Critique of James White & Wretched TV #1326

[Fogetaboutit]

How would things be different if W&H didn't come up with their Greek text?

The UBS and NA are based on manuscript evidence. W&H didn't create the ancient manuscripts. If they hadn't put together their Greek text, someone else would have done it.

I see all the discussion about them as a sideshow. Proving whether they were heretics or heterodox doesn't prove that any selection in the NA or UBS is wrong nor that a reading in any of the various TRs is correct.

It was mentioned before that the heart of the issue is not necessarily with W&H, but the philosophy that guide their criticism will have an effect on how they view and select the evidence. Do you think Richard Dawkins would make a good scholar if he was skilled in the original languages?

 

[TrustGzus]

The KJV is the superior English translation because it is the only English translation fully based on the TR. Even the NKJV utilised the CT. Furthermore, the NKJV has in its Introduction the statement, and I paraphrase: there are footnotes throughout the text which give alternative readings, or disputed passages, so that the reader can determine for himself whether the passage in the text should be there or not. This is a trustworthy version? One which encourages the reader to add or subtract passages as he deems fit

To deny that God has preserved a faithful copy of the autographs is to say we do not have a trustworthy Bible we can read. Either we have a divinely preserved copy of the autograph (which could only be the TR) or we don't have a Bible we can trust.

There are several "TRs". Which one is the divinely preserved one? Was it Erasmus' first edition without the Comma Johanneum and many other problems (that Luther used) or was it his second or third edition? Or was it Stephanus' 1550 or either of his two prior editions? Or maybe Beza's 1590 that the KJV translators seem to have relied on most heavily (but certainly not exclusively)? Or the Elzevir's 1633? Or maybe it's the one that Scrivener put together in 1894 as sort of a KJV TR that doesn't read exactly like any Greek manuscripts and that the TBS now distributes as the "TR"?

It seems to me that you would have to accept the "TR" as its own text family, and that family as divinely preserved, in which case you still have uncertainty, though perhaps it is the position of "maximum certainty" as Hills believed.

Along with Logan's valid objection, let's look at your first paragraph. The NKJV does use one of the editions of the TR in its text. However, you state that it's untrustworthy because it offers alternate readings in the margins or footnotes so readers can make choices. The 1611 KJV also offered alternate readings in the margins. Let's use your exact question at this point. This is a trustworthy version?

So, does this mean the KJV was untrustworthy until they quit publishing alternate readings in the margin?

Also, you state that what your are writing is logical. Perhaps, in trying to give it the best read I can, you say this because in other posts you might have given reasons for thinking some edition of the TR is best. However, not knowing what else you might have said, this post without that isn't logically valid.

You state your conclusion in the first sentence - the KJV because it's the only version based on the TR. No reasons offered for why the TR, no reasons offered why not choices not in the TR.

Logical writing offers how we get to the conclusion.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

in any of the various TRs is correct.

Why do so many people feel the need to point out that there are multiple versions of the TR? You do realize that Nestle-Aland is currently in its 28th version? If it is a problem for one, why not the other?

 

[TrustGzus]

How would things be different if W&H didn't come up with their Greek text?

The UBS and NA are based on manuscript evidence. W&H didn't create the ancient manuscripts. If they hadn't put together their Greek text, someone else would have done it.

I see all the discussion about them as a sideshow. Proving whether they were heretics or heterodox doesn't prove that any selection in the NA or UBS is wrong nor that a reading in any of the various TRs is correct.

It was mentioned before that the heart of the issue is not necessarily with W&H, but the philosophy that guide their criticism will have an effect on how they view and select the evidence. Do you think Richard Dawkins would make a good scholar if he was skilled in the original languages?

So let's ask the question. How do we select which reading to use when a passage has a variant in the Greek?

Current scholars don't just go with W&H because if they did we wouldn't have a Nestle-Aland or UBS text. We would just have and still use W&H.

So do we just trust every choice the KJV translators made between variants? Do we push it back to the TR? Trust the TR? As Logan said, which TR? I own several TRs and each has variants with the others.

How do you decide between the variants?

Off to work. Have a good day, Brothers and Sisters.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

I personally like the NKJV, and think they did a good job translating the TR in modern English and I'd say it stays fairly close to the AV. I don't have an opinion which TR is the best or more inspired because honestly I have not studied their differences very closely but my understanding is that they are essentially the same as the different CT editions are. And Joe you are correct the KJV translators did make note of some textual variants in their marginal notes. They also have alternate rendering too, and I find them both helpful tools. I have an RL Allan Brevier KJV(as Dennis would say "It's like buttah) and this edition has the original marginal notes from the KJV translators. They are quite extensive actually and I think should remain in all KJV publications. To be fair though the textual variants notes in the KJV are very limited comaped to the NKJV. I understand the sentiment of "not casting doubt on God's word" but these variants are facts though. I think the marginal notes in the NKJV are an awesome feature and I personally thinks it the best English translation of all the modern bibles but that's only my opinion. It's textual notes and the italics of added words I believe make it an honest translation as it's Daddy is

 

[Captain Picard]

in any of the various TRs is correct.

Why do so many people feel the need to point out that there are multiple versions of the TR? You do realize that Nestle-Aland is currently in its 28th version? If it is a problem for one, why not the other?

Because the NA 28 users aren't implying or outright stating that anyone who uses anything other than a CT Bible is in sin or a nincompoop for using "an invention of devils"?

 

[Bill The Baptist]

in any of the various TRs is correct.

Why do so many people feel the need to point out that there are multiple versions of the TR? You do realize that Nestle-Aland is currently in its 28th version? If it is a problem for one, why not the other?

Because the NA 28 users aren't implying or outright stating that anyone who uses anything other than a CT Bible is in sin or a nincompoop for using "an invention of devils"?

I don't think anyone on here is saying that, but I am aware that some would say it. Regardless, this was one of the things that I found misleading about Dr. White's Wretched presentation. He brings up the multiple versions of the TR as if it were some sort of smoking gun, while conveniently failing to mention that the same holds true for the CT to an even greater degree.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

in any of the various TRs is correct.

Why do so many people feel the need to point out that there are multiple versions of the TR? You do realize that Nestle-Aland is currently in its 28th version? If it is a problem for one, why not the other?

Because the NA 28 users aren't implying or outright stating that anyone who uses anything other than a CT Bible is in sin or a nincompoop for using "an invention of devils"?

I don't think anyone on here is saying that, but I am aware that some would say it. Regardless, this was one of the things that I found misleading about Dr. White's Wretched presentation. He brings up the multiple versions of the TR as if it were some sort of smoking gun, while conveniently failing to mention that the same holds true for the CT to an even greater degree.

Unfortunately you are seeing this phenomenom from the back to the front instead of from the front to the back.

Dr. White brings up the number of editions of the TR specifically BECAUSE the KJVO advocates always bring up the number of editions of the Nestle-Aland.

The KJVOs fired the first shots in that tete a tete, not Dr. White.

 

[JimmyH]

in any of the various TRs is correct.

Why do so many people feel the need to point out that there are multiple versions of the TR? You do realize that Nestle-Aland is currently in its 28th version? If it is a problem for one, why not the other?

Because the NA 28 users aren't implying or outright stating that anyone who uses anything other than a CT Bible is in sin or a nincompoop for using "an invention of devils"?

I don't think anyone on here is saying that, but I am aware that some would say it. Regardless, this was one of the things that I found misleading about Dr. White's Wretched presentation. He brings up the multiple versions of the TR as if it were some sort of smoking gun, while conveniently failing to mention that the same holds true for the CT to an even greater degree.

My impression, correct me if I'm wrong, is that translators/philologists, including Erasmus and the AV translators, have always continued to review and try to improve their translations. I've read that before the discovery of the papyri some scholars theorized that the Koine was 'Holy Ghost' language. As more manuscripts surfaced, the papyri and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 'our' knowledge of the ancient languages improved to the point that revisions, new translations were called for.

I think that the CT based translations leaving out, or at least questioning some of the verses, and larger portions of text, that were included in the AV, and earlier translations, is the main reason for so much heat, and so little light in these debates. That the advances in philology, geography, and the history of the Bible should be pursued is without question AFAIC.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

in any of the various TRs is correct.

Why do so many people feel the need to point out that there are multiple versions of the TR? You do realize that Nestle-Aland is currently in its 28th version? If it is a problem for one, why not the other?

Because the NA 28 users aren't implying or outright stating that anyone who uses anything other than a CT Bible is in sin or a nincompoop for using "an invention of devils"?

I don't think anyone on here is saying that, but I am aware that some would say it. Regardless, this was one of the things that I found misleading about Dr. White's Wretched presentation. He brings up the multiple versions of the TR as if it were some sort of smoking gun, while conveniently failing to mention that the same holds true for the CT to an even greater degree.

Unfortunately you are seeing this phenomenom from the back to the front instead of from the front to the back.

Dr. White brings up the number of editions of the TR specifically BECAUSE the KJVO advocates always bring up the number of editions of the Nestle-Aland.

The KJVOs fired the first shots in that tete a tete, not Dr. White.

I have great respect for Dr. White and the work that he does, and I understand that he is primarily responded the the arguments of the KJVO crowd. However what is misleading is that the target audience for Wretched for the most part has little understanding of these issues and so while you and I understand these things and we're not misled, most of those who watched do not and thus were misled. The average person who watched Dr. White's presentation likely came away with the impression that the TR is inferior to the CT on account of it being based on only a few manuscripts and having gone through several revisions, when the reality is much more complex than this.

 

[Logan]

He brings up the multiple versions of the TR as if it were some sort of smoking gun, while conveniently failing to mention that the same holds true for the CT to an even greater degree.

CT people certainly recognize that there are variants, that's what the whole point is. The reason I (and Dr White) bring up TR variants, is because some seem to present the "TR" as though it is one document from which all the Reformation Bibles and of course the KJV, was translated from, and that it 100% represents the autographa, being perfectly preserved without error. If you present it this way, then you must have picked one, because there is no one "TR", it is better described as a family with variants within it. The KJV might even be said to be its own variant, because the translators seem to have relied most on Beza's 1590 edition, but also drew from a variety of other sources, including ancient translations.

I say this not to indicate that the TR or KJV is garbage, but that if you are saying it is 100% perfectly preserved, you are fantasizing...unless you've picked one particular one for some reason.

 

[MW]

some seem to present the "TR" as though it is one document

Of course in the proper sense of the term it is one document, being printed at a specific time and place, and coming to be known as the TR because of that specific printing.

W&H are not a sideshow. Their approach is still fundamentally the same espoused today, even though more mss., some of earlier date, have come to light. Both eclectic and Byzantine-priority approaches draw attention to this fact in order to show that the W&H theory created a slant which naturally moves in the direction of the Alexandrian text-type. This is documented in the professional academic literature.

 

[Logan]

Of course in the proper sense of the term it is one document, being printed at a specific time and place, and coming to be known as the TR because of that specific printing.

But since no one here means that Elzevir edition and it was printed after the KJV, it doesn't seem particularly relevant to the particular point I was making.

 

[Robert Truelove]

A critical approach to the textual problem employing a method like the Byzantine Priority Theory satisfies both the doctrinal concern for a text in all ages (for it is there in the Byzantine, and used throughout the ages of the church even till the present) and a reasonable approach to dealing with the problem of variant readings within it's exemplars.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

How would things be different if W&H didn't come up with their Greek text?

The UBS and NA are based on manuscript evidence. W&H didn't create the ancient manuscripts. If they hadn't put together their Greek text, someone else would have done it.

I see all the discussion about them as a sideshow. Proving whether they were heretics or heterodox doesn't prove that any selection in the NA or UBS is wrong nor that a reading in any of the various TRs is correct.

As Reverend Winzer pointed out, it isn't a sideshow. But I can appreciate the sentiment.

At this point I think it beneficial to share something Steve shared when it comes to looking at those manuscripts where Arianism and Gnosticism were most prevalent and why the Reformers would have gone the way the early Church did.

It has been rightly asked of us, In your view, 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? Do you see the Alexandrian text-form as illegitimate?....On what basis do you say that the Alexandrian texts were rejected by the Reformed church? The manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, for instance, were not discovered or known until the 19th century. Furthermore, you seem to be disenfranchising the Alexandrian church. Were they not part of the church? Did they not receive those texts when they were written?

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

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

• The true text was never "lost".

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

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

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

[SIZE=+1]Who Was Best Qualified?[/SIZE]

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

Access to the Autographs

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

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

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

Proficiency in the source language

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

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

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

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

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

The strength of the Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attitude toward the Text

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

-------

Notes

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

----------

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

A sound rational approach which accounts for all the phenomena and offers a reconstruction of the history of textual transmission is all that is demanded for any text-critical hypothesis. (From the Introduction to The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Byzantine/Majority Textform, by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont.

Both Robinson’s and Pickering’s works (and Bruggen’s as well!) are important advances in textual study, and should not be ignored.

 

[MW]

But since no one here means that Elzevir edition and it was printed after the KJV, it doesn't seem particularly relevant to the particular point I was making.

I think it shows the point you are making is not as significant as you are presenting it. The AV itself includes textual marginalia. The "TR" indicates an accepted text within which to discuss variants. With the W&H theory a whole new paradigm was created which has never established a base from which to deal with variants. The conservatives at the time pointed this out. "Variants" basically mean totally different things for the two views.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

My weekend is upon me and I have much to accomplish brothers. Please be patient with each other remembering that Christ paid a debt for His Church and has allowed much blood to be spilt for others to come into the fold. We need not tear down each other. The World and her god already wants to do that. Be Encouraged.

 

[alexandermsmith]

The KJV is the superior English translation because it is the only English translation fully based on the TR. Even the NKJV utilised the CT. Furthermore, the NKJV has in its Introduction the statement, and I paraphrase: there are footnotes throughout the text which give alternative readings, or disputed passages, so that the reader can determine for himself whether the passage in the text should be there or not. This is a trustworthy version? One which encourages the reader to add or subtract passages as he deems fit

To deny that God has preserved a faithful copy of the autographs is to say we do not have a trustworthy Bible we can read. Either we have a divinely preserved copy of the autograph (which could only be the TR) or we don't have a Bible we can trust.

There are several "TRs". Which one is the divinely preserved one? Was it Erasmus' first edition without the Comma Johanneum and many other problems (that Luther used) or was it his second or third edition? Or was it Stephanus' 1550 or either of his two prior editions? Or maybe Beza's 1590 that the KJV translators seem to have relied on most heavily (but certainly not exclusively)? Or the Elzevir's 1633? Or maybe it's the one that Scrivener put together in 1894 as sort of a KJV TR that doesn't read exactly like any Greek manuscripts and that the TBS now distributes as the "TR"?

It seems to me that you would have to accept the "TR" as its own text family, and that family as divinely preserved, in which case you still have uncertainty, though perhaps it is the position of "maximum certainty" as Hills believed.

Along with Logan's valid objection, let's look at your first paragraph. The NKJV does use one of the editions of the TR in its text. However, you state that it's untrustworthy because it offers alternate readings in the margins or footnotes so readers can make choices. The 1611 KJV also offered alternate readings in the margins. Let's use your exact question at this point. This is a trustworthy version?

So, does this mean the KJV was untrustworthy until they quit publishing alternate readings in the margin?

Also, you state that what your are writing is logical. Perhaps, in trying to give it the best read I can, you say this because in other posts you might have given reasons for thinking some edition of the TR is best. However, not knowing what else you might have said, this post without that isn't logically valid.

You state your conclusion in the first sentence - the KJV because it's the only version based on the TR. No reasons offered for why the TR, no reasons offered why not choices not in the TR.

Logical writing offers how we get to the conclusion.

The KJV offers alternative translations of certain words or phrases in the margins in cases where the translators felt that there was an alternative rendering which could validly be proposed. They still chose a particular rendering, which is in the text. What they are categorically not saying is: this word/phrase maybe shouldn't be in the text at all. There's a fundamental difference. Some words/phrases in the original languages can be hard to render exactly in English: the margin notes are merely offering a valid alternative translation, but the rendering in the text is that which the translators thought best fit the context. Similarly, they added words to verses to better express the meaning of the original verse. But they added these words in italics so the reader knew these particular words were not in the original language. Later translations don't italicise these words which means the reader doesn't know what words have been added.

When I said I was making a logical case I meant in terms of steps of logic. I realise I didn't provide the analysis: that has been ably done elsewhere and I don't claim to be an expert. What I was arguing was that, logically, if we are to trust the Bible we are holding in our hands we need to know it is translated from a text which accurately represents the Scripture. Since we don't, in God's providence, have the autographs to translate from, we need to have a text which accurately represents the autographs. And that such a text would have been divinely preserved by God through the generations. This, I believe, is the TR and, as far as I understand, all translations subsequent to the KJV have not been faithful translations of the TR, however much they may have used it as part of their translation process.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

The KJV is the superior English translation because it is the only English translation fully based on the TR. Even the NKJV utilised the CT. Furthermore, the NKJV has in its Introduction the statement, and I paraphrase: there are footnotes throughout the text which give alternative readings, or disputed passages, so that the reader can determine for himself whether the passage in the text should be there or not. This is a trustworthy version? One which encourages the reader to add or subtract passages as he deems fit

To deny that God has preserved a faithful copy of the autographs is to say we do not have a trustworthy Bible we can read. Either we have a divinely preserved copy of the autograph (which could only be the TR) or we don't have a Bible we can trust.

There are several "TRs". Which one is the divinely preserved one? Was it Erasmus' first edition without the Comma Johanneum and many other problems (that Luther used) or was it his second or third edition? Or was it Stephanus' 1550 or either of his two prior editions? Or maybe Beza's 1590 that the KJV translators seem to have relied on most heavily (but certainly not exclusively)? Or the Elzevir's 1633? Or maybe it's the one that Scrivener put together in 1894 as sort of a KJV TR that doesn't read exactly like any Greek manuscripts and that the TBS now distributes as the "TR"?

It seems to me that you would have to accept the "TR" as its own text family, and that family as divinely preserved, in which case you still have uncertainty, though perhaps it is the position of "maximum certainty" as Hills believed.

Along with Logan's valid objection, let's look at your first paragraph. The NKJV does use one of the editions of the TR in its text. However, you state that it's untrustworthy because it offers alternate readings in the margins or footnotes so readers can make choices. The 1611 KJV also offered alternate readings in the margins. Let's use your exact question at this point. This is a trustworthy version?

So, does this mean the KJV was untrustworthy until they quit publishing alternate readings in the margin?

Also, you state that what your are writing is logical. Perhaps, in trying to give it the best read I can, you say this because in other posts you might have given reasons for thinking some edition of the TR is best. However, not knowing what else you might have said, this post without that isn't logically valid.

You state your conclusion in the first sentence - the KJV because it's the only version based on the TR. No reasons offered for why the TR, no reasons offered why not choices not in the TR.

Logical writing offers how we get to the conclusion.

The KJV offers alternative translations of certain words or phrases in the margins in cases where the translators felt that there was an alternative rendering which could validly be proposed. They still chose a particular rendering, which is in the text. What they are categorically not saying is: this word/phrase maybe shouldn't be in the text at all. There's a fundamental difference. Some words/phrases in the original languages can be hard to render exactly in English: the margin notes are merely offering a valid alternative translation, but the rendering in the text is that which the translators thought best fit the context. Similarly, they added words to verses to better express the meaning of the original verse. But they added these words in italics so the reader knew these particular words were not in the original language. Later translations don't italicise these words which means the reader doesn't know what words have been added.

When I said I was making a logical case I meant in terms of steps of logic. I realise I didn't provide the analysis: that has been ably done elsewhere and I don't claim to be an expert. What I was arguing was that, logically, if we are to trust the Bible we are holding in our hands we need to know it is translated from a text which accurately represents the Scripture. Since we don't, in God's providence, have the autographs to translate from, we need to have a text which accurately represents the autographs. And that such a text would have been divinely preserved by God through the generations. This, I believe, is the TR and, as far as I understand, all translations subsequent to the KJV have not been faithful translations of the TR, however much they may have used it as part of their translation process.

Contrary to what you seem to be asserting, the NKJV was translated from the TR. the presence of footnotes indicating textual variants does not mitigate this fact. In truth, I find this feature extremely beneficial in my preaching ministry because it informs me of occasions where the text I am preaching from differs from the text many in my congregation are reading from. In this way, I can address and even correct these variances so that my listeners can have greater understanding. Commentaries do not always see fit to address every minor variance, and so having these footnotes is very helpful to me.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

So let's ask the question. How do we select which reading to use when a passage has a variant in the Greek?

If one holds to providential preservation of scriptures as described in the WCF, one of the criteria to select a reading would be to assure the reading in question was used throughout the Church era and not lost for 1500 years or so only to be rediscovered later. If you have variants that have been in use then at that point you investigate which one is older, has the most support from mss, patristic writings, early version etc. or if a reason can be determined as to why a reading was altered.

Current scholars don't just go with W&H because if they did we wouldn't have a Nestle-Aland or UBS text. We would just have and still use W&H.

They accept the same presupposition adopted by W&H therefore they repeat the same errors. I don't trust Metzger, Aland, Martini etc. more than I trust W&H.

So do we just trust every choice the KJV translators made between variants? Do we push it back to the TR? Trust the TR? As Logan said, which TR? I own several TRs and each has variants with the others.

KJV translators did not edit the TR, they translated it in English. The rabbit trail of "which TR" has been dealt with already, the question should be which Greek text used by translators is the most faithful to biblical principles in it's compilation, the TR, the CT or the MT.

 

[Logan]

I think it shows the point you are making is not as significant as you are presenting it...The "TR" indicates an accepted text within which to discuss variants.

I can only assume you didn't follow the entire conversation, because that's pretty much the point I was making and labored to make clear. But this has been a hot topic with many intermingling dialogues so that's probably where the confusion comes from.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Contrary to what you seem to be asserting, the NKJV was translated from the TR. the presence of footnotes indicating textual variants does not mitigate this fact. In truth, I find this feature extremely beneficial in my preaching ministry because it informs me of occasions where the text I am preaching from differs from the text many in my congregation are reading from. In this way, I can address and even correct these variances so that my listeners can have greater understanding. Commentaries do not always see fit to address every minor variance, and so having these footnotes is very helpful to me.

Not true: "When the NKJV translators claim that their New Testament is based upon the Received Text, this is not entirely true. In a number of places it chooses to agree with the Westcott and Hort Text. It also misses out words found in the Greek, and in some places it adds words without the use of italics...In saying this, I am not suggesting that the faults are always as serious as in other modern versions, and neither are they as numerous, but they do nevertheless run to over 1,200 departures from the Received Text (by alteration, addition, or omission of words)." Alan J. MacGregor, Three Modern Versions, The Bible League, 2004, p.29 (hb)

Mr. MacGregor also points out that nine of the "scholars" who worked on the NKJV also worked on the NIV! The NKJV footnotes also make constant reference to the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies editions, which both rely heavily on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus- the basis for Westcott and Hort's text.

There's also the question of motivation for the production of some of these modern translations. Profit often seems to be as important, if not more so.

I would also say that it's not a good situation where different translations are used in a denomination, let alone an individual congregation. How can there be uniformity where people are using Bibles that say different things?

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Not true: "When the NKJV translators claim that their New Testament is based upon the Received Text, this is not entirely true. In a number of places it chooses to agree with the Westcott and Hort Text. It also misses out words found in the Greek, and in some places it adds words without the use of italics...In saying this, I am not suggesting that the faults are always as serious as in other modern versions, and neither are they as numerous, but they do nevertheless run to over 1,200 departures from the Received Text (by alteration, addition, or omission of words)." Alan J. MacGregor, Three Modern Versions, The Bible League, 2004, p.29 (hb)

Mr. MacGregor also points out that nine of the "scholars" who worked on the NKJV also worked on the NIV! The NKJV footnotes also make constant reference to the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies editions, which both rely heavily on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus- the basis for Westcott and Hort's text.

I'm not sure what Macgregor is basing this assertion on, but I can assure you that the NKJV was based on the TR. Of course being a translation from the TR, and not simply a revision of the KJV, it will naturally differ in places in regards to structure and word choice. As I stated before, many of us find the inclusion of footnotes regarding variants to be helpful, and so I hardly see how this detracts from the NKJV, nor how it establishes your assertion that it is not in fact translated from the TR. If what you are saying is true, then you are essentially stating that the NKJV translators were liars, because they clearly state in the preface "The editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major critical text and majority text variants readings in the footnotes." If you are indeed making such an assertion, I would suggest that it is necessary that you back it up with something more than an offhand reference to an obscure book.

 

[MW]

I think it shows the point you are making is not as significant as you are presenting it...The "TR" indicates an accepted text within which to discuss variants.

I can only assume you didn't follow the entire conversation, because that's pretty much the point I was making and labored to make clear. But this has been a hot topic with many intermingling dialogues so that's probably where the confusion comes from.

Your claim was that there are several TRs as if that justified the wide range of variants which have emerged from a different textual base. If you are now going to go back and say there is one TR with limited variants, it will go a long way towards removing the confusion you created by your remark.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Brian,

You said some things in post #43 I think deserve a decent answer and explanation, and you may be edified and confirmed in your concerns by some clear thinking on the topic. You said:

To make a point that the TR is divinely preserved as if it is as true of a statement as “Jesus rose from the dead” just boggles my mind. It’s as if saying that a Bible that does not stem from the TR means that it cannot be used as a means of grace for folks. What happens to a person who picks up an NIV and is taught from the NIV? Must they drop the NIV at the moment of their conversion and seek out a TR-based Bible?

It’s talk like THIS is what is making people question the Bible they have in their lap. It’s not that we’re picking on one or two translations like the NWT. This kind of talk makes it seem like the vast majority of the Bibles on the shelves are not the Bible at all, and are simply satanic propaganda.​

About the TR being “divinely preserved” and as much an article of faith as Jesus being raised from the dead, please consider the following from the Westminster Confession that you hold to (note particularly that highlighted in bold) :

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... (1:8)​

The importance of this article of our faith—for such it is, being confessional—is that if we do not have a providentially preserved and pure Bible, then the statement “Jesus rose from the dead” has no basis for being an authoritative statement derived directly from the inspired word of our God. This is the Presbyterian take on it (and the Reformed, and Reformed Baptist as well), but it does not invalidate other Bibles not of the TR line in their speaking of Christ's resurrection.

So to the second point you rightly brought up: does “a Bible that does not stem from the TR mean that it cannot be used as a means of grace for folks”? It is clear that from the early centuries even until now different regions of the world have had editions or versions of the word of God that were not the Byzantine Greek NT, which is the basic forerunner of the TR (the OT is different in its transmission history), but their versions were other than that. The question would be, “Did they not have an adequately preserved Bible to minister the grace of God to them?” And I would answer from a TR point of view:

There is a preserving of the text (the CT), and there is a preserving of the text (the TR)—the latter where its integrity is held even to minute readings not granted the former. That the former was nonetheless efficacious is analogous to the Bibles based upon the CT being efficacious to save and edify God’s people today, as witnessed by the multitudes regenerated and brought to maturity through those who use the NIV, NASB, ESV etc. Most holders to the TR / AV believe that minute preservation occurred in the primary edition (the Masoretic Hebrew and the Greek TR and their King James and other language translations) which were to serve the English-speaking people and the translations created for the vast missionary work they undertook, which impacted the entire world. There was a progression in the purifying of the text, so as to almost (and some say completely) perfectly reconstitute the original manuscripts of the apostles, even as there has been, in the area of theology, a restoration of apostolic doctrine, which also went through phases of deterioration and eventual renewal. But all those that had Bibles—of whatever sort—had adequately preserved Bibles.

Thus, even those areas of the church which were non-Greek-speaking also had a “preserved text”—as do multitudes in this present day—though their texts were not “minutely preserved.” The texts they had were efficacious unto the salvation of souls and the sustaining of the churches. The distinction is between an adequate preservation as distinguished from preservation in the minutiae. The mighty, saving grace of God has been denied to no people because they did not have the TR and its translations! In fact, one can find among the holders of the modern versions godlier men and women than many of the TR and AV holders.

The issue is a matter of both accuracy of translations and the correctness of the variants, not the legitimacy of the respective Bibles in the main, whether CT or AV.

I surely agree with you that much damage has been done—from both sides, actually—delegitimizing people’s Bibles. When I responded in a thread here to James White’s views some years ago, I emphasized the point that we both be careful not to tear down the faith folks have in their Bibles—whatever school of belief they were of textually—as this would be a grievous thing, and would indeed displease our Saviour!

So I do agree with you, Brian, in your very true and wise concern that our faith in our Bibles not be torn down in these discussions.

I just wanted to share these thoughts with you—and do not want to enter into the other conversations going on in this thread. I have other work I must get to!

 

[Logan]

Your claim was that there are several TRs as if that justified the wide range of variants which have emerged from a different textual base.

That was not at all the implication of my stating the fact. I explicitly stated why I brought up the TR variants so I'm baffled why there would be any "confusion."

 

[Captain Picard]

1) I don't think it can be proved that any of the divines of the Reformed confessions meant by "divine preservation" what Ecclesiastical Text proponents say they meant. I'd like solid evidence that the subject noun of "kept through all ages" is the text of the TR, or one of its editions.

2) When people speak of "lost for 1500 years readings", this fails to deal with the fact that the vast majority of differences between the CT and the TR is in additions to the TR, not subtractions from the CT. It would be erroneous, for example, to say that copies of Mark that end at 16:8 or MMS that lack the Pericope Adulterae are "lost for 1500 years"...they weren't lost in the time of the early Alexandrian MMS that bear out those readings, they weren't unknown in the time of the Reformed Confessions or the composition of Erasmus' editions of the TR, and they weren't lost readings in any bible that possessed (for example) all of Mark through 16:8. If anything, it was the composition of the TR that represents a "restoration of lost Greek"...which is exactly what KJVO proponents and many other TR fans claim explicitly or implicitly.

 

[MW]

Your claim was that there are several TRs as if that justified the wide range of variants which have emerged from a different textual base.

That was not at all the implication of my stating the fact. I explicitly stated why I brought up the TR variants so I'm baffled why there would be any "confusion."

You asked "which one is the divinely preserved one?" That is, which TR? Afterwards you concede there is only one, but still keep discoursing as if you spoke accurately, and then you try to trace the confusion to something I said. If you just acknowledged your words were unhappily chosen the confusion would be quickly cleared up.

 

[MW]

I'd like solid evidence that the subject noun of "kept through all ages" is the text of the TR, or one of its editions.

The Confession states concerning these preserved writings of Old and New Testaments, "The Church is finally to appeal unto them." Unto which text did the Westminster divines make their appeal? That should give concrete evidence.

 

[Logan]

You asked "which one is the divinely preserved one?" That is, which TR? Afterwards you concede there is only one, but still keep discoursing as if you spoke accurately, and then you try to trace the confusion to something I said.

Winzer, I have no interest in continuing to defend myself against confusion over something I didn't say. Here is what I said, and if you find it unclear then I can't help you.

The reason I (and Dr White) bring up TR variants, is because some seem to present the "TR" as though it is one document from which all the Reformation Bibles and of course the KJV, was translated from, and that it 100% represents the autographa, being perfectly preserved without error. If you present it this way, then you must have picked one, because there is no one "TR", it is better described as a family with variants within it.