greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
There are several versions of an argument out there in support of the TR position which argue that God's providence preserved the original reading of the NT only in the Byzantine texts, which were the texts in use in the church, "received everywhere" (as the term "Textus Receptus" means). There may be different versions of this that are more nuanced, or nuanced in different ways than I have written here, but I wish to answer in several different points this inadequate view of God's providence. Some I have talked to argue that there were many more Byzantine text manuscripts in use in the time of the Reformers that have since been lost or used to the point of destruction. The Alexandrian readings in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are in manuscripts that were purportedly not in use because their readings were rejected. These issues will also be addressed.
First point of response: a manuscript like Sinaiticus was almost certainly in use in the Alexandrian church. This is indicated by the fact that it had no fewer than three correctors (some today estimate as many as seven). One does not correct a manuscript that is useless. In addition, one does not correct a manuscript that was not being used. That it was hidden for centuries proves absolutely nothing. TR advocates tend to speculate on the reason of its hiddenness as being the church rejecting its readings. This is certainly not known, and is actually quite unlikely. Far more likely is that when Muslims invaded, destroying Christian manuscripts as they went, that Christians hid the MOST valuable manuscripts, like Sinaiticus. We cannot know this for certain, either, but the rejection of Sinaiticus on the basis of its being hidden because its readings were rejected is not a cogent argument, and needs to be eliminated from the discussion entirely.
The second point I wish to make in connection with the hiddenness of Sinaiticus (and Vaticanus in the Vatican, too, for that matter) is that the assumption on the part of TR advocates that manuscripts had to be not only used but visible all the while in the church is actually an unbiblical idea of God's providence. The entire book of Esther refutes it. The name of God is hidden in Esther. God is not once mentioned. Yet His providence was at work in ways invisible to most of the key players. Mordecai is the only person who had a hint of it when he asked whether Esther had not been raised up for such a time as this. Ahasuerus certainly didn't think of God's providence as giving him insomnia or directing the gaze of the readers in the chronicles to the exact place where Mordecai's saving of the king was recorded. The providence of God works in hidden things, not just visible things, and is itself often hidden. The plain fact of the matter is that God's providence actually preserved Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bezae, and many, many other non-Byzantine texts. God's providence therefore extends to the preservation of all extant manuscripts, whether visible all the while or invisible for part of the time. This can be paralleled in the church itself. The true church is sometimes more visible, sometimes less visible.
Thirdly, TR advocates engage in chronological snobbery with their arguments. The only period of the church that matters to TR advocates in terms of manuscripts is the time when the Byzantine church had the priority of manuscript production. Which manuscripts were around, however, before that time, between, say, the third century and the eighth century? TR advocates say that there were likely a lot more Byzantine manuscripts around during the time of the Reformation. Who is to say there weren't a lot more Alexandrian and Western texts around before that time? And since we cannot know how any of these lost manuscripts read in the variants, it is quite useless to speculate on such matters. We can only go on all the evidence we have today.
In regard, therefore, to the manuscripts we have today, I believe we must avoid two equal and opposite errors. The first error is to discount the Byzantine manuscripts. While Warfield had quite a different approach than his usual detractors today charge him with (he explicitly said, for example, that the original readings are in the apographs, something many deny him saying; he also spoke of "the providence of God in preserving for His Church in each and every age a competently exact text of the Scriptures," p. 12 of his introduction), it cannot be denied that he denigrated the Byzantine manuscripts too much. The equal and opposite error is that of the TR position in rejecting everything but the TR manuscripts. The position of Harry Sturz threads the needle between these errors and argues quite cogently for geographical distribution being a key external factor. If a reading is shown to have support from geographically diverse manuscripts, that means the reading is most likely older than any of the distinctive geographical types. In my opinion, this is one of the very strongest external criteria, as it is a special recognition of God's providence in having the correct reading in every geographical area of the church, not just the Byzantine region, or just the Alexandrian region.
One last point that needs to be made is the error of the TR assumption that godly textual criticism essentially stopped when the TR was published. First of all, there is no one manuscript in the Byzantine tradition that corresponds precisely with the TR. They all have differences with the TR. The process of textual criticism was therefore part of what the Reformers did. Refinements can happen later on in textual criticism just as in theology as a whole. The text of Scripture has always been sufficiently pure for the people of God. TR advocates drive a truck through the phrase "kept pure in all ages" implying that if we are not 100% sure of every textual variant, then it is not pure at all. They also greatly exaggerate the differences between the TR and the CT. I would simply ask this: point me to the single manuscript that is the same as the autograph. The TR is an edition of the Greek New Testament. It is eclectic within the Byzantine manuscripts. It does not correspond to ANY single manuscript at every point. I simply plead for an edition eclectic to all the evidence, based on Sturz's position, not WH or TR, and not ignoring most of the manuscripts, as the TR position does.
First point of response: a manuscript like Sinaiticus was almost certainly in use in the Alexandrian church. This is indicated by the fact that it had no fewer than three correctors (some today estimate as many as seven). One does not correct a manuscript that is useless. In addition, one does not correct a manuscript that was not being used. That it was hidden for centuries proves absolutely nothing. TR advocates tend to speculate on the reason of its hiddenness as being the church rejecting its readings. This is certainly not known, and is actually quite unlikely. Far more likely is that when Muslims invaded, destroying Christian manuscripts as they went, that Christians hid the MOST valuable manuscripts, like Sinaiticus. We cannot know this for certain, either, but the rejection of Sinaiticus on the basis of its being hidden because its readings were rejected is not a cogent argument, and needs to be eliminated from the discussion entirely.
The second point I wish to make in connection with the hiddenness of Sinaiticus (and Vaticanus in the Vatican, too, for that matter) is that the assumption on the part of TR advocates that manuscripts had to be not only used but visible all the while in the church is actually an unbiblical idea of God's providence. The entire book of Esther refutes it. The name of God is hidden in Esther. God is not once mentioned. Yet His providence was at work in ways invisible to most of the key players. Mordecai is the only person who had a hint of it when he asked whether Esther had not been raised up for such a time as this. Ahasuerus certainly didn't think of God's providence as giving him insomnia or directing the gaze of the readers in the chronicles to the exact place where Mordecai's saving of the king was recorded. The providence of God works in hidden things, not just visible things, and is itself often hidden. The plain fact of the matter is that God's providence actually preserved Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bezae, and many, many other non-Byzantine texts. God's providence therefore extends to the preservation of all extant manuscripts, whether visible all the while or invisible for part of the time. This can be paralleled in the church itself. The true church is sometimes more visible, sometimes less visible.
Thirdly, TR advocates engage in chronological snobbery with their arguments. The only period of the church that matters to TR advocates in terms of manuscripts is the time when the Byzantine church had the priority of manuscript production. Which manuscripts were around, however, before that time, between, say, the third century and the eighth century? TR advocates say that there were likely a lot more Byzantine manuscripts around during the time of the Reformation. Who is to say there weren't a lot more Alexandrian and Western texts around before that time? And since we cannot know how any of these lost manuscripts read in the variants, it is quite useless to speculate on such matters. We can only go on all the evidence we have today.
In regard, therefore, to the manuscripts we have today, I believe we must avoid two equal and opposite errors. The first error is to discount the Byzantine manuscripts. While Warfield had quite a different approach than his usual detractors today charge him with (he explicitly said, for example, that the original readings are in the apographs, something many deny him saying; he also spoke of "the providence of God in preserving for His Church in each and every age a competently exact text of the Scriptures," p. 12 of his introduction), it cannot be denied that he denigrated the Byzantine manuscripts too much. The equal and opposite error is that of the TR position in rejecting everything but the TR manuscripts. The position of Harry Sturz threads the needle between these errors and argues quite cogently for geographical distribution being a key external factor. If a reading is shown to have support from geographically diverse manuscripts, that means the reading is most likely older than any of the distinctive geographical types. In my opinion, this is one of the very strongest external criteria, as it is a special recognition of God's providence in having the correct reading in every geographical area of the church, not just the Byzantine region, or just the Alexandrian region.
One last point that needs to be made is the error of the TR assumption that godly textual criticism essentially stopped when the TR was published. First of all, there is no one manuscript in the Byzantine tradition that corresponds precisely with the TR. They all have differences with the TR. The process of textual criticism was therefore part of what the Reformers did. Refinements can happen later on in textual criticism just as in theology as a whole. The text of Scripture has always been sufficiently pure for the people of God. TR advocates drive a truck through the phrase "kept pure in all ages" implying that if we are not 100% sure of every textual variant, then it is not pure at all. They also greatly exaggerate the differences between the TR and the CT. I would simply ask this: point me to the single manuscript that is the same as the autograph. The TR is an edition of the Greek New Testament. It is eclectic within the Byzantine manuscripts. It does not correspond to ANY single manuscript at every point. I simply plead for an edition eclectic to all the evidence, based on Sturz's position, not WH or TR, and not ignoring most of the manuscripts, as the TR position does.