View of providence in the CT approach

[CGS]

I'm trying to get a better understanding (or confirm my understanding) of how Reformed proponents of the Critical Text (CT) view God's providence in regard to the preservation of Scripture. From the Reformed CT perspective, is it accurate to say that: God has providentially preserved his Word throughout history - even though at times some portions of it (i.e. certain manuscripts) may have been hidden/lost, not in the church's possession, etc. - and that in the last 150 years (approximate) he is now providentially using the CT to recover, reconstruct and refine the pure text?

I'm not arguing for or against this position...I'm just trying to confirm if my understanding of it is accurate? And if not, please refine or correct my understanding.

Thank you!

 

[Solparvus]

I think you left your sentence unfinished.

 

[CGS]

I think you left your sentence unfinished.

Yes! I hit the enter button by accident...I have completed it now.

 

[Logan]

I'm trying to get a better understanding (or confirm my understanding) of how Reformed proponents of the CT view God's providence in regard to the preservation of Scripture. Is it accurate to say that

The author has updated his post since this was first made, leaving us to wonder whether this original shorter ending was intended, or whether the longer ending is the real one

I'm trying to get a better understanding (or confirm my understanding) of how Reformed proponents of the Critical Text (CT) view God's providence in regard to the preservation of Scripture. From the Reformed CT perspective, is it accurate to say that: God has providentially preserved his Word throughout history - even though at times some portions of it (i.e. certain manuscripts) may have been hidden/lost, not in the church's possession, etc. - and that in the last 150 years (approximate) he is now providentially using the CT to recover, reconstruct and refine the pure text?

I'm not arguing for or against this position...I'm just trying to confirm if my understanding of it is accurate? And if not, please refine or correct my understanding.

Thank you!

There might be some CT proponents who would say that, but few that I'm aware of. The Reformed CT proponents would say that God has preserved his word in all the manuscripts, and it's not so much about reconstructing or recovering, as utilizing what has been transmitted down to us---just like Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the KJV translators did, but utilizing a greater number of manuscripts. I'd just be wary about calling it "recovering" or "reconstructing", as though the original text had been lost. "Refine" would probably be more appropriate.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

I'm trying to get a better understanding (or confirm my understanding) of how Reformed proponents of the Critical Text (CT) view God's providence in regard to the preservation of Scripture. From the Reformed CT perspective, is it accurate to say that: God has providentially preserved his Word throughout history - even though at times some portions of it (i.e. certain manuscripts) may have been hidden/lost, not in the church's possession, etc. -

I think this is a reasonable view of God's providence with regard to the text of scripture.

and that in the last 150 years (approximate) he is now providentially using the CT to recover, reconstruct and refine the pure text?

I am not sure that this is exactly accurate, because I don't think the CT position holds that the "pure text" has ever been "lost", per se, such that it needed to be "recovered".

But I guess better men than me ought to answer this and can do so much better than I could.

I'm not arguing for or against this position...I'm just trying to confirm if my understanding of it is accurate? And if not, please refine or correct my understanding.

Thank you!

 

[CGS]

I'd just be wary about calling it "recovering" or "reconstructing", as though the original text had been lost. "Refine" would probably be more appropriate.

I am not sure that this is exactly accurate, because I don't think the CT position holds that the "pure text" has ever been "lost", per se, such that it needed to be "recovered".

Thank you...this is helpful. For those who think the pure/purer text is more likely to be found in the manuscripts that were more recently discovered, what would be the preferred way to refer to those manuscripts if not "lost/hidden"? Were they not lost/hidden (at least from the church), at least for a time?

 

[Logan]

I'd be hard pressed to think of any manuscripts as either "lost" or "hidden". They were just unknown to specific audiences. As the world became more connected, the knowledge of manuscripts and the completeness of the catalogs has increased---but instances where something was buried and discovered are practically non-existent.

If you mean things like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, these were not well-studied until the 1800s. Yet the readings they contained were not new or unknown, it was more that certain readings were given new weight by these particular copies because of their antiquity and completeness and the textual critics shifted weights from one set of readings to another, but they still weren't new or unknown readings.

Offhand I can't think of any textual variants that haven't been known, discussed, and debated for many hundreds (almost thousands) of years prior to the CT.

Disclaimer in case it's not remembered: I'm not a CT proponent, I prefer the Byzantine Priority position as a moderate position between the TR and CT.

 

[CGS]

I'd be hard pressed to think of any manuscripts as either "lost" or "hidden". They were just unknown to specific audiences. As the world became more connected, the knowledge of manuscripts and the completeness of the catalogs has increased, but instances were something was buried and discovered are practically non-existent.

If you mean things like Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, these were not well-studied until the 1800s. Yet the readings they contained were not new or unknown, it was more that certain readings were given new weight by these particular copies because of their antiquity and completeness and the textual critics shifted weights from one set of readings to another, but they still weren't new or unknown readings.

Offhand I can't think of any textual variants that haven't been known, discussed, and debated for many hundreds (almost thousands) of years prior to the CT.

Disclaimer in case it's not remembered: I'm not a CT proponent, I prefer the Byzantine Priority position as a moderate position between the TR and CT.

Thank you, Logan. Very helpful. I'm already familiar with some of the pro-TR arguments from folks like Hills, Letis, Riddle, etc. Who would be the best authors (from a Reformed/confessional perspective) to look in to for a defense of the CT approach? I want to study both sides of the issue.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

I don't know how others would feel about this terminology, but I would term it as "sufficient preservation". That God has sufficiently preserved Scripture throughout church history so that his people have access to an accurate text of the word of God that accomplishes all God has purposed for his people. This preservation is done in and through the ordinary work of Christians in studying the text and the evidence we have, just as God often works his purposes through ordinary means.

I wrote a whole paper on this at one point, mainly to try to solidify my own understanding of my position. I think it could be improved in a few ways-- it is certainly not definitive or exhaustive-- but if you'd be interested in seeing what I have I'd be happy to share.

Related to one other part of your question-- I would not say the last 150 years are unique, rather they are just a continuation of the ordinary preservation of Scripture.

 

[CGS]

I don't know how others would feel about this terminology, but I would term it as "sufficient preservation". That God has sufficiently preserved Scripture throughout church history so that his people have access to an accurate text of the word of God that accomplishes all God has purposed for his people. This preservation is done in and through the ordinary work of Christians in studying the text and the evidence we have, just as God often works his purposes through ordinary means.

I wrote a whole paper on this at one point, mainly to try to solidify my own understanding of my position. I think it could be improved in a few ways-- it is certainly not definitive or exhaustive-- but if you'd be interested in seeing what I have I'd be happy to share.

Related to one other part of your question-- I would not say the last 150 years are unique, rather they are just a continuation of the ordinary preservation of Scripture.

Yes, I would definitely be interested in reading your paper if you want to post it here or PM it to me. Thank you!

 

[Logan]

Thank you, Logan. Very helpful. I'm already familiar with some of the pro-TR arguments from folks like Hills, Letis, Riddle, etc. Who would be the best authors (from a Reformed/confessional perspective) to look in to for a defense of the CT approach? I want to study both sides of the issue.

Good question. There is a lot out there but not really anything like a formal book defending the position that I can recall. Warfield wrote a good many articles regarding it (sprinkled through his works), Scrivener wrote a couple of books on New Testament Criticism. Daniel Wallace has many articles. I think part of it is that it's just been the waters everyone has swam in for the last 100+ years so it's been more or less assumed and not often formally defended.

One resource that I think would be helpful as a broad historical perspective is the YouTube series "The Textual Confidence Collective". Lots of very helpful information in there.

 

[CGS]

Daniel Wallace has many articles.

But...Wallace doesn't hold to the confessional/biblical doctrine of preservation: “… I don’t hold to the doctrine of preservation. That doctrine, first formulated in the Westminster Confession (1646), has a poor biblical base. I do not think that the doctrine is defensible –either exegetically or empirically. As Bruce Metzger was fond of saying, it’s neither wise nor safe to hold to doctrines that are not taught in Scripture.” (Source: Perspectives on the Ending of Mark, pg. 118).

I'm specifically looking for authors who defend the CT from a distinctively confessional/Reformed perspective without denying biblical doctrines/presuppositions.

I will look at the YouTube series you linked to. Thank you.

 

[paranymph]

Are there expositions of WCF from the 20th/21st century that would tackle this issue?

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

I agree with Logan that generally it seems this is more assumed than defended by modern reformed folks. One resource that I found helpful in writing my own paper was Greg Bahnsen's chapter in the book Inerrancy edited by Norman Geisler.

 

[CGS]

Warfield wrote a good many articles regarding it (sprinkled through his works)

Have you read Letis's essay "B. B. Warfeld’s Philosophy and New Testament Text Criticism"? If so, what are your thoughts on it. I found it to a be a pretty compelling argument that Warfield had departed from the Westminster Divines in regard to WCF 1.8.

Disclaimer in case it's not remembered: I'm not a CT proponent, I prefer the Byzantine Priority position as a moderate position between the TR and CT.

Yes, I was aware of this from reading other threads here on PB. Which of the main translations do you think mostly closely aligns with the BP position?

 

[J.L. Allen]

The author has updated his post since this was first made, leaving us to wonder whether this original shorter ending was intended, or whether the longer ending is the real one

I literally laughed out loud at this one. My family even asked what was so funny. Grade A, Logan!

 

[MW]

The title of Metzger's work sums up what is involved in a critical text: "The text of the New Testament: its transmission, corruption, and restoration."

Reformed exponents like B. B. Warfield believed the work of the textual critic is included in Providence. A mistake in one copy is corrected in another. The work of textual critics will be providentially used by God to preserve His word pure.

See this page for more information and a brief critique: https://www.americanpresbyterianchu...ovidential-preservation-of-the-biblical-text/

Logan's statement deserves to be nominated for the wittiest response of the year.

 

[CGS]

The title of Metzger's work sums up what is involved in a critical text: "The text of the New Testament: its transmission, corruption, and restoration."

Reformed exponents like B. B. Warfield believed the work of the textual critic is included in Providence. A mistake in one copy is corrected in another. The work of textual critics will be providentially used by God to preserve His word pure.

See this page for more information and a brief critique: https://www.americanpresbyterianchu...ovidential-preservation-of-the-biblical-text/

Logan's statement deserves to be nominated for the wittiest response of the year.

So, a few of the earlier posts in this thread stated that it was not accurate to speak of the CT approach as "reconstructing" or "recovering" what had been lost/corrupted, but that we should refer to it only in terms of "refining" what had always been there. But Metzger speaks of the "corruption" and "restoration" of the NT text. And the article you linked to speaks of the CT in terms of recovering/restoring the "real" text which had been lost/corrupted.

 

[MW]

So, a few of the earlier posts in this thread stated that it was not accurate to speak of the CT approach as "reconstructing" or "recovering" what had been lost/corrupted, but that we should refer to it only in terms of "refining" what had always been there. But Metzger speaks of the "corruption" and "restoration" of the NT text. And the article you linked to speaks of the CT in terms of recovering/restoring the "real" text which had been lost/corrupted.

Correct. That is the reality. In the main critical text exponents are not reformed and they give you their account of the issues. But then you get some who are reformed and they will try to fit it into a providential framework. For them the text is not "lost" because it is there in the mss. and Providence has raised up text critics so as to ensure we have it in an essentially correct form. As soon as you study textual criticism you realise they are acting under an illusion but if you want to interact with them you have to recognise what they advocate.

 

[CGS]

Correct. That is the reality. In the main critical text exponents are not reformed and they give you their account of the issues. But then you get some who are reformed and they will try to fit it into a providential framework. For them the text is not "lost" because it is there in the mss. and Providence has raised up text critics so as to ensure we have it in an essentially correct form. As soon as you study textual criticism you realise they are acting under an illusion but if you want to interact with them you have to recognise what they advocate.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly...the CT approach is not compatible with confessional/Reformed presuppositions (e.g. WCF 1.8), but in an attempt to make the two compatible, Reformed CT proponents redefine restoration/recovery/reconstruction and call it "refinement"? But it's really restoration/recovery (redefined as "refinement") by God's providence rather than preservation by God's providence? Is that correct?

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

So, a few of the earlier posts in this thread stated that it was not accurate to speak of the CT approach as "reconstructing" or "recovering" what had been lost/corrupted, but that we should refer to it only in terms of "refining" what had always been there. But Metzger speaks of the "corruption" and "restoration" of the NT text. And the article you linked to speaks of the CT in terms of recovering/restoring the "real" text which had been lost/corrupted.

It's also worth noting that in the field of textual criticism the word "corruption" is a technical term which does not carry the very negative connotations it probably inherently does for most of us. When evangelical textual scholars speak of corruption, they are saying in a technical sense that there are variants in the transmission history. The word in that context does not inherently imply that the Word of God was lost or seriously in question or something of that nature. Now some skeptical scholars might believe that the text was hopelessly lost-- but again, the point to get is that the way the word is used in textual criticism does not inherently mean anything so negative.

That word gets a lot of play among TR proponents because of how negative it sounds to us, but it's really making something out of nothing in my opinion.

 

[CGS]

It's also worth noting that in the field of textual criticism the word "corruption" is a technical term which does not carry the very negative connotations it probably inherently does for most of us. When evangelical textual scholars speak of corruption, they are saying in a technical sense that there are variants in the transmission history. The word in that context does not inherently imply that the Word of God was lost or seriously in question or something of that nature. Now some skeptical scholars might believe that the text was hopelessly lost-- but again, the point to get is that the way the word is used in textual criticism does not inherently mean anything so negative.

That word gets a lot of play among TR proponents because of how negative it sounds to us, but it's really making something out of nothing in my opinion.

These are some examples of how the word "corrupted" was used in the article that Rev. Winzer linked to:


...

 

[Polanus1561]

I don't have the mind to connect all the dots, but some scholars have noted how Jesus and the disciples did not providentially settle the textual issues of their day. With the Hebrew bible and the LXX variants (in fact they went to use the LXX at times!).

Does the above inform us on providence + textual criticism in any way? I leave that here.

 

[MW]

I don't have the mind to connect all the dots, but some scholars have noted how Jesus and the disciples did not providentially settle the textual issues of their day. With the Hebrew bible and the LXX variants (in fact they went to use the LXX at times!).

Does the above inform us on providence + textual criticism in any way? I leave that here.

Not really. Textual criticism presupposes corruption of some sort. It is impossible to introduce "corruption" as a biblical concept without at the same time calling the Scriptures into question. We depend on the testimony of Jesus and the apostles for our conviction on the verbal plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. Everything they affirmed of the Scriptures related to the text as it was preserved for them. Their attitude to the Scriptures must be constitutive of our doctrine of preservation.

 

[MW]

So, if I'm understanding you correctly...the CT approach is not compatible with confessional/Reformed presuppositions (e.g. WCF 1.8), but in an attempt to make the two compatible, Reformed CT proponents redefine restoration/recovery/reconstruction and call it "refinement"? But it's really restoration/recovery (redefined as "refinement") by God's providence rather than preservation by God's providence? Is that correct?

Warfield spoke in terms of restoration, so I don't think there is an issue over the use of the term. How they understand it is where the difference appears to lie. They are far more optimistic than their associates, I suppose, as well as being more conservative on historical questions which have a bearing on the canon. Perhaps we could say they are much more vested in a preserved text whereas others seem happy to go wherever the evidence leads them (blissfully ignorant of the way bias works in this area).

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

These are some examples of how the word "corrupted" was used in the article that Rev. Winzer linked to:

View attachment 11351
...

View attachment 11352

I'm not sure I understand the point you're making, but I'll just point out of course that those uses of the word are by someone antagonistic to modern textual criticism and so don't necessarily represent how textual critics are using it.

 

[CGS]

I'm not sure I understand the point you're making, but I'll just point out of course that those uses of the word are by someone antagonistic to modern textual criticism and so don't necessarily represent how textual critics are using it.

Dr. Hills was a respected textual critic with degrees from Harvard, Yale, Westminster Theological Seminary and Columbia Theological Seminary and those are examples of how he used the word "corrupted". It seems to me that he used the word in the same negative sense that most folks understand it. Does he not represent how textual critics - or at least some critics - use it? Does he not count because he is antagonistic to modern textual criticism?

If someone says something like "The critical text advocate presupposes the text is corrupted and must be restored" is that being used in a technical sense or in the negative sense that most people would understand it? I think it's being used in the common, negative sense in this thread.

I'm not denying that there may also be a more technical way to use the term as well.

 

[MW]

Here is Warfield, Introduction, p. 94:

A rough classification of the sources of error may be ventured, as follows : I. Intentional corruptions: 1. Linguistic and rhetorical corrections. 2. Historical corrections. 3. Harmonistic corrections. 4. Doctrinal corruptions. 5. Liturgical corruptions. II. Unintentional corruptions. 1. Errors of the eye. 2. Errors of the memory. 3. Errors of the judgment. 4. Errors of the pen. 5. Errors of the speech.

 

[CGS]

Here is Warfield, Introduction, p. 94:

A rough classification of the sources of error may be ventured, as follows : I. Intentional corruptions: 1. Linguistic and rhetorical corrections. 2. Historical corrections. 3. Harmonistic corrections. 4. Doctrinal corruptions. 5. Liturgical corruptions. II. Unintentional corruptions. 1. Errors of the eye. 2. Errors of the memory. 3. Errors of the judgment. 4. Errors of the pen. 5. Errors of the speech.

Thanks! These are helpful examples.

 

[CGS]

Textual criticism presupposes corruption of some sort.

Rev. Winzer - From reading lots (and I mean lots!) of these types of threads here on PB, I've noticed and appreciated how you frequently (almost always) frame these textual debates in terms of the presuppositions between the various positions. For example, this is from a post you made in 2007:

“Make them multiple millions of mss. if you please, my faith does not stand on the age or number of pieces of scrap paper, but on the abiding word of God. I will not buy into the liberal divorce between higher and lower criticism -- textual criticism is a question of canonicity. I do not count or date mss. to discover which books of the Bible are inspired; nor do I count or date mss. to discover which verses of the Bible are inspired. The basis upon which I accept the canonicity of 2 Peter is the same basis upon which I accept the canonicity of 1 John 5:7...In the end, it is the belief itself which must be brought to the light of Scripture. We begin with the self-attestation of Scripture, and judge circumstantial evidence in the light of what the abiding Word of God says. The evidence cannot supplant the authority of Scripture. The evidence itself stands or falls in accord with its conformity or lack thereof to the truth of the Word.”

Would you mind summarizing (by comparing and contrasting) the presuppositions that the TR and CT positions are based on?