I see Alan Kurschner has taken issue with my
previous remarks on these verses. He says,
Quote:
27 June
If You Understand One Thing About The "King James Only" Phenomenon it is Imperative to Know This...
...The textual end justifies the textual means. They are motivated only in defending a modern printed text and any questions of methodology are irrelevant because they are governed by their a priori that the Textus Receptus (the Greek printed edition that lies behind the KJV) is without error. [All emphases his. –SMR]
|
There sure are a lot of
assumptions about what I supposedly believe in that statement! Before we talk about Rev 5:9, 10, a few more remarks. First, both Owen and Turretin – E.F. Hills and Letis concurring – allowed some minor errors in the TR, and thus in the AV. And Owen and Turretin were the architects of the Reformation doctrine of “providential preservation” (which doctrine I believe Dr. Daniel Wallace does not hold to in any respect). I suppose we King James folks “all look alike”!
I do not hope to convert Alan Kurschner to my view, but am writing to edify those who are looking on.
“Questions of methodology”
are important to me, quite apart from my presuppositions concerning the preservation of the text. For instance – and this is a view shared by Majority or Byzantine Text (MT) defenders as well – the Hortian assumptions regarding the histories of the respective text-types do not hold water, as even some eclectic-text folks will admit. I think both Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont (R&P) in their
Introduction to
THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK ACCORDING TO THE BYZANTINE / MAJORITY TEXTFORM, as well as Jakob Van Bruggen in his,
The Ancient Text Of the New Testament, ably critique the Critical Text (CT) assumptions. To look at me like I belong in a zoo because I hold to some of the MT premises – which devastatingly scrutinize the Critical Text theory – seems a bit odd to me. Okay, I go beyond the MT, but nonetheless stand on its foundation, as it accounts for a good part of the textual history I hold true in my own views.
In their Introduction, R&P state,
A sound rational approach which accounts for all the phenomena and offers a reconstruction of the history of textual transmission is all that is demanded for any text-critical hypothesis.
Although I seek to offer such for the TR/KJV (though it is under fire from all other camps, including R&P’s!), the CT is likewise under fire, and such a withering blast it is that I do not see how one can maintain it, yet some do. No, not “some”,
many – but “many” is not the determining criterion for the truth of a thing.
In Ted Letis’ book,
The Majority Text: Essays And Reviews In The Continuing Debate, after a discussion of 1 Timothy 3:16, he says,
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…(from the essay, “In Reply to D.A. Carson’s ‘The King James Version Debate’”, p. 204)
Some would like to paint us as the “dummy camp of Bible-thumping ignoramuses,” but that is in the eye of the beholder, and not righteous judgment. There are scholars amongst us as well.
Mr. Kurschner continues,
Quote:
|
That is why you will often notice (I will provide a perfect, recent case in point) King James Only advocates cite in their defense "modernistic" textual critics when they agree with their conclusion, and in the next breath they will anathematize the very method of those same textual critics that led them to that conclusion! And yet when those same textual critics disagree with the Textus Receptus in other areas using the same methodology, King James Only advocates will be inconsistent and disagree with their results.
|
Wait a minute! Am I being told I cannot cite a critic with whom I differ whose view I think notable? But let’s get to the “case in point” to see what Mr. Kurschner is talking about.
First another intro from him:
Quote:
|
…it bears repeating that to understand the King James Only phenomenon, it is imperative that you understand that the reasoning process of the hard textual and historical data is irrelevant, as long as their modern printed text of the Textus Receptus is defended. Once someone understands their fundamental presupposition, one can explain the particulars in this KJVO phenomenon, even predict their behavior at times.
|
I don’t think it is irrelevant, maybe I just look like someone else who does. What is my guiding presupposition?
That God has promised to preserve His word, and has done so. So I consider the data and choose what best accords with this presupposition. Yes, I know this brings a
theological consideration into what some allege is strictly a scientific textual matter, but this is where, as Letis pointed out above, our dogmas differ.
Kurschner:
Quote:
|
A case in point, this fideistic and inconsistent phenomenon is practiced by Steve Rafalsky in responding to a recent article I have written on a few related variants. Keeping in mind the a priori that was explained above, we will observe it in action in Rafalsky's necessary defense of the King James readings.
|
fideism, a mode of philosophical or theological thought according to which knowledge depends upon a fundamental act of faith.
[from
The Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy] “Fideism is the name given to that school of thought—to which Tertullian himself is frequently said to have subscribed—which answers that faith is in some sense independent of—if not outright adversarial toward—reason.”
Is my presupposition concerning God’s promise to preserve His word an instance of fideism? How about my presupposition that His word is true, and thus His account of creation in Genesis is to be believed despite all supposed evolutionary "evidences" to the contrary? Is this fideism? Is it unreasonable to base my knowledge primarily upon God’s revelation through His word? At any rate, let us continue. So far I have not noted inconsistency in this Rafalsky character.
Kurschner:
Quote:
|
Since two of the three readings in the King James Bible I dealt with in Revelation 5:9-10 are only supported by the minority of manuscripts, this is problematic for many King James Only advocates since they are fond of citing the "majority" argument.
|
In post #5 above I briefly discuss the differences between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus, both as regards the New Testament and the Book of Revelation, which latter involves different textual issues.
How strange it is hearing about the “
minority of manuscripts” when the reigning establishment in manuscript classification
suppresses the testimony of thousands of mss. categorized as “majority” from the preconception they are of little worth! A few words on this follows. (I take this liberty to edify onlookers as that is why I am responding to Alan Kurschner’s views – I consider his opposition as presenting a “teaching moment”!) The following is from Kevin James’,
The Corruption of the Word: The Failure of Modern New Testament Scholarship (distributed by Micro-Load Press, 1990, ISBN: 0962442003):
Providential Preservation
Because New Testament manuscripts present many wording differences, there are several theories that attempt to account for these differences. The New Testament scholarship behind modern versions says the most accurate wording is found in a small group of old (A.D. 200 to fourth century) manuscripts strongly associated with the scholarship of Egypt.
Another theory is that the true wording of God is found when a majority of existing manuscripts agree. That is, if scholars compare 1,000 copies of the New Testament at a verse and 900 agree against 100, the 900 correctly represent the original.
The theory that God guided the scholars responsible for the text underlying the King James to the right wording of the originals is the third theory. It pays little attention to the testimony of the oldest copies or the majority of manuscripts.
The idea that God watched over the transmission of His word through the ages to ensure the purity of His revelation is called providential preservation. Providential preservation says that, although one copy will differ slightly from another, the differences are so minor that there will be no hindrance to the correct understanding of the text. The true text has always been available by the providence of God.
Modern scholarship denies any role for providential preservation in determining the correct text to follow. The church lost the true text sometime around A.D. 300 (Aland, Kurt and Barbara, The Text of the New Testament, Erdmans, 1987, p. 65). However, in a small area of Egypt the original wording was preserved.
This true text was recovered around A.D. 1881 and is found in modern versions. It opposes the agreement between the majority of existing copies and the King James in thousands of places.
The second theory, called the Majority Text theory, states that, although the King James agrees with the wording of a majority of manuscripts most of the time, it does not always represent the true text. It would do so if revised to be in agreement with the wording of the majority of existing manuscripts for each verse. For this theory, providential preservation means that God preserved his true word in the majority wording of the manuscripts.
The third theory uses providential preservation to support the King James when it does not follow the majority text. Regardless of the witness of the majority of manuscripts or of the modern versions, the King James preserves the true text. In other words, God guided sixteenth century scholars to the true text and it has been preserved in the King James version.
This writer believes, based on the information complied for this book, that there is much evidence supporting providential preservation, as defined in the third theory. Therefore, the Greek text underlying the King James should be accepted as accurate until overwhelming opposing evidence appears to indicate otherwise.
Some examples of places where a King James wording seemingly has little support are given in the following chapters. Seemingly, because, while most existing New Testament copies have been roughly categorized into “majority” or “non-majority” groupings, the exact text of thousands of existing manuscripts is unknown except in a handful of places. [Emphasis mine –SMR]
It should be understood that it is impossible to prove which of two or more competing wording variations is the original since the originals have long since disappeared. But it is the height of folly to throw the settled received text of three and one-half centuries into the dustbin to make a revision when the exact contents of thousands of existing copies of mainstream tradition manuscripts is unknown [this last emphasis mine –SMR]. A clear picture of New Testament manuscript transmission history is also lacking. Finally, unless the vigilance of a living God is recognized, attempts at revision of the King James can easily stray from a stated target of supplying God’s people with a “better” New Testament.
Paul said: “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21.) This should be the guiding principle for the Christian church when dealing with the intricacies of the wording of the original text. (pp. viii, ix)
For those interested in reading this now out-of-print work, he collates and studies a number of Greek manuscripts in the following chapters.
To continue examining this phenomenon of
thousands of majority text manuscripts deliberately unexamined and their testimony thus consigned to silence by the prejudice of the establishment CT critics, we turn to Frederik Wisse, in his,
The Profile Method for the Classification and Evaluation of Manuscript Evidence (Eerdmans, 1982).
The late Kurt Aland, director of the manuscript centre at Muster Germany – where about 80% of all Greek manuscripts are available on microfilm – admitted,
…the main problem in N.T. textual criticism lies in the fact that little more than their actual existence is known of most of the manuscripts…(The Significance of the Papyrii pp. 330,1, quoted in Pickering’s The Identity of the New Testament Text)
Jack Moorman points out (quoting from his book referred to in post #5), “However, Aland’s interest in the vast repository of MS evidence which he oversees is not what we would expect…Wisse explains:”
Yet Aland’s interest in the miniscules is not for their own sake. He is no longer satisfied with Hort’s judgment that the discovery of important cursives is most improbable. He wants to find the few hypothetical nuggets which Hort did not think were worth the effort. Aland wants to be able to say that he has searched the miniscules exhaustively for anything of value. This search of course, presupposed that the miniscules as such are of little value…Miniscules have to pass a test before they are worthy of inclusion in a textual apparatus. All MSS which are generally Byzantine will fail (Profile Method, p. 4)
Moorman continues, “Therefore, when we read about many more cursives being cited in the latest Nestle-Aland Greek NT; we are not to believe that a significant shift away from the Alexandrian text has taken place…Wisse singles out the central reason why textual criticism cannot afford to pass over the great mass of manuscripts:”
In a situation where MS evidence runs into more than 5000 separate items and a time span of more than fourteen centuries, it should be questioned whether all this evidence is relevant for the establishment of the original text. It may well be that the oldest copies in existence are adequate representatives of the MS tradition so that the rest can be ignored. After all, why start more than thirteen centuries after the autographs were written and wade back through literally thousands of MSS in an immensely complicated process…To find the foundation of a building one does not first climb the roof; one starts somewhere below the ground floor.
This argument…forms the background for all those who consider it justified to ignore all, or almost all, miniscules…
There is basically only one argument which can circumvent the task of studying all the late miniscules…This argument is that among the early uncials there are the MSS which stand in a relatively uncorrupted tradition, and which show all other text-types of the period to be secondary and corrupted. Only if this argument can be proved, and if it is clear from some sampling that late miniscules fall predominantly in the tradition of one of the corrupted texts, can we safely omit a full study of these MSS (Profile Method, pp. 1, 2)
Moorman continues, “When Aleph and B, the two main pillars of the critical text, display 3,000 clear differences in the Gospels (they must be weary of hearing this!); then what candidate do they propose for ‘relatively uncorrupted tradition.’?
“They have none! Yet they continue to work at the miserable business of keeping the TR-KJV out of public sight, without giving all the witnesses a chance to speak. Hodges and Farstad reacted against this and turned to the work of Hermann von Soden for help.
“Wisse sums it up:”
Except in von Soden’s inaccurate and unused pages, the miniscules have never been allowed to speak (Profile Method, p. 5).
Interesting information, no? (The above quotes from Jack Moorman's,
Hodges/Farstad 'Majority' Text Refuted By Evidence, pp. 4-7.) Be sure that the opposition will come in like a flood and try to explain away all these facts. But solid facts are hard things to bury. Nonetheless, the facts we ultimately stand on are the words of God, and they shall never be buried, for He will see to it.
Having digressed a little to give this info on the
supposed “minority” readings of the KJV vis-à-vis the MT in our passage in Revelation, let me return to the fray.
Mr. Kurschner says,
Quote:
There are two glaring blunders on Steve Rafalsky's use of Metzger.
1) Notice that Rafalsky is citing one of the most authoritative modern textual critics! Did you see his a priori in action? That's right, he cites Metzger's conclusion, but what do you see missing? Bingo...a discussion of Metzger's methodology (reasoned eclecticism) of how he reached his findings. Why is this? Simply because Metzger's textual critical methodology is anathema to King James Only advocates. But since Metzger "C" rating of this variant casts doubt according to Rafalsky, then the "end justifies the means."
If you cite a conclusion, then to be consistent you should support the reasoning behind the conclusion otherwise one is participating in dishonest special pleading. And in this case, Metzger is being cited merely because of his authority but Rafalsky rejects his very reasoning to reach that conclusion!
|
Now really,
must I discuss Metzger’s entire erroneous methodology when I simply cite his evidences for a particular reading – and that to show its inferior attestation? Shall I be bogged down in such pedantry merely because someone does not like my citing an opponent? Unless highly compelling reasons can be shown for my needing to do this, I shall ignore this advice! This accords with no view of scholarly ethics and/or protocol I am aware of, except maybe the “Get-your-opponent-to-bury-himself-in-his-own-verbiage school”!
Now the second blunder is of some interest, partly because Kurschner is right, and I stand corrected, and partly because he is wrong, on which I shall elaborate shortly. He says,
Quote:
2) This second blunder is another example that the end justifies the means for King James Only advocates. He cites from the dated 1971 1st edition and conveniently does not mention that there is a 1994 updated second edition! Why is this? Why the silence on the UBS's committee's revaluation on this particular variant? We are not told. Possibly because the Revelation 5:9 variant has a "A" reading! Which means, "The letter {A} signifies that the text is certain" (emphasis mine, p. 14*)
Now, it is very hard to believe that Rafalsky is not aware of the second edition. Apart from a Greek apparatus, Bruce Metzger's second edition of his Textual Commentary is the most popular and commonly used resource in learning about New Testament variants. And maybe he does not think that his readers are aware of this or they will not double-check his facts. But this is consistent with the a priori. As long as the printed Textus Receptus is defended, the means is irrelevant, even using selectivity and citing their textual foes' conclusions for support of the Textus Receptus, it is justified.
Finally, any serious student of textual criticism knows that when you are evaluating a variant, you don't pull off Metzger's text from the bookshelf and flip open to the variant under question to see the "rating" and thus use it as an argument as Rafalsky does in this case. That is simply naive because the responsible critic examines arguments, reasoning, and data. And so if Rafalsky disagrees with the "A" rating, then that is fine, but he needs to give meaningful reasoning for a method to reach a conclusion. But again, this is not observable for KJVO advocates because textual principles and methodology do not exist for them.
|
To deal with one thing at a time. First, the edition of Metzger’s
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament is the “Corrected Edition, 1975” and not the 1971. Second, I stand corrected, as I was not aware of a 1994 revised edition, much less that the rating was changed. Okay, so I will accept the rating for that variant is now {A} i.e., certain according to the committee. Third; Alan, is it a light thing to you to impugn the integrity of a minister in Christ’s church, assuming that an error made in ignorance was “conveniently” done to obscure facts, taking advantage of readers unfamiliar with the works cited, and thus an example of my outright dishonesty, and that “it is very hard to believe” was otherwise? Whatever happened to the concept “judgment of charity,” where we do
not assume the worst of motives in a Christian brother (especially an officer in the service of the kingdom)? Please, to assume that I would stoop so low as to cheat and deceive, and that in a public discussion, is unworthy of
you as a brother of Christ, notwithstanding the fervency of your opposition to the Authorized Version and those who love it. You know what is said of knowledge without love.
Being stuck here in the Middle East, and on a fixed retirement income (which is growing smaller!), and without the wonderful Christian bookstores where I may browse even if broke, and the Interlibrary Loan Systems so plentiful in the states, you may confidently believe I do not have access to – nor have been aware of – Metzger’s 1994 edition, if my word before the Savior is of any worth to you. My being out of the academic loop for financial and geographical reasons has its liabilities.
Lastly, Alan says,
Quote:
| In conclusion, there are a couple of more errors that Rafalsky uses that I will take up another time, such as avoiding meaningful discussion on points I raised on the minority of support for the KJV readings in verse 10. Further, his attempt to explain how Revelation should be used in textual criticism is flawed; and omitting any germane discussion about how the same scribal habits are at play in the book of Revelation as they are with any other book, codex, manuscript. And this latter absence is relevant to our target variants in vv.9-10 since there was a tendency of scribes to clarify (change and add), rather than the other way around by obfuscating the text.
|
I think there has been “meaningful discussion” concerning the so-called “minority of support” for the AV readings in verse 10, as given above. Concerning the “scribal habits” exhibiting “a tendency…to clarify (change and add), rather than the other way around by obfuscating the text”, to apply this to verses 9 and 10 is sheer conjecture on his part, the using of Dr. Hort’s fallacious critical method to justify his supposition.
I hope I will not be taken to task for using a citation of the Drs. Aland, as Mr. Kurschner seems not to like my use of scholars I do not agree with, unless I interact with the intricacies of their views. I think it is understood by many on this board – from the discussions we have had – that the Alands and Metzger are (were) the premier Critical Text scholars, using an eclectic approach nonetheless based a great deal on the 1881 Greek Text of Westcott and Hort. Here on this board, assuming that many of those who visit it have been following the discussions for a while (and posting links to previous discussions for those who haven’t), it does not seem needful to me to “interact” with these critics every time I write.
Concerning something Alan addressed to CalvinandHodges, and his perhaps too hasty response (for he has ably interacted with the textual data on other occasions), and that is “He [CH] must be consistent and say that Jesus died for the four celestial angels since they are singing about their redemption if he takes a KJV rendering.”
Philip Mauro says, “It should be carefully noted that in this passage the four living creatures join with the elders in the song of redemption, and expressly include themselves among the redeemed.” (
Things Which Must Soon Come To Pass, p. 151) Alan says it is absurd that they should do this, but I see no compelling reason to give up the rendering of the AV. Because there is a difficult reading, the sense of which eludes us, does not mean we should opt for a reading because it is easier.
Alan says it is eisegesis for CH to say the 24 elders represent the elect of all ages, but Hendriksen says the same, “…and upon these thrones twenty-four elders, probably representing the entire Church of the old and the new dispensation. Think of the twelve patriarchs and the twelve apostles.” (
More Than Conquerors, p. 85).
When I receive the expected castigation from Mr. Kurschner, keep in mind, dear reader, the various points I have made regarding the alleged “minority” of the (suppressed) readings, the woeful mindset of rigid thinking me and my ilk have been accused of (to see if it seems true to you), and consider if I have not portrayed a reasonable defense for the AV view over the CT and MT views (brief and sketchy though it has been).
Sometimes painters who paint with a broad brush make a mess when they work on delicate objects.
Steve