KJV-Only Versus Byzantine Superiority

[JohnOwen007]

What I think is an interesting question in this whole critical text versus ecclesiastical text versus Byzantine text etc. discussion is this: what theological doctrines are at stake if we only use a certain text type.

For example, let's say that Mark 16:9-20 or John 8 is not the inspired word of God, what actual doctrines will be damaged? And what will be the influence on my personal godliness?

Every blessing in Christ.

 

[JM]

I'll continue to use the AV, thanks.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

What I think is an interesting question in this whole critical text versus ecclesiastical text versus Byzantine text etc. discussion is this: what theological doctrines are at stake if we only use a certain text type.

For example, let's say that Mark 16:9-20 or John 8 is not the inspired word of God, what actual doctrines will be damaged? And what will be the influence on my personal godliness?

Every blessing in Christ.

Greetings:

I think that one of the major doctrines at stake is the nature of the Church. The Bible tells us that the Church is founded upon the Word of God. If that foundation changes, then what does that mean about the Church?

Take a look at those churches that have embraced the NIV: their doctrine and practice have changed over the years. A baptist church I used to attend once had a Reformed pastor, and held to the Philadelphia Confession of Faith. The NIV was introduced as the official Bible. And, now, twenty years later, they are professing Arminians and subscribed to the Billy Graham crusade.

80% of the Bible is not enough. Sooner or later the "little leven" will leven the whole lump.

Grace,

-CH

 

[JohnOwen007]

I think that one of the major doctrines at stake is the nature of the Church. The Bible tells us that the Church is founded upon the Word of God. If that foundation changes, then what does that mean about the Church?

Yes, I can see what you're saying, but it doesn't really work. One could find ESVers and KJVers who both sign the WCF. Hence they both agree that the church is founded on the Word, and the basic doctrines (the content of the word) they believe are substantially the same.

Unless you can point to specific doctrines that change then there is no substantial difference in ecclesiology.

Take a look at those churches that have embraced the NIV: their doctrine and practice have changed over the years. A baptist church I used to attend once had a Reformed pastor, and held to the Philadelphia Confession of Faith. The NIV was introduced as the official Bible. And, now, twenty years later, they are professing Arminians and subscribed to the Billy Graham crusade.

This is the classic fallacy of post hoc non propter hoc. That is, what comes after must be the cause. In other words, the church takes on the NIV and then afterwards goes into error means it must be the NIV to blame. Not so. It could be the elders, teaching pastor, congregation who were the cause and the NIV is simply an arbitary change made along the way.

Then there's the empirical evidence from the other side that could be adduced: I could point out many reformed churches (in my neck of the woods) that are strong and growing who use the NIV. Moreover, I could also point out a whole raft of KJV / TR / Byzantine churches that are dead, dying, and unnecessarily argumentative.

Empirical arguments are very difficult to establish, and one church example is hardly enough to establish a point. It has to be a clear trend using a robust sample under right conditions.

80% of the Bible is not enough. Sooner or later the "little leven" will leven the whole lump.

So again I ask, if there's 20% difference, what are the doctrines that change, and how does it affect people's godliness? For example both ESVers and KJVers can sign the WCF. That's a lot in common.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Yes, I can see what you're saying, but it doesn't really work. One could find ESVers and KJVers who both sign the WCF. Hence they both agree that the church is founded on the Word, and the basic doctrines (the content of the word) they believe are substantially the same.

Unless you can point to specific doctrines that change then there is no substantial difference in ecclesiology.



This is the classic fallacy of post hoc non propter hoc. That is, what comes after must be the cause. In other words, the church takes on the NIV and then afterwards goes into error means it must be the NIV to blame. Not so. It could be the elders, teaching pastor, congregation who were the cause and the NIV is simply an arbitary change made along the way.

Then there's the empirical evidence from the other side that could be adduced: I could point out many reformed churches (in my neck of the woods) that are strong and growing who use the NIV. Moreover, I could also point out a whole raft of KJV / TR / Byzantine churches that are dead, dying, and unnecessarily argumentative.

Empirical arguments are very difficult to establish, and one church example is hardly enough to establish a point. It has to be a clear trend using a robust sample under right conditions.



So again I ask, if there's 20% difference, what are the doctrines that change, and how does it affect people's godliness? For example both ESVers and KJVers can sign the WCF. That's a lot in common.

Greetings:

Touche' I stand chastised and cover my head in ashes.

A person who signs the WCF may not actually mean it. The PCA subscribes to the WCF, and, yet, they trample all over the Regulative Principle of Worship as it is taught in chapter 21. I had a PCA pastor tell me that it was ok to go to a restaurant every week on Sunday, c.f. WCF 21:7,8. Yet, he professed to subscribe to the WCF.

Using a different Greek Text is contrary to WCF 1:8 in which the context is that of the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine mss. The vast majority of those who hold to the Critical Text deny this statement in 1:8, "and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical."

The arbitrary omitting of good and holy words from the Greek Text is against the Word of God, Rev. 22:19. Consider, for example, the Lord's Prayer in Luke 11:2-4 in the KJV and the ESV - only one of these can be what God actually inspired.

I will not completely abandon what I wrote prior, but I will modify it a bit. It may be that the baptist church had liberalizing tendencies prior it its acceptance of the NIV. However, its acceptance of an "80% Bible" (if I can use that term) may be indicative of its slide into the gutter. A symptom, if you will, of a greater disease. Since it took years for this to happen one could talk all about its "strength in numbers," and, "the strong preaching."

Also, I think it right and sound to point out that the many defections from sound doctrine concerning worship, the Church, etc... can be laid at the feet of those who hold to the Critical Text. This is a matter of degree. Those churches that hold to the King James Version are far more likely to be sound in their theology than those who do not.

I am personally grieved when I hear about the arguments of the King James Only crowd - like Riplinger and Waite. Such people may (partially) speak the truth, but in an obnoxious and irreligious fashion, and they may turn people, like Shelly here, away from the truth. Paul dealt with such a person in Acts 16:16-18.

Hope this, at least in part, answers your questions.

Blessings,

-CH

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Marty (aka JohnOwen007),

Those are good questions, i.e., "what are the doctrines that change, and how does it affect people's godliness?"

I would answer them like this: the primary doctrine that is obviated is the providential preservation of Scripture. Seeing as you teach church history you are likely aware that this doctrine was the foremost weapon of the post-Reformation theologians (John Owen, Francis Turretin) contra the Counter-Reformation assault of Rome against the fledgling Protestant (Reformed) churches. The doctrine of God's providential preservation of His word is summed up in a number of confessional statements, a primary one being the Westminster Confession of Faith's Chapter 1, Section 8,

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical....​

This, Marty, is a key doctrine that has been changed. This change began in the nineteenth century; here's a note on it excerpted from another post:

-------
Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield “drew first blood,” as it were, in the text-critical controversies within the Reformed communions when he wrote to the general Christian public in Sunday School Times 24 in 1882, that Mark’s long ending was “no part of God’s word,” and therefore “we are not to ascribe to the verses the authority due to God’s Word.” [Cited from Theodore P. Letis’ The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority and the Popular Mind, p. 53]. In naming him thus be it understood I mean not at all to demean “the mighty Warfield,” as other than in the area of text criticism I honor and love him. But when a man is wrong we sin if we do not decry that error which causes harm to the flock of God.

To his credit, Warfield’s intentions were good; he hoped to disarm the threat posed by text criticism in the hands of liberal and unbelieving scholars by redefining the Westminster Confession’s statement on Scripture to refer to the inerrant autographs (anciently lost and beyond reach) instead of the apographs (the copies; texts in the hands of the Westminster divines). I quote from Letis’ essay “B. B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism” (in The Ecclesiastical Text, pp. 26-27):

Only eight years after Warfield’s death [in Feb 1921], the higher criticism entered Princeton and the seminary was reorganized to accommodate this. The facile certainty that Westcott and Hort’s system seemed to offer Warfield evaporated. Later text critics abandoned the hope of reconstructing a “neutral” text and today despair of ever discovering an urtext, the final resting ground of Warfield’s doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy. Warfield had given earnest expression to his hope that,

The autographic text of the New Testament is distinctly within the reach of criticism….we cannot despair of restoring to ourselves and the church of God, His book, word for word, as He gave it by inspiration to men. [“The Rights of Criticism and of the Church”, The Presbyterian (April 13, 1892):15]​

Fifty years later, the Harvard text critic, Kirsopp Lake, offered a more modest assessment:

In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort….we do not know the original form of the Gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall. [Family 13 (The Ferrar Group (Phila., The Univ. of Penn. Press, 1941), p. vii]​

Warfield’s Common Sense adoption of German methods would be more fully developed by others at Princeton who would no longer find his appendage of the inerrant autographs theory either convincing, or any longer relevant for N.T. studies.​

Make no mistake about it, Warfield’s textual theories, taken in good faith from Westcott and Hort – which he was open to after his studies in German criticism at the University of Leipzig in 1876 – almost single-handedly turned the Reformed Communities from their former view of the WCF and its prizing the texts-in-hand to the (what turned out to be) never-to-be-found-or-restored autographic texts. This was the watershed. And today men of good intentions seek to make the best of it, developing theories and stances so as to defend what they say is a trustworthy Bible.
-------
[end excerpt]

The second of your questions, Marty, regarding such a change in doctrine, "how does it affect people's godliness?", I would answer in this wise:

When I was a young believer around 39 years ago (I was 26 or 27 then), coming out of the 60's counter-culture with its drugs and occult spiritualities, I realized early on that in order to stand against my adversary the devil (& his cohorts) I needed absolute certainty in my mind as regards the trustworthiness of my God and His word.

When I told the demons to depart from me I needed to know exactly where such authority was granted to me in Scripture (chapter & verse), and that these Scriptures were reliable, and not just these, but all Scripture. It was a matter of being able to stand against spiritual opponents who had access to my mind -- relentless opponents, I might add -- and to resist them as directed by the Lord. I needed to know within myself with utmost certainty that the "sword of the Spirit" I wielded was sure...could not be broken.

If I did not have the complete assurance that my sword was sound, I could not stand in the combat. This being able to "withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand" (Eph 6:13), was prerequisite to my being able to live a godly life.

When I would look at the margin notes in some of the Bibles I had I knew that the text of Scripture was contested in some quarters. I needed to get to the bottom of that. It was a matter of life and death to me. Coming from the depths of darkness the Savior rescued me from, I had to develop the wherewithal -- by His Spirit and Word -- to repel the denizens of the spirit-world I (and all my generation with me) had opened my being to. Certainty of mind is essential to stability of mind. And this certainty had to be based on God's word.

I find God has met this need. I am able to stand in Him, and to live godly (given the remaining corruption I must seek His help in constantly keeping crucified; when I fail, I have cleansing by His precious blood).

Perhaps the warfare is not so immediate or intense for some, nor their awareness of need so great. There are some of us who are Christ's desperados; in the instant we cleave to Him or fall. We need a word such as this,

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. (Matthew 24:35)​

In His sure word, and in Him, is perfect rest.

Steve

P.S. Regarding the origin of my username,

In John Bunyan's classic, Pilgrim's Progress, Mr. Great-heart is questioning newly-met Mr. Valiant-for-truth concerning his adventures, and asks why he did not cry out for help when overwhelmed. Valiant answers, "So I did to my King, who I knew could hear, and afford invisible help, and that was sufficient for me." Then said Great-heart to Mr. Valiant-for-truth, "Thou hast worthily behaved thyself; let me see thy Sword;" so he shewed it him.

When he had taken it in his hand, and looked thereon a while, he said, "Ha! It is a right Jerusalem blade." And Valiant, "It is so. Let a man have one of these blades, with a hand to wield it, and skill to use it, and he may venture upon an Angel with it. He need not fear its holding, if he can but tell how to lay on. Its edges will never blunt. It will cut flesh, and bones, and soul, and spirit and all."

 

[KMK]

For example, let's say that Mark 16:9-20 or John 8 is not the inspired word of God, what actual doctrines will be damaged? And what will be the influence on my personal godliness?

I know we have strayed from the OP, but oh well...

First of all, there is a thread related to your exact question around somewhere but I will offer my

To suggest that Mark 16:9-20 are not inspired is to suggest that we cannot trust the canon at all. When the Bible was canonized it included a book called "The Gospel of Mark" which included 16:9-20. To suggest that 9-20 should not be there is to suggest that we 'uncanonize' The Gospel of Mark and replace it with a 'new and improved' Gospel of Mark. This suggestion then casts doubt on the whole canon because it was not just the titles of the books that were canonized but the contents of those books as well.

I believe there has been an attack on personal holiness due to the implication that we as individual Christians are able and encouraged to choose for ourselves which Bible is right for us. This idea advances individualism and diminishes unity. One could easily imagine a day when one would punch in a bunch of biographical data into a website and the website would spit out a personalized version God's Word just for you.

 

[MW]

This suggestion then casts doubt on the whole canon because it was not just the titles of the books that were canonized but the contents of those books as well.

This is the crux of the matter. Evangelicals have tried to divorce higher and lower criticism as if canon and text can be treated according to two different principles. They can't. The text is that which was canonised.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Thanks for your responses to my question. I've found them fascinating to read. As yet I remain unconvinced that substantial doctrinal changes are at stake depending on which position one takes. Godly reformed believers can be found on both sides.

To appeal to a change in the doctrine of God's preservation of the text is something of a dead end. This is because both sides in the debate believe that God has been provident in keeping the text; they simply disagree on how. And the difference would be critical if other substantial doctrines derived from Scripture change; which as yet no one has established. Again, there is no clear evidence that one side of the debate leads to a greater godliness depending on the conclusion they draw.

For example, in my neck of the woods the dead / dying churches are those that are KJVO / NKJVO types. However, I'm not then going to argue that their adherence to the TR / Ecclesiastical text etc. is necessarily the cause. To prove that empirically would be very difficult.

I was appreciative of Steve's testimony in coming out of the '60s darkness and his desire to know God's word. But again, I have plenty of friends that have come out of demonic backgrounds (not least ex-Hindus) and their use of the non-KJVO/NKJVO text has not been an obstacle to their deliverance from Satan. They have memorized lots of Scripture that has been a help. They are godly loving people to this day.

However, my eyebrows were raised when I read:

When the Bible was canonized it included a book called "The Gospel of Mark" which included 16:9-20. To suggest that 9-20 should not be there is to suggest that we 'uncanonize' The Gospel of Mark and replace it with a 'new and improved' Gospel of Mark.

This is, in fact, a Roman Catholic view of the canon. Because Protestants don't believe that books in the Bible (say Mark) were canonized. If Mark is inspired it doesn't need canonizing, it's already canon precisely because it's inspired; it simply needs recognizing. Mark was inspired Scripture (and hence canonical) before the ink had even dried.

Thus, the great issue is which text came from Mark's pen, not which text was "canonized".

I am sympathetic to both sides of the debate. However, I'm not so sympathetic to blowing the debate out of proportion and particularly accusing one side of being innately ungodly because of the position they (in good conscience) take. Both sides in the debate have their terrible representatives, but we don't judge a position by it's worst representatives.

God bless.

 

[MW]

This is, in fact, a Roman Catholic view of the canon. Because Protestants don't believe that books in the Bible (say Mark) were canonized. If Mark is inspired it doesn't need canonizing, it's already canon precisely because it's inspired; it simply needs recognizing. Mark was inspired Scripture (and hence canonical) before the ink had even dried.

The reformed position is that the fountains have not been corrupted so that an ecclesiastical magisterium is not necessary, whereas the Roman Catholic position is that the fountains have been corrupted thus necessitating the authority of church tradition over the inspired text. It is easy to see which side of the debate adheres to the reformed position and which side adheres to the Roman Catholic view.

It is true, the church does not make the gospel of Mark canonical. Divine inspiration accomplishes that. Nevertheless the confessing church declares what books she believes are of divine inspiration and form the rule of faith and life (WCF 1:2). This includes the gospel of Mark, that is, the complete text of the gospel of Mark as preserved by the singular care and providence of God. To maintain that the gospel of Mark has been corrupted is to exercise a magisterium over the text and to contradict the reformed confessional belief that it is authoritative in and of itself.

 

[KMK]

If Mark is inspired it doesn't need canonizing, it's already canon precisely because it's inspired; it simply needs recognizing. Mark was inspired Scripture (and hence canonical) before the ink had even dried.

But who does the *simple recognition*? Is it the individual or the church?

 

[KMK]

If your questions remain unanswered, here is a thread that might be helpful:

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=19437

 

[JohnOwen007]

If your questions remain unanswered, here is a thread that might be helpful:

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=19437

Dear Ken,

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

God bless.

 

[CDM]

I know we have strayed from the OP, but oh well...

First of all, there is a thread related to your exact question around somewhere but I will offer my

To suggest that Mark 16:9-20 are not inspired is to suggest that we cannot trust the canon at all. When the Bible was canonized it included a book called "The Gospel of Mark" which included 16:9-20. To suggest that 9-20 should not be there is to suggest that we 'uncanonize' The Gospel of Mark and replace it with a 'new and improved' Gospel of Mark. This suggestion then casts doubt on the whole canon because it was not just the titles of the books that were canonized but the contents of those books as well.

I believe there has been an attack on personal holiness due to the implication that we as individual Christians are able and encouraged to choose for ourselves which Bible is right for us. This idea advances individualism and diminishes unity. One could easily imagine a day when one would punch in a bunch of biographical data into a website and the website would spit out a personalized version God's Word just for you.

Here is the thread. Read the entire thing, JohnOwen007, it will help you.

edit: same link as above

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Marty, you first asked,

For example, let's say that Mark 16:9-20 or John 8 is not the inspired word of God, what actual doctrines will be damaged? And what will be the influence on my personal godliness?

A little later you rephrased it,

…what are the doctrines that change, and how does it affect people's godliness?

But later you somewhat change the questions, especially as regards “godliness”:

To appeal to a change in the doctrine of God's preservation of the text is something of a dead end. This is because both sides in the debate believe that God has been provident in keeping the text; they simply disagree on how. And the difference would be critical if other substantial doctrines derived from Scripture change; which as yet no one has established. Again, there is no clear evidence that one side of the debate leads to a greater godliness depending on the conclusion they draw

Let me address the latter first. I say “it may indeed affect godliness.” But now you are putting it in the context of one side having “greater godliness,” which is another matter entirely. Frankly, there are many people who use Critical Text versions who are more godly than I.

The reason I used myself as a personal example was to illustrate the point from intimate knowledge. It has nothing to do with comparing godlinesses! Nor did you intimate such in your initial questions.

There are many today who, to use a line from a Johnny Cash prison ballad,

………get by on
what I can’t rely on​

and my concern is not only for the multitudes today who are perplexed and shaken at the assertion of the CT folks that we do not “yet” have a settled text of the Bible (the CT editions themselves differing one from another), but my concern extends to the generations yet to come – assuming the Lord may delay His coming in His merciful wisdom – and the impact on them of this disintegration of confidence that God preserved His word for us and we have it – have it in our hands.

I live in a country where almost all the buildings are built of steel-reinforced concrete (not too much spare wood in this land). If the concrete is not waterproofed, eventually water will seep into the concrete (it being highly porous) and will get to the steel, which will rust and eventually expand, breaking and crumbling the concrete, the building sooner or later falling to ruin.

The disintegration does not happen quickly; the process is slow, sometimes taking decades. When one begins to doubt the reliability of Scripture – beginning with a part here and there – the seeds of doubt are planted, and will grow. All it will take is a master-destroyer, one versed in these matters, to go after the logical consequences of purportedly errant portions of Scripture, and destroy faith in said Scripture. For many years I have been preparing to meet such a one, as I see this as the point of vulnerability of the House of God.

Be it noted that I do not see such persons as Dr. James White – and other anti-KJVO advocates – as the “destroyers” I am speaking of; no, rather he is a godly man of great value to the House of God in this generation, who happens to disagree with me on this topic.

The “destroyers” I am talking of are true enemies of the Faith, perhaps some who have fallen away from us – but never were “of us” (1 John 2:19) – and knowing of such issues in the House rightly perceive this to be an exposed portion of the heart, that at which to send their weapons of destruction.

In the days to come not only will there be outward persecution – arising from laws against free proclamation of the Gospel? – but also those attacks aimed at the morale and consciousness of those within the Walls of Scripture. I am looking at the world my grandson and his children may inhabit. Why did Jesus say, “…when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8) You understand, I believe, I am not talking merely of personal godliness being affected, but very faith itself. Souls are begotten by the word of truth (James 1:18), and when that is widely impugned, the net will – humanly speaking – pull in far less fish.

I know, not all see as I do. Who has ears to hear, let him or her hear.

And then, going to the first question, Mark, you discount my asserting that the doctrine of providential preservation has been damaged because both the CT and the TR camps hold to it in at least some sense. Let us examine that more closely, so as not to be lulled into stupor by superficial appearances. It is in the details of a thing that its excellence and particularly its functionality are seen. A superior watch is known by its internal parts and not only its face.

In the details of the CT can we assert that God’s providence was active upon them to preserve the true readings, or did He pass over some of them, letting them fall into error? Let us take the newest – and some say the finest – edition of the CT, the ESV. Matthew 1, verses 7 and 10. Both the Greek text and the English translation read, in v. 7, that Asaph was in the royal lineage of Christ rather than Asa, and in v. 10, that Amos was a progenitor of Christ rather than Amon. It will not do to aver “these are alternate spellings,” for Hebrew is a precise language, and Matthew was a literate man; we would not accept, in English, that Solar was an alternative spelling for Sol, or Merry an alternative for Mary.

When the external evidence is examined (I will not lengthen this unduly by producing such at this time), it is further seen that “providential preservation” was not operational in this portion of the CT’s mss.

So the claim that “both sides in the debate believe that God has been provident in keeping the text” is shown to be wanting in this detail of the CT.

Steve

 

[JohnOwen007]

Dear Steve,

Thanks for your reply. I can see that you feel strongly about these issues, and perhaps in the end we'll just have to agree to disagree. But I'm enjoying the exchange.

It has nothing to do with comparing godlinesses! Nor did you intimate such in your initial questions.

My point all along was simply that if the issue were as critical as some people make out then there would be obvious evidence in godliness, given that the truth should lead to godliness. That's all.

In the details of the CT can we assert that God’s providence was active upon them to preserve the true readings, or did He pass over some of them, letting them fall into error?

Yes, God's providence can function precisely like that. This is because God's providence extends to the sufficiency of Scripture. Sufficiency means that we have everything for final salvation, life and godliness in the biblical text. Minor discrepancies may exist in the ET (let's just say for argument's sake) but not ones that affect eternal life and godliness.

This has been my point all along. No key doctrines that affect our life and godliness are called into question if we use either the CT or ET. If they were then someone please show me, I genuinely would like to know.

God bless.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Greetings:

Marty:

I think your question is a bit understated. If we, for example, cut out a whole book of the Bible - like 3 John for example - "would any doctrine of the Bible be affected?"

I would assume that you would say "no."

Would we have done gross violation against the Scripture?

I would assume that you would say "yes."

If the whole Bible is inspired by God, and God took the pains to preserve it, then why would you want to "change" the Greek text by using one that God did not seek to preserve?

You wrote above:

My point all along was simply that if the issue were as critical as some people make out then there would be obvious evidence in godliness, given that the truth should lead to godliness. That's all.

I don't know how you measure "godliness" nor do I know how one can judge another more godlier than the other. If we pointed out ungodliness in ESV users, then you will point out ungodliness in KJV users. Your "point" is irrelevant.

I think that if we did a study in history we would find that the Church was much healthier, stronger in proclaiming the Gospel, and more influential in society 100 years ago than it is today. But you would say that to lay the fault at the feet of the Critical Text is a post hoc ergo propter hoc (not non by the way) fallacy: "after this therefore because of this."

Can one make a causal connection between the growing acceptance of the Critical Text and religious decline? If the foundation of the Church is undermined, then what can one expect of the Church? Though there may be many factors resulting in religious decline it seems that one of the seminal components of it is a degradation of the Scriptures.

C.H. Spurgeon fought tooth and nail against those who would "Downgrade" the Scriptures. One of Spurgeon's good friends, Robert Shindler wrote:

The first step astray is a want of adequate faith in the divine inspiration of the sacred Scriptures. All the while a man bows to the authority of God's Word, he will not entertain any sentiment contrary to its teaching. "To the law and to the testimony," is his appeal concerning every doctrine. He esteems that holy Book, concerning all things, to be right, and therefore he hates every false way. But let a man question, or entertain low views of the inspiration and authority of the Bible, and he is without chart to guide him, and without anchor to hold him. In looking carefully over the history of the times, and the movement of the times, of which we have written briefly, this fact is apparent: that where ministers and Christian churches have held fast to the truth that the Holy Scriptures have been given by God as an authoritative and infallible rule of faith and practice, they have never wandered very seriously out of the right way. But when, on the other hand, reason has been exalted above revelation, and made the exponent of revelation, all kinds of errors and mischief's have been the result, Shindler, Robert, The Down-Grade, The Sword and the Trowel, April 1887, 166.

I am quite convinced that defection from the Word of God is the main determinant in religious decline. The Critical Text is more insidious than anything that has gone before because it is only 80% of the Bible. The problem is not with "doctrine" it is with the Word of God that produces the doctrine.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

And two more cents from me also, Marty. I do appreciate your irenic attitude, by the way.

Dear Steve,

Yes, God's providence can function precisely like that. This is because God's providence extends to the sufficiency of Scripture. Sufficiency means that we have everything for final salvation, life and godliness in the biblical text….

This has been my point all along. No key doctrines that affect our life and godliness are called into question if we use either the CT or ET. If they were then someone please show me, I genuinely would like to know.

This is nuanced. I agree that CT users can be as godly as TR users, and that the sufficiency of Scripture is such that even the texttype with a lot of it deleted can sustain the faith and spiritual vitality of those who use it with confidence. You won’t get an argument from me there.

Though I say that God’s providence extends to more than just the sufficiency of Scripture, even when slightly mutilated; it extends to its preservation – its being kept intact – in the minutiae. And this is the doctrine of Providential Preservation proper. Why does this view matter?

When you shoot a rifle at a target one foot in front of the barrel, at a bulls-eye 3 inches in diameter, and the barrel is ¼ inch off center, you will still hit the bulls-eye, but a little to the side. When you increase the distance to twenty feet, the bullet will not even hit the target. The principle is that distance increases the amount of deviation.

This is the problem so many disregard. They live only for today, for themselves, without regard to the effect of their slightly errant doctrine. The effect is so slight in the short distance of the present and near future, that they don’t calculate what it will mean for those who reap the logical, inevitable consequences of that seemingly small error in another generation. It is so slight now they won’t even acknowledge it as error. It is just a difference in opinion, of no significance.

There is a falling away from the purity of the Gospel. It is less pronounced in many Reformed communions, but it is happening here as well. At a certain point – attended by certain “markers” – a church apostatizes. As Robert W. pointed out above, a defection from the word of God – caused by a loss of confidence in it – is the main determinant in religious decline.

Before death one appears to have but a small illness. No big deal, we say. But time will tell.

And those of us who see this coming must speak out. For there are many who hear these words and take them to heart.

Shelly,

If these things I and others say distress you, there are other options if the KJV is too baggage-laden for you: there are the Modern King James Version, and the NKJV, and the Geneva Bible. And as others have pointed out (myself included) the Lord can sustain you using the ESV.

Steve

 

[staythecourse]

Byzantines and smoothing text..

The texts were later. Hard to understand readings in a passage were often smoothed out to make it easier to understand (though I believe often misleading).

If I had a Bible hobby, it would be text criticism. I enjoy trying to find what the autographs might have said in a passage. This can only be interpolated by what's been dug up from the sands or been pulled out of monastary trashcans (some in the process of being burned by the monks!) but it's is really enjoyable to do.

Take this article for example, against a Byzantine rendering:

http://www.csntm.org/essays/1thess3.2.pdf

It shows probable smoothing in Byzantine texts. Well-meaning scribes had to make a choice based on what they had as reference and put both known textual variants together.

Or consider John 3:13 KJV

And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven.

The Net Bible says on this:

Most witnesses, including a few important ones (A[*] Θ Ψ 050 Ë1,13 Ï latt syc,p,h), have at the end of this verse “the one who is in heaven.” A few others have variations on this phrase, such as “who was in heaven” (e syc), or “the one who is from heaven” (0141 pc sys). The witnesses normally considered the best, along with several others, lack the phrase in its entirety (Ì66,75 א B L T Ws 083 086 33 1241 pc co). On the one hand, if the reading " who is in heaven" is authentic it may suggest that while Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus he spoke of himself as in heaven even while he was on earth. If that is the case, one could see why variations from this hard saying arose: “who was in heaven,” “the one who is from heaven,” and omission of the clause. At the same time, such a saying could be interpreted (though with difficulty) as part of the narrator’s comments rather than Jesus’ statement to Nicodemus, alleviating the problem.

All those symbols are numbers/letters refer to remarkable old fragments, parts of Bibles, parchments, lexicons, etc. They're in vaults or behind glass somewhere in many cases.

Here, I believe that Jesus was saying He was in Heaven and on Earth simultaneously. For me I see him in the Father in Heaven while walking the Earth. It's a harder read but a good rule of thumb is, "the harder read is may be more accurate to the autograph due to the temptation to smooth for understandability."

My favorite scribal editory addition (in my opinion) is at the end of Mark. It is as if some scribe had a few, was frustrated with the non-ending of Mark and said, "I'll fix this. Gimme that quill, Jerome."

[[Early on the first day of the week, after he arose, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had driven out seven demons. 16:10 She went out and told those who were with him, while they were mourning and weeping. 16:11 And when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they did not believe.

16:12 After this he appeared in a different form to two of them while they were on their way to the country. 16:13 They went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them. 16:14 Then he appeared to the eleven themselves, while they were eating, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen him resurrected. 16:15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16:16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned. 16:17 These signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new languages; 10 16:18 (takes another swig) they will pick up snakes with their hands, and whatever poison they drink will not harm them; 11 they will place their hands on the sick and they will be well.” 16:19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. 16:20 They went out and proclaimed everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the word through the accompanying signs.]]

"There, that fixes THAT! We know that's pretty much what happened, right Jerry? We did our readers a favor. They oughta canonize us."

So what do I do? I prefer the NASB but I read USB Greek New Testament as I learn Greek more seeing what variations exists. The scribes were people just like us and struggled to help later generations with both accuracy and understandability of Scripture knowing they would be before God explaining their efforts someday. God bless them. Except for those that tried to "help" the text, we owe them much. They kept the Scripture Dove-soap pure (99.9+%)

 

[KMK]

The scribes were people just like us and struggled to help later generations with both accuracy and understandability of Scripture knowing they would be before God explaining their efforts someday. God bless them. Except for those that tried to "help" the text, we owe them much. They kept the Scripture Dove-soap pure (99.9+%)

So did the scribes keep Scripture pure or did they corrupt it? I am confused.

Do you agree with WCF 1:8?

...being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical...

 

[staythecourse]

Not entirely pure: 1689 Confession

The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.

Discrepencies were already known to exist at his time. The Holy Scripture is most assuredly infallible. Scribes made mistakes occasionally. We (men today) have to find the mistakes and interpolate back to the infallible autographs.

That's my stance on infallibility of Scripture.

 

[KMK]

Discrepencies were already known to exist at his time. The Holy Scripture is most assuredly infallible. Scribes made mistakes occasionally. We (men today) have to find the mistakes and interpolate back to the infallible autographs.

That's my stance on infallibility of Scripture.

So you hold to 1:1 of the 1689, but not entirely to 1:8. You do believe that there is an inspired word of God out there somewhere but it was not preserved in the Byzantine. Is this correct?

Who are the 'we' that must 'find mistakes' and 'interpolate'? Is it all Christians as individuals or is it the church as a whole?

 

[staythecourse]

More thoroughly

The assumption by the men who made the 1689 was that God kept the Word in tact verbatim in the original languages. I would want Scripture to verify that He would keep his word in tact verbatim and in whole.

I believe corruption is to be expected (and is found today in variants). It is found in Byzantine documents as well. I believe constant work on finding the original words in needed and to be blessed by the church to validate what exists or discredit it. I believe our text today has no significant errors due to the work of saintly men. If there are apparent errors, I say, "The Word is right. I am wrong. I have questions because of my limited understanding due to inherent sin in me and/or discrepencies in the text. I am called to find the Word and obey it and settle questions as to what the Word says."

If the texts we have are corrupt but all the verbage exists in some form even through variants, the church (made of of individuals who may be more gifted in this area) can discern what the truth is by analyzing them and compile the text to its original form.

If the texts we have are not corrupt, the same procedure would have taken place in the complilation of, for example, the authorized King James Bible. Those men, having the influence of the Holy Spirit in them, were able to compile a very good text that was accurate based on material they had available to them.

We now have more. We have more and older texts, spread across geography and time, some closer to the original in chronology and geography. That carries significant weight to many, including myself. We can go outside the NT writings for clarification. Wording, for example, that may not have been clear in 1611 can now be more clearly understood as Koine greek documents outside Scripture are applied to contemporary meanings of words. I can come up with examples if you like and would enjoy the search but it would not hinder my faith. It would help it.

We have a new wealth if information given by God to help us find Him in His Word. That information can refine translations as men of God apply their special skills (archaeology, linguistics, history, etc) to the work of improving already accurate translations.

So, my stance is there is a pure Word out there. It exists in the texts already extant. It may not have been compiled yet. The translations we have are very accurate and can lead us to salvation in Christ. Choose a Bible wisely and if we preach, stay with it as long as you can in good conscience for the good of the sheep. Use multiple translations in preaching and learn Greek and Hebrew if you can and really want to for the sake of others.

Does that answer your questions? I enjoy refining my own understanding of what I have concluded.

 

[MW]

We now have more. We have more and older texts, spread across geography and time, some closer to the original in chronology and geography. That carries significant weight to many, including myself.

Why does it carry significant weight? Those well versed in textual criticism know that the divergent readings arose by 200AD. It does not matter how many mss. we find, or even how early they might be. Our earliest papyri speak gobbledygook, as any one will tell you who has examined them. The only time sense can be made out of them is when they agree with already existing readings, that is, readings which are derived from younger mss. But if that is the case, the oldest mss. are not the most reliable, contrary to popular belief.

The sifting of the ms. evidence comes back to what one believes those mss. contain. It is not a matter of counting or dating mss., but of holding in one's hand the living and abiding Word of God. One does not have to fetch this Word from the depths of the earth. That word is nigh thee. As believers we must start from the presupposition that we HAVE the Word of God, and must therefore rule out the idea that we are yet to FIND it.

 

[KMK]

I appreciate your candor and your desire to see the Word of God (whatever that is) preached.

One of the problems I have with this line of reasoning is this:

First you say...

I am called to find the Word and obey it and settle questions as to what the Word says.

Then you say...

If the texts we have are corrupt but all the verbage exists in some form even through variants, the church (made of of individuals who may be more gifted in this area) can discern what the truth is by analyzing them and compile the text to its original form.

Who decides what the Word of God is? Does the burden fall on the individual Christian to decide for themselves based on their own research on the issue, or does the burden fall on the church which is made up of *gifted individuals*.

in my opinion, if it is the former then there is no hope of for 99% of Christians ever having surity that they possess the inspired Word of God. It must be the latter, and if so, the church already declared her position hundreds of years ago.

If the English speaking church wants to get together and come up with a Version that she believes is better and more reliable than the AV, then I am all for it. But that is not the direction we are heading. We are moving in a direction where every Christian must do the research themselves and conclude for themselves what the Word of God is and they better not try to influence anyone else or they will be labled some kind of 'onlyist'.

 

[staythecourse]

I understand your presuposition

But I don't agree with it at least in the way you present it, I suppose, pastor.

Does Scriputure tell us that God will not let his word get corrupted in written form and to be passed through the ages uncorrupted in written form?

I don't think it does so I am a skeptic to any particular version as being authoritative. I see good men of God, taking what's out there, unafraid of what they might find, and chiseling away with their knowledge at creating the best translation out there based on all the known evidence they can get their hands on.

My presuppostion is that textual corruption will come and has. Thankfully, throughout church history, men were taught, saved and grew under good texts despite corruption. Apparently I don't trust one text and you do. I may misunderstand your stance on that. I believe Satan is at work in corrupting the written word, succeeded at times, and we (the church) pieced very accurate translations together.

I am not sure I follow you on your analysis of textual criticism. Even if you use the 1611 as an example, they compilied the book based on a variety of manuscripts which, even then, represented text over geography and time, even if they stayed within the Byz. family. They had to choose what verses were corrupt and uncorrupt and performed rudimentary (though still sophiticated for the time and surely better my weak abilities ever will be) textual criticism.

I can cite an example where the very scribe that heard Paul's words miswrote. To me it's fascinating and shows the value of grammar.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1159

In short, the textual evidence and grammar support "we have peace with God" and not "Let us have peace with God."

1. Grammar: 'Let us have" and "we have" sound exactly the same in Greek.
2. Grammar: "Let us have peace with God" is a problem as it implies we don't have it when we certainly do have it by faith. "let us have peace" has no sense to it theologically as Paul is building an argument as to out position and not a feeling.
3. Textually: The difference came so early in the writing, split down the middle in Bzy, Alexandrian and the like, that it may have happened at the onset of the letter so that the autograph itself had to be corrected. The spoken word was right, but corruption came fast and early.

Meat and potatoes to me. I want to know the truth. Here the KJV is most likely right.

The apparant addition of the Comma Johanneum is an example of gloss in KJV text - added verbage to promote a view on a topic.

“5:7 For there are three that testify, 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement.” --NET Bible

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. KJV

Wallace writes:

Modern advocates of the Textus Receptus and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings—even in places where the TR/Byzantine manuscripts lack them. Further, these KJV advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. But this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text. Further, it puts these Protestant proponents in the awkward and self-contradictory position of having to affirm that the Roman Catholic humanist, Erasmus, was just as inspired as the apostles, for on several occasions he invented readings—due either to carelessness or lack of Greek manuscripts (in particular, for the last six verses of Revelation Erasmus had to back-translate from Latin to Greek).

In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum must go back to the original text when it did not appear until the 16th century in any Greek manuscripts? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: faith must be rooted in history. To argue that the Comma must be authentic is Bultmannian in its method, for it ignores history at every level. As such, it has very little to do with biblical Christianity, for a biblical faith is one that is rooted in history.

Significantly, the German translation done by Luther was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza’s 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus’ third and later editions (and Stephanus’ editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.

I don't mean to agitate, pastor. I only mean to bring up that men are fighting for the true readings to this day. It's not an evil but a good.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Greetings:

StaytheCourse:

I cannot reply to your whole post, but I will answer, in part at least, the article you cite concerning 1 Thess. 3:2.

The assumption of the author is that the Byzantine text was a "smoothing" of the Western and Alexandrian Texts on this passage. It is an assumption that is unproved. In order to make such a statement the author of the article would have to have read the mind of a scribe who died about 1500 years ago. Since the author of the article cannot read my mind, and I am a contemporary of his, then how can we think that he is able to read the mind of someone who died years ago?

The assumption of the author is that the Western and Alexandrian texts are "older" than the Byzantine. Yet, it has been shown here, and on other threads, that Byzantine readings of the Scriptures go back to the very beginnings of the 2nd Century AD. The Old Italic, for example, is decidedly Byzantine in nature - despite protests to the contrary. The Reformers dated the Old Italic to about 123 AD. This is earlier than either the Western or Alexandrian texts.

Based on this evidence the Western and Alexandrian texts at 1 Thess. 3:2 is a revision of the Byzantine text, and the Byzantine is not a "smoothing."

As far as John 3:13 is concerned: The Textus Receptus uses the word "who" not "which" in the text, and reads:

"the son of man who is in heaven."

The Critical Text philosophy follows a series of false assumptions that have been disproven over the last 100 years or so:

Beware, lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ, Col. 2:8.

The Critical Text philosophy tickles the intellect, and it entices with its "scientific" accuracy. However, it is a false philosophy that will lead you astray from Christ in the end.

Blessings,

-CH

 

[staythecourse]

Mr. Wieland brother, you're using science, too.

Crude forensics is what we are employing. You and I are coming to conclusions using evidence outside Scripture to support our points.

If you gave me a verse that convinced me the autographs would be copied without error till today I would drop this good discussion.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Greetings:

StaytheCourse:

For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you, 1 Peter 1:24,25.

Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away, Mark 13:31.

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world, Matt. 28:20.

For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven, Ps. 119:89.

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book. If any man shall add unto these things; God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book, Rev. 22:18,19.

Grace,

-CH

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Bryan,

To answer some of your posts, starting from the top (#109):

Take this article for example, against a Byzantine rendering:

http://www.csntm.org/essays/1thess3.2.pdf

It shows probable smoothing in Byzantine texts. Well-meaning scribes had to make a choice based on what they had as reference and put both known textual variants together.

Notwithstanding your quoting from a well-known text critic (DW), the operative word in your view of this Scripture is “probable”. It is a mere surmise, and that based upon a text critical methodology often (as in “almost always”) in conflict with more substantial evidences, as external attestation. As though the apostles, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, could not write elegant or “smooth” Greek!

You move on:

Or consider John 3:13 KJV

“And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of man which is in heaven.”

The Net Bible says on this: [and we have a quote from it doubting its genuineness — see the earlier post. -SMR]

All those symbols are numbers/letters refer to remarkable old fragments, parts of Bibles, parchments, lexicons, etc. They're in vaults or behind glass somewhere in many cases.

Here, I believe that Jesus was saying He was in Heaven and on Earth simultaneously. For me I see him in the Father in Heaven while walking the Earth. It's a harder read but a good rule of thumb is, "the harder read is may be more accurate to the autograph due to the temptation to smooth for understandability."

Again, you have this “the harder reading is apt to be the genuine one,” an axiom strongly (and effectively) contested as false by many text critics.

It is generally well known that the versions based upon the CT omit the last phrase, “which is in heaven.” There is a ton of second-rate textual theories available on the net (and in books), almost all of it derivative of the Westcott-Hort paradigm. A veritable Critical Text Industry has arisen giving jobs to a multitude of academicians whose bent is the deconstruction of the Traditional Text, as well as publishers making fortunes on what used to be the sacred volume entrusted to the Church – but now in the hands of others.

Bear with me, please, while I post here Rev. John Burgon’s response to the Critical Text of Dr. Hort on this phrase:

At S. John iii. 13, we are informed that the last clause of that famous verse, (‘No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man—which is in heaven’) is not found in ‘many ancient authorities.’ But why, in the name of common fairness, are we not also reminded that this…is a circumstance of no Textual significance whatever?

Why above all, are we not assured that the precious clause in question (o wn en tw ouranw) is found in every MS. in the world, except five of bad character?—is recognized by all the Latin and all the Syriac versions; as well as by the Coptic,—Æthioptic,—and Arminian?—is either quoted or insisted on by Origen,—Hippolytus,—Athanasius,—Didymus,—Aphraates the Persian,—Basil the Great,—Epiphanius,—Nonnus,—ps.-Dionysius Alex.,—Eustathius; —by Chrysostom,—Theodoret,—and Cyril,—each 4 times; —by Paulus, Bishop of Emesa (in a sermon on Christmas day, A.D. 431); —by Theodorus Mops.,—Amphliochius,—Severus,—Theodorus Heracl.,—Basilius Cil.,—Cosmas,—John Damascene, in 3 places,—and 4 other ancient Greek writers; —besides Ambrose,—Novatian,—Hilary,—Lucifer,—Victorinus,—Jerome,—Cassian,—Vigilius,—Zeno,—Marius,—Maximus,—Taur.,—Capreolus,—Augustine, &c.:—is acknowledged by Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf: in short is quite above suspicion: why are we not told that? Those 10 Versions, those 38 Fathers, that host of copies in the proportion of 995 to 5,—why, concerning all these is there not so much as a hint let fall that such a mass of counter-evidence exists?*…. Shame, — yes, shame on the learning which comes abroad only to perplex the weak, and to unsettle the doubting, and to mislead the blind! Shame, — yes, shame on that two-thirds majority of well-intentioned but most incompetent men, who, —finding themselves (in an evil hour) appointed to correct “plain and clear errors” in the English ‘Authorized Version,’ occupied themselves instead with falsifying the inspired Greek Text in countless places, and branding with suspicion some of the most precious utterances of the Spirit! Shame, —yes, shame upon them!

Why then, (it will of course be asked,) is the margin…of S. John iii. 13 encumbered after this discreditable fashion? It is (we answer) only because the Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort is thus depraved in [this] place…Those Scholars enjoy the unenviable distinction of having dared to expel from S. John iii. 13 the words o wn en tw ouranw which Lachmann, Tregelles and Tischendorf were afraid to touch. Well may Dean Stanley have bestowed upon Dr. Hort the epithet of “fearless”!

---------
*[Burgon’s footnote] Let the reader, with a map spread before him, survey the whereabouts of the several Versions above enumerated, and mentally assign each Father to his own approximate locality: then let him bear in mind that 995 out of 1000 of the extant Manuscripts agree with those Fathers and Versions; and let him further recognize that those MSS. (executed at different dates in different countries) must severally represent independent remote originals, inasmuch as no two of them are found to be quite alike. —Next, let him consider that, in all the Churches of the East, these words from the earliest period were read as part of the Gospel for the Thursday in Easter week. —This done, ;et him decide whether it is reasonable that two worshippers of codex B—A.D. 1881—should attempt to thrust all this mass of ancient evidence clean out of sight by their peremptory sentence of exclusion,—‘Western And Syrian.’

Drs. Westcott and Hort inform us that ‘the character of the attestation marks’ the clause (o wn en tw ouranw) ‘as a Western Gloss.’ But the ‘attestation’ for retaining that clause—(a) Comes demonstrably from every quarter of ancient Christendom: —(b) Is more ancient (by 200 years) than the evidence for omitting it: —(c) Is more numerous, in the proportion of 99 to 1: — (d) In point of respectability, stands absolutely alone… [W]e have proved that Origen and Didymus, Epiphanius and Cyril, Ambrose and Jerome, recognize the words in dispute… About the internal evidence for the clause, nothing has been said; but this is simply overwhelming. We make our appeal to Catholic Antiquity; and are content to rest our cause on External Evidence; —on Copies, on Versions, on Fathers. (From Burgon's, The Revision Revised, pp. 132-135)​

-------------

While there may be a few more mss discoveries available which bear on this verse than in Burgon's day, the proportion will remain the same, as it is a question of the majority text and the fractional variants. If need be, we will discuss Hort's (now defunct and widely discredited) "Antiochian rescension theory," in which he attempted to discredit the overwhelming numerical superiority — and "weightiness" — of the Traditional or Byzantine textform.

Bryan, regarding your “favorite scribal editory addition” (Mark 16:9-20), may I suggest looking at this post on the topic.

Are you familiar with Rev. John William Burgon’s writings? You may find them interesting, albeit against the grain of much lesser quality stuff which abounds.

Steve