Textual Manuscripts?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Coram Deo

Coram Deo

Puritan Board Junior
If someone wanted to start to study the variations of the manuscripts, how does one get copies of the different manuscripts? Not exactly translations of them but of the original Greek with maybe an interlinear possible English word for word side column.

I already have the Textus Receptus interlinear Greek/English book from Green and His Old Testament Interlinear, but what about the other manuscripts?

One I am looking for in particular is one called "Manuscript C", if that is the correct name and other manuscripts would be helpful also...

Any Thoughts?
 
thunaer said:
If someone wanted to start to study the variations of the manuscripts, how does one get copies of the different manuscripts? Not exactly translations of them but of the original Greek with maybe an interlinear possible English word for word side column.

I already have the Textus Receptus interlinear Greek/English book from Green and His Old Testament Interlinear, but what about the other manuscripts?

One I am looking for in particular is one called \"Manuscript C\", if that is the correct name and other manuscripts would be helpful also...

Any Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Some thoughts:

Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament

also check this link.
 
Go to the Puritan Board search box and type in: "Steve Rafalsky" That should last you a couple of months!
 
larryjf said:
I would recommend NOT getting Metzger's book as he was quite liberal in his theology...to the point of not even considering the original inspired documents to be inerrant.

I would recommend "A Student's Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible"
Click to expand...

Certainly wasn't recommending Metzger for his theology... it seems that Michael was after information about a particular manuscript, not questions of interpretation or inerrancy...
 
thunaer said:
If someone wanted to start to study the variations of the manuscripts, how does one get copies of the different manuscripts?
Click to expand...

A few thoughts, for your consideration, that I hope will be received for your edification as they are intended. I realize this is a little outside the scope of your question, I just feel obliged since I've spent 20 years in the field in which you are proposing a study, and wish someone would have told me this 20 years ago when I set out on a similar course.

I would suggest that one insure they were well grounded in the Reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura and its historical meaning before wandering across a mine field. The gentlemen that advised you to study Elder Rafalsky's posts was good advice, he can lead you to a wealth of information. Since B.B. Warfield the Reformed community has abandoned the historic doctrine and its meaning, one needs to know this, as it can have drastic consequences to your faith if you proceed on a study of variants in possible ignorance of the underlying issues and the redefinition of the doctrine.

Romanists introduced the study of variants for one reason, to attack and undermine the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, you need to know that. I say that simply to point out that you don't enter this field of study on neutral ground, anymore than you do soteriology. Just as there are Calvinist and Arminian sides to soteriology, there is also of textual studies. The Reformed community, has almost universally adopted a "textual Arminianism," of sorts, so you will take a side once you enter the study, consciously or not. The presuppositional ground upon which you stand determines how one interprets the evidence, the same way an evolutionist examines a rock and determines it is 400 billion years old and a creationist looks at it and determines it is 7,000 years old. Any time one studies "variations of manuscripts," then you are pitting yourself as judge over the word of God, one needs to understand the gravity of what that means.

That isn't ground one needs to wander upon lightly, nor can one do so blindly as the other gentlemen advised you to beware of Bruce Metzger, that also was good advice, as he has made the faith of many souls shipwrecked. No disrespect to Todd intended who mentioned Meztger, I just say that from my personal experience, as not everyone is as strong as others.

Hence, I would strongly suggest that you consider settling which ground you stand upon in terms of what you believe about the Bible, before setting out on a study of variant texts of the Bible. You need to know if you stand with historic Reformed orthodoxy in terms of the meaning of Scripture, or if you stand with the modernists that have redefined it - and just be honest with yourself. If you believe, like many, that the Protestant Reformers were wrong for whatever reason, then just be honest with yourself, from the start, because the tendency of man is self deception.

Romans 3:4 says, "[L]et God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged." When I study these things I've learned to remember that I am just a man, a redeemed sinner that is easily deceived, when I have to judge God's words between variants. In the absence of proof, one is better off counting the advice of men between variants as liars - even yourself.

Hence, if you haven't already, it would be advisable to settle the presuppositions upon which you are entering this field of study before setting out on the journey. Our Lord tells us very plainly, "Beware of the scribes..." (Luke 20:46) and ..."a little leaven leaventh the whole lump," (Galatians 5:9) something that modern Christians seemed to have forgotten, especially when they approach the work of scribes.

In Christ's Bonds,

Thomas
 
Great post!

When you say, "You need to know if you stand with historic Reformed orthodoxy in terms of the meaning of Scripture...", are you alluding to WCF 1:8 where it states, "by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages..."?
 
Hello Pastor Klein,

Yes, and more, the Helvetic Consensus Formula comes to mind. However, it is the entire paradigm and approach to the Scripture that is different in historic Reformed orthodoxy as against modern textual criticism.

They didn't take their stand against Rome upon an unknown "inerrant original autograph," neither did Reformed scholasticism defend an unknown hypothetical text. Neither did they advocate a radical individualism where every man decides for himself which words are genuine; they would have viewed the state of our Churches today, where every man is a textual critic, with horror. The Westminster Divines viewed spelling errors in various printings of the Authorized Version as "dangerous to religion," and moved Parliament to outlaw the importation of bootleg reprints from Holland with spelling errors.

Cordially,

Thomas
 
Thomas, thanks for your posts.

Michael, where do you find reference to a "manuscript C"? Can you put it in some context?

To find interlinear Gr-Eng NTs just Google: greek english interlinear nt. There are a number on the market. I know there is an NRSV, and an NIV, and likely others. Though, as Thomas intimated, it leads to a quicksand where there is nothing solid to hold onto.

Steve
 
Michael,

Concerning Codex C:

EPHRAEMI RESCRIPTUS (C), [located in] BIBLOTHEQUE NATIONALE IN PARIS. One of the old uncials.


Written originally in the 5th century and containing the whole of both Testaments it was in the 12th century converted into a palimpsest. That is, the original writing was washed out, and some works of a certain Ephraim Syrus were written over it. Many leaves also were thrown away. It now contains parts of all the NT books except for II Thessalonians and II John. Much of the original writing has been discerned. (Kenyon). Strouse says the text is mixed but pro-Byzantine. Kenyon (as we would expect) speaks of this Byzantine presence being due to "its correctors."

Burgon would rank this codex behind Alexandrinus as having the fewer corruptions among the "five old uncials".​

--------

I got this info from the online version of Forever Settled, Part Four : A Survey of New Testament Documents, by Jack Moorman. A sound and informative book.

Hope this helps.
 
Thomas2007 said:
Hello Pastor Klein,

Yes, and more, the Helvetic Consensus Formula comes to mind. However, it is the entire paradigm and approach to the Scripture that is different in historic Reformed orthodoxy as against modern textual criticism.

They didn't take their stand against Rome upon an unknown "inerrant original autograph," neither did Reformed scholasticism defend an unknown hypothetical text. Neither did they advocate a radical individualism where every man decides for himself which words are genuine; they would have viewed the state of our Churches today, where every man is a textual critic, with horror. The Westminster Divines viewed spelling errors in various printings of the Authorized Version as "dangerous to religion," and moved Parliament to outlaw the importation of bootleg reprints from Holland with spelling errors.

Cordially,

Thomas
Click to expand...


Thomas - thanks for this - can you expand a bit more to help me understand your point?
 
Hello JD,

Thanks for your question, I can attempt to do so, although I'm not aware of your present knowledge of the issues. So, I'll just start here:

Our Reformation inheritance is the Received Text. We talk a lot about "What is Reformed Theology?" In so doing we are discussing the interpretations of Scripture and their meaning, but this is all presuppositional upon the question, "Why the Reformation?" We've forgotten this critical question in many ways and it's answer, which is Sola Scriptura. The creedal defense of that doctrine is the Received Text, not the "inerrant original autograph," nor various hypothetical reconstructions out of the whole body of existing manuscripts.

The issue was and still is Authority, the Reformers simply held that Authority didn't inure to the Pontiff, didn't inure to the visible Church, but was, is and always will be in the Word of God. To them, though, this was an identifiable and existing text in use by the Greek speaking Church. The "Received Text" is only a change in the transmission of this text from a handwritten manuscript form to a printed form. It is this text that they identified with the term Sola Scriptura as the physical manifestation of Christ's Prophetic Office given unto us and Providentially preserved for us. Nominally, we only still agree with this presupposition today, but it's been redefined to mean the inerrant original autograph, which we do not have nor has Providence preserved in that form. It's a hypothetical text. As such, Authority has been transferred from the actual words once again to men, the "textual critical" or Scribe as a new priest class. In order for the concept of the Priesthood of the Believer to have meaning in this paradigm it has become necessary for every man to become his own textual critic, or "Priest," as judge over the word of God.

We now have a radical individualism in our Churches because we hold to the uniformity of worship under the Regulative Principle, but we have half dozen or more different texts and translations of Scripture in our Congregations and no Confessional unity. Without Confessional unity we cannot maintain uniformity, and so we splinter and fractionalize all the more, and ultimately it's impossible to bind any man to anything that he doesn't personally define himself since every dispute becomes, at bottom, a translational dispute which is often a cloaked textual dispute.

The historic Reformation creedal and scholastic defense of Sola Scriptura was the Received Text until the 20th century when that was fundamentally altered by BB Warfield and his departure, which everyone has followed, from historic Reformed orthodoxy. This was because science was rising and assaulting Christendom on every front, it was doing so in terms of the Received Text as well, Warfield errantly believed he could stand upon enlightenment ground and defend historic orthodoxy. The concept of a Providentially "preserved" text was altered to mean a Providentially "restored" text in terms of the inerrant original autograph, as a result we have numerous hypothetical texts and translations of those texts that really have never been used by any Christian in history in that form. The propensity of science to utilize society as a sociological test laboratory has simply been brought into the Church as a sociological test laboratory in terms of the Scripture.

The Reformers simply didn’t accept every “obscure private copy…to be admitted as a various lection.” Nor did they accept the opinions of “textual critics,” on the contrary, as Owen explains:

“Let it be remembered, that the vulgar copy we use, was the public possession of many generations; that upon the invention of printing, it was in actual authority throughout the world, with them that used and understood that language….men may, if they please, take pains to inform the world, wherein such and such copies are corrupted or mistaken, but to impose their known failings on us as various lections, is of course not to be approved….[t]he generality of learned men among Protestants are not yet infected with this leaven…And if this change of judgment which hath been long insinuating itself, by the curiosity and boldness of critics, should break in also on the Protestant world, and be avowed in public works, it is easy to conjecture what the end will be. We went from Rome under the conduct of the purity of the originals, I wish none have a mind to return thither again, under the pretence of their corruption.” John Owen, Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of the Scripture, pg 473 to 477

To the Romanists the Reformation was heresy, for the first sixty years or so they were asking the question, "What is this theology?" When they got their ducks in a row and started asking, "Why is it?" They then developed Trent and set out with the Tridentine attack upon our Authority - Sola Scriptura. This is where the arguments over variants begins and it is a Romanist argument, they simply argued that we can't possibly hold to Sola Scriptura because we can't know for certain what those words are without Papal Authority and Church Tradition. It was about another century before they refined a weapon to combat Sola Scriptura at the hands of Romanist Richard Simon, that is "New Testament Textual Criticism." It was developed upon enlightenment and humanistic grounds and still is standing upon that ground.

It is this ground that Greisbach and Wescott and Hort worked upon and it was BB Warfield that attempted that attempted to straddle the Confessional fence with one foot on either side that established the redefinition of Sola Scriptura as the hypothetical "inerrant original autograph."

The Bible you use is the Bible you have to defend. I stand upon the Authorized Version and I comprehensively defend the Authorized Version. When I do that I end up at 1776 and an alteration of the Westminster Confession that reflects a major change of Authority in terms of historic Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura as it affects continuity between private, religious and public life. When I try to defend every other text I once again end up at 1776 with Griesbach in Germany. So, I look at the fruit of these things, the philosophies behind them, one is the American Revolution and the other is the French.

The Reformers cried "Ad Fontes," they had a controversy of religion; but once they did that and identified their Authority they stood upon it comprehensively for all of life, and worked to bring continuity in terms of life. We are crying "Ad Fontes," but I'm told repeatedly by the textual critics that they've made no fundamental change to the doctrine, what is the purpose for it then? What is the heresy we are trying to correct?

What I do find, as a result, though is a denial of the historic Reformed orthodox definition of Sola Scriptura at the beginning of the 20th century. Since Authority no longer rests in an identified text, it no longer has Authority and it no longer has Authority for all of life, private, religious and public life. In turn, this has resulted in a discontinuity of private, religious and public life; because if the Church isn't going to stand upon this, then neither is the State. Scripture as Authority, even by those that nominally claim Sola Scriptura, has been reduced to a Kantian concept of mental assent - not true Authority that men are subject to.

I believe that this textual battle we are embroiled in today isn't theological, it's political; it's an argument of Authority and for the present Rome has won the Reformed Church back to it's presupposition, and it's done it through the Tridentine plan and weapons it forged, honed and sharpened for that purpose.

While we are told that no fundamental doctrine has been changed, that isn't true, Federal Vision is a good example of the results of textual criticism. The defense mounted against that today is asking "What is Federal Vision?" It's attempting to anathematize it as a departure from Reformed theology, but it rests upon a departure from Sola Scriptura and it can't be answered until we ask and answer "Why Federal Vision?" Everyone is busy dissecting it's soteriology and ecclesiology, but it's doing so in terms of developed creedal doctrines, not in terms of the text. Federal Vision can't stand upon the Received Text, it can only stand upon Rome's text and its hypothetical twins delivered to us through textual criticism. So, we can't defend ourselves against this because the Reformed Church has abandoned the Reformed text from which its doctrines were derived, and the march back to Rome has been accelerated, as it's already won the civil realm and now it is restoring the ecclesiastical.

Anyway, we can go into much more detail and discuss this at more length if you like, but this should help you understand my points a little more.

Cordially,

Thomas
 
Thomas2007 said:
As such, Authority has been transferred from the actual words once again to men, the "textual critical" or Scribe as a new priest class. In order for the concept of the Priesthood of the Believer to have meaning in this paradigm it has become necessary for every man to become his own textual critic, or "Priest," as judge over the word of God.
Click to expand...

And, this transfer of authority has been embraced by many of the Reformed community without much of a struggle!

I find your example of FV very interesting. How would their theology change if they were under the authority of the TR? Can you give specific passages where the CT is necessary for the FV?
 
Thomas - thank you - do I understand you accurately to be saying that the principle of Sola Scriptura is based solely on the authority and accuracy of the Received Text? Also - does this wiki entry accurately describe the Textus Receptus position?

Apologies if I am inaccurately understanding.
 
Hello Lane,

I have addressed your question in a number of earlier posts, some of which I excerpt here to help me conserve my time. I hope you don't mind this approach.
-------

There were a number of Greek texts in the Reformation era, the primary of which were, Stephen’s, Beza’s, and the Elzevirs. The TBS’s 1894 TR was put together by Scrivener to indicate the exact Greek text underlying the KJV. As a distinct Greek text it never existed before Scrivener compiled it. The 1611 translators picked and chose from the different Greek texts, the previous English versions – and other language versions – when rendering the AV. The TR 1894 but gives a Greek text exactly corresponding to the English of the AV.

Here is some background on the “TRs”.

The Trinitarian Bible Society's edition containing F.H.A. Scrivener's edition of "The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the text followed in the Authorized Version" (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1894 and 1902). In the Preface this TBS edition says,

The editions of Beza, particularly that of 1598, and the last two editions of Stephens, were the chief sources used for the Authorized Version of 1611.

The Elzevir partners, Bonaventure and Abraham, published editions of the Greek text at Leyden in 1624, 1633, and 1641, following Beza's 1565 edition, with a few changes from his later revisions. The preface to the 1633 Elzevir edition gave a name to this form of the text, which underlies the English Authorized Version, the Dutch Statenvertaling of 1637, and all of the Protestant versions of the period of the Reformation—"Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum, [in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus]" [thus you now have the universally received text in which we present nothing that has been changed or is corrupted]. The Elzevir text became known throughout Europe as the Textus Receptus or Received Text, and in course of time these titles came to be associated in England with the Stephens text of 1550.

The editions of Stephens, Beza and the Elzevirs all present substantially the same text, and the variations are not of great significance and rarely affect the sense. The present edition of the Textus Receptus underlying the English Authorized Version follows the text of Beza's 1598 edition as the primary authority, and corresponds with [Scrivener's of 1894 and 1902].​

Scrivener has a book, The Authorized Edition Of The English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints And Modern Representatives (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1910), with a section, “Appendix E. The Greek text adopted by the Translators of the Authorized Version of the New Testament, where he examines the “TRs” the translators used. It is of interest to those doing careful study in this area. It can likely be obtained in a good seminary library or even by your local library’s Inter-library Loan System (how I got mine, and which I photo-copied).

So in one sense, there are a number of “TRs”. The TR, and the one underlying the AV is Scrivener’s work done in 1894, and published by the TBS. This, in my view, and that of KJV defenders, is the true Textus Receptus, as it depicts (gathers together in one edition) in Greek the various texts the translators chose and upon which they based their translation.

We hold that the Lord provided the Reformation editors with the manuscripts He wanted them to use (wherein the genuine readings were preserved), and guided their judgment in the translating. I do NOT mean by this they were “inspired,” as some erroneously hold.

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

[And this is from another discussion of the TR.]


You said,

I assume the Textus Receptus is what the AV folks would state is the authoritative manuscript that translators should refer to.​

Yes, this is so.

What is this based on? It is my understanding that the Textus Receptus is a critical compilation by Scrivener based on the manuscript choices of the AV translators. Accurate or no?​

Yes, that is accurate.

Is the sole argument for the TR that it was chosen by the Church and it doesn't matter whether Erasmus may have made some errors and doesn't matter how or which manuscripts the AV translators used and why they made those choices?​

The argument for the TR is that God had kept the Byzantine textform (the Scriptures of the Greek Church) in a very pure (but not perfect) state, and these mss were used by Erasmus, along with readings from the Latin Vulgate, and other Latin mss, to produce his Greek editions, the later ones being those used by subsequent editors, such as Beza, Stephens, and the Elzevirs.

---
[Jan 1, 2008 note]: Erika Rummel, in her Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament: From Philologist to Theologian (Univ. of Toronto Press 1986), makes the point that Erasmus had access to (and took copious notes on) a vast array of NT manuscripts during his many travels; it is a myth that he had "access" to only a few manuscripts when he produced his NT editions.
---

Edward Hills, a textual scholar and KJV defender, says he has found 3 errors in the KJV, one of which I know he attributes to Eramsus, and that is in Romans 7:6. I am still researching that. From Ted Letis’ books, I have learned that John Owen (and perhaps Turretin) owned possible minute variants within the TR editions, and their view was that God had allowed them:

This is from Dr. Theodore P. Letis’ The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate:

Owen saw only the minor variants between the various editions of TR as valid areas for discrimination, staying within the broad parameters of providential preservation, as exemplified by “Erasmus, Stephen, Beza, Arias Montanus, and some others.” Within the confines of these editions was “the first and most honest course fixed on” for “consulting various copies and comparing them among themselves.”

This is both the concrete domain of the providentially preserved text, as well as the only area for legitimate comparisons to chose readings among the minutiae of differences. In fact, “God by His Providence preserving the whole entire; suffered this lesser variety [within the providentially preserved editions of the TR –TPL] to fall out, in or among the copies we have, for the quickening and exercising of our diligence in our search into His Word [for ascertaining the finality of preservation among the minutiae of differences among the TR editions –TPL] (The Divine Original, p. 301)* It is the activity, editions, and variants after this period of stabilization that represent illegitimate activity, or, as Owen says, “another way.”

Thus Owen maintained an absolute providential preservation while granting variants. (“John Owen Versus Brian Walton” fn 30, p. 160)​

* Owen’s Divine Original online: DIVINE ORIGINAL, AUTHORITY, SELF-EVIDENCING LIGHT, AND POWER OF THE SCRIPTURES. This is from volume 16 of Owen’s works.

This would be in line with the thinking of Dr. Hills. There is another view, and that is God completely – that is, perfectly – preserved the Greek and Hebrew texts, so that they are without any error whatever.

If one wants to understand the matter of the Greek (the Hebrew is another discussion) editions used by the Reformers and post-Reformation divines, it is helpful to learn something of the historical context of those times. Letis’ two books are excellent historical resources: The Majority Text, and The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority, and the Popular Mind. Although there is some excellent work in the latter, I think the former might be the more valuable. They may be obtained at reasonable prices, along with other of his works, by contacting Russ Spees <[email protected]>.

Who knows that the doctrine of providential preservation, and that with regard to the Textus Receptus (the early forms of it), was developed by the post-Reformation theologians to withstand the assault of Rome’s counter-reformation? And that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was based on God’s preserving the texts these theologians had – the Reformation texts – and it was these “texts in hand” the WCF 1:8 had in mind. Letis’ latter book, The Ecclesiastical Text, has as its first essay the groundbreaking, “B.B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism,” which clearly proves that Warfield redefined the WCF’s understanding of the Scriptures referred to in 1:8 (contrary to the intent of its framers) to refer to the no-longer extant autographs instead of the apographs, the copies they actually had. Warfield meant well, but he departed from bulwark of the Standards, and what we see today, in terms of the erosion of integrity in the Reformed communions, is in great measure a result of this. Of course there is more to this erosion, such as the entertaining of Arminianism within the very precincts of the Calvinist stronghold, yet the loss of a sure Scripture is as a mighty torpedo in the hull. It remains to be seen, the effects of this loss in that one body of congregations that held to the doctrines of grace. Maybe not this generation, but in one or two, should the Lord tarry that long, we will see devastation – as regards spiritual stability – that will make us weep, for this is the province of our children and grandchildren.

----------

Your next question:

“what is the Providence by which the manuscript choices were made that people used to form what they consider to be the authoritative Greek Scriptures?”​

God preserved the true reading of the NT in the majority of mss. Great defenses of this position are made by the Majority Text people; I list three, Maurice Robinson and Wm. Pierpont (their valuable Introduction has a link in one of my above posts); Wilbur N. Pickering, and his, The Identity of the New Testament Text II, and Jakob van Bruggen’s, The Ancient Text of the New Testament:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030428225220/www.thescripturealone.com/VanBrug.html.

One would think it reasonable that such an overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts – over 90% of the 5,000+ extant mss, lectionary readings, etc – represented that text form commonly used by the people of God, and was due to their coming from a common source albeit in widely diverse geographical areas, meaning the original apostolic writings. Westcott and Hort tried to invalidate this clear numerical superiority by a theory of an official church edition in the 4th century which resulted in this 90% agreement of mss, and for a while the “church intelligencia” bought into their theory, but increasingly it was proven to be groundless speculation, and today is entirely debunked, save for those who are “not up to speed” in text critical matters.

So the priority of the Majority (or Byzantine) text remains, at least for some.

But the AV adherents go a step farther than the MT folks: they see God’s preservation of the Greek text not only in the Byzantine mss, but in the confluence of those and other sources which contained readings lost in the Byzantine, such as disappeared during the dominance of the Arian party in the Byzantine empire, and the struggle against the Sabellians, in the 4th century, namely those Scripture passages declaring the triunity of the Godhead and the deity of Jesus Christ.*

The AV folks hold that God, even though He had adequately (and that is the operative word) preserved the NT Scriptures in previous times and locales, at the onset of the Reformation brought together those passages He had preserved the readings of into the Scriptures the Reformation divines would use to restore Biblical doctrine and the Biblical church, and from there these Scriptures would go forth into all the world in the great missionary thrust of the recent centuries. It was a matter of adequate preservation compared to preservation in the minutiae.

I refer to another post which discusses this in further detail: The PuritanBoard - View Single Post - TTer gone CTer

* see Frederick Nolan’s classic, AN INQUIRY INTO THE INTEGRITY OF THE GREEK VULGATE OR RECEIVED TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT: An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate.

I am trying to be concise, and so I may not answer all your questions, and would be glad to if you state them further. This also is why I give links to resources, and to other posts.

-----------

These 90% are what is called the Traditional or Majority or Byzantine textform, in contradistinction to the Critical textform, which is not Byzantine but Alexandrian. There is a distinction between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus of the AV, and this difference consists primarily in the additions to the Byzantine of certain readings missing from it but present in some Latin mss, including the Latin Vulgate (and other versions), such as “God” in 1 Timothy 3:16, the entirety of 1 John 5:7, and some others. The AV folks say that certain readings were expunged from the Byzantine manuscripts during the period (roughly 335 to 385 A.D.) the Arian party was in control of both the Greek Church and Empire; one might imagine what the JWs or Unitarians would do were they in the same positions of authority. There are historical accounts of the Arians persecuting and torturing the orthodox believers to get them to recant owning Christ as God; if they would do this to flesh & souls, what would they do to paper?

At any rate, the AVers say that the Lord providentially preserved these missing readings by taking them from the Latin mss of the West where the persecuting authorities of the East had far less effect – first through the pen of Erasmus, and then the other Reformation editors.

The ESV guys can say they have the Word of God, only the text has some mutilations in it (I mean essentially omissions, and some changes). There are some honorable and godly people, such as Dr. James White, who take strong exception to my view (and the MT view as well), though a weak point in his presentation is that the texts (the Critical and Eclectic texts) as well as the different English translations that come from them often differ among themselves.

The woman through whom the Lord converted me to Himself used a Lamsa Pesh-itta (to avoid the censoring software!) version, and I think she told me it was because that was the Bible Oral Roberts was using! A pastor in NYC I love and who has profoundly changed and enriched my walk with Christ uses the NIV, and I think is now changing to the ESV. When men and women cleave to the Word of God they have in a good conscience God blesses them, and makes them a blessing to others, despite our small differences as regards the versions.

For those who have problems with the language of the KJV, and the few errors in the NKJV, I would recommend Jay Green’s Modern King James Version.

There are godlier men than I who use the ESV, and whom God uses more than me, because of their better hearts.

Early on in my walk, coming as I did out of the 60’s counter-culture, drugs, and occult stuff, I saw quickly that for me to withstand Satan I would need certainty of mind as regards the reliability and authenticity of His Scripture. It was a close combat for many years, and I had to know my sword and shield would hold in the fray. That’s the furnace I was forged in. And it was the Doctrines of Grace which enabled me to stand before my God, in His power and grace, not trusting in myself. Though it was years before I took to heart the things in this previous sentence.

Hope this clarifies somewhat.
 
Hello Lane,

I have addressed your question in a number of earlier posts, some of which I excerpt here to help me conserve my time. I hope you don't mind this approach.
-------

There were a number of Greek texts in the Reformation era, the primary of which were, Stephen’s, Beza’s, and the Elzevirs. The TBS’s 1894 TR was put together by Scrivener to indicate the exact Greek text underlying the KJV. As a distinct Greek text it never existed before Scrivener compiled it. The 1611 translators picked and chose from the different Greek texts, the previous English versions – and other language versions – when rendering the AV. The TR 1894 but gives a Greek text exactly corresponding to the English of the AV.

Here is some background on the “TRs”.

The Trinitarian Bible Society's edition containing F.H.A. Scrivener's edition of "The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the text followed in the Authorized Version" (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1894 and 1902). In the Preface this TBS edition says,

The editions of Beza, particularly that of 1598, and the last two editions of Stephens, were the chief sources used for the Authorized Version of 1611.

The Elzevir partners, Bonaventure and Abraham, published editions of the Greek text at Leyden in 1624, 1633, and 1641, following Beza's 1565 edition, with a few changes from his later revisions. The preface to the 1633 Elzevir edition gave a name to this form of the text, which underlies the English Authorized Version, the Dutch Statenvertaling of 1637, and all of the Protestant versions of the period of the Reformation—"Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum, [in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus]" [thus you now have the universally received text in which we present nothing that has been changed or is corrupted]. The Elzevir text became known throughout Europe as the Textus Receptus or Received Text, and in course of time these titles came to be associated in England with the Stephens text of 1550.

The editions of Stephens, Beza and the Elzevirs all present substantially the same text, and the variations are not of great significance and rarely affect the sense. The present edition of the Textus Receptus underlying the English Authorized Version follows the text of Beza's 1598 edition as the primary authority, and corresponds with [Scrivener's of 1894 and 1902].​

Scrivener has a book, The Authorized Edition Of The English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints And Modern Representatives (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1910), with a section, “Appendix E. The Greek text adopted by the Translators of the Authorized Version of the New Testament, where he examines the “TRs” the translators used. It is of interest to those doing careful study in this area. It can likely be obtained in a good seminary library or even by your local library’s Inter-library Loan System (how I got mine, and which I photo-copied).

So in one sense, there are a number of “TRs”. The TR, and the one underlying the AV is Scrivener’s work done in 1894, and published by the TBS. This, in my view, and that of KJV defenders, is the true Textus Receptus, as it depicts (gathers together in one edition) in Greek the various texts the translators chose and upon which they based their translation.

We hold that the Lord provided the Reformation editors with the manuscripts He wanted them to use (wherein the genuine readings were preserved), and guided their judgment in the translating. I do NOT mean by this they were “inspired,” as some erroneously hold.​
Click to expand...

I thank you, Steve, for a very clear presentation of the TR position. I also wish to thank you for a gracious presentation. I am glad you reference more sedate defenders of the TR position (Burgon and Hill were certainly great scholars) instead of those who accuse non-TR people of complete and utter heresy. If you are willing, I will intersperse my comments in between yours, and if you would like to respond, that's great. I know that I am almost certainly treading ground that has been trodden before on the PB. However, this subject has perennial interest. 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? Sometimes I get the impression that defenders of the TR argue in effect that the church gives legitimacy to the manuscripts. Also, there seems to me to be a curtailed view of God's sovereignty and providence. Why could not God's providence encapsulate *both* the manuscripts that were in use, and *also* the manuscripts that were hidden? Surely God was aware that manuscripts that were used more often would of course disintegrate more quickly. Why could this not be the reason why Codices Aleph and B were hidden safely away for many long centuries?

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

[And this is from another discussion of the TR.]


You said,

I assume the Textus Receptus is what the AV folks would state is the authoritative manuscript that translators should refer to.​

Yes, this is so.

What is this based on? It is my understanding that the Textus Receptus is a critical compilation by Scrivener based on the manuscript choices of the AV translators. Accurate or no?​

Yes, that is accurate.

Is the sole argument for the TR that it was chosen by the Church and it doesn't matter whether Erasmus may have made some errors and doesn't matter how or which manuscripts the AV translators used and why they made those choices?​

The argument for the TR is that God had kept the Byzantine textform (the Scriptures of the Greek Church) in a very pure (but not perfect) state, and these mss were used by Erasmus, along with readings from the Latin Vulgate, and other Latin mss, to produce his Greek editions, the later ones being those used by subsequent editors, such as Beza, Stephens, and the Elzevirs.

---
[Jan 1, 2008 note]: Erika Rummel, in her Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament: From Philologist to Theologian (Univ. of Toronto Press 1986), makes the point that Erasmus had access to (and took copious notes on) a vast array of NT manuscripts during his many travels; it is a myth that he had "access" to only a few manuscripts when he produced his NT editions.​
Click to expand...
---

This is an important point to remember. Erasmus was undoubtedly the greatest classicist of his day, and maybe of any age. It is freely admitted that the majority of manuscripts favor the Byzantine text-type.

Edward Hills, a textual scholar and KJV defender, says he has found 3 errors in the KJV, one of which I know he attributes to Eramsus, and that is in Romans 7:6. I am still researching that. From Ted Letis’ books, I have learned that John Owen (and perhaps Turretin) owned possible minute variants within the TR editions, and their view was that God had allowed them:

This is from Dr. Theodore P. Letis’ The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate:

Owen saw only the minor variants between the various editions of TR as valid areas for discrimination, staying within the broad parameters of providential preservation, as exemplified by “Erasmus, Stephen, Beza, Arias Montanus, and some others.” Within the confines of these editions was “the first and most honest course fixed on” for “consulting various copies and comparing them among themselves.”

This is both the concrete domain of the providentially preserved text, as well as the only area for legitimate comparisons to chose readings among the minutiae of differences. In fact, “God by His Providence preserving the whole entire; suffered this lesser variety [within the providentially preserved editions of the TR –TPL] to fall out, in or among the copies we have, for the quickening and exercising of our diligence in our search into His Word [for ascertaining the finality of preservation among the minutiae of differences among the TR editions –TPL] (The Divine Original, p. 301)* It is the activity, editions, and variants after this period of stabilization that represent illegitimate activity, or, as Owen says, “another way.”

Thus Owen maintained an absolute providential preservation while granting variants. (“John Owen Versus Brian Walton” fn 30, p. 160)​
Click to expand...

So why cannot this same approach govern an eclectic approach to manuscript variety?

* Owen’s Divine Original online: DIVINE ORIGINAL, AUTHORITY, SELF-EVIDENCING LIGHT, AND POWER OF THE SCRIPTURES. This is from volume 16 of Owen’s works.

This would be in line with the thinking of Dr. Hills. There is another view, and that is God completely – that is, perfectly – preserved the Greek and Hebrew texts, so that they are without any error whatever.

If one wants to understand the matter of the Greek (the Hebrew is another discussion) editions used by the Reformers and post-Reformation divines, it is helpful to learn something of the historical context of those times. Letis’ two books are excellent historical resources: The Majority Text, and The Ecclesiastical Text: Text Criticism, Biblical Authority, and the Popular Mind. Although there is some excellent work in the latter, I think the former might be the more valuable. They may be obtained at reasonable prices, along with other of his works, by contacting Russ Spees <[email protected]>.

Who knows that the doctrine of providential preservation, and that with regard to the Textus Receptus (the early forms of it), was developed by the post-Reformation theologians to withstand the assault of Rome’s counter-reformation? And that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was based on God’s preserving the texts these theologians had – the Reformation texts – and it was these “texts in hand” the WCF 1:8 had in mind. Letis’ latter book, The Ecclesiastical Text, has as its first essay the groundbreaking, “B.B. Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism,” which clearly proves that Warfield redefined the WCF’s understanding of the Scriptures referred to in 1:8 (contrary to the intent of its framers) to refer to the no-longer extant autographs instead of the apographs, the copies they actually had. Warfield meant well, but he departed from bulwark of the Standards, and what we see today, in terms of the erosion of integrity in the Reformed communions, is in great measure a result of this. Of course there is more to this erosion, such as the entertaining of Arminianism within the very precincts of the Calvinist stronghold, yet the loss of a sure Scripture is as a mighty torpedo in the hull. It remains to be seen, the effects of this loss in that one body of congregations that held to the doctrines of grace. Maybe not this generation, but in one or two, should the Lord tarry that long, we will see devastation – as regards spiritual stability – that will make us weep, for this is the province of our children and grandchildren.​
Click to expand...

The appeal to Arminianism as a slippery slope with regard to Warfield is not a cogent argument against Warfield's view of Scripture. There are few theologians in the history of the church who argued against Arminianism as vociferously as Warfield did. Arminianism is certainly not directly related to textual criticism. The other difficulty with this argument is that it assumes that a textual minus is an automatic *omission,* whereas every single textual variant is neutral from the get-go as to whether it is an omission in one text, or an addition in the other text. In other words, this argument assumes that which it has to prove, namely, whether the Alexandrian text omitted something, or whether the Byzantine mss added something.



Your next question:

“what is the Providence by which the manuscript choices were made that people used to form what they consider to be the authoritative Greek Scriptures?”​

God preserved the true reading of the NT in the majority of mss. Great defenses of this position are made by the Majority Text people; I list three, Maurice Robinson and Wm. Pierpont (their valuable Introduction has a link in one of my above posts); Wilbur N. Pickering, and his, The Identity of the New Testament Text II, and Jakob van Bruggen’s, The Ancient Text of the New Testament:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030428225220/www.thescripturealone.com/VanBrug.html.

One would think it reasonable that such an overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts – over 90% of the 5,000+ extant mss, lectionary readings, etc – represented that text form commonly used by the people of God, and was due to their coming from a common source albeit in widely diverse geographical areas, meaning the original apostolic writings. Westcott and Hort tried to invalidate this clear numerical superiority by a theory of an official church edition in the 4th century which resulted in this 90% agreement of mss, and for a while the “church intelligencia” bought into their theory, but increasingly it was proven to be groundless speculation, and today is entirely debunked, save for those who are “not up to speed” in text critical matters. So the priority of the Majority (or Byzantine) text remains, at least for some.​
Click to expand...

This argument does not take into account several factors. The first is that the majority text is by no means the same as the TR. The second factor is that this argument ignores manuscript relationships and families. If 500 manuscripts come from one parent manuscript, then all 500 have only the weight of the parent manuscript. The only way that that can change is if the child manuscript is checked against *another* manuscript, which, of course, does happen. However, what is evident is that the Byzantine manuscript tradition has family traits and similarities. See the textual family 13, for instance.

The upshot is that a variety of criteria is necessary such that no text-form is ignored. I am by no means *anti* Byzantine. However, it is one text-form among three (or four, depending on how one is counting). To my mind, geographical distribution is a far more reliable criteria than simple majority (though I do not ignore that either). A variant that has geographical distribution over the entire Mediterranean world is far more likely to be original than a variant that originated only in one pocket of that world. This is by no means the only criteria that I use.

It seems to me that a lot of TR folk are arguing against Westcott and Hort, who were overly imbalanced in favor of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Modern textual criticism is much more eclectic, and gives much more weight to the Byzantine text form than WH did. The arguments against WH are not applicable to today's eclectic methods.


But the AV adherents go a step farther than the MT folks: they see God’s preservation of the Greek text not only in the Byzantine mss, but in the confluence of those and other sources which contained readings lost in the Byzantine, such as disappeared during the dominance of the Arian party in the Byzantine empire, and the struggle against the Sabellians, in the 4th century, namely those Scripture passages declaring the triunity of the Godhead and the deity of Jesus Christ.*

The AV folks hold that God, even though He had adequately (and that is the operative word) preserved the NT Scriptures in previous times and locales, at the onset of the Reformation brought together those passages He had preserved the readings of into the Scriptures the Reformation divines would use to restore Biblical doctrine and the Biblical church, and from there these Scriptures would go forth into all the world in the great missionary thrust of the recent centuries. It was a matter of adequate preservation compared to preservation in the minutiae.
Click to expand...

It is difficult to know how to respond to this. I can only go about it by asking a question: is it impossible that pious scribes, being faced with Arianism and Sabellianism and all the other Christological heresies would add something to the text? Oh, it might not have been intentional. It might have originally been a marginal note that a later scribe mistook for a textual correction. We need not posit any kind of "dumb scribe" thesis here. Is this possibility automatically ruled out by the TR people? Heaven forbid that the Comma Johanneum which is not represented by any text-form, and has the manuscript support of one, count them, one manuscript could possibly be a scribal addition.


These 90% are what is called the Traditional or Majority or Byzantine textform, in contradistinction to the Critical textform, which is not Byzantine but Alexandrian.​
Click to expand...

This is highly inaccurate. Modern textual criticism is *eclectic,* not *Alexandrian* only. It is fair to say that the Alexandrian text-type is more heavily weighted, usually, in modern textual traditions. However, there are many examples in the NA 27th where the Alexandrian text-type is *rejected.*




There is a distinction between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus of the AV, and this difference consists primarily in the additions to the Byzantine of certain readings missing from it but present in some Latin mss, including the Latin Vulgate (and other versions), such as “God” in 1 Timothy 3:16, the entirety of 1 John 5:7, and some others. The AV folks say that certain readings were expunged from the Byzantine manuscripts during the period (roughly 335 to 385 A.D.) the Arian party was in control of both the Greek Church and Empire; one might imagine what the JWs or Unitarians would do were they in the same positions of authority. There are historical accounts of the Arians persecuting and torturing the orthodox believers to get them to recant owning Christ as God; if they would do this to flesh & souls, what would they do to paper?
Click to expand...

So, which is more accurate, the TR or the MT? Why?

At any rate, the AVers say that the Lord providentially preserved these missing readings​
Click to expand...

Why prejudge whether they are additions in one manuscript or omissions in another manuscript?

by taking them from the Latin mss of the West where the persecuting authorities of the East had far less effect – first through the pen of Erasmus, and then the other Reformation editors.

The ESV guys can say they have the Word of God, only the text has some mutilations in it (I mean essentially omissions, and some changes). There are some honorable and godly people, such as Dr. James White, who take strong exception to my view (and the MT view as well), though a weak point in his presentation is that the texts (the Critical and Eclectic texts) as well as the different English translations that come from them often differ among themselves.
Click to expand...

Some? Name one Reformed seminary where the TR is proclaimed as the most accurate version of the Greek NT. The TR position is the minority by far among seminaries today.

The woman through whom the Lord converted me to Himself used a Lamsa Pesh-itta (to avoid the censoring software!) version, and I think she told me it was because that was the Bible Oral Roberts was using! A pastor in NYC I love and who has profoundly changed and enriched my walk with Christ uses the NIV, and I think is now changing to the ESV. When men and women cleave to the Word of God they have in a good conscience God blesses them, and makes them a blessing to others, despite our small differences as regards the versions.

For those who have problems with the language of the KJV, and the few errors in the NKJV, I would recommend Jay Green’s Modern King James Version.

There are godlier men than I who use the ESV, and whom God uses more than me, because of their better hearts.

Early on in my walk, coming as I did out of the 60’s counter-culture, drugs, and occult stuff, I saw quickly that for me to withstand Satan I would need certainty of mind as regards the reliability and authenticity of His Scripture. It was a close combat for many years, and I had to know my sword and shield would hold in the fray. That’s the furnace I was forged in. And it was the Doctrines of Grace which enabled me to stand before my God, in His power and grace, not trusting in myself. Though it was years before I took to heart the things in this previous sentence.

Hope this clarifies somewhat.​
Click to expand...
​
[/QUOTE]

There is no way that I would ever say that if someone has the TR that they do not have the Word of God. However, only the autographs were completely without errors, unless we want to say that God directly inspired the manuscript copying procedure, which is not where I would want to go. With regard to confidence in the NT manuscripts, one only has to do this simple comparison: even given the differences between the NA27th and the TR, less than %1 of the NT is in any serious doubt, and less than 10% *of* that one percent has any significant bearing on its meaning. Compare that with Homer (the next best attested ancient text after the NT), where a full 10% of the text is in serious doubt.

No, God did not preserve the original autograph. I believe there is a very good reason for it: we would be strongly tempted to worship such a text. But the text is so well preserved in the manuscript tradition (NT textual critics have an embarassment of riches) that we can confidently say that we have the NT, whether one is a TR person or whether one is an eclectic critic.

Cordially, Lane
 
greenbaggins said:
It seems to me that a lot of TR folk are arguing against Westcott and Hort, who were overly imbalanced in favor of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Modern textual criticism is much more eclectic, and gives much more weight to the Byzantine text form than WH did. The arguments against WH are not applicable to today's eclectic methods.
Click to expand...

If true, this is good news.

Could you interact with the statements in posts above that argue that Textual Criticism has led to individualism in that each member of the church has to become his own critic in order to decide what is the Word of God for him?

greenbaggins said:
even given the differences between the NA27th and the TR, less than %1 of the NT is in any serious doubt, and less than 10% *of* that one percent has any significant bearing on its meaning.
Click to expand...

Where do these figures come from? I am not being argumentative, but would really like to know. This is a topic that has been debated before on PB. Here is one example: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/av-theology-compared-modern-versions-19437/
 
Could you interact with the statements in posts above that argue that Textual Criticism has led to individualism in that each member of the church has to become his own critic in order to decide what is the Word of God for him?​
Click to expand...

Given that the differences among manuscripts are so slight, and that only a very, very small percentage of differences make any difference in meaning, there is no need for any lay-person to become an expert in textual criticism. The pastor, whether he is TR or NA27th is still giving them the Word of God. I think that all pastors ought to be reasonably proficient in textual criticism to the point where he can make his own informed decisions. But, as per the above, even that ability will make almost zero difference in the pulpit.


Where do these figures come from? I am not being argumentative, but would really like to know. This is a topic that has been debated before on PB. Here is one example: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/av-theology-compared-modern-versions-19437/
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]​

I got them from my seminary professor. I think that they are also available in a book somewhere, but I can't place it right now.
 
Lane,

I'll get back to your thoughtful remarks and questions shortly. Please be patient, as I have some busy days ahead!

Steve
 
KMK said:
And, this transfer of authority has been embraced by many of the Reformed community without much of a struggle!
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I would characterize it precisely like that. The rise of science and it's claim of neutrality was making inroads and attacking the very foundations of life, so Christianity was trying to figure out the meaning of all of these things and mount defenses against them. However, I don't think everyone fully comprehended the devastating results of the humanistic presupposition contained within the paradigm, which is really evidenced in Warfield's thinking.

I think that regeneration and the change in our legal standing before God makes us by nature more trusting than the non-believer, spiritually we are at peace with God, and we must war against the flesh, the world and the devil. We are fighting many fronts simultaneously, the world doesn't have this problem, they don't have to struggle and fight against sin the way we do, thus they have a unity in sin they don't have to struggle to obtain or maintain. Reaching a cultural low point for the world is a very easy thing to do, their only battle is really maintaining that lowness; whereas reaching and maintaining cultural highpoints for Chrisianity requires eternal vigilance, confessional unity is a very difficult thing to obtain or maintain.

We're born into a context, it's very easy to judge those of the past and discount the magnitude of the things they faced, likewise it's easy to discount the magnitude of their successes as well.

I think what we need to consider is receiving what we've inherited and carrying it forward championing truth instead of tearing down the past successes and having to rebuild them continually because we may not be happy that they weren't performed precisely within our theological or ecclesiastical preferences or ideals.

KMK said:
I find your example of FV very interesting. How would their theology change if they were under the authority of the TR? Can you give specific passages where the CT is necessary for the FV?
Click to expand...

It's a matter of emphasis, because of that it doesn't seem that a lot of critical text supporters can see the issue because they are bound by the Confession. The Confession, though, wasn't developed from those that developed a certain emphasis on texts utilizing critical texts. It's more easy to demonstrate how the Received Text mitigates against Federal Vision's new interpretation, because they are willing to depart from being bound by the Confession.

Consider, for a moment, the way they collapse the distinction between the visible and invisible Church where the sacrament of baptism becomes as close to baptismal regeneration as one can get without actually claiming it. Take a look at Ephesians 5:30, being members of Christ includes "his flesh and his bones," whereas it doesn't in the critical texts, the same is true for the Latin Vulgate. The teaching is a certainy in the Promise tied to the marital covenant between Christ and His Church; Federal Vision makes that conditional upon visible Church membership, which the exclusion of His flesh and bones would support. John 17:12 is another good example, which is where John Knox threw his first anchor into the Reformed Faith, "in the world," is missing from the critical texts and the Latin Vulgate, hence the concept of Authority inuring to the visible Church is much easier to start developing. There are many more that will readily come to mind, but that should give you a couple to start thinking about this idea.

We are taught about Rome from a Reformed perspective and that kind of results in a conceptualization that everything about it was manmade doctrines in a Scriptural void. I think we have to take a new look at that, because I believe Rome became what the Latin Vulgate taught being derived from a predominance of the Alexandrian texts. Hence, I believe that Federal Vision is returning to Romanistic doctrines because it's willing to consider the development of doctrine independent of being bound by a Confession derived from the Received Text.

Hence, textual criticism tells us that there is no change to doctrine from their work, that is only because the implications of the textual changes have not been fully carried forth, they are now beginning to do that, and many Reformed Churches are returning to Rome as a result. Those willing to be bound by the Confession in doctrinal definitions don't fully comprehend the change in emphasis on the doctrines once you are willing to re-examine them independent from it upon the critical texts.

Cordially,

Thomas
 
Thomas,

You have raised a number of very important points. Having been schooled (somewhat uncritically in the CT) 35 years ago, I have never given the subject the kind of attention it deserves.

Your observations about the implications of textual criticism are fascinating . . .

Hence, textual criticism tells us that there is no change to doctrine from their work, that is only because the implications of the textual changes have not been fully carried forth, they are now beginning to do that, and many Reformed Churches are returning to Rome as a result. Those willing to be bound by the Confession in doctrinal definitions don't fully comprehend the change in emphasis on the doctrines once you are willing to re-examine them independent from it upon the critical texts.
Click to expand...

I have not studied these matters in detail and would welcome more from you on this subject. For some time I have felt that the critical methodologies being applied to biblical interpretation lead somewhat inevitably to non-conservative outcomes. A few years ago one of my former teachers, Moises Silva, gave a presidential address to the ETS raising issues of the somewhat inconsistent use of critical methodologies by evangelical scholars. It seems to me that the presuppositions inherent in these critical methodologies, if practiced consistently, will lead us all to the left . . . over time.
 
jdlongmire said:
Thomas - thank you - do I understand you accurately to be saying that the principle of Sola Scriptura is based solely on the authority and accuracy of the Received Text? Also - does this wiki entry accurately describe the Textus Receptus position?

Apologies if I am inaccurately understanding.
Click to expand...

Hello JD,

Here are two quotes that briefly answer your question. The Helvetic Consensus Formula of 1675 explains clearly the meaning of Reformed Orthodoxy in terms of the texts mentioned in the Westminster Confession:

“The Hebrew original of the Old Testament, which we have received and to this day do retain as handed down by the Jewish Church,…not only in its matter, but in its words, inspired of God, thus forming, together with the original of the New Testament, the sole and complete rule of faith and life: and to its standard, as to a Lydian stone, all extant versions, Oriental and Occidental, ought to be applied, and wherever they differ, be conformed.” HCF, Chapter 2, edited for clarity

The Reformers held the Received Text tradition as the standard and to them this was the definition of "Sola Scriptura," in terms of the New Testament.
Jack Rogers did a good job explaining what this meant to Reformers in comparison to modern principles:

“The text of Scripture is the Word of God, and God’s Word is not to be sought independently of the text of Scripture. Inspiration does not usually imply any particular theory about how the Scripture came to be the Word of God. Nor does inspiration eliminate the human contribution which the human authors made to the written Scripture. And most certainly, for the Westminster divines, inspiration can not be used as an excuse for trying to find God’s Word separate from the written text of Scripture.” Rogers, Scripture in the Westminster Confession, p 301-2

I think it would be easiest to follow suite of Elder Rafalsky and post some prior work I've done on this. The following was some blog comments on this subject I made a few months ago in regard to a similar question, I think it will help explain this in more depth. Of course, if it doesn't, I'll be happy to answer more particular points.

My answer to the question below is similar to your question: "Do I understand you accurately to be saying that the principle of Sola Scriptura is based solely on the authority and accuracy of the Received Text?"


---begin post 1---

You said:

“The “providential view” is a name I made up, but I’m sure that someone holds to something like this! Many King James only advocates, for example, would argue that God must have preserved scripture a certain way, and the KJV is how he did it.”

My answer:

What you claim to have “made up” is actually what the Magisterial Reformers held to and is the Confessional position of the Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:8

While they didn’t hold to unlearned anabaptist thought about inspiration of translation, which should be self evident, they did hold that the commonly Received Text of Scripture was the original text Providentially Preserved (1, Aland quote below).

(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.

Thus, during the English civil wars the printing of Bibles in England had ceased, some copies printed in Holland and imported were examined by the Assembly of Divines in 1643 and found to contain printing errors they considered to be “corrupt and dangerous to religion.” (see Scrivener, Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), p 25) They then petitioned Parliament to outlaw any importation that was not approved by said Divines which was enacted, but it didn’t do much good as many were subsequently imported from Holland with false claims as to the origin of press .

In that sense one could say the Westminster Divines were “King James Onlyists” as they were opposing the Tridentine attacks upon Sola Scriptura through the introduction of variant readings and Rome’s assertion therein that Papal Infallibility was the only reliable guide to Truth. This claim, of course, has simply been restated today in terms that enlightenment textual philosophers are now the infallible guide.

While it is not true that it was the only Greek “text” they knew (2), in case someone reads that to mean “manuscript text”, it is true they regarded it as the original and reliable text of Scripture itself.

That is why it is called the “Received Text” as it is held by orthodox Protestantism to be the original autographa Providentially Preserved and “received” by Christendom through the ages. They had a much higher view of Scripture and approached the issue from an entirely different orientation, never entering their mind to attempt to compare apographs with hypothetical “inerrant autographs” which they didn’t nor could possess. Thus, the doctrine of Inspriration, Inerrancy and Infallibility was not approached from the enlightment philosophy that posits an extrabiblical standard upon textual reliability.

Furthermore, it is incorrect to allude, the way you do that the Received Text “finds its roots in Erasmus’s Novum Instrumentum Omne.” The word “roots” indicates, at least in my interpretation, that you are saying that Erasmus created a “received text,” when it is merely the transmission of a manuscript text already commonly received into printed form.

Sincerely,

Thomas

(2) Paul Bombasius, on June 18, 1521, the secretary of the Lorenzo
Pucci at Rome, sent a letter to Erasmus containing a copy of portions of Codex Vaticanus. Jospeh Dixon (1853) says that Erasmus rejected it presuming Vaticanus to be corrupt and altered to match the Latin.

----end post 1----


A couple of people responded with more questions to this post, those responses are below:


---begin post 1---

Question asked:

“If I may ask, if they did not approach this from an Enlightenment philosophy with its attendant extrabiblical standards, then whence or how did they approach the doctrine of Inspiration, Inerrancy, and Infallibility?”

My answer:

Francis Turretin, a Geneva Reformer and author of the Helvetic Consensus, explains the matter plainly. For more see that Consensus:

“By the original texts, we do not mean the autographs written by the hand of Moses, of the prophets and the apostles, which certainly do not now exist. We mean their apographs which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.” Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1992 1:106.

For a much more expansive answer I would refer you to Richard Muller’s, “Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics.” Here is a pertinent quote:

“By “original” and “authentic” text, the Protestant orthodox do not mean the autographa which no one can possess but the apographa in the original tongue which are the source of all versions. The Jews throughout history and the church in the time of Christ regarded the Hebrew of the Old Testament as authentic and for nearly six centuries after Christ, the Greek of the New Testament was viewed as authentic without dispute. It is important to note that the Reformed orthodox insistence on the identification of the Hebrew and Greek texts as alone authentic does not demand direct reference to autographa in those languages: the “original and authentic text” of Scripture means, beyond the autograph copies, the legitimate tradition of Hebrew and Greek apographa. The case for Scripture as an infallible rule of faith and practice and the separate arguments for a received text free from major (non-scribal) error rests on an examination of the apographa and does not seek the infinite regress of the lost autographa as a prop for textual infallibility…. [In related footnote 165 Muller observes: “A rather sharp contrast must be drawn, therefore, between the Protestant orthodox arguments concerning the autographa and the views of Archibald Alexander Hodge and Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield.”] p. 433

The principle held today in modern criticism of this “infinite regress” to “inerrant autographa” is the textual heterdoxy of BB Warfield when he departed from the Westminster Confession and then redefined it in terms of his departure standing upon the enlightenment presupposition of Wescott and Hort. His departure from Protestant orthodoxy created a need to establish and maintain a scientific definition of Biblical inerrancy under attack by naturalistic scientific theory, walla, “inerrant autographa.” It is a new and novel idea in terms of historic Reformed Orthodoxy, none of the Magisterial Reformers held to the concept, on the contrary, that was Rome’s claim.

To the Reformers the Bible was infallible because it was the very word of the Living God. They simply identified the legitimate tradition of the preservation of the text and received it.

So, they approached it in the way they approached Nicene and Chalcedonian orthodoxy, thus they did not create a second classification of Scripture based upon hypothetical and hellenic presuppositions (”inerrant autographs”) in which God by His “singular care and providence” becomes required to abide by. Once you take the Bible in your hands and pit the autographa against the apographa, you are attempting to hold it in dialetical tension in the hellenic Form/Matter dialetic; you then become a wordless “Christian Mime.” Which is why the Gospel only speaks today in terms of “relevancy,” instead of an authoritative word from the Most High God.

Thus, they didn’t philosophize about the text, they received the Scriptures that was common to Greek and Protestant Church through the ages. The modern heterdoxy of “inerrant autographs” would have been seen by the Reformers as a concession to Rome, and the modern fundamentalist “KVJ Only” baptist clearly senses this. He simply doesn’t have the ability to deal with the problem of Biblical Authority with the philosophical tools at hand to him, this is because he is standing upon Reformed Orthodoxy in receipt of the Authorized Version but theologically denies the doctrines of that Orthodoxy. Hence, he necessarily creates the “inspiration” of the translation to maintain his theological independence. If you look at Riplinger, for example, whom James White disparages; she receives the Bible of Chalcedonian Orthodoxy (e.g., Calvinism) and sets out on anti-Calvinistic tirade because the Reformed caved to naturalistic scientific criticism ala BB Warfield and published that Romish NIV. James White, then, in his championing of Warfeldian heterdoxy simply confirms, in their eyes, every word she wrote.

The Reformers did not try to stand upon a presupposition of neutral objectivity, they were biased against Rome and championed that bias. It is a matter of presuppositions by and through which one interprets the data, EF Hills explains this very well in his work, King James Version Defended.

The same problem exists, for example, in the way the evolutionist pretends to be capable of standing upon neutral ground to interpret the creation, instead of being analogical and thinking God’s thoughts after Him, in his definition he becomes a maker of facts, and stumbles. Likewise, the principles of eclectic criticism is the academic equivalent of the Scopes Monkey Trial in its quest for the inerrant autographa, which is why the Authorized Version is scorned and disparaged.

---end post 2---

---begin post 3---

You asked,

“Where did the Magisterial Reformers get the idea “that the commonly Received Text of Scripture was the original text Providentially Preserved”?”

That is the essence of the Reformation and its doctrine of Sola Scriptura in its return to “ancient catholic orthodoxy.” Steinmetz explains what this term means:

“[T]he attempt of the Protestant reformers to recapture ancient doctrine and discipline is labelled innovation by a Church which has lost contact with its own past and which identifies modern belief and practice with the faith and discipline of the early Church….In point of fact, the Protestant reformers are attempting to keep faith with the ancient teaching of the Apostles as understood by the fathers against the later unwarranted innovations and novelties introduced by the medieval Catholic Church.” Steinmetz, Luther in Context, 1986 p 92

continuing question:

“This is certainly not a Biblical idea, so aren’t they also imposing an extrabiblical standard by which to determine the inspired text?”

It most certainly is a Biblical idea because returning to the original language texts as against Popery was a rejection of it’s extrabiblical innovations upon the doctrines of the Faith once delivered to the Saints and the text itself.

continuing question:

“It seems to me that they more or less picked one specific text and decided to go with that one.”

The issue is one of Authority, does it rest in men or does it rest in the Word of God itself? Does the visible Church create Authority or does it simply recognize Authority?

They rejected the former and accepted the latter. Hence, they recognized the Received Text as the Authoritative text of ecclesiastical tradition and received it upon the same terms they received the early ecumenical creeds.

Hence, there is continuity between the teaching of the Creeds and the Scripture and discontinuity in the Romish practice and textual variants that support it. Modern textual criticism says these variants are the “oldest and best manuscripts.” They marked those textual variants out as corrupted. Burgon, who actually spent about six years personally collating manuscripts explains his rejection of Wescott and Hort’s New Greek Text:

“The task of laboriously collating the five “old uncials” throughout the Gospels, occupied me for five-and-a-half years, and taxed me severely. But I was rewarded. I rose from the investigation profoundly convinced that, however, important they may be as instruments of Criticism, codices Aleph A B C D are among the most corrupt documents extant. It was a conviction derived from exact Knowledge and based on solid grounds of Reason. You, my lord Bishop, who have never gone deeply into the subject, repose simply on Prejudice. Never having at any time collated codices Aleph A B C D for yourself, you are unable to gainsay a single statement of mine by a counter-appeal to facts. Your textual learning proves to have been all obtained at second-hand, taken on trust. And so, instead of marshalling against me a corresponding array of ancient authorities, you invariably attempt to put me down by an appeal to Modern Opinion.” Burgon, Revision Revised, p 376

Burgon, even though a High Church Anglican, was standing upon textual Protestant Orthodoxy. Wescott and Hort following Greisbach had rejected this and formulated a new theory, which if held to will destroy Protestantism. That is why everyone that faithfully holds to modern textual criticism eventually rejects the doctrines of Protestant Orthodoxy and is invariably led back to Rome or a High Church position, or some in between (e.g., Federal Vision Theology of Reformed Presbyterians)

Finally question:

“The original manuscript view agrees that there was one inspired text (the original manuscript), but it is now lost, hence the task of textural criticism, that is, to as nearly as possible determine what that original manuscript was.”

I agree that this the modern view and it was the view of Rome, it is not the view of Reformational Orthodoxy, they denied it was lost, but preserved in the apographs, just with the warts of uninspired human agencies upon its transmission.

The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Mainz stated the issue very well, when he first saw a Bible:

“Of a truth I do not know what book this is, but I perceive everything in it is against us.” Bennet’s Memorial of the Reformation, p. 20; Edin., 1748

The modern view of textual criticism is a continuation of medieval
scholasticism. Scholasticism reintroduced Aristotle’s humanism into Western
history, the result was the decline of orthodox Christianity and it’s Trinitarian
answer to the problem of the “One and the Many”, or the problem of Authority.

The implications of scholasticism are by their very nature subordinationist. Revelation was slighted and nature was, after Greek philosophical presuppositions, asserted as the primary and basically self sufficient order. The same principle is held to by secular humanists when they interpret “natural law,” which means something completely different to Christians.

When Scripture is suboridnated the determination of history and Sovereignty as a religious concept passes from eternity into time, from the supernatural to the natural. Subsequently, a subordinationist Christology was developed and this became the imperial Christology of the Roman Catholic Church.

Modern textual criticism invariably leads one back to an Imperial Christology as well and displaces Chalcedonian Orthodoxy in the process.

---end post 3---

---being post 4---

Question asked:

Thomas,

I would like to read more along the lines you are spelling out. You mentioned a couple of references ie EF Hills and Mueller, anything else I can check in to.

Oh and thanks for the detailed response. And the distinction between what you are setting forth and KJV-Onlyism.

My answer:

In my understanding the issue of modern textual criticism has to be put into its proper context to understand both its origin, method and effect in terms of Reformational Orthodoxy that delivered unto us the Received Text, and the Authorized Version as the established Bible, as well as our Reformed Confessional standards. That is to say, we must seek to understand the rationale employed by the Reformation era editors in producing the Received Text and the Westminster Confession’s theological tenet of Providential Preservation of which it is the tangible reality.

You simply can’t evaluate Renaissance scholarship by post-Enlightment standards and make the conclusion that they were all wrong, or doofus’s, or not as smart as we are &c. They approached the issue from a completely different orientation.

As Rushdoony states, “The issue of the Received Text is thus no small matter, nor one of academic concern only. The faith is at stake.” The Problems of the Received Text, 1989

First, one needs to understand the Reformed Dogmatics in which this textual tradition arose, so the reference to Muller is a good one as well as “The Inspiration of Scripture: A Study of the Theology of the Seventeenth Century”, by Robert D Preus, Ph.D.

Then, I would suggest, these two works to understand the principles of Griesbach and its affect upon the theology and the discipline:

An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, Frederick Nolan, 1830

“The Canon of Scripture being received as the unerring rule of faith, and the ultimate test of controversy; the foundation of all Religion must necessarily collapse with the destruction of its
integrity. As this object would be effectually obtained, should the critical system, on which Dr. Griesbach proposed to amend the Received Text, be incautiously admitted; it required no exertion of sagacity, or stretch of foresight to observe, that while his critical labors continued silently to gain
ground; the landmarks fixed by the Established Church, as a barrier to innovation and error, could not preserve their original position.” Ibid.

The Rise of Biblical Criticism in America, 1800-1820: The New England Scholars, Jerry Wayne Browne, 1969

“Joseph S. Buckminster persuaded the officials of Harvard College to publish an American edition of Griesbach’s Greek New Testament, because he viewed text criticism as a most powerful weapon to be used against the supporters of verbal inspiration.” Ibid.

Also, you’ll need a good history of the Reformation, and Bennet’s “Memorial of the Reformation” is an absolutely pleasurable read, then everything by Edward Freer Hills and Theodore Letis, especially:

“The Ecclesiastical Text,” Theodore P. Letis
“The Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text and the Claims of the Anabaptists,” Theodore P. Letis

and finally, John Owen, “Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of the Scriptures”

Cordially,

Thomas
 
Lane, you say (in your post #18),

“The appeal to Arminianism as a slippery slope with regard to Warfield is not a cogent argument against Warfield's view of Scripture. There are few theologians in the history of the church who argued against Arminianism as vociferously as Warfield did. Arminianism is certainly not directly related to textual criticism.”​

Sorry if my lack of clarity led you to this conclusion! What I said/meant to say was there were two distinct components in the rapid decline of the Presbyterian-Reformed churches, 1) the absence among them of a standard text, a common Bible, with the resulting confusion as what is the genuine Word of God, and 2) the encroachments of Arminianism into the Reformed camp. I put it like this:

Warfield meant well, but he departed from bulwark of the Standards, and what we see today, in terms of the erosion of integrity in the Reformed communions, is in great measure a result of this. Of course there is more to this erosion, such as the entertaining of Arminianism within the very precincts of the Calvinist stronghold, yet the loss of a sure Scripture is as a mighty torpedo in the hull.
Click to expand...

I did not mean – in the slightest – that Warfield introduced Arminianism into the Reformed camp. Though the breach of Scripture did weaken the “immune system” of the Body. When the primary standard of the Church’s confession – the Scripture – is overthrown, as I maintain it is (and will demonstrate shortly) – the secondary standards of the confessions will naturally follow suit.

When I am told that in the ESV’s Matthew 1 verses 7 and 10 with their notorious Asaph and Amos replacing the royal forebears of the Lord Jesus we have the authentic Greek text (reflecting the reading of the CT), with disdain I reject that assertion which posits error in the autograph of the apostle.

It is in the details of a thing that its excellence and especially its functionality is seen. A superior watch is known by its internal parts and not only its face.

In the details of the CT can we assert that God’s providence was active upon them to preserve the true readings, or did He pass over some of them, letting them fall into error? In this the newest – and some say the finest – translation of the CT, the ESV, we observe its reading in Matthew 1, verses 7 and 10. Both the Greek text and the English translation read, in v. 7, that Asaph was in the royal lineage of Christ rather than Asa, and in v. 10, that Amos was a progenitor of Christ rather than Amon. It will not do to aver “these are alternate spellings,” for Hebrew is a precise language, and Matthew was a literate man; we would not accept, in English, that Solar was an alternative spelling for Sol, or Merry an alternative for Mary.

In this discussion of the relative merits of the CT vs. the TR there are two approaches I use, the macro and the micro. The former pertains to the overview – positing a plausible (for some of the details are lost to us) history of the textual transmission, including the corruption of the text – and the latter involves fighting in the trenches, as it were; that is, looking at the specific variants introduced initially by Rome to subvert the Reformation’s Sola Scriptura / “preserved text”, and now by those seduced to the progressive allure of those manuscripts (used initially by Rome) who claim the variants represent the superior text.

So in this trench, Matt. 1:7, 9, we see the Critical Text asserting that in Matthew’s original the apostle made an error. This cannot be allowed to stand. It is on the face of it false.

I will continue to respond to your post shortly.
 
Last edited:
I much appreciate the posts contributed to this thread in defence of the TR. May I make a clarifying observation without in the slightest detracting from what has been said.

The fact that the TR has variants is irrelevant. It might even have had more variants than the critical text, and the fact would still have been irrelevant. The reason is, that the concept of the textus receptus contains within it a fundamental theological point which is abandoned when critics opt for an eclectic text. That fundamental theological point is the conviction that the church possesses the Word of God uncorrupted. No one has laid claim to the idea that this uncorrupted Word of God is to be found in a single MS., and thereby excluded the possibility of variants. It is readily acknowledged that the preserved text is to be found amongst a multiplicity of MSS., and that therefore textual criticism of a kind is required. But it is maintained with the utmost confidence that such critical work must proceed on the basis of faith in the Word of God, and that entails an unshaken commitment to the belief that the church possesses the Word of God and not merely something which approximates to it.
 
Steve, thanks for your clarification. It was quite helpful. I understand you'll be posting more on this issue. So, I don't wish to sidetrack you. However, I will briefly respond to the issues raised about Matthew 1. My brief response is that Matthew has very good reasons for saying Asaph and Amos, not Asa and Amon. It was no mistake. First of all, the idea of "begetting" has a larger semantic range than merely father to son. This is proved absolutely conclusively in Matthew 1 by the fact that Matthew deliberately skips three entire generations, thus having grandfathers being said to father their grandchildren. The reason he did that was so that the generations would work out to 3 sets of 14 generations (there is numerical symbolism present here in that DVD, the Hebrew consonants in David's name, corresponds to this numerical setup: the theological point is that Jesus is the Davidic King). However, the semantic range of "begetting" is even larger than direct line od descendents. This is shown by the phrase "children of disobedience," "children of wrath." The idea of generation does not always have to be genealogical. It could be that Matthew simply wanted to include these names in the genealogy for their prophecies and Psalms.

Secondly, you are too quick to rule out the possibility of alternate spellings. Especially in Matthew 1:10, it is a fact that Amos is a Septuagintal reading for Amon. See the LXX manuscripts A Bc at 1 Chronicles 3:14, which read Amos for Amon. See Nolland's commentary on Matthew, pg. 81. He does argue (wrongly) that Asaph is an error for Asa. Hebrew is not nearly as precise as you make it out to be. Nebuchadnezzar is spelled Nebuchadrezzar in more than one place in Daniel. Alternate spelling cannot be ruled out nearly as easily as you think.

Thomas, if you put one single ounce of confidence is Gail Riplinger's book, then you are making a huge mistake. Try this experiment. Go through every single quotation of her category "the modern versions" and check how often the reading is found in only *one* of the modern versions, not all of them, though she quotes them as all having the reading. Also check out how bad her hermeneutics are. I went through every single quotation in the first chapter, and found *hundreds* of factual and quotational errors, not to mention hermeneutical fallacies. For TR positions, trust Burgon and Hill. Don't go to Riplinger.

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

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.

Matthew, I appreciate your stand for the uncorrupted nature of the Word of God. You say, "That fundamental theological point is the conviction that the church possesses the Word of God uncorrupted." My question is this: do you really think that advocates of the critical text have abandoned this point? I certainly have not. My position is that 99.999% of the NT is assured as to what it is. The remaining .001 percent has nothing to do with the meaning of Scripture. Not even the ending of Mark, or the Comma Johanneum, or any other verse in dispute shakes the doctrinal meaning of the NT, whether one uses the TR or the critical text. I fear that too many TR advocates make too much of the differences between the TR and the CT. The differences are peanuts, folks. Again, compare it to Homer, where a full tenth of the text is in serious doubt.
 
Sincere thanks to Lane for his balanced helpful comments.

For TR positions, trust Burgon and Hill. Don't go to Riplinger.
Click to expand...

:amen:
Always stick with the best proponents of a position in order to avoid erecting straw-men.
 
greenbaggins said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thank you for a very thoughtful post! Because of my ignorance, I don't understand the argument here. The original autographs were immediately inspired by God and penned by men. The inspiration was immediate even though the autographs were not. Why can't the same be said for the 'copy'? Isn't that what is implied by "singular care and providence"?
 
KMK said:
greenbaggins said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thank you for a very thoughtful post! Because of my ignorance, I don't understand the argument here. The original autographs were immediately inspired by God and penned by men. The inspiration was immediate even though the autographs were not. Why can't the same be said for the 'copy'? Isn't that what is implied by "singular care and providence"?
Click to expand...

The argument here is that God's inspiration applies to the author as he was writing. God's direct inspiration does not apply to a scribe who is copying the manuscript. Only God's general providence applies to that, such that the differences among the manuscripts are but slight. In other words, the divines are talking about how the words from God were *originally* written down, not about how they were copied, when they said "immediately inspired by God."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
"The best and earliest manuscripts?"
2
Replies
51
Views
3K
greenbaggins
greenbaggins
Jerusalem Blade
  • Locked
"Phantom Manuscripts"?
Replies
1
Views
4K
CalvinandHodges
CalvinandHodges
Dieter Schneider
  • Locked
New Testament Manuscripts
Replies
0
Views
1K
Dieter Schneider
Dieter Schneider
A.Hudson
  • Locked
Diff manuscripts/translations
Replies
2
Views
2K
A.Hudson
A.Hudson
RobertPGH1981
Original Manuscripts in Type not Pictures
Replies
3
Views
655
RobertPGH1981
RobertPGH1981
Back
Top