What is the authentic New Testament text?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would like to devote this post to part of an essay by Dr. Theodore P. Letis, in the book he edited and contributed to, The Majority Text: Essays And Reviews In The Continuing Debate. This is from the essay, “In Reply to D.A. Carson’s ‘The King James Version Debate’”. It is to be lamented that this book of timely (even now, though it was published in 1987) essays and reviews is out of print and unavailable to buy—though I daresay one could get a copy through your library’s inter-library loan system and photocopy it for your personal use. It is a very important collection. I will be reviewing it later on this thread.

I interrupt my review of Dr. Wallace’s essay because the following material will give such an overview of the two positions—CT vs. MT/TR—so as to make understanding the issues quite easy to grasp.

As Letis begins his interaction with Carson, he proceeds thus:

If D.A. Carson’s book illustrates nothing else it shows there are two schools of thought. Both schools interpret the data of NT textual criticism and modern translations differently, and both groups fill in the gaps in the data with assumptions which favor their given position. I hope some are beginning to see that this is not an argument between scholarship (the established school represented by Carson) and non-scholarship (the challenging school which has traditionally been treated as non-scholarly and completely uncritical). To the contrary, the best representatives of both schools display genuine scholarship. Why is it, then, that these two schools co-exist on this all-important issue of the very wording of the NT text? And is this a recent or a long-standing debate? It is these questions that we hope to broach—and answer—in this essay.

In Arthur Holmes’ little work All Truth is God’s Truth he makes the following observation in the chapter, “On Justifying Our Beliefs”:

As a rational being a man examines evidence and arguments and brings them to bear on what he values and on what is proposed to his belief and action. As a valuing being he is motivated not only by what he knows but also by what he loves….his values help to shape his beliefs.(1)​

Certainly there is nothing profound about this insight but it nevertheless answers why the pro-Majority Text authors have not brought Carson around to their position and why Carson will not make so much as a dent in the position held by those who favor the Majority Text and, therefore, the KJV. In order to understand the clashing beliefs of these two groups, which in turn explains why certain information seems conclusive to one group and not to the other, we must examine the contextual values of each. After all, one’s “projects determine what knowledge he seeks and what degree of certainty is needed for belief and action.”(2)

When reviewing the defenses of the Majority Text, one dominating consideration emerges: a prior commitment to what the Bible has to say concerning itself with regard to inspiration and preservation. For the Majority Text apologists, this is an all-consuming consideration to which everything else must be subordinated. Their arguments, therefore, are not directed at some neutral bar of determination (as if such a thing existed) but are consciously directed to those who also have the same priority. As Zane C. Hodges says:

When the history of the New Testament text is interpreted in this way [the majority text closest to the autographs] the widespread uniformity of the manuscripts at once becomes a potent tribute to the providence of God in preserving His word. There is no other interpretation of textual history that can make this claim without serious reservations. For if the mass of witnesses is corrupt, 80% of the tradition is corrupt. And no one is quite sure how touse the remaining 20%!

True, This argument will no doubt only appeal to men of faith. but to what better kind of man could appeal be made?(3)​

and Edward F. Hills:

…If the doctrine of the Divine inspiration of the Old and New Testament scriptures is a true doctrine, the doctrine of the providential preservation of the scriptures must also be a true doctrine. It must be that down through the centuries God has exercised a special providential control over the copying of the scriptures and the preservation and use of the copies, so that trustworthy representatives of the original text have been available to God’s people in every age.(4)​

or Wilbur Pickering:

I believe that God preserved the original wording of the text down to our day….my beliefs become presuppositions which I bring to my study of the evidence—any thoughtful person will realize that it is impossible to work without presuppositions…(5)​

or Jakob van Bruggen:

We can only conclude with the absolute certainty, that the ancient text of God’s inspired word both now and in the future will remain an object of God’s special care. This certainty creates for us the obligation to treat the text that has been handed down to us with great care. This obligation lies in the confession of the Reformation (Westminster Confession, chapter 1, 8).(6)​

and finally John William Burgon:

The provision, then, which the divine author of scripture is found to have made for the preservation, in its integrity, of His written word, is of a peculiarly varied and highly complex description. First—by causing that a vast multiplication of copies should be required all down the ages,—beginning at the earliest period, and continuing in an ever-increasing ratio until the actual invention of printing—He provided the most effectual security imaginable against fraud.(7)​

Obviously, then, what the Bible says about itself concerning providential preservation, is the “project” that determines for these scholars what knowledge they seek and what degree of certainty they require for belief and action. As van Bruggen affirms, this method of textual criticism “directs her attention to defining a conviction and does not lose herself, like modern textual criticism, in a quest for the unknown.”(8) These scholars are looking for a continuously, providentially preserved text; and starting with Burgon’s reconstruction of the text-history, through the contemporary echoes of his initial research (i.e., Hills, Hodges, Pickering, van Bruggen, et al.) it has become clear as day, to men of such persuasion, that this text is found nearly always in the majority of the manuscripts. Just so there is no attempt to move away from this issue to an issue of apparent fact versus non-fact, it must be remembered that we do not possess the autographs: therefore, no one can prove anything conclusively with regard to which manuscripts are closest. The issue is reduced to two reconstructions of text transmission history, one based on the guiding principle of a “required” providentially preserved text and the other based on the conclusions of a discipline which claims theological neutrality at its base. This leads us to examine what the considerations are in Carson’s school that “determine what knowledge he seeks and what degree of certainty is needed for belief and action.”

That Carson’s school claims total theological neutrality with regard to the method of textual criticism applied, and the overall approach to the NT documents, is a quality that is boasted of by its proponents.

In Carson’s school of textual criticism those who do not necessarily hold to any view of inspiration and those who are supposed to hold to an evangelical view of inspiration, share agreement. This is conceded by Gordon D. Fee:

What is most probable in textual choices transcends confessional boundaries, hence, confessional evangelicals are generally at one with other scholars on the principles, if not on the actual choices, of textual criticism.(9)​

Here is where the plumb-line is drawn. Hills protests, saying,

If, now, the Christian Church has been correct down through the ages in her fundamental attitude toward the Old and New Testaments, if the doctrines of the Divine inspiration and providential preservation of these Scriptures are true doctrines, then the textual criticism of the New Testament is different from that of the uninspired writings of antiquity. The textual criticism of any book must take into account the conditions under which the original manuscripts were written and also those under which the copies of these manuscripts were made and preserved. But if the doctrines of the divine inspiration and providential preservation of the Scriptures are true, then the original New Testament manuscripts were written under special conditions, under the inspiration of God, and the copies were made and preserved under special conditions, under the singular care and providence of God.​

What Hills offers is an unambiguous “confessional statement” that leads to a particular interpretation of New Testament textual criticism data. Such a confessional statement, the omission of which in one’s method of textual criticism will lead to a totally different interpretation of the same data, is precisely what Fee admits is conspicuously absent from the school represented by himself and Carson. Is it any wonder that the two schools do not see eye to eye? Is it not clear by now why Nolan never convinced Griesbach’s disciples (1815),(11) Scrivener never convinced Westcott and Hort who dominated over the revision committee for the Revised Version (1870-1881),(12) Burgon never convinced Bishop Ellicott (1883),(13) Miller never convinced Sanday (1897),(14) Hoskier never convinced Souter (1914),(15) Hodges never convinced Fee (1978), (16) and finally, why Hills, Pickering, and van Bruggen have not convinced Carson?

Hills himself a well-trained textual critic, who earned his doctorate in NT textual criticism from Harvard, has classed Carson’s school because of its omission of the before-mentioned “confessional statement,” the “naturalistic method”(17) of textual criticism; Hodges at one time similarly called it “rationalistic.”(18)

The mystery of the ages must be put forth in the question: At what point were confessing evangelicals persuaded to “compartmentalize” their beliefs concerning inspiration and preservation, in order to be allowed to play at textual criticism? (e.g., as Carson has mentioned: Warfield, Machen, Robertson, et al.). While agreeing that much unfair abuse has been heaped on Westcott and Hort in pro-TR literature, I am nevertheless compelled “by the facts of history” to acknowledge them carefully as the major force in producing this situation…(pages 191-196 of Letis’ Majority Text)​

The rest of the essay is as outstanding in its discernment as the above, particularly Letis’ response to Carson’s “Thesis 9,” which states “The charge that the non-Byzantine text-types are theologically aberrant is fallacious.” (p. 62) (This is the only one of Carson’s theses he responds to, as he has a purpose to achieve with it.) And then he picks the one verse which Carson does not use (in his chart by Victor Perry (p. 64)): 1 Timothy 3:16. Letis comments:

The one passage, however, which unambiguously states, in a dogmatic formula, that Jesus Christ was in every sense of the word deity (and is therefore, the pivotal passage of sufficient clarity, by which the other ambiguous passages must be understood and without which, we have at best, ambiguity concerning this doctrinal issue) was not treated by Carson, namely, 1 Timothy 3:16.

I will not attempt to defend the majority text reading as this has been done admirably by Burgon.(37) the traditional reading is as follows:

and without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh…​

After showing how almost all the modern versions chose the significant variant that replaces “God” with “He” or “He who” (contrary also to proper Greek grammar), aligned with the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation (seeing as the JWs use the actual Westcott-Hort Greek text), Letis remarks:

By recognizing the manuscript tradition that altered this confession of the apostolic church, the modern translations have endorsed a form of Christianity that was considered by Nicean/Chalcedonian Tradition to be outside the pale of the catholic Faith. Burgon recognized the reading supporting Arianism was adopted by the revisers of 1881, and he likened the change to a strong characterization penned by the Apostle Peter:

May we be permitted to say without offence that in our humble judgment, if the Church of England, at the revisers bidding, were to adopt this and thousands of other depravations of the sacred page—with which the church universal was once well acquainted, but which in her corporate character she has long since unconditionally condemned and abandoned—she would deserve to be pointed at with scorn by the rest of Christendom? Yes, and to have that openly said of her which S. Peter openly said of the false teachers of his day who fell back into the very errors which they had already abjured. The place will be found at II S. Peter ii:22.(38)​

Burgon had good reason to accuse the Church of England of taking up the ancient error of Arianism, unwittingly perhaps, because Eusebius gives clear testimony that is was heretics, subordinationists, who were altering the manuscripts in the pre-Nicean period to substantiate their position.(39)

So there is a clear line of demarcation, because of this passage alone, which puts the majority text/TR/KJV in the Nicean/Chalcedonian tradition whereas all modern translations from 1881 on, not founded on the majority text, are clearly aligned with the Arian reading. A telling demonstration of this is found in the fact that our modern-day Arians, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, in their Bible, guard their understanding of Christ’s “subordination” to the true God, at this passage; but queerly enough, all Bibles used by evangelicals, which are not the KJV, read like The New World Translation at this point. That the KJV offers the reading the Reformers recognized (and they did have the optional reading in Erasmus’ notes on this passage), as “received,” is clear from the following quotes from the historic editions of scripture used by Luther and the English, Protestant churches:

Luther’s (1552)…..Gott ist offenbaret im fleisch…
Tyndale’s (1525)…..God was shewed in the fleshe…
Coverdale’s (1535)…..God was shewed in the flesshe…
Matthew’s (1537)…..God was shewed in the flesshe…
The Great (1539)…..God was shewed in the flesshe…
Geneva (1560)…..God is manifested in the flesh…
Bishop’s (1568)…..God was shewed manifestly in the flesh…


Some will fault me for not answering every objection of Carson’s, but it was only our intention to raise the old issue of presuppositions and to underscore the fact that this debate is not one between experts with data and non-experts with dogma, but rather one between experts with the same data, but different dogma—the dogma of neutrality versus the dogma of providence…(pp. 201-204)​

---------

This ends my quoting from Letis’ book. Below you will find the footnotes, which in themselves are often illuminating and profound.

It is too bad that I cannot convey to the reader the cumulative effect of Letis’ (and others) essays in this book, which gives enhanced force to what I have quoted above. In Letis’ essay, “Theodore Beza as Text Critic,” he give a sense of the discernment, not only of Beza, but Erasmus before him, Calvin, and other of his peers, as regards the variants and other textual issues they were conversant in. These men were not careless, nor did they have poor access to representative texts of varying text-types, very close to what we have today, although less in number. In the next essay, “John Owen Versus Brian Walton,” we are taken into the worlds of the 16th and then the 17th century Reformers and their descendants, and how they viewed and dealt with the Biblical texts, especially vis-à-vis Rome, and its tremendous assaults on the Reformation foundation stone of Sola Scriptura, which it effected mainly through the ruse of presenting significant variants to the Reformation texts, the standard of which was the Textus Receptus, along with the editions of Erasmus, Stephens, Beza, and Elzevir. It was in the 17th century that the doctrine of providential preservation of God’s infallible Scripture was developed, and that primarily against the attempts of Rome to subvert the Reformation. Letis faults John Owen (minimally) regarding his view of the Hebrew vowel points being part of the inspired and preserved OT Masoretic text (the issue not settled to my mind), and yet deeply appreciates his stand on the preservation of the Bible the Reformers received. It is reflective of the Reformers attitude—and stance toward Rome—that the Helvetica Consensus Formula and the Westminster Confession state as they do regarding the Scriptures. In this fascinating historical-theological-textual survey of these two centuries we actually can enter into the Zeitgeist of those times. It puts in perspective the struggle we are having yet today regarding the texts, and how Rome, along with post-Enlightenment thought, has captured the Evangelical mind, at least concerning the Greek NT texts.

Combined with the essays on the Majority Text, particularly vis-à-vis the Critical Text, this book is a tour de force in the discipline, sure to support the views of those disposed to hold to the Traditional Text, against fierce opposition at the present time (I keep in mind that you most likely have read the above concerning presuppositions and dogmas). It will give us withal to stand intelligently against our opponents.

I have begun to read Letis’ other book, The Ecclesiastical Text. I already notice a shift in his voice, or perhaps I should say tone. It is slightly sharper. I am not sure what to make of it yet. Stay tuned.


-----------------------

Footnotes

(1) Arthur F. Holmes, All Truth is God’s Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), p. 104.
(2) Ibid., pp.104-05. Gerhard Maier forcefully acknowledges this in his monograph, The End of the Historical-Critical Method, transl. Edwin W. Leverenz and Rudolph F. Norden (St. Louis: Concordia, 1977), p. 11: “the selection of a method of study can predetermine and prefigure the scope, extent, and type of results. Accordingly, a critical method of Bible interpretation can produce only Bible critical propositions.”
(3) Zane C. Hodges, A Defense of the Majority Text (unpublished paper: Dallas Theological Seminary, n.d.), p. 18. Hodges’ conviction has become a less conscious part of his method, as the more neutral concept of statistical probability takes its place. It is still, however, the “hidden agenda” that causes him to resort to statistical probability as an argument.
(4) Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, 4th ed. (Des Moines: The Christian Research Press, 1984), p. 2. [Available online: http://www.Jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdefen.htm]
(5) Wilbur N. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1977), p. 143. [http://www.revisedstandard.net/text/WNP/index.html]
(6) Jakob van Bruggen, The Ancient Text of the New Testament (Winnipeg: Premier, 1976), p. 40.
(7) John William Burgon, The Revision Revised (London: John Murray, 1883),. p.8)
(8) van Bruggen, The Ancient Text, p. 40. Maier states: “This task [text criticism] remains subject to general theological and methodological principles and is therefore clearly an aspect of theology,” End of the Historical-Critical Method, pp. 80-81.
(9) Gordon D. Fee, “The Text of the New Testament and Modern Translations,” Christianity Today (June 22, 1973), pp. 6-11)
(10) Hills, The King James, p. 2/
(11) See Frederick Nolan’s critique of Griesbach’s premises and methodology in his An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, (London: F.C. and J. Rivington, 1815).
(12) See his critique of Westcott and Hort’s theory in F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed., 2 vols. Revised by Miller (London: George Bell and Sons, 1894), Vol. 2, pp. 285-301.
(13) See Burgon’s “Letter to the Right Rev. C.S. Ellicott, D.D., bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, in reply to his pamphlet in defense of the revisers, and their new Greek text of the New Testament,” as it appears in his Revision Revised, pp. 369-520.
(14) See Edward Miller’s The Oxford Debate on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament which is an edited version of the public debate held at New College on May 6, 1897, principally between Edward Miller the advocate of the traditional (majority) text, and William Sanday, the advocate for Westcott’s and Hort’s text. Interesting to note is the fact that many of the same arguments raised in this debate were being raised again in the JETS debate between Hodges and Fee, eighty-one years later.
(15) Notes Souter’s harsh comments in review of H. Hoskier’s Concerning the Genesis of the Versions of the New Testament, 2 vols. (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1910, 1911), as they appeared in the Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 13 (1912): “We cannot afford to do without his valuable cooperation in New Testament textual criticism, but would suggest that he confine his energies to the collection and accurate presentation of material, and leave theorizing to others, at least meantime” (p. 122). Hoskier’s response was the massive two-volume Codex B and Its Allies: A Study and an Indictment, 2 vols. (London: Bernard Quaritch, Ltd., 1914), wherein he replied directly to Souter: “I refuse to be bound by such advice” (p. i).
(16) See the debate between Hodges and Fee in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Vol. 21, Nos. 1 and 2 (March 1978, June 1978).
(17) Hills, The King James, pp. 62-114.
(18) Zane C. Hodges, “Rationalism and Contemporary New Testament Textual Criticism,” Bibliotheca Sacra 128 (January, 1971), 27-35. Hodges has, however, been similarly criticized for his rationalistic use of the argument of statistical probability.
(37) Burgon, The Revision Revised, pp. 424-501. Also, see Terence H. Brown’s God Was Manifest in the Flesh (London: The Trinitarian Bible Society, n.d.); Hill’s King James Version Defended, pp. 137-38; and Frederick H.A. Scrivener’s, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed., 2 vols. Revised by Miller (London: George Bell and Sons, 1894), Vol. 2, pp. 390-95, where he affirms, “I dare not pronounce qeovvV a corruption.”
(38) Burgon, The Revision Revised, pp. 105-06. The passage reads; “But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, the dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.”
(39) Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History (translated by Christian Frederick Cruse (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974), 5:28, pp. 213-16).
 
Last edited:
Continuing to respond to Dr. Daniel B. Wallace’s essay dealing with KJV/TR and MT views, “Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism” – Dr. Wallace writes,

2. Faulty Assumptions

More serious than a question-begging approach are several decidedly faulty assumptions made by MT/TR advocates. These assumptions are shown to be faulty either by the force of logic or empirical evidence.

a. Preservation is a necessary corollary of inspiration…

[Wallace quoting text critic Ehrman] “…Any claim that God preserved the New Testament text intact, giving His church actual, not theoretical, possession of it, must mean one of three things—either 1) God preserved it in all the extant manuscripts so that none of them contain any textual corruptions, or 2) He preserved it in a group of manuscripts, none of which contain any corruptions, or 3) He preserved it in a solitary manuscript which alone contains no corruptions…”

The problem with these first and second possibilities is that neither one of them is true: no two NT manuscripts agree completely—in fact, there are between six and ten variations per chapter for the closest two manuscripts.

Is it possible that the NT text was preserved intact in a single manuscript? No one argues this particular point, because it is easily demonstrable that every manuscript has scribal errors in it. However, one group does argue that a particular printed edition of the NT has been providentially preserved. Proponents of the Textus Receptus (as opposed to those who argue for the majority text) believe that the TR satisfies this third requirement. There are numerous problems with such a view, but it should be noted that TR advocates are at least consistent in putting preservation on the same level with inspiration.

Nevertheless, there seems to be one major flaw in their approach, from a biblical standpoint: If the TR equals the original text, then the editor must have been just as inspired as the original writers, for he not only selected what readings were to go in this first published edition, but he also created some of the readings. To be specific, the last leaf of Erasmus’ copy of Revelation was missing, so he “back-translated” from Latin into Greek and thereby created numerous readings which have never been found in any Greek manuscript.​

We talked about Erasmus and this portion of Revelation above, so we needn’t belabor it.

Interested parties may review what has been said previously, and also check Dr. Wallace’s full remarks in this present section of his critique (I don’t re-print it so as not to make this overly long).

The MT folks have answered this in various of their writings, noted here (with links to their works), particularly Robinson & Pierpont’s Intro to their NT According to the Byzantine Text-type, Pickering’s Identity of the NT Text, and Dr. Borman’s online essay, “The Preservation of the New Testament Text: A Common Sense Approach” (responding specifically to Wallace).

When Wallace quotes Ehrman as saying, “Any claim that God preserved the New Testament text intact, giving His church actual, not theoretical, possession of it,” and Ehrman then says that this “must mean one of three things,” and makes his list—but what if it was not done according to one of those three, which it in fact was not.

Providential preservation was a process—a means not reckoned with in Ehrman’s “three”—utilizing a core group of MSS, the Byzantine, which was purified to some extent, and certain MSS from this text-type came purposefully into the hands of Erasmus and the other Reformation editors, and the overriding hand of God had some readings lost to these Greek MSS chosen from the Latin to comprise the final editorial production which, in translation, emerged as the King James Bible, and the textual choices determining this translation were reproduced in Scrivener’s 1894 edition of the Textus Receptus. What, the Sovereign who can determine the fate of every sparrow that ever lived, and can decree the existence of each and every hair of our heads, He cannot decree the minute letters of the Greek and Hebrew texts which shall underlie the Bible we have in the Great English Version, thus keeping His promise to retain intact every word He has stated He would have us live by?

And if this line of argument were not enough, it shall be explored below—in due time—a corroborating line based on the MSS that came up through the mountain peoples of Italy who eventually became known as the Waldenses (in France the Vadois) and Albigenses, these dissenters from Rome who were forerunners of the Reformation.

------------

I will post and answer this last portion of Wallace’s essay that I am concerned with. At this point I wish to ask for some feedback from those of you who may be following this discussion. Actually, it has become more of a monologue than a discussion (Maestroh Bill has started school again, and between that and caring well for his family, has had little time to continue at the moment, though he is making good his promise to supply me with some very important materials relating to this discussion, for which I am very grateful). My concern is that I am pedantically going on about something that very few have an interest in, almost talking to myself, as it were. For me it is most valuable to be increasingly exercised in these things, as it will enable me to revise my lengthy paper, To Break A Sword, interacting with opposing views, getting rid of some superfluous stuff, and interacting with the Majority Text positions, all of which were needed. In short, should I bring this to an end? Or is it serving some useful purpose for others, besides myself?

Back to Dr. Wallace:

Non-Biblical Doctrinal Basis

We are often told that the consistently Christian view, or the only orthodox view of the text is one which embraces the Byzantine text-type, and that to embrace a different form of the text is to imbibe in heresy. Although this charge is vigorously denied by non-MT/TR evangelicals, the tables are rarely turned. It is our contention, however, that to use the doctrine of preservation in support of the MT/TR is to have a non-biblical view which cannot consistently be applied to both testaments. The majority text-preservation connection is biblically unfounded in four ways, two of which have already been touched on.

a. Biblical silence. As we have argued concerning the faulty assumption that preservation must be through “majority rule,” the scriptures nowhere tell us how God would preserve the NT text. What is ironic is that as much ink as MT/TR advocates spill on pressing the point that theirs is the only biblical view, when it comes to the preserved text being found in the majority of witnesses, they never quote one verse. Although they accuse other textual critics of rationalism, their argument for preservation via the majority has only a rational basis, not a biblical one. “God must have done this”63—not because the Bible says so, but because logic dictates that this must be the case.​

We say, this is what God has done (looking at the evidences of what exists, of what He has brought to pass), and, as I’ve said, we see that He has used the majority of Greek MSS to preserve His word. We proceed according to the dogma of Providential Preservation (PP) rather than the dogma of a supposed neutrality toward the data.

b. Old Testament examples of preservation. Again, as we have already pointed out, the few OT examples of preservation of scripture do not herald the majority, but only the mere existence of a written witness. This fact leads to our third point—that the argument from preservation actually involves bibliological contradictions.​

I am not aware that any of the holders to PP aver the same principles of preservation apply for the OT as for the New. God used the Aaronic priesthood to superintend the Hebrew text, a small number of people with this assignment. In the NT period he used the priesthood of believers, and the MSS they produced and used.

c. A Marcionite view of the text. Marcion was a second century heretic whose literary remains are found only in essays written against him. Metzger points out that

The main points of Marcion’s teaching were the rejection of the Old Testament and a distinction between the Supreme God of goodness and an inferior God of justice, who was the Creator and the God of the Jews. He regarded Christ as the messenger of the Supreme God. The Old and New Testaments, Marcion argued, cannot be reconciled to each other.64​

It is our contention that majority text advocates follow in Marcion’s train when it comes to their doctrine of preservation because their theological argument does not work for the Old Testament. If our contention is true, then the dogmatic basis for the majority text is bibliologically schizophrenic. The evidence is of two kinds.​

I wonder if Dr. Wallace could make this proposition even more convoluted and abstruse! Why may not two different principles apply for each of the two Testaments? I see no reason whatever to insist that they both have the same process of preservation.

First, the argument that the divine motive for preservation is public availability—as poor an argument as it is for the Greek text—is even worse for the Hebrew. Not only is it alleged that “God must do more than merely preserve the inspired original New Testament text. He must preserve it in a public way … through the continuous usage of His Church,”65 but that “down through the ages God’s providential preservation of the New Testament has operated only through believers …”66 But the Hebrew scriptures were neither preserved publicly—on display through the church as it were—nor only through Christians. In light of this, how can majority text advocates escape the charge of Marcionism? In what way can they argue that a bibliological doctrine is true for the NT but is not true for the OT?​

I would say entirely different principles were in operation in OT times to preserve the Masoretic manuscripts. As I have written above, there were degrees of preservation – steps in the process – as regards the NT MSS, as well as “adequate preservation” in the various sectors of the church. In the OT period, the Scriptures were in the hands of the priests, and in a time of widespread apostasy they almost disappeared (yet God preserved at least one copy which was discovered in the temple by the men working under the priest, Hilkiah, who then gave it to King Josiah). I ask again, why must the principles be identical? I see no reason for it.

Second, it is demonstrable that the OT text does not meet the criteria of preservation by majority rule. Although the Masoretic textual tradition (which represents almost the entirety of the extant Hebrew manuscripts) is highly regarded among most OT textual critics, none (to my knowledge) claim that it is errorless.67 Most OT scholars today would agree with Klein that “Samuel MT is a poor text, marked by extensive haplography and corruption—only the MT of Hosea and Ezekiel is in worse condition.”68 In fact, a number of readings which only occur in versions (i.e., not in the extant Hebrew manuscripts at all), or are found only in one or two early Qumran manuscripts, have indisputable claim to authenticity in the face of the errant majority.69 Furthermore, in many places, all the extant Hebrew manuscripts (as well as versions) are so corrupt that scholars have been forced to emend the text on the basis of mere conjecture.70 Significantly, many such conjectures (but not all) have been vindicated by the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls.71 Majority text advocates simply do not grapple with these OT textual phenomena. And if they were to do so and were even to prove many minority text readings or conjectures false, our point would still stand. Only if they could demonstrate that all minority text readings and all conjectures were inferior (or at least probably so), could their argument hold water. The indisputable fact is that OT textual criticism simply cannot be conducted on the basis of counting noses. Since this is the case, either majority text advocates must abandon their theological premise altogether, or else be subject to the charge of a bibliological double standard.​

To give some perspective on Wallace’s radical position I quote from the online essay,
“The Preservation of Scripture”, by W.W. Combs:


‘In an article entitled “Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism,”(20) by Daniel B. Wallace, we find what is apparently the first definitive, systematic denial of a doctrine of preservation of Scripture.(21) He has been joined in his view by W. Edward Glenny.(22) Though it is impossible to prove that most evangelical Christians have always affirmed a doctrine of preservation, the position of Wallace and Glenny appears to be a rather novel one.’
___________________
(20) Grace Theological Journal 12 (Spring 1991): 21–50. This article originally appeared in New Testament Essays in Honor of Homer A. Kent, Jr., ed. Gary T. Meadors (Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 1991), pp. 69–102.
(21) Wallace’s former teacher, Harry Sturz, did in fact precede him in the denial of any corollary between inspiration and preservation, but Sturz argued, contrary to Wallace, that preservation is promised in Scripture. See Harry A. Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), p. 38.
(22) “The Preservation of Scripture,” in chapter 5 of The Bible Version Debate: The Perspective of Central Baptist Theological Seminary, ed. Michael A. Grisanti (Minneapolis: Central Baptist Theological Seminary, 1997). But, as I will demonstrate later, Glenny retreats from his denial in a footnote to his essay.​

Note: In accessing the link to the above pdf essay, at least in my browser (Safari) the page apparently comes up blank, though when I save it, then the pdf version appears in the saved item. Note also the response (a link to which is given below) of Dr. Strouse to Comb’s point of view. I go with Strouse over Combs, although Strouse acknowledges worth in Combs’ essay.

------------

By way of responding to Wallace, I would like to introduce more from E.F. Hills shortly, and give a couple of links to articles by Dr. Thomas Strouse on the OT Scriptures. I find Strouse a competent scholar (most of what I have seen of his pertains to the OT), and his aggressive baptistic stance does not put me off.

There is a school, yes, one might well call it an industry, and the livelihood of many, which thrives on the proposition that the OT and NT Scriptures are in bad shape and we need text-critical experts to set us straight on the Bible God did not see fit to preserve for us. I neither trust nor believe this school. I know I will garner to myself various epithets indicating ignorance and obscurantism for dismissing their piles of purported evidences, but those guided by the dogma of so-called neutral text-critical studies are in fact far from neutral, they are contra the attestations of Scripture to itself, contra faith, and the reasoning which proceeds from that.

The defense of the OT Scripture, the Masoretic text, is similar in some respects to the defense of the Greek TR, in that it primarily involves one manuscript, called the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text, also known as Daniel Bomberg’s second edition (1524-25), or the Second Great Rabbinic Bible, which became the standard Masoretic text for the following 400 years. For some info on it see this article in Cloud’s archives from D.A. Waite’s Defending the King James Bible.

As you will see from the article there is (and was) controversy as to whether the vowel points were added by the Masoretes or were there from before—and in—the time the Lord Jesus was among us, and were but preserved by the Masoretes. Owen and Turretin both were deeply involved in defending this latter view, as was the greatest Hebraist of that time, Johannes Buxtorf (1564-1629), the main defender of the view that the points were part of the text, at least from the time of Ezra.

In Strouse’s essay below, “Scholarly Myths…”, he defends this view. I became aware while reading the essay that John Gill had written a book, A Dissertation Concerning the Antiquity of the Hebrew Language, Letters, Vowel-Points, and Accents: http://www.godrules.net/library/gill/304gill1.htm, although this online version is not easy on the eyes, and the footnotes/citations which are a rich source with Gill, are hopelessly jumbled, so I was able to get a fine copy of the book in PDF for only $5. As the book is in the public domain, I will be glad to email gratis it to anyone who asks (it is about 1.2 MB).

It was this Ben Chayyim edition that the authors of the framers of the Westminster Confession and the Helvetic Consensus Formula (in 1675) referred to in their statements on Scripture.

How do we stand against unbelief? By trusting in the words of God. This attack will grow as the days pass, and whether we have evidences to counter the assertions of those with no faith in the Bible’s preservation or not, we stand on the word of promise.

Strouse review of Combs’ essay : http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/combs-review.html

SCHOLARLY MYTHS PERPETUATED ON REJECTING THE MASORETIC TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, by Thom. Strouse: http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/myths-masoretic-text.html

I will give Hills’ comments at this point:

The Infallible Inspiration of the Scriptures

The Holy Spirit persuades us to adopt the same view of the Scriptures that Jesus believed and taught during the days of His earthly ministry. Jesus denied explicitly the theories of the higher critics. He recognized Moses (Mark 12:26), David (Luke 20:42), and Daniel (Matt. 24:15) by name as the authors of the writings assigned to them by the Old Testament believers. Moreover, according to Jesus, all these individual Old Testament writings combined together to form one divine and infallible Book which He called "the Scriptures." Jesus believed that these Scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit (Mark 12:36), that not one word of them could be denied (John 10:35), that not one particle of them could perish (Matt. 5: 18), and that everything written in them was divinely authoritative (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10).

This same high view of the Old Testament Scriptures was held and taught by Christ's Apostles. All Scripture, Paul tells us, is given by inspiration of God (2 Tim. 3:16). And Peter adds, No prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. For prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:20-21). The Scriptures were the living oracles through which God spoke (Acts. 7:38), which had been committed to the Jews for safekeeping (Rom. 3:2) which contained the principles of divine knowledge (Heb. 5:12), and according to which Christians were to pattern their own speech (1 Peter 4:11). To the Apostles, "It is written," was equivalent to, "God says"….

The Providential Presentation of the Scriptures

Because the Scriptures are forever relevant, they have been preserved down through the ages by God's special providence. The reality of this providential preservation of the Scriptures was proclaimed by the Lord Himself during His life on earth. Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled (Matt. 5:18). And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail (Luke 16:17). Here our Lord assures us that the Old Testament text in common use among the Jews during His earthly ministry was an absolutely trustworthy reproduction of the original text written by Moses and the other inspired authors. Nothing had been lost from that text, and nothing ever would be lost. It would be easier for heaven and earth to pass than for such a loss to take place.

Jesus also taught that the same divine providence which had preserved the Old Testament would preserve the New Testament too. In the concluding verses of the Gospel of Matthew we find His "Great Commission" not only to the twelve Apostles but also to His Church throughout all ages, go ye therefore and teach all nations. Implied in this solemn charge is the promise that through the working of God's providence the Church will always be kept in possession of an infallible record of Jesus' words and works. And, similarly, in His discourse on the last things He assures His disciples that His promises not only shall certainly be fulfilled but also shall remain available for the comfort of His people during that troubled period which shall precede His second coming. In other words, that they shall be preserved until that time. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away (Matt. 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33). (Hills, The King James Version Defended, chapter 4 [http://www.Jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdcha4.htm])​

To summarize for the moment: There is an industry invested in the so-called “neutral criticism of the Biblical texts,” which has men and women who say, “I am an expert, and am here to tell you your Bible is untrustworthy in its present state and you need me to sort it out for you. I have a family and expenses and this will be my vocation as I undertake this work which is so vital for you.” Which is not to say that many of these secular-paradigm scholars, some of whom are believers, deliberately set about to hurt the faith of their brethren; quite the contrary, they see themselves as doing good for them. Nonetheless, they do hurt the faith of the children of God, and lower their trust in the reliability and authority of His word.

On the other hand, there is a school of (generally) simpler and less-educated believers who proceed to evaluate the Biblical texts on the basis of their self-attestation, which attestation is in reality the Author of the Bible speaking of what He has done in writing it, and will do in preserving it. These mostly “unlearned” saints take Him at His word, even though they are reviled by those with other agendas and views of the sacred Book. Still, in the kindness of His providence toward us He has raised up scholars, such as Burgon, the many Majority Text advocates, Nolan, Scrivener, Hoskier, Dabney, Wilson, Hills, Letis, Waite, Moorman, Cloud, Grady, DiVietro, Jones, Johnson, et al, to encourage, support, and give us understanding.

---------------

Here is the final portion of Wallace which I shall address:

d. The biblical doctrine of preservation In light of the occasional necessity of conjectural emendation for the OT text, it is our contention that not only is the majority text argument for preservation entirely wrong-headed, but so is any doctrine of preservation which requires that the exact wording of the text be preserved at all. In spite of the fact that even opponents of the MT/TR view embrace such a doctrine,72 it simply does not square with the evidence. Only three brief points will be made here, in hopes of stimulating a dialogue on this issue.

First, the doctrine of preservation was not a doctrine of the ancient church. In fact, it was not stated in any creed until the seventeenth century (in the Westminster Confession of 1646). The recent arrival of such a doctrine, of course, does not necessarily argue against it—but neither does its youthfulness argue for it. Perhaps what needs to be explored more fully is precisely what the framers of the Westminster Confession and the Helvetic Consensus Formula (in 1675) really meant by providential preservation.​

Dr. Theodore Letis discusses just this point in his 45-page essay, “John Owen Versus Brian Walton” (in The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate, T. Letis, ed.):

…As we mentioned at the outset, the sixteenth century was the era of Protestant attack and no real confessional statement appears on the doctrine of providential preservation until the Roman Catholic counterattack, which precipitated both the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Helveticus Consensus Formula…​

Letis’ essay is about the milieu these confessional statements were formulated in. Later I will discuss in more detail precisely what Owen’s view was concerning the extent of minute preservation in the MSS of his Bible. Wallace again:

Second, the major scriptural texts alleged to support the doctrine of preservation need to be reexamined in a new light. I am aware of only one substantial articulation of the biblical basis for this doctrine by a majority text advocate. In Donald Brake’s essay, “The Preservation of the Scriptures,” five major passages are adduced as proof that preservation refers to the written Word of God: Ps. 119:89, Isa. 40:8, Matt. 5:17–18, John 10:35, and 1 Pet. 1:23–25.73 One of the fundamental problems with the use of these passages is that merely because “God’s Word” is mentioned in them it is assumed that the written, canonical, revelation of God is meant.74 But 1 Pet. 1:23–25, for example, in quoting Isa. 40:8, uses rJh'ma (not lovgo")—a term which typically refers to the spoken word.75 Brake’s interpretation of Ps. 119:89 (“For ever, O Lord, your word is settled in heaven”) is, to put it mildly, improbable: “The Word which is settled in heaven was placed there by a deliberate and purposeful act of God Himself.”76 It seems that a better interpretation of all these texts is that they are statements concerning either divine ethical principles (i.e., moral laws which cannot be violated without some kind of consequences) or the promise of fulfilled prophecy.77 The assumptions that most evangelicals make about the doctrine of preservation need to be scrutinized in light of this exegetical construct.


I think there is adequate exegesis available to counter Wallace’s. As Letis has said, and I wrote of above, we bring our presuppositions and dogmas to our examination of the Bible. This is an example of how Wallace views what to others is perceived quite differently.


Third, if the doctrine of the preservation of scripture has neither ancient historical roots, nor any direct biblical basis, what can we legitimately say about the text of the New Testament? My own preference is to speak of God’s providential care of the text as can be seen throughout church history, without elevating such to the level of doctrine. If this makes us theologically uncomfortable, it should at the same time make us at ease historically, for the NT is the most remarkably preserved text of the ancient world—both in terms of the quantity of manuscripts and in their temporal proximity to the originals. Not only this, but the fact that no major doctrine is affected by any viable textual variant surely speaks of God’s providential care of the text. Just because there is no verse to prove this does not make it any less true.78​

The fact (discerned by many, if not all) that the Bible itself does indeed posit the teaching that God shall preserve His word, gives the doctrine both “ancient historical roots” and “direct biblical basis”. We have mentioned some of these Scriptural attestations above. I think it can be shown that “major doctrine” is affected by some significant textual variants, variants which are adopted by some modern versions. This also shall be discussed shortly.

Wallace states,

C. Conclusion on the Arguments concerning Preservation

In conclusion, MT/TR advocates argue from a theological vantage point which begs the question historically and logically. More serious than petitio principii, they make several faulty assumptions which not only run aground on rational and empirical rocks, but ultimately backfire. The most telling assumption is that certainty equals truth. This is an evangelical disease: for most of us, at some point, the quest for certainty has replaced the quest for truth. But even for majority text advocates, this quest must, in the last analysis, remain unfulfilled. The worst feature of their agenda, however, is not the faulty assumptions. It is that their view of preservation not only is non-biblical, it is also bibliologically schizophrenic in that it cannot work for both testaments. And that, to a majority text or Textus Receptus advocate—as it would be to any conservative Christian—is the most damaging aspect of their theological agenda.​

Each of these points, question-begging, faulty assumptions, and non-biblical doctrinal bases, have been answered above. For one, I do not mistake certainty for truth. As Jesus said to the Father, “…Thy word is truth.” (John 17:17) Or concerning Himself, “I am the way, the truth, and the life…” (John 14:6) It is my trust in Him and His word, a trust given by God to His children, that gives birth to my certainty—certainty in the veracity of His promises and the revelation His Person, and His will and ability to preserve the verbal record of these. Truth is the facts, certainty my apprehension of and confidence in them. All given by His grace. Praise to His wonderful name.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Jerusalem Blade
I will post and answer this last portion of Wallace´s essay that I am concerned with. At this point I wish to ask for some feedback from those of you who may be following this discussion. Actually, it has become more of a monologue than a discussion (Maestroh Bill has started school again, and between that and caring well for his family, has had little time to continue at the moment, though he is making good his promise to supply me with some very important materials relating to this discussion, for which I am very grateful). My concern is that I am pedantically going on about something that very few have an interest in, almost talking to myself, as it were.
For me it is most valuable to be increasingly exercised in these things, as it will enable me to revise my lengthy paper, To Break A Sword, interacting with opposing views, getting rid of some superfluous stuff, and interacting with the Majority Text positions, all of which were needed. In short, should I bring this to an end? Or is it serving some useful purpose for others, besides myself?

Steve,

I think it's a useful thread, thank you for your efforts. What I think would assist (just as a suggestion to think about), because of my feeble mind, is for you to maintain an "executive summary" in the initial post of this thread. That would help me to get the context of your comments right before you dive into the detail. Ie, some "bullet points" covering your main contention, followed by the the key items you have/or intend to cover in support of the contention along with key conclusions you have made to date (in, say, 10-15 words per point- not a rehash of the content!).

Anyway, keep going as the Lord leads.

God bless,

Matt
 
Steve,
I, for one, am enjoying your postings. By all means, proceed brother.

As to the issue of preservation of the text, permit me one comment. Arguments for the critical text which disparage the traditional text have always raised in my mind the following question, "How then can we have any certainty about accuracy of any Scripture?" To say that no major doctrine is affected by the disagreements in manuscript evidence really does not reassure me. If we cannot be confident of the "little things", how can we be confident of the "important things"?

Anyway, just my:2cents:

Thanks again.
 
Matt,

I think an "executive summary" or synopsis in the initial post is a great idea. Thanks. And thanks also for the encouragement.


Dan,

Thank you for your encouragment as well. I think your point is well taken when you say,

Arguments for the critical text which disparage the traditional text have always raised in my mind the following question, "How then can we have any certainty about accuracy of any Scripture?" To say that no major doctrine is affected by the disagreements in manuscript evidence really does not reassure me. If we cannot be confident of the "little things", how can we be confident of the "important things"?​

It is like two rival gunfighters in the same town (one the lawful sheriff): the place is not big enough for both of them. They will be at odds till one is gone. I refer to the CT & TR (1894). The TR (and its King James offspring) by their very existence deny the validity of the CT, deny its trustworthiness. And it goes the other way around also, with the CT denying the validity of the TR. It is a war. Though the "war" won't be over until something drastic happens (a new MS discovery supporting the TR? -- yet CT diehards will continue unabated anyway, I would think), or the Lord returns. If that will not be for another 100 years, I wonder what the textual situation will look like in those days?

What I seek to do here in this (and the previous) thread is to marshall both evidences -- such as we have -- and discerning, intelligent judgment so as to show the reliability of the TR & King James texts. That we may indeed be confident in the "little things." Another purpose is to show how to answer those who "disparage the traditional text."

Thanks again to you both.

Steve
 
Last edited:
To get back to this thread….

Please bear with me for taking a brief section wherein I quoted from Letis’ The Ecclesiastical Text in the “Ascendancy” thread to put it here. It is pertinent to this thread, and I’d like to have it as part of the record here when “Ascendancy” is forgotten.

After this brief section, I want to comment more on Dr. Theodore P. Letis – with new information I have – as well as further discuss the defense of the TR/KJV. From the other thread:

-----------------



Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield [“drew first blood,” as it were, in the text-critical controversies within the Reformed communions] when he wrote to the general Christian public in Sunday School Times 24 in 1882, that Mark’s long ending was “no part of God’s word,” and therefore “we are not to ascribe to the verses the authority due to God’s Word.” [Cited from Theodore P. Letis’ The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority and the Popular Mind, p. 53]. In naming him thus be it understood I mean not at all to demean “the mighty Warfield,” as other than in the area of text criticism I honor and love him. But when a man is wrong we sin if we do not decry that error which causes harm to the flock of God.

To his credit, Warfield’s intentions were good; he hoped to disarm the threat posed by text criticism in the hands of liberal and unbelieving scholars by redefining the Westminster Confession’s statement on Scripture to refer to the inerrant autographs (anciently lost and beyond reach) instead of the apographs (the copies; texts in the hands of the Westminster divines). I quote from Letis’ essay “B. B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism” (in The Ecclesiastical Text”, pp. 26-27):

Only eight years after Warfield’s death [in Feb 1921], the higher criticism entered Princeton and the seminary was reorganized to accommodate this. The facile certainty that Westcott and Hort’s system seem to offer Warfield evaporated. Later text critics abandoned the hope of reconstructing a “neutral” text and today despair of ever discovering an urtext, the final resting ground of Warfield’s doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy. Warfield had given earnest expression to his hope that,

The autographic text of the New Testament is distinctly within the reach of criticism….we cannot despair of restoring to ourselves and the church of God, His book, word for word, as He gave it by inspiration to men. [“The Rights of Criticism and of the Church”, The Presbyterian (April 13, 1892):15]​

Fifty years later, the Harvard text critic, Kirsopp Lake, offered a more modest assessment:

In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort….we do not know the original form of the Gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall. [Family 13 (The Ferrar Group (Phila., The Univ. of Penn. Press, 1941), p. vii]​

Warfield’s Common Sense adoption of German methods would be more fully developed by others at Princeton who would no longer find his appendage of the inerrant autographs theory either convincing, or any longer relevant for N.T. studies.​

Make no mistake about it, Warfield’s textual theories, taken in good faith from Westcott and Hort – which he was open to after his studies in German criticism at the University of Leipzig in 1876 – almost single-handedly turned the Reformed Communities from their former view of the WCF and its prizing the texts-in-hand to the (what turned out to be) never-to-be-found-or-restored autographic texts. This was the watershed. And today men of good intentions seek to make the best of it, developing theories and stances so as to defend what they say is a trustworthy Bible.

If any of you will take me to task for bringing Letis’ views to the fore, seeing the debacle he made in the Theonomy L debate with Dr. White, let me remind you that we all have remaining corruption within us, as even did the lights of yore, Calvin and Luther. We do not dismiss them for their (far greater) failures, so why do you diss Letis for his lesser (though more visible to us) failure?


------------------


Just last night (Tuesday, Sept. 19, 2006) I found an article I had been aware of and searching for for some time, that being David Cloud’s “Theodore Letis: A Friend of Fundamental Baptists?” Notwithstanding Cloud’s vigorous antipathy to the Reformed distinctives of Election, God’s Sovereignty, infant baptism, the utter bondage of the human will, etc., I like the man, and appreciate his discernment in certain matters. I was made aware of this article while reading on Cloud’s website,

(In a separate article entitled "Theodore Letis: A Friend of Fundamental Baptists?" published in early 1999 I stated my opinion that it was wrong for Dr. Johnson to use Theodore Letis, a New Evangelical Lutheran, in this debate. I have discussed that matter personally with Dr. Johnson, and I understand that Dr. Letis will not be asked to return to Pensacola…)​

Cloud is referring to a videotaped seminar Letis gave with some others in 1997 at Pensacola Christian College on the textual issues surrounding the KJV and the TR. But I couldn’t locate said article on his website or on the internet and was thinking of emailing and asking him for it when it occurred to me I might have it on a CD I got from Cloud’s ministry, and I found I did.

As I have been reading through The Ecclesiastical Text (TET) I have been concerned about some of the authors Letis quotes from as authoritative without giving any caveats or disclaimers, as well as his seeming incorporation of Rome and the Eastern “churches” into what he calls “catholic orthodoxy.” I quote briefly from the essay, “Brevard Childs and the Protestant Dogmaticians: A Window to a New Paradigm,” to put it in context:

The given community we have in view [in a discussion of “sacred text”], of course, is the Christian Church; the liturgy is that, broadly speaking, reflecting catholic orthodoxy from the fourth century, which in turn, reinforced the sacred text standard. (fn. 22: That is, the orthodoxy arrived at by the early Councils reinforced a canonical configuration of the N.T. text which best reflected this orthodoxy from among the several floating recensions.)

Since (and before) the emergence of catholic orthodoxy, until the Reformation, the Bible was forever to be found within the context of church use and so retained its status as a sacred text. (pp. 93, 94)​

A little earlier in his discussion, talking of the Protestant dogmaticians of the 17th century, he says,

It is this [dogmatic] tradition, with its refining definitions, though cumbersome at times, that prevents the sixteenth century Reformers from being lifted from their historical moment and forced to speak an alien discourse reflecting the Sitz im Leben* of modernity. It is this alien discourse, I believe, that has driven at least some earnest folk toward Rome. Within the bosom of Rome one finds, even after Vatican II, a living continuity of dogmatic traditions, ironically, closer in kind to the seventeenth century Protestantism, than are most contemporary expressions of Protestantism. (p. 92) [* from the online Wiktionary: Sitz im Leben: (sit in life) means at which moment in someone’s life a kind saying or writing fits…Though often rendered by phrases like "life setting", "situation in life" etc. the German term Sitz im Leben is usually either translated by "sociological setting" or left untranslated.]​

Cloud comments,

One could only make such a statement if he looks upon Rome as an authentic expression of the church of Jesus Christ rather than an apostate, heretical entity. That Rome today is closer to 17th century Protestantism than most contemporary expressions of Protestantism is only because 17th-century Protestants did not build New Testament churches; they merely modified Rome’s false ecclesiology. Protestantism was unscriptural in its original form, and it is doubly unscriptural in its modernistic form.​

I hope not to open the can of worms of church government here. What I intend is to focus on is Letis’ vision, not of Scripture, but of the Faith, and to some extent, the church. (If anyone is desirous to have Cloud’s lengthy article on Letis just U2U or email me and I’ll email it to you in pdf; I can’t post it because of copyright restriction.)

Caught between Cloud’s and Letis’ respective visions of things has clarified some issues in my mind. What Cloud means by “New Evangelical” is perhaps similar to what David Wells sees as the growing disaffection with sound doctrine and increasing worldliness, and a falling away from those distinctives necessary to a godly life. Cloud realizes in his “local church” with its principles of autonomous government under duly appointed leaders what Letis sought in, first, the Presbyterians, then the Methodists, and finally the Lutherans. Had he not died young he may have moved again. Cloud opines, “It would not surprise us if Dr. Letis goes over to the Greek Orthodox Church eventually. In Greek Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism one finds the ultimate in ‘authoritative ecclesiastical guidance!’” And it is this guidance Letis seeks with regard to establishing the “Ecclesiastical Text” in the church. He is apparently willing to find help from liberals and outright unbelievers in this quest. I don’t think I can follow him here.

I just finished his essay, “The Reformation and the Philosophy of Vernacular Translations of the Bible,” in TET, and he begins an ideological offensive of sorts against the Baptists (whom he calls the Anabaptists), which will culminate in the severe (Cloud rightly calls it “slanderous”) and final essay in the book, “The Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text and the Claims of the Anabaptists,” which I gather (I haven’t gotten to it yet) deals primarily against the Fundamental Baptists (FBs), especially those who are KJO.

Letis says of the modern “Anabaptists” that they are “menacing” because they “have in a misinformed and confused way instilled in the English of the Anglican Bible all the qualities which Reformation scholars attributed exclusively to the original language texts.” (p. 138) I know only of Ruckman who does this; certainly this is not typical of the more informed KJO FBs.

Letis was hurt by the FBs, who rejected him despite his KJV/TR views, due to his church views and affiliations, and his significant lack of separation from unbelievers.

I shall just fly my colors on this: after having read the Bible for 38 years, with an intense interest in ecclesiology, I cannot bring myself to assert that the Scriptures mandate a form of church government, either autonomous local assembly or Presbyterian or otherwise. My sense is that the Lord left it vague deliberately for His own reasons. Probably this sort of sitting on the fence will get me shot at by both sides! I will say that the most vital church I have ever been part of (and this recently) is Redeemer PCA in Manhattan. Maybe 20-30 years ago my view of the church was according to Watchman Nee, where all believers in a geographic locale were members of the church in that locale, such as the church in Jerusalem or the church in Ephesus. Doctrine did not determine the boundary of the church’s precincts, but physical locale. I troubled the Reformed Baptist elders in my part of the state by taking this stand and challenging them on it. I began to change when I became more deeply convinced of the doctrines of grace, and began adhering to the Reformed confessions. Articles 28 and 29 in the Belgic Confession were significant to me, concerning joining the true Church, and the marks of the true Church. I became convinced that the true church was determined by sound doctrine, the presence of the Spirit of Christ, and “faith which worketh by love” (Gal 5:6). This made certain assemblies ineligible, in my view, as “the pure doctrine of the gospel [was not] preached therein”.

I could not become a member of a Reformed Baptist church because I was a convinced paedobaptist, and they would not allow me to partake of the Lord’s Table, even though I was knit in among them. I believed in infant baptism because the Abrahamic covenant (I am a Jew) was to believers and their seed. But I could as easily join an independent Reformed church as a Presbyterian church. I don’t know what this makes me, and I am open to be corrected and instructed, God granting me further light from the Scriptures.

But the point I wish to make is this, I find as much warrant for the form of government of independent Reformed Baptist churches as I do for the Presbyterian and Reformed form, in that I find no Scriptural warrant for the mandating of either. And this takes the teeth out of Letis’ argument (for me, at any rate) that the church must have historic ecclesiastical forms such as grew out of the Reformation. Doctrine, yes, church government, no (not by Scriptural mandate). A disadvantage of the P&R form is that if it goes bad from the top it goes down to the bottom, witness the PCUSA or CRC (I know there are solid believers and sectors in each), and other communions, alas! are following suit.

To further the point: In the Fundamental Baptist churches (I know many of them go bad also) it can be stated – assembly by assembly, each being independent – those Scriptures they hold fast as being the sacred text, the very word of God, or rather a faithful translation of those Hebrew and Greek texts which are the preserved word of God. This “ecclesiastical situation” was what Letis sought. He sought more, I think, but as regards a church having its sacred text, he wanted this. Since the days of Warfield, at least, he could not find this in the P&R or Lutheran communions. They had succumbed to modern influences, never to return. He ends the essay “…Philosophy of Bible Translation” on this wistful note:

The only antidote to this plight is for those small remnant Reformation communities who still retain confessional and catholic integrity to act as salt and light in this insipid and ever dimming age. With little promise of success they must walk by faith and not by sight and celebrate their distinctives with intelligence, dignity, and winsomeness in hopes of attracting with the full fragrance of the old classic translations those whose senses have been dulled by the pollutants of modernity (II Cor. 2:14-17). (p. 139)​

I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he means, not merely the old classics themselves, but the Spirit of Him they refer to.

-----------------

Back to critiquing Letis (seeing as I have fairly strongly approved of him previously). He has done much invaluable research and original historic analyses which cast much light on the textual issues. Yet there is an unhealthy strain in him; David Otis Fuller coined the phrase, scholarolatry – which is venerating the scholars above that which proper, looking up to them for leadership and guidance, and looking down upon the lowly Bible-believers. Cloud says,

Bible-believing Baptists do not attempt to found their belief and practice upon "other historical or cultural expressions of Christianity." They go directly to the New Testament Scriptures for their authority and example in all matters of faith and practice. The Bible-believing Baptist’s position is not proud independence of spirit; it is humble submission to the faith once delivered to the saints. The Bible-believing Baptist’s faith is not built upon the teaching of "the church fathers," but upon the Lord’s Apostles. The Bible alone is sufficient for faith and practice (2 Timothy 3:16,17). This passage does not say that we need church "fathers" and scholars.​

When the Lord’s flock is abusively berated for their lack of learning, instead of patiently taught, this comes dangerously close to the picture of the steward who began “to beat the men-servants and maidens” in Luke 12:45. After reviewing some of Letis’ remarks in this vein, Cloud says,

Another example of Dr. Letis’s unscriptural philosophy is contained on page 27 of his book:

"And with the emergence of the twentieth century chapter on the controversy of Bible translation we finally return to the theme of this essay. The problem now was: how was one to choose between so many options, proliferating at a dizzying rate, WITH NO AUTHORITATIVE ECCLESIASTICAL GUIDANCE?" (emphasis [Cloud’s]) (Letis, Revival, p. 27)​

Letis doesn’t understand the New Testament truth that the Christian’s guidance does not come through an ecclesiastical machine or through some kind of apostolic succession or through the "church fathers," but through the Holy Spirit (1 Jn. 2:27), the Bible (2 Tim. 3:16,17), and the leaders of the New Testament assembly (Eph. 4:11-14; Heb. 13:7,17). The Lord Jesus Christ promised, "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" (Matt. 28:20). His abiding presence guarantees the necessary spiritual discernment.”​

Above Cloud is quoting from the essay “The Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text and the Claims of the Anabaptists” when it was published separately, before being included in TET.

It is easy to see why the FBs withdrew from the general evangelical scene – the P&R included – as the scholars reviled them for their ignorance and introduced dangerous – poisonous – views of the Book they held sacred above all else on the earth.

I read in the “…Philosophy of Bible Translation” essay where Letis discusses Turretin’s view of the Hebrew and Greek and the need for ministers to be able to read the original languages – these the preserved texts – to bring out their full meanings. Letis says,

Where translations failed, preaching was to offer additional clarity. Within historic Reformation churches liturgy and preaching, in [J.W.] Beardslee’s words, “continues the work of Bible translation; hence the importance of an educated ministry.”*

What happens when the ministry is no longer fully educated as were the Reformation pastors of the sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth and even the nineteenth centuries; and what happens when creeds and confessions are jettisoned in favor of “the Bible alone”?...[* Francis Turretin, the Doctrine of Scripture, trans. by J.W. Beardslee III (Grand Rapids, 1981), p. 154, n. 3.]​

And Letis proceeds to list to ensuing results: 1) a seeking to restore the text, reckoning the creeds and texts of the Reformation are “degenerative and defective,” although the restoration never arrives at a consensus, always in flux and changing, and 2) “Those Anabaptist communities who reject creeds and confessions believing their churches alone have retained the primal Christian tradition.”

There is a lot in these comments above to chew on. I shall just take a few bites for the moment.

I know many pastors, and many in the Presbyterian churches, some in the Reformed, and I know of none who are fluent in the Hebrew and Greek languages (not including some Jewish and Greek pastors). They have sufficient knowledge to study the meanings and tenses of words, but I can do the same with my ample lexical materials, who do not even have their knowledge.

And then we have the phenomenon of those with either fluency or “sufficient knowledge” who use the corrupted Critical Text. Fluency does not get at the problem of a people bereft of the sure Biblical text, and the ensuing loss of confidence in what they do have.

If a man has adequate lexical and study tools to get at the deeper meanings and grammatical constructions of the original languages, and has a genuine, deep, vital relationship with the Lord our God, and a thorough grasp of the doctrines of grace, along with a knowledge of Biblical history, theology, counseling, and a discernment into the human heart, is such not adequate to minister if more competent ministers are not to be found? The Lord Jesus worked with rough and unlearned men.

And what need have we of scholars – I care not for their pedigrees and advanced credentials – who are enamored of the (what are to many of us) destructive and faithless secular methodologies turned against our Bibles? Cloud is right in this. Professors and “fathers” – fine as they may be at times – are not to supplant the authority of the Scriptures, and the Spirit of Christ who teaches us through them (1 John 2:20-27). Consider this quote from an online article on John Bunyan:

There was one book, however, that he knew as hardly any other man in any age has known it — the Bible. His knowledge of it was not the scholar's knowledge, for he knew nothing of Greek and Hebrew or even of such Biblical criticism as existed in his own day. What he had was a verbal knowledge of the English versions that was never at fault. Many stories are told of the readiness with which he could produce apposite scriptural quotations, often to the confusion of much more learned men than himself. This intimacy with the Bible, combined with one other element, is enough to account for the substance of The Pilgrim's Progress. That other element is his profound acquaintance with the rustic and provincial life about him, and with the heart of the average man.​

One learned pastor and theologian’s widely reported view of Bunyan was this:


John Owen, generally reckoned to be the most accomplished and learned theologian that England has ever produced, was asked by the King why he was so fond of listening to the Particular Baptist John Bunyan preach, ‘to hear a tinker prate,’ as the King sarcastically expressed it. Owen replied, ‘May it please your Majesty, could I possess the tinker’s abilities for preaching, I would willingly relinquish all my learning.’​

Enough for now. I am about to read Letis’ essay on the Fundamental Baptists, which I’m sure will pain me.

Steve
 
Last edited:
A few comments on Letis’ aforementioned essay on “Anabaptists” in TET. Historically very interesting; after giving some history of the Anabaptist turmoil in Europe, he says,

All of Europe now knew one direction in which this “Reformation” of the Church might go. Christian Europe, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, consolidated in resisting this restorationist Christianity. (fn. 28: Both Roman Catholic and Protestant troops marched into Münster in order to restore order…)

The Protestants saw the wisdom of retaining an official Church/State connection to assure the preservation both of social order, but also for the preservation of the integrity of the now renewed Church and the promise of a renewed Christendom.

Those who would have nothing to do with the state-established forms of this renewed catholic orthodoxy (whether it be the Calvinism established in Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Scotland; or the now Reformed Anglicanism of England; or the Lutheranism of Germany and the Scandinavian countries), now fled to the haven of religious freedom in the New World—colonial America.

America: A Haven for the Schwärmerei [German for “enthusiasts” – read “fanatics” – per Letis]

In time, this new republic broke free from all formal political connections with old Christendom….They determined that the Christian religion would be, for the first time in the history of the Christian West, disestablished and regarded as, at best, just an option within the boundaries of this post-Enlightenment state. The result was the development of a truly Anabaptist religious culture…

Giving vent to such populist, democratic tendencies, America now became the breeding ground for every independent religious impulse conceivable to human consciousness. A cocktail of cults now bubbled up from the cauldron of this state without a religion…

Every ancient heresy was now given state sanction…

Not only did the Reformation faiths never really flourish in the United States (but perhaps for a brief moment in New England), even the Roman Catholic Church in time eventually took on more of the appearance of a large democratic lodge rather than the most autocratic institution in the modern world.

The New Schwärmerei: Fundamentalism

Cut off from the archetype of ancient catholic orthodoxy, America invented its own orthodoxy—Fundamentalism. Fundamentalism was a synthesis: an Enlightenment reductionism to the essence of Christianity expressed in a handful of propositions regarding what must be believed to be a Christian, married to elaborate theories regarding the second Advent of Christ. Finally, this was all clothed in a Scottish Common-Sense apologetic appeal to empiricism as an absolute guarantor of external verification.

Since there was no longer the possibility of appealing to the catholic witness of the Church for certification of the Christian religion, appeal was now made to science.

Furthermore, now that everyone had their own designer religion, reflecting their own socio-economic and cultural concerns and values, it was just a matter of time before free-market forces provided each major group with their own designer Bibles to reinforce their given perspectives.​

I have neglected to provide the copious footnotes with citations supporting his various points, as at times they take up more of the page than the text!

Interesting socio-spiritual historical analysis. This reminds me precisely of Frank Schaeffer’s critique of America and its religion in his book documenting and justifying his move from his dad’s Presbyterian faith to the Eastern Orthodox Church in Dancing Alone: The Quest for Orthodox Faith in the Age of False Religion (MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1994). Frank Schaeffer speaking:

A study of Church history shows that Protestant worship, as it is usually practiced today, bears almost no resemblance to the sacramental worship of the entire Church for the better part of two thousand years in both the East and West. This is not a theological opinion, much less a moral judgment , but simply a statement of historical fact. The Church’s practices are well documented…

In comparison to the ancient liturgical worship of the historical Church, even the so-called liturgical Protestant denominations, like the Lutherans and Episcopalians (and tragically, many Americanized Roman Catholic parishes) have left behind their respect for Apostolic authority. (pp. 7-9)​

They could be brothers in many respects; and I could concur with Cloud that Letis may have gone to the Orthodox church, had he lived longer. Sometimes the Lord takes us away “early” to protect us “from the evil to come” (Isaiah 57:1), which may come from our own hearts.

But the historical analysis is fascinating to me. There surely is something to it. Letis – and Schaeffer more so – see it as bad. It does make a lot of American life – especially church life – clearer. Would I want to be under a State church, even a Presbyterian or Reformed one? I think not. Those who disdain having rock concerts in their back yard say, “Remember Altamont?” And I would say, “Remember Rome, Geneva, Luther’s Germany, Anglican England, Massachusetts Bay Colony?” The legacy of Augustine’s doctrine “compelling” faith or obedience through torture, punishment, even death, lives on in many churches, if not in practice, in spirit.

It will not do to invoke ecclesiastical authority to mandate our Scriptures, to return to the primary topic. That is too steep a price to pay. If one is a Baptist in a local assembly, it is more easily and properly done; but for those with Presbyterian or Reformed church governments, perhaps congregation by congregation leaders may gently “push” for their choice. In the church I serve (before the plant of the English-speaking congregation, which will be some months, it seems, as we have just expanded our premises) it is not much of an issue, as the present congregation is almost entirely Arabic-speaking (I minister through translators, and the pastor is fluent in Arabic) and the Smith-Van Dyke Arabic Bible we use was translated from same texts as the KJV, and compared with it, so there is no clash. But when the English services commence, our pew Bibles are NKJV, and I will not bother anyone who uses their own version, whatever it may be. I will talk about the textual failures common to CT-based Bibles, such as portions omitted, etc., when they come up in the expository preaching, but I will not be heavy-handed about it. The most important thing is that Christ be formed in the hearts of our people, that they learn of Him, and that we all abide in His love—with love for Him, and for one another.

I am about to enter the section of the essay where he discusses the FBs. More on that later.

I have received James White’s book, Scripture Alone: Exploring The Bible’s Accuracy, Authority, And Authenticity, from a friend in NYC, and will enjoy reading what he has to say. I will no doubt review that also. I’m almost finished with Letis, though Maestroh is sending me some of White’s material on 1 John 5:7 I would like to consider, plus Fee’s essay on P66, P75 and Origen, and Letis on Hills’ part in the revival of the ET. It is generous folks like these that keep me engaged with current issues and scholarship.

For fun I’m reading a new (revised) verse translation of Beowulf (Michael Anderson’s), and maybe in a week a friend will lend me the most recent Harry Potter book (the half-blood prince), which series I have been reviewing.

Being retired has many perks! I waited and longed many years for this, and now I intend to put my spare time to good use.
 
Last edited:
I finished Letis’ The Ecclesiastical Text, and his final attack on the FBs was anticlimactic. He merely attacked The Dean Burgon Society (we have discussed them in the previous thread – “Why do KJ Only types believe the Westcott and Hort manuscripts are bad?”) which had rejected him for membership earlier, and he was embittered, although he does have some valid points.

I had not seen, before Letis, such a deep dislike – ideologically based – for Baptists. Nor had I seen – while searching the internet for information – such a deep dislike for Protestants by some Baptists! Many Baptists do not reckon their spiritual lineage through the Reformation, but through the Waldenses (this I knew) and other European mountain-hid believers who fled into wilderness fastnesses to escape the false doctrines and blood-thirsty swords of Rome. I see some Baptists think (and say) “the whore of Rome, and her Protestant daughters.” I must have been living a sheltered life not to know of such sentiments.

Reading Robert Reymond’s systematic theology this afternoon I see he has an impassioned and cogent defense of the Presbyterian form of government, and critique of the Episcopal, Congregational (of Owen and Edwards), and Erastian forms.

Matt G., I put the “synopsis” of the thread (so far) in the first post; thanks for that suggestion.

In these two threads we have covered a lot of ground. I have interacted with better and more learned men than myself, to demonstrate that one does not need to be a text critic, an expert in the Greek and Hebrew, or an erudite scholar to hold to one’s trust that God was both able and in fact did preserve His word so that we in this 21st century have trustworthy Hebrew and Greek texts, and an excellent translation of them in the King James Bible. I think the textual situation boils down to this: all parties are aware of and have the same basic data, that being the somewhat sketchy history of textual transmission and the extant manuscripts. There are significant gaps where our understanding cannot be satisfied with concrete data. So we seek to make sense of the information we do have, and our presuppositions – that is, the interpretive grids we filter this information through – will determine how we understand this information.

Edward Freer Hills is perhaps the most astute and best modern textual scholar who supports the KJV/TR position. I thought it necessary to interact with James Price’s essay (above) to point-by-point examine his critique, and show it severely wanting. Those who wish to fortify themselves with pertinent information, so as to encourage and support others should by all means get Hills’ two books. You will have noticed that Hills allows for minute discrepancies in the KJV/TR – what one would call “scribal errors” – which is the position of Turretin and John Owen as well. I will be examining these views when I start this thread up again (taking leave to study and research for a short while).

Theodore Letis’ first book, The Majority Text (TMT) has excellent information in it, and is also a must for those wishing to make an informed defense of their position. We have looked at some particulars in the essays contained therein above. His second book, TET, likewise has excellent information, and the opening essay on B.B. Warfield shows the historical development of the Critical Text view among the Presbyterian and Reformed churches. Letis’ writings also show the development of the “providential preservation” doctrine among the post-Reformation theologians as a response to Rome’s conterattack, which sought to destroy the foundational Sola Scriptura basis of the Reformation.

Is their (Owen’s and Turretin’s) position valid today, or was it merely an exigency of the moment that further textual knowledge has rendered obsolete – and inaccurate? Letis’ essays in TMT closely examines both Eramsus’ and Beza’s text critical methodology, as well as looking at Calvin’s, and he shows that they were neither lacking in a sufficient array of manuscripts nor of understanding in sorting out the reliable from the corrupt.

It is at this juncture – examining Erasmus and the post-Reformation editors who translated the KJV – that the Fundamental Baptists have provided valuable research and scholarship. I refer to David Cloud and D.A. Waite, and the materials in their books and those materials they have made available through publishing others, including reprints of out-of-print classics in this area (such as Burgon, Nolan, Hills, Scrivener, etc.). It is true the FBs don’t always behave (with their speech) as one should in polite society, but then neither did the Lord Jesus, who was continually confronting the errors of the religious leaders in His days on the earth. They so despised Him they resorted to murder. I personally think the FBs are not out of line in their tough stand (I hope those of you who have followed me thus far know I do not put the revilers, such as Ruckman and Riplinger, among those I approve); Burgon was disliked and ignored by many of his scholarly adversaries for just this trait – plain speaking about vital matters that endangered the faith of God’s people, and the welfare of His church. I myself am a plain speaker. After all, what is at stake, but the reliability of our texts of God’s word?

So while I vigorously disagree with the FBs in some of their doctrines, I honor them for their sound scholarship in the area of the Biblical texts.

I am desirous to see how James White presents his view positively, that is, not in reaction to the KJV/TR position, but supporting his view of the Scriptures so as to encourage and bolster the faith of God’s people. I have respect for White, as he has shown himself a competent scholar and defender of the Faith. I will review his pertinent books and discuss them here. And I eagerly want to see his views of 1 John 5:7, which I have not had a chance to as yet. I will be researching as regards this verse also. Those who quote Gill on 1 John 5:7, do well; I would add, it would be a great boon to its defense to find in hard copy the citation of the Comma by Athanasius Gill refers to. I have not been able to find it. Gill gives the citation as “Contra. Arium, p. 109.” Being “stuck” on an island in the Mediterranean I have little access to materials not in my library. I see it often referred to, and perhaps in those days it was extant, though Frederick Nolan (1784-1864 AD) appears not to know of it, as he speaks of Athanasius not using it in his controversies with Arius in his classic, An Inquiry Into The Integrity Of The Greek Vulgate Or Received Text Of The New Testament. (I must lament that this excellent online version is missing the important Preface, as well as the table of contents, though a hardcopy reprint is available from Dr. Waite’s The Bible for Today ministry.) Nolan, incidentally, is a valuable source of information on 1 John 5:7 himself.

I have recently come across an excellent online article defending the Comma by one Will Kinney. I highly recommend this information-packed and discerning essay (which contains links to some additional good articles).

Steve
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top