Dr. James White would not preach on these texts!?

Status
Not open for further replies.
JOwen

JOwen

Puritan Board Junior
I'm not sure if this has ever been discussed before on the PB, but this clip is disturbing for a few reasons:
1. That Dr. White would not preach a sermon on either Luke 23:34 or John 8:1-11.
2. That Muslims are harnessing Dr. White in their apologetic.

Here is the clip...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWiY32bb2K8

Thoughts?
 
Dr. White is a CT guy, and so it should not surprise us that he would not preach on passages that he believed were not original.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think Dr. White is just being consistent on the issue. If one holds to CT than I am not sure how you could preach a text you didn't think was Holy Scripture.
 
Bill, of course, is correct. Dr. White's textual views are well-known and defended by him. They are, in fact, the mainstream view in many evangelical and Reformed institutions.

And it logically follows for many that they would not preach on the aforementioned texts (as well as the longer ending of Mark's gospel and the Johannine comma), though there are some who believe that the pericope adulterae is biblical but not properly in John.

I think that the important thing here is that we can disagree, and argue quite passionately, over these textual matters, but differences here do not render Dr. White outside the evangelical and Reformed camp. Belief in the TR (or something along those lines) is not an article of our faith and is not a "test of orthodoxy." Again, it may be passionately held and argued, but men of the same confession can, and do, hold different textual convictions.

I don't generally weigh in on this argument, but I think it important to do so here because, again, while I think that it is fine to be quite strong in making one's case here (for the TR or the eclectic text), I don't think that we ought to do so in a sectarian fashion. I am not implying that Pastor Jerrold is doing anything of the sort. These are legitimate questions/concerns that he raises. I am simply urging this thread not to turn into something that I think brings little light to any of us and is not a credit to the Reformed faith. Dr. White is a capable man and can well-defend himself, but we need not take shots at him in differing with him, as if his being Reformed is suspect because he does not hold a TR (or the like) position.

Peace,
Alan
 
Abeard said:
What does CT and TR stand for?

Are there any resources on this topic?
Click to expand...

CT= Critical Text as published by the United Bible Society and Nestle-Aland. This is the text upon which most modern translations are based.

TR= Textus Receptus, or received text. This is the text upon which the King James is based.
 
CT refers to the Critical Text. The critical text, which is maintained by the United Bible Society, is the basis for most modern Bible translations, such as the NIV, NASB, and ESV.

TR refers to Textus Receptus. Textus receptus is the basis for the King James translation of the Bible.

If you do a search on textus receptus or critical text, you will find many threads discussing the matter. Note that there are two camps endorsing the TR. One camp you will find on this forum; they are generally charitable and reasonable. The other camp consists of a group of folks who are rabid zealots, and would consider anyone who disagrees with their position to be unbelievers. James White addresses the latter group in his book, The King James Only Controversy.​
 
Abeard said:
What does CT and TR stand for?

Are there any resources on this topic?
Click to expand...

There have been a number of textual debates here on PB, most of which I try to stay out of.

CT is Critical Text
TR (in this context) is Textus Receptus.
 
John 8 is tough since many manuscripts don't include it. I would not fault White for not preaching on it.

John Calvin didn't write commentary on Revelation. Doesn't mean he was 'Harnessed in' there are lots of reasons people choose what to focus on.
 
OK, there is a case to be made that some manuscripts leave the story off and some include it and the account should stand. I personally would not consider it being 'harnessed in' if a person in good conscience might have a reason to not preach it.

Interesting that the account that follows is de-emphasized, where Jesus tells the Pharisees 'I have much to say to condemn you' He appeared tough with some and mercifully softer with others in a proper way.
 
Last edited:
Chris, the OPC version of the Standards which I have, The Confession of Faith and Catechisms, the 2005 edition, to my knowledge uses the KJV in its proof texts, unless a later edition has come out I am unaware of. Though it is clear the tide is shifting and the growing consensus, at least among the “cognoscenti”, is receding from the mark once held as true in the Reformation churches.


There are two aspects to discussions such as this: the first being, a) “Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph 4:3), and “be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves” (Phil 2:2,3). One should note that these are apostolic commands, not optional suggestions!

The second aspect is, b) “speaking the truth in love” (Eph 4:15), “ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3), and, “Man shall...live...by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt 4:4). These also are commands.

There may be a strong tension between these two sets of commands, and it is upon us to resolve it while maintaining obedience to both. A difficult line to walk, to be sure, but it can be done.

I would prefer the scholarly way of resolution, and such I shall do here. I will quote from two excellent scholars on this topic, Harvard text critic Edward F. Hills, and Anglican scholar John William Burgon. Hills first, from his work, The King James Version Defended, chapter 5, pp 132-133:

Luke 23:34a "Then said Jesus, Father forgive them, for they know not what they do."

This disputed reading is found in the vast majority of the New Testament manuscripts, including Aleph, A, C, L, N. and also in certain manuscripts of the Old Latin version, in the Curetonian Syriac manuscript and in the Peshitta, Harclean, and Philoxenian versions. It is also cited or referred to by many of the Church Fathers, including the following: in the 2nd century, Tatian (60) Irenaeus; (61) in the 3rd century, Origen; in the 4th century, Basil, Eusebius, and others. The reading is omitted, on the other hand, by the following witnesses: Papyrus 75, B. D, W. Theta, 38, 435, certain manuscripts of the Old Latin version, the Sinaitic manuscript of the Old Syriac version, and the Coptic versions (with the exception of certain manuscripts). Cyril of Alexandria is also listed as omitting the reading, but, as Hort admitted, this is only an inference.

Not many orthodox Christians have agreed with Westcott and Hort in their rejection of this familiar reading which has become hallowed by many centuries of tender association. But these critics were nevertheless positive that this petition ascribed to Christ was not part of the original New Testament text but was interpolated into the Western manuscripts early in the 2nd century. This prayer of our Saviour for His murderers, they insisted, like the agony and bloody sweat, was "a fragment from the traditions, written or oral, which were, for a while at least, locally current beside the canonical Gospels, and which doubtless included matter of every degree of authenticity and intrinsic value.... Few verses of the Gospels," they continued, "bear in themselves a surer witness to the truth of what they record than this first of the Words from the Cross: but it need not therefore have belonged originally to the book in which it is now included. We cannot doubt that it comes from an extraneous source." (62)

Westcott and Hort's theory, however, is a most improbable one. This prayer of Christ would be interpreted as referring to the Jews and, thus interpreted, would not be something likely to have been added to the Gospel narrative by 2nd-century Christian scribes. For by that time the relationship between Jews and Christians had hardened into one of permanent hostility, and the average Christian would not have welcomed the thought that the Jews ought to be forgiven or that the Saviour had so prayed. Certainly the general tone of the 2nd-century Christian writers is markedly anti-Jewish. The Epistle of Barnabas, written about 130 A.D. reveals this emphasis. "In no other writing of that early time," Harnack tells us, "is the separation of the Gentile Christians from the patriotic Jews so clearly brought out. The Old Testament, he (Barnabas) maintains, belongs only to the Christians. Circumcision and the whole Old Testament sacrificial and ceremonial institution are the devil's work." (63)

For these reasons Harnack (1931) was inclined to accept Luke 23:34a as genuine and to believe that this prayer of Christ for His murderers was omitted from some of the manuscripts because of the offense which it occasioned many segments of the early Christian Church. "The words," he observed, "offered a strong offense to ancient Christendom as soon as they were related to the Jews generally. Indeed the connection, viewed accurately, shows that they apply only to the soldiers; but this is not said directly, and so, according to the far-sighted methods of the exegesis of those days, these words were related to the enemies of Jesus, the Jews generally. But then they conflicted not only with Luke 23:28 but also with the anti-Judaism of the ancient Church generally.... The verse ought in no case to be stricken out of the text of Luke; at the very most it must be left a question mark." (64)

Streeter also and Rendel Harris (65) were friendly to the supposition that Christ's prayer for His murderers was purposely deleted from Luke's Gospel by some of the scribes due to anti-Jewish feeling. But again it is not necessary to imagine that orthodox Christian scribes were the first to make this omission. It may be that Marcion was ultimately responsible for this mutilation of the sacred text. For, as Williams observes, "Marcion was anti-Jewish in all his sentiments." (66) It is true that, according to Harnack's analysis, Marcion still included this prayer of Christ in his edition of Luke's Gospel (probably relating it to the Roman soldiers), (67) but some of his followers may have referred it to the Jews and thus come to feel that it ought to be deleted from the Gospel record. (Source; notes)​

And then Burgon, from his The Revision Revised, pp 82-85 (for the footnotes see here, starting at fn 242):

Next in importance after the preceding, comes the Prayer which the Saviour of the World breathed from the Cross on behalf of His murderers (S. Luke xxiii. 34). These twelve precious words,—(“Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do,”)—like those twenty-six words in S. Luke xxii. 43, 44 which we have been considering already, Drs. Westcott and Hort enclose within double brackets in token of the “moral certainty” they entertain that the words are spurious.[SUP]242[/SUP] And yet these words are found in every known uncial and in every known cursive Copy, except four; besides being found in every ancient Version. And what,—(we ask the question with sincere simplicity,)—what amount of evidence is calculated to inspire undoubting confidence in any existing Reading, if not such a concurrence of Authorities as this?... We forbear to insist upon the probabilities of the case. The Divine power and sweetness of the incident shall not be enlarged upon. We introduce no considerations resulting from Internal Evidence. True, that “few verses of the Gospels bear in themselves a surer witness to the Truth of what they record, than this.” (It is the admission of the very man[SUP]243[/SUP] who has nevertheless dared to brand it with suspicion.) But we reject his loathsome patronage with indignation. “Internal Evidence,”—“Transcriptional Probability,”—and all such “chaff and draff,” with which he fills his pages ad nauseam, and mystifies nobody but himself,—shall be allowed no place in the present discussion. Let this verse of Scripture stand or fall as it meets with sufficient external testimony, or is forsaken thereby. How then about the Patristic evidence,—for this is all that remains unexplored?

Only a fraction of it was known to Tischendorf. We find our Saviour's Prayer attested,—

In the IInd century by Hegesippus,[SUP]244[/SUP]—and by Irenæus:[SUP]245[/SUP]—
In the IIIrd, by Hippolytus,[SUP]246[/SUP]—by Origen,[SUP]247[/SUP]—by the Apostolic Constitutions,[SUP]248[/SUP]—by the Clementine Homilies,[SUP]249[/SUP]—by ps.-Tatian,[SUP]250[/SUP]—and by the disputation of Archelaus with Manes:[SUP]251[/SUP]—
In the IVth, by Eusebius,[SUP]252[/SUP]—by Athanasius,[SUP]253[/SUP]—by Gregory Nyss.,[SUP]254[/SUP]—by Theodoras Herac.,[SUP]255[/SUP]—by Basil,[SUP]256[/SUP]—by Chrysostom,[SUP]257[/SUP]—by Ephraem Syr.,[SUP]258[/SUP]—by ps.-Ephraim,[SUP]259[/SUP]—by ps.-Dionysius Areop.,[SUP]260[/SUP]—by the Apocryphal Acta Pilati,[SUP]261[/SUP]—by the Acta Philippi,[SUP]262[/SUP]—and by the Syriac Acts of the App.,[SUP]263[/SUP]—by ps.-Ignatius,[SUP]264[/SUP]—and ps.-Justin:[SUP]265[/SUP]—
In the Vth, by Theodoret,[SUP]266[/SUP]—by Cyril,[SUP]267[/SUP]—by Eutherius:[SUP]268[/SUP]
In the VIth, by Anastasius Sin.,[SUP]269[/SUP]—by Hesychius:[SUP]270[/SUP]—
In the VIIth, by Antiochus mon.,[SUP]271[/SUP]—by Maximus,[SUP]272[/SUP]—by Andreas Cret.:[SUP]273[/SUP]—
In the VIIIth, by John Damascene,[SUP]274[/SUP]—besides ps.-Chrysostom,[SUP]275[/SUP]—ps. Amphilochius,[SUP]276[/SUP]—and the Opus imperf.[SUP]277[/SUP]

Add to this, (since Latin authorities have been brought to the front),—Ambrose,[SUP]278[/SUP]—Hilary,[SUP]279[/SUP]—Jerome,[SUP]280[/SUP]—Augustine,[SUP]281[/SUP]—and other earlier writers.[SUP]282[/SUP]

We have thus again enumerated upwards of forty ancient Fathers. And again we ask, With what show of reason is the brand set upon these 12 words? Gravely to cite, as if there were anything in it, such counter-evidence as the following, to the foregoing torrent of Testimony from every part of ancient Christendom:—viz: “b d, 38, 435, a b d and one Egyptian version”—might really have been mistaken for a mauvaise plaisanterie, were it not that the gravity of the occasion effectually precludes the supposition. How could our Revisionists dare to insinuate doubts into wavering hearts and unlearned heads, where (as here) they were bound to know, there exists no manner of doubt at all?​

[end Burgon]

__________

It is a real shame the word of God is being assaulted in this manner; such an attempt at excision is – to me – as grievous as the removal of “broken” in 1 Cor 11:24’s record of Jesus’ words, “Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you”. It is upon those who hold to the Reformation standard to adorn their conversation with grace, wisdom, and scholarship.
 
Interesting controversy
I'm going to have to say I don't know

https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/John/Jesus-Forgives-Woman-Taken

This story, beloved for its revelation of God's mercy toward sinners, is found only in John. It was almost certainly not part of John's original Gospel. The NIV separates this passage off from the rest of the Gospel with the note, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53--8:11." That is, the earliest Greek manuscripts, the earliest translations and the earliest church fathers all lack reference to this story. Furthermore, some manuscripts place it at other points within John (after 7:36, 7:44 or 21:25), others include it in the Gospel of Luke (placing it after Luke 21:38), and many manuscripts have marks that indicate the scribes "were aware that it lacked satisfactory credentials" (Metzger 1994:189). Furthermore, it contains many expressions that are more like those in the Synoptic Gospels than those in John.

It appears to have been a well-known story, one of many that circulated orally from the beginning yet that none of the Gospel writers were led to include. But some in the later church thought this one was too good to leave out. The controversy with the teachers of the law and the Pharisees (v. 3) is similar to stories found in the Synoptics, as is the theme of God's mercy mediated by Jesus.
 
Hello Michael,

You affirm with respect to the authenticity of John 7:53-8:11, “I’m going to have to say I don’t know”, but then you post a highly negative view of some unknown IVP commentator (and I don’t mean Metzger, who is already on the record as not believing in apostolic Spirit-inspired infallibility, nor in the authenticity of the Mosaic accounts in Genesis). So are you in effect giving the passage a “thumbs-down”?

I would suggest this information is more sound.
 
Last edited:
"What do you do when you have a text that is highly questionable?" That is the question Dr. White poses. But all he has brought for evidence to prove that it is "highly questionable" is the omission of the saying in certain mss. That is it! He cannot tell us who wrote these mss. or what function they served. He categorises them, without any evidence, as "New Testament mss." And there is the problem. He does not know that the mss. which omit the saying are in fact "New Testament mss." The word "New Testament" is a canonical term which assumes an authenticity and authority that mss. in and of themselves do not possess. He is borrowing the term "New Testament" in order to give weight to a ms. and claim that a reading is questionable because it is not in a certain ms. There is nothing empirical or evidentially credible about such a claim. It is mere question-begging. He never goes to the trouble to prove what is fundamentally necessary in a case such as this, which is the right of the ms. to be called "the New Testament." And this of course is the problem which has arisen in connection with strict empiricism and the quest for "evidence."
 
This could be another discussion but I had a brief comment on John 8. It was pointed out to me by Gordon Hugenberger that John 7-8 makes more sense from a literary perspective with the Pericope Adulterae included than without it. John 7 begins at the feast of booths, which commemorates the wilderness wanderings, and the pattern of discourse follows the wilderness wanderings. You have discussions of Moses and circumcision, and flowing water (cf. Ex 17). At the beginning of the Pericope Adulterae, Jesus ascends the Mount of Olives, and then when pressed, he writes with his finger. If the pattern of wilderness wanderings is a correct interpretation of these passages, then it puts the Pericope Adulterae in the place of Sinai, and Jesus is signalling his mediatorial function by going up a mountain and his divinity by writing with his finger.
 
When he finished up preaching through the New Testament, I understand that Dr. John MacArthur explained why he thought that the longer ending of Mark was not in the original. But he then proceeded to preach on it anyway. To me that is a better approach.
 
This is the text I linked to in post #18 above (actually, it is a slightly better version of that text):

John Burgon wrote a large section on this passage in his book, The Causes of The Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, as he marshaled forth “overwhelming” evidence to demonstrate its authenticity. I will touch upon the briefest aspects of his well-documented case. It is admitted, he says, that the “Pericope de Adultera,” is missing from some of the manuscripts. He brings up the historical fact that this passage was offensive to some of the early Christians. At this point we look at Dr. E.F. Hills’ remarks as he reviews Burgon’s historical and textual evidences:

The story of the woman taken in adultery was a problem also in ancient times. Early Christians had trouble with this passage. The forgiveness which Christ vouchsafed to the adulteress was contrary to their conviction that the punishment for adultery ought to be very severe. As late as the time of Ambrose (c. 374), bishop of Milan, there were still many Christians who felt such scruples against the portion of John’s Gospel. This is clear from the remarks which Ambrose makes in a sermon on David’s sin. “In the same way also the Gospel lesson which has been read, may have caused no small offense to the unskilled, in which you have noticed that an adulteress was brought to Christ and dismissed without condemnation…Did Christ err that He did not judge righteously? It is not right that such a thought should come to our minds…”1

According to Augustine (c. 400), it was this moralistic objection to the pericope de adultera which was responsible for its omission in some of the New Testament manuscripts known to him. “Certain persons of little faith,” he wrote, “or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord’s act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if He who said ‘sin no more’ had granted her permission to sin.”2 Also, in the 10[SUP]th[/SUP] century a Greek named Nikon accused the Armenians of “casting out the account which teaches us how the adulteress was taken to Jesus…saying that it was harmful for most persons to listen to such things.”3

That early Greek manuscripts contained this pericope de adultera is proved by the presence of it in the 5[SUP]th[/SUP]-century manuscript D. That early Latin manuscripts also contained it is indicated by its actual appearance on the Old Latin codices b and e. And both these conclusions are confirmed by the statement of Jerome (c. 415) that “in the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord.”4 There is no reason to question the accuracy of Jerome’s statement, especially since another statement of his concerning an addition made to the ending of Mark has been proved to have been correct by the actual discovery of the additional material in W. And that Jerome personally accepted the pericope de adultera as genuine is shown by the fact that he included it in the Latin Vulgate.5​

As Burgon presents his case, he says,

These twelve verses occupied precisely the same position which they now occupy from the earliest period to which evidence concerning the Gospels reaches.

And this, because it is a mere matter of fact, is sufficiently established by reference to the ancient Latin version of St. John’s Gospel. We are thus carried back to the second century of our era: beyond which, testimony does not reach. The pericope is observed to stand in situ [in the same place] in Codd. b c e ff g h j. Jerome (A.D. 385), after a careful survey of older Greek copies, did not hesitate to retain it in the Vulgate. It is freely referred to and commented on by himself in Palestine: while Ambrose at Milan (374) quotes it at least nine times; as well as Augustine in North Africa (396) about twice as often. It is quoted besides by Pacian, in the north of Spain,—by Faustus the African (400),—by Rufinus at Aquileia (400),—by Chrysologus at Ravenna (433),—by Sedulius a Scot (434). The unknown authors of two famous treatises written at the same period, largely quote this portion of the narrative. It is referred to by Victorius or Victorinus (457),—by Vigilius of Tapsus (484) in North Africa,—by Gelasius, bp. of Rome (492),—by Cassiodorus in Southern Italy,—by Gregory the Great, and by other Fathers of the Western Church.

To this it is idle to object that the authors cited all wrote in Latin. For the purpose in hand their evidence is every bit as conclusive as if they had written in Greek—from which language no one doubts that they derived their knowledge. But in fact we are not left to Latin authorities…6​

Burgon then proceeds to list the various Versions (editions in different languages), and continues:

Add that it is found in Cod. D, and it will be seen that in all parts of ancient Christendom this portion of Scripture was familiarly known in early times.

But even this is not all. Jerome, who was familiar with the Greek MSS. (and who handled none of later date than B and [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE]), expressly relates (380) that the pericope de adultera “is found in many copies both Greek and Latin.” (ii.748)…Whence is it—let me ask in passing—that so many critics fail to see that positive testimony like the foregoing far outweighs the adverse negative testimony of [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE]BT,—aye, and of AC to boot if they were producible on this point? How comes it to pass that the two Codexes, [SIZE=+1]a[/SIZE] and B, have obtained such a mastery—rather exercise such a tyranny—over the imagination of many Critics as to quite overpower their practical judgment? We have at all events established our first proposition: viz. that from the earliest period to which testimony reaches, the incident of “the woman taken in adultery” occupied its present place in St. John’s Gospel.7​

But still Burgon is not finished. It remains for him to deliver the coup de grâce to this wounded falsehood. It had been the perplexity of many critics friendly to this passage that there was little attestation to it among the Greek Fathers (although the aforementioned testimonies of Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome were of great weight), and its relative lack was the continual taunt of its adversaries. Burgon shows that in the Lectionaries (books with Scripture portions to be read on particular dates throughout the year, year after year) the reading for Pentecost – Whitsunday – extended from John 7:37 to 8:12, and an internal notation, in many Scriptures prepared for this ecclesiastical use, read (translating from the Greek) “over-leap” from verses 7:53 to 8:11, as the topic related therein was inappropriate for that day. This in itself is a reason the verses we are looking at are sometimes missing from the section they are naturally a part of. But Burgon continues:

It is the authoritative sentence of the Church then on this difficult subject that we desiderate…Are we, I say, left without the Church’s opinion?

Not so, I answer. The reverse is the truth. The great Eastern Church speaks out on this subject in a voice of thunder. In all her Patriarchates, as far back as the written records of her practice reach,—and they reach back to the time of those very Fathers whose silence is felt to be embarrassing,—the Eastern Church has selected nine out of these twelve verses to be the special lesson for October 8. A more significant circumstance it would be impossible to adduce in evidence. Any pretense to fasten a charge of spuriousness on a portion of Scripture so singled out by the Church for honour, were nothing else but monstrous. It would be in fact to raise quite a distinct issue: viz. to inquire what amount of respect is due to the Church’s authority in determining the authenticity of Scripture? I appeal not to an opinion, but to a fact: and that fact is, that though the Fathers of the Church for a very sufficient reason are nearly silent on the subject of these twelve verses, the Church herself has spoken with a voice of authority so loud that none can effect not to hear it: so plain, that it cannot possibly be misunderstood.

And let me not be told that I am hereby setting up the Lectionary as the true standard of appeal for the Text of the New Testament…We are not examining the text of St. John vii.53-viii.11. We are only discussing whether those twelve verses en bloc are to be regarded as an integral part of the fourth Gospel, or as a spurious accretion to it. And that is a point on which the Church in her corporate character must needs be competent to pronounce; and in respect of which her verdict must needs be decisive.8​

There are many other defenses of our assaulted passage, but I will let it rest with what has been presented. Remember, the Greek Text of the Eastern Church – in particular, the Greek Orthodox Church – is in great measure the Traditional Text of the Reformation (with some few providential additions), and of the King James Bible. That Church would not have given a place of honored remembrance and regular use for edification to a questionable text. The pericope de adultera is where it should be, and always has been, in spite of the scissors of the unscrupulous.

___________

1 Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, Vienna, vol. xxxii, pp. 359, 360. Cited in KJV Defended, Hills, page 151.
2 Ibid., vol. xxxxi, p. 387. Cited in KJV Defended, Hills, page 151.
3 S. S. Patrum…J.B. Cotelerius, Antwerp, 1698. Cited in KJV Defended, Hills, page 151.
4 Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina, Vol. 23, col. 579.
5 KJV Defended, Hills, page 151.
6 The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, by John William Burgon, Edward Miller, ed. (London: George Bell And Sons, 1896), pages 247-249.
7 Ibid., pages 249, 250.
8 Ibid., pages 259, 260.
 
Chris,

It has taken the OPC some time to get around to approving proof-texts for all the Standards--having adopted the OPC version of the WS at the 2nd GA in Nov. 1936--which almost entirely agree with the originals and are also in the KJV, as were the originals. This does not mean that overall the OPC adopts the TR: it has never taken an official position on that, but it determined to keep the proof texts in the KJV, because this language is often directly reflected in the Standards, and it would be odd to have the proof texts in contemporary English with the Standards employing 17th c. English. Steve noted this, but this is the reason: to keep the proof texts in the same version that informs the language of the Standards.

Peace,
Alan
 
In the NASB, Dr. White's favored translation, Luke 23:34 is not even bracketed, which is what the NASB editors do when they are quite doubtful about a passage, such as John 5:3-4 or Acts 8:37. In the ESV, John 5:3b-4 and Acts 8:37 are relegated to the margin. Not so with Luke 23:34. Both translations have a note that "some manuscripts..." etc. But evidently the editors didn't think it was totally doubtful or else they would have bracketed it or relegated it to the margin. To be consistent, it would seem that there must be many dozens of verses that he would not preach on. (Also, some have particular reasons for not liking Luke 23:34, as is the case with the woman caught in adultery. But I have no idea what Dr. White's thoughts are with regard to the teaching of either passage.)

Given the fact that (if I'm not mistaken) verses have been taken out of critical texts only to be put back in later, (or given a higher rating) those who would refrain to preach or teach or even read aloud questionable verses appear to have placed themselves at the whim of the "assured results of modern scholarship."
 
Last edited:
armourbearer said:
"What do you do when you have a text that is highly questionable?" That is the question Dr. White poses.
Click to expand...

I know what I do, I first ask, "Who says it is highly questionable and what reasons does one say they are highly questionable? What are the presuppositions behind the thinking that they are highly questionable?"
 
I wasn't thinking version so much as that passages questioned by the critical text have been omitted from the proofs regardless of the version such as dropping 1 John 5:7 from LC 6.
Alan D. Strange said:
Chris,

It has taken the OPC some time to get around to approving proof-texts for all the Standards--having adopted the OPC version of the WS at the 2nd GA in Nov. 1936--which almost entirely agree with the originals and are also in the KJV, as were the originals. This does not mean that overall the OPC adopts the TR: it has never taken an official position on that, but it determined to keep the proof texts in the KJV, because this language is often directly reflected in the Standards, and it would be odd to have the proof texts in contemporary English with the Standards employing 17th c. English. Steve noted this, but this is the reason: to keep the proof texts in the same version that informs the language of the Standards.

Peace,
Alan
Click to expand...
 
Not to add more to this, but why does everyone talk about the TR when they perhaps ought to be talking about the MT (Majority Text)? I mean if we had to choose one wouldn't we choose the MT?
 
Romans922 said:
Not to add more to this, but why does everyone talk about the TR when they perhaps ought to be talking about the MT (Majority Text)? I mean if we had to choose one wouldn't we choose the MT?
Click to expand...

So should we count mss. rather than date them? The "majority" changes with every new find. It doesn't seem right that the living and abiding word of God should be determined by the chance discovery of one collection of mss. over another.
 
NaphtaliPress said:
I wasn't thinking version so much as that passages questioned by the critical text have been omitted from the proofs regardless of the version such as dropping 1 John 5:7 from LC 6.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. That is true. Few changes were made, generally for doctrinal reasons (in which a particular text was thought not to support the doctrine) and for textual reasons in the case of the Johannine comma.

Peace,
Alan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Dr. James White & The Traditional Text — Debate Challenge
Replies
19
Views
12K
Robert Truelove
R
JM
  • Locked
Dr. White
Replies
10
Views
3K
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
C
  • Locked
James White and Michael Dries
Replies
17
Views
4K
Scott Bushey
Scott Bushey
MichaelNZ
  • Locked
Complete Interview between Dr James White and KJV Only Pastor Steven Anderson
Replies
13
Views
9K
jgilberAZ
jgilberAZ
T
  • Locked
Dr. James White's Newest Discussion
2
Replies
54
Views
12K
JohnGill
JohnGill
Back
Top