[quote=TsonMariytho;505962]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prufrock  1.) In a sense, yes. Objectively speaking, there is a difference in the way the texts are formed. The one is based upon the way in which the text has been received; the other discards this as a viable, historical, rational method of knowing the original text, and seeks to reconstruct it by rational means. This is just different. Whether God is providentially controlling the assembling of the CT is another issue, and one that is outside the scope of the current discussion. |
Hello Andrew,
Welcome to Puritan Board, I'd like to make a few comments into some parts of your posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TsonMariytho The specific difference being discussed on this thread between the critical method versus the work of TR-favoring scholars is not entirely qualitative, but quantitative. |
No, the basic presuppositions of modern textual criticism are humanistic and assume a naturalistic and evolving world and history. For example, it was once held that the days of Moses had no writing and was limited to oral tradition. Yet, when it was proven that it was an era of literacy, the presupposition remained because of the basic premise. The self attesting nature of Scripture of being an inspired record of God-breathed words is a radical contradiction to the "scientific" naturalistic presupposition.
In the most extreme position of the modern camp the God of the Bible has been rejected in favor of some kind of process whereby men and religions have developed. The failure of the otherwise godly men in the Reformed tradition that have adopted the modern critical view has been implicitly beginning with the same world and life view of what would otherwise be their opponents, and then trying to reason their way to a radically different view. It is suicidal.
They will then try to represent their activities as being "Reformed textual criticism," and postulate that the rationale for departing from the orthodox textual tradition is because of new textual discoveries &c. Hence, they are implying that the only issue separating the "reformed" moderns from the orthodox conservatives is one of ignorance, non-scholarship, or downright simpleton nature of the latter. What they grant with their left hand is taken away by their right.
The modern critical presupposition assumes the ultimacy of an impartial reason in all men whereby all things can be correctly assessed and adjudicated, without respect to the history and circumstances which Providence brought to pass. It is presumed that Providence is required to maintain the question of Authority for every generation to answer for themselves and hammer out on their own anvil.
On the contrary, the actual difference concerns an entirely different orientation to the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TsonMariytho Now, it seems to me that TR-only proponents are in a catch-22 situation. If they argue that only one Bible has been used in all the true church over its history, then they must explain why variants exist even in Reformational versions. Reality check -- to my knowledge, nobody in the English or German speaking Reformed world either uses, or has used a Bible identical in readings to Erasmus' edition -- or any other TR edition. The fact is that versions like the KJV freely followed non-TR readings when the translators felt like it was most correct to do so. |
No, they are not in a catch-22 situation. The question is one of Authority. Ignoring the question and assuming one has a right to be on the playing field because one can run with the ball, doesn't mean it is so. The school has broken into the Church and since it is an institution of learning it arrogantly asserts that it will define the cognitive foundation of theology for the Church.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TsonMariytho And if they argue that the variants are minimal, and that small variations don't really count in the grand scheme of things... then I would submit that the CT differs in only minimally in the grand scheme of things, and shouldn't cause anybody undue heartburn with regard to God's preservation of his Word. |
No, once you understand the issues, the disruption to the peace and purity of the Protestant Churches and the decline of orthodoxy that has resulted because of it should terrify you because the Faith is at stake.
The removal of the landmark of the Protestant Faith from the Protestant Churches and Nations should be as impressed upon your mind as
heinous an injury as your neighbor moving the landmark of your real property.
If that happened would you argue that a property line is a property line and it
really doesn't matter where it is at?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TsonMariytho Turning the question on its head a bit, can we ask whether the Westminster Divines believed they had a transcription of the autographs letter for letter? Since they were learned men who knew something about Biblical manuscripts, we can easily reject this nonsensical idea. Therefore, their meaning in WCF 1.8 surely allows for variants in the text. |
Kurt Aland said this:
“We can appreciate better the struggle for freedom from the dominance of the Textus Receptus when we remember that in this period it was regarded as preserving even to the last detail the inspired and infallible word of God himself." (The Text of the New Testament, An Introduction to the Critical Editions, Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland)
"...it is undisputed that from the 16th century to the 18th century orthodoxy’s doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed… [the] Textus Receptus. It was the only Greek text they knew, and they regarded it as the ‘original’ text.” (Kurt Aland, “The Text of the Church” Trinity journal 8 (1987), p. 131.)
Apparently, the learned men you respect would probably be insulted at your statement that their beliefs were "nonsensical."
The history of philosophy has taught us that if we begin with autonomous reason and its doubt, all we finally end up with is doubt. Then you have vague and self-destructive affirmations of faith, no matter how definitively enunciated, ultimately resting in an "unknown" Revelation from God.
The philosophical presupposition of unknown Revelation from God is what must be rejected. (Acts 17:23)
Cordially,
Thomas