Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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!
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!
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 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.
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?
yes, I understand all that. which is part of why White’s constant chanting of “the papyri” is sillyEven 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 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.yes, I understand all that. which is part of why White’s constant chanting of “the papyri” is silly
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.
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.
Some would say he has responded to correction in eschatological views the past few years.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.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?
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.
What is wrong with certainty?
There is nothing wrong with certainty. But "certainty" that ignores reality is delusion. "Certainty" that is misinformed is false.
Criticising the desire for certainty- as Logan did and others like R. Scott Clark do
Alexander, you're going to have to try to understand what people are actually saying if we're to have a conversation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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?
Petty.Then you should have worded your post more clearly.
And you have misnamed me: my name is Alexander, not Andrew.
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.