An Inadequate View of God's Providence Regarding Manuscripts of the NT

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Logan, thanks for your irenic remarks in your post #170. One of the things you said is, "The difficulty I have is that there never seems to be one TR position." One reason I'm responding is that kindness and respect in discussion is "pressing" to me. Incivility and disrespect – which is sin in the house of God – shuts down all discussion. And is a leaven that will permeate the whole if not repented of.

But to your remarks. Isn't that "never seems to be one position" analogous to the Amil view, where there are many minor variations though in the basic argument structure and presuppositional foundation there is agreement? Then you list a few, and say, "This makes it extremely difficult to respond to 'the TR position' because every time you respond to one, another says that their position has been mischaracterized."

I would agree, some of the TR views are not well thought out and erroneous, though I have seen them corrected by more informed teachers. Maybe not on the PB, where it's all they can do – it appears – to defend their views. Within TR group discussions I see it regularly. That's why we have teachers.

Then you give the example of Beza 1598 vis-à-vis Scrivener 1894 and someone saying they are alike, which you correctly affirm is wrong. I suppose part of the problem is that many TR folks do not study the "the main argument structure and presuppositional foundation" of their position and so bring disrepute to it, or at least can't give good answers when challenged. Part of my labors these past 16 years here has been to lay such a foundation, and develop the arguments built on it, in numerous posts and threads (some of which I link to in my signature). Good teaching comes prior to the later correcting of errors. I note materials in my posts such as the essay / booklet, "Where the King James Bible* Leaves the Greek Text of Theodore Beza 1598", by Kirk DiVietro, a topic of great interest to those who like understanding and studying. (Unfortunately my library is in NY, and I can't access this book, though it now looks like we may sell our NY place and be able to relocate here permanently.)

*The reason the KJB is often substituted for the TR in some discussions is that, ultimately, it is the one translation in English that gives ready access to the Greek and Hebrew and an enormous amount of study and research materials linked to it, without having to spring for pricey programs such as Logos. I have a hard time getting concordances and other study materials for my flock here in Cyprus. Many of them, from Africa, only know and have the KJV – and they learn of the modern, easier versions from me, when I give them some.

I love talking about this topic – and teaching it – for the word of God is our life, that we live by. You may see me argue my points, but you don't see me challenging and tearing down those whose views differ, seeking to "sink their ships".

I could deal with it, if I cared to, but my time is too valuable to go into a shark tank to de-tooth the sharks. I had fervently set myself to stay away from this thread, and only joined to support a brother.

Friends, we are not to be sharks tearing apart each others beliefs – especially such core beliefs as the sanctity of our Bibles. I learned this lesson when I co-pastored a church in NYC where many different versions were used, and I had to teach on textual criticism, and build up Christian lives and faith. The Lord showed me what was important to Him.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Hello Logan, thanks for your irenic remarks in your post #170. One of the things you said is, "The difficulty I have is that there never seems to be one TR position." One reason I'm responding is that kindness and respect in discussion is "pressing" to me. Incivility and disrespect – which is sin in the house of God – shuts down all discussion. And is a leaven that will permeate the whole if not repented of.

But to your remarks. Isn't that "never seems to be one position" analogous to the Amil view, where there are many minor variations though in the basic argument structure and presuppositional foundation there is agreement? Then you list a few, and say, "This makes it extremely difficult to respond to 'the TR position' because every time you respond to one, another says that their position has been mischaracterized."

I would agree, some of the TR views are not well thought out and erroneous, though I have seen them corrected by more informed teachers. Maybe not on the PB, where it's all they can do – it appears – to defend their views. Within TR group discussions I see it regularly. That's why we have teachers.

Then you give the example of Beza 1598 vis-à-vis Scrivener 1894 and someone saying they are alike, which you correctly affirm is wrong. I suppose part of the problem is that many TR folks do not study the "the main argument structure and presuppositional foundation" of their position and so bring disrepute to it, or at least can't give good answers when challenged. Part of my labors these past 16 years here has been to lay such a foundation, and develop the arguments built on it, in numerous posts and threads (some of which I link to in my signature). Good teaching comes prior to the later correcting of errors. I note materials in my posts such as the essay / booklet, "Where the King James Bible* Leaves the Greek Text of Theodore Beza 1598", by Kirk DiVietro, a topic of great interest to those who like understanding and studying. (Unfortunately my library is in NY, and I can't access this book, though it now looks like we may sell our NY place and be able to relocate here permanently.)

*The reason the KJB is often substituted for the TR in some discussions is that, ultimately, it is the one translation in English that gives ready access to the Greek and Hebrew and an enormous amount of study and research materials linked to it, without having to spring for pricey programs such as Logos. I have a hard time getting concordances and other study materials for my flock here in Cyprus. Many of them, from Africa, only know and have the KJV – and they learn of the modern, easier versions from me, when I give them some.

I love talking about this topic – and teaching it – for the word of God is our life, that we live by. You may see me argue my points, but you don't see me challenging and tearing down those whose views differ, seeking to "sink their ships".

I could deal with it, if I cared to, but my time is too valuable to go into a shark tank to de-tooth the sharks. I had fervently set myself to stay away from this thread, and only joined to support a brother.

Friends, we are not to be sharks tearing apart each others beliefs – especially such core beliefs as the sanctity of our Bibles. I learned this lesson when I co-pastored a church in NYC where many different versions were used, and I had to teach on textual criticism, and build up Christian lives and faith. The Lord showed me what was important to Him.

Steve,

Just to be clear, I am tearing down bad arguments that I believe are hazardous to a Christian having confidence in the Word of God they possess in their hands.

I know you would like repentance and mutual respect. I respect you. You do however engage in rhetoric (e.g. calling people "sharks") that tends toward division. You also have engaged frequently in kinds of arguments that propose ideas that would bolster a man's confidence that any other potential form of Providence was used by God to preserve His Word.

It's one thing, for instance, to be thankful to God for the KJV and the resulting TR that comes from it. We can be thankful to God for His Providence of raising up men toward its production.

It's another thing to sustain men in the belief that this *is* God's Providence in such matters.

Of course it is all God's Providence and so I take a very humble and non-committed view in how God may have used people. I don't need to train them to overlook suspicious accounts. I don't need to train them to repeat historical fiction about people finding manuscripts in trash cans. I don't need to train them to assume that a variant is a curse but rather a blessing and a testimony of the wide use of the NT throughout the Church.

The evidence of where people take your views is in how they represent other Christians. The problem is the idiosyncratic view. Some men are very charitable toward others who are not idiosyncratic while others ultimately will carry their conviction to its logical conclusion. If God's Providential Preservation is testified by the TR (as you repeatedly argue) then it only follows that others will not conclude that others can have confidence in the Word of God they use.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Rich,

You said, "If God's Providential Preservation is testified by the TR (as you repeatedly argue) then it only follows that others will not conclude that others can have confidence in the Word of God they use."

Well, that works both ways. From your vantage it could be, "If God's providential preservation is testified by the corpus of mss sifted and chosen by the scholars, then others who don't have that view are thought to have a false confidence in the Word of God they use."

Obviously there are (at least) two views of how His providential preservation was accomplished. We both, in good conscience, differ in how He did preserve it. You folks promote your view, and are able to coherently defend it. Likewise with us. Is there not room for the both of us to co-exist here? Each sufficiently confident in our view that we are not disturbed by the other (though we could change our minds if we wanted)? – like with the paedo-credo situation here.

Rich, I have more respect and esteem for you than you might be aware! As the owner of this Puritan Board site, who has managed, supported, and administrated it for years, you have provided an oasis and "university" of sorts for Reformed souls to gather, learn, fellowship, and be refreshed which is unique among Christian sites on the internet. We here owe you and Matthew gratitude and thanks for our learning community you have nurtured and sustained in the presence of our God and Lord, to His glory, and our untold blessing.

It is with trepidation I reprove you! I have seen – over the years – you are a man who is quick to openly repent when you are hasty in judgment, a godly trait. And you have been unusually patient with me over these years. Even so, at 80 years of age, and a minister of the word, Scripture does give some direction, such as 1 Tim 5:1, and the WLC at Q&A 144, 145 on the ninth commandment.

I can overlook the small trespass, as I do not even deserve respect and love, but it is our Saviour's command we love as He loves – and you, as captain of the ship set the tone and example here. On this ship, sometimes even a common deck hand can correct the chief (sorry for all the Navy references!). You are my dear brother, and I value you as such. Sorry that my tenacious way sometimes annoys you.

It remains – if it were not for you we would have no refuge such as you have provided us (under God's direction and by His grace), and would all be greatly the poorer. Thank you from us all. And thanks for all the slack you have cut me over the years!

 

[greenbaggins]

Obviously there are (at least) two views of how His providential preservation was accomplished. We both, in good conscience, differ in how He did preserve it. You folks promote your view, and are able to coherently defend it. Likewise with us. Is there not room for the both of us to co-exist here? Each sufficiently confident in our view that we are not disturbed by the other (though we could change our minds if we wanted)? – like with the paedo-credo situation here.

Steve, what I have seen fairly consistently on this board is that CT/Sturzian types have been content to acknowledge all the basic positions on textual criticism as being within the pale of confessional orthodoxy (some positions are outside the pale, if they reject the "pure in all ages" phrase, or the providential preservation), even while disagreeing with some of them. What has risen in stridency in about the last year or two is a militant TR position that does not acknowledge any other position as being within the pale of confessional orthodoxy, or even, in some cases, within the pale of Christianity itself. An obvious case is Christopher Myer's by-now-infamous "Satan's Bible" comment, a comment I have yet to see outright condemned by ANY TR advocate on this board. This strident TR'ism is what Rich is reacting to. Sometimes, Steve, you are the very model of Christianly humble, small "c" catholic interaction. Other times you seem to walk in lock-step with the strident TR guys. So, it is actually a question of whether the militant TR guys are intending to live in peace with other positions, not the other way around. Up until a year ago, or so, I would have said it was all an in-house debate. Now, I am not so sure. Not that I think the TR position itself is out of bounds. Rather, it is the militant treatment of other positions that I find utterly reprehensible. I won't speak for Rich on his actual words. But I think you need to see how guys like Rich and I are seeing things right now. We are seeing a bit of red because of the militant, sectarian version of TR advocacy that is gaining in popularity in confessional circles, and which, in my opinion, cannot be eliminated fast enough, and which is constantly accusing us of unbelief in God's providence (THE major reason I wrote the original OP), not having God's Word at all (at best having only an asterisked Word of God, at worst a translation of Satan's Bible), and similarly reprehensible statements. I, personally, see plenty of room for the non-militant version of TR advocacy that some have displayed on this thread. I have no room for the militant version, and I will fight it, because it is divisive and sectarian.

 

[Logan]

I feel similarly to Lane. I respect that the TR advocates are protective the Scriptures. I respect that many believe it is the best representation of the autographs. I too have some critiques of the CT and between the CT and TR, would probably say that the TR is the "safest" route. I regularly use (and have confidence in!) both the KJV and NKJV and have no issues with anyone else doing so either. Or believing the TR and KJV are the best.

But many (most?) TR advocates don't stop there. Many seem to feel a compulsive need to attack all other texts and all other translations (even the NKJV). I briefly listened to Nick Sayers the other day (a most unpleasant experience) and he was agreeing with Myer's statement about modern translations being based on "Satan's Bible" and said that the NIV, the NASB, the ESV are all garbage and need to be thrown in the garbage. This is actively trying to undermine people's confidence in their Bibles. Many quite vocal individual share his views and many well-meaning but ignorant people are being misled by demonstrably false claims. I don't find the broader TR debate to be a healthy situation at all.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Hello Rich,

You said, "If God's Providential Preservation is testified by the TR (as you repeatedly argue) then it only follows that others will not conclude that others can have confidence in the Word of God they use."

Well, that works both ways. From your vantage it could be, "If God's providential preservation is testified by the corpus of mss sifted and chosen by the scholars, then others who don't have that view are thought to have a false confidence in the Word of God they use."

Obviously there are (at least) two views of how His providential preservation was accomplished. We both, in good conscience, differ in how He did preserve it. You folks promote your view, and are able to coherently defend it. Likewise with us. Is there not room for the both of us to co-exist here? Each sufficiently confident in our view that we are not disturbed by the other (though we could change our minds if we wanted)? – like with the paedo-credo situation here.

Rich, I have more respect and esteem for you than you might be aware! As the owner of this Puritan Board site, who has managed, supported, and administrated it for years, you have provided an oasis and "university" of sorts for Reformed souls to gather, learn, fellowship, and be refreshed which is unique among Christian sites on the internet. We here owe you and Matthew gratitude and thanks for our learning community you have nurtured and sustained in the presence of our God and Lord, to His glory, and our untold blessing.

It is with trepidation I reprove you! I have seen – over the years – you are a man who is quick to openly repent when you are hasty in judgment, a godly trait. And you have been unusually patient with me over these years. Even so, at 80 years of age, and a minister of the word, Scripture does give some direction, such as 1 Tim 5:1, and the WLC at Q&A 144, 145 on the ninth commandment.

I can overlook the small trespass, as I do not even deserve respect and love, but it is our Saviour's command we love as He loves – and you, as captain of the ship set the tone and example here. On this ship, sometimes even a common deck hand can correct the chief (sorry for all the Navy references!). You are my dear brother, and I value you as such. Sorry that my tenacious way sometimes annoys you.

It remains – if it were not for you we would have no refuge such as you have provided us (under God's direction and by His grace), and would all be greatly the poorer. Thank you from us all. And thanks for all the slack you have cut me over the years!

Steve,

I appreciate the rebuke. Forgive me if my concern for the confusion of souls tread into areas where a man felt like I was maligning or misrepresenting him.
I think Lane adequately expressed my concern.

You see, you actually underline my point.

You do believe that a position either argues for one version of God's Providential preservation. It's sort of a "Either it's the TR account of God's preservation or..."

What I was actually saying above (as Lane pointed out) is that, for me and many others, it's not a choice of looking at a series of historical events and saying: "This is the method that God used to preserve the Greek text for the Church."

I think God's Providence is far too inscrutable for us to sort of pin down.

I want to avoid moving this discussion too far afield but there is a controversy right now over how we are to collectively relate to a tradition in the Church regarding Theology Proper. It's an incredibly intricate and complex topic as to how basic Biblical and theological and metaphysical concepts have developed to define doctrines such as God's aseity and simplicity. On many of these topics, we are in agreement with the catholic Church as a whole (not large c but small C) and the 17th and 18th Century Reformers didn't necessarily reform all doctrines but largely agreed with certain ideas around Trinity, Hypostatic union, God's attributes, etc.

The Providential nature of how these ideas were transmitted, refined, etc is very complex and there is a bit of argument right now because there is sort of a basic disagreement on whether men ought to trust that Thomistic definitions of simplicity (as one example) ought to be normative for the Church. One might even see that some are arguing in a manner akin to some of these arguments to denote that God's providential ordering of events meant that some of the refinements and consolidation of ideas settled on a monk who nevertheless propagated ideas inimical to other very key ideas of our salvation or the Sacraments. Things get really heated because people "take sides" and either Thomas is all-critical or not-critical. My view is that all things are part of God's providence and so we look backward and see what is concluded and beneficial to the Church and don't have to create an authoritative chain of events that insulates Thomas from valid criticisms in other areas. For that matter, some of the councils that settled ideas on Christ were surrounded by monks beating up and even killing people. Yet, we can look beyond the sins of fallen men and see God's preservation of key ideas necessary for our salvation.

What I reject is what I might consider an idiosyncratic confidence in God's Providence that tries to comprehend the incomprehensible. It's fine, for instance, to understand that God's providence governed the Reformation at the time of interest around original sources and all that followed. For man, feeble as he is, to then start creating a chain of certain events or even arguing for a minimal "purity" of all actors in this chain of events so that the Saint holding a Bible need not ever worry that a jot or tittle is missing from the Greek text is, as Lane noted, "an inadequate view of God's Providence." It is placing God's actions within the limits of human reason. I can embrace the KJV as a faithful and pure copy of God's Word without understanding every action that ultimately led to the Church being able to benefit from it. I understand a good number of the historical events but my confidence in Preservation doesn't hang on a "time and place and events" that I comprehend. I apprehend in part and so I continue to apprehend that God's providence did not end in one important chapter in God's Church but that manuscripts continued to be discovered that were preserved by a process that none of us comprehends but were kept pure for the embattled Saints that were saved by those copies in time and place. Thus, I continue to see God's governing of all human activities, even now, and how he ensures we have something pure and faithful even as we recognize that includes the governance of sinful men as well as Saints in the preservation of what we have.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Thanks, Lane, (and Logan)! what you wrote above I agree with:

"What has risen in stridency in about the last year or two is a militant TR position that does not acknowledge any other position as being within the pale of confessional orthodoxy, or even, in some cases, within the pale of Christianity itself. An obvious case is Christopher Myer's by-now-infamous 'Satan's Bible' comment, a comment I have yet to see outright condemned by ANY TR advocate on this board."

In my post #75 I wrote, "this 'Satan’s Bible' stuff is put forth in an unfortunate lapse of judgment. Would we call the Arminian views 'Satan’s doctrines'? One might, but it shuts down irenic, rational discourse." I also said, "in the true church universal they are inflammatory and destructive". I also said, "Yes, there was some villainy involved in the history of the CT version of 1881 (as I have recently exhibited here), but when men of good conscience use such modern versions nowadays that kind of language is inappropriate, and uncharitable." You can see all I wrote concerning this by looking at the post.

A grasp of the history of the Critical Text of W&H shows some unsavory things that were part of that, and yet, from Warfield's perspective (who was ignorant of the W&H involvements) those who follow him, their consciences are clean. So here we are, in September of 2022. This is the stand I will take:

What is called the "militant" TR view, denying the legitimacy of the Bibles which are not TR-based, but follow the CT or ET (eclectic) versions, calling them "satanic", this is neither sound nor godly. For instance, some close to me who use the NIV '84, or the ESV, I will not call their versions satanic, as they are in the main preserved by God. Because they do not affirm the last 12 verses of Mark, 1 John 5:7, 8, or John 7:53-8:11, does not render their Bibles satanic, only their variant readings are – to my understanding – false.

So I would say to those my friends who are of the "militant" wing of the TR school, be aware that you are coming into my congregation and saying that those in my flock who use the NIV '84, the ESV, or the NASB etc are using "Satanic Bibles" – I would have to withstand you as you are denying the providential preservation in the main of their Bibles. The variants in them are a legitimate source of protestation and discussion – this is the case on both sides of the debate – but the Bibles in the main are sound.

You who are "militant" according to how we are using that term now in this stage of the discussion may use your terminology of Satanic, but you are causing division in the body of Christ and are being schismatic, which is referred to in Titus 3:10: "A man that is an heretik after the first and second admonition reject". Heretic, as used here, includes those causing division and sectarianism in the local churches. It is a false teaching to say that all non-TR Bibles are satanic, seeing as the Lord has preserved them in the main.

Everyone here knows I will fight for the inclusion of 1 John 5:7, 8, and the other TR readings, but I will not say that those who do not have them are satanic. To do so is schismatic.

I would agree with Lane, Logan, and Rich that this is not acceptable here.

 

[greenbaggins]

Steve, very glad for your last post. I hope it gets a wide readership indeed. It has been growing in my mind lately that it is the moderates of a given viewpoint that should reign in the extremes of that same viewpoint. The moderates have the most weight and clout. Those on the fringe won't listen to the other side very well (as in, usually never admitting that the other side ever has any valid point whatsoever, ignoring the strong arguments, and only trying to poke holes at the perceived weakest point, which is never a convincing debate pattern, but it doesn't seem to stop some people from doing it), and get very defensive when the position is attacked.

I know that it is not usually the case that there is inclination for the moderates to do such moderating, either because they agree with much of the extreme viewpoint (and therefore don't always see the offense), or because they might think that it is the other side that is supposed to do so. In my experience on the PB, however, moderating by someone on an opposing viewpoint has many pitfalls attached to it, some of which I have fallen into myself in the past. I hope you will consider helping to reign in the extreme viewpoints (as your last post definitely does!), as a more senior statesman for the TR position on the PB.

The same could be said for a number of other debates on the PB, in terms of the moderates of a position moderating the extreme. It would seem to me that this moderation needs to happen, if all the various positions on textual criticism are to co-exist peacefully on the PB.

There will always be debate on this, as on other issues. The question before us is whether it will be an edifying debate, with more light than heat; or an acrimonious shouting match, with more heat than light. This board most certainly does not make one's text-critical position a test of orthodoxy. We have never done so. We have never even regarded any particular text-critical position to be necessarily an exception to any of the doctrinal standards or the only possible interpretation of the standards, rightly viewing such narrowing as fundamentally anachronistic.

If someone denied preservation or "kept pure in all ages", that would be another matter. But to hold to those two ideas does not necessarily mean one has the same interpretation of them as someone else does. It would be good for some to remember that having a different interpretation of those ideas does not constitute a denial of them.

There are matters concerning the confession where more than one possible position has been historically allowed, and we have recognized that on the PB. There is no question on the PB (or any Reformed/Presbyterian denomination of which I'm aware) of making infra-, supra-, or moot-lapsarianism (my own position is that the question is moot) positions a test of orthodoxy. Similarly, the PB has not made EP or lack thereof a bar to membership here. And while there are a few denominations that require EP, that is not the majority. It would be nice if the members of the PB always respected that view of the boundaries.

There is a way of propounding a position (like EP or TR) that views itself as the correct viewpoint, without disenfranchising, de-confessionalizing, de-Christianizing, or demonizing those who disagree. The voice for the wolf had better not be the same voice as the voice for the sheep. Some get those voices confused. The problem with confusing those two voices is that the one doing so puts a stumbling block in front of the sheep.

 

[retroGRAD3]

I find this a good summary of how I feel about this topic lately:

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

I find this a good summary of how I feel about this topic lately:

That’s great stuff. Thank you.

I haven’t listened to much Ward, but he always strikes me as someone with a real concern for loving the brotherhood, and who (as he mentions near the end of this video) takes pains to weigh his words carefully so as to adorn Christ in all his relations.

I would love if one of you knowledgeable and godly men were to start a thread in this vein. How can we coexist with each other? How can we love one another despite these differences? Especially when we are part of the same local body.

Unfortunately, I share the same concerns as Ward, and concerns that have been raised lately in this thread, namely, this TR position tends to have no room whatsoever for the other side(s) of the disagreement. Whereas living in peace will require effort from both sides.

God bless you all, brothers!

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

That’s great stuff. Thank you.

I haven’t listened to much Ward, but he always strikes me as someone with a real concern for loving the brotherhood, and who (as he mentions near the end of this video) takes pains to weigh his words carefully so as to adorn Christ in all his relations.

I would love if one of you knowledgeable and godly men were to start a thread in this vein. How can we coexist with each other? How can we love one another despite these differences? Especially when we are part of the same local body.

Unfortunately, I share the same concerns as Ward, and concerns that have been raised lately in this thread, namely, this TR position tends to have no room whatsoever for the other side(s) of the disagreement. Whereas living in peace will require effort from both sides.

God bless you all, brothers!

I’d love see a discussion between Ward and our own Pastor Steve.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I’d love see a discussion between Ward and our own Pastor Steve.

Ultimately, it's not the proponents in the debate that would ultimately matter but the confidence attached to certain ideas.

I have friends that adopt this view and even adopt the view that the Scriptures teach that the Earth is flat and thus believe that the Earth is flat.

I learned, over a decade ago, there there is no argument that could change one's mind who is fixed on the conclusion. The scholarship that attends it is all designed not to deal with any specific pattern that manuscripts and language and other things have come about, but, ultimately, to provide as many arguments that support a conclusion already arrived upon.

This is why the debate takes on a different character for the person who merely trusts that God's Word is kept pure and then finds out there are people who have a really detailed account of what happened in God's Providence (and no other).

One assumes that, when the TR advocate proposes something about the majority text that they are actually interested in what those manuscripts contain. They are if it does not correspond to a reading in a modern text, but they are not if it does not correspond to a reading in the TR.

One assumes that when the TR avers that we cannot trust the discovery of manuscripts in the 19th and 20th centuries and onwards as the work of unbelievers that they would be concerned that some of those involved in the manuscript collation of the TR were enemies of the Reformation. They are not.

I say this not to ultimately bring back up any specific arguments but only to point out that you cannot find a method, a line of argumentation, or any history that will be argued consistently. The arguments or evidence are only suitable to cast doubt on manuscript discoveries. They are only suitable to propose a theory as to why a reading disappeared from all Greek manuscripts. They are all, ultimately, in service to a certain conclusion. It's not that the persons are not intelligent and can write very long things talking about what other people said, but it's not really an interest in any particular argument or any particular evidence but only and ever interest in a conclusion. Not merely a conclusion, per se, that the Word has been kept pure in all ages but that the TR *is* without any errors. This is the conclusion that ultimately matters and that's why the "debaters" who defend it have no position on the "how" because the how is ultimately irrelevant. Only the conclusion matters. They can be relatively kind and patient and "moderate" in how they deal with others but the scholarship is all, ultimately, ad hoc because you can't definitively circumscribe an authoritative method but only an authoritative conclusion.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Johnathan said, "I’d love see a discussion between Ward and our own Pastor Steve."

I also would love to sit down over a meal or coffee with Mark and talk about these things. I read his review of the recent TR book and quite liked most of it, seeing as I struggle with getting the Gospel – and Scripture generally* – in simple language to the men and women from (mostly) Nigeria I care for. (*So far we have been through, in-depth, Genesis 1-10, Romans 1-5, and currently going through Mark in the preaching, an extended intro to the main themes of Job, ditto with Ruth, and currently ditto with Revelation. Some of the folks are biblically illiterate, though highly intelligent.) I'm not offended by the man at all. I would appreciate bouncing my views regarding the TR and KJV off him, and listen to his responses. I'm not intimidated by scholarship and factual findings.

This Lord's Day I'll be preaching through Mark 3:22-30 and the Scribes and Pharisees blaspheming the Holy Spirit. One of the things the Lord said was, "...if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but has an end."

I thought that could well apply to here at PB (or in the church setting), if some would call the Bibles used by others "Satan's Bibles". That would cause such division and strife among us as to divide this place. We see such division – through opposing ideologies and politics – in America, and it could cause the rapid disintegration of the Union, which has already started. I've already shown how such a term used re the Bibles is not true in the post above, but it remains a danger.

As for my textual views being conclusion driven, that's not accurate (though one's perspective may see it so), but rather presuppositionally driven, such presuppositions derived from Scripture. So first comes Scripture, then a presup leading to a conceptual framework.

I won't want to wrangle over this simple approach.

 

[Robert Truelove]

I want to jump in again with a MUCH NEEDED CLARIFICATION.

I am seeing more and more in the critics of TR advocacy the attempt to define the position as stating...

1. That TR Advocacy (under whatever term) means arguing for "absolute certainty."

2. Claiming the Critical Text and its favoring manuscripts are "Satan's Bibles."

While there are some among us who think those things, it is far from the majority among Reformed TR proponents.

I find this constant mischaracterization of the position to be a lazy dismissal of the more serious arguments for the position.

Furthermore, I've read a few replies here that speak of favoring the TR as arbitrary while completely ignoring the doctrinal, historical and epistemological concerns of the position.

To conclude, the tendency has been to dismiss the position upon the grounds of the impossibility of "absolute certainty" and extreme and divisive fruit of the "Satan's Bibles" rhetoric. But this is not what the majority of us are saying brothers.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Let's take this up again after the Lord's Day.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Thread reopened.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

2. Claiming the Critical Text and its favoring manuscripts are "Satan's Bibles."

While there are some among us who think those things, it is far from the majority among Reformed TR proponents.

I find this constant mischaracterization of the position to be a lazy dismissal of the more serious arguments for the position.

Mischaracterization? A major and lauded book was just released where a chapter says this very thing, where the editors not only didn’t advise the author to change his tone BUT have DEFENDED the author’s use of such language, not to mention several sites have used other harsh language attacking modern version use and redefining what “King James Only” means.

But only one TR advocate I know of (Pastor Steve above) has condemned the more and more extreme language that TR advocates are speaking with. Rev. Myers says CT translations are derived from Satan’s Bible, and Dr. Riddle has defended him and blown off criticism of such language. Like political rhetoric, it seems religious rhetoric is becoming more and more animated these days and I hate to see the Body of Christ torn asunder from an argument that should be in house, fair, and brotherly. This recent book, and much recent TR rhetoric, doesn’t fit that bill.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I’ve posted this query a few times and not really gotten and answer (I’m not sure if I just can’t take a hint or nobody really has an answer) so I’ll try one last time (and then take the hint).

In all of these TR/MT/CT conversations, no one ever seems to take into account the issue of Church authority. Why should we use – and expect to be blessed using - a text compiled by scholars not operating under the authority of a branch of the visible Church? Whether they are secular or professing believers doesn’t matter to me. It doesn’t matter if Erasmus was truly a believer or not (though it should be acknowledged that he professed to be and was a member of the visible Church) – the question should be whether or not he was authorized by the Church to do his work. In my view God preserves His Word through His visible Church, which includes both true and false professors. One of the reasons I use a TR text is because that is what the men used who God used to create the confessional standards I adhere to (including when they stated the inspired canon in WCF 1.2). These men believed they had God’s Word in its entirety - for example, most CT versions question the ending of Mark's Gospel, but verses from it are used 4 times in the WCF and 4 times in the LC as a proof text so our Westminster fathers certainly believed it to be part of inspired Scripture. I realize the following question does not apply to those (individuals and churches) who already take exceptions to the Westminster Standards, but for those who claim to fully subscribe to the Westminster Standards, how can you also hold to the CT - which is missing verses the Westminster Standards uses as proof texts (I know it was not their choice to add them, but when they did, they used verses and phrases that are absent in many CT versions) – as inspired by God?

Does the confessional statement that "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself" (WCF 1.9) apply to the TR/MT/CT conversation in determining the basis for deciding which Greek NT text is "better" (if it aligns more completely with the OT reference/text - see TR/CT differences in Ephesians 5.30-31 referencing Genesis 2.22-23, for example)? Does the larger statement of WCF 1.8 forbid using the LXX and Latin-based copies in textual decisions when it states: "The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them."?

Ecclesiology is just as important in the discussion of texts as methodology and theology. Does a denomination in a land with no established church have the authority to receive a text definitively? Unless we live in a nation that has done so, or are part of continuing church, we seem to be stuck with an anarchy of texts in our congregations, with each doing what is right in their own eyes, though I would suggest that does not mean that we cannot advocate for accepting what has already been accepted by a church (objective arguments) instead of allowing what is acceptable at the moment to a majority within a congregation/denomination/scholar group (subjective arguments). I know that most of my American friends reject the Establishment Principle in the WCF, but consider the texts and translations have been produced by the Church and authorized by the State. In the English-speaking world, I can think only of the Geneva (King James I/Church of Scotland) and the KJV/AV (same guy with a bigger kingdom/church). Were there a CT version produced and authorized in the same way, I would have to accept that it also had merit. For all the poo-pooing of the fact the TR/G/KJV-AV were products from an extraordinary time of reformation and revival, consider the splintered state of the Church in the present age and the fact that there is no current possibility in the Western world of a text/translation being authorized by a faithful national church. I know much of one’s perspective on this latter point depends on one’s eschatology, but it is not merely an assertion to state that the TR/G/KJV-AV/printing press era was providentially situated to produce authorized texts any more than it is to state that Christ’s arrival on this planet happened exactly when it happened, when “Greek... was most generally known to the nations.” (WCF 1.8)

It is disappointing to follow this discussion and see no interaction or appeal to confessional standards. They were produced to bring about uniformity and unity, something that does not seem to be true about most TR/MT/CT conversations. Could someone please show how their position aligns with their confessional standards? If not, that’s okay – I can take a hint….

 

[Jake]

I want to jump in again with a MUCH NEEDED CLARIFICATION.

I am seeing more and more in the critics of TR advocacy the attempt to define the position as stating...

1. That TR Advocacy (under whatever term) means arguing for "absolute certainty."

2. Claiming the Critical Text and its favoring manuscripts are "Satan's Bibles."

While there are some among us who think those things, it is far from the majority among Reformed TR proponents.

I find this constant mischaracterization of the position to be a lazy dismissal of the more serious arguments for the position.

Furthermore, I've read a few replies here that speak of favoring the TR as arbitrary while completely ignoring the doctrinal, historical and epistemological concerns of the position.

To conclude, the tendency has been to dismiss the position upon the grounds of the impossibility of "absolute certainty" and extreme and divisive fruit of the "Satan's Bibles" rhetoric. But this is not what the majority of us are saying brothers.

Humbly I would suggest: both of those positions came out of threads here. Several folks have advocated for #1 in this very thread. #2 came out of a volume that has sparked many of these TR conversations (Why I Preach from the Received Text: An Anthology of Essays by Reformed Ministers) which you also contributed to. I don't mean to say you are responsible for the statement, as you are not an editor (and many people I greatly respect contributed to that volume), but it's not as if we are going to Peter Ruckman or Anderson to find ideas with which to disagree.

That said, I do think it is a bit lazy to beat a dead horse with these as these are the more extreme positions being taken by confessional TR advocates and I concede that they are not representative of the positions of many TR advocates. I have interacted with some posts of this vein when they came up as I think they needed to be addressed, but I admit they are not what most TR folks are advocating, nor yourself from what I've read and listened to from you.

 

[RamistThomist]

I’ve posted this query a few times and not really gotten and answer (I’m not sure if I just can’t take a hint or nobody really has an answer) so I’ll try one last time (and then take the hint).

In all of these TR/MT/CT conversations, no one ever seems to take into account the issue of Church authority. Why should we use – and expect to be blessed using - a text compiled by scholars not operating under the authority of a branch of the visible Church? Whether they are secular or professing believers doesn’t matter to me. It doesn’t matter if Erasmus was truly a believer or not (though it should be acknowledged that he professed to be and was a member of the visible Church) – the question should be whether or not he was authorized by the Church to do his work. In my view God preserves His Word through His visible Church, which includes both true and false professors. One of the reasons I use a TR text is because that is what the men used who God used to create the confessional standards I adhere to (including when they stated the inspired canon in WCF 1.2). These men believed they had God’s Word in its entirety - for example, most CT versions question the ending of Mark's Gospel, but verses from it are used 4 times in the WCF and 4 times in the LC as a proof text so our Westminster fathers certainly believed it to be part of inspired Scripture. I realize the following question does not apply to those (individuals and churches) who already take exceptions to the Westminster Standards, but for those who claim to fully subscribe to the Westminster Standards, how can you also hold to the CT - which is missing verses the Westminster Standards uses as proof texts (I know it was not their choice to add them, but when they did, they used verses and phrases that are absent in many CT versions) – as inspired by God?

Does the confessional statement that "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself" (WCF 1.9) apply to the TR/MT/CT conversation in determining the basis for deciding which Greek NT text is "better" (if it aligns more completely with the OT reference/text - see TR/CT differences in Ephesians 5.30-31 referencing Genesis 2.22-23, for example)? Does the larger statement of WCF 1.8 forbid using the LXX and Latin-based copies in textual decisions when it states: "The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them."?

Ecclesiology is just as important in the discussion of texts as methodology and theology. Does a denomination in a land with no established church have the authority to receive a text definitively? Unless we live in a nation that has done so, or are part of continuing church, we seem to be stuck with an anarchy of texts in our congregations, with each doing what is right in their own eyes, though I would suggest that does not mean that we cannot advocate for accepting what has already been accepted by a church (objective arguments) instead of allowing what is acceptable at the moment to a majority within a congregation/denomination/scholar group (subjective arguments). I know that most of my American friends reject the Establishment Principle in the WCF, but consider the texts and translations have been produced by the Church and authorized by the State. In the English-speaking world, I can think only of the Geneva (King James I/Church of Scotland) and the KJV/AV (same guy with a bigger kingdom/church). Were there a CT version produced and authorized in the same way, I would have to accept that it also had merit. For all the poo-pooing of the fact the TR/G/KJV-AV were products from an extraordinary time of reformation and revival, consider the splintered state of the Church in the present age and the fact that there is no current possibility in the Western world of a text/translation being authorized by a faithful national church. I know much of one’s perspective on this latter point depends on one’s eschatology, but it is not merely an assertion to state that the TR/G/KJV-AV/printing press era was providentially situated to produce authorized texts any more than it is to state that Christ’s arrival on this planet happened exactly when it happened, when “Greek... was most generally known to the nations.” (WCF 1.8)

It is disappointing to follow this discussion and see no interaction or appeal to confessional standards. They were produced to bring about uniformity and unity, something that does not seem to be true about most TR/MT/CT conversations. Could someone please show how their position aligns with their confessional standards? If not, that’s okay – I can take a hint….

Wasn't the ultimate authority on the King James version King James himself?

 

[Jake]

I’ve posted this query a few times and not really gotten and answer (I’m not sure if I just can’t take a hint or nobody really has an answer) so I’ll try one last time (and then take the hint).

In all of these TR/MT/CT conversations, no one ever seems to take into account the issue of Church authority. Why should we use – and expect to be blessed using - a text compiled by scholars not operating under the authority of a branch of the visible Church? Whether they are secular or professing believers doesn’t matter to me. It doesn’t matter if Erasmus was truly a believer or not (though it should be acknowledged that he professed to be and was a member of the visible Church) – the question should be whether or not he was authorized by the Church to do his work. In my view God preserves His Word through His visible Church, which includes both true and false professors.

I'm not well studied enough to fully answer this, but it seems doubtful to me that Erasmus was under the authority of the visible church. Erasmus is a complicated figure from what I've read. Luther sparred with him and did not mince words when speaking of him (calling him "the vilest miscreant that ever disgraced the earth" and said "whenever I pray, I pray for a curse upon Erasmus"), yet he still used his 2nd edition of the Textus Receptus to compile his German translation of the Bible. If Erasmus was under the authority of the church, how was he so? He was an unfaithful Roman Catholic priest who never joined the Reformation cause, despite having his differences with the Papists. During the time he was working the Roman Catholic Church continually reinforced the authority of the Vulgate against the original languages, including the work of Erasmus. If we care about what the visible church's authoritative version of the Bible was in the Humanist era (that is, the time when the original languages reigned supreme), it was the Latin Vulgate! It was the Reformation era churches which followed the Humanists' labors to focus on the original language. However, most of the original Reformational Bibles were done under times of persecution. Many were done by individuals (Luther, Tyndale, exiles to Geneva, Reina y Valera, etc.) and not by the church at large.

One of the reasons I use a TR text is because that is what the men used who God used to create the confessional standards I adhere to (including when they stated the inspired canon in WCF 1.2). These men believed they had God’s Word in its entirety - for example, most CT versions question the ending of Mark's Gospel, but verses from it are used 4 times in the WCF and 4 times in the LC as a proof text so our Westminster fathers certainly believed it to be part of inspired Scripture. I realize the following question does not apply to those (individuals and churches) who already take exceptions to the Westminster Standards, but for those who claim to fully subscribe to the Westminster Standards, how can you also hold to the CT - which is missing verses the Westminster Standards uses as proof texts (I know it was not their choice to add them, but when they did, they used verses and phrases that are absent in many CT versions) – as inspired by God?

I do not believe that subscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith requires subscription to the proof texts. In fact, my understanding is the proof texts were added later and not done so consistently. In fact, I believe in several doctrines of the WCF that I do not believe are in the proof texts for said doctrine. For example, if the doctrine of daily family worship were only supported by Matthew 6:11, I would not believe in that doctrine. However, I do not believe the proof texts are binding or as comprehensive as the work on the Confession itself.

The only exception related to CT I considered taking was on WSC 107 because I do not believe the conclusion to the Lord's Prayer is part of the original delivered by our Lord. However, I believe the statement in the prayer as it is in the TR/KJV is Biblical with close parallels to elsewhere in the Bible and I believe the doctrine drawn out from this is sound. This was the logic my own pastor used to not take an exception here and I followed him.

Does the confessional statement that "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself" (WCF 1.9) apply to the TR/MT/CT conversation in determining the basis for deciding which Greek NT text is "better" (if it aligns more completely with the OT reference/text - see TR/CT differences in Ephesians 5.30-31 referencing Genesis 2.22-23, for example)?

I don't have a full answer here. But relating it to your next point, how does this relate to the LXX being quoted by the Apostles? For example, in Hebrews 2:7, we see "little lower than the angels" which is how the LXX renders Psalm 8:5. In Hebrew, the word is "Elohim" which is rendered as "God" most often or possibly "gods" or "heavenly beings." The Geneva Bible renders Psalm 8:5 as "For thou hast made him a little lower than God" (using the Hebrew) while the KJV renders Psalm 8:5 as "For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels" (following the LXX and the quotation of it in Hebrews).

 

[Jake]

Does the larger statement of WCF 1.8 forbid using the LXX and Latin-based copies in textual decisions when it states: "The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them."?

I believe the original languages are most important, and this is what I believe is so important about Reformation-era Bibles; that they went back to the best versions of the original languages they had available. I do not think this excludes all use of other languages for reference, as even the Apostles used the LXX over the MT in many places.

This is a bit odd to come from a TR advocate, as almost every defense of the Comma in I John 5:7 depends on looking at evidence beyond the original Greek. The Greek evidence is very slim for this verse and is limited to a handful of manuscripts that were closely tied to the Latin. Many TR advocates including in this thread have admitted God preserved the Comma through the Latin, rather than the Greek. It's certain not in the "Majority Text." Erasmus was very dependent on the Latin to fill in parts of the Greek he lacked from what I can tell, especially toward the end of Revelation. And the KJV translators' notes compare frequently to the Latin and sometimes borrow from it to help in translation.

 

[Jake]

Ecclesiology is just as important in the discussion of texts as methodology and theology. Does a denomination in a land with no established church have the authority to receive a text definitively? Unless we live in a nation that has done so, or are part of continuing church, we seem to be stuck with an anarchy of texts in our congregations, with each doing what is right in their own eyes, though I would suggest that does not mean that we cannot advocate for accepting what has already been accepted by a church (objective arguments) instead of allowing what is acceptable at the moment to a majority within a congregation/denomination/scholar group (subjective arguments). I know that most of my American friends reject the Establishment Principle in the WCF, but consider the texts and translations have been produced by the Church and authorized by the State. In the English-speaking world, I can think only of the Geneva (King James I/Church of Scotland) and the KJV/AV (same guy with a bigger kingdom/church). Were there a CT version produced and authorized in the same way, I would have to accept that it also had merit. For all the poo-pooing of the fact the TR/G/KJV-AV were products from an extraordinary time of reformation and revival, consider the splintered state of the Church in the present age and the fact that there is no current possibility in the Western world of a text/translation being authorized by a faithful national church. I know much of one’s perspective on this latter point depends on one’s eschatology, but it is not merely an assertion to state that the TR/G/KJV-AV/printing press era was providentially situated to produce authorized texts any more than it is to state that Christ’s arrival on this planet happened exactly when it happened, when “Greek... was most generally known to the nations.” (WCF 1.8)

I largely see this as a moot point, because there have been so few established churches and am not coming at this from quite the same perspective as you. I see the general pattern is that the availability of faithful translations makes the way for Reformation and so we do not see many authorized versions coming out of the state. I think in absence of the state making these decisions with a unified religion it should be done by faithful church bodies.

But regarding your statement, "Were there a CT version produced and authorized in the same way, I would have to accept that it also had merit.": I've actually been meaning to study this more. Wikipedia states of the 1881 Revised Version, "It was the first and remains the only officially authorised and recognised revision of the King James Version in Great Britain." The preface to the New Testament clearly identifies the Revised Version as in the "authorised" tradition, while not viewing the Geneva Bible in this strain:

"Three successive stages may be recognised in this continuous work of authoritative revision: first, the publication of the Great Bible of 1539–41 in the reign of Henry VIII; next, the publication of the Bishops’ Bible of 1568 and 1572 in the reign of Elizabeth; and lastly, the publication of the King’s Bible of 1611 in the reign of James I. Besides these, the Genevan Version of 1560, itself founded on Tyndale’s translation, must here be named; which, though not put forth by authority, was widely circulated in this country, and largely used by King James’ Translators. Thus the form in which the English New Testament has now been read for 270 years was the result of various revisions made between 1525 and 1611; and the present Revision is an attempt, after a long interval, to follow the example set by a succession of honoured predecessors."

Starting in the section labeled "II" you will see the basis for the authority behind this revision, beginning with the following statement and then laid out in detail:

"The present Revision had its origin in action taken by the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury in February 1870, and it has been conducted throughout on the plan laid down in Resolutions of both Houses of the Province, and, more particularly, in accordance with Principles and Rules drawn up by a special Committee of Convocation in the following May."

Now I would need to study this more, as I am not very familiar with the polity of the Church of England. It seems that the authority here comes only from the "Convocation of the Province of Canterbury" and not from the magistrate himself. I do not hold to the exact same view of the authority of the magistrate as you from what I can tell, so I'm not sure if you would consider this authorization; nonetheless, it is considered so by the translators.

It is disappointing to follow this discussion and see no interaction or appeal to confessional standards. They were produced to bring about uniformity and unity, something that does not seem to be true about most TR/MT/CT conversations. Could someone please show how their position aligns with their confessional standards? If not, that’s okay – I can take a hint….

I think a large part of why Lane started this thread and has emphasized several times throughout is to show how multiple views of preservation are in line with how WCF 1:8 views God's providence as important in the doctrine of preservative. He has interacted with this part of the Confession many times, as it is generally the primary section of the WCF that is cited when approaching textual debates. You've brought up a few more sections, yes, but I think showing Confessional fidelity was actually one of the goals in having this conversation as framed.

 

[Logan]

In all of these TR/MT/CT conversations, no one ever seems to take into account the issue of Church authority. Why should we use – and expect to be blessed using - a text compiled by scholars not operating under the authority of a branch of the visible Church? Whether they are secular or professing believers doesn’t matter to me. It doesn’t matter if Erasmus was truly a believer or not (though it should be acknowledged that he professed to be and was a member of the visible Church) – the question should be whether or not he was authorized by the Church to do his work.

Erasmus was not authorized to my knowledge. He was opposed by many within the "visible Church" of the day. Many believing individuals have contributed to the work of textual preservation, compilation, and translation without the authorization of the church. Many unbelieving individuals contributed as well. The idea that it must be done under the authority of a branch of the visible Church is an assumption that is simply not warranted by Scripture. Although that scenario certainly seems ideal, we should judge the work by its merits, not its sources. Much bad work has been done under the authority of the visible church.

In my view God preserves His Word through His visible Church, which includes both true and false professors. One of the reasons I use a TR text is because that is what the men used who God used to create the confessional standards I adhere to (including when they stated the inspired canon in WCF 1.2). These men believed they had God’s Word in its entirety - for example, most CT versions question the ending of Mark's Gospel, but verses from it are used 4 times in the WCF and 4 times in the LC as a proof text so our Westminster fathers certainly believed it to be part of inspired Scripture. I realize the following question does not apply to those (individuals and churches) who already take exceptions to the Westminster Standards, but for those who claim to fully subscribe to the Westminster Standards, how can you also hold to the CT - which is missing verses the Westminster Standards uses as proof texts (I know it was not their choice to add them, but when they did, they used verses and phrases that are absent in many CT versions) – as inspired by God?

I've actually responded to this numerous times but it always seems to fall on deaf ears. The claim is often made that if people said their copies had been "kept pure" or they used the text, they were automatically claiming the whole was perfect, and that simply isn't the case if you review their writings. Any time an alternative reading is given, that is room for correction. Calvin questioned both the Comma Johanneum and the Pericope Adulterae yet also taught from and quoted both. They understood the situation was complicated but didn't waste too much time worrying about it.

I would also caution that in my opinion, this view you're talking about makes Scripture subordinate to the Confessional Standards. There were some in the Westminster Assembly that no doubt questioned the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 (it was a well-known debate), yet still quoted from it, as Calvin did. They clearly did not have an "either/or" mentality about variants and referenced alternative readings regularly.

 

[Logan]

I know that most of my American friends reject the Establishment Principle in the WCF, but consider the texts and translations have been produced by the Church and authorized by the State. In the English-speaking world, I can think only of the Geneva (King James I/Church of Scotland) and the KJV/AV (same guy with a bigger kingdom/church). Were there a CT version produced and authorized in the same way, I would have to accept that it also had merit.

Was the Geneva authorized by the state? Where do you find this requirement in Scripture? Or the Confession? The Bishop's Bible was authorized by both church (Anglican being the official church) and state, yet the Puritans rejected it as faulty.

I know much of one’s perspective on this latter point depends on one’s eschatology, but it is not merely an assertion to state that the TR/G/KJV-AV/printing press era was providentially situated to produce authorized texts any more than it is to state that Christ’s arrival on this planet happened exactly when it happened, when “Greek... was most generally known to the nations.” (WCF 1.8)

I don't understand why providence is allowed in that situation (which I completely agree with!) but the age of information sharing and the explosion of diligent scholarship and interest in the Greek texts is denied providence. Can't it be both? The problem is not with the assertion, it's with the limiting of that assertion.

It is disappointing to follow this discussion and see no interaction or appeal to confessional standards. They were produced to bring about uniformity and unity, something that does not seem to be true about most TR/MT/CT conversations. Could someone please show how their position aligns with their confessional standards? If not, that’s okay – I can take a hint….

I believe that the scriptures were kept pure in "all ages", not merely purified during the Reformation. In order to keep in line with that statement in the WCF, I must necessarily take a broader view of preservation than to restrict it to primarily to one moment in English history.

I believe it is a false assumption that in order to accept those doctrinal standards, one has to believe that every word contained in the Bibles of their day cannot be changed or you become unconfessional. Read their writings and you'll see that they did not believe that.

Don't read something into their views that isn't there. They believed that their English translation, and the Greek underlying it, was imperfect, yet authoritative. So do I.

 

[Logan]

This makes it extremely difficult to respond to "the TR position" because every time you respond to one, another says that their position has been mischaracterized.

While there are some among us who think those things, it is far from the majority among Reformed TR proponents.

I find this constant mischaracterization of the position to be a lazy dismissal of the more serious arguments for the position.

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

I hope brother Robert brings some of that majority TR thinking. I’d love to see it interacted with here.

 

[greenbaggins]

I want to jump in again with a MUCH NEEDED CLARIFICATION.

I am seeing more and more in the critics of TR advocacy the attempt to define the position as stating...

1. That TR Advocacy (under whatever term) means arguing for "absolute certainty."

2. Claiming the Critical Text and its favoring manuscripts are "Satan's Bibles."

While there are some among us who think those things, it is far from the majority among Reformed TR proponents.

I find this constant mischaracterization of the position to be a lazy dismissal of the more serious arguments for the position.

Furthermore, I've read a few replies here that speak of favoring the TR as arbitrary while completely ignoring the doctrinal, historical and epistemological concerns of the position.

To conclude, the tendency has been to dismiss the position upon the grounds of the impossibility of "absolute certainty" and extreme and divisive fruit of the "Satan's Bibles" rhetoric. But this is not what the majority of us are saying brothers.

Robert, as to 1, several have noted that several people in this thread have argued for absolute certainty as a calling card of the TR position, and one of its best assets. If you don't believe that this is endemic to the TR position, then I would like to see your arguments against your fellow TR advocates on this point, not to mention an argument that absolute certainty is not part of the majority TR position. I think you might have a hard time proving that. I have seen this kind of language dozens of times in various contexts.

As to point 2, almost everyone I can recall on this thread who brought up the "Satan's Bible" quote did so already knowing and acknowledging that this was far from a majority position among the TR advocates. Bringing up the quotation, therefore, does not automatically constitute distortion of the TR position. It could merely constitute an establishment of the range of TR opinion. In short, your assertions that the TR position has been mischaracterized are not convincing yet. They could become so if you can offer more than assertion.

While we are on the subject of mischaracterization, I would like to point out the following mischaracterizations I have seen from some (not all) TR advocates concerning other positions: 1. Anyone not holding the TR position doesn't really believe in preservation. 2. Anyone not holding the TR position doesn't really believe that God's Word has been kept pure in all ages. 3. Anyone not holding the TR position is automatically enslaved to Westcott and Hort. 4. Anyone not holding the TR position doesn't have God's Word at all. 5. Anyone not holding the TR position believes that it is okay to remove verses from the Bible (starting from the assumption that the disputed texts are in, so that all other positions automatically cut out the verses rather than that the TR added verses not in the original: there is a HUGE amount of circular reasoning here). 6. Anyone not holding the TR position automatically believes the longer ending of Mark is not genuine, the PA is not genuine, 1 Timothy 3:16 reads "who" instead of "God," and many other similar passages. 7. There are only two text-critical positions: TR or WH-induced error. I have seen these mischaracterizations quite often in the TR camp. Not everyone makes them. Some of these mischaracterizations are more prevalent than others. I have seen some TR advocates on this thread who don't hold to any of them. But I have seen them, and they are mischaracterizations.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Was the Geneva authorized by the state? Where do you find this requirement in Scripture? Or the Confession? The Bishop's Bible was authorized by both church (Anglican being the official church) and state, yet the Puritans rejected it as faulty

In Scotland, the Edinburgh ‘Bassandyne Bible’ of 1579 (the first Bible printed in Scotland) was a straight reprint of the first (1561) folio Geneva Bible was ordered to be in each parish kirk by King James' Privy Council after a petition to that effect from the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (see History of the Bassandyne Bible, the first printed in Scotland; with notices of the early printers of Edinburgh by William Dobson, 1887, Chapter 4).

I follow the old Covenanter path, so I maintain as Biblical the requirement that all nations must (and will) recognize Christ as King and covenant with Him. I also maintain that the civil magistrate "hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire" (WCF 23.3). The Geneva officially replaced the Bishop's - I have no problem with the civil magistrate in a covenanted nation doing so in order to keep the truth of God be pure and entire.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Wasn't the ultimate authority on the King James version King James himself?

No - his authority came from God. His authority and his duty was "to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed" and he had authority "to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God" (even though this had yet to be written - WCF 23.3). He did not have authority to assume "the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven" or to prevent "the ministers of Christ, of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons, upon delegation from their churches, [to] meet together in [synods and councils}]. (WCF 31).