Van Kleeck vs White: The Textus Receptus As The Word Of God Is Equal To The New Testament Autographs

  • Thread starter Deleted member 12919 by request
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If someone doesn't mind, give me a bite size definition of what "Confessional Bibliology" is, and why in your opinion it is or isn't a valid position. Thanks!
 
If someone doesn't mind, give me a bite size definition of what "Confessional Bibliology" is, and why in your opinion it is or isn't a valid position. Thanks!
This thread would fill in some of the blanks:
 
If someone doesn't mind, give me a bite size definition of what "Confessional Bibliology" is, and why in your opinion it is or isn't a valid position. Thanks!
It’s a view of the text of the Bible that claims to be the sole “confessional” position, and the only true position that gives us (in the Textus Receptus) a text “kept pure in all ages.” (To quote the WCF 1.8)
 
If someone doesn't mind, give me a bite size definition of what "Confessional Bibliology" is, and why in your opinion it is or isn't a valid position. Thanks!

Tall order but I'll take a stab.

I see it as a relatively recent movement that purports to be going back to the confessions, specifically Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 1 section 8 which 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..."

The crux of the position is the words "kept pure", which the proponents will say meant that that the authors of the Confession believed they had the pure Scriptures and there was no need to do further textual criticism. It also says that since this text (or line of printed texts) was used in the proof texts, this is further evidence that the authors relied upon it and therefore to maintain this line of printed texts is confessional.

There are several issues with that. That the Divines considered their printed texts authoritative, no one should doubt. However, the point of dispute is whether they thought that there was no improvement at all that could be made, or whether they taught that their printed texts exactly represented the autographs.

One issue is that none of the authors, in their writings, appealed to printed texts. I have produced many quotes that show they appealed to the true reading found in the "copies" (manuscripts). Turretin stated that yes the apographs are authoritative but they are authoritative only as far as they accurately represent the autographs. Owen might come closest (calling their "received text" deserving of being a standard), but he also said that alternative readings from good copies deserved to be studied and produced.

Another issue is that "kept pure" is followed by "in all ages". The "TR" as printed in the 16th and 17th centuries, has readings which were not part of the Greek manuscripts prior to that. So a wooden reading of "kept pure" that denies any additional modification, would also deny that past manuscripts were pure.

Another issue is that the "TR" itself went through over a dozen iterations, with variations in each. Knowing that, "kept pure" has to allow for some variation, and if so, how much is "too much"?

I maintain that despite Confessional Bibliology's claims, the framers themselves did not hold the views that they are being claimed to have held, although again, they undoubtedly trusted their printed text, they also showed evidence that they disagreed with it at times, appealing to "some manuscripts say this", or "the best copies read" that, and none of them appealed to the printed text as equal to the autographs.

So I don't think that this particular flavor is a valid position, because it makes claims about what the Divines taught that can easily be tested.

I suppose there are other flavors of "confessional bibliology" that might say that it was the text of the Confession therefore we have to use it in order to be confessional.
 
I disagree with that, and you'll see that I worded my post accordingly. Keep in mind we're talking about some hypothetical manuscript discovery that contains heretofore unknown readings that impact doctrine. If you think anyone, CT or otherwise, would overturn the rest of the manuscript testimony based on that, then you'll have to present some support. Because I don't know of anyone who would.
Well, that’s essentially what happened with the discovery of Sinaiticus and the “rediscovery” of Vaticanus. Because “oldest is best” and various other questionable “canons” of text criticism, W-H and the 1881 revision committee upended readings held dear for centuries. So while White and Wallace may not change their Bibles in light of such hypothetical discoveries, I would argue they would be inconsistent in rejecting the impact of such discoveries.

I would not charge you or Lane as such, and I have respect for the well-reasoned Robinsonian/Sturtzian views you guys hold.
 
Well, that’s essentially what happened with the discovery of Sinaiticus and the “rediscovery” of Vaticanus. Because “oldest is best” and various other questionable “canons” of text criticism, W-H and the 1881 revision committee upended readings held dear for centuries. So while White and Wallace may not change their Bibles in light of such hypothetical discoveries, I would argue they would be inconsistent in rejecting the impact of such discoveries.

I would not charge you or Lane as such, and I have respect for the well-reasoned Robinsonian/Sturtzian views you guys hold.

Even there though, they were not new readings. They had been discussed for almost the entire history of the Christian Church. Those manuscripts lent new weight however (although I agree it was a disproportional weight). No text critic I have ever heard of, including W-H would simply grab the oldest manuscript they can find. There's a lot of nuance, and admitted subjectivity, to how weight is assigned.
 
I’m not sure I understand you here.

I have to go back and watch the whole debate. Once I do that, I’ll see if I have any questions.

I’m curious, do the other CB guys consider Dr. VK a solid voice that strengthens their position?

Not to my CB friend, who thought VK was a very poor representative.

To elaborate on the following statement you didn't understand:

"At the same time, I think I understand what primarily motivates the TR-advocates: the desire for assurance of which we can know. That is - and this is just my impression - I think TR-advocates want to have reflective access or to be self-aware regarding what truth they know and ground any claims to assurance on that, not a mere feeling of confidence."

CBs want epistemic certainty. They think the textual position to which they hold will enable them to have and defend epistemic certainty. Why are they so motivated to have and defend epistemic certainty?

I think they would say that if we can't have epistemic certainty, someone might have legitimate grounds for doubting Christianity due to a variety of unanswerable "what if" questions, e.g. "what if many manuscripts are discovered that conflict with what we currently possess?" This undercuts Christian assurance.

That is, CBs will argue that those who hold to the critical text are attempting to reason to what God's word is through, for example, empirical investigation. Therefore, CBs will argue that those who hold to the critical text are logically committed to the position that what ought to be regarded as God's word is an open question, for manuscript discoveries might overthrow our current understanding of what God's word is (including what we currently think God's word says about itself). There can be no epistemic certainty on such grounds, and these sorts of skeptical worries prevent the sort of assurance, describes in italics above, that a CB wants. Hence, there is an analogy between this discussion and epistemic internalism and externalism.

Thus, CBs prefer a "closed system" (TR-advocacy) in which what ought to be regarded as God's word cannot be open to revision. Since there are a variety of TR iterations, it is not surprising that there are a corresponding variety of CBs; in common, however, they all are essentially openly presuppositional about their understanding of textual issues (and will claim everyone has such presuppositions anyways). Their presuppositions are designed to allow them to filter any historical or empirical discovery through said presuppositions to allegedly maintain epistemic certainty.

I say all this dispassionately, by the way. I sympathize with some CB motivations - even if I would go about addressing them a different way - and this is the heart of their concern as I understand it.
 
Even there though, they were not new readings. They had been discussed for almost the entire history of the Christian Church. Those manuscripts lent new weight however (although I agree it was a disproportional weight). No text critic I have ever heard of, including W-H would simply grab the oldest manuscript they can find. There's a lot of nuance, and admitted subjectivity, to how weight is assigned.
yes, I understand all that. which is part of why White’s constant chanting of “the papyri” is silly
 
yes, I understand all that. which is part of why White’s constant chanting of “the papyri” is silly
I don’t get all the contempt for James White. Even if you don’t agree with him on every point, he does a good job at explaining his position and not running into novelty or what have you. I hope to be as consistent as he has been over decades of faithful ministry.
 
I don’t get all the contempt for James White. Even if you don’t agree with him on every point, he does a good job at explaining his position and not running into novelty or what have you. I hope to be as consistent as he has been over decades of faithful ministry.
I suspect it's White's demeanor and his resistance to being corrected that puts people off. For me, I'm much more concerned with his willingness to jettison his 1689 affiliations to hobnob with Apologia and Doug Wilson.
 
I don’t get all the contempt for James White. Even if you don’t agree with him on every point, he does a good job at explaining his position and not running into novelty or what have you. I hope to be as consistent as he has been over decades of faithful ministry.

White is good on issues like textual criticism and cults. As of lately, though, he's getting out of his lane and it doesn't look good.
 
I can’t say I’ve dug deep enough into Doug Wilson to comment on that.

Where does James White need to be corrected that he is unwilling?
 
I can’t say I’ve dug deep enough into Doug Wilson to comment on that.

Where does James White need to be corrected that he is unwilling?
Depends on who you ask. The great traditionalists aren't big fans. I tend not to be a fan of the great traditionalists. But I don't feel like arguing about it anymore.
 
Certainty is all well and good, where it can be had. But certainty built upon a foundation that cannot sustain it is another thing altogether. That type of certainty is fideism. What the modern CB position postulates cannot bear what it claims.

Obviously certainty cannot be had where certainty cannot be had. But who decides? Criticising the desire for certainty- as @Logan did and others like R. Scott Clark do- is as useless as claiming certainty is possible in every conceivable situation. The example Logan used of the translation of a Russian book exposes the weakness in the argument: what is gained by seeking an inferior translation of the work? We should always seek the best translation. There may be debate over what that is, and what constitutes "best", but the desire is still right. When it comes to Scripture we have a situation where one side (the TR camp) claims to have the authentic apograph. The other side, whilst rejecting that position, cannot produce an alternative. They can only produce a myriad of alternatives, with new ones added all the time.

If a translator said to me - "I've produced this pretty good translation of Crime and Punishment but this paragraph I'm not sure about, and this paragraph maybe shouldn't even be here, and I'm not even sure I translated the definitive Russian edition" - why would I be content to read that translation? Especially when a very well respected translator had already produced an English version based on the definitive text and which had been highly regarded by other translators and the general reading public for generations?
 
Alexander, you're going to have to try to understand what people are actually saying if we're to have a conversation.

You wrote a post in which you criticised the desire for certainty in relation to the Greek text, arguing that it was one of the underpinnings of the TR position and thus arguing that the desire for certainty as to which text is the authentic text is illegitimate. If this was not your intention, if you believe that it is possible to be certain that we have the autographs, then you should say so. But that is not what you clearly implied in this post:

I think there are multiple things that attract people to this position, not just the outliers. Mostly I think it has to do with the perception of certainty.

Web searches are filled with results that will give you "the best printer on the market". Those who are into Linux are constantly looking for "the best" version of Linux. People looking for a translation of Dostoyevsky will often ask the question "which is the best translation". Here on the PB when Calvin's Institutes are discussed, people will agonize over which is "the best" translation. We have this innate and oftentimes subconscious desire for the gold standard.
 
You wrote a post in which you criticised the desire for certainty in relation to the Greek text, arguing that it was one of the underpinnings of the TR position and thus arguing that the desire for certainty as to which text is the authentic text is illegitimate.

This conclusion is a complete mischaracterization. The desire for certainty it is not illegitimate and I did not criticize it. Why would I? But it is illegitimate to insist on certainty for a specific which does not comport with reality. As MarrowMan said, that's fideism.
 
This conclusion is a complete mischaracterization. The desire for certainty it is not illegitimate and I did not criticize it. Why would I? But it is illegitimate to insist on certainty for a specific which does not comport with reality. As MarrowMan said, that's fideism.

Well if the distinction you are drawing is between legitimate and illegitimate certainty, then the obvious conclusion from your bringing up the issue in relation to the TR position is to argue that is an example of illegitimate certainty. Especially as you went on to talk about "traditionalism" and "tribalism" (I'm assuming you meant these negatively). You then said:

"We want deeper reasons than that and I think we try to rationalize our feelings by coming up with something that seems like a good argument. It might even be subconscious. We know we have a good reason, we just have to find it! Like it's "confessional" or it was the view of "all the Reformers", or some philosophical reason why there should be one Bible, or an exegetical latching onto a couple of verses and then feeling like it's the only possible orthodox way to interpret them, or a canonization, or something something something."

The highlighted portions are either negative descriptions or imply a weakness. Your post was a list of illegitimate reasons why people hold to the TR, or CB, position. And you started by saying: "Mostly I think it has to do with the perception of certainty."

What other conclusion could one draw from your post than that the seeking of certainty in this area is wrong?
 
The highlighted portions are either negative descriptions or imply a weakness. Your post was a list of illegitimate reasons why people hold to the TR, or CB, position. And you started by saying: "Mostly I think it has to do with the perception of certainty."

What other conclusion could one draw from your post than that the seeking of certainty in this area is wrong?

Alexander, can you truly see no other conclusion? Those are rationalizations I provided to a specific question. If they are true (i.e., match history, reality, etc.), they may indeed be legitimate. If they are not true, then they are not legitimate: they are merely rationalizations that don't match reality. How does that in any way imply that the only possible conclusion is that seeking certainty in this area is wrong? We all strive for that, myself included. I intentionally used "we" all throughout that post and you've reinterpreted that as "TR people".

Please cease misinterpreting me and putting words in my mouth that I never said.
 
Certainty is good. I possess certainty that my Bible is the Word of God. What’s not good is faux-certainty built on sandy foundations that don’t line up with reality.

Though he is not well-loved here, James White has a great statement on this matter: The CB position “trades truth for certainty.”
 
Alexander, can you truly see no other conclusion? Those are rationalizations I provided to a specific question. If they are true (i.e., match history, reality, etc.), they may indeed be legitimate. If they are not true, then they are not legitimate: they are merely rationalizations that don't match reality. How does that in any way imply that the only possible conclusion is that seeking certainty in this area is wrong? We all strive for that, myself included. I intentionally used "we" all throughout that post and you've reinterpreted that as "TR people".

Please cease misinterpreting me and putting words in my mouth that I never said.

When you, again and again, in thread after thread, post comments critical of the TR position and then give reasons why you believe people hold to the TR position the only conclusion is that you believe those reasons are illegitimate. I did not put words in your mouth I merely quoted your own words back to you.
 
Alexander, the point of focus seems to have shifted here somehow. First you were charging Logan with “criticising the desire for certainty,” now you are talking about “believ[ing] those reasons are illegitimate.”

I’m trying to figure out how your comments relate to Logan’s point, but I don’t see it.
 
Alexander, the point of focus seems to have shifted here somehow. First you were charging Logan with “criticising the desire for certainty,” now you are talking about “believ[ing] those reasons are illegitimate.”

I’m trying to figure out how your comments relate to Logan’s point, but I don’t see it.

I have charged him with "criticising the desire for certainty" because he believes the such a reason to hold to the TR is illegitimate. The post in which he criticised the desire for certainty (which I quoted at length above) was a post in which he gave a number of reasons why he believed TR-advocates are such. These reasons were either negative or implied a logical weakness. He is a frequent critic of the TR position. One can only conclude that reasons he gives for why some hold to the TR position are reasons he considers illegitimate or weak.

If, as he says in post #110, we all (himself included) strive for certainty in the text we use then certainty should not be listed as a distinctive reason for holding the TR position (which was the question he was directly replying to) and it certainly shouldn't be given as the main reason ("mostly" as he said in his post) TR-advocates hold to their position.
 
Alexander, this is foolishness so let me state this clearly so there is no mistake: you are misrepresenting me.

You've conflated at least three different issues and ignored clear statements I've made in order to state my position in a way which I find unrecognizable and yet which you repeatedly state is the "only conclusion". You don't know my position or my motivations better than I know it myself so please cease.

I've clearly stated that there is "nothing wrong with certainty" or with the desire for certainty (you keep ignoring the "we" parts of my statement). Yet you insist that by reading between the lines I'm saying something entirely different. What I've instead insisted is that certainty must match reality. Otherwise, as MarrowMan said, it is fideism.

If you need clarification I'm happy to provide it. But to engage in mind-reading to insist I mean something I know I don't and didn't say, and to double down on that against my own testimony, is foolishness.
 
Last edited:
Andrew, this is foolishness so let me state this clearly so there is no mistake: you are misrepresenting me.

You've conflated at least three different issues and ignored clear statements I've made in order to state my position in a way which I find unrecognizable and yet which you repeatedly state is the "only conclusion". You don't know my position or my motivations better than I know it myself so please cease.

I've clearly stated that there is "nothing wrong with certainty" or with the desire for certainty (you keep ignoring the "we" parts of my statement). Yet you insist that by reading between the lines I'm saying something entirely different. What I've instead insisted is that certainty must match reality. Otherwise, as MarrowMan said, it is fideism.

If you need clarification I'm happy to provide it. But to engage in mind-reading to insist I mean something I know I don't and didn't say, and to double down on that against my own testimony, is foolishness.

Then you should have worded your post more clearly.

And you have misnamed me: my name is Alexander, not Andrew.
 
Obviously certainty cannot be had where certainty cannot be had. But who decides? Criticising the desire for certainty- as @Logan did and others like R. Scott Clark do- is as useless as claiming certainty is possible in every conceivable situation. The example Logan used of the translation of a Russian book exposes the weakness in the argument: what is gained by seeking an inferior translation of the work? We should always seek the best translation. There may be debate over what that is, and what constitutes "best", but the desire is still right. When it comes to Scripture we have a situation where one side (the TR camp) claims to have the authentic apograph. The other side, whilst rejecting that position, cannot produce an alternative. They can only produce a myriad of alternatives, with new ones added all the time.

If a translator said to me - "I've produced this pretty good translation of Crime and Punishment but this paragraph I'm not sure about, and this paragraph maybe shouldn't even be here, and I'm not even sure I translated the definitive Russian edition" - why would I be content to read that translation? Especially when a very well respected translator had already produced an English version based on the definitive text and which had been highly regarded by other translators and the general reading public for generations?
There's no disagreement here. I've no problem with the desire to have the best translation possible. That's not what the discussion has been about. Rather it is about specious arguments some put forward to assert that their's is "the best" and the following polemic. You can have the best translation while articulating the worst reasons.
 
Criticising the desire for certainty- as @Logan did and others like R. Scott Clark do- is as useless as claiming certainty is possible in every conceivable situation.

That's not what Clark and others are doing. We are not criticizing certainty itself, only illegitimate forms of certainty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top