Verse differences

Status
Not open for further replies.

SeanAnderson

Puritan Board Freshman
Please note that the point of this thread is not to start a Critical Text versus Textus Receptus argument (I know it is a very contentious issue).

Since I've been a Christian, I've used the ESV, but have recently begun to look at alternative manuscript traditions.

In the Critical Text, some verses which are not present in one gospel are still present in another gospel or, additionally, in another location in the same gospel. Anyone making an argument for the Critical Text here can simply state that such verses have been transposed by scribes who are seeking to harmonise the accounts - whether this is true or not.

But something which has me scratching my head even more are those places where the Textus Receptus has content neither found in the Critical Text verse nor anywhere else in scripture.


Matthew 20:22
Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” (ESV)
But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. (KJV)

Mark 9:49
For everyone will be salted with fire. (ESV)
For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. (KJV)


These are just two examples. I'm sure there are quite a few more, including the doxology of the Lord's Prayer.

What are we to make of these difficult passages? Is it possible that some of them could be scribes' notes rather than the Word of God?

As I said before, I didn't previously question the CT, but now that I have, it's still a minefield. I respect Burgon, but even he indicates that corrections could be made to the Textus Receptus. Is there a complete list anywhere of verses in the Textus Receptus where the manuscript evidence may be wanting?
 
The books linked below will answer your questions. Bruce Metzger's earlier edition without the assistance of Bart Ehrman, before Ehrman went apostate, is the one I have read. I can't speak for the other. My preference of the three listed is Carson's for readability. White is so verbose it is tiresome after awhile and Metzger is scholarly, I'm recommending those if you want a more detailed overview than you'll get from posting threads on internet boards. Nothing wrong with that, it is just that you'll get brief snippets from one side or the other. Another good website with many links to both sides of the issue, and more importantly source material from which you can do your own research is Michael Marlowe's Bible Research ...... Bible Research by Michael Marlowe

Bruce Metzger The Text Of The New Testament : Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration

James White, The King James Only Controversy

D.A. Carson The King James Version Debate; A Plea For Realism

 
First thing to remember is that the "Critical Text" includes an apparatus that lists the variants found in various manuscripts. In other words, it includes the readings found in the TR.

Regarding Matt 20:22 compare to Mark 10:38:

Mark 10:38 (ESV)
38*Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”


When you go to the apparatus for Matt 20:22, here are the notes:

{A} πίνειν. א D L Z Θ ƒ13 1 itaur, b, c, d, e, ff1,2, g1, l, n, r1 vg syrc, s copsa, meg, bopt ethpp Diatessaron Ambrose Jerome Augustine Speculum // πίειν. B 085 // πίνειν ἢ τὸ βάπτισμα ὃ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι βαπτισθῆναι (see Mk 10.38) C (G 579 πίειν) W Δ 13 28 33 (205 1424 πίνω for μέλλω πίνειν) 565 597 700 828 1006 1010 1241 1243 1292 1342 1505 Byz [E H O Σ] Lect it(f), h, q syrp, h arm geo2 slav Origenlat Marcusacc. to Irenaeus // πίνειν καὶ τὸ βάπτισμα ὁ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι βαπτισθῆναι 157 (180) 892 1071 (l*673 πίειν) lAD copbopt ethTH geo1 Chrysostom

Aland, K., Black, M., Martini, C. M., Metzger, B. M., Wikgren, A., Aland, B., & Karavidopoulos, J. (2000). The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (with apparatus); The Greek New Testament, 4th Revised Edition (with apparatus). Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft; Stuttgart.

OK, that looks like gobblygook but let me try to explain, the {A} indicates that the committee has a high degree of confidence that the original reading is as follows:

22 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· οὐκ οἴδατε τί αἰτεῖσθε. δύνασθε πιεῖν τὸ ποτήριον ὃ ἐγὼ μέλλω πίνειν; λέγουσιν αὐτῷ· δυνάμεθα.

And Jeus answered saying: "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am going to drink?" They answered to Him: "We are able."

Next to the {A} are all the manuscripts that contain this translation. Here's some basic information about the manuscripts where this reading is found:

The order will be Manuscript, Century, Type, Family

א, IV, Uncial, Alexandrian and Western
Indicates the manuscript is א, it's dated from the 4th century, it's an Uncial, and it has readings from the Alexandrian and Western families.
D, V, Uncial, Codex Bezae
L, VIII, Uncial Agrees much with Vaticannus
Θ, IX, Uncial Mostly Byzantine but Caesarean in Mark
ƒ13, XI-XV, minuscule Like fam. 1 , this family also has affinities with the Caesarean type of text
Notice also that it includes citations from Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine

One of the things the reading has going for it is the number of textual families that have this reading. I don't have the space to go into why this makes the reading preferable.

The second reading they cite replaces the bolded "to drink" infinitive with the word πίειν which is used earlier in the sentence and also means "to drink". Note the manuscripts that support that reading. It is possible that in copying the scribe saw the first πίειν in the sentence and failed to an a nu to the second "to drink".

The third variant is the one found in the KJV for that verse and the TR. You can see the text families that cite it but note also that Mark 10:38 is cited as I pointed out before. They point it out because it is a parallel text and if one is copying a text it's possible that they included the extra words out of habit or may have been harmonizing the text. One can look at the manuscripts and familiies that include this reading and get a sense for how old or stable those text families are. Sometimes one will find that the reading tends to be in one textual family which indicates that the reading came in and due to the tenacity of readings they tended to be copied into every manuscript thereafter.

Generally speaking then, there are a few rules that folks will make and then come to a conclusion regarding why they think the first reading is to be preferred but this does not mean that one can come to another conclusion regarding the text and what is original.

Here is Metzger's note on Mark 9:49 (because I'm too lazy to go through all of the above again):
πᾶς γὰρ πυρὶ ἁλισθήσεται {B}

The opening words of this verse have been transmitted in three principal forms: (1) πᾶς γὰρ πυρὶ ἁλισθήσεται (B L Δ f 1 f 13 syrs copsa al, “For every one will be salted with fire”); (2) πᾶσα γὰρ θυσία ἁλὶ ἁλισθήσεται (D itb, c, d, ff2, i, “For every sacrifice will be salted with salt”); and (3) πᾶς γὰρ πυρὶ ἁλισθήσεται καὶ πᾶσα θυσία ἁλὶ ἁλισθήσεται (A K Π al, “For every one will be salted with fire, and every sacrifice will be salted with salt”). The history of the text seems to have been as follows. At a very early period a scribe, having found in Lv 2:13 a clue to the meaning of Jesus’ enigmatic statement, wrote the Old Testament passage in the margin of his copy of Mark. In subsequent copyings the marginal gloss was either substituted for the words of the text, thus creating reading (2), or was added to the text, thus creating reading (3). Other modifications include πυρὶ ἀναλωθήσεται (Θ, “… will be consumed with fire …”), θυσία ἀναλωθήσεται (Ψ, “… sacrifice will be consumed …”), ἐν πυρὶ δοκιμασθήσεται (1195, “… will be tested by fire …”), and πᾶσα δὲ οὐσία ἀναλωθήσεται (implied by itk, “and all [their] substance will be destroyed,” ο being read for θ, and αναλω for αλιαλις).


Metzger, B. M., United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (p. 87). London; New York: United Bible Societies.
 
Thanks to both of you.

(I did not take into account that the NA/UBS Mark text included the 'baptism' reading).

Generally, I can see that even with the more recent critical approach, very little is 'missing' compared with the Textus Receptus - considering that a number of differences are possible attempts at harmonisation.

The biggest issues remain with the ending of Mark and the pericope adulterae. Two fairly large portions of text which reflect truth and have also been beloved by many generations of Christians.

I know there are a number of threads on these already, however.

I will read the recommended books with interest.
 
Not trying to get into debate, but why would anyone trust 'the committee' who determines grading of possibility in the critical text?

Anyone ever research the makeup of said committee and their backgrounds?
 
Not trying to get into debate, but why would anyone trust 'the committee' who determines grading of possibility in the critical text?

Anyone ever research the makeup of said committee and their backgrounds?

As I noted, Andrew, you don't have to trust the committee to use the Apparatus. Neither the UBS-4 nor the NA-28 hide the manuscript variants nor the reasoning chosen. One can accept or reject their conclusions.
 
JimmyH,

I don’t think it’s responsible to recommend a book, the most up-to-date edition of which is co-authored By Bart Ehrman, a fervent enemy of the Christian faith and its Bible: The Text Of The New Testament : Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration .


Hi Sean,

Yours are good questions. The discrepancies between the Critical Text-derived NT editions and the Byzantine and Received Text editions result – materially – from two differing lines of the transmission of the respective textual traditions, and with regard to those who cleave to one or the other, from accepting one of two differing paradigms (though there are also degrees of acceptance between them) of how God preserved His word.

The two schools each have dogmas they hold to (presuppositions): the dogma of neutral (unmolested) texts or readings that can be discerned by textual critics using scientific method rightly applied in this field, or the dogma of God’s providence not using the former method, but preserving His word according to specific promises and in the minutiae (not merely in the main), resulting in a Bible that is not provisional or theoretical but which we may hold in our hands. Though this latter school is certainly not without evidences though presupposition-driven.

My own recommendations would be Crowned With Glory : The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version, by Dr. Thomas Holland, and another good one is, The King James Version Defended, by Harvard text critic E.F. Hills (a PDF here, and hardcopy available as well). Plus my own partial collection of posts and threads here at PB dealing with a number of readings contested by the CT, as well as some interactions with Dr. James White, and another of his men at AOMIN, etc.
 
Steve, note that I specified that I read the edition published before any involvement by Ehrman. Add that, though I deliberately found a used copy sans Ehrman I'm given to understand that he contributed to professor Metzger's book before he became apostate.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk
 
Hi Jimmy, thanks for the clarification. I note that BE graduated from Wheaton in ’78 and went directly to Princeton. It was in his second semester (probably ’78 or ’79) that he came upon Prof Story, and as he reported in his book, Misquoting Jesus (1985) p 8ff., it was then that the floodgates of doubt opened upon him and he lost faith in the Bible being without error, and from there its being God’s word, and from there that there even is a God. He never was a born-again believer.

On top of that, Bruce Metzger’s genuineness as a Christian is also in doubt, for if he puts his editorial approval upon unbelieving statements about the Bible generally (just to mention he stated in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Ed. pp 1, 2, that Matthew erred when he wrote Matt 1:7,10, having used the wrong genealogical lists), I would not trust his opinion on textual matters. As I have said many times, the ancient Levites, guarding the deposit of God’s word, would never have let learned and wise scribes from Babylon or Egypt work on the Torah of Moses, or the later writings of the Tanakh – it may well have been a capital offense had they done so. But we upon whom the ends of the world have fallen, we let the uncircumcised (of heart) deal with the sacred things with abandon.
 
Last edited:
I just received this (unsolicited) following email,

-------

Dear Mr Rafalsky,

On the Puritan Board, “Semper Fidelis” commented to “Romans922” on 30 Aug:


“As I noted, Andrew, you don't have to trust the committee to use the Apparatus. Neither the UBS-4 nor the NA-28 hide the manuscript variants nor the reasoning chosen. One can accept or reject their conclusions.”

You might want to point out that this comment is not exactly correct, since there are *hundreds* of translatable manuscript variants that are *not* mentioned in UBS-4 nor NA-27/28 -- and quite obviously they provide no reasons for excluding such from their apparatus, nor for defending their preferred text in such instances.

I am currently examining the numerous *translatable* differences just between just the Byzantine Textform and the NA-27/28 critical text that are *not* mentioned in any manner by the Nestle-27/28 apparatus. It should be an interesting and lengthy tabulation once complete.

In the end, it seems clear that – at least for those non-cited translatable variants, particularly within the Byzantine Textform – the reader of the Nestle-27/28 apparatus indeed *must* accept their conclusions by default, so long as they do not go to other more extensive critical apparatuses. The Nestle text in those cases simply doesn’t discuss non-cited variants, even when such are characteristic of a major texttype like the Byzantine.

Maurice A. Robinson, PhD
Research Professor in NT and Greek
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Wake Forest, North Carolina


[end Dr. Robinson]

--------

In the interests of full disclosure I must say that although Dr. Robinson and I have corresponded, he does not share my views about the AV, which he has noted near the end of the Intro to his The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine / Majority Textform, and elsewhere.
 
While critics of the Received Text say, “there are numerous readings in the KJV that follow a small minority of Greek texts”, this supposed small minority is really an unknown quantity, for Hermann Von Soden in his widely used massive edition gathering and collating the “majority” cursive manuscripts, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments (Berlin, 1902-1910), did not use but a fraction of the MSS that existed, and he has been critiqued for this failure by later scholars. On this topic, I quote from Kevin James’, The Corruption of the Word: The Failure of Modern New Testament Scholarship (distributed by Micro-Load Press, 1990, ISBN: 0962442003):

Some examples of places where a King James wording seemingly has little support are given in the following chapters. Seemingly, because, while most existing New Testament copies have been roughly categorized into “majority” or “non-majority” groupings, the exact text of thousands of existing manuscripts is unknown except in a handful of places. [Emphasis mine –SMR]

It should be understood that it is impossible to prove which of two or more competing wording variations is the original since the originals have long since disappeared. But it is the height of folly to throw the settled received text of three and one-half centuries into the dustbin to make a revision when the exact contents of thousands of existing copies of mainstream tradition manuscripts is unknown [this last emphasis mine –SMR]. A clear picture of New Testament manuscript transmission history is also lacking. Finally, unless the vigilance of a living God is recognized, attempts at revision of the King James can easily stray from a stated target of supplying God’s people with a “better” New Testament.

Paul said: “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21.) This should be the guiding principle for the Christian church when dealing with the intricacies of the wording of the original text. (pp. viii, ix)​

For those interested in reading this now out-of-print work (perhaps you can get it through Inter-library Loan), he collates and studies a number of Greek manuscripts in the following chapters.

The late Kurt Aland, director of the manuscript centre at Muster, Germany – where about 80% of all Greek manuscripts are available on microfilm – admitted,

…the main problem in N.T. textual criticism lies in the fact that little more than their actual existence is known of most of the manuscripts…(The Significance of the Papyrii pp. 330-301, quoted in Wilbur Pickering’s The Identity of the New Testament Text, p 149)​

Jack Moorman points out (quoting from his, Hodges/Farstad 'Majority' Text Refuted By Evidence), “However, Aland’s interest in the vast repository of MS evidence which he oversees is not what we would expect…Frederik Wisse, in The Profile Method for the Classification and Evaluation of Manuscript Evidence (Eerdmans, 1982) explains:”

Yet Aland’s interest in the minuscules is not for their own sake. He is no longer satisfied with Hort’s judgment that the discovery of important cursives is most improbable. He wants to find the few hypothetical nuggets which Hort did not think were worth the effort. Aland wants to be able to say that he has searched the minuscules exhaustively for anything of value. This search of course, presupposed that the minuscules as such are of little value… Minuscules have to pass a test before they are worthy of inclusion in a textual apparatus. All MSS which are generally Byzantine will fail (Profile Method, p. 4)​

Moorman continues, “Therefore, when we read about many more cursives being cited in the latest Nestle-Aland Greek NT; we are not to believe that a significant shift away from the Alexandrian text has taken place…Wisse singles out the central reason why textual criticism cannot afford to pass over the great mass of manuscripts:”

In a situation where MS evidence runs into more than 5000 separate items and a time span of more than fourteen centuries, it should be questioned whether all this evidence is relevant for the establishment of the original text. It may well be that the oldest copies in existence are adequate representatives of the MS tradition so that the rest can be ignored. After all, why start more than thirteen centuries after the autographs were written and wade back through literally thousands of MSS in an immensely complicated process…To find the foundation of a building one does not first climb the roof; one starts somewhere below the ground floor.

This argument…forms the background for all those who consider it justified to ignore all, or almost all, minuscules…

There is basically only one argument which can circumvent the task of studying all the late minuscules…This argument is that among the early uncials there are the MSS which stand in a relatively uncorrupted tradition, and which show all other text-types of the period to be secondary and corrupted. Only if this argument can be proved, and if it is clear from some sampling that late minuscules fall predominantly in the tradition of one of the corrupted texts, can we safely omit a full study of these MSS (Profile Method, pp. 1, 2)​

Moorman continues, “When Aleph and B, the two main pillars of the critical text, display 3,000 clear differences in the Gospels (they must be weary of hearing this!); then what candidate do they propose for ‘relatively uncorrupted tradition.’?

“They have none! Yet they continue to work at the miserable business of keeping the TR-KJV out of public sight, without giving all the witnesses a chance to speak. Hodges and Farstad reacted against this and turned to the work of Hermann von Soden for help.”

Wisse sums it up:

Except in von Soden’s inaccurate and unused pages, the minuscules have never been allowed to speak…

It is an ironic fact that today basic MS evidence of the NT is less available to the textual critic than it was 50 years ago… Though the casual user of a critical text of the Greek NT has been well provided for, the expert and serious student is at the mercy of a highly selective and incomplete apparatus critici. This situation could only be defended if the task of establishing the best possible NT text had been accomplished, and if the history of the transmission of that text was clear. But it is not. (Profile Method, p. 5).​

In closing I remark, here we are (arguably) near the end of the age, and we do not yet have the Bible God promised to preserve? We should be grateful for scholars such as Maurice Robinson for their labors in seeking and documenting additional manuscript evidence, and exposing the falsity or negligence of critical editions that omit great amounts of the same.

Still and all, I hold we have such a Bible as men long for, despite the well concerning it having been poisoned, and it is freely available. God did not fail, nor leave us bereft of His word.
 
Rich's statement was made in a context, and it related to two specific verses. In those places the reader is given some opportunity to compare readings.

There is a problem in that a large gap exists between the hands-on criticism of technical scholars and the second, third, and fourth-hand information which students usually deal with. Knowing a variant and its support is not really "doing" textual criticism, but this is about as much as can be done with an apparatus.

Textual critics are engaging in hard and difficult empirical work which does have some apologetic value for the Christian faith. It is not wise to write off this work as if it were useless, even if there are disagreements of a systemic nature.
 
First of all, I appreciate Dr. Robinson's note. I will modify my point to note Dr. Robinson's caution but that, in general, having an apparatus (or multiple apparati) is useful if you want to evaluate the variants. I think it's best for any student of the word to take the covers off of how scholarship functions in this area so as not to be stumbled by arguments that can be evaluated if one has more understanding.

Textual critics are engaging in hard and difficult empirical work which does have some apologetic value for the Christian faith. It is not wise to write off this work as if it were useless, even if there are disagreements of a systemic nature.

I agree.

One of the things that irks me about some of these discussions is the liberty to enshroud in a cloud of conspiracy any scholar that does not support one's own view. I've even seen some attempts to paint Erasmus as some sort of pristine figure because, once the argument rests on destroying the credibility of scholars on the grounds of their relative orthodoxy, one is left with the impression that God is constrained to work only through men who were regenerate. Inconveniently, however, Erasmus was an instrument of the devil against Luther in debates over justification. Nevertheless, he was used of God to recover the Greek NT after centuries of it falling in dis-use by the Western Church. I don't have to choose between destroying Erasmus on the one hand or go through some ridiculous argument to prove that Erasmus otherwise loved Christ but hated justification by faith in order to profit from his work and thank God for it.
 
Hi Rich,

When you say “enshroud in a cloud of conspiracy any scholar that does not support one’s own view” perhaps you are speaking of my remarks re the late Dr. Metzger? though perhaps not. Do we not well to mark those who cause division by heterodox views, and I have in mind what is termed “liberal theology” generally, of which the German rationalists were particularly enamored, and their text critics in particular, and those who were their ardent disciples. When it comes to pastors/preachers and seminary profs we surely do, and must. When it comes to text critics who are demonstrably “liberal” in their theology we seem to think that advanced learning and expertise trump sound and saving faith, and this is one of the failings of academia and its publishing houses in our times – as well the churches who do not care to discern in this area, lest they be slurred as “Fundamental”.

When you refer to “some ridiculous argument to prove that Erasmus otherwise loved Christ but hated justification by faith” what comes to mind is an old discussion we had (and a recent one you were not part of), though when I think of John Wesley saying to George Whitefield, “Your God is my devil” (referring to their disparate views on election and reprobation, and free and bondaged will), we do not (most do not, at any rate), deny Wesley’s faith, just his faulty theology. The contention between Luther and Erasmus was as much about freedom of the will versus its bondage as about justification by faith versus works.

My own thoughts were, may a man not greatly err in understanding doctrines, yet be born of Christ’s Spirit? I suppose another way to put it could be, how far may we err in our understanding of doctrines and still belong to Christ? And what erroneous doctrines in particular could damn us?
 
I'll let the reader decide Steve. Thank you for stating it so clearly. I am not blind to the pitfalls that learned men find themselves in and Erasmus was no exception. I don't put any more or less stock in Erasmus' scholarship but the man clearly denied the Gospel in his debates. The point the reader needs to understand is that nobody would ever try to rehabilitate Erasmus as one who "clings to Christ" while simultaneously outright denying justification by faith unless there was a system of thought that depended upon it. To try to put Erasmus' level of trust in Christ as a foundational stone to one's trust in Providential preservation is bound to call into question the stability of the foundation. I can't imagine anyone who had more opportunity to understand what the Scriptures said in the original language of his day than Erasmus. A man with the Spirit of God would not have risen up against the Reformation of the Church and a system of preservation that depends on "well, a man can deny the Gospel but cling to Christ" is not a system I'll ever be persuaded to hold. Thankfully the TR position does not have to engage in such arguments and I do wish (because I really have fondness for you) that you would abandon this line of argumentation.
 
On another note, I conversed with Dr. Robinson and he provided what I believe would be a helpful methodology to include some readings that the NA and UBS leave out:

Alternatively (and the process I am currently following as the basis for my projected study article), you could compare the NA27 variants at the foot of the page of the RP2005 Byzantine edition with what appears in the NA27 text and apparatus, noting specifically the variants cited in my footnotes that are not mentioned at all in the Nestle apparatus.

RP2005 refers to The New Testament in the Original Greek (Byzantine Textform 2005) Compiled and Arranged by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont
 
I know little of Dr Metzger but, just for the value of diversity, here is John Piper's take from the Desiring God website ;

Personal Tribute to Bruce Manning Metzger | Desiring God

Personal Tribute to Bruce Manning Metzger
February 14, 2007

by John Piper

Bruce Metzger died on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 at the age of 93. He was the George L. Collord Professor Emeritus of New Testament Language and Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary. I think it would be fair to say that in his prime there was no greater authority on New Testament textual criticism than Dr. Metzger—at least not in the English-speaking world. I have five memories by way of tribute to a great man.

1. His book, The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Context was the text I used each time I taught the basic New Testament course at Bethel from 1974 to 1979. It was short, careful, solid, and readable.

2. He came to Fuller Seminary during my studies there (1968-71) and taught a class on Galatians, which I took with great enjoyment. I was so helped by his teaching and so impressed with him as a man, I applied to Princeton to do my graduate work with him when I was finished at Fuller in 1971. I was rejected. He wrote me a personal letter to ease my disappointment, saying that only four people were accepted. It helped (a little).

3. He told us the story that when the Concordance to the Revised Standard Version of the Bible was published, the publisher offered $25 for every mistake people found. He told of sitting up in bed at night reading the concordance noting errors—more for enjoyment than money.

4. Only when the Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament and the Aland Greek Testament coincided in wording did I make the change to use the small pocket size Aland Greek New Testament. Until then my ragged old Greek Testament was the Bible Societies’ edition—the one edited by Bruce Metzger.

5. He quoted a Chinese proverb: “The faintest ink is more lasting than the strongest memory.” Accordingly, he said in his Memoir (Reminiscences of an Octogenarian, p. 229) that he made notes of noteworthy sayings on 3 by 5 cards as he read throughout his life. There are over 20,000 of these which were left to the archives at Princeton. One of them from R. W. Sockman says, “Time is the deposit each one has in the bank of God, and no one knows the balance.” (Until the note falls due.)

I pray that I will fill my days as diligently as Bruce Metzger. His life gave the word assiduous flesh and blood meaning.

John Piper (@JohnPiper) is founder and teacher of desiringGod.org and chancellor of Bethlehem College & Seminary. For 33 years, he served as pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, Minnesota. He is author of more than 50 books.
 
Thanks for the gracious response, Rich. Just a little while ago I ordered from my local library Bainton's Erasmus of Christendom. If I'm wrong in any of my views I'd like to know it, and so will seek more knowledge.


P.S. Jimmy, thanks for that Piper tribute.
 
I just finished reading J.I. Packer’s “Historical and Theological Introduction” to Luther’s, The Bondage of the Will. In this Packer well contrasts the differences in both temperaments and spiritual life between the two men, not to even mention the one he focuses on as being true to the word of God.

But my question still lingers, and I perceive I may study the life and background and writings of Erasmus and come no closer to answering it, as it has more to do with how we view deviating theology in general than the case of just one man.

So I go back to the conflict between Whitefield and Wesley mentioned in my post #14, and by extension to the vast number of Arminian / semi-Pelagian churches which likely comprise the majority of “Protestant” churches in the world today.

Are we prepared to publicly level the apostolic curse upon all these churches?

“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed” Galatians 1:6-9).​

Are we prepared to say that they have departed from the faith, and are apostate, knowing not the Lord, and certainly do not love Him despite their professions of faith, seeing as they deny the absolute sovereignty of God in salvation, which is the point of contention between us and them, as it also was between Luther and Erasmus, and between the Remonstrants and the framers of the Canons of Dort?

Going to a personal level on this, over the course of my life I have known many Wesleyans, free-will Baptists, and Arminians of various stripes, and I can say that I assess some of them as truly regenerate Christians despite their lack of spiritual understanding. Perhaps it has been the way the sovereignty of God was presented to them, or perhaps it is simply their inherent trust in man, presuming some good in him that warrants some reward from God for their “choosing” Him.

(Even in my early life as a believer, though I was sovereignly arrested by God, I still fell under the sway of John Wesley and Charles Finney – it was the default theology all around me in the evangelical churches I could find in NYC in the late 1960s and early ‘70s. I was still saved, although a spiritual mess, for certain spiritual desperados must be fed proper food to stay alive, and not “the thinnest of soups” which was standard fare all around me.)

I have had to separate from Arminians and semi-Pelagians in terms of working together, as we could not agree on the basic issue involved: the locus of salvation lies where, in man or in God? It was the absence of any Reformed church in my home city in Cyprus (and only one other in the nation) that led to my planting one there, as there were only Charismatics and Arminians, and the believers in that locale suffered as a result, as did the proclamation of the glory of God. It was a God-given passion for His glory and the strengthening of His church that led to that church plant, and the pastoring of it for years afterward. A number of lives were profoundly changed as a result of hearing the grace of God preached instead of the performance of man. So this is no trifling or indifferent matter to me

Still, are we prepared to deny the regeneration of all those free-will Baptists, Wesleyans, Nazarenes, Methodists, and multitudes of other individuals and churches who cannot subscribe to the Doctrines of Grace? There are many, especially the IFBs, who militantly fight against “Calvinism” and “Reformed theology”, yet lay down their lives in proclaiming the Gospel as best they can on foreign missions fields, and in the highways and byways of this world.

I note Luther’s sincere and humble pleading with Erasmus to turn to the Biblical view of God’s sovereignty and man’s utter inability to in any way please God of himself; I would be interested to see if Erasmus was changed in his views by this exchange.
 
Last edited:
To pursue this a bit further. We – the Reformed – say the heart of the gospel is the sovereignty of God in salvation (as well as in all of life), and we say well and truly in this. The Arminians we deprecate because they mount (we say) the “ridiculous argument . . . that [they] love Christ but hate justification by faith”. Now their argument is faulty to be sure, but is it “ridiculous”? They define “justification by faith” differently than we do, and they deprecate us for removing “our wills” from the act of the new birth and making of man mere puppets and God the puppet-master who consigns men to glory and gloom apart from any fault or merit of their own, and they desire to vindicate the honor and justice of God (albeit in error). I say this in order to understand our opponents and their subsequent charges against us and our view of God and His sovereignty, not to give any approval to them.

If one holds their erroneous view, yet maintains, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16), and “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Tim 1:15), and all the rest of Scripture, but err in their understanding of salvation, God’s sovereignty, and other matters of great importance, are we right to cut them off and deny them their profession of being His and abiding in His love? Do they not preach “Christ crucified, risen, and coming again”?

Cannot it be said of us, that we are, generally speaking, far more Erasmian in our conduct, being of timid (fearful) spirits (cf 2 Tim 1:7) and failing in courage – such as Luther manifested – in proclaiming the salvation of God to the hostile world? This was one of Erasmus’ notorious failings (say Packer and many others, rightly), he wanted to peacefully reform the church and not rock the boat, nor endanger his good reputation, whereas Luther saw that the devil’s doctrines and workmen must be confronted openly and fearlessly, and he knew it would result in great tumult and danger, and he cared not for the disdain of those who resented his proclaiming God’s glory and man’s wicked and desperate estate. His attitude was,

Let goods and kindred go,
this mortal life also;
the body they may kill:
God’s truth abideth still;
His kingdom is forever.​

Cannot it be said – generally speaking – that in terms of their zeal for bearing public witness to the salvation of God in Christ and seeking the salvation of those about to perish in everlasting torment, these free will Baptists and other fervent-hearted Arminians are more Lutheran than we Presbyterian and Reformed, and we more Erasmian? Like Erasmus, we trust in our correct knowledge, but the fervent free willers are full of passion for the glory of the saving knowledge of the crucified and risen Saviour, and care for the lost. Do I not speak truly?
 
Steve,

Who is deprecating all Arminians here? You've written an awful lot without proving, one way or another, that Erasmus is regenerate.

Whether he was regenerate or not is not for us to know. I didn't state he could not have been regenerate but that I don't have any reason to believe he was based on his public rejection of Biblical soteriology. Erasmus was not an Arminian but one committed to the Sacramental system of the Roman Catholic Church - a defender of its sacerdotalism. May such a man be later converted or may he even be so blinded by tradition that God might have later grabbed him by some other means? Speculation but it's certainly possible. The same might be said for those who denied other tenets of the Christian faith. Might not your same plea be directed toward the men whose labors you reject as worthless also be said to have *possibly* been converted in the same hidden manner as Erasmus was? Why must Erasmus require our special consideration as speculatively regenerate?

I also don't think one has any Scriptural (or historically theological) leg to stand upon to insist that God must only work through the regenerate to accomplish his Holy ends. There is nothing in our doctrine of Providence that requires He only works through those means and I consider all of the above as interesting but sidetracking to the main issue as to the operation of Providence itself. If you would like to show us any place where the doctrine of Providence has required that God work only through the regenerate then make your case that way but use the Scriptures or good and necessary consequence to demonstrate it.

As I've stated, and I'll state again, the Reformed doctrines on Providence and the light of nature allow us to accept the work of Erasmus without any judgment (which is left to the hidden counsel of God) as to whether he or any man is regenerate.
 
Rich, true, I did have Erasmus in the back of my mind, but was arguing from the greater to the lesser in bringing up free-will and Arminian believers, as they also would fall into the same category as one who is said to have “loved Christ but hated justification by faith” – as we the Reformed define it. Packer concurs that Erasmus was Arminian and semi-Pelagian in his arguments against Luther.

When you bring up the sacramental system you bring a new and additional element into your initial remarks. His alleged sacerdotalism I will be looking into – that system is indeed opposed to salvation by faith alone in Christ alone.
 
Steve,

There's another fundamental problem with your argument. If the substance of this rests with "regenerate" scholarship then what do you do with believing scholars involved in the same field who come to conclusions that differ? In other words, what if there are scholars who we can identify as "more probably regenerate" than Erasmus who look at the same Greek manuscripts as he and come to different conclusions after taking into account the more recent finds?

As to the "lesser to the greater" argument:

1. Erasmus was not an Arminian. That's anachronistic. Semi-pelagian does not equate to Arminian. In fact, on some points Erasmus was probably more orthodox on many points than some free-will folks that are downright Pelagian.

2. There is no real "lesser to the greater" because we don't have a good and necessary consequence from any Scripture by which to judge how much to trust a man based on whether or not we suspect he is regenerate. Even the High Priest, who had Christ beaten and brought to Pilate, prophesied truth in the service of God (as did Pilate).

The argument is a sentimental one. I know it's a popular argument to dissuade people from being too haughty by arguing in such a matter but I've never thought that making sweeping generalizations about whether people are going to heaven or hell is very useful. If someone asks me whether my family members who died Roman Catholic are in hell then I don't think it's my place to make some point about something that is not revealed. The secret things belong to the Lord. I live by what is revealed. If someone asks me whether one can simply teach or believe a false Gospel with impunity then I'll point them to the Book of Galatians. If they further try to persuade me by asking me: "Are you saying that all these sincere people are necessarily going to hell..." then they've missed the point. I don't base what I believe on sentiment.

The point is twofold:

1. Arguments for the "Arminians around us" is a sentimental argument. It establishes nothing.

2. Even if one buys the sentimental argument it still establishes nothing in the way of Providence. One has come no closer to establishing credibility of a person's scholarship by arguing that he or she may have been regenerate. If I thought it made a difference I would be demonstrating to you that I was probably regenerate and asking you to trust me more than Erasmus on this point and you would be required, by your own standard, to take whether I was "born again" into the equation. Of course, I would hope you would not. The doctors that saved my daughter's life were not born again and the fact that I am did not make me more of a medical expert and able to deal with her severe anemia at birth.
 
The above link that I posted was released by the publisher for free.

Thanks for that, will make interesting reading.

from Has God Indeed Said?

The Egyptian Texts Are Corrupt

Dr. Pickering’s essay clearly shows why the manuscripts underlying the NIV, the NASB, the ESV and most modern versions are not reliable, whereas the majority of Greek manuscripts1 of the New Testament can be trusted. While many modern translations repeatedly appeal to the Alexandrian (Egyptian) manuscripts as being "the oldest and best manuscripts," the truth of the matter is that many evidences show them to be the most corrupted and unreliable of the manuscripts.

1The majority of manuscripts (over 5000) are referred to in the literature as the "Majority Text," or the "Antiochian," "Syrian," "Byzantine," "Traditional," or "Ecclesiastical" Text. The lectionaries of the church are Byzantine. The KJV, NKJV, MKJV, Young’s Literal translation, the ALT and all Reformation era Bibles in various languages can generally be said to represent the Majority Greek text.

An estimated 28,500 variants exist within the Egyptian manuscripts.2 Since there are almost 200,000 words in the New Testament,3 this amounts to an incredible one in seven words that have been corrupted in this supposedly "oldest and best" manuscript tradition! Granted, most of those Egyptian texts tend to be ignored by textual critics in their actual practice of textual criticism, and most of the mistakes are so obvious that there is little debate about whether it is a mistake.

2 Some place the figure much higher. In part it depends upon which manuscripts are included as "Egyptian." Some would place the highly corrupted "Western" and so-called "Caesarean" texts in Egypt. There is considerable debate on that question. And some manuscripts have fewer mistakes than others. Pickering says that the manuscript P66 has "roughly two mistakes per verse." (Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1977], pp. 122-123.) Pickering’s book is an outstanding introduction to the Majority Text debate, and is a must read. This is one of over two-dozen books that I have been heavily dependant upon for information.
3 From time to time, the figure of 184,590 words (and 839,380 letters) is dogmatically stated to be the number of words in the New Testament. However, that is the number that exist in one edition of the eclectic text. And the Byzantine manuscripts have many more words.

But we are analyzing the reliability of the copyists, not whether the mistakes can be easily recognized. And on this score, all of the Alexandrian manuscripts are defective. For example, if even the three most trusted manuscripts (B, a and A) are compared to the Majority Text, then 8% of the New Testament still comes into question. Granted, half of those differences are spelling differences, word order and other inconsequential changes that would not be reflected in an English translation. But that still leaves about 4% of the New Testament text in question. Even the differences between B and a are enormous. As Wilbur Pickering has noted, in the Gospels alone, these two manuscripts disagree with each other over 3000 times! Logic tells us that one or both of them are unreliable witnesses. Yet modern versions place most of their trust in those two Egyptian texts.
 
I also don't think one has any Scriptural (or historically theological) leg to stand upon to insist that God must only work through the regenerate to accomplish his Holy ends. There is nothing in our doctrine of Providence that requires He only works through those means and I consider all of the above as interesting but sidetracking to the main issue as to the operation of Providence itself. If you would like to show us any place where the doctrine of Providence has required that God work only through the regenerate then make your case that way but use the Scriptures or good and necessary consequence to demonstrate it.

I understand you are speaking of the WCF chapter 5 and how God is able to do anything He desires to do, which I am in full agreement with our confession. Now in stating such I ask.....Does not God limit Himself to only odinary means as stated in Romans 10. It appears to say that God does only use ordinary means to bring men to faith and those men are regenerate.

14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!”
 
Rich,

You said, “If you would like to show us any place where the doctrine of Providence has required that God work only through the regenerate then make your case that way but use the Scriptures or good and necessary consequence to demonstrate it.”

I will seek to do just that, but remember we are not talking of Providence generally, but of the providential care and transmission of His written word. I have brought this up before and no one cared to interact with it: We have a Regulative Principle with regard to worship – how we approach our God as we gather unto Him as the church – but not as regards the foundation itself of the RPW, that is, from whence we derive regulative principles: God’s word. That has become, in the Christian era, an almost haphazard activity: we allow that virtually anyone with expertise may put their hand to it. But is such an allowance warranted by Scripture? Further, is it commanded by Scripture, such as we base our RPW upon? No? How odd then, that downstream from the source we say the pure water of the word says thus and thus, and we act on it; but we allow – contrary to all Scripture – the very source of the word, our Bible, to be not only handled but actually determined by the ungodly! And with gruesome consequences: I recently learned that because of a CT reading supplanting the TR the words of institution of the Lord’s Supper have been changed, “This is my body, broken for you…” now having “broken” removed in the PCA’s Book of Church Order, and at the Lord’s Table in a church I know. In my eyes that is loathsome!

And I have brought up the idea questioning if it were even conceivable the priests the Levites (to whom were given the possession and care of the Scriptures – cf Deut 17:18; 31:9-13, 24-26 – and this would include their preservation and reproduction) that they would allow the wise and linguistically expert scholars of Egypt or Babylon to come and work on the scrolls of the law and the prophets containing the words of the true God, Jehovah of Israel? First, these scrolls were kept in the temple, yea, the prototype – the exemplar – “in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God” (Deut 31:26), and do you think any alien would have been allowed to get that close to it and still live?

Is there a “general equity” that would be applicable in this case? Such as the care of the mss of the sayings of God the Son, who brought the final and very words of Jehovah to humankind? Would not the possession and care of these be given, with the disbanding of the Levitical priesthood, to the High Priest and those His seed, the new priesthood of believers?

We have in Isaiah 59:20-21, these words:

And the Redeemer shall come to Zion,
and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.
As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD;
My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth,
shall not depart out of thy mouth,
nor out of the mouth of thy seed,
nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD,
from henceforth and for ever.​

This covenant is made with Christ, and with His seed.

Returning now to the matter of Dr. Bruce Metzger and his determining the actual text of what God the Holy Spirit gave Matthew to write in the opening of his gospel. Metzger & Co. commenting on Matt 1:7 and 10, saying that Asaph and Amos are the apostle’s error (instead of the correct Asa and Amon in Christ’s lineage), declare that the apostle erred and so did his text. They assert the correct reading is Asaph and Amos, and so reads the CT Greek, and the ESV, one of the few versions with the “courage” to print that travesty.

It was the Committee which put together both the UBS 4 and NA 27 editions (Drs. Aland; J. Karavidopolous; Carlo Martini, and Bruce Metzger) that spoke on the matter of Asaph and Amos, through Dr. Metzger in his, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition:

Since, however, the evangelist may have derived material for the genealogy, not from the Old Testament directly, but from subsequent genealogical lists, in which the erroneous spelling occurred, the Committee saw no reason to adopt what appears to be a scribal emendation in the text of Matthew. (p.1)​

This is the fruit of disobeying the Regulative Principle of Bible Preservation and Reproduction ((RPBPR): the unbeliever denies the inspiration of the New Testament Scripture, and we nonetheless bow the knee to his expertise in the language and mss and allow him his unbelieving say.

Yet the Scripture says of God, that “without faith it is impossible to please him” (Heb 11:6), and “whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Rom 14:23). But we give the unholy a free pass because we proceed not on the footing of faith when it comes to textual matters, but of supposed scientific acumen, even though their unbelief shows like a smoking gun as they seek to snuff out the living words of the Most High.

Should I be faulted for insinuating Dr. Metzger is among the unholy? Consider this:

Bruce Manning Metzger is renown as a textual critic; he is one of the editors of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (a modern edition of W&H’s Greek text), and George L. Collord Professor of New Testament Language and Literature, Princeton Theological Seminary. He was the chairman for the Reader’s Digest Condensed Bible (which removed 40% of the Bible text, including the warning of Revelation 22:18-19), and he wrote the introductions to each book of this abbreviated “Bible.” In these he denies the authorship by Moses of the Pentateuch, and the writing of Daniel by Daniel (instead, he says, written by others in 168-165 B.C – whereas abundant evidence proves he wrote in approx. 605 – 536 B.C.).* Metzger was co-editor of the New Oxford Annotated Bible RSV (NOAB-RSV), and wrote many of the notes in this Bible and put his editorial stamp of approval on all the others. In the section, “Introduction to the Old Testament,” is written, “The Old Testament may be described as the literary expression of the religious life of ancient Israel…The Israelites were more history-conscious than any other people in the ancient world. Probably as early as the time of David and Solomon, out of a matrix of myth, legend, and history, there has appeared the earliest written form of the story of the saving acts of God from Creation to the conquest of the Promised Land…Thus the Pentateuch took shape over a long period of time.” [bold emphases added]

But this is not true criticism or exegesis, this is the thinking of a rationalistic unbeliever. It matters not how famous a man may be, a red flag of danger should go up if he says of the Book of Job it is an “ancient folktale,” and of Jonah it is “from the realm of popular legend” (both of these from the same notes in the NOAB-RSV as the above), and of the Book of Genesis, “The opening chapters of the Old Testament deal with human origins. They are not to be read as history…These chapters are followed by the stories of the patriarchs, which preserve ancient traditions now known to reflect the conditions of the times of which they tell, though they cannot be treated as strictly historical…it is not for history but for religion that they are preserved…” (Notes from “How To Read The Bible With Understanding” in the NOAB-RSV).**

-----------
Footnotes:
* The dates and events Daniel gives are historically solid, attested to by internal evidences (including the teaching of Jesus Christ in the N.T.), corroborating histories of other nations, and archeological discoveries. The unbelieving modernists cannot stand that Daniel made accurate prophesies which all came true to the letter, so they claim someone else wrote them centuries later, after the events happened! For an extended and in-depth treatment, see Robert Dick Wilson’s, Studies In The Book of Daniel, 2 volumes (MI, Baker, 1972); also Josh McDowell’s, Daniel In The Critics’ Den (CA, Here’s Life Publishers, 1979). Edward J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament, (MI, Eerdmans, 1977), pp. 360-377; and also his, A Commentary on Daniel, (PA, Banner of Truth, 1972), pp. 15-26, ff.; Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, (IL, Moody Press, 1994), pp. 421-447. These are but five among many able defenses of the integrity of the Book of Daniel.
** Cited in, Modern Versions Founded upon Apostasy, by David W. Cloud (WA: Way of Life Literature, 3rd ed. 1997), pages, 41, 42, 43, 44.

-----------


I would say, whoever denies the historicity of the opening chapters of Genesis – the creation, the Fall, the proto-evangelion, the “progress” of the human race from these beginnings – denies the basic realities of the human condition as the Scripture reveals them, and the need for the salvation that only God can provide, and that through Christ. If the Biblical beginnings of humankind are only myth (this includes the accounts of the patriarchs) – not to be considered historical, but only pertaining to “religion” – then the Christian faith is nonsense. I cannot imagine a living faith in Christ as the atoning Saviour from the crushing weight of the guilt and power of sin in one who promotes such views.

It is one thing for a man’s theology to be faulty – even greatly so – and he still be saved. When one denies the basic foundation of the Biblical revelation, and faith in it, this is saying of the Bible, “I don’t believe Genesis is historic but rather the religious account of a people to whom history and religion are important.” If there is no historic fall as per Genesis, a Saviour making atonement for the sin of humankind is both unnecessary, and a sham.

We have violated the principles regulating the care and reproduction of God’s word, and the modern Christian mind revels in it; but this travesty has intruded its foul print in the very core of our worship – despite all the high verbiage lauding our adherence to the RPW! – by erasing the very word our Lord Jesus spoke concerning the broken bread signifying His broken body! Even the RPW has been violated by this transgression.
 
Steve, I appreciate your defence of the traditional text, but making this about "regeneration" is going too far. It is enough that God has used His church to preserve the Scriptures. By that is meant the visible professing church, which is a mixed communion. I think it is also a misapplication to speak of the regulative principle in this context. What is not commanded is forbidden in matters of faith and worship. That principle does not apply to all of life. See WCF 20.2 for the two different ways Scripture rules us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top