If we're discussing baptism, I believe we may appeal to Acts 8:37. It is bracketed in NASB and relegated to a footnote in NIV. To a person holding to the traditional text, the Greek ms. tradition which these Bibles translate includes a meaningful omission of the Word of God, and the translations themselves treat that Word in a most unbecoming manner.
TR/CT debate - split from White/Ehrman debate thread
- Thread starter CalvinandHodges
- Start date
- Status
If we're discussing baptism, I believe we may appeal to Acts 8:37. It is bracketed in NASB and relegated to a footnote in NIV. To a person holding to the traditional text, the Greek ms. tradition which these Bibles translate includes a meaningful omission of the Word of God, and the translations themselves treat that Word in a most unbecoming manner.
Hippo
Puritan Board Junior
Or altrnatively someone has added to Gods inspired word and such additions should be removed, to appeal to man made tradition over the inspired word of God is egregiously sinful.
The argument is based on a conclusion to the point at issue, therefore it cannot be utilised to decide the point at issue (i.e. were such verses original to the inspired documents).
Please note the quoted portion to which I was responding. Your response equally substantiates that this is a "meaningful" disagreement.
That's a process question, Gil. If we can't talk process then how can we discuss it? I'm not averse to asking the question within the context of the Church but I don't know how to begin the conversation with those that I consider Brothers in Christ who are convinced, in their consciences, that the discussion itself is a departure from orthodoxy.
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
If necessary, it should be "fixed" the same way Erasmus "fixed" all the versions he based the TR on. Erasmus said
Which in today's speech means only an ignorant manual laborer doesn't understand that on going research which could change some words in the Bible is good.
Or do you still not see that? Where was the TR in 1450? Please answer this without rhetoric.
It seems that it also takes more than an ignorant manual labourer to see that different presuppositions means that there are different ways this is attempted.
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
All I want to show is that the attempt is fair. Give me that and we have no problem.
Saying God inspired Erasmus directly to perfectly recreate the original autographs (well, after the dozen or so editorial revisions) in 1516, and saying that no further debate is legitimate since the case was divinely settled in the early 16th century is a totally different subject than discussing the various presuppositions involved in textual criticism.
As long as the attempt does not require an individual to deny the conviction that the Bible is the Word of God, then I can't see a problem.
The difference between the CT and MT is that one goes from dating pieces of paper to counting them. Making pieces of paper the judge of the text is a basically liberal presupposition. What has the church appealed to as the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture? That is the more fundamental question so far as Protestant presuppositions are concerned.
Wannabee
Obi Wan Kenobi
I understand that. But the MT held sway in the church for centuries before Erasmus showed up. Except for the few manuscripts that Erasmus had at his disposal the church generally had either the MT or the Vulgate. It seems that modern MT adherents are more in line with continuing the work Erasmus began.
-----Added 1/25/2009 at 09:09:48 EST-----
Seems like The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text (1985), edited by Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad should be given consideration as well. I don't know which would be preferred.
-----Added 1/25/2009 at 09:09:48 EST-----
Seems like The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text (1985), edited by Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad should be given consideration as well. I don't know which would be preferred.
CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Hi Rich:
I have not listened to the debate - yet. What I am commenting on are the statements made in the thread that this is a spinoff of as well as Dr. White's own comments on his webpage.
I don't think that you really understand the historical nature of the transmission of Scripture over the centuries. We have always had a Greek textual witness to the autographs which goes back to circa 68 AD.
Here is the ISBN for Dr. Carston Thiede's book Eyewitness to Jesus where he makes the case that the Magdalen Papyri date from about 68 AD.
0385480512
You can get a used copy of the book for about $1 plus shipping and handling at Amazon.
According to Dr. Thiede: Fragment 3 (on the Recto side) contains Matthew 26:22-23. The reading of this passage is consistent with the Byzantine MSS, and not with the Critical Text.
In 313AD the Emperor Constantine declares Christianity a state religion - thus giving it the protection of the Eastern Empire. He commissions 50 copies of the Bible funded by his own treasury. In the succeeding centuries we find thousands of MSS being copied, and all of them Byzantine in nature.
Rich, the more information we get concerning the history of textual transmission the more we are confident that the texts used by Erasmus, Stephens, Beza, and Scrivener are the Sacred apographia of the autographs.
Egypt's dry and arid climate is supposed to be the ideal place for the preservation of ancient texts. Yet, we only have a handful of Alexandrian MSS? If the Church truly believed that the Alexandrian varients were legitimate, then they would have been copied and re-copied in a similar fashion as the Byzantine MSS were done. Where are the thousands of Alexandrian texts that we should be digging up out of the sands of Egypt?
I will admit that our knowledge of textual transmission becomes sketchy prior to 300 AD. However, the Old Latin text of the Waldensians is purely Byzantine in nature, and is dated to 120 AD.
It is clear that the Byzantine MSS have been around for a lot longer than the Critical Text advocates care to admit.
Blessings,
Rob
Egypt. 
Is there any reason to believe that there might be a reason, other than climate, why MSS might be few from that region?
Also, once again, we are presented with a one-way examination of historical formation. This is par for the course and I, for one, don't have the energy for another round.
Is there any reason to believe that there might be a reason, other than climate, why MSS might be few from that region?
Also, once again, we are presented with a one-way examination of historical formation. This is par for the course and I, for one, don't have the energy for another round.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
I guess I'm still asking for some examples of the CT teaching damnable heresy vis a vis the MT.
My training was all in CT, but my mind is open to consider sound arguments for the Byzantine tradition.
I'm still of the uneducated opinion that most variants are inconsequential and either untranslatable or of minimal impact on the narratives. It seems to me that we have much greater variation in language between English versions than we do between text types. If I do ever find myself on the MT side of the aisle, it would seem to me that a translation based upon a carefully edited Majority Text (e.g., Hodges, Robinson, et. al.) would make more sense than the TR.
The account of Erasmus' hurried effort to get his Bible into print in 1516 and the subsequent reliance upon a relatively few mss. does not overly impress me.
My training was all in CT, but my mind is open to consider sound arguments for the Byzantine tradition.
I'm still of the uneducated opinion that most variants are inconsequential and either untranslatable or of minimal impact on the narratives. It seems to me that we have much greater variation in language between English versions than we do between text types. If I do ever find myself on the MT side of the aisle, it would seem to me that a translation based upon a carefully edited Majority Text (e.g., Hodges, Robinson, et. al.) would make more sense than the TR.
The account of Erasmus' hurried effort to get his Bible into print in 1516 and the subsequent reliance upon a relatively few mss. does not overly impress me.
CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Hi:
I apologize Rev. McFadden for the late reply to your question. Here is a link for you to investigate one of the problems with a very famous text:
W. Willker Codex Vaticanus 1209, B/03: A textcritical complaint
The editorial margin indicates that this is a continuing problem with the scribe of the text in question. In other words - the Scribe performed other "creative" acts on the MSS.
The change done by the original Scribe indicates a Gnostic reading to the text. Instead of the original:
"upholding all things by the Word of His power."
The original Scribe has changed it to:
"manifesting all things..."
The original Scribe of the Vaticanus is saying that Jesus was simply a "manifestation" or ghostly apparation which is comparable to the Gnostic view of Jesus. The editor of the text restores the original by placing the correct reading in, and making a note of it.
Blessings,
Rob
I apologize Rev. McFadden for the late reply to your question. Here is a link for you to investigate one of the problems with a very famous text:
W. Willker Codex Vaticanus 1209, B/03: A textcritical complaint
The editorial margin indicates that this is a continuing problem with the scribe of the text in question. In other words - the Scribe performed other "creative" acts on the MSS.
The change done by the original Scribe indicates a Gnostic reading to the text. Instead of the original:
"upholding all things by the Word of His power."
The original Scribe has changed it to:
"manifesting all things..."
The original Scribe of the Vaticanus is saying that Jesus was simply a "manifestation" or ghostly apparation which is comparable to the Gnostic view of Jesus. The editor of the text restores the original by placing the correct reading in, and making a note of it.
Blessings,
Rob
Last edited:
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
Another typical example of the backwards thinking the AVer sect relies on. You start from the premise that God preserved what we now call the TR, and look around for anything that will support your theory. And that's typical of Fundies, whether they are talking about the End Times or anything else.
You can spend all sorts of time dealing with their "proofs" but it doesn't do a lick of good, since they don't care a lick about proof. It's a matter of faith, so their reasoning doesn't depend of proof for support. Edersheim can make a off the cuff remark that was a mistake. He can say Aramaic was a dialect of Hebrew. I can contact scholars from all over the world who say Edersheim was wrong, and even contact the University of Tel Aviv and have one of the greatest living Aramaic scholars say Edersheim was wrong, but that evidence is just ignored, because to Fundies all evidence is of equal value.
And in the above example, tomorrow it could be announced that a monastery in Libya another 10 Greek manuscripts were uncovered (made of skin rather than papyrus, which (who'd of thunk it) doesn't last as long as skin). And that this manuscript differs from the TR in a dozen ways, including using tree instead of book in Rev. 22:19, and the above argument would be dropped. But dropping the argument wouldn't affect the theory, since the theory isn't based on facts.
I want to try to sum up what my thoughts on this impasse are and I apologize if this offends but this is my sense of the issue and why it is so difficult to have any kind of meaningful conversation about this subject.
A TR advocate doesn't really care about historical formation in the final analysis. The details of "how" the TR came to be an infallible authoritative textual platform are really not within the realm of "orthodox" discussion. It just is.
This is why it is extremely odd to me that the formulation of any other textual platform is important. Why does it matter? What difference does it make what method any textual platform uses if it doesn't matter how yours came together? What difference does it make where someone found a manuscript if you don't have a single manuscript that matches the TR? What difference does the fact that the Church didn't have a CT version of the Scriptures if it's not even worthy of discussion what the Church "possessed" in the Vulgate?
You see, all this talk about Dr. White being bound to a particular methodology by his philosophy rings as so much hollow rhetoric to me. There really is no interest at all in how the text was formed unless it relates to the formation of anything other than the TR. The light of examination works in only one direction.
Hence, my answer to the paucity of manuscripts in Egypt: Why does it matter? It is because it is. Historical formation doesn't matter in the final analysis.
A TR advocate doesn't really care about historical formation in the final analysis. The details of "how" the TR came to be an infallible authoritative textual platform are really not within the realm of "orthodox" discussion. It just is.
This is why it is extremely odd to me that the formulation of any other textual platform is important. Why does it matter? What difference does it make what method any textual platform uses if it doesn't matter how yours came together? What difference does it make where someone found a manuscript if you don't have a single manuscript that matches the TR? What difference does the fact that the Church didn't have a CT version of the Scriptures if it's not even worthy of discussion what the Church "possessed" in the Vulgate?
You see, all this talk about Dr. White being bound to a particular methodology by his philosophy rings as so much hollow rhetoric to me. There really is no interest at all in how the text was formed unless it relates to the formation of anything other than the TR. The light of examination works in only one direction.
Hence, my answer to the paucity of manuscripts in Egypt: Why does it matter? It is because it is. Historical formation doesn't matter in the final analysis.
CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Hi:
Rich:
You are not getting it, my friend, and I blame myself for the oversight. I have noted over and over that the TR is a collation of the Byzantine MSS. It is the Byzantine Family of MSS that contain the Sacred apographia of the autographs - of which the Textus Receptus is simply a representative collation of such texts. As it is a representation of the Byzantine family it has the authority of the Greek Texts as the Sacred apographia of the autographs.
I will admit something that may shock you: The TR can be redacted from the Byzantine family of MSS.
I have shown, in previous posts, that we have textual witness through all ages of the Byzantine MSS. That these MSS were copied and re-copied through all ages testifies to their authenticity. Thus, my comment about Egypt is appropos on this matter:
If the Church in Africa - which was strong and vibrant through the first five centuries (producing one of the greatest theologians in the history of the Church, St. Augustine) - thought the Sinaiticus (Aleph) text was a pure text, then they would be copying and re-copying it over the centuries. As the climate of Egypt is suitable for keeping ancient texts over long periods of time, then we should have thousands of texts testifying to the Alexandrian varients. Many of these, as ancient as Aleph, would blow the Byzantine MSS out of the water.
But such is not the case.
The Waldensians claimed that Jerome used corrupt MSS when he translated the Vulgate. Consequently, you will find both Alexandrian and Byzantine readings in his Vulgate. St. Augustine is on record as saying that the Waldensian Bible is the purest form available in his time. The Old Latin of the Waldensians is consistently Byzantine in nature, and is dated to 120 AD. It was used during the Reformation for the translation of the French Olivetian Bible, Coverdale's English translation, and the Italian Diodati as well. All of which are Byzantine in nature.
Blessings,
Rob
Rich:
You are not getting it, my friend, and I blame myself for the oversight. I have noted over and over that the TR is a collation of the Byzantine MSS. It is the Byzantine Family of MSS that contain the Sacred apographia of the autographs - of which the Textus Receptus is simply a representative collation of such texts. As it is a representation of the Byzantine family it has the authority of the Greek Texts as the Sacred apographia of the autographs.
I will admit something that may shock you: The TR can be redacted from the Byzantine family of MSS.
I have shown, in previous posts, that we have textual witness through all ages of the Byzantine MSS. That these MSS were copied and re-copied through all ages testifies to their authenticity. Thus, my comment about Egypt is appropos on this matter:
If the Church in Africa - which was strong and vibrant through the first five centuries (producing one of the greatest theologians in the history of the Church, St. Augustine) - thought the Sinaiticus (Aleph) text was a pure text, then they would be copying and re-copying it over the centuries. As the climate of Egypt is suitable for keeping ancient texts over long periods of time, then we should have thousands of texts testifying to the Alexandrian varients. Many of these, as ancient as Aleph, would blow the Byzantine MSS out of the water.
But such is not the case.
The Waldensians claimed that Jerome used corrupt MSS when he translated the Vulgate. Consequently, you will find both Alexandrian and Byzantine readings in his Vulgate. St. Augustine is on record as saying that the Waldensian Bible is the purest form available in his time. The Old Latin of the Waldensians is consistently Byzantine in nature, and is dated to 120 AD. It was used during the Reformation for the translation of the French Olivetian Bible, Coverdale's English translation, and the Italian Diodati as well. All of which are Byzantine in nature.
Blessings,
Rob
sotzo
Puritan Board Sophomore
Jerusalem Blade...where are you? Wish he would enter the discussion.
I have to say I think the only way to deal with the impasse is as Dr. McFadden states above: "...most variants are inconsequential and either untranslatable or of minimal impact on the narratives." If we had zero variants we would still be subjective creatures having to do interpretive work, therefore, still subject to error. It is exactly the same dilemma Rome gets into by saying an infallible papacy leads to an infallibly interpreted text.
I have to say I think the only way to deal with the impasse is as Dr. McFadden states above: "...most variants are inconsequential and either untranslatable or of minimal impact on the narratives." If we had zero variants we would still be subjective creatures having to do interpretive work, therefore, still subject to error. It is exactly the same dilemma Rome gets into by saying an infallible papacy leads to an infallibly interpreted text.
Rob,
It's not those broad discussions that matter it's the specifics and the ability to continue to "improve" the TR that grind the gears to a halt. Examination of very specific passages cannot be sustained by an appeal to the purity of the Byzantine text and, at that point, historical examination ends. The TR has no textual variations now. Any scholarship to determine MSS varations and best readings has ceased. It's not even a choice anymore of whether scholars should be using the MT when they translate a text but the TR alone is argued as authentic for non-historical reasons.
I was being facetious earlier but a more obvious reason we don't have a whole lot of surviving MSS left from the Middle East is Islam. It's the same reason, in part, we lost so many in the early centuries of the Church when various Roman Emperors did everything they could to destroy MSS.
It's not those broad discussions that matter it's the specifics and the ability to continue to "improve" the TR that grind the gears to a halt. Examination of very specific passages cannot be sustained by an appeal to the purity of the Byzantine text and, at that point, historical examination ends. The TR has no textual variations now. Any scholarship to determine MSS varations and best readings has ceased. It's not even a choice anymore of whether scholars should be using the MT when they translate a text but the TR alone is argued as authentic for non-historical reasons.
I was being facetious earlier but a more obvious reason we don't have a whole lot of surviving MSS left from the Middle East is Islam. It's the same reason, in part, we lost so many in the early centuries of the Church when various Roman Emperors did everything they could to destroy MSS.
TimV
Puritanboard Botanist
Where's the impasse? On a board like this you're going to get a higher percentage of unusual views than in an average church. There are no major Reformed denominations who hold to the AVer view, and there never were, and never will be.
There are people here, good, Christian people, who think a man can have a legitimate marriage to his half sister, but there are no major Reformed denominations that allow this, and there never were, and never will be.
In both cases the arguments are based on emotion and faulty thinking.
If I were to say "Rich, there were more people who copied Byzantine manuscripts than Alexandrian manuscripts, and this proves the Byzantine texts are God's Word" then Rich has the right to say "OK, if more Byzantine manuscripts use Tree instead of Book, then that proves Tree is God's Word and not Book". And he would be right.
But no, when the AVer questions are turned around and asked of THEM, they get mystic and claim the rest of us just have to accept their word for it "because".
Some of my favorites are "Where was the TR in 1450" and the answer "I suppose in a church somewhere".
And "Did New Testament authors quote from the Septuagint" and the answer is "No, even though over 99% of Christian scholars have always said NT authors quoted from both the Hebrew and Septuagint, there was a forged letter by someone nobody's ever heard of"
And "If every living Aramaic scholar says that Aramaic isn't a dialect of Hebrew, why do you say different" and the answer is "Edersheim was a man of God so you shouldn't question him".
CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Now, Now, Tim, you know that I gave you solid reasons for rejecting Majority readings on the Tree of Life thread post #6.
Your statements are offensive in the light of such a matter.
Blessings,
Rob
CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Oh, ok, Tim - that the Bible does not contradict its own Theology is a "theory"?
Riiiiight
Blessings,
Rob
charliejunfan
Puritan Board Senior
Just go to Presbyterians instead of baptists
CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Rich:
I do not see why that is such a problem? There are many things concerning the True Religion that can be considered historically static: Justification by Faith Alone, the Trinity, the Canon of Scripture.
Why do you see a necessity in changing the Greek Text that the Church has always held? Especially in the light of 1 Pt. 1:24,25, and Mt. 24:35? Does Christ's Word change every generation?
It seems like it with all these new Bible translations coming out.
Blessings,
Rob
I do not see why that is such a problem? There are many things concerning the True Religion that can be considered historically static: Justification by Faith Alone, the Trinity, the Canon of Scripture.
Why do you see a necessity in changing the Greek Text that the Church has always held? Especially in the light of 1 Pt. 1:24,25, and Mt. 24:35? Does Christ's Word change every generation?
It seems like it with all these new Bible translations coming out.
Blessings,
Rob
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Rob,
Admittedly, I'm not an expert on textual criticism. But, don't the arguments basically boil down to the following:
The TR group believes that because the Byzantine mss are the vast majority of the extant ones we have today, they are most likely the right ones. When the CT folks counter that the Alexandrian mss are older, the MT people note that in their estimation the old Latin also tends to support the Byzantine readings. And, the doctrine of preservation is seen as supporting the claim to the Majority Text (if not the TR) as the "church's Bible" for most of its history. Why would we want to accept the changes made by heretical sects in Gnostic Egypt over the continuous use of the Byzantine text by worshipping Christians? And, analogous to the arguments made against secular counseling (i.e., its dependence upon alien presuppositions inimical to the Christian faith), the rise of WH type textual criticism depends upon premises born of an Enlightenment skepticism.
The CT folks argue that you ought to "weigh" not "count" mss. They suggest that the Alexandrian mss, albeit fewer, are older. And, when you recognize that some parts of the ancient world tended to favor the Western readings (rather than Byzantine or Alexandrian ones), only a "reasoned ecclecticism" allows us to do textual criticism with any surety. In the hands of radicals (e.g., Ehrman), the diversity of the mss. tradition undermines both the doctrine of preservation and inspiration. In the hands of conservatives, the differences in texts do not endanger a single doctrine. We should practice textual criticism in order to have the most accurate copy of God's Word humanly possible (analogous to why we need to work hard to be faithful in our translation efforts). However, the perspicuity of Scripture does not depend upon a variant free text.
It seems to me that both sides can claim the doctrine of inerrancy for themselves, while questioning the sanity or faithfulness of those on the "other" side.
Thanks for the example in your post #46. That is the kind of thing I was looking for by way of instances. Again, please provide a list of other examples for the TR supporting orthodoxy against the CT.
Admittedly, I'm not an expert on textual criticism. But, don't the arguments basically boil down to the following:
The TR group believes that because the Byzantine mss are the vast majority of the extant ones we have today, they are most likely the right ones. When the CT folks counter that the Alexandrian mss are older, the MT people note that in their estimation the old Latin also tends to support the Byzantine readings. And, the doctrine of preservation is seen as supporting the claim to the Majority Text (if not the TR) as the "church's Bible" for most of its history. Why would we want to accept the changes made by heretical sects in Gnostic Egypt over the continuous use of the Byzantine text by worshipping Christians? And, analogous to the arguments made against secular counseling (i.e., its dependence upon alien presuppositions inimical to the Christian faith), the rise of WH type textual criticism depends upon premises born of an Enlightenment skepticism.
The CT folks argue that you ought to "weigh" not "count" mss. They suggest that the Alexandrian mss, albeit fewer, are older. And, when you recognize that some parts of the ancient world tended to favor the Western readings (rather than Byzantine or Alexandrian ones), only a "reasoned ecclecticism" allows us to do textual criticism with any surety. In the hands of radicals (e.g., Ehrman), the diversity of the mss. tradition undermines both the doctrine of preservation and inspiration. In the hands of conservatives, the differences in texts do not endanger a single doctrine. We should practice textual criticism in order to have the most accurate copy of God's Word humanly possible (analogous to why we need to work hard to be faithful in our translation efforts). However, the perspicuity of Scripture does not depend upon a variant free text.
It seems to me that both sides can claim the doctrine of inerrancy for themselves, while questioning the sanity or faithfulness of those on the "other" side.
Thanks for the example in your post #46. That is the kind of thing I was looking for by way of instances. Again, please provide a list of other examples for the TR supporting orthodoxy against the CT.
Grymir
Puritan Board Graduate
Hi DMcFadden. What a great post! That highlights the differences well.
quote - "the doctrine of preservation is seen as supporting the claim to the Majority Text (if not the TR) as the "church's Bible" for most of its history. Why would we want to accept the changes made by heretical sects in Gnostic Egypt over the continuous use of the Byzantine text by worshipping Christians? And, analogous to the arguments made against secular counseling (i.e., its dependence upon alien presuppositions inimical to the Christian faith), the rise of WH type textual criticism depends upon premises born of an Enlightenment skepticism."
Yes, according to the TR position that I lean to, preservation means that what we have now is what we are to have. It was the "Church's Bible" and can trace it's roots back to the beginning. I think Beza's stamp on it is a big point for me. And the TR doesn't say that it's variant free either. There is more than one Textus Receptus. I use the KJV based on Schiver's work.
quote - "only a "reasoned ecclecticism" allows us to do textual criticism with any surety. In the hands of radicals (e.g., Ehrman), the diversity of the mss. tradition undermines both the doctrine of preservation and inspiration. In the hands of conservatives, the differences in texts do not endanger a single doctrine. We should practice textual criticism in order to have the most accurate copy of God's Word humanly possible (analogous to why we need to work hard to be faithful in our translation efforts). However, the perspicuity of Scripture does not depend upon a variant free text."
I like this part of what you said. Alot. It's not said much. The difference between radicals and conservatives isn't brought out much. It's the Church's seal of approval, with the translation blessed by knowledgeable translators that makes a difference. And was missing until recently. It's good that the Wescott and Hort version has fallen to the wayside, and when I hear the people that wrote the Nestle-Aland bring up the problems with the WH, It goes along way to adding credibility. To have R.C. Sproul give his "blessing" to the ESV is something that I cannot ignore. And your studies and comments have helped too.
Which lead me to my conclusions about Dr. White's not being over the line concerning the OP. You just hit the nail on the head. Thanks.
quote - "the doctrine of preservation is seen as supporting the claim to the Majority Text (if not the TR) as the "church's Bible" for most of its history. Why would we want to accept the changes made by heretical sects in Gnostic Egypt over the continuous use of the Byzantine text by worshipping Christians? And, analogous to the arguments made against secular counseling (i.e., its dependence upon alien presuppositions inimical to the Christian faith), the rise of WH type textual criticism depends upon premises born of an Enlightenment skepticism."
Yes, according to the TR position that I lean to, preservation means that what we have now is what we are to have. It was the "Church's Bible" and can trace it's roots back to the beginning. I think Beza's stamp on it is a big point for me. And the TR doesn't say that it's variant free either. There is more than one Textus Receptus. I use the KJV based on Schiver's work.
quote - "only a "reasoned ecclecticism" allows us to do textual criticism with any surety. In the hands of radicals (e.g., Ehrman), the diversity of the mss. tradition undermines both the doctrine of preservation and inspiration. In the hands of conservatives, the differences in texts do not endanger a single doctrine. We should practice textual criticism in order to have the most accurate copy of God's Word humanly possible (analogous to why we need to work hard to be faithful in our translation efforts). However, the perspicuity of Scripture does not depend upon a variant free text."
I like this part of what you said. Alot. It's not said much. The difference between radicals and conservatives isn't brought out much. It's the Church's seal of approval, with the translation blessed by knowledgeable translators that makes a difference. And was missing until recently. It's good that the Wescott and Hort version has fallen to the wayside, and when I hear the people that wrote the Nestle-Aland bring up the problems with the WH, It goes along way to adding credibility. To have R.C. Sproul give his "blessing" to the ESV is something that I cannot ignore. And your studies and comments have helped too.
Which lead me to my conclusions about Dr. White's not being over the line concerning the OP. You just hit the nail on the head. Thanks.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
