One More Textus Receptus Critique Question

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello William,

It is as Neil says, a bit of a caricature – a slight distortion of sorts – as we operate on Scripture-based presuppositions regarding the TR view of preservation, yet will bring in evidences to confirm and illustrate the cogency of this method. There's nothing at all amiss in discussing the faulty view of "the oldest mss are the best" – with examples of the glaring flaws – and examples of the soundness of "the oldest readings attested by wide geographical circulation, and numerous sources".

Although sometimes our "evidences" are scant, and disputed. It is here that we sometimes go by simple faith, or with but slender threads of evidence. In truth, evidences of some sort can be found for almost all contested passages, words, etc.

Cogent evidences are more a fruit of sound presuppositions. For instance, it is by the sheer word of God in Genesis 1 and 2 that we know about the beginning of all things – the days of creation, its length, etc, and the special creation of man – even though we do not go by evidences but by the word of the LORD. There are, however, more and far better evidences that accord with this special creation, than those supposed evidences that accord with the Big Bang and the eternality of matter views.
____

John, our evidence "methodology" need not at all be what you call "consistent", but prn, that is, as needed. It is internally consistent with our unique Biblical method.

 

[RamistThomist]

So, then, when Schaff writes, "They have been thought to be cited by S. Cyprian in his work on the Unity of the Church...", the pronoun "they" must refer to the disputed text in 1 John 5:7, not to the quote by Gregory.

If that is the case (and it certainly appears to be), then I really don't see the point of Shaff's footnote remarks on Gregory's citation of 1 John 5:8. I don't see how they can relate at all to either 1 John 5:7 or to Cyprian's quote. That's one of my problems.

The other problem I am having is locating a quotation of 1 John 5:7 "at Carthage." I presume it is the quote above by Cyprian (which is at best a possible allusion, not a quote).

I think so too. Your quote had me thinking about that Schaff quote. He was a great (one of the greats) historian, but he did swing and miss a few times.

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

Hello William,

It is as Neil says, a bit of a caricature – a slight distortion of sorts – as we operate on Scripture-based presuppositions regarding the TR view of preservation, yet will bring in evidences to confirm and illustrate the cogency of this method. There's nothing at all amiss in discussing the faulty view of "the oldest mss are the best" – with examples of the glaring flaws – and examples of the soundness of "the oldest readings attested by wide geographical circulation, and numerous sources".

Although sometimes our "evidences" are scant, and disputed. It is here that we sometimes go by simple faith, or with but slender threads of evidence. In truth, evidences of some sort can be found for almost all contested passages, words, etc.

Cogent evidences are more a fruit of sound presuppositions. For instance, it is by the sheer word of God in Genesis 1 and 2 that we know about the beginning of all things – the days of creation, its length, etc, and the special creation of man – even though we do not go by evidences but by the word of the LORD. There are, however, more and far better evidences that accord with this special creation, than those supposed evidences that accord with the Big Bang and the eternality of matter views.
____

John, our evidence "methodology" need not at all be what you call "consistent", but prn, that is, as needed. It is internally consistent with our unique Biblical method.

Brother,

The Creation comparison falls flat. Those are direct words from Scripture that you then support with “cogent evidences.” There is nothing in the Bible about the TR. Apples and oranges.

And to John’s point about the inconsistent standards for differing TR evidence, I believe you do your position a disservice when you appeal to these things.

If it is a belief in God’s preservation, then say that and hold to it. But to then bring in these poor, inconsistent “evidences,” well it just doesn’t add up. Are you not affirming the consequent?

 

[gcdugas]

I have one more question, but don’t want to muddy the other thread I just posted.

Is it true or not that the creation of the TR involved textual critical work that modern TR defenders call illegitimate when it is done today?

Those who put together the TR, and the subsequent TR tradition, did they not use textual criticism to arrive at their decisions?

One might use this thinking to blow open the canon.

"Is it true or not that the selection of the books in the canon of scripture involved critical work that modern canon defenders call illegitimate when it is done today? Those who put together the canon, and the subsequent canon tradition, did they not use criticism to arrive at their decisions?"

The point is that there comes a time when the matter is accepted as settled by the Church Universal as a body. The confessional "kept pure and preserved" position recognizes this and adopted the then ecclesiastically accepted text (the TR) as final. In some sense, the product of Westminster Assembly and the "Three Forms of Unity" are a "work of the Church" similar to the early Councils as they are both confessed and owned creedally by Protestant churches. Such could not have happened earlier until the invention of the printing press which providentially aligned with the fall of Constantinople, the release of innumerable copies of manuscripts and the Protestant Reformation. In many ways, our modern critical questioning of this [gainsaying?] is in keeping with the spirit our age which seeks to remove the restraint of God's Word and introduce uncertainty. We then sit as judges over God's Word and dismiss or accept portions of scripture rather than submitting to it.

In short my argument does take on the form of "if the TR was authoritative for the Reformers, it is authoritative for me". And while many in the "Confessional Bibliology" camp circle around WCF 1:8 [by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical], I think we who subscribe to the WCF [and LBC 1689] need to be assert/argue 1:6 as well... [unto which nothing at any time is to be added [or altered], whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men] In my humble opinion, the archaeologist's shovel and the critic's scalpel come within the scope of this limiting phrase.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

Brother,

The Creation comparison falls flat. Those are direct words from Scripture that you then support with “cogent evidences.” There is nothing in the Bible about the TR. Apples and oranges.

And to John’s point about the inconsistent standards for differing TR evidence, I believe you do your position a disservice when you appeal to these things.

If it is a belief in God’s preservation, then say that and hold to it. But to then bring in these poor, inconsistent “evidences,” well it just doesn’t add up. Are you not affirming the consequent?

This doesn’t refute the argument, it only changes the frame of reference to “by faith we receive God’s revelation in scripture as truth”, and then the same argument applies - we are still able to appeal to evidences.

What you need to prove is that the TR’s appeals to evidences are inconsistent - I don’t think they are.

Your last paragraph is exactly what we do - we state and acknowledge that the TR position is fundamentally a belief in God’s preservation of his word.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

The thing with the TR is that the evidence methodology is not consistent: the science/methodology to justify 1 Jn 5:7 / Longer ending / Eph 3:9 are all different. Then the TR proponent would say their view does not rely on evidence. Then the question is thrown back - why then talk about evidence? (No sarcasm is meant here. It is just the logical outworking of a non-TR guy viewing the views of the TR position: why would TR guys talk about evidence when its a priori presuppositional view and we must admit the talk of evidence would only muddy the TR view)

I don’t see why this is a valid argument - the evidences may be different, that doesn’t mean they are inconsistent.

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

This doesn’t refute the argument, it only changes the frame of reference to “by faith we receive God’s revelation in scripture as truth”, and then the same argument applies - we are still able to appeal to evidences.

What you need to prove is that the TR’s appeals to evidences are inconsistent - I don’t think they are.

Your last paragraph is exactly what we do - we state and acknowledge that the TR position is fundamentally a belief in God’s preservation of his word.

I don’t see why this is a valid argument - the evidences may be different, that doesn’t mean they are inconsistent.

Thanks for responding, brother.

1) Believing proponents of the CT also “state and acknowledge that the [CT] position is fundamentally a belief in God’s preservation of his word.” The disagreement is upon the means of said preservation.

The TR camp seems to think they have sole ownership of the word “preservation;” when in actuality, they possess a very narrow, limited sense of the word. Ultimately we have to agree to disagree on this point.

2) Regarding the inconsistency of the TR’s appeals to evidence (@Logan is really good on this point, I believe):

If you applied to the Comma the standard used to “prove” the inspiration of the longer ending of Mark—that standard would actually disprove the Comma.

If large manuscript attestation is claimed to prove the ending of Mark, it follows that the nearly zero attestation to the Comma proves that it is…real? No. To turn around and say “don’t worry about the manuscripts for the Comma” is inconsistent.

I’ll try to say it a different way.

The same standard is not used to judge all of the evidence in the same way. It is an inconsistent standard; a moving target depending upon which text is in question.

Essentially, you can’t change the standard or criteria of a judgment depending upon which text is in question, and then call all of it “consistent argumentation.”

The rules get changed when they don’t go in favor of the next text; and then maybe changed back for the next one after that.

That’s what I mean by inconsistency.

Others are better than me at explaining this point. Hopefully that makes sense. If anyone can say it better please do chime in.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

Thanks for responding, brother.

1) Believing proponents of the CT also “state and acknowledge that the [CT] position is fundamentally a belief in God’s preservation of his word.” The disagreement is upon the means of said preservation.

The TR camp seems to think they have sole ownership of the word “preservation;” when in actuality, they possess a very narrow, limited sense of the word. Ultimately we have to agree to disagree on this point.

2) Regarding the inconsistency of the TR’s appeals to evidence (@Logan is really good on this point, I believe):

If you applied to the Comma the standard used to “prove” the inspiration of the longer ending of Mark—that standard would actually disprove the Comma.

If large manuscript attestation is claimed to prove the ending of Mark, it follows that the nearly zero attestation to the Comma proves that it is…real? No. To turn around and say “don’t worry about the manuscripts for the Comma” is inconsistent.

I’ll try to say it a different way.

The same standard is not used to judge all of the evidence in the same way. It is an inconsistent standard; a moving target depending upon which text is in question.

Essentially, you can’t change the standard or criteria of a judgment depending upon which text is in question, and then call all of it “consistent argumentation.”

The rules get changed when they don’t go in favor of the next text; and then maybe changed back for the next one after that.

That’s what I mean by inconsistency.

Others are better than me at explaining this point. Hopefully that makes sense. If anyone can say it better please do chime in.

Except, the standard, or criterion by which we believe all of these texts is in fact the same - it's the doctrine of preservation. Like apologetics generally, the apologetic against the CT's attack on these scriptures is necessarily different, because the CT uses different criteria to attack them. How we get from that to saying it's the TR position that is inconsistent, I'm not quite sure.

And yes, I've had this debate with Logan before - he is certainly one of the most gracious, fair and logical opponents of the TR position (not a proponent of the CT as I understand it) I've come across, and I dont really intend to get into the whole debate in-depth here again.

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

Except, the standard, or criterion by which we believe all of these texts is in fact the same - it's the doctrine of preservation. Like apologetics generally, the apologetic against the CT's attack on these scriptures is necessarily different, because the CT uses different criteria to attack them. How we get from that to saying it's the TR position that is inconsistent, I'm not quite sure.

And yes, I've had this debate with Logan before - he is certainly one of the most gracious, fair and logical opponents of the TR position (not a proponent of the CT as I understand it) I've come across, and I dont really intend to get into the whole debate in-depth here again.

Fair enough, discussion terminated. Thanks for your time.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Now this is a good thread. I love how you guys are talking with each other. Thank You. Great thread. Keep it up.

 

[Eyedoc84]

1) Believing proponents of the CT also “state and acknowledge that the [CT] position is fundamentally a belief in God’s preservation of his word.” The disagreement is upon the means of said preservation

This is not true. “Confessional proponents” should, but “believing proponents” do not necessarily. See Dan Wallace, or for that matter a majority of professing Christians.

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

This is not true. “Confessional proponents” should, but “believing proponents” do not necessarily. See Dan Wallace, or for that matter a majority of professing Christians.

Ah, understood.

When discussing this issue we should always strive to engage with the best of the other side. At least try to. Or else we’d be bringing up KJVO arguments.

So I’m talking about the Confessional proponents.

 

[Before]

Am I safe to assume that someone had tampered with the text, either added or omitted, either the TR or CT camp? Or is there a third possibility?
This is what troubles me more than anything else.

 

[Polanus1561]

Am I safe to assume that someone had tampered with the text, either added or omitted, either the TR or CT camp? Or is there a third possibility?
This is what troubles me more than anything else.

Is there an option for carelessness which is not an evil intentioned tampering?

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

Or human error despite all efforts against carelessness.

 

[Polanus1561]

Well Jesus and the Apostles lived in a time of different textual traditions and they did not make a big deal out of it.

 

[gcdugas]

Well Jesus and the Apostles lived in a time of different textual traditions and they did not make a big deal out of it.

This is a pure assertion. Please support that they had multiple variants to choose from.

 

[Polanus1561]

"Our Lord and his apostles confronted OT variants qualitatively similar to the ones that confront us, yet they did not hesitate to rely on the authority of Scripture. These difference did not prevent Jesus from saying that Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35), nor Paul from confessing that “all Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Tim 3:16). Why should the contemporary church, which is built upon Christ and his apostles, hesitate any more than they to confess the reliability and inspiration of Scripture?" Bruce Waltke

 

[Polanus1561]

He’s referring to the existence of not only the Hebrew text, but the Septuagint also, correct?

Yes. DSS / Proto-Masoretic / Samaritan Pentateuch as well. To think that the apostles lived at a time with one standardized text is quite simply, far-fetched.

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

Yes. DSS / Proto-Masoretic / Samaritan Pentateuch as well. To think that the apostles lived at a time with one standardized text is quite simply, far-fetched.

I’d love to learn more. Can you point me in the right direction?

 

[Polanus1561]

I’d love to learn more. Can you point me in the right direction?

http://www.helwyssocietyforum.com/an-introduction-to-old-testament-textual-criticism/ This would be a simple overview. The least one can gather is that at the time of Christ there were various Jewish groups and various Old Testament textual traditions. And within these traditions, manuscripts would have variances (such as what we see in NT Greek manuscripts).

I am confused by @gcdugas 's assertion I was making a seemingly baseless assertion. Is not what I said pretty well-known? Can someone correct me if wrong?

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

http://www.helwyssocietyforum.com/an-introduction-to-old-testament-textual-criticism/ This would be a simple overview. The least one can gather is that at the time of Christ there were various Jewish groups and various Old Testament textual traditions. And within these traditions, manuscripts would have variances (such as what we see in NT Greek manuscripts).

I am confused by @gcdugas 's assertion I was making a seemingly baseless assertion. Is not what I said pretty well-known? Can someone correct me if wrong?

Thanks I’ll check it out.

 

[Before]

Is there an option for carelessness which is not an evil intentioned tampering?

Yes there is that option, but when a large section such as John 7:53–8:11 is either added (TR) or omitted (CT), 'carelessness' seems unlikely.

 

[gcdugas]

"Our Lord and his apostles confronted OT variants qualitatively similar to the ones that confront us, yet they did not hesitate to rely on the authority of Scripture. These difference did not prevent Jesus from saying that Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35), nor Paul from confessing that “all Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Tim 3:16). Why should the contemporary church, which is built upon Christ and his apostles, hesitate any more than they to confess the reliability and inspiration of Scripture?" Bruce Waltke

Another baseless assertion. This time it is a citation but it is still baseless. What evidence do you have to support this?

 

[gcdugas]

http://www.helwyssocietyforum.com/an-introduction-to-old-testament-textual-criticism/ This would be a simple overview. The least one can gather is that at the time of Christ there were various Jewish groups and various Old Testament textual traditions. And within these traditions, manuscripts would have variances (such as what we see in NT Greek manuscripts).

I am confused by @gcdugas 's assertion I was making a seemingly baseless assertion. Is not what I said pretty well-known? Can someone correct me if wrong?

That article starts off with the correctly with the [preserved] Masoretic Text but then he compares it to the LXX [a translation] and then brings in the Syriac Peshitta which is another translation. We can agree that the original authors of the OT wrote in a singular language, not Hebrew AND Greek simultaneously. Therefore the LXX is nothing more than a translation from Hebrew to Greek. We can say the same for the Latin Vulgate. Show me different textual families in the Hebrew and you might have an argument but until you do, all you have is conjecture and a baseless assertion, no matter how many people cite it or say the same thing.

 

[Polanus1561]

What would be your view? Did the apostles live in a time where there were no variances? Don’t the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal variances with the Masoretic? Side question: Why would the apostles quote the LXX?

 

[gcdugas]

What would be your view? Did the apostles live in a time where there were no variances? Don’t the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal variances with the Masoretic? Side question: Why would the apostles quote the LXX?

The Apostles would quote the LXX or free translate into Greek because that was the language they spoke daily just as preachers today in America don't preach from the Greek but use English translations. Obviously Paul spoke Hebrew (Acts 21:40) but he wrote his epistles in Greek because that was the language of the congregations. There is no reason to believe that Paul or the other Apostles ONLY had access to the LXX and not copies of the various books in the Masoretic Text. But there is every reason to conclude that the Masoretic Text they had access to was uniformly copied throughout the generations without variants.

Don’t the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal variances with the Masoretic? No. The Dead Sea Scrolls don't date back before Christ and were not necessarily copies of the Masoretic Text.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

No. The Dead Sea Scrolls don't date back before Christ and were not necessarily copies of the Masoretic Text.

You need more than an assertion here. Every source I’ve ever read on the DSS indicates many of them are up to 100 years or more before the time of Christ.

 

[iainduguid]

You need more than an assertion here. Every source I’ve ever read on the DSS indicates many of them are up to 100 years or more before the time of Christ.

Most scholars date the Dead Sea scrolls to between 200 BC and 100 AD.

 

[iainduguid]

Don’t the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal variances with the Masoretic? No. The Dead Sea Scrolls don't date back before Christ and were not necessarily copies of the Masoretic Text.

Some of the DSS are copies of what became the Masoretic text. The 11Q Isaiah A scroll is virtually identical with the Lenigrad manuscript from 1000 years later, exploding the previous scholarly consensus that a text couldn't possibly be copied accurately over that time period. On the other hand, not all of the DSS match the Masoretic text. Some line up with the same set of variants that we find in the Septuagint.