McCurleys Challenge

[Jes_Car]

Recently on the World Magazine with Jeff Riddle podcast episode 258, pastor McCurley challenged modern text scholars to bring an argument defending the use of modern texts. There is another thread in this podcast but it is very convoluted with many different rabbit tails so I am posting my transcription of the challenge and asking for a response. Please forgive me if I didn’t copy it down word for word.

David Wilson:
Do you think in order to strictly subscribe to the confession then it would be inconsistent to hold to the modern text and modern translations?

Pastor McCurley:
That is correct.

David Wilson:
What would you say if someone gave you some push back and said you are being to narrow brother?

Pastor McCurley:
It is similiar to what you said earlier, to narrow? You know it doesn’t really say anything. So any time we assert a claim, it automatically eliminates those competing views. We are necessarily narrowing our position. The problem is, are we going to say that the doctrine of providential preservation is applied to all manuscripts? We are really not saying much at that point. Someone without confusing cannonical issues with textual critical issues, someone could say the Pseudepigrapha has been providentially preserved, etc. Right so, the problem I think is de-coupling the language of “by singular care and providence” from the language of “kept pure in all ages”. So when a person wants to say, “oh this just applies to everything” then you are actually de-coupling those two things, the “kept pure in all ages” from the concept of “by singular care and providence”, you following me? So, that requires an argument. So I guess I would say, about this is to narrow, fair enough but give me an argument that will address what I am saying about the de-coupling of these two concepts and without anachronism. When the divines wrote those words they meant something. We have an idea of what they meant on the things they wrote, to be honest I’m just not hearing the competent scholars that are writing all sorts of positions and I haven’t come across anything that I have found cogent or persuasive that actually delivers an argument in regards to this.

I included a link to the podcast and the question begins at 1:18:40.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

My problem with this argument is that, as has been shown with several quotations in the other thread, even (at least many) men of that era didn't claim that this statement meant the TR was without error, or that newer manuscript discoveries were irrelevant. To them, "Kept pure in all ages" did not mean that there was no text-critical work to be done or that manuscript discoveries were irrelevant. It was an expression of confidence in God's care for his word, which I fully affirm. This is why even when I held a TR position I did not like the term "confessional bibliology".

For an example, see this recent article about Goodwin http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2023/01/a-westminster-divine-on-codex.html

Also, For what it's worth I think the reason we don't see a lot of TC scholars addressing this is because unfortunately not many confessionally reformed men are pursuing scholarship in this area. If one is not confessionally reformed, they have no need to worry about this fight over what the WCF means. (Note: This is also why I think it's so odd that many CB proponents emphasize the confession even when talking with non-confessional TC scholars. Sure, it matters what it means if you're confessional, but for the broader conversation no one really cares what the Westminster Divines thought, they care what can be shown to be true).

 

[retroGRAD3]

Both of these books do much on this topic:

The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations?: White, James R., Baird, Dr. Mike: 9780764206054: Amazon.com: Books

The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? [White, James R., Baird, Dr. Mike] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations?

www.amazon.com

The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism: Sturz, Harry: 9781631998065: Amazon.com: Books

The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism [Sturz, Harry] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism

www.amazon.com

 

[Logan]

When the divines wrote those words they meant something. We have an idea of what they meant on the things they wrote, to be honest I’m just not hearing the competent scholars that are writing all sorts of positions and I haven’t come across anything that I have found cogent or persuasive that actually delivers an argument in regards to this.

If this is true, then many of the Divines didn't strictly subscribe to the Confession either.

Warfield answered this directly in the 1800s. I have answered it directly numerous times over the last decade. The claim here by McCurley as to what specifically the Divines must have meant, can be tested. Read their writings instead of continuing to insist that WCF 1:8 means something apart from the historical context and the thoughts of the men who wrote it. Let's test the hypothesis to see if the men who wrote it thought what their statement means. And when we do, the hypothesis fails to pass the test. See the post linked below:

McCurley Responds to Keister

i enjoy a good TR thread but I don’t know the aim of this thread (if there is one) and when it ought to be headed.

www.puritanboard.com

Yet every time I bring this up, it seems to be merely glossed over and the original (erroneous) anachronistic interpretation repeated. We don't have to guess what they meant: they told us. And it clearly cannot mean what the TR proponents insist it must, or else the very men who wrote it didn't understand it.

 

[Jes_Car]

Gentlemen, I did want this to be separate from the other thread. I am not asking for books to study or side stepping arguments on why this challenge cannot be answered.

 

[Jes_Car]

If this is true, then many of the Divines didn't strictly subscribe to the Confession either.

Warfield answered this directly in the 1800s. I have answered it directly numerous times over the last decade. The claim here by McCurley as to what specifically the Divines must have meant, can be tested. Read their writings instead of continuing to insist that WCF 1:8 means something apart from the historical context and the thoughts of the men who wrote it. Let's test the hypothesis to see if the men who wrote it thought what their statement means. And when we do, the hypothesis fails to pass the test. See the post linked below:

McCurley Responds to Keister

i enjoy a good TR thread but I don’t know the aim of this thread (if there is one) and when it ought to be headed.

www.puritanboard.com

Yet every time I bring this up, it seems to be merely glossed over and the original (erroneous) anachronistic interpretation repeated. We don't have to guess what they meant: they told us. And it clearly cannot mean what the TR proponents insist it must, or else the very men who wrote it didn't understand it.

Logan you have very good arguments and I appreciate what you have brought to the table but I am understanding you correct to say the challenge cannot be answered with out anachronism?

 

[Logan]

Logan you have very good arguments and I appreciate what you have brought to the table but I am understanding you correct to say the challenge cannot be answered with out anachronism?

No, I'm saying that the challenge itself contains anachronistic assumptions that are simply repeated without ever being proven. Actually, in spite of being disproven repeatedly for hundreds of years.

 

[Jes_Car]

No, I'm saying that the challenge itself contains anachronistic assumptions that are simply repeated without ever being proven. Actually, in spite of being disproven repeatedly for hundreds of years.

Ok I hear you, are you also saying regarding your quotes from divines that the modern texts should be considered a great discovery then we can move from being considered a great discovery to being used? And then they can be made to be the preeminent texts used over ones we’ve had for centuries?

 

[Logan]

Ok I hear you, are you also saying regarding your quotes from divines that the modern texts should be considered a great discovery then we can move from being considered a great discovery to being used? And then they can be made to be the preeminent texts used over ones we’ve had for centuries?

No, I've not said anything regarding that here. I think the current traditional text line of reasoning makes the mistake of thinking that it's either all down to "using Scrivener's 1894" on the one hand and "using corrupt Alexandrian texts" on the other, as though there is no in between. Certainly none of the Reformers or Puritans I've read would have been one or the other. They were textual critics (unlike some traditional text proponents today), but cautious textual critics (unlike some CT proponents today).

I'm not a CT proponent. I think the "modern texts" should be considered (as all manuscripts should be) but not replace. I have great admiration for the methodology propounded by Maurice Robinson and would highly recommend reading his critiques of textual criticism and proposed textual methodology.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Both of these books do much on this topic:

The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations?: White, James R., Baird, Dr. Mike: 9780764206054: Amazon.com: Books

The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? [White, James R., Baird, Dr. Mike] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations?

www.amazon.com

The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism: Sturz, Harry: 9781631998065: Amazon.com: Books

The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism [Sturz, Harry] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism

www.amazon.com

In my opinion, I can think of few books on this topic that have done more to muddy the waters than White's.

My meager contribution to this conversation will be from the introduction to the second volume of Muller's Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, as I came across it this morning and thought it was very relevant to this discussion (emphasis his). I hope it is edifying.

The Protestant doctrine of Scripture and its relationship to the movement from Reformation to orthodoxy have received more attention than virtually any other theological issues in the early history of Protestantism. The implications of the Reformers' views on Scripture for theology and church have been subjected to intense scrutiny, and the character both of the Reformation and of Protestant orthodoxy has been assessed by numerous authors in the light of comparisons and contrasts between sixteenth- and seventeenth-century approaches to Scripture. Despite all of this attention, however, historians and theologians have come no closer to a convincing presentation and analysis of the Protestant orthodox formulation of this doctrinal point than they have to a clear and balanced discussion of other elements of seventeenth-century theology system. Altogether too much of the discussion of the Reformation and Protestant orthodox doctrines of Scripture has approached the subject from theologically biased perspectives and with the specific intention of justifying one or another nineteenth- or twentieth-century view of Scripture. This problem of a theological grid for understanding the older Protestant view of Scripture is fundamental to the distinctions made in most of the older histories of Protestantism between "formal" and "material" principles of the Reformation and to the related notion of central dogmas. Of course, a discontinuity between the Reformers and the Protestant orthodox on the doctrine of Scripture ought not to give theologians an excuse for rejecting one view and adopting the other as a basis for their present-day theological musings — any more than a continuity between the teachings of the Reformers and the doctrines of Protestant orthodoxy can become a legitimate reason for accepting the doctrines of older Protestantism in and for the present without any further ado. The historical and the theological tasks must remain separate.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Sure, it matters what it means if you're confessional, but for the broader conversation no one really cares what the Westminster Divines thought, they care what can be shown to be true).

I know you posted about Godwin. I am sure you can post what Owen said pro and con. This kind of mudslinging is what is what is wrong here in my estimation.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

I know you posted about Godwin. I am sure you can post what Owen said pro and con. This kind of mudslinging is what is what is wrong here in my estimation.

I apologize brother, I don’t understand what in my post was “mudslinging”. Nothing I said was meant as an attack, simply pointing out what I perceive to be a disconnect in the conversation.

 

[retroGRAD3]

In my opinion, I can think of few books on this topic that have done more to muddy the waters than White's

Have you read the book? It would be interesting to know what you thought was confusing. I thought it was pretty straightforward and well documented.

 

[RamistThomist]

Have you read the book? It would be interesting to know what you thought was confusing. I thought it was pretty straightforward and well documented.

I favorably reviewed it here

The King James Only Controversy (James White)

If you love the Textus Receptus for what it is, you should not have a problem with this book. James White acknowledges the value of the Textus Receptus and even the King James Version at times. What is problematic is the cult-like character of some King James Only advocates. White begins with...

www.puritanboard.com

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I read the KJVO Controversy by White thirty years ago probably. White places JP Green in the same camp as Riplinger and other nut jobs. I confronted him on that because he was wrong and he wouldn't relent. That was through this board many moons ago. I new Jay then. Theodore Letis drew White's credentials into question as well as some of his teaching on the topic. I am not a big White fan on this topic. There are much better authors from the Eclectic side. It has been too long ago

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

but for the broader conversation no one really cares what the Westminster Divines thought, they care what can be shown to be true).

I think I misread your intention here brother. I read 'broader conversation' as relating to this board instead of Christianity in the broader sense. That might be true here too. LOL. I thought you were taking a jab at those on the board who hold to Perseverance as not caring about what the Divine's wrote outside of the Confession. We just want the facts in other words. Just misread it most likely. Sorry.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

I think I misread your intention here brother. I read 'broader conversation' as relating to this board instead of Christianity in the broader sense. That might be true here too. LOL. I thought you were taking a jab at those on the board who hold to Perseverance as not caring about what the Divine's wrote outside of the Confession. We just want the facts in other words. Just misread it most likely. Sorry.

Ah, yes I apologize for the confusion. I did not have members of this board in mind with that statement.

 

[RamistThomist]

I read the KJVO Controversy by White thirty years ago probably. White places JP Green in the same camp as Riplinger and other nut jobs. I confronted him on that because he was wrong and he wouldn't relent. That was through this board many moons ago. I new Jay then. Theodore Letis drew White's credentials into question as well as some of his teaching on the topic. I am not a big White fan on this topic. There are much better authors from the Eclectic side. It has been too long ago

I have huge problems with James White, but either the propositions in my review are true or they are not.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Problems with the KJV

Acts 5:30. Did they kill Jesus and then hang him on a tree? Or did they, as the modern translations note, kill him by hanging him on a tree (225)?

1 Chronicles 5:26. The KJV at best is misleading. It makes it seem like Pul is co-ruler with Tiglath Pileser. At worst it is simply wrong. As the NASB notes, Pul is Tiglath.



Just from observing the first two problems concerning the KJV (as a translation) aren't really problems, are they Jacob? The Word slew is not a bad translation before the hanging on the cross. The order isn't problematic. Just observing the second point I just quickly went to

Keil and DeLitzch.
1Ch_5:25 and 1Ch_5:26 form the conclusion of the register of the two and a half trans-Jordanic tribes. The sons of Manasseh are not the subject to וַיִּמְעֲלוּ, but the Reubenites and Manassites, as is clear from 1Ch_5:26. These fell away faithlessly from the God of their fathers, and went a whoring after the gods of the people of the land, whom God had destroyed before them, i.e., the Amorites or Canaanites. “And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of the Assyrian kings Pul and Tiglath-pilneser, and he (this latter) led them away captives to Halah and Habor,” etc. אֶת־רוּחַ וַיָּעַר, Lavater has rightly rendered, “in mentem illis dedit, movit eos, ut expeditionem facerent contra illos;” cf. 2Ch_21:16. Pul is mentioned as being the first Assyrian king who attacked the land of Israel, cf. 2Ki_15:19. The deportation began, however, only with Tiglath-pileser, who led the East-Jordan tribes into exile, 2Ki_15:29. To him וַיַּגְלֵם sing. refers. The suffix is defined by the following acc., וגו לָרעוּבֵנִי; לְ is, according to the later usage, nota acc.; cf. Ew. §277, e. So also before the name חֲלַח, “to Halah,” i.e., probably the district Καλαχήνη (in Strabo) on the east side of the Tigris near Adiabene, to the north of Nineveh, on the frontier of Armenia (cf. on 2Ki_17:6). In the second book of Kings (1Ch_15:29) the district to which the two and a half tribes were sent as exiles is not accurately determined, being only called in general Asshur (Assyria). The names in our verse are there (2Ki_17:6) the names of the districts to which Shalmaneser sent the remainder of the ten tribes after the destruction of the kingdom of Israel. It is therefore questionable whether the author of the Chronicle took his account from an authority used by him, or if he names these districts only according to general recollection, in which the times of Shalmaneser and of Tiglath-pileser are not very accurately distinguished (Berth.). We consider the first supposition the more probable, not merely because he inverts the order of the names, but mainly because he gives the name הָרָא instead of “the cities of Media,” as it is in Kings, and that name he could only have obtained from his authorities. חָבֹור is not the river Chaboras in Mesopotamia, which falls into the Euphrates near Circesium, for that river is called in Ezekiel כְּבַר, but is a district in northern Assyria, where Jakut mentions that there is both a mountain Χαβώρας on the frontier of Assyria and Media (Ptolem. vi. 1), and a river Khabur Chasaniae, which still bears the old name Khâbur, rising in the neighbourhood of the upper Zab, near Amadijeh, and falling into the Tigris below Jezirah. This Khâbur is the river of Gozan (vide on 2Ki_17:6). The word הָרָא appears to be the Aramaic form of the Hebrew הָר, mountains, and the vernacular designation usual in the mouths of the people of the mountain land of Media, which is called also in Arabic el Jebâl (the mountains). This name can therefore only have been handed down from the exiles who dwelt there.

I love how you read and draw conclusions Jacob. You are a wealth of observation. I really love this passage as of late.

Pro 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

 

[iainduguid]

Problems with the KJV

Acts 5:30. Did they kill Jesus and then hang him on a tree? Or did they, as the modern translations note, kill him by hanging him on a tree (225)?

1 Chronicles 5:26. The KJV at best is misleading. It makes it seem like Pul is co-ruler with Tiglath Pileser. At worst it is simply wrong. As the NASB notes, Pul is Tiglath.



Just from observing the first two problems concerning the KJV (as a translation) aren't really problems, are they Jacob? The Word slew is not a bad translation before the hanging on the cross. The order isn't problematic. Just observing the second point I just quickly went to

Keil and DeLitzch.
1Ch_5:25 and 1Ch_5:26 form the conclusion of the register of the two and a half trans-Jordanic tribes. The sons of Manasseh are not the subject to וַיִּמְעֲלוּ, but the Reubenites and Manassites, as is clear from 1Ch_5:26. These fell away faithlessly from the God of their fathers, and went a whoring after the gods of the people of the land, whom God had destroyed before them, i.e., the Amorites or Canaanites. “And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of the Assyrian kings Pul and Tiglath-pilneser, and he (this latter) led them away captives to Halah and Habor,” etc. אֶת־רוּחַ וַיָּעַר, Lavater has rightly rendered, “in mentem illis dedit, movit eos, ut expeditionem facerent contra illos;” cf. 2Ch_21:16. Pul is mentioned as being the first Assyrian king who attacked the land of Israel, cf. 2Ki_15:19. The deportation began, however, only with Tiglath-pileser, who led the East-Jordan tribes into exile, 2Ki_15:29. To him וַיַּגְלֵם sing. refers. The suffix is defined by the following acc., וגו לָרעוּבֵנִי; לְ is, according to the later usage, nota acc.; cf. Ew. §277, e. So also before the name חֲלַח, “to Halah,” i.e., probably the district Καλαχήνη (in Strabo) on the east side of the Tigris near Adiabene, to the north of Nineveh, on the frontier of Armenia (cf. on 2Ki_17:6). In the second book of Kings (1Ch_15:29) the district to which the two and a half tribes were sent as exiles is not accurately determined, being only called in general Asshur (Assyria). The names in our verse are there (2Ki_17:6) the names of the districts to which Shalmaneser sent the remainder of the ten tribes after the destruction of the kingdom of Israel. It is therefore questionable whether the author of the Chronicle took his account from an authority used by him, or if he names these districts only according to general recollection, in which the times of Shalmaneser and of Tiglath-pileser are not very accurately distinguished (Berth.). We consider the first supposition the more probable, not merely because he inverts the order of the names, but mainly because he gives the name הָרָא instead of “the cities of Media,” as it is in Kings, and that name he could only have obtained from his authorities. חָבֹור is not the river Chaboras in Mesopotamia, which falls into the Euphrates near Circesium, for that river is called in Ezekiel כְּבַר, but is a district in northern Assyria, where Jakut mentions that there is both a mountain Χαβώρας on the frontier of Assyria and Media (Ptolem. vi. 1), and a river Khabur Chasaniae, which still bears the old name Khâbur, rising in the neighbourhood of the upper Zab, near Amadijeh, and falling into the Tigris below Jezirah. This Khâbur is the river of Gozan (vide on 2Ki_17:6). The word הָרָא appears to be the Aramaic form of the Hebrew הָר, mountains, and the vernacular designation usual in the mouths of the people of the mountain land of Media, which is called also in Arabic el Jebâl (the mountains). This name can therefore only have been handed down from the exiles who dwelt there.

I love how you read and draw conclusions Jacob. You are a wealth of observation. I really love this passage as of late.

Pro 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Keil and Delitzsch is a bit dated here. It is now generally recognized, based on a significant amount of cuneiform evidence (which was not available in the 19th century), that Pul was the Babylonian name of Tiglath Pileser III (see e.g. House on 2 Kings and Knoppers on Chronicles). Japhet points out that the verb following the two objects is 1 Chron 5:26 is singular ("he exiled them"). The most natural reading of 1 Chronicles 5:26 is thus undoubtedly "The God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul, the King of Assyria - i.e. Tiglath-Pileser, the king of Assyria - and he took them into exile..." (treating the vav as an epexegetical vav; see Waltke-O'Connor, IHBS, 39.2.4).

Having said that, if I was compliling a list of issues with the KJV, this would be unlikely to make the list. Even if the KJV is wrong, it is grammatically defensible, and it's a bit unfair to critique the translators based on knowledge not available to them.

 

[iainduguid]

I found this article fascinating. The author argues that Thomas Goodwin explicitly departs from the TR in a number of cases, as well as arguing for the inclusion of older manuscript readings. If the author is right, it seems a very relevant contribution to the debate.

A Westminster Divine and an Alexandrian Codex

At the heart of the critique of modern Bible versions by some in the Reformed world is their assessment of the Greek manuscripts on which they are based.

gentlereformation.com

 

[RamistThomist]

Just from observing the first two problems concerning the KJV (as a translation) aren't really problems, are they Jacob? The Word slew is not a bad translation before the hanging on the cross. The order isn't problematic

Jesus died after they hung him on the cross, not before.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Jesus died after they hung him on the cross, not before.

Okay, you are not listening Jacob. They did slew him before they put him on the cross. They slaughtered Jesus before they hung him on the cross.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

Okay, you are not listening Jacob. They did slew him before they put him on the cross. They slaughtered Jesus before they hung him on the cross.

Slay: v.t. to kill violently, wantonly, or in great numbers
Slaughter: v.t. to kill in a bloody or violent manner

So they killed Jesus before they crucified Him? Please explain.

 

[VictorBravo]

Okay, you are not listening Jacob. They did slew him before they put him on the cross. They slaughtered Jesus before they hung him on the cross.

Scratching my head, brother. Jesus was talking to people while on the cross, so he obviously had not been slain.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Scratching my head, brother. Jesus was talking to people while on the cross, so he obviously had not been slain.

Thanks Vic. Can you give me a breakdown of the greek word in this passage? I understand that Jesus hadn't been slain as in dead till the cross. Thanks Vic.

 

[VictorBravo]

Thanks Vic. Can you give me a breakdown of the greek word in this passage? I understand that Jesus hadn't been slain as in dead till the cross. Thanks Vic.

Glad that is clear.

You are asking about the Greek translated either as "slew and hanged on a tree" (KJV) or "killed by hanging him on a tree" (ESV).

There are two words in Greek: διεχειρίσασθε κρεμάσαντες

It could also be translated as "seized violently and hung on a tree."

I don't think it is a big deal because we know the time and method of our Lord's execution.

 

[retroGRAD3]

Glad that is clear.

You are asking about the Greek translated either as "slew and hanged on a tree" (KJV) or "killed by hanging him on a tree" (ESV).

There are two words in Greek: διεχειρίσασθε κρεμάσαντες

It could also be translated as "seized violently and hung on a tree."

I don't think it is a big deal because we know the time and method of our Lord's execution.

It does appear that the ESV has the better translation of the Greek in this instance. The KJV appears flat out wrong.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

It does appear that the ESV has the better translation of the Greek in this instance. The KJV appears flat out wrong.

I am looking at the greek and seeing more process than mere death. It really shouldn't be a point in my estimation. KJVO is not TR nor the position of anyone on this board as far as I know. It is a gnat in the process of straining something out but allowing the Camel to pass right down.

 

[greenbaggins]

My response to the video:

26:40 Riddle apparently believes that if you are not CB, then you are accepting ALL the supposedly "liberal" conclusions of modern textual critics. Put more simply, a person can only be CB or liberal. This is a false dichotomy.

32:15 It is merely asserted that the doctrine of preservation cannot apply to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. The only thing approaching a reason is that these manuscripts were out of use in the church. This is a statement that has never been proven Scripturally by the CB position: that being in use is a sine qua non of preservation of manuscripts. This has much more the appearance of an ad hoc argument. Furthermore, they have no evidence that these manuscripts were not in use in the church. Usually, when I ask this question of a CB'er, the response is "the current textual situation proves this." It proves nothing of the sort. For one thing, we do have Alexandrian manuscripts in evidence which appear to be related to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, at the very least suggesting that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were copied (notice here that the CB'ers always resort to genealogical arguments here to discredit Sinaiticus and Vaticanus: oh the irony!). Secondly, for the immediate centuries after their creation, we have silence about their use. We don't know how much they were used in the church or not, except for the evidence I have just cited, which suggests that they were at least copied. The CB'ers are far more confident about Sinaiticus and Vaticanus's disuse than they have a right to be. They point to the time when they were out of the public eye as definitive for those manuscripts' entire existence, when they have no such evidence.

32:40 Riddle also claims that S and V were not the basis of textual use in the church. This is almost certainly not true, as noted above.

33:15 Riddle claims that S and V were "set aside." No doubt he holds to the same canard about these two manuscripts that I have seen over and over again: the idea that S and V were "rejected" because of their supposedly errant readings. There is absolutely no evidence of this. There is no Medieval manuscript saying "we reject S and V because of their errant views." It is pure speculation that they were "set aside." As I have said many times already now, the Alexandrian manuscripts would most likely have been far more numerous had not Muslim invasions come.

1:12:35 Rob basically justifies any level of rhetoric potentially by saying that if we do restrict our rhetoric, then that would rule out saying anything. Ironically, he then "polices" my rhetoric by saying "if you leave out the bluster." Presumably this means he thinks I shouldn't have used bluster. This does not seem to be a level playing field here. Rhetoric is justified on their side, no matter how much offence people may take to it, but rhetoric is not justified on the other side of the debate.

1:18:00 Rob's fundamental challenge to the non-CB'ers goes like this: if we say that all the manuscripts were kept providentially by God, then that would be no different from how other ancient manuscripts were preserved. If there is no difference, then we are de-coupling two phrases in WCF 1.8 that need to be kept together: "kept pure in all ages" and "by His singular care and providence." Or, to put it another way, God's providence in keeping the Bible pure in all ages looks different than the providential preservation of any text other than the Bible. My answer to this would be as follows: looking at the state of manuscripts of the NT compared with the state of manuscripts in the case of other texts already points to "singular care and providence" and being different than any other ancient text. We are ever so much more certain of the text of the NT than the next best-attested ancient manuscript, which is Homer. His argument also assumes something that almost every CB'er does, and which is false: that all other textual positions believe the TR is utterly useless, and hopelessly inaccurate. This is not true at all, and this is why other positions than the CB can confess that God has by His singular care and providence kept the text of Scripture pure in all ages. We don't denigrate any manuscript of the NT, and can quite confidently assert that the TR is God's Word without qualification just as much as the CT. In fact, we hold to this phrase more accurately than the CB folk do, because we can affirm the purity of the manuscripts in ages the CB'ers can't: the fourth and fifth centuries, when the Byzantine mss hardly outnumbered the Alexandrian. The CB position basically assumes that the Byzantine (and not even all of those!) manuscripts were the purity of all ages. This is speculative for the early centuries, since many of the church fathers support non-Byzantine readings on occasion, and in fact often support Alexandrian readings. The CB position is thus geographically limited. While the Byzantine readings are much older than WH thought, they were not widespread in the early church.

1:22:30 As has been pointed out already in previous threads, he is operating on an out of date version of my critique of the book.