To reply briefly, you haven't addressed my arguments. You have addressed Metzger's erroneous arguments. The fact that I agree with Metzger's conclusion as to the correct reading has nothing to do with how we got there. Metzger's argumentation posits an error in the original. My argumentation does not. To argue that because Metzger argued this way, we should ditch the critical text is not logical. Further, arguments against Metzger are not arguments against me.

__________________
Rev. Lane Keister
Teaching Elder, PCA, North Dakota (working out of bounds in a CRC and an RCA church)
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com
http://brahmsgreenglove.blogspot.com
http://accenttranslation.blogspot.com
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Lane, I’d like to respond to a couple of things you said, one in response to a statement of mine. First, my statement:

And you replied,

At another point you said

What you say, Lane, has merit to it. Eclectic critics do pick and choose among the various manuscripts, varying from the older WH dominance, and often picking Byzantine readings over the Alexandrian. I can’t argue with that. However (and it’s a BIG however!), in the main those readings that are distinctively Alexandrian (per B, a, and P75, along with a few others) are continued in the “eclectic” texts, so they might say they are not Alexandrian – with an element of truth in that – but as regards the distinctive Alexandrian variants they contain they might as well be.

I respond a bit more at length to these points:

Concerning my referring to what some will term the outdated methodology of FJA Hort, consider:

It has been said by Dr. James White that “While modern Greek texts are not identical to that created by Westcott and Hort, one will still find defenders of the AV drawing in black and white, saying that all modern versions are based upon their work.” (The King James Only Controversy, by James White [Bethany, 1995], p. 99). Is not this equivalent to saying, “Modern versions are not based upon the W&H Greek text”?

For those interested in looking at this issue, I suggest David Cloud’s book, Examining “The King James Only Controversy" – the link is to the online version’s part 3 – and enter into your browser’s Find feature WHITE DENIES A DIRECT CONNECTION to be taken to the section on this. An excerpt from that section:

White and many others attempting to discredit King James Bible defense also claim that Westcott and Hort are not important because (as they say) "the modern versions (NASV and NIV) are not based on the Alexandrian text or on the Westcott and Hort text. They are based on an eclectic text which sometimes favors the TR over Aleph or B."

This is true as far as it goes, but it ignores the heart of the issue. The fact is that the United Bible Societies (UBS) text is almost identical to the W-H text of 1881 in significant departures from the Received Text. For example, both the W-H and the UBS delete or question almost the same number of verses (WH--48, UBS--45). Both delete almost the same number of significant portions of verses (WH--193, UBS 185). Both delete almost the same number of names and titles of the Lord (WH--221, UBS--212). An extensive comparison of the TR against the WH text, the Nestle’s Text, the UBS text, and key English versions was done by the late Everett Fowler and can be seen in his book Evaluating Versions of the New Testament, available from Bible for Today.

The W-H text of 1881 and the latest edition of the United Bible Societies’ text differ only in relatively minor points. Both represent the same TYPE of text with the same TYPE of departures from the Received Text.

The fact is that the Westcott-Hort text represents the first widely-accepted departure from the TR in the post-Reformation era, and the modern English versions descend directly from it. It is a very significant text and its editors are highly significant to the history of textual criticism. Any man who discounts the continuing significance of Westcott-Hort in the field of Bible texts and versions is probably trying to throw up a smoke screen to hide something. [In the hard-copy book, this section is found on pp. 88-91 –SMR]

[end of Cloud]
------------

[The following, in the same vein, is from a paper of my own.] The two MSS, a and B, are the basis of both Westcott and Hort’s Greek Revision supplanting the TR, and subsequently most all modern Bible versions.

This is to show the vital connection between the W&H text and the modern versions, a connection denied by both Alan Kurschner and Dr. White. In 1928 textual critic and scholar, Professor Kirsopp Lake of Harvard, wrote:

…more important than anything else was the publication of the critical text and introduction of Drs. Westcott and Hort…This work is the foundation of nearly all modern criticism, and demands close attention.[1]

In 1964 Greek scholar J. Harold Greenlee was still able to affirm,

The textual theories of W-H underlie virtually all subsequent work in NT criticism.[2]

In 1990 Philip Wesley Comfort, textual critic and scholar, although lauding new manuscript discoveries (from Egypt), still builds upon the Hortian theory, maintains the foundational validity of his and Westcott’s text, and supports his “minority” readings.[3] In The NIV Interlinear Greek-English New Testament,[4] Alfred Marshall (editor) states (p. xix) that although the Greek text used in the interlinear is Nestle’s Novum Testamentum Graece (based essentially on W&H’s Greek Revision), the NIV uses “an eclectic” Greek text (i.e., the translators choose from various readings). But in practice the NIV – and modern versions generally – retain the distinctive readings which are found in the W&H text.


1 The Text of the New Testament, by Kirsopp Lake (London: Rivingtons, 1928), page 67.
2 Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, by J.H. Greenlee (MI: Wm. B. Erdmanns Publishers Co., 1964), page 78.
3 Early Manuscripts & Modern Translations of the New Testament, by Philip Wesley Comfort (MI: Baker Books, 1996 ed,), pages 12, 13, and 14.
4 (MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 1976).

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

This all to clear the ground a bit to further discuss the things you spoke of, Lane.

__________________
Steve Rafalsky
Elder, International Evangelical Church (Reformed)
Limassol, Cyprus

"I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17)

"Strengthened with all might, according to His glorious
power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness..." (Colossians 1:11)

Blog: A Great and Terrible Love

What is wrong with the Alexandrian texts? Why is there prejudice against them? The TR was received in the time of the Reformation. The Alexandrian texts are received now. What's the difference in how these came to the church?

I don't deny that WH is foundational. I just want to make sure that arguments that might have applied to WH are not applied to modern eclectic texts, since modern eclectic texts do not ignore any manuscript tradition, unlike the TR tradition, which wants to throw out the Alexandrian manuscripts completely.

Come on, Lane, you say “it was no mistake” Matthew wrote Asaph and Amos….and then discuss the “semantic range” of the word “begetting” (which I find no fault with per se), and end with, “It could be that Matthew simply wanted to include these names in the genealogy for their prophecies and Psalms.” [emphasis mine –SMR] Isn’t that somewhat lame? Why, for the sake of “their prophecies and Psalms,” would he falsify the genealogical record? It doesn’t make sense. It’s too far-fetched. What on earth do their prophecies and psalms have to do with literal royal forebears? “Semantic range” is too feeble a reason to explain such a discrepancy.

I interacted with Metzger’s argument because it had more substance to it, and it showed the specific reason why this vagary was foisted upon the church – it was the decision of the textual critics, based upon their presuppositions.

Sorry to depart. In this part of the world it’s way past my bedtime. Back tomorrow.

I'll continue the discussion then. I have a list of the things you mentioned earlier to discuss, such as you just mentioned in your latest.

Steve

I believe that you are taking a modern approach to an ancient text. In other words, history has to look a certain way for it to be history. Otherwise, it is "falsifying" the genealogical record. Why would this be a falsifying of the record, given the fact that Matthew already omitted three whole generations? By your argument, all the manuscripts are wrong here, because they do not follow the genealogies in Kings and Chronicles. In fact, how dare Matthew falsify the genealogical record by omitting three whole generations? The fact is that this is ancient history writing, not modern, meaning NOT that it is less accurate, but that it has broader aims. Every historian picks and chooses the facts that he wants to portray (witness the fact that we have four Gospels). Matthew picked and chose the names that he wanted to include in his genealogy, including Asaph and Asa. Besides this, you still have not answered the alternate spelling argument. In any case, these are two ways to explain why the critical text has the readings it does without resorting to Metzger's arguments, which posit an error in the original. There is no reason that any scribe would intentionally change Asa to Asaph, is there? But there is definite reason why a scribe might change Asaph to Asa, since this more closely matches the Kings/Chronicles genealogies (but doesn't necessarily match Matthew's theology). What you have to reckon with here is that the final explanation for a variant's reading must be able to explain why all the other variants arose, or it is not the best reading. I can explain easily the origin of the reading Asa. You cannot explain the origin of the reading Asaph.

The method itself presupposes a corrupted text; the liberal critics are merely stating a reasonable conclusion based on the experience of their research. What are we to do with reformed people who take it on board? Point out the painfulness of trying to walk both sides of a barbed wire fence.

Again, no one denies that a textual criticism of sorts is necessary. The difference between the reformers and modern critics was the belief of the reformers that the text of the NT is that which has been "received" by the church. There was no divorce between canon and text, higher and lower criticism. MS. evidence merely bore witness to the text. Modern critics make MS. evidence the judge and jury of the case. Here again we find modern reformed exponents of the critical text to be inconsistent, maintaining one criterion for canon and an alotogether inconsistent criterion for text.

These other criteria are merely subjective tools; the genealogical theory of the critic predominates his choice of readings. One needs only to consult Metzger's Textual Commentary to see this is the case.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

I don't see the critical method as implying this. I see the critical method as positing that the original text is there among all the manuscripts. Plus, the word "corrupt" is ambiguous. If you mean are there mistakes made by the copiers, then every text is corrupt. If you mean that the texts are unable to be used as the inerrant basis for our faith, then no, the manuscripts are not corrupt.

What prevents us from saying that the newly discovered manuscripts are currently received by the church? Unless, of course, you wish to define the church in such a way that 99% of the church isn't the church. Besides this, TR people make manuscript evidence the basis for judgment as well: the manuscripts that they had were compared and contrasted in order to come up with the TR. That is the same thing that is being done today. Again, I have not yet seen any reason to reject the Alexandrian text from the discussion. I reject no Byzantine text, and yet you reject outright the Alexandrian texts.


There were several criteria that I mentioned that are not subjective in the slightest, such as geographical diversity of readings, which heavily favors the eclectic method.

It seems you're using "text" as that which is written on a piece of paper instead of that which is the form of the text. I'm using "text" in the latter sense. The point I am making is that modern textual critics hypothesise corruption into the text form, that is, the loss of the original NT text by the second century, and subsequently aver the task of the text critic is one of recovery. And when they do this, they can only confidently lay claim to having recovered a particular text form which they regard to be the earliest, and that this text form dates back to the fourth century, with occasional attestations from the third and second centuries.

I do not reject outright the Alexandrian texts. Where these agree with the traditional text they serve as a confirming witness. There are points where variant readings can be exegetical, and serve to show us how original Greek speakers of a later era interpreted the NT text.

Nothing prevents us from saying newly discovered MSS are currently received by the church. That is a sad reality. But the fact is, the readings and especially the omissions in those MSS were once rejected by the reformed church.

Geographical diversity is merely an offshoot of the genealogical principle. Given the current theory of priority as to which influenced what, it remains a subjective criteria. If on genealogical principles the critic maintains the Byzantine text form is mostly a conflation of readings, the presence of a variant from that tradition is not really taken seriously.

I'm not quite following your distinction between something written and something which is the "form" of the text, and how that affects my argument. Could you help me out a bit, brother?

On what basis do you say that the Alexandrian texts were rejected by the Reformed church? The manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, for instance, were not discovered or known until the 19th century. Furthermore, you seem to be disenfranchising the Alexandrian church. Were they not part of the church? Did they not receive those texts when they were written? Is the Reformation the only part of church history that matters with regard to textual criticism? I was thinking about why it is that the Alexandrian text-form has so few manuscripts. Then it hit me: Alexandria was over-run by Islam in the Middle Ages. That's probably why these texts have not come out into the open before now. It is still a theory right now. However, that Alexandria was over-run by Islam is not theory. And I can easily believe that Islamic groups would not be very favorable to retaining NT manuscripts. If the Reformation had much of any Alexandrian texts to reject, they were so few that the balance of weight would still favor the Byzantine text-form at the time. But the Reformers never had an opportunity to reject the more full-orbed Alexandrian tradition that we have now. To say otherwise seems anachronistic to me.


I simply cannot go with this. The country of origin is fairly well-known for many if not most manuscripts. So there is definitely an element there that is not subjective in the slightest. The connection with genealogical principle can be granted. However, the genealogical principle by no means exhausts the geographical principle.

If your theory is correct, and even if it isn't, is there any way we can say with certainty that the Alexandrian texts were 'received' by any church? It is my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, that when they were discovered, the Alexandrian texts were not being used by any church. What eveidence do we have that they were ever truly used by any church at any time?

__________________


http://www.villagecommunitychurch.org/


"Preparing a sermon is like cooking a meal. You need pots and pans and utensils, but you don't bring them out to the table where people are eating." Derek Thomas


Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Fair question. I would say that the it is difficult to argue one way or the other as to whether they were received. However, the fact that an Alexandrian text-type exists surely proves that the Alexandrian text-type itself was used in Alexandria. There are a lot more than one Alexandrian manuscript. Plus, there are no Byzantine texts from Alexandria! Therefore, the Byzantine text-type was not received in all branches of the church, at least in the fourth century. I'm sure that this was because the Byzantine texts were not distributed. So, I could turn the question around and say this: what reception in the third and fourth centuries did the Byzantine text-form have in the West and in Alexandria? Is there any evidence at all of the Byzantine text being received in all branches of the church at that time?

A "text form" is not a text which exists in any particular MS. per se, but a uniformity of readings over numerous MSS.

Again, you are confining your comments to particular MSS. rather than to the text form. The Alexandrian readings were well known to the reformers and their successors. The existence of these "variants" formed the basis for the Roman Catholic claim that the fountains are corrupted. Some Alexandrian corruptions are to be found in the Vulgate itself. The reformers insisted that the fountains were not corrupted, that God had preserved His living Word with "singular" providence, and rejected the Alexandrian readings of the Vulgate together with the translations which were founded on it.

With a claim this sweeping, it is only fair to ask about the sources which have led you to this conclusion. The Vatican never let Vaticanus out of its library until the 1880-1890's. Sinaiticus was not available. Many of the Alexandrian papyri also were not available. This raises the question of how much of the Alexandrian tradition there was to reject. Yes, I do bring up individual manuscripts. In fact, I have brought up the most important Alexandrian manuscripts precisely to address this point. The fact that some have abused the manuscript tradition to argue for corruption in the text is not even remotely a logical argument against the manuscripts themselves, or against the text-form. I dare say that I would have argued with the Reformers, since there were hardly any Alexandrian texts available, and thus it was easy to argue that the Alexandrian tradition was an aberration. However, that is not true anymore.

In this thread: Do textual variants give us confidence? Mr. Rafalsky posted the following from an article titled "REFORMATION EDITORS LACKED SUFFICIENT MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE" by David Cloud:

Since it is the case that scholars have known about these things, and debated them for centuries, then are we likely to sort out the dispute with posts on the PB?

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

Ken, you beat me to it, but I’m glad you posted the entire piece by Cloud.


Lane, responding to your post #45:

I appreciate Matthew’s is not a “modern” genealogy, and that ancient writers would often abbreviate lineage, especially when the line was well known. There are many ideas as to why the number 14 was so prominent in Matthew’s. Some say that “the numerical value of 'David' in Hebrew is fourteen” (Cf., D.A. Carson, EBC, p. 69), others that there was mystical meaning in the number to Matthew’s contemporaries (Leon Morris, [Eerdmans 1992], p. 25); David Cloud (quoting George DeHoff’s book on alleged contradictions) says, “The Jewish genealogies are marvels of accuracy even in this modern age. Every genealogy does what it purports to do—even an infidel could not ask more. There are genealogies which leave out some names. The object in such cases was not to include every name but to keep a regular line of descent; hence sometimes a genealogy may be found which skips from grandfather to grandson.”

Your point here is well taken: “The idea of generation does not always have to be genealogical.” But when you add, “It could be that Matthew simply wanted to include these names in the genealogy for their prophecies and Psalms”, you descend into speculation bordering on the absurd. For Matthew is clearly writing of lineage, not moving elsewhere in the “semantic range” of the word “generations”! You do your defense in behalf of the CT or ET a disservice when you grasp at such will-o’-the-wisp exegeses!

Because you can find an aberrant form of the aberrant LXX which contains the error of Amos for Amon (post #27) doesn’t make your case. When I say “aberrant” for the LXX itself I refer to the fact that it has been back-corrected in places to conform to the NT readings (see thread Psalm 14:3 in LXX for example), so this is not a good source for precision in wording, in my view. There are many other criticisms which may be leveled at the LXX, but this is not the place to do it.

The alternate spellings for the king of Babylon in the Masoretic Text are found, not in Daniel, but in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and evidently these were acceptable, but to have Matthew write names which were not accepted (I do not include a lone variant or two in LXX mss “accepted” as alternate spellings), but rather distinct spellings for other men’s names, is error, plain and simple, no matter how you try to defend it.

You said,

“There is no reason that any scribe would intentionally change Asa to Asaph, is there? But there is definite reason why a scribe might change Asaph to Asa, since this more closely matches the Kings/Chronicles genealogies (but doesn't necessarily match Matthew's theology). What you have to reckon with here is that the final explanation for a variant's reading must be able to explain why all the other variants arose, or it is not the best reading. I can explain easily the origin of the reading Asa. You cannot explain the origin of the reading Asaph.”

A scribe could easily write Asaph in error (and on the face of it it is an error), without it being deliberate. The origin of the reading Asa is that it is from Matthew’s pen, and reflects the authentic lineage, and was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The fact remains the CT has Matthew err, despite your protestations.

But I really want to get at a more basic issue – and one that drives your presuppositions.

These are some questions/statements you have made. I compile them so as to answer them:

post #18 “In your mind, what elevates the Reformation editors, and the texts used in the Reformation, over the early third and fourth century manuscripts that are Alexandrian? Were the Alexandrians not part of the church? Why is the Alexandrian text-form illegitimate?”

post #49 “On what basis do you say that the Alexandrian texts were rejected by the Reformed church? The manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, for instance, were not discovered or known until the 19th century. Furthermore, you seem to be disenfranchising the Alexandrian church. Were they not part of the church? Did they not receive those texts when they were written? Is the Reformation the only part of church history that matters with regard to textual criticism? I was thinking about why it is that the Alexandrian text-form has so few manuscripts. Then it hit me: Alexandria was over-run by Islam in the Middle Ages. That's probably why these texts have not come out into the open before now. It is still a theory right now. However, that Alexandria was over-run by Islam is not theory. And I can easily believe that Islamic groups would not be very favorable to retaining NT manuscripts. If the Reformation had much of any Alexandrian texts to reject, they were so few that the balance of weight would still favor the Byzantine text-form at the time. But the Reformers never had an opportunity to reject the more full-orbed Alexandrian tradition that we have now. To say otherwise seems anachronistic to me.”

To answer these thoughts. First, Vaticanus (B) has been in the Vatican Library at least since 1481, when it was catalogued. Erasmus knew of it, as one of his friends in Rome, Professor Paulus Bombasius, often sent him readings from it – many readings – and he rejected them as departures from the common text accepted by the people of God, and from the Greek texts he came into contact with during his travels and searching out of manuscripts. Nor will it do to say he did not know the people of God, belonging to Rome as he did, because he fellowshipped with Protestants (and died among them), and was intimately acquainted with some of their teachers. The Reformers did know of the Vaticanus readings.

In John Owen’s day, Brian Walton published his Biblia Polyglotta, which was intended to attack the Reformation’s text – the Textus Receptus – and it exhibited the variants, including Vaticanus’, in this (ultimately Romish) attempt to subvert the Reformation.

Ted Letis has done remarkable research (well documented) in this area, in his book, The Majority Text, and I highlight the essay, “John Owen Versus Brian Walton.” Also David Cloud, in his, Myths About the Modern Versions, the chapter on Erasmus and the one following, “Myth Number Two: Reformation Editors Lacked Sufficient Manuscript Evidence,” gives abundant documentation that the variant readings of B were well known at that time. Aleph, or Sinaiticus, is another story. It was as you say, discovered in the 1800s; but this leads to another topic. Seeing as Aleph (a) is, after B, the main exemplar of the Alexandrian textform, and is one of the “oldest and most reliable manuscripts” (per the margin notes of the modern versions), it is an odd circumstance that it differs from its co-exemplar in many places.

It will be edifying to see how these two manuscripts were resurrected from obscurity into places of prominence in the 19th century, and to take a brief peek at what the characters of each are.

Herman C. Hoskier was a textual scholar of the Greek New Testament who minutely examined and then opposed Westcott and Hort’s principal texts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in a two-volume study. The first is titled, Codex B And Its Allies: A Study and an Indictment; the second volume, which we will quote from here, is titled, Codex B And Its Allies, Part II: Chiefly concerning a, but covering three thousand differences between and a and B in the Four Gospels, with the evidence supporting each side, including the new manuscript evidence collected by VON SODEN, and the collateral readings of other important authorities.(1) Hoskier states,

In the light of the following huge lists let us never be told in the future that either a or B represents any form of “Neutral” text…

Our little study [after the examination of B in Volume I] would be quite incomplete without a further account of the idiosyncrasies of a. This is best shown by exhibiting the principal places where a and B differ, which, in number, far exceed what anyone might suppose who does not go deeply into the comparative study of the two documents. As a matter of fact the “shorter” text of the two is found in a …

I have tabulated the major part of these differences between a and B in the Gospels and given the supporting authorities on each side. They amount to—

Matt……..656+
Mark…….567+
Luke…….791+
John……1022+
Total....3036+ (2)

Hoskier’s study continues on for 381 pages of documentation (412 including a Scriptural index), if anyone is interested in pursuing a comparative examination of a and B, the foundation of all critical texts.
----------
(1) Codex B And Its Allies, by Herman C. Hoskier (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1914).
(2) Ibid., Vol. II, page 1.
-----------

In a courtroom when two witnesses testifying to the same matter disagree sharply with one another, they cannot be called “reliable” witnesses, but rather they impugn one another’s testimony. And when such unreliable witnesses are scrutinized in the light of a virtual multitude of other witnesses who disagree with the two while agreeing with one another, the evidence becomes preponderant in favor of the majority. Mere “age” of a manuscript may easily be offset by other more weighty factors. It is a given regarding the condition of a manuscript that those exhibiting the least wear have been used the least; often it is because they have been set aside as of inferior quality. In my own library the books that are in the worst shape, and which sometimes have to be replaced, are those I use the most. Those in the best shape I use the least.

a was discovered by Tischendorf at St. Catharine’s Greek Orthodox Monastery on Mt. Sinai in 1844. Vaticanus has been in the Vatican Library at least since 1481, when it was catalogued, as noted above. Those with some historical knowledge will remember that these were the years of the Inquisition in Spain during the reign of Pope Sixtus IV (1471-1484). In 1481 some 2,000 believers dissenting with Rome were burned alive, with multitudes of others tortured (M’Crie, History of the Reformation in Spain, p. 104). When Pope Innocent VIII (1484-1492) sat in the royal “Throne of Peter,” he followed in the vein of his namesake Innocent III and commenced anew a persecution against the peaceful Waldensian Christians in the northern Italian Alps, commanding their destruction “like venomous snakes” if they would not repent and turn to Rome. (Wylie, History of the Waldenses, pp. 27-29) Bloodbaths followed against these harmless mountain peoples, who had their own Scriptures from ancient times, and worshipped in Biblical simplicity and order.

It perplexes many people that the Lord of these many hundreds of thousands of Bible-believing saints who were tortured with unimaginable barbarity and slaughtered like dogs by the Roman Catholic “church” for centuries (it is no exaggeration to say for over a millennium) should have kept His choicest preserved manuscript in the safekeeping of the Library of the apostate murderers, designating it by their own ignominious name: Vaticanus.

I am indebted to David Cloud’s research for some the historical information above.

I will answer more of your questions/remarks, Lane (particularly concerning the Alexandrian church, and the transmission of their manuscripts), but for the moment I have to focus my mind on my sermons for tomorrow. I appreciate your willing to engage in this discussion, especially in an amicable spirit.

Steve, I'm going to have to wait to respond until tomorrow. Have a blessed Lord's Day.

Daniel, you said, “Since it is the case that scholars have known about these things, and debated them for centuries, then are we likely to sort out the dispute with posts on the PB?”

That’s a good point. My own purpose in posting re this “debate” is to show those seeking understanding of this matter that the KJV and TR position can be held to – and defended – by thinking, intelligent, godly believers, contra the disinformation that is widely spread about them, and not only that, but that our position is the most reasonable and in accord with the Biblical statements concerning the preservation of the Scripture. I submit a brief excerpt from the “Answering Alan Kurschner” thread to show how this disparity of views comes to be:

----------

Just as we stand on God’s word as regards the creation account in Genesis, despite all the supposed evidences of the evolutionists and evolutionary theorists – believing His word to be true notwithstanding all appearances to the contrary – even so do we believe His promises that His word is not only directly inspired by Him but that it will also be preserved by Him through time and eternity. We do not stand on science or scientific method – although we are glad to see true science as it aligns with the realities of God’s universal sovereignty – but on the realities of God’s word, and in this case, His promises. We may be ridiculed and scorned by scoffers of all stripes, but we will trust in Him and hold our heads high in His truth.

A pertinent quote from an essay by Dr. Theodore Letis:

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?

He closes the essay with these words,

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). [From, The Majority Text: Essays And Reviews In The Continuing Debate, the essay, “In Reply to D.A. Carson’s ‘The King James Version Debate’”.]

[end of excerpt]
----------

This discussion on the PB may not settle the dispute, but it may clarify the issues for some who do not see them clearly, and also give them a chance to see intelligent proponents of each side amicably (if pointedly!) exchange remarks on the matter.

Steve

Thanks Steve.

So after all that has been said, it would appear you believe the reformers only possessed something which approxiimated to the word of God, and that they did not possess the word of God in its purity -- that the Westminster divines were in fact incorrect in their claim to possess the authentical word of God. Would this be a fair assessment of your position?

Dear Reverence Keister,

I'm going to attempt to respond to a couple of things, although the thread has pretty much surpassed my time to be very involved. Although, from what I've seen, I would suggest that you consider reading some of the works that Brother Raflalsky has cited, such as Letis's "Ecclesiastical Text."

I didn't enter this thread to set out to debate over points that people aren't equally studied on, just to provide some caution to the original poster and then briefly answer some questions that were asked. I'd be happy to defend my position to much greater detail, but arguing into the void of knowledge doesn't seem to be very profitable.

Here is just a couple answers to your statements and questions:


You said:

"Furthermore, the WCF 1.8 nowhere mentions "the received text."

The Westminster Confession is referring to the text of Protestant development as against the Tridentine attack. To understand this you have to understand the actual scholastic development and circumstances as they arose and comprehend them as a totality.

Our Protestant forebears worked in terms of what we call the Received Text tradition claiming Sola Scriptura, the Romanists responded with Trent and variants to counter it, thus they said we cannot claim Sola Scriptura not knowing what the original autograph was amongst all the variants; the Protestants responded with Providential Preservation.

That is the scholastic defense of their textual work and it is manifested in the Westminster Confession as well in many other works. Hence, they held that the apographic texts they were using were the Providentially Preserved autographs. The Received Text is what the Protestants defended, really this should be self evident since that was the universal text of Protestantism for three hundred years, and your man stated it very plainly:

(1) “…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.

It appears to me that you are simply rejecting what is undisputed fact in your own camp.


"You are reading into the confession an issue that didn't come to light with regard to textual criticism until much later. Even the Enlightenment didn't happen until well after the WCF was written. I utterly repudiate the notion that the Enlightenment is responsible for textual criticism, for this very simple reason: even the TR is the result of textual criticism! They had to compare manuscripts one with another. Textual criticism is not inherently evil. The fact that some have put humanity over the text of Scripture and wanted to play God over the Word of God is no reason to throw out the baby with the bath-water. "

The Received Text is not a result of textual criticism, that statement doesn't make any sense to me. They never set up the text of Scripture in a form/matter dialectical presupposition that textual criticism does, they never approached it from this perspective.

It appears to me from your statements that someone has deceived you into thinking that textual criticism is a field of study that is somehow neutral at best, when it's origins are rabidly counter-reformational. Hence, one can't enter that ground, devoid of that knowledge, and not be affected by the underlying intent of the presuppositions and principles involved in it.

Textual criticism is inherently counter-reformational, as I stated, it is the product of the enlightenment and was born by Richard Simon in 1689, whose "Critical History of the New Testament" is the origin of modern criticism and its purpose, whereby:

"The study of the New Testament was divorced for the first time from the study carried on by the ancients. Kummel, The New Testament, p 40

Baird tells us, "Simon sharpened historical criticism into a weapon that could be used in the attack on Protestantism's most fundamental error: the doctrine of Sola Scriptura." Baird, History of New Testament Research, p 19

And Simon himself explains plainly his purpose:

"The great changes that have taken place in the manuscripts of the Bible - as we have shown in the first book of this work - since the first originals were lost, completely destroy the principle of the Protestants...if tradition is not joined to scripture, there is hardly anything in religion that one can confidently affirm." Simon, Critical History

Your position is analogous to someone defending theistic evolution against atheistic evolution as standing upon true Christian ground, when in reality one is attempting to syncretise Creation with evolution and the other is outright denying it. The same situation exists between the Reformers work on Scripture and the rise of textual criticism, modern Reformed folks are like the "theistic evolutionists," just in terms of Scripture.

If we were discussing evolution against modern scientific presuppositions, you'd clearly see this and we'd be on the same side. But since you are standing upon the claims of neutrality of scientific presuppositions you don't see it. Hence, you claim that your intentions are honest, which I assume they indeed are, but my point is that once you accept those presuppositions it really doesn't matter what your intentions are - you simply can't syncretise those things together and still be standing upon the same ground as the Reformed Fathers.

So, I go back to the intent of my first post, one needs to know what ground they are standing upon and why and what that means. It's a sad truth that the majority of the Reformed Church is standing upon counter-reformational ground in terms of Scripture, and they are carrying on the work of the enemy of Sola Scriptura.


Then you said:

"Thirdly, your interpretation of WCF 1.8 is also flawed when it comes to saying that the TR is what the divines had in mind as opposed to the autographa. First of all, your quotation of Muller is not accurate. I looked in every volume of Muller's PRRD on page 433 and did not find the quotation that you said he had. Furthermore, the divines clearly had the autographs in mind: the exact wording is this: "being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages." The immediately inspired document is not the copy, for that would be mediate, not immediate. It was the autograph that has been preserved through the manuscripts. But to say that the Westminster divines would have rejected Westcott and Hort (who were NOT Romanists) is most anachronistic. The debate simply wasn't around in the days of the Westminster Assembly. By far and away the majority of *Confessional* adherents today hold to the critical text. To suggest that all these fine men are Enlightenment, proto-Roman Catholic rejecters of the true, pure Word of God is slanderous. No advocate of the critical text, as far as I know, makes any such vituperative claims about TR people. I have slammed Riplinger's book because it completely lacks scholarly integrity."

Well, you've taken my statements out of their context and redefined them as I was clearly never defending Riplinger's book, scholarly or otherwise, rather I was explaining their thinking and the way in which people like James White disparage them. Maybe you should go re-read my original statements, because it sure seemed to me, and still does, that you read into it what you wanted to read into, not anything I said.

The Reformers never set the apographs against the autographs, never embraced a claim of scientific neutrality establishing imagining principles that Providence must adhere to. They were biased, they were biased against Rome and it's Bible, and they explicitly approached the whole issue theologically. This is a big no - no today, if you approach Scripture theologically you aren't being scientific, thus you are immediately dismissed from the debate. Without the Received Text tradition the Reformation would have never happened, neither could it have happened, neither can it be continued on other ground.

For example, you accused me of slander in regards to my statements that Wescott and Hort's text was foisted off on the Church in secrecy, this is common knowledge. It's also common knowledge that they never applied their theories to the texts, nor has it ever been applied, it was created for the sole purpose of attacking the Received Text.

Colwell stated in 1947 that the "genealogical method as defined by Westcott and Hort was not applied by them or by any of their followers to the manuscripts of the New Testament. Moreover, sixty years of study since Westcott and Hort indicate that it is doubtful if it can be applied to New Testament manuscripts." Colwell, "Hort Redivivus," Studies, p.158.

He further noted, "Hort utilized this principle solely to depose the Textus Receptus, and not to establish a line of descent." and finally, "Yet, in truth, all of Hort's main points were subjectively-based and were deliberately contrived to overthrow the Byzantine-priority hypothesis."

I'm not interested in winning an argument with you, and I'm not going to get involved in that style of debate, as I don't find it edifying for either of us. I've got to leave for worship.

Cordially,

Thomas

__________________
Thomas Weddle
Member, Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church
Evansville, Indiana

From post #35


Lane, Thomas is actually right here. Westcott and Hort distributed their own revised Greek Text to the Committee in 1871 when it first gathered in the Jerusalem Chamber (the place where their work was conducted), with the stipulation that it be kept secret until the publication of the finished product. They violated the stipulations of the Church of England which were laid upon them for the work, and they threatened to resign when Dr. Vance Smith, a Unitarian, outraged England by his presence on the committee (who later gloatingly wrote about the damage the Committee had done to the NT’s testimony to the deity of Jesus Christ).

In a letter to Westcott, in April of 1861, while they were unofficially* working on their revision of the Greek text, Hort wrote,

Also—but this may be cowardice—I have a sort of craving that our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean, a text, issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, will have great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach, and whence it would not easily be banished by subsequent alarms.**

Hort was worldly-wise in this, for it was not until dogged research by scholars in the 20th century unearthed their “dangerous heresy”*** (though “damnable” be a more apt description) in many areas, that we have learned things about them their contemporaries were unaware of. In a letter to Lightfoot in May of 1860, concerning a proposed commentary they would write with Westcott on the New Testament, Hort said,

Depend on it, whatever either you or I may say in an extended commentary, if only we speak our mind, we shall not be able to avoid giving grave offence to…the miscalled orthodoxy of the day.†

-------

Notes
* They did not receive their official appointment to revise the New Testament – not the Greek text, but make minor revisions in the English text – until 1871.
** Life and Letters of J.F.A. Hort, Vol. I, page 445. By his son.
*** 2 Peter 2:1 more accurately classifies theirs as “damnable heresies” – there being a distinction between the two types.
† Ibid., page 421.

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

Actually, Thomas was not slanderous, but rather barely uncovered their treachery, as recorded by each of their sons in their written biographies.

And I do not think Thomas in any way supported or condoned Riplinger, or her work, but instead showed how the attack on the Scripture was interpreted by her, and fueled her ranting errors. I didn’t think you were being fair to him – perhaps just mistaking what he said.

More on Alexandria to come!

Steve

I will try to respond. Life has become a bit busy here lately. I certainly wouldn't mind if there are any other defenders of the critical text out there, if they would chip in and answer some of the arguments for the TR side. Debating 4 guys at once is rather exhausting!

Should that be '1871'?

Try being a credobaptist in the PB Baptism Forum!

It's 1971 according to the oldest and most reliable manuscripts.

__________________
Scott Roper
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA): "A bunch of hippie Calvinists"
Winston-Salem, NC

Oops! Thanks for the correction, guys!

And I do have to hand it to you, Lane — taking on 4 opponents is a feat!

Steve

P.S. The hippie Calvinists have a good sense of humor!

Lane has asked what is wrong with the Alexandrian manuscripts. He said,

These are good questions, and I would briefly like to respond by quoting from chapter 5 ("The History of the Text") of Wilbur N. Pickering’s, The Identity of the New Testament Text, where he talks about the history and factors involved concerning the copies made from the autographs. Please note that this later version of the book (the online version) is slightly different from the earlier hardcopy book:

-----------

We have objective historical evidence in support of the following propositions:

• The true text was never "lost".

• In A.D. 200 the exact original wording of the several books could still be verified and attested.

• There was therefore no need to practice textual criticism and any such effort would be spurious.

However, presumably some areas would be in a better position to protect and transmit the true text than others.

Who Was Best Qualified?

What factors would be important for guaranteeing, or at least facilitating, a faithful transmission of the text of the N.T. writings? I submit that there are four controlling factors: access to the Autographs, proficiency in the source language, the strength of the Church and an appropriate attitude toward the Text.

Access to the Autographs

This criterion probably applied for less than a hundred years (the Autographs were presumably worn to a frazzle in that space of time) but it is highly significant to a proper understanding of the history of the transmission of the Text. Already by the year 100 there must have been many copies of the various books (some more than others) while it was certainly still possible to check a copy against the original, should a question arise. The point is that there was a swelling stream of faithfully executed copies emanating from the holders of the Autographs to the rest of the Christian world. In those early years the producers of copies would know that the true wording could be verified, which would discourage them from taking liberties with the text.

However, distance would presumably be a factor—for someone in north Africa to consult the Autograph of Ephesians would be an expensive proposition, in both time and money. I believe we may reasonably conclude that in general the quality of copies would be highest in the area surrounding the Autograph and would gradually deteriorate as the distance increased. Important geographical barriers would accentuate the tendency.

So who held the Autographs? Speaking in terms of regions, Asia Minor may be safely said to have had twelve (John, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 and 2 and 3 John, and Revelation), Greece may be safely said to have had six (1 and 2 Corinthians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Titus in Crete), Rome may be safely said to have had two (Mark and Romans)—as to the rest, Luke, Acts, and 2 Peter were probably held by either Asia Minor or Rome; Matthew and James by either Asia Minor or Palestine; Hebrews by Rome or Palestine; while it is hard to state even a probability for Jude it was quite possibly held by Asia Minor. Taking Asia Minor and Greece together, the Aegean area held the Autographs of at least eighteen (two-thirds of the total) and possibly as many as twenty-four of the twenty-seven New Testament books; Rome held at least two and possibly up to seven; Palestine may have held up to three (but in A.D. 70 they would have been sent away for safe keeping, quite possibly to Antioch); Alexandria (Egypt) held none. The Aegean region clearly had the best start, and Alexandria the worst—the text in Egypt could only be second hand, at best. On the face of it, we may reasonably assume that in the earliest period of the transmission of the N.T. Text the most reliable copies would be circulating in the region that held the Autographs. Recalling the discussion of Tertullian above, I believe we may reasonably extend this conclusion to A.D. 200 and beyond. So, in the year 200 someone looking for the best text of the N.T. would presumably go to the Aegean area; certainly not to Egypt.

Proficiency in the source language

As a linguist (PhD) and one who has dabbled in the Bible translation process for some years, I affirm that a 'perfect' translation is impossible. (Indeed, a tolerably reasonable approximation is often difficult enough to achieve.) It follows that any divine solicitude for the precise form of the NT Text would have to be mediated through the language of the Autographs—Greek. Evidently ancient Versions (Syriac, Latin, Coptic) may cast a clear vote with reference to major variants, but precision is possible only in Greek (in the case of the N.T.). That by way of background, but our main concern here is with the copyists.

To copy a text by hand in a language you do not understand is a tedious exercise—it is almost impossible to produce a perfect copy (try it and see!). You virtually have to copy letter by letter and constantly check your place. (It is even more difficult if there is no space between words and no punctuation, as was the case with the N.T. Text in the early centuries.) But if you cannot understand the text it is very difficult to remain alert. Consider the case of P66. This papyrus manuscript is perhaps the oldest (c. 200) extant N.T. manuscript of any size (it contains most of John). It is one of the worst copies we have. It has an average of roughly two mistakes per verse—many being obvious mistakes, stupid mistakes, nonsensical mistakes. From the pattern of mistakes it is clear that the scribe copied syllable by syllable. I have no qualms in affirming that the person who produced P66 did not know Greek. Had he understood the text he would not have made the number and sort of mistakes that he did.

Now consider the problem from God's point of view. To whom should He entrust the primary responsibility for the faithful transmission of the N.T. Text? If the Holy Spirit is going to take an active part in the process, where should He concentrate His efforts? Presumably fluent speakers of Greek would have the inside track, and areas where Greek would continue in active use would be preferred. For a faithful transmission to occur the copyists had to be proficient in Greek, and over the long haul. So where was Greek predominant? Evidently in Greece and Asia Minor; Greek is the mother tongue of Greece to this day (having changed considerably during the intervening centuries, as any living language must). The dominance of Greek in the Aegean area was guaranteed by the Byzantine Empire for many centuries; in fact, until the invention of printing. Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453; the Gutenberg Bible (Latin) was printed just three years later, while the first printed Greek New Testament appeared in 1516. (For those who believe in Providence, I would suggest that here we have a powerful case in point.)

How about Egypt? The use of Greek in Egypt was already declining by the beginning of the Christian era. Bruce Metzger observes that the Hellenized section of the population in Egypt "was only a fraction in comparison with the number of native inhabitants who used only the Egyptian languages."[21] By the third century the decline was evidently well advanced. I have already argued that the copyist who did P66 (c. 200) did not know Greek. Now consider the case of P75 (c. 220). E.C. Colwell analyzed P75 and found about 145 itacisms plus 257 other singular readings, 25% of which are nonsensical. From the pattern of mistakes it is clear that the copyist who did P75 copied letter by letter![22] This means that he did not know Greek—when transcribing in a language you know you copy phrase by phrase, or at least word by word. K. Aland argues that before 200 the tide had begun to turn against the use of Greek in the areas that spoke Latin, Syriac or Coptic, and fifty years later the changeover to the local languages was well advanced.[23]

Again the Aegean Area is far and away the best qualified to transmit the Text with confidence and integrity. Note that even if Egypt had started out with a good text, already by the end of the 2nd century its competence to transmit the text was steadily deteriorating. In fact the early papyri (they come from Egypt) are demonstrably inferior in quality, taken individually, as well as exhibiting rather different types of text (they disagree among themselves).

The strength of the Church

This question is relevant to our discussion for two reasons. First, the law of supply and demand operates in the Church as well as elsewhere. Where there are many congregations and believers there will be an increased demand for copies of the Scriptures. Second, a strong, well established church will normally have a confident, experienced leadership—just the sort that would take an interest in the quality of their Scriptures and also be able to do something about it. So in what areas was the early Church strongest?

Although the Church evidently began in Jerusalem, the early persecutions and apostolic activity caused it to spread. The main line of advance seems to have been north into Asia Minor and west into Europe. If the selection of churches to receive the glorified Christ's "letters" (Rev. 2 and 3) is any guide, the center of gravity of the Church seems to have shifted from Palestine to Asia Minor by the end of the first century. (The destruction of Jerusalem by Rome's armies in A.D. 70 would presumably be a contributing factor.) Kurt Aland agrees with Adolf Harnack that "about 180 the greatest concentration of churches was in Asia Minor and along the Aegean coast of Greece." He continues: "The overall impression is that the concentration of Christianity was in the East. . . . Even around A.D. 325 the scene was still largely unchanged. Asia Minor continued to be the heartland of the Church."[24] "The heartland of the Church"—so who else would be in a better position to certify the correct text of the New Testament?

What about Egypt? C.H. Roberts, in a scholarly treatment of the Christian literary papyri of the first three centuries, seems to favor the conclusion that the Alexandrian church was weak and insignificant to the Greek Christian world in the second century.[25] Aland states: "Egypt was distinguished from other provinces of the Church, so far as we can judge, by the early dominance of gnosticism."[26] He further informs us that "at the close of the 2nd century" the Egyptian church was "dominantly gnostic" and then goes on to say: "The copies existing in the gnostic communities could not be used, because they were under suspicion of being corrupt."[27] Now this is all very instructive—what Aland is telling us, in other words, is that up to A.D. 200 the textual tradition in Egypt could not be trusted. Aland's assessment here is most probably correct. Notice what Bruce Metzger says about the early church in Egypt:

Among the Christian documents which during the second century either originated in Egypt or circulated there among both the orthodox and the Gnostics are numerous apocryphal gospels, acts, epistles, and apocalypses. . . . There are also fragments of exegetical and dogmatic works composed by Alexandrian Christians, chiefly Gnostics, during the second century. . . . In fact, to judge by the comments made by Clement of Alexandria, almost every deviant Christian sect was represented in Egypt during the second century; Clement mentions the Valentinians, the Basilidians, the Marcionites, the Peratae, the Encratites, the Docetists, the Haimetites, the Cainites, the Ophites, the Simonians, and the Eutychites. What proportion of Christians in Egypt during the second century were orthodox is not known.[28]

It is almost enough to make one wonder whether Isaiah 30:1-3 might not be a prophecy about N.T. textual criticism!

But we need to pause to reflect on the implications of Aland's statements. He is a champion of the Egyptian ("Alexandrian") text-type, and yet he himself informs us that up to A.D. 200 the textual tradition in Egypt could not be trusted and that by 200 the use of Greek had virtually died out there. So on what basis can he argue that the Egyptian text subsequently became the best? Aland also states that in the 2nd century, 3rd century, and into the 4th century Asia Minor continued to be "the heartland of the Church." This means that the superior qualifications of the Aegean area to protect, transmit and attest the N.T. Text carry over into the 4th century! It happens that Hort, Metzger and Aland (along with many others) have linked the "Byzantine" text-type to Lucian of Antioch, who died in 311. Now really, wouldn't a text produced by a leader in "the heartland of the Church" be better than whatever evolved in Egypt?

Attitude toward the Text

Where careful work is required, the attitude of those to whom the task is entrusted is of the essence. Are they aware? Do they agree? If they do not understand the nature of the task, the quality will probably do down. If they understand but do not agree, they might even resort to sabotage—a damaging eventuality. In the case of the N.T. books we may begin with the question: "Why would copies be made?"

We have seen that the faithful recognized the authority of the N.T. writings from the start, so the making of copies would have begun at once. The authors clearly intended their writings to be circulated, and the quality of the writings was so obvious that the word would get around and each assembly would want a copy. That Clement and Barnabas quote and allude to a variety of N.T. books by the turn of the 1st century makes clear that copies were in circulation. A Pauline corpus was known to Peter before A.D. 70. Polycarp (XIII) c. 115, in answer to a request from the Philippian church, sent a collection of Ignatius' letters to them, possibly within five years after Ignatius wrote them. Evidently it was normal procedure to make copies and collections (of worthy writings) so each assembly could have a set. Ignatius referred to the free travel and exchange between the churches and Justin to the weekly practice of reading the Scriptures in the assemblies (they had to have copies).

A second question would be: "What was the attitude of the copyists toward their work?" We already have the essence of the answer. Being followers of Christ, and believing that they were dealing with Scripture, to a basic honesty would be added reverence in their handling of the Text, from the start. And to these would be added vigilance, since the Apostles had repeatedly and emphatically warned them against false teachers. As the years went by, assuming that the faithful were persons of at least average integrity and intelligence, they would produce careful copies of the manuscripts they had received from the previous generation, persons whom they trusted, being assured that they were transmitting the true text. There would be accidental copying mistakes in their work, but no deliberate changes. It is important to note that the earliest Christians did not need to be textual critics. Starting out with what they knew to be the pure text, they had only to be reasonably honest and careful. I submit that we have good reason for understanding that they were especially watchful and careful—this especially in the early decades.

As time went on regional attitudes developed, not to mention regional politics. The rise of the so-called "school of Antioch" is a relevant consideration. Beginning with Theophilus, a bishop of Antioch who died around 185, the Antiochians began insisting upon the literal interpretation of Scripture. The point is that a literalist is obliged to be concerned about the precise wording of the text since his interpretation or exegesis hinges upon it.

It is reasonable to assume that this "literalist" mentality would have influenced the churches of Asia Minor and Greece and encouraged them in the careful and faithful transmission of the pure text that they had received. For example, the 1,000 MSS of the Syriac Peshitta are unparalleled for their consistency. (By way of contrast, the 8,000 MSS of the Latin Vulgate are remarkable for their extensive discrepancies, and in this they follow the example of the Old Latin MSS.) It is not unreasonable to suppose that the Antiochian antipathy toward the Alexandrian allegorical interpretation of Scripture would rather indispose them to view with favor any competing forms of the text coming out of Egypt. Similarly the Quarto-deciman controversy with Rome would scarcely enhance the appeal of any innovations coming from the West.

To the extent that the roots of the allegorical approach that flourished in Alexandria during the third century were already present, they would also be a negative factor. Since Philo of Alexandria was at the height of his influence when the first Christians arrived there, it may be that his allegorical interpretation of the O.T. began to rub off on the young church already in the first century. Since an allegorist is going to impose his own ideas on the text anyway, he would presumably have fewer inhibitions about altering it—precise wording would not be a high priority.

The school of literary criticism that existed at Alexandria would also be a negative factor, if it influenced the Church at all, and W.R. Farmer argues that it did. "But there is ample evidence that by the time of Eusebius the Alexandrian text-critical practices were being followed in at least some of the scriptoria where New Testament manuscripts were being produced. Exactly when Alexandrian text-critical principles were first used . . . is not known."[29] He goes on to suggest that the Christian school founded in Alexandria by Pantaenus, around 180, was bound to be influenced by the scholars of the great library of that city. The point is, the principles used in attempting to "restore" the works of Homer would not be appropriate for the NT writings when appeal to the Autographs, or exact copies made from them, was still possible.

Conclusion

What answer do the "four controlling factors" give to our question? The four speak with united voice: "The Aegean area was the best qualified to protect, transmit and attest the true text of the N.T. writings." This was true in the 2nd century; it was true in the 3rd century; it continued to be true in the 4th century. And now we are ready to answer the question, "Was the transmission normal?", and to attempt to trace the history of the text.

-------

Notes

[21]Metzger, Early Versions, p. 104.
[22]Colwell, "Scribal Habits," pp. 374-76, 380.
[23]K. and B. Aland, The Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), pp. 52-53.
[24]Ibid., p. 53.
[25]Roberts, pp. 42-43, 54-58.
[26]K. and B. Aland, p. 59.
[27]K. Aland, "The Text of the Church?", Trinity Journal, 1987, 8NS:138.
[28]Metzger, Early Versions, p. 101.
[29]W.R. Farmer, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (Cambridge: University Press, 1974), pp. 14-15. He cites B.H. Streeter, The Four Gospels, 1924, pp. 111, 122-23.

----------

I post this fairly lengthy section of Pickerings to give an idea of the text-critical hypothesis he gives to account for the existence of the Byzantine text, and also to put in perspective the phenomenon of the Alexandrian textform. Remember what Dr. Maurice Robinson said,

This "Introduction" of Robinson's is also an excellent resource for information concerning the early transmission of the autographs, and the status of the various textforms.

For those who are interested in looking at Pickering’s examination and critique of Eclecticism and the Eclectic Text, please see here. (I don’t post it because it would make this too lengthy!)

Steve

I cannot possibly respond to all of the arguments, especially since I am only using my own argumentation, not quoting long sections of other people's work. Forgive me, but I simply do not have the time. However, there are a couple of things I would like to bring up. Firstly, who likely held manuscripts. I disagree with Pickering's assessment of John and Mark. I don't think we can know where those manuscripts were held. The same with Luke, Acts, and 2 Peter. I think it most likely that Matthew and James were held in Jerusalem. However, Pickering's assessment of Alexandria leaves out quite a few facts. Firstly, if any manuscripts were held in Palestine, they would be far more likely to get to Alexandria first. Alexandria is only 314 miles from Jerusalem, as opposed to Istanbul's (aka Byzantium and Constantinople) 727. Secondly, the majority of the population in Alexandria was Jewish (see Davidson's The Birth of the Church, pg. 45), and the city was enormous (Davidson estimates 400,000, certainly the second most important city if the entire Roman empire after Rome itself). There was a strong Christian presence early in Alexandria, so his conclusion that the 70 AD massacre of Jerusalem meant that the manuscripts were more likely to go to Antioch is pure speculation. They could just as easily have gone to Alexandria (for those manuscripts held in Palestine). Further, the Mediterranean Sea was easily traversible in those days with the pax Romana in place. So, this idea that the manuscripts held in Turkey, Greece and Rome could not have made it down to Alexandria is absurd, but more importantly, speculation. Again, they constitute no reason whatsoever to reject the Alexandrian texts.

As to the Greek language, it is illogical to conclude that because Greek was on the decline in Alexandria, that therefore the scribes who copied these manuscripts must not have known Greek. Alexandria was a center of learning in the old world. Itacisms are not a logical criteria in the slightest in this regard, since this is a matter of pronunciation, not of Greek knowledge. In other words, someone whose mother tongue was Greek could make an itacistic mistake.

With regard to WH, they published their work, and they openly discussed their methods in their publications. That is not secret. That they did not want it distributed beforehand is common to all scholars' work. They have a sense of propriety about their work, not wanting others to steal from them. It is extremely unwise, at this great distance, to read motives into their reasons for not distributing their work ahead of time.

What is Thomas going to do about the fact that Stephanus published a critical apparatus to his text? Is that not textual criticism? Did Stephanus have just one Byzantine manuscript, which he received, and said, "This is it: the exact copy of the original." No, of course not. He compared all manuscripts at his disposal. CT folk do the same thing today.

You know, you posted a very good opinion today on the beauty of women, when I read it, I thought, "Why doesn't he see that this same principle is applicable to the textual issue?"

You related that female beauty today is an external standard of perfection that exists only in the photographers studio, whereby if women are to attain unto it, she has to have the head of one woman, the body of another, the legs of a third &c, to meet this unattainable "ideal." Modern textual criticism approach to the text of Scripture, is in principle, very similar to that concept - and it results in the same analogous frustration for the Bride of Christ and her orthodox ministers, as you related between man and wife.

I will now attempt to clarify my statements since I've apparently been unclear. If I remember correctly you alluded to a concept that modern criticism is engaged in the same activity as our Protestant fathers, synonymously relating them as textual criticism the same way you did here, I then said that doesn't make any sense to me.

I provided a quote from Kummel, explaining that the text critical method developed by Simon and applied to the study of the New Testament "was divorced for the first time from the study carried on by the ancients." This was in 1689, long after the Protestants work was finished, by this time the high orthodox dogmaticians were hard at work defending the text against Simon's attack.

Our Protestant fathers did not consider every manuscript to be an authentic text, they never engaged in what you are calling "textual criticism," because what comes with that is the entire paradigm in which the discipline is exercised. They never approached the text of Scripture through that paradigm, you should know that as well as I do. If you don't, you've got Muller's work, have you not read it? Plenty of works have been cited in this and other threads that conclusively prove that your claim is incorrect.

I'll correct my terminology so we can know precisely what each other is talking about, in the future I'll try and stick to this. Modern textual criticism can really only be described as "textual eugenics," a self directed evolving text subjective to an external hypothetical standard of perfection, that God Himself has not chosen to preserve. In contrast, our Protestant fathers received the text of Scripture, within its historical context, from the Greek speaking Church where it was actually used for centuries. They have a history of the text, in ancient catholic orthodoxy, and thus they can make informed and intelligent decisions dealing with scribal errors.

Childers explains the foundation of the concept, from which I develop the terminology "textual eugenics," which I will further clarify and explain below:

"[The] text-critical method functions properly only in conjunction with a view of the history of the transmission of the text….Indeed, in his famous 1968 article on “Hort Redivivus,” Colwell excoriated the discipline for its near-universal failure to deal with or take into account the history of the manuscript tradition....What Colwell wrote over three and a half decades ago remains essentially true: the discipline has largely neglected to give due attention to writing the history of the text. But no method works without such a history of the text, so what has filled the void? The lingering influence of Wescott & Hort’s view of the history of the text, it would seem; Epp recently suggested that their text (and by implication the historical view associated with it) has become the unconscious “default setting” of the discipline.

Jeff W. Childers, Transmission and Reception: New Testament Text-Critical and Exegetical Studies, p 112-113

Now, then, that takes us back to Colwell and the citations I posted:

"[T]he "genealogical method" as defined by Westcott and Hort was not applied by them or by any of their followers to the manuscripts of the New Testament. Moreover, sixty years of study since Westcott and Hort indicate that it is doubtful if it can be applied to New Testament manuscripts." Colwell, "Hort Redivivus," Studies, p.158.

He further noted, "Hort utilized this principle solely to depose the Textus Receptus, and not to establish a line of descent." and finally, "Yet, in truth, all of Hort's main points were subjectively-based and were deliberately contrived to overthrow the Byzantine-priority hypothesis."

Since the text critical method doesn't work in the absence of a history of the text and the critical camp has no history of the text other than Wescott and Hort deliberately contrived and never utilized hypothesis, then it is not and cannot be engaged in any legitimate activity when it approaches the Biblical texts.

It was 1689 and it is today textual eugenics, whose sole purpose is to attack and overthrow the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Text they stand upon as that authentic and authoritative text of Scripture.

The discipline you are supporting rejects centuries of continual use of the Protestant text by Reformed and Protestant Churches, altering it back to Latin Vulgate readings, which are universally rescensions from Reformed doctrine, claiming they are the autographic readings which our Protestant Fathers rejected as corrupt and false along with the Ancient Fathers anathematizing their teachings and teachers.

So, in answer to your question, none of the Protestant fathers were engaged in textual eugenics.

Cordially,

Thomas

Lane,

In your post #71 you said,

“I am only using my own argumentation, not quoting long sections of other people's work.”

Regarding the first clause, “I am only using my own argumentation…”, this is not necessarily a good thing, especially if not supported by evidences with substance. And regarding the latter, “…quoting long sections of other people’s work”, this is not necessarily a bad thing! For I am a researcher, and a teacher, and what I do is the online equivalent of using textbooks or selected materials chosen for their relevance to the topic under discussion.

I want to look at something you said, as an example of what I consider inadequate “argumentation”:

"…there are a couple of things I would like to bring up. Firstly, who likely held manuscripts. I disagree with Pickering's assessment of John and Mark. I don't think we can know where those manuscripts were held."

John first. I will refrain from “quoting long sections of other people’s work,” but will indicate where material may be found. William Hendriksen, in his commentary on the Gospel of John, marshals much evidence from the writings of the early fathers that the apostle John lived in Ephesus both before and after his banishment to Patmos. The tradition of the early church was that John fled Jerusalem around the time of its destruction in A.D. 70 and went to Asia Minor, settling in Ephesus. He quotes numerous people to this effect, both fathers and contemporary scholars. See pages 29-31 for this. This also would be where the autographs of his Gospel, the Apokalypse, and Epistles would be – where the apostle himself was living.

I use Hendriksen because his works are readily available, and he is very good on chronologies and locations, as well as being one of the premiere NT scholars – in my view.

Regarding Mark, we turn again to Hendriksen and his commentary on that Gospel. I will quote but two sentences, and those interested may pursue it further. WH says (on p. 13, in the section “When and Where Was It Written?):

Although in my previous post (#70) I quoted Pickering at length – seeing him as a responsible proponent of not only the Byzantine priority hypothesis, but generally accepted history concerning the early situation of the NT mss. This history is not in dispute – the possessors and locations of the autographs and the copies made from them – although other factors are, such as the (may I call it bizarre?) theory of the Lucian/Antiochian official rescension (per Westcott and Hort, and their followers) which is without a shred of historical attestation, it being just an imaginary construct designed to depose the confidence of many in the Byzantine/Traditional Text.

I could post a good bit more on Alexandria, but I shall restrain myself with but a brief quote from a work of my own:

…we go back to Egypt of the 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D., and in particular to Alexandria – a city of pleasure, learning, culture, and the arts – out from which came forth certain Greek manuscripts containing a version of the New Testament. These Alexandrian manuscripts – exemplars of the ones used by W&H in their revision (a and B) – came from (or at least came through) the theological school of Clement (150-220?), Origen (185-253), Pamphlius (died 309), and Eusebius of Caesarea (265-339), this latter the historian and scholar who served the emperor Constantine, and provided him with 50 Bibles made from these manuscripts.

Alexandria was famous for its luxuries and pleasures, renown for its world-famous library, and for its scholars and learned men. When the city was conquered in 641 A.D., the invading Moslem commander, Amr, said,

It is impossible to enumerate the riches of this great city, or to describe its beauty; I shall content myself with observing that it contains 4000 palaces, 400 baths, 400 theaters.*

Truly this place in Egypt was a marvelous type of the world, with its beauty, wisdom, wealth, status, and power! And in this place of high culture, to which we have no Biblical record of any apostolic autographs (original gospels or letters of the New Testament) being sent, a “Christian” school arose, as well as New Testament manuscripts which were identified with it. Historian Albert Newman comments,

The Alexandrian theologians with whom the scientific spirit had its birth were Platonists…not that they had been simply brought up as Platonists (as were Justin and Athenagorus, who yet, after they adopted Christianity, rejected Platonism as the work of demons); but they remained Platonists, and sought to explain Christianity according to the Platonic categories, in somewhat the same way in which Philo had, two centuries earlier, attempted to explain Judaism. In fact these Christian Platonists were greatly indebted to Philo.**

Clement and Origen, two of the “Christian Platonists,” have both been condemned as heretics by the church…

----------

* The Story of Civilization, Vol. 4, The Age of Faith (NY: Simon & Schuster, 1950), page 282. Cited by Dr. William P. Grady, in Final Authority: A Christian’s Guide to the King James Bible, (Grady Publications, Inc. 1993), page 77.
** A Manual of Church History, Vol. 1, Ancient and Medieval Church History (To A.D. 1517), 1st ed., rev., by Albert Henry Newman (PA: Judson Press, 1933), page 272. Cited in Grady, page 81.

[end excerpt]

-------

I could go on about Alexandria, and Clement, Origen, and Pamphlius, but as information about them is common I will refrain.

Lane, you said,

Where I live now, Turkey is closer to me than Athens, where I have close Presbyterian friends, but that does not mean if I were fleeing for my life I would head for Turkey! Yes there are some Christians there, but it is not a strong evangelical church, as are the churches I know (and would go to) in Athens. The strong churches John knew when Jerusalem was about to fall were in Asia Minor, not Alexandria (the NT tells us this); and the accounts of early church historians and fathers confirm that is where he went. With the Jewish population against the Jewish followers of Jesus, especially after the fall of the city (for Jesus’ disciples fled the city, according to Jesus’ prior warning, and were considered deserters), why would John seek aid with the Jewish unbelievers rather than the brethren in the apostolic churches? Paul had evangelized (himself and his disciples) the area of Asia Minor for about three years, establishing many churches there (Acts 19:9, 10; 20:31) – so these were apostolic churches, of which there were none in Egypt. Would the last remaining apostle have brought the New Covenant documents – that precious Deposit – with him to his new area of residence?

The fact that no New Testament Gospel or Epistle original manuscripts were sent to Egypt, but to the churches the apostles labored for or in, lessens the likelihood that the NT mss Egypt did have were able to be compared with an autograph, and corrected if in error.

Lane, I appreciate – painfully – that in positing my view of the transmission of the NT documents, and refuting yours, I am assailing an aspect of your faith, which you hold to as precious truth, a foundation of your life. I do not mean to cause you grief. And I am sorry if do. I do, however, assert gladly that we do have the word of God preserved by Him, and on this the church stands. The differences in the various textforms range from what I would call adequate preservation – which all churches in all ages have possessed at the very least – to preservation in the minutiae. There is good news, and there is the best news. I am glad to herald both, but especially the latter.

Steve

First Thomas, then Steve.

Nice move, using my post on women's beauty! Let me answer it by answering also your claim that Muller supports your position. He doesn't really. Listen to what he says (this is the second edition, now) on page 399, the only time the term textus receptus occurs in this volume of PRRD, by the way:

This is precisely the same aim that modern Reformed textual critics have today. So, unfortunately, Muller does not support your position here. He supports the idea that the Reformers and the post-Reformation tradition engaged the manuscript tradition, and engaged in textual criticism. I suspect that a huge problem of miscommunication that we're all having here is the definition of this term "textual criticism." What Muller means by it is surely defined by the above quotation: comparing one manuscript with another to try to figure out what the original was. I agree with this definition of textual criticism as to its methods and goals. What you TR guys seem to mean by it is an inherent denial of sola Scriptura, an autonomous attitude towards the text, and a completely subjective approach to the evidence. Your actual words are, "Modern textual criticism can really only be described as 'textual eugenics,' a self directed evolving text subjective to an external hypothetical standard of perfection, that God Himself has not chosen to preserve." I would reject such an approach equally as vehemently as you guys do. My point is this: Reformed textual criticism has always seen itself as supporting sola Scriptura, and has magnificently accomplished such a goal. So, the ultimate problem with your illustration is that the original perfect version did actually exist, whereas a modern "Platonic" perfect woman does not exist, except in the imagination. You quotation from Kummel (himself a liberal scholar) does not speak for all textual critics. Just because some textual critics use the techniques to deny sola Scriptura does not mean that all textual critics do so.

The Childers quotation does not take into account modern eclecticism. Modern eclecticism takes into account every manuscript, denying no manuscript its own voice, unlike the TR position, which denies any validity at all to any other textual tradition except the Byzantine.

The Colwell quotation only asserts, but does not prove its point, which would take quite a bit of documentation.

You assert that it is necessary to have a history of the text in order to engage in this discussion. What do you mean by the term "history of the text?" There is a history of the Alexandrian text. It is told for us in Metzger's work on the NT manuscripts. I suspect you mean "churchly authorization." Again, though, and none of you TR people have answered this point yet: the Alexandrian textual tradition was accepted by the Alexandrian church at that time. You cannot escape this point.

Okay, now Steve.

Firstly, regarding quotations. My point was not to say that your argumentation was illegitimate just because it used long quotations from other people's work. My point was that is extremely difficult to answer points, when the points to which I am to respond have been cut and pasted from enormous tracts of material. It makes me feel like I am trying to get a drink of water from a fire hydrant! It is the job of a scholar to summarize, summarize, and summarize!

The point about John completely begs the question of when John was actually written. John was at least a teenager when Jesus was alive. By some accounts he lived until 98 AD. There is a spread there from maybe 40 AD onward when he could have written the Gospel. There are no references to the Fall of Jerusalem. If John was written closer to 40, then there were maybe 25 or thirty peaceful years when it would have time to mosey on down to Alexandria. There is no evidence to suggest that it written after his move to Ephesus. So your entire argument depends on it being written at least close to 70 AD. There is no obstacle to supposing that it was written even twenty years previously to that. John is a thoroughly Jewish Gospel. I think it likely that its target audience was first Jewish (see Carson's commentary on this point). If that is so, then its more likely provenance was Jerusalem, in which case it is still quite possible that it got to Alexandria before it got to Ephesus. At any rate, there is no reason to reject the Alexandrian manuscripts of John on this line of argumentation. There is no proof possible in these kinds of reconstructions. However, all I need to prove is that we should not reject the Alexandrian manuscripts from the process of textual criticism. How we weight those manuscripts is a completely separate question.

Hendriksen on Mark is a bit confusing. If there is no confirmation of its place of origin, then how can Mark confirm the early church fathers' assessments of it? Could you provide a page reference, please, so I can look it up in my copy?

Is this not precisely what we are disputing here? You are using shaky arguments here about the location of the autographs to discredit the Alexandrian tradition, and I am challenging that move.

About Clement, where exactly did he get condemned, and who condemned him? Origin's condemnation was not because of his theological views (which would become controversial enough later), but because he was teaching without ordination (see Davidson, The Birth of the Church, pg. 257). Besides, the supposed Platonic-ness of the Alexandrian school is utterly irrelevant to the question of manuscript transmission. Classic case of "poisoned well" fallacy. The manuscripts are automatically corrupt because of the nature of the people who transcribed them. The Medieval church (which transcribed the Byzantine tradition) was afflicted by Aristotelianism, especially in Aquinas. Does this make the Byzantine textual tradition problematic?

This is speculation. It is quite easy to conceive of manuscripts being written in Jerusalem, carefully copied there, being compared to the originals, and then being sent out to all the churches, Alexandria included. There would be only one generation even in that case between the copies being made in Alexandria and the autographs. And there is nothing to suggest that the Jerusalem-provenance manuscripts didn't ever travel down there. What you've got here is speculation, Steve. You cannot reject the Alexandrian tradition on speculation.

I deeply appreciate your last paragraph. There are some who have viciously attacked me personally for holding to a non-TR position. I am glad that you do not. Would you agree that my position is consistent with sola Scriptura?

Muller acknowledges the differences on p. 415. He states the issue was one of "linguistic continuity," and distinguishes this from the approach of Hodge and Warfield. Further, the section beginning on p. 417, entitled The Problem of Corruptions in the Text, shows the Protestant scholastic commitment to the traditional text both against Romanist apologists and Anti-trinitarian free thinkers.

To progress beyond Muller for a moment -- from the Princeton school modern reformed thinking has inherited a mindset which tends to seek out the original reading in terms of the autographa. In the reformed orthodox period the belief was that the original is preserved in the apographa, and the apographa was considered to be preserved in its purity as the final court of appeal.

Lane,

Re Mark, in the Gospel itself there is no indicator to prove where it was written, but tradition has it in Rome. It is page 13 of WH on Mark.

Re John, if you are positing a date of the Gospel before 70 (the Apokalypse and Epistles would be included) because there is no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, you are entering a new topic. Do you actually hold to a pre 70 date for all of these writings on that basis? I do not.

Hendriksen says,

For several years John lived in Ephesus. But sometime during the reign of Domitian, who ruled from 81-96, he was banished to the island of Patmos. With the accession of Nerva he was allowed to return to Ephesus, where he died at the beginning of Trajan’s reign; i.e., about the year 98.

Now tradition is well-nigh unanimous in maintaining that the place where the apostle wrote his Gospel was Ephesus (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History III, xxiii, 1, 6; V, viii, 4; xxiv, 4; Clement of Alexandria, Who Is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved? XLII, ii). Repeated attempts, also in recent literature, to discredit this strong tradition have not been successful. (pp. 29, 30 ff.)

Hendriksen continues with a discussion on the merits of the view of a late date for John. And although the Apokalypse was written on Patmos (Rev 1:9) after the accession of Domitian, there is no mention of the destruction of the temple there either. It had happened quite a while back.

But what I have said here will not in the least convince a firm believer in the early dating of John and Revelation, and I do not want to enter that topic now.

What I had meant was that no autograph itself was sent to Alexandria.

How about this, Lane, that between you and me, we call it a draw? Those who have listened in can form their own conclusions from the material presented by each of us thus far. In fact, I am willing to let you have the last word.

One of the problems with discourse in the Kingdom of God – at least in the earthly sector of it – is that it too often becomes more important than the Spirit of Christ, after whose manner we should conduct ourselves. There is a time to get tough, and severe, but certainly not in a discussion such as we are having. I realize John Burgon was tough on his opponents in the controversy following the publication of the new Greek NT and the RV, but that was a different situation entirely; and even there he stuck to the issues and did not indulge in verbal abuse. Even so, his manner was too passionate for the English “gentlemen” he disputed, and they ignored him. We are told that verbal abuse is a prohibited activity for would-be saints, and that it is “railing” (1 Cor 5:11), an offense of such seriousness that we are “not to eat” with such who are habitually so, and to put them away from our company.

We are brothers, both adopted into the royal family of Heaven, and should carry ourselves with that dignity, graciousness, and kindness appropriate to our stations – and eternal kinship.

The problem is, the Holy Bible is so precious to God’s people, that to disparage their version of it is – to many – tantamount to attacking the Faith, and the Lord. But seeing as there are so many who hold to the CT or ET, and to modern versions based on them, and who with all their hearts and minds seek to love the Lord and follow Him, that one has to look at their hearts and not their judgment – right or wrong in our eyes – as to what Scripture is best. There is a saying that applies to topics such as we are discussing: “You get more flies with honey than with vinegar.”

The reason I suggest a draw between us in our contest, is that we both are busy, and to wrangle over small points that can be argued fairly well from our differing points of view, is not being good stewards of the precious time allotted to us. What do you say?

And yes, your position is consistent with Sola Scriptura (the title of James White’s book is the English of that: Scripture Alone) within the context of your paradigm (and White’s), which is that the NT text can be discerned through textual criticism and the multitude of manuscripts scrutinized thereby. I do not accept your or White’s paradigm, and I would say that your approach to Sola Scriptura may be consistent with the Princeton School’s post-Warfield view, but not with the earlier paradigm of the Reformation and post-Reformation.

It comes down to this: how well you can defend your position vis-à-vis the secular/demonic onslaught against the written Word of God. A for-instance would be posts #55 & 56 on the Do textual variants give us confidence? thread.

Steve, I appreciate so much your willingness to see what is important in this debate, and engage in honest and fair debate. I think we can let the arguments stand as they are. I don't feel the need to have the last word.

Matthew, it is quite possible that Hodge and Warfield were not entirely consistent in their argumentation. But don't you think that they appealed to the manuscripts as the final court of appeal with regard to doctrine? I mean, that is all they had. I would not be so quick to posit a complete wedge between Hodge/Warfield on the one hand, and the Reformers on the other. Besides, what are you going to do with the fact that Muller describes the Reformers' method as textual criticism? Do you acknowledge the differences among definitions that I posited in the last post?

I appreciate the contributions by everyone in this thread. It has been edifying to me.

Lane, as noted in my first post on this thread, no one supposes the received text is to be found in a single MS. It is acknowledged the orthodox reformed engaged in a textual criticism of sorts; but they faithfully maintained the "authentic" word of God was preserved in its purity in all ages -- believing criticism, in other words, as over against the sceptical criticism which predominates today. Please read the afore cited section in Muller, where he shows the way in which high reformed orthodoxy defended traditional readings against Romanist and Infidel attacks. Modern textual criticism has no time for this kind of process, which demonstrates it is a critical method of a completely different stamp.

Dear Pastor Keister,

I'm going to try and be brief.

[quote=greenbaggins;344594]Nice move, using my post on women's beauty! Let me answer it by answering also your claim that Muller supports your position. He doesn't really. Listen to what he says (this is the second edition, now) on page 399, the only time the term textus receptus occurs in this volume of PRRD, by the way.

I think Reverend Winzer has already responded to this, I quoted the section he is referring to in post 16 of this thread several days ago.

The issue is two different a priori presuppositions with both utilizing the same language. What I've been trying to consistently point out to you is that the Protestants were in opposition to the nature/grace dialetic of the Roman Catholic Church which is the philosophical foundation of their claim of Authority. The Protestants did not approach the text dialetically, as Muller states: "For them, the autographa were not a concrete point of regress for the future critical examinations of the text but rather a touchstone employed in gaining a proper persepective on current textual problems. " p 434

On the other hand, the modern critical camp is standing upon claimed scientific neutrality with a presupposed assumption negating the Byzantine text as a reliable witness and then positing the lost autographa (form), as a concrete point of regress against the apographa (matter) and has reasserted the form/matter dialetic, or what Muller called the "logical device like that employed by Hodge and Warfield." p 435 ( quote incorporated by reference in link to post 16, above)

When two different people approach the text of Scripture and "compare manuscript to manuscript" upon two diametrically opposition presuppositions they are not engaged in the same activity, moreover, when the modern critical camp has reasserted the form/matter dialetic they invariably arrive at the exact same identification of texts as the Roman Catholics which the Protestants vehemently opposed and held were corruptions of the authentic text.


Sir, I recognize that you are a Reformed Pastor, called of God and preserved by Him for that calling whereby you meet the qualifications of Timothy and Titus and have been ordained and set apart for this honorable use.

Even though you are a Reformed and honest man, and even though you don't personally have an autonomous attitude, it is impossible to stand upon the form/matter dialetic holding to the identical basic rational and approach the texts without having that a priori presupposition affect your perspective.

To the Protestant Reformers the autographa are represented quoad verba and quoad res in the apographa, to the modern critical camp these are held in dialetical tension.

While certainly the Reformed in the critical camp are attempting to stand in the trajectory of Sola Scriptura, they simply cannot maintain it because they have accepted the dialetical presupposition as being normative in the infinite regress to the lost autographa - as a result the concept of Authority is not the same, which is why I labeled it "textual eugenics," or a self directed evolving standard.

Letis has an interesting quote by Marsden that explains where the Reformed took a wrong turn by embracing the rational of scientific neutralism:

"Rather than challenging modern science's first principles, they came to be chief defenders of these principles. They were entirely confident that objective scientific inquiry could only confirm Christian truth...The Christian community, having thoroughly trusted science and the scientific method, had welcomed them, even parading them as their staunchest friends. So,...this superficial accomodation left them with no defenses when the celebrated ally proved to be a heavily armed foe...Biblical criticism turned the fire power of such scientific historical explanation point-blank on the origin of Hebrew religion and the Bible itself. With awesome swiftness the edifice built by the method of addition that had worked so well for Christians in accomodating Christianity to the first scientific revolution had been demolished by the second." Edward Freer Hills Contribution to the Ecclesiastical Text, p 90

I understand and I agree concerning the intention, but would you at least consider what I've said?


Well, sir, He made them male and female and he didn't preserve them in their perfection, He let them fall in order to make manifest His Grace. Likewise, He delivered His word in perfection through the Apostles, but He has let it fall in that precise form, yet He has promised to preserve it for His Church for the glory of Jesus Christ - we believe He has consistently done so and we believe that Protestant Churches have always been depositories of the authentic text, that is the Byzantine tradition.

Yeah, I wish men with good intentions could divorce themselves from bad first principles, but it just doesn't work that way. A large ship is steered by a small rudder, everyone on board goes where the ship goes. There is no wall of separation between higher and lower criticism, it just doesn't exist, because the starting point and basic scientific rational is the same, one exists because of the other and they must acknowledge one another to be able to even function.

This is precisely what Warfield tried to do, a good man that just didn't see the danger and didn't properly understand the nature of the humanism in rise of the scientific method, he determined that if German enlightenment text criticism could be separated from the higher criticism that fathered it, that common sense philosophy could deliver the Church across the proverbial Red Sea and arrive safely in the Promised Land. He was mistaken, because he didn't perceive the enemy that had transformed himself as a minister of light.

He was critiquing modern eclectism in light of Zundt's work and hypothesis.

OK, well I'm growing wearing like Steve, so it's getting to the point where it isn't a good use of our time.

Childers went over Metzger's work as not fulfilling that requirement, I just didn't quote it, in order to focus the point. But no, I don't mean "churchly authorization," hence we do not hold to an inversion of WCF 1:4, rather we believe that God has preserved His authentic words for the use of His Church, and we are not trying to escape the fact that the Alexandrian tradition was used in the Alexandrian Church, anymore than it is used in ours. It's just that with the rise of this text is accompanied the rise of Arianism and Statism, it was back then and it is now.

Finally, in your last comment to Steve, you mentioned that some have attacked you personally and viciously for not holding to the TR position. I certainly hope you haven't interpreted me that way.

Hopefully, you can at least recognize that defenders of the Authorized Version and the Byzantine tradition are not all embicile nincompoops, but we have legitimate and serious scholarship from which we've arrived at our position.

Cordially In Christ,

Thomas