars at Alexandria and elsewhere took as many good manuscripts as were available and applied their philosophical methods to compile a new uniform text

and the Alexandrian text he says is,

...a text dealing with the original text in a relatively free manner with no suggestion of a program of standardization.

It is axiomatic to even the most ardent critic of the TR that the recovery of the “autograph text” is outside the possibility of recovery simply by a neutral Textual scientific methodology. Even the leading exponents of textual criticism candidly concede this. By eliminating God’s work of preservation, they have left the church disarmed, vulnerable and in total confusion. They are like those of old of whom God says in the last verse of the book of Judges “In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). Textual criticism has, at best, only been able to posit the state of the New Testament text as believed to have existed in the fourth century, but admit that that most of the corruptions happened in the second century and we have no way of discovering the final form of the originals. Hence the physical scientific evidence speaks against the position of being able to recover the inspired text of the first century.

It is pointless to argue that the Church once possessed an inspired and infallible Bible, but it was not providentially preserved and the best we now have is a corrupted facsimile. We now have Bible texts produced that can only claim to portray what they think the Bible “might be.” This uncertainty is exemplified in the third edition of the UBS Greek New Testament, which states in the introduction, “The letter A [next to a passage] signifies that the text is virtually certain, while B indicates there is some degree of doubt. The letter C means that there is a considerable degree of doubt whether the text or the apparatus contains the superior reading, while D shows there is a very high degree of doubt concerning the reading selected for the text .” Ironically, these scholars are capricious in their understanding as to which “readings” are genuine as seen in the more than five hundred changes between the second and third editions of the UBS “Greek New Testament.”

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 such statements, 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? The fact that God revealed Himself in Scripture must imply the availability of that scriptural revelation, yet anti-preservationists consider the availability of the text of Scripture in history to be a matter of scientific enquiry.

If one believes it is all right to preach from a Bible with a few errors in it, who shall judge how many constitute the “few” that is acceptable? If one believes it is all right to preach from a Bible that is sufficient in its inspired parts, who shall judge what constitutes the sufficiency? (Or we might say limited inerrancy.). For those who argue that all Bible versions or even the more “conservative” ones are the Word of God they fail to explain their Hegalian dialecticism. For instance, since the Bible said that the very words were inspired and preserved, then how can a translation of those words that say very different things be the same preserved words of God? Anyone can see that all conflicting texts cannot all be the Word of God if they are saying different things. After all, God doesn’t contradict Himself and is certainly not the author of confusion. (1Cor. 14:33)

 

[sotzo]

It is not just a matter of having a "stake in the ground" that we will defend. We might not yet have a "perfect" version of the original, for we might be like those who in Josiah's time, had lost the scriptures. God is preserving his word, but he is not required to preserve it as we would. His word will not pass, and it will accomplish what he sends it to do. We just might not see what or how that is happening.

What we are required to do is be diligent in studying his word to the best of our ability. We do not say like a fool, "I do not know that I have a perfect copy, so I won't bother."

I know you aren't intending to communicate this, but that post sounds quite Gnostic. God is preserving his word, yet not as we would and not in any way that renders a visible difference in the world? Not being critical here, just want to understand you better.

 

[CharlieJ]

This is a blurb for all the viewers of this thread who are interested in more information on text critical methodologies. The book Bible Preservation and the Providence of God was co-written by two Bob Jones University professors who have different opinions on the best text-critical method. It is a survey of the Bible's teaching on preservation and an overview of the seven different approaches to textual criticism.

Bible Preservation and the Providence of God by Sam Schnaiter - 9781401062477 - Compare Discount Book Prices & Save up to 90% - FindBookPrices.com

 

[DMcFadden]

If one believes it is all right to preach from a Bible with a few errors in it, who shall judge how many constitute the “few” that is acceptable? If one believes it is all right to preach from a Bible that is sufficient in its inspired parts, who shall judge what constitutes the sufficiency? (Or we might say limited inerrancy.). For those who argue that all Bible versions or even the more “conservative” ones are the Word of God they fail to explain their Hegalian dialecticism. For instance, since the Bible said that the very words were inspired and preserved, then how can a translation of those words that say very different things be the same preserved words of God? Anyone can see that all conflicting texts cannot all be the Word of God if they are saying different things. After all, God doesn’t contradict Himself and is certainly not the author of confusion. (1Cor. 14:33)

Quite interesting! In Robinson/Pierpont (2005), they critique the position of reasoned eclecticism on the grounds that it does not operate with a reasonable approach to the history of transmission. The modern textual critic claims no possibility of finding the autograph, no hope of penetrating the veil of 2nd century corruptions, and no theory that explains how the individual variants gain so much power in the debate.

Byzantine-priority funcitons within the framework of a predominantly transmissional approach, and stands as a legitimate alternative to the methods and results currently espoused by modern eclecticism. Rather than creating a preferred text on a variant-by-variant basis, Byzantine-priority seeks first the establishment of a viable history of textual transmission . . . Byzantine-priority presents as canonical the Greek New Testament text as it has been attested, preserved, and maintained by scribes throughout the centuries.

In place of the atomistic eclecticism that creates the Frankenstein monster of a text that is attested in NO existing mss., they aver that "The Christian scholar need not speculate widely regarding the original form of the Greek New Testament text."

The content of these scriptures is truth without mixture of error in all that they affirm. A corollary to these doctrinal beliefs is the confessional declaration that this revelation has been kept pure in all ages by the singular care and providence of God . . . The consensus-based approach does not appeal to favored individual manuscripts, local texts, or minority regional texttypes, nor to subjective internal criteria that adopt an amalgam of individual readins with ever-changing degrees of minority support. The appeal is to the combined evidence that has been preserved among the extant Greek witnesses.

This is, however, a majority text edition, not the TR. But it is an interesting alternative to reasoned eclecticism.

 

[Brian Withnell]

Could you show where the Bible was hidden from Israel. Even in Josiah's time the Word was where it always was kept i.e. in the temple and they clearly knew the Word as it led him to begin the Reformation. There are no explicit examples in Scripture where God's people seeking the Words of God have them hidden from them. By contrast, God has established Biblical precedents which show that He keeps and protects His word. 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)!

I would think clearly that the discovery of the scriptures in the restoration of the temple is a rediscovery of what had been lost. "In the temple" does not mean that everyone knew where it was, or that it was where "where it was always kept" (other than that is were it lay untouched for generations). In the context, it is clear that it had been lost and that the only reason it was found was because of the restoration of the temple. A plain reading of the text can point to nothing other than it was lost.

If the text of the Bible today is "where it was always kept", but that place is some cave, or in a tomb in Egypt, does that detract from God preserving his word? Not in any way. We have to "be careful not to take a train of logic off the track of scripture" in what we deduce from what the Bible says. If it teaches that it was lost during the time of Josiah, then we cannot have as our theory that it must be available to men as part of its preservation. Even if it were in the temple, it was not available to the remnant in Israel, however small that remnant was, when it was not read by those that could have access to it (however it was hidden).