Free Church Fathers v. Textus Receptus

[MW]

I don't know anyone who denies that. What is denied is that the framers of the WCF and those who came after, considered the TR to be perfect, untouchable, beyond correction or improvement and that therefore the only text that can be considered "kept pure in all ages" is whatever is in the TR or KJV, in some flavor or another.

Did this pure text exist at the time the Confession was written? Which text was that? If no one denies it was the TR the matter is settled.

 

[Logan]

Did this pure text exist at the time the Confession was written? Which text was that? If no one denies it was the TR the matter is settled.

Brother, with respect, I do not enjoy interacting with you on this topic and have tried hard to avoid it. I often find your responses to be ambiguous or equivocating. Perhaps the fault lies with me. I used the word "only" (among others), which qualifies my statement clearly. It's hard for me to see how your response acknowledges what I actually wrote at all.

Of course they used the TR (in some form). Of course they held it as authoritative and pure. AND they also believed it capable of being corrected by other manuscripts. The two concepts were not mutually exclusive for them when they penned that phrase. Nor should they be for us.

William Bridge, Westminster Divine, "Scripture Light the Most Sure Light" 1656
pg 47:
"How shall we hold and keep fast the letter of Scripture, when there are so many Greek Copies of the New Testament? and these diverse from one another? Yes, well: For though there are many received Copies of the New Testament; yet there is not material difference between them...In the times of the Jews before Christ, they had but one original of the Old Testament; yet that hath several readings: there is a Marginall reading, and a Line reading, and they differ no less than eight hundred times the one from the other; yet the Jews did adhere to both and denied neither; Why? Because there was no material difference. And so now, though there be many Copies of the New Testament; yet seeing that there is no material difference between them, we may adhere to all:"

John Lightfoot, Westminster Divine "Sermon on 2 Timothy 3:16"
"The Scriptures we have, though not in every tittle and syllable the same with the very first copies, yet are in substance and doctrine so agreeing with them, that we may say we have the Word of God."

Do you agree with what is stated in these quotations? I do (I adhere to the textual methodology of Maurice Robinson).

 

[MW]

Brother, with respect, I do not enjoy interacting with you on this topic and have tried hard to avoid it. I often find your responses to be ambiguous or equivocating. Perhaps the fault lies with me. I used the word "only" (among others), which qualifies my statement clearly. It's hard for me to see how your response acknowledges what I actually wrote at all.

It can be hard to interact with a person that you can't squeeze into a convenient box that helps you manage the views of the person you are interacting with. Perhaps ask more clarifying questions rather than attempt to oppose something you don't understand.

Of course they used the TR (in some form). Of course they held it as authoritative and pure. AND they also believed it capable of being corrected by other manuscripts. The two concepts were not mutually exclusive for them when they penned that phrase. Nor should they be for us.

Now to relate this back to the article to which I was responding, as I said, it lacks this TR context. If you are willing to acknowledge it, good for you. At least you are trying to contextualise your examples.

 

[Logan]

It can be hard to interact with a person that you can't squeeze into a convenient box that helps you manage the views of the person you are interacting with. Perhaps ask more clarifying questions rather than attempt to oppose something you don't understand.

I'd welcome you clearly laying out your views. But I did ask a direct question above regarding Bridge and Lightfoot that you did not answer.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Did this pure text exist at the time the Confession was written? Which text was that? If no one denies it was the TR the matter is settled.

Surely it was the same pure text that existed 100, or 500, or 1000 years prior to the TR of the 16th century.

 

[MW]

I'd welcome you clearly laying out your views. But I did ask a direct question above regarding Bridge and Lightfoot that you did not answer.

I have made it plain many times on this board that I hold to the TR but also have a place for textual criticism. You and I even discussed this some ten years ago.

This thread is dealing with an historical question, not a personal one, so my view is not relevant, but I am comfortable with the quotations from Bridge and Lightfoot, especially as I have studied each one's views on the doctrine of Scripture as a whole and understand what they mean by their statements.

Post automatically merged: Apr 20, 2025

Surely it was the same pure text that existed 100, or 500, or 1000 years prior to the TR of the 16th century.

What is the point of this statement in the context of a discussion of what certain Westminster divines intended by their statements written in the 17th century? History is one thing; ideology is another.

 

[Northern Crofter]

What is the point of this statement in the context of a discussion of what certain Westminster divines intended by their statements written in the 17th century? History is one thing; ideology is another.

As a wise man once said:

It can be hard to interact with a person that you can't squeeze into a convenient box that helps you manage the views of the person you are interacting with.

 

[MW]

As a wise man once said:

Hence my question.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Hence my question.

I answered your question(-s): (You - "Did this pure text exist at the time the Confession was written? Which text was that?" Me - "it was the same pure text that existed 100, or 500, or 1000 years prior to the TR of the 16th century.") Do you disagree this is what Westminster divines such as Bridge and Lightfoot historically believed? If so, what do you instead understand that they meant regarding the doctrine of Scripture as a whole?

 

[MW]

I answered your question(-s): (You - "Did this pure text exist at the time the Confession was written? Which text was that?" Me - "it was the same pure text that existed 100, or 500, or 1000 years prior to the TR of the 16th century.") Do you disagree this is what Westminster divines such as Bridge and Lightfoot historically believed? If so, what do you instead understand that they meant regarding the doctrine of Scripture as a whole?

The TR is a printed text.

 

[Northern Crofter]

The TR is a printed text.

I'm curious as to why you keep using the term "text" - as far as I know, that term doesn't appear in the WCF or catechisms.

 

[MW]

I'm curious as to why you keep using the term "text" - as far as I know, that term doesn't appear in the WCF or catechisms.

It exists in a concrete historical situation rather than as an unrealised idea.

 

[Northern Crofter]

It exists in a concrete historical situation rather than as an unrealised idea.

Did it not exist as a realised idea in a concrete historical situation prior to being a printed text?

 

[MW]

Did it not exist as a realised idea in a concrete historical situation prior to being a printed text?

The history of the textus receptus is well known -- Erasmus, Stephens, Beza, the Elzevirs. But yes, as the traditional text it existed in substantial purity before then. This is irrelevant to my point of criticism concerning the article, which ignores the concrete historical situation of the statements being quoted.

To give a sense of what I am talking about, here is a standard breakdown from Vincent's History of Textual Criticism:

"TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE EARLY CHURCH.
Early Date of Corruptions - Allusions to Wilful Corruptions in the Earlier Apologists - Lack of Care in Preparation of Manuscripts - Harmonies - Reasons for Delay in the Application of Printing to the New Testament - History of the Printed Text and of the Accompanying Development of Textual Criticism falls into Three Periods: (1) Period of the Reign of the Textus Receptus (1516–1770); (2) Transition Period from Textus Receptus to Older Uncial Text (1770-1830); (3) Period of Dethronement of Textus Receptus and Effort to restore the Oldest and Purest Text by Means of the Genealogical Method (1830-1899)."

 

[Steelo]

Whatever kind of text criticism existed it was not a "science." It was done within the context of a traditional text.

Yes - Erasmus's work was done within the context of a traditional text - even an 'ecclesiastical text - the Latin Vulgate!! And so he was attacked for questioning it:

'For it is not reasonable that the whole church, which has always used this edition and still both approves and uses it, should for all these centuries have been wrong' — Maarten van Dorp in a letter to Erasmus, 1514

See also: Stunica - Vindication of the ecclesiastical translation of the New Testament from the solecisms forced upon it by Erasmus of Rotterdam (Rome, 1524)

 

[Steelo]

My personal opinion is that they were loose on the subject, just as with creation. They went with the flow of the scientific movements of their time.

I expected this objection. But I'd love to see it substantiated.

Matthew, I enjoyed your paper v. Nick Needham. You could write it the response that Affinity are asking for.

I think you would need to answer the following questions:

1. Did all the Free Church Fathers quoted - not just Chalmers, but Cunningham, Candlish, Bannerman, Fairbairn, Smeaton accept evolution? (I genuinely don't know the answer to this).

2. Is there some link between believing in evolution and the Free Church Fathers agreeing with Martin Luther (for example) in rejecting 1 John 5:7.
Luther, as far as I know, was not influenced by Darwinism.

3. Were Beza or Richard Baxter closet Darwinists because they questioned the story of the woman caught in adultery?

(Beza: 'I do not conceal that I justly regard as suspected what the ancients with such consent either rejected or did not know of. Also such a variety in the reading causes me to doubt the fidelity of the whole of that narration')

4. Is there some link between believing in evolution and believing that, all things being equal, older manuscripts are more likely to contain the original reading of the NT than newer ones. OR EVEN that the original reading is contained in the majority of manuscripts. (Both of which seem reasonable and consistent text critical positions, but which cannot produce the TR).

5. Is there is a link between believing in evolution, and preferring that your Greek New Testament doesn't contain back translations from the Latin Vulgate, printing errors, text from a commentary mixed in with the Biblical text, etc?

6. Erasmus tells us that he felt more free to take liberties with the text of Revelation than the Gospels or Epistles. Does disagreeing with this method make someone an evolutionist? ("I would not have dared to do in the Gospels or even in the Epistles what I have done here")

7. What is the link between evolution and the text critical views of men who lived before Darwin was born?

Eg Bengel - of whom David Brown (who you cited) was a student:

"After the Reformation, scholars such as the Lutheran pietist clergyman J. A. Bengel (1687–1752) realized that the textus receptus or Received Text was largely based on late medieval Greek manuscripts and that its revision was overdue, in face of many more and much older Greek manuscripts that had become known in Europe. Back in 1516, Erasmus had no choice; he had to use what was available at his time. Bengel, on the other hand, in the spirit and zeal of Erasmus, seized the opportunity and compared the manuscripts newly known in his time to the Received Text. For instance, with the help of the Codex Alexandrinus (5th century) and medieval manuscripts, Bengel was able to correct the most obvious faults of the Book of Revelation (fig. 5) and made text-critical observations that are still valid today."

Or John Calvin? Who said of Acts 7:16 - "there is an errour in all our copies of the New Testament, and ought to be corrected"
And who suggested conjectural emendations - something that modern evangelical text critics would reject as unnecessary.

8. Why do are leading Creationists today not TR advocates (Ken Ham recommends the LSB)?

9. Why have the vast majority of conservative scholars/theologians since the C19th who have rejected evolution - eg John Murray - not been TR proponents?

 

[MW]

Yes - Erasmus's work was done within the context of a traditional text - even an 'ecclesiastical text - the Latin Vulgate!! And so he was attacked for questioning it:

'For it is not reasonable that the whole church, which has always used this edition and still both approves and uses it, should for all these centuries have been wrong' — Maarten van Dorp in a letter to Erasmus, 1514

See also: Stunica - Vindication of the ecclesiastical translation of the New Testament from the solecisms forced upon it by Erasmus of Rotterdam (Rome, 1524)

This is found in vol. 3 of the Correspondence. Here is a larger section to provide the proper context.

"If I can show that the Latin version contains no admixture of falsehood or mistake, will not you have to confess that the labours of all those who try to correct it are superfluous, except for pointing out now and again places where the translator might have given the sense more fully? Now I differ from you on this question of truth and integrity, and claim that these are qualities of the Vulgate edition that we have in common use. For it is not reasonable that the whole church, which has always used this edition and still both approves and uses it, should for all these centuries have been wrong."

In context it concerned going back to a Greek original to correct a version of Scripture.

Context matters! And in the interests of filling out the whole story, here is the editor's note:

"Dorp later retracted this objection in his Oratio in praelectionem epistolarum divi Pauli (Antwerp: M. Hillen van Hoochstraten 27 September 1519, NK 739; repr by Froben March 1520); cf Ep 438 introduction. He there asserted the need for a grasp of the languages and made clear his debt to Erasmus; cf Ep 1044 (28 November 1519)."

 

[MW]

You could write it the response that Affinity are asking for.

I am in the middle of three writing projects at present. One is a deadline I have to meet in August.

1. Did all the Free Church Fathers quoted - not just Chalmers, but Cunningham, Candlish, Bannerman, Fairbairn, Smeaton accept evolution? (I genuinely don't know the answer to this).

Evolution is later. The scientific issue for the earlier generation was the geological table. Yes, the writings available demonstrate they went with the flow. There was little to no criticism.

2. Is there some link between believing in evolution and the Free Church Fathers agreeing with Martin Luther (for example) in rejecting 1 John 5:7.
Luther, as far as I know, was not influenced by Darwinism.

The link is the developing science of textual criticism.

3. Were Beza or Richard Baxter closet Darwinists because they questioned the story of the woman caught in adultery?

(Beza: 'I do not conceal that I justly regard as suspected what the ancients with such consent either rejected or did not know of. Also such a variety in the reading causes me to doubt the fidelity of the whole of that narration')

Providence overrules men and their opinions.

4. Is there some link between believing in evolution and believing that, all things being equal, older manuscripts are more likely to contain the original reading of the NT than newer ones. OR EVEN that the original reading is contained in the majority of manuscripts. (Both of which seem reasonable and consistent text critical positions, but which cannot produce the TR).

Again, evolution isn't the issue. Someone who wrote a paper on the Free Church Fathers should know the historical context in which they wrote.

5. Is there is a link between believing in evolution, and preferring that your Greek New Testament doesn't contain back translations from the Latin Vulgate, printing errors, text from a commentary mixed in with the Biblical text, etc?

The link is in the empirical quest at the expense of other considerations.

6. Erasmus tells us that he felt more free to take liberties with the text of Revelation than the Gospels or Epistles. Does disagreeing with this method make someone an evolutionist? ("I would not have dared to do in the Gospels or even in the Epistles what I have done here")

Providence overrules!

7. What is the link between evolution and the text critical views of men who lived before Darwin was born?

Eg Bengel - of whom David Brown (who you cited) was a student:

"After the Reformation, scholars such as the Lutheran pietist clergyman J. A. Bengel (1687–1752) realized that the textus receptus or Received Text was largely based on late medieval Greek manuscripts and that its revision was overdue, in face of many more and much older Greek manuscripts that had become known in Europe. Back in 1516, Erasmus had no choice; he had to use what was available at his time. Bengel, on the other hand, in the spirit and zeal of Erasmus, seized the opportunity and compared the manuscripts newly known in his time to the Received Text. For instance, with the help of the Codex Alexandrinus (5th century) and medieval manuscripts, Bengel was able to correct the most obvious faults of the Book of Revelation (fig. 5) and made text-critical observations that are still valid today."

I provided Vincent's outline. Perhaps try to frame your questions within a basic outline of the History of Textual Criticism. They might make more sense and could actually lead to a fruitful discussion that brings facts to light.

Or John Calvin? Who said of Acts 7:16 - "there is an errour in all our copies of the New Testament, and ought to be corrected"
And who suggested conjectural emendations - something that modern evangelical text critics would reject as unnecessary.

More irrelevant questions. Why don't you try to understand the position you hijack history to oppose?

8. Why do are leading Creationists today not TR advocates (Ken Ham recommends the LSB)?

No idea. Scientific creationism suffers from some of the same axiomatic problems as its opposite.

9. Why have the vast majority of conservative scholars/theologians since the C19th who have rejected evolution - eg John Murray - not been TR proponents?

No idea. You will have to ask them. Perhaps you think you are being clever with these kinds of questions, but they only confirm to me that you cannot set things within an historical context. History is not ideology.

 

[Steelo]

Steelo said:
"The position that the word of God has been kept pure in all ages does not necessarily imply that it has existed in purity in any one particular MS., or that it now exists in purity in any one particular printed edition, but merely that God has preserved it in purity in his church, and has given to men sufficient materials, in due use of ordinary means, for obtaining a substantially accurate record of what he has revealed." [Cunningham]

Do you think TR advocates deny this? Judging from your paper and statements in this thread, it appears the answer is affirmative. In that case, I suggest you learn what the position actually teaches rather than give yourself to bulldozing strawmen.

Yes, they deny it ALL the time.

"in any one particular printed edition"

The TR position by definition has to hold that this is what the TR is. If they didn't believe that, they wouldn't attack other editions.

Of course, if someone knows what they're talking about and pushes a TR proponent hard enough, the TR proponent will have to admit that there are different TR editions with 'minor differences' between them. But they will still say that the Word of God has been kept pure in the TR family.
The whole "Kept Pure in all ages" movement/conference is about promoting the TR.
You are keen to set things in context. Cunningham rejected the TR and accepted a critical text. He was happy to say that the pure text wasn't limited to the TR family. Find me a TR proponent who will agree with this?

"a substantially accurate record of what he has revealed."

TR proponents do not accept this. Garnet Milne in his introduction to Has the Bible been kept Pure? (often recommended by Jeff Riddle) quotes a modern text critic and then says:

"Notice that he talks about the ‘substantial purity’ of the providentially preserved text. This is not a declaration of absolute but of only partial purity. This widely held viewpoint really took hold in the nineteenth century through the influence of some significant Presbyterian theologians in the United States."

 

[MW]

The TR position by definition has to hold that this is what the TR is. If they didn't believe that, they wouldn't attack other editions.

The TR came about through the efforts of textual criticism. As noted earlier, Erasmus accomplished something.