Dr. James White's Newest Discussion

[MW]

How does the canon guide us in regards to textual variants (e.g. the Comma Johanneum)?

The point about the canon and text is to show that the church has an important role as a witness to the text just as it does to the canon. On that basis, if you were to ask how the church can guide us, I could make sense of your question. As it stands in the context of this discussion, to ask how the canon can guide us makes no sense.

To give an example of the church witnessing to the text as well as the canon, consider the disputed ending of Mark.

 

[manuelkuhs]

WCF I.2 is a statement of the Canon. The Canon is a list of books which comprise the authoritative books; the text is the contents of those canonical books. The Canon is the list of the books contained between the covers of your Bible; the text is the words contained therein. Although not totally unrelated, canonical criticism and textual criticism are different disciplines.

So, when the Westminster Divines wrote the list of canonical books, they were simply thinking of book titles - they were not thinking of the text these contained?

So if I were to remove 99% of the Gospel of Mark as currently found in NA-USB, and retain just Mark chapter 1, I could still claim that I am receiving as canonical the same Gospel of Mark as our spiritual fathers?

In the sense of what is written, the canon is a list of book titles; but these book titles are used to refer to the CONTENT, the WORDS contained in them.

When I talk about "Lord of the Rings", I am talking about a book containing usually over 1,000 pages of written content. It is this written content that I'm referring to with the title "Lord of the Rings".

 

[manuelkuhs]

How does the canon guide us in regards to textual variants (e.g. the Comma Johanneum)?

To give an example of the church witnessing to the text as well as the canon, consider the disputed ending of Mark.

I agree; let's stick with the example of Mark's longer ending.

 

[Username3000]

Dr. White is going to be responding to this article on today's Dividing Line program:

http://confessionalbibliology.com/2...hite-on-augustine-and-the-pericope-adulterae/


Live YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTuh8T3QDZQ (2:00pm EST)

 

[JimmyH]

I don't know if it is worth adding to the discussion, but I was listening to a lecture by N.T. Wright (prayerfully) and in the Q&A afterwards he said that he believed the ending and the beginning of Mark were lost because the scroll on which the original autograph was written became worn to the point that it tore apart on both ends, and both the beginning and the end were lost to some of the copyists. This may presuppose quite a bit, but it makes sense to me.

I had never considered the beginning of Mark being lost, OTOH, the other synoptic gospels begin with the birth of our Saviour, while in Mark we begin with John the Baptist's making the way for our Lord's earthy ministry. In retrospect it does seem to me that the 'complete' text would likely have begun, like Matthew and Luke, with the birth of our Lord. Certainly the short ending being complete doesn't make sense, the women going home in great fear and telling no one. For whatever it is worth, I have confidence that the long ending is the complete and true text.

 

[StephenG]

Dr. White is the MAN when it comes to textual criticism and apologetics! God bless him!

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Dr. White is the MAN when it comes to textual criticism and apologetics! God bless him!

I too have profited from Dr. White's ministry, but I wonder if perhaps you are placing far too low a criteria on being "the MAN" when it comes to textual criticism.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I don't know if it is worth adding to the discussion, but I was listening to a lecture by N.T. Wright (prayerfully) and in the Q&A afterwards he said that he believed the ending and the beginning of Mark were lost because the scroll on which the original autograph was written became worn to the point that it tore apart on both ends, and both the beginning and the end were lost to some of the copyists. This may presuppose quite a bit, but it makes sense to me.

I had never considered the beginning of Mark being lost, OTOH, the other synoptic gospels begin with the birth of our Saviour, while in Mark we begin with John the Baptist's making the way for our Lord's earthy ministry. In retrospect it does seem to me that the 'complete' text would likely have begun, like Matthew and Luke, with the birth of our Lord. Certainly the short ending being complete doesn't make sense, the women going home in great fear and telling no one. For whatever it is worth, I have confidence that the long ending is the complete and true text.

Regardless of what one might think about the ending of Mark, it seems highly speculative and unlikely that the beginning of Mark's gospel has also been lost. I am curious as to which part of Mark 1:1 would seem to suggest to you that this was not precisely where Mark intended to begin? "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."

 

[JimmyH]

I don't know if it is worth adding to the discussion, but I was listening to a lecture by N.T. Wright (prayerfully) and in the Q&A afterwards he said that he believed the ending and the beginning of Mark were lost because the scroll on which the original autograph was written became worn to the point that it tore apart on both ends, and both the beginning and the end were lost to some of the copyists. This may presuppose quite a bit, but it makes sense to me.

I had never considered the beginning of Mark being lost, OTOH, the other synoptic gospels begin with the birth of our Saviour, while in Mark we begin with John the Baptist's making the way for our Lord's earthy ministry. In retrospect it does seem to me that the 'complete' text would likely have begun, like Matthew and Luke, with the birth of our Lord. Certainly the short ending being complete doesn't make sense, the women going home in great fear and telling no one. For whatever it is worth, I have confidence that the long ending is the complete and true text.

Regardless of what one might think about the ending of Mark, it seems highly speculative and unlikely that the beginning of Mark's gospel has also been lost. I am curious as to which part of Mark 1:1 would seem to suggest to you that this was not precisely where Mark intended to begin? "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."

Before I posted I looked at the three gospels to refresh my memory. In spite of that first sentence, I still think Wright is on to something. your mileage may vary.

 

[MW]

I still think Wright is on to something.

See the preaching of Peter in Acts 10. Mark's Gospel follows the pattern of Peter's preaching, beginning with the baptism of John. Whether one accepts or rejects the fact that Mark was Peter's spokesperson, Peter's preaching at least establishes that there is historico-theological precedent for beginning the Gospel with the baptism of John. This means there is no reason to conjecture a lost beginning to the Gospel.

 

[JimmyH]

I still think Wright is on to something.

See the preaching of Peter in Acts 10. Mark's Gospel follows the pattern of Peter's preaching, beginning with the baptism of John. Whether one accepts or rejects the fact that Mark was Peter's spokesperson, Peter's preaching at least establishes that there is historico-theological precedent for beginning the Gospel with the baptism of John. This means there is no reason to conjecture a lost beginning to the Gospel.

Thank you Reverend Winzer. What about the possibility that the lost ending is a result of the scroll tearing and being lost ? Too simplistic, too speculative ?

 

[MW]

What about the possibility that the lost ending is a result of the scroll tearing and being lost ? Too simplistic, too speculative ?

Acts 10 includes the appearance to the disciples and sending them to preach, so on that basis one might expect the Gospel to originally contain the longer ending. If that is accepted one would have cause to seek a reason why the ending has dropped out in ms. transmission. It has been suggested that if an earlier copy was made in codex form then the last page might have torn away.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

I still think Wright is on to something.

Just a side note: I know this is a topic about texts and canons, but to even suggest a man who fundamentally denies the imputed righteousness of Christ as someone credible is a joke. N.T. Wright does not believe in the imputed righteousness of Christ, which means he isn't a Christian.

For Wright, for example,the righteousness of God is not the sort of thing that can be imputed to another, because the righteousness of
the judge is a very different thing from the righteousness of a plaintiff or defendant. (OPC Report on Justification)

 

[manuelkuhs]

I had never considered the beginning of Mark being lost, OTOH, the other synoptic gospels begin with the birth of our Saviour, while in Mark we begin with John the Baptist's making the way for our Lord's earthy ministry. In retrospect it does seem to me that the 'complete' text would likely have begun, like Matthew and Luke, with the birth of our Lord.

Jimmy, unfortunately you demonstrate the logical end result of a view whereby the text of scripture is purely established on rationalistic scientific principles, by divorcing it from the question of canon. The end result is that any portion of text in Scripture can be called into question.

My answer would be simple: For the same reasons that you receive the Gospel of Mark as canonical, receive the beginning of Mark as canonical.

Blessings.

 

[Username3000]

I had never considered the beginning of Mark being lost, OTOH, the other synoptic gospels begin with the birth of our Saviour, while in Mark we begin with John the Baptist's making the way for our Lord's earthy ministry. In retrospect it does seem to me that the 'complete' text would likely have begun, like Matthew and Luke, with the birth of our Lord.

Jimmy, unfortunately you demonstrate the logical end result of a view whereby the text of scripture is purely established on rationalistic scientific principles, by divorcing it from the question of canon. The end result is that any portion of text in Scripture can be called into question.

My answer would be simple: For the same reasons that you receive the Gospel of Mark as canonical, receive the beginning of Mark as canonical.

Blessings.

What exactly are those reasons? And speculating that Mark must be like the other synoptics, while speaking about unknown lost pages or torn scrolls is not the result of any scientific endeavour.

 

[manuelkuhs]

I had never considered the beginning of Mark being lost, OTOH, the other synoptic gospels begin with the birth of our Saviour, while in Mark we begin with John the Baptist's making the way for our Lord's earthy ministry. In retrospect it does seem to me that the 'complete' text would likely have begun, like Matthew and Luke, with the birth of our Lord.

Jimmy, unfortunately you demonstrate the logical end result of a view whereby the text of scripture is purely established on rationalistic scientific principles, by divorcing it from the question of canon. The end result is that any portion of text in Scripture can be called into question.

My answer would be simple: For the same reasons that you receive the Gospel of Mark as canonical, receive the beginning of Mark as canonical.

Blessings.

What exactly are those reasons?

The orthodox understanding of the identification and receiving of the canon of Scripture.

And speculating that Mark must be like the other synoptics, while speaking about unknown lost pages or torn scrolls is not the result of any scientific endeavour.

Science, and especially historical science, can never give certainty. You may evaluate the theory of the lost beginning of Mark as "speculation" but someone else might consider the comparison to other synoptic gospels as reasonable evidence, or arguments from "intrinsic probability", the style of Mark, etc.

Much of accepted textual criticism borders on speculation - the attempted reconstruction of the origins of textual families, as (in)famously exemplified by Westcott & Hort's theory (pure speculation accepted almost as fact for several decades) of an official ecclesiastical 3rd century Syrian recension. In fact, many modern textual critics are coming just to this conclusion and are giving up on identifying the relationship between the different textual families (thoroughgoing eclectics).

I am published scientist, and can tell you that most people have far too high a view of "science", especially historical science (such as textual criticism and evolution and the age of the earth). When you can't design an experiment to test and verify your hypothesis...

 

[Whitefield]

If the question of Canon and text are so intertwined and the church has clearly spoken on issues of Canon, I assume it has also clearly spoken on issues of the text. If I ask you what is the ecclesiastical Canon, hopefully you would point me to WCF I.2 or LBCF I.2 for a clear answer. If I ask you what is the ecclesiastical text, where would you point me for a clear answer?

On the first question, you have the basic fact that canonical discussions include quotations of a "text" as evidence that an apostolic father regarded the "book" as authoritative.

On the second question, WCF 1.8 has the answer you are looking for; and you will find in the proofs from Scripture the type of text which the divines regarded as having been kept pure and to be appealed to as authentic.

I don't believe that WCF I.8 establishes an ecclesiastical text for these reasons. The Assembly contained too many brilliant people who knew that there were more manuscripts than Erasmus had at hand. Some in the Assembly had to know that there were even variants in the texts Erasmus did have. The divines in the Assembly would know it was presumptuous to speak definitively as the εκκλησια, for the εκκλησια existed long before the 1640s and in many places other than the British Isles. I doubt they thought they had the authority to make a final pronouncement for churches outside their sphere of influence and would be reluctant to tell the Dutch Reformed that its ecclesiastical text was what Westminster said it was.

And if, perchance, the Assembly had a definite corpus in mind as the ecclesiastical text, and it had the temerity to pronounce that corpus as "the ecclesiastical text", I think it grossly overstepped its authority.

When we come to a disagreement over the ecclesiastical text and we hear competing claims from Rome, from Byzantium, and, as some would claim, from Westminster, I think the only solution is to return ad fontes. What the Assembly considered pure and authentic was based on insufficient evidence. One can only imagine what their thoughts would have been if they had known of the thousands of manuscripts that would be discovered in the subsequent two centuries.

 

[MW]

The Assembly contained too many brilliant people who knew that there were more manuscripts than Erasmus had at hand.

True; but this only means the proofs from Scripture to which they appealed were based on an informed choice.

And if, perchance, the Assembly had a definite corpus in mind as the ecclesiastical text, and it had the temerity to pronounce that corpus as "the ecclesiastical text", I think it grossly overstepped its authority.

To make a confessional statement based on Scripture one must have a Scripture to which to appeal. Or do you think confessional statements should be made without respect to Scripture? If it is overstepping to appeal to Scripture then you would be bound to conclude that making a Confession is a monstrous act of tyranny.

I think the only solution is to return ad fontes.

The text is the fountain. But according to you one grossly oversteps authority to declare what the fountain is. You have left yourself in a hopeless place where nothing can serve as an ultimate court to which appeal can be made.

What the Assembly considered pure and authentic was based on insufficient evidence. One can only imagine what their thoughts would have been if they had known of the thousands of manuscripts that would be discovered in the subsequent two centuries.

They tell us what their thoughts are when they say the Word has been kept pure, is authentic, and is accessible for the church to appeal to it.

 

[Grimmson]

Here a link of an article written by Daniel Wallace, which could be added to the discussion on textual criticism:
https://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today
He does not mention canon or the WCF, but he does provide a basic introduction to the topic if any are interested and mentions the brief textual history of 1 John 5:7-8 and Erasmus. I have heard James White say similar things. I also found a statement in his "Addendum" concerning heretics and a mystery cult textbook interesting.

 

[Robert Truelove]

What the Assembly considered pure and authentic was based on insufficient evidence. One can only imagine what their thoughts would have been if they had known of the thousands of manuscripts that would be discovered in the subsequent two centuries.

This is is exceedingly problematic...I understand where you are coming from...but it's exceedingly problematic.

What you are looking for is a purely rationalistic argument for the establishment of the New Testament text. The trouble is, if you press that line of reasoning, you are left with an OLD TESTAMENT that we have no reason to believe looks anything like what it did in it's original form. In the Old Testament, many of the earliest copies we have are centuries older than the autographs and for some we are looking at more that 1,500 years!

If the text must be established upon rationalistic empiricism, there is no basis to accept that the Old Testament text has survived the stream of history without significant corruption.

The reality is, we accept the Old Testament not upon the mere broken reed of human reason, but faith. We believe it was pure in the time of Christ because he did not correct it and we have no reason to believe it was corrupted since then. On top of that, we believe that God preserves his Word just as it teaches in numerous places.

If we all accept the Old Testament text by faith (and we do whether we want to admit it or not), we need to press the faith argument in how we handle the text of the New Testament as well.

 

[Logan]

If we all accept the Old Testament text by faith (and we do whether we want to admit it or not), we need to press the faith argument in how we handle the text of the New Testament as well.

There is a difference though. With the OT we accept it by faith despite the lack of support of "really ancient" evidence. The problem many have with the TR is being asked to accept it "by faith" despite evidence to the contrary.

It's not a lack of faith, as much as trying to show honesty and integrity in not closing our eyes or ignoring what God has seen fit to preserve.

 

[JimmyH]

What the Assembly considered pure and authentic was based on insufficient evidence. One can only imagine what their thoughts would have been if they had known of the thousands of manuscripts that would be discovered in the subsequent two centuries.

This is is exceedingly problematic...I understand where you are coming from...but it's exceedingly problematic.

What you are looking for is a purely rationalistic argument for the establishment of the New Testament text. The trouble is, if you press that line of reasoning, you are left with an OLD TESTAMENT that we have no reason to believe looks anything like what it did in it's original form. In the Old Testament, many of the earliest copies we have are centuries older than the autographs and for some we are looking at more that 1,500 years!

If the text must be established upon rationalistic empiricism, there is no basis to accept that the Old Testament text has survived the stream of history without significant corruption.

The reality is, we accept the Old Testament not upon the mere broken reed of human reason, but faith. We believe it was pure in the time of Christ because he did not correct it and we have no reason to believe it was corrupted since then. On top of that, we believe that God preserves his Word just as it teaches in numerous places.

If we all accept the Old Testament text by faith (and we do whether we want to admit it or not), we need to press the faith argument in how we handle the text of the New Testament as well.

Correct me if I am (shudder) wrong, isn't it an accepted fact that the Hebrew scribes who copied the OT were much more careful, diligent, and organized than the NT scribes, many of them not professional scribes, but individuals who were devout, and wanted their own copy ? Doesn't the complete copy of Isaiah found at Qumran being virtually identical to what we have in the OT translation attest to the accuracy of our OT ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_scroll

If we all accept the Old Testament text by faith (and we do whether we want to admit it or not), we need to press the faith argument in how we handle the text of the New Testament as well.

There is a difference though. With the OT we accept it by faith despite the lack of support of "really ancient" evidence. The problem many have with the TR is being asked to accept it "by faith" despite evidence to the contrary.

It's not a lack of faith, as much as trying to show honesty and integrity in not closing our eyes or ignoring what God has seen fit to preserve.

The TR is after all a compiled text from various manuscripts and the Vulgate for the book of Revelation. It is not as if Erasmus found a complete NT and merely copied it. I don't see what difference there is in compiling a version of the NT out of a handful of manuscripts then or now.

 

[MW]

There is a difference though. With the OT we accept it by faith despite the lack of support of "really ancient" evidence. The problem many have with the TR is being asked to accept it "by faith" despite evidence to the contrary.

Actually in the Old Testament the canonical and textual issues are exponentially multiplied by the so-called "evidence." You have many more cases of transposition, shorter and longer readings, as well as simple variants, and some of these on a much larger scale; not to mention the canonical problems associated with the presence of apocryphal books both in the DSS and the Greek codices.

 

[Robert Truelove]

If we all accept the Old Testament text by faith (and we do whether we want to admit it or not), we need to press the faith argument in how we handle the text of the New Testament as well.

There is a difference though. With the OT we accept it by faith despite the lack of support of "really ancient" evidence. The problem many have with the TR is being asked to accept it "by faith" despite evidence to the contrary.

It's not a lack of faith, as much as trying to show honesty and integrity in not closing our eyes or ignoring what God has seen fit to preserve.

My point was not to present a complete argument for the TR (indeed, I didn't even mention it!). There are certainly things to discuss regarding weakly supported readings in the Traditional Text from which we get the TR. That said, my point is that ALL Bible believers acknowledge the role of faith in accepting the Old Testament as kept pure in all ages. Reasoned Eclecticism scoffs at the very notion of presuppositions based upon the doctrine of preservation. It is a purely rationalistic system which begins with "treat the Bible like any other book".

The reality is, HOW one interprets the evidence is going to be radically shaped by the presuppositions he brings to the matter at hand.

Confessionally Reformed Christians tend to understand this point and champion it for virtually every other area of Biblical study...but not when it comes to the text of Scripture. However, the winds do appear to be changing...

 

[JohnGill]

Review and Refutation to Mr. White's Apologia episode

For those interested, Dr. Jeff Riddle did a review and provided a refutation to many of Mr. White's claims in the Apologia episode. You'll find them here: Dr. Riddle's refutation. It begins with Word Magazine episode 49. If you scroll down to the bottom of the page you'll find Chris Keith's Brill Monograph on the Pericope from 2009. On the right hand side you will also find a link to a shorter paper by Keith's dealing with the location of the Pericope.