This KJVO article has ruined the ESV for me :-(

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can you sight some of this for me Jake? I would love some references for your assertion. Is this Jerome's Vulgate?

I had a Roman Catholic assert that Jerome also included the Apocrypha as Scripture. I had to show him the truth of the matter. Jerome believed there were 66 books of the Bible only. He did translate the Apocrypha but didn't consider them Scripture.
 
Far be it from me to question the judgment of the KJV scholars who chose how to translate their sources, or which to judge as trustworthy.

Part of the controversy, though, stems from the multiplicity of sources which we have and which weren'tr available to the 1611 translators. As pointed out, they were using Erasmus' Greek NT which was compiled by one individual. Their sources for translation, then, were Erasmus' NT with other translations and the Vulgate as reference for hard-to-translate passages.

Not to mention that part of Erasmus' NT was back-translated from the Vulgate anyway (the latter part of Revelation was not available to him).

This is an assertion, not a fact. It is similar to the fictional account of Erasmus' deal to include 1 Jn 5:7. It's best to stay away from such fraudulent stories.
 
This is an assertion, not a fact. It is similar to the fictional account of Erasmus' deal to include 1 Jn 5:7. It's best to stay away from such fraudulent stories.

Nonetheless, the fact that the TR is the result of precisely one scholar's work with one textual tradition out of several means that we should at least think twice about it.
 
This is an assertion, not a fact. It is similar to the fictional account of Erasmus' deal to include 1 Jn 5:7. It's best to stay away from such fraudulent stories.

Nonetheless, the fact that the TR is the result of precisely one scholar's work with one textual tradition out of several means that we should at least think twice about it.

One scholar's work? Poor Elzevir brothers, Beza and others who worked on it. To claim it is the product of solely one scholar's work is to ignore history. One textual tradition agreed. However, it is from the textual tradition that has been in continual use throughout the history of the church unlike the CT which is comprised of a textual tradition abandoned by Christendom in the middle of the 4th century and re-introduced to Christendom in the late 18th century by atheistic German rationalists. In itself that is more than enough to dismiss the CT and its translations.
 
which is comprised of a textual tradition abandoned by Christendom in the middle of the 4th century

Not true---lost in the Middle Ages, more like (extant copies through the 10th century). This is like claiming that the Peshitta is a bad translation because it never reached Europe until the 19th century.

Poor Elzevir brothers, Beza and others who worked on it. To claim it is the product of solely one scholar's work is to ignore history.

Editors, not compilers. The fact is that within one hundred years of 1611 (well before German textual criticism) there were new editions of the Greek NT that included thousands of variants, even before other textual traditions such as the Alexandrian texts or the Peshitta were rediscovered.

re-introduced to Christendom in the late 18th century by atheistic German rationalists.

German rationalism of the 18th century was overwhelmingly theistic. You're confusing it with France.
 
German rationalism of the 18th century was overwhelmingly theistic. You're confusing it with France.

I will say this Phillip, weren't they both built upon the biblical theology that tried to move away from the scriptural truth of the transcendent? Wasn't there a moving away from the Bible in both situations? From what I have read both were opposed to the miraculous. Maybe I am incorrect. I certainly can be.

Maybe I should take that back. One tried to equate a leap of faith at least. Isn't this where we get existential thought and faith?
 
I will say this Phillip, weren't they both built upon the biblical theology that tried to move away from the scriptural truth of the transcendent? Wasn't there a moving away from the Bible in both situations? From what I have read both were opposed to the miraculous. Maybe I am incorrect. I certainly can be.

Maybe I should take that back. One tried to equate a leap of faith at least. Isn't this where we get existential thought and faith?

German rationalism (Leibniz-style) tended to try and defend the miraculous by showing that natural laws didn't exist. They explained miracles by making everything (and therefore nothing) miraculous.

Existential thought came later as part of the after-effects of Hegelian and Nietzschean thought, both of which were reacting to rationalism.
 
which is comprised of a textual tradition abandoned by Christendom in the middle of the 4th century

Not true---lost in the Middle Ages, more like (extant copies through the 10th century). This is like claiming that the Peshitta is a bad translation because it never reached Europe until the 19th century.

Poor Elzevir brothers, Beza and others who worked on it. To claim it is the product of solely one scholar's work is to ignore history.

Editors, not compilers. The fact is that within one hundred years of 1611 (well before German textual criticism) there were new editions of the Greek NT that included thousands of variants, even before other textual traditions such as the Alexandrian texts or the Peshitta were rediscovered.

re-introduced to Christendom in the late 18th century by atheistic German rationalists.

German rationalism of the 18th century was overwhelmingly theistic. You're confusing it with France.

I did not say the Alexandrian texts were lost. They were used by the Roman church and even Erasmus had access to the Alexandrian text type via the Roman church. He refused its use. I stated they were abandoned by Christendom around the middle of the 4th century. John William Burgon demonstrated this as have others.

But your claim was that,
Nonetheless, the fact that the TR is the result of precisely one scholar's work
isn't true. Editors or compilers, other men worked on it besides Erasmus.

No, the confusion lies with your understanding of the adjective "theistic" as applied to 18th century German rationalists. What kind of theistic? J.S. Semler, the father of German rationalism, may have been considered "theistic", but his beliefs are atheistic. Specifically his rejection of the divine authority of scripture, of inspiration, authority of the Old and New Testaments, the deity of Christ, et al. Such a belief is atheistic, not theistic. Simply because he is labelled as "theistic" does not make it so. Following such a line of argumentation one could then claim that all atheists are actually theists because one labels them as such. Bertrand Russel, Richard Dawkins, Michael Martin, and Gordon Stein all agree with Semler's views. By your claim that German rationalists of the 18th century were theistic, we may then claim the aforementioned atheists as theistic. Though such German rationalists may be labelled as theists, they implicitly if not explicitly, held to atheism.
 
J.S. Semler, the father of German rationalism

I would consider the father of German rationalism to be Leibniz. At any rate, criticism of the TR predates Semler by a good bit: for example, John Mill and Johann Bengel both noted significant variations in the texts.

Also, just because certain scholars have been less orthodox does not invalidate their observations or their methods with regard to comparison of manuscripts and the attempt to figure out a version of the text that is as close to the original autographs as possible.

By your claim that German rationalists of the 18th century were theistic, we may then claim the aforementioned atheists as theistic.

Absolutely not. Bertrand Russell never claimed to believe in God---Semler did. I'm going merely by the criterion that Semler is honestly reporting his own beliefs, nothing more.

Specifically his rejection of the divine authority of scripture, of inspiration, authority of the Old and New Testaments, the deity of Christ, et al. Such a belief is atheistic, not theistic.

Muslims are theists, but they wouldn't believe this. Theism is not necessarily Christian.
 
There are practical implications here as well. The "omission" of verses as noted in the OP causes problems in group Bible studies, Sunday School classes and the like when people are using different versions. Sometimes you'll have a jump from v. 15 to v. 17 or whatever. (If the vast majority of people are using the ESV, for example, then obviously this is far less problematic.) I don't think conformity to one version should necessarily be mandated, but the current situation necessitates checking half a dozen versions prior to teaching a class lest one risk getting sidetracked with textual issues too frequently. Even then it's often unavoidable. But at least the teacher won't be blindsided like I was on one occasion in which I called on a person to read a verse and the response was that that verse wasn't in her version. At least with the versions that use brackets like the NASB and the HCSB, (as I understand it, not being very familiar with the HCSB) the "questionable" passages are still in the text more frequently than with the ESV and NIV. In some cases, this is not necessarily even a CT/TR issue, as confusion can ensue when one person's ESV doesn't have a verse but his friend sitting next to him with an NASB does have it.

If translators are going to be so hard line as to put whole verses in the margin rather than in brackets, then why not do the same with the "longer" ending of Mark and the Pericope (the woman taken in adultery) as well? Most hardline CT people are convinced that neither are original, or that in any case are fairly certain that the Pericope most likely wasn't originally where it is now. The liberals who translated the RSV originally had Mark 16:9-20 in the margin in the first edition of the NT (1946) but put it back in the text with a note in the 2nd edition.

Also, why not recite the Lord's Prayer but while doing so omit the last phrase that the CT omits (omission with respect to the traditional form) if one is convinced that it represents a later scribal addition to the text? I've actually been in one OPC congregation that did this, reading it from the ESV, If I recall correctly. That's something which some would no doubt assert is unconfessional. (I noted this in a previous thread and If I recall correctly that was Rev. Winzer's response and/or was someone else's who holds a similar view.)

If I'm not mistaken, you also have phrases that were "omitted" or put in the margin in earlier versions of the NASB but were later put back into the text in later editions. My understanding is that this happens with the various editions of UBS/Nestle. In other cases, I suppose the translators may just change their mind in the course of revising a translation as I wouldn't think that any major CT translation slavishly follows the latest critical text in every instance. Given this state of flux, it would seem to me that the conservatism represented by NKJV would be preferable as a modern translation. That's the one I use, for that reason as well as stylistic/literary preference.

If one is so convinced that verses that the critical text editors confidently assert are not original should be relegated to the margin, then why not go all the way, even in familiar passages, and altogether disregard the petty little sensibilities of ignorant people who should just submit to their betters and put aside their faulty KJV's and NKJV's that are translated from a corrupt Greek manuscript tradition? And why not revise historic confessions where they reflect the Textus Receptus while we're at it?

(Admittedly this is a somewhat off the cuff late night post. And I'm really not seeking to be inflammatory, I promise. :) I don't advocate keeping people in the dark regarding textual issues. The apparatus in the NKJV that notes textual issues is another reason why I prefer it. It may not be perfect but it's more revelatory than the marginal notes that you find in any other translation that is widely used today.)
 
Last edited:
German rationalism (Leibniz-style) tended to try and defend the miraculous by showing that natural laws didn't exist.

What a contradiction. Even I am not that irrational. Is this really that easy? Stupid is as Stupid does stuff? Maybe I should look to Forest Gump. It seems like I am asking the question of if I exist. To Whom shall this question be addressed? I asked the question.
 
J.S. Semler, the father of German rationalism

I would consider the father of German rationalism to be Leibniz. At any rate, criticism of the TR predates Semler by a good bit: for example, John Mill and Johann Bengel both noted significant variations in the texts.

Also, just because certain scholars have been less orthodox does not invalidate their observations or their methods with regard to comparison of manuscripts and the attempt to figure out a version of the text that is as close to the original autographs as possible.

And Richard Simon before them. But all started with the underlying belief that the Bible did not have a supernatural origin. Such a belief is epistemologically atheistic. Such is all autonomous human reasoning. And to use the term "less orthodox" covers over the satanic beliefs of men such as Semler, Mill, Simon, et al. Their view of scripture and Christ is not just "less orthodox" it is outright heresy. Their heresy assumed that scripture can be treated just like any other book which is a denial of its supernatural origin and that autonomous human reasoning can somehow determine the alleged "true text" of scripture. A text which has constantly been changing since Richard Simon's began. A text which can never be found since we do not have the originals to compare it to and so it will always be subject to change. Such ungodly men have no place touching scripture and as Christians we should not only reject their view of scripture but any method developed out of their view of scripture. And that would include the arbitrary, subjective, and autonomous canons of modern textual criticism. Autonomous human reasoning, which is inherently atheistic, is not the foundation for scripture. Scripture is the foundation for ALL human reasoning. Modern textual criticism assumes the former is true. It is these same arbitrary canons that remove verses from one edition of the CT while adding back those same verses to another edition of the CT. So the foundation for scripture's text is left to the changing whims of men who believe scripture is of anti-supernatural origin. For in denying the supernatural origin of scripture, they are denying all that scripture teaches. This will always be a wrong position to start with and will always lead to error with regards as to how one treats scripture and what one considers to be scripture.
 
Last edited:
German rationalism (Leibniz-style) tended to try and defend the miraculous by showing that natural laws didn't exist.

Please show me this. Sounds like an old docetist heresy. Christ didn't have a human nature stuff relived.

That's probably an over-statement. Jonathan Edwards more or less does the same thing when he claims that the only thing that makes an object the same object from moment to moment is Divine decree. Edwards (like Leibniz) denies any causality except Divine Causality.

But all started with the underlying belief that the Bible did not have a supernatural origin.

Can you back this one up? It doesn't seem to me that comparison of manuscripts implies that the Bible is not supernatural in origin.

Their heresy assumed that scripture can be treated just like any other book which is a denial of its supernatural origin and that autonomous human reasoning can somehow determine the alleged "true text" of scripture.

All right: so what methodology would you propose, then? Someone has to make a judgment somewhere down the line; methods of scholarship have to be used. Unless you're going to argue that the textus receptus was handed down to the Church in the 16th century in its entirety rather than collated by a handful of scholars from one textual tradition, I'm puzzled as to what the difference is. People are making judgments and using their reason to try and parse out and figure out what belongs in the Biblical text either way.
 
Since the identity of the so called "removed versus" are no great secret, I have just written them into my ESV's. I don't think I have missed any. My solution is probably way to simple, but I never seem to have the "skipped verse" problem. And you should watch the face of the Ruckmanites when they say "read me verse XYZ of God's word from that so called bible" and I say "Sure!, here we go."
 
Here's a good article on the matter: Which King James Bible?

Note this paragraph from the article, a good reminder for all of us, regardless of what side of the issue we take:
The KJV has errors in it, but so does every translation. As long as human beings are involved, there will be some error. Yet these errors are usually minor, and if we are diligently studying God's word, seeking the truth, we are promised that we "shall find." Do not be so foolish as to claim that the translation of the scriptures you use is flawless. You should have several Bible translations for study, including interlinear of the Greek and Hebrew texts, commentaries, concordances, dictionaries, and other study helps. No one Bible translation should exclude all other translations. Rather, each one of us needs to diligently study, to grow in knowledge and truth, and be faithful and obedient to the text that we are using.
 
German rationalism (Leibniz-style) tended to try and defend the miraculous by showing that natural laws didn't exist.

Please show me this. Sounds like an old docetist heresy. Christ didn't have a human nature stuff relived.

That's probably an over-statement. Jonathan Edwards more or less does the same thing when he claims that the only thing that makes an object the same object from moment to moment is Divine decree. Edwards (like Leibniz) denies any causality except Divine Causality.

But all started with the underlying belief that the Bible did not have a supernatural origin.

Can you back this one up? It doesn't seem to me that comparison of manuscripts implies that the Bible is not supernatural in origin.

Their heresy assumed that scripture can be treated just like any other book which is a denial of its supernatural origin and that autonomous human reasoning can somehow determine the alleged "true text" of scripture.

All right: so what methodology would you propose, then? Someone has to make a judgment somewhere down the line; methods of scholarship have to be used. Unless you're going to argue that the textus receptus was handed down to the Church in the 16th century in its entirety rather than collated by a handful of scholars from one textual tradition, I'm puzzled as to what the difference is. People are making judgments and using their reason to try and parse out and figure out what belongs in the Biblical text either way.

I was referring not to a comparing of manuscripts but to the anti-supernatural view of scripture underlying the history and canons of modern textual criticism. Comparing manuscripts isn't the issue, how one views scripture when comparing the manuscripts of scripture is the issue. Modern textual criticism holds to an unscriptural view of scripture. Go back to Richard Simon and begin reading the works that laid the foundation of modern textual criticism and look at how they viewed scripture. Their view of scripture is contrary to scripture and is sinful. The Reformers held a completely different view of scripture.

The difference is simple, either scripture informs us as how to approach the process of dealing with textual variants or autonomous human reasoning does. We either go to scripture or we go to the ungodly men who created the field of modern textual criticism. Prior to the modern view their was another view on how to deal with variants. That view, a view held by the Reformers, assumed scripture must inform us as to what the variants mean and how to deal with them. Until we abandon autonomy for theonomy in the realm of textual criticism, it is a field that does nothing to profit the church.
 
I was referring not to a comparing of manuscripts but to the anti-supernatural view of scripture underlying the history and canons of modern textual criticism. Comparing manuscripts isn't the issue, how one views scripture when comparing the manuscripts of scripture is the issue. Modern textual criticism holds to an unscriptural view of scripture. Go back to Richard Simon and begin reading the works that laid the foundation of modern textual criticism and look at how they viewed scripture. Their view of scripture is contrary to scripture and is sinful. The Reformers held a completely different view of scripture.

The difference is simple, either scripture informs us as how to approach the process of dealing with textual variants or autonomous human reasoning does. We either go to scripture or we go to the ungodly men who created the field of modern textual criticism. Prior to the modern view their was another view on how to deal with variants. That view, a view held by the Reformers, assumed scripture must inform us as to what the variants mean and how to deal with them. Until we abandon autonomy for theonomy in the realm of textual criticism, it is a field that does nothing to profit the church.

I mean this with all sincerety, as I largely agree with you that we ought to be informed by Scripture as opposed to our own fallen minds: how does Scripture inform us how to do text criticism? What was the view held by the reformers? Could you please provide some resources (from non-KJVO websites preferrably) that outline how the reformers practices textual criticism in a theonomistic way? Thanks a lot.
 
I was referring not to a comparing of manuscripts but to the anti-supernatural view of scripture underlying the history and canons of modern textual criticism. Comparing manuscripts isn't the issue, how one views scripture when comparing the manuscripts of scripture is the issue. Modern textual criticism holds to an unscriptural view of scripture. Go back to Richard Simon and begin reading the works that laid the foundation of modern textual criticism and look at how they viewed scripture. Their view of scripture is contrary to scripture and is sinful. The Reformers held a completely different view of scripture.

The difference is simple, either scripture informs us as how to approach the process of dealing with textual variants or autonomous human reasoning does. We either go to scripture or we go to the ungodly men who created the field of modern textual criticism. Prior to the modern view their was another view on how to deal with variants. That view, a view held by the Reformers, assumed scripture must inform us as to what the variants mean and how to deal with them. Until we abandon autonomy for theonomy in the realm of textual criticism, it is a field that does nothing to profit the church.

I mean this with all sincerety, as I largely agree with you that we ought to be informed by Scripture as opposed to our own fallen minds: how does Scripture inform us how to do text criticism? What was the view held by the reformers? Could you please provide some resources (from non-KJVO websites preferrably) that outline how the reformers practices textual criticism in a theonomistic way? Thanks a lot.

There are no resources on KJVO websites. The best introduction would be Miller's "A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament" along with Burgon's works. Going back further, Francis Turretin's treatise on the Scriptures in Volume 1 of his writings, Volume 16 of John Owen's work, Whitaker's Disputations on Holy Scripture, John Gill's writings on Scripture. For the beginning of the modern view read Richard Simon's "A Critical History of the Text of the New Testament; Wherein is Firmly Established the Truth of Those Acts on Which the Foundation of Christian Religion is Laid." Volume 1 of Reformed Dogmatics by Bavinck also deals with some of the issues. H.J. de Jonge's writings on Erasmus. Theodore Beza's notes in his Greek New Testament. I've downloaded more and will try ot post the titles later if I can find them.
 
It also goes without saying that none of us are referring to so-called "higher criticism" which questions the origins of the original autographs. None of us, I think, would accept that. Further, none of us are disputing the authority of Scripture.

That being said, what are the Biblical criteria for determining, for instance, which manuscript traditions ought to be given priority? What it sounds like, Chris, is that your appeal is to tradition here and that your case against the CT is based on the genetic fallacy of "the founders of modern criticism (higher and lower) did not accept the authority of Scripture, therefore their methods are invalid." However, the ground motives that moved them to do textual analysis do not necessarily invalidate the methods which they used. This is like me saying "transcendental critique was first used by Kant, therefore it is invalid."
 
It also goes without saying that none of us are referring to so-called "higher criticism" which questions the origins of the original autographs. None of us, I think, would accept that. Further, none of us are disputing the authority of Scripture.

That being said, what are the Biblical criteria for determining, for instance, which manuscript traditions ought to be given priority? What it sounds like, Chris, is that your appeal is to tradition here and that your case against the CT is based on the genetic fallacy of "the founders of modern criticism (higher and lower) did not accept the authority of Scripture, therefore their methods are invalid." However, the ground motives that moved them to do textual analysis do not necessarily invalidate the methods which they used. This is like me saying "transcendental critique was first used by Kant, therefore it is invalid."

Due to the subjective and arbitrary nature of the canons of modern textual criticism the prejudice of the modern critic against scripture's supernatural origin is reflected in his application of these so-called methods. The underlying philosophy of modern textual criticism is the belief that man's autonomous reasoning can find the "true text" of scripture. Pure nonsense. To find the "true text" assumes that we don't have it. A view contradicted not just by the Reformers, but by scripture itself. It's the same underlying philosophy found in the quest for the historical Jesus. The determination of what is and is not scripture is left up to the whims of man as demonstrated in the various editions of the CT in which the same passage is removed and then brought back in to a later edition of the CT. So at one time it was scripture, at another it wasn't, and then later it was again. Such is the arbitrary nature of modern textual criticism where man's intellect sits in judgment against God's word. This allows for the possibility that any passage in scripture may at some future time be no longer considered scripture because of some textual discovery.
The methods used in modern textual criticism are not derived from scripture and therefore have no right to be brought to bear upon scripture. Scripture is not like any other book and the philosophy under which these methods were developed and the philosophy which created the CT assumes at the outset that scripture is just like any other book from the ancient world and can be treated as such. Such a view is anti-biblical and is heresy. Look at the canons. Why should the harder reading be preferred over an easier reading? Or a shorter over a longer? Such "methods" are automatically discredited because they were not derived from scripture, but from autonomous human reasoning. Autonomous human reasoning is always sinful. Only Scripture can inform us on how to deal with variants in the texts of scripture. We cannot claim the shorter is to be preferred unless scripture itself teaches this. The methods of modern textual criticism are at best useless when dealing with scripture and at worst blasphemous.

In the bolded part, you asked the right question. My answer would be to go back to the Reformers and remove from use the sinful autonomy of modern textual criticism. The Reformers dealt with textual variants from a Biblical framework. Let's go back to their text, their methods, and abandon autonomy for God's word.
 
The underlying philosophy of modern textual criticism is the belief that man's autonomous reasoning can find the "true text" of scripture. Pure nonsense. To find the "true text" assumes that we don't have it. A view contradicted not just by the Reformers, but by scripture itself. It's the same underlying philosophy found in the quest for the historical Jesus. The determination of what is and is not scripture is left up to the whims of man as demonstrated in the various editions of the CT in which the same passage is removed and then brought back in to a later edition of the CT. So at one time it was scripture, at another it wasn't, and then later it was again. Such is the arbitrary nature of modern textual criticism where man's intellect sits in judgment against God's word. This allows for the possibility that any passage in scripture may at some future time be no longer considered scripture because of some textual discovery.
The methods used in modern textual criticism are not derived from scripture and therefore have no right to be brought to bear upon scripture. Scripture is not like any other book and the philosophy under which these methods were developed and the philosophy which created the CT assumes at the outset that scripture is just like any other book from the ancient world and can be treated as such. Such a view is anti-biblical and is heresy.

The methods of modern textual criticism are at best useless when dealing with scripture and at worst blasphemous.

In the bolded part, you asked the right question. My answer would be to go back to the Reformers and remove from use the sinful autonomy of modern textual criticism. The Reformers dealt with textual variants from a Biblical framework. Let's go back to their text, their methods, and abandon autonomy for God's word.

:amen:
 
Chris, the canons of textual of modern textual criticism are not so different from pre-modern canons of textual criticism. Augustine acknowledged the necessity of textual criticism; in fact, scribal error was so common in the ancient world that the first step in exegesis of any important text was establishing, as best as one could, the accurate rendering. Consider this passage from De consens. Evang. 3.7.29

"Now, if any one finds a difficulty in the circumstance that this passage is not found in the writings of the prophet Jeremiah, and thinks that damage is thus done to the veracity of the evangelist, let him first take notice of the fact that this ascription of the passage to Jeremiah is not contained in all the codices of the Gospels, and that some of them state simply that it was spoken “by the prophet.” It is possible, therefore, to affirm that those codices deserve rather to be followed which do not contain the name of Jeremiah. For these words were certainly spoken by a prophet, only that prophet was Zechariah. In this way the supposition is, that those codices are faulty which contain the name of Jeremiah, because they ought either to have given the name of Zechariah or to have mentioned no name at all, as is the case with a certain copy, merely stating that it was spoken “by the prophet, saying,” which prophet would assuredly be understood to be Zechariah. However, let others adopt this method of defence, if they are so minded. For my part, I am not satisfied with it; and the reason is, that a majority of codices contain the name of Jeremiah, and that those critics who have studied the Gospel with more than usual care in the Greek copies, report that they have found it stand so in the more ancient Greek exemplars. I look also to this further consideration, namely, that there was no reason why this name should have been added [subsequently to the true text], and a corruption thus created; whereas there was certainly an intelligible reason for erasing the name from so many of the codices. For venturesome inexperience might readily have done that, when perplexed with the problem presented by the fact that this passage could not be found in Jeremiah."

Notice Augustine makes his argument on three criteria:

1) the majority of manuscripts
2) the antiquity of the manuscripts, which he associates with their reliability
3) the difficulty of the correct reading, that is, the lack of scribal motivation

That sounds pretty similar to modern textual criticism and shows that these practices are not some Enlightenment plot to overthrow the Bible. Augustine, of course, is hardly one to put his faith in "autonomous" human reasoning, but he apparently feels no need to defend the principles of his textual criticism with explicit scriptural warrant.
 
Notice Augustine makes his argument on three criteria:

1) the majority of manuscripts
2) the antiquity of the manuscripts, which he associates with their reliability
3) the difficulty of the correct reading, that is, the lack of scribal motivation

That sounds pretty similar to modern textual criticism

hmm
 
In the bolded part, you asked the right question. My answer would be to go back to the Reformers and remove from use the sinful autonomy of modern textual criticism. The Reformers dealt with textual variants from a Biblical framework. Let's go back to their text, their methods, and abandon autonomy for God's word.

Then please answer the question: what criterion would you use? Can you prove it from Scripture?

Only Scripture can inform us on how to deal with variants in the texts of scripture. We cannot claim the shorter is to be preferred unless scripture itself teaches this.

The same should apply to the longer as well, then. If you're going to claim that Scripture itself provides the scholarly criteria for textual criticism, then I'd like to see where in Scripture we find them. Remember that adding to the text is just as sinful as subtracting from it.

Scripture is not like any other book and the philosophy under which these methods were developed and the philosophy which created the CT assumes at the outset that scripture is just like any other book from the ancient world and can be treated as such.

On the contrary: if only higher critics would treat Scripture like any other ancient book. If only they would try to actually look at it honestly rather than scrutinizing it like they scrutinize nothing else.

---------- Post added at 01:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:04 PM ----------

Notice Augustine makes his argument on three criteria:

1) the majority of manuscripts
2) the antiquity of the manuscripts, which he associates with their reliability
3) the difficulty of the correct reading, that is, the lack of scribal motivation

That sounds pretty similar to modern textual criticism

hmm

Remember that the majority in Augustine's day might not be the majority today given the ravages of time (and Islamic conquest).
 
Originally Posted by Fogetaboutit
Originally Posted by CharlieJ
Notice Augustine makes his argument on three criteria:

1) the majority of manuscripts
2) the antiquity of the manuscripts, which he associates with their reliability
3) the difficulty of the correct reading, that is, the lack of scribal motivation

That sounds pretty similar to modern textual criticism
hmm
Remember that the majority in Augustine's day might not be the majority today given the ravages of time (and Islamic conquest).

If you read Burgon he gives a few examples of passages in the CT where the reading is "fabricated", since it is not part of any manuscript but a collation taken from differing MSS. How can you defend such things? Plus most of the edition made to the CT were done from a "minority" of MSS that do not even agree with each other in many instances, look at your second point this would instantly disqualify these MSS.


2) the antiquity of the manuscripts, which he associates with their reliability

I'm not againt having the antiquity of a MSS as a criteria but when you disregard all other criteria it's just foolishness
 
Etienne,

You've missed my point entirely. I'm not debating which modern edition of the GNT is best. I'm just saying that believing Christians have been engaged in the text-critical task for a long time and that they didn't see any need to draw their criteria directly from the Bible. Augustine argues his point on the basis of empirically verifiable evidence and known scribal tendencies.

Certainly there is room to criticize the choice and application of certain criteria, but that is entirely different from Chris' statement that empirical criteria "are automatically discredited because they were not derived from scripture, but from autonomous human reasoning."

---------- Post added at 01:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:28 PM ----------

Etienne,

You've missed my point entirely. I'm not debating which modern edition of the GNT is best. I'm just saying that believing Christians have been engaged in the text-critical task for a long time and that they didn't see any need to draw their criteria directly from the Bible. Augustine argues his point on the basis of empirically verifiable evidence and known scribal tendencies.

Certainly there is room to criticize the choice and application of certain criteria, but that is entirely different from Chris' statement that empirical criteria "are automatically discredited because they were not derived from scripture, but from autonomous human reasoning."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top