I'll answer the way I see fit.
View of providence in the CT approach
- Thread starter CGS
- Start date
- Status
I'll answer the way I see fit.
Taking my head out of the sand for a moment, I didn't state that heretics were unable to tamper with the text. What I stated was that God would preserve His text so that heretics could not erase God's Word in the original language.
Now, I'm sure you'll have some sort of rejoinder the compensates for how weak your argument above is, but consider for a moment what you are propounding.
Jerome stated that Heretics tampered with the text on this verse. To the uninitiated, this makes it seem as if manuscripts are stored up somewhere is special libraries where heretics can break in and "tamper" with the text. This is not the case. Most "manuscripts" were working copies of the Scriptures being used by Churches. How did heretics manage to execute a coordinated "tampering" effort on the Scriptures for this verse?
Assuming they did attempt it, did they just go in and smudge the text in such a way that subsequent Churchmen who wanted to make a new copy could no longer figure out what was written so they just stopped copying it over? Did they cut it out carefully and use a seeing technique to make t seem like the verse was never there or somehow take out the page and perfectly copyy it to deceive anyone that the verse was there?
How did they execute this coordinated attack across every Christian region? How did they find all the working copies of the Scriptures including those hidden from Roman authorities trying to destroy the Church?
How did they remove the verse from the living memory of Christians who would memorize the Scriptures? I can understand people forgetting other, more obscure passages, but this one?
No, what we have from Jerrome is not "evidence" of the sort I was interested in. At best, if Jerome was thinking through this, he could only state with certainty that, of all the Greek MSS he could find, he could assert that someone had deliberately copied the Scriptures in a way that tampered with the text. He would have no way of knowing where other texts that predated that tampering were still held or whether, in other regions, the Church was faithfully copying from the multiple streams of transmission.
In any event, the point of God's Providential Preservation is that heretics and others may attempt to destroy the Scriptures, but I believe their attempts failed because I believe God preserves His Word. I'm committed to that principle rather than an idiosyncratic defense of a translation that has to deny Providential Preservation in order to assert that it is the only true way to believe in it.
They didn't. It remained intact. It was preserved in the Latin for us. I don't need to save a weak argument. I didn't make one. I stated a fact of history. An ideological commitment to a specific theory of preservation will not erase that fact.
Solparvus
Puritan Board Senior
I confess, I find this argument to be a force worth reckoning with. And I'd really like to see a solid interactive reply to it, as well as post #213.
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
Hugues Pierre
Puritan Board Freshman
Hi Logan,
Thank you for engaging my previous comment and the information you provided. All of this is appreciated and the discussion is helpful.
Facts are stubborn. Everyone can see for themselves what Beza really said. He said to have read, compared and found such and such a thing in the manuscripts of Stephanus. Not only to have used his apparatus (which he also did as it is clear in his annotations). In Beza's time several people used Stephanus' apparatus to publish a Greek New Testament or a translation of it but nobody expressed as Beza did. The reason why scholars such as D. Martin thought that Beza had these manuscripts in his possession is precisely because he spoke as having had these manuscripts.
Is there any thing extraordinary in the loss of manuscripts? We have lost most of the manuscripts the Church had in the past, even if they were preciously protected.
Thank you for engaging my previous comment and the information you provided. All of this is appreciated and the discussion is helpful.
Facts are stubborn. Everyone can see for themselves what Beza really said. He said to have read, compared and found such and such a thing in the manuscripts of Stephanus. Not only to have used his apparatus (which he also did as it is clear in his annotations). In Beza's time several people used Stephanus' apparatus to publish a Greek New Testament or a translation of it but nobody expressed as Beza did. The reason why scholars such as D. Martin thought that Beza had these manuscripts in his possession is precisely because he spoke as having had these manuscripts.
Thanks for that. Very helpful. So 8 of the 17 manuscripts came from the Royal Library.
I cannot give you an answer. But neither I am interested by that. I just try to be honest with historical facts. And facts tell me that Stephanus and Beza have seen the Comma in these manuscripts as they affirm. Facts tell me that Stephanus was the best printer of his time and that he never claimed any error in 1 John 5:7. Neither did his son Henri, Beza or any other person close to him.
Is there any thing extraordinary in the loss of manuscripts? We have lost most of the manuscripts the Church had in the past, even if they were preciously protected.
David Martin was also a reliable scholar, and probably more informed about this matter than any of us. He provided evidences and I think they are compelling.
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
Fact: Stephanus said in 1550 that the manuscripts in question were in the Royal Library in Paris.
Fact: The printer's note for Beza's edition said that the manuscripts in question were in the Royal Library in Paris.
Fact: The manuscripts are said to still reside in the Royal Library and no one has ever shown that they left.
Fact: Beza said in his 1556 preface that he had a copy from the library of Stephanus "collated as accurately as possible" (he doesn't mention manuscripts but the collation).
Fact: Beza said in his 1565 preface "In addition to all this came a copy from the library of our Stephanus, collated by Henri Stephanus" (he doesn't mention manuscripts but the collation)
To that we have the one you have focused on (or at least this is what I presume you are referring to):
Fact: Beza said in his 1582 edition "we collated these books...again with the various readings from the seventeen Greek books cited by Robert Stephanus".
There is only one way to interpret this information consistently. They can only all be true if Beza is referring to the collation as representative of the manuscripts. And if he believed that the collation and critical notes were representative of the manuscripts, then there was no need for him to consult the manuscripts personally but could sincerely talk about them as if he had. That's not dishonest, we do the same when we use the critical apparatus even though none of us personally saw the manuscripts behind it. This fits all the facts quite well and does no violence to any of Beza's words.
But for your claim to be true you have to:
- ignore the other five facts,
- assume that Stephanus and Beza's printer were lying or mistaken and that
- the manuscripts in question actually did somehow make it to Beza and
- The Papists in all their accusations against Protestants never bothered to claim that the Protestants stole their manuscripts,
- That Beza looked at them and either managed to smuggle them back into Papist-controlled Paris
- or that forgeries or other copies were put in their place and everyone covered it up,
- then Beza lost the manuscripts.
- And no one has ever seen them except for Beza.
All of those leaps of logic based on what you say must be the only interpretation of some of Beza's words; which interpretation doesn't match other things Beza and his printer said.
Last edited:
Question: are all the Stephanus mss cited still in the royal library in Paris? Or whatever the successor library at the revolution?
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
If you believe Scrivener's (1800s) positive identification of them, then yes, the 8 manuscripts that were in the Royal Library in Paris, are in today's National Library of France. Stephanus said they were there, Beza's printer said they were there. They match up well with the critical notes Stephanus made of them. There is no record of them ever having been removed, and there is library record of Stephanus consulting them.
Editio Regia - Wikipedia
Of course, those who say the Comma was in them will say they can't be the same ones because the Comma isn't in these ones.
Last edited:
We’ve been without power/internet since about 8:00 AM this morning due to Helene. 1.2 million people in SC are without power. We have no ETA on when it will be back on, but doesn’t look like it will be anytime soon. I’m following the conversation on my phone and Lord willing will jump back in to the discussion once we have power restored. I hope everyone is safe and dry.
Why do you think that? I said it was preserved "for us." Tens of thousands of Greek mss. have been lost to us; it doesn't mean the text was lost to them.
Let me see if I can get you out of the subtext into which you have fallen and back into the history of the real world. Robinson quotes Lake: "There are now extant but a pitiably small number." Rich, you are trying to make the evidence do too much. Instead of thinking how many mss. we have; think of how many mss. have been lost to history. Who knows what those mss. would reveal.
Last edited:
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Hello Sean,
So how, and what was “kept pure in all ages”? — 1) an entire and intact Greek NT? And that throughout the church age till printing came to be? I don’t think so. 2) Or the pure READINGS of the autographs kept in various Greek mss, and then compiled in an authoritative edition, and then printed? Which edition would that be? I know of none. 3) Or the pure READINGS of the Greek autographs kept in various mss—mostly the Traditional (Byzantine) Greek, but a very few kept in other versions due to attacks and mutilations on the Greek—and then put into print in the Greek Textus Receptus editions (known to and used by the Westminster divines), having also been put into the English, Dutch, and other translations? I hold to the third option. There is not a "reconstruction" here, but a keeping.
This way the WCF / 1689 are not made to bear the burden of asserting there was an entire and intact NT extant throughout the church age before the Reformation, but rather the authentic readings of the entire Greek NT were “by [God’s] singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages.” One can see how this was actually done in God’s providential preservation.
You are familiar with begging the question, yes? The Confession does not supply other language intermediaries. Nor does it say "readings". You and Rev. Winzer, for all his hand waving, simply cannot deal adequately with the Confessional reality unless you distract it from its historical context.
The Westminster Confession is a faith-statement based upon the testimony of Scripture. It maintains the preservation of the Word. It says nothing about mss. or textual transmission. As far as historical context is concerned, the Confession appeals to the Johannine Comma, as do multiple Westminster divines in their writings, as do multiple commentators and theologians of the period. The Catechisms echo its words -- "these three are one."
To rule out the Johannine Comma you have to come up with a textual theory based on evidence and transmission. I am yet to see this theory actually stated in this thread; it seems to be a quiet assumption, as far as I can tell. Instead of anything like a textual theory that can be tested with historical facts we are greeted with an hypothetical about the collective memory of the church. This hypothetical is easily dispensed with by a simple reference to the fact the variant reading is noted early on in the process of transmission.
Thank you for finally providing a direct statement concerning the matter. Most helpful. Coming from someone with immense deferential respect to you based upon your history here. I'm not seeking to be antagonistic towards you, but to draw out, in full, your perspective. Thank you for this well stated response.
Yet, I still take issue with it, humbly. It's not about developing a textual theory for us BT folk. It's about observing the history of transmission. For me, the jury is still put re: the JC, precisely because I don't adhere to modern CT canons of TC. I take all evidence into consideration, including the Latin and also lectionaries. I look at what has actually has survived transmission in God's providence and find myself questioning why it was not better preserved across all ages in the witness of transmission. I take to heart your well stated point considering the paucity of existing copies. We do indeed need to consider the fact that what was lost is most certainly immense. Yet, that still does not obviate against the fact that we do have evidence concerning transmission and that evidence is not conducive to the JC.
Why not? It is good textual criticism; it is the paucity of mss. which leads it astray. They prove too much from too little. The same applies to Byzantine priority. It doesn't improve the situation by limiting the family of mss. it is willing to accept; it only makes the number less and confines transmission to a later period. Gaps in transmission are apparent within this so-called family. As you state, you are left with a survival of the fittest approach.
If one is going to accept Providence it seems to me to be rather "obtuse" (to use a favourite word of Rich) to omit the obvious fact that the text was stereotyped with the advent of printing. For some reason this is never given consideration. Printing and ad fontes were used of God to further the reformation. Why one and not the other?
Why not? Because I reject TC. I reject the concept that weighing is more better than counting. I place immense weight on geographical spread. That is, what has actually been in the hands of the Church across the ages. I reject, as did the pre-moderns (though not explicitly, but because it did not enter their consciousness) that we need to be uncomfortable with variation. It's simply not material. This is what we have, there is some variation. So what?
I reject the concept that "standardization" re: printing solves the "problem". I reject there was ever a problem to begin with. We didn't need standardization before the TR, we don't need it now. Ad fontes did not lead the Reformers to a felt need to harmonize everything. They accepted the lack of harmonization without so much as a blink. Calvin being a chief exemplar. John Gill another.
If you are saying that modern textual criticism is, by and large, a failed experiment as far as settling the text of the NT, I fully concur. But then how are you going to work out if the Johannine Comma is part of the text? By confining yourself to the Byzantine "family" you are limiting geographical spread. Variation is the very thing the different theories is attempting to sort through, including Byzantine priority. If you are going to have a printed edition you have to print a standardised form of the text.
Yes, I'm absolutely saying modern TC is a failure. I'm currently undecided as to the JC precisely because I don't operate on a TC principle. I'm concerned with what the Church had and has and how they responded to variation. Historically, they didn't really care UNTIL standardization became a thing. I reject the necessity of standardization. You don't need standardization to print. One can print his acceptance of what he views as the proper text without rejecting as absolutely out of bounds other readings by notating the variance (see the NKJV). Fascinatingly, the NKJV gets criticism for notating variants when that's precisely what Reformation (and beyond) commentators did. As did the original KJV translators, BTW
The NKJV gives you the NU-text as well as the M-text. A Byzantine priority position has decided the case in favour of the M-text with some tighter internal controls. At that point I can't see what advantage is to be gained by opening the door to a broader textual base, especially for readers who are shut up to the English without a clue of how to navigate textual variants.
If everything is on the table I'm not sure there is anything that could persuade you to accept or reject the Comma as genuine. It seems that if you find it in church history it must have some claim to inclusion irrespective of provenance.
I certainly admit the textual notations in the NKJV are not necessary unless doing original language work. I’d prefer a “scholars” and “populist” version of the NKJV. And yes, a BP position certainly gives priority to the M-text. I would agree that the NKJV’s textual notation system is superfluous on a “lay” level.
As to the JC, there in lies the rub. The Greek evidence is non-existent and that is a major issue. But it is still in the mind of the Church from a sufficiently early date to make me take that witness seriously. I am BT priority, not BT exclusive. I am still chewing on the JC. Yet, not despondently because the unanimous textual evidence to the Trinity is overwhelming.
J.L. Allen
Puritan Board Junior
@MW and @MarrowMan
I'm glad this conversation turned the corner. In fact, I feel quite edified by this last page in particular. Thank you, brothers, for displaying unity in Christ despite any differences.
I've not weighed in on the conversation because I've stated my issues with CT methodology in the past. I hold the TR position, but I also don't believe it is as black and white as I once did. While my conviction for the TR has settled more softly, and I find a commonality and admiration for the Majority and Byzantine Priority positions, I've never budged on the CT methodology ever since I switched from it. I've had incredible professors and mentors who were CT; they were patient with me in times when I wasn't so in return. God bless them for displaying a better Christian attitude and winning me over, not to their position, but to their demeanor.
I'm glad this conversation turned the corner. In fact, I feel quite edified by this last page in particular. Thank you, brothers, for displaying unity in Christ despite any differences.
I've not weighed in on the conversation because I've stated my issues with CT methodology in the past. I hold the TR position, but I also don't believe it is as black and white as I once did. While my conviction for the TR has settled more softly, and I find a commonality and admiration for the Majority and Byzantine Priority positions, I've never budged on the CT methodology ever since I switched from it. I've had incredible professors and mentors who were CT; they were patient with me in times when I wasn't so in return. God bless them for displaying a better Christian attitude and winning me over, not to their position, but to their demeanor.
I just checked, and I accused someone of being obtuse once in the last 16 years...
I'm weary of this conversation.
I have great affection for you, and no disagreement (however spirited) can alter that.
Grace and Peace.
My mistake. I should have remembered your favourite is something like antidisestablishmentarianism or bickies.
Blessings to you, dear brother.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
I'll admit to being a bit confused - I'm not sure why MW brought up the use of "obtuse" by SF; I'm also confused why SF denied often using it on PB. A simple search on PB shows he has used the term to refer to others in PB conversations dozens of times over the years. Is there an inside joke here, brothers? I'm pretty tired so maybe I'm just coming at this from the wrong angle...
It's just banter. It makes no difference to anything.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
