TR/CT debate - split from White/Ehrman debate thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

CalvinandHodges

Puritan Board Junior
Hi:

I have not listened to the debate, but I plan on doing so. What troubles me about this is that Dr. White is standing within the same "tradition" of textual criticism as that of Dr. Ehrman. Dr. White's commitment to Calvinism forces him to be inconsistent with the teachings of the Critical Text. From the little I have read so far on the debate I will give an example:

Dr. Ehrman's view is that since there are textual varients in the MSS of the NT, then God must not have inspired the NT (or the OT for that matter).

Dr. White challenges this idea by questioning Dr. Ehrman that if such is the case, then if the Koran has varients in it, is it misquoting Muhammed?

From Dr. Ehrman's perspective the answer is "yes." Such an answer undermines the inspiration of the NT because the NT is now looked upon as any other human written document - such as the Koran. Though Dr. Ehrman was unwilling to reply to this challenge: one asks what would be an adequate response within the Critical Text tradition that could answer the point?

To make this less obtuse: Since, in the mind of Dr. Ehrman, textual varients render any writing: Muhammed, Plato, Aristotle, the Bible etc, to the level of a human work, then we can conclude that the Bible is not inspired by God. Though Warfield would not subscribe to such a view - this is definitely the leaning of the Alands, Metzger, and Dr. Ehrman.

(The "Conservative" (TR) response is that God, through the ages, has Providentially Preserved the MSS of the Bible, and, consequently, we can be sure that what we have is the authoritative apographia of the autographs.)

The "modern conservative" (Dr. White) view that accepts the CT as the inspired Word of the Living God has to baulk at the Orthodox view of Providential Preservation. Because then they would have to admit that the TR is the Providentially Preserved MSS, and that their (CT) collation of the Greek Text was never known throughout Church History. Consequently, the CT is not a Providentially preserved MSS, but a colocation done based on certain philosophical principles of the 19th Century. These principles are Liberal in nature, and they naturally lead to the conclusions that Dr. Ehrman has come to believe and advocate.

Dr. White's "inconsistency" in applying Biblical and Reformed theology to the principles of textual criticism opens the door of unbelief to the unwary who may equate CT principles as orthodoxy. The Westminster Confession, and, if I am not mistaken, the 1689 Baptist Confession, gives clear testimony as to the Orthodox position:

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; so as in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them, Ch. 1, Sect. 8.
By creating a "new Greek text" which was entirely unknown by the Church through the ages - the Biblical and Orthodox teachings are undermined.

Consequently, the atheism of Dr. Ehrman is substantiated rather than diminished. Dr. White's inconsistency would deny that such is the case, but given the principles of textual criticism that he holds to one cannot deny the logical conclusions in this inconsistency.

Thus, I am troubled...

Blessings,

Rob
 
Last edited:
(The "Conservative" (TR) response is that God, through the ages, has Providentially Preserved the MSS of the Bible, and, consequently, we can be sure that what we have is the authoritative apographia of the autographs.)

How could the TR which Eramus first published 1516 lay hold to any claim that is was passed down through the ages?

Any concerns about the lineage of the CT must also be shared by the TR.
 
(The "Conservative" (TR) response is that God, through the ages, has Providentially Preserved the MSS of the Bible, and, consequently, we can be sure that what we have is the authoritative apographia of the autographs.)

How could the TR which Eramus first published 1516 lay hold to any claim that is was passed down through the ages?

Any concerns about the lineage of the CT must also be shared by the TR.

To give you a short, and simple, answer - which may sprout other questions as well:

The colocation of the TR was done with MSS that were known as authentic by the Church through all the ages. That is, they were copies handed down from apostolic times.

The colocation of the Critical Text was done with "recently discovered" texts which were never copied or known by the Church through the ages - such as the Aleph text.

I would not argue Texts Only though, it is the 19th Century text-critical philosophy that is contrary to Biblical and Reformed principles as well.

Grace and Peace,

Rob
 
The colocation of the TR was done with MSS that were known as authentic by the Church through all the ages. That is, they were copies handed down from apostolic times.

The colocation of the Critical Text was done with "recently discovered" texts which were never copied or known by the Church through the ages - such as the Aleph text.

I would not argue Texts Only though, it is the 19th Century text-critical philosophy that is contrary to Biblical and Reformed principles as well.

Grace and Peace,

Rob

Why not just follow the Vulagate, if anything was providentially preserved in a word for word sense this was. The TR was not "known as authentic by the Church through all the ages" where they did not have that particular text.

White is an accomplished scholar who is not applying some secular model to textual examination of historical texts he is merely not retreating from the problems by arbitrarily claiming one variant is divinely correct.
 
The colocation of the TR was done with MSS that were known as authentic by the Church through all the ages. That is, they were copies handed down from apostolic times.

Erasmus did what every other editor who has published a Greek text has done. He took more than one Greek manuscripts, all of which differed, and publish a text different than all of them.

The difference in the AVer philosophy is that they think Erasmus was directly inspired. The overwhelming majority of Reformed Christians on the other hand, agree with Erasmus when he said that if older texts are found, they should generally be preferred over newer texts, and that obligates changing the basic Greek text of the NT.

The AVer position is that when the WCF says

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; so as in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them, Ch. 1, Sect. 8.

the authors meant that

The "Conservative" (TR) response is that God, through the ages, has Providentially Preserved the MSS of the Bible, and, consequently, we can be sure that what we have is the authoritative apographia of the autographs

In other words, in a series of updates starting in 1516, a liberal Dutch Catholic took several differing apographs and re-created the exact, perfect autographs of the Books of the NT.

So, they believe that until an event taking place over several decades starting in 1516, the Word of God was contained in 3-4 differing manuscripts, and Erasmus was divinely inspired to re-create the perfect Word of God from these differing manuscripts.

They think it heretical that anyone else would try to do the same thing as Erasmus, since Erasmus re-created the original New Testament. Many also think that the overwhelming majority of Elders reading this right now on this board, and in the churches of everyone reading this, including mine, are betraying their ordination vows by using Greek texts created by people other than the Dutch humanist. So tomorrow, if you hear the NT read from the ESV, ASV, NIV etc...you are not hearing the real New Testament.

CalvinandHodges, you said you'd like to continue this conversation. Could you please comment?
http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/tree-life-exile-42301/
 
The colocation of the TR was done with MSS that were known as authentic by the Church through all the ages. That is, they were copies handed down from apostolic times.

The colocation of the Critical Text was done with "recently discovered" texts which were never copied or known by the Church through the ages - such as the Aleph text.

I would not argue Texts Only though, it is the 19th Century text-critical philosophy that is contrary to Biblical and Reformed principles as well.

Grace and Peace,

Rob

Why not just follow the Vulagate, if anything was providentially preserved in a word for word sense this was. The TR was not "known as authentic by the Church through all the ages" where they did not have that particular text.

White is an accomplished scholar who is not applying some secular model to textual examination of historical texts he is merely not retreating from the problems by arbitrarily claiming one variant is divinely correct.

A good question, and a good statement.

The inspiration of the Scriptures are that found in the Greek Text - the Latin Vulgate is a translation from that text, and is only "authentical" to the extent that it faithfully translates the Greek into Latin.

The TR is a colocation of those Greek MSS handed down to us through all ages, and, consequently carry the sacred apographia of the autographs. As I understand it, the worst critic of the TR has found about 1,800 differences (Daniel Wallace) between it and the Majority Text. This amounts to a little over a 1% difference in the texts. Dr. Wallace emailed me and said that most of these differences are found in the apparatus, and not in the texts themselves.

Blessings,

Rob
 
Leaving aside the TR / CT chasm that has been discussed at length recently the basis of textual examination of manuscripts may possible be a more profitable area for discussion.

Within both the TR and the wider tardition there are variants that require consideration and I do accept that any examination of such variants will be very dependant on the presuppositions underlying the examination.

This is where I find critisism of White slightly unfair as such an examination does not require unchristian presuppositions (although they may). I have been listening to a few weeks of the "Dividing Line" and I think that White has done a good job of highlighting where Erhman has glossed over a presupposition which has radically altered the conclusions that he has come to.

White's own presupposition must of course be open to discussion and he may well be wrong (or at least open to challange) on occasion but it is on a case by case basis that these judgemnents can be challanged not on the basis that he is considering how different manuscripts can be reconciled, a task required whatever view you take of the different traditions.
 
Hi Tim:

You are running quite roughshod over the facts.

1) Not all those who support the TR believe that Erasmus was inspired by God. I especially do not believe that such is the case.

2) You do not cite any sources for the information that you provide. Consequently, it would be difficult to assess your statement, "The overwhelming majority of Reformed Christians on the other hand, agree with Erasmus when he said that if older texts are found, they should generally be preferred over newer texts, and that obligates changing the basic Greek text of the NT."

John Owen, for example, did not hold that such would be the case, and he argued that the Greek Text which he had in his hand - the TR - was the authentic copy of the original.

The Westminster Confession does not make any such statement that you claim the "majority" of Reformed held. Whatever you may interpret the Confession at 1:8 - it is clear they are speaking about the Greek Text of the 16th and 17th Century. A.A. Hodge, who can hardly be pidgenholed as a KJO advocate, commented on this passage thus:

That the original sacred text has come down to us in a state of essential purity.
When you write this:

They think it heretical that anyone else would try to do the same thing as Erasmus, since Erasmus re-created the original New Testament. Many also think that the overwhelming majority of Elders reading this right now on this board, and in the churches of everyone reading this, including mine, are betraying their ordination vows by using Greek texts created by people other than the Dutch humanist. So tomorrow, if you hear the NT read from the ESV, ASV, NIV etc...you are not hearing the real New Testament.
I do not believe that you have at all grasped the argument. It seems you are creating a Straw Man fallacy in order to invalidate a point.

You throw out all of these accusations - yet - not one of them can be found in any of my posts above.

Grace and Peace,

Rob
 
You throw out all of these accusations - yet - not one of them can be found in any of my posts above.

You wrote:

The "Conservative" (TR) response is that God, through the ages, has Providentially Preserved the MSS of the Bible, and, consequently, we can be sure that what we have is the authoritative apographia of the autographs

In other words, the AV is the authoritative apographia of the autographs, and other texts aren't, right? And can you comment on the Tree of Life post when you get a chance?
 
You throw out all of these accusations - yet - not one of them can be found in any of my posts above.

You wrote:

The "Conservative" (TR) response is that God, through the ages, has Providentially Preserved the MSS of the Bible, and, consequently, we can be sure that what we have is the authoritative apographia of the autographs

In other words, the AV is the authoritative apographia of the autographs, and other texts aren't, right? And can you comment on the Tree of Life post when you get a chance?

Tim:

Try to read my posts as they are written - not how you would like them to read.

First, I never said that the AV (Authorized King James Version of the Bible) was the "authoritative apographia of the autographs." I said the TR (Greek Text of the Reformation) contains the Sacred Apographia of the Autographs.

Second, my statement, "You throw out all of these accusations..." is clearly based upon my quoting you thus:

They think it heretical that anyone else would try to do the same thing as Erasmus, since Erasmus re-created the original New Testament. Many also think that the overwhelming majority of Elders reading this right now on this board, and in the churches of everyone reading this, including mine, are betraying their ordination vows by using Greek texts created by people other than the Dutch humanist. So tomorrow, if you hear the NT read from the ESV, ASV, NIV etc...you are not hearing the real New Testament.
The statement that you quote from me says nothing to the above.

Please, if you wish me to respond, then it will behoove you to quote me accurately. If I have to correct your misquotations as well as your misunderstandings of Orthodox Greek Textual criticism, then I will not be able to answer you at all. It would be a waste of my time.

Blessings,

Rob
 
Since the vast majority of variants result from movable nu and idiosyncratic spelling issues, would it not be worth mentioning that God HAS preserved his Word so that its perspicuity and efficacy are protected? Generally (leaving aside the locus classicus texts such as 1 John 5:7, the Woman Taken in Adultery, and the Marcan ending and a few others), don't we have more meaningful differences between various English translations of the Bible than between the Greek manuscripts of any tradition?

I am content to call the ESV, KJV, Die Heilige Schrift, Reina-Valera translation, or :)eek: ) even the NIV . . . the Word of God.
 
Last edited:
the Woman Taken in Adultery, and the Marcan ending and a few others), don't we have more meaningful differences between various English translations of the Bible than between the Greek manuscripts of any tradition?

I am content to call the ESV, KJV, Die Heilige Schrift, Reina-Valera translation, or ( ) even the NIV . . . the Word of God.

Exactly, and that is the position of the overwhelming majority of Reformed Elders.
 
(The "Conservative" (TR) response is that God, through the ages, has Providentially Preserved the MSS of the Bible, and, consequently, we can be sure that what we have is the authoritative apographia of the autographs.)

How could the TR which Eramus first published 1516 lay hold to any claim that is was passed down through the ages?

Any concerns about the lineage of the CT must also be shared by the TR.

To give you a short, and simple, answer - which may sprout other questions as well:

The colocation of the TR was done with MSS that were known as authentic by the Church through all the ages. That is, they were copies handed down from apostolic times.

The colocation of the Critical Text was done with "recently discovered" texts which were never copied or known by the Church through the ages - such as the Aleph text.

I would not argue Texts Only though, it is the 19th Century text-critical philosophy that is contrary to Biblical and Reformed principles as well.

Grace and Peace,

Rob

Known by which "church"? The Greek Church? I would be more skeptical of these "churches" that blaspheme with such regularity. The reliability of these texts are still based on the testimony of men...just different men (Greek Orthodox). God preserves His word to be sure but uses men who apply scholarship to do it.
 
2) You do not cite any sources for the information that you provide.


Neither do you. I find this thread to be helpful, but if you make such a statement as this, consider the term "double standards". For someone like me, I'd love to have sources to read, yet none has been provided. It makes the thread harder to follow when statements are being tossed around without background information.

Andrew

-----Added 1/24/2009 at 02:06:29 EST-----

The "modern conservative" (Dr. White) view that accepts the CT as the inspired Word of the Living God has to baulk at the Orthodox view of Providential Preservation.

Ad hom?

Because then they would have to admit that the TR is the Providentially Preserved MSS,

And?

and that their (CT) collation of the Greek Text was never known throughout Church History.

That's a leap from the above comment you made. How does this follow?


Consequently, the CT is not a Providentially preserved MSS, but a colocation done based on certain philosophical principles of the 19th Century.

Do you have anything to back this claim?


These principles are Liberal in nature, and they naturally lead to the conclusions that Dr. Ehrman has come to believe and advocate.

Again, all I'm hearing are ad hom remarks. Where is your information for these conclusions?
 
It would be nice if the Vulgate were pure. But what we have has been "adapted" over the years by Rome. If Jerome's translation exists, we can rest assured that it's likely buried deep in the Vatican somewhere where any who would protest will not see. What a treasure that would be.

It seems odd to me that the debate would be TR vs. CT. I would think it would be MT vs. CT, in light of the relative newness of the RT. I do most of my studies with the MT.
 
I believe the Erasmian texts used were . . .

1eap (1), XII cen., Basel, Univ. Bibl., A.N.IV.2
1r (2814), XII cen., Ausburg, Univ. Bibl., Cod. I.1.4.1
2e (2), XI/XII cen., Basel, Univ. Bibl., A.N.IV.1
2ap (2815), XII cen., Basel, Univ. Bibl., A.N.IV.4
4ap (2816), XV cen., Basel, Univ. Bibl., A.N.IV.5
7p (2817), XI cen., Basel, Univ. Bibl., A.N.IV.11

Or written out in real words . . .

1. Codex 1eap, a minuscule containing the entire NT except for Revelation,
dated to about the 12th century.
2. Codex 1r, a minuscule containing the book of Revelation except for the
last 6 verses (Rev 22:16–21), dated to the 12th century.
3. Codex 2e, a minuscule containing the Gospels, dated to the 12th century.
4. Codex 2ap, a minuscule containing Acts and the Epistles, dated to the
12th century or later.
5. Codex 4ap, a minuscule containing Acts and the Epistles, dated to the
15th century.
6. Codex 7p, a minuscule containing the Pauline Epistles, dated to the
11th century.
 
I want to follow this post as there seems to be seeds of a profitable discussion. However, having a difficult time sorting out the question(s) at hand.

Rob, what are the question(s) that you have based on the background given in your OP?
 
Hi:

Much ground to cover, and little time to do it. I am sorry if I do not answer all of your questions, but I hope to provide an outline so that you can see where I am going in my answers.

Andrew:

When I challenged Tim on his statement concerning "Most Reformers say that if older mss were found..."(paraphrased) - I provided citations contrary to Tim's statement - John Owen, the Westminster Confession, and A.A. Hodge's Commentary on the Confession.

As far as the other statements I have made - they are generally recognized and have been defended on prior threads concerning TR vs CT.

When I said that CT advocates baulk at the doctrine of Providential Preservation it is an observation on their philosophy.

Pastor McFadden:

The question here would be: What did the Apostles and Prophets write? The differences between the two Greek texts are such that they are different texts. Jack Moorman has catalogued about 8,000 differences between the two texts - which amounts to about a 20,000 word difference. As you know Inspiration is both Verbal and Plenary. To what extent are you willing to bend this rule in order to argue that the Critical Text is the inspired Word of God?

The express intention of the collators of the Critical Text were to entirely replace the Textus Receptus as the Church's Greek Text. They created a philosophy of textual criticism that was never heard of before in order to overthrow the Byzantine MSS as represented in the TR.

Take, for example, the final ending in Mark. If this passage is the inspired Word of the Living God, and I believe it is, then excising it from the Scriptures produces what? What would God think of such an endeavor?

The list of text you have provided are helpful. It comes from Bruce Metzger's list. I would also add MSS 2049 as containing the final ending of Revelation which Erasmus used.

Manley Beasley:

The Universal Church as it is contained in the visible Church. The visible Church has always had a Greek Text witness to it through all ages.

Sotzo:

I apologize if I was not clear.

Dr. Ehrman's argument is that because there are variations in the Greek Text of the New Testament - that such proves the New Testament to not be inspired by God.

Dr. White challenged this presupposition by asking the question: If there are variations in the Koran, then can we suppose that it is simply a human document as well? Dr. Erhman was not willing to answer the question.

The answer, according to the Critical Text philosophy as understood by Dr. Ehrman, is "yes." The ball then falls into Dr. White's court to answer the point: How do variations in the Greek Text prove that God has inspired the Scriptures, and disprove that God did not inspire the Koran?

I would imagine that Dr. White will switch from his Critical Text philosophy to sound Orthodoxy, and prove the inspiration of the Scriptures. However, that is not what I am holding him to concerning this point.

Dr. White is explicitly teaching that the Critical Text philosophy is sound orthodoxy. Thus, I would require him to answer the question from the Critical Text philosophy, and not from his understanding of orthodoxy.

Sound orthodox principles would argue that God has Providentially Preserved the Greek Text in the Byzantine MSS extent today. That what we have today in the Byzantine MSS are the inspired word for word copies of the autographs. The Textus Receptus is a collation of these manuscripts, and, consequently, contains the sacred apographia of the autographs.

The advocates of the Critical Text are not psychologically ready to admit Providential Preservation, because of the above last paragraph. They would have to admit that the Byzantine MSS stand within such a Providence, and that these MSS contain more of the autographs than they desire to admit.

Personally: I believe that Dr. White has been so browbeaten by King James Only advocates, that he is unwilling to admit the Textus Receptus as a legitimate copy of the autographs. To do so, it appears to me, would be to admit that the King James Only advocates are right in their assessment of the Greek text. This is my impression in watching him on his videos as well as a few personal conversations with him (one on the Dividing Line). However, I do not claim to be a mind reader, and I may be very wrong in assessing his motivations.

Blessings,

Rob
 
Oh boy, I've been at work all day, and couldn't wait to get home to post!!

First of all, the OP is asking "What troubles me about this is that Dr. White is standing within the same "tradition" of textual criticism as that of Dr. Ehrman." What this sounds like to me is that while Dr. White is showing Dr. Ehrman's view of scripture is false, isn't he (Dr. White) assuming the same presuppositions or "ground rules" that Dr. Ehrman is using, but coming to a different conclusion that affirms the truth. And since he is affirming the same "ground rules" by using the Critical Text methodology, isn't he (Dr. White) undermining the Bible in the same way?

I've read Dr. Ehrman's book. My brother thought it would be a good gift to get me for Christmas to show me how false the Bible is. It is very easy to see through what Dr. Ehrman is doing, especially if one has no idea of what the methodology or history of how we get the biblical texts. Most people (in the world) just assume the naturalistic view without knowing (or wanting) any other view.

As I've read this thread, there has been mis-information and red herrings thrown out. To wit, to call Erasmus a humanist and then dismiss his work is the Ad hominem abusive logical fallacy. Humanism back then was a revolt against the Scholastics, and not as we think of humanists today. There was a proverb in his day "Whatever is ingenious, scholarly, and wisely written, is termed erasmic, that is, unerring and perfect." According to the Catholic Encyclopedia "The literary works issued by Erasmus up to this time made him the intellectual father of the Reformation." We need to keep the focus on his work, and not his 'portrayed' character. To haggle over one verse and make that the focal point is to make it sound like people say he's inerrant, which is different than the 'inspired' that people say he was.

The Textus Receptus was built upon the Traditional Text that the church had at that time. The invention of the printing press caused a need to have a printed text to use. That need laid the foundation for the Textus Receptus. Erasmus's Textus Receptus was not the only version out there. His was just the first in print. He did 5 editions. After his death, Robert Stephanus produced four editions. These activities aroused the opposition of the Roman Catholic Church, so much so that in 1550 he was compelled to leave Paris and settle in Geneva, where he became a Protestant, embracing the Reformed faith. Theodore Beza also published editions of the Greek New Testament. His name is on the faceplate of the Geneva Bible. The Elzevirs were a family of Dutch printers. Bonaventure Elzevir texts followed Beza's editions mainly but also included readings from Erasmus, the Complutensian, and the Latin Vulgate. In the preface to the 2nd edition the phrase Textus Receptus made its first appearance. "You have therefore the text now received by all (textum ab omnibus receptum) in which we give nothing changed or corrupt." The Textus Receptus really was the text received by all. Its reign had begun and was to continue unbroken for years. In England Stephanus' 3rd edition was the form of the Textus Receptus generally preferred, on the European continent Elzevir's 2nd edition.

In the KJV bible in particular, the original tongues referred to on the title pages were the printed Hebrew Bibles and Beza's Greek text.

*********************************************************

Now we get into the philosophy of the questions of the OP.

First, we have the Received Text position. That the text we have received is the text that God has preserved for us to use. That -

a. They were guided by the manuscripts which God in His providence had made available to them.
b. They were guided by the providential circumstances in which they found themselves.
c. They were guided by the common faith.

Now let's turn to the Critical Text. Contrary to gainsayers, Wescott and Hort is passé. "None of the major modern English Bible translations made since World War II used the Westcott-Hort text as its base. This includes translations done by theological conservatives — the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, the New King James, for examples — and translations done by theological liberals — the Revised Standard Version, the New English Bible, the Good News Bible, etc. The only English Bible translation currently in print that the writer is aware of which is based on the Westcott-Hort text is the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses." (Quoted from Douglas Kutilek, link below.) The CT position states that -

a. We do have texts in our hands that have been handed down through the church.
b. Errors have crept in by the copiers.
c. By comparing our texts to new ones that were unknown/unavailable to earlier translators, we can come closer to what the originals said.

Now to the crux of the question of the OP. Although Ehrman's position is similar, it is different enough from the real CT position that Dr. White is probably o.k. Ehrman's perversion is like -

a. We do have texts in our hands that have been handed down through the church.
b. Errors have crept in by the copiers that have changed the church away from the original teachings of Jesus.
c. By comparing our texts to new ones and the social norms of society today, we can come closer to what the originals that were written by man may have said, although we can't be sure.

Ehrman says that the originals were written by humans and not the exact words of God. The real CT position does state that the originals were the words of God and inspired. Ehrman also states that the KJV was based on inferior manuscripts; as in the poisoning of the well - really, really bad kind of manuscripts. The CT position says that the TR needs to be updated with 'modern' finds. Ehrman tries to make what he says sound like the CT position, but his views are designed to make people not trust the bible at all. Ehrman may be "Misquoting Jesus", but I'm not mis-representing Ehrman. I'm holding his book in my hands. I do not have anything good to say about his book.

I'm also not a big Dr. White fan for some of the reasons that were mentioned in the OP, especially his KJV controversy book. I think he comes close to the line, but doesn't go over the line. If an biblical illiterate person listened to him, they would learn alot and come to a better understanding of the Bible and how we got it. I also think they could do much better. Just compare Barth's view of scripture to Dr. Whites. One is over the line (Barth) and one isn't (Dr. White).

**********************************************************

Here's the links to the information I have provided in my post. I generally don't like to get into a source frenzy because it ends up like modern psychology. People quoting people quoting people that becomes the truth.

Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior?

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Desiderius Erasmus

CHAPTER EIGHT
 
Pastor McFadden:

The question here would be: What did the Apostles and Prophets write? The differences between the two Greek texts are such that they are different texts. Jack Moorman has catalogued about 8,000 differences between the two texts - which amounts to about a 20,000 word difference. As you know Inspiration is both Verbal and Plenary. To what extent are you willing to bend this rule in order to argue that the Critical Text is the inspired Word of God?

As the Majority Text project has shown, there are LOTS of variants in the Byzantine tradition. And, since most of these are spelling issues, they really do not bother me.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only son . . .
For G*d so luved the world that he gave his only son . . .
For God so loved the wurld that he gave his only son . . .
For God so loved the world that he gaved his only son . . .
Fore God so loved the world that he gave his only son . . .

Would any reasonable person really doubt that the original text is clear? Besides, with the thousands of mss. extant, it is often mentioned that NO two of them are identical, even in the Byzantine text type. My doctrine of inerrancy does not depend upon a scribe's ability to copy the text inerrantly.

Ehrman has yet to show how the variations in the mss. tradition meaningfully impacts even ONE doctrine.

I would love to see some discussion (with examples) on the putative heretical tendencies in the Alexandrian text type. In my mind, that would be a good counter-argument to the "weigh, don't count" drumbeat of the CT proponents. My college and seminary profs ALL acted as if arguments for the TR (or Majority Text) were just plain flat-earth nonsense. But, some of the claims that the Byzantine tradition preserves orthodoxy better than the Egyptian desert sects responsible for the the Alexandrian mss. would be interesting to explore.
 
Dr. White challenged this presupposition by asking the question: If there are variations in the Koran, then can we suppose that it is simply a human document as well? Dr. Erhman was not willing to answer the question.
That was not the challenge precisely. He wanted Dr. Ehrman to answer whether or not we have the words of Mohammed, whcih Ehrman would not answer.

The answer, according to the Critical Text philosophy as understood by Dr. Ehrman, is "yes." The ball then falls into Dr. White's court to answer the point: How do variations in the Greek Text prove that God has inspired the Scriptures, and disprove that God did not inspire the Koran?
That does not follow. White was not arguing that variations in the Koran argue for/against inspiration. He was demonstrating Ehrman's double standard in the handling of ancient MSS.

I would imagine that Dr. White will switch from his Critical Text philosophy to sound Orthodoxy, and prove the inspiration of the Scriptures. However, that is not what I am holding him to concerning this point.

Dr. White is explicitly teaching that the Critical Text philosophy is sound orthodoxy. Thus, I would require him to answer the question from the Critical Text philosophy, and not from his understanding of orthodoxy.
This, I believe, is the disconnect. Let me draw and analogy.

I have an undergraduate in Nuclear Engineering. I learned about radioactive decay from Professors who have materialistic philosophies. Do I have to be a materialist to use the tools (math, physics, etc) that these men used and interpreted in a different light?

Dr. White repeatedly argues that he uses the same (or very similar) method that the translators of the AV did in examining MSS. The issue has to do with those who receive the work of those translators and the work of Scribner and determine that, between the two, this is the final authority on any project to examine MSS.

It cannot be demonstrated that the traslators of the AV had a "TR philosophy" at the time of translation. The real question is for those that take the finished work and the compilation by Scribner and whether or not, from a historical theological standpoint, it is warranted to proclaim that this is Providential Preservation and all others are doubting that the Chuch has the Word of God.

This is not an exegetical argument. In fact, it is rooted in theological history which we are willing to examine and criticize for all other areas of historical theology. The TR advocate will even criticize CT on a MSS tradition basis (as you have in this thread) but examination in the opposite direction is rejected by fiat. In other words, "the CT must be rejected because it was found by so and so..." is grounds for rejecting the CT wholesale but any questions about the existence of the Vulgate, Erasmus work, or even possible insertions by Bucer are all out of bounds to discuss wrt the TR.

Why is examination of history appropriate for the CT and not the TR? I've never been able to determine why TR advocates who would never accept this form of argumentation from another faith tradition on a doctrine like baptismal regeneration seem to do so for this issue alone.

Sound orthodox principles would argue that God has Providentially Preserved the Greek Text in the Byzantine MSS extent today.
Where may I find the reference to the Byzantine MSS tradition in the Scriptures as, in all matters of controversy, my conscience may not be bound by anything but the Scriptures.

Personally: I believe that Dr. White has been so browbeaten by King James Only advocates, that he is unwilling to admit the Textus Receptus as a legitimate copy of the autographs. To do so, it appears to me, would be to admit that the King James Only advocates are right in their assessment of the Greek text. This is my impression in watching him on his videos as well as a few personal conversations with him (one on the Dividing Line). However, I do not claim to be a mind reader, and I may be very wrong in assessing his motivations.

Blessings,

Rob

Rob: Please call Dr. White again. He never keeps his phone lines off. I'd like you to tell him the same thing rather than making psychological diagnoses that, are, quite frankly, subtle but real 9th Commandment violations. I'm not a disciple of the man but consider him a friend and he doesn't simply snipe from one ensconced position. If you are unwilling to call him up then you will not use my board to try to tell us what he is willing/unwilling to interact with when I've never seen him avoid a conversation on the subject nor be unwilling to consider an argument.
 
Greetings:

I beg to differ with you Rich, but, the explication I gave was precisely the form of argumentation that Dr. White was presenting.

Dr. Erhman was denying the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures based upon the "fact" that there were textual variations in it. If God had inspired the Scriptures in a verbal and plenary sense, then why the variations? Consequently, we do not have the words of the Apostles and Prophets in our texts.

Dr. White responded by asking the question concerning whether or not there were variations in the Koran? And, if so, then how can we know we have the words of Muhammed?

To lift the quote from Dr. White's own webpage:

He simply refused to comment on the Qur'an whatsoever, not even theoretically answering the question that if the Qur'an has textual variants, would this not mean that the Qur'an is misquoting Muhammad? His unwillingness to apply his own hyper-skepticism to anything other than Christianity betrays his deep bias and prejudice. He knew that to be consistent he would have to say the Qur'an misquotes Muhammad, but Dr. Ehrman is a good post-modernist liberal, and quite politically correct. He avoided that like the plague, though, obviously, he would have to say that very thing, if he was consistent.
The question that I would raise for Dr. White to answer is: What if Dr. Ehrman had said "yes" to Dr. White's question? Dr. Ehrman would be consistently arguing that all texts that have variations in them cannot then be inspired - that they are simply the words of men: Paul, Luke, John, Aristotle, Plato, and Mohammed.

Now, I know that as a Reformed Baptist Dr. White believes in Verbal and Plenary inspiration, and that he would reject Dr. Ehrman's point. However, my question is: How does one go about refuting such a statement from within the Critical Text philosophy?

If, as you say, that Dr. White is holding to the same textual principles as that of the Orthodox, then he would answer in the same fashion as the Westminster Confession and 1689 Baptist Confession: that God has, through all ages, providentially preserved the Greek Text. That would be the Orthodox answer that is in line with the Byzantine MSS as they are represented by the Textus Receptus collation.

Nowhere have I ever heard Dr. White argue such a point. If I am wrong, Rich, then show me where he has done so in any of his presentations: either powerpoint or internet.

The problem, Rich, is that Dr. White's precommitment to the Critical Text rules out any form of Orthodoxy concerning textual criticism. The moment he upholds Providential Preservation as it is presented in the Westminister and 1689 Confessions he has a twofold problem:

1) The Textus Receptus stands within that idea of Providence, and, thus contains the Sacred apographia of the autographs. Thus, no need for a new and critical text of the Greek MSS.

2) The new discoveries of the Greek Text used by Nestle's 26 edition (the edition of the Lockman foundation and the NASB) does not stand within the parameters of Providence since they were never known to the Church in general, but buried in a dusty monestary for about 1500 years. The usual argument here is that God preserved these texts until the mid 1800's, but, if that is so, then the Church did not have the Sacred apographia for over 1500 years. Even a cursory view of history would prove that such is not the case.

You ask for Scripture concerning the Byzantine MSS?

For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man is as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower falleth away. But the word of the Lord endureth forever: and this is the word which is preached among you, 1 Pet 1:24,25

The Scriptures teach that the inspired, infallible, Word of the Living God will always be among His people. This is such an important doctrine that Jesus is quoted three times as saying:

Mat 24:35 Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away, c.f. Luke 21:33; Mk 13:31.

If the Byzantine MSS are not the preserved MSS, then the Word of God did pass away, and was only "recovered" by the Critical Text advocates.

Sorry if I stepped out of line concerning my understanding of Dr. White's motivations. I actually feel sorry for him concerning those KJO advocates who "browbeat" him. I will seek to talk to him on the Dividing Line on this matter in the future.

Blessings,

Rob
 
As far as the other statements I have made - they are generally recognized and have been defended on prior threads concerning TR vs CT.

When I said that CT advocates baulk at the doctrine of Providential Preservation it is an observation on their philosophy.

Perhaps he won't spend the time arguing with people who simply don't understand the point.

It's almost as if some people here think anyone who doesn't think the TR is God's exact Word automatically have the same idolatrous affection for the CV as some of them do for the TR. But it's just not true. I don't know how many times Pastor Greco and others have had to repeat themselves that they actually prefer the TR over the CR. And that's in addition to some who are just not following the argument even at the basic level.

As I've read this thread, there has been mis-information and red herrings thrown out. To wit, to call Erasmus a humanist and then dismiss his work is the Ad hominem abusive logical fallacy.

Erasmus was a humanist, and he did dedicate his creation, the TR, to the Pope who excommunicated Luther. Luther DID write The Bondage of the Will in reply to Erasmus' book attacking the ancient Christian doctrine of total depravity. Grymir, you quote lots of books, but I've noticed you haven't always read the books you quote to support your claims. Using Ayn Rand and Edward Gibbons to support your view of the world, and now looking up a reference in the Catholic Encyclopedia about Erasmus being the father of the Reformation. You should read Luther's The Bondage of the Will, which he said was his most important book for a good view of Erasmus' philosophy, since you claim philosophy is more important that actual translation techniques.

And I'm not dismissing his Greek Text. It's great. It's just not the exact reproduction of the original autographs, and if he were alive today he'd be the first one to agree with me.

To haggle over one verse and make that the focal point is to make it sound like people say he's inerrant, which is different than the 'inspired' that people say he was.

Sorry, that was way beyond me.

The Textus Receptus was built upon the Traditional Text that the church had at that time.

I've asked you before to show me this Traditional Text. Specifically where the Traditional Text was in 1450, but the closest you've come to answering was "I suppose it was in a church somewhere", so I won't bother asking again, but I do hope others reading this will ask themselves the same question.
 
Last edited:
I would love to see some discussion (with examples) on the putative heretical tendencies in the Alexandrian text type. In my mind, that would be a good counter-argument to the "weigh, don't count" drumbeat of the CT proponents. My college and seminary profs ALL acted as if arguments for the TR (or Majority Text) were just plain flat-earth nonsense. But, some of the claims that the Byzantine tradition preserves orthodoxy better than the Egyptian desert sects responsible for the the Alexandrian mss. would be interesting to explore.

This might be some of what you are looking for: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/av-theology-compared-modern-versions-19437/
 
This might be some of what you are looking for

Ken, I don't think you understand what Dr. McFadden is saying. He wants to see examples of where texts based on the Alexandrian tradition lead to heretical thinking where they differ from texts based on the Byzantine tradition.

I took the trouble to go to the link you provided, and found Rev. Winzer comparing versions such as the NKJV with the KJV. Both these versions are based on the Byzantine tradition.

Let me try to make it clearer. I believe Dr. McFadden wants to be shown places where the ESV, ASV, etc.. have used readings from non-Byzantine texts, rather than the Textus Receptus, that lead people to hold to teachings that will keep them out of the Kingdom of Heaven.
 
If you hold to the TR in isolation is it not a danger that human additions to the apostolic texts are being accepted (which is truly an awful prospect) without any consideration?

We have thousands of ancient canonical texts yet there is no real problem with the vast majority of the texts, accross the whole spectrum of texts there has been a preservation of every doctrine.

There are two ways of handling the textual differences that do arise, you can examine the differences and within a framework of accepting the inspiration of the original texts you can use our God given reason to identify the original texts as afar as we are able.

Alternatively you can identify one text and claim divine inspiration for that one text. This is what Islam did to the Koran and they now trumpet the purity of their text but all they have done is avoided the issue by an arbitrary decree.

Any argument over what the original text of the scriptures was can readily incorporate a view that the MT is more reliable than the Alexandrian texts but what you have here is precisiely the type of argument that White is engaged in. It is also the same argument that has to take place when you decide how to constitiue a text from the various MT manuscripts.

The main argument of the TR only position is that the multitude of vartiants undermines trust in the text, but we do have variants and they have to be dealt with. To ignore them woudl in my view undermine trust in the scriptures far more than any apostolically based academic judgment. In particular the vilification of the Alexandrian texts and any academic approach to textual examination is incredibly damaging and in my view is verging on the culpable.

In summary a consideration of textual variants has to take place even within the MT tradition, it is not an inherently evil thing to do. What is damaging trust in the scriptures is a combination of liberal scholarship (which I do accept is very damaging) and fundamentalist claims that manuscripts outwith the TR cannot be trusted, with the only way to find biblical truth being arbitrarily through the manuscrpit created by Erasmus.
 
Rob,

Which is it? You said you didn't listen to the debate and now you're ascribing information as if you have. Further, as I noted, the question that James asked Ehrman had nothing to do with Ehrman accepting/rejecting inspiration of the Koran. As you even quoted, he asked if the Koran was the words of Mohammed. Do you really think White thinks Ehrman believes anything is inspired? The debate wasn't about whether or not Ehrman should accept the inspiration of Scripture but whether Ehrman's standard for rejecting any knowledge of what the autographs contained is valid. You seem to be missing this vital point in your eagerness to find any way to paint White as just another scholar enslaved to a humanistic CT philosophy of scholarship.

The new discoveries of the Greek Text used by Nestle's 26 edition (the edition of the Lockman foundation and the NASB) does not stand within the parameters of Providence since they were never known to the Church in general, but buried in a dusty monestary for about 1500 years. The usual argument here is that God preserved these texts until the mid 1800's, but, if that is so, then the Church did not have the Sacred apographia for over 1500 years.

Once again, you bring historical examination into your evaluation of the CT but it is out of bounds for the TR.

Why is the precise argument you just made not apropos for the Vulgate compared to the Greek texts selected by Erasmus and/or the translators of the AV?

Double standard. If you don't want to answer historical questions about the formation of your preferred manuscript tradition then why is any historical information even useful at all. Your argument rests on a tautology and attempts to bring in historical information seem odd if you do not desire historical examination of your tautological argument.
 
Rich, Tim, and Mr. McFadden,

Should TR (not the KJV, the KJV is only a english translation of the TR) then be FIXED according to the CT?

Should churches (english, spanish, french, korean, etc.) stop reading from the TR base bible (again not the KJV)?

Should there be a bible that uses the TR, CT, and other manuscripts? I think the ESV, NASB, etc. claimed this to be the case.

Thanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top