Jimmy, I have interacted with an essay of Dr. Wallace on this topic extensively
here and also
here (some repeat of the previous material, but more succinct). Perhaps you know that Dr. Wallace does not hold to the doctrine of Scripture being providentially preserved, which is problematic, as Scripture does promise that. Here are some “myth busters” re Erasmus by David Cloud:
Myth # 1: Erasmus Was A Humanist
Myth # 2: Reformation Editors Lacked Sufficient Manuscript Evidence
And there will be more on Erasmus below. Sorry, Jimmy, to send you to other places via links, but it wouldn't do to bulk up this thread with such.
Logan, thanks for going to the trouble to write out how you see things. A slight nuance I would introduce regarding a statement of yours – “However, with you, I do believe Bibles based on the critical text to be the very word of God, and have no problem using the ESV or NASB for example” – I could affirm they are “the very word of God”
insofar as they translated accurately from an intact Greek text that had no omissions or changes from the preserved edition. For example, when the ESV says in Matthew 1:7, 10 that Jesus Christ was descended from Asaph and from Amos rather than Asa and Amon it is decidedly
not the “very word of God”! This kind of error in the very first page of the NT is not an auspicious beginning!
When you say, “At no point do I believe God's people have been without his word. But preservation to the very word and stroke I have not been able to accept”, I would agree with you that not all had this. And more on it in a moment.
When you talk about the Byzantine Text (which is virtually synonymous with the Majority Text, as this latter is comprised almost entirely of Byz mss) it is important to have an idea of its transmission history, the best treatment of which I have found
here in Dr. Wilbur Pickering’s
The Identity of the New Testament Text II (taken from his
chapter 5).
When you talk of Erasmus’ access to only “half a dozen manuscripts” you are repeating a myth perpetuated up through the halls of sloppy scholarship! I think the link I posted for Jimmy above on the myth that “Reformation Editors Lacked Sufficient Manuscript Evidence” would speak to that! And an informative post here:
Concerning Erasmus.
You ask a pertinent question on the availability of a perfectly preserved text: “did everyone up to this point not have ‘jot and tittle’ the very word of God?”
The question has also been put in these terms, “If only the Greek Byzantine was the providentially preserved text, what about the other locations in the world that had a different text-type – did they not have a preserved and adequate Bible?” And I would answer:
There is a preserving of the text, and there is a preserving of the text — the latter where its integrity is held even to minute readings not granted the former. That the former was nonetheless efficacious is analogous to the Bibles based upon the CT being efficacious to save and edify God’s people today, as witnessed by the multitudes regenerated and brought to maturity through those who use the NIV, NASB, ESV etc. The
minute preservation occurred in the primary edition (the Masoretic Hebrew and the Greek TR and their King James translation) which was to serve the English-speaking people and the translations created for the vast missionary work they undertook, which impacted the entire world. There was a progression in the purifying of the text, so as to almost (and some say completely) perfectly reconstitute the original manuscripts of the apostles, even as there has been, in the area of theology, a restoration of apostolic doctrine, which also went through phases of deterioration and eventual renewal.
Thus, even those areas of the church which were non-Greek-speaking also had a “preserved text”—as do multitudes in this present day—though their texts were not “minutely preserved.” The texts they had were efficacious unto the salvation of souls and the sustaining of the churches. The distinction is between an
adequate preservation as distinguished from preservation in the
minutiae.
As regarding the Lord’s promise to preserve His Scripture (Matt 24:35; Isaiah 59:21; etc), many times the people of God have not understood how a prophecy was to be fulfilled until it was a done thing, and then they looked backward to see how He had worked. It is thus in observing how He fulfilled His promise to preserve His word. When the Lord prophesies, does it have to come about instantly? Is there not sometimes progression, as in the development seen in the Olivet discourse of events from the time Jerusalem fell till the time of the end?
Concerning the statement in the Westminster Confession, 1:8
The Old Testament in Hebrew... and the New Testament in Greek... being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical...
there is the issue that Benjamin Warfield introduced a new understanding of this section differing from that of the framers, but this is not pertinent at this point. What I want to address concerns what this “kept pure in all ages” entailed. Does it mean that there was a pure text – intact in the sense of the autographic documents – in all generations and all locales? Does it mean every generation and geographical area had an equivalent of an autographic copy? I do not believe so. I believe this means that
the Lord kept the true readings of the autographic Hebrew and Greek extant in all ages; when in certain textual traditions (I am thinking of the Greek here) some readings were removed they were retained elsewhere – and later restored to the Greek by His providence. The Hebrew and Greek copies – the apographs – the WCF divines had in hand exemplified this.
What you said about Paul Ferguson "cherry picking" his quotes I wonder at. Of course he will find those who illustrate his point, and he contends they are by far in the main; can you counter that with opposing quotes from those time periods?
A view that has come to my attention is the verbal plenary preservation view (VPP). Upon initially hearing of it I thought that as regards the NT it could only have been accomplished through the Waldenses, something which needs further investigation. I have written before (here on PB) of Frederick Nolan and his investigation into the old Italick version. I have studied the Waldensian history before, and this is interesting. From
this post (which includes the citations) on Frederick Nolan’s scholarship – and his hunt for ancient mss containing 1 John 5:7 – I excerpt re the Waldensian text:
“To conclude Nolan’s contribution to our investigation on what is authentic and what is false regarding the texts, some of his own conclusions are drawn from his preface:
Another point to which the author has directed his attention, has been the old Italick translation…on this subject, the author perceived, without any labour of inquiry, that it derived its name from that diocese, which has been termed the Italick, as contradistinguished from the Roman. This is a supposition, which receives a sufficient confirmation from the fact,—that the principal copies of that version have been preserved in that diocese, the metropolitan church of which was situated in Milan. The circumstance is at present mentioned, as the authour thence formed a hope, that some remains of the primitive Italick version might be found in the early translations made by the Waldenses, who were the lineal descendants of the Italick Church; and who have asserted their independence against the usurpations of the Church of Rome, and have ever enjoyed the free use of the Scriptures. In the search to which these considerations have led the authour, his fondest expectations have been fully realized. It has furnished him with abundant proof on that point to which his Inquiry was chiefly directed; as it has supplied him with the unequivocal testimony of a truly apostolical branch of the primitive church, that the celebrated text of the heavenly witnesses was adopted in the version which prevailed in the Latin Church, previously to the introduction of the Modern Vulgate. [5] [Emphasis added]
In a lengthy footnote at this point, he documents the progress of the text of this primitive Italick version up into the mountain communities of the Waldenses and into the French language in a number of texts, and he states, “It thus easily made its way into Wicklef’s translation, through the Lollards, who were disciples of the Waldenses.” [Emphasis added] [6]”
There have been scholarly studies done on topics such as,
When The KJV Departs From The “Majority Text”, by Jack Moorman, and,
Where the King James Bible Leaves the Greek Text of Theodore Beza 1598, by Kirk DiVietro. These are available from Bible For Today, along with many other rare studies.
Let me end the post with this thought:
As though there were anything unscholarly or wrong with asserting that the Lord will preserve His word, seeing as man does not live by bread alone, but by “
every word” that proceeds out of the mouth of God (cf. Matt 4:4). As though the Almighty cannot preserve His word – which he has magnified above all His name (Ps 138:2 AV) – when He has preserved our lives and selves down to the very atoms that would comprise us these many aeons since He conceived us in His mind before the foundation of the world!
Consider this: In eternity past in God's omniscience He knew you before ever He created you; fast forward through the creation, the fall in the garden, the long centuries of mayhem and destruction, the toxins introduced increasingly with the advent of the industrial age, the havoc wrought in the human gene pool — and yet through all this, He preserved those molecules and atoms, those strands of DNA and genetic information, that would eventually comprise the person you now are,
and all other human beings! From His eternal vision of you to your creation and development in time, you are the very person He envisioned before the creation of the world. Talk about providential preservation – down to very molecules and genes! Is this not far more complex a feat than preserving a Book of writings intact through around three millennia? Okay, there was a concerted effort to destroy this Book by the prince of demons, so that made it more complex; but the thought still stands: if He could bring the exact you into being, could He not bring His Book?
If you exist, why should not a providentially preserved Bible?
As though it were a far-fetched thing to trust that God could and did preserve His word intact in the texts underlying the faithfully translated English AV, and gave us in the English a Bible that has extreme fidelity to the providentially preserved apographs. In this day, I suppose, disapproval comes from “the wise and the prudent” and upon His “babes” – His trusting children (Matt 11:25).
About the “English” you mention: It is now pretty much the universal language – and the language of scholarship in most countries around the world. The Greek TR that was the basis for the English KJV was used to translate God’s word into many languages so that the English missionaries could bring the glory of the Gospel of God’s grace to vast multitudes. God used the English-speaking peoples and their Bible to great effect.
More concerning
The Waldenses and the Bible (caveat: some of the material was written by Benjamin Wilkinson, who was a Seventh Day Adventist and published
Our Authorized Bible Vindicated in 1930, though I would venture to say he was more sound that the apostate Anglican scholars Westcott and Hort, and if his history is accurate, that is what counts).
what are you implying that it is some sort psychological ploy on my part 
